Public discussion of the issues between the Reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints and the Church of Christ (Disciples) : held in Kirtland, Ohio, beginning February 12th, and closing March 8th, 1884, between E.L. Kelley ... and Clark Braden ..

s

v

.1 AMI A "! Q01

DivisM W81

Section .l<sZS

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

OF THE

ISSUES BETWEEN '

THE REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESDS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

AND

The Church of Christ (Disciples),

HELD IN KIRTLAND, OHIO,

Beginning February I2th, and Closing March 8th, 1884,

BETWEEN

E. L. KELLEY, of The K. C. of J. C. of Latter Day Saints,

AND

CLARK BRADEN, of The Church of Christ.

MODERATORS.
E. B. BOND, OF KiRTLAND, Ohio, -------- Chairman.

W. H. KELLEY, of Cold water, Mich., - - - - For ME. KELLEY.

A. B. DEMING, OF Kirtland, Ohio, - - - - - For MR. BRADEN.

PROPOSITIONS;

I. Is the Book of Mormon of divine origin, and are its teachings entitled to the respect and belief of ftU
Christian people? Mr. Kelley, Affirmed.

II. Is the Church of which I, Clark Bradenam a member, the Church of Christ, and identical in faith,
organieation, ordinances, worship and practice, with the Church of Christ aa it was left perfected by the
Apostles of Christ? Mb. Braden, Affirmed.

HI. Is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in fact, the Church of God, and
accepted with Him? Me. Kelley, Affirmed.

SPRING PRINTING CO.; STEREOTYPtRS, CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS,

1110 Olive Street 913 Pine Street.

913 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo.

PREFACE.

It is not necessary to detail all that led to the debate in Kirtland, Ohio. Suffice it to
«ay that it was held by mutual agreement between Mr. Kelly of the R. C. of J. C. of Latter
Day Baints; and Mr. Braden of the Church of Christ, known as Disciples in the East and
North, and as Christians in the West and South. The following were the Rules of
Discussion between Clark Braden and E. L. Kelley.

1. The discussion shall be held at Kirtland, Lake County, Ohio, commencing
February 12, 1884", and shall continue for the time of sixteen sessions of two hours each to
be held each day as the parties shall determine.

2. Each session shall be occupied by two speeches each, by the disputants, of one
half hour each. The affirmative shall open aud the negative shall close the debate on
each pjoposition, but in the closing speeches no new matter shall be introduced without
mutual consent.

3. Each party shall choose a moderator, and they too shall choose a third if necessary,
the duties of whom shall be the usual duties of moderators of such assemblies.

4. Eight sessions of two hours each shall be given to the first proposition, and four
sessions of two hours each shall be given to each of the others.

5. Each session shall be opened and closed by prayer, by the parties alternately, or by
selection.

6. The parties shall be governed by Hedge's Rules of Logic in this discussion as
follows : '

Rule 1st. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise
point at issue, should be so clearly defined that there can be no misunderstanding
respecting them.

Rule 2d. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing
of equality in respect to the subject in debate, each should regard the other as possessing
equal talents, knowledge and desire for truth, with himself and that it is possible
therefore that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.

Rule 3d. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without elfect, in regard to the
subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered as
unmeaning which contributes nothing to the proof of the question, such as desultory
remarks, and declamatory expressions, all technical ambiguities and equivocal expressions.

Rule 4th. Personal refiections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged in.
Whatever his private character, his follies are not to be named, nor alluded to iu
controversy. Personal reflections are not only destitute of efTect in respect to the
question in discussion, but they are productive of real evil.

Rule 5th. No one has a right to accuse his adversary with indirect motives.

Rule 6th. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who
maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.

Rule 7th. As truth and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever
proofs may be on either side should be examined with fairness and candor, and any
attempt to ensnare an adversary by arts or sophistry, or to lessen the force of his
reasoning by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules or honorable controversy.

The Following are the Propositions agreed upon by Disputants, and their Order

1. Is the Book of Mormon of divine origin, and are its teachings entitled to the
respect and belief of all christian people?

KELLEY, Aff.

2. Is the church of which I, Clark Braden, am a member, the church of Christ, and
identical in faith, organization, teaching, ordinances, worship and practice with the
church of Christ as it was left perfected by the Apostles?

BRADEN, Aff.

3. Is the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ, of L. D. S. in fact the Church of God,
and accepted with him ?

KELLEY, Aff.
In the discussion of the questions the Bible is to be the standard of evidence, but
either party has the privilege of also using whatever proofs he may bring from
Historical, Ethnological, Scientific or other works.

(Signed.) CLARK BRADEN.

E. L. KELLEY.
By mutual consent the time to the first proposition was extended two evenings and
hence the entire discussion was 18 instead of 16 sessions as provided by the foregoing rules.
Nenrly all of the matter presented in debate was read from manuscript on both sides,
hence the matter in the Book is almost verbatim, as it was presented in the debate.

With the hope and prayer that the book may aid in leading all readers to a
knowledge of th» truth, it is submitted to the reader by the authors.

CLARK BRADEN,
E. L. KELLEY.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE,

FIRST PROPOSITION.

Js the Book of Mormon of divine origin

and its teachings entitled to the resjiect

and belief of all Christian people ?
REPORT.

The parties met according to appointment
on the 12th day of February, 1884, at seven
o'clock p. m. in the Town Hall, Kirtland,
Ohio.

MODERATORS.

Messrs. Ezra Bond, Wm. H. Kelley and
A. B. Deming.

The meeting having been called to order,
the chairman moderator, Mr. Bond, had
read the rules of the debate as agreed upon
by the parties, and the propositions agreed
upon for discussion.

Mr. Kelley then opened the debate as fol-
lows : —

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
GentLiEMEN: — It is with some degree of
pleasure that I appear before you this
evening to enter upon an invet tigation
of the question which has just been
read in your hearing. And I say this,
notwithstanding the fact of which I
am already aware, that to undertake
such a task requires on the part of any
disputant a work of constant and contin-
uous labor ; and when one is called upon in
such investigation to also contend with an
experienced and persistent debater the un-
dertaking will necessarily be with propor-
tionate difficulties.

But I am happy in this step toward a
critical examination of the proposition for
the reason that I believe there is a merit,
deep and lasting, attached to the subject-
matter that few realize, and that should be
attained by all mankind, and a fair and
candid investigation will enable you to
judge for yourselves of this, and decide as
all thinking men and women should as to
the merits or demerits, and let the decision
be whichever way it may, it will to a cer-
tain extent not only affect you here but in a
manner in all time that is to come. I say
this, not for the purpose of stating to you
anything that is calculated to terrify one in
any respect with regard to the investigation
of the question at issue, for I not only be-
lieve it is so with regard to the subject-mat-
ter in dispute here, but it is so also of any
truth, any rule of action or fact that has
emanated from the divine being, or that has
been in this sphere elicited by mankind ; it
being better that the people should be
brouglit in f^ontact with and that they
should accept that which is true, rather
than that they should not come in contact

with it, or that they should reject it after
having investigated.

Tliis is not only true in religion but also
in other matters. It is a fact as to the
affairs of government ; in science and the
arts of man, and in fact through all the
broad dominion of knowledge and exper-
ience. It is far better that the faitli and
impulses of the race be founded in truth
tlian error, let that truth spring from
wliatever source it may ; and believing also
that mankind in the matter of religion may
in the fullest sense become better while
here in this life, and thus be better fitted to
enjoy and inherit the life to be made mani-
fest, by conforming to that which is true, —
that system of religion which is in fact a
revealed science from above, must contain
truths, which if believed and followed, will
affect the life and character here and so re-
late to us in the great hereafter, to a greater
extent than can principles started or evolved
by the wise of this little world of ours.

Taking up the subject-matter under dis-
cussion, I refer you directly to the question :
The Book of Mormon! — Is it of divine
origin ? and are its teachings of such a
character as to entitle them to the re-
spect and belief of all Christian people?
These are questions that you ought to be
able to answer correctly and intelligently,
as you are called upon to pass judgment
upon them from time to time, and also to
pass upon the society, so far as reflecting
your views are concerned, which believes
the work is of divine origin and that its
teachings are calculated of their very nature
to elevate the human family and to make
men better here and thereby prepared for
better promises the realization of which is
to come. Do not overlook the gist of this
proposition ; — it not only contains teachings
of value, but those of as high a nature as
can be found in any work written in any
age so far as furnished us in the history of
the race. That we are bound as enlighten-
ed people to give to the claim by this work
of being of "divine origin," a candid and
careful consideration, will certainly follow
if the work is brought under such circum-
stances and in that way as to present in its
behalf a prima facie case touching its mer-
its and its origin. And while it may be
true Ladies and Gentlemen, that you are
not required to examine everything that is
thrown, upon the world in order to fulfill
the i^urposes and designs of creation, it is a
fact which relates to the human family as
absolutely as that, truth is more to be desir-
ed than error in its development, that
whenever a fair and proper case is made

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

upon the very outset of a matter, claiming
to be the truth, or a thing of divine source,
it is incumbent upon all to hear and make
a fair and candid examination of the same ;
and when persons go so far as to judge
a matter before hearing it, or to pass a case
fairly presented without the trouble even of
giviu"- it a hearing, they violate the prime
hxw by which truth is made attainable in
the woild and progress possible, and thus
far must forever stand condemned by Him
who ordained the law for a wise purpose
and gave to the creature thereunder intelli-
gence and liberty of action.

The injunction to "Prove all things and
holdfast that which is good," is certainly
taken in the light of human reason a good
one • and 1 go so far as to say, that neither
you nor any other people should be called
upon to accept as truth a matter or princi-
ple relating directly to them, except upon a
due examination of the evidences favoring
the same, or so much as may be necessary
to support the principle ; and in the progress
of this discussion I shall only call upon
you to accept as truth the work referred to
in the proposition after you shall have had
some of the evidences relating thereto.

The Book of Morman comes to the people
in such a shape as to fairly demand of
them a candid and impartial examination.
Whatever may be said as to the work other-
wise, in the presentation of it at least there
is madeout a clear, concise, and prima facia
case, containing every essential feature
that would be requisite to a bona fide mes-
sage or work absolutely emanating from
the creator of the race and the dispenser of
the system of religion as reflected in the
Bible, the admitted standard of truth in
this controversy.

This is made apparant from the follow-
ing facts set forth on the face of the work :

1. It makes claim to have originated
from the proper source. It does not claim
to have originated with man. It does not
claim to be the doctrines of any false god
that has invaded this world; or of any god
made with men's hands. It claims to have
had its origin in the work of Him who de-
livered a like record to a people on the
Eastern continent of the world. And
since the claim of its origin is from the
same source from which Ave claim to have
received the Bible, the first position of the
prima facia case is clear, and thus far
makes the work entitled to the respect and
careful consideration of all.

2. It claims to contain a proper message.
A communication from Jehovah to any part
of the race would contain a message evi-
dently for the highest good of the people to
whom it was made ; and in this book there
is what claimes to be a record of the " Ever-
lasting Gospel" as it was delivered to a
people other than those of the tribe of
Judah, together with a history of the works
and worship of that same people. The
second position to a proper case is made
then in that, the message it claims to bear
is a good and proper one.

3. The object in delivering the work to
the world as borne out upon its face is a
right and proper one. To show this object
I will read from the book itself. I have in
my hands a reprint of the third American
edition. Would read from the original copy
of the book which I also present to you, but
this edition which I have used I am more
accustomed to and hence use it for the sake
of rapidity in ray work. The two editions
are emphatically the same however, except
as to a few typographical and gramatical
errors that evidently crept in, in the copying
and printing of the work andfromwhich
I might say, no book is exempt. It is some-
times given out that there have been
changes made in the work since its first
publication. This I deuy as to anything
material whatever. The only thing claim-
ed as a material change by any candid
critic is in the inscription page, the first
copy reading, " Joseph Smith, Author and
Proprietor," whereas in subsequent editions
he is simply the " translator." By examin-
ing the first page of the original, however,
I find that he is set out there as the " trans-
lator," and in the preface to the original he
is clearly and emphatically set forth as the
translator only, so far as his work in the
matter is concerned, and hence it was not
possible to have misled any rtader by the
words "Author and Proprietor," as they
there appeared. But it will be brought out
more fully as we proceed as to how this
came to be placed on the inscription and for
the present I leave the matter The object
of the book. I read from the title page: —

"Wherefore it is an abridgment of the record of
"the people of Nephi, and also of the Lauiinites;
" « ■•■.' =:■■ An abridgment taken from the Book
"of Ether: also, which is a record of the people of
" Jared ; who were scattered wtthe time the Lord con-
" founded the language of the people, when they were
"building a tower togettiiheaven: Which is to show
"unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great
"things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that
"tliev may know the covenants of the Lord, that they
"arenot castotr forever; and also tn the convincing of
"the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the hter-
"nal God, miinifesting himself unto all nations."
"And now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of
"men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God,
"thatve maybe found spotless at the judgment seat
"of Christ,"

And also in the body of the work page
490, one of the writers states as follows: —
" And this is the commandment which I havereceiv-
"ed- and behold they shall come forth according to
"the commandment of the Lord, when he shall see
"fit in his wisdom. And behold they shall go unto
"the unbelieving of the Jews; aud for this intent
"shall they go; that thev may be persuaded that
"Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that
•' ihe Father may bring about, through his most belov-
"ed, his great and eternal purpose, in restoring the
"Jews, or h11 ihe house of Israel, to the land of their
"inheritance, which the Lord their God hath given
"them, unto the fulfilling of his covenant, and also
"that the seed of this people may more fully believe
"his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the
"Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and
"shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome pe.o-
"ple, beyond the description of that which ever hath
"been amongst us."

The object of the work then and the in-
troduction of it is in the highest sense a
proper one and thus the third fact entering
to made up the prime facia case is com-
plete.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

4. In the array of its witnesses the work
is shown to be fully entitled to a thorough
and unprejudiced examination.

First, the testimony of a single witness ;
begining with the statement of the boy
when but fourteen years of age, and consis-
tently maintained by him afterwards, until
when in his thirty-ninth year he gave the
highestassiirance of its correctness by reso-
lutely standing in the gate of death itself
for the truth of it. His full statement I
shall introduce in another part of the dis-
cussion.

Second, The testimony of three witnesses.
And in presenting to you their statement
I call your attention to the fact that
the character of their lives were such sub-
sequently as to fully attest the truth of the
original testimony. They not only accepted
this knowledge as a part of their lives re-
ligously, but also taught it to their children,
and to their children's children. Two of
them having borne the same testimony till
their voices were sealed in death, and the
survivor, now under the lilies of nearly
eighty winters, still points all enquirers to
this liis testimony as a circumstance in his
life's work which was, and is, the happiest
of all, and his has been a well spent life.

This testimony they left upon record not
only to have its effect upon present things
and associations, but also to extend to
future generations, being the declared act
and knowledge of the three with reference
to this work under discussion, when unin-
fluenced by any conceivable sinister motive,
or any inducement or hope of reward what-
ever, except the reward of well doing, which
they expected only to receive wlien they
should come into the presence of Him who
is cognizant of all the secret motives that
move men to action.
The following is their testimony : —

"Be it known imto all nations, kimir^ds, tongues.
" and people, unto whom this work shall come, tha,
"we. through the grace of God the Father, and our
"Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plate* which con-
"tain this record, which is a record of the people of
"Nephi. and also of the Lamanites, their brethren,
" and also of the people of Jared, who came from tht
" tower of which hath been spoken ; and we also know
"thatthev have been translated by the gift and povrer
"of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; where-
"fore we know of a surety, that the work is true.
" A lid we also testify that we have seen the engravings
"wliich are upon the plates; and they have been
"shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man.
" And we declare with words of soberness, that an
" angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought
" and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the
"plates, and the engravings thereon- and we know
"that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our
"Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bare record
" that theoe things are true ; and it is marvelous in our
"eyes, nevertheless, the voice of trte Lord commanded
"us that we shouM bear record of it; Wherefore, to be
"obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear
"testiroonv of these things. And we know that if we
"are faithi'nl in Christ, we shall rid our garments of
" the blood of all men, and be found spotltss before the
"judgment seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him
"eternalW in the heavens. And the lionor be to the
" Father, and Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is one
"God. Amen."

"Oliver CownicRy,"
"David Whitmku,"
•'Martin Harris."

Third, The testimony of eight witnesses.

Like the three before referred to, these

were men who confessed there belief in the

authenticity of the work, by afterwards
making it a part of their faith, and trans-
mitting their testimony unimpaired to their
postertty. It is as follows :

"Be it known unto all nations kindreds, tongues, and
"people, unto whom this work shall come, that Joseph
"Smith, Jr., the translator of this work, has shown
"nnto us tlie plates of which hath been spoken, which
"have the appearance of gold; and as many of the
"leaves as the said Smith lias translated, we did h.-mdle
"with our hands; and we a'.-o saw the engravings
"thereon, all of which lias the appearance ^f ancient
"work, and of curious \voikinaii.ship. And this we
"hear record with words of soberness, that the said
"Smith ha« shown nnto us, for w^ hav ■ seen and
"hefted, and know of a surety, that the said Smith has
"gut the plates of whitdi we have spoken. And we
"give onr names unto the world to witness unto the
"worli that which we liavp seen; and we lie not, God
"bearing witness of it." Signed.

ng witness of it." Sigr
"Christian Wh tmer,
"Jacob Whitmer,
"Peter Whitmer, Junior,
"John Whitmer.

"Hiram Page.
Joseph .^mith. Senior.
Hvrum Smith,
Samuel H. Smith,

To support the element relating to the
manner in which the work comes to us I
have now introduced the positive declara-
tions of twelve witnesses, a sufficient num-
ber to maintain any cause to be contested
before courts of justice; and in things re-
lating to the divine being and religion it
cannot be said truthfully that the rule
would require more. In the introduction
of the religion of Christ in the first century
of what is termed the Christian era, a sin-
gle witness first made known the proclama-
tion ; and the people to whom the witness
was sent were required to properly con-
sider and examine the message, although
the witness himself by reason of different
habits and a different life to that approved
by many of the people, was considered
possessed with an evil Spirit. Yet it is
said of him in the first chapter of John:
"There was a man sent from God, whose
"name was John. The same came for a
"witness, to bear witness of the Light, that
"all men throuo:h him might believe."
This was the only witness in fact of the
great mission of Jesus until the time when
God gave a revelation to Peter, and yet
Jesus" says of John's work: "But the
"Pharisees and lawyers rejected the council
"of God against themselves, being not
"baptized of him." Luke. 7 : 30.

The twelve witnesses whose testimony I
have now introduced in their work are
similiar to those raised up to bear testimony
of the things declared and done in the first
century ; and so far as it is possible to com-
pare testimonies it comes with equal weight
of that which has supported any divme
message in any time or age. The apostle
Peter says with reference to the testimony
to the work in his ministry : "And we are
"witnesses of all things which he did both
"in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem ;
"whom they slew and hanofed on a tree:
"Him God raised up the third day, and
"showed him openly; Not to all the peo-
"ple but unto witnesses chosen before of
"GoA, even to us, who did eat and drink
"with him after he rose from the dead."

Acts, 10: 39, 41. , ., . .-u i *

It is sometimes objected that the plates
which are said to have been preserved by

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEV DEBATE.

the immediate power of God, kept that
they might not be destroyed but yet fill a
purpose in the world of instructing it in
things pertaining to the divine life, were
not shown to all people. The same objec-
tion has been made time and again with
reference to the New Testaments foundation
evidence. That Jesus did not show him-
self to the people after his resurection in
order to make them believe, but to a few
"chosen witnesses."

The objection is a futile one in the mind
of any person who understands anytbing of
the essence and faith peculiar to the Chris-
tian religion, and the means adopted by
Jesus himself of establishing it among the
people.

But I am not left to the twelve witnesses;
the thousands who have since attested the
divine character of the work upon the inde-
pendent knowledge they themselves have
attained to, may be brought and marshalled
as a living host testifying to the truthful-
ness of the claim.

All of these, however, I have referred to
simply to substantiate my claim that in
the presentation of the Book of Mormon to
the world a prima facie case of its divine
authenticity is in every respect complete.
It claims to have come from the right
source ; the message it claims to bear is a
proper one ; the object of the message and
the object of its introduction are proper ;
and now the array of witnesses to that
message is found all that can reasonably be
asked.

It is truly entitled to an investigation
then, and with your attention, I at once
proceed to unfold the evidences relating to
its divine character, by which you and all
thinking peoiDle must determine for your-
selves.

There is an avenue of knowledge open to
this work that is peculiar to it, and the
doctrine taught by Christ in the New Testa-
ment Scriptures only. In the 7th chapter
and 16th and 17th verses of John's gospel it
is recorded: "Jesus answered them, and
" said. My doctrine is not mine, but his
" that sent me. If any man will do his will.
" he shall know of the doctrine, whether it
" be of God or whether I speak of myself."

In this record which I hold in my hand
(the Book of Mormon) occurs a sentiment
very much the same as found in this in-
struction of Jesus ; and, singular as it may
seem, these are the only two works pub-
lished to tlie world that have boldly claim-
ed that the truth or falsity of their state-
ments might be known by each person who
would go to the Creator of all and do his
will. I read from page 544:

"And when ye shall receive these things," (con-
"tained in the book under discussion), I would exhort
"you that ye would ask God, the eternal Father, in
"the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and
"if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,
"having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of
"it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and by
"the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth
"of all things. And whatsoever thing is good, is just
"and true ; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth
"the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he Is."

Eemember, my friends, you are not asked

to first accept the book as true, nor to do
those things commanded in the book — but
the will of God ; if you are in doubt, sim-
ply go aside and pray, with a sincere heart
and honest purpose, and the statement is
made fearlessly, and without regard to the
fact that if it was a deception upon the
people it might be at once detected by the
first honest enquirer who should go before
the Lord, for it says: "If ye shall ask
"with a sincere heart, with real intent,
"having faith in Christ, he will manifest
" the truth of it unto you, by the power of
"the Holy Ghost." The statement is not
that of a cunning deceiver, but certainly of
a person who has absolute confidence in the
cause which he represented.

I am a believer in the Bible. I am ready
at all times to come forward and stand in
defense of the divine authenticity of its
claim. But, while I am a believer in the
Bible, I am at the same time equally a be-
liever in the divine authenticity of the
record that was given to the people who
lived upon this continent. And I believe
that its truth can be proven to the world,
whether attacked by a professor of religion,
theologian of whatever rank, or the most
gifted skeptic.

Believing this, and that the evidences of
such proof are susceptible of demonstra-
tion, I may truly say that I stand up in the
effort to defend it to-night, as a work that
has been committed to man by Jehovah
himself, and that my reward for so doing
will be the reward of all those who shall
" have kept the word of God." Taking up
the record as it has been presented to the
world and examining it, I find that in hold-
ing forth its truths to the world, I make no
attack, either directly or by implication,
upon the Christian religion. I make no at-
tack upon the Bible. I make no attack
upon anything that people should believe
in, and that they do believe in and accept,
if they believe in and accept the sacred
scriptures. But I hold forth a work con-
firmative of the truths revealed in the Bi-
ble, and containing a record also in its com-
pleteness of the gospel set forth in the Bi-
ble, and evidently prepared of the Lord as
a means in his hand to stay the tide of infi-
delity which he must have foreknown would
come rolling in like a fiood to destroy his
work. And this record not only being sus-
ceptible of clear proof from the Bible, but
also from the scientific developments of the
age and discoveries in archeology made
since the publication of the book, it is, as I
firmly believe, notwithstanding the warfare
against it since the first communication of
the light to the boy in 1823, destined to yet
become one of the most important factors
in the evangelization of the human race.

If the work is a good one its teachings
and principles will be good : —

"For every tree is known ^y his own fruit. For of
"thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush,
"gather they grapes. A good man out of the good
"treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is
"good : and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his
"heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the
"abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke
6 : 44 and 45.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

So it must prove of this work whether
written by men, or indicted by the Holy
Spirit througli them from time to time. To
show you what its teachings are I will read
a few specimen paragraphs, which I claim
are in perfect keeping with all the teach-
ings of the book ; and if they are not I shall
expect my opponent during the discussion
to point out and read to you others of a con-
trary character. And if any of the audi-
ence think they can find something con-
trary to the teachings that I shall read, I
want you to buy a book and make the ex-
amination for yourselves as a couple of gen-
tlemen did to-day, who were not afraid to
examine. Page 99.

"And, again, the Lord God hath commanded that
"men should not murder; that they should not lie;
"that they should not steal ; that they should not take
"the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they
"should not envy ; that they should not have malice;
"that they should not contend one with another; that
"they should not commit whoredoms; and that they
"should do none of these tidngs ; for whoso doeth them,
"shall perish ; for none of these iniquities come of the
"Lord; for he doeth that which is good amoug the
"children of men ; and he doeth nothing save it be
"plain unto the children of men ; and he inviteth them
"all to come unto him and partake of his goodness;
"and he denieth none that come unto him, black and
"white, bond and free, male and female; and he re-
"membereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God,
"both Jew and Gentile."

Page 242, of the same record.

"And now my brethren, I wish from the inmost part
"of my heart, yea, with great anxiety, even unto pain,
"that ye .would hearken unto my words, and cast off
"your sins, and not procrastinate the day of your
"repentance; but that ye would humble yourselves
"before the Lord, and call on his holy name, and watch
"and pray continually, that ye may not be tempted
"above that which ye can bear, and thus be led by the
"Holy Spirit, becoming humble, meek, submissive,
"patient, full of love and all long suffering ; having
"faith in the Lord; having a hope that ye shall re-
"ceive eternal life ; having the love of God always in
"your hearts, that ye maybe lifted up at the last day,
"and enter into his rest ; and may the Lord grant unto
"you repentance that ye may not bring down his
"wrath upon you, that ye may not be bound down by
"the chains of hell, that ye may not suffer the second
"death."

Also, paragraph 8, page 249.

"Now those priests who did go forth among the
"people, did preach against all lying, and deceivings,
"and envyings, and strifes, and malice and revilings,
"and stealing, robbing, plundering, murdering, com-
"mitting adultery, and all manner of lasciviousness,
"crying that these things ought not so to be; holding
"forth things which must shortly come ; yea holding

"forth the coming of the Bon of God, his suffering and
"death, and also the resurrection of the dead."

Again from the instruction on page 224,
paragraph 4.

" And now my beloved brethren, I have said these
" thiiigs unto you, that I might awaken you to a sense
"of your duty to God, that ye may walk blameless
" before him ; that ye may walk after the holy order of
" God. afier which ye have been received. And now I
"^«ould that ye should be hum' le, and be submissive,
"and gentle; easy to be entreated ; full of patience anci
" long suffering ; being temperate in all things ; beinir
•'diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all
"times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in
" need, both spiritual and temporal ; always returning
" thank* unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive,
"and see that ye have faith, hope and charity, and
" then ye will always abound in good works ; and may
"the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless,'
" that ye may at last be brought to sit down with
" Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the holy prophets
"who have been ever since the world began, having
" your garments spotless, even as their garments are
"spotless in the kingdom of heaven, to go no more out."

Such are the teachings of the book that
claims to have been written by good men
and prophets as directed of the Lord, to
show unto future generations the dealings
of our heavenly Father with peoples other
than the tribe of Judah. And here I pro-
pound a question for my opponent and each
one of you to answer. Why is it, that
since the object of the work and the char-
acter of its teachings are in perfect accord
with the object and teachings of the Old
and New Testament Scriptures, and that
no person can be a believer in the Book of
Mormon unless he also believes the Bible,
tha^ persons who claim to believe in the
Bible and are called Christians, and many
who are Christians too, have been found
fighting against this same book ? Why is
it they fight against it since Jesus himself
has said : "An evil tree can not bring forth
good fruit?" I wish the negative of the
proposition under discussion to answer
these questions ; and to candidly and care-
fully peruse the work and point out every
evil thing, or any evil tiling, or principle
taught therein to this audience so that you
may judge for yourselves of the fact, wheth-
er a man cannot accept the Book of Mormon
as of divine origin, endorse its teachings,
and at the same time be a christian man iu
the truest and highest sense of that term.

THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S OPENING SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentleimen:— To render such a discussion
as this necessary, there must be a difference
of views between the parties. There is such
difference between my opponent and myself.
He and his people teach, I. That mankind
needed new revelations, in addition to
those in the Bible, when Joseph Smith
pretended, in the book of Mormon and other
pretended revelations, to give new revela-
tions to the world, II. That in the book of
Miormon and other pretended revelations,
Joseph Smith did give to the world new
revelations, in addition to those in the
Bible. III. That Joseph Smith was a true
prophet of God. I believe, I. That in the
New Testament, God perfected and com-
pleted his work of revelation in a system
of universal and eternal truths, a law of
iiuiversally applicable principles in the
Gospel of Christ. That man needs no addi-
tional revelations, and never will need any,
for he cannot outgrow the universal and
eternally applicable principles of the Gos-

f>el. II. That all of the pretended reve-
ations of Joe Smith are base frauds and
puerile fabrications. III. That Joe Smith
was an infamous and villainous deceiver
and scoundrel. To render discussion profit-
able and conclusive in determining what is
the truth in regard to the issues, there
must be a common standard of authoriiy
that is accepted as conclusive authority by
footh parties. There is such a standard in
this discussion. The Israelite Sacred Scrip-
tures of the Old Testament, and the Christ-
tian Sacred Scriptures of the New Testa-
ment.

' The book of Mormon cannot be appealed to
as authority in this discussion, for the issue
is, "Is thebookof Mormon worthy to be used
as authority?" Even if it be found, in this
discussion, that it is worthy to be used as
authority, because it is of divine origin,
that would not enable my opponent to use
it in this discussion, in determining the
issues in this debate. All appeal to the
book of Mormon, as a standard in this
debate, will be a begging of the question,
or an impudent assumption of the very
issue in debate. It is the work of each
disputant in a discussion, to show that his
position, clearly and lionestly defined, har-
monizes with a correct interpretation of this
commonly accepted standard, and that the
position of his opponent, clearly and hon-
estly defined, does not harmonize with a
correct interpretation and use of this stand-
ard. It is the work of my opponent in this
discussion to clearly and honestly define
his affirmative, concealing and evading
nothing, using no equivocation or pettifog-

fing, and then to show that his position
hus defined, harmonizes with a fair inter-

pretation and use of the Scriptures. It is
my work, if my oi^ponent does not define
his affirmative clearly and honestly — if lie
attempts to conceal or evade the real teach-
ing of his system, by equivocation, or pet-
tifogging, to expose such chicanery and to
show what are the real teachings of his
system, and then to show that the teach-
ings of his system, fairly and clearly stated,
do not harmonize with a correct interpre-
tation of the Scriptures.

There are three questions to be settled.
I. What are the teachings of my opponent's
system, when clearly and honestly stated,
without concealment or equivocation. II.
What do the Scriptures, when correctly
interpreted, teach in regard to the doctrine
of liis system. III. Do the Scriptures,
when clearly and fairly interpreted, har-
monize with a clear and honest statement
of the doctrines of the system of my oppo-
nent. There is no sense in our spending
time in talking about what we both accept.
Nor in caviling over what is not in dispute.
Let us then determine, as far as may be, in
Avhat do we agree; concerning what do we
disagree; what conclusions should we draw
from those things in which we agree, con-
cerning those things in which we disagree.
Whether the position of my opponent in
regard to the things in wliich we agree is
m harmony with his position in regard to
those things in which we disagree. Let us
inake the issues as few, as brief and as clear
as possible. I. My opponent and myself
both believe that the Israelite Sacred Scrip-
tures, of the Old Testament and the Christ-
ian Sacred Scriptures, of the New Testa-
ment, were given by inspiration of God,
and that they are therefore of divine origin,
and authority — a revelation from God to
man. We differ concerning "The Book of
Mormon." My opponent believes that it
also was given by inspiration of God and
that it is also of divine origin and authority
a revelation from God to man, containing
"the fullness of the Gospel '' and that it
stands related to the New Testament, as
that does to the Old-andis as much superior
to it. I believe that the Book of Mormon is
a base, puerile fabrication, and a wicked
fraud.

II. We both believe that God has made
revelations to man, through men inspired
by the Holy Spirit — through angelic mes-
sengers— and through his Son Jesus the
Christ. My opponent believes that he has
spoken to men through Joseph Smith, and
men who liave accepted him as a prophet
of God, and that God has through such
persons, given revelations to men. I belive
that Joseph Smith was a wicked, contemp-
tible impostor, and that all who have pre-
tended to speak by inspiration, in this age

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE

are either hypocritical impostors or self-
deluded visionaries. III. We both believe
that, in the apostolic age, God spoke to
men through the apostles of Christ, and
through persons to whom the apostles
imparted supernatural gifts, by the impo-
sition of their hands. My opponent believes,
that, in the apostolic age, others than those
to whom the apostles imparted superna-
tural gifts by the imposition of their hands,
enjoyed those gifts. He believes also that
those gifts were an all important element
of the religion of Christ, and that they
were to continue, until the end of time, in
the church. That those gifts can be enjoyed
now. That they should be enjoyed now.
That the condition of the church Avhere
those gifts are not enjoyed is that of apos-
tasy—a dead church. He believes that
those gifts can be imparted now by the
imposl'aou of hands, of persons now living.
That they are so imparted and enjoyed in
his orsraiiization. That all believers who
do not enjoy those gifts are in an apostate*
condition.

I believe that those gifts were to exist
only during the apostolic age. That it was
the will of God that they should cease,
when the word of God was completed in
the New Testament, and that, as it was his
will that they should cease then, they did
cease. That' in the apostolic age, those
ffifts were never enjoyed by any, except
those to whom an apostle imparted them
by the imposition of his hands. That no
oiie but an apostle could, or ever did impart
those gifts. That they never descended to
a third person. That the power to impart
those gifts was the "sign of apostleship."
That when the last person, to whom an
apostle imparted those gifts, died, they
ceased from earth. That sucn was God's
will and law. Also that the condition of
the church, when the best of those gifts
were enjoyed, was the formative, the child-
like condition of the church. That the
condition of the church, under the control
of •' the perfect law of liberty,"— "of that
which is perfect," the completed word of
<;ud, is as nmch superior to the condition
of the church, when the best of these gifts
V. ere enjoyed, as the condition of the world,
V. lien God ceased from creation — after crea-
ting man, is superior to the period, when
by miracles of creation, he was preparing
for man. Or as the condition of the full
grown man is superior to that of the unde-
veloped child. Or as the condition of our
country under our completed constitution,
and government in accordance with it, is
superior to the condition of our nation,
while the constitutional convention was in
session, framing the constitution.

I am careful to define and elaborate these
differences, because this is the key note to
the whole discussion. This is the crucial
issue in this debate. My opponent bases
his claim that Joseph •iSmith was a
true prophet of God; that the Book of
Mormon was given by inspiration of God.
that it ' ' con tains the fulness of the Gospel ' '
— that the Book of Mormon and other pre-

tended revelations stand related to the
New Testament, as the New Testament
stands related to the Old Testament, that
his people possesses these miraculous pow-
ers and spiritual gifts, on a claim that the
promises of Joel and other prophets, of
John the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter and
the apostles, concerning spiritual gifts,
were to be enjoyed by the church in all
ages. If my position, that these promises
refer only to the apostolic age, and were
enjoyed only in the apostolic age, and that
they were to remain only until the Word
of God was completed in the New Testa-
ment,—that in the New Testament, God
completed this miraculous work, and the
exercise of spiritual gifts, in a perfect re-
velation of a complete system of universally
applicable and eternal truths and princi-
ples be true, it utterly demolishes the claim
of my opponeiit, by showing that revela-
tions'in addition to those in the Bible, are
needless, and contrarv to the teachings of
God's AVord, and therefore his Book of
Mormon and pretended revelations are base
frauds, and Joe Smith a vile impostor.

We both believe that all followers of
Christ, should be united and stand on the
divine platform, laid down for such
union, in Ephesians, IV. (A.) One God
the Father. I shall, in the right place,
prove that the teachings of the system of
my opponent, in regard to the one God,
are gross materialism and idolatry. (B.)
One Lord ; Jesus of Nazareth ; the Christ,
the only begotten Bon of God— the only
Divine "Prophet, or source of all teaching
in religion— the only Divine Priest, or sac-
rifice and atonement for the sins of all men
—the onlv mediator between God and man
—the onlv Divine King,— the only source of
all law in religion, and the only one whose
commands we are to obey, in religion. I
shall, in the right place, expose the gross
sensualism of my opponent's system in re-
gard to the origin and character of the
Son of God. My opponent claims that
Joe Smith was a prophet of God, whose
teachings are to be obeyed, accepted as
" the fullness of the gospel," and as much
superior to those of Jesus, as the teachings
of Jesus, are superior to those of the proph-
ets of the Old Testament ; and whose com-
mands are as much superior to the New
Testament, as the New Testament is to the
Old Testament. I believe that Joe Smith
was a base imposter, a wicked deceiver,
whose silly fabrications should be despised
as contemptible frauds. (C.) One Holy
Spirit, who inspired the men whose in-
spired acts and utterances are recorded in
the Bible. My opponent believes that the
Holy Spirit inspired Joe Smith, and others
who have accepted him as a true prophet
of God, and that he inspires men now. I
believe that all inspiration and miraculous
powers ceased in the apostolic age, having
accomplished their purpose, in giving to
mankind, a completed revelation of general
and universally applicable truths ; and
that the Holy Spirit now influences men,
in the only way in which one intelligence

10

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

can exert a moral influence over another,
that is through the truth contained in his
utterances recorded in the Scriptures, and
through the teaching tliat 'is in accordance
with the truths revealed by the Holy
Spirit, in the Scriptures.

(D.) The one faith — the faith — the teach-
ing—the Word of God,— the scriptures —
"the faith once delivered to the Saints."
My opponent would add to this " one faith "
delivered to the Saints — to God's Word,
the Book of ISIornion, and other pretended
revelations of Joe Smith, and of others
who accept Joe Smith as a prophet of
God. I reject all of these as base fabrica-
tions of imposters, or as silly vagaries
of fanatical visionaries. (E.) One baptism
— immersion into water in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit — into the re-
mission of sins. My opponent teaches
these errors in regard to baptism. I. Bap-
tism for the miraculous gift of the Holy
Spirit, II. That baptism in the Holy
Spirit was universal in the church, in the
apostolic age, and that it can be enjoyed
now, and exists in his organization. III.
The farce of baptizing the living as proxies
for the dead. I lielieve that in the days of
the apostles only those of the baptized re-
ceived the miraculous gifts of the Holy
Spirit, to whom an apostle imparted them
by the imposition of his hands. I believe
also that there were never but two occasions
of baptism in the Holy Sj^irit, one on the
day of Pentecost in Jerusalem — the other at
the house of Cornelius in Caesarea — that
both were miraculous — direct miracles from
Heaven, and never were, and never will be
repeated. The baptism for the dead I re-
gard as a farce resulting from a blunder in
regard to an obscure passage of Scripture.

(F.) One hope — remission of sins to the
penitent believer, who is baptized into
Christ — union with God and his Holy
Spirit, so long as the Christian, in a holy
life, makes his body a fit temple for such
union and such a guest; and eternal life if
men are faithful unto death, Mj' opponent
includes in this hope, miraculous spiritual
gifts, in this life, and he debases the eter-
nal hope into a materialistic sensual
reigning of Mormons over Gentiles, in a
materialistic sensual state, like the Para-
dise of tne Mahommedan. (G.) One
body— "The church of God" or "The
church of Christ." Christ is the head
of the bodj^, and all believers are living
stones, members in this body, this tem-
ple. In this church are Evanglists who
proclaim the good news ; Overseers who
take care of the flock— Servants who min-
ister unto the church ; and members who
are not called to such work. My opponent
adds to this simple statement of the New
Testament presidents,;councillors, apostles,
twelve apostles three seventies of apos-
tles, traveling bishops, presiding elders,
quorums, patriarchs, seers, prophets, pas-
tors, teachers, translators, revelators, un-
til not even an inspired Mormon knows
how many more, and about one-third of the
men are officers of some sort. He asserts

that all df these should exercise miraculous
powers, and divides them into the Mel-
chisedec priesthood, and the Aaronic priest-
hood, and tells us that the Aaronic priest
must be a literal descendant of Aaron."
That caps the climax of absurdity.

(H.) One name — "Christian" — for all
individuals who are followers of Christ ;
and "Church of God" or "Church of
Christ " for the one body composed of these
followers of Christ or Christians. My op-
ponent calls his people " Latter Day Saints
of Jesus Christ." Shades of the apostles
what an Ashdodish lingo ! He calls his
organization "The Reorganized Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Where
in the W^orld of God does he find such a
rigmarole as that? He may find such a
jargon in the Book of Doctrines and Cove-
nants, or Joe Smith's Book of Abraham,
but not in the Scriptures. Such an Ash-
dodish Babel is not found in the pure
speech of Canaan, in God's word. Such is
a fair statement of the points concerning
which we agree, and also those concern-
ing which we disagree. My opponent
summarizes his teachings in his proposi-
tion : " The Book of Mormon is of divine
origin and entitled to the confidence of all
Christian people"

My first and cardinal objection to my op-
ponent's position is that the Bible teaches
that the work of inspiration, miracles and
revelation, was completed in the revela-
tions of the Son of God, that he give in
person, and through his apostles, in the
New Testament, in which there is given to
mankind, a system of eternal truths, uni-
versally applicable principles, which man
can not outgrow, for which there can be no
substitute, and to which there can be no
additions. That as inspiration and miracle
had accomplished their work in completing
revelation, they ceased when the last person
died to whom an apostle had imparted
spiritual gifts, by the imposition of his
hands. If this position be true, the Scrip-
tures teach that such a claim as my oppo-
nent makes for his Book of Mormon, is
absolutely impossible. It was not given,
or translated by inspiration, for the Bible
teaches that inspiration and miraculous
power ceased nearly 1,800 years before it
appeared. This is the crucial question, the
vital issue of this discussion. If my posi-
tion be Scripturally true, my opponent's
affirmatives are utterly unscriptural and
utterly untrue, according to what is the
standard of truth in this debate. We in-
tend to hold our opponent right to the
work on this point. If he does not meet
and overturn my position, his claim for the
Book of Mormon is "as baseless as the
fabric of a dream."

The first vital query then is " What do
the Scriptures teach in regard to inspira-
tion, miracles and revelations — in regard to
when they first appeared — their purpose —
their history and development — how long
they were to continue ? What was their pur-
pose, and how long did that purpose make
it necessary for them to continue ? What

THE bhaden and kelley debate.

11

do the Scriptures teach in regard to the
continuance of inspiration, miracle and
revelation? And their completion and
cessation? The Scriptures teach that the
Father has spoken, in the hearing of man,
only three times. At the baptism of Jesus,
Mathew, III, 17. At the transfiguration,
Mathew, XVII, 5. When Jesus prayed
and the multitude heard the answer, John,
XII, 28. On all other occasions, the Father
has spoken through representatives, — the
Word — the Christ — the Holy Spirit — angels
inspired men. The Word spoke to men
through angels, or through men inspired
by the Holy Spirit. The Word was the
God of the Old Testament, John, I. Col-
assians, I. Hebrew, I. The Word the
God of the Old Testament spoke through
angels. Acts, VII, " Ye received the word
through the ministry of angels." Gal. III.
" The law was ordained through angels, by
the hand of a mediator" (Moses). While on
earth Christ, spoke to men. Angels spoke
to men as representatives of Jehovah, the
Word, and of Christ, after his ascension.
Rev. I. "The revelation of Jesus, the
Christ, which God gave to him, to show to
his servants, the things which must short-
ly come to pass, and he sent his angels to
his servant John, and made them known
unto John, and John bear witness of the
word of God." In Exodus, III, we read in-
terchangeably, "Jehovah said," and " the
angels said," showing that Jehovah spoke
through his angels that represented him.
In several places Jehovah says, to Moses
through his angel that represented him,
"I send my angel before you. I have put
my word in his mouth. Hear him," etc.
Isaiah, LXI, we read that the Mosaic dispen-
sation was given by " an angel of the face
of Jehovah " or a messenger from his pres-
ence. We might illustrate this idea by
many other passages, but these will suffice,
for probably our only dispute will be over
the work of the Holy Spirit.

Both parties agree that the Holy Spirit
inspired all, men who acted, spoke, or wrote
under inspiration, from Adam to Malachi;
that he inspired all who acted, spoke, or
wrote under inspiration from Zachariah,
the father of John the Baptist, until the
last person died to whom an apostle ira-

Earted spiritual gifts, by the inposition of
is hands. My opponent claims that the
Scriptures teach that these spiritual gifts
were to remain in the church until the end
of time, that it is the law of God that they
should now exist, that they do now exist
in his organization, that as a result of
such existence of these gifts .Joseph Smith
was inspired, was a true prophet of God,
and therefore the " Book of Mormon,"
that he gave to the world, is a revelation
from God. I claim that the Scriptures
teach that these miraculous powers of
the Holy Spirit were given for a specific
purpose, the revelation of a plan of re-
demption— that they were to exist until
that purpose was accomplished in complet-
ing the New Testament — that they ceased
when they accomplished this purpose, in

completing this revelation, in the New
Testament. I claim that the laAV of God
ordains that they were to exist for a certain
purpose, the revelation of the scheme of re-
redemption, and they were to continue
until that object was accomplished. The
purpose for which God ordained their ex-
istence and continuance, has been accom-
plished, in completino^ the New Testament;
and they have ceased, having accomplished
their object, and being no longer necessary.

The issue is not one of power, but of
fact and law. Not whether God can im-
part gifts now, but whether it is his law
that they should exist now. Or is it his
law that they should cease with the apos-
tolic age, having accomplished their ob-
jects. As a question of fact, did Joseph
Smith possess these powers ? Do his fol-
lowers now possess them ? Proving that
they can be exercised now, would not prove
that Joseph Smith possessed them, nor
that his followers do possess them. A
man may be able to practice law, but that
does not prove that he does so. The fact
that God can impart such powers now, does
not prove that he does so. God can have
apples grow as tubers on the roots of trees,
but that does not prove that he does. The
question of fact remains, "How do apples
grow ? " The fact that God imparted these
powers to persons in former ages, does not
prove that he does so now. God once
brought animals and plants into existence
by miracle of direct creation. That does
not prove that he does so now. As a mat-
ter of factj we know that he does not, but
that he brings them into existence through
operation of natural law.

Let me here expose the vital error of my
opponent's position, by an illustration.
God exerted his miraculous power in crea-
tion, to prepare the way for natural law,
the law of reproduction, and the world is
in a higher and more perfect condition
under the ppei'ation of natural law, than
when God exerted miraculous power, in
bringing animals and plants into being, by
creation. Miraculous power, in creation,
was only temporary, and provisional, and
exerted only to prepare the Avay for the
higher and more perfect, natural law. In
like manner, God exerted his miraculous
power in connection with revelation, only
to prepare the way for the higher and per-
manent, a completed system of divine rev-
ealed truth, in the completed word of God,
in the completed New Testament. Mirac-
culous power in revelation, ceased when
that purpose was accomplished ; just as
miraculous power, in creation ceased when
it had prepared for, and introduced the
higher and the permanent, the opera-
tion of natural law. Miraculous power in
connection with revelation, was inferior to
the work of the completed word of God,
just as miraculous power, in creation, was
inferior to the operation of natural law.
God is in the operation of his completed
word of truth, in a higher and more perfect
manner, than he ever was in the highest
exercise of miraculous power, just as he is

12

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

in the operation of natural law, in a higher
and more perfect sense, than he ever was
in the exercise of miraculous power in
creation. In each case the method em-
ployed at first, was provisional and tem-
porary, and was employed only to intro-
duce the higher and permanent, for which
it prepared the way. There is no evad-
ing the conclusion that the operation of
natural law and the influence of the re-
vealed truths of God's completed word,
are superior to the highest exercise of
miraculous power, either in creation or
revelation.

We do not remove God out of nature, or
his word ; but we show that, in each case,
he acts in a higher and more perfect man-
ner. We do not remove a single thing God
created, nor a single troth of revelation.
Miraculous power was not a part of the
things created, but the means of creating
them, and ceased when that was done, and
gave way to the operation of a higher and
more perfect means of accomplishing the
same end. Miraculous power was not a part
of tiie truths revealed, but the means of re-
vealing divine truth, and ceased when that
work was done, and gave way to a higher and
more perfect work, and presence ofGod, in the
moral influence of the divine truths revealed.
The idea of my opponent, that the posses-
sion of miraculous power is the thing to be
desired above everything else, and that the
condition of the church, when it was exer-
cised, was the highest condition of the
churcii, and far superior to its condition
now, when it does not exist, and the church
exerts only moral power resident in perfect
truth, is a contradiction of the Scriptures,
of reason, and of fact. Such a state of the
church was the childhood of the church.
The exercise of such gifts was necessary, be-
cause it was in its childhood. They were aids
to cliildhood, that ceased when the church
"laid aside such childish tbings " The
church is now in its manhood, and governed
by "the perfect law of liberty" the com-
pleted Word of God. The moral power of
divine truth, appealing to reason and con-
science of men as rational beings, is far
superior to miracles, appealing to the child-
ish wonder of children.

A vital query is suggested here. How can
one intelligence influence another? How
can one spirit, the Holy Spirit, influence
another spirit — the spirit of man? Man can
influence his fellow man in two ways. I.
By utterances or acts that convey ideas to
the minds of the persons addressed. This
is the only moral power or influence that
one spirit can exert on another. II. An
abnormal psychological influence, called
mesmerism or psychology. This ig not a
moral influence for it leaves the mind influ-
enced no wiser, no better In like manner
the Holy Spirit has exerted two influences
over the spirit of men. I. A miraculous
influence, psychologizing the spirits of men,
so that tiiey uttered the words he wanted
them to utter ; or performed the acts that
he wanted them to perform. II. The ordi-
nary influence, that he has exerted on the

minds of those who heard or read the utter
ances of those he psychologized, or saw o\
read the acts they performed. In the mirac-
ulous work of the Holy Spirit he has always
exerted two influences. I. The miraculous
psychological influence exerted on thehearts
of those inspired by which he caused them
to do or say what he wanted to reveal to
others. II. The ordinary and moral influ-
ence that he exerted on the minds of those
who heard or read their revelations.

We desire now to emphasize a thought
that we do not want to be lost sight of for
one moment, in the discussion of the issues
before us. "The miraculous influence of
the Holy Spirit never, in a single instance,
exerted one particle of moral power, on the
spirit of the person influenced by it ; never
in a single instance produced one jjarticle
of moral change, in the person influenced
by it." The cases of Baalam, Saul King of
Israel, Jonah and Caiaphas show that the
person influenced, often uttered what was
entirely opposed to his own wishes. That
he did not know what he would say before
he was influenced. Nor what he was saying
when the influence was upon him. When
the influence left him he knew no more
about the meaning of what he had uttered
<han any other person, and had to study it
the same as any other person. Peter says,
"The Prophets, who prophesied of the good
that should come unto you, sought and
searched dilligently, what manner of
time, and what thhigs, the Spirit of
Christ, that was in them did signify, when
he testified beforehand of the sufferings of
Christ and the glory that should follow."
The character of Baalam, Saul, ^'aiaphas
and Jonah show that this influenc'e of the
spirit was impacted, sometimes, legardless
of character to vile, rebellious persons. That
it left vile men just as it found them. It
did not change them morally, one particle.
We wish our readers to remember these
facts, while weighing the question, whether
this influence was to remain in the churcb.
As it was not a moral influence, it was not
to be desired, on an account of its moral
benefits to the person influenced. As it
produced no moral influence, except through
the truth it revealed, it ceased, when it had
perfected that work. There can be no rea-
son why it should exist in the church when
revelation was completed. There is no
work that the church does now, or is re-
quired, by the Word of God to perform,
that can be accomplished by this miracu-
lous influence, nor that it can aid one par-
ticle.

Let us now trace the miraculous influence
of the spirit in the Gospel Dispensation.
Joel and other prophets promised a miracu-
lous outpouring of the spirit in the last
days of the Mosaic dispensation. Peter
declared, on the day of Pentecost, that the
baptism in the Holy Spirit, received by him
and his brethren was a partial fulfillment
of Joel's promise. "This," the baptism
in tlie Holy Spirit, that he and his brethren
had received, "is that which was spoken
by the prophet Joel." That it included the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

!«-

miraculous powers that others enjoyed in
the apostolic age. Peter's language has
not the slightest reference to the ordinary
influence of the spirit on the Christian,
when he says : " Ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit" — the Holy Spirit as a
gift — "for the promise." What promise?
Joel's promise of the miraculous influence
of the spirit, "is to you and your children,
and to those that are afar oflT." — It was,
for Joel's promise was "to all flesh, even
as many as the Lord our God shall call."
Call how ? By the imposition of an apos-
tle's hands as we shall show. John the
Baptist and our Saviour promised the bai^-
tism in the Holy Spirit. It was fulfilled on
the day of Pentecost and at the house of
Cornelius. Our Saviour promised that his
apostles should be inspired, when before
persecuting magistrates. They were and
the Bible records, no other instances. Our
Saviour declares: "that out of those who
believe on his name shall flow inspiration
like rivers of water." This included the
Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of
the Holy Spirit that existed in the apos-
tolic church. These had not yet been
given.

In his last lecture to his apostles, and to
no others, as recorded in John, aIII to
XVI, delivered just before crucifixion, our
Saviour told his apostles that he would
leave them — the apostles — that he would
send to them — the apostles — the Comforter
to take his place with them — the apostles —
that the Comforter would reveal to their
minds — the minds of the apostles — what he
had said to them — the apostles — that the
Comforter would guide them — the apostles—
into all truth — show them — the apostles —
things to come, and would take the things
of the Father and show them to them — the
apostles. These joromises have not the
slightest reference to the ordinary influence
of the Holy Spirit on the Christians, for
his Avork was all miraculous. These prom-
ises'apply to the apostles, and to no others.
Our Saviour's address was a closing charge
to his apostles, and has no application to
any other persons. It was a promise that
they — the apostles, should be qualified for
the work that he committed to their care —
committed to the apostles, and none others.
After his resurrection he renewed this
promise, when he promised that his apos-
tles should be endowed with power from
on high. That they should be baptized in
the Holy Spirit.

Let us now dispose forever of the promise
of the Baptism in l^e Holy Spirit. It was
a promise. Not a command. Was received.
Not obeyed. Christ was the administrator.
Not man. Was poured out from heaven.
Not performed on earth by man, on another
man. It was promised as a miraculous
power. Not commanded as an ordinance.
It was a miracle. Was always attended
with miracles. It always conferred miracu-
lous power. It Avas not in any name. It
was not a memorial, a monument, a sym-
bol, a type, a likeness, a form, an object
lesson, setting forth any fact or truth. It
was perhaps the most extraordinary and
niiraculous event in the Gospel Dispensa-
tion. Did not and could not become a per-
manent element in the churcli.

There is only one baptism in the church,
Eph., IV, 4. It is a command. Men are to
administer it to others. Men are to obey it.
It is in the name of the Father, Soii'an(i
Holy Spirit. It is in water. It is a monu-
ment of Christ's burial and resurrection-
monument of the great facts of the Gospel,
a memorial, a type, a likeness, a symbol, a
form, an object lesson setting forth Christ's
burial and resurrection— also the sinner's
burial to his past sinful life, and his resur-
rection to a new life in Christ. It is for the
remission of sins. It is a permanent ordi-
nance in the church. The Scriptiu-es desi in-
nate but two occurrences as Baptism in tlie
Holy Spirit. Peter declares, Acts, XI, "As
I began to speak to the houseliold Corne-
lius, the Holy Spirit fell on them as he did
on us at the beginning, (on the day of Pen-
tecost). Then remembered I the words of
the Lord, how that he said : "John indet d
baptized in water, but ye shall be l)aptized
in the Holy Spirit." God bestowed the same
gift — the Holy Spirit as a gift — on them as
on us." Peter declares that these two oc-
casions—when the Holy Spirit fell on the
apostles and brethren, on the day of Pente-
cost, at Jerusalem — and on the house of
Cornelius in CiBsarea — were baptisms in the
Holy Spirit. The Bible knows no other.
This disposes forever of all talk of Baptism
in the Holy Spirit now, or on any other oc-
casion, than the two mentioned by the
Scriptures. Persons might as well claiin
the power to create a world, as to claim
Baptism in the Holy Spirit. All such un-
scriptural visionary ideas, that leave an
open door for fanaticism and folly and have
cursed the world with the most infamous
delusions and crimes, should be abandoned.

14

THE BRADEN AND KEL.LEY DEBATE.

SECOND SPEECH OF MR. KELLEY.

Gentlemen Moderators, L/Adies and
Gentlemen: — I call the attention of the au-
dience to the fact that instead of the nega-
tive following and trying to answer the
affirmative, he has seen fit to try to prove
some other thing true, in the hope that
thereby he might prove that what I have
stated 'is not true. It is customary in dis-
cussions for the negative to follow and an-
swer the arguments of the affirmative,
unless he is willing to admit that he can-
not move them. If that is the position of
the negative on this question, and he is
willing to admit that he cannot move my
position, but claims that there is something
else true that he can prove outside of the
line of the affirmative, and which may be
termed an alibi^ that will show that the
position of the affirmative cannot be true
because there is a contrary truth to such,
then he has the right I suppose and the
option to do so. But he cannot play upon
both positions and keep within the law or
rule of evidence or argument. If he has an
alibi let him make the proj^er admission or
plea, admittingmy positions and setting up
his claim, and then I can follow him in his
lead, as ne will thus place himself fairly
in the affirmative and I can answer accord-
ing to the rule, and the debate will go on
orderly.

Will you do this? But I will first notice
one or two of his positions, in order to show
their fallacyto the audience, and then jjro-
ceed with my affirmative arguments, as I
shall not be drawn away from the main
question under consideration to discuss
side issues. I am here for the purpose of
showing you the divine origin of this book,
and shall show it before the eighth evening
returns, I promise you that. It is said that
the views and belief of the people who be-
lieve in this book are erroneous.

Now, suppose that I was discussing with
an infidel friend at this time with regard
to the divinity of the Holy Scriptures, and
when I should take my position in order to
show that the scriptures as delivered to
the human family were of divine origin,
my infidel oponent would arise and say,
yes, your positions are all right ; I cannot
move those. But then your people have
not been doing right. The people who be-
lieve in the Holy Scriptures are not in ac-
cordance with them in faith and doctrine.
Would that interfere in the least or be ap-
plicable to the question of whether the
Scriptures are true or not ? And so it is with
the question under discussion. The ques-
tion is, as to the divine authenticity of this
book, in regard to the teachings of this
book ; but he has sought to answer here
and to throw into the minds of the audience
the assertion that the people who believe
in this book are not doing right, has called

in question the character of some of the
persons who have believed in it, by his lan-
guage and a few set phrases. In the first
place, this is no argument nor can it have
a particle of weight, so far as that is con-
cerned, towards impeaching the divinity of
the record that is before us. I might ask
him if he believes in the Proverbs and
Ecclesiastes, written and compiled by Solo-
mon ? Yet after Solomon had written these
books he bowed down to wood and stone;
gods made with men's hands. And j'et I
could hurl in his face that these books
that were the compilation of the wise
king ought not to be tolerated, because,
forsooth, Solomon afterwards turned from
the things therein and did evil in the
sight of the Lord. He believes in the
Psalms. Yet David had his hundreds
of wives and concubines ; and not only
had many wives and concubines, but
took a poor soldier's wife when he was in
the front of war, battling for his country,
and then afterwards had the soldier put
in the front of the battle and murdered in
order that he might carry out his designs.
But because of this shall I say that the
divinity of the Scriptures is at all called in
question? Such fallacy of reasoning as
this ought to be patent to any man that
has come here for the purpose of investigat-
ing truth. I place the matter in the shape
of a separate and distinct proposition. How
sliall we canvass this subject? How shall
we go to work in order to canvass this book,
and arrive at a correct conclusion as to its
merits? There are many ways in which
you may fail to do it. There were many
ways in which the people in the first age
of Christianity undertook to canvass the
claims with regard to whether Jesus was
what he claimed to be or not. And there
were true ways to canvass it then, and
there were false ways to canvass it. And
remember that the majority of the people
undertook to canvass it upon the false
issues and in the false ways. Why, I have
only to open my Bible here and show you
the conflict in this regard by turning to the
7th chapter of John. And it was a conflict
not unlike the conflict that is presented
here. In the 7th chapter of John and the
12th verse I read this: "And there was
"much murmuring among the people con-
"cerning him: for some said. He is a good
"man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth
"the people. Howbeit no man spake open-
"lyof him for fear of the Jews." Now here
was a question in regard to deciding upon
the divine claim of that man, and there
was a right way to proceed, and there was
a wrong one. Some, instead of investigat-
ing the ijrinciples that he brought, and the
truths that he presented, said standing
behind the cloak of the persons that had

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

15

told the stories around about Jerusalem
with resrard to him, he is "a deceiver ;" and
not only a deceiver, but "a gluttonous
man;" "a wine bibber ;" and he is palm-
ing upon the people something for truth
that is not truth. Was there any argument
in that ? Is there any argument in the bare
assertion that Joseph Smith was a false
teacher, or that he was a deceiver? And I
call my friend's attention to the fact that
he has made him out a false prophet and a
false teacher by his language before the
audience, before he has oflered even a scrap
of evidence to you to prove him such. Is it

E roper, in the consideration of the question
ere, to call a man false before he is proven
false? I wish to have him present the
argument here, if he wishes to take up that
line, and show that he is a deceiver, a false
prophet, and a very wicked man. Then
after he shall have done that, if I am not
able to meet him and show to the contrary,
it may j)ossibly be proper for him to use
the language with regard to him that he has
used. I have not said anything in regard
to the point of order raised bj'^ the chairman
which was certainly proper, because if
my opponent in this discussion wishes to
make a poor use of his time and thus throw
it away in regard to the question at issue,
I jjropose to let him do that, so far as I am
concerned. But I shall not be drawn from
the main subject under consideration my-
self.

Then how shall we canvass this question ?
By an examination into the history and
character, supposed faith and failings of the
ones presenting it? -Do you think that a
fair examination could be made in such a
way ? This, as I said before, was the man-
ner of those who sought or tried in a certain
way to destroy the divine mission and
character of Jesus. Why, you cannot palm
that man off on us for the Messiah ! "For
is he not the carpenter's son ? Is not his
mother Mary, and are not Joses and James
and Himon and Judas his brothers ? " Such
a rule of investigation adopted as that, was
calculated to deceive the people, and to
keep all those deceived who engaged in
it, rather than to bring light to them.
Afterwards when the apostles went out to
preach to the world, there was a rule laid
down whereby men might come to a correct
conclusion with regard to the things that
were presented by the apostles. And cer-
tain individuals saw fit, instead of following
the true rule, to make war upon the char-
acter of the apostles. But was that a true
way to examine into their faith ? I ask my
opponent in this discussion to answer a
question with regard to that — Does he ap-
prove the course of the Jews in testing the
truth and divinity of the message presented
by John and Jesus in searching for stories
as to their characters ? Tracing out their
father and mother, and their brethren, etc. ;
instead of investigating from the stand-
point of the message that was brought, and
that was shown forth in the claim itself?
After he has answered these, then I ask
him to state to this audience whether he

approves the act of the wicked Jews in in-
vestigating the claims and the teachings of
the apostles themselves as they went forth
to the world to carry that message, by in-
quiring into the character of Paul and of
Peter, and by listening to the stories th-^t
were being told all around about them in
Jerusalem and elsewhere instead of coming
up like fair men and weighing and canvas-
sing the words that they presented and
comparing them with the Scriptures that
they claimed to believe in ? It seems to me
that if we are to canvass the question under
consideration, there is some proper way by
which we must do it. How shall it be
done? Is there any rule laid down? I be-
lieve that the Bible is the standard in
coTitroversy, as stated by my opponent.
He stated many things to you that were
true, and inany things with regard to my
belief that were untrue, and so many of
them are not true, tliat the only answer
that I will make to them at this time, is the
answer that General Rosecraus telegraphed
back to Washington on the occasion of the
re-union of the soldiers at Cincinnati last
Fall in reference to a statement made in the
newspapers at Washington of a purported
interview. He said, "there is so much
falsehood mixed in with the little truth in
the publication, that I send back a telegram
that the whole is false." Now, I do not use
the term falsehood in a deliberate sense in
regard to my opponent, but certainly he
has misconceived the positions that I take
and that my people take with reference to
our belief in the scriptures and in the reve-
lations. And on many other things that he
stated before you he is as ignorant, if he
has stated what he really believes, as the
majority, no doubt, of this audience. But
it is my place to enlighten liim, and I will
try to do so before this discussion closes.
When Jesus had been examined under a
wrong rule by the wicked Jews in his time,
he gave the apostles a correct rule by
which they might try men, and tliat cor-
rect rule is' stated in direct language when
he refers them to the teaching of Moses and
the prophets. He says to them, "If ye be-
lieved in Moses and the prophets, ye would
believe in me, for Moses wrote of me."
And again, as vou will find recorded in the
8th chapter and 46th verse of John : "Which
of you convinceth me of sin ? And if I say
the truth, why do ye not believe me?"
Now, the Jews were standing there, some
saying that he was the son of .Toseph, some
saying that he was the son of Mary and that
these men around here were his brethren,
and that he was a deceiver and a wine
bibber and a gluttonous man. But Jesus
says to them, "If I say the truth, why do
you not believe me?" That was the
"proper ground upon Avhich to decide wheth-
er he was an impostor or not, or whether
his message came from heaven or not.
Afterward's he lays down a distinct and
positive rule for his disciples to go by. My
friend claims to be a Disciple. Will he go
by it, and will he answer to this audience
whether it is a true rule or not? He says,

16

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

"Which of you convinceth me of sin ? And
if I say the trutli, why do ye not believe
me?" "He that is of God heareth God's
words : Ye therefore hear them not because
ye are not of God."— John 8 : 46,47.

Again, a further exposition of this rule
by one of liis apostles afterwards. You will
find it recorded by John in his second epis-
tle, 9th verse, wherein he states that "who-
soever transgresseth, and abideth not in
the doctrine of Christ, hath not God."
That is the way to try men. I have pre-
sented you my ease tliis evening, and told
you that I believed in the doctrine of
Christ, and that so far as the revelation on
the other continent was concerned, I was
in agreement with it. I take up tne reve-
lation made on the other continent, and it
says, "He that abidetli in the doctrine of
Christ, he hath both the Father and the
Son." And what am I answered with?
" Oh, they are deceivers ! They are fanat-
ics ! He is a false prophet."

There was one position that was taken by
the negative in his argument that I will
examine in due time, but I will not leave
the subject at this time to do so. That with
reference to the cessation of miraculous gifts
of the Holy Spirit, or inspiration, or the
confining of them to the first century. If I
cannot show that they were not confined to
the first century, why, certainly I ought to
be able to, if this is true in this book, in one
sense. But then this book might be true in
a certain sense, too, and still they be con-
fined, so far as the people on the eastern
continent are concerned, to the first cen-
tury.

However, I will examine that when the
time comes, and will make it explicit and
clear to the audience. We have the rule as
stated by the Apostle John, in accordance
with the rule laid down by the Master him-
self: — "Whosoever transgresseth, and abi-
deth not in the docti-me of Christ, hath not
God. He that abideth in the doctrine of
Christ, he hath both the Father and the
Son." Now, will you investigate my char-
acter in order to know whether I am teach-
ing the right kind of doctrine or not this
evening ? Or would such a course be perti-
nent to the question ? So with any other
character. If that was the test, I could
overthrow, by taking the testimony of ene-
mies and the testimony of friends, every
writer that is contained in the Bible, and
sink them so low that no man could ever
resurrect them. But, I repeat, it is no test.

In the next verse to the rule already quo-
ted the apostle says : — " If there come any
unto you and bring not this doctrine, re-
ceive him not into your house, neither bid
him God speed." *But, instead of examin-
ing the question in regard to the presenta-
tion of the book under investigation, in that
line, he sees fit to go back and ask in regard
to the character of the people, what their
enemies said about them preferring the stor-
ies of their enemies, to the truth. But I
leave the matter thus far with you, and pro-
ceed with my main affirmative argument.

Having generally introduced the subject

under discussion, I shall proceed at once to
marshall the testimony found in the Bible
that is fairly applicable to my positions.

It may be properly arranged under the
following general divisions : —

1. That of a general nature, showing that
it is in harmony with the general law rela-
ting to the race of man, that God makes
known his will to him wherever and when-
ever man will put himself in condition to
receive instruction, regardless of caste or na-
tionality, and making it possible and proba-
ble, that nations other than the Jews of
Palestine, have received instruction from
Him.

2. Such testimony as is contained in the
Scriptures which specifically refers to the
fact of a people settling the American con-
tinent from the orient ; definitely setting
forth who they were ; the reason and object
of their coming ; the results of the migra-
tion, and the character and nature of the
revelations God from time to time made to
them.

3. The prophetic writings contained in the
Bible which refer to the decadence of the
people who came here, the bringing to light
of their history and Record, and the im-
portant part that Record is to fill in the
purposes of the Almighty as an ensign to
the people, and a means of leading men and
women to the knowledge of the tri^ God.

Under the first of these divisions the
statement of the Apostle Paul is directly in
support. Acts 17: 26 and 27 : " And [God]
hath made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and
hath determined the times before appointed,
and the bounds of their habitation : Tliat
they should seek the Lord, if happily they
might feel after him, and find hina, though
he be not far from every one of us."

Whatever may be our views and precon-
ceived notions with regard to the dealings
of the divine hand with the human family,
it was made clear to the gifted mind of the
a20ostle, that God did have something to do
in fixing the bounds of the human habita-
tion, and that He did it for the purpose that
they might seek Him ; — not only this, but
that they might also "find him," which
finding is to be brought into such relation-
ship with him as to actually know him, to
have a knowledge of their acceptance from
him of their work and hence a communica-
tion of his will. The testimony of the apos-
tle Peter is in perfect agreement with the
thought, acts 10: 34 and 35, when he de-
clares : —

" Of a truth I perceive that God is no re-
specter of persons : But in every nation he
that feareth him, and worketh righteous-
ness is accepted with him." It had been
with the Jews up to Peter's time as with
the great mass of the people denominated
Christians to-day, an idea that God would
have nothing to do with any people except
the few who congregated about Jerusalem
so far as communicating his will or accept-
ance to them was concerned, and that all
had been said by him to the world through
them that was necessary, or that he had to

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

17

communicate : But when the light of truth
was sent from on higli and dawned upon
Peter's mind, he woke up to the grand fact
that with our common Fatlaer and Creator
there was no partiality, that his will and
desire extended everywhere to aid and bless
the creature, the same that was subjected
in hope. His acceptance on this occasion
was the same as made all along through the
history. That same comforter which was
shed forth at the acceptance of Jesus, when
He said, "This is my beloved Son," and
of which Jesus had said, " If I go away I
will send him," was shed forth; and fall-
ing upon those of the uncircumcision,
" They heard them speak with tongues and
magnify God." And the apostle and those
who were with him from the manifestation
of God to the people recognized that there
was an acceptance.

Jesus is the next witness I offer upon the
point of the existence of another people,
than the Jews, who had been in communi-
cation with the father at the date he per-
Bonally presented the gospel to the people:
John 10, 14 and 16 : — " I am tlie good shep-
" herd, and know my sheep, (people), and
♦' am known of mine. As the Father kjiow-
*' eth me even so know I the Father : and I
" lay down my life for the sheep. And other
"sheep, (people), I have, which are not of
"this fold: (the fold of Jerusalem), them
" also I must bring, and they shall hear 7ny
" voice ; and there shall be one fold and one
" shepherd."

To have been sheep, the people referred
to by Jesus in this scripture, must have at
some time had the will of God made known
to them and also believed the same, or else
have been of Israel, made so by reason of
the promises. Otherwise, they could not
have been sheep; for says Jesus: "My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them and
they follow me." They like Abraham of
old had heard and recognized the inspired
voice as had also the Jews when he led
them along through the difficulties of life
and who had hearkened in a manner to his
precepts ; and although at that time far
separated from the fold from whence they
had been led, (Jerusalem), yet, they, as the
Jews to whom the address was theii made,
were to hear the voice of that same shep-
herd. These citations establish the fact
certainly of the first proposition, that there
were at the time Jesus was ministering
upon the earth, another jieople than those
at the fold of Jerusalem who were, or had
been acceptable in their worship with God.
But this is but one fact established ; the
second, pointing out the peojjle referred to,
must be shown, ere we can apply with un-
derstanding to the particular people, the
Master's declaration. Turning to Math. 10,
5, 6, we find a descriptive statement of the
kind or class of people who were termed by
Jesus, sheep: — "These twelve Jesus sent
"forth and commanded them, saying. Go
"not into the way of the Gentiles, and into
"any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.
"But go rather to the lost sheep of the
"house of Israel." Here then is another

mark of distinction by which the sheep of
whom he spoke may be known.

In addition to being a people who have-
hearkened to his teachings, they were of
the house of Israel ; — of the tribes of which
.Tudah was but one, that had under the
promises sprung from .Tacob, (Israel), and
hence of the house of Israel. The prophet
Ezekiel in speaking of those in the 34th
chapter of that book gives us instruction as
to where we might expect to look for this
house of Israel: "My sheep wandered
"thi-onri'n all the mountains, a. id ujx-.n ev-
"ery high hill ; yea, my fiock was scattered
"upon all the face of the earth, and none
"did search or seek after them." And
again, verse 11. "For thus saith the Lord
"God: Behold I, even I, will both search
"my sheep and seek them out."

It is clear then that in our search to find
the people denominated sheep of whom Je-
sus spoke, and that he was to search after,
we are not necessarily bound to confine our-
selves to any particular part of God's heri-
tage ; for, "they were scattered upon all
the face of the earth;" and although men
who have termed themselves the wise and
learned of the world, may have thought
that the little country of Palestine is the
only one wherein Jesus' voice had been
heard, inspiration unmistakably points to
the contrary, and no person should be sur-
prised to find that in the faithful examina-
tion of these things the inspired w^-itings
shall have been found correct. Taking up
the Record forming the basis of this discus-
sion, I read on page 451, of a claim made
that the language of Jesus made at Jerusa-
lem was with "the understanding that he
knew of these on this continent, as also
others in a different part of the earth ;

"And behold, (savs Jesns to these), "this is the land
"of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it
"unto you. And not at any lime hath the Father
"given me commandment that I should tell it to your
"brethren at Jerusalem; neither at any time hath the
"Father given me commandment that I should tell it
"unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of ,
"Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the
"land. This much did the Father command me. that
"I should tell unto them, that, other sheep I have,
"which are not of this fol''. : them also I must brnig,
"and thev shall hear mv voice : and there shall be oiie
"fold and one shepiefd. And now because of stiflr-
"neckedness and unbelief, they understood not my
"word • therefore I was commanded to say no more of
"the Father concerning this unto them. But, venly, I
"say unto you, that the Father hath commanded me.
"and 1 tell it unto you, that ye were separflted liom
"among them because of their iniquity : thfrpfore it is
"because of their iniquity that they know not ui >l.ii.
"And verily. I say unto you again, thatthe othertribes
"hath the Father separated from them; and itisbe-
"cause of their iniquity, that they know not of them.
"And verilv, I say unto vou, that ye are they ot wiiom
"I said, oilier sheep I have which are not ot this lold ;
"them also I must bring, and they shall hear my
"voice; and there shall be one fold and one shop-
"herd."

But, says the objector, what evidence is
that, that these were the people referred to?
Only this ; in the singularity of the state-
ment which the record makes, and the new
fact brought to light, if it shall upon inves-
tigation be found to be a fact, at a time m
the world's history when it was supposed
by scrip torians everywhere that Jesus T<>-
ferred to another thing, and which view is

18

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

found to have been erroneous when exam-
ined closely from a Bible standpoint in the
light that is newly thrown upon the world
by this record. And further it bears evi-
d'ence in this, being a circumstance in the
chain of evidence which unites to form a
complete connection with this people and
that at Jerusalem. And it is of value pro-
viding the other links in the chain accord
therewith, and harmonize, and thus indeed
form a chain, the which, no other reasona-
ble view is adverse.

Do not understand me, or misrepresent
me as jumping at the conclusion that be-
cause of the expression of Jesus on the
other continent, found in John's gospel,
therefore the book of Mormon is true ; nor
because the language is contained in the
book from which I have read, therefore, it
is true. I think I understand and compre-
hend the rules of logic as well as those of
evidence too well to make any such blun-
dering, or startling leap, at conclusions as
that ; and wish you to take only things for
evidence after they shall have fairly been
shown to be such.

Whether I believed in the words read
from the Record I have before me or not,
there would hang to mind the singularity
of the statemen^of Jesus at Jerusalem, ta-
ken in connection with the other fact that
it seemed to have been so wholly ignored
and misunderstood by those to whom it was
addressed. No one even to ask. Lord to
whom do you refer? Indeed it is singular
knowing as we do, that the Gentiles are not
and never were reckoned as sheep. The
same stolid indifference still manifest by
that people and that seems to have hung by
them so long before and after, that to
them nothing was of worth or interest out-
side of Judah and the little country on the
east of the great sea.

Returning to the line of evidence, I take
up the testimony of the scriptures which
relate to the establishment of a people in
the land as claimed in this record : —

Genesis, 49, 22, Jacob, (Israel), the head of
the tribes in his last blessing upon the
twelve sons whose children should figure
so wonderfully in the history of the world,
says, in his blessing of Joseph: —

" Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough
'* by a well ; whose branches run over the wall : "

"The archers have sorely grieved him and shot at
"him, and hated him: But his bow abode in strength
"and the arms of his hands were made strong by the
"hands of the miglitvGod of Jacob; (from thence is the
"shrpherd the s^one of Israel) :

"Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee
"and by the Almighty, who shailbless thee with bltss-
"ings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that
"lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the

"womb: the blessings of thy father have prevailed
"above the blessings of my progonitors unto the ut-
"most bound of thn everlasting hills: they shall be on
"the head of Jo-eph, and on tlie crown of the head of
"him that was separate from liis brethren."

Whatever may, or may not have been
the former entertained or expressed views
of the meaning and application of this
prophetic blessing, one thing must be ad-
mitted by all the" intelligent, and that is,
that the prediction clearly shows a change
of place of residence and habitation at some
period of time, of the posterity of Joseph.
Also their settlement and inheritence of a
courtry far greater in extent, and more
wonderful for richness and desirableness
than the country of Palestine, or that ad-
jacent.

The prophecy reveals what is to be the
history of the descendents : — "Whose
"branches run over the wall." "The
"blessings of thy father have prevailed
"above the blessings of my progenitors
" unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting
"hills." The blessing of Jacob's progeni-
tors, Isaac and Abraham, consisted in the
jsromise of the country east and south of the
great sea (Mediterranean), from the River
of EgyjDt to the Euphrates, including the
whole*^ of Canaan . This is clearly establish-
ed by the following references : Gen. 12:7;
7:8; 15 : 7 & 18 ; 26 : 3 & 4 ; 28 : 4, and 48 : 4.

But in the prophetic blessing of Joseph
the statement is emphatic that the branch-
es (daughters, children, jjosterity), of Jo-
seph were to extend above this, beyond
Canaan and the country of the Mediterra-
nean, even "unto the utmost bound of the
everlasting hills." Far from the country
of Palestine, to a land teaming with the
first things of earth, honored with the
choicest of blessings and one to be desired
above that of Canaan.

I invite you to candidly and fairly enter
upon the search for this "promised" land,
and to be only as confident in the same as
the history and prophetic writings shall
fully and fairly warrant. Turning to Deut.
33 : is to 18, we find a further account and
description of this same country, and also
a prediction with reference to this same
branch of the human family. It is the lan-
guage of Moses, the great civil and eccle-
siastical lawgiver of ancient times, and "the
prophet " to whom even reference is made
in pointing out a likeness of the great char-
acter of Jesus.

Upon these words we may rely if we are
to place implicit confidence in any state-
ments of the divine record.

(Time called.)

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

19

MR. BRADEN'S SECOND SPEECH.

Gentt^emen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: — We return now to the rest of
Joel's promise, and what was also included,
in the Saviour's iDromises. Joel's i^roraise
was to all flesh, without exception. It in-
cluded every human being. Our Saviour in
Ms last great commission to his apostles lim-
ited Joel's promise to "as many as should
believe " on him through the preaching
of the apostles. His language includes all
believers, without exception. But as our
Saviour limits the promise of the Holy
Spirit in Joel, so the Holy Spirit in Peter
on the day of Pentecost, limits our Saviour's
promise to "as many as the Lord our God
shall call." There is no conflict, but merely
a gradual development, by the Holy Spirit,
in successive revelations, of the law of spir-
itual gifts. Joel's promise was limited by
our Saviour to believers ; and the Holy
Spirit, in Peter, limits the promise of Joel
and Jesus to those among believers " whom
the Lord our God should call." Only those
whom the Lord our God should call Avere
to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift, or were
to receive miraculous power through the
Holy Spirit. When God ceased calling
persons to the exercise of these gifts, they
were to cease. The all-important qu-estion
then is : " How did God call men to the en-
joyment of the gift of the Holy Spirit, to the
exercise of these miraculous powers, con-
ferred by the Holy Spirit, called spiritual
gifts ? How long did he continue to call
men to the exercise of these gifts ? When
did he cease to call men to the exercise of
these miraculous powers ?"

I claim that he called them to the exer-
cise of sjiiritual gifts, in every instance, ex-
cept the Baptism of the Holy Spirit — by
the imposition of an apostle's hands — in
that way alone. None but an apostle could
call men to the exercise of these gifts. This
power to bestow these gifts was " the sign
of apostleship." When the apostles ceased
to call men, God ceased to call men, to the
exercise of these gifts, for his appointed
and only means of calling men to these
spiritual gifts ceased. Then as many, out
of all flesh, out of believers, as God called —
by his only appointed means, the imposi-
tion of an apostle's hands — to the exercise
of these spiritual gifts, and no others re-
ceived them. Outside of the Baptism in the
Holy Spirit no one ever enjoyed these gifts,
except those on whom an apostle laid his
hands, to impart them. Acts, VIII. Philip,
who exercised wonderful spiritual powers,
could not impart spiritual gifts. " Now
when the apostles, who were at Jerusalem,
heard that the Samaritans had received the
word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
John, who Avhen they were come down
prayed for them, that they might receive
the Holy Spirit, for as yet he had not fallen

on any of them, only they had been baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus." My op-
ponent's claim that baptism is for the re-
ceiving of the Holy Spirit, is at fault here.
These persons had been baptized, and had
not, and could not receive the Holy Spirit
until an apostle had laid hands on them,
for the account proceeds : " Then they laid
their hands on them and they received the
Holy Spirit. Simon saw that the Holy
Spirit was given through the laying on of
the apostle's hands." Here it is declared,
as clearly as human speech can make h,
that the Holy Spirit was received through
the laying on of an apostle's hands. That
he was imparted in that way alone, for the
apostles had to comedown from Jerusalem,
and lay their hands on them, before they
could receive him, although they had been
baptized, and Philip the" mighty wonder-
worker, who was full of the miraculous
power of the Holy Spirit, was with them.
If Philip could not bestow the Holy Spirit,
no one outside of an apostle could.

Acts, IX. Saul's case is supposed to be
an exception. He was in Damascus, hun-
dreds of miles from any apostle. As
prophets, who were not Levites, sometimes
offered sacrifices as prophets, when no Ije-
vite was present to officiate, so here, God
called and miraculously commissioned and
appointed Ananias to act as special apostle,
in this case, to confer on Saul the Holy
Spirit. He declares: "The Lord Jesus
sent me to you, that you may receive the
Holy Spirit." This case no more sets to
one side our law than the act of Elijah in
offering sacrifices as prophet, when there
was no priest to officiate, sets to one side
God's positive law that no one but a Levite
could offer sacrifices. Acts, XIX. Paul
baptized the twelve disciples of John, at
Ephesus. "Then he laid hands on them
and they received the Holy Spirit, and
spoke with tongues and prophesied. Tim.
1-6." "Stir up the gift of God that is in
you, through the laying on of my hands."
These are all of the instances of the imparta-
tionof spiritual gifts, in the Scriptures, out-
side of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was imparted, in every
instance, by the imposition of an apostle's
hands. These Scriptures prove beyond
cavil that no one but an apostle could con-
fer these gifts, and that they were con-
ferred in that way alone. None but au
apostle could call to the exercise of these
gifts. These gifts never descended to a
third person. I challenge an instance
where they descended to a third person.
That any one ever exercised spiritual gifts
but one called by the imposition of an apos-
tle's hand. When the last person to whom
an apostle had imparted these gifts, by the
imposition of his hands, died these gifts

20

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

ceased from earth . God ceased calling men
to the exercise of these gifts when his only
appointed means of calling them ceased
Thus we utterly demolish every claim of
inspiration for Joe Smith or any of his fol-
lowers ; every shadow of claim of inspira-
tion for the Book of Mormon ; all claim
that it is of divine origin.

The Scriptures clearly teach that these
miraculous powers were exercised to give
to man a completed revelation of a scheme of
salvation from sin, and that when that ob-
ject was accomplished, they ceased. We
have already used the illustration of crea-
tion. God brought animals and plants into
existence by miracle of direct creation. But
when that 'was done he ceased miracles of
creation, and now operates in a higher and
more perfect manner, by natural law. So
he gave revelation by means of inspiration
until he had completed a perfect system of
revelation universally applicable, and
eternal truths. Then he ceased revelation
and miracle, and operates now through a
higher and more perfect law, the moral
power of these divine truths, thus revealed
and completed. The Bible speaks of the
unfolding of the scheme of redemption as
being similar to the growth of each person
from infancy to manhood. As the child
lays to one side the discipline of the school
and the parent, and enters on the duties of
life, in which he uses what parents and
teachers have taught him, so the Bible
teaches that mankind have laid to one side
the instrumentalities employed in child-
hood and youth, and now, as men, use the
truths God has imparted and perfected.

There was a time when the settlers ot
America had no government. Then they
obtained from home government colonial
governments. This was followed by the
revolutionary government. Then came gov-
ernment under the Articles of Confedera-
tion. Under these a constitutional conven-
tion was held, and a constitution offered to
the people. They adopted it and estab-
lished a complete government under it.
All constitutional convention work then
ceased. The Antediluvian Dispensation,
from Adam to ihe flood, miglit be com-
pared to the settlers before they had
a regular government. The Patriarchal
Dispensation, from the flood to the law of
Sinai, might be regarded as the period of
colonies and governments under the parent
government. The Mosaic Dispensation
might be compared to our revolutionary
government. The preparatory work of
John and our Saviour to government under
the articles of confederation, when the con-
stitutional convention was established and
did its work. The apostles and the work
under them might be compared to the work
of the constitutional convention, and the
organization of our government in accord-
ance with the constitution. The apostles
were appointed by our Saviour to give to
the church its constitution the New Testa-
ment, just as the people chose delegates to
tlie constitutional convention, through their
representatives, and empowered them to

frame the constitution. Now mankind
adopt the New Testament, form churches
under it, and live in accordance with its
principles, just as our people accept our
constitution, form states under it, and live
in accordance with the general laws and
principles of the constitution. Just as the
constitutional convention ceased it work,
when it had framed the constitution, so the
apostles and revelation ceased their work,
when the New Testament was completed.
To go back under direct revelations would
be as absurd as to go back under a constitu-
tional convention. Direct revelations were
as much inferior to the operation of the
completed word of God, as the constitu-
tional convention was to government under
the constitution. In all of the former dis-
pensations, when miraculous powers were
exercised, the condition of mankind was
as inferior to our condition now, under a
completed revelation, as all former condi-
tions of our people were inferior to our
present condition. Not only so but revela-
tion in all dispensations speaks of the
dispensations, when miraculous powers
existed, as imperfect provisional, and pre-
paratory to something higher and better.
They speak of the work of Christ and his
apostles as that which is perfect and com-
plete. They never speak of anything that
is to succeed it, of anything that is to»be
better than the Gospel. John speaks of the
work of Jesus as perfect. The apostle
speaks of this work as the perfection of the
work ©f revelation, as that which is per-
fect. That which is to have no successor.
They speak of what the Gospel will do, but
not what something higher and better, that
is to replace it, will do. The Scriptures
teach clearly and positively, not that these
miraculous gifts were to remain as a con-
stituent and perpetual element in the Gos-
pel, the church and their workings, but
that they were the means of revealing the
Gospel, the New Testament, and when that
was done they were to cease. These miracu-
lous powers' were no more a part of the
Gospel than the exercise of miraculous
powers exercised in creation was a part of
things created. Just as miraculous power
in creation was only the means, and ceased
when it had accomplished its work, so
miraculous power in revelation, was the
means of revealing the word of God, and
not a part of that word and ceased when
revelation was completed, and did not re-
main a part of what \%^ had introduced and
completed. Constitution making is only a
means of making the constitution, and not
a part of it. It ceased wlien it had done
its work in giving the constitution It does
not remain as part of what it has made.
My opponents position is as absurd as it
would be to claim that God must now bring
animals and plants into being by miracle
of creation or that a constitutional conven-
tion must set forever, and be forever mak-
ing constitutions.

rhe teachings of the New Testament
harmonize exactly with our position and
illustrations, Eph., IV: "Christ g&ve

THE BR ADEN AND I^LELLEY DEBATE.

21

miraculous gifts to men. He gave some to
be apostles, some to be prophets, some to
be evangelists, some to be shepherds and
some to be teachers." These apostles and
prophets, were extraordinary powers in the
church. Their work was necessarily one
accomplished by inspiration, miraculous
power from the Holy Spirit. The evange-
lists, shepherds and teachers were endowed
with miraculous powers then, for such power
was essential to their work, in the condition
in which the church then was. All these
had miraculous powers, spiritual gifts. How
long were they to continue? For what pur-
pose were these miraculous powers given ?
Paul answers: "For the perfecting of
the saints, unto the work of the ministry,
for the building (the work of the ministry
in building) of the body of Christ" or com-
pleting the organization of the church —
"until we all come into the unity of the faith
and of the knowledge of the Son of God" —
or until " the faith" — the word of God — the
New Testament is completed. This pas-
sage of Scripture explains, definitely and
jlearly, for what purpose these gifts were
a^iven, and how long they were to continue,
rhey were given to furnish the saints for
the work of the ministry in building up the
organization of the church, and were to re-
main until that work was done, or until all
attained to the unity of the faith, and the
faith is perfected. Then they ceased, hav-
ing accomplished their purpose. There can
be but one answer to this. My opponent
must show that the "until" refers to some-
thing else than the completion of the organ-
ization of the church, and the completion
of the word of God — the New Testament,
and show that the work of these gifts was
not accomplished in these works, and that
it is needed now.

My position is still more fully taught in
I. Cor, XII, XII, XIV. The apostle in XII.
8, 9, 10, and 28, 29, 30, enumerates the gifts
that the Holy Spirit bestowed on persons in
the church: I. Word of wisdom. II.
Word of knowledge. III. The faith— the
word of God. IV. Gifts of heahng. V.
Working of powers. VI. Prophecy. VII.
Discerning of spirits. VIII. Speaking in
different tongues. IX. Power to interpret
different tongues. These miraculous gifts
made persons : I. Apostles. II. Prophets.
III. Teachers. IV. Miraculous powers.
V. Gifts of healing. VI. Helps. VII.
Wise counsellors. VIII. Speaking in diff"-
erent tongues. IX. Interpretation of diff-
erent tongues. He then says: "Desire
earnestly the best of these spiritual gifts" —
while it is the order in the church to exer-
cise these gifts — " but nevertheless I show
unto you amore excellent way "--than the ex-
ercise of the best of these spiritual gifts. Ob-
serve carefully that Paul, after exhorting his
brethren to desire the best of these spiritual
gifts while it is the order of the church to
exercise spiritual gifts, declares positively
that there is a more excellent way than the
exercise of the very best of these spiritual
gifts. In this he flatly contradicts the
central idea of Mormonism, which teaches

that the highest condition of the church is
the exercise of these spiritual gifts, and
that the state of the church, when they are
not exercised is, not as Paul declares " the
more excellent way," but an apostate con-
dition.

Paul proceeds to unfold this more excel-
lent way in what is the XIII, chapter in our
English Bible — this way that is more excel-
lent than the exercise of the very best of
these spiritual gifts, which my opponent
makes the all in all in Christianity. He
declares that Christian love. Christian
character and spirit, are the great purpose
of the religion of Christ. All things — the
highest and best spiritual gifts, are worth-
less unless they aid in producing Christian
love, Christian spirit and character ; and
are valuable only as they aid in producing
such results. He then unfolds a way of
producing Christian love, Christian spirit
and character, that is better than the exer-
cise of the highest and best of these spirit-
ual gifts, that my opponent regards as the
alpha and omega of Christianity. He de-
clares that Christian love, Christian charac-
ter and spirit, shall remain forever, for they
are the great object of the religion of Christ.
"But prophesying" all utterances by inspir-
ation, "shall cease" — "speaking in different
tongues, shall cease" — that is all miraculous
powers that are mere signs, of the presence
of superhuman power shall cease. "Knowl-
edge"— all knowledge by inspiration "shall
cease," or in other words, when that more
excellent way than the exercise of the best
of these spiritual gifts obtains, all miracu-
lous powers shall cease.

Paul then gives the reason why they
shall cease, and tells when they shall cease-
We come now to a passage of scripture that
is more frequently perverted and worse
perverted than almost any other in the
word of God. Paul is discussing the condi-
tion of the church, and if the ordinary in-
terpretation be true, he leaves the church
entirely, and goes up into heaven, in his
discussion, and contrasts, not two different
states of the church, as common sense de-
mands, but the church and heaven. Outside
of the Bible, such an idea would be regard-
ed as preposterous nonsense. But men
seem to lay one side all sense, when study-
ing the Bible. It is not to be understood as
any other book ; but is to be made as unnat-
ural and fantastic as possible. No conceit
is too farfetched, too unnatural to be inject-
ed into Bibical interpretation. I insist that
Paul is contrasting two conditions of the
church. One when spiritual gifts are exer-
cised, the other when they are not exercised.
Both states are states of the church, and of
course here on earth fcnd before Christ
gives up his Messiahship, and the church
ceases to exist as an institution, on earth,
for the salvation of man from sin. The
passages following have not the slightest
reference to heaven, or to anything but a
condition of the church on earth.

The apostle declares : "For now" — that is
during the exercise of these spiritual gifts,
the present state of the church — "we know

22

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

in part"— that is the knowledge imparted
by these spiritual gifts is but partial— but a
fragment of revelation each time they are
exercised— "and prophesy in part"— that is
speaking by inspiration, gives but a frag-
ment of revelation each time it is exercised
—'bat when that which is perfect is come"
—when the "perfect law of liberty" of James
—when that which makes perfect the man
of God, the scriptures, are completed in the
New Testament— "then that which is in
part"— the exercise of these spiritual gifts—
these partial revelations through them
"shall be doue away." The apostle then re-
turns to the figure used in the XTI chapter,
where he compared the church to the human
body, and personifies the church by his own
body, and its development by his own
growth. He declares that just as he "per-
ceived as a child, felt as a child, spoke as a
child, when he was a child," so the church,
during the exercise of these spiritual gifts,
"perceives as a child, speaks as a child," for
for all revelations under such circum-
stances must be fragmentary and broken.
But as he "put away childish things when
he became a man" so the church will put
away these childish things, the exercise of
these spiritual gifts when it passes out into
the condition of manhood, when it is under
"the perfect law of liberty" the completed
Testament a law of universal truths, suit-
ed to the liberty of manhood.

This agrees exactly with the apostle's
teaching in Eph. iv! as we have already
seen. The apostle continues : "Now" that
is during the exercise of these spiritual gifts
_i'we"— that is all believers— "see as in a
mirror dimly"— these partial revelations,
through the exercise of these spiritual gifts,
give imperfect knowledge— "but then"—
that is when the word of God is completed
in the New Testament— "we shall see face
to face." As James declares : "the perfect
law of liberty," the New Testament is a
is a mirror, and if a man looks into it and is
a doer of what it requires he is blessed.
"Now," continues the apostle— that is dur-
ing the exercise of these spiritual gifts— "I
know in part" — that is the fragmentary re-
velations, given through the exercise of
spiritual gifts, imparts but partial knowl-
edge—"I prophesy in part"- that is inspir-
ed speaking through these spiritual gifts is
partial and fragmentary — "but then" — that
is when the word of God is completed in the
New Testament— "I shall know even as I
am known" — that is the church shall know
what it ought to be, just as the Holy Spirit
knows what it ought to be, for the Holy
Spirit will then have made a perfect revela-
tion of the matter. The apostle closes by
declaring that "faith," the faith, God's
perfected word — "hope" — God's perfected
promises — "love"christian spirit and char-
acter, that are the object of revelation,
"shall remain forever, but the greater of
these is love, christian spirit and charac-
ter" the great aim and purpose of all
religion. I have been careful to unfold this
important revelation, because it cuts up bj'^
the roots, all claim of inspiration for Joe

Smith, and all claim that the Book of Mor-
mon is of divine origin. I might rest my
case here.

We will clinch the matter however by
putting Mormonism to the test it challenges.
Has Mormonism revealed a single new idea,
not contained in the Bible ? Has it given a
better expression to a single idea revealed
in the Bible, than is given by the Bible:
Man is constitutionally a religious being.
Without any revelation his religious nature
would have, and ever has had its expression
in religious ideas and system of religion.
Into these systems of religion man has
wrought certain catholic religious ideas of
his religious nature. Religions differ in
the number of these ideas that they contain,
and in their exi3ression of them. All human
systems of religion are faulty in these par-
ticulars. I. They do not contain all of the
catholic ideas of man's nature. II. They
do not express these ideas perfectly. III.
They do not expand them into universally
applicable principles. All human religions
are national or race religions. They are not
religions for all mankind. IV. They do
not unite these ideas into a harmonious
system. V. They do not expand the sys-
tem into a universal and absolute religion.
VI. They corrupt these ideas with error
and evil. VII. They incorporate error and
evil into the system as cardinal ideas. We
claim for Christianity I. It contains every
catholic religious idea of man's religious
nature. II. It expresses each and every
idea perfectly. III. It expands each and
every idea into an eternal truth, a univer-
sally applicable principle. IV. It unites
all of these ideas into a harmonious system.
V. It strips these ideas and the system of
all error and' imperfection, with which
human systems has polluted them. VI.
It expands the system into an absolute
religion, a religion for humanity.

If this position be true, then a man can
not outgrow Christianity. It is the work of
all studv to reach universally applicable
principles, such as the law of gravitation,
or the Copernican law of the universe. When
research has attained to such principles, it
has reached tiie ultimate in that direction.
It can never outgrow such a principle. It
will never need anything in its stead. It
can only learn more of the scope and grasp,
the ramifications of these universal truths,
throughout the infinite universe, but it can
never outgrow them. It will never need
anything in their stead. In Christianity,
we have a system composed of such eternal
truths, such universally applicable prin-
ciples. Man can never outgrow them not
even a "Re-organized Mormon." He will
never need new truths, new revelations in
addition to them, nor in their stead. If
man progresses throughout eternity, he
may be able to understand the scope and
grasp of these eternal truths, these univer-
sally applicable principles better, but he
will never outgrow them, nor will he need
something in their stead, no more than he
will outgrow the law of gravitation, and
need something in its stead. This forever

THE BRADEN AND ItELLEY DEBATE.

23

silences and renders absurd the claim of
Mormon revelations.

The catholicideasofman's religious nature
are these, I. The self-existent, independent,
self-sustaining, eternal and absolute Being,
the origin of all derived existences, aud the
cause of all phenomena, is Absolute Spirit,
or God. Has Mormonism any idea to take
the place of this ? Does it give a better rev-
elation of it than is given in the Bible?
II. This Absolute Spirit created, controls
and sustains all things in the boundless
universe. Has Mormonism & revelation to
take the place of this truth ? Does it give a
better revelation of this truth than is given
in the Bible ? III. Spirit existence. God
who is absolute spirit; Christ who is a
divine spirit; the Holy spirit, a divine
spirit ; angels ; spirit in man. Has Mormo-
nism any ideas to take the place of the
teachings of the Bible on this subject?
Does it give a better revelation of them than
weflnd in the Bible? IV. The immortality
of man's spirit and all spirits. Has Mormon-
ism given us any new ideas on this topic?
Does it reveal any truth not in the Bible, or
better than it is expressed In the Bible? V.
Freedom of volition in all acts of the spirit.
Has Mormonism any new revelations on this
topic, not in the Bible? Or does it express
the truth better than the Bible? VI. The
division of all things into good or evil ; all
ideas into true or false; all acts into right
or wrong ; all characters into righteous or
wicked. What new revelations has Mormon-
ism given us on these matters, that better ex-
press this truth? VII. Clear, simple, in-
fallible standard for deciding what is right
and wrong, true and false. Has Mormonism
given us a single new idea in regard to this
matter? VIII. Responsibility to God?
Has Mormonism added a single thought in
regard to this? IX. Accountability to God?
What light have we from Mormonism, on
this topic, not in the Bible ? X. Retribu-
tion here and hereafter. Has Mormonism
given us a single new idea on this important
topic? XI. God's providence, as our Fath-
er in heaven. Has Mormonism added a
ghost of an idea to our knowledge on that
subject? XII. Prayer and answer to pray-
er. What new revelations has Mormonism
given us on that question ? XIII. Revela-
tions from God, of truth man unaided could
not attain. What new idea in regard to
revelation does Mormonism give to man?
XIV. Inspiration of chosen men as medi-
ums of revelation. W^hat new light have
we from Mormonism on this topic? XV.
Miracles as proof of inspiration and revela-
tion. What new truth has Mormonism in
regard to miracles? XVI. Prophecy.
What new ideas in regard to prophecy has
Mormonism given to the world? XVII.
Sacrifice for sin. What light have the pre-
tended Mormon revelations thrown on this
topic? XVIII. The expiation or atone-
ment that Christ made for mankind. Have
Mormon pretended revelations given us one
new thought on this central idea of Christian-
ity? XIX. The mediatorship of Christ, Has
Mormonism given to the world one particle

of light on that topic, not in the Bible?

XX. A leader in religion and redemption.
What light from Mormon revelations here ?*

XXI. A perfect embodiment of teaching,
and example in life. Has Mormonism given
us a ray of additional light on the subject?

XXII. An object of faith devotion and love?
What light does Mormonism add to the
teachings of the Bible? XXIII. Incarna-
tion of Jesus as divine sacrifice, mediator,

•and object of love and devotion. Does Mor-
monism add a single thought on this topic?
XXIV. Sin as a fact in man's life aud ex-
perience. Its nature, its results. Has Mor-
monism thrown one particle of additional
light over this dark theme? XXV. Regen-
eration of life, spirit and character. Have
we any additional light on this glorious
idea of Christianity, from the jack-o-lantern
of Mormonism? XXVI. Forgiveness of sin
on repentance and reformation. What new
revelations on this cheering truth, have we
from Mormonism? XXVII. A life of right-
eousness moulded aud directed by religion.
Does Mormonism give us new revelations
here? XXVIII. The life ot each individ-
ual, the family, siciety in all relations,
nations, mankind, are to be regenerated by
the pure religion of Christ. Do we owe any-
thing to Mormon revelations on this subject?

XXIX, The regulation of all thought,
action, and life, in every relation of life,
and sphere of action, by this religion. What
new ideas does Mormonism give us here?

XXX. Each person elevates himself in love
and ric^hteousness, by giving himself in
loving self-sacrifice for others. Does Mor-
monism give a new revelation on this
thought? XXXI, Man is to be a co-worker
with God in the great work of redemption.
W^hat new revelation have we from Mormon-
ism on this topic? XXXII. Man in the
mental and moral likeness of God, What
new revelations here? We ask Mormonism.
XXIII, Endless growth, development and
progress of all intelligences,* towards the
absolute perfection of their Creator, What
new revelations have we here? We ask the
Mormon. XXXIV. The resurrection and
glorification of man's nature. What new
revelations on this theme have we from
Mormonism? XXXV. The universal Fa-
therhood of God. What new light does
^Mormonism give us in regard to this topic?
XXXVI. The universal brotherhood of
man. What new revelations on tliis thenio
has Mormonism given us? XXXVII. A
system of truth to be believed, of worship
to be performed, of rules of life to be lived.
Has Mormonism in its pretended revelations
added the ghost of an idea to what is in the
Bible? XXXVIII. The church of Christ as
a perfect organization, for the maintainanee
of this religion, and man's culture in it.
What new truth has Mormonism given us
here? Will our opponent answer these ques-
tions?

He dare not contradict common sense and
Gods word, in claiming that all of the pre-
tended revelations of Mormonism, have sug-
gested a ghost of a new truth, in regard to
one of these great ideas revealed in the

24

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Bible. There is left for him one refuge. He
may say that he does not claim that revela-
tions are needed to add to the truths re-
vealed in the Bible, or to express them bet-
ter but the spiritual gifts are needed to
enable man to do the work that the reliffion
of Chi-ist and the revelations of the Bible
demand of him. That inspiration and new
revelations are needed to aid man in such
work, and to enable him to do it. That
human wisdom is not always sufficient to the
task of developiuof and applying the univers-
ally applicabe trutlis of revelation. Nor
to the task of deciding what should be done
in applying them. That revelations, inspir-
ation, spiritual gifts, are needed to supply
this want of human weakness. Also to
authenticate and establish th© divine origin
of Chri^tianitv. That as spiritual gifts were
needed as helps and a sign of the divinity
of the religion of Christ anciently, ao they

are needed now. This is the only refuge
left him. Should he attempt refuge there,
we will soon drive him out of that last hid-
ing place.

Now will our opponent meet these two po-
sitions. I. The Scriptures te^'^ch that inspir-
ation revelation and miraculous power ex-
isted for a definite purpose, the revelation
of a perfect system of truth. That system
of truth was completed in the New Testa-
ment. Inspira;ion revelation and miracle
ceased having accomplished their purpose.
Therefore allclaims of later revelations is
absurd and unscriptural. II. Christianity
contains all religious ideas and expresses
them perfectly. Further revelation is need-
less. Will he grapple with these positions
like a man and cease his jingling interpreta-
tion of prophecies that have not more refer-
ence to Mormonism than the frauds of a
gang of counterfleters.

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

25

THIRD SPEECH OF MR. KELLEY.

Gentlemen Moderatoks, Ladies and
GentJjEMEn : When my time was called
upon last evening I was citing proofs from
the scriptures, relative to the establishment
and occupancy of a people upon the Ameri-
can continent.

I turn and read again from Deuteronomy
33 : 13-18 :

"And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord be his
" land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew,
"and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the
"precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the
"precious things put forth by the moon, and for the
"chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the
"precious things of the lasting hills, and for the pre-
"cious things of the earih and fullnes<; thereof, and for
" the good will of Him that dwelt in the bush : let the
"blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the
"top of the head of him that was separated from his
" beihren. His glory is like the firstlingof his bullock,
"and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them
" he shall push the people together to the ends of the
"earth; and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim,
" and they are the tht)usands of Manasseh "

Here we have such a full and definite
description of Joseph's land — where the
branches — posterity of Joseph — were to pass
to, and inherit, that it is hardly possible to
make a mistake in applying it to the
country, unless we shall while tryiiig to do
so be determined in our minds at all risks
to preserve to our souls some cherished and
petted theory or selfish institution, rather
than to approach fairly and openly the
light. It is a land of broad fields and ex-
tended territory. Of great diversities of
soil, climate and temperature. It must ex-
tend through and occupy in the ditterent
zones. Here are the products of the earth
set out in their fulness. Celebrated for its
fruits and Inxurious vegetation, " put forth
by the sun and moon . " A land of the chief
minerals, " chief things of the ancient
mountains;" for the wealth and products
of its lakes and rivers, "the deep that
coucheth beneath ; " and for the blessings
of heaven, the revelations of God — verse 16,
'i For the good will of him that dwelt in the
bush;" and then it was far away from
Canaan, " to the utmost bounds of the ever-
lasting hills."

Associate this description now, with the
promised blessing upon the children of
Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen. 48 :
15-20, where the land is located in the midst
of the earth ; which, when we remember
that the patriarch stood in the country
lying on the Mediterranean and near to
Canaan, could not with any sense of justice
or fitness to the statement be made to apply
to that land, and it will be possible to in-
telligently point it out.

The children also were to " grow into a
rnultitude." Wherever the land is, a mul-
titude of people will doubtless be found
who are the descendants of Joseph of
Egypt. " And he blessed them that day,
saying, " In thee shall Israel bless, saying,

God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh."
This accords with the description of the
blessing of Joseph's land by Moses. It is
one greatly to be desired ;' choice above
every other land, as was the blessing of the
lads : so much so that it would be the high-
est thing to bless others as was the blessing
of these children. The other sons of Jacob
had their blessing and inheritance in Can-
aan, and how could it ever be truly said,
"God bless thee as Ephraim and Manas-
seh," if theirs was thus confined to
Canaan also?

Pursuing the examination however, in
search of this promised land and the line of
Joseph, I next refer you to the prediction
with reference to the departure from Jeru-
salem of the people who evidently were led
to the land spoken of by these inspired men
and the manner and time of their coming.
Jeremiah 48 : .32, " O vine of Sibmah, I will
" weep for thee with the weeping of Jazer :
" Thy plants are gone over the sea, they
" reach even to the sea of Jazer : the spoiler
"is fallen upon thy summer fruits, and
" upon thy vintage." Here is introduced
under the figure of a choice vine the dis-
persion of the line of Israel's beloved, and
an introduction of the fact that they should
pass from the then inheritance to the sea,
and over the sea ; as is also more specifically
set forth by the prophet Isaiah 16 : 8, where
it is evident the same event is referred to
of which Jeremiah has given evidence. He
says : " For the fields of Heshbon languish,
" and the vine of Sibmah : the lords of the
" heathen have broken down the principal
"plants thereof, they are come even unto
" Jazer, they wandered through the wilder-
" ness : her branches are stretched out, they
" are gone over the sea."

Now pass in your mind over the sea, from
the old country of Jazer on the east of the
Mediterranean, in either direction ( so as to
pass over the sea), and tell me what hmd
you shall find and the only one you can find
that answers the description of Joseph's
land as foretold by Israel and Moses V

The phrase, "vine of Sibmah," may be
understood by comi^aring it with the saying
of the Lord in the second chapter, 20th and
21st verses, of Jeremiah : " For of old time
"I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy
"bands; and thou saidest, thou wilt not
"transgress; when upon every high hill
" and every green tree thou wanderest
" playing the harlot. Yet I had planted
" thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed:
" How then art thou turned into the dege-
" nerate plant of a strange vine unto me ? "
Sibmah refers to that to be desired, pleas-
ant, choice. And the "vine of Sibmah,"
is properly interpreted, "a noble vine," "a
right seed," which was true of Ephraim
aiid Manasseh.

26

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Turning again to the evidences upon the
main thread of our search, I refer you to the
49th of Jeremiah, 30th to 33rd verses inclu-
sive ; where he gives the excited and hur-
ried warning which God had commanded
him to deliver, just a short time before the
king of Babylon brings desolation upon the
country of Jerusalem. The language of the
prophe't fully discloses the troublous scenes
which suddenly followed : " Flee, get you
far off, dwell deep," (that is go unobserved,
secret),

"0 ve inhabitants of Hflzor, saith the Lord : for Ne-
" bnc'hadne^zar king of Babylon hath taken connsel
"as;ainst von, and hath conceived a purpose against
"you Arise, get von up unto the wealthy na-
"tion that dwelleth" without care, saith the Lord,
"which have neither ga'es nor bars, which dwell
" alone. And their camels shall be a booty, and the
"multitude of their cattle a spoil: and 1 will scatter
"into all winds them that are in the utmost corners ;
"and I will bring their calamity from all sides thereof,
"saith tlie Lord. And Hazor shall be a dwelling for
"dragons, and a desolation forever: there shall no
"man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it."

The warning to these people was to get
out of the reach of the King of Babylon
who at that time held complete sway in the
(ountries of the east, and they were prom-
ised that if they would obey the voice and
hearken unto the Lord, they should be led
to a wealthy nation, a land descriptive of
Joseph's land, and which, had been afore-
time inhabited and whose inhabitants
dwelt without bars ; — with nothing to pre-
vent persons who should go there of taking
possession, — showing that the cattle and
camels would be a prey to be had for the
taking.

Such a country as this existed at some
place upon the earth at the time of the de-
livering of the warning prophecy and of the
captivity referred to, unless tlie prophecy
is false. Where was it? The Book of Mor-
mon comes in with the new light reflected
in 1829, and shows that at the time, such a
country existed upon the American con-
tinent.

It had to that date been inhabited by a
people who were led here from the plains
of Shinar at the time of the confounding of
the languages ; and who had been greatly
blessed and enriched and had builded cities
and towns and earthworks, and had been
rich in cattle and camels and all kinds of
animals, and in mines and mining. But
had been at this time hurriedly gathered
together by their leaders from every part
of the land, leaving their cities unkept, the
ores in process of removal in the mines,
their herds and their flocks free to wander,
while they engaged in mortal combat, stir-
red to the most desjierate frenzy by animo-
sity and revenge, until the country had
become desolate of inhabitants.

Ah ! but says my opponent, this comes
from the Book of Mormon, it is not evidence.
But I shall not leave the testimony here.
I refer to it to show you that so early as
1829, when the book went into the hands of
the publisher, this work cast the new light
upon the nation and peoples of the world,
when all were in ignorance and darkness;
not only with regard to the former habita-

tion of the continent, but also the interpre-
tation of these prophecies. For my proofs,
I shall bring before you the corroborative
testimonies which have come to light
through the explorations and archgeological
discoveries of the continent, as set forth
and published in the first scientific and
historical works of the times, and which
could not have been known to the author
of the Book of Mormon if it is claimed to be
the work of man only.

Upon last evening it was repeatedly chal-
lenged, to point to a new thing which
reflected light to the people from the work.
I had nevertheless just referred him to the
new light thrown upon the prophecy of the
Master at Jerusalem. Here is another that
stands out boldly and sublime as though
flashed, by the inspired shaft from the
heavenly realms ; and were it material to
the maintenance of the authenticity of the
work, I could gather from its brilliant pages
ten thousand reflections of its rays, which
are for the elevation of man, the encourage-
ment, consolation and spiritual growth of
the Christian as he wrestles with the evils
of life, and which are not attained by the
reading of any other work. But suY>pose I
could not show a single new truth. How
could it affect the argument as to whether
God revealed himself to the people upon
this continent, and that the result of such
revealment were not teachings, "entitled
to the respect and belief" of all the people
who believe in the partial record that is
left to us of the will of heaven as <riven to
the people on the other continent.'" Will
he answer the question for you? His rin-
ging of changes on the word Mormon and
"Mormonism," will hardly answer him as
argument even with half thinking people.
If this record is what it purports to be, all
of it except about 75 pages, was in existence
as a matter of history, prior to the time
the revelator was at Patmos, and the
greater part, long prior to the dawning of
the Christian era. The people by whom
much of it was written were also to a degree
in customs, manners, and education, com--
parable with those who wrote much of the
Bible. Should it be thought wonderful
then that we can flnd often in its pages a
similarity of thought and style?

I know' the position has been assumed by
my opponent, that he has a right to set up
and afllrm what he thinks the principles of
my faith are, or of the bod,y I represent in
this discussion, and then to make a grand
lunge at these supposed views as though
he were battling down my arguments.

But he will find out before the close of
the sixteen sessions that I lead in my own af-
firmatives, and have a different source from
which to gather and elucidate my faith,
than the brazen works of falsehood of Howe,
Hyde, Tucker, Beadle, Stenhouse, Bennett,
Ford, et al, by the score, who by garbling,
falsifying, inuendo and deceit, have sought
to make the faitli of the Saints, (which is
righteousness and peace and jo,y in the Holy
Ghost, as was the kingdom of God w'ith
the apostles), to be a coarse and "sensual

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

27

system," And by wa3' of a reminder
I will tell him here and now, that it will
avail nothing for liis side to set vip imagin-
ary men of chaff and straw at which to
make a show of tight. I claim to be found-
ed upon the rock, the which, neither fog,
bluster, dust nor ashes will startle or move,
and against which slanderous stories, cal-
umny, abuse and vilifying can make no
impression. Returning, however, to my
affirmative argument, I invite your con-
sideration to a thought that may arise in
the minds of some as to whether or not at
the time of these last prophecies, there lived
at, or in the country of Jerusalem, any of the
posterity of Joseph of Egypt. It was not
as may have been imagined by some that
these tribes had their respective bound-
eries and there was no intermingling in
their living and their marriages. It was-
coramon for persons of different tribes to
inhabit in the territory of other tribes. In
1 Chron. 9:3 it is stated: '"And in Jerusalem
dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the
children of Benjamin, and of the children
of Ephraim and Manasseh.''

For further evidence on this point I cite
you to 1 Chron. 7:28; 2 Chron. 15:8,9; 17:2;
and 30:18. It will not do then to take the
position that the prophet's warning was to
be heeded by some of the tribe of Judah on-
ly, and that it was thus fulfilled in passing
out of the land, and that none of the oth-
ers of Israel improved the opportunity.

The other prophecies relating to subse-
quent events are in conflict with such an
idea or interpretation. There were in the
city and country of Jerusalem at this time,
those of other tribes, and particularly
Ephraim and Manasseh.

Here, I call to your mind a summary of the
proofs I have made so far in this line, not one
of which the negative has even noticed to
this, time. He has been waxing strong el se-
M^here, trying to draw comfort from the use
of a few choice phrases applied in a derisive
manner to the church and people I repre-
sent, and to prove to you that God could not
reveal himself to the people of this conti-
nent, because by the action of a few persons
who lived a few hundred years after the
death of the apostles, and who got togeth-
er, collected as many copies of the manu-
script of the apostles as they could find, and
after assorting^them according to their judg-
ment, made a book and called it the Book,
or "The Bible;" and thus forever shut
Deity out. Don't fail to gather the idea!
they shut off the means of communication
before they had heard whether Deity ac-
cepted their work as containing ali the
word of God. And now my opponent oc-
cupies the ridiculous position of stating
that this compilation and collation con-
tains all that God ever did, or ever will
give for the instruction of men. It is a
terribly false and superstitious belief, and
has been the means of making more infidels
than any other one thing. But I shall par-
ticularly notice this hereafter, and pass now
to the proposed summary.

I have so far shown:

1. That it is according to the expressed
will of heaven to make known to man in
every nation His will, and that all should
seek after and find Him.

2. That other nations than the Jews
have sought after and found Him, and Ave
hixv^ j<ot their record in the Bible.

3. Tliat in the days of the Patriarchs,
and of Moses, and of the Prophets, there
were express predictions to the effect that
a line or remnant of the seed of .loseph
should change their inheritance from Pal-
estine, to a country that far exceeiled it in
all that is calculated to make a land desira-
ble; and that the new country was far from
Canaan,

4. That such a people did leave the
country of Palestine in the tinie of the
reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, and
started for a land of this description, pass-
ing covertly to and over the sea, to a land
beyond the borders of Africa.

I shall now enter upon another line of
proofs and show that the people did not
only thus leave Palestine, but also show
more particularly where they went to, and
what was said they should 'do afJer they
arrived upon the (to them), -'promised
land." Referring to the prophecy of Eze-
kiel, 37:15-28, we find a clear and explicit
statement made with regard to an event to
take place in the earth, and one particular
thing which was to precede this notable
event :

" The word of the Lord came again unto me saying,
"moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and
'J write upon it for Judah, and for the children of Is-
' rael his companions; then take another stick, and
" write upon it for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and
" for all the house of Israel his companions : And join
"them one to another into one stick; and thev shall
" become one in thy hand. And when the children of
"thy people shall speak unto thoe. saving, wilt thou
" not shew us what thou meanest bv these? say unto
"tliem. Thus saith the '.Lord God; Behold, I will take
"the stick of Joseph which is in the hnn«l if Ephraim,
"and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them
"with him, even with the stick of Judah and make
" them one stick, and they shall be one i!i mine hand.
" And the slicks whereon thou writest sliall he in thine
"hand before their eyes. And sav unto them, Thus
" saith the Lord God ; Behold, I will take the children
"of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be
"gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring
"them into their own land."

If in this prophecy it shall be concluded
that the particular sticks, can have no inter-
est or signification, certainly the loriting
u2Don them. must. The writing upon one of
these sticks was for Judah, to represent the
line, evidently, through which it came, and
may be fairly and truly interpreted to mean
the scriptures which came througli that
line. The writing upon the other was for
Joseph, and complimentary by reason of
the blessing upon his sons long prior, called
the stick of Ephraim ; and may fairly be
interpreted to refer to some like writing
which should come through the line of
Joseph, Verse 19 shows, that the Lord
should at some time in the divine economy
use these together for the accomplish-
ment of his purposes ; and verses 22 and
23, show what these purposes are, and
at what time the sticks or writings were to
be joined together, i, e,, at the time de-

28

THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Glared by the prophet when, " the envy of
Ephraim shall depart and the adversaries
of Judah shall be cut off." "Ephraim shall
not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex
Ephraim." Isaiah 11:13; and more par-
ticularly with regard to the time and event
seethe instruction in verse 12 : "And he
shall set up an ensign for the nations, and
shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and
gather together the dispersed of Judah from
the four corners of the earth."

Turning to the 18th of Isaiah, the paral-
lel text with this, we find the place of the
setting up of the ensign and a further con-
firmation of the time when it was to take
place. Seethe entire chapter. The proph-
et calls attention to the land shadowing
with wings as the place, which is beyond
the rivers of Ethiopia — far west of Jerusa-
lem. Verse 3, calls especial attention to
the ensign to be lifted up and the sonnd
that shall go forth as of a trumpet; the
thought in this is that a call is to be made
upon the people by the God of heaven.
Verse 5, fixes the time as being just afore
the harvest of the world; the same time in
which the event is placed by Jesus as set
forth in Matthew 13: 39, and in the same
time referred to by John the revelator,
14: 6, where he says: "And I saw another
"angel fly in the midst of heaven, having
"the everlasting gospel to preach to them
"that dwell on the earth, and to every na-
"tion, and kindred, and tongue and people,
"saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and
"give glory to Him; for the hour of his judg-
"ment is come: and worship him that made
"heaven and earth, and the sea, and the
"fountains of the waters."

This again, brings the gospel by an angel
to the earth after the apostle's time and
just at the time before the harvest, when
the judgments should go forth, and with
a call to the people like to the blowing of a
trumpet, "Hear ye!" and, "worship Him
who made the heaven and the earth;" and
this call is, and since 1830 has been made,
whether my opponent would confiaie all
angels, and gospel that came in power and
the Holy Ghost, to the apostles' age or not.

Turning now to the 29th chapter of Isaiah,
I find clearly and definitely set out the
nature and character of the ensign that was
to be lifted up. The gifted prophet beholds
it in the form of a book containing the "ev-
erlasting gospel;" the same which Jesus
preached; a gospel of power and salvation
from sin; the same as the revelator saw.
This chapter is clearly definitive also of
what is termed "The stick of Joseph," re-
ferred to in the 37th of Ezekiel's proph-
ecy. I wil proceed and examine it partic-
ularly.

The first six verses of the chapter in
Isaiah portray the degradation, distress
and punishment of Jerusalem, and the ruin
of their city; after which "all nations,"
that have occasioned this d.istress and ruin,
are represented in the condition of one in a
dream; verses 7-11.

These nations are under the influence of
the spirit of deep sleep; they are slumber-

ing as to hearing the voice of God, with
eyes closed, without prophets or seers.
Then verse 11, "The vision of all is become
unto you as the words of a book that is seal-
ed." (A book descriptive of a people that
had wandered from God, so that they had
wrought evil and felt not after him aright,
and for their iniquities had been over-
thrown.) "Which (words) men deliver to
"one that is learned, saying, read this I
" pray thee : and he saith I cannot; for it is
"sealed." "And tlie book (not the words
"only), is delivered to hijn that is not
"learned, saying. Head this I pray thee:
" And he saith, I am not learned. "

Then the Lord says, that he will pro-
ceed to do his own work, "Even a marvel-
ous work and a wonder," (Not by the
wisdom of the world; for no learned man
after the wisdom of the world was to be able
to do his work); "for the wisdom of their
wise men ahall perish, and the understand-
ing of their prudent men shall be hid."
Then the book, the work referred to else-
where as the "ensign," is to be translated
and read by the means God has prepared.
He will do His own work.

This work is to be wrought among the
people at the time He sets His hand to re-
deem Jacob and establish Israel. To bring
peace to those trodden down and scattered
upon every mountain. It was not the work
of Jesus in his time; for then was the be-
ginning of the scattering, so far as Judah
was concerned, or rather the beginning of
the completion of the scattering of Israel.

Lebanon, the country of Jerusalem,
then began to dry up and become barren,
but this work is to be done at the time Leb-
anon was to be redeemed from the barren-
ness, and to become "a fruitful field, and
the fruitful field esteemed as a forest."
All of the things referred to here, every es-
sential feature, of people, of time, of place,
of the day in which the book should come
forth, of the words which the book should
contain, of the power of God to be mani-
fested in the reading of the book, and the
bringing to nought the wisdom of the wise
(after the world and not after God), is
fulfilled in the coming forth and publish-
ing to the world of the Book of Mormon.
Don't forget that I take a positive and
confident stand with regard to the fulfill-
ment of the prophecy. And yet, my wise
opponent stands, darkening counsel with
words without knowledge, never even at-
tempting to give you an adverse explana-
tion and application of the prophecy, such
that he is willing to stand by, saying,
"Where does it say that the Book of Mor-
mon is meant?"

Where does it say in Genesis that the
Shiloh is Christ? Yet we can see the rela-
tion of the prophecy. Again:

"He was led as a lamb to the slaughter
and as a sheep dumb before his shearers,
so he opened not his mouth." How did
Philip find out this was Christ? Is the
name mentioned? Does it say "Jesus of
Nazareth" is he who is mentioned? Not
at all.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

29

What are the rules of evidence which
should govern in this controversy? I call
attention to the fact that the same rule
which has g-overned in the reception or re-
jection of divine messages in every age or
time of trying things or men, claiming a di-
vine origin, or call from heaven, must be
the governing rule in this case of the trial
of the Book of Mormon being of Divine ori-
gin.

This rule I have sought to abide, saying;
if you believe in Moses and the prophets,
you will believe in this also; for they wrote
of this. And again, "To believe for the
very work's sake." What works? The
gospel that is preached, and the everlast-
ing gospel that it contains.

From that sure rule of examination, " He
that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he
hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John,
9th verse. The reason is evident and all suffi-
cient ; by Jesus' words, not miracles, not
what is said about character, not the stories
told on people, are we to be judged at the
last day ; and if we have stood by the word
we will be right there and then; and wheth-
er it come from the high or low, rich or
poor, from the mean city of Nazareth or the
city of the kings ; whether he who brings
it is abstemious neither eating nor drinking,
or whether he shall both eat bread and
drink wine, it matters not ; the lesson is
taught us that we must not expect i^erfec-
tion in men, because God speaks to them;
but perfection in the work so far as it comes
from the hand of the Creator. God to my
mind selects the best fitted persons he can
find to do his work here, and no doubt he
would, — save in the instance of Jesus only,
— have preferred a more appropriate man
than he found for the conduct of his work
in every age in the past : but he works by
unchangeable laws. Rules of discipline
and development. He fits and prepares
meiT by such laws, only in proportion as
they will conform to the same, and hence
in his selections, makes choice from the
material he has, and thus through the
established means been able to prepare.
And it is not for me to say he is not true,
and that the law ordained for this jDrepara-
tion is not the best possible order. It was
by this just rule that the compilers of the
New Testament did their work. They had
a mass of books claiming to be of divine
origin. Some Avere acknowledged to be
such. They tried the others by these. The
correspondence in teaching, character of
works, &c., — receiving some and throwing
out others. Do you deny it sir? So far as
tracing the writings back to the original,
or first writers, they could not do it in any
instance positively. The rule followed by
them, however, was a good one, and the
same is true now, and I am willing to
abide it.

But to return to the direct line of argu-
ment ! I have now further located the land
to which the descendants of Joseph were to
come, as lying over the sea froni Canaan,
west of that country beyond the rivers of
Ethiopia, far away to the utmost bounds of

the everlasting hills ; to a " land shadcwing
with," (lying widely stretched out in the
form of) "wings;" located as these pro-
phecies claim, with a record containing the
" everlasting gospel ; " revealed as predict-
ed, by an angel from the courts of heaven,
and "just afore the harvest," in the hour
of t he j udgment.

This land is the continent upon which
you and I live. Do not these proofs make
my claim from the Bible stand point com-
plete? Which link has he succeeded in
breaking? One thing, however, I shall
show in this connection, that is, the fact of
a race of people of Israelitish origin or ex-
traction, having come to this continent in
ages past, and who well occupied and in-
habited here, from the certain proofs obtain-
ed through archaeological research and dis-
covery brought to light since tlie publica-
tion of the Book of Mormon to the world.

Not only this, but prior to their habita-
tion, there had been upon and inhabited
the continent another people and race
which was not of the Jewish extraction,
but highly civilized, and whose work of
art in the ruins of the continent is readily
distinguishable, from that of the people
who succeeded them. These answer to,
and are in fact the complete prototype and
primeval race whose history is set out in
the Book of Mormon as the Jaredites, who
came here as they were led from the plain
of Shinar. But just now I will take up atid
examine some objections, pretended or real,
made by the negative.

1. He says. That in the New Testament
God perfected and completed his work of
revelation in a system of universal truths,
&c.

To the unthinking listener there may ap-
pear a degree of force in this proposition.
But is there in fact? In the first place
the statement is at fault in that, it as-
sumes the truth of a thing he is trying to
prove, to wit: — That in the New Testament
is contained all that God has ever revealed
to the world. For neither of us will deny
that whatever he has revealed is perfect.

In what waj^ is it perfected and complet-
ed? As my opponent would have you be-
lieve, so that God could not, and would not,
outside of this, reveal himself to any part
of mankind? Certainly not. No one can
maintain the proposition that in the New
Testament is contained all tha tour Heav-
enly Father has revealed for the instruction
of man, or that he desires that they should
know concerning him. The New Testament
is but a compilation of many of the things
revealed for the good of the human family,
and not all. St. Luke in the first four
verses of his record, sets forth the true idea
of the record of the gospel. Then he pro-
ceeds to give his account of the things said
and done by Jesus. The account is true,
and in a sense complete in itself, and the
truths are universally applicable to the
race; but would that justify me in asserting
that this book of Luke's writing, or this in
connection with the Acts of the Apos-
tles, which he wrote, contains all the re-

so

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

vealed will of God, and all necessary
truth? Such a conclusion would be most
ridiculous and absurd. But not more so
than the conclusion arrived at by my oppo-
nent, that the New Testament compilers,
who were not inspired men, succeeded a few
centuries after the evangelist Luke wrote, in
bundling up all truth, which God had
or would reveal in order to guide his chil-
dren.

While man is not expected to outgrow the
universal and eternal principles of the gos-
pel that were delivered by Jesus himself,
yet in the dissemination and acceptance of
these principles in their true sense there is
as necessarily instruction to be given by
revelation in this age of the world, as there
was after the personal ministry of Jesus
had ceased and his instructions given, and
when Peter, Paul and John did their work.

While we are quite ready to allow that
truths which God has given for the good of
universal man are universally applicable,
and these in a sense perfect and complete,

it does not follow from this that man should
be limited to the simple reading of these,
neither that it is not absolutely necessary
that the act of revelation itself be contin-
ued in order that these very universal
truths may be properly carried out in one's
life.

This continuance of revelation is in fact a
part of the revealment, and essential to
growth in that already given ; hence thu
apostle declares : " Wherefore I also aftev
I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus"
" after that ye heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation" (that already
revealed), "Cease not to give thanks for
you, making mention of you in my prayers,
that the Father of glory may give unto you
the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the
knowledge of him." My position is. that
the negative, in his method of jumping at
such a conclusion of no more revelation,
assails that which he professes at the same
time to accept.

(Time called.)

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

31

MR. BRADEN'S THIRD SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderatoks, Ladies and
Gentj^emen : A man who was eno:aged in
an altercation with a trifling character that
was annoying him was asked why lie did
not kick "him. "I will," replied he, "if
.some one will fold him np into about a
dozen thicknesses so that there will be
sometb.ing to kick." I have waited till now,
before answering- my opponent, so that I
could double his talk up into at least a
dozen thicknesses so as to have some-
thing- to review. My opponent can prove
That the Book of Mormon is of divine
origin in two ways : I. He can prove its
divine origin, as we establish the divine
origin of the Bible. We appeal to the fact
that the best living intellects accept the
Bible as of divine origin; that the best
intellects of former generations acceijted
the Bible, as of divine origin, until v/e tra-ie
it back into the age in which it had it's ori-
gin, and we show that th» .>est intellects,
and characters of the people among whon:
it had its origin accepted it is >f 3i''iue
origin. We trace each book of the Bible
back in this way into the age, and i.nto
people among whom it had its nrigin. We
can begin with the oldest books and
trace out the frame-work of corrol)orative
history, geographj'^, literature, customs,
etc., in which it had its origin, and into
which it dovetails and interlocks at every
point, fitting such frame-work, as the holes
in the fuller's web fit on to the tenter-hooks
on which it has been stretched. We
prove that its actors authors and writers
and speakers, acted spoke and wrote as the
Bible declares they did. Having estab-
lished its authenticity, genuineness and
truthfulness, we prove that its speakers,
actors and writers, were inspired when the
Bible declares they were inspired, for we
have proved the truthfulness of the Bible.
II. We tiien examine its contents and prove
bj' prophecy that has been fulfilled — by
miracles that are authenticated by monu-
mental institutions — by truths that are
above man's power and must have been
revealed and by its exact accordance in its
teachings and in its results with the claitn
of inspiration that it is inspired and of
divine origin.

My opponent cannot appeal to one parti-
cle of the first line of proof. He can trace
his book no farther back than to Imposter
Joe Smith. It has not one particle of frame
work of corroborating history, geography
literature and customs into which it inter-
locks. It stands on the naked assumption
that Imposter Joe was inspired and on that
alone. If he was inspired, then we should
believe that he translated the Book of Mor-
mon by inspiration, and of course it is true,
and of divine origin. The Book itself has
not one iota of interlocking corroborating.

or collateral evidence. It steps out into
littman life from the hand of Imposter Joe
as the Goddess Minerva burst from the
head of Jupiter, He claims that he re-
ceived it from an angel by miracle and that
he translated it by inspiration. Therefore
it is of divine origin and mankind should
accept it. There are no monumental insti-
tutions no literattire based on it. It has
had no career in the life of our race of which
we have one particle of knowledge or proof
except the assertions of the book itself. If
my opponent appeals to the Bible, as Jesus
appealed to the Old Testament, he must
show that the Bible, in its history, narrates
the same events as are found in the Book
of Mormon. It does not hint one of them,
except what the book of Mormon steals
from the Bible. Or that the Bible foretells
the events recorded in the Book of Mormon.
He has attempted this, and oh how weak
an attempt. I can prove that the Bible
foretells the Koran or Swedenborg's writ-
in^-s jtist as clearly. The false prophets
aiul laise Messiahs of Israel furnished far
moi-*' proof from prophecy than he has pro-
duced. Even if the Bible foretold the
events narrated in the Book of Mormon,
that would not prove that the Book of Mor-
'nion is of divine origin. The Bible foretells
events narrated in Assyrian and Egyptian
history. That does not prove that the
books recording what the Bible foretells
are of divine origin. Do the prophecies he
quotes, even if we admit his fanciful appli-
cation, prove that the Book of Mormon is
of divine origin, one particle more than
prophecies in the Bible of events recorded
in Egyptian history, proves that the Egyp-
tian books were of divine origin? Where
does the Bible prophesy in such a way as
to prove that the Book of Mormon is of
divine origin.

The only proof of the divine origin of the
Book of Mormon is the pretended inspi-
ration of Imposter Joe Smith. If Im-
poster Joe was inspired, then of course
he translated the Book of Mormon by in-
spiration, as he claimed, and we can believe
his story that he received it from an angel
by miracle, and that the angel told him
that the Book of Mormon is what it pre-
tends to be, and true. If he was not in-
spired, we have not a shadow of proof of
the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.
My opponent can establish that Imposter
Joe was inspired by proving that he
wrought miracles, as nearly all of the in-
spired men of the Bible did ; or that he
foretold future events, as Noah, John the
Baptist and others did, who wrought no
signs, or that he had superhuman wisdom,
and revealed what man could not know, as
the inspired men of the Bible did, or that
his character was such that he would not

82

THii BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

claim to be inspired, if it were not so, as we
show in the case of Christ. If he appeals
to the Bible as Jesus and the apostles ap-
pealed to the Bible, let him produce from
the Bible the proof they did. Let him
prove that the Bible prophesies directly
and clearly of Imposter Joe, his work and
his book. Let him show that the work of
Imposter Joe and the Book of Mormon are
a clear fulfillment of Bible prophecies.
The appeals to prophecy, made by Christ
and his apostles, were clear direct positive
and overwhelming. They were not such
far fetched fanciful distortions and perver-
sion's of the Bible, as we hear from Mor-
monism. He seems to be afraid to affirm
and defend the in^irationof Imposter Joe.
If he abandons that, he abandons the sole
basis of his claim for his book. The only
basis for the claim for the divine origin of
the Book of Mormon is two assertions. I.
An angel revealed to Imposter Joe the ex-
istence of certain plates and gave them to
him and told him that the contents were
true. II. That Imposter Joe translated
these plates, and we have in the Book of
Mormon the contents of the plates. Prove
that you establish the divine origin of the
Book of Mormon. Fail in that and you
utterly fail to establish such claim.

My opponent attempted to prove the di-
vine origin of his book by appealing to these
facts : I. It claims to come from the right
source. So does the Koran. II. It claims
to be a proper message to mankind. So do
the Shasters of India. III. Its object is
good, the salvation of mankind. The same
can be said of t)ie revelations of Auni Lee.
IV. Its teachings are good. So were the
sermons of Steph^'us Burrows, the greatest
scoundrel that eve.' lived. He, a vile im-
poster, stole and uttered the teachings of
the Bible. So did Job Smith and the Book
of Mormon. If i.iupusi.t." Joe was inspired,
and his book a rftvelatiou Burrows was
also inspired and his sermons revelations,
on precisely the same ground. My oppo-
nent asserts that I should follow him in
argument. That depends on where and
how he leads. If he presents the issue
clearly and fully, and any proof of his po-
sition, I will follow him. If he does not, I
will present the issues myself, and refute
his system, whether he presents it or not.
I am surprised that one who claims to be a
lawyer, as does mj'^ opponent, should be
ignorant of the rules of debate, that the
negative is free to pursue two courses. I.
Reply to the attempted arguments of the
affirmative. II. Or by an independent line
of argument prove that his affirmative is
untrue. If he pursues the latter course, he
completely overtuims the affirmative's y>o-
sition, if he never notices one of his pre-
tended arguments.

My opponent's feelings seem to be very
badly hurt by my calling Smith an im-
postor, a deceiver, a scoundrel. If I jDrove
that he pretended to be inspired and was
not, that his book was a fraud, I prove him
to be an imposter, a scoundrel of the black-
est dye. A woman once declared, " I don't

like Mr. Brown. He called my husband a
liar. And that was not the worst of it.
He proved it." Mormons will have the
same reasons to dislike Mr. Braden. I have
called Joe Smith an imposter, a scoundrel
and I will prove it. My opponent reminds
me that the Jews called Jesus a drunkard,
a glutton, a lover of harlots and vilo per-
sons. Will he answer one question? If
the charges of the Jews had been true,
would it not have proved that Jesus was an
imposter? That he was neither inspired
nor divine. If I prove that Joe Smith was a
vile character, will it not prove that he was
not inspired ? Now answer if you dare.
The fallacy of the Jews, was not in using
the wrong argument, but in making a false
accusation. Jesus admitted that if their
charges had been true, it would utterly de-
stroy his claim to be sent of God and divine,
when he challenged them "Who of you
have convicted me of any wickedness?"
In that question, Jesus flatly contradicts
the nonsense my opponent uttered last
night. He appeals to the errors and sins
of men that the bible says were inspired.
When he proves that they were ever in-
spired while living in such sin, while
committing or practising it, we will notice
his argument. What portion of the Biblo
was uttered or written by a man, while
committing these vile sins ? What inspired
act or utterance of David, Solomon, Moses
or Paul, have we that was acted or uttered
while they were committing vile sins ?

He adnuts that he who transgresses the
teachings of Christ is not of God. That ad-
mission overturns all his special pleadings,
in appealing to the sins of Bible characters.
While in transgressions, they were not of
God, not inspired, nor were their acts or
vitterances revelations. Then comes the
one everlasting text of Mormonism "He
that hath the teaching of the Christ hath
both the Father and the Son." He assum-
es that if they have the Father and the
Son, they are of God. True but that does
not prove that they are inspired, nor that
what they say or write is a revelation.
Even if Joe Smith had been a good man, it
would not prove that he was inspired, or
that his book was a revelation, any more
than the fact that Wesley was a good man,
proves that he was inspired, and his ser-
mons revelations. "But Joseph Smith
claimed to be inspired. If a good man
makes such a claim it must be true." No,
a good man may be deceived. Hundreds
of good men have been deceived in believing
that they were inspired and that the stun"
they uttered were revelations.

The gross absurdity of the use that Mor-
mons make of that passage will be seen
if my opponent will answer question. How
must a man have the teaching of Christ in
order to have the Father and the Son? In
mere preaching alone? Or in living them
out in life? When the scoundrel Burrows
laad the doctrine of Christ in his sermons,
did he have the Father and the Son?
Would not the fact that he was a hypocrite,
an imposter and a scoundrel, prove that he

THE BRADETv AKD KELLEY DEBATE.

33

did not have the Father and the Son, no
matter what he preached? Does the fact
tnat Joe Smith stole and put the teacliinti^s
of the Bible into the Book of ^Mormon, prove
that he had the Father and the Son, that
he was a good man, that he was inspired,
that his book was a revehition ? When the
devil quoted the words of God to our Savi-
our, did it prove that he had the Father and
the Son? That he was inspired and that
his utterances were revelation ? Even if
the moral and religious sentiments of the
Book of Mormon, that are stolen from rlie
Bible, are good, it does not prove that its
statements of pretended facts .'iie true, and
iiiucli less does it prove that the book is a
revelation, that Joe Smith Mas inspired, or
even a good man. liangauge can hardly ex-
press the idiocy of this pet argument of
Mormonism. It would prove that when
the devil transforms himself into an angel
of light, and utters, hypocritically and to
deceive, good sentiments, he is good, in-
spired, and his utterances revelations, just
as clearly as it proves that Impostor Joe
had the feather and the Son, was a. good
man, inaitired and his book a revelation,
because ne stole good teaching from the
Bible, and hypoofitically gave it to the
u'orld, in the Book of Mormon, l.ying and
claiming that his fraud was a revelation.

The quotation i'roni Aots 17, no more
proves or liints the divine origin of the book
of Mormon than a rei:)etiti()n of the multi-
pli'jation Table. Neither does the quotation
from Acts 10. The quotation from John
iO; 14-1*3. teaches the opposite to what he
claims it teaches. In Gen. 17, 15, we read:
•' The uncircumcised person shall be cut off
from my people. Pie has broken m^' coven-
ant." Circumcision was the mark of the
flock. If the Nephites M^ere circumcised,
they were of the same flock as those Jesus
was addressing. If they were not circum-
cised, they had ceased to be Israelites, and
not a prophecy that my opponent quotes
can have any reference to them. Neither
the Bible, nor the Israelites, nor Jesus ever
speak of Israelites outside of Palestine, as
belonging to a fold separate and different
from those in Palestine. If the Nephites of
the Book of Mormon were circumcised Is-
raelites, they were as much members of the
fold Jesus was addressing, as the Israelites
in Egypt or Palestine. Tlie sheep that
Averc not of that fr^Jd of v.hich .Tesus was
speaking, were not circunKisod Israelites
in Eoypt or America or a^iy other place, for
all circumcised Israelites were one fold.
The other sheep that were not of that fold,
that was inade up entirely of circumcised
Israelites, were Gentiles.' The language
has reference to the breaking down of a
wall of partition between Jew and Gentile,
and making JeMS and Gentiles one fold in
Christ.

The quotation from Ezekiel 34, " My
sheep were scattered upon all the face of
the earth" proves nothing for in such
phraseology, often the Bilble means no
more than that they were widely scattered,
and it never refers to more than the old

continent which was all that the Israelites
knew anything about. The quotation from
the highly poetical figurative language of
.Tacob's blessing on Joseph, with its bold
hyi^erbole, proves nothing. The Mormon
interpretation is an unnatural one, foreign
to the subject, and forced on to the lauguage-
to sustain a theory. There is nothing in
the language that 'was not fulfilled in Pa-
lestine, as much as the hyperbole of many
other prophetic promises, that all admit
did not extend beyond the land of Palestine.
Even if it did extond b^'vciid tho 1.;,; i' of
Palestine, it need include no more than
i;he old continent. It need not extend be-
yond the Josephites in Europe, Asia and
Africa. My opponent reverses the order of
the line of argument. He must prove that
the Josephites migrated beyond the old
world, to America, before he can extend the
language of the propb.ecy to America. He
absurdly assumes that the language must
extend beyond the old world to America,
in order to prove that the .Tosephites
came to America.

OBIGIN OF THE T300K OF MORMON.

I propose now to refute the claim made
by my opponent that the Book of Mormon
is of divine origin, "by proving that it
had a very base human origin, about sev-
enty years ago. If I can show that it was
gotten up by three men, in the first half of
the jjresentcentury, through base motives,
and for purpose of fraud, and gain by fraud
and deception, I utterly explode all claim
to divine origin. I propose now to trace
out such origin, for the Book of Mormon, as
clearly as a chain of title to a piece of land.
Let us first state what the Book of Mormon
professes to be. It purports to be a history
of America froin the time its first inhabi-
tants entered it, just after the confusion of
tongues at the tower of Babel, till about A.
D. 400, a period probably of nearly 400O
years. It asserts that this continent was
peopled by three different families. 1.
The faniil^y of Jared, who emigrated from
the Tower of Babel, over 8000 years before
the birth of Christ, and whose descendants
were exterminated, on? portion of the book
declares about 600 years before Christ;
another portion of the book declares about
250 years before Christ. 11. The family
of Lehi, a Manassehite,who emigrated
from Jerusalem, 600 years before Christ,
early in the reign of Zedekiah ki^ig
of Judah. His descendents divided in-
to two nations, the Nephites, the righ-
teous portion ; and the Lamanites, the
wicked portion ; III. The people of Zar-
ahemla, Judahites who left Jerusalem
about eleven years after Lehi. The de-
scendants of these Judahites were de-
stroyed in war or absorbed by the Neph-
ites. In war, the Nephites were extermi-
nated by the Lamanites, about A. D. 384.
The Lamanites remained sole possessors of
of the continent, and are the American In-
dians. I wish tne reader to notice that, ac-
cording to the Book of Mormon, not an
Ephraimite, ever came to America. How
then can the prophecies in regard to Ephra-

34

THE BRADI^.N AND KELLEY DEP>ATE

im apply to the aboriginies of America,
even if the history m the Book of Mormon
be true? According to the Book of Mor-
mon the deeds of this people were, by di-
vine direction, en-vraved by their prophets,
on plates of gold, brass, and ore (what ev-
er that nondescript substance may mean).
These plates were reiiffiously preserved by
divine direction. The Book of Mormon
lelis lis, on almost every page, with painful
iterfition and reiteration, of plates, of how
they were prepared, preserved and revised,

. jianded down from generation to genera-
lly,,,— how careful the Lord was to see that
iJiis was done, until they fell into the hands
of one Mormon, who about A. T>. 384 made
an abridgement and buried the originals,
together with certain relics, in a hill which
is now near Manchester Ontario Co., New
York. He handed this abridgment "these
few plates" to his son Moroni, providently
leaving a few pages for him to use in finish-
ing tiie abridgement. Moroni finishes, by en-
graving on the few pages left by his father,
what happened after his father revised his
record. Then he writes, and on nothing, for
he tells us that his plates are full, and he
had nothing to make plates of and is alone,
an abridgment of the history of the .Tarnd-
ites. Moroni then boxes up these few plates
containing the abridgment made hy his
fatiier, and his appendix to it, written on
the few pages his father left him for that
purpose, and buries them in a hill, Cumo-
rah, that was in what is now Manchester,
N. Y. He buried only "these few plates,"
and nothing with them for Mormon had bur-
ied everytliing else years before, in an in-
tirely different locality.

"These few plates" remained in this box,
till September, 22, 1823, when Moroni, then
an angel appeared to Joe Smith, and re-
vealed to him the existence of these plates,
their place of burial, and a summary of
their contents. September, 22, 1827, Moro-
ni delivered the plates to .Toe Smith, who
by means of a peep s^^t^'^ that he had stolen
from the children of Willard Chase, trans-
lated them, and gave their contents to the
world, ii'. the lUy^'t. !>f IsLormon.

The Rook of Mormon mentions a perfect
museum of relics that ^re "hid up" some-
where near Palmyra, New York. AVe give
the list that our readers may see how care-
ful the Lord was to have the records and
relics preserved. We cite the pages of the
Book of Mormon, English edition, where
they are mentioned. It shows with what
iteration and reiteration "plates" are men-
tioned, and how much pains the authors
take to convince the sceptical, that these
records were so carefully preserved, there
can be no doubt about the accuracy of the
Book of Mormon. I. Plates of Laban,
f>p 9 — 11 — 144 — 145. II. Brass genealogical
plates, p 11. III. Brass plates of Lehi,
afterwards abridged by Nephi, pp 3—44 —
62. IV. Brass plates of Nephi containing
"the more part of the history" (shades of
Murray what English) pp, IG— 13S. V.
Brass plates of Nephi containing "the more
part of the ministry" (shades of Addison,

forgive the English of the fullnes of Mor-
mon inspiration) pp, 16 — 144. VI. Ore
(what nondescript substance is that?) plates
ofNephi "containing mine own prophecies"
p 44. VII. Plates of Zarahemla containing
genealogy, p, 140. VIII. Plates of Mor-
mon, containing an abridgment of Nephi's
plates that contained "the more part of the
ministry," p, 141. IX. Plates containing a
record from priest Jacob to king Benjamin,
p 141. X. Plates containing record of Ze-
niff, p 161. XI, Golden plates of Ether,
pp, 161,-312—516. XII. Plates containing
Alma's aocount of "his afflictions," p, 196.
XIII. Plates Jared "brought across the great
deep," p, 530. XIV. Copies of Scriptures
"out of which the sons of Mosiah studied
14 years," pp, 2o5 — 271. XV. Many records
kept by peoi)le "who went north-west," pp.
394 — 395. XVI. Twelve epistles by differenii
prophets on different themes. The Book of
Mormon gives us only an abridgment of
these. The originals are "hid up." XVII.
The liahona — tiie sacred brass globe called
the brass compass or brass director of Lehi,
pp^ ,88—314. XVIII. The record of Laban,
pp, 145 — 143 — 145. XIX. The engraved
stone i)fCoriantumer p, 140. XXPThe six-
teen stones that God touched with his fin-
gers, p, 20. XXI. The two stone interpre-
ters of Moroni, pp, 162—204. XXII. The
two stone interpreters of Jared 's brother,
pp, 522-523. XXIII. A white stone Gazelme,
p, 212. XXIV. A brass breastplate found
Avith Ether's plates, p, 161, Besides all
these Smith and other Morrnons describe
articles different from these enough to in-
crease the number indefinitely. Mor-
mon tells us p 492, that he hides all
of these relies, and hands only "these
fe-w plates" containing his abridgment to
his son Moroni. They are "hid up" no one
knows where. The reader will observe we
have piles of plates, a score of them, men-
tioned scores of times. No one dare deny
the accuracy of records kept on metalic
plates, imperishable material, with such
constant care, and by divine direction, and
inspiration.

It is our purpose to prove that the Book
of Mormon originated with Solomon
Spaulding, was revamped by Sydney Rig-
don, and given to the world by Impostor
Joe Smith. We shall give first a sketch of
Spaulding, and his work until he came in
contact with Rigdon. Then a sketch of
Rigdon and of his work, until he confeder-
ated with Impostor Joe, to give his stolen
fabrication to the world, by means of his
stolen peepstone. Solomon Spaulding was
born in Ashford Conneticut in 1761. He
graduated at Dartmouth College in 1785,
with the degree of A. B. He studi-
ed theology and graduated in theology in
1787, and received the degree of A. M, He
preached until after ISOO" On account of
failing health he went into business in
Cherry Valley, New York, He failed in
merchandizing and moved to Conneaut,
Ohio, in 1807 or 8, Here he went into the
foundery business and failed again. There
were in the township of Conneaut a great

THE BR ADEN AND KELLBY DEBATE.

35

many mounds and other relics of an ex-
tinct race of people. Mr. Spaulding be-
came very much interested in these anti-
quities. In 1809 he began a romance, in
which he assumed that the ancestors of the
Ind^ins were Romans. After writing
forty or fifty pages, he abandoned this idea,
because as he said, tlie Romans were too
near the time in which he was writing.
This MS was the only one Philastus Harl-
but said he found in the trunk, supposed
to contain all of Spaulding's INIS'S, when
they examined the trunk at Mr. Clark's
house, in 1S34. This MS we will designate
as Roman MS or MS No 1.

Ever since the European missionaries be-
gan to labor among the Indians, as early as
the year 1500, Spanish, French, English
and Portugese Missionaries had observed
certain things among the Indians, that led
some of them to believe that the Indians
were of Israelite origin, descendants of the
Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Such ideas can
be found in the writings of Spanish Port-
ugese, and French Monks, and in the writ-
ings of Elliott, Cotton Mather and scores
of Ainerican writers, before the commence-
ment of the present century. Mr. Spauld-
ing was a firm believer and earnest advo-
cate of this theory. He began to write a
romance, in which he assumed, that the
aborigines of America, and the authors of
its mounds and other antiquities were Is-
raelites. He commenced writing this MS
as early as 1809. His brother, J. Spauld-
ing, certifies that he visited his brother
Solomon in 1810, and found him writing a
book which he called, "The Manuscript
Found," which he intended to publish,
and hoped by the sales to pay his debts.
He described it as follows:

' It was a historical romance of the first settlers of
America, and eiifieavored to show that the American
Indians are the desceniiants of the Jews, or the Ten
Lost Tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journ-
ey 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
denouiinnted 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 were all brought
into view, in order to account for all the curious antiqui-
ties found in various parts of Northern and Sorithern
America I will remember that he wrote in the old
style, and commences almost every sentence with,
"And it came to pass," or "Now it came to pass."

I will leave it to the reader, if the aver-
age Mormon can give a better synopsis of
the historical part of the Nephite portion
of the Book of Mormon, then JohnSpauld-
iug gives in describing his brother's ro-
mance the "Manuscript Found."

Martha Spaulding, wife of John Spauld-
ing, and sister-in-law of Solomon Spauld-
ing, testifies:

"1 was at the house of Solomon Spaulding shortly
before he left ConeHUt. He was then writing a his-
torical novel founded on the first seiilers of America.
He represented them as an enlightened and warlike
people. He had for many years contended that the ab-
origines of America were the descendants of some of
the Lost Tribi s of Israel; and this idea he carried out
in the book in question. The Hpseof 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
prinflpal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the
company which first came ofiffrom Jerusalem. He
gave a particular account of their journey by land and
by sea, till they arrived in America, after which dis-
putes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to
separate into bands, one of which was called Laman-
ites the other Nephites. Between these there were re-
counted tremendous battles, which freqtiently cover-
ed the ground with slain and these being bu'ried in
large heaps, was the cause of the many mounds in the
country. Some of these people he represents as be-
ing very large."

Again, I ask the reader if an average Mor-
mon could give a better outline of the his-
torical part of the Nephite portion of the
Book of Mormon than Mrs. Spaulding
gives in describing the "Manuscript
Found" of her brother-in-law Solomon
Spaulding.

Henry Lake, Solomon Spaulding's busi-
ness partner testifies:

Solomon Spaulding frequently read to me from a man-
uscript which he was writing, which he entitled the

Manuscript Found,." and which he represented as-
bemg found in this town. I spent manv hours in hear-
ing him read said writings, and became well acquaint-
ed with their contents. The Book represeneil the Amer-
jCMu IndiHu.s as being the descendants of the Lost
Tribes of Israel, and gave an account of their having
left Jerusalem, and of theirconlentions and wars which
were many and great. I remember telling Mr. Spauld-
ing that so frequent use of the words: "And it came to
pass, ' ' Now It came to pass, ' rendered the book ridic-
ulous.

Aaron Wright testifies:

"One day when I was at the house of Solomon
Spaulding, he showed and read to me a history he was
writing 01 the Lost Tribes of Israel, purporting that
they were the first settlers of America and that the
Indians were their descendants. He traced their journ-
ey from Jerusalem to America. He told me his object
was to accdunt for the f irtifieations 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 testifies:

"So'omon Spaulding boarded at my house six
months. All his leisure hours were occupied in writ-
ing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers
of this country. He said he intemled to trace their
journey, from Jeiusalem by land and sea till their ar-
rival in America, and give an account of their arts,
sciences, civil'zation laws and contentions. In this
way he would give a satisfactory account of all of the
old mounds, so eommoii in this country. Nephi and
Lehi, were by him, represented as the leading charac-
ters, when they first .'tarted for .\merica. Their main
object was to escape the judgements which they sup-
posed weie coming on the old world."

Nahum Howard testifies:

"In conyeisation with Solomon Spaulding I express-
ed my surprise that we had no account of the people
once in this country, who erected the old forts mounds
etc. He told me he was writing a history of that peo-
ple."

Artemus Cunningham testifies:

".Solomon spaulding described to me his book. He
said ih.it it was a fabulous or romantic historv of the
firs inhabitants of this country, and it purported lo be
a record found buried in the e'arth. or in a cave. He
had adopted the ani-ieiit or Scriptural style of wriiing.
He then read Ironi his nianusciipt. I remember the
name of Nephi, who appeared to be the principal hero
of ihe story. The frequent repetition of the phrase
"1 Nephi" 1 remember distinctly as though itwere yes-
terday. Hl atteinp ed to account for the numerous
antiquities which are found upon the coniinent."

Jolm N. M Her who was a member of
Solomon Sp mlding's household for many
months testifies:

"I perns d -spaulding's manuscripts as I had leisure
more partii u.arly the one he called his "Manuscript
Found." It purported to be a history of the first set-
tlers o America. He brought them off from Jerusa-
lem, under their leaders detailing their travels by
land and by sea."

36

THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S FOURTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen :— By way of reminding- you of
the fact that sometimes a man gets frighten-
ed at his own evil surmisiiigs I call attention
to the statement of my friend, "That he was
not going to be scared down." This was cer-
tainly uncalled for. Who has tried to scare
him down ? Have I, or has a single person
in this audience? Now, I take this as the
simple upbraidings of his own conscience.
It reminds me of the story of the boy that
got terribly scared upon a certain occasion.
His hair began to stand up right lively, and
the cold chills coursed down his back. Fin-
ally he gathered up a little courage and
edged up a little toward the object of his
fright and after straightening up, he stam-
mered out, 'Who's afraid?" It turned out
that the boy had only been stuffed with a
few ghost stories and was frightened at
nothing. And it seems to me this is the
true condition of my opponent. There is no
necessity of being afraid here. I hope my
friend is not afraid. I can say truly to you
that I am not. What is he afraid of? I
want him in this discussion to bring the
strongest evidence he can. To do his worst,
as well as best. Only let him state facts?

He makes a statement with reference to
the prophecy of .Tacob in the 49tii chapter
of Genesis where in blessing Joseph, he tells
him his " branches," (daughters), "should
run over the wall," and says that men have
read it for thousands of years and never
thought of applying it as I have in this dis-
cussion. Is that an argument against the
force of my position? On the contrary it
occurs to me to be an argument in favor of
it. When men have read it, scanned it, for
thousands of years, and no one conceived
the idea of applying it to its proper place
until it was made known as we claim by the
revelation of God, it argues in favor of the
divine knowledge. It is something that was
not likely to be spontaneous in the heart of
man, but let down from heaven as were
many other things that I will be able to
show you duiing this discussion. And yet
will he deny that the Book of Mormon has
given a single new truth to the world?
Another thing he has referred to as an argu-
ment, is the sermons of the "notorious
Stephen Burrows," using his language. He
seems to have been a laithful student of
Burrows. Now, his sermons may be good,
as he claims from his or the Disciples'
{ Campbellites ) standpoint of judging ; but
I wid state to this audience fairly and can-
didly that no such man as he says he was,
could preach good sermons from the stand-
point of the Latter Day Saints, nor the
standpoint of the Bible; and they are not
good sermons. I invite him to produce the
sermons now, and I will examine them be-
fore you and show that they are not good.

Another thing. He said that he could show
that the prophecies of the Bible which I
have quoted refer as much to the Koran as
the Book of Mormon. Why does he not do
it then ? What is he here for but to show
what they apply to? Let him doit. I deny
that he can select a single one that has a
like or similar application, and demand the
proof. When he names one, I will show it
does not, nor cannot be made to apply to
the Koran as obviously as the Book of Mor-
mon. He has so far failed, or refused, to
follow me and notice my arguments, al-
though he is in the negaiive of the proposi-
tion. I sliali not be so kind with him, but
will both set forth my affirmative proofs,
and expose the fallacies in his positions.
In his desperation to make out a case against
the Book of Mormon he does not hesitate to
ignore as applicable to man after the Apost-
les' time, all thatis assuring and conaforting
to the Christian.

The beautiful promises, "Seek and ye
shall find," " Knock and it shall be opened
unto you," " Ask and it shall be given unto
you," Matt. 7 : 7 ; " If any of you lack wis-
dom, let him ask of God that giveth to all
men liberally and upbraideth not; and it
shall be given him," James 2:5; "How-
much more shall your Father which is in
heaven give good things to them that ask
liim," Matt. 7:11; and many other like as-
s.^.ring and comforting promises, are all
things of the past with him. Confined to
the apostles' age. Jesus says, " He tliat
hath my commandments and keepeth them,
he it is that loveth me ; aiul he that loveth
me shall be loved of my Father, and I will
love him and will manifest myself to him."
Again, " My Father will love him, and we
will come unto hiin and make our abode
with him." John 14 : 21, 23. But according
to my friend's theory, all of these promises
are limited to the apostles, and those upon
whom they laid their hands. His theory
limits pretty much all of the New Testament
to the apostolic times ; especially does it, all
giving assurance that the Christian may
have a knowledge of God. Christ said, "I
will pray the Father and he shall give you
another comforter that he may abide with
you forever; even the Spirit of Truth."
Jobn 14:16, 17. "Where two or three are
met together in my name there I am in the
midst." But mj' opponent makes this lim-
ited to the olden time. W^hat is the use
pra.ving then, if God cannot give, and Jesus
cannot be in the midst. Again, " The Spirit
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God." "But if the
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ
from the dead shall also quicken your mor-
tal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in
you." Rom. 8 : 11-16. This is also limited

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

37

by the theory of the negative. Yet, it is
clear from tli'e texts themselves, that these
promises and experiences were, and are, for
the doers of the word, the faithful in Christ
in everj' a^-e.

.Tohn said, "'I indeed baptize you Avith
water unto repentance ; but be that cometh
after me is micchtier than T, wliose shoes
I am not. wortli.v to bear : he shall baptize
you witii the Holy CJhost and with fire."
Matt. 8:11. And ".fesus in keepinir with
this says, '' Except a man be born of Avater
and "the Spirit, he cannot enter into tlte
Kingdom of God." .John 3 : l. These texts
prove that the influence and power of tlie
Spirit was to follow the baptism by wattir.
But my opponent limits the baptism of the
Spirit,' and holds on to the Avater. But
upon what autlnn'ity? A vain assumption
evidently thought necessary to bolster up
2iis Campbellite theory. His arguments
prohibit salvation to the race after the
apostolic age. Jesus tauglit, "Except a
man be born of water and the Spirit he can-
not enter into the Kingdom of (xod." Yet,
Mr. Braden says, tliere is no birth or bap-
tism of the Spirit now. There would be
more consistency in al>andoning botli bap-
tisms as they are botJi tauglit Ir.* the same
persons and at the same time. In his mad-
ness he not only Avars against the claims of
the Book of Mormon and the Latter Day
Saints, but all Christians who hold to a
Christian experience nnder the divine ener-
gies of the Holy GJiost. Every Catholic,
Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist,
Friend, Jndepeudent, or Avhat not, Avho has
testified of tasting the heavenly gift — the
joy of the Holy Ghost shed abroad in the
Heart, in any age or time since the Apos-
tles, has witnessed falsely. Their expe-
rien(;es are but vaui tilings and they, de-
ceiA'ers of tbeniselA'es. There is no Spirit-
ual communion, so Mr. Braden claijns,
except through the medium of the A^ord.
His is but a nrst step iji Atheism. It de-
stroys or removes God out of the M"or]d, if
not out of the universe. Insi>iration is not
only conlined to the early church, but God,
and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are barL-e<l
out : — limited and confined to the Apostles
alone and can no longer move upon the
Christian's heart. But thank God, we are
assured of better things : Says Paul, "And
hope niaketh not asiianied ; because the
Jove of God is shed abroad in the heart."
HoAv is the love of (Tod siied abroad in the
heart? "By the Holy Ghost Avhicli i«
giveu unto us." Rom'. 5:5. "Who hath
also sealed us, and given the earnest of the
Spirit in our hearts." 2(yOr. 1:22. "And
because you are sons, God hath sent forth
the Spirit of his Son into your liearts, cry-
ing, Abba Father." " Iii Avhoin ye also
trusted after that ye heard the word of
truth the gospel «;f your salvation, in Avhom
also after that ye belieA^ed ye were sealed
with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is
the earnest of our inheritance until the re-
demption of the purchased possession, unto
the praise of his glory." Eph. 1 : 13. This
was not attained through the medium of

the Avord as my opponent would have you
believe, for the Apostle says, verse 13,
"After ye heard the Avord of truth, afte."
that ye believed, ye Avere sealed with that
Holy' Spirit of promise." The Holy Ghost
is the Spirit of promise the same which
Jesus said, " When lie is come he Avill tes-
tify of me." This j)romise ot the Spirit to
]);i'rn in the heart of The Christian in fact,
Avas to cotitinue until the redemption of the
purcliased possession, and is the evidence
of tlie right of possession. 3^ut Braden 's
theory (knilines all tlds to the apostles'
time,' and all the experience, and knoAvl-
edge, that men ca,n have of God noAV, is
through the Avritten word. Jesus says,
" Go ye into all the world and preacli the
gosi)el to every creature. He that belieA'-
eth and is baptized shall be saA^ed and he
that believeth not shall be damned ; and
these signs shall follow tliem that belieA-e.
In my Yiame they shall cast out devils.
They shall speak Avith new tongues," etc.
Mark Ifi. This message included the entire
world of belieA^ers. The promise is, "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be
saA'ed," and "These signs shall folloAv them
tliat belieA-e." Wherever tlie message was
to be obeyed, the signs Avere to follow.
Where tlie signs are limited, the duties en-
joined by the message are limited. This
proves too much for my opponent's theory
and faith, for he professes great faith in the
Avater part of the message. I'ut if he con-
tines the result of obedience to the age of
the apostles, he must confine the obligation
to obey the ordinance of baptism to that
age, and j^er consequence the duties prece-
ding it, faith and repentance, Avliich are
necessarj^ to prepare one to obey the ordi-
nance ol baptism. 'J'hus he not only limits
the Holy Ghost to the age of the apostles,
but faith, repentance and baptism also.
Hence he has God and Christ and the Holy
Ghost out of the world, and so far away
that neither can commune Avith Chj'i'^tians,
and the essential feature of the gospel itself
is confined to the apostolic times and ])eo-
ple. But Peter lield to a better faith. Said
lie, " For the promise is unto you, and to
your children, and to all that are afar off,
CA^en as many as the Lord our God shall
call." Thispromise was to be realized
Avhen they accepted the gospel message as
is shown in verse 38, of Acts, second chap-
ter. " Repent and be baptized every one
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost." Nothing is more
certain than that the obedient doer of the
word was Lo recelA'e the gift of the Holy
Ghost AvhercA-er the gospel message Avas
sent, as is clearly shown by these texts.
It is not limited to Pentecost day, nor to
that age. Whenever, and wherever, the
remission of sins took place in all the Avorld,
in every age, "ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost." Hence Paul says, "By
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
whether we be JeAvs or gentiies, whether
Ave be bond or free ; and ha\'e been all made
to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12:13.

38

TILE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

This body to which he refers, is the church,
the body'of Christ, so termed Those Avho
joined in this relation became "ht temples
for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.'
If these powers and blessiuss were limited
to the early apostles' time, then the body
of Christ, the church of God on earth was
limited to that age.

Paul foreseeinir that such a xheory
would be foisted upon the world in the lu-
ture from his day, raised a wanung voice
to the people, declaring, ^'that in the last
days perilous times shall come, ' by men,
"haviu"- a form of godliness, but ilenymg
the power thereof." The advice that fol-
lows thi'^ announcement is most striking
and cheeriui;-: "I^rom such turn away.''
2 Tim. 3;o. The apostle Peter also, as it on
purpose to put the question beyond cavil-
ing, and at rest, says, "The promise is un-
to vou, and to your children, and to all
that are afar olf, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call." To all who are called
to repentance and salvation, and not to
miraculous power, as has bc^n stated; but
called to Christ Jesus. God thus calls all
men in every age. "In every natiou he
that fearethGod and worketh rightonsness
is accepted witii him." "Come unto jue, all
ye ends of the earth," says God, "And be
ye saved." I-5ut my opponent says, Christ
limited .loel's prophecy made to all llesh, to
Pentecost day, and that Peter meant when
he said, "Even as many as the Lord oar
God should call," "That all should receive
the Holy Ghost on whom the apostles laid
their hands."

This is evidently a subterfuge, and false
rendering, for there is not a statement in
the iii hie anywhere to the efl'ect that none
were to receive the Holy Ghost l»ut those on
whom the apostles should lay their liands.
This is gotten up out of whole cloth and
added to the word of God in order to sup-
port a weak theory. But my opponent
seems to be driven to the last" ditch here.
He assumes to turn .Jesus against his pro-
phets. Says he, -'Christ limits Joel's pro-
phecy to those on whom the apostles should
lay their iiands." Why does he want Joel
limited? Ah! Joel speaks too loud for his
theory. Let me read it: "And it shall
come to pass afterward." (after the time of
the re-gathering of Israel when they shall
never ajrain be ashamed ), "That I will
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams, j'our
young men shall see visions : And also
upon the servants, and upon the handmaids
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
And I will show wonders in the heavens
. and the earth, blood and lire, and pillars of
smoke." Joel2:2S-uO. AV'ien shall this be?
lu the "last daj^s," when God shall have set
his hand a second time to gather his people.
"When Jacob's (Israel's) face shall no
longer wax pale;" "afterwards." All the
prophets agree as to the time. Not on Pente-
cost daj' ; nor at the time when the apostles
laid on hands during their ministry. Not
ou a few on Pentecost day, and those upon

whom the apostles should lay their hands ;
but "upon all flesh." In the period of the
world's history when God should "show
wonders in heaven above, and signs in the
earth beneath ; blood and fire and pillars of
smoke." When, "The sun shall be turned
into darkness, and the moon into blood be-
fore the great and notable day of the Lord
comes." This prophecy was not fulfilled on
Pentecost day. Nor does the apostle so
state. He says, referring to the Holy Ghost
that had then rested upon and imbued the
disciples, "This is t/iat which was spoken
bv the prophet Joel,"— the Spirit that Joel
referred to which should be poured out in
the last days, by which men should see
visions, dream dreams and prophesy. Not
the accomphshment of what Joel said would
take place,— but the presence of the Spirit
—the agency— by which it would be accom-
plished. Joel prophesied of certain things
to take place in the "last days." My oppon-
ent's position is that Christ corrected him
and says, no prophesying in the "last days;"
this is to be confined to Pentecost and those
on whom the apostles shall lay their hands.
Who is right? Joel or my opponent? He
says again, that no one received the Holy
Gi'iost save under the apostles' hands. Rut
Ananias, who was not an apostle, laid his
hands upon Saul that he "might receive the
Holy Ghost," and be healed. This shows
that the authority to lay on hands for the
healing of the sick and the bestowing of the
Spirit, was vested in the same class of ofiB-
cers. Jesus says, "They shall lay hands on
the sick and they shall recover." Mark 16.
James also tells "us who shall lay hands on
the sick, showing the practice under the
Savior's instruction: "Is there any sick
among you? Let him call for the elders of
the church," &c. James o: 14. Hence, Paul
addresses Timothy, "Neglect not the gift
that is in thee, which was given thee by
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands
of the presbytery." 1 Tim. 4 : 14. Here the
presbytery, body of elders, officiated in lay-
ing hands upon Timothy, and a gift was
manifest by prophecy through the ordin-
ance. But the negative in his ramblings
goes from bad to worse. He says that the
(jhristian Institution under Christ and the
apostles was a little boy, playing with toys,
compared with the excellency, perfection ^
and power that followed after. How won-
derful! Then they had apostles, prophets,
the gift of the Holy Ghost, communion with
God^and the visitation of angels, the healing
of the sick and the love of God shed abroad
in the heart by the Holy Ghost which they
received; yet he stands before you and
claims that this is nothing to be compared
with the condition of the church that fol-
lowed in after ages and is now ex<ant
almost universally, and from which all of
this heavenly clothing and adornment has
been stripped, as the woman going into the
wilderness was shorn of her beauty and
heavenly power.

One is inclined to think he is joking
here, rather than talking in earnest; the
absurdity is so palpable. The Church of

THli BRADEN AND KELLEY DERATE.

39

Christ Avas to be "a habitatiou of God
through the Spirit.'- 'J'his new theory-
leads to the coiiclusioti that tlie world is
better off and reliarion more excellent not
to have God in either. When God talks
with men, and tiie Holy Gliost tills their
souls, and they have the testimony of Je-
sus and certainty in relig-ion. it is a dark
and tryin.c;- time; — "a boy with liis toys;"
but when neither God nor Christ, nor the
Holy Ghost, nor the propliets nor apostles
are known in the church, or in the world;
and division, and discord and contention,
distraction and uncertainty everywhere
reig-ns, the full grown man appears, with
all his cai^tivating inf'nences and enticing-
graces. The gifts having passed away, he
says, we have Jove, joy, peace, etc. But did
not they have all this and God, and Christ
besides in tlie "toy day." tiiat he refers to?
To support this hallucination he refers to
1 Cor. 13, and endeavors to show that there
is a "more excellent way," than to have
communion Avith God, through the Holy
Spirit, and the realization of the gifts in
the church. "Charity never faileth."
Right; but it is found in and enjoyed most
by those exercising the gifts of the gospel.
Charity is love, the jDure love of God. It
is for the saints here, and in the future
world, when they shall reign with God.
"But whether there be prophecies they
shall fail; whether there be tongues they
shall cease; Whether there be knowledge it
shall vanish away." When shall these
things cease? My opponent says, in the age
of the apostles, i. e., when the apostles
died and there was no one to lay on
hands; and thus from sheer necessity. But
this proves too much for him. If it was
because the apostles died, it could not have
been because, "that which is perfect is
come;" unless the killing of the apo.^tles
brought perfection. Knowledge, prophe-
cies, and tongues are classed together, and
if he takes it that these are to cease with-
out reference to the "part" exercise of
them as explained by the apostle liiraself,
all are mustered out together, and become
things of the past at the same time. It
would scarcely do for me to tell such a
towering light as my opponent; that knowl-
edge ceased in the apostolic age; that was
the age of bo3's, the "toj^ age." But his
theory forces him to do so. If it is said that
this refers to miraculous knowledge, I ask
what kind is that? Certainly it does not
come under that-classed as learning, erudi-
tion, scholarship, &c. Nor -'cognition, no-
tice," &c. It must be then of " apprenen-
sion, comprehension, understanding, dis-
cerjiment, judgment." Will he take the
position that tliis kind of knowledge has
ceased from the church? No wonder things
looked dark to Mr. Wesley. Let cis permit
the apostle to be his own interpreter here.
Verses 9 audio, " For we know in part, and
prophesy in part, but when that which is
perfect is come, chen that which is in part
shall be done away." What shall be done
away ? Doing in part. Knowledge in part ;
prophesying in part ; speaking in languages

only in part. A\'hen shall it be done away?
Answer: "When that wrijch is perfect is
come ; " and this U when part prophesying
and knowing in part will cease. iVIy oppo-
nent says, Paul is cont vesting two states of
the church: One uu(U,r the spiritual gifts,
the other under a "perfected" state without
spiritual gifts, or communion with God
except as may be received tlirough the writ-
ten word : — that is from reading the Bible.
This is another of his fallacies. Paul is con-
trasting the state of the church and saints
herewith the condition tiiatis to be attained
in the future world, at the coming of .Jesus
the second time. "Now, (in this life — this
side of a time of perfection,) I see through a
glass darkly; but then shall I know, even
as I am known." When this perfect time
shall come then Paul Avill knoAv as he is
knoAvn ; until that time he sees tlirough a
a glass darkly Avalkmg by the light of pro-
phesying in part, and knowing only in part.
There is nothing- more clear, than if Paul
with his spiritual vision, knowledge and
prophecy, could know only in part, there
has been no state of the church since his
day when man attained to a more perfect
knowledge. And more especially must
this be conceded by my opponent, Avhen he
and his CamiDbellile Church, assumes that
all that men can kuoAV of God, and religion
now, is by reading the Bible written in part
by Paul himself, and Avholly, so far as its
divinity is concerned, Avhen men Avere blest
with the spiritual gifts and had communion
with God. The facts are these : The light
of God only comes to earth in part. The
Saints of old kneAV in part and prophesied
in part ; but they looked forward to the
tuture when the knoAvledge in part should
be a thing of the past, and they would know
as they were known. My opponent says,
this Avas after the apostles passed away and
the church became a full-grown man. But
who can believe him Avheu he furtlier says
that the Christians, or the world, knows
more of duty and the light of heaven, and
are in a higher, more advanced and perfect
state than Avhen the spiritual gifts, were
extant and there Avas communion Avith God?
The gifts were to continue until the day of
perfect knowledge should come. ' ' The day
I of Christ." 2 Thess. 2 : 2. Paul says in the
Ephesian letter, fourth chapter- " And he
gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets
and some. eA'augelists ; and some pastors
and teachers." What for? " For the per-
fecting of the Saints the work of the minis-
try, for the edifying of the body of Christ,"
or the church. Hoav long Avas this inspired
ministry tocoutinue? The apostle answers
in the next sentence. " Till we all come in
j the unity of the fai fh , and of the knoAviedy:^
i of the Sou of (jod, unto a perfect man, unto
the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ." And all this for the purpose:—
"That we hencefortl; be no more children lossc'i to
"and fro, and carried abom with every wind of doc-
" trine, bj' the sleight of men .and cunning craftuiess.
"whereby they lie in wait u. deceive; bui-peakinij Hie
' truth in love, in v grow up nnto him in all things,
which if! the head, even Christ. ■ From whom the
-'whoie bodv titly joined together and compacted by
"that which every joint .supplieth, according to the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

"efTectual workiiis in the measure of every part, mak-
"eth increase of the boiy unto the edifying of itself in
"in love." 11 to 16 verses.

This scripture confirms the opinion that
the apostles and prophets were designed to
contiuue in the church, that the people
might be "no more children tossed to and
fro^'aiid carried about with every wind of
doctrine."

But Mr. Braden reverses it, and says the
apostles and 2:ifts ceased that we might be
no more children, but full grown men.—
That was "the children or toy day" of the
church. However the apostle further tells
us, that they were to continue till we all
come to, "the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of
the stature of tlie fullness of Christ."
; Again, "God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondly proph-
ets, thirdly teacher%. after that mir-
acles, then gifts of healings, helps, govern-
ments, diversities of tongues," 1 Cor. 12:l2S.
"God has set the members every one in the
body as it hath please<l him." This body
in which he placed tiles'^ members is his
church ; and he placed them in the body,
the church, to edify the same and to contin-
ue therein, until "we all come to the knowl-
edge of the Son of God;" but now we are
gravely told that they are not necessary or
essential to the proper growth ot the body,
and that they are not to continue "till we
come to the knowledge of the Son of God."
But since it is by this same Holy Spirit that
was manifest on I'entecost day, and by
wliicli the signs followed the believer, and
which God gave by gift to the ministry,
and poured out upon all the believers, that
we may at all attain to tiie knowledge of
Christ, will be now be so kind as to tell us
whether he expects by banisliing the means
of knowledge, to have the people become
enlightened? "No man can saj' that .Jesus
is the Lord," [come to the knowledge of
him], "but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor.
12:3.

He says again, the "Mormons baptize for
miraculous gifts." But he also told you,
they got tlieir baptism through a (^ampbel-
lite preacher, Sidney Iligdon. Do thfa'
baptize for miraculous gifts? The Saints do
not now, nor never did baptize for miracu-
lous gifts. That is out of whole cloth.

They baptize "for the remission of sins,"
and then say as the apostles taught, that
the obedient doer of tlie word is entitled to,
the Holy Giiost by reason of the "promise."

Again, he claims that the Book of Mor-
mon is an. addition no the Bible. This is in-
correct. The Book of Mormon stands alone,
an a work or as a revelation from Deity ; and
is complete of itself; as the Bible 'stands
alone and is complete, (so far as the book is
concerned .-lud a record of God's will as re-
vealed upon tlie Eastern continent), so is
tlie l^ook of Mormon of a like history and of
tiiat same vviil, as revealed, upon the VVo.'=-
tern continent. The Hook of Mi- mon is in
no true sense an addition to the Bible : no
such claim is, or has ever been, made for it.
by the book itself, or its friends. But it eon-

iirms the Bible in its testimony, and this is
answer enough if we had no other as to the
good of the work. The Bible is a record of
the Jews and their religion. The Book of
Mormon is a record of the people who came
to and lived upon the Western continent
and their religion. It is not true as assert-
ed, that the Latter Day Saints hold the
revelations in the Book of Mormon in high-
er veneration than they do the revelations
of the Bible With them a revelation from
God, given to the world in Palestine, is just as
worthy of consideration and respect, as one
given in America ; and one from a similar
source in America, just as good as one given
in Palestine. Neither is age a consequence
as to the truth or applicability of it. God
over all is rich, and none can limit His pow-
er of giving and revealing. If a church that
denies to its members the light and gift of
the Holj- Spirit, of communion with God,
through the Comforter, and an approach to
the life of rhe church of the First Born, and
Jesus the Mediator, is not a .lack o'lantern
light to the world, then tliere is no faint
and dim glimmering anywhere. Now- I
wish to refer hurriedly to what he stated
last evening by way of an illustrativon. using
the American government, or the compact
of the Constitution and the framers, in a
comparison to the apostles and tlieir work,
or to those whom he says gave us the Bible.
The trouble with his illustration is, tliat it
is not a parallel case as used by him. The
framers of the American Constitution were
selected liy the American people, and au-
thorized by them to meet and in their own
wisdom frame a constitution which should,
ifratified, be thegov^erning or fundamental
law. In the word of God, as committed to
the world, the apostles are not tlie framers,
or makers, neither the ones to ratify as well
as devise or institute. They could approve
or reje(!t as they chose, but this action could
not affect the law, only themselves, as wit-
ness the act ^>f Judas. They were the means
simply of communicating that knowledge
to the world that was framed and devised,
by Deity himself. And when my opponent
seeks by his illustration to reason apostles
out of the world, he makes the blunder of
placing the apostles in the position occupied
by Deity himself, to the New Testament,
and hisiUustratiou legitimately, instead of
showing that apostles were to cease, puts
God out of the Universe and out of the
church, instead of the apostles. This is
why I object to his theory. It is but on a
par vvilh his other argument, wherein ho
has souglitto shut the Holy Ghost, the life
and power of the gospel out of the church.
God gave the covenant or constitution of the
Christian CImrch, .and it was not the work
o'' tlie apostles. The apostles were the
means of teaching this constitution to the
world ; — "ambassadors" to publish the glad
news. Tlie publication of the constitution
of the I'nited States, was not l>y the fram
ers, but by means of another's agency, tlio
press, and public criers selected for that
purpose. The framers of the constitution
so far as their v/ork was concerned, would

THE BRADEN AND liELLEY DEBATE.

41

bear a likeness to De/ty, who framed and
gave the gospel law. Says Jesus m his de-
livery of the law ; "The Father which sent
me, he gave me a commandment, what I
should say, and what I should speak."
John 12:49. Tlie apostles are, in the com-
parison, in fact but the publishers, ambass-
adors, preacliers. For God to give direction
iiow he would have these laws carried out,
would not necessarily either, be making
'ucif conMitution every day ;" any more than
lie was makiuof new constitution every day
.u the time of Paul and John. Who will
say that because we have a constitution or
iirtit basis in our government, we shall have
no more laws. The only restriction is, that
The laws shall not conflict with the con-
stitution.

The next objection I shall take up and
examine, is that profound and doubtless
scholarly argument, based upon the mirac-
ulous in the creation of the world. That
since God created the earth by miraculous
power, therefore he says, I would have him
continue to keep a miracle going all the
time, in order that we might have miracu-
lous things or new animals and plants.
But he forgets that when God created the
earth by miraculous power, if he wishes to
call it miraculous, he at the same time
established in the saane miraculous manner,
for aught my opponent can tell, a law by
which those things which were created,
that he calls miraculous, were to be repro-
duced. And we have the miraculous plants
and animals now by virtue of that law.
Just the same as he ordained in the first
iige of Christianity by the law of the Holy
r^pirit that apostles should continue if men
Lept the faith, and if they kept not the
Iciith, then they should not continue ; and
if we have not the fruits by the ordination
of the law of the Holy Spirit, it is because
the law has not been kept, for God has not
changed.

Will my opponent now stop to tell us
whether the law by which the natural cre-
ation is now continued is not the same by
which God originally wrought when it first
germinated? When did Deity change, or
at what time did the new law take the
place of the old? JVIiike the coaiparison
and follow it to its conclusion and you will
see that instead of supporting his theory

it destroys it. God in the creation of
the world brought forth certain things,
and ordained a means by which they
should continue and they continue as at
the first by that means, and as the law
provided, to the just and unjust alike. In
the establishment of his church he did
many things which showed the proper
fruits of his law, by means of the Holy
Spirit. He ordained that they should con-
tinue by means of the same agency and
power, to the believer, the doer of the word,
for this law was limited to such, and noi
as the other, made alike to the just and the
unjust. Do they continue? Has God
changed? The law governing should as in
the order of creation cause the same effect,
and bring to the believer, knowledge, wis-
dom, faith, prophecies, tongues and heal-
ings. These are the legitimate fruits of
the law of the Holy Spirit to the believer.
But my opponent says no. Why? The
simple reason is his people do not have
the fruits, and the application will show
that they are not " doers of the word."

Now I call your attention to the real im-
port of the story he related, which certainly
displayed his ingenuity in taking an eco-
nomical way of meeting my arguments. I
have several times called your attention to
the fact that he was not debating properly
this question, and that he had abandoned
any defense, so far as meeting my argu-
ments is concerned ; and now, he comes in
and admits it in his story of the boy, that
he says was only waiting for something
suificient to roll up so that he could have
something to kick at. He is waiting for
my arguments to roll up.

This reminds me of another boy. He saw
aji object in the path and at first sight he
concluded he would kick it out. As he
)ieared it, the object looked a little firmer
than at first, but he thought he would kick
at it any way. Finally he drew quite close
and the object looked as if it was bundled
up so tightly, that if he kicked he might
get his toes hurt, and so he did not kick at
all ; and this seems to me to be the true
reason why he has not foot-balled my argu-
ment.

(Laughter and applause.) (Time ex-
pired.)

42

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S FOURTH SPEECH.

Gextt,emen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen:— Mrs. Matilda Spaulding,
Solomon 8paulding's wife testifies, after
stating- that Mr. Spaulding was very much
interested iu the antiquities found around
Conneaut :

"Mr. Spaulding conceived the idea of writing a his-
tory of the long lost race that produced these antiqui-
ties. Their extreme aniiquity lead him to write in the
most ancient style, and as the Old Testament was the
oldest book in the world, he imitaied its style, as much
as possible. As he progressed in his narrative, the
neighbors would come in from time to time, to hear
portions read, and a great interest in the work was ex-
cited among them. It claimed to have been written by
one of the lost nation and to have been recovered from
the earth. The neighbors would often ask how Mr.
Spaulding progressed in deciphering the manusenpt,
and when he had a sufficient portion prepared, he
woulii inform them, and they would assemble to henr
it rea.l. He was enabled, from his acquaintance with
the classics and ancient history to intMduce many sin-
gular nfliii'-M, which were particularly noticed by the
people, and could easily be recognized by them."

Let us say in passing that "Mormon " is
one of those names. It is from the Greek
and means literally a " bug-bear, a hobgob-
lin."

Miss Martha Spaulding, now Mrs. Kins-
try, Spaulding's daughter testifies : " My
Father read the manuscript I had seen him
writing to the neighbors and to a clergy-
man a friend of his who came to visit him.
Some of the names he mentioned while
reading to the people I have never for-
gottenT They are as fresh in my memory
as though I had heard them but yester-
day. They are Mormon, Moroni, Lamanite
and Nephi, etc., etc."

Joseph Miller of Amity, Pa., who was in-
timate with Spaulding while he lived in
Amity, nursed him in his last illness, and
heard him read much from his manuscript,
saj^s :

"Mr. Spaulding seemed to take great delight in read-
ing from his manuscript written on foolscap. I heard
him read most if not all of it; and had frequent coii-
ve sations with him about it. Some time ago I heard
most of the Book of Mormon read. On hearing read
the account of the battle between the Amliciies (Book
of Alma, chapter II.), in which ihe soldiers of one
army placed a red murk on their foreheads, to distin-
guish them from their enemies, it seemed to reproiiuce
in my mind not only the narrative but the very words,
as they had been imprinted on my mind byreading
Spaulding's manuscript."

Ruddick McKee of Washington D. C. tes-
tifies :

"I was a boarder at Spaulding's tavern in Amity,
Pa., in the fall of 1814. I recollect quite well mV.
Sp.-iulding spending much time in writing on sheets of
paper torn from an old book, what purported to be a
veritable history of the nations or tribes that inhabited
Canaan. He called it ' Lost Manuscript' orsomesuch
namt'. I was struck with the minuteness of its details
and apparent sincerity and truthfulness of the author
1 have an indistinct recollection of the passage referred
to by Mr Miller, about the Amlicites making a cross
with red paint in their foreheads to distinguish them
from their enemies in the confusion of battle."

Mr. Abner Jackson of Canton Ohio who
hciird Spaulding read the MS. to his father
in Conneaut, just before his removal to
Pittsburg, testifies :

" Spaulding frequently read his MS. to the neighbors
and commented on it as he progressed. He wrote
it in Bible style, 'And it came to pass' occurred so often
that some called him ' Old come to pass.' The names,
Mormon, Moroni. Nephi, Nephite, Laman, Lamanite,
etc., were in it. The closing scene was at Cumorah,
where all the righteous were slain."

We propose now to introduce Sidney Rig-
don himself. Rev. John Winter, M. D. was
teaching school in Pittsburg, and was a
member of the First Baptist church when
Rigdon was its pastor and was intimate
with Rigdon. He testifies that

"In 1822 or 3 Rigdon took out of his desk in his study
a large M.~^. stating tlmtitwas a Bible romance pur-
porting to be a history of the American Indians. That
It was written by one Spuulding a Presbyterian preach-
er whose health had failed and who had tnken It to
the printers to see if it would pay to publish it. And
that he (Rigdon) had borrowed it from the printer as a
curiosity."

James Jeffries, an old and highly respect-
ed citizen of Church ville Hartford Co. Ma-
ryland, testifies, in a statement he dictated
to Rev. Calvin D. Wilson, Jan. 20th 1884, in
the presence of his wife and J. M. Finney,
M. D. ; and attested b^ Dr. Finney, Rev
Wilson and Mrs. James Jeffries :

"Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. The
Mormons'then had their temple in Nauvoo Illinois. I
h.id business transactions with them I knew Sidi ey
Rigdon. He afted as general mana'.'er of the business
of the Mormons (with me) Rigdon told me several
times, in his conversation with me, that there was in
the printing office with which he was connected in
Ohio, a MS of the Rev Spaulding, tracing the origin of
the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. This MS.
was in the office several years. He was lamiliar with
it. Spaulding wanted it published but had not the
means to pay for printing. He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith
used to look over the Ms. and read it on Sundays. Rig-
don said Smitli took the MS. and said 'I'll print it,' and
went off to Palmyra New York."

" Forty years ago" would be the fall of
1844, just after Rigdon had been driven out
of N auvoo. The Times and Seasons assailed
him bitterly, that fall .-ind winter, for ex-
posing Mormonism. On his way from Nau-
voo to Pittsburg, he called on his old ac-
quaintance, Mr. Jeffries, in St. Louis, and,
in his anger at the Mormons, he let out the
secrets of Mormonism, just as he told the
Mormons he would, if they did not make
him their leader.

George Clark, son of .Jerome Clark of
Harwicke, N. Y., testifies that Mrs David-
son left the trunk containing her first hus-
band's MSS. at his fathers, before she went
to Munson Mass, to live with her daughter.
He says :

"Shortly before Hurlbut got the MS. from fathers,
during a visit to fathers. Mrs Davidsc n gave to my wife
to read, a MS. writUn by her first husuand, Spaulding;
remarking as she handed her the MS. : 'The Mormon
Bible is almost a literal copy ot this MS.' "

It was this MS. Hurlbut obtained from
Jerome Clark, and which he never deliv-
ered to Howe. He retained it and gave to
Howe a few leaves, the beginning of an
entirely different MS.

Scores of witnesses who would have cor-
roborated the above could have found

THJ5 BRADEN AND KEI.T.EY DEBATE.^

wnere the Book of Mormon appeared, but
these are enougrh certainly.

We wish now to call the attention of the
reader to these facts. 1. We have proved
by sixteen witnesses of the highest char-
acter, one Solomon Spaulding's brother,
another his sister-in-law, another his wife,
another his daughter, another his business
partner, another one who was an inmate of
his family for many months, another one
with whom Spaulding boarded for months,
and the others intimate acquaintances, that
between the 3'ears 1809 and 1816 Solomon
Spaulding spent much of his time in pre-
paring manuscripts for a book he intended
to publish called the "Manuscript Found."
II. That from reading it and hearing him
read it they became more or less familiar
with the contents of his manuscript. III.
Their description of his manuscript is as ac-
curate an outline of the historic portion of
the Nephite part of the Book of Mormon,
in the p)ot of the story, the starting point
of the history, its leading incidents, jour-
neys, wars etc., the names of the principal
chaiacters, as any average Mormon can
give. IV. They mention only the Nephite
portion of the book of Mormon, with one
exception which we will soon give. V.
They all declare that there was no religious
matter in his manuscript. VI. Oliver
Smith testifies that Spaulding told him just
before going to Pittsburg, tluit he would
prepare the manuscript for press while
there, living a retired life for that purpose.
VII J.N. Miller testifies, that in explain-
ing his book to him, Spaulding told him
that he landed the people at the Isthmus of
Darien which he called Zarahemla.

From all these facts we gather these
conclusions. That Spaulding wrote, at
first only the historic part of the Nephite
portion of the Book of Mormon. This
was his second manuscript which we will
call manuscript No II. or Mormon manu-
script No. I. It was this small manuscript
that Mrs. Martha Spaulding his daughter
saw in the trunk at W. H. Sabins her
uncles in Onadago, Valley. N. Y. about
the year 1828. From theaniount of writing
Spaulding did during the seven years, and
from Miller's description, it is evident that
he prepared a naore complete manuscript
adding the Zarahemla emigration. This
we will call manuscript No. III. Mormon
nviiuscript No. 2. In 1812 Spaulding mov-
ed to Pittsburg, for the purpose of publish-
ing his book, intending, as he told Oliver
Smith to lead a retired life and rewrite it
for the press. He showed it, his daughter
testifies to Mr. Patterson, a publisher in
Pittsburg who told him to rewrite it for the
press and he would publish it. He did so
and added the Jaredite emigration. Mrs.
Spaulding, his wife, and Miss Spaulding
his . daughter, testify, that he sent the
manscript to Pattersoli's publishing house.
'Mr. Miller, Mr. McKee and Dr. Dodd of
Amity, Pa., testify that Spaulding told
them he had done so. In 1814 Spaulding
then in very poor health went to Amity,
Washington Co., Pa, His wife kept tavern

and supported the family. Spaulding
continued to write on his manus(!ript ana
read it to all who would listen to him un-
til his death Oct. 20th 1816.

His wife and daughter put his manu-
script and papers that they found, into a
trunk and took it with them to the resi-
dence of a brother of Mrs. Spaulding, W.
PI. Sabin, Onandago, Valley, Onandsigo
county, N. Y. In 1820 Mrs. Spauldin*
went to Pomfret Conn. Sometime after-
wards she married a Mr. Davidson of Hart-
wicke, Otsego, county N. Y.and went there
to live. She left her daughter IMiss Mar-
tha Spaulding with her uncle Mr. Sal)in,
and left the trunk contMining the manu-
scripts in her care. M ss Spaulding testi-
fies that she read one of me manuscript.s, a
smallone, either Sj);iulding's first draft of
the story, or his Mormon manuscript No.
1. — the one he wrote in 1809-10. She also
testifies that while she was at her uncles,
Joseph Smith worked as teamster for her
uncle, and learned of the existence of the
manuscript. Imposter Joe places his first
visiou concerning tlie plates, Sept. 1823. As
this is his way of dressing up his first
knowledge of the njanuscript he worked for
Sabin in September, 1828, and learned of
the existence of the manuscript then.
Sometime after her moving to HartwicUe,
and after Sept. 1823, Mrs. Davidson sent for
the trunk and it was sent from Onandago,
Valley, to the house of Mr. Davidson in
Hartwicke. In 1828 Miss Martha Spaubling
married Dr. McKinstry and went to Mun-
son Mass. to live. 188u INIrs. Davidson left
Hartwicke and went to Munson to live with
her daughter Mrs. McKinstry, She left
the trunk containing the manuscript and
papers — that is all she and her daughter
found after Spaulding's death, in care of
her brother-in-law Jerome Clark, in Hart-
wicke. Plere it stayed until it was opened
by Philastus Hurlbut an<l Jerome Clark in
1834. Hurlbut had visited Mrs. Davidson
and Mrs. McKinstry in Munson, and ob-
tained an order from them authorizing him
to open the trunk, and examine its contents.
We are ready now to introduce the per-
son who was instrumental in giving to the
world the " Book of Mormon." Sidney Rig-
don was born near the village of Library in
St. Clair township, Allegany county. Pa,,
February 19, 1793. He lived on the farm of
his father until the death of the latter in
1810 ; when Sidney was 17 years old. All
the education he obtained he got in a log
school-house near his home. After his
father's death he still made his home at his
mother's pretending to work on the farm and
to farm the land part of the time, but was,
his neighbors say, too lazy or too proud to
work. A dispute has arisen over the ques-
tion whether he was in Pittsburg before he
went there in 1822, to take charge of the

j first Baptist church. His friends assert
that he did not live ui Pittsburg till that
time. A dispute arises over the question

I whether he learned the printers' art in
early life. Also whether he worked in the
olhce of Patterson, when Spaulding's manu»

44

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

script was taken there to be published.
His friends deny this, and persons employ-
ed in Patterson's office before and after that
time, say they remember no such employee
of the ofVii'e, and Rigdon denied it most em-
phatically. Mr. Patterson remembers noth-
ing of liim. On the other hand Mrs.
Davidson, Spaulding's wife, declares posi-
tively that he was connected with the office.
Iifr. Slillerof Amity, Mr. McKee, and Dr.
Dodd testify that Mr. Spaulding so inform-
ed them. There must have been some
foundation for such positive impressions on
the part of Mr. and Mrs. Spaulding, and
many others.

I think Mrs. Eichbaum who was clerk in
the post office, in Pittsburg, from 1812 to
1816, gives the key to the matter. A young
man by the name of Lambdin was in Mr.
Patterson's employ and became his partner
in 1818. She states that Rigdon and Lamb-
din were very intimate and that Mr. Engle
foreman of Patterson's printing office com-
plained that Rigdon was loafing around the
office all the time; that Rigdon was work-
ing in a tannery at the time. The explana-
tion tlien is that Rigdon was Intimate with
Lambdin one of the leading employees of
Patterson, while he was working in a
tannery in Pittsburg, and from this intim-
acy, persons supposed that he was in
Patterson's employ; especially when he
was around the offi( e so much. Rigdon was
then a young man, noted for his gift of gab,
and fondness for discussion, especially on
religious topics. We are now ready to
prove that Rigdon came in contact with the
8|)aulding manuscript. Joseph Miller of
Amity, Pa., wlio took care of Spaulding in
his last illness, testifies : " My recollection
is that Spaulding left a transcript of the
manuscript with Patterson for publication.
The publication was delayed until Spaul-
ding could write a preface. In the mean
tiiue the manuscript was spirited away, and
could not be found. Spaulding told me
that Sidney Rigdon had taken it or
was suspected of taking it. I recol-
lect disti]ictly that Rigdon 's name was
mentioned in connection with it." Mr.
McKee says that Rigdon was mentioned to
him by Spaulding as the employee of Pat-
terson. Dr. Dodd who took care of Spaul-
ding in his last illness declared that
Spaulding's manuscript had been trans-
formed into the Book of Mormon, and that
Rigdon was the one who did it. He made
this statement years before Howe's book
appeared, the first public statement of such
a theory. He did it on account of what he
had heard of the Spaulding manuscript, and
what Spaulding had told him. Mrs. Spaul-
ding positively declares that Rigdon wps
connected with Patterson's office, when the
manuscript was there, and that he copied
It. That the manuscript was a subject of
much curiosity and interest in the office.
That It was well known that he had a copy
of it. '^''

We can now collate the evidence. Riff-
don was intimate with Lf.n.bdin a prom-
inent employee in the office. He loafed

about the office so much that Mr. Engle
the foreman complained of it. His fond-
ness for religious discussion and love of the
strange and marvelous, caused him to take
a deep interest in the Spaulding manu-
script. It was just what would interest such
a cast of mind as his. The manuscript was
missed. He was blamed with spiriting it
away. Mrs. Spaulding thinks he copied it.
She, in the course of her husband's last ill-
ness did not learn all the facts, or did not
remember clearly. She was mistaken in
regard to his copying it and that it was re-
turned, as Miller, McKee and Dr. Dodds
statements, in regard to Spauldings own
statements show. We have now traced the
manuscript that Spaulding prepared for
publication into Rigdon's hands. The
statement of his friends that he staid on
the farm till he went to Pittsburg, in 1822,
they contradict themselves. It does not
harmonize with Rigdon's character. Mrs,
Eichbaum's statement is confirmed by the
fact that Rigdon went to work in a tannery,
when he quit preaching in 1824. He haa
learned the trade in 1812 to 1816. That Rig-
don was in Pittsburg, when Spaulding,
manuscript was in Patterson's office learn-
ing the tanner's trade. He was intimate
with Lambdin, an employee of Patterson.
He was about the office so much that En-
gles complained that he was always hang-
ing about. He was just such a person as
would be excited over Spaulding's manu-
script. He took great interest in it. That
was what made him hang around the office.
The manuscript was stolen, and Spaulding
said that Rigdon was suspected of taking it.

Rigdon joined the Baptist church on
Piney Fork of Peters creek May 31, 1817.
He studied theology during the years 1818-
19 with a Mr. Clark a Baptist Preacher of
Beaver, county, Pa. He was licensed to
preach by the Counequessing Baptist
church in 1819. He went to Warren Trum-
bull county Ohio, where his uncle was a
prominent member of the Baptist church
and joined that church, March, 4th, 1820.
He was ordained to preach as a regular
Baptist Preacher by that church, April, 1st,
1820. He preached for that church and other
churches in that vicinity during the years
1820 and 21. He married Phebe Brooks in
Warren, in 1820. In January 1822 he moved
to Pittsburg and was made Pastor of the
First Baptist church Jan. 28th 1822. He
embraced many of the teachings of Camp-
bell and Scott. His church and Scott's
often met together in worship. He was ar-
raigned for such doctrinal errors and ex-
cluded Oct, 11, 1823. He preached for his
adherents in the court house till in the sum-
mer of 1824. Then for two years did no
regular preaching. He says he studied the
Bible and worked in a tannery.

We will now prove that he had the
Spaulding manuscript in his possession at
this time. Rev. John Winter M. D. who
was a member of Rigdon's congregation
when he was pastor of the First Baptist
church, and very intimate with him testi-
fies ; that Rigdon in his presence in his

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

45

house took out of a desk a manuscript and
remarked that a "Presbyterian minister
Spaulding whose health had failed brought
this to a printer to see if it would pay to
publish it. It is a romance of the Bible —
and he got it from the printer to read as a
curiosity." Here we have clear proof that
Rigdon had Spaulding's manuscript in his
possession in 1823. In the winter of 1826
Rigdon moved to Bainbridge, Geauga, coun-
ty Ohio. Soon after he was visited by his
niece now Mrs. A. Duniap of Warren, Ohio.
She testifies :

"That in her presence her uncle went into his bed-
room and took from a trunk which he kept carefully
locked, a manuscript and come back seated himself by
the fire and bej-'an to read. His wife came into the
room and exclaimed: "What you area studying r'yat
thing a^ain ? I mean to burn thut paper.'' Rigdon
replied : " No indeed you will not. This will be a great
thing some day." When he was reading this manu-
script he was so completely occupied that he seemed
entirely unconscious of anything around him."

We have now proved that Rigdon had
the Spaulding manuscriptin his possession,
and that he expected to make some great
thing out of it and spent much time over
it.

In June 1826 Rigdon was invited to preach
the funeral sermon of Warner Goodall of
Mentor Ohio, and so pleased the congrega-
tion, that they chose him their preacher,
and he became a Disciple Preacher. He was
now 33 years old. He had barely what was
a common school education of those days,
and was never a student or reader, except
of the visionary and mysterious. He had
a wonderful command of language, an ex-
travagant imagination and a marvelous
power of word painting. He excelled in
declamation and in a kind of pulpit power,
that arouses revival excitement. He never
was regarded as a reason er, or a man of
profound thought. He was relied on as a
revivalist rather than as a regular preacher.
His favorite theme was the millennium, on
which he was fond of declaiming, and
entertained the ideas now found in
the Book of Mormon, He was always
talking of some great time, coming, some
great tiling going to happen. He brought
with him many of his Baptist ideas, and
never accepted all Disciple teaching. His
power in revivals and his love of revival
excitement, inclined him to the idea then
popular in all churches, except the Disciples
of direct and immediate or miraculous
power of the Holy Ghost. His extrava-
gancies and eccentricities gave constant
aunoyaaice to the Disciples, who overlooked
them on account of his power as a revivalist.
They would often say: " Oh well it is
Rigdon. It is one of* Rigdon 's oddities."
His imagination and love of the marvelous
lead him constantly into exaggerations, that
often were absolute falsehoods. Those who
who watched him closely were soon con-
vinced, that he lacked logical mental power
and moral stamina, and was unreliable in
his statements, dud wanting in moral prin-
ciple. He was a vain showy pulpit orator
but never was a trusted preacher among
the Disciples.
We propose now to show that Rigdon knew

of the appearance of the Book of Mormon
before it appeared, and knew of and de-
scribed its contents. Adamson Bently
Rigdon 's brother-in-law and one of the
most reliable men that Ohio has ever
known, declares in the Millennial Har-
binger of 1844, page 39 : "I know that Sid-
ney Rigdon told me as much as two years
before the Mormon Book made its appear-
ance, or had been heard of by me, that
there was a book coming out, the'manuscript
of which Avas engraved on gold plates."
Alexander Campbell whose w^ord not even
sectarian hatred ever dared to impeach,
clinches the matter by adding his testi-
mony :

"The conversation aMnded to in Brother Bontly's
letter, was in my presence, as well as liis. My recol-
lection of it led me, sonie two or thiee years ago, to
interrogate Bro. Bently concerning liis recollections of
it. They accorded with mine in every particular, ex-
cept in "regard to the yeiir in which it occurred. He
placed it in the summer of lb27. I placed it in the
summer of 1826. Rigdon, at the same time, observed
that on the plates dug ur> in New York, tliere was an
account, not only of the aborigines of this continent,
but it was stated also that the Chiistian religion had
been preached on this continent, during the first cen-
tury just as we were then preaching it on the Western
Reserve."

That clinches the matter.

We will now introduce Darwin Atwater
of Mantua, who testifies :

" Sidney Rigdon preached for us when the Mormon
defection came on ns, and notwithstaniiing his extra-
ordinary wild freaks he was held in high repute by
many. For a few months before his pretended conver-
sion to Mormonism, it was noted that his wild extray-
Hgant propensities had been more marked. That he
knew bef<irehandof the coming of the Book of Mormon,
is to me certain, from what he had said during the first
of his visits to my father's some years before (in 182ii).
He gave a wonderful description of the mounds and
other antiquities found in some parts of Americii, and
said that they must have been made by the aborigines.
He said there was a book to be published containing
an account of these things. He spoke of them in his
eloquent enthusiastic style as being a thing most ex-
trnordinjiry . Though a youth 1 took him to task for
expending so much enthusiasm on sich a subject in-
stead of the things of the gospel. In all my intercourse
with himiifterwards he never spoke of the antiquities
or of the wonderful book that should give an account
of them till the Book of Mormon was really published.
He must have thought that I was not the man to reveal
to."

That is true. Darwin Atwater was not,
Parley P. Pratt was. He was the right man
for Rigdon's schemes.

Rigdon made a convert of Pratt then
teaching school in Lorain county Oliio.
Pratt began to preach for the Disciples.
Rigdon let him into his scheme and Pratt
entered heartily into it. We will now prove
that Rigdon was away from home, engaged
in getting out his manuscript, that he told
his wife would be a great thing some day.
Zebulon Rudolpho Mrs Garfield's father tes-
tifies :

" During the winter previous to the appearance of the
Book ot Mormon, Rigdon was in the habit of spei ding
weeks awav from home, going no one knew whither.
He often appeared preoccupied and he would indulge
in dreamy visionary talks, which puzzled those who
listened When the' Book of Mormon appeared and
Rigdon joined in the advocacy of the new religion the
suspicion was at once aroused that he was one of the
frumers of the new doctrine, and that probably he was
not ignorant of the authorship of the Book of Mor-
mon."

John Rudolph, brother to Z. Rudolph
says :

"For two years before the Book of Mormon ap-

46

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

111 who heard hm were satisfied that he referred to it.

Alniou B.Green, well kuowu in Northern
Ohio, says :

"In the Annual Meetinsr of the Mahoning Assoeia.
tion held in Austin. own in August, isno, about two
months bef<ire Sidney Ri.don's professed conversion
7o Murniouism, Kigdbn preached Saturday alternoon.
lie liad much to say ahout a full and complete- restoia-
lionof the ancient gospel. He spoke '?' 1"^ ghaung
stvlc of what the Disciples had aceomplislied but con-
tended that we h-id not accomplished a complete resto-
ration of Apostolic Christiainty. He contended such
restoration must include community of goods-holdinsr
all in ommon stoelc, and a r> storation of the spiritual
Bifts of the apostolic age. He promised that alUiough
we had not come up to the apostolic plan in full yet as
we were improving God would soon give us « new and
fuller revelation of his will. After the Book of Mormon
had been read bv manv who heard Rigdon on that oc-
casion thev were perfectiv satisfied that Rigdon knew
all about liiat book when he preached that discourse.
Rigdon's sermon ivas most thorou-My retuted by Bro.
Campbell, which very much offended Rigdon.

Scores of others who were present have
mndesimilarstatements hundreds of times.

Eri M. Dille testifies :

"In the autumn of 1830 Sidney Rigdon held a meet-
ing in the Baptist meeting-house on Euclid Creek. I
was sici; and did not attend the meeting, but my father
repeatedlv remarked while it was iu progress that he
was afraid that Eigdon was about to leave the Disci-
ples for he was continually telling of what marvelous
things he liad seen in the heavens and of wonderful
thi t's al)Out to happen and his talks indicated that he
would leave the Disciples.

"We will now prove that Rigdon came in
contact with Smith in 1827-28-29, while
Smith was getting out the Book of Mormon,
Ponieroy Tucker, a native of Palmj^ra, New
York, an intimate acquaintance of Impos-
tor .Toe, who read much of the proofs of the
Book of IMormon says :

'' A mvsterious stranger now appears at Smith's and
holds in'trcouise with the famed money digger For
acoi'siderable time no intimation of the name or pur-
pose of this stranger transpired to the public, not even
to Smith's nearest neighbors. Itwas observed by some
tliat his visits were frnquently repeated. The sequel
of the intimacies of this stranger and the money dig-
ger, will siunciently appear hereafter. There was
g:eat consternation when the 118 pages of manuscript
were stolen from Harris for it seems to have been im-
possible, for some unaccountable reason, to retranslate
the stolen portion. The re^ippearance of this myste-
rious stranger ai Smith's at thisjuncture was again the
subject of inquiry and conjecture by observers, from
whom was withheld all explanations of his identity
and purpose. When the Book of Mormon appean d
Rigdon was an early convert. Up to this time he had
played his part in the buck-ground and his occasional
visits to Smiih's had been observed by the inhabitants
as those of the mvsterious stranger. It had been his
policy o remain in concealment until all things were
in readiness for blowing tlie trumpet of the new gospel.
He now came to the front as the first regular preacher
in Palmyra."

Mrs.' P^aton, wife of Horace Eaton D. D.
for thirty-two years a resident of Palmyra
says :

'Early in the summer of 1827 a mysterious stranger
geeks admission to Joe Smith's cabin. The conferences
of the two arc most private. This person whose coming
immediately precede i a new departure in the faith was
Sidney Rigdon a backslidden clergyman, then a Camp-
bellite preacher in Mentor. Ohio.

J. H McCauley, in his history of Franklin
County, Pennsylvania, states:"^

"As a mutter too well known to need argument that
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and Sidney
Rigdon were acquaintances for a considerable time
before Jtormonism was first heard of."

Ahel Oiiase, a near neighbor of the
Smilli's, testifles;

" I saw Rigdon at Smith's at d'fferent times with con-
siderable intervals between them."

This disproves the statement that Rigdon
never was at Smith's but once and that
after the book appeared. He was there
several times and some visits must have
been before the book appeared.

Lorenzo Saunders, another near neighbor,
testifies :

"I saw Rigdon at Smith's several times, and the first
visit was niore than two years before the Book ap-
peared."

We have now brought Rigdon the second
character in the origination of the Book of
Mormon, in contact with the Imposter Joe
Smith the third and last character in orig-
inating the fraud. This acquaintance could
have been brought about in two ways. Parly
Pratt the school teacher in Lorain county
Ohio, that Rigdon converted, had been a
peddler in Central New Y'ork, and was ac-
quainted with every noted character in it.
When Rigdon let him into the secret of his
scheme, he could have suggested to Rigdon
that the seer and famous money seeker of
Manchester, with his wonderful peep-stone,
would be the very person to introduce his
fraud to the world, as a revelation by mira-
cle. Or it could have occurred in another
way. The work of Smith and his gang in
diirging over a large scope of country in
solithern New Y^ork, and northern Penn-
sylvania, had been extensively commented
on by the press. Rigdon could have learned
of tliis wonderful seeker after treasure, and
his wonderful peep-stone through the press,
and it occurred to him that here was the
one to give his stolen manuscript to the
world as a new revelation, by miracle, trans-
lating pretended plates with his peep-stone.
We are now ready for a sketch of Imposter
Joe.

Imposter Joe was born Dec. 23, 1805, in
Sharon. Windsor county Vermont. The
minister employed by the Home Missionary
Society, to labor in Vermont 1S09-10-11-12-13
says, in his autobiography, that in 1812 a
religious imposter created an excitement in
the neighborhood of the Smith's . He taught
that miraculous spiritual gifts could and
should be enjoyed now, and claimed to ex-
ercise them. He claimed to be a prophet,
and then a Messiah, Christ in his second
advent. Among the most active of his fol-
lowers was Imposter Joe's father and
mother, especially his mother. She proph-
esied, at the time, that Joe, then seven
years old, would be a prophet, and give to
the world a new religion. Joe was raised
with this idea before him. All the family
were taught and believed it. Joe's father
used to speak of Joe as the "genus," as he
termed it, of the family. This accounts for
Joe's peculiar gravity when but a child,
and as a youth. He was to be a prophet,
and he must not act as other children and
boys did. In 1815 the Smiths moved to
Palmyra N. Y. and in 1813 they squatted
on an unoccupied piece of land, belonging
to minors and lived there until they went
to Ohio in 1830. Soon after coming to Pal-
myra, in a revival excitement, Joe showed

THE ERADEN AND 1^J<:LLBY DEBATE.

47

some interest in religious matters, and
joined the class of probationers on proba-
tion, and was soon left oft' ' on suspicion"
as the Yankee expr'^ssed a siraJiar experi-
ence of his own. This is all there is of he
I0115 story that Imposter Joe wrote in 1843,
twenty three years afterwards, of his
wonderful vision, of liis groing to the Meth-
odist preacher with queries, that would be
in character, had the querist been a person
of mature mind, well versed in the contro-
versies of the age, but were utterly out of
character in the mouth of an ignorant
illiterate boy of fifteen, that was remark-
able chiefly for his power of exaggeration
and falsehood, and not for thought. The
ideas that he said he had then, he never
dreamed of until he learned them from
Sidney Rigdon, years afterwards.

In Sep. 1822, while digging a well for
AVillard Chase, Imposter Joe's father found
a singularly shaped stone of cloudy quartz,
strangely resembling a child's foot. Impos-
ter Joe, who was loafing around was very
much interested in the stone and finally stole
it from Mr. Chase's children. This stone is
the Urim and Thummim of Mormonism.
Rigdon had stolen the "Book of Mormon."
Now Imposter Joe steals the TTrim and
Thummim, with which he pretended to

translate Ridgons stolen manuscript. In
Sept. 1823 Imposter Joe worked for W. H.
Sabin, in Onandago Valley N. Y. Here he
learned of the existence of the Spaulding
manuscript then at Mr. Sabius in the care
of Mtirtha Spaulding, Solomon Spauld'ng's
daughter. During the year 1823-24-25-26-
27, Imposter Joe was en^Aged in loafing
around, strolliug over the country, pretend-
ing to find water by witching fur it with a
witch-hazle rod, and pretending to find lost
property, buried treasurers, and minerals,
by means of the stone he had stolen from
Mr. ("base's children. He had, a part of the
time, with him, a gang of idle superstitious
men, who dug holes over a large scope of
country, in several counties in southern New
York, and nortliern Pennsyl>^ania. His
knavish tricks, and frauds, had attracted to
liim great notoriety. His proceedings with
a gang of dupes were published and com-
mented on in several of the papers of New
York and Pennsylvania. By this means
Rigdon who was still looking around for
some means to publish his stolen manu-
script lieard of the Seer of Manchester, and
his wonderful peep-stone. It occurred to
him that here was the means of getting his
new revelation — his "Golden Bible" before
the world.

MR. KELLEY'S FIFTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentl,emp:n : — This evening I shall intro-
duce first, some of the unmistakable corrob-
orative evidences of the truth of the Book
of Mormon as found contained in the re-
ports and records of eminent travelers,
explorers, scientists, historians and archee-
olegists, of the world.

The Spauldi77g Romance no doubt will
still be the means of entertaining you upon
the part of the negative, as it seems to be
a much easier task for him to spin out that
yarn, than to attempt to answer the argu-
ments of the affirmative. I will promise
you one thing however, that is, that the
Spaulding tale shall not go unanswered, if
the arguments of the affirmative are. I
will show you before the close of the dis-
cussion of this question, if the negative
holds out the time agreed upon, that, that
thing is so rotten and deceitful in concep-
tion, so false and malicious in publication,
so absurd and ridiculous in belief, that you
shall in your hearts feel ashamed that j^ou
ever enter ta.ined the thought, that there
might be something in it. In the mean-
tim3 carefully follow him; he is a good
rc.ider and has the story well rehearsed.

But to the facts : In 1827 and 1828, when
the greater part of the Book of Mormon
was translated and put in manuscript, and
in the year, 1829, when it was put in the
hands of the printer, very little was known
as to the peoples, anc'ent races and civili-
zation, of the American continent. Taken
in the light of what is known of these an-
cient peoples to-day with the later devel-
opments, there was comparatively nothing
known at that time. There were then spec-
ulations and theories afloat as to the prob-
abilities of an older people than the Indians
in a few cases, brougiit out by the finding
of a few relics of rude implements and or-
naments together with some bones, &c.,
unaccounted for, and in a few instances
speculation as to the cause of certain
mounds of earth, whether such showed a
higher state of civilization and was the re-
mains of an older people than was then to
be found among the savages of the forest.
But there wr.s no one wiio for a moment
thought that the country had been inhab-
ited by a people whose state of civilization
and enlightenment had equalled, if not
surpassed, that of Europe itself. In the
arts and the sciences ; iu agriculture and

4S

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

mininsr; in masonry and architecture; in
painting and sculpture; in engineering- and
meclianical skill , in pliysics and medicine
and in mathematics and astronomy. Not
only this, hut to that time no one specula-
t^d'in all the domain of history, science or
literature, that the continent had been suc-
cessively inhabited by different peoples of
a high state of civilization, who in turn had
become extinct or dwindled into barbarism.
It was also at that tune a speculative be-
lief tliat the continent was settled from tlie
north, the people gradually making to the
south Avhen it tuas settled, and that proba-
blv some of flie rude tribes which inliab-
ited northeast Asia had at some period
wandered across Behring's strait and grad-
ually made their way southward upon the
continent. It was a.^o speculated that
perhaps at some time some of the daring
and hardy seamen of maritime Europe had
discovered the country and formed small
settlements whicli were afterwards de-
stroyed by the more powerful nations, for
the relics discovered up to 1829, were only
in certain places, which would only indi-
cate the landing of a ship's crew at the
point ; and again, that the Chinese had
been cast upon its shores in some accidental
numner and the Indians were descended
from them ; and later by some, that the
"Ten tribes of Israel," that were carried
away captive from Samaria by Shalman-
esar, Kang of Assyria^ may have made
their way to the continent and after a
time fallen into idolatry and a state of
savagery. But in turn every one of these
theories have given way as the light of
discover^' and research has been thrown
upon them, and now none find a support
as demonstrable facts. At the time be-
fore referred to however, there was pub-
lished to the world by a young man in
the State of New York, a record claiming
to give a positive and correct account of the
peoples who had formerly inhabited this
continent. The places from whence they
came ; the diflerent times of their coming ;
the countries of first settlement ; the varied
states of civilization ; their knowledge of
the arts, sciences, agriculture, languages
and literature. The manner of settlement,
leading from south to north. The extent
of settlement and the magnitude of the
population. Giving a general account of
their hundreds of cities and the glory and
grandeur of them ; of the industries, pur-
suits and character of the people, and their
final overthrow. And singular as it may
seem, every statement with reference to
these matters is in harmony with the facts
which have been developed by the later
researches of science. And upon nearly
every one of its marvelous revelations as
to these people, the result of the work of
the archaeologist has been to furnish cor-
roborative evidence of their truthfulness.
Notwithstanding the fairness and candor
in which the statements of this record have
been published to the world, from the day
It met the public eye, self-constituted lead-
ers, theologians, and paltry politicians have

taken it upon themselves to inform the
public mind of their views of its teachings,
always careful, however, to, if possible,
keep the record itself in the background
lest it reveal tlieir perversions, until at this
time, I think I may safely assert and keep
'vithin the bounds of truth, that there is
not published in America, a single Ency-
clopedia, Gazetteer, Geography, History;
History of the Religious Denominations,
Review or Expose which has spoken of the
work and undertaken to give its state-
ments, unless such pnWication was made
by the friends of this re<;ord, that does not
contain a false, garbled and perverted ac-
count of what it contains and teaches. I
ask in the broaJ world of books every^
where, for one. Why is this my audience?
If the book is a bad one will it not be suffi-
cient to prove it so by giving its statements
without perversion? Has it come to this !
That men are compelled to resort to false-
hood and trickery in order to overeome and
put down an evil thing? In the apostles'
time the injunction was, "to be not over-
come of evil, and overcome evil with good."
But perhaps this with the other good things
of the New Testament was confined to the
apostles, and "to those upon whom they
laid their hands." The truth is my friends
that there is method in this madness.
Somebody is Just afraid that if the light is
turned on they may be discovered to be
sitting in darkness. It may be said as of
olden time: "Every one that doetfi evil
hateth the light, neither conieth to the
light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
'But he that doeth truth cometh to the
light that his deeds may be made manifest
that they are wrought in God."

It was stated by my opponent last night
that Sidnej^ Rigdon said in 1823, that a book
would be published someday, "and be a
big thing, "And," says he, "it is a big
thing."

Well it seems to me he makes Rigdon out
a prophet, and a true one too, rather early
in the career. According to this Rigdon
was a prophet while he belonged to the
Baptists, and after he was with the Disci-
pies ; and I make my guess right here that
if he had not found out they were not in
accordance with the Bible and left them he
would be accounted such with them to this
day ; yes, and the grandest and ablest of
them all ; making no exception to Camp-
bell, or Scott or Barton W. Stone. It is
much like the case of Saul of Tarsus, wno
while he was a Pharisee was hail fellow
well met. But when he became converted
to the full light of the gospel, and after-
wards preached good to the people and told
them how many bad things he did when a
Pharisee, "They cried out. Away with
such a fellow, he ought not to be permitted
to live upon the earth."

But to return to the " big thing." This
work my friends will prove to be a big
thing to this age yet ; not to the destruction
ofChristianity, but to its full establishment.
Why ! do you not know that I can go side
by side with the scientist and the skep-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

49

tic into the National Museum of our country
and corroborate that work by the collec-
tions, from the rude arrow-head of the In-
dian to the cities of the clitf-dwellers which
are there set out in full representation,
simply by turning!: to the wonderful history
in this book? And not only in these but in
the fossil and other collections from the
time you strike the bones of the mastodon
till you come to those of the common do-
mestic animals. It is trulj'- an ensign set
up bearing the most indisputable tidings
that Jesus was the .Son of God and that God
is, who created the heavens and the earth
and revealed himself to man upon this as
upon the other continent; and this fact
alone ought to be a sufficient answer to the
question, "Of what use is the book?"
Since it is brought to light in an age of the
world when whole multitudes disbelieve in
the existence of God, and millions whose
fear toward him are taught by the precepts
of men, believe in him only as a God of the
past, but not now having any especial
thing to do with the human family, the
use of it is as apparent as any known thing
in the universe. Opening this record (the
Book of Mormon), I hurriedly cite some of
its pages upon the civilization of the con-
tinent.

First of the civilization which came out
from Babel four thousand years ago. Page
520 of the record :

"And the whole face of the land northward, [that is
from the straits, from what we terra the Isthmus of
Panama northward], was covered witii inhabitants;
and they were exceeding industrious, and they did
buv and sell and traffic one with another that they |
might get gain. And they did work in all manner of
oro, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and
hi ass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig It
out of the earth: wherefore they did cast up mighty
heaps of earth to get ore, of gold and of silver, and of
iron and of copper. And they did work all manner of
fine work. And they did have silks, and fine twined
linen: and they did work all manner of cloth that they
miglit clothe themselves. And they did make all
manner of tools to till the earth, both to plough and to
sow, and to reap and to hoe. and also to thrash. And
they did make m11 manner of tools with which they did
work thcfr beasts. And they did make all mannrr of
weapons of war. And they did work all manner of
work of exceeding curious workmanship. And never
could be a people more blest than they, and more pros-
pered by the hand of the Lord."

Then I refer you to page 517 for another
description :

'•And in the space of sixty and two years," (that is
from the time that Emer one of their kings began to
reign), "they had become exceeding strong, insomuch
that they became exceeding rich, having all manner
of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen,
and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and
also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of
sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other
kinds of animals which were useful for the food of
man; and they also had horses, and asses, and there
were elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms , all of
which were useful unto man. and more especially the
elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms."

Citing you now to page 43, I refer you to
the situation of the country as it appeared
and was found to exist when the second
people came to the continent — Those who
came out from the land of Jerusalem six
hundred years before the birth of the
Savior :

"And it came to pass that we did find ur>on the land
of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that
there were ■beasts in the forests of every kind, both the

cow, and the ox, and the ass, and the horse and the
goat, and the wild goat, and all manner of wild ani-
mals which were for the use of men. And we did find
all manner of ore. both of gold, and of silver, and of
copper."

On page 394 we have a further descrip'^
tion, and also of the habits of the people:

"And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these
lauds, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind;
and there were also curious workmen, who did work
all kinds of ore, and did refine it; and thus they did
become rich. They did raise grain in abundance,
botli in the north and in the south. And they did
flourish exceedingly both in the north and in the
south. And thev did multiply and wax excepding
strong in the laud. And thev did raise ni.iuy lio ks
and herds, yea, many fatlings. Behold, their women
did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of
fine twined linen and cloth of every kind."

Leaving the description of the country
and the people as set out in the book, I
next refer you to their society and' moral
and religious instruction. The book shows
that the people were taught by Jesus when
he manifested himself to many upon this
continent. Jesus said unto them page 45G :
"And as I have prayed among you, even so shall ye
prav in my church, among my people who do repent,
and are baptized in my name. Behold I am the light;
I have set an example for you."

"Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my
name, that your wives and children may be blessed.
And behold, ye shall meet together oft, and ye shall
not forbid tiny man from coming unto you when ye
shall meet together, but suffer them that they may
come unto youi and forbid them not; but ye shall pray
for them, and shall not cast them out; and if it so be
that they come unto you oft, ye shall pray for them
unto the Father, in my name; therefore hold up your
light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am
the light whichVe shall hold up— that which ye have
seen me do. Behold ye see that 1 have prayed unto
the Father, and ye all have witnessed: and ye see
that I have commanded that none of you should go
awav, but rather have commanded that ye shouM
eom'e unto me, that ye may feel and see ; even so shall
ye do unto the world ; and whosoever breaketh this ,
commandment, suffereth himself to be led into temp-
tation."

I might cite its pages to show you with
regard to the hundreds of cities that it re-
fers to, and magnificent ones too, located
upon different parts of the continent, and
especially upon the part of the continent
known as Central America, and of which I
shall refer hereafter ; and also that part of
the continent known now as Peru and Bo-
livia. But v/ill proceed at the present upon
another line.

Having given you a glance into the his-
tory as published in the years 1829 and 1830,
I will briefly enumerate some of the prom-
inent things mentioned in the work which
have since been verified, and then intro-
duce the evidences from Archteologists.

1. The book states that three civilizations
have existed, flourished and decayed, upon
parts of the continent, and one on nearly
every part.

2. One of these, first settled north of the
Isthmus, or " narrow neck of land " as de-
scribed by them, and inhabited first what
is now called Central America, and after-
wards the more northern parts of the con-
tinent.

3. The second settled on the east coast of
South America and first inhabited that
country occupying the territory that is now
known as Peru and Bolivia, and from thence
spread over the whole continent.

50

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

4. The third landed on or near the coast
of what is now called Yucatan in Central
America,

5. The last two of these civilizations were
cotemporaneous, and that the/ after a time
united and were known as one people.

(i. That the habitation of each beo^an
about 590 years before the Christian Era,
and the joint habitation ceased about four
centuries after, except as to the estranged
tribes.

7. That the occupancy of the first or origi-
nal inhabitants ceased at least a thousand
years before these.

8. That the last prophets understood the
Egyptian language in part and wrote in a
bri'ef and plionetic system of their language.

9. That they also wrote in other lan-
guages as did also the earliest of the peo-
ples. That the civilization so far as to the
occupancj' of the country were in each in-
stance from south to north originally.

10. That they builded many great and
fine cities in tlie northern parts of South
A merica ; also, on and near the narrow neck
of land, and north in the country of Cen-
tral America, wnere the cities were the
finest, largest, and most numerous. They
also builded farther north upon all parts
of the continent.

11. That the ancestry of the last two peo-
ples was Israelitish, but not the lost "Ten
Tribes."

12. That there was early brought to the
continent by the first people, the common
domestic animals and many others. (Here
I will also state that the fossil remains of
many of tliese were not discovered or known
to the world to have existed upon this con-
tinent till a very late date, some as late as
the year 1800.)

13. That many of their cities were walled
with solid masonry and made immense
fortresses and that they had engines of war,
and the battle ax, the cimeter, the sword
and many other kinds of instruments of
war.

14. That classes had fortified cities in the
mountains far up, so much so that it was
impossible to dislodge them, and they re-
tired and lived there, except to sally forth
and prey upon the people in the land or the
agricultural portions.

15. That the structure and manner of
building of their temples was upon a grand
and magnificent plan and they were decor-
ated with much expense and many curious
and unique ornaments.

16. The enlightened and civilized part of
the people were peaceably inclined and not
warlike, and highly cultivated in morals
and religion. This is the history as given
in the Book of Mormon.

I will now turn to my evidences with re-
gard to this, as ascertained and published
by explorers since the publication of the
Book of Mormon citing you tbe first vol-
ume of Joiin L. Stephen's explorations in
Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan,
page 131. Mr. Stephens here sets forth the
first reference made to the distinguished
C'.ty of Copau. as being made bj-^ Francisco de

Fuentes in 1700; but he only mentions it
casually, and in his description he repre-
sented it as containing figures of men like-
wise represented in Spanish habits, with
hose, and ruffle around the neck, sword,
cap and short cloak. But that history has
never been published in the English lan-
guage. And little known of it in any part
of the world, and it contained no true or
full description of this ancient city.

"From this time," says the author, "there is no ac-
count of these ruins until tlie visit of Col. Qalindo in
18of), before refeired to, who examined them under
commission from the Central American Qovernmeni
and whose communications on the subject were pub
lished in the proceedings ol the Royal Geographica:
Society of Paris, and in the Literary Gazette of Lon-
don." This was in the year 1834.

I might remark here that there is in the
books reference made to, a Spanish gentle-
man, and also an explorer, who examined
some of these ruins, and left his manuscript
in the hands of the government, and which
was published in London in the year 1822
But the publication in English of that man-
uscript was confined to such narrow limits
that at the time Stephens wrote this work,
(1841), he had never himself seen the work,
and such a journal as the London Literary
Gazette had never heard of it in 1834. Mr.
Stephens continues with reference to the
first published account by Col. Galindo in
1834, as follows:

"Not being an artist his account is necessarily un-
satisfactory and imperfect, but it is not exaggerated.
Indeed it falls short ol the marvelous account given
by Fuentes one hundred and thirty five years before,
and makes no mention of the movable stone hammock,
with the sitting figures which were our great inciuce-
ment to visit the ruins. No plans or drawings have
ever been published, nor anything that can eive e'^en
an idea of that valley of romance :ind wonder, where
as has been remarked, the genii who attended on King
Solomon seem to have been the artists."

I cite you next to the account on page 142
of the same work, where the author in de-
scribing some of the sculptured art of this
ancient people says :

"Between the two principal personages is a remark-
able cartouche, containing two hieroglyphics well pre-
served, which reminded us strongly of the Egyptian
method of giving the names of the kings or heroes in
whose honor monuments were erected. The head-
dresses are remarkable for their curious and compli-
cated form; the figures have all breastplates, and one
of the two principal characters holds in his hand an
instrument, which may, perhaps, be considered a scep-
ter ; each of the others holds an object which can only
be a subject for speculation and conjecture. It may be
a weapon of war, and if so, it is the only thing of the
kin 1 found represented in Copan. In other countries,
battle-scenes, warriors, and weapons of war are among
the most prominent subjects of sculpture ; and from
the entire absence of them here there is no reason to
believe that the people were not warlike, but peaceable
ane easily subdued."

Do not forget the fact in the examination
that the only account pretended to have
been given prior to 1834 of this city, that of
Fuentes in 1700, represented these" relics as
adorned in Spanish dress and costume, and
which would have really misled a reader
of the true character of the ruins.

On page 155 of the same work we have
another concise description of their sculp-
ture:

" The monument, tinhappily, is fallen and broken.
In sculpture it is the same with the beautiful half-
buried monument before given, and I repeat it, in
wc.rkmopshic equal to the best remains of Egyptian

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

gl

art. The fallen part wns completely bound to the earth
by vines and creepers, n,iid before it could be drawn it
•was necissary to unlace them, and te r the fibres out
of the crevices. The paint is very perfect, and has
preserved the stone, which makes it more to be re-
gretted that it is broken. The altar is buried with the
top barely visible, which, by examination we made
out to represent the back of a tortoise "

Before Mr. Stephens visited Central
America — and in a manner he was under
the auspices of the government of the Uni-
ted States — he had visited all of the distin-
guished countries of the Eastern continent,
and examiued their cities, and had written
oi given partial accounts of tliem He was
a man well calculated to look closely into
these cities of Ancient America and give a
reliable account and description of them.

I next refer you to page 310 of his second
volume. In his description of the temple
of Palenque another ruin city of Central
America he says :

"It s'ands on an artificial elevation of an oblong
form, forty feet high, three hundred and ten feet in
front and rear, and two hundred and .<!ixty feet on each
side. This elevation was formerly faced with stone,
which has been thrown down by the growth of trees,
and its form is hardly disiinguishable. The building
stands with it? face o the east, and measures two hun-
dred and twenty-eight feet front by one hundred and
eighty feet deep Its height is not more than twenty
five feet, and all around it had a broad piojectitig cor-
nice of stone. The front contained fourteen doorways,
about nine feet wide each, and the intervening piers
are between six and seven fiet wide. On the left (in
approaching the palace), eight of the piers have fallen
down, Hs has also the corner on the right, and the ter-
race underneath is cumbered with the ruins But six
piers remain entire, and the rest of the front is oyen
The building w.is constructed of stone, with a mortar
of lime and sand, and the whole front was covered
with stucco and painted. The piers were ornamented
with spirited figures in bas-relief."

On page 346 we have this further descrip-
tion :

" The principal subject of this tablet," — that Is one
of the sculptureii figures that was found there, called
'the tablet of the cross,'— "is the cross Jt is sur-
rounded with a strange bird, anH loaded with inde-
scribable ornament.': The two figures are evidently
those of important personages. They are well drawn
and in synimetrj of proportion are perhaps equal to
many that are carved on the walls of the ruined tem-
ples in Egypt. Their costume is in a style different
from any hereto ore given, and the folds would seem
to indicate that they were of a soft and pliable texture
like cotton. Both are looking toward the cross, and
one seems in the act of making an offering perhaps of
a child, all speculations on the subject are of cou se
entitled to little regard, but perhaps it would not be
wrong to asi ribe to these personages a sacerdotal
chaiacter. The hieroglyphics doubtless explain all.
Near them arc other hieroglyphics, which reminded
us of the Egyptian mode for the recording the name,
history, office or character of the persons represented.
This tablet of the cross has given rise to more learned
speculations than perhaps any others found at Palen-
que,"

On page 356 we have this statement of

the author in the conclusion of his descrip-
tion of the fallen city :

"Here were the remains of a cultivated, polished,
and peculiar people, who had passed through all the
stages incident to the rise and fall of nations ; reached
their golden age, and perished entirely unknown."

I refer you next to the late work of Mr.
John T. Short, entitled, The North Ameri-
cans of Antiquity. On page 387, he says of
Palenque :

"The accompanying cut shows Waldeck's drawing
(employed by Mr. Bancroft). Four hundred yards
south of the palace stands the ruins of a pyramid and
temple, which at the time of Dupaix's and of Waldeck's
visits were in a good state of preservation, but quite
dilaptdated when seen by Charny. The temple faces
the east, and on the western wall of its inner apart-
ment, it-elf facing the eastern light, is found, (or rather
was, for it has now entirely disappeared), the most
beautiful specimen of stucco relief in America. Mr.
Waldeck, with the c.itical insight of an experienced
artist fieclares it 'worthy to be compared to the most
beautiful works of the age of Augustus.' He therefore
named the temple Beau Relief. The above cut is a re-
duction from Waldec k's drawing used in Mr. Bancroft's
work, and is very accurate. However, the peculiar
beauty of Waldeck's drawing is such that it must be
seen in order to be fully appreciated. It is scarcely
nei essary for us to call the reader's attention to the
details of this picture, in which correctness of design
and greceful outlines predominate to such an extent
that we may safely pronounce the beautiful youth who
sits enthroned on his elaborate and artistic throne, the
American Apollo. In the or ginal drawing the gra' e
of the arms and wrists is truly matchless, and the
muscles are displayed in the most perfect manner."

I hope the audience will not overlook the
fact of the high order of art here set out.
This is the latest work on American anti-
quities, bearing the date of 1882. Fifty
three years after the Book of Mormon wa,s
in the publisher's hands, and yet every
line of these grand descriptions are in per-
fect keeping with the high attainments of
the people set out in that book most full
and complete.

On page 392 of the same works he says :

"The stuccoed roofs and piers of both the temples —
Cross and Sun — may be truly pronounced works of art
of a high order. On the former Stephens observed busts
and heads approaching the Greek models in symmetry
of contour and perfectness of proportion. Mr. Waldeck
has preserved in his magnificent drawings some of
these figures, whiih are certainly sufficient to prove
beyond comroversy that the ancient Palenqueans were
a cultivated and artistic people. In passing to Uxmal
the transition is from delineations of the human figure,
to the elegant and superabundant exterior ornamenta-
tion of edifices, and from stucco to stone as the material
employed The human figure, however, when it is
represented, is in statuary of a high order,

"The elegant square panels of grecques and frets
which compone the cornice of theCasa tel Gobernador
delineated in the works nf Stephens, Baldwin and Ban-
croft, are a marvel of beauty which must excite the
admiration of the most indifferent student of the
subject."

(Time expired),

52

THE BRADEN AND ILELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S FIFTH SPEECH.

Gpntlkmk.v Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: A stock tirgumeut of Mormons
in proof of the inspiration of Imposter Joe,
and that the Book of Mormon is true and a
revelation, is stated, "The Book of Mormon
based on the idea that the aborigines of is
America were Israelites Such an idea was
not thought of or advocated, until years
after the Book of Mormon appeared, feome
years after its appearance, scientific research
demonstrated the truth of the basic idea of
the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was
an unlearned man He could have ob-
tained such an idea oy revelation, and in
that way alone." Young men who were as
oreat readers as .Joseph Smith was, have
ori"-inated as startling ideas, without inspir-
ation But we will now utterly explode this
impudent falsehood I have neretwo books.
One IS "The Wonders of Nature and Provi-
dence " written by Josiah Priest, and copy-
rio'hted by him June 2d. 1824, ;n the office
of^'R. R.Lansing. Clerk of the District of
Northern New York, and printed \n Roch-
ester in 1824 Theother isthe 'Bookoi Mor-
mon," copyrighted by Josepn Smith in the
office of the same R R. Lansing, Cierk of th©
same district. June 10th 1829 printed in PaN
myra. twenty miles from Rochester, m 1830
On the 297th page of 'The Wonders of
Nature and Providence," begins an articltj
by Mr. Priest, the author, in which he ar-
gues at great length, that the Indians are
descendants of the Tsraelites. Not only so,
but he quotes from Clavigero a Catholic
Miysionary. who advocated the same idea in
tlie seventeenth century. From Wm. Penn,
who advocated it ;n 1788. From a work
published by Mr. Adair of New Jersey who
advocated this theory in 1774. Froni a ser-
mon of Dr Jarvis preached before the
American Historical Society in 18U. Jarv.s
quotes from booKs of Sevvall, Willard and
several New England historians. Priest
quotes further from Menasses Ben Israel,
from Dr. Boudinot, from Dr Edwards,
from Charlevoix, Du Pratz's History of
Louisiana, from Lock and Escarhotus Dr
Williams, Governor Hutchison, Dr Beatty
McKenzie, Maraez, Col. Smith's History of
New Jersey, and many others. Priesx
quotes in all from over forty writers, of
whom over twenty were Americans, wtio
advocated the idea that the aborigines of
America were Israelites. Most of these
lived and wrote before Smith was born.
He proves that it was the almost universal
opinion of the ministers of New England
and the Middle States. That it had been,
from the time of Elliott until Priest's own
day. Not only is this true, but Priest, in his
argument, quotes nearly all of the passages
of scripture quoted by Mormons to prove the
theory. It was from I'riest's book that Rig-
don and the Pratts stole their arguments.

We show then that a book copyrighted in
the same office as the Book of Mormon,
published within twenty miles of Smith,
circulated all over New York, Western
Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, years be-
fore the Book of Mormon appeared, advo-
cated the idea upon which it is based,
and urged the same arguments in favor of
the tiieory that Mormons use That ends
all Claim that Joe Smith must have ob-
tained the idea by revelation It shows
that not only did Rigdon steal the book,
and Joe steal the peep stone to translate it,
but Mormons stole their arguments to sus-
tain it from Priest

We will now take up my opponent s long
array of pro}ihecies. I might let them pass
untouched, for he did not make an applica-
tion of them, to the aborigines of America,
that was worthy of notice There was pub-
lished in London, a few years ago, a work
by a Mohammedan quoting and applying
most of the same prophecies to the Ishmael-
ites to the Arabs and to the Koran. I
havi before me an argument, applying the
same prophecies to the Anglo-Saxon race
The stick of Ephraim is England, of Judah.
America There is an organization, with
many societies, that publishes a papei, ad-
vocating this idea. Scores of publications
have been pubhshed, and they make a much
better argument than Kelley has made.
This shows the absurdity of such farfetchel
perversions of the poetic language of proph-
ecy If we admit that the prophecies ex-
tend beyond Palestine, I defy my opponent
to quote one prophecy that is not met by
tne dispersion of Israelites over the old con-
tinent. Israelites were scattered into Spam,
Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean,
mtoMorocco, Congo, in west Africa, and over
Borthern Africa, into Egypt and Ethiopia.
Also into China, India, and over centi al and
southern and western Asia I defy my op-
ponent to name one prophecy that extends
beyond these countries to America Now-
here is a fair challenge and test Unti: ne
meets this, hig prophecies are worthless
Isaiah, XVI— 8. refers tc the dispersion of
Moao, has not the least reference to Israel.
Jeremiah XX — XXI refers to dispersion in
Assyrian Empire Has no reference to
America, So of every quotation from Jere-
miah.

Isaiah xi — 11. The 16 verse reads : "There
shall be a highway for the remnant of his
pieople, which shall be left, from Assyria
like it was to Israel in the day he came up
out of Egypt." This shows that it refers
to Israelites m the Assyrian Empire, and
has no reference to America. We now come
to the pet passage of Mormonism. Ezek.
xxxvii — the sticks of Ephraim and Judah.
The Book of Mormon declares in several
places the Nephites w-ere Manassehites,

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

53

and the people of ZarahemlaJudahites. The
stick of Ephraini can have no reference
to them. Stick does not mean a book The
stick of Judah is not the Bible. The stick
of Ephraim is not a book. Numbers, xvii.
Aaron is told to take twelve rods or sticks
and write on them just as Ezekiel is told to
take two sticks and write on them. Aaron
wrote the name of a tribe on a stick, writ-
ing twelve names, using twelve sticks
Ezekicl wrote the name of a tribe or a na-
tion on a stick— for Judah representeci the
southern kingdom and Ephraim the north-
ern kingdom— using two sticks Gen xl;x
the rod staff, stick or scepter of Judah is
mentioned We read of the rod, staff or
stick cf Aaron that budded, that Moses
used. Then stick is a symbol of power
What the prophet's act meant was that the
northern kingdom or Ephraim, and the
eouthern kingdom or Judah should be
united again, after the captivity, as they
were before the rebellion of Jereboam In
verse 23 the prophet declares these Israel-
ites were scattered in captivity fo: s:n
Lehj and Nepn: were taken by the Lore) from
Jerusalem because they were so good to
save tnem The prophecy cannot refer to
the Nephites Verses 26-27 declares the
Lord wiii bring Israel or Judah from their
enemies' lands, not from America, into their
own land, and leave none in their enemies
lands We mignt examine every passage
and show that they have no reference to
America — can have none That the context
confines the prophecy to Asia. North Africa,
and that it refers to the return, under
Ezra and Nehemiah ; but this is sufficient.
Isaiah xxix — In the first verse the prophecy
is against the city where David dwelt, Je-
rusalem In the seventh verse the pro-
phecy is confined to Jerusalem It has no
reference to America. It speaks of the ig-
Koiauce of the people of Judah, their fail-
ure to understand the prophets. It has not
a gnost of reference to America We have
thown that the prophecies need not extend
beyond tne old world. We defy our oppo-
nent to name one that need extend beyond
the old world. We have proved by the con-
text that in every instance they refer to the
old world and usually to the immediate
neighborhood of Palestine.

We are novv ready for our opponent s
Holy Ghost speech, a speech that the audi-
ence will hear a dozen times before we are
done. My opponent charges the Disciples
with denying Ihe power of godliness, the
power of God, tne power of the Spirit cf
God. The Bible declares that God has ac-
complished all things by his Spirit and by
his word. In these is all power that God
has exerted in the Universe. There are
four different exercises of power by the
Holy Spirit mentioned in the Bible I.
The miraculous power, as seen in inspira-
tion, and in spiritual gifts, including all
miraculous power mentioned in the Bible.
This the world, sinners, cannot receive.
John XIV: lfa-i7. "The Father will give
you (the apostles) the Comforter, whom the
world can not receive." This is not con-

verting or sanctifying power, for the sinner
can not receive it to convert him It is not
sanctifying power, for it was to theapostles
alone, and was to endow them with mirac-
ulous power for their mission, and not to
sanctify them. It did not descend on the
apostles at Pentecost, nor was it imparted
to the Samaritans nor to John's disciples
at Ephesus to convert them, for all these
had been converted before. II. Convert-
ing power. Roman II ; 16 : "The Gospel is
the power o( God into salvation to all who
believe.'' John IV ; 36 . "The words which
I speak unto you. they are spirit and life."
Peter 1.5: "We are kept by the power of
God through faith unto salvation ready to
be revealed in the last time." Ill Indwel-
ling power Gal. IV : 6 : "Because ye are
sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts." Because by the
converting pov/er, the Gospel, you have
been made sons. God has sent the indwel-
ling power into youi hearts Eph I ; 13 •
"Having believed in Christ you were
sealed with that Holy Spirit ol promise
that is the earnest of ycur inheritance "
John XTV : 25 ' Jesus said 'II a man love
me he will keep my words and my Father
will love him and we will come unto him.
and make our abode with him ' '' Eph.
111:15-17; "I pray tha! you be strength-
ened with might in the inner man, that
Christ may dwell m your hearts through
faith." I John II 24 'If that which
you have heard from the beginning abide
in you, you shall continue in the Sou
and theFathei. ■ John III.: 23-24 "This
is the commandment of God, that we
should believe on the name of his Son
Jesus Christ, and love one another, ai^d he
that keepett: hi? commandments, dweiieth
in God, and God in him'' IV. . 15-16:
" Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the
Son of God, God dweiieth in him, and he
in God' God is ]o^•e He that dweiieth in
love, dweiieth in God, and God in him."
Col III.: 16. '-Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly in all wisdom."

IV. Resurrecting power Romans viii —
" If the Spirit of him that raised up Christ
from the dead, dwell in you. He that raised
up Christ troni the dead, shall also quicken
yout mortal bodies, by the Spirit of Christ
that dwe'.ij in you '' 'When? I Thess. 14-
15-16 ' II we believe that Jesus died and
rose again even so those also who sleep in
Jesus w'.l' God bring with him. For the
Lord himself shall descend from heaven,
witn a shout, and witn the voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God, and
the dead in Christ shall rise first." So also
I Cor. XV. 51-52 We have proved that there
are four manifestations of power of the Holy
Spirit 1 The miraculous. This is not
converting power, lor the sinner cannot re-
ceive it to convert him. The apostles and
others who received it were already <^'on-
verted. II. Converting power. This is the
Gospel, the word of God, which begets,
makes alive, converts. III. Indwelling
power. This is not miraculous power. Ii
is by and through faith, belief, by the wore

64

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

of God. God and his Spirit dwells in us,
when his word dwells in us, and we live it
out in life. IV. Resurrecting power at the
general judgment. My opponent, with the
Book of Mormon and all of Joe Smith's rev-
elations, and with tiie inspiration of a Mor-
mon Elder, and with all his miraculous illu-
mination, is so grossly ignorant as to quote
and jumble together passages in which these
four manitestatious are mentioned; and is as
ignorant as a dead man of these palpable
distinctions. The miraculous power has
ceased. The resurrecting power is to come.
The converting and indwelling power that
are exerted through the truth remain,
and we believe in them as God's word
teaches, and not as Mormon ignorance and
delusion teach. That is the difference be-
tween us. The miraculous power was not a
moral influence. It was given to wicked
men, and even to animals, to Baalam's ass.
It was given regardless of character. It
made men no wiser or better, when it had

f)assed away from them, as the cases of Baa-
am, his ass, Saul, Jonah and Caiaphas show .
It converted no one, unless it be Baalam's
ass, and if Mormons belong to that class,
they may be converted by it, as the other
ass was ; but men never w6re converted
by it.

We will now take up the miraculous pow-
er of the Holy Spirit. We showed that
there is one baptism in the church, in wa-
ter, into the name of Father, Son and Spirit,
it is a memorial and symbolical institution.
There can be no other baptism, and baptism
in the Spirit which was a miracle, ceased.
My opponent can not touch this. We said
that Joel's promise was to all flesh. That
Christ's was to believers alone. That
Peter's was only to believers that God should
call. That is just what the Bible says. We
said an apostle had to lay hands on believ-
ers, before they could receive the miracu-
lous power of the Holy Spirit. That is
just what the VIII chapter of Acts declares.
We said that this power never descended to
a third person. He has not found a case.
We said that there is a more excellent wav
than the evrrcise of the best of these mi-
raculous powers. That is just what Paul
says. I said that prophecying, or speaking
by insj)iration, miraculous knowledge or
revelations, speaking with tongues of mir-
acles, signs were to cease. That is just
what Paul says. Kelley asks who believes
It? All who believe the word of God believe
it. I said that the partial was the inspira-
tion, the revelation imparted by this mirac-
ulous power. It was but a fragment of the
truth, only that could be uttered at a time
The whole, that which is perfect, is the
complete word of God. So savs common
sense. So says the word of God. The word is
perfect, makes Christians perfect. I said
that.as one of the members of the compar- '
son, the imperfectwasastateofthechurch— '
the state when these gifts, these frtM-ment-
ary revelations were given ; the other mem-
ber is a s tate of the church, when the word of
God is completed, and these gifts; these frag-

ments of revelation do not exist. So say
Paul and common sense. He quotes "ask."
I inquire hov,? "Seek " I ask how? "Knock."
I ask how? In accordance with God's law
and word If we ask (or miraculous power,
we asl^ contrary to God's law, "If any man
lack wisdom let him ask." How? In ac-
cordance with God's word. If he asks for
miraculous power, heasks contrary' to God's
law. "We will manifest ourselves to him."
How? Not in miraculous power, lor for that
is contrary to God's word 'We will abide
in him." How? In miraculous power? No,
for that has ceased. "If two or three are
gathered I will be in the midst." How? la
miraculous power? No, for that has ceased.
"Witness of Spirit." "The Spirit witnes-
ses." How? In miracles? No, for he can-
not utter teaching in that way. In his
word, the word of truth, the only way one
intelligence can testify to another "Born of
Spirit." How? By miraculous power? No,
"He that believes is born of God." "Chris-
tian experience." Must it include miracu-
lous power? No, for that has ceased. "Son
of God will dwell in our hearts." How?
By miracle? No, for it can not be done in
that way. We love him because he loved
us. By learning his love for us. "Holy
Spirit in Christian." How? Inmiraculous
power? No, for that has ceased. When
his word dwells in us richly.

"By one Spirit are we baptized." Yes,
in obedience to command of one Spirit, just
we are begotten of Christ in obeying his
word. My opponent does not know enough
to know that there is a difference between
being baptized in the Spirit, and being bap-
tized in obedience to the command of the
Spirit. He sa3^s I deny the power of the
Spirit. No. I do not confound the four
powers of the Spirit as he does. I separate
them as the word of God does, and believe
that the miraculous power has ceased, as
the word of God teaches. I remove God
from men and religion now, he says. No. I
believe that as God is not in the work of
bringing animals and plants into being by
creation now, but in the operation of nat-
ural law, so he is not in men 'and religion
now, in miracle, but in the operation of his
word. I no more remove God from religion
than I remove him from nature. I believe
he is present in a higher sense. «ud in a
higher way That miracle in each caso was
only prepaxatoiy to thiy higher operation
of divine power. My opponent assumes
that the only power of God in both cases
must be miraculous.

How are apostles and prophets ana the
Holy Spirit in the church now? Just as
Christ is present in the church. ITe is not
present in person, od earth. He is in hea-
ven. He is present in his v/ord jmd law.
The apostles are present in tbeir words.
The Holy Spirit in his word. Pie blunders
over the illustration of the constitulional
convention. The people "c- • not ii: the
convention in person, yet jho cc^isilrution
says: "We, the people, cr.lari oldsr-justitn -
tion." How did thev ordv:u'* Tnrough

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

55

their appointed delegates. God in person
never spoke to men but three times. He
speaks through his representatives. God
organized the church, gave its constitution,
the New Testament, through the apostles,
just as the people ordained the constitution
and government through their representa-
tives. The apostle says "in Christ's stead —
God in us — through us." They teach that
they were God's representatives. His blun-
dering in comparing apostles to trees is
ridiculous. Miraculous power created the
first trees, but miraculous power was no
part of the things created. The apostles
gave the constitution, the New Testament,
and organized the church under it ; but
were no more a part of the church that
they organized than delegates that framed
our constitution are a part of the govern-
ment they organized for us. Can my oppo-
nent understand that ?

We want to call our opponent's attention
to a defect in his stock argument on Mark
XVI Let us read it :

'■Afterwards Jesus appeared unto the eleven as they
(the eleven) sat at meat, and upbraided them (the
eleven) because they (the eleven) believed not. He
SJiid unto them (the eleven), 'Go ye (tne eleven) into all
the world, and preach, etc. He that believeth and is
baptised ."shall be saved. He that believeth not shall
be condemned. These signs shall follow them (the
eleven ag-ain) who shall believe,' After the Lord had
spoken unto them (the eleven) he was re' eived into
heaven, and they (the eleven) went forth preaching the
word, the Lord working with them (the eleven) con-
firming the word (of the eleven) with signs following."

The language itself extends no farther
than the eleven. They were the ones who
were to preach. Those of them who be-
lieved and went forth and preached should
have these signs. They believed, went
forth and the signs followed their preach-
ing. The promise does not necessarily or
logically include a single human being ex-
cept the eleven who were upbraided with
unbelief, and who were to preach, and were
told that if they believed and preached the
signs would follow, for the conclusion says
they (the eleven) went and preached, and
the signs followed, the Lord working with
them (the eleven). We will now resume
our history of the Book of Mormon.

Rigdon visited Smith in the spring of
1827. The two concocted their scheme.
Smith was to pretend to have a "Golden
Bible," a book made of plates of gold, and
pretend to translate it with his stolen peep
stone. Spaulding had intended to pretend
that his fabrication had been found in a
mound, or in a cave, in MS. He intended
to call his fraud "The Manuscript Found."
From 18J8 to 1827 there had been published
accounts of finding glyjihs or metallic plates,
with strange characters on them, in mounds
and old ruins in America. This suggested
to Rigdon to claim that his fraud had been
found in that way. A hoax started in 1827,
that a pile of such plates, called " The Gold-
en Bible," had been found in Canada, sug-
gested the name. Rigdon always spoke of
his fraud, when propliesying of its appear-
ance, as a "Golden Bible." Smith, how-
ever, in publishing it, changed the name to

the " Book of Mormon." But from the time
the Smiths began to talk of Imposter Joe's
wonderful revelations, they spoke of it as a
"Golden Bible," and did so until about the
time it was published.

In their conferences Imposter Joe told
Rigdon of the existence of the other Spaul-
dmg manuscripts, then atHartwicke, New
York, in the house of Mrs. Davidson, for-
mally Spaulding's wife and widow. The
two concocted a scheme to steal them and
thus destroy all likelihood of detection of
tlie theft of the Spaulding manuscript, and
exposure of the fraud. Smith was loafing
in Hartwicke, in the summer and early fall
of 1827, superintending a gang of men, who
were trying to find a silver mine, on the
farm of Mr, Stowell. He dug some wells
in the town also, one for Stowell, Septem-
ber 21-22, 1827, Smith succeeded in stealing
some of the Mormon manuscripts ot Solo-
mon Spaulding, perhaps Mormon manu-
script No 1, the one Miss Martha Spaulding
had read a few years before at her uncles
when the trunk was in her care, and the
first one Spaulding wrote, the one he read
to most of the witnesses who lived in
Conneaut, also Mormon manuscript No. 2,
the one he told Smith he was writing
before he left Conneaut, the one of which
he read a portion to J. N. Miller — the one
to which he added the Zarahemla portion.
This theft of the manuscripts is the true
interpretation of Smith's wonderful visions
of September 21-22, 1827. Smith's neigh-
bors say that he never mentioned his vis^
ions of 1820 and 1823 while in the state or
New York, and his visions of September
1827, as first told, have no resemblance to his
final version. The version quoted by Mor-
mons was written in 1843 or 1844. In it he
fabricated the first vision. He dressed up
his hearing of the existence of the Spauld-
ing manuscripts into his second vision of
September 1S23. He dressed up his theft of
the manuscripts from Mr. Davidson's house
into his third vision of September 1827.

Having In possession they supposed ail
means of exposing their fraud the confed-
erates now went to work. Smith sat behind
a blanket, pretending to look through his
stolen peep stone, which was placed in his
hat. He claimed that God, by miracle,
caused one word at a time to appear before
his vision. He announced this to a scribe
who sat on the other side of the blanket,
who wrote it, and then it disap])eared, and
another appeared. Some old Mormons say
he handed out sheets of manuscript to the
scribe who copied them. What he actually
did, was to read from Rigdon 's manuscript
which was a remodeling of Spaulding's
Manuscript No. Ill, which he had concealed
behind the curtain. He may have handed
out leaves ot this manuscript at times.
Martin Harris was his first chief scribe. It
is said his wife and his brother-in-law wrote
a little e;ich. After 118 pages had been
copied by Harris and others, Imposter -Joe
gave Harris the leaves to take home with
him, to use in making converts, dupes or

56

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

confederates, in the scheme. Mrs. Harris
took the manuscript and burned it, one
niffht while her husband was asleep. Ihere
was dire consternation, and Rigdon appears
on the stage. I want to call the reader s
attention to a singular coincidence here.
Mr Lake, Spaulding's partner testihes that
when Spaulding read to him his romance.
Mormon Manuscript No. 1, he pomted out
aninconsistencvinthestoryofLaban which
Spaulding promised to correct, butthesame
blunder is in the Book of Mormou. That

can be explained. Spaulding no doubt did
correct it in the manuscript prepared for the
press but when Mrs. Harris destroyed the
118 pages, Rigdon had to restore the stolen
portion from an older manuscript, in which
the blunder had not been corrected, hence
we have it in the Book of Mormon. It took
Rigdon some months to remodel another
manuscript to replace the stolen portion,
and translation did not begin till the next
June or the three I'd. Joseph says it began
in March.

MR. KELLEY'S SIXTH SPEECH.

Gentt.emen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : While I am on the subject of
American antiquities, I shall refer you to
one or two statements made by my oppo-
nent with reference to my argument of last
evening, and at another time take up and
answer them more particularly.

The first statement, or misstatement ra-
ther, was that Mormons continually claimed
that it was in favor of their book because
•nobody ever claimed that the aborigines of
this continent were of Israelitish origin be-
fore its publication. I had just stated to
you, however, in my argument that such
claims were made long before, Now, why
he will make such a statement as that be-
fore you when I had stated to the contrary,
is a question for this audience to answer.
Is that the way to argue questions — to get
up and state something as the claims of an
opponent's people which they do not nor
never did believe, and say that that is their
faith or position, and attack it? I stated to
you in the beginning of this part of my argu-
ment, fairly and fully, that one of the theories
and speculations long prior to the year 1830,
with regard to the settlement of the Ameri-
can continent was. that the "lost ten
tribes," as they are termed, came to the
continent; and that is what is referred to in
Mr. Priest's work ; but it is not what
the Book of Mormon refers to, or teaches.
There is where these would-be critics and
story tellers are mistaken, and have been
all the time.

Pursuing now my argument from the po-
sition of the scientific discoveries as left
when my time was called, I cite the work
of J. D. Baldwin, page 166. entitled, "An-
cient America." He says :

" The evidence of repeated reconatmctions in some of
the Pities before they were deserted has been pointed
out by explorers.

At Paleiique as at Mitla, the oldest work is the most
artistic and admirable. Over this feature of the monu-
ments and the manifest signs of their difference in
age, the attention of the investigators has lingered in
fipeeulation. They find in them a significance which

is stated as follows bv Brassenr de Bourbourg: Among
the edifices forgotten by time in the forests of Mexico
and Central America, we find architectural ciiHracter-
isties so different from each other, tha it is as impos-
sible to attribute them all to the same people as to
believe they were all built at the same ep .ch.' "

Here are the two different civilizations,
both of a high order and cultivation. That
fact was never known or published to the
world until years and years after the
publication of the Book of Mormon, and
you cannot find it in any work or record
prior to the publication of that book. If
you can, bring your record here and read it
to the audience, any time. I come here
claiming to be armed with facts, and will
be only too glad to have them weighed and
sifted to the bottom. But Mr. Baldwin
proceeds :

"In this view, the sulstructions of Mayapan, some,
of those at Tnlha, and a a;reac part of those at Pa-
lenque. are among the older remains These are not
the oldest cities whose remains are still visible, but
they may have been built, In part, upon the founda-
tions ol cities much more ancient."

Remember that these are highly civilized
nations that he is writing of, not a barbar-
ous nation coming upon and occupying the
land where a civilized nation had dwelt,
but one highly cultivated and enlightened
nation following and inhabiting upon the
the ruins of another. He says:

" No well considered theory of these ruins can avoid
the conclusion that most of them are very ancient, and
that to find the origin of the civilization they repre-
sent, we must go far back into the ' deeps of antiquity."
On all the fields of desolation where they exist, every-
thing perishable has disappeared. Wooden lintels are
mentioned, but these can hardly be regarded as con-
stituting an exception when the character of the wood,
and the circumstances that contributed to their pre-
servation are considered. Moreover, wooden lintels
seem to have been peculiar to Yucatan, where many
of the great edifices were constructed in the later
times, and some of them of perishable materials, Ev.
erywhere in the older ruins, nothing remains but the
artificial mounds and foundations of ea'th. the btoue,
the cement, the >;tucco hard as marble, a other imper-
ishable materials used by the builders. '

Next in this investigation I introduce the
work entitled, American antiquities, by
Josiah Priest. The book that I have was

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

67

published in 1833, and the earliest publica-
tion that I have ever seen of the work was
made in the year ISol. If Mr. Braden ha?
an earlier copy than that, as he claimed be-
fore this audience, I will examine his copy
and see what it contains, and if there is
anything in it of these marvelous works,
which the Book of Mormon describes, I will
give due credit to it on to-morrow evening,
liut I state here without fear of contradic-
tion that it does not contain the remarkable
things that the Book of Mormon sets out,
neither as to the habitation, extent of civ-
ilization, or anything else. Neither does
the book I have before me, which was
published in 1833. But there is an account
of a few interesting things in this. Turn to
page 170, an account and description of ar-
ticles obtained from a mound in the state of
Oliio.

One, "The handle either of a small sword or large
" knite. made of an elk's horn ; armind the end where
" the blade had been inserted, was a ferule of silver,
" which, though black, was not injured by time; though
"the handle showed the hole where the blade had
'■ been inserted, yet no iron was found, but an oxide
" or rust remained, of similiarshapeand size " "About
" twenty feet to the north of it was another skel-
"etiiii, with which was found a large mirror, about
" three feet in length, about one foot and a half in
"width, and one inch and a half in thickness; this
" was of isinglass, (m/ca 77icmhrnnaf?a). On this minor
" was a plate of iron, which had become an oxide.
'• but before it was disturbed by the spade, resembled
" n yi\ate of cast iron. The mirror answered the pur-
•' pose very well for which it was intended." "The
" kiiif« or sword handle was sent toPeale's museum.
"Philadelphia." "On the south side of this tumulus,
" and not far from it, was a semicircular fosse, or ditch,
" six feet deep ; which, when examined at the bottom,
"was found to contain a great quantity of human
" bones, which ii is believed, were the remains of
" those who had been slain in some great and destruc-
" tive battle ; because they belonged to persons invar-
" iably who had attained their full size, while those
"found in the mound adjoining, were of all sizes,
" great and small, but laid in good order, while those
" in the ditch were in the utmost confusion "

"The mirror was a monstrous piece of isin glass, a lucid
" mineral, larger than we recollect to have ever heard
" of before, and used among the rich of the ancients,
"for lights and mirrors. A mirror of any k nd in
" which men may be enabled to contemplate their own
"form, is evidence of a considerable degree ofad-
" vancement in the arts, if not even luxury itself."

Passing from this important discovery as
published by Mr. Priest, I call your atten-
tion to the work of Mr. Stephens, vol.
1, page 105. Speaking of the remains which
he had examined in his explorations of
these ppoples' cities he says : "Architect-
ure, sculpture, and paintinff, all the arts
which embellish life, had flourished in this
overgrown forest ; orators, warriors, and
statesmen, beauty, ambition, and glory, had
lived and passed away, and none knew that
such things had been or could tell of their
past existence."

Now I will call your attention to some
authorities touching the nativity of this
last people whoinhabited Ancient America,
showing their common origin with the Asi-
atic race known as Hebrews. First, the
work of Mr. George Catlin, published by H.
G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden,
London, in the year 1857, and entitled :
"North American' Indians, vol. 2, page 231:

"The North American Indians and all
the inhabitants of the South, Sea Islands,
speaking some two or throe hiiudrn'. d' .xer-

ent languages entirely dissimilar, may
have all sprung from one people."

"ISKAELITISH EJCTRACTION."

He proceeds with the following thoughts:

" I believe with many others that the North Ameri-
"canlniiians are a mixed people.— That they have
"Jewish blood in their veiua, though I would not
" asset t as some have undertaken to prove, that they
"are Jews, or that they aie the ' ten lost tribes' of
" Israel. From the character and composition of their
" heads, 1 am compelled to look upon them as an >imal-
" gam race, bRt still savages, and from many of their
"customs, which seem tome peculiarly Jewish, as well
" as from the character of their heads, I am forced to
" believe that some part of those ancient tribes who
" have been dispersed by Christians in so many ways,
" and in so many different eras, have found their way
"to this country where they have entered among the
" native stock."

"I am led to believe this from the very many customs
"which I have witnessed among them that appear to
" be decidedly Jewish, and many of 'hem so peculiarly
"so that it would seem almost impossible, or at all
" events exceedingly improbable, that two peoples in a
" state of nature should have hit upon them and prac-
" ticed them exactly alike."

" The first and most striking fact among the North
" American Indians thai lefers us to the Jew.s is that
" of their wor.shipinp in all parts, the 'Great Spirit.'
" or Jehovah, as the Jews were ordered to do by divine
" precept, instead of a plurality of gods as ancient
" pagans and heathens did, and the idols of their own
" formation." Ibid., page 232

Mr. Catlin then offers "Twelve Rea-
sons" why he accepted the idea that the
American Indians are descendants from the
Israelites in some way, and, as his investi-
gations contain many facts which enter into
this discussion, I offer them for your consid-
eration.

1. "The Jews had their Sanctum Sancto-
rum, and so it may be said the Indians have,
in their council, or medicine houses, which
are always held as sacred places."

2. " As the Jews had, they have their
High Priests and their Prophets."

3. " Among the Indians as among the an-
cient Hebrews, the women are not allowed
to worship with the men, and in all cases
also, they eat separately."

4. "The Indians everywhere believe that
they are certainly like those ancient people,
persecuted, as every man's hand seems
raised against them."

5. "In their marriages, the Indians, as
did the ancient Jews, uniformly buy their
wives by giving presents, and in many
tribes, very closely resemble them in other
forms and 'ceremonies of their marriages."

6. " In their preparation for war, and in
peacemaking, they are strikingly similar."

7. " In their treatment of the sick, burial
of ttie dead and mourning, they are also
pimilar."

8. " In their bathing and ablutions, at all
seasons of the year, as a part of their relig-
ious observances— having seinirate places
for men and women to perform these im-
mersions—they resemble again."

9. " The custom among tlie women of ab-
senting themselves during the lunar influ-
<-. ces is exactly consonant to the Mosaic
law."'

10. "After this season of separation, pu-
rification in running water and anointing,
precisely in accordance with the Jewish
command, is required before she can enter
the family lodge."

»8

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

11. " Many of them have a feast closely
resembling the annual feasts of the Jewish
Passover, and amongst others, an occasion
much like the Israeli tisli feast of the Tab-
ernacle, which lasted eight days (when his-
tory tells us they carried bundles of willow
bows and fasted several daj'S and nights),
making sacrifices of the first fruits and best
of everything, closely resembling the sin
off<^ring and peace offering of the Hebrews
(See this history in vol. 1, pp. 159. 170 of
' Beligions ceremonies of the MandariBS.')"

12. "Amongst the list of theii customs,
bowevftv, we meet a number which bad fbeir
origin, it would seem, in the Jevjish ceremo-
nial code, and which are so very peculiar in
their forms that it would Pfem quite im-
probable, and almost impossible that two
different peoples should have hit upon them
alike, without some knowledge of each
other. 1 hese I consider go further than
anything else as evidence, and carry in my
mind, '^ooclusive proof that these people
are tinctured with Jewisn blood." itid.,
vol. 2, pp 232 ro235.

lu keeping with these facts and deduc-
tions of Mr Catlin, are otner authorities
equally positive Mr. Bradford, in his re-
fi^earche? into the origin or the Red race,
adopts the following conclusions with re-
gard to the ancient occupants oi ini* conti-
nent r

1 "That they were of the same origin,
' -^nches of the same race, and possessed
of nilar customs and institutions."

2 'That they were populous and occu-
p.od a great extent of territory.''

3. "That they had arrived at a consider-
able degree of civilization, were associated
in large communities, and lived in exten-
sive cities."

4. " That they possessed a use of many
of the metals, such as lead, copper, gold,
silver, and probably the art of working in
them."

5. "That they sculptured in stone, and
sometimes used that material in the con-
struction of their edifices."

6. " That they had the knowledge of the
arch, of receding steps ; and the art of pot-
tery— producing urns and utensils formed
Avith taste, and constructed upon the prin-
ciples of chemical composition ; and of the
art of brickmaking."

7. "That they worked the salt springs,
and manufactured that substance."

8. " That they were an agricultural peo-
ple, living under the influence of regular
forms of government."

9. " That they possessed a decided system
of religion, and a mythology connected with
Astronomy, which with its sister science,
Geometry, was in the hands of the priest-
hood."

10. " That they were skilled in the art of
fortification."

11. " That the epoch of their original set-
tlement, in the United States is of great
antiquity," and lastly,

"That the only indications of their ori-
gin to be gathered from the localityof their
""uined monuments, point toward Mexico."

Thus far I have read copiously from these
celebrated authors, and yet their pages are
filled with unnoticed and untouched corrob-
orative proofs of what I have stated to you
of the greatness and grandeur of the an-
cient civilizations of this continent I havM
also gathered in running through thev/orks
of various authors upon these things brief
statement'; which will aid you in determin-
ing to some extent the certainty of the ap-
plications of my arguments to these ancient
peoples :is reflected in their own history, as
r claim, set out in tne Book of Mormon.
They are as follows:

1.*' Tney had a staadard of measure-
ment and had a means ot determining an-
gles" Baldwin p 24.

2 "These turns were not bull' '>7 the
Egyptians." Stephens, vol 2, p 441

'A. Yet of i figure m Palenque Mr Short
in his work p 392, states ' The head <1resd
has been prououubed Egyptian oy au WDO
have seen it

4 "They had Priests.' Stepneas. vol.
2. p 447

b Divmers aad Priests.' iDid. vol. I,
p 175

6 They were agriculturists and also
engaged in cpmning and weaving '' Bald-
win ^p 40 41

7 " Madu use >f astr^jnomical instru-
ments ' .1 bid, 42

5 -'Used military machines in war
Stephens, y p 177 178

0 ' Believed in i ue flood, and had traces
of th3 t-jwei •■>i' Babel ' Short 2b3.

10. "Possessed a knowledge o<' the sci-
ences, and metals and u.sed tools oi por-
jihyry." Baldwin, pp V.) 4<i.

11. "A phunetic system of writing was
had among them.' J but. 137

These evidences .are clear and satisfactory .
r hope my epponeut Will take them up one,
by one, and examine Ihcm But during
the remainder of my time this evening. 1
shall examine another matter Look alter
his tirade upon character, elc

The statement made by him or: las'; even-
ing, that the Bible was 'believea in by the
best minds of every age, and so the mes-
sages of the prophets, is not true, if he
means by this what theworll called best
in their time. What the wor 1.1 called the
best minds, did not accept God's messages
through theprophets when brought, in any
age. Scarcely a liousehoUl received tho
message sent by Noah, and doubtless there
were many plausible reason.^ hatched up,
and set afloat, by the cunning craftiness
and deception of maliciou.s men, and ren-
dered plausible, in order to feed the vaiu
and foolish mind.s of the lovers of false-
hood ; and thus they were l^d along in
blindness and darkness to destruction.
Under the vile array of slander and false-
hood, the masses were marshaled against
Elijah the Prophet, and they sought his
life, and he was compelled to flee his coun-
try for safety ; and in the wilderness, he
was fed by a bird of the forest. Moses was
derided and falsely accused in the very
camp of Israel, and it was necessary that

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

69

God opeij the earth and swallow up his ma-
ligiiers Isaiah was sawn asunder. Some-
thing'was hatcherl up by the enemies of the
truth, and made the basis of an accusation,
which inflamed and encouraged this vile
attack, or it never could have been made.
Jeremiah was accused as a traitor to fits
country, was imprisoned, and put m a pit
ot mire and filtli, and lett to die ; and only
escaped as? by a miracle. Jndeed, 'o uni-
versally had llu' prophets been opposed,
slandered, misrepresented, and lied about,
Irom thf' days of Adam to Ciinst. thai it
was stated by him — and seein« In havi'
pr"Wfi into a proverh — "A jtrophet is not
wilboiil honor, save in his own country,'
Why not .^ Because of the misrepresenta-
tions and .'iiau^erous accusations, invented
and liawked about by the enemie.^ of the
message wliich he brings. Not being able
tc Huswei the messaire upon the ground of
truth and fairness, they lesort to untait-
less faisehood, and stories hatched up and
ingeniously circulated in order to break
down th'> prophet's character, to bliml the
people and prejudice them against the mes-
sage, I Ills was the devil's system )f war-
ftiipi from Adam to Christ, When Jesus
Chris*^^ came with a message from God, the
aich-deceiver ai^peared upon the field of
battl'> armed with the old weapons of slau-
iici' and misrepresentation. The accuser
always feigned great piety and love and
reverence for all I'ast prophets and hea-
venly messages. He did tiiis in order to
more readily gull the piuu.'^. Amoiit; tbeii
first moves, they came to rhrist and said :
'• Master, we would see a sign from thee.''
But he replied, "i\i' evil a id adulterous;
generatioM seeketh after a sign." Indicat-
iiig that honest men beu«ve the truth from
otb.er evidences,

They were soon in counsel seeking to in-
vent a scheme b3' which to destr.iv him,
Matt. 12:14. They sent a committee to
catch him in his words, and failing in this
they assailed his character and tilled Jeru-
selem with slanderous etories. When ho
diH a good deed it was in their view, bv the
inspiration of the devil, " Beelzebul)."
They accused him of being born of fornica-
tion, of low parentage and of coming from

a low eitv. Cilled him a

rlutton and a

wine bibber,'' and accused him of being a
Iriend of publicans and smners ; he was so
defamed, black mail«d, slandered, and lied
about by certain >f the people, that t)ie
masses were blinded and marshaleil agidnst
him, au<l demanded his life; all from the
stories of lying lips. This, too, while tliey
were making great pretensions to piety and
reverence for the ways of God and the
prophets of the past.

Jesus discovering their hypocrisy, re-
torts :

"Woe unto voii Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
"because ye biiikl the tomb.s of ihe prophets, and gar
"nish the sepulchres of the riahteous and say, If we
"had been in the dav.s of ourfathers, we would not have
"been partakers with them of the blood of the proph-
"ets. Wherefore ve be witnesses yourselves that ye
"are the children of them that killed the prophets.
"Fill ye up the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents,
"ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the dam-

"nation of hell. Behold, [ send unto you prophets and
"wise men and scribes, and s ^me of tlvm ye shall
"kill and crucify ana some of them shail ye scourge
"in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,"
etc

Their great pretensions to the love of the
cau.^e of God was feigned, that tliey might
more easily blind and influence the multi-
tude aeraiust Christ. Did they assail his
doctrine.' oli no; that was too hard tor
theiu. Moving in the dark, among the
masses, peddlinti hatched up stories was the
eflectual way of procedure Ttiis ungodly
method oi warfare against the grandest
being that ever lived was carried oi' until
Jerusalem was moved to join hands and de-
mand the life of the Christ, and failiiii to
make out a just case, they falsely accused
him, and suborned witnesses to testify
against him, and he was condemned tod th
and crucitied "Many bore false witness
against him ' Mark 14 . 56, The death of
Christ did not relieve him from the false
charges of his enemies While his body lay
in Joseph's new tomb, then went they to
Pilate saying. '' Sir we remember that that
deceiver said while be was yet alive, after
thre> day> f wdi rise again. Command
theremr/ that the sepulcher be made sure
until tiu> tnird day, lest his disciples come
by niglit and steal him away, and say unto
th.-i people H-1 i^ risen from the dead, so
the last error shall be worscthau the fiisl."
Matt 27 . 63. 64. All thi.^ took place while
tne witnesses of Jesus were in the midst of
the ]>eople, readv to vindicate hi^chatacter,
but they had no ears tJ bear tnem. They
love<i stories, and inventions and what
i tic of d neighbors gaid, rathei than truth.
Finally, when Jesus had arisen from the
dead according tit his word, it did not fo-'
the persistency of his ememies. or assuage
their malice or hate ?o they circulateii the
story, " Hi« diciples came by night, and
stole him away whilo we slept ;' and, they
gave the so]dier>i large sums of money to
circulate this story, witb the promise, that
if it came to the •' Governor s ears, w- will
persuade him and secure you '" Matt. 28 12,
13, 14. But the misrepresentations, cu ning
inventions, and ?landers against the cause
of Christ, did not stop here; they followed
the apostles wherever they went, and called
them "blasphemers," "pestilent,'' "and
movers of sedition among the Jews through-
out the world." Acts 25 : 5. This was so
widely circulated that it was said, "As
concerning this sect, we k7iow (hat it is
everyAvhere spoken against." Acts 28 : 22.
La'ter, in the time of the grandson of St.
Luke, this same unjust course was followed,
and they were published and vilified every-
where. 'But, savs my opponent, they were
false stories. Who said they were false'?
Their enemies or their friends? Why, th*^
descendants of the enemies to this very
day maintain that the stories were true,
and that the Christians were deceivers.
And in the narative of such a learned his-
torian as Gibbon, we have an account that
in the time of these grandsons, before re-
ferred to, the Emperor of Rome sent a com-
mittee to interrogate them and spy out the

60

THE «RADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

probable damage they mig-ht likely be able
to inflict upon his kin2dom, if let live, and
the messenger returned the answer, that
they were men who were settled on a little
spot of eround, and had hard, rough nands
from woiking as slaves for a livelihood, and
not worth noticing' Before this, a like in-
terview had been had witft the apostle Paul
by one of the most noted scholars of the
aiie, and he returned the answer to his
Emperor that, "Paul entertained no opin-
ions that were calculated to interest or bene-
fit men ol attainments and culture." Great
God! I could reproduce such stories which
were affirmed to be true tor hundreds of
years after Jesus' time against the early
Christians, until I might arouse the indig-
nation of this audience against them, were
I disposed to stoop to gathering garbage
for weapons. The books are so laden, that
when Gibbon had gone through them,
although before a devoted Christian, it
nauseated his hope in Christ, and he turn-
ed from worship, saying it seems to me
that if the great things told of in the
scriptures are true tuey aught to be had by
the people now as then, and I " find by run-
ning through the history of the world, that
mankind have been more ready to accept
the history as correct of wiiat oecured m
their forefather's time, than to believe the
evidences of their own senses." He there-
fore came to the conclusion that no miracles
were ever performed as claimed by Jesus
and the apostles. The quotation is made
from memory, but I am sure if not the
exact wording, the true thought and idea
is carefully preserved and presented.

Volumes might be adduced to show that
the work of scandalizing, has been the
method pursued by the enemies of truth
and progress in every age ; not only to meet
prophets and religious truth, but scientific
truth as well ; and the battle has been
waged almost in every instance when a new
message has been sent to man, or a new
truth revealed. With such a history before
the world, is it not strikingly strange that
in the blaze of the light of the nineteenth
century, that men professing as profound a
reverence for Jesus and the apostles, as the
Jews did for Moses and the prophets, will
accept this method of warfare, and scour
the universe to hunt stories and gossip, to
meet the claims and argument of a people,
rather than accept the gage of fair and
honorable warfare, and investigate their
clrvims in the light of the facts presented.
Strange as it may appear, this is all the
kind of warfare that has ever in the least
succeeded against the message brought by
the Book of Mormon, and believed by the
Saints. It is much easier to call Joseph
Smith an "infamous scoundrel," and a

"fraud," than to prove his message false.
It is easier to assert that Sidney Rigdon
was "fanatical" and "lazy," than to prove
the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints
untrue.

It is far more suitable to perverted tastes
to drink a little satisfaction from a misuse
of the words, Mormon, Mormonism, and "it
came to pass," than to accept the word of
God.

Stories, slander, the traducing of charac-
ter is the method adopted by my opponent.
This is not new, but an old system of
attack ; but the only one that ever did
succeed even momentarily against the
truth.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, did you ever
listen for so long a time, to such a dark and
misty web as was spun by my opponent
last night? The whole material of which
was gathered from the ebony cloud of
gossip, tattle and scandal. Somebody said
that one Spaulding wrote a romance. Some
one else said that they had heard it read.
It would seem from one of the stories, that
Spaulding made a business of going around
and reading it to his neighbors. In process
of time it was left with a printer. It was
not seen afterwards. Sidney Rigdon was
in the tanning business in "that city ; he
was awful lazy, however ; and of course he
must have stolen it. The printer Patter-
son, said no such manuscript was ever
there, but that is nothing, the story runs
on just as glibly. Then there were some
old trunks, over in Pennsylvania and York
States, left in back-rooms and by-places,
etc., etc. One Rigdon reads a book on one
occasion and would not let his niece see it.
This was in Ohio. Finally a stranger is
seen in Palmyra, N. Y. No one knows
indeed who, and there is no evidence in
fact that there was one there. Finally the
Book of Mormon was published in March,
1830, and in the fall of the same year Sidney
Rigdon came in contact with the latter Day
Saints, believed their message, and, there-
fore he is the author of the Book of Mormon
and Joseph Smith is the cat's paw by which
it is to be foisted upon the world under the
inspiration of a peep stone which is stolen
from one of his neighbor's children. Won-
derful indeed ! He did not tell us whether
Joseph could really see anything extraor-
dinary in the stone or not. If so, there
might be something in the seeing business
after all. If not what inducement was
there for Joseph to steal one in order to
perpetrate a fraud, when he had but to
stoop down to pick one up and run no risks.
It matters not however, which horn of the
dilemma my opponent takes, his story will
run on just the same.

(Time expired).

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE,

61

MR. BRADEN'S SIXTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Modebatoks, Ladies and
Gentlemen:— Mr. Kelley started out with
the assertion that at the time the Book of
Mormon appeared, no one had thought of
certain facts in archaeology, ethnology, phi-
lology and antiquities of America, that are
assumed and stated as facts m that book.
Therefore if scientific research has demon-
strated, since the Book appeared, that these
statements and assumptions are true, Che
Book must be true. It is either a revelation
of such truths, for it stated them before they
were learned by any human means ot learn-
ing, or an actual history of them He claims
that it is an actual history given to Joe
Smith, by revelation, and translated by
him by inspiration. The Book of Mormon
may be divided into two portions : I. Cer-
tain assumptions and statement in archaeol-
ogy, ethnology, philology and the antiqui-
ties of America. II, "Certain historical
statements based on these aspumptions, in
archaeology, ethnology, philology and the
antiquities of America, that assume to ac-
account for the antiquities of America, and
to explain its archaeology, ethnology and
philology. My opponent's argument has
been an attempt to establish the truth of
the first pnrt. He has never touched the
second. f we prove that all of the first
part was well known long before the Book
of Mormon appeared we refute his proof.

I have before me a work entitled "At-
lantis," by I. B. Donnelly. In it he traces
certain legends such as the Deluge, and
certain stories all over America, and shows
that they are found in Europe, in Asia, and
Africa, He traces resemblances between
the arts and antiquities of the O'd World
and the New. He traces resemblances in
philology or languages, between peoples
of America and peoples of Asia, Africa and
Europe, He traces ethnological affinities
between the tribes of America and the
Celts, the Scandinavians, Basques, Iber-
ians and other Europeans— the Egyptians,
ancient Africans, and the Negroes, the
Chinese, Hindoos, Persians and Malays.
He traces resemblances in arts, civilization,
sciences, literature, customs between the
peoples of America and peoples of Europe,
Asia and Africa. A larger portion of the
authorities he quotes were written before
the Book of Mormon appeared. It has been
known from the conquest of Mexico by Cor-
tez, that there were three civilizations in
Mexico, three immigrations into that coun-
try, the Toltecs, the Chicemas and the Az-
tecs, and that the first were very highly
civilized. It has been known since the con-
quest of Peru by Pizarro that there had
been three or more civilizations there, that of
the Incas being the last. It had been known
for more than one hundred years before the
Book of Mormon appeared, that mounds,
fortifications, ruins, antiquities and relics

had been found all over North America. It
had been decided that tliey had been the
work of races that were in America before
the Indians. If this is denied we will give
the names of the authors. It had been
a prevalent idea that the Indians were of
Israelite origin. Affinities of some tribes to
the Scandinavian, Welsh, Tartars, Hindoos.
Chinese, Persians. Israelites and Egyptians,
had been observed and published.

My opponent makes much of the cities of
Central America. Cabrina and others had
published descriptions of these long before
the Book of Mormon appeared. It was such
books and not the Book of Mormon that
caused Stephens Squiers and others to ex-
plore Central America. Not only so but
Cortez in his conquest of America conquered
Central America, then a part of the Aztec
Empire, and conquered these very cities,
and his companions who wrote of his con-
quests describe them. They were inhabited
when Balboa, another Spanish adventurer,
explored the Isthmus and countries around
it. So declare Herrer" and other Spanish
writers quoted by Wilson Prescott and
other American writers.

Baron Humboldt visited Central America
and described these ruins and his book was
published in England and America in 1806.
Spaulding was familiar with it. The Book
ot Mormon agrees literally with Humboldt.
Where he is right, it is right. Where late
research proves that he is in error, it is in
error. That is all we need to say in regard
to his long lingo in regard to antiquities.

We have proved that Solomon Spaulding
was an enthusiast in American antiquities,
believed that the Indians were descendants
of the Israelites, As an earnest advocate of
such theories, and as an enthusiast in
American antiquities, he was well versed
in the literature of the subject. Seventeen
witnesses of the highest character testify
that he wrote his "Manuscript Found"
assuming all these facts and theories, pre-
tending to give a history of the people who
were the authors of these ruins and anti-
quities several years before the Book of
Mormon appeared. That Rigdon stole his
manuscript and interpolated the religious
matter. I challenge my opponent to name
one theory or assumption in the Book of
Mormon that research has sustained, that
I cannot prove to have been well known
before the Book appeared. " This overturns
his entire argument. Let him prove that
the Jaredites, Nephites and Zarahemlites
came to America and had such a history as
recorded in the Book of Mormon, All that
he quotes from the Book of Mormon was
well known before it appeared. If he will
prove the truth of its historic statements
he will sustain his book. Proving that
certain asssumptions are true, no more
prove that his book is true, than proving

«2

THE BT^ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

that, similar aesumptions in Scott's nove;s
are true, proves that those novels are leaJ.
1 will agree to take Scott's novels and
prove that a far greater portion of Waverly
or Ivanhoe is true in archaeology, antiqui-
ties, etc., than my opponent can prove to be
true in the Boole of Mormon. Not only so,
but I will prove that its characters were
real persons in a majority of instances, \ts
places real, its battles real, and yet they
are novels. He can not prove that a per-
son, a place, or a battle of the Book of
Mormon is real. T can offer ten fold as
much proof of the very kind he offers, to
prove the truth of the Book of Mormon, for
Ivanhoe, and of the same kind. His line
of proof IS absurd to idiocy. He takes the
romance written by Spaulding, in which
ne assumed certain' things well known, as
the basis, and claims it is all true, because
these facts so assumed as the basis are true.
1 will prove Robinson Crusoe to be true
■and of divme origin in the same way.

We will now resume our history of the
Book of Mormon. We have come down to
the time of publication.

In the fall of 1829 Martin Harris, one of
the gang, mortgaged his farm, and E. B.
•Grandin of Palmyra, began the publication
of the Book. The manuscript was carried
by several of the gang, a small portion each
morning, and removed at night, for weeks.
At last they were less careful. Mr. Gilbert
says that the Imposter was very particular
to insist that the manuscript be set up ex-
actly as written. The translation had been
done by inspiration, and it would be blas-
phemy" to alter one iota. But as there was
no punctuation, but little use of capitals,
and as it abounded in mispelled words, and
the most outrageous grammatical blunders,
the printer absolutely refused to allow such
an atrocious aflf'air to go forth with his im-
print on it. The printer was allowed to
correct some blunders in the manuscript.
When one reads the book, and sees the
thousands of blunders in it, after all the
printer's care, the query arises " What must
the manuscript have been?" What a pity
the printer interfered with inspiration, in
the way he did. If the manuscript had
been printed exactly as it came from the
inspired lips of Joe, and as it was penned
by the inspired Oliver, who had special di-
vine commission and unction to do his work,
no doubt the world would have been con-
verted long ago by such sublime evidences
of inspiration. That printer robbed the
world of " the more part " of the inspiration
of the Book of Mormon.

In the meantime Rigdon was preaching
and working constantly to prepare the way
for his scheme. He preached extravagant
ideas of the millenium, such as are in the
Book of Mormon — community of goods —
restoration of miraculous gifts — new revela-
tions and that something wonderful was
going to happen. In private he approached
persons as he did D. At water. A portion
of the Kirtiand Church of Disciples that
was organized by him and made up Inrgely
of his converts formed a common stock com-

n}UE;ty and practiced feet-washing, another
Mormon peculiarity at the beginning. They
did this under the direction of Rigdon and
Titus Billings, who became a Mormon with
Rigdon. In June, 1830, Rigdon attended the
Annual Meeting of the Mahoning Associa-
tion in Austintown. In an address he pre-
sented his hobbies in regard to return to
community of goods, and restoration of
spiritual gifts, a restoration of everything
in the apostolic churches. He was signally
defeated, in discussion by Campbell. He
left the Association soured and disap-
pointed, declaring that he ''had done as
much for the Restoration as Campbell
and Scott, yet they got all the honors."
Tradition tells us that, by advice of Camp-
bell, Rigdon was put up to preach on Lord's
Day, as a plaster to his wounded egotism.
He* discoursed on "Envy," and took the
conduct of Haman towards Mordecai as an
illustration of tlie meanness of envy. All
understood what he meant, Campbell and
Scott were the Hamans, who, althoiigli
mounted on the King's horse of public
honor, were envious of "Rigdon, the Morde-
cai sitting in the gate. When he came to a
description of Haman's triumphal proces-
sion on the King's horse, the horse ran
away with Sidney. He mounted that horse
andeavorted miraculously for someminutes.
He turned him into a veritable Pegasus,
and, like Bellerophon, he cleft the skies, and
soared among the stars. As he was sky-
scraping in his description of King Ahasue-
rus' horse, Walter Scott took aim at him,
and brought him down from among the
stars bv roaring out in his broad Scotch,
"Glory to King Ahasuerus' horse!" Rig-
don had gone up like a rocket.; Scott
brought him down like a stick.

Rigdon returned home to Mentor. He
sent for Pratt who came through Mentor in
August, and went from Rigdon straight to
Manchester, in thb wilds of New York,
thirtv miles from any public thoroughfare,
and Imposter Joe's mother says he arrived
Saturday night, all worn out aft< r an ex-
cessive day's journey, and was converted
that niglit'and made a preacher of the New
Dispensation the next day, doubtless, "ac-
cording to previous appointment," as the
preachers say. Pratt visited his brother
Orson and enlisted him in tne scheme.
Then he and Cowdry and Whitmer returned
to Mentor. After weakly pretending to be
ignorant of the scheme, and to oppose it,
Rigdon is miraculously converted, by a vis-
ion, embraces INIormonism, goes to New
York, he and Imposter Joe have a revela-
tion, that Joe is the Moses, Sidney the
Aaron of the movement, and that Kirtiand
is to be possessed by the saints forever, ;ind
Smitli and his adherents, made up chiefly of
confederates in his money-digging frauds
and schemes, and confederates in the new
fraud, the Book of Mormon, move to Ohio
Rigdon takes liisnew brethren around to the
congregations for which he had preac-lied.
and which he had industriously prepnred
for his move, and the Rigdonites in these
churches embrace Mormonism and the fr:vud

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEIiATE.

63

was fully inaugurated in Kirtland, Ohio, in
1831.

We have thus traced the origin of the
Book of Mormon. AVe have proved that
Bolomon Spaulding was the author of the
historic portion. Sidney Rigdoii tlieautlior
of the religious portion, and that Impostor
Joe gave it to the world by means of his
stolen peep-stone. It was begotten by
Spaulding in sin, conceived by Iligdon iu
iniquity, and brought forth by Impostor
Joe in dej)ravity and pollution. It has
spoken lies from its birth, and has lived on
fraud and fanaticism, an<1 has resulted in
delusion and ruin to thousands. It has
gone to seed in Utah, in pollution that
would disgust Priapus himself, and horrify
a satyr. Priapus Young and He-goat
Kimball are the ripened fruit of the infamy.
\Ve will now take up the detection of the
fraud. In an article published in the Bos-
ton Journal, May 13, 1829, Mrs. Matilda
Davidson, formerly Solomon Spaulding's
wife and widow, testifies :

"In 1834, a Mormon preacher, in a meeting in Con- •
neaut, Ohio, read copious extracts from the Book of
Mormon. The historical part was immediately refog-
nized, by all the older inhabitants, as the identical
work ofMr. Spaulding, in which they had been so
deeply iiiierested years bef.ire. John Spanldiiig was
prtselit, and recognized perfectly the work of his
brotlier. He was annoy' d and afflicted, ihat it should
have perverted to so' wicked a purpose. His grief
found vent in a flood of tears, and he arose on the
spot and expressed to the meeting his sorrow and re-
gret that the writings of his deceased brother, should
be used for a purpose so vile and shocking. The ex-
citement in Conneant, became so great that the inhabi-
tants held a meeting, and deputised Dr. Philastus
Hurlbut, one of their number, to repair to tbis place
and obtain from me the originil manuscript of Mr,
Spaulding, for the purt>ose of comparins.' it with the
Mormon Bible, to satisfy their own minds, and lo
prevent the friends from embracing an error so delu-
sive."

We wish to call the reader's attention to
this statement, that narrates an occurrence
that attracted groat attention at the time.
Il was pubiislied in the papers of the West-
ern Reserve, and all over tlie United States.
The citizens of Conneaut, in 1834, assembled
to hear for the first time a Mormon preach-
er. They hear the first words of the Book
of Mormon that any of them ever heard.
Scores of them, and among the number
Solomon Spaulding's brother, his sister-in-
law, his business partner, one who had
boarded in his faniil.y many months, one
who had boarded him many months, and
other acquaintances, without any expecta-
tion or previous concert of action on their
part recognized in the Book of Mormon,
the historical roman<^e of Solomon Spauld-
ing with which they were so familiar from
21 to 25 years before. Now let us hear some
of their testimony. John Spaulding testifies:
"I have read the Book of Mormon, and to
my great surprise I find nearly the same his-
torical matter, names, etc., as were in my
brother's writings. I well remember that
he wrote in the old style, and commenced,
nearly every sentence: 'And it came to
pass '* or ' Now it came to pass ' the same
as in the Book of Mormon. To the best of
my recollection the Book of Mormon is the
same as what my brotlier, Solomon Spauld-

ing wrote except the religious matter." Mar-
tha Spjiulding, wife of .John, and sister-in-
law of Solomon, testifies: " I have read the
Book of Mormon, wiiich brougiit fresh to
my recollection the writings of Solomon
Spaulding. I have no manner of doubt
that the iiistorical part of the book of Mor-
mon is the same that I have read and heard
read more than 20 years ago. The old obso-
lete style and the expressions: 'And now
it came to pass,' etc., are the same." Henry
Tiake, Solomon Spaulding's business part-
ner, testifies:

"WIu'U my wife read to me from the Book of Mormon,
she had read but a few minutes before 1 was aston-
ished to find the same passages in it that Solomon
Pl)aul(liiig had read to me more than 20 years before
froin his MMUusciipt Foun I. I have examined the
l^)<>k of Mormon and have no hesitation in saying
that the historical part of it is principally if not
wlioUy taken from the Manuscript Found. I well
r'Collect telling Mr. Spaulding that so frequent use of
th' words: 'And it came to pass.' 'Now it came to
pass,' rendered the book ridiculou*. One time when
he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban I
p inted out to him what I considered an inconsistency
which he promised to corr< ci, but on examining the
Book of Mormon, to my surprise I find it stands just
as he road it to me. He left here in 1813, for Pitts-
burg, to get his book published, but I heard no more
of his writings till I saw them in the Bonk of Mormon.
Mrs. David-on remarked to Mrs. George ('lark, when
she handed lier the manuscript of Spaulding's Manu-
script Found to read: The Mormon Bible is almost
a literal copy of that manuscript."

J. N. Miller, who boarded months in
Spaulding's family, testifies : "I have ex-
amined the Book of Mormon, and I find in
it the writings of Solomon Spaulding from
beginning to end, but mixed up with Scrip-
ture and other religious matter, wliiih I
did not meet in the " Manuscript Found."
Many passages in the Mormon book are
verbatim from Spaulding, others in part.
The names Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, and in
fact all the princiijal names are brought
fresh to my recollection by the "Golden
Bible." Aaron Wright testifies: " Spauld-
ing traced the journey of the first settlers
of America from .Teius.-i'em to America, as
it is given in the Book of INIormon, except
the religious matter. The historical part
of tlie Book of Mormon, I know to be the
same as I read and heard read from the writ-
ings of Solomon Spaulding, more than
twenty years ago, the names especially are
the same without alteration. In conclu-
sion I will say that the names and most of
the historical part of the Book of Mormon,
were as familiar to me, before I read it as
most modern history." Oliver Smith tes-
tifies: "When I heard the historical part of
the Book of Mormon, I at once said it was
the writing of Solomon Spaulding. Soon
after I obtained and read the book, on read-
ing it found much of it the same as Spauld-
ing had written twenty years before." Na-
than Howard testifies: "I have read the
,]Book of Mormon and believe it to be the
'same as Spaulding wrote, except the relig-
ious part." Artemus Cunningham testi-
fies: "I have examined the Mormon Bible
and am fully of the opinion that Solomon
Spaulding had written its outlines before
leaving Conneaut." Joseph INIiller of Am-
ity, Pa., who took care of Spaulding in his
last sickness, and familiar with his manu-

64

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

script says: "The longer I live the more
firmly I am convinced that Spaulding's
manu'-cript was appropriated and largely
used in getting up the Book of Mormon. I
believe that, leaving out of the book, the
portions easily recognized as the work ot
Joe Smith and his accomplices, Solomon
Spaulding may be truly said to have been
its author. I have no doubt of it." Rud-
dick McGee, who boarded with the Spauld-
ings and became familiar with Spaulding's
manuscript, says that "the Book of Mor-
mon was founded on and largely copied
from the romance of Solomon Spaulding."
Dr. Dodd who attended Spaulding in his
last illness, declared years before Howe's
book appeared, that "Spaulding's manu-
script had been transferred into the Book
of Mormon, and that Sydney Rigdon had
done it. This declaration was based on
his knowledge of the manuscript, and what
Spaulding ha:t told him about Rigdon's
stealing his manuscript. Rev. Abner
Jackson declares: "The Book of Mormon
follows Spaulding's Manuscript too closely
to be a stranger to it. In both many pas-
sages appear, having the same names, found
nowhere else. Such as Moroni, Mormon,
Nephite, Laman, Lamanite, Nephi, etc.
In the second romance called the Book of
Mormon, we are told the same story of the
same people traveling from the same place
in the same way, having the same difficul-
ties and destination with the same wars,
same battles and same leaders and same
results, such as the Mormon account of the
battle of Comorah in which all the right-
eous are slain. How much this resembles
the closing scene in "Manuscript Found."
Mr. Jackson, who was in the meeting at Con-
neaut, when the Mormon preacher read the
Book of Mormon, says that Squire Wright
shouted out, "Old-coaie-to-pass has come to
life again." Mrs. McKinstry, Spaulding's
daughter, declares that the Book of Mor-
mon is largely her father's Manuscript
Found. His wife declares that it is a wicked
remodeling of her husband's work.

We might add scores of names who heard
the Spaulding manuscript and recognized
it in the Book of Mormon. The testimony of
these seventeen witnesses, who were famil-
iar with Spaulding's Manuscript Found"
prove that the historical portion of the
Book of Mormon what we charge Rigdon
with stealing, is an almost verbatim repro-
duction of that "Manuscript Found." If
my opponent were on trial for his life, one
quarter of his testimony would hang him
higher than Haman. He must do one of
three things: I. Prove that these witnesses
never so testified. II. Impeach them. III.
Or disprove their evidence by rebutting
testimony. Or lose his case. There has
been some controversy over Spaulding's*
motives and object in writing his Manu-
script Found. His wife and daughter stren-
uously insist that he wrote it merely to
while away his time in declining heiilth.
That he had no intention of publishing it.
That he refused to have it published, when
Mr. Patterson ofFeied to publish it. It is

probable that he so told his wife. He may
have had two reasons for it. He had failed
in business continually. His wife sup-
ported the family and he might have feared
that she would oppose the idea of publica-
tion as one of his visionary projects. For
the preservation of peace and that he might
pursue his purpose unopposed, he doubt-
less told her what she sa^'s he did. Again
she seems to have been a woman of decided
moral convictions, and he may have feared
that she would regard such a scheme as
very questionable if not a downright fraud.
But there can be no doubt about his inten-
tions to publish it. His brother says he
wrot-e it for that very purpose, hoping to
make money by it. So say Lake, Sniith,
both the Millers, McKee, John Spaulding,
his wife, and Cunningham. Joseph Miller
and McKee say he prepared a manuscript
for publication and took it to the publish-
ing house for that purpose.

There can be no doubt that he wrote it for
the sole purpose of publishing it and that
he expected to make money by publishing
it. There is nothing wrong al out this. But
that his motives, he knew, were some of
them wrong, is evident from the tact that he
kept them from his wife and daughter, and
also lied to them in regard to Jiis object in
writing the manuscript. Some of his ex-
pressions show that his motives were
very questionable. He intended to assert
that his book was copied from a manuscript
dug out of the earth, or found in a cave. He
expected to deceive the world except the
learned few, and cause them to believe this
falsehood that he intended to palm off on
them ; and also to induce all, but the learned
few, to believe his book to be veritable his-
tory as much so as any history. So he de-
clared to Miller of Conneaut, Wright, Cun-
ningham and others. No wonder he con-
cealed his purpose from his wife and
daughter. Howe says on page 289, of his
history, that he has a letter in his possession
that proves that Spaulding was sceptical
in his last days. If so we can understand his
caricaturing the Bible in the way he did.iu
his romance. The Book of Mormon was in
its inception a deliberate fraud, conceived
by a backsliden preacher, who intended
to foist onto the world, the fraud by
falsehood, stolen by another renegade
preacher, who increased the blasphemy
of the fraud by plagiarising the Bible,
so as to deceive the world by it as
a revelation. Joe Smith, a money hunting,
fortune telling impostor and infidel, gave
it to the world by means of his peep-stone
which he stole from Chase's children. We
repeat that the whole atfair was begotten by
Spaulding in sin, conceived by Rigdon in
iniquity and brought forth by Impostor
Joe in depravity and corruption, and it has
thrived on ignorance, fauaticism and pol-
lution, and has culminated in Utah, iu
infamy that would make devils blush.

Mrs. Davidson declares that Hurlbut
wrote to her from Hartwicke that he found
the Manuscript and would return it to her
when through with it. He came to Howe

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

65

with a lie and told him he only found a
portion of an entirely different manu-
script. He sold the manuscript to Ri<?don
and Smith took the money and went to
"Western Ohio and bought a farm, and Mrs.
Davidson and her daughter, Mrs. McKin-
stry, could never get a word of reply from
him although they sent several letters to
parties who wrote; they gave the letters to
Hurlbut. This answers the Mormon " Why
aid not the Spaulding publish the Manu-
script Found?" Because Mormons hady,ot-
ten it into their possession by bribing Hurl-
but.

This careful analysis of evidence enables
us to brush to one side the fog that Mor-
mons havejraised over Rigdon's copying the
manuscript. He did not, he stole it. Over
the size of the manuscript. Miss Spaulding
read at her uncles. She read only the
small manuscript, the first draft of the
book, her father made. Also the fog over
the fact that the manuscript brought by
Hurlbut was not what the one's sending
him to search the trunk expecting him to
bring. Itexplains how the llli pages of stolen
manuscript, was replaced. They were re-
placed from another Spaulding manuscript,
probably Mormon manuscript No. II. This
account's also for the length of time that
Spaulding spent in writing. He began
in 1809 and closed in 1816, a period of
time of seven years, and even after Rigdon
stole his last manuscript he wrote on till he
died. It accounts also for the differences
in the descriptions of the witnesses
Most of them heard read JNIormon manu-
script No. I. Miller heard portions of Mor-
mon No. II. Writing different manuscripts,
and adding additional porfons willaccount
for discrepancies and contradictions. Such
as Moroni saying his plates were full,
and then writing the .Taredite portion.
Spaulding added the .Taredite portion and
forgot that he had made Moroni close the
book with the destruction of the Nephites.
Also the contradiction, which places Ethers
plates in the hands of King Benjamin when
they did not come to the knowledge of the
Nephites until years after King Benjamin's
death. The gross contradiction which
makes Coviantumu the last Jaredite, die
among the peojjle of King Zarehemla about
200 years B. C, when the battle of which he
was sole survivor occurred more than 600
years B. C. Either he was over 400 years old
or the Jaredites were not exterminated until
200 B. C. instead of 600.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE.

Let US now review the evidence we have
presented, and settle several questions. I.
Are the witnesses competent? II. Are
they worthy of belief? III. AVhat is estab-
lished by their testimony? In determining
the first and second queries there are sev-
eral points to be weighed. I. Is the point
at issue one that can be settled by testi-
mony? No question is susceptible of clearer^
proof. The facts to be determined are I.*
Did Solomon Spaulding write a certain MS.
II. What were its contents? II. Did they
have adequate means of knowing these

facts? No witnesses ever had better.
Mr. Spaulding was a preaclier, in poor
health and out of employment, the very
man that would attract company, and have
much company, and of the highest charac-
ter and intelligence. There was much ex-
citement and curiosity over certain mounds
that had been opened. Spaulding had
taken great interest in the matter. He was
writing an unusual book concerning this
exciting topic. He was very fond of reading
his productions to all who would listen to
him. All this would secure him a circle of
intelljo-ent hearers. The singularity of iiia
theme would cause his hearers to remember
what they heard. To such hearers Spauld-
ing read large portions of bis MS. III.
Were they competent in intelligence? No
one can read their testimony and fail to see
that they were persons of unusual intelli-
gence— the very class of persons that such a
man as Spaulding would attract around
him — that w^ould be interested in his*
theme — the very ones to whom he would
read his work — and who would talk with
him. IV. Were they persons of good char-
ter for truth and veracity ? Their character
cannot be ex(!elled. Compare them with the
gang of loafing, money-hunting knaves and
dupes, upon whose testimony the Book of
Mormon stands. Their intelligence is infi-
nitely above that irang of ignorant, super-
stitious, illiterate, ignoramiises. V. Were
they interested in the points at issue ? Fn
noway whatever. On the other hand ne
witnesses to the Book of INlormon all ex-
pected to make money out of the fraud,
and had gotten it up for that purpose.
VI. Is there any collusion in their testi-
mony? There is absolutely none. Never
were witnesses more independent and in-
dividual in their testimony. Each tells his
story in his own way — tells what he knows,
in his own way — is careful to tell no more —
is careful where not certain to say so. Had
they fabricated their testimony they would
have stated more than they did. (bntrast
their evidence with that of the eight wit-
nesses to the Book of Mormon. Those wit-
nesses do not testify separately, but sign
a statement prepared for them by Imposter
Joe. They testified to what they did not
know, and' could not know. There is every
evidence of collusion and perjury. The
three witnesses are worse, for they testify
to what an angel told them ; the charac-
ter of the entire twelve has been im-
peached. They had every motive to in-
duce them to lie. They had concocted a
fraud to make money and lied to carry it
out. Our witnesses are absolutely free from
all such fatal defects as those tliat utterly
destroy the evidence of the witnesses to the
Book of Mormon.

What facts are established by the
testimony of the witnesses I. The plot
and matter of Spaulding's "Manuscript
Found." They describe it clearly and
definitely. It is precisely the plot and
matter of two Books and only two of all
books that have ever been written. The
Manuscript Found and the Book of Mor-

66

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE,

mon. 11. That it purported to be a real
truthful history of the aborigines— the first
settlers of America. To this testify Mrs.
Solomon Spauldin?, Miss Martha Spauld-
ino-, John Spauldinof, Mrs. John Spauld-
in^ Lake, J. N. Miller, Smit,h VVriofht,
Howard, Cunningham, Jas. Miller, McKee,
Dodd and Sidney Rigdon. III. An at-
tempt to account for the antiquities of
America by giving a real history of
their construction, Ivirs. Solomon Spauld-
jng. Miss Spaulding. .John Spaulding,
Mrs. John ^p:nilding, Wright, Smith, How-
ard, and Cunninii-ham. There never were
but two books that had this feature. The
"Manuscript Found" and the Book of Mor-
mon. IV. It assjjmed that the Israelites
were the aborigines of America. J. Spauld-
ing, Mrs, J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, J.
N."^ Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jackson.
There were neVer but two books that had
this feature, the Book of Mormon and the
Manuscript Found. V. That they left. Teru-
salem ; J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding,
Luke, Milller, Wright, Smith, Jackson,
There never were but two books, the Book
of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that
had this feature. VI. Journeyed by land
and by sea. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld-
ing, Lake. J, N. Miller, Smith, Jackson.
There never were but two books that had
this feature, the Manuscript Found and the
Book of Mormon. VII. Their leaders
were Nephi and Lehi . ISIiss Martha Spauld-
ing, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Smith, Cunning-
ham and Jackson. There never were but
two books that had this feature, the Manu-
script Found and the Book of Mormon,
VIII, They quarreled and divided into
two parties called Nephites and Lamanites.
J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Jackson.
There were never but two books that con-
tained this feature. The Book of Mormon
and the Manuscript Found. IX. There
were terrible wars between the Nephites
and Lamanites, and between parties into
which these nations divided. J. Spaulding,
Mrs. J. Spaulding; Lake, Jackson. There
never but two books, the Book of Mormon
and the Manuscript Found, that contained
this feature. X. They buried their dead
after the awful slaughter in their wars
which were unprecedented, in great heaps,
which caused the mounds. J. Spaulding,
Mrs. J. Spaulding. There were never but
two books, the Book of Mormon and the
Manuscript Found, that contained this
feature. XI. The end of their wars in two
instances was the total annihilation, in
battle of all but one who escaped to make
the record of the catastrophe. Jackson.
There never were but two books, the Manu-
script Found and the Book of Mormon, that
contained tuis feature. XII, It gives a
historical account of the civilization, arts,
sciences, laws and customs of the aborigines
of America. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding,
Miller, Smith. There never were but two
books, the Book of Mormon and the Manu-
script Found, that contained this feature.
XIII. These people were the ancestors of
our American Indians. J. Spaulding, Mrs.

J. Spaulding, Lake, Wright. There never
were but two books, the Manuscript Found
and the Book of Mormon, that contained
this feature. XIV. The names Lehi,
Nephi, Lamanite, Nephite, Moroni, Mor-
mon, Zarahemla, Laban. Miss Martha
Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding,
Lake, Smith, J. N. Miller, Wright, Cun-
ningham, Jackson. There never was but
two books, the Manuscript Found and the
Book of Mormon, that contained these fea-
tures. XV. These in every instance are
the names of the same persons or places
or things, and have the same character-
istics and history, etc. J. Spaulding, Mrs.
J. Spaulding, Lake, Miller, Wright, Smith,
Cunningham, Jackson. There never were
but two books, the Manuscript Found and
the Book of Mormon, that had this feature.
XVI. Written in scriptural style. Rig<lon,
Winter, S])aulding, Mrs. S. Spaulding,
Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Jaa. Miller,
Smith, Cunningham, Jackson. There never
was but two bofoks, the size of either ot
these books, the Book of Mormon and the
Manuscript Found, that had this feature.
Small articles have been so written for bur-
lesque but never such large books. XVII.
Absurd repetition of "And it came to
pass," "And now it came to pass." Mrs.
S. Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld-
ing, Lake, Cunningham, Jas. Miller. There
never were but two books, the Book of Mor-
mon and the Manuscript Found, that had
were this feature. XVIII. One party left
Jerusalem to escape judgments about to
overtake the Israelites.* Smith. There never
were two books, the Manuscript Found and
the Book of Mormon, that contained this
feature. XIX. History was Avritten and
buried by one of the lost people. Mrs. S.
Spaulding. There never were but two
books that contained this feature, the Book
of Mormon and the Manuscript Found.
XX. The book was obtained from the
earth. Lake, Mrs. S. Spaulding, Cunning-
ham. There never were but two books
claiming to be translations of manuscript
dug out of the earth, the Book of Mormon
and the Manuscript Found. XXI. One
party of emigrants landed near the Isth-
mus of Darien, which they called Zara-
hemla, and migrated across the continent
in a north-east direction. J. N. Miller.
There never were but two books that had
this feature, thelSIanuscript Found and the
Book of Mormon. XXII. In a battle the
Amlicites marked their foreheads with a
red cross so that they could distinguish
themselves from their enemies. Jas. Mil-
ler, McKee. There never were but two
books that had these features, the Manu-
script Found and the Book of Mormon.
XXIII, The book could be, and as an addi-
tion to the Bible by an impostor, as an ad-
dition coming froni America. There never
were but two books that had this feature,
the Manuscript Found and the Book of
Mormon.

We have now found that the Book of
Mormon and the Manuscript Found con-
tained twenty-three features, great features

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

67

exactly alike. Nothing but a miracle,
scarcely credible, could have caused this
agreement. One was stolen from the other.
The Manuscript Found was in existence
fifteen years before the Book of INIornioii.
It is as certain that the Book of Mormon
was stolen from the Manuscript Found as
that a cliild is tlie offspring of its parents.

Nearly all of our witnesses are careful to
state that the religiois portion of the Book
of Mormon was not in the Manuscript
Found. We will prove that Sidney Rigdon
interpolated that into the manuscript that
he stole. That will refute the objection
raised by the three. I'd Joseph, that a Pres-
byterian preacher would not write such
religious sentiments as those of the Book of
Mormon. Nearlj^ all of the witnesses in
their descriptions mention only the historic
part of the Nepliite portion of the Book of
Mormon. This shows ttiat Spaulding had
written only that portion, in his first manu-
script. This meets a Mormon objection
that some portions of the Book of Mormon
were not mentioned by the witnesses.

We will now notice some of the retorts of
Mormonism to this testimony. I. It is
''the Spaulding story" So Antideluvians
sneered at Noah about his "flood story," but
the flood overwhelmed them allthe same.
Such evidence, given by seventeen witnesses
can not be sneered down even by the
prophet, the three. Id Joseph, as, "the
Spaulding story," 11. " It is all a pack of
lies." Why is' it a pack of lies? Do they

attempt to impeach the witnesses ? No.
Do they attempt to rebut the testimony?
No. Tliey jabber the great Mormon argu-
ment, "it is a pack of lies." III. The
three Id Joseph says there is collusion in
the testimony. He knew he was penning a
falshood when he wrote that sentence.
There neverwereseveuteon witnesses whose
testimony was more independent, and
marked with each one's personality thaa
these. Contrast the seventeen independent
statements, in which the individuality of
each person appears, with the witnesses to
the Book of Mormon. They sign a joint
statement written out by Imposter Joe.

IV. It is improliable that tbey would
know so much of the manuscript. We have
given tlie reasons why so many persons
heard so much of the Manuscript Found.

V. It is impossible that they would remem-
ber so much. The testimony shows that
they were persons of more than usual
mental power, with clear strong intellects.
The contents of tlie manuscript were so
peculiar that they would be remembered
and recognized, when heard again, as the
nick name old "Come to pass" and the ex-
clamation of Squire Wright "Old come to
pass, has come to life," show. VI. It is
religious persecution. There was no sug-
gestion of an attempt at religious persecu-
tion. Nor do the statements show any such,
spirit. They are remarkably calm and uu-
sectarian in tone.

MR. KELLEY'S SEVENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen:— Last evening I took consider-
able time in presenting to you some of the
evidences contained in the works of arch-
aeologists and explorers of the ancient ruins
and the remains of the extinct civilizations
of the American continent ; showing that
the extent and greatness of them was equal
to that given in the history, of the three
civilizations which had existed here, two of
them contemporaneous, as represented in
the Book of Mormon. I was answered by my
opponent at the time with this: "That
those things were known to the world and
were accessible to Joseph Smith at the
time of the publication of the book;" and
for proof he cited to Josiah Priest's work,
which he said treated of these things and
which was published it was averred, prior
to the publicationof the Book of Mormon.
I did not state then that I did not believe it,
for I was taught by my mother not to say

a thing was not true until I had tested it ;
and I have made no statement to this audi-
ence but what I believed to be as true as
that the sun has this day been on his daily
course. Neither do I expect to state to this
audience anything but what I believe to be
true, and strictly true. But to his. Priest's
work: — I asked for the book and examined
it. Instead of finding a work that treats
upon antiquities, or civilizations, such as I
have proven to have existed, I found that
the book did not contain a single thing upon
these: — neither speculations upon ruined
cities or a high state of enlightenment, nor
a single mound referred to from which con-
ckisio.is of a great civilization conld be
drawn; — not one single thing that tends to
disprove a single statement tliat I dwelt up-
on last evening; and yet, you are exj.ecied
to accept it as an answer to my argument.
The work doesnot treat upon antiquarian re-
searches even; but it is Mr. Priest's compi-

68

THE BRADEN AND ICELLEY DEBATE.

lation of certain thing's, entitled the "Won-
ders of Heaven and Earth." I stated in my
opening remarks upon last evening that it
was speculative, long prior to the publica-
tion of the Book of Mormon, that the ten
lost tribes of Israel had been led to this
country, and that afterwards they had
dwindled into barbarism; and showed also
that tlie common theory was that when the
country was settled it was settled from
north to south, and that, that was one of the
main theories at the time of the publi-
cation of the Book of Mormon. I open this
book that treats of the wonders of earth and
heaven, and And an article referring to the
ten tribes coming to this continent, giving
the writer's speculations from what had
been ascertained by conversing with the na-
tives; and there is a long argument in it from
page 297 forward for the purpose of showing
that the people who inhabited this country,
and of whom the Indians were descendants,
were the lost tribes, as I had admitted in
my opening argument upon these antiquit-
ies, stating that such were the speculations.
But there is not a single work or mound cit-
ed in this book to prove it, or tliat the peo-
ple attained a high state of civilization and
builded great cities, etc., here as was my ar-
gument. But, turning to the book, page
201, I find that the speculation is here set
out also, that they crossed at Behrings
St'tait, as I had claimed upon last evening,
and afterward made their way southward.
Not only that, but on turning further in this
book I find some excellent things to show
that the people upon this continent were of
Isr;ielitish origin, one of which is plainly
and clearly set out, wherein it states
that they formerly practiced circum-
cision on the continent. I call the
attention of my opponent to that,
because he challenged me to show
unon a former evening, that any such thing
as circumcision had been practiced upon
this continent. That is a proof from his
own work. Will he take his own witness?
I refer to this fact of the Saint's actual po-
sition upon this for the reason, that I do
not wish you to misunderstand my position
upon the point. While there were many
speculations in regard to whether the In-
dians were the first inhabitants of Amer-
ica, and how they came here, at the time of
the publication of this book, as I have be-
fore stated, there was no understanding
and no knowledge extant in the world of
the grand civilization that had occupied
here, that outnumbered by thousands and
millions the present population of the coun-
try, if we are permitted to judge at all from
the ruins and the discoveries that have
been made since that time, and of the great
enlightenment of the people. I expected
to have collated to-day and presented
to you this evening a concise account by
the best authors of just when this knowl-
edge was first developed and published to
the world through explorers, and I shall
do so upon to-morrow or some future even-
ing ; showing that it was not known to the
world prior to 1834. There was one English

publication in 1822, but it was never known
in this part of the world, and not widely
in any ; and I doubt if there is a man in the
State of Ohio, — well, there possibly has
been one in the State of Ohio, — but certainly
not many more, who ever saw such a work
or such an author as that of Fuentes or Del
Rio. Mr. Stephens, whom I cited last
evening, and who wrote in 1841, a traveler
all over this globe, and a man that was
versed not only in the English language,
but in the Spanish also, in which Del Ilio's
work was originally written, had never
heard of it at the time he first went to
Mexico in 1839. But suppose that they had
heard of the publication of the work, and
that it had been ail over the country in
1822, and that it contained anything of these
great cities : — what would it benefit my op-
jionent in this argument? His claim is that
this " Romance" was written by one Solo-
mon Spaulding in 1811. Well, if it was
written in 1811, and the historical part of it
gotten up by Mr. Spaulding, could Mr.
Spaulding write correctly of these things
when he did not know about them unless
he was a prophet? Why not God inspire
Smith to write and antedate these discov-
eries as well as Spaulding? The argument
is, that neither Smith nor Spaulding could
get these things out, for the manuscript of
the Book of Mormon as they are described
therein as early as the year 1829, (or 1811),
and as they have since been found correct
by the best authors. Not only that, but I
read fully from the most authentic writers
in support of the statements of the Book of
Mormon, which was copyrighted and in
the hands of the j^rinter as early as the
first part of the year 1829, oil the question
of the high stateof the ancient civilizations
of the continent ; the magnificence of their
cities, temples, palaces and works of art;
their high attainments in the sciences, me-
chanical skill and inventions ; and of the
fauna as presented in the later-discovered
"fossils, etc. This however, was sneered at
as though everybody knew of that, long
before the Book of Mormon was printed,
and that Smith could easily have located
his Central American cities ; told of the
three different highly civilized peoples who
had lived there ; told what domestic ani-
mals they had, and what places on the con-
tinent these people first inhabited from
such general knowledge, and thus had
practiced a fraud upon the world. Now,
my friends, nearly sixty years have passed
since the book was published, with new
discoveries being continually brought to
light, and in an age when the means of
transmission of news and knowledge was
never so perfect it is thought ; as gifted
men as the times have produced, have given
their attention and attainments to the re-
search and ^development of these things,
and the result is, they Jiave gained no new
light upon this subject, that was not possi-
ble for a poor, unlettered boy in ;;the back-
woods of New York State to gatlier and
compile into a book in 1827 and 1828.
Friends, can you swallow that? If you

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

69

can, it is possible you may swallow down
and roll as a s>j/eet morsel under the tongue
the Spauldins: tale, "Old come to pass,"
and all. What! says one, have not these
new authors who have been publishing for
tlie past fifty years unfolded soinething
new as to the civilization tliat is not to be
g'ained by reading tlie Book of Moriiion?
Nor anything either, that has been estab-
lished as a truth that is conflicting with, or
contrary to, that book ? I answer they
have not ; and the book is full and explicit
upon the civilizations. Will my opponent
please show the new light or the fact of the
difference or contradiction to the audic^ri(!e
if tliey have? One demonstrable fact thus
brought, which will show a statement in
the book false, will have more weight with
any honest investigator, than ten thous-
and Spaulding stories, all laid, brooded,
hatched, raised and palmed upon tlie world
years after the publication of the Book of
Mormon .

This is his position fairly stated : The
Book of Mormon was in press in 1829, and
sent out as a publication in 1830. — A few
persons under the guidance and leadership
of one Philaster Hulburt, who, at the time
had been cut otf from the church of the
Latter Day Paints for bad conduct, and avIio
had ijublicl.y confessed his crime and had
been taken back upon his profession of re-
pentance as I will show you by tlie church
publications at the time, and was again
cut off; and a few others at Conneaut,
Ohio, of a like stamp, got together in 1833,
with the Book of Mormon in their hands
and vengeance and hatred in their hearts,
and got up some affidavits as to a story
which it was surmised had been written
before by Solomon Spaulding. a broken
down clergyman of that place. A fterwards
they found a confederate in Mr. Howe, of
Painsville, Ohio, who was terribly mad and
jealous because his wife and sister had
joined tlie church here in Kirtland. and so
between Hulburt and Howe and these
testifiers, they publislied their tale between
the years 1834 and 1841, years after the
publication of the Book of Mormon and
with that book in their hands from which
to make their garbled statemenis. There-
fore, he concludes the thieving Joseph
Smith who was always an honest and
honorable man, stole the Book of Mormon
from the Spaulding story and made of the
theft a Bible. This is logic for you with a
rush! Who again will doubt that my op-
ponent is a profound logician? But I have
yet to give you the rich part of his tale.
A few of the best citizens of Ohio, at Con-
neaut, got together one night and appointed
one of their beloved number, to wit, the
said Dr. Hullturt. who had before been
ostracised from the Latter Day Saints for
an open insult to a youns: lady in Kirtland,
to go to New York, Pennsylvania, and
other places, to get statements from other
first citizens of "^the country (like to them-
selves), and get up a story to beat the
Book of Mormon. Did you ever before hear
of so many of the first citizens of the

country living near by ^'ou, who were never
known outside of their neighborhood, ex-
cept by the work of evil they did by signing
false statements? His idea of best citizen is
from the standpoint of whether they are
on "our side ; " not from a single truth he
knows. But let me right here call your
attention to the fact that he has not even
presented the testimony of a single one of
these best citizens he refers to in full. Not
a single statement. Not even the poor
show of reading to you a Avritten statement
in full of a single one of them. Not even
the offer to read 3'ou a single aflidavit of
one of these "best citizens."' I am here
to examine the evidence in this discussion,
and if he has any statements, or affidavits,
I want him to read them here, and give the
people a chance to judge and me a cliance
to examine them. I deny, sir, that you can
produce affidavits or respectable statements
proving the statements and assertions you
read last night ; and demand the evidence.
Not a few lines from the witnesses but the
testimony. I call attention to the fact that
this opponent is the first I ever met who
would stand before an audience and tell
and rehearse what he says, somelxxly else
said, old mother Grundy said about what
somebody else said and' did, and then ask
his audience to take it for evidence. What
would you think of an attorney, who after
rehearsing his case to the jury or judge,
without ever offering to introduce a wit-
ness or read a record except in extracts,
would stand up and claim he had put his
evidence in, and ask for a verdict in his fa-
vor? Can you not see, ladies and gentlemen,
he has not proven a single thing? What
evidence has, he presented to you upon any
matter? Mention, any of you who can.
Oh, savs one, he gave us Mr. Rudolph's
testimonv. Did he? I have not seen it or
heard it read. I heard what Braden said
Rudolph said Sidney Kigdon did : but what
do you know about it? Mr. Rudolph is
near here, if he knows anything, put him
on this stand : you claim him as one of your
own men, a Disciple Preacher. I want to
examine him if his name is to be used,
since he is near by and can be had. The
only request I wil! have in the matter is
that the evidence shall be taken on extra
time ; and that we do not take up the hour
named for discussion. I deny here that
Mr. Rudolph knows a single fact which can
in the remotest degree connect Sidney Rig-
don with Joseph Smith or the liook of
Mormon, prior to the time when Sidney
Riffdon was converted to the faith of the
Saints in the last part of the year 1830.
And I make this statement fearlessly, after
having had a conversation with Mr. Ru-
dolph on the subject of the l)Ook myself last
summer.

Anotlier thing: I state fearlessly before
you that Mr. Howe of Painsville, who first
publisheii the Spaulding story and the affi-
davits which were gotten up to blacken the
character of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon,
et al., and whose book is the key note from
which all subsequent works have taken

70

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

their music, does not know one thing, not a
single fact that can be made in the least to
conr-ect that Spaulding storywith the Book
of Mormon or show that Joseph Smith's
character was bad ; or that a single affida-
vit in his book is true. Will you put him
on the stand here for examination ? I will
bear the expense of bringing him here as
he is a little farther away than Mr. Rudolph,
I do not make these assertions for bluff, or
effect; but for the reason that the world has
tiiought Mr. Howe knew something about
the matter, or he would not have published
the book which forms the basis of all other
lying works; and if he does know anything
riow is the time to find i* out. One other
thing. It has been asserted here that he
has a chain of evidence. A chain of evi-
dence! What is it to make a chain of
evidence? Can you use broken or pieces of
links? Has Mr"! Braden debated all his
life and has not yet found out that to form a
circumstance or truth, that the evidence of
such circumstance or truth must be com-
plete within itself and independent of anoth-
er fact or circumstance which he claims
to form another link? Each must be com-
plete of itself to be evidence and constitute
a chain. For illustration : It is said here
by him that at one time a niece of Sidney
Rigdon once saw him go to an old trunk,
take out a manuscript, go to the fire place
an(i read it, and that he would not let her
se3 it. Suppose this is all true as the story
goes; what of it? Is it jjertinent to the
issue until they in some manner connect
that same manuscript with the one claimed
by Spaulding? Why! Rigdon might have
had a hundred manuscripts and read them,
and taken them from an old trunk, and put
them back without first having given
them to his niece to read, and each and
every one of them altogether different from
the Spaulding manuscript ; and if any such
unconnected statement was offered as evi-
dence in any court to sustain the most
trivial case, it would instantlj' be ruled as
improper. Before this can be made evidence
the parties must also show by some other
fact, or thing, thatthemanuscript which he
is said to have read and would not let his
niece see was the. Spaulding Romance, and
then they may use it all as a link to show
that Rigdon did have an opportunity of
copying the Spaulding manuscript. Don't
you know that if Sidney Rigdon did
have the Spai:lding manuscript it is just
possible he had another besides ; mother
Grundy's manuscript, a manuscript sermon,
or manuscript article for publication, and
that at the time his niece saw him he was
reading mother Grundy or one of the other
manuscripts instead of iSpaulding? What
then would be the true position of my
opponent In this argument? Mr Braden
offering to show that Rigdon had the
Spaulding manuscript by citing the time he
read mother Grundy's manuscript, and
offering the people a false thing as evidence
and asking them to accept it as true instead
of accepting the facts. Take another one
of his proofs (?). Mr. Rudolph says, so

Braden says, that one time ^during the year
1827, Sidney Rigdon, who was their pastor
at Mentor," Ohio, went off some place and
was away two or three weeks and they did
not know where he went to. It might have
been over to Hiram, down to Mantua, to
Cleveland or Cincinnati ; but no difference
to him ; he will have it at this very time he
was in the wilds of Pennsylvania or New
York, concocting the Book of Mormon
Avith Joseph Smith. Where is his witnesses
showing where Rigdon was at this time, or
that he was in New York? There is none,
nor never has been. Now according to their
idea Smith has no rights that even a rogue
is bound to respect ; and so if they can show
that their pastor Rigdon was out on a spree,
Smith will have to bear the blame. My
friends, don't you know that it would sink
any man, prophet, priest, or king, to under-
take to make of him a scapegoat to carry
away the sins of many pastors of the
Campbellite Church.

But I have only been arguing the matter
in this suppositious form— sifting it; — when
I come to ask for the evidence, I find out
the whole thing is trumped up to defeat
Sidney Rigdon because he left their church.
I shall now present to you a supposable case
upon facts proven, and ask you to compare
the two methods of argument. Upon the
part of the affirmative I have shown that
John the Revelator, in the 14th chapter and
6th verse of his book, says: "And I saw
another angel fly in the midst of heaven
having the everlasting gospel to preach unto
them that dwell on the earth, and to every
nation, and kindred, and tongue, and peo-
ple, saying with a loud voice, Fear God,
and give glory to him ; for the hour of his
judgment is come: and worship him that
made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and
the fountains of waters." I use this to sup-
port the truth of ray claim. But how? 1.
I show by it, the time that is referred to,
" The hour of God's judgment." 2. That it
was to be after John's time, or the year A.
D. 96, bv turning to the preceding chapters.
Rev. 1:19, 4:1, and 22:6. 3. That the hour
of the judgment is the same as defined in
Matt. 13 by Jesus. And it is "just afore
the harvest," the same time referred to in
Isaiah 18, when the ensign is lifted up ; and
that the ensign of God is the gospel of
Christ; this is what he calls men to look to,
saying, "Repent ye and believe the gos-
pel ;" and since it is the gospel and lifted
up at the saine time that John saw the angel
bringing it, I must conclude they are the
same in teaching at least, for there is but
one gospel. 4. Then, when I notice that the
same time and event is spoken of in both,
as in Isaiah 29, and Ezekiel 37, where the
message and event is represented as a book
that should be brought to light which
should contain "doctrine," and (connected
with its publication), understanding at-
tained, and the power of God brought to
light, as was the gospel when it was in the
world in its fullness before, as Paul says: —
"Our gospel came not unto you in word
only, but in power and in the Holy Ghost,

THE BE A DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

71

and in much assurance;" (1 Thess 1:5),
and that this is the same work specifically
set forth as in the other texts, lime, place
and conditions each being complete of them-
selves and agreeing in all their phases, and
that there is no reasonable interpretation or
application of the prophecies agreeing with
any other time, place, thing or event, I con-
clude that they all refer to the same thing,
and that that thing is the gospel which is
to be again committed to the earth at the
time, "just afore the harvest;" in "the hour
of His judgment," and hence committed
again sometime after the apostles' time, and
which may be in our own time, and must
be in this or hereafter, for the harvest spo-
ken of has not yet come. Having made
such a connected chain as this, every link
beinir in itself complete, since they all refer
toa like,or the same thing, and thatthinghas
a complete likeness in the coming forth and
teaching of the Book of Mormon, and no
other book known to men will answer to the
fulfillment as this, and the time in the his-
tory of the world as predicted has arrived
for the fulfillment, I say it is logical to con-
clude, and the evidence irresistible as show-
ing that this is the prophetic work, not-
withstanding Satan's old cry of deceiver.

How about his Spaulding story as com-
pared with this logical deduction from ad-
mitted facts? In the argument of a propo-
sition or the trial of an issue, there is what
is termed an atfirmafcive and a negative; a
plaintiff and a defendant. One who affirms
the truth of a matter and who must bring
evidence to sustain this, and one who de-
nies the suffiL^iency or application of the
evidence, or else, admitting the statements
of the one Mho affirms to be correct, he denies
the conclusion, for the reason that some-
thing else is true which must destroy the
correctness of the plaintiff's conclusion.
This other tiling or averment is what is
termed an alibi, and may properly be made
the defense in certain cases. But in other
cases it cannot. For illustration : I set
forth my claim and title to a certain piece
of land, showing patent from the govern-
ment, all due and legal transfers by proper
conveyance ; show that this patent and all
transfers and steps of entry and possession
are strictly in harmony and keeping with the
law, — it would hardiy be worth while for
another to bring a suit to oust me under the
plea that, it is true, he is properly entitled
under the chain of title and I cannot break
that claim, but then John Doe had a correct
chain of title too, at one time, to a piece of
land, and it is defendant's belief that plain-
tiff ought to be kept out of possession for
the reason that John Doe now does not know
what kind of land his was nor where it is.
No judge would for a moment hesitate to
say that not even an issue had been formed
by such a plea. If my chain of title could
not be broken, no amount of alibi's would
help the matter in the case. That which is
conclusive to the proving of a fact, which
fact establishes the conclusion of a proposi-
tion, cannot be overcome by an attempt to
prove some other fact ; for the reason that

it is a contradiction to suppose that two
facts exist and one the opposite of the other.

To defeat nn^ title to the land then, tha
defendant would be compelled to break the
chain, and this would form a direct contest.
In the discussion of the proposition before
this audience, as the one alfirming, f luid
the right to set out my claim ;— cliainof title;
make it full and complete ui^der the law;
and mj' opponent's right was to break this
chain, and under the law he must do so or
fail; for the conclusion of the law is, that
he who comes bringing thin chain is true,
for no man can get hold of the chain unless
he is the true and accepted one.

God has set this seal upon it; man un-
derstands the things of man by the spirit
of man which is in him; "even so the
thin ITS of God knoweth no man, but the
Spirit of God." I Cor. 2 : 11. For this
reason in determining who are of God and
who are not, you may safely rely upon the
rule, "He that abideth in the doctrine of
Christ, he hath both the Father and the
Son." 2 John, 9th verse. He has established
a law that man without the Spirit of God
cannot look into his truth wliich is from
above, and so select from itas toimjcsaupon
the people and at the same time conform
to the truth. Jesus recognizes the rule as
being correct in the 28th chapter of Mat-
thew's gospel, wherein he tells his diciples,
if they teach all things whatsoever he has
commanded them he will be with them to
the end of the world. He did not even
promise to be with Peter, and James, and
John unless they proved their mission by
abiding in the doctrine Not a part of it, but
all of it, for this rule was to be given to his
people and the world to test the true from
the false ; true teachers from false teachers ;
true prophets from false prophets. "If any
man think himself a prophet or spiritual,"
says the apostle, 1 Cor. 14:37, "let him ac-
knowledge that the things that I write
unto you are the commandments of the
Ijord.'"' Not acknowledge by mouth through
dissimulation simply, — butlethis teachings
conform to the established test, and agree
in all things with that which Paul had
written. " He that is of God heareth God's
words;" and in all things. " Beware of
false prophets who come to you in sheep's
clothing ; by their fruits you shall know
them." Not judging their public acts by
their doings in private life, nor by the lives
of their followers; for this would destroy
the entire list: — Noah, Moses, Samson,
David, Solomon, Elijah, Peter and Paul ;
and judging simply by the fruits of the fol-
lowers, it would also prove as false, Jesus
and the apostles ; for all, except the twelve
went back at one time ; Judas, oneof tl)ose,
turned traitor and sold Jesus : another,
denied him and cursed and swore ; all re-
turned to their nets ; and Thomas was so
far gone that he said ho would not believe,
unless "he should first thrust his hands
into his side," while some in the churches
in a short time vvero guilty of such abomi-
nations as wore not known, the apostle
Paul says, amons;- the Gentiles. Speaking

THE BPvADEN AND KLELLEY DEBATE.

of those in Asia, Jesus signifies to his ser-
vant John, that some were so wicked and
corrupt, that unless they repented they
should " be brought down to hell." To
judge them then in this way would be
wrong ; — contrary to the word of God. I
will show you the way to judge men by
their fruits. If those principles they teach
are bad ; or men or women are bad who are
living in accord with, and carrying out in
their lives the principles taught, then it
will prove the one bringing the message to
be bad, and at the same time prove themes-
sage bad. The argument is often made
that the Christian religion is bad because
those professing Christianity are bad. This
IS not a correct premise. Before the conclu-
sion follows, it must be further shown that,
in bringing forth this bad fruit, they who
call themselves Christians did these bad
things by conforming to the principles and
teachings of the Christian religion.

Now, in this discussion, from the first, my
opponent has chosen to leave the arguments
of the affirmative and follow his own
course ; and he has attempted to crush me
under the weight of the stories he had at
his command against the character of Mr.
Smith. What a ridiculous position ! If my
claim is true it is true, and no number of
alibi's could affect it gotten up on life or
character.

But by taking this course he virtually
admits the position of the affirmative
to be unmovabJe ; because if he could
move me what is the useof his alibi ?
T am affirming and must make my
case. He simply denies ; he does not
In the proTjosition set up a counter case,
claim, or thing. And yet he has chosen to
introduce the alibi of the old Spaulding
Romance ; (and romance it is), and to rely
upon that, either as a counter proof suffici-
ent, or as a means of prejudicing the people
against an investigation of the facts. What-
ever the object it matters not to me ; but I
take it that by so doing he has admitted as
true the position of the plaintiff in the con-
test and now rests his case upon character,
and the " Spaulding Romance."

Does he not know that his very act in
doing this is in itself another evidence of
the truth of the Book of Mormon? and in
this • making certain the application of

another part of the prophecy in Isaiah, 29th
chapter, the conditions of which I claim
are complete in tlie Book of Mormon. The
book spoken of there to come forth is to be
fought in such a way. If the opposition
was from a different standpoint the predic-
tion would be incomplete. The prophecy
sets out sufficient to show that it might
have been properly tried under the rule,
for it is to contain the doctrine of Christ ; —
no mistaking this; verse 24: "They also
that erred in spirit shall come to under-
standing, and they that murmured shall
learn doctrine."

But notwithstanding this, it is shown
conclusively in verses 15, 16, 20, and 21,
that those who opposed the book would do
so by turning things upside down ; — revers-
ing the order of trying things under God's
law, and use works which were "in the
dark;" "scorn" the claims made by the
one bringing the book, and "watch for ini-
quity ;" — try to find something against his
character ;— "make a man an offender for a
word," "and lay a snare for him," for it
was to be a work reproving the people for
leaving the law ; and finally, they were
to "turn aside the just for a thing of
nought." — Preferring to the great facts of
God's law and the justice exemplified there-
in, those things that are of little account,
a tissue and a refuge of lies as referred to
in the fifteenth verse of the 28th chapter,
or in other words the "Spaulding Story."
Now, singular as it is, I have never met a
man as yet, in the consideration of this
question,' who has not tried the book from
this standpoint. It was said of Jesus that
"he was numbered with the transgressors,"
to fulfill the prediction of the prophet,
made long before ; and if the certainty of
agreement of prophecy and its fulfillment
is-such, that he who was the upright and
true, the humble and meek, the forgiving
and pure of the city of Nazareth, must be
charged with disobedience to law, stirring
up of sedition, and treason to the State,
and suffer the final affliction of death be-
tween two thieves, why should I complain
to suffer to the contest of lies, and ways
that are dark, which the prophet speaks of
as being brought to oppose at some day the
Lord's work.

(Time expired.)

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

73

MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen:— We Avish to call theattention
to a fact strangely overlooked b^^ former
writers— that Spaulding wrote several man-
uscripts. Our reasons for such a position
are: I. The leuffthot time he spent in wri-
ting his book. He begun in 1809, and the
manuscript was taken to Patterson's office
i)i 1814. He spent five years on it. II. Mrs.
S. Spaulding, liis wife, 'Miss Spixulding, his
daughter, an(] J. N. Miiler, declare that he
had many manuscripts. III. The witness-
es in Coneaut, with one exception, describe
only the Nephite portion, showing that he
had only written that, when reading to
them. The Zarahemlite and Jaredite por-
tions were not written when he read to
them. IV. Spaulding stated to J. N. Mil-
ler that he would lead a retired life in Pitts-
burgh, and re-write his manuscript. Mil-
ler is the only one who describes the Zare-
hemlite ]H)rifon. He had added that to his
second Mormon manuscript. V. Pa'tersou
told him to rewrite it and prepare it for
press. Jas. Miller says he did, and left this
copy with Patterson,'and tliat it was this, or
his third Mormon manuscript, that Rigdon
stole VI. The manuscript that Miss
Spaulding read at the residence of her un-
cle, W. H Sabin, was not large enough to
constitute such a work as the publishers
would publish. It was liis first draft on
hismanuscriptNo.il. Mormon I. VII. The
contradictions between these portions as we
will show, prove that they were written in
different installments, and added to each
other. VIII. When Mrs. H°,rris destroyed
lis pages Rigdon was sent for and he re-
placed them from another Spaulding man-
uscript, one of the ones stolen by Smith
from Mrs. Davidson's house in HartAvicke
in 1827. IX. Even after he failed to get his
manuscript published and the copy he pre-
pared had been stolen by Rigdon, he con-
tinued to write on to the last. X, Spauld-
ing's care in preserving his manuscript is
seen in the fact that even the few leaves of
his Roman manuscript were preserved, and
found in his trunk in 1834.

This removes the quibbling of Mormons
about Rigdon's copying so much manu-
script. He did not, he stole it. Spaulding
so declared in 181.5-16. Rigdon showed the
manuscript to Winters, and stated that it
was the manuscript that Spaulding wrote —
that Spaulding had left it at Pattersons—
that he borrowed it— not copied it. Rigdon
told Jefries he took the man u«cript from the
printing office. It settles also all quibbling
about size of the manuscript Miss Spauld-
ing read at her uncles. Rigdon had
the one lier father had prepared for press.
She read the first draft or manuscript No.
II Mormon manuscript No. I. It also
puts an end to the three Id Josephh's
talk that Spaulding's heirs had the

manuscript in their care all the time.
It puts an end to the challenge of Moinions
"Why did not the Spauldings bring out the
manuscript and prove tlie theft and pla-
giarism by publishing the original manu-
script?" Rigdon had stolen INIormon man-
uscript No. Ill that Spaulding liad prei)ar-
ed for press, Smith, in 1S27 had stolen other
manu&cripts.

Did Rigdon steal Spaulding's manuscript?
We have proved that he was learning the
tanner's tradein Pittsburg, when the manu-
script was at Patterson's by Mrs. Echbaum.
That he was intimate with Lambdin and
was about the office so much that Engles
the foreman complained of it. That he was
much interested in the Spaulding manu-
script that was a great curiosity in the of-
fice, by Mrs. Spaulding. That the manu-
script was stolen and Spaulding blamed
Rigdon, by Jas. Miller, McKee and Dr.
Dodd. That Rigdon showed the manu-
script to Dr. Winters in 1823 declaring it
was Spaulding's manuscript, left Avitli a
printer, tliat he borrowed it, and told what
it contained, by Dr. Winter. That he had
it in 1826, and declared it would be a great
thing some day, by his niece Mrs. Dunlap.
We have proved that he knew of the publi-
cation of the Book of Mormon, long before it
appeared, and described it, by D. Atwater,
A. Bently, Alexander Campbell, Green and
Dille. We have proved that he was often
absent from home while it was being pre-
pared for press, by Z. Randolph, and oth-
ers. That he was seen at Smith's while it
was being prepared for press, by Tucker,
Mrs. Eaton and McCauley, Chase and San-
ders. We have proved that he prepared
his congregation for the reception of the
book and his ideas, and that his adherants
went into Mormonism. We will, when we
come to analyze the Book of Mormon, prove
that there are Rigdonisms on nearly every
page, and several on many single pages. I
do not know how a stronger case can b©
made.

The constant jabber of Mormons, calling
on persons to tell when and how Rigdon
came in contact with and obtained posses-
sion of the Spaulding manujwi'ipt, and
when and how Rigdon and Smith came to-
gether, and concocted this scheme, and
brought out this book, is an insult to com-
mon sense and every principle of law. If a
man is arrested with stolen property in his
possession, all the state has to do is to prove
I. The rightful owner of the property. II.
That it has been feloneously taken out of
his possession. III. That it was found in
the possession of the accused. Tliat is suf-
ficient to convict him of being a thief, or a
rect^iver of stolen goods, that the law holds
as guilty as the thlet. The state does not
have to prove that the accused stole the
property. Having convicted him of having

74

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

stolen property in his possession, he has to
prove that he came by it innocently, or be
committed as thief or receiverof stolen goods.
We have proved that Spaulding owned the
Manuscript Found, that it was found in pos-
session of Rigdon, that it was offered to the
public as his own property bj' Imposter
Joe. Unless Mormons can prove that Rig-
don and Smitli came by it innocently, they
are convicted as thieves, or as receivers of
stolen goods. As lawyers the three Id Jo-
seph and his man Kelley ought to know
this.

But we have gone far beyond what is
necessary in order to convict Rigdon and
Smith. Let me illustrate our work. Sup-
pose that a man lives for years in Kirtland,
who has a museum of rare relics. There
are absolutely no duplicates of any of them.
He is a sort of monomaniac over his museum,
takes everybody' to see it that he can in any
waj' induce to look at it, and is constantly
talking about it, and describing it. Tie
moves away, and some years afterwards a
couple of fellows come along and advertise
a wonderful museum, that thej'^ claim an
angel gave by miracle to one of them.
People of Kirtland flock out to see this
miraculous museum. No sooner do they
cast eyes on it, than a shout goes up, "why
this the collection of 'Old-come-to-pass,' ""
a nick-name they had given to their former
neighbor. The two fellows are arrested
for theft. The heirs of the old neighbor
are looked up. They say the collection is
in a certain trunk. When the trunk is ex-
amined it is found that not a single article
of the collection is in it. The trial comes
on. The former neighbors of the original
owner come in and testify, describing the
articles in the collection of their old neigh-
bor, and describe nearly all the leading
articles in the museum. The museum is
placed before them. They pick out all the
leading articles, but reject some, saying,
"he end not have these." The thieves
would go to the penetentiary, unless they
could show that they came by them
honestly.

But suppose the state proceeds to prove
that the owner took his collection to a
certain place to be prepared for exhibition.
That one of the thieves was constantly
around there, took great interest in them.
That just before the owner's death, these
relics disappeared, and that the owner and
others blamed this follow with stealing
them. That a few years afterwards he
showed them to persons saying that they
were the deceased man's relics, that he had
left to be prepared for exhibition, and that
he had borrowed them from the one who
was to prepare them for exhibition, in
order to examine them. That he was seen
with them in his possession and examining
them years afterwards, declaring, "they
would be a big thing some day." That
soon afterwards lie began to exhibit certain
peculiar articles of his own manufacture,
and to prophesy that an angel would give to
the world a museum, with certain articles
in it, describing the articles of the deceased

man. Thathe was seen in company with his
confederate. That the confederate began to
tell that an angel had given to him a
museum of such articles, and in a short
time the two began to exhibit the museum,
containing the relics of the deceased, and
the articles the first fellow had been ex-
hibiting. The case would be made out as
clearly" as if a thousand men swore that
they saw the theft.

We have proven that Solomon Spaulding
exhibited for years, in Conneaut, and in oth-
er places, a cabinet of curiosities, that were
absolutely nowhere else except in his Man-
uscript Found. That he was a sort of mo-
nomaniac over his Manuscript Found, forc-
ing it on all he could get hold of, holding
them like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner,
That his mania had caused persons to nick-
name him, "Old come to pass." V7e have
proved that when the Rook of Mormon was
exhibited in Conneaut, that those who had,
through Sjialding's mania, been made fa-
miliar with his Blanuscript Found, recog-
nized the Manuscript Found in the Book of
Mormon. Squire Wright shouting out,
" Old come to pass has come to life." His
brother arose and denounced the theft and.
fraud ou the si)ot. His old neighbors sent
a messenger to his widow, who sent them
to the trunk, where the manuscript was
supposed to be, and it was not in the trunk.
It had been stolen. We have introduced
the clear positive testimony of seventeen
witnesses, who, in describing the Manu-
script Found, give a better description of
the Book of Mormon — the historic part —
than the average Mormon preacher can
give from memory. We have presented
them the book of Mormon and they unite
in picking out the historic portions as part
of the Manuscript Found and in rejecting
others as not in the Manuscript Found.
We have proved that one of the accused,
Rigdon, was around the place where the
manuscript Spaulding had prepared for the
press was last seen. That he took a deep
interest in it. That Spaulding told James
Miller and McKee and Dr. Dodd that his
manusci'ipt had been stolen and Rigdon
was suspected of the theft. We have
proved that Rigdon in 1822 or 3 showed the
manuscript to Dr. Winters, stating that
it was a manuscript that Spaulding a
Presbyterian preacher had left with a
printer, for publication, and that he had
borrowed it from the printer to read as a
curiosity. It was a Bible romance, pur-
porting to be a history of the American In-
dians. That he told Jeffries he took it from
the printing office and gave it to Smith to
publish. That he spent so much time over
it in 1826, as to cause his wife to threaten
to burn it, to which he replied, "that it
would be a great thing some day." We
proved by ALexauder Campbell, A.Bently,
and D. Atwater that Rigdon years before
the Book of Mormon appeared stated that
such a book would apjiear, it was dug out
of the ground, was engraved on gold plates,
contained a history of the aborigines of
this continent, gave the history of the peo-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

pie who construed the antiquities of
America, that it taught that the gospel was
preached in America, in the first centuries
of our era, as the Disciples were then preach-
ing it on the Reserve. We have proved that
Rigdon preached the religious portions, the
part that our witnesses did not recognize
as Spaulding's. We have proved that Rig-
don was away from home during the time
that Smith was working on his "pretended
plates. That he was seen with Smith.
That right after he began to visit Smith
the latter began to telTabout finding the
plates and began his pretended translation
of them. We have made our case.

MORMON CHRONOLOGY.

1761 — Solomon Spaulding was born in Ash-
ford, Connecticut.

1785— Solomon Spaulding graduated with
the degree of A. B. at Dartmouth Col-
lege.

1787 — Solomon Spaulding graduated in Di-
viiiiiy. He received the degree of A.
M. from Dartmouth College.

178ci — Solomon Spaulding preaches as Con-
gregational preacher till compelled to
stop by ill health, in 1800.

1793_,Sidney Rigdon was born Feb., 19th
near the village of Library, St. Clair
township, Alleghany county, Penn-
sylvania.

1796— Joseph Smith, Sen., and Lucy Mack
married in Tunbridge, Vermont.

1800— Solomon Spaulding moves lo Cherry
Valley, New York, and engages in
merchandizing till 1805, and marries
Matilda Sabin.

1805— Imposter Joe Smith born Dec. 23, in
Sharon, Windsor county, Vermont.

1807— Solomon Spaulding having failed in
business moves to Coneaut, Ohio, and
engages in business.

1808— He becomes very much interested in
the mounds around Coneaut, and has
several opened. He begins a histor-
ical romance, assuming that their
builders were thedescendants of ship-
wrecked Romans. His Manuscript
No. 1. His Roman Manuscript.

1809— He abandons this idea as too near his
own time and begins his Manuscript
No. II. Mormon Manuscript No. I.
He assumes that the aborigines of
America were Israelites from Jerusa-
lem. He fails in business and an-
nounces to his creditors, his purpose to
pubish his romance, as " Manuscript
Found," and pay his debts.

1810-11-12— Spaulding continues to write
on his romance, and to read to all that
he can induce to listen to him. His
monomania causes his neighbors to
nick-name him " Old come to pass"
on account of the absurd frequency of
that expression in his manuscript.
He begins Manuscript No. Ill, Mor-
mon Manuscript No. II, adding the
Zarahemla portion. He moves to
Pittsburg to prepare his manuscript
for publication.
A religious impostor in Vermont,

creates nunjh excitement m the neigh-
borhood of the Smiths. Mrs Smith
is very active in the excitement, and
prophecies, that Joe, then a lad of
seven, will be a propliet, and found a
new religion. Joe is reared with that
idea constantly before him. The
family are all taught it.

1813-] -1— A t the advice of l*atterson, Spauld-
ing prepares for press his Manuscript
No. IV, Mormon Manuscript No. III.
It is carried to Patterson's office for
publication.
Sidney Rigdon is learning the tanners
trade in" Pittsburg. He is very inti-
mate with Lambdin a leading em-
ployee ot I'atterson. He is around
the office so much, that Engles, tlie
foreman, complains of it. He takes
great interest in Spaulding's manu-
script.
Spaulding moves to Amity, Washing-
ton county, Pa., and his wife keeps
tavern.

1815— The Smith's move to Palmyra, New
York.

1816— Spaulding informs Jas. Miller, McKee
and J r. Dodd, that his manuscript
has been stolen from Patterson's
office, and that Ripdon is blamed
with the theft. Spaulding died Octo-
ber 20th, 1818. His widow collects
his papers that she can find and tokes
them with her, in a trunk, to the
residence of his brother, W. H. Sabin,
Onondaya county, New York.

1817_Sidney Rigdon' joins the Baptist
Church on Piney Fork of Peters'
Creek, May Slst.

1819— The Smiths squat on a piece of land
belonging to minors in Ontario County,
New York. Rigdon studies theology
with Rev. Clark of the Regular Bap-
tist Church in Beaver County, Pa.

18i9_Rigdon is licensed to preach by the
Connequessiiig Baptist Church.

1820— Rigdon goes lo Warren, Trumbull
County, Ohio, where an uncle is a
prominent member of the Baptist
Church. He joins that church March
4th. He is ordained to preach by that
church April 1st. Marries Phebe A.
Brooks.
Mrs. Spaulding, Spaulding's widow,

goes to Pomfret, Connecticut.
Rigdon preaches for the Baptist Church
in Warren, and for others in the vicin-
ity. , „ ,,

1821— Rigdon continues to preach for the
Baptists in Warren. In this year, or
in the year following, Mrs. Spaulding
marries Mr. Davidson of Hartwick,
Otsego County, New York, and goes
there to live. -r , * j

1822— Rio don moves to Pittsburg. Is elected
pastor of the First Baptist Church
Jan. 28. ^ „ .

Duiino- this year or the year following,
he shows to D/. Winter, a prominent
teacher in Pittsburg, a Baptist
preacher, and an intimate acquaint-
ance, Spaulding's Manuscript No. IV,

76

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Mormon Manuscript No. III. He says:
"It is a Bible romance, purporting to
be a history of the American Indians,
that a Presbyterian preacher named
Spaulding wrote, and left with a
printer for publication. I borrowed
it to read through curiosity."

In digging a well for Willard Chase,
Joseph Smith, senior, the father of
Imposter Joe, found a stone of cloudy
quartz, that singularly resembled a
child's foot. Imposter Joe who was
loafing around, stole it from Chase's
children. This is the famous peep-
stone of Imposter Joe, the Urim and
Thummim of Mormonism.

Rigdon had stolen its Bible, now, Im-
poster Joe stole its Urim and Thum-
mim.
1823— Bigdon preaches for the Baptist
Church until Oct. 11th when he is
excluded for doctrinal heresies. He
goes to the Court House and preaches
to his followers.

Imposter Joe begins his course as im-
poster. He pretends to witch for
water with a witch hazel rod, and to
find lost property and hidden treas-
ures and mines with his stolen peep-
stone bj' putting it into his hat and
holding his face into his hat.

In September, while working for AV. H.
Sabin, where Miss Spaulding, Spauld-
in^''s daughter was living, with her
father's papers in her care, Jose[)h
Smith learns of the existence of the
Spaulding martuscripts. This is the
true interpretation of his wonderful
vision of Sept. 23, 1823, when Moroni,
now an angel, appears to him, and
reveals to him the existence of the
plates he— Moroni— had buried hun-
dreds of years before, and lets Joe
have a ptep at thetn.

Joseph Smitli manufactured that story
twenty years afterwards in 1843. He
told of no such vision then.. The true
interpretation is he learned of the
Spaulfling manuscript while working
for Sabin in Sept. 1823.
1824— Mrs. Davidson has the trunk contain-
ing her husband's papers sent to her
in 1-fartwicke, N. Y.

Rigdon preaches for his adherents until
in the summer, in the Court House.
He then quits preaching and works in
a tannery, and begins revising his
stolen manuscript. It was a period of
great religious excitement and new
parties were springing up continually.
The excitement of the movement of
the Campbells was begin nijig to be
the chief topic in Western Pennsylva-
nia. Rigdon had adopted some, but
not all of their ideas He saw he
could not be a leader, in competition
with them if he went into it. He con-
ceived the idea of remodeling the
Spaulding manuscript by interpolat-
ing portions of the Bible, and his own
peculiar religious ideas, pretending
that it was a record kept by the

Israelites, who came to America, just
as the Bible was kept by Israelites in
Asia, and was as much a revelation as
the Bible.
He intended by such fraud to start a
new religious movement with himself
as prophet, and his stolen manuscript
thus revised as its new revelation.
1825 — Rigdon continues his revision of his
stolen manuscript and works in the
tannery.

Smith is in the height of his glory as
imposter, He has a gang of loafing
dupes and knavea digging through
southern New York and northern
Pennsylvania for buried treasures,
mines of precious metals that he pre-
tends to see through his stolen peep-
stone. He extends his operations to
Harmony, Pa. He makes the ac-
quaintance of Emma Kale. Asks her
hand in marriage. Is decidedly re-
fused by her father on account of his
bad character.
1826— In the latter part of winter Rigdon
moves to Bainbridge, Geauga county,
Ohio. He spent so much time on
his stolen manuscript that his wife
threatened to burn it. He replied;
"that the manuscript would be a
great thing some day."

Smith is in full blast as imposter.
He extends his operations until the
extreme parts are 150 miles apart.
The doings of Smith and his gang,
and the peep-stone of Smith are ex-
tensively commented on by the press
of the region.

In June Rigdon preaches the funeral
sermon of Warner Goodall in Mentor.
He pleases the church, and it selects
him as pastor and he becomes a Disci-
ple preacher.
1827— Smith goes to Harmony, Pa., in the
absence of Mr. Hale, runs off with
his daughter and marries her in South
Bainbridge, N Y. The ceremony is
performed by Tarbell, J. P., .Jan. 18th.

Rigdon tells Darwin Atwater that a
book will soon appear giving an ac-
count of the aborigines of this conti-
nent and the origin of American
antiquities.

He tells A. Bently that a book was
about to be published that was found
engraved on plates of gold. A. Camp-
bell testifies that he said also that it
was dug out of the earth in New York.
It contained an account of the abori-
gines of this continent. That it said
that the gospel had been preached in
America just as the disciples were
then preaching it on the Reserve, dur-
ing the first centuries of our era.

Rigdon preached during this and the
three succeeding year, the peculiar
ideas that are in the Book of Mormon.
He indoctrinated all of his hearers,
that he could, with these ideas, and
prepared for the coming of his new
revelation.

In the spring of 1827 a stranger was ob-

THE bradp:n and kelley debate.

77

served at Smith's house. Shortly after
he made his appearance, the Smiths
began to tell of the jrolden bible.
People of Mentor began to notice that
Rigdon was often al)sent from home
for days, and no one knew where.
Spaulding had intended to assume that
his romance was a translation of a
manuscript found in the earth. From
1818 tc 1827, the papers contained ac-
counts of linding glyphs of metallic
plates, covered with unknovvn charac-
ters. In the spring of 1827, a story
was started that a book of such
glyphs had been found in Canada,
and that it was called a "Golden
Bible."
Rigdon adopted this idea, and the
scheme was concocted to pretend that
Smith had found a book of gold plates
called the "Golden Bible^' Smith
was to pretend to translate it with
his peep stone, stolen from the Chases
children. He was in reality to use
Rigdon 's revision of the manuscript
he had stolen from Spaulding, and
pretend that it was a translation of
the plates that he pretended that he
had fotmd.
Smith informs Rigdon of the place
where the rest of the Spaulding
manuscripts could be found. The
confederates dare not publish their
fraud while they were in existence.
In September, 1827, Smith was loafing
around Mrs. Davidson's neighbor-
hood, superintending agang, digging
for a silver mine, on the place of
Stowell, and also a well or two
were dug in the neighborhood.
September 22 he succeeded in stealing
some of the Spaulding manuscripts.
This is the true interpretation of his
wonderful vision of September 21-22,
1827. They had now, they supposed,
all the Spaulding's Mormon manu-
scripts in their possession, and they
supposed all means of detection were
destroyed.
Smith then began his pretended trans-
lation of his pretended plates.
In the fell Smith moved to Harmony,
Pennsylvania, to his father-in-law.
While on tfie road his goods were

searched twice for stolen property.

His father's house was searched about

the same time.
1828— Martha Spaulding, Spaulding's

daughter, marries Dr. McKinstry and

•moves to Munson, Massachusetts to

live
Rigdon makes a convert of P. P. Pratt,

a teacher in Lorain county, Ohio, who

begins to preach for the Disciples.

He lets Pratt into his scheme, who

goes into it and eventually becomes

the Paul of Mormonism.
Smith begins to translate. Martin Har-
ris is his scribe. In July Smith let Harris
have 118 pages to take back to Manchester
to use in making dupes and enlisting con-
federates, in the fraud. Mrs. Harris who
was bitterly opposed to the fraud, burned
the 118 pages, without her husband's knowl-
edife.

Great consternation ensues. Rigdon comes
and gets the Spaulding manuscript that
Smith had stolen and reconstructs from
this the portion that had been burned.

Smith has a long revelation telling what
bad been done by malicious persons — telling
what no one had done or dreamed of doing.
Smith did not know what had been done,
and the Mormon God concocts a plan to cir-
cumvent a scheme that had never been even
dreamed of.

Smith returns to Waterloo, New York, in
the fall. The angels plow seven acres of
wheat and sow ten acres of plaster to
enable Whitraer to go and move Smilh.

(1S29). In March Oliver Cowdery is made
Smith's scribe. Rigdon comes and gives
Smith what he has revised of the Spaulding
manuscript, and translation proceeds.

May 5th, John the Baptist appears to
Joseph and Oliver, and gives to them the
keys of the first priesth jod, etc. Smith has
a cave dug in which to hold levees with
angels.

Smith gives Harris a scrawl to take to
Anthon in New York City. Harris returns
and pubMshes a false statement about the
interview.

Early in June the translation is complet-
ed. In about two months Oliver Cowdery,
an inexperienced blacksmith, wrote out at
least two thousand foolscap pages, or an
average of over thirty pages per day.

78

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S EIGHTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gknti.e?ien : I know you have been enter-
tained with the story and the gossip that
has been brought forward. Tlie wonderful
amount of testimony, too, that you have
heard from those fourteen witnesses ! Have
yon not been anxiously waiting- here, and
listening, and watching to have something
read in the shape of evidence? Yet, you
have not heard one single affidavit read,
one single statement read, one single thing
read that could with any show of truth be
properly called evidence. It is the first
time I ever heard a man get up and state
what he had culled from statements, or pur-
ported affidavits, to an audience and ask
them to take it as evidence, without hear-
ing the entire statement of the party read,
or if it is printed giving the reader the
privilege of reading the entire evidence for
himself. I will pick it out and select just
what I want the audience to hear, and thus
in fact stand as judge for the audience.
That is the position of my friend before
you. I will say, however, with regard to
his story, (and he has made out his case he
says,) he is done now : just understand
that: — that it is, with one exception, the
most singular thing that T ever saw or
heard. There is one gotten up that is a fair
parallel to it, however, — one just like it. I
hdve it in a book in my house, and intended
to have brought it over to-night and exhib-
ited to you, but forgot it. It was published
by Alexander Smythe in Chicago in 1880.
Instead, however, of being against the
Latter Day Saints, it is against the early, or
former day saints. The author sets out by
making the apostle Paul the hero of the
Christian religion. He plays him as the
master mind of the whole scheme trans-
actetl in Palestine. He concocted the plan
in order to establish a church and found a
new religion in the time in which he lived.
As a starting point and for the purpose of
awakening the people to the scheme, this
man says, that Paul procured a poor crazy
fanatic, called John the Baptist, and sent
him into the wilderness of Judea and had
him preach a while to tell them that one
who was then s+'^nding in their midst would
soon come, and h"- '^ould be the Messiah
and restore all things to them. After a
while that one tliuu ..as to be the Messiah
is brought out to play his part, according
to the tale. He was a relative of John the
Baptist, he says. It happens, too, that the
party mixed in a grain of truth here in
order to deceive, as Christ was a relative.
Then the story proceeds to the effect, that,
ai'cer awhile when the apostle Paul thought
that he had used John the Baptist all he
wanted to, he puts up a job on John and has
Herod behead him. Then he has Jesus play
the Messiah until the time that he thinks
things are about ripe for to spring some great

excitement in the world. All the time this
author cunningly represents the apostle as
playing behind the scenes, until Jesus has
made himself well known, then he foists
some horrid stories upon the ears of the
populace in Jerusalem against the Messiah,
and just at a time when he is approach-
ing the city, (Jesus not knowing anything
about Paul's perfidy,) and the excited peo-
ple rise and put him to death. The Apostle
Paul then steals his body and makes away
Avith it : so the story goes. And after he
had done that he starts down to Damascus,
and all of a sudden the apostle gets con-
verted to the new religion by a great mira-
cle, arid goes back in order to make a great
sensation in the world, telling his wonder-
ful experience; and from that time becomes
the " ringleader." You take that book, my
friends, and read it, published in the nine-
teenth century, in the year 1880, and ob-
serve the things that it takes from the
Bible, excerpting here and there, in order
to make a show of truth, and notice the in-
genuity with which the false statements
are thrown in between, and then compare
with his Spaulding storj', and you will find
that it is a far more plausible story than he
has presented to you in trying to account
for the origin of the Book of Mormon. But
he has chosen in this discussion to rely upon
as a defense, as I was just saying before my
time was called, the Spaulding stori/, and
character; either as a counter proof suffi-
cient or as a means of prejudicing the peo-
ple against an investigation of the facts.
But whatever the object it matters not to
me, for I shall canvass the story itself, and
see what truth if any there is in it. Prop-
erly it does not belong to this question ; as
foreign to it in fact as were the stories and
false" charges of "deceiver," "gluttonous
man," "wine bibber," &c., to ascertaining
the truth of the mission of Jesus. Not-
withstanding this, some want it examined,
and I assure you it is but an easy task to
drag it to the bottom.

How bad indeed according to my oppo-
nent's arraignment was this Smith crowd.
The old man, the old lady, the boys and the
girls. One would gather from his talk that
they had been under the general espionage of
the secret service department all along down
the previous century. Yet, no crime was
ever even charged against one of them, ex-
cept in the old women's tales and gossip,
spun by the pious (?) of the neighborhood.
From before the time they left the State of
Vermont they were thought to be squtam-
ish. Yet, the old lady brought with her to
New York State, a certificate of good stand-
ing in the Presbyterian church. Were
Presbyterians, and especially those of the
old New Enjrland stock, in those times,
immoral, impious, and Sabbath breakers?
In New York, their sons Hyrum and Sam-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

79

uel and their dau^^hter Sophronia also
Joined the Presbyterian cliurch and were in
good standing in that churoh during this
time; yet they wereawful bad folks. Tliey
quietly remained members of this body,
"whicli was considered one of the straightest
sects, up to theyear 1827, when they deliber-
ately withdrew from it themselves because
of their conversion, as they claimed, to the
restored gospel. Joseph, an attentive list-
ener at tlie Methodist church, and he is just
about to be taken in as a member, when he
happens to think that he will go and pray ;
— ask God what he shall do ; for he is
in a confusion of mind over what to do.
My friends, have any of you ever been in
such a state! and if so did you go to your
heavenly Father to ask his advice?

Now tills is the sum total of the crime of
the fourteen-year-old boy at tliis time. He
went and asked God for wisdom, and said
the Lord spoke to him and told him what
to do. It would never have been of note in
the world about his asking, had he not
stated that at the time he received an
answer; and such an answer. What was
it? "That the churches were not right,"
This was before Mr. Campbell ever left the
Baptist church, sir, and while Charles and
John Wesley were singing,

"Almighty God of love,

Set up the ait active sign,
And Minimon whom thou dost approve

For messengers divine.
From Abram's favored seed,

The new apostles choose;
Go. spre.id throughout the earth around.

The dead reviving news."

Was it any worse for young Joseph Smith
to say these churches were wrong, and did
not meet in full the measure of the Alniigty
than others ? Ah ! but he said God told
him so, in answer to prayer. Well, did he
never tell my friend anything in answer to
prayer.

Answer me that, and do not forget it as
you did at Wilber ! ! If Jesus or his mes-
sengers, did not tell him this, where did he
getlt? He was not the learned and schol-
arly man that you claim for Mr. Campbell;
nor in a part of the world where he could
gain from the wisdom of the Wesleys. Yet,
he is the first of the age to come out boldly
and frankly and say, "none of them are
right." Not that they were wrong in all
things, for he recognized that there was
some good in each and all of them. But
that none were all right — acknowledged of
God. Sixty-three years have passed away
and novv who says it among the religious
teachers ? Mr. Campbell soon did ; Walter
Scott, Sidney Rigdon, Henry Ward Beech-
er. Dr. Thomas, Dr. Cheeney, Prof. Swing,
W. H. H. Murry, and a host of others. And
this, too, notwithstanding the great refor-
mation wrought under Campbell. His
might be termed the water reformation !
Young Smitii, as any young boy would
have done under such circumstances, with
confidence in his heart and faith in the
justice of his cause, goes directly with his
answer to his preacher, the pastor ; states
his case ; and what would you have sup-

posed the reception under the circum-
stances, of a person of his age going to the
pastor with the story, "The Lord showed
me in tlie vision that the ehurclies were all
wrong." Now take the opposite view.
Suppose the answer to Smith had been,
You join the Methodist Church, (there was
no Campbellite Church in the world to this
time), as that is more acceptable to me than
the Baptist or Presbyterian. Do you think
the Methodist preacher would have called
the boy a liar, and said he had no such
vision ? No, you all know, he would have
put young Joseph at the head of the con-
verts, and had him testify every night. It
makes a big difference whose ox is gored
sometimes.

Why I remember well last winter reading
an account of a lady in the Methodist
church in Coldwater, Michigan, who claim-
ed to be actually healed by the power of
faith in that church, and the church ac-
cepted it. While the Saints at the same
place for the last twenty years had been
affirming that God so wrought with them
and that they had had many instances of
such blessings, yet they were looked upon
as fanatical, unorthodox, superstitious, be-
cause of this belief. Is it because it did not
happen in our church that we are to say : —
"Oh, it is all stuff; they are a set of fana-
tics." But there is another thing that
young Smith said the angel told him, that
is more remarkable, if made up, tlian the
other ; it was a i^rophecy : — "Thar his name
should be both good and evil spoken of
among all nations, kindreds, tongues and
people." How did this young boy know
that his name should be spoken of among
all people, every nation ; — by his friends as
being a good man and by his enemies as
being an evil man? The prophecy is clear
and distinct, the fulfillment is complete —
no one to gainsay it. The wonderful state-
ment made by the then boy and the sub-
sequent fulfillment should cause the most
incredulous to stop and think before he
condemns. How did he know this? Take
the greatest villain on the earth or the most
worthy man, are their names, even in this
later time of the easy transmission of news,
known among all nations, kindreds, tongues
and peoples. Strike the heart of Africa
and the Mohammetan country, and they
have all heard of Smith, and they hold him
in one relation or the other. But go to
the heart of these same countries and they
have not even heard of the terrible charac-
ter that struf^k down our President, who, i*
seems, in his iniquity, would have been
known all over the world if any one pos-
sibly could by this means. And yet this
young boy stated early in 1823 that the
angel said to him that his "Name should
be both good and evil spoken of among all
nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
Can you point me to a prophecy in the
Bible that has been more literally fulfilled?

Now I propose to examine my opponent's
alibi, as he has rested his whole case upon
that, and you watch and see if he is not
driven from his "Spaui^dino story" and

80

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

CHARACTER ! ! I referred to the fact that
this old falsehood was met and vanquished
when it was first circulated in 1835 and I8.S6,
and later in 1839 and 1840; but he replies
that I must meet it here and not tell about
what has been done. Very well, m.y atfirni-
ative arguments being in no way answered,
lean well afford to meet it here; so now
for the Spauldmg story as a theory. ^jWill
you reply to my arguments upon this? We
will see.

The following are the claims made for
that :

First, That one Solomon Spaulding, a
Presbyterian clergyman, about the year
1811, lived at Conneaut, Ohio, and being in
poor health, for diversion in his invalid
state, wroteastory and left it in manuscript
form, which' was like the present Book of
Mormon, except as to errors.

Second, That from Conneaut, Ohio, he
removed to Pittsburg, Pa., in 1812. and
while there handed the manuscript of this
story to a publisher by the name of Robert
Patterson for examination and publication.
Third, That the manuscript instead of
being published was returned to Mr. Spauld-
ing, and in the year 1814 he left Pittsburg
and went to Amity, Pa., where he died in
the year 1816, when his effects, including
the manuscript, fell into the hands of his
widow.

Fourth. That at the time the manuscript
was in the office of publisher Patterson, one
Sidney Rigdon was engaged at, or in some
way connected with said printing office,
and in some way got the manuscript and
purloined the same.

Fifth, That Sidney Rigdon at the time,
knew of Joseph Smith and had opportunity
to get this manuscript to him, and

Sixth, That Rigdon being a preacher at
the time did this in order to start a new
church and have a basis for his scheme.

Before, during this discussion, I showed
by the illustration of "a chain of title" to
property, if the chain was perfect in all its
parts it would stand the test, but if faulty
or disconnected by a single transfer it would
not. In the examination of one's title if
you are able to show that one link in the
chain is not a true one, forged, or obtained
through fraud, the whole thing is void.
But in this pretentious claim of the Spauld-
ing Manuscript, which he has set up, I am
not only able to prove that one link is at
fault, but that the entire chain is bad, and
every link at fault; from the inception by
Philaster Hulburt, who had been twice, as I
have before shown, excommunicated from
the Latter Day Saints for immoralities, to
the conclusion of it as published and com-
pleted by Howe of Painsville, who had the
Spaulding manuscript destroyed while in
his hands. I enter upon the investiga-
tion with the hope that I shall have your
candid and unbiased judgment in the con-
sideration of the evidence.

First, did Spaulding ever write such a
manuscript? I claim that he did not; and
for proof of this refer you first to their own
witnesses.

1. The manuscript Spaulding is said to
have written was too meager a thing to in
any sense compare with a manuscript that
would make a book the size of the Book of
Mormon.

2. The character of the "Manuscript
Found," which is the oneall rely upon as
the romance, was entirely different to the
Book of Mormon.

3. He was such an invalid at the time it
is alleged he wrote his manuscript, that it
would have been impossible for him consid-
ering his circumstances in life, together
with his broken constitution, to have writ-
ten such a manuscript had it been possible
for any man of his own knowledge to write
such a one as the Book of Mormon, which I
deny.

Taking up the first reason it will at once
be clear to you that a manuscript written
in the English language, as they concede
Spaulding's was, to contain the amount of
matter that is included in the strictly his-
torical part of the Book of Mormon, would
cover at least fifteen hundred pages of fools-
cap paper. Was the "Manuscript Found"
such ? The statements of those who claim
they saw the "Manuscript Found," place it
beyond doubt that it was no such. Mrs.
McKinstry, the daughter of Solomon Spauld-
ing in her evidence says, that she, "Read
the manuscript frequently when she was
about twelve years of age, and that it was
about one inch in thickness." She read it
frequently, so it could not have been very
large. Then their other trumped up wit-
nesses all, or nearly all, say they heard it
read. Henry Lake heard it read. John N.
Miller heard it read from beginning to end.
Aaron Wright heard Spaulding read it, etc.
Mrs. Matilda Spaulding. wife ot Solomon
Spaulding. states in her testimony published
in the Illinois Quincy ]V7iig, that it was about
a third as large as the Book of Mormon and
that her daughter (Mrs. McKinstry) read it
frequently. Hulburt who was commission-
ed by Henry Lake, John Miller, Aaron
Wright, et al. (Braden's witnesses), to go
and get the Spaulding writing, went and
got it he says, and the only one in Spauld-
ing's hand writing which the widow had.
That he delivered it to E. D. Howe of Pains-
ville, who was writing the book to break
down the Mormons, and Howe says, page
288, of his book in describing it, that, "The
trunk referred to by the widow was subse-
quently examined and found to contain
only a single manuscript book in Spauld-
ing's hand writing, containing about one
quire of paper."

Then according to the description of the
manuscript itself by those who actually saw
it, it must have been a very small affair in-
deed in comparison to the historical portion
of the Book of Mormon. In fact there was
nocomparisou of the one, to the other, what-
ever.

But Howe goes further with his descrip-
tion and shows the style, subject, matter,
history, and all ditferent. This brings us
to notice that the second proposition in my
statement is true. This agrees with Mrs.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DERATE.

h\

Spaulding's description of the "Manuscript
Found." In the letter to the Boston Re-
corder, she says: "He (Mr. Spauiding) was
enabled (while writing this manuscript)
from his acquaintance with the cla? pics and
ancient history, to introduce many singular
names which "were particularly noticed by
people and could readily be recognized by
them." Page 43, Smucker against the
M<"-mons.

Tlien in the same letter she says: 'Mr
Spauiding had a brother John Spauiding,
residing in the place at the time, who was
perfectly familiar with the work and re-
pt-ated/y heard the whole of it read." What
an easy thing my audience for a man to
read repeatedly, a manuscript of two thou
sand paeres: besides it must have been the
most enticing novel ever written Just to
think of repeaiedli/ reading such a manu-
script! Now T hope the friends won't be back-
ward again aboutgivingme their names for
a copy of this enticing book, that can be had
for only one dollar and a quarter And
thrown in this letter is Braden's tht^-
ory that Mr Smith did all this copy-
ing, working, digging for money, rravol-
ing, studying, plknuing, delving,— what a
lazy boy ! in order to start a church Ividicu-
lous! Did you ever hear of such a theory? For
men to work for years and j'ears, and labor
and hire men, and dig holes, and mine and
sweat in order to get an excuse for starting
a new church ? Did not Mr. Campbell start
a new church without any such an excuse ?
Did not Mr. Smith and Mr. Rigdon have as
good a right to start a new church without
all this as Mr. Campbell or Mr Wesley or
Mr. Luther or near a thousand others who
have started new churches since the time
of Christ? It seems to me that starting new
churches is not confined simply to a few
individuals; we have too many to admit of
such an idea. And look everywhere you
may and you cannot tell which is right un-
less you accept the doctrine which is taught
in the New Testament, and abide by the
rule, "If any of 3'ou lack wisdom, let hun
ask of God, 'who giveth to al' men liberal Iv
and upbraideth not, and it shall he given
him." But my friend does not accept that
doctrine.

Then again, " the old neighbors were fun-
bled to identify it by reason of the names
taken from the classical authors and an-
cient history." Were enabled to identity
it by reason of these historical and classical
names ! Here you have set out by Mrs.
Spauiding herself how they were enabled
to identify the work. What name have
they got? Why he found one the other
night, I believe it was " Mormon." It was
a Greek word. Will you show me the word
"Mormon" in Greek as used in the Book
of Mormon?
Mr. Braden: Yes sir.
Mr, Kelley. You say you will but you
will never do it.
Mr. Braden : That is to be seen.
Mr. Kelley : There is such a term as
Mormo that they think that the Greeks used
just the same as we use the word "Mor-

mon." But to any person who will think a
moment it is evident there is not and never
was the slightest connection. The word
Mormo was used to denote a hobgoblin, bug-
bear, ot)ject of fright, etc Mormon was
simply a man's name as used in the Book of
Mormon, the name of a place of plea.sure,
etc., and in no sense as the (ireek word
Mormo was used The similarity of soun<1
between the two when they are written in
English arg-ues nothing T can show that
words of similar sound, so far as that is (!on-
cerned m different hinguages liave no rela-
tion whatever either in derivation or mean-
ing, and are never used by the people to in-
dicate the same or similar things That
idea about the Greek word Mormo being the
root of the word Mormon as found m thi>*
book is simply ridiculous A thing gotten
up by certain persons and tried to apply U>
the word as used in the Book of Mormon lo
deceive the ignorant But i will see when
Mt Braden brings it

But again : " Spaulding"s mannsrnpfc
•■epresenled an idolatrous people," they say.
The Book of Mormon does not 'I'he Spauid-
ing " Manuscript P'ound " was delivered
into the hands of this Dr P Hulburt who
had got up all these lying atTidavils. about
Smith and the Book of Mormon and he
takes it to Howe of Painsville, Ohio, the very
place where they are trying to destroy the
authenticity of the Book of I\Iornion Howe
because he" was mad about his wile and sis-
ter joining the church, and Hulhurt he-
cause he had been cut oft from the (;hurch,
—they take the manuscript under jiromise
to Mrs. Davidson that they would publish
and send her a copy and divide proceeds;
and when she gets no returns she writes to
them about it and they answer her. 'It
did not read like we expect^ed and we did
not use it.' How about the manuscript
now? Traced right into the hands of the
bitterest opposers ol the Book of Mormon
t>v your own witnesses, and long after the
publication of the Book of Mormon This
is the manuscript story which they are
claiming was in the hand-writing of Solo-
mon Spauiding who died l:)efore the pubh-
ration of the Book of Mormon and whose
band writing could be identified by his
manuscript sermons, as Mrs Spauiding and
Mrs McKinstry festitied ;— and from such a
manuscript as this ten words preserved m
Mr Solomon Spauiding's hand-writing
would have been sufficient to have identified
the two, if the Book of Mormon was the
same, beyond all dispute whatever— and
these opposers with their statements and
affidavits in their hands, deliberately de-
stroy the "Manuscript Found," which thev
got Irom Mrs Spauiding (Davidson) and
maliciously publish their statements Here
is "old come to pass," right in their own
hands in the year 1834. Now who is the
imposter ; the deceiver? But further, when
it is first published that INFrs. Spauiding
(Davidson) claimed the Book of Mormon
was a L'opy of the manuscript a gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Jesse Harper, visits at
once Mrs (Spauiding) Davidson, Mrs.

82

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE,

McKinstry, and Dr. Ely, in Massachusetts,
and interviews these persons, and writes
■ his account to the Quincy (111-) W/rig,
a bitter anti-Mormou journal , stating that
in the interview he asi^ed and received
answers to the following questions, to
wit: —

Q. "Have you read the Book of Mormon?

A. I have read some of it.

Q,. Does Mr. Spanlding's manuscript and
the Book of Mormon agree ?

A I think some of the names are alike.

Q,. Does the manuscript describe an idola-
crous or a rel'gious people?

A An idolatrous people.

Q, Where is the manuscript?

A. Dr. P Hulburt came here and took it,
said he would, get It printed and let me
iiave one-half of the profits.

Q. Has Dr. Hulburt got the manuscript
printed?

A. I have received a letter stating that
it did not read as they expected and they
should not print it

Q,. How large was the manuscript?

A. About one-third as large as the Book
4jf Mormon "

(To Mrs. McKinstry.)

Q. "How old were you wheu your father
wrote the manuscript?

A. About five years of age.

Q,. Did you ever read the manuscript?

A When I was about twelve years of age
1 used to read it for a diversion.

Q,. Did the manuscript describe an idola-
trous or a religious people?

A. An idolatrous people.

Q Does the manuscript and Book of
Mormon agree?

A. I think some of the names agree.

Q. Are you certain that some of the
names agree?

A 1 am not.

Q, Have you ever read the Book of Mor-
moD ?

A I have not."

Then the following interview with Mrs.
McKinstry on April 4th, 1882, m Washing-
ton City :—

Q,. "Mrs. McKinstry, have you the Man-
uscript Found, Mr. Solomon Spaulding is
said to havc' written, in your posession?

A. I have not.

Q,. What became of it?

A. My Mother delivered it up for pub-
iication to a Mr. Hulburt who camo to our
house in Mass. for it, bearing letters of in-
troduction from my uncle, a Mr. Sabine, a
"lawyer in New York State.

Q,. Why do you not get the manuscript
again?

A I have sent for it but Hulburt claims
hediii not get any.

Q,. Does Hulburt say he did not get any
«iauuscript from your mother?

A. Tliai is what he claims now

Q,. How do you account for the fact Mrs.
McKinstry that your father, while being-
such a good man and a minister, should

rite such a bad book as the Book of Mor-
mon ?

A. Well v/e never could account for that.

Q,. Could you identify the manuscript
was it now produced ?

A I don't think I could.

Q. Have you any of the old writings and
manuscripts of Mr. Spaulding?

A Yes. I have some leaves of his ser-
mons.

Q. And with these you think you could
not identify the manuscript?

A No, sir, I think not.
(Mrs. Col. Seatou, who is present at the in-
view.)

Why yes, mother, if you have his writ-
ing you ouffht to identify it.

Mrs. McKinstry : Well, perhaps I could.

Q, Was it written on common foolscap
paper or the clergymen note paper?

A. It must have been written on foolscap
as they had no clergymen note paper in
those days.

Q,. How do you come to remember any of
the names that were in that mam. jcript?

A. Well, I suppose I should not, but Mr.
Spaulding had a way of making a very
fancy capital letter at the beginning of a
ciiapter and I remembered the name Lehi, I
think it was, from its being written this
way "

That is the way she identified it — on
account of the word Lehi beginning with a
very fancy capital letter. Suppose instead
of being Lehi tne word had been Levi.
Would not the capital letter have been just
the same and might there not have been the
same fancy about it? And still a different
thing altogether. Instead of being Levi,
suppose it had been Lincoln. There would
have been the same fancy capital letter.
But perhaps I ought to read the evidence
without comment, and make my comment
afterwards, so I return to that. The ques-
tion is a.sked . —

Q,. " When did you first think about the
names in the Book of Mormon and the man-
uscript agreeing?

A. My attention was first called to it by
some parties vvlio asked me if I did not re-
member It, and then I remembered that
they were.''

These parties were the old neighbors;
Aaron Wright, Miller, etc.

Did you ever have a case in court, my
friends? If so, did you ever know the man
on the other side to go to certain parties and
say, "Now, see here, you are a good friend
of mine and I am in a little trouble and I
guess you know something to help me out.
Don't you remember that a certain fellow
upon a certain day said a certain thing? —
And I will tell you what it was now, and
see if you don't remember it?" Why! there
is so much evidence manufactured in this
country in that way that corruption is be-
ginning to rule insomuch that it is thought
that never in the history of the world be-
fore, did so much evil creep into courts of
justice, by reason o' ihe manufacturing of
testimony and suborning oi witnesses.

I again call your attention to the thought: —
After her attention was called toil by these
good, estimable, best citizens, etc., then she
thought she remembered it.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

83

Q. "Was you acquainted with Joseph
Smith?

A. No. I never heard tell of him till I
heard of the Book of Mormon.

Q. Was Sidney Rigdon ever about your
father's house?

A. No, I never saw him."

August, 1883, is another important inter-
view.

I will give the evidence of Mr. Howe, but
not claim it as evidence if my friend upon
the other side of the question will put him
on the stand here for cross-exaniiimtion, I
want you to listen to his examination. It
is as follows : —

Q,. "Mr. Howe, did Hulburt bring the
manuscript to you he got of Mrs. (Spauld-
Ing) Davidson?

A, Yes, he brought one; but it was not
the one we wanted ; it only told about some
tribes of Indians and their wars along the
lakes here and pretended to be tlie writing
of some shipwrecked crew. It was the wars
of the Winnebagoes, Chicagoes or Niagaries,
I believe.

Q. Why did you not publish it?

A. Because it did not do us any good."

Now, who has got the stolen property
that he has made such a parade over? These
other parties who are seeking for evidence
in order to show that Mr. Smith has stolen
property in his possession go and get the
orig nal manuscript — tlie manuscript in the
handwriting of Solomon Spaulding — in the
penmanship of Solomon Spaulding, and
they bring it here to Painsville, Ohio, and
it is traced into the hands of Mr. Howe and
Mr. Hulburt, the ones that are determined
to crush out the faith of the church : — And
what do they do? Publisli it? Keep it?
Preserve it? Oh, no! "They did not use
it." Why did they not use it? The reason
is too evident to require naming. Ten words
preserved in Mr. Spaulding's handwriting
would have been sufficient to have identi-
fied the two if the Book of Mormon was the
sanae. And these opposers, both sworn ene-
mies of Mr. Smith and the Book of Mor-
mon with their affidavits in their hands.

deliberately destroyed the "Manuscript
Found," which they rot from Mrs. (Spauld-
ing) Davidson, and published their state-
ments and affidavits, instead of the manu-
script that they got. Mind you they got the
" Manuscript Found," and the only'oneever
so called in fact, and 1 will show "that they
did. I know that Mr. Howe tried to make
a dodge afterwards and say that Spaulding
had another manuscript called the "Roman
Manuscript," »o my opponent says ; but Mr.
Howe last summer did not give it as the
Roman Manuscript, and I am prei)ared to
prove that he said it treated of some Indian
wars along the lakes here, too. And pre-
pared to prove it with such testimony as
will impeach him, so that if he will put
himself under oath, I can send him to the
penitentiary of Ohio for it. I liave asked
you (Mr. Braden) to put him on the stand
here for examination and you dare not. I
make these statements fearlessly, because
I want the truth of this ; one witness that
heard him make such statement is upon the
stand here now.

Now, who is the im poster, the deceiver?

But I will continue witli Mr. Howe's state-
ment of last summer : "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."

No, sir ! Not down him. He is on Mr.
Braden 's side.

Q,. "Do you swallow the Bible?

A. That is my business.

Q. Have you not published a pamphlet
which does not endorse the Bible?

A. Yes, I ha- e."

(Time expired.)

84

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTH SPEECH.

Gentt.kmen Moderators, T;Adtes and
GENTiiEMEN: — It IS pretended that the
plates were shown to three witnesses ear-
ly in ,Iune, and shortly after to eight more.
A contract is made with E. B. Grandin of
Palmyra, to publish the book, Harris mort-
gages his farm to pay for printing, and in
return has a monopoly of the new revela-
tion, that is "the fullness of the gospel,"
He intends "to make money out of it even
If it is a lie" he tells his wife.

The manuscript is carried to the printer
with a great dealof tom foolery. Smith has
two guards to protect his sacred person.
The manuscript is to be seen only by the
printer, and the elect. It is all to be taken
out of the office each night by the elect.

Rigdon preaches more wildly than ever.
Is absent from home much of his time. Some
of his adherents in Kiitland adopt his com-
munity of goods, and organize a communi-
ty, wash feet, etc.

1830— The Book of Mormon comes from the
press in the latter part of the winter,
with the name of Joseph Smith on it
as "Anther and Proprietor." April
6th the first Mormon church is organ-
ized at Smith's in Manchester, N. Y.
In June the first Mormon conference
is held in Fayette, N. Y.
Rigdon attends for the last time the
Disciple Association of Mahoning,
held in Austintown. Herehe makes
his last eftbrt to engraft his hobbies
on to the movement of the Disciples,
Campbell exposes their extravagant
unsciiptural character. Rigdon

preaches his famous sermon on "King
Ahasuerui' horse" and leaves the Dis-
ciples forever, utterly soured and dis-
appointed. He remarks to Mr. Aus-
tin of Warren : 'I have done as
much for the Reformation as Camp-
b'-ii or Scott, yet they get all the
glory,"
H^ goes back to Mentor, and sends for
J'ratt, wlio comes through Mentor in
August, and goes from Riiaioii straight
to Smith, thirty miles off all public
tliorouglifares, travels a great dis-
tance, and reaches Smith's Saturday
night, just as meeting begins, is con-
verted, on the spot, and inade a
preacher of Mormonism the next day,
Iii October, Pratt, Cowdry and Whitnier
come to Mentor, Rigdon pretends to
be ignorant of the whole aff'iir, and to
oppose it for a day or so, then is
miraculously converted by a silly
vision. In Dec mber he goes to
Smith in New York, preaclies the
first and only Mormon sermon ever
preached in Palmyra. Is recognized
as the "mysterious stranger" v\ lio has
been visiting Smith during the last
two vears.

Mrs. Davidson, Spaulding's wife and
widow, goes to Munson, Massachu-
setts, to live with her daughter, Mrs.
McKinstry. She left the trunk that
contained her husband's papers, all
that she had of them, in her posses-
sion, in the care of her broth er-in-
Inw, Jerome Clark, of Hartwicke,
New York,

1831— Joseph and Sidney get a revelation that
the Mormons should move to Kirtland,
Ohio, which is to i)e theirs forever.
May 17th the Elders were sent out by
twos June 7th the first endowment
given. The Rigdonites all over
the Western Reserve fall in with Mor-
monism, and the imposture is in full
blast.
June 17th, in obedience to direct revela-
tion, Joseph Smith and a party start
for Western INIissouri to locate "Zion."
August 3rd Joseph locates the corner
of the Temple of Zion, three hundred
yards west of the Court House in
Independence, Missouri, Floods of
revelations are poured f)ut, A city with
golden streets, a Temple that never
had been equalled, and other wonders
were to spring up in that generation.

1832— February 16lh, Rigdon and Smith
have a sl<y-scraping revelation, Rig-
don mounts "King Ahasuerus' horse"
and cavorts miraculously and gener-
ally all over tha universe. March 22,
Ritrdon and Smith are tarred and
feathered in Hirom, Portage county,
by i)ersons that have been swindled
by their lies and for Smith's amours.
Joseph Smith visits Missouri. It is
high time. By their threats and
boasts, the Mormons had aroused the
Missourians, They were also In a
general row among themselves, over
Rigdon's pet idea — community of
goods,

1833 — March 8th, In order to keep Sidney
quiet, who finds that Joseph Smith,
whom he expected to ttse as his tool,
has gobbled all the results of their
fraud, Rigdon is made councillor with
root and herb quack. F. G, Wil-
liams, and the first Presidency is
organized, July 23, Joseph Smith
lays the foundation of Kirtland
Temple, Citizens of Missouri extort
a promise from Mormons that half of
them will leave before January 1st,
1S34, the rest before April 1, Octo
ber 30th Missourians destroy ten
Mormon houses. Mormons kill two
Missourians and shed the first blood
in the war,

1834— Feb. 20th, .Joseph Smith starts on s
fool's crusade, with a band of men t(
Missouri, They find a skeleton in :
mound in Pike county. Ills. Josepl

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

8S

Smith has a grand old time reve-
lating aver it. This crusade which
began and was carried on amid a flood
of revelations so-called, and had
been attended with suffefing, sick-
nessand death, ends in a fizzle in cen-
tral Missouri. The fools that were not
dead begged their way home.

Joseph Smith, whose head had been
made giddy by his elevation from a
loafing money hunter to that of a pro-
phet, began "to talk about the saints
conquering the world, spoiling their
enemies, ruling over the Gentiles, and
announced that he would be the Mo-
hammed of the century.

July 29th. Joseph Smith returns to
Kirtlandand finds tlie saints in a mis-
cellaneous row. Sidney had just
smashed things in his absence. He
wanted the saints to build him as fine
a house as the prophet had, and to
give him a gold watch, and rig him
up generally as fine as they had the
prophet.

During this year a Mormon preacher
had })retich'ed in Conneaut, Oiiio, and
read from the Book of Mormon. Sol-
omon Spaulding's old acquaintances
recognized his Manuscript Found.
Squire Wright shouted out: "Old
come to pass has come to life." There
was great excitement over the discov-
ery of the theft. D P. Hurlbut who
was getting up an expose of Mormon-
ism, was sent by the citizens of I'on-
neaut to Mrs. Davidson, to get the
manuscript of her former husband,
Solomon Spaulding. She gave Hurl-
but an order authorizing him to go to
Clark's, in Hartwicke, N. Y., where
she left the trunk with her husband's
papers, and get them.

Hurlbut gets a manuscript of the Man-
uscript Found, writes to Mrs. David-
son that be got it. He gives to those
. who sent him an entirely different
manuscript. ]>iesand says that is all
he obtained. He sells the manuscript
of Manuscript Found to Mormons tcr
$400 and goes to western Ohio and
buys a farm. Never answers the let-
lers of INIrs. Davidson and her daugh-
ter in regard to the manuscript he
obtained.
]83o— Feb. 14. The first quorum of apostles
wereordained in Kirtland.and Young
and Kimball were among the holy
number. Classes of instruction and
schools of prophets were established.
Orson Pratt invents a new celestial
alphabet for the saints. Why did he
not adopt the reformed Egyptian from
Smith's plates? Mormons have a
craze of studying Hebrew. What
need was there for that among people
who had the gift ot tongues? Kigdon
delivers six lectures on faith. All
their sense and the scriptural ideas
in them are what he heard among the
Disciples. They are about the only
sensible thing in Mormonism— that

is after Bigdon's Mormon stuff had
been throv.n out. INIormons have
tried to rob Bigdon of the credit of
being author of these lectures, and
give it to Joseph Smith. Rigdon did
the lion's work in brinoing down the
game and Joseph took the lion's share,
and scarcely left to Rigdon the bones
that the lion leaves for the jackal.
1836— Kirtland Temple finished at a cost of
$40,000, dedicated March 29. Smith
pretends that he sees the house full
of angels — that a pillar of fire was seen
on the temple — that outsiders beard a
great noise — that caused them to flock
to the Temple. That the Mormons
spoke with tongues. That Jesus,
Moses, Elias, — who was he, — and
Elijah appeared to him. gave him
keys of priesthood, which had been
promised years before.
• June 29. The Mormons in Clay county,
Missouri, are requested to move to
Davis, Jackson, and Caldwell counties,
because they had been impudent, dom-
ineering, and had encroached on the
rights of the rest of the citizens.
They wisely decided to move and do
so, and are kindly treated by the
Missourians.
1837— In January, Orson Hyde and Kimball
are sent to England as missionaries.
In the spring the Mormon Wild Cat
Bank is started in violation of law
without a charter. The Mormons
have a big hotel, tannery, mill, fac-
tory, big storesand big things general,
ly.' Smith and other leaders build
fine houses, live like nabobs and dress
like fops on other peoples' money and
goods obtained by credit, fraud and
rascality. Things are booming in
Kirtland.
In November Joseph's Wild Cat Bank,
his printing oflice, his big store, his
mills, his big land speculation, blew
up generally. Rigdon and Smith are
fined one thousand dollars each for
their swindling bank frauds. Print-
ting oflftce levied on and Smith de-
clared insolvent with all his revela-
tions.
The printing office sold. The Mormons
burn the printing office and the Meth-
odist church.
1838— January 12th, Smith and Rigdon ligh^
out in the night to escape the peni-
tentiary for swindling and fraud.
They arrive in Missouri in March. They
sc'atter the saints over several counties
in order to obtain political ascendency.
The Missourians begin to be alarmed,
when they see that the Mormons elect
none but Mormons, and that their
propertv and rights are taken from
them, and Mormons will give them
no protection.
Smith who had tried to seduce a woman
in Pennsylvania, and who had much
trouble in Kirtland about his intrigues
with beautiful sisters, now began to
tell his confidents that he had received

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

arevelation in favor of spiritual wifery,
Rigdon's doctrine.

Rigdon, Smitii.Cowderyand otlier lead-
ing Mormons had practised lewdness
and adultery and Rigdon defended it
with his spiritual wiferj'. Now Smith
told bis intimates that he had received
a revelation sanctioning it. He did
not reduce his revelation to writing
but he practised its ideas more openly.

This was one ot»jection that Missouri-
ans urged to Mormons. Their loose
conduct and family relations and the
illegitimate children among them.

July 4th. ^ Rigdon delivers his bom-
bastic harangue, that the Mormons
call "Sidney's Salt Sermon." He
mounts King Ahasuerus' horse and
cavorts, breathing defiance and de-
struction to Missourians and apostates.

The Danite Band is organized with
Smith's sanction and authority, under
David Patton, one of the twelve apos-
tles. Dr. Arvard, a leading Mormon,
instructs them that it is their mission
to defend Mormons in their crimes,
by lying, stealing, perjury, profanity
and murder.

Oliver Cowder3% Martin Harris and
David Whitmer, the- three witnesses
charging with lying, stealing, counter-
feiting and defaming Smith are cutoff.

Orson Hyde, T. B. Marsh, W, W. Phelps
and many other leading Mormons
apostatize. They accuse the Mormons
of stealing, murder and other crimes.
Tney accuse Smith with planning and
being active in the outrages ot the
Danites and the rest of the Mormons.

Sidney Rigdon and 84 other Mormons
retort by accusing the apostates with
many infamous crimes. Outsiders
conclude that rogues have fallen out
and decent people are learning the
facts. That both sides tell the truth
on each other.

Several quarrels occur between Missou-
rians and Mormons. 'J'he Mormons
steal eighty stand of arms at Rich-
mond, Mo. They fire on the inhabi-
tants at Crooked River, and kill sev-
eral. The inhabitants return the fire
and kill Patton, the Mormon Com-
mander.

Sept 30. In retaliation for the murder
of their companions, the militia mas-
sacre and outrage Mormons at Hahn's
Mill.

The Mormons are driven out of Mis-
souri. Are given homes, food, cloth-
ing and sympathy by the people of
Illinois. This should be remembered.
The citizens of the Western Reserve,
Ohio, treated them kindly until Mor-
mon conduct exasperated them be-
yond endurance.

The Missourians were glad to see their
country settle up until Mormon out-
rages, insolence and crime enraged
them. Then their conduct became
outrageous, but IMormons began the
trouble.

The people of Illinois were lavish in
their kindness and favors. No emi-
grants were ever loaded with favors
as were the Mormons by the people
of Illinois.

Smith was arrested by the militia, who
were determined to shoot him. He
and leading Mormons handed over to
civil authorities. They allow them to
escape believing that to be the best
way to get rid of them,
1839~March 25, Brigham Youngand others
relay the corner-stone of the Temple.
The Elders cut oft' many that had
been leading Mormons, for crimes they
charged them with.

May 9. Smith goes to Commerce, Illi-
nois. Dr. Galland gives him a great
tract of land. Smith immediately gets
a revelation that Zion is on his land.
He calls the Mormons to his land, and
sells to them what was given to him,
and becomes uncommonly rich for that
day and country.

September, Brigham Young and Kim-
ball are sent to England. Orson Pratt
does not go although revelation said
he would.

October. Smith goes to Washington to
get redress from the general govern-
ment for wrongs to the Mormons in
Missouri.
1840— April 21. The name of Commerce is
changed by revelation to Nauvoo,
which in Smith's reformed Egyptian
means beautiful.

The Mormons began to build a temple
at Nauvoo, although revelation had
declared that a temple should be built
in no other place than at Zion, near
Independence, Mo.

October, Mormons petition for a char-
ter. It is granted. They are given a
charter granting them powers thatno
government but an absolute despotism
exercises.
1841— February. The charter goes into op-
eration. Nauvoo is organized an in-
dependent nation almost under it,

Nauvoo Legion is organized with Smith
as Lieutenant General, and with as
many Major Generals, Brigadier Gen-
erals and Colonels, as would have
officered both armies in our civil war.

April 6. The corner-stone of Nauvoo
Temple laid with great militarv pa-
rade, by Smith, although he had de-
clared not ten years before that the
oaly Temple that should be built and
that speedily, was at Zion near inde-
pendence, Mo.
1842 — Smith sends his Danite assassin, Port
Rockwell, as he said, "to fulfill
prophecy " in assassinating Ex-Gov.
Boggs of Missouri.

Smith and other leading Mormons prac-
ticed spiritual wifery still more open-
ly. It leads to trouble between him
and his wife. She drives his concu-
bines out of the house.
1845— in January Smith uses .Jacobs as a
cat's-paw to try the mass of uninitia-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE

87

ted Mormons, in regard to polygamy.
Smith and Jacobs select all passages of
the Old Testament that refer to polyg-
amy, and publisli tlieni in the "Wasp"
a Nauvoo paper, witli comments, and
special pleading justlfynig poh'gamy.
It creates great excitement among the
Mormons, tliat are not admitted be-
hind the curtain of its mysteries.

May 11, 1843, Smitli sealed to Eliza Pat-
ridge, Emily Patridge, Maria Law-
rence, and Sarah Lawrence, in tlie
presence of Emma Smith, his wife,
and Lovinia Smith his brother Hyram
Smith's daughter, by James Adams a
High Priest of Mornionism.

Smith liypocritically denied any con-
nection with the doctrine avowed by
Jacobs, and denounced it. But he had
taught it to too many — had practiced
it too long, and with too many — liad
sealed too many in polygamy, too
many leading Mormons had practiced
it too long, and too much for it to be
concealed.

Too many others had learned of the
practice and were eager to gratify
their lusts as Smith had done, and as
other leaders had done. Smith's wife
and others had to be pacified and qui-
eted.

July 12. Smith dictated to Wm. Clay-
ton the infamy, that he blasphemous-
ly called "A Revelation in Regard to
Celestial Marriage."

Joseph C. Kingsbury and N. K. Whit-
ney took a copy of it. Then it was
showed to Joseph's wife. The indig-
nant and outraged wife denounced it
as from hell and burned it.

Kimball, Hyram Smith, Hyde, and at
last the Pratts accepted it.

August 12. The revelation is accepted
and indorsed by the twelve in High
C'ouncil.
1844— February. Smith announces himself
as candidate for the Presidency of the
United States, to the great delight of
the Saints.

Trouble had been brewing between the
Mormons and the people of Illinois,
who received them so generously and
kindly. The Mormons elect Mor-
mons only to office in Hancock county.

They had the entire control of all ad-
ministration of justice in Nauvoo.
The rights of citizents were outraged
and they could get no redress. They
lost property and traced it to Nauvoo,
and their attempts to recover it only
exposed them to danger in Nauvoo,
and to retaliation and injury from the
Mormons.

Mormons were insolent and tried to
drive Gentiles out of the entire coun-
try that tiiey had control of. The
law and the rights of the others were
trampled on by Mormons, until the
outraged people of Illinois rose in
arms in self-defense.

In addition to this the tstimony of
Higby, Martha Brotherton and scores

of others in regard to the pollutions
of Smith and the leading Morinons
in the Endowment Rooms, and their
polygamy or sj)iritual wifery, in-
creased the indignation of an incensed
people.
April. Smith tries to seduce Nancy
Rigdon the daughter of Sidney Rig-
don the author of the doctrine of
spiritual wifery— the wife of Wm.
Law— the wife of Dr. Foster and
others. The incensed husbands and
fathers start a paper the "Nauvoo
Expositor" to expose Smith and hi»
confederates in their infamies.
June. The first number contained the
affidavits of sixteen ladies of the
highest standing in Nauvoo, testify-
ing that Smith and his confederates
in infamy, leading Mormons, had
tried to seduce them into lewdness
called spiritual wifery.
Smith gets his tools in the council to>
pronounce it a nuisance and orders its
destruction. Law, Foster and others
fiee for their lives. Dr. Foster flees to
Carthage for his life pursued by
Danites.
He sues out a writ for Smith's arrest.
Mormons prej^are to resist. Smith
refuses to obey the writ.
The State military forces propose to
enter Nauvoo and take Smith. He
flees. Marks and Smith's wife indig-
nantly call him back.
Smith goes to Carthage declaring that
his hellish spiritual wife doctrine had
brought him into the condition ins
whi(di he stood and would cost hin>,
his life.
The consience-smitten guilty wretcb
meets liis fate by assassination June
27, in Carthage jaih
' The mass of the Mormons follow the
lead of the Twelve Apostles and thafe
of Priapus Young and migrate to
Utah.
Small bands follow the lead of Rigdon,
Law, Cutler, Strang, and others
during the years from 1844 to 18-52.

1850 — William Smith, brother of Joseph,
calls a conferance in Covington, Ken-
tucky.

1852 — June 1. A conference held in Beliot,
Wis. through the efforts of J. W.
Briggs.
In October a conference held in La-
fayette county, Wisconsin.

1853 — In .lanuary the Committee of Elders
of the Josephites issue a manifesto to
reject polygamy.
April 16. Conference in Lafayette
county, Wisconsin. Nothing special
seems to have been done.

18G0 — In Apiil at the conference at Amboy,
Illinois, Joseph Smith, son of the
prophet — so called — took his father's
place in that portion of the Mormons
who called themselves; "The Reor-
ganized Church of Jesus Christ ©f
I^atter day Saints," who reject Pria-
pus Young and his polygamy.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

1860 to 1884- -the record is merely a record
of Conferences and no important or
startling events are to be recorded.
Unless it be the visit of Joseph III to
Utah and his discussion in his paper
with the Brighaniites over the issue
-*' Was Joseph Smith II the author of j
polygamy, and the revelation in favor j
of so called celestial marrifige, dated !
July 12, 1843. |

In this decussion Joseph III comes out j
badly worsted. While one may sym-
pathize with his desire to rescue his
father's name from infamy, the facts
of history are against him.

QUESTIONS FOR KKLLEY.

I. Do you deny the clear and positive
declaration of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss
Miartha Spaulding, John Spaulding, Mrs.
John Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith,
Wright, Howard, Cunningham, Joseph
Miller, McKee, Dr. Dodd, Jackson, and
Sidney Rigdon to Dr. Winter, that Solomon
Spaulding wrote a historical romance in
Bible style? If you do, on what ground
do you deny it? Do you deny that the
witnesses gave such testimony? Do you
impeach the witnesses ? Do you rebut the
testimony.

II. Do you deny the statement of the
witnesses concerning the plot of the
romance? That it was precisely as they
stated it, the plot in one other book, and
only one other, the Book of Mormon ?

III. Do you deny the positive statements
of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J.
Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N.
Miller, Smith, Wright, Howard, Cunning-
ham, Jas. Miller, McKee, Dr. Dodd, Jack-
son and Rigdon to Winter, that it pur-
ported to be a veritable history of the
aborigines of America?

IV. Do you deny the positive statements
of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, H.
Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Wright,
Howard, Smith, Cunningham, that it at-
tempted to account for the construction of
the antiquites of America, by giving a
veritable history of their construction ?

V. Do you deny the statements of J.
Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, J^ake, Smith,
J. N. Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jack-
son, that it attempted to prove that the
Israelites were the aborigines of America,
by giving the history of such aborigines?

VI. Do you deny the statement of J.
Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N.
Miller, Wright, Smith, and Jackson, that
Spaulding gave an account of their leaving
Jerusalem, to start their migration ?

VII. Do you deny the statement of J.
Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N.
Miller, Smith and Jackson, that he delin-
eated their journey by land and sea, until
they reached America?

VIII. Do you deny the,statement of Miss
Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld-
ing, Smith, Cunningham, and Jackson that
he represented Lehi and Nephi to be their
letulers ?

IX. Do you deny the statements of Mrs.
J. Spaulding, J. Spaulding and Jackson,

that they quarreled and divided into two
parties, the Nephi tes and Lamanites?

X. Do you deny the statements of J.
Spaulding, Mrs. ,J. Spaulding, and Jackson,
that in the wars between the Nephites and
Lamanites and between the parties into
which these nations divided, there were
awful slaughters, such as are unprecedent-
ed in any other wars ?

XI. Do you deny the statements of J.
Spaulding, and Mrs. J. Spaulding that
they buried their dead after the awful
slaughters in great heaps, Vv hieh caused
the mounds, found in America?

XII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs.
S. Spaulding and Jackson that alter these
slaughters, persons who Avere sole sur-
vivors Avrote a record of their people?

XIII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs.
S. Spaulding, Lake, and Jackson that the
survivors buried the records in the earth?

XIV. Do you deny the statement of Mrs.
S. Spaulding, Lake and Cunningham, that
this history was found in the earth, where
it had been buried :

XV. Do you deny the statement of J.
Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, J. N. Miller;
and Smith that it gave an account of the
civilization, arts, sciences, laws and cus-
toms of the aborigines of America?

XVI. Do you deny the statement of J.
Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Wright
and Rigdon to Winters, that these aborig-
ines were the ancestors of our present In-
dians?

XVII. Do you deny the statements of
Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J.
Spaulding, Lake, Smith, Wiight, J. N.
Miller, Cunningham, and Jackson, that it
contains the names Nephi, Lehi, Laban,
Nephite, Lamanite, Mormon, Moroni, Zara-
hemla. etc. ?

XVIII. Do you deny the statement that
in every instance the names were the names
of the same places and persons, with the
same characteristics and history, as the
names in the Book of Mormon?

XIX Do you deny the statements of Mrs.
S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding,
Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Jas. Miller, Smith,
Cunningham, Jackson, and Rigdon to Win-
ter, that it was written in scriptural style?

XX. Do you deny the statement of Mrs.
S. Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld-
ing, Jas. Miller, Lake, and Cunningham
that the manuscript was rendered absurd
by its beginning nearly every sentence
with: "And it came to pass," "Now it
came to pass"?

XXI. Do you deny the statement of
Jackson that Spaulding got the nick-name
of " Old come to pass " from this absurdity ?

XXII. Do you deny the statement of
Smith that one party left Jerusalem to es-
cape divine judgments about to fall on the
Israelites?

XXTIl. Do j'ou denj'^ the statement of J.
N. Miller that one party landed at the Isth-
mus of Darieu, and called the land of Zara-
hemla, and traveled across the continent to
the northeast?

XXIV. Do you deny the st-atement of Jas.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

89

Miller and McKee, that in a battle between
the Amlicites and Ijamanites the Amli(3ites
marked their forelieads with red crosses to
distinfTuish them from their enemies?

XXV. Do you deny the statement that
the Spauldin«r manuscript could have been
used for a pretended revelation, an addition
to the Bible?

XXVI. Do you deny the fact that there
never have been but two books, the Spauld-
iug- Manuscript Found and the Book of Mor-
mon, that had these features, that ever had a
single one of them? How do you account
for the fact that these two books agree in
all these great features, and in all particu-
lars, except the religious portion, as accu-
rately as any author can reproduce from
memory his manuscript, and more accu-
rately than most authors, with Dut very
rare exception could reproduce their manu-
script? Do you claim that by miracle
Hpaulding wro*te exactl3^ what Joseph Smith
had given to him by the angel twenty years
afterwards?

XXVII. Do you deny that when a Mor-
mon preacher read to a Conneaut audience
portions of the Book of Mormon, that
ypaulding's old acquaintances recognized
his ]SIanuscript Found?

Do you deny that Mrs. Davidson declared
as she gave the IMS of the Manuscript Found
to Mrs. George Clark to read that the Mor-
mon Bible was almost a literal reproduction
of that manuscript?

XXVIII. Do you deny that Spaulding in
the seven years prepared several M8 sev-
eral drafts of the story? That as James
Miller, Miss Spaulding and Rigdon declare
that he prepared and sent to the printer for
publication a copy of his story?

XXIX. Do you deny Mrs. Eichbaum's
statement that Rigdon was intimate with
Lambdin and hung around the office of
Patterson, where Spaulding's j>.IS was taken,
until Engles, the foreman, complained of it?

XXX. Do you deny the statement of Mrs.
S. Spaulding that he took great interest in
the story?

XXXI. Do you deny the statement of Jas.
Miller, Dr. Dodd and McKee that Spaulding
said that his MS had been stolen and that
Rigdon was blamed with the theft?

XXXII. Do you deny the statement of
Dr. Winter that Rigdon showed him the
MS in 1822 or '3 stating that it was a Bible
romance, written by Sj)aulding. a Presby-
terian preacher, and left by Spaulding at a
printers, and that he had borrowed it, as a
curiosity?

XXXill. Do you deny Mrs. Dunlap's
statement that her uncle Rigdon iiad the
MS and spent so much time on it that his
wife threatened to burn it, and he replied,
''It will be a great thing some day.

Do you deny Jeffrie's statement that 1 Jig-
don told him that he took Spaulding's MS
from the printers and gave it to Smith to
publish?

XXXIV. Do you deny thnt Rigdon fore-
told the publication of the Book of Mormon
years before it appeared, to A. Campbell,
A. Bently and D. Atwater — that it was
dug out ot the earth, engraved on gold
plates, was a history of the aborigines of
tills continent, gave a history of the origin
of American antiquities — that it said tiiat
the gospel had been preached in America
in the first century of our era just as the
Disciples were then preaching it on the
Reserve?

XXXV. Do you deny the positive state-
ment of Z. Rudolph and other old acquain-
tances that Rigdon was frequently absent
from home for weeks while the Book of
Mormon was being prepared for the press,
and gave no account of where he had been?

XXXVI. Do you deny the statement of
old acquaintances and neighbors of the
Smiths, Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, Chase, San-
ders and McAuley that Rigdon was seen at
Smith's residence before the Book of Mor-
mon appeared?

XXXVII. Do you deny that Rigdon
preached as his peculiar hobbies the pecu-
liar features of the Book of Mormon, the
community of goods, restoration of spiritual
gifts, millenial ideas, his old baptistic op-
position to secret societies, etc.. as Green J.
Rudolph, Dille and others state?

XXXVIII. Do you deny that the Book
of Mormon approves of what Rigdon ap-
proved of before its appearance, and con-
demns what he condemned?

XXXIX. Do you deny that where he dif-
fers from the Disciples the Book of Mormon
differs from them, and that it is peculiarly
bitter on those points?

XL. Will you tell us: Did Rigdon by mir-
icle preach the doctrines of the Book ot Mor-
mon before it appeared? Or did he interpo-
late his hobbies into the MS he had stolen
from Spaulding, when he was preparing it
to be used as a pretended revelation?

XLI. On what ground do you assail the
evidence? Do you deny that' the witnesses
so testified? If so, specify what witness?

XLII. Do you assail theii character or at-
tempt to impeach them? If so, specify what
witness? On what ground?

XLIII. D . you try to rebut their testi-
mony? If so, what witness do you attack?
What rebutting evidenee or witnesses do
you introduce?

XLIV. Do yon attempt tp show defects
in their testimony? If so, what witness do
you assail? What are the defects in the tes-
timony of each?

L'ntil Mormons answer these queries let
them stop their brazen sneers at the
"Spaulding story" that are almost idiotic
in their lack of reason or argument. Kelly
will not, dare not answer these queries.
The Prophet, the three I'd Joseph dare not
publish them in his paper and answer them
in order one by one.

90

THE P.RADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S NINTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators. Ladies and
Gentlemen :— In the concluding speech of
mj'^ opponent on last evening he undertook
to show you that he liad been fair in read-
ing from his papers as I have been in my
argument. I claim that he ought to pre-
sent in full his important statements and
atfidavits, especially so, since they ought
to be in the argument if published, as they
are not accessible to but few people ; and
that if the statements in full are presented
I claim they bear the stamp of condemna-
tion upon 'their face. To permit him to
read a small portion here, and then run the
entire thing in the book would not be fair
either, as that would give him an undue
advantage in space, (and time consequent-
ly) in the discussion. Besides, it would
not be his matter in fact and I would have
no opportunity of reviewing it here, and a
statement or affidavit which he relies upon
and wishes his hearers to, in making his
affirmative statements good I claim he
ought to introduce in full.

He turns around and says : " Kelley has
done that all the time. Hasn't he read a
bit here and another bit there from the
Bible?" Now if I did that, without read-
ing or introducing sometime the full con-
nection, I did not do right. But I deny that
I have scrapped in this manner. When I
have read to you from the Bible I have read
to you the full connection. But this is
different from his affidavits or statements
in more ways than one. All persons have
the Bible at hand so that when a passage is
cited they can turn and read for them-
selves. Again there is no contest on the
Bible here. We have agreed that it is the
standard of investigation, and I abide by it
as heartily as he. Not so with his pur-
ported statements and affidavits.

They are not admitted, but absolutely
denied, and to come then and stand the
test as evidence they must appear in full,
with time, place, circumstances, and
reasons for making, etc. At best, they
are such a doubtful class of proofs that the
rules of evidence regard them with grave
suspicion Irom any standpoint, and courts
pay very little if any regard to them.
They are not in their character to be con-
sidered in the nature of reliable evidevice.
Then we ought to havt- in this discuH.sion a
full, fair look at th<-m. Last evening in
my introduction of cvideiiot- T read several
full statements. There wer»i one or two
statements of witnesses that I merely re-
ferred to, but not those upon any very im-
portant matter. I wish to state another
thing before entering upon the argument.
I have objected throughout this discussion
to his manner of misrepresenting my views
to the audience under the cloak of pretend-
ing to tell what I believe. Some of you
may have thouglit that I was particular

about this and that it was simply because
I claimed the right to represent my own
belief and views and those of tlie Latter
Day Saints that I have so strenuously ob-
jected. But this is not the fact. The real
reason is, because I see my opponent is
laboring under a mania. It is an old habit
I find of Mr. Braden of misstating or at
least of misunderstanding the views of
others. He misjudges evidently others from
reading their views. I have before me
A. Wilford Hall's Aficrocos?)! , one of the
ablest journals that is published in the
United States ; and the editor, A. Wilford
Hall, Ph. B., in reviewing an article of
Mr. Braden in the January number, 1884,
says : —

"We simply state for President Braden's informa-
tion, til at we never taught or tlioughtof teaching any
such doctrine as he lias aitriVmted to us. We never
once iuliinHted or even thouxht that matter was made"
out of spirit. We never thought of teaching that God
took a portion of his spirit and condensed it into a
material world. We never dreamt of teaching that
there are but two substances in the universe, much
less one, and that these two substances are spirit and
matter. We hold, on the contrary, and distinctly
teach that there are many essentially different sub-
stances in the universe under the general classification
of material and immaterial entities, and that, spirit
essence belongs among the immaterial substances of
nature. How President Braden could deliberately
assert and rep< at it in diiferent forms of expression
about twenty times that we teach but one substance, —
spirit, — and that matter came into existence by the
condensation of spirit, is a mystery we leave the
reader to solve."

Now, I read this to show you that some-
times ne misapprehends and misstates other
men's meaning, and I want him to be more
careful when he undertakes to give my
views to the audience, or be patient till I
give them myself. If he does not, I shall
bring some very serious things against him
here, too.

When my time was called upon last even-
ing I had just finished reading the state-
ment of Mrs. Solomon Spaulding, her daugh-
ter Mrs. McKinstry, Mr. Howe, and a sec-
ond account of Mrs. McKinstry, the only
persons of whom we have any account who
ever had knowledge sufficient to testify as
to the character of the manuscript Mr.
Spaulding wrote except Hulburt ; — reading
from the statements of the witnesses to
show what kind of a manuscript, if any,
Spaulding ever wrote. What do these wit-
nesses' statements show as thus read, giving
them full credit, — and they are all bitterly
partizan and prejudiced against the Saints?

1. That the manuscript they claim Solo-
mon Spaulding wrote was about one-third
as large as the Book of Mormon.

2. Tliat this manuscrijit contained many
singular names from the classics and an-
cient history not one of which is common to
the Book of Mormon, or in any way sim-
lar.

3. That the Spaulding manuscript treated
of an idolatrous and not a religious people.

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

91

4. That it was a speculation fts to tiie "ten
tribes" having coiue to tins country.

5. That neither of the persons who act-
ually saw the Bpauldiug manuscript could
identify a single word in it as being like the
Book of Mormon.

6. That the manuscript, whatever it con-
tained, tliey gave to Mr. Hulburt who gave
it to Howe," these being the two who were
trying to get up a work against tlie Mor-
mons.

7. That afterwards Hulburt and Howe
wrote back word that they did not use it
because it did not read as they expected.

Now I will introduce Hulbnrt's statement
as published by another enemy of the bock,
Mr. Patterson of Pittsburg. Hulburt writes :

"GiBsoNBURG, Ohio., Augr. 19, 1879.
"I visited Mrs. MHtilda (Spnulding) Davidson at
ilon.son, \;dss., in 1834, and never saw her afterwards.
[ then receivi d from her a manuscript of her hus-
band's which I did not read but brouRht home with
me and immediatelv gave it to Mr. E. D. Howe, of
Painesville, Ohio, who was then engaged in preparing
his booli, 'Mormoiiii'm Unveiled,' I do not know
whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Da-
vidson was Spaulding's " Manuscript Found,' as I never
read it; but whatever it was Mr. Howe received it
under the condition on which I tool^ it from Mr.s. David-
son, to compare it with the Book of Mormon and then
return it to lier. I never received any other manuscript
of Spauiding's from Mrs. Davidson or any one else.
Of that manuscript I made no other use than to give it,
■with all my other documents connected witli Mormon-
ism, to Mr. Howe. I did not dettroy the manuscript
nor dispose of it to Joe Smith nor to any other person.
No promise was made by m» to Mrs. Davidson that she
should receive any portion of profits arising from tr e
pnblication of the manuscript if it should bo pub-
lished. AH the affidavits procured by me for Mr.
Howe's book, including all those from Palmyra, N. Y.,
were certainly genuine. D. P. Hulburt."

With this I refer you to the statement of
Mr. Howe, Hulburt's partner in the business
of publishing the story, as made by himself,
soe Mormoiiism Uriveiled, page 288, as
follows :

"The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequent-
ly examined, and found' to contain only a » ngle
manuscript book in Spaulding's handwriting, contain-
ing al;ont one quire of pacer. This is a romance
purporting to have been translated from the Latin,
found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave on the banks
of Conneant creek, but written in modern style, and
giving a fatiulous account of a ship's being driven
iipon the American coast while proceeding fn^m Rome
to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era,
i';;s country then being inhabited by the Indians.
This old manuscript has been shown to several of the
foregoing witnesses who reognize it as Spaulding's,
, he having told them that he altered his first plan of
, writing, bv going farther back with dates, and writing
N in the old 's(uipture strle, in order that it might appear
I. more amnent. They say that it bears no resemblance
/ to the 'Manuscript Found.'"

\ It wns never taken back to Mrs. Spauld-
ing, the widow, or to Mrs. MoKinstry, the
daughter, from whom it was obtained, and
t ic only persons in existence competent of
identifying the ' Manuscript Found,' but
carried up to a few of the 'old neighbors,'
who were at war with the Saints, and who
said they heard the 'Manuscript Found,'
read twenty-three years before, for identifi-
cation.

They say, says Howe, it bears no resem-
blance to the manuscript. But it is evident
that they lied, if they said so, for Howe
who read it says :

"This is a Romance, purporting to have been trans-
lated from the Lat n, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a
cane on the banks of Conneaut Creek, but written in modern

styls, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's crew
being drivrn upon the American coast while proceeding
from Rome to Britain a short time previous to the
Christian era, this country then being inhabited by tlie
Indians."

"Found in a cave." This is the very
manuscript remember, that they have
claimed all the time that ."-spaulding wrote,
traced right into Mr. Howe's hands — the
one that was "found in a cave," so said.
It proves itself to be the Manuscript Foimd,
the very one they got, and the very one
they made way with, as I will show yo\i,
lest it should spoil their little game.

The truth of the matter is very clear ; —
Hulburt and Howe in their madness had
before this, skulked down to Conneaut, and
over into Pennsylvania with statements for
a few of these ready witnesses who were
embittered against the Saints, (for a large
number of people had accepted the faith
about Conneaut, Mantua and other places,
and thus made the sects rage), got the
parties to sign their stuff which they had
garbled from the Book of Mormon, and
afterwards when they got the Spaulding
manuscript they went back to see what the
trouble was, — it did not read right. As
might have been supposed the witnesses
were caught ; they could not deny that it
was Spaulding's manuscript, too clear a
case for that ; Hulburt had been and got
it right from the Mrs. Solomon ( Spaulding)
Davidson herself: What do they do? In-
vent another lie "to get out of the first, by
saying: "Spaulding told them that he had
altered his first plan of writing by going
farther back with dates, and writing in the
old scripture style in order that it might
appear more ancient." Did you ever ! !
Right out of the book that Braden fats on ! ! !
Spaulding is made to go to each one of these
witnesses, or they come to him, that he may
tell them he altered his first plan of writing
and he a stranger to them as it were, for all
the time he was in that part of the country
was but two years. Well, had they known
his first style? If so, why did they not
state something about it before they were
caught? And how came it that they never
struck upon this modern style while they
read the Spaulding manuscript so much,
which they try to foist upon the world? A
man that will take up and believe this con-
tradictory and abominable stufT gotten up
by a set of conspiring fanatics and tools
more than three years after the publi-
cation and sale of a work they are trying by
this very means to break down, and with
that work right in their hands to draw their
names from as admitted in their statements,
see ^Vright's, Miller's, Lake's, etc., is
doomed to hopelessly fall in with the class
of people the apostle speaks of, as living in
the last times when such a message of truth
as the Book of Mormon contains should b©
presented to the people, who would oppose
the work, the truth: —

"With all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
tbat perish : because they received not the love of ilitJ
truth that they might be saved. And tor this cause
God shall send them strong delusion that they snonia
believe a lie : Thai Ihev all might be damned who be-
lieved not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteous-
ness." 2 Thes.>i. 2:10, 11, 12.

TIIE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Men must examine a message from the
truestiindpoint, God's standard : "He that
ahideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
both the Father and the Bon." Don't
brealv God's law by speaking mean and
slanderous things against those who dif-
fer from 3'ou in religion; there is neither
sense nor argument in it. "Speali evil of
no one." "Whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye even so to them;"
and know assuredly, that, "whosoever
transgresseth [this law] and abideth notin
the doctrine of Christ, lie hath not God,"
So says the apostle John, and so say I! The
Book' of Mormon is presented to the world
and claims to be the truth; it is presented to
the people as such and demands a fair inves-
tigation. As in every age of the world when
God has sent a message, Satan can't stand
to see the word, the truth, take root in the
heart ; so he begins on stories, and char-
acter, manufaeluring and multiplying
scheme after scheine, falsehood after false-
hood, until in this instance the Spaulding
"Romance," came along, not even claiming
to be a thing of truth, but a speculative
lie, — theory ; and the people who are too
self-righteous and fanatical to believe the
truth, at once drink in the theory of the
"Romance."

The evidence from their own witnesses
is complete in showing one thing, that is,
that Spaulding never wrote an article of
any kind that would in size, Character,
st^'le, sense, taste, sentiment, or in any
manner compare with the Book of Mormon.
But how about "old come to pass," says
one. Like the pretended remembrance of
the names Lehi and Neplii, the false sto-
ry of it was put inio these witnesses'
mouths and they thought it a smart thing
to say; that is evident to a man who will
think. Why should they so persistently
call Spaulding "old come to pass?" Turn
to the Bible, in almost every part it
abounds with the expression. In some
parts of St. Luke's gospel it is as frequent
as in the Book of iMormon, How could it
receive the title of "old come to pass,"
from singularity, when the expression was
already a familiar one? Such a statement
is only equaled by the brazenly one put
into the mouth of Henry Lake of the La-
ban account. "I pointed out to him what
I considered an inconsistency, which he
promised to correct ; but by referring to
the Book of Mormon, I find to my sur-
prise that it stands there just as read to me
then." Did you ever hear the like my
friends? Wh^vp is the inconsistency tliis
wise man pointed out, who although he had
not seen or lieaid anything in the Spauld-
ing Romance in twenty years, pretends ir-
twenty minutes reading to detect it by
the same passages which Mr. Spaulding
had read to him ; only think, just read to
him, more than 23 years before. Take an-
other uf Braden's witnesses, John N Millei ,
the fellow who worked for Lake, anothei o*'
their holy crowd. Twenty-two years pass-
ed away wit.h no word uora the manu-
script, and then ho remembers ihe jjame.*

Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, Zarahemla, (the en-
tire book they have here; the first part,
middle, and last part where the name Mo-
roni is found) and he has the history so well
that Braden says, "the average Mormon
preacher," and I suppose he refers to me
by this, "could not to-day give it better."
No, sir ! But this smart John Miller
can give it from having read it in the old
jnanuscript twenty 3'ears before. And
Eraden drinks it down ! What a wonder-
ful Miller this was ! Can't you give us a
further clue to his life and services to his
country? But stop, my friends ! He fur-
ther testifies. Let me read: — "He (Spauld-
ing) said that he designed it as a historical
novel, and that in after years it would bo
believed by many people as much as the his-
tory of England." There I Can you beat
that ? And yet there is to be no more
prophets ! This is Braden's prophet. I
might thus take up and show the duplicity,
cheek, falsehood and spuriousness of every
one of these, said to be statements, but I
shall not so dispose of my time. They are
all effectually, fully and completely set out
and accounted for bej'ond a doubt by any
man who wants the truth in another man-
ner, and which I shall soon present you. I
am asked to answer the question, How will
you dispose of them ? "Attack their char-
acter ?" What! Don't he yet know me
well enough to know, that I will not make
of myself a bird of carrion to pass over all
proper and respectable ways of testing a
matter, to gather from the sepulchre of the
dead and rotten ? I too highly respect the
Bible and the Christian religion, as well aa
m3-sclf, for this. If character is to be the
test and that proven by one's enemies, our
Bible is not worth a straw ; the entire list
of writers will go down in the mire. And
should we test the issue of Bible writers on
character by the admissions of friends, one
half of our inspired men of the Bible would
go down. No sir; I have from the first tak-
en such grounds, that I could maintain my
faith clear through, in the Bible as well as
the Book of Mormon. Consistency is a jew-
el to be admired. Who is so blind as to not
see that if character is to be the test, that
is to try the faith of the Saints, and that
character proven by their enemies, the
same rule must be followed in trying others
also. The position i« more desperate than
was entertained by ancient heathens.
"The good that men do" says Mark Antho-
ny over the dead body of Ciiesar, "lives
atter them, the evil is oft interred with
their bones ; so let it be with Caesar."

But Braden says, let us find some evil and
perpetuate that. Character ! "What would
he accept as good under his rule? Nobody
ever lived of prominence in God's work
who has not been slandered and berated.
Doubtless many things, too, were true
against the early Christians; they ivere true
1)1 part; so admitted in the Bible. But I
am not a teacher of the doctrine of infalli-
ijility in m.ankjnd. I believe with Jesus
rlij- Jone are good, (except God), "no, not
one.'' Nov' his lojag abuse and misrepre-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

93

eentation of the characters of Mi Smith,
Rigrdon and others last evening is entirely
foreign to the question under discussion.
Suppose they did do wrong and many ab-
surd and foolish things ! what weight can
that have in determining whether the part
God is said to have done is wrong? Try
this matter upon its merits. I do not, nor
does the church of which Mr. Smith was un-
der divine Providence the founder, claim
for these n>en perfection. Many of the
things that he stated about these men and
what they did may be true; but as to the
majority t am satisfied they are as false as
hell itself. And the list which he calls his
" Mormon Chronology," is dotted about oc-
casionally with a fact, that he may thereby
hide the deformity of a hydra-head, which
he hopes to force upon the people
But his chronology as a whole is a brazen
piece of deception and of false statements,
drawn from such works as Howe, Tucker,
&c. Suppose I take up Mitchell's history
of the United States and read the infamous
story recorded against the character of John
Wesley in Georgia, charging a crime against
that religious teacher more heinous than
any ever made against Smith, how would
it affect the Methodist religion? Suppose
I take John Calvin, who permitted one of
his own adherents to be burned at the
stake because he differed with him on relig-
ion. Suppose I take the case of the great
reformer Luther, and the noble Melancthon,
and show that they consented to one of
their members entering into polygamy, the
great Luther actually performing the mar-
riage ceremony ! Shall I thrust it in the
face of the Lutheran Church upon a trial of
their faith? I know this was done by cer-
tain parties this last Fall upon the return
of the 400th anniversary of the " Pious
monk," but how despicably mean and spite-
ful it seemed to thinking men and women !
The rule is wrong. We must get upon a
higher plane. Who wants to take the
offlce of " the accuser of the brethren?" —
Gathering and sowing the evils spoken
against men. Enter the mission of Satan
in tne world ! No, sir; not me. Don't need
to ask me, if I will try to hunt up your wit-
nesses' character, unless I had those same
witnesses where they could face the ones
they are accusing, and they in turn could
face their accusers. This is demanded in
decency. Why! do you suppose if I was
debating with an infidel I would i-ake up
the past life of Col. IngersoJl? Is that what
you call impeaching character? To go and
rake up all you can find about a man and
peddle it — send it forth — publish it. That
is the way they slander men, but not the
way they impeach them. Suppose an infi-
del should attack the character of the wri-
ters in the Bible in the same way, and they
often do, would I then resort to such a
course? No, sir. Such a contest would be
decided upon the ground of who could get
hold of and tell the biggest falsehood, and
I would engage in no such littleness. But
I have already devoted more time to this
than it deserved. It has been because I

did not know but possibly someone present
might think there was a little argument in
such a tirade as we heard from the nega-
tive last night, and for that reason only, I
have noticed it. As for m3'self I couldlis-
ten for weeks at such abuse and villi fica-
tion if necessary with simply a sense of
pitj' and shame for the one who spins it.
But I shall now finish my review of the
"Spaulding Romance," and every one of
his witnesses' testimony, and then each
evening I shall have new matters of evi-
dence on the question under discusf^ion, and
many that have never been presented to
any audience. Here I might ask the ques-
tion. Do you still want proof that Spauld-
ing never wrote a manuscript like the Book
of Mormon, in any sense, or feature? The
total basis for all of their huge stories and
false statements about "Spaulding's manu-
script," was this one thing: — Spaulding,
who came to New Salem, now Conneaut,
Ohio, and remained for about two years,
first representing himself as a preacher,
then a dealer in real estate, and thirdly un-
dertook to erect a "forge," (in all of which
he failed, and suddenly left, leaving his
debts unpaid, so stated by their own wit-
nesses), at one time during his stay at New
Salem, told some parties that he had found
an old manuscript in a cave on Conneaut
creek, which gave an account of a long lost
shipwrecked crew on the American coast,
and it would be greatly interesting when
published, and he would be able to make a
raise of enough money to pay all his debts
and be independent. He wanted a little
more money out of them so he could go to
Pittsburg and have it published. He roped
in a few and left, but instead of getting up
the startling publication, he stayed but a
short time in Pittsburg and went to Wash-
ington county Pennsylvania, where he
died in 1816. He never, however, reported
to his creditors and they were left in the
suds, waiting for a check from the broken-
down clergyman. Twenty-one years pass
awa.y, and no tidings. In the meantime
the Book of Mormon is published and is
making a great excitement in the world,
and these duped creditors of Spaulding's
begin to think of the startling shipwreck
tale, of which Spaulding had toM tliom he
would make his fortune; ana tncy ,uot hold
of a copy of the Book of Mormon and the
base Hiilburt, who had been cut off from
the Church of the Latter Day Saints; got
out their statements and sent Hulburt after
the Spaulding manuscript. This they found
carefully laid away in the trunk of Spauld-
ing's widow, and it is brought back by them
and put into the hands of Editor Howe, of
Painesville, Ohio, who reads it and finds
no resemblance whatever to the Book of
Mormon. Howe says, page 2^8 of his book
entitled "Mormonism Unveiled:" "This is
a romance, purporting to have been trans-
lated from the Latin, found on twent3'-four
rolls of parchment, in a cave, on the banks
of Conneaut creek, but written in modern
style, and giving a fabulous account of a
ship's being driven upon the American

94

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

coast while proeeedinsr from Rome to Brit-
ain, a short time previous to the Christian
era, this countrj'- then being inhabited by
the Indians." . , ,, ,

Here is the Spauldino: tale in a nutshell!
The whole thin? entirely different from
the Book of Mormon ; the style, dates,
names, peoples, and all. The whole thing
as foreign to the Book of Mormon as heaven
to hades, but it is the little nit from which
the enemies of Mr. Smith hatched this
terrible " Spaulding Story."

This i^ his alibi. How I ask you, does
his evidence stand upon the first point ? Did
Solomon Spaulding ever write a manuscript
like the manuscript of the Book of Mor-
mon in any sense ? I say the evidence from
his own witnesses is against him and ask
him to now meet the issue he has made.

But he does not only have to show this,
"but to show also :

2nd. That Eigdon and Smith in some
way stole it and that Smith used it,

3d. That iiigdon knew of Smith and the
Book of Mormon before the book was pub-
lished in 1830, and was connected with the
two in some way.

4th. That Parley P. Pratt did not bring a
a copy of tills book and present it to Kig-
don while Rigdonwas a Disciple Preacher,
and then and there, in 18:^0, Rigdon first
knew the contents of said book.

In beginning upon the -second prop-
osition, I am reminded of the story that
is told of the absent juror. He had been
subpoenaed to attend a session of court ; but
when the day arriveii and court was called,
he was not there ; and the judge abruptly
demanded to know tlie reason. The juror's
friend arose and said there were several
reascms. And proceeded to give them.
The first is, he said, that the man is dead.
There! that is enough, said the judge, you
need not give any more.

Now it seems to mn that if I have shown
you clearly that Spaulding never wrote
such a manuscript a^ the Book of Mormon,
or one that had any resemblance to it, from
their own witnesses, that ought to be
enough on this ; but lest some one may yet
have a doubt I will produce some further
evidence. First a letter from Sidney Rig-
don to the editors of the Boston Journal.

"COMMERCB, May 27th, 1839.
Mb^srs. Bartlf.t and Suhvan :—

T,iere was no man by the name ff Patterson, during
my residence in Fiitsburg, who had a printing office:
what might have been before I lived there I know not.
Mr. Ro) ert Patterson, I w^istoM, had owned aprinting
office before I lived in that city, but had been unfor-
tunate in business and failed before my residence
there. This Mr. Patterson, who was a Presbyterian
Preacher, I had a very slight acquaintance with
during my residence in Pittsburg; he was tlien acting
under an agency in the book and stationery busiiie--s
and was the owiier of no property of any kind, print-
ing office or anything else, liuring the time I resided
in the city. If I were to say tliat I ever heard of the
Rev. Solomon Spaulding and his wife, until Dr. P.
Hulburt wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like
unto themselves."

Rigdon is emphatic, when he talks, you
know, necause many of you used to hear
him talk.

"Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson ob-
tained to give force to the shameful tale of lies? The
o- ly reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to
work with ; he would not lie for them; for ;f he were
called on, he would testify to what I have said. This
Hiilburt once belonged to the Methodist Church, but
was excluded for immoralities. He afterwards im-
posed himself upon the church of Latter Day Saints,
and was excluded for u-iug obscene language ti> a
young lady, a member of said church, who resented
his insult with indignation, which became boih her
character and profession. After his exclusion he swore
— for he was vilely profane — that he would have re-
venge, and commenced his work. He soon found
assisiance; a pious old deacon of the Campbellite
church, by the name of Onis Clapp, and his two sons,
Thomas W. Clapp, and Matthew S. Clapp, both "'mp-
bellite preachers, abetted and assisted by her

Campbel ite preacher, by the name of Adamson le itly,
HuDiurt went to work catering lies for the company.
Before he got through, his conduct became so scandal-
ous that the company tUterly refused to let his ,ime
go o\it with the lies he had collected, and he and his
associates had made, and they substituted the name of
E, D. Howe. The change, however, was not much
better."

Then he refers in terms to Mrs. Matilda
Davidson, but it is not material and I have
not it copied in here. I will read it if neces-
sary.

" A man of character would never have put his name
to a work which Hulburt was concerned in. The tale
In your paper is one hatched up by this gang from
the" time of their expulsion."

Rvspectfully, S. Rigdon."

From the strong language of this letter
it is easy to see that Mr. JUgdon had been
maligned by the Campbellites, the people
witli%'hom he had formerly been connect-
ed to such an extent that it was almost

impossible to bear it any longer; and the
reason of this was simply because he saw
fit ill the honesty of his heart, to step out
and embrace what he believed to be a bet-
ter and higher religion than was to be had
by remaining with his Campbellite breth-
ren. Hence it is, that when he speaks, it
is with that sternness and force, that was
a terror to his maligners.

Heretofore they have generally told about
Rigdon working' for Patterson, but Braden
has seen this go to the wall once, as he did
also his "woman preacher story." at Wil-
ber, Neb., so he has deftly yclept it this
time ; that is better than no fairness ; when
you are driven clear to the wall drop it ;
and if he was not so eager to grab at some-
thing else he would improve in the world
much better.

This letter of Rigdon 's effectually shows
that he never worked in a printing oflice in
Pittsburg; that Patterson had no such office
when he was there to his knowledge, and
was not engaged in the business of print-
ing; and, referring to Mr. Patterson, who
was at the time a Presbyterian preacher,
as a man who would corrobrate this state-
ment. Afterwards Patterson does corrob-
orate it. Rigdon says, the first he ever
knew of the Book of Mormon was in the
year 18.'?0, when a copy was handed him by
a minister of the Latter Day Saints by the
name of P. P. Pratt.

(Time called.)

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

93

MR. BRADEN'S NINTH SPEECH.

GentijEMen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Mr. Kelley told you last
night that Mrs. Smith, the mother of Joe
Smith, and some other mem hers of the family
brought letters from a Presbyterian church
in Vermont and joined the Presbyterian
church in Manchester, New York. In the
life of Joseph Smith by his mother she says
she allowed herself to be baptized in Ver-
mont, but refused to join any church ; that
she rejoiced when the Mormon church was
started, that she then found a church that
she could join. Nota Smith ever belonged to
a church in Palmyra, Not a Smith ever
belonged to the Presbyterian church in
Manchester, for there was no Presbyterian
church in Manchester until 31 years after
the Smiths left Manchester ; not one of
the Smith family ever belonged to any
church until Mormonism was started, for
although very superstitious, they were
noted for their neglect and disregard
of the church and all things connected
with religion. That statement of my
opponent is one of those statements some-
times said to be made out of whole cloth.
My opponent forgets that his talk here will
be stereotyped into a book and will stand
for generations when he makes such reckless
misstatements as he did last night.

The reader will read in my argument that
I introduced Priest's " Wonders '' to show
that the idea that the aborigines of America
were Israelites was hundreds of year* old-:r
than the Book of Mormon, and a widely
believed theory, and that I said not a word
on "mounds" or "antiquities" in connec-
tion with that book. He will then read
Kelley's statement that I introduced it to
off-set his argument on antiquities and ask
himself. "What does the fellow mean by
such reckless assertions?"

He will read my statement that if the
Nephites were circumcised Israelites they
belonged to the same fold as those Jesus
"was addressing and could not be the other
sheep not of that fold ; or if they liad aban-
doned circumcision they were no longer
Israelites and the prophecies Kelley quoted
could not apply to them, and then read with
amazement that I said or hinted that they
were not circumcised. I never said so for
there nerer were any Nephites to be circum-
cised. The reader will read Kelley's asser-
tion that I introduced no witnesses, read
no testimony, and then turn back and see
in different type from my speeches the
testimony of 29 witnesses — see that I read
the testimony of some witnesses two or more
times : that I had read more of Mrs. David-
son's testimony than he did : longer por-
tions from several witnesses than he did
from any that he introduced ; I introduced
and read testimony just as he did, and
exclaim: "What can the fellow mean by such
falsehoods?" He will read Kelley 's assertion

that I said that Rigdon worked in Patter-
son's printing office at Pittsburg and turn
back and read my statement that he did
not work there but was in Pittsburg learning
the tanners' trade and was in Patterson's
office as a crony of Lambdin, one of the
printers, and in that way learned of the
existence of the Spauld'ing manuscript,
which was attracting much notice in the
office, and became much interested in it, and
stole it, as is proved by witnesses, and
exclaim: "Why, what does that fellow
by such reckless falsehoods?"

He will read my clear proof that Spauld-
ing wrote several manuscripts of his Manu-
script Found and then read with amazement
Kelle3''s reckless assertion that he wrote
but one. The manuscript described by
Mrs. Spaulding was his first brief draft. It
was this that John Spaulding read through;
it was this that Mrs. McKinstrey read.
The reader will read with amazement the
objection that Spaulding's Manuscript
Found represented the aborigines of Amer-
ica as idolaters, and the Book of Mormon
represents them to be worshippers of the
one God : when he remembers that I showed
that Rigdon changed the manuscript when
remodeling it to use as a pretended reve-
lation. He will read with amazement
Kelley's assertion that Hulburt obtained
from Mrs. Davidson the manuscript of the
Manuscript Found when she says she only
gave him an order to examine a'trunk hun-
dreds of miles away in Hartwick, N. Y , to
see if it was in the trunk. The reader will
read with amazement Kelley's fabrication
that Howe said that he received from Hurl-
but a manuscript of the Manuscript Found.
Howe distinctly and pointedly declares that
he did not receive a manuscript of the
Manuscript Found but the beginning pages
of an entirely different manuscript — the
manuscript of the first romaiice written by
Spaulding, written before he began the
Manuscript Found. In that first romance
Spaulding assumed that the Indians round
the Great Lakes were descendants of ship-
wrecked Romans. He abandoned this
theory and began the Manuscript Found,
in winch he assumed the aborigines of
America and the ancestors of all Indians
were Israelites. Howe does not say that
he received the Manuscript Found and that
the Manuscript Found was not what he ex-
pected it to be as Kelly falsely asserts he
says. He says that he did not receive the
Manuscript Found but the manuscript of an
earlier and entirely different story and the
manuscript that he received was not what he
expected, for it was not the manuscript of
the Manuscript Found, which was what he
expected to receive. Why did not he re-
ceive the manuscript of the Manuscript
Found ? " We will a tale unfold" that will
explain that. In a letter written to J. E.

96

TPIE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Gaston in 1842, Mrs. Davidson says that
shortly after Hurlbut left Munson with
the order from her to get the manuscript
of tlie Manuscript Found from the trunk at
Mr. Clark's at Hartwicke, N. Y., she receiv-
ed a letter from Hurlbut, in which he told
her that he had obtained from the trunk
what he had come for, the manuscript of
the Manuscript Found, and that when he
had taken it to the parties that sent him,
and it had been used for the purpose for
which they wanted it, that is published to
expose the plagiarism of the Book of Mor-
mon from it, he would return it to lier.

Hurlbut came to the people at Conneaut
and Howe, and lied, and said that the only
manuscript he found was the part of the
manuscript we have described above. Up
to this time he had been very active in get-
ting up the book Howe published ; he had
spent months and much money in collect-
ing the evidence used in it : now he sud-
denly abandons all, takes no further part
or interest in it and goes to Western Ohio
and buys a farm ; when, before he had not
money enough to pay his traveling ex-
penses. Mrs. Davidson, on reading Howe's
book and Hurlbut's statement as given in
it was amazed and wrote to him reminding
him of what he had written to her and that
the Clark's had written that he had got the
manuscript of the Manuscript Found. She
demanded that he return the manuscript to
her. Her daughter also wrote repeatedly.
The letters were sent to persons who wrote
that they handed them to Hurlbut. He
never answered one of them. The Rev. J. A.
Clark published in the " Episcopal Record-
er" that the Mormons in Missouri said they
paid Howe $400.00 for the manuscript. The
Rev. Btorrs in a letter published in
" Gleanings by the Way" states that Hurl-
but boasted that he made $400.00 out of the
manuscript. He sold it to the Mormons in
Kirtland. These charges Hurlbut never
met, but laid under them till his death.
This answers the demand why the Spauld-
ings did not publish the manuscript of the
Manuscript Found and expose the fraud.
That is the very thing they tried to do, but
the agent by whom they sent the manu-
script to Howe, the publisher, betrayed
them and sold it to the Mormons. Hurl-
but's false and contradictory statements
and absurd stories to Mr. Patterson in 1880
proved that he was guilty of what he was
charged with and was trying to lie out of it.

The reader will read with amazement if not
too much disgusted at its stillness the at-
tacks on Hurlbut'5 character by Kelley and
ask what has the character of the scribe
who collected the evidence to do with the
truthfulness of the statements of the wit-
nesses? He will read in the same waj' the
statements over which Kelley so idiotically
makes such great eyes and mouths that
flowesaid that personally he knew nothing
about the facts stated by the witnesses
whose testimony he published and ask
what odds does it make if the lawyer does
Qot know personally the facts his witnesses
state? Kelley asks why is not Zebulon

Randolph here? Kelley has quoted Howe,
Mrs. McKiustrey and several others why
are wot they here? Why does he not have
them here instead of telling us what he
says they told him and by the way Mr.
Howe contradicts flatly Mr. Kelley's state-
ment in his case. His silly objection puts
out of court all his own witnesses. Has not
Kelley sense enough to see that in such ob-
jections he puts a club in my hands with
which I cin beat out his own brains if he
has any ? He asks what is the connection
between Mrs. Dunlap's statement that Rig-
don spent so much time over a certain man-
uscript, and Rigdon's authorship of the
Book of Mormon? The intelligent reader
will see the connection when he reads evi-
dence that Rigdon stole the Spaulding
manuscript : that he had it in his possession
before this time and that he also stated to two
witnesses that he also obtained the Spauld-
ing manuscript from the printing office and
told one of them that he gave it to Smith to
publish as the Book of Mormon. Placed be-
tween such evidence airs. Dunlap's evi-
dence is another link in a chain Mormons
cannot break. Hfe asks what relevance in
the statement of Zebulon Rudolph and old
citizens of Mentor that Rigdon was absent
from home for weeks at a time and no one
knew where during the three years that
preceded the appearance of the Book of Mor-
mon? When taken in connection with the
testimony that he was seen at Smith's dur-
ing the same time as stated by Case, Saund-
ers, Tucker, McAuley and Mrs. Eaton the
reader will see the force of the evidence.

Such, ladies and gentlemen, is the at-
tack on our array of testimony; reckless
falsifying of evidence, reckless fabrications
of what has no proof, and indeed is flatly
contradicted by the evidence and weak pet-
tyfogging. I confess I have been amazed
a't the weakness of the reply. Is that the
best that the chosen representative of Mor-
monism with all its inspiration, spiritual
gifts, illumination and revelations, can
do?

I have presented the evidence of 29 wit-
nesses. Has he attempted to prove that
they did not testify? No. That they are
wanting in truthfulness? No. Has he
attempted to rebut their evidence? No.
He has falsified their statements, misrepre-
sented them, fabricated rebutting evidence,
playing false witness and pettyfogger at the
same time. Such is the great Mormon Cham-
pion's attacks on the Spaulding story. If
my opponent would present one quarter of
the evidence I have presented to prove his
right to an estate it would be given him,

Kelley denies that there is such a GreeK
word as "Mormon." Donnegan gives tli^
following Mormon (anglicized Mormon) "A
female spectre, a phantom." Other lexicons
give the word and define it "a hobgoMin, a
bugbear." Spaulding from his knowledge
of Greek used the word as significant of the
character of his fabrication. Smith and
Rigdon wei e too ignorant to know the irony
there was in the word and published to the
world their new translation as the "Book

THfe BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

97

of Mormon" — "Book of Phantom, of Hob-
goblin, of Buerbear," the most appropriate
title for the fraud and the evil work it has
done amonff fools. But think of Israelites
over in America who did not know there
were such beings as the Greeks in existence,
using pure Greek names ! My opponent
betrays his ignorance when he asserts that
the Greek word is " Mormou " or "Mor-
moun," He evidently mistook "Nu," the
Greek N. for U. which corresponds to the
Greek Upsilon. Mormon must belong to the
Reformed Egyptian of Joe t^mith and his
disciple Kelley. Alma is a pure Latin
word. Nephi is a Greek word. Israelites
in America using Greek and Latin words!

ANAI^YSIS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.

Having given the history of the origin of
the Book of Mormon we shall now analyze
the book itself. We have already described
what the work purports to be. It was given
to the world in the following manner : — Joe
Smith asserts that an angel revealed to him
the existence and location of certain plates
engraved with certain characters; that he
obtained these plates and that by inspira-
tion, the miraculous power of God, he trans-
lated them. These plates had been buried
by Moroni about 1400 years before Smith
obtained them. They contained an abridg-
ment that Moroni and his father had made
by inspiration of the history of the abori-
genes of America. This abridgment was
based on an immense library of plates writ-
ten by inspired men during the period of
over 4,000 years, beg)))ning with Jared's
brother, who was contemporary with the
building of the Tower pf Babel. Mormons
defend this claim in three ways : first, by
an appeal to the external evidences, the af-
fidavits of the eleven witnesses; second,
that the utterances of the Book of Mormon
agree with the teachings of the Bible and
are good; tliird, by a most vindictive, ma-
licious, infidel attack on the Bible when
the absurdities of the Book of INIormon are
exposed. The first line of proof displays
some craft. They parade the eleven wit-
nesses. If we impeach these witnesses as
we can and shall do, they can raise the cry
of persecution and attempt to rouse sympa-
thy. We shall not be deterred from duty by
any such cry. As they have introduced the
witnesses and staked all on their testimony,
we shall impeach them. In reply to the
second line of proof Ave shall show that all
that is good in the Book of Mormon is felo-
niously stolen from the Bible, and is good
because it is the teaching of the Bible and
not because it was given by inspiration in
the Book of Mormon. Because a counter-
feit resembles the genuine it is no proof
that it is genuine, but that it imitates the
genuine in order to deceive, and because a
book pretending to be inspired resembles
one that is inspired, it is no proof that the
first is inspired, but that the counterfeit
imitates the inspired book in order to de-
ceive. Counterteits imitate every feature
of the genuine if they can. Hypocrites and
imposters imitate every feature and senti-

ment of the good and true. iSome of the
most infamous hypocrites have imitated,
copied and uttered, the best sentiments that
have ever been uttered. The discourses
and writings of the most infamous charae-
ters that have ever lived have contained
the very best of truth and goodness and
often not a word but what is true and good.
The devil can transform himself into an
angel of light, and talk as much truth and
goodness as an angel of light. Because he
talks as perfect truth and goodness as an
angel of light does not prove that he is an
angel of light. If the Mormon plea that
we must accept a man as a good man be-
cause he talks so, be true ; there can be no
means of detecting hypocrites and an im-
poster, for does not he talk all right? If the
devil repeats ton? thedoctrinesofCliristand
the truth we must accept him as perfectly
good and declare that he has the Father
and the Son and is inspired, if he asserts
that he is. This claim, the pet argument
of Mormonism, is the most ineffable balder-
dash that I have ever met.

The Mormons reverse the line of argu-
ment. They absurdly assert that the claims,
the pretensions of a book should determine
the character of the book. Common sense
declares that we should carefully investi-
gate the character of the book to deter-
mine whether these claims be true. They
claim that we should accept their book a»
divine because its author claims to be a
prophet, and eleven men assert that he is
inspired. Common sense says accept a man
as a prophet because the contents of his
book prove him to be a prophet. The one
sole argument of the Mormon is a constant
jabber of one passage. "He that hath the
Doctrine of Christ hath the Father and the
Son ;" that is, he must be a child of God a
good man, and inspired, if he claims to be
inspired. Imposter Joe presents to us in
his book the Doctrine of the Christ, and
although we show that every word that is
good was stolen from the Bible, we must
believe that he has the Father and the Son
that he is a good man ; that he is inspired
because he says he is, and that the Book
of Mormon is of divine origin because im-
poster Joe says so. The devil presents to
us a book that contains the doctrine of the
Christ stolen from the Bible. According to
Mormon logic, because he has the doctrinie
of the Christ, no matter how obtained, no
matter what his character may be, no mat-
ter what his motive may be, in presenting^
it, the devil has the Father and the Son,
is a child of God, and if he says that he is
inspired we must l)elieve him and accept
his book as of Divine origin.

When we remember that every good thing
in the Book of Mormon is stolen from the
Bible, the absurdity of the claim that be-
cause the truths of the Bible are in the pos-
session of these thieves tlierefore they ar.©
inspired and their book of Divine origin can
hardly be appreciated. To claim that the
thieves were good men is an insult to com-
mon sense, but to claim that they were in-
spired of God in the theft, because they

m

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

stole the Divine utterances of the Bible
and mendaciously presented them to the
world as their own inspired utterances is
idiocy that is almost sublime in its magni-
tude! Priapus Young presents us the un-
varnished Mormon argument when he de-
clares

" The Doctrine the Prophet Joseph (eacheg i» »!! I
"careabotit. Bring anything against that it you can.
" As for anything else i "don't r-areif thel'rophet Joseph
" act(.'d like thedevil. H.' biought forth a docfine that
" will save us if we will abide liv it. He may liave got
"drunk every day of his life, slept with liis neigh >'or's
"wile cve-v iiiglit, ran horses and gambled every day;
" I care nothing about that, for 1 never embrace any
"man in my faith. The doctrine the Prophei Joseph
"produced will save \on snn me, and tlie whole
" world." If you can ''n'^ any fault with his doctrine,
"fiuditi''

Kelley is not as frank and as honest
as Priapus Young, but that is what he
means when he jabbers " He that hath the
Doctrine of the Christ hath the Father and
the !Son."

We will admit this much. If the doctrine
in the Book of Mormon be true we should
accept it as truth, because it is truth. But that
does not prove that Joseph Smith was even
a good man, for the Devil can utter truth.
It does not prove that his book is true in its
historic statements, nor that it is what it
claims to be — a history of the aborigines of
America; for the biggest fraud ever concocted
may contain good doctrines, stolen from the
Bible or other sources If Joseph Smith
was a good man, his assertion that lie was
inspired, even if his doctrine were true,
would uol necessarily be true; for many a
good man has been decieved and tiiought
he was inspired when he was not and that
his talk was revelation when it was not.
This whole line of argument is the most
absurd and idiotic that has ever been pre-
sented to a thinking people. There are
several queries to be settled. Even if the
moral and religious ideas of the Book of
Mormon be true, Avho presents it to us, a
good being or an evil one? Is it presented
honestly or hypocritically? Is it genuine or
counterfeit that has stolen the features of
the genuine in order to deceive. If it
claims inspiration, is the one claiming in-
spiration one that would be choseii of God
as a medium for inspiration Is he honest
ox is he hypocritical? If honest, sincere
and good was he mistaken or is his claim
true? Then what is the character of the pro-
posed revelation ?

The third line of argument is not only
maliciously hostile to the Bible but is a gross
fallacy. If Mormons could prove every ,
word of the Bible to be false and thfit the
Bible had every fault that we find with the
Book of Mormon, it would only overthrow
the Bible. It would not establish the divine
origin of the Book of Mormon. Proving
■that Webster's dictionary is full of faults
does not prove that a book that contains
those faults is correct, but on the contrary,
it destroys Webster as authority. When
the vile character of Joe Smith and the
founders of Mormonism is exposed Mor-
mons point to tiie character of Baalam,
Saul, King of Israel, Jonah, and Caiphas.

If they are willing to place Imposter Joe in
the same category as Baalam with his greed
of gain and evil character, Saul with his
murderous hatred and vile character, .lonah
with his rebellious wicked character, Cai-
phas with his murderous sectarian hatred
ot Jesus, we will remind them that though
God did, in the dark surroixndings of those
days use those persons for certain unim-
portant purposes, he did not make them
founders of dispensations, much less the
last one, and the one that is. the fulness of
the Gospel. For such purposes he chose a
Noah, an Abraham, a Closes, an Elijah, a
Paul, and a Jesus the Son of God.

If the Mormon points to the sins and er-
rors of Noah, Ijot, Abraham, and others
that were children of God, or inspired ac-
cording to the Bible, when we point out
the sins of Joe Smith and the founders of
Mormonism we wish to remind him that
Noah's drunkenness was accidental and the
Bible does not say it was repeated There
is not one particle of proof that Noah knew
what would be the effects ot fermented
grape juice until he was made drunk by it,
or that he ever repeated the act. Lot's
incest was not voluntarj' ; there is not one
scrap of evidence that Lot was inspired. ;
the Bible does not say that he ever was.
Abraham's acts were the sins of his age ;
his polygamy was rather the act of Sarah
and in accordance with the (aistom of the
day than a wilful sin of Abraham. There
is no proof that Abraham knew that he
was doing wrong. The sins of Isaac and
.Tacob were the sins of their times, resulting
from the evil advice of others. David's
sins were the sins of his age ; he was terri-
bly punished tor them. Solomon was not
a child of God or inspired after he sinned.
Paul's sins were those of honest bigotry;
he was a grand character, honest and manly
even in his persecution. Peter's sins were
those of cowardice and disappointment,
inasmuch as the Messiah did not act as
he expected he would. These persons re-
pented. Their sins were the sins of their
age. They were in advance of their age.
They were great characters notwithstand-
ing their sins. In the case of Joe Smith w©
have one who tells us that he examined all
religious parties. He found that all had
apostatized. None were good enough for
Joe. He was the chosen instrument of
heaven to found a purer system than the
world had ever seen. He can not be placed
on a level with Noah, Abraham, David, or
Paul and their surroundings. He came
after eighteen hundred years ot pro-
gress under the gospel of Christ. He
appeared in the purest Christian surround-
hina of this century. He was to give to the
world a religic.m that stood related to apos-
tolic Christianity as that stood related to
Judaism, " the iullness of the gospel."

His system was to be as much above
his surroundings as Christianity was to its
surroundings when it appeared. God in
selecting Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah,
John the Baptist and Paul, selected the
grandest characters in their age. He did

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

99

this in the dark surroundings of former
dispensations. Wliat would hedoiu select-
ing' a person for a mission that Smith pre-
tended was committed to him, and in
the surroundings in which Smith appeared
Smith should be as much superior to Noah,
Moses and Paul as his surroundings were
superior to tiieirs, and his mission higher
than theirs. The Book of Mormon should
be as much superior to the Bible as the New
Testament was to the Old Testament. Its
inspired author, its surouudings should be
as much superior. That is what Mormons
claim for it.

This argument of Mormonism is merely
the silly retort of the sneaking boy who
when caught in lying or theft and exposed,
hangs his head and mutters, " Well I don't
care, you're another." It is as full of infi-
delity as Ingersoll's attacks on the Bible.
Unable to lift their contemptible false pro-
phet to the skies, the level of the Sons
of God, they would, with the malice of
fiends, drag the angels of religion down
to his vile level. When we expose the
ignorance, the illiteracy, the contradictions
of their vile imposture, the Book of Mor-
mon, they assail with all the malignity of
infidelity the character of the Bible. If
their foul imposture is exposed, they strive
with the malice of Infidel hate to befoul the
Bible by loading it with the same faults.
When we expose Impostor Joe's blasphem-
ous interpolations and change of the text
of the Bible, we are treated to a malicious
re-hash of old exploded infidel attacks on
the authenticity and genuineness of the
Bible ; we have a malicious infidel attempt
to drag the Bible down so low that Impos-
tor Joe's corruptions of it will be of no
more consequence than changing one of the
thousand versions of nursery tales. We
have in Mormon writings, in the preface to
a pretended inspired translation of the Bi-
ble as malicious infidelity as can be found
in Ingersoll's writings. In the defense of
Impostor Joe and his illiterate blundering
frauds can be found as cowardly malicious
attacks on the Bible, Bible characters as
can be found in any infidel production. It
is time that the sheep's clothing was strip-
ped oflf of this imposture that claims to be
the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, but
shows its hatred of the Bible when its real
character is exposed. Judging from its
attacks on the Bible, the purity of its
text, the proofs of its origin, the
character of its prophets, and the
literary character of the Bible. Mormonism
is the vilest system of infidelity extant,
for it is the most hypocritical. Pretending
to restore the Bible in its purity, Christian-
ity in its primitive power, it bedaubs in its
slanderous assaults the Bible as a book, its
evidences, its literary character, the char-
acter of its prophets, and tries to drag them
to a level with Joe Smith and his frauds.
As the Book of Mormon is so largely sto-
len from the Bible, tne xVIormon in his infi-
del attacks destroys his own book when he
destroys the Bible. It is not enough that
the Book of Mormon be as good as the
Bible, it must be far better. The same cir-

cumstances cannot be urged in its defense
that can be urged in defense of the Bible.
But few of the writers of the Bible tell us
they were inspired, the writers and speak-
ers of the Book of Mormon are constantly
telling us that the Spirit of the Lord has
told them that it is talking through them.
There is scarcely one that does not inform
us of his inspiration. Not only so but these
inspired persons were inspired above all
writers and speakers of the Bible except the
apostles of Christ after the day of Pentecost.
The Holy Spirit was not given in the name
of Jesus and- in all his fullness until that
time, but Lehi and Nephi, the first writers
and speakers of the Book of Mormon, had the
Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus 600 years
before .Tesus came, as fully and completely
as Paul. They had revelations 600 years
before Christ that were as perfect and com-
plete as any given to the apostles, in fact
more complete. The apostles did not settle
by revelation every subject of religious
controversy of the nineteenth century as
positively and completely and dogmatically
as any controversialist could do it. The in-
spired men of tiie Book of Mormon did so
and were inspired far beyond the apostles.

But few of the Bible writers were told
to write what they wrote; nearly every
writer of the Book of Mormon writes in
obedience to a personal divine command.
But few of the writers of the Bible were
cautioned to take steps, very careful pre-
cautions to preserve what they had writ-
ten; nearly all of the writers of the Book
of Mormon were so warned and commanded.
We have no instances of men being inspired
to revise and correct the books of the Bible;
such was constantly the case with the Book
of Mormon. Not a particle of the Bible
was preserved by miracle; each and every
portion of the Book of Mormon and the
authorities on which it is based were so
preserved. Again, the Book of Mormon
stands related to the New Testament as the
New does to the Old : it contains the " full-
ness of the Gospel," or which the New Tes-
tament is but an outline. There were
churches and all the teachings of Christ
among the Nephites for hundreds of years
before Christ as perfect as ever existed
among the Israelites after he came, and of
course the revelations to such a highly
favored people must have been as much
more perfect and complete. The Israelites
in the old continent had only vague out-
lines of the gospel in their revelations. The
Nephites had the Gospel as perfect as the
Apostles had it. The Israelite prophets
had to study what their own utterances
meant. The Nephites had all the words,
acts and teachings of Christ and his Apos-
tles in the very language of Christ and his
Apostles. The Nephites enjoyed for hun-
dreds of years "the fullness of the Gospel,"
while the Israelites on the old continent
were in the darkness of its dim twilight.
The writers, speakers and actors of the
Book of Mormon ought to excel those of the
Bible as much as their condition excelled
that of the writers and speakers of the
Bible.

100

THE BRADPjN and KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S TENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: — Wheu my time was called I
had just read the statement from their own
history with regard to Mr Rigdon, and
made a few hurned comments upon the
same and passed to a review of his work as
a minister to the time when Mr. Pratt call-
ed upon him with the Book of Mormon.

Up to this time Pvigdon had been an en-
thusiastic and constant laborer in the "Re-
form Movement," as it was then called, as
is fully setout in the history of the Disci-
ples themselves, and his time so occupied
in his ministerial labors that it was not pos-
sible for him to have left his work and du-
ties to visit Smith who at this time lived,
by the nearest way of travel, 250 miles dis-
tant in the uncultivated interior of the State
of New York, and when there wore no
pleasant and easy lines of travel as now.
The Disciple, (Campbellite) history sets
forth, that Rigdon was their standing min-
ister for the year 1825, at Bain bridge, Ohio,
for the year 1826 at Mentor and Bainbndge.
for the year 1827 at Mantua; for the year
1828, at Mentor, and this year is the time
when lie met Alexander Campbell at War-
ren, Ohio, at their assembly, where the fa-
mous passage at arms took place between
Campbell and Rigdon ot which so much has?
been said. The next year, 1829, Rigdon con-
tinued the work in Mentor, and at Euclid,
and founded the church in Ferry, Ohio,
Aug. 7th. The next year. 1830, he'continu-
ed as their minister, (and the ablest i)f them
all.) at Mentor, E.:clid, Kirtland. and oc-
casionally at Hiram, Mantua, Perry, and
Paiisville, and using the wordi? ot their
own history, which shows a disposition to
bemean him all possible, because hf mady
up his mind the Discipiess did noi have the
truth, he is shown to be the leadei oi them.
It says

Sidney Rigdon was an orator of no inconsiderable
ability In person, he was mil medium height, rotund
inform, oi (•oiimenance,!while.^peaking, open ami win-
ning, with a little east of melancholy His action was
graceful, his langiiajie copiou,>, fluent in utterance,
■with articnlatiiin clear and musical. '

Oh ! This is the pompous old Rigdon
thatBraden is talkino- about is it ? This is
the fellow from whose crown Bro tScott.
plucked a feather, and pulled off' of Ahas-
ueras' horse. Here Riirdou is trace<l by
their own history till October, 1830, where
he is found as a li\'e worker for the "Relorm
Movement," as they called it, when three
of our ministers open up meetings in the
district of Rigdon's charge and for the first
time he meets the expounders of the gospel
cf Christ in its fullness, and also has an op-
poriunity of reading that same gospel as
contained in the liook of Mormon.

What does he do? Like my friend Mr.
Brnden here, he makes opposition with all
his great eloquence and powei s, contesting
the 'New religion," as they called it, at ev-

ery step, till every argument was taken
from him, when from the h(,nesty of his
heartand desire for truth rather than error,
he accepted the faith, was publicly with his
wife, then and there baptised, preferring to
endure the reproaches of Christ for a season
by accepting the full and complete gospel,
rather than to reject and retain his popular-
ity in tlie world. Was he the "ignoramus,"
my audience, Braden has made him out
to be? Many of you knew him! After this he
ceases preaching and goes to work, nnd in a
few mouths he goes to New York .State and
for the first time in his life sees and makes
the acquaintance of Joseph Smith. In this
connection I introduce the affidavit of Mrs.
Katherine Salisbury :

STATE OF ILLIVOia.)
Kendall Couniy J "•
I, Katherine Salisbury being duly sworn, depose and
say that 1 am a resident ol the State ol Illinois, and
have been fn forty years last pail ; that I will be 68
years ot iiue July '28th, ISSI.

That, I am a daughter of Joseph Smith,
Sen , and a sister to Joseph Smith, Jr., the
translator of the Book ol Mormon. That
at the time the said book was published, I
wa;* seventeen years of age; that at the
time of the publication of said book my
brother, Joseph Smith, Jr.. lived in the
family of my father, in tho town of Man-
chester, Ontario County, New York, and
that he had all of his life to this time made
his home m itn the family.

That at the time, and for years prior
thereto, 1 lived in and was a member of
such family, and personally knowing to
the things transacted in said family, and
those who visited at my father's house, and
the frienda of the family, and the friends
and acquaintances of my brother Joseph
Smith, Ji , wtio visited at or came to my
father's house.

That prior fo the latter part of tbo year
A. D. 1830, there was no person who visited
witn, or was an acquaintance of, or called
upon the said family or any member there-
of to my knowledge, by the name of Sid-
ney Rigdon ; nor wa'S such person known
to tlie family, or any member thereof, to my
knowledge, until the last part of the year
A. D. 1830, or the first part of the year 1831,
and some tim« after the organization of the
Churcb of Jesus Christ by Joseph Smith,
Jr., and several months after the publica-
tion of the Book of Mormon.

That I remember the time when Sidney
Rigdon came to my father's place, and that
it was after the removal of my father from
Waterloo, N. Y., to Kirtland, Ohio. That
this was in the year 1831, and some months
after the publication of the Book of Mormon,
and fully one year after the Church was or-
ganized, as before stated herein.

That 1 make this statement not on account
of fear, favor or hope of reward of any kind,
but simply that the truth may be known

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

101

with reference to said matter, and that the
foregoing statements made by me are true,
as I verily believe.

Katherine Salisbury.

Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my
presence, by the said Catherine Salisbury,
this 15th day of April, A. D, 1881.

J. H. Jenks, Notary Public."

P. P. Pratt, in the city of New York, at
the time this Spaulding story first came
out, gives his testimony and knowledge of
the matter for publication in a letter to the
Neiv Era, N. Y. He says :

"I myself had the happiness to present
it" (the Book of Mormon), to him" (Rig-
don), in person." "He was much surprised,
and it was with much persuasion and ar-
o;ument that he was prevailed upon to read
it, and after he had read it, he had a great
struggle of mind before he fully believed
and embraced it."

The idea has been thrown out to the world
that Sidney Rigdon drank right into the
faith of the Saints, without an effort to
disprove it. This is far from the truth, as
the witnesses upon both sides testify.
There is absolutely no contradiction of this
by any reliable testimony upon either side.
Does not this evidence then completely
break every link in the cunning device
gotten up and peddled out as the "Spauld-
ingroaiance?"

1. The only -witnesses well enough con-
versant with the manuscript to testify show
it was entirely different from and not suffi-
cient by hundreds of pages to make the
Book of Mormon.

2. It was not in Pittsburg when Rigdon
was there, and Rigdon never got or saw
it.

3. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon never
met until near two years after the book was
in press and a year after publication.

4. The persons who had the manuscript
in their possession and claimed that their
affidavits were true, were the very ones who
destroyed the manuscript lest it destroy
their affidavits.

5. In tlie very places where they say
Spanlding's manuscript was best known is
where the Saints gathered many converts
and were the most successful in disproving
these stories.

But he says, "what about the evidence of
John Spaulding, where he arose after the
reading of the book in the meeting and de-
nounced it." This is what I say about it.
It bears the stamp of falsehood upon its
face and in this : — It was the statement in
a meeting held by a Mormon woman preach-
er, who read the book, they say. The
church in the first place never had a woman
preacher. I deny that there ever was such
a preacher. Yet this is the basis for the
story that they arose and denounced it.
See Smucker page 43, History of the Mor-
mons.

2. John Spaulding, nor no other Spauld-
ing, ever arose in any meeting of the Saints
and madeany such aclaim. It would never
have been done without the Minister re-
porting it to the society and none was ever

so made. John Spaulding never placed
himself where he could be cross-examined
on this matter, and none of their other pre-
tended witnesses, not one. But Mr. Braden
has already taken a course in which he
abandons his claim of Rigdon 's connection
at Pittsburg, and wants to .show that Snath
stole the manuscript and went to Ohio, and
roped Rigdon in. Smith he savs, worked
for Sabine in 1823 or 1824, and this is when
the second revelation came out. He had
access to the Spaulding story. Ah ! but he
is caught here again. Mrs. Spaulding and
her daughter were at Sabine's till 1820,
when Mis. Spaulding got married to David-
son.

Then they leave and order their trunk
sent to Jerome Clark, New York, for safe
keeping, from which place she afterwards
got it and the contents were all right soshe
says, including the manuscript.

What is the insinuation here — that Smith
either stole the manuscript and copied it
himself, or else during the time he was
working for Sabine he went to Ohio
and gave it to Rigdon. But Smith was no
scribe so that would not do and there was
no chance for him to get to Ohio, if he
worked for Sabine. Why ! a man who can
believe such a yar i as that, it seems to me,
ought to believe most anything. Gulliver's
travels, Robinson Crusoe and all. They
have not the first fact to base the story
upon. Smith did not work for Sabine as
they claim in 1823 or 1824. He was then a
boy in Wayne county, New York, at least
50 miles from where Sabine lived. Then,
canvass for a moment the weight there is in
the claim that the Histories, Encyclopedias,
Theological Dictionaries, etc., state it was
the Spaulding Romance.

This is hke his testimony on the Polygamy
question over at \Vilber. Most all of these
works give both sides of the question — set
out Smith's claim, and then set out his
enemies' claim. Now if the fact that one
being in these works makes it true, it will
equally follow with the other. None of
them claim that there are sufficient facts to
sustain the Spaulding romance as to justify
them in refusing a word from the friends
of the Book of Mormon. If these works
have found facts to settle it for the side of
the romance, what is the use of our debat-
ing? Why not send this audience a book
that will settle the question and let them
read for themselves! Don't forget also,
that in the most of those same works there
is such a prejudiced account as to many of
the different religious bodies, that very few
of the denominations are satisfied that they
have justice done them, the Disciples with
the others.

I will now call your attention to some
proofs with regard to this matter of what
Smith did, how these stories were started
about him and Rigdon, etc. Also to some
things that have been referred to by my
opponent. Taking up the testimonv of Mr.
Saunders first. I read you a published
interview of March 5th, 1881, Saints' Herald,
page 165, as follows :

102

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Entering upon conversation with refer-
ence to our business, Mr. Saunders at once
said : " Well you have come to a poor place
to find out anything. I don't know any-
thing against these men myself," (LaI-
dently judging that we wanted to get
something against them only).

Q. Were you acquainted with them Mr.
Saunders?

A. Yes sir ; I knew all of the Smith family
well; there were six boys; Alvin, Hyrum,
Joseph, Harrison, William and Carlos, and
there were two girls ; the old man was a
cooper ; they have all worked for me many
a day ; they were very good people ; Young
Joe, (as we called him then), has worked
for me, and he was a good worker : they all
were. I did not consider them good mana-
gers about business, but they were poor
people ; the old man had a large family.

Q. In what respect did they differ from
other people if at all ?

A. I never noticed that they were difTer-
ent from other neighbors; they were the
best family in the neighborhood' in case of
sickness ; one was at my house nearly all
the time when my father died ; I always
thought them honest ; they were owing me
some money when they left here; that is
the old man and Hyrum did, and Martin
Harris. One of them came back in about a
year and paid me.

Q. How were they as to habits of drinking
and getting drunk ?

A. Everybody drank a little in those days
and the Smiths with the rest; they never
got drunk to my knowledge?

Q,. What kind of a man was Martin
Harris ?

A. He was an honorable man. Martin
Harris was one of the first men in the town.
Q. How well did you know young Joseph
Smith?

A. Oh! just as well as one could very
well ; he has worked for me many a time,
and been about my place a great deal. He
stopped with me many a time, when through
here, after they wen D west to Kirtland ; he
was always a gentleman when about my
place.

Q,. What did you know about his finding
that book, or the plates in the hill over
there?

A, He always claimed that he saw the
angel and received the book ; but I don't
know anything about it. Have seen it, but
never read it as I know of; didn't care
anything about it.

Q. Well you seem to diflTer a little from
a good many of the stories told about these
people.

A. I have told you just what I know
about them, and you will have to go some-
where else for a different story."

I claim your attention next while I read
the statements of J. H. Gilbert taken down
as he made them and afterwards published
and furnished him. He is asked first the
question: "What did you know about the
Smiths, Mr. Gilbert?" and answers :

I knew nothing myself ; have seen Joseph
Smith a few times, but not acquainted with

him. Saw Hyrum quite often. I am the
party that set the type from the original
maiiLisi^-ript of the Book of Mormon.

Q. Did you change any part of it when
you were setting the type?
A. No, sir ; we never changed it at all.
Q,. Why did you not change it and cor-
rect it?

A. Because they would not allow us to;
they were very particular about that. We
never changed it in the least. Oh well,
there might have been one or two words
that I changed the spelling of; I believe I
did change the sjielling of one, and perhaps
two; but no more.

Q. Did you set all the type, or did some
one help you?

A. r did the whole of it myself, and helped
to read the proof, too ; there was no one who
worked at that but myself. . id yo« ever
see one of the first copies ? I have one here
that was never bound. Mr. Grandin the
printer gave it to me. If you ever saw a
Book of Mormon j^ou will see that they
changed it afterwards.

Q. They did ! well let us see your copy;
that is a good point. How is it changed
now?

A. I vi 1 show you (bringing out his
copy). Here on the first page it says (read-
ing) "Joseph Smith, Jr., author and pro-
prietor." Afterwards they left that out,
and only claimed that Joseph Smith trans-
lated it.

Q. Well, did they claim anything else
than that he was the translator when they
brought the manuscript to you?

A. Oh, no; they claimed that he was
translating it by means of some instruments
that he got at the same time that he did the
plates, and that the Lord helped him.
Q. Was he educated, do .you know ?
A. Oh, not at all then ; but I understand
that afterwards he made great advance-
ment, and was quite a scholar and orator.

Q,. How do you account for the production
of the Book of Moruun, Mr. Gilbert, then,
if Joseph Smith was so illiterate?

A. Well, that is the difficult question. It
must have been from the Spaulding ro-
mance— you have heard of it, I suppose.
The parties here, then, never could have
been the authors of it, certainly. I have
been for the last forty-five or fifty years try-
ing to get the key to that thing; but we
have never been able to make the connection
yet. For some years past I have been cor-
responding with a person in Salt Lake by
the name of Cobb, who is getting out a work
against the Mormons; but we have never
been able to find what we wanted.

Q,. If you could connect Sidney Rigdon
with Smith some way you could get up a
theory?

A. Yes; that is just where the trouble
lies ; the manuscript was put into our hands
in August, 1829, and all printed by March,
1830, and we cannot find that Rigdon was
ever about here or in this State until some
time in the fall of 1830. But I think I l.a^•e
got a way out of the difficulty now. A fel-
low that used to be here by the name of

THE BKADJi:N AN1> KELLEY DEBATE.

ioa

Saunders, Lorenzo Saunders, was back here
some time ago, and I was askinof him about
it. At first he said he did not remember of
eeeing Rigdon until after 1830 sometime;
but after studying it over a'while he said it
seemed to him that one time he was over
to Smith's and that there was a stranger
there he never saw before, and that they
said it was Rigdou. I told him about Cobb,
of Utah, and asked him if he would send
Cobb Ills affidavit that he saw Rigdon be-
fore the book was published, if ne (Cobb)
would write to him ; he finally said he
would, and I wrote to Cobb about it, and
gave Saunders' address, and after a long
time I got a letter from him saj-ing he had
written three letters to Saunders and could
get no answer. I then sat down and wrote
Saunders a letter myself remindi'ng him of
his promise; and wrote to Cobb also about
it ; and after a long time Cobb wrote me
again, that Saunders had written to him ,
but I have never learned how satisfactt.ry
it was, or whether he made the affidavit or
not.

Q. Is that Saunders a brother of thd
Saunders living down here, Orlando Saun-
ders?

A. Yes, sir ; they are brothers.

Q. Is he older or younger?

A. Younger; about fifteen yearsyounger.

Q. Then he must have been quit*' young
before the Book of Mormon was publisned?

A, Yes, he was young.

Q. This Saunders down here don't talk
like a great many people ; he seems to think
the Smiths were very good people : we have
been there to-day.

A. Oh I don't'think the Smiths were as
bad as people let on tor. Now Tuik^i in
his work told too many big things : nctudy
could believe his stories

Q. What kind of a man was Martin Har
ris?

A. He was a very honest farmer but very
superstitious.

Q. What was he before his name was con •
nected with the Book of Mormon?

A. Not anything I believe. He was a
kind of skeptic.

Q. What do you mean by his being super-
stitious? Was he religious?

A. Well, I don't know about that • but he
pretended to see things.

Q,. What do you think of tht> Book of
Mormon as a book ; you are well posted in it?

A. Oh, there is nothing taugbi in the
book but what is good ; there is oc dtnying
that ; it is the claim o/ being fior** Ood that
I strike at.

Q. Well, is it any more wonderful than
thai God gave the Bible?

A. >.o, not a bit, and there is a good deal
more evidence to show that that is divine
than there is for some of the books in the
Bible. Why, it is all nonsense to think that
Mo-es wrote some of the books attributed
to him in the Bible.

Q,. Then you don't believe the fish story,
either, Mr." Gilbert?

A. No, nor that Jonah swallowed the
whale.

Q. How about Sameon catching the
three hundred foxes and the firebrands?

A. Yes; that is a good one; you fellows
will do.

Q. Much obliged, Mr. Gilbert,

A. You are quite welcome ; I wish I could
give you more than I have."

Next I refer you to the statements made
b3'^ three of the Jackaways at Palmyra, es-
pecially to show you about the stories of
money digging, how they started, &c.*, and
that they had no foundation in fact. The
following among other questions were asked
these parties :

Q. "Where was Joe when he was translat-
ing his book?

A. At home; it was translated in the
farm house.

Q. Mr. Gilbert across here, said it was
done in a cave ; now j'^ou don't agree. What
does Tucker say? (reading Tucker.)

A They all diflVr. Now Tucker ha«» a
statement from Willard Chase in his book,
and Chase said Tucker never called on nim
at all to find out what he knev/.

Lady.— Yes ; ( have heard Willard Chase
say Tucker never even asked him for what
he knew and Chase lived next door to him,
too. Chase !.■; now dead,

Q. Well, did you ever see HuJburt or
Howe, who pubhshed a work against the
Mormons?

A. Yes ; Hulburt came around first. 1 be-
lieve, soon after the tning started, ana they
had gone to Kin land. Ohio, trying to find
things against them, and there have been
a good many around trying to connect Sid-
ney Riiidon with them."

Q "How tar aid you live from town when
the Smiths were in this country?

A One-half mile south of Palmyra.

Q, Were you acquainted with Joseph
Smitn and his early folJcwers ?

A. Yes, I knew them; seen them a maoy
a time — old Joe and young Joe.

Q. How far did you livt frcor. them'/

A It wa.« about a mile.

Q. You knew about their digging for
money, so Mi . Gilbert said ; he sent us to
you .

A Oti yes; i can show you the places
now there are three places over there
where tiiey dug.

Q Well, we want to see them. Did you
help them dig?

A. No. 1 never helped them.

Q. Well, you saw them digging?

A. No; I never saw them digging.

Q. How do you know they dug the holes
you refer to ?

A. 1 don't know they dug them, but the
holes are there.

Q. Did anybody else dig for money at
that time there?

A. t believe there were some others that
dug, but I did not see them.

Q. Do you know any of them ?

A I oiily know one now ; he lives up at
Canandaigua."

I next introduce the evidence of Dr. John
StaflTord, of Rochester, N. Y.. son of Wil-
liam Staftbrd, made so conspicuous by

J04

TKK BRADETJ AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Tuekei In his work against the Mormons.
In answer to a question as to the character
of Joseph Smith, Dr. Stafford said :

" He "was a real clever boy. What Tucker
gaid about them was false, absolutely.

Q. Wliat about that black sheep your
father let them have'?

A. J have heard that story, but don't
think my father was tnere at the time they
say Smith got the sheep. I don't know
anything about it.

Q,. You were living at home at the time,
and it seems you ought to know if they got
a slieep, or stole one from your father?

A. They never stole one, I am sure ; they
mav have got one some time.

Q. Well, doctor, you know pretty well
whe'vher that story is true or not that Tucker
tells. V>'^hat do v'ou think of it?

A. T don't think it is true. I would have
heard more about it if it had been true, I
lived a mile from Smith's. lam 76 years
old. Thev were peaceable among them-
selves. The old woman had a great deal of
faith that their children were going to do
something great. Joe was illiterate. After
they began to have school at their house
he improved greatly.

Q. Did they have a school at their
house ?

A. Yes, sir ; they had school in their house
and studied the Bibie.

Q. Who was their teacher?
A. They did not hrtve any teacher ; they
taught themselves.
Q. Did you knuw Oliver Cowdery?
A. Yes'; he taught school on the Canan-
daigua Road, where thr* stone school house
now stands, just three and a half miles
from Palmyra. Cowdery was a man of
good character."

Thomas Taylor at Manchester said Avhen
interrogated about Mr, Smith and family
as follows :

"Yes; I knew them very well; they
were nice men, too; the only trouble was
they were ahead of the people, and the peo-
pleas in every such case, turned out to
abuse them because they had the manhood
to stand for their own convictions,

Q,. Wiiat did the Smith's do that the
people abused them so?

A, They did not do anything Why!
these rascals at one time took Joseph Smith
and ducked him in the pond that you see
over there, just because he preached what
he believed and for nothing else. And if
Jesus Christ had been there they would
have done the same to bim. Is'ow I don't
believe like he did ; but every man has a
right to his religious oninions. and to advo-
cate his views too; if people don't like it,
let them come out and meet him on the
stand and show his error. Smith was
always ready to exchange views with the
best men they had.
Q,. Why didn't they like Smith?
A. To tell the truth, there was something
about him they could not understand ; some
how he knew' more than thej' did, and it
made them mad.

Q,. But a good many tell terrible stories

about them being low people, rogues and
liars, and such th\ngs. How is that?

A. Oh ! thev are a set of liars. I have had
a home here'i and been here, except when
on ousiness, all my life— ever since I
came to this country, and I know these fel-
lows ■ and the.y make these lies on Smith
becau^-e tliey love a lie better than the truth.
[ can take ton to a great many old settlers
who vvili substantiate what I say, and if
you want to go, come to my place across
the way, and I'll go with you,

Q. That is very kind Mr. Taylor ; but we
are first going to see these fellows, who, so
rumor says, know so much aaainst him?

A, All right ; but you will find they don't
know anyt^riiiig against those men when
you put them down to it ; they could never
sustain anytliing against Smith."

1 have read you the foregoing interviews
for the reason that they were taken down
as they came from the lips of the parties
and may be relied upon. To my knowl-
edge there has never been a single contra-
diction of one of these statements by a
single one of the partie.s whose testimony I
have just read except Gilbert's, and at the
proper time if the question is raised I will
examine his.

This thing which they got up about the
Saints is an entire frau'd, and T will prove
it by comparing the work, that from which
my oppoiit-nt draws his testimony, this
Howe and Hulburt history, with our works,
and show you that they nave deliberately
garb/fid and fcdsijied, and most mischiev-
ously perverted our works.

Where our works are plain and distinct,
they have, in order to make them ridicu-
lous, taken out words and clauses, taken
out entire sentences, to present the teach-
ing as bad. Yet, this is the book that h©
has commended to you and been reading
his statements and affidavits from. I will
show you further in the discussion that
what are called affidavits or statements of
John Spaulding and Martha Spaulding
were never made by them, and that in fact
he has no such : and if I don't prove all of
this, then I want you to denounce me be-
fore thia audience.

Mr. Braden ; AVhy, you are getting ex-
cited, my friend,

Mr, Kelley: Not at all, not at all, Bro.
Braden, 1 am emphatic and positive in
my positions, and if you have any evidence,
bring it on.

Entering upon an examination of this
work of Hulburt and Howe, 1 cite you first
some of their /a/^e reprefentaf ions and sjyu-
rious quotations, contrasting what they pre-
tended to quote from our works with the
true reading.

1. Howe, page 27 says: — "He repre-
sents Nephi as making plates in the wil-
derness with no ore,"

Book of Mormon, Palmj^ra Edition, page
43, shows the plates were made after the
people arrived upon this continent, and
after they had found ore with many other
things,

2. Howe, same page, "Has a command-

THE BRADEN AND KELKEY DEBATE.

lOS

tnent from tbe Lord to make plates for the
special purpose of makintr a record of his
owu ministry and his owu people."

Book of Mormon, o^ge 17 • "I have re-
ceived a commandment from the Lord that
I should make tnese plates for the special
purpose that there snould.be an account
engraven o( the ministry of my people.''

3. Howe again ; "Our hero introduces
himself i*s a minister.''

Book of Mormon, page 17: "And now I,
^ephi, proceed to give an account upon
these plates and of my proceedings and my
reign and ministry."

4. Howe, page 32. "It brought them all
safely on the borders of the Red sea, with
the exception of Ishmael."

Book of Mormon, page 42 "And we did
sojourn for the space of many years, yea,
even eight years, in the wilderness. And
we aid come totht laud which we called
bountiful, because of its much fruit. And
we beheld the sea, whicn we called Irean-
tum, which being interpreted is many wa-
ters." Notice — There is no Red sea about
it.

5. Howe, page 35: * Whether the ship
was propelled by oars, or oy a current, or
by the wind, or by the power of the spin-
dle, we cannot inform our readers, /or it is
not slated.'^

Book of IStormon, page 48 : "And it came
to pass that after we had all gone down
into the ship duiid taken with us our provi-
sions and things which had been com-
manded us, we did put forth into the sea,
^nd were driven forth before the wind to-
wards the promised land."

6. Take another specimen of his professed
truths : Howe, page 38, states that there is
an exact copy of the 48th and 49th chapters
of Isaiah to be found in the Book of Mor-
mon; and that they are introduced with
the same words that commence the chap-
ter in the Bible, intending thereby- to show
that they were copied from the Bible after
it was divided into chapters and verses.
This is wilfully false ; for on comparison, it
is found that tiie wording of the prophesy
is different in its very introduction, and
there are numerous differences between the
two books, in words, sentences and verses.
Neither can one tell where the division for
a new chapter should be made in the read-
ing of the Book of Mormon, save by noting
the last word found in the 48th chapter of
Isaiah, until he gets to the close of the 49th
chapter, where the subject of the«o two
chapters ends, and a new subject is intro-
duced, and there the writer of the Book of
Mormon left off writing. The claim is false,
and made obviously to deceive. They are
not alike, as claimed by Howe. Book of
Mormon, page .52 to 56.

7. Again Howe says, page 42 : "The
Nephites warred with each other until they
exterminated the whole race except three,
who were immortalized."

Book of Mormon, pp. 493 to 496 : "Yea,
even all my people, save it were those txoeniy
and four who were with me, and also a few
who had escaped into the south countries,

and a few who had dissented over unto the
Lamanites, had fallen and their flesh and
bones and blood lay upon the face of the
earth "

8. By way of an argument it is again stated:
Howe, page 44. ''The Book of Mormon is
hara to understand."

"AVould it not be reasonable to conclude
that any book: whose author was the Holy
Ghost, would be clear and perfect in all its
parts — so plain that the wayfaring man
need noterr."

I suggest that Mr. Braden try John's
Revelation by this rule, and see how long
ne can endorse his backer Howe. But I
proceed with the contrast.

9 Howe, page 52; "We are likewise told
in the same discourse that the plates or
book would be sealed up, and should finally
be found by an unlearned man, who should
see then, and show them to three others."

Here is found the great bugbear, sought
to bt kept before the people to deceive.
How different, however, it is from the true
reading.

Book of Mormon J page 110:

"Wherefore, at that dfly when the book shall be d«-
livered unto the vian of whom I have spoken, the book
shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that tli yes
of none shall behold it, save it be that three wi ne'sses
shall behold it. by the power of Qod, besides him to whom
tlie book shall be delivered, and they shall testify to
the trtith of the book and the things therein. And
there is none others which shall view it, save it be a
/ew according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his
word nnto tlie children of men."

10. Another illustration, Howe, p. 65:

"And if Christ had not risen from the dead or have
broken the bonds of death, that the ^rave should have
no victory, and that death should have no sting, there
could have been no resurrection."

He endeavors to prove by the tense of the
verb here, that it was written after the cru-
cifixion of Christ, and to deceive quotes
only a part of the text.

Book of Mormon, page 169: "And now if
Christ had not come into the world, speak-
ing of things to come as though they had
already come,"&c. Tliis he deftly leaves
out. But again,

11. Howe, pp. 68, 69: Mosiah causes all
records to be revised, and "transcribes" the
plates of brass brought out from Jerusalem."

Book of Mormon, page 216:

"Now Kins Mosiah had no one to confer the king-
dom npon, for there was not any of his sons which
would accepi the king<lom; therefore he took the rec-
ords which were engraven upon the plate* of brass,
and also tlie plates of Nephi, and all the things which
he Rad kepi and preserved according to the command-
ments of God, and after having translnted and caused
to be written the records which were oi* t: e plates a/
gold, which had been found by the people of Limhi
which was delivered to him by the hand of Limhi,
and this he did because of the great anxiety of his
people, for they were desirmis beyond measure, to
know concerning those people which had been de-
stroyed. And now he translated them by means of
those two stones which were fastened into the two rims
of a bow."

12. Howe, page 77 :

" 8mith used a stone in a hat for the purpose of
translating the pl.ites. The spectacles lUrim and
Thummim) and pistes were found together, but were
taken from him and hid up again before he had trans-
lated one word, and he has never seen them siuce.'
"This is Smith's own story."

The following is the account by Mr. Smith
himself:

106

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

"I copied a con«i(1erable number of them, and by
means of the Urim and Thummim 1 translated some of
them which I did between the time I arrived at the
house of my wife's father in the month of December,
1827. and the F< bruary following."

Again, see his own history by himself:

"Bv the wisdom of God they (the plates Urim and
Thnmmim and breast-plate,) remained safe in my
hHtid.s until I had aecompli.^^hed by them what was re-
quired at niv iiaiid. when according to arrangements
the messenger called for them; I delivered them up to
him and he has them in his char-e until this day,
being the second day of May, 1S3S."— Pearl of Great
Price, page 44.

See also Cowdery's statement:

" Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write
from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim aiid
Tkummim.oT. as the Nephites would have said. Inter-
preters, the history or record called the Book of Mor-
mon." Ibid, page 46.

13. Here is still another glaring perver-
sion and misrepresentation. Howe, page
B9 : " The whole record being handed down
and altered according to our manner of
speech."

Book of Mormon, page 538: " And now
we have written this record according to
our knowledge in the characters, which are
called among us reformed Egyptian, being
handed down and altered by us according
to our manner of speech."

The writer says the characters which they
used in writing had been changed ; Howe
says, the record was changed.

14. Again, Howe, page 90: '^ God marched
bef»>re them in a cloud."

Book of Mormon, pp. 541, 542, and 48 :
"The Lord did go before them, and talked
to them while he stood in a cloud, and gave
directions whither they should travel."

15. Howe, page 90: "They make a hole in
the top to admit air and one in the bottom
to admit water ; in each hole was put a
molten stone, which when touched by the
finger of Jesus became as transparent as
any glass and gave them light under the
mountain waves. Two of these stones were
sealed up with the plates according to a
prediction before Abraham was born.

"Thou shalt make a hole in the top there-

of and in the bottom thereof, and when
thou shalt suffer for air, thou shalt un.stop
the hole thereof and receive air. And if it
so be that water come in upon thee thou
shalt stop the hole."

" And he did put forth the stones into the
vessels which are prepared, one in each end
thereof.^'

Howe, page 90: "The Lord commanded
him that he should seal up the two stones
which he had received and show them not."
Not a word about Abraham.

16. Howe, page 124: "Even their wine
they used for communion they were ordered
to make from cider and other materials."

Book of Covenants, page 102 : " You shall
not purchase wine, neither strong drink
from your enemies, wherefore you shall
partake ol none save it is made new among
you."

Nothing about cider and other materials
as said by Howe.

17. Aaain, Howe, page 129: "If thou
lovest me, thou shalt serve me and keep my
commandments ; and behold thou shalt con-
secrate all thy properties, that which thou
hast, unto me, with a covenant and a deed
which cannot be broken."

The true reading of the Book of Cove-
nants, page 143 : " If thou lovest me, thou
shalt serve me and keep all my command-
ments. And behold, thou wilt remember
the poor, and consecrate of thy 2^ropertie8
for their support, that which thou hast to
impart unto them, with a covenant and a
deed which cannot be broken ; and inas-
much as you impart of your substance unto
the poor, ye will do it unto me."

Howe says, "Thou shalt consecrate all
thy properties, that ivhich thou hast, unto
me." Tne truth is they were required to
cdnsecrate of their properties that which
they were able to donate for that purpose ;
and the promise was, " inasmuch as ye im-
part of your substance unto the poor, ye will
do it unto me."

(Time expired.)

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

107

MR. BRADEN'S TENTH SPEECH.

GentTjF.men Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: — Tlie Books of the liible were
written on papyrus, parchment, perishable
material ; and they had to be copied and re-
vised to preserve them ; and this was done
by uninspired men liable to err. The Jiook
of Mormon was engraved by inspired men,
on plates, imperishable material, and needed
no copying. If the Bible was revised or
arranged, it was done by uninspired men.
The Book of JNIormon was revised, abridged,
by inspired men. The manuscripts of the
Bible were written, preserved, and handled
by uninspired men. The plates of the Book
of Mormon were engraved, preserved and
handled by inspired men. The Bible has
come down to us without any miracle in its
production, except in the inspiration of its
inspired men. The Book of Mormon was
written by miracle, preserved by miyacle,
its existence revealed to Smitii by mir-
acle.

Our translation as made by uninspired
men. They had to determine which of the
various readings is the true one, which of
the various meanings of Greek and Hebrew
words is the right one in each passage, then
the meaning of the passage, from the mean-
ing and use of its words, its context, its
grammatical structure, and this was the
work of uninspired learning. But Smith had
to compare no various readings. He had the
exact words, that the inspired Mormon en-
graved. He did not have to search lexicons,
and grammars for meanings and uses of
words. He looked into his interpreter and
God himself by miracle caused the word to
appear before Smith's vision. If there is any
mistake God made it — not Smith. The only
chance for error was that Smith could not
read the word correctly, or that his scribe
did not understand the word as Smith gave
it to him ; but as Smith was inspired he
could make no mistakes and as Cowdrey
was directly called and qualified, according
to the revelation in the Book of Doctrines
and Covenants, he could make no mistake.
We can see how mental peculiarities and
lack of education could affect the writers of
the Bible, and understand that they should
appear in the books of the Bible ; but Smith's
illiteracy, nis mental peculiarities, and style,
ought not, could not, appear in the Book of
Mormon, for God, by miracle, placed the
word before Smith, and all Smith did was to
read it and repeat it to Cowdrey, and all Cow-
drey did was to write it. Smith and Cow-
drey had no more to do with the words,
style, truth, literary character, of the Book
of Mormon, than a speaking trumpet, or a
telephone, or phonograph have with what a
man utters through them.

The angel Moroni declares in the inspir-
ed preface, which is a direct revelation
from the angel God authorized to give this
revelation to the world, that it is "written by

"way of commandment and by the spirit of
"prophecy and revelation, written and seal-
"ed, and hid up by tlie command and inspir-
"ation of God ; to come forth by the inspira-
"tiou and power of God; and tlie interpreta-
"tion (by Smith) was by thegKt of God." It
was all done by inspiration, by (iod him-
self. Not only so, but the three witnesses'
testify "We know that the records havt
"been translated by the gift and power of
"God for his voice declared it unto us,
"wherefore wf5 know of a certainty that the
"word, the Book of Mormon 'is tree."
Why? Because God's voice declared that it
was true.

The only opportunity there is for human
error in the Book of Mormon, is in typo-
graphical errors, and there can be none of
these, for it was proof read by inspired men;
and the caveat that it is pretended "Moroni
issued in the preface "If there be fault it be
themistakeofmen," is a deliberate lie, since
God inspired the speakers, actors, and wri-
ters, as fully as he did the apostles, since
he inspired and superintended all copying,
since he gave every word hiinself, by direct
miracle in the translation, as Moroni himself
tells us in the same preface, since he said,
with his own voice, to the three witnesses
that the translation was his own work; and
that the Book is true. There can be no mis-
take of man, for man had no more to do with
it than a telephone has with what it utters.
The statement of Moroni is as remarkable
for its morality as for its grammar "If there
be fault it be the mistake of men." The
Almighty, in his lastand most perfect reve-
lation, sends out faults, a bundle of false-
hoods with the truth that he gave to the
world word by word by Joe ; and which he
commanded the three witnesses, with his
own voice, to declare all nations and tongues
to be true.

We are now ready to examine this revela-
tion we affirm :

1. That God would not give, in so wonder-
ful and entirely miraculous a Planner, a book
that did not commend itself to the common
sense and reason of men, as worthy' of him,
and divine.

2. He would give it in a manner worthy
of himself and such a miraculously given
book.

3. The person through whom it was given
would be worthy of such a wonderful
mission.

4. The surroundings should be worthy of
such a work.

5. Its utterances should agree with all
established truths.

6. They should agree with other revela-
tions in the Bible.

7. They should agree with other revela-
tions in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants
and all other revelations of Joseph Smith,
or any other inspired men.

108

THE BRADEN AND ItELLEY DEBATE,

8. They should agree with the inspired
trnnslation of Joseph Smith.

!). They should agree with themselves.

10. They should be as much superior to
the Bible, as their origin was superior to the
ori<>in of the Bible.

The first edition of the Book of Mormon
had on the title page written by inspira-
tion, "Joseph Smith jr., Author and Propri-
etor." Joe's egotism led him to tell the
truth, a part of the truth, for he did not
give credit to Spaulding and Rigdon, but
he fearfully contradicted the declaration of
inspiration, in the Book which declares
that Mormon and Moroni are the authors.
Inspired Joe noticed this contradiction and
•orrected it in all later editions. According
to this inspired title page, Jehovah gave, in
the most miraculous manner possible, a
revelation higher and better than all he had
ever given before for the salvation of the
human race and constituted ignorant, lazy,
loafing, lying, drinking, swearing, lewd,
fortune- telling, money-hunting Joe Smith
its sole proprietor and sole sharer of its
profits. He gave to Imposter Joe, under
the seal of R. R. Lansing, District Clerk of
Northern New York, the sole right to vend
this revelation tnat is the fulness of the
Gospel.

In the introduction to the first edition it
seems that the Mormon God had not found
out what Lucy Harris did with the 116
pages that she burned. The Mormon God
issues a long manifesto to guard against a
trick that no one ever dreamt of trying.
The Mormon God undertakes to circumvent
any persons trying a trick that never was
imagined, by telling Joe to publish a deli-
berate lie. He is to translate the plates of
Nephi, until he comes to the same event as
the one with which the translation from the
plates of Lehi in the stolen pages ended,
and finish with the plates of Lehi. He then
is to publish the whole as a translation of
the plates of Nephi, and tell a lie. How
did Joe know when he reached that point,
as he did not have the plates? Why could
not the Mormon God re-translate from the
plates of Lehi, as well as translate from the
plates of Nephi, since he had both? The
truth is that Lucy Harris burnt the 116
pages of Spaulding's Mormon Manuscript
No. III., and that much was gone beyond
recovery. Rigdon had to re-model a portion
of Mormon Manuscript No. IT, to take the
place of what had been burnt.

We will now begin our analysis of the
matter in the book itself. On page 1 , Nephi,
an Israelite born and reared in Jerusalem,
as his fathers before him had been for gen-
erations, tells us that he writes his record
in the language of his fathers, which con-
sists of the learning of the Jews and the
language of the Egyptians. There are fonv
ridiculous blunders in these few words.
I. The writer evidently meant to imitate
Stephen, who says "Moses was learned in
all the wisdom of the Egyptians." He
gets it the learning of the Jews, when they
were inferior to the Egyptians in learning.
He meant, perhaps, the learning of the

Egyptians. II. The term Jew is not iu tho
original of the Bible. It is an English nick-
name,just as "Yank" is a nickname for
Yankee. The term Judahite or Judean
was not national, the name of a people
till after the return from captivity. III.
The preposterous idea that an Israelite
raised in Jerusalem, where only the Hebrew
was spoken — whose fathers had lived in
Jerusalem, where only the Hebrew was
spoken — could say that the language of his
fathers was Egyptian, a language that the
Israelties abhorred, as they did everything
Egyptian. Tho superstitious reverence of
the Israelites for the Hebrew is well known ;
yet the language of Nephi, Hebrew of He-
brews, was Egyptian. IV. The idea that
Jehovah spoke to an Israelite in Egyptian,
when he never used in his revelations to
them any language but the Hebrew. It
also contains a falsehood, for Nephi's fa-
thers were not Jews, but Mannassehites ;
the learning of his fathers was not that of
the Jews.

We could drop the Book of Mormon right
here. None but an ignoramus like Rigdon,
an ignoramus in biblical literature, would
have committed four such blunders as those
we have given. No Israelite ever did. On
the succeeding pages, from 2 to 9, we are
told that Lehi was compelled by persecu-
tion to flee from Jerusalem, leaving every-
thing behind, and taking nothing but his
family, some tents and provisions. By com-
mand of the Lord Nephi is seen returning
to Jerusalem to obtain certain plates in the
possession of his kinsman Laban. Nephi
oflTers Laban his father's property for the
plates. Laban refuses, and drives Nephi
and his brothers out, taking their property;
by violence. Nephi returns, makes Labar
drunk, murders him, lies to his servants
gets the plates and returns to his father
who has a shouting time over the results o '
murder and lying. This account is full o?
absurdities and contradictions. I. It asserts
that the writing material of the Israelites
was metallic plates. They used papyrus,
tanned leather, parchment, vellum, linen
smeared with gum, tablets smeared with
wax, but never used metallic plates. We
read of metallic plates but once in the
Bible — in the Book of Job, who was not an
Israelite, and nearly 1,000 years before this
time. II. The idea that God approved of
Nephi's making Laban drunk, murdering
him, lying to his servants, and robbing him
of his property. III. On page 8 we have a
talk of a Church and Brethren 600 years be-
fore Christ. Sidney Rigdon's gross ignor-
ance is manifest in such a blunder. Let us
see what these five men carried away : (a.)
The books of Moses on metallic plates. (B.)
The records of the Jews from the begin-
ning. That is, all who spoke Hebrew were
called Jews, from the beginning. As well
say that all who spoke English were called
Yanks from the beginning. This would
take an enormous pile of plates, (c.) The
writings of all of the prophets and writers
of Israel from the beginning. All the Old
Testament written before Zedekiah. All

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

109

the books it mentions that were used in
writing: the Books of Kings and Chronicles.
All the works of the prophets mentioned
in the Book of Mormon, but not mentioned
in the Bible. Doubtless many prophetical
writings never mentioned, (d.) Genealogi-
cal tables from Joseph to I>aban. All this
voluminous literature, which would have
made a wagon-load if on parchment, was
engraved on plates and not on papyrus, the
only material then in use, and was carried
off by five men, who were dodging round
to save their lives, when it must have re-
quired a caravan of teams to have hauled
it. This rigmarole represents copies of the
Pentateuch and the Scriptures as being
common, well known, in open use with their
tables of genealogy. Not a hundred years
before they were almost unknown ; and in
the days of Zedekiah's father so little were
they known that reading a copy found by
accident revolutionized the nation. Tliis
enormous load of plates was carried by
Lehi in all his jouri'eyings. Laban's sword
was steel, when it is a notorious fact that
the Israelites knew nothing of steel for
hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as
ignorant a person as Kigdon would have
perpetrated ail these blunders? When
Lehi saw that caravan-load of plates, got-
ten by making the owner drunk, by murder,
robbery and lying, he revelates and pro-
phecies that these plates of Laban shall go
forth to all nations. As not a single plate
of Laban has ever gone forth to anybody,
the Mormon God was mistaken when he
inspired Lehi with that prophecy.

On page 14 we have a beginning of a se-
ries of violations of the most positive re-
quirements of the law of God. Manasse-
hites begin offering sacrifices in flagrant
violation of the law of God. On page 16
the Mormon God commands Nephi to make
plates to receive the record of the ministry
of his people. Although Lehi had brought
with them only tents and provisions, Nephi
digs ore, smelts it, casts plates, makes tools
to do all this, and engraves on them in a
wilderness where a dozen persons are alone
with only tents and provisions. From page
17 to page 32 Rigdon makes >.ephi and Lehi
talk like preachers of the nineteen century.
They foretell the history of John the Bap-
tist, Mary the mother of Jesus, and the
ministry of Jesus, giving the names of per-
sons and places with great minuteness;
also what they should do and 8aJ^ The
prophets of Israel never did any such proph-
ecying. They rarely give names of persons
or places, and never foretell the exact lan-
guage persons will use. Rigdon makes
Nephi and Lehi discourse like Disciple
preachers. They discuss all the leading
topics of the gospel as Disciple preachers do,
and discuss many themes of modern theol-
ogy. They plagiarize Paul's parable of the
olive tiee. Lehi declares he has the Holy
Spirit in the name of Christ and through
faith in Christ SOU years before (.'.irist came.
Rigdon airs one of hs hobbies that he re-
tained from the Baptists and in which he
differed from the Disciples. John tells us

that the Holy Spirit was not given in that
way till after Jesus was glorified. Jesus
declares that the Holy Spirit would not be
given in his name till after his ascension,
but r>ehi knew better than Paul and Jesus.
Paul declares that these gospel themes were
mysteries until the apostles of Jesus re-
vealed them. Paul was mistaken, for Rig-
don tells us that Lehi and Nephi knew all
about them 600 years before I'aul lived.
Not only so, but God revealed to Lehi and
Nephi far more than he ever did to the
apostles of Jesus. He revealed to them all
about the Romish Apostacy, its errors and
crimes, the peculiar doctrine of Luther's
reformation, settles several questions of
modern theology, and always in harmony
with Rigdcm's ideas.

One of the most monstrous absurdities in
the Book of Mormon is the Liahoni. Lehi's
brass director or compass. We are told that
Lehi had given to him by miracle, direct
from the workshop of the Mormon God
doubtless — a brass ball of curious workman-
ship. The reader will admit that it was of
most curious workmanship when he hears
it described, " and it was of fine brass, and
within the ball were two spindles, and one
pointed out the way we should go in the
wilderness." How could they see the two
spindles inside of a hollow brass globe?
"One pointed the way they should go,"
Of what use was the other? It pointed the
way they should not go, I suppose. Piige
86: "Thesespindles (inside of a brass globe)
worked according to the faith of the pos-
sessor." If they worked as the possessor
wanted them to point, of what use were
they? How did they see how they pointed
if they were inside of a brass globe? By
faith and the power of God I suppose, as
Imposter .Toe saw the translation of the
Book of Mormon in the crown of his old
hat as he was peering into his stolen peep-
stone; but as the possessor kliew they
pointed the direction he wanted them to
point, it did not make any odds whether he
saw them or not. "On these spindles was
written " — on two fine spindles inside of a
brass globe where nobody could see — "a
new writing." It must have been an ex-
tensive writing that was all on two fine
spindles, "Plain to be read." Yes it must
have been very plain on two fine spindles
and inside of a brass globe where nobody
could see, " and it gave us instructions con-
cerning the ways of the Lord," all on two
fine spindles and inside of a brass globe
where nobody could see; "and it was writ-
ten and changed from time to time" — yes
all on two fine spindles or needles inside of
a brass globe where nobody could see it.
Then Sidney remarks with exceeding unc-
tion, "Thus we see that the Lord accom-
plishes great things by small means." Yea,
verily, Sidney; and when the Lord gave the
fulness of the gospel to the world through
such a lying, extravagant ignoramus as you,
in such balderdash as the above he ac-
complished the greatest work with the
smallest means ever tried.

Next^ephi is told to build a ship and

110

THE BRADEN AND KJELLEY DEBATE.

showed in a vision where to find material.
Lehi left Jerusalem with nothing but tents
and provisions, for he fled for his life and is
away in a wilderness and without tools. N -
phi alone.for the rest opposed and ridiculed
him, and there were only 15 men and wo-
men in all, digs ore, builds furnaces, forges
and machine shops, smelts ore, casts im-
plements, forges, tools, "every tree to cut
down," cuts the trees and builds the
ship "all his own self," as the boyboasted
he accomplished his task. But then Nephi
tells us that he did not construct it after
the fashion of men, but after a manner that
the Lord showed him. lam so glad tiiat
he told us that, or we might not have be-
lieved his story. I suppose the Lord's plan
or patent on ships don't require any work.
What a pity that he did not leave the plan,
by which one man can, all by his own self,
do the work of hundreds and in next to no
time. If it be said that this was done by
miracle, then what need of Nephi's doing
anyth'Mig? Why was not the ship fur-
nished ready made, like Lehi's wonderful
brass compass?

Lehi and his host set sail in this wonder-
ful ship made after the Lord's plan. Not-
withstanding this wonderful series of mir-
acles that Neplii had worked before their
eves, Nephi's brethren rebel and bind him,
and "lo and behold," to use the celestial
language of this Divine translation of Re-
formed" Egyptian, the wonderful brass
compass gets balky and refuses to work,
and the rebels know not whither to steer
the ship, "inasmuch that there arose a
great storm, yea, a great and terrible tem-
pest." A wful,'Sydiiey! perfectly awful! Now
whether the tempest so great and terrible,
was caused by the compass ceasing to work,
or by their not knowing which way to
steer, is not plain, but the language de-
clares "it was one or tother." The ship is
driven back ; now if they did not know
which way they were going how did they
know whether it was driven back, or for-
ward, or sideways. Nephi is released and
the co'n pass points — the way they should
go? No, the way Nephi wants it to point.
That compass was as valuable as the Cali-
fornia hog scales. It is said that out there
they used to lay a rail across a log, put the
hog on one end and a pile of stones on the
other, until they balanced, and then guess
at the weight ot the stones.

If it be said that .Nephi knew whntrourse
they ought to go. then of what use was the
compass to him? If the compass showed
him, how did he know when il cc^.-ta lu
Work? And how did it show him when he
made it point the way that he wanted it to
point? That compass was as serviceable to
Nephi as the man's snullers who snufled
the candle with ids fingers and put the
snuff into the snuflers. H inally they reach
thf> land of promise, and they find in the
wilderness both the "cow" and the "ox."
Now ht-re is a miracle which ends all cavil
as to the divine origin of the Book of Mor-
mon. Cow and ox cannot mean two differ-
ent species of animals, and as one is sufii-

cient to designate the genus bos,' ox means
the male upon which an operation has been
performed to change him from a bull into
an ox. Now, as man had not been in this
land, we have the blasphemous ludicrous
insinuation that the miraculous power of
the Almighty had been exerted to change
these animals from bulls into oxen to pre-
pare them for Nephi's use. Now we know
of a certainty, Sidney, that the Book of
Mormon is of Divine origin. While they
were in the wilderness before building the
ship Nephi was told to make brass plates.
One of two things is certain, either he had
to dig up copper and zinc, smelt them and
manufacture brass plates, and that with-
out tools to do it, for they had fled from
Jerusalem with nothing but tents and pro-
visions, or he wrote on nothing or made the
plates out of nothing.

Onlaruiingin America, the Mownon God
is so CHI fill about having Impostor .loe get
these plates that he orders Nephi o make
some more plates— gold, silver and copper
are mentioned, but no zinc; hut Nephi has
got used to making things out of nothing,
and it was no trick at all for him to make
copj) r without zinc, build furnaces, work
mines and make machine shops without
tools, and nothing to doit with.

On page 44 it is declared that the dark-
ness at the death of our Saviour should
cover the whole earth and last three daj's.
The Bible says it was only over the land in
which he was crucified, and was only three
hours ; but hyfalutin spread-eagle Sidney
never did things by halves ; he had it over
the whole earth and three whole days —
none of your cheap little miracles for Sid-
ney ; they might do for the Bible, but they
wont answer for miracles in the "Fulness
of the Gospel."

On page 56, Lehi, in a sermon, quotes
whole sentences of Paul's writings more
than 600 years before Paul wrote: — "By
the law no flesh is justified. He offereth
himself a sacrifice for sins which layeth
down his life according to the flesh and
taketii it up according to the spirit that he
may bring to pass the resurrection of the
dead being tlie first to rise." Which shall
we believe, that an Israelite in the wilds
of America quoted Paul's language, whole
sentences, 600 years before Paul was born,
or that the Disciple preacher Rigdon inter-
polated Paul's language into the romance
he stole from Spaulding when he was re-
modelling it to be used as a pretended new
revelation?

From pages 59 to 60 is a pretended proph-
ecy of the Patriarch Joseph concerning Im-
poster Joe. "He is a choice seer." Verily
he was ! He shall bring forth the Nephite
Word of (jod. He will be of the seed of
the Patriarch Joseph, the Son of Jacob. His
name shall be Joseph. His father's name
shall be Joseph. Now here is adilemnaa.
The Nephites vvere all exterminated ; the
only descendants of Lehi and .Joseph in
America are the Lamanites. They were
cursed with a skin of blackness and became

THE BRADEN AND KELLER DEBATE.

Ill

Indiana. Did Imposter Joe come from the
Nephites that have not existed for 1400
years, or from the Indians? Of wliat tribe
is he tlie "dig injun?" Perhaps lie is one
of the three Nephites that never died . The
Patriarch Jos*^pli prophesied of Sidney
Rigdon also. The Lord was to raise up of
the fruit of the loins of the Patriarch Jos-
eph a spokesman for that seer. Again we
are in trouble. Did Sidney Rigdon come
from the Nephites that have been extermi-
nated 1400 years, or is he "Big Injun" of
some tribe of Lamanites? Perhaps he is j
one of the Nephites that never died, and
Imposter Joe's father, who was of the seed
of Joseph, was the third. Is this prophecy
or is it a fraud of Sidney Rigdon?

Page 62 we have a long soliloquy that
Neplii engraved on the plates made up of
patches of the Psalms and Jeremiah badly
put together. Then Nephi marches off into
the wilderness with all of the company
except two sinners, Laiiian and Lemuel,
and their rebellious seed, who remain be-
hind and are cursed with a skin of blackness
and became Lamanites — Indians. Nephi
and his company, however, keep the law of
the Lord according to the statutes of Moses.
We shall see how well they do it. Now we
encounter a blunder that is sufficient to
brand the Book of Mormon as the most
blunderingly constructed fraud, the most
transparent lie ever told.

The largest estimate that we can possibly
put on this company, will not make it more
than ten married couples — all of whom, ex-
cept Lehi, are married after leaving Jeru-
salem ; yet, already they are divided into
two nations, and Nephi teaches one of these
mighty nations how to malve weapons and
defend themselves against the mighty na-
tion of Lamanites, two men, two women,
and their children born during twenty years.
This mighty nation of Nephites composed of
not more than eight adults, four men and
four women, and their children born during
twenty years, erect in the wilderness of
America a temple like unto the temple of
Solomon ; they work in iron these eight men
and women, erect furnaces, forges and
machine shops, work in copper and gold,
yes, and in brass and steel, which Mormon
inspiration tells us are native ores. The
origin of the American Didians has puzzled
all ethnologists ; but Sidney Rigdon ex-

Slanifies the whole matter. To prevent the
ephites from mixing with the wicked
Lamanites, the Lord wrought a stupendous
miracle — he cursed the Lamanites with a
skin of blackness. There now you have a
great scientific problem solved by inspira-
tion. I commend this wonderful scientific
explanation to Kelley as the crowning evi-
dence of the Divine origin of the Book of
Mormon.

After asserting that they kept the com-
mandments oi' God, according to the law of
Moses, Nephi coolly tells us that they
erected a temple in America instead of at
Jerusalem — coiisf-ciated priests (Hit of the
tribe of Manasseh instead of Levi. And
these usurper priests offered sacrifices in the

wilderness of America instead of at Jeru-
salem in a temple built in violation of God's
law. God blessed these sacrilegious viola-
tors of his law far aVjove the most favorite
obedient Israelite in Palestine, revealed to
them the Gospel, and conferred on them its
blessings as fully as on the most favored
apostles of Clirist 600 years before Christ
came. God terribly punishe<l Korah, Dath-
an and Abiram for violating his law,
though they did not violate is as flagrantly
as did these Nephites, and placed far above
all mankind these sacrilegious Nephites
who trampled nearly every precept under
foot. These Nephites preached the Gospel
of Christ as clearly as Sidney Rigdon could
preach it, and as he preached it ; and en-
joyed every blessing of the Gospel as fully
as Rigdon could, yet Nephi declares that
'• notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we
obey the law of Moses." What a falsehood,
for he tells us they violated all its great
principles and "loolv steadfastly unto Christ
until the law be fulfilled." The law was to
prepare a way for the knowledge of Christ,
and then became useless having fulfilled its
purpose. The Nephites obeyed the law for
600 years after they knew all about the
Gospel, and obeyed it when the law was
useless to them, and they could not obey it
for they were obeying tlie Gospel. This
blundering, unscriptural introduction of the
Gospel 600 years before Christ who alone
was to reveal and introduce it, is in flat
contradiction of every idea of God's word.
But Rigdon was bound to have his Nephites
far greater fellows than their brethren in
Palestine, even if he did contradict God's
word in doing it.

The Nephites who violate God's law far
excel Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel
in prophesying. They quote whole chap-
ters of the bid Testament, whole paragraphs
and sentences of the New, quoting the ex-
act language hundreds of years before the
ones who uttered it lived. "They that are
filthy are filthy still. They shall go away
into everlasting punishment. He com-
mandeth all men that they must repent.
Where there is no law there is no punish-
ment, and where there is no punishment
there is no condemnation." These are a
few of scores of instances that could be
cited. Who is such a sodden idiot as to be-
lieve that men in America jireached all the
doctrine of Christ and his apostles 600 years
before they uttered it, in the exact words in
which they uttered it, rather than that
Sidney Rigdon interpolated these quota-
tions into the manuscript he had stolen
from Spaulding when he was remodeling
it to make a " big thing of it" as a new
revelation ?

It IS perhaps necessary that we repeat
our answer to our opponent's endless tn'k
about American antiqui lies. We will con-
cede that if he can prove that Joseph Smith
gave to the world a single tact or trutli re-
garding American antiquities or arclueolovy
or the history of the aborigines of America
that was not known be! ore his day, or that
scientific research has discovered since his

112

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

day, that he was inspired and the Book of
Mormon is of Divine org^in. Our opponent
cannot ask more than that of us. Will he
meet the issue and prove that Joseph Smith
has donesc? We have proved that from
the days of Cortez and Pizarro until Solo-
mon Spaulding, scores of writers had pub-
lished every idea in regard to American
antiquities to be found in the Book of Mor-
mon—that more than a score of such publi-
cations were issued during the lifetime of
Solomon Spaulding in the United States—
that Spaulding was well versed in these
theories and an earnest advocate of them —
that where the works of his day were cor-
rect his ideas in the Book of Mormon are
correct — where they were in error his ideas
in the Book of Mormon are erroneous.

My opponent tries hard to make some-
thing out of the fact that Priest published
his works after Spaulding's death, and the
last work after the Book of Mormon was
published. Unfortunately for his effort, the
authorities that Priest quotes in both works
were published before Spaulding died and
some of them before Smith was born. I de-
fy my opponent to name a single idea in the
Book of Mormon in regard to American an-
tiquities that was not published before
Spaulding wrote his Manuscript Found and
most of them before Spaulding was born.
They had been published in the United
States and were ttie belief of most preach-
ers in New England and the Middle States
when Spaulding wrote his Manuscript
Found. Sir Walter Scott wrote his histor-
ical novels and incorporated into them cer-
tain facts of Scotch antiquities, archaeology
and Scotch history. His novels agree with
the results of scientific research into Scotch
antiquities to a vastly greater extent than
the Book of Mormon agrees with the results
of scientific research into American antiqui-
ties. Not only so but they contain innumer-
able facts of Scotch History, many accurate
pictures ot persons well known i?; Scotch
History and innumerable incidents in their

lives. The Book of Mormon does noth:r,g
of the kind: not a historic incident or
character in it can be found outsidi ot
the Book of Mormon except what it
plagiarizes from the Bible. Now to argue
as Mr. Kelley does that the Book of
Mormon is true, a veritable history, and of
Divine origin because it harmonizes with
certain ideas in regard to American an-
tiquities that had been current in the Uni-
ted States before its author was born is in-
finitely more absurd than it would be to
claim that all of Scott's historical novels
were true, veritable histories, and of Divine
origin, for they contain vastly more con-
cerning Scotch antiquities that is true than
the Book of Mormon contained conci liiig
American Antiquities; and they cont;ii' al-
most innumerable facts of Scotch history,
multitudes of real historic characters, ith
accurate descriptions of them and innumer-
able facts from their lives, while the Book
of Morm'on does not contain a single hi&tor-
ic fact or character or incident. All that
part of it is pure fabrication. Its history is
as pure fabrication as Gulliver's travels or
Baron Munchausen's Tales. The truth is
simply this that as Scott incorporated cer-
tain facts of Scotch antiquities that were
known in his day into his historic ron)ance3,
so Spaulding incorporated into his historic
romance the Manuscript Found certain
ideas in regard to American antiquities that
were current in his day. But Spaulding
was not nearly as accurate as Scott and did
not incorporate into his romance one h(Ui-
dredth part as much truth as Scott did. If
Spaulding was inspired and the Book of
Mormon stolen from him a revelation Scott
was an hundred fold more inspire^i. Until
my opponent clearly proves that there is a
single factor truth in the Book of INIormon
that was not well k •o^vn hefoie it^.j ■ 'd
his ar'lviv)logical atg ii-u^it for its ti le
origin is collof^al iu its impudence and ab-
surdity.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

113

MR. KELLEY'S ELEVENTH SPEECH,

Gtintlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: — There are but two more
eveningrs upon tbis question. [The original
agreement was for eight sessions, but after
this eveuing was extended to ten.] I am
glad again of this privilege of standing be-
fr>r« von to advocate the divine sanction
claimed for the Book of Mormon, because I
thi wv !l is (ilod's truth ; I not only think it
is true, but I am confident — I know that it
is as claimed. I do not give you my per-
sonal knowh dge, however, that you may
take it for evidence in this discussion ; but
I offer you the knowledge from God'sword,
and if that is in accordance with my posi-
tions, I wish you to take that.

This evening I shall first take up and con-
clude my review of the kind of evidence
Mr Bra»ien has oflfered you to prove his
case, and asked you to rely upon, viz:
through the book of witness, (he says law-
yer), Howe.

Don't deceive yourselves, ray friends, by
imagining that he is a lawyer. 1 have
never known a lawyer yet, who would de-
liberately publish fortruth what purported
to be extracts from the works of a body of
people in order to bemean them, and to ac-
complish this end would publish garbled,
wicked and lying statements. I have known
of many low and mean things resorted to
by priests and people in order to try to make
the Saints out monsters of crime and ini-
quity, but not many so brazen and impu-
dent as to deliberately pretend to make a
quotation from their books and then cor-
rupt it, in order to keep it from knocking in
the head their malicious scheme.

When I concluded last evening I was
contrasting Howe's spurious quotations
with the genuine, on the charge that he
was trying to make out, that th3 early au-
thorities of liie church were after the peo-
ple's property.

Howe, as I was before reading, pretends
to quote: "Thou shalt consecrate all thy
properties, that which thou hast, unto me."
Page 129.

The true reading is, and I read from the
first publication of the Rook of Covenants,
here in Kirtland, published five .years be-
fore Mr. Howe's work : " Thou shalt remem-
ber the poor and consecrate of thy proper-
ties for their support, that which thou hast
to impart unto them." Sec. l.S, par. 8.

18. Again, Howe says : " He (the bishop)
shall appoint every man a steward over his
own property."

Here Howe, to carry out the evil purpose
of misleading the reader, misquotes and
makes the bishop appoint a steward for
every man.

The record is : " Everyman shall be made
accountable unto me [Christ], a steward
over his own property."

In the record a man is made a steward

over his own by Christ, and is held respon-
sible by Christ the head of the Church, and
to no one else.

19. Again, Howe: "He that sinneth and
repenteth not shall be cast out, and shall
not receive again that which he has conse-
crated unto mo ; for it shall come to pass, I
will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles
unto my people which are of the house of
Israel."

Here he wants to prove the lying asser-
tions so often made that the Saints expected
to get other people's property. A false as-
sertion, as I have before stated.

Hear the record upon this : '• He that sin-
neth and repenteth not shall be cast out of
the church, and shall not receive ogain tliat
which he has consecrated unto tiie poor and
needy of my church, or in other words,
unto me ; for as much as ye do it unto the
least of these ye doit unto me; for Twill
consecrate of the riches of those who em-
brace my gospel among the Gentiles, unto
the poor of my people who are of the house
of Israel."

Then is there any foundation for the as-
sertion that has often been thrown to the
world by these perverters of our faith, that
we expected to consecrate of the property
of the Gentiles? It is so represented by
tiiose who have perverted the faith, and
have garbled it, in order to misrepresent us
to the world.

The rule laid down and the notice given
as to getting back donations of property
made, is pre-^isely according to the law of
the land, and differs as to other denomina-
tions in this : The Saints are plainly told
before giving they cannot expect to get
their properties back if they should at
some futue time be severed from the
church ; on the ground that it will have
likely been disposed of, for the purposes
for which it was given, to wit: the poor and
needy. Thus every man is put fully upon
his guard when the gift is sought that he
may not be deceived. Whereas, in other
churches they take the monies without
ever hinting that they can't get them back
if the donors are cast out afterwards. And
because they have not been given back
when asked afterwards, I have known, and
doubtless all of you have, a large number
of law-suits against other churches to
retjlaim such properties and donations, on
the ground of bad faith. The custom of
the Saints is fairer and less likely to deceive
than any other church with which I am
acquainted. The jjeople are fairly and fully
notified before they give to the church that
they cannot get anything back that they
give to the poor or for the good of the
church. But are you notified by anybody
else in that way? Notice is fairly given
that a man shall account unto Him (Christ)
and render in the final day of summons

114

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

as to the stewardship over his own prop-

Every man was recoofnized a steward
over his own property, to do as he pleased
with it. But Mr. Howe makes it read the
bishop appointed men stewards over the
property of others. Mr. Howe says, " that
after the bishop received the property of
the church, that it cannot be talien from
the church." The revelation says, that
while men are acting as stewards over their
own property, and shall see fit to conse-
CJ-ate "of them" unto the " poor" etc., and
the bishop shall receive" testimonies" con-
cerning the consecration of the properties
of the church, they cannot be taken from
the church. The revelation leaves every
man free to do as he pleases with his prop-
erLies; to be his own "steward," to give
to the poor as he may feel prompted ; but
when once given, it cannot be withdrawn;
while Mr. Howe teaches that the bishop
appointed mrn stewards over their own
property and that they were required to
consecrate ^^ all of their properties," etc.
I)o you discover a disposition here to be
fair, or present only facts?

20. Continuing upon page 130, Howe in
order to make his case out against the
Saints, attacks with the same wicked and
vehement spirit Jesus and the earl^' Chris-
tians. He says ; " If Smith and all his wit-
nesses were to now come forward and say
that his pretensions were a wicked decep-
tion, they (the Saints), would not believe a
word of it — because [they claim] the Spirit
•had shown that it was true." " Here," he
says, " Is the sure refuge, the fast hold of
every imposter. This something which is
the Spirit or Holy Spirit, has been the
standing, unequivocal, incontrovertible and
true witness for at least twenty-four false
Messiahs, for Mohammet who is consid-
ered the prince of imposters, and for nearly
fifty others who have come with pretended
commission from heaven."

Here is fairlj' shown the grand sequel of
Howe's bitterness against the Saints : They
claim that there is such a thing as " the
Spirit'^ or " the Holy Spirit ;'^ and whoever
in the world's history according to Howe,
'has made such a claim, was a deceiver and
an "imposter." How do you like your
witness now who attacks the Savior,
Christ, as vehemently as he does the Book
of Mormon ?

21. Again, says Howe: " His [Smith's]
predictions are always found far oft' equiv-
ocal, and ambiguous, and always relate to
some events which everyone supposes to be
quite probable." Then hegoeson to falsify
as to what some of these prophecies were
as has been proved was the manner of his
other <; bling.. But let us examine Smith's
statements and show the roguery of the
assertions :

1. Tliat his "name should be had for
good and evil among all nations, kindreds
and tongues ; or that it should be both good
and evil spoken of among allpeo])le."

Is there anything ambigious or equivocal
about that?

And again, page 105, Book of Mormon ;
"And because my words shall hiss forth,
many of the Gentiles shall say, A Bible, a
Bible, we have got a Bible and there cannot
be any more Bible." What do you see
equivocal or ambiguous about this? The
Book of Mormon was published to the
world under the title of the Book of Mor-
mon. The title of Bible is not by it, nor by
its friends, ever been claimed for it ; neither
by them the term used for the plates from
which it was translated. Yet, the predic-
tion is a literally true one ; it is far and near,
by the enemies of the Saints, called a Bible,
and perhaps there never was more than a
dozen, if even so many as two, Campbellite
preachers in the state of Ohio, who did not
thus in calling it the Mormon Bible con-
tribute to the truth of the prophecy in regard
to it, at the same time they misrepresented
the people and denounced the ,whole thing
as false. This prophecy was given or the
statement made by Joseph Smith two years
before the book was published and sent to
the public, that when the book should go
to the world the people would say. "A
Bible." What do you see equivocal or am-
biguous about this? ..._

Another one. Rook of Mormon page 496:
" And it [ the book] shall come [forth to the
world], in a day when the blood of the
Saints shall cry unto tlie Lord because of
secret combinations and the works of dark-
ness." Where is theambiguity here? How
did Mr. Smith know, or how could he fore-
see, except by the illuminating light of
heaven, that in this land with a constitu-
tional guarantee of religious freedom, his
people should be slain by wicked hands ;
that men who had warred for freedom in
the great revolution should be hewn to the
ground by religious bigots without mercy ;
that men, women and innocent children
should be butchered without mercy ; and
finally that a state should be permitted to
rob thousands of its citizens, and banish
them as exiles, to die upon other territories
through the hardships and rigors of a fear-
ful winter. Aggressors did you say? Turn
to the official address of Major-General Clark
of the forces that were sent to aid the mob
in Missouri when the Saints were defending
their liomes and their wives and children
against the efforts of the grandest set of
rascals the world ever saw, to drive them
from the state, and then say aggressors if
you dare! Says he, to as faithful and true
men and women as ever graced God's* earth,
as good and noble citizens, and as loyally
patriotic as the Republic ever produced, as
they were then deprived of the comforts of
their hearth and homes: and encamped
upon the bleak prairies of north Missouri :

"It now devolves upon you to fulfill the treaty that
you have entered into, th"e leading items of which I
now lay before you. The first of thes^e you have already
complifd with, "which is that you deliv'er up your lead-
ing men to be tried according to law. Second, that
you dt'liver up your arms— this ha- been attended to.
The third is that yfiusign over your propeitifS to defray
the expenses of this wat — this you have also done.
Another thintr yet r inains lor y<>u t» comply with —
that i~ that you "leave the State forth uith; and \vhatever
your fteliuirs concerning this affair, whatever your
innocence, it is nothing to me."

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

lis

Can you point to a grander outrage in all
the annals of the world's history tlian tliis
against a people? "Whatever your inno-
cence, it is nothing to me." You shall not
even be permitted while you are in the
midst of the mobocrats to retain tlie arms
with which you could defend yourselves
from their vengeance of death. "No, like
them of old they cry out, "Crucify him !
Crucify him! But release unto us Barrabas,"
the robber.

I cotild mention the relatives who have
been in the lialls of Congress of men who
were hewn down there, and as al)le men as
there are in America to-day, if I would
take up my time to do so. And yet, such
actions are defended here by a pious-mind-
ed, high-toned elder of the Campbellite
Church. Ladies and gentlemen, I begin
to see why it was that wl)eii they could not
cope with Mr. Smith and Bigdon over at
Hiram, in argument, they "got rid of them"
by the old way of applying the argument
of "tar and geese feathers."

But let me tell you here and now, that if
ever in my life-work I shall meet with such
a case of rapine and oppression, or unlaw-
ful vengeance against any people of any
denomination, or any party, whether Chris-
tian or infidel, I shall notfail to exert every
power within me to protest against it ; and
it is a cardinal principle of the faith of the
Saints, and ever has been, tliatthey should
be as ready to stand for and defend the
rights and privileges of others as them-
selves. I know how Col. Lovejoy and an
associate was shot down in the streets of
Alton, 111., because hedared to express his
political opinions and stand for the princi-
ple of the freedom of the press in this coun-
try ; and it was alike evil and covKirdly
creiv that has been defended in this con-
troversy by the negative, who destroyed
men and women for religious ojDinions'
sake. But to return to tlie examination
of Howe, as a witness (lawyer), and the
Bpaulding romance.

Tlie prophecies he says are so ambiguous.
Take another, same page: "It shall come
to pass in a day when there shall be heard
of fires and tempests [tempest is a violent
wind as the now familiar cyclone], and va-
pors of smoke in foreign lands [like to the
great disturbance of the earthquake last
fall, which the scientific say so filled the
atmospliere of the world that it has occa-
sioned the crimson red phenomena of the
sun's ai>pearance], and tliere sliall also be
heard of wars and rumors of wars, and
earthquakes in diverse places : yea, and
it shall come in a day when there shall be
great pollutions upon the face of the earth ;
there shall be murders and robbings and
lyings and deceivings,and whoredoms, and
all manner of abominations, when there
eball be many who will say, do this, or do
that, and it mattereth not for the Lord
will uphold such at the last day."

I could in this manner read to you the
entire hour, of the certain, unmistakable
and definite prophecies in tliis book, many
of which have already had a complete and

literal tulfillment. Why is it, then, that
this deceiving work of Mr. Howe is sent
forth to the world? No wonder he don't
want to put Mr. Howe upon the stand for
examination. I will ask him where he got
his compilation from, and if he did not
know he was misrepresenting the faith of
this people. 1 have met many men in my
time wlio could stand up and with all the
powers of dissimulation of innocence and
modesty tell to others what I believed ;
pretend to give my belief from the Bible
and other books, when there was not a
shadow of truth in what they were saying.
Turning over the book I shall pass at this
time tne terrible mess set out in the letters
of Ezra Booth, and notice the pretended
affidavits of Peter Ingersol, Wm. Stafford,
Barton Stafford, purporting to be signed
before a judge of the Court of Wayne
county N. Y., Thomas P. Baldwin, which
upon the face is shown to be a huml!)ug, foi
there is not one in due form of law had the
©fficer prop^ly signed, and had there been
such ; but upon dilligent inquiry I failed to
find that even the officer existed as such.
Having my doubts arroused as to the mat-
ter through an article in the Chicago Inter-
Ocean a short time ago, I wrote to the clerk
of the courts of Wayne county, N. Y.^ and.
received the following reply :

"Office of the Clerk of Wayne Co., N. Y., Johm
McGoNiGAL, Ci.F.RK. I.YoNS. N. Y , Feb'y. Ist, '81.
E. L Kri-LEY, Esq., Dear Sir:— Yours of the 31st
instant dniy received, anil in reply wili say that I have
looked for the name of Thomas P. Baldwin as an
officir in the county and fail to find his n.r.ae at all.
I,"(>ked back to the time the CDiiniv was organized,
(18-23). Very Kespectfully,

John McGonigal.
Again, not quite satiflsed, tliinking per-
haps he might be mistaken, I wrote to him
again, asking him who was the County
Judge in i^oo, wlien these purported affida-
vits of Mr. Howe say that they were signed
by Thos. P. Baldwin County Judge. He
answers me February 7tli, 1884:

"In reply tn your favor of the 6th ult., will say that
David Arue, Jr., was County Ju'ige in 1833."
Very Kespectfully,

John McGonigaIi.

[Since the conclusion of the debate of
this proposion, the clerk lias written to Mr.
Braden stating that lie overlooked the
officer when examining the records at my
request. And upon this I claim notliing
upon tlie point that Baldwin was not a
Judge. — Kelley.]

Do you blame me, then, ladies and gen-
tlemen, for stating before you I cannot take
as evidence anytliing that has passed
througn such hands as Mr. Hulburt and
Howe, unless I have tlie original statement
to compare, or it can be proven outside in
some way thai these statements that he has
been referring to — iiut never reading in full
to you — are unaltered and genuine? Here
is wliere he gets his John Spaulding, Mar-
tha Spaulding, Henry T^ake, John Miller,
Aaron Wii^lu, Oliver Smith and Nalium
Howard. l)o y u want me to swallow
their contradictory, self-accusing, wlioly
improbable, malicious falsehoods, rather
than accept the truth of God? Could any-

116

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

thing pure and immalculate have passed
through that sewer of filth and come out
worthy of the palate of decent men and
women? Answer for yourselves. But I
proceed further with the examination. I
now call your attention to the letter of Mrs.
Matilda Davidson, another of his witnesses,
to a Boston newspaper and published May.
1839, this a person too, better informed
upon these matters, who had a better oppor-
tunity to be so than all the others he has re-
ferred to ; and she also manifests a terrible
feeling against the people that I represent.
Bhe says, "That any sane person should
rank ithigher than any other merely human
composition is a matter of the greatest
astonishment, yet it is received as divine
by some who dwell in enlightened New
England, and even by those who have sus-
tained the character of devoted "Chris-
tians." Yes, and right here I might say,
that when I traveled through "enlighten-
ed New England" but about four months
ajro, I found many churches of the same peo-
ple, and hundreds of good, faithful. God-
fearing and worshiping men and women in
them, all the way from Providence, R. I., to
Addison, Me. But she continues, and I
read extracts, for the letter is very long
and in great part but conclusions which
are in, no sense evidence, and which would
not interest you: "It [the manuscript]
claims to have been written by one of the
lost nations an<l to have been recovered
from the earth." [Got out oi the cave on
Con neaut Creek], "and assumed the title of
" Mamuscript Found." Assumedit? How?
By writing its own title on its back? No,
certainly not? Evidently by these parties
who we next hear about whom Spaulding
told that " he got it out of a cave on Con-
neaut Creek." "The neighbors would
often inquire how Mr. Spaulding progressed
in deciphering the nianuscript, [Translat-
ing from the Latin as he claimed,] "and
when he had a sufficient portion prepared
he would inform them and they would as-
semble and hear it read. He was enabled
from his acquaintance with the classics and
ancient history, to introduce many singular
names, which were particulorly noticed by
the people, and could be easily recognized
by tliem."

"Mr. Spaulding had a brother John
Spaulding, who repeatedly heard the whole
of it read." — Repeatedly heard fhe whole
of it read, which abounded in " names from
the classics and ancient history."

Ah ! yes ; here it is identified beyond a
doubt ; the same old scrap of forty or fifty
pages that was said to have been found in
a cave, and which she gave to Hulburt, who
gave it to Howe, who destroyed it, lest it
destroy the affidavits he and Hulburt had
gotten up. Howe now says Hulburt wrote
the affidavits. But she proceeds :

"He, Mr. Spaulding, exhibited his man-
uscript [same one] to Mr. Patterson, (at
Pittsburg,) who was very much pleased
with it, and borrowed it "for perusal. . He
retained it for a long time, and informed
Mr. Spaulding that if he would make out a

title page and preface, he would publish it,
and it might be a source of profit. This Mr,
Spaulding refused to do." Refused to make
out a title pao^e and to have it published
for profit, although Braden's witnesses
make out that he was to pay his debts out
of this. Spaulding did not go back and
pay his debts, as Smith and Harris did with
Saunders in New York. No ; he was a pious
Presbyterian minister. But she continues :

" At length the manuscript was returned
to its author, and soon after we removed to
Amity, Washington county. Pa., where Mr.
Spaulding deceased in 1816."

Notice, that she says that they went to
Amity, Pa., where he died in 1816. Left
Pittsburg, then, before Sidney Rigdon was
ever there according to their own testi-
mony.

"The manuscript then fell into my
hands," she says, "and was carefully pre-
served."

Did I not tell you I would expose the
fraud by witnesses that were from the other
side ? But again :

"It has frequently been examined by my
daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, of Munson,
Mass, [the same whose testimony I have
before introduced in this discussion], with
whom I now reside, and by other friends."

Again : " A woinan preacher appointed
a meeting there [at New Salem], and in the
meeting read and repeated copious extracts
from the Book of Mormon." " Mr. John
Spaulding was present. His grief found
vent in a flood of tears, [Here is where these
witnesses bring the lachrymose John in,]
and he arose on the spot and expressed to
the meeting his sorrow and regret that the
writings of his deceased brother should be
used for a purpose so vile and shocking.

Oh, how his feelings were hurt !

" The excitement in New Salem became
so great that the inhabitants had a meet-
ing and der)uted Dr. Philastas Hulburt, one
of their number, [yes, one of tl'eir number,
citizens of Kirtland ; but the same who had
been banished from our society for an insult
to one of your lady citizens], " to repair to
this place and to obtain from me the orig-
inal manuscript of Mr. Spaulding for the
purpose of comparing it with the Mormon
Bible, to satisfy their own minds" — [Re-
member, they were not satisfied before] —
" and to prevent their friends from embrac-
ing an error so delusive. This was the year
1834. Dr. Hulburt brought with him an in-
troduction and request for the manuscript,
which was signed by Messrs. Henry Lake,
Aaron Wright and others.

I am reading from her letter all the time.
" Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others."
Who are these Henry Lake, Aaron Wright
and others that send "a letter to Mrs. (Spauld-
ing) Davidson for the purpose of getting
the manuscript? The same ones that he
pointed out as the best men, or among the
best citizens, of Geauga county, — "old
Geauga county!" Wondered if I would
i&y anything against them ! Not personally
against their ciiaracter. I do not assail men
in that way. Don't have to, these men.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

117

These are the same parties whom he has
introduced as witnesses from Howe.

"Thus an historical romance, with the
addition of a few pious expressions and
extracts from the sacred scriptures (Ah !
Smith and Rigdon did not put them in
then, they were in the original), has been
construed into a new Bibie and palmed off
upon a company of poor deluded fanatics
as divine. I have given this brief narration
that this work of deep deception and wick-
edness may be searched to the foundation,
and the authors exposed to the contempt
and execration they so justly deserve. .
Matii^da Davidson."

My friends, are you still wanting evidence
as to where the Manuscript Found went?
Positively and certainly traced into the
ranks of its friends, and with this in the
hand-writing of Solomon Spaulding, who
was dead before the Book of Mormon was
published, ten identical words and express-
ions of which, as I have before stated, would
have been sufficient to have identified it if
there was any such thing written as these
witnesses tell about, and yet they destroy
the manuscript and publish their lying
statements. What do they do ? Send Hul-
burt back to tell Mrs. Davidson she gave
him'tbe wrong manuscript and to get the
right one? Oh no I she never hears of ;., em
until she writes to know what they did
with it, and Howe and Hulburt write 'nack
word, " It did not read as we expected, and
so we did not use it." Nor do they in this
letter to her ask if she did not have another
manuscript or extra original leaves of the
"Manuscript Found" which their witnesses
had sworn to. Had the one sent been an-
other than the true one, ten chances to one
it would have been similar in words,
phrases, and often sentences, to any other
Spaulding ever wrote, iiad another been
written by him, and a few words in his
hand-writing would have fully tested the
matter. But no, they destroy it. The only

first evidence under the sun to detect the
fraud, if there was a fraud, and this right
in the hands of the lawyer, Braden's law-
yer ! ! A man who will, after he has all of
the facts before him, believe such a story
as this, must be ready to gulp down the
most egregious tale that it is possible for the
most depraved and licentious to weave and
concoct against an innocent and God-feaxing
people.

I might further call your attention to the
fact that aside from these contradictions by
Mrs. (Solomon Spaulding) Davidson of the
statements of .John and Martha Spaulding,
relatives, neither ot their purported state-
ments bear any date, time or place of mak-
ing, or by whom made; that they are
quoted from something else and not the
original statement as they show upon their
face, and in such a way as to neither make
John, Martha or any one else responsible
for them. This is the testimony he so pomp-
ously thrust in my face the other evening;
the best he has. How do you like to swal-
low it, my friends?

The publication by Howe of these pur-
ported statements and garbled extracts
from our works in his History of Mormon-
ism, shows that the enemies of the Book of
Mormon had nothing of truth to sustain
their wicked attempt to overthrow it, or
they would have used it. It shows, too,
that the term falsifier is a tame enough word
to apply to any one so base as to falsify a
people's faith by such great garbling and
trickery, and present it to the world for
truth ; and shows further the kind of com-
pany one is liable to be found in if he essays
to peddle such stuff" in order to destroy the
character of honest men.

AH of the statements he has referred to
liave now been examined except those of
Mr. Campbell and Adanison Bentley — this
Bentley the one Rigdon referred to in his
letter tliat I read on last evening to you.

(Time expired.)

118

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S ELEVENTH SPEECH.

Gentlfmen Moderators, Ladies and
Genti.emen :-I wilJ noticefirst a mis-
statement made by riiy opponent Saturday
nigrht. I said on Friday night, after read-
ing a series of questions, thati would have
them copied in type-writing and give them
to my opponent. I did so before noon on
Saturday, and lie had them in his posses-
sion eiglic or nine hours before the debate
began on Saturday niglit. He lias had them
in his possession ever since, and has them
now. Yet he said Saturday night that he
did not have them. If he claims that he
referred to another portion of my speeches,
I remind him that he has had everything
that he has asked of me. I thinli; that after
giving him my speechen to examine at his
leisure, and prepare himself to reply to
them — a thing no other opponent would
do — I deserve at least fair treatment, and
should not have false statements made
about me. "When the reader reads in Kel-
ley's speeches that I did not give names,
and that I gave persons testimony in my
own words ; and then turns back and reads
the names of the 29 witnesses and their tes-
timony in different type from the rest of the
matter, and in their own words verbatim,
he will see to what desperate straits my
opponent must be driven, when he will
make such reckless assertions. His desper-
ation can be seen in his pettyfoggiug and
misrepresentation.

He repeats the statement that we have ex-
posed several times, that the manuscript of
Spauldiug's Manuscript Found was brought
to Howe. He says that Howe and Hul-
burt skulked over to Conneaut and got wit-
nesses to sign what they wrote. The truth
is, a Mormon preacher visited Conneaut
and preached his first sermon and read ex-
tracts from the Book of Mormon. John
Spaulding and others arose and exposed
the theft of the Manuscript Found. It
"Was in a meeting of citizens of Conneaut
and not in a Mormon church meeting. It
was a Mormon preacher, and not a woman
preacher. That is a misprin t in Schmucker's
book — as other books, that I have, show.
This detection of the theft was published
in the papers. Hulbjirt heard of it. He
"went to Coimeaut, and such men as Judge
"Wright, Lake, a leading business man,
and others of the best citizens of Conneaut
"Wrote out their statements and gave them
to him. There never was a number of affi-
davits more marked with independence
and individuality. Contrast them with the
joint statements of the witnesses to the
Book of Mormon written out by" Imposter
Joe and signed by his confederates. Con-
trast their courteous testimony with Rig-
don's blackguardism, the worst of which
Kelley dared not read.

He says they neverment.ioned the Roman
manuscript until Hulburt brought it from

Hartwick. No, nor did they mention Spauld-
ing's sermons, and the stories he wrote
for his children. There was no occasion
for so doing until it was presented to them.
He assails Miller's recollection of names.
Readers of the debate will decide whether
Miller's clear, rational and straightforward
story is reasonable or not. I asked him
whpther he impeached the character of
witnesses for truth and veracity, and he
affected a holy horror of the thought, that
is ridiculous, after his assaults on Howe
andHulburt. He, with a silliness tliat is id-
iotic, denies that Spaulding wrote the man-
script of the Manuscript Found, in the face
of the clear testimony of 17 witnesses, one of
whom is Itigdon himself He blunders over
Smith's working for Sabine. He sa^'s Mrs.
Spaulding and iier daughter left Sabine's
in 1820, and that the trunk was taken from
Sabine's in 1820. In 1820 Mrs. Spaulding
left Sabine's, leaving her daugliter with
the trunk in her care at Sabine's, and went
to Connecticut. Some time afterwards she
married Mr. Davidson in Pomfret, Connec-
ticut. Some time after this she returned
to Hartwick, N. Y., to live. Some time
after this she sent for the trunk. It was
years after 1820, and it may not have been
until near the marriage of her daughter to
Dr. McKinstrey in 1828, that she sent for
the trunk. Miss Spaulding was married
at her uncle's in 1828, and afterwards went
to Munsoii, Mass. Mrs. McKinstrey posi-
tively says that Smith worked for her uncle
while she was there with the trunk in her
care ; and that ends all Kelley's impudent
denials.

He reads Rigdon's denial. Of course a man
who would steal would lie in order to lie out
of it. Criminals are not allowed to swear
themselves clear. The same is true of Pratt
his confederate. Kelley deli berately falsifies
my statements. I did not say that Smith stole
the manuscript and brought it to Rigdon in
Ohio. I said Rigdon stole the manuscript
Spaulding prepared for press, remodeled it
to suit his purpose and took it to Smith in
New York. Then Smith informed Rigdon
of the rest of the manuscripts in the posses-
sion of one who had been Spauldiug's wife,
and stole all of them that he could, to pre-
vent detection of the fraud, and exposure of
the cheat. He says that Tucker did not see
Willard Chase before publishing his state-
ments. Wonderful ! Tucker used an affi-
davit that Chase had sworn to, when the
events were fresh in his memory, and I quo-
ted the same affidavit, and not from Tuck-
er. I will attend to David Whitmer's tes-
timony in good time. What bearing has his
attjck on Howe's analj'sis of the Book of
Mormon, on the truthfulness of the testi-
mony of the witnesses and other parts of
Howe's book. He reads an affidavit from
Mrs. Salisbury, Joe Smith's sister. In order

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

119

to make out that she must have known it,
if Rigdon visited Smith, hhe said tliat Joe
lived at their father's from i827 toi 830, and
while he wa?i translating" (ne plates, and
translated (hem at their father's Lucv
Smith, her mother, Joe Smith, David Whit-
mer, P P. Pratt and others say that Joe
moved to Pennsylvania, over one hundred
miles away, in the fall of 1827; and Lucy
Smith says that Joe took the horse and
waiTon of one who came to move him to
Pennsylvania, to ffet the plates He went
right after finding the plates and Vjefore
any translation, to Pennsylvania Mrs.
Smith and Whitmer and Joe and others
say he i-eturned to New York after wheat
sowing in 182S. He was in Pennsylvania a
year. Whilmer says he returned to Whit-
mer's father's and finished the translation.
Mrs, Smith says he lived away from home,
and that the plates were shown to the three
witiiessts away in another neighborhood.
None of the translating was done at Joe's
father's. Joe was not at his father's, but
over one hundred miles away, for over a
year, and was in another neighborhood, and
not at his father's during the rest of the
time. If Mrs. Salisbui-y lied, as we have
proved she did, in saying that Joe was at
their fathers, when he was noi there, she
would lie in saying Rigdon was not there,
when he was. Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, McAu-
ley. Chase and Saunders say that he was
there, and some say at least eighteen
months before the Book appeared. Finally
we have a long reading from the iS'ainVs
i/ero/d of June 1881. In the [VceklyNews,
of Cadi lac, Mich., of April 6th, 1880, the Rev.
C. C. Thorn, of Manchester, N. Y., publish-
ed an article asserting that old acquain-
tances of Joe Smith, in Manchester, N. Y.
made these statements :

"I knew Joe Smith, personally to some extent, saw him
" frequently, knew well his reputation, he was a lazy
"drinking fellow, and loose in his habits in e^ery
" way." Danford Booth — 'Smith's reputation was bad.
"I wa.s acquainted with Oliver Cowdrey. He was a
"low petti !og:ger, the cat's paw of the Smiths to do
" their dirty work." Orriii Reed—" I knew the Smiths
"but did not associate with thum for they were too
"low to assoei.ite with. There was no Iriith in them.
" Their aim was to gei in wht-re they eould cet prop-
"eriy. They broke up homes in that way. Smith
" hud no regular business. He had frequent revela-
"tions." Wm. Bryant.

In the spring of 1881, one quiet Lord's
day morning, several old people in Man-
chester were interviewed by a couple of
Danites. They did not tell their names or
business ; said it was no matter. They
askeil questions about the Smiths, and
treated these old people as an impudent
lawyer treats witnesses he wants to bull-
doze. Several of these old people indig-
nantly refused to talk to them after they
had insulted them.

June 1st, 1881, an article appeared in the
Saints^ Herald, signed by one of these Dan-
ites. It was read to you by the other Dan-
ite Saturday night. It asserts that Mr.
Thorne did iiot talk with some of the par-
ties he mentioned in his article, and lied
about what others said. Mr. Thorne had
taken and placed on file in Canandaigua,

Ontario Co., N. Y,, in the County Clerk's
office, these affidavits :

' Danford Booth, of the town of Manchester and
countv of Ontario, N. Y .being duly affirmed, de-
poses . He has read the arti<le in the CwliUat Weekly
J^ews of April 6th, 1860, respecting 'Cowdery and the
'Smith family,' over the signature of C. C Thome.
''The interview therein mentioned between deponent
"anl Thorne did take place The maiters therein set
■forlh, alleged to have been stated by the deponent
"to Thorne, were so stated by d» ponent to Thorne.
He has read also in a paper called the Saint's Herald,
"of June Isl, 18S1, an article purporting to give what
"was said in an Interview between W. H. KiUy and
"another party and the deponent, in which it is staled
'that deponent informed said partiei that deponent
"and Thorne never had an interview as alleged by
"Thorne. Deponent declares that he did not so inform
"said parties, and that he has no recollection of sucti a
"question being asked him by them.

(Signed; Danford Booth.

"Sworn to and subscribed before me, July 1st, 1881.
(Signed) N. K. Cole, J. P. '

"Orrin Heed, of the township of Manchester, countr
"of Ontario, N. Y., being duly affirmed, deposes; His
'age is 77. He was born in the town of Karmington,
''about four miles from what is called 'Mormon Hill.
"During the last 46 years he has resided in the town of
"Manchester, and in the same school district in which
"Joseph Smith and family, of Mormon notoruty. re^-
''sided and tnree-fonrths of a mile from 'Mormon HilK
"He has read an article published in the Cad llac Newi
"of April 6th, 1880, respecting 'Cowdery and the Smilh
"family.' over the signature of C. C. Thorne. The
"matters therein set forth and alleged to have been
"Slated bv deponent to Thorne were so stated by depo-
"nenf, at'the time and in the manner stated in said
"published article. ^ ^ „

(Signed) Orrin Reed.

"Affirmed and subscribed before me Juiie'29lh, 1881.
(Signed) N. K. Cole, J. P.''

"Amanda Reed, being duly affirmed, deposes : She is
•'(he wife of Orrin Reed. She heard the conversation
"tween her husband and C. C Thorne. The staternent
"made in the artide publi-hed by Thome in the Cadil-
'■lac New: of April 6th. 1880. respecting Cowdery and
•the Smith fHmilv. were in fact so made. The Ian.
"cuage employed by her husband was substantially as
"Ui reinstated. (Signed) Amanda Reed.

Affirmed and subscribed as above.

"John H Gilbert, of the town of Pwlmyra. Wayne
"county, N. Y., being duly sworn, -Jeposes : That in the
"article published in the Somt's fffra?d, at Pin no, IIL,
"June 1st 1881, over the signature of W. H Kelly, pur •
"porting to give an interview with the deponent on
"Mormonism. the deponent is grossly misrepresented
"in almost every particular. Words ^^e Put in the
"mouth of the deponent that he never uttered. Tfte
"pretended answers to questions that the deponent did
"answer, are totally at variance with the answers that
"the deponent really gave. The deponent believes
"that such misrepresentation was done designedly.

(Signed) John H. t.iLBERT."

"Sworn to and subscribed before nij? July I'itli. 1881.

The originals are on file in the Clerk's
office in Canandaigua. Ontario County, New
York. I object to Mr. Kel ley's playing
pettifogger and witness any more in this
case. I have impeached the witness.
"When we come to introduce witnesses on
the character of the Smiths, I shall not
allow the impeached witness to testify.
Readers can see how niuch dependence can
be placed on his statements concerning what
Howe and Mrs. McKinstrey said. I could
read a letter from Howe, if necessary, deny-
ing his statements. .

We will now resume our analysis of the
Book of Mormon. Nephi follows Lehi,
quotinc 13 chapters of Isaiah, and he ex-
plains its fulfillment in the ministry of
Christ, as only Sidney Rigdon, witli ihe
New Testament open before him, could do
it He uses the exact language ot Chriot
and his apostles, 600 years before they

im

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

uttered it. We have 20 pages of Rigdon's
preaching, and in it he tells us that these
plates shall be hid up and found by "an
unlearned man." and shown to " three wit-
nesses ; "not thirteen remember as JMormons
jiow tell us atid then nid up again. Rig-
don's Nephites know all about the (lospel,
and obey it, and still obey tlielaw of Moses,
while they are trampling it under foot, and
are blessed of God. above all that have ever
Jived, while violating his law ; and he vvould
lain have us believe that God levealed the
entire Gospel to them, m violation of every
{.linciple of i.he Bible This absnrd, un-
scriptural, olundering fraud is the ' foulness
of the Gospel "

On paofe 118 Kins: Jacob tells us ihat a
tundreth part of the wars, contentions and
exploits of the Nephites could not be en-
graved on his plates. A'>out forty years
before this, six women left Jerusalem— but
one was then married. Their posterity, in
about forty years, have divided into two
nations, and one nation has built a temple
like Solomon's, built cities, and even the in-
spired Jacob can not engrave one hundreth
part of their exploits on his plates. Siilney
never did things by halves when he mounted
King Ahasuerus' horse.

On page 1)9 King Jacob, alias Sidney,
preaches, and has a perfect knowledge of
the atonement and modern theological spe-
culations concerning it, and the resurrection
and the world to come. The Apostle Paul
declares that these things were mysteries,
hidden from even the angels, until revealed
to the world by the apostles of Christ. Poor
Paul did not know what the Lord had done
for the ancestors of Tiuposter Joe, and
manuscript-stealing Sidney in the wilds of
America, 600 years before his day ; although
they habitually trampled under foot nearly
every precept of his law. King Jacob, a//as
Sidney, now gives a parable from the Mor-
mon prophet Zenos. The terse, beautiful
parables of out" Savior concerning the un-
fruitful tree, the husbandman and his
vineyard, and Paul's parable of the olive
tree, that would cover not a page of the
Book of Monuon, are diluted, caiicatured,
and mixed and spread over eight pages, as
only hifaluting Sidney could do it. In his
awkward attempts to imitate the authorized
version in style, he begins thirty sentences
on theseSyages with " and it came to pass,''
thirty-one with " Behold.'' "Beheld " and
" Beholdest " occur nearly a score of times
each. "Wherefore" and " thereof " nearly
as many times. These cant words of the
writer compose a large portion ot the parable
from Zenos, An eccentric, illiterate char-
acter, popularly called Lord Timothy
Dexter, wrote a book and compelled the
printer to print it exactly as he wrote it.
There was not a capital letter, nor a mark
of punctuation, nor any division of matter
into paragraphs or sentences in it. The
book was eagerly bouglit up as a curiosity.
In printing a second edition Dexter stated
in an appendix that some had found fault
with his book, because there were no
capitals or punctuation marks in it ; and for

their benefit he added the appendix. Then
followed many pages, some covered with
capital letters, in all conceivable styles, each
style having several lines given to it. Then
followed whole pages of commas, then serai
colons, until every conceivable printers'
mark was printed in this way. The author
remarked at the close that each reader
miirht take as many and such capital letters
and punctuation marks, as he pleased, and
place them to suit himself. I would advise
the printers of the Book of Mormon to print
several thousands of " And it came to pass"

— "Behold"—" Wherefore"— "Therefore"

— "Thereof" and other cant words, and let
readers do, as Lord Timothy Dexter advised
nis readers to do, select such cant words as
they pleased, and as many as they pleased,
and place them where they pleased.

Let us quote a sentence or two of this
" Fulness of theGospel," that is to the New
Testament as the New is to the Old.

"And it came to pass that he pruned it. and digged
"about it and nouiislied it according to his word"
(nourishing a tree according to the word!) "And it
"came to pass that after many days it began to put
' foith somewhat, a tender little branches."

Who doubts that it took inspiration to
bring forth that sentence ? Again,

"Ye shall clear away the branches which brings
"forth bitter fmi', according to the strength of the
"good, and the sizeth reof, and ye shall not clear the
"had thereof, all at once, lest the root.s thereof be too
"stro'ig for the graft thereof, and the graft thereof
"pi-rish."

As Imposter Joe declares in his revela-
tions about stores and land oftices "Lo
here is wisdom." The wisdom of God is
manifest in such stuff' as that, doubtless!
Who dares to doubt that it took the highest
display of inspiration ever made among
men to indite such twaddle as that?
Seriously is it not transcendant blasphemy
to even suggest that Jehovoh inspired a
man to steal the sublime parables of the
Son of God, and the Great Apostle to the
Gentiles, hundreds of years before they
were uttered, and to torture their terse and
beautiful language into such balderdash as
that, then inspired another to engrave it on
plates which he preserved miraculously,
and then sent an angel to Imposter Joe to
tell him where the plates containing such
stuff were to be found, and put the climax
to this series of miracles, by doling out to
Imposter Joe, as he peeped through his
his stolen peep stone into the crown of 'ns
old hat, this gibberish, word by word, so
precious was this " fulness of the Gospel,"
the power of God unto Salvation?

£n the next chapter Jacob explains this
wonderful parable of the Mormon prophet
Zenos, in what would be a good Disciple
exhortation, if there were more sense in it,
it, and closes with this characteristically
Rigdonian sentence "Finally Brethren I
bid you farewell, until I shall meet you be-
fore the pleasing ' bar of God,' which bar
striketh the wicked with awful dread and
'fear.'" The Nephite Jacob, .500 years
before Christ, knew all about the English
legal idea or phrase "bar," at which a
criminal is arraigned. He knew all about

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

121

the general judgment, hundreds of years
before it was revealed by Christ and his
apostles. What a consistent metaphor is
the expression "the pleasing bar of God
*' which strikes with awful dread and
"fear." King Ahasuerus' horse got away
with Sidney's good sense that time. In the
next chapter we have a debate between
Jacob and a Deist, in which the mediatorship
of Clirist, theattonement, and kindred New
Testament ideas and modern theological
speculations, are discussed, very much
after the manner they were, m controver-
sies between Rigdon and a sceptical Justice
of the Peace in Beaver county, Pa , to
which my father listened about sixty years
ago. There is an awkward caricature of
the miracle of Paul's striking Ely mas blind,
and there is more talk about " plates" and
how they were to be kept, so that no
reader of the Book of Mormon could have
any doubtabout Imposter Joe's plates.

On page 137 we have another miracle.
Mosiah, a Nephite, discourses to the people
of Zarahemla — Judahites — who left Jerusa-
lem eleven years after Lehi's departure
They had lost all knowledge of God, and
were atheists, for they denied his existence,
and their language had become so changed
that they could not understand Mosiah , yet
these atheists, who could not understand
Mosiah, rejoiced exceedingly when he told
them what they did not believe, and what
they could not understand. Now we will
call attention to one of the most gigantic of
blunders in this bundle of blunders, the
Book of Mormon. We are told, on page
137: ^

" And it came to pass that after the people were
taught the language of Mosiah Zarahemla (their
chief) gave a genealogy of his fathers according to his
memory, as they were written, (what the fathers!) but
not on the.se plates. And it came to pass that the peo-
ple of Zarahemla (the chief) and Mosiah (the chief) did
unite together, and Mosiah (the chief) was ap
pointed to be their King And it came to pa,«s
in the days of Mosiah there was a large stone
brought unto him with the engravings on it. and he
did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of
God. And they gave on account of one Coriantamut
and the slain of his people And Coriantamnr was
discovered by the people of Zarahemla (the Chief) and
lie ilwellfd with them (the subiect of the chief
Zarahomla) for the space of nine moons "

If this language means anything it means
that Coriantamur died among the subjects
of the chief Zarahemla in Zarahemla's time.
That was about 150 years before Christ.
Turn to the Book of Ether and we learn
that Coriantamur was the last of the Jared-
ites, who were all slain but Coriantamur 600
B. C. Mormons may take which horn of
the dilemma they please. If the Jaredites
were slain before Lehi came to America,
Coriantamur was 500 years old when he
came among the subjects of King Zara-
hemla. Or the Jaredites and the Nephites
inhabited the same country for 450 years,
living together, knowing nothing of each
others existence !

King Benjamin, aliaa Rigdon, declares in
a sermon, 150 years before Christ,

" Behold I come to declare unto you glad tidings of
"gieatjoy. Behold the time lometh when the Lord
" shall come down from heaven with power, and s^hall
" dwell among the children of men, in a tabernacle of

" clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty
" miracles, such as healing the »ick, raising the dead.
•' causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their
'sikjht, the deaf to hear; and cnring all manner of
•• (iixeases. and shiill cast out devils and evil npirita
'which dwelliu the hearts of the children of men:
j And tie shall suffer temptaiions and hunger, and
^' thirst, and fatigue and pain of body even more than
• man can suffer, except lo be unto death, for behold
' blond Cometh from every pore"— (You see King Ben-
ianiiu knew all aboui the phy.siology of the blood 2000
years before Harvey) " so great hhiill be his anguish
" for the sins and abominations of his people. And
" he shall be called Jesus (Miri.st, the Son of God, the
■' father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things,
"from the lieginiiintr, and his inotht-r shall be called
"Mnry. and lo He Cometh to his own that salvHtion
"might come to the children of men, even through
" faith in his name, and even after all this, thcv shall
" consided Him a man, and say that He haih a devil,
" and shall scourge Him, and criicifv Him, and Heshali
" raise the third day from the dead, and behold He
" standeth to judge the world."

Did Isaiah, who stands among the proph-
ets of the Old Testament, as the prophet of
the Messiah, ever utter such prophecies
as these? Rigdon interpolated the his-
tory of Christ, as he took it from the New
Testament, intoSpaulding's romance, when
he was remodelling it so that he could
make a "big thing out of it" as a new rev-
elation

Benjamin, alias Rigdon, proceeds. Re-
member Benjamin is an Israelite, living un-
der the law, 150 years before the birth of
Jesus .

'Salvation cometh to none except it be througb
repentiince and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ There
" shall be no other name gi ven under heaven, nor any
" other means whereby solvation can come unto the
"children of men, only through the name of Christ.
" Except they humble themselves, and become as lit-
" tie children, and believe that salvation was and is
" and is to come (a Disciple Idea) in and through the
" atoning blood of ("hrisl (One of Rigdon's revival
'' expressions.) For the naturalman is enmity against
" God and h«s been since the fall of Adam (More
"modern theology.) But if he yields to the enticingn
" of the Holy Spirit (one of Rigdon's revival isms)
'■ and putteth off the natural man and becometn a
' Saint through the atonement.)! Christ oui Lord, and
" becometh as a child, submissive humble meek,
"patient, full of love, willing to submit to the things
*' which the Lord seeth fit to inflict on him even as a
" child doth submit to his father."

Seriously, now, as persons of sense, shall
we believe that an Israelite, under the law
of Moses, preached in that way, 150 years
before the birth of Christ? Or that Rigdon
interpolated these sentences from the New
Testament, these phrases from modern the-
ology, these revivalism." of his own, hito
the MS he stole from Spaulding — when he
was fixing it up to make "a big thing" out
of it as a new revelation?

In the sermon of a prophet, Abinadi,
which is as much like one of Rigdon's ser-
mons as the sermons of King Benjamin ,
Rigdon completely "gives himself away,"
as the slang expression has it. Page 174.
"If Christ had not risen from the dead, or
have broken the bonds of death (Shades of
Murray, what grammar), that the grave
should have no victory, and that death
should have no sting, there could have been
no resurrection. But there is a resurrec-
tion from the dead, therefore the grave hath
no victory, and tiie sting of death is swal-
lowed up in Christ." Rigdon forgot that
he was trying to put the resurrection of
Christ into the mouth of an Israelite be-

122

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

fore it occurred, which demands the future
tense, and used such language as the real
speaker, Kigdon, should use, and spoke of
it as a past event, saving, "had risen, "has
broken." On page 277 we have doctrine
taught that is as clearly the work of Rigdon
as is his blackguard letter to the "Boston
Journal," or his glorification of King Ahas-
uerus' horse Immersion for the remission
of sins is preached over 100 j'ears before
John the Baptist, and in the name of Christ,
more than 150 years before the day of Pen-
tecost, just as Disciple preachers preach it;
and to clinch the matter, that it is Rigdon,
immersion in the name of Christ is for the
miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit, what
Rigdon believed and brought from the Bap-
tists, and the Disciples do not believe. Ob-
serve the teaching agrees with the Disci-
ples as far as Rigdon agreed with them,
and disagrees with them, just where he dif-
fered from them. Converts were added to
the church, which was completely organized
and in full operation more than 150 years
before Jesus said, "I will build my church,"
proving that it did not then exist. Here
again we have an instance in which Rigdon
differed fiom the Disciples On pages 192,
193, 194 and 195 we have descriptiont of
churches of Christ, Christian teaching —
Christian ordinances Church discipline,
all in accordance with Rigdon's ideas of
what these things should be A wicked
son of a preacher is converted, just as men
"were converted under Rigdon's preaching,

a regular miraculous Baptist "experience."
This was followed by a regular series of
Rigdonish revivals. under preachers preach-
ing like Rigdon, the gospel in all of its ful-
ness, according to Rigdon's notions. On
page 233 we have a long extract from one
of Rigdon's sermons :

'• Ye must repent and be born again, for the spirit
" faith (where except in John III in the exact words
" of Jesus) if ye are not born again ye cannot enter the
"kingdom of God : therefore c me and be bapiized
" unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your
"sins, that ya may have faith on the Son of (iod,
" that talieih away the sins of the world, who is mighty
" to save and tocleanse from all unrighteousness: Yea
"I say unto you come and fear noi, l;iy to one .'^ide
"every sin which doih so easily beset you which doth.
'' bind you down to de^trnciion, yea come and go forth
"and show unto your God that you are willing to
" repent of your sins, and enter into a covenant with
"Him, to keep His comma'dments, and manifest it
" unto Him this day. by going dowi' into the waters of
"baptism, and wliosoever doeth this, and keepeth the
"commandments of God, fiom this time forth, the
" same will remember that I have sai i unto him that
" he shall have eternal life according to the Holy Spirit
" which testifieth in me.

Let me ask any person of common sense
Avhich do you believe, that an Israelite, un-
der the law of Moses, preached in that way,
in the exact words of Christ and his apos-
tles, more than 100 years before Christ? Or
has Rigdon interpolated one of his exhor-
tations into the manuscript he stole from
Spaulding when he was making "a big
thing," in the shape of a new revelation
out of it? Old acquaintances of Rigdon in
this audience can f4''>^ost hear hifalutin,
spread eagle Sidney in oiio of bi« revival
exhortations, as they hear that language.

MR KELLEY'S TWELFTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Before entering upon my
main argument I will notice oiie or two ob-
jections that have been made by my oppo-
nent.

First, with regard to the purported affida-
vits that he read. — Take and read the state-
ment shoAving the manner of interviewing
the witnesses I introduced, — when the lan-
guage was taken down at the time — the
parties own words — and compareit with the
manner of running around and getting up
an affidavit when the other side is not there
and you will soon discover who has the
truth.

Mr Braden : Was Mr. Thorn present
when you interviewed those parties?

Mr. Kelley : I have not presented any
affidavits, sir. I havegiven their exact lan-
guage taken at the time; written in their
presence. That is the manner of getting

this, and it is so stated here. I will read
from the conclusion of the intervie- ;

'' These facts and interviews are present d to the
' readers of the Herald impartially, just as they oe-
" curred the good and bad side by side; and allowing
" tor a possible mistake or error from a misHppreheu-
" sion or mistake in taking notes, it can be relieii up-
" on as the opinion and gossip had about the Smith
"family and others among their old neighbors. It
" will be remembered that all the parties interviewed
" are unbelievers in. and some of them bitter ene-
" mies to the faith of the Saints; and it is not unieason-
" able to suppose that thi y all t'>ld the worst ihey
" knew. So we sui mit it to the Herald reader.s without
"comment, with the expectation offending eiich one
" of the parties interviewed a copy when published."

When this was published each of the
parties was sent a copy oftheHerald with
the interview, and not one from whose af-
fidavit Mr. Braden has read has h.^^d the
manliness to write to Mr. Kelley of Coldwa-
ter, Michigan, and say tliat he was misrep-
resented. But somebody can run around
and get up an allidavit that does not men-

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

i2a

tion a single material, contradiction, and a
couple of them sign it. How many affida-
vits did hie liave from tlie witnesses 1 read
from last nig lit? From nobody but from
Major Gilbert and Major Gilbert fails to
point out a single thing m which he is mis-
represented. Did you not notjce tiiat? He
says that he was misrepresented, but he
does not state wherem he was misrepre'-ent-
ed. The fact is, Major Gilbert, if he
made that affidavit, lied, and I know
that he did. I am willing to face him
In Palmyra, or any other place, and
say that it is not true because I know
his language was taken at the time. As
far as the contradiction is concerned, I do
not care anything about it. I wanted it to
come before this audience. I knew what
Gilbert had done when he found he was
caught; and what Braden had to bring but
I wanted to show this audience how easy it
was to run around and get affidavits and
statements from persons and prove things,
when you write 'hem up yo'irself and have
them signed The way it started, this Mr.
Thorn, a Presbyterian preacLer was living
there in the neighborhood, and he heard
of Elder Kelley's preaching at Cadi lac,
Michigan, and he went to these parties to
get their evidence, and he sent it over to
Cadilac, Muhigan, to publish it there iu
order to defeat Elder Kelley's preaching.

Elder Kelley, insteadof saying "O ! you're
another," went directly to tiie parties them-
selves, and there upon the ground took
their statements, and took them down in
writing and sent their statements back to
them afterwards. Mr Thorn never did any
such thing with Mr Kelley. nor with these
witnesses, when they said they had made
other statements, as Mr. Braden represents.
I leave it then, for the honest and candid
thinkers, and those who love truth rather
than falsehood, to decide who has told the
falsehood and who has told the truth, if
there is any antagonism between tnese
parties. There is, in fact, no worthy con-
tradiction of W. H. Kelley's report of the
interview, as yet. Major Gilbert does not
state a single thing wherein he has been
misrepresented. Was it in the statement
that he had been trying for fifty years to
collect evidence against the Book of Mormon.*
Was it in that he said he had a way out of
the difficulty now he thought ; that he had
spoken to Saunders to testify that Rigdoii
was there, and afterwards had written him,
but Baunderd had not received it? Was it
in that he is reported as disbelieving in the
Bible? He is the only witness whose testi-
mony I read before you, who has said he
was misrepresented. The majority have
stood, by their evidence as published in the
interview. The others I could say some-
thing about, but I will not at this time.

Here I will refer to one or two other
matters and then proceed with my argu-
ment. First, with regard to the "woman
preacher" referred to m Mr. Spauld'ng's
letter, as found in Smucker's History. Does
he not know that that is the original state-
ment from which all the rest of these

histories of Mormonism go to for their
material, and yet the rest of them have
struck out the word "woman." What right
had they to do that?

Mr Braden: "When was Smucker's
book copyrighted?"

Mr. Kelley : " I do not care when Smuck-
er's book was copyrighted?
Mr. Braden- "In 1878?''
Mr. Kelley; "l did not get it from
Mr. Smucker. I got it from a bcok thaS
was published long before Smurker.
Mackey's History of the Mormons, p.iLlished
m England. I will hand you the book any
time you may wish to examine. It is a book
published long before Smucker, and it has
the words 'a woman preacher;' and it is
the oldest work that I have seen that con-
tained the letter. These others have taken
it out of the letter because it killed them so
easily. You quoted from works that had
deliberately garbled the letter and have
used such before this audience.

I was, iu a former speech, speaking of
these purported statements of John and
Martha Spaulding, as set out by Howe,
fchowing that they are quotations from
something and notthe original. He does
not give any dtte to these statements;— no
time or place, or party by whom they were
taken. They are put in quotations in the
book, and tliey do not, in any sense, amount
to statements. If they did, they are so
contradictory to what Mrs. Spaulding her-
self states, that they could not possibly be
relied upon. This is the testimony he so
triumphantly threw into my face the other
evening— the best he has. How do you
like to swallow it down? The publication
by Howe of these purported statemen's,
and the garbled extracts from our works in
his "History of the Mormons, or Mormon-
ism Unveiled," shows that the enemies of
the Book of Mormon had nothing of truth
lo sustain their wicked attacks and over-
throw It, or they would have used it.

All of the statements which he has pro-
duced have now been examined, except
that of Mr Campbell and Adamson Bent-
ley, the last of these the one whom Rigdon
referred to in the letter that I read to you
last evening. I did expect to refer to Mr
Campbell's this evening. I guess I shall,
as I am in this connection— also Mr. Bent-
ley's.

Mr Campbell, you remember, mentioned
in his statement that he was not positive
with regard to this ; that is, that he thought
that he would like to see what brother
Bentley kad to say about it befor? he gave
his testimony It"is not independent evi-
dence by either of these parties Thia
Adamson Bentley is the same party who
was referred to by Sidney Rigdon ; who.
Irom the outset (1881) undertook to destroy
him; and Mr Campbell says, as you wili
find by reading his letter, "that the con-
versation alluded to in Bro. Bentley '8 let-
ter in 1841. was in my presence as well as
in his. My recollection of it led me, some
two or three years ago, to interrogate Bro.
Bentley concerning his recollection of it."

?.24

THE BRADEN AND KEi>LEY DEBATE.

But T will produce the article and state-
jnp'-*T of tlif ^ parties in full, so that all
n^ toperly., dgethem: —

litlennial Harbinger for 1844, page
36-

Mr. Campbell heads these articles as fol-
IcMs : —

"mistakes touching the book of mor-
mon."

He then publishes an article entitled
^'Mormon^' — The means by which it stole
the ' True Gospel,^' taken from the Evan-
gelist, one of their own papers, then edited
by Mr. Scott.

The article is as follows : —

"It is well krii'wn that the Mormons preach the true
'gospel, and plead for immediate obedience to it on
''the part of the hearers, as the advocate of original
'"Christianity. This was not an original measure of
"Mormonism for, indeed, baptism for the remission of
"sins is a phrase not found in their book, A few of
"their leaders took it from Rigdon at Euclid, on the
■'Western Reserve, as may be learned from Brother
"Jones account of their first visit lo Kirtland, pub-
"jished in a preceding volume of the Kvangelisi, Rig-
'don we were perfictly aware, had possessed him-
"sf II of our analysis, and the pleafor obedience raised
"thereupon, but n»t choosing to rely on my own re-
"collertion of the means by and the times "at which
"they were imparted to him, we wrote to Mr, Bentley,
"who is his brother-in-law, for the necessary informa-
"tion, Mr, Bentley's letter shows, snot only whence he
"received his knowledge of the true gospel, but also
"that, coward that he was, he had not the iii'iepen-
"denee necessary to preach it in his own vicinity after
"lie had received it. Thus the knowledge of ordering
"and pleading the elements of the true gospel by that
'■people, is seen to arise n* ar the same time, and from
"the same source, as that of our own reformation, Mr,
"Bentley's letter is as follows : —

"Solon, .January 22. 1841.
" Dear Brother Scott:— Your favor of the 7th" of Decem-
■'ber is received. I returned from Philadelphia, Pa.,
"on the 10th, and the answer lo your acceptable letter
"hasbeen deferred. I was much gindficd to hear ffom
"you and family, but would be much more to see you
"onc<- mo e in the flesh, and talk over our toils and
"anxieties in the cause of our blessed Redeemer.

"You request that 1 should give you all the informa-
"tion I am in possession of respecting Mormonism. I
"know that Sidney Rigdon told me there was a book
"C' ming out (the manuscript of which has been found
"engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before
"the Mormon bonk made its appearance in this coun-
"try, or had been heard of by me. The same I com.
"mnnicated to brother A. Campbell. The Mormon
"book has nothing of the baptism for the remission of
"sins in it; and, of course, at the time Rigdon got Solo-
"mon Spaulding's manuscript he did not understand
"the Scriptures on that subject " [Of course he did
not. He was in the Campbellite Church then and
they never understood the Scriptures as they ought to
have done] "I eaiinot say he learned it from me, as
"he had been about a week with yon in Nelson and
"Windham, before he ctime to my hor.se. I, however,
"returned with him to Mentor He stated tome that
"he did not feel himself capable of introducing the sub-
"jectin Mentoi, and would not return without me if
"he had to stay two weeks with us to induce me to go,
"This is about all that I can say. I have no doubt tiut
"that the account given in Mormonism [Inmanked
[this is Hoive's book "Mormonism Untreihd," which
'he refers to. They all go back to that for their inlor-
mationj is about the truth, ft was eot jp to deceive
"the people and obtain their property, and was a
"wicked fontrivance with Sidney Rigdon and Joseph
"Smith, Jr May God have mercy on the v icked men,
"and may thev repent of thei' great wicked ess! May
"the Lord bless you brother Scott and faiuily.
"Yours most affectionately,

"AdamsonBenti.ev. '

This is a genuine Carapbellite letter, as it
has all of the ear-marks. He wants to ieil
something, when it is evident without the
least comment that he knows nothing at
all. He is Sidney Eigdon's brother-in-law,
and since Rigdon has left his cliurch wants

to give him a dab, and he does not care how
so that he is not caught. He had been
intimate with Rigdon all along during the
years 1823, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 "and 30: the
two working together, preaching together ;
and Bentley knew perfectly well that Rig-
don could have had no more to do in get-
ting up the Book of Mormon than he had ;
and yet because Rigdon had united with
the Saints he was mad and wanted to de-
stro.y him. He indorses Howe's book as
no doubt being "about the truth." This is
the book which I showed you so perverted,
misquoted, garbled, and wickedly falsified
our works in order to writedown something
against them. Bentley drinks it down.
And the " May the Lord bless tjou, brother
Scott." That was the spirit that marked
the career of this man, at the time, to a
dot. Never mind anybody else. No differ-
ence what their claims. Houiu) tliem down
because they do not follow us. Jiut the
Lord bless us! me and my wife, my son
John and his wife, brother Scott and his
wife, us poor, and no more.

I reserve comment upon this statement
of Scott's and letter of Bentley till after
presenting the revie\\ of it, and the evi-
clence, as Mr. Bradeu has termed it, of Mr.
Campbell. You will observe at once that
this letter of Bentley's was too brazenly
absurd for Campbell to swallow for a mo-
ment.

Mr. Campbell says:

"Brethren Scott and Bentley are both mistaken a.i to
"the fact of baptism for the remission of sins not bav-
"ing been found in the Book of Mormon, and one of
"them in the inference contained in the note append-
"ed to Elder Bentley's letter ' (Here, then, are two mil-
takes, at least , and by both on one of the points.]

"The conversation alluded to in Brother Bentley'a
"letter of 18-11, was in my presence as well as his."
[This is a third, for Bentley says, "'I communicated it
to brother A Campbell."! "and my recol ection of it led
"me, some two or three years ago to interrogate broth-
"er Beut'.ey, touching his recollection of it," [Here is
a fou-th contradiction of brother Bentley, for he said
he 'communicated to brother A, Campbell.] 'which
"accorded with mine, except the year in which it
"occurred, he placing it in the year 1827, and I in the
"summer of 1826." [This is the fifth contradiction.]
"Rigdon. at the time observing thdt in the plates dug
"up in New York there was an account, not only of the
".Aborigines of thiscountry, butalso it was stated that
"the Christian religion had been preached in this
"countrv iust as we were preaching it on the Western
"Reserve "

Here is the sixth ; and a ve.iy essential
difTerence. Mr. Campbell says that Rig-
don was telling them about an account
that was contained upon plates dug
up in New York, but Mr. Bentley
puts it iu his letter " the manuscript of
which had been found engraved on gold
plates" Here Bentley is convicted of
deliberately lying in order, if possible, to
make a show of connection between the
" Spaulding Manuscript," which at this
time, was in the possession of Howe, and
the Book of Mormon : and so fffe wickedly
puts the word " manuscript" into his letter
to mislead.

Mr, Campbell proceeds: —

"Now. as the Book of Moi raon was being manufact-
"ured at that time, for the copyright was taken out in
' .'une 1829, two years according to Elder Bentley, and
'three years according to me, after said conversa-
' tion (and certainly it was not less than two years), the

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

125

"inference of brother Scott touching the person upon
"whom the theft was committed would be jilausible if
"it was a fact that baptism for remission of sins is
"no part of the Book, but something super-added since
"from the practice in Ohio in the end of 1827 and begin-
"ningot 1828; a year or more after Rigdon made the
"aforesaid statement."

Mr. Campbell proceeded then to make
quotations from the Book of IVformon, to
show that Messrs. Scott and Beiitley were
wrong- and over conclusive, quoting from
pages 240, 479, 581 and 582 of the book, and
then says : —

" Certainly this is testimony enough without further
"readings. The note on the text of brother Bentley's
"letter shows how easily men may reason wrong from
"false farts, or from assumed premises. If the E'litor
"of the Evangelist were not above the imputation of
"envy, jealously, or vanity the whole aflFair might be
"construed disadvantageously, but as it is it seems to
"show the necessity of a si'rupulous examination of
"the premigfS before we presume on such grave con-
"clusions."

Just so. There are a great many ear-
marks visible to the naked eye about this
alleged conversation with Mr. Rigdon, show-
ing " the necessity of a scrupulous exami-
nation of the premises before we presume
on such grave conclusions." Mr Campbell,
undoubtedly, made a large number of his
followers wince when he struck these two
conclusionists that little blow ; and had he
on this occasion heeded the advice tend -red
to others, another erroneous, yet "grave
conclusion" would not have been arrived
at.

The only remarkable thing about this
statement of Campbell's at all, is the fact
that any man can be so blind as not to see
that there is not a shadow of proof in it
that in the least points to Sidney liigdon
as a party having any connection with the
origin of the Book of Mormon. Suppose
that the memory of Mr. Campbell to be
entirely correct in giving this conversation
at least ten years after the time fixed for
its occurrence (and he shows it is not, by
himself stating that he first asked Mr.
Bentley about it to see if he had it right),
and what have we? Simply that Sidney
Rigdon stated in his presence in the year
1826 or '27 that tliere was a claim made by
some person in New York State, not even
the name of the party then known to him
it seems, that some plates of gold had been
dug up in that State, giving aii account of
the aborigines of this country, and stating
that the Christian religion had l)een

E reached in this country just as we (Camp-
ell, Rigdon, Scott and Hentley) were
preaching it on the Western Reserve. This
same claim (with the exception of the
words "just as we were doing upon the
Western Reserve"), doubtless, to this time
had been repeated by more than ten thou-
sand people in the United States ; for the
claim was in the public press before this,
the announcement being made as early as
182S, and the plates were obtained in Sep-
tember, 1827 ; and would it be a strange
thing or proof of guilt for Sidney Rigdon
to also talk about it with others? Indeed,
when you turn the thought over, the
strength of the evidence is the other way,
for had Rigdon been connected with this in

any wise he would not have spoken of It to
Mr. Campbell and Mr, Bentley But, says
one, why did he use the words "just as W9
were doing on the Western Reserve?" I
answer, because he did not know anything
about it, for had he, he could not have so
spoken The record from the plates did not
teach as they were teaching on the Western
Reserve, but in nine-tenths of all its prin-
ciples raiight the reverse. Mr. Rigtioa
could not iiave made the statement had he
been connected in any manner in getting up
the Book of Mormon. All through, that
bi.ok contains doctrinal principles entirely
different to the teachings of Mr Campbell
and these preachers of the Western Re-
serve.

When Joseph Smith first announced that
the angel said to him that there was a
record of the ancient inhabitants of this
continent written upon gold plates and de-
posited, to be brouarlit forth in the own due
time of the Lord, immediately all the good
old deacons and pious preachers of Man-
chester and Palmyra, New York, started
the story of a "Gold Bible." It was pub-
lished over the country ; and since Campbell
and Bentley can not 'Agree within a year of
the time when they say Rigdon spoke of the
notice, who will dare to say the conversa-
tion was not in 1828, or even 1830, instead of
1826 or 1827. They can not agree within one
year of the time themselves ; yet, they pre-
tend to give such certain testimony, as they
would have you believe, although your
salvation may be shadowed in the grand
hereafter by it, for having rejected the
truth.

Persons who will take such statements
for evidence do so because they love that
which appeals to their own selfishness and
evil desires, and which is fallacious, rather
than God's word, which says, "To the law
and to the testimony ; if they speak not ac-
cording to this word it is bet^ause there is no
light in them." And again; "He that
abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
both the Father and the Son " Well, but
Mr. Braden says, "the devil may come
abiding in the doctrine."

When did you ever know of him coming
and abiding in the doctrine of Christ? It
is the Nevv Testament my opponent attacks
upon this, and not me. Are we not to prac-
tically rely upon John's statement, where-
in he says- " If any come bringing not
this doctrine, receive him not?" the con-
verse of which is, if any come bringing this
doctrine, no difference who ; he may begood,
although called bad, him receive. It is
founded upon the certain ground that the
devil will not come preaching the truth, for
it would destroy him ; — it would be contrary
to his own existence. " A house divided
against itself cannot stand." For this
reason Satan "abode not in the truth from
the beginning," says Jesus I am surprised
that a professed minister of the (iospel
should take the indefensible ground that
you must denounce a thing whether it con-
tains the doctrine of Christ or not. In this
he gives the entire Christian religion away.

126

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE

The standard is "Though we, or an angel
from Heaven preach any other gospel,"
[anything other tlian the truth or doctrine
of('hrist] "let him be accursed.". But my
oppoiient would have you give them a little
cursing if they do bring the Gospel. My
friends, you need never be afraid that
the Devil will come around abiding in
the doctrine of Christ. He might teach
one thing. He might teach for instance,
baptism by water only ; but he will
never teach baptism by water and of the
Holy Spirit, to the believer, because God
alone can give the Holy Spirit, and the Devil
could not teach that, without soon being
detected and exposed in the deception. Do
not understand me as i-eferring to my op-
ponent or the Disciples as Satan. I was
only making the argument by way of an
illustration. (Laugliter).

I have all of his questions here : forty-two
questions, 1 believe. He said I would nev-
er look at or examine them ; but I have and
find no basis to them whatever, except tha
false statements, as I have shown, that he
referred to at the first. I need not say to
you that I do not have to take up my time
in examining each one of them separately
after having shown that the basis of every-
one of them is false. Let him get upon a true
basis and argue the facts essential to this
case if he can. I think, perhaps, he might
do better had he a different case. But, in
the name of common sense what has he ac-
complished by the forty questions present-
ed ? Simply changed the form of the state-
men t of what he claims his witnesses say and
puts it interrogatively. Do I have to take up
this same evidence which I have shown be-
fore to be entirely unreliable and examined
it because now he has revamped it and put
..in the shape of questions? You would
certainly call me silly to so waste my time.
I have, by showing the falsity of the state-
ments upon which his questions are based,
struck his foundation down, and what care
I now for the twists he takes in the debris.
It he has anything to offer in support of
his foundation, or any new evidence, I shall
gladly take the time to examine it, I have
already examined all of his testimony, ex-
cept, possibly, a few of the parties referred
to by Patterson in his pamphlet. Should I
find the statements of any others than
whom I have examined I shall refer to them
hereafter.

Now I will proceed to the argument upon
the main question, taking up first and an-
swering objections made.

My opponent, on the last evening of the
discussion said that all the good there was
in the Book of Mormon Smith and Rigdon
stole from the Disciples, alias the Campbel-
lites, but this is a thing to be proven, if
true. I confess, viewing the matter from
one standpoint, that it' seems as though
there might have been some tampering
with the Campbellite faith, some lime, if
there was ever any special good in it, as it
seems to be quite barren of any good thing
iiow ; but whether it was stolen from them
by the Latter-Day Saints remains to be
shown.

He says : "Tt is all balderdash," to ar-
gue that "whosoever abideth in the doc-
trine of Christ he hath both the Father and
the Son." Yet this is the emphatic state-
ment of the word of God. Remember it is
not the language of myself, but he calls it
balderdash. He says that bad men and
the devil might come around abiding in the
doctrine, but they would not have the Fath-
er. Then the apostle must have missed it.
It is not true that bad men or the devil ev-
er did or ever will abide in the doctrine.
Of the devil it is distinctly said "he abode
not in the truth." Abiding in the doctrine
is one rule given by John to test true teach-
ers from false ones. The tru3 ones abide in
the doctrine ; the false ones do not.

Mr. Braden and his Disciple friends do
not abide in the doctrine, as I will show
more particularly in discu^«ing the next
proposition; and they also argue that God
cannot be with them uly in the word ;
hence they liave neither ihe Father, Son
nor Holy Ghost. He is fighting the inspired
evangelist, not me.

Again, he says when Mormonism is at-
tacked by showing the bad character of
those engaged in it that I retort by dragging
the Bible down to the level of the Book of
Mormon, attacking it. My opponent ivuows
too well the tendency of the kind of argu-
ment that is resorted to by him to defame
and destroy the Book of Mormon and blast
the reputation of its friends; but if the
argument is good against the Book of Mor-
mon and its adherents, as showing that
God did not inspire or direct them, the same
argument is good against any other class of
men making similar claims. All of you can
see that if the Book of Mormon is to be
rejected because somebody slandered the
character of those who brought it to light,
that the New Testament must be under the
same hypothesis; that if it be true that
God would only select pure and ex 'ted
characters, such as would at no time of life
do a wrong thing, through whom to reveal
his will, then pretty much all of the Bible
is to be rejected, for Noah, Abraham, Moses,
David, Solomon, Peter and Paul, those with
whom God is said to have communed, were
not men of such exalted and perfect charac-
ters. There was none good, so far as that
term is used, "no, not one." When my
opponent accepts them as mediums through
whom (^od revealed himself, what becomes
of his position taken here, that if he can
show that if some of the leaders who
brought to light under divine guidance
tne Book of Mormon did things some time
in their lives that was not just right, he
has proven the Book of Mormon false.

Among the first things which Moses did
was to kill an Egyptian and hide him in
the sand and then flee his country. Abra-
ham, the father of the faithful, had a con-
cubine, "Sarah's niMid." Noah got drunk
soon after he touch'd dry land, after the
great flood, David hud wives and concu-
bines too numerous to mention ; Solomon
the same, combined with the sin of being
an idolater. Abijah, after five hundred

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

127

thousand had been slain in battle before
him, the Lord being with him, wax^■d
mi^rhty and took 14 wives and begat 22 sons
and 16 daughters. 2 Chron. 13 . 21, 22. Ho-
sea went and took a woman of whoredoms
and lived with lier, and then took tiis
friend's wife; but still went on prophesy-
ing, and my friend claims to believe tlie
prophesy. Peter cursed and swore, denied
his Lord, and yet wiio would discard his
epistles? Saul assented to stoning Stephen
to death, and afterwards he was an apostle
and had many trials and temptations , and
yet the list is not lull All ol this is in the
Bible

My '">pponen^ assumes +o believe in the
inspiration of pretty much all hero men-
tioned, just because their names occur in
the Bible, not because they did no bad
things during their lives , yet he endeavors
to sink the Book of Mormon by connecting
something to the lives of Joseph Smith aiul
Sidney Rigdon that is not just right He
can see that if such arguments will destroy
the Book of Mormon's claims to being di-
vinely inspired it destroys that of the Bible
also, and while he fats in bringing an
array of accusationsagainst Smith and Rig-
don and others, which he ha^i failed to
prove , — with him it is dragging the Bibls
(which he claims lo believe in) down, to
apply to it in an argument the same Kind of
warfare,

For the sak« of the argument. T migh*^
admit (that which is not true) that Smith.
Rigdon et al were as bad as he repre-
sents them to have been , they would then
be entitled to a respectable standing among
the very best of those whom he admits that
God revealed himself through. He has
only got beside himself. It does not drag-
the Bible down to tell the truth about it. ft
must stand on its merits just lik» the Book
of Mormon. I am a believer in both It is
consistency, truth and fairness that we
want.

He objects to theBook of Mormon because
one of the writers says *' If there be faults
in it they are the mistakes of men ," claim-
ing that if it is inspired there should be no
faults. But the Book of Mormon does not
claim to be wholly inspired any more than
the Bible claims to be wholly inspired. The
writer says he writes according to his know! •
edge in the characters ; — confessed that they
had an imperfect language and that they
could not write as well as they could speak
When done his record, he asked that men
might read the book with charity in their
hea ts, and not condemn it on account of
finding some fault; and then the writer
gies on and says ; " If there are faults they
are the mistakes of men ; but I know of nc
faults." He then exhorts not to condemn
the things that are of God. This is th&
honestly declared statement of the writer

As I examine these objections it becomes
more and more apparent that brother Bra-
den has not made any criticism on the Book
of Mormon yet that will stand the test of
examination ; neither will he. That you
may see how much his assertions are worth,

just note the fact that he said, on the last
evening of the discussion, that the word
"Jew" was not known to Bible writers
until after the Jewish captivity. In II
Kings, xvi. 6, the King of " Syria drove the
Jews from Elath." This was about 742year9
before Christ, and 120 years before the Jew-
ish captivity. The word Jew is found in
Jeremiah xxxiv. 9, 590 years before C-'hrist,
and long before the return of the Jews from
their captivity The M'ord was in use 710
y 'ars before Christ, in the time of Hezekiah,
King of Judah, II Chron., chap, xxxii. 18.
It was applied to all Israelites 580 years be-
fore Christ, Dan. viii. 12.

Again, he asserts as an objection to the
Book of Mormon that it speaks of st'^el and
its uses, and that the Jews knew nothing
of steel , that it was not known in old Bible
times; only mentioned, he says, once, and
that in the Book of Job That should have
been enough to remove his objections . but
he is keen to find fault, and " a drowning
man Mall catch at straws" In 2 Saml
22 • 35, it is stated, " He teacheth my hands
to war , so that a bow of steel is broken in
my arms.' This was only 1018 years before
the time of Christ The same thing occurs
in Psalms of David, chap. 18, v 34, as well
as in Job 20 24; and this is said to be the
oldest book in the Bible

My opponent does far better with his
stories than he does m dealing with things
that can be tested right here in this discus-
sion If he wishes to succeed he had better
go on telling his yarns, and not undertake
to handle edged tools.

Again, he says, the Israelites did not
make and write on plates which would have
been the case if Lehi could bring plates
from Jerusalem. Very true , now let us
see. In I Kings, 7 30 we are inlbrmed that
they made " Plates of brass." These
plates were used in building the temple,
and the 36th verse says : "Graved [engrav-
ed] cheriibims, lioias and palm trees" on
them. In Exodus, 39:3 we read ; "They
did beat the gold into thin plates." They
wrote, or engraved, also on gold plates.
"And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold
and grave upon it like the gravings of a sig-
net, Holiness to the Lord!" That which
was the most highly prized, beautiful and
sacred they wrote oil gold plates. Ex 28:
37, Ex. 39:30. They made a plate of pure
gold, and wrote upon it a writing like the
engraving of a signet. Holiness to the
Lord " The Israelites not only engraved
upon gold and brass plates, but also upon
stones of various kinds, see Ex. 28 9. 11,
21 and 30- 6, 19 But working in brass and
iron commenced with Tubal-cain. Gen.
4 22, and the art of engraving on hard
substances was known 1700 years before the
Cliristian era. See Gen. 38; 18, 25.

So much for his objection to the Book of
Mormon because they wrote on gold plates
and brass plates.

Again, he ridicules the idea of God giv-
ing Lehi the " Liahona,'' or compass ; and
says that "one spinnel pointed the way
they should go ; the other the way they

128

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

should not g'o," of course, but the record
eays nothing about the way they should
not go. He thinks they could not read a
writing on the spindle in a brass globe, but
the writing was on the spindle and they
could see the spindle. This is too marvelous
a story for my opponent to believe; but he
can swallow Jonah and the whale and then
be ready for more like it. He can believe
that God wrote the tables of the law and
went before the Israelites and fed them on
manna for 40 years ; when they got hungry
for fresh meat God would send a shower of
quails, and when they were thirsty the
water would roll outof adry rock to quench
their thirst. He can gaze with delight and
the utmost rapture at the spring of water
as it gushed from the jaw-bone of an ass
in Samson's hand, and drink them all in
and then think them but common things,
and still be ready for more like it But
when the Book of Mormon claims that God
guided the Jaredites and the Nephites by
miracle it is not to be believed ; it is all one
of Joe Smith's fables gotten up to deceive
Whether Smith stole this part of the Book
of Mormon, (the big stories), from the
Campbellites or not, remains to be proven
along with the rest. Now there is not a.s
astounding and miraculous things stated in
the Book of Mormon as there is in the
Bible; yet, my opponent objects to the
Book of Mormon because it states that God
by miracle aided the people who came to
this continent, notwithstanding the huge
miraculous accounts that are to be found in
the book which he admits to be true.

Nephi does not say, as asserted by my
opponent, that he made plates in the wilder-
ness where there was no ore ; but that after
they had arrived at tlit- promised land they
found " ore ol gold," and here he made his

first plates. So much for his statement
that they made plates out of nothing.

He objects to the Book of Mormon because
the word church is used in it before the
Christian era. Church means an assembly
of worshippers The Book of Mormon is a
translation into English, No matter what
an assembly of a like kind may have been
called in old time it would be called a
a church when translated into English.
Besides Stephens says. Acts, 7:38 that there
was H "Church in the wilderness," in the
time of Moses. He objects to the Book of
Mormon because it says the gospel was
preached on this continent before the time
of Christ It was preached to Abraham,
Gal. 3 8, and to Moses and the Israelites,
Heb. 4: 2. He objects to the Book of Mor-
mon because the Nephi tes professed to have
the Holy Ghost before Pentecost Day ; and
said the Holy Ghost Avas not given until af-
ter Jesus was glorified. Peter says "Proph-
esy came not in old times by the will of
man, but holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter,
2:21. This Holy Ghost inspired all of
the prophets and saints from Adam to
Christ ; why not the Nephites? After
Christ commenced his ministry on earth,
his disciples were not to receive the Holy
Ghost until after the ascension. He says ;
"If I go not away the Comforter will not
come."

While he was in the world he was the es-
pecial light of the people. That is the way it
was, Mr. Braden. There is no clash herewith
the Book of Mormon. The Holy Ghost and
the gospel were enjoyed before thf Savior's
ministry on earth, and they kept the law of
Moses, also.

(Time expired.)

MR BRADEN'S TWELFTH SPEECH.

Genti^emen Moderators, Ladies and
Gen'it AtKN .— On page 234 we have a de-
scription of many kinds of coin, and some
of them were very large. Why have we
never found any of these coins in America?
In ruins in the old world millions of coins
have been found. Why not on this con-
tinent?

On page 235 a Nephite preacher solves all
the disputes of modern theoi* gy concerning
the resurrection, and 100 years uelure Christ.
Men may differ in their interpretation of
of the general truths taught by Christ and
his apostles, but there can be no dispute
over the minute, dogmatical revelations of
the Nephite prophet, who, strange to say,

gives by inspiration the exact ideas of Rig-
don 1800 years before Rigdon lived to
preach thern.

" Vow there is a death which is called a temporal
" death ; and the death of Christ shall loose all bonds
"of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from
"this temporal death. The sp rit and the body shall
" bf re united again in its perfect form, both limb and
" joint shall be restored t'> its proper form, even as they
" now are at this time, and shall be brongh to stand
" l)efore the bar of God, knowing as we now know."

There, that settles the vexed question in
favor of a literal resurrection, (lod inspired
the Nephite Vmalek, long before the birth
of Christ, to explain the ressurrection and
temporal death and spiritual death, just as
Rigdon believed.

On page 238 a soul-sleeper is silenced with

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

129

Rigdon's ideas on eschatology. On pag-e
289 we have the modern term "Dissenter"
— a word never used until men dissented
from the creed and practice of the church
of England. On the page we have a de-
Bcriptltm of Episcopalians, and the Lord's
day is luentiDntd. This is followed hy
pages of preacliing in which nearly every
idea of modern theology, even the most
abstruse, is discussed and settled in a
manner that utterly eclipses the general
teacliings of Clirist and his apostles; and
what is more miraculous, these Nephites
always agree exactly with Kigdon's theology
in their revelations. On page 280 we have
the Church of God described, and it is de-
scribed as having perfect Christian teaching
concerning topics the New Testament de-
clares were mysteries until revealed by
Christ and his apostles. On page 326 we
read :

" He prayed for Tblesslngs of Christ to rest on the
•* brethren so long as there should be a band of Chris-
" tians to possess the land, for thus were all true
" believers of Christ, who belonged to the Church of
"God called by those who did not belong to the
"Church. And those who belonged to the Church
" were f ithful, yea all iho.'-e who were true believers
"of Christ, took upon them gladly the name of Christ
"or Christians as they were called, because of their
"belief in Christ."

The New Testament declares that the
disciples of Christ were first called "Chris-
tians" at Antioch over one hundred years
after the Book of Mormon declares they
were called Christians universally in
America.

I wish now to call attention to one of
those little things that speak volumes.
There was a difference of opinion among
the co-adjutors of Campbell concerning
what should be the name of the followers
of Christ. Campbell, Sheppard and others
Insisted that they should be called "Discip-
les of Christ." AValter Scott and others
insisted that they should be called "Chris-
tians," and that the Church should be
called "the Church of God" or "Church of
Christ." Rigdon agreed with Scott. Ob-
serve that liis ideas are repeated several
times in the above extract. By inserting
into his stolen manuscript his ideas, he con-
tradicted the New Testament concerning
the time the name Christian was first given
and made his "big thing" a tissue of ab-
surdities. According to tlie Book of Mormon
there were great numbers of Churches of
God and multitudes of Christians hundreds
of years before Christ came. They had
a perfect knowledge of his Gospel and the
most abstruse ideas of modern theology,
all settled by revelation, long before Christ ;
and the most singular fact is that the Lord
agreed with Rigdon in all of these revela-
tions that he gave these highly favored
Nephites. How highly favored these old
prophets were' in receiving, by inspiration
from God, all of Rigdon's theology IbOO
years before the advent of Sidney.

We come now to another of those little
things that speak volumes. Rigdon as a
regular Baptist prercher, had a bitter prej-
udice against all secret societies. In the i

days of the ant:-Masonic excitement of the
time extending from 1824-5 to 1834-5 Rig-
don was a rabid anti-Mason. On page 382
he gives the Masons a dig and airs his anti-
Masonic ideas. Gadianton and a band of
robbers have a Masonic lodge and act just
as anti-Masons said Masons acted. Again
on pages 365-6 he airs his anti-Masonic ideas.
A band of cutthroats have a secret society
with oaths, grips, signs, pass words, and
swear to protect each other in crime. On
page 399 and on several pages following we
have a repetition of Rigdon's anti-Masonie
ideas. Seriously, isthisthe work ofaNephite
before Christ, or is it the work of the anti-
Masons, Spaulding, Rigdon, or Smith — one
or all of them? Page 474 a prophet tells the
Nephites that on the night our Savior is
born it will be as light as day all night.
The sun will set and rise, but the light will
not be diminished in the least. The Bible
flatly contradicts such stuff. On page 416
^e are told again that the darkness at our
Savior's crucifixion will last three days.
The Bible says three hours. Page 422 we
are told that it remained as light as mid-day
(Sidney never does things by halves) all
one night and a star was seen, the night
our Savior was born. What sort of a star
could be seen in mid-daylight we are not
told. Perhaps all the Nephites had peep
stones and looked into their hats and saw
the star. ForsomeyearsGadianton's wicked
Masons vex the righteous anti-Masonic Ne-
phites terribly but at last the rigl^eous anti-
Masons prevail and exterminate these vile
Sons of Darkness the Masons and righteous-
ness prevails all over the land as the result.
Page 431 Mormon, who informs us that he
is a fully developed Christian, says that he
cannot write all that he wants to write be-
cause of the imperfection of the language.
The Almighty has inspired a man to engrave
a revelation on brass plates and suddenly
finds himself balked by the imperfection of
the language that he has in his ignorance
chosen. As the Mormon God is not infin-
ite he might make such a blunder. Then
follows a description of the three days of
darkness, and ^idney just cavorts on
King Ahasuerus's horse in depicting
the horrors of that time, that ac-
cording to the Bible never was. After
this was heard the voice of our Savior,
and it was heard over all North America.
Sidney's miracles are always something
worth while; none of your little miracles
such as the Son of God wrought in Pales-
tine,nothing but sky-splitting and universe-
shaking miracles will do for Sidney. Then
a small voice — not a loud voice — is heard
that pierces their frames and causes their
hearts to burn ; and our Savior, s])eaking in
this small voice, says to the Nephites on
this continent, "I am the Alpha and the
Omega." Let the reader stop for a moment
and think of the abs--:rdity of tiie Son of
God saying to Nephites on this continent,
who knew' nothing at all about the Greeks
or their Ian" iiage, '' I am the Alpha and the
Omeaa," the first and the last letter of the
Greek alphabet. He might as well have

ISO

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

used the first and last letters of the Chero-
kee alphabet.

After this our Savior, who had been res-
urrected at Jerusalem, appears on this con-
tinent and preaches one of Sidney Bigdon's
discourses to them, and commands them to
use Sidney Rigdon's baptismal formula,
"Having authority given me of Jesns Christ
I baptize you in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," By the
way, Sidney dropped the Disciple peculiar-
ity of saying " Spirit " instead of "Ghost,"
and went back to his old Baptist formula.
Who is such a simpleton as to believe that
our Savior visited America after his ascen-
sion into heaven, in violation of the New
Testament that declares his next coming
after his ascension will be at the end of his
dispensation ; that his mission was to preach
one of Sidney Rigdon's sermons to the
aborigines of America, and to give as the
law of heaven, by solemn revelation of the
glorified Son of God, that they must use Rig-
don's baptismal formula. On page 444 we
have one of Rigdon's idiotic extravaganzas.
Our Saviour commanded doubting Thomas
to thrust his fingers into the nail prints in his
hands and feet, and into the side that had
been pierced. Such a simple natural aflTair
as that would not do for the hifalutin spread-
eagle glorifier of King Ahasuerus' horse.
He tells us that the entire multitude went
forth and each thrust his fingers into the
nail pririls in his hands, into his feet, and
into his pierced side. We learn from a fol-
lowing page that there were at least 2,500
of them. It would be very rapid work for
a person to go up and put a finger into a
nail print in each hand, each foot, and into
the pierced side, in fifteen seconds. Sup-
pose they did the work as expeditiously as
that, it took ten hours and twenty minutes
to go through this farce. The Son of God
came down from heaven, stood ten mortal
hours while 2,500 persons filed past him,
thrusting fingers into a nail print in each
hand, each foot, and into his pierced side.
Our humorous papers used to have cartoons
caricaturip? Grant's hand-shaking when he
shook hands with a few hundred for an
hour or two; but this "beats Grant." If
those who raised the cry "Any tiling to beat
Grant" had called on Sidney he could have
beat him all hollow and not half tried.

Our Saviour, after this idiotic tomfoolery
is finished, delivers a discourse made of
badly arranged scraps of his discourses re-
corded in the New Testament. We cannot
say that his glorification has improved his
revelations. Rigdon can tell bigger yarns
than the truthful history of the New Tes-
tament, but when it comes to making revela-
tions that is another thing. It is to be ob-
served that our Saviour follows King
James' version. Even the obsolete English
words, style, and mistranslations are fol-
lowed exactly. He appoints twelve apos-
tles and Nephi baptizes himself, and then
the eleven, and the scenes of Pentecost are
outdone. .Tesus did not come back from
heaven on the day of Pentecost, but poured
out the Holy Spirit. But then Sidney's

Nephites were always far above their breth-
ren back in Palestine. Our Saviour exam-
ines Nephi's plates, so as to have everything
fixed for Imposter Joe, and corrects one
error. The plates did noD contain the pro-
phecy that the multitudes would arise in
America at our Saviour's resurrection. The
Nephites admit that the prophet did say
so, and declare that prophecy had been ful-
filled. Observe, again, how these Nephites
of Sidney outdo their brethren in Pales-
tine. In' Palestine a few arise at the cruci-
fixion ; in America great multitudes at the
resurrection of Jesus. We have then a spe-
cimen of Mormon extravagance of ignor-
ance. Our Saviour in rebuking Peter, tells
him that if he were to order that John
should remain on earth till his second com-
ing, it is no concern of his, and that he is to
attend to his own work. John further de-
clares that our Saviour did not say that he
should remain. Here was something that
just suited Mormon ignorance and folly.
Rigdon makes our Saviour tell three Neph-
ites that they shall never see death, and re-
main till he comes ay ain. Sidney's Nephites
are blessed again above all others, i'here
is no doubt here. Our Saviour says three
shall remain instead of one. He bestows a
boon he did not bestow upon his beloved
disciple John. Imposter Joe and Oliver
Cowdery have a revelation, on parchraent-
from John that he did not die, and did re,
main on earth, in flat contradiction of God's
word. Just such silly wonders as tliese are
what Mormonism feeds on. The book closes
with a prophecy of the coming forth of the
Book of Mormon, and denounces fearful
woes on all who do not receive the tomfool-
eries of Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spauld-
ing and Imposter Joe,

The Book of Nephi, the son of Nephi, is
an unimportant one. It tells us on page 481
that masonry revived, and that Satan was
let loose and iniquity did fearfully abound.
Sidney must have been exceedingly malig-
nant against the Masons. Moroni takes up
Mormon's work and he informs us that
Masonry shall be prevalent when the Book
of Mormon appears; and that churches
shall be worldly and proud and that it will
be a time of unmeasured apostacy. Above
all men shall deny that miracles and revela-
tions are possible. Then Sidney goes for
the Disciples who would not accept the
Baptist idea of a direct and miraculous
influence of the Holy Spirit. We have
Sidneys ideas for several pages and one of
hia exhortations in his most approved camp
meeting style.

We find another of these incidental mat-
ters that expose the fraud in this Book of
Mormon. We have proved that ^paulding
wrote several ma \u scripts. To his second
Mormon maiu script he added the emigra-
tion of the Zarahemlites, closing his
manuscript with the book called the " Booki
of Mormon." He very appropriately has^
Moroni declare that he finishes the record
of his father ; and that he has only a few
things to write, a few things that his father
has commanded him to write on the few

T5E BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

131

pairos left on the plates. He declares his
father made the record and declares its
intent. He tlien sa.vs he would write more
if he had room on the plates but he cannot
for the plates are full and he has no ore to
make any more and is alone. He then adds
the few pao:e8 he declared he would and the
book appropriately closes.

When Spaulding: went to Pittsburg, at
Patterson's request he rewrote the romance,
writing Mormon ManusiU'ipt No. Ill, and
addinjf the.Jaredite portion. He overlooked
this iang-uajre of Moroni, with which he
had appropriately closed the Manuscript
No. II. and as the Book of Mormon now
stands, Moroni wrote 56 pages — the whole
of the Jaredite portion, no nothing, for his,
plates were full, and he could write no
more. That one blander is enough to con-
demn this fraud.

In this Jaredite Portion, written on noth-
ing, and with nothing as a basis for it, we
have a wonderful series of stories. Mor-
mon has buried all the plates except "these
few plates." that he handed to Moroni, the
Plates of Ether with the rest years before.
Where did Moroni get the plates of Ether
to use in writing the 66 pages he wrote
on nothing? He wrote on nothing and had
nothing to write. The Book of Ether says
that the speech of the Jaredites was not
confounded at Babel. The Bible declares
that the speech of all mankind was con-
founded. If time would permit we could
multiply almost indefinitely such contra-
dictions. We will now give an idiotic
caricature of the history of Noah and the
ark and defy anyone, outside, or inside of a
lunatic as^'iuin to equal it. Noah took eight
persons into the ark. Jared took with him
twenty-two grown persons and their fami-
lies. Noah took with him into the ark, at
most two of all animals and fowls that
could not subsist in or on the water:
Jared took two of all animals and fowls,
swarms of bees and wonder of wonders,
two of all kinds of fishes and all kinds of
seeds. Sidney never does things by halves.
Jared was to take food and water for this
large company of persons, for all his fowls,
and fishes, and flowers for his bees. If the
cubit used was the sacred cubit, as was
doubtless the case, the ark was 60 feet, long,
100 feet wide, and 60 teet high. Jared built
eight cigar shaped canoes, and each was
small, set light on the water, was sharply
pointed at each end, and as tight as a
dish, for we are told " the top thereof
'"was as tight as a dish, and the sides
" thereof was as tight as a dish, and the
" bottom tiierefore was as tight as a dish."
Each of these barges was itie length of a
tree and not more than 75 feet. Since the
ends were sharply pointed, the ark would
hold as much as 2000 such barges or 250
fleets of such barges. All kinds of animals
could enter the ark ; th^re were many that
could not enter one of these canoes.
Noah was told to have a system of
■windows in the ark for tliat is the
meaning of the Hebrew word. Jared
made his as tight as a dish. He took

into the^'e eight canoes, sharply pointed at
each end, not longer tlian a tree, twenty-
two grown persons with their families, two
of all kinds of animals, two of all kinds of
fowls, two of all kinds of fishes, swarms of
bees, and food and water for all for 3ik
days, and then shut down the door. No
wonder he halloed to the Lord for light and
air, shut up with such a crowd in a tight
little canoe, as tight as the inside of a jug
with the cork in.

The Lord finds that he has made a mis-
take in ordering Jared to make the canoes
after the Divine pattern. He seems to have
forgotten that animal life needs light and
air. How does he remedy it? With infi-
nite wisdom he tells Jared to knock a hole
in the top and another in the bottom of eacli
barge. Now, being an unbelieving Gen-
tile, and not a spiritually enlightened and
inspired Mormon, I can see that the hole in
the top would let in the air and light, if it
was big enough, and it would let in water
and drown them all in a storm also, but for
the life of me I cannot see what that hole
in the bottom was for, unless it was to let
in water and drown them. With ordinary
mortals, holes in the botttmi of such heavily
loaded canoes would send eveiy soul of
them to "Davy Jones's Locker" quicker
tliau you could say Jack Robinson, with
youp mouth ready puckered, as the Yan-
kee expressed it.

But something like Mormon inspiration
seizes me ; I see it all as clear as mud. An
Irishman's boots had holes in the toes.
Pat sagely cut a hole in each heel. When
asked what that was done for, he replied.
"Why, to let the wather out at the hael
wlien it comes in at the toe, sure." As
Jared's canoes were to go plunging and
diving through the water, nmuh of the time
under water, the hole at the bottom was to
let the water run out, when it ran in at the
top. Having provided ventilation on the
most approved scientific principles, and hav-
ing guarded, in the most scientific manner,
against drawing by the water let in at the
ventilating hole,the Lord then provides light
for them. and his mistakes are all corrected.
"And Jared did moulten out of a rock"
(shades of Johnson, whatEnglish)! "sixteen
small stones, and they were all clear
like glass"-- -another scientific discovery —
glass at the time of Babel. He brought
them to the Lord, and the Lord touched
them with his finger, and immediately
they let out a flood of light, and Jared did
not have to u.se kerosene, and he was inde-
pendentoftheStandard Oil Company. Jared
placed oneof these stones in each end of each
canoe, and the Lord and Jared got out of
all of these scrapes except one small mys-
tery. How did the Lord and Jared get sev-
eral times as much as Noah took into tlie
ark into less than one two hundred and
fiftieth part of the space, and how did they
get into one of these canoes, anim:ils that
must have been much taller than a canoe
was deep; and then what about that big
tank ot fish, or did the fish get along with-
out water to live in, and were then taken

132

iHE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE

into the canoes to save them from being
drowned? But then such questions will
qspoil the best revelations in the world,
even the revelations of Sidney Rigdon.
Two of the stones mentioned above were
the stone interpreters of Jared's brother,
and im poster Joe found them with the
plates buried by Moroni, although Moroni
never had them, and never buried them,
and no Nepliite ever saw them, and they
were never to come forth until the Gentiles
were all converted.

On page 509 Moroni prophecies that the
one who finds these plates shall show them
to three persons. Joe showed them to eleven.
David Whitmer, says Moroni, showed them
to his mother, and Emma Smith says she
saw them for days on the table and handled
them only covered with a thin cloth, and,
strange daughter of Eve that she was, she
never "peeked" under that cloth. With
all our respect for the "Elect Lady" we can
not swallow such a miracle as that. On the
same page we have this balderdash "Jared's
brothers did put forth these stones into the
vessels which were prepared, one into each
end thereof, and behold they did give light
unto the vessels thereof," "Thereof"
means of it or of them. The vessels thereof
then means the vessels of the ends, for that
must be what "thereof" refers to. Such
balderdash as that is the "Fullness of the
Gospel," given by inspiration — the fullest
inspiration man has ever known, was pre-
served by miracle, revealed by miracle,
and given to the world, word by word, so
precious is it, by direct miracle of Almighty
God. Who dares to stand up and blaspheme
the Almighty by such an assertion?

At last the Jaredites set sail. Their
canoes were in the depths of the sea, far
under the water, and not a drop of water
ran in through these two holes, one in the
top and the other in the boltom of each
canoe, and they had air with these holes
under the water. Bah! Let us stop! If,
as Imposter Joe tells us. God stives the
world by folly, there is idiocy enough in
that one scrap of Mormon "Fullness of the
Gospel" to eternally save a whole universe
of Mormons.

On page 514 we are told that Masonry
broke out among the Jaredites and of course
Batan was let loose. We have a ccmibina-
tion of Herodias and Tnllia, Herod and
Tarquin. Jared, a murderous conspirator,
promises the hand of his wicked daughter
to Akish if he would bring him the head of
the king, Jared's father. Akish starts
Masonry among the Jaredites to accomplish
bis infamous purpose, and then "they all
did swear nnto Akisii, by the God of
Heaven, and also by the heavens, and also
by the earth ; and also by their own heads,"
( What a fearful job of ciissiug they did do),
"that who should vary from the assistance
that Akish desired" (whatEnglish) "should
lose his head, aud whoso should divulge
what Akish made known unto them, the
same should lose his life." Ordinary
mortals would suppose that when a man
loses his head, he lost his life; but then

Mormon inspiration is a wonderful thing.
The difTerence between losing his head and
losing his life is as great as the Irish Justice
of the Peace discovered when he declared,
"It makes all the differ in the wurruld, in
the eyes of the law, whether he said, 'Come
out of the hoos McCarty,' or 'McCarty come
out of the hoos.' " "And Akish did admin-
ister unto them the oaths wliich were given
to them of old, who also sought power,
which had been handed down even from
Cain, who was a murderer from the begin-
ning." Tliere you have it — Cain was the
first Mason ! "And they were kept up by
the power of the devil," ( The devil origin-
ated the first Masonic liOdge) "to administer
those oaths unto the people and keep them
in darkness, to help such as sought power,
to gain power and to murder and to plunder
and to lie and to commit all manner of
wickedness and whoredoms. Now it was
the daughter of Jared who put it into his
heart to search up these things of old, and
Jared put it into the heart of Akish, where-
fore Akish administered it unto his kindred
and friends, leading them away by fair
promises, to do whatever he desired, and
it came to pass that they formed a secret
combination, even as they of old, which
combination is most abominable and wicked
above all things in the sight of the Lord."
There Masons put that in your pipes and
smoke it. The Lord is not a Mason, "for
the Lord worketh not in secu-et combin-
ations." "Neither doth he will that man
should shed blood, but in all things hath
forbidden it from the beginning of men,"
The Lord is an anti-Mason, and don't you
forget it.

" And I, Moroni, do not write the manner
of their oaths and combinations." He is not
a Morgan, then, "for it hath been made
known unto me they are had among all
people and they are had among the Laman-
ites, and they have caused the destruction
of this people of whom I am writing, and
also the destruction of the Nephites."
What an awful thing this Masonry has
been, and now listen : " Whatsoever nation
shall uphold such secret combinations to
get power and gain, until they spread over
the land, behold they shall be destroyed,
f<*r the Lord will not suffer the blood of his
saintsshall be shed by them ; they shall al-
ways cry unto him fiom the ground for ven-
geance upon them, and yet he avenge them
not." Now listen. Masons: "Wherefore,
O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that
these things shall be shown unto you, and
that thereby ye may renent of your sins
and sutler not that these murderous combi-
nations shall get above you which are built
up to get power and gain, and the work,
even the work of destruction shall come
upon you, even the sword of Justice of the
Eternal God shall fall upon you." Won't
they catch it, though!! "To your over-
throw and destruction if you shall suffer
these things to be, wherefore God com-
mandeth you when you shall see these
things come among you that you shall
awake to a seuse of vour awful condition " —

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

133

one of Rig^dou's revival expressions — "be-
cause of this secret combination which
shall be among you all. Woe be unto it,
because of the blood of them that hath been
slain, for they cry for vengeance upon it,
and also upon those who built it up, for it
Cometh to pass that whoso bui'.deth it up
seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all
lauds, nations and countries." Tiie anti-
Mason rant of 1825 to 1830. " And it bring-
eth to pass the destruction of all people, for
it is built up by the devil." There, Masons,
you have it — the devil is the founder of
Mas'^nrv, and Cain was the first Mason!
"Who 'is the father of all lies." There,
Masons, that cooks the Masonic goat to a
cinder ! !

Page 517 King Heth turns Mason, and,
of course, plots to murder some one. Page
§22 Masonry breaks out in a new spot and

Satan is let loose of course. In all th^ire
were ovei .> score of stabs at Masonry, cov-
ering several pages. Every charge made
against Masonry in the years 1825 to 1830 is
reiterated several times. Wlien we learu
from Mrs. Spaulding tliat Spaulding was a
rabid anti-^iason, and remember that Rig-
don, a regular Baptist preaclier, was fanat-
ically opposed to secret societies and was a
ranting anti-Mason, and that Smith was an
anti-Mason, all tliis rant and abuse is just
what is to be expected. But who is such a
sodden fool as to believe l^-it Israelites, in
the wilds of America, HtiU years before the
anti-Masonic excitement in the United
States, uttered repeatedly all the anti-Ma-
sonic abuse of Masonry ? ■

This one feature is enough to condemn
the claim of the Book of Mormon and to
expose it as a transparent fraud.

MR. KELLEY'S THIRTEENTH SPEECH.

GENTIiEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND

GentIjEMEn : — The Spaulding story upon
examination has been fully shown to be a
story; — a wonderfully large one, too, for its
time. That thing was thoroughly answered
and put to shame by Sidney Rigdon as early
as .January, 1836. His slaughter of that
through a published article in the Messen-
ger and Advocate, a paper printed here in
Kirtland, was sufficient to put all honest
men at the time upon their guard. Mr.
Rigdon showed that there was not only no
truth in the general statement connecting
him with .Joseph Smith and the publication
of the Book of Mormon, but further, that
each and every one of the statements and
allegations said to have been made by the
parties (the very same ones Braden has
brought up and cited as his witnesses in
this discussion) were false. This was long
prior to the death of Mr. Patterson, the
Presbyterian preacher, in Pittsburg, whom
Mr. l^igdon, in his letter of 1839, refers to
as not lending himself "to the infamous
plot to blacken his [Rigdon's] character."
A man of no sympathies in common with
the Latter Day 'Saints, and whom Rigdon's
enemies had 'held out as the one to whcmi
Spaulding delivered his manuscript for pub-
lication in Pittsburg, and as knowing cer-
tain things connecting Rigdon with the ro-
mance manuscript. But these persons never
get his (Patterson's) statement, altliough
he lived twenty years after they had started
the story, and eighteen j'ears after it had
been publicly challenged and put to shame

by the Saints. However, Wm. Small, of
Camden, N. J., in the meantime, goes to
this same Patterson in Pittsburg, and he
makes affidavit to the fact that he never
knew anything about such a manuscript as
these parties had told about. But this don't
in the least dash these story-tellers; they
lie low for a time till Patterson dies ; and
then, like them of old who said to the sol-
diers, " Say that his disciples came and
stole him away by night while we slept,"
they revive and start other theories in order
to carry out their nefarious work.

If it was so easy in the first century to
get the guard to lie with reference to the
resurrection of Jesus, after they had beheld
the heavenly messenger and had fallen
back as dead men, would it be remarkable
that in the nineteenth century men would
be able to get parties to spin falsehoods, to
fill up the measure of crime as to this
Spaulding tale?

But these fair and full denials of this
story were made when the professed "JNIau-
uscript Found," was in the hands of Howe
at Painesville, only nine miles away from
Kirtland. and consequently, while there
was access to the ,^r.s(', and only sufficient
evidence they ever had for such a story, if
ever such a story had existed in fact ; and
with the challenge of the truth of the story
in tiieir very faces, and a demand made for
the proof, by one of the men assailed, too,
with others, and in the very midst of the
parties who claimed to know, Hulburt and
Howe and these men, (said to be witnesses),

134

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
J

fail to put forth a suigle statement that can
in any view of the case be looked upon as
evidence, burned the manuscript they had
received of Spaulding-, s<> admitted hy them-
selves and began in an underhanded and
insidious manner to publish their stories
through the ready newspapers for such
things, and in 1840, after the Saints were
far away from this part of the country, in
the States of Missouri, Illinois and Iowa,
Howe gets out his slanderous and disrepu-
table work of " Mormonism Unveiled," or
"History of the Mormons."

This was four years after Sidney Rigdon
through the Kirtland publication had
shown the falsity of the story ; one year
after his letter in the "Boston Journal,"
which played such havoc among the des-
poilers of his good name ; one year after
the full and clear examination and plain
contradiction of the story by Parley P.
Pratt, in the Neiv Era, a New York paper ; ,
and five years after the story had been pub-
licly met and put to shame in various parts
of the United States and Canada, by the
elders of the Saints, and notwithstanding
all of this, Howe and Robert Patterson,
this last a little fellow now livingover here
at Pittsburg (who would like to do some-
thing to destroy the faith of the Saints, if
he only could rake up something to do,)
brazenly put out for the truth, the state-
ment that their story was never denied till
just lately. Men who will deliberately or
ignorantly make such false claims as these,
and ask you to believe them, cannot be re-
lied upon in any feature of the case by hon-
est men. Before a person publishes a thing
as true, he should know it to be such, and
he cannot justify himself afterwards upon
the ground, or plea of ignorance.

Another point do not forget. All the
time, from 1834 to 1840. this same Howe had
the Spaulding manuscript in his hands, and
at the same time he had it in his hands,
Mesdames Davidson and McKinstry, the
widow and daughter of Solomon Spauld-
ing, were claiming it was in fact, the genuine
article that Spaulding wrote ; the "Manu-
script Found." And Howe writes Mrs.
Davidson a letter in the meantime, saying,
"It did not read as we expected, and we
did not use it ;" but never the once hints
that it was the wrong manuscript, or not
the "Manuscript Found," as claimed by
these parties, who were the only persons
under the sun wno could possibly tell
whether it was the ''Manuscript Found^' or
not.

He never once in his letter to them asks
if they did not have another manuscript
some where of Spaulding's, or if they had
any means of telling whether he had the
right one ; or whether Hulburt had played
off on him and given him the wrong one.
No; Howe knew he ha 1 the Spaulding
Manuscript in his possession, and that story
in his control, with all advantage in his
favor ; and as the coward that strikes down
his innocent victim at the time he thinks
no whisper of the deed can ever fall upon
mortal ear, so, brooding in jealousy and in-

cited through the lies and tales which had
been i^oured into his ready mind, he puts
forth his hand to consign to the past the
first and only evidence of this Spaulding
tale, while, with the weapons of false state-
ments and stories hawked about by the
vile and depraved, he essays to destroy an
innocent and noble people.

He knew at the time of his Avriting that he
ought to have a different class of evidence
to meet these things with and make good
his assertions than that which he had, and
he states in his book that he will furnish
depositions for this purpose, and which, he
says, "will sink these people." Oh! yes;
sink them ; that was the object of Howe and
Hulbert ; but he fails, however, to publish,
or give in all of his writings or works, a
single deposition of any person whatever,
notwithstanding this boast.

But what does he do? Answer v

1. He publishes spurious, garbled, per-
verted and false things under the claim he
was making quotations from the works of
the Saints.

2. He publishes the questionable state-
ments of a few persons, the quoted state-
ments of two others ; all of which are
positively contradicted by Mrs (Solomon
Spaulding) Davidson, Solomon Spaulding's
daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, Sidney Rigdon,
Parley P. Pratt, and Patterson, the Presby-
terian preacher at Pittsburg ; besides the
fact that the.y so clearly and unmistakably
bear upon the face the stamp of inconsist-
ency and falsehood. They hold the idea
throughout that these testifiers, who did
not pretend that they had heard of or seen
Spaulding's writing for more than twenty
years, were so familiar with a manuscript,
(which, to have been what they claim for it,
must have contained from fifteen hundred
to two thousand pages,) that they could,
after twenty years' lapse of time, give
names that were at the time strange and
new to them; and never spoken bj' them for
all of this time ; and other little things
which it is plain the copiers of the pre-
tended statements must have taken from
the Book of Mormon, as this was four years
after its publication, and done when they
have the book before them, this last fact
being clearly disclosed in the statements
themselves.

The absurdity, however, does not rest
alone upon all of these things ; but their
statements were emphatically, directly and
llatl.v contradicted by the manuscript then
in Howe's possession, and which claimed
for itself to be the one Spaulding said was
fi^nr.ci in a cave, and which was truly the

Manuscript Found."

These statements so directly contradict-
ed, together with a few fraudulent affida-
vits which Hulburt got up in New York,
and which I have fully shown were fraud-
ulent, is the entire stock in trade of Mr.
Howe to form his basis of belief and cause
him to so severely and viciously attack the
faith of the Saints and make them appear
odious, except the bare disbelief of himself
in God, the Scriptures, and the fact that

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

135

there was any such thing in the universe of
God, or history of man, as the Holy Spirit,
in whicli the Saints believed and claimed
to rejoice. Ah! Tlie secret is unfolded in
his own words : — "I could better believe
that Spaulding wrote it than Joe Smitli saw
an angel." And so he wrote as Voltaire,
Hume and Thomas Paine from the stand-
point of his unbelief, without the honesty
of these others. I might intfoduee here as
cumulative evidence on this question the
additional statement of Mrs. McKiiistry,
who had a better opportunity of knowing,
and did know the manuscript of her father
better, than either John or Martlia Sj-aiild-
ing and who as late as the year 18S(i, pub-
lished, (so stated by the compiler, Mrs.
Dickensen), an affidavit in the Scribner
Monthly, still claiming and reatlirming that
thin Hulburt did get the "Manuscript
Found." The statement of this Robert
Patterson, of Pittsburgh, who is trying to
find some terrible thing against the Saints,
to Hulburt 4 years ago, in the presence of
Mrs. Hulburt, "that his father, [Mr. Pat-
terson, the preacher,] always claimed that
he did not believe there was ever sucii a
manuscript as the parties claimed the 'Man-
■DSCBiPT Found,' to be, about their printing
office in Pittsburjih." And notwithstand-
iag this, this same Robert F*atterson,in 1882,
suppresses in his publication this claim of
his (ather, and gives the purported statement
as obtained fipm one, Rev. (?) Samuel Wil-
liams who wrote up a list ofstories for pub-
lication against the Saints, vvlien the first
three lines of the statement clearly show
that it is a fraud, and that Patterson never
had anything to do with it wliatever. It is
as follows: — "R. Patterson had in his em-
ployment Silas Engles at the time, a fore-
man printer," etc., then, signed at the bot-
tom, "Robert Patterson." This is certain-
ly enough on this.

The statement of Mrs. Hulburt, made on
Tuesday," February 5th, 1884, I now submit
to you : — She said that,

"Mr. Hulburt never obtained but one manuscript
from Mrs. Davi.son. That one lie let E. D. Howe have,
Wht-n Mrs. (Spaulding) Davison let him have it, he
said he promised to return it; and when he let Howe
have it Howe promised to restore it to Mrs. Spauldinp,
but he never did. Hulburt -pent about six months time
and a good deal of money looking np the Spaulding
manuscript and other evidence, but he was disappoint-
ed in not finding v\ hat he wanted. This was the rea-
son he turned the whole thing over to Howe. Ke nev-
er was satisfierl with what he found, and while on his
death-bed he would have givfn everything he bad in
the world could he have been certain there was ever a
"M nuscript Pound," as claimed, similar to the Book
ofMormon." •

This is overwhelming proof, showing
there was never any such manuscript as
they claimed Spaulding wrote, and that
they got the quire of paper upon which he
did' write. It is the confirming proof, too,
of Howe's guilt. Why did he not do as he
agreed, send the manuscript which he got
back to Mrs. Davidson? The reason is too
plain to be concealed for a moment. He is
so anxious to have it destroyed that he vio-
lates his agreement to return " as soon as
used." Why did he not return it when "it

did not read as they expected," at the time
he wrote to Mrs. Davidson?
Shame on such trickery !
I miiiht alsointrodnce the emphatic state-
ment of Mrs. Emma Smith, wife of Joseph
Smith the Seer. She positively states :
"That no acquaintance was formed between
Sidney Rigdon and the Smith family till
after the church was organized in the year
1830." "That neither" her husbai\(rnor
herself "ever saw Sidney Higdon until long
after the Book of Mormon was in print."
This is the statement of one of the most
honored and esteemed ladies of Illinois, and
who, after the murder of her husband, con-
tinued a resident of the State, raising her
family, and departing this life but a short
time ago in a ripe age, loved by all who
knew her. Also the positive declaration of
David Whitmer, made at Richmond, Mo.,
April, 188:2, in answer to a question asked
him in the presence of a number of persona,
by President Joseph Smith of Lamoni. la., to
which he gave this answer : "That the Hook
of Mormon was published long before Sidney
Rigdon was known to our (the witness),
family, or the Smiths ; that I know that the
story told of the Spaulding romance in con-
nection with the Book of Mormon is false."
I will, in this connection, again call your
attention to the affidavit of Mrs. Salisbury,
to which Braden was so hasty to speak of
last evening as being a lie, and therefore the
witness could not be believed. Ijet us ex-
amine it and see who lied. She says,
" Tliat at the time of the publicatior^ of said
book, my brother, Josepii Smith, Jr., lived
in the family of my father in the town of
Manchester, Ontario county, N. Y."

That, you will not certainly say, is con-
tradicted. Now look at the next:

" That he had, ail of his life to this time,
made his home with the family."

Do you say this is contradicted? Where
was his home to this time? Notice, she
does not say he was at home all the time,
but "made it his home vvitii the family."
To the year 1827, he was a young man, and
his horne was with the family, although he
at times worked away from home. There
are thousands of poof boys who have to do
>liis, and my observation of humanity tells
me that they are just about as apt to be
honorable aiid truthful as those who stay
at home and don't have any work to do ; or,
if they do have, do not do it. In this year
he gets married, (steals his wife, Braden
says,) althousih he was in his 22d year, nnd
the lady he marries was in her 2bd. Well,
it rather strikes my mind that she wanted
to be stolen. Besides, it is a proof that
their Campbellite preacher, Rigdon. did not
steal everything that came into Smith's
possession.

But Mr. Smith says in his history, that
after the marriage he went to his father's
and remained, living in the family a year
and farmed with his father. Here is his
home till 1828, certain, and with«)ut any
contradic^tion of any witnesses. .And it le
certain from all, that all the time during
the year 1827 he was here in his father's

186

THE BRADEN AND KELLER DEBATE.

family, and this is tlie time Tucl<er, Hul-
tourt, etal., tried to fix, as tlie time when
the '" Mysterious Stranger," (a wicked
falsehood deliberately made by them,) ap-
peared. Mrs. Salisbury aud Mrs. Emma
Smith are both riorht upon tde spot then,
ajjd know who visit there, and no such
person as Sidney Riofdon or any other mys-
terious strano-er, is about their place, or
A/isiting with Joseph Smith. Braden is
caught here and he knows it; that is the
reasTon he charges against the positive
knowledge aud testimony of Mrs. Salis-
bury.

Mr. Smith receives the plates in Septem-
ber of this year, and a few monihs after he
got them, 'he was compelled through the
persecution of those who were trying to get
them from him, to go elsewhere for a time,
and he goes to his wife's father's place in
Pennsylvania: (the same from which thej'
Bay he'stole his wife.) The lies ot Smith's
enemies are so thick about this time that a
man in that country could hear anihing he
wanted to. While here also, the history
states :

" We had been threatened with be'ng mobbed, from
time to time, and this too. by professors of religion.
And their intentions of mobbing us were only conn-
tcrneted hv the influence of my wife's father's family,
(under divine Proviilence ) who had become very
'riendlvto me, and w lio were oppose-i to mobs, and were
wiUinsi that I should continne the worli of translation
withont interruption ; and therefore, oftered and prom-
ised ns protection from all unlawful proceedings as
far as in them lay."

It will do well to think, my friends, of
the " Screen and blanket" stories, the
"peep stones," the story he has told of
"Smith being shut up in a cave," and all
8uch ridiculous stud: set afloat by the
"high-toned" gentlemen, who gave infor-
matFon to Hulburt, Howe, Tucker, et al.;
and then, find him down at his wife's
father's, (Mr. Hale's), steadly and persist-
ently doing his work, right in the house of
those who did not believe with him and
who were terribly prejudiced against his
work.

Here is where Oliver Cowdery visited him
and wrote for him, right in the house of Mr.
Hale for weeks— from the 15th of April to
the 1st of .Tune. About the 1st of June of
this year by reason of the continued and
increased persecution in the neighborhood
of his wife's father, be was compelled to go
to another place. This he found for a time
at a gentleman's by the name of Whitmer,
and from here he returned home to his
father's at Mancliester, New York. The
records agree then. His home wasat his
father's, and he was here in 1829, when the
manuscript was given to the printer, and
remained till 1830, but in the spring of 1830
left Manchester and returned to Whitmer's.
What does the witness Mrs. Salisbury
say :

"That she knew the friends of the family and the
"friends and acquaintances of Joseph Smith, her
"brother, who visited at her father's house. That
" prior to the hater part of the vear 1830, there was no
" person who visited with, or was an acqiirtintance of,
" or called npon the said family, or any member there-
" of, to my knowledge, by the name of Sidney Rigdon."

Will 3'ou again Mr, Braden insult common

decency by saying she lied, and is contra-
dicted by all others? Or that she d;d not
tell the truth and the whole truth? Bring
forward someof your strong evidence, if you
have so much tliat is contradictory and let
ns hear it read. This lady does not pretend
that she was with her brother all of this
time, every day or month. But that at her
father's housewas her brother's home and
the place where he brought his friends ; was
there the greater part of the time himself,
and she says, "that to the extent of her
knowledge, no such person as Sidney Rig-
don was known to the family or any mem-
ber of the same."

Here then, is the positive and direct
ktiowledge that there was no such person
as Tucker tried by deception and inuendo
to make the jieople believe of a "mysterious
stranger," being at the residence of the old
gentleman Smith or an acquaintance of
Joseph Smith.

Here then, are the positive and certain
declarations of Sidney Rigdon, P. P. Pratt,
Catherine Salisbury, Emma Smith and
David Whitmer upon the question as to
whether Rigdon was ever an acquaintance
of the family of Mr. Smith, and knew of the
Book of Mormon, except as a rumor in the
world, possibly, as many other people prior
to its publication, and "they all agree that
he was not known to the family or the
translator of the Book of Mormon in any
sense.

Add to this the statement of Braden 's
witness, Gilbert, who said in my pres-
ence, that he had tried for fifty years
or near that long to find out something that
would connect Rigdon and Smith together
in someway, he living at Palmyra, N. Y.,
all this tinie as shows'! in his testimony, and
who stated at the same time, that "they
could not find out that Rigdon was ever
about here or in this state until sometime in
the fall of of 1830," and it makes a clear and
positive case against his Spauldin'g story.
Compare my testimeny upon this point now,
with the loose statements got up by Howe
and Hulburt and ])eddled by Biaden here,
and you have the actual status of the case.
These tales and stories when summed up
are truly but tersely put by a writer who
has lately canvassed them as follows :

"Rev. Kirk says that Dr. Winters told him that Mr.
Rigdon told him—

Dr. Winters' danghter says her father said that Rig-
don got Spaulding's manuscript-
Rev. Bonsall heard Dr. Winters say so and so—
And the impression of these three is that Dr Winters
wrote out his recollections- and therefore of course he
did. •.

Mrs. Amos Dunlap saw Rigdon reading a mauuscnpt,
therefore it was th'- Si.anlding Romance.

Pomery Tucker saw a mvsterions stranger visits Jo-
seph SmUh, therefore Sidnev Rigdr.n is the man.

Mrs. Horace Eaton makes use of a similar statement
ssnmi:ig it as a matter of course."

These, with what Tucker said some one
else said, and all of which Hulburt and
Howe got up, is Braden's stock in trade,
and the only things offered to prove this
Spaulding Romance.

It seems to me that if there is anj'one in
tills audience, or any person outside, who
shall hereafter be found with these facts in

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

137

their possession, still tryinor to gfossip the
Spaulding story down peop^.^'s throats, it
will be because they are wliolly given over
to evil, and terribly addicted to that kind
of a business.

To such, I would advise in the language
of the apostle Paul: "But refuse profane
and old wives' fables, [gossip of the 'old
neighbors,' silly fables or falsehoods,] and
exercise thyself rather unto Godliness."
1 Tim. 4: 7. *

Ladies and gentlemen, you have noM'
found what there is in fact to this Spanld-
ingtale. I have carefully examined this
thing, although I need not have noticed it
in order to have naaintained successfully
the proposition. I have done it, because I
knew it to be the means hy which satan
sought to blind the eyes of the people by
gossip, and story, and tale and falsehood,
to prevent them from honestly investigat-
ing this book in the manner God wants
them to investigate all things.

But what has he proven as a fact of this
story?

Did he prove that Solomon Spauldin^
ever wrote such a manuscript as was that
of the Book of Mormon?

Has he sustained the burden of proof,
showing that Sidney Rigdon and Joseph
Smith were ever acquainted in any way till
after the publication of the Book of Mor-
mon?

Has it been shown that Rigdon was ever
known toSpaulding in Pittsburg?

Did he j>rove that Sidney Rigdon took
the manuscript in order to start a church?

Has he proved that Rigdon, in fact, ever
knew anything of what the Book of Mor-
was, till it was presented to him by P. P.
Pratt, November, 1830?

You know all of these questions must be
answered in the negative.

The only thing he has fairly proven with
regard to "this Spaulding story to my mind,
is the fact, that he had no evidence when
he began.

He refused T;%try to answer my arguments
and struck out upon his alibi, where the
burden of proof fell upon him, and his alibi
has gone down and left him sitting with
nothing under him But he is still plucky,
and up and attacks the Book of Mormon
for what he deems objectionable in it. This
is a proper way to debate ; and if he can
find anything bad in it, let him turn it out
here. I shall not complain so he don't mis-
quote, or mis-state the book.

He has made U few Bible objections which
I shall notice in this connection.

Isaiah lfi:8, he says, "Refers to the disper-
sion of the Moabites." But why does he
say so? To whom does the prophet re-
fer as leaving this la^d as being the "vine
of Sibmah;"— "principal plants?" The peo-
ple who were the desire of the Lord ; pleas-
ant to him? Will he say what people of the
land of Moab was referred to? There were
many.

Jeremiah 81, " Refers to the dispersion of
Israel in the Assyrian empire," he saj's.
But what right has'he to say so? The proph-

ecy is emphatically airainst such an idea.
Itsays, "Behold, I will bring them from
the north country, and gather them from
the cnafits of the earth.^' Neither of these
places refer particularly to Assyria.

Isaiah 11:11, he takes up and quotes just
part of the verse, and says : "Tliis shows
it refers to the Israelites in the Ass^'rian
empire." Had he quoted the verse it would
have been sufficient to prove him wrong
without a word from me, Noti<'0, while I
read : "From Assyria, and from En.vi>t, and
from Pathros, and from Cush, and from
Elam, and from Shinar, and from Haniath,
and from the islands of the sea." (I'J, verse).
"And he shall set up an ensign for the na-
tions, and s-hall assemble the outcasts of
Israel. an4 gather together the dispersed
of Judah from tiie four corners of the earth."
Was it indeed limited to Assyria? Is this
the best he can do towards a refutation of
my positions?

He takes up what he considers the pet
passage of Mormonism, Ezekiel 37, and
thinks to make you believe that staff, rod
and stick are used interchangeably in the
Bible and mean power. I know we read of
the rod of Aaron and scepter of Judah, but
they are in no way used in the sense of a
stick. We can well speak of the scepter of
the king as meaning power, but not the
stick of the king as meaning power. The
words are not used interchangeably in the
English, neither are the originals in the
Hebrew so used in a single instance. But
in his interpretation he overlooks entirely
the writing upon the sticks which I f)artic-
ularly called attention to. Did this mean
the kingdoms too? Give us an exposition
once or confess you cannot. But read it now
substitutinsr kingdom for stick, and you
have the ridiculous position of uniting the
kingdoms in the 19th verse, and uniting
them again in the 21st, without any idea of
the writing upon the stick or kingdom.

Now I sliall answer the objection made by
him, thatnoneof Ephraimciuneto America.
How does he know? Well, he says the
Book of Mormon says they were of the
tribe of Manasseh. Mr. Smith, bethinks,
(or rather the equestrian Ahasuerus, Rig-
don), made a great mistake here. If Mr.
Smith had just sent over to Andover, or
down to Hiram, or waited till the endow-
ment of Betliany, before committing him-
self, it would have been all right. But he
thinks he is clearly caught here. Let us
examine the position : Does the Book of
Mormon say all who came to this continent
were of the tribe of Manassah? No, it does
not. But it says Lehi was, and that is
enough for Braden. He can soon make the
objec'tion. His objection is, then, that the
book of Mormon did not trace Kphraim
here bv lineage. But had it done so an
objection would clearly have lain against
it, as we shall see from the propiiecies.

It is written iu Hosea v. 14: "For I will
be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young
lion to the house of Judah ; I, even I, will
tear and go away ; I will take away and
none shall rescue him."

138

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Here the thought is presented by the pro-
phet thii; Ephraim, for some cause or the
other, is to be broken up. torn to pieces,
scattered. By turning to verse 8, of the
same chapter we will readily discover the
reason for this, which is clearly on account
of their evils and abominations. In the
prophecy of Jeremiah, vii. 15, the Lord
says : " And I will cast you out of my sight
as I have cast out all your brethren, even
the whole seed of Ephraim." It is clear
from this instruction that Ephraim had,
brought upon him a great and terrible judg-
meiir by reason of his rebellion and trans-
gressions.

What was the penalty to be? Utter de-
struction—annihilation? O, no. Turn with
me for the answer to Rosea ix. 11, 12. The
Lord there says: "As for Ephraim, their
glory shall fly away like a bird, from the
birth, and from the womb, and from the
conception. Though they bring up their
children, yet will I bereave them, that
there shall not be a man left. Yea. woe
also to them when I depart from them ! "

Here the problem of Ephraim is made
more plain. "Their glory," as a people is
at some time and in some way to be taken
away. They were to be taken as from early
birth and separated one from another, and
thus destroyed as a nation, as predicted by
the prophet and scattered among the
people. Ibid. 7:8. "Ephraim, he hath
mixed himself among the people; Ephraim
is a cake not turned." Evidently not well
baked then, so when taken up, it is readily
broken to pieces; or, as in verse 11, pre-
figured, he falls apart of himself. "Ephraim
also is a silly dove without heart ; they call
to Egypt ; they go to Assyria." His attach-
ments are to be broken and he left to
wander every wheie, and not seek a place
with any one particular people. Mixed in
Egypt and Assy ria his blood will afterwards
not only be iound among the tribes, but
among the Gentile nations also.

Ephraim is thus set forth in the prophetic
history of the Bible ; and yet, the objection
is made by my opponent, and was long
before made by John Hyde, and other short
sighted theologians, that in the Book of
Mormon the line or lineage of Ephraim is
not traced to America, therefore, .it is a
terrible blunder. Ah ! but the blunder is
again upon the side of these self-constituted
critics.

Had the tribe been traced by lineage,
there would have been a conflict with the
prophecies. The Lord does not contradict
himself in his own work, that is quite clear.
Ephraim then, is mixed with the people
everywhere ; and per consequence over here,
as well as with the other nations. Turning
to the Book of Mormon, I find that with
Lehi who came to this country, there was
the family of Ishmael, and Zoram ; and
although it had been common in Jerusalem
to keep the genealogy of all the people, it
seems none was kept of these. Why, we
are not informed; nevertheless, we are in-
formed that Ephraim should not be able to
keep his lineageor "glory," nor even desire

to do so, but that he should be "mixed
among the people."

So it was that when Mulok came out from
Jerusalem he brought "a company" with
him, but the lineage of the company is not
given. However, we are plainly informed
in the book that the descendants of Joseph
in Egypt were upon tliis land ; "of the seed
of Joseph," and not simply through Manas-
seh. And in Genesis, 49th chapter, it reads,
"whose branches," not branch, but
"branches," (daughters), "run over the
wall" — "pass to the utmost bounds of the
everlasting hills, above," (over, beyond),
the blessing of my progenitors, of Abraham
and Isaac. Both, also, as spoken of by
Moses in Deuteronomy, go to the promised
land and inherit together; he sets this out
in the blessing, which we have shown could
only refer to the land of America. In Gene-
sis 48th, they are made "to grow into a
multitude in themidstof the earth." In the
Book of Mormon we find thorn traced here
through the older brother, Manasseh, who
had not lost the birth-right ; but Ephiaim
as is clearly shown by the prophets would
be the case, is yet, "mixed among the
people ; " and hence, his lineage not traced.
Then the book is still fonnd to accord with
the Bible and truth, notwitstanding the ob-
jections of some of the self-wise of the age.
In the last days, Ephraim is to come out
from among the people, and do his work
and in his hand, in the inauguration of this
work is the "stick of .Joseph," the "En-
sign," which is to be put with the Bible, or
"stick of Judah," and with the two, as with
the power, or "horns of the unicorn," "he
shall push the people together to the ends
of the earth." Hence, in speaking of the
gospel work of restoration in the last days,
the prophet Jeremiah, says: "They shall
come with weeping, and with supplications
will I lead them: I will cause them to walk
by the rivers of waters in a straight way,
wherein they shall not stumble. For, I am
a father to Israel and Ephraim is my first
born." Ephraim is to be first m the work in
the last time ; he never has been before !
but his lineage being lost, when he is
brought to light it will be as in the time of
Nehemiah, through the instrumentality of
a prophet standing up with the Urhn and
Thummim. The Psalmist in the 80th num-
ber, exclaims aright then, when he says :
"Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that
leadest Joseph like a flock ; Thou that dwel-
lest between the cherubim, shine forth. Be-
fore Ephraim and Benjamin an« Manasseh
stir up thy strength, and come and save
us."

This part of the work of Ephraim with
others is so plain that it is hardly possible
to go amiss if you take the Bible for your
guide. And the prophecies are fulfilled in
every condition, so far as the work has pro-
gressed, in the coming forth of tlie Book of
Mormon. Hereisw^here Mr. P.raden rested
his great objection to the Book of Mormon,
and his objection to the application of" the
prophecy in the 87th of Ezekiel to that book.
Now, I want to see him stand up to the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

130

work and answer me upon this, if he can.
There is an issue here, and ifhecanshow
tiiat I am wro \g in my position of Ephraim
being ''niixtil among- the people," and "scat-
teretl.tipon all tlie mountains of Israel : upon
the lace of the whole earth," but to be re-

vealed in the last day by the light of rev-
elation to inaugurate and "push to the
ends of the earth" tlie work of salvation
among the people, let him do so.
(Time called.)

MR. BRADEN'S THIRTEENTH SPEECH.

GENTLEiMEN MODERATORS, LADTES AND

Gentlemen : My opponent quotes from
the Book of Mormon the declaration that
men will say in regard to the Book of Mor-
mon, " We have the Bible and that is sulH-
cieut." There is no prophesy in that, for
the Disciples had been saying that to Big-
don, the author of tlie book, for years, when
he was trjnug to prepare them to accept
new revelations and his book. The word
"Bible" was first api)lied to the scrip-
tr.res in the fourth century by Chrysostom.
We have here a Nephite in Anierica using
it hundreds of years before — another mira-
cle. As I have never read a word that
Howe said, and have not made him a wit-
ness, Kelley's attacks on Howe's analysis
of the Book of Mormon is a nonsensical
waste of time. As a lawyer will he tell me
what effect his attacks on Howe's analysis
of the Book of Mormon has on the testi-
niony of the witness recorded in another
part of the book ? I have sent for legal evi-
dence that T. P. Baldwin was .Judge of one
of the courts of Wayne county, N. Y., in
1833. When it comes I will settle that
cavil of my opponent. I have explained
that Spaulding concealed from his wife and
daughter his purpose to publish his book,
and that he told his creditors that he in-
tended to publish it and pay his debts.
Mrs. Eichbaum, clerk in the post office in
Pittsburg, from 1812 to 181(5 inclusive, testi-
fies thatBigdon was in Pittsburg in 1814-15,
or during the time the Spaulding manu-
script was taken to Patterson's office ; that
he was learning the tanner's trade and was
intimate with Lambdin, one of Patterson's
printers, and was about the office so much
that Engles, the foreman, complained of it.
That settles that nuxtter.

My opponent said last night that Mrs.
Davidson said there were passages of scrip-
ture in her husband's Manuscript Found.
She does not. She says the passages of
scripture and religious talk were added to
the romance to get up the Mormon fraud.
I have proved that Spaulding wrote sev-
eral manuscripts, and my opponent's jabber
on the assumption that he wrote only one
is absurd. His attack on the testimony I
presented is absurd and puerile. My oppo-

nent seems to think that his course in inter-
viewing parties, and then going ofl" and
writing oil' what he says thfiy said, was far
more honorable than Mv. Tliorne's course in
going to the parties and having them go
before a nKigistrtite and testify m their own
words and say what they pleased. The
witnesses swear thai he falsified their state-
ments. He objects that Major Gilbert does
not specify in what particulars he is mis-
represented. It was not necessary, for, he
says, it is all misrepresentation, deliberate
falsehood. He objects that there is no date
to the testimony of Conneaut witnesses.
There is none to most of what he reads.
There is neither date nor place to the testi-
mony of the witnesses for the Book of Mor-
mon ; and tiiey do not sign independent in-
dividual statements as these witnesses do,
but a joint statement w-ritten out for them
by Imposter Joe. Cannot my opponent see
that such pettifogging is putting into my
hands a club that will knock out all the
brains he has got.

Campbell says Bentley is mistaken con-
cerning one of the teachings of the Book
of Mormon, therefore Bentley's testimony
concerning what Rigdon told him is worth-
less. Such talk is twaddle. Campbellasked
Bentley whether he remembered a certain
conversation and what he remmebered of it ;
therefore Campbell's testimony is worthless.
More bosh. I have said that a man
may preach the teachings of Christ, or
steal them and present them to the world
as a revelation and be a hypocrite. He
quotes " If any man abide in the teachings
of Christ, etc.*" Yes, abide. What is it to
abide in such teachings? To steal it and
present it to the world as a revelation in
a lying fraud, or live it out in life? For
pity's sake stop that idiocy. He cannot
make the Bible and the Book of Mormon
parallel cases. But few of the writers of
the Bible tell us they were inspired. But
few tell us their books were written by
divine command. None of the books were
revised liy inspiration or by Jesus liimself.
They were written on perishable material ;
had'to be copied by uninspired men: they
were not preserved by miracle, and they
were translated by uninspired learning.

140

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

The Book of Mormon was written by
men by divine commaud and most of them
Bay they were inspired in engraving on the
plates. They were preserved by miracle.
Revealed to Smith by miracle. Translated
by inspiration. Given word by word to
Binith, by the Lord, in a miracle; and the
witnesses declare that the voice of God
declared to them that the translation was
correct, and the Book of Mormon true.
Tliere is no work of man here. It is all the
work of the Lord. If there are mistakes
they are the mistakes of the Lord. I said
the materials used by the Israelites in
writing their books were papyrus, parch-
ment rolls — so the BibJe declares. His
retort is absurd. Because tlie American
people engrave on gold, or stone, on
metal, wood, etc., the material on, which
we write is metal, stone, etc. Bosh. Tlie
use of the word " Jew,' is a blunder of the
translator, as much as for a F'renchman to
call all who spoke the English language
" Yanlis," from the days of William the
Conqueror, He has found " steel" in the
Bible and he can find " farthing" also.
Bibical scholars say that steel was un-
known among the Israelites until shortly
before Chi ist. If the Gospel was preached
to Abraham, it was not all of the teachings
of Christ and his apostles, in the exact
words they used. The New Testament
Bays the Holy Spirit was not given in the
name of Christ until after he was glorified.
The Book of Mormon says he was.

We will notice an item omitted from the

g roper place. The Book of Doctrines and
ovenants says of the Book of Mormon.
" CondetTination rests and will rest on all
" who do not repent and remember the
"New (Covenant, even the Book of Mor-
" mou." Again. "Behold I say unto you
" that all old covenants have been done
" away in this thing" (the Bool? of Mor-
mon) "and this" (the Book of Mormon)
"is a new and everlasting conveuaut."
Mormon revelation declares that the
Book of Mormon is a new and everlasting
covenant doing away Christ's dispensation
and Christ's covenant. The Book of Doc-
trines and Convenants declares that the
Book of Mormon " Is the fulness of thf
Gospel." The Bible— Christ's Gospel — was
imperfect — did not contain the fulness of
the Gospel. The Book of Mormon de-
clares tiiat the Romish Church " took
"away from the Gospel many parts which
"are plain and precious, and also many
"covenants of the Lord have they taken
"away." It declares that " it" (the Book
of Mormon) "makes known the plain and
" precious things that have been taken
"away." It places the Book of Mormon
above the Bible, the New Testament and
above the covenant of Christ. Such are the
the blasphemous claims of this fraud.
Kelley dues not present them to you. He
" roars you genciy as a sucking dove." 'He
is giving you miik such as becomes baues.
1 give you the strong meat of Mor-
mon ism.

The Book of Mormon tells us that if Ad-

am had not transgressed and fallen he
would have had no children. The Bible
says God commanded him to be fruitful.
According to the Book of Mormon God's
first command to man was one that he could
not obey unless he sinned. If he did not
sin he must forever disobey the first com-
mand God laid on him. It says if Adam
had not sinned he would have known no
joy for he knew no misery. 1 lien God put
man in Eden with everything tliat could
cause joy and gave toman no power toenjoj'
it. Also unless persons suffer misery they
can have no joy. The angels that are bless-
ed suffer misery, for if they do not they
have no joy. It further sa.vs : "Tlie.y did
no good for thy knew no sin." Tlien the
angels that have not sinned do no good ?
An intelligence can do no good till he sins I
Was Adam doing no good when in a state
of purity he obeyed God's commands? If
good comes through sinning tlien — the more
sinning the more good. This absurd idea
of the Book of Mormon is in flat contradic-
tion of the teacliings of the Bible. There
are many ideas in the Book of Mormon and
in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants and
in the interpolations of the inspired transla-
tion that are plagiarized from fancies of the
apocryphal Book ofEnoch.

We will now resume our analysis of the
Book of Mormon. We are told on page 517
that the Asiatic horse, ox and cow, the
same blunder as in the case of the Neph-
ites, the sheep, the ass and swine were
common in America thousands of years
ago. Science declares tliat these species of
animals were introduced b,y Columbus and
his successors. This Israelite writer (as it
is claimed he is) speaks of swine as
"good for the use of man." The sodden ig-
norance of the fabricators of this fraud is
beneath contempt. The,y represent the Is-
raelites as living in the midst of the use of
the Hebrew and using the hated Egyptian,
instead of their sacred Hebrew for which
they had such a fanatical love. They speak
of the abhorred swine as good for man's
use. They trample under foot every great
feature of the law of Moses, and impudent-
l.v tell us that they live under it and obe.v it

On page 523, Ether, a Jaredite, whose an-
cestors came to America 800 .vears before
Abraham, prophecies in tlie exact language
of the Hebrew letter, a thousand .years be-
fore it was written, uses the language, the
exact language of the Bil)le, of which liis
people know no more than the man in the
moon, and preaches the gospel to these
Jaredites a thousand years before Christ.
527, Masonry breaks out again. 529, more
deviltr,y by the Masons. 530, the wars
caused by these sons of Belial, the Masons,
cause the slaughter of two millions of men
on one side to say nothing of women and
children. When we remember that all the
lives lost in our great civil war, directly
and indirectl.y, was less than a million, and
that less than half a million were killed or
died of Avounds, we can form some estimate
of what a war it must have been when, ten
times as many were slain.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

141

Then the two contending parties arrayed
themselves against each other, every last
man, woman, and child, and 'laby, with
helmets, swords and breast-plates. What
a heroic sight to see children and babies
armed with helmets, swords and breagt
plates, and what a slaughter they made,
no doubt! Then they pitched in every last
man, woman and child and baby, and they
"fit,*' and they "fit," and they "fit" and
they "fit" and "fit," until nobody is
left but Ether. He is miraculously

f reserved to finish some plates for
mpoaier Joe. Ether does not know
whether he will be translated, which would
be an easy job judging trom his ethereal
name, or stay and die out as did Moroni,
his copyist. Thus ends the history of these
Jaredites who were not descendants of
Adam or Noah, for the speech of their
descendants was confounded at Babel and
the speech of the Jaredites was not con-
founded— they were not descendants of
Noah.

Finally, after copying on nothing, for his
plates were full before he began, and he
could make none, and from nothing, for
Mormon had buried everything except the
plates of Ether, which he never had ;
Moroni whiles away his time in writing a
liturgy for the followers of Imposter Joe.
He then rehashes portions of the New
Testament in a sermon about faith, hope
and love, repeating Paul's language in
many places. It looks as if Rigdon was
trying to fix up his book so that he could
set the New Testament as much in the
background, as the New sets the Old. Then
comes the miracle of miracles. Mormon
out in the wilds of Aniei'i'-'a, "all his lone"
as Paddy Avould say, on pages 539, 540, 541,
preaches Sidney Rigdon's sermon against
infant baj^tism and quotes scores of passages
and phrases from the New Testament.
What an insult to common sense to ask us
to believe that an Israelite, in the wilds of
America, over one thousand years after
his people had any communication with
the old continent or knew about its troubles
over "infant baptism," just beginning,
preached in America, 1400 years before Rig-
don was born, Rigdon's rant against infant
baptism. Mor ni, alias Rigdon, closes with
one of Rigdon's rhapsodies of exhortation
in which Sidney mounts King Ahasuerus'
horse for the last lime in the Book of Mor-
mon, and he then lets his Pegasus rest
until he joins Imposter Joe in Manchester,
New York, in December 1830. Such is a
mere outline of the countless absurdities in
tlie Book of Mormon, "The Fulness of the
Gospel."

We will now call attention to certain
matters that require more space than we
could give to tiiem in a running criticism.
The ancient Israelites believed that the
earth was stationary and that the stars
moved. They did not know the (iitFeren(;e
between the planets and fixed stars.
Inspiration among the Israelites never
revealed to them scientific facts. On page
286 of the Book of Mormon, Alma a Nephite

nearly 2000 years before Copernicus saya
"The earth and its motion and the planets
which move in their regular form declare
there isa God," a prose adaptation of Addi-
son's hymn. Page 410 the language of the
Hebrew poet in the Book of Jasher quoted
in Joshua is thus commented and explain-
ed. "If the Lord say to the earth thou
" Shalt go back that it lengthen out theday,
"we know that it is done, and thus accord,
"ing to his word the earth goeth back and
" it appeareth to men that the sun standeth
" still, yea and behold this is so far it is the
J' earth that moveth and not the sun." It
is wonderful how much more than their
brethren in Palestine Sidney's Nephitea
and Jaredites always knew. Had the
Israelite poet been one of Rigdon's poets
he would not have represented Joshua as
commanding the sun to stand. No he
would have expressed himself in the most
approved phraseology of modern science
although his language would have been
regarded as idiotic falsehood by his readers.
Page 3 Lehi says he left Jerusalem because
the Lord commanded him to do so, in a
dream. Page 401 Nephi says he was driven
out by people. Page 106 Nephi says he and
his people were descendants of the Jews.
The word " Jew" is a nickname as much as
" Yank" and the word from which it is
derived was not applied to any nation until
a hundred years after Nephi left Jerusalem
and the nickname was not used until mod-
ern times. Page 231 Amulek declares that
Nephi and all who went with Tjehi were
Manassehites and not Jews at all. Page
375 we are told that the devil led
Jared and his people. Page 502 we
are told it was the Lord. Page To Jadob
declares that the Lord told him America
is an island. Common sense says it is a con-
tinent. Page 416 an inspired prophet de-
clares the darkness at the crucifixion shall
be over the whole earth three days and a
subsequent passage declares as a fact >f
history that the darkness covered the whole
earth three days. The Bible says it was
over the laud in which the crucifixion took
place and only three hours. John the
Baptist declares tliat only our Savior could
give the baptism of the Holy Spirit and
that it was future in his day. T'^'^ apostle
declares that the Holy Spirit would not be
given in the name of Jesus until after his
ascension. Our Savior so dechires. A
Nephite prophet hundreds of years before
the birth of Jesus says of his brethren
"that they have been visited by the Holy
Spirit, have conversed with anirels and
been spoken to by the voice of the Lord:
have had the spirit of prophecy and the
spirit of revelation, and many spiritual
gifts. T!ie gift of speaking with tongues,
the gift of prophecy, the gift of the Holy
filiost and thegiftof translation." A more
flat contradiction of the word of God and
the Son of diod could not be conceived.
Page 19 and 20 we are told Jesus was horn
at Nazareth. Pago 22? at Jerusalem. Tho
Bible says it was at Bethlehem. We call
yjur attention next to a tissue of flat con-

142

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

tradlctious. Page 507 "Jared's brother"
{I wisli Rigdou had given that fellow a
name while he was about it) " seals up his
plates and interpreters and hides them up
unto the Lord and they are not lo go forth
until the Gentiles exercise faith and are
clean before the Lord " That time has not
come yet for the Book of Mormon was to
go forth in an age of apostacy, unbelief,
and crime, even the horrible crime of
Masonry, Page 523 Ether, the last Jare-
dite writes his gold plates. Page 158 Limbi
finds them and breastplates and swords
but not Jared's plates nor any interpreters.
Mosiah interprets these plates of Ether
with interpreters handed down among the
Nephites for generations. Page 204
Mosiah 's interpreters were handed down to
Mormon. Page 492 Mormon buries them
wilh over twenty other relics, and hands
only " the^e few plates" with no interpre-
ters to Moroni, who buries 'these few
plates." Smith finds not only " these few
plates" which Moroni buried, and that was
all that he buried, but he finds with them
Laban's Rword that was not buried with
them and was buried before and apart from
them. Lehi's brass compass which was
not buried with them and was buried
before and apart from them and the inter-
preters of Jared's brother that no Nephite
or any one else ever saw or can have until
the Gentiles all believe and are clean before
the Lord.

The Book of Mormon teaches that God
led the Manassehites to America and bless-
ed them far above Judah. The Bible de-
clares II Kings XVII, 18-20, " The Lord
rejected all the seed of Israel (Manasseh
with the rest) and afflicted them and deliv-
ered them to the spoilers until he cay t them
out of his presence. Therefore the Lord
was angry with Israel and removed them
out of liis' sight. There was none left but
the tribe of Judah only." You can believe
the Bible or the Book of Mormon one or the
other but not both.

Mormons quote as their special reliance
the prophecies in regard to Ephraim ap-
plying them to the aborigines of America.
According to the Book of Mormon there
never was an Ephraimite in America.
Page 231. The Nephites and Lamanites
were Manassehites. The Zarahemlites were
of the seed of Zedekiah-Judahites. There
was not an Ephraimite on the continent.
They could with far greater propriety quote
the prophecies in regard to Judah for some
were Judahites. To apply to Manassehites,
the prophecies in regard to Ephraim, is
as gross a contradiction as to apply to
these Manassehites, the laws for the Lev'ites,
as these Rigdonite revelations so frequently
do. Page 271. Alma says " let us retain
our swords that they be not stained with
the blood of our brethren for perhaps if we
stain our swords again they can no mo»e be
washed bright through the blood of the
Sou of our God." What blasphemy !
Swords washed bright through the blood of
the Son of God. The blood of the Son of
God a polishing powder. Who doubts that

that the Book of Mormon is of divine
origin? Page 437 we are told that Christ
was crucified on the fourth day of the first
month. He was not crucified until after
the passover, which was the fourteenth
day of the month, and was really crucified.
on the 20th day of the month. The context
declared that a just man kept this record
and it was true. Sidney was mistaken that
is all. Page 1. We are told that Lehi left
Jerusalem in the reign of Zedekiah, in the
first year of his reign. If we add the 70
years of captivity, which began with Zede-
kiah to Daniels 483 years we have 558 years
or 47 years less than 600. If we put the
date of Christ's birth where it should be
we have over 50 years. Sidney is mistaken
again.

The Book of Mormon fiatly contradicts
the Bible in its stuff about the Melchisedec
priesthood. I. The Bible clearly teaches
that there never were but two priests of
that order, Melchisedec himself and Christ.

II. Melchisedek officiated before the Le-
vitical priesthood. There was an introduc-
tion of the Levitical priesthood and an in-
troduction of the law of Moses. III. T'^
Levitical priesthood under the order of
Aaron was abrogated ; Christ is priest, and
he alone. The law is changed from the law
of Moses to the law of Christ. I^''. Christ
alone is priest after the order of Melchise-
dec. V. He was not priest on earth but is
priest in heaven. The Book of Mormon
makes these priesthoods parallel, and talks
of innumerable priests of the order of Mel-
chisedec. Mormons appeal to the fact that
Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Jethro and
Moses offered sacrifices. That does not
prove that tliey were priests of any order.
They offered sacrifices as patriarchs and
propbets and not as priests. If there were
any Melchisedec priests it was only those
who offered sacrifices before the Levitical
priesthood was established; and when the
law was changed to the law of Moses the
priesthood was changed to the Levitical
priesthood. Samuel and all who sacrificed
after the Levitical priesthood was estab-
lished sacrificed as prophets. They are
never called priests.

The Book of Mormon tells us that the
Nephites had priests of the Aaronic order,
for they were consecrated according to the
law of Moses, but every soul of them was
a Manassehite, and not a Levite among
them, although the law of Moses punished
severely any one except a Levite who at-
tempted to officiate as priest. The Bible
declares that Christ did not ascend to hea-
ven until forty days after his resurrection,
and that his second coming is yet future —
Heb. ix. 28. In the Book of Nephi we are
told that Christ descended from heaven
and visited the Nephites, and ascended into
heaven again, and then descended and
spent three days with the Nephites. Here
we have a second and a third coming from
heaven before the Hehrew letter was writ-
ten, and in Jess than a year from his first
ascension into heaven. The appearances of
our Saviour to Paul and others in a vision

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

143

are not comings direct from heaven in the
flesh as he appeared to the NephitPS — the
manner in which the angels declared to the
Apostles at his ascension he would come in
his second coming.

On page 527, MoBoni, a Nephite in Amer-
ica, who knew notliing of any Hebrew or
Christian scriptures after .Teren)iah. writes:
"These things bring to pass the scripture
which saith, ' Tliey wlio are first shall be
last, and they who are last shall be first.' "
"Where do the Scriptures say so? Matthew
xix. 30, or Luke xiii. 30. Did Moroni, a
Nephite in America, who knew nothing of
the New Testament Scriptures, write that?
Or did Rigdon, when he was revising the
manuscript he stole from Spaulding to make
a big thing out of it in the sliape of a pre-
tended new revelation? Page 498, Moroni,
alias Rigdon, writes : " Do we not read that
God is the same yesterday, to-day and for-
ever, and that in him is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning." Yea, verily,
Sidney, we, you and your readers do read
Buch lanj:u:ige in Heb. xiii. 8, nnd in James
i. 17, but no person in America 1,000 years

before Columbus ever so read. Page 539:
The Holy Ghost says to Moroni, " Listen to
the words of Christ," and then we have
over twenty quotations of the sentences and
phrases from the New Testament. No,
Sidney, the Holy Ghost never said that to
Mormon. You vised to say just such things
to your hearers in your sermon on inlant
baptism, and you have interpolated your
sermon into tlie manuscript you stole from
Spaulding.

Page 494, Jesus says to the three Nephites
who were never to taste death : " When I
come in my glory ye shall be changed from
mortality to immortality." Positively de-
clares that they were mortal and would re-
main mortal until he came in his glory. In
the very next paragraph Nephi says tliat
whether they were mortal or immortal from
their transfiguration he does not know,
After recording the clear, positive declara-
tion of Jesus that tliey were mortal and
would be till he came ia his glory, Nephi
C00I3' declares that he did not know whether
Jesus lied or not I

MR. KELLEY'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH]

GentTjKMfn Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : I will first notice one or two
things in the statements that my opponent
has just made. I suppose that if I should
ask any person in this audience, now that
they have just listened to his argument, to
state a single objection that he has made
against the Book of Mormon, just to arise
and state one objection, you would not be
able to do it. How many of you would?
Why, he has read such a strin^' here that
you cannot understand it, so tar as making
an objection is concerned, and no other per-
son, unless he would take weeks and weeks
to go through it, or was well acquainted
with the book, and such a person would ask
for no reply on my part. And when you
see, as I shall show you, that every one of
those supposed objections that he has offered
is clearly answered in the book, wliat will
you think of the objector? The book itself
answers every one of the objections that he
has made, which I will show if I have time
during this discussion, noticing each one
particularly. Now, what is the proper
manner of arguing a question? I will call
attention to this again, so that you may not
forget the diflerence between argument and
the simple statement of something that
does not amount to an argunient. If he can
find a dozen objections to that book that
will stand the test, that is enough to send

the book down. Why don't he make hU
objections fairly, and give opportunity of
replying to them? But no, such a contest
don't suit. The whole object seems to be to
lug in so much that no white man who is
sane, nor dark man either, on the continent
can answer them all. Well now, he will
find out that Sidney was on Ahasuerus'a
horse all the time when he tries to defeat
the question in that way. To-morrow night,
however, I will answer the Gordian Knot.
Among all these objections there was a
"Gordian Knot," you know. That must
be answered. That was a strong one ! Will
he give up when that is severed? It will
be cut in twain ; just remember that.

The objection was made that the New
Testament, in the history which it gives of
the events in the time of the Savior, says
that the Holy Ghost was not yet given,
while the Book of Mormon, he states, says
it was given. There he thinks is a Hat con-
tradiction. \Vell, perhaps somebody in the
audience who has never read the Book of
Mormon, nor the New Testament but very
little, mav think there is a contradiction
here. The New Testament is speaking
aliout a particular time when the Holy (ihost
was not given to the disciples of Jesus, viz :
betwet^n the ministry of the Savior jvnd his
resurrection and ascension. The liook of
Murmon is speaking of a time long prior to

144

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

the time when Jesus was in the flesh here.
Will he take the g:round that the Holy
Ghost was never given to the projihets on
the Eastern continent?

Mr. Braden: Not in the name of Christ.

Mr. Kelley : In what name was it given
if not in the name of Christ? Will you
answer that? Let me cite you an example
that will show that the Holy Ghost was
given. Don't you remember that Saul was
among the prophets at one time when this
Holy Spirit was given to them? And that at
another the seventy elders of Israel proph-
esied when the Hoiy Spirit was upon them?
The same Holy Ghost, too, that was notyet
given, as the term is used in the New Tes-
tament scriptures. And did I not quote
last night where Peter says, "That holy
men of old spake as they were moved upon
by the Holy Ghost?" Then it was given
before, was it not? If you meant not-
through Christ when you said that the Book
of Mormon contradicted the New Testament,
why didn't you say not through Christ
then?

Mr. Braden : I did.

Mr. Kelley: We will see. But what bet-
ter does that make it? That is no objection.
The Holy Ghost vvas given in the Old Testa-
ment times too, and people possessed it and
prophesied by reason of it long before
Christ's time in the flesh ; and if it was not
given through Christ I suppose it was given
through men, just common men, away back
there. But he ought to know that he who
was Ciirist Jesus in the flesh was the same
who was in the church in the wilderness.
"And they did all drink of that spiritual
rock, which rock was Christ," says the
Apostle Paul, and this was when they were
in the wilderness. Yet he wants to make
out that because the Book of Mormon speaks
of men being blest with the Holy Ghost be-
fore the time of Pentecost, that there is a
contradiction between the Book of Mormon
and the New Testament. The rock they
drank of was Christ, and the way men par-
take of that rock is by the Holy Ghost. It
is "a well of water, springing up unto eter-
nal life." But enough on this point at pres-
ent. I have plenty of material here this
evening that is in shape.

He objects again to the Book of Mormon,
because it says that God cursed certain
people with a skin of blackness, *(the In-
dians.) Yet, doubtless, he accepts the idea
that (lod did curse Canaan and from him
were the descendents of Ham. That he al-
so put a mark upon Cain. But then these
accounts are in the Bible, and possibly my
opponent has no difliculty in believing
th^m. It is a fact, however, that the In-
dians' skins are black, or dark, and there
must have been a cause for it. The Book
of Mormon says God put this upon them be-
cause of their ini(|uity. Can Mr. Braden
give a better reason? But now we strike
our friend's invincible objection. The
stronghold behind whiiih he bids defiance
to the Book of Mormon. He says, among
other animals which they found, on the
promised land in the wilderness, was the

ox. "Miraculous!" he exclaims. He had
quite forgotton that it is stated in the Bi-
ble, "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and
an ass together." Deut. 22: 10. And that ox is
used to represent a class of animals known
as the cattle kind, just as the ass is used to
represent another kind known as the ass ;
as swine represents the hog kind ; and thai
neither the Bible nor any other writer
thought it necessary to use only the male
gender in all of their writing ; but used the
common, the familar and modest words,
"The ox and the ass." If you will turn to
Webster's Dictionary, you will see that he
defines the word "ox" as applying to all
cattle kind, and especially when they are
found in a wild state, or in the woods, as
they were found when the second people
came to this continent. Can't you under-
stand it, Mr. Braden? Read and be in-
structed and come out from j'our strong
wall of defense! It will be better for your
side perhaps, if you will put a little erudi-
tion into your speeches, and copy with less
credulity" from the misrepresentations, and
falsehoods, published by Mr. E. D. Howe,
et al. Every one of these objections of
yours are but the reproduction of Howe. If
they would stand the test, all well and
good ; but when any one can see the fallacy
of them by taking the objection as made by
Howe, and comparing with the record in
the Book of Mormon it seems childish to me
for a man who, according to his own story,
has scalped Inger?oll, and put a nosl of
Philistines like Underwood, Jamieson, Rev.
Mr. Hughey, and Moses Hull to flight, to be
thus burdening his intell-^ct with such
trifling matters. But he o'-jects to the
Book of Mormon by reason of the predic-
tion of the day of darkness upon the earth
as follows : Book of Mormon, p. 22.

"And it came to pass that I saw a mist of darkness on
the face o' the land of promise ; and I saw lightnings,
and I heard thunderings and eaitliqnrfces. an^l all
manner of tumuUu.nis noises: and I suw tlie envAi and
the roflvs that tliey rent : and I saw monntains tum-
bling into pieces; "and I saw the plains of the earth
that they were broken up ; and I saw many cities that
they wei-e sunk."

This was % vision of things to occur on the
promised land, not on all the earth. The
fulfilment of the prediction took place at
the crucifixion of Christ as record '^ ou
pages 437 and 438 of the Book of INIormon,
However much this may be spurned uid
laughed at by my opponent, the tradition-
ary evidences given by the natives confirm
the statement. "There was a terrible hur-
ricane that carried away trees, mountains,
houses, and the largest edifices." "All this
time they were in darkness without seeing
the light of the sun or moon." See North
Americans of antiquity, by John T. Short,
page 239. I will turn to Baldwin's Ancient
America, page 176 and show you what is
given in historical works in regard to this.
He says :

"In the first place Bmssenr de Bonrbonrg claims
that there is in the old Central American Books a con-
stant tradition of an immense cntastrnphe of tlie char-
acter supposed : thin tradition alfirmK that a part of the
continent extending into the Atlantic was destroyed in
the manner supposed, and appears to indicate that the
destruction was accomplished by a tuccessiou of

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

145

frightful convulsions. Three are constantly mention-
ed and sometimei there is mentioh of oiie or two
others,"

Who will he say went do'yn to Central
America and got this out of the old books?
Sidney Rigdon, or Solomon Spauldlng?
Take which horu of the dilemma you
choose now. But I will read en :

"The land was shaken by frightful earthqnaKes, and
the wiivt's of the sea combined with volcanic fires to
overwhelm and engulf it. Each convulsion swept
away portions of the land, until the whole disappear' d,
leaving the line of thi- coast as it is now. Must of the
Inhabitants, overtaken amid their regular employ-
menis, were destroyed ; but some escaped in ships aiid
some fled for safety to the summits of high mountains,
or to portions of the land wiiich, for the lime, escap d
immediate destruction. Quotations are made from the
old books in which this tradition is recorded which ap-
pear to verify his report of what is found in them. To
criticise intelligently his interpi etation of their signifi-
cance, one needs to" have a knowledge of those books
and traditions, equal at least to his own."

These things it is stated, same page, were
handed down to the people, " and were pre-
served in some of their festivals, especially
one celebrated in the month of Izcalli which
was instituted to commemorate this fright-
ful destruction- of land and people, and in
which princes and people humbled them-
selves before the divinity and bes mght him
to withhold a return of such terrible cala-
mities."

I might refer also to the fact that Geolo-
gical speculation recognizes " catastroph-
ism" as affecting the wonderful changes on
the continent. Baldwin, page 181. The
criticism and great parade over the sign that
was given on this continent of the birth of
Christ into the world, as found on page 422
of the Book of Mormon, is no credit to my
opponent. The book simply states that
when Christ was born there was no night
or darkness on this continent; and this was
one of the signs given to indicate the time
of his coming. A star also appeared, but it
does not say it shined in the day time.
Why Mr. Braden should obj^t to super-
natural things occurring on this continent
at the birth of the Savior, when so many
wonderful things occurred on the Eastern
continent, as recorded in the Bible, is
singularly strange. Or why that the same
things should not appear here as there, A
star appeared on the Eastern continent and
went before the wi*>e men from the East and
stood over the child Jesus, Did it shine in
the day time or only in the night? Mr.
Braden don't know. The wise men and
searchers could not have come from very far
East in one night. The whole diflficuity he
has found is answered in the question, was
God able to make it appear light in this
country at the time when darkness would
come on? If this account was in the Bible
he would swallow it down and then ask for
more like it; but as it is in the Book of
Mormon it must be siDurned and ridiculed.

Because the Savior's coming was clearly
predicted by the prophets on this continent
with many of the events that should trans-
pire during his birth and ministry, Mr,
Braden sets up, "It is plagiarism — stolen
from the Bible or New Testament." Says
the predictions were made " more full here
than by the prophets on the Eastern con-

tinent," And here it is well to observe that
he does not know that. There were many
things written by inspired men upon the
Eastern continent which are not in the
Bible. Some twenty books are mentioned
in the Bible that are not known at the
pres'^nt time. What tiiose books said about
the birth of Christ, Mr. Braden don't know.
Christ's second coming, which has not yet
taken place, was pretty fully set forth as
early as the days of Adam. Jude quotes
from an inspired book which Mr. Braden
never saw, as follows: "And Enoch, the
seventh from Adam, prophesied of these
saying, Beliold the Lord cometh with ten
thousand of h s Saints to execute jnd>>ment
upon all the ungodly." As the X(-piutes
had the Old Testament scripture up to the
time of Jeremiah the prophet, they doubt-
less were in possession of many of the
inspired writings which are now lost to the
world, including the one that Jude quotes
from, which in all probability just as clearly
and definitely set forth this first coming of
Christ as the second. This is the reason
that the Nephites quote from several pro-
phets whose names are not found in the
Bible. What of it? Christ affirmed that
all of the prophets testified of him. If they
testified, they said something about him,
and many of them the same or like things.
Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Zachariahand
others speak particularly of his birth and
events attendant upon his first coming.
They specify that he should be born of a
virgin, — that none should desire him, " A
man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;"
would be crucified, — killed between two
thieves ; be spit upon, his garments parted,
smitten on the cheek and a scepter put in
his hand in derision ; and an array of other
things too numerous to mention, and in
which it is just as particularly set forth,
and more so in detail, than in the prophe-
cies as found in the Book of Mormon. This
objection to the Book of Mormon like the
others made is of no consequence; and no
proof of plagiarism. But he says, "The
Book of Mormon teaches the resurrection of
the dead just like Rigdon believed it,"
How many ways are there to believe in the
resurrection? Ezekiel says, "I will open
your graves and cause you to come out of
your graves," Is there any other way to
believe in the resurrection ? Christ rose
from the dead. If the Book of Mormon
taught the resurrection of the dead, it would
be taught just as found in the Bible, for
there is but one way to be resurrected, i. e.,
to have the body restored to life again. Do
the Campbellites believe it in a different
way? You notice now when he answers
this.

The derisive manner in which he treats
the Book of Mormon is the same as that
used by all sceptics against the Bible — to
hold it up in sport and derision ; and there
is scarcely a chapter in the Bible but what
has received their scathing satire and ridi-
cule. Does my opponant think this a
Christian way to examine a subject of any
kind in order to reach the facts in the

14(>

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

matter? Has he forgotten that noted
sceptics who believe as little in the Bible as
he can in the J'ook of Mormon, make a busi-
ness ofentertainini great audiences by treat-
ing- the Bible precisely as he does the Book
of Mormon. He must remember, that after
all of his mirth and light treatment, truth
remains just t.ie same That the audience
may know just how much argument there
is in such a method, I will read a passage
from the liible after his style of reading the
Book of Mormon, and see how it sounds.
Isaiah 7 : 14-23 : — " Therefore the Lord him-
self shall give you a sign ; behold a virgin
shall conceive and bear a son and shall call
his name Immanuel."

Is not this miraculous enough to begin
with? But I will continue : —

"Butter and honey shall he eat, that he
may know to refuse the evil and choose the
good . ' '

According to Mr. Braden's superficial
view of commenting, that would be a sin-

f:ular thing. Hereafter all you parents need
o do in order to have good and wise chil-
dren is to give them plenty of butter and
honey to eat. Eighteenth verse : —

"And it shall come to pass in that day
that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is
in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt,
and for the bee that is in the land of Assy-
ria."

What is to be done with these wonderful
flies that live in the rivers of Egypt and the
Assyrian bee. Read the next verse and you
will see ; they are to fill all the holes of
the rocks in the country, and to eat in the
"thorn bushes." But I will read on : —

"In the same day shall the Lord shave
with a razor that is hired, namely, by them
beyond the river, the king of Assyria, the
head and the hair of the feet [on the bot-
tom of the feet my opponent would say],
and it shall also consume his beard."

Well, a great many razors do that these
times.

Now, if this was in the Book of Mormon
would he not have a more miraculous or
terrible thing to laugh at than any he has
found in that book — shaving the "hair
of the feet?"

And again : "It shall come to pass in
that day that a man shall nourish a young
cow and two sheep ; and it shall come to
pass, for the abundance of milk that they
shall give, he shall eat butter ; for butter
and honey shall every one eat that is left
in the land."

If this was in the Book of Mormon, would
it not be a fine piece for Mr. Braden's ridi-
cule?

Now, it seems to me, my friends, that be-
fore you begin to swallow down such argu-
ments as that, you had better just stop and
<^andidly think awhile ; weigh and consider
these things and statements in the connec-
tion in which they are written in their full
and true light, and not regard the ridicu-
culous statement made as to them. This
ridicule is not argument. It does not meet
argument upon any plane, and it will not
attack the Book of Mormon. Neither can

It attack the- Bible in any successful sense
with thinking men and women.

But he makes sport of the Book of Mor-
mon, because, says he, "It speaks against
Masonry'." Yet, strange as it may appear,
the word Mason does not appear in it. It
speaks against secret societies, where peo-
ple band together to rob, and steal, and
murder, and plunder ; warns the people
into whose hands the book should fall
against all such, as they had been a fruit-
ful cause of the destruction, of the govern-
ment upon the continent and the peace of
the people. Is this bad advice? Or is this
Masonry? If so, the sooner it be put down
the better. But that is not what Masons
profess. Their's is a benevolent institu-
tion; and Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon
were both "Masons." The Book of Mor-
mon says, page 382 that "Gadianton, who
was exceeding expert in many words, and
also in his craft to carry on the secret work
of murder and robbery ; therefore he be-
came the leader of the b^nd of Kishku-
men." "They also sought place in the gov-
ernment." Page 399. This band of rob:
bers became so powerful that the law-
abiding people were compelled to tak6 up
arms and defend their wives and children
and property against them. See Book of
Mormon, pages 424, 425, Is this Masonry?
These robbers had such strong holds in the
mountains that the people could not dis-
lodge them. Pages 426, 427 and 430. On
page 428 of the Book of Mormon it reads :
"And it came to pass that the ninety and
third year did also pass away in peace, save
it were for the Gadianton robbers, who
dwelt upon the mountains — who did infest
the land ; for so strong were their holds
and their secret places that the people could
not overthrow them."

Again, pa^e 424, verse 10 • "The war be-
tween the robbers and the people of Nephi
did continue and became exceeding sore;
nevertheless the people of Nephi did gain
some advantage of the robbers, insomuch
that they did drive them back out of their
lands into the mountains, and into their
secret places."

Book of Mormon, page 427 : "And it came
to pass in the latter end of the eighteenth
year, those armies of robbers had i^repared
for battle, and began to come down, and to
sally forth from the hills and out of the
mountains, and the wilderness, and their
strongholds, and secret places, and began
to take possession of the lands."

This is what my friend calls Masonry.
This account is confirmed by recent explo-
rations. On the Lookout Mountain, lying
between the Gennessee and Cass rivers,
there is a strong fortification built upon the
brow of the great ledge of stone. It in-
cludes about two acres of ground. Within
thirty feet of the top of this rock are five
rooms made by dint of labor. The entrance
to these rooms is very small. Mr. Fergu-
son thinks them to have been constructed
during some dreadful wars and those who
constructed them acted on the defensive ;
and believes that it was so formidable, ihaii

THE BRADEN AND KEL.LEY DEBATE.

147

twenty men could have withstood the
whole army of Xerxes ; as it was impossi-
ble for more than one to pass at a thne,
and by a slight push could be hurled one
hundred and fifty feet below. Says, Mr,
Short, in speaking of these: "This intro-
duces us to another class of ruins, which,
with a couple of exceptions, were not dis-
covered prior to the summer of 1874. We
refer to the cliff dwellings, the most remark-
able habitations ever occupied by man."
Pages 293 to 298. "The most surprising re-
sults in all history of archaeological explo-
ration in this country was obtained in Sept.,
1874, by a party conuected with the United
States' Geological and Geographical Sur-
vey Corps." " One of the first clifl[' houses
discovered by explorers is a most interest-
ing structure, the position of which is over
600 feet from the bottom of the canon in a
niche of the wall furnishes a significant
commentary on the straits to which this
sorely- pressed people were driven by
their enemies." "Five hundred feet of
the ascent to be made to this aerial dwelling
was comparitively easy, but a hundred feet
of almost perpendicular wall confronted
the party, up which thay never could have
climbed, but for the fact that they found a
series of cuts in the face of the rock leading
up to the ledge upon which the house was
built. This ledge was ten feet wide by
twenty feet in length, with a vertical space
between it and the over-hanging rock of
fifteen feet. The rocks of the cliff served
as the rear wall of the house. The door
opening on the esplanade was but twenty
by thiity inches in size." "Some little
taste was exhibited by the occupants of
this human swallow nest." " An examina-
tion of the immediate vicinity revealed the
ruins of a half dozen similar dwellings in
ledges of the clifis, some of them occupy-
ing positions the inaccessibility of which,
must ever be a wonder, when considered as
places of residence for human beings."
Down the valley aways, < a remarkable
"watch tower" was discovered. "The
outer wall of which was 43 feet in diameter,
the inner twenty-five. The outer wall is
still standing twelve feet high." Mr.
Jackson's next discovery was "on the face
of the vertical roi-k, ^vhi<■h here ran up
from the bottom of the cafiou; and at a

height of from fifty to one hundred feet,
were a number of nest-like habitations.''
" The cliff" house in this case was reached
by its occupants from the top of the cafion.
The walls were pronounced as firm as the
rock upon which they were built. The
stones were very regular in size. The
dwelling measured fifteen feet in length,
five feet in width, and six feet in height.
Three miles further down the cafion, the
party discovered at heights from GOO to 800
feet above their heads, some curious, unique
little dwellings, sandwiched among the
crevices of the horizontal strata of the
rock of which the blutf was composed.
Access to the summit of the bluffa thousand
feet high was obtained by a circuitous path
through a side canon, and the houses them-
selves could only be reached at the utmost
peril— of being precipitated to the bottom
of the dizzy abyss— by crawling alon^ a
ledge twenty inches wide and only high
enough for a man in a creeping position.
This led to the wider shelf on which the
houses rested. The perfection of the finish
was especially noticeable in one of these
houses, which was but fifteen feet long
and seven feet high, with a wide wall run-
ning back in a semi-circular sweep."

Here I will state that in the summer of
1876, when I was in Washington City, I
visited the National Museum and noticed
that they had just begun to place casts,
representations of these cliff dwellers'
cities, among the relics and curiosities of
that institution. But when in 1882 I visited
the same institution there were large num-
bers of these representations that seemed to
particularly interest and attract the public.
You will find there miniature representa-
tions of these cliff cities that have been
lately discovered, prepared for the purpose
of interesting and entertaining the world,
for there is nothing that has ever been
found that is like them. And yet they are
set out, described, located and traced in
the Book of Mormon, in the history of
what he terms Masonry, but which in fact
is the history of the coinbin ations of robbers,
and not Masonry. How did Sidney Rigdon
get these facts? Here is anotner thing of
which to make a note when he answers.

(Time called.)

148

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — We will now ask your atten-
tion to a conglomeration of contradictions
and absurdities, as incapable of being un-
tied as the Gordian knot ; and no Mormon
can cut it either, not even with the wonder-
ful sword of Laban. Page 507 : The plates
of Jared's brother are to be sealed and
buried, and are not to go forth until the
Gentiles repent of their iniquity, have faith
and are clean before the Lord. According
to the Book of Mormon that time has not
come. Page 523: Ether hides up his plates
of gold, and they are afterwards found by
Limbi. Not Jared's brother's plates, but
Ether's plates, who never had or saw the
plates of Jared's brother. Page lo8 : Ser-
vants of Limbi find twenty-four gold plates,
said to be Ether's plates, not the plates of
Jared's brother. Page 1-56 : King Benjamin
lived only three years after Mosiah began
to reign in his stead. Three years after Mo-
siah ascended the throne, or just after his
father's death, he sent men out who first
learned of Limbi and his people. Limbi
told them of the gold plates of Ether, found
by his people. Page 507: Jared's brother
was to write and seal up what he had seen,
and bury it, and his two stone interpreters,
and they were not to come forth until after
the death of Christ, and until the Gentiles
were converted, and this time has not come
yet. Then occurs this sentence : " For this
cause did King Benjamin keep the plates of
Jared's brother, that they should not come
to the world till after the* death of Christ."
IPage 200 : King Mosiah translates the plates
found by Limbi's people, with the inter-
preters handed down from generation to
generation from the beginning, that the
people might know concerning the people
that had been destroyed.

Now, then, let us p^mt out a portion of
the contradictions. 1. The plates of Jared's
brother were hid up, and were not to go
forth until the Gentiles were converted, and
yet King Benjamin had them. 2. Here it
is represented that the servants of Limbi
found the plates of Jared's brother, and
they came into King Benjamin's hands.
In another place it is the gold plates of
Ether that they find. 3. King Benjamin
had the plates found by Limbi's people,
yet he died before his people knew anything
about Limbi's people, or the plates they
had found. 4. King Benjamin had these
plates found by Limbi's people, yet Limbi
gave them to King Benjamin's people after
the king's death. 6. If the plates in King
Benjamin's possession were the plates of
Jared's brother, they could not be trans-
lated without the two stone interpreters
he buried with them — at least the Lord said
BO. Those interpreters were never found,
yet Mosiah translated the plates without
these interpreters, with a pair his ancestors

had handed down for generations. 6. If
they were the plates of Jared's brother they
were not to go forth until after the death of
Christ and the conversion of the Gentiles,
yet Mosiah gave Wieir contents to his people
before the death of Christ, and the Gentiles
are not converted yet. 7, Jared's broiher
buried his interpreters with his plates. If
King Benjamin had his plates where were
those interpreters that were so all-import-
ant to an understanding of the plates. 8.
Mosiah interpreted these plates with stone
interpreters handed down for generations,
from the beginni-ng. From the beginning
must mean since Lehi left Jerusalem. We
hear of Laban's sword, Laban's breast-
plate, Lehi's compass, but nothing of these
all-important instruments, interpreters
until now. 9. Mosiah's grandfather trans-
lated the stone of Coriantimur without any
interpreter ; but his grandson must use in-
terpreters that his grandfather did not have,
or did have and did not use, and yet could
not translate without using them. If they
were the plates of Jared's brother we have
in the Hook of Mormon, at least all their
important features, in the Jaredite portion,
yet the Lord said they should not go farther
until the Gentiles were converted, and that
has not been done yet. Well, there we will
stop, though we are by no means done with
the contradictions.

The Jaredites left Asia right after the
confusion of tongues. Between that time
and their destruction they had twenty six
kings, some of whom reigned but a short
time. They were destroyed about 'JM B.
C, for Coriantimur died among the Zara-
hemlites about that time. From Moses to
Christ was 1600 years by true Chronology.
Subtract 250 and we have 1350. P>om
Moses to Abraham 645 years by true chron-
ology. From Abraham to Babel was 250
years, or the time from the departure of the
Jaredites from Babel till their destruction
was 2250, which divided by 26 gives 86
years, as the average length of the reign of
each Jaredite king. If we accept the other
statement that they were destroyed 600
pears before Christ, the average reign was
73 years. Sidney did not stop and figure
that story out, when he wrote it.

Jared's brother ( I wish Sidney had given
that fellow a name while he was about it ),
seals up his record and buries it, and with
it his stone interpreters, without which no
one can read the record, and the Lord says
it shall not go forth until after the death of
Christ and the conversion of the Gentiles,
an event yet future. Over 2000 years after-
wards, long before Christ, Ether finishes
this r.ecord. How could he so long before
Christ get the portion Jared wrote, when
the Lord said he could not? How did he
write on the plates if they were sejled?
How did he interpret it so as to know

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

149

when to begin his record, so as to
begin when the record stopped in the
history? If Ether got those plates was not
the Lord mistaken? If he read them was
not the Lord mistaken? If he left them so that
Limbi got them, was not the Lord mistaken ?
IfMosiah translated them without Jared's
brother's interpreter, was not the Lord
mistaken ? If Moslah gave the whole thing
away to his people, was not the Lord mis-
taken? If Ether's plates are a continuation
of the plates of Jared's brother, how did
Moroni interpret the portion of Jared's
brother's? How did he get Jared's broth-
er's interpreters without which, according
to the Lord, it was impossible to understand
the plates? He did not have them, he had
Mosiah's interpreters. Then he liad Mosiah's
taanslation, or rather his father did, and
buried it, and Moroni had neither plates
nor translation, come to think about it. If
he had what Mormon buried, and he must
have had them in order to get Ether's plates,
he had Mosiah'if full translation. What
need then of Moroni's translation, when
Mosiah had done it? What need of his
abridgement, when he could have buried
for Imposter Joe the whole fleet load of
plates, the whole library? What need of
Moroni's translation for imposter Joe since
he had Jared's brother's interpreters, and
could read the original? How did Imposter
Joe get those interpreters since j\Toroni
never had them? Moroni never had them,
nobody ever had them, and nobody can
have them, until the Gentiles are converted.
How could Moroni and Mormon translate
those plates of Jared's brother, without the
interpreters sealed up with them and with-
out which the Lord said nobody could
understand them, and Imposter Joe had to
have Jared's brother's interpreters that the
Lord said nobody should have, to interpret
an abridgement of a translation made by
those who did not have what the Lord said
they must have. How — but there we will
stop again. This jumble of lies is the "Ful-
ness of the Gospel."

The Book of Mormon tells of three fellows
who never died, and never will die. That
is a pretty big story, but it beats that in
another place. It tells us of a fellow who
lived before he was born, or before he lived
at all. Page 481 Amaron hid up the records
in the year 320. Page 482. Mormon was
then ten years old. Page 483. When he
was fifteen or in 325 the Nephites who
were never to see death, were taken av»ay
because of the sins of the people. They
were taken out of the land entirely. Page
485. Moroni wri tes :

"There are none that know the true God, save it be
"the three disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the
"land, until the wickednes of the people was so great
" thnt the Lord would not sntfer thorn to remain with
" the people, and whether these be on the face of the
" lnnd, no man knoweth. But behold my father and I
" have seen them, and they have ministered unto ns.'

Contradictions: I. Mormon says that
these three were taken out of the Land
when he was fifteen. Moroni says nobody
knows whether they are in the Land or
not, although he tells us that the Lord

took them out of the Land. Mormon says
they were taken out of the Land when he
was fifteen. If they ministered to Mormon
it was before he was fifteen. Moroni says
they ministered unto him and his father.

They ministered to him years before he
was born, or he had a very precocious
father. With ordinary people that would
be extraordinory, but it doubtless was a
common thing with Sidney's Jfephiles.

The story of the extermination of the Ne-
phites is idioffally absurd. We are told,
page 384, that the Nephites covered the
land from the sea East to the sea West, and
from the sea South to the sea North,
or from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
and from the Gulf of Mexico to tii©
Northern Ocean, or all of British Anifr-
iea and the United States, and probab'y
most of Mexico. They were a highiy-civii-
ized, wealthy people, with ships, temoles,
houses, cities, cultivated farms, and fixed
residences. In the year 380 the Nephites
were signally defeated by the Lamanites.
Page 491. Moroni, their leader, proposes
that both sides gather every man, woman
and child, on each side for a final struirgie,
in the Plain of Cumorah, in the presentSla'^e
of New York. The object of the writer is
to get the people tos^ether to have them ex-
terminated, and in the right spot for Im-
poster Joe to find the plates. Who believes
that an intelligent leader, of an intelligent
civilized people, ever dreamed of such a
fool's project, or even proposed it to a sen-
sible people? The Mormons who fiock to-
gether at the call of lui poster Joe, or Pria-
pus Young, migiit do it, but i)eople of com-
mon sense would not. Who believes that
an intelligent, wealthy, highly civilized
people, covering Briiish America, Uni-
ted States and Mexico would abandon
cities, homes, farnis, property, and flock to-
gether, millions of tliem, in obedience to
such an idiotic command? Who believes
that such millions of people could accom-
plish such an undertaking? Think of the
North and South leaving homes and prop-
erty, and flocking, men, women and chil-
dren, to the central part of New York for a
"Kilkenny cat fight ;" and this was done
before telegraphs to send out the command
from the State of New York to Alaska. Cal-
ifornia, and Florida. And the people Hock-
ed by millions, men, women and children,
to central New York, withou;. railroads to
carry them, marching, men, women and
children, every soul of them to central New
York, from Alaska, from California, from
Florida, to be exterminated, and all that
Imposter Joe might get those plates. In
less than four years these millions of idiots
who had come at this idiot's idiotic decree,
gathered, men, woinen and children in cen-
tral New York. And the fool liamanites
they gathered also. And then the v "fit."
and they "fit." and they "fit," and "fit."
and "fit," until only one Nephite was left,
Moroni, and he escaped for no earthly rea-
son, except tliat the Lord wanted him to
finish up and bury these plates for Imt)()S-
ter Joe. Seriously, ladies and gentlemen,

150

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

do you believe that such idiocy as that is
the "fulness of the gospel?"

The slaughter of the Jaredites is even
worse than this. In their case there was a
■war until ten times as many soldiers as were
killed in our great civil war were slain, and
fifteen or twenty millions of non-combat-
ents ; and then there is an idiotic gathering
of millions of idiots— men, women and chil-
dren—for an idiotic "Kilkenny cat fight "

There is the same leaving of home, cities,
property, and all behind. The same flock-
ing together of men, women and children.
Observe tbe idiocy of both this account and
the Nephite slaughter. Warriors leave their
wives, children and non-combatants at
home. But a portion of the men ae are ever
taken to the field; some are left to take care
of the property. It is only migratory nations
or people on an emigration like the Israel-
ites in the wilderness that take their women
and children with them. This people were
a highly civilized, wealthy people, and the
very people who would send out only a
portion of th«ir men. Another idiocy. We
are told men, women and children marched
armed with shields, head plates and breast
plates and other weapons of war. Women
armed with weapons of war, children armed
with weapons of war! Idiocy ineffable!
And then they went forth to battle, men,
women and children, millions of them —
babies and all, with head-plates, breast-
plates, shield and swords, spears, bows,
arrows, darts, and doubtless with catapul-
tae and battering rams. And they "fit,"
and thev "fit" and "fit," and "fit" and
"fit," till Coriantimur, and Shiz, andEthei'
(who was bottle holder) alone were left.
"Tlien Coriantimur smote ofl[" the head of
Shiz, and it came to pass that after
he had smote off the head of Shiz,
that Shiz raised up his hands and fell
after that he had struggled for breath he
died." Now most men die and quit breath-
ing when their heads are off, all except
Sydney's Jaredites. That explains the oath
of the'Masons among the Jaredites. "If a
man would not do what he had sworn to
do, he was to lose his head. If he told the
secrets he was to lose his life." As Syd-
ney's Jaredites did not lose their lives when
they lost their heads, the difference in the
two penalties is all clear now. Ether then
then finished his work in making out a re-
port for Imposter Joe. This fight was worse
than even the Kilkenny cat fight. In that
classic contest the tip of each cat's tail was
left, but in this, the cats, tails and all, on
both sides, down to the last hair, were used
up, except one hair. Ether, that was not in
the fight at all. Tlse Jaredites were taken
up to central New York to be exterminated.
Then the Nephites were taken up there to
be exterminated; and all that Ether and
Moroni might leave the plates where it
would be handy for Imposter Joe to find
them. The Book of Mormon piously mor-
alizes— "We see the Lord accomplishes
great things with small means." Yes, in
these two instances he accomplished the
smallest possible thing with infinitely and
miraculously great means.

Having told us of men who lived befor«
they were born, or 'lived at all, and men
who lived after they were dead, Sidney
tells of two great nations' who occupied
the same country, farms and cities at the
same time and never knew of each other's
existence. On page 136 we are told that.
Coriantimur died among the subjects of
King Zarahemla about 250 B. C. The Jared-
ites covered the continent of North Amer-
ica until that time with cities, farms, houses,
and at the least calculation tViere must have
been 60,000,000 of them. 600 B. C, or 58o
years Ibefore the Jaredites were destro3^ed,
the Nephites and Zarahemlites came over
and they spread over and occupied the same
land for 350 years before the Jaredites used
each other up, so we have two great na-
tions of different race and language occu-
pying the same farms and cities at the same
time, and not knowing anything about
each other. There now, who doubts that
the Book of Mormon is of Divine origin?
These Jaredites marched up to New York
and slew each other, and the Nephites who
were occupying the same land and farms
knew nothing of it. I was going to suggest
that Symmes's theory must be true, and
that one party occupied the upper side of
the farms while the other occupied the
lower side in Symmes's hole, but the State
of New York, where the Jaredites perished,
is on the upper side. Perhaps they occupied
tlie land as the Irish and the fail -^ occupy
Ireland at the same time. Will Kelley tell
us which were men and which were fairies,
or " good people," as the Irish call them.

We are told that Jaredite cattle went
into the land of Zarahemla : that Jaredites
went after them : that Jaredites hunted in
Zarahemla and built cities there and y<=^
the Zarahemlites and Jaredites knew noth-
ing of each other, although the Zaraheml-
ites were over 300 years before Coriantimur
came among theru. One of these people
must have been fairies certainly. Page 516
Jaredite prophets tell the peoftje that unless
they repent the Lord will destroy them
and bring in a people to take their place.
As Coriantimur died among the Zaraheml-
ites about 300 years after the Nephites and
Zarahemlites came to America they had
already been in the land hundreds of years
when these prophets were prophecying,
but doubtless it was as fairies — invisible
people, and the Jaredites and their inspired
prophets knew nothing of it.

The Book of Mormon tell us that the
Jaredites had glass when they left the
Tower of Babel for how could Jared's
brother tell that the " stones he did moul-
ten out of a rock" were like glass if he had
never seen glass? They must have had
glass for Granny Smith says, Jared's
brother's interpreters were diamonds set in
plates of^lass, which were set in silver
bows. They had steel also before Abraham's
day, for " Shule did moulten steel out of ore
and make swords for his people." Page
512. We have also such anachronisms as
"Church" 600 B. C. when the word was
not used till after his time. We have

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

151

Christians by millions hundreds of years
before Christ: when the followers of Christ
were first called Christians at Antioch
after his ascension. We have "Churches
of Christ" by thousands when that term
was not thousrht of until after liis death.
We have " Martyrs for Christ" before he
was preached to men. We have Masonry
described and denounced thousands of
years before it was thou.arht of. Episco-
palian liturgy, pulpits and "Lord's day"
and " Dissenters" before the day of Christ,
when they are peculiar to England and the
Christian Dispensation, We have the Eng-
lish legal idea of the " bar of God" fre-
quently. There are debates on Soul-sleep-
ing, Universalism, Deism, Unitarianism,
an<i all the topics that Rigdon used to
debate, aftid the Nephite prophets agree
with Sidney every time.

The Book of Mormon has such American-
ismsas "Bearingdown against theChurch."
•' All manner "of good homely cloth."
" Sent forth to preach among the people."
"Somewhat." "It supposeth me." It
has these Rigdonisms. " The numerority of
"our forces." (I suppose Rigdon believed
with the Western stump orator that he had
as good a right to make words as old Web-
ster.) " The enormity of our number."
What particular, wickedness constituted
%h.Q enormity of th'eir numbers Sydney does
not tell us. "Rations." " Are a niarching."
" It mattereth not." "Makes Bellowses."
(That is equal to the boy who wanted some
" molasseses.") "Having waxed stronger
"in health. "I am a man of no small
"reputation among those who know me."
(That is the Nephite way of saying " I am
"some Punkins tu hum.") "As I was a
"journeying." "The foundation is begin-
" ning to be laid." "As I was a going
"forth." "Hesaw Amulak a preaching."
" My heart is brim with joy." " A tremen-
" dous battle." " One continual round of
"murder."

Sidney Rigdon was famous for his power
in revival excitements. He had his revival
ex])ressions common to the camp-meeting
style of his day. The Book of Mormon is
full of them, such as " I am encircled about
eternally in the arms of his love," (page 55,
670 B. C.) " Have ye been spiritually born
of ('Od ;" " If he have experienced a change
of heart;" "If ye have felt to sing the
songs of his redeeming love;" "For the
arms of mercy are extended towards you."
(Page 222, 80 B.) The last expression oc-
curs several times in the book. "Ye shall
awake to a sense of your awful condition."
(Page 531.) "Many died firmly believing that
their souls were redeemed by the Lord Jesus
Christ." (Page 333, 80 B. C.) "Have they
not revealed the plan of salvation. (Page
136, 400 B.C.) Disciple all over. " The own
due time of the Lord." (Pages 17, 72, 600
B. C.) "Or otherwise ye can imagine your-
selves brought before the tribunal of God
with your souls filled with guilt and re-
morse." (I'age 321, 80 B. C.) Rigdon all
over. "Thus mercy can satisfy the de-
mc.uds of justice." Page 304, 75 B. C.)

Nephi declares, 600 B. C, "his fati er Lehi
spake by the power of the Holy Spirit,
which he received by faith on the Son of
God, and the Son of God was the Messiah."
(Page 123.) Nephi declares, 536 years B. C,
" I glory in my Jesus, for he has saved my
soul from hell." "Enter into the narrow
gate and walk in the straight way which
leads to life." A regular Baptist experience
and exhortation. "For none of these can
I hope unless they be reconciled to Christ."
"Pour out your souls in prayer." " liive
without God in the world." " O blessed
Jesus, save me from an awful hell." "Pure
as the driven snow." "Days of probation."
"One eternal round." We might quote
Rigdon 's pet revival expressions by the
page. Perhaps the clearest cases of mod-
ernisms are the following: "From nature
up to nature's God " — a quotation from Al-
exander Pope's "Essay on Man," line 331^
2000 years before he lived. On page 54 Lehi
says: "I go to the c«ld and silent grave,
(a revivalism of Rigdon) from whence no
traveler can return," quoting from Shak-
speare's Hamlet 2000 years before Shak-
speare was born.

Then listen to some of the revelations and
translations that Jehovah doled out to Im-
poster Joe, " word by word, so precious was
it." "If there be fault it be the mistake
of men." "And I, Nephi, beheld his sword
and drew it from the sheath thereof, and
the hilt thereof was of gold and the work-
manship thereof was exceeding fine, and I
saw that the blade thereof was of most
precious steel." What a sentence thereof.
"Y'e shall clear away the branches which
bear bitter fruit according to the size of the
good and the strength thereof, and ye shall
not clear away the bad thereof all at once,
lest the roots thereof be too strong for the
good and the graft thereof." We under-
stand thereof. "And it came to pass that
after many da^^s it began to put forth some-
what a little young and tender branches,
and behold the main top thereof began to
perish."

"And the barges were built after a man-
"ner that they were exceeding tight, and
"that they would hold water like unto a
" dish, and the bottom thereof was tight like
"unto a dish, and the sides thereof were
"tight like unto a dish, and tlie ends thereof
" were peaked, and the top thereof was tight
"like unto a dish, and the length thereof
" was the length of a tree, and the door
"thereof when it was shut was tight like
"unto a dish." As clear as mud thereof.
" Behold the Lord said thou shalt make an
" hole in the top thereof, aud in the bottom
" thereof, and when thou art in want of air
" thou shalt unstop the hole thereof, and
"receive air, and if it be that the water
"come in upon thee thou shalt stop the
"hole thereof (hole of water) that ye may
"not i^erish in the flood."

"And he put the stones in the vessels
"which were prepared, one in each end
"thereof, and behold they did give light
" unto the vessels thereof." (Vessels of
"the ends of course.)

koH

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

What sense in this : " Never has man
*' come before me with such exceeding- faith
<* as thou liast, for were it so ye could not
*'have seeu my finger." " Tiie Scriptures
"are beforeye,'if ye shall arrest tiiem (what
harm have "the Scriptures doiie that they
should be arrested ?) it shall be to your own
destruction." Take such English as the
following : as " the fullness of the Gospel."
" The Lord spake and sayeth," " Dwindle
into unbelief." "I saw rumors of wars."
"The walls were rent in twain." That is,
several walls were rent, and when the rend-
ing was done there were two walls. "Be-
come worse than as though he had never
known these things." "He that eatteth of
this bread **atteth to their soul." "Bury
weapons of peace." "I ought not to har-
row up in my desires the firm decrees of a
just God," No, no, Sidney, you shouldn't
orter do any such orful thinof as that. "Sent
forth to preach among the people, &c."
What a revelation of truth there is in an
-"Ac?" "No afflictions save swallowed
up in joy," is, I suppose, what the Dutch-
man meant when he told of a " schweefc
pain." "Stabbed by a garb of secrecy."
What a hole that would make in a fellow.
*' The more part of a history." " The more
part of the ministry." "Shepherd hath
4?alled and art calling." "Nevertheless
they did not remain a perfect peace."
"They yieldeth." " I the Lord delighteth in
the chastity of women." "Ye are like
unto they." "Do as ye hath hitherto
■done." ''These things had not ought to
be." "Plates of which hath been spoken."
"Law had ought to be done away."
"Knowledge of they which art in Jerusa-
" leni concerning they which shall be scat-
" tered unto they which art of the house of
"Israel, unto all they that believe, unto all
*' they which are filled with the spirit."
^'I had spoke many things." "They saith
unto the King." "I who ye call your
king." " Moroni had wrote."

The Book of Doctrines and Covenants
contains such inspiration as the following:
" I the Lord willeth." "Verily I say unto
you for this once." "I the Lord justifieth
you." "I the Lord maketh you free."
*' For Id and behold saith the Son Anmon,
"or in other words Alphus, or in other
*' words Oniegus, once Jesus Christ, your
"Lord," Alphus and Omegus are new
Greek letters, never heard ot by Pericles.
" It is expedient in me." "All they shall
be comforted." " All they should gather
together." "Did moulten out of a rock."
" And this servant went and did all things
whatsoever." We will submit a conum-
drum to our opponent : What did this sen-
tence, on page 244 of the old edition of the
Book of Doctrines and Covenants mean?
•"That ye go to make use of the steward-
ship wliich I have appointed unto you ex-
clusive of the sacred things for the purpose
of shine love these things." We have put
in these beauties of the Book of Doctrines
and Covenants to show that Monrion reve-
lations are sui generii^; there is nothing like
'tiiem. Admire sufficiently, if you can,

such beauties as the following: "Now the
joy of Amron was great, even that he \. as
full, yea he was swallowed up in joy ot his
God, "even to the exhaustion of his strength,
and he fell ag., in to the earth. Now was
that not exceeding great joy?" Yea, verily
Sidn;'y,nt was.

" There were no robbers nor murderers,
neither were there Lamanites, or any other
manner of ites." Sidney Rigdou all over.

We have reserved the climax of Mormon
inspiration to the last. Page 327. "And
"Moroni went forth among the people
" waving the rent of his garment in the air
" that all the people might see the writing
" that he wrote upon the rent." There now
doubt if you dare that the Book of Mormon
is of Divine origin. The one who hid up
the plate that Impostor Joe translated went
forth waving^ a hole that the people might
see the writing he had WUOTK on the
hole. I never heard of but one instance to
rival this. An old chap who lived in
Trumbull county, Ohio, used to tell that in
a freshet in the Mississippi river it washed
away so much of a bank that was full '>f
kingfisher's holes, that it left the hol-'S
sticking out into the air fifty feet. The hoio
that Moroni waved in the air, and on
which he had wrote the writing that I'e
people might see what he had wroteon the
hole must have been like the old feliow s
kingfisher's holes.

The adaptations and imitations of modern
literature and the Bible expose the fraud -i-
lent character of the Book of Morman. I"
the first book we have the revival power of
animal magnetism imitated GOOyears before
Christ. Pages 23 to 28 John's Apocalypse
imitated and the Church of Rome describ-
ed, as only history can describe it. Page
24. The American Revolution described.
Pages 176, ISO, 181, 243, 245, 272 and 373 are
imvtations of Fox's Book of Martyrs. Pages
196-7 a weak imitation of Paul's conver-
sion. Page 202 teaches the modern radical
democratic idea of vox populi vox Dei.
Pages 226, 246. Peter's deliverance is imi-
tated. Ananias lying to tneLord imitated.
Page 223. All spiritual gifts enjoyed. Pago
246. Peter healing the father of Aeneas imi-
tated. Page 252. Watering of Jethro's
flocks by Moses imitated Pages 256 and
266. The fall down power of modern revivals
is imitated. Page 289. Episcopalians preach
from high pulpits, and have liturgies and
on the Lord's Day, something never dream-
ed of till after Christ. 322. An inspired
prophet scalps his enemy just like any
other " big injun" who takes " heap much
scalp." Page 3'jl. The delivery of the
Hebrews from the fiery furnace imitated.
Pages 406-407. Elijah's miracle of drought
and rain imitated. Page 480. Daniel cast
into the lion's den imitated. Page 438.
Candles invented. Page 436. The raising
from the dead by Jesus and others
imitated. Page 456. The miracle of the
loaves and fishes imitated by making tlie
institution of the Supper just like it.
Pages 22« and 231. Peter and Cornelius imi-
tated. Scenes at the crucifixion of Christ,

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

133

darkness, rending' rocks, raising of the
dead, imitated, only Sydney far out-does
the New Testament writers. Thomas put-
ting^ his hngers in nai! prints and side imi-
tated, only Sydney has over 2500 spend ten
or twelve hours in such a performance.
An attempt to imitate our >^avi(vur's lan-
guage to Peter ibout John '9 tarrying here
absurdly ihanged into liis saying and doing
what th<» New restameiit, (John himself
being the ivnter)says he, did not say or io.
Page .:)I4. Ditigbter of Heroaias imitaied.
Page -t^O. Daniel's iiiierprtiing the hand
writing on the wall imitated. Soiomon imi-
tate<l .'jI9.

These are only a portion of theadaptations
..Ljd mutations. So ^ei vilely does Rigdon
opy nht Bible, md especially tlie Now
Testament tl' -tall his prophets and preach-
ers preach and prophecy just as the Bible
preachers and prophets speak, using iheir
exact language much »( the time except
when they preach Iligdons special hobbies.
The Jaiedites vvho came to America from
the Tower of P>abel liave the complete gos-
pel preached among them belore the days
of Abraham. No Israelite prophet was ev-
er favored with such levelatiuiis, not even
Jsaiah as Jared's brother.

[ challenge my opnoiicnt l<~' name an im-
portant Chistiaii idea, or im^iortant idea of

modern fheology that Rigdon does not put
intothe mouth ■)f hi-> Nephites. His gross
illiteracy appears m fhi ^act ihat ne Jid
not see that he was exposing his own hand
and work and voic as clearly a* he ever
did in any sermon h- preached. 1( is
the most transparent c:under:u^- /raud ev-
er attempted

By actual careful ccun^ the pia^iarismj
<rom fhe New Testament of paragraphs,
phrases amJ sentences xr^ over 500 The
♦juotations of plirases .imount to hundreds.
There^are over ten m each page of Rigdon'a
sermon ;igaiii'«t infant Baptism. Pages
3.iO .^40, H^l. Whole chapters are. 'iuoted.

Isaiah II to XIV.
XX r
XLVTII.
L

LII
LIV.

Malachi III.

Matthew V VI VTt.

U Corinthians XITI.

One-eighteenth ot the Book is stolen by
chapters. If we add to this paragraphs and
verses fully one-twelfth: if we add phrases
fully one-eight, if wf enumerate ideas stol-
en, adapted or imitated, we have ihe entire
religious poVtioa of the Book except its
Rigdon isms.

MR. KELLEY'S FIFTEENTH SPEECHi

Gentlemen Mo^'KRVJors, Ladies and
Gentlemen: VVhon I closed my reni.irks
last evening, it was M'iLh a record of some of
the discoveries ot this country that I chum
to be corroborative evidence of the truth
and divinity of the Book of Mormon. The
author from whom I was rea<fing gives cuts,
representations and descriptions of many
of those clifl'dwellings and cities which are
in direct connection with my proofs here,
but I will not take the time to read farther
at present, as I wish to examine the objec-
tions so far as presented by my opponent,
and present also another line of proofs ob-
tained by the researches of explorers and
scientists, and introduce others touching
particularly upon the individual identity of
the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which
it is claimed lived in a highly civilized and
enlightened state upon tliis continent.

Von Humboldt in his Equinoctial Regions
of America, vol. 1, pages 16 and '269, refers
to the finding of the bones of the megathe-
rium and megalonyx on this continent, but
reports them as extremely scarce. He also
states in same work: " That natulraist, M.

(Juvjor, has also recognized two new species
of mastodons and an elephant among the
fos?<il bones of qiiadiupeds which we
brouffiit from America.'

Prof. Winchell, in his Sketches of Crea-
tion published in 1874, pages S56 and .i.i7'
says : " In the United States we detect also
some evidences of the co-'existence of man
and extinct species of quadrupeds. Dr.
Koch, the reconstructor of the Tertiary
Zeuglodon. insisted long ago that he had
found in Missouri such an association of
Mastodon and Indian ren.ains as to prove
that the two had lived cotemporaneoiisly.
" I have myself (says the author) ob-
served the bones of the mastodon and ele-
phant imbedded in jieat at depths so siial-
low that I could readily believe the animals
to have occupied the country during its pos-
session by the Indians, and gav, jjiiblicatioa
to this conviction in 1862." " More recently
(he says) Prof. Holmes, of Charleston, has
informed the Academy ol Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia that he finds upon thw
banks of the Ashley river a remarkable
conglomeration of fossil remains in deposits

154

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

o<' post-tertiary age. Remains of the hog.
horse, and ottier animals of recent date, to-
gether with human bones, stone arrow-
Leads hatchets and fragments of pottery
arp tfiere lying mhigled with the bones of
;ht mastodoirand extinct gigantic lizzards.
Cotemporary with these American animals,
but not yet tound associated in their re-
mains witb the relics of the human species,
lived in North America horses much larger
man the existing species, grazing in com-
pany with wild oxen (another of Braden's
miracles; this is Alex. Winchell, liL. D.,
Prof, of Geology, Zoology and Botany in the
University of Michigan who discovers this
Tiitracle) and herds of bisons and shrub-
loving tapirs. Ihe streams were dammed
by the labors of gigantic beavers, while the
loie.sts afforded a range for a species of hog,
and a grateful dwelling-place for numerous
edentate quadrupeds related to the sloth,
Lu( of gigantic proportions."

Sliort, in his North Americans of Antiqui-
ty, paae 530, published in 1882, says : " The
question as to whether man and the masto-
don were cotemporaueous in America has
long been a matter of dispute, as the reader
is aware." Then he cites the elephant pipe
discovered six or eight years ago by a
farmer living on the line dividing Musca-
tine and Louisa counties, Iowa. He says :
" The tinder, who had no idea of its archseo-
logical value, kept it with a number of ' In-
dian stones,' as he termed them, until last
year (1878), when it became the property of
the Davenport Academy." Dr. Farquarson
says: "The ancient mounds were very
abundant in that vicinity (Louisa county),
and rich in relics, which are deposited on
the surface of the soil, not in excavations."
"Then," says the author, "the pipe, which
If of a fragile sandstone, is of the ordinary
mound-builders' type, and has every ap-
pearance of its age and usage — of its gen-
uineness T have no doubt. Together with
the elephant mound of Wisconsin, the ele-
phant head of Palenque depicted in Lord
Kings borough's work, our pipe completes
the series of what the French would call
' documents,' proving the fact of the cotem-
poraueous existence on this continent of
man and the mastodon."

I might, in this connection, refer you to
the late article in the Chicago Advance, by
Professor Wright, of Oberlin College, upon
the "Animal mounds," ancient earthworks
of Wisconsin, particularly describing,
among others, the elephant mound before
referred to, and Irom certain features which
are presented it seems that the Professor is
doubtful as to whether he should believe it
was intended to lepresent the elephant or
some other animal. " The mound is 135 feet
loiijT, 60 feet broad (from the bottom of his
feet to his back), with a trunk or proboscis
30 teet long. The head is large, and the
proportions of the whole are symmetrical."

Now it is just possible after all that the
difficulty in identifying this mound arises
from the fact that one of the other animals
referred to in the Book of Mormon in con-
nection with the elephant is that repre-

sented; but, whether this or the elephant,
it is true that the existence of all of these
animals, and the fact that they were co-
temporaueous with man, was published
boldly to the world in 1830, in the Book of
Mormon, when these things were unknown
to the world, and no scientist- has since
made discoveries which are at variance
with it.

The force of this corroborative testimony
will be readily seen when we consider for a
moment the overwhelming evidence which
subsequent developments had bioughfc
against the book, had it in its full and clear
statements upon like things omitted to
have even mentioned the sheep, the horse,
the ox, the elephant, the curelom, thecum-
mom, and many others, or had given an en-
tirely different class of animals from these.
1 tell you, my friends, that with this work
in my hands, I can substantiate the fact
that God is, and that there is truth in tha
narrative that Jesus Christ was his Son,
and came into the world to help fallen hu-
manity. Is this a bad thing for Christian-
ity? Is it not well entitled to the respect
and belief of all Christian people? I am
well aware of the fact that tor the past 50
years people have been crying out deceiver
and imposter, and trying to ridicule and
laugh this people down ; and even went so
far in Missouri and Illinois as to try to put
them down by force. But in comparing
men with men as I have found them in
all grades of society in this country and
in all the industries and professions of life,
I unhesitatingly state before you, that for
ability of thought, clearness of perception
and honesty of purpose and determination,
I have met with none who excel this same
people, and but few societies that will equal
or compare with them. The day of silly
stories, fabricated falsehoods, and old wives,
tales is of the past. If there are objections
worthy of consideration, we have plenty of
men and women who are able and willing
to examine them ; and I call upon this giant
in debate to stop his spinning of yarns told
about the Saints, and bring forward one
argument or proof that he is willing to
stand by.

Returning to these corroborative scien-
tific evidences, I again refer you to Sketches
of Creation, page 362: "The primeval in-
habitants of North America were Asiatics
in their features, their language and their
arts, and tradition speaks of them as mov-
ing from the direction of Asia. These move-
ments of human populations like radiating
streams from the western part of Asia, cer-
tainly afford a presumption that the only
people of whose movement we have neither
history, tradition nor buried monument,
proceeded also from the direction of the
orient. From the same quarter of the world
proceeded most of our domestic o.7iiinals and
plants, and in rhe same quarter of the world
the perpetually uttered prophecies of the
geologic aii;es proclaimed that the line of
animal life should have its culmination."
These are the thoughts of the learned.
Now, who is ready to say that the critic-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

lUo

iam of Mr. Braden was a smart one against
the book for huringinff the domestic animals,
the fish, and the seeds of the earth, to a cer-
tain extent across the broad ocean. He
would have you believe that these animals
came over themselves. Especinl!\' the fish.
"Just listen to the nonsense," he says ;
"took the fish in the boat to keep them from
being drowned in the water." When he
produces the example of a fresh water fish
from the old world swimming the briny
ocean and safely landing on the coast of
America, it will be time enough for the
facetious ridicule of the eight vessels or
barges which brought the Jaredites and
certain animals and fish to the continent.

Then the eight "vessels or barges" are
ridiculed ; spoken of as a canoe, the reflec-
tion made that they were dug out of a tree.
I will read it : "The Lord said, go to work
and build after the manner of barges which
ye have hitherto built."

How did these people build them before?
Turn back to page £02, where we have the
account of their departure and journey to-
ward the sea. "And they did also lay
snares and catch fowls of the air [uoi every
one as he represented to you] ; and they did
also prepare a vessel in which they did carry
with them the fish of the waters; [any-
thing strange about that? Have we not got
fish commissioners in almost every State in
the Union, whose business is to transplant
fish and stock the many lakes and rivers?]
"and they did also carry witii them deseret,
which, by interpretation, is honey bee ; and
thus they did carry with them swarms of
bees and all manner of that which was
upon the face of the land, seeds of every
kind."

Here then we have the first vessel built,
and it is no canoe, but sufficient to hold for
a short time many things ; not everything,
however, as he represented. Turning back
now to the vessels, the length of which
"was the length of a tree," I read : "And
the door thereof, when it was shut, was
tight, like unto a dish."

How many canoes with doors did you
eversee? In his anxiety to get "the bottom
thereof tight and the sides thereof tight,"
( what is the use of laboring to make them
tight if it is a dug out?) "and the ends
thereof peaked," he innocently forgets that
"the dooi thereof" must be large enough
for this mighty man whose name he would
like to know, to go in at ; and for such ani-
mals as were to be inmates thereof to go in
at, whether the camel, the elephant or the
whale. The larger the animals he puts in,
the larger he must make the door, and the
larger the door the larger the vessel. I
will now read to you what the book says,
page 510:

"And it came to pass that when they had
prepared all manner of food that thereby
they might subsist upon the water, and
also food for their flocks and herds and
whatsoever beast or animal or fowl that
they should carry with them."— "Whatso-
ever beast, animal or fowl that they should
carry with them."— They did not carry all

then? Oh no, well, is that the way you
understood Braden? Why did you try to
make this audience think they brought
everything as fully as Noah had in the ark?
But neither .you, nor any other man can
j^how but what these eight vessels would
hold more than the ark. Then what he-
comes of the criticism. (), he says, it had a
hole in the top and a hole in the bottom ;
how large he don't know, yet he speculates
upon it as though he did. It would be
presumed that a person who knew enough
to build a boat would also know enou-rh to
put a hole in it, if directed, in proportion to
the size of the same and the use to be made
of the opening ; and in the bottom as well as
the top. This description of these vessels
is in favor of the inspiration of the book
ratlier than against it. There is not a pro-
bability in favor of the idea that as early
as 1829, there was a man in ten milliona
who was able to read and write and who
was getting up a work of fiction, who would
have ever thought in describing a
boat of such a thing as putting
a hole in the bottom. Yet in the
time of fifty years it has become quit*
common. Our best Life-boat is made upon
that principle. I have seen it myself. And
the bottom thereof was tight like unto a
dish, and the sides thereof were tight lik»
unto a dish, and the ends thereof were
peaked ; and the manner of building it is,
that after it is built the holes are made in
the vessel and in the bottom too; and suffi-
ciently large toempty itof the vvuler if filled,
in a few seconds; and the length thereof
was not quite the lentrth of a tree. And it
is the very boat that is used by the United
States Signal Service, altogether on the
Pacific coast, so stated by the gentleman in
charge of the Signal Service Departnjent in
Washington to me when he showed me the
boat, and not only is it used in the United
States Signal Service, but in the British
Signal Service also. Yet his sportive de«
scription of a like Tessel in the Book of
Mormon, is the best that can be said against
the book to prove it is not of divine origin
and not entitled to the respect and belief of
all Christian people.

Ah! but he has made another objection,
a terrible one. What is it, you ask ? This
is it :— There is so much of the Campbellite
faith in it. Yes; but you will see, my
friends, how much Campbellite faith there
is in it before these discussions are over!
There is in truth hardly to be found so
much as was left of the.Taredites, after they
had "fit, and fit, and fit, and fit." Tell m©
the faith that is a living active principle as
tauo-ht in the Book of Mormon was taken
from the Campbellitt s ! They never believed
or taught the principle of restoration in
repentance as set forth in the Book of Mor-
mon • Nor did Sidney Rigdou till after hi»
conversion to the faith the last part of the
year 1830. They never taught nor believed
in the baptism of the Holy Spirit except as a
thin"- of the past, nor did Rigdon till alter
1830 They never believed in contending
for the faith once delivered to the Saints as

156

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

that book teaches; but they contended for
only a pai* of i*- * ^^''^ small part at that ;
neither did Riffdon till after his conver-
sion in 1830. They never belie\ed in a
divine call to the ministry, nor do they now,
claim that their ministers are so oalled ;
nor did Sidney Rij;don till after his conver-
sion in 1830. Tliey do not believe in the
lavino- on of hsnds fur the gitt of the Holy
Spirit^ nor did Iligdon till after his conver-
sion in 1830. Thev do not believe in God
an-twering the jeniUnt child for wisdom
by any commiinieation directly to him, or
by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nor
did Rigdon till 1830. They do not believe
in the signs of the Gospel as spoken of by
Jesus atti'iiding the believer, nor did Rig-
don till 1830.

Thev do not believe in the organization of
the Cb.tach as spoken of in the 12th of Cor ,
lOtb of Matt., and 4th of Eph.. nor did Rig-
don till 1830. The Book of ISIormon leaches
all of these things; that God not only is,
but is willing to shed forth his Spirit in the
heart crying Abba, Father ! and many
more things I might mention which Rig-
don nor none ofthe Campbellite Church
believed till after the publication of this
work. Then will he still, without a shadow
of proof, continue to assert, " Kigdon did
it?" Because, forsooth, he left Braden's
Society and sought one whose faith is more
nearly in accord with the Bible, and man-
fully fought his way in life for what he hon-
estly from the heart believed to be true,
anddiedas he lived, raught his friends and
his children the faith as he received it in
18.^0— will Braden, because of vengeance
and spite, continue the assault upon his
dead bones? My opponent will never make
a case by such a course that will stand the
test. Not even as much will be left of it as
was left of the " Kilkenny cats." He may
have a couple of tails left, but they are
shown to be putrid and rotten ones. But
he says the book teaches that two nations
existed here and killed each other in their
great battles. So it does, and so does science.
It teaches that the enlightened were slain.
So do scientists and archjsologists. It
teaches that they had their battles and de-
fenses, and signals for alarms and watch-
towers from the Ohio to New York, and
nearly all over the country: so does scien-
tific research. Mr. Short, in his North
Americans of Antiquity, page 50, says:
"The military works of the mound-build-
ers, other than those previously mentioned
as existing on the lakes and in western New
York State, are of a two-fold chaiacter,
consisting first, of fortified eminence*, of
which an instance is found in Butler county,
Ohio." He then describes this and others,
among which is the remarkable one known
as Fort Ancient, Oliio, on the Little Miami
river, a description of which was given to
the public by Professor Locke in 1843. The
whole circuit of this work is between four
and five miles. The number of cubic yards
of excavation may be approximately esti-
mated at 628,800. The embankment stands
in places twenty feet in perpendicular

height. The most interesting and valuable
paper on this work is that by Mr. L. M.
Hosea, of Cincinnati, in the Quarterly Jour-
nal of Science, October, 1874, page 287, et
seq. Judges Dundery and Force, the latter
in a memoir on the mound-builders, (1872,)
estimate the period at a thousand years,
while Mr. Hosea thinks several thousand
years would be required to produce the nu-
merous little hillocks and depressions which
mark the spot where trees have fallen and
decayed.

These men of science place it a thousand
years back as the time when that fort must
have been last occupied, and t'l.iit is not ;).
great way from the time tiie Book of 1\!">
mon fixed in 1830.

"Fort Ancient, which would have heiis
garrison of 60,000 men with their familif.s
and provisions, was of a line of fortifica-
tions which extend across the State, and
served to check the incursions of the sav-
ages of the North in their descent upon the
mound- builders' country."

Don't talk of families, gentlemen, or Mr.
Braden will have you arnjing the babies !

"The second class of military works is
exceedingly numerous on all the water
courses — exiiJting not only on the Ohio and
Mississippi, but on all their tributaries,
especially on the Muskingum, Scioto, Miami,
Wabash, Illinois, Kentucky, and rainor
streams — are mounds which served uis out-
looks.''

Squire and Davis remark on this subjeef.,
that, "There seems to have existed a system
of defenses extending from the source of the
Alleghany and Susquehanna in NewYork,
diagonally across the country, through
central and northern Ohio, to the Wabash.
Within this range the works which are
regarded as defensive are largest and most
numerous. The signal system, we have
reason to believe, was employed through-
put theentireextentof this rangeof works."
Shall I claim your time further to show
wnat was stated in the book years before to
have been since corroborated?

But he calls them " fools" for fighting so.
Well, that don't help the matter. The
Book of Mormon don't endorse their work
as having been right. The question is, did
they so live, and fight, and destroy each
other ? The book says they did, and that
there was not only one nation, but two, who
came to a similar end in this very country ;
and after the people have tried to laugh the
idea down for fifty years, explorers and
scientists have come in and say they are
facts.

Then do they not corroborate the history
as given in the book, aud place it beyond
any doubt that the book must stand? Will
he not answer to the arguments instead of
standing like a schoolboy and talking about
Kilkenny cats ?

FIRST HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS.

I will now briefly refer you to the time in
which Ancient America began to be known
through the reports of archaeologists to the
world. Of their journey to Guatemala in
1839 and 1840, Stephens says, page 124:

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

157

"We did not know that the country was so
eompletely secluded ; the people are less
accustomed to the sight of strangers than
the Arabs around Mount Sinai, and they
are much more suspicious. Col. Galind'o
was the only stranger who had been there
before us and he could hardly be called a
stranger, for he was a Colonel in the Cen-
tral American service, and visited the ruing
under a com mission from the (lovernment."

These are the remarks of Mr Stephens,
who with Mr. Catherwood, was under the
auspicies of the United States Government,
and they required this backing to get the
aid of the Central American Government
as far as it could give, to protect them in
their explorations as late as 1839 and 1840,
in exploring and describing the very
country and its cities, described in the
Book of Mormon in 1828 and 1829. He says
that no stranger except Col. Galindo had
been there before. And yet my opponent
wants to make you believe that Sidney Rig-
don, Solomon Spaulding, or Joseph Smith
knew all about these ruins and cities and
peoples so as to place it in the Book of Mor-
mon ; that book placing the landing of one
portion of the people that came to this
country in Yucatan, the very country that
is spoken of by this eminent traveler.

Referring to the explorations of Captain
Del Rio, he says :

"The report of Captain Del Dio, with the commen-
tary of Dr. Paul Felix, of New Guatemala, deducing
an Egyptian origin for the people, through either the
■upinenesB or the jealousy of the Spanish Government,
was locked'up in the archives of Guatemala until the
time of the revolution, when by the operation* of
liberal principals the manuscript came into the hands
Of an English gentleman, long a resident of thai
country, and an English translation was published at
London in 1822. This was the first notice in Europe of
the discovery of these ruins; and instead of electrify-
ing the public mind, either from want of interest in
the subject., distrust, or some other catise, so little
notice was takan of it, that in 18.34, the L'terary Gazette,
a paper of great circulation in Loudon, announced it
as a new discovery made by Col. Galiudo."

Now for a research for the publication of
Captain Dupaix. His expeditions were
made in 1805, 1806, and 1807, the last of
which was to Palenque. The manuscript
of Dupaix, and the designs of his drafts-
man were locked in the Cabinet of
Natural History in Mexico till 1828, when
M. Baradere took them from the museum,
"where," says Stephens, "But lor this
accident they might still have remained,
and the knowledge of the existence of this
city again been lost." "Afterwards the
work was first published in Franc© in 1834
and 183,5."

About this time Lord Kingsborough pub-
lishes his works, which, says Stephens, "so
far as Palenque is but a reprint of Dupaix,
and then his works iiai Paris were four hun-
dred dollars per copy." Stephens, etc.,
297, 298. Then he says, with reference to
his own work, the materials for which were
gathered in 1840 and 1841, "My object has
been, not to produce an illustrated work,
but to present the drawings in such an in-
expensive form as to place them within
reach of the great maas of our readers."
Page 310, vol. 2.

Speaking of these buried cities in another
plac«i he says, "that even Humboldt had
never heard of, much less seen."

Do I still, my friends, have to convince
some in this audience, or even Mr. Braden
himself, that there was no general knowl-
edge known to the world to be gathered to
form the basis to make the history con-
tained in the Rook of Mormon in 1828 or
1829, much less 1810 and 1811, when it is
claimed by Brad en that Solomon Spaulding
wrote ? The work therefor:' is not the work
of man alone, and has a higher authority,
which proves its divinity.

Continuing the question of individual
identity of the remnants of the tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh, who formerly lived
in a civilized state upon this continent, and
Israeli tish tribes of the old world, 1 intro-
duce the analogical evidence of identity of
the family, as set forth by Mr. Delafiold,
page 65.

He finds that there is a resem blance : In
language, anatomy, mythology, uses of
writing, knowledge of astronomy, and hab-
its of burial of their dead.

The effrontery exhibited in standing bo-
fore an audience and asserting without the
least shadow of proof that there are no such
proofs of similarity, is only equaled by the
audacity of the statement that there are no
proofs of the remains of the horse on the
continent, or if there were horses, as he
argued at Wilber, they were not like our
horses. Does the Book of Mormon say that
they were like our horses? Prof. Winchell,
in his "Sketches of Creation," page 210,
says :

"it is a curious fact that so many generi, now exlinet
/rom tAc continent, butlivingin other quarters of the
globe, were once abundant on the plains of North
America. Various species of the horse have dwelt
here for a^.'cs, and the que.ition ieasonal)ly arises
whether the wild horses of the Pampas may not have
been indiginous. Here too the camel found a suitable
home."

This is the way our scientific men, per-
sons who are posted upon these things
talk.

In 1877, there were discovered in the fos-
sil beds of Lake County, Oregon :

"Fossil bones of the elephat, camel, horse,
elk and reindeer. The horse being much
more abundant than either of the others.
Also bones of other animals larger than
the elephant."

There are now in the museums of this
country, of Yale College and the Smitiison-
ian Institute, skeletons of two kinds of
animals which formerly lived upon this
continent, either of which is larger than the
elephant. Do I have to call your attention
to the fact of the discoveries of Prof. Marsh,
who in the "Chicago Times Expedition" to
the west three years ago, found in the peat
beds of Wyoming, the bones of the mas-
todon ?

The Book of Mormon, in the year 1830,
was published, and on page 577 it mentions
with the horse the fact of the existence
upon the continent of "elephants, cureloms,
and cumoms ;" and placing them in their
order as to size, and giving the nature of
the animals also, as to disposition, struct-

158

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

are, «fec., by saying they were "useful unto
man." Are these bold statements of a
work claimLng- for itself ektire credibility,
anything- like the musings of Gulliver's
travels, which we have been referred to?

But the objection is further made that it
is like Gulliver'fe travels as there was no
beginning point, no directions, no stopping
places by which to test it. The trouble is
the assertion is not true. From the outset it
begins with giving the names of the parties
setting out upon the journey described. The
very spot known to the world from which
they migrated. The very time and names
known to the world at the time and found
in history and the Bible, to-wit, Lehi, La-
ban, l^einuel, Ishmael, &c. Giving a full
genealogy of the prominent parties of one
tribe, lur.ningall risks of bi-ing caught by
reason of historical or other contradictions,

or by reason of disclosures of history or
discoveries in science: — Takes these fami-
lies from Jerusalem, giving direction of trav-
el, distance, naming number of days of trav-
el in each direction, definitely, distinctly,
and clearly — see pages 2, 4, 33, 35, 3fi, 41,
43 of the book — giving a description of the
country, the rivers crossed, deserts passed
and mountains reached, until it lands them
upon the sea shore. And yet it is persist-
ently stated before you that the account is
on a par with Gulliver's travels — a work of
fiction that pretends to give no time, place,
country, or people or fact. Has he repre-
sented it fairly or truthfully f Is there not
time, place, people, destination, race, char-
acteristics, habits, customs and the exact
present status of descendants all given?
(Time called.)

MR. BRADEN'S FIFTEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
GentIjEMEN :— Kelley told you last night
how Rigdou exploded the Spaulding story
in the Messenger and Advocate. Would it
not have been better to have repeated the
explosion, than to have given his unsup-
ported assertion that Rigdon performed such
marvels. He repeats the story already ex-
posed as a fabrication of his own at least
twice that Hur.but got the INIanuscrlpt
Found from Mrs. Davidson, and Mrs. Mc-
Kinstry. They only gave him an order to
search a trunk for it. He repeats his falsi-
fication of the language of Hurlbut ; that he
says he got the Manuscript Found. Hurl-
but says he did not get it, but a part of an en-
tirely different manuscript. He repeats
that Howe says they got the Manuscript
Found, and it was not what they expected
it to be. Howe says no such thing. He
says the manuscript Hurlbut brought to
us was not what he expected. It was not
what they expected, because it was not
the Manuscript Found. The assertion that
either Howe or Hurlbut said they obtained
the Manuscript Found, and it was not what
they expected, is a deliberate fabrication of
Kelley. Hurlbut did get the Manuscript
Found, H« wrote Mrs. Davidson that he
did. But he did not give it to Howe, He
sold it to the Mormons. Mr. Patterson does
say that he knew but little of the man-
uscripts taken to the printing office. Fu-
gles, the foreman, attended to them. But
Patterson's ignorance, however, does not
set to one side the clear testimony of
other witnesses.

My opponent undertakes to ridicule the

evidence I introduced as heresay — "Rev.
Bonsall Winter's stepson ; Mrs. Irwin, his
daugliter, and Rev. Kirk said that Winter
told them." Letus retort. "Kelley says that
Joseph III. says that Emma Smith saj'S.
Kelley says thatHowe said. That Gilbert
said. Kelley says that the Quincy Whig
says, that Nichols says, that Ely says, that
Mrs. Davidson said." Does he not know-
that he commits murder on his own testi-
mony when he resorts to such pettifogging?
My opponent has not offered a scintilla of
evidence that an Ebpraimite ever entered-
America. He tries to get out of that ridi<
ulous blunder about oxen. I know tliM
cow is used as a generic name for the genus
bos ; so is ox. But where both are used to-
gether, neither is generic; but both are tlit-
names of a class of the genus. "Cowb'"
means the females of the genus, when used
with ox and "oxen" means an unnatural
class of the genus when mentioned with
cows. Suppose instead of saj'ing "sheep"
the Book of Mormon had said "ewes" and
"wethers." Would they be generic names?
Come, sir, you can't get out of that idiotic
blunder in any such way. As the Book of
Mormon says in one place that darkness
shall cover the earth three days after the
crucifixion, and the Bible declares that it
was only three hours and over the land
about Jerusalem, he cannot pettifog away
the contradiction. If it was as light as
mid-day all night how could a star be seen
in mid-day light? My opponent has not
explained it iiow the Nephites foretold the
exact language Christ would use to such an
extent, that whole pages are so foretold.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

159

Nor how they come to speak of the language
as the7i in the Scriptures, hundreds of years
before Christ and the apostles uttered it.
He aslts me if I know wliat was in the 40
books known and unknown, quoted or re-
ferred to by the Kible. I don't. But until
he proves that the language was in those
books, he cannot prove that his Nephites
quoted from them. Again if it was, it
would only cliange the absurdity from the
Book of Mormon to another book. Finally,
we find the language in the New Testament
and we know that neither Nephite or anyone
else could quote it until it was uttered, any
more than they could quote Shakespeare or
Pope. Did these unknown prophets quote
from Shakespeare and Pope thousands of
years before they lived, so that Sydney's
Nephites could quote such language from
them ? I read from the Book of Mormon
denunciationsof secret societies, their oatlis,
grips, signs, pass-words, all the denuncia-
tions uttered by anti-masons when the
Book of Mormon first appeared. This shows
that it was written in that excitement.
Science says thnt the Asiatic species of our
domestic animals were not in America un-
til introduced by Europeans. Tlie Book
of Mormon says they were — a flat contra-
diction.

Another fraud in this affair, Oliver Cow-
dery began his work of writing down the
translation of the Book of Mormon, the
Book of Doctrines and Coveuants de-
clares, April 17th, 1825. The trauslalion
was fitiished, Mrs. Smith says, early in
June. The copy-right was taken out June
10th. Just to think of a man writing as
dictated to him slowly word by word the
manuscript of a book as large as the Old
Testament, or about 2000 pages of foolscap
in less than sixty days, thirty-three pages
per <Uem, and the writer a blacksmith un-
used to copying. Here is another Mormon
miracle. Another fact that exposes the
fraud in the Book of Mormon. It was given
by miracle to Smith word by word by the
Almighty. Inspired Joe called off each
word. Inspired Oliver copied or wrote it
down. Inspired Joe and Oliver read the
proofs of the printer. Of course it was all
right. The concoctors of the fraud told
Gilbert, the printer, that the manuscript
■was the work of inspiration, and it must
not be changed a particle. It had in it not
a mark of punctuation, not a capital letter
at the beginning of sentences, was badly
spelled, and the grammar was atrocious.
The printer refused to print such a mon-
strosity. He was allowed to punctuate
and correct the spelling where he could.
When the book appeared it had in it thou-
sands of errors and blunders, and of the
worst kind imaginable.

We are ready to expose another of the
ridiculous blunders of the fabricators of
the Book of Mormon. In translating from
one language to another, if the translation
be at all literal, there will appear the idioms
of the original and the idioms of the
tongue into which the translation is made.
The former will be the idioms of the origi-

nal language that were peculiar to it in the
age in which the book was written. The
latter will be the idioms of the language
into which the translation is made. There
have been scores of translations of the
Bible, from the original into English, in
different ages. In each appear the idioms
of the Hebrew and Greek, and tlie idioms
of the English language peculiar to it in the
age in which the translation was made.
The first belong to the Bible in the original.
The latter to the English translations. We
can tell in what age each book of the Old
and New Testament, was written by the
former. We can tell in what age of the
English language each translation was
made by the latter.

The fabricators of the Book of Mormon,
in their gross ignorance of this fact, in
their attempts to imitate the Bible, and i.o
make the Book of Mormon like the ancient
Hebrew so as to accord with the assump-
tion that the authors were Hebrews who
emigrated to America, have imitated the
idi'>)iis (if the Greek of the New Testament,
wherever it appears in King James' ver-
sion; notwithstanding the Nephites could
know notiiing about that: and to cap the
climax of absurdity, they have imitated
the English idioms of King James' transla-
tors, that did not live until 1200 years
after the last Nephite wa§ dead. They
have made the idioms of the English lan-
guage of 1611 the idioms of the Nephites in
America who lived hundreds of years
before there was any English, and lliOO
years before such idioms were used. We
can illustrate the absurdity of this blun-
der by a case like this. " A man who
knows nothing about the Old Testament,
except what he learns by hearing an Irish-
man read the original Hebrew, and trans-
late it into Enyrlish, the Irishman reading
the Hebrew to himself and giving the Eng-
lish of it to his auditor, as he reads, comes
before us with a book that he claims an
angel gave to him in Hebrew manuscript,
and that he was inspired to translate it
into English. When we come to examine
it, we find that he has imitated, not only
the Hebrew idioms of the Old Testament,
that were brought out in the Irishman's
translation, but has actually imitated the
Irishman's Hlbernicisms, his brogue, sup-
posing in liis ignorance that Paddyisms
were Simon Pure Hebraisms. Would any
body but a Mormon be such a fool as not
to declare, in one moment, that his ridicu-
lous putting of Paddyismsinto the mouth
of Hebrew, exposed his story as a lie and
a fraud, and his b )ok as a ridiculous blund-
ering fraud? Would it not be as clear as

dav? ,. ,, . ,

In precisely the same stolidly ignorant
manner, the fabricators of the Book of Mor-
mon have put into the mouths of Israelites
in America, not only the Hebraisms that
are in five King James' version of the Old
Testament, but the Hellenisms of the
Greek of the New Testament, that appear
in King James' translation; and what is
idiotically absurd the Anglicisms, the

160

THE BRADEIs AMD KELLEY DEBATE.

brogue of King James' translators. Think
of Israelites in America, thousands of years
ago, using the brogue of King James'
translators, thousands ot years before such
brogue was spoken by the English them-
selves. Not only so, but they have imi-
tated the incorrect readings of the manu-
scripts used by those translators, as any one
can see who compares the plagiarisms from
the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, with
King James' version and the late Canter-
bury version. The Lord in giving the
translation, word by word, to Joe Smith,
slavishly followed the incorrect readings
of the manuscripts, from which King
Jame's translators made their translation,
just as they appear in that translation.
Not only so but he actually copied their
mistranslations also, as one can see by com-
paring the plagiarisms in the Book of Mor-
mon with King James' version and the
Canterbury version. Let me give two
noted instances. The Lord in doling out
word by word, I Cor. xiii. 4, copied the
blunder of King James' translators and
inserted the word "easily" and translated
the Greek " Charity is not easily provoked;"
when every scholar knows, whether the
Mormon God does or not, that "easily" is
is not in a single Greek manuscript known
to exist. In like manner in doling out
Isaiah, xviii, 10, he copied the blunder of
King James' translators and gave it to Joe,
" The Lord God and His Spirit hath sent
me" when every scholar knows, whether
the Mormon God does or not, that it
should be "The Lord God hath sent me
and His Spirit," i. e., " He hath sent me
and hath sent His Spirit." This is sufficient.
We might give many more.

The fabricators of the Book of Mormon
have copied the obsolete words, the obso-
lete grammar, the violations of grammar,
and the punctuation of King James' ver-
sion, showing that they were as ignorant
as the man in our illustration. They have
copied the blunders of King James' trans-
lators as Simon Pure Hebraisms, just as he
copied the blunders of the Irishman. They
are like the Chinaman that a lady employed
to make some plates to fill out a set of
chinaware. She had but one plate to give
him as a pattern and it was cracked and
nicked. To her amazement and amusement
"when John brought to her the two dozen
plates she had ordered, every one was
cracked and nicked just as the plate she
gave him. He copied everything, suppos-
ing it to be a part of the pattern. Just so
the fabricators of the Book of Mormon
have copied every crack and nick in King
James' version.

Another thing that proves that the pecu-
liarities of the Book of Mormon are awk-
ward attempts to imitatu 1=,, i iiiey are
such ablundering caricature ol King James'
version. They are as much of a caricature
and as awkward as the attempt of a New
England Yankee to imitate the brogue of
an Irishman. The paddyisms are exagger-
ated until the attempt is a caricature. The
"Beholds," "Wherefores," " Therefores,"

"Thereofs," and "Now it came to pass," in
the Book of Mormon, are ridiculously fre-
quent and most awkwardly used. By actual
countneary 1.700 sentences have "Behold''
at the beginning of them or near the begin-
ning. Nearly 1,400 have " And it came to
pass." Nearly 700 have " therefore." Nearly
500 have "wherefore;" and "lo," "yea,"
and "thereof" are most awkwardly fre-
, quent. The awkward use of the brogue of
; King James' translations betrays them just
' as the hackdriver's blunder betrayed him.
A great Quaker convention was assembling
in Philadelphia. Quakers patronized tlieir
own people. To get customers one limb of
the world put on drab and a broad brim.
He looked all right, but when he asked an
old Quaker, "Where is thee's baggage?'*
the Quaker retorted, "Away with thee for
a cheat." The same is true of the jargon of
the Book of Doctrines and Covenants. It
is no more like the brogue of King James'
version than the talk of the stage Irishman
is like the brogue of the genuine Paddy
right from the " ould sod." Mormons ab-
surdly seem to think that the brogue, the
lingo of King James' translations, is the
genuine dialect of heaven, and that angels
and the Lord cannot or do not talk in any
other. The Lord and angels spoke to Egyp-
tians in Egyptian, to Philistines in their
dialect, to Chaldeans in their tongue, to the
Hebrews in Hebrew, and when the Israelites
ceased speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or
whatever was the speech of the people they
were addressing ; but they affected no an
tique brogue, or rather caricature of it It
the Lord ha(l translated the Books o. Mor-
mon for Joe Smith he should have put it in
decent English of the nineteenth century,
and not in the obsolete brogue, grammati-
cal blunders and atrocities of King James*
version, or rather in a most absurd, disgust-
ing caricature of them in an ignoramus s
effort to imitate them. Hardshell Baptists
think that preaching is not preaching unless
in the nasal sing-song whine called "the
holy tone," and that the most idiotic bal-
derdash is equal to the preaching of angels,
if in that twang. So Mormons seem to think
that revelation is not revelation unless it
is in the brogue of King James' transla-
tors, and that the most idiotic twaddle is
equal to the seraphic strains of Isaiah, if in
that lingo. In their attempts to imitate it
they come about as near to it as the Yankee
schoolboy does the genuine Hardshell sing-
song when he attempts to declaim "A Harp
of a Thousand Strings."

Mormons attempt to parry these objec-
tions, bv appealing to faults in the Bible.
We reply 1. The blunders of King James'
translators, their brogue, is no part of the
original, as Mormons are so ignorant as to
suppose. 2. The messengers of God in the
Bible never used an old obsolete brogue, or
rather a most awkward, absurd caricature
of it. Nor did the Holy Spirit make the
persons inspired perpetrate such idiocy

3. The uneducated Amos did not use the
polished Hebrew of Isaiah or Jeremiah.
Nor did Peter use the classic Greek of

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

161

Thucydides. But neither Amos nor Peter
violated all laws of tjranimar and speech,
in their writings. Their language is terse
and blunt, but not such an atrocity as the
balderdash of the Book of Mormon and
Mormon revelations. Will our opponent
give us such a list from the original as we
have given from the Book of Mormon ? It
may be asked if Spaulding, an educated
man, and a person like Rigdon were authors
of the Book of Mormon, how could it be full
of such errors? How could they put such
errors in it? Would not they know enough
to avoid them, and would not they do so?
We reply: 1. Spaulding has been very
'much overrated. His education could not
have been what it is claimed it was or he
never would have been so grossly ignorant
as to suppose that the brogue of King
James' translators was the oldest dialect
he could find, as his wife tells he did. His
ridiculous imitations of the brogue of King
James' translators, his awkward imitation
that caricatured it, until his neighbors
ridiculed it and nicknamed him "Old-
came-to-pass," and his stolidly retaining
such an ignorant blunder to the last, shows
that he lias been very much overrated. He
was doubtless a dullvisionary prosy pedant
who undertook a work for which he was
utterly incompetent. 2. Rigdon was very
illiterate as his letter to the Boston Journal
proves, by its misspelled words, violations
of grammar, and utter ignorance of punctu-
ation, as tlie publishers describe it. His
education was obtained in a log school
house. He was never a reader except of the
visionary and extravagant. He was a rant-
ing, spread-eagle, highfaluten declaimer,
who mistook bombast for eloquence, fustian
for rhetoric, extravagance for sublimity.
We have then the blunders that such a
man as Spaulding would make in writing on
such a theme. His prosy dull repetitions and
awkward imitations of the Bible, that made
his stuff what Mark Twain calls it "chloro-
form in type." Then the ignorant blunders
of suck*an illiterate person as Rigdon and
his rant, fustian, spread-eagle and bombast.
The blunders that an ignoramus like Smith
would make in reading such a manuscript to
another, and the blunders that an illiterate
blacksmith like Cowdery would make in
copying, then the blunders a printer would
make in setting up such unusual stuff, espe-
cially when he dare not strike out what
seemed wrong to him, as he might mar the
inspiration by striking out its cant and its
brogue. If it' had been decent Eniilish, the
printer could have corrected it. But it m as
like Josh Billings spelling. Thewitin Josh
is the bad spelling. So the inspiration in the
Book of Mormon was its butchering of the
people's English, The atrocities of speech
were the divinity that was in it. Still one is
compelled to admit that with all of these
causes of error, each cause of error, wrought
a stupendous miracle, to have gotten up
such a monstrosity as the Book of Mor-
mon. We have proved by historic evi-
dence that Rigdon remodeled Spaulding's
manuscript, interpolating the religious por-

tions so as to fit it to be used as a pretended
revelation. We have proV-d by the Rigdon-
isms in the Book of Morjuon that it is his
work. His belief in immersion, believer's
baptism, baptism for the remission of sins,
free grace, opposition to infant baptism,
opposition to the doctrine of total heredi-
tary depravity that borders on Pelagian-
ism. These were tlie ideas of the Disciples
then. His opposition to secret societies,
denunciation of Sectarianism. When he
agreed with the Disciples we have Disci-
ples teaching, but when he dittered, their
teaching is bitterly opposed. He contends
for community of goods. He retained the
Baptist idea of direct and miraculous power
of the Holy Spirit. This led him to con-
tend for baptism of the Holy Spirit, bap-
tism to receive miraculous gifts of the Holy
Ghost. Imparting spiritual gifts by lay-
ing on of hands. Restoration of mira-
cles, revelations and spiritual powers of
the Apostolic church. We have also the
fall down power of Rigdon's revivals, and
that he was subject to himself. When
he agreed with the Disciples the Book of
Mormon agrees with them. When he dif-
fers from them it differs bitterly. Take for
instance his bitter denunciation of those
who say, "We have the Bible, we need no
new revelation." He is especially bitter
over this, and his book is full of instances
of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit,
such as he contended for. We have his pet
expressions, his revivalisms, his baptismal
formula, his rant against infant baptism.
The child is not more clearly the off-pring
of his parent than the religious portion of
the Book of Mormon is the work of Sidney
Rigdon.

Rigdon committed an absurd blunder in
using the words "baptize" and "immerstj"
as he did. On page444 he represents (Jlirist
as making baptism and immersion two en-
tirely different things. He commands men
to baptize, and tells them to immerse in
doing it. Our Savior used but one word,
and that meant to immerse and that alone.
He committed another absurd blunder
when he represented immersion as univer-
sal among the Nephites, hundreds of years
before Christ. Immersion was utterly un-
known as a religious rite, except the bath-
ings of the law of Moses, until John the
Baptist. He made the blunder still more
absurd when he represented the Nephites
as immersing in the name of Christ. That
was never done until it was done by the
apostles of Christ. He magnified his blun-
der still farther when he represented them
as immersing for the remission of sins.
That was never done until it was done by
John the Baptist. He capped the climax
of this tissue of absurdities when he rep-
resented them as immersing for the mirac-
ulous gift of the Holy Spirit, and he fiatly
contradicted the word of Uod. He coolly
tells us that these Nephites had all spiritual
gifts and every miraculous power of the
Holy Spirit, to an extent utterly unknown,
even to the apostles.

John vii. 38, Jesus said "He that believetb

162

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

on me, as the scriptures have said, out of
him shall flow rivers of water. But this
he spake of the Spirit which they that be-
lieved on him should receive. For the Holy
Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was
not giorifled." John xv. 7, "Nevertheless
I tell you the truth, it is best for you that I
go away. For if I go not away the com-
Ibrter will not come unto you, but if I go
away, I will send him unto you." Eph. iv.
When Jesus ascended, then he gave spirit-
ual gifts unto men. Had Rigdon been there
he would have told Jesus, " Nevertheless
*'you are telling a falsehood. The Holy
" Spirit, in your name, has been enjoyed by
"my Nephites over 600 years, and to an
*' extent that no human being ever did or
** ever will enjoy, outside of my Nephites."

This stuff of Rigdon contradicts the teach-
ings of the Bible, that the revelations that
constitute the sacred scriptures were given
in Palestine and in connection with the
Israelites in Palestine. Rigdon has a higher
and far better dispensation, over in Amer-
ica, and different from the one in Palestine,
for the priesthood is in Manasseh, not in
Levi, and the scepter is in Manasseh, not
in Judah, thus abrogating the Mosaic dis-
pensation entirely.

The Nephites had the gospel so fully and
completely that there was nothing left for
Jesus to reveal ; nothing for him to do but
to fill the programme that Nephi«e prophets
had marked out for him, as minutely, word
for word, act for act, as Shakspeare has
"written out the part of the one who plays
the part of Hamlet.

The law of Moses was to prepare the way
for the teachings of ('hrist, just as the Ter-
ritorial Government prepares the way for
the State Government. Rigdon has a more
perfect State Government than even the
apostles instituted in full blast hundreds of
years before the Territorial is abolished, or
the Constitutional Convention held, or the
State organized.

He has the people living under the State
Government and claiming all the time to be
living under the Territorial Government,
every feature of which they are trampling
under foot. One is inclined to ask Sydney
" why did not God give prophets and reve-
lations and the Gospel to the Israelites in
Africa, India, or China?" There were
great multitudes of them, with great
schools, in all of these places. Why was
not the Gospel .revealed, and the baptism
in the name of Jesus, and the Holy Spir t
and all spiritual gifts, in Christ's name,
enjoyed among such prophets, as Ezekiel,
Daniel, Malachi in Palestine as well as
among your Nephites in America? Why
did not Jesus go to Spain, India, or China,
after his resurrection, as well as to your
Nephites? This lying fabrication of Rig-
don contradicts Christ's commission to his
apostles. The Gospel was to go forth to the
world through his apostles, and through
them alone.

They were to go to all nations, give the
Gospel to every creature. It contradicts
the claim of the apostles, " To us is commit-

ted the ministry of reconciliation. We
were chosen to do this work." It con-
tradicts Isaiah and Micah ; '-The law of
Christ was to go forth from Zion, his word
from Jerusalem." "The gospel was to be
preached among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem." It teaches that Manasseh
took the priesthood from Levi, before ttje
Messiah, the Melchesidec priest, and the
scepter from Judah, before Shiloh came.
The rebellion of the Ten Tribes was a sin.
The conduct of Rigdon's Nephites was
rebellion, apostasy, and yet God blessed
them, even above faithful Judahites and
Levites,

Rigdon, in the case of his Jaredites, flatly
contradicts Gen. xi. 9. At the Tower ef
Babel the Lord confounded the language of
all the earth. Sidney declares that his
Jaredites were too smart for the Lord and
ran away from him, and the Lord did not
do what he thought he did or said he did.
Sidney pretends that his Jaredites, who
came to America 250 years before A t-raham,
had a higher and more perfect knowledge
of the Gospel than any Israelite, known to
the Bible, had before the advent of Christ,
and in some particulars better than any
have ever had, except his Nephites. Why
did not Christ make his adventamong these
Jaredites 2,000 years before he came? They
were better prepared than he found the
Israelites in Palestine when i e did come.
Why did he not make his advent among
the Nephites, hundreds of years before he
came? They were better prepared for him,
and indeed he and iiis apostles did not leave
the Israelites and Gentiles on the old conti-
nent in as highly favored a condition as
these Nephites were hundreds of years be-
fore he came. Why did not God make
Jared's brother the father of the faithful
instead of Abraham ?

If the Book of Mormon be a revelation
Jared's brother so far excelled Abraham
hundreds of years before Abraham lived
that he is the real father of the faithful,
and Abraham only a pretender. He was
favored above all Israelite prophets except
Sidney's fictitious Nephites. The apostles
were not so highly favored and all to no
purpose for he was to seal it up. The time
that the Lord said they were to go forth is
not yet come. After all the work of Christ
and his apostles the world is not yet ready
for the revelations that God gave to Jared's
brother long before Abraham's day. If the
Nephites had our Bible, or as much of it as
was in existence before they left Jerusalem,
why was not it buried instead of Moroni's
plates? Why do not we have an abridg-
ment of it on the plates as well as what is
given on them? If it is because they had
the Bible, then why did the book of Mor-
mon steal so much from the Bible? We
have neither the historical part of the Bible
nor an abridgment of it in the Book of Mor-
mt>ii, but the religious portions of the Book
of Mormon are stolen from the Bible and
mixed with Rigdon's notions. If we need
the Book of Mormon in addition to our
Bible, it must be because it contains addl-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

163

tional truth. What single new idea, what
single better expression of a biblical idea
have we in the Book of Mormon ?

We are told on pages 5fl5-oUU tliat Jared's
brother (1 wonder if that fellow really had
no name, if he was always anonymous?)
said that Christ was literal flesh and blood,
that Jesus showed himself to hiiu as he did
to the Nephites, after his resurrection, with
his body of tlesii, bones nnd blood. This
flatly contradicts the positive declarations
of the Bible, that he first tabernacled in
flesh, became incarnate, in tlie person of
Mary. That he took on him the seed of
Abraham. Tliat his human nature was of
the seed of Abraham, was a lineal descend-
ant of Abraham. That his body was pre-
pared for him when he came to do God's

will, or in the person of Mary, Here we
are told that he showed that body to this
anonymous fellow of Sidney Rigdon's cre-
ation, hundreds of years before Abraliam
or any of his seed existed, and thousands of
years before hebecame incarnate, according
to the Bible. We are further told that
man's body is an exact image or copy of
God's body. Then God has a literal boiiy
of literal flesh, blood and bones, notwith-
standing Jesus says " God is a Spirit," and
" spirit has not tie ^h and bones." Of course,
then, God has organs of eating, digesting,
evacuation, procreation, aiid uses tliem, or
he eats, digests, evacuates and procreates
like man, and Priapus Young's A(l:un-God
theory is true according to the Book of
Mormou.

MR. KELLEY'S SIXTEENTH SPEECHI

GENTIililMEN MODEBATORS, LADTES AND

Gentlemen ; — I will first call your atten-
tion to one or two things that have been
mentioned, as objections, and then go on
■with my argument.

1. That it is not probable that any per-
sons could have been led to this continent
as claimed at the time of the confusion of
languages without the same being known
to the people of the old world. Gen. 11: 8
states: "So the Lord scattered them
abroad from thence upon the face of all the
earth: and they left off to build the city.
Therefore is the'name of it called Babel ; be-
cause the Lord did there confound the lan-
guage of all the earth ; and from thence did
the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face
of all the earth." It seems to me that they
did know it on the old world.

Josephus says, that they were scattered
abroad upon all the earth, and that some
<»t them "went over the sea." The Book of
Mormon tells about a colony that came out
from there composed of a few families, and
Mr. Braden thinks it could never have hap-
pened. In fact, however, it is improi)able
to the Bible-believer that God should not
have taken steps to the colonization of all
the earth, since he had created man for the
purpose of dwelling thereon. It is said,
here that the language of all the earth was
confounded, and Mr. iJraden objects again,
for the reason that the Book of Mormon
states that there was a family who were
permitted to retain their speech so that they
could understand each other. The history
of it in the Book of Mormon is as follows :
That at the time of the confounding of the
language of all the earth, the brother of
Jared went and asked that the Lord would

remember him in his merry, and that He
would permit that these brothers and tiieir
families might understfind each other ; and
he prayed, and the Lord granted his prayer
as to himself and Jared and a few others.
Now, is it in fact unreasonable, or dofs it
contradict the Biblte in any particular?
The language was confounded so that tlie
people could not work togeiher to build the
tower there— and thai they should go
abroad and inhabit the wh(^le earth. That
was the object of it. And a few were per-
mitted, and we don't know but what d'>z-
ens of families, or hundreds even, wert |ior-
mittedin the same way to understiuid one
another of which we have no record. But
he objects because the family, first of Jart-d
and then of Jared's brother, or the broth-
er of Jared and then Jared himself, were
permitted to first converse about this and
understand each other. Mr. Br den niiikes
his mistake in supposing that Ihe work of
cotifounding the language was all of a sud-
den, a tiling similar to a stroke of light-
ning. There is no sen-^e in supposiuir tiiat
in this God did not. work like himself, and
use some proper means to perform this work
and warn too, the people.

Again, he says that the Jared if es ran
away from the Lord so he could not con-
fouiid their language. But where did he
get it? When a man says a thing he ou>i:iit
to have some foundation for it. The Book
of Mormon states that the Lord led them
awav. He did not get it out of that Book.
Where did he get it? Where did you get
the statement that Jared ran away so the
Lord could not do it? The liuok of Mormon
does not say either that the Lord couUl not
do it but on the contrary that the Lord

164

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

could doit, but that he had compassion and
pity on these parties because tliey cried un-
to him. Do you understand tliat God is not
6uch a being tliat he wili answer when peo-
ple cry unto him?

But, he objects a^ain that Jesus did not
come to this continent, because if he did wliy
did he not go to Spain and other places also.
How does he know but what he did? It
may be thathedid. He appeared, says Paul,
to live hundred brethren at one time after
his resurrection, and doubtless to many
that we did not have any account of on the
Eastern Continent. And how does he know
but what he went to Spain and China and
the islands of the sea ? If it is an argument
in his favor to interrogate upon something
he knows nothing about, it is an argument
in mine. That is the logic of it.

-. Then he gives to us a reminiscence of
Sidney Rigdou's bitter denunciation, as he
says, of those who clung to the Bible while
he was a Campbellite preacher. What has
that or anything else Rigdon did while a
Campbellite to do with the question under
discussion? Do you believe that while he
was a Campbellite, preaching here in North-
ern Ohio, and converting so many upon the
"Western Reserve, my Campbellite friends,
tliat he was denouncing those who claimed
to believe in the Bible? Was that his man-
ner? Mr. Braden says it was. Yet you
kept him for your preacher and he was the
ablest p''eacher you had. He made more
converts than any other two preachers on
the Western Reserve. This is shown in
your own history. And still Braden asserts
this man was denouncing everything that
was good at the same time that he was mak-
ing these converts. Is that the way to make
converts to the Campbellite faith? If not,
where is the sense in sucli statements, my
friends?

3. Again, he objects to the Book of Mormon
because somebody prophecied he should re-
ceive the Holy Spirit in the name of Christ,
or through Christ. I would like for him to
tell this audience two things.

1. In what way did the people of old^n
time receive the Holy Spirit? How did
Elijah and Malachi, or any of the proph-
ets? I asked him the question upon a for-
mer evening. Let him answer that ques-
tion.

2. Turn to the Rook of Mormon and show
where they claimed to have received the
Holy Spirit through Christ, or in a different
manner over here than is represented in
the Bible. There is not an instance in the
Book of Mormon where it teaches the receiv-
ing of the Holy Spirit in a different sense to
the Bible. This is all Braden's imagina-
tion. Do not misrepresent the book to uhe
audience. Note his answers to these, will
you please?

4, Another thing. He says that my testi-
mony of the three witnes.ses to the Book of
Mormon is precisely like his, because I refer-
red to the fact that Mr. Howe's purported
statements from John Spaulding and Martha
Spauldiug had no time, place, or date, nor
were they original testimony ; that is, that

they were quoted from something else and
not genuine. Now if you will turn to the back
part of Mr. Howe's book, you will find, in-
stead of giving the statement itself, he gives
a quotation from a statement. That is not
like the testimony I offered. When I turn
to the testimony of the three witnesses, my
criticism, he says, "is the club that knocks
me in the head." But the testimony of the
three witnesses which I read is their state-
ment, not a quotation from the statement
of the witnesses. There is no pretention to
a quotation here, but the witnesses send it
forth themselves as their testimony. "Be
it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues
and people." This is our testimony. Can
you find anything like that in Howe's quo-
tation from the purported statements of
John Spaulding and Martha Spaulding?
The cases are not parallel in any sense.
There is not nor never has been a question
or reason to suppose that the statement in
the Book of- Mormon was not that of the
three witnesses. All three of the witnesses
have voluntarily since confirmed this fact ;
I have read you some of these later state-
ments of them. While the others (these
quotations found in Howe's book), are ques-'
tioned, and they show doubt upon the face
of them. Those of the three witnesses he
thinks were written up by Joseph Smith.
Will some of you take the trouble and ex-
amine them, and then tell me if a man who
could write those statements up could be
justly called an "ignoramus," if you please,
that he has been calling Joseph Smith. Mr.
Braden has used that language of Joseph
Smith from the first. Again, he tells ua
that Joseph the third says that Emma says,
and all of this. Ah ! yes ; but all there is
to it, Joseph Smith wrote his mother's tes-
timony down as she gave it. Now his evi-
dence, so far as being direct and explicit,
don't compare with this at all. So, also,
of David Whitmer's evidence; it is upon
record, and we quote from his evidence as
given by himself, published by himself
over his own signature. Braden's state-
ments are objected to because they are not
given by theparties directly. But, he says,
Mr. Bo'nsall says, that somebody else told
him so; and they thought Dr. Winters
put it in writing, and they did not have
the original statement. Mrs. Dunlap Rig-
don's niece, who was a member of Braden's
church, is said to have said, &c. That is
what I object to sir ; and if you can pro-
duce the original statements of these par-
ties or a reliable publication of them, do so,
and then the argument upon that point will
cease. But I deny that you have any evi-
dence from Dr. Winters, Abel Chase, John
Spaulding, &c. Bring on your evidence and
I will examine it, if you have any. Patter-
son and Howe won't do to put up evidence
for me.

5. Next I notice that he has raised the old
objection that tlie Book of Mormon contains
in it the idioms whicii peculiarly belong to
the translation of the Bible. That is a valid
objection, if true to any extent, and now
Will he dare examine it candidly with me.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

165

I say it is not true and ask liim to cite
instances which he is willing to rest his ar-
gument upon. If I do not answer objections
of that nature before the conclusion of tbe
discussion, there will be one point against
me. It is a valid objection if the idioms or
words peculiar to the translation of the
Bible have been copied in the Book of Mor-
mon from the Bible in a reckless, blundering
way, as he says, and it is an objection that
I will meet on to-morrow evening, and I
want you all here to liear it, too. At this
time I will proceed with my main argument.

The Book of Mormon states that the last
civilization which came to this continent
landed here about -590 years before the time
of Christ, and existed in a civilized state
here till the close of the fourth century;
giving specific statements of dates, places
and conditions which are quite sufficient by
reason of their completeness, to either con-
demn or corroborate the narrative in the
subsequent developmentof the relics, ruins,
etc., of that ancient people, through the
independent line of evidence brought for-
ward by archfeologists. This was in 1827
to 1830; the developments have been made
since.

• Do they contradict or confirm this state-
ment boldly and fearlessly made? I refer
you to the latest accounts given of the dis-
coveries in this direction. S. B. Evans, of
Ottumwa, Iowa, published through the
Chicago Times, 1881, his explorations, con-
clusions, etc., from travels on the continent
and examinations of works, and from these
concludes that there have been at least two
civilizations that have lived and dwindled
away on the continent prior to the Aztecs
or Toltecs, of Mexico; the last of which
must have ceased to exist at least from a
thousand to fifteen hundred years ago,
and occupied the time of at least one
thousand years of civilization here. Take
his time and conclusions and compare with
the positive declaration of the Book of Mor-
mon made over fifty years before without
the aid of these examinations and the
published accounts of researches and dis-
coveries now attainable, and you must
begin to fftel that its work was not that of
the guesser. The civilization must have
ceased to exist according to the best scien-
tific theories the fourth or fifth century of
the Christian era. The Book of Mormon
says 400 years after Christ. A thousand
years back from the fourth or fifth century,
again gives about the time that Lehi left
Jerusalem according to the record. If Mr.
Smith was guessing, did he not guess well?
Do you still believe he was guessing?

Oh ! but Braden says he did not write in
a perfect language," and before he will
receive anything as of divine origin it nmst
be in a perfect 'language. He asks me to
state whether Peter or Paul, or any of the
prophets \frote in an imperfect language.
My answer to this is, that, there is not a
scrap of gospel manuscript under the sun
within two hundred years of Peter or
Paul. Mr. Braden nor no other man can
tell whether they wrote in pure Greek, or

pure Hebrew, or in the Syrian, or the
Syrio-Chaldaic or what they wrote in. He
does not even know what particular lan-
guage they did write in, imperfect as it
must have been ; and it is in dispute at the
present time as to the particular language
Jesus himself used when he was here. And
yet, I am asked to furnish something in
the exact original writing of I'eter, Paul,
or John, so as to prove to Braden that
what they wrote was not perfect grammer.
Let us examine this silly nonsense a mo-
ment. It is the old objection of Howe,
and Hyde, and as might have been ex-
pected "without any foundation. What
language known toman is perfect? Will
he tell this audience what language known
to man now, or that has ever been known
or in use since the time of Enoch that was
perfect? Can any of .you tliink of one?
Mr. Braden can you? Don't you know
there has never been such since Pabel's
time at least. So that if you require a
perfect language, God could never have
spoken to the world.

We will take the English language, as
that is the one more nearly connected with
the question under consideration. Three
hundred years ago what would have been
considered good English is not now — the
language is continually changing. The
great Shakespeare, the master, says "I had
rather," while our school ma'ams turn up
their noses at it now, and correct the little
one to say " I would rather," I coulAgive
you many such instances from such writers
as Spencer, Cowper, etc., could I take the
time here, showing great changes day by
day and year by year of the English lan-
guage. Pope telfs us that the language
changes as do the fashions. This of itself
ought to be a sufficient answer to the objec-
tion that it is not in good English. The
American Bible Society, I understand,
claims 23,000 inaccuracies so far as minor
points of language, use and construction are
concerned, found in King James' transla-
tion of the Bible, and yet at the time of the
translation it was put 'into English by the
masters of literature — the best scholars of
the realm. Only last night we were saluted
with the remark, " Suppose Joe Smith had
as good a right to make a word as Web-
ster." Certainly he had. According to
the history of the English language, Mr.
Smith or a'ny one in this audience has just
as "-ood a right to make a word as Webster
or any other man ; and I can cite hundreds
of instances of words that have been manu-
factured, not by the scholarly of the age,
but by men that were in indifferent cir-
cumstances in life. Don't you remember
that a few years ago, only in 1S40, I believe
it was, in a sfveat political convention held
at the time that Henry Clay was a candi-
date for the Presidency, a gentleman in the
convention from Tennessee — a common
farmer too— who got tired of the noise and
rattle in the convention, said that he be-
lieved that they ought not to tolerate the
" outsiders " in there any longer ; and from
that very time the word "outsider" was

166

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

coined into the Eng-lish languasce, and we
now use it, and it is admitted to be a proper
word — coined by a man that was among
those not scholarly, as he thinks Avas the
position of Joseph Smith. I could tell you
of a hundred such cases, and taken right
from the works upon the English language.
If he is acquainted with the literature of
the English language he knows the state-
ment to be entirely correct.

But the objection is further urged that
the Rook of Mormon was translated by in-
spiration and should have been in a perfect
language. Think a moment! For God to
look ahead and use language in advance of
the times would make it incomprehensible
to the persons to whom it was given, and
too, imperfect when compared with their
language as a standard, no difference how
much better in fact it might have been.
This is the logic he offers. God must talk
in perfect language when he speaks, al-
though he speaks through men. Perfection
so far as our language is concerned is deter-
mined by the usage of the times. The usage
changes, hence perfection changes.

Therefore, if God speaks, he must so
speak, that it will be good English to-day,
according to the language, and good Eng-
lish next year, according to the standard,
although the standard has changed. The
lallacy of the position must be apparent to
all. We must conclude that the language is
but the medium through which the thought
is conveyed, and the Lord uses the medium
we have. The question is not one of perfect
language or imperfect language. No claim
is made to giving a perfect language to the
world. The only sensible criticism to be
made as to the language used in the book is
from the standpoint of whether it is in such
language as all people may understand it,
who are conversant with the language in
which it is given ; for the message claims
to be sent to all. Has he made the objec-
tion that it is in such language that all
may not understand it? Every one ; whether
high or low, rich or poor, the educated or
the uneducated? Oh, no. His objection is,
that it is not in the vocabulary of we
giants in the world of language and litera-
ture. If he will turn to I Cor. 1:26, he
find that "Not many wise men after the
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble
are called. But God hath chosen the fool-
ish things of this world to confound the
wise, and the weak things to confound the
things which are mighty ; and base things
of the world, and things which are
despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things
which are not to bring to naught things
that are." God's ways are not Braden's
ways. That is clear'. Braden's view is,
just to think of the grand, good, and
noble characters of the last three hundred
years ; of Calvin, I.uther, Wesley, Camp-
bell, etc. And then, think of the Lord
choosing as an instrument the likes of
Joseph Smith. No; the Lord says, "not
many noble," after the ways of the world ;
but Braden's idea is, let us have what we
call noble.

The untutored Galileans and poor fisher-
men of Judea stand a poor show with the
great " Scalper of Robert Ingersol." But
I will continue farther to notice the criti-
cism. Is this an objection in fact, or is it
only an imaginary one? Will not the im-
perfections of an original language in a
strictly literal and true translation appear
in the translation. If you take the writ-
ings of Xenophon, or of any of the great
Greek scholars, or the speeches of Cicero in
the Latin, and put them in the English
language, will they not read differently
from the speeches and writings of the un-
learned made in the same time and in the
same language in which those scholars
lived and wrote ! They will read differently,
although they have been correctly trans-
lated into the English language. And so
it would be, too, if the original writers of
the Book of Mormon did not have a perfect
language, or did not speak or write cor-
rectly ; the imperfection would crop out
when it was put into the English language ;
nor would it be in the fine literature that it
might have appeared in, had they been
scholarly men, which they say themselves
they were not, as I have before shown you
from the book wherein one of them state»
they were not mighty or efficient ;in
writing even as in speaking. In their
writings then we might expect to find
many imperfections. If so, it would crop
out, and the unskillful work and style be
reflected in the translation into English,
as it would if made from the Hebrew, the
Greek, or the Latin. It is not difficult even
for a novice to detect these interjected
anachronisms in language in many authors.
Let us examine the strength of the argu-
ment from the other standpoint: Suppose
the Book of Mormon was in tact in the
smooth and finished speech of a graduate
of Dartmouth college, as is claimed for Mr.
Solomon Spaulding, and then you should
find the expression therein, that the origi-
nal language in which tne book was written,
was a very imperfect one, as is the admis-
sion in the Book of Mormon ; would not my
opponent say at once that it was an irrecon-
cilable inconsistency? And woujd he not
have a more reasonable basis upon which
to make the claim that the book was the
work of the cultured clergyman of New
England? There can be no doubt of it.
Every position Mr. Braden takes against
this book on account of its unenticing
style, language, address, and compilation,
exposes more fully the utter unreasonable-
ness and absurdity of his Spaulding tale,
" old come to pass," and all.

But I will examine the work of some New
Testament writers: — Mark was as much
inspired as Matthew, but his language of
recording the gospel is quite different.
Luke's st^'le and language is not that of
John, and it is easy to see that the untaught
Peter is such a character from his inspired
Epistles ; while Paul's characteristics of
culture shine out in his. But Braden thinks
that, if the Lord should use Joseph Smith
and inspire his mind to use the means he

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

167

had prepared to translate a language, he
must not use the vocabulary of Joseph
Smith.

The Lord, in translating the book through
Joseph Smith, would certainly use the lan-
guage of Joseph Smith so far as that vocab-
ulary would reflect truthfully the original.
If it was deficient, then of course it must
have been supplied, but not otherwise.
"What vocabulary would he use? Of some
learned gentleman who was president of
Harvard or Dartmouth? Why, how would
Joseph Smith understand it after he had
translated, according to that? And then
Satan would find some argument for his
Spauiding story. Was not the message to
Mr. Smith as well as to the others of the
human family, and could he understand it
if not, in great part, in his vocabulary?
Was it not also most proper that he first of
all understand this message? All must
answer these questions the same. Then
why object to the work upon this ground?
It is but reasonable to expect that we should
find in the translation the language in great
part in use and understood by the translator
at the time of the translation. I might
refer also to the fact that there are hundreds
of works written in the Enghsh language
that were correct according to the best
usage at the time in which they were writ-
ten, but which are poor English to-day;
and not only this, but the very vocabulary
of those works is altogether unlike the vo-
cabulary of other works that were in good
English, written at the same time. Need I
cite you to the common work that is known
all over Christendom, published in England
a few years ago, known as Bunyan's Pil-
grim's Progress ; thought to be a model
yet, in many things, of good English, for
the reason that the words that are used in
it are so simple that everybody can under-
stand it; but because of this does it follow
that other works written at the same time,
but in a widely different vocabulary, were
not in proper form and style also? Mr.
Braden's reasoning is like this : Joseph
Smith was an unlearned boy, with a limited
vocabulary of words, as the vocabulary of
all unlearned persons is of few words when
compared with the scholarly. The Book of
Mormon is in the language of such an un-
learned and illiterate boy; Sidney Iligdoh
and Solomon Spauiding were educated,
able and well-intormed men, and ministers
— one a Presbyterian and graduate of Dart-
mouth College, the other belonging to the
church of which " I, Clark Bradeu, am a
member,"— orator of the great Mahoning
Association, a city pastor, etc., their vocab-
ulary of the English language was of the
best at the time, rich, and especially Spaul-
ding's, who was classical and scholarly.
Therefore the learned and scholarly Spaui-
ding wrote the Book of Mormon, in common
phrase language, and the eloquent and
gifted Sidney (Bro. Braden's pastor) stole
it and gave it to Joseph Smith, an un-
learned, illiterate, low, mean, drinking,
shiftless, lazy, thieving, rascally boy, who
lived hundreds of miles away, in the forests

of the State of New York, at the time when
they had no news, lines, railroads, or easy
conveyancing as now, and when from the
very surroundings of the case it was impos-
sible that Rigdon could, from his station in
life, ever have noticed that there was such
a boy living in the world so far as having
anything to do with him was concerned.
How do you like it? Sidney Rigdon, so far
as the use of language is concerned, was
one of the most eloquent men that this na-
tion has ever produced. I can read you
passages from his speeches, his sermons,
and from his presentation of the case of this
people before Congress and the world, that
equal anything that I have ever seen in the
writings or addresses of Calhoun, Webster
or Clay. And yet persons will try to make
out, in order to if possible connect him with
the authorship of the Book of Mormon, that
he was such a poor, illiterate "igjioramus"
of a fellow that he did not know anything.
His language was all of this clap-trap
"nonsense," of unusual "verbosity," and
abounding in "vulgarisms," and such as
that. Well, now, it is not true. All of you
who have heard Sidney Rigdon, and thei e
are many in this audience, know it is not
true. You know that he was a man who
could talk, and talk eloquently ; talk in
one-half hour more than Braden, or I either,
can talk in two days, so far as tiie use of
fine and eloquent language is concerned.
That is the kind of man he was and what
he could do. And yet INlr. Braden wiU have
it that these two ministers, Sidney Rigdon
and Solomon Spauiding, made the Book of
Mormon. It seems to me that his argu-
ments will not tally at all when you begin
to examine and weigh them. Paul says.
"And I came not with excellency of speech,"
and yet he was inspired of the Lord, and so
mav be the case of Joseph Smith.

My friends, can you not all now see that
such objections are really frivolous, and
that the work must be tested upon its mer-
its ; of what it is; of its teachings, its
doctrines, its principles, and not upon
the false objections that have been rais-
ed. "He that abideth in the doctrine
of Christ, he hath both the Father and
he Son." Not if their message is in good
language "with excellency of speech," pure
Greek, Hebrew or English; but is it
so as to be understood, and when un-
derstood is it according to the doctrine of
Christ. Can you see the point? I think
my audience can.

But all the good there is in the Book of
Mormon is borrowed from the Bible lie says.
Does that make it bad because it is borrow-
ed from the Bible? Why don't he point
out the bad to this audience and show
where that came from ? That is what you
are waiting for him to do. Does he sup-
pose you will go home and begin to kick
the Book of Mormon if he leaves it like the
Bible? Would it not be entitled to the re-
spect and belief of Christians if it did come
out of the Bible? Jesus said "every good
and perfect thing came from God-"
But again, the claim is made that the er-

168

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

rors of King James' translation were copied
in the Book of Mormon when it was trans-
lated. Now this I deny. It is an assertion that
cannot be made good. If they are let him
rea<i the passages to this audience and give
me page and paragraph and prove it. That
is the way to debate. Select a few he can
stand by and let us have an issue. What
is argument? For the negative to copy out
all day what he finds in those works writ-
ten against the people he has assailed,
without regard to the question, or what
the affirmative has produced, and then to
stand and read it off at night? If that is
the way I respectfully suggest that hereaf-
ter when you want to discuss with the
Saints that instead of getting a professed
minister of the gospel, you just buy one of
Howe's or John Hide's books against the
Mormons, and when our minister has made
his argument you just arise and read the
stories from Hide, or Tucker, or Howe, or
Kidder, or Smucker, or Beadle, or Ann
Eliza, or John D. Lee — you can't go amiss
— they aie all directly to the point. No
difference what the question is, they will
testify. But in contradiction to such a course
I suggest that if my reasons are not good
he ought to show such facts, and which he
can well afford to do, if they are bad.

But here I will now take up my affirma-
tive proofs. It is well known that for the
iniquity of the ten tribes of Israel, God
gave them into the- hands of Shalmaueser,
and he carried them into Assyria, since
which time they have not been known in
the history of nations. The tribes of Judah
and Benjamin, with remnants of tribes,
remained at Jerusalem until about seventy
yeart after the coming of Christ, when Je-
rusalem was beseiged by the Romans, the
city was taken and destroyed together with
the magnificent temple, and tlie Jews were
scattered among the nations. Since that,
neither Judah nor Israel has been an inde-
pend.uL nation in the earth. As nations
they have been blotted out from the knowl-
edge of the world. They (they Jews) are
only known in their scattered state. Their
city and coveted land has, for lo, these ages,
been under the feet of their enemies. This
has been so truly the case that it has been
a current belief in the world that they
would never again be restored to their land
or become a great nation. That the Lord
has utterly rejected them. But Paul cor-
rected that idea in his letter to the Romans
11:1-2:

"I say then has God cast away his peo-
ple ? God forbid ! For I am an Israelite
of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Ben-
jamin. God has not cast away his people
which he foreknew."

Paul was right, tor God had declared as
an unalterable decree, as fixed as the ordi-
nances of heaven, that they should be re-
membered, and not cease to be a nation for-
ever. Jer. 31 : 35, 40.

"Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the
sun for a liglit by day and the ordinances of
the moon and the stars lor a light by night,
which divideth the sea when the waves

thereof roar ; the Lord of Hosts is his
name." Verse 36: " If those ordinances
depart from before me, saith the Lord, then
the seed of Israel also shall cease from
being a nation before me forever." Verse
37 : " Thus saith the Lord, if heaven above
can be measured and the foundation of the
earth searched out beneath, I will also cast
off all the seed of Israel for all that they
have done saith the Lord." Verse 38:
" Behold the days come saith the Lord,
that the city shall be built to the Lord from
the tower of Hananeel to the gate of the
corner." Verse 39 : "And the measuring
I'ne shall yet go forth over against it upon
the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to
Goath."

They were to be scattered and peeled ;
" become a hiss and a by word among the
nations," but they were to be gathered
again in God's own due time: hence Paul
says, "God has not forgotten his people."
But when will their restoration commence?
The learning of men is not able to answer.
But God by his prophets has made it quite
clear. As if on purpose to correct this
popular error, Paul writes : " For I would
not my brethren have you ignorant of this
mystery, lest ye should be wise in your
own conceits ; that hlwdness in pari has
happened to Israel, until the fullness of the
Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel
shall be saved, as it is written. There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall
turn away ungodliness from Jacob : For
this is my covenant unto them, when I
shall takeaway their sins." Rom. 11:25,26.
When the time comes that God will take
away the sin of Israel, — about the time
that the fullness of the Gentiles should
come in, — b^^ their turning away from un-
godliness, or hardness of heart — he will
make a covenant with them. Jesus fixes
this event at the same time with Paul, and
says, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of
the Gentiles." But how long? He con-
tinues, "Until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled." Luke 21 : 24. Jerusalem was to
be in the hands of the Gentiles until these
predictions of Christ and Paul should be
fulfilled. Then God would renew his cove-
nant with them. But when is the time
when Jerusalem shall cease to be trodden
down of the Gentiles, and God shall take
away the sin of Israel and renew his
covenant ? Let the prophet answer, Jere-
miah says :

"Behold the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will perform the good things which
I have promised unto the house of Israel
and the house of Judah. In those days,
and at that time, will I cause the branch of
righteousness to grow up unto David, and
he shall execute judgment and righteous-
ness in the land. In those days shall
Judah be saved, and Jerusalem dwell
safely."

That is the age and time when God will
begin the work that is to effect the restora-
tion of Israel to their ancieiit homes ;
when their sins shall be pardoned, and
God's covenant established among them.

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

169

It is the same time referred to by both Paul
and Jesus. So the prophet goes on to state:

" Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and
with tlie house of Jndah. Not according to the cove-
nant that I made with them when I took them by the
hand to bring them outof the land of Egypt: which
my covenant they brake, although I was a husband-
man unto them saith the Lord. But this shall be the
covenant that I will make with the hou-e of Israel
after those days saith the Lord. I will put my law in
their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and I will
be thi'ir God and they shall be my people, and they
shall teach no more t-'very man his neighbor, snd every
man his brother, stiying, Kniiw the Lord; for they
shall know me from the least of them to the greatest of
them, saith the Lord; fori will forgive their iniquity,
and I will remember their sins no more."

Nothing need be made plainer than this
prediction in order to be well understo >d.
When God takes away the "sin" of Israel
he is to "remember their iniquities no
more." He is to make witli them a cove-
nant, and the law is to be written in their
hearts, not on tables of stone. "Moreover,
I will make a covenant of peace with them ;
it shall be an everlasting covenant with
them, and I will place them, and multiply
them, and will set my sanctuary in the
midst of them forever more." Ezek. 37:26.

In view of accomplishing this event, it is
written :

" Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall
no more be said the Lord liveth that brought up the
children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; lout
the Lord liveth that brought up llie children of
Israel from the land of the nortii ; and from
all the lands whither he had driven them; and I

will bring them again unto the lands that I gave unto
their fathers. Behold I will send for many fishers and
they shall fish them, and a'terwards will I send for many
hunters and they shall hunt them from everv moun-
tain and from every hill, and outof the holes of the
rocks." Ezek. 16 : 14-16.

And in order to accomplish their restora-
tion, as thus pointed out, tlie Lord says :
"I will direct their work in truth, and I
will make an everlasting covenant with
them. And their seed shall be known
among the Gentiles and their offspring
among the people." Isaiah 61:8,9.

Here Israel is to be revealed among the
Gentiles, and their offspring among the peo-
ple. Their lineage is to be discovered. And
how? Evidently as in old time, wheu
doubts, or no certainty was had concern-
ing the lineage of certain of the tribes,
who sought to be registered among those
who were reckoned by genealogy, but they
were not found; "they were not to eat of
the most holy things, till there stood up a
priest with Urim and Thummim." Ezra
2:63. Neh.7:65. As the "Urim and Thum-
mim" was the means by whicli ancient
Israel and their lineage was revealed, it
will doubtless be the means that God will
employ to make their "seed known among
the Gentiles, and their ofTspring among the
people." God will work like liimself ; "He
will reveal his secrets to his servants the
prophets." Anios 3:7.

(Time called.)

MR. BRADEN'S SIXTEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: We will now call your at-
tention to a radical difference between the
Book of Mormon and the Bi ble. In the Bi ble
the miraculous power of God was sparingly
exerted, and revelations were sparingly
given. God never did for man what he
could do for himself, for such help would
have been injurious, just as doing every-
thing for a child ruins him. With his ten-
dency to exaggeration, extravagance and
falsehood, Rigdon, in his fiction, the Book
of Mormon, has miraculous power exerted
on all occasions, even the most trivial and
in the most extraordinary manner. He
is constantly loading his miraculous cannon
to shoot some flea of difliculty. Miraculous
power was as common among the Nephites
as the use of speech. Their miracles are
so much more wonderful than those of the
Bible. At the birth of Christ the Bible
tell us that a star appeared. Rigdon tells
us that it was as light as mid-day all night.
At the crucifixion the Bible tells us that
darkness covered the land around Jerusa-

lem for three hours and there was an earth-
quake in Asia Minor, Rigdon tells us a
horrible darkness covered the whole earth
three days and three nights or until Christ
arose — all the time he was in the tomb.
The Bible tells us that some saints arose
during the earthquake at the crucifixion.
Sydney tells us njultitudes arose three
days after, at the resurrection. Rigdon lets
King Ahasaerus' horse run away with liim
every time he gets to fabricating miracles,
Rigdon regarded miracles as the all in all of
revelation, as such an extravagant vision-
ary fabricator of lies would naturally do.
Tlie Bible teaches us that they are merely
a means to an intiiiitely higher end, and
worthless except as they accomplisli that
purpose, and will cease when it is accomp-
lished. It teaches tiiat the Corintiiian
Church that excelled all others in its won-
ders, was the most imperfect Church in tua
days of the Apostles. 'I'hat is true to day.
Tlte lowest displays of religion are among
the negroes of the South, Spiritists, Mor-
mons, and in meeting and revivals where

170

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

there are the most claims made to super-
natural power. Spiritism is a low system.
Negro religion is a disgusting caricature.
So is Mormonism with the gibberish called
speaking with tongues, its pretended reve-
lations, its rubbing with sweet oil. It is a
childisli superstition. It substitutes won-
ders for divine truth.

The supernatural of the Bible differs from
Mormonism in every particular. The his-
tory of the Bible occurred in the midst of the
worlds history aud was a wonderful part of
it. There is no getting off into Utopia, —
Nowhere, as in the case in the Book of Mor-
mon. No studious avoiding the crucial
test of connection with the world's history.
No hiding plates in the ground. No
clumsy contrivance of plates and bungling
machinery of stone interpreters. No hid-
ing behind blankets. No handing plates
down out of heaven, that are of no conceiv-
able use. For their contents are not read
from them but are given word by word in the
crown of an old hat, aud seen by peeping
through a stolen peepstone. No hiding of
plates or manuscript when copied or trans-
lated. No concealment. No contradictory
absurdities. None of the surroundings
that imposture always throws around
itself. There were no surroundings of pre-
vious imposture vagabondisjn aud crime.
Compare Mormonism with all other frauds
and it has every objectioual feature of all
them, exaggerated. The prophecies of the
Bible are majestic outlines surrounded by
the clouds of unrevealed ni^^steries out of
which they appear. They arouse expecta-
tion, they cheer with promises, or warn
with threats, but they give onlj^ grand out-
lines. Tlie prophecies in the Book of Mor-
mon are as minute and exact, and as full
and set forth the event as completely as the
first machine exhibits every detail, of all
other machines made just like it. In noth-
ing is this more apparent than in the proph-
ecies concerning Christ. If all prophecies
in the Old Testament that are claimed to be
prophecies of Christ, were real Messianic
prophecies, they would not foretell as
much concerning him as a meagre table of
contents tells of what is in a book. When
we reduce the list to its proper proportions,
about twenty Messianic prophecies, they
do not foretell more of his career than a
title page does of a book. The prophecies in
;he Book of Mormon begm with Clirist's
mother's name, and they foretell every inci-
dent of his career witli tlie minuteness of
history. They even foretell his exact lan-
guage, a thing the Bible does not do in a
single instance, and close with his ascen-
sion. We have as exact history as we have
in the New Testament, liigdon was deter-
mined that his propliecies should excell the
Bible, and he copied the New Testament
to such an extent that the fraud is as impu-
dent as it would be to introduce a child to
his father, or a man to his wife.

The Avriters and speakers of the Bible
give their message to the world with the
dignified confidence of conscious truth aud
inspiration. They do not stoop to hedging

against doubt and unbelief. They declare
their message and leave it with the reader
or hearer without argument or excuse. The
writer of the Book of Mormon begins hedg-
on the first page, and his last page closes
with hedging against objections and unbe-
lief, anticipating them and trying to pre-
vent them, and to answer them. We are
told with painful iteration and reiteration,
on nearly every page, how the Lord com-
manded chem to make plates, to record on
them this and that. What care the Lord
took to have the plates preserved. How
they were revised and corrected by the Lord.
How they were hid up unto the Lord. How
interpreters were provided and preserved.
That ''if there be fault, it be the mistake of
men," We are besought not to condemn
the record on account of imperfections.
That they would have done better if they
had had more time, or if they had written
in another language. That a more perfect
account is yet to be brought to light. The
arguments of those who contended, as the
Disciples did with Rigdon, that we have a
perfect revelation in the Bible, are elabor-
ately stated and answered with all the bit-
terness that Rigdon felt against the Disci-
ples because they rejected his fanatical hob-
bies. All the objections that it is thought
will be urged against Imposter Joe are an-
ticipated and discussed. A language that
no one ever heard of is fabricated as the
language in which the plates were written.
They are miraculously preserved and the
records are engraved on jDlates in the most
imperishable manner. In all this we see
the conscious fear and guilt of the impostor
hedging against detection in his fraud. It
is as different from the Bible as falsehood is
from truth.

We propose now to show that the Book
of Mormon is destitute of every particle of
evidence necessary to sustain an uninspired
book. What must be proved to sustain the
Book of Mormon? I. That the family of
Jared emigrated to this continent from the
Tower of Babel, escaping the confusion of
tongues. II. That Jared's brother and
Ether did, by Divine command and inspira-
tion, engrave on plates the history of these
people. III. That Limbi and King Benja-
min obtained these plates and handed them
down, so that Moroni at>ridged them. IV.
That Lehi and his family emigrated to this
country from Jerusalem in the first year of
the reign of Zedekiah. V. That Lehi, Nephi
and other prophets by Divine command
and inspiration kept a history and engraved
it on plates. VI. That members of the fam-
ily of Zedekiah migrated from Jerusalem
to the land near the Isthmus of Darien.
VII. That they were discovered by the
Nephites during the reign of their King
Zarahemla. VIII. That Zarahemlites and
Nephites were united^ IX. That their his-
tory was kept by a succession of prophets
by Divine command and inspiration. X.
That Mormon, by Divine command and in-
spiration, abridged these records. XL That
Moroni finished the abridgment and buried
it. XII. That in the form of an angel Moroni

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

171

appeared to Joe Smith and crave him the
plates he had buried. XIII. That Joe Smith
by inspiration translated the j^lates. XIV.
That we have that translation and an
abridgement of the history of Nephites,
Zarahemlites and Jaredites in the Book of
Mormon. Such is the claim. What attempt
is made to sustain it?

How do we sustain the claims of any
ancient book? Xenophon's Anabasis for
instance? I. We show that it is the uni-
versal belief of the world, learned and crit-
ical as well as unlearned, that Xenophon
wrote the Anabasis, and that we have in it
what he wrote, and that he wrote the truth.
II. We show that such has been the uni-
versal belief of each generation until we
reach the generation in which it is claimed
that Xenophon lived and wrote. HI. We
then shoAV that the people of that genera-
tion, in their literature, mention Xenophon,
his book, and that they accepted it as true.
IV. We show that other writers of that age
record the same events, mention the same
persons and events. V. We show the
places, customs, surroundings that it men-
tions are true ; that it interlocks truthfully
in geography, customs, literature, etc., with
the surroundings and with the age that it
describes. Such is the course we pursue to
sustain the claims of an vininspired book.

How much of this proof has the Book of
Mormon? I. It is not universally received
by this generation, learned and critical and
unlearned, as what it purports to be. II.
We can trace it no further back than Joe
Smith, in 1830. III. Before he gave it to
the world, not a soul had heard or knew
one particle of the Book of Mormon, or its
contents, or a single incident in its pre-
tended history. IV. IS ot another genera-
tion or book knows a particle about it or its
pretended history. V. From the Tower of
Babel to 1830 not a human being knew of
the Book, or knew a single particle of its
pretended history. VI. Mormons cannot
appeal to a single book, fact, custom or
place back of Joe Smith. VII. Its pre-
tended history interlocks with no other,
does not even touch it. Its places, customs,
persons and events are utterly unknown to
all geography, history or literature. VIII.
We have neitlier coins, inscriptions, ruins,
or any relics that can be traced to its per-
sons or pretended history. IX. It stands
upon the assertion of Joe Smith as entirely,
and it is unsupported by anything else, as
the Mosaic account of the creation stands
upon the inspiration of Moses. Even more
so, for science has shown that the Mosaic
account is a correct outline of the course of
evolution in creation. But there are no rel-
ics, no remains, no fossils to sustain the
Book of Mormon. If it claimed to be writ-
ten without inspiration, like Champollion's
translations of Egyptian papyrus, it has no
evidence to sustain it such as he produced.
He showed the papyrus. By comparing his
translation with Greek records of the same
events, he proved that he had translated
correctly. Pie proved by an appeal to other
history, to literature, to customs and sur-

roundings, that his translation and it»
statements were sustained.

No one but the few witnesses ever claimed
to have seen Imposter Joe's plates. No one
ever knew whether he translated correctly
or not. No one ever knew an idea that
would sustain his translation or its state-
ments. All the proof we have is certain
assertions. I. Imposter Joe asserts that an
angel gave him certain plates. II. That he
translated them by the gift and power of
God. III. That what is in the Hook of
Mormon is that translation. IV. The three
witnesses declare that by a miracle they
were showed certain plates. V. That the
voice of God declared to them that Joe's
translation in the Book of Mormon is true,
VI. The eight witnesses declare that they
handled certain plates. All they say be-
yond that is an assertion of what they did
not know. The appearance of Moroni to
Imposter Joe was a miracle. So was his
giving Imposter Joe tiie plates. Of this we
have not one scrap of evidence but that of
Imposter Joe. The translation of the plates
was a miracle. That the Book of Mormon
contained the translation thus miraculously
made we have the testimony of four per-
sons—Imposter Joe, Martin Harris, Oliver
Cowdrey and David Whitmer.

We rnay as well dispose of imposter Joe
first. The questions we have to settle are :
I. Is the point to be established suscepti-
ble of proof? We will concede that as far
as Imposter Joe is concerned he is compe-
tent. II. Are the witnesses of sufflcientin-
telligence to be competent? We will con-
cede that Joe is. III. Is he worthy of be-
lief ? Is he of good character for truth and
veracity? We will impeach Imposter Joe
under this test. IV. Was he disinterested
in the issue? We will impeach Imposter
Joe under this test. V. Was there collus-
ion ? We will impeach Imposter Joe un-
der this head. VI. Has his testimony the
consistence, harmony and appearance of
truth? We will impeach Imposter Joe under
this test. Is Imposter Joe worthy of belief?
For vears before he told the story about the
revelation and its inspiration h« had spent
his time in witching for water, pretending
to find lost property, buried treasures and
mines of precious metals. This is the uni-
versal testimony of his neighbors. It is ad-
mitted bv his mother in her history (Pages
96, 97) an<l by the editor supposed to be W.
W. Blair, an apostle in the Reorganized
concern. That this was a fraud and decep-
tion no one will question . If Joe lied in his
pretended marvelous hunting for water,
&c., he lied in his pretended miraculous re-
ception of plates and translation of them.
Smith lied concerning the fictitious stone
vault in which he said he found tlie plates.
Smith lied concerning his pretended trans-
lation of the papyrus, now in the book of
Abraham. If he perpetrated a fraud in that
book and translation he did in the Book of
Mormon and the pretended translation ot it
from pretended plates. Fifty-one neighbors
and acquaintances testify that Imposter Joe
was universally considered to be entirely

372

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

destitute of moral character, addicted to vi-
cious habits, and utterly unworthy of belief.
Eleven more testify that he was intemperate
and unworthy to be believed. Over twenty
more testify in separate affidavits to the
same effect, among these his father-in-law
and his brother-in-law.

Henry Harris testifies in an affidavit
that he was on a jury before which Smith
testified, and that in their deliberations the
jury threw out Smith's testimony because
they regarded it as utterly unworthy of be-
lief. All these 80 odd persons were inti-
mate acquaintances. Was Joseph Smith in-
terested ? He was sole author and propri-
etor of the Book of Mormon, according to
copy-right. He repeatedly declared that
he would make money out of it. He was
practicing a fraud for monej^ just as he
hunted for water, lost property, and hidden
treasure, and precious metals, for money,
as a fraud. Was there collusion ? As we
will show the pretended revelations of June
1829 were fabricated in 1835, and dated back
and the testimony of the witnesses shows
that Imposter Joe wrote the revelation and
both affidavits and certificates.

Are Smith's statements consistent and
worthy of belief? At first he told his
neighbors he had found plates and mention-
ed nothing else. In his autobiography he
adds "and a breast-plate worn by the an-
cients." In the Book of Doctrines and
Covenants he adds Lehi's compass and La-
ban's sword. Which of these statements
are to be believed? Imposter Joe told
Peter Ingersoll that his whole story was a
hoax. He had no such book. He did not
believe there was any such book ; but "he
had got the damned fools fixed and he
should carry out the fun." He told Willard
Chase he was to keep his book two years
and not let any one see it but himself. He
told his father-in-law, Isaac Hale, the
first one to see it was a youug child. He
told N. C. Lewis that he sliould see the
plates and lied, for he could not show him
any. He told his brother-in-law that after
keeping the plates 18 montlis he would
show them to the world. He told Henry
Harris that no one cci^id tee t'le plates but
himself and wife. He promised his broth-
er-in-law, Alva Hale, he would show him
the plates, got mad, and lied, and could not
show any. He told lievi Lewis that
the reason he did not show him the plates,
according to promise, was that God had de-
ceived him. He told Sophia Lewis tiiatthe
plates could only be opened by liis first
child, which would be a niale child.
It was still born. We might . continue
his lies indefinitely. Wc shall show that
his revelations are coufadictory false,
the frauds ot alow trickster. That he lied
in them. His pretended trftnslar.' on of the
book of Abraham was a traiispaient fraud.
He bought some Egyptian iK'jmmies. He
pretended to translate tae papyri found
with them, and published the translation,
claiming thiii the papyrus whs written by
Abraham, and the translation is now in
"The Pearl of Great Price" as one of his

greatest revelations and achievements. A
French scholar has translated the papyri —
a portion of them — and proved that his pre-
tended translation is a fabrication, every
word of it. He lied in his Book of Abra-
ham. He lied in his tale about the Book of
Mormon. The pretended /ocsjwz7e of what
was engraved on the plat««, that he gave to
his dupes, is a most transparent fraud, made
up of th« letters and numerals of the Eng-
lish alphabet, inverted or reversed. Out of
68 characters 64 are palpably copies of our
alphabet, figures and punctuation marks.
But it would be an insult to follow this
work further.

We will next examine the three witneses.
We object to their testimony.

I. If the Book of Doctrines and Covenants
be true before they protend to have seen
the plates Impostor Joe presents them
with a pretended revelation in which they
are told just what they shall testify. The
words they use in their testimony are iden-
tical with the words in this pretended
revelation.

II. In March 1829 Imposter Joe presents
Harris with a pretended revelation in which
the identical words of the testimony of the
witnesses occurs.

III. In that revelation Harris is com-
manded to lie, to say that he had seen the
plates when he has not seen them and is
reminded that he had promised Joe that he
would tell sucn a lie.

IV. The testimony is not like the evi-
dence presented to prove that Spaulding
wrote the Manuscript Found, a series of
independent statements, but a joint state-
ment without date, written by Joe Smith
as comparison with his two pretended,
revelations just named will show. It has
every mark of fraud and collusion. It is
prefaced by two pretended revelations, in
one of which one of the witnesses is com-
manded to lie. And is reminded that he
had promised to lie. It tells them what they
shall say, and it is written out by Imposter
Joe and signed by his three confederates in
fraud.

The witnesses are interested in the issue.
Harris had his farm staked on its succes.
Cowdery had months of time staked on it.
Harris declares " If the whole affair was a
fraud he expected to make money otit of it."
All expected to make money out of it.
Harris was bought with the promise of a
monopoly of the sales of the book. He ex-
pected to clear over $3,000.00. Harris was
noted for his absurd marvelous stories.
He said that he had see Jesus and " he was
a beautiful youug man."

"He had seen the devil and he was a
jackass with hair like a mouse." He proph-
ecied that the nation would be destroyed
in four years if they did not accept Mor-
monism. If other witnesses tell the truth
Harris lied to Amthon about how the trans-
lation was done. He lied about what
Amthon said to him. Joe in a revelation
reminds Harris that he had promised to lie
and commands him to do so. In a revela-
tion Joe warns him against adultery and

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

173

murder. He used to beat his wife. He sat
by her bedside as she was dyiug, wrote
a letter to a woman he intended to marry,
brutally told his dying wife what he was
doing, married his Leman in less than two
weeks after his wife's death. He lived in
adultery with a tenant's wife. It was this
that Joe warned him against and against
murdering her husband.

Harris declared repeatedly that he had
as much evidence for a Shaker book he
had as for the Book of Mormon. He told
Deacon Morley, Maj. Gilbert, Mr. Mark-
ell, Mrs. Milliken, Mr. Milliken, Mrs.
Whitney, Mrs. Hansbury, and many
others that he did not see the plates
with his natural sight. He saw them
by faith. That is he did not see them,
but thought or believed he saw them. He
told Mr. and Mrs. Hansbury that he did
not see the plates. He saw the box that
they were in and heard them rattle. He
knew Joe had them.

In the Elder's Journal of August, 1838,
page 49, Imposter Joe denounces him "as
so far beneath contempt that a notice of
him would be too great a sacrifice for a
gentleman to make. The church exerted
some restraint on him, but now he has
given loose to all kinds of abominations,
lying, cheating, swindling, with all kinds
of debauchery." That disposes of Mart in
Harris.

We will now take up Oliver Cowdery.
David Stafford testifies that " Oliver Cow-
dery proved himself to be a worthless fel-
low, not to be trusted or believed when he
taught school in this neighborhood." Dan-
ford Booth says he was a low pettifogger, a
cat's-paw of the Smiths to do their dirty
work. Imposter Joe is constantly warning
him in revelations of his selfishness, his
ambition, his desire to be some big person.
In a pretended revelation of November,
1831, Imposter Joe bears this testimony to
Oliver's character: "Hearken unto me,
saith the Lord your God, for my servant
Oliver Cowdery's sake: It is not wisdom
that he be entrusted with the moneys which
he shall carry into the land of Zion unless
some one shall go with him who shall be
true and faithful." In Vol. I. of Times and
Seasons, Hiram Smith charges Oliver Cow-
dery with forging a note against himself
(Hiram Smith), robbing his father (Joseph
Smith, Sr.,) and plundering Joseph Smith's
house. Pages 22-3, Vol. I, Ti77ies and Sea-
sons, Hiram Smith says :

"Persons came to mv house while I was in prison
" and ransacked it and carried oflf money and my valu-
" ables. Among tho^e who treated me thus I cannot
" help making particular mention of Lyman C. wdery,
" who in connt'Ctiou with his brother Oliver Cowdery
"took from me a great many things, and to cap the
" climax of his iniquitv compelled my age 1 father, by
" threatening to bring a mob upon him, to deed over
"to him or his brother Oliver about 160 acres of land
" to pav a note which he said I had given to Oliver for
"$165. "Such note! confess I was. and am, entirely
" entirely ignorant of, and after mature consideration
" I have to say that I believe it wast be a forgery.

Witness Oliver a robber, a thief, a forger!
Joseph Smith says, in Times and Seasons,
Vol. I, page 80 :
'■ About this time there were several persons living

in the Far West who wore cut oT from the church
Tbv*e charsctniswf re sV'iiously engaged in cJrtula-
tin^' f ;lse and .sl^inderous reports agaiii.st fhe Saints to
stir up oar enemiw.s to drive us from our homes and
enjoy the .spoils together. They are us follows : Oliver
Cowdery, David Whitmor, etc."

These liars plotting robbery are witnesses
to the Book of Mornion.

In a circ-ilar letter addressed to Oliver
Covv'dery, David Whitmer and others,
signed by Sidney Rigdon and S4 other lead-
ing Mormons — a circular that was authenti-
cated in a District Court before Judge King,
and which is further authenticated in a
report of a committee of the United States
Senate and published in the report by au-
thority of the United States Government,
constituting Congressional Document 189,
A. D. 1841, Oliver Cowdery is charged with
stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, and
that he was a leader of a gang of scoundrels
of the blackest dye. After he abandoned
Mormonism he openly declared his testi-
mony was a lie. In a piece of poetry pub-
lished in the Times and Seasons, occur
these lines:

" Or prove thbt Christ was not the Lord
Because that Peter cursed and swore,
Or Book of Mormon not his word
Because denied by Oliver."

In this doggerel the Mormons themselves
declare he repudiated his testimony. He
committed adultery with a hired girl in
Kirtland. He lived in adultery also in
Nauvoo. Such is the Apostle Cowdery —
witness Cowdery. He died an apostate, a
drunken sot, a beastly wreck.

David Whitmer next. He destroys his
testimony by the yarns he tells, and his
contradictious. He tells that Joe took him
into a field, on Whitmer's father's farm,
and showed him the plates lying on the
ground. He tells us that the angel showed
them to his (Whitmer's) mother. That the
angels sowed eleven acres of plaster to ena-
ble him to go to Pennsylvania to move Joe
(Lucy Smith's history, pp. 144, 145). That
he was miraculously enabled to do two
heavy days' work in less than one day (id.)
That the angels plowed seven acres for him
in the night (autobiography of Joe Smith,
p. 740). That Moroni trudged alongside of
the wagon as he was moving Smith, sweat-
ing like an old tramp, lugging the plates.
The person who will be fool enough to have
any confidence in the story of such a man
after reading such monstrous and silly lies,
may do so, people of sense will not. In
Ti7nes and Seasons, Vol. I., pages 81 , 82, 83, 84
as quoted above. Imposter Joe declares that
Cowdery and Whitmer were studiously en-
gaged in circulating false and slanderous
reports and plotting to rob the Saints, ilig-
don and 83 other leading Mormons, as quoted
above, denounce Whitmer as beinga mem-
ber of a gang of thieves, counterfeiters and
blacklegs of the deepest dye. Page 8:? of
the Times and Seasons Imposter .loesays:
"Poor Phelps, who professes to be much of
a prophet, has no other dumb bea^tt to ride
but David Whitmer, or to forbid his mad-
ness when he goes up to curse Israel. Bub
this ass (not being of the same kind as
Baalam's), therefore notwithstanding the

174

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

anarel appeared unto him, yet lie cannot
sufficiently penetrate his understanding,
but that lie (Whitmer) brays out curses in-
stead of blessinos. Poor ass, whoever lives
will see him and his rider perish like those
who perished in theofainsayingof Noah."
A sweet scented witness, according- to God's
viceg-erent Imposter Joe. Whitmer has re-
peatedly stated to his neighbors in Rich-
mond, Mo., that his statement was a lie.
That the only angel he saw was a man by
the name of Angell.

We are now ready for the eight witnesses.
Their testimony is worthless. They testify
they saw and handled certain plates that
Joe* showed them. That the plates had on
them characters of ancient workmanship,
and were of ancient and curious workman-
ship. That they saw as many plates as
Smith had translated How did they know
that he had translated the plates before
them? How did they know that Joe had
translated any plates? That the plates
had been given to him by an angel? That
the Book of Mormon was a translation o f
the plates before them, or of any plates?
The only thing they could testify was that
Joe h aid showed them certain plates. All
the rest they could not know, and lied when
they said they did know. Another fatal
objection to the testimony of both the three
witnesses, and of the eight, is they are all
of the gang of low, villainous followers of
Smith, and Interested in the fraud. The
thirteen are as follows : Imposter Joe, au-
thor of the fraud ; old Joe, his father, a
notorious drunkard, liar and thief; Hiram
Smith, his brother, afterwards a leader in
Mormonism ; S. H. Smith, another; old
Mrs. Whitmer, David W^hitmer, Christian
Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, John Whitmer,
Oliver Cowdery, Hiram Page, brothei -in-
law of the Whitmers, Martin Harris, old
Mrs. Whitmer and Emma Smith, Joe's
wife. Six Whitmers, one member of the
family, four Smiths, Oliver Cowdery and
Martin Harris.

One afternoon a number of persons were
playing town ball in the flat on the bank of
the creek in Kirtland, while the Mormons
were there. '1 here was whiskey on the
ground, and Bill Smith, brother of Imposter
Joe, got so drunk that he hiid to sit down
between the roots of a stump and lean back

against the stump to sit up. Some of the
Mormons reminded him that he was an-
nounced to preach the next day, and that
he would not be allowed to preach if he
made such a display of himself. He roared

out, " I'll be d d if I wont preach. If

they don't let me preach, by G — d I will
telT all I know about them plates." He
jire.aohpd. On another occasion, while riding
with Mr. Markell, he began to sing an ob-
scene song Mr. Markell reminded him
that he was a preacher, and was to preach
the next Sunday (Bill and Joe were in a
quarrel then). Smith replied: " I am not
going to preach any more. The whole
thing (meaning Mormonism) is a d d
humbug. I am going to tell all I know about
them plates." G. B. Frost swears in an
affidavit made in Boston, Mass., Sept. 18th.
1SJ2, before Bradford Sumner, J. P., that
Bill wanted some money of Joe, who re-
fused him until Bill threatened to tell what
he knew about the origin of Mormonism.
Then Joe gave him the money. Of the
tluee, all three apostatized, and five of the
eight witnesses apostatized. This is suffi-
cient to show that their testimony was all a
fabrication, gotten up by Imposter Joe and
signed by them as confederates in a fraud
that they abandoned when it ceased to be
profitable to them. Another objection : In
the first edition of the Book of Mormon,
the eight call Imposter Joe "Author and
proprietor" of the Book of Mormon, Now
it reads "Translator." They allowed the
testimony to be doctored to suit the point to
be established. They allowed it to be fab-
ricated by Imposter Joe, and perjured them-
selves by swearing to it. The two testimo-
nies contradict each other and Mormon rev-
elations. The Book of Mormon declares
that Joe shall show the plates to three wit-
nesses. Heshowed them toeleven. TheBook
of Doctrines and Covenants declares that
to three and none other will God give this
privilege. It was given to twelve besides
Imposter Joe. It required a wonderful mir-
acle and an angel to enable the three to see
the plates. It required no angel, no mira-
cle to enable the eight. They saw and han-
dled them like shingles. So did Emma
Smith, according to her story, only they
were covered with a " thin cloth."

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

175

MR. KELLEY'S SEVENTEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Last Saturday eveniug' Mr.
Braden made the statement that not one of
the Smith family ever belonged to tlie Pres-
byterian or any church, except as he says,
the Mormon. I have intended to correct it
a number of evenings, but each time it
has escaped ray mind, so I will do so now.
The history is as follows :

"I was at this time in my fifteenth
year." This is the history written by Jo-
seph Smith himself, "My father's family
was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith,
and four of them joined that church, name-
ly, my mother, also my brothers, Hyrum,
and Samuel Harrison, and my sister
Sophronia."

That is in accordance with the statement
that I made to the audience at the time he
took occasion to deny it, and the statement
is borne out through the history of the
church; and I call for the reading of the
evidence he has, if he had any foundation
for the statement which he made to the
contrary.

Last evening I was just reading to you an
argument based upon the work that the
Lord would begin to accomplish or perform
in the last days, and should begin with
Ephraini ; and I had called your attention to
the fact that in the restoration of this work
and the bringing to light of the seed of
Ephraim himself, the Urim and Thummim
must be restored again, as was stated by
the prophet Nehemiah, (7: 65) which was
necessary in that time also to the restora-
tion of certain ones before the Lord ; also,
that when this was done it would be
through the means of the Lord working
through|the instrumentality of a prophet. I
shall tlii's evening first follow out these won-
derful predictions of the prophets, and as I
trust, interest you in one of the most hope-
ful and encouraging promises God has ever
made to his children.

As a priucipaland initiatory means of in-
augurating the great work of revealing the
seed of Israel as they exist among the na-
tions, and the restoring of them to their
promised land, Isaiah says, when "God
shall set his hand again the second time to
recover the remnant of his people which
shall be left, he will set up an ensign for
the nations and shall assemble the out-
casts of Israel, and gather together the dis-
persed of Judah from the four corners of
the earth" 11:12.

Theoutcasts of Israel are the "ten tribes;"
the dispersed of Judah are those scattered
in the year seventy by the Roman Army.
But the promise is that both Israel and
Judah shall return. "That Ephraim shall
not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex
Ephraim." "The adversari^es of Judah
shall be cut off." This has never been. A

"highway is to be cast up." And God is to
smite the Egyptian sea in the seven streams
and cause men to go over dry shod. The
first event to transi:)ire in this series of
events, is the setting up of an "ensign to
the nations." Isa. 61:10, says, "Go through,
go through the gates; prepare ye the way
of the people ; east up, cast up the high-
way ; gather out the stones ; lift up a stand-
ard for the people."

This is just to precede the coming of the
Son of God, and is the preparatory work to
be performed before his coming. But what
is this "ensign" or "standard" that is to
be raised up? It is evidently the warning
voice brought by the angel, "And I saw
another angel fly in the midst of heaven,
having the everlasting gospel to preach un-
to them that dwell on the earth, and to
every nation, kindred, tongue and people,
saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give
glory to him, for the hour of his judgement
is come."

It is in the gospel that the revelation and
establishment of the everlasting covenant
is made which is to be written in the hearts
and put in the inward parts of Israel, when
"God takes away their sin." Hence Paul
says, "Written, not with ink, but with the
Spirit of the living God; not in tables of
stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart."
2 9oY. 3:3. It was the blood of Christ that
sanctified this covenant. Heb. 10:29. It
is the gospel, that is God's standard or en-
sign to the people ; and Isaiah says that he
will "set it up." Isa. 11: 12.

Jesus said in the age of preparation that
should precede the coming of the Son of
Man, "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." Matt. 24:14.

After the Gospel shall have been preached
to all nations for a witness, then the Savior
will come, "Taking vengeance upon all
those that know not God and obey not the
Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ." But,
when the Lord comes he is to find Judah
restored to Jerusalem: Zach. 14. Who is
to take the lead in this restoration of the
tribes, and the bearing of this "standard?"
Let inspiration answer. "Hear the word
of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in
the isles afar off and say. He that
scattered Israel will gather him, and keep
him as a shepherd does a flock." "They
shall come with weeping and with suppli-
cation will I lead them; I will cause them
to walk by rivers of water in a straight
way w^herein they shall not stumble : for I
am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my
first-born." Jer. 31 : 9, 10.

Ephraim was notthefirst born of Joseph's
sons, but the second ; and for his iniquity
God declared that he would blot him out as

176

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

a nation, or tribe, to the world and his
lineage should be unknown. "His root
dried up." Hos.9:16.

He was to be mixed with the people, but
not "utterly forgotten." The Lord says,
" My heart is turned within me, my repent-
ings" are kindled together ; I will not execute
the fierceness of mine auger, I will not
return to destroy Ephraim." Hosea 11 : 8, 9.
Not utterly destroyed, but mixed among
the people. But when God makes the seed
of Israel "known among the Gentiles and
their offspring among the people," Ephraim
is to be revealed ; for they are the ten
thousands of Ephraim, and \he thousands
of Manasseh." Deut. 33. Ephraim is the
first-born in the great work of restoring
Israel in the last days; the first revealed,
and commissioned to bear the "ensign," or
the "standard," to the nations, which God
will set up. Ezekiel says, referring to the
same work :

" Behold I will take the stick of Joseph
which is in the hand of Ephraim and the
tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put
them with him even with the stick of Judah,
and make them one stick, and they shall
be one in mine hand." " And say unto
them, thus saith the Lord God: Beholc}, I
will take the children of Israel from among
the heathen whither they be gone, and will
gather them on every side and bring them
into their own land. And I will make them
one nation upon the mountains of Israel,
and one king shall be king to them all ; and
they shall be no more two nations, neither
sha'il they be divided into two kingdoms
any more at all." Ezekiel 37.

the Bible, the Old and New Testameiits,
are by the ablest critics acknowledged to
be the stick of Judah, containing the things
•/of God written " to Judah and his fellows."
The stick of Joseph in the true interpreta-
tion must be another record containing the
great things of God's law written to him
and his fellows, that at one time is to be in
the hand of Ephraim, removed and joined
with the stick of Judah. But where is
Joseph's record, or the stick of Joseph? I
answer, in Joseph's land. Where is that?
To the "Utmost bounds of the everlasting
hills." from Palestine or Egypt. "Utmost"
signifies the farthest off. The "utmost"
land from Goshen in Egypt is North and
South America. Hence Moses says :

' Blessed of the Lord be his (Joseph's)
land ; for the precious things of heaven, for
the dew and the deep that coucheth beneath.
And for the precious fruit put forth by the
sun, and for the precious things put forth
by the moon. For the chief things of the
ancient mountains, and precious things of
the histing hills, and for the precious things
of the earth and the fulness tliereof." This
landed blessing was to come upon the head
of Joseph. Joseph's sons, Manasseh and
Ephraim, inherited tliis land of right; God
gave it to thenj. These children were to
grow into a multitude in the midst of the
earth." Gen. 48:1(). The younger brother
was to be the greater, verse 19. This being
their land of inheritance, God was able to

bring them here. That they came here
about 600 years before Christ I showed on
a previous evening. Hence we can under-
stand the prophet when he declares that
"When the Lord roars" the children of
Ephraim "shall tremble from the west.''
Hosea 11:10. When shall the Lord roar?
"The Lord shall roar outol Zion, and utter
his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens
and the earth shall shake, but the Lord will
be the hope of his people, and the strength
of the children of Israel." Joel 3:15. Then
it is that Ephraim shall be iu the west, be-
cause he is on Joseph's land, in his inheri-
tance. But the "stick of Joseph" does not
mention Ephraim as coming to the inheri-
tance, but Manasseh only, it is objected.
True, but Ephraim was to be destroyed in
his identity as a tribe, his lineage cease to
be counted and he be mixed among the peo-
ple ; and be utterly lost among the nations
of the earth until he should be revealed in
the last days to become the first born in
commencing i..e work of restoration. It
was on this, Joseph's land (the land of
America) that the "ensign" was to be raised
iu the last days, or the "standard set up."
Isaiah says, "Ho to the land shadowing
with wings which is beyond the rivers of
Ethiopia." Stretched out in the shape of
wings — not as a bird with wings— but as
two wings stretched or spread out.

Now vvhen you stand at Jerusalem and
look beyondthe rivers of Ethiopia,— beyond
the Niger, Grande and Mezurado, which ex-
tend to the west coast of Africa, — the first
and only land that comes to view is North
and South America. Theprophetcontinues :
" All ye inhabitants of the world and
dwellers on the earth see ye when he
lifteth up an ensign on the mountains ; and
when he bloweth the trumpet hear ye."
Isaiah 18. In the land shadowing with
wings the ensign was to be raised ; and
the gospel trumpet to be blown. And as
all other prophets have testified, it was to
be "just afore the harvest," or "end of
the world." From this land shadowing
with wings the messengers were to be sent
to a people "scattered and peeled," whose
land the rivers, or nations, " had spoiled ;"
because of the decree, " Jerusalem shall be
trodden down of the Gentiles, until the
time of the Gentiles be come in." Then,
"Thus saith the Lord God, behold I will
lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set
up my standard to the people, and they
shall bring thy sons into their arms, and
thy daughters shall be carried upon their
shoulders. And kings shall be thy nurs-
ing fathers, and their queens thy nursing
mothers." Isaiah 49: 22. "And he will lift
up an ensign to the nations from far, and will
hiss (call) unto them from the end of the
earth." Isaiah 5 : 26. Standing at Jerusa-
lem and lifting up an "ensign from far"
at the "end of the earth," and we are
brought again to see Joseph's land. The
Book of Mormon does not say that Ephraim
came to America along with his elder
brother to receive his inheritance; neither
does it say that he did not come; but it

THE BRADEN AND KEI.LEY DEBATE.

177

does say, that a number came whose gen-
ealogy is not given : and as Ephraim had
equal rights of inheritance with his brother
Manasseh, and his tribal name was to be
blottfed out, " his glory to fly away like
a bird from the birth," and be mixed among
the people and his nanae lost, until the
mighty work of God should commence in
the last days, it isclearas towhy Ephraim's
lineage is not recorded in that work. When
the stick of Joseph was taken from the
hand of Ephraim and put with the stick of
Judah, and this standard raised up, then
the work that is to result in the restoration
of Israel is to commence. God says, "I
will take them from among the heathen
and gather them on every side, and bring
them into their own land. And I will
make them one nation and they shall
defile themselves no more," The stick of
Joseph says :

" But behold there shall be many at that day, when
I shall proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder
among them, that 1 may remember my covenant which
1 liave made unto the children of men, that I may set
m\ hand again the second lime to rr cover my p ople
■which are of the house of Israel. And my words shall
hiss forth unto the ends of the earth for a standard
unto my people which are of the house of Israe*. And
■because my words shall hiss forth many of the Gentiles
shall say, A Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible, and
there cannot be any more Bible. Thou fool that shall
say a Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more
Bible. Know ye not that there aie more nati ns than
one? Wherefore murmur ye because ye shall receive
more of my word ? Because that ye have got a Bible ye
need not siippo&e that it contains all my words, neither
reed ye suppose th^t I have not caused more to be
Aviitten: And it shall come to pass that my people
■which are of the house of Israel shall be gathi led
home unto the land of their posessions, and my woid
also shall be gathered into one. And I will show unto
them that fight against my word and against my people
•who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that
I covenanted with Abraham thai I would remember
his seed forever." Pages lit5, 106.

Now, it is thought by some that possibly
some man might have been smart enough
in the inaugurati<m of the work of the last
days to have conformed his 'work to all of
the precise prophecies in the Bible respect-
ing that work. Canyon believe that there
is or has bet-n any in the world's history
who could take from the Bible the prophe-
tic evidences in regard to the restoration of
the work in the last days, and so bring
forth a work and establish it in every par-
ticular, that the work itself, that he brought
forth would completely and fully fulfill all
the predictions that the prophets had made
with regard to the same work ? Yet you
are called upon to believe that, "ignoramu-
ses," as they have been termed before you,
have been able to do this.

" For after the book of which I have spoken (so this
book says) shall come forth and be written unto the
Gentiles, and sealcl up unto the Lord, there shall be
many who shall believe the words which are written ;
and they shall carry them forth unto the remnantof our
seed. And then shall the remnant of our seed know
concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem.
And it shall c.'me to pass that the Jews which are
scattered also shall begin to believe in Christ and they
shall begin to gather in upon the face of the land

How did Joseph Smith and Sidney Rig-
don know this, and know that the work
should go forth unto all nations and be ac-
cepted by many people when it was pub-
'ished to the world and before any one had
accepted it? Thev did not know that it

would be any more of a remarkable thing-
in the world than ten thousand other works*
that have been published within the same-
time, and yet you have never even heard
the names of those works.

"And it shall come to pass that the Lord
God shall commence his work among all
nations, kindreds, tongues and people to
bring about the restoration of his people
on the earth." Book of Mormon, pages 106
107. '

The sign given that the time had corner
when the work of the Father sl.ould com-
mence to effect the restoration of Israel and
the renewing of the covenant with them,,
should be the coming forth of tliis work
and its publication to the world. Book of
Mormon, pp. 108-8. To this all the proph-
ets of the Bible who have written concern-
ing it testify. Ezekiel, in his 37th chapter,
states emphatically, as already shown, that
when the record of Joseph should be taken
and put with the record of Judah, thatthea
should commence the work that would even-
tuate in the gathering of Israel. Isaiah, in>
his 29th chapter, is specific upon this same
point, and the manner in which the record
should be brought forth to the world. He
states that a nation which would be unto*
him (God) "as Ariel," should have forts
raised against them,- besieged and camped
against, and "Thou shalt be brought down,,
and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy
speech shall be low out of the dust ; and
thy voice shall be, as one that hath a famil-
iar spirit, out of tlie ground, and thy speech
shall wiiisper outof the dust." Verse 4.

This could only take place by a nation's
history being written and hid up in the
earth, which after the nation had passed
away and should be recovered, and then the
nation would speak through its record out of
the ground. This was to take place when
God should remember the covenant made
to the house of Jacob : and .lacob's face
was to be no longer pale; but the favor of
God and prosperity should be upon him.
Verse 2'J,.

David refers to the same thing, the com-
ing forth of the record out of the earth,
and as preceding the restoration of Israel
in his 8oth Psalm, as follows: "I will hear
v/hat God the Lord will speak, for he will
speak peace to his people and his Saints.""
"Mercy and truth are met together ; right-
eousness and peace have kissed each other.
Truth s/ia/l spring out of the earth, and
righteousness siiall look down from heaven,
yea the Lord will give that which is good,,
and our land shall yield its increase. Right-
eousness shall go before him, and shall set
us in the way of his steps."

Here it is shown that just before Israel is
set in tbe way of (^oJ's steps, and the land
of Israel shall yield its increase, that truth,
shall spring out of the earth. And that
this shall be a means of setting them in the
way of his steps." What is this truth?
David says again : "Thy law is the truth."
"Thou uri near, O Lord, and all thy com-
mandments are truth." Psalms 119, 142,
157. And Jesus says, "Sanctify them

178

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

through thy truth, thy word is truth."
'John 17: 7. Isaiah pays, "Let the skies
pour down rig'i teousness ; let the earth
open, and let them bring forth salvation."
45:8.

Here it is shown that a record of a peo-
ple should be brought out of the ground ;
they sliould "whii5[)er out of the dust,"
just previous to the land of Israel yielding
its increase. It wae to come at a time when
men would be "drunken, but not with wine ;
stagger, but not with strong drink." Be-
cause "the Ijovd had poured out upon them
the spirit of deep sleep, and closed their
eyes." They had no prophets nor seers.
All these are thought to have been "done
away." Then it is that the "vision of all
is become unto you as the words of a book
that is sealed, which men deliver to one
that is learned, saying, Head this, I pray
thee, and hesaith, I cannot, for it is sealed."
Isaiah 29:10, 11. Now it is well known that
when the reijord of Joseph (or Book of Mor-
mon), was brought to light, that some of
the characters were copied and sent to Prof,
Anthon and Dr. Mitchell, of New York
city. The message was taken by Martin
Harris. Pearl of Great Price, page 45.

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN HARRIS.
"I went til the City of New York and presented the
characters which had been truiiscribe'l, with the trans-
lation theie'if, to Profcsx)!- Anthon, a gentleman cele-
brated for tiis literary atiaiunients. Pri fessor Anthon
atated that the translation w.ts correct, ino'e so than
ajiy he had before seen translated f'om th' Egyptian.
I then showed him those ihat were not translated, and
he said ihat they weie Egyptian. Chaldaic Assyriac
and Arabic, and he said that they were the true char-
acters. He gave me a certificate certifying to the peo-
ple of Palmyra that they were true characters, and
that the triinslatioii of such of them as liad been trans-
lated was also correct. I took the certificate and pnt it
into my pocket and was jnst leaving the house when
Mr. Anthon oilled me hack and askid me how the
young man found out there were gold plates in the
place where he f.iurd them. I Huswered that an angel
of God had revealed it unro him. He then -aid unto
me. Let me see the certiflc te. I accordingly took it
out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it
and tore it to pieces, saying iheie was no such thing
now as ministering of angels and that if I would bring
the piates to him he would translate them. I inlor ed
him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was
forbidden to bring them. He replied. I cannot read a
sealed book."

This statement of Mr. Hfirris is co'-robo-
rated and confirmed by Mr. Anthon, show-
ing that lie did make the trip lu !> ^ > i ork,
and presented him with the characters. In
the history of the Mormons, by Howe, who
wrote to Mr. Anihon and claimed to get his
answer, page 272 of his work, he says, as
follows: " Some years ago a plain appa-
rently simple-liearted farmer" — yes, that is
Mai tin Harris — "called on me with a note
from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now dead,
requesting me to decipher if possible a pa-
per which the farmer would hand me, and
which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable
to understand ."

Don't overlook the confession of Dr.
Mitchell, which is almost invariably left
out of the letter of Prof. Anthon by all au-
thors who wish to make a case against the
book, whether by foul or fair means, al-
though this is the original publication of it.

" When I asked the peison who brought it how he
obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I now recol-

lect fnotice the language, 'as far as I now recollect')
the following account ; A ' gohl book,' consisting of a
number of plates of gold fastened together in the hape
of a book, by wires of the same melal, which had beea
dug up i . the northern i.art of the State of New York,
and along with the book an eni imons pair of 'gold
spectacles.' These spectacles were so large' that fa
perso I atlempled to lool; through them his two eyes
would have to be turned toward one of the glasses
merely, ihe spectacles in question being altogether too
large for the h man face. Whoev r examined the
plates through the spectacles was enabled to not only
read them, but understand their m^ aning. All this
know edge, however, was confined at that time to a
yo mg man who had the trunk containing the plates
and spe<'tacles in hi~ -ole possessou. He put on the
spei-lacles, or rather looked through o.ie of the glasses,
and deciphered the characters in the book, and bavins'
committed some of them to paper, handed copies to a
person outside. This paper was in fac^t a singular
sC'Oll. It consisted of nil kinds of cr.ioked characters,
disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared
by some person who had b>(ore him at the time a book
containing various alphnbels. t. reek and Hebrew let-
ters, crosses and flouiishes, Roman letters inverted, or
placed sideways, were ranged in perp ndicular col-
umns, and the whole ende<i in a rude delineation of a
circle, divided into various compartments, decked wi'li
various strange marks, and eviilently copied after the
Mexican calendar givfii by Humboldt."

Thus the learned man admits that he was
waited upon by a " simple hearted farmer,"
who presented him with the characters,
whatever may have been his opinion about
them, and the learned man's statement,
though an attempt is made at derision, is in
favor of the claims of the Book of Mormon,
and has also been confirmed by the finding
of plates fifteen feet under ground in the
State of Illinois, in 1843, with characters
resemt)ling those described by Prof Anthon.
These plates were found by Mr. Robert
Wiley. They were four inches in length,
and one and three-fourths inches wide at
the top and two and three-fourths inches
wide at the bottom and covered with
" Hieroglyphics." A fac-simile of which ia
here presented; ( the fac-siraile is shown to
the audience).

I now show you a fac-simile of those plates
that win'e found seventeen years after the
pul'licition of the Book of Mormon, with
characters similar to the ones shown to
Prof. Anthon, and not found by Latter Day
Saints either — not found by Joseph Smith
or Sidney Rigdon — and they are now in the
possession of scientists. And yet Joseph
Smith must be called a liar and a thief and
everything else if he says that he got any
plates, because, forsooth, he says at the
same time that he saw an angel, and there
are no angels in this age of the world ; — so
Mr. Braden would have you believe.

Here it has been shown that the prophecy
of Isaiah was literally fulfilled so far as the
characters being taken to learned men are
concerned, and they not being able to
interpret them, as confessed by both parties.
But the book was to be delivered "to hina
that is not learned, saying, read this I pray
thee, and he saith, I am not learned." The
book was to be delivered to the unlearned
and he was not able to read it by his own
wisdom. Therefore the Lord said verse 14,
"I will proceed to do a marvellous work
among this people, even a marvellous work
and a wonder ; for the wisdom of their wise
men shall perish, and the understanding of
their prudent men shall be hid."

THE BRA DEN AND I^IELLEY DEBATE.

179

How was the wisdom of the wise and
prudent to be confuunded? By (iod pro-
ceedino- to do his own worlc. He would take
the illiterate man and cause him to do that
wliif^h the most learned and scliolarly
men of the age lould. not do. That
is, read the book. Hrins it to lignt.
For the " deaf were to hear the
wordsof (he book." Verse 18. That Joseph
S^niith was such an illiterate youth, is con-
fessed l)y every one; and himself and other
witnesses testify that he translated the
book. But when was this book to be re-
vealed? In a day when men should deny
that such a thing as a revelation from God
could be. When people would draw near
to the Lord, "with the mouth," and with
" their lips honor him," but with hearts far
from him, tl e^ameas the Jewsonce acted in
the time of Christ. But the fear of God
"would be taught by the precepts of men."
A dead form, "lip service," without any
heart in it, all under the dirtciion of the
wisdom of men was to be the spirit of the
time. Verse 13. It was to come fortii just
before " Lebanon should be turned into a
fruitful field." Just before F'ale>tine should
be restoied from itssteril'ty to the receiving
of the enrly and the latter rains, in order to
send fortli vegttaiion for "my people,
Israel, for they are at hand to come." This
staled book, the Recoid of Joseph, the stick
of Ephraim, was to be brought out of the
ground, taken in the hand of Ki)hraim and
put with trie stick of Judah and raised as
an " ensign," or " standard," upon the land
shadowing with wings, just as God should
commence thegreat workamong thenations
of the earth for tlie restoration of scattered
Israel to Palestine again. God was to reveal
his secret to his servants, the prophets,
concerning tlie time when this work should
commence, for the wisdom of men could not
diviue the fcime. The coming of the angel,
• Rev. 14:6, and the raising of the Gospel
standard to be preached to every kindred,
tongue and people, inaugurated the great
era declared by Paul to be the "disi)ensa-
t on of the fullness of times." Ephesians
1 : 10. Or the dispent- ation that shall wit-

ness the bringing about of these things
spoken by the prof)hets, and be crowrred
with the coming and glory of Jesus Christ,
and the resurrection of the saints. This
last dispensation is the time reterred to by
Peter when lie said, "Tiie heavens mAist
retain the Son of Man, until the time of the
restitution of all things spoken by all the
h(/ y prophets since the world began."
Ac IS. 3. It is the era predicted by Jesus
and Paul in which the fullness of the Gen-
tiles would be come in, and Jerusalem should
cease to be trodden down. It is the era or
dispensation in which the angel would
restore the Gospel to be preached to every
nation, kindred, tongue and peopla, saying
with a loud voice, "Fear God and give
glory to him ; for the hour of his judgment
is come." It is the time when "This Gospel
of the kingdom shall be preached in ail the
world for a witness to all nations, and then
shall the end come," as declared by Jesus.
It Is the time when the stick of Joseph
should be taken from its resting place and
be put with the stick of Judah, and in the
hands of divinely commissioned ofTi(!ers
raised as a standard with authority from
God to say to all Israel that the day of
their redemption is nigii, and God will re-
move the curse from their land and remem-
ber the covenant that he had made that
they should not cease to be a nation before
hini, forever. It is the day, when the angel
would sav, "Run and si)eak to this young
man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited
as towns without walls, for the multitude
of men and cattle therein ; for 1, saith the
Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round
about, and be the glory in the midst of
her." Zach 2:4.

There Is no work on earth that answers
to these pro| 1 ecies or can claim to be a
fulfillment of the same as pointing out the
time and t: e uauire and character of the
work that snouid reveal the dispensation
of the fullness o limes, and commence the
oreat work (>f restitution, but that brought
forth by the yomig man, Joseph Bmith.

(Time expired.)

180

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — The question nas often been
asked: Did Joe Smith have any plates?
Some think that Joe found some glyphs,
like those said to be found in Kinderhook,
Ills., while pretendino- to hunt for buried
money. Some think that Rigdon obtained
some "glyphs and furnished them to Joe.
Some think that Rigdon or Joe had some
manufactured, and exhibited them to the
witnesses. I assert positively that Joe nev-
er had a plate, and never showed one to
anybody : that Joe and his witnesses delib-
erately lied from beginning to end. We
have proved that Joe was a liar about his
water-witching and money-hunting : that
he lied about his book of Abraham : that
the /ac simile of what was on the plates was
a wholesale fraud: that he said he had no
plates. Pomeroy Tucker tells us that two
young men, Van Dreuverand Hussey, were
allowed, by Joe, to look into his box, and
see what he said was the Book of Plates
covered with a cloth. That, by a quick move-
ment, Hussey snatched off the cloth, and
found that it covered only a brick. The
entire s:ang of witnesses had gone into the
fraud with Joe .to m ikt mo ey by deceiving
the world. '1 Jiey lied to nelp cai ry out the
fraud. If Joe had ever had any plates they
would have been exhibited most ostenta-
tiously to the world, like the pretended ./ae
simile, and the papyri that it is pretended
were translated in the Book of Abraham.
Joe and his twelve confederates lied. He
never had anything but Rigdon's manu-
script which was a revision of Spaulding's
manuscript. This he read as he sat behind
the curtain, or handed portions of it out at
other times.

I assert that the entire gang engaged in
carrying out the fraud, were a pack of liars
on account of their contiadictory yarns. I
defy my opponent to take the stories of the
fourteen witnesses separately, and select an
important statement in the testimony of
any of the lour een that I cannot s'low
that it is contradicted by other witnesses,
and that in almost every instance the wit-
ness contradicts the statement elsewhere.

I. Material of the plates We are told they
are "Pure Gold." "Gold." "Lookedlike
gold." "Were brass."

II. Description of the Book of Plates.
Impostor Joe says they were fastened to-
gether at the back by three rings, each ring
running through every plate, and that a

Eart were sealed. David Whitmer says they
ad been cut across the middle, and the
half of each plate next the rings was solder-
ed to the others. He does not tell us
whether the loose half was fastened to the
half from which it had been cut or not.
Martin Harrris gave a dozen difl'erent de-
scriptions. The eight witnesses tell us
that the leaves Joe had translated were

loose, separated from what he had not
translated. That they hefted, saw and
handled what he had translated, and did
not see the rest. S. H. Smith says the
whole book was together, as Impostor Joe
and Whitmer declared and he saw it weigh-
ed. Emma Smith says they lay loose on
her table covered with a cloth, not fastened
together nor sealed, nor soldered, and she
felt of them in that condition.

III. Where were they kept? Joe's
mother says he kept them in a hollow tree,
a box, in a cooper shop, in the woods,
buried in the ground. Joe had them in his
possession all the time ; then again he did
not. The angel brought to him the entire
pile when he began translating, and took it
away as he ceased, each time. The angel
brought each p ate as Joe began to trans-
late it, and took it away as he finished it.
Joe had the plates in the book by him as
he translated ; he had the plates lying
loose under a cloth ; he did not have them
by him; they were in his trunk; in the
woods ; in the ground ; in the care of the
angel ; noboby knew where. He had them
and showed them to the eight witnesses ;
he did not have them and an angel had to
bring them from heaven, or some other
place, and show them to three witnesses.
It requir ;d a miracle, a wonderful miracle,
to enable the three to see them. The eight
saw, handled and hefted, without any
angel or miracle. Joe could show them as
he could a pile of his wife's dinner plates.
Emma Smith saw them covered with a
cloth, and felt of them as she did of her
tin pans. It was death to look on them,
unless prepared, by miracle for the sight.
Emma Smith saw them under a cloth, felt
of them. Whitmer saw them lying in his
father's field. Old Moroni let his (Whit-
mer's) mother have a squint at them in ihe
barn. The eight saw, handled and hefted
them, like shingles, and nobody " hurted."
When outsiders wanted to see the plates,
Joe told them the angel had them. He only
had them while translating, or he had only
one plate at a time, while translating. Or
the Lord would not let him show them. Or
it was death to look on them. Or it required
a miracle to enable one to see them. When
the Mormon's are lying and telling that
thev saw them and knew all about them,
then Joe had them all the time, they saw
them, and handled them, felt of them, saw
them weighed; they lay on the table and
were handled like dinner plates.

IV. Joe at first only told of finding
plates. This was his tale for months. Then
a breast-plate, and interpreters. His
mother says breast-plate and interpreters.
She says the breast-plate was gold, Joe
says brass. Then Joe told of breast-plate,
interpreters, brass compass and sword.
The story kept growing all the time. Had

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

181

Joe lived long enough he would have added
the entire twenty-four articles mentioned
in the Book of Mormon, and manufactured
a perfect museum in addition.

V. What the three witnesses saw. They
declare they saw the plates. They men-
sion nothing else in their testimony. Joe
in his revelation, fabricated in Kirthuid in
1S35, declares that they shall see the brass
director, the interpreters, the breast-plate,
and sword. Whitmer says afterwards they
saw all this and piles of plates and other
things besides. Harris says the sword was
gold. The Book of Mormon says it was
steel.

Vr. Whose interpreters did Joe use? Joe
SH_sr^, the interpreters of Jared's brother.
The Book of Mormon says they were not to
come forth until after the conversion of the
Gentiles. That Mormon had Mosiah's
interpreters, not Jared's brother's. Tliat
Mormon buried Mosiah's interpreters years
before Moroni buried Joe's plates and in
another place.

VII. Description of the stone interpre-
ters. Granny Smith says they were three-
pointed diamonds, set in glass plates — glass
at the time of confusion of tongues — the
plates set in silver spectacle bov/s — spec-
tacles at the Tower of Bable. Harris and
others say that they were two cloudy stones,
so large tliata man could look through only
one, and could look through one with botli
eyes, set In gold spectacle bows, nniking an
enormous pair of spectacles. Emma Smith
says it was Joe's peep-stone that he used in
peeping for treasure. Her father says the
same. " Impostor Joe told Willard Chase
that it was the peep-scone he stole from his
children.

VIII. How translation was done. Neigh-
bors declare that they were told when it
was going on, that Joe sat behind a screen,
a b anket. So Harris told Anthon. So all
Mormons said at first. Emma Smith says
he did not. He sat in her kitchen, at her
kitchen table. Whitmer says that Joe
looked through one of those opaque stones
of the big spectacles, at the plates, as they
lay before him. Emma Smith says that he
looked into his peep stone placed in his hat.
Her father says the same. She says the
plates lay beside him on the table. Whit-
mer savs before him, and he read them
through the stone in one of The rims of the
big spectacles. Others say that he did not
have the plates by him. His father-in-law
says that Joe said they were were in the
woods, and he peeped into his hat crown
through his peep stone. Some say the an-
gel gave him one plate at a time, and he
read it. Others, he had all of the book.
Some say that as he looked into his peep
stone the Lord caused the translation to
appear one word at a time. When Joe called
it out it disappeared, and anofher word ap-
peared. That was the most common yarn.
Harris said Joe copied the characters him-
self, as he sat behiyd the screen, and
handed out the leaves to an outsider, b. H.
Smith SAys he announced each word as it
appeared, by miracle, before him, and the

scribe copied it. Some say he sat behind
a screen and called out. Emma Smith says
he sat at her kitchen table.

IX. Where the plates were found. Im-
postor Joe said in a hole where he had dug
for treasure ; sometimes one, sometimes
another. Finally, years afterwards, he fella
us of a strong stone vault around the plates.
Where is that vault now? Where are those
stone slabs? Did anyone ever see them, or
tell of them until twenty years after Joe
should have had his first vision?

X. Joe never told of his first vision in
1828, or until he began to tell of his second
vision in 1827.

XI. He said at first he went alone and got
the plates and told no yarn about an as-
sault on him. Then he said his wife was
with him. That he and his wife went
in a wagon, and that he carried his spade
and crow-bar that he used in digging for
treasure. His mother says he went with
his wife in Mr. Knight's wagon. Then Joe
says he went alone, on foot, and was as-
saulted by two ruffians. One had a club,
and he knocked the riifhan down. His
mother says he was assaulted some time af-
terwards, as he was changing the hiding
place of his plates, and one of the ruffians
had a gun, and knocked Joe down with it,
and he was crazy for some hours after it.
Orson Pratt says he used a rail to pry off
the stone top. Joe said nothing at first
about a stone cover or vault, and when
he did, he said he used a crow-bar.

XII. Size of the plates. Joe says they
were seven inches by eight, and the thick-
ness of common tin. The Book of Mormon
covers 545 closely printed pages of solid
Minion. It would require at least 2,000
closely written pages of foolscap to contain
it. It would require one page of the plates
to each page of the manuscript, if half of
the plates were sealed, as Whitmer de-
clares; or it would require l,i)OU plates if
none were sealed to contain the Book of
Mormon. That would be a pile of plates
over four feet high. If we reduce it by
half, it would be a pile over two feet liigh.
If gold, it would weigh 750 pounds. If
brass, about 250. If gold, it would be worth
$75,000. Joe tells us that he carried this
pile of plates, a sword, a monshoi'? t.reast-
plate, brass compass, the big specta •!«•<,
all hid in his frock; fought ^ If two men,
one armed with a club, knocked «jnc uuvvn,
and ran two miles, with a load of more than
half a ton, if plates, breastplate and sword
were gold; or more than three hundred
pounds if they were brass. According to
his mother, Pratt, Impostor Joe, his wife
and other Mormons, this pile of plates,
weighing hundreds of pounds, worth nearly
a hundred thousand dollars, with gold
sword, a huge gold breastplate, were in a
box a' trunk, in a hollow tree, a barrel of
beans, in the woods. The plates were in
the field, on the table, lying around
loose. If they lay around, and Joe
could show them so freely, why did
he not hand them down to others? u hy
cannot we see them as we can the papyrus

182

THE BRADEN AND KJELLEY DEBATE.

Of the Book of Abraham ? Why not the
plates instead of a scrawl fabricated and
called a /ac simi/e of what was on them?
If .loe ever had any plates they would be
on exhibition like the papyrus of the Book
of Abraham in the fac simile scrawl.

We repeat our assertion that Joe lied
when he said he found any plates. His
absurd and grossly contradictory stories
prove it. The fact that he never showed
them to any one proves it. The fact that
they are not on exhibition with the papyrus
of Abraham shows it. He did buy a papy-
rus. It is on exhibition. The three wit-
ne-ses deliberately lied. Their character,
their interest in the fraud and their con-
tradictory stories prove it. The eight wit-
nesses lied. Their character, their in-
terest in the fraud, and tlieir subsequent
lies and contradictory stories prove
it. Whitmer's mother lied when she
said Moroni showed her the plates, or he
lied when he said she said so, as he lied
when told of seeing the plates in a field,
and told of angels sowing plaster, plowing
land and tugging plates around. Emma
Smith lied when she said Joe translated in
her kitchen, and the plates lay on the table
covered with a thin table-cloth, and she
felt of them, and, strange daughter of Eve
that she was, never peeked ! Or those lie
who say she told such a story. Every wit-
ness is contradicted in every statement by
other witnesses, and contradicts his own
story in almost every particular.

The. Book of Mormon lacks every parti-
cle of evidence that a book claiming inspir-
ation should have. Let us contrast it with
the Bible. The Book of Genesis is com-
posed of thirteen old books. In all of the
oldest religions of the world are found
fragments of these books. In some instan-
ces the books almost entire can be quoted
from old religions. These fragments can
be traced to the confusion of tongues.
There is nothing of the Book of Mormon
that can be traced beyond Joe Smith, Sid-
ney Rigdon and Soloiiion Spaulding. The
Pentateuch has been attributed to Moses by
Israelite literature for over 3,000 years. It
has been attributed to Moses in Gentile
literatue 2,500 years. In its names, places,
customs and description of surroundings it
interlocks with the history, surroundings
and literatuie of the age to which it is
ascribed. There is nothing of this kind in
the Book of Mormon. Israelite customs,
religion, government, and life were a series
of monumental institutions, based on its
events, especially its supernatural events.
Nothing of the kind do we observe in the
Book of Mormon. The historical books,
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chroni-
cles, Ezra, Nehemiah recorded a history
that interlocks with surrounding geograohy
history customs and literature. Nothing of
this kind is there in the Book of Mormon.
Its literature, Ruth, Esther, Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song,
refer to surrounding nations, geography,
customs, literature, and quote the Israelite
history and the Book of Moses. There is

nothing of this in the Book of Mormon.
Israelite history was a wonderful element
in the world's history, prominent in it,
interlocking with it at every point. The
Biiok of Mormon is the exact reverse of
this.

Our Saviour and his apostles appeared in
a learned, sceptical, and critical age. They
lived and worked in the most open public
manner. Their work and writings were
quoted by eneraie:^, discussed, attacked by
enemies, until they can be reproduced
largely from them. The life and course of
millions were formed by them. They revo-
lutionized the world. As a message to the
world, they were delivered in the world.
Monumental institutions based on their
miracles have existed from their day. The
Old and New Testament contain many
wonderful prophecies. Great numbers of
eye witnesses of the miracles of the Bible
died for their testimony. Those wh©
claimed inspiration in the Bible wrought
miracles, prophesied, displayed divine
knowledge of what unaided reason could
not know. Not a particle of this can b»
claimed for the Book of Mormon. Though
full of miracles, of such a character, that
Bible miracles are child's play, and meagr©
in number, in comparison ; they are all put
back into the wilds of America, and have
no more connection with anything else im
the world's history, or career of humanity,
than Vernet's " Trip to the Moon" and its
description of the wonders and the inhabi-
tants of the Mo<»n.

The Book of Mormon has every feature of
a fraud. Mohammed, Uke all impostors,
avoids all contact with the actual life of
men, in his visions. He avoids all tests.
He tells us what he saw in vision, or wl\at
was revealed to him. No one else knows
anything about it. So does Impostor Joe.
Swift in his "Gulliver's Travels ;" Baron
Munchausen; Moore in his "Utopia," Wil-
kins in his " Flying Islanders ;" all avoid
mentioning a place, a person or an incident
of which anyone knows a particle. They
avoid contact with history, geography, lit-
erature, known surroundings. So does the
Book of Mormon. Spaulding dropped the
fiction that the aborigines of America were
Romans, as dangerous; because it brought
him too near to actual history. The absurd
tale that plates were hid by Divine direct-
ion, revealed by Divine revelation, to suck
a character as Joe Smith, in such surround-
ings, stamps it as a fraud. The clumsy ma-
chinery of plates, the clumsy contrivance
of stone interpreters, their needless use,
the needless contrivance of plates, whe»
each word was caused to appear before Jo«
by a miracle, stamp it as a clumsy fraud.
Why did God, not give it by inspiration, as
he did the Bible to its prophets ? Or reveal
it in vision ? What need of plates whem
Joe did not look on them at all ? According
to some he did not hitve them in the house
with him. What need of st<me interpreters
when a miracle gave the translation word
by word ?

It is evident that finding glyphs suggested

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

183

theidea of pretending' to find plates. That
Joe's lyiii*^ tricks, with his stolen peep stone,
suggested theideaof pretending to translate
the plates by means of the peep stone,
\vh ch was enlarged into Jared's interpre-
ters, iwo great diamonds, worth hundreds
of thousands of dollars, set in plates of
glass, before glass was dreamed of. and
and these set m spectacle bows, thousands
of years before such contrivances were
tholight of. Such is Granny Smith's yarn.

The atmosphere of fraud, mouey-hunting,
lying, and contradictions in which the
Book of Mormon began, stamps it as a traud.
The trickery of concealment behind a cur-
tain, the use of a peep stone, the lies about
plates, that never existed, Joes Ivmg reve-
lations to keep up the cheat — to keep tiis
dupes and confederates at work, theabsurd
lies of Joe, of his mother, of his father, of
the Whitmers, of Harris, show that it was
a fraud of the lowest and cllfmsiest charac-
ter. Spiritism resorts to cabinets, dark cir-
cles, concealment, tricks, and every device
of fraud. Impostor Joe resoi ted to machin-
ery, concealment, and every device of fraud.
Spiritism has its dark circle, its cabinet.
Joe had his blanket screen. Spiritism has
its tin horns to whisper through, it.«i wri-
ting in the dark. Its mediums toact tlirough.
Joe had his needless plates, his needless in-
terpreters, and his lies about the impossi-
sil)ihty of persons seeing plates orinterpre-
teis. just as spiritism has its lies about
spirits not being able to manifest them-
selves in the light. There are just the same
evidences of lying, fraud, concealment, self-
ishness, meanness, desire of gain, power
and gratification of lust, in JNloimouism
that there is in every fraud.

Was Joe Smith a prophet? OmJ >ie dis-
play superhuman power.' We defy our
opponent to give a single instance. Did he
display superhuman knowledge ? T defy
luy opponent to mention one proph'icy. one
idea that he gave to the worla, that it did
not have. Did he attest his work by mi-
racles? Not a single yne. Does propnecv
ioietellhim or his work? Not in a single
instance. Does he fulfill piophecyV Not
unless it be that which aec.ares that liars
and deceivers shall arit-e and deceive men.
Was his character such as (^od would choose
to inaugurate work, a No.-^h, an Abraham,
a Moses, a Samuel, an E'i^ h. an Isaiah, an
Ezra, a John the Baptist, a Paul, a Luther,
a Calvin, a Wesley, a Campbell? Did God
ehnose as his last and greatest agent to give
to the world the last and best dispensation
a lazy, loafing, lying, drunken, steahng,
swearing, money-hunting fraud, an igno-
ramus, a notorious liar, vender of absurd
petty ghost stories, an obscene blackguard,
a notorious libertine? Did Jehovah through
such a character give revelations about Joe's
house, his wife's work, his stores, farms,
and every contemptible little emergency as
the "Fullness of the Gospel?" Was Jehovah
the lackey of Joe Smith to keep him supplied
with scribes, a house, to transact his tjusi-
ness, to run stores, shops, land offices and
speculations, printing houses, taverns?

Who will dare to blaspheme the infinite
Jehovah by suggesting sucli blasphemy?

While Smith was living in Kirtlaiid, a
showman visited Kirtland wih boms •'Egyp-
tian mummies Tliere were papyrus rollB
and other articles with Egyptian characters
on them, that had been lound witli the
mummies As soon as he saw them Joe
was seized with a spell of revelation. He
declared that one of the mummies "was
Pharaoh's daughter. Joe had evidently
not learned that Pharaoh was no more a
proper name, than Czar is a proper name of
a Russian Emperor. He announced that
one of the papyri was written by Abraham
He once gave as proof of thiM, the statement
that papyrus had not been used since Abra-
ham's days. Joe translated one of the
papyri. The showman, who knew as much
about it as a goat, gave Joe a certificate that
he had translated it correctly. Joe gave
the showman a certificate iliat his mummies
Mere genuine, and the farce was completed,
when Showman Joe bought of the other
showman his mummies, and sent his mother
oit to exhibit them and lecture on them.
Joe published, under the title of the " Book
of Abraham," his pretended translation of
the papyrus. Unfortunately he published
with it f^ac-similes of certain cuts and paint-
ings that he had translated. An Egyptol-
ogist got hold of It and shows that Joe's
translation is a humbug and not correct in
a single particular. Joe's Book of Abraham
is a shameless fraud, and so is his Book of
Mormon.

Mormonism has b<^en caut.i'>nfllv and con-
stantly revising this work of inspiration.
The work was engraved on the plates by
the Divine command of the Lord. Its
engravers assure us that they were inspired,
full ot the Spirit, in this work of engrav-
ing. The Lord, by miracle, gave each
word of the translation to Impostor Joe.
Inspired Joe announced each word separ-
ately to Inspired Oliver, who wrote each
word down. Inspired Joe, Oliver and
Hyram read the proofs. If ever a work
should be perfect it should be this Book ol
Mormon But Mormons have been revis-
luo- it, in every edition, and will continue
such revision until Mormonism is dead.
On the ti^e page of the Palmyra edition we
have " Joseph Smith. Jr.. Author and Pro-
prietor," also "Printed for the author."
The revised edition reads, "Translated by
Joseph Smith, Jr." The copyright of the
Palmyra edition says Joseph Smith is
" Author and Proprietor," and he signs
himself " Author" to the preface. He is
call "author and proprietor" in the testi-
mony of eight witnesses. Thus in four
. instances, written by Smith himself, he is
called " Author" in flat contradiction to
the assertion that he is merely translator.
This blunder of Inspired Joe is correct^'!.
Moroni's epistle or introduction is, in viola-
tion to all printer's rules, put on the t-Me
pac^e. This was done by Divine comn:aud
against the protest of the printer. That
blunder of Inspired Joe has been corrected.
In Moroni's introduction we have nine

IM

THK ERAUEN AND KELLEY I EBATE.

■words altered, Second line, Palmyra f^di-
ttoa, "which;' revised edition, -who"
The Lord is learning grammar End of
paragraph Ist, Palmyra ed.. "Book of
Ether;" rev ed.. 'Gift of God." Second
paragraph, 1st line, Palmyra ed , 'which."
rev. ed., 2d line "who." Palmyra ed , -Jth
line, "how," rev ed., 5tli line, "what''
Palmyra ed., 7th line, ''be fault ," rev. ed.,
9th line, "are faults." Palmyra ed , 8th
line, "it be the mistake;" rev. ed.. 9th line,
''they are the mistakes.' In the testimony
of the three witnesses. Palmyra ed., tith
line, "his;'' rev. ed., 6th line, "their." Pal-
myra ed., 7th line, "which;" rev. ed., 7th
line, "who." In the testimony of the eight
"Witnesses, 2d and 8d hues, "Joseph Smith,
Authoi and Proprietor;" rev. ed., 3d line,
"Translator." In the Palmyra edition is a
ridiculous, blundering "Preface," by the
inspired '■' Author. ^^ The Mormon Deity
iiad not yet learned what had become of
the 116 pages lost. He inspired Joe to tell
how he circumvented a trick nobody ever
thought of by substituting a translation of
the plates of Jviephi for the translation of
the plates of Lehi, that had been stolen,
until he reached the point in the plates of
liChi where the stolen translation ceased,
and then finishing with the pUtes of Lehi
and telling a barefaced lie in publishing the
whole as a translation of the plates of Ne-
phi. Tlie Mormon Deity has learned that
Lucy Harris burnt 116 pages, and that he
had made a fool of himself in his lying
trickery, and that lying blunder is revised
out.

The revised edition has an index of eight
pages, a caption over the first book, para-
graphs are numbered, and at the top of
each page the chapter is printed. The
Mormon Deity is learning the printer's
trade as well as grammar. Chap. 1st, in
the heading, 17th line, Palmyra edition,
''They call the place;" rev. ed., "they
called the name of the place." First para-
grah, 10th line. Palmyra ed., " to be true ;"
rev. ed., " is true." Seventieth paragraph,
6th line. Palmyra ed., "is;" rev.ed.. "are."
Nineteenth line, Palmyraed., "afterthat I;"
rev. ed., "after I." Paragraph ten, oth line,
Palmyraed , ''is over all them;" rev. ed.,
"' are over all those." Eleventh paragraph,
2d line, Palmyra ed., ''saj'eth;" rev. ed.,
''said." Paragraph thirteenth^ Palm\TH
ed , "and he departed;" rev. ed., "and
departed." Palmyra ed., 7th line, " which

was:'' rev ed., "which are." Fourteenth
paragraph, 2d line, Palmyra ed; " beside a
river;" rev.ed., " by the side of a river.**
Palmyra ed., 4tli line, "he made ;" rev. ed.,
"made." Fifteenth paragraph, 9th line,
Palmyra ed., " because that he was ;" rev.
ed., " because he was." Palmyra ed.. lOth
line, "that he had led ;" rev. ed., "and had
led." Palmyra ed., 10th line, "and to per-
ish ;" rev. ed., ''to perish." Palmyraed.,
20th line, "sought;" rev. ed., "who
sought." Parairraph 16th, 5th line, Pal-
myraed., "did do;" rev.ed., "do." We
have now cited each change of a word, with
other changes, and many importantchanges,
and we have not finished the fourth page.
If the changes continue in the same ratio
throughout the book, thej' would amount
to over 5,000. Think of the Almighty rn-
vising himself in any such style — the Al-
mighty learning grammar and composition.
Some of the blunders thus corrected would
be outrages on the good sense of a savagt*.
Paragraph 40, Cfhap. III. of the Book of
Nephi, Palmyra ed.. reads that the Loid
will not suffer that the Gentiles shall dO'
stroy the ^iephites ; nor that the Gentiles
rema'n forever "in that state of awtui
woundedness which thou beholdest.-' In
the rev. ed. it reads " awful state of blind-
ness." The sense is changed as well as the
words, and the blunder could not be a
printer's mistake, but is one of Sydney's
spread-eagle blunders. Palmyra ed,, page
382, lias "the numerority of our forc«s ;"
387, "the enormity of our numbers;" 260,
"if ye do arrest the scriptures." These
atrocities that were given word by word to
Joe by the IMormou Deity the Mormon Deity
has corrected. The truth is that the ig.iora-
muses Rigdon and Smith perpetrated i hese
atrocities, and would not allow the printer
to correct them. In their intercourse with
men they learned better, and the assailants
of the book pointed them out, and Jot and
his successors have revised them out This
one fact that over 5,000 corrections have
been made in grammar, composition,
thought and teachiii? in tiie Book of Mor-
mon, explodes the idea tliat it was ^nttea
by inspired men and translated by mtpira-
tion. Couple with this the fact that after
all this revision the book still r'tnains a
monstrosity in its errors, and the claim of
inspiration in writing and translating is
transcendent blasphemy.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

185

IVLR. KELLEY'S EIGHTEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemfn Moderators, Ladies and
Oentlemrn : — T will first call your atten-
tion to one or two thinofs that have been
mentioned by the negative, and then pro-
ceed to finish my argument, and take up
afterwards and more fully examine the ob-
jections that have been made.

It seems to me that the difficulty with
my opponent is that he is not himself con-
versant with what is in the books. For in-
stance, he makes considerable sport of the
fact that glass should be referred to so far
back as the time when the Book of Mor-
mon places it. Why, I took up Dr. Smith's
Bible Dictionary to-day and opened at the
word glass, and he put it at the time of Jo-
seph in Egypt the first thing, and said that
doubtless it went back farther than that ;
but to that time tliey were positive having
discovered the means tliat were used as far
back as that for blowing glass. And yet,
Mr. Braden is making objections here. It
eeems to me that if he will be a little more
critical and inform liimself better on some
of these points, it will be more to the satis-
faction and edification of the aiMience.

Again, he estimates that a book written
closely, (after the manner of the English
language, of course), would comprise two
thousand pages of manuscript. He forgets
to tell you that the plates did not
pretend to be written in the English
language, and thatit was a phonetic system
of writing used. Now to contain all of Ihe
books, all of the words, that were ujion those
plates in the phonetic system that the He-
porter before me is using, or some other
phonetic system, it would not take two
thousand pages nor a)iy thing like two thou-
sand pages. Yet, that is the way he gets
his mule's load. But how about Spauld-
jng's 48 sheets, if it would take two tiiou-
sand pages ? I asked him to explain this
before by showing the inconsistency in the
iSpaulding claim, but he has never noticed
it. I have showed clearly from Howe's
own words that this 48-page manuscript
which came into Howe's hands, was the
"■Manuscript J^ound." It purported to have
been found. I did not misrepresent the
language of either Howe orHulburt. Bra-
den misrepresented me — that is all there is
to that. Another way he gets his mule's
load is this : He estimates a chunk of solid
gold to be so much. Well were the thin leaves
ot the plates solid gold? And would a book
of gold leaves weigh like solid gold ? In order
to oet his 2n0 pounds he stretches every-
thing. Then he starts oat with his mule's
load, (250 pounds) and wonders if there is
any man in the world that could have done
as Joseph Smith says he did. At the same
time he takes up the Bible and reads where
Samson carried off the gates of Gaza, where
he slew his thousands and tens of thou-
sands, where he leaned against the pillar,

and the whole edifice In which they were
came down ; and he swallows that down
easily, and that is certainly a thousand
times bigger thing than the 2o0 pounds
load. But he says, there has been so many
stories told about this: Well here is the
trouble with Mr. Brad4n. He hunts up
thfese stories that have been told about how
they got the plates, and how the plates
were translated ; goes to all the persons he
can find who will tell stories, (but who know
nothing) instead of opening the standard
works and accepting the statements of
those who do know something about it. I
could go around and hunt up stories enough
that have been told by one people or de-
nomination against others in this country
when there has been a conflict, to sink any-
body ; because when a person gets a little
miffed at somebody, it is quite natural to
begin to tell stories about him. I remember
meeting a gentleman a short time ago, as I
was going to Willoughby, (there was also,
in the company a Baptist and a Coiigrega-
tionalist Minister,) who was beraMng Alex-
ander Campbell, and telling all kinds of
stories about i.im ; and in order to prove
that Campbell was bad, he sai<l that when
he went back to Scotland to visit his own
home, they would not even allow him to
preach in their churches. I said to them,
"That is no evidence to me against Mr.
Campbell, for as good men as ever lived
have been traduced and prohibited from
preaching to old neighbors when there was
nothing against them." But Icnn find men
who will tell stories about ihis one and
about that one, and often persons who prefer
to believe them to the truth, and there are
right here persons who have told me since
last evening, that some of the parties to
whom he referred last evening as knowing
certain things against tlie Saints, they
would not believe on oath ; but is that any
reason that I shall drag their characters be-
fore this audience and begin to berate them
in that way ? That is not the manner to dis-
cuss questions properly. Neither is it prop-
er to even make attacks upon the charac-
ter of parties from stories ; because, as yoa
have been shown time and again, the facts
of history are such as to show that as soon
as you assnme that position you destroy
the foundation of the Bible which is the
agreed standard of truth in this contro-
versy. Now there were and are now, just as
many different stories told with regard to
the resurrection of Jesus, and the way that
the Discijiles moved along in their work as
ministers after his resurrection, as there is
about the plates and the ansrel that visited
Mr. Smith. There were many different
stories told about what Paul said when he
was converted, and we have two different
stories as to some things which occurred
then handed down in the Bible. And yet

186

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

he wants one straight forward story with
regard ro the plates" from which the Book
ot Mormon was translated, notwithstand-
insf the fact that the same evil power is in
the world to make stories to-day as in tlie
first century. I could take up the seventh
chapter of Kings and read to you a story
from that single chapter, which is in fact
biufuer than any in any two chapters in the
Book of Mormon. It states that Elisha died
and after lie was dasid he prophesied to the
king and got mad because the king d},d
not do to suit liim. There was more power
in his bones after he was dead than there
was when he was alive, because they let a
dead man down into his grave, and the
corpse touched the bones of Elisha, and the
man arose and stood upon his feet as soon
as the bones of Elislia touched him. It
makes Elisha out to have died twice. Makes
him talk after he did die to the king who
came tovisithim. Gives to his dead bones
more power than itdid to them while alive.
And yet we have "stories." That is no ar-
gument, no way to debate. The things
that I cite are in the standard — the
Bible. I am yet with that. If Mr.
Braden's style of telling stories and
asserting is the way that this question is to
be tried, I might as well go away from my
argument and the clear proofs that I have
brought, because all the answer he makes
to them is, why there is not a propliecy
that says anything about it, right in the
face of the fact that I have cited more than
40 prophecies that are directly in point, and
he has not shown that I have misapplied a
single one of them. Another thing: He
says that David Whitmer told different
stories. I deny that he ever did. I know
persons say that he did tell different
stories, hut tliey are the same kind of per-
sons who told different stories about Joseph
Smith, They believed that he was an im-
postor, and in order to put it down they
believed that anything that they could do
against him would be proper ; and they
were ready to lie or even steal, and willing
to hatch and itii stories to put the impostor
as they called him down, or to do anything
else to put him down, no difference how or
"what it was. I will now read you the
statement of David Whitmer made quite re-
cently, and you will see that the statement
that he once denied his testimony is entire-
ly false.

The statement that Oliver Cowdery de-
nied his testimony and he did not confirm
it upon his deathbed too, is wholly false.
The statement that Martin Harris had
denied his testimony at some time was
false. Martin Harris ever stood by his
testimony, and confirmed it the last act
and speech of his life. David Whitmer's
«tatement Heptemi)er .loth, 1882, to Wm. H.
Kelley, G. A. Blakeslee, of Gallen, Michi-
gan, and others is as follows :

" Elder Whitmer remarked that he did not feel much
"like talking as he ha<1 not been feeling well for -ome
*' time. He appeareil feeble. He is now upwards of
" seventy-six y ars of age, hnvini; been born January
"7th, 1805. He is of me ium height, and rather of a
" a sleuder build ; but this appearance may be on ac-

" connt of age and recent illness. He has darldsh
'brown eyes, and his hair is white and Ihin. Has a
" good head and honest face. He talks with ease and
" seemed at h<>me with every subject snggesied; and
" without an eflfnrt. seemingly went on to amplify upon
"it, so that we had nothing to do but question, sug-
" gest and listen. His intellect is far more vigorous
" and retentive tlian we expected to find. He is care-
"fulin his speech, for he sttidies to express himself i»
"such a way as not to be misrenresented. A reporter
"Ci.lledto see him s me time ago, asked a ftw qiies-
" ti ns and went off and published that he had denied
"his testimony concerning the truth of the Book of
" Mormo 1. This hurt him so that he is \ ery careful
" now to have some known friends present when stian-
" gers call to see him. This accounts f.ir the preseuce
" of others when we were there."

Speaking of Joseph Smith the Seer, he
said, and this is very nearly his wording:

" It makes no difference what others say 1 know
"Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and he trans-
■' lated the Book of Mormon by the inspiration of God
" from the plates of the Nephites."

Let me say in this connection that all
these assertions that there was a curtaim
between these parties, and that he was
secluded, are false in all their particulars,
and the statements that one told this thing
to a certain one, and that thing to a certain
one, are simply the lies that were conjured
up against these parties in New York by
those who wished to injure them. The
parties never told any such thing as
that themselves. And yet that is what we
have before this audience. He further
said : —

" Some people think if they can onlv make it appear
." that Joseph's life and character were notp'-rfect and
'" that he had human weaknesses, that it would prove
" that he was nut a prophet, yet the same persons wiH
"believe that Moses whi> killed the Egyptian, ai'd
" David who had Uriah killed, and who look a mtilti-
" tude of wives, and Solomon who was a polygamist
" and idohitor ; and Pett-r who lied and cursed, ect.,
" were all proj'hets, and shouhl be honored and re-
"opected. What the individual life of Joseph Smitk
"was after he translated the Book of Mormon, has
"nothing to do with the question as to whether he
" was, or was not inspired to bring that book forth."

"Do you know anything against his
character?"

" I know nothing against him. I have heard some-
" things, those 1 know othing about. I have iiotliing
" to say about the character of any one only as I know.
*'I; is not my mission to talk about the character of
"any My mission is to testify concerning the truth of
" the coming forth of the work of God."

" What kind of a man was he when yo»
knew him personally?"

" He was a religious and straiiforward man. He had
"to be; for he was illiterate and he could do nothing
"of himself. He had to trust in God. He could not
" translate unless he was humble and possessed the
" right feelings towards every one. To illustrate s»
"you can see. One morning when he was getting
"ready to continue the translation, somethiig went
" wrong about the house and he was put out about it.
" Something that Emma, his wife had done. Oliver
" and I went up stairs and Joseph came up soon after
" to conlinut' the translation, but he could not d«
"anything. He could not translate asinirle sylltble.
" He went down stairs, out into the orchard, and made
" supplication to the Lord ; was gone about an hour —
" came back to the house, asked Emma's forgivness
" and then came up stairs where we were and then the
" translation went on all right. He could do nothing
" save he was humble and faithful."

He could do nothing save he was humble
and faithful — as reputable a man as there
is in the United States to-day — David
Whitmer — as I shall show you by the state-
ment of more than twenty-five witnesses,
a Judge of the Courts of the State of Mis-
souri, and men living where he lives la
Richmond, Ray county, Mo.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

187

His statement concerninor the vision
they had of the plates and the angel was as
follows :

" I was plowing in tbe field onenjorning, and Joesph
" and Oliver came along with a revelation, stating that
" 1 was to be one of the witnesses to tlie Bo^k of Mor-
*■ mon. Igotoverthe fence and we went out i ti^ tlie
"woods, near by and <;at down on a log and talked
"awhile. We then knelt down and prayed Jo-t-ph
" prayed. We then got up and sai on the log and were
"t Iking, when all at once a light came down from
" above ns and emircled ns for qnite a litile distance
" around; and the an^el stood before ns "

This was in the day time. No jugglery,
no slight of hand about this. Martin Har-
ris was not present at this time, and he was
not present when the other two saw what
they declare here. Now he describes the
angel.

" He was dressed in white, and spoke and called me
"by name, and said: ' Blessed is he that keepeth his
" commandments.' This i> all that I heard tlie anutd
'■ say. A table was set befor- ns, and on it the rcc rds
*' were placed. The records of the Nephites from
'■ which the Book of Mormon was translated, the brass
" ^ilates, the ball of directors, the sword of Laban. and
'■ other Plates. While we were viewing them, the
" voice of God spoke out of heaven saying the book
'■ was true and the translation correct."

I now uffer you the irrefutable testimony
©f David Whityier as published in the
Chicago Times in the year 1881, which will
fully refute the false and slanderous stories
which so many have sought to circulate
againat him, and which my opponent deals
so largely in. Also what the first men of
the county in which he lives say about him.
It is headed " A Proclamation,^^ and reads
as follows :

" Unto all Nations. Kindred, Tongues and People unto
whom I hese presents shall come:

It having been repn^sented by one John Murphy, of
Polo, Cadwell county, Missouri, that I in a conversation
■with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of
the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

To the end, therefore, that he may understand me
now, if he did not then , and that the world m.iy know
tbe truth, I wish now, standing as it were in the very
sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all, to
make this public statement:

That 1 have never at any time denied that testimony
or any part thereof, which has so long since been pub-
lished with that book, as one of the three witne.sses.
Those who know me best, well know that I have
always adhered to that testimony And that no man
May be misled or doubt my present views in regard t')
the same, I do again affirm the truth of all my state-
ments as then made and published.

" lie thathaih an ear to hear let him hear; It was no
delusion! What is written is written, and he that
readeth let him understand.

And that no one may be decieved or misled by this
statement, I wish here to state that I do not endor.se
polygamy or spiritual wifeism. It is a great evil, shock-
ing tc the moral sense, and the more so because prac-
ticed in I he name of religion. It is of man and not of
God, and is especially forbidden in the Book of Mor-
mon itself?.

And if any man doubt, should he not carefully and
honestly read and undersiand the same, before pre-
snming to sit in judgment and condemning the ight
which shineth in darkness, and showeth the way of
eternal life as pointed out by the unerring hand of God.

In the Spirit of Christ who hath said : "Follow ihou
Me, fori am the life, the light, and the way." I sub-
mit this statement to ihe world. God in whom I trust
being my judge, as to the sincerity of my motives and
the faith" and hope that is in me of eternal life.

My sincere desire is that the world may be heneflti.d
liy this plain and simple statement of the truth.

And all the honor be to the Father, the bon, and the
Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

David Whitmek, Sb
Richmond, Mo., March 19th, 1881.

TESTIMONIAL OF CITIZENS.

We, the undersigned citiiens of Richmond, Ray
couBty, Missouri, where David Whitmer, Sr., has re-

sided since the year 18:i8. certifv that we have been
Ions; and intimately acquainted with him and kiM>w
hill to I.e a man of the Inchest intOKritv, and of un-
doubted truth and veraciiy :

A W. Doniphan.

G. \V Dunn. Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit.

T. D. Woodson, President of Rav Co. SnviuKg
Kanl; • *

J. T. Chiid. Kdi'orof Conservator.

H C. Garner. Cashier of Kay Co. Savings Bunk.

W. A. Holuian. County Treasurer.

J. ^. Hntrhes. liankfr. Ri''k-monil.

James ITughes, Hanker. Kie. n>'ind.

D. P. WliitniiM-. Atlorney at I nw.

Jas. VV. Klack. Attorney at Law.

L. C. Caniwell, Postmaster, Richiftond.

George I. VVasson, Mayor.

Jas .\. Davis, Connly t'oUector.

C. J. Hughes. Probate Ju ige and Presiding Jm-
tit'e of Ray Co iity Conn.

Geoi <re \Y. Trigg County Clerk.

W W Mosbv, M I).

Thomas Me<{jniiis, ex-Sheriff, Ray County.

J }'. Quesen ery. Merchant

W. R Molman, Furniture Merchant.

Louis Slaughter, Recorder of Deeds.

Geo. W. Buehanan, M. D.

A. K. Revburn.
Given at Richmond, Mo., this March 19th, 1881."

Also the following terse statement from
the Conservator a newspaper pulilislied in
the State of Missouri, and opposed to the
religion of Mr. Whitmer:

AN EXPLANATION.

"Elsewhere we publish a leiter from David Whit-
' mer. Sr.. and old and well known citizen of Kay. ai
' well as a i indorsement of his standing as a man
• signed by a number of leading citlz''n.s of this con-
'munity, in reply to some unwarranted aspersions
' made upon him.

" There is no doubt that Mr. Whitmer, who was one
' of the three witnesses to the authenticity of the gold
' plates from whieh he asserts that Joe Smith tians-
' lated the Book of Mormon (a fac-simile of tlie charac-
'tershehas now in his possession witli th original
' reeord.s), is firmly convined of its divine origin, and
'while he makes" no efforts to obtrude his views or
' beliefs, he simply wants the world to know that so
' far as he is concerned there is no variableness or
'shadow of turning. Havins reside I here for nearly
' a half a century it is with no litll- pride that he
' poinis to his past record with the consciousni'ss that

■ he has done nothing derogatory to his character as a
' citizen and a believer of the son of Miry, to warrant
' such an attack upon him. come from what source it
' may and now.with the lillies of s-venty-five winters

■ crownini' him like an aureole and hi^ pilgrimage on
' earth well nii;h ended he reiterates his former siate-
' ments. and will leave futurity to solve the problem
' that he was but a passins' witness of its fulfillment.
' Hi.snttacks on the vileness tha' has spriiiu' up with
'the Utah Church must Lave a salutary effect upon

•' those bigamists who have made Hdultery the corner
" stone in the edifice of their belief."— Conservator,
March '24,1881.

Let me call your attention now to another
thing that has been stated with regard to
the manuscript of this book, as it was when
carried to the printer, and it was Major
Gilbert's statement, so Mr. Braden said.
I showed you what Major Gilbert's state-
ment was as it was published two years ago.
Yesterdtiy I telegraphed to David Whit-
mer, who has in his pos.session the original
manuscript from which the Book of Mor-
mon was printed, and asked him to exami me
that manuscript and telegraph to m»
whether in it the proper names and the
sentencos began with capital letters, and
whether there was any punctuation marks ;
and this is his ans vver :

Richmond, Mo., Fkbritary 20.

" E. L Kelley. Kirtland Ohio: — There are <'HP't^
" letters begi.Miing proper names and sentences and an
" neceasary punctuation marks in the oriL'inal nianu-
" script. (Signed) David Whitm«k.

188

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

And yet, we have been told here that there
was no such thing, and a witness cited to
prove t at, Itmakesnodifference how many
stories have been told about this, by one
person ami another, when a man goes and
looks at the original manuscript, that was
in the printer's hands he can certainly tell
how it was, unless the telegram gets crooked
on the way.

T had just closed with Paul's declaration
of the fullness of times that is to be ushered
in, recorded in Ephesians 1 : 10, or the dis-
pensation that should be crowned with the
coming and glory of Jesus Christ and the
resurrections of the Saints ; and was show-
ing by the prophets the time of this handing
out of Ood's word and will, or dispensation,
wheu my time expired. This argument I
will now conclude.

The stick of Joseph was to be brought to
light in a day of storms and tempests, and
floods and tires, and wickedness all over the
land; and of earthquakes and famines and
disease; of distress and perph xity ; of
pride and vanity, of wickedness and de-
fiance of God ; of denying the principle and
the power of true religion. A day when
the sea and the waves would roar and sweep
beyond their bounds, and men's hearts
would fail them for fear, looking after those
things coming on the earth.

Bad men may scofFand slander and devils
may oppose, but the decree of God is, itshall
go forth, and "none shall hinder it,"

Lebanon has already begun her increase,
and the work described must be in progress
some place, unless the entire prophecies
have failed.

This evening I will introduce the evidence
I referred to upon a previous occasion upon
the fact of the return of "the earbi and
lattp,ry rains to the country of Lebanon,
showing that within the last few years the
event spoken of in the prophecies rnust have
taken place. The "ensign," -'thestandard,"
"the stick of Joseph," "the everlasting
gospel," the book which would contain
this Gospel has been published with the
message, "Fear God and give glory to him,
for the hour of his judgment has come,"
This is the message of the Book of Mormon.
Is it a bad thing? The following is the
statements of good authorities upon the
condition of Palestine :

"It (Palestine) has the same bright sun and un-
clouded sky, as well as the early and InUer rain,
' which, however, is diminished in quantity owing to
"the destruction of the trees."— Chambers Encyclo-
pedia, vol. 7. pMge 11, Palestine.

^ " I arrived in Indiana a few days since, from the
' Eastern continent. 1 stoppeil at J'oppa for nearly the
'whole winter. For my part I was well pleased with
' the country. It is certainly a land of most wonderful
"fiuitfiiliuss, with a delightsome climate, producing
"everything, if properly cultivated, and from two to
"three crops a year. They have grain, fruits and
' vegetables a 1 the year rou'd ; in fact I never was in
"such a connt'y before. I have seen much good
"^•ountry in Kurope and America, hutnone to compare
"with Palfstii.e: its fruitfulness is unc 'mmon, and
"the eliciatc is the most delightsome; even in the
winier I did not see the least sign of frost, and vege-
" tables of every sort were growing in profusion in
|'_ gardens. 1 1 is Kfact thai the rain atid dew are restored;
' rece tly in 1853, the former and the latter rains were
' restored to the astonishment of then lives. The Jews
" have been returning to the Holy Land for some time

" and are increasing, going to their beloved Canaan
" from many paits of Europe. Asia and Africa They
" are making preparations to rebuild cities and (buil^
" railroads. The fruit in Palestine is better than
"in Europe and America They have camels, mules,
" horses, asses, cattle, sheep a^ d goats; but I saw no
" hogs. The natives are generallv friendly." — Louifi
Van Buren, Sen., Nav. 14th, A. D. 1867.

These are ample to satisfy the most
skeplical upon this point.

Now I will take up the supposed objec-
tions that he has cited and examine them,
and should I omit a single one that yo«
wish still further examined and considered,
any person in the audience will do me a
favor by calling attention to the fact, and I
shall yet notice it. I have already shown
the weaknefs of the criticism upon the
word "thereof," that he has tried to make
against the book. Wherever it is used it is
plain to be understood, and the worst
criticism that can be made against it, is
that the brother of Jared in his description
of the vessels and narration of what he did,
does not seem to have conformed to Mr!
Braden's ideas of "excellency of speech."
Evidently the brother of Jared was a trufe
mechanic as he is represented in the book.
It don't make any difference to BradeH
what habits of talking or writing the
brother of Jared had, whether he used a
superfluous, modifying or other word ; whea
it is translated into English tlie correction
must be made in the original. Now, sir,
I will show tlie absurdity of this profound
criticism up(m the translation of the Book
of Mormon. I will ask you this question:
Had the translator a right to leave out a
word, put in a word, or change anything i^
the original, that it might appear with
"excellency of speech" in Englisli? Again,
had it been done, could not the translation
have been questioned with more propriety
and upon stronger grounds, than in its
present shape? And would not you your-
self have criticised it for that very reason ;
claiming that the translator, 8mith, in order
to put it in the best English left out some
superfluous modifier, word, phrase or sen-
tence in the original, and you did not know
whether such modifier, if left to remain,
would have changed vhe sense or not. Will
you answer these questions? But Bradea
says, that the errors in translating from the
Greek, Hebrew, etc, do not appear in the
English when translated. If the error con-
sists in omissions, superfluous words or
phrases, why do they not? Will he answer
this? Is it not because the translator int©
English left the same out or added a word
to make the reading smooth in English thus
Anglicizing it? Herein lies the difficulty
of Bible translators, and we have different
translations. There is not, neither, always
a corresponding word in the original to the
English word and vice versa. The Book of
Mormon claims to be a correct translation of
what was written upon the plates ; not a
translation of the writings of the plates
corrected. And hence for Mr. Braden to
object to the use of the word "thereof," ia
the book, he must, to be able to make a
point against the translation, show that the
error was not in the original and that the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

185)

word "thereof," as translated is not the
English word corresponding to such original
word. By a careful reading of the Book of
Mormon we readily see that this is the
correct position. Where there is given a
description or narration of a matter by the
writer in his own language, we are met with
common expressions upon which so much
silly criticism has been made. But where
we have the translation from other records
as the prophecy of Isaiah which the people
brought with them to this continent, " the
-words of Jesus," etc., as given in his own
language, the errors do not appear, unless
per ciian<'e there was an error also in the
writing down of the original. The trans-
lation in the Book of Mormon of Isaiah's
words, was not from the Bible original
remember, but from an original made about
the same time the Bible original was made ;
whether a copy, duplicate, or how taken,
weare not told, nordoes itmatter; certainly
they are sufficiently distinct in translation
tcrshow clearly to a critic that one was not
copied from the other. Take the 48th
chapter of Isaiah which has been referred
to; if copied either by Smith or Eigdon,
they being the poor scholars that Braden
claims that they were, they would have
most certainly copied the words thrown in
by the translators of King James' version.
But upon a comparison there is found to be
a"difference of nearly fifty words in this
single chapter, and in the verse he cited
you to prove the copying, there is a differ-
ence of eight words. Yet the language in
the Book of Mormon that he claims was
copied or changed by these unlearned, illit-
erate persons is strictly proper and correct
English.

I will read a single specimen and com-
pare the two :

1. From the Bible. "I have not spoken
in secret from the beginning ; from the
time that it was, there am I."

2. The Book of Mormon. "I have not
spoken in secret ifrom the beginning ; from
the time that it was declared have I
spoken."

Here, the idea sought to be expressed, is
brought out full and clear ; and it is evi-
dent that something had been changed or
expunged in the Bible original, or that the
translation of the sentence was an improper
one.

The translation by Robert Lowth, D. D.,
Bishop of London reads :

" From the beginning I have not spoken
in secret : Before the time when it began
to exist I had decreed it."

The Bishop of London agrees with the
translation in idea and sentiment as in the
Book of Mormon. And yet he claims that
these " ignoramuses," put it in the Book of
Mormon, and makes his objection upon
that. Isaiah then was not cooled into the
Book of Mormon from King James' trans-
lation of the Bible. Try again Mr. Braden.

Why does he object then to the rendermg
of the remainder of the sentence the same
as it is in King James' translation, since
ttiose who translated it believed they did

so correctly, and they were doubtless as
good, if not better Hebrew scholars than we
have now, and especially, since the senti-
ment is correct, and he knows nothing to
the contrary than that it accords strictly
with the oriuinal from which it was taken.

Then he still insists tliat I shall i)oint out
where Peter, or Mark differed in their
style in the original, and did not at all
times write and speak correct Hebrew.
Let him put in my possession some Hebrew
written by Peter, or Mark, or Luke, and
then it will be time enough to make his
wi<e test.

The idea that is thrown out to this
audience that any book of the Bible can be
traced away back to the writer is one that
cannot be maintained, and he knows that
very well. The best that we have is the
copies that have been handed down, none
of which extend back to within a hundred
and fifty years of the writers. And when
I quoted from the same persons, through
whom they came, on the doctrine of "Lay-
ing on of hands"at Wilber, Neb., the same
parties in jjart who must have copied the
manuscripts, he denounced the men, and
would not believe their statements in his-
tory.

The gospels were transcribed by learned
men and put into the Greek, and Latin, and
in some things changed in the original, in
doing so. as I believe and can prove, and
will in trie proper place. Notwithstanding
this, scholars can still detect a diflferencein
the writers in the use of language, etc.

Adam Clark in the manuscripts lie was
able to examine could detect the difference
in style and language, and they were the
copies which passed for original; and Paul,
though a learned man says. " When I came
unto you it was not with excelleno.y of
speech, or enticing words of man's wis-
dom ;" and this is enough to show me that
the languaj'-e, or speech, of Joseph Smith
will not condemn him, nor stand as a criti-
cism against the Book of Mormon.

Paul talked under the power and inspira-
tion of the Holy Uhost to those very people,
and yet he says it was not with " excel-
lency of speech," in fine style after man's
wisdom. Oh no, but brother Braden wants
excellency of speech in the Book of Mormon.
"Not with enticing words of man's wis-
dom," Paul says. But we must r'»ject the
Book of Mormon if not in that style of lan-
guage, according to Braden.

Again it is claimed that the errors, angli-
cisms or idioms peculiar to King James'
translation of the Bible are copied in the
Book of Mormon. This I deny, and will
prove to vou it is not true.

it is claimed by the Book of Mormon that
they had the writings of Moses, Isaiah, etc.,
on "the brass plates which were brought
from Jerusalem. If so, in translating into
English, the same English word might be
used if correct in the translation of the
same as used in the Bibl -, providing the
two originals were .ilike. In translating
the Bible +' re liad to be words supplied in
order to make smooth Eugiish, which were

190

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

not in the original language from which the
translation was made. Any of you taking
your Bibles wi'l soon see what they are, for
they are the italicised words. These itali-
ci-sed words were supplied by the transla-
tors into the English, and were not found
ill the original. Now in the translation of
Isaiah, or the words spoken by Jesus upon
this continent, these words, supplied by our
Bible translators, are not used by the trans-
lator of tne Book of Mormon in such a man-
ner as to indicate copying in the least. I
have diligently compared chapter after
chapter in the Bible and Book of Mormon,
and found that such words are very seldom
the same in both, and when so, it is in such
eases as different scholars translating from
the same language, although not known to
each other, would necessarily use the same.
Besides, evidently the originals slightly
differed. In the comparison the proportion
of use of such supplied words was forty-
eight dissimilar to eleven similar, and nearly
every one of the eleven were the pronouns
in the first person, or the present tense of
the verb to be — words which would have
been selected the same, by independent
translators, whether they lived as far apart
as the continents. The test proves beyond
a doubt to the honest examiner that there
was no copying unless done by a person
thoroughly conversant with both languages,
and then it was not a copying of the trans-
lation. The scholar who will take and dili-
gently compare the words of Isaiah as
translated in the Book of Mormon, with the
same book in the Bible, must come to the
conclusion that there was no copying and
changing unless it was done by a person
who was versed in both languages, and he
has claimed that neither Smith nor Rigdon
were scholars. He must again fall back
upon his pious Presbyterian preacher to
copy and change the prophecies of Isaiah.
The translations show they wexe independ-
ent. And remember, the common expres-
sions of "more history part," etc., do not
occur in the translations of the words of
Moses, Isaiah, or Jesus, but of the language
Moroni used when he was copying the ac-
count of the history of the Nephites. Yet,
notwithstanding the difference in the word-
ing of the translation in the Book of Mor-
mon and the Bible, the teaching does not
differ. What scholar put it in this elegant
language? My friends, compare the two for
yourselvts and you will find thatl am right.
Then the idea that there are quotations in
there from Hebrews and other parts of the
New Testament before they were given is
not correct. It might be expected that if
the same Holy Spirit worked wilh men and
spoke through them on this continent, as
wrought upon men on theKastirn, it would
in all instances leach like things, and in
many give the exact words ; and so he may
find in scrapping and dividing verses and
sentences that there are in a few instances
those in the Book of Mormon as in the
Bible, or a line in Sliakespeare or Cowper;
but that proves nothing. In tlie New Tes-
tament we often find words and expres-

sions that were before used by the philoso-
phers and teachers of other nations, and
our infidel friends claim them to have been
borrowed. But does he believe it? Did
Jesus take the sentiment, and in great part
the wording of the golden rule from the
great Chinese philosopher who lived and
wrote 600 years before? I think not. God
may reveal a like thing or sentiment to
two different persons in the world, and
does often, as in the instances of Cornelius
and Peter, and Paul and Ananias, and this
is a proof and a sure test of a correct claim to
inspiration, instead of being against ife
But, he says, actually they had the English
word Bible before it was in existence. But
how? Had he done his duty instating how,
I should not have had to refer to it again.
The prophet foresees what would be the
mind of the people toward the Book of
MormoUj and makes the prediction that
when it is brought to light in the last days
that its enemies would call it a "Bible; "
see Book of Mormon page 105. Not its
friends, but its enemies — and how could
he have seen otherwise, were he a true
prophet? Could it have been a truth had
he said they would call it an almanac, or a
dictionary ? Is not the prophecy a true one ?
How did Smith know when he was the
means under Cod of translating the plates,
and when the work was to be sent forth
under the name and title of the " Book of
Mormon," that the people would change
the title and call it a Bible?

What becomes then of his assertions that
Isaiah 2, 14, 21, 48, 50, 52, 54, and Malachi 3
were copied in the Book of Mormon ? The
statement is enti'ely without foundation,
and contrary to the facts, and untrue; and
he had the means in his hands of proving it
untrue if he had only compared them with
a view of ascertaining the truth of it, in-
stead of trying to find an objection.

But, he says, Matthew 5, 6 and 7 are
copied. Why ? Because the Book in giv-
ing Jesus' instruction on this continent
gave it the same as it was given upon the
other, and it appears the same, with a few
slight changes in the wording. But would
he have Jesus talk differently on this con-
tinent from what he did on the other? Ho
mentions I Cor. 13 as another ; but this
does not appear in the Book of Mormon,
nor does any quotation from the New Testa-
ment Scriptures appear there ; nor is there
a quotation in the Book of Mormon from
any part of the Bible. There are quota-
tions tiy tliese writers from their own writ-
ings, which, in some instances, were the
same as those in the Bible. And these
they had as good a right to use as did Peter
or Paul, when they quoted from them.
The question is, while in using these like
words was the sentiment preserved, and is
it in all things in harmony with the teach-
ings in the Bible.

Here is where the fallacy of his pretend-
ed argument lies, upon these quotations.
He jumps at the conclusion that God never
spoke to any person except to the Jews on the
otlier continent, and from that wrong couclu*

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

191

sion he makes the argument that there has
been copyin,":. Kenieniher the conclusion
itself is in dispute, aiid under controversy
here, and lie has only wasted his time in
tiint supposable, lojrical argument.

When he shall have proven that God
never spoke to anybody but the people
called Jews, on the other continent, no one
will ask him to take up his valuable time
comparing- to see if there has been copying
or quotations made. Such a course of mak-
ing assertions without a particle of evi-
dence, as he has done, may be argument to
Messrs. TTnl' ird and Howe, or to some one
who does not know, nor does not want to

know how to reason ; but it will hardly do
for this audience. It is to be presunu-d
that if there was inspiration on this conti-
nent, the same (Jod speaking here as upon
the other, and by the same Spirit, there
would be like wordings and sentirtients in
the communications; and it would have
been a proof that tl'e Book of Mormon whs
not inspired had it claimed to have had liie
same lloly Spirit through wliicli ilss inspi-
ration was committed as the Bible, anf'
there had been found therein nn rt-scmb
lance in language, sentiment and prhrasec
logy .
(Time expired.)

MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlkmkn: — Kelley gives the statement of
Joseph irr, of what Emma Smith said. We
have Whitmer's statement. We have Mrs.
Salisbury nee Smith's statement, in reirard to
Rigdon's presence at Smith's in New York.
Would it not be well to introduce some one
not interested in the fraud? Give us some-
body besides Smith's and Whitmer's, for if
what these two gangs tell of each other be
true, as weshall show by reading their state-
ments, the testimony of all the Smith's and
Whitmer's would not establish a claim to
a ''yailer dog." Tneir testimony that they
did not see Rigdoii, will not set to one side
the statements of Chase and Sanders that
they did. Mrs. Salisbury, to show that she
had means of knowing whether Rigdon
visited Smith or not, says that Smith was
at his father's all the time he was translat-
ing, and did the translating there. That is
a lie, if her mother, Joe himself, P. P.
Pratt, and Whitmer tell the truth. Lucy
Smith says he went to Pennsylvania in the
fall of 1827 and before he began his transla-
tion, so say Pratt and Whitmer ; l.ucy Smith
and Whitmer says that he went back to
New York after wheatsowing in 1828. or one
year afterwards. Whitmer says he brought
Smith to Whitmer's father's. Mrs. Smith
says to Waterloo, and that Whitmer lived
iii Waterloo. She says that Joe finished
the translation in Waterloo and showed the
plares to the witnesses there. Joe did not
translate a word at his father's. He did not
live there while translating, but miles away,
part of the time over one hundred miles
away. If Mrs. Salisbury lied, as we have
proved in saying Joe was where he was not,
she would lie in saying Itigdou was not
where he was.

Impostor Joe gave Martin Harris a scrawl
that he said was a fac simile of some of the

writing on the plates. Harris carried it to
Prof. Anthon of New York City. Prof.
Anthon describes it: "It was indeed a sin-
gular scrawl, it consisted of all kinds of
crooked characters, disposed in coFunms,
and had evidently been prepared by some
person who had before him at the time, a
book containing various alphabets. (}reek
and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes,
Roman letters inverted or placed sideways,
were arranged in perpendicular columns,
and the whole ended in a rude delineation
of a circle divided in various compHrtnients,
decked with various strange marks, evi-
dently copied after the Mexican calendar
given by Hnmt)oldt."

There used to be in the archives of the
church in Kirtland and Nauvoo, a scrawl,
that is now in Utah, pretending to he a /ao
simile of a cou|)le of lines or coluinus of the
writing on the plates. There are tis char-
acters. Any one can see by examining
them, that ti4 of them are merely our alpha-
bet, our numerals and marks of punctua-
tion varied a little, or placed in unusual
positions. If Joe lied in these scrawls, if
his/ar; simitenwere frauds, he lied in regard
to the plates and the Book of Mormon. 'J"he
whole thinar is a fraud.

In 1830 Smith and Rgdou began a trans-
lation and correction of the Scriptures. It
was finished in 1883. Mormons say it was
done by direct revelation of(iod. It was
done by inspiration. Every word in ii Is
thewoid of (^od, as much as what lieen-
graved on stone for Mioses. It changes
King James' vers-ion in thousand of places.
It adds i)hrases, sentences ami whole para-
graphs to Kiiiii James' version. Whe>eit
adds to king James' veision, Moruiona
claim that version was faulty in the origi-
nal text. Where it changes the translation
that version is a mistranslation. By com-

192

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

paring the quotations from the Bible in the
Book of Mormon, with the inspired trans-
lation, and King James' translation it will
be seen that the Lord in revealing tlie Book
of Mormon, in scores of places, copied King
James'version, and did not correct the errors,
as he did afterwards in the Inspired Trans-
lation. The TiOrd inspired Joe to translate
the Book of Mormon. In it the Nephites
and Jaredites, quote from King James' ver-
sion, Avhich is erroneous, if the inspired
translation be true. In his speech to tne
Nephites, our Savior quotes over thirty such
errors of King James' translation, if the In-
spired Translation be correct. Yet my op-
ponent has the audacuty to declare that the
Book of Mormon does not quote the errors
of King James' translation. Will he ex-
plain this? The Inspired Translation
changes names and languagein some places,
and leaves them unchanged in others.

In his speeches last night, my opponent
told you that Jared's barges, as long as a
tree, and sharply pointed at each end, were
go large that the eight excelled the capacity
the ark. If sharply pointed, and seventy
or eighty feet long, they could not have
been more than ten or twelve feet wide, and
high in the center. It would take over
2,000 such barges to equal the ark. The
preposterous idea that these idiotically con-
Btructed barges, were constructed like our
tscientific life-boats, is too ridiculous for re-
futation. Will my opponent tell us how
many families, animals of all kinds, fishes,
birds, together with food for all for 344 days,
can be put into eight life-boats, not more
than seventy feet long, and sharply pointed
at both ends ? How did his eight barges
keep together for 344 days ? He took 'dhe
dodge I expected him to take? He claims
that Jared took only domestic animals and
fowls with him.

Why should he take the horse, asR, shefip,
hog, and cows, and oxen, and animals for
the use of man, when the country was full
of them already ? Had the Mormon Deity,
when he got over into Asia, in h/s troubles
over Jared's barges, and his corrections of
his mistakes in regard to ventilation and
light, forgotten thatthere were horses, cows,
slieep, asses, hogs, and all animals for
man's use in America, and that by miracle
he had changed a portion of 'uhe cattle into
oxen for Jared's use. If he had not forgot-
ten this, "V'hy burden poor Jared, with pro-
"vidinff fof.d for them, feeding them, and the
inconven) nice of the effluvia in his barges,
all needhtssly, for the laud was full of them
before hu got there.

My opponent says the Book of Mormon
does speak of rivers, lands and seas. Does
it give the name of a river, sea, mountain,
or city that is found in ancient geography
or describe them so they can be identified?

The Bible says, as a fact, that the speech
of all was confounded at Babel. The Book
of Mormon says that the speech of part was
not confounded. A flat contradiction. My
opponent says that the statements and
affidavits iu Howe are mere quotations.
On the contrary, the affidavits and state-

ments of Palmyra and Manchester witnesses
are in the first person and signed in due
form, and not a quotation mark. The Con-
neaut statements are in full, in the first
person, and signed by the parties. The
l^rinter by mistake has put quotation marks
to the statements of John Spaulding, Martha
Spauldiiig and Artemus Cunningham. The
statements of the other four have none. All
the statements are in the first person and
signed separately and by the person making
the statement. What does my opponent
hope to ac^complish by such reckless mis-
statements? My opponent gave us what
Joseph the Third says, his mother said.
Can not Mrs. Irvin itell what her father
said? Rev. Bonsall tell what his stepfather
said, as well as Joseph the Third tell what
his mother and stepfather said? Or Kelley
tell what Gilbert orHoweor Mrs.McKinslrj
said ?

A man may be illiterate and a talker.
Tecumseh did not know a letter, yet he was
not only a talker far better than Rigdon,
but he was a reasoner which Rigdon never
was. Rigdon 's letter to the Boston Journal
showed, in misspelled words, grammatical
blunders, lack of capitals and punctuation,
that he was i lliterate. That Rigdon preached
the peculiarities ofMormonism for two or
more years before he joined them is notori-
ous. Darwin Atwater mentions it. So
does Campbell, Bentlej', Zeb Rudolph, John
Rudolph, and A. B. Green and Dille. fle
advocated community of goods, and espe-
cially the idea that a restoration of the
apostolic church must include spiritual gifts,
miracles and revelations, the pet hobby of
Mormonism. My opponent himself has
stated that Rigdon had a contest with
Campbell over these peculiar doctrines of
the Book of Mormon before he joined th©
Mormons, nearly eighteen months before
that time if my opponent be correct in the
time. These facts are as notorious as that
Rigdon was a Baptist preacher, before he
joined the Disciples. My opponent under-
takes toexcuse the tomfoolery of the assemb-
ling of the Jaredites, and afterwards of
Nephites from all over North America, for
a Kilkenny Cat fight, so as to leave plates
in the right place for Imposter Joe, by
reading about military works found in
North America. Does that prove that the
people who built them ever did such an
idiotic thing as Nephites and Jaredites
are said to have done.

The prophesies that my opponent quoted,
have no more reference to Nephites in
America than to New Zealanders. His fan-
ciful farfetched supposed references, would
apply as well to the man in the moon.

We will now review his archaeological
argument.

We remind the reader that the Book of
Mormon consists of two parts.

I. An assumption of certain general ideas
common to all lands and people. That the
continent has been peopled in former ages
by civilized peoples. That there have been
two civilizations, only two, for theNephites
and Zarahemlites are substantially one.

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

193

The general ideas of cities, governments,
wars, and what all civilized people have
are assumed.

2. The part peculiar to the Book , that
one Jared led people into America just after
the confusion of tongues. Their history,
cities, wars, chiefs, governments, customs,
etc. My opponent has not offered a scrap
of evidence that this, that is particular to
the Book of Mormon is true, in a single
particular. Tliat Lehi and sons of Zede-
kiah led two peoples out here that united.
That the Lehites divide into two races.
Tiie wars and career of each. He has not
brought forward one scintilla of evidence
for this. Not a ruin, city, person or inci-
dent has one particle of proof. What he
appeals to is common to all men. What
needs proof he has not touciied. What th«
Book of Mormon says in general assump-
tions can be applied to ruin* in Ceylon,
India or Ireland, or any land wher« ther«
are prehistoric ruins.

The language of the Book of Mormon will
describe any prehistoric ruins, as well as
those in America.

We showed by an appeal to Priest and
flcores of witnesses who lived long before
the Book of Mormon, that it was known
i that there were ruins of prehistoric races to
be found all over North America. That a
civilized people inhabited the laud before
the Indians. This assumption that civil-
ized people inhabited tli« continent before
the Indians, was an old idea, before the
Book appeared. W© showed that Cortez
found a civilized people in Mexico, and that
the Aztec Empire extended from the Isth-
mus of Darien to what now is the South-
western portion of the United States. They
had great cities, temples, and public build-
ings. We have proved that the Mexicans
declared that their country had been inhab-
ited by AKtecs, who were in possession when
Cortez conquered it, by the Chicemas, who
preceded the Aztecs, and by theToltecs, who
preceded th© Chicemas, and that the Tol-
tecs describe* prehistoric civilization before
their occupation of the land. That Pizarro
found a civilized people in Peru, and that
the civilization of the Incas had been pre-
ceded by other civilizations, some of which
are prehistoric. All this was known
to educated men hundreds of years before
the Book of Mormon. All this Spaulding
knew. It suggested the assumptions of his
romance.

We have proved that Cortez conquered
Yucatan ; that it was inhabited by a civil-
ized people, with great cities ; that his com-
panions and other Spaniards, such as Diaz
and Herrera, describe great cities that were
inhabited at the time of the conquest of
Yucatan ; that educated men who had read
the history of the conquest of Mexico and
Peru knew these facts; that SpauUling
knew them. He had his people come to
America from Southwestern Asia, by sea.
He had them land at the Isohnius of Darien,
whic'a he called the land. of Zarahemla.
This the witnesses prove. We have proved
that all that my opponent can cite in the

Book of Mormon, as sustained by research, ii,
just what the witueBses say Spaulding knev.
and put into his romance. The witnessei*
are not witnesses that manufactured their
evidftuce, as was the case with Mrs. Salis-
bury and the witnesses of my opponent, or
th'ey would have claimed to know more
than they did. They repudiate the relig-
ious portion of the Hook of Mormon as an
addition to Spaulding'« romance. They do
not mention the Jaredite portion; but one
mentions the Zarahemlite portion. They
do not exaggerate their recollection of the
historic part of the Nephite portion. If
ever there were cautious, conscientious
witnesses they are.

This explodes all his archaeological read-
ing. He has sustained those general as-
sumptions of the Book of Mormon that are
common to ail civilized people that need no
proof, certain facts that were well known
before the Book of Mormon appeared. But
he has not furnished one particle ol proof
for those things that need proof — the his-
tory, the historic statements in reference to-
persons, places, battles, etc. If necessary
we could show, as Mr. Ward of Denver did
in his controversy with Joseph III, that
American archaeology flatly contradicts
many statements in the Book of Mormon,
but it is not needed. My opponent tries to
deny that the absurd statement of arming
children is in the Book of Mormon. On
page 531 we are told "All that were on the
face of the land were gathered into two
armies," not a soul left behind, and it adds,
"both men, women and children being
armed with weapons of war, having shields,
breastplates and headplates, and being
clothed after the manner of war, they did
march forth against one another to battle.''
If that does not declare that children
were armed with headplates, breastplates,
shields and weapons of war, and went out
to battle, language cannot m.ike such a
statement. It is idotic nonsense, but
that is just what the Book of Mormon
uf <'-'-■

My opponent made a poor out in howling
over the objectiim that the Book of Mor-
mon, in quoting the Bible, quotes King
James' version, the only one Rigdon — who
interpolated the reUgious portion into the
romance of Spaulding — knew f hat it put
into the mouths of Nephites who lived 2,000
years before King Ja nes' translators, the
brogue, the errors of King James' transla-
tors. We give two instances, one from Cor.
13-5. King James' translators interpolated
"easily." The Hook of Mormon does the
same. Again, in Inaiah 16-7, it quotes the
blunder of King James' translators, and
says "The Lord and his Spirit hath sent
me,"insJead of "the Lord hath sent me and
his Spirit." Instead of quoting only read-
ings of the original, that were in existence
before A. I). 4u0, when Moroni buried the
plates, it quotes readings found in King
James' translation, that have come into
existence since Moroni's day. It quotes
the punctuation of King James' version,
Uot only so but it quotes the misquotations

194

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

that were common in Rig^don's day, Chap-
ter 5, paragraph 26, lines 33 to 36, we have
"fiery flying: serpent." The serpents refer-
red "to were "flying." The "fiery" is a
popular misquotation, Page 540 we have
"bonds of iniquity," instead of "bond of
iniquity." Another universal misquota-
tion. We have "sins of the world" instead
of "sin of the world." These expressions
are quoted as Scripture. They are not.
Doubtless it was the fact that he had heard
them quoted as Scripture and thought they
were, thatled Rigdon to quote from Shakes-
peare's Hamlet, "from whence no traveller
can return," and from Pope's Ji^ssay on
Man, "look through nature up to nature's
God." This quotation of the errors of King
James' version, in original, in translating,
in punctuation, its obsolete grammar, its
obsolete words, its obsolete style, proves
that Rigdon used that, because he knew no
other. Why did not the Lord use some
other version, especially where they are
correct and the version of King James is
not? Why did not he correct that version ?
Why did he use an erroneous version, in
this fullness of the gospel, and then correct
its errors afterwards, in the Inspired Trans-
lation? Why did he not give the correct ver-
sion in the Book of Mormon. Why corrupt
it with errors ? The fact that the Book of
Mormon contains perversions of the Bible
common in Rigdon's days shows that it
belongs to that time. I did not urg/e that
the lansruage should be perfect in the Book
of Mormon, but I urged that the Lord
would not dole out word by word such
atrocities as we find in the Book of Mor-
mon. Since the Lord, by miracle gave it,
word by word, Joe's illiteracy could affect
it no more than a telephone or an echo
can put blunders into what it utters.
The illiteracy of Joe has nothing to do with
it. If there are blunders the Mormon
Diety made them.

My opponenr, with a fatuity that is mi-
raculous, tells us that language changes,
and that what is correct in one generation is
incorrect in another. That is true, and his
Mormon Deity in giving a revelation does
not use a language that is correct in the
time of the translation, but goes back and
uses language of two hundred years before
that time, that has become grossly incor-
rect, and exaggerated and caricatures into
a monstrous burlesque, those errors. Why
did not the Lord use what was correct
when he made the translation? Why did
he use what had become grossly incorrect?
The reason is evident, Spaluding and Rig-
don wanted to imitate the Hebrew idiom.
They were so ignorant that they did not
know that a large proportion of the peculi-
arities of the Bible were the brogue of the
translators, and they inserted into their
fraud and into the mouths of Israelites, in
America, the brogue of the English of King
James' translators, hundreds of years
before there was any English language.
We have proved that the Lord has been
improving his grammar, lias corrected
thousands of errors. Whj' did he not make

it right at first? My opponent can not see
the difference between Rigdon's blunders
in Englisii? Joe's blunders in English and
errors in the original. I do not think the
Nephites made blunders in English.

The blunt Greek of Peter, the blunt
Hebrew of Amos are not full of atrocities
in grammar and composition. Let us have
a Hst of such atrocities in the Hebrew or
the Greek of the Bible. Bunyan wrote a
clear, simple stjMe, but it is free from gram-
matical atrocities, and atrocities in compo-
sition. His style is a model for simplicity,
purity and accurac.y. All these excuses
are utterly bootless. These features of the
Book of Mormon show that it is an attempt
of an ijfnoramus, to imitate the Hebrew
idioms of the Bible, who blunderingly car-
icatured the brogue of King James' transla-
tion, as Simon Pure Hebraisms. There
are one or two contradictions of the Bible
that we will give. The Book of Mormon
claims to be the " fulness of the Gospel."
"The Bible says " Christ came in the fulness
of the times' That the fulness of the God-
head dwelt in Christ bodily. All authority
in heaven and earth was his. The church
contains the fullness of him that fills
all in all. The church is perfected to the
fullness of the stature of Christ. Christ
gave to the apostles all things that pertain
'to life and Godliness" The Book of
Mormon claims to be the fullness of the
Gospel, and to be added <to what the
apostles had. It is a flat contradiction of
God's word. Mormons claim revelations,
visions, prophesy now. Daniel ix. "Seventy
weeks are determined upon thy people,
and upon thy holy city, to finish the trans-
gression, to make an end of sins, to make
reconciliation for iniquity, to being in ever-
lasting righteousness, and to seal up the
vision of the phrophecy, and to anoint the
most holy.

" Know therefore from the going forth
of the decree to restore Jerusalem, etc."
Cyrus issued a decree, but said nothing of
rebuilding the city. Darius Hystaspes
issued a decree, but not concerning rebuild-
ing the city. Artaxerxes Longimanus
issued a decree but said nothing about re-
building Jerusalem. In the twentieth
year of another Artaxerxes a decree to
rebuild Jerusalem was issued. From the
one who was high priest when the work
was done, we learn it was in the reign of
Artaxerxes Mnemon. The twentieth year
of Artaxerxes Mnemon was B. C. 385. 490
years Daniel's seventy periods of seven years
ioainus 385, leaves A. D. 105, as the time when
the vision and prophecy was to be sealed or
revelations were to cease. The last one to
whom one apostle had imparted these gifts
died, and prophecy, visions, revelations
ceased. We have not noticed the infidel
attack of my opponent on the Bible for I
am examining Mormonism, not defending
Christianity. I want his infidelity to be
stereotyped in the debate, and let it, like
the fly in the ointment, send out its stink-
ing odor. The book will be read by
preachers all over the United States. They

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

195

will see the infidelity of Mormonism, that
tries to drag Christianity to its vile level,
when it cannot rise to the level of (Christi-
anity. If my opponent dares to affirm, in a
separate debate, his assaults on the Bible,
I will defend it, and expose his infidel
attacks, in all their shallowness, and his
hostility to the Bible.

We will now notice some of the pettifog-
ging of my opjiDnent's last speech. He
insults the intelligence of the audience,
when he assumes tliat his talk about the
omission of words will so befog their minds
that they will loose sight of the gross
grammatical blunders that w© exposed.
Reading pages does not remove the blunder.
" The Lord spake unto my father, yea even
in a dream, and sayeth unto him." "Lord"
in the third person is made nominative to
"sayeth" in the second person and
"spake" in the past tense is joined to " say-
eth" in the present tense. "Stabbed by
his brother by a garb of secrecy" his
brother stabbed him by a garb of secrecy.
What a hole it must have made in him.
With my manuscript before him, he delib-
erately falsified my quotations. My manu-
script does quote it " I ought not to harrow
up in my desires the firm decrees of a just
God." (Emitting "I ought not" does not cause
the sentence to talk balderhash. The fustian
is in the words "Hairo^v up in my desires
the firm decrees of a just God." He finds
that " arrest" is used in the sense of
" check" or " stop." Will he show how it
can have that meaning in the sentence '' If
ye do ariest the scriptures." Sydney did
not know the difference between arrest and
wrest, the word he wanted to use. We
need follow his twaddle no further. He
finds in the older books of the Bible ideas
that resemble the palpable quotations from
the New Testament and quotations from
modern authors that we have exposed.
Unfortunately for him, it is not ideas that
resemble each other, that we cited, but
quotations of entire sentences verbatim —
the exact words.

He admits that quotations from the Bible
in the Book of Mormon are free from the
atrocities in speech, that occur in other por-
tions of the Book of Mormon.

That proves the truth of our assertion
that the Book of Mormon, aside from what
it steals from the Bible, is an awkward
attempt to imitate the Bible. Kelley^s
assumption thatRigdon could not adapt his
fraud to meet the objections that the Disci-
ples had urged against additional revela-
tions, is ridiculous. The fact that what the
Disciples said to Rigdou in refusing to
accept his teaching, is bitterly assailed in
the Book of Mormon, proves that Rigdon
wrote it. When one remembers that l,have
cited over live hundred quotations from the

New Testament found in the Book of Mor-
mon, scores of verses and even whole para-
graphs and chapters verbatim, Kelley's
denial that there are any quotations is
colossal in its impudence. * He coolly asks
me "Do you know that they are not quota-
tions from Israelite books', older than the
Book of Mormon, that the Nephites had?"
As well ask me "Do you know that they are
not quotations from books on the dog star
Sirius ? " We find the language in the
New Testament alone. That proves that
the Book of Mormon was written by one
who quoted them from the New Testament,
and, of course, after the New Testament
was written. Did Lehi, alias Rigdon, quote
from "Whence no traveller returns" from
an edition of Shakespeare, in the hands of
the Nephites? Did a Nephite quote
"Through nature up to nature's God" from
an edition of Pope's "Essay on Man," in the
hands of the Nephites? Did Nephites quote
Rigdon 's baptismal formula, his revival
expressions?

He staggers fearfully under the charge
that the revisions, that the Mormon Deity
has made of himself, as seen by comparing
the first and last editions of the Book of
Mormon, average nearly seven to a page,
and over 5,000 in the aggregate, seventeen
corrections being made on one page. He^ab-
blos weakly about printers' mistakes. J. H.
Gilbert, who set up every word of the book
and who is one of the best compositors
in the country and a man of superior literary
and critical ability, did not insert blunders
of whole lines, omit whole lines. He did
not change sentences so as to entirely reverse
their meaning. The Mormon Deity inspired
Mormon and Moroni to write, doled out to
Smith word for word, the translation, gave
Cowdery a divine gift to write, and the
proofs were read by the inspired Joe and
Oliver, and then the Mormon Deity had to
revise himself, omitting lines, inserting
lines, reversing the meaning, make seven-
teen changes on a page, seven on the
average on a page and over five thousand
in the aggregate It is disgusting for my
opponent to call on me to prove that
the atrocities in speech were not on the
plates. It is like calling on me to prove
that the telephone is not the author of
blunders \v a message, it carries. Will he
prove there wciy any plates? When he
presents the plates and shows that these
blunders were on them, we will notice such

talk. ^ ^ , .

Even then, if we found on the plates
hundreds of quotations verbatim from the
New Testament and modern authors, thous-
ands of gross blunders, we would be com-
pelled to conclude that the plates had their
origin with some such modern ignoramus as
Smith or Rigdou.

196

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S NINETEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: I call your attention to a
statement that was made by my opponent
to the effect that I had stated in the debate
at Wilber that some eighteen mouths before
the Book of Mormon appeared, Siduey Rig-
don and Alexander Campbell had a passage
at arms over the religion of the Mormons.
I stated no such thing. The gentleman is
entirely mistaken. What I gave to the au-
dience upon that, I read from their own
book, "The History of Discipleism on the
Western Reserve." I will read it to you.
Instead of being eighteen months before, it
was a passage at arms between them, as this
says, two and one-half months before, just
as I read it at Wilber.

What answer will Mr. Braden have to
this misrepresentation of what was said,
when it was said, and also who said it, at
Wilber? The statement is as follows, p. 209:
"The discomfiture he experienced at the
hands of Mr, Campbell, at Austintown,
when seeking to introduce his common
property scheme, turned him away morti-
fied, chagrined and alienated. This was
only two and one-half months before he re-
ceived, in peace, the messengers of delu-
sion."

The idea is carried here in their own his-
tory that Rigdon joined the Saints two and
a half months after this affair at Austin-
town because he got a back-set from Camp-
bell and was mad. This alienated him.
Well, if this did it, clearly then it was not
because Rigdon was in any way mixed in
with our faith before. This was only two
and a half months before he "received, in
peace, the messengers of delusion." — Camp-
bellite testimony.

Remember that they were not in contro-
versy over any principle of what he calls the
Mormon faith. There is no community plan
or common property plan in the faith of the
Latter Day Saints, nor in the Book of Mor-
mon. That only exists in the minds of those
who could not, or did not wish to under-
stand our faith. It is not only not accord-
ing to the faith of the church, but is con-
trary to its principles and the faith as the
church believed in 1830. You will have to
change again, Mr. Braden, upon that, and
find something else from which to make out
your case.

Last evening when I closed, I was expos-
ing the fallacy of his reasoning in trying to
make an argument on the assumj^tion that
Quotations from the Bible are contained in
the Book of Mormon. There is no such
thing in the Book of Mormon, but if there
was such, he could not make use of it as an
argument until after he had established the
proposition that God had not also spoken to
the people on this continent, because that
is the question in this controversy. If He
did speak to them , the presumption must

be that the instruction would be much the
same as upon the other, and it could appear
without any copying.

In the translation of the prophecies of
Malaohi, Isaiah, etc., and the account given
of the instructions of Jesus to the people
upon this continent, there is such a differ-
ence in the general use of the anglicisms,
as I have before shown, as to place beyond
the possibility of a doubt the fact that these
were not copied It was either done by in-
spiration, as claimed, or by persons ac-
quainted with both languages. But he per-
sists that because of the general wording of
the sentiment, even if expressed by the
Holy Spirit, that it must convict the work
of plagiarism. The objection is on a par
with his argument associating the Corinth
ian Church with " .Mormons, Spiritualists
and negroes" in order to try to burlesque the
church because of its spiritual gifts. "They
are persons subject to low manifestations of
the spirit," he says. He admits, then, that
these gifts exist with persons in this age,
viz: Mormons, Spiritualists and negroes.
Where is his argument, then, confining
them to the first century? I have found a
lower spiritual manifestation than this, it
seems — tnat of no manifestation at all.
That is where the Disciple Church comes in.
They do not claim any at all ; and it ia
lower, cortainly, than the Corinthian saints.
But, my friends, we are in good company —
the com|)any of Jesus and all the apostles
and prophets and prophete^ses of Christian-
ity ; and I thought when he so absurdly
divided up the spirit the other night into
the miraculous, the indwelling, the sealing
and the resurrecting powers, and then face-
tiously tried to put the saints on a par with
Baalani's ass because it spoke with the
miraculous, as he said, that he as much
lowered the standard of Jesus, Peter and
Paul, as he did that of the Latter Day
Saints ; for they, too, had this miraculous
power; and Paul says, "I speak with
tongues more than you all."

Mr. Braden seems to get into a corner
upon every position he takes. The only
hope he now has, however, is to try to
make so many objections that I shall not
have time to take them up and examine
them at all. True, a man can make a run-
ning figlit, and throw dust and dirt in his
style for a time, but this will all wash off
if the investigator will only permit the ap-
plication of a little pure water.

BOt he is wrong again — should I take
up by item and examine these pages in the
Book of Mormon which he claims are quo-
tations. Let me now candidly consider
them : He reads a passage from the Book
of Mormon and says, "A quotation from
Shakespeare's Hamlet, before written;"
but how does he know ? This is on a par
with this continual asserting, without any

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

197

proof. Why did he not say that Shakes-
peare took "it from Job, who wrote 3,000
years before Shaltespeare's time, and in
whose book the same thought and wording
iu great part occurs. " Before I go whence
I shall not return, even to the land of dark-
ness and the shadow of death." And
again; "Man goeth to his long home."
Job 10 : 21 and 16 : 22. The wording in
Nephi and Shakespeare are not the same,
nor more alike than the Bible and Shakes-
peare, or the Book of Mormon and the
Bible. This shows conclusively that Mr.
Braden did not know what he was talking
about when he charged the : plagiarism.
He had to follow John Hyde's criticism
made thirty years ago, however.

Another; ""Shepherd hath called and art
calling " Book of Mormon, page 223. He
left out seven words in this one sentence in
order to make it read badly. He quotes
again: Stabbed by a garb of secerecy,"
Book of Mormon, page 402. "Oh! what a
stab," he exclaims. Yes, but the stab is
not as bad, after all, as the perversion by
Braden. The true reading is, "Stabbed by
his brother by a garb of secrecy." How do
you like such grand arguments thrown into
your faces, mv friends, by this Reverend
gentleman? Why did you, Mr. Braden,
leave the words "by his brother" out? Was
it to deceive?

Again: "They buried their weapons of
peace." Page 272. He left out the explana-
tion, "or they buried the weapons of war
for peace." Again, "No afflictions save
swallowed up in joy." Page 298. It reads,
"He also gave them strength that they
should suffer no manner of affliction, save
it were swallowed up in the joy of Christ."
Do you say it is contrary to Christian expe-
rience, when rightly read? "I ought not to
harrow up iu my desires the firm decrees of
a just God." Page 288. No, nor should
Mr. Braden harrow up in his desires such a
strong disposition to misquote these men.

Again he says : "Episcopalians preach
from high pulpits and have liturgies."
Read the text, my friends, and you will find
he has putin all "of this. "Episcopalians,"
"pulpits," "after their style" and "litur-
gies." Who could not find objections after
this style of argument? It is too weak for
a ten year old boy. Again, on page 322 he
says : "An inspired prophet scalps his en-
erny, just like any other 'big injun who likes
heap much scalp.' " Yes, just like big In-
dian Braden misrepresented it. It reads :
"As [Zerahemuah] raised his sword
[against Moroni] behold one of Moroni's
soldiers smote it, even to the earth ; and he
[the soldier] smote Zerahemuah that he took
off his scalp and it fell to the earth."
What have you to say to this?

Again, he "charges imitation of incidents,
and cites the deliverance of the three He-
brews from the furnace as being played in
the book ; but an examination shows that
the cases are not so similar as to indicate
any imitation or copying whatever. The
entire history of the two is dissimilar.

Thus, I might go through the entire list

exposing the spuriousness of the critioisms;
but shall I so waste my tiine? Are you ed-
ified by criticisms that will, in no wiiy bear
examination? You, donlttless, wish him
to fjive such, that, hereafter, you will be
able to give a reason for not believing in the
teachings of the Book of Mormon when
questioned upon it, do you not? Not to
have something put into your minds that
will make you look ridiculous in the eyes
of a person posted, if you should give it for
a reason.

He again takes up the Book of Mormon
and gets off this ; "For do we not
read that God is the same yesterday, to-day
and forever, and in him there is no variable-
ness, neither shadow of turning." "Yes,"
he says, "we read it in the New Testament;"
and tlien he tries to make you believe the
writer (Mormon) was quoting fnom that.
Had he turned to Alma 5 : 3 ; 2 Nephi, 12: 7;
Nephi 11:1; Mosiah 1 : 8 he would have
seen that it was here where the writer read
it, and not from the New Testament. He
argues that because the expression is sim-
ilar to that in the Bible it must have been
taken from it. This is not correct. In the
Veda, which bears a dale 1 ,200 years before
Christ, we read, "O God have mercy! give
me my daily bread!" Ilig-Veda 6:37.
Did Jesus steal it when he put it in the
Lord's praver? Take another. (Rig-Veda
9: 113, 8) "Where life is free, in the third
heaven of heavens, where the worlds are
radiant, there make me immortal," Did
Paul steal this idea to get material for his
Corinthian letter? According to Braden's
way of reasoning he must have done so. Of
the ancient Zend-Avesta, Dr. Haug remarks:
"The Zoroastrian religion exhibits a very
close affinity, or rather identitj' with sever-
al importi'nt doctrines of the .Mosaic relig-
ion and Christianity." Chips from a Ger-
man workshoi), page 125.

He objects to the use of the word Christ
and Christian over here before the birth of
the Savior. Eusebius Eccl. His., page 21,
22, says: "The very name Jesus, as also
that of Christ, was 'honored by the pious
prophets of old. * * * Moses attaches
the name of our Savior, .Tesus Christ ; * *
the prophets that lived subsequently to
these times, also plainly announced Christ
before by name." Paul says: "Moseses-
teemed the reproach of Christ greater rich-
es than the treasures of Egypt."

It may be the Cam pbel lite idea, that
Christ was not known at all and not doing
anything for humanity till he was born in
Judea, and that he was not in the Church;
but it is not J'.i!)le. It was Rigdon's idea,
howevttr, until his conversion to "the faith
once delivered to the saints," in the year
1830; and, therefore, he could not have put
the reverse of it in the Book of Mormon.
"Without this ( this same Jesus ) there was
not anvthinsr made that was mnde." "He
was as a lamb slain from the foundation of
the world." He began his work for man
that earlv. "Was in the Cluin-h in the
wilderness." He had a Church under
Moses and was there. He was preached to

198

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Abiaham and Noah, and was known of
Enoch, for his is "tbe onlj' name under
heaven whereby man can be saved," and
Enoch was saved, saved through the name
of Christ! "Before Abraham was, I am,"
•aid Jesus. "And they did all drink of
that spiritual rock, which rock was Christ,"
says Paul.

These are the teachings of the Bible;
they are also the sentiments taught in the
Book of Mormon. They are not the teach-
ings of the Campbellites, nor were they
ever such ; nor of Sidney Rigdon till after
his conversion in 1830. Rigdon therefore,
had nothing to do with the getting up of
the Book of Mormon, or its publication.
He was as distant from that scene as Braden
himself. He tries to make a point against
the work because Mormon said that he
did not know what change was effected in
the three disciples who should remain and
not die. Yet he says : "Christ said they
should remain 'mortal.'" Christ said no
such thing. He said: "Ye shall never
endure the pains of death." Then, there was
to be some change wrought in them. This
was done when afterwards Jesus touched
them ; and Moroni, referring to this change
said that he did not know whether they
were "mortal or immortal," (he knew they
could not die), without, in the least refer-
ring to the grand clothing upon and
"abundant entrance" which would super-
abound over this change in the time when
Christ would come in his Kingdom and
glory, and all should be changed like unto
him. He next misrepresents the record on
p.l37,Book of Mormon, in making Mosiah and
his people meet Coriantumr, whom he says
must have been, at least, 500 years old.
The record makes the people of Muluk and
Coriantumr meet, and not the Nephites and
Coriantumr ; and these Mulukites came
out from Jerusalem near the time of Lehi,
and landed on that part of the continent
and are, several hundred years afterward,
found by the Nephites ; and Mosiah gets
and reads the record of Coriantumr instead
of meeting the man. In the late writings
of explorers they have found the word
"Muluc" right here where the Book of
Mormon located these people. See North
Americans of Antiquity by Short, pp. 436
and 438.

Why did he pervert it in order to take
my time up with an explanation ?

Again, "What is the use?" he says, "of
the Jaredites bringing over the animals
when they found them here?" That is
another misrepresentation of the record. It
was the people of Lehl and Muluk, who
came near two thousand years after, who
found the animals already here ; these
animals having been before brought by the
Jaredites ; but which were found by
another people, and they found them with-
out care on the continent, as stated by Jere-
miah m the 49th chapter of his prophecy.

He would like to dodge the irrefutable
proof of Jaredites' account of bringing the
animals first to the continent, 4,000 years
ago, as the book sets out ; and this, because

I have so fully corroborated by science that
it was done.

Again he says : "There were two nations
spread over the entire continent at the same
time, and yet they knew nothing of each
other." The record gives the particular
parts of the continent on which those
nations existed, and shows directly contrary
to Braden 's statement, giving particularly
an account and description of the terri-
tory that divided these peoples, (The Neph-
ites and Mulukites), and shows why they did
not discover each other sooner. Yet, he
wants me to give my reason of how they
could have remained so long without the
knowledge of each other. Does he expect
me to give a different reason to that stated
in the book itself? That is amole, full and
satisfactory. If not, why did he not attack
the reason given instead of mis-stating the
history?

Again, he tries to show that Moroni wrote
47 pages of the book after he had no plates
upon which to write. Turning to page 494
of the book I find the objection is
not found in the book, but only
in Mr. Braden's crooked reading. Moroni
says : "Behold my father hath made this
record, [account of the history and destruc-
tion of the people,] and he hath written the
intent thereof; and behold I would write it
also [the same account] if I had room upon
the plates, but I have not, and ore I have
none, for I am alone." This is the plain
statement which he tries to twist. Not
that he had no plates to write upon, but
"no room upon the plates," for that account.
He then writes the things for wliich he had
room. Can you see the point now, Mr. lira-
den ? If not I will take to rubbing them in
a little.

He goes back to the barges and says it
would take 2,000 boats with sharp points to
hold as much as the ark. Who, except
himself, said they had sharp points? The
book says they were peaked. Does it say
they were peaked after the manner of the
torpedo boat, or after the style of the Great
Eastern, that would of itself, doubtless,
hold as much as the ark ? Will he say that
the ark was not peaked ? Here is a fair
sample of his reasoning: — If the cubit spo-
ken of in the description of the ark was the
same as the sacred cubit, (which he admits
he does not know). Then the ark was so long
and would hold so much. Just so, Mr.
Braden. Now let me apply your mode of
reasoning to the other side. If the tree
which these boats were.likened to in length
was as long as some of our trees, and the
animals which went in at the door as large
as some of our animals, and the boat build-
ed in proportion to the length, which ia to
be presumed,— then the eight vessels that
brought the Jaredites here would equal the
probable capacity of at least two arks. Is
not this fairly his style? This profound
logic reminds me of his wise interpretation
of Mark 16. Here it is verbatim :— "Go ye
(Who? The eleven ?) Preach the gospel to
every creature" (Who preach ? The eleven?)
"He'that believeth and is baptized," (by

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

199

whom? The eleven ?) shall be saved ; and
these signs shall follow them'thar believe ;
(Believe what ? The preaching of the elev-
en ?) Anybody else? No. Nobody but
the eleven." What about following the be-
liever in the preaching, whi(!h Matthias
should do, he was not one of the eleven.
Oh, he will leave him out! You will!
What about the preaching of Paul and
Barnabas? They were not of the eleven ;
yet ttiose who believed their preaching re-
ceived rhe Holy Ghost, and tiie signs follow-
ed? What about Ananias? He was not one of
the eleven, nor an apostle either, yet Paul
received the manifestation, (miraculous,
too,) of the Holy Ghost under his hands.
This solution of his reminds me of the dar-
kie's discourse upon which he was interro-
gated by another gentleman of color. A
few such questions as these would spoil
Braden's entire theory. This is after his
interpretation of 1 Cor. 12: 13. "For by one
spirit are we all baptized into one body.''
He says that Kelley does not know the dif-
ference between baptized by the spirit and
baptized by the command of the spirit."
Let us see if Bradeu does. The following
is Jesus' language: "Except a man be born
of the water and of the spirit" — Oh, no,
Jesus ! Braden says you do not understand
it. You should have said : "Except a
man be born of water and of the command of
the Spirit." Yes, that is very clear ; Kelley
cannot understand it.

Take another:— Paul, Titus, 3. "By the
washing of regeneration and renewing of
the Holy Ghost." Hold a moment, Paul!
Braden says "by the command" of the
Holy Ghost ye are renewed. My friends,
whether Kelley can understand or not, he
has it just as Jesus and all the apostles did.
But Braden has the effrontery to add to the
word of God and insert in the plain teach-
ing of Paul, the words, "the command of,"
in order to keep up his Disciple theory, that
the baptism of the spirit is not for our time.

Again, he takes up the text: " My words
they are spirit and they are life." Here it
is, no spirit except through the medium of
the word ; yet they received the Holy Spirit
on Pentecost day, shed through Jesus Christ
and not the word. Philip preached the
word at Samaria, but the word did not give
them the Holy Ghost, nor they did not re-
ceive it through the medium of the word.
But when Peter and John laid their hands
on the believers in the word which Philip
had preached, then the Holy Spirit fell
upon them. " And when Simon saw that
by the laying on of the apostles' hands the
Holy Spirit was given, he offered them
money." Again, Paul says to the Ephesian
saints: "After that ye heard the word of
truth, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit
of promise, after that ye believed." O, no,
Paul ! when they believed the word they
had it, Braden says. The scripture is plain
vrithout his torturing it. Jesus says: "The
words that I speak unto y^" they are spirit
ai'd they are life." Ob^-' en to the )rd8
w ll bring forth the life, i. the ide-i I'gl't.
'1 know that the commandment is lif*'

everlasting," says Jesus again. Not if a
man has it and does not keep it, however,
but if he keeps it, it will bring him into
life. It is the royal road. So of the spirit.
If he follows the commandments he will
receive the spirit, the seal of adoption shed
abroad into the heart by Jesus Christ as a
comfort and acknowledgment for having
kept the word. But if lie hears and be-
lieves the word and then does not (comply
therewitn, he does not get the spirit shed
abroad from on high, and enabling us to cry
"Abba Father" any more than if he be-
lieved tlie word and will not comply there-
with he will get the life spoken of therein
by Jesus.

Mr. Braden objects to the Book of Mor-
mon because of the use of the word "arrest."
Do }iot try to arrest the scripture. Yes,
arrest. Webster says, in defining the word,
"anything by power, physical or moral."
And Bishop Taylor uses the word in that
sense: " Were sad arrests to his troubled
spirit." You can select a more appropriate
word according to the usage now, but the
idea conveyed is the same if the other is
used.

He still, for want of argument, infringes
upon the modesty of this audience with his
smart turn, borrowed from Howe, on the
word ox; but I took up your school diction-
ary to-day and copied as follows: " When
wild animals are spoken of (such animals
as are found in the woods) ox is very often
applied to both male and female." When I
quoted ihis the other night he shook his
head. But that is nothing. He has shaken
his head at a number of other facts during
this discussion. The audience, I judge, can
likely see the points made during the de-
bate without he or I having to shake our
heads at them. So much for his jack and
bull criticism.

But he says, that Joseph Smith said some
hard things about the actions of David
Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery in 1838. Yes,
he wrote a letter after lying in jail for weeks
surrounded by as wicked and foul-mouthed
a guard as, perhaps, ever ke|)t any man,
and from which he suffered abuse each
hour, and at a time when there had been a
misunderstanding between these parties
and some others, as to the proper tiling for
the church to do; there had, likewise,
arose a division, and a hot one too. — ^just
like it was between Paul and Barnabas at
Autioch, when they got so mad at each
other they would not travel the same road ;
like Elisha 2 Kings, 13 : 19: "And the man
of God was wroth," but he is there repres-
ented to be prophesying all the time; and
when the friends of one of these parties had
told their side of the story to Joseph and
Hyrum Smith while they were thus jailed
and treated as dogs, it was more than
humanity could endure ; and they right
lively retorted back. But what has that to
do with the tru^h of the Book of Mormon, or
to show thai Mr. Smith was trying to build
up ^ rotten '"^ i. He fearlessly turned
his own witnesses out when they were
charged with c/oing things which, years

200

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

after, were proven to be entirely false so far
as implication in counterfeiting, roguery,
etc, was concerned. A little different to
the way some churches do now, I Itnow.
They keep thobe charged with bad conduct
for fear of an exposure. Mr. Smith must
have been honest or he would have feared an
expose too, from them in the matter of their
testimony. He would not have dared to do
what he did, had this their testimony not
been true. They were honest in their testi-
mony, or they would have gone bacli upon
it after this treatment; and so, instead of
being an argument against the credibility
of the testimony of the witnesses to the
Book of Mormon, it is in its favor and highly
so. These men had every inducement
possible offered them to make them go back
upon their testimony: — Money, popularity,
political fame, etc., but they would not;
and they have, through as terrible persecu-
tions as the world has ever seen since the
days of the spike and the rack, maintained
the truth of their statement and taught it
to their children's children ; their families
to-day being members of the church, and
abiding in the doctrine of Christ asset out
in their testimony of being contained in the
Book of Mormon and the Bible. Every
trying circumstance in which these wit-
nesses have been placed is a standing
monument, attesting the truth of their
testimony as first given to the world ; for
they have stood the test as does the solid
rock.

There is nothing in the argument then as
to what Joseph Smitli may have said about
these witnesses for Braden's side.

Here, I will notice that "gordian knot" of
his. It is simply misstatements and misrep-
resentations that confuses my opponent,
however, in this. The brother of Jared was
not commanded to bury his record up in the
ground, as my opponent stated, but to seal
it up. It does not say that Jared's history
should not be made known until the Gen-
tiles were converted. It was brought to
light after Christ had been crucified. The
account was re-written by the Nephites on
plates and sealed up along with the record
of the Nephites. It was this part of the
plates, or book, that Joseph Smith did not
translate, and is not to be translated until
the Gentiles repent. My opponent has tlie
two distinct periods and writings and cir-
cumstances confounded, which, by the way,
is quite a habit he has of doing things-
dull scholar that he is. The people of
Liimhi did not get the plates that were
sealed up by the brother of Jared, or the
interpreters so far as we have an account,
but they obtained the record of Ether
written on twenty-four plates. The last
Jaredite king lived a long time with the
Mulukites, and Mosiah discovered them at
Zarahemla. From Coriantumr, the last
Jaredite king, the plates of the brother of
Jared and Interpreters came into the pos-
session of the Mulukites, and from them to
Mosiah. This appears evident from the
fact that the interpr^^'ers are not spoken of
until that time. The Book of Mormon does

not state just how the sealed part fell into
the hands of the Nephites, but this is the way
in which it could very naturally have come
into their hands. There are many things that
were not written ; indeed, the record only
claims to give an abridgement of the things
done. The interpretation of engravings by
the "gift and power of God," Book of Mor-
mon, page 137, is the same as translating
by stones, page 200. The stones were of no
benefit only as God would manifest his
power and wisdom in the same. Just as
with theUrim andThummim, a stone which
was in Aaron's breast-plate, that shone by
the power of God and through which the
high-priest obtained revelations. Josephus
says: "It ceased to shine one hundred and
fifty years before Christ," — i. e., the power
of God ceased to accompany the stone ; hence
no revelation ; and in that case the stone
was worthless as an interpreter or instru-
ment through which to gain knowledge.
Is this his only ^^ Gordian Knotf^^

But he next objects, that the book ought
not to be believed because the printer did
not do his duty : — There are typographical
errors, and gramatical errors and errors
" et punctu-at-em." Just so. I begin now
to see that my opponent means business.
Did any of you ever see a book that did not
contain such errors ? I never have. When
last in Chicago I paid nearly $10 for the
best Oxford print Bible, printed upon silk
paper and with all the care, it seems, that
could possibly have been taken to get it
correct; with the advantages of all the
various editions of that book, and skilled
help, at the command of the publishers,
and I have noticed in it since my return
home a typographical error. I refer to this
to apprise you to begin with, of the diffi-
culty in the way of issuing a publication of
the size of this book, and having it abso-
lutely correct.

The Book of Mormon was printed at a
small office in a little village of Western
New York, 65 years ago, by men who were
not scholars, and not much printers either ;
and he expects to fiild everything just right
even when examined in the light of the
progress in these things, made since that
time. My opponent has his mark set high.
He wants to see one of the impossibles.

He says he can find two thousand mis-
takes in the book. Suppose he can, what
of it? The American Bible Society make
the claim, so I understand, that there are
twenty-three thousand eirors in the Bible
of this character; but does this interfere
with the divine claim of that book, or so
change the sentiment, or reading that it
was not entitled to the respect and belief of
all people? Certainly not.

In the publication of the Book of Mor-
mon he wants God to furnish the means of
translating the work ; then to write down
the translation as made into English, set
up the type, read the proof, and be respon-
sible for all poor or worn out type, blunders
of copyists, etc., and then, doubtless, he
would have the heavy press work done
by inspiration. " Just to think," Bra-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

201

den says, " of the Lord correcting him-
self; revising his own proof reading"
He certainly ought to be reasonable if he
is not. Does he not know tbat the chances
are ten to one against the scribe of Mr.
Smith getting all of the words just as they
came from the lips of the translator, to say
nothing of the copy from this. The transla-
tor had to change scribes often during the
time of translating, on account of the per-
secutions against him, — the violence of mobs
— and to not have had many mistakes of
words and punctuation, would have required
a miracle each day equal to that of the rais-
ing of Lazarus. Before he has made any
point at all against the translation lie must
show that the original manuscript was
wrong and that, too, in sentiment and
doctrine. Not simply in the dropping of a
.word, or the misuse of a word. Such au
objection is entirely frivolous when consid-
ered by thinking people.

The process of translation, as described
by those wlio witnessed it, is clear and
reasonable. The power of inspiration was
with the unlettered, yet humble boy,
during the work of translation. It was as
Aaron gazed upon the Urim and Thuramim
when he received the divine will. But it
did not write down the words. Mr. Smith
had to procure a scribe who (Md this. Is it
an argument against the truthfulness of it
that he did so? The result of the work
is a translation that is plain, simple, easy
to be understood ; correct in sentiment and
thought; pure and elevating in teaching;
fully instructive and enlightening, in mor-
ality and religion, — to both the unlearned
and the wise. Who shall demand more ?

He has presented no mistakes of teach-
ing or thought, neither has my opponent
shown a single material difference in the
corrections in thought or sentiment in the
later editions. There have been correc-
tions of grammatical and typographical
errors.

Again, he states, that Martin Harris told
somebody, so somebody told him, that he
(Harris) saw the plates by the ^e of faith.
Suppose he did, what of it? Did he mean
by that to convey the idea that he did not
see them? On no ! he wanted to show that
a person was only privileged to see them
through the exercise of faith in God. Does
any man object to that? That is the way
Peter, James and John were permitted to
be the especial witnesses of the transfigura-
tion in the Mount, and is ceitainly sensible.

Remember that Martin Harris never went
back on his testimony in regard to his view-
ing the plates and witnessing fche manifest-
ation of the power of God upon the occa-

sion, but affirmed the truth of the same,
and the truth of the work all through his
life to his eiiemies ui.'l his friends, his
neighbors and his own family. But I ask,
What is the point to be gained in this dis-
cussion by so viciously attacking the char-
acter of these witnesses, and that of Joseph
Smith, or Sidney Rigdon? Has it been
pertinent in answering my argument?
Have I attempted to cram you with what
any of these parties said about it, and
thereby undertaken to prove the Book of
Mormon true? Have the Saints ever so
held out the claim to the world that men
and women should believe in this book be-
cause these witnesses said it was true?
Does the book so hold? No, sir. All these
questions must, in truth, be answered in
the negative. No more have we done so
than the apostles asked the people in their
time to believe in the religion they brought,
simply from their statements.

The witnesses were for the purpose of
offering to the people a prima facie case,
such as would require them, if honest, to
hear and investigate the matter, and be
sufficiently forcible to hold them responsi-
ble for refusing to entertain and consider
the message. But their testimony was not
all that the people were to be able to test
the matter by— far from it. That would
have been the way for most men to work,
but not our Heavenly Father. He says,
"To the law and to the testimony; if they
speak not according to this word it is be-
cause there is no light in them." Isaiah
8:20, This is the divine rule, and minis-
ters ought to abide it. The apostles so
proved their faith by the law already be-
lieved in by the people, besides being wit-
nesses, and thus presenting a prima facie.
case to the world. Hence Paul says of the
citizens of Berea, "These were more noble
than those in Thessalonica, in that they re-
ceived the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily whether
those things were so." Acts 17:11. And
Jesus says: "They (the scriptures) are they
which testify of me."

The true test, then, of the faith of a peo-
ple, is not in the stories told about them by
their enemies, or the false witnesses that
are so often set up to destroy a good man,
as witness the 6th of Acts, 12 to 15 verses ;
but it ii^ in the consideration of princi-
ples, and by the attainment of knowledge
through the divine promise. " If any man
will do his will he shall know of the doctrine
whether it be of God"— a higher, grander
and more exalting plane than that of bark-
ening to the voice of the slanderer, or fol-
lowing in the trail of the tale-bearer.

202

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S NINETEENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moueratoks, Ladies and
Gentlemkn : — Was Joe Smith the origina-
tor of Mormon polyiramy? The lasc argu-
ment that we present in refutation of our
opponent's claim that Joe Smith was a true
prophet of God. and that the Book of Mor-
mon that he gave to the world is ot Divine
o igin, and worthy to be accepted as a reve-
lation, is the damning fact that Smith was
the originator of the abomination Mormon
polygamy, and the autuor of that blas-
phemy entitled, "A Revelation in Regard
to Celestial Marriage." This damning fact
that after wallowing in lewdness for years,
without even the pretended sanction of that
profanation of marriage, polygamy, he gave
to the world that infamy, blasphemously
entitled "A Revelation in Regard to Celes-
sial Marriage," and was the originator of
that abomination Mormon polygamy, is
enough to sink him and every pretended
revelation from him below the vilest depths
of the most infamous corner of the lowest
hell. On no other topic have the "re-organ-
ized" done so much lying to the square inch
as m denying that Smith was the origina-
tor of Mormon polygamy I propose to end
the controversy for ever on that topic. Dr.
Mclntyre, faniily physician of the Smith's
in Manchester, N. Y., declares that the
house of Joseph Smith, Sr., was a perfect
brothel. Ezra Pierce, Samantha Payne
and other schoolmates and associates of the
Smith's, testify that Smith was lewd, and
so were the family and the en lire money
hunting gang, and that the digging was
done at night by a gang of low men sur-
rounded by lewd women, who loafed in the
daytime and prowled around at night, and
that the Smiths were the worst of the gang.
A sister of Joe left ISIew York enceinte and
unmarried.

Levi Lewis testifies that while Smith was
pretending to translate his pretended plates
he tried to seduce Eliza Winters and de-
feuded his infamous attempt, declaring that
adultery was no sin. Dr. John Stafford, a
schoolmate, testifies that Joe was a great
admirer of Mohammed and the Koran, and
defended Mohammed's polygamy and the
Koran in teaching it ; and that he heard
him repeatedly declare that polygamy was
right, and that nature and the Bible taught
it. In March, 1832, Smith was stopping at
Mr. Johnson's, in Hiram, Ohio, and was
mobbed. The mob was led by Eli Johnson,
who blamed Smith with being too intimate
with his sister ::.;.inda, who afterwards
married Orson Hj de. Brigham Young, in
after years, twitted Hyde with this fact,
and Hyde, on learning its truth, put away
his wife, although they had several chil-
dren. Lyman Johnson, another brother of
Marinda Johnson, and a leading Mormon,
repeatedly declared that he knew that poly-
gamy was practiced by Smith and others in

Kirtland. Martin Harris told J. M. Atwater,
Mr. Clapp and many^ others that polygamy
was taught and practiced by Smith and
in Kirtland under the name of "spiritual
wifery." Lewis Bond and Ezra Bond have
repeatedly stated that their father and
mother, who were amongst the first Mor-
mons in Kirtland, repeatedly declared that
Smith practiced polygamy in Kirtland, and
that he followed a girl into a privy and
committed fornication with her. Mrs. Bond
made such declaratons to Mrs. Hansbury
and others. Lewis Bond says his father is
so disgusted with the dishonesty of the
Josephites in denying what he knows to be
true, that he will not affiliate with them.

Fanny Brewer testifies that Smith had
serious trouble in Kirtland, arising from his
seducing an orphan girl living in his family,
and that Martin Harris told her that Smith
was notoriously lewd and untruthful. Mr.
Moreton one of the first Apostles, told his
daughter, Mrs. Hansbury, and her hus-
band thatEmma Smith detected .Toe in adul-
tery with a girl by the name of Knight, and
that Joe confessed the crime to the officers
of the Church. W. W. Phelps stated that
while Smith was pretending to translate
the papyrus, for his book of Abraham, he
declared that polygamy would yet be a
pr;u . . e of the Saints. Martin Harris told
J. M Atwater, that the doctrine of spiritual
wifery was first positively announced as a
revelation, by Rigdon, before a meeting of
the officials of the Church, in an old build-
ing that used to stand southwest of. the
Temple, W. S. Smith and others testify that
the practice of sealing women to men was
so much talked of at Kirtland, while Smith
was there, that it became a by-word on the
streets ; and that common report said, that
a bitter quarrel between Rigdon and Smith
shortly before they left Kirtland was be-
cause Smith wanted to have Nancy Rigdon
a girl of 16 sealed to him. In the article on
marriage on pages 239, 330, Book of Doc-
trines and Covenants, adopted, ■Mormons
say by the annual conference in Kirtland,
April' 1834, we read: "Inasmuch as this
Church of Christ has been charged with for-
nication and polygamy." This proves that
the acts and utterances of Mormons had
been such, before April, 1834, that outsiders
charged them with polygamy. R. M. Elvin
and other leading Josephites have admit-
ted that Rigdon and Smith have taught
Spiritual wifery or "sealing women to men in
time for eternity. ' ' They claim that it confers
none of the privileges of marriage, but when
a woman allows another man, besides her
husband, to get such control over her, as to
be sealed to him in marriage— call it spirit-
ual, or celestial, or whatnot— she will allow
him the privileges of terrestial marriage.
Such was the result in Smith's case always.
In the "Elders' Journal," edited by Joe

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

203

Smith, No. 2, page 38, published in Kirt-
land, November 1837, in an editorial. Smith
publishes some questions that he says
"Were asked daily and hourly, by all clas-
ses of persons while we were traveliu|i:."
The 7th is "Do Mormons believe in hating
more wives than one?" Smith himself con-
fesses that the acts and utterances of Mor-
mons had been such, that all classes of per-
sons asked him daily and hourly, while he
was journeying between Kirtlaudand Far
West. "Do Mormons believe in having
more wives than one?" Scores of persons
who were prominent among the Mormons in
Missouri, have declared that Smith confid-
ed to his coatidants, that he had received a
revelation in favor of polygamy, but that
it was not prudent to make it public. The
time had not come to make known the will of
the Lord. In Nauvoo, while discussing the
extraordinary power conferred by the char-
ter they intended to ask from the Illinois
legislature, Smith said that they needed
such extraordinary powers, for the Turk,
with his harem, would come to Nauvoo, and
they must have power to protect him in
polygamy. Smith-declared in a sermon he

f reached in 1840, that polygamy was right,
t was right, in the sight of God, for a man
to have as many wives as he pleased. Peo-
ple of polygamous countries would be con-
verted and want to come to Zion, and Mor-
mons must have polygamy as an establish-
ed institution, and then they could bring
their polygamous wives with them. He
made the same argument from the Bible
that Brighamites now make. This sermon
raised such a storm he became alarmed, and
tried to lie out of his revelation of polyga-
my, by declaring that he was only trying
them (the Mormons). But he rebuked
them for their rebellious spirit in daring to
oppose what he said, and told them that
ttieir hardness of heart prevented the will
of the Lord being revealed and carried
out. He practiced polygamy himself and
taught it to other leading Mormons, who
also practiced it in secret and taught it to
others.

His intimacy with Julia Murdoch, his
adopted daughter, caused trouble with his
wife, who sent the girl to her father. At
one time he had in the Mansion House
eleven girls, that he called his daughters,
saying that he had adopted them to take
care of them. His wife left the house and
he had to dismiss his harem, to silence the
scandal, and get his wife back. Rusliton,
who was a sort of factotum about the Man-
sion House, testifies that while Mrs. Smith
was in St. Louis on business, the wife of a
leading Mormon took her place in Joe's bed,
and that he saw her there when he went to
Joe's room for some keys. The complais-
ant husband was made an apostle for his
bubmission to the will of the Lord. Did
space permit we could give the sworn state-
ments of Orson Pratt's wife, Wm. Law's
wife, Dr. Foster's wife, Wm. Mark's daugh-
ter. Nancy Rigdon, Martha Brotherton,
Melissa S.'l.iadle, and a score more of as re-
spectable women as ever lived in Nauvoo,

that Smith tried to seduce them into sjjirit-
ual wiferj-. We could quote the affidavits
of scores of men and women that positively
swear that they knew of his lewedness with
scores of women. We could quote the rev-
elations of Van Duzen and bis wife and
others in regard to the orgies of the Endow-
ment House. The fact that these revelations
made before the death of Smith, are an ex-
act description of the orgies of the Endow-
ment House as practiced in Utah, proves
that they were practiced in Nauvoo before
Smith's death, as these parties declare, and
that Smith was their author as Utah Mor-
mons now declare.

In the fall of 1842 Joe secretly performed
the first plural marriage ceremony. He
married Wm. Noble to his first plural wife,
and Noble united Joe to his sister. Joe had
had scores of spiritual wives before this, but
without the farce of a ceremony of marriage.
Soon after he took the beautiful wife of B
H. Jacobs as a plural wife as she and others
testify. In the winter of 1843 Smith gave
to S. H. Jacobs an article presenting the
usual arguments for polygamy. Jacobs pub-
lished it in the "Wasp" and in pamphlet
form. Joe was trying the Saints again.
The opposition to the infamy alarmed liim
again, and he tried to lie out of it, and pre-
tended to oppose polygamy. He told the peo-
ple again that their rebellious spirit would
not let the will of the Lord be made known.
In the spring of 18^3, however, matters had
gone so far, so many had gone into polyg-
amy, Joe's wife was making so much oppo-
sition to his course, that he could wear his
mask no longer. June 12th, 1843, he dicta-
ted to William Clayton "A Revelation iu
Regard to Celestial Marriage." N. K.
Whitney, who has done more of Mormon
otBcial writing than any other man, de-
clares he heard it dictated to Clayton, and
that'he copied it from the copy taken down
by Clayton. Joseph C. Kiusbury testifies
that he' heard it dictated and copied it also.

When the original copy, taken down by
Clayton, was presented to Smith's wife, she
declared it was from the devil and burned
it. David Fullmer and others who were
Apostles and high Councillors testify that
Hyram Smith presented the revelation to
the Apostles and the Council, and that it
was adopted and sam-tioned. In the Spring
of 1844 Marks, Higbee, Law and otliers
seceded and held meetings. In these
meetinirs, ladies of the highest character,
positivelv testified that Smith and otiier
Mormon "leaders had tried to seduce them
into polygamy. Scores testified to the poly-
tramy of Smith and Mornion loiuK'rs, and
to the abominations of the Endowment
House and other secret meetings ot the
Mormons. In June 1844 the malcontents
issued a paper called th.e " Nauvoo E.\posi-
tor " In it were affidavits of sixteen as
respectable ladies as were in Nauvoo, that
Smith and other Mormon leaders had tried
to seduce them into polygamy. Joe s
answer was to send a mob of his too s to
destroy the press and compel the publishers
to fly for their lives. They swore out war-

204

THE BRi^EN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

rants for the arrest of Smith. He was put
iu jail at Cartage and murdered, not by
Missiourians and Illinoisiaus, but by men
whose wives and daugliters he had tried to
ruin. He fell, not as a martyr to religion,
but as a victim to his own crimes, as he
himself declared when going to Carthage.
Such are the facts in regard to the career
of Smith in his connection with Mormon
polygamy.

We prove our statement by the testimony
of intimate acquaintances of Smith in New
York, leading Mormons and citizens in
Kirtland, leading Mormons in IMissouri,
leading MormoiJs in Nauvoo. We have
cited the statements and certificates of
scores. We prove tiiat Smith was the
author of the revelation in favor of Poly-
gamy by Clayton to whom he dictated it.
Whitney .and Kingsbury who heard it
dictated and copied it. By Fullmer and
other apostles and councillors to v.'hom
Hyram Smith presented it, and by whom it
was sanctioned. We cite the testimony of
Edwin Hunter, presiding bishop of Utah
church, in an affidavit dated Salt Lake City,
September 1st, 1883. He solemnly swears,
"Since 1842 he has held most intimate re-
lations, personal and official, with the lead-
ing men of the Church. President Joseph
Smith was his warmest personal friend, he
was herald and armor-oearer to Joseph.
From this very intimate and personal rela-
tion and intercourse he knows that Joseph
Smith both taught and practised the celes-
tial and eternal order of marriage from
the beginning of our acquaintance to the
time of his death." This is but one
of scores that can be cited, scores to
whom Smith taught polygamy. The
testimony of Eliza R. Snow, Eliza Par-
tridge, Emily Partridge, Lucy Walker, Mrs.
Jacobs and' others to whom Smith was
married in polygamy.

The testimony of others who saw him
married in polygamy among the rest, the
oath of his niece, the daughter of Hyram
Smith, that she saw him married in poly-
gamy. The oaths of persons for whom he
performed the ceremony of plural marriage.
\V. Noble, J. B. Noble, J. D. Lee, and
others. The reply to all this array of
evidence is an impudent denial, without
one particle of rebutting testimony, and
abuse of the witnesses as liars and per-
jurers. As the persons who now pour out
such abuse did not make-such denials when
the facts were recent, and make them now
when they think the evidence can be weak-
ened by such denials, on account of lapse of
time, these denials are merely thu retort of
the cornered ruffian, "You are a liar." It
is amusing to read the weak eflbrts of the
Josephites to get rid of the damning fact
that Impostor Joe was the originator of
those abominations. Mormon polygamy and
the revelation in favor of it. They remind
one of the lawyer who was defending a
man charged with stealing a kettle and
failing to return it. He said I. The plain-
tiff never had a kettle. II. We never bor-
rowed his kettle. III. We returned the

kettle. IV. The kettle was worthless. V.
We paid for the kettle. VI. The kettle
was ours in the first place. In like manner,
I. T. W. Smith suggests that in giving Im-
postor Joe that revelation in favor of poly-
gamy, the Lord did not do different from
what he did in his revelation to David
through Nathan ; thus tacitly admitting
that Joe did have such a revelation and
that it is all right. II. The leading editorial
in the first number of the iSaiiits^ Herald
says that the Lord gave that revelation to
Joe to punish Joe and the Mormons. III.
In the same number Isaac Sheen says .loe
had such a revelation and that it was from
the devil. IV. Joe lied and said he received
such a revelation, when he did not. V. It
is a lie and a forgery gotten up by Utah
Mowiions. VI. It is a lie told by the
Gentiles.

As the "clodings" peddler tells us, "you
takes v.hich you likes." It is all the same
material — lie— throughout. When the Jo-
sephites started, they did not dare to deny
that Joe was the originator of Mormon poly-
gamy, and the autlior of that revelation.
The facts were too recent and there was too
much evidence to be lied down. Forty years
have elapsed since the revelation was given
and over fifty since Joe first taught
and practised polygamy. Now they
impudently try to lie out of it. We
will stop all such lying attempts by quot-
ing their own testimony, given when
they started, and when the facts were
recent and the evidence so palpable that
they freely admitted the truth themselves.
On page 26 of the Saints' Herald, Vol. 1,
No. 1, William Marks, one of the leaders iu
the re-organization movement, one of their
founders and a leader till his death, declares
that June 1844 he was presiding elder of the
Stake at Nauvoo, and presiding officer of
the High Council. At that time the Church
had in a great measure departed from the
pure doctrines and principles of Jesus Christ.
It was revealed to him that the only way
to purify the church was to dis-organize it.
A few days after this revelation to him, the
Prophet Joseph sought an interview with
him, and said to him in these words, verba-
tim, for they were indelibly impressed ou
his memory :

" He had for a Ions time desired to have an interview
" with me on tlie subject of polygamy. It would prove
" the overthfDW of the church and we would have to
" have the United States on account of it. He would
"go before the congregation and proclaim against it.
" 1 must go before the High council and proclaim
" again,st it. He would prefer charges against those ia
"transgression, and I must sever them from the
"Church, if they would not make complete satis-
" faction."

From this clear, positive and circumstan-
tial evidence of one who was high in au-
thority at Nauvoo when Smith" s influence
as a prophet was omnipotent in the church
— one who was intimate with Smith — one
who knew perfectly nN that was going on
in the church— one who was one of the
founders of the Re-organization and a leader
till his death, as given in the first number
of the official organ of the Re-organized, we
prove :

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

205

I. That while Smith was living, and
when his influence as a prophet was omnip-
otent in the church, this abomination was
so prevalent that Marks, presiding elder at
Nauvoo, declared that the only way to pu-
rify the church was to dis-organize it.

II. That this abomination, polygamy,
prevailed to such an extent that its author,
Smith, became alarmed and declared that
it would be the ruin of the church, and that
the Mormons would be driven out of the
United States on account of it.

III. The testimony of Marks and of
Smith himself substantiates the charges of
the witnesses we have cited, that polygamy
was prevalent in the church when it was
nnder the control of Smith, and when his
influence as prophet was omnipotent in it.
Also the statements of witnesses in regard
to the orgies of the Endowment House and
other secret meetings in Nauvoo. The
church had become corrupt in polygamy
and lust.

Marks does not state how far Smith was
responsible for the horrible state of affairs
that so alarmed him, but as he had been
and was the great prophet, and as his influ-
ence was omnipotent, so startling an inno-
vation as polygamy could not have become
go prevalent unless, as hundreds of wit-
nesses testify, he was the originator of it.
Josephites appeal to Marks' statement that
Smith told Marks that he and Marks must
oppose it. True, but it was because he
found that the people of the United States
would drive the Mormons out of the country
on account of it, and thus ruin Mormonism.

We quote from page 27 of the first num-
ber of the official organ of the Josephites a
statement of Isaac Sheen, one of the found-
ers of the Re-organization, and one of the
leaders till his death :

"Joseph Smith repented of his connection with this
doctrine (polygamy) and said it was from the <levil.
He caused the revelation on that sui ject (polygamy) to
be burnt. When he vohintarily came back to Nnuvoo
and surrendered himself into the hands of his enem es,
he said he was goinjf to CartI -^ to die. At that time
he also said that if it nad not been for that accursed
spiritual wife doctrine he never w mid have come to
that" (condition.)

By this positive statement, published
with approval in the first number of the
official organ of the Josephites, and made
by one of the editors, a founder of the Jo-
sephites and a leader till his death, we
prove:

I. That Joseph was the author of the
vile pretended revelation in favor of poly-
gamy.

II. That the statement made by Mor-
mons in Utah is true, that the original of
the revelation was burned. Sheen tries to
give Smith credit for burning it. Utah
Mormons tell the truth and say that his
wife burned it.

III. That Smith publicly and openly
confessed that he was the author of it, and
that the death he feared would be caused
by his crimes in polygamy.

We will now clinch the matter by quoting
from the leading editorial in the first nutu-
ber of the official organ of the Re-organized
written, it is said, by Z. H. Gurley, one of

the founders of the Josephites and a leader
in that body, and an editor of that oflicial
organ from which we quote, pages 8 and 9:

"This adulterous spirit" (of polygamy)
"had BO captivated their hearts" (the hearts
of the Mormons), "that they" (the ^lor-
mons) "desired license froni God to lead
away captive" (in polygamy) "the fair
daughters of his people." Could the Lord
do anything more or less than Kzekiel hath
prophecied? The Lord hath declared by
Ezekiel what kind of an answer he would
give them. Therefore he answered them
according to the multitude of their idols.
Paul had also prophecied "for this cause
God shall send them sfrong delusions that
they might believe a lie, and that they all
might be damned." In Ezekiel the Lord
also says "I will set my face against that
man, the prophet, and I will cut him off
from the midst of my people, and ye shall
know that I am the Lord." The death of
the prophet (Joseph Smith) is a fact that
has been realized, although he repented of
:his iniquity (polygamy), "and abhorred
it before his death."

By this leading editorial of the first num-
ber of the ofiicial organ of the Re-organized,
written by one of the founders and leaders
of the Josephites, one familiar with Smith,
and what transpired in Nauvoo we prove.

I. That Smith was the author of the
revelation in favor of polygamy, and that
his death by violence was caused by his
connection with the iniquity of polygamy.

II. That Smith repented of this iniquity
before his death. This confirms Sheen's
testimony.

These three declarations of founders of
Josephites made in the first number of their
official organ ought to palsy the tongues of
the Josephites with shame, when they are
trying to lie out of the truth in regard to
Smith's polygamy. The Josephites assert
that these men have since retracted their
statements. If that were true it would
merely show that in the first number of the
"Saints' Herald," when the facts were re-
cent, they stated what was true, because
the evidence could not then be gainsayed ;
and thatsince then, when they tliiuk that
the evidence has disappeared, they are try-
ing to lie out of the truth they once con-
fessed. But we defy Josephites to produce
evidence that they have ever retracted these
statements. These statements stood for
years unquestioned and admitted, ^ow
Josephites try by cheek and impudence to
lie out of the damning fact that Joe
Smith was the originator of Mormon poly-
gamy. The evasions of Josephites when
forced to face this crushing array of testi-
mony are contemptible in their weakness.
They heap abuse on the one who presents
the evidence. That is as sensible as it
would be for a pettifogger to abuse i he law-
ver whose array of evidence he could not
meet. It matters not what the lawyer rnivy
be That does not affect one particle tbe
evidence of the witnesses he presents. They
abuse and villify the witnesses They are
liars, slanderers, &c., although they are

206

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

most of them Mornions, and were leaders
among the Mormons before they gave their
testimony. Calling them names will not
set aside their evidence.

They appeal to the denials of Smith and
others. The cheek displayed in such a plea
colossal. On the same ground every scoun-
drel arraigned for crime should be declared
innocent because he denies it. If persons
who accept such denials were judges in
criminal trials, they would set every scoun-
drel free the moment he set up the plea,
"not guilty." If men commit so infamous
a crime as polygamy, they will not hesitate
to lie out of it.' The Pratts, Taylor, Richards
and others, who united with Smith in such
denials, now admit that they and Smith
were practicing polygamy, when the deni-
als were made, and that th and Smith
lied in denying it, because it not then

prudent to avow it. -Smith's revelations
and teachings containmany instances where
concealment and deception were com-
manded under similar circumstances.
Smith's character for fraud, lying, cheat-
ing and deception were notorious all hia
life. The impudence of persons who will
appeal the denials of such a person in
the face of hundreds of witnesses whose
testimony is clear and direct, is idiotic it its
silliness.

When the clear positive testimony of O.
Pratt, P. P. Pratt, Taylor, Richards, Kings-
bury, Clayton, and* scores of others is
quoted to the Josephites, that they saw
Smith unite in plural marriage many per-
sons, that they saw him married in plural
marriage, that he united them to other men
and women iu plural marriage; that he
dictated, in their presence, the revelation
in favor of plural marriage; they howl
"Brighamite" " Polygamist ", and sneer
at the one quoting' the testimony, for
uniting witii Utah polj'gamists in defaming
the character of mart.yred Joseph. The
Josephites publish and use as their stand-
ards, the works of the Pratts and other
Utah Mormons. They quote their testi-
mony in their books, and accept it un-
questioned, on all topics, except their
positive declaration that Smith was the
originator of polygamy. If these men and
women are worthy of perfect credence on
all other topics, as the Josephites show, by
the way they quote them, they are worthy
of as much credence, when they declare
that Smith was the author of polygamy.
The course of the Josephites in this is ab-
surdly contradictory, and is an insult to the
goodsenseof all peopleof sense. They quote
these parties with absolute confidence on
all other matters, and they cannot reject
their evidence on this topic merely because
it contradicts their lying attempt to lie out
of Smith's connection with polygamy.

Young Joseph appeals to what he says
his mother told him. If Emma Smith ever
made such statements to him she lied in
the face of what she knew hundreds knew
of her troubles with Joe in New York, over
Eliza Winters, and in Kirtland over the
Knight girl and several others, that she

herself charged Joe with adultery in Kirt-
hmd, and that he confessed it to her and
the Church, that she 3ent Julia Murdoch to
her father because of Joe's intimacy with
her, th^rt she left the Mansion Hon-r- in
Nauvoo on account of Joe's harem of ^ils,
and that she knew of his polygamy, and
was present at his marriage to four of his
plural wives. She either lied in the face of
all this evidence, or young Joseph lied in
manufacturing that evidence. I have heard
several persons who were intimate with
her and her history, make this statement.
Finally they appeal to the teachings of the
Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrines
and Covenants.

The Book of Mormon condemns secret
societies in score!? of instances, far more
positively than it does polygamy, yet Rig-
don, Smith, and leading Mormons become
members of such societies, and instituted
them, in the face of these scores of positive
condemnations of them.

Several as glaring violations of the teach-
ings of the Book of Mormon can be cited.
The teachings of the standards of the church
do not amount to a feather's weight in the
face of such an array of evidence of the
facts ; especially when Smith trampled them
under foot in scores of instances.

But the Book of Mormon leaves the door
open to polygamy. Immediately after t <^
passage quoted to prove that it conden.^s
polygamy, occurs this language. After de-
claring that the people must keep the com-
mandment against polygamy, just given to
them, it adds, "For if I will raise up a seed
unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, I will
command my people. Otherwise they shall
keep my commandments," (against poly-
gamy). This means just this, "If I will
raise up a seed unto me, I wil' command
my people to practise polygamy. Until then
they are to keep my present commandment
against polygamy." That this is what it
means is evident from the fact that in th»
pretended revelation in favor of polygamy
the great object of polygamy is declared to
be to "raise up a seed unto the Lord." In
that sentence following the commandment
against polygamy the door is left open for
polygamy, when Rigdon and Smith chose
to introduce it.

This is confirmed by Smith's language in
an entry in his diary under date of October
5th, 1843.

" Gave instructions to try those persons who were
" teaching, practising and preHching the doctrine of
" plurality of wives. For according to the law ; I hold
"the keys to this power (to teach and practise p-ly-
" £famv ) in the last 'lavs. I'or ihere is never but one
•' on the earth, at a time, on whom this power ( to teach
•• and practice polygamy ), or its keys are conferred.
" And I have constantly said, that ui. man shall have
"hut one wife at a time, unless the Lord orders other-
" tvise."

Smith does not order persons to be dealt
with because polygamy is wrong, but be-
cause they are rushing ahead with it without
authority from him. They are making it
too public and leading others into it, when
he alone has that power. He teaches that
men shall have but one wife, unless the
Lord, through him, gives permission to

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

207

have more than one. Joe had given the
revelation in favor of polygamy, but he hud
not allowed it to be publicly taught yet.
Persons could avail themselves of the
license it gave, only as he, in person,
allowed them to do so. Such are the facts
in the case in regard to Smitli's polygamy.

There is not as clear evidence in favor of
any pretended revelation Joe ever gave, as
in favoi of this revelation in favor of poly-
gamy. The Josephites have no more
warrant to reject this, than any other
revelation.

We defy the Josephites to present as clear
evidence that Smith dictated any other re-
velation, as we have presented for this. As
clear evidence that he gave any other
revelation, or as clear evidence that Smith
practised any other prnctice. as we have
given that he practised polygamy. Let

them select the revelation or practice and
undertake it. As intelligent a Mormon as
the writer ever met de(;lared to lini ihat
she was disgusted with the duplicity ot the
Josephites in denying the palpable facts of
history. The only true course was to
acknowledge the truth that Smith was
guilty of licentiousness and polygamj', and
was the author of the revelation in its
favor, and then claim that it no mort' affected
the Book of Mormon tiian Solomon's poly-
gamy affected his writings.

Will Joseph Smith :vnd his followers ceaae
to deny the plainest facts of history and
own the truth in regard to Smith's connec-
tion with polygamy. They are lying for no
purpose, for no one believes them, and the
only result is to cover them with infamy for
their impudent falsehood.

KELLEY'S CLOSING SPEECH ON^ FIRST PROPOSITION.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen :— It is with no little gratifica-
tion and pleasure that I am again permitted
to claim your attention in the consideration
of the question, "Is the Book of Mormon of
Divine origin, and are its teachings entitled
to the respect and belief of all Christian
people?"

This is also my last thirty minutes upon
the proposition, and after answering the ob-
jections and assertions last presented by
my opponent, I shall pass to a review and
general summary of the arguments and
positions upon the questions by both dis-
putants.

I am surprised to find my opponent at
this late time in the discussion, telling the
audience how much he can prove. He has
now had ten evenings in which to do this,
and he has not done it. I suggest that it
will look better for him to first do some-
thing if he can towards proving his stories,
or meeting the argument of the affirmative,
and then tell you what he has done.

I have been waiting and listening with
patience too, these ten evenings for some
testimony to meet, or arguments to reply
to, but nothing has fallen upon my ears ex-
cept bundles and scraps of the most dog-
matical assertions, bound up with state-
ments of what he can prove by Mr. Ru-
dolph, or by witnesses' from Mr. Howe's
book, or Mr. Tucker's ; or what Mr. Camp-
bell, Mrs. Amos Dunlap or somebody else
has saiti. Of these persons named by him,
are Mr. Rudolph, a minister of his own de-
nomination, who lives but three miles away,
and Mr, Howe who lives but nine. Of these

I took the firm position from the very first,
that I had myself had conversations with
both within the past few months, and that
neither of them in fact knew a single thing
that was in the least contrkdictory to my
positions upon this question, and invited
him to put them upon the stand here for
examination, the latter at my expense.
Has he done so? Has he tried to have them
appear? Will I find him after this discus-
sion has closed, traveling the country
through, and telling what he can do, or
what his witnesses knew? But he says
now, that he don't claim Mr. Howe as a wit-
ness, only as a lawyer who compiled the
evidence. But I have attacked the compi-
lation itself,— the manner of the work and
what it contains. Shown the gross perver-
sions and misquotations in it, and demand-
ed that Mr. Howe first satisfactorily ac-
count for this, and the destruction of the
originals of the purported statements and
affidavits contained in that book, and the
original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding
before it is proper under any view of
the case to use them before this audience.
This is the only basis Mr. Braden has for
these stories. All pretended authors, in all
their publications of these, either took them
from Howe's book or some other work that
had taken them from his book, and the en-
tire list when examined, have gone down as
having been concocted in the same spirit
and manner as ttie story of the guards of the
sepulchre who were made to say, "His dis-
ciples came by night and stole hnu away
while we slept." But he now has another
witness on what Rigdon said in 182G.

208

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Suppose it to be true that Sidney Riofdon
did take tlie position in 1826, or 1827, that
the Apostolic religion could not be intro-
duced in full, unless it was with the gifts
accompanying and following the believer in
Christ, what of it? Was it not a truth
readily ascertained from the reading of the
New testament?

He would not in this have been adverse
to Charles Wesley. The same doctrine was
taught by Mr. Wesley. And yet he could
not claim for amoment that Mr. Wesley had
anything to do in connection with Mr.
Smith in getting up the Book of Mormon.
Such statements as this which he has
placed before you for argument, only lay
bare the terrible weakness of his positions.
Again he has tried to run something in
the discussion this evening — at the last,
hour — in the hope that he might possibly
be able to throw me off the main argument
and get me to leave the question under dis-
cussion, as he has done, and debate a new
issue. What other reason could he have
had for charging polygamy at the last hour?
Was it because he thought I had not the
time to answer him, and also make a
summary of my arguments, and he would
thus further prejudice your minds against
Mr. Smith? What has polygamy to do
with the debate upon the present question?
Does he suppose that I cannot answer the
false and slanderous charge of polygamy
against Joseph Smith? and does he not
know that I have answered in this country
abler men, and those better posted upon,
that charge than is Mr. Braden or any
preacher of the so-called Christian church?
(Applause.) Those, too, who have had far
better opportunity for knowing as to the
truth of the charge. It is a comparatively
easy matter to answer to that charge under
a proper question and at a proper time. I
have only to refer to my books and the
many citizens of Kirtland here to show that
the parties who have been peddling on the
outside that the Saints believed in polygamy
while here in Kii tland, or any kind of mar-
riage in any relation contrary to the one
lawful wedlock in monogamy, have told
absolute falsehoods — having no reasonable
basis whatever for such assertions.

The people of Utah themselves who be-
lieve in and practice polygamy, pretend to
no such thing. And persons* who are so
given to tale-bearing as to insidiously hawk
about such things against a people innocent
of any such charge are in a far more deplora-
ble condition than any classes of the Saints
wiiom it has been my lot to meet.

The law of the church was then, and is
now, specific upon tliis question. In para-
graph 2 of section 42, in a Revelation to the
church in 1831, the instruction is emphatic:
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy
heart, and shall cleave unto her and none
else, and he that iooketh upon a woman to
lust after her shall deny the faith and shall
not have the spirit ; and if he repents not
he shall be cast out."

Again, in section 49, paragraph 3, it is
written :

" I say unto you that whoso forbiddeth to
marry is not ordained of God, for marriage
is ordained of God unto man ; therefore it
is lawful that he should have one wife, and
they twain shall be one flesh, and all this
til at the earth might ansiuer the end of its
creation; and that it might be filled with
the 7neasiirr of man, according to his crea-
tion brforr the world teas m.ade.''^

This is the strongest sentence expressive
of but a single person of each sex in proper
wedlock that I have ever met with in any
book, and it came in a revelation to the
church here in Kirtland, through Joseph
Smith. Yet he seeks to lug into this dis-
<'ussion the question of polygamy to arouse
the mean sense of prejudice of the people.

His own arguments, however, completely
decapitate him. He says that " Elder Wm.
Marks stated in a letter that .loseph Smith
told him in the year 1844, just before his
death, that he (Smith) would prefer charges
against those in transgression, and that he
wanted him (Marks) to cut them off from
the churcii." That being true, it certainly
could not be true what he stated but a few
moments before, that Joseph Smith was io
transgression while here in Kirtland. It
was six years before this that Mr. Smith
was in Kirtland, and yet he has him making
charges against the transgressors. Braden
wants you to believe that Mr. Smith was
himself in transgression and was to prefer
charges against himself. The absurdity of
that conclusion has only to be referred to in
order that it be exposed. Who does not
know that Mr. Smith could not have been
guilty of any such a thing for six years
while right with these parties without their
knowledge? And such being the case, it is
perfectly absurd to think that he would
have dared to instruct Elder Marks, the
President of the High Council in Nauvoo,
that he would prefer charges against the
transgressors and Elder Marks should cut
them off. And to do also as he did in Feb-
ruary of that same .year, cut a man off from
the church for that same crime, publicly
and fearlessly.

In connection with Elder Z. H. Gurley of
Iowa, I naet this question of the origin of
polygamy among the Latter Day Saints be-
fore the Judiciary Committee of the House
of Representatives during the first session
of the 47th Congress, and we were able
there, and in our "memorial," and "argu-
ment," presented to the President and each
Senator and Representative, to maintain
our case in opposition to those versed in the
theory of those people who believe in poly-
gamy ; and do you think I could not sustain
my position here ?

Mr. Braden ; Do it, do it.

Mr. Kelley : I am ready and prepared to
do it if you "wish to take up that question.
But I shall not leave the question now un-
der consideration to do it. I am in the
affirmative here.

Suppose that Mr, Smith did have more
wives than one, what has what he did, after
the publication of the Book of Mormon, to
do with the question of whether it is true

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

liUtt

or not ? There is no dispute by anybody of
the fact that liis first, and as we claim his
only marriage, took place in the vear 1827,
the same year he began the translation of
v/hich this book is the result. He was then
but twenty-one years of age. But further,
I ojien the Book of Mormon here at page
ll(i, and read as follows :

"For behoI<1, thus saith the Lord, this people [the
ancient inhabituntsj begin to wax in iniquity; they
nnderstand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse
themselves in committing \vhored«ms, because of the
thirigN wliich were written concerning David and Solo-
mon, his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had
many wives and concnbines, which thing was abom-
inable before me, saith the Lord ; wherefore, thus siiith
the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of
Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might
raise up unto me a riuhtcous brunch from the fruit of
the loins of Joseph. [Joseph in Egypt.] Wherefore I,
the Loid God, will not suflfer that this people shall do
like unto them of old. Wherefore my brethren, hear
me, and hearken to the w^ rd of tlie Lord : for there shall
not any man among you have, save it be one wife, and
concubines he shall have none : Vot I, thf L«rd God,
dclighteth in the chastity of women and whoredoms
are an abomination before me: Thus saith the Lord
of Hosts "

Polygamy then is clearly condemned by
this book under discussion.

T open to other works of the church and
I find that it is absolutely denounced ; and I
fail to find a single word, scratch of the pen,
or fully established act of Joseph Smith, in
any place during his life, where he ever in
any manner or way approved or counten-
anced in any form. at any time a sentiment
or thought contrary to, or in disregard of,
the veritable teaching of Jesus Christ upon
the sacred rite of marriage, wherein he
says: "Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning made them
male and female ; and for this cause shall
a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be
one flesh." Matt. 19:4, 5.

Some pretend to believe that he practiced
polygamy privately; but after a careful and
catidid examination of what they have
claimed as evidences for this, I have found
that they have invariably fallen far short
of what would honestly be called, under
the laws of evidence, proofs. Whereas, on
the other hand, I have also noticed that the
claim has either been made by persons who
would like lo have it so, in order to ( in a
manner ) excuse their own evil practices, or
by those who desired it so, in order that
they might have a weapon with which to
assail the faith of the Saints.

Then there is no foundation for, or reason
in any shape why Mr. Braden should make
his polygamic assault here to claim my
attention.

Now there have been agreat many stories
told here by him ; and a great many things
a'^serted and reasserted with regard to
character, and he has jumped from one
conclusion to another, in order to dodge the
real question at issue, prejudice your
minds, and save his failing cause. But in
fact he has only succeeded in proving one
instance to this audience as yet, to show
that there has been lying and stealing
going on, as he has charged ; and that was
the instance where he proved that his

I Campbelhte Minister, whom he put upon
the stand ( Mr. Moss ) stole a revelation
from Martin Harris' Hat. ( Applause )

When my time was called I was discuse-
ing the manner of honorable debate and
showing you how persons; might respect-
fully prove or disprove ilie claims of the
Book of Mormon, or any other work making
a claim to inspiration. Showing that these
things are brought to the attention of the
people :

First: In the form or character of signed
statements, or petitions which are properly
used to set fortli the truth of a matter, and
when in harmony with established rules
may be said to establish a prima /r/cie case
This is not such a class of evidence howev-
er, as will enter with any degree of force in
determining the truth of a matter at issue.

Second. The evidence to be afterwards in-
troduced to prove the case set forth in these
statements, or duly prepared petitions.
The joined issue is ascertained by an exam-
ination of the points in these orderly state-
ments. The positions taken and the claims
made by the parties. But, in this discus-
sion, my opponent has tried to make the is-
sue upon the characters of the signers ;
which position I have certainly proved can-
not be tolerated under the divine rule, as ii
makes no difference in the argument wheth-
er a man comes from the mean city of Naz-
areth, is called a "wine bibber, "glutton-
ous," "stirer up of sedition," or a "deceiv-
er," the rule is : "If I say the truth why
do you not believe?" Never mind if they
do say I am the carpepter's son, and Mary
is my mother, and Joses and Simon, and
Judas and James are my brothers ; nor
whether I eat with "publicans and sinners,"
or wash before or after eating. "Whi(!h of
you convinceth me of sin," (by the word.)
"He that is of God heareth, (receiveth,
abideth in, judgeth by,) God's word."

But aside from this I told you from the
outset of this discussion that I offered the
statements signed by these witnesses for
the purpose of setting forth the object,
character, and claims of the work, under
the rule requiring me to present my case. I
showed in this way that I had upon all
points complied with the law in this regard
and then proceeded to bring the evidence as
provided in the law to ])rove my case.

There were three ways in which I could
do this, and prove it lieyond a reasonable
doubt; I could follow one or all; but if I
proved it in either way, I would be entitled
to the verdict, which would be, that the
Book of Mormon is of divine origin, and its
teachings are entitled to the respect and
belief of all Christian people.

1. By the internal evidences of the book
itself. Examining them under the rule \n
the constitutionjil and accepted standard,
the Bible: "Whosoever transgresseth
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ
hath not God. He that abideth in the doc-
trine of Christ, he hath both the Father and
the Son. If there come any unto you and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not in-
to your house, neither bid him God speed."

I^«

210

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

From the first I read copiously from the
Book of Mormon to show that in doctrine
and teaching it was absolutely in harmony
with the New Testament, and that whoso-
ever in faith and doctr'ne was a believer in
the principals taught in the Bible, was al-
ready a believer in the doctrine and faith
set forth in this book. Further I affirmed
that the sentiments which I read were in
perfect harmony and keeping with all oth-
er sentiments contained in the Book and
held out as a rule of faith and practice ;
and called upon my opponent to produce a
Single paragraph of bad instruction contain-
ed in the book if he could. What was his
answer to these proofs? "Impostor Joe,"
and a "set of rascals," "Mormonism, and the
Mormon Deity," "We have all the revela-
tion God ever intended the world should
have in the Bible." We think God spoke
to Peter and Paul, but as for this book we
don't want it. Just because ! That has
been his strongest argument all the way
through the entire ten evenings. Then
when this was stale he referred you to what
Aaron Wright said what he heard read
tweuty years bofore he said it. And, ditto,
Henry Lake, John Miller, et al, in Howe's
book, beautifully closing the argument with
"and it came to pass."

2. The second way in which Icould under
the law prove my case was by taking the
things written in the law/jropAc^/ca//^, and
prove my claim by comparing it with the
prophetic utterances, and if the book in its
object and char«cter was in agreement
with them, and no other reasonable inter-
pretation of these prophecies was adverse,
I would be entitled to a judgment of having
sustained the question upon that.

I cited these prophecies m^fl showed their
fulfilment, and that the bo k was well for-
tified with these from Geru sis to th ^ Apoc-
alypse, a summary of which i w ill give you
this evening, and he answered me with "the
Koran will apply as well to the passages."
And then it was Sidney Rigdon, and again
the character of the witnesses to the Book
of Mormon, and the Spaulding story."
What had all of this to do with my argu-
ment upon the prophecies? I was not ask-
ing him to take what the witnesses said
about it. I only oflered them as the signers
to a respectable paper showing that I had a
prima facie case. What has he to say about
the evidences I bring from the prophecies
in support of the work ? "If you believe in
Moses and the prophets ye would believe in
me, for they wrote of me." This is the po-
sition of the Savior upon the question of how
to test a ca^e by the prophecies. My claim
here and the claim of the Saints for this
book is strictly in harmony with this in-
struction of Jesus and it should be so exam-
ined:— Moses and the prophets, and Jesus
Christ, and some of the apostles spoke and
wrote of it.

8. The third line of proof was by the
prophetic evidence contained in the book
itself and demonstrated to be such : —

Fii-f-t. By showing that tl>e statements
made in the record of the habitation, char-

acter, condition, nativity, enlightenment
and final termination of the ancient races
of man (and in many instances of classes
of animals), of the continent were such that
if true, the work must be of a divine ori-
gin, for when published a knowledge of
these things had not been attained by the
world. This could be attested by the intro-
duction of such evidences as have, since the
publication of the book, been brought to
light through research and discovery.

Second. By the occurrence of certain re-
markable events in fulfillment of prophetic
statements made in the book, and wliich
have taken place within the knowledge of
the people since the publication. To sub-
stantiate this I presented the attested
greatness of the ancient civilizations of
America by their works, monuments and
ruined palaces and cities, discovered ai^d
explored since the publication of the Book
of Mormon. And secondly, gave the his-
tory and narration of certain things which
had occurred in fi Ifillment of predictions
in the book, showing that as predicted
therein on page 103, the blood of the Saints
had gone up into the ears of the Lord of
Sabaoth in the diabolical butchery of their
men, women and children in Missouri and
Illinois ; that the devouring fire, and fierce
and vivid lightnings, earthquakes, and
smoke in foreign lands, S9as to crimson the
rays of the suu itself, had taken place as
foretold by one of the prophets on page 496 ;
that the book from the first had been fought
as and called a Bible by its enemies as pre-
dicted in it on page 105 ; that the historical
early and latter rains had returned to re-
freshen and bless Palestine, and prepare
for Israel's return there soon after its pub-
lication, as foretold on pages 102 and 107;
that the peculiar work of the cyclone had
taken place to the astonishment of all peo-
ple, as declared in the book in the figure of
the "tempest," and many other predictions
and the fulfillment that I might name.

To all of this what has been his answer?

1. That Joseph Smith could have gained
this knowledge of the habitation, greatness
and civilizations from things already knowu
to the world of the antiquities of Amerii-a,
and as a proof, cited Priest's work that waa
published before the Book of Mormon, he
said. I took his (Priest's) work, and showed
that what he had cited you as a prior pub-
lication of Mr. Priest was not a work upon
antiquities at all, but a book of tales entit-
led, "The Wonders of Nature and Provi-
dence." He made a great display of the
names of authors Priest quoted from, men-
tioning Boudinot, Edwards, Elliot, Cotton
Mather, et al. ; but failed to read to you a
single thing these men had said upon the
subject; and, indeed, they had said nothing
except as to enter their speculations upon
the subject of whether the American In-
dians were the descendants of the "lost
tribes of Israel." I had preceded him, how-
ever, in this, showing there were such spec-
ulations ; but what had all this to do with
the great civilizations, works of art, lo -a-
tion of cities, skill and mechanism, towering

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

211

eliff dwellings and cities, and the grand,
enliglitenedand populous nations described
in the Book of Mormon and since veiitied by
discovery? I aske(i him. And so far as an-
swering is concerned lie has sat dumb and
speechless throughout the ten evenings.
But he could talk about Solomon Spauld-
ing, Mrs. Dunlap, Dr. Winters, Alexander
C.impbell and Poraeroy Tucker, and try to
villity Sidney Rigdon and others.

But again, I. pointed liim to the prophe-
cies in the book and their fulfillment, and
he could only cry, "Impostor Joe," "Sally
Chase," "Money digger," and "such abom-
inable trash and stutf."

What had all of this to do as to whether
these prophecie* had actually been fulfilled
or not? I refer to his kind of weapons and
methods of w«.riare to show you how he has
t^flectually escaped malting an argument
touching "the issue. The book is here, and
the question presented for proof under the
agreed standard between us ( the Bible) is.
Does it fulfill the requirements of the law?
He has only referred to this, however, by
asserting that not one of the propliecies
apply. But my judgment is that they do
apply, and I have given you my reasons for
applying them and claimed that they can
be properly applied to nothing else, and the
time is past for the fulfillment of many. He
has stood before you under the name of a
theologian and has not even dared to take a
position as to what they did refer to, lest he
be caught. He told you some person in
London applied some of them in one way,
and Mahomet applied some in another ; but
when I ask him to examine them and meet
the issue here, he goes back to hurling
epithets at the witnesses to the Book of
Mormon, who are called for an entirely
different purpose.

I took up the other line open to me and
showed that the statements made in the
work upon the ancient stateand civilization
of the continent as developed by writings
within the past fifty years were corrobora-
tive, and convincing of the truth of the
work ; and he at once takes the ground
that all this development in the ancient
civilization is but a reproduction of what
was known before the publication of the
book.

The finding of the fossil remains of the
animals which had ceased to exist when
America was discovered by Columbus, and
which were not known to have existed upon
the continent till after the publication of the
Book of Mormon, and I am referred to
Cortez' invasion of Mexico, where he found
the people in such a state of barbarism that
they were sacrificing human lives to gods
made with their hands for a solution To
the march of Pizarro in Peru, who met with
the Incas in their rudeness ; but was this
an indication that two highly cultivated and
civilized peoples had lived and died in these
very countries? No, sir; nor has such a
deduction ever been made from the then
condition of the peoples. The facts of these
great civilizations arise from the researches
among their ruins. Before, it was only a

speculation as to whether the Aztecs and
Toltecs and Incas, or either of them, had
ever been a civilized and enUghtened people.
It was only ascertained by explorers through
the distinct character of the sculpture and
paintings, roadways, and ruined palaces
and temples, and buried cities, that these
three distinc*^^ civilized peoples had existed
here, the discoveries of which were sub-
sequent to the publisheti record in the
Book of Mormon. Then he goes back again
to his tub of vilification and slander, and
attacks the witnesses offered to make the
prima facie case. But what of the main
evidence? Not in the least referred to by
him. Suppose our case was before a court
in the shape of written pleadings and
signed. There we would respectively pre-
sent our cases as we have presented them
here. As the one affirming, I begin and
introduce my evidence to prove my case, as
set out in my pleading, and rest. My
opponent, when his time comes, instead of
introducing evidence on his side, contents
himself by vilifying the signers to my peti-
tion which I have never introduced to prove
the main issue. I would go on and prove
my case, and my opponent would content
himself with an attack upon these same
witnesses. The result would be that at the
close of the trial he would find himself
sitting with his chair from under him.

Now look at the kind of proof for the
Spaulding story from this standpoint of the
evidence. He first introduces his witnesses
to make his prima facie case, viz : to show
that Spaulding wrote a manuscript. That
is all right ; they can do that by their mere
statements or affidavits. But when he
comes to his main case he has only these
same statements — only this and nothing
more ; and he introduces these same state-
ments to show what was in the manuscript
they say was written, and they burn the
manuscript itself. Can you swallow their
story, then? All of his statements and
affidavits have first gone through the hands
of Howe, who I have shown you so fully
(that even Braden has not denied it), filched
and garbled from our books to try to make
his points. Were the statements clean
then, after having passed through this
sickening sewer? Who will say that they
were? Then we were told that the Whit-
mers and Harris and Smith expected to
make money out of this thing. The lie is
given to it from the very first by the public
writings. They were distinctly told as
early as 1823 that they should not make
money out of it, and that was published
and of record from the first. Why should
these plain, published facts be contradicted
by his witnesses of easy reputations? And
why should he continually harp on charac-
ter? Is his faith so based upon frail hu-
manity that he judges mine to be? He has
examined into the private lives of these
men as though he expected we were to be
saved througii or by their acts. What has
their acts to do with our faith? Does he
violate respect of Jesus' unblemished life
by pretending to compare the wayward life

212

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

of mankind with it? Of any person? Does
not Jesus stand out alone the model and
pattern in life to the children ? Do we take
any of the apostles' or prophets' private
lives as an example to model after, except
so far as they followed Christ? Oh no, the
Saints do not; but my opponent's ire has
been aroused; it is " war to the knife, and
the knife to the hilt " with him ; and he will
open his mind and heart to nothing g:ood
unless it perchance comes through the small
glasses through which his vision is alone
lighted. Man can never reach truth iu
any sense by such a course, and I advise
him to change, and now.

SUMMARY.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I
shall now briefly summarize the arguments
adduced in the" investigation of the propo-
sition, as I have contrasted the proofs of
both the afHrmative and the negative, and
the methods pursued by each in the exami-
nation of evidence. I showed to you :

First, That the standard by which men
and revelations are to be tried, and their
teachings and claims to divinity deter-
nained, is the doctrine and words of .lesus
and his servants, viz: "to the law and the
testimony."

This is the advice of the prophet Isaiah
to the people when testing the teachings of
the professors of his time. Not by their
pretended supernatural works, their char-
acters, or the lies told about them. Isaiah
8:20. Jesus submits this same rule to the
hypocritical Jews as the one holy and just,
as the rule by which he would submit and
be tried as to his claims when they would
fain attack his character ; submitting that
"He that is of God heareth God's words.
Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are
not of God." John 8:47. "Whosoever
transgresseth and abideth not in the doc-
trine of Christ hath not God. He that
abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
both the Father and the Son," 2 John, 9th
verse.

Second. By this divinr rule, I showed
that the writings of the Book of Mormon
must be tried, audits claims to a divine ori-
gin must be determined. By this rule the
book stands approved, its teachings being
in strict harmony with those of Christ, the
prophets, and a'postles, as attest the con-
tents of the volume entire — and as proof of
which, I cited certain passages found on
pages 99, par. 16, 224, par. 4, 242, par. 4, and
249, par. 8, and which were cited as but re-
flecting the sentiment of the book through-
out. By the Bible, tlierefore the claims of
the Book of Mormon to a divine originupon
a doctrinal basis are found to be true.

Third. The avowed object of the book in
its being brought to light to convince the
Jews and the Gentiles that Jesus is the
Christ, the Savior ; as witness the preface of
the work, and pages 441, and 290, read the
first evening, is a good one and in harmony
with the Bible, By the voice of two or
three witnesses shall every world be estab-
lished.
Fourth. I also presented as bearing upon

the investigation of this question, the great
and divine truth, enunciated by the apostle
Paul and Peter, that God created the na-
tions of the earth, and determined the
bounds of their habitation, for the express
purpose of being sought after, felt after and
being found of them. And the only way
any nation has been able as yet to really
find him, is by seQ^m^ him through the reve-
lation he has given to them. They could
only work righteousness lo acceptance with
him by conforming to the law of righteous-
ness, (the gospel,) as it is therein that his
righteousness is revealed. See Acts 17 : 26
— 27 ; 10: 34. 35. Evidence does appear both
in the Book of Mormon and in the accounts
of modern scientific investigation, and ar-
chfeblogical discoveries on the American
continent, showing that the ancient inhabi-
tants of this continent knew of and worship-
ed God, and therefore the claims of the
Book of Mormon to containing a record of
the gospel as revealed to the ancient inhab-
itants of this continent is both scriptural
and reasonable. This great fact is of impor-
tance in this controversy, illustrating the
thought, that He wiio Scattered the people
from the Tower of Babel, abroad "upon the
faceofall the earth,'' (and hence some were
brought to the Western continent,) as is af-
firmed by the Bible and twice stated iu
Genesis, chapter 11, verses 8 and 9. left
them not without providing for their moral
and spiritual welfare. This the Book of
Mormon teaches regarding the Jaredites
who j<)urneyed to this land from the tower,
and were blessed here with a revelation of
God's will to them — and here again the
Book of Mormon and the Bible agree in
thoiisrht.

Fifth. The Book of Mormon teaches that
the branches of the tribe of Joseph of Egypt
emigrated to tins continent about 600 years
before Christ, and here became a great peo-
ple, and were blessed with manifestations
of God's will. 'I'o this agrv^e the prophetic
blessings of Jacob upon the sons of Joseph,
Manasseh and Ephraim, when blessing
them concerning things to come. He pre-
dicted they should become "a multitude in
the midst of the earth," geographically lo-
cating them on this continent when taking
our stand in Egypt, and extending our
measure to " the midst of the earth." Not
only this, but the descendants of Joseph
aloiie were to become a multitude of na-
tions, whereas the entire twelve tribes be-
came'but two nations, so far as the Bible
informs us, on the Eastern continent Gen.
48:14-19. On this continent the multitude
of nations is fully represented in the abo-
rigines, and in the different nationalities
congregated here since the time of the dis-
covery" And the Bible bears out the Book
of Mormon in its claims again.

Sixth. In Genesis, chapter 49 : 21-26, Jacob
blesses Joseph with a land situated beyond
the sea, or "over the wall," and to which
Joseph's descendants were to emigrate;
and not only this, but this landed blessing
prophetically given to Joseph was to far
exceed i,t geographical boundaries and ex-

THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

213

tent the land of Canaan, the land of Jacob's
progenitors; for he said, " The blessing^s of
thy father have prevailed above the bless-
ings of my progenitors, unto the utmost
hound of the everlasting hills. They shall
be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown
of the head of him that was separated from
his brethren."

Moses also, when blessing the tribes of
Israel for the last time, marks Joseph dis-
tinctly with a landed estate that in none of
its leading characteristics refers to their
little portion of Palestine : A land blessed
with the deep that coucheth beneath ; great
inland seas or lakes of fresh water ; the
precious things of its everlasting mountains
and its noted hills, the ores and minerals of
which Canaan is devoid ; the great variety
of fruits, indicative of varieties of tempera-
ture, which was not true of Joseph's little
portion in Palestine. But the land of Amer-
ica fills this prophetic description of Moses
to the very letter, thus confirming the Book
of Mormon in its claims that Joseph's de-
scendants came and inherited this land
anciently.

In the history of the Book of Mormon I
showed to you that two companies of Israel-
ites came to the continent, one landing upon
the western coast of South America and
the other in Yucatan, and that afterwards
these peoples were united. From the dis-
coveries and explorations since made, I
showed you that this was corroborated in
the fact that the cities builded in Yucatan
were quite diflerent from those builded by
the Jaredites in other parts of Central
America. That such a people did exist is
proven also by Mr. Short, pages 436 and 438,
where he says they still preserve in history
the word "Muloc," and as used by them it
means "union." The Mulockites of this
part of Central America were the very peo-
ple the Book of Mormon says united with
the people of Nephi ; and to maintain that
the evidence from the explorer and linguist
is corroborative of the narrative in the book,
is entirely reasonable and legitimate.

Seventh. I showed you that the fact that
Ephraim should be hidden, mixed and un-
identified with the people, until one should

stand up with the Urim and Thummim to
declare him was entirely scriptural ; and
the fact that the one who translated the
record of the Book of Mormon had this in-
strument by which the positive light was
turned upon the prophetically first born of
Joseph in pushing the work of gospel
progress, in the last days, was a convincing
evidence of the Rook of Mormon and its
agreement with the Bible.

Eighth. That the people to whom Jesus
referred in John 10:16 were emphatically of
Israel, and that they did hear his voice
and were those whose record we have in the
Book of Mormon.

Ninth. That the "ensign to be lifted up"
in Isaiah 18; the message represented by
the writing upon the stick of Joseph iti the
37th chapter of Ezekiel; "the book," which
was to contain the doctrine of Christ set
forth in the 29th of Isaiah, and the "gos-
pel," which John witnessed committed by
the angel in Revelations 14:6, all pointed to
the culmination of a certain thing, and the
inauguration of the same work, at a time
in the world's history, "justafore the har-
vest," when "Lebanon was to be turned
into a fruitful field," "in the hour of his
[God's] judgment, in the time when the
"Son of man shall come;" and that these
prophetic descriptions are fully and com-
pletely answered in the coming forth, ob-
ject, character and work of the Book of
Mormon, and that it is therefore a light in-
deed to the people and the precursor of the
glory of Israel.

Tenth. That the work was not to com-
mend itself through its excellency of speech
or words of man's wisdom, but absolutely
as declared by the prophet, be blessed to
those who should seek after the wisdom
and power of God ; "for the wisdom of their
wise men shall perish and the understand-
ing of their prudent men shall be hid."
Isaiah 29:14 — all of which is fully answered
in the message brought by the Book of Mor-
mon.

(Time called).

I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for
your patient hearing. ^Applause).

214

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S CLOSING SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen :— The proof that Impostor Joe
was the author of Mormon polygamy seems
to have completely unhalanced my oppo-
nent. He howled* and ranted and talked
against time till his chagrin, anger a_nd
evident consciousness of defeat were piti-
able. The argument is this. The Re-orga-
nized denounce polygamy as from the devil.
God would not give such a revelation. If
Joe did give to the world such a pretended
revelation, it was from the Devil and not
the A Imighty , according to the Re-organized
themselves, and lie was a prophet of the
Devil and not of the Almighty. We take
them on their own grounds. We presented
the testimony of William Marks, intimate
with Joe and high in authority under Joe,
and one of the re-organizers of the Re-organ-
ized, one of their founders and teachers, one
of the editors of their official organ, that
when the power and influence of Joe Smith
was omnipotent among the Mormons as
their prophet, polygamy prevailed to so
fearful an extent that Marks had a revela-
tion that the only way to purify the church
was to utterly dis-organize it. Also that
even Joe himself, the author of the abomi-
nation, was alarmed, and said thatpolygamy
would be the ruin of Mormonism. This was
while Smith was living and his intlu6nce
was omnipotent. Will Kelley deny the
statements of Marks, one of the founders of
his re-organized concern?

We read the declaration of Zenos H.
Gurley, in the first number of the official
organ of the "Re-organized" written by
Gurley, one of the editors, and one who was
intimate with Smith in Nauvoo and who
was one of the re-organizers of the Re-organ-
ized, one of the founders of Kelley's organi-
zation, who declares, positively, that the
Mormons wanted to go into polygamy, and
that Joe gave them the revelation, and that
he repented of the iniquity of giving this
revelation and was punished for it by a
violent death. Will my opponent deny this
statement? We presented the positive
statement of Isaac Sheen, one who was
intimate with Smith and knew all that
transpired behind the scenes in Nauvoo, one
of the re-organizers of the Re-organized, one
of the editors of their official organ, one of
the founders of the organization, that Smith
was the author of that abominable, so-called
revelation, that he declared himself th-tt he
was the author of it, and that, if it had not
been for the practice- and teaching of poly-
gamy in which he had indulged, he would
not have been involved in the troubles that
cost him his life. Will my opponent deny
this positive testimony of three of the re-
organizers of the Re-organized, the three

editors of the official organ of his organiza-
tion, three of the founders of his so-called
churcli ? Does he dare attempt it?

His appeals to the Book of Mormon and
Book of Doctrines and Covenants amount to
nothing. The Book of Mormon is full of the
anti-Masonic rant of the times of its origin.
Yet Rigdon and Smith afterwards became
Masons. Joe never had a pretended revela-
tion that he could not contradict by another
pretended revelation. AVe have proved
that from infancy he was a notorious liar.
We have proved that he and his confederates
repeatedly lied in denying the most palpable
facts. Mormons lied' for years in denying
that spiritual wifery and polygamy were
practised and taught among them, when
the testimony of hundreds of persons who
saw and heard it, proved that they were
lying.

The facts we have proved, that Smith
advocated polygamy before he left New
York, that he tried to practice it in Penn-
sylvania, and said adultery was no sin, the
declarations of Mormons who were behind
the scenes in Kirtland, that he practiced it
secretly in Kirtland, that he practiced it in
Missouri, that he declared in Kirtland that
it would be the practice of Mormons, his
declarations to his confederates in Missoufi
that he had such a revelation, his practice
of it in Nauvoo, teaching it extensively in
private, his taking plural wives, as the
affidavits of such wives and witnessee;
prove, his performing the ceremony for
others ; the testimony of men to wiiom he
dictated the revelation, of the one who took
a copy from this original, of apostles who
passed on the revelation in high council,
and of the editors, re-organizers, founders of
the Re-organized, in the first number of their
official organ, render Kelley's attempted
denial brazen in eflrontery, and idiotic ia
its worthlessness.

In his attempt to reconcile the gross con-
tradictions in the Book of Mormon, that we
exposed, he falsifies its statements. The
plates of Ether which Limbi found, wera
not the plates of Jared's brother, which
were not to go forth until after the Gen-
tiles were converted. He did not explain
how any Jaredite plates could be in the
keeping' of King Benjamin, when Mosiah,
Benjamin's son and successor, did not ob-
tain the plates until after Benjamin's death,
and the Nephites did not know of the exist-
ence of the plates, or the people who had
them, until after Benianiin's death. The
Book of Mormon does say, in so many words
that Corianturar died among the subjects
of King Zarahemla, who reigned 250 years
before Christ, or 350 years after the Neph-
ites reached America, and 340 years after

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

215

the Zarahemlltes reached America; or at
least 350 yeurs afterall the Jaredites, except
Coriaiituinr were slain. Moroni did say he
could write no more for his plates were full,
and lie could make no more plates. In
representing that he afterwards wrote the
Jaredite portion, the Book of Mormon does
make him write on uothing, 57 pages of the
Book of Mormon. Unfortunately for my
opponent's gabble about the sticks of Eph-
raim and Judah, the same Hebrew word
means "rod," "staff," "stick," "scepter."
In not one instance are rolls or books i-alled
sticks. Ezekiel wrote on a literal slick as
Aaron wrote on a literal stick. We have
several times proved from the context that
his long string of prophecies can refer only
to Israelites on the old continent, and not
to Israelites in America, for there never
were any such, and the speakers knew
nothing of America. We have several
times exploded his archaeological stuff.

If any one will compare the characters
©n real glyphs with Joe Smith's lying pre-
tended .;ac sim?7e of what was on his pre-
tended plates, he can see the diflt'erence be-
tween real glyphs and a clumsy fraud got-
ten up by an ignoramus.

The contradictions in Mormon statements
that I have exposed, I quoted from Mormon
books themselves. I'showed that Mormon
statements are contradictory. By quoting
from Mormon books we proved that Smith,
Harris, Whitmer, Cowdry and others
flatly contradicted themselves. In the same
statement of Whitmer that Kelley read a
portion of, are silly yarns about angels
plowing seven acres of land, sowing eleven
acres of plaster, old Maroni trudging along
side of Whitmer's wagon, lugging the
plates, and sweating like an old tramp.
The silly lies of Whitmer, Harris, Smith
and Moroni destroy their testimony. Kelley
says Whitmer is a most estimable man. I
read from his own copy of the Mormon offi-
cial organ, the '■'limes and Seasons," the
statement of Smith that he was an ass
brajnng out cursings, and was cut off from
the church for lying, slander and plotting
robbery and nuirder. We read an official
document issued by lligdon and 83 Mormon
officials, their highest officials, that he was
guilty of lying, stealing, counterfeiting,
and was a blackleg of the blackest dye.

The Book of Mormon declares that the
plates were engraved by divine command,
by the gift of God, translated by the gift of
God, and the witnesses declare that God
told them the translation was correct, yet
the Mormon Deity had to correct 5000 blun-
ders ! !

CONCLUDING SUMMARY.

The issues in this debate hav« been : I.
Did mankind need new revelations in addi-
tion to those in the Scriptures, when .Joseph
Smith pretended, in the Book of Mormon
and other pretended revelations, to give to
the world new revelations, in addition to
those in the Bible? If. Was Joseph Smith
a true prophet of God? III. Did Joseph
Smith, in the Book of Mormon and otlier
professed revelations^ give to the world new

revelations, in addition to those in the Bible?
We have been agreed : 1. That man needs
a revelation of religion and nicnals. 2. That
it should be given by inspiration of chosen
men. 3. That inspiration and revelation
should be attended and attested by signs
wonders and superhuman powers. 4. That
the Bible is a revelation given by inspira-
tion, attended by signs, siiperhunian pow-
ers. 5. That these superhuman powers did
benevolent work for man while attesting
inspiration and revelation. C. That they
comoatted evil superhuman powers, and
enabled man to overcome tliem. 7. That
the3' aided and directed man in matters in-
cidentally connected with the development
of the revelation of trutli recorded in the
Bible. 8. That they developed and culti-
vated his spiritual nature. We have agreed
in this concerning the Bible and superhu-
man power connected with it.

The issues have been: 1. Has man receiv-
ed inspiration superhuman power, and new
revelations since the apostles of Christ com-
pleted their work? Or more particularly,
did he need inspiration, superhuman pow-
er, new revelations, when Joseph Smith
pretended to be inspired, possessed of su-
perhuman power, and to give new revela-
tions in addition to those in the Bible? 3.
Does the Bible teach that inspiration, su-
perhuman power ajid new revelations are
possible? That they were and are to con-
tinue, as an essential constituent element In
the church? 4. Or does it teach that they
are to cease? That thfey perfected their
work when the New Testament was perfec-
ted? That the law of God was and is, that
they should cease, when ttie New Testa-
ment was completed, having accomplished
their work? Our position has been that,
just as, in the analogous cases, of e.rercise
of miraculous power in creation, ns in the
growth of each individual existeu e in the
animal and vegetable world, or in the work
of framing a constitution, and organizing a
government under it, so in the exercise of
miraculous power, and the influence of in-
spiration, in the giving of revelation there
was an end, a purpose to be accomplished,
and that that purpose determined the
time of its continuance, and that it ceased,
when it had accomplished its purpose, and
was succeeded by a higher and more per-
fect condition, for which it had prepared
the way.

We explained that there have been two
infiuencesof the Holy Spirit. 1. The direct
and miraculous, seen in inspiration, revela-
tion, and miracle. 2. The ordinary through
the truth. The first is not a moral influ-
ence, produces no moral change. Left the
person influenced just as it found him.
That tlie only moral influence the Holy
Spirit has exerted on men has been through
truth. Conversion and sanctilication can
be accomplished only through the truth.
The Bible speaks of these manifestations of
the Holy Spirit: 1. The inspiration enjoyed
by the inspired men of the Old Testament,
and until the ascension of Christ. 2. Bap-
tism in the Holy Spirit. 3. Spiritual gifts

216

THE BR ADEN AND ILELLEY DEBATE.

imparted by the hands of an apostle. We
proved that promises of Joel, John the Bap-
tist, and Jesus, in regard to the Holy Spir-
it, all had reference to the miraculous influ-
ence of the Holy Spirit. That the promise
of the Comforter was to the apostles alone,
and was miraculous. That Jesus limited
the promise of Joel "to all flesh ," to believ-
ers ; and that his language in Mark 16, logi-
cally does not extend beyond the aijostles ;
such apostles as would preach, believing his
promise to be with them ; for it concludes
"they" the apostles "went" everywhere
preaching, and the Lord was with them"
the apostles "attesting their work," the
work of the apostles, with the signs he had
promised to the apostlt^a.

We proved that Peter limited the promise
of .foel to such believers as "the Lord should
call," to the exerciseof the spiritual powers,
that Joel promised. We proved that the
Lord called by the imposition of an apostle's
hands, that none but an apostle could im-
part these gifta. Tliat they never descended
to a third person. We proved that there
never were but two instances of baptism in
the Holy Spirit, and that, as there is one
baptism, only water baptism is in the
church. Baptism in the Spirit has ceased.
We proved by an appeal to Eph. 4, tliat
spiritual gifts were to remain until the
church was completed, or became a perfect
man, and the faith was completed in the
New Testament. By an appeal to 1. Cor.
12-13, that there is a more excellent way
than the exercise of the best spiritual gifts.
That prophecy, all speaking by inspiration,
knowledge, all revelations, tongues, all
mere signs, were to cease ; when the church
was completed in organization, and the New
Testament, the perfect law of liberty, that
which makes perfect, was completed. We
proved by our appeal to Daniel's prophecy
that all vision and prophecy were to cease
about lOoyearsafter Christ. That as mirac-
ulous work in creation ceased, and gave
way to the higher, the operation of natural
law, so miraculous work in revelation ceased,
and gave way to the higher, the moral
power of truth. We next stated the forty
cardinal ideas of religion and showed that
Christianity contains all of them, expresses
each perfectly as a universally applicable
truth, and that it is an absolute religion of
universal and eternal truths, perfectly ex-
pressed, and can not be outgrown.

We demanded of our opponent, what
single truth had been given to the world by
Mormon pretended revelations, not in
Christianity. What idea that was not
better expressed in Christianity, than in
Mormonism? He has utterly failed to meet
this question. We proved that all Hibie
writers and speakers speak of the work of
Jesus and the apostles, as perfect, the last,
the final. They never speak of any thing
that is to succeed it. They declare that
Christ came in the fullness of the times.
That in Ciirist dwells the fullness of the
Godhead, in him was all fullness. They say
that all fullness is in his church. That
the Gospel is the fullness, the completeness

of God's word. That the church is perfect
in organization and faith or doctrine. That
God gave to the apostles all things pertain-
ing to life and godliness. This utterly
forbids all ideaof Mormon revelation. They
are needless, for the perfect, that which is
complete, the fullness, all things have been
given in Christianity.

We then presented the history of the Book
of Mormon and proved that it had a base
human origin, and was fabricated as a
fraud to deceive. We proved by the con-
current testimony of seventeen witnesses,
one of them Rigdon himself, that Solomon
Spaulding wrote a romance called the
" Manuscript Found ;" that he wrote three
drafts, or manuscripts, of this romance and
part of another before his death. We have
proved that the " Manuscript Found" had
in it these features found in the Book of
Mormon, and found in no other books but
tl>e Book of Mormon and the Manuscript
Found. 1. The plot of the Manuscript
Found, as witnesses describe it, was just
what Mormons give when describing the
Book of Mormon. 2. It purported to be a
veritable history of the aborigines of Amer-
ica. So does the Book of Mormon. 3. It
attempted to account for the antiquities of
America by giving an account of their con-
struction. So does the Book of Mormon.
4. It assumed that Israelites were the abo-
rigines of America and ancesto s of the In-
dians. So does the Book of Mormon. 5.
It said the Israelites left Jerujalem. So
does the Book of Mormon. 6. They left to
escape divine judgments about to fall on
these people. So does the Book of Mormon.
7. That they journeyed through and from
Southern Asia, by land and sea. So does the
Book of Mormon. 8. Their leaders were
Nephi and Lehi. So does the Book of Mor-
mon. 9. One Laban was murdered to ob-
tain records. So declares the Book of Mor-
mon. 10. They quarreled and divided into
two nations, called Nephites and Lamanites.
So says the Book of Mormon. 11. There
were terrible wars between the two nations,
aud the parties into which they divided,
with awful slaughter. So declares tlie Book
of Mormon. 12. They buried their dead
after these slaughters in great heaps, th:it
caused the mounds. So declares the Book
of Mormon. 13. In two instances the end
of these wars was the total annihilation of
all but one, who escaped to make a record
of the final catastrophe. So declares the
Book of Mormon. 14. These sole survivors
finished the record of the people and buried
it. So declares the Book of Mormon. 15.
The Manuscript Found gave an historical ac-
count of the civilization, laws, customs, arts
and sciences of those peoples. So does
the Book of Mormon. 16. One party of
these people were the ancestors of our
American Indians. So declares the Book
of Mormon. 17. The names Nephi, Lehi,
Laban, Laman, Nephite, Lamanite, Mor-
mon, Moroni, Amlicite, Zarahemla, etc.,
were in the Manuscript Found. So they are
in the Book of Mormon. 18. The use and
characteristics of these names in the Manu-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

217

script Found were preeisely the same as in
the Book of Mormon. 19. The Manuscript
Found was written in scriptural style — that
is, the style of King James' version. So is
the Book of Mormon. 20. " Now it came to
pass" occurred so frequently as to render
the language ridiculous. Such is true of
the Book of Mormon. 21. This ridiculous
peculiarity got for tlie author of the Manu-
script Found the nickname of "Old Came
to Pass." The Book of Mormon is just '■uch
a book. 22. Tlie original from which the
story was translated was taken from the
earth. The same is claimed by tlie Book of
Mormon. 23. One party of emigrants
landed near the Isthmus of Panama, and
migrated across the continent in a north-
eastern direction. So declares the Book of
Mormon. 24. The land tiear the Jsthmus
was called the land of Zarahemla. So de-
clares the Book of Mormon. 25. In a battle
between Amlicites and Lamanites, one
party marked their foreheads with a rtd
cross to distinguish them from their ene-
mies. So declares the Book of Mormon.
26. The destruction of the nations extermi-
nated took place near a bill called Cumorah.
So declares the Book of Mormon. 27. The
Manuscript Found could have been used as
a fraud, an imitation of the Bible, a pre-
tended revelation. The B^ok of Mormon is
just such a fraud. Now, then, the reader
must do one of the two things, believe that
Solomon Spaulding, during a period of
from twenty-two to fourteen years before
the Book of Mormon appear(Ml, by a miracle
wrote a romance that i-ontained these
twenty-seven great features of the Hook of
Mormon — features that no other book except
the Manuscript Found and Book of Mormon
ever contained in common — ^or that Rigdon
stole the manuscript of the IManuscript
Found and remodeled it into the Book of
Mormon.

We proved that the third manuscript of
Manuscript Found was taken to Patterson's
printing ottice. That Rigdon was learning
the tanner's trade in Pittsburg at that time.
That he was very intimate with liambdin,
one of Patterson's printers. That the
Spaulding Manuscript Found attracted
much curiosity in the printing office. That
Rigdon as ch interested in it That he
hun^ aro'tnd the office, till Engles, the fore-
man complained of it. That the manuscript
was stolen. That Rigdon was charged with
stealing it. That ne afterwards showed it
to Dr. Winters, saying that it was a Bible
romance, written by a Presbyterian ptencher
named Spaulding, giving a history of the
Indians, and that it had been taken to a
printing office for publication, and that he
borrowed it as a curiosity. We proved that
he spent so much time over it that his wife
threatened to burn it. That he retorted:
"Indeed you will not; this will be a great
thing soine day." We proved by .Jeffries
that Rigdon told him that he took the
manuscript from the printing office and
gave it to Smith to publish. We proved by
Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, McAuly, Chase and
Saunders that Rigdon was seen at Smith's

in New York, from the spring of 1827 to the
fall of 1880. We proved that he was absent
from Mentor tor weeks at a time, during
tliese years, c^nd no ony knew where. We
proved by Beutley, Campbell and Atwater,
that be announced yeais before it appeared
^uch a book its the liook ot Mormon, trans-
lated from Gold plates, dug up in Nevr
York, giving the origni of American Anti-
quities, a history ol' the aborigines of Amer-
ica, and telling that the irospel had been
preached in America just as the Disciples
were then preaching it on the Reserve. Wo
proved by Atwater, Dille, Z. Rudolph, .John
Rudolph, Green, and by Keiley liirnself,
that Rigdon preached and advocated the
doctrines in which the Book of Mormon dif-
fers from the Disciples, the peculiar ideas of
thei Book, That he s-o indoctrinated all his
hearers, where he could, tiiat every Rigdiju-
itf* became a Mormon, when he became one.
He had prepared then for theslightchange.
chietly a chanafe of name. W"e showed ihac
when a Mormon preacher read to a Conne-
aut audience, for the first time they had
ever heard it, the Book ot Mormon, Spaula-
ing's old acquaintances, who had heard
him read his Manuscript Found, denounced
the fraud. Squire Wright hhoutins: : "Old-
come-to-pass has come lolile." His broth-
er, John Spaulding, denounced it on the
spot.

We have shown that the witness after
reading the Book of Mormon, declare that
the historic portions, in all ot the twenty-
seven great features we have enumerated,
is identical with the Manuscript I'ound
of Solomon Spaulding. They reject the re-
ligious portion. That accords with the idea
that Rigdon stole the Manuscript Found,
and remodeled it to the use of a pretended
revelation, interpolating the religious por-
tion. The testimony showing that Spauld-
ing wrote several Manuscripts explains
away the trouble over Rigdon's copying it.

He stole it. It explains the size of the
Manuscript Martha Spaulding read. She
read her father's first brief draft, or the
portion he wrote in Anaity after Rigdon
stole what he had sent to Patterson's office
to be published. It explains aw-aj' all
trouble over the discrepancy, the difference
between Spaulding's sentiments and the
teaching of the Book of Mormon.

We then gave a chronology of ISrormon-
ism showing that our history of the book
accorded exactly with every demand of his-
tory. We then proved by the Rigdonisms
in the Book of Mormon that Rigdon is ita
author. We found that no one but a Dis-
ciple preacher of the time when it appeared,
could have been its author, used its lan-
guage, and uttered its teachings. We
showed that where Rigdon agreed with
the Disciples, the Book agreed with them.
Where he disaffreed it disagreed and very
bitterly too. That it advocates Rigdon's
ideas on community of goods, restoration of
spiritual gifts, new revelations, his fall-
down power to which he was subject. His
anti-Masonry, His name lor believers and
for the church. His sermon against infant

218

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

baptism. That it contains his baptismal
formula, his revival expressions, his rant
bombast, fustian, and spread-eag'Ie. That
it has every mark of being arranged by one
mind, not many, as Mormons claim. The
style is a unit not diverse as is the case in
the Bible. That one mind is Rigdon.

We took up the testimony of Smith, the
three witnesses, the eight. We proved that
Smith was notorious for his frauds and lies.
We exposed his almost countless lies and
contradictory stories about the matter. We
proved that lie never made a statement
that he did not, at some time, contradict.
We proved by the declarations of those who
had been his neighbors, associates, and by
Mormons themselves that he was notorious
for his falsehoods and frauds. We took up
the three witnesses. AVe proved Martin
Harris to have been utterly unreliable
in his stories about Mormonisra. He lied
about his inlerview with Anthoa. He told
most idiotic lies. He said he never saw the
plates with his natural sight. He saw them
by faith. We read Joe's warning against
adultery and murder, in a revelation ad-
dressed to Harris. Joe's denunciation of
of him as being beneath the notice of a gen-
tleman. That he had been a vile character
before hejoined the Mormon Church, and
he gave his testimony one year before he
joined the church. We showed by his ri-
diculous, idiotic tales, that he was utterly
unworthy of belief. We proved by Cow-
dery's old neighbors that he was worthless
and unworthy of belief. By a revelation
uttered by Smith that he Avas not to be trus-
ted. By Hiram Smith that he was a thief
and a robber and forger. By Joe that he
had been cut off from the church for crime,
and was engaged in lying against the Saints,
and plotting their murder and robbery.
That he died a drurjken sot with delirum
tremens.

We proved by David Whitmer's yarns
that his testimony was worthless. Angels
sowing plaster, plowing laud, and all such
tomfoolery. We proved that Joe said he
was cut off with Cowdery from crime, and
was engaged with him in circulating lies
and plotting the murder and robbery of the
Saints. We showed that Rigdon and 83
other Mormons, their leaders, denounced
Cowdery and Whitmer as slanderers, liars,
thieves, counterfeiters, connected with a
gang of blacklegs of the blackest dye. Such
are the three witnesses according to Mor-
mons themselves — Joe Smith, Hyram Smith,
Rigdon, and leading Mormons. We showed
that the testimony of the eight witnesses
was a lie, for they testify to what they
could not know. We showed by compar-
ing the revelation announcing to the wit-
nesses that they should see the plates, with
the two testimonials, that Joe wrote all
three. He wrote the lie and the confeder-
ates in the fraud swore to it. We proved
by appeals to their stories in Mormon books
that the persons who claim to have seen the
plates and their associates in the fraud, tell
contradictory stories on every point con-
nected with it.' That there is not a state-

ment of one that is not contradicted by
others, and that the witnesses contradict
themselves, every statement they make.
On such testimony as this is theBook of
Mormon based.

We proved that Joe had for years, before
going into Rigden's book fraud, been en-
gaged in lying frauds, witching for water,
peeping for money with the peep stone he
stole from Chase's children, digging for
money, lying about it, swindling every
dupe he could find, and stealing in connec-
tion with it, and that all the witnesses were
connected with this money digging, thiev-
ing, lying gang, who had been lying to get
money by fraud, and a living without
work. If Joe's peep-stone, stolen from
Chase's children, his witching for water,
his digging for money, his seeing buried
money with his stolen peep-stone were
frauds, so was his tale about finding plates,
and his tale about translating them. The
Book of Mormon is as much a fraud as his
digging tor pots of money. We' showed
that his translation of the papyrus was a
transparent fraud. So was his Book of
Mormon. It was as great a fraud as his
Book of Ab'-aham. We showed that the
pretended fac shnile sent to Anthon and
the one in Utah were lying frauds. So was
the lie he told about having plates, from
which he copied these frauds. All these
are frauds, one as transparent as the other,
and as palpable as the noonday sun to all,
except fanatics or dupes.

We proved that the Book of Mormon is
based on two assumptions: 1. An angel
gave a pile of j)lates to Joe Smith. 2. The
Lord gave the translation of the plates to
Joe, word by word, by miracle. Of this we
have not one iota of proof, except the naked
assertions of Joe Smith. We have already
exposed his character and frauds. His as-
sertions are no better in regard to this than
in regard to witching for water, peeping
for money, or his translation of papyrus
rolls, or his lying fac simile. The Book of
Mormon has not one particle of proof that
an uninspired book should have. No inter-
locking with history, geography, literature
and customs. No more than Vernet's "Trip
to the moon." It has every feature of a
fraud. It avoids all tests like all frauds.
It lacks every feature that sustains the
Bible. It does does not interlock with other
history, geography, literature and customs.
It is not attested by national customs, his-
tory; by monumental institutions; by
prophecies ; by a vast literature based on
it ; by growing up in the midst of hostile
criticism and attacks. It does not form the
most wonderful part of the world's history,
as does the Bible. It is as isolated from all
these tests as Gulliver's Travels. It is as
monstrous a fabrication and infinitely more
improbable.

We examined the book itself. We ex-
posed its contradictions of common sense,
its monstrous fabrications, its hundreds of
contradictions of itself, its contradictions of
the Bible, in history, in doctrine; its con-
tradictions of the inspired translation of Joe

THE BR ADEN AKD iCELLEY DEBATE.

219

Smith, its contradictions of science, of
history. We exposed its literary character,
its grammatical blunders, its atrocious style,
)ts silly expressions. We show that Mor-
mons admit its ridiculous inaccuracies and
atrocities by revising out of it over 6,000
blunders, many of which are perfect mon-
strosities. Yet it was written by inspira-
tion by the Almighty. The Almighty
revising himself ! The Almighty learning
grammar and composition!! We exposed
its quotations from King James' translation,
quoting its blunders in text, in translation,
in grammar, its obsolete words, its ridicul-
ous copying of the brogue of that transla-
tion ; showing that it was written by a
person who used that translation alone.
We exposed its adaptations from modern
history and the Bible, its anachronisms, its
speaking of things hundreds of years before
they existed, its quotations from the New
Testament hundreds of years before it ex-
isted, its ridiculous quotations from modern
authors, proving that it was written after
their day.

Finally we proved that Joe Smith was
the author of Mormon polygamy and the
hifamy blasphemously called '-The Reve-
lation on Celestial Marriage." This alone
damns with infamy all claim that he was
a prophet, or that a book that emanated
from him is of divine origin. In conclusion,
ladies and gentlemen, will you believe thai
Spaulding by miracle in writing a fictitious
history of the aborigines of America wrote
a book that agreed with a revelation of the
history of the aborigines of America in all
important features and names, events, and
even of persons and nations, twenty years
before such pretended revelation appeared?
©r will you believe that the pretended
revelatien is a plagiarism from Spauldiug's

manuscript written twenty years before it
appeared? There are twenty-seven great
features of the Manuscript Found in the
Book of Mormon. The Manuscript Found
is twenty years the oldest. They were
stolen from the Manuscript Found by the
Book of Mormon. Will you believe tiiat
Nephites, in America, quoted whole chap-
ters of the Bible written after they left
Asia, quoted chapters and hundreds of
verses before they were uttered, that they
quoted modern authors, quoted the brogue
of King James' translators, its grammatical
blunders, its obsolete words, quoted Rig-
don's baptismal formula, his rant on infant
baptism, his revivalisms, his peculiar ideas
in every particular, all ol which existed
before it appeared ? Or will you believe,
as we have proved, that Rigdon stole
Spaulding's manuscript and remodeled it
into a pretended revelation, "to make a big
thing out of it," as he declared he would?
You can act for yourselves, but common
sense says this fraud was started by a back-
slidden, sceptical man, once a preacher.
Another sceptical preacher stole and re-
modeled it. A third infidel gave it to the
world with his stolen peep-stone. As it
was the work of infidelity, there is a fitness
of things in its being defended here by in-
fidel attacks on the Bible. As infidels got
it up, an infidel should defend it with in-
fidel sophistries. It was begotten by Spauld-
ing, a sceptical back-slider, in sin ; con-
ceived by Rigdon, another sceptical
back-slider in iniquity; and brought fortk
by Joe Smith, a sceptical admirer of Paine,
and an advocate of his sentiments, in de-
pravity and pollution ; and has flourished
in fraud and fanaticism until it has culmi-
nated in Utah in what would make devil*
blush.

220

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

SECOND PROPOSITION.

Proposition : Is the Church of ivhich I,
Clark Braden, am a member, identical
in faith, organization, ordinances, teach-
ing, ivorship and practice, toith the Church
of Christ, as it was left completed and per-
fected, by the apostles of Christ.

CLARK BRADEN AFP'IRMS:

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: — To avoid all wrangling be-
tween the disputants, and to enable the
hearer to understand fully the issue, the
proposition and its terms need careful ex-
planation.

The word c/jwreA has a variety of meanings,
arising from the various ways in which it is
used. \. It includes all the children of
God in heaven and on earth ; as when
it is declared that the whole family on earrh
and in heaven are named after Christ.
Eph. 2. Also in theexpression "theChurch
of the First Born." 2. It includes all fol-
lowers of Christ on earth when it is declared
that the Church is the pillar and support
of the truth. Christ loved the Church and
gave himself for it, etc. 3, It includes all the
followers of C!lirist in a certain country,
region or district, as the Church in Galati'a,
Rome, United .States, Ohio, Saline County,
or (Cincinnati. 4. It means a body of
Christians organized according to the New
Testament model. 5. It means a number
of Christians who meet to worship God,
whether organized or not, as the church in
the house of Aquila. Such church may be
an organized church or an elemental church.
These are all the uses of the word that are
recognised in the New Testament, when the
word is applied to the followers of Christ, for
there were no denominations in the days of
theapostles. Since the division of Christians
into denominations, it means : 5. A body
©f Christians that are separated from all
others into an organization characterized
by certain features peculiar to themselves,
such as the Methodist Church, Baptist
Church, etc.

It is in this sense that I use the word in
tho expression, "the church of which I,
Clark Braden, am a member." Thomas
and Alexander Campbell, believing that
the division of Christians into denomina-
tions is unscriptural and wrong, tried to
remedy it by securing a union of all follow-
er:-of Christ. They undertook to accomplish
this, by trying to get all Christians to talfee
the Bible as their creed ; to return to exact
conformity to the apostolic precedent. They
urged that all should abandon everything
that had not a clear aj^ostolic precedent,
and accept all that had such precedent.
They undertook a restoration of Apostolic
Christianity, and not a reformation of any
or all existing denomiaotions, which was

all that Savonarola, Wickliffe, Huss,
Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other reformers
attempted.

The result of the efforts of the Campbells
and their coadjutors, has been a body of
people known as the " Disciples of Christ,"
"The Christian Church," or "The Church
of Christ." It is this body of people that I
mean, when I speak of the church of which
I, Clark Braden, am a member.

There is one more phrase that needs
explanation, it is "The Church of Christ,"
as it was left perfected and completed by
the apostles of Christ." The revelation
contained in the Scriptures, was gradually
revealed and developed, during a period of
several thousand years. God's dea'ings
with men, in making this revelation can be
divided into four dispensations. 1. The
Antediluvian Disi^ensation, that we might
call the Infancy of our race, extending from
Adam's first transgression, to the Flood.
During this period there was no organiza-
tion of the children of God. God had
individual followers, like Abel, Seth,
Enoch. To these individual followers he
gave rudimental revelations, the alphabet
of revelation, through angelic messengers
and in.«pired men. 2. The Patriarchal Dis-
pensation, the childhood of our race, extend-
ing from the Flood to the calling of Moses.
During this period, the family was the
organization, and the father was the priest
of the family. To these families God gave
higher teaching and simple commands, but
it was still elementary. 3. The Mosaic
Dispensation, extending from the calling of
Moses to the Day of Pentecost, that we
might call the Youth of our race.

During this period God had a chosen
nation " The Commonwealth of Israel."
To this nation he gave, in the Mosaic Code,
a disciplinary law of positive commands,
and a system of types, symbols, object
lessons, prophetical of a better dispensa-
tion, and symbolizing great truths. 4. The
Christian Dispensation, extending from the
Day of Pentecost until the end of the human
epoch of the world's career, that we may
designate the "Manhood" of our race.
During this period God has a church, an
organization based entirely on faith and
piety. To this he has given a law of uni-
versally applicable truths, and principles,
in the gospel of Christ.

The Israelites were God's normal school
in religion. It was his purpose to develop
among them a reUglon for the salvation of
men, and by such development to train
them to be its missionaries, the teachers of
this religion to the world. In this normal
school there were different periods or grades
of teaching. From the calling of Abraham
to Moses was the primary grade, with sim-

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

221

f)le teaching and discipline. From the call-
ng of Moses to the Propiiets, beginning
with Samuel, was the intermeaiate grade,
with much teaching and discipline. From
Samuel to Malachi was the grammar grade,
with still closer drill, discipline and teach-
ing. From Malachi till the day of Pente-
Ct.>«t, during which time there was no reve-
la;i.>n, was the high school grade.

In this period John the Baptist called the
Israelites back to a faithful, pious obedience
to the law of Moses and the teachings of
the Old Testament. Our Savior educated
his apostles and prepared the way for the
establishment of the church by them. But
neither John nor Jesus established a church.
They were loyal Israelites, obeying the law
of Moses, and never worshipped apart from
the Israelites' worship. During this devel-
opment of revelation there were revelation,
inspiration, miraculous work of the Holy
Spirit. He inspired all men who spoke,
wrote or acted under Inspiration from Adam
to John the Baptist. He insp re 1 Zacha-
riah, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, Simon, Jesus
and his apostles when they acted under
inspiration.

John and Jesus promised a more complete
work of the Holy Spirit. Joel and the
prophets had prophesied that, at the close
of tiie Israelite dispensation and the begin-
ning of the Christian dispensation, there
should be a wonderful work of the Holy
Spirit that should not be confined to Israel
but should extend to all mankind. John
and Jesus promised the baptism in the Holy
Spirit. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as
a comforter or advocate to his apostles.

Peter promised the Holy Spirit to all that
God should call. The apostles imparted
miraculous gifts to Christians, such as our
Savior promised in the last chapter in Mark.
These gifts existed in the apostolic churches.
They were designed to supply inspired
teaching to the t-liurch, and attest it, until
the apostles had perfected the organization
of the church, and had completed the work
of revelation in giving to the church the
New Testament.

Then, as God completed his work of crea-
tion, when he created man, and creation
ceased, and plants and animals came into
being by natural laws, so when the New
Testament church was perfected by the
apostles, and its perfect law of liberty was
completed and perfected in the New Testa-
ment, the work of revelation and inspira-
tion ceased, having been perfected in the
apostolic church and in the New Testament,
and the church is controlled, and will be
until the end of time, by the perfect Word
of God, the New Testament.

By the Church of Christ, as left perfected
and completed by the apostles of Christ, I
mean the followers of Christ, as they were
left in congregations, with the New Testa-
ment as their rule of faith and practice, by
the apostles and inspired men, when the
last inspired man fell asleep in Jesus.

It is my work to prove that the " Disciples
of Christ," "The Christian Church," " The
Church of Christ,"— the denomination of

which I am a member, is identical in faith,
organization, teaching, ordinances, worship
and practice with the apostolic church,
composed of the congregations that tiie
apostles left with the New Testament as
their rule of faith and practice.

I believe as the apostle John teaches, that
all persons who believe with the whole
heart that Jesus is the (Christ, who forsake
and oppose all sin, and who believe and
accept the Bible as God's word, and live
according to the light they have, in its
teachings, are "Christians;" and that all
denominations com|>08ed of such persons
are "Churches of Christ," although they
may be imperfect and in error in certain
particulars.

It is our duty, as teachers of God's word,
to proclaim its full teaching and to enforce
its every law ; but we are not judges, to
decide who shall be saved, or to decide who
are Christians, and who are not. Preach
the whole truth, and leave judgment with
God.

Tne " Church of Christ " is controlled by
certain great principles in its use of the
word of God. These may be summarized
as follows:

1. The Scriptures, and the Scriptures
alone, should be the creed of all Christians.
The word "creed " lias three uses. A man
reads the Scriptures and he believes that
they teach certain things. What he
believes the Scriptures to teach, is his creed.
Men preach, write and print what they
b*'lieve the Scriptures teach. Such belief
is their cned in the second use of the word.
Men use such understandings of the Scrip-
tures as a bond of union, and unite on them
with all who believe with them. They use
them as a test of fellowship, and will unite
with only such as profess to believe such
understandings of the Scriptures, and will
fellowship only such. They use such un-
derstandings of the Scriptures as guides in
worship, practice and discipline.

This is the third use of the word "creed."
It is only in this sense that we object to
creeds. The difference between ourselves
and others can be seen by a familiar illus-
tration. A legislature enacts a statute. A
case is brought before a judge that comes
under this statute. He decides the case by
his understanding of the statute. In like
manner, if a question of faith, practice,
worship, ordinance or duty arises, we, in
common with all Christians, decide it by
our understanding of the Scriptures. So
far we do just as all Christians do.

Now comes the difference. We say "Go
to the law each and every time, and decide
each and every question, by an original in-
vestigation of "the law." The rest of the re-
ligious world reduce their first understand-
ing to a creed, written or unwritten, and
decide all subsequent cases by their first
understanding, or more properly, by an un-
derstanding of their first understanding.
They practically lay the law on the shelf,
and use original investigation only to reach
an understanding of the first understand-
ing of the Bible.

222

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

We say use the Bible just as you use
your "Confession of Faitli," or "Book of
Discipline." God's word declares it should
be so used, and it alone should be so used.

2. Agreement amon^ Cliristians is to be
required only in such matters of belief, or-
ganization, worship, practice, and duty, as
are matters of faith. In matters of opinion
there must be toleration and Christian
charity. There should be charity also in
all questions coverino- expediency and in-
strumentalities, in carrying out the /aith,
worship, practice, and duty embraced in
matters of faith.

3. Nothing should be required of anyone
as an item of faith in belief, «)rganizatiou,
worship, practice, or duty, for which there
is not a "Thus saith the Lord," expressed,
or clearly implied, for which there is not
an aposlolic precedent expressed in lan-
guage, or action, or by clearest implication.
F(.r all items of faithin belief, worship, or-
ganization, ordinances, worship, practice
and duty, there must be a clear apostolic
teaching, by word, or example, clearly ex-
pressed or implied.

All creeds declare that the Scriptures are
a perfect and all-sufficient rule of faith and
practice, and that what cannot be read
therein, nor proved thereby, should not be
required of anyone, as an item of religious
faith or practice. We say if they are per-
fect and all-sufficient, we need no creed. If
we can read an item of faith or practice in
the Scriptures, or prove it by them, we do
not need a creed to do what we can do by
using God's perfect word.

4. Where the Bible speaks, Christians
can speak, and should speak, and always
speak as the Bible speaks

5. Where the Bible is silent, concerning
what is claimed to be an item of faith or
practice, Christians should be silent, and
never teach or enforce as an item of faith or
practice. The silence of the Bible is as much
to be respected as its speech. This does not
apply to opinions, or to expedients, means
and instrumentalties, to be used in carrying
out faith or practice. It forbids enforcing
these as items of faith and practice, and
divisions of Christians over such opinions,
means and expedients.

6. We will always call Bible things by
Bible names. We' will use the speech of
Canaan and not of Ashdod. We say "Lord's
Day" not "Sabbath," which belonged to
the Israelite seventh day.

7. We will apply Bible names only to
Bible things. We call immersion of a be-
liever baptism. We do not apply that term
to sprinkling or pouring, nor to immersing,
sprinkling or pouring an infant.

8. All followers of Christ should wear his
name, and his name alone, and be called
"Christians," and that alone. The Church
should wear his name, and his name alone,
and be called "The Church of Christ," or
"The Church of God."

We do not say that none but ourselves
are Christians. We merely say we are
Christians, that we should w ear that name
alone. If oUhers are Christians, they should

wear that name alone. We do not hinder
them from doing so. We only obje<tt to
their nick-naming us. If they are willing
to wear a nick-name rather than the name
"Christian," they have no right to force us
to Violate the law or God, in forcing a nick-
name upon us.

We do not claim that our chuch is the
only church of Christ. We may say we are
a church of Christ, and will wear that name
alone. Ifother denominations are "Churches
of Christ," they 8h(/uld wear that name
alone. They violate God's law in using a
nick-name. If they prefer a nick-name,
they have no business to try to force us lo
violate it by forcing on us a nick-name.

9. To apostolic precedent, in all items of
faith, in regard to belief, organization, or-
dinances, teaching, worship, and practice,
for which there is an apostolic precedent,
there should be strict conformity.

10. All followers of Christ should be one,
as he prayed, when he said :

"FHther keep thpm through thine own name, the
disciples that thou hast given me. That they may he
one, as we are «ne. Neither pray I for these alone, but
also for those who shall believe on me through thy
word, that they also may all be one, as thou. Father,
an ill me, nnd I in thee that they also may all be one
in us, that the world may believe that thou has sent
me."

And that they should be one by standing
on the platform laid down in Eph. 4; and
that they all could, and would be one, if
they would do so. Paul says :

" I beseech you therefore, brethren, to talk worthy
of the name by "which you are called, with all lowliness
and meekness, with long sufficing, forbearing one
another n love, giving diligence 'o keep the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace There is on^ body and
one Spirit, even as you were named in ore hope of your
naming, (one hope through the name by which you are
called), one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God und
Father of all, who is over all and through all aad
in all."

Paul lays down eight items, eight planks
in the platform forChristian union. 1. One
God, the leather. 2. One Lord Jesus, the
Christ. 3. One Holy Spirit. 4. One faith,
the faith, one system of belief and teaching,
the Scriptures. 5. One baptism. 6. On©
h«)pe. 7. One body, the Church. 8. One
name for believers, "Ciiristiau." One name
for the Church, "The Church of God, ""The
Church of Christ."

We will now analyze these eight items,
specifying wherein we agree with the
religious world, and wherein we disagree,
and our reasons for such disagreement. My
opponent will criticise our position in two
ways. He will object to some thing we
teach. He will object that we do not teach
certain things, that he regards as essential
to the Churcli of Christ.

The tirnt criticism we will notice. The
second we will let rest until he begins his
affirmative.

1. One (iod the Father. One self-exist-
ent, independent, self-sustaining, eternal,
absolute Spirit, the author of all other ex-
istences, and the cunso of all phenomena.
In this we diMVr from otiiers, only in refus-
iiiH" to speculate as to whether God is with-
out form, body or parts, or has form, hi<dy
and parts. Obeying the ajiostolic injunc-

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

223

tion, "avoid untaught questions," we are
silent on a matter on wliich the Bible is
silent.

2. One Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, the only
begotten son of God; Deity manifest in
flesh; the Divine Prophet, source of all
teaching religion. We reject Joseph Smith
as a prophet. Divine Priest, the one who
made an expiation for the sins of every
human being. Divine King, the only one
whose commands we obey in religion. And
his commands are all divine. Not one is a
non-essential. We teach that Christianity
is loyalty to Christ, a Divine person.

We do not teach eternal Sonship, nor
anything about essences, substances, etc.,
for the Bible says nothing about them.
We reject all the speculations of Trinitarian-
ism, Arianism, Socinianism, Unitarianism,
and the thousand other isms, that attempt
to be wise above what God has revealed.
We speak only where the Bible speaks, and
as it speaks. We are silent when it is silent,
and reject the confusion of the theological
Babel, and the jargon of Aslidod, and use
only the pure speech of Canaan.

3. One Holy S}>irit. AVe teach that there
is such a Divine being or person as the Holy
Bpirit. We say "Spirit," not "Ghost."
He, his and him, not it. That He inspired
all persons that tije Scriptures declare
spoke, wrote and acted by inspiration from
Adam to Christ; that he was given to men
in the baptism in the Holy Spirit, on the
day of Pentecost ; and at the house of Cor-
nelius, That he was imparted by the im-
position of the apostles' hands in the gifts
that our Savior promised in the last cliap-
ter of Mark, and in other places, those
spiritual gifts that existed in the apostolic
churches. That he inspired the divine
truths in the Scriptures. That wherever
and whenever these divine truths influence
the spirits of men, the Holy Spirit influ-
ences the spirits of men, through the di-
vine truths that he has revealed in the
Scriptures.

"We differ from the otner people in reject-
ing these three dogmas : 1. That portion of
the religious world that arrogates to itself
the exclusive right to the titles "orthodox"
and "evangelical" teaches that in convict-
ing and converting the sinner, and in com-
forting and sanctifying the Christian, the
Holy Spirit exerts, on the hearts and spirits
of men, a direct and immediate influence,
in addition to and distinct from any that
He exerts through the divine truths that
He has revealed through the Scriptures.
2 Some of this party claim that the Holy
Spirit is given in the baptism in Holy
Spirit, now as He was on the Day of Pente-
cost, and at the hou^e of Cornelius : and
that the baptism that is for remission of
sins, that our Savior declares saves, etc.,
is baptism in the Holy Spirit.

3. The Latter Day Saints teach that the
gifts of the Spirit tliat our Savior promised
to his apostles and disciples, and that
existed in the apostolic churches, should
exist in the Church of Christ now We
reject the first dogma for these reasons :

I. There is not a sentence in the bible that
even hints thatin convictinjrand converting
the sinner, or in comt'ortin<r and sanctifying
the Christian, the Holy Spirit ever didin a
single instance, ever will, or doe? now exert
any such direct and immediate influence,
in addition to and distinct and different
from what He exerts through the divine
truths that He has revealed in the Scrip-
tures.

2. An honest, careful investigation of the
Bible shows that all work that is ascribed
to the Holy Spirit, except His miraculous
influence, is ascribed to the Word of God,
or the truth, proving that the Holy Spirit
exerts all influence, except the miraculous
influence, through thedivine truths that He
has revealed in the Scriptures.

3. Conviction, conversion, sanctification
and comforting are moral influences, in
which man is a free moral agent. Such
influences can be exerted only through
motives presented to the spirit of man ia
the truth.

Man is convicted and sanctified through
hearing, believing and living the truth, as
the Scriptures teach.

4. If conviction, conversion and sanctifi-
cation are to any extent the results of a
direct influence of the Holy Spirit, ia
addition to what is accomplished through
motives presented in the truth, and not the
result of a free choice of the truth, by man's
spirit, they are so far the acts of the Holy
Spirit, and not of man's spirit, and man is
not responsible for the absence or presence
any more than a machine is responsible for
whatmans strength accomplishes through it

6. If su(^h an influence of the Holy Spirit
is what converts and sanctifies men, if God
is impartial He will exert it on all men,
and save all men, and Universalisra is true.
Or if He does not, he is partial, and exerts
it on only part, and elects them to eternal
life, and passes by the rest and reprobates
them to eternal death, and then Calvinism
is true. No Arminian can be consistent
and believe such a dogma. 6. Such an
influence renders all preaching of the
Gospel needless, for man is converted by
an influence of the Spirit, distinct from
preaching; and absurd, for it can do no
good ; and presumptuous, tor man tries to
accomplish, by preaching the Gospel, what
Ged alone can* do and does by the direct
influence of His Spirit.

7. If there are in the mind of one on
whom such an influence is exerted, two
sets of impulses, the impulses of the Holy
Spirit, and the impulses of his own spirit,
man cannot distinguish between the im-
pulses of his own erring, sinful spirit, and
the impulses of the Holy Spirit. The result
has ever been, that believers in such influ-
ences have mistaken the impulses of their
own spirits, for impulses of the Holy Spirit,
and every delusion, folly, absurdity, and
crime, have been mistaken for the influence
of the Holy (Spirit. The insanity and absur-
dity of wliat is called " the power" "sanc-
tification," "second blessing," "higher lite"
has led to insanity, folly, crime, and infamy.

224

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

8. If men appeal to their feelings as a
proof that the Spirit exerts such a power,
we reply that they measure themselves by
themselves, and sanction their own folly,
and not by the word of God, that condemns
all such fanaticism. All enthusiasts, urge
the same proof as confidently. The lives of
those who make the loudest professions of
such an influence, are the most defective of
all professed Christians. The lives of the
apostles of this dogma are the most defective
of all ministers. This delusion has loaded
Chistianity with the most infamous fanat-
icism and crime, and caused more infidelity
than all other causes combined. It has led
to Hhakerism ; the Oneida Community ;
Free Lov.e and pollution.

We reject all idea of any baptism in the
Holy Spirit except on the day of Pentecost
and at the house of Cornelius, for these rea-
sons:

1. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was a
promise, not a command. A promise is
received, not obeyed. There is but one
baptism In the church. Eph.4:5. Christ
commanded men to baptize others. This
baptism that he commanded is the one bap-
tism in the church. It is not Holy Spirit
baptism, for Christ could not command men
to baptize men in the Holy Spirit any more
than he could command them to create a
world .

2. Men were commanded to baptize oth-
ers. This is the one baptism that is in the
church. Man can no more obey a command
to baptize in the Holy Spirit than he can
create a world. It is not Holy Spirit bap-

m that is the one baptism that is in the
ciiurch.

3. The baptism that Christ commanded,
and that is the one baptism that is in the
church, was in the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. The baptism in the Holy
Spirit was not in any name. The baptism
in the Holy Spirit is not the one baptism
that was commanded by Christ that men
vvere to obey, and that was in the name of
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is not
the one baptism in the church.

4. Holy Spirit baptism was a promised
miracle. The one baptism in the church is
not a miracle. And miracles have ceased.

J. Holy Spirit baptism was attended by
miracles and miraculous power. The one
baptism in the church is not attended by

miracles or miraculous power. All such
power has ceased.

6. Christ was the administrator of the
Holy Spirit baptism. It was from heaven.
Man is commanded to administer the one
baptism in the church. Holy Spirit bap-
tism is not the one baptism.

7. The scriptures never hint that more
than two occasions were baptisms in the
Holy Spirit. Peter declares. Acts xi. 15, 16,
17, that two occasions, the descent of the
Holy Spirit on the apostles at the beginning
or on the day of Pentecost and the descent
of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles at the
house of Cornelius, are baptisms in the Holy
Spirit. Not a passage of scripture hint^s
that any other occasion was a baptism in
the Holy Sjtirit.

8. Persons who claim a baptism in the
Holy Spirit, and to speak as the Spirit gives
them utterance, utter nonsense, contradict
the word of God, contradict each other.
Such a claim is blasphemous, and an insult
to the Holy Spirit, on whom they palm such
nonsense, and contradictions of sense the
Bible and each other.

9. The one baptism that is in the church,
that is in the name of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, is water baptism, for it is com-
manded and men are to obey it. Holy
Spirit baptism, that was a promise, not a
command; that was received, not obeyed;
of which Christ was the administrator" not
man ; that was not in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit ; that was a
miracle that was attended by miracles, is
not the one baptism in the church, xill
claim to it now is unscriptural and absurd.

The claim of the Latter Day Saints that
the gifts promised by our Savior, and that
existed in the church in the days of the
apostles, should be in the church now, we
will examine when we refute our opponent's
affirmation in the third proposition. Ii re-
gard to the trinity and the nature of the
union of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
and how they are one, we are silent, for the
Bible is silent. It is an untaught question.
We utterly discard the jargon of triuita-
rianism and unitarianism alike, for the
Bible knows nothing ot either. They are
attempts to be wise beyond whatis revealed,
and are plain violations of the command
"to avoid untaught questions." We stop
with the words of the scripturea.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

■225

MR. KELLEY'S FIRST SPEECH ON SECOND PROPOSITION.

GENTIiEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND

Gentlemen: — I shall first notice in my ar-
guments this evening some of the things
which have to be determined, in order for
us to progress so as to receive any light
whatever in the discussion of this propo-
Bition.

It is said in the question that "the church
of which I, Clark Braden, am a member, is,
in faith, doctrine, teaching, organization,
practice and ordinances, in accordance witli
the Church of Christ as it was left perfected
by the apostles." By what rule are we to
determine how the Church of Cbrist was
left by the apostles? You will doubtless
form in your minds a conclusion as to how
that is to be determined. What record do
you go to in order to find out how it was left ?
The affirmative has said, in the application
of this principle to his church, and in the
definition that he has given to "The churcli
of which T, Clark Braden, am a member,"
that it is like the congregations that were
left scattered in different parts of the earth
after the apostles had fallen asleep. If that
is true, where do we find the history of
those congregations, that will show us just
where and how they were left? I judge
that my opponent will not dispute that, so
f^r as the apostles' work was concerned in
perfecting the Church, if they did perfect it,
the tiistory of their work as recorded in the
New Testament is the proper history to go
to in order to find out what those congrega-
tions were as they were left. The only way
then by which we can tell how the congre-
tions were left will be to turn to our New
Testaments and ascertai]i from the situa-
tion and history as given therein, of the es-
tablishment of the churches, and of what
the apostles did, thus learning from the
record how the congregations were left,
and whether they then filled the standard
of perfection in faith and tlie attainment in
the gifts of the Holy Spirit whicli tiie apos-
tles so much desired they should enjoy.

Now, it is one thihg to assume, as my op-
ponent has, that there were congregations
of believers left in the world without any
presiding olflcers or duly authorized minis-
ters, but instructed that they might make
their own presiding officers and ministers,
by authority of the congregation, and it is
anotiier thing to prove it. It is a little like
the presumption on his part, that the Holy
8pirit has ceased its miraculous power or
work, for the reason, as he says, that the
Holy Spirit, so far as miraculous power was
concerned, was a miracle, and as miracles
have ceased, therefore the Holy Spirit has
ceased to operate upon the people. You
see both of these are conclusions without
any proper basis. Tiiey are not legitimately
drawn from the New Testament Scriptures.
There is, therefore, no argument in a single
one of them. He starts out upon a false

premise. That is, that the miraculous
manifestations of the spirit have ceased.
That is a false premise. That they
ceased with the apostles, too! It is
false when we examine it in the light
of the history as written just subse-
quent to the apostles' time, and false
from the prophetic history in the New Tes-
tament. When we turn to Mosheim and oth-
er historians they tell us that the miracu-
lous manifestations of the Spirit was known
until the close of the third century, at least;
and yet all of the apostles had fallen asleep
long before this. Then, if all the apostles
had fallen asleep, and sti II the spiritual gifts
and miraculous manifestations were in the
church, it will be a false assumption if he
shall infer or state to the audience, as the ba-
sis of an argument, that they were not to con-
tinue after the apostles' time and that
therefore, we are not to have anything of that
that nature, because, as he says, there are to
be no more miracles. The argument turns
upon the point : \Vhere does he get the "be-
cause?" If he could take up the New Tes-
tament Scriptures here and read to us th» fc
there were to be no more miracles after t/ie
first age of Christianity, then his first prem-
ise would be good, because he would have
a "because" upon which to base it. But he
makes his premise, which is not good, and
proves it by a false presumption that the
gifts were to cease, when he has not a
single passage of scripture which he can
stand by to base it upon. Thus he stands
before the audience upon a false premise to
begin with, and from this he draws his false
conclusion.

Now let us examine and see if this is not
correct. Unless he can show that there is
some passage of Scripture, showing that
miracles were to be confined to the first
age of Christianity, he fails. In the first
place, Jesus says', in Mark 16th chapter,
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth
and is baptized snail be saved, but he that
believeth not shall be damned. And these
signs shall follow them that believe."— Not
you to whom 1 am talking, but the believer
in the words that you shall bear. Well,
who. were to believe? Those who were to
be saved, evidently. Is there any promise
broader than that in the whole Bible with
reirard to salvation? "Preach the (^ospel
to every creature, and (every creaiure) that
believeth and is baptizf-d shall be saved;
and these siirns shall follow (every creature)
that believeth." Now, if lie can show from
the Bible that there is another passage some
place saying that this statement of .lesus
referred'to the first agn of Christianity only,
and that after the first age of Christianity
there were to be nomiraculous gifts. Gospel
preached, true believers or anything of that
nature, then he may truly state to this

:i26

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

audience, that there were to be no miracu-
lous manifestations of the Holy Spirit, or
baptism of the Holy Spirit. But let us first
have some proof, and then it will be time
enoug'h for assertions.

He says that he (his church) rejects the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, for the reason
that they do not consider it a means enter-
ing into the conversion of the sinner; that
tliese miraculous manifestations have no in-
fluence in the conversion of thesinner, or in
changing his moral state in any manner.
He rejects the views of the Saints for that
reason. And then he rejects the baptism of
the Holy Spirit as believed in by the ortho-
dox world, he says, because that has nothing
to do with the conversion of the sinner
either. Why does he make a difference,
then, in rejecting the baptism of the Holy
Spirit as we believe it, as it is manifested
in the different gifts and signs, and the
baptism of the Holy Spirit as believed by
Mr. Wesley and others? This distinction
evidently is for the purpose of keeping up
a supposed difference between the views of
the Saints and others, when, in fact, it does
not exist. It seems tome, that, if he rejects
it in their way, because it does not enter
into the conversion of the sinner, as he
thinks, that ought to cover also the rejec-
tion with regard to us, because we do not
claim it enters into tlie conversion of the
sinner in the sense, in which he seeks to
apply it. W^e claim, as far as that is con-
cerned, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit
and the miraculous manifestations of the
Holy Spirit are for the purpose of confirm-
ing the believer in the Word of God and
adding the graces to his faith, and that was
what it was for in the first age of Christian-
ity. Why do you reject it for yourself for
then, Mr. Braden? Answer me that ques-
tion. Because it is not to be used in the
conversion of the sinner, you say, when it
was never given for that specific purpose;
and truly you might ask, if it had been
given for the conversion of the sinner only,
why was it poured out upon the believers
on Pentecost day? You reject it, because
it is not given for the conversion of the
sinner, and yet Jesus gave it for a different
purpose. Why do you not kf ep it to answer
the purpose for which Christ placed it in
the church? Answer that question as you
proceed.

Now, upon Pentecost day the Holy Spirit
was poured out upon the believers. And I
ask, for what purpose? Evidently as a
blessing ; and tor the purpose of confirm-
ing those in the Word, who had already
accepted of Jesus and John's teacliing.
John the Baptist came teaching, of which
j-ou are well aware, as stated in the history,
saying, "I indeed baptize you with water
unto repentance ; but he that comeih after
me is mightier than I, whose shoes I
am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and with tire."
In the preaching of John the Baptist and
of Jesus there was something more to be
attained and sought, than simply baptism
of the water, Tiiere was something that

the Christian was pointed to, that was
higher and more excellent and enduring
than simply going down into the water and
coming up out of the water. And this ex-
cellent thing, that which formed the great
central thought of the Christian religion,
was the baptism of the Spirit ; or the fact
that men and women might attain unto the
Spirit of God in order that, in their lives,
they might be comforted, and that they
might have that Spirit to confirm and
establish them in the faith and keep theni
unspotted from the evils of the world.

Now, this promise was fulfilled and veri-
fied to the disciples of Jesus on the day of
Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit. We read in the second chapter of
the Acts of the apostles : " Now when they
heard this [the preaching of the apostle
Peter], they were pricked in their heart,
and said unto Peter and to the rest of the
apostles. Men and brethren, what shall we
do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent,
and be baptised every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gitt of the
Holy Ghost." What was the gift of the
Holy Ghost? The same thing that they had
just witnessed as having been received on
the day of Pentecost. "Ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost." And yet, Mr.
Braden stands before you and declares em-
phatically that that was the only instance
in which this gift of the Holy Spirit was
manifested or given except at the house-
hold of Cornelius. If hi position is true,
then the Apostle Peter, while speaking un-
der the inlluence of the Spirit of God, told,
those people they should receive this same
gift of the Holy Ghost when it was not for
them, and they did not, and consequently
he told what was not true. Now, will you
please clear this up? Peter told them that
they should receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost, and there was the same day 3,000
added to the church. Did they afterwards
receive it, or did he tell them that they
should receive something that they could
not receive? But let me read further:
"For the promise is untoyou and to your chil-
dren, and to all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call. And
with many other words did he testify a' d
exhort, saying. Save yourselves from this
untoward generation." "And they went
forth and preached everywhere, the Lord
•working witli them, and confirming the
word with signs following." Following
the believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ,
and thus they were "signs" indeed. The
sign of the true believer.

Now, it seems that the signs did not go
beforehand in order to convert men. The
signs did not go beforehand in order to
make men believe the truth. Nor was that
the manner of procedure in the establish-
ment of the churches in the first age of
Christianity to an3' extent. Nor is it the
manner of the establishment of the doc-
trine and faith of the Latter Day Saints
(the saints of to-day), or those who belong
to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

227

Saints ; — we use the term Latter Day Saints
to distinguish tlie church from former day
Saints.

Right here I will notice the argument
and claim made for his church on the point
that all should take the name of Christ.
What name? Does it mean the entire name
of Christ, or simply the name Christ, or
God? Our Winebrenarian friends say just,
Church of God. Braden says, Church of
Christ. I take it, from the third chapter of
the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesian saints,
that he means that they shall take the full
name; the name of Jesus Christ, after
whom the whole family, both in heaven
and on earth, is named. The epistle
does not say Christ simply, but "Jesus
Christ."

Let me ask, why do you strike off the
name Jesus and s'ax, " We will just call our
church Christ Church? What is your au-
thority for suppressing the name .Jesus?
Please answer that question and sliow the
audience that if a church takes the name of
" Jesus Christ," it does not have the name
of Christ? Tell us how it comes that a
church tiiat takes the name of Jesus Christ
is not as likely to be called after the name
of the. Only begotten of the Father and of
whom the whole family in heaven and
«a.rth are named, as a church that simply
takes the name of Christ, or the Christian,
or Disciple church? I am now upon the
negative, and shall expect some proof forth-
coming.

There are a few other things that were
mentioned in the beginning of the remarks
of Mr. Braden that I wish to call your at-
tention to, and shall do so, because I wish
to have an understanding as we proceed in
this matter, so that we can come to a fair
issue in the argument.

There is a difference of understanding, it
seems, with regard to Just what should be
in the church. He thinks that I will differ
with him in regard to things that ought to be
in the church, and claim some things that he
has not in his church. Well, what are some
of those things? Possibly it is in some of
1 he articles of faith, possibly in the organ-
ization of the church. Whatever, let him
point them out, or the features not in
his, that were in the churcli in the time
of the apostles, and tell us why not?
If his is stricly with the organization of
the church as ic was left perfected by the
apostles, and we go back to the record of
the apostles to find what the^'did to perfect
it, his church will have in it, as is recorded
here in the twelfth chapter of the Epistle
of Paul to the Corinthian saints, the olfiiers
connected with the church as God set them
in the same. Because how can we get the
organization of the cluirch as it was left
perfected by the apostles without turning
back and reading wliat was in theirs, and
what the apostles did? It is said in this
twelfth chapter of ] Corinthians: " Now ye
are the body of Christ, and members in
particular. And God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondarily prophets,
thirdly teaches ; after that miracles, then

gifts of healing, helps, governments, diver-
sities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are
all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all
workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of
healing? Do all speak with tongues ? Do
all interpret?" He argues there that God
has given a number of spiritual gifts for the
purpose of aiding in the perfecting of the
saints here, in the work of the ministry,
and among these he has set in the church
the gift, or office, of an apostle. Now,
when I turn back to the record of the
apostles, and wish to compare that record
with the church of which my opponent is a
member, I ask him to state whether his
church is in agreemen t with the record there,
and if not, why not? Doyouhaveapostlesas
first officers in your church as they were first
officers in the church of Christ as it existed
in the first century ? If not, why not? Do
you have prophets also? Do you'haveevan-
gellists, and pastors, and teachers — inspired
men to perform duties as set in the church
as recorded in the twelfth chapter of Paul's
letter to the saints at Rome? If not, why
not? The Apostle says : " For as we have
many members in one body, and all mem-
bers have not the same office, so we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and every
one member one of another. Having then
gifts differing according to the grace that
is given to us, whether prophecy, let us
prophesy according to the proportion of
faith ; or ministry, let us wait on our minis-
tering; or lie that teacheth, on teaching:
or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he
that giveth, let him do it with simplicity,"
etc. Here it is distinctly stated that so far
as the office of each individual in tlie church
was concerned, they were to magnify the
office in accordance with the spiritual gift
that God had given to them by which to
work in the church. Now, is that the way
that you Campbeliites do? Is that the way
you found these organizations left after the
apostles, had fallen asleep? Or did you not
find that there were officers placed in the
organizations as Paul states as recorded iu
the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles, wherein he teaches that he
ordained men as the Holy Ghost had called
them: "Take heed therefore unto your-
selves, and to all the flock, over the which
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers."
He is talking to the elders, reaching them,
"To feed the Church of God, which He
hatli purchased with His own blood. For
I know this, that after my departing shall
grievous wolves enter in amoung you, not
sparing the flock. Also of yourselves shall
men -arise, speaking perverse things, to
draw away diciples after ihem. Therefore
watch, and remember, that by the sijace of
three years I ceased not to warn everyone
night and day with tears." Tlie apostle
is warning them against the very thing
Braden is contending for, viz., making
ministers of their " own selves."

Riglit in this connection, another thing
that my opponent stated before tlie audience
needs to be examined in order that you may
see it as it is. He took up the history as

228

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

contained in the Bible, dividing it into
periods after this order : from the time of
Adam to the flood ; from the flood to Abra-
ham or to the Mosaic economy ; from the
Mosaic institution of things to tiie time of
Malachi ; and from Malachi to the day of
Pentecost ; afterwards, from the day of
Pentecost to the present and futurity, as
though, ever since the day of Pentecost,
there had been an eff'ulgent light in the
heavens, and that the people had been
drawing nigh to this and gathering know-
ledge from that great light which had
arisen, and that the world ever since that
time had been in the ascendency, so far as
truth is concerned and the enjoyment of
the highest blessings to be attained in the
Christian economy. Do you mean that,
Mr. Braden? Then you do not believe that
the apostles prophesied truly when they
were writing their knowledge of things here
and warned the people that after their time
there would come a failing away ; and that
the church here should not be a church
perfected, but a church that would be im-
perfect ; and that, as reported in Revelations
of the seven churches of Asia, many of
which had so far gone out of the way that
God would not recognize them any more as
in the light, but gives them to understand
that unless they repent He would utterly
cast them oitt of His sight.

The apostle Paul, l.erein the 20th chap-
ter of the Acts of the Apostles, predicts
that very thing, viz: that there is to be a
falling away from the faith. The apostacy
was plainly working then, and when we
come to view the lives and teachings and
true characters of those men who are called
Reformers, who have labored and wrought
to restore to its original and pristine beauty,
— Christianity as it was at the first; to at-
tain the apostolic doctrine, as taught by
Peter and Paul; they have taught us very
clearly that the falling away was so great
that they had hardly a dead form left. Mr.
Wesley says that they had hardly a dead
form "left. And the reason he gives is,
that th ■ world turned heathen again after
the dea:h of the apostles and that for this
causfc laith was taken from the earth and
Christians had no more faith than the rest
of the world ; therefore, there was no longer
the spiritual lalessing in the church as in
the first age of Christianity. See 94, and
95, sermons of Wesley. I might refer also
to Mr. Calvin for authority upon this.
When he began the work of what after-
wards proved to be the organization of
churches of his peculiar principles, he said :
"Our only object is to restore the doctrines
of the primitive church, which have been
corrupted by the Papal authorities." That
was the object as expressed in his own
language with regard to the beginning and
object of his work, to restore, to reinstate,
the pure principles of the doctrine of Christ
from which there had been a falling away.
So it was with the Reformers all through.
They recognized clearly the fact that dark-
ness had sprung up instead of light and
that men were without God in the world.

But let me call your attention to the fact
that while one of these Reformers has tried
to reach and restore the rituals and ordi-
nances of the church, another has tried to
attain to the spiritual life and the comfort-
ing influences of the Holy Spirit, as enjoyed
by the saints at the first ; and charged upon
others that they had shut out the light of
God by laying too much stress upon rituals
and conforming too much to the order of
things in the world, until it has come to a
state as confessed, at the synod of the Pres-
byterian church the past year, that they
have squeezed the entire life out of the
church by adhering to their forms and con-
ventionalities, instead of contending for the
life and religion of the Holy Spirit as it was
given in the beginning, and realized for two
centuries by the early saints.

Now the position that I occupy before
you is this: That so far as the ordinances,
rituals, forms and rules are concerned, as
laid down in the new testament, found en-
joined in the word, we ought to conform to
them but not have them take precedence of
everything else; and that so far as the
spiritual liglit and life is concerned, which
is spoken of in this word, we ought to con-
form to that and have it also. It is a kind of
a golden mien between the extremists who
have worked on either side of the question
ofwhat shall be reformed in the church. You
remember that Mr. Fox, at the time when
he started out had seen so much of wrong
perpetrated in the world because of institu-
tions that adhered only to the rituals of the
church, and discarded any and all actual
spiritual life, that he threw away these
and contended for the spiritual influences
only :— striking out even-ything in the shape
of organization, and rituals, and everything
that would require persons to do anything
towards conforming to the forms and cere-
monies established in the first age. When
it came to Mr. Campbell's turn he went off
on another tangent and his followers to-day
adhere closely to the ordinances of baptism
that can be performed by an individual in
water, because they say that, that was a
command ; but they leave out the baptism
of the Holy Spirit, as my friend, Mr. Bra-
den, here, this evening. He says it was
not a command for us to perform ; that we
should not receive the baptism of the spirit
bec'auseit was not a command and he thinks
that because it was not a command to do,
therefore, we could not baptize men with
the Holy Spirit and should not seek it.
Well, let us see. Is eternal life a com-
mand? No, and yet we are all to seek eter-
nal life, and the Campbellites, I suppose,
are seeking eternal life also; either in the
right or wrong way. If we were not to seek
eternal life because it is not a command, it
seems to me that the great object and pur-
pose of Christianity would be lost entirely.
But is it not a command to seek this spiritual
baptism? My opponent has overstepped
the bounds iii both directions. Paul says
hftre in the 14th chapter and 1st verse of his
Corinthian letter: "Follow after charity
and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye

THE BRADEN AND KELT.EY DEBATE

229

may prophecy." Is it not a command,
then, to follow after these things?

Again, " For he that speaketh in an un-
known tongue speaketh not unto men but
untoOod: for no man uuderstandeth him;
howbeit in the spirit he speaketh myste-
ries." It is right, then, to seek tliis spirit,
I conclude. In the 12th chapter the apos-
tle gives us to understand that for the hope
and spiritual development of those who un-
dertake to worship Christ and follow him,
"a manifestation of the spirit is given to
every man to profit withal." This mani-
festation of the spirit is given to the man
who is unlearned, to the woman who is not
as much of an adept as another, for the
purpose of enlightenment and instruction
through this their particular gift from God
that tliey may profit, not only to their own,
Viut to the advantage of the entire church ;
thus the church may be built up and may
be made a fit temple for the indwelling of
the Holy Ghost by reason of this spirit
that is to be poured out upon each member,
and thus it becomes "even a habitation of
God through the spirit." And remember
that it is not miraculous influences only, so
far as outward manifestations are con-
cerned, in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.,
that come bj^ reason of this Holy Spirit, but
it is such manifestations and gifts as the
church must absolutely have in order to
grow inthegracesand knowledge of Christ —
of wisdom, knowledge and faith. I under-
stand that the church of my opponent has
none of these gifts of wisdom, knowledge
and faith. Am I right? Now I ask him to
answer these questions as we proceed :

First^ whether the spiritual gifts spoken
of in the eightli, ninth and tenth verses of
the twelfth chapter of Paul's first letter to
the Corinthians is desired in his church, or
are any of them attained to in his church ;
whether the wisdom spoken of there is ;
whether the knowledge is ; whether the
faith is ; whether the other things that are
spoken of in those verses as belonging to
the early saints are with them, and whether
they desire them at the present time, and
are they considered necessary by his church
in order to guide men and women aright?

The apostle teaches,

"For to one is given by tiie spirit the word of wis-
dom; to another the word of knowledge by the same
spirit; to another faith by the same spirit; to another
the Kifts of healing by the same spirit; to another the
working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another
discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of
tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues : h\it,
all of these worketh that one and the self-same spirit
dividing to every man severally as he will.''

Second, now is this wisdom wliich was
given to the cliurcli by the spirit of God to
direct the church then, to be the guide of
the church to-day, as it was anciently ? or
do you claim that it was miraculous wis-
dom?

Third. If you claim it was miraculous
wisdom, will you just please stale to the
audience what kind of wisdom is miracu-
lous, and what is not? And so of knowl-
edge?

Fourth. If you answer these questions in

the negative, will you stop and tell us in
what respect your church resembles the
early church ?

I claim that so far as manifestations of the
Spirit to the church are concerned, that the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, that is promised
by Jesus and by John, was not to those
who were gathered together on Pentecost
day only, but "to as many as tlie Dord our
God should call," as Peter says. Not call
to the miraculous gifts or power, as Bradea
has it, but call to salvation. "The prom-
ise is unto you and to your children and to
all tb.at are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call." Not extending to
the end of the Jewish age only, as he has
interpreted Joel's prophecy, but extending,
as that prophecy did, to the time, "wlien the
knowledge of the Lord should cover the
eartli, as do the waters the sea." Was that
accomplished in the end of the Jewish age?
Will you please answer that question as
you go along? And not only that, but
whether the following has ever taken place :
"It shall come to pass in the last days, sailh
God, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all
flesh; and your sons and your daughters
shall prophecy, and your old men shall
dream dreams, and your young men shall
see visions, and on my servants and on my
handmaidens I will jiour out mj^ Spirit,
and they shall prophecy." AVas all that
fulfilled at the end of the Jewish age? Or
has it ever been fulfilled since then? If it
has not been fulfilled, nor will not he, who
limited it? Please tell us, so we can have
an opportunity of comparing the pattern as
set forth in the Bible with the views of your
church.

I next call your attention to some things
with regard to the continuation of practices
and ordinances in the church. Now, I under-
stand tiiat he claims that he believes in the
church as it was left perfected by the apos-
tles, whatever that may mean. In the first
place tiien, I suppose he believes in the
church that practiced the ordinances as the
apostles practiced them ; doubtless, as
found recorded in the eighth chapter of the
Acts of the apostles, fifteenth to twentieth
verses ; where Peter and John went down
to Samaria, after that the people had re-
ceived the word through the preaching of
Phillip ; and when they were come down
prayed for them that they might receive the
Holy Ghost. Then laid they, their hands
on them, and they received the Holy
Ghost." Also, the practice of the early
church as shown in the instance of Ananias,
who was not an apostle, putting hi& iiands
on Saul, as recorded in the ninth chapter
and seventeenth verse of the Acts of the
apostles, where another instance is record-
ed of the manifestation of the Holy Ghost
through this ordinance of the laying on of
hands. Will you answer this question?
Was Paul ever baptized of the Holy Spirit?
and if so, when and where ? — Since you say
only those at Pentecost and Samaria were
so baptized, and Paul was not in either
place. Afterwards we have a clear and de-
cisive illustration of the practice of Paul in

230

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

his ministry, as recorded in the nineteenth
chapter of the Acts of tiie apostles, where
he, at a certain time, came to Ephesus and
found a certain people who were called "cer-
tain disciples," and who said they had re-
ceived the baptism of John, but had not re-
ceived the Holy Spirit. This gives a fair il-
lustration of the difference between Mr.
Braden's teaching and mine, and the wide
difference existing, as I claim, between the
teaching of him and his church, and the
Bible, and the examination of this differ-
ence is doubtless what this audience wants
to listen to just now._ It was not difficult
for the apostle to find out whether these per-
sons calling themselves discijiles, were in
fact such. I will read you the history :

"And it came to pass fhere is 'old come-to-pass*
"again, right In the New Testament], tliat while
" Apollos was at Corinth, Pflul havin;.' parsed through
"the upper coasts, came to Ephesus and finding cer-
" tain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received
•"the Holy Ghost since ye Ivlieved? And they said
" unto him, we have not <o inueh a's heaid whether
••there beanv Hnly Ghost. And he s id nnto them,
" unto what then were ye baptized ; and they said,

" unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily
'• baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
" the people that they should believe on him which
" should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus,
" When they heard this, they were baptized in the
" name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid
•' his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them;
" and they spake with tongues and prophesied. And
" all the men were about twelve."

This, my friends, establishes fully the
practice of the early church. The.first in-
quiry of the minister of Christ was, "Have
ye received the Holy Ghost, since ye be-
lieved?" and when he was answered, no;
he proceeded to put them in the way to
receive it. I present this as showing a
direct contrast between the practices of the
New Testament church and the church of
which, "I, Clark Braden, am a member ; "
and as showing the fact that, instead of
being in harmony with the New Testament
church, the so-called Christian, Disciple or
Campbellite church is in direct antagonism
to that, as revealed in the record.

(Time called).

MR. BRADEN'S SECOND SPEECH.

GentI;F,men Moderators, Ladies and
GentIjEMBn :— We will continue our defini-
tion of our views :

IV. One faith, one system of belief, one
system of teaching "the faith once deliv-
ered unto the Saints." The Scriptures.
We have sufficiently explained this matter.

V. One baptism. We have already proved
that the one baptism is in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a command,
is to be obeyed, is to" be performed on men
by Christians and is baptism into water. We
practice immersion into water for these
reasons.

I. Not a sentence can becited in the Bible
that even hints that God ever authorized
in any way, pouring, or sprinkling, the ele-
ment water on any human being in a sin-
gle instance for any ceremonial, moral or
religious purpose 1 utterly defy any one to
find such a passage.

II Baptism is a form, a type, a symbol, a
figure of Christ's burial and resurrection
It is an object setting forth and teaching
Christ's burial and resurrection It is a like-
ness of Christ's burial and resurrection
It is a memorial of Christ's burial and resur
rection. It is a monumental institution, a
monument of Christ's burial and resurrec-
tion. Pouring and sprinkling are utterly
out of the question, as much as calve's-foot
jelly for the bread, and buttermilk for the
wine in the Lord's Supper. They utterly
destroy the symbolical, the memorial, the

monumental power of baptism. They de-
stroy baptism and are no more baptism
than Romish Mass is the Lord's Supper.
Immersion alone is appropriate, it alone is
baptism.

III. Baptism is an object lesson, setting
forth the sinner's death to his past sinful
life, and resurrection to a new and right-
eous life. Pouring and sprinkling utterly
destroy this lesson and destroy baptism.
They are not baptism. Immersion alone
teaches this lesson. It alone is baptism.

IV. In baptism persons went down into
the water. Idiotic if they were merely
sprinkled or poured. Persons of common
sense never go down into the water for such
acts. They do and must to be immersed.
Immersion is baptism. Pouring and
sprinkling are not.

V. Persons come up out of the water
after bai)tism. They never do after j^our-
ing and sprinkling. "They always do after
immersion. Immersion is baptism. Pour-
ing and sprinkling are not baptism:

VI. Jesus was baptized in Jordan. A cor-
rect rendering would be "into the Jordan."
He was immersed Pouring and sprinkling
are out of tlie question.

VII Baptism was where there "was
much water."' It is needed for immersion.
It IS not for sprinkling or pouring. Per-
sons were immersed, not poured or sprink-
led.

VIII. Baptism is likened to a birth. Pour-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

S

■a\

ing and sprinkling are utterly out of the
question. Immersion is like a birth.

IX. Baptism is called a burial. Persons
are buried in immersion. Not in pouring
or sprinkling.

X. An overwhelming of sufferings is
called a baptism. It was not a sprinkling
or a pouring of sufferings.

XI. Baptism is called a bath, a laver.
Immersion is such. Pouring and sprinkling
are not.

XII. In every instance in which the ele-
ment water alone was used in the ceremo-
nies of the Israelite ritual or religious acts,
it was used in immersion alone. Blood and
the cleansing water, or lye, alone were
sprinkled.

For these reasons we reject pouring, or
sprinkling, and accept only immersion. All
paiMes in creed and practice accept immer-
sion as baptism. We are orthodox and
caiholic and accept what is catholic and
uni' ersal, and that alone.

We teach tiiat a person who believes the
gospel with his whole heart^who has re-
pented of his sins with that godly sorrow
which needs not to be regretted— who has
confessed Christ with his mouth — is a scrip-
tural subject for scriptural baptism, and he
ftlone. Some teach that an infant that is
too young to believe the gospel with the
whole heart, to repent with a godly sorrow
<or past sins and to confess Christ with the
mouth, is a scriptural subject tor scriptural
baptism. *

We reject such a dogma for these reasons:

I. Not a sentence of scripture can be
found that even hints ijiny authority for the
baptism of an infant; not a command, not
a teaching, not an example, not a hint of it,

•^I. In every case of baptism recorded in
the ide, the narrative shows that the
persons baptized were believing penitents.

II'. The design and object of baptism
utterly forbid all idea of infant baptism.

i^'' . The most wretched, far-fetched, spe-
cial pleading and pettifogging in human
speech is the attempt to sustain infant bap-
ism.

V. Infant baptism has not a shred of
warrant in reason, common sense or scrip-
ture.

VI. The absurd and contradictory rea-
sons urged for infant baptism show its utter
fallacy.

We'teach that the gospel of Christ is the
power of God unto salvation to all who be-
lieve it. Romans 1:16. That men must
hear the gospel of Christ. "How shall
they believe on him of whom they have not
heard." Romans 10: 14. And "Faith comes
by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God." Romans 10:17. That "With the
heart man believes unto righteousness,"
Romans 10:10. That "God commands all
mea everywhere to repent." Acts 17:30.
That men should repent of their past sins
that " Godly sorrow that works a reforma-
tion not to' be regretted." II Cor, 7 : 10.
That "with the mouth confession is made
unto salvation." Rom. 10:10. This is be-
lieved by all parties.

We teach also that the one who has been
begotten by the spirit through the word in
believing, is born of the water and spirit in
baptism ; that the one who has believed and
been baptized is saved from iiis past sins ;
that penitent believers must be baptized
into the remission of past sins ; that peni-
tent believers must arise and be liaptized,
washing away their past sins, calling on
the name of the Lord ; that penitent believ-
ers are baptized into the death of Christ;
that they are buried with Christ in baptism;
that they are buried to sin in baptism ; that
they arise out of baptism to a new life ; that
penitent believers are made free from sin
when they obey, in baptism, the figure,
form, symbol or type of the teaching, the
burial, the resurrection of Christ delivered
unto them.

That men are children of God through
faith when they put on (Jhrist in baptism.
That baptism now saves us m the sense of
pardon of past sins, as the answer or re-
quirement of a good conscience toward
God.

Our position is this : The gospel law of
pardon was first preached on the day of
Pentecost. That it is the duty of men to
preach it as it was then preached in all and
every instance. That since the day of Pen-
tecost, when persons have been properly
instructed in the law of pardon, immersion
in water, into the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, is a condition of the re-
mission of past sins, to one who has believ-
ed the Gospel of Christ, with the whole
heart, who has repented of past sins with
a godly sorrow, and who has confessed
Christ with the mouth.

We teach it for these reasons. I. In the
first transgression, ui Eden, man became a
sinner through hearing falsehood, believing
falsehood, desiring the results of falsehood,
and obeying the teachings of falsehood, in
violating the positive command, "Thou
shalt not eat." He returns by retracing his
steps, hearing the Gospel, believing the
Gospel, repenting, confessing Christ, and
obeying the truth in obeying the positive
command— baptism. II. The entire man is
changed in each case. Believing falsehood
changed man's beliefs; desiring the re-
sults of falsehood, changed man's desires'
his heart ; disobeying a positive command,
changed man's volitions, his conduct ,
punishment changed his condition, his
state. In like manner believing the truth
changes man's beliefs ; repentance, his
heart; confession, his position before men
and divine law ; baptismchauges man's vo-
lition, his conduct ; pardon changes his-
state. III. The entire man is tested in each
case. Belief of falsehood wasa testof mind,
reason, judgement; desiring the results of
falsehood was a test of the heart ; disobe-
dience of a positive command was a test of
the will. In like manner belief of truth
tests man's mind, reason, judgment. Re-
pentance tests his heart, and baptism tests
his will. IV. Disobedience to a positive
command was before and in order to pun-
ishment, in the first transgression. Obe-

2i>2

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

dience to a positive command is before and
in order to tiie removal of punisiiment in
man's conversion. V. In John's work pre-
paring for Christ, baptism was into refor-
mation, into remission. VI. Jesus said
men are begotten by the vSpirit, through
hearing his words, and believing the truth;
and born of the water and Spirit in baptism.
VII. Jesus said, "he that believes and is
baptized shall be saved" from his past sins.
In Matthew's account of the same discourse
he tells us that this baptism was into the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It was water baptism. VIII. Peter said to
converted believers "Repent and be bap-
tized unto the remission of sins." IX. The
penitent praying Saul was told to "Arise
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins
calling on the name of the Lord." X. Peter
who has to tell Cornelius "what he must do
to be saved," preached, Cornelius believed
Peter commanded him to be baptized in
water in the name of the Lord. XI. The
jailor asked Paul what he must do to be
saved. Paul told him to believe, and bap-
tized him. XII. Baptism is recorded as an
essential element in every conversion as
much so, as faith. On the day of Pente-
cost,— Lydia, Saul, the Eunuch, the Sa-
maritans, Cornelius, the jailor, the house-
holds of Stephanus, Crispus, Gaius, the
Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossi-
ans, the language of Paul to Titus, the
language of Peter. XIII. The Romans were
baptized into Christ's death. The blood of
Christ is met in hit death. Were united
with Christ in baptism, in the likeness of
his death. Were buried to sin in baptism
and rose to walk a new life. Were made
free from sin in obeying, in baptism, the
symbol of the doctrine delivered to them,
the burial and resurrection of Christ. XIV.
The Galatians put on Christ in being bap-
tized into him. XV. The Ephesians are
lold that Christ cleansed the church by the
washing the laver, bath of water, baptism,
inrough the word. XVI. The Colossians
were buried v/ith Christ in baptism, and
rose through faith, to walk a new life.
XVII. As the Israelites were freed from
Pnaroah and came under Moses m the bap-
tism unto Moses in the cloud and sea, so we
are freed from sin and come unto Christ in
being baptized into Christ. XVIII, We
aie saved by the washing, laver, bath of re-
generation, baptism, and the renewal of the
Holy Spirit in belief, being begotten by the
Spirit through the word. XIX. Baptism
saves us as the answer or requirement of a
good conscience towards God. XX. If we
arrange the teachings of tlie Scriptures in
pairs we can see what they are. Persons
are begotten by hearing the words of the
Spirit (faith) and born of water and Spirit
(baptism). He that believes (faith) and is
baptized (baptism) is saved. Believing
penitents (faith) are told to be baptized into
remission (baptism). Believing Saul (faith)
is told to arise and wash away his sins
(washing of regeneration baptism) in bap-
tism. Cornelius believed (faith) and was
baptized in water in the name of the Lord

(baptism) as what he was todo to be saved.
The eunuch believed (faith) and was bap-
tized (baptism). The Samaritans believed
(faith) and were baptized (baptism). The
jailor believed (faith) and was baptized
(baptism). The Romans believed (faith)
and were baptized into Christ's death
united witli him in the likeness of his death
(^in baptism), obeyed (in baptism) the sym-
bol of the doctrine, the burial and resurrec-
tion of Christ. The Ephesians were cleansed
by the laver bath of water, (baptism)
through the word (faith). The Galatians
were children of God through faith having
put on Christ in being baptized intoClir^st.
The Colossians were buried with Christ in
baptism rose to a new life through faith.
We are saved by the laver both washing of
regeneration (as Paul washed away his sins
in baptism) and the renewal of the Holy
Spirit in faith. Baptism, as an act of faith,
saves us as the answer or requirement of a
good conscience towards God. XXI. The
baptism mentioned in these couplets is
water baptism. It was into the name of
the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, in the
name of Christ— in water— in the name of
the Lord — here is water — a laver a bath — a
washing — a command — administered by
man, not miraculous, not attended
with miraculous power. It was the
one baptism. Baptism in the Holy
Spirit that is a miraculous promise, not
a command; received, not obeyed: that
is administered by Christ alone— was a
miracle and attended with miraculous
power, is utterly out of the question. XXII.
Tlien we teach that obedience to a positive
ordinance baptism occupies the same posi-
tion, in order, in man's return to God, that
disobedience to a positive ordinance, "Thou
shall not eat," did in man's departure.
That obedience to a positive ordinance is
before and in order to a removal of punish-
ment, in the same sense that disobedience
to a positive ordinance wa ; before and in
order to infliction of punishment in the
transgression. That as man was not punish-
ed when he believed falsehood, nor when he
desired its results, and not until he had
arrayed his will against God's positive com-
mand ; and in his actions violated his positive
command; so in conversion, the penalty is
not removed when man believes or for faith
only, nor when he repents, but when he
submits his will to God's will, in his posi-
tive ordinance baptism, and by his acts
obeys this ordinance and is born into the
Kingdom of God, saved from his past sins,
baptized into remission, washes away his
sins, is made free from sin, is baptized into
Christ, is saved by the laver of regeneration,
is cleansed by it, saved by baptism in meet-
ing the requirements of God's law and has
a good conscience toward it.

We teach that faith is a means of man's
justification. We reject the dogma that
man is justified by faith only, for these
reasons: I. The Scriptures nowhere declare
that man is justified by faith only. The
"only" is an interpolation. II. The Scrip-
tures nowiiere declare that man is justified

THE BRADEN AND KET.LEY DEBATE.

Onrf

by faith without works of obedience to the
law of Christ. Deeds of law have no refer-
ence to deeds of tlie law of (Christ. III.
The Scriptures dechire tliat man is justi-
fied by ten diflerent things and faiih in
one of them. IV. Faith is an act of obe-
dience to the law of Christ, a work as much
as baptism. V. The word of God declares,
"Man is justified by works, and not by faith
only." We believe this and not sectarian
theology which flatly contradicts God's
word in saying, "Man is not justified by
works, but by faith only."

The sixth item or plank is one hope
through the name of Christ. It embraces
hope of pardon and the Spirit through the
•word in the case of the sinner — eternal life
and the resurrection and heaven in the case
of the Christian, who is faithful in a holy,
righteous life to the end.

The seventh item or plank is the one body
or "The Church of Christ." We find that
there were two classes of persons in the
church in the apostolic age. There were
two kinds of work. One required miracu-
lous powers ; the other did not. The
miraculous was extraordinary, temporary,
to endure until the New Testament church
was perfected, and the perfect word of God
was completed in the New Testament. Then
this miraculous power and all its work
ceased ; and the men who possessed it
ceased out of the church. This removes"
apostles, prophets, who preach by inspira-
tion, and all miraculous work and persons
possessing miraculous power. It leaves
evangelists, who, as uninspired preachers,
proclaim the Gospel, that was perfected by
the inspired apostles, to the world. Then
overseers and servants or deacons. These
two classes of officers are generally tei'med
"Elders," because chosen from old men.
They and the evangelists are called "shep-
herds," because they fed the flock. We
reject episcopacy over more than one con-
gregation, and all orders not embraced in
evangelists, overseers and deacons. We
reject creeds, councils and all ecclesiastical
hierarchies. The local congregation is the
master of its own affairs in all matters of
faith', practice and discipline.

The eighth plank is the one name. Indi-
vidual followers should bear this one name,
the name of Christ, in being called "Christ-
ians." The Church should bear this one
name of Christ in being called "The Church
of Christ," or, "The Church of God." Thus
we stand on the divine platform of eight
planks laid down by Paul, so we proclaim
these eight items to the world.

We do not preach Trinitarianism because
it is an attempt to be wise beyond what is
written. We reject unitarianism because it
denies the divinity of Jesus, that he was
divinity manifest in human form. We
have rejected total hereditary depravity
because unscriptural and absurd. We are
not Pelagians, for we I elieve in inherited
depravity of man's physical, mental and
moral na'ture. We reject all idea of inherit-
ed sinfulness or guilt, and the' idea that
inherited depravity can be total. We have

rejected all idea of vengefulness on the part
of God, and all horrible pictures of punish-
ment, gro.ss ideas of h^il and punishment,
but are not Universaliats. We believe tliafc
there is punishment of sin here and here-
after, and that the finally impenitent will
be eternally lost. We have rejected absurd-
ities of human inability, that man can do
nothing in hearing and obeying God's word ;
ideas of substitutionary righteousness in
the sense that Christ's righteousness and
obedience will be accepted instead of what
we should and can do. Yet we believe that
Christ died for us, made an atonement for
us, and is our mediator and expiation. But
that he did this, not to do our righteousness
for us, but to enable us to be pardoned and
do our own righteousness, and by obeying
Him, grow up into the character we should
have.

We have rejected the absurd ideas that
conversion is a miracle. Also absurd ex-
periences, and relying on our own feelings
for evidence of pardon. We take God at
His word. We obey Him and we take His
promise of pardon as the evidence of pardon.
Our evidence is divine, not human. W©
reject mourners' benches, seekers' circles,
mourning for days or years, all idea that
God has to be converted by penance on the
part of the sinner, before he will pardon.
We hold our protracted meetings just as
the apostles held theirs. Preach the same
ideas. Tell persons the same things.
Proclaim the same commands. Make the
same promises. W^e tell persons believe
the Gospel, believe with the whole heart,
repent with a Godly sorrow, confess Christ,
with the mouth be baptized into remission.
We organize them into churches exactly as
the apostles did, with the same officers and
services. Break the loaf on each first day
as they did. Build each other up in Christian
knowledge and life, by teaching, exhorta-
tion, songs, prayers, reading the scriptures,
and live as tae scriptures require. Thus I
prove that we are identical in faith, ordi-
nances, organizations, teaching, worship,
practice, and duties with the Church of
Christ as left completed by the apostles
of Christ.

We will notice briefly some things said
by my opponent. I will first remind him
that the New Testament is our authority in
regard to the Church of Christ. Not the
traditions of what are called "the fathers."
There is no issue that there were miracu-
lous powers in the church in the days of the
apostles. The issue is this : " Did tiie apos-
tles, in giving the constitution of the church,
the New Testament, ordain that they should
remain in the church as a permanent fea-
ture of the church they ordained in the New
Testament?" There is no disputing the
fact that Jesus promised that signs should
attend certain persons. The issues are,
" were thev to attend the preaching of more
than believing apostles? Were they to re-
main perpetually in the church?" We are
o-lad to hear him say that miraculous power
was not given to convert those to whom it
was o-iveo. See if he does not back out of

234

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

that before we are done. " The last days "
in Joel's promise were the last days in the
Mosaic dispensation, Peter declares that
" this " series of events at which ,you are so
amazed "istliat" series of events "that
was promised by Joel," and that Christ had
shed forth that series of miraculous dis-
plays which they saw or heard. Peter de-
clared that Joel's promise was to persons
amon^r all flesh that "God should call."
That tliey should receive the Holy Spirit as
a gift. There were two manifestations of this
miraculous intluenee, baptism in the spirit,
poured forth by Christ on two occasions,
and spiritual g-ifts received by the imposi-
tion of apostle's hands. There is no dis-
pute that there were spiritual powers in the
Corinthian church ; nor triat tlley were ex-
horted to desire the best of these gifts
while they remained in the church. I be-
lieve Paul when he says "there is a more
excellent way " than exercising the best of
these spiritual gifts. My opponent does not.
I desire "the more excellent way." He
does not. We have apostles m our cliurch,
just as we have Cliiist in our church, by
their words, ttieir law, their inspired utter-

ances. We have prophets in the same way.
We do not substitute Joe Smith's fraud, the
Book of Mormon, as the " fullness of the
gospel," for Christ's law, the New Testa-
ment. Nor do we substitute Mormon im-
postors for the apostles and prophets of the
New Testament. We have evangelists,
shepherds and teachers in our church, who
take God's word as their sole guide, for it
" makes them perfect, and thoroughly fin-
ishes them to all good works." We do not
have Mormon impostors who pretend to be
inspired, and we refuse to follow the lying
vagaries of such instead of the perfect word
of God. Baptism in the spirit was a prom-
ise. We learn from the history of Christ's
administration of it that it ushered in the
proclamation of the gospel to Jews on
the day of Pentecost, and the proc-
lamation of the gospel to Gentiles at
the house of Cornelius. We learn from the
Bible history its period of existence. We
learn from the context the meaning ot
Paul's language ; the wisdom and knowl-
edge that were to pass away, were the wis-
dom and knowledge imparted by inspira
tiou, mentioned in the previous context.

MR. KELLEYS SECOND SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moq^ators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — I ain^lad we are going to
have a discussion. I have been here, this
is the eleventh evening now, and we have
not had a discussion yet; 4ie failed even to
undertake to meet the issue in the other
question. But it seems we are to liave an
issue in this, and upon that issue we are to
have a discussion. The negative will not
fail to meet the issue this time, I assure
you.

I call attention to the last remark of the
speaker with regard to the wonderful "seed"
or the germ which had in its growth proved
to be the culmination of the work of what
the Christian world has been foolishly con-
tending for, as he thinks, forlo, these many
years. The culminaLion is in, that it has
gone to seed in "Mormonism." What is it
that he says is the seed of Mormonism?
The belief in the power and regenerating
influeues of the Holy Spirit. It seems to
me the seed is not a very bad one, then.
All of tills talk about Mormonism is be-
cause we claim that men ough t to be blessed
with the gifts of the Spirit if they have the
Spirit of God ; if they are blessed with the
gift of wisdom, let them be wise servants ;
if with the gift of knowledge, let them use
it; if the gift of faith or any other, let it
be properly exercised ; and if tliat is "Mor-

monism," and the prayerful desire for the
Holy Spirit by the churches "the seed,''
wa.s not the doctrine that Paul and Jesus
and Peter taught Mormonism also? Was
the full' light of the gifts taught by Jesus
and the apostles, "Mormonism gone to
seed?" Will you please answer that to-
morrow night? If they taught these spir-
itual gifts just like I am teaching them,
and you call mine the result of the faith and
the worship of the various seeded organiz-
ations, or "Mormonism gone to seed," what
do you call theirs? Because certainly they
taught the same things that I have been
trying to teach here, and if they did not, ir.
is'with you to point out the difference.

I call .your attention now to the text that
I quoted in my first speech : — "Follow after
charity and desire spiritual gifts, butrather
that ye may prophesy." Well, but "yet,"
he says, "I show unto you a more excellent
way." Oh no, Mr. Braden, this was after
he was going to show a more excellent way.
That was said as recorded in the twelfth
cliapter; this is the fourteenth I am quot-
ing. This is an exhortation made after the
reference to the more excellent way. Here
it will be proper to stop and enquire what
this "more excellent way" is.

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and
members' in particular. And God hath set

THE BRADEN AND ICELLEY DJ^DATE.

some in the ohurch, first apostles, peconda-
iily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that
miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, gov-
ernments, diversities of tongues. Are all
apostles? are all prophets?" "But covet
earnestly the best gifts ; and yet show I
unto you a more excellent way." Then
Braden says the apostle goes on and shows
themoreexcellent way. Thatis, that proph-
ecies shall fail, tongues shall cease, and
whether there be knowledge it shall vanish
away. That is the more excellent way my
opponent thinks, outlined in the thirteenth
chapter. Then I turn to the first part of
the fourteenth chapter, after he had given
them the more excellent way, according to
his wise interpretation, and get the /nost
excellent way. Now, Mr. Braden, you re-
member to-morrow night, and give us the
most excellent way. "Follow after charity,
and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that
ye may prophesy." According to your in-
terpretation, what comes last is the best ;
and by this, after he had given them the
more excellent way, according to the inter-
pretation of that clause, as any of you can
see by turning and reading it, he then pro-
ceeded to give them the TTios/ excellent way.
And I want to call your attention to the
fact that this letter was not divided into
chapters or verses when the apostle Paul
wrote his letter as it is found here. These
divisions are of a comparatively modern
date. The apostle sent this letter entire to
the Corinthian Church, and in it he gives
them here, as recorded in the twelfth chap-
ter according to Mr. Braden 's interpreta-
tion— first, the excellent way ; second, in the
thirteenth chapter he gives them the more
excellent way ; third, in the fourteenth
chapter he gives them the most excellent
way ; and when he gets to the most excel-
lent way, it is, "Follow after charity, and
desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may
prophesy." He will find out before we get
through that "yet snow I unto you a more
excellent way," is in accordance with the
interpretation that I gave at Wilber, that
then I was correct ; and I will try and make
it clear before this discussion closes. But
of this I shall particularly speak another
time. The apostle does not occupy the ab-
surd position of teaching three ways as my
opponent would have us believe, but he
teaches one only, and that is taught in all
of these chapters.

When my time was called I was ex-
amining the practice of the church as found
in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of
the apostles, where Paul, ifi addressing
some of the people at Ephesus, asks them
whether they have received the Holy Ghost
since they believed. It reads: "He said
unto them, have ye received'the Holy Ghost
since ye believed"? And they said unto him,
we have not so much as heard whether
there be any Holy Ghost." Now this is
a fair illustration of the difTerence between
my teaching and my opponent's. I meet
a community of persons that say they are
believers, and T ask them, have ye received
the confirmation of the Spirit or the Hoiy

Spirit since ye believed? Or, "Have ye
received tlie Holy GhostsiJiceye believed?"
Mr. Braden comes along, and" if they have
had water baptism itisall right. He never
thinks of such a thing as asking them if
they have received the Holy Ghost. The
terms "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost"
rememhe;-, are used in the Bi'ble inter-
changeably. So also with these is "Gift of
the Holy Ghost, "and " Born of the Spirit."
But the record proceeds :

And he, Paul, said unto them, " Unto what
then were ye baptized?" And they said
"Unto John's Baptism." Then said Paul,
"John verily baptised with the baptism of
repeiitence, saying unto the people that
they should believe on him which should
come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
When they heard this they were baptised
in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when
Paul had laid his hands upon them, the
Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake
with rongues and prophesied." Now, here
are more miraculous manifestations, so far
as the record shows, than was witnessed
upon the day of Pentecost. On the &dy of
Pentecost there was but the gift of tongues,
so far as miraculous manifestations are con-
cerned. But here are both tongues and
prophecies. The Holy Ghost was poured
out bountifully, and the brethren filled to
overflowing. And yet he pretends to say
that on Pentecost day there was a baptism
of the Holy Spirit, while in this instanco
there was not. But the record holds that
there tvas a baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Now, I wish him to clear this up, and show
to the audience the difference between the
baptism of the Holy Spirit and the reception
of the Holy Spirit; between the reception
of the Holy Spirit as was here spoken of by
the Apostle Paul and the baptism o\' the
Holy Spiiit on Pentecost day ; or the gift of
the Holy Spirit as was given unto those
who believed at Samaria, Acts 8: 20, and
the gift of the Hol^ Spi s bestowed upon
the household of Cornelir -, Acts 11 : 17.
All of these are used interchangeably as f
have before stated, and the phenomena is
the same in the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
the gift of the Holy Spirir, and the
reception of the Holy Spirit, or as I might
correctly use the term Holy Ghost in each
instance. I take it that this is in accord-
ance with the teaching of Jesus in the third
chapter of John. " Except a man be born
of the water and of the Spirit," the birth
of the Spirit representing certainly the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, "He cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God." Now will
my opponent please answer to-morrow
evening the question of what that birth of
the Spirit to which Jesus referred had ref-
erence, and whom it aftects. Do not forget
that. And do not answer it by saying "I
believe so and so," as you have pretended
to answer the questions that I asked you
this evening. I am not asking you for what
you believe about it, butforAv hat the record
teaches. I want a clear exposition of the
record. Do not say that Kelley believes so
and so, and that Braden believes so and so.

236

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Let us have the facts beariug upon this
issue set out as they are in the record. But
I will pursue the thread of my argument
upon tiie practice in the early days of the
church of the ordinance of the laying on of
hands.

When the apostle had laid his hands on
those at Ephesus, they received the Holy
Ghost, and they spake with tongues and
prophesied. This is in the record that he
claims is the only genuine and correct record
to show how the church was, as it was left
by the apostles, and the pattern to the
church now, directing what we should do.
Is the church of which Mr. Braden is a
member in practice and teaching with the
early chureh, if it disregards these things?
(And it does.) Now, I turn back and refer
you to the record as contained in the eighth
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where,
after Philip had been down to Samaria and
had preached to the people, and they had
received the word, as it is recorded, as
follows :

"But when ther believed Philip preaching the
things concerning the. Kingdom of God and the name
of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and
women. Then Simon himself believed also ; and when
he was baptized, he continued with Philip and wonder-
ed, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now, when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem,
heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they
sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were
come down, prayed for them, that they might receive
the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none
of them ; onlv they were bapti ed in the name of the
Lord Jesus.) Then laid thev their hands on them, and
thev received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw
that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy
Ghost was given, he offered them money."

I cite this for twopurposes ; First to show
that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was
given to those, who were obedient and were
confirmed by the laying on of hands after
the day of Pentecost, in this instance to the
people of Samaria ; and they were evidently
baptized of the Holy Ghost as fully and
effectually, as were tliose of Pentecost day.
Second, to show that the H0I3' Ghost is not
given through the medium of the word, a?
Braden's church believes, but through a
ditterent means — shed abroad directly by
Jesus Chsist. As confirmative proof of my
eositions, I also cite the ninth chapter of
the Acts of the Apostles, 17th verse:

" And Ananias went his way and entered into the
house; and putting Jiis hands on him said, Brother
Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee
bv the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thuu
m"ightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy
Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it
had been scales, and he received sight forthwith, and
arose and was baptized."

Here is a fair sample of the practice. A
clear case showing tiiat the Holy Ghost was
not received through the medium of the
word, but through" the ministration of an
elder, one not an apostle.

Now he says that none received the Holy
Ghost, except they had the apostles' hands
laid upon them. But he is mistaken ; here
is Ananias who lays his hands upon Saul
of Tarsus; and Saul received the Holy Ghost
under his hands, and Ananias was not an
apostle. What excuse have you now to
oflf'er to this audience for saying that this
practice ought not to be In the church; that

the Holy Ghost is given through the
medium of the word and under an apostle's
hands only ? Here are three flat contradic-
tions to your order in one case.

Then I call your attention again to the
household of Cornelius, where " the Holy
Ghost fell on them which heard the word,"
and was not imparted through the medium
of the word?

I next invite your attention to the church
record as given by the best historians sub-
sequent to that time, to show that this was
not only the order during the New Testa-
ment times, but that it continued to be the
order for a long time subsequent, and that
they actually received the Holy Ghost by
conf9rming to the ordinances as they were
placed in the church, and not simply
through the medium of the word.

The following are the authorities showing'
the order of doctrine of the laying
on of hands, as it was practiced in the early
church upon baptized believers, and the
manner of reception of the Holy Spirit in
the church as left perfected by the apostles,
if ever perfected.

First. Tertullian, A.D.200. de Bapt. c.6.

"After baptism the hand is imposed by
blessing, and calling, and inviting of the
Holy Spirit, who willingly descends from
the Father on the bodies that are cleansed
and blessed,"

Further upon this in chapter 8 he says :

"It is the fleshly, or outward act of bap-
tism that we are dipt in water ; the spirit-
ual effects that we are freed from our sins.
Tnen follows laying on of hands, the Dis-
penser, inviting the Spirit of God by prayer,
And being cleansed by baptismal water
we are disposed for the Holy Spirit under
the hands of the Angel of the church."

Speaking concerning the order and state
of the church at this early time, after the
death of the apostles, he says, {de Script.
Cap. 36) :

"She believeth in God, she signs with
water, (that is baptizeth,) she clothes with
the spirit, (viz., by the Imposition of
hands,) she feeds with the Eucharist, (ad-
ministers the emblems of the Lord's body,)
and exhorts to martyrdom, (to faithfulness,
and the keeping of the law of God even unto
death,) and against this order or Institution
she receives no man."

This is the declared practice of the church
as it was left by the apostles. I call my
opponent's attention to it particularly, and
ask him to explain how it is, that it is not
the order in his church too, since he affirms
his "is in accordance with the church of
Christ as it was left perfected by the apos-
tles." I have shown you that under the
immediate supervision of the apostles that
this was the orfier and practice, and now
that it was still the order in the century
which immediately followed. And I want
some evidence that will support 3'oiir bold
assertions to the effect that your church, —
call it Christian, Church of Christ, Camp-
bellite. Disciple, or what you may, it mat-
ters not, is either in faith, doctrine or prac-
tices, in accord with the church as it was

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

237

under the apostles, or iu the immediate
time subsequent.

Second, But I have other evidence to
offer from the history of the early church.
.Eusebius, (not the Pope of that name,) but
Eusebius Pamphilus, who lived about
three hundred years after Christ, in his
work (Book 7, c. 2). certifies that :

"The ancient manner of receiving mem-
berg into the church was with prayer, and
the laying on of hands."

Again he says, ( Book 6, c. 26) :

" That one Novatius being sick was bap-
tized, if it may be called a baptism which
he received, for he obtained not after his
recovery that which he should have done
by the canon of the church, to- wit, con-
firmation by the hands of the Bishop, which
having not obtained, how can he be sup-
posed to have received the Holy Spirit."

This was about the year 260. And it
must not either be supposed to have been
derived from the practice afterwards of
Crossing, or Clirysn I, for the writer makes no
mention of these in his work.

Third, Cyprian, in A. D. 250, and against
whom none will bring an accusation, iu his
73d letter, when referring to the fact of the
apostles going to Samaria to confirm those
that Phillip had baptized, saj's :

" Which custom is also descended to us,
that they who are baptized, might be
brought by the rules of the church, and by
prayer of inpositiou of hands to obtain the
Holy Ghost."

Again in Ep. 72: —

"It is of no purpose to lay hands on them
to receive the Holy Spirit, unless they re-
ceive the baptism of the church."

Fourth, Hierom iu answering this ques-
tion, viz : — "Why he that is baptized iu the
church doth not receive the Holy Ghost but
by the imposition of hands?" answers
{Dial ad Lucifer) :

"This observation for the honor of the
priesthood, did descend from the Scrip-
tures. If you asK me where it is wa'itten ?
'Tis answered, in Acfibus Apostolorum, in
the Acts of the Apostles."

Fifth, The testimony of Chrysostom, who
wrote during the four tli eenturj'. He says:

"That coiiflrmation gives us the Holy
Ghost."

Sixth, Augustine, of the same century,
writes :

"Still we do what the Apostles did, when
they laid their hands on the Samaritans
and called doM'n the Holy Gliost upon
them."

Willi these I might also cite Mosheitn's
Church History, Vol. 1, page 91 ; and
Gahan's Church History, page 9?>.

These give you an unmistakable history
of the church upon the doctrine and prac-
tice of the reception of the Holy Spirit, and
the laying ou of hands, down to the fourth
century from the time of (Uiri.st. These
historians are some of the same parlies
through whom we rer-eived the record of
the Scriptures themselves.

The practices and teachings of the church
by the apostles as I have shown, were

not only different from Braden's church,
but also that of the church after the
apostles, whether perfected or not. What
has he to answer, I again ask him, to thia
emphatic testimony?

I cite these to show you that after the
apostles' time the churches that were left,
(these congregations that have been referred
to), practiced the same things that we have
recorded in the New Testament Scriptures,
and that this is the higliest and most cor-
rect history and account that we have with
regard to the practices of the church after
the time of the apostles. This is the his-
tory as handed down of the doings of those
churches after the apostles' time.

Now I hurriedly in vit.e your attention to
a description of the doctrine of Christ as
set forth in the sixth chapter of Hebrews,
and call the attention of my opponent to
the fact that iu describing the faith of his
church this evening, he left out one of the
first or foundation principles here named by
the apostle Paul, and not only by Paul, biit
by others of the apostles; and as I havo
shown, was held to be the practice and doc-
trine of the church as handed down after-
wards until the fourth century, at least af-
ter the apostles' time.
The apostle says : —

" Therefore leaving the principles of the
doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfec-
tion, not laying again the foundation of re-
pentance from dead works, and of faith to-
ward God of the doctrine of baj)tisms, and
of laying on of hands."

Now, you did not enumerate this last as
one of the doctrines of your church, and
one of the things you believe in. Do you
believe in it for any purpose, and practice
it for any purpose, in your church, either
for the ordination of the minister setting
apart of the minister, or anything else ?
Do you for anything? You may answer
these questions to-morrow night. The
record continues :

"And of resurrection of the dead and of
eternal judgment. And this will we do if
God permit."

Remember these are principles in the
foundation of the structure. Do you accept
all as being in the foundation of your struc-
ture? If you do not, then answer the fur-
ther question, and show your authority in
the scriptures here, something upon which
we may safely rely, for your people taking
that out of the New Testament so far a3
your practicing it is concerned. Just give
us one passage of scripture to-morrow even-
ing showing that that passage is not as the
apostle used it, one of the fir^t, fundamental,
foundation principles of the doctrine of
Christ, and that it should be taken out of
the New Testament. Not only that, but
to-morrow evening will you please answer
this question, tor I wish time enough to ex-
amine jonv answer : AVhere and how do
3'^ou receive authority to teach and admin-
ister the ordinances as established by Christ
for these, as you say, congregations which
were left after the apostles' time? Second,
who were left over these congregations, and.

238

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

from whence did they receive iheir author-
ity? Third, and when Mr. Campbell organ-
ized his church in this century, where did
he get his authority to organize, if the au-
thority is vested in the congregation ? And
fourth, had he any more authority to or-
ganize a church at the time that he did than
I have to organize a church, or you have to
organize a church ? Please answer all these
questions to-morrow evening.

I shall call your attention in this connec-
tion to the claims made by him with refer-
ence to the continuance of the Holy Spirit
as manifested upon the day of Pentecost,
and spoken of by Peter as belonging by
promise not only to that, people but " to all
that were afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call." Was this indeed a
fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel? I will
read it carefully, because I wish you to un-
derstand and comprehend the full instruc-
tion given. Acts 2:38:

"Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized
every one of you in th« name of Jesus Christ for there-
mission of sins and ve shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost, for the promise is unto you and to your children,
and unto all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call. And with many other words did
he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from
this untoward generation."

The promise he says of this gift of the
Holy Ghost is " unto you and to your chil-
dren, and unto all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call."
(Jailed to the laying on of the apostles'
hands, or called to miraculous power?
Could the apostle Peter have had in his
mind at the time that the promise "to you
and your children, and to all that are afar
off, even as many as the Lord our God shall
call," was only to those that the apostles
could lay their hands upon? Was the call
to stop with those? Jesus had ordained a
certain Seventy before this time, as you will
find by turning and reading the tenth
chapter of Luke.

" After these things the Lord appointed
other seventy also, and sent them two and
two before his fnce into every city."

Seventy elders, besides the apostles, cer-
tainly, and i he reading is such that it is
claimed to show i >v o Seventies, making 140
that we know of that were in existence at
that time, and recognized by Christ besides
the apostles ; and these went out preaching,
and there were many of them preaching and
teaching as is shown by reference to other
passages in scripture. Did the promise
made by Peter extend to those who should
accept the faith under these others, or did
they only follow the eleven apostles whom
Jesus met after his resurrection? Peter
says, verses 32 and 33: "This Jesus hath
God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Therefore being by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father
the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath
shed forth this which ye now seeand hear."
This is connected with the sixteenth verse
of the same chapter, where he refers to the
prophecy of Joel. " For these are not
*!ruiikeu as ye supnose, seeing it is but the
third hour o*f the day. But this is that"—

now what do " this" and " that" refer to ?
The word " this" all must agree refers to
the thing poured out upon that occasion —
the g^pirit. The argument of the apostle is,
For this that you see, that which seems to
make this audience stagger, or act different-
ly from what they would act at other times,
is not strong drink, "seeing it is but the
third hour of the day." "But this [Spirit]
is that [Spirit] which was spoken of by the
prophet Joel ; and it shall come to pass in
the last days, saith God, 'I will pour out of
my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and
your daughters shall prophesy, and your
young men shall see visions, and your old
men shall dream dreams'."

Now let me examine it as Braden wishes

you to take it. This is the fulfillment of the

prophecy made by Joel. Can't you see that

that is *a different thing entirely from a

mere reference to that Spirit that Joel said

would be poured out in the last days? The

true antecedent or substantive is Spirit, and

not the " fulfillment of Joel's prophecy."

Hence he says : This is that [Spirit] which

was spoken of by the prophet Joel, "and it

shall come to pass in the last days, saith

God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all

flesh." This is the Spirit of God, then-

Peter is giving them to understand upon

that day that it is the Spirit of God that

is made manifest before their eyes, and not

a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, because he

could not have truthfully made them believe

it was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, for

.Joel's prophecy included seeing visions and

dreaming dreams. W^as thereany body there

that fell asleep and had a dream that you

have any account of? Was there anything

poured out there "On my servants and on

my handmaidens?" etc. Was it poured

out upon all flesh there? It is not only to

be poured out upon certain persons when

the propliecy is fulfilled, but upon all flesh.

Then is the time when the lamb and the

lion shall lie down together, when all shall

be at peace, and when the earth shall be

full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the

waters fill, or cover, the sea. I know that

Mr. Braden thinks it will be when fhelamb

is inside of the lion that they will lie down

together, but that is not according to the

prophecy. The prophets declare that they

shall lie down together at a time when they

should not molest each other, and a little

child even should lead them, etc., and we

ought to believe fully in the predictions and

in the prophecies being actually fulfilled at

some time, for these prophets spoke as

they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

Here I shall take up his idea of the Spirit

being received only through the word, and

cite passages of scripture to show that the

Spirit is n"ot given through the word, the

letter of the law, as the Campbellites hold,

1 Peter 1: 10—12:

•' Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and
searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that
should come unto you. Searching what. ,or what
maimer of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them
did signify, when it testified beforehana the sufifering"
of Christ," and the glory ttuit should follow. Unf^
whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, bu^
unto us, they did minister the things which are nc

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

239

ieporte(^ unto you by them that have prenpherl the
Gospel unto yoii with the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven, which things the angels desire to looli into."

Now the persons who before this time
received the Holy (iihosfc as "sent down
from heaven," the apostle Peter says re-
ceived it, not as it came through j^he word,
the dead letter, but direct from heaven.
There is no such thing in the Scripture,
either that the Holy Ghost was given for
the purpose of perfecting the word. The
word, as I understand, was perfected as it
emanated from God. It was perfect then.
Do you think Jesus gave the Holy Spirit in
order to make the word more perfect? So
far as that is concerned, it was perfect in
the Psalmist's day. "The law of the Lord
is perfect, converting the soul." Was it
perfect in the sense that my opponent would
Tiave you believe now, so far as to include
all that God should ever give? Not at all.
This is only a false theory among the peo-
ple. James speaks of the "perfect law of
liberty." That perfect law of liberty that
he was speaking of was the law that they
had then, and that they were commanded
to teach, and they had all the law that was
in a sense requisite to salvation, from the
time when the great commission was given
by Jesus, when he said, " Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel to every crea-
ture." Mark 16. "Go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded
you." Did he tell them to teach anything
else than what he had commanded? Yet,
notwithstanding the fact that they were
instructed to teach just what Jesus had
commanded them, afterwards they received
word upon word, line upon line, and pre-
cept upon precept, and we have this in part
here in the New Testament, and it com-
prises the greater part of the New Testa-
ment all received , so Bradeu would have us
believe, after they had enough — close the
portals — we have got a Bible; we don't
want any more Bible. But the men inspired
of God never thought of such a thing, yet
they were commanded to teach just what
Jesus had commanded. If he says now the
word is perfected, I say it was just as i^er-
fect at the time that Jesus taught the eleven
disciples upon this occasion, and raised up
his hands and blessed them. The perfec-
tion of the word does not consist in the
amount of the word, but it consists in the
fact that the word emanated from God,
Becausejif you say it consisted in the amount,
there are several of these writings in the
Bible made after the time that Jesus speaks
of "the perfect law of liberty." And Jude
says, "Contend for the faith that was once
delivered to the saints."

Do you say it was this faith that is con-
tained in the writings of the New Testa-
ment that he exhorted them to contend
for? The faith that is contained in the
New Testament is a system of religion, and
was not compiled in Jude's time. Do you
say that it meant the powerful faith, the

active faith, the principle by which men
and women could do wonderful things by
the Spirit of (:!od Miat he exliorted them to
contend for? If so, why do you not contend
for it? Just answer these questions, and
answer them one way or the other, so we
may know your position. The apostle Jude
wrote in the year 66. Many of the Epistles
found in the New Testament, were written
after his time. Yet he exhorted them to
contend for the faith "once delivered,"
already done, not that which is to be de-
livered to the Saints.

But let us examme more particularly the
position taken that these epistles and reve-
lations were given for the purpose of perfect-
ing the word of God. It occurs to me that
there are no grounds for this, and that it is
buta false assumption on the part of my op-
ponent. He assumes that the apostles were
placed in the church for the purpose of
perfecting the word of God. Now, I open
the Bible to ascertain whether tiiis w»s for
the purpose of perfecting the word of God
or not, and turn to the fourth chapter of
Epliesians and read as follows :

"And he gave some, apostles ; and some,
prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some,
pastors and teachers." For the perfecting
of the word of God: Did you read it that
wav, Mr. Rraden ? The Bible reads, verse
12, '"For the perfecting of the Saints." And
vet he had it for the perfecting of the word
of God. Again, "for the work of the minis-
try"—doing the preaching and adujiuister-
ing under the word, and yet he has it for
♦he perfecting of the word.

Again, "For the edifying of the body of
Christ." No, Braden "says, to edify the
word. And now let me call attention to
the fact that when he said, "How shall
thev believe in him of whom they have not
heard?" He did not quote the full text,
which also says: "And how shall they
hear without a preacher? and liow shall
they preach except they be sent?" Why
did' you not quote the entire verse there?
"How shall they believe in him of whom
they have not "heard?" Very true; but
what is the balance? See tenth chapter of
Komans: "And how shall they hear with-
out a preacher? And how shall they
preach except they bo sent? as it is wririen,
how beautiful are the feet of them that
preach the gospel of peace and bring glad
tidings of good things." O, the true mes-
senger from God brings sometliing of value
then. Hedoes not only relate history, but
he brings to the cravin'g heart tlie like rest
and peace of which he reads, (fod has
something to do with such apreaclier ot his
word, and hence the caUing of men iuorder
to do this preaching, to dispense this word
to the people. They cannot believe except
they shall hear. Sc)^ this is the idea for the
giving of the apostles, and prophets, and
elders, and teachers, etc., and not that these
apostles and preachers were given for the
purpose of perfecting the word of (Tod as
Braden interprets it. In contradistinction
the apostle savs they were given for the
perfecting of the Saints, (those who believ-

240

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

ed in Jesus Christ and had undertaken to
become his children and walk in his ways,)
"for the work of his ministry, for the edi-
fying of the body of Christ." They were
there for the purpose of exhorting them,
instructing them, and to this end they
received knowledge from time to time,
so as to be able to rightly divide the word
and build up the church ; and thus their
work was in perfecting the church, instead
of perfecting the word. Braden's church
has not only changed the officers and prac-
tices of the church, but actually changed
the object and effect of the work done, and
of those who did it. And yet he pretends
to affirm that his church is in accordance
with the New Testament pattern in faith,
doctrine and practices, organization, etc.
Wherein is it similiar? Will he please tell
us so that we can discover any similarity
whatever, in fact, aside fio:n the represen-
tation that Paul makes to Timothy that at

sometime there should a people arise claim-
ing to be the Church of Christ, "Having a
form of Godliness, but denying the power
thereof ;" but of this class the apostle says,
"from such turn away." The apostle seems
to clearly foresee that somebody would try
to take (jne of the foundation principles out
of the structure, and discard the means or-
dained, for giving access to the power, and
he warns Timothy to be careful : —

"Take heed unto yourself, and unto the
doctrine; continue in them: For in doing
this thou shalt both save thyself and theru
that hear thee." He could not dispense
with one, two, three, or all the principlea
of the doctrine of Christ except baptism in
water, and be justified. But was to "observe
these things without pret-.n-ring one before
another, doing nothing by partiality."
1 Tim. 4: 16, and 5: 21.

(Time called.)

MR. BRADEN'S THIRD SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Last night I gave you a de-
tailed account of the faith, organization,
teaching, ordinances, worship and practice,
of the church of which I am a member. I
compared these features with the church of
Christ, as organized and completed by the
apostles, and established perfect identity.
There were open to my opponent three
lines of criticism, I. I did not describe my
church accurately. He has not urged this
objection and has conceded the accuracy
of my description, II. There were features
in my church that were not in the apostolic
church. He has conceded that the apos-
tolic church had all of the features of my
church. Mormons usually tell us, "You
Campbellites are all right as far as you go ;
but you don't go far enough." III. There
were features, elements, in the apostolic
church that are not in my church. This is
the criticism that he has made. On this
alone do we differ. He has conceded
that we are right in our teaching in re-
gard to the one (-tod — in regard to the one
Lord. His first attack is on our teaching in
regard to the work of the Holy Spirit.
We are agreed that there is a divine person,
the Holy Spirit. That he has exerted two
influences on men, direct in inspiration and
mediate through the medium of the truth
he has revealed. We are agreed that the
direct influence was exerted in inspiration,
nairacles, evelation. We both believe that
this influence was exerted in the inspira-
tion of men that the Bible says were in-

spired, from the da^^s of Adam until the
days of the apostle.s. We both believe what
the Bible teaches in regard to the inspira-
tion of men during that period, and that
they wrought miracles, gave revelations,
acted, spake and wrote by inspiration. We
are both agreed that this influence was not
exerted in conviction, conversion, sanctifi-
cation and comforting. We are agreed that
it was to reveal truth, attest such revela-
tions, do benevolent work in miracles of
mercy, and to aid man in emergencies in
which human wisdom was not adequate.
We are agreed that in the conviction and
conversion of the sinner, and in the sancti-
fication and upbuilding of the saint, the
Holy Spirit accomplished his Avork through
the truth revealed in his word, or preached
in accordance with it. My opponent claims
that it is a part of the permanent constitu-
tion of the church, that believers should
enjoy the directinfluenceof theHoly Spirit,
as it was enjoyed in the apostolic churches.
That this direct influence will constitute
persons, apostles, prophets, etc., in the
church now, and thus the church should en-
joy all the powers and possess all of the
w-orks that the apostolic church possessed,
inspiration, prophesying, speaking with
tongues, working signs, revelations.

There is no difference between my oppo-
nent and myself as to whether these spirit-
ual powers were in the Apostolic Church.
The sole issue is this, " Does the con.;f;tu-
tion of the Church the New Te^t; . .^uit
ordain that they are to remain in the

THE BRADEN AND iELLEY DEBATE.

241

Church? Does it make them a permaneui
constituent element as It constitutes and
organises the permanent organization of
the Church?" My opponent need not read
to me Joel's promise. I believe that. We
differ as to irs extent and time of con-
tinuance. Nor the promises of John and
Je(?u8 of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I
believe that. We dlfTer as to its extentand
continuance. Nor the promise of Jesus that
his apostles should receive the Comforter.
I believe that. We differ as to its extent
and continuance Nor the promise that
his apostles, when before magistrates,
should be Inspired, nor that those who be-
lieved on Him should have Inspiration,
like rivers of water. I believe that. We
differ concerning the extent and con-
tinuance. Nor His promise to His apostles
that they should be endued with power
from on high, and that signs should follow
their teaching. I believe that, but differ as;
to its extent and continuance. Nor Peter's
promise on days of Pentecost. "We differ as
to its extent and continuance. He need not
read accounts of the baptism in the Holy
Ghost. I believe that. We differ as to its
extent and continuance. He need not read
tome accounts of the apostles conferring
the Holy Spirit, nor of the apostles working
miracles, nor of persons working miracles
who possessed spiritual gifts. I believe all
that. We differ as to its extent and con-
tinuance. Heneed not read tome 1 Cor. XII
xili. xiv. and Eph. iv., and other passa-
ges. I believe all that. We differ only
concerning extent and continuance of such
gifts. He assumes that the baptism in the
Holy Spirit was a general gift in the Church.
I assert that there were only two occur-
rences of it. He asserts that it was to re-
main as a constituent element in the church .
I assert that It ceased with the two sole
occasions of such baptism. He asserts that
the promises of our Saviour of the Comforter
were to all Christians. I assert they were
to the apostles alone. He asserts that the
promise of signs in Mark xvi. was to all
believers I assert it was to the apostles who
believed. He asserts that Peter's promise
was to all believers. I assert that it was
only those whom God called in his appointed
way, the imposition of an apostle's hands.
He asserts that others than those on whom
an apostle had laid his hands possessed
these spiritual gifts. I assert that only
such possessed them. He asserts that the
persons possessing these powers as des-
cribed in 1 Cor. xii. xiii. xiv. and Ephesians
iv. were, by the constitution of the Church,
placed in the Church as permanent offices,
a permanent element in the Church. I
assert that they were provisional, the
constitution making power of the Church,
and ceased when the constitution, the New
Testament, was completed, and the Church
was organized under it ; and that the con-
stitution did not ordain them as a perma-
nent constituent element of the Church,
organized in accordance with the completed
constitution. That the constitution ordains
that the Church is to be governed by the

perfect word of God in the New Testament,
and that we need no new revelations. That
itordainsthatevangellsts, pastors, teachers,
officers, servants, without direct influence
of the Spirit or constitution making power,
shall rule the Church, in accordance with
the perfect law of God, completed in the
New Testamen t. The issue then is whether
miraculous powers, such as existed in the
Apostolic Ciiurch, and such as are describea
in 1 Cor., Eph. and other epistles shall be a
permanent constituent element of the
Church? Or were they merely provisional,
constitution making powers that ceased
when the constitution was completed and
the Church was organized under it and
were not part of the Church.

We will now review my opponent's talk
and answer his questions. In I Cor. xji,
the apostle explains to the Corinthians the
spiritual gifts in the church. He says, "de-
sire earnestly the best spiritual gifts, never-
theless I show unto you a more excellent
way " than the exercise of the spiritual
gifts. He then explains what that more
excellent way is. It is the condition of the
church, after spiritual gifts have ceased,
and the church is under the perfect word of
God. He then closes by telling them to
desire spiritual gifts as long as they are to
remain in the church. It is not, however,
the most excellent way, but the way he had
discussed in the eleventh chapter. Moses
gave laws to the Israelites when in the wil-
derness suited to their condition. He tells
them what will be their condition in the
land of Canaan, and often returns to their
present condition and tells them how they
are to conduct themselves until they reacn
the land of promise. So Paul tells the Cor-
inthians how to act under spiritual gifts;
then describes a more excellent way than
the best of these gifts, when they shall
cease; then he returns to his first thought,
and tells them how to exercise the gifts till
that more excellent way obtains. He no
more describes the permanent of the church
than Moses describes the permanent of the
Israelites in similar language.

My opponent says I would not ask eon-
verts "have ye received the Holy Spirit
after ye believed." No I would not. I would
know that the indwelling of the spirit they
had received, and that the miraculous power
of the spirit, such as Paul inquired about,
they could not receive, for the Bible so
teaches. The baptism of the spirit is one
thing, the gifts imparted by the Holy Spirit
is another. To receive the Holy Spirit In
baptism from Christ is one thing, to receive
him in spiritual gifts by an apostle's hands
is another. Those baptized at Samaria had
received the indwelling of the spirit. The
miraculous influence of the spirit could only
be imparted by the imposition of an apos-
tle's hands. 'Will my opponent tell me?
Had these Samaritans been born of water
and spirit before the apostles laid hands op
them? Were they saints or sinners? If
sinners, how could they receive the spirit?
Jesus says the world cannot receive him.
The Holy Spirit in miraculous power was

242

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

not throug^h the word . It was by imposition
of apostles' liands. But the iiidwelliag was
through faith, belief of the word. " Alter
ye believed, because ye were sons, God has
given you his spirit." Ananias was a spe-
<yial apostle, just as persons sometimes
offered sacrifices who were not priests when
a priest was not present. So Ananias was
K a special apostle sent by God to impart the
spirit to Saul.

He challenged me to explain the birth of
the water and the spirit. I will cheerfully
do so. The Greek has one word, gennaoo,
that is used of both male and female. When
used of the male it means "beget;" when
used of the female it means "to bear, to
bring forth." When James says "He begat
us by the word of truth" he used this word.
When Paul says "I begat you through the
gospel" he uses it. When Peter says " We
are begotten through the truth" he uses it.
Then God, the Spirit and Paul begat the
believers through the truth. When it is
asked "Where is he that is born King of
the Jews?" it is this word. "Those born
of woman " it is the same word. Ii} a birth
there are two parties, the father who be-
gets. God or his spirit begets through the
truth. There is the mother of whom the
person is born. When we speak of both
together we say a man was born of his
mother and father, or born of his mother to
his father, because he must be born of his
mother before he is born to his father. The
word pnf'HDia occurs in the Greek New Tes-
tament 287 times. It is translated "spirit"
in every case except one, in John iii, 8,
when it is said "theiyi»?d bloweth where it
listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof,
and thou canst not tell whence it cometh nor
whither it goeth ; so is every one that is
born of the spirit." If it should read "The
wind bloweth," it should read also "be
born of wind " in the same sentence, which
is absurd. If it is "born of spirit" it
should read the "spirit breathes." There
is no sense in giving such different mean-
ings to the same word in the same sentence.
Wind in every other case in the New Testa-
ment is a translation of anenion.

Our Savior told Nicodemus that unless a
-man be born again he could not see the
Kingdom of God. Nicodemus did not un-
derstand, and asked him to explain what
he meant. Our Savior did so. He did not
make it still more mysterious^ but he told
Nicodemus just how a man is born again.
He said, "Except a man is born of water
and the Spirit, he cannot enter the King-
dom of God." "It is not the natural birth
that I mean," he explains to Nicodemus.
He tlien tells how men are begotten by the
Spirit. "The Spirit breathes" (in inspira-
tion) "where he pleases, and you hear his
voice." (Tiie words he inspires, the Word
of God.) "You cannot tell whence he comes
or whither tie goes In this way (by hear-
ing the word of God) "is every one (begot-
ten) that is begotten of the Spirit." I'hen
men are begotten by the Spirit through the
word, and born of the water and Spirit in
baptism. The fact that in twenty cases we

cited last night, belief and baptism are so
coupled together, proves that this is correct.

Hebrews VI. refers to the Mosaic law
that these Hebrews were not willing to lay
to one side The Mosaic law was the foun-
dation of the gospel, prepared the way for
it. The gospel of Christ is that which is
perfect. The writer exhorts them to lay to
one side Mosaism and go on to perfection
in the gospel. We lay hands on evangel-
ists, overseers and servants of the Church,
to induct them into office, and not to impart
spiritual gifts. He wants to know what
offices were left in the Church? Evangel-
ists, overseers, servants, who acted as pas-
tors, teachers. Where do they get their
authority? From the constitution of the
Church, the New Testament. Where did
Campbell get his authority ? From the
constitution of the Church, the New Testa-
ment, just where those wno went preach-
ing the word gottheirs ; just where Aquill*.
and Priscilla got theirs when they taught
ApoUos the word of the Lord more perfectly.
He wants to know if the Seventy did not
impart spiritual gifts. The L.ble does not
say they ever did. It does say the twelve
did, so did Paul the Apostle to the Gen-
tiles ; so did Ananias, a special apostle.
The word was given perfectly to the disci-
ples. They gave it to the world complete.
First spoken, then written. Even if it had
not been all written when Jude wrote, it
had been spoken. Then it was reduced to
writing.

We will now teach our opponent another
Bible lesson. In Gen. xvii, we read that
circumcision in the flesh is the token of the
inheritance, the land of promise, to all who
are born of Israel's seed after the flesh. I,
Chrou. xvi, 1.5, declares that the land of
Canaan was the inheritance that the cove-
nant gave to them. Circumcision in the
flesh of a descendant of Israel was a token
that he, under the covenant, was entitled
to a share of the land, the inheritance. In
Gen. ix, the bow in the cloud is called *»
token of the covenant not to drown ttte
earth. It is so called three times. Tu«
token and the covenant are not the sam*
thing. The token binds a verbal covenanr
as a seal does a written covenant, or au
signing a written covenant binus it. Ro-
mans iv., 2. "Circumcision is a sign, fr.
token, and a seal of the covenant God madfr
with Abraham." Saints are born of th»
water and the Spirit. John iii, 5. Ic
Galatians iv., and following verses th*,
apostle speaks of those under the law or
Moses as born after the flesh. Their toket
was in the flesh, and their covenant wai^
after the flesh, and so was the inheritance
He speaks of those who are born of the
Spirit. Their covenant is after the Spirit,
their inheritance is after tlie Spirit, theii
token or earnest is after the Spirit. Eph.
i, 13-14. "After you believed, you were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who
is the earnest of our inheritance. II. Cor.
I. "God has sealed us and given us the
earnest of the Sjjirit in our hearts." Rom.
V, 5. "The love of God is shed abroad in

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

213

jur hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given
auto us." Gal. iv. -'We receive the adop-
tiou of Sons iii believing the Gospel of
Christ and being baptized into him. Then
be(!:iuse we are sons God has .«ent forth the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts." <'ol. ii,
2. *'\Vo are circumcised in Clirist with the
circumcision made witliout hands, by the
circumi'ision of Christ in putting oft the
body of the sins of the flesh." Romans ii,
28-29. "He is not a Jew who is one out-
waidly, neither is that circumcision which
is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew
who is one inwardly, and circumcision is
that of the heart, in the Spirit, and nut in
the letter, whose praise i>< not of men but of
God." My opponent confounds the indwel-
ling of the Spirit, which is without hands,
with the impartation of the Spirit by ha.,ds.
He contoui;ds the Spirit as the earnest of
our inheritance, witli the impartation of the
Spirit by hands to confirm acts of inspira-
tion and revelation. He has admitted that
the direct miraculous influence is not ex-
erted in conviction, conversion, sanctifica-
tion, upbuilding. Yet, he quotes passages
where tiie convicting, converting, sanctify-
ing, upbuilding influence is spoken of as the
present privilege of the sinner and saint, to
prove that the miraculous power that he ad-
mits has nothing to do with conviction, con-
version and sanctificationis also a privilesre
of the church. If he will learn to rightly di-
vide the word of truth he will not blunder so.
Let us now learn the object of miracu-
lous power and miracles. John, xv, 26, 27.
The apostles and the Holy Spirit were both
to testify of Christ, bear witness. Mark,
xvi, 20. "And the apostles went forth and
preached everywhere, the Lord working
Avith them and confirming their words by
signs, that followed their preaching. 1,
Cor. ii, 4. Paul's preaching was in a demon-
stration of the Spirit and power. I, Thes ,
i, 5. The gospel came not unto you in word
ouly, but in power and the Holy Spirit and
in much assurance. Rom. xv, 18. Paul had
preached the gospel over the Roman em-
pire, through mighty signs and wonders,
through the power of the Spirit of God.
I, Cor., xiv, 22. "Tongues or miracles are
for a sign to those that believe not, and not
to those that believe." Hebrews, ii. "The
gospel was first spoken through Christ, and
confirmed unto us by those that heard
Christ, God bearing witness with them, by
signs and wonders, and manifold powers,
and by distributions of the Holy Spirit, ac-
cording to his will." Tf necessary, we can
trace the signs God gave to Moses and to
Pharoah and Israel to demonstrate that
Moses was his servant. The signs he gave
to Gideon and others. These miracles are
a testimony that God gives that the person
is inspireda demonstration, an assurance, a
confirmation. When the word was com-
pleted in the new Testament, inspiraticms
and revelations were no longer necessary,
and miraculous powers, signfe of revelation
and inspiration are not needed. After (xod
has authenticated his word, when he gave
it, was it necessary for him to continue to

authenticate it by working miracles all the
time? Afler the government of the United
States has authenticated a law by govern-
ment seal, must it authenticate it by a new
sealing, every time the law is used? My
opponent would have God stand on the wit-
ness stand for ever. He would have him
put the seal of miracle to his revelations in
the Bible, every time a man reads or
preaches it. We say that tho seal of heaven
put once on the law of God, the teaching
of the apostles is sufficient. My opponent
wants the seal used every time he opens
his mouth to read the word of God. It is
not faith but lack of faith, as in the case of
doubting Thomas. Did my opponent stop
to tliink that if miracles were the never
failing accompaniment of preaching, in all
ages, they would cease to be miracles, and
become the order of nature, an ordinary, a
common event? Will ray opponent tell me
what confirmation an event that always at-
tends preaching gives to it? What sort of
a sign would it be? The di /Terence between
my opponent and myself then is this: I
believe that God inspired the men that the
Bible says were inspired. I believe that
he confirmed their inspiration by signs,
miracles; I believe that God's seal onceset
to their teaching is sufficient. My opponent
wants the Almighty to stand at his elbow,
like a lackey, to apply the seal to his talk,
every time he reads the Bible, or preaches its
truths. The law of God does not sanction
such nonsense. It is utterly oppo.sed to it.
My opponent blunders over 1. Peter I, 10.
The apostle declares that the Spirit that was
in the prophets testified of the glory that
should follow. He declares that the Holy
Spirit, sent down from heaven, preached,
through the apostles, the Gospel. My op-
ponent blunderingly jumbles these two
manifestations as he does everything he
touches. Myopponent blunders over "the
faith once delivered unto the Saints" in
Jude. Romans iii, 3. "Shall the unbelief
of men make the faith, the Gospel of God
ofnoelfeet?" Gal. iii, 2. "Receive ye the
Spirit by works of law or by the hearing of
faith which should afterwards be revealed."
Eph.iv, v- "One faith, the faith, tho Gos-
pel, the word of God." Then the faith once
delivered unto the Saints is the Gospel,
God's word. It had been delivered in
preaching before it was committed to writ-
ing. I.Corinthiansxv, i. "I delivered unto
you the Gospel." In I. Corinthians xiii, Paul
dsclares "Though I have faith, (miraculous
faith) so as to move mountains it is no profit
unless I haveCliristian love." Our Savior
says. Matt, xvii, 20: "If you lu.ve faith
(miraculous faith) as a grain ot n.ustard
seed, you can say to this mountain, ue
plucked up and cast into the sea,' and it
shall be done." Has Kelley or any Mormon
miraculous faith as a grain of mustard seed?
Let us see him pluck up a Kirtland hill
and cast it into the lake. Belief of the faith
the Gospel, saves, converts, sapctifies.
Miraculous faith that my opponent regards
as the all in all of the religion of Christ, does
not have one particle of moral influence.

244

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S THIRD SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: — Last eveuiiiji- I waited pa-
tiently for my oppoueut to lead out upon
his proposition, and show the similarity and
agreement in teaching, organization, prac-
tice and doctrine of his with the New Tes-
tament church ; but the longer I waited the
less I was able to gather either a compari-
son of the features of his church with the
New Testament, or of an explicit statement
of the teaching of either, so that the audi-
ence could compare. I noticed, however,
that he took particular pains to compare his
views with what he thought the views of
the Latter Dav Saints were, and with what
the views of other churches were, not for-
getting the Spiritualists, Buddhists, etc. ;
and, strange as it may seem, always with a
favorable opinion in his own mind of the
superiority of his little system over all oth-
ers. It called to my mind the prayer of one
of old, " Lord, I thank thee that I am not
as other men." Now will he please tell us
to-night what bearing all of this had upon
the question under discussion ? Whose
faith is it that is called in question, and is
now under discussion here? Anybody else
except that of "the church of which I,
Clark Braden, am a member?" Yet almost
all denominations and beliefs are dragged
in here by him. and men and women as-
sailed upon the rig-ht and left, although they
are not permitted under the rules to offer a
word in reply or defense, and when I can-
not be expected to answer the charges, be-
cause they are not in the least touching the
question. Does he show a disposition of
fairness to others in this ? I call attention to
this particularly because the manner adopt-
ed by him through the first proposition in
two-thirds of his work had as little applica-
tion to the question under consideration as
the polygamy practiced by Nicholas and
the body of Christians under him in the fi rst
century had to do with the faith which
Jesus and Paul preached. Don't you forget
the question under discussion, my friends,
if Braden does. I noticed last evening that
a wonderful change had come over him
since the discussion of the first proposition;
in that, because the Book of Mormon spoke
of the Holy Spirit being enjoyed before
Christ was /uanifest in the flesh, he said it
contradicted the New Testament, for that
said " th Holy Ghost was not yet given ;"
and it vus no consequence to him that I
sh.y .» ed that the prophets before received it
aud spoke by it — no, sir; he insisted it was
a flat contradiction. But now he confe.«ses.
Last night he had the Holy Ghost inspiring
all the prophets, from Adam's time to that
of Malachi. My few remarks upon that
seem to have completely revolutionized
him. But he has not yet told us whether
they received it through Christ or some
man, a question asked him five evenings

ago. The idea thrown out by him that th©
Disciples go to the Bible for information
but other churches go to their creeds, when
presented in this lalse light looks very
plausible for his side, sprinkled over as it is
with a good deal of sopliistry ; and this
makes it look very bad for others. The in-
ference is that others go to their creeds tor
precepts, whether based upon the Hit>le or
not, for the reason that tbey have a w r'tten
statement of what they believe, notwith-
standing, as they think, taken from the
Bible, while the Campbellite« go to the
Bible. What is the difference between a
written statement and an unwritten one, so
far as a comparison with the Bible doctrines
is concerned ; and if there la » difference,
would it not'be in favor of the written, so
that men could with more certainty com-
pare with the Bible? I am aware that there
are formulas of faith and disciplines in the
world, and interpretations of the inspired
writings, but when I come to examine crit-
ically, I find among them Mr. Campbell's
Christian S'l/stem ; and in many things it
comes as far short of standing on the Bible
and the Bible alone, as many others. Why
did he not arraign his own creed instead of
going out of the way in this discussion to
attack others? I take up this work of Mr.
Campbell and read upon page 11 of tho pre-
face, "Our aim is now to offer to the pub'i'
a more matured view of such cardinal prin-
ciples as are necessary to the right inttrpr -
tation of the Hol,q Scriptures, both in ac-
acquiring and communicating a correct
knowledge of the Christian institution.'

It seems from this that these professed
Bible-aLone-^eoy>le have something to go to
also, so that they may know first what Mr.
Campbell thought about it.

Turn to page 85, chapter 26, and you have
the fifteen points of their discipline duly
arranged. I call Mr. Braden's attention to
it for the reason that when I simply re-
ferred to the matter in the Wilber-Nerbraska
debate he got terribly beside himself. I
have the book now, so that if he disputes
me I can soon decide the matter.

The chapter is headed :

"the christian discipline,"
And contains the points of discipline of the
so-called Christian, Disciple, Church of
Christ or Campbellite Church, as fur-
nished by Alexander Campbell himself for
that body.

In this discipline I find a different order
introduced and held out as a rule of prac-
tice to the Bible order. It is the formal, or
"hand-shaking" order, or the plan of re-
ception of members into the church after
baptism. This evidently takes the place
of confirmation under the hands of the
eldership that was practiced in the early
church.

Mr. Campbell, on page 86, makes this

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

245

formal reception out to be a "necessity^'^
although he has not a word of sanction for
it in the Bible ; yet, it is pretended here by
my opponent that they go to the Bible alone
for their precepts, and are thus peculiarly
different from others. But this bauble I
shall fully puncture at another time, and
this evening will take up at once those
prominent points of difference that are so
apparent between "the church of which I,
Clark Braden, am a member," and the New
Testament, and examine them ; for the rea-
son that the general differences are so many
it would hardly be possible to enumerate
and make the reference of an argument to
them in a single evening.

The great trouble is to find in what they
do resemble. Take out the doctrine of bap-
tism lor the remission of sins, which Camp-
bell began fully to teach in 1828, but which
was plainly set forth in the Gospel as con-
tained in the record Mr. Smith received of
the ancient inhabitants of America in 1827,
and Mr. Campbell's church will be as hard
to identify with the New Testament church
as would some of the organized benevolent
societies of our time. Good enough in their
places, but not calculated to point out the
straight and narrow way that leadeth unto
life. In their order then I take up :

I. The name of the church, "Christian,
Disciple, Church of Christ." I referred to
the fact that the word Christian was only
used three times in the Bible.

1. In Acts 11:26, where the saints were
called Christians at Antioch.

2. Where Taul was dragged before the
king for his faith, and Agrippa says, "Al-
most persuadest thou me to be a Christian."
Very similar to the way I have been treated
time and again, when I had placed before
persons the hope of my promise in Christ,
and reasoned with the people from the
Bible, the answer would be returned:—
"Well, I don't see anything bad in what
these Mormons teach after all." Why do
they have to nick-name us, cast derision,
as those out of Christ did the saints in Paul's
time ?

3. The last is in I Peter, 4:16: "Yet if any
man suffer as a Christian, let him not be
ashamed." Don't be ashamed, if they do
nick-name you, who are Saints, and call you
Cnristians, because you have a hope well
founded in the Messiah. Nick-names con-
tain no argument, and if you are not of the
world, you will certainly be niclt-named by
them. This is the sum and substance of
the teaching of Peter upon that.

But what were the people of God called?
Disciples? That showed no distinguishing
feature between Jesus' disciples and Plato's
disciples. Disciple simply means a learner,
a follower, etc. And may be applied to
learners and followers outside of religion as
in. The true and distinguishing name of
the children of God is that of Saints, soused
both in the Old and New Testament, and
they are to be known as such when .Jesus
brings them with him in his second advent.
When he comes the Saints will be with
bim, and none others at that time. Not

Saints only after they are dead and gone,
but Saints here. Upon this I hastily orter
my authorities:

1. "Israel in the wilderness called Saints."
Deut. 33 : 2-3,

2. "Precious in thesightof the Lord is the
death of his Saints." Ps. 116:15.

3. "And the graves were opened and many
bodies of the Saints which slept arose."
Matt. 27 : 52.

4. "Saints at Lydia." Acts 9.32.

5. "Many of the Saints shut up in prison."
Acts 26 : 10.

6. "For God is not the author of confusion,
but of peace as in all the churches of the
Saints," 1. Cor. 14:33.

7. "Collection for the Saints." 1 Cor.
16:1.

8. "Fellow-citizens with the Saints."
Eph. 2:19.

9. ''For the perfecting of the Saints."
Eph. 4:12.

Showing that they were not perfect
beings, biit to be perfected through the
instruction and teaching of a spiritual
ministry — not by persons versed in man's
wisdom only — if so they would have their
hope in men instead of the power and wis-
dom of God.

10. "The prayers of the Saints." Rev.5:8.

11. "The Saints are refreshed by thee,
brother." Phil. 7th verse.

12. "Salut<^ all the Saints." Heb. 13:24.
Besides the name Saints, they also are

named after Jesus Christ; Eph. 3:14-
15; he being not ashamed to call them
brethren ; and hence we liave the Church
of Jesus Christ of the Saints; cal-
led Saints, and Latter Day Saints,
in distinction of Former Day Saints.
The Church Re-organized (since the or-
ganization in 1830) and hence properly
called The Re-organized Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Church
of Jesus Christ, it being his formal organi-
zation of the Saints.

Leaving the name, I pass to the second
difference. He says Jesus established no
church before his death or the day of Pente-
cost. Let us examine this; for it is clear
from the New Testament that if he did not,
he did not establish any at all.

Matthew 16: "Upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." "And I will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
These were to enable Peter to act authorita-
tively here on earth in tlie church; the
kingdom of heaven being represented and
established here under the name, style and
title of the church. 18th chapter, 17th
verse: "And if ho shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the church." And 18th
verse, "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth shall be bound ia
heaven." Showing Peter's work in the
church, the kingdom of heaven then in
existence, as referred to, when he says,
"The Kingdom of God is [now] within
you." In your midst, among you. Then
established and men pressed into it. Luk©
16:16.

246

THE ERADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

"The law and the prophets were until
John, since that time the Kingdom of God
is preached, and every man presseth into
it."

How did they get in, if there was none?
But the Kingdom, the Church, was within
them. Not the kingdom as it was in
heaven, for "flesh and bloori " could not
inherit up there, but the kingdon. as repre-
sented iu the church on earth. Matt. 11 : 12.
"And from the days of John the Baptist
until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth
violence, and the violent take it by force."
And also 12: 28: "But if I cast out devils
by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of
God is come unto you." But how come?
I answer emphatically that it was under
the figure and name of the Church. Jesus
the King was there; He gave them the
laws of the Kingdom then and there, as
also his servant John taught before. He
had chosen officers to carry out and minis-
ter these laws and bring men and women
into the kingdom, and they were then and
tiiere doing it, viz.: 'Translating them
into the Kingdom of His dear Son," by
administering the" laws of the Kingdom,
properly bringing them into the Church.
Col. 1 : 13. Thus forming, in fact, the
family of God, inakiug them heirs of the
Kingdom, the body of Christ, " which is
the Church," Col. 1: 24. Hence Jesus
could call them brethren. "They are not
of the world, even as I am not of the world."
John 17: 16. This is why Paul said in the
1st Corinthian letter : "And God hath set
some in the Church, first apostles." When
was it done? After Pentecost day? No,
long before, as shown by Luke 6: 13. After
the day of Pentecost no Apostles were set
in the Church except the calling of others
to fill the vacancies made by death, or
otherwise.

Biaden says the law of Moses extended
to Pentecost day, and Jesus kept tliis
law in all things. But Matthew and Luke
say " the law and the prophets were uiitil
Jofin,^^ and that Jesus said, "Before Abra-
ham was, I am." That he went through
the fields on the Sabbath day, and plucked
the ears of corn; and told His disciples,
"Except your righteousness exceed the
righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,"
(these persons who kept the law of Moses
and their traditions), "ye can in no wise
euter into the kingdom of heaven." Refer-
ring evidently to that kingdom which was
' from above, of which the church on earth
was the figure, type or representative ; and
hence his disciples were not of the world
because they imbibed, yielded obedience to,
had partaken of the laws which were from
above — the laws of Christ's Church, —
"Therefore the world hateth you."

Acts 2: 41: "Then they that gladly
receive the word were baptized, and the
same day there were added imto </tem about
three thousand souls." Added to whom?
To the children of God there, the Church,
see verse 47, same chapter, " And the Lord
added to the Church daily such as should be
saved." What church? The church then

in existence, and which had existed from
the time Jesus organized it, for no act had
been done towards further organizing it, so
far as the history shows to this time, except
to fill the vacancy in the church caused by
the death of Judas Iscariot. God hath set
in the church ^^ first apostlen," said Paul.
And now wlien this Judas falls, it is from
the church ; for his officn was in the church,
and his place, or office, which is still iu the
church, is filled by another. This is the
sentiment taught by Jesus, the great Head
of the Church, in John, 15th Chapter, "I
am the vine," " ye are the branches," and
now, not hereafter ; and if branches, they
were members in the family of God, the
body of Christ, "which is the Church,"
and which was in existence then and there.
Jesus even before John's time ^^ad a church.
" Tins is He that was in the < h rch in the
wilderness with the angel tiiat spake to
Him in the mount Sinai ; and with our
fathers who received the lively oracles to
give unto us." Acts 7 : 38. This is the
reason we find elders in Moses' time — the
70 elders — they were officers in the church.

But says Braden, "The gospel law
of pardon "was first preached on the day of
Pentecost "

What does he wish to teach by this ?
That there are two gospel laws ? That peo-
ple received forgiveness of sins after Pen-
tecost diflerently from what they did be-
fore ? L«t us see. Luke i, 76 and 77, speak-
ing of the work of John says: "For thou
shalt go before the face of the Lord to pre-
pare his ways ; to give knowledge of salva-
tion unto his people by the remission of
their sins." Was this any different gos-
pel than that preached afterwards? Mark
1:4; "John did baptize in the wilderness
for the remission of sins." This seems to
me was freeing men from their sins before
the day of Pentecost in some other way
than by the sacrifice of the dove, the lamb,
and tiie pigeon. Here, "the church of
which I, Clark Braden, am a member," is
clearly shown not to be iu accord with the
New Testament pattern in doctrine and
faith. "The law and the prophets were until
John." Not John's birth; but till John
was commissioned b3' the Most High to
teach the principles of the Kingdom of God,
and came preaching the Gospel law, in con-
tradistinction to the Mosaic, and saying,
"Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand ;" proclaiming a law which superceded
the old ; and when the new came in the old
was displaced, and for that reason nailed
to the cross. IS^ot nailed to the cross while
it was in force and operative, but after it
had performed its work and God had abol-
ished it.

4. Now I approach the fourth difTerence
and distinction between his church and the
New Testament church ; viz., the baptism
of the Holy Spirit. In this book by which
we are to try his church, there is such a
baptism taught as the baptism of the Holy
Spirit; the Comforter, of which Jesus
speaks when he says : "It is expedient for
you that I go away : for if I go not away, the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

247

Comforter M'ill not come." Teaching the
necessity of its coming; and not only for
those \vith him there, "but for them also
who shall believe on me through their
word." This Comforter which Jesus was
to send was the Holy Ghost, verse 26th,
14th chapter ; and for this they were to
wait at Jerusalem that they might receive
this Holy Ghost, which was "the promise
of the Father," Luke 24 : 49: "and behold
I send the promise of the Father unto you :
but tarry ye in fhe Uity of Jerusalem until
ye are endowed with power from on higli."
This power from on high was the promise
made by John and Jesus when they taught,
"Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost
not many days hence." Not simply to en-
able them to'do signs and wonders, for they
did those things before; but to comfort
them, and guide them into all truth, so
they would not have, or take, erroneous
views as to his teachings and God's word.
The same is spoken of also by Jesus as the
Baptism of the Spirit. "Except ye be
born of the water and of the Spirit."
It was in the hour in which "the
true worrshippers shall worship the Fath-
er in Spirit and in trutli ; for the
Father seeketh such to worship him."
This Spirit which he wanted them to
have, — the Holy Ghost Religion, — shall
be in them a well of water, "springing up
into everlasting life" — referring to the giv-
ing of the Holy Ghost. Again, Jesus says :
'My words, they are Spirit and they are
ife." Not that tlie word itself is spirit dis-
jonnected with anything else ; any more
than the word is life itself ' disconnected
with anything else. iNIy opponent will hard-
ly take the ground that a man just taking
up the word and reading it, or even eating
it would have the Spirit spoken of there, or
the life spoken of ; but as Jesus interprets
it in John 12: — "My commandments are life
everlasting." "He thatloveth me keepeth
my commandments ; and if ye keep my
commandments, I will send the Comforter;"
(John 14 : 15 and 17,) which is the Spirit of
truth ; this having come because they obey-
ed the word, and which will njake com-
plete the new birth, and "spring up into
eternal life," and thus only is the word,
••spirit and life;" and for this cause the
••manifestation of the Spirit is given to ev-
ery man to profit with all." 1 Cor. 12:7.
The wish of the Savior was that all should
partake of this spirit. Hence, we are saved
"by the washing of regeneration and re-
newing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3: 5.

Those on the day of Pentecost did not re-
ceive the Holy Gliost through the medium
of the word; but by reason of having
obeyed the word; hence the apostle de-
scri'bes the giving of the Holy Ghost as be-
ing that "which He shed on us abundantly
throuirh Jesus Christ our Savior." Titus,
3:6, ""This is also the idea conveyed in
Ephesians 1st chapter : "In whom ye trust-
ed after that ye heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation." "Where-
fore I also, after I heard of your faith— I
ceased not to give thanks for you, — that the

God of our Lord Je.'^us Christ, the Father of
Glory may give unto you the spirit of wis-
dom and revelation in the knowledge of
him.

They did not get it through the medium of
the word, for they had long before had that,
but through Jesus Cliristand the ordinance
of "laying on of hands." Acts 8:17, 18. .
"Then laid they their hands on them, and
they received the Holy Ghost. And when
Simon saw that through the laying on of the
apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given,
he offered them money saying. Give me also
this power thai on whomsoever I lay hands
he may receive the Holy Ghost."

Thus we readily discover the sixth dif-
ference between Mr. Braden's church and
the New Testament church.

But tliese persons, he says, were not bap-
tized with the Spirit. Oh no, only those on
Pentecost day and the household of Corne-
lius. It makes no difference to him that
Peter said tliat which was slied forth on
Pentecost day, they should receive who
were repentant anct obedient ; ajui althouff
he takes up the prophecy of Joel and shows
that "the promise is unto you, and unto
your children, and unto all that are afar oft',
even as many as- the Lord or God shall
call," and tliis was the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, to which Peter refers ; nor what has
been said upon this by the great apostle of
the Gentiles, who too, speaks emphatically
upon this question, 1 Cor., 12:13: "For
by one spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles,
whether we be bond or free; and have
been all made to drink into one spirit."

Remember not baptized by water into the
one body, or into the spirit, but baptized by
"the spirit into one body, and which is
equivalant to drinking into one spirit."
Paul agrees with Jesus, "Born of the water
and of the spirit," and both disagree with
Braden's church ; therefore the church "of
which I, Clark Braden, am a member," is
according to the pattern ! Now, is not this
wise logic? There is not a ghost of a hint
that there is such a thing taught in the
Bible as where the spirit is given through,
the meiiium of the word. When Peter
taught the Gentiles it fell on them inde-
pendently, and so it came to the Ephesian
saints after they had believed the word and
had complied with the ordinance of "lay-
ing on of hands." Just so at Samaria,
and on Pentecost day; for before this
Jesus had "lifted up his hands and blessed
them." Paul says: "Icame not to you in
word only, but in power and the Holy
Ghost." "He therefore, that miuistereth to
you the spirit, and worketh miracles among
you, doeth he it by the works of the law,
or by the hearing of faith."

Now I come to the Hebrew letter which
he claimed referred to the law which they
had before Christ. It reads : "Therefore
leaving the principles of the doctrine of
Christ, let us go on to perfection." [It is
not the old law then, but the principles of
the doctrineof Christ,] of faith, repentance
baptisms, [of water and the spirit] and of

248

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

laying on of hands, and of resurrection of
the dead, and of eternal judgment." Heb.
6 : 2 and 3.

Who were these Hebrew saints to whom
the apostle is addressing this letter** I
answer — Those of Jerusalem ; and who had
before this accepted of the principles of'the
doctrine of (,'hrist; but had forgotten to
build upon them as they should. The
apostle, however, exhorts them to go on
and perform the work to which they had
given adherence: "Not laj'ing again the
foundation." And then in verse 4, they
are told, " B"'or it is impossible for those who
were once enlightened and have tasted of
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers
of the Holj"^ Ghost, and have tasted of the
good word of God, and the powers of the
world to come, if tliey shall fall away, to
renew them again unto repentance."

This is the language the apostle uses
towards these Hebrew Kaints, and no
wonder. They were among those, doubt-
less, who had tasted of the heavenly gift
on Pentecost day and at Samaria, and they
should not have to lay again, the second
time, the foundation principles of the doc-
trine of Christ, of fa th, repentence, bap-
tisms, laying on ol hands, resurrection of
the dead, and eternal judgment. Ah! the
reason is evident why "baptisms" is, as
it is put by the apostle in the plural, they
had been " born of the water and of the
Spirit," as Jesus had directed, and thereby
tasted of the heavenly gift. Then Paul in
closing his letter could well sa.v, for he is
talking to those who had accepted these
first, or foundation principles: "And I
beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of
exhortation, for I have written a letter unto
you in few words."

But he did not wish them to keep doing
their first works over again, — remember,
first works in the Gospel of Christ — but "go
on [in theGospel of Christ] unto perfection."
Please look back three verses : " For when
for the time you ought to be teachers,
[they had not progressed and improved as
they ought to have done, hence], ye have need
that one teach you again, which be the first
principles of the oracles of God." Heb. 5: 12.

Certainly there were never positions more
secure than I have taken on these texts.
Baptisms, then, and laying on of hands,
are foundation principles in the doctrine of
Christ. But Mr. Braden's church is just
the reverse in d(iclrine and practice. He
has neither the baptism of the Spirit nor
the practice of the layii'g on of hands in his
church, tlierefore, he concludes that he
stands on the Biblo, and the Bible alone.
No creed in hischurcih. O, no! Turn now
to Ephesians 4: 5. ''One Lord, one faith,
one baptism." By this one baptism they
are baptized into one body, of course, for
Paul again says, '' by one Spirit are we all
baptized into onebod.y." 1 Cor. 12: 13.
Ah ! Then if the word baptism in Ephe-
sians 4: 5, refers to the oleiiTents of the new
birth, it cannot exclude the Spirit. There
is a iiaptism of the Spirit No n>'iu can
successfully de:iy this. " Ye shall be bap-

tized with the Holy Ghost, (the Spirit), not
many days hence." Acts 1: 5. "Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, except a man be
born of the water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
John 3: 5. " Not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to His
mercy He saved us, by tfie washing of regen-
eration, and renewing of the Jlolfj Ghost,
which He shed on us abundantly, through
Jesus Christ our Savior." Titus 3 : 5, 6. Not
through]the mediumof the Word, remember.

This baptism, then, is used in the sense
in which the same apostle refers to it in the
Galatian letter, as well as the Hebrew.
"For as many of you as have been baptized
into Jesus Christ liave put on Christ." Gal.
3:27. Here are tw» acts referred to ; the
baptizing into, and the putting on — "wash-
ing of re>reneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost." What is it to put on Christ?
Simply to go into the water? No. Thatact
is only for the cleansing, freeing from sin ;
thus men may be swept and garnished, but
after this, shall the house be left empty?
No, not in Christ. Hence he has ordained
thesupnly of grace in the heart by means
of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. "I will
not leave you comfortless," says Jesus, but
"I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another comforter, that he may abide
with you forever, even the Spirit of truth ;
whom the world cannot receive, because it
seeth him not, neither knowethhim; but
ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you,
and shall be in you." John 14-16, 17. These
were to receive the "baptism of the Holy
Ghost not man-y days hence." While Jesus
was with them in person, they might en-
dure without it, but not otherwise. There-
fore they afterwards received the renewing
of the Holy Ghost, as did Israel, who were
"baptized unto Moses in the cloud audio
the sea, and did all drink of that spiritual
rock, which rock was Clirist." Wliy, says
one, they partook of Christ, then, did they?
Certainly. That was only one of Mr. Braden's
whims in criticizing the Book of Mormon,
because they enjoyed Christ on this conti-
nent. Peter says, referring to tliose before
Christ: "Searching what, or what manner
of time the Spirit of Christ which was in
them did signify, when it testified before-
hand the suffering of Christ and the glory
that should follow." 1 Peter 1:11. This is
suflHciently emphatic, showing that the
Nephite prophet was right, and my oppo-
nent wrong, and just so upon this point of
the baptism of the Holy Spirit after Christ.
Those who are "born of the water and of
the Spirit are made complete in one birtk
by the "washing of regeneration, and the
renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Thus they have given to them a deed,
"earnest" of their inheritance in the king-
dom of God, which "earnest," or deed, ia
the "gift of the Holy Ghost." There is
none in Mr. Braden's church, however, but
there was in the apostolic church. There-
fore my opponent believes that Mr. Camp-
bell v/as a restorer.

(Time called.)

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

249

MR. BRADEN'S FOURTH SPEECH.

Genti.emen Moderators, Ladtes. and
Gentlemen : — My opponent wants to know
why we do not use the terra "Church of
Jesus Christ," instead of "Church of
Christ." He may ask the Holy Spirit why,
in Romans 16-16, he did not say "The
Churches of Jesus Christ" or "The Re-or-

fianized Churches of Jesus Christ of Latter
•ay Saints." Let him settle it with the
Holy Spirit, He wants to know if men can
not seek for the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
even if it is a promise. Yes, all to whom
God has promised it, can seek it. But my
opponent can not dodge in that way. We
have proved, and he dare not deny it, that
there is but one baptism in the church. He
dare not deny that the one baptism that is
in the church, is a command, not a promise,
is in the name of the Father, Son and the
Holy Spirit, and is in water. Holy Spirit
baptism, that is not a command, but is a
promise, is not in the name of Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, and is not unto remission
3f sins, is not the one baptism that is in the
church. That ends that matter. My op-

ftonent blunders outrageously over Peter's
anguage in Acts 2. Peter does say that
this event, this occurrence at which you are
astonished, is that event or occurrence of
which Joel prophesied, when he said, and
quotes .Joel's promise. In the 34th verse
Peter declares that Jesus has shed forth,
this series of wonders that you see and hear.
Not the Spirit, for they did' not see him.

Let us now narrow down our contest to
as narrow a compass as possible. We have
given ten reasons why we do not believe
that the baptism in the Spirit is in the
church now. My opponent has not noticed
them, although stated twice, and he lias
been challenged twice to notice them. We
need not re-state them. We have given our
reasons for believing that the promise of
fehe Comforter was to the apostles alone.
My opponent and myself agree that it refers
to the miraculous influence of the Spirit.
Until he notices our arguments, he confesses
that the promise was to the apostles
alone. My opponent dare not deny that
Jesus says that believers alone shall enjoy
Joel's promise. We have given our reasons
for confining it to the ajpostles. He had re-
buked the apostles for their unbelief. He
told them (tiieapostjes) to preach. He said
the signs should follow those who went out
preaching, believing what he said.

The context declares, the apostles went
forth preaching; the Lord did confirm the
preaching of the apostles, and the signs did
follow the preaching of the apostles, who
believed and preached. My opponent will
not deny that Peter says that such believers
as the Lord should call, will receive the
Holy Spirit as a gift. We are agreed that
it refers to the miraculous power of the
Holy Spirit, and that alone. "The prom-

ise" is Joel's promise, just quoted above,
the only promise Peter quotes or refers to.

How did God call believers? By the case
of the Samaritans, who had believed and
were baptized, were saints and had the in-
dwelling of I'le Holy Spirit, but who could
not rec^eive the miraculous power until the
apostles laid hands on them, although the
mighty wonder-worker, Philip, full of the
miraculous power of the Spirit, was with
them ; by the case of Saul, who could not
receive the Spirit until Ananias, a special
apostle, laid hands on him ; by the case of
the disciples at Ephesus, who could not re-
ceive the Spirit until the apostle to the
Gentiles had laid hands on them ; by the
case of Timothy, who received the gi/t of
the Spirit through Paul's hands as one of
the Presbytery, and- at the order of the
Pi'esbytery, we learn that no one received,
or could receive, the Holy Spirii as a mirac-
ulous gift except by the imposition of aa
apostle's hands. Wlien my opponent points
to a single case outside of the baptism iu
the Spirit that received the Holy Spirit in
any other way than by the imposition of an
apostle's hands, he proves his case. I am
not to prove that no one did. Let him
prove that one did. I am not to prove a
negation. He need not jabber about Saul
of Tarsus, for he received the Holy Spirit,
and could only receive it through one spe-
cially and miraculously sent by the Spirit.
a special apostle for that purpose.

AH the cases he quotes, the Samaritans,
Saul, the household of Cornelius, the dis-
ciples at Ephesus, the events iu the church
at Antioch, are all oases of the mifSculouB
power of the Holy Spirit.. The issues aare.
"Did any enjoy the baptism of the Spirit
exrttipt at Pentecost and at the house of Cor-
nelius?" We have proved thai no one ever
did, except on those occasions. Did any
enjoy the gifts of the Spirit^ outi«ide of bap-
tism in the Spirit, on whom an apostle had
not laid hands? Let him cite a case.

Lastly the great issue is, "How long
were these gifts to continue?" I was
amused at ray opponent's dodge over Eph.
iv. He read's that apostles, prophets and
evangelists, with miraculous powers, and
pastors and teachers with miraculous pow-
ers, were given for the perfecting of the
saints unto the work of the ministry. I
accept all that. They were given to perfect
the saints for such work of ministry as the
churches then needed. Also for the up-
building of the body of Christ. I believe
that. All these workers with miraculous
powers were needed to build up the body,
to give to the church government and con-
stitution, and to guide it until that was
done. There is not a word of difference
over that. The issue is, how long were
apostles and prophets that were miraculous
to continue? How long were miraculous

250

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

powers to be given to the evangelists, pas-
tors and teachers? How long were miracu-
lous powers to continue? "Forever." as
KfHey says?

Xof Paul says, "Until;" Until when,
Paul ? "Until we all attain to the unity of
the (iiith and of the knowledge of the Son
of God." Or until the one faith, of which
Paul spoke is completed. Until the word of
God is completed. "Until we attain also
unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fullness of Christ." Or
until the new man, composed of Jew and
Gentile; the body of which Christ is the
head, the church is completed in organiza-
tion. These miraculous powers are to con-
tinue until then ; then they cease. If my
opponent will read all the context and
rightly dividethevvord.it will utterly ex-
plode his cavils and quibbles. My oppon-
ent nibbles around the argument based on
1 Cor., 12-13-14. Having been once landed
high and dry, with it through his gills, the
fish nibbles cautiously. We agree that the
Corinthian church had in it nine spiritual
gifts. That these gifts constituted powers,
nine miraculous powers in the church.

Paul compares the church to the human
body. Christ is the head. These spiritual
powers are the members, not the trunk of
the body. My opponent will not deny that
Christ is still the head of the church, al-
though in heaven, and not in the church,
as he was among men before liis ascension.

Christ is in the church, in his word, his
law, his government, his Holy Spirit. Not
miraculously, but in the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit.

Tlie Apostles, prophets, and all miracu-
lous powers are in the church, just as Christ
is in tlie church, in the New Testament, in
their words and acts recorded there, for
our example, in what they left on the pages
of the New Testament as the embassadors
and representatives of Christ.

"We no more remove the apostles of Jesus,
nor his inspired imbassadors, his represen-
tatives, his delegates out of the church,
when .we say that they had no successors,
then we remove Christ out of the church,
when we say he had no successor.

We no more need persons to succeed the
persons who exercised the spiritual powers
in the church, than we need a person to
succeed Christ. We no more need the con-
stant presence and ministry of men with
tiie nine gifts, that were in the Corinthian
church, than we need that Jesus should
stay on earth, and be in the church in
person .

The Holy Spirit is present in his indwell-
ing power, though the truths he revealed by
inspiration, just as God is present in the
operation of natural law, that took the
place of miracles of direct creation.

We no more remove the Holy Spirit from
the cliurch than we remove God from
nature. There is no more need of miracu-
lous power of the Holy Spirit, and miracles
of revelation, and signs in religion, than
there is need of miracles of direct creation
in nature.

The apostle speaks of the exercise of spir-
itual gifts, as analogous to the exercise of
miraculous power in creation. It was pro-
visional and preparatory to a higher and
better law, and would pass away when it
had prepared the way for that higher and
better, and would be succeeded by it. He
declares, "desire earnestly the best'spiritual
gifts," while they are "the order of the
church. "Nevertheless, I show unto yoH
a more excellent way," than the exercise
of the best of these spiritual gifts. The
apostle is contrasting two states of the
church. One is the exercise of the best of
these spiritual gifts. The other is more ex-
cellent than that. In the eighth verse fol-
lowing he declares prophesying, all utter-
ance by inspiration shall cease. Knowl-
edge imparted by miracle shall cease.
Tongues, all miracles that are signs shall
cease. That is the more excellent way. Or
that shall be the state of the church, when
that more excellent way has prevailed.
That is as clear as sunlight. He confirms
it when he says "That under these spirit-
ual gifts, knowledge and prophesying are
but fragmentary in each exercise, they are
partial, can only give a part at a time."

He declares that wiien that which is pef-
fect has come, the partial shall pass away.
This is not heaven or the future state. There
is not a reference to heaven orthe future state
in the chapters. Paul is talking of the state
of the church under the Christian dispensa-
tion. The partial childish formative state
is the condition of the church under thtte
spiritual gifts. Its state when it is a man,
when that which is perfect is come, is when
the word of God, that which makes Cliris-
tians perfect and thoroughly furnishes them
to all good works, is completed ; and the
body, the church, the new man, of whici;
Christ is the head, is completed in orgaiu-
zation. This is plain common sense. Both
members of the comparison are state.s of Miw
church, and both are states under the
Christian dispensation.

He then resumes his former exhortation,
"Desire the best gifts, but above all to
prophesy, to teach by inspiration, whil©
spiritual gifts are the order, and until
the word is completed, then prophesying
will cease." He describes the condition un-
der gifts, just as Moses described the con-
dition of the Israelites in the wildernesB^
He then speaks of a better state than the
exercise of such gifts, as Moses spoke of &
better conditioatof the Isiaelites in Canaan,
better than the condition in the wilderness.

He then returns to directions liow lh«-y
were to exercise these spiritual gifts, while
they were the order of the church, and
until that better way is ushered in, just as
Moses resumes directions to the Israelites
how to live until they enter Canaan, or
while they are in the wilderness. There is
no more three states in one case than in the
other. That sets to one side that little
quibble.

We have called our opponent's attention
to the fact that our Savior constituted the
apostles his representatives, embassadors,

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

251

delegates, to organize the church, first pro-
visionally, during which time spiritual
gifts prevailed, and to give to it the consti-
tution, the New Testament, and to organize
It permanently under that constitution, and
in accordance with it. His claim that these
spiritual powers, these provisional powers,
and these constitution-making powers, these
delegates, should be forever in the church,
is as absurd as to claim that the old govern-
ment under the Articles of Confederation.
and the Constitutional Convention should
forever remain in session and be forever
making constitutions.

He would either never have the govern-
ment ordained by the constitution, for the
old government, and the convention would
not give way to it. Or if the government
ordained by the constitution and the con-
stitution ever were in full force, he would
have the farce of a form of government from
which all authority had been taken, and a
constitution-making convention that had
nothing to do, and could do nothing, for a
constitution had already been made and
was in force.

If he contends for new revelations he im-
peaches the word of God. If he contends
for miracles to confirm the word of God,
already perfect in the New Testament, he
has the farce of God's sealing forever that
to which he once put a seal. If he does not
have new revelations of truth in addition
to those in the Bible, he has God eternally
engaged in the farce of confirming what he
has once confirmed. In no way can he
show that inspiration, miracles and revela-
tions are necessary, unless the New Testa-
ment is imperfect and incomplete, as the
Old Testament was incomplete. If the
work of the Son of God was incomplete, as
was the work of Moses, and if he stands
related to Joe Smith as Moses did to the
Son of God, then we need Joe Smith, new
revelations, inspired men to give them,
and miracles to confirm them. Will he take
that position?

If Jesus does not stand related to Joe
Smith as Moses did to Jesus ; if the New
Testament does not stand related to the
Book of Mormon as the Old Testament does
to the New ; if the spiritual powers of the
days of Jesus and the apostles do not stand
related to tlie spiritual powers of Joe Smith
and Mormonism as tlie spiritual power of
the Mosaic dispensation stands related to
the spiritual powers of the Christian dis-
pensation, what need of Joe Smith, the
book of Mormon, and Mormon spiritual
powers and revelations and miracles to suc-
ceed those of the Christian dispensation, as
they succeeded the Mosaic dispensation?
What need of instruction and tutors for
children if the church became a man iu
Christ? What need of an everlasting con-
stitution-making convention? What need
of an eternal sealing of God's word by mira-
cles? If such a course were pursued, would
not they cease to be miraculous? My oppo-
nent's )K)sition is a contradiction of all
scripture and common sense. He would
have God continue to brius: animals and

plants into existence by miracle ofcreatioa
after preparing the way for and establish-
ing the control of natural law.

My opponent wants to know whv not
have the perfect word of God and inn-acu-
lous gifts Jiow, both in the church. Because
such is not now the decroB oC the consLiiu-
tion, God's word. He undnrtakes to find
fault with the course I have pursued in mj
argument. I have presented frankly what
vve, as a people, teach and practice. If it
is so like the New Testament teaching thai
he can find no fault with it, tiie fault is iu
his attempt to assail it, and not iu my pre-
sentation of it. My oj)ponent confound*
two operations, twoinliuencesof the Spirit.
The Spirit, as enjoyed in inspiration beforti
Christ, and that higher manifestation that
was not given till ^f'ter Christ was glorified,
which was sent forth in the name of Chr= jt.
John 14:26.

We dilfer from people who have v x-it ten
creeds in this. Tiiey decide cases of faith
and discipline by an understanding of an
understanding of the Bible, the creed. Wa
decide them by our understanding of th«
Bible itself, found in every instance by
original investigation of the Bible itself,
and not by an investigation of our under-
standing of the Bible, a creed. "Saint" ia
a name for children of God in all agea.
"Christian" is the name of saints who ar«
followers of Christ. In that name they are
called after Christ, are called by his name.
Saint would not call them after his name ;
it would not call them b3' nis name.

He admits that Paul never heard of "Lat-
ter Day Saints," nor of "Ke-organized"
Church of Jesus Ciirist of Latter Day
Saints, f Paul had heard of "Christian" and
glori 'd in it. He had heard of "Church
of God" and "Church of Christ." "Paul I
know, and Jesus of Nazareth I know, but
who are ye." The Bible knows no such
Ashdodish lingo. Our Savior ti)ld his apos-
tles when announcing to them the law of
the church and instructing them iu it, that
when tlie church was organized by them,
members in certain cases should lay certain
things before the church. That no man
proves that the church was then in exist-
ence than his telling them what they shoula
do after they were endued with power from
on high, proves that tliey were then endued
with power. The kingdom was not then in
existence, for after the death of Jesus,
Joseph of Arimathea was sliil waiting for
the kingdom Kingdom has a variety of
meanings. The kingdom is spoken of in a
variety of aspects.

The Kingdom was among the Israelites
in Christ's day, ia promises, in preaching
that announced that it was at hand, ap-
proaching, and not as an established insti-
tution, for Jesus himself said it was only at
hand, approaching. The law and prophets
were preached until John. John ])reached
that the Kingdom was at hand. Not that
it was in existence, and he in it. He was
not, for the least that was in the Kingdom,
when established, was greater than Jolm.

My opponent must be hard pushed when

252

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

he quotes Colossians 2:13, "hath trans-
lated us into the Kingdom," written thirty
years after the death of Jesus, *o prove that
the Kingdona was in existence before his
death.

The apostles were in the kingdom as soon
as selected, he tells us. They were selected
at the beorinning of the ministry of Jesus.
Just before his death, not six weeks before,
Jesus said, "I will build my church ; " and
my opponent admitted it was still future at
that time. Will he explain how the apos-
tles werein the Kingdom, three years before
that time, wh«n the Kingdom "was future,
was not in existence at that time? He read
"added to them," "added to the church,"
flaid of what happened on and after the day

of Pentecost. If he will read such language
in regard to events before the day of Pente
cost, he will prove that the church exi8te<
before that day. There was an Israeliti
congregation in the wilderness, but not th«
"church of Christ." Not a soul had beei
baptized into Christ. They had been bap
tized into Moses. As the miraculous influenc<
of the spirit is no part of conversion, by hit
own admission, it is no part of the birth ol
the water and spii-it. That ends that mattei
if he does not back out of the truth he ad-
mitted. We receive the Holy Spirit now aftei
that belief and obedience that makes ut
sons of Ood. "Because we are sous of God,
he sends forth the Spirit into our hearts,"
the indwelling of his Spirit.

MR. KELLEY'S FOURTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — It seems that if there is any-
thing to be attached to the manner of one
of the disputants in a debate, I should not
have anytliing to say this time. My oppo-
nent has finished up the argument — closed
the tiling down. He says, "There is only
one baptism in the church, and that one is
not the baptism of the Spirit, and that
settles it." Wliat is the use of argument?
Braden can settle it alone without any
trouble. Just because. Now can't you see
the poml, my friends ?

Instead of giving you an interpretation of
the i^assage, he says, I assert that there is
but one, and that is not by the Spirit. But
Jesus said. "Born of the water and of the
Spirit." "Ye shall be baptized with the
Holy Ghost not many days hence." Peter
says, "Repent and be baptized every one of
you, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost." And this was the baptism of
the Spirit, so admitted by Mr. Braden.
Those at Pentecost and those of Cornelius'
household received the baptism of the
Spirit, he says, only. But why should God
give it to them, if not in the church? Again
Paul says, "By one Spirit are we all bap-
tized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles ; whether we be bond or free ; and
have been all made todrink intooneSpirit."
Here the authority of .Tesus, Peter and Paul
settles the question adversely to Mr Bra-
den, for they say there is a baptism of the
Spirit in the church

The passage in Ephesians 4:5, which Mr.
Braden professes to rely upon, I showed
fully in my last speech did not, when
properly understood, exclude the baptism
of the Spirit from the Christian system.

But my opponent thinks they had no use

for the baptism of the Spirit after the first
century, for the reason that they had the
word after that, and Jude said," "contend
for the faith," etc. But whom did he tell
to contend for the faith ; those of the se<^ond
and third centuries, or those of the first?
Jude is exhorting the saints in his time,
who also have these spiritual gifts having
been baptized with the Holy Spirit, to "con-
tend for tlie faitli delivered (then) to the
saints." They had both then. So also had
the Corinthian Saints. Paul says, I Cor.
15:1, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto
you the Gospel, which I preached unt< you
which also ye have received and wherein
ye stand."

Here these people are plainly shown to
not only have the law, the Gospel in word,
but also the gifts. Enjoying both at the
same time, and having both more fully than
the people have either now ; yet, we are
gravely told that all this spiritual endow-
ment was to cease when the word came. At
the same time too, he says the Spirit, what
little we have, comes through the medium
of the word. But if that is true, would it
not also follow that they who have the most
word would have the most Spirit and vice
versa.

Whichever way Mr. Braden turns in this
net, he winds himself just that much
tighter.

He says now, that I have conceded certain
things were all right. O yes, Kelley has
given away his case. But did he show you
wherein? Take out the baptism in water
that he holds to, and in what other thing is
he with the Bible? John the Baptist
preached and administered that rite; but
there is now, as then, something else to seek
after. A greater baptism than that of

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

253

water. "I indeed have baptized you with
water," says Jolm ; but this was uot the
great central thought in the religion of
Christ. Mark 1 : 8, "He shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost." This was the great
•eiitral thought of both John's and Jesus'
preaching, besides that of all the apostles
after them. Hence we find Paul the first
Ihing enquiring at Ephesus, "Have ye re-
ceived the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? "

But again, he says the Mormons believe
BO and so, pretending to tell you what 1
fcelieve.

The question under discussion now is not
what I believe, or what the Mormons be-
lieve, if he wishes to nickname the Saints
that: but what does Bradeu and the so-
tailed Christian, Disciple or Campbellite
Church believe.

What the Saints believe, and how far
fehai belief agrees with the Bible, we will
consider under the third question, and I
shall not attempt to avoid the issue.

He takes up the plain declaration of Jesus
in John 3:5, and undertakes to translate.
The word Spirit, he says, is from the Greek
W)rd Pneumatos. Well, suppose it is. does
that make any difference? Is his position
upon this, that the word means breath, or
wind, as some of our Adventist friends
elaim, and therefore Jesus did not mean
baptism (if the Spirit, but of breath or wind?

Mr. Braden : i said it was Spirit, not wind.

Mr. Kelley: Why do you refer to the
word wind at all, then, in giving your in-
terpretation? In your use of the word
wind, breath, etc., "you make it appear as
though Jesus referred to the wind.

Mr. Bradeu : I said the translation of the
3d of John was wrong.

Mr. Kelley: You will have a chance. I
am arguing that it is not wrong, but right,
and c*jnsistent with all other teachings of
Jesus and the apostles. The Greek word
Pneumatos is properly translated Spirit,
signifying the Holy Ghost. I Cor. 2:10,
" ButGod hath revealed them unto us by
his (Pneu??jai!o.s) Spirit. For the (Pneuma)
Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep
things of God." Again, Rom. 8 : 16, "The
Spirit (from Pneuma again) beareth wit-
Bess with our spirit (pntumati) that we are
the children of God."

These are texts, and I might give many
others, where even Mr. Braden himself
could not claim that the word Spirit was a
mis-translaiiou. What argument then is
there in trying to re-tianslate John by put-
ting a diflferent word there? Suppose we
translate I he word Pneumatos to mean
simply an element and not spirit; in what
will it benefit the matter? Read it thus,
fixed up: "Born of the water, and of — ''
what? The element of water again?
Breath, air, wind, or what? Spirit is the
most consistent, and it is true, and that is
what Jesus said and meant. Hence we
have written in Acts 1:5, Jesus' words:
" For John truly baptized with water ; but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost
{Pneumati. Spuit,) not many days hence."

But he wants me to answer the question

as to whether the people of Samaria were
sinners, whom Philip baptized, before they
received the Holy Ghost.

I answer, no more than the apostles were
sinners before they received it while they
were tarrying at Jerusalem waiting for the
Holy Spirit to be poured out as had been
promised.

Will Braden answer as to whether he
considers the 120 at Pentecost sinners up to
that time? The people of Samaria, althoutrh
they had obeyed the word and had jrreat
joy, wanted something else — they wanted
the " promise of the Father," as that was.
"to as many as the Lord our God shall
call ;" but they did not receive it prior to
the confirmation by the laying on of hands,
for Peter saya, " for as yet he was fallen
upon none of them." Yet this was the
Spirit of truth, the Comforter, which alone
could give them a right to the inheritance.
He tries to make out, however, that when
they have the word of truth they have the
other also, as per consequence; but where
are his proofs? Here at Samaria they had
the word but not the Spirit. However,
those who had received the word from
proper motives afterwards received the
Spirit through the laying on of hands. So
also, as declared in the first of Ephesians,
those who received the word, after that they
believed, they were sealed with that Holy
Spirit of promise which is the earnest of
their inheritance.

But had the Spirit anything to do in their
conversion, he asks. I answer that it was
not given to them as a comforter, seal of
adoption, or as "the promise of the Father,"
before conversion, any more than it was
given as such to Peter, James and John
prior to Pentecost, Yet will he say God by
his Spirit had nothing to do with Petef,
James and John before this?

Jesus said. "No man can come to me ex.
cept the Father draw him." I apprehend
that the Father has much to do in bring-
ing people to the point where they may re-
ceive the baptism of the Holy Spirit which
they do not give him credit for. But be-
cause of this is it any reason that they
should not have the baptism of the Spirit,
or the seal of adoption, tlie means by which
they may indeed manifest their right to the
inheritance when they shall be called to
give an account before the Judge of both
the quick and the dead ?

Again he thinks that it was not Christ's
church in the wilderness. No, that was only
Moses' church.

But Paul says Christ was in the church
in the wilderness, and if Christ was in it,
that is more than Mr. Braden can show for
his church. And if Christ was in it, it was
indeed His church.

He attempts to turn one of my arcumeuta
by referring to the passage, "The Kingclcr^
of God is within you," in order te Au. 'i.at
the church was not there then. Jes is wnei
usinv this language is talking to the wu,K?t
Pharisees. Luke 17:20. "And when ^e wa-
demanded of the Pharisees, when ths .King-
dom of God should come, he answered ihem

254

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

aud said, the Kingdom of God cometh uot
with observation ; neither sliall they say,
lo here ! or lo there! for behold, the King-
dom of God is within you."

He does not tell these wicked persons that
the Kingdom was within them— in their
hearts as we sometimes hear — but in their
midst. [Among you]. Look on the margin
of your reference' Bible; the word among \s
given as a better one. The thought aud in-
struction presented by Jesus at the time is,
that the kingdom was well represented
then in their midst. And had they but
opened their eyes they could have beheld
the same ; but it was not in such pomp and
splendor as to attract the attention of the
vile or indifferent. Hence, 'not with ob-
servation." Notwithstanding this, Jesus
the King was there. He had announced
the laws of the kingdom, and urged their
acceptance, thus putting them in force.
He had chosen officers then and there to
administer these laws ; aud they were be-
ing administered. Men and women were
becoming subjects of this king daily, and
the power of the kingdom was felt, not
only upon the good, but the evil ; and hence
we find that even the evil spirits had to
obey. "And I, if I cast out devils by the
power of God, then the Kingdom of God
is come unto you," said Jesus. This had
come under the form and organization of
the church. And although the Scribes and
Pharisees stood disputing the fact like my
opponent here, Jesus argues that if these
things are done, then the kingdom is there
in fact, no difference how much they may-
cavil over the matter. The very fact that
these things are accomplished, viz., "The
sick healed," "devils cast out," "the dead
raised," and that "the poor had the gospel
preached unto them," is overwhelming
proof that the Kingdom of God with which
men have to do in this life — the church-
was an established fact.

The word kingdom is used in the New
Testament to not only represent the church
here as in Luke 10:16, Matt. 11 ; llJ, and
7 : 29 ; but also at times as referring to the
kingdom when it is to be revealed in glory
and majesty, as in Matt. 6:10. 26:29, aud
Mark. 15:43. This last refers to the text he
quoted where Joseph of Arimatheea waited
for the kingdom of God. But it was uot
the church, or the giving of the Holy Ghost
that he watched for ; but the time when the
glory of the kingdom should return to Is-
rael ; when one should come and "Establish
the kingdom and sit upon the throne of
his father David forever."

But he says, his church claims that Christ
is among his people. I know he does, and
so do all others. But how does he know?
His very principles do not permit Christ to
do anything in the church if he should be
ir it. The distinction is this :— Wenot only
aialo that Christ is in the church, but that
a.'- -a act. direct his people, answer them,
Ml 'jLess them directly. Being the head of
'■} f ' nurcu, he can, and does commuuh^ate

w)th ihe body and in an intelligeut, reason-
able manner.

My opponent pretends to have Christ
along, but it is only as a kind of a silent
partner. It is a more absurd position than if
he would say, Jesus was not in the church
at all. For he places him in his church where
he must observe the evil, and then by his
creed, binds the Master so he is not permit-
tetl to speak, or in any way protest against
their unlawful works. Do not deceive
yourselves my friends; where Jesus is, there
his power will be felt. "If I by the power
of God do these things, then the kingdom
of God is come." The converse of the propo-
sition is : If the power is not made mani-
fest, to wit: In the healing of the sick,
casting out devils, speaking with spiritual
gifts, aud preaching the Gospel in power
and the Holy Ghost, then the king-
dom, or the church of Christ in fact, is not
represented. But, there is simply an or-
ganization "Having a form of Godliness,
butdenying the power thereof." 2Tim.3:5.
I ask my opponent to point out a single
instance in the world's history, where
Christ has ever had a church on earth, one
that was acknowledged and accepted of
him in any way, when he had not inspired
men in the same, and the people were
not Llest with the presence of this power?
Wheie they had not the gifts of the Holy
Spirit; and the sick were not healed; men
blest with prophecies, tongues, visions, wis-
dom, knowledge, faith, discernment oi
spirits and interpretations. In which too,
there was not either an apostle or prophet?
Can he mention a single time within the
past five thousand years of the history of
the race when such an anomalous thing
took place? Yet he pretends to say hifl
church is Christ's church. But don't he
know hundreds of others that are widely
different from his, are claiming the same
thing? Is Christ divided? What reasou
is there in claiming that a church which de-
nies all communication of Christ to it;
that rejects the idea of present inspiration
of Jesus ; that rejects the idea of the
manifestationsof the spirit that Jesus prom-
ised to be with his children is in fact Christ's
church? The idea is preposterous. In the
language of the apostle. I feel like saying
to such: "Awake thou that sleepest, and
arise from the dead, and Christ shall give
thee light."

But it is claimed that the Campbellites
have apostles in their church. Ah ! d»
they ? How do they have them ? So as t-o
speak and act in the church, "for the work
of the ministry," as they did in the church
established by Jesus. "Oh no. It is only a
turn Braden'has. He wants to carry the
idea that they have dead apostles and
prophets in their churchy What are they
in there for then, and who are they? It is
not Peter, or Paul, or James, I assure you,
for they are in the church Triumphant —
they said thev were going, ere they left.
"If our earthly house of this tabernacle
were dis."olved, we have a building of (Jod,
an house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens." 2 Cor. 5:1. "Knowing that
1 shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,

THE BRADEN AND KELI.EY DEBATE.

255

even as the Lord. Jesus Christ hath showed
roe " 2 I'eter 1 : 14. But says Braden, Is
not Christ in the ciiurch, and he died too?
Yes, Christ is in his cluu-fh ; but how?
Answer, by the presence of the Holy Spirit.
"I will pray the Father, and he shall g^ive
you another Comforter, that he may abide
with you forever, even the Spirit of truth ;
whom the world cannot receive, because it
Beeth him not,^ neither knoweth him. But
ye Itnow him*; for he dwelleth with you
and shall be in you. I will not leave you
comfortless. I will come unto you." John
14: 16-19. Here is fully set out the manner
of Christ's presence in his church, but not
so the apostles. Tiiis is the Spirit that
Jesus shed forth upon the)« on the day of
Pentecost. It is that which Jesus speaks of
in the 2fith verse of the same chapter : "But
the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance whatsoever I
have said unto you. "

But Braden has already disclaimed the
Ideaof it being in the church now, hence it is
shown beyond all controversy that Christ
can not be in his church. The apostles
were set in the church for a purpose, to
edify the church ; not forever, as Braden
said, I believed, but till the church is edified,
'•and we all come to a unity of the faith, to
a perfect man in Christ." That is what I
said, and that is what is written. Again,
he thinks I am wrong as to Joel's prophecy,
because he says they could not see the
Spirit, and Peter says, ''this which ye see
and hear."

Could not see the Spirit ! Who said so?
My opponent, that is all. The record says
they both saw and heard it. "And suddenly
there came a sound from heaven as of a
rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting. And there
appeared unto them cloven tongues like as
of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues as
the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts
2:1-5.

Then they did both see and hear the
Spirit. And John beheld the "Spirit like a
dove descending and lighting upon him."
Yes, the Spirit can be seen and lieard. So
much for another one of Braden's wise ex-
positions of Scripture. This is like his posi-
tion as to the Spirit being in the church.
O yes, he says, I believe in the Spirit.
Kelley misrepresents me. But he wants it
in a modified form, a different thing alto-
gether from what was in the church then.
That is the reason I say he has none. Wiieu
he clianges its form, purposes, powers,
operations and fullness, he has a different
thing. He thinks it a terrible thing, if he
hears of the Methodists sprinkling with a
little water for baptism, changing the ordi-
nance Jesus instituted. He says, it is no
baptism at all. But at the same time he
comes in and says, just give us as little of
the Spirit as possible. A very little will do
now. Can he not see that it is a greater

evil to the Christian system to try to limit
the baptism of tiie Spirit, than to limit th©
baptism of water— to limit Spirit n baptism
than to limit water m baptism?

But the question of authority has been
raised, and he says that Mr. Campbell
claimed the word of God as his authority.
Very well ; if he did we will go to the word
of God and see what it says:

1. Acts 20:28: "Take heed to yourselves
and to all the flock of God, over which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers."

Here the word of God says the Holy ( Jhost
made persons overseers, ministers of the
word ; but Mr. Campbell said there was
none now calling ministers into the church ;
he was certainly not the restorer as to tills
part of the gospel then.

2. Actsl3:2, the word speaks again : "And
the Holy Ghost said. Separate me Bariia-
bus and Saul for the work whereunto I
have called them. And when they had
fasted and prayed and laid their hands on
them, they sent them away."

Here again the Holy Ghost is the agent
and authority for the calling of the minis-
ter, and the laying on of hands the ordi-
nance used to convey the authority.

3. Again John 20:21 : "As my Father hath
sent me, even so send I you." How was
Jesus called and sent? Heb. 5:5, 6. "So
also Christ glorified not himself to be made
an high priest ; but he that said unto him,
Thou art my son ; to-day have I begotten
thee. As he saith also in another place,
Thou art a priest forever after the order of
Melchisedec."

No, not even Jesus would take the honor
from the word, and undertake to administer
in the house of God.

4. Again we are told : "No man taketh
this honor unto himself, but he that is
called of God as was Aaron." Heb. 5,4.

Aaron was called by the Lord communi-
cating- his will in the" matter to Moses, and
directing the ordination by his Spirit as in
other cases. Numbers 28:1.

Where is it, then, Mr. Campbell finds any
authority for his acts in the word ? Let me
examine further.

5. 1 Cor. 7:17: "But as God hath distri-
buted to every man, as the Lord hath called
every one, so let him walk. And so ordain
I in all churches." Here it is again. God
does his work through the Holy Spirit, as
Mathias was chosen. And they prayed and
said, "Lord, show which of these two thou
hast chosen." Acts 1:24. Again I ask if
Mr. Campbell is with the record as he claims,
where did get his authority since he re-
jected the inspiration of the Holy Ghost
that our other Christian friends had been
long praving for, and God answered him
not'bvth'isHoly Spirit, neither by prophets,
nor by dreams', nor byUrimand I'hunimim?

I will answer it. as my friend seems to be
ignorant on the topic.

You will find it in Barton W. Stone's his-
tory, about page 175: " We concluded if we
had authoritv to preach we had authority to
baptize." ''If we hail authority to preach."
Here it is! Their whole church hangs

256

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

upon an if. Man-made from foundation
to top. And yet they are going about, or at
least Braden is, calling the Saints blasphe-
mers because we promise the people that
they may have a realization of the bless-
ings of God's kingdom here if they obey
him so they may have a firm assurance of
their acceptance with him; and thus they
can find out whether we are impostors here
for themselves. But the Disciples go about
promising the grentest gift of God, which
is eternal life, if they will only conform to
their water baptism ; but their converts,
they say, shall not hear from God upon this
higiiest of all matters to their being, so
they may know whether their preachers
are im|)Ostors or not. They make them
wait till they get to that "bourne from
whence no traveler returns " before they let
them know anythiiig about it, and, of
course, they receive no deed to this prom-
ised inheritance. Now who is the most
eonsistent? Yet he tells you my doctrine
is blasphemous. Wliy is it? Because it
differs from the Bible? No. For Jesus
says, "These signs shall follow them that
believe," and that is what we promise to
the believer. It is for the reason that we
differ from him that he talks that way.
That is all. Whether he hugs it to his bo-
som or not, it is the outcroppings of that
spirit of intolerance that is adverse to the
great Christian system as reflected by
Christ, and this is another grand distinctive
difference between his church and the New
Testament church as left by the apostles.
This makes ten differences to begin with,
broad ones, too.

It was rather amusing on last evening to
hear my opponent state that Mr. Alexander
Campbell was not a reformer, but a re-
storer. If a restorer he must have brought
back something that was lost. That is, the
perfect church that was established by
Jesus Christ and his apostles. Notwith-
standing this wonderful claim made by my
opponent that their church is the restored
one, yet he don't say that theirs is the only
true church. This is another strange diver-
sion. There is but one other person who
has lived in this age who claims to have
been a restorer, and that was Joseph Smith.
All others who have gone forward in church
organization only made the claim of being
reformers. Now before it becomes neces-
sary to restore the church it must be lost.
This restoration my opponent, in the person
of Mr, Campbell, claims to have effected. If
so, then it is the true church, and all this
talk that they don't say that they are the
only true church is some of his " balder-
dash," unless he accepts the Latter Day
Saints as another true one ; for if necessary
to restore, all not restored must in some
sense be lacking, hence not true. But he
makes faces at the Church of the Latter
Day ISaints, and calls it nasty, and "gone
to seed." Where is the other true one ex-
cept the one " ot which I, Clark Braden, am
a member." Please name one. Mr. Smith
was honest in his claim, and said that God
Lad restored the true church by his hands

through the administration of an angel,
just as it was to be restored as shown ia
prophecy, and that all others were in some
particulars wrong, not excepting Mr. Camp-
bell's restored church. Because of this
claim, a great many got mad at Mr. Smith,
including Mv. Campbell's followers, who
were claiming to be in a restored church,
and in order to meet his claims and refute
his positions, a number of them gathered
together, including a large number of Mr.
Campbell's restored Disciples, now prac-
ticing the doctrine of love, and, "As ye
would that men should do to you do ye even
so to them," and put " tar and feathers" on
Joseph's bare back and told him to "git."
Of course this«.vas the restored church'and
restored Disciples that did this. Smith
was consistent, and stuck as tight to his
claim as did tlie tar and feathers to his bare
back. But my opponent is inconsistent
when he says that Mr. Campbell restored
the true church, and notwithstanding all
his labor and effort at restoring, it is no
more right than others ; yet Braden affirms
it is just like the church that the old time
Saints were identified with when Paul
ministered to them.

That there would be a necessity for a
restoration was clearly predicted by Paul,
and John and others, and this is admittea
by all reformers, and the restorer, Mr.
Campbell. Paul says the coming of the Son
of Man will not take place "till there comes
a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed." 2 Thess. 2. And John the rev-
elator says: "And it was given unto him
to make war with the Saints and overcome
them; and power was given him over all
kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Rev.
13. The history of the church confirms these
predictions, and others of like import. By
reason of these statements and the history
of the doctrine of Christian light and civil-
ization, all reformers say there was an apos-
tacy ; hence, it made it possible for them
to be reformers. Mr. Campbell united in
this belief and declared as follows:

"The day of light so illustrious in its beginning, i.e.,
the gospel in tlie time of the apostles, became cloudy.
The Papacv arose luid darkened the heavens for a long
period, obscuiing the brightness of the risen glory of
the Sun of righteousness, so that men groped in dark-
ness. By the refoimation of thel7tti century that dark
cloud was broken in fragments, and though the heavens
of gospel light are still obscured by many clouds— the
sects of various names — the promise is that at evening
time it shall be light. The primitive gospel, in its
effulgence and power, is yet to shine out in original
splendor to regenerate a world." — Haydeii's History
of the Disciples in the Western Reserve, page .36.

Mr. Campbell gave expression to this in
1826. It was after that date that the "prim-
itive gospel in its effulgence and power"
was to shine out. If he was ever a restorer,
it was after that date ; for it was after this
that the gospel was to shine. The "Sects,"
the reformed churches, the Episcopalian,
Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists and
others, are represented by him as obscur-
ing the "heavens" like so many dark
"clouds." If they were dark clouds then, and
are now as then, how many true churches are
there besides the one of which "I, Clark
Braden, am a member?"

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

These are the utterances of this wonder-
ful apostle of restoration. A bout four years
after this date the "primitive gospel did
shine out," by the authority of the angel's
message ; but Mr. Campbell got mad at it
and set about being a restorer himself.
Walter Scott had been preaching all through
the Western Reserve baptism for the remis-
sion of sins, as a member of the Mahoning
Association, and that they should receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost — that there was
a Millennium day spoken of, and contend-
ing that they should have Christianity as
it was. Sidney Rigdon was the great ora-
tor and leader of this great Mahoning Bap-
tist Association. Scott and Rigdon and
Osborn and Alexander Campbell were all
contending in 18:^6 for the reinstating of
"primitive Christianity." It was not then
revealed, says Mr. Campbell. In 1830 the
gospel began to be preached in New York
State and over the Western Reserve. A
number who labored in the Reform move-
ment investigated and accepted it, and
among them Mr. Rigdon. All that they
had been praying for, for years, was pre-
sented to them. Some accepted and some
rejected.

Among those who rejected, was Mr. A.
Campbell; and he told Mr. Scott and Mr.
Osborn not to preach, "You shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost." any more; so
they did not. Page 75 of Hay den's history.
Now they began to blacken Rigdon's char-
acter. He had dwelt right here on the
Reserve for years. Was preaching con-
stantly. Well-known by every one. Com-
muning with members of the Association
on the Sabbath, and considered worthy
beyond question. But when he espoused
the new faith, that he and Scott and Camp-
bell had been praying for and talking about,
and which was too formidable for them to
overthrow, he soon became, according to
their vocabulary, all that was bad, even ac-

cused afterwards of having been in league
with Smith for several years in order to o-et
up a new faith; and Smith over in New
\ork State and but just a little upwards of
14 years of age. It is much easier, and a
thousand times more reasonable, to believe
in miracles and angels than to believe that
under the circumstances Rigdon and Smith
could have been in communication with
each other; and this story never would
have been hatched up, had i't not been that
Smith was illiterite, and they hoped to give
some plausible n; wer for not accept ing'^tbe
truth. For it i- well known that, if the
faith of the Saints is not true, that Sidney
Rigdon himself was one of the worst hum-
bugged men by it that ever belonged to the
church and lived and died under the de-
lusion.

Having rejected the Gospel message Mr.
Campbell and associates set about to get up
a church of their own; and after trying for
nearly fifty years to name it they have not
yet positively decided whether it is the
Christian Church or the Disciple Church.
Campbellite Church seems to more fittingly
express it than anything else, as it received
Mr. Campbell's impress all through. This
institution which we will call the Disciple
Church is said by Mr. Campbell, the re-
storer, to have been built on the "Bible and
the Bible alone." The meaning of this is,
that it was a new thing under the sun and
that they rejected all creeds in its establish-
ment, and that it is an exact pattern of the
church of God as was established by Jesus
and the apostles. This my opponentunder-
takes to show. When .John the Baptist
came preaching he said, "He, that sent me
to baptize with water, the same said unto
me. Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
descending and remaining on him, the same
is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
.Tobn 1 : 18.

rrime called).

258

THE BRADEN AND ICELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S FIFTH SPEECH.

Genti^rmen Moderators, Ladies and
GentLemkn : — We will tirst dispose of the
question whether the churrh was in exist-
ence before the day of Pentecost. The gos-
pel has been preached in three ways ; I.
in promise; II in its formative period; III.
as an accomplished fact. The church has
been spoken of as existing in three con-
ditions. I, as future; II, as in formation;
III, as completed. The gospel was preaclied
in promise to Abraham, saying, "In thee
and thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed." II. The gospel was
preached in process of development Mark. 1.
I. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God." III. The gospel
as an accomplished fact, 1 Corinthians, xv :

"Now brethren I declare unto you the gospel which
I preached unto you, which ye also received, and
wherein ye stiind. and by which you are saved, if ye
keep in memory what I p cached unto you, unless ye
. have believed iii vain For I have delivered uuto you
the first of all that which I also received how that
Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,
was buried and thai he rose again the third day ac-
cording to the scriptures."

The gospel in promise could be preached
before the church existed. The gospel in
process of development could be preached
to prepare the way for the church. But the
gospel in fact as the foundation of the
chnrch, could not be preached until Christ
died for men and rose for their justification.
Christ is the foundation of the church. His
Messiahship is the basis. For Christ says : —
"On it wall I build my church." It could
4iot be built until he demonstrated his
Messiahship by his resurrection and ascen-
sion.

ne kingdom, the church is spoken of as
yetfuture. John preached, "TheKiiigdom is
at hand" — approaching, not that it existed ;
and he was in it. Je»us preached the king-
dom is at hand, approaching, not that it
existed ; and that he was in it. He said,
after he had chosen all of his apostles, and
but six weeks before his death, "I will
build my church on the truth ; that I am
the Messiah." It was then future. Mark,
ix, 1. Jesus said unto them, "There are
some of those that stand hert that shall not
taste death until they have seen the king-
dom of God come with "power." It was
yei future. Mark, xv, 43. Joseph of Ari-
mathea waited for the kingdom of God, af-
ter the death of Jesus." It was yet future.
When did it come with power ? Luke, xxiv,
49. "Behold, I send the promise of my
father upon you." Still futuje. "Tarry ye in
Jerusalem till ye are endued with power
from on high." The power that was to
usher in the kingdom, the church, was yet
future. Acts, i, 8. "You shall receive power
after the Holy Spirit has come upon you."
The power that was to usher in the king-
dom, tht^ church was future, just a few mo-
ments before the ascension of Jesus. The

Holy Spirit fell with power upon the apos-
tles on the day of Pentecost. They were
endued with power. The kingdom came
with power, was ushered in with power
then, and not till then. This was the be-
ginning of the kingdom in fact. Peter de-
clares : Acts, xiv: '^"The Holy Spirit fell on
us atthe beginning." The beginning of the
kingdom, the church. My opponent quotes
"The law and the prophets, were until John,
but now the kingdom of Heaven is
preached." 'J'he law and the prophets were
preached until John, now the kingdom of
Heaven is preached. Preached, how?
That it is at hand, approaching. Not that
it is in existence and John in it. "Theleast
in the kingdom is greater than John." John
was not in the kingdom. "The kingdom of
God (in preaching in promise) Is among
you," not in fact for it had not come. He
has found an Israelite Congregational Na-
tional Assembly in the wilderness, but no
church of Christ, for Jesus said just before
his death that it had not come and was yet
to be built. The Israelites were baptized
into Moses and not into Christ. They re^
ceived the revelations that his Spirit gave
them. Not that they were in the church of
Christ but that Christ was yet to come.
He asserts that John's law was the gospel ;
John preached the law of Christ. John
preached that the church or kingdom <^on- '
trolled by the law of Christ was yet future.
If my opponent will exercise common sense
and divide the word correctly and dis-
tinguish between the gospel in promise, in
process of development, and accomplished
fact; between the kingdom in promise, in
process of formation, and the kingdom in-
augurated, set up, he will avoid such flat
contradictions of the word of God. My po-
sition agrees with all clear passages of the
word, and with a sensible interpretation of
other passages. His interpretation flatly
contradicts the only possible meaning the
passages 1 (juote can have.

Was the Comforter to the apostles alone?
.Tesus was to leave the apostles and the
Comforter was to take His place with the
apostles. Jesus does not leave men now
and the Comforter does not come instead of
Jesus and take tlie place of Jesus, the place
Jesus has occupied with men now. He was
to recall to the minds of the apostles wiiat
Jesus had said to the apostles. He never
called to the mind of any person what
Jesus had said to them except in the case
of the apostles. Does the Holy Spirit recall
to the minds of Mormon apostles what
Jesus in person has said to such Mormon
apostles? The idea of a Mormon claiming
that promise is as absurd as for him to
claim the promise of Jesus that He would
meet the apostles in Galilee after His
resurrection. One is as personal to the
apostles as the oth<'r. My opponent quotes

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

259

Acts, viii. Se does not have intplligence to
see that it is fatal to his positicMi. The
miraculous power of the Spirit could not be
enjoyed by the Samaritans until an apostle
had laid hands on them. Just what we claim.
They had been baptized. Will he tell us
whether they had been borr. of God, born of
water and of Spirit before the apostles laid
hands on them? If not, how could they
receive what sinners cannot receive? If
they were children of God they had been
born of God, of water and the Spirit before
receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on
of an apostle's hands. They had the in-
dwelling of the Holy Spirit before receiving
this miraculous power. Will my opponent
be man enough to answer these questions
and cease playing the coward as he has so
far done.

We repeat again that my opponent does
not seem to be able to distinguish between
baptized by one Spirit, that is, by the com-
mand of one Spirit, on the one hand, and
baptized /none Spirit on the other. Between
baptism by the Spirit and baptism m the
Spirit. He confounds also "Born of the
Spirit," and " baptism in the Spirit." He
confounds "baptism in the Spirit," and
being "begotten by the Spirit." There is
no use in arguing with one so obtuse or so
perverse. He says Christ does not speak
to the "Disciples." He speaks to us in the
New Testament, not in the Book of Mormon,
or any other Mormon fraud. By His chosen
apostles, and not by Mormon impostors.
He wants to know when there was a Church
of Christ without miraculous powers in it.
If he will read Eph. iv. he will learn that
miracles were to exist until the Church was
completed. If he will read I. Cor. xii. and
xiii. he will read God's description of the
perfect Church, and God's declaration that
miraculous power should cease out of the
Church before it became perfect, and when
it became perfect. There is the Church
without miraculous powers : A perfect
Church. The Church with such powers
was imperfect, in its childhood. Will he
dare to notice tliat?

We have Christ in our Church, not as a
silent partner as Kelley says. He speaks
to us in His word, the New Testament, not
in that fraud, the Book of Mormon. He
speaks to us in His chosen apostles, not by
Mormon impostors. The Holy Spirit is in
our Church. He speaks to us in the New
Testament, not in that clumsy, lying fabri-
cation, the Book of Mormon. He speaks to
us through the apostles He inspired, and
not in the lies of Mormon impostors. My
opponent blunders over the immerj*ion in
the Spirit. S|)irit alone can be immersed
in Spirit. Spirit alone immersed Spirit.
The spirits of the apostles were immersed
in the !)Ower of the Spirit of God. The
Holy Spirit was not poured out as a bucket
of water or a dish of fire on the persons of
the apostles. Such is the gross materialism
of Mormoiiism. He re-hashes Hebrew vi.
It is simply a fact that this letter was
written to Hebrews who clung to the
Mosaic law, and regarded it as better than

the Gospel. It was written to prove that
the law of Moses was only a preparation for
the Gospel. That they' should leave the
law of Moses and accept the Gospel. That
the law of Moses was their schoolmaster, to
teach them the first princij)les and lead
them to Christ. The dead works were
works of the law of Moses. Are works of
the law of Christ dead works? Faith
towards God must be now faith in Jesua
(Jhrist. The baptisms were the bathings
of the law of Moses, for there is but one
baptism in the Gospel. The laying on of
hands was the laying on of hands in the
Mosaic ritual. The resurrection was the
Israelite idea. They were to leave all this
and take the Gospel in its stead.

But these persons had received the Holy
Spirit. Yes, persons can accept the Gospel
and receive the Holy Sprit, and then go
back to beggarly elements. Persons have
done so in accepting Mormonism. He says
we have no baptism in the Spirit. No, for
the word of God declares that there were
but two occasions of that baptism, and that
it was never bestowed on any other occa-
sions and never will be. He has no bnptism
in the Spirit either. He has a Mormon
vagary as unscriptural as Papal mass. We
have laying on of hands to set persons apart
to a work, but not to impart miraculous
power. Only an apostle could do that. His
laying on of hands is as great a farce as the
Papal pretense to change the bread and
wine into the flesh and blood of Christ.
Will my opponent be man enough, play
that he is man enough, to answer these
questions. Is there but one baptism in the
church? Is that baptism water baptism?
Or is it Spirit baptism ? Do you insult com-
mon sense by saying that two baptisms are
one baptism? Or do you give the lie direct
to the Spirit of God and say there is more
than one baptism in the church ? Come, do
not play the coward any longer, but answer
like a man, if you can play man long enough
to do so.

We believe and teach, that all obedient
believers receive the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit, receive the Holy Spirit as an earnest
of an inheritance. We receive it through
faith, belief of God's word, and not by the
imposition of the hands of any Mormon Im-
postor. We receive it in God's appointed
way; not in the lying farce concocted by
Sidney Rigdon. Our overseers are made by
the Holy Spirit, by his word, by his law,
and not by mummeries of .Mormon Impos-
ture. He calls my attention to the laying
on of hands in Acts xiii. He asserts that
hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas by
persons not apostles; very true. That it
was to impart the miraculous power of the
Holv Spirit; it was not. It was to seprirate
them to the work of preachinsr. To set theru
apart to the work to which th« Spirit called
them. It could not be to impart the Holy
Spirit, either the ordinary indw elling or the
miraculous power, for Paul and Ji.irnabas
had both. Acts xii, 24. Long before this
Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit. Lay-
ino- on b.ands was not to give the Spirit to

260

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

him. Acts ix, 17. Ananias said to Saul,
"Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me that
you might be tilled with the Holy Spirit,"
and he laid his hands on him. It was not
to impart the Holy Spirit to Saul, for he was
full of the Spirit long before. It was merely
toseparate to a work, set apart to preaching.
It imparted no authority, no miraculous
power.

Kelley says, we say converts cannot hear
from God. ^\Ve say unless they have heard
from God in his word they cannot be con-
verted. We say, unless they have heard
from God in his'word they cannot be Chris-
tians. We have them hear from God
through his Son and his word, and not
through Joe Smith and Mormon impostors.
We will now give him our authority for
preaching, organizing churches, and admin-
istering ordinances. I Peter, ii,-5: " Ye, as
lively stones, are built up a spiritual house,
a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ: but ye
are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, a peculiar people, that you
should show forth the praises of him that
has called you out of darkness into his mar-
vellous light." Every obedient child of
God is by his faith and obedience constitu-
ted by Almighty God, not by the hands of
Mormon impostors, a king, a priest, a royal
priest. Here is the authority, and all are
equal in this priesthood and royal power.
Revelations i, 5 : " Unto him that loved us
and washed us from our sins in his own
blood, and has made us kings and priests
unto God." All who have been pardoned,
washed in the blood of Christ, are made by
that act kings and priests unto God. Here
is where we get our authority : not from a
pretended revelation, the farce narrated by
Joe Smith when he tells us that he baptized
Oliver Cowdery and Cowdery prophecied,
and Cowdery baptized him and he prophe-
cied. Our authority is from God ; he has
made us, when he pardoned us, kings,
priests, a royal priesthood. We can do all
that kings and priests of God can do. That
was Alexander Campbell's authority. He
was a king, a priest unto God, and he had
divine authority from God and not from
Impostor Joe Smith to do what he did.

We will now examine his claim to be
called of God as was Aaron. If I do not
expose the ineffable blasphemy of that im-
pudent claim, I will yield the discussion.
Beginning with Hebrews iv, 14, we read :

"Having then a great high-priest who has passed
through the Heavens, Jesus, the Son of God. let us
hold f«st our confession. For we have aot a high-pnest
that cannot be touched with the feeling of otir in-
firmities, but one that hasbeen tried at all points like as
we vet vviihout sill. Let us therefore <lraw near with
boldness to the tlirone of grace, that we may find grace
to help us in every time of need."

Observe it is Christ that is the great
high-priest.

" For every high-priest taken from among men is
ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he
may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; who can
have compassion on the ignorant and them that are out
of the way, for he himself is also compassed with in-
firmity. And by reason thereof he ought, as for the
people 80 also for himself, to offer for sin. And no man
takeih his power."

What power ? Acting as high priest,
offering sacrifice for the people, —

"But he that was called of Gixl as was Aaron. So
also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high
priest, but he that said unto him (unto whom? Unto
all Mormon impostors? No, unto Christ), "Thou art
my Son : this day have I begotten thee." And he
K.'iitii in another place (to Mormon impostors? No, to
Christ), "Thou art a priest forever, after the order of
Melchizedek."

Then Christ is theonly one whowas called
to the high priesthood as Aaron was. Aaron
was called by the voice of God to the posi-
tion of first high priest of the Aaronic priest-
hood. Christ was called to the Mehhizedek
priesthood by the voice of God as Aaron
was, and Christ alone. He had no predeces-
sor in his office of high priest, and he has no
successor. Measure, if you can, the blas-
phemy of Kelley and other Mormon impos-
tors claiming to be called as Christ was
called, as Aaron was called. Placing them-
selves on an equality with the Son of God.
Christ alone was called as Aaron was.

We are called to be kings and priests unto
God as the persons Peter addressed were
called, by the obedience of faith. We were
made kings and priests unto God when
Christ washed us from sin. As kings and
priests made by Almighty God and not by
Joe Smith or Mormon impostors, we have
divine authority for all, and every act a
king and a priest unto God can perform.
We lay hands on some of our kings and
priests who have the qualifications that the
law of God requires, not to impart miracu-
lous power, not to impart authority, for
they have already as kings and priests unto
God received the authority from the Al-
mighty; but to set them apart to a certain
work. All are equal in authority, but they
are set apart to a certain work. Peter de-
clares in II Peter, i,3 : "God's divine power
has given tons" — the apostle and the Chris-
tians of his day "all things that pertain to
life and godliness through the knowledge
of him that has called us"— the apostle
and all Christians in his day— "to glory and
virtue." Here the apostle declares that all
things that pertain to life and godliness had
already been given, and through knowl-
edge, "through the truth revealed. If all
thmgs had already been given, all that per-
tain to life and godliness. Mormon revela-
tions are humbugs and impostures. I will
stake the issue of the debate on that one
passage. Will my opponent read it and
tell us where his Mormonism comes in.

IS CAMPBELLTSM THE ORIGIN OF MORMON-
ISM ?

The statement is often made as a reproach
to the Disciples that Campbeilism is the
parent of Mormonism. Mormonism is Camp-
beilism gone to seed. We propose to vindi-
cate the Disciples from such a reproach.
While it is true that there are things in the
Book of Mormon that no one but a Disciple
preacher would have written at the time the
book appeared ; and that there are one or
two features in which the Disciples and Mor-
mons agree in differing from the orthodox
relio-ious world; it is also as true that it
was°not what Rigdon took from the Disci-

TILE BKADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

261

pies that gave origin to Mormoiiism. Ou
the contrary, it was the points on which he
differed from the Disciples that gave rise to
Mormonism. Had Sydney Rigdon accepted
all of the teaching of tiie Disciples, and had
he been loyal to them, the Book of Mormon
and Mormonism would never have been
dreamedof by him. The vital diiUiience be-
tween the Disciples and tlie so-called ortho-
dox world is the dogma that the orthodox re-
ligious world make the central idea of their
teaching, the dogma that in the conviction
and conversion of the sinner, and in the
comforting and sanctiflcation of the saint
the Holy Spirit exerts a direct and immedi-
ate influence, distinct and different from,
and in addition to any that he exerts through
the truth, thathe has revealedin theSciip-
tures. Some regard this influence as mirac-
ulous. Others say that it is not miraculous.
The Disciples teach that all direct and im-
mediate influence was miraculous, wasnot,
and could not be a moral influence, and had
not one particle of moral influence on the
party influenced. Its work was to inspire,
to reveal truth, to work miracles, and it can
form no part of conviction, conversion and
sanctification. They teach that all the moral
power that an intelligence, like the Holy
Spirit can exert on another intelligence like
man's spirit, is resident in ideas, moral influ-
' ences, presented to the spirit influenced in
words or acts. They teach that conviction,
conversion and sanctification are accom-
plished by moral power alone, resident in
truth and acts. They believe the Bible de-
clarations that "the gospel is the power of
God unto salvation to all who believe." II
J Peter, i. "Divine power has granted unto us
J all things that pertain unto life and godli-
I ness through knowledge." That all "men
I are begotten by the word of truth." That
( men are sanctifled by God's word as Jesus
declares They reject all direct and immedi-
ate influence of the Spirit in conviction,
conversion and sanctification, for such influ-
ence was all miraculous, and it did not and
could not produce one particle of moral in-
fluence or change. Because the Bible never
ascribes one inttance or particle of conver-
sion to such direct influence. Because it
invariably ascribes it to thegospel the word
of God, the truth. Such is the great differ-
ence between disciples and others.

Sidney Rigdon brought from the Baptists
to the Disciples and agreed with the Disci-
ples in : I. Immersion alone is baptism.
• II. Penitent believers alone are scriptural
subjects of baptism.

He accepted from the Disciples : I. Rev-
elation alone should be the creed of Christ-
tians. II. The religious world had de-
parted from the apostolic Christianity and
should return to it. III. What are called
"first principles " by the Disciples.
IV. Baptism is unto the remission of sins.
Not one of these would have even hinted
the Book of Mormon or Mormonism. He
brought from the Baptists and never agreed
with the Disciples. I. Opposition to secret
societies. That is in the Book of Mormon.
It is full of it. II. The orthodox idea of a

direct, immediate and miraculous influence
of the Spirit in conversion. While a Dis-
ciple preaclier he would often get so excited
in his preaching, as to have what is called
"the power," and often claimed that he
had visions and revelations in that state.
He was always extravagant in his preach-
ing, and had much trouble and difference
with the Disciples over tliis idea. He tried
to get the Disciples to accept this idea, and
that a full restoration of apostolic Chris-
tianity must restore inspiration, spiritual
gifts, and revelations. Tlie ortiiodox idea
of direct and miraculous influence of the
Spirit that he retained was simply this
claim of Rigdon, the idea that was lli'gdon's
special hobby, and that was rejected by
the Disciples. He brought from the Bap-
tists the orthodox idea of a direct and im-
mediate influence of the Holy Spirit in ad-
dition to and distinct from any influence
that he exerts through the truth. Like
all who believe this notion, he regarded it
as the sum and substance of religion He
was consistent and logical, however, and
the orthodox world are not. He asserted,
and truthfully, that this direct and imme-
diate influence ever had been and ever
must be miraculous and attended with mi-
raculous power, inspiration and revelation.
He came into the Restoration with that
hobby and with the intention to engraft it
ou to the movement, and when he had
gotten the Disciples to accept it, he could
then get them toaccept new revelations, and
bring forward his "Golden Bible" that he
had fabricated out of Spaulding's "Manu-
script Found," and make of the Restoration
what Mormonism now is.

Accordingly he was constantly talking
and preaching that a full return to apostolic
Christianity must include a restoration of
the spiritual gifts, mirculous powers, the
inspirations and revelations of the apostolic
age. He had large numbers of the congre-
gation, for which he preached indoctrinated
with these ideas, and some had adopted his
idea of community of goods and feet
washing. These he had prepared for Mor-
monism, and when he pretended to be con-
verted to Mormonism that he himself had
originated, and had used Smith as a tool to
publish for him, these persons who had
accepted his hobbies went with him, and
this accounts for the wonderful rapidity
with which converts were made to Mor-
monism in the churches where he had
preached, and had great influence. His
teaching in regard to new revelations led
them to expect such revelations and they
were ready to accept the Book of Mormon
as a revelation. Here again the admirable
scrii)tural knowledge and admirable sense of
the Campbells saved the Restoration from
shipwreck, as it did in regard to his millen-
nial vagaries and the community of goods.
The long and unanswerable series of articles
on the Holy Spirit in "Christianity Re-
stored," clearly separated, the miraculous
and extraordinary influence of the Spirit,
in Insinration, revelations and miracles,
which was the direct and immediate in-

262

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

fluenee of the Spirit, from the ordinary
influence which was only through the
truth. These articles showed that this
dlr<ct and immediate influence was for
a definite purpose— the completion of
revelation — the word of God, and that
the scriptures taught tiiat it ceased with
that work. That the only power the Holy
Spirit exerts in conviction, conversion and
sanctiflcation is by and through the truth
he has revealed in the scriptures, and that
such influence is the only moral influence
He can exert.

The rejection of this special hobby of Rig-
don that he brought into the Restoration
from the Baptists and the orthodox relig-
ious world, and through which he hoped to
get the Disciples to accept his "Golden
Bible " and lead them off into what is now
Mormonism, drove him from the Restora-
tion, It is often said that " Campbellism is
the parent of Mormonism — that it is Camp-
bellism gone to seed." We have freely
stated just what Rigdon took into Mormon-
ism from the Restoration. Because he ac-
cepted certain truths we teach, no more
proves that we are responsible for Mormon-
ism, or that our teachings logically lead to
Mormonism, than the fact that Mormonism
accepts many of the teachings of the Bible
proves that the Bible is responsible for
Mormonism, or that the teachings of the
Bible logically lead to Mormonism.

The truth is that our clear, common-sense
scriptural teaching that the direct and im-
mediate influence of the Spirit was miracu-
lous and ceased with miracles, and that
the only influence that the Spirit exerts
now is through the truth he has revealed,
the only moral influence he can exert, is
utterly fatal to the central idea of Mormon-
ism, and the origin of everything that is
peculiar to the system, the direct and mi-
raculous influence of the Spirit, in inspira-
tion and revelations. It was this truth that
led the Disciples to reject Rigdon's idea of
a restoration of miraculous powers. Had
they believed the orthodox idea of a direct
and immediate influence, in addition to
and distinct from the influence through the
truth, and been as logical and consistent in
carrying out the idea as they were in all
else, they would have said " such influence
is miraculous," and accepted his idea of
restoration of miraculous power. Because
they rejected the orthodox idea of direct
and immediate influence, they rejected his
hobby of restoration of miraculous powers.
No orthodox church could have rejected
his hobby if they were consistent with their

belief of a direct and immediate influence
of the Spirit, for such influence must be
miraculous, and if really present be at-
tended with miracles.

Rigdon took from the orthodox world this
idea, the key note of orthodoxy, the direct
and immediate influence of the Spirit, in
addition to and distinct from any that he
exerted through the truth. From the Meth-
odists he took the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. Having taken these ideas from the
religious, orthodox world, Rigdon was cou-
sis; -nt and logical and scriptural in assert-
ing Lhat such influence was miraculous, and
when really present attended with miracu-
lous powers, inspiration and revelations.

Mormonism agrees with the orthodox
religious world in claiming this direct and
immediate influence of the Holy Spirit in
addition to, and distinct and different from,
any influence that he exerts througli the
truth. It does not illogically stop with
making the claim and refusing to claim the
necessary effects of such a cause, miraculous
powers, inspiration and revelations Mor-
monism claims, and has every truth of
scriptural teaching and all common sense to
sustain it, that such influence was miracu-
lous, and as necessarily attended by mira-
cles as the effect must attend the cause.
Miracles were what distinguished th'
miraculous influence, which was direct and
immediate, from the ordinary influence that
was only through the the truth. Claiming
the cause Mormonism is logical, scriotural
and in accordance with common sense in
claiming the eflfect, miracles.

Mormonism is logical and in accordance
with common sense and the Scriptures in
claiming all the spiritual gifts that existed
in the apostolic church, when itclaims their
cause — the direct and immediate influence
of the Spirit. Orthodoxy is illogical in
claiming the cause, and refusing to claim
the necessary effect, that can no more be
separated from the cause than the falling
of unsupported bodies can be separated from
the law of gravitation.

Sometimes in its claim of special call to
preach, miraculous evidence of conversion,
that regeneration is a miracle, that men
preach as the Spirit gives them utterance
and in revival, camp meeting, holiness, and
sanctiflcation extravagances, in miraculous
providences and answers to prayer, ortho-
doxy actually claims miraculous power, and
absurdly denounces the Mormon claim to
miraculous power and revelations as un-
scriptural and absurd.

TH1-: iJKADEN AND KELI.EY DEB AT',;.

2*>2

iMR. KELLEY'S FIFTH SPEECH.

Ge?^tt,emen Moderators, TiADiES and
Gentlemen : — When my time was called
last night I was making- an argument upon
the authority of the minister, citing John
I;."), "Tliere was a man sent from God
whose name was John." Jesus also con-
stantly urged that he did not come to do
his own will but the will of him that sent
him. That his Father had sent him. "My
eorainaudments are not mine but his that
sent me."

Tliese men were sent by the God of
heaven to establish his church and reveal
his will to men on earth. Had they not
been sent, they never would have assumed
to be teachers. But they had a message
because tlie Lord had sent them ; and they
said, '"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand." Paul recognizing tlie necessity
of being "sent" before starting out with
tifliuiis, says, "How shall they preach ex-
cept they be sent." Rom. 10. In accord-
ance with tills, Jesus said to his apostles,
"Ah my Father sent me, so send I you."
"Whosoever receiveth you, receiveth me,
and he that receiveth me, receiveth him
that sent me." Here we have the authori-
tative right to minister, extending from
heaven to earth, and that right is either
vested in God's minister, or he has no
right to act. "How shall they preach ex-
cept they be sent?" ^ent of God. When
Mr. Campbell and party commenced the
work of church building, (restoring Chris-
tianity), upon the "Bible, and Biblealone,"
the first thing that stared them in the face
was, by what authority shall we act? Mr.
Campbell did not believe that either the
■Catholics or Protestants had any authority,
i. e., transmitted authority, (hat which had
come down from the apostles' times. He
did not believe that God, or angels or the
Holy Ghost could say anything ; that is
he held that they had had their say.

So they met together, says Mr. Stone, to
act |by common consent, and with the in-
tention of only doing that which the Bible
authorized them to do. The question of
baptizing came up ; but who has authority
to baptize, was the problem of problems.
They consulted together on the "Bible
alone," and alone they were. Neither God,
nor angels, nor the Holy Ghost could do
anything for them, for they did not believe
that these could. They had no faith. They
believed that these things Avere formerly
in the church, but not now. Here they are
gathered together. It is no common occur-
rence. The time of the great restoration
has come, but how it was found out is not
told— and the birth of the restored church
is about to take place. All is expectation
and anxiety. In the midst of the pain and
anguish to bring it forth, there is an un-

yielding difficulty standing in the way. Ft
is this : Who shall bai)tize the first one.
They pause ! At last a thought struck one
of them. He was ready to cut the gordian
knot. Said he, "// we have authority to
preach we have authority to baptize.''^ That
was the electric bolt. They thought they
had it, and they went to work ; ministers
baptized ministers, and then the people.
So the restoration commenced with all the
authority of an IF. When the church of
Christ was established in the time of the
apostles, it took a divine commission, a
word from heaven, the ministering of angels
and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
apostles and prophets to set it up; but af-
ter the dark day of apostacy, and the
church of God could not be found on earth,
Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Stone and Mr. Scott
and some others restored it over in Ken-
tucky in all its splendor, without a word
from heaven, from the Son, Holy Spirit, or
angels, apostJes or prophets, while stand-
ing on the "Bible alone," and restored it on
the most doubtful of words, if. The only
wonder is that it has not taken the world
before this time. From that time to this
they hold that one person has just as good
a right to preach and baptize as another.
That ordination even amounts to nothing;
and upon that ground I understand that
my opponent refused to let any of the
brethren in this wonderful restoration lay
hands on him, down at Carbondale a few
years ago. Am I not correct? Or have you
changed your mind upon this since you put
so many of your preachers to rout on this at
Carbondale, 111.? He, like all those who
ministered at the birth of this institution,
was already authorized. That is if, and if.
— Their is a great deal of certainty in their
theory of religion (?)

The Disciples say they built theirChureh
on "The Bible and Bible alone." But
Jesus Christ built His upon a different
foundation altogether. See the following :
" And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar .Jona, for flesh
and bh.od hath not revealed it unto thee,
[that lam the Christ] but my Father which
is in Heaven. And I say also unto thee,
that thou art Peter, and upon this "ock I
will build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it." " I'pon this
rock" says Jesus, "1 will build my Church."
Upon what rock? Upon the Bible and
Biblealone? Not upon that, but upon the
rock of revealing, the means and power of
obtaining the knowledge that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God. This communication
from the father is that which antedates all
gospel preaching, and is the inspiration
and rock upon which the whole Christian
institution rests. Hence Jesus says,

2G4

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

"when he, the Holy Ghost, is come, he
will testify of me." "He will take of the
things of the Father and show them unto
you."

The whole superstructure was to partake
of the essence of the Rock upon which the
foundation rested ; hence, Paul says, the
church was a " habitation of God through
the Spirit." The foundation was laid by the
declared fact that .Jesus is the Christ ; tience
it is written: "Other foundation can no
man lay, than that is laid which is Jesua
Christ." And again it is declared, "Are
built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner stone. In whom all the
building fitly framed together, groweth
unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom
ye are builded together for a habitation of
God through the Spirit." Eph. 2: 20-22.

Here we have an insight into the nature
of the church building, as to what consti-
tutes the foundation, and the rock upon
which it rests. The revelation of God, not
that of the past, but present, is tne inspira-
tion, tmderlying strata of the church of
Christ, and that upon which it rests. But
Mr. ('ampbell starred his on the " Bible
alone," so claimed. There is not an in-
stance from Genesis to Revelations where
God ever authorized anj'^ man or angel to
build his church on the Biblealone. What
is the New Testament? It is the constitu-
tional law that governs in the church, and
giving also a history of the formalion and
provisions of the church, and rights of the
citizens in order to its perpetuity. This
constitution says God placed the officer-^ in
the church as "it pleased Him;" Fi st
apostles, secondly prophets, then gits of
healings," &c., 1 Cor. 12. For these othters
our constitution (the New Testan^ent)
provides, and no promise is made for j.ny
other kind of organization or officers. But
Mr. Campbell and others in the great res-
toration made, while standing on the Bible
alone, did not see fit to put any of these
in his restored church. They moved out
upon the hypothesis that if they could
preach they could baptize, and if they
could baptize, perhaps they could organize
Christ's church without apostles, and so
went on "restoring." Seeing that the
New Testament was against their presum-
tuous work, they arose to explain : " That
apostles were all right until the New Tes-
tament was M'ritten , then the Bible stood
in the place of apostles and prophets, and
all of the inspired ones," and there was
nothing to take the place of the overseer
and deacons, so they retained them. This
restored church, builton tlie "Biblealone,"
expunged all the officers that Christ put in
the only church of which the New Testa-
ment gives any account that he ever built,
and it then whipped around and squared
itself for battle, declaring that it was the
ancient church "restored." Braden says so.

But let us examine that idea, that "after
the Christian constitution was written they
needed no more chief officers to carry on
the work of the church. In the organiza-

tion of our government there was a consti-
tution formed. It stands related to the
state as the New Testament does to the
church. By constitutional provision there
are certain officers appointed in the govern-
ment, and the rights and privileges of the
citizens declared. But who is fanatical
enough to believe, that after the constitu-
tion was written aad Washington's term of
office had expired, that there was to be no
more Presidents or Vice-Presidents, Sena-
tors or Judiciary, or delegates from the peo-
ple to constitute the house of Representa-
tives. That they were no longer needed in
the government; that the constitution, Con-
stable and .Tustice of the Peace were all that
were needed to run the government.

Is it not a fact that the constitution pro-
vides for a line of presidents, vice-presi-
dents, senators, etc., and a government
according to the constitution cannot exist
without them? The constitution of the
government is all essential and so are its
officers in order to its perpetuity. To
destroy the officers is to destroy the govern-
ment. To organize another not just as pro-
vided for in the constitution is to establish,
a new and strange government, not known
to the people or the constitution. This is
true in church as well as state. The New
Testament is the constitutional enactment
to govern in tlie Christian church. To build
by that is to build aright. That constitu-
tional law says that the first officer in the
church of God is an apostle. The church of
which Mr. Braden is a member has no such
officer. The constitution says the second
officer is a prophet. The church which Mr.
Braden represents here, has none. Why has
he the presumption to say then, that the
church he represents is the ancient church
"restored?" But he says there was to be a
change. Apostles were to cease. Let us see.

When .ludas Isscariot went and hanged
himself after he had betrayed his Lord,
there were but eleven apostles left. What
was done? Just what is done in our govern-
ment when the President, or a Senator or
any other officer dies or is removed for other
cause ; another was appointed in his stead,
and "he was numbered with the eleven."
The only difTerence in the appointment is
that in the church God appoints, and in the
state the people appoint. By and by the
wicked Herod killed James, another apos-
tle, and tiiere is another vacant seat; and
just over the leaf a ways we read Paul, the
apostle, and so on until we reach about
nineteen apostles named in the New Testa-
ment. As if to settle this question forever,
Paul says these apostles were given "for the
work of the ministry ; " (after Jesus ascend-
ed upon high) "for'the edifying of the body
of Christ;" and to continue "until we all
come into a unity of the faith, to a knowl-
edge of the Son of (xod, that we be no more
tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine."
Eph. 4. And this side of the house will not
be moved by my opponent's gust of wind,
that he imagines to himself is a raging
Nebraska blizzard. These ministers are
called to their several offices by direct reve-

THE BRADEN AND KETJ.EY DEBATE.

2G-

lation from God, without which they had
no right to act. Hence, up at Antioeh, tiie
Holy Ghost said, "Separate unto me Bar-
nabas and Saul for the work whereunto I
have called them." "Then laid their hands
on them and sent them away." Acts 13.
"As God hath distributed to every man, as
the Lord hath called every one, .so let him
walk. And so ordain I iii all churches."
Paul did not presume to send any one until
The Lord spoke; but Mr. Braden denies the
necessity of a divine call to the ministry.
All of his church are called when they are
born. Don't need any laying on of hands
to authorize them. But in Mr. Braden's
raind this is Clirist's church come again-
restored ; but it came to life, if it has any,
in a different way than the church of Christ
was instituted, and they have left out ail of
the leading officers, and none of them are
sent of God or have any authority, only IF
they can preach they can baptize.

This would be about the position of Mr.
Campbell when truly illustrated. The peo-
ple of the United .States, by reason of some
extraordinary event, find themselves with-
ont a set of officers to execute the laws,
without any government. Mr. Smith takes
up the constitution of the United States
and .esays : "The means is provided herein
for offi<;ers by the calling of an election, get-
ting the voice of the people, for tliat is the
highest authority."

Mr Campbell says no, not that. "Here
is our constitution perfected by our fathers.
No use of tile authority any longer. 'I he
former organization was only for the pur-
pose of perfecting this law. I will be your
president."

Ah ! but says Mr. Smith, you may not
suit the people.

Never mind that, says Mr. Campbell.
The people, who are the recognized author-
ity, have nothing more to do with it. 'i'iie
word, the Constitution, gives me the right
to act. Of course my right can't be traced
in it; but never mind; if I have authority to
read the constitution and tell my neighbor
about it; I have a right to act as president
without a call or election by the people, as
provided by the constitution, and I will
not wait till Jam elected. Of course some
one else may claim the same right, and their
claim would be just as good as mine, and
thus we may create division and anarchy
among the people of a country who formerly
had one government, one system, one set
of officers at a time. But what of it?

But Mr. Smith stands before the people at
the same time and claims that when the
constitution wasordained there was a provi-
sion made therein for the filling up of va-
cant offices, and that before tUe constitu-
tion can become operative this provision
of it must be put in force as any other, and
that it will not do to permit any person
who sees fit, to force liimself into the place
of one of the officers, seeing that under it,
one man has as good a right as another to
do that, and if this assumption is permitted
we will destroy the constitution, the liber-
ties of the people, and consequently all

hope of a true Republic itself, and change
it into a monarchy and have a system of
another type and diJferent government
altogether. Which is the sounder position?

Mr. Braden and myself agree that we
have the constitutional law given for the
regulation and government of the church.
We both urge the adoption of this constitu-
tion on the part of th<' people— yes, every-
body says, it is a good thing; let us adopt
it. But how adopt it? As an instrument
telling what the organization of the true
church once was? What the true teach-
ings once were? Or us a rule of faith and
practice by which to regulate the church
now? He says it gives a trueaccount of the
organization as it once was, the practices
as they once were ; but that we are not to
have the same now, because certain of these
officers are done away by reason of the per-
fecting of the constitution, and that we
must pattern after the church as left per-
fected after this time, instead of the church
as reflected in the constitution itself. At
the same time he claims Mr. Campbell as a
restorer of the church under the constitu-
tion of the apostolic religion. But a re-
storer means to produce the thing ; not to
produce something which is not the thing,
neither something that might have existed
after the thing. I take the ground and
state to you that it, the constitution, gives
a true accotxnt of the organization as it once
was, the practices as they once were, and
that they are the same that ought to be in
the church now. and would be if anarchy
had not reigned since the true officers fell
asleep, and a change was effected in the gov-
ernment.

That there is a means provided in the
constitution for the calling of officers, and
when called in that way they will act and
administer the laws as did the original offi-
cers, and, if not, the government itself is
chansred, and hence a different church, and
instead of being the church as provided in
the constitution, it is a new thing, unknown
to the constitution ; that his man (Mr.
Campbell) is not the restorer, for the rea.son
that he has not produced the thing in or-
ganization, practice or teaching as included
in and was a part of the original ; that
among the things provided in the constitu-
tion are :

1. That men may attain to wisdon and
knowledge by the teaching and instruction
of the Holy Spirit.

"Howheit. when he the Spirit of truth is come, he
will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of
himself: biit whatsoever he shall hear ihalsliall he
speak, and lie will show you things to oonie.'' John 16:13.

" This is eternal life that they may know tlv e the
onlv true God, ami Jesus Christ whom ihou hast sent."
— Ibid\l:'i. Again, " No man can sav that Jesus is the
Lord, but bv the Holy Ghos'."— 1 Cor. 12: 3 " After I
heard of your faith in the l^ord Jesus and love unto all
the Saint.s, I ceased not to make mention of you in mj
pravers that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of gl iry, may give nnto you the Spirit of m>--
dom B.n<i revelniion \n the knowled e of him. That ye
may know what is the hope of his falling " — Epli 1,15.

2. That the ofiicers under this constitu-
tion arc to administer, as called to act in the
work by the head of the church, Christ,
tlirough the Holy Sjjirit.

266

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

3. That in the church itself are placed
certain gifts for the qualitication of persons
for the work of perfectiu"- of the Saints,
carrying on the ministerial work, the in-
struction of the body— the cliurch, "Till
we should all ^ome to the unity of the faith,
to the fullnfc3^< if the measure of the stature
of CJhrist." Were these provisions of the
constitution respected there would be the
full means of carrying on the work as there
is under our election system of filling the
vaoant places in the government. And
when T stand with the constitution and in-
sist that officers must be chosen in a proper
way, and that way is by the inspiration of
the Spirit, the onl}' answer he gives me is
the old one used against the Saints in the
first century, tiiat only a few fanatics be-
lieve in reveJalion. But shall I drop the
Bible and go into the grand scramble for the
spoils in the anarchy of confusion, and say
I have as good a right to elect myself as any
one?

*' It is onlj' a few fanatics who believe in
revelation.'' O yes, certainly. But it has
been only a few persons who were falsely
called fanatics who have believed in revela-
tion in the history of the race.

Noah was the fanatic in his time, so the
people claimed. He believed in revelation.
Abraham was the next prominent fanatic;
then came Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel and Zechariah, most all of whom
the people thought so fanatical that they
were vilely treated or killed.

After them comes Jesus, and he is set
down with the fanatics ; then Peter, James,
John and Paul— all fanatical, according to
the rage of the people in their time, and
terribly maltreated and abused.

Now, it is only a " few fanatics " that be-
lieve in revelation. It is the Latter Day
Saints this time. Does anybody else? No.
Tliat is the reason they call them fanatics.
They are the only ones that "contend for
this faith once delivered to the Saints."
And hence, we are called fanatics. My
friends, are we not yet in good company,
with Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, David,
Job, Jesus, and all of the apostles and
prophets of the world?

The constitution of the Christian Govern-
ment clearly provides for an uninterrupted
line of apostles to be continued in the
church and the step was taken to carry
out this provision by the filling of the seat
of Judas Iscariot, and that of the apostle
James, &c., all having been appointed by
the great head of the church, Christ.

By the constitution of our country there
are certain rights and privileges belong-
ing to the citizen, that is, the right of suf-
frage; the right of representation; the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness ; and the right to worship God
according to the dictates of his own con-
science. These rights are guaranteed by
the constitution. To deny them to the citi-
zen is to take away their constitutional
rights and destroy the force of the consti-
tution itself. So long as this government
is to be continued, and the constitution ad-

hered to, these rights must iemainwith the
citizens. This is true ttlso .. tLe constitu-
tion of the church. It provides for the re-
ceiving of foreigners into the fold, and
specifies the way, and lays down the rules
by which they are to be received, which
are : 1st faith, 2nd repentance, 3d baptism,
4th the laying on of hands. These rules
are stipulated and ordained by the consti-
tution itself, and these rules originated with
God, and not with man ; men have not the
right to abrogate any one of them, or
change them in the least unless it can be
shown that the constitution itself is not in
force, but has been set aside and another
established by the great head of the church
to take its place. The constitution further
provides, for certain blessings and privil-
eges to be enjoyed by the citizens ; and all
are equal under the constitutional law in
the church, as well as in state. The bless-
ings in the chur 'h are : —

1. The gift of the Holy Ghost, of which
there is but one ; but it manifests itself in
different ways but it is the same Spirit;
and everj-one has the right to enjoy it as
really in the church as they have the equal
right of repre(«entation, or worship, in th^
state. "For there are difT'erences of ad-
ministration, but the same Spirit." 1 Cor.
12. "The manifestation of the Spirit is
given to every man." "Ye may all prophe-
cy one by one." 1 Cor., 14:31. In their
adoption each one is entitled to the Holy
Ghost as the seal of his adoption. Hence,
"After ttiat ye believed ye were sealed with
the Holy Spirit of premise." This is the
H0I3' Spirit which Jesus said he would
send if he went away. Said he, "When he
la come he will testify of me," and the "tes-
timony of Jesus is tlie spirit of prophecy."
Rev, i9 : 10. This is all the spirit that was
ever promised to the believer, either as in-
dwelling or as outdwelling. The attempt to
make it appear that there are two Holy
Spirits, the miraculous and non-miracu-
lous; or the miraculous and indwelling, is
sheer cant, and without warrant in the
Scriptures.

2. To the citizen is guaranteed by the
constitution, thatifany are sick, they may
send for the elders of thechurch, (not apos-
tles of the church), and let them pray over
them, anointing them with oil, and the
" prayer of faith shall save the sick; and the
Lord shall raise them up." James, '^ ■">.
Hence, Jesus says, "They shall lay hand' m
the sick and they shall recover." Mark 16.
This privilege is' guaranteed to the citizen
in the constitution of the church equally
with the right to vote by the constitution
of the state. And .you can no more destroy
these rights in one* and retain the goven
nient in tact, than you can in the other
But Mr. Campbell in "his "restored church,"
claiming to stand on and pattern after the
old Christian constitution, discarded the
doctrine of "baptism and the laying on of
hands," and retained one baptism and no
laying on of hands— claimed that the gift
of the Holy Ghost was quite an unneces-
sary thing" to be enjoyed so long a time

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

207

after the writing- of the constitution The
constitution was good, but its promises are
of no account. That a great many repeals
have been made, or the provisions ignored,
and new regulations and provisions' provid-
ed, but of course it is the old "church
come again." I<et us see. The ancient
church was built by divine revelation from
heaven by men authorized to act as ambas-
sadors ; Mr, Campbel' said. "If we can
preach we can baptize " The ancient
church had apostles and prophets ; Mr.
Campbell hari none. If they could preach
they could baptize, and if they could bap-
tize, may he they could tret along without
apostles or prophets, and they put only
elders and deacons into their church But
it is the same old church restored That
is as clear as mud.

The ancient church taught the laying on
of bands for the receiving of the Holy Ghost;
but Mr. Campbell said that if they could
preach they could baptize; and if they
could baptize, may be they could put all of
the apostles out and put in the elders and
deacons (without God saying anything
about either), and perhaps the laying on of
hands was not needed, so it was left out of
Mr. Campbell's restored church. What a
restoration ! The ancient church enjoyed
the gift of the Holy Ghost in faith, and
wisdom, and knowledge, and tongues, and
prophecy, and visions, and dreams, and
healings, by which they received the testi-
mony of .lesus and the seal of their inheri-
tance. But Mr. (.^ampbell with an "if,"
and a "perhaps," and "may be," had pro-
ceeded thus far in restoring the ancient
church, and having done so well, he thought
that it was likely they could get along wiih-
out any Holy Ghost at all— vision, dream,
prophecy, healing or revelation. It was the
old church "restored," however, so says
Mr. Braden. But they must hold on to the
old constitution, "stand on the Bible alone"
—no doubt about that. This so forcibly
teminds me of the politician's story of

grandfather's old gun, that I will ask the
audience to indulge me in relating it. The
gun was one that was said to have come
down through the wars It had been re-
vamped and remodeled, so much, however,
that it was difticult to trace the antiquity.
The gifted little son had inquired and tound
out that the old gun had a new stock, new
barrel, new lock and new ramrod ; and he
was puzzled. Finally, he looked up to hia
father and asked: Why, I don't see why
you call it grandfather's old gun? You
little fool, said the father, don't you see
that touch-hole? That is the same that wa»
in your grandfather's old gun. Now I have
been looking for this old ^un since Mr.
Braden brought out his faith, and I have
found that he called his people by a differ-
ent name from the Saints, had a different
kind of faith, difTerent baptism, changed
tne laying on oJ hands, had a new kind en-
tirely of church officers, a different Holj
Spirit Christ? worK in the church differ-
ent a different kind of apostles and proph-
ets (dead instead of live ones), a diflerent
way of calling tneir ministers, their church
on a different rock from the ancient cmirch,
and 1 begin to look around to see why he
calls it the old church "restored," and I am
pointed to, "baptism for the remission of
sins." (Applause) Thus with scarcely a
single important provision of the old con-
stitution to be found in their new fangled
"restored church," they have the unquali-
fied presumption to come before the world
with the claim that they are standing solid
on the old Christian constitution, or "Bible,
and Bible alone." Or in other word**, while
professing to carry in tact "grandfather's
old gun," they take the absurd position and
mr-ke the absurd statement that there waa
a more excellent church than the one the
constitution made special provision for,
and cite us to the following to support it:
"But covet earnestly the best gifts, and yet
show I unto you a more excellent way."
(Time called)

268

THE BTIADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S SIXTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Modkrators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Morinonism takes from or-
thodoxy, this key note of orthodoxy, this
direct and immediate infiuence of the* spirit,
in addition to and distinct from any that
he exerts through the truth. Having
claimed the cause, it claims the necessary
eftects, inspiration and revelation. By
means of new revelations, Mormonism can
mtroduce any new dogma, and if consis-
tent, orthodoxy cannot reject such dogma.
As revelation from the days of Adam to the
writing of the last book of the New Testa-
ment was constantly adding new ideas,
and new revelations — as the New Testa-
ment was added to the Old, Mormonism,
says the book of Mormon, and the revela-
tions of Josepii the Seer have been added
to the New Testament, and if orthodoxy is
logical to Its admission of a direct and im-
mediate influence of the spirit, distinct
from, and in addition to any through the
truth, an influence that is miraculous, it
cannot reject this claim of Mormonism.

Through this wide door, thrown fully open
by orthodoxy, Mormonism enters with its
new revelations. It can change the name
of "Christian" to "Latter Day Saints" and
claim revelation for so doing — new revela-
tions— a claim that no one can make for
changing Christian into any human name.
It can change the name of the church from
the simple Scriptural title "The Church of
Christ" into the Ashdodish lingo of Babel
"The Re-organized church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints" and make the same
claim — a thing that no one can do for
any name worn by the churches. It can
teach baptism for the dead, pre-existence
of souls, confirmation, blessing children,
and add to the simple officers of the church
a score of officers unknown to the Bible, and
change the church into a hierarchy in
which nearly every man is an officer, and
claim revelation for it. Such claim cannot
be made for the corruptions that orthodoxy
has introduced into Christianity. Nay, it
can through this dogma of orthodoxy, a di-
rect and immediate influence of the spirit,
since such influence must be miraculous,
and inspiration, claim to give the world a
new revelation in favor of spiritual wifery
and polygamy, calling it "celestial marri-
age " This dogma of a direct, immediate
and miraculous influence of the spirit, is
the sole and only parent of Mormonism, and
every new and peculiar feature in it. It is
an insult to common sense, and a deli berate
falsehood, for the orthodox religious world
to vociferate that "Campbellism is the par-
ent of Mormonism." The clear, scriptural
teaching of what they call "Campbellism,"
that all direct and immediate influence of
the spirit was miraculous and ceased with
miracles, and that the spirit now influences
men only through the truth he revealed is

utterly destructive of Mormonism, and
drove Rigdon out of the Restoration. As
well say that Christianity was the parent
of papacy. Orthodoxy "is the parent of
Mormonism : of all that is peculiar to it.
The orthodox notion, that is the key note
of ortliodoxy— the direct and immediate in-
rtuente oi the spirit, the miraculous influ-
ence of the spirit, is the sole and only parent
of Mormonism Mormon revelations, in-
cluding the revelations in favor of polyga-
my, revelations in favor oiall other Mormon
vagaries are simply that key note of ortho-
doxy gone to seed.

This central idea, this key-note of ortho-
doxy, is the Trojan horse by means of which
those lying Greeks, Mormon revelations
and vagaries were introduced into the
Scriptural ideas, that Mormonism in com-
mon with what is called "Campbellism"
accepted from the Bible; and which, like
Aeneas, the Disciples rejected as falsehoods
of the enemy. It is by means of this Trojan
horse, fabricated by orthodoxy, that the
pure teachings of the Bible, that what is
called "Campbellism" taught; and that
Mormonism accepted at first have been de-
stroyed. Had Rigdon, Smith and the lead-
ers of Mormonism accepted the clear Scrip-
tural teaching of the Disciples, that all di-
rect, immediate and miraculous influence
of the Spirit ceased when it had accom-
plished its work in completing the work of
God, Mormonism would never have cursed
the world. No immediate, miraculous in-
fluence ; no new revelations, no baptizing
the living for the dead, no pre-existence of
souls, no spiritual wifery, no polygamy, no
Mormonism. But they" rejected" the clear
Scriptural teachings of the Disciples and
took up the orthodox idea of a direct, im-
mediate and miraculous influence of the
Spirit, in addition to and distinct from any
he exerts through the truth he has revealed,
and logically claimed that when they had
the Cause they had the necessary eflTeot,
inspiration and new revelations ; and gave
us revelation after revelation, until this
immediate, miraculous influence of ortho-
doxy culminated in spiritual wifery, celes-
tial marriage, polygamy' ; in pollution that
would disgust a Grecian satyr. It is a fact
that has puzzled many persons, thatalmost
invariably claims of direct influence of the
Spirit, inspiration and miraculous power,
sanctiflcation and holiness end in infamous
lewdness. Let one examine a history of
the various parties and sects that have
arisen in human history that have claimed
this direct influence as a constant influence
of their followers, and have laid special
claims to revelations, inspiration, holiness,
sanctiflcation, second blessing, higher life,
and in every instance delusion, fanaticism,
crime, and especially lewdness has attended
them. The most infamous scenes inhumaa

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE:

i!U9

history have been the result of such vaga-
ries and movements. Tiiere is not a church
that believes in this direct and immediate
influence, that has not had trouble witli in-
famies and pollutions grcwiug out of it.
The fanatics that troubled the apostles and.
the fathtr>, the visionaries of all ages the
monsters ot Munster, the perfectionists of
the last hundred years, the sanctitication-
iats, and holiness fanatics of all ages,
religions and lands, have invariably ended
jn lewdness, as perfectionism ended in the
Oneida pollution, and Mormon claims of
inspiration ended in polygamy.

As a class the persons who make such
claims are the most spasmodic, fanatical,
inconsistent members in the church. The
preachers Avho preach it are of tlie same
character. The poorest specimens of daily
Christian life are the preachers, the persons,
the churches who make the loudest claims
to perfection, sanctification, holiness, second
blessing, higher life, direct influence of the
Spirit, inspiration, revelations, etc. They
mistake such fanaticism for Christianity,
and think that because thej'^ have this
frenzy they do not need to trouble them-
selves about pure living, and often think
that because they act constantly under the
influence of the Spirit, what they are in-
clined to do, no matter what, must be right.
It is not their excited, frenzied appetites
and lusts that move them, but a direct in-
fluence of the Spirit, therefore it rau.'it l)e
right. The Mormon claims, and logically,
tliat if lie is under the influence of the
Spirit, and feels like polygamy, it is the
Spirit that makes him feel so, and it must
be right.

Tiiere is a reason for this lewdness of these
frenzies. All abnormal excitemeutfs of the
nervous system, such as are caused by ether,
opium, hasheesh, alcohol, etc., generally
excite the base of the brain, and especially
amativeness and combativeness, hence
the drunkard is obscene, profane and quar-
relsome. A disordered condition of the
nervous system, and generally the organs
of sex. especially in females, is present in
nearly every instance of such frenzy, and
is generally its exciting cause. Mesmerism,
its trances, somnamhuliBm, catalepsy, and
abnormal conditions of the nervous system,
are generally based cti and caused by, or at
least attended by disordered condition of
certain organs. The result is that just as
the drunkard is lewd, these parties display
lewd inclinations, and mistake such frenzy
for the influence of the Holy Spirit. As
disordered condition of certain functions is
the cause of such frenzy, it is attended by
lewdness.

The entire teaching of the Bible is utterly
opposed to the idea of a constant enjoyment
of this miraculous influence, bj' every one.
As it was not a moral influence it could not
so be enjoyed. Then we repeat that the most
dangerous delusion that has ever cursed
the church has been this vagary of a direct
and immediate influence of the Spirit. It
has been the Pandora's box out of which
has come only delusion, fanaticism and pol-

lution. The polygamy of Mormonism is its
last and foulest product, but it is the legi-
timate fruit of the orthodox dogma of direct
and miraculous influence of the Spirit. The
Oneida abomination and the pollutions of
Utah are only that dogma gone to seed. It
is irrational, utterly unscriptural, the ofT-
spring of a diseased imagination or nervous
system, and its resulis are delusion, fana-
ticism, lewdness, infamy and crime. Sanc-
tification and perfection ended in the
Oneida abomination, and direct and imme-
diate influence of the Spirit and revjiatious
ended in polygamy among Mormons! Such
parties overlook tvvo facts. The direct and
immediate influence of the Spirit was not a
moral influence and exerted no moral power.
Its purpose was to reveal truth. It was not
an influence imparted to all followers of
God, but only to those whom he used as
mediums of revelation. It was not a con-
stant influence with them, but was exerted
only while they were revealing the truth.
It was not poured out prodigally, but was
sparingly used. It was used only when
necessary. It was not a tool of the one en-
joying it to be used constantly for every
trivial purpose like the pretended inspira-
tion of Joe Smith and other visionaries, but
was used sparingly and only when neces-
sary, and no longer than to accomplish its
immediate object. Not only is it true that
the clear, common-sense, scriptural teach-
ings of the Disciples are utter destruction of
this vagary and all of its foul progeny, but
the Disciples alone can meet IMormons in
discussion and overturn it. The Disciple
appeals to the word of God, and that alone.
He shows that it teaches that there have
been two influences exerted by the Holy
Spirit. One immediate, direct, miraculous,
that was to reveal truth and attest its^ divine
origin. That was not a moral influence,
was given for a certain purpose. That pur-
pose has been accomplished. It has ceased.
This cuts ofl^all the JNlormon claim to direct,
immediate, miraculous influence of the
Spirit, miraculous powers in revelation. It
is a death blow to all such claim. This is
why the Mormons of Wilber were so much
opposed to debating with a "Campbellite,"
that they went to the Hon. S. S. Alley and
wanted him to write to me and persuade
me not to accept the invitation of Mr. Lute,
to debate with their champion. They knew
that our clear, common-sense, scriptural
teaching took the very ground from under
their feet. No one who believes and admits
the orthodox claim of direct and immediate
influence of the Si)irit can meet a Mormon.
Let a man who believes it undertake to
debate with one. The Mormon demands,
"Do you believe in a direct influence of the
HolySpirit— a direct call by the Holy Spirit
to preach — that regeneration is a miracle,
and in the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"
"I do," fervently responds our orthodox
brother, "and blessed be God, thousands
can testify they have experienced all of
them." "Then," coolly retorts the Mor-
mon, "that is just what we claim, only we
are consistent, and you are not. We claim

270

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

this direct iutlueiice, as you do, and no more
than that, but we are (jonsistent. As it is
miraculous, we claim miracles. We claim a
call l-iy the Holy Spirit to preach, and we
claim to speak by inspiration as the Spirit
gives' us utterance. Claiming that we speak
as the Spirit g^ives us utterance, we are con-
sistent and claim that our utterances are
revelations, as all utterances of the Holy
Spirit are and must be. Claiming the bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost, we claim its miracu-
lous power and" miracles. If you admit this
miraculous influence, you should admit that
its utterances now are as much revelations,
as they were in the apostles' day. We
claim that God called men who were poly-
gamists and gave men more than one wife ;
and that he did no more in giving ttie poly-
gamy revelation to Smith than he did
anciently. In short, we unite with you in
claiming the cause direct, miraculous power,
and you cannot claim the existence of the
cause and deny its necessary effect, any
more than you can admit the law of gravi-
tation and deny the fall of an unsupported
body." To such a claim orthodoxy can
make no reply. No believer in the key
note of orthodoxy direct, miraculous influ-
encti of the Spirit, can meet a Mormon in
discussion.

We will now notice some of my oppo-
nent's talk. I have proved Joe Smith to be
a base impostor, and I cull him such. I
have proved Mormons who claim inspiration
to be impostors, and I call them such. All
that Christ has washed in his blood and has
made kinffs? and prie.sts have a right to
preach and baptize. John said Christ had
made them kirgs and priests, and such
have a right to preach and baptize. Jonn
said Christ had made them kings and
priests. He did not say ne wiLl. Peter said
that all Christians wert kings and priefcts
then, not thai they would oe It took mi-
raculous power to revea. truth and confirm
it to g:ve the constitution. Those made
kings and priests Dy the constitution need
no constit;;tion-maKing power. The church
is built on Cnrist on his Messiahship. on
apostles and prophets. There is no conflict
iL such expressions. We denounce Joe
Smith as an impostor because he pretended
to be a constitution maker, when God de-
clares that such work is done and has
ceased. When the world departed from the
constitution Mr. Campbell said to it, "The
constitution is perfect and divine, let us or-
ganize in accordance with it." His author-
ity was in the constitution that m.ide him
king and priest. Joe Smith and Mormons
got'^up a bogus constitutional convention,
made a lot of trash they call " the fullness
of the ffospel," and undertake to substitute
it for tlie constitution given by God's con-
vention,jthe apostles.

QUERIES FOR MR. KELLEY.

T. Does not the inspired Paul say that
there is but one baptism in the church?
Eph. iv, .5.

II. Did not Jesus command his apostles
to baptize converts? Matt, xxviii, 26.

ill. Were not they to baptize in the name
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

IV. Was not this baptism unto the re-
mission ol sins? Acts ii, 38.

V. Was it not in water?

VI. Is it not this baptism that Jesus com-
manded the apostles to perform, that is, in
the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, that is unto remission, that is in
water, the one baptism that is in the
church ?

VII. Is not baptism in the Spirit a prom-
ise? Is not Christ alone the administra-
tor ?

VIII. is it a command?

IX. Is it in the name of Father, Son and
Holy Spirit?

X. Is it unto remission of sins?

XI. Can Holy Spirit baptism, that is u
promise, not a command, that is not in the
name of the Father, Son and Holy Spiri*;,
of which Christ alone is the administrator,
that is not unto remission of sins, be the
one baptism that is in ttie churcti?

XII. If there is but one baptism, which
is that baptism, water baptism or Holy
Spirit baptism ?

XIII. Do .vou give the lie direct to the
Holy Spirit in saying there are two bap-
tisms ?

XIV. Or do you insult common sense by
denying that each of these \^ a K,;iism,
separate and distmr't from tlie otiiei V

XV. Did not Jesus say thai he would
leave the apostles, and that the Comforts
would take his place with the apostle; ?

XVI. Does the Holy Spirit take the place
of Jesus with any (me now, after Jesus has
left any person now?

X VII. Did not Jesus declares that the Holy
Spirit would recall to the minds of the
Apostles what he, Jesus, had said to the
apostles?

XVIII. Does the Holy Spirit recall to the
mind of any person now what Jesus said to
such persons?

XIX. Then is not this promise as personal
to the apostles as the promise that Jesus
made to the apostles that he would meef;
them, the apostles, in Gallilee?

XX. Did the apostles have to !u" hands
on the Samaritans before they ?ouai re-
ceive the Holy Spirit, in miracuiou* o^ w er ?

XXI. Were not these Samaritans ^vao
believed and had been baptized childr«-n c*
God ? ^ ,-

XXII. Had not they been bort oi the
water and the Spirit? ^ r^ .

XXI II. If they were children of W*^,
had not God sent" the indwelling Spirit into
their hearts? , ^., , .

XXIV. Did not John preach that the king-
dom was at hand, approaching?

XXV. Could he then be in it?

XXVI. Did not Jesus preach that the
kiiiodom was at hand, approaching?

XXVII. Could he then be in it?

XXVIII. Di'i njt Jesus declare that per-
sons to whom he was talking would see
the kingdom come with power?

XXIX Was it then in existence? Was
he in it? Were his apostles? Wa^ any one?

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

271

XXX. Did not Jesus say only about, six
■weeks before his (ieatli that he would build
his church on the truth, his Messiahship?

XXXI, Was it not still future? Was he
or any one iu it?

XXX [I. Could his Messiahship be laid
as the foundation, as a demonstrated truth,
until he had, by his resurrection, demou-
Btrated his Messiahship?

XXXIII. Could the church be in exist-
ence beforeitsonly foundation had been laid?

XXXIV. Was not Joseph of Arimathea
still waiting for the kingdom after Jesus
was dead ?

XXXV. Could it be in existence? Was
it not future? Could any one be in it?

XXXVII. Were not the apostles to be
endued from on high? Was not this the
case after the resurrection of Jesus?

XXXVIII. Were not the apostles still
to receive power when the Holy spirit fell
on themjusta few moments before the ascen-
sion of Jesus?

XXXIX. Did not they receive this prom-
ise on the day of Pentecost?

XL. Did not the Holy Spirit fall on them
at the beginning of the kingdom as an ac-
tual fact on the day of Pentecost?

XLI. Was not that when the kingdom
came with power?

XIjII. Does not Paul say in Eph. iv. that
miraculous powers are to remain until the
children of God attain to the unity of tlie
faith, until they attain to a perfect man, a
perfect body of which (Jhrist is the head?

XLIII. Where is your Rerlpture for con-
tinuing theta beyond that period.

XLTV. Dops not Paul saj' to tho Corinthi-
ans, who had nine spiritual powers in iheir
church, "Desire earnestly the best spiritual
gifts, nevertheless I show unto you a more
excellent way?"

XLV. Does he not mean away more ex-
cellent than the exercise of the bestspiritual
gift«.

XLVI. Does not Paul say that prophecy,
all utterance by inspiration, knowledge, or
inspiration, or knowledge imparted b3- iu-
spiration, tongues, all signs of iusiiiration,
and revelation shall cease.

XLVII. Does he not say that such pro-
phecying, such knowledge was partial,
when given by the exercise of these spir-
itual gifts.

XLVIII. Does not he mean that such ut-
terance, in each instance, can only be part
the word of God, a part of revelation.

XLIX. Does not he say when that which
is perfect is come, then partial revelatio*
under spiritual gifts shall pass away?

Is not that which is perfect complete
revelation? If the partial is a part of God's
word is not the perfect the whole of God's
word?

Then does not Paul declare that when
God"s word is perfected, these partial pro-
phecies, revelations and miracles to attest
tiiem shall cease?

Did not the apostles complete God 's word ?

Did not revelations, iuspiration, aad
miracles cease then ?

Has Mormonism given one new idea? A
better expression, a single idea.

MR. KELLEY'S SIXTH SPEECH.

Gentt.emen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen :— It seems that my opponent
got so worked up on last evening that he
has not yet descended from that high horse
of Ahasueras. The trouble with him is,
that under the soured state of his feelings
he concludes there is more argument in the
use of mean terms and unbecoming expres-
sions than in a true and manly way of de-
bate.

How ridiculous for a man to come before
an audience with the name and reputation
of a clergyman, debater and logician, and
to then have him employ the means of slan-
der, vituperation, and expressions without
meaning to meet his opponent. Here on
his own question he has left entirely the
issue and gone back to his pet theory of
howling -'Joe Smith," "Impostor" "Mor-
mon Deity," 'great fraud," "blacklegs,"
"rascals," "villains," "scoundrels," etc,

Now, ladies and gentlemen, he is quite
welcome to all the argument there is itt
those terms, so far as I am concerned. I
could, had I the disposition, answer him
very effectually by returning the fire with
like polite and refined language; but I will
say here that I shall not so lower my stand-
ing as a minister, nor the great cause of
Christ's truth which I represent, by de-
scending to any such plane. (Applause.)

The first points discussed by my opponent
I shall take up and answer in their place.
But all of that relating to Sidney KigdoH
and what Braden calls Mormonism I shall
pay no attention to, it being in no sense
connected with the question under discus-
sion. .

It is the faith, doctrines, practices and
organization of Braden's. or the Campbeil-
ite church that is under consideration now,
and I shall not be drawn away from the

272

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

question before yon, whatever the disposi-
tion of the other side, but proceed to show
that his little building is upon a sandy
foundation. After tirst concluding- the line
of argument which I was upon last even-
ing, I shall take up and examine particu-
larly his positions.

I had just introduced the text, ''And yet
show I unto you a more excellent way." —
1 Cor. 12 : 31. Paul at rhe time of using this
had just devoted a whole chapter to de-
scribing the church, its officers, how they
were pTaced in the church, the gifts of the
Spirit and the manner in which the Spirit
was manifest, together with the object of
such manifestations. When through with
all of this labor, was he ready, as Braden
would have you believe, to tell them in the
very last verse of the chapter that there
was another and better system than that
which he had just been pointing out to
them, "a more excellent way ?" Why did
he point out the one not so good instead of
this 'more excellent?" and, what is stranger
still, he never in a single epistle after-
ward set forth a different order than the
one mentioned in 1 Cor. 12. Then where is
the trouble? The whole difficulty is with
the interpretation of Mr. Bradeu himself.
Id his great anxiety to do away with the
order of the church established by Christ,
and at the same time endeavor to make the
people believe that it was restored by Mr.
A. Campbell and aids of which he is a rep-
resentative, he explains that the apostle
would give them another order. If the or-
der specified in the New Testament was
limited, and some other system was to take
its place, when did the old lose its force?
Was it in the year 70, 90, 100, 1-50, or when?
When did the'new order begin? Where is
its constitution and order, and what right
has Mr. Campbell to be harping that they
are standing on the old constitution, when
they refuse to build by its provisions? But
what did Paul mean by "yet show I unto
you a more excellent way?"

1 shall here particularly examine this, the
31st verse of the 12th chapter of the Corin-
thian letter that has given my opponent an
imaginary covering at every step of this in-
vestigation, when he has been brought into
the light of God's word as reflected from
every part of the New Testament. Is it a
fact, my friends, that, notwithstanding the
promises made by Jesus and John that "ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not
many days hence," and that due prepara-
tion for the reception of this out-pouring of
the Spirit had to be made before it could be
received, of "prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight," and that
afterwards it waj? the embodiment of the
promise which Jesus made to his followers
of the Comforter that should be in his stead
personally, to them who loved him, that
those who received it were made no better
thereby? Brought no closer to him who is
the head of the church and raised no higher
in the advancing plane of the divine life?

Do 3'ou accept Braden's proposition as
sound wherein he represents that the pres-

ence of the Spirit of God in power has not
a tendency to make men better? That it is
not a moral agent or such an agency that
acts upon men so as to build up and main-
tain a true character and expurge the evil?
This cherished position of his I shall try
and notice minutely and strip it of its de-
formity; for throughout the discussion of
these questions he has taken the position
that where there was an absence of all the
manifestations of the Spirit of God, and con-
sequently the immediate presence of divine
instruction, that there, was the higher
Christianity and the greater Gospel light.

According to this the disciples before
Pentecost were better Christians than after;
because they had not the comforter, and
consequently these gifts of the Holy Spirit,
as they had afterwards. Down at Samaria
where Philip had preached the word and
they who believed him had been baptized
by water, and had great rejoicing because
of having found the truth, they were pretty
fair Christians, until Peter and John went
down and laid their hands upon them that
they might receive the Holy Ghost ; but
upon this the Spirit ot God was poured out
upon them, and they were at once lowered
in the Christian scale and fit only to be
classed with such persons as the Corinthian
church, the Latter Day Saints and the
negroes, according to Braden. Afterwards
tJie Lord tells Cornelius to send to Joppa
for Peter, and that he would receive good
therefrom. Cornelius obeys, sends for Peter
and when the apostle comes down and be-
gins speaking to the people, the Holy Ghost
falls upon them and they begin to speak
with tongues and magnify God. Here the
Spirit of God, according to my opponent's
talk (I will not call it argument) lowers the
household of Cornelius in the Christian
scale and they must be classed along with
persons of such a low form of religion as the
Corinthian Saints, or the Latter Day Saints,
according to Braden. But I proceed. Paul
passing through the upper coasts comes to
Ephesus ; he finds certain disciples ; he en-
quires if they had received the Holy Ghost;
no, they said, they had never heard of such a
thing, they had only heard the word, and but
part of that. These persons were in a pretty
high state of church civilization, according-
to Braden and Mr. Campbell. But this im-
petuous Paul takes them and baptizes them.
They had only gone through the form of
baptism before, some person officiated who
had no authority, and Paul knew it, because
he did not teach tha people about Christ
and the Holy Spirit. Then Paul lays his
hands upon them and the Holy Ghost comes
down on them, "and they spake with
tongues and prophesied." Wentright back
to the low level Mr. Braden placed the v'or-
inthian and Mormon churches. Again
Jesus is resurrected; ascends into the heavens
far above all. What does he do? "And
(he) gave gifts unto men," "And he gave
some apostles, and some prophets and some
evangelist* and some pastors and teachers,
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work
of the ministry, for the edifying of the body

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

273

[church] of Christ. Till we all come into
the unity of the faith and the knovvledofe of
the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the
measure of the stature of the fullness of
Christ."

All of these oifts were imparted to the
early church. They are amono^ the ja:ifts
exercised by the Corinthian church ; Jesus
bestowed them as his especial favor upon
his children after he had gone into the
heavens. These were the highest things
he could bestow upon his people that were
calculated to make them better, and not-
withstanding this, according to Braden and
Mr. Campbell, those receiving this Spirit
and gift were placed by them in such a low
state of Christian attainments, that they
could never with these, equal the exact
standing in Christian perfection of "us pop-
ular sects " of the 19th century, who cannot
even follow the injunction, "Whatsoever
ye would that men should do to you, do
you even so to them." That rule was given
as one of the first things for the early dis-
ciples to pattern after. These things to
some extent were the inevitable result of
the birth of the Spirit, the renewing of the
Holy Ghost, the seal of adoption, the bap-
tism of the Spirit, which Jesus referred
Nicodemus to, the same being a fact, a
birth of the Spirit, a transition into a new
and higiier life, a partaking of the nature of
the kingdom that was not "meat and drink,"
as some had in Paul's time foolishly sup-
posed, as he says ; " but righteousness, and
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Thus
in the 3d of John, Jesus says, "Except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit,"
referring to the complete birth by the two
elements, as in the citation, "There are
three that bear witness in earth : the Spirit,
the water and the blood, and these three
agree in one." Braden I know undertook
to explain this birth of the water and
Spirit in John, but did one of you get his
idea? The trouble with him was, that he
did not understand it himself, and of course
could not explain it for others. He wanted
to get the birth independently of the Holy
Spirit. But this cannot be done. There is
in Christ's church a baptism of the Spirit
as well as of water. " Ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence;"
receive the outpouring of the Spirit of God
that shall fill them and bring them in rap-
port with higher things ; clothe them witli
the new life which Jesus should shed forth;
hence become new creatures with the com-
pleteness of the new birth. Mr. Braden
confounds these with "begotten by tlie
word," as he says. Does he mean to imply
a birth by this? That here is where they
are born of the Spirit? Are they born of
the Spirit before they are of the water, Mr.
Braden ? If not, why are you talking about
begotten of the word? It reads "born of
water and of the Spirit."

Turning to the "more excellent way,"
which Paul refers to, my opponent says, " a
more excellent way than the spiritual gifts."
Here is where he makes a mistake at the
outs tart. Isot a more excellent way than

the spiritual gifts. He confounds at once
the true antecedent. It is a more excellent
way than one person havinir, and exercis-
ing, all of the spiritual gifts. Uea<l back
just two verses : "Are all apostles? are all
prophets ? are all workers of miracles? have
all the gifts of healing? do all speak with
tongues? do all interp-et?" No; Paul has
shown a more excellent wav than this.
Notice the 8th, 9th and 10th verses of the
same chapter. " For to one is given by the
same spirit, the word of wisdom, to another
the word of knowledge, by tlie same spirit ;
to another faith by the same spirit; to
another the gifts or healing by the same
spirit," etc. Here it is fully set out, and
hence, when he repeats b^' interrogatory
in the 29th, and 30th verses, as he does,
"are all apostles?" etc.; and then refers
to the "more excellent way," he refers to
this one as being of a more excellent way
than that of one person having all of these
gifts which he had already referred to in
the 8th, 9th and 10th verses, and not a
more excellent way than the instruction by
the gifts themselves. By such an interpre-
tation as Braden gives, Paul is made to
appear as teaching one thing at one time,
and an adverse thing at another time and
still a different one at another. For before
this Braden will not deny that he taught,
the use of the gifts ; then he has him teach
that they shall not use them in 'the 13th
chapter ; and afterwards in the 1-lth chap-
ter, he teaches, "Follow after charity and
desire spiritual gifts but rather that ye may
prophecy." This kind of an interpretation
shakes up Paul considerably and places
Paul versus Paul. But it is iiot the worst
part of it: it jjlaces Paul versus Jesus, the
master and head of the church. Jesus, when
he had ascended upon Idgh, gave gifts unto
men ; but Paul, according to this wise inter-
pretation of Braden, was to show them a
more excellent way tiian this. Jesus, beiore
he ascended, said: "And these signs shall
follow them that believe;" but Paul is to
show a more excellent way than this. Peter
says, "This, the spirit which ye now see
and hear, he hath shed forth ; " but Paul,
according to the profound? interpretation
of Braden, will show a more excellent way.
Is it not plain that Braden can't give the
true solution of this? Now let us examine
the 3lst verse. "And yet show I unto you
a more excellent way. "Yet," is from the
Greek word eti, and means still, hitherto,
yet, and does not of itself denote something
to follow in the future, as notice examples :
" While he yet spake," (still spake), Mark
14:43; " Wliile the other is yet a great
way off" (now siill, etc.). Luke. 1.3:20,
"When I was yet with you" (hitherto,
before); 2 Thess., 2:5. Whatever was
the cause or may be the reason, it is plain
there has been a transposition of the clause
here, eitlier by the transcribers of the origi-
nal, or the English translators. Let me
read: "Have all the gifts of healing? do
all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"
"Yet, (still) I show (])oiiit out) to you a
more excellent way," than this. He had

274

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY IjEBATE.

already in the letter, which he was writing^,
pointed out a better way than all speaking
Avith the same gift, the more excellent way.
Hence, the instruction comes, therefore
"covet, earnestly the best gifts." Why?
Because Paul ivouid show them a better
way than spiritual gifts ? Not at all ; but
because Paul had told thevi in this letter,
now, all could not have the same gift, but
that God divided these to them as he would,
as they were worthy, and as the Lord saw
it would be for their good, and the good of
his work. The verb in the original is not
iu the future tense. Paul don't say, 1
will show you a more excellent way. That
is made so to read by the translator into
the English. Now, let me read to you
the letter of Paul as he wrote it ; beginning
with 12th chapter, 7th verse I read :

"Bat the manifestation of the spirit is given to every
mau to profit with all. For to one is given by the
spirit the word of wisdom; to anotlier the word of
knowledge by the same spirit: tn another tiith by the
same spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the
mine spirit; to another the working nf miracles; to
another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits:
to aiiothe"- diverse ki:i(i? of tongues ; to anothir hein-
toi pretntioii of tongue?. But all these worketh that
selfsame spirit, dividing to every man severally as he
will."

Pass on now to verse 29 :

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all
teachers? Areauworkeriofmirac.es? Have all the
pifts of healing? Do all speak witti tongues? Do all
interpret? '

No:

"For Oiterally) a more excellent way I point out,
ehow."

Not in the future, but now ; already done.
Hence, properly translated :

'■For I have shown unto you a more excellent way ;
therefore, covet earnestly the best gifts."

This interpretation a2:r«es with all that
Paul is at this time writing', and that he
wrote at any other time; and is the only cor-
rcctone. Where had he shown themoreexcel-
leii i way? Answer, asset out in the 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 28, 29, and 30, verses of this samechapter.
Now read what follows upon thesame point
iu the 14th chapter, first verse:

"Follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but
rather that ye may propnesy."

Verses 39 and 40:

"Therefore, brethren, covet to prophesy and forbid
not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done
decently and in order."

Such an interpretation as this harmonizes
with all other instruction upon these things.
It is not a proper interpretation of the Bible
or any other thing, where you make a con-
flict by the interpretation, or render a part
of the instrument unnecessary or void.
The rule is that the entire word, teaching,
shall have its full force and effect when it
can be done; and if it could not be done in
Bible interpretations, who would take the
responsibility of believing a part was in
force and not the other part also? The
sense and meaning of the apostle here is as
clear as the noon-day sun. He is not teach-
ing them two or three laws : — good, belter,
best; or bad, ill, worse; but one law, that
of Jesus Christ. It was the Gospel law, and
he says himself, "Though we, or an angel

from heaven, teach any other law than that
you have received, let him be accursed." Is
it so uncertain that Paul himself was double-
tong'ued iu teaching it? No, ladies and
gentlemen, the trouble has been in the man
interpretatioi, and as in that verse, an at-
tempt at interpolation ; but of this last I
shall speak particularly hereafter.

Now, I proceed to examine the 8th verse of
the 13th chapter. "Whether there be pro-
phecies they shall fail, whether there be
tongues they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge it shall vanish away.'' This is
a prophecy of Paul's ; not instruction to the
sainis at Corinth, telling them how they
shall do as to prophecy. To what extent is
it and how far does it relate? Does hemeau
that the time is coming when we shall have
no ndore prophecies, no more knowledge,
no more languages (tongues), through
which we are r,o be able to commu-
nicate thought? Certainly not. What
does he mean then? Let Paul answer;
he is the one that uses the language
and the proper one to explain it. He says,
(verse 9), 'For we know in part and we
prophesy in pari, but when that which is
perfect is come, then that which is in part
shallbe done away." What shall be done
away? Paul answers, "Thai which is in
part." How? By us having less proph-
ecies, less knowledge, less power to speak
with different tongues than now ? No, no.
By ushering in the perfect time "when we
shall see as we are seen, and know as we
are known ; " and hence, the seeing in part
and knowing in part is done away. Being
brought to the state of positive knowledge
and, like Jesus, understanding all things,
that which was miraculous an«t revealed
only in part shall fail, cease, vanish away;
whether in prophecy, knowledge oi speak-
ing in tongues ; hence he says: "For now
we see through a glass darkly ; 'nit then
face to face. Now I know m pan '

Yes, Paul knew only in part, although he
had been taught by the revelations direct of
Jesus Christ, and had been in the third heav-
en, in the Paradise of God. He knew about
things that had been hidden from the found-
ation of the world, and of the future .*.iid
final state of the church, even things un-
lawful to utter; yet he still knew bni in
part, but he says : " Then, when that which
is perfect (perfect now, but to come) is conn ,
then shall I know even as also I am known."
What time is it, that is the perfect time?
Turn to 1 John 3:2: " Beloved, now are we
the sons of God (Paul was this, too, when
he was talking), and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that when
he shall appear, we shall be like him ; for
we shall see him as he is." Here is the
same time Paul referred to when he should
see him (Jesus) as he is, in the perfect time.
This time John places at his second coming.
It is then that the knowledge of the Lord
shall cover the earth as the water does the
great deep. "And all shall know him from
the least unto the greatest.'' Not that all
knowledge shall be done away, but a full-
ness of knowledge arrived at, and part

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

275

knowledge shall have ceased ; hecause we
ehall see and know fully as we are seen and
known. This agrees exactly with the time
and event as fixed by Paul in Eph. 4 : 13 for
the continuation of these spiritual gifts:
"Till we all come into the unity of the faith
and of the knowledge of the Son of God
unto a perfect man [no man is perfect now,
neither the church] unto the measure of the
etature of the fullness of Christ." The
apostle is in harmony throughout with him-
self— not a single contradiction nor disa-
greement ; but it is clearly contrary to what
my opponent teaches, all of it. Can it be
said, then, his church is after the apostolic
pattern? It is far short of it, Mr. Braden.

Paul is consistent in his teaching, then.
In the lillii chapter of this letter he teaches
them the use and benefit of these spiritual
gifts. In the 13th he teaches them that the
miraculous effects of this Spirit to them
will not cease till the "perfect" time shall
arrive, when Jesus shall come the second
time. In the 14th chapter he teaches them
to follow after them ; desire, ''covet" them,
and to forbid not their exercise. It is all
the time the straight and narrow way.

But again, Braden says: "There were
some features in the apostolic church not
in theirs." That is true, there was; and a
great many of them at that. He says also
that the Holy Ghost is revealed Ihrouffh
the word, but the word is the result of the
moving of the Holy Ghost upon a person,
and not a medium through which it is com-
municated. The word simply expresses its
will, and to a bad man just the same as a
good one. How terribly mixed indeed are
his positions. Again he says, " desire spir-
itual gifts as long as they were to remain
in the church." Tlie constitution of the
church provides that they shall remain
always, so far as the present condition of
man is concerned, till "that which is perfect
is come." To destroy it is to take away
the citizen's right and destroy the for<!e of
the constitution. Where is tiiere a consti-
tution authorizing a better way? He says
there is an "indwelling Holy Ghost," in
contradiction to the miraculous Holy Ghost,
yet the scripture knows but one. The in-
dwelling waf> the miraculous ; and Jesus
says, "It shall be in you as a well of water
springing up into everlasting life."

David says, "My heart was hot within
me, while I was musing the fire burned;
then spake I with my tongue." Ps. 39:3.
"The Holy Ghost and fire" was promised.
The Holy Spirit was in them as a flame,
and it expressed itself in tongues, prophecy
a id w s i<jm as God willed and cheered
the blessed soul in wliich it glowed. This
is the Spirit as promised and sent down
from heaven. Again he says, "Ananias
was a special apostle." But who says he
was any more special than any of the others
Dot apostles? Oh, Mr. Braden, that is all.
He is great to divide and subdivide. He
has general apostles and special apostles;
miraculous Holy Spirit, indwelling Holy
Spirit, the Holy Spirit in the word, and as
in the previous discussion the one that

moved on Balaam's ass. Yet the Scripture
only speaks of one. But why does he say,
without the least authority, that Ananias
was a "special apostle?" Just because he
has asserted tiiat no one ever received the
gift of the Holy Ghost only those on whom
apostles laid their hands, audit was shown
that Ananias laid hands on Paul for the
rfceiving of the Spirit, and Mr. Braden at
o,i; ;• announces: "He was a special apostle;"
without the least authority for it ; a sheer
dodge. But the body of elders laid hands
on Timothy and it was an act of presump-
tion if they did not have autliority to do it,
and under their hands he received a gift.
It does not say that Paul laid on hands with
them, neither does it say tliat the gift that
Timothy received under the hands of the
elders was the same one that he received
under Paul's hands. So we have a number
of elders here, "special apostles, I sup-
pose," to also accommodate Mr. Braden.
He is not quite as wiley as some others of
the Campbellite "restored elders" that I
have seen take positions ; they have uni-
formly said, "no one received the Holy
Ghost by laying on hands, except those on
whom the apostles laid their iiands and the
ones on whom this second party laid their
hands." By this method they pushed the
enquiry clear out of New Testament times,
and could stand on their assumption and
say that the New Testament does not say
in so many words that any others ever re-
ceived it; and about that time they get
oblivious to all church history, as does my
opponent on tlie question of the laying on
of hands. He says, "that those that went
out from .Jerusalem preaclied by theauthor-
ity of the New Testament." But the New
Testament did not exist for two hundred
years only in scattered fragments. Paul
and Barnabas went out from Jerusalem and
was completely authorized on the way at
Antioch, not by the New Testament, but
by a divine call and ordination, the only
way that any one was ever authorized to
preach. "How can they preach except they
be sent?" Not by an assumptive congre-
gation, but by the Almighty.

He says, I confound " Indwelling of the
Spirit with the miraculous." There is but
o le ; the Holy Ghost in any f rni is miracu-
lous, whether manifest in tongues, o' pro-
phecy, or acting like aglow of tire in the heart
and soul of the saints, to confirm and encour-
age them to strive on. But lie says ai^^ain,
"After God had authenticated his word, mi-
racles ceased. The authentication 'belonged
to all believers. "Grieve not the Holy
Spirit by which you (the believers) are
sealed to the day of redemption." Mr.
Braden would have it, if the Christian
wislies confirmation now and sealing, he
must read an account of something that
to place near two thousand j'ears ago ; the
Christian enjoyed the spirit and was sealed
and that this" must be all satisfacfory to
him. Might as well conclude that when
Christians are hungry in this age if they
will but sit down and read that Paul and
Peter and others of the saints of their day,

276

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

ate a good square meal on some occasion, it
will be all satisfactory ; that the Christian
now does not need any real food, but to read
an old account of some one else's eating will
ease the gnawing of hunger. Again he
says, "I would have Christ standing by
me ready to whack on the seal." It is
poorly expressed ; but the meaning is clear.
I do believe that Jesus should be with his
ministry and people. He says to his sent, his
ministers : "Lo, lam with you always, even
to the end of the world." Evidently ready
and quite willing, to "whack on the seal."
To the believer he says, "Where two or three
are gathered together in my name there am
I in the midst of them." Just as every
foreigner, when he is made a citizen in our
government, must have his own certificate,
and evidence of adoption, and this made un-
der the liand and seal of the proper officer,
so must every new addition to the church
of Christ, receive the seal of the spirit, to
confirm them. Their bodies are to be tem-
ples for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
And hence, the church bi comes a habita-
tion of God through the spirit. "And they
are no longer foseigners nor aliens but fellow
citizens with the saints." When I ask for
his authority, or that of Mr. Campbell, to
institute and organize a church, he answers
me with, "We are all kings and priests
made so by Jesus Christ, and don't need
any more authority than that." Then I
ask, "If all are thus kings and priests and
have this inherent authority to act, why is
he calling Joseph Smith a fraud, and say-
ing he "presumed to preach?" If all have
this authoritj' one has as good a right as
another, and Joseph Smith as much right
to organize a churcli and preach as Mr.
Campbell by his own admission. Mr. Bra-
den is lost here, and he knows it. He dare
not undertake to point out to you any author-
ity for Mr. Campiiell to start out preaching
upon, and organizing churches, than he
must admit that both he and I have. Yet, he
talks about impostors. He is as wild and ex-
cited over this, as lie was last evening when
he broke out to me, "Paul I know, and
Jesus I know, but wlio are you? Who is
Keliey ?" Now, my friends, I like to see a
man quote scripture, but wlien he has to
take up and quote what the devils said for
scripture, I take it he is pretty hard pressed.
(Applause).

It reminds me of the old lady who was a
,'reat lover of the Bible. A new son came
to the family and slie was bound to christen
it with a Bible name. Finally she could
select upon no other, (there was already a
large family Avho had been named out of the
Bible,) when she thought of "Beelzebub."
She was at once delighted, and they called
him Beelzebub. Again he takes up the
Constitutional Convention argument, and
tries to make out that the case of these
apostles, who were set in the church, is a
parallel one to the delegates in the t onven-
tion. He is determined to make tliem out
the lawmakers if lie can, instead of leaving
that work to Jehovah. Anything to defeat
the purpose for which they were, in fact,

placed in the church as they give it them-
selves. "For the work of the ministry, the
perfecting of the saint- ; ;V);- the edifying of
the body of Christ." But a moment's re-
flection will show the absurdity of his
reasoning. The framers of the constitution
were not officers in the government under
the constitution without being placed there
afterwards. The apostles were officers in
the church. "God set in the church first
apostles,. seeo/if?/.!/ prophets ; " and then fol-
lows the other officers. Not so in the con-
vention that framed the constitution. They
were delegates who met to formulate a new
and better system of government, andw^hen
their work was done tl)ey were dont^, so far
as officers in the incoming government was
concerned , un less again made such . Wash-
ington was a delegate and afterwards set,
elected as an officer in the government and
made President; as apostles were set in the
church away back by Jesus. If you take
the ground that the apostles were the
framers of the Constitution, and that took
effect and the new government, after they
had done their work, — died, — then thi were
never in the church, and what becomes of
Braden's dead apostles which h<- claimed
were in his church? If 3'ou take the ground
that they were in the church as officers as
they were, then they were not in a delegate
capacity, but in a similar position to ' iiat
Washington occupied during his Presidency
in the government. Hence, the true like-
ness of the officers in the church is not found
in the framers of the Constitution of the
United States, but in the officer- in the
government of the United States; and the
true Constitutional maker of tiie church of
.lesus Christ is the God and Father of all.
I shall not permit my opponent to reason
Him out of existence. When Jesus sent his
disciples out to teach, lie told them to teach
whatsoever he had commanded them. He
did not send them out making constitution.
He would not do that himself; but said:
"I have not spoken of myself ; but the Father
which sent me, he gave me a command-
ment, what I should say and what I should
speak." Hence he commanded his disciples
—the officers under him : "Go ye therefore
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have coinrnand' d yow.^^
Matt. 28 : 19-20. He did not send them out
then, "making constitution every day,"
did he? This brings to my mind another
point. "Baptizing; them in the name of the
Father," etc. Now Braden's church bap-
tizes into the name, instead of"//? thename
of," for the reason, I understand, Ihat they
have no right to use the name, having no
especial authv-rity to baptize. Am I not
right in this?

My opponent tries to cover himself first,
andastociates in his church secondly, with
glory, and says, "thty are the only minis-
ters" who have been able to meet our
people." At the same lime he is the first
of his church I have ever met who tried to
stand fire, while I have debated with a

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

277

ijumber of ministers of other persuasion^!.
It won't do for him to assume quite so much
nor to thinlv he is getting' along, bfciuise he
denies all work and jiower of rlie Holv
Spirit in the church. Why? 'This belief
in the Work of ti;ie IIol^' Spirit will lead a
man into polygamy," he says. How will it?
If a man follows the guidance of tlie H0I3'
Spiritdo you say, he will land in polygamy?
If so, that would make polygamy right.
It will "guide into all truth," Jesus said.

Braden seems to be upon tlie Brighamite
fence here, and claims it will lead a man
into polygamy. I say it will lead him into
nothing of the kind. By this same Spirit
came the teaching of mouogomy. Would it
turn around and teach polygamy next?
But, says Braden, the people professing to
be guided by it would be deceived and led
into polygamy. Why would they be de-
ceived? The moment the governing spirit
of the individiiai taught anything contrary
to that already taught, the person must
know that it is not the right spirit. We
are commanded to not only "worship in
Spirit, but in truth." This reference to
truth shows that tholSpiritual direction, to
be of God, must agree with that which
is already written. Is theie in fact, then,
this danger Braden speaks of? Not at all.
If a man's spiritual direction is contrary to
that already given, it is of the evil one and
not the good spirit. Hence Paul says, ' If
any man think himself to be a prophet, or
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things that I write are the commandments
of the Lord." What shall we do, then ;
get along without the Spirit? No; for with-
out this Spirit we cannot be guided into th<?
truth This is to guide into all truth. There-
fore Paul says : " For as many as are led by
the Spiritof God they are the Sons of God."

Ah! here is the secret, then; we must
have both the Spirit and the truth. But
Braden will not have the Spirit, hence he
'.annot have the truth, ;tnd this is the seciel
'•ause why he is found so uuivfersally at
variance with the Bible.

Again, upon this profound logic of his,
that the basis of polygamy i.s a belief in the
work of the Holy Spfnt lie builds his false
castles and says ; "riusis the reason Joseph
Smith was in polygamy here in Kirtlati''
etc. But bolh basis and conclusion is la..
Joseph Smith was never in polygamy wliiic-
here in Kirtland . no well informed man 01
any party who regards the truth at all. will
claim that. Tlioseof tiie polygamic church,
in Utah, denounce tlie claim as entirely
false. No well informed man among (hem
claims that polygamy was ever intimated
or believed in by any man in the church for
five years after the Saints left Kirtiand.
This is wholly without any truthful basis.
Joseph Smith was never in polygamy and
never had but one wife I am, as I before
stated upon this stand, vvilling to negative
the ques-tion, that he was not, upon any
platform and against any man, either out of,
or in Utah.

But Braden can talk to try to prejudice
his case through with this audience. Why
is ho not willing to anirm the proposition
with me that .Mr. Smith was a polygamist,
if be knows so much? I am ready to meet
him upon it. But the belief in the insp.rs^
tioii of the Holy Spirit will lead men into
polygamy and other crime, he says. Jesus
I and Peter and John and all of the apobtles
beiieved in it and were led by it. Did it
lead tl;iem into polygamy or other crime?
Did Pauri belief in the present direction
of the Holy Spirit lead him into wrong
doing? Remember Braden .-; clahn is thai
a belief in the immediate direction of the
Holy Spirit will lead men into these thing.^.
If so, why did it not lead the early Saints
into thest) things? They believed in the
present and immediate direction of the Holy
Spirit My opponent's charge is not true.
Neither as to the Latter Day Saints nor as
to others who believed in the immediate
power and direction ot the Holy Spirit as
an essential thing in the church.

(Time called)

278

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTH SPEECH,

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Genti.emen: — My opponent spent much
time last night jabbering- about Mr. Camp-
bell's authority to organize churches after
the apostolic pattern, baptize and breach.
We showed him that every child of God is
a king, a priest, made a royal priest by God
himself. Such persons have a divine com-
mission to preach, baptize^ and do any and
all acts required in the Kingdom of God.
The members, all of them who were driven
out of Jerusalem, went everywhere preach-
ing the word. Aquilla and Priscilla in-
structed Apollos, taught, preached, and
had a church iu their house, without any
pretended commission from any Joe Smith
of their day. As kings and priests by the
act of the Almighty, they had their author-
ity direct from heaven and not from the
hands of any one. It required miraculous
power to do the work that the public work-
ers in the church did in the days of the
apostles. It took miraculous power in cre-
ation to bring animals and plants into be-
ing, but it does not now, when the law of
God is that they shall come into being by
process of natural law. It required mirac-
ulous power to give the word of God
and attest its inspiration. It does not re-
quire miraculous power now when it is com-
plete, to use it and obey it. We do not deny
a divine call. We believe God has called
us and made'us kings and priests unto him-
self. If my opponent's church is the church
of Christ, all are kings and priests by God's
acts, and not by the act of Joe Smith or any
other impostor. I call Joe an impostor
because he pretended to be what the Bible
declares he could not be. If a set of men
were to set themselves up as a constitutional
convention I would call them impostors,
because the people had not called them to
any such work.

Let us now examine New Testament his-
tory for a few minutes. After revelations
ceased with Malachi, the Israelites were
under the written word of God, in the Old
Testament. John the Baptist preached
unto them repentance toward God, and an-
nounced unto them the coming of the Mes-
siah. Jesus came, preached and instructed
his apostles to prepare them for the work
they were to do after his de])arture. Joel,
John and Jesus promised that the most
complete manifestation of the Holy Spirit
ever given to men should usher in the jjer-
fect dispensation. Jesus promised the Com-
forter to his apostles to do for them what
he had done while with them ; that they
should be endued with power, by the bap-
tism of the Holy Spirit, which should usher
in his kingdom with power. Jesus abi'o-
gated to Mosaic dispensation by his death.
The apostles began the work of building
the church on the day of Pentecost. They
preached and baptized persons into Christ.

Tiiey had their converts, met as Christian-
worshiping assemblies. So long as the con-
gregations were not too numerous, the apos-
tles took personal charge of them and
tavight tnenj. They did not organize them
fully at fiast, but took charge of them them-
selves. There was not a perfectly organized
congregation until long years after the day
of Pentecost. The Old Testament had
ceased to be a complete word of God. It
could not be such to the congregations of
Christians. The apostles gav© to the con-
gregations the inspired teaching they need-
ed. When congregations became so numer-
ous that an apostle could not be with them,
the apostles laid hands on suitable persons
and imparted to them the apiritual gifts
decribed in I. Cor. xii. Their object was
three-fold. I. To supply needed inspired
teaching. II. To govern the churches.
III. To attest and confirm the inspiration
and teachings of these teachers and govern-
ors. There is no dispute between my oppo-
nent and myself that these miraculous pow-
er,? were in the church in the days of the
apostles ; that they were necessary then.

The issues are then, I. Was the church
then a model? Was it in the condition
that was desio-ned to be permanent. II.
Does the word of God ordain that all that
was in the church then, is to remain always
in the church? My opponent admits that
the New Testament is the constitution of
the church. Just as the people through state
legislatures selected delegates to foiiu our
National constitution, so God, through
Christ selected the apostles to give the con-
stitution, the New Testament, to the church
and to organize the church under it. The
apostles gave the word of God orally at
first, and organized churches. Then they
reduced it to writing and left it in writing
with the churches they had organized, un-
der the oral announcement of tiie constitu-
tion. God, Christand the HolySpirit gave
the church every word of the constitution,
through apostles or companions of the apos-
tles. Our fathers in constitutional conven-
tion gave to the people the constitution.
They ruled the people under the articles
of confederation. The people adopted the
constitution and organized a national gov-
ernment under it. The articles of Coiafed-
eration, the government under them ceased
and the constitutional convention ceased
when it had done its work. The people
now live and act under the constitution.
They have only such officers as it ordains ;
only such officers as it ordains have succes-
sors. Miraculous power was to give inspir-
ed teaching, or give the constitution, or to
rule provisionally the churches. It was
constitution-making power. The apostles
were the constitutional convention of the
church. I hope my opponent will not be
so silly as to repeat ; " God gives the con-

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

1:79

stitution not the apostles," The people
through their delegates ordained our con-
stitution. God through his chosen dele-
gates ordained the constitution of the
church, the New Testament. The differ-
ence between my opponent and myself is
here. I believe that wlien niiraculou.s power
had giVen revelation, tlie constitution,
then miraculous power, constitution mak-
ing power ceased. He would have consti-
tution making power perpetualand tiioonly
power in the church. I believe that when
the constitution makers did their work,
gave the constitution, then they ceased to
act. He would have them perpetual, and
the only power in the cliurch. I believe
that the constitution makers perfected their
work. He would liave constitution making
goon forever. I believe tliat constitution
making, and the constitution makers pre-
pared for a perfect government under the
constitution, and ceased when that the
perfect government was constituted. He
contends that constitution making and
constitution makers shall continue for
ever and never give place to what the
constitution ordains. They are forever
preparing, getting ready for something
that never comes. The constitution pro-
vides for constitutional otTifcers and their
successors, but it does not ordain that con-
stitution-making and constitution-making
officers shall go on for ever. It does not
provide for actual constitution-making and
an actual succession of constitution makers.
Judas had a successor just as a delegate
who dies while a convention is in session
is succeeded by another person, selected by
the people through their legislature. Paul
was the apostle of the gentiles just as
Canada might have had delegates iii our
constitutional convention, had their inde-
pendence been acknowledged and had they
applied for union with us. But no apostle
had a successor when the constitution was
made, the New Testament was completed,
any more than our constitution makers
have had successors. We can til 1 vacancies
in ofRces ordered by the constitution, but
we do not fill vacancies in coustitution-
maliing otifices now, for there are no such
offices. The apostles are such oflticers, and
have no successors. We now lay hands on
men to set them apart to work under the con-
stitution, the New Testament. We do not
lay hands on them to impart miraculous
power, constitution-making power, for tlie
apostles completed that work, and we have
neither constitution making nor makers,
nor do we impart constitution making
power. Tlie fallacy of my opponent's ap-
plication of the many passages 01 Scriptures
he reads, is tliis : He reads of what was
done by the constitution makers and what
existed and was necessary before the con-
stitution was completed, and the church
completed under it, and applies it to an
entirely different period, and state of
affairs, the Church after the cotisLitution is
completed, and the church completed in
organization under it. . If he can show that
the coustitutiou ordains that what he reads

was to be permanent in the church, he has
accomplished his object. Until he does, his
reading is as bootless as to read what was
done under the law of Moses. Christ gave
apostles, prophets and evangelists, shep-
herds and teachers with miraculous poweis,
during the constitution-making period, and
until the constitution was made, for sucli
were constitution-makinsr yjowers. But
when the constitution was made, such con-
stitution-making power ceased. Proving
that they existed before the "until" <loe9
not prove that they must exist after the
"until." Let him address himself to the
last work. God set in the church tlie nine
miraculous powers. Yes, they were con-
stitution-making powers, and he set them
in the church during that period before,
" The more excellent way" when the con-
stitution was made had come. Let him
show tliat the constitution makes them a
part of the more excellent way. Then he
will prove his point. God created animals
and plants by miracle, before natural law
prevailed. That does not prove that he
does now. Because God set miraculous
powers in the church before the constitution
was completed, as constitution-making
pow(r>, it does not prove that he sets them
in the church under the constitution, after
constitution-making is no longer needed
A man has guardians while a minor. That
does not prove that he has guardians when
a man. No, we reason that what he needed
in his childhood has ceased, being no
longer needed. God set miraculous powers
in the church in its childish condition.
When the church became a man it laid to
one side such childish things, as Paul de-
clares. My opponent claims that we have
no prophets and apostles in our church.
The people of the United States have the
workoftheConstitutional Convention in the
Constitution and the government in accord-
ance with it. They do not need to have an
eternal Constitutional Convention, an ^ n^r-
nal constitutior- naking, to have the work,
the Constitution. Indeed such an attempt
would prevent the people's ever liavmg
their work. It would be like a general's
eternally orsanizmg the army and never
using it'in the work for which all organizing
is done. We have the apostles in our
church, just as we have Christ. In the
constitution they gave us, in their law,
in tiieir work. .lust as we have our Con-
stitutional Convention in our Constitu-
tion and the government under it. My
opponent grew'witty over his gun illustra-
tion. That gun will kick him so that it
will do more liarm at the l)reei;h than it will
at the muzzle. The difference between us
is this. 1 take the gun just as it came from
the armory of heaven and use it. lie thrown
away the'gun and tries to use .Joe Smiths
bouLis gun making machine. })retendea
miraculous power to make another. I take
the gun as it came from the armory of
heaven. He t,ubstitutes from .loe Smith's
bogus gun factory, a new barrel in the Book
of '^Mormon, a new stock in the Book of
Doctrines and Covenants, a new lock lu the

280

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Book of Abraham, and keeps on throwing
away what vas manufactured in heaven's
armory and putting in what came from Joe's
bog'us gun factory until he finislies with
a bran new and appropriate touch hole
in Joe's polygamy revelation. And when
he is done, his gun bursts and blows
his brains out and kicks his remains out
of sight. He grows witty over my quoting
the language of the Devil. Yes, I quoted
it t® him. He regards it as "the fullness
of the Gospel," Smith's lying fraud, the
Book of Mormon. The Devil is the father of
lies, and the Book of Mormon the mostmon-
strous of his progeny- I concluded if he
valued so highly the Devil's work in the
r«ook of Mormon, he would accept as gospel
fi direct quotation frotn him. Since my op-
ponent regards "Mormon" as a Scriptural
name, and so precious a name, and the word
means "a ghost," "a hobgoblin." doubtless
he regards Beelzebub, the father of Hob-
goblin's, as a choice Scriptural name. I do
not. He wants to know why I say, baptize
"into." i care not whether /n or /n/o. The
one baptism in the church is in the name.
Holy Spirit baptism is not. It is not in the
church. He has not answered and dare not
answer our questions. Were the Samaritans
<hildren of God before the apostles went
down to them? Had they been born of
(iod? Born of water and the Spirit? If
they had not, did the apostle give the Holy
.Spirit to sinners, when Jesus says such can
not receive him? He wants to know why
the apostles imparted the miraculous influ-
ence of the Spirit to the Samaritans and
others. The constitution, the wird of God,
was not completed, and they needed mira-
culous power to supply inspired teaching
until inspiration was completed in the New
Testament. AVhen inspired teaching- was
completed in the New Testament such
power was needed no longer.

As my opponent Is so good, his religion
makes him so good, I dare not say he wil-
fully misrepresents me. No, he is honest,
no doubt. So good a man would never mis-
represent me. I must charge it to his ignor-
ance and lack of sense enough to under-
stand me and tlie word of God. I have said
that there are two influences of the Holy
Spirit ; one manifested in miraculous power.
The other manifested in moral power,
through the truth he has revealed. My
honest opponent in his extreme ignorance
and lack of ordinary sense, says that I say
there are two Holy Ghosts, when I never
used the word "ghost." Can you under-
stand, sir, one Holy Spirit, who has mani-
fested himself in two ways, who has influ-
enced men in two ways ? Just as a man
can influence another by mesmerising him,
or by the truth he presents to him. My
good, honest, ignorant friend cannot under-
stand the word of God when it declares
"There are different gifts, but the same
Spirit." "There are diffeient operations
(of the Spirit), but one God." Nor when
it declares God bore the apostles witness
with manifold powers and distributions of
theSpirit. He. honest, ignorant soul that

he is, supposes that it means different holy
ghosts, manifold holy ghosts, and his infi-
del lackies, and Danites in the audience,
whose- brai)i.s are in their heels instead of
in their heads, stamp, yell, whistle, clap
and cheer such honest idiocy.

I said that the miraculousinfluence of the
Holy Spirit was not a moral influence (m
the one it influenced or inspired. I repeat
it. It was given to wicked persons such as
Balaam, Saul, King of Israel, Caiaphas, the
Pharaohs, the Abimlechs of the Bible. It
left them just as it found them. Such was
the case with all of these parties. They
did not, while under its influence, utter
what they wanted to utter. They did not
often understand what they had uttered.
It used them to reveal truthwhich is God's
power unto salvation, which begets, which
sanctifies. I said that the condition of the
church while it was dependent on the frag-
mentary revelations uttered by men with
Spiritual gifts was inferior to that state
when it had the complete word of God ; all
these fragments united in the New Testa-
ment. So Paul declares. The condition of
a man who has completed his course of
study and has the full course in his library
and head, is superior to his condition when
his teachers were giving him a fragment at
a time, no matter how talented such "each-
ers may have been. Here again my honest,
good opponent misunderstood me. He rep-
resents me as teaching that the imparting
of Spiritual power reduced persons to a
lower condition than they were in before
such powers were imparted. Poor, honest,
ignorant, good soul that he is. How his
ignorance and lack of sense is to be pitied;
but then so good a person must be honest
in it. Because I claim that a man who lias
completed his studies and is no longer under
teacher's supervision, is superior to his
condition under teachers, of course I teach
that when his parents took him from his
condition before he had teachers, and put
him under teachers, they put him in a lower
condition than he was before he had any
teachers. Because I say that our condition
under our completed constitution is better
than when the constitutional convention
was in session, of course, I teach that when
the people set that convention to work, they
put themselves in a much lower condition
than they were in before they set it at
work.

Because I assert that the world is in a
higher condition now, when creation has
been completed and it is under the operation
of natural law, than when God was bring-
ing animals and plants into existence by
rriiracle or direct creation, of course I teach
that when God changed the world from
chaos to the beginning of his course of crea-
tion he reduced it to an inferior condition.
So good a soul as my opponent must be
honest in all this. If so, his stolidity is to
be pitied. No doubt he was honest, the
good soul that he is, in representing me as
teaching that the direct and immediate in-
fluence of the Spirit led to tolly, impurity,
crime, and pol^'gamy. I said that such an

THE BR ADEN AND KELI;EY DEBATE.

281

influence was not exerted now — could not
be received now ; that men mistook their
own frenzies for such influence, and gave
loose reins to their heated frenzies and pas-
sions, and that had given to tlie world such
abominations. No doubt so good a man,
witli such a religious spirit, was honest in
that outrageous falsification of m.v language.
I never said tliat the Book of Mormon taugtit
polygamy. It does leave the door open for
it. But, good, honest soul, he is mistaken
in th.at. I said that a pretence to a direct
influence of the spirit led to that lying reve-
lation. I said Ananias was a special apos-
tle. An apostle is one who is sent. Anan-
ias was sent by the Holy Spirit to do a
special work If it were liis usual preroga-
tive to impart the Holy Spirit, why did the
Holj' Spirit by miracle tell him that he
could and should do such a work? Ananias
said, "The Holy Spirit has sent me to you
that you may be filled with the Holy Spirit."
I will accept all cases of such persons who
by miracle or direct revelation have been
sent to do a certain work. Has he found
any other? The very fact that God had to
speak to Ananias and give him authority
to do tliis work, proves that none but an
apostle could do it Paul declares that the
gift of God that was iu Timothy was by the
laying of hands. He speaks of a gift that
was in Timothy that was given by proph-
ecy by the laying on of the lands of the
Presbytery. \i' tlie gift was different, Paul
imparted the miraculous power and the
Presiytery did not impart an^' miraculous
power, for Paul had already done that.
They set him apart to his work as Saul and
Barnabas were set apart.

We give more proof that only an apostle
could impart the Holy Spirit.

Galatiuns, 3-5. "He that supplies to
you the Spirit, and works powers in you,
does he do it by works of law, or bv the
message of the faith?" II Cor. '12-12.
" Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought
among yon, in all patience in signs and
wonders and in mighty power." Ilom. 15-
19. "I will not dare to speak of anything,
save these that Christ wrought through
me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by
word and deed, in the power of signs aiid
wonders — in the power of the Spirit of God."
Rom. 1-11. For I long to see you that I may
impart unto you some spiritual gift to the
end that you may be established." From
these Scriptures we learn: I. There were
those that supplied the Holy F '.rit, and
worked in the saints miracuh - powers.
II. That Paul or an apostle alone could do
this. III. That the power to impart these
spiritual gifts, miraculous powers, was the
sign of apostleship. With this accords the
declaration in Acts viii: IS, "TheHoly Spirit
was given through the laying on of the
apostle's hands." This declaration, that
the Holy Spirit was given through the
laying on of the apostle's hands settles the
matter. He never was giveji in any other
way.

We will now move on to the real battle-
ground, Eph. iv and I Cor. xii, xiii. In

Eph. iv we read that when Christ ascended
lie gave gifts unto men. We are agreed
that these gifts were miraculous powers.
He gave men 'to the church to bo apostles.
Their work required miraculous power. It
was constitution-nuiking work, and it re-
quired constitution-making power. And he
gave soMie men to the church to be proph-
ets. Their work was miraculous. It was
giving revelations, utt»ring the ideas of
inspiration. He gave men to the church to
be evangelists. Some of the evangelists, if
not all, in tliat state of the church had mi-
raculous power. It was needed in the state
in which the church was then. He gave
some men to the church to be sheplierds
and teachers. Some of the shepherds and
teachers of the church iu the state it was
then in had miraculous power. They were
needed in the state the church was then in.
These miraculous power.^ were given for
what purpose? "For'the perfecting of the
saints." The saints were to be perfected
for what? "Unto the work of ministering."
They ministered for what? "Uutcj the
building up of the body of Christ, the
church." The church was to grow up in
all things into Christ, who is the head of
the body, tiie church, " From whom all the
body fitly framed and put together, through
every joint of supply, according to the
working in due measure of each several
part, maketh increase of the body unto the
building up of itself in love." These mirac-
ulous powers were to perfect the saints for
the work of ministering. They were to be
perfect for building u\> of the church. Then
the church was, by its own parts, joints
and members to build it.self up. This mi-
raculous power was not to do it.

The constitutional convention is appointed
to periect the people for the work of organ-
izing the body, the government. Wiien
that is done, then each part that the con-
stitution ordains, the government that it
ordains, builds up itself. The constitu-
tional convention does not continue to build
what it has already built and completed.
Constitution-making and government-or-
ganizing are done. Tbe man has reached
his growth. The government now performs
its functions as a perfect government. The
man now performs his duties as man. He
does not continue to grow or live as a minor
under teachers. We will now go back and
look at it again. These powers were given
to the church, and were to perfect the
Saints for the work of the ministry, and
this ministry was the building up of the
church. Common sense would say that
when that was done the work was com-
pleted, and they would cease, just as when
the constitution is perfected and the gov-
ernment organized under it, all constitu-
tion-making powers cease, having accom-
plished their work. So the Holy Spirit
declares. It declares these miraculous pow-
ers, these constitution-.making powers, were
to do their work and exist, "until." There
is a period before the "until," the constitu-
tion-making period. There is a period after
"until," the period when the church is

282

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

unde" the perfect construction and perfectly
organized in accordance with it. Until
when? "Until we attain unto the unity of
the faith," the word of God, until the con-
stitution is completed, and "of the knowl-
edge of the Sou of God " thrc ugh his com-
pk ted gospel. Also "unto a full grown
man," until the body of Christ has become
a full grown man, until the government is
completely organised under the completed
coiirtiitution, the complete word of God.
"Also unto the measure of the stature of
the fullness of Christ." It is until that
time. "When that is accomplished these
constitution-making powers cease. They
exist until then. After that constitution-
making powers cease, having accomplished
tlieir purpose. That takes tliat passage
away from liim.

It my opponent will divide the language
at the "until" he will find that all miracu-
lous, all constitution-making power was
before it. After the "until" there is no
miraculous or constitution-making power.
It has accomplished its purpose. The con-
stitution declares miraculous or constitution-
making power exists "until" it has made
the constitution, and the government is
organized under it. Then it ceases, having
accomplished its purpose. My opponent
absurdly contends that because lie finds
constitution-making power before the "un-
til" while it was making the constitution,
it must exist after the "until" when it has
completed its work in completing the con-
stitution, and the government has been
completed in accordance with the constitu-
tion . His own passage is fatal to his absurd
position. His position is a flat contradic-
tion of all sense and all teaching of the
Scriptures. Cannot he understand that
the period before the "until" and the one
after it, between the constitution-making
period and the one when it has ceased are
difTerent.

We come now to his last struggle. God
had imparted to theCorinthian church nine
miraculous gifts and set nine miraculous
powers in the church. The Corinthians
erred not in each one wanting to exercise all
gifts, as he falsely asserts ; but in each one
thinking that his one gift was better ttian
all other gifts ; and for that reason he shou- d
be the chief one and the one must hon )red
in the church. The apostle beautifully
illustrates the church and the exercise of
these powers by the human body and its
members, and shows that all are essential
and all should be honored alike. He did
not approve of Mormon hierarchy of a score
of officers from president down. The Corin-
thians erred also in regarding these Spiri-
tual gifts as the great end of the religion of
Christ. Paul exposes that error also. He
says, "Rut desire earnestly the greater gifts,
and a more excellent way I will show unto
you." My opponent, through ignorance no
doubt, for so honest and good a soul would
not do it wilfully, represents the apostle as
saying that he had shown unto them a more
excellent way than for each one to exercise
all gifts. As the Corinthians had each but

one gift and had never dreamed of exercis-
ing any other, for each thought the gift he
had far aboveall other gifts, the apostle did
not warn them against what they had not
dreamed of, and he did not show them a
more excellent way than a way that never
had existed, could not exist, and they had
never dreamed could exist. My honest,
pious opponent blundered grieviously in
that falsification of tiie apostles language.
Next he innocently, good, pious soul
that he is, transposes the members of the sen-
tence and violates all grammar and sense
and has not a manuscript or a scholar in the
world tosustain him. Bll flatly forbid such
transposition. Finally hecaps the climax of
his pious honestfalsifications of thelanguage
by changing the tense from " I show you,"
into " I have shown you," making it refer to
what the apostle has said before, and not to
what he is about to say ; as the truth of the
case declares can be his only meaning. So
good a soul as my opponent would not do
this wilfully. No doubt he is honest and
did it innocently, ignorantly. If through
ignorance how great is that ignorance. But
when we open our Bibles and discards his
falsifications, itstill reads, "Desire earnest-
ly the greater gifts and a more excellent?
way I show unto you." More excellent than
what.^ As the way he had just mentioned
was the exercise of the greatest Spiritual
gifts, the more excellent must be some other
way than the exercise of the greatest Spir-
itual gifts. Common sense will allow no
other interpretation. The fact that the
(Corinthians regarded S{uritual gifts as the
great end of the Gospel proves that Paul
meant that. He denounces that idea as
an error, by declaring that there was a
more excellent way than the exercise
of the best of these gifts. That such
was his meaning the sentences imme-
diately following show. He declares all
gifts are worthless unless they aid in
producingChristian love. Christian charac-
ter. He then enters into a eulogy on Chris-
tian character, and declares the great pur-
pose of the gospel is to produce that ; and
anything that does not do that is worthless.
Spiritual gifts are worthless unless they do
that. Having thus exposed this error in
making spiritual gifts the end, instead of
only a means to a higher end, he explains
the only way of producing Christian charac-
ter, the way that is better than the exer-
cise of the best spiritual gifts. He declares
prophesying, the prophesying of which ht»
spoke in the xii chap., all speaking by in-
spiration ; all knowledge, the knowledge,
the revelations of which he spoke in the
xii chapter ; all tongues the signs of
which he spoke in the xii chap., all the
spiritual gifts of which he spoke in the xii
chapter, shall be done away, cease. Th©
more excellent way than theexercise of the
greatest spiritual gifts is a state of the
church in which thej' will be done away.
He says this prophesying, this knowledge,
these revelations of which you think so
much, are only partial, a fragment, a part,
of God's word. When that is completed,

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

283

or when the perfect word of God has come,
these partial revelations will cease, being
no long'er needed for the church will be in
that more excellent way having a complete
word, instead of a partial revelation, a frag-
ment of it. That is plain common sense.
Just what the language means. The apos-
tle goes back to his figure of the human
body used in the ^xii chapter. In the xii
chapter he uses a body. In the xiii he
uses his own body, illustrates and personi-
fies the cliurch with his own body. He
says just as I perceived as a child, thought
as a child, when I was a child, so the church,
now under these spiritual sifts, perceives,
thinks and speaks as a child. And just as
I put away child's things when I became
a man, so the church will put away these
childish things, these partial revelations
under these spiritual gifts, wliPii it becomes
a man, having the completed word of God.

Under these spiritual gifts the church sees
as in a mirror darkly, its knowledge is only
partial, and a fragment at a time; but
when the word of God is completed it will
see what it ought to be, the image will be
perfect, and it will know what it ought to
be, as God knows what it ought to be.
The partial and complete do not refer to the
church before Christ's second coming and
its condition afterwards. There is not u
hint of such an idea in the whole context.
It refers to two states of the church under
the apostles. One was the state under
spiritual gifts which were partial in their
revelations. The other and more excellent
state, was when the word of G(kI, revela-
tions were not partial, but perfect vn God's
word, when gifts would cense, liaving ac-
complished their purpose, and being no
more needed.

MR. KELLEYS SEVENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — My opponent seems much
worried over my exposition of the language,
"Yet show I unto you a more excellent
way." He could take up a plain and
positive passage like that of Jesus in John
3: 5, and try to translate for you. But
when I interpret according to other Bible
passages this sentence which shows upon
the face of it that there is a mistake some-
where, he thinks I am outside of my pro-
vince entirely. Now such a position as that
is too frivolous to take up any time with
argument.

There are many passages in the New
Testament which require an interpretation,
by reason of something being left out or
put in the Bible manuscripts which were
copied from the original. It is the true
minister's province to interpret these so as
to agree with and not contradict any other
part of the Bible. And a rule of interpre-
tation laid down by a distinguished Bible
critic is: "To bring all scripture bearing
upon the point in controversy together, and
if you thus form no contradiction you are
right."

Take the passage in John : "No man hath
seen God at any time."

I turn back to Exodus 24 : 9 & 10, and
read that "Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abi-
hu, and seventy of the elders of Israel : saw
the God of Israel : and there was under his
feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire
stone, and as it were the body of heaven in

its clearness. And upon the noV)les of the
children of Israel he laid not his band :
also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

This passage in John upon its face thea
raises a question of explanation. And the
evident reason is, that the qualifying clause
has been omitted by the transcriber at some
time. It is not difficult from all the
passages bearing upon this to tell what it
was, however.

Take the language again of Jesus, "All
who ever came before me are thieves and
robbers." Why. John came belore him,
and was not. The true explanation is to
be made: "All who came before me (who
testified not of me) are theives and robbers."

Again, ' Whosoever is bornof God ca?ino<
sin."

It is a flat contradiction of the Hebrew
letter.

" Whoseover is born of God (will not con-
tinue) in sin."

Thus with the text, "Yet show I unto
you a more excellent way."

The thought at once springs to the mind
thequestion, was Paul to give these saints at
Corinth anew order of instruction in.:hurch
government and the uses and blessings of
the spiritual gifts towhat he had then writ-
ten and towhat he gave the saints at Ephe-
sus'and the church of Jerusalem? Hence,
comes in the work of the minister of Christ
to teach and instruct. The Eunuch said,
"How can I (understand it) except some
man should guide me." Acts 8: 31. And

234

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

the man must be instructed and sent of the
Lord who fiuide?, or he will not guide
ariyht. Theolo^iical schools and institutes
of lea riling are alJ good in their place, but
they can no more supply the place of the
Holy Spirit in leading the mind and take
the place of the true guide, than they can
supply the place of the work of the Holy
Spirit upon the mind and heart. But it is
as Paul says, "How shall they believe in
him of whom they have not heard? How
shall they hear without a preacher? And
hoio can he pn-ach except he be sent.^^
Sent of God and duly authorized. Keep
this before the people.

He claims now that he did not divide
up the Holy Spirit, but only divided
its work. Why did he use the term
"Miraculous Holy Spirit," indwelling
Holy Spirit," etc., for then? "Indwelling
Holy Ghost and Miraculous Holy Ghost."
They are not my terms. I claim the
Holy Spirit to be only such, whatever the
form, and whatever the administration,
in fact, whether of indwelling, sealing,
adopting or confirming, it is in all instances
inspiring and miraculous. The Holy Ghost
to man is miraculous in all of ifcs manifesta-
tions. I still say, Mr. Braden, that you
made an unwarranted and incorrect division
and distinction, and one that is calculated
to deceive.

Again he reflects that the i^ook of Mor-
mon is the cause of ]jolygamy.

Mr. Braden ; I did not say the Book of
Mormon taught polygamy.

Mr. Kelley : You made the argument last
night that polygain.y was the outgrowth of
it. You will not be |)ermitted to misrepre-
sent me before this audience on tb.e polyga-
my question, sir. If tlie Book ot Mormon .
does not teach it, nor theSaints,whom I liave
the honor to represent, believe in it, as they
do not, why do you persist in bringing it
into your argnnipiit\* We are now upon
the question of your church, its faith,
teaching, etc. Wh.it has that to do with
polygamy? I understand theobject of your
references to this.

My opponent drops apostles and prophets
from the church for the reason, he says,
that they were placed in it for the purpose
of "perfecting" — giving us the constitution.
But he also drops out all the spiritual gifts,
or gifts through the Spirit: "The word of
wisdom," "knowledge," "faith," "gifts of
healing," "working of miracles," "proph-
ecy," "discerning of spirits," "divers kinds
of tongues" and the interpretation of
tongues ; these include pretty much all
that was calculated to beautify, enlighten,
adorn, develop and purify the church, ex-
cepting the gifts of apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors and teachers which he
has excluded. These other gifts were not
given for the perfecting of the constitution,
he will hardly claim either ; and since they
were not, will he tell this audience why his
church dropb them? Oris it for the wise
reason which is sometimes given, "Because
they are no longer needed"?

But again he demands that I must show

that some one lias the Holy Spirit now, that
brings things to his mind, or it is plain 1 ;it
it is not needed. But the question is not
does any one enjoy the Spirit now, but
does IMr. Braden 's church correspond with
the church of Christ as described in the
New Testament. The Saints enjoyed it
then, and the promise was to all if they
would keep all his commandments. Mirac-
ulous gifts, he says, were to continue until
the one faith was coiupleted, or the word.
" perfected." The v/ord, thegospel, was per-
fect wiien preached by Peter, yet Paul
received his knowledge of it by revelation,
and he concluded that it was so absolutely
perfect, that he said, "Though we or an
angel from heaven preach any other let him.
be accursed, or if any man preach any
other, let him be acctirsed." Gal. 1:8.
The gospel was perfect then ; called by
.James the perfect law of liberty ; yet the
church was in the highest state of spiritual
enjoyment at the same time, and always
would have continued thus had there not
been a falling away and the Christians
turned heathen again and had only a dead
form left.

Let us see how many times the law has
been made perfect and complete according
to Mr. Braden 's ideas of perfection Far
back in Moses' time it was not to be added
to. Deut. 4:2. "Ye shall not add unto the
word w'hich I command you, neither shall
you diminish aught from it, that ye may
keep the commandments of the Lord your
God which I command you." Did he mean
to close up the avenues of inspiration and.
shut God out of the world? Ps 19:7: "The
law of the law is perfect, converting the
soul." This was more than a thotisand years
before the birth of Christ. Shall we dis-
card all thai was given afterwards because
perfect then? That is the argument of my
opponent and iiis church. Jesus says, "Go
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptiz-
ing them in the name of the Father, and.
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach-
ing them to observe all things whatsoever t
have commanded you.' Here it is again :
"Teaching them to observe a// <A ingrs what-
soever /hare commanded yo'u."

This was said in the year 33 of the Chris-
tian era. But because of it shall we reject
the other writings which were made 10, 20,
30, 40, 50 and more than 60 years afterwards ?
All of the epistles of Peter, John, James,
Jude, Paul and the revelations? What ati
absurd predicament my opponent has placed
himself in. He sends these persons out aa
constitution makers. But Jesus sends thera
as publishers of his commandments only.
Jesus says. "My doctrine is not mine but
his that sent me"." "The Father which sent
me he gave me a commandment, what I
should say and what I should speak."
Here is where we find the framer of the
Constitution. It was God, the Eternal
Father, and in the different ages he sent
forth his servants into the world to publish
this Constitution and teach it to the people,
but these servants the people killed and.
would not hear. Then he sent his Son with

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE

285

the me<!«a!ro, p-aying': " Tlipy will rpvprpnne
my son;" but they called him an impostor,
a fraud, collected all the lies they could
scrape up which they told about him;
charged him with beino: a 'deceiver" and
an enemy to the govenuient and put him
to death. They did not want him making
constitution for them, as they called it, they
had enough constitution, they claimed
Moses and the prophets. Don't want any
more constitution. "We know that God
spoke to Moses, but as for this man w©
know not from whence he is." Afterwards
as Paul says : (God again) "Committed unto
us the word of reconciliation. Now then we
are ambassadors for Christ as though God
did b'seech you by us." Why! How Paul
does differ from Braden ? Instead of being
a constitution maker, Paul says he was only
an "ambassador," a messetjger, agent, one
sent to instruct in and urge obedience to the
law, or constitution, and not to make laws
and constitution.

But the people were not content with the
death of the Son, the heir, but, see Acts 6th,
they determined to put down all others who
claimed to be preachers of the word ; they
therefore opened a discussion with Stephen,
selecting the best men they had in their
synagogues to carry on the discussion on
their side; but, (verse 10), "they were not
able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by
which he (Stephen) spoke." What<lid they
do then? Let every man think for himself
and show a willingness for the principles of
truth to triumph? No, that would have
been too Christlike ; verse 11. "Then they
suborned men which said, we have heard
him speak blasphemous words against
Moses and against God. Aiid they stirred
up the people and the elders and the scribes
aud came upon him, and caught him and
brought him to the council. And set up
false witnesses which said, this man ceaseth
not to speak blasphemous words against
this holy place and the law. For we have
heard him say," (such and such things).
Was not that a pretty way to do Stephen
after they had agreed to discuss their differ-
ences and abide the issue from what wa-s
written in their law? Which side there,
ray friends, sliowed that it was willing to
abide by the faith as set forth in God's
word, and which ehowed a greediness for
the falsehoods and stories? I ask my op-
ponent here, to answer? But after they
bring in their stories they permit Stephen
again to answer, and he begins citing them
to the law and testimony as written in their
Bible, (the Old Testament Scriptures), ap-
pealing to that "o prove his cause, and as be
T»roceeds, the Spirit of God is sent forth to
aid him, so that it is perceptibly felt and
realized by the entire audience, and his ap-
peals to the law and the testimony of Moses
!<n<\ the prophets is so powerful and cutting
hHCause of their hypocrisies, false manner
or attack and evil works, that they get so
mad they will endure it no longer, and s'>
determined to get rid of him another way,
and ruslied upon him with stones and clubs
and mercilessly beat him to death, although

he had shown in his work that he possessed
the true spirit that t)eloii;;i'd totiiL.,.. . .
of God from the first. He stood upon liu;
doctrine of appealing to the law in fairncs,?.*
Not to the stories told, or violent means.
Now, I will hurriedly read to you a sketch
of the manner the Disciples (Campbellites)
met and vanquished the Saints, at Hiram
over here, where they have the Restored
Church, in 1831, from tiioir own history.
History of the Discipleg in tlie Western
ReservA, page 220:

" Perhapn in no place except Kirtland dM the doc-
' trinea of the Latter D»y Saints gain a more pernia-
" nent footing: than in Hiram. It inirenched itielf
" there so stiong that its lenders felt assured of the
" capture of the town. Ris:don'8 former popularity in
"that region gave wings to their appeal, and many
"people, not avowed convert*, were nnder a spell of
" wonder at the strange things sounded in their ears.

" To give particulars of the Mormon excitement i
"lin would require a volume. A few words must
" suflBce. It has been stated that from the year 1815 to
" 1835, a period of twenty years, all sorts of doctrines
" by all sorts of preachers hart been plead, and most of
" the people of Hiram had been disposed to turn out
" and hear. This went by the specious name of ' lib-
" eral.' The Mormons at Kirtland, being informed of
" this particular state of things, were soon prepared
*' for the onset."

I call your attention particularly to the
appeals made by the Saints, then, as set out
by their enemies, in behalf of (heir religion.
There was no fraud or deception in this —
no fear manifest of meeting the issues hon-
orably. As men advocating principles
which they believed to be true, wherever
they found a place where they would be
permitted to compare their views with oth-
ers, as the saints of old, they gladly ac-
cepted the opportunity. However, they
were not always met with the same godlike
way of working, as you will soon see from
this Campbellite historian. He continues :

" In the winter of 1831, Joseph Smith with others had
" an appointment in the South school-house in Hirsm.
" Such was the apparent piety, sincerity and humility
"of the speakers, that many of the hearers were
" greatly att'ected, and thought it impossible that such
" preach er.s sh luld lie in wait to deceive.

During the next spring and summer several con-
" verts were made, aid their suceess seemed to indi-
" cate an immediate ♦'•iumph in fliram. ♦■•'"•■' Accordin>:ly
" a company was formed by citizens from Shalersville.
" Garrettsville and Hiram, in March. 18.S2. and pro.
"ceededto headquarters .n the dnrkvess of th nii hi,
" and took Smith and Ri^don from th ir beds and tan-fd
" and feathered them both and let them go. This had the
" desired effect, which ivat to get rid of them."

What a grand spread Braden made last
night over the success, as he termed it, of
the elders of the Campbellite church meet-
ing the Saints when other denominations
could not do so ! Oh, no! But they knew
just how to do it. Tliey circulated around
among the people in an underhanded way
false stories and all manner of lies against
the Saints, and appealed to the prejudices
of their poorly-instructed followers, and in
this heathenish way raised a mob and "got
rid of them." Was this a "restored" fea-
ture in Mr. Campbell's church? one taken
from these Pharisees who stoned Stejjhen
to death? I have never yet seen in their
publications where they deuounced it,
neither have I ever heard one of their
preachers publicly do so. How is it with
my opponent? Do you denounce the out-
rage thus perpetrated by your members or
approve it ? Do you defend freedom of con-

286

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

science and of speech, and a trial of the
religious issues in a polemic encounter, or
do yt)U urge persons, as in the case of the
•Jews aofainst Step len, and the Campbell-
ites and others against Smith and Rigdon,
to use ag'ainst men who oppose you the
carnal weapons possible?

Will you answer the question to this
audience? But I will continue the line of
my argument upon the "perfect law." Paul
to" Timothy: "From a child thou hast
known the' Holy Scriptures, which are able
to make thee wise unto salvation !" 2 Tim.
3:15. Why, here Paul finds enough to
make a man wise unto salvation in the Old
Testament; the New, was not yet written.
He called it "the Holy Scriptures." .Shall
we then say, Since you had enough Paul,
you had better stop the inspiration bureau,
and thus cut out all of the New Testament?
Paul again says, Rom., first Chapt., as early
as thf year A.D.60: "For I am notashamed
of the gospel of Christ, for therein is the
righteousness of God revealed." Is revealed
in the year HO; and yet, tlie New Testa-
ment writers go on revealing and talking
by inspiration for nearly forty years after.
Take .James 1 : 25. This was written in the
year 60, also: "But whoso looketh into the
perfect law ofJibe7-ty and continueth there-
in," etc. Did he mean a complete law?
Let us see. Rf^ad by substit\iting the word
complete: "Wlioso looketh into the (com-
plete) law of liberty,"— this changes the
idea and does violence to the wisdom of
God. It is the perfect law, in the same way
as the Psalmist spoke of the perfe(!t law;
but being such, it does not cut off all of
God's perfect law, written after this- time.
Take up the text that he is willing to stand
on, so he says: And I will say here that
he has been hunting about like a man lost
at sea for something to hang to, ever since
the discussion began and never found that
v.'hich would satisfy him till last night.
Here it is, 2 Peter, 1:3: "According as his
divine power hath given unto us all things
that pertain unto lifvi and godliness, through
the knowledge of him that hath called us'
to glory and virtue."

I shall try to examine his strong text,
fairly and impartially. Does it mean that
Christ has spoken all that is e\er needful
for man to know and that there is to be no
more revelation, prophecy, divine instruc-
tion from this date? "Hath given," the
apostle says: "Not, is giving or going to
give, but ''hath given!" Notwitlistanding
he had then given, we had written after-
wards: Paul's 2nd epistle to Timothy, the
three epistles of John, the epistle of Jude,
the Book of Revelations, and John's gospel.
Then he did not mean that all that God
wanted to say, to the human family had been
said and ttiere was to be no more inspir-
ation? Certainly not. Such a thought would
have appalled "the inspired Peter. What
did lie mean? Just wliat he said, "Hath
given unto us all things that pertain unto
life and godliness." Wliatarethe things
that pertain unto life and godliness. 1st,
the Comforter ; "If I go away I will send

him, and he will guide you into all truth ?"
This then pertaint to life and godliness.
"This is eternal life that they might know
then the only true God and Jesus Christ
whom thou h;ist sent." How can they at-
tain to this? Answer, by themeansordained
to lead to life and godliness. The inspira-
tion of the Holy Spirit. See Paul's letter:
"No man can say (know) that Jesus is the
Christ but by the Holy Ghost." This is the
principle upon which Jesus said "I will
build my church." Not begin to build,
remember ; he had already begun, but was
to continue building, and is yet building;
and he says, "I will build," upon the prin-
ciple of immediate and direct revelation.
Hence, Paul says, "After I heard of your
faith I ceased not to give thanks that He
would give unto you the spirit of wisdom
and revelation in the knowledge of him."

This prin«dple was the great and crown-
ing one of the all things that pertained to
life and godliness, and without it, Christ's
church was not, nor could not have been
builded. Will you discard it then ? Now,
Mr. Braden, let us hear from you on your
strong text which you are willing to rest
your case upon.

I next call your attention to his blunder on
Mark, ix : 1. '" There be some standing here
wlio shall not tast« of death, till they have
seen the kingdom of God come with power."
Here is another of his strong pillars; he
rests his case here again.

No difference to him that Jesus had said
to the Pharisees " the Kingdom of God is
within [among] 3'ou," and that "from the
days of John the l^aptist it had suffered
violence," and that men then "pressed
into it;" it was only on Pentecost it came
with power, and that is the time he says,
this was tulfilled in Markix: 1. "There be
some standing here who shall not taste
death " Well, it was a pretty large sum if
he referred to Pentecost, for all of them
were there except Judas Iscariot. Yet the
language is "There be .so^if." What did
Jesus refer to? I answer, to the coming of
himself in his kingdom, in power and great
glory. Was that on Pentecost? No. He
did not so come then as predicted here.
Did any of them see it? Yes. Who?
Answer, I'eter, James and John. Begin
with the second verse of the same chapter :
" After six days Jesus taketh with him
Peter, James and John and leadeth them
up into an high mountain apart by them-
selves; and he was transfigured before
them." Jesus is transformed, changed,
so that his countenance did " shine as the
light." This is the time for the intro-
duction of important evidencein the church.
There are to be witnesses to something
else than the mere reinstating' of the church
on earth ; it is for the establishment of the
the promise, that Jesus will come again in
his kingdom, in '' jwioer and great glory .^]

Hence, he takes his chosen three wit-
nesses,— all were not permitted to see him
even of the twelve; only three witnesses
behold this grandest of all things in hope,
and promise to the human family. They

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

287

are overcome with its splendor, grandeur
and power ; Moses and Elias appear, tlie
voice of God is heard verifying the truth-
ullness of the event, and tiie prophecies
.re truly confirmed. Afterwards the world
hrough the witnesses is permitted to know
fa surety of he coming of the Kingdom
of God in power. Then, does thestatement
refer lo the setting up of the kingdom on
"'entecost day? No, sir. Turn to the des-
cription of the eventand testimony by Peter
himself. Second Peter, 1:16. "For we
have not followed cunningly devised fables,
when e made known unto you the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eye .itnesses of his majesty. For he
received from God the Father honor and
glory v^hen there came such a voice to him
from the excellent glory : This is my beloved
Bon, n whom I am well pleased."

When did the event of witnessing this
fflory ind power of Jesus coming in his
Tin tf do a with the just of earth take place?
Se^ versa 18: " And tiiis voice which came
fro n h aven we heard when we were with
*iini 'u the Holy mount."

Her J then is the fulfillment of Mark ix: 1,
as declared by Peter himself, and it was
Bui Oil Pentecost day. So another pillar has
gone from under Braden's church.

Again, they are the "royal priesthood,
an holy nation, a peculiar people," he says.
All kings and priests. No queens among
them. But. you cannot touch a Disciple
without coining in contact with a king and
priest. The other evening, however, he
hooted at the idea of any one liaving the
royal, or Melchizedek priesthood. Christ
was the last of tlie hne, and he entered into
the vail, and was their prophet, priest and
king. Now, he says, all are priests and
kings ; and yet not a sign of Priesthood.
Ko, no; only such impostors as "Joe
Smith," he says, 'claim such things," and
he says, " if I have proven him an impostor
I have a right to call him one." Yes, and
if he has not proven any such thing (and
truly he has not even bordered on to proving
it), he has no right to use the expression ;
but to the priesthood question.

I can see how Peter could speak of the
church then, as a "chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar
people:" Because they were chosenof God
by his Spirit for their work ; called by in-
spiration. The church was built up " an
habitation of God through the Spirit." All
were in the bonds by virtue of the love of
God shed abroad in the heart. They were
in possession of the royal, or Melchizedek
priesthood, and conferred it ; hence, the
right of ordination and conferring of some-
thing. As Jesus was sent, so he sent the
apostles, and he was made a priest after
the order of Melchizedek, the royal line.
I can see all this, but where does it harmo-
nize with a church with no one sent; no
priesthood; no Holy Ghost; no habitation
of God through the spirit?

But, he saj's, he gets his in Revelations,
1:6 and 5:10: "And hatli made us kings
and priests unto our God." When are they ?

Now? Read on, "and we shall reign on
the earth." What! reign and minister
before the kingdom is conferred ? Can you
enter upon your work in the priest, or
kingly otiice before you have received your
autiiority? Paul was chosen when Jesus
first met him in the way; but long after-
wards he was authorized and set apart by
the instruction of the Holy Spirit for the
special duties of a minister. But they are
all kings and priests in Mr. Braden's church
now. No authority rta;t be conferred. Tlioy
are all away up at the top of the ladder.
Let us see fiirtlier. Revelations, li0:6.
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in
the first resurrection ; on sucli the second
death hath no power, but they shall be
priests of God and Christ, and shall reign
with him a thousand years." Shall reign
with Christ if they have part in the first
resurrection. And this is why they are
called kings and priests. But our Camp-
bellite friends have the cart before the
horse, and are reigning and ministering
befoi'e the time of the resurrection and the
thousand years. Does not this prove Mr.
Campbell a restorer ? And remember, my
friends, that these disciples are not heirs,
simply. There are no princes even among
them. They are kings and priests now,
according to Braden, and have, therefore,
entered upon their inheritances, and we
must look out, for i/iey are rcigiiiug.

He says again, that an event that always
attends i)reachingis no confirmation. This
is a mistake. Preaching is just as edifying
once a week as twice a year. The enjoy-
ment of the Spirit is just as comforting
and confirming received every day, and
more so, than but once a year , or, as the
Disciples have it, never. The confirming
of Peter and John did not answer for Paul.
He required a similar confirmation, as do
all the children of God. It is not an im-
peachment of the word to require the mani-
festation of the Spirit, or new revelation,
for the word of God no where forbids it.
"I will give you line upon line, precept
upon precept, here a little and there a lit-
tle"—as God wills— is the thought expressed
in the revelation of his word. But Mr-
Braden'.« position is: BaroutGod, andChrist,
and angels, and the Holy Spirit. If you
wish to know anything about these things,
just read what Paul said he knew about
such things, and that vvill be all sufficient.
Is this a corrcet one? No. never. Every
child of God needs, and is entitled to, the
revelation of the Spirit to him or herself,
that they may have the testimony of Jesus
and attain to'the knowledge of Gv-^d. "This
is life eternal that they might know thee
theonly true God and Jesus Christ whom
thou has sent." "No one can say that Jesus
is the Lord, but hy, the Holy Ghost." But
he says, there are two states of the church
represented. One under the gifts, the other
without them, and that the church without
the gilts is the more excellent one. Let us
see : In First C'orinthians, 12, Paul likens the
church unto the body of a man, and says:

•For as the body is oue and hatb many members and

288

THE I3RADEN AND KELLEY i.EBATE.

"all the members of that o-ie body, bein? many, are
"one body, so nlso is Christ." Verse 12, "For the body
" is nut one member but many ; if ihe foot .shall say,
" Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body, isit
"therefore, not of the body ? If the ear shall say be-
" cause I am not the eye I am not o; the body, is it
" therefore, not of the body ? If the whole body were
"an eye, w here were the licaring? If the whole we e
" hearing, where were the smelling? But now harh
■'God set everv one of thn menibets in the body as ic
'■ hath pleased him. Now there are many mernbers,
" but one body. "

Paul ffoes on to tell what he means by
this Illustration as applied to the church.
He says, ''and God hath set some in tlie
"church, first apostles, secondarily proph-
" ets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles,
"then ^ifts of healing, helps, governments
"and diversities of tongues." Theapostles,
propiiets, teachers, miracles, tongues, inter-
pretations, &c., were to the church what
eyes, hearing, tasting, smelling, hands and
I'eet are to the body of a man.

The perfect man with eyes and ears and.
mouth and tasting and smelling, ha'uls and
feet, &c , represents the true church of
Christ as set out by Paul. But Mr. Braden
says, "This perfect man did not represent
the highest state of the church; that this
is Paul in infancy playing with toys ; but
the perfect church, or full grown man,
and higher developed church came after."
Then it would be appropriately represented
by a man who has no e.yes, nor ears, nor
ntouth, nor smelling, nor hands, nor feet.
Hence the Campbeilites gouge out Paul's
man's eyes, (apostles), and tear oif his ears,
(prophets), deprive hini of smelling and
tasting, close up his mouth, against inter-
pretations, cutotF his hands and feet, (helps
and governments inspired of (Jod), and then
present their blind, deaf,, dumb and maim-
ed man to the world and mount the old
Christian constitution with an assum])tious
claim that they "stand on the Bible and the
Bible alone," and swear in their wrath
that they have restored Paul's man to life,—
that the old church lias come again. Paul's
was full of light, and hope ; could see, and
hear, and smell, and taste, and walk, and
work, and grow in grace and the knowl-
edge of the liord ; but theirs is the more ex-
cellent one, Braden says. He is blind, and
deaf, and dumb; cannot walk or use his
hands, and has no life or sense. Whata
similarity indeed, there is between these
two churches ! What a restorer Mr. Camp-
bell must have been ! ! They go on and ar-
gue that the seeing man was to be done
away, but the blind, and deaf one, was to
be continued, — not done away.

My friends, Paul's child church is the
church of (Jhrist on earth, seeing and know-
ing in part by the aid of prophecy and
tongues, and all other spiritual gifts; and
the full grown, or perfe(^ted state of the
cburcb, will be, when a full knowledge is
revealed, when Christ is ftome, — vvhen "we
shall know as we are known and see as
we are seen." Tlien that througli which
only a part could be revealed will be done
away. Paul did not convey the thought
that another church would arise that would
eclipse in glory the one wliich he set forth,
and which he labored to build up, which

might approi)riately be illustrated by a
blind, deaf, mute, lifeless, man. No, nev-
er thought of such a thing. But, that the
church established on earth with authority,
power, and gifts as the means by which "it
should be built up and guided would, at
some time, be ushered into the full glory of
Christ and this time was at his cuiaiinj; and
that ail partial gifts not essential to that
age of light and perfect knowledge and glo-
ry would be done away. It is plain enough
for even a wayfaring man to see.

But Braden goes on and tries to make out
that the gospel never was preached in fact
until the day of Pentecosl. In order to sup-
port this assumption he proceeds to divide
the gospel into several parts, and has thegos-
pel in prospect, and the gospel in process, and
the gospel in fact ; bul where does he gut the
gospel of prospect and the gospel of pro-
cess'? Nut in the Bible. With all tiie reve-
lations of ancient and modern days, it was
left for the Campellites to reveal the gospel
of prospect and process. Christ is the cen-
tral figure of the gospel, and it is the power
of God unto salvation to every one that be-
lieveth. This was true before the days of
Christ's earthly ministry as it was after.
The only difference is, the saints in the
olden time believed that he would come,
and the saints now believe that he has
come. Jesus' existence was just as much a
reality before the time that he was born of
a virgin as it was after. He was as "a lamb
slain from before the foundation of the
world." "Before Abraham was, I am,"
says (Jhrist. He was in the church in the
wilderness. Christ was so truly known,
and the gospel so really preached in olden
times, that Job exclaims, ''I know thatmy
Redeemer liveth," and after that skin
worms had destroyed his body (or after the
resurrection), standing upon the earth, in
the latter days in his ttesh he should see
God. "Immortality and eternal life is
brought to light by the gospel." Immor-
tality and a perpetuity of light is not re-
vealed or attained through any system but
the gospel. In it Enoch's hope was found-
ed, and he looked forward and saw Christ
coming with ten thousand of his saints.
But tins is the gospel of process, according
to Mr. Braden, as the event has not trans-
pired as yet. Enoch had the gospel just
the same as Paul preached ; knew of Christ,
and was made partaker of the powers of the
world to come because of his faith in God,
which is one of the first principles. Heb.
6:1, "The gospel was preached to Abra-
ham," and he became the father of the
faithful. So all that are saved through the
gospel are to be saved with faithful x\ bra-
ham. Nothing is said about a gospel lu
prospect, process, or in fact. Abraham
heard and understood the gospel, which is
" the power of God unto salvation to every
one that believeth." It was preached io
tlie Israelites in the wilderness, but they
would not abide by it, and God added tht)
"schoolmaster, ' (the law of 3Ioses), which
did not make tlie comers thereunto perfect.
It was a "yoke too hard for us or our fath-

TIIK BRA DEN AND KELI.EY DEBATE.

289

ers to bear," says Peter. The old iron yoke
is one thing, and the gospel of liberty" un-
derstood by Adam, Enoch, Noah. Abra-
hain, and presented to the Israelites, is an-
other thing. The Israelites rejected the
gospel, just as they rejected God when they
chose to have a king. But let us come a
little nearer home. " .Jesus came into Gali-
lee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of
God." Mark 1:14. Again, "And Jesus
went about all Galilee teaching in their
synagogues and preaching the gospel of the
kingdom.' Matt. 4 : 23. But, says Braden.
"this was in process, or prospect." Bui
Matthew and Mark say nothing about pro-
cess, or prospect, or fact. That was left for
the Disciples to add to the Bible. Gospel
was gospel with Matthew and Mark, wheth-
er preached before, on, or after Pentecost.
It was all the same with inspired men. But
Disciples do not want any gospel until Pen-
tecost ; if so, it will have to be modified a
little with process, or prospect, or fact.
That was a great day with tiie Campbell-
ites as old men dreamed dreams and young
men saw visions, the sun was turned into
darkness and the moon into blood, and
Joel's prophecy was limited to those on
whom the apostles laid their hands, while
the kingdom came in its glory. But this is
Disciple theory only. Jesus said, " The
kingdom of God is within (among) you,"
before Pentecost day. Paul says, "The
kingdom of God is not in word, but in

power." JesTis was advocating itf> claimiy
and preacliing its principles, and men and
women were obeying just as truly ancfc
really before as tliey ever did after Pente-
cost daj'. " Ho.Juliii came into all tiie coun-
try about Jordon jjreaching the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins." TiUke
3:3. "Thou s'lall give knowledge of salva-
tion unto his people by the remission ol
sins." Luke 1:77. Here John is preacl)ing-
the knowledge of salvation. Paul says.
"The gospel is the jxjwor of (lod unto sal-
vation " John was preaching the gospel.
No wonder "John did l)aptize in the wil-
derness and preach the baptism of repent-
ance for the remission of sins." Mark 1:4.
"Then went out unto iiim all Jerusalem,,
and all .fudea, and die region round about
Jordan, and were baptized of him, confess-
ing their sins." Matt. 3 : 5, ti. Or, as stated
elsewhere, " for the remission of sins."
What is the use for men to say, then, who>
pretend to believe the Bible, that the first
gospel sermon in fact was preached on Pen-
tecost. Faith in the Savior was taught by
all of the prophets ; repentance and bap-
tism for the remission ol sins were univer-
sally conceded to be right ; so that John
never had a single controversy with the
.Tews on this question. Baptism of the Holy
Spirit was taught. So much for the pros-
pect, and process, and fact gospel.
(Time called.)

MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTH Sl^EECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Does the constitution of the
church of Christ ordain that miraculous
powers shall cease out of the church? We
announced in our opening speech on the
first proposition that this question is the
central idea of the discussion, this is the
vital issue of the debate. If my opponent
can show that miraculous powers were to
remain in the church, he has a basis for
his claim for the inspiration of Smfth, and
that the Book of Mormon is a revelation,
and that his organization can possess these
miraculous powers. This would only, how-
ever, raise the real issue. Was Smith in-
spired? Was the Book of Mormon a reve-
lation? Does his organization possess these
powers? Proving that a thing is possible
does not prove that it really exists. That
is a question of fact and not of possibility.
If we prove that miraculous powers were to
cease out of the church, we prove that they
cannot exist now, and that the claim that
Joseph Smith was inspired— that the Book

of Mormon is a revelation— that Latter Day
Saints possess miraculous powers, is an
utter impossibility. I propose now to do
this so thoroughly as to leave no room for
cavil. There is no dispute over certain^
facts. I. There is a Divine person, the Holy
Spirit. II. That he inspired all that the
Bible declares spoke, wrote or acted by in-
spiration from Adam to Malachi. Til. He
inspired all who spoke, wrote or acted by
inspiration from John the Baptist till the
last one died to whom an apostle had im-
])arted spiritual power by the imposition of
his hands. IV. That he was promised by
Joel and other prophets— that lie should be
poured out in a wonderful manner at the
beginning of the Christian dispensation.
V.'^That'^be was promised in baptism by
John and Je«UH. VI. That Jesus promised
him as the Comforter to his apostles. VII.
That Peter promised him to all whom the
Lord should call. VIII. That Jesus prom-
ised him in his last commission, in miracu-
lous power, to all of his apostles who should'

200

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

believe and preach the Gospel. IX. That
he was g-iven iu baptism on the day of
Pentecost and at the lioiise of Cornelius.
X. That he was imparted by the imposition
of the apostles' hands, and existed in mira-
culous powers iu the apostolic churches.

The issue is this : Do these promises ex-
tend to the church now? Does the Holy
Spirit exert miraculous power now? My
opponent first claimed that because the Holy
iSpirit exerted miraculous power once, he
does now. We replied, that is no proof.
Because God once exerted miraculous power
in creation is no proof that he does now.
He next claimed that because he was prom-
ised, and because it was prophesied that he
would exert miraculous power, he does now.
We replied, that is no proof. Because the
prophets prophesied of Jesus and his worli,
and promised him, doesn't prove that he is
on earth doing his work now. This drove
him to the third position. That the prom-
ises and prophecies include the church
during all ages, and that the church now
possesses these miraculous powers. We
took up the promise and history of the hup-
tism in the H0I3' Spirit and proved that
there were but two occasions of such bap-
tism and that it cannot and does not exist
now. Persons who claim it are as absurd in
their talk as if they were to claim power to
create by miracle. We took up the promise
of the Comforter and proved that .Jesus was
giving his last lecture to his apostles before
his death. He wa;* about to leave them.
But he would send the (.'omforter to take
his place with the apostles, as he had been
with the apostles. This Comforter would
recall to the minds of the apostles what
Jesus had said to the apostles. Jesus had
left a work for the apostles to do. A work
they finished, and no one can do it after the
apostles died. The Comforter was to qualify
the apostles to do their woi'k, this work
that Jesus leftjto the apostles alone, and that
none but an apostle can do. Hence, he is
not given as Comforter to any one now, for
no one lias the work to do that he, as Com-
forter, enabled the apostles to do. We have
settled that issue.

We have now the issue on the miraculous
power promised by Joel, Jesus and Peter,
and that existed in the church. Joel's
promise was to all flesh without limitation.
Jesus limited his promise to believing
apostles: His proraisewas toapostlesvvho be-
lieved and preached the Gospel. Peter's pro-
mise was limited to those whom God should
call. Joel, Jesus and Peter were proclaim-
ing the same law. The Holy Spirit in .Toel
and Peter and the Word in .Tesus do not
^contradict. As the time was ready for a
more complete definition of the promise,
when Jesus announced and limited tne
promise to believing apostles, so the tiTiie
was ready for a still further delinition of
the promise, when the Holy Spirit in Peter
deTiied and further limited i1. and lie
limiled ir to those that (^Jod should call,
and those a!onc. The sole issue now is:
How did God call them ? The Samaritans
believed had beer, baptized, were pardoned,

had received the Spirit in his ordinary in-
dwelling in all believers. The apostles had
to come down and lay their hands on them,
and cail them before they could enjoy the
promise of Joel and Peter. Saul of Tarsus
believed and was baptized, but Ananias,
a special apostle, sent for this purpose, and
with power to work miracles and prove his
divine authority, had to be sent to Saul
and impart the Spii'it by his hands. John's
disciples at Ephesus were baptized Then
Paul laid hands on them and they displayed
miraculous power of the Spirit. Timothy
received the Holy Spirit as a miraculous
gift by Paul's hands. Thus we show that
the promise was limited to those that God
called. And he never called them except
by the imposition of an Apostle's hands.
AVe have no instances of persons exercising
these gifts when an apostle had not been
with them to impart them. We have no
instance that any but an apostle imparted
them. We have no instance where they
descended to a third person. An apostle
was one who had seen .lesus. Then when
the last one who had seen Jesus died, all
power to impart these gifts ceased. When
the last one to whom an apostle had im-
parted them by his hands died this miracu-
lous povver ceased. Here we might leave
the matter : we have settled it historically
but we will do mure:

All of God's work is progressive in its
character. All of his work has a purpose.
This purpose determines. I. Time of be-
ginning. II. The manner in which the
work is conducted. III. How long it shall
continue. IV. When it shall cease. The
transgression determined the beginning of
the revelation of the plan of redemption,
contained in the Bible. The necessities of
the work of revealing the plan of redemp-
tion determined the manner in which it was
done, as recorded in the Bible. Th'e object,
the revelation of a perfect scheme of re-
demption, determined how long it should
continue, until that was perfected. The
perfection and completion of this plan of re-
demption determined when inspiration
sliould cease. It ceased when the revelation
of a completed plan of redemption was com-
pleted. Just as God created ftfiimals and
plants by miraculous power, until he com-
pleted his work of creation in man. and
then ceased creation by miracle, for he had
completed the work of creation* by miracle,
and left the introduction of animals and
plants to a higher law, the law of natural
production ; so when God had by miracu-
lous power, in inspiration, completed the
revelation of a scheme of redemption in the
New Testament, he ceased miraculous
power in inspiration, for such miraculous
power had accomplished its work when the
revelation of a plan of redemption was
perfected. As he accomplishes all intro-
duction of animals and plants by a higher
iaw, natural production, so he accomplishes
all results in salvation by a higher law,
the operation of -perfect divine truth, as
recorded in the word of God. As God is
in his higher law, natural production in

THE BllADE^- AND KELLEY DEBATE.

-'9i

a higher sense than he was in miraculous
power in eroatiou ; so he is in his word in a
higlier sense than he was in miraculous
power. As miraculous creation was pre-
paratory to natural law, so miraculous
revelation and inspiration were preparatory
to a higher law to the moral power of truth
in God's word. One error we want to re-
move. As God's miraculous power in
creation was not a partof the things created,
but merely whai produced them, and ceased
when that work was completed, so miracu-
lous power in inspiration was not a part of
the things it produced, the word of God
and the church ; but what produced them,
and ceased when it had done that work.

My opponent unwittingly admitted this
when he used the constitution of the
United States as an illustration of the New
Testament. The illustration is a most ap-
propriate one. The condition of settlements
before England gave them charter govern-
ments corresponds to the antediluvian
dispensation when God had individual fol-
lowers but no organization. The condition
under charter governments corresponds to
the patriarchal dispensation, when God had
families as the organizations. The condi-
tion under the Colonial Congress during the
revolution, corresponds to the Mosaic dis-
pensation, when there was a nation with
whom God was dealing. The condition
from the Day of Pentecost to the comple-
tion of the New Testament, and the com-
pletion of the organization of the church
under it, corresponds to the condition from
the recognition of our independence on
through the forming of a confederacy under
the Articles of Confederation, the calling of
a constitutional convention, the framing of
the constitution until the government was
organized under it. The apostles were the
constitution-making power. Christ gave
the constitution through them. The apos-
tles and those they ordained, and those to
whom they gave miraculous gifts were
the government under the Articles of Con-
federation. Miraculous power was consti-
tution-making power and provisional power
to rule the church during that provisional
period. Ir supplied inspired teaching when
an apostle was not present, and when one
was, until the completed constitution, the
New Testament was completed and the
gevernment constituted under it. Miracu-
lous power was constitution-making power
and not what was made a part of the con-
stitution. It ceased when the constitution
was made, as the constitutional convention
ceased when the constitution was made.

My opponent argues that we need mir-
aculous power now. As well say we need
constitution-making powers ; in the shape
of a constitutional convention to be per-
petual, and that it should be forever mak-
ing constltuMon, when we havo completed
the r-onsi't'jtion. He says wi> made the
constitution ttie work of the -ipostles. ^ye
reply the work, of rod through theapostles,
just as a constiiiulon is a work of the
people through their delt-^ates. We do not
remove God out of ihe ciuirch, anv more

than we remove the people out of the gov-
ernment, when we claim that as the peoplo
now act through tb.e constitution they luivo
ordained, God acts through the constitu-
tion he has ordained, the New Testament.
My opponent seems to think that the only
way that God can act is through miracu-
lous power. As well say that the only way
that the people can act is through constitii-
tion-making power. As the people are act-
ing through the constitution, in a higher
sense, than they did when they were
making the constitution, so God is acting
in a hifiher sense, through his word, than
Avhen he was constitution-making throujjh
his miraculous power. We have now nar-
rowed the question to what does the con-
stitution ordain ? Does the completed con-
stitution of the church ordain miraculous
powers as a part of the organization, the
permanent form and powers of the church.
It can do this in two ways. It can ordain
officers whose powers are miraculous. Or
it can ordain miraculous powers. My op-
ponent claims that it has done both. We
have examined all his proof especially Eph.
iv, I Cor. xii, xiii, xiv. But we will not
review them and prove that they teach ex-
actly the reverse of his claim. Eph. iv.
Paul declares that in the constitution of the
church there is provided, I. One God. II.
One Lord. III. One Spirit. IV. One faith,
the faith, the scriptures, the faith once de-
livered to the saints, and the completed
constitution of the church. V. One bap-
tism. VI. One hope. VII. One body, the
completed church organization, organized
under the completed constitution. VIII.
One name. He says that when Christ
ascended out of Hades, he led forth a mul-
titude of captives, and when he ascended on
high, to the right hand of his Father, he
gave gifts unto men. This was done before
the day of Pentecost. He gave to men who
were his followers, some men to be apostles,
some to be prophets, some to be evangel-
ists, some to be shepherds, some to be teach-
ers. It is freely conceded that the very of-
fice of apostle and prophet required miracu-
lous powers in the day of the apostles. The
questions are: — Do apostles, and prophets
exist now? Does the completed constitu-
tion ordain them in the church? Does the
constitution ordain miraculous powers to
evangelists, shepherds and teachers? This
is the real issue.

Because they existed or were given once
does not prove theirexistencenow. Because
they were needed once does not prove that
they are needed now. It is a question of
fact. We object to the claim that they ex-
ist now. Apostles, prophets and miracu-
lous powers were constitution-makinjj: pow-
ers, and ceased when the constitution wa.s
completed, and constitution-making ceased,
because it v.'as completed. The constitu-
tion declares it shall cease. It says these
gifts — miraculous gifts — were given "for
the perfecting of the Saints unto the work
of the ministry," and were given ''for the
purpose of building up the bodj' of Christ."
'I'ho body of Christ is his church. They

292

THE BRAL'EIS AND KELLEY DEBATE.

•were given for the purpose of building up,
organizing this body, thechuroh, and ceased
when that was done, when the organiza-
tion was completed. The apostle declares
thej'' were to exist "until we all came into
the unity of the faith," the one faith, the
faith delivered unto the Saints, the Fjcrip-
tures. The "faith" means the Scriptures
as it did above in verse 5, and it does in
Jude; "the faith delivered unto the Saints."
These were to continue until we came into
the unity ;of the faith, into the one faith,
until the word of God is completed. These
gifts were given until we attain through
the one faith to a perfect knowledge of the
Son of God. Until we attain to a full grown
man. This man is the one body Paul men-
tions above, the church. They are to con-
tinue until the church organization is com-
pleted. The constitution tells just how
long they were to remain. It declares they
were to'cease when that was done. The
constitution declares that they shall con-
tinue only until the constitution, the one
faith. Is "completed, and the one body is
organized under it.

We come now to the last passage of
Scriptures, and one that settles the matter
forever, I Cor. xii, xiii, xiv, Paul in these
chapters points out certain errors of the
Corinthians in regard to spiritual gifts. I.
That they were the highest, the grandest,
the especial things of the gospel. My oppo-
nent's error. II. That men were to be hon-
ored especially for them. III. Errors in
using them. He tells us in the XII chapter
God gave miraculous gifts as follows: I.
Word of wisdom. II. Word of knowledge.
III. Faith. IV. Gifts of heahng. V. AVork-
ing of powers. VI. Prophecy. VII. Power
to discern spirits. VIII. Power to speak in
unknown and difTerent tongues. IX. Power
to interpret these unknown and different
tongues. In the latter part of the chapter
he tells us that by giving these miraculous
gifts, God has set in the church — I. Apos-
tles. 11. Prophets. III. Teachers. IV.
Powers. V. Gifts of healing. VI. Helps.
VII. Wise counsels, VIII. Those who
speak with tongues. IX. Those who inter-
pret tongues. He then corrects their error
iu each one, claiming that his gift was best,
and that he should be honored above all
other possessors of gifts. He does it by the
beautiful figure of the human body and its
organs. He then corrects their error, the
error of my opponent that spiritual gifts,
on which they prided themselves, were the
highest, greatest and especial features of
tlie religion of Christ. He says "desire
earnestly the best spiritual gifts" now
while they are needed, "but nevertheless I
show unto you a more excellent way" than
the exercise of the best of these s})iritual
gifts. That is his meaning. 'JHie thing he
lias been discussing is the exercise of these
gifts. He says desire the best of them while
this is the way, but I will show unto you
a more excellent way than the higliest exer-
cise of the best of these spiritual gifts.
Observe, then, that Paul says there is a
more excellent way than the highest exer-

cise of the best of these spiritual gifts. In
this he differs from Mormons, that regard
these spiritual gifts as the highest, the
greatest element of the religion of Christ, iu
fact as the religion of Christ.

Paul unfolds this more excellent way.
He declares that Christian love, Christian
spirit and character are the aim of the Gos-
pel, as he says to Timothy that "tlie end of
the commandment is love out of a pure
heart, and unfeigned faith." All gifts, all
tilings are worthless unless they produce
Christian love, and are valuable only as
they produce it. Miraculous power itself
cannot do this, for as we have showed, it is
not a moral influence. It produces no moral
change. Paul after declaring that si)irit-
ual gifts are worthless unless they produce
Christian love. Christian spirit and char-
acter, unfolds the more excellent way (than
the best spiritual gifts) to produce Clitistian
love. As they can produce it only as they
reveal truth, that alone can produce it ; the
more excellent way is a perfect revelation
of the truth that alone can produce Chris-
tian love. Paul declares Christian love,
Christian spiiitand character are to remain
forever, and that what will produce them
best will remain for ever. He declares all
prophecying, all utterance by inspiration,
shall cease ; all miraculous speaking with
tongues, all signs of miraculous power shall
cease; all knowledge imparted miraculously
sliall cease. My opponent admits thatthe3'
shall cease. The query arises " When?"
That is the sole issue. Common sense
would say that as Paul is comparing the
state of the Church when the best of the
miraculous gifts exist, with a more excel-
lent way for the Church; that the more
excellent waj^ is when they cease. That as
Paul says they are valueless, unless they
})roduce Christian love, they cease when the
completed word of God, the perfect way of
producing Christian love is finished. Chil-
dren of God are made "perfect in teaching,
in reproof, in correction, in instruction in
righteousness, and are made perfect, and
thorough lyfurnisheduntoevery good work,"
not bymiraculous gifts, but by the Script-
ures. Paul savs, "For we know in part we
prophecv in part." That is during the ex-
istence of the best of these spiritual gifts,
knowledge imparted by inspiration was
but a fragment at each time, was partial,
prophecving was partial, but a fragment
of the truth was uttered at each time when
prophecying was done. "But when that
which is perfect is come, that which is in
part shall be done away." The question
now is:— What is that which is perfect?
Thatistheonly issue. Common sense would
say thatas the partial is partial revelations,
that are the highest exercise of these spir-
itual gifts, that the perfect would be com-
plete revelations. The partial that is to be
done away is partial revelation, by means
of miraculous gifts. The perfect is com-
pleted revelations, when these gifts pass
away. As Paul is discussing the condition
of the Church, and mentions, as the partial,
I the condition of the church, when those mi-

THE BKAJDEjM and KELLEY DEBATE.

293

raculous gifts exist; the perfect is wlien
tlie partial — tiiese gifts — l:iave passed away,
the coudition of the cliurch under the com-
pleted revelations, when these gifts have
veased. That is the perfect, the more ex-
cellent way that the apostle was to show.
My opponent admits miraculous gifts are to
cease but claims it is after the resurrection
has made us perfect, for our eternal resur-
rected state. I object. The apostle is not
discussing the eternal state, but tlie state
of the church. He is not contrasting thestate
of the church during all time with the eter-
nal state. But the state of the church un-
der the best of these miraculous gifts, with
the state of the church when they shall
cease, and as the imperfect state was on
earth, the perfect state is on earth as the
imperfect was when these gifts existed, the
perfect is when they shall not exist. Kelley
foists in the idea of the perfection of saints
in the eternal dispensation, after the resur-
rection, out of all connection, sense and
logic. It is preposterously absurd and out of
place.

What is that which is perfect? As tlie
partial was partial revelations, by spiritual
gifts, the perfect was a perfect revelation,
when they had ceased. "The law of the
God is perfect, converting the soul." There
we have the perfect. "The Scriptures are
perfect for teaching reproof, correction for
instruction in righteousness, for they make
the man of God perfect, and thoroughly
furnished for every good worli." There we
have the perfect. Paul says in Ephesians
these gifts are to remain until we attain to
the unity of the faith, the one faith, God's
completed word. Then we have what is
perfect. That settles the matter. For we
do not contrast imperfect revelation with a
thing entirely different, the state of the
righteous after the resurrection ; but we
contrast imperfect revelation under miracu-
lous gifts with perfect revelation after these
gifts have ceased, having perfected the re-
velation. Paul now returns to his figure in
the xii chapter, where he compared the
church to a body and these gifts to the
organs of the body. He personifies the
church by himself. He puts the man, the
body, in the first person. He says, "When
I was a child, I felt as a child." That is
the church that he personifies by himself is
in its childish condition while receiving
the best of these gifts. They are partial
and it can only speak as a child. Its reve-
lations are partial childish. He continues
"But when I became a man I put away
childish things." That is when the church
which he personifies by himself becomes a
man it will put away these childish things,
these partial thingsj when prophesying, in-
spiration and miracle working shall cease.
"Now we see in the mirror darkly."
Our revelations are partial, childish,
and they are an imperfect mirror. We
see imperfectly "But then," when partial
things, these revelations and gifts have
ceased, "we shall see face to face."
As James say.s : "A man who is a hearer of
the word and not a doer in like a man who

beholds his face in a mirror and forgtits
what manner of man he was. But he tliat
looks unto the perfect "Law of Liberty"
(God's word) and continues there shaK 'be
blessed." The mirror is God's perfected
word. The mirrurisiniperfectduriiigthe.se
partial revelations. It will be perfect when
the word is completed and tliey have passed
away. "Now," under these partial reve-
lations, " I know in part." The Church
that he personifies knows in part under
these partialrevelations. "But then," when
the word is completed, when the perfect,
the completed word has come, when the
mirror — God's word —is jierfect, "I ahali
know" the Church shall know "even as I
am also known." The Church sliali know
what it ought to be, after a perfect revela-
tion has been made, as it is known to
God, as he knows it, and inleuds it to be,
and as he will reveal it, and the Church
shall then know it. Paul concludes that
perfect faith, God's perfect word, hope,
God's perfect promises. Christian love,
produced by God's perfect word will remain
for ever. With this harmonizes the idea
that as God ceased miracle in creation, so
he ceased miracle in revelation, when each
had accomplished its work. In each case
miracle prepared for a higher work of God
by operation of perfect law. With this
harmonises the fact that as .revelation
ceased with Malachi when the Old Testa-
ment was completed, until Christianity
came, so revelation ceased when the New
Testament was completed, until the next
dispensation, the eternal, is introduced.
With this harmonizes the idea that consti-
tution-making ceases when the consti-
tution has been perfected. With this
harmonizes the idea that none but
an apostle could impart this mirac-
ulous power, this constitution ma-
king and provisional power. With this
harmonizes the idea that this power never
descended to a third person. With it har-
monizes the idea that when the last one, to
whom an apostle imparted this power by his
hands died, it ceased. It harmonizes every
portion of God's word It is in accordance
with sense. With it harmonizes the idea
that the religion of Christ embraces all re-
ligious ideas and expresses each perfectly,
and man now needs no higher or better
revelation of these truths. He can learn
more of their scope and grasp, but never
outgrow them. As man has reached abso-
lute truth, universal principles in the law
of gravitation and in the Coperuican law of
the universe, so he has reached aosolute
truth in religion, in Christianity. As man
cannot outgrow the law of gravitation, so
he can never outgrow the infinite truths of
Christianity. As man only learns more of
the scope and grasp of the law of gravita-
tion, so he can only learn more of the scope
and grasp of Christianity, of its truths re-
vealed in the New Testament. As he can
never outgrow the law of gravitation, and
needs no other law. so he can never out-
o-row the revelations in the New Testament,
needs no more rovolatiou. Finally we have

294

THE BRADEN AND KELEEY DEBATE.

challenjreri our opponent to name one new
idea or truth that all his pretended revela-
tions have o:iven to the world. He cannot
give one We have had no new revelation.
We have challenged him to name one single
truth that his pretended revelations have
given in a better manner than in the New
Testament. He cannot name one. A¥e
have no new revelations. What is not sto-
len from the Bible is balderdash. What is
stolen is mangled by the thief. It is proof
that his inspiration is the ass trying to wear
the skin of the dead lion. After declaring
that the New Testament is the constitution
of the ciuirch given by God to the church,
my opponent attempts to destroy the fatal
effect of the analogy on Mb theory by rais-
ing the objection that as the people who
appointed the delegates to frame our con-
stitution had to ratify their work, so God
who appointed the apostles ap his delegates
wovild have to ratify their work. The peo-
ple's delegates were not inspired and infal-
lible. God's delegates were. The Mormon
God and his inspired instrument, Joe Smith,
weresofallible in giving the constitution of
the Mormon organization, that he has had
to revise that last and most perfect work of
inspiration from title-page to finis. He has
made seventeen changes on one page, and
over five thousand in all. As the delegates,
the apostles, who gave our constitution, the
New Testament, were not inspired by the
Mormon God but by Jehovah, their work
needed no revision or ratification.

The way in which ray opponent will de-
liberately falsify God's word when it contra-
dicts his errors can be seen m his falsification
of the passages we quoted. Peter declares
that those he addressed were kings and
priests and had been made so before he
wrote. John declares that Christ has
washed those of whom he spoke and made
them kings and priests. Both are past.
Kelley deliberately falsifies the language
and declares it is to be done in our glorified
condition. He claims that l>ecause saints
are called kings and priests in that state,
they cannot be saints now. He falsifies the
word of God to avoid its flat contradiction
of his hobbies.

By what authority does my opponent
assert that the passage, "Desire earnestly
the greater gifts, and a still more excellent
way I show unto you," has been transposed
by copying? He' I/as not a manuscript, a
commentator or scholar to sustain him. He
impudently changes it in violation of all
authority and the sense of the context of the
passage,' as he impudently changes the tense
from present to perfect, the time from future
to past, and reads, "I have shown," instead
of "I show.'' A more impudent, deliberate
falsification of God's word was never per-
petrated. Sealing of the Spirit and the
miraculous Influence of the Spirit are differ-
ent. One is not a moral influence, the other

is. Each one is sealed for himself by the
Holy Spirit, but not by the miraculous
power of the Spirit. That he assumes, in
flat contradiction of God's word. Moses
declared his law was perfect for the
purpose for which he gave it, to pre-
pare for a better — the law of Christ. The
teaching in each grade in a school may be
perfect for its purpose to prepare for a better
grade, and the last prepares for a still better
state when the pupil becomes a man and is in
school no more. The building of the church
is going on now. It is not in the sense in
which he uses the term. Our government
is not being organized now. XVe are not
adding to our officers. Nor do we have a
Constitutional Convention in session. New
persons are succeeding those who pass away.
The number of States and citizens is being
ever increased, but our government is not
changed one particle. So the church re-
ceives nev/ members and sends out mission-
aries, but is not changed one particle.
Christ through the apostles pei:fected the
church.

The royal Priesthood of Peter and Job u
was not' the Melchizedek priesthood, for
Christ was the only priest of that order,
and had no suecessoif. I cannot sufficiently
denounce the falsehood that we have no
Holy Spirit in our church. W^e liave him
as sons of God, in aceoi dance with God's
word, and do not set up, a lying claim that
any Joe Smith has or had him in miracu-
lous power, when the Bible declares such
miracles have ceased. Our church is not
another ciiurch from the Apostolic church,
but the same church having, as the apostle
declared, laid to one side childish things,
and having entered on the more excellent
way. We have Christ in his word and law.
justasGod ordains. Mormons cut ofTChrist
"tiie head, and substitute that fraud, Joe
Smith; gouge out the eyes, and substitute
Mormon impostors as prophets, cut off the
ears and substitute Mormon frauds as
apostles. They cut off every member of
God set in the church, and si^bstitute their
frauds and load the mangled remains with
roun^illors and over twenty monstrosities
of their own manufacture of which the Bible
knows nothing and call the monstrosity the
ciiurch.

W^e have now placed before yci: the sim-
ple Apostolic church with its eight founda-
tion stones, r. One God. II. One Lord.
III. One Holy Spirit. IV. One faith— the
faith, God's word. V. One immersion.
VI. One hope. All. One body — the church
of Christ. VIII. One name— "Christian,"
for individuals, and ''Church of Christ," for
the organization. The building is made of
living stones saints, deacons or servants,
overseers and evangelists who are made
perfect by God's wortl. It is the perfect
man as God perfected it.

THE BRADEN AND KELI>EY DEBATE.

295

MR. KELLEY'S CLOSING SPEECH-

GeNTLEHEN MODEBATOltS, LaDTKS AND

Gentlemen : — Let me <iall your at-
leution at once to the misrepresen-
tation of my reference to the call-
ing- of Paul and Barnabas, in Acts 13 : 2-
3. My opponent stated tliat this laying on
of hands was not for the purpose of giving
the Holy Glicist; but what did he say that
for ? Who said it was for the purpose of
conferring the Holy Ghost? The position
which I took was that it was for the purpose
of conferring authority upon these parties
to enable Ihem to discharge the duties to
which they were called as ministers. My
position differs from my opponent in this : —
He and his church think it was but an idle
or void form; that there was no special au-
thority conferred by the act of the elders at
Antioch laying their hands upon these two
persons, for elders did not have the right to
lay on hands to confer the right to the Holy
Spirit by confirmation as did the apostles,
or to confer especial authority by virtue of
the authority of this Holy Spirit, in setting
persons apart for the work of the ministry.
But I claim that the facts are against them.
Tliatthis compliance with the ordinance in
the instance of Barnabas and Saul at this
time, was that they might receive some-
thing of the right of authority, which they
had not. That it is a similar case to the
one which I presented from 1 Tim. 4:14;
and of which ttiy opponent has taken no no-
tice, wliere, Paul calls Timothy's attention
to the fact that in liis (Timothy's) ordina-
tion under the hands of the elders he had in
fact received something, and by the power
of the Holy Ghost which was in those oflficia-
ting. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee^
which was given tliee by prophecy with tlie
laying on of the hands of the i)resbytery —
[eldership]." Here is an emphatic declara-
tion that there was in this ordinance of
the imposition of hands a conferring of
gifts.

But Braden says, they (his church) lay on
hands to merely set men apart, but tliat
they do not confer anything. No author-
ity is conferred thereby. This is as I have
claimed all the time ; I. knew that they did
not by so doing confer an^'thing, for they
have nothing to confer ;— not being elders
in fact in the church of God. But it is en-
tirely different to the action and methods of
the ('hurch in the days of the apostles, and
therefore, proves beyond a doubt, by Bra-
den's admission, that his church is not in
harmony in faith and practice with the New
Testament church.

In the early church, as 1 have .shown,
there was also a regular order in the calling
of the minister, as by the example of Jesus,
(not the congregation,) calling the apostles.
Math. 10:38. "'Pray ye therefore theLord of
the harvest, that he will send forth labor-
ers into the harvest." And Luke, 6: 12-13.

"And it came to pass in those days, that ho
went out into a mountain to pray, and con-
tinued all night in prayer toCJod. And
when it was daj'', he called unto him his
disciples, and of them he chose twelve,
whom also he named apostles." And also
as contained in Luke 10: 1. "After these
things the Lord appointed other seventy
also, and sent them two and two before his
face into every city and place, wliither he
himself would come." In Acts 1 : 15-20
verses, it is recorded that when an oftice in
the church was vacant, as I have before
fully slj )wn you, the apostles applied to
the proper authority, and head of the
church, for instruction as to the filling of it.
As Jesus did, so did tliey, "Pray the Lord
of the harvest that he may send forth the
laborers." They did not usurp the prerog-
atives of the "Lord of the harvest," and go
themselves ; or send others to their liking,
as do the congregations of the so-called
Christian or Campbellite churches.

So these apostles i)ray when they are 'o
select a minister: "Thou, Lord, which know-
est the hearts of all men, shew whether of
these two thou hast chosen." They knew
well enough that it was not their right or
place to call and make apostles, but that
the officers in the church had to be chosen
by the great head of the church. So it was
in the instance in Acts 13:2. "The Holy
Ghost said, separate me, Barnabas and
Saul, for the v/ork whereunto I have called
them." Not the congregation called them,
as Braden holds, hut as God calls them.
This also, as I have shown, accords witii
the practice and faith of Paul as set forth in
his first letter to the saints at Corinth, 7:17 :
"But as God hath distributed to every man,
as the Lord hath called every one, so let
him walk. And so ordain 1 i)i all churches."
But is this the way with Uradeu's church ?
Oh, no. As the imperfect, short-si,:i,hted
and often fanatical congregation calls, h\^
church ordains. The apostle, as I have
shown, believed in the doctrine, that when
Christ ascended up on high "he gave gifts
u^itomen." And that tliese gifts were for
the purpose of qualifying them for the
duties they were called to in the church, both
as officers'and lay-members; and that a man
could only be properly ordained to an olfico
when it \vas done in accordance with the
distribution of these gifts ; and hence, he
must wait till the Lord designated where
the "-ift should be bestowed as he instructs
in itom. 12:6 and 8: "Having, then, gifts
differing according to the grace that isgiveu
untous,whetherofprophecy,let us prophesy
according to the proportion of faith. Or
ministry, let us wait on our ministering ;
or he that teacheth on teaching," etc. The
idea, as before pointed out, is full and clear;
men must work in accordance with the gift
and calling of God unto them, and hence

296

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

must wait till God designates tlie gift of
their cjilliug before tliey can properly beset
apart to act.

This brings to my mind his comment on
the declaration of the apostle in Heb. 5 :
"And no m.iu taketh this honor unto him-
self but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron." Paul did so teach, and it is in
harmony with the instruction given upon
this calling of the ministry by him, and
Jesus, and all of the apostles whose words
we have.

"But," says Braden, "Paul referred to
the rule and requirement under the Mosaic
economy." What does he refer to it for?
Why did you not answer that? He refers
to it as a basis of argument to show to the
Jewish Saints how they must act under the
later law ; maintaining that the same rule
had been adopted under the order in the
Church in his time, and must be followed
as in the case of Aaron. This is shown in
the next verse: " jSo also Christ glorified
not himself to be made a high priest; [he
did not call himself nor permit the congre-
gation to do it;] but he that said unto him,
'Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten
thee'." As he saith also'in another place,
"Thou art a priest forever, after the order
of Melchizedek." This application of his
own argument, by the apostle, is too plain
to be gainsaid. Jpsus would not call him-
self to be a Tuinister ; a congregation could
not properly do it, but he must be called as
was Aaron, by revelation through the Holy
Ghost that giveth utterance. This same
Jesus was in his obedience and observance
of the rules of law and government, to be
^' our example in all things." Therefore,
■"No man taketh this honor unto himself,
hxxt he that was called of God as was
Aaron." Can you see that Paul was teach-
ing and laying'down a governing principle
in tue Christian economy now, Mr. Braden?
But it is the reverse of your system as ad-
mitted by yourself. Again he says, "That
if Joseph Smith had denied revelation,
there would have been no Mormonism, nor
Mormon polygamy."

Now is this not a sweltering argument?
How does it come that the belief by Mr.
Smith in revelation brought polygamy in
Utah, when the belief by Paul and Peter
in revelation did not bring polygamy among
the followers of Nicolas, one of the Seven,
ordained under the hands of the apostles at
Jerusalem? Will he answer this ? This is
like the argument so often made by infidels,
that if in the beginning the Devil had not
been created, there would have been no evil
whatever in the world ; therefore, the Lord
wholly responsible.

Do you accept the theory, Mr. Braden?

md can you not see there is no basis to
ur reasoning ? If there are parties in the

orld who shall take advantage of their
privileges, and stations, and the blessings
which God may have to give to his children,
does that argue that none of the children
shall have the blessings?

But, if Mr. Smith had not believed in the
principles of revelation there would have

been no Mormonism. Oh, no! Then ac-'
cording to himself Mormonism is the result
of a belief, not a disbelief, in revelation ;
and Smith was no deceiver, impostor, pre-
tentious fraud, etc., as he has called him.
He was a man, then, who acted from con-
viction and taught what he believed. Will
you now take back the false accusations
you have before made against him ?

But permit me to turn this profound (?)
logic over a moment. He will not dispute
that if all the people of the world had be-
lieved like the Campbellites do, and Mr.
Campbell did, that there never would have
been a revelation. No, they deny the prin-
ciple of present revelation. (They are not
like Mr. Smith.) But denying, they stand
in such a relation and position to God that
had the men of God in the world's history
believed as Mr. Campbell and Braden and
their church, no revelation could ever
have been received, and we should be with-
out Moses and the prophets ; without the
Psalms; without the gospels and all of the
inspired epistles of the apostles ; without
the Bible; without the presence of the Holy
Ghost, and without God and Christ in the
world. Aye ! my friends, had the prophets
of old, and Jesus and the apostles believed
as these Campbellite friends of oi.rs, all to-
day would be darkness and gloom, and
Christendom as the raging heathen who
has no divine record, no communion with
the Father and Son, and no gift ol the Holy
Ghost. Who will desire to stand up for a
faith the effect of which is v leave the
world in this benighted state? It will not
do. The Pharisees of old cried out, "We
know that God spoke to Moses, but as for
this man (Jesus) we know not from whence
he is." The position was one of error and
darkness, and it finally led them Into de-
struction and death. Jesus' position was
that of present revelation: "Upon this
rock I will build my church ;" " If any man
will do bis will, he shall know of the doc-
trine;" " If ye believed in Moses and the
prophets ye would believe in me, for M<).«eg
wrote of me." You must not only believe
in revelation in the past, but for the present,
for this was to " guide into all truth ;" and
this system of present revelation has giveu
light and glory to the world, and would
have shined far brighter than it has had it
not been for the persistent teaching of the
evil one, telling the children, Ye cannot
hear from your "Father whoartin heaven,"
now.

"The greatest curse upon the world,"]
Braden says, "is the belief in the direct
and immediate influence of the Holy Ghost."
That is just the position the ancient Scribes
and Pharisees occupied towards Jesus, and
the apostles, and the martyr Stephen. See
Acts, 6th. Has Braden fairly represented
you, my Campbellite friends? If so, I would
say, "Come out of her and be not partaker
of her sins."

But, says Braden again, "Mormons by
this belief in the gifts of the Holy Spirit
can go into and practice polygamy." There
is where he and the world have been mis-

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATi:.

2i>7

taken for years. Will he turn and show me
oven a pretended present revelation throuo^h
the polyg-amic church ? I know the world
have had it in mind that the people of Utah
profess to enjoy present inspiration and the
gifts of prophecy, tongues, wisdom and in-
terpretations, etc., but they have only de-
ceived themselves. There is not by the
Utah people even an open claim, that I have
ever heard of, to the receiving of a revela-
tion directing affairs, ever coming to the
Utah church through either Mr. Young or
Mr. Taylor, the only two heads. They are
on the common basis with my Campbeliite
friends out there. "That these things are
not necessary by them, for they say we have
a living priesthood." It is the same old
dodge, but placed upon a different basis.
What good is the living priesthood when
the life-power, the manifestation of the
Holy Ghost, is taken away? No; they are
not persons who are "led by the Spirit of
God" out there, and for this reason "the
sons of God ;" but they are all "kings and
priests" in Utah, except Governor Murry.
They differ from our Campbeliite friends in
that they also have an especial belief in
qupens as well as kings.

He again comes to the front with his
assertions, and defies me to show that there
is more than one baptism in the church.
He forgets that he is in the atSrmative on
this question and that it is his place to
prove and to stop his as^serting. I shall
not undertake to prove that there is more
than one baptism in his church, for I am
satisfied there is not, nor never was. In-
deed, I deny that he has any baptism in
fact, in his church, and have all along. The
requisites of a valid baptism is not only a
proper administration in water, but an
authorized officer to perform such adminis-
tration. This I have questioned from the
first as being in his church, and he has failed
to show that they had ; therefore I must
conclude that there is no baptism pe"-
formed in his church that God will sanc-
tion or ratify by giving to the candidate
the "seal of adoption," the gift of his Holy
Spirit ; and Braden admits that not one in
his church ever had the gift of the Holy
Spirit, or the seal of adoption ; No; it would
have made Mormons of them, he thinks.
However, I have already fully shown, that
there were two baptisrns in the Apostolic
church. "I.indeed baptize you wit' ater,
but he that cometh after me, is " i^ntier
than I, he shall baptize you wi' re and
the Holy Ghost." John, Math, r Again,

"Ye shall be baptized by the li'^'y Ghost,
not many days hence." Jesus, Acts 1: 5.
"Born of the water and of the Spirit."
Jesus, John 3:5. "Repent, and be bap-
tized, everyone of you, and ye shall receive
the gift [baptism] of the Holy Ghost."
Peter, Acts. 2:38. "Then laid they their
hands on them, and they received the Holy
Ghost." Acts, 8:17. "By one spirit are we
all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or
free ; and have been all made to drink into
one spirit." Paul. 1 C«r. 12:13. "Faith,

repentance, baptisms laying on of hands,
resurrection of the dead"^and eternal judg-
ment." Heb. 6:1 to 3.

"He saves us by the washing of regenera-
tion [baptism in water] and renewing of
the Holy (;host;" [baptism of the Spirit.]
For the next verse says that this renewing
was as follows: "Which he shed on us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Savior." When Jesus so shed this forth on
Pentecost day, it was a baptism of tlie
spirit, and just so too, in every other
instance.

But notwitlistanding all of this, Braden
defies me to show two baptisms. I can siiow
it readily enough in Jesus' church, I assure
you. Then, in Eph. 4:5, it is written : "One
Lord, one faith, one baptism." [Complete
birth, as I have shown you ; washing of
water and renewing of the Holy Ghost.]
This is also in accordance with the teach-
ing in the preceding verse: "There is one
body, and one Spirit even as ye are called
in one hope of your calling." Whatis this
one Spirit for? Not for anything in Braden 's
church, for he admits they (have none by
denying all of its office-work. But in Christ's
church it was for to bless the believer by
clothing him upon with the new man, Christ
Jesus, and sealing their hearts in love to
him; hence, "As many of you as have been
baptized into Jesus Christ have put on
Cluist." Jesus, John, Peter, Paul and Luke
were right in their teaching then ; there is
in the church of God a baptism of the water
and of the Sj^irit.

It seems hard for my opponent to give up
the point on the application of the consti-
tution argument to the apostles and New
Testament. He has a new theory now.
The sovereign people he now says made the
constitution through their delegates, and
so God made, as the likeness would go, the
constitution of the church by his delegates,
the apostles. Let us see how it will work :
After the delegates had framed the consti-
tution themselves, the people doing noth-
ing except sending them there, they return
it to the people for acceptance and ratifica-
tion. Now, according to this, in the church,
after the apostles had got up a constitution
according to their own wisdom, they send
it back to the Lord, who made them dele-
gates, for his acceptance and ratification.
Is not this the exact claim of Col. Ingersoll?
That the Lord did not give this law, but
that the apostles and some others got it up
themselves? Why, Braden has by this last
4urn of his, made it worse than before.
Making tlie people to represent the Al-
mighty in his suppositious case, ho has
clearly left the word of God witliout any
inspiration at all. Inpreparingthe Ameri-
can constitution, the people selected men
who were wise enough, they thought, to
frame a constitution for them. Did then
the Lord select some one to frame him a
constitution, as did the people of this gov-
ernment? Nonsense. There is not a half-
witted person in the state of Ohio but who
ought to see farther than that.

When the constitution of the United

298

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

States Avas framed it was done Ity the wis-
dom of the deleo-ates cho!?en by the people.
The people was the principal and the dele-
gates the servants. When done it was sub-
mitted to the principal, the people, for rati-
fication, and after ratification and adoption,
messengers and officers were chosen there-
under.

The work of the apostles under the Christ-
ian constitution begins where this delegate
v.'ork of forming a constitution ended. God
framed, devi.sed and acio^jted it, and then
selected his officers under it, and the
officers were first apostles, secondarily
prophets, etc. The same as the people
after adopting the constitution placed in
the government thereunder first a pres-
ident, etc. Braden's suppositious case is in
no sense a parallel one, and I am certain
you can see that it is not, my friends,
whether he can or not, so I pass along.

Again he claims that we have a perfected
constitution now, but that it was not per-
fect while Peter, Paul and John were in the
church; but what right has lie to say so?
When they were in the church they had
more constitution than we have now, there
are many writings referred to in the New-
Testament as being in their possession which
we liave not. besides they had much of all
we do have. Why does he persist in saying
then, that tlie Go?pel law is perfect now
but was not then? James called it perfect
then, as I liave shown? It was perfect in
the Psalmist's time in the same way, and
there is not a single scrap from Genesis to
Ivcvelations intimating that it would ever
be perfect any other way, until the time
when Jesus shall come in clouds of great
'glory and bring all his saints with him,
taking vengeance on all them who know
not God and obey not the Gospel." When
"we shall know and see him as he is, for we
•shall be like him."

Until thiss time it will be as Paul says of
the Gospel: "For therein is the rigliteous-
of God revealed fro/n faith to faith, as it is
written, thejiist shall live by faith." Not
received in full, all at once. It is quite im-
possible to so dispense or receive the Gospel,
— but 7-evealed from faitli to faith ; and just
about the time a man thinks he has got the
whole thing and there is nothing else for
him to learn, then is the time that lie is
under sin and "the bonds of iniquity."
There is something in the G(/spel to bless
man all the time and enable him to grow in
grace and the knowledge of the truth ; and
when he gets all truth it will be after he is
far ahead of where Paul was who says,
"Now I see in part and know in part, —
through a glass, darkly, — but then shall
I see as I am seen and know as I am
known."

[t is just as was the creation of the plants
and animals, which I have before referred
to, the Lord created them and established
the law of life b.y which they are perpetuat-
ed. He created his churcli and established
a law of life by wliicli this living church is
perpetuated, and just as certain as there is
found an absence of this animal and vege-

table life where the true conditions of life
are not recognized, just so sure are we to
find an absence of the true life and power
ill the church, and, per consequence, true
church where the conditions of spiritual
life are violated. Hence, the apostle talking
of the true church says : "We have not come
to the mount that might be touched and
that burned with fire nor unto blackness
and darkness and tempest." * * *

"Butyeare come unto Mount Zion, and
unto the city of the living God, the heaven-
ly' Jerusalem, and to an innumerable com-
pai\y of angels. To the general assembly
and church of the first born, which are
written in heaven, and to God, the Judge
of all, and to the spirits of just men made
perfect. And to Jesus, the mediator of the
new covenant, and to the blood of sprink-
ling that speaketh better things than that
of Abel." Heb, 12:18-25.

Paul's church was one of light, and life,
and gloi\y ; they had the blessings of grace
in the heart; the gifts and life of the Holy
f^jjirit; inspiration, administration of an-
gels, communion with the church of the
first born from the dead, and Jesus the me-
diator of th.e new covenant, [the power of
the Holy Ghost writing the law in the
heart.]

Compare now, my friends, this living, en-
lightening, glowing church of the first cen-
tury, with the dark cloud that is prefigured
in Braden's church, and judge for j^our-
selves if he has even so much as of grand-
father's old gun left as a reseml)lanoe.
Without apostles, prophets, gifts, wisdom,
knowledge, healings, tongues, prophecies,
living testimonies, the Holy Ghost and all
of its manifold manifestations ; devoid of
doctrine, tongues, revelations, psalms and
Avisdom ; without the ministration of angels
and far from all communication with the
chuichofthe first born; without the new
covenant and the placing of the law in the
heart and writing it in the inward parts :
without Jesus the mediator of this new cov-
enant whom no man can receive "but by
the Holy Ghost." Truly it is "a cloud with-
out water carried about of winds ; as a tree
whose fruit withereth; without fruit.'
"Having men's persons in admiration be-
cause of advantage." "Those be they who
separate themselves, sensual, having not
the Spirit." Jude. 19th verse. "But we,'"
says the same apostle, "beloved, building
up yourselves on your most holy faith,
praj/ing in the Holy Ohost, keep yourselve;<
in the love of (xod, looking for the mercy of
our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.''
Can you my audience catcli a glimpse of re-
semblancebetween his and the church of
the apostles ? If there is any, it is in the
fact that they have "a form of godliness but
deny the power thereof." The work in the
New Testament church was all the time
under the diiectiou and life giving power of
the Holy Gliost; it, indeed, was the fash-
ioner aiid builder, and let us not deceive
ourselves that we can ever become "lively
stones in the building" of Christ, the
church, without the gifts and power of the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

iyi>

same; for this reason I have shown that "a
manifestation of the Spirit was given to
ev6ry man to profit witlial."

SUMMARY.

Ladies and Gentlemen : Tlie question
under discussion for tlie last four evenings
has been with relation to the claims of the
Disciple or Campbellite churcli. There has
been no consideration of the claims of the
church of Jesus Christ, which I claim to
represent, but merely of canvassing; the
positions of the body of people of which it
is atflrmed in the question, conceived as I
judge and formulated by my opponent him-
self, as follows, to wit:

"Is the church, of which, I, Clark Braden,
am a member, identical in faith, teachiuo^,
practices, doctrine, ordinances and organi-
zation with the church of Clirist as left per-
fected by the apostles."

I have claimed that it is not. That it is
not in any sense of the term.

In the presentation of my argument, I
showed you : —

First, That in the consideration of the
question we must come to an understand-
ing as to the proper way to find out how
the church was left by the apostles. Wiiere
do we have the history of it? Do we find
the liistory from which we must ascertain
this condition in the New Testament? Or,
]s it to be had in the writings of those
termed, "Church Historians?" As lie
refused to answer me directly where this
history of the church which was left "per-
fected by the ap )s;tles" as he says, was to be
found, I have taken the trouble to set forth
the condition of the early church as shown
in the New Testament and also in the his-
tory of the practices of the church during
the second and third centuries.

Second, Having fully ascertained the true
status and condition of the cliurch as set
forth in the New Testament, and also sub-
sequent history, I took up the faith of his
church as set out by himself and reflected
in its publications and compared it with the
history of the church established by Jesus
and the apostles and the continued
practices of the same as shown in the his-
tory of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. What
has been the result:

1. I showed that his claim to having the
right name, was a mytli; for he had no
right to drop the name Jesus as shown
in Ephesians third; or to just call his
church disciples, or Christians, for neither
of these names were ever recognized of God
as the distinguishing name of his people in
any place in the Bible. *

Then I proved to you by ten citations of
Scripture that the true and proper name by
which the children of our Heavenly Father
is known and recognized by him here, and
by whicli they are to be recognized by him
hereafter is that of Saints. Has he even
attempted to reply to it?

2. He claimed he was identical with the
ancient church in faith. I took up the faith
held by the ancient saints, by which they
had access toGod througii his Spirit. Showed
it was a living, and active principle that

actuated the members of the early church,
being tiie power by which they could move
forward to mighty deeds of greatness and
that it was this that they were exhorted
lo contend for; and what' was his answer
to this: "Let Kelley remove one of these
Kirtland hills." But if was not Kel ley's
faith which was on trial, it is the faith" of
Kelley's Campbellite opponent. What
answer had he? None besides this. Why
should he claim they are identical in faith
therefore? Jesus said of his church mena-
bers, that if you shall have faith, you snail
do many wonderful works, and afterwards
they did to them Bradeu's church, then,
is not identical in faith.

3. I showed that repentance in the early
church consisted of not only a sorrowing
for sin, but if any one had wrongedauotiier
he must restore the wrong. That simply
being sorry for a theft, roobery or evil and
injurious act was not sufficient.

Braden's chnrch has not been shown to
believe in the true repentance of the Bible
even.

4. Baptisms as practiced in the early
church was canvassed as referred to l)y
Paul in Heb. 6:1 to 4, where the apostfo
enumerates the first, or /iiiida?nn7ifal prin-
ciples of the doctrine of Christ, and Braden
at once admitted that they liad no baptism
in their church except in water, nor never
have iiad.

Why does he claim tliat his church is
identical in doctrine and practices with
that of which the New Testament is a his-
tory, then? In that, they had the baptism
of the water and of the Spirit, and Braden
Jiimself admits they were baptized of the
Holy Spirit on Pentecost and at the house-
hold of Cornelius.

5. Another of the^/-.s<, or foundation prin-
ciples in the church of which the New Tes-
tament gives a history was the doctrine of
"Laying on of hands." Remember, it was
Sk first, or foundation principle upon which
to build, and consequently recognized as
the right of every believer to receive, as in
the cases cited and practices established.
Acts 8:17, 9:17, 19:2 and 4, where hands were
laid on after baptism for confirmation and
the giving of the Holy Ghost.

My opponent admits they have nothing
of the kind in his church. Why should he
say they are identical with the church as
left by the apostles then ? From the history
of the practices of the church in the 2nd,
3rd and 4th centuries I showed that this
practice of laying on of hands was had in
all instances where there was a true bap-
tism, by the church long after the year
98, and'that the Lord confirmed it by giving
the Spirit, and he has not even attempted
a reply. No. He don't accept any thing
of a history outside of the New Testament.
He ought to accept the practices as laid
down in that then.

6. On the question of the calling of the
minister I showed conclusively that the
Js'ew Testament order was by the Holy
Spirit as God directed. His answer to
this is that the rule is now changed. If so

300

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

why is he claiming to be identical in faith
and practice wltli the New Testament order
Knd practices? Tliat is the question. If
the rule is changed why does he not man-
fully say so, and then tell us that his church
is not identical witli the New Testament
church in faitli, practices and ordinances.

Why humbug his members into the belief
that they are lil^e an assembly that Peter
or John constituted in their time, when In
fact there is hardly a show of agreement?
Who changed the order of callin? the minis-
ter? Has he answered that? Hashefound
a single passage in the I^ible going to show
that God would change his order of calling
his ministry? No ; he knows he has not.

7. The organization of the early church,
I showed, was with apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, teachers, helps, gov-
ernments and gifts, and that their rule of
practice was, when one of these places in
the church was made vacant, to fill it up
with a like officer ; as Matthias was called,
in Acts 1 : 24-25, Barnabas and Saul after-
wards to the apostleship and so on when
vacancies occurred, until they were filled
to the number of nineteen, which I was
enabled to trace from the record.

What was his answer to this? Only that
this order had been done away, and a new
order instituted. Well, does that make him
identical in j^ractice and organization with
the church the history of which alone is
set forth in the New Testament?

Is it not apparent by this time, my friends,
that Mr. Braden undertook a big job when
he set out to show that Mr. Campbell was
a " re.s<o?-^r .^" A restorer not only of the
church but the ancient church itself?

I called attention to the nine different
spiritual gifts exercised iiy the members in
the early church as set out in Jesus' lan-
guage in Jdark, and the 12th of 1 Corinthians
by Paul, and what does he say to that? All
done away. But why does he claim an
identity with them if they had all of this
with them, and Braden has not a single one
in his church?

That wise reason : "Because that's done
away;" " It's not necessary now," has de-
ceived more people, my friends, on all of
the principles of the doctrines of Jesus
Christ than my opponent could enumerate
for an evening. What a formidable reason
that is to hand out to thinking men and
women, "they are done away." Nobody
says that God did them away. That .Jesus
commanded that they cease. That the
apostles refused to exercise these gifts and
stamped them out. No; as long as there
were any persons in the world whom God
approved, the.y stood for these things, and
it has been left for those who, as the apostle
said, " have fallen away," not having the
true faith; who have "heaped to them-
selves teachers having itching ears," and
thus made their own ministers to do these
things away.

The •more excellent way" referred to by
the apostle I have shown clearly to point to
the way he taught ; that men should have,
and exercise these gifts, and so continue

until we should all see as we are seen and
know as we are known, and not that one
person should have all the gifts, or that the
church should consist of just one class of
officers, all apostles or all elders or deacons;
but that all the officers must be in the
church to have a true body, as much so as
that all the members of the bod^' have to
be intact so as the man shall have a perfect
body, and that a church which has only
elders and deacons in it can no more be in
fact the true church, the body of Christ,
than a pair of hands and a couple of toea
can make the full body of a man.

The more excellent way, in other words, I
showed was that which Paul set forth in
the Sth, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 28th, 29th and
30th verses of the 1 2th chapter of 1st Corin-
thians, and the 1st, 2d, 39th and 40th verses
of the 14th chapter, and which he said in
the 13th chapter of the same letter should
remain in the true church till that time
should come when they should "see as they
were seen and know as they were known."

9. They were placed in the church as I
haveshown "for the perfecting of the saints,
the work of the ministry, the edifying of
the body of Christ, till we all come into the
unity of the faith unto a perfect man unto
the knowledge of the Son of God." Eph.
4 : 12. But this is just the opposite of what
Braden has held, for he took the position it
was for the "perfecting of the law." Is
he with the pattern again ? No, certainly.

10. The tenth difTerence I showed between
between his church and the New Testa-
ment was the principle of intolerance to
others who difTered with them religiously.
Braden has not denied this nor denied tliat
his "restored " members of Mr. Campbell
used violent measures against the Saints
when they could not meet them in argu-
ment. Neither has he denounced such
measures. No such practice was ever en-
gaged in by God's children, Jesus or the
apostles. But it was "wliatsoever ye would
that men should do to you do ye even so to
them."

11. Braden's church preaches gospel of
promise, gospel of process, gospel in fact ;
but the gospel was all that John, Jesus,
Peter, Paul or any of the Saints knew any-
thing about, either before or after Pente-
cost.

12. Braden's church claims that Jesus did
not establish any church ; that there was
none till after Jesus' death, and not then
till Pentecost. I have showed beyond cavil
that the church did exist before Pentecost
day, and was established and organized by
Jesus during his ministry.

13. His church denies the gift or baptism
of tlie Holy Spirit to all of their followers.
I have shown that it was promised to all
the believers in the early church, and the
apostle taught, "For by one Spirit are we
all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, bond or free; and have
all been made to drink into one Spirit."
His answer to this was Paul meant "bap-
tized by the command of the Spirit," but
it is evident Paul meant no such thing.

THE BRADEN AND IvELLEY DEBATE,

301

Why should he persist, theu, in saying- they
arethe "restored" church, and that their's
IS the one '^restored" gospel wiiich Paul
preached ?

14 The church of whichBraden isamember
claims there is no Holy Hpirit j^iven to the
believer in Christ, except through the me-
dium of the word, the letter of the Jaw ;
Whereas, The practice in the early church
was to adminiister the Spirit as shed forth
by Jesus Cluist, not through the medium
of the word, but sent down from heaven on
the converts alter they had 'believed and
obeyed the truth. 1 liis is ex.'ut'y the re-
verse '• Ihe faith and practice of Bradeu's
cburcii.

15. Bradeu's church professes to be built
upon the Bible, and theBilde alone. I have
shown you that God did not build his
church on this but the rotik of j-)resent re,ve-
lation, which his church denies to its adher-
ents, and tlierefore his church is not built
upon the foundation of apostles and proph-
ets, Jesus Clirist being the chief corner
stone. It takes present revelation and a
present enjoyment of the promise of the
Holy Ghost to build in this way and it is
not enouuh to simply believe apostles and
prophets and Jesus once existed in the
church.

(Time called.)

302

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S OPENING SPEECH ON THIRD PROPOSITION.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — It is with considerable pleas-
ure that I again appear before you, to in-
vestigate a question touching directly upon
the faith in the gospel of Christ as I believe
ij. The people generally are as ignorant of
the actual faith and principles of the
church I represent as the ancient Scribes
and Pharisees were of the faith and doctrine
Jesus and Paul preached. For this reason,
if there were no otliers, I am glad to-night,
being assured iu my heart that when I shall
be rightly understood by you, and the peo-
ple whom I represent shall have been truly
known by you, that we shall find in your
hearts a warmer feeling than is possible to
exist in the absence of such knowledge.

I delight also to engage in a friendly in-
vestigation of the facts underlying my faith
in the Redeemer, because I have so care-
fully considered and criticized it, that I
know that there is nothing contained there-
in, but that will appeal to man's intelligence,
and is entitled to a place in the highest im-
pulses, and worthy to be honored with the
Dol>lest sentiments of the human heart.

The question, the discussion of which we
en ler upon this evening, reads :

"Is the Re-organized Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints the church of
God in fact, and accepted with him."

am well aware that to begin with, my
friends, I have the unpopular side of this
issue; and that even men and women of
much intelligence, look upon a person who
accepts the faith of the Saints, as being not
only visionary, but actually fanatical. But
notwithstanding this, I can truly say that
the ablest criMcs and most profound reason-
ers that it has been my lot to meet among
any })eople I have found among the Latter
Day Saints. I ask you then to accept, for
the time of this investigation at least, the
injunction of the wise man, and hear this
issue discussed, before passing upon the
merits of it: "He that answereth a matter
before he heareth it, it is a folly and a shame
unto him." Yes, and those who are ready
to condemn a man, or people, before they
give them a fair and full hearing, are not
only unfit to be called children of God, but
are in fact, bad citizens and evil doers in
the government itself. I ask j'ou then to
discharge your minds of such prejudice, or
bias, as would otherwise prevent you from
judging the arguments to be produced in
this discussion, upon their merits, and as
free men and women, think and act for
yourselves, and of yourselves, instead of
being led V)y the mischievous influences
which may have by reason of your relations
in life, been thrown around you. It may
appear to you that m the very fact of tlie
claim thafcthe church which I representis

thechurch of God and accepted with Him, it
is shown that I have not sufficient charity for
the work and feelings of others. But, think
of it ! Is it really a thing to be condemned,
or not rather an affirmation to be admired?

Would you expect me to belong to the
church I do, and seek to promote its
interests, if I did not think it was the
church of Ood in fact, and accepted with
html I am sure that upon a second
thought you would not. Well, if I really
believe it, is it wrong to tell you candidly
what my belief is ? You cannot but answer
me that it is not. "But," says some of my
friends of the other churches, "You ought
not to believe that yours is the accepted
church of God." Let me ask, is not that
what you all believe?

What church member present of what-
ever name or denomination, who does not
believe his church is thechurch of God, and
accepted with him? If there is such a one
I would like to see him. AVhat does he
belong to it for, if it is not God's church?
Does he expect to be saved by reason of
belonging to some man's church, or does
he think Deity has hundreds of churches
on the earth all teaching adverse views and
principles and impelled by diverse motives?
Such a view degrades the character of our
Heavenly Father. It is a fact, my friends,
that he does not approve of all tliat takes
place in the name of religion iu this world,
and the sooner we admit this and seek to
sustain and attach ourselves to that only
which we are satisfied our Heavenly
Father does approve of and accept, the bet-
ter it will be for us, and the more actual
good we will be enabled to perform in the
world.

But it is not your church that is affirming
this evening, my friends, neither that is on
trial. It is the one I represent. Is it the
church of God and accepted with Him?
I claim that it is, and for the purpose of
proving this claim I shall proceed to com-
pare it with the Divine Code, the funda-
mental law, contained in the book called
the Bible, and ascertain if there is an entire
agreement.

To compare with this fundamental law,
it will be necessary that I first set out the
fundamental principles of my faith ; you
will want to know whether they are in
agreement with the law. To maintain the
proposition which I affirm, it will be requi-
site for me to show :

]. That the principles and faith of the
church are in harmony with the word of
God. Are, indeed, thegoodseed of Christ's
Kingdom, which, when men have sown,
brings forth the proper fruit — that which
is acceptable with Jesus Christ: providing
it has fallen upon the good ground.

THE BRADEN AND KELI.EY DEBATE.

803

"When any one heareth the word of the kingdom,
"and uiiderstandeth it not, then cometh ihe wifkea
" one, and catclietli away that which was sown in his
" heart. This is he which receivetli seed by the way-
" side.

"But he that received seed into the good ground Is
"he that heareth the word, and under.-<tiuuieth it;
" wliich also beareth fruit, and brineft.tli forlli, some
"an hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty" Malt.
13:19 and 23.

This parable is also plainly set forth by
the evangelist Luke, 8:11 and 15. Jesus
says :

"Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of
"Mod " 'Bill that on the good ground are they, which
" in an honest and good heart, having heard the word,
" keep it and bring forth fruit with patieme."

It is the same thought, yet illustrated iu
a different way, that is found in Luke's
gospel, 6 : 47 and 49 :

"Whosoever cometh to me. and heareth my sayings,
" and doetii ihem, I will show you to whom he is like."

" He is like a man which built an house, and digged
" deep, and laid the foundation on a rock."

This was a sure way in which to build;
and so in building in the church of God,
the only place where we may hope to find
true work and a building that will stand
the test of an examination of the Master, is
that which is built by the word of God.
The flowing and planting the good seed in
good and honest hearts. For this reason it
is written :

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on
" him. if ve continue in my word, ihen are ye my dis-
" ciples iiiVleed: And ye siiall know the truth and the
" truth shall make you' free." John 8:31 and 32.

After satisfying you as to what this seed
(word of God) of the kingdom is, I must
show :

2. Tliat the church which I represent in
its work is in fact sowing this good seed ;
distributing the word of God ; abiding in
God's word in its system of faith and doc-
trine.

1 shall, therefore, now set forth the fun-
damental principles of our faith, together
with some of the scripture citations, which
we claim to reflect and enjoin these princi-
ples, as follows:

PRINCIPLES OP FAITH AND DOCTKINK.

1. We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his
Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Matt. 28: 19.
1 John 1:3. St. John 11 :26.

2 That men will be punished for their own sins,
and not for Adam's transgression. Ecc. 12:14. Matt.
16 : 27. 1 Cor. 3 : 13. Rev. 20 : 12-15.

■.i. That through the atonement of Christ, all men
may be saved bv obedience to the laws and ordinances
of the gospel. 1 Cor. 15 : 3. 2 Tim. 1 : 10. Rom. 8 ; 1-6.

4 That these ordinances are: —

(lat). Faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Heb.
11:6. Pet. 1:21. 1 Tim 4:10. John 3:16, 18, 36.
Mark 11: 22. John 14:1.

(2d). Repentance. Matt. 3:2, 8, 11. Luke 13:3;
24:47. Kzek. 18:30. Mark 1:5, 15. Acts 2: 38. Rom.
2-4. 2 Cor. 7 : 10.

(3d). Baptism bv immersion for the remission of
sins. Matt. 3:13-1.5. Mark. 1:4, 5. Luke 3:3. John,
3:5. Acs 2::18, 22; 16; 2:41; 8:12. 27. .38. Mark
16:16. Col. 2:12. Rom. 6:4, 5. John 3:23. Acts
8 * 38 39

'i4th).' Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy
Ghost. Deut. 34 : 9. John 20 : 21 22. Acts 8 : 17 ; 19 : 6.
1 Tim 4; 14. Acts 9: 17 1 Cor. 12:3. Acts 19: 1-6

5. We believe in the Resurrection of the Body; that
the dead in Christ will rise first, and the rest of the
dead will not live again until the thousand years are
expired. Job 19: 25,26. Dan. 12:2. 1 Cor. 15 : 42. 1
Thess. 4:16. Rev. 20:6. Acts 17: 31. Phil. 3:21. John
11:24. Isa. 26:19. Ps 17:15.

6. In the doctrine of Eternal Judgment, which pro-
vides that men shall be judged, rewarded or puiished.

according to the degree of good or evil thev shall have
done. Rev. 20:12. Ecc. 3:17. Matt. 16:27. 2 Cor.
5:10 . 2 Pot. 2: 4, 13, 17.

7. That a man mu<t be Called of God and ordained
by the Laying on of Hands of those who are in author-
ity, to entitle him to preach the Gospel and .Xdminister
in the Ordinances thereof. Heb. 5: 1, 5, 0, 8. Acts.
1 24. 25 ; 11:23. Eph. 4:11. John 15: 16.

S. That the church should have the same kind of
organization that ^>xisteii in the primitive church, viz:
A()ostle.s, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists,
&c. 1 Cor. 12 : 2H. Matt. 10 : 1. Acts 6 : i. Eph. 4 : 11 ;
2:20. Titus 1:5.

9. That in the Bible is contained the word of God so
far as it is trauilated correctly, and further that thu
canon of scripture is not fuU, but that God, by His
Spirit, will continue to reveal His word to man until
theendof time. Job32:8. Heb.l3:8. Prov. 29:18.
Amos3:7. Jer. 23: 4; 31 : 31. :34 ; 33:6. Ps. 85:10,11.
Luke 17 : 26. Rev. 14: 6, 7 ; 19 : 10.

That the believers in Christ are entitled to the pow-
ers and yifts of the everlasting gospel, viz: the gift of
faith, discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, heal-
ing, visions, tongues, and the interpretation of
tongues, wisdom, charitv. brotherly love, &c. 1 Cor.
12:1-11:14:26. John 14: 24. Acts 2:8. Matt. 28 : 1 9,
20. Mark 16 : 16.

11. That miirriage is ordained of God; and that the
law of God providrs for but one companion in wedlock,
for either man or woman, except in cases where tlie
contract of marriage is broken by death or transgres-
sion. Gen. 2: 18, 21-24; 7 : 1, 7, 13. Prov. 5 : 15--21.
Mai. 2 : 14, 15. Matt. 19 : 4-6. 1 Cor. 7 : 2. Heb. 13 : i.

12. That the doctrines of a plurality and a commun-
ity of wives arfe heresies, and are opposed to the law of
God. Gen. 4 : 19, 23, 24 ; 79; 22 : 2, in connection Gal.
4th and 5th c. Gen. 21 : 8--10. Mai 2: 14, 15. Matt. 19-
3--9.

13. That in all matters of controversy upon the duty
of man toward God, and in reference to preparation
and fitnes^i for the world to come, the word of God
should be decisive, and the end of dispute; and that
when God directs, man should obey.

14. That the religion of Jesus Christ, as taught in the
New Testiiment Scriptures, will, if iis precepts are
accepted and obeyed, make men and women better in
the domestic circle, and better citizens of town, c. uniy
and state, and consequently better lilted for the change
which comeih at death. . .

15. That men should worship God in "Spirit and in
truth; " and that such worship does not require a
violation of the constitutional law of the land. John
4: 21-24. ^. . ., . . ,

16 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty
God according to the dictates of our conscience, allow
all men the same privilege, let them worship how,
where or what they may.

Other than these we esteem as a sacred
injunction the observance of the Lord'.s
Supper, or Eucharist; and under proper
circumstances and place, the washing of
feet. But I will not catalogue further at
thi.s time.

Now, I have presented to you our system
of faith. It is proper, and necessary to ex-
amine the faith and doctrine a people re-
presents, in order to ascertain whether they
are right or wrong. It is the only possible
correct test. You cannot judge by the sto-
ries told about them, nor from outward ti])-
pearances; but vou can tell whether tlu-y
speak that which is found in the word of
God, if you will take the trouble to examine
your Bibles. .

It is, therefore, an established principle
in Christ's kingdom, that by the word, a
man shall stand justified or condemnetl.

"He thatabidethinthedoctrineofChrist,
he hath both the Father and the Son."

This is an absolute truth, and all the pt5w-
er of Satan, and works of evil men combined,
will fail iu the effort to overthrow it. 1 he
salvation of an individual, from a Bible
stantlpoint, rests upon the condition of
whether he will accept the principles of
the doctrine of Christ, and adhere to them.

804

THE BEADEN AND KELT.EY DEBATE.

Hence, Jesus says, "For whosoever doeth
the will of God, the same is my mother, ruy
sister and my brother." This is the stand-
point from which the churcli of God is re-
presented upon earth to-day, if represented
atall. Those who abide in, and represent
His trutli, abidein and represent Him ; and
are, therefore, His children, and for that
reason Jesus said, I am not ashamed to call
you my brethren. Will my opponent then
enter upon an investigation of these 16
prominent principles and help you to ascer-
tain if a single one is contrary to the verit-
able doctrine of the Messiah, as revealed in
the Bible, or whether in this System of
Faith, there is lacking, or the absence, of a
single principle of the Gospel, taught and
enjoined by Jesus and the apostles?

Jesus in the commission says : "Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with
you always, even unto the end of the world."
The promise is as true now, as when ut-
tered ; and it is the distinctive mark by
which the true minister may be known to-
day ; and the apostle, therefore, urged in
his time, "If any man preach (teach) any
other gospel, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:
8-9. It is by their teaching then that we
are to judge of the merits of the claimants,
now under trial. Kot by some story told
around the corners about them. Never !

But I shall not only prove that we are in
harmony with the principles and doctrine
of Christ, but will also show :

3. That this church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints, was founded by Christ
himself, in accordance with the promises
made through the prophets. A work fore-
told by them to be accomplished in the last
da.ys, or in the "dispensationiof the fullness
of times."

As bearing directly upon the work and
time of reinstating the gospel and organiza-
tion of the church your attention is called
to the prophecy of Isaiah, Chap. 11 : 12, 13
verses.

" And he shall set up nn eniign for the ndtlorn, »nd

" ihull assemble the niilra^ts of Is'sel, and gather to-
" gether the dispersed of Judah from the four corneri
" of the earth.

"The envy also of Ephralm shall depart, and the
" adversaries of Judah shall be cm off: Ephraim shall
" not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex EphrHim."

Here is fully set forth the fact that at
some time in the Avorld's history the God of
heaven should undertake to fulfill the
promises made to the patriarchs and Moses
to establish their posterity permanently.
The time is fixed, too, after the destruction
of Jerusalem in the year A. D. 70; for it
says, "and shall assemble the outcasts of
Israel, and gather together the dispersed of
Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Judah was not dispersed till about the time
above referred to ; for although the other
tribes were outcasts — driven from the prom-
ised land of Canaan — it was said of Judah,
Gen. 49: 10: ^"The scepter shall not depart
from Judah, nor a law-giver from between
his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him
shall the gathering of the people be."

This is full and explicit. Judah was not

to lose a national existence until Christ
should come; but after that time it is evi-
dent from the prophecy that they would,
for it is declared, " unto hira (Christ) should
the gathering of the people be." They
were to be scattered then as prefigured iu
the prophecy, after the Shiloh should come.
But notice, " w??Yo Aim they are to be gath-
ered: Hence, he is to set up an ensign"
(raise the eospel standard) after the disper-
sion^ of Judah, and from that beginning
gatlier not only Judah but all the outcasts
of Israel, even though .=<o far scattered and
dispersed as to the "four corners of the
earth."

The same work is pointed out in Isaiah
62: 10 and 11:

"GothrouKh, go through the gate"": prepare ye the
"way of the people: east up. cast up tlie hiiihway;
"gather out the stones; lift up a, standard for the
" people.

' Behold, the Lord hnth proclaimrd unto the end of
'"the world, ''ny ye to trie daiifjliter of Zion Pehold,
"thy galvatioii comelh ; bohold, hi* reward is with
" hiin, aud his work before him."

The prophet here sets forth the work of
bringing again the people from their dis-
persion, and the preparation to be made for
this work ; the s<ajida?-rf among other things
is to be "lifted up," as declared in the for-
mer citation ; and this is just before the
seco.id coming of Jesus, for it says : "Behold
^hy salvation cometh: behold his reward is
with him, and his work before him." Jesus
when he came before did not restore the
Jews — they were not then dispersed ; neith-
er did he then "come to reward every
man according to his work." Here, how-
ever, the prophet points to the time -when
he shall come bringing his ^'rewards" with
him.

Let us pass on to the statnmeiit mad© by
the propiiet Jeremiah of this same work.
Jeremiah 16:16-20. In the 16, 17 and IS
verses the prophet speaks of the restoration
of Israel in the time when it is declarsd he
"will send forth many fishers and they
shall fish them; and many hunters and
they shall hunt them fron) every mountain
and from every hill and out of the holes of
the rocks." Then, in verse 19, he says:

" O Lord, inv strength and my fortress and my refuge
" in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall corae unto
" thee from the ends of the earth and shall say. Surely
" our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and tbing«
" wherein there is no profit."

" Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are
" no gods?"

"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them
" to know, 1 will pause them to knuw mine hand and
"niymiglit; and they shall know that my name is
•' Tlie Lord."

Here the condition of society is vividly
set forth and the evil teaching that is to do
so much mischief to the Gentiles. Israel,
it is predicted, shall be established, although
the false teacliers among the Gentile nations
have told the people it would not be done.
The Lord of all the earth is to do a work
and command and authorize his servants,
although the people had been taught that
they could call their own preachers and set
up their own ministers, God's hand is t-o
be revealed. He is to actually declare his
purposes as in the olden time, although the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

305

people have been taught that revelation and
the immediate work of God among them
"has been done awaj'." For these things
the Gentiles will yet be surprised, because
of the great things coming upon the earth,
and they shall wake up but to exclaim
"Surely our fathers have inherited lies,
vanity and things wherein thei'e is no
profit." That they have been deceived and
"have set up gods unto themselves and they
are no gods." Let me tell you, my friends,
there is coming a time when there is to be
a change, and then there will be a weaken-
ing all around among these self-constituted
revivalists.

The prophet further refers to the work of
the Lord, ibid. 23 ; 1 to 5 verses :

" Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter
" the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord."

" Therefore, thus saith the Lord npainst the pastors
" that feed my people ; ye have scattered my flock and
' driven them away and have not visited them ; beliold
" I will visit upon you theevilof your doings, saith the
" Lord."

" And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of
"the countries whither I have driven them; and I
" will bring them again to their folds and they shall
" be fruitful and increase."

" And I will set up shepherds over them which shall
" feed them, and they shall fear no more nor be dis-
" niayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the
" Lord."

Thus it is further shown that it comes
from the unsound work of the teachers, that
the people of the Lord are scattered and
divided in every place, and there will com-
mence a work of change in the right direc-
tion, when he shall begin to select, call his
own shepherds, teachers, ministers, and
send them forth with the true gospel stand-
ard which he has declared he will set up.

But hurrying on in these prophecies, I
cite j'^ou the 20th of Ezekiel, 33 to 37 verses:

The same work is here outlined and to be
done, as before indicated, in the last time;
and the manner of it is clearly set forth in
verse 35 :

"And I will bring you into the wilderness of the
" people, [not in a dfsert wilderness this time,] and
" there will I plead with you face to face."

"Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilder-
"ness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you,
" saith the Lord God."

There will be a revealment of God's hand
then this late in the world, and revelation
and inspiration are not things of the past.
They are certainly to be again employed in
the work God shall be concerned in, in the
last days, when he shall set his hand a
^'second time to recover his people from
every country."

Notice next in this connection the testi-
mony offered upon the question of the final
change to take place as to the relative situ-
ations of the Gentiles and Israel, by the
apostle Paul : Rom. 11 : 25 and 27.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignor-
" ant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your
"own conceits: [Paul is writing to the Gentile
" saints and desires to open their eyes to the fact of
" some changes to be made;] that blindness, (or hard-
" ness) in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness
" of the Gentiles be come in."

" And so all Israel shall be saved ; as it is written,
" there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall
"turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" "For this is
" my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
" their sins."

This Deliverer was to come after Paul's

time, and the restoration and revelation
made after that time. Who shall say then
that God shall not reveal himself again,
and that his "hand" shall not be made
manifest as he has declared.

Open your hearts, my friends, to the
sublime fact that the promise of revelation
is for our time, and this, when God shall
set up his church, "no more to be ttirown
down or left to another ])eop]e."

Jesus in the 2l3t chapter of Luke, speak-
ing of this wonderful transformation in the
situations of the people says :

_ " And they shall fall by the f dge of the sword, and
" shall be led away captive into all nations ; and Jeru-
" salem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until
" the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Will my opponent say, that then it shall
not cease to be trodden down, and that the
Lord shall not at that time be found plead-
ing in the wilderness of the people for the
old paths, and the removal of Israel's sins?
But, says the enquirer, how shall this sin
be removed and all of this work be brought
about? This leads me to consider another
feature entering into the discussion of this
proposition, showing :

4. The means used in the accomplishment
of the work mentioned in these prophecies,
or the nature of God^s work.

It is to be identical in kind with the work
of the first century. I understand there is
to be no change so far as Deity is concerned,
in carrying on his work.

Jesus says :

"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." Matt. 24: 14.

He evidently refers by the word "this,^^
to the kind of gospel his will be, that is
preached, and the end of the world, as the
time of preaching it; for he is answering
the following questions asked him by his
disciples ; see verse 3:

1. "Tell us, when shall these things be?"

2. " What shall be the s^gn of thy
coming?" •

3. " And, [what shall be the sign] of the
end of the world?"

He uses the language relating to "this
gospel of the Kingdom" in connection with
the answer to the third question. Hence,
I conclude, it is not to change, but in the
end of time, be the same old gospel. This
is as the Revelator viewed it, for he says :

"And I saw another angel fly in the midstof heaven,
" having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them
"that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and
" kindred, and tongue, and people."

"Saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give glory
"to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come; and
" worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the
" sea, and the fountains of waters."

There are two prominent things set out
in this language bearing upon the propo-
sition :

1. That it is the ^'everlasting gospel.'^ It
is always the same them; — does not change,
— and hence, equal to " Tfiis gospel of the
Kingdom,^'' of which Jesus spoke.

2. That it is placed by John ao being
committed to earth and preaciied in th*

306

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

^' hour of God's judgment.^' The exact
time to which Jesus refers, — " the end of
the world.''

I will proceed to examine it then, and
ascertain if possible, what it is, and what,
if anythinsT, is connected with it wherever
it is found"^ It is stated in the record by-
Matthew 4: 23.:

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their
" Synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the King-
" dom, and healing all manner of sickness and all
" manner of disease among the people."

It is set forth in Luke 4: 18 to 30, in the
same light:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
" annointed me to preach the gospel to the poor: he
" hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach
" deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
" to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."

*' To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

He at this time says to the people:

" Ye vein surely say unto me this proverb. Physician,
"" hen 1 thyself. "Whatsoever we have heard done in
" Capernaum, do also here in thy country. And He
" said. Verily I say unto you. No prophet is accepted
" in his own country."

Jesus recognized the fact that of a truth
where the gospol of his kingdom was, there
was power also ; providing, the people were
in a frame of mind to receive it ; for he says
in another place : "But if I cast out devils
by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of
God is come unto you." Matt. 12:28. The
power was, as the preaching of the gospel,
one of the necessary evidences. Therefore,
the answer was returned to John the Bap-
tist, when he senfc to Jesus to know of a
truth whether he was the one that should
come, or do we look for another :

"Jesus answered and said unto them. Go and show
"John again, those things which ye do hear and see :
"The blind receive \heir sight, and the lame walk,
"the lepers are cleansed, and thf^ deaf hear, the \1ead
" are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached
" unto them." Matt. 11 : 3, 4 & 5.

This is a fair statement and description of
the work of preaching the gospel, and
building up of the kingdom of God ; and it
is the example set by Jesus himself.
Hence, weicead in Luke 4 : 40.
* "Now, when the sun was setting, all they that had
"any sick witli divers diseases, brought them unto
"him: and he Isid his hands on everyone of them,
*' and healed them."

The publication of the gospel then, which
is the distinguishing feature of Christ's
kingdom, is the initiatory means of this
work of the last days, and this gospel is to
be not merely in name, sound, or word, but
as delivered by Jesus and the apostles.
The gospel is properly described as being :

1. In word — God's truth, and

2. In power and the Holy Ghost.
Upon this Paul says :

" For our eospel came not unto you in word only,
"but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in
"much assurance: as ye know what manner of men
" we were among you for your sake." 1 Thess 1 : 5 :

"And my speech and my preaching was not with
" enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demoustra-.
"tionof the Spirit and power." I Cor, 2:4.

" For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in
"power." Ibid, 4:20.

'' But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God then the
" Kingdom of God is come unto you."

So declared by Jesus, and the converse of
the proposition is, that where there is an
absence of this manifest work of the Spirit
of God in power, there is an absence of the
church and kingdom of Jesus Christ.

I shall, then, ladies and gentlemen, have
fully established my proposition by the
Bible, if I am successful in maintaining
these points :

i: That these principles which I have set
forth as embodying the faith of the church
are indeed in harmony with the word of
God, the good seed of the kingdom.

2. That" the church is doing the work of
sowing this good seed.

3. That it was founded in pursuance of
the statements made by the prophets.

4. That the manner of work is after the
pattern established by Jesus, not only by
the administration of the letter that killeth,
but also "the Spirit that giveth life."

"Whosoever trangresseth and abideth
not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God ;
but he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ
he hath both the Father and the Son."

If we abide in this doctrine we shall have
both the Father and the Son, and that will
prove that it is God's church, and accepted
witli him.

(Time called).

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

''OT

MR. BRADEN'S FIRST SPEECH ON THIRD PROPOSITION.

Gentlemen Moderatoks, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — It is freely conceded that
Mormonism contains much tliat is good.
So does Mohammedanism. Yet both are
impostures, one as mucli as the other. It
is conceded that its organization has features
that are identical with some features of the
church of Christ. So does a Masonic Lodge.
The Masonic Lodge is a human institution
that has copied some of the features of the
church. So is Mormonism. It is to be ex-
pected that Mormonism should teach some
things that are good, for its religious utter-
ances, in the Book of Mormon and other
pretended revelations, plagiarize large por-
tions of the Bible. It is to be expected that
it should imitate the church of Christ, for a
counterfeit is always made as much like the
original as possible. We should not accept
Mormonism becaupe of the stolen portions
of the Bible in its pretended revelations,
any more than we should take poison
bei^ause placed in a dish of food. Mormon-
ism steals from the Bible for the same pur-
pose that treacherous enemies Mill assume
tha uniform, flag and name of reinforcements
that the garrison is expecting, in order to
effect an entrance by deception and capture
the citadel. It is a fraudulerit use of the
word of God to deceive. We do not accept
Mormonism on account of the features of
the church of Christ that it has counter-
feited. The closer the imitation the more
dangerous the counterfeit. The question to
be settled is this: "Is the Mormon organi-
zation the true church of Christ." It is not.
"Does Mormonism utter some good things?"
The devil can do that. Nor "does it have
somethings that the apostolic church had."
The counterfeit has some features of the
genuine. The question is, "Is it genuine?"
To determine that question we shall examine
the teachings of Mormonism in regard to the
eight great features of the church of Christ,
as given by Paul in Eph. iv. I. One God.
II. One Lord. III. One Spirit. IV. One
faith. V. One baptism. VI. One hope.
VII. One body. VIII. One name. By a
comparison of the teachings of Mormonism
with the teachings of the Bible in regard
to these great features of the church of
Christ we will expose its grossly unscrip-
tural and anti-Christian character. I shall
not be deterred from doing this work by
any regard for the feelings of the disciples
of Mormonism or of sympathizers with it.
I shall do it truthfully, unsparingly and
fully. I shall tell the trutii, the whole
truth, without mercy, even if it does anger
the Mormon Devil who cannot be shamed.

Let us compare the teachings of the Bible
and Mormonism in regard to the "OneGod"
who is the Father of all, over all, in all and
through all. The Bible teaches that there
is one self-existent, independent, self-sus-
taining and eternal Spirit, the origin of all

derived being, of all being except his own;
and the cause of all phenonjena. Mormon-
ism is a gross system of idolatry, a gross
compound of idolatry and materialism. It
assumes the self-existence of matter.
Smith did this in his teachings years
before his death. P. P. Pratt published
his "Eternal Duration and Regene-
ration of Matter," years before the death
of Smith, and it was a standard, and the
universal teaching of Mormonism. Orson
Pratt in public discussion advocated the
eternity and self-existence of matter, and
declared that God was matter, and had
form organs of man, even to those of digest-
ion, evacuation, and procreation, and that
he used them as much as man and the same
as man. Logically and consistently Mor-
monism denies the omnipotence, omnipres-
ence, and omniscience of God. If matter
and God be co-existent, mutually depend-
ent on each other, and mutually sus-
tain each other, each must be tinite and
limited by the other. If matter be self-ex-
istent, independent, self-sustaining and
eternal, then God is a product of matter,
and includes but a part of matter and its
energies. In either case God can not ho
omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and
infinite for in one ease he has been eternally
limited by the eternal laws of matter; in
the other he is the creature of matter.
They hold that matter has ever existed and
never was created, since that would pre-
sume the existence of a creative spirit, ante-
rior to matter which is impossible, since
Spirit itself is matter. The theory of crea-
tion advocated in standard Mormon author-
ities on the topic, is this :— "In eternity two
elementary particles of matter met in con-
sultation and compared intelligence. Then
these two atoms called to their aid a third
passing atom and the three uniting inoue
will, tlie three atojus became the first power.
To the dignity of this first power no other
subsequent power could attain, because the
first power had the priority, and by uniting
more atoms together, it would always have
the precedence and advantage of all other
combinations of power." Tbisis bald athe-
ism. It is Ingersoll's theory of the origin
of all things almost word for word. He says
in his "Gods." "Let us suppose that two
atoms of njatter come together. We have
then cause, effect, order, and law." And
he consistently adds, "without God or any
need of one." But Mormonism absurdly
makes a God out of these two atoms that
have accidently met. Out of this first com-
bination, the First Power, the Head God
was begotten, not made, and other Gods
have sprung from him as his children. Sex
is a cardinal, universal, and eternal, attri-
bute and law of all being, physical and
moral. Therefore there are Kings and
Queens in heaven, and there are Fathers

308

TH.K BKADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

aud Mothers of our Spirits, that were begot-
ten by these hig-her beings, having sex, in
heaven ; and w;iir to become inoiunate, as
men and women give them opportunity by
intercourse with each other. This is the
basis of tlie Doctrine of Spiritual Wifery,
that Rigdon advocated in Kirtlaiid long
before Joe announced it as a spiritual rev-
elation. God himself was married or how
could he do the work of a father? All spir-
its are literally the Sons of God, who is lit-
erally the father of spirits having begotten
all in the ordinary course of generation.
God has had therefore nobody knows how
many wives and concubines. This is clear-
ly proved by the words of the psalmist.
"Kings' daughters are among thy honorable
women ; Upon thy right hand does stand
the Queen in gold of Ophir." The apostle
told the Hebrews, "We have had fathers in
our flesh who corrected us and we gave
them reverence. Shall we not much rather
be subject to the father of spirits and live?"
"Father of spirits" which are in the form
aud shape of mortal beings proves that spir-
its were begotten as fathers beget, and of
course spirits have mothers as M^ell as fath-
ers. Such was the teaching of standard
Mormon books before the death of Smith.
Such is Mormonism.

The Book of Mormon pages 505-6, we read:
.Tared 's brother saw the finger of the Lord
and it was as the finger of a man, like unto
flesh and blood, and he said, "I saw the
finger of the Lord ; I knew not that the
Lord had flesh and blood." And the Lord
said unto him, "Behold I am Jesus Christ ;
I am the Father and the Son. Seest thou
that ye are created after my own image.
Yea, even all men were created in the
beginning after my own image." This
teaches that Christ before his incarnation
had flesh and blood and a body just like
man's body and that God has also. Then
he has a human material organization with
all its organs of flesh and blood of eating,
digestion, evacuation, and procreation. He
is limited and finite. He is not spirit, as
Jesus declares, for a spirit has not flesh and
bones. The Mormon God is an idol a mere
man. Orson Pratt declared in a public dis-
cussion years before the death of Smith,
and the language was a favorite opinion
with Mormons years before Smith's death
— we quote it from a publication printed in
1843, "We worship a God who has both
body and parts — who has mouth, eyes and
ears, (and as we have shown they teach
that he has organs of digestion, evacuation,
and procreation, has organs of sex) "who
speaks when he pleases, and to whom he
pleases. "Our God is as good at mechani-
cal inventions, architecture, tailoring,
smithing, stone-cutting, &c., as any other
business." Orson Pratt, P. P. Pratt, Tay-
lor, and scores of Mormon leaders, years
before Smith's death taught that God ate
drank and did all of the acts that man per-
forms and has all of man's organs The
"Millennial Star," Vol. VI, quotes Joseph
Smith himself as saying, "What is God?
He is a material organized intelligence pos-

sessing both body and parts. He is in the
form of man, and is in fact of the same
species ;" (henre, according to Joe, he has
organs of eating, digesting, evacuatien, and
procreation.) "He is the model and stand-
ard of the perfection to which man is des-
tined to attain, he being the great Father
and head of the whole family. This being
cannot; occcupy two distinct places at once,
hence he cannot be everywhere present ;
(God's infinity omnipotence, omnipresence
and omniscience positively denied. Accord-
ing to Joe he is limited in form, in place, ia
time and in knowledge.) "What are
angels?" They are intelligences of the
human species. Many of them are the off-
spring of Adam and Eve. Of men it is said ,
being Gods or Son's of God," endowed
with the same powers, capacities and attri-
butes, that the Heavenly Father and Jesus
Christ possess. The weakest child of God
that now exists upon earth will possess
more dominion, more property, more sub-
jects, more power, more glory than is now
possessed by Jesus (.'hrist or his Father,
while at the same time Jesus and his
Father will have their dominion subjects
and kingdom increased in proportion."

Then you have revelation and inspiration
of Impostor Joe. Spiritual gifts ought to
exist to reveal such blasphemous stuff as
that. No doubt Joseph the Seer, is the
greatest prophet of God, and the Book of
Mormon that he gave to the world, the acme
of revelation "The fullness of the Gospel."
God is matter, he had a beginning. He is
a creature of matter. He is finite, very
finite, since he can increase so wonderfully.
He has all ef the organs of the human body,
sex, eating, digestion, procreation and
evacuation. He eats, drinks, digests, evac-
uates, procreates like mere man, and very
properlj^ for he is mere man. Mormonism
teaches that the Father is not eternal in his
existence, or without a beginning, for he
had a fatlier and a grand-father, and a line
of progenitors, extending back almost ad-
infinitum until they reach the great head
God, who was generated when two atoms
of matter met and called in a third atom,
and in the process of generation begat the
First Power. In the Times and Reasons of
Feb. loth, 1845, the leading editorial
declares "Mormonism gm braces a plurality
of Gods, as the apostle said there are Gods
many and Lords many. We say Jesus
Christ had a father and mother of his
spirit, and a father and mother of his flesh,
and so have all of his brothers and si.sters.
That is not all. The first line of Genesis,
properly translated should read : " the
Head God brought forth all of the Gods
with the heavens, and with the earth."
Schmucker quotes similar language from
Joe Smith himself, from the King Follelt
sermon, and Joe adds " the head God, has
had any number of offspring that he has
begotten by ordinary process of procrea-
tion." Wlio can doubt that the best of
spiritual gifts and highest of inspiration
exist in a system that is based on such stuff
as that, and that they were needed to give

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY OESr-ATE.

809

the world such stuflT, and that such stuff is
the last and best revelation vouchsafed to
men.

We charge then that Mormonism as
taught by Joseph Smith and its leaders,
chosen and approved of him, and in works
that were standards under Smith's pro-
phetic control, is a revolting sj^stem of
Paganism. It is a polytheism of the gross-
est cjiaracter, a return to the most loathe-
some idolatry and paganism. It is bald
materialism. Matter is its God, matter
prrcreated its Head God. He has pro-
created other Gods. Its Gods are finite,
very finite, mere idols. It blasphemously
carries into heaven all human organs and
actions, eating, drinking, digestion, evacu-
ation, procreation, and all of the acts that
are their functions. It with, transcendent
blasphemy, attempts to foist them into the
being of the One Absolute Setf-existent
and Eternal Spirit, and to make him like
unto themselves, with all their organs, appe-
tites, passions and sins. Such is Mormou-
ism as taught by its founders, and as
presented in its standards.

We will now examine the teaching of
Mormonism in regard to the one Lord. The
Spirit of Christ was besrotten in heaven by
the Father on one of the Queens of Heaven.
His body was begotten of one of the ter-
restrial concubines of the Father, Mary of
Nazareth. The Father descended and
wooed ;Mary as Jupiter wooed Latona or
Semele, and then consigned her to the arms
of the complaisant Joseph. As the result
of the celestial amours, the Saviour of the
world was born. The amour of the Father
with Mary is like the amour of Jupiter with
Europa or Alcmena, lo or Latona or other
victims of supernal lust. Jupiter in the
form of swan, bull, or shower of gold, out-
rages purity, and the victim of supernal
lust is compelled to bear Perseus, Hercules
and Apollo. The Father as literal dove
or in some other material form compels
Mary to bear Jesus The heathenism of
Greece and Rome was elevating in com-
parison with Joe Smith's beastly, sensual
teachings, in regard to things celestial and
divine. The hoary Jupiter of Olympus
whose nod shook heaven and earth, was a
much more noble being than Joe Smith's
head God, and his sway over the world
was much more intelligent and divine than
ihe sway of Joe's head God, who is so
finite that the weakest mortal will soon
eclipse him. Such is the teaching of Mormon
ism in regard to the origin of the Divine Lo-
gos, the Divine Messiah. We object that Mor-
monism denies that Jesus was, through his
inspired apostles, our only Divine prophet,
our only source of revelation, and it adds
to his completed revelation in the New
Testament, the Book of Mormon, and other
pretended revelations, extending from Joe
Smith down to the vagaries of visionaries
and fanatics of the present hour. It denies
that Jesus is, through the New Testament,
our sole king, and that his commands, com-
pleted in the New Testament, are the sole
constitution and law of the church, and

adds the pretended revelations of Joe
Smith and others from Smith down to the
present hour. We have examined the
Book of Mormon, we will examine others in
their proper place.

Mormonism errs in its teachings in regard
to the one Holy Spirit. In writings extant
before the death of Smith, it is taugiit that
the Holy Spirit is merely the concomitant
will of the Father and the Son, the one
mind posse^^sing, actuating andharmonizing
both, and which gives vitality and unity
to their thougiits and purposes. The Holy
Spirit differs from the Father and the Son
in being merely a spiritual attribute, and
not a person possessing body and parts,
which they teach all persons must have,
and without which there can be no person-
ality. As the Holy Spirit is not a person
we cannot see how our opponent can claim
such spiritual powers, as he does. We
have already sufficiently exposed the fallacy
of Mormonism in claiming that the baptism
of the Holy Spirit is now in the Church,
and that ir, is now enjoyed by them. The
fallacy of their claims to inspiration and
revelations. We have sufficiently exposed
the unscriptural and character of such
claims. We now submit a practical test.
We challenge and defy my opponent to
present one instance of miracle, inspiration
or revelation, that ever occurred in Kirt-
land, the head centre of Mormonism for
years, the shrine of Joe, Sidney, and all the
inspired men of Mormonism. Present one
utterance and prove that it was and must
have been inspired. Present one miracle
ever wrought here. Stop the idiocy of
eternally vociferating that you have the
cause, spiritual gifts, inspiration, miracu-
lous powers, — that all your officers had it
while in Kirtland— that all have it now—
that your members had it here — that
multitudes have it now— until you present
one effect, one utterance, that must have
been a revelation, one miracle, one proof of
your claim to inspiration and miraculous
power. It is an insult to all reason and
common sense for you to vociferate this im-
pudent lying claim any longer. Give us
one proof or be silent with shame.

The one faith— the one system of teach-
ing, the faith once delivered unto the Saints.
To this one faith, the word of God, the Mor-
mon adds the Book of Mormon, the Book
of Doctrines and Covenants, and the pre-
tended revelations of Joe Smith and oth-
ers, published as revelations in their publi-
cations ; and in their congregational action,
they add the vagaries of visionaries, who
profess to have received revelation. ^^ e
hear much of the toleration and charity of
this people. In the Book of Doctrines and
Covenants we read. "Those who receiveth
it" (the Book of Mormon) "in faith and
work rif^hteousness, shall receive a crown
of spiritual life ; but those who harden their
hearts in unbelief and reject it (the Book of
Msrmon), it shall be to their own coudem-
nation." Joe says to his apostles and emis-
saries, pretending to speak for Christ,
"verily, verilv, I say unto you, they who

SIO

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

believe not on your word and are not bap-
tized by water in niy name for the remis-
sion of sing, etc., shall be damned. And
this revelation unto you is in force from this
hour upon all the world." Book of Mormon.
"He that denies these things let him be
accursed." Book of Doctrines and Cove-
nants. "And this condemnation resteth on
the children of Zion even all. And they
shall remain under tlieir condemnation
until they repent and remember the new
Covenant, even the Book of Mormon."
"That Joseph Smith and those to whom
these commandments were given might
have power to lay the foundation of this
church — the only true and living church
now on earth."

In a public discussion in 1840 a high priest
of Mormonism defined it, "Mormonism is
to believe that Christ is the Son of God"
(truth), "a firm belief in the Scriptures"
(truth), "in faith, repentance and baptism
for the remission of sins" (truth), "laying
on of hands for the reception of the Holy
Ghost" (imposture), "having the church
organized according to Ihe New Testament
pattern" (truth, but Mormonism has de-
parted from it in a score of officers, ordi-
nances and practices), "and to live by every
word that proceeds out of the mouth of
God" (truth, but Mormonism falsely pre-
tends that the Book of Mormon and Joe
Smith's revelations and other revelations
proceed from the mouth of God as much as
the Bible). "All who reject this belief
(Mormonism) will be damned if the Scrip-
tures be true." All who reject Mormonism
will be damned if Mormonism be true.
This high priest coolly tells that all who
reject the Mormon idea of laying on of
hands for the imparting of the miraculous
influence of the Holy Spirit, will be damned.
All who do not believe in a Church accord-
ing to Mormon pattern with presidents,
vice-presidents, councillors, seers, revela-
tors, translators, patriarch, priests, high
priests, twelve apostles, several quorums of
apostles, and so on ad infinitum, will be
damned. All who do not accept the Book
of Mormon and all Mormon frauds will be
damned.

One of the apostles, one of the Pratts,
years before Smith's death, thus defines
Mormonism in one of his books:

"Some of the leading cbaracteristics of Latter Day
Gospel are as follows: It declares that all of the earth,
Christian and Jew, heathen and pagan, are living in
wickedness and nnbeliet, and without a knowleiige of
God. It declares that the religion of Jesus established
on the earth in the days of the primitive apostles has
been long perverted into human institutions, without
either the form or power of Godliness, and consequently
are not acknowledged of God. It declares that all
those calling themselves Christians in the nineteenth
century are nothing less than Idolators living under a
broken covenant, it declares that God has now spoken
from the heavens and given a commission unto men to
go forth and usher in the fullness of tlie times (Mor-
monism) by opening the Kingdom of God (Mormon Dis-
pensation) to both Jew and Gentile. It declares that all
•who will not humble themselves and go forth and be
baptized for the remission of their sins, and liave the
imposition of hands foi- the reception of the Holy Ghost
by those whom God has called (Mormon emissaries),
will never enter the Kingdom of God and be saved
with the everlasting salvation. It declares that all
who are without prophets and apostles, the spirit of

inspiration and immediate revelation from God, to*
pether wiih the Holy Ghost, which will enable men to
dream dreams, see visions and prophesy, spi ak in un-
known tongues and work miracles, are not yet fellow-
citizens with the Saints, or of the household of God.
It declares that this (the Mormon Dispensation) is the
stone cut out of tlie mountain, without hands, spoken
of by Daniel and the prophets, and that it will roll on
until every hostile power has fallen before it, and it has
become a great mountain and has filled the whole
earth."

Such is Mormon charity and catholicity,
of wliich our opponent boasts.

The one baptism. We object to Mormon-
ism that it teaches that there are two
baptisms in the Church, when inspiration
declares there is but one. That it claims
the baptism in the Spirit, when the word
of God teaches that the baptism in the
Spirit ceased with miracles, and that it was
administered by Christ but twice— when
the gospel was first proclaimed to Israel
and to Gentiles. It was the power with
which the kingdom was to be ushered in.
We object that Mormonism confounds being
born of the water and Spirit, being begot-
ten by the Spirit through the word, and
being born of water and the Spirit in bap-
tism—with being baptized in the Spirit.
That it makes what was miraculous a part
of conversion, which can be accomplished
only by moral power. We object that
Mormonism teaches baptism of the living
as proxies for the dead. The first public
announcement of this farce, was in a ser-
mon by Joe Smith to a conference at Nau-
voo, October 3rd, 1840. In April, 1841,
Rigdon preached it to a conference. It was
stated thus "The gospel has been, and we
infer, is still preached to the dead, that is
to disembodied spirits. The departed
spirit is still in a probationary state, capable
of being affected by a proclamation of the
gospel. Christ offers salvation to the
departed on the condition of faith in per-
son, and baptism by a living kinsman in
his behalf." In May 1841, in a conference
held in Kirtland, nearly all of twenty-five
baptisms, were for the dead. In a general
conference in October 1841, at Nauvoo, Joe
Smith declared "The doctrine presents in a
clear light the wisdom and mercy of God
in preparing an ordinance for the salvation
of the dead. Being b«'.ptized bj^ proxA',
tlieir names are recorded in heaven, and
they are judged according to the deeds
done in the body. This doctrine was the
burden of the scriptures. Those saints
who neglect in on behalf of their deceased
relatives, do so at the peril of their own
salvation." After this declaration Joe
tells the faithful that the Lord will allow
no more baptisms for the dead until the
temple is completed, and lashes them like
Tetzel with his indulgencies, to pour in the
money to build the temple, so that they can
save tlieir dead, who are to stay in hell till
that font in the temple is finished. Will
anyone swallow such stuff as revelation.

We would like to hear from Bishop Kel-
ley an answer to these queries : How can
the departed Itnow anything about what
his living proxy has done? How can the
living proxy know what the departed has

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

311

done? What degree of relationship will
make the baptism valid? If the departed
believes, and no living person can or will
be baptized for him, will he continue in
hell? If the living is baptized and the de-
parted does not believe, what good does
this ignorant farce, this blundering In igno-
rance, do any one? We hope Bishop Kelley
•will clear up this matter.

We object to Mormon teaching in respect
to the " One hope." They convert it into a
sensualistic materialistic paradise, like the
paradise of a Mohammedan. The earth is
to be changed into a fit theatre for sensual
enjoyments. The Saints will be resurrected
and reign over Gentiles for a thousand
years. Jesus, as temporal ruler, will reign
at Jerusalem. Then will come a renovation
of the earth by fire, and the Mormons will
all become Gods. Smith declares, in the
King Follett sermon, "You have got to
leai-n to be Gods yourselves, to be kings and
priests unto God, the same as all other Gods
have done, by going trom one small degree
to another, from grace to grace, from exalt-
ation to exaltation, until you are able to sit
in glory as doth those who are enthroned in
everlasting power." Mormons teach that
men are the offspring of God the Father,
and brothers of Jesus Christ. They were
formerly intelligent spirits in the presence
of God, and were with him before the crea-
tion of the world. Men are capable of re-
ceiving intelligence and exaltation in such
a degree as to be raised from the dead, with
a body like that of Christ, and to possess
immortal tlesh and bones, becoming in fact
Gods, endowed with the same forms, attri-
butes and capaoitics which God the Father
and Christ possess. The Book of Doctrines
and Covenants declares that "The Saints
shall be filled with the glory of Christ and
shall be equal with him." We can see why
the devotees of this system despise all oth-
ers. Gentiles will be the slaves of the
Saints. The Saints will become Gods. The
Gentiles will not. Such tp""VMng fosters
spiritual arrogance and priut. it is not the

humility of Christianity but the pride of
the infidel philosopher, tlie arrogance of
the Mohammedan slayer of the unbeliev-
ers, that is inculcated by the hope of the
Mormon.

We object to Mormon teaching in regard
to the "one body." It has a liction in re-
gard to a Melchizedek priesthood when the
Bible teaches that Christ was the only
Melchizedek priest and had no successor.
It has a fiction about an Aaronie priesthood
and absurdly declares that all such priests
must be "literal" descendants of Aaron.
What balderdash. All priests must be
called as Aaron was. Christ alone was so
called. Mormon priests blasphemously
place themselves on an equality with the
Son of God. Then there are presidents and
vice-presidents, councellors, bishops, elders,
pastors, teachers, seers, revelators, patri-
archs, prophets, twelve apostles, several
seventies of apostles, quorums, presiding
elders, traveling elders, presiding bit hops,
traveling bishops, translators, priests, high
priests, until not even an inspired Mormon
can tell all the lingo of official additions to
the simple church organization of the New
Testament. Is this army of officials the
simple apostolic Church, with its evangel-
ists, overseers and servants of the church!

The one name. The Disciples were first
called Christians at Antioch by the apos-
tles. Mormons were first called "Latter
Day Saints" by Rigdon at Kirtland. The
congregations were called "Churches of
God," "Churches of Christ." The Mormon
organization is called "the Re-organized
church of Jesiis Christ of Latter Day
Saints." Of course it is the true church of
God. This modern monstrosity adds to the
ordinances of the church, layin-gonof hands
to impart spiritual gifts, that was confined
to the apostles of Christ, and blessing of
children and has patriarchs as blessers. It
enjoins baptism at eight years, whether
there is faith and repentance or not. Of
course it is the church of Christ.

312

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S SECOND SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen :— Before taking up the line of
affirmative proofs, I shall notice a few of
tlie assertions indulged in by the nega-
tive.

I. That of the witness of the brother of
Jared to the coming of the Messiah in the
flesh. Braden says that the Book of Mor-
mon teaches that Christ's physical body
existed away back at that time. Why did
he not read to you the entire passage, if it
said any tiling "bad, or not strictly correct?
I will read it :

" And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the
" brother of Jared and he saw the finger of the Lord :
'■ and It was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and
"blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the
" Lord for he was struck with fear. And the Lord
" saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth;
" and the Lord said unto him, Arise, why hast tliou
"fallen? And he sa th unto the Lord, I saw the
" finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite
" me: for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and
" blood. And the Lord said unto him, Because of thy
" faith thou hast seen that / shall take upon me flesh and
" blood; and never has man come forth before me with
" such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so,
" ye could not have seen my finger."

What is there in this entire passage that
any person who believes in God at all, can
object to? Tlie statement is :

1 . That the finger of the Lord, as revealed
to the brother of Jared, was like unto flesh
and blood.

2. That this was to show him that Jesus
would take upon him flesh and blood.

II. He objects, because he says we believe
in a material God. A personage composed
of matter, &c. But what is matter ? If we
believe God to be material and composed of
matter it is because we believe Spirit to be
material and composed of matter. If he
means by the term "matter" that of the
nature of the substances with which we
commonly come in contact liere, then lie
misrepresents us. We claim that the ele-
ment of spirit itself is material, and in this
sense God is material. To believe in any-
thing else, is to believe in no God at all. It
is to take Braden 's theory of religion that
the spirit of God when given, has no effect
on the individual; is not an agent, influ-
encing men and women to do good ; and
consequently there is nothing to it. This,
we claim, is anti-Bible and anti-Christian.
So it would be with his view of God. He
iriakes out God to be a spirit, and then
makes out God to be immaterial — that is,
having no properties or materiality, and
consequently nothing; — and by this, he is
able to make God out to be nothing, and
this is in perfect accord, as I have claimed
from the first, with the whole tendency of
his arguments ; that tliey were calculated
to cause men to have less faith and confi-
dence in God, instead of strengthening
them in the belief of an existing Creator.

We do not accept the materiality idea of

God, as set forth by Mr. Pratt, or Mr.
Young, or anybody else that claims that
God is the same kind of a creature as man.
That theory is on the other extreme from
Braden's view. He has one absurd notion
in relaticm to the tangible existence of God,
the people of Utah have another. The only
difference between them that lean discover,
is, that Braden's ideas upon this, (if they
can be called ideas), are more absurd than
those of the polygamists. They do hold to
the idea of God, although in a misconceived
materialistic way ; while my opponent iu
his scouting the idea that spirit is material
and therefore composed of matter, makes
out oeyond question that his God is nothing
at all. John saw the Spirit vvhen he de-
scended upon Jesus ; it was distinctly visi-
ble on the day of Pentecost ; when David
was imbued with it, it was perceptibly felt
glowing in his heart ; when the Saints of
old were visited byit, it was felt, seen and
heard. Shall we conclude then it is nothing,
immaterial — is unperceyjtible to the senses,
occupying no space and having no exten-
sion, just because it is of a different quality
of matter to that with which we more fre-
quently come in contact? No. There is no
special form or degree of substance required
for the existence of a thing before it can be
called matter. The iron from the earth is
material, having the properties termed
matter. But because it is material, con-
taining such properties under a certain form
shall we say that the common gases, or the
subtle electric fluid, are not also material
and composed of matter?

The statement of God's word is : "God is
a Spirit, and they that worship him must
worship him in Spirit and in truth." I
have shown you that the Spirit through
which we may worship Him is something;
can be seen, felt, and heard, is perceptible ;
shall I then take the absurd view that the
being worshipped through this Spirit is an
absolute nothing, that cannot be seen, felt,
heard or perceived ? Never, if I wish to be
right. My opponent should remember that
all matter is not the same, any more than
that all flesh is the same ; and when he re-
fers to the Saints' belief in God as being
materialistic, he mis-states, and misrepre-
sents them, unless lie means by this refer-
ence to materiality of Deity, that God is a
Spirit, and that .Spirit is composed of spirit-
ual matter, and tliat it is in that sense, they
believe that God is material. He should
not seek to misrepresent our ideas of what
these properties of matter are, in order to
try to make out that we have an absurd
vi'ew of the actual character and attributes
of Jehovah. It is easy to see that either
my opponent is no philosopher, or else he
has not studied to know what the views of
my church are upon this question. Christ

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

313

existed in reality before he took upon him
an earthly tabernacle. And the apostle so
understood it.

"For as much then as the children are partakers of
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of
the same."

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels*
but he took on him the see<i of Abraham."

There is then, I conclude, in fact a nature
belonging to man, a nature of angels and a
nature of spiritual existence beyond this, of
the which is the nature and existence of
Deity himself. Butshalll conclude that the
existence of man and angels is something,
but that the existence of God is of nothing ?
This would be following in the old trail of
theological absurdity that has kept the
minds of the people darkened for the last
thousand years ; and from which many
philosophers have drawn their ideas and
thereby been led to apply wrong and ab-
surd definitions to spirit and materiality.
In the translation of tlie Bible by Joseph
Smith, the Seer, as contained m the first
chapter of Genesis is clearly set out the true
idea of God. I will read it :

"And it came to pass that the Lord spake
unto Moses saying, Behold, I reveal unto
you concerning this heaven and this earth ;
write tlie words which 1 speak.

"I am the Beginning and the End; the
Almigh'y God."

There is no absurd view of God, or thought
making him out a finite being to be fairly
drawn from any standpoint from the pas-
sage. This is from what is termed the In-
spired Trans Uition of the Scriptures ; a work
whicii we claim contains more of absolute
merit than any translation of the Bible ex-
taiit. We use generally, however, what is
termed the King James' Version^ because
that is the one generally accepted by the
people, and so far as proving our faith is
concerned, we can do that, we think, by
any of them. Mr. Braden's argument on
the materiality of God and his quotations
about the head gods and Adam and beget-
ting spirits, etc., reminds me of a little
notice I saw in one of the Pittsburgh papers
a few days ago. In giving an account of
this discussion it stated that "Mr. Kelley
represented the Re-organized church of the
Latter Day Saints, and Mr. Braden repres-
ented the Brighamite or Polygamous
church.'' Now it seems to me that if the
reporter of that paper has chanced to drop
in here again tliis evening and heard Mr.
Braden's speecli just made, he will again
be put down for a Brighamite. (Applause.)

Over at Wilber, Nebraska, I took occasion
to tell him that Joseph Smith never held
the absurd views of God attributed to him
by the Utali people. Nor did lie. We do
not accept tlie statements in the works
published after his death, of wliat some one
said lie said, to find what he believed ; but
go directly to wliat he said himself. Tlie
trouble with the sermon called tlie King
Follet sermon is, in the fact, that it is not
published as delivered. It was not pub-
lished in his lifetime, was partially written
up after its delivery by others, and the full
sermon never published anywhere, at any

time, and shall you say we shall accept this
as his views with reference to God when it
contradicts that whicli we know lie wrote
himself, and when many wlio heard tiie
discourse attributed to liim tell us it reads
entirely different to what it was as
delivered. The trouble is in that publica-
tion that it does not contain what he said.
But if it did and was then contrary to what
is in the inspired works of iiie cliurch, wo
would be bound to reject it and hold to the
idea of God as reflected in the Bible and the
Book of iSIormon and the Revelations to tlie
church which are in harmony necessarily
with these books. Is this the best Braden
can do for an objection?

The religion of Joseph Smith was, and is,
as I set it forth in my opening speecli upon
this question. This was set forth by au
endorsement under his own hand in 1844,
to Hon. John Wentworth, then editor of
the Chicago Democrat] and on the 6th of
June, 1844, only 22 days prior to his death
in a letter to an Englisii publisher, thank-
ing him for setting fortli the faitli as it was,
for he bad found that almost universally
those who had referred to his religion had
done so only that they might misrepresent
and bemean him.

I have set forth the faith which the
church accepts to which I belong. My
opponent, notwithstanding this, has occu-
pied the greater part of his time in pre-
tending to tell you what I believe. The
greater part, too, of what he has stated, is
wholly false and slanderous, copied from
works in part which were written for the
purpose of destroying the faitli of the
saints instead of placing it fairly before the
public. A man who is so ignorant or preju-
diced as not to see that I am the proper one
to say what our faith is, in this discussion,
is certainly in a forlorn state.

Nothing can be more ridiculous than that
upon a question touching the validity of
m^' own faith that my opponent can be per-
mitted to set up anything he pleases and
say it is that, and undertake to overturn
that, instead of my argument and positions
set forth by myself.

Does he propose in the discussion of this
question to set up a man of straw and attack
that all the time, as he did in the first
proposition? And expect you to know no
better than to accept such a course as argu-
ment applicable to the isstie ? I expect that
you are a class of people who are not so
overly greedy for anything to beat the
"Mormon" with, that such a marshaling
of insinuations stories and wicked asper-
sions will at all satisfy you.

I will state tomy opponent right here, once
for all, that so far as the faith of tlie Re-
organized Church of Jesus Christ of r^atter
Day Saints is concerned, as compared to the
faith of the followers of Brigham Young,
or the people who are usually termed po-
lygamists, I ehiim that it diflers more
tuidely from that people, than does the'
faith of the Disciple or Campbellitechurch.
Andrememoerl am willing to affirm the
proposition from this platform, that we

814

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

differ more widely from the doctrines of
the polygamous church than does the
church of Mr. Braden, and am prepared to
enter upon a test of that question at the
close of the present. I hope that he Avill
either accept this challenge or quit trying
to confound our views and faith with that
/aciliow of the early church that went west
and went into all majnier of evil.

Besides this, I invite him to take up the
polygamous sentiment and affirm that
Joseph Smith was in any sense the author
of the purported polygamous revelation, or
that he ever had more than one wife. I
will deny either, or both, and Braden can
have time to tell all he professes to know
upon this question, and he need not then
run off on side issues during the discussion
of the question now before us. I am here
for the purpose of giving my opponent an
opportunity to tell all he knows (and find
he is telling a great deal more), and shall
not close down the debate until he has all
the time he wants, only let the discussion
be orderly.

III. Let me ask : Was Joseph Smith di-
rectly responsible for every tiling that took
place in the church prior to his death even ?
Such a position would destroy the work,
example and character of Peter, James and
John, and in fact all of the apostles. We
cannot hold men responsible for crimes or
actions of o^liers unless they are personally
connected with them and approve of such.
The best men that ever lived have been
beset with those who were bent on evil. It
is such that Satan seeks to surround with
evil designers that he may overthrow them.
That bad men got into the church during
the life time of Joseph Smith is no discredit
to his religion or his church government.
If his was the church of God, it could not
have happened otherwise. Jesus says:
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto anet,
that was cast into the sea, and gathered of
every kind."

IV. We do not pretend to claim that
everything Joseph Smith did in his lifetime
was just right, nor did he ever so claim for
himself, huv from it. But the question
under discussion is not how much bad he
did, or how little he did that was bad. The
question is as to the accepted faith of the
church. What is that? Is it good or
bad?

Do not deceive 'yourselves by imagining
that the Saints are expected to take every-
thing that Mr. Smith or any other man said
as law or gospel. His own revelations teach
the reverse of this, and that even the peo-
ple are not expected to receive anything as
true that should come claiming to beareve-
' lation even, until they shall have first ex-
amined and ascertained for themselves as
to the evidences in favor of its authenticity.
There is'-no more independent people under
the sun, so far as action and thought is con-
cerned, than those whom I represent here
Those of you who attended upon the ses-
sionof our General Conference here in Kirt-
land know this. Our men and women think
and act in accordance with their respective

judgments more independently than any
other body of people I have ever seen con-
vened. They are taught to do this. That
they must render an account to the Master,
the head of the church, for their own acts
and that no one can act as proxy or answer
for them.

So much as to the character and manner
of thought of our people.

V. Again, he takes up the question of
baptism, and says that we differ from the
Bilile because we believe in two baptisms
instead of one. Oh, no! We don't differ
from the Bible in that, only from the Camp-
bellite church. He is evidently comparing
my views now with those of his church.
Of course he must expect that we shall
differ from them, because they are not with
the Bible, as I was enabled to show fully in
the former proposition.

The Bible teaches, in the language of
John: " I indeed baptize you with water,
but there cometh one after me who is might-
ier than I ; he shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost." And yet only one baptism,
Braden says. Jesus said, "Born of the
water and of the Spirit ;" but Braden says,
only one baptism. Paul says in the Hebrew
letter " baptisms," in the plural.

Mr. Braden : Paul says one baptism.

Mr. Kelley : He not only says one, but
one more — "baptisms." Heb. 6:2. "Wash-
ing of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5. "For as many
of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ." Gal. 3:27. Baptized
with water and the Spirit, the same as .Jesus
instructed upon this question. And he
says: "For by one Spirit are we all bap-
tized into one body." 1 Cor. 12:13. But
Braden wants to fix this up by saying:
"By command of the Spirit we are bap-
tized ;" and over in John, 3:5, he wants to
change that so it will read something else
instead of /Spirit. He don't dare take the
position that the term " born of the water"
don't mean baptized in that element, so he
is fastened on " born of the Spirit," as
meaning baptized of the Spirit. All the
shuffling in creation cannot get around it.
There is not a passage to be found anywhere
in the Bible saying there is only one bap-
tism and that is in water. InEph.4:5 I
showed clearly that it did not exclude the
baptism of the Spirit in my argument on
the second poo2)osition discussed. I am
willing that my argument upon that shall
be put to the test.

The difference between us touching the
prophecy of Ezekiel, 20:33-36, is in this:
He says the Lord will never have anything
more to do with the people, towards reveal-
ing Himself to them. That all inspiration
and Divine communications were confined
to the first century. The prophecy in
Ezekiel is yet to take place, and it says the
Lord will plead with them "face to face,
like as he plead with Israel in the wilder-
ness." He plead with Israel in the wild-
erness, by revelation, and so he must again,
or the prophecy is false ; the text is strictly
applicable then. Paul places it, when the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

815

" fullness of the Gentiles be come in," the
fullness of the Jews had juat come in,
when Paul uttered the language.

Here, I leave his objections for the pres-
ent, and take up the

MAIN ARGUMENT UPON THE QUESTION.

In the first century, the evidences of the
decay and dis-establishment of the church
was in the turning away from the truth,
and cessation of the gifts of the gospel.
"Will it not follow then that if the church is
to be re-established, that the first evidences
of that work, will be in the fact of a return-
ing and adherence to that same truth, and
the restoration of the Holy Ghost and
Spiritual power. Herein lies the distinctive
difference between the church of Christ,
and churches of the world in any age.
Jesus says: "Not every one that saith,
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my
Father who is in heaven."

We cannot do as we choose, or select the
way we will walk, outside of the command-
ments of God, and still keep within the
promises. "In vain (says Jesus), do you
worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men." True worship
cannot be had in this way. For we are
taught better: "They that worship the
Father, must worship him in spirit and in
truth." There ought not to be any contro-
versy about this, among professing Chris-
tians, but all of you know there is, and a
wide one too; that the multitude of
worshippers to-day, pretend that it don't
make any difference what you believe, so
you are honest. This was one of the false
seeds which was sown, that tended to first
corrupt the faith of the early saints — and
turn them from the truth. Hence, the fall-
ing away from the faith came.

Jesus predicts the event : " And because
iniquity shall abound, the love of many
shall wax.cold." Matt. 24: 12. Theapostle
Paul in referring to this, says: "For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work."
2 Thess. 2 : 7. Again, verse 3 : "Let no man
deceive you by any means : for that day
shall not come, except there come a falling
away first, and that man of sin, be revealed
the son of perdition."

This falling away, was to be from the
faith, the truth, and the spiritual light and
power ; not simply going out of the church.
Such an event as merely going out of the
church, would have no more alarmed Paul,
than those to whom he refers upon anotlier
occasion, when he says: -'They went out
from us, because they were not of us." It
is the waxing cold in their love for the
truth, that was the troublesome fact before
the mind of the Savior, and also the apostles.

Paul addressing the elders who were
called together by iiiiu, says :

"Take lieed therefore unto yourselves,
and to all the flock, over which the Holy
Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the
church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood."

* 'For I know this, that after my depart-

ing shall grievous wolves enter in among'
you, not sparing the flock." Acta 20: 28, 29.

The full thought here is plainly brought
out: "Speaking perverse things," — per-
verting the ways of the Lord, and thereby
turning men and women from the truth.
As expressed in his letter to the saints of
Galatia, 1: 7. "There be some that trouble
you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."
Again in his charge to Timothy this danger
of leaving the truth and turning to otlier
things, he is especially warned againat
1 Tim. 4: 1:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that
in the latter times some shall depart from
the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils."

Tlie manner of the falling away can no
longer be in doubt after this charge, — they
are to ^^depart from the faith] " Not only
this — but turn toother doctrines than those
taught by the Savior. Paul in the begin-
ning of this letter, 1: 3, says to Timothy :

"1 besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I
weut into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some
tliat they teach nooth r doctrine."

In his second letter to Timothy 4: 2, 3, 4,
it is written :

"Preach the word ; be Instant In season and out of
season ; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffer-
ing and doctrine. For the time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own
In-t'! shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
itching ears; And tliey shall turn away their ears from
tne truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Who shall demand more positive proof
than this upon this question ? This shows:

1. That there would cornea time of great
apostasy.

2. That it would consist in the fact of a
departure from sound doctrine and having
a delight in the fables, concocted schemes,
and inventions of men.

3. That these fables would be fed to the
people by the very men they should select
of themselves to do such work — preachers,
"teachers," made in numbers, or "heaps,"
at the instance of the people or congrega-
tion. The fulfillment is as perfect and
complete in the state, work and condition
of what is termed "popular religion," in
our own times as though the apostle were
present to describe it.

No wonder with this vivid picture of
apostasy from the faith before the mind of
the gifted apostle he should again charge
his co-laborer:— "Take heed unto thyself,
and unto the doctrine ; continue in them;
for in doing this thou shalt both save thy-
self and them that hear thee."

Whatever others should do, Paul desired
that the devoted Timothy should not lose
sight of the sound doctrine which Christ
had taught, and be buried neath the clamor
of those who desired simply to pursue tliose
things that were pleasing to their own
hearts.

As he charged Titus, he wanted him to
continue :

"Hfildine fast the faithful word as he has been taught,
that hetuiay be able by sound doctrine both to exhort
and to convince the gaiusayers."

The apostle Peter has added his testimony
upon this with the many others ; hs says:

''£ut there were false propliets also among the peo-

316

THE BEADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

ole, even as there shall be false teachers among you,
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction."

"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by
reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken
of."

My opponent seems to think it a terrible
thing because that the Latter Day Saints
and their faith are spoken against so
much; and is willing to gather up and
peddle out all of these false tales for sound
logic on his side. The apostle Peter, tells
the people, however, that the truth should
be spoken against, in this same way, and
this shows again that Mr. Braden has fol-
lowed a course, all through this discussion
that has ever been taken, and likely to be
again, by those who fight against Jehovah
and his work, instead of for him.

If any of his friends console themselves
in the narration of these stories and tales
against the Saints, they are welcome to the
the comfort for me, because I know il will
last at best but for a little time.

But I return to the apoatacy. It is clear
from these evidences that the church in the
first century began to depart from the faith
and that in this, there began that general
work of sowing the seeds of evil (tares)
instead of the good seed, the ivord of the
kingdom, (and a receding from the spiritual
powers consequently), which eventuated
in the complete change of the established
order of Jesus. The church, as in the figure
■was carried into the wilderness and the
prophecy of Jesus fulfilled when he said:
"Fromthedaysof John the Baptist until now
the kingdom of heaven suflTereth violence,
and the violent take it by force." Matt. 11:12.

And do not lose sight of the thought that
tlie evil consisted in the planting of diflTer-
ent principles and faith of church organiza-
tion and the working of the ministry, from
that planted by Jesus and the apostles.
After tlie apostles had fallen asleep, this
evil seed or doctrine was sown, ditfering as
it did from the good and afterwards we
find that its fruit was difljerent. Hence
tares. It is complete in the likeness Jesus
gave in Matt. 13 : 24 to 30.

"The kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a
man which sowed good seed in his field.

"But while men slept, his enemy came
and sowed tares among the wheat, and went
his way.

"But when the blade was sprung up, and
brought forth fruit, then appeared the
tares also."

The explanation was that the enemy had
done this. And it had been done while
men slept. While the people slumbered,
and there was no voice or wisdom of the
^ master sought by the people. And the ef-
fect of the sowing of this false doctrine was
tares or persons who are not fitted for the
garner of the Lord although they may have
grown in the field. Having imbibed an-
other set of principles than those Jesus
taught, they had indeed become subservi-
ent to a difi'lent ruler and king, as the
apostle says :

"Whomsoever ye list yourselves servants

to obey, his sorvants ye are ;" and thug
only those can be the servants of Jesus
■who accept of and obey his word. For
this reason he said: "Unto those Jews
who believed on him, if ye continue in my
word, then are ye my disciples indeed ;
and ye shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free."

They were his disciples if they kept this
good seed in their hearts, for "it is the
truth," (the good seed) which was to devel-
op and make them free. Now I come to the
questionof the restoration of this truth, this
good seed of the kingdom, the kingdom it-
self, and ask if any of you have considered
how it should be done and what we should
have were it done. Would it be indeed a
restoration? A return to the old paths?
Wherein we would have the same gospel
and the same church organization ; the
same faith and the same power in religion ;
the same promises and tlie same spiritual
enjoyment ; the same catalogue of faith and
the same ordinances in the church ; the
same Father and Son and the same gift of
the Holy Spirit; and, in fact, the church of
Christ restored as it existed under him and
the apostles? So I believe; and that any-
thing short of this will fall short of a res-
toration, and short of the straight and
narrow way that leadeth unto life, of
which Jesus was the great teacher and
exemplar.

Such a work as this, it is my privilege to
ask yoGr consideration of ; and it must be
made in a proper and true way, do you
expect to arrive at an intelligent judgment.
I know, my friends, that the feeling of
people is against asking for anything good,
or seeking for light, in this way, which has
so long been evilly spoken of, but it is no
more against us than it was the former
servants of Christ. The people of Rome
said to Paul : "We desire to hear of thee
what thou thinkest ; for as concerning this
sect, we know that every where it is spoken
against." Acts 28: 22.

Pilate said to the Jews: "Ye have
brouglit this man (Jesus) unto me, as one
that perverteth the people."

Did that make Jesus bad because the
people accused him of evil things, and a
perverter of their law ? All of you answer
not ; my opponent, who engages in a like
warfare in this discussion, must answer no.

Against Stephen it is said that they :

" Set up false witnesses, which said, [yes,
said, — this is like a great many to-day] This
man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous
words against this holy place, and the law."

What a charge they had against Stephen !
He had been telling them of the destruction
of their temple, and that they must listen
to present revelation, as well as to read
what the "Lord said to Moses," and for
this they called him a terrible fellow and
stoned him to death.

Has not my opponent taken his strong-
hold just like these people all of the time?
Has not he continued the charge against ma
that because I was contending for the whole
word of God that I was attacking the Bible?

THE BRA DEN AND KEJlLEY DEBATE.

317

Oh, yes, he sa3's Kellej' is attacking the
Bible! But have I said anything against
the Bible? No; no man ever heard me
utter a word against that book. But T have
contended, as Stephen did, that it was not
pufticient to simply read what God said to
Moses and the prophets, or Jesus and the
apostles, but that we must have an experi-
mental knowledge for ourselves through
the e-ift and power of the Holy Ghost, the
means of inspiration ; and my opponent, as
the Jews of old, cries out "he is attacking
the law." But I am not attacking the law,
but ahidine in the law, and telling him that
if he believed in Moses and the prophets,
in Jesus and the apostles, he would believe
in the words tiiat I speak, for tliey all wrote
of this dav and this Mork.

Donotthen,my friends, be turned from
the truth by the tales of evil that have been
gpun by the evilly disposed against the
founding of the church of God in this age,
but cast these from you ns you would the
most deadly poison or the tares of Satan
and examine this question as men and
women who have judgments of your own
and who have been nobly fashioned in the
image of God, that you should thus act for
yourselves.

Now all of these pretended stories and
tales of Joseph Smith being a money-digger
in the sense these persons tell that tale,
hazel- witching, stone-peeping and rambling
fortune-seeker are wholly, emphatically and
totally without foundation in truth. But
tales manufactured by such subborned wit-
nesses as those against Stephen, and those
who told that Jesus' "disciples came and
stole him away by night while they slept,"
for the money and promised favor in the

community extended them. Will you be
prejudiced against an investigation upon
this then by reason of them ? Not if you
are wise men and women.

It is a fact that when in his fifteenth year
a boy of the State of New York, as with
Samuel of old when he was but a mere lad,
made the announcement to the world that
fco far as an acceptance of the various sys-
tems of Christianity in the world with our
heavenly Father was concerned, none of
them met his approval in their doc-
trines taugiit as a whole, and in their
work. And he went on to tell wherein
and the reason they were in this condi-
tion. Many thought* this a very sacrileg-
ious thing in the boy to state this as he
did, in the year 1821, and at once set
up a clammor against him although he was
thus young, and they have kept it up ever
since not even ceasing with the offering
made by him of liie itself for the truth of his
statement. He was murdered for opinions'
sake in this free country when only 383'ears
of age, and still the warfare goes on under
the most extravagant and absurd concoc-
tions of slanderous tales, sandwiched with
the most unbecoming and impolite epithets
and disgusting expressions.

But I wish you to particularly notice and
examine the straight forward account of
the founding of the church by Divine Prov-
idence as related by an actor and proper
witness, and then choose whether you will
prefer to believe the cunning lies and false-
hoods of Satan as touching this, or that
which carries the conviction of truth on the
face of the nnrration.

(Time called.)

318

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S SECOND SPEECH.

MORMON REVELATIONS.
Gentl,kmen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Mormons are committed by-
organic action to receive as revelations — I.
The so-called inspired translation of the
Scriptures by Joseph Smith, the seer, in
which Joe pretends to translate and correct
the word of God by inspiration. II. The
Book of Mormon which they elevate above
the Bible, for they declare it contains "the
fullness of the gospel." III. The Book of
Doctrines and Covenants. Out of 341 pages,
279 are covered by articles that they pub-
lish as revelations. IV. Revelations of Joe
Smith published in "Times and Seasons,"
"Elders' Journal," "Morning and Evening
Star," "The Missouri Expositor," "The
Wasp," "The Millenial Star," and other
publications. V. Revelations of Cowdery,
Rigdon and other leading Mormons, pub-
lished in the same publications. VI. They
regard as of authority and of divine origin
nearly all that was written and publislied
before the death of Smith. In discussion
they may deny this, but in their church
practice they act in accordance with it. In
communication with inquirers they will
sometimes deny having a translation, or
rather a corruption of the Bible, that Joe
Smith pretended to make by revelation,
although they published it to the world as
done by inspiration with a pretended reve-
lation as preface ; and with an introduction
full of infidel attacks on the Bible as a pal-
liation for Smith's corruptions of the Bible.
They will deny that they make the Book of
Mormon a part of what they re-^nrd as
divine revelations, when their Book of
Doctrines and Covenants declares it con-
tains the fullness of the Gospel. They will
deny that they make the Book of Doctrines
and Covenants a part of what they use as
divine revelations, when every article after
the introductory lectures, that cover but
about one-sixth of the book, is headed "A
Revelation." They will deny that they re-
gard certain articles ->f .Toe Smith, Rigdon
and others as divine revelations, when they
publish them in their official organsasreve-
lations. In his corruption of the Bible called
an inspired translation, Joe Smith interpo-
lates two verses of his stuff'atthe beginning
of the first chapter of Genesis and changes
constantly the form of the language. He
interpolates five verses of his stuff at the
beginning of the third chapter of Genesis.
The ideas in the latter interpolation have
not one particle of warrant or support in
the rest of the Bible. All other transla-
tors have been content to compare manu-
scripts and translate the best reading.
This ignoramus that could not write a
decent sentence of English, pretends to
translate Hebrew and Greek, and to tell us
that his stuff was what the writers of the

books of the Bible wrote, that has been lost
since they wrote. It is about as worthy of
the faith of mankind as his pretended reve-
lations in regard to lost property, obtained
by looking through his stolen peep-stone
into his hat. It is not as reliable, for from
the way things stuck to his fingers he could
tell exactly where the money or stolen arti-
cle could be found. We will spend no more
time in analyzing this monstrous piece of
colossal impudence and ignorance.

The Book of Mormon we have already
examined. We will now examine briefly
the stuff that is blasphemously attributed
to the Almighty, as revelations from him
in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants.
On page 65 we are told : "Behold, I am God
and have spoken it. These commandments
are of me, and were given unto my servants
after the manner of their language." (That
is not true, for they did not talk the brogue
of King James' translators.) "That after
having received the record of the Nephites,
yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun-
ior," (How exact the Lord is, to guard the
people against thinking it was old Joe, the
father.) "might have power to translate
through the mercy of God, by the power of
God, the Book of IMormon, and also (that)
those to whom these commandments were
given (he meant mijj-ht be given) might
have power to lay the foundation of this
Church, and to bring it forth out of obscur-
ity, and out of darkness, the only true and
living cliurch upon the face of the whole
earth, with which I, the Lord, am well
pleased." There you have the sincere milk
of Mormonism. It is the only church on
the whole earth, with which the Lord is
well pleased.

Page 66, Martin Harris' wife disgusted
with the fraud, that Joe Smith had cajoled
her husband into, took 116 pages of the
precious revelation, and laid them in the
coals that Martin had covered up, and
burned them. The Mormon God did not
know what she had done, and when
he missed the manuscript, he gives Joe a
revelation. He tells Joe that somebody
had stolen the manuscript, intending, if Joe
replaced the language verbatim, to alter it,
and pretend that Joe was not inspired, for
he could not restore what he wrote at first,
or if he did not restore it, then they
would produce what he wrote at first,
and show that he was not inspired, for he
could not replace it verbatim. But the
Mormon God, although he <iid not know
who got the manuscripts, nor that it was
destroyed, was altogether too sharp for a
trick, nobody ever thought of trying. He
knew a trick worth a dozen of a trick no-
body thought of. He takes some time to
study it out, however. Page 67, we are told
the Indians are to be converted. This was

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

319

one of the vagaries of Mormonism that
they seem to have abandoned. The Indians
are not Mormons, and the Saints have
abandoned their conversion totlie apostates
of other churches. That prophecy is not
fulfilled. Page 69, Martin Harris catches
Aleck, for wanting to see the plates that
Joe had not got. Joe has no gift, not even
to show the plates, expect to translate.
Martin is told that he feels too big. He
must get down off his high horse. Then
the Mormon God coolly tells Martin to lie.
He says, "And I the Lord command liim,
my servant, Martin Harris, that he shall
say no more unto these (the people of this
generation), concerning these things, (the
plates), except he shall say I have seen
them." As he had not seen them, the
Mormon God told Martin to lie. " And they
have been shown unto me by the power of
/God." As they had not been shown unto
him by the power of God or Joe Smith
either, the Mormon God told Martin to tell
another lie. "And these are the words
which he shall say," (that is he shall tell
two lies) " but if' he deny this," (that is
doesnot tell two lies) " he will break the cov-
enant, wliichhehas before covenanted with
me, and behold he is condemned." Be-
cause he would not do what he promised
Joe Smith he would do, tell two lies for
him, and what the Mormon God tells him
to do, tell two lies.

Page 72, Oliver Cowdery, who is Joe's
scribe, gets the big head. He wants to have
revelations of his own as well as Joe. He
is not content with merely writing down
Joe's stuff. The Mormon God gives him a
sugar plum telling him that if he will be a
good bov he will some day translate some
plates of his own. Page 75 Joe and Oliver
get curious over the fool idea that the
apostle John is now on earth. They get a
revelation telling them that he is now on
earth. All devout Mormons believe that
balderdash. This revelation as now pub-
lished is more than halfof ita fraud. Pages
76-77 Oliver gets the big head again and is
modified with a sugar plum or two to keep
him writing for Joe. If he is a good boy
and does what Joe wants him to, he will
some day translate other records, "his own
self."

Page 78-83. At last the Mormon God has
ciphered it out how to beat a trick that
never was tried. He will give a more par-
ticular account from Nephi's plates instead
of Lehi's. That will make a march on the
fellow who thought he could put up a job
on the Mormon God.

Page 88, we have a revelation to Hiram
Smith. Page 86, one to John Knight, sr.,
and David Whitmer, Page 87, to John
Whitruer. Page 88, to Peter Whitmer. Joe
was just "chock-full" and running over
with revelations. He had a revelation for
every one he wanted to rope in.

Page 89. The three witnesses having
been jirepared by special revelations aie
now told that they shall see plates, the
golden breast plate, the golden sword of
Laban, the Urim and Thummim of Jared's

brother, and the miraculous director of
Lehi. They tell us in their testimony, they
saw the plates and mention them alone.
Perhaps the Mormon God forgot and did
not show them the rest. They were told it
took wonderful divine power to enable
them to see these things. Not long after
this eight men saw them and no divine
power was needed. Granny Smith tells us
that long before this she had a squint at the
golden breast-place, and without one part-
icle of miraculous power. Life of Joseph
Smith, page 114. Will some Mormon tell
us what became of these articles, we are
told an angel took them back from Joe as
fast as he got through with them. Then
he could not have shown them to his eiglit
witnesses and his mother. If the angel did
not take them back, where are they ? Great
heavy metallic articles like those would
certainly be preserved. Why do not Mor-
mons show them? Why not point out the
solid imperishable stone chamber where
they were found. It would silence all
scepticism.

This revelation is not in the "Evening and
Morning Star" or the Book of Command-
ments ; David Whitmer says there never
was such a revelation. The revelation and
the phrase, Urim and Thummim, and the
notion about the Urim 'and Thummim were
fabricated in Kirtland in lS3o to furnish a
basis for a yarn Cowdery fabricated and
wrote for the Messenger and Advocate, and
was then dated back.

Page 93, we are told : I. Joe was inspired
to translate the Book of Mormon, IT. The
Book of Mormon contains the "Fullness of
the Gospel" to Gentile and Jew. Ill, That
the Book of Mormon was given by inspira-
tion and confirmed unto others by minister-
ing of angels. Page 96, an apostle, we are
told, is an elder. The scriptures teach that
he was sent as a witness to teach and
preach, because he had seen Jesus after his
resurrection. We are told he imparts by
laying on his hands the baptism of the Holy
Ghost and of fire. The baptism of the Holy
Ghost was never imparted by the laying ou
of an apostle's hands. That baptism was
imparted by Christ himseltand from heav-
en, and in no other way by any other per-
son. The apostles imparted spiritual gifts
but not the baptism. Again there is an
egregious blunder in regard to the baptism
of fire. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was
for those of the righteous to whom Christ
should impart it. The baptism in fire was
for the wicked. "The wheat "—the right-
eous—" he will gather into his garner."
"The chaff"— the wicked— " he will burn
with unouenchable fire "—the baptism in
fire. We' are told a priest's duties. The
New Testament does not know of such an
officer or of its duties. All Christians are
priests. Page 97, we have papal confirma-
tion by laying on of hands. The New Tes-
tament knows nothing of it. W^e ha;ve an-
other ordinance added— the blessing of chil-
dren. The New Testament knows nothing
of this. They have added another officer,
patriarchs, or blessers. The New Testa-

320

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

ment gives no liturgy ; nearly all known
creeds do. The Book of Doctrines and Cov-
enants betrays its human origin by giving
a liturgy. Page 99, Martin Harris gets a
revelation, giving the Universalists fits.
Mormons have changed somewhat since
Joe was fighting Universalists. Martin the
witness, one of the sacred three, is told not
to commit adultery, not to murder. He
must have been a good one lor a chosen
witness. He is told he must give his prop-
erty to have the Book of Mormon printed.
Bless the Lord ! He must not covet his own
property. Glory ! He must pay the printer
of the Book of Mormon. Glory hallelujah I
Martin is told he must not argify. He does
not know enough. Sinners get the advan-
tage of him. He must content himself with
preaching alone. He is told again to give
up his property, even his land, to pay the
printer of the Book of Mormon, and if he
don't he will catch it. Page 102, the Mor-
mon God fixes up Joe's titles. He is to
bo called— I. Seer. II. Translator. III.
Pjophet. IV. Apostle. V. Elder. Joe
had saved all the big places for himself.
Page 105, we have this sublime piece of ar-
gify iug done by the Mormon God : "Behold
I am the Lord God Almighty, and eudless
is my name, for I am without beginning of
days or end of years, Aud is not this end-
less?" So there now ! INIoses has a won-
derful vision all to tell him about Joe Smith.
Joe was inclined to magnify his own name,
not the Lord's. Page 109, the church is
told they will be cursed if they don't sup-
port Joe. Page 110, ICmma Smith is to quit
work, write for Joe instead of Oliver Cow-
idery, do as Joe tells her, and she shall be
'Supported by the church, and receive won-
derful gifts, get up a hymn-book, etc. How
good the Mormon God is to Joe to act as
errand boy for him, and fix up all these
little matters for him. Page 113, Oliver
wants to be as big as Joe. He has revela-
tions. He gets a backset for it. He must
not try to boss Joe or rival him. He must
quit talking about revelations. To keep
him out of mischief he is sent off to the
Indians. Hiram Page's peep-stone is not
the "old oiiginal Jacob Townsend." It is
from Satan. Joe's peep-stone alone is the
Simon-pure.

Now let our readers stop and think of
such stuff' as this coming down from the in-
finite God of the Universe. Tricks to cajole
men into fraud, to wheedle money out of
them, to prevent any one rivaling Joe
Smith, to see that he has some one to write
for him, and all such low paltry, tricky
stuff are called revelations. Page 116, Joe
s>preads himself and prophecies of a howl-
ing old time, if folks don't accept his reve-
lations. Page 117-18, Universalism a lick.
Also Calvinism. He explains the first
death in accordance with Riji don's theol-
ogy. ^ He hits original sin a lick also. The
Lord always reveals that Rigdon's notions
are right; everybody else is wrong of
course. What a happy thing for the Lord,
that he always agrees with Ritjdon I Page
119, David, Peter and John Whitmer are

snubbed up. Joe is the counselor and Joe
alone. Page li^O, T. B. Marsh is snubbed
up also. Page 121, Peter Whitmer, Oliver
Cowdery, P. p. Pratt and Ziba Pete-^on are
all punched up a little. Next Ezra T layre,
Northrup Sweet, Orson Pratt, and Edward
Partridge are stirred up. Page 124 is a long
rigmarole about Rigdon, being an Elijah
to the new Messiah, Joe. Page 127, is a
long rigmarole pretending to be an extract
from the Book of Enoch, mentioned by Jude.
Page 136, the saints are to possess Kirtland
for ever. To obey no power but Mormon ism.
Pages 187-38-39, James Covell is ordered
to go to Ohio. He catches Aleck, because
he will not sacrifice his business and
go. Page 140, the followers with money
are told that Joe must have a house
to live in and translate in. It must be
built for him. Edward Partridge jnust
let his business, his store go to tlie dogs,
and attend to it. Page 141, preachers are
ordered out. To avoid grumbling, Joe
and Sydney must go with the rest, but the
Mormon God will give them a revelation
iu a short time to come back, and have an
easy time. Partridge catches it because he .
won't give up his business and run the
plans of Joe in the church. Page 147, the
Mormon God has to tell some unruly ambi-
tious fellows that Joe is the only prophet.
Page 159, the Mormon God kindly acts as
Joe's lacky and provides one to do his
drudgery instead of Cowdery. Page 161,
the Stiakers get a dig. Page 164, Partridge
gets it again because he wont give up his
business. Page 169, the Mormon God sends
out Joe and Sydney on a land speculation.
Page 171, the Mormon God hunts up another
one to do Joe's drudgery. Page 173, Ezra
Thayre catches Aleck because he wont give
his property to the church to provide means
for Joe and others to go out on the land
speculation, and go to Missouri, trusting to
get his money back, in the land in Missouri.
Joe's creditors are told they will be paid in
land in Missouri. Page 174, a surveyor,
land agent, and editor, provided by the
Mormon God. Pages 176-80, Partridge gets
a dressing down for not believing all of Joe's
big yarns. Martin Harris is approved for
giving up his money, but he feels too big.
Phelps wants to be too big. Z. Peterson gets
a set back. It is amazing how careful the
Mormon God was that no one should rival
his servant Joseph. Sydney Rigdon is to
write a description of the promised land.
We are gravely told, "Behold, here is wis-
dom." Yea, verily ; if tall lying was to be
done, there was wisdom in selecting Syd-
ney to do it. He could beat Munchausen.
Now comes a farce that is disgusting and
ludicrous. Joe had got a crowd of men in-
to Missouri by revelation. There were
more than could find work or means of liv-
ing. Some must return home. There was
only money enough to pay the way of three
part way back. A revelation is given that
it is dangerous for all but Joe and Sydney
and Oliver to go by wat^^r. The rest must
give up their money to them that could go
on a steamboat without danger, and foot it

THE BRADEN A]MD KELLEY DEBATE.

321

home as they could. No wonder that Ezra
Booth's good sense rebelled ut such infa-
mous swindling, in the blasphemous guise
of a revelation. Page 180-181, a second revela-
tion IS given to get the money from the
dupes, for Joe, Sydney and Oliver. The
Mormon God tells them to doit and trouble
him no more. Page 182, nevertheless he trims
down those who are not willing to foot it
back preaching. He tells them to go to St.
Louis he don't care how, and go preaching.
Page 183, comes a revelation again telling
them that it is dangerous to go on the waters.
It is not needful that any should bemoving
swiftly on the waters except Joe and his
two pets. The rest must foot it home and
send Joe and his pets on their way in com-
fort. Page 186, they are told to go out on the
preaching mission. Ride if they can get the
means, but put out.

How any one could be so besotted in su-
perstition as to publish this stufT with its
selfishness, folly, low cunning, and hypoc-
risy as revelations from God, is unaccount-
able to all common sense. That men should
remain dupes of such a knave after such
imposition is still more inexplicable.

Page 188, Oliver Cowdery is hinted at for
his adultery with his hired girl. Rigdon's
spiritual w'ifery was making trouble. Page
190, the Mormon God fixes up the business in
Kirtland. Sydney had been trying to be as
big as Joe, and he gets a lashing. Pasre 193-5,
the rebellious ones who don't mind Joe get
a trimming down. Booth cut off. Part-
ridge catches it again. It was wonderful
how much trouble the Mormon God had
with that Partridge. He was a most can-
tankerous bird. The Mormon God tells
who shall sell and go, and who shall stay,
and fixes it all up.

Page 194, we have this revelation, "Behold
it is said in my laws or forbidden to go in
debt to their enemies ; but behold it is not
feaid at any time that the Lord should not
take when he pleases, and pay as seemeth
him good ; wherefore as ye are agents, and
ye are on the Lord's errand, and whatso-
ever ye do according to the will of the Lord,
is the Lord's business, and he hath sent
you to provide for his saints in these last
days, that they may obtain an inheritance
in the land of Zion, and behold I, the Lord,
declare unto, and my words are sure and
shall not fail, they shall obtain it." Which
means in plain English — "Don't go in debt,
but take by violence or steal from your ene-
mies." It was this revelatiofi that has been
quoted ever since, when Mormons stole or
robbed, in Missouri, in Illinois, in Utah,
and elsewhere.

Page 195, MeLelin is to send his money
to Missouri, and go East himself. Page 197,
the elders catch it. Let them beat Joe's
revelations or dry up. Page 199, we have
the unscriptural nonsense about the Mel-
chizedek priesthood. Page 200, children
must me baptized at eight years anyhow.
Page 201, Joe gets afraid to trust Cowdery
with the money to be sent to j>,Iissouri. He
sends John Whitmer with him to watch
him and report. Page 202, the faithful

are scourged for not giving to Joe and his
pets. Joe and his pets are to keep all they
get, even if more than they want. Page 205,
the faithful are punched up to give to have
Joe's revelations published. Page 211, we
have in a wonderful revelation the popular
error that the Lucifer of Isaiah is the devil
when he was the king of Babylon. Page 223,
there is a positive revelation that a won-
derful temple is to be built in Missouri, and
a cloud to rest on it in that generation. The
Mormons had better be hurrying up or that
prophecy will not be fulfilled. Page 224, a
fictitious lot of stuff is got off about that
unscriptural fabrication the Melchizedek
priesthood. Page 247, the farm on which
old Joe Smith lives must not be sold, and
old Joe must not allow too many to loaf
around him. Joe is looking out for the
main chance always. Page 253, we have
a long revelation about having the faithful
come down with their dust to build a house
for the President and for printing purposes.
It is positively declared " Behold there is
none other place appointed than that which
I have appointed in Missouri, neither
shall there be any other place for the
work of the gathering of my Saints."
Page 136, Joe told them the land
of Kirtland and vicinity was to be the in-
heritance of them and their children for
ever. Now he says it is Missouri, and
there shall be no other place. When at
Nauvoo he told them that was to be their
inheritance for ever. This needs a little
fixing up. Pag© 265, one of the most
brutal insults ever offered to a set of duped
wretches. After getting thousands of
dupes to go to Missouri, by his lying reve-
lations, and after encouraging them to spoil
the Gentiles by his revelations. Smith cooly
tells them that what they suffered as a
result of obeying his revelations, was a
puni!«hmeut for their sins. Page 277, the
Mormons are to curse their enemies and to
take vengeance on them even unto the third
and fourth generations. This bloody utter-
ance bore its fruit in the Mountain Meadows
butchery and hundreds of fiendish murders.
Pag^e 278, a crusade against enemies is
preached. Page 286, Missourians to catch
it. Page 287, another preaching of a cru-
sade. These bloody utterances have stirred
Mormon fanatics to many a deed of blood.
Page 289, we have a hierarchy more ex-
tensive and elaborate than that of Rome
built up, and about as much like the simple
New Testament Church. Page 301, we
have a long revelation to the faithful to
shell out, and build for Joe a great tavern
at Nauvoo for him to live in and make much
gain out of the Gentiles who came to
Nauvoo. The Mormon God organizes a
stock company and slashes William Law
and Dr. Foster and others who haye money
because they don't shell out. Probably to
have the book close with "something
religious," on page 315 we have a pla-
giarized mixture of the Book of Revelations
and the Prophets of the Old Testament.
Then two letters about the farce of the
baptizing the living for the dead, written

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

while Joe was dodging' justice for attempt-
ing the assassination of Gov, Boggs, by the
hand of that cut-throat Port Rockwell, one
of the elect band of Mormons, the Danites.
Then come revelations of Joseph III, two
sickly little things. The new prophet
must take courage: steal some dead man's
manuscript, steal from the Bible, get some
blatherskite like Rigdon to help him rant
and rave and howl bombast and balderdash
and he will be a Mormon prophet worth
•while. As it is now he makes a poor fist of
it. tie must tear round more than he has
yet, or the Mormons will call that younger
brother, the " child of prophecy," out of the
madhouse.

We have now examined the Book of Mor-
mon and the Book of Doctrines and Cove-
nants. We will devote a few lines to that
impudent fraud, the most brazen product
of Mormon ignorance and blasphemy called
the Inspired Translation. During the years
1831-2-3 Rigdon and Smith pretended to
translate the Bible by inspiration. They
deliberately changed words in the thou-
sands of instances. They deliberately in-
terpolated words, sentences and whole par-
agraphs. They assign no reason for this,
except that inspiration told them to do this,
in order to restore the Bible to its original
condition as it came from the hands of the
writers. They pretended to restore the
Book of Enoch naentioned in Jude to re-
store writings of Moses now lost, to restore
a book written by Abraham. Joe overdid
the matter in the case of the Book of Abra-
ham. He pretended to translate a papyrus
found with a mummy. Scholarship shows
that his translation, his Book of Abraham
is an ignorant fraud. So are all other pre-
tended revelations from him. That blas-
phemous traud, the inspired translation in-
terpolates into the beginning of the book of
Genesis: "Anditcanae to pass that the Lord
spake unto Moses saying. Behold, I reveal
unto you concerning this heaven and this
earth. Write the words which I speak, I
am the beginning and the end, the Almighty
God. By mine only begotten I created these
things."

It blasphemously interpolates into Gene-
sis iii, at the beginning of the chapter five
verses of such stuff as this :

"And I the Lord spake unto Moses saying, that Satan
whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine only
begotten is the same which was from the beginning.
And he came before me saying, 'Behold I (what gram-
mar) send me (why did he not say send I), I will be thy
Son and 1 will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall
not be lost and surely I will do it, wherefore give me
thine honor.' But behold, my beloved Son, which was
my beloved and chosen from the beginning, said unto
me, 'Father, thy will be done and the glory be thine
forever.' Wherefore that Satan rebelled against me
and sought to destroy the agency which the Lord had
given him and also that I should give unto him mine
own power by the power of mine only begotten, I
caused that he should be cast down and become Satan
yea even the Devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and
to blind men and to lead them captive at his will."

But the most blasphemous interpolation
is in Genesis L. Into that chapter is inter-
polated a long lot of blasphemous frauds
from the second chapter of the second Book
of Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Listen:

"And Joseph said unto his brethren, 'I die and go

unto my fathers and I go down to my grave with joy
The God of my father Jacob be with you to deliver you
out of affliction in the days of your bondage for the
Lord hath visited me and I have obtained a promise of
the Lord. For" out of the fruit Of my loins the Lord
God will raise up a righteous branch out of my loins
(Joe Smith) and unto thee, whom my father Jacob hath
named Israel, a prophet (not the Messiah who is called
Shilo), and this prophet shall deliver my people out of
Egypt in the days of thy bondage. And it shall come
to pass that they shall be scattered again, and a branch
shall be broken olf, and carried into a far country
(Sidney's Nephites). Nevertheless they shall be re-
membered in the covenants of the Lord, when the
Messiah Cometh. For he shall be made manifest unto
them in the latter days in the Spirit of power. And he
shall bring them out of darkness into light out
of hidden darkness and captivity into freedom.
A seer (Joe Smith) shall the Lord my God raise
up, who shall be a choice seer (verily Joe was a
chi 'ice seer) unto the fruit of my loins. "Thus saith the
Lord God of my fathers unto me. A choice seer (the
choice Joe Smith) will I raise up of the fruit of thy loiii.s.
And he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of
thy loins, his brethren (verily the people who knew
Joe esteemed him highly). And unto him I will give
commandments that he shall do a work for the fruit
of thy loins. And he snail bring them to a knowledge
of the covenants which I have made with thy father.
And he shall do whatsoever work I shall command
him. And I will make him great in mine eyes (Joe
always looked out for his own glory) for he shall do my
work, and he shall belike unto him whom I said I
would raise up unto you to deliver my people, Oh house
of Israel, out of the land of Egypt, and he shall be
called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he
is of the house, for he shall be saved by the king's
daughter and he shall be called her son. (How much
more definite Sidney's prophets are than the prophets
of the Old Testament). And again a seer (Joe Smith)
will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins (and don't
you forget it) and unto him (Joe Smith) will I give
power to bring forth my word (Book of Mormon) unto
the seed of thy loins. And not to the bringing forth of
my word only saith the Lord, but to the convincing
them of my word (the Bible) which shall have gone
forth amongst them in the last days. Wherefore the
fruit of thy loins shall write (the Book of Mormon), and
the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write (the Bible).
And that which shall be written by the fruit of thy
loins (the Book of Mormon) and also that which shall
be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah (the Bible)
siiall grow together unto the confounding of false
doctrines, and the laying down of contentions and the
establishing of peace amongthe fruit of thy loins and
bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the
latter days and also to a knowledge ofmy covenants saith
the Lord. And out of weakness shall he (Joe Smith) be
made strong in that day when my work (Mormonism)
s!. all go forth among all people which shall restore
them who are of the House of Israel in the last days.
And that seer (Joe Smith) will I bless, and they that
seek to destroy him (Joe Smith) shall be confounded,
for this promise 1 give unto you for I will remember
you from generation to generation. And his name
shall be called Joseph, and shall be after the name of
his father (old Joe), and he shall be like unto you, for
the thing (Book of Mormon) which the Lord shall bring
forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salva-
tion."

Then follow two paragraphs about Moses
with all of Rigdon's definiteness.

Now then, do you doubt that the Book o
Mormon is divine ? Sidnej' has fixed it up so
that the Patriarch Joseph prophesied all
about it and Joe Smith. There is one thing
I don't understand, Joe Smith was to be a
lineal and literal descendant of Joseph the
patriarch. Now as all the Nephites were
slain and as only the Lamanites, the In-
dians, were left, and these were cursed with
a skin of blackness, the query arises, was
Joseph a descendant of the Nephites who
had been exterminated 1,400 years? Oris
he a Lamanite ? Of what tribe is he, "Big
Injun?" Will Bishop Kelley inform us?
That is enough of that blasphemous slaugh-
ter of the word of God, the Inspired
Translation.

THE BRADEN AND ICELLEY DEBATE.

323

MR. KELLEY'S THIRD SPEECH.

GENTIiEMEN iMODEEATORS, LadIKS AND

Gentlemen: — When my time was called
last evening, I was entering upon the nar-
rative of young Mr. Smith, with reference
to the manner of the Commitnaent of the
Gospel, and the beginning of the work that
culminated in the organization of the
church in this century. I shall tliis even-
ing first finish this narrative and then pro-
ceed with the argument: Pearl of Great
Price, pp. 37 to 44.

"I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's
family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and
four of them joined that church, namely, my mother.
Lucy, my brothers, Hyrum, Samuel Harrison, and
my sister Sophronia.

•' During this time of great excitement, my mind
was called up to serious reflection and great uneasi-
ness; but though my feelings were deeD and often
pungent, still I kept myself aloof from all those parties,
though I attended their several meetings as often as
occasion would permit: but in process of time my
mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect,
and I felt some desire to bo united with them, but so
great was the confusion and strife among the different
denominations, that it was impossible for a person,
young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and
things, to come to any certain conclusion who wat;
right, and who was wrong. My mind at ditfc-rent times
was greatly excited, the cry and lumult was so great
and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided
against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all
their powers of reason or sophistry to prove their
errors, or, at least to make the people think they were
in error. On the other hand the Baptists and Metliod-
ists, in their turn, were equally zealous to establish
their own tenets, and disprove all (.thers.

"In the midst of this war of words and tumult of
opinions, I often said to myself, what is to be done?
Who of all these parties, are right? or, are they all
wrong together ? It any one of them be right, which
is it, and how shall I know it ?

" While I was laboring.under the extreme difficulties,
catised by the contest of these parties of religionists,
I was one day reading the Epistle of James. firj.t chap-
ter and fifth verse, which read.s: 'If any of you lack
wisdom, let him ask of God, that, giveth unto all men
liberally and unbraideth not, and it shall be given
him.' Never did any passage of scripture come with
more power to the heart of man, than this did at this
time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into
every feeling of my heart. I retieeted on it again and
again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom
from God, I did ; for how to" act I did not know, and
unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, would
never know ; for the teachers of religion of the differ-
ent sects understood the same passage so difterently,
as to destroy all confidence in settling the^question by
an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the con-
clusion that I must either remain in darkness and
confusion, or else i must do as James directs, that is,
ask of God. I at length came to the determination to
ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to
them that lacked wisdom, aud would give liberally
and not upbraid, I might venture. So, in accordanoe
with this my determination to ask of God, I retired to
to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the
morning of a beautiful clear day, early in the spring
of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first
time in my life I had made such an attempt, for amidst
all of my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt
to pray vocally.

" After I had retired into the place where I had
previously designed to go, having looked around me
and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began
to oflfer up the detires of my heart to God I had
scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon
by some power which entirely overcame me, and had
such astonishing influence over me as to bind my
tongue HO that I could not speak. Thick darkness
gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time, as
if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But exerting all
my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the
power of this enemy, which had seized upon me, and

at the very moment when I was ready to sink into
despair and abandon myself to destruction, not to an
imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being
from the unseen world, who haii such a marvelous
power as I had never before felt in any being Just at
this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light
exactly over my head, above the brightness of the
sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered
from the enemy which held me bound. When the
light rested upon me, I saw two personages, whose
brightness and glory defy all description, standing
above me 'in the air One of them spake unto me,
calling me bv u. me, and said (pointing to the other)
'THIS IS MY BELOVED SON. HEAR HIM.'

"My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to
know wbich of all the sects was right, that I might
know which to join. No sooner therefore, did I get
possession of myself, so as to bo able to spcik, than I
asked the personages who stood abi've me in the light,
which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had
never etitered into ray hea't th.it h11 were wrong), and
which I should join I was answered that I must join
none of them, for they were all wrong, and thi^ person-
age who addri ssed me said, ' That all their creeds were
an abomination in his sii'ht; that "ihose professors
were all corrupt, they draw near to me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doc-
trine the commandments of men, having a form of
godliness, but t'ley deny the power thereof. '

"He again forbade me to join with any of them;
and many other things did he say unto me which I can-
not write" at this time. When I came to myself again, I
found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven.

"Some few days after I had this vi?ion, I happened
to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers,
who was very active in the before mentioned religious
excitement, and conversing with him on the subject
of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of
the vision which I had had. I was greatly suriirised
at his behavior, he treated my communication not only
lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of
the devil, that there were no .such things as visions or
revelations in these nays; that all such things had
ceased with the apostles, and that there never would
be any more of them.

"I soon found, however, that my telling the story
had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among
professors of religion, and was the cause of great per-
secution which continued to increase; and though I
was an obscure boy, only between fourteen aud fifteen
years of age, and liiy circumstances in lile stich as to
make a boy of no citisequeuce in the world, yet men of
hi^h standing won <1 take untice sufficient to excite the
pnblii" mind against me, and crpr.te a hot persecution,
and this was common among all the sects, all united to
perscfuie me.

"It has often c«used me serious reflection, both then
and since, how very strange it was thutau obsciu'e boy,
of a little over fourteen years of age, and, one, too, who
was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty
maintenance by his daily labor, shotild be thought a
character of sufficiiiit importance to attract the atten-
tion of the great ones of the most p'lpular sectx of the
day. so as to create in them a spirit of the hottest perse-
cution aud reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and
was often cause of great sorrow to myself. However it
was, nevertheless, a fact, that I had had a vision. I
have thought since, that I felt much like Paul when
he made his defence before king Agrippa, and related
the account of the vision he had when he "saw a light
and heard a voice," and still There were but few
who believed him ; some said he was dishonest, others
said he was mad, and he was ridiculed and reviled;
but all this did not destroy the reality of his vision.
He had seen a vision ; he knew he had, and all the per-
secution under heaven could not make it otherwise ;
aud though they should persecute him unto death, yet
he knew and would know unto his last breath, that he
had both seen a light, and heard a voice speaking to
him, and all the world could not make him think or
believe otherwise

"So it was with me, I had actually seen a light, and
in the midst oi that light I saw two personages, and
they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did ;
and" though I was' hated and persecuted for saying that
I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they
were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all

}24

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

wanner of evil against me, falsely for so saying, I was
led to say in my heart, why persecute for telling the
truth ? I have actually seen a vision, and "who anf I
that I can withstand God?" or why does the world
think to make me deny what I have actually seen ? for
I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God
knew it, and I could not deny it, neither Jare I do it :
at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God
and come under condemnation.

"Duringthe space of time which intervened between
the time I had the vision, and the year eighteen hun-
dred and twenty-three, (having been forbidden to join
any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very
tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to
have been my friends, and to have treated me kindly,
and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeav-
ored, in a proper and affectionate maimer, to have re-
claimed me,) I was lelt to all kinds of temptations,
and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently
fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weak-
ness of youth, and the corruption of human nature,
which I am sorry to say led me into divers temptations,
to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the
Bight of God. lu consequence of these tilings I often
felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections;
when on the evening of 1 he above mentioned twenty-
first of September, after I had retired to my bed for the
night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to
Almighty God, for'forgiveness "of all my sins and fol-
lies, and' also for a manifestation to me that I might
know of my state and standing before him; fori had
full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation as I
had previously had one."

" While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I
discovered a light appearing in the room, which con-
tinued to increase until the room was lighter than
at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared
at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not
touch the floor. He had on a loose robe of most exquis-
ite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything
earthly I had ever seen;, nor do I believe that any
earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly
white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his
arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his
feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles.
His head and neck were also bare. I could discover
that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it
was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

"Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his
whole person was glorious beyond description, and
his Countenance truly like lightning. The room was
exceedingly light, but not so very bright as imme-
diately round his person. When I first looked upon
him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called
me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger
sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name
was Nephi That God had a work for me to do, and
that ray name shc.uld be had for good and evil among
all nations, kindreds and tongues : or that it should be
both good and evil spoken of among all penple. He
said there was a book depo-^iied, written upon gold
plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of
this continent, and the s^ource from whence they
sprang. He also said that the fullnes'S of the everlast-
ing gospel WfS contained in it, as delivered by the Sa-
vior to the ancient inhabitant.*. Also, tliat there were
two stones in silver bows (and these stones, fastened to
a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and
Thummim) deposited with the plates, and the posses-
sion and use of these stones was what constituted
Seers in ancient or former times, and that God had pre-
pared them for ihe purpose of translating the book.

"After telling me these thin.cs, he commenced
quoting the oroiihecies of the old Testament. He first
quoted part of the thid chapter of Malachi, and he
quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same pro-
phecy, though with a little variaiiun from the way it
reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse
as it reads in our books he quoted it thus: ' For behold
the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall burn as
Stubble, for they that come shall burn them, saith the
Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root
nor branch.' And a sain, he quoted the fifth verse
thus: 'Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood
by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming
of the great and di-eadful day of the Lord.' He also
quoted the next verse differently: ' And he shall plant
in the hearts of tha children the promises made to the
fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to
their fathers; if it were not so, the whole earth would
he utterly wasted at His coming."

"In addition to these he quoted the eleventh chapter
of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He
quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second

and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in
our New Testament. He said that the prophet was
Christ, but the day had not yet come when ' they who
would not hear his voice should be cut off from
among the people.' but soon would come.

" He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the
twenty -eighth to the last verse. He also said that this
was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further
stated, the fullness of the Gentiles was soon to come in.
He quoted many other passages of scripture and offered
many explanations, which cannot be mentioned
here. Again, he told me that when I got those plates
of which he had spoken (for the time that they should
be obtained was not yet fulfilled) I should not show
them to any person, neither the breastplate with the
Urim and Thummim, only to those to whom I should be
commanded to show them; if I did, I should be des-
troyed. While he was conversing ;with me about the
plates, the vision was open to my mind that I could
see the place where the plates were deposited, and
that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place
again when I visited it.

" After "lis communication, I saw the light in the
room b« In 'o gather immediately around the person
of him \ ho had been speaking to me, and it continued
to do so uuiil the room was again left dark, except
just around him, when instantly I saw, as it were, a
conduit open right up into heaven, and he as-
cended up until he entirely disappeared, and the room
was left as it hkd been before this heavenly light had
made its appearance.

I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and
marvelling greatly at what had been told me by this
extraordinary messenger, when, in the midst of my
meditation, I suddenly discovered that my room was
again beginning to get lighted, and in an instant,
as it were, the heavenly messenger was again by my
bedside. He commenced, and related the very same
things which he had done at his first visit, without the
least variation, which, having done, he informed me
of great judgments that were coming. upon the earth,
with great desolations by famine, sword and pestilence,
and that these grievous judgments would come on the
earth in this generation. Having related these things,
he again ascended as he had done before.

" By this time, so deep was the impression made on
my mind, that sleep had fled from my eyes, and I lay
overwhelmed with astonishment at what I had both
seen and heard; but what was my surprise when I again
beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard
him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same
things as before, and added a caution to me, telling me
that Satnn would try to tempt me (in consequence of
the indigent circumstances of my father's family) to
get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This
he Jbrbid me, saying, that I must have no other object in
view in getting tlie plates but to glorify God. and must
not be influenced by any other motive than of building
his kingdom, otherwise I could not get them.

"Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario
countv. New York, stands a hill of considerable size,
and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood.
On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under
a stone of considerable size, lay the plates deposited
in a stone box; this stone was thick and rounding in
tlie middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the
edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above
the ground, but the edge all round was covered with
earth. Having removed the earth and obtained a
lever which I got fixed under the edge of the stone,
and with a little exertion raised ii; up ; I looked in, and
there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and
Thummim, and the breastplate as stated by the mes-
senger. The box in which they lay was formed by ly-
ing stones together in some kind of cement. In the
bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of
the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the
other things with them.

"As my father's worldly circumstances were very
limited, we were under the necessity of laboring with
our hands, hiring by day's work and otherwise as we
could get opportunitv ; sometimes we were at home
and sometimes abroad and by continued labor were
able to get a comfortable maintainance.

"In the vear 1824 my father's family met with a
great affliction, bv the death of my eldest brother
Alvin. In the month October, 182.^ I hired with an
old gentleman, by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived
in Chenango couiity, state of New York. He had heard
something of a silver mine having been opened by the
Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna county. State
of Pennsylvania, and had, previous to my hiring with
him, been digging, in order, if possible, to discover
the mine. After I went to live with him he took me
among the rest of his hands to dig for the silver mine,

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

32(

at which I continued to work for nearly a month without
success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed
with the old gentleman to cease digging after it.
Hence arose the very prevalent story of my having
been a money digger.

"During the time that I was thus employed, I was
put to board with a Mr. Isaac Hale, of that place: it
was there that I first saw my wife his daughter) Kmma
Hale. On the 28th of January, 1827, we were married,
while yet I was employed in the service of Mr. Stoal.

"At "length the time arrived for obtaining the plates,
the Urim and Thummin, and the breastplate. On the
22nd day of September, 1827, having gone, as usual, at
the end of another year, to the place vaiere they were
deposited ; the sarne heavenly messenger delivered
them up to me with this charge, that I should be re-
sponsible for them ; that if I sliould let them go care-
lessly or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut
oflf: but that if I would use all my endeavors to pre-
serve them, until he, the messenger, should call for
them, they should be protected."

I have thus been particular in reading to
you this I'xirrative, because it is so entirely
unlike the <^nrious manufactured stories told
about the visions, work, character, habits
and iutegr. ity of this boy, that I wished
them placed side by side before you.

The detailed circumstances by young Mr.
Smith are altogether different to the old
woman's tales and neighborhood gossip
so universally given out by his enemies.

And is it not strange that these same
parties Avho pretend to tell you how it all
was, and.) ust what actually did occur, should
also deny that anything at all remarkable
occurred. Why do they tell so much for
about satan and f^he peep-stones and water-
witching, and the plates and angels, and
the frock of sand and tool chests, if there
was nothing at all? And how can any hon-
est man come to the conclusion that he will
reject Mr. Smith's statement of the matter
since he was the one there and knew what
happened and believe what his enemies
said about it when they admit they were
not there and know nothing about it, ex-
cept what they got from Mr. Smith second
or third handed? If the statement comes
from him any way, shall we not go directly
to him instead of taking it through his
enemies? That sounds too much like the
old story on the disciples chargiug they
came and stole him away, for me. Satan's
hand is discernable. Such in brief is an
account of the beginning of the restoration
of the gospel through this .young boy of
Manchester. And now, ladies and gentle-
men, I shall proceed to examine with you
the work as prefigured by the positions
laid down by me the first evening.

I. That the principles and faith of the
church are in harmony with the word of
of (Jod as contained in the Bible. Are in-
deed the good seed of the kingdom, which
when men have sown bring forth fruit in
the good ground acceptable with Jesus
Christ.

II. That from this faith and these princi-
ples there was a falling away and perver-
sion after the first century, as was clearly
predicted by Jesus and the apostles, and
that the church went into the wilderness
and her authority was taken av/ay ; and
thsit since the faiiing atuay was occasioned
by reason of the perversion of the truth and
a' corruption of the gospel principles as
taught in the early ages, the restoration

must consist of a reinstatement of these
same principles and truths, with the same
organization and authority as was had in
the early church of the Saints.

III. That the restoration was made and
the order of the church reinstated by Christ
himself in accordance with the predictions
made by the prophets relative to this par-
ticular work of the last days or time. It
may be objected that this work set out in
the prophecies to be instituted and estab-
lished under the immediate supervision of
Christ himself, as predicted by the prophets
relates to the restoration of Israel and their
return to their own country, rather than to
a restoration of the gospel. My answer to
this is, that one of the things to be eventu-
ally accomplished by the work is the re-
storation of Israel to their own country;
but that is but a part of the work to be ac-
complished or even of restoration : it is but
one of the results to be brought about by
the replanting of the gospel standard. The
visible beginning of the entire work is the
"lifting up of the ensign." Isa. 11. "The
lifting up of a standard to the people and
the casting up of a highway." Isa. 62. The
calling at^d sending forth o^f men under the
proclamation as foreseen by the prophet:
"Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith
the Lord, and they shall fish them; and
afterwards I will send for many hunters,
and thev shall hunt tliem from every moun-
tain anil from every hill," "I will cause
them to know my hand and my might, and
they shall know that my name is Jehovah."
Jer! 16. The Lord is to do his own work
and manifest, His "hand," show forth his
power, communicate with the people, and
notwithstanding the claim made by the
many of the world, that the day of revela-
tion has ceased and that God was to have
nothing more to do in the enlightenment
and conversion of the human family, He
is to plead with the people " face to face,"
like as he plead with Israel under Moses,
and bring them into the bond of the cove-
nant. The more particularly distinguish-
ing feature of this work which the Lord is
to perform among the people is that of the
preaching of the gospel.

This is in fact God's ensign ; his standard,
the way of life and salvation ; "Immor-
tality and eternal life is brought to light
through the Gospel." It is the means by
which the Gentiles are made "partakers of
the promises in Christ." "The power of
God unto salvation." Hence, the work of
restoration when it begins will be by first
recommitting this means of preparation, and
John says of the beginning of the work : "I
saw another angel fly through the midst of
heaven having" the everlasting Gospel to
preach unto them that dv\-eli on the earth,
and to fivery nation and kindred, and tongue
and people! Saying with a loud voice, fear
God and give glory to him for the hour of
his judgment is come: and worship him
that made heaven and earth and the sea
and the fountains of water." The restora-
tion is not only to consist of the gathering
of Israel into the bonds of the Covenant,

826

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

but in the language of the apostle Peter,
"Of all things which God hath spoken by
the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
world began." All things which have been
predicted are to be restored. The time of
this work the apostJe places exactly with
that spoken of by the prophets and Jesus,
and the apostles Paul and .John : "And he
shall send Jesus Christ, which before was
preached unto you : Whom the heaven must
receive until the times of restitution of all
things," etc. Acts 3: 20-21. Then the times
of the restitution is in the time when Jesus
too, will come, iu the "hour of God's judg-
ment." And in the time when "this Gospel
of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
world for a witness unto all nations ; and
then shall the eudcome." The same as the
Revelator said was to be preached "to every
nation, kindred, tongue and people." "This
Gospel," says Jesus referring to the one
which he was preaching, which consisted
not only of words, are(;ord of the dead letter,
but of power, as described bj' the evangelist
Mark 1:27; "what thing is this? What
new doctrine is this? For with authority
commandeth he even the unclean spirits
and they do obe,y him." This is the Gospel
that is to be preached as a "witness unto
all nations;" and it will be, "a witness,"
for it will be unlike the preaching which
has laid claims to being the Gospel for cen-
turies ; Irence, an evidence of itself and
truly "a witness" that the angel has made
his way in the midst of heaven, and the
times of the restoration or restitution is at
hand. It is not true as is supposed by my
opponent, that all there is to the Gospel is
the record which any one may take up and
read. If that was true, all who read the
account of the Gospel would be saved ; "for
it is the power of God unto salvation." But
imany read the record and do not believe it.
The Gospel then is in the word — God's
truth, and in power and the Holy Ghost.
Hence the apot^tle says: "For our Gospel
came not unto you in word only, but in
power and the Holy Ghost and in much
assurance." Here is where we get the idea
of true preaching, of Gospel preaching. It
is a mistake to suppose that a man can
preach the Gospel of Christ without the
power of Christ's Spirit — to aid him; there
is no instance on record of where this was
done. Even Jesus himself could not do it
without this Spirit and power. Hence it is
written of him by the prophet Isaiah 61 :1,
"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good
tidings unto the meek." And before Jesus
(sent his disciples into the world to preach,
he said unto them, "But tarry ye at Jeru-
salem until ye are endowed with power from
on high." Although they had been three
years with the master himself, receiving
instructions, and had then received the full-
ness of the Gospel so far as its presentation
in word is concerned, they were not yet to
undertake to minister his word, until they
should have with them the power, as well
as the letter of the Gospel. To undertake
to preach otherwise than by this would be

to make confusion and discord in their work
instead of bringing unity and arriving at
the truth ; this is the reason we find th«
world in the state it is in to-day. Instead
of men teaching as directed by that Spirit
that was to "guide them into all truth,"
they have preached as they have been
educated in their pecuUar systems, and their
educations having been in different schools
and there being an absence of that spiritual
guide that was to bring unity and oneness
of thought in the truth, we have a thousand
divisions, all widely different, and yet, all
professing to be the right one.

The educated Catholic preaches Catholi-
cism.

The educated Disciple preaches Camp-
bellism.

The educated Baptist preaches Calvin-
ism.

The educated Methodist preaches Armiu-
ianism ; and

The educated Hebrew preaches Judaism.

And so I might go on naming the entire
thirty minutes ; and notwithstranding the
fact that all of these claim to be the children
of God, and all expect to reach the highest
seat around the Lord's table, it "would be as
great a miracle as the moving of the Kirt-
land hills to get them to sit down in peace
and unity around the Lord's table here in
this world. Don't flatter yourselves, my
friends, that by the change, called death,
all of these barriers are broken down and
you will meet with entire d liferent feelings,
and tastes on the other side ; for it is writ-
ten : "Whatsoever a man soweth that
shall he also reap : " and if you would have
the Spirit of unity and love, charity that
never faileth when you arrive ever on the
other side, you must first lay hold upon it
here. This comes by reason of the "Com-
forter, of whom Jesus said, I will send you,
if I go away, even the Spirit of Truth."

Why, says ray opponent, that was for the
apostles ; Yes, and for all men who desired
the truth. He takes the ground that peo-
ple now should not have this "Spirit ol
Truth." This was the gift of the Holy
Ghost, the comforter and the reverse spirit
to this, the apostle says, "is the spirit of
error," 1 John 4:6. Then when I contend
that this "Spirit of Truth," should be in the
church and it after the pattern, in the man-
ner, that God set it in the church, shall I
be continually met with the "dodge" that,
this Spirit, the Holy Ghost, the comforter,
was to the apostles just after the time of
Jesus only? In Jesus' time the true church
was known by means of the presence of this
life pov.^er. "But if I cast out devils by the
Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is
come unto you." There is no denying the
position that where the church of God, or
kingdom of God is, there is power ; the
power of the Holy Spirit ; — Paul knew this,
and he therefore asked at Ephesus if those
who claimed to have been baptized by John's
baptism, had received the power. "Have
ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be-
lieved?" He knew just how to tell whether
they were in the church, or kingdom of

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

327

God, or not ; for in that, there was power.
Hence, "have ye received the Holy Ghost,"
been baptized with the Holy Ghost? The
difference is only in the imagination of my
opponent. What right has he to say that
when the Holy Ghost fell on these twelve
men at Ephesus, and they spake with
tongues and propheci^d," that they were
not baptized with the same, since he admits
the baptism of the household of Cornelius,
and the record reads as in the case of the
baptism at Ephesus? "The Holy Ghost
fell on all of them which heard the word,
and they heard them speak with tongues,
and magnify God." This dividing up of
the Holy Spirit, making a distinction be-
tween the reception of the Holy Ghost, the
baptism of the Holy Ghost, and th<} gift of
the Holy Ghost, is without warrant in the
word of God, and for the purpose only of
njaiutaining a theory, as I have before
shown you. But it is claimed that people
are better off without this Holy Spirit than
the early Christians were with it.

Singular as it may seem, persons claiming
to be wise, ministers of various orders, will
undertake to make this claim.

Can they not see that they take sides with
the class of whom Jesus spoke who taught
that their way was better than that which
he taught them, when he was here, when he
told them they could only receive the Holy
Spirit represented by the new wine, after
divesting themselves of their old religion.
"No man also having drunk old wine
straightway desireth new, for he saith,
The old is better," Luke 5 : 39. And so it is
now claimed, that men are better oft' and
nearer to God, than tliough th(?y received
of this Holy Spirit, the Comforter; the
Spirit of Truth ; the Spirit of prophecy and
testimony of Jesus, as he says : "When he
is come he will testify of me." If this
Spirit is with anybody then, he will testify
of Jesus, and "herein we may know the
Spirit of Truth from the spirit of error."
Hence John writing to his little chil-
dren, as he calls the saints, says: "But
ye have an unction from the Holy One, and
ye know all thlogs." How do they know
all things? Answer, by that "unction,"
(Spirit) "from the Holy One;" for Jesus
had said, I will send him if I go away, and
he shall bring all things to your remem-
brance," etc.

Here, as given in the account in John's
letter, we find these believers enjoying the
same spirit after all of the apostles had
fallen asleep, except John, that they had
had from the first. Again, verse 27 : "But
the anointing which ye have received of
him [Christ] abideth in you, and ye need
not that any man teach you : but as the
same anointing teaches you of all things,
and is truth [the Spirit of Truth] and is no
lie, and even'as it hath taught j'ou, ye shall
abide in him."

As it hath taught you ; not the written
word hath taught you; but it, the spirit of
truth, the ''unction." They had to abide
in the word also, for if they "did not do this,
they could not have this unction or Holy

Spirit to teach them ; nor could they abide
in the word without it. The spirit was
with its other walk, to bring the word, "all
things Jesus had taught him to their remem-
brance " Hence, Jesus says: "If a man
love me," — if a man, (not one of you twelve
or seventy,) — "If a man lovemehe will keep
my words." Is that all ? oh no ; "He that
loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and
I will love him, and will manliest myself
unto him."

Unto who, the twelve? No, he that
loveth him and keepeth his commandments.
John 14:21, to 27.

The apostle could then truly say of his
anointing, 2Cor. 1 :21 and22: "Now hewhich
stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath
anointed us in God ; who hath also sealed
us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in
our hearts." And the same anointing is
thai Avhich Jesus was blessed with. Heb.
1:9. "Therefore God, even thy God, hath
anointedtheQ witla the oil of gladness a6ove
thy fellows."

Now I call your attention to the para-
ble relating to the dispensation of the
gospel in the "fullness of times," repre-
sented under the head of hours of labor,
including all the dispensations, or the call-
ing of men into the ministry from the time
God began to warn and instruct the people
so far as the record informs us. And in
wliatever ageor dispensationa man labored
he recived the penny appointed, and so of
those who labored in the eleventh hour. In
the presentation of this work Jesus also
showed that the order of nations in this
would be reversed ; that there would be
brought about the change of the first being
Zasi and the last first. In the first century the
gospel was presented first to the Jews, and
afterwards was to go from them to the Gen-
tiles ; but in the "dispensation of the full-
ness of times," the presentation is to be
made first to the Gentiles, and then to the
Jews. Hence the language of the apostle
— Jerusalem shall be trodden down,
"until the fullness of the Gentiles be come
in ;" then the time of rejoicing of the Jews
is to take place ; and of Jesus in Math. 20:16:
"So the last shall be first, and the first
last." The standard, then preached by
him to the Jews, was in the last time to be
lifted up, and to go from the nations termed
Gentiles, to the Jews. The prophet Zecha-
riah naming the particular way in which
the work should begin that would result in
the restoration of Israel, says: "And be-
hold the angel that talked with me went
forth and another angel went out to meet
him. And said unto him, Run, s])eak to
this young man, saying, .Jerusalem shall be
iuiiabited as towns without walls for the
multitude of men and cattle therein ; there-
fore I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a
wall of fire round about, and will be the
glory in the midst of her." Zech. 2:3, 5.

Thus we have the full, clear and complete
establishment of the work as outlined in
propihecy, and as set forth, perfect agree-
ment and harmony in the work itself in the
fulfillment.

328

THE BRADEN AND KEL,LEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S THIRD SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : —My opponent tried to dodge
the quotation from the Book of Mormon.
It will avail him nothing. It does repre-
sent Christ as answering the astonishment
of Jared's brother, when he saw his finger,
by reminding him that men are in the like-
ness of the Father, who has flesh and
blood and bones as they have. Smith, and
the Church in his day accepted the teach-
ings of the Pratts as standards, and uni-
versally taught them. It is amusing to see
the dodges of my opponent. It makes no
matter who uttered a teaching, nor how
universal it may be, if he cannot defend it
he repudiates it. It is not a teaching of the
Church. It is a very convenient method of
discussion. He repudiates what they have
published as revelations, in the same way.
These revelations are valuable helps. If
the revelation suits them, they accept it.
If it does not, they reject it. That is as
much help as California Hog Scales. Put
the hog on one end of a rail laid across a
log. Balance him witti stones, and guess
at the weight of the stones. So Mormons
balance revelations with their notions. If
they agree, they accept. If not they reject.
My ojapouent balances his revelations
with what he can defend. If he thinks he
can defend them, they are revelations the
teachings of the Church. If not, he rejects
them. Such a prophet is as valuable as a
fifth wheel to a wagon, it only adds to the
load, and they throw it away when they
can't haul it.

I did not say that the language I quoted
was in Joe's inspired translation, and my
opponent knew that I did not. I said he
made such comment in the first verse of
Genesis in the King Follett sermon, and he
knew that was what I said. But anything,
even falsification of statements, to dodge.
He tells me, Joe did not put certain things
in an article in a religious enclyclopsedia.
Jesuits do not either. They conceal part of
their sentiments. I quoted Smith's declar-
ations in an article published in one of the
church papers — the prophet's special teach-
ing to the faithful. But the present head
of the Church has repudiated such teach-
ing. He is to be commended for his good
sense ; but unregeuerate Gentiles have this
trouble, which are they to accept? The
positive teaching of the founder and great
Seer and revelator Joe TI., as published in
Vol VI. "Milleuial Star," or the utterances
of the present head, Joe III.? When you
decide which is head and which is the
tail, we can decide which way the snake is
going. The world will hold them to what
their standards have published, especially
their great prophet, seer, revelator, and
founder said, and especially what they
have published of his utterances, and have
accepted and taught themselves, until

pressed in debate, when they dishonestly
try to evade it. He dishonestly says tha*
I teach that God will have nothing to do
with men now. He knew that was false
when he uttered it. I believe God deals
with men now in a perfect revelation, in a
higher and more perfect manner than he
did in partial revelations. Just what Paul
teaches.

I called on him to prove that a single
revelation or miracle had ever occurred in
Kirtland. His answer is amusing. After
assailing my Church, because we have no
miracles and revelations, and boasting that
his Church is the Church, because it has
miracles and revelations, all officers and
most of the members having such power ;
when called on to produce one, just one, in
its head centre, he says "the Gospel is
based on reason and not on miracles." Just
what I have claimed, just what our people
claim, and for such teaching he denounced
us as apostates. He even asserted that we
do not believe in the Holy Spirit, because
we say that no one enjoys his miraculous
influence; and declared that there was but
one influence of the Holy Spirit, and that
is miraculous. Christ appealed to his mira-
cles when upbraiding Capernaum, Chorazin
and Bethsaida. He said to unbelievers
" Believe me for my works." He wrought
miracles to convince men and to prove his
claims. He healed the sick in Nazareth,
and ceased only when tbey refused to
believe, and it was no longer of any avail
to give them proof. Will my oppoiient do
what Christ did? Lay his hands on a few
sick and heal them? Will he do as Christ
did, recite the miracles that Mormons liave-
done in Kirtland? You denounce our peo-
ple because we have no miracles or revela-
tions. You claim to be the Church, because
you have them. We defy you to cite one.
Shut up for shame till you do.

He read Joe Smith's yarn about his first
vision. That story was first told by Smith
in 1843, when he was 38 years old, and 23
years after he says he had the vision. His
mother and his father's family knew nothing
about it then. His mother "in writing his
life quotes this very story, as he wrote it 23
years afterwards. It is all a fabrication.
No ignorant boy of fifteen, scarcely able to
read, had such knowledge of all the pro-
found theological questions of the day. He
did not reason like a theologian of forty.
Joe fabricated that yarn after sixteen years
acquaintance with Rigdon. He got the
Campbellism of his pretended vision from
Rigdon. It is a lying fabrication. His vis-
ion is a lie, for he' says he saw the Father in
person. No mortal ever saw him. Human
ears have heard him but three times. His
long quotations have as much relevance as
quoting the multiplication table. He sup-
poses that persons are silly enough to think,

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

329

because he quotes many passages he is
proving his proposition, whether they have
any hearing on the question or not We
are agreed that a falling away was proph-
ecied. The sole issue is : What does a res-
toration include? I claim a return to the
•Bible, as our sole standard. He says to Joe
Hmith's pretended revelations, to the pre-
tended miraculous power, visions, miracles,
frauds and fallacies, of Mormon knaves and
dupes. I claim that the Bible alone is the
word of God. He adds Mormon frauds.

I object to his church that it flatly contra-
dicts the Holy Spirit and declares there are
two baptisms in the church, when he says
there is but one. Will my opponent answer
these queries. I. Does not John declare
''I immerse you in water, but Christ will
immerse you' in the Holy Spirit." II. Does
not Johnmake these two immersions? III.
Is not immersion in water for the remission
of sins, in the church? IV. Does not the
Holy Spirit say there is one immersion in
the church? V. Is not that one immer-
sion— immersion in water, for the remission
of sins. VI. If immersion in water for the
remission of sins, is in the church, and
there is but one immersion in the church,
can immersion in the Holy Spirit, which
John declares is entirely different from im-
mersion in water for tlie remission of sins,
be in the church ? ISow answer or stop that
gabble that gives the lie direct to the spirit
of God. He appeals to Hebrews vi. Can
not he see that his perversion of that pas-
sage only makes the scriptures contradict
themselves, and fails to sustain his per-
version. Now it is a fact that, I. The
Hebrew letter was written to Hebrew
Christians who esteemed the law of Moses
above the Gospel. II. The apostle shows
that the law of Moses was a preparation for
the Gospel, the schoolmaster to lead to
Christ. III. He exhorts them to abandon
the law of Moses and accept the Gospel
alone. IV. He exhorts them to lay to one
side repentance from dead works, the works
of a dead law, teaching concerning immer-
sions— the immersions, bathings, washings
of the law of Moses— the different immer-
sions of Heb. 9-10, "carnal ordinances,
"meats, drinks, and different immersions
imposed till the time of reformation," or
until the Gospel came. The immersions of
Hebrews, 6:1, and the different immersions
of Hebrews, 9: 10, on the same.

Again suppose that my opponent finds
different immersions in the Bible, it does
not prove that there is more than one im-
mersion in the church. The Holy Spirit
says there is but one in the church. Can he
understand that? The Bible speaks, I. of
one immersion in water for remis^iion of sins.
My opponent admits that it is in the church.
II. Immersion in the Holy Spirit. III.
Immersion in fire. IV. Immersions in
sufferings endured by Christ. V. Immer-
sion into Moses. VI. Different immersions
of the law of Moses. Are all these in the
church? They must be if in the Bible; ac-
cording to my opponent. Why does he not
have immersion in suffering — immersions

into Moses — in the different immersions in
the law of Moses, in the church, as well as
the immersion in the Spirit? 1 Cor. 8:4,
"For though there are those that are called
Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as
there are Lords many and Gods many) to us
there is but one God the Father." If my
opponent finds a score of immersions in the
Bible, to us, to the church, the Holy Spirit
says there is but one baptism, as there is
but one God. He might as well claim sev-
eral Gods, as several immersions — several
faiths — several Lords — several Holy Spirits
— several hopes — several bodies, just as well,
as claim several immersions. To us, to the
church, there is but one baptism, as there
is but one God — one Lord — one Holy Spirit
— one faith — one hope — one body — one im-
mersion.

Again, if the one baptism be immersion
in the Holy Spirit, then two of the items
are the same, — the one Spirit and tlie one
immersion in the Spirit are the same. Or
we have the one Spirit and then we receive
him again in the immersion in the Spirit.
The obtuseness or perverseuess of my oppo-
nent is to be pitied. He cannot see tlie
difference between immersion by one Spirit
and immersion in the Spirit— the difference
between in and by. The difference between
born of the Spirit and immersion in the
Spirit; the difference between in and o/—
the difference between immersion in the
Spirit, and the renewal of the Spirit— the
difference between in and of. Until he can
see that by is not in, in is not o/. he had
better stop debating, and study a dictionary
for several years, for it would take that
long for hira to understand what any
schoolboy knows. Now then let our oppo-
nent stop this gabble about two baptisms
which gives the lie direct to the Spirit of
God.

To his long string of irrelevant prophecies
we object : I. His application of them to Joe
Smith and the Book of Mormon is a mere
Inference. If we were to insert the infer-
ence it would make the prophecies sound
ridiculous. IT. The context limits several
to the return of the Israelites from captivity.
Isaiah xi, 16, "And there shall be a
highway for the remnant of the people
which shall be from Assyria." What bal-
derdash to apply this to Joe Smith and
Mormonism. Isaiah is merely poetic hyper-
bole, describing the return of the Israelites
from Assvrian captivity. One of the egre-
grious blunders of those who run crazy over
Hebrew prophecies is that they take what
these prophets said of their nation, and
they rarely prophecied of anything else,
and carry it over into modern history, of
which tlie prophets never dreamed. Men
find railroads, telegraphs, telephones, gas
lio-hts, electric lights, in Hebrew prophecies.
They find that the English people are
descendants of Israelites, the Indians are,
that the United St:ites is prophecied of,
that Louis Napoleon was foretold, Bismarck,
the Fox girls, and Joe Smith. I confess
that T have such a disgust for such vagaries
that I have no patience to notice them.

S30

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Jeremiah xvi refers to the Assyrian cap-
tivity and return from it. So also Ezekiel.
XX. Evea if it did not, it could be applied
to the Fox girls and Spiritism, as well as to
Joe Smith and Mormonism. Such vagaries
backed up by irrelevant quotations and
misapplication of prophecies are to prove
that Mormonism is the church of God.

We will now continue our examination of
the pretended revelations of Mormonism.
All inspiration should be harmonious and
agree with itself. If Joe Smith was in-
spired when he translated the Book of
Mormon, and when he made the Inspired
translation, these two products of inspira-
tion should agree. If Joe was inspired
when he gave the revelations in the Book
of Doctrines and Covenants, and when he
made the Inspired Translation, these two
products of inspiration should agree. In
the Book of Mormon there are hundreds of
quotations from the New Testament ; hun-
dreds from the Old Testament. In his
Inspired Translation Joe has changed these
passages, in scores of instances. If he was
inspired in his translation. King James'
version is wrong in all of these instances.
Yet strange to say the Book of Mormon
follows King James' version, quotes the
erroneous language in ovir version in every
instance. How did the Nephites, who
quoted by inspiration from old Hebrew
writings, happen to quote the errors of
King James' version, that was not in exis-
tence till hundreds of years after their day ?
Will Kelley explain this to this to us? Did
Sydney Rigdon quote from our version
when he wrote the Book of jMormon? Or
did the Nephites who quoted by inspiration,
quote our version hundreds of years before
it was made, instead of from the correct
text ? Our version is wrong if the Inspired
Translation is right.

The Book of Mormon declares that Jesus
after his ascension visited theNephites, and
repeated to them nearly ail of his sermon
on the mount. Jesus says to them: "Be-
hold ye have heard the things which I
tauglit before I ascended to my Father."
In his sermon to the Nephites he repeats
what he liad said before his ascension, just
as it is in our version and different from the
Inspired Translation in over thirty instances
of marked differences between our version
and the Inspired Translation. Did Rigdon
copy from our version in writing the Book
of Mormon? Or did Jesus, in his conversa-
tion with tlie Nephites, quote from our ver-
sion endorsing its errors, hundreds of years
before it Mas made? Or did (Jhrist use the
correct utterance, and the Nephites quote
from our version its errors, hundreds of
years before it was made, instead of quoting
the language Christ did use? Or is our
version right and Joe wrong in his Inspired
Translation. As an illustration, the Book of
Mormon says that Jesus said, "Then I will
profess unto them I never knew you, depart
from me ye that work iniquity." The In-
spired Translation says that he said, "Then
I will say unto them ye never knew me,
depart from me ye that work iniquity."

Which inspiration is correct ? Will Kelley
straighten out this contradiction. In like
manner in the Book of Doctrines and Cov-
enants revelations agree with our version
and contradict Joe's Inspired Translation
in many instances.

Again Joe's Inspired Translation contra-
dicts itself. Genesis ii : 5-9 and vi : 5. Joe
interpolates his dogma on pre-existence of
souls. He makes God declare that he
created the Spirits of men in heaven, before
he created their bodies on earth, and before
any human body existed. In I Cor. xv :
44-49 he translates the language so that it
declares that the first man instead of being
merely spiritual first, was first of the earth,
"that which is natural, is first, that which
is spiritual last." The Inspired Trans-
lation says. Math, iv : Jacob begat Joseph
the husband of Mary. Luke iii : 30 declares
Jeseph was from the loins of Heli. Hence
he had two natural fathers. The original
declares that Joseph was the son of Heli,
that is by marriage. The inspired Trans-
lation contradicts itself in regard to creation.
It declares that when man was created there
was no flesh on the earth, water or air, and
that man was the first fiesh on the earth.
Gen. ii : 6-8. In the first chapter we have
fishes, foAvls and all animals created before
man was created. The words Joe inter-
polates into the second chapter flatly con-
tradict the first chapter. We have thus
proved that Joe's inspiration in the Inspired
Translation flatly contradicts his inspira-
tion in the Book of Mormon, in the Book of
Doctrines and Covenants, and contradicts
itself. Had we the Book of Commandments
to compare Avith the revision of its revela-
tions and inspiration in the Book of Doc-
trines and Covenants, we could show that
hundreds of corrections have been made,
that the Mormon God has revised himself
in hundreds of instances.

We will now attack the very corner stone
of I iormonism, the ordination of Oliver Cow-
dery and Joe Smith. It is described by Smith:

"We on a certain day went into the woods to pray,
and inquire of the" Lord respecting baptism for
llie remission of sins as we found mention in the
translation of the plates. While we ;were thus em-
ployed praying and calling upon the Lord a messenger
from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having
laid his liands upon us he ordained us sayina:, 'Upon
you my fellow servants in the name of the Messiah I
confer the priesthood of Aaron, wliich holds the lieys
of the ministering of angels, and of the Gospel of repen-
tance and of baptism of immersion for the remission of
sins; and this shall never be taken again from the
earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering
unto the Lord in righteousness.' He said that this
Aaronic priestliood had not the power of laying on of
hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should
be conferred on us hereafter. And he commanded us
to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I
should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards
he should baptize me Accordinjjly we went and were
baptized. I baptized him first and afterwards he bap-
tised me. After that I laid my hands on his head and
ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood; and after-
wards he laid his hands upon me and ordained me to
the some priesthood, as we were commanded. The
messenger who visited us upon this occasion and con-
ferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was
John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the
New Testament, and that he acted under the directions
of Peter, James and John who held the keys of the
priesthood of Melcliezedek which priesthood he said
should in due time be conferred upon us, and I should
be the first Elder and he the second."

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

331

Joe and Oliver were diviuely inspired
men engaged in the translation. They had
the miraculous influence of the Spirit, the
baptism in the Spirit according to my oppo-
nent, yet they had not been baptized for
the remission of sins, and were not par-
doned. The miraculous influence of the
Spirit does not confer pardon. It is not the
birth of the Spirit, if Joe's story be true.
"Will my opponent fix this up ? Either Joe
lied when he said he had this miraculous
influence of the Spirit, or it had not confer-
red on him remission of sins. It was not
the birth of the Spirit. Again, as baptism
is immersion the angel talked the nonsense
of "immersion by immersion." The angel
says the sons of Levi are to make ofieri ng
unto the Lord. That will repudiate the
sacrifice of Christ, set to one side the anti-
type and introduce the shadow. Thataiigel
needed to be told that Jesus offered him-
self once for all, and abolished all sacri-
fices of the sons of Levi. "There remains
no more offering for sin." That angel or-
dains Joe and Oliver to the Aaronic priest-
hood, 8,nd then repudiates his own act and
tells them to ordain each other. If his ordi-
nation was valid, why tell them to ordain
each other? If it was not, why tiie farce
of conferring it? Why not tell them to or-
dain each other at first? That angei needed
to be told many things.

I. The Aaronic priesthood never was in
the church of Christ. It belonged to the
dispensation of the law of Moses, which
was changed "for the priesthood being
changed (from the priesthood of Aaron),
there is made of necessity a change also
of the law." The Aaronic priesthood was
superseded by the Melchezedek priesthood
of Christ.

II. Christ was never an Aaronic priest
and he has ordained no such priests in his
church. "Our Lord sprang from the tribe
of Judah of which Moses spake nothing con-
cerning the priesthood."

III. There is not a word about the Aaro-
nic priesthood in the church of Christ. It
is a Mormon fiction.

IV. The angel, was John the Baptist, the
last who held tlie keys of the Aaronic
priesthood. John died early in our Lord's
ministry. He died under the law of Moses.
He never ordained a priest in the church.
There was no Aaronic priest from John till
Joe and Oliver. According to this Christ
had not properly organized his church and
John had to correct his omission by ordain-
ing Joe and Oliver in 1829.

V. If John had been a j)riest, death would

have cut ofFhis priesthood. Aaronic priests
were not suflEered to continue by reason of
death. Hebrews vii, 22.

VII. Was John resurrected to ordain Joe?
If so, how did resurrection restore to John
his priesthood ?

VIII. If John was not resurrected death
had cut of his priesthood, and his spirit
could not confer what it had lost.

IX. John claims to have been sent by
Peier, James and John. Why not by Christ.
Christ himself shed forth what laid the
foundation of the church at Pentecost.

X. John says that Peter, James and John
held the keys to the Melchezedek priest-
hood. An utter untruth, the Melchezedek
priesthood belongs to Christ alone ; and he
has no successor. Heb. vi. 15-17. There
arises another Priest after the order of
Melchezedek.

XL Christ did not officiate as priest of
any order while on earth. He began his
Melchezedek priesthood after his ascension.
Hebrews viii. : 4. " If Christ were on earth
he wovild not be a priest." So he did not
begin his priesthood on earth. Christ chose
and ordained apostles ; John xv : 16. But
he did not ordain Aaroiiic priests, for but
one of his disciples was a Levite. He could
not ordain them Melchezedek priests before
the law was changed, and before himself,
the first priest of that order.

XII. Christ is a priest forever after the
order of Melchezedek. He can have no
successor.

XIII. The priesthood under the gospel
belongs to all Christians. 1 Peter, ii: 5:6;
Also Revelations i : 2.

These objections overturn the corner
stone of Mormonism. The lie that Joe
fabricated to have a divine commission, for
his pretense to hold tlie keysof tlie Aaronic
and Melchezedek priesthoods. It is as
baseless as the fabric of a dream, Mormon-
ism claims that there is but one gift of the
Holy Spirit, — the Holy Spirit in miraculous
powers. Joe said that the Melchezedek
priesthood alone can confer that. >Bo the
angel told them. The Melchezedek priest-
hood was not in existence, and of course
the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit,
which that Priesthood alone can confer,
was not in existence. Joe and Oliver had
not received the priesthood nor the power
it alone can confer. Yet Joe had received
an inspiration to translate; so had Oliver.
And they prophesied on this occasion, before
the priesthood which could confer such,
power was in existence.

(Time called).

\

832

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. KELLEY'S FOURTH SPEECH.

Gentlebien Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — The Book of Abraham has
become a terror to my opponent all at once.
Well, is that the question under discussion ?
Is it in any respect connected with it ? No.
What has the question of whether Joseph
Smith translated the Book of Abraham or
not, to do in deciding as to whether the
Latter Day Saints have, and abide in the
gospel of Christ ?

If, as a people, we are sowing the good
seed or doctrine of the kingdom, and have
the gospel preached by Jesus and the apos-
tles restored, it will make no difference
whether Joseph Smith did something else
correct or not.

Did he do this work of restoring the
gospel and church correctly? that is the
question. And it is easy to see that he
may have done this and yet failed in some
other work if he was not called to do that ;
and again it is just possible and very prob-
able, he did both right.

So far as the translation of the Book of
Abraham, ro called, is concerned, I have
examined the purported translation of T.
Deveria as published and it shows upon
its face and the way tiiat it is gotten up,
that it is a humbug, whatever be that made
by Joseph Smith. M. Deveria was not a
great savant, as has been claimed for him,
but a young Frencliman who had made no
stir in the world on account of ability of
any kind and none since. He only had a
copy of this papyrus and how genuine,
neither he nor the parties who delivered
him the copy, knew, and taking his pur-
ported translation (I say this, for he did
not claim to be able to translate it in full)
and compare with that of Mr. Smith and
any intelligent man can soon see that even
Deveria's work confirms the fact that Smith
knew something about the papyri. The
work of Joseph Smith will stand the test of
all such jobs as men of that class can put
up on him. But the Book of Abraham
forms no part of our faith and never did,
and I therefore leave it with the "young

,5avani(?)"

My opponent thinks I misaj^ply the pro-
phecy in Isaiah 11 : 12 and 13. If he really
thinks so why does he not take a stand
here and show how it is misapplied. He
overturns more than simply my argument
if he can show this has been fulfilled.
AVhen the angel visited Joseph Smith when
he was a boy as I read to you, it is said he
quoted this language of Isaiah and stated
it had not had a fulfillment but soon would.
If Braden can overturn that statement, he
has made a point. Let him do his worst
now. The events spoken of I claim have
never taken i^lace at any time. It must yet
be accomplished. Judah has never been
gathered since the dispersion and when
this is fulfilled it is to be by bringing them

from "the four corners of the earth" — the
extremities of the earth. Then shall the ad-
versaries of Judah be cut off and Ephraim
and Judah dwell together in peace. Tw(
things which have never been since long
before the Ephraimites were, with tne
other tribes, taken captive first, by the
King of Assyria. I showed you fully from
the Bible upon the first question tha
Ephraim had not existed as a nation nor
been known since they were cast out with
the tribes, nor would not be until one should
stand up as of old with the Urim and
Thummim to niake his seed known among
the people. Hence, this prophecy could
not have taken place. But the following
verses are sufficient upon this :

"And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of.
the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he
shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the
seven streams, and make men go over dry shod."

"And there sliall be a highway for the remnant nf
his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; liki
it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of
land nf Egypt."

This has never been accomplished in any
sense neither in a miraculous, as predicted,
manner, nor in any way so far as the cross-
ing of the sea or destruction of the nation
who shall abide there, nor in the general
return of Judah and Israel.

He ihinks he has found a contradiction in
what is termed the Inspired Translation of
the Scriptures, because in Genesis it says
man was created spiritual first, whereas in
1 Cor. 15 : 47, it says the first man was of the
earth, earthy.

In Genesis, the Lord is represented as
giving an account of the creation of man.
His organization ; and shows it was first
spiritual, then natural. In Corinthians
Paul is contrasting the position of Adam
with that of Christ. Trj' again, Mr. Braden,
you may strike something yet before the
close of the debate.

Ag-ain the objection comes up that the
Book of Mormon follows the errors in King
James' translation, while the quotations in
it and the Inspired ought to agree. I burst-
ed his bauble in my 18th and 19th speeches
on the first proposi'tion as to the errors and
idioms in King James' translation being
copied in the Book of Mormon. Now it does
not follow that the translation of the Bible
should agree in the wording in order for
both to be correct. They are translated
from different writings and writers, who
penned the words at different times, and it
ought not to be claimed that thej^ should
have got the exact word every time. You
just as well claim that where Mark and
Luke or Metthew and John differ in their
' wording of what Jesus said on an occasion,
one of them is wrong. It will not follow
that either is wrong, and to be discarded
unless it can be shown that it contains some
false sentiment or doctrine. It would be a

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

333

fact that it would look a little suspicious
did the Inspired Translation and Book of
Mormon agree every time in wording,
although translated from originals written
by different persons, as they were. Try
again for a valid objection.

Again, he takes up 1 Cor. 12:13, but soon
to drop it, and says now that I can't distin-
guish between being baptized in the Spirit,
or in the language of the Spirit, or by the
Spirit. He said "by the command of the
Spirit," before when commenting upon this.
But my comment has induced him to
change the form again. Suppose we let it
readjust as it is in the Bible. It so suits
me, and should all. "For by one Spirit are
we all baptized into one body, whether we
be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond
or free ; and have been all made to drink
into one Spirit.

Comment is useless. My opponent may
try to figure around this all day, and at
night his work will be knocked all into pi
by simply reading aloud the text.

There is a baptism of the water and of
the Spirit. Those on Pentecost were bap-
tized by the Spirit, and they had before
been baptized in water. Paul was baptized
in water, and received also the baptism of
the Spirit. This I have shown and much
more on this point, however. Paul in this
language in 1 Cor. 12:13, gives the Saints
to whom he is writing to understand that
not only he, but all were baptized by this
Spirit. So I believe. The reference in Eph.
4:5 I showed could not mean there was no
baptism of the Spirit, for that would con-
tradict Jesus, Peter, Paul, John the Apos-
tle and John the Baptist. It refers to the
complete birth in the kingdom of God, the
church of Christ, the "washing of re-
generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost"
— "the baptism into Christ and putting on
Christ," or the burial .in the liquid wave
and the clothing upon with the Holy Ghost.
Paul says in the' Hebrew letter, "baptisms"
in tiie plural, speaking of it also as one of
the first or foundation principles of the doc-
trine of Christ.

There has as yet been no claim made that,
the doctrine and faith of the church differs
in auy regard to that taught in the New
Testament, aside from baptisms, which we
use as Paul did in the plural. My opponent
has been content so far in rehearsing the
various tales about some of the men who
first were called to this work, and with
making objections to the form of the church
organization as not being identified with the
New Testament churcli.

Strange, too, that a person who is in an
organization that does not pretend, under
any circumstances, to have more than two
ofllcers, as contained in the New Testament
church, and even these two are entirely
different in their work and spiritual endow-
ments to those of the early church, should
attempt to criticise another body of people
on the ground that he thinks one or two of
their officers are not just according to those
mentioned in the Scriptures.
But I shall patiently compare the organi-

zation of the church with the New Testa-
ment and ascertain what, if any, ditTerences
there are. In the New Testament the order
is set forth as follows: "Apostles," "Proph-
et*," "Evangelists or Seventy" (Luke 10
and Eph. 4:11), "Pastors" [shepherds or
priests], "Teachers," " Helps" [helpers or
assistants], "Governments" [directors].
"Miracles" [powers], "Gifts of Healing''
[gifts of cures], "Diversities of Tongues"
[different languages]. See Matthew 10:1,5;
Luke 6 : 13 to 16, and 10:1. Kom. 12 : 4 to 9.
1 Cor. 12:28 and 29, and Eph. 4:11. Are these
all the officers that were in the New Testa-
ment church? No, there were a number of
others. Turn to Phil. 1 : 1, and we read:

"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi,
with the bisliops and deacons. If a man desire the
oflBce of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop,
then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vig-
ilant, BOber. of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt
to teach. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of
filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, nor covetous;
one that ruleth well in his own house, having his chil-
dren in subjection with all gravity (for if a man
know not how to rule his own house how shall he take
care of the chnrch of God?)" 1 Tim. 3:1 to 5, and 12
and 13.

These fully set forth the fact that there
were the offices of bishop and deacon in the
church, besides those before named. And
upon this I have quoted fully to show the
character of the office of bishop. That it
was one in which he has to deal with the
temporal interests of the church as well as
the spiritual. He therefore is not to be a
covetous or greedy man. In his department
as to the temporal interests^ as chief bishop,
he has also supervisory control over the
church, hence the expression, "How shall
he take care of the church of God?"

The writing is also clear that provision
was not only made for one, but assisting
bishops to him ; hence, " helps," assistants,
are provided for in the business and order
of the Temporal department in the church
as well as in the Spiritual. Also in the Acts
of the Apostles, 6:5, it is said : — " They
choose Stephen, a man full of faith and of
the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus,
and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parnenas,
and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch :

"Whom they set before the apostles;
and when they had prayed, they laid their
hands on them."

Here is the history of the setting apart
of seven men to act in a certain position
which it seems had not been supplied up to
this time. What the particular office was
we are not told in the narrative any more
than we are told in the 13th of Acts, what
particular office Barnabas and Saul were
set apart to fill as laborers in God's work.
Philip is referred to afterwards as an evan-
gelist, but just what the duties of that
office were, is not fully set out. The best
authority upon this, is that it was a special
work to which certain ones were called
who held a high office in the church. Doc-
tor Smith, in his Theological Dictionary,
refers to the office to which these seven
wise men were set apart, as being evidently a
high and responsible one in the church, but
which does not seem to be named anywhere.

334

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

It was not that of deacon, he concludes.
And it is fair to presume that these men
were bishops, or high priests instructed to
act in that position, and especially are we
warranted in taking this view since some
of the special work pointed out for these
men to do, is the same as that connected
with the bishop's duties in 1 Tim. 3rd
chapter.

Again, it is thought to be the order in the
setting apart of evangelists under the New
Testament, to select them from among the
High Priests, on account of the very station
of these officers, who should have attained
the eminent position as had, it is clear, these
seven men mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles, by reason of being mep : — "Of
honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and
wisdom."

The Priesthood ""was in the church at
that time it is certain, and the office of
High Priest is connected in this line of
authority. Christ it is said was made " an
Sigh Priest," Heb: 5:10; and he certainly
would not have been called to any office
not in the church. Remember it does not
say the High Priest, as though there were
to he but one, and this one the last, but:
"an High Priest." He is also called, "the
Apostle and High Priest," Heb. 3:1. But
he was not the last and only apostle, but
held that office in the church, which evi-
dently was the highest office in the church.
Paul makes it precede that of High Priest
in the language quoted: "And (iod hath
set some [gifts] in the church first Apostles."
It is a fixed fact ; and those who wish to
make Jesus the last High Priest, because
they think that was the highest office in
the church, and he having heldit, therefore
he will continue to act in that, and no one
else can, make a mistake. He held and
acted in the office of High Priest as he did
also in that of other offices, because it was
an office in the church, as the office of an
Apostle was also in the church, and he
acted in that, and was not only an Apo?tle
and Priest and an Elder here, but after his
ascension still an Apostle and Priest and
Elder, and must continue such forever.
But this does not cut off the offices, or take
them out of the church, for Peter and
James acted as Apostles here, while the
Apostle (Jesus) was in the heavens. But
these are not the only officers as Peter
says : —

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am
also an elder, and a witness "of the sufferings of
Christ, find also a partaker of that glory to be revealed.

" Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking
the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly;
not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. Neither as
being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples
to the flock.

"And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye
shall receive a crown of glory that ladeth not away."
1 Peter, 5 : 1 to 4.

What officers have we now set forth in
the New Testament as existing in the
church under the apostles?

I will enumerate: — Apostles, Prophets,
Seventy, (Evangelists,) High Priests, Bis-
hops, Elders, Teachers andDeacons. These
lesser officers evidently are also among the

"helps, governments," &c., and as such,
they are qualified to act by the authority
of the lesser or helping priesthood. The
authority of the priest, teacher and deacon
then, is just as much a fact, as that of any
other officer, and Paul so instructs: —
" Having then gifts differing according to
the grace that is given to us, whether
prophecy, let us prophesy according to the
proportion of faith; or ministry, let us
wait on our ministering ; or he that teach-
eth on teaching."

How does this list compare with the
organization of the Re-organized Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ?

In that church, the organization is as
follows: — Apostles, Prophets, Seventy,
(Evangelists) High Priests, Bishops, (Pre-
siding Bishop and assistants,) Elders,
Priests, Teachers and Deacons, Helps,
Governments and Diversities of tongues
[Languaeres].

Can you not observe a similarity with the
New Testament order? Now think back
Avhen my opponent began to compare the
organization of his church with the New
Testament Church, and see what a plight
he was caught in. He had elders and
deacons in his church, and these they made
themselves, God don't have anything to
do, he claims, in the calling of the minister
by the manifestation of his will in these
days ; revelation is all confined to the first
century, and "only a few fanatics" believe
in it any longer. But ^^ our church,^'' he
claims, is " identical, — (just examine the
definition of that word, will you?) with the
New Testament Church in organization,"
etc. Who, so little informed as to be de-
ceived longer l\y such an assumption?

The other evoiing Mr. Braden claimed
there were priests in his church — they are
all kings and priests. He is a high, or
Melchezedek priest.

Mr. Braden : I did not say I was a Mel-
chezedek priest.

Mr. Kelley : O, you are an Aaronic priest,
then, are .vou? That gives me my Aaronic
or lesser priesthood without much trouble,
There are only two lines of priesthood.
and a man must either be a priest after one
line or the other. If he is not a Melchezedek
priest he is an Aaronic, or no priest at all
of God.

My opponent renews still his objections
to the Latter Day Saints idea of God, But
the trouble with him is. he seems to be much
better acquaintedwith theBrighamite views
and theories than with that of the Saints.
But most any kind of notion about God is
better than the Campbellite view, for did
he not confess in the discussion of the
previous question that they did not pretend
to knoAV anj^thiug about God? He finds
fault becatise some one had expressed his
belief that there are more gods than one.
This was a charge brought against Christ
by the .lews, But Jesus answered "Is it
not written in your law, I said yeare gods?
If he called them gods imto whom the word
ot God came, and the scripture cannot be
broken ; Say ye of him whom the Father

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

335

sanctifleth and sent into the world, thou
blasphemest?" John 10:34. Moses was
made as God to Aaron. The Latter Day
Saints believe with Paul : " Thoug-h there
be them that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many
and lords many), but to us there is one God,
the Father, of whom are all things, and we
in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we by him,"
" Hovvbeit," he says, " there is not in every
man this knowledge." Just so; and our
Campbellite friends, Braden says, have not
got it. 1 Cor. 8: 5, 6, 7.

As to the'personality of God, the Latter
Day Saints believe he is something. That
he is composed of substance, or essence
called spirit, as I have before set forth,
hence, it is written, " God is a Spirit." Man
was made in the image of God. Gen. 1 : 27,
1 Cor. 11:7. Jesus Christ was made in the
express image of his Father's "person."
Hebrew 1:8. " The image of the invisible
God." Col. 1 : 15. Here it is shown that
Jesus (Christ is the express image of his
Father — of his "person," and Jesus looked
so much like mankind in general that he
was called the '• Carpenter's son." He ate
and drank, walked about and conversed
with man; was crucified and laid in
Joseph's new tomb ; was raised from the
dead and appeared unto the disciples with
the wounds in liis hands and side. He ate
and drank with his disc'ples after he arose
from the dead. Mr. Braden thinks it would
be just " awful" if the Latter Day Saints
should think that he digested also. How
did he get rid of the fish he ate, Mr. Braden ?
Or was it a slight of hand performance?
Renieniber it is Braden who raises this
question and presumes it is wicked to think
he digests, etc. Besides, he has left a
promise that he will drink wine with his
disciples when he comes again. Yet,
Braden says, the faith of the Saints is a
"beastly system," because they believe
that God has a body and parts. Braden
forgets, perhaps, that every whole is made
up of parts, and that if God exists at all he
exists somewhere and somehow, and is
something. We have shown that man was
made in his image. Stephen says : " I^see
the heavens opened and the Son of man
standing on the right hand of God." Acts,
7: 56. Stephen saw the Father and Son, or
there is no truth in the Bible. Then God is
a being, and it is not Paganism to believe
that he exists, and that the Son was in the
express image of his person. But my
opponent says again that the Latter Day
Saints believe in the eternity of matter.
This is a simple question. Which is the
most reasonable, to believe that God made
the universe out of nothing, or are the
elements out of which the material universe
■was made, self-existent, and God formed
the universe out of this self-existent
matter. Some of the Latter Day Saints
believe the 1-atter the most reasonable. It
is simply a philosophical speculation, and
not a cardinal feature of the faith. As for
myself, it appears far more reasonable, that

God created all things out of existent
elements, than that he created them out of
nothing. I would have thought, however,
that after my opponent had had his idea of
God creating all things out of nothing so
effectually exploded by A. Wilford Hall, in
his Microcosm for Jan., 1884, he would have
dismissed the unreasonable and unphilo-
sophical notion from his mind.

The Latter Day Saints believe as the
Former Day Saints did in the personality
of the Father and the Son. That they are
distinct personages ; that they are omni-
present by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
That the Holy Spirit is a substance, and is
intelligent and is the medium by which
Christ is present with his church on earth ;
hence he says, "If I go away I will send
the comforter." Like the light of the Son,
the Holy Spirit may pervade the whole uni-
verse. God is also made known through
other agencies by the sending of his angels ;
but these move and are directed by the
Spirit of God in their adminis'trations.
Christ sent his angel to John on Patmos to
reveal to him the message recorded by him
in the Book of Revelations. Concerning
procreation in heaven by which Spirits are
begotten as clsarged by my opponent as be-
ing a part of the faitii of the Saints, this is
like much he has had to say during the
discussion — an assertion of his. The Latter
Day Saints hold to no such a faith. The
Scriptures sav God is the "Father of Spir-
its." Heb. 12:9. That he "forms the Spirit
of man within him." Zech. 12:1. Theother
part and about the queens in heaven my
opponent learned in his Salt Lake school in
which he seems to have attained great pro-
ficiency.

He challenges me to furnish one well
attested miracle that has been wrought
among the Latter Day Saints. The Latter
Saints do not rest their cause on miracles,
but to gratify my opponent I will adduce
one or two by giving Campbellite witnesses :

Hayden's History of the Disciples, Pages
250 and 251.

"Ezra Booth, of Mantua, a Methodist preacher of
much more than ordinary culture, and with strong
natural abilities, in company with his wife, Mr. and
Mrs. Joiinson, and some other citizens of this place,
visited Smith at his home in Kirtland, in 1831. Mrs.
Johnson had been afflicted lor some time with a lame
arm, and was not at the time of the visit able to lift her
hand to her head. The party visited Smith partly out
of curiosity, and partly to see for themselves what
there mifjht be in the new doctrine. During the inter-
view, the conversation turned on the subject of super-
natural gifts; such as were conferred in the days of the
apostles. Someone said, ' Here is Mrs. Johnson with a
lame arm ; has God given any power to men now on
the earth to cure her ? '

"A few moments later, when the conversation had
turned in another direction, Smith rose, and walking
across the room, taking Mrs Johnson by the hand said
in the most solemn and impressive manner: ' Woman,
in ihe name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I command thee to be
whole. ' and immediately left the room.

"The company were awe-stricken at the infinite pre-
stimption of the man, and the calm assurance with
which he spoke. The sudden mental and moral shock
—I know not how better to explain the well attested
fact— electrified the rheumatic arm— Mrs. Johnson at
once lifted it up with ease, and on her return home the
next day she was able to do her washing without diffi-
culty or pain."

Here is your miracle, Mr. Braden, from
your ov/u instory, performed in a company

S36

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

of citizens, none of whom were Latter Day
Saints, told by the same company, the lead-
er being "a Methodist preacher of much
more than ordinary culture," and Joseph
Smith at this time was but a boy, — not 26
years of age, Yet your own history says it
was a ^^weLl a<ies<ed/ae<," and also that this
young man, '^^ spoke ivith a calm assurance, ^^
and commanded the woman, "in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be whole," and
then your book says she was. Will you ac-
cept it or will you try to mystify it away,
like the writer of your history does. When
Peter said to the man at the gate of the Tem-
ple in the name of Jesus Christ to be whole,
and he arose, you seem to think it was all
right.

But here is another and a far more fully
attested fact, and you begin to talk about
"moral and electric shocks." Either these
morallzers are wrong, or the Bible is. Jesus
taught: "No man can do a good work in
my name and be against me."

This was wrought in the name of Jesus
Christ. What will my opponent do with it ?
Go back on Jesus' words and say it was but
a shock — mesmerism ?

But this Disciple historian continues :

Speaking of the experience of Elder Ryder,
one of their ministers.

"In the month of June, he read in anews-
paper an accouutof the destruction of Pekin,
in China, and he remembered that six weeks
before, a young Mormon girl had predicted
the destruction of that city."

Thus I have produced from their own his-
tory two as remarkable examples, one of
healing, the other of prophecy and its fulfill-
ment, as he can point to, with few excep-
tions, in the Bible — and I wonder if he will
do as those of old, say it was by some other
power than that of God.

He says that Latter Day Saints believe
that all who reject the Book of Mormon
will be damned. The Latter Day Saints
believe that the Book of Mormon is a true
history of the ancient inhabitants of the
American continent. That it confirms the
Bible teachings concerning the existanceof
God, and that Jesus Christ is the Savior of
men. If it is a true message, and God has
revealed it, then it stands to reason that men
are under moral obligation to give it con-
sideration, and if they neglect its teachings
they must sufier loss, the same as if
rejecting any other Divine message. But
whoever abides by the faith of the Bible
necessarily lives the faith revealed in the
Book of Mormon. The great question is, is
the Book of Mormon divinely insjiired ? If
so, ai^d which I have proved to be correct,
then those who have an opportunity to
become informed and benefited by the
teachings, but refuse to do so, must take
the consequence of their action, just as
people did in olden times who rejected the
message of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul,
etc. Dogged persistency and the utter
refusing of a people to hear a message, has
nothing to do with the obligation and jus-
tice demanding of them recognition ; neither
will it stay the purpose of the Almighty to

answer upon them the proper rule of com-
pensation. But he says further, "The
Latter Day Saints is the only true and
living church upon the face of the whole
earth with which I, the Lord, am well
pleased." What of it? If the true and
living church had been on earth the proph-
ets would not have talked about a re-
storation. No use of restoring something
which is not lost, or is already here. The
Disciples should not object to this, for if
the true and living church was here when
Mr. Campbell commenced his great re-
storation, then he was a transgressor.
Neither Mr. Luther, nor Mr. Calvin, nor
Mr. Wesley thought the true church was
here in their day, so they each built one to
suit themselves ; Just as Mr, Campbell did.
While we recognize that there are good
people in all denominations trying to do
the best they know, and all have more or
less good among them, which one, Mr.
Braden, among all the sects is the true and
living church of God, or Christ, or that has
the Holy Ghost in it according to their own
showing? Will you answer? As complete
a form of Godliness without the power as
was ever presented to men on earth. The
immediate presence of God and Christ and
the Holy Ghost is not claimed by them.
They only claim God in the word, etc.

The Latter Day Saints claim what others
have asserted. That there was an apostacy
from the true church established by Christ,
that God on account of the desire of men for
evil withdrew his Spirit, and a day of dark-
ness ensued. All true reformers unite in
this belief and hence have worked to try to
get back to the original faith and practices.
But which one has succeeded. Mr. Camp-
bell's was among the last established, but
I have proven that it is wanting when
measured by the New Testament pattern.
The Latter Day Saints make the claim that
God has re-instated the ancient order of
things in its authority and power, as proph-
ets have declared that he would. This they
undertake to maintain, but they have been
met by false and unfounded assertions,
stories and slander. Is it unreasonable and
wicked to hold that God has donejust what
he said he would do and has done? If he
has set up his church, then it is the one true
and living church upon the whole earth,
John made a similar claim. Was it wicked?
Said he, "W^e know we are of God and the
whole world lieth in sin." I wonder how
many said, John, you are uncharitable and
a bigot. Certainty in religion Is an all
essential feature. This cannot be, save God
is in it by the revelation of his will, yet this
is the main feature objected to in the faith of
the Baints. Among all the denominations
of Christendom some one has more truth
and light than either of the others, and each
claims that it is his ; why should it be
thought then sacrilegious or astounding
that the Latter Day Saints claim that it is
theirs ?

He says that Oliver Cowdery was living
in concubinage here in Kirtland This is
another of his false assertions, neither oaii

THE BRADEN AND ICELLEY DEBATE.

337

he maintain it by any reliable testimony.
It is akin to tlie false and slanderous asser-
tions made against the character of Martin
Harris which the citizens of Kirtland know
to be false and slanderous. Even Tucker
who wrote against the Latter Day Saints
confessed to Harris' honesty. Tucker's
History page 61, he says : "Harris was pro-
verbially a peaceful and honest man."

"Honesty had always been conceded to
to him;" ibid, page 71. Tucker was per-
sonally acquainted Avith Harris and wrote
his book while residing in Harris' old
neighborhood; and although he wrote
wickedly against the Saints, he universally
accords to Havviri' honesty.
(Time called).

MR. BRADEN'S FOURTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Modebatoks, Ladies and
Gentlemen :— We reject the prophets who
are the foundation of Mormonism, for their
false prophecies (Nephi I.) that Laban's
brass plates shall go forth to all nations of
his (Lehi's) seed. Thisprophecy is an utter
failure. God said through Joe (Doctrines and
Covenants, page 69), that he will show the
plates to three and to none else. Eight others
say they saw them; Whitmer's mother says
she saw them ; Emma Smith says she saw
and handled them, covered with a thin cloth.
The three witnesses were to testify to having
seeii Laban's sword, a breast plate, the
Urim and Thummim, and the brass compass
of Lehi. They never testified to seeing one of
them. God promised Oliver Cowdery that
he should translate other records. He never
did. Page 75 we have a translation of a
parchment written by the apostle John and
"hid up," in which he tells us that he is to
remain on earth until our Savior comes
again. As John says in his gospel that
Jesus did not say that he should remain
until he came again, here is a flat contra-
diction of the Bible. Why did not John
tell Joe in person, as he was one of the three
to ordain Joe? Or whj-^ did he not hand
them the letter then? Why not write it in
English and save Joe the trouble of trans-
lating? Why not write on paper instead
parchment? What became of the parch-
ment? Why not kept like the papyrus of
the Book of Abraham ? Could not the apos-
tle John have written English as well as
for John the Baptist to talk English? If
John talked English, could he not write it?
How did Joe get that parchment? Did an
an angel give it to him ? Did he have three
witnesses to it? Over 62 years ago Joe
prophecied that a wonderful city and won-
derful temple should be built in Missouri
in that generation. Not a stone of either
have been laid, and will not be in a hun-
dred years. Never will be. The Book of
Mormon predicts that the Lord will bring
forth the words of the Book of Plates, of
which the prediction forms a part. One
hundred and eighteen pages were destroyed

and never brought to light. Another fail-
ure. Joe's inspired version ii. -'-ores of cases
follows our version, and in auother place
changes the sa?ne names, words and sen-
tences. In Genesis iii, 32, 33, Joe, like the
ignoramus tliat he was, put into the trans-
lation of the language addressed to Moses,
two verses of language that God addressed
unto him, Joe Smith. In the inspired trans-
lation Adam is said to have Iteen baptized,
and baptism is said to have been preaclied
under the law of Moses by the Nepiiites
for hundreds of years. The Inspired Trans-
lation never mentions baptism under the
law of Moses in Palestine. If baptism was
a requirement of the law of Moses in Amer-
ica, why not in Asia ? If a perverted trans-
lation oajits it, why did not Joe's Inspired
Translation mention it ? The Book of Cove-
nants, says page 225, that John the Baptist
was baptized in his childhood and ordained
by the angel of God at the time he was
eight days old. The Book of Mormon de-
nounces infant baptism as solemn mockery,
a blasphemous sin.

In May, 1833, two months before the In-
spired Translation was finished, the Mor-
mon god prophecied that a certain lot in
Kirtland should liave a building erected on
it for the publication of the translation.
The translation was published 33 years
afterwards in Piano, Illinois. In May, 1833,
Joels told that after finishing his transla-
tion, he is then to study languages. If, as
he declared, he understood by inspiration
all the languages, why should he study?
If he had to study, why tell him to study
after he had finished translating ? In March,
1833, Joe is told that he need not translate
the ApocryiDha and correct its errors, for
Mormons who have the Spirit can discern
between the truth and the error in it. Could
not they have done the same with the Bible?
What need of his translation? After Joe
had translated the Scriptures, by inspira-
tion in his preaching, he quoted our ver-
sion a score of times, when according to his
inspired version it is grosslj' incorrect. He
translates Hebrews xi, 40: "That without

338

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

suffering they should not be made perfect."
In defending baptism for the dead nine
years afterwards, he quotes our grossly
incorrect version: "That they without us
should not be made perfect," and makes his
argument turn on the erroneous word and
the error.

Book of Doctrines and Covenants, page
244, feet washing is pronounced an ordi-
nance and restricted to tlie priesthood.
Paul says, "If she have washed the Saint's
feet." When Joe comes to that to avoid
conflict with his revelation given about six
months before, he changed it into, "If she
has washed the Saint's clothes." Book of
Doctrines and Covenants, page 226. Break-
ing the covenant of priesthood is an un-
pardonable sin. If Peter was a priest as
Mormonism declares, he broke his covenant
and lied, and swore, yet he was pardoned.
If John is on earth, as the Book of Doctrines
and Covenants declares, where is he? Is
he preaching and doing some good ? If he
is skulking around in idleness, whj' is he
here? On pages 294, 328, Book of Doctrines
and Covenants, we are told that Michael
the archangel and Adam are the same per-
son. The Bible utterly forbids the idea
that men's spirits become angels. Man
was made lower than the angels. Men be-
come equal to the angels. Christ took not
on him the nature of angels but human
nature. The assembly of the tirst born and
angels are different. Page 234, Book of
Doctrines and Covenants. Inspiration tells
us that "the spirit and body is the soul
of man." When Abinadi prayed, "O God
receive my soul," Did he mean his bod}'
and spirit? When Elisha prays, "Let this
child's soul come into him," it meant, "Let
this child's l>ody and spirit comeinto him."
Again the Book of Mormon says, soul and
body shall be re-united in resurrection.

Joe's inspired translation renders Matt,
xvii, 18, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven." In ar-
gifying on Baptism for the dead, inspired
Joe renders it, "Whatsoever ye record on
earth, it shall be recorded in heaven."
Which inspiration is right? In the Book of
Mormon we have a jnetal called "zif,"and we
have 'cureloms' and ' cum m on s' as animals."
If Joe was inspired, why did not he trans-
late those words? Uninspired translators
might i^lead ignorance, but inspired Joe
cannot. When Joe lost his gift to translate
what did he lose? Did he lose his inter-
preters? It says he lost "the writings and
his gift too." If the gift was in Joe, what
need of the interpreters? If in the inter-
preters how could he lose it without losing
the interpreters too? Page 69, Book of
Doctrines and Covenants, Joe is to have no
other gift than to translate, no other until
the translation is flnished. Joe tells us that
two months before the translation Avas fin-
ished he exercised the gift of prophecy.
The Mormon God was mistaken again. Joe,
says Book of Doctrines and Covenants,
page 112, that it was Ellas who visited
Zechariah the father of John. Luke says
it was Gabriel. Luke was mistaken. Joe

says that Elijah and Elias visited him at
the dedication of the temple. The ignor-
amus did not know that the Elijah of the
Old Testament, and the Elias of the New,
are one and the same person.

The witnesses are to see the plates by
faith. They are to believe that they saw
them. Harris declared he never saw them
with his natural sight. He saw them by
faith. He believed he saw them, imagined
it. In the Book of Mormon Christ repeats
to theNephites part of Malachi's prophecy.
Joe's Inspired Translation agrees with our
version, and contradicts Christ in several
places, and disagrees with our version in
several places where Christ agrees with
our version. I would like to know which is
right, inspired Joe or Christ? Book of
Doctrines and Covenants: "He that kills
has no forgiveness in this world, nor in the
world to come." The Nephite Church was
founded by the murderer and unpardoned
sinner Nephi. The Book of Mormon de-
clares that Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites,
and Zoramites became one people, called
Nephites, and were exterminated 400 after
Christ. Doctrines and Covenants, page 109,
declares that a knowledge of the Saviour
shall come to Nephites, Zoramites, Jacob-
ites, and Josephites through the Book of
Mormon. Page 248, Joe declares that Mis-
souri Zion shall not be moved out of her
place. In less than nine months it was
moved and lias never got back. Page 266,
Joe declares there is no other place than
Zion, in Missouri, appointed for a gathering.
Page 306, Joe says that if the sons of men
prove too strong for the Lord, he wall excuse
his people, and that he accepts offerings to
build- up Nauvoo, built before his law
allowed them to build it.

Joe, in Book of Doctrines and Covenants,
page 98, gives a baptismal formula in viola,
tioti of Christ's words to the Nepliites, Avho
gave the exact words Nephites were to use.
If Joe was a Nephite why did he violate
Christ's law? Page 93, Joe does not know
that our Christian era begins four to six
years before the birth of Christ. Doctrines
and Covenants, page 155, Joe promises that
he Avill give additional information when
he translates the New Testament in regard
to the i^arable of the Ten Virgins. The
Mormon God forgot all about that when he
translated that parable. The Book of Mor-
mon declares that Mulek and Lehi, sons of
Zedekiah, led the second emigration to
America. The Bible, even Joe's own in-
spired version, declares that the King of
Babylon slew the sous of Zedekiah and all
the princes of Judah — all the nobles of
.ludah. A flat contradiction. Again Zede-
kiah's eldest sou could not have been more
than ten or twelve years old, for Zedekiah
was only thirty-two when he was de-
throned. What leaders they must have
made. Slaughtered children ten years old.
The Book of Mormon, after telling us that
Nephites and Lamanites talked with each
other without interpreters, that Nephites
preached to Lamanites and their leaders
talked to each other in scores of instances

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

339

without any interpreters, tells in Mosiali
xi : 3, that the language of the Nephites
began to be taught among the Laniauites.
The Mormon God forgot again.

The Book of Mormon teaches that bap-
tism is for the remission of sins. Yet Alma
(Mosiah XI. 22.) was pardoned and born of
the Spirit by the fall-down power before he
was baptized. Book of Doctrines and Cov-
enants, page 100. It is denied tiiat torment
has no end. The Book of Mormon (Mosiah
III. 1. Mosiah I. 10. I. Nephi III. 44.)
It is positively declared to be endless.
Book of Mormon (Mormon III. 2.) Mormon
says lie hid the plates in the hill of Comorah.
Moroni says (Ether VI. 3) Mormon hid
them in the hill Ramah. Which shall we
believe? The Book of Mormon keeps poor
Moroni dodging I-amanites, 36 years before
he hides those few plates for Joe. Could
he not have done it a little sooner? The
Book of Mormon (Alma XIX. 2.) declares
that all the righteous who died before
Christ's resurrection rose at or after his
resurrection, before his ascension. The
Inspired Translation places the resurrection
of some Saint at the crucifixion. Book of
Mormon (Mormon II.) declares that mira-
cles had ceased when Mormon was 15 years
old. It declared 95 years afterwards (Mor-
mon VII. 13-4) that miracles have not
ceased. In quoting Isaiah Ixiii, in his
visit to the Nephites our Savior changes
the language in several places. In his In-
spired Translation Joe follows our version.
Which is correct, Christ or inspired Joe?
But we have found contradictions enough
in our investigation. We could multiply
them indefinitely'.

As we are examing Mormon revelations,
the basis or Mormonism let us see how the
stories of Mormonism hang together.

Book of Mormon (Mormon III. 2.) we are
told thai Mormon hid in the hill Comorah
all the records of the Nephites, Zarahem-
lites, and Jaredites, that had been in the
possession of the Nephites, except an
abridgement he engraved on a few plates,
leaving a few plates of " tliese few plates "
for Moroni, who is to complete the record,
for Joe Smith. Moroni (Mormon IV. 1.)
tells us that his plates are full, when he
has done this, and he has no ore or plates.
Yet he writes 57 pages of the Book ot Mor-
mon on nothing. As Mormon had buried
the plates of Ether, how did Moroni get
them to abridge them. Moroni says (Ether
I. 1.) that he wrote an abridgement of only
part of Ether's plates, and that whoever
gets them, will get the full account, But
God said to Jared's brother: "Write them
in a language that they cannot read." How
can the finder understand tbem. He says
that the two stone interpreters are to be
sealed up with them, so that the finder can
read them. But Joe found these identical
interpreters of Jared's brother. How will
the fellow who finds Ether's plates under-
stand them, when the interpreters are
gone ? Ether's plates were not what Joe
found, nor with what he found. As the
interpreters were sealed up with Ether's

plates, which Joe did not find, and not
with Mormon's plates which Joe did find,
how did Joe get those interpreters? How
did they get into that stone vault with
Moroni's plates, when they were buried in
another place, with Ether's plates? Mor-
mon, as we have seen, hid all the records,
yet, Moroni says (Ether I. 7.) that he hides
Ether's plates agam in the earth. The
plates are Ether's, not Moroni's, for Moroni
writes on Mormon's plates 27 pages after
hiding up the plates he hid. He sealed the
plates he hid, and he could not write on seal-
ed plates. He hid the interpreters with the
plates he hid, Ether's plates, and Joe
found them with Mormon's plates. Moroni
says in the next chapter that he had sealed
up the plates of Ether, and the interpre-
ters with them, and he wrote from memory
on the plates of Mormon, reall.y on nothing
as we have seen, and yet Joe finds the Jar-
edite interpreters with Moroni's plates.
Those interpreters and plates were like the
thimble in thinble rigging. Now you see
it. Now you don't.

Mosiah's interpreters were dreadful
things. If one who was not commanded
looked through them he would perish.
Whitmer looked through Joe's interpreters
and was not hurt. If one looked through
them he became a seer. Whitmer did not.
The gift was in the person and the inter-
preters were useless. Mosiah's interpreters
were handed down from the time Lehi left
Jerusalem. Ether's plates are found and
no interpreters with them. Mosiah trans-
lated them with his interpreters, although
theLord had said no one could interpret them
unless he had the Jaredite interpreters. If
Moroni interpreted Ether's plates which he
never had, for Mormon hid them — and
which he had — for he buried them himself
— how could he do it, for the interpreters of
Jared's brother were not found with them.
After Moroni hid the platesof Ether, which
he never had, and which he had, and with
them the Jaredite interpreters, which he
never had and which he had, how did Joe
find them with the plates of Mormon with
which they were hid.

Jared's brother's plates are not to go forth
till the Gentiles are converted. Book of
Mormon page 507. Ether engraves plates
and Limbi's people find them, not Jared's
brother's plates, for Ether did not have
them, unless the Lord was mistaken when
he had them buried. Mosiah finds Limbi's
people who give him Ether's plates. This
is the first time a Nephite saw them. But
on page 507 we are told that King Benjamin
who had been dead years, who was Mosiah's
predecessor, had Jared's brother's plates.
His people did not know of any Jaredite
plates, till years after his death. W'ill my
opponent tell us how Benjamin had Jared's
brother's plates when theLimbites found
Ether's plates and not J?.red's brother's.
Will he tell us how Benjamin had any
Jaredite plates, when his people knew uoth-
inff of Jaredite plates or the people that haa
them until years after his death ? In Nephi
i : 7. A.mos began to keep records A. U. ^y4,

340

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Id, i:2, Amos died A. D. 305; or he kept
records one huudred and eleven years.
As his father was one huudred when
he gave him the records, Amos was
an old man when he got them, and must
have been over 160, So Amaron the brother
of Amos must have been over 160, Nephi
xiii : 3 Christ puts the limit of man's age at
72, Yet Amos and Amaron were engravers
on metal lond after they were twice that
age, II Nephi ii : 2 Amaron hides plates,
A, D, 320, when Mormon is ten. Mormon is
to dig them up when he is twenty-four, or
A. D, 334, He dug them up A, D. 345, or 11
years after Amaron had said he would do
it. Rigdon added 24 to 320 instead of 14,
forgetting that Mormon was ten,

Lehi declares (2, Nephi I.) "That the
seed of his son .Joseph shall not be utterly
destroyed : " The Nephites, including the
seed of his son Joseph, were utterly ex-
terminated, according to Mormon and
Moroni, If Moroni tells the truth Lehi was
a false prophet. The Book of Mormon de-
clares that Joe Smith the Seer is of the seed
of Joseph the patriarch, Joe Smith was a
Gentile, That prophecy, is false. If Joe
Smith was a josephite or Israelite, then the
prophecy (Nephi XII 1,) that the finder and
translator of the records shall be a Gentile
is false. If Joe is of the seed of Nephi,
Lehi's son, then the Nephites were not
exterminated, and the book is false. If
they were exterminated t4ien Joe is not a
descendant of the Nephites. If Joe is a
descendent of Lehi he must be a Lamanite
Indian for the Nephites were all extermi-
nated, I, Nephi IX, 15, The Book of
Mormon is called a revelation from the
beginning of the world till its end. Ether
1 It extends no further back than the
Tower of Babel, thousands of years after
the beginning. Alma XXI, 2, Alma proph-
esies that the people shall dwindle in
unbelief 400 years after Christ shall man-
ifest himself to them. He manifested
himself in A, D. 34. The Nephites were
destroyed A. D. 384 or 350 years if cm Christ's

manifestation, or 50 years too soon, and they
dwindled in unbelief many .years before
this, or more than 50 years too soon.
Rigdon counted from Christ's birth instead
of from his manifestation, and then got
it 40 or 50 years too soon, for that. Rigdon
was not good in figures. The Book of Mor-
mon says, " Saints arose at the resurrection
of Christ." The Inspired Translation says,
"at his crucifixion." Which is correct?
A Mormon revelation in the Book of Doc-
trines and Covenants, page 319, says that
"John the Baptist was raised at the
resurrection|of Christ." The Inspired Trans-
lation says that " the Saints arose at his
crucifixion." If Saints arose immortal at
the crucifixion how could Christ be the
first born from the dead? But why follow
these contradictory jumbles any further.
This is revelation. Mormonism is divine
doubtless, when there is scarcely a page of
its revelations that is not contradicted by
some other page. I will give my opponent
an additional contradiction of the Bible to
the scores already given. The Book of
Mormon, page 445, Christ declares that
after his apostles have baptized persons
in water he will baptize them with fire and
the Holy Ghost. Matthew, III, 10, "And
now the axe is laid to the root of the trees,
therefore every tree that bringeth not forth
good fruit is hewn down and cast into the
fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto
repentance, but he that cometh after me
shall baptise you in the Holy Spirit and in
fire, whose fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly purge his floor and gather his
wheat in his garner, but he will burn the
chaff with unquenchable fire." Evil trees
are burned with fire, the chafT is burned
with unquenchable fire, baptize in fire.
The baptism in fire is for the wicked. The
wheat is gathered in the garner ; good trees
are cherisiied ; the good are baptised in the
Holy Spi»it. The Book of Mormon teaches
that God gives the baptism of fire, the
doom of the wicked to his children.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

841

MR. KELLEY'S FIFTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderatoks, Ladies and
GKNT^.F^rE^- : — As my opi>onentha8 left the
tield entirely, so far as undertaking- to make
and stand by an argument, and devotes his
time wholly to hunting" up siq^i^osed objec-
tions to somethings in some of our published
works and rehearsing these, together with
the stories told, I shall take the time to ex-
amine these as I proceed. I am aware that
a more intelligent ju<ls;inent of the merits
of our faith niij;ht be arrived at, if ojy op-
ponent would but select a few of what he
deems the most prominent errors, and try
to maintain that they are such, so we could
get down upon a basis of genuine argument
and thereby test the matter; but it must
be quite evident to all by this time that he
is not the man to meet the issue in this way,
I shall therefore take a look at his running
objections.

Again he says : "The Latter Day Saints
believed in baptizing children at 8 years of
age." Yes, if they have been properly in-
structed in the faith, and understand' the
object of baptism, and desire so to l)e. Can
he produce sonietiiing better, or show where
this disagrees with the word of God? He
misreyjresents the faith of the Saints, by
saying, "they believe they will reign over
the Gentile;* in thelMillenium." The Saints
believe in the prayer taught them by the
Savior, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be
done on eartli as in heaven." That he will
come and reign with his saints on the earth.
"And we shall reign on the earth," Rev.
5:10. "The meek shall inherit the earth,"
Math. 6. The kingdom and dominion under
the whole heaven shall be given to the peo-
ple of the saints. Dan. 7:2:2.

Again, he objects, that the doctrine of
baptizing for the dead was once taught
among the Latter Day Saints, as though it
was a very v/ieked thing. What does this
mean Mr. Braden ? "Els^e what shall they
do which are baptized for the dead, if the
dead rise not at all ? Why are they then
baptized for the dead." *1 Cor. 15:29. It
seems to have been a common practice and
well understood by the ancient Saints; so
jnuch so, that !^:^.'.il base'' v.ii argument upon
it ; will he scandalize Paul also? This is
in the NewTe&lament ; heWoubtless knows
little or nothing about it, but Paul had an
understanding of it. Paul says further,
"No man knows the things of God but the
Spirit of God," and the Disciples deny the
possibility of God's Spirit as being able to
reveal any liiing in this age, and it is no
wonder that they know no more about this
than many other things. Is it wicked to
believe in the New Testament? Again,
"For, for this cause was the Gospel preached
to them that are dead, that they might be
judged according to men in the flesh, but
live according to God in the Spirit." I Peter
4:6. Shall the Latter Day Saints deny this

part of the New Testament also, because
the Carapbellites don't know auvthinff
about it?

He misrepresents the Saints again, when
he says that they claim they will be greater
than Christ in the next world. Thev claim
that they will be equal heirs with 'him to
the inheritance of the saints. Hence, Paul
says, "And if children, then heirs; heirs of
God ?i\\(\ joint heir a with Christ; if it so be
that we snuffer with him, tbjtt we may be
also glorified together." Rom. 8:17. "The
Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit
that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:-
16. "Sealed with that Holy Spirit of prom-
ise, which is the earnest of our inlieritance
until the redemption of the purchased pos-
session." Eph. 1:13, 14, and 4:30. "And
because ye are Sons, God hath sent forth
the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, cry-
ing, Abba, Father. Wherefore, thou art
no more a servant, but a Son ; and if a Son,
then an heir of God through Christ." Gal.
4:6, 7. This was the faith of Ancient Saints;
and of course must be of the Latter Day
Saints.

My opponent attacked the inspired trans-
lation of the Bible with but little effect.
Did not Joseph Smith have as good a right
to translate tne Bible as Mr. Campbell and
Mr. McKnight, or the Baptists, or the
Adventists, or those who recently trans-
lated what is known as the New Revision?
Mr. Smith's translation stands upon its
merits just like all the rest. If it reA'eals
the Scriptures in the true light, then it is
good. If not, then let him show it. But
he says. Smith stole from the Book of Mor-
mon and put in the Inspired Translation.
But first, according to Braden, he stole from
the Bible and made the Book of Mormon;
now, he has him steal from the Book ol
Mormon to make the Inspired Translation
What a thief! It is like a man stealing
himself rich from his own pocket-book, with
but a dollar to start with.

He says. Latter Day Saints accept all
that Smith says in the "Times and Seasons,"
"Elder's Journal," or anywhere else as in-
spiration. This is notcorrect. Ireadfroma
publication, showing the contrary as fol-
lows : "At a conference held atBeloit, Wis.,
on the 12th and 13th of June, 1852, the follow-
ing was passed: Resolved, that the whole
law of the church of Jesus Christ, is con-
tained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and
Book of Doctrine and Covenants." Word
of ('(insolation, \yasQ 2.

The Latter Day'Saints hold the Bible in
equal veneration, with any people on the
earth ; they also believe in the truth of the
Book of Mormon, and other revelations,
that they are assured come from God.
They beli'eve that God is just as capable of
giving a true revelation of himself now, as
at any time since the world began.

342

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

My opponent's attack on the Book of Doc-
trine and Covenants was so ridiculous, that
it was sufficient within itself to carry its
own refutation along with it. He says, the
Baints have gone back on the idea of con-
verting the Indians, etc. This is not cor-
rect. The Saints believe that many of the
Indian nations will finally accept the faith ;
some individuals have already done so.

Again, Martin Htirris was not required
to teti any lies as asserted by my opponent
last night. He was promised a view of the
plates if faithful. He had been telling
some things about the plates and in the
revelation referred to and he was charged
that he should say no more concerning
them, except he should bear the testimony
that God should give him, at the time he
should sufficiently humble himself that he
might obtain a view of them. Page 70,
Book of Covenants. Any one who wishes,
can read and satisfy themselves. From
Bradeu's first reference, up to page 194, in his
jumbling of things, there remains nothing
that needs even an explanation. All are
explained by the book itself ; easy to be
understood and deserve a better consider-
ation than a tirade of gush and ridicule.
There is nothing in the charge that the
book permits stealing. Certain ones were
assigned to a certain work and its says :
"Ye are on the Lord's errand ; and what-
ever you do according to the will of the
Lord, is the Lord's business." Whatever
they did according to the will of the Lord,
was the Lord's business.

This book expressly and emphatically for-
bids any such thing. Pages 142 and 177.
Is it according to the will of the Lord to
steal? If it is, then stealing is taught in
the revelation, otherwise it is not. He
charges on the Revelation, the teaching of
the shedding of blood, which he impiously
says led to the Mountain Meadow massacre.
Here is the passage :

"For Satan puts it into their hearts Uhe enemies of
the Saints; to anger against you and to the shedding of
blood, wherefore the land of Zion shall be obtained but
by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none
inheiitance for you. And if by purchase, behold, ye
are blessed ; and if by blood, as you are forbidden to
thed blood, lo, vour enemies are upon you, and ye shall
be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to
synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an
inheritance." Page 189.

The Revelation positively forbids blood
shedding. It says, there is but two ways
to get possession of the land, b^' purchase
or war ; and they were advised to purchase
and forbidden to shed blood, and reminded
that if they did their efiTorts would fail and
their enemies be upon them, and they would
be scourged and but a few of them would
ever live long enough to receive an inherit-
ance. Who will say it was not a true state-
ment? But he says it led to the Mountain
Meadow slaughter. He might just as well
have said the advice of Christ, "If they
smite vou on the right cheek, turn the left
also," "led to the battle of Bunker Hill. The
whole of the references to pages included
between 65 and 301, are of a piece, misrepre-
sentation and ridicule, and he has made no
material or worthy criticism against them.

and it would be but to waste my time on
frivolous matters to consider them by item,
but I have replied to that which has a
semblance of needing an explanation. There
is neither truth nor point in his vulgar
tirade or jargon read off last evening, claim-
ing to be a criticism of the Book of Doctrines
and Covenants. Just let him select one
single item that he is willing to take a stand
upon and maintain that it is false and he
will have done something, until then, his
tirade is unworthy of notice. Again he
says that men never become angels. But
Moses and Elias appeared in the capacity of
angels on the Mount with Christ. Luke
9:30-31. Angels were frequently called
men. Gen. 18^:2. Josh. 5:13. Luke 24: 4.
Acts 1:10. Heb. 13:2.

Men are called angels. Rev. 2 : 1. "Unto
the angel of the church of Ephesus." Also
verses 8-18 and chapter 3:1,7, 14.

"And I fell at his feet to worship him.
And he said unto me See thou do it not, I
am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren
who have the testimony of Jesus." Rev.
19 : 10. Here one of the old prophets was
sent to John on Patmos as an angel and he
tells him, "I am thy fellow servant and of
thv brethren." Sa'ints are called angels.
Deut. 33 : 2. Psalms 68 : 17. Jude 14. Zach.
14:5. Matth. 25:31. He passes by my
Scriptural texts with a wave of the hand ;
has not "patience to notice them." Yet, he
declines to undertake to show wherein
either one of these texts are misapplied. I
asked him to try Isaiah 11, but he don't
make a stand.

He asks me to state why the Book of
Mormon and Inspired Translation do not
contain the same wording, when both were
translated by inspiration, and cites Mart.
7 : 23 as follows: "And tlieu will I say ye
never knew me." Inspired Translation :
"And then will I profess unto them I never
knew you." Book of Mormon, page -IG'i.
This I "have answered before. The Inspired
Translation and Book of Mormon are both
distinct translations. One from the record
of the Jews, the otlier from the record of
the Nephites. Neither claims to give the
language verbatim as it was delivered by
the Savior, but as it was written on the
record by the respective parties making the
records. There is nothing surprising in the
thought that two writers should differ in
the presentation of their ideas at times and
agree perfectly at other times. The sense
is the same lierQ in either case. To know
God or to be known of God means just the
same; hence, "I never knew you," or "you
never knew me, "is the same sentiment, but
by different ways of expression. One writer
uses one method and the other writer the
opposite, and so they were translated.

INlv opponent further says, the baptism
of fi"re is the burning of the wicked when
Christ comes, "burning up the chaff," etc.
But had he read a little more closely, he
could have avoided this blunder. In Math.
3, it is shown that the identical parties
who were baptized with water were to be
baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

343

The wicked has no promise in either bap-
tism. "I indeed baptize you with water,"
says John; "He shall baptize j'ou [the
same ones] with the Holy Ghost and fire."
They were thus baptized. "And there
appeared unto them cloven tongues like as
of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost."
Acts, 2:3, 4.

The element or property of fire— warmth
— is associated with the substance known
as the Holy Spirit which dwells with heav-
enly beings. Said the disciples, "Did not
our hearts burn within us while he talked
with us by the way, and while he opened
tons the Scriptures?" Luke 24:32. "But
his word was in mine heart as a burning
fire shut up in my bones." Jeremiah 20:9.
Says David, "My heart was hot within
me, while I was'musing the fire burned ;
then spake I with my tongue." Ps. 39:3.
"His eyes were as a flame of fire." Rev.
1:14; Dan. 10:6. "And the sight of theglory
of tlaeLord was like devouring fire.''' Ex.
14:17. This Fire of Glory— the Holy Ghost
— shown so resplendent from" Moses' face,
that he had to veil himself before he went
into the camp of Israel. The literal fire
that is to consume the wicked— burn up the
chaff— is one thing, and the fire and the
Holy Ghost with which the disciples of
Jesus were to be baptized, is quite a difierent
thing.

I have not claimed that the baptism of
the Holy Spirit was tor the remission of
sins, but to bless and confirm the believers.
They went everywhere preachiug, the Lord
working with them, confirming the word
with signs following.

He made a great ado about Jared's inter-
pretations, etc. I answered that in the dis-
cussion of tlie previous question. There is
no contradiction or inconsistency in thenar-
rative. The last of the Jaredite kings was
contemporary with, and associated with,
the Mulekite's, and they in turn met with
the Nephites and Jared''s interpreters could
in a very natural and ordinary way have
been placed in the hands of Mosiah.

Page 507 of the Book of Mormon referred
to last night, I also answered on a previous
evening definitely. The things the brother
of Jared saw were not to be revealed until af-
ter the Gentiles should repent, after Moroni
hid them up. • They have not as yet been
translated. They were translated by the
Nephites, however, after the crucifixion,
and that translation, as engraved by the
Nephites, was hid up with the Book of
Mormon by Moroni.

The plates of brass spoken of by Lehi,
page 11, did go forth among his posterity ;
are now in existence, as has been testified
of, and in due time will be manifest again
to his posterity. They were removed from
there for a season, because they sought to
destroy them. It v^^as what was on the
plates'that was the main thing that was to
go forth. The plates themselves are now
in the care of one of Lehi's descendants,
the angel Moroni.
I now come to the mystery of mysteries,

that has never been matched by anything,
save it were hazel-witching.

My opponent read last evening from Mrs.
Eaton's graphic pen, the old story about
Joseph Smith, Sen., digging a well, once
upon a time, and from the bottom thereof,
he exhumed a baby's foot, Joe was on
hand as usual, and snatched it from his
father, and ran off peeping for money,
Wliether his father ever chastised him for
this impiety is not stated. But my oppo-
nent was particular to elaborate upon
another yarn, wherein it was claimed that
the said Joe stole this baby's foot from one
of Chase's children, and went off hazel-
witching and seeking for money. So says
Mr. Chase, per my opponent. But we are
informed also by him that Miss Chase had
a baby's foot too, and could see equally
well with Joe, and often pointed out where
money was, and could really find lost
property. She was a Seeress when she died
just a few years ago. Thus Ave have been
shown that this wonderful baby had at
least three feet, and either, when looked
upon, would reveal hidden mysteries. What
Joe would have seen and revealed had he
succeeded in stealing that entire baby, no
mortal will likely ever know. Anyway,
Joe got the baby's foot from his father, and
stole it from tlie chase family, and yet Miss
Chase was in possession of the baby's foot,
and was divining on all occasions when
called upon, till just a few years ago. This
nonsense and tomfoolery Mr. Braden drinks
all in, and then licks out his tongue for
more like it. Hence he goes on, and not-
withstanding he has labored long and hard
to make out Sidney Rigdon the real author
of the Book of Mormon, and to prove that
he used "ignorant Joe" as a cat's pew,
while he strode along on Ahasueras' horse,
yet last night he had the consummate
audacity to charge the whole iraud of pro-
phet-making on poor old Mother Smith,
while they yet lived in Vermont, and Joe
was only seven years old. Was the old
lady Smith and Sydney Rigdon in cahoot
while she lived in Vermont in the prophet-
making business"? She to raise the prophet,
he to write the book ? But my opponent
swallows all of this down, and it looks as
reasonable to him, and so he yearns for
more like it. There is nothing about the
Latter Day Saints faith that looks reason-
able to him. So he goes on ; Joe was always
to be found at corn huskings where there
was plenty of whisky, and somethinof to
gratify his wild, reckless and voluptuous
nature. He was proverbial for his lazy,
thieving, lying, shirking, drinking, out-
landish" habits ; yet liis ^^^other had him
drilled, and tutored, and inspired so com-
pletely with the prophet notion, that he
appeared as calm and serene as a minister,
and botli he and his mother had the as-
tounding bad habit of looking people square
in the eyes, all the time wearing the air of
a sober deacon, and never stooping to
trifling things, lest the people might not
believe that he was Divinely Inspired;
Seldom known to laugh . Have you got any

344

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

more like this, Mr. Braden? It is so won-
derfully consistent ! Almost thou per-
suadest me. But he asks, why did Joseph
and Oliver have to ordain each other after
the priesthood was conferred by the angel?
He might as well ask why acorns do not
grow on briar bushes ; or why Moses laid
his hands on Joshua after the Lord had
called him ; or why the laying on of hands
is to precede and for the receiving of the
Holy Ghost ; or why Aaron was clad with
a robe and bonnet, and had bells on his
robe and wore a breastplate; or why the
Lord did not Avrite on metal plates instead
of stone so that when Moses got mad he
could not have broken them by tossing
them upon the ground. It is God's order
of things, that is all.

He says that the Book of Covenants states
that, " Zion shall not be moved out of its
place." Is it moved, Mr. Braden? It was
to remain, "though her children were scat-
tered." The children are scattered, but
they will return in due time and re-inhabit
and build the City and Temple in this gen-
eration.

The Nephites were not exterminated
as claimed. Many of them joined the
Lamanites' Standard. Page 493, Book of
Mormon .

Concerning the objection that no one is to
be forgiven who is a murderer, John says,
"No murderer hath eternal life abiding in
him." In the Book of Covenants and New
Testament both, reference is evidently had
to a lieartless, malicious and wilful murder-
er. He objects to the use of the names Elias
and Elijah. Elias is the Greek for Elijah,
(Hebre'w), and Gabriel is the name assigned
to^Elijah as an angel ; like it was when God
covenanted with 'Abraham. He changed
his name 'from Abram to Abraham. Jacob's
to Isreal; and to the apostles, Jesus as-
signed new names. There is no contradic-
tion in the Book of Covenants in the use of
the names Elias. and Elijah. Concerning
the objection of the body and Spirit being
called the soul, 1 will say a word. The same
idea is held in the Bible: "Eight souls
were saved bv water." "Breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life and man became
a living soul." This is sufficient upon the
soul criticism.

Again, Emma Smith never saw the plates,
only when covered with a cloth. In this
way she savs she did, and handled them.
The Book does not say that there should be
but three person^ who should see them,
but that there should only be three who
should have tliem showai them by the pow-
er of God and the hand of an angel.

My opponent could make some strong
points doubtless, if he was permitted to rep-
resent the record in his own way ; but even
that would be but temporary. The very
first time a person got hold of the Book of
Mormon and began to compare it with Bra-
den's pretended statements, he would be
detected, and the honest investigator would
turn away in disgust.

Men who pretend to make criticisms upon
the works of others, should, above all

things else, be,— L Honest; and 2. Fair.
In this way only, can the hearer be profited,
and a discussion, whether religious, or po-
litical, result in good to the people.

But I must proceed with noticing his run-
ning list of objections. I call them running,
because the moment he undertakes to make
one, he drops it, seemingly afraid of the
answer I shall make, and jumps at some-
thing else.

It has been asserted, that I discard all
revelations which I cannot defend. But
did he tell you of any I could not defend ?
Oh, no. When they come to a contest, he
says they (our elders) discard them. There
is not a word of truth in it. I affirm and
defend here all that the church believes or
has ever believed and taught. But he asks
what do I do with the revelations printed
in the Star, Times, and Seasons, Elders'
Journals, etc.? They are the same as con-
tained in the Book of Covenants ; and all in
there with the exception of one or two of a
private nature, (relating to individuals and
not to the body generally) and these I am
ready to defend!^ Here is the trouble with
Braden. He wants to carry the idea that
whatever is contained in the church publi-
cations it is the same as revelation to us.
This is a false assumption. The writings
and arguments are taken for what they are
worth when compared and criticized by the
accepted standard works of the church, and
are no creed for us ; we do not believe in
men-made creeds. When the Lord speaks
we are bound to hear and obey, but we are
not bound to hear and obey before we know
wht'thsr it is the Lord talking or not. No
more than were the early Saints or the
Saints of the first century. As Paul says,
"If aiiythino: is given by the Spirit to one,
let the others ju'dge." Never take away a
man's judgment if you expect to do him
good, even in so particular a matter as of
judirina- upon revelations, or influences of
the Spirit. He next makes his one baptism
argument under the form of six questions;
tlie 6th one being, "If there is but one im-
mersion is not that one by water ? " The
trouble is with hisz/; upon this little word
the authority of Campbell, Scott and Stone
was found to be resting, and the little word
could not bear up the load.

"7f there is but one immersion," says
Braden : But //, there is a baptism of tlae
water and of the Spirit, then that settles ef-
fectually his, "if there is but one." I have
shoAvn vou that John the Baptist, Jesus, in
John 3:5 ; and Acts 1:5. Peter in Acts 2:38 ;
Paul in I Cor. 12:13; Heb. 6:2 ; and Titus
3:5, all taught baptism of the water and the
Holy Ghost or, of the Spirit, and does he
wish me to now take his "if there is but
one? "

' The other five question are of the same
kind, and I have answered every one of
them in my argument before this.

Again, he says : "No man hath seen God
at any time." I suppose that by this, he is
trying to find some contradictions in the
Bible. If this chafly stuff is to be termed
objections, I can find him five hundred

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

345

contradictions in the Bible. Gen. 32:30,
Jacob says, " I have seen God face to face."
Exodus 24:9, 10 and 11, "Then went Moses
and Aaron, Nadaband Abihu, and seventy
of the elders of Israel ; and they saw the
God of Israel ; and there was under his
feet, as it were a frame-work of a sapphire
stone, and as it were the body of heaven in
his clearness."

But, Braden says, no man hath seen God
at any time ; while that sacrilegious boy.
Smith, said he saw him. The trouble is
Braden is not posted. But he objects to the
Book of Covenants, because it makes tha
Lord to take notice of little things ; give
directions for building a house; told them
what to do when they needed funds ; where
to locate; who is to' take certain positions
and offices in the church, etc. What an
objection this is, indeed, for a Bible man to
make ! All through the Scriptures, both
in the Old and New Testaments, there are
many instances of .seeming far less impor-
tance, in which the Avisdom of God is
brought to bear, and which may be more
eflectually ridiculed, if that manner is to
be taken for argument, than theinstances of
direct Pijovi deuce in ttie Book of Doctrine
and Covenants.

"The direction to build the ark and to
pitch it without and within; to make it
three stories high, and put one window in
it," Gen. 6; is a good exampie. Take the
receipt which the Lord gives to Moses by
revelation, for making ointment for the
anointing of the tabernacle, the priests,
etc. Nobody is permitted to make this
kind of oil, but Moses, and if any one did,
he should be put to death. "Whosoever
compoundeth any like it, or whosoever
putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall
even be cut off from his people," Exodus
30 : 23 to 33. Moses at once coula monopolize
the hair oil trade, under this Revelation.
Take another: — "So they brought the
people down unto the water, and the Lord
said unto Gideon. Every one that lappeth
of the water with his tongue, as a dog lap-
peth, him shalt thou set by himself; like-
wise every one who bovveth down on his
knees to drink," Judges 7 : 5. This was to
test the bravery of the men, and of the
whole number who went down to drink,
but three hundred lanped like dogs, and
the Lord chose these for his army, and with
these he routed the Midianites'army, so the
history reads. In the Savior's ministry,
he and his disciples ran short of funds,
and the Lord directed Peter to go and
catch a fish and get a coin that he would find
in the fish's mouth, and pay the tax. And
after his resurrection he directs them
where to cast their nets in order to gather
the fish. And the Bible critics, come to
me, and say, are not these big things for
the Son of God to be looking after? He
who possesses all power in heaven and in
earth, to be troubling his mind with? I
have to meet all such silly attacks against
the Bible, and these are the petty criticisms
brought here by one who professes to be-
lieve the Bible, with which to try to over-

throw the truth of the Book of Mormon.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the truth is,
as to all such matters, that life here
is made up of littles. God confirms men
in the faith of himself and his work by
the impress of his hand at times in these
things which seem to be of little account
or importance. And the m or the woman
who will not look for God's hand to be
manifest in these things which seem to
be (to strangers to the transaction) of
minor worth, may expect to pass through
life without observing the hand of Deity
in anything. Not because God is not great
in his attributes and his work, but because
man is a frail creature and weak in his ways.
We must learn to walk before we can run ;
and to know our letters before we can ex-
pect to take a lesson in geometry ; and so
in the dealing of God with us ; he lends
aid and comfort where such is required and
the man is humble enough in his heart to
receive it. And in the establishment of his
church and the superintending of his work,
he will deal with it as its strength and the
circumstances demand ; so it has been
wherever he has had a church.

He again tries to make it appear that
Smith was always boosting along his peo-
ple with false promises of gain, power,
etc., in this world. The statement is abso-
lutely the reverse of the facts ; he always
told them of the trials in the way to an ac-
ceptable life with God and in many instances
foretold the evils the church would fall into
and the consequences of the same.

He predicts in Book of Covenants, page
199 and 285, evil to come upon the entire
body because of Avickedness, and this came
two'ye^i"S afterwards ; and on page 147, he
foretells his own death ; and on page 304 he
predicts the overthrow, or rejection, of
the entire church. And yet, these enemies
of his have said he kept his people together,
through flattery, deceit and false promises.
In September, 1831, in a revelation, is fore-
told his death, and the manner of it to wit:
"Shall fall by the shaft of death, like a
tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of
of lightning." Twelve years afterwards
at Carthage, 111., as the vivid shaft of light-
nino-"smites the giant tree, so death overtook
hinfthrough the missile of the assassin's
bullet, and though as Lini'oln and Garfleld
he was struck down by the liands of the
wretch and coward, he died as the ancient
martvrs, because of his hoi-e in Christ, and
his devotion to the good of tiie human race.
It is truth, God's word, that will either
exalt or condemn us at the last day, and let
no one imagine that his ignorance is to
cause a remission of his sins and land him
within the pearly gates. "If ye continue in
mv words ve shall be my disciples indeed,
and ye shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free." Not on account of
their ignorance, but knowledge; the light
of the Spirit. "If we walk in the liglit as
God is in the light, weshall have fellowship
one with another, and the blood of Jesus
Christ cleanseth us from all sin." We ab-
solutely have no promise offered us for

346

THE BRADEN AND KELLKY DEBATE.

redemption from our sins on account of
ignorance, but we must walk in the light.
Yet, every objection brought against the
divine work of the boy of Manchester, has
been from the standpoint that he claimed

to be informed upon the question of religion.
And if he was a teacher sent from God and
knew whereof he affirmed, he could not
have been otherwise, than in the light.
(Time called.)

MR. BRADEN'S FIFTH SPEECH.

GENTLE^rE^' Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — Mr. Kelley has denied that
there ever was such a man as Thomas P.
Baldwin. That there ever was such an offi-
cer as .Tudge of Wayne County Court ; that
Thomas P. Baldwin way .Judge of Wayne
County Court in 1833. We read the affida-
vit of S. B. Mclntyre, a lawyer of over
thirty j^ears practice in Palmj'ra, and a res-
ident of Palmyra for fifty-six years, stat-
ing— I. There was such a man, a lawyer in
Palmj^ra, stating also his wife's name, and
the name of his step-child len and his own
child. II. That he was .Judge from 1830 to
1835, Judge of Wayne County Court. III.
That he has examined his commission
as Judge of Waj-ne County Court. IV.
That he has seen docutnents in the
Clerk's office that he siirned as .Judge of
Wayne County. We ofiered an affidavit of
his step-son stating there was such a man ;
that he marrie<l his mother, giving his
daughter's name, date of his death, stating
that he was Judge of Wayne County Court
from 1830 to 1835; that he has seen his com-
mission as such. We read a certificate of
the very man who ansv,'ered Kelley's letter
explaining how he made the mistake, stat-
ing that the records show that T. P. Bald-
win was Judge of Wayne County Court;
that his comujission as such is before him
as he writes ; stating the date of the first
trial on which he officiated as Judge of
Wayne County Court ; and the date of the
last trial on which he officiated as such.
Had my opponent possessed common sense,
he would have given up. But with a stu-
pidity that is miraculous, he arose and
stolidly denied that there was such a man ;
such an office, and that there was such a
judge of Wayne County Court. I could
pity my opponent if his lack of honesty in
his acts were not so flagrant.

His letter from Whitmer is a dodge.
Whitmer does not say a word about punc-
tuation in it. That is dropped. His state-
ment about capital letters is a dodge. Gil-
bert stated that proper names began with
capitals generally. He stated that sen-
tences did not. Whitmer says that the
capital letters are part of tlie original writ-
ing. He does not say what capital letters.
Will Whitmer lay the manuscript before

an impartial committee, in the presence of
J, H. Gilbert, and attempt to sliovv that the
manuscript, as it came from the hands of
Smith and Cowdery, was punctuated, or
that its sentences, as it came from tlieir
hands. Were commenced with capitals? As
to Kelley's attacks on Maj. Gilbert's char-
acter, they are beneatii contempt. Maj.
Gilbert concluded probably that persons
who would falsify his language are not
worthy of reply.

He attempts to bolster up Cowdery's tes-
timony to the Book of Mormon by denying-
that he ever recanted his testimony. In a
song published in Mormon works in 1838-40
occurs this doggerel:

" Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
" Because that Peter cursed and swore,
" Or Book of Mormon not his word
"Because denied by Oliver" fOlivore!!)
If Cowdery never repudiated his testi-
mony, why did Mormons in their sengs
declare that lie did? As to Whitmer's
testimony, we have shown its riiiiculous
character, its fabrications, contradictions,
and falsehoods. We read Smith '>• denun-
ciation of him. Smith's statement that he
was excluded from ttie Church for crime.
That he plotted robbery, and carried on the
plot by lying. The act of exclusion is
signed by Rigdon and 83 other Mormons,
denouncing him for lying, counterfeiting,
stealing, and being connected with a gang
of criminals of the blackest dye. In the
Elders' Journal, No. 3 of tlie date of July,
1838, page 46, is an official document,
adopted by the Mormon Church in the Far
West excluding David Whitmer and Oliver
Cowdery for embezzling money put in their
hands to purchase land for the Church.
They had the land bought for the Church,
with the money of the Church, deeded
to themselves, and tried to compel the
Church to p:iy them several times the price
they had paid for it — even when bought
with the money of the Church and for
the Church. Such is the character of
Cowdery and Whitmer accofding to the
official declaration of the Mormon Church,
as published in their official organ. This is
Mormon testimony to Whitmer's character.
We read the statement that Whitmer said
that he saw no angel but a Mr. Angel. He
has been bought up. He wants to be leader

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

347

In a new Mormon faction. His family have
had g-ood positions given to them. As soon
as this was done he could renew his testi-
mony and exaggerate it into nonsense.
Kelley last night read that if Joe allowed
any one to see what he found he would be
destroyed. His mother says she saw the
breast-plate and the interpreters, and
nobody " kilt." Whitnier says he saw and
handled the interpreters, and nobody
"hurted." Looked through them. The
Book of Mormon says, it is death to any
one who looked through the interpreters
without a command. Whitmer is living
yet. Joe was not to use the scheme to make
"money. Did not he die worth over one
hundred thousand dollars? Was not he
rich? Did not he make money out of it?
The angel in Revelations did not restore
the Gospel ; he preached what had never
been lost. The Spirit of Truth is in the
Church now ; but how? Not in the mirac-
ulous power. Zechariah, in vision saw a
young man go out to measure Jerusalem,
and one angel said to another, "Go speak
to this young man." That means Joe
Smith, because he was a young man. O,
twaddle! Such are his prophecies. I care
not how he reads Isaiah ix. It says the
remnant of Israel shall come from Assyria,
not America. 1 Corinthians xv. says the
" natural " was first the " spiritual " after-
wards. Joe interpolates into Genesis a
statement that the spiritual was first, the
natural afterwards. Corinthians does not
contradict Genesis, it contradicts what Joe
interpolates into Genesis. .Toe's inspiration
in the Book of Mormon conflicts with inspir-
ation in the Inspired Translation. But the
most wonderful thing is Kelley's assertion
thatNephite writers used originals, that dif-
fered from ours, and quoted from them. We
reply, 1, Book of Mormon copied the blun-
ders" of King James' version in scores of
eases. 2. There never were any Nephites.
3. There never was any original of the Book
of Mormon, except Rigdon's revami)ing of
Spauiding's manuscript. In quoting] John,
ii:29, my apponent read, "But the anoint-
ing which you have received of him abides
in you and you need not that any one teach
you. But as the same anointing teaches
you all things and is truth" — he saw that
it contradicted his theory and taught Camp-
bellism, for it taught that truth, the truth,
taught them all things. He deliberately
changed it, and read "the Spirit of truth
is the Spirit of truth and is no lie," making
nonsense, for if one is " Spirit of truth" the
other ought to be, and is " no Spirit of lie."
His own passage proves that it is the truth
and not the miraculous power of the Holy
Spirit that teaches believers all things. I
did not ask why the Book of Abraham had
no witnesses, "^but why the parchment
revelation of John had none. It caps the
climax of cheek and folly, when Kelley
gravely tells us that he has examined the
two translations of the papyrus, that of the
French scholar, and the fraud of Joe Smith,
called the " Book of Abraham," pretending
to be a translation made by inspiration ; and

Ae, yes he, Kelley, that knows as much of
Egyptian hieroglyphics as he does of lh«
language spoken in Jupiter— has decided
that Joe was right and the French scholar
was wrong! What next!

The Holy Ghost does say there is but one
immersion to Christians, just as there is one
God — one faith. John does say that the
baptism in water is one baptism and the
baptism in Spirit another baptism. There
are two elements and two baptisms. The
one baptism in the Church is in water.
Holy Spirit baptism is not in the Church or
a baptism to Christians. Kelley may give
the lie direct to the Holy Spirit as long as
he pleases. It stands there. I read Joe
Smith's idea of God. If he was Brighamite
I read Brighamite ideas of God. I did not
read a word from an Utah Mormon. I read
what was said in Nauvoo and published in
Nauvoo and before Joe's death. I again
denounce as a deliberate untruth the state-
ment that I say that nobody can learn any-
thing about God. I say they can learn
through his word. When pressed with the
demand for a miracle my opponent declares
there is no converting power in miracles.
This is what I have contended, and he has
denounced it as repudiating the power of
God. He says the law of the Lord converts.
That is what I have contended, and he has
denounced it as repudiating the power of
God's Spirit, and talked of the dead letter.
But the most amusing thing was when he
forgot that he had said that the word of
God converts, and asserted that the Gospel
alone could not be God's power, for if it
were, if a man read it he would be converted
whether he believed it or not! That caps
the climax of Mormon wisdom. It stands
alone in its grandeur. But he has found
two miracles : I. A Mormon girl predicted
the destruction of Pekin six months before
Ryder read it in the paper. When we
remember that the destruction was months
before Ryder read it in the paper, the
miracle becomes baseless. Show that Mor-
mon leaders did not know it before the
prediction, for months had elapsed between
the prediction so called and the event.
II. Healing Mrs. Johnson. I can cite scores
of cases where physicians have done as
much as Smith did. By strong will and
mesmeric control they have caused persona
to use what were suppos^ed to be helpless
limbs; and if it was mere lack of use
that ailed them, the disease having left,
they continued to use them. An incident
happened in Hul)bard, Trumbull County,
the same year that Smith healed Mrs.
Johnsoii, tliat beat Smith all hollow. A
man who had been bed-ridden from rheu-
matisna, got so that he could hobble with
crutches. He went on crutches three years.
One dav in passing a nest of young pigs,
he pun'ched one with the spike in the end
of one of his crutches. It squealed, and
the old sow, a monstrous, ferocious l>rnte,
started for him, open-Aaouthed. uttering
fearful sounds of rage. He threw to one
side his crutches, ran Uke a quarter-horse
to a fence and dashed over it -.nd ..pv»r

343

THE BRADEN AND KELLEl^ r>EBATE.

used a crutch again till the day of his death.
That old sow beat Joe all hollow. She
healed two legs. He healed only one arm.
Both were healed in the same way, a shock
compelling the use of what only needed an
effort to use.

Having examined the revelations of Mor-
monism we propose now to inquire if the
authors and surroundings were befitting
the "fullness of the Gospel" — the last and
highest dispensation vouchsafed to men.
God chose a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses,
a Samuel, a John the Baptist, a Paul, and
gave Christianity to the world by His Son.
After giving Christianity by his Son he
would not select a Baalam, a Saul, king of
Israel, a Jonah or a Caiaphas to give to the
world the 'fullness of the Gospel." Mrs.
Eaton, wife of Dr. Horace Eaton who was
for nearly forty years pastor of the Pres-
byterian church in Pahnyra, a lady of the
highest character who knew intimately the
acqufiintauce, schoolnititesand associates of
the Smiths, declares :

"As far as Mormonism wrtsnonneeteri with its reputed
author Joseph Smith, always oallefl Joe Smith, it had
its origin in the brain and heartof a deceitful, ignorant
mother. Joe Smith's mother moved in the lower walks
of life, but she had a kind of mental power which her
son shared. With both, the imagination was the com-
manding faculty It was vain but vivid. To it were
subordinated conscience, renson and truth. Both
mother and son were noted for a habit of extravagant
assertion. They would look a listener full in the eye
and without confusion or blanching they Avould manu-
facture startling statements, reciting stories, the warp
and woof of which was falsehood."

Let any one read that mass of lies, ridic-
ulous yarns and tomfoolery, Mrs. Smith's
Life of .Toe, and they will conclude that
Mrs. Eaton draws it mildly in her state-
ment.

"Was an inconsistency pointed out, nothing daunted
a subterfuge was always at hand. One old man who
knew them said to me, 'You could not face them down,
thev would lie and stick t" it,' Mrs. Smith ustd to go
to the houses of the village and do family washings.
B\it if the articles weie left to dry on the lines, and were
not secured by tlieir . wncrs befme midnight, the
washer was often the winner. In these dejiredations
she was assisted by her Vjoys who favoied, in like
manner, poultry yards and grain bins. Her son Joe
never worked save at 'uht)pping bees' and raisings and
then whiskey was the impetus and reward. The
mother of the high priest of Mormonism was super-
stitious to the last degree."

Any one who reads her ridiculous stuff in
her Life of Joe will see that this statement
is literally true.

"The very air she breathed was full of familiar
spirits that peeped and wizards that muttered. She
turned many a penny by tracing in the lines of the open
palm the fortune of the inquirer. All ominous signs
were heeded. No work was commenced on Friday.
The moon over the left shoulder portended a calamity.
The breaking of a mirror, death. Even in Vermont,
before moving to New York, while Joe was a child,
Mrs. Smith's mind was made up that he should be a
prophet. The weak lather agreed that Joe was the

genus" of the family and would be a prophet."

We have narrated already that Joe's
father and mother were foremost among
the fanatical followers of a pretender in
Vermont who claimed miraculous powers
and to be a Messiah. This suggested to
Mrs. Smith the idea of making Joe a
prophet.

"So it was established that Joe was to be a prophet.
To such an extent did the mother impress this idea
upou the boy that all the instincts of childhood were
renrpssofi tto rn'oiv innfrhod or smiled, his looks and

thoughts were downward bent. He rarely engaged in
demonstrations of fun, since they would not be in keep-
ing with the professed dignity of his exalted avocation.
His mother aided and inspired him in every scheme of
duplicity and cunning. All acquainted with the facts,
agree that the evil spirit of Mormonism first dweltin
Joe Smith's mother Bad books had much to do with
the origin of Mormonism. Joe could read, he could
not write. His two standard volumes in childhood
were the 'Autobiography of Stephen Burroughs,' the
clerical scoundrel, whose career he so closely imitated,
and the 'Autobiography of Kidd, the Pirate.' In later
boyhood or early manhood, he was a great reader of
the Koran, so like in some respects his own fraud, the
Book of Mormon. He was a great admirer of Moham-
med. He read Paine's 'Age of Reason,' andwasagUb
talker of its intidel vulgarity. So Mormonism began
in a compound of superstition, infidelity, and villainy.
"In 182.3 while his father was digging a well for Wil-
lard Chase, a stone of cloudy quartz, sin'.;ularly resemb-
ling a child's foot was thrown out. Jhe. wlio was loaf-
ing around, stole this stone from Mr. Chase's children.
This stone became the acorn of the Mormon oak. It
was the famous peep-stone of the Palmyra Seer. The
Urim and Thummira of Mormonism, with which Joe
did most certainly divine. Instructed by his mother
he immediately set up a claim of miraculous power."

Mrs. Smith afterwards tried to get a sin-
gular stone from a neighbor's children to
use herself.

"In a kneeling position, with a bandage over his
eyes— so luminous was the light without it— with the
stone in a large white stove pipe hat, and this hat in
front of his face, Joe saw things unutterable. He could
reveal where stolen property could be found, for who
ought to know so well as he. and his family. He could
tell where wandering animals were, for the loafing hab-
its of the family enabled them to know. Soon he saw
caskets of gems, pots of gold, hid by Spaniards, and
his favorite hero, Capt. Kidd. (One can see where the
idea of buried treasure originated — in reading the tale
of Kidd's buried treasures.) Untold wealth was in
neighboring woods and fields. Digging became the
order of the night, and sleep the order of the day.
Father and brothers, vagabonds, neighbors, all who
could be hired with cider, strong drink, or deluded
with extravagant lying promises, were organized into
a digging phalanx." ThtT .sallied forth in the darkness,
a gang of loafing, worthless men, accompanied with a
gang of low, worthless, lewd women. Solemn cere-
monies prefaced the work. Not a sod was turned un-
til Joe's mrstic wand, the witch hazel rod, guided by
the sacred stone, pointed out the spot. Entire silence
was one condition of success. When hours of digging
had passed away, and the answering thud on the
priceless pot or chest, was about to break on the ear,
some one always spoke and broke the spell, and the
treasures were spirited away, and had to be found by
magic rites, and dug for again. Thus matters went ou
for several ye.irs."

The operations of the gang extended from
Palmyra to Harmony, in Pennsylvania, and
Hartwicke, Otsego county. New York, the
extreme points being over one hundred
jniles apart.

"Nearlv every farm in Smith's neighborhood had
several holes in'it. that the gang dug. Many can be
seen to-day. Sensinle people paid no attention to them
except to comment with <lisgust. Lovers of the mirac-
ulous, however, commented and talked. The excava-
tions were visited. The newspapers took the matter up
and ridiculed it. All this added to the notoriety of the
Manchester soer, and his stolen peep stone."

Pomeroy Tucker of Palmyra. New York,
who knew the Smith's from the time they
came to New York, in 1815, until they left
in 1S30; and who knew Joe intimately,
states that Joe Smith, Senior, ran a little
beer shop in Palmyra, for a year or two,
and then squatted on apiece of land belong-
ing to some minor heirs. The Smith's did
but little in the way of clearing, fencing or
tilling. They erected a hovel, and then
some additional hovels as out houses. Their
farming was done in a slovenly, half-way,
profitless manner. They eked out a living
h\- a liino- cord wood, black ash baskets,

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

349

birch brooms, maple sugar, and cakes and
root beer, on public days, like the Indians
on the reservation near them. Most of
their time was spent in trapping musk rats,
fishing, hunting, digging-out woodchucks,
and loafing around stores and shops in the
village. Joe usually lead in all this, never
doing any of the labor himself.

This idleness was noticed by neighbors,
who coupled with it loss of property, and
became more careful about their cribs and
coops. Their neighbors regarded them as
an illiterate, whiskey-drinking, shiftless,
irreligious people, Joe being the laziest and
most worthless of the lot. F'l-om twelve to
twenty, he was known as a dull-eyed, flaxen
haired, prevaricating boy, noted only for
his indolent, vagabondish character, and
his habits of exaggeration, and untruthful-
ness. 'J'aciturnity was among his character-
istic idiosyncrasies, and he seldom spoke
to anyone outside of his intimate associates,
except when first addressed by another;
and then, in consequence of his extrava-
gancies of statement, his word was received
with least confidence by those who knew
him best. He could utter tiiemost palpable
exaggerations, marvellous absurdities with
the most apparent gravity and sincerity.
He nevertheless evinced the rapid develope-
mentof a thinking, evil-brewing, plodding,
mental composition, largely given to the
invention of low cunning schemes of mis-
chief and deception, and false and myster-
ious pretensions. In his mental coiiiposi-
tion, secretiveness and amativeness were
enormous, and conscientiousness was left
out. Tucker describes Joe's reading as
Mrs. Eaton describes it. He adds that he
used to dilate on tlie prophecies, when in
the presence of his ignorant superstitious
associates, and ^that his explanations
were often disgusting and blasphemous.
He says, that he contended thatall religions
Avere delusions, and the Bible a fable.
This agrees with the statement of Dr. .Tohn
Stafford, a schoolmate, who says he was a
great reader and admirer of Paine, and an
open talker of his infidelity. Tucker
relates the money-digging folly and knav-
ery as Mrs. Eaton describes it. To this we
add the statement of fifty-one citizens of
Palmyra, and they include the best people
of Palmj^ra: —

" December -1, 1S33.
' We the undersigned have been aequaiiiteri with
the Smith family for a number of years, while thev
reside I near this place, and we have" no lie^itation iii
saying that we consider them destitute of thst moral
Character, which oujrht to entitle them to the confi-
dence of any community. They were particularly
faniHus for visionary projects, spent mneh time in dig-
ging for money which they pretended was hid in the
earth, and to this day larjje excavations mav be seen
in the earth, not far from their residence, whore they
used to spend their time digging for hidden treasures.
Joseph, senior.and his sou Joseph, were in particular
considered destitute of moral character, and addicted
to vicious habits. In reference to all with whom we
are acquainted, who have embraced Mormoni.sm. from
this neighborhood, we are compelled to sav, that they
are visionary, and most of them destitute of moral
cnaraeter, and without influence in the community,
and this may account for their being allowed to go on
with their imposture unnoticed. It was not supposed
that any of them were possessed of sufficient character
or influence, to make any one believe in their book, or

thrs"vS''v''°:i;"U7rth'l°',°' ? ^'"^i*^ individualin
pretended^VelaUo^ns''' ^ ^^"' confidence in their

of^th«m°«l*'''?' 1^ Manchester, and most
Jhis'Sement -""'^^ ^^ '^^ '^'-*^' ^^^^^^

lie^^inH^""^'"'''^^*^'"^^" ^""^^^ o^d man's
us how J"^^«l",Y^« to dupe him. He tells
wifhT/ ^ father-in-law upbraided him
w th tears, for stealing his daughter, and
7nln ,^ '''^'?1!'' wortliless life, and that
Joe confessed that all of his use of the stone
was a lying fraud and promised to reform.
He tells also how Joe told him after he be-
gan to tell that he had found the plates
that It was ajl a hoax, but he had got the
^j^d tools fixed, and he would carry out

William Stafford testifies to the lies and
the yarns of the Smith's about caves full of
goia and precious articles and how they duff
for them. He tells of the tomfoolery of
Old Joe and young ,Ioe in digging. At 'last
they got him to let them have a black
wether, a very fat one, to use in their tom-
foolery. They cut its throat, and then led
It around m a circle, and then dug but
tailed. Ihe Smiths, however, had mutton
without stealing it. Willard Chase testi-
fies to the worthlessness and lies of the
bmiths, and their gang ; and to the hesand
tricks of young .Toe, in particular. P. Chase
testifies that they were an intemperate,
lying, worthless set. That they scarcely
ever told two stories alike in regard to the
Book ot Mormon. David Stafford testifies
that Joseph Smith, sen., was a liar a
drunkard and a thief; and that .Toe, jun
was like him. He testifies to seeing them
return from stealing excursions with stolen
mutton. Barton Stafford testifies to Joe's
getting drunk, and having- his shirt torn off
of him, and his wife leading liim home, af-
ter he had pretended he had found bis
golden Bible. Henry Harris testifies that
Joe's oath was rejected by a jurv as un-
worthy of belief and that the whole set
were intemperate and liars and worthless
money diggers. Mrs. Abigail Plarris testi-
fies to old Mrs. Smith's lies and tricks to
get money, and about the Gold Bible. Ros-
well Nichols testifies to their lies, dis-
honesty, and the tricks of the Smiths.
Joshua Stafford testifies to the same.
Joseph Capron tells of their lies, tricks and
tomfooleries.

To this might be added the testimony of
the people in Susquehanna county, 'Pa.,
where .Toe lived while pretending to trans-
late, telling of his lies, his profanity, and
trying to seduce his hired girl, his declara-
tion that adultery was no crime.

In 1880 William Bryant testified: "I
knew Joe Smith personally to some extent.
I saw him frequently. I knew well his
reputation. He was a lazy, drinking fellow,
loose in his habits in every way." Danford

350

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Booth says, "Smith's reputation was bad."
Orrin Read, "I knew the Smith's, but did
not associate with them ; they were too low
to associate with. , Tliere was no truth in
them." Samantha Payne testifies:

" She was a schoolmate of Smith. His reputation
was bad; he was regarded as a worihless, shiftless
fellow, a brnfrsMdocio and a blackguard. The mother
of Joseph Smiih was regarded as a thief by her neigh-
bors. She was exceedingly superstitious aud addicted
to lying, as were all of the family. She once came to
my mothtT to get a stone the children had found, of
curious shape. She wanted to use it as a peepstone.
Mother would not trust her to look around the house
for it. The Smith's dug for money on nearly every
farm for miles around; their excavations can "be seen
to-day. Some are on the farm oa which I now live.
The digging was done at night with most absurd
superstitious acts. It was done by a gang of men and
women of low reputation. They told many absurd
Stories about it After Smith came back from Penn-

sylvania his followers dug a cave in a hillside not far
from here. They conducted the work of getting up
Mormon ism in it. I was in it once. It can be seen to-
day. The present owner of the farm, Mr. Miner, dug
out the cave, which had fallen in. The cave had a
large, heavy plank door and a padlock on it. The
neighbors broke it open one night, and found in it a
barrel of flour, some mutton, some sheep pelts, and
two sides of leather."

Ezra Pierce testifies to the digging- for
money, their l.ying and laziness, and the
low gang that were engaged in it. Dr.
Mclntyre, who was their physician, testi-
fies that Joseph Smith, senior, was a drunk-
ard, a liar and a thief, and his house a
perfect brothel. That Joe got drunk, stole
sugar, got beaten for it, and told the doctor
who dressed his bruises that he had a fight
with the devil. Yea, verily he had!

MR. KELLEY'S SIXTH SPEECH]

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — The consummation of the
ofl^ense of Joseph Smith in the minds of his
opposers was, and is, that he was an un-
learned boy. Was not reared in their theo-
logical institutions. What right has this
man to know anything? they reasoned. It
is the old story which the self-wise could
not understand in the first age of Christi-
anity. "How knoweth this man letters
having never learned '?" This is the thought
when fully brought out : How did Joseph
Smith know so much when he had never
been to school? Had not attended our col-
lege? Why, they say, he even pretended
to translate the Bible; our Bible. This
perfect book. Oh! what sacrilege. The
rascal ! Now, my friends, I want your atten-
tion for a moment whilel expose this hypo-
critical cant, so commonly indulged in by
our opposers. In the first place let me ask
you, what made this our Bible to the exclu-
sion of other people? Was it given to us ?
No; all of you know that there is not even
a single Gentile writer or writing included
within its pages. It contains God's will as
revealed to the Jews, and hence the Jewish
Bible, if belonging to any particular class ;
as the prophet Ezekiel declared, "The stick
of Judah." Ezek. 37:19. We received it as
handed down after the time when they were
scattered as a nation, and have tried by our
wise men and scholars to translate it from
their languages, the Hebrew and Greek,
into ours. But in doing this our scholars
do not agree as to many things, absolutely
disagree, and have been warring for years ;
not only upon the translation from the orig-
inal, but actually as to wijat in fact was or
is original. And not onjy as to words, but
sentences; verses; entire books. And there

has not only been a revision of the transla-
tion into our language, but of the Greek
text itself. The oldest manuscripts extant
are only referred back to the fourth century
by scholars, unless we accept the claim
made for a few of the New Testament writ-
ings, the Sinaitic, discovered less than forty
years ago, which it is claimed may be traced
back to the beginning of the third century.
As to these originals there is a disagree,
ment in many things. St. Jerome, in his
commentary on the 40th chapterof Ezekiel
says: "When we translate the Hebrew
words into Latin we are nometiraes guided
by conjecture ;^^ and he makes frequent
mention of the additions, corrections and
subtractions made in the version of the
Septuagint by Origin. Again he says : "It
is me7-e superstitioii to assert, as some authors
do, that the Hebrew text which we have at
present is not corrupted in any place, and
that there is no fault, nor anything left out,
and that we must indisputably follow it at
all times." Dupiu, in his church liistory,
speaking of the differences found to exist
in the original manuscripts, says: " There
are differences in the punctuation, about
the consonants, and whole t(;orc?s SiXid. verses,
which show that let them be never so dili-
gent, it is impossible but some faults will
slip in, either in the copying or printing of
a work." And then it is ctiarged that the
boldness of some transcribers of these origi-
nals was such that they "ventured to strike
out, ADD, or change some words which they
thought necessary to be omitted, added or
changed."

The original manuscripts were tran-
scribed and handed down by the same per-
sons whom Braden termed "Papists," and
refused to receive their plain historical

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

351

statements as evidence that the doctrine of
the laying on of hands was practiced and
preached by the ajiostles, and handed down
by examples of practice to the second and
third centuries thereafter. Is it enough
for him to answer these plain historical
facts by simply charging them with Pa-
pacy? It is not a fact in the first place that
Papacy, as it is commonly understood, then
existed ; but if it did, it would likely be as
proper to look to it for a correct liistory of
practices in the cliurch as for a correct liis-
tory of the teachings in the church which
must come througli the same parties. Yet
h ^ gets hisper/ec^ law^ the constitution, tlie
New Testament, through this papal line as
il is termed. And to prove his New Testa-
ment is the perfect law he quotes James
1:25, "But whoso looketh into the perfect
law of liberty," etc. Wliy does he say
tills perfect law was the New Testament as
delivered by the apostles? Does he not
know that much of the New Testament was
not yet written? Tliis, as I have before
shown, was in the year A. D. 60. Long
before the gospel of Luke was written ;
before the letters to Timothy, Titus, the
Colossians, tlie Hebrew churches, the 2nd
and 3rd Epistles of Peter, the Epistles of
John, of Jude and the Revelation were
ever in existence, or even thought of, per-
haps, and yet it is held up to this audience
to siiow the law was perfect in the sense,
that God would give no more revelations
to the human family. Why? The Psalm-
ist, as I have quoted to you, said hundreds
of years before this, "The law of the Lord
is perfect converting tlie soul." Did he
mean tliat God would for that reason speak
no more unto the human family, neitlier in
the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century? Not at all.
But that God is perfect and his law must
be perfect, whether we have it all, or a part ;
whatever we have is perfect, if not changed
by designing men. after having been
revealed. That law is given to man as
Isaiah says, 28 : 10, " Precept upon precept,
line upon line, here a little and there a lit-
tle." And this is the view taken in the
writings of Paul. " For I am not ashamed
of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power
of God unto salvation to the Jew first, and
also to the Greek, for therein is the righte-
ousness of God revealed." Does he mean
all revealed, so that Jesus could no more
communicate anything that was good
or beneficial to the world? No, sir. For,
nearly the whole of our New Testament
was written after this language of the apos-
tle was sent to the saints at Corinth.

The apostle in the next part of the sen-
tance is the interpreter: " From faith to
faith." It '■''is, vexesled from faith tofaith.''^
As men have faith to advance in the divine
life ; and this is in harmony with the
whole tenor of the New Testament teach-
ings. Now turn back to your argument
upon this subject where you held that the
apostles were the constitution makers, the
framers, and look down the line again. My
position was that they were simply the
j»ublisliers, — the preachers of God's law as

he delivered it to them. This harmonizes
with the entire text, " revealed from faith
to faith;" "hath committed the word of
reconciliation to us ;" " Whereunto I am
ordained a preacher, and an apostle, a
teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity."

" A minister," etc. " Go teach all nations."
"Teaching them to observe all things what-
soever I have commanded you." That I
have commanded you ; and, notwithstand-
ing this former commanding it was neces-
sary that they be further commanded as
they proceeded in the divine work, and in-
struction was given " from faith to faith.,'

Now I call you back to the reference
of the translation of the Bible by Mr.
Smith, as he read some verses from
it to show how bad Smith was ; but
was there any bad things in the verses
which he read? Oh, no, simply because
it's Smith's translation, and Mr. Smith was
not college-bred ; he gave God the credit for
the work of translation ; that is the trouble.
I have shown you that the originals of the
Old and New Testament were to some
extent changed^ and thereby much light
taken from the word of God. If you will
compare the Doway version with the King
James' version, you can easily determine
that, without going back to the Greek or
Hebrew; and if this is a truth, and Mr.
Smith's translation throws light by re-
storing this, is it a bad thing, and should
we say he was sacrilegious ?

I told you from the outset that I was not
particular what translation we were to use
in this discussion, for I could prove my
faith by either well-attested one. All of
these translations harmonize in their prom-
inent and essential features when taken as
a whole. But at the same time this is true,
it is also true that on account of the inac-
curacies in the word, many things are ren-
dered dark until the entire line of inspired
writings upon them are examined, and few
men can so read and examine the Bible.
Hence, it is in God's wisdom to give us a
translation and correction. Remember,
correction also, so that it ghall enlighten
the feet of those who would have otherwise
w;alked in the dark. My opponent claims
that Paul's words as to "baptism for the
dead" " has always been considered by
scholars as a dark passage." And in his
affirmative question he admitted his church
would not even presume to take a position
on the God-head, because they were so
much in the dark, but not more so, he
thought, than others ; yet Jesus says, "This
is life eternal, that they might know thee
the only true God and Jesus Christ whom
thou hast sent." According to this, he has
truly admitted salvation out of his (Jhurch.
It is necessary to know the Father and Son
to have life. And says the apostle ' If our
Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are
lost." Ignorance does not do here, they
must "walk in the light," as Johu
declares, and to do this one must have the
Comforter from on high.

My opponent should have told this
audience frankly that many of the correc-

352

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

tions made by Mr. Smith's translation have
since been endorsed by tlie first scholars of
the world. They did not know they were
coufirmimg him, however. Such a thought
would have amazed those high-toned
churchmen. Open to First Cor., 10: 24,
" Let no man seek his own, but every man
another's wealth." Here according'to the
King James' translation we have to seek
other men's wealth. But it is corrected by
Mr. Smith forty years ago, to read "Seek
another's good;" and although Mr. Smith
has been accused of trying to find law to
permit him to prey upon the property of
others, and persons have gone so far as to
pervert the plain teachings of the Book of
Covenants in order to try to prove the false
claim. But in ISSl, the scholars of the
world, in their Revised Version of the New
Testament, correct the sentiment here to
read as Mr. Smith had corrected it forty
years before. The next point I will notice
is the idea which is carried in these books
which have perverted our teachings so
much, that we were "to suck the milk of
the Gentiles and take the whole coimtry."
Nothing is farther from the trutli than this.
We are more clearly upon tlie record on this
point than any other cliurch in America.
Our faith is as set forth in the Book of
Covenants, page 177: "Let no man break
the laws of the land ; be subject to tlie
powers tliat be ; (tiie government in whicli
we live); until He reigns, \Vliose right it is
to reign, and suV)dues all enemies under
His feet." Who is this? Answer: .lesus
Christ. How long are we to conform to law
and be subjects ? Answer : till Jesus ( ;iirist
sliall come. We are not to take possession
of the kingdom then as some have foolishly
supposed; but if we are Christ's children,
his saints, we will be given the kingdom
when becomes. Theprophet Daniel speak-
ing of this says :, "For the kingdom was
given to the saints of the most high." Is
this the hope which our enemies have so
shamefully misrepresented ? Do not all the
followers of Jesus expect to share in this
final hope?

Now all of this talk about all religious
parties being destroyed except the Latter
Day Saints, and that thefj are to take the
earth, is had to stir up prejudice against us ;
there is no true foundation for it, nor never
was.

There has doubtless been found persons
among the Latter Day Saints who have at
times i-aid foolish things and been, perhaps,
fanatical ; but is that any ground for these
grave charges against the body ? Is that
the way to decide upon the views, faith or
character of any other people, simply from
what some excited or evilly disposed mem-
ber may have said? This is the way in
which my op|)onent has sought to carry
on his side of the discussion from the first ;
to pick up all that he could find that has
ever been said by this one or that one,
either of those who had been cut off from
our society, or those who have ever been
bitter and unrelenting enemies, from pre-
judice, ignorance and superstition or other-

wise, and tell to this audience. To gather
up all the foul noM^spaper stories that have
beeu published and insiduously circulated
against the Saints, and read them here for
evidence.

I showed fullj' from the beginning of this
discussion that such a course was not in any
sense justifiable; that no body of people
and no religion could be fairly or in any
sense correctly attested by any'such course ;
that that was the way, to abuse, falsify,
wrong and slander people, but never to
ascertain what they really are, or what their
religion is.

I showed fully and effectually too, that if
Jesus and the apostles were tried in such a
way we would have to confess that they
in no sense would bear such test ; for they
were berated, abused, slandered, while
living and since their deaths, although over
eighteen hundred j'ears have i^assed away
since the false statements were first circu-
lated. Jesus was no exception to the rule.
No upright man of prominence in God's
work lias escapeil, and from the very nature
of things. He who originates these lies is
the Devil, the evil one, who has ever gotten
up such stories and influenced men and
women to tell and circulate them, and could
it be supposed that be would not act like
himself in this age and dispensation of the
world? He is, as stated by Jesus, the
" father of lies," and of course will be car-
rying on his own work. But, says one,
these are not lies he has told about the
Latter Day Saints. That is just what the
jieople thought about the tales told atjainst
Jesus and Paul. They thought they were
true stories. Where does tiie fault' lie in
regard to this? It is in 2mr suing a course
2rres\iinably for evidence, which will not
bring true evidence.

It is impossible to attain truth by seeking
to these tales and se:'ond and third handed
statements made in the absence of the
parties against' whom they mitigate, and
for this reason Courts of .Tustice as I have
shoM'ii exclude tiiemas vile and utterly un-
reliable. Truth cannot be gained in any
case in this way.

My opponent has taken a course in this
controversy by which he has disregarded
all rules of evidence. Broken every estab-
lished principle for eliciting truth. Has
violated with iujpunity therules of law and
order established by our legislatures and
Judicial tribunals ; upheld and followed a
rule which in the past brought opprobrium
and disrepute against Jesus and the apos-
tles and their religion ; that caused the
martyrdom of the faithful in the first and
second centuries ; that put to the rack, starv-
ation and death, the good under the Refor-
mation, and caused the people to clamor for
the life of Joseph Smith, because he differed
with them in the matter of religion. It is
the matter of his work that I deprecate ;
it is the system of slander that I consider
most revolting and disgraceful. Accept
such a system of investigation and no man's
reputation and character is safe. I could
by following such a course sink into lasting

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

353

disgrace the Disciple, or any other church
with which I am acquainted. Not only
that, but most any public man, whether re-
ligious or otherwise; and especially if he
has been unfortunate enough to have been
called to the work of leading a reformation.

My opponent would be down at a single
stroke. Only a week ago there came into
mj" hands a newspaper circulating state-
ments about him that areas grave as these
he ha-s charged against Joseph Smith. But
he will say they are false. Grant that they
are; how does that help the case? The
more false they are the more they are evi-
dence'in my favor that I am light in my
positions of" investigation in this contro-
versy. I wish to prove to him effectually that
his course in this discussion, in rehearsi,ng
the statements of others for facts, is unjust-
ifiable and against uU proper rules of de-
cency and propriety. Why should I en-
gage to meet a professed minister of the
gospel in discussion on agreed and written
rules providing lor proper and respectful
controversy, and then be compelled to sit
and listen to the outrageous tales and sto-
ries, and the most harsh and unjust epi-
thets against my brethren, when I know
them to be nothing more than vile and re-
vengeful tales of slander? I will not just
make assertions about these published
statements, but prove that I am not trying
to deceive you as I pass along. The follow-
ing upon this point of my argument is from
the Table Rock Argus, a paper published at
Table Rock, Pawnee county, Nebraska.

"Falls City Journal:— "This office has received a
pamphlet entitled, 'IngersoU Unmasked,' by Clark
Braden. Braden requests us to advertise himself and
his pamphlet free, which is characteristic of the dead
beat. The Kearney Journal, Oakland IndepencUnt,
Omaha Watchman, and a few other exchanges, have
pnffed this fraud, and we hope they will publish our
version of Braden Unmasked. We personally know
Clark Braden to be an unscrupulous liar. A number
of years ago, in Pawnee City, he villainously slandered
t^e character of Joshua R. Qiddings, the old anti-
slrt very hero, for which he was taken to acconnt then
and there. Braden is a liar by nature, and a charlatan
by profession. He exhausted his resources for knavery
in this State, and is no longer recognized by his own
church, in the East. No respectable publishing house
would take Braden's pamphlet, and he was obliged to
print it at his own expense and in his own name."

Upon this statement made in the Falls
City Journal, the editor of the Argus said :

"The editor of the Argus received a similar pamphlet,
with the same request. From wliat we can learn of Mr.
Braden he is a scoundrel and villain of the blackest
dye. and is worthy of no endorsement at the hands of
respectable publishers. Christianity evidently needs
no such defenders as Clark Braden, formerly of Pawnee
county, Neb^a^ka."

These are the published statements of men
now living, and doubtless my opponent will
say they are false and slanderous. But
that is not the point. I have read these to
show you that we cannot accept the man-
ner and work of Mr. Braden, during this
discussion for argument. If these are
false, it proves my position true, without
a, doubt; if true, all the assertions he has
made during this discussion and the pur-
ported evidence falls flatter still, and my
opponent is still discomfited.

I must say for myself, that his style of
debate has been the most conspicuous

failure, that! have ever witnessed, so far
as overturning ajieoples' faith is concerned.
80 much, upon the kind of weapons used.
My opponent seems to have been consider-
ably chagrined over his effort last evenintr,
about the punctuation and capitals used in
the original manuscript of the Book of
Mormon, and he endeavors 10 try to make
you believe I have changed my positions
upon this since I was at Wilber. There is
not a word of truth in it. T hold the same
views now, as then, and have properly
stated them in both placs. Mr. J. H. (xii-
bert iias been fairly, fully and alisolutely
cauglit in his attempts to break down the
religion of the Latter Day 8aints. He
stated in my presence, and to other parties,
what I read to you. He in fact, knew notli-
ing when exaniiined. against our people, or
against the trutli of the Book of Mormon.
His statement was published, as I stated
last evening ; when it was learned that he
said he had been misrepresented, W. H.
Kel ley wrote to him asking him to point 01 1
wherein; that he had published his
language as taken at the time, and if there
was a misunderstanding, he wished to
know wherein, and that if he. had been
mis-reported, it was unintentional. This
letter, Mr. Gilbert has never answered. He
cannot do it. And the examination of the
manuscript of the Book of Mormon and
answer of Mr. David Whitmer, effectually
squelches all affidavits, QiUiert is able to
make. The trouble with Gilbert is, he ran
with Tucker too long, and has things mixed.
It is enough comment on Mr. Gilberts'
statement, to say, that he is willing to com-
municate to Braden's side, and answer
questions, but not to mine.

Next, I was somewhat amused at the
manner of my opponent in dealing with
what he calls Mormon Miracles, He first
challenged me to produce a well attested
miracle that ever took place in our church.
I soon furnished the cases out of his own
church's history. He caimot deny the
cases of healing and prophecy, so what
does he do ? He turns skeptical all at once,
and works himself up to believe it was
done through exciting and natural causes.
Well, it was done. He cannot gainsay that,
and if he wants to believe it was by the same
power by which the old bow of which he
related the story, wrought, that is his own
business. But it seemed to me, it must
appear to himself, that he over reached the
mark a little. In order to tell a story to
ridicule and beat what actually took place
at the appeal of Joseph Smith for the
afflicted, through the name and grace of
Jesus Christ, he related a tale, which he
thinks beats Mr. Smith's miracles all to
pieces. It so happens that his tale of the
old sow, beats the reported miracles of
Peter, Paul, John and Jesus, just as effect-
ually as it does those of Joseph Smith
Shall we conclude then, magnetism and
excitement did them all? Nonsense. But the
worst of all this is, that he should stand
before the audience and claim that the girl
had some way of knowing of the great fire

854

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

at Pekin, of which the Spirit spoke, when
he has not one iota of evidence from his
own, or any side to base it upon. No such
Claim could possibly be justly made, at
this time, when Ryder, their preacher, who
related it and all connected with it, who
saw, heard and were acquainted with the
circumstances, are beyond the reach of an
interview. No, the ship had come, but
Ryder had not heard of it. Thatis Braden's
solution. In order to carry out his views
he deliberately makes out his own brother
ministers to be perfect ninnies, without the
faculty of criticising a simple thing, like
the time of the arrival of a vessel, when
they are depending upon a statement relat-
ing to the same on a matter of the highest
importauce. Let my opponent drop these
silly objections, and argue the question
under discussion.

Is the church I am representing here, in
name, principles, faith, doctrine, practices,
ordinances, organization and worship, a
complete shadow of the type that is reflected
in the New Testament? If it is, it is God's
church and accepted with him. Let the
word of God settle it ; by this word are we
to be finally judged ; not the stories told,
and let us be honest, whatever the result.
" He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ,
he hath both the Father and the Son."

But I will not allow my opponent's at-
tempt to limit the spiritual gifts and the
spirit of revelation to the Apostolic age of
Christianity pass without noticing it again.
Jesus, instead of thus limiting the inspira-
tion of the Holy Spirit to the first century
of the Christian era, teaches on the con-
trary, that the comforter is to be given to
all who keep his commandments: "If ye
love me, keep my commandments. And I
will pray the Father, and he shall give you
anotlier comforter, that he may abide with
you forever." John, 14:15, 16. '-Even the
spirit of truth which proceedsth from the
Father, he shall testify of me." John 15:26.

" For he (the comforter) shall notrspeak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear that
shall he speak ; and he will shoiuyou things
to come." John 16:16. Please observe: this
comforter that ^'speaks" and shows "things
to come," is not limited to the Apostles,
but promised to all who love the Lord and
who keep his commandments. So likewise
Jesus, after his resurrection, makes the
promise that "these signs shall follow them
that believe" the gospel, not only in the
first age of Christianity, but co-extensive
with the preaching of, belief in and obedi-
ence to the gospel, in '^all the world."
Notice the salvation here promised on con-
dition of obedience to the gospel ; the con-
demnation pronounced on condition of not
obeying the gospel, and the signs promised
to follow the believer, are all equally unlim-
■ited, so far as time is concerned. "He that
believeth-aud is baptized shall be saved,"
whether in the first or the nineteeneh cen-
tury, "and he that believeth not shall be
condemned," whether in the first or in the
nineteenth century, "and these signs shall
follow them that believe," whether in the

fi7-st or the nineteenth century, so far as the
promise of Christ is concerned, in Mark
the 16th chapter.

So Peter, on Pentecost day, realizing the
fulfillment of the statement of Christ in
his own experience and that of his breth-
ren, as found in Luke 24:49, "Behold I send
the promise of my Father upon you" under
the inspirational influence of that Holy
Spirit received as promised, gives the ex-
tent and limit of that same promised Holy
Spirit to the believer in Christ.

Hence, to the 3,000 who on that day
enquired the conditions of salvation, Peter
said, "Repent and be baptized, every one
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, and
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,
for the promise is to ^OM." Not to us the
Apostles only, — and to the next generation
after you, — "and to your children." But
Peter, as if foreseeing the objections to the
receiving of the Holy Ghost, would be
urged in later ages, does not limit the
"promise" to that generation, and the
next one, their children ; but proceeds
to extend it to "a^^, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call." All then that
will believe and obey the Gospel, even all
that are afar off, are called to the enjoyment
of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" here
promised. See Acts 2: 38, 39. So far as
the terms "Holy Ghost" and gift of the
Holy Ghost is concerned, Luke, another
of the inspired writers uses these two
phrases interchangably in Acts. 10: 44, 45,
The Spirit given to the disciples of Christ
on Pentecost, Peter urges, is the Spirit re-
ferred to by Joel, a Jewish prophet, quoting
him as authority, when reasoning with
those accepting the Old Testament Scrip-
tures as valid authority. And he shows to
them that the Spirit there manifested, is
thesameSpirit Joel referred to, but does not
say it was a full and complete /M(/?^^men< of
Joel's prophecy. The "gift'"' manifested
there, was " the gift of tongues, " a gift not
mentioned in Joel's prophecy. Joel says, the
old men are to dream dreams. How many of
the old men fell asleep on the day of Peute-
costand dreamed dreams? Joel says, "the
young men shall see visions." How many
of the young men had visions on the day of
Pentecost? Joel says, "the servants and
the handmaidens shall prophesy when the
Spirit is poured out." How many servants
and handmaidens pro^>/iesied at Pentecost?
Joel sa.vs that after the children of Israel are
gathered back to the land of their Fathers,
"afterward I will pour out my Spirit upon
all flesh." But the ultimate and complete
fulfillment of Joel's prediction will be real-
ized after Israel is gathered preparatory to
the coming of the Lord in glory, connected
with which will be the great and dreadful
daj' of the Lord, the turning of the sun into
darkness, and the moon into blood, even
the day of the deliverance of the righteous
by the advent of Christ in glory. Joel 2:
28,32. Matthew 24th chapter: "Of this
Spirit then the believers in the Gospel are
entitled to in every age -when the Gospel is
preached, believed and obeyed, to the end

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

335

of the world, according to these teachings
of Jesus and Peter."

Then shall we so interpret the language
of the apostle Paul in^the 13th chapter of
First Corinthians as to contradict J esuB, the
Master, and the apostle Peter in relation to
the perpetuity of the spiritual gifts and
have him teach their limitation to the first
age of Christianity? No, Paul teaches that
they are essental to the edifying of the
church and the perfecting of the saints— not
the perfecting of the law— till "that which
is perfect is come." Paul is not contrasting
an imperfect law with a perfect one. The
contrast here is between the saints with the
gifts having an imperfect knowledge and
understanding of the things of the great
hereafter— this mortal state— as compared
to i\\Q perfect condition and understanding
of things divine, ^when we reach the immor-
tal and perfect state. An imperfect con-
gregation— church militant — is contrasted
with the church triumphant and immortal.
Hence the language, "For we know in part,
and we prophesy in part. But when that
which is perfect, [perfect at the time when
Paul wrote the Corinthian letter — not that
which tuill be perfect] is come, then that
which is in part shall be done away."

Therefore Paul does consistently with
these great facts, teach the Ephesians
that not only the nine gifts mentioned in
the letter to the Corinthians were given to
build up the churcH till* the day of perfec-
tion arrives, but that five other gifts, namely,
apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and
teachers, thus aggregating, fourteen gifts of
the Spirit in all, were given "for the per-
fecting of the saints [not the law, fAa< wa«
already perfect, see Ps. 19 ; James 1 :25]i for
the works of the ministry, for the edifying
of the body of Christ, till we all come to a
perfect m,an — [not perfect law] — to the
measure of the stature of the fullness of
Christ." (Not till we get a book made).

Christ, when Paul wrote this language,
was an immortal, resurrected being, and
these gifts being given "till" ive all come
to the measure of the stature of the fullness
of Christ, who was then full in the wisdom
of God, these spiritual endowments are
essential to well being and edifying of his
church, till we reach the immortal state,
even the resurrection of the dead.

If the Ancient Church, with m,ore scrip-
ture than we i^ossess to-day, with all its
inspired apostles, prophets and other
officers, together with all the spirit.ual gifts,
only "saw through a glass darkly," when

trying to view the great future with its
rewards and liopes, what degree of perfec-
tion are we attaining to-day, with less
scripture, a less perfect law than they had,
and devoid of all Spiritual light by the
gifts?

Then, how consistently can the great
Apostle to the Gentiles, after showing to
the Corinthians "a 'more; excellent waj'"
than to think all could be apostles, or all
could be prophets, or all were teachers, or
all be endowed with any one office or gift,
by showing them how God had distributed
the gifts among the diflerent members of
the one body, as in the language: "God
hath set the members every one of them in
thebody as it pleased Him," (God): Change
and'' teach another thing? He could not
do so. He then proceeds to instruct the
saints that the gifts without charity would
avail nothing, but that charity and gifts
together would insure their reward, if faith*
ful to all the commands.

He then informs us that we are under
obligation to God, to seek to attain these
gifts, a Divine command twice repeated.
Thus — " Covet earnestly the best gifts."—
" Follow after charity," and ^^ desire spirit-
ual gifts." Yee,desirespiritualgifts, justas
long as we follow after charity.

" Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous
of Spiritual gifts, seek thai ye may excel to
the edifying of the Church."

" If a man think himself to be a prophet
or Spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things which / write unto you, are the
commandments of God. 1 Cor. 12: 31, 14: 1:
12 and 37.

So writes this divinely inspired teacher,
Paul, in concluding this' subjectof Spiritual
gifts, in this letter, addressed to "^/Z, that
in every place csill on the name of Jesus
Christ, both their Lord and ours." Chapter
1 : verse 2.

Since we are thus commanded to seek the
SpirituaK gifts in righteousness, to the
edifying of the church, let us remember
that the Savior says: "He that hath my
commandments and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth me, and he that loveth me
shall be loved of my Father ; and I will
love him, and will ma7nfestmyse\f to him."
John 14: 21. Let us then secure the love
of the Father and the Son by observing the
command to seek the gifts, along with all
the other commands, and also secure the
"manifestation " of Christ to us, as prom-
ised.

(Time expired).

356

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

MR. BRADEN'S SIXTH SPEECH.

CrNTLEMEN ATODKRATOBS, liADIES AND

Gt.xMLEMEN :~ Mormons try to deny that
Bmith began his course as seer by witching
for water with a witch hazel rod, and peep-
ing for stolen and lost articles and buried
treasures. Mrs. Smith in her life of Joe,
admits that he did such work. The editor,
apostle Blair, admits that he did. Scores
of associates testify to the fact. They try
to deny that he dug for money, and superin-
tended a gang of knaves and dupes in such
work. His mother admits that he did. 60
does apostle Blair, the editor. Scores tes-
tify to his spending years in such work.
That great excavations were made all over
the neighborhood and for miles around, ex-
tending from Palmyra, N. Y., to Har-
mony, Pa., and Hartwicke, N. Y. Many of
these excavations can be seen to-day.
When the gang came to Kirtland they re-
newed the work of digging for treasure and
living witnesses can be cited who can point
out where they dug in Kirtland. Mormon-
ism began in .peeping with a stolen peep-
Btone, and witching for water with a witch
hazel rod, and digging for years for buried
money. It began in superstition, lying and
fraud attended with thieving, drunkenness
and lewdness. The witching for water was a
lying fraud ; so was finding the plates and
translating. Peeping for lost property and
buried treasure with| the stolen Ipeep-stone
was a fraud. So was the pretense of find-
ing plates and translating them. Digging
for buried treasures, seen with the stolen
peep-stone, was a lying fraud. So was the
tale of digging up plates and translating
them with a stolen peep-stone. We, on a
former occasion, exposed Joe's lies and con-
tradictory stories about his plates, and the
lies and contradictory stories of all connected
with the fraud. We could read Joe's own
statement of his casting the devil out ot
Newell Knight in New York. Mrs. Smith's
yarns of visions, miracles, etc., that attend-
ed their first meetings and their removal to
Ohio. One of Joe's unmarried sisters prov-
ing to be enciente it was declared to be an im-
maculate conception, and a new Messiah
would be given to the world. Old citizens
of Palmyra and Manchester testify to hear-
ing such stuff from Martin Harris, David
"Whitmer and v->ther Mormons. The whole
aflfair was a strange compound of ignorance,
Buperstitionj^ lying, fraud, trickery, and
low cunning, managed by Joe, who was an
infidel, and was imitating his favorite char-
acters, the clerical impostor Stephen Bur-
roughs, and Mahammed. It would require
volumes to record the absurdities, the tricks
and lies of all connected with the fraud.
The low absurd character of the pretended
supernatural events connected with the
origin of Mormonism, shows its low vile
origin, and the low, ignorant character of

its originators. The most low and absurd
superstitions of Southern negroes were
eclipsed.

The real originator of Mormonism was
Sydney Rigdon, who only intended to use
Smith as his tool, to get the fraud before
the world, as a miracle and revelation,
through his stolen peep-stone. But Smith
proved to be a deeper schemer than even
Rigdon. When Rigdon allowed Joe to go
before the world first, to usher in, and con-
duct the movements for months, as its
prophet, and came in only as a convert, he
gave away his chances to be leader. He
often tried in Kirtland, in Missouri, inNau-
voo, to get the coveted place of leader and
make Smith subordinate; but he had put
the citadel in Smith's hands and entered
only as a recruit, and Smith was too cunning
for him to succeed in ousting him. Smith
always held Rigdon in the position he as-
sumed when he embraced Mormonism open-
ly, that of a mere convert, and never
allowed him to assume his real position,
the author of the whole fraud ; and the one
who intended to be leader, and only in-
tended to allow Smith to act as author and
leader for a short time, in order to start
the fraud. Rigdon intended to use Smith
as a cat's paw to rake the roasted chestnuts
ort of the stove of public censure and criti-
cism ; but the cat proved to be a shrewder
imp than even the one trying to use him.
He kept the chestnuts and threw to the
originator of the scheme, only the shells.
Rigdon 's whole career in Mormonism was .
an apish chattering and quarrelling to
regain what he had given away.

Since the discussion began I have come in
possession of the following facts : James
Jetfery, of Churchville, Harford Co. Mary-
land, in a statement dictated to Rev. Calvin
D. Wilson, in the presence of his wife, de-
clares : "Forty years ago I was in business
in St. Louis. The Mormons then had their
temple in Nauvoo, 111, I had business
transactions with them. I knew Sydney
Rigdon. He acted as general manager of
the business of the Mormons (with me).
IRigdon told me several times in his conver-
sations with me, that there was in the print-
ing office with which he was connected in
Ohio, a manuscript of the Rev. Spaulding'fl
tracing the origin of the Indian race from
the lost tribes of Israel. This manuscript
was in the office several years. He was fa-
miliar with it. Spaulding wanted it pub-
lished, but had not the means to pay for the
printing. He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith used
to look over the manuscript and read it on
Sundavs ; Rigdon said Smith took the
manuscript and said, "I'll print it." «nd
he went off to Palmyra, N. Y."

On the 14th of September, 1844, Sydney
Rigdon, who was trying to assume Joe

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

rf57

Smith's place as President and Prophet,
was called on by a committee of the twe-ve
apostles. In the conversation with tliem,
he told them that they dare nor reject him.
If they did, he would reveal their secrets.
Oil the l.Tth and 16th Brighani Young and
others denounced him for such threats.
They rejected him and expelled him Sep-
tember 16th.

In an article in the ^^Thnes and Seasons,^^
of May 1st, 1845, reprinted from the Kala-
mazoo Gazette, and signed E. M. Webb,
Rigdon is bitterly denounced tor his expos-
ures of Mormonism.

In a conversatfon with Dr. Silas Shep-
pard, some time after his return to Pennsyl-
vania from Nauvoo, iu response to Dr.
Sheppard's request that he would now,
since he had, as he declared to Dr. Shep-
pard, renounced all connection with Mor-
monism forever, tell him, Dr. Sheppard,
the truth. In regard to the Book of Mormon,
Rigdon replied, "Dr, Sheppard, my mguth
is forever sealed on that subject."

Rigdon lived for long years after this, in
ease. His family flourished in business.
He wrote much, would talK on all subjects
but Mormonism, and died, and as far as
the world knows 'gave no sign." Observ-
ing neighbors think that he was a pension-
er of Mormonism, and that his family have
profited largely by selling his papers to the
Mormons, or in bribes to keep them a
secret^

Now 'et us -iollate the facts. I. Rigdon
becomes intimare with Mr. Jeffery, while
acting for the Mormons in business trans-
actions JI. Rigdon threatens the Mor-
mons in the Fall of 1844, that he would di-
vulge theirsecrets, if they reject him in his
attempt to be President. III. Tliey reject
him. [V. On his way back East, and
while in St. Louis, he fulfills his threats,
and tell.'* Mr. Jettery that Spaulding's man-
uscript was taken to a printing office. That
he got it from the ottice. That he and
Smith examined it together. That he gave
it to Smith to publish. V About the
same time Mormon papers are denouncing
him bitterly for his exposures. VI, A
change comes over the spirit of his dream.
He announces that he has renounced Mor-
monism forever, but that his mouth is for-
ever sealed in regard to matters that he had
been freely making public.

The key to the matter is, Rigdon had
failed to "get a party to follow him. He
could make nothing out of Mormonism.
He began to tell their secrets as he declared
they would. Mormon agents visited him.
rhey r-ould not let him talk any more.
They offered him two alternatives. Money
andsilence, or Danite vengeance. Rigdon
had sent Danites on their murderous errands
too often not to know what that meant.
He took the bribe, and his mouth was for-
ever sealed. He lived in ease, with no vis-
ible means of support. His family have
been successful, with no tangible means of
success. Rigdon aved on Mormon money,
paid to keep him silent. His family have
made a good thing out of it, in accepting

hush money. Rigdon lived for years, au
oatspokon atheist and infidel, and died one.
Liike most Mormons who are not dupes, out
knaves, he turned infidel, when the fraud
was no longer profitable.

Sitiney Rigdon Avas like Joe Smith a lazy
youth noted for his extravagant laugunge,
stories and exaggerations and falsehoods.
He used to talk scepticism and was noted
for his fondness for debate After he stole
the Spaulding manuscript he joined the
Baptist church. He told a marvellous ex-
perience and afterwards told the Baptist
Association when they were trying him that
it was all a lie. He manufactured it to get
into the church. He began preaching as
soon as he joined the church and soon began
to plot to oust the old pastor of the church
and get his place and came very near
ruining the church. Failing- in this and
having lost the confidence of the Baptists
in Pennsylvania, be went to Ohio and
joined the church in Warren. After preach-
in ? here for two years he returned to
Pittsburg. He remained here nearly two
years. He was expelled from the Baptist
church and preached a short time to his
malcontentsin the court house. He resumed
working at his trade, a tanner, and began
to fix up the manuscript he had stolen from
the printing office. During this time he re-
sumed his infidelity and talked it openly
and freely as old citizens of Pittsourg and
Pennsvlv'ania testify. On a visit to a rela-
tive near where the author's father had
charge of a stone yard, he used to spend
hours in sitting near the author's father and
talking his doubts and scepticism.

In 1826, while he was living inBainbridge,
Ohio, be was invited to preach the funeral
sermon of Warner Goodall in Mentor by the
Baptist church who knew him as brother-
in-law of Adamson Bentley, a well known
Baptist preacher, and that he had been a
Baptist preacher. He did so and was in-
vited to preach for the church. He laid to
one side his scepticism and preached for
them and went with the church info the
Disciple movement. As Baptist and Disci-
ple preacher he was noted tor his spread-
eagle eloquence and ability to get up revi-
val excitements. He had been hurt m
youth and it left him with a tendency To
epileptic spells. He would often while
preaching, especially in revival excitements,
have such soells and see visions and swoon,
have trances, etc. This tendency caused
his preaching to be wild, visionary and
extravagant.' He was regarded as a cun-
ning, ambitious schemer, noted for his
extravagant talk and actions, his exaggera-
tions and untruth, and as destitute of truth-
fulness and moral principle. His preaching
attracted the visionary and fanatical. He
carefully indoctrinated them with his ideas
while Smith was getting out his book. He
made a confident of P. P. Pratt who let his
brother Orson into the secret, and these
four, Smith, Rigdon and the Pratts, consti-
tuted the brains of Mormonism in the start.
Two were known to be infidels before they
went into Mormonism. tlie two originators

358

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE,

— Rigdon and Smith. The other two were
probably no better.

It will be bootless for my opponent to
undertake to deny the statements of the
Palmyra and Manchester people. Since
entering- oa this debate the speaker has
visiied Palmyra and obtained certificates of
Col E. B Dewy, Danrord Booth, Ezra
Pierce, Samantha Payne, M. G. Smith, J. H.
Gilbert, that the names attached to the
Palmyra and Manchester statements were
the names of real persons. That the char-
acter of all for veracity was good. That
among the names were the best citizens of
Manchester and Palmyra. That a list of
better names could not have been obtained.
That the statements were the universal
opinion of all who knew Smith, his family
and associates. That such has ever been
the opinion and such is the opinion to-day.
Acquaintances have testified to the high
character of Willard Chase, to the veracity
of Ingersoll and all others whose names are
attached to the affidavits published in
Howe's book. We have proved the affida-
vits to be genuine.

We have the statement of M. G. Smith
and survivors that they signed the state-
ments. It will do Mormons no good to
jabber "lies, frauds," etc. Since their sys-
tem is all lies and frauds, they judge other
persons by themselves. No fact in history
can be more fully sustained by human evi-
dence than the low, dishonest trickery,
lying, fraudulent origin of Mormonism. It
began in fraud for gain, and was carried on
in fraud for gain. In Kirtland, Smith,
Rigdon and the leaders borrowed money,
bought goods on credit, started a " wild-cat
bank" without a charter, and without
capital, built houses, a big temple, laid out
lots, planned a great city, built mills, fao
tories, tanneries, started a big land specula-
tion, paid more for land in 1834-5-6 than it
has ever been worth since, dressed like
princes, lived like nabobs, gulled their
dupes, swindled the public with their
fraudulent paper, and notes, until the
swindling bubble burst and left hundreds
defrauded and ruined. Rigdon and Smith
were arrested for banking without a charter
and were fined one thousand dollars each.
The printing offi'ce and other property were
sold to pay the execution. That night the
printing office, the Methodist church, and an-
other building were set on fire. As a bli nd a
pretended attempt to fire the temple was
shown to the committee who investigated
the incendiarism. Rigdon and Smi.th fied
from Kirtland the 10th of January, 1838, in
the night, to eseape arrest for swindling,
and were chased by the officer's posse over
one hundred mile's. This is one miracle
that Mormon leaders wrought in Kirtland.
They got large sums of money on credit,
and by fraudulent issues of w*ild-cat ; and
succeeded in skipping out to Kirtland be-
tween two days, and escaped the otYieers of
justice and the penitentiary. That miracle
I will admit. There are Mormon admis-
sions that corroborate these charges. P.
P. Prattstates that when Smith moved from

New York to Pennsylvania, his goods were
searched twice by an officer, Pratt says, to
find the plates. As there could not be any
warrant obtained to search for the plates,
such an idea is absurd ; and as a search
warrant to look for stolen goods is the only
process under which an vofficer could search
his goods, they were searched for stolen
property. Mrs. Smith admits that officers
searched his father's house about the same
time. Smith says that he and Rigdon fled
for their lives in the night from Kirtland,
and were chased by assassians over one
hundred miles. As the people of Northern
Ohio do not do such deeds, they were
chased by officers to arrest them for swin-
dling. The^fraudulent swindling transact-
ions of Mormon leaders in Kirtland are well
known. No one dares deny them in Kirt-
land. An eye witness told the speaker
this incident: Rigdon was preaching in
the temple one Sunday urging the people to
"give the devil his due — to pay him in his
own coin." A son of Belial arose and
shouted, "will the devil take the Mormon
wild cat?" Though out of order the
question was pertinent. Mormon wild cat
was the currency of the father of lies, and
no one knew better than Rigdon what the
devil would accept, for no one was bettc
acquaited with him.

In Missouri, Mormonism ran the same
course as in Kirtland. They filled all the
offices with Mormons, trampled under foot
the rights of others and undertook to rule
by violence. A revelation of Joe Smiili
taught them "Behold, it is written in my
laws they are forbidden to get in debt to
their enemies. But behold, it is not said at
any time that the Lord should not take what
he pleases and pay as seemeth him good."
(They can steal). " Wherefore as ye are
agents, ami as ye are on the Lord's errand,
and whatsoever ye do according to the will
of the Lord is the Lord's business, and he
hath sent you to provide for his saints."
Arvard, Peck and Corrill testified before
judge King that they heard Smith justify
taking the property of the Gentiles. In the
same court Arvard, Hinkle and Rathburn
testified to robbery by Mormons, under
their teachers, and with Smith's knowledge.
The Sunday before the disturbances in
Davis County, Smith said that all who
Avould not take up arms should be driven
out as enemies. Kigdon said they ought to
be set on horses and forced into the fight
with bayonets. Rigdon said their property
would he taken and given to those who
went. Smith told Robinson to whip those
who spoke against the presidency. Smith
declared that those who spoke against the
presidency should leave the country or die.
Slade testifies that Rigdon pledged a com-
pany to kill any one \vho should attempt to
desert the INIormons. Also that Rigdon
declared that a man had been murdered,
and that any one who told of it should be
killed.

Phelps testifies that Rigdon pledged a
company to kill deserters, and throw them
into the brush, and g-ive them no burial

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

359

except in turkey buzzards' guts. The infi-
delity and irreligion of tliese leaders can be
seen in their talk. Owen testifies that

Smith said that the militia were a d d

set, and God would damn them, and that
God would not notice his cursing such a

d d set. Hinkle declares that Smith

said they were a d d mob, and he would

play hell with their applecarts. In the last
meeting of the council in Nauvoo, which
Smith attended as Mayor, and while urging
them to destroy the "Expositor," Smith
swore like a trooper, as the history of Han-
cock County shows. He was imitating his
early hero. Burroughs, his model Mahom-
med in playing religious impostor, although
an infidel, and when enraged would curse
and swear. Rigdon was an infidel impostor
also, and could talk as we have cited, and
act the ruflfian and cut-throat. It will avail
Mormons nothing to deny these facts, for I
quote from a report of a Committee of the
United States Senate, and published as a
Government document and authority. Mor-
mons denounce such witnesses as liars,
although they were some of their own
leaders. The witnesses testify that Rigdon
and Smith were behind Arvard in organizing
the Danites, and that they knew and ap-
proved of their fiendish acts. Their own
declarations prove it.

Mormons have denounced as apostates,
Rigdon, the author of the fraud, and first
vice-president ; F. G. William, second vice-
president, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer
and Martin Harris the three witnesses;
Warren Parish, one of the first seventy;
Leonard Rich and Sylvester Smith, two of
the seven presidents of the first seventy;
J. F.Boynton and Luke Johnson, two of the
twelve apostles ; Stephen Burnett and Zerah
Oral of the seventy; W. A- Cowdery and
Cyrus Smaling, presiding high priests It
is safe to say that from the start in Kirtland
until they left Nauvoo, one-third of their
apostles, priests and councillors have been
denounced as apostates. It prove? that
these leaders were knaves who went into it
to get power and gain, and when it was no
longer to their interest they renounced the
fraud. The worst exposures of Mormonism
have been by its leaders, tliose highest in
authority. As we have shown the real
author of the system, exposed his work in
getting it up, and its fraudulent origin. A
system that has been abandoned by its
real author, and denounced by him as a
fraud, that has been denounced by one
third of Its leaders as a fraud, and that has
been lead by scoundrels, if the declaration
of the Church against these apostate leaders
be true, is a fraud of the vilest character.
We accept what such leaders say of it, and
what it says of them. It is pot calling
kettle black. Villains have fallen out and
honest people learn the truth.

Mormonism was gotten up for gain to its
infidel leaders. The Book of Doctrines and
Covenants says, " Whoso receiveth you re-
ceiveth me, and the same will feed you and
clothe you, and give you money, and he who
does not these things is not my disciple."

There you have it. You cannot be a disci-
ple unless you give money. You will be
damned if you do not. Again: "It must
needs be that ye save all the money that
ye can and gain all that ye can in right-
eousness." Again: " It is wisdom in me
that my servant Martin Harris should be
an example unto the church, inlaying his
moneys before the bishop of the church.
And this is a law unto every man that coin-
eth unto this land, to receive an inherit-
ance. And he shall do it with his money
as the law directs." Again : " And let all
the moneys that can be spared, it matter-
eth not unto me whether it be little or
much, be sent up into the land of Zion,
unto those I have appointed to receive it."
Again: "And let all preachers who have
no families who receive moneys, send it up
unto the bishop in Zion, or to the bishop in
Kirtland, to be consecrated for the bring-
ing forth of the revelations, and the print-
ing thereof; and the establishing of Zion."
Again: "Behold this is my will, even ob-
taining moneys, even as I have com-
manded." Again: "He that sendeth up
moneys to the land of Zion shall receive au
inheritance in this world. His work shall
follow him also, a reward in the world to
come." Money, money, money. Again:
" I command thee that tliou shalt not covefc
thine own property, but impart it freely to
to printing of the Book of Mormon which
contains the truths of the world of God."
Yea verily. Impart a portion of thy prop-
erty, even a portion of thy lands, and all
save the support of thy family." Joe was not
to make gain out of the fraud, we are told.
Listen: " It is meet that my servant .loseph
Smith should have a house built in which
to live and translate." And again: " It is
meetthatmy servant Sydney Rigdon should
live as it seemeth him good, inasmuch as
he keepeth my commandments." Again :
" Provide for him (Joe) food and raiment
and whatsoever heneedeth." Again : " In
corporeal labor thou (Joe) slialt not have
strength, for this is not thy calling." Joe
was born tired. Labor never could call
loud enough for him to hear. Read the
lying revelation of January 19th, 1841, in
which Joe is to have a tavern built for him
in which to make money, and it is to be his
and his children's forever. Oh, no, Joe
was not to make gain out of it. The apos-
tles had one Judas who carried the bag.
Mormons have their tithing arrangement,
and have their apostle who carries the bag.
My opponent is the lineal descendant and
successor of that apostle who held the bag.
Does he serve Mormonism for naught?

Mormonism began with a backslidden
infidel preacher, Solomon Spaulding. It
was taken up, by another back-slidden
infidel preacher, Sydney Rigdon. It was
o-iven to the world by an admirer of Payne,
an infidel, Joe Smith. Its leaders have
largely infidels, who used the fraud to dupe
the^sillyfor gain. When they abandon it,
they go out into infidelity. Rigdon lived a
confirmed infidel after *he abandoned it,
and died an atheist. It is meet that it

3C0

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

should be defended in Kirtland by a re-
hash of infidel attacks on the Bible, when
its fraudulent, anti-scriptural character is
exposed. We have had bitter infidel
attacks on the origin of the Books of the
Bible, on the accuracy of its text, on the
character of inspired men, on its statements
and teachings. This has been applauded
by the infidels in the audience. They know
their man. they know the work he is doing
he is doing their work. Mormonism ana

infidelity, like Herod and Pilate, make
friends to crucify the religion of Christ. My
opponent challenged me to debate what lie
failed to meet in this debate. Will he, as
an honest infidel, affirm his attacks on the
Bible in debate. I will meet him then
under his true colors. It would be out of
order to reply to his infidelity, introduced
out of order in a debate, iu which the Bible
is the standard.

MR. KELLEY'S SEVENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen: — The audience can readily
see the absurdity of my opponent's position
in claiming that the Priesthood was not given
to the Christian ministry, and that there
never were put two High Priests of the
order of Melchizedek, viz., Melchizedek and
Christ. Moses says, 'the Lord j'our God
shall raise up a prophet like unto me."
This language points out the official char-
acter of Christ ; that he was to be like
unto Moses; and it is emphatically stated
that Christ was a Melchizedek priest, and
for hioi to be like unto Moses, Moses also
must have been a Melchizedek priest. It is
definitely declared that he was a Priest.
My opponent confesses the truth when he
says that Moses was not an Aaronic priest ;
but he then goes on and makes the ridicu-
lous statement that he was not a Melchiz-
edek priest either ; and when I pressed him
to the wall, showing there were only two
lines, he endeavored to answer by craft and
wit, saying that it did not follow because a
man was not an American, that he must be
a Irishman ; that he might be a Dutchman.
But in the case of the Priesthood, there is
no chance for a third party; there are but
two lines of priesthood mentioned in the
Bible at all ; hence, in this case it is either
the American or Irishman there is no
show for the Dutchman at all, if he wishes
to represent it in that way. My opponent
puts himself in the position of saying that
Muses was neither an Aaronic or Melchiz-
edek priest, but at the same time he must
admit that he was a priest. But the Bible
speaks ot but two kinds of priests, and
Moses must of necessity have belonged to
one line or the other, and he was an offici-
ating priest before an Aaronic priest was
ever heard of, hence, the logic comes with
all the force of certainty that he was a Mel-
chizedek priest, and this effectually knocks
his Dutchman out of line.

Christ as a Melchizedek High Priest
ordained a ministry set them apart con-

secrated them: that he might send then3
forth to preach. When he ordained then,
he must have conferred on them the Mel-
chizedek priesthood, for Christ held thai
authority, and the office of an Apostle was
not in the Aaronic Priesthood. Men were
called in the same way to offices in the
Priesthood in the christian dispensation,
that they were under the law, viz: by revela-
tion from God; hence, Paul says, "As God
hath distributed to every one, as the Lord
has called every one, so ordain I in all the
churches." Ordaining was the conferring
of the office of the Priesthood upon them.
Hence, when God spoke through the
prophets at Antioch, to separate Barna-
bas and Saul to the ministry, they did so
by the laying on of hands. Peter makes it
definite that the Melchizedek Priesthood
was in the christian church.

" Ye are a Royal Priesthood." I Peter 2:9.

Melchizedek was king even on earth, and
Christ who holds the royal authority is an
Apostle, High Priest and King, and j^re-
sides over his own House, the church. He
is to reign as king of kings and Lord of
Lords, holding the royal priesthood.

Ye are "an Holy Priesthood to offer up
spiritual sacrifices." 1 Peter 2:5. The
church of Christ was a holy one, and
"Royal Priesthood to offer up spiritual
sacrifices." Yet my opponent has the
audacious assumption toassert that neither
the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood
were over conferred in the Christian church.
It is sheer nonsense and stupidity to talk
about a Priesthood and no priests, or priests
and no Priesthood. It was the belief in a
conferred authority in the Christian church
that gave rise to ecclesiastical confiicts all
along down from the Apostles to the pres-
ent day. It was in view of this that scores
of Episcopalian ministers in England went
to the Catholic church, and were re-baptized
and re-ordained, believing in the necessity
of authority in the church, and that if it
was to be found any where, so far as they

TflE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

361

knew, it was amoug the Catholics. But
my opponent and his church, are all kings
and priests, anyway ; men and women, old
and young, with or without an ordination,
just as it suits their fancy, and to cap the
climax of absurdity, they imagine that they
are reigning now. Tertulian says. " It was
customary among lieretics to confound the
offices of the clergy and laity together."
St. Jerome observes, "They (the early
christians) reckoned that to be no church,
which had no priests." Eusebius says,
" Origin received the ordination to the
PrJes^Aood, at Cesarea," page 243. Braden
further says that Christ abideth a priest
continually, therefore, no one could receive
the Melchizedels Priesthood after him. If
this position is true, then Christ was never
a MelchizedekHigh Priest, for Melchizedek,
who was before Christ in the earthly career
was made a High Priest continually: —
" Abideth a priest continually," says Paul.
Heb. 7:3. Jesus as I have shown is an
Apostle, and so abideth, yet we have many
others. But how is the church a Royal
Priesthood? By all of the people being
priests or kings? No; it is in the sense
expressed in Ex. 19 : 6 ; — "Ye shall be unto
me a kingdom of priests, and an holy
nation." Yet all were not priests, but cer-
tain ones were consecrated to the office of
the Priesthood, and performed the services
of the same, and thiis served the people.
They were called a kingdom of priests,
because they had the Priesthood and priests
among them ; and it is in this same sense
that Peter called the church of God on
earth a " Royal Priesthood." Braden is
neither a king or a priest, as he has affirmed
before this audience ; neither is any other
person in his chureh.

All of the sons ofZedekiah, king of Judah,
were not slain by the king of Babylon as
claimed by my opponent. The Bible does
not say all of them were slain. It states
that they slew the sons of Zedekiah before
his eyes. 2 Kings, 25:7. To have slain all
of his sons would have made Ezekiel a false
prophet; for he prophecied :— "Thus saith
the Lord God ; I will take the highest
branch of the highest cedar, and will set it ;
I will crop off" from the top of his young
twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon a
high mountain and eminent. In the moun-
tain of the height ofisrael will I plant it.
Ezekiel 17:22, 23.

The cedar represents the kingdom of
Israel; the highest branch was the reign-
ing king, Zedekiah ; the tender young twig,
represents one of tiie kings' sons, who was
to be placed "upon a high mountain (in a
goodly land) and eminent, and it shall
bring forth boughs and bear fruit and be a
goodly cedar," etc.

The prophet said on this continent, "Will
ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not
slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and
do you not behold that the seed of Zedekiah
is with us, and they were driven out of
Jerusalem?" Mosiah 11:12. and Hele-
man 2:27. So Ezekiel's prophecy had its
fulfillment by one of Zedekiah 's sons coming

to America and aiding in establishing a
colony.

The church has been criticised as not
being after the apostolic pattern because it
has in its organization a chief Presiding
Apostle or High Priest or Presiding Elder,
over the whole church. But this is in har-
mony rather than in conflict with the New
Testament.

Dr. Wm. Smith says concerning the
apostle James, (the less). "From henceforth
we always find him equal, or in his own de-
partment superior, to the very Chiefest
apostles, Peter, John and Paul. For by this
time he had been appointed to preside over
the infant church in its most important
centre, in a position equivalent to that of
Bishop, [High Priest or President.] The
pre-eminence is evident throughout the
after history of the apostles." Smith's
Bible Dictionary, page 237. — (Acts 12: 17 ;
15: 13, 19 ; 21: 18 ; and Gal. 2: 9.)

While Christ was on earth the apostles
disputed as to who would occupy the chief
seat after his death or ascension. Eusebious
informs us that James occupied the chief
seat, or that of President. Hence he pre-
sided at the conference in Jerusalem when
there was a large representation of the
church from abroad present, including
Peter, John and Paul, and gave decision
upon the most important matters brought
before the conference. We have no history
of this apostle for ten years after the ascen-
sion of the Savior, when we ti*id him pre-
siding at Jerusalem over the whole church,
and Peter, John and Paul recognize him in
that position.

But again, objects my opponent : "They,
have presidents, vice-presidents, counselors
presiding elders, etc., in their organization."
Nofc as gifts set in the church. These are
but appellative terms deftwing the right of
preceuencein business or govermenf of offi-
cers of the same rank. For illustration:
The especial gifts to qualify one to preside
over the church is that of an Apostle and
Prophet; bat if the party possessing such
gifts was not chosen by the voice of tJie
body to preside, he would not be called the
President, nor be President. K a person
was called by the voice of the body to act in
the office of President, when he did not
have the gifts belonging to that office, he
could not properly disciiarge the duties of
it, any more than an ignorant, and blind,
deaf and dumb man could fill properljrthe
office of President of the United States,
although he would be called President.

The apostle Paul referring to James,
Peter and John, calls them " piMars,"
but pillars was not the designated title
of the especial gifts of these apostles.
James presided at the conference at Je-
rusalem, and was therefore the Presi-
dent, and you can call hhn President James
and the term will convey the true idea of
the office he held in the church, that of an
Apostle, Prophet, or the Presiding Elder of
the entire church there, as he presided over
all other elders.

In my argument last evening I showed

362

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

that the position was untenable and un-
scriptux'al that was held by many, viz., that
God held his lastiiitercourse with the human
family eighteen centuries ago, and that he
would no more speak to his children through
inspired men ; for that he had himself de-
clared by the prophets that he would set
his hand the second time to recover Israel
and the dispersed of Judah, which time
was after the falling away from the truth
as it was established by Jesus and the apos-
tles, and to support this quoted to you some
twenty-three passages of Scripture directly
in point as proof; but lam met with the
accustomed dodge in reply, that they have
not the least application whatever to the
sul:»ject — not the slightest; oh, no! My
opponent can goon with a long statement
containing naught but confusion, I do not
spy argument, for it is not, to show you
that all inspired men and all communica-
tion between God and man was limited to
the days of the apostles ; and he judges
it germain to the question, although he has
not a single passage from the word of God
to support the theory ; but if I take up pas-
sage after passage, writer after writer,
prophecy after prophecy, and read to you
that the Lord ivill have inspired servants
after that time, and "plead with them face
to face" — communicate with them as with
Moses — that he will send again his angel
with "the everlasting gospel to preach to
them that dwell, on the earth — to every
nation, kindred, tongue and people in the
hour of judgment and retribution in the
earth, and call upon his servants to make
known the same to the people ; that as he
did in the days of Noah, the time of Lot,
and the first century of the Christian era,
so shall it be at his second coming, and that
in that time his hand shall be revealed, his
power manifest and his ensign lifted up for
the nations to behold, I amansvvered with :
"They have not the slightest bearing upon
the question." No; very good talk upon
the question of the gathering of the Jews,
but no application here. Why has it not?
Simply because it has not; that is the wise
reason ottered, and you are expected to
swallow it, without knowing or asking the
reason why. The question under consider-
ation is, as to whether the church I am rep-
resenting is in fact the church of God and
accepted with him ; and it occurs to me to
be very applicable whether he has anything
to do with it or not. Whether it is estab-
lished in accordance with the prediction of
the prophets or not; whether his hand is
revealed in its establishment or not ; and
whether the gospel of the kingdom, a gos-
pel containing God's word, the ancient faith
and the gifts of his Holy Spirit is preached
as a witness or not.

And he turns around and would feign
make you believe that some man was smart
enough to get all of this up; have perfect
arrangement and time with all of the pro-
phecies, and even preach the truth of God
in order to deceive the people. By this
method of assailing the faith he deliber-
ately throws away the rule laid down in

the Bible: "He that abideth in the doc-
trine of Christ he hath both the Father and
the Son." "He that is of God heareth
God's words; and "No man knoweth the
things of God but the Spiritof God." Thus
he stands convicted of discarding the stand-
ard and setting up for opposition to my
arguments the methods of ridicule, abuse,
slander and vituperation that Satan used
against the preaching of Noah ; that he
met Jesus, Peter and Paul with from the
outset of their work, and with which he so
enraged the people of London that they
exultingly dragged Mr. Wesley through its
streets by the hair of the head in order to
ease their consciencey.

That is one way of meeting men, but it is
not, nor never was the manner of him "who
spake as never man spake ;" neither of his
servants iq any age. Why? says my oppo-
nent Mohammed and the meanest men of
earth said some good things. What has
that to do with the rule laid down by .Tesus
and his apostles as to trying his servants?
I have asked you time and again if you
would abide by the word of God or discard
it and abide by your prejudices. If Moham-
med filled this rule and did, in his teach-
ings,' abide in the doctrine of Christ, then
God was Avith him, and you cannot gainsay
the proposition so long as you believe in the
teachings of Jesus. But Mohammed did
not abide in the doctrine of Christ; did not
even claim to; and consequently he was
not what he claimed to be when tried by
that rule, although he may have taught
many good things. Satan taught and quoted
from the Bible when he tempted Jesus, and
said, "It is written he shall give his a Is
charge concerning thee;" but here ht s -p-
ped ; he had taken a little Bible, bu' ould
not abide in the remainder. Consequently
he was not of God, for he "abode not in the
truth."

So Mr. Campbell had a little Bible and
he clung to that well: "baptism in water
for the remission of sins ;" wherever he got
it makes no ditference, as to this contro-
versy ; the trouble with him was he stop-
ped there and failed toabide in the doctrine
of Christ; for he did not teach "the bap-
tism of the spirit." Paul also taught
besides this: "By one spirit are we all
baptized into one body." And John con-
firms it with: "For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word and the Holy Ghost ; and these three
are one; And there are three that bear
witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water
and the Blood : and these three agree in
one."

Now, if the church I represent does not
abide in the doctrine of Christ it is not
Jesus' church and not accepted with him,
as a church, although there may be good
men and women therein who are doing
good and accepted with him that far. But
if its doctrines and teachings are in har-
mony with the doctrine of Christ, then we
are sowing the good seed of the kingdom,
audit is his church and accepted of him;
and it makes no difi'erence whether there be

THE BRADEN AND IvELLEY DECATE.

3G3

some bad men and those who take advan-
tage of the true faith to work evil or not.
The kingdom of heaven — the church — was
likened unto "a net cast into the sea that
should gather both the good and the bad."
A nd it ought not to surprise any one to tind
in it some bad as well as good. Let me give
you a further illustration: "Only a short
time ago I took up the "Truth Seeker," pub-
lished in New York, and read the account
of a Disciple preacher down here in Ohio,
who had been carrying on a religious meet-
ing with much success, but who, before the
close of the revival was taken by the officers
as a thief and a burglar. What fairness or
argument do you think it would prove for
me to hold up this example to you and say :
Ah! yes, here is your Christianity and un-
dertake to condemn his entire church by it.
So I might enumerate the instances by the
dozen in every church or denomination,
but what would it prove ? Nothing what-
ever as against the denomination, unless I
further showed that this work was done in
carrying out the principles and faith of the
denomination.

In the first age of Christianity, many,
after receiving Jesus' words and faith,
turned away and Ifi-ouglit forth in their
lives evil fruits ; turned to be thieves, and
liars, and adulterers, and general adepts of
crime and all manner of lasciviousness : as
witness the thief on the cross ; the traitor
of the twelve; the wicked of Corinth, 5
chapter, 1 Cor,, who revealed in debauch-
ery and sin ; the polygamous followers of
Nicolas, one of the seven, chosen for his
wisdom, justice and being blessed with the
Holy Ghost. Acts 6, and Rev. 2 : 6 and 15.
The* detestable things practiced in Thya-
tira; the bigotry, selfishness and barreness
of the church of the Laodicean s ; and of
others of the churches of Asia, and it seems
that these were the only ones that came
near enough to the truth in the Revelator's
time to chxim even a notice of instruction
, from Jesus.

But by reason of this turning from the
faith and practicing evil of those who were
once in the faith shall I say, or will he say,
that therefore Jesus was a bad teacher.
Peter's doctrine's were not the truth and
Paul's exhortations and preaching were not
in harmony with morality and decency?
No, sir. Such a conclusion is monstrous,
illegitimate, absurd, unless I further goon,
and show that in carrying out these things
they were also abiding in the principles and
doctrines taught by these Avorthies.

Oh, but I must not make this argument,
he savs. Why? You are attacking the
Bible! Who is attacking the Bible? The
one that makes an argument in accordance
with the Bible, or the one who when his
argument is applied to the Bible is found to
be working against it? Throughout the dis-
cussion I have appealed to the Bi ble and that
which harmonizes with Bible teachings for
my proofs. My opponent has from the out-
set refused to meet me upon this fair, true
and agreed ground of controversiy, but
instead, has throughout the discussion from

the very first night, resorted for his argu-
ment to ridicufe, methods of villifying,
slander, obscene remarks, old wives' tales,
fables, lying stories, which, although start-
ing from nothing, soon, like the story of the
" three black crows," when traced back are
found to be utterly foolish and ridiculous.
Take an illustration :— I assisted in running
one of these stories down at one time,
through a number of the very persons he
has mentioned as witnesses : Wm. Bryant,
David Booth, Ezra Pierce, Orin Reed, Abel
Chase, Orlando Saunders, J. H. Gilbert, the
Jackawaj'^s, Dr. John Stafit)rd of Rochester,
New York, and Thomas Taylor of Manches-
ter. Twelve persons who were cited as the
persons who knew about the trutii of the
stories told on the Smiths. Tucker and
Howe in their published works against the
Mormons had cited some of the^e same
parties as persons who knew. And what
indeed, could you expect but that I should
be completely astonished, to find that not
a single one of these parties knew a single
material fact against a single one of the
Smith family, or Oliver Cowdery, Martin
Harris or David Whitmer, the parties who,
together with the Smiths, had been most
vilely assaulted and slandered. The story
of the digging for money and the cave will
illustrate what these Avitnesses knew.
When we first began to talk with Mr.
Bryant he said he did not himself know
anything about them, but they had a great
cave over there in the hill where they lived
and reveled all night. He did not know
just where himself but Mr. Booth and
Pierce could tell us all about it. But it is
no use to take the trouble to go and see
them said he, for you can just buy Tucker's
work and get it all. However he directed
us to Mr. Booth's. Calling on Booth, he did
not know a single thing ; but said the cave
was there now, and they used to meet there,
or that was what was told ; he had never
seen the cave, but Squire Pierce knew all
about it. It Avas always " they," that
incomprehensible every body and nobody,
"they." Bryant, nor Booth nor none of
them could tell who " they " Avere, Avhether
Smiths, Cowderys, Harris, the Spaniards
or who? But " they." We went to Squire
Pierce's : Oh, yes ! he could tell us all
about it. He said he lived three miles froTii
them, that he pulled sticks with Joe one
time, he kneAv. He could tell us about the
cave, and digging for money, and counter-
feiting, all about it. The caA-e is right
over there in the hill : We still pressed
him for a particular location ; we told him
Ave wanted to go and see it and look at tho
"sheep bones." At this the old man col-
lapsed. Said he could not find the place,
the cave had fallen in and the sheep bo)ies
were all buried. Not even the spot could
be found. But, he said, Abel Chase Avas in
there once, and he could give us the facts.
We went to this Chase; he said, "No, L
never saw the cave, never saAV them dig
for money. " He sent us to Gilbert and the
Jackawavs. Gilbert did not pretend to
know anything aboutit. We went to the

3G4

THE BKADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Jaekaways ; the Jackaways said, " Yes,
they dug for money. The large holes are
over therein the hill now." But, we asked,
who dug? "They; " — they did not know who
"they" were, but the holes were over there
in the hill. What hill? we asked, the hill
Mr. Smith lived on? No, not where Mr.
Smith lived. How do you know the holes
were made while digging for money ? They
did not know that, 'out they did know
there were some holes over there that
looked as though they had been made by
some body digging, but the holes may have
been from some other cause. But Chase
did say his sister, Sally, had a stone through
which she claimed to see things, and he
thought that she could. Here is the truth
of the matter: it was the opponents of
Smith who claimed to see through the stone
and not Smith. This is the ^^ black croiv
story" duplicated. In this instance we
found there was a man by the name of
Smith once lived there. That was all. Mr.
Smith had the Urim and Thummiu
and never at any time pretended to
use, or that he could use or see things,
or divine or locate money, or property or
anything else through the stone baby's foot
of Sally Chase or anybody else. These are
all the scandalous lies and inventions of
the people.

Take the jumbled mess called affidavits
in Howe's book, the work which I have
proved beyond question to be composed of
false, garbled, perverted passages and state-
ments from our works, deliberately made
to deceive by some one, and what have we?
A thing from the very manner in which it
is written ; the contradictions, and the fact
that the originals were burned as soon as
these pretended copies were put in Howe's
book, that will prevent any man accepting
them who is honestly criticising the work
of Mr. Smith. Braden only read a small
portion of these pretended affidavits. Tho
whole would have floored him without a
notice or criticism from me. Peter IngersoU
is made to say entirely too much; he was
acquainted with all the hog paths and sheep
tracks on the Smith farm ; the cows could
not be milked without Ingersoll's knowl-
edge; and he finds out that they are hiding
their cows in the woods to deceive, and
knew about other peoples' cows that were
hidden; yet in the same aflfidavit he says,
"I told him (Joseph) I would let him have
the money," and he presented Mr. Hale for
security. Mr. Hale presented for security,
yet he was far away in Pennsylvania and
Peter IngersoU had never yaw or heard of
him to this time, except through Joseph
Smith. But Smith would not take his
money, and then IngersoU is made to' say :
Smith told him, "I went to Palmyra and
met that damned fool Martin Harris, and
told him that I had a command to ask the
first honest man I met for fifty dollars in
money, and he gave it to me.

Then he is made to say : That he saw
William after they visited Waterloo and
William said, "w'e do better there than
here ; we were too well known to do much

here." Then take the tale of the frock of
sand, the Canada Bible story, the toll gate
story, the Sun story, raising chests of
money to the top of the ground, the old
man's water-witching and contortions while
Alvin his son witched, notwithstanding
Alvin had been dead then at least two
years, all in this pretended affidavit. Is
there a man under the Sun foolish enough
to believe it?

Take Wm. Stafford's pretended statement
with regard to the "black sheep story," it
is even worse than that of Peter IngersoU,
if possible. His own son Dr. Thomas Staf-
ford says : "I have heard that story, but it
is not true, I was living at home* at that
time. They never stole a sheep from my
father I am sure." Mr. Orlando Saunders
who proved to be the best acquainted with
the Smith family of any party living any-
where near Manchester or Palmyra, New
York, being their near neighbor, says they
were honest, industrious and upright, and
the only thing that could be said tr'uth fully
against them was that they were very poor
and worked for a living. And the Presby-
terian minister who went around for atfida-
vits did not get a different story from him
either.

This Gilbert tried to get his brother,
Lorenzo Saunders, wlio was only 9 years of
age in 1830, to swear that he saw Sidney
Rigdon at Smiths' in 1827, and he refused
to make the statement; and yet, Braden
has reported it in this discussion as though
it was true and that he had his affidavit to
this effect. I have notii^ed invariably one
thing during this discussion and that is
that a story never loses in size after it
reaches Braden's hands, and altliough it is
but a mere rumor, he tells it with all the
avidity and positiveneas that belongs to
the statement of facts.

Then there is the long pretended state-
ment of Willard Chase which condemns
itself if he would read it all, and so of
Parley Chase, David Stafford, Henry Harris,
Abigail and Lucy Harris, Joshua Stafford.
This Stafford family were whales to testify,
they, like Howe, were mad Inecause some of
their relations were Latter Day Saints, and
they wanted to do something lest tiie people
might think they were leaning that way.
That would be such a disgrace, you know.
Then there is Nichols, Capron, Stoddard,
Ford, Th. P. Baldwin, yes, their disinter-
ested judge, mixed in with these slanderers
of Mr. Smith's family ; when the same man
just before the removal of the family from
New York went and persuaded the old lady
Smith to come to his house and take care of
and nurse his wife through along sickness.
Then to cap the climax Braden introduces
his 51 witnesses, this Baldwin being one,
and makes them all say: "Martin Harris
was a man who had a handsome property
and in matters of business his word was
considered good." Yet he has continually
assaulted this same man's character
throughout this controversy. They did not
like Harris' religion, and that was all that
could be said against him ; but aa all of the

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

365

others of these Avicked, false, corrupt and
slanderous statements they are made to
say : '•Hhey were considered,'^ so and so.

The following is the statement set out by
Braden's 51 witnesses:

" And in reference to all with whom we
were acquainted ; that have embraced Mor-
monism from this neighborhood; we are
compelled to say they were very visionary,
and most of them destitute of moral charac-
ter, and witho"ut influence in this commu-
nity ; and this may account why they were
permitted to go on with their impositions
undisturbed."

Did you ever hear such wise conclusions?
Because they were destitute of moral char-
acter and influence they were permitted to
go on undisturbed ; but if tliey had had a
good moral character and a good influence
that neighborhood would have disturbed
them. Well, I think myself they would
have been, if these 51 men ever signed that
statement. This is on the same ground
that the Campbellites over about Hiram put
their claim for disturbing Smith and Rig-
don with tar and feathers, I suppose. Their
own history states Rigdon had a ^roodmorai
influence. Next I turn to his new witness,
Jeffries, who got acquainted with Rigdon
in 1844, when Rigdon did the business for
the Mormons in Nauvoo, so he says; but Rig-
don did not do the business for them
neither in 1844, 1843 or any other time when
they were in Nauvoo. He was in poor health
when at Nauvoo, and did but little of any-
thing then, except to act as Postmaster, and
in 1844 he lived in Pittsburg, and was in
charge of the church in Pittsburg in the year
1844. He never told JeflTries any such thing at
any time, and never at any time in his lite
claimed or pretended to claim he ever knew
anything about Joseph Smith until after
October, 1830. I have read to you liis own
published letters over bis own signature;
not what his enemies said about him, and
he lived and died firm in the faith, claiming
that he was the proper head of the church
after the death of the other two Presidents,
as he was the second counsellor to the
President.

Braden can not, as he states, bring old
citizens of Kirtland who Avill testify to his
stuff. I have challenged him from the first
to do so, and he has not put a single one on
tlae stand. He called in one of his own
men, a Campbellite preacher, Mr. Moss,
who lives far away from Kirtland, and that
did him no good. I have lived in Kirtland
for nearly a year, and I have j'^et to meet
the first old citizen who knows anything
against the honesty of Rigdon, Harris,
Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery or David
AVhitmer, and I have made it a point to
talk with all I have met on this subject;
and only last evening when he had made
the statement that he could prove so and
so about these men, an old gentlemen who
was never in any way connected with the
Saints, came to me and said, " It is a false-
hood. He can't do it. I have lived here
for fifty years, and was acquainted with
those men, and he slarders them." There

are men here who have heard those stories
and wlio can repeat them, but what
evidence is this ? I have heard stories too,
ever since I was ten years old, about Joseph
Smith and others, and usually they have
been proven to befalse. If Braden is telling
the truth about what he can prove here
about these men, why does he have to call
his audience, — who do not agree with me
in religion, " Danites and clackers," because
they repudiate these false and slanderous
assertions ?

We have a Justice of the Peace here in
Kirtland, and if you want to make your
contest on that kind of evidence, we will
set an hour for the bringing of testimony
to-morrow, and bring our witnesses and
have them sworn. I am ready to present
witnesses with you on these points. But
the Kirtland bank, that was a failure, he
says. Was it the only one in Ohio at that
time that failed ? No, there were dozens.
It was in the time of the " wild cat" bank-
ing system in Ohio and other states, and
the hard times which came on in 1836 and
1837-8, property sunk in values, and the
banks wont under everywhere. In the
State of Illinois, where my father lived, a
man could not get cash for labor at any
price, and formerly well to do men could
not meet their taxes even. In this time
the Kirtland bank went with the others,
except, it did not swindle the poor. Besides
the hard times being against the Kirtland
bank, there was also an organized oppo-
sition to it by those opposed to the religion
of the Saints, which tended to much more
cripple it. The Saints when they came
here paid good prices for whatever they
bought; mortgaged their farms and lands
thus bought to secure the balance of the
purchase price on them in many instances,
and the hard times coming on, they were
forced to sacrifice their places and pay
their debts ; this they did, and he thinks it
was awful wicked. Does the subsequent
history of these people show that they
could not succeed in business as well as
other people? Notwithstanding the fact
that their properties were taken from them
by mobs, and they were driven from their
homes, the history shows they were equal
to all the emergencies, and in knowledge,
wealth, honesty, integrity of heart, and the
true worship of God, th6y were the peers
of any other people.

Smith and Rigdon left Kirtland in 1837,
because continually harrassed by mobs and
conspirators, who were using every means
possible to injure them in person and prop-
erty. These conspirators even went so far
as to persuade other men into their work
who were honest in their intentions, but
who did not realize the object and base
purposes of the conspirators until after-
wards. Crimes were permitted and ch.irtred
to the Saints when they were perpetrated
by their enemies ; and years after, right here
in Kirtland, one of these enemies upon a pro-
fession of religion in a protracted meeting,
confessed to being the person who stole a
plow in the interest of their gang and

366

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

which was laid to one of the Saints, and
they even perjured tliemselves to convict
an innocent man, and made him suffer the
penalty because of his religion. A tool
chest was stolen from one Hinds and laid
to the Saints, but a search warrant found it
in the loft of the minister who was working
up this mob. All this evidence comes from
Brad en's side. The Saints had to guard
the Temple night and day while they were
erecting it. and suffered untold wrongs and
outrages by a people who ought to have
been their friends. For this, they hold no
malice however, knowing that the men
who did it, were as a rule deceived and put
up to the terrible work by a few unprin-
cipled leaders, who were always far out of
danger in the back ground. It was like it
was in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.
The self-constituted clergy and priests
urged the populace to blood and vengeance
and hence, Jesus saj's : "Father forgive
them for they know not what they do."

Braden charged this terrible work to infi-
dels, last night. How could he so insult

your good sense as to so deliberately mis^
represent that tragedy? It was the chiej
priests and rulers, who urged the people on;
the only avowed disbeliever in the Bible
known to be present wasPihtte; and ha
persisted, "that he found no fault in Jesus,"
and those pious priests{?) cried out : "Away
with this man and give us Barrabbas ! "
But Pilate spoke to them urging again the
release of Jesus ; and these 2iious hyj^ocrites
cried out, "Crucify him !" "Crucify him ! "
Our infidel friends have enough sins of their
own to answer for, without piling upon
them the terrible crimes of religious bigots.
But my opponent ensnares himself which-
ever way he turns. He is as a man walking
in darkness, although supposed to be
learned after the rudiments of the world
and not after Christ. He has no tvord of
God to be a lamp to his feet and guide to hia
pathway, because he denies the office work
of the oil, the unction, — the Holy >Spirit —
that throws light upon t?iis word and gives
the i)roper und-^rstanding.
Time called.

MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — In the discussion of this
question I have investigated, as duty de-
manded, thecharacter of Mormonism, and of
its originators and authors. I read the testi-
mony of persons of the highest character.
Unable to meet it, there was introduced
last night the lying abuse of an infidel
blackguard. It was read by a similar char-
acter. His Danite band of' similar charac-
ters greeted it with their accustomed Dan-
ite yells. It is what infidelity deals in.
The'Book of Doctrines and Covenants de-
clares that the Saints will be equal with
Christ. It is blasphemy. Joe took from
the Book of Mormon his fool prophecy in
regard to himself, and with transcendent
blasphemy, put it in the Bible as the words
of the Almighty. I did not quote the pas-
sage about "inheritance by blood." nor refer
to it in quoting the Book* of Doctrines and
Covenants. I referred to two passages
preaching a crusade against the Missouri-
ans. He says Moses and Elias are angels.
Where does the Bible say so? Angels
assumed the form of men and were called
men. The angel in Revelations did not
say "lam one of the prophets," but "a
feilow servant of the prophets." Mrs. Chase
had a peep-stone. That is one of Granny
Smith's lies, and she says it was Chase's
daughter, not his wife. As he was a minis-

ter, neither is true. Gabriel and Elijah
are the same. Chapter and verse for it, if
you please.

"Baptize for the dead" is quoted. Baptism
is in the likeness of the burial and resur-
rection of Christ, a type of it. In imita-
tion of it. Paul says, "that the dead rise
your baptism shows." It is in imitation of
the dead, or death and resurrection of Christ.
Its resurrection from the water proves that
the dead are resurrected. It is "baptize in
in imitation of the dead," or death of Christ.
The language in Matthew speaks of three
things in each case. Salvation of good trees,
salvation of the wheat, and baptism in the
Spirit. All these are for the good. Evil
trees, burning chaff and baptism in fire.
All for the evil. "You" includes both
classes, just as when it is said God v.ill re-
ward every man according to his works.
If Joe Smith knew enough to translate, he
could do so. As he was an ignoramus, the
talk about his translating and correcting
revelation is blasphemous nonsense. Emma
Smith, as her language is reported by Joe
III in "Life of Joseph the Seer," does de-
clare she saw the plates and handled them,
covered with a cloth. None but the three
were to see the plates in the way they did.
It does not say so, and is a paltry dodge.
Jacob and others saw ^od's representatives.
Hosea says Jacob wrestled with an angel.

THE BR ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

367

Isaiah says it was an augel that led Israel
in the wilderness. "No man hath seen God
at any time."

He cannot find in the Bible such a trickey,
selfish, jealous talk as we cited from the
Book of Doctrines and Covenants. My
opponent shows his ignorance in assuming
that "cut ofT' means death. In one case a
person was cut off' for seven days. It
means separate from the congregation,
excommunication, and some times put to
death. He shows his infidel ignorance in
saying there was one small window in the
ark. Gesenius says the word used means a
S3-stem of windows. Gilbert said there
were no capital letters at beginning of sen-
tences. He said nothing about capitals in
any other place. We know all about God
that he can know — what God has revealed.
We know more, for we do not bury it and
obscure it under Joe Smith's materialism
and lying revelations. He finds persons
who were priests and officiated as priests
outside of the Aaronic priesthood, and
assumes that they were Melchezedek priests
because they were not Aaronic priests.
That is like assuming that a man mlist be
an Irishman because he is not an Ameri-
can. He might be a Dutchman. Let him
prove they were Melchezedek jDriests. There
was Melchezedek and there was another —
Clirist. Only Melchezedek and another —
Christ.

We have already exposed the violence and
intolerance exhibited by Mormonism. It
began in abuse of all who would not accept
the fraud, and has since been carried on by
violence, denunciation and villification of
all whooppose^it. It began Avith abuse of all
who opposed it in New York. This was
carried to violence and plotting assassina-
tion in Kirtland. It culminated in the
Danite band, and assassination in Missouri,
and Nauvoo. Smith was notoriously quar-
relsome when intoxicated. Morman pil-
grims to New York can have pointed out to
them, by citizens of Manchester, the tree to
which he tied his father, when he flogged
him. He was taken to Painesville while in
Kirtland and tried for assault on his
brother-in-law, Calvin Stoddard. He told
a dupe of his by the name of M. C. Davis,
that it was the will of the Lord that Gran-
dison Newell should be removed. His Dan-
ite with a 3'oung man Avho lived in Smith's
family, went to obey the revelation. The
Danite tool took aim at Newell in the bos-
om of his family, when his better nature
revolted at the "horrid crime, this murder-
ous villainous, impostor had sent him to do,
and Newell was spared. On another occa-
sion he sent three Thugs under the leader-
ship of one Bump, to waylay Newell, and
murder Mm as he returned from Paines-
ville. They lay in wait with loaded guns
for hours. Providentially, Newell took an-
other road, and escaped joe's fiendish hate
again.

The spirit that actuated him in Kirt-
land can be seen in another fact. Mr.
William Smith one morning visited a Mor-
mon neighbor by the name of Cluff". He

observed a pike setting behind the door. On
inquiry he found that Mormons had been
provided with these murderous weapons,
to use on the Gentiles, and that one or more
were in nearly every Mormon family in
Kirtland, and over 200 in all. When Mr.
Cluff' left he gave the pike to Mr. Smith.
Here it is. It is the pike used by the Irish
Catholic rebels in the Protestant massacre
of the last century.

We have cited the schemes of swindling
fraud and ruin that characterized Mormon-
ism in Kirtland. It closed in bankrupoy,
ruin and Incendiarism. It left Kirtland a
ruin strewed with wrecks. Land has not
been worth as much per acre in Kirtland
since the Mormon influx into Kirtland, as
similar lands in neighboring towns. Mor-
monism left a stigma on Kirtland. Even
now, citizens of Lake county, and towns
about Kirtland, would look on a return of
Mormons to Kirtland as an incalculable
calamity. Mormonism became a stench in
the nostrils of all decent people in north-
eastern Ohio, and its foul odor has not left
its old haunts yet. Like the stench of the
spotted animal in the fields, every shower
of excitement on Mormonism causes it to
manifest its noisome odor.

While acting in his primitive, super-
natural capacity as watei-witch and money-
digger. Smith made the acquaintance of a
drunken vagabond by the ))ameof Walters,
who had been a physician in Europe. This
person had learned in Europe the secret of
Mesmerism or animal magnetism. This
M'as entirely unknown in America except
to a few in large cities, who had read
European papers. Smith learned this art,
and like all men with great passions, vital-
ity and phj'sical force he was almost a
prodigy in his mesmeric power. All casting
out devils and raising the dead were merely
a display of his great mesmeric power. He
would select those he could throw into a
profound mesmeric trance. Persons ignor-
ant of the secret thought they were dead.
He would by passes bring them out of the
trance, and the ignorant supposed it was
a miracle, a resurrection. His supposed
cases of healing were merely displays of
this power, and are common now, and no
wonder. When the Mormons began in
Kirtland, they pretended to heal all sick
by laying on of hands. Some claimed
there was no use in jjersons being sick,
that they should never see death. As two
of their leaders, F. G. Williams, who was
second vice-president, and one other, were
root-doctors ; revelation allowed tlieni to
use herbs. It was observed, however, tiiat
when the present pronhet was born, Joe
had the best medical aid from the world he
could get.

A young man named Dota, about twenty
years old, was \ery active and zealous
among them, and divinely commissioned
to preach. So firmly did he believe
in Smith and Mormonism, and their
miraculous power, that he told one of
his family nof'five weeks before his death,
that he would live a thousand years. Ten

368

THE BRADEK AND RELLEY DEBATE.

days befoi'e he died he was attacked with
inflammation of the bowels. No persuasion
of his parents, who were not Mormons,
could pursuade him to allow a ph.ysician to
be called. The elders called on him, en-
couraging him in his delusion, and telling
him he was getting better. Smith visited
him and protested against his having a
physician, and went through his mummer-
ies over him, and told him he would get
well. When his parents brought a
physician a few hours before his death, the
physician told him his delusion had cost
him his life. He would live but a few hours.
Reason returned to the poor victim of Mor-
mon madness and the scoundrelly hypocrisy
of Smith, and the leaders. He exclaimed,
" What a mistake I have made ! " He said
to a Mormon standing by, "This is a lesson,
I have learned by experience; you can
profit by it. With me it is " too laie," and
died, a victim to Mormon folly and fraud.
An attempt was made to raise a child.
It was generally believed that they drugged
the child, intending" it to recover from the
drug, and gave it a dose that killed it. Old
citizens can narrate scores of cases of delu-
sion and fraud in jjretended miracles.
Smith and Rigdon once tried to heal Mr.
Wakefield of Willoughby, before a crowded
house in the temple, and announced that
he had been healed of lameness ; but he
was as much a cripple in five minutes as he
ever had been, and died one. Smitli tried to
heal a decrepit hand of Elder Murdoch, and
failed. The failures compelled him to give up
that fraud. Smith announced at a conference
that some would see the Savioj*. He laid
hands on Elder Wight, mesmerizing liim,
and Wight arose with a pale countenance,
fierce looks, and arms extended, shaking
form, leapt on a bench, and shrieked that
he saw Jesus. He laid hands on another,
who shuflled over the floor, his legs bent,
one shoulder elevated with his head resting
on it, his arms extended, hands clenched,
mouth pinched up like an "o," and his
countenance wild and ferocious. Smith
shouted, "Speak Bro. Harvy," but he could
not. Smith first said that it was the Spirit
of the Lord, but when persons cried out
that he Avas possessed of the devil, he
changed his mind and said it was the devil ;
and cast him out by removing the mes-
meric spell. Scores of such scenes can be
narrated by the old citizens of Kirtland.
Ridiculous attempts to confer spiritual
gifts, scenes of folly, frenzy and madness.
Imposture on the part of leaders, madness,
folly, and insanity on the part of thedupes.
Rigdon's conversion was effected by this
sublime vision. After much prayer he was
wrapped in a A'ision, and to use his own
words: "To my astonishment I saw the
diflevent orders of professing Christians
passing before me with their hearts exposed
to view, and they were as corrupt as cor-
ruption itself. The society to which I
belonged passed before me, and to mj'
astonishment it was as corrupt as the rest.
Last of ail the little man (Cowder.y), who
brought me the Book of Mornu)ii, passed

before my eyes, with his heart open, and it
was as pure as an angel." This was a tes-
timony from God that the Book of Mormon
was a divine revelation. This was Rigdon's
lie, on which he based his pretended con-
version to Mormonism. He went to New-
York to see Smith, and arrang<' for ilie
carrying out of the scheme that lie had
been concocting for years. Cowdery and
Harris and Whitmer stayed and held "i - ,-
ings. Scenes of the most wild, frantu- md
disgusting fanaticism ensueii. They pre-
tended that the power to work miracles,
was about to be given to all who embraced
the new faith, and commenced communi-
cating the spirit by laying their hands on
the heads of the (!on verts, which produced
an instantaneous prostration of boiiy and
mind. Many fell on the floor, and would
lie for a long time apparently lifeless.
Women would fall on the floor, "swevi ally
young women, and utterly regn/ale^!- of
exposure of person. The sexes (■ay around
promiscuously, and were laid to one side
promiscuously. The fit caxae on during
prayer meetings, which wm-e held nearly
every evening fo '<^eks. ioung men and
women were p iliarly subject to this
delirium. They would exhibit all apish
actions imaginable, making the most ridi-
culous grimaces, creeping on their hands
and feet on the frozen ground. A spectator
now present, declares he never saw any-
thing like it, except in the insane ward of
a pourhouse. Preaching to the Indians,
the Lamanites, converting the Lamanites
was the liobbj' of Mormonism at first.
Tiieir converts would go through with all
modes of Indian warfare, knocking down,
scalping, ripping open, tearing out the
bowels, etc. At other times they would
run through the fields, get on stumps, and
preach to imaginary audiences, rush into
the water land go through the pantonaine
of immersion, etc. Many would have fits
of speaking in all Indian dialects. Again,
they would in the dead hour of night, -un
over the hills and fields in pursuit of balls
of fire, light, etc. — The Holy Spirit they
declared. Others would put" the devil to
flight and chase him. One of the audience
saw three men, one a negro cal i^'' black
Pete, each mounted on a stump on the hill,
nortli east of the post office, all caching.
A waggish young man made a singular
noise, all jumped from their pulpi and
dashed down the hill. Black Pett sliout-
ing : "Here we go," and when he
slipped up, " O God, here we go." Cowdery
departed to convert the Lamanites, with
his Book of Mormon and miracles. The
young men in Kirtland all had a mania for
preaching to th« nations. They would
jump into the air as high as they could,
and pretend their commissions to preach
were handed down to them out of heaven.
These commissions were on parchment,
signed and sealed by Christ himself.
With such papers in their pockets, they
ran over the country, ranting, and calling
it preaching. At one time, they pretended
that an augel walked out on the water, and

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

36<»

held a light for them to baptize. The boys
examined the water, and found a plank
just below the surface. They moved it,
and the next night the angel got a ducking,
and the boys chased him through the
stumps in the neighboring field. Mr. Moss,
the teacher, was called one day from his
school to see a young man in the upper
story of his father's shoe shop. He was
scaring away the devil, by pointing his
finger at him, and shouting "Zit." Mr.
Moss tossed a shoe near him, and bedashed
headlong down stairs, and chased the
devil through a neigliboring field. We
could continue these disgusting statements
for pages, and we have living witnesses
here to sustain our statements. What won-
der that Mormonism after making Kirtland
a bedlam of fanaticism, left covered with
infidel wrecks — persons who scouted all
religion, because Mormonism was a hum-
bug.

Living witnesses for this scene can be
produced. We quote from Dewitt Miller of
Willoughby. In a log school in the town
of Willoughby, near Kirtland, Smith, after
a sermon explanatory of the nature of the
possession by devils — the divine nature of
the power he should use in casting them
out, and the process of casting out devils,
proceeded to attempt to cast devils out of a
man named Ichabod Crandall, who lay on
his belly on the floor, groaning fearfully,
surrounded by a circle of Mormons on their
knees. Smith said he would give three
orders. First mild, second authorative, and
the third, such an order as would fetch the
devils sure pop. Smith in a loud gruff voice
issued his order. At the third order the
devil came out, not out of Crandall, but out
of a bag held by a man in the corner, near
the old stove, in the shape of a big black
cat. The cat tore around the house squall-
ing, the dogs took after it barking, the boys
yelling. The cat was chased up a tree. The
tree was cut down, the cat killed, and
Smith's devil was disposed of. The ridic-
ulous frauds practiced in attempting to
work miracles in and around Kirtland are
notorious. No wonder my opponent was
so shy of Kirtland miracles. He feared
that the attempt to walk on the water, and
the failure caused by the planks being
moved, would be brought out. What won-
der that Mormonism left Kirtland a wreck
religiously, and that the very name of Mor-
monism is a stench in North-Eastern Ohio,
and that Mormonism made Kirtland a
stench in the nostrils of all decency, and
sense. The cases of preaching from stumps,
chasing the devil, of the child, of Dota, of
Mr. Wakefield, of Murdoch, and scores of
other frauds and failures are too notorious
to be denied.

One of the idiotic tomfooleries of Kirtland
was speaking in different tongues. This
idiotic farce is still kept up by the Re-organ-
ized. It was practiced in the convention
last Spring. Mr. Higbee, once a Mormon
Elder, tells how David Patton, a Mormon
emissary, commanded him to arise and
speak in tongues. He faltered. "Speak as

you list," ordered Patton. He then gab-
bled words that Patton called a tonguo.
Others gabbled in the same manner. Rey-
nolds Gaboon gave them this rule: "Make
some sound, continue to make sounds, tli©
Lord will make a language of it." Persoiin
would frequently sing in this gibberish m
a drawl or whine, they calleda tune. They
said these songs would be sung when the
lost tribes appeared in Missouri. One of
the women who spoke in tlie convention in
Kirtland last Spring, drawled out, "Ah-
Pish-Ke-Ta." "Ah-Plsh-Ke-Ta," those four
syllables over and over. That is the work
of the Spirit of God. Another eye witness
tells of this scene. A number of Eiders and
Priests assembled in a room in Kirtland.
Smith exhorted them to exercise faith, and
some would see the Lord in person. He
declared the time was coming when no one
would be allowed to preach unless they
had seen the Lord. About as sensible as
my opponent's claim that all Mormon
preachers are called as Aaron was called,
and that they have miraculous power.
Soon he said to Rigdon, "Sydney, you have
seen the Lord." Sydney mounted Ahas-
uerus's horse and shouted, "I saw the
image of a man pass before my face, whose
locks were white and whose countenance
was exceeding fair, even surpassing all
beauty I ever beheld." Hiram Smith de-
clared that he had seen what Sydney had
seen. R. Copeland declared that he had
seen the temple of Zion filled with Saints,
the top covered with the glory of the Lord,
in the form of a cloud. Smith went around
the room laying his hands on the head of
each one, gabbling, "Ah man. Oh vSoii.
Ah man. Ah ne. commune, en halle goste,
en haben, en glai, hosanna, en holle gost< ,
en esac, mqlkin, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nephi.
Lehi, St. John." After the supper several
gabbled in tongues, and one sung a gibber-
ish to the tune of Bruce's address. Who
doubts that the Holy Spirit was given to
gabble such stuff', and that Mormon idiocy
is the "Fullness of the Gospel." A mit--
chievous youth, now a man of advanced
years, William, present in the audience-,
used to speak in tongues in Mormni
meetings, as a practical joke on the breth-
ren. It was announced that he excelled
all others. The most wonderful display
of tongues in the Mormon dispensatiini
was the gibberish of this young man. Rig-
don declared that he spakein three tongues,
and interpreted his waggish gibberish i!i
strains of spread eagle, in which Ahasuerus'
horse cleft the clouds like Pegasus. Think
of a waggish Corinthian youth uttering
gibberish as a practical joke, and the in-
spired Paul announcing that he spake in
three tongues, and interpreted in a rhap-
sody of high-fallutin. The Saints used to
have love feasts, in which wine was passed
around in buckets, each one helping him-
self to all he wanted, with gourd or dipper.
The old blesser, old Joe Smith, often got so
blessed drunk that he could not get out of
his chair. In an endowment meeting held
in the temple in 1836, wine was drank so

370

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

freely that several of the church officials
rrot beastly drunk. S. H. Smith, brother of
the prophet, staggered into the pulpit and
gave a revelation, Mormons claimed it was
a wonderful miracle that -a man so drunk
could utter such a revelation ! ! Smith soon
^ot sick and spewed into a spittoon, and W.
E. McLellau emptied it several times out of
the window. It was on this occasion that
one of the brethren, lying flat on his back
so full of the spirit (of drunkenness) that he
could not sit up, hiccoughed out: "Now is
the time to see visions." Yea, verily it was.
He bpake as spirits gave him utterance, but
uot as the Spirit of God, who declares that
no drunkard shall inherit the Kingdom of
God. But for the sake of our common hu-
manity we forbear. Such was the character
of Mormonism under Joe Smith in Kirtland.
What wonder that decent people dread a
renewal of it, as they would a pestilence of
pollution. What wonder that Kirtland has
been a wreck religiously. That it is full of
men and women who are at sea, believing
nothing, doubting all things. It is said
scratch a Russian and you M'illfind a Tartar
under his hide. In like manner scratch an
infidel in Kirtland, and you will find a
soured Mormon under his hide, or the
soured son of a Mormon. Judging from the
defense of Mormonism made in this debate,
and the applause of infidels given to the in-
fidel attacks made on the Bible, Infidelity
and Mormonism are the same.

We propose now to cap the climax of Mor-
mon lying which reaches the sublime in its
colossal magnitude, with an extract of Joe
Smith's autobiography, telling what hap-
pened in Kirtland at the dedication of the
Temple. "Brother G. A. Smith arose and
began to prophesy, when a noise was heard
like a mighty rushing wind, which filled
the temple and all the congregation arose
simultaneously, being moved upon by an
irresistible power. Many began to speak in
tongues and to prophecy. Others saw glori-
ous visions, (as they had two barrelt of whis-
key with the heads knocked out, perhaps
some were in the condition of the Saint who
said, "Now is the time to see visions.") And
I beheld the Temple was filled with angels
which fact I declared unto the congrega-
tion. The people of the neighborhood li ear-
ing an unusual sound, and seeing a bright
liglit, like a pillar of fire, resting on the
Temple, were astonished at wliatwas trans-
piring and came running together." There
is not a person who was at Kirtland that
day, or who was at the dedication, that
does not know that that statement is a
tissue of lies, made up out of whole cloth.
Yet we are asked to accept the colossal
liar that published to the world that mons-
trous lie concerning the dedication of the
Temple, as a prophet, and his lies as revela-
tions. The organization that was gotten up
by such a liar, and that publishes such lies,
that is based on and made up in all that is
peculiar to itself of such lies, is the true
church of God and accepted of him.

My opponent argues in his last speech
that Moses was like Christ and as Hhrist

was a Melchezedek priest, Moses was one.
Unfortunately, the Bible says Moses was
like Christ as a prophet. "A prophet like
unto me." Not as a priest. It does not
say, A priest like unto me. He wants to
know to what priesthood my people belong.
We are Christian kings, not Melchezedek
kings or Aaronic kings ; Christian priests,
not Melchezedek or Aaronic priests, royal
priests unto God. He asserts that Christ
was a priest on earth. The Scriptures
declare, "If he (Christ) were on earth he
would not be a priest." Christ was not a
priest on earth. He began his priestly
office when he entered the holy of holies,
heaven. I sliall spend no time over eccle-
siastical history. I can establish every
papal mummery by it, as he does his mum-
meries. He undertakes to off-set my expo-
sure of Joe Smith by citing an instance
where a Disciple preacher stole. Wicked
men may steal the livery of heaven to serve
the devil in. We see that done frequently.
We can believe that. But when you ask
us to believe that God, who cannot look on
sin with the least allowance, deliberately
chose a water witching, peeping, money
hunting, lying, drinking, stealing, swear-
ing scoundrel, and by miracle clothed him
with the livery of inspiration, to give a
revelation and dispensation of religion to
the world, that stood related to tiie dispen-
sation of his own Son as the fullness of the
gospel, 3'ou insult decency and reason.

My opponent takes up the testimony of
the men and women of Palmyra and Man-
chester, and criticizes it He impudenty
plays witness and pettifogger. He manu-
factures evidence to suit his wants. He
tells us that he talked with persons in
Manchester and Palmyra. We read on the
first proposition the affidavits of Dan ford
Booth, Orrin Reed, Amanda Reed and J. H.
Gilbert, that the statements he read were
deliberate falsehoods. There were pre-
tended answers to questions never asked.
In other cases the pretended answer was
exactly the reverse of what they said. We
have impeached Kelley the witness with his
fabricated testimony. It is merely the man-
ufactured yarns of Kelley the pettifogger
that he impudently wants to foist in as
evidence. Samantha Payne testifies she
was in the cave. Had be driven over to
Mr. Miner's, Mr. Miner could have led liim
to the cave. His yara about Mrs. Chase
having a peep-stone is a fabrication of old
Granny Smith. His attacks on the affida-
vits are ridiculous. Peter lugersoU would
let Joe have money and move him if he
would give his father-in-law as security.
That is incredible, for Joe's father-in-law
was over one hundred and twenty miles
away. True, and they were going right to
his house. IngersoU'tells what Alvin did.
Alvin had been dead two years when he
testified. Yes,buthewas living when what
Ingersoll narrated happened. Is not my
opponent ashamed of such stuflE". Dr. John
StaflTord never told him that his own fath-
er's affidavit in rf .iar'l Ui the black wether
was false. I will furnish Dr. Staf!urds

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

371

affidavit that it is true. I will furnish the
statements of Abel Chase and Loren-
zo Saunders. I will not manufac-
ture evidence and tell what a dozen
witnesses told me. Think of the infinite
impudence of E. L. Kelley's attacking men
who have been judges of State Courts, Con-
gressmen, leading business men, the best
citizens of PalmjTH and Manchester, men
whose shoes he is not fit to clean. It is as
impudent as the conduct of himself and
brother. On Sunday morning two Danites
made a raid on several old people in Man-
chester. They refused to give their names,
tell who .or what they were, or their busi-
ness. They asked questions, sneered at
the answers, laughed over them, disputed
them, insulted the ones on whom they had
forced their impudent presence, and bull-
dozed generally ; and then went off and
manufactured a report, that the persons
interviewed declare under solemn oath to
be a tissue of deliberate falsehoods. Such

is the character of the course of Kelley the
witness and Kelley the pettifogger for Mor-
monism. It is in keeping with his client's
character.

In regard to Jeffery's evidence, we have
this to say. Mormon history shows that Rig-
don lived in Nauvoo and not in Pittsburg in
1843, until late in the year. That he did lead
in Mormon business. That in Sept. 1844,
he was in Nauvoo, trying to take Smith's
place. That he told the apostles, September
14th, 1844, that if they did not place him in
Smith's place, he would tell the secrets of
Mormonism. They rejected him. In. the
Mormon official organ appeared bitter de-
nunciations of Rigdon for exposing Mor-
monism. It was precisely at this time that
Jeflery declares he told him what he nar-
rates in his testimony. Every fact in Mor*
mon historj^ in regard to the matter corrob-
orates Jeffery's statement. Kelley's state-
ment in his attempt t© set it to one side are
flat contradictions of Mormon publications.

MR. KELLEY'S CLOSING SPEECH!

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — I appear before you this
time to conclude my work of the debate. I
have been gratified' throughout the discus-
sion with the courtesy manifested by j'ou
during the various sessions and the interest
taken in the arguments, and I shall have
been amply repaid for the time I have given
to it, if the investigation leads you to a
more thorough and fuller acquaintance M'ith
God's word and to a closer observance of his
law and the obligations we all owe to each
other.

After noticing one or two statements just
made, I shall at once proceed with my argu-
ment and

summary.

Reference has been made to the article
which I read last evening and a personal
attack made against me, (it is so unreason-
able, however, that no injury can result
from it, if intended) because I used that
article as a forcible illustration that my
positions have been correct all of the time
while his have been false and deceptive ; I
had in vain cited him to the fact that his
course would, if correct, destroy the divine
claim of Moses and the prophets ; of not
only these, but the religion of Jesus and
the apostles. Had cited the fact that the
Reformers would be necessarily rejected by
such a rule and that the great Wesley would
be dishonored by its application ; that the
ministers of his' own denomination would
fall equally with others, but it seems my

opponent never appreciated the enormity
of his course until I had brought the matter
honae to him. Now he says I am an infidel
because I read it. But did he not force the
reading because of his blindness to tamer
illustrations?

With regard to the evidence I read taken
at Palmyra it was not my own publication,
but another party. So much for his com-
ment about my being a witness for myself.
But Dr. Thomas StaSbrd will not say what
Braden has said he would, nor has he ever
to my khowledge even hinted that he was
not correctly reported.

The ridiculous tale he tells about Joseph
Smith's speaking in tongues, which betook
out of Howe's book or from some one else
who got it there, is beiieath the cojisidera-
tion of any sensible man. Joseph Smith did
not profess even to iiave the gift of tongues.
That was not a part of the conferred lavors
upon him. He Avas a prophet. Can't you
see the difTeretJce, Mr. Braden?

Again, wherever the Saints have been,
he says, they have left in their track, barren-
ness and desolation. Yes, as with the
Master of the house so with the household.
The Jews cast Jesus out of Jerusalem, and
ruin, desolation and death followed, and so
had he predicted. His children were cast
out of Kirtland and like results followed,
and it had been also predicted that it would.
It was also afterwards told them that they
should find favor in the eyes of the people
if they kept the laAv of God, and right here

372

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY LEBATE.

in Kirtland I am now met with such warm
friends that it has surprised my opponent,
and instead of carrying ttie people against
me, as he expected, as of old, he has turned
against this intelligent audience calling
them "Kelley's clackers,"etc. Nauvoo has
been referred to. Yes, the Saints were
driven from Nauvoo, and desolation fol-
lowed for the city. Is the lesson in our
favor or against us? Let every candid man
and woman answer for him or herself. But I
must not refer to the fact that Jerusalem in
its desolation is a mark of the habitation
of the favored ot God under the prophets,
or my opponent will think I am attacking
the Bible.

Again, during the last night on the first
question, when he knew I had not the time
to reply to him, he dodged in and foamed
considerably, charging polygamy upon
Joseph Smith, the Seer, in the hope that he
might help his weak eflbrts in the minds
of those who could be easily prejudiced.
And sure enough one or two bit at it. What
a pile of evidence he brought forward. In
vain I had showed him that if Mr. Smith
did do something bad it would not hurt our
faith any more than the act of Peter when
"he cursed and swore," or that of Paul
and Barnabas when they fell out and would
not even travel the same road, injured the
pure principles of the gospel then. That
our faith was not in men but in Christ and
his doctrine. But no, he could never see
the argument ; but takes the stand and said
I compared Smith with Caiaphas and some
of the old Hebrew idolators. I had never
used one of the names he mentioned, how-
ever ; I had compared with Moses the type
of Christ, with Abraham the father of the
faithful, with David the inspired Psalmist,
and Solomon the wise king, and many of
the early Christians. Then he puts on a
solemn look again and saj's I attiick the
Bible. If I undertake to stand by it and
compare our faith with it in this contro-
versy, I attack it in his estimation ; yet it
is the agreed standard in this debate, and
have I not the right to compare with the
standard? And when I compare and say
that my people by his own stories are as
good as those held out by the standard that
•we accepted, he hollows out, "foul," "it's
not fair." The point is, if the argument
he uses to destroy the Book of Mormon will
also destroy the Bible if applied to that
book — the argument is bad ; not the Bible
bad, but the argument. Can you now see
the point?

Was Joseph Smith a polygamist? He
said he was. Where is his proof? He
cites the case of Mrs. Foster, an old trumped
up affair got up by a gang who tried to
blackmail Joseph Smith. Why did you not
read the full statement? It would have ex-
posed your scheme. I will read it from a
work published against our people. Smuck-
er's history of the Mormons, page 174:

"It is utterly incredible that Joseph Smith, who,
great impostor that he was, never missed an opportun-
ity to denounce seducers and adulterers as unfit to en-
ter into his church, should have been concerned di-
rectly or indirectly in proceedings like these, though

it is scarcely surprising that when such staries Imve
bcencirculateri by men ivhom the "PropheV had thwarted or
reprimanded, there should have been found some per-
sons willing to credit them."

These are the suggestions of Mr. Smucker
after sketching through the purported
tales connected with Martha Brotherton,
Mrs. Foster, et al. The so-called affidavits
referred to in this same Mrs. Foster aflair,
after being brought before a court, having
no sympathies with Joseph Smith, were
after an examination, promptly dismissed
by the judge as being unworthy of notice,
and being '■'■evidently gotten up to deceive
the people and slander Smith."
Mr. Smucker says again, page 379 :
"As the Mormon authorities positively deny that
Joseph Smith was guilty of the charge often alleged in
justificating his murder, it is a motive of caution in the
receipt of evidence, We must remember, too, that
Smith universally, in all his letters, revelationg and
speeches denounced adultery and fornication. Subject
as all founders of religions systems are to calumny, we
cannot resist the doubt that there may have been misrep-
restntation and exaggeration, both as to the character of
Joseph Smith and the cause of his nniime^y end. At any
rate, and under any circumstances, it is impossible to
justify the acts of'his enemies, either in the persecu-
tion of his followers, or in the circumstances of his
death. The fanaticism that destroyed him is to be con-
demned quite as strongly as his own."

This is the open criticism of a man who
has carefully gone through all the published
stories with reference to these charges by
the Bennett's, Law's, Parishes', and in
Ford's History of Illinois, etc. And if an
able critic and enemy of Mr. Smith and his
religion, after an examination of these
things stands in doubt and feels that to
condemn would be unjustifiable, who shall
say it is in the least assumptions or fanati-
cal for his friends lo maintain that he was
innocent? Who will not say that we shall
not have even done our duty as men, set-
ting aside the fact of being brethren, if we
shall fail to demand the proof and sift it
thoroughly, ere accepting this charge as true
against one of our fellow men, who cannot
be heard in his own behalf?

But Braden drinks in all these lying
statements and refuses to accept of the
reasonable side. No ; Smith was a polyg-
amist, he says; but not one of the Smith
family ever 'went to Utah or into Polygamy.
His father died a monogamist at Nauvoo;
his brothers Don Carlos, Samuel Harrison
and Hyrum, died monogamists in Nauvoo ;
his only remaining brother, William B.,
lives in Iowa where he has resided for years ;
his sisters all remained in the state of 111.,
after his death, and the only survivor is
Mrs. Salisbury, a lady of the highest char-
acter, having an intelligent family, and her
husband one of the first men in Hancock
County, 111. His only children, Joseph.
Alexander H. and David H. are all mon-
ogamists ; two of them for the last eighteen
yeas being actively engaged in the min-
istry, and only two days ago the oldest, and
the one now President of the Church, was
called to Washington, Iowa, to address the
State Temperance Society, of which he is
the", Vice-President. Joseph Smith's only
wife, Emma (Hale) Smith, refused to go to
Utah, or with any faction of the church,
and as a true heroine, raised her children

THE BR A DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

in Nauvoo, 111., and has ever maintained
that her husband has been Jied about ;
that he never had any wife but herself;
and that he was never married in any way
to any other woman than herself; and
that it is not true as hawked about by his
enemies, that she ever burned a revelation
of her husbands, or any paper purporting
to be such ; that, at her husband's death no
one mournedashis wife or widow but her; no
claim has ever been made by any woman to
her face that she was also a wife ; no claim
was ever made for any children but her
own, that they were his children ; and
that of a truth her husband has been mal-
igned by those who had in view a sinister
motive to advance, by so misrepresenting
him.

Taking up the writings of Mr. Smith,
there is not a leaf, scrap, line or senti-
ment of his own writing, in the world
tliatin the least favors polygamy. On the
contrary, every sentiment referring to the
marriage relation, in the Book of Mormon,
Book of Doctrine and Covenents and the
Inspired Translation of the Bible, the
works emanating from his own hands,
teaches monogamy. And in all his letters,
notices, press articles and publications,
sanctioned by him, monogamy is injoined
wherever marriage is referred to in such a
sense as to call forth an exjiression of his
views.

Mrs. C. V. Wait, in her history of Brig-
ham Young and his Harem, page 195,
pays : "Lucy Decker, married to Brigham
Young, was the fij-st ivife in plurality^ and
the first child in polygamy was Brigham
Heber, born to Brigham Young in 1847."
This marriage took place about two years
after Joseph Smith's death. But he says,
" there are women in Utah who claim to
have been married to .Joseph Smith." But
how, and when? When he was living?
No ; you cannot point to a woman who
made the claim while he was living. Years
after hs was dead you could find them
tnough. How were they married to him?
T will read the Avork of John Hyde, a Utah
Elder at one time, and who left them and
made an expose of their religion. He united
with that church in 1848, four years after
Smith's death. His book is the one where
Braden has sought for testimony. He says,
as to polygamy, page 87:

"Not only is it deemed proper to take the widows of
some good brother, but also to take fresh wives for

your dead brother. There was a lady named P ,

in Salt Lake, in 1854. who had heard of and loved Smith.
He had been dead for ten years ; but that is nothing to
the wings of Mormon faith. She was desirous to be
sealed to him, although, I believe, she had a husband
still living in the States. Brigham. consented to act as
proxy or agentfor Joseph Smith, and accordingly the in-
teresting ceremony was performed. Mrs. P , good

soul, gave up all her property to the church, faithfully
believing she had joined the numcrors army of the
Smiths in general, under the special banner of the
Prophet Joseph."

This is sufficient without comment.
There can be little doubt in the mind of the
close thinker, that after the death of Joseph
Smith, there was a studied effort made on
the part of Young, Kimball and a few

others to connect the Prophet with polyg-
amy, if possible, in order to weigh in Ihofr
own behalf, in carrying out their schemes ;
and this scheme of marrying women to the
dead, was gotten up by them in order to
more perfectly carry forward the design.

After this piece of silly nonsense, of
marrying a woman to Brigham, (but osten-
sibly to the dead, who could utter no pro-
test,) had taken place, then Brigham would
tell them they were wives of Josei)h Smith,
and they would so claim to the " brethren,"
and so, the perversion of history was well-
nigh made complete, by this cunning.
Thus many good honest men and woinen
were deceived, and led to believe Joseph
Smith had more wives than one, because
they had not the courage, after passing
through Brigham Young^s Endoivment
House, to look these hypocrites in the face,
and ask them: — ^Vheu were you married
to him? Who officiated? Did you live in
his house or some dark corner? Where
are your children you had by Joseph
Smith? You seem to have plenty by Brig-
ham Young? Were you classed with the
mourning widotv and children at Nauvoo,
at the time of his death? If not, why not?
Where is your marriage certificate? ' Why
did you not think it was necessary to have
one?

My friends, the stories of these people
are too absurd for honest men. No promi-
nent man's reputation is safe, if we accept
such as evidence.

But, he says he will prove it from our
own paper, the Saints^ Herald. Now, is it
not singular, that this evidence should be
in our paper, and we not know it? If as a
people, we claim all the time that Joseph
Smith was not in i)olygamy, or if he was,
we have never had evidence of it, are we
to be termed fantical upon this, when the
strongest evidence he says he can find, is in
our own church pai:>er? It ought to strike
any sensible man that if such a thing as he
terms evidence, is in our church paper, and
at the same time as a people, we do not
believe the charge of jjolygamy, made
against Joseph Smith to be true, that we
must have some good reason for it. He
would hardly charge the body with either
ignorance, or a lack of sufficient courage to
admit that Mr. Smith was guilty, if we
had the proofs. Whether guilty or not,
does not injure our faith ; we say the charge
is false because we are convinced of it.
And my opponent after his unsuccessful
eflbrt to destroy my faith with his own
choice of weapons, from whatever source
he could gather them, will hardly be able
to eflectively turn my own against me.
Such a thing as attempting it, to say the
least, smacks highly of egotism, and is
utterly ridiculous.

I read in full what is said upon this ques-
tion in our paper at Wilber, and Mr. Bra-
den knows it don't prove what he asserts,
if he can understand the English language
at all, in a matter wherein his prejudices
govern.

I will read what he claims as proving

374

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

that Joseph Smith was in polygamy and
received the purported polygamous Revela-
ation in Elder Mark's letter. V^ol. I, page
26, Saints^ Herald.

■' He said, it [polygamy] eventually would prove
the overthrow of the church, and we should soon he
obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be
speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a
cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion
made to put it down. He said he would go before the
congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go
into the High Council, and he would prefer charges
against those in transgression, and I must sever them
from the church, unless they made ample satisfaction.
There was much more said, but this was the sub-
stance."

This is Braden's strong hold, and my
friends be candid and examine it, and show
no favor to Joseph Smith in doing it, and
what have you?

1. That somebody was doing something
in the church not right— Going into polyg-
amy.

2. "That it must be speedily put down."
Well, does that sound as though he was
going to dilly-dally about the matter?

3. "That it was a cursed doctrine."
Does that sound as though he had received
a revelation endorsing it? He would have
struck at the revelation instead of the
doctrine. He referred to it as being the
doctrine practiced by David and Solomon.
And learned fifteen years before in the
Book of Mormon, page 116, that it was a
cursed doctrine.

4. " That he would go before the congre-
gation and proclaim against it. ^'' Does that
sound like it was his revelation then, or
that he was guilty?

5: "That (Marks) must go into the High
Council, and he (Smith) would prefer
charges against those in transgression,
and (Marks) must sever them from the
church."

Does this sound like a man that was
guilty himself with the others? He to
prefer charges and have all the transgres-
sors cut off from the church. And yet,
Braden would have you believe that this
statement of Marks which he accepts as
correct (because it would bean insult to you
for him to introduce evidence on his side
which he did not accept as true) proves
Joseph Smith was into polygamy and re-
ceived a revelation endorsing it. Don't
anybody know that if Smith had received
a revelation endorsing polygamy, that they
could not have cut a man off from the
church for accepting it, until the church
had condemned the revelation?

The very procedure directed by Joseph
Smith in this case destroys every presump-
tion of there being such a revelation in
existence at that time. This was, says
Elder Marks in the same letter, "but a few
days before his death." This seals the
matter then. I have traced Joseph Smith
with reference to this question from his
boyhood to within a few days of his death
with evidence that no man can deny, and
every word and act has been against poly-
gamy. Shall I go back on all this now and
accept the undefined statement of Brigham
Young made eight years after this — that he

"had a copy of the revelation ? " Never. I
should thus wrong justice and the dead, and
so would any other man.

But he says Elder Sheen gave his testi-
mony. Does that prove it? I will read it^
page 27 :

'"I'he Salt Lake apostles also excuse themselves by
saying Joseph Smith taught the spiritu 1 wife doctrine;
but this excuse is as weak as their excuse conc.rning
the ancient kings and patriarchs. Joseph Smith re-
pented of his connection with this doctrine and said
that it was of the devil. He caused the revelations on
that subject to be burned and when he voluntarily
came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of
his enemies he said that he was going to Carthage
to die."

This is an argument of Sheen's ; he never
pretended to have had any knowledge of
his own. He was arguing from the accep-
ted statement of the Brighamites. Emma
Smith had been charged by them with burn-
ing the revelation on polj'gamj^ and that
Joseph gave it to her to burn; and Elder
Sheen here argues from the premises that
if Joseph did this, he must have repented
of polygamy. Then he bases his argument
that it was a "cursed doctrine," upon the
statement made by Elder Marks in the let-
ter to which I have already referred. There
is absolutely no more evidence in this than
in the remarks of the lawyer after the wit-
nesses have given in their evidence. The
letter of Elder Marks was one thing he
based his argument upon, and the state-
ment of Brigham Young, "that Joseph gave
the revelation to Emma to burn and she
bnrned it," was the other. You and I can
argue and draw our conclusions upon the
statements as well and as truly as could
Elder Sheen.

But hold a moment. Elder Sheen had not
got all of the statements or evidence to this
time ; when that came there was another
tale altogether.

Mrs. Emma Smith is the next witness.
She says : " I never burned any revelation
of my husband's nor anything claiming to
be such . I would not have thought of doing
such a thing." Here it is. It has com©
down to this, as to whether we will
believe Brigham Young on this point of the
revelation or the Elect Lady. For my part
I believe the lady. Braden prefers to be-
lieve Brigham.

Take with this the published statement
of Brigham Young in the Tabernacle in
Utah in 1856, that there was no child of
Joseph Smith's in Utah Territory (where
the only persons were who claimed to be his
wives) and you have polj'gamy knocked in
tiie head as to him, and the purported re-
velation is as the church has ever claimed, a
fraud and a forgery. Brigham Young him-
self said, on August 7th, 1852, reported in
his sermon i n his own Journal of Discourses ,
that no man in existence knew that he had
such a copy of a revelation till that day.
Yet Braden will ignore the plain clear line
of facts relating to Joseph Smith's views,
and drink in the lies of John C. Bennett,
William Law, Joseph Foster, et al, who
got mad at Smith and tried to destroy his
character because "Smith in a public
meeting exposed Bennett for kissing a Mrs.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Pratt over a picket fence." This picket
feuce business Smith determined to break
up, and this is the reason that the nest of
these licentiates rebelled, and bei;an a fu-
rious assault upon Joseph Smith. The
charge of his swearing in the Council at
at Nauvoo is a most infamous lie from this
same gang. But I will not take up further
time replying to such a charge. Every
sane man knows that Smith could never
have acted in this way, and retained the
confidence of his followers as he did all
through. This is the family, then, that
Braden has been so unjustifiably and ma-
liciously slandering and berating, even
speaking disrespectful of the girls of the
family. As foul a slander as was ever made
against any person. He has continually
misrepresented Mrs. Smith's historj'-, and
now turned to vilifying the old lady herself,
just for the purpose of carrying out his
boast before he came here of making war
upon the Latter Day Saint's cause. " War
to the knife and the knife to the hilt." He lias
avowed war, yet signed an agreement to
discuss for the purpose of eliciting trutli,
and of having an honorable discussion.
Anything is honorable in "war to the knife
and the knife to the hilt," so he has
worked. Since he has boldly proclaimed
war against this church, I give him now
to understand that when he wants to
renew the attack my address is Kirtland,
Ohio. (Applause).

My opponent still claims that there were
only two Melchizedek priests, that ofMel-
chizedek and Christ. But Christ was made
a priest, Paul says, "after theo?-de?-of Mel-
chizedek." What kind of a line or order
would it be with only two priests in it?

I have already exposed the idea tliat
because Christ was a priest continually that
therefore lie was the last. Melchizedek
before him as positively shown, is a priest
continually, and he is not the last. You
just as well take the ground that Jesus was
the last apostle, and that Peter, James and
John and all others were frauds because
he abides an apostle continually.

He is also " consecrated for evermore," to
be a priest ; but does that do away with the
necessity of 'the priest's office being filled
again here on earth in the church.

John the Apostle was a priest, as well as
an apostle, so laid down by Polycrates. He
says: " John, that rested on the bosom of
our Lord, who was a priest that bore tlie
sacerdotal plate." Moses and Elijah and
Job and Isaiah and .Tethro were priests.
Not of the Aaronic order, either, and must
have been of the higher j)riesthood. The
other is called the "Cesser;" it would not
be the " lesser''^ if there were more than
two, nor spoken of in that way. Not least,
but lesser, signifying but two orders.

Upon this subject of priesthood. Smith,
in Ills Bible Dictionary , under the name
Priest, says: "That the New Testament
writers recognize in Christ, the First-born,
the King, the Anointed, the Representa-
tive of the true primeval priesthood after
the order of Melchizedek, from which that

of Aaron, however necessary for the time,
is now seen to have been a defiection."
There having been a change under the law-
there was a change in the priesthood ; but
the change of the priesthood was not to
abolish any more than it was abolished
as long as Moses and Joshua held another
office than in the Aaronic line, at the same
time that the Aaronic was in force. And
there may come a time when there will be
no use for the Aaronic order, since it is a
deflection, but not till man is able to live in
a more perfect state than now. But of the
other it is "without beginning of days or
end of years;" and hence, continues for-
ever, and they who are priests therein,
and overcome the evils of life, retaining
the priesthood, are priests forever, neces-
sarily. John the Baptist evidently was
an Aaronic priest. But I must pass rapidly
on.

It must be apparent to everyone who has
attended this discussion, that it has not
been the object of my opponent to evince
truth and advance the right, touching the
faith of the Latter Day Saints, but that he
has continually manifested a morbid desire
to scandalize, falsify and misrepresent, and
has exhibited all the characteristics of
personal spite and pique toward the Latter
Day Saints. Accepting and using any kind
of warfare, just so he fancied it would heep
opprobrium upon the objects of his hate.
His desperate threat made before his arrival
in Kirtland, that he had declared eternal
war on the Latter Day Saint's cause ; "war
to the knife, and knife to the hilt," is his
Christian-like language he has endeavored
to carry out to the utmost. Anything has
been fair means with him. He has done his
utmost, but has been foiled and defeated in
his mad and desperate purpose. He has
not brought facts and argument, but tales,
scandal and ridiculeand lyingand blasphe-
mous assertions. Objecting to honorable
and true methods of debate, like the bird
called the turkey-buzzard, he has skimmed
tlie country from east to west for dead car-
casses, rotten and j^utrifjMug flesh in the
shape of gossip, slander, stories and scan-
dal circulated by lying hypocrites, black
legs and the licentious, because they had
nothing better with which to meet the
truth, has filled his craw, and night after
night has come and puked it out to this
audience as argument. No lie has been too
great, or scandal too low and contemptible,
for him to keep back. Not satisfied with
scandalizing honorable and worthy men.
but innocent women and girls are assailed
by his vile and slanderous tongue; and
when done with the living, hyena-like he
has entered the graves of the dead and
gratified his hate by attacking their decay-
ing bones. All who slander and lie about
the Latter Day Saints, are first citizens and
CJiristians with this holy Clark. Ail others
are liars and thieves and not worlii believ-
ing. When reminded that vituperation
and lying slanders are not argument, an<l
that "a similar line of tirade against the
Bible will destroy the institutions of Mose-i

376

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

aud the prophets, he has always called out,
you are attacking the Bible.

On this account 0???^, I have been led the
past few evenings to use arguments that
would cut, and handle his matter according
to its rottenness ; and throughout, I have
been more than ever in my life before, con-
lirmedin the belief, that Jesus meant truly
what he said, when he was accused of all
that was evil and abominable, and mal-
treated and scourged : — "If they do this in
the green tree what will they do in the
dry?" If they have so abused the Master
of the House, what will they not do to the
Household?

Ladies aud gentlemen, the question is : —
Is the Re-organized church of .Tesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints, in fact the church of
(jiod and accepted with him?

I have shown you : First. By Eph. 3d,
that the family of God take the name of
•lesus Christ, "of whom the whole family
in heaven and earth is named." Also,
that the children are called Saints, and
ought to be so known ; that we live in the
last times, and hence are Latter Day Saints
— not Former Day Saints. That the church
was organized in 1830, was rejected in 1844,
aud its ministry and members scattered,
and Re-organized in the year 1852. Hence
the church to-day is properly incorporated
under the laws of the United States, as the
lie-organized church of Jesus Christ of Lat-
iL'r Day Saints.

2. I have shown that in faith and doc-
trine it is identical with the church in the
fiist century, established by Jesus and the
apostles.

3. That in organization it is with the
church of Christ in the first century, having
Apostles, Prophets, Seventy, (Evangelists,)
Bishops, High Priests, Elders, Priests,
Teachers, Deacons and Assistants.

4. That, as in the early church, there is
order and arrangement so that the mem-
bers in the body are regularly guided and
directed in their work, and that the officers
taking precedence under the law are also
known as Presidents, Apostles, High
Priests, Bishops, Presidents of Quorums,
aud Presiding Elders, Priests, Teachers and
Deacons.

5. That as in the church Jesus estab-
lished there is faith, repentance, the ordi-
nances of baptism in water for the remis-
sion of sins, and the la,ying on of hands for
confirmation and the gift of the Holy Spirit,
the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead,
and eternal judgment, which judgment is
for the purpose of rewarding all men accord-
ing to the deeds done in the body, and in
accordance witht the degree of good and evil
they shall have done.

6. That in organization there is also pro-
vision for an associate Presidency of three,
as was that of James, Peter and John under
the constitution, the New Testament, after
Jesus had ascended to Heaven. That when
he was here in person there were thirteen
apostles, and he presided, and being the
Son of God, I conclude that he could do so
without associates, but that afterwards.

Peter, James and John held the pre-eminent
right, and hence tlie apostle Paul refers to
them as "Pillars" in the church.

7. That besides the twelve which Jesus
chose while here, he afterwards through the
manifestations of the Holy Spirit, chose
others of which we have record, to-wit: —
Matthias, Acts 1 : 15-20 ; Barnabas and Paul,
Acts 13: 1-6 and 14; Andronicus and Junia,
Rom. 16:7; James, the Lord's brother. Gal.
1 : 19 ; and Sylvanus and Timotheus, 1
Thess. 1 : 2-6.

These, including Jesus who was an
apostle, shows a succession in the church of
these officers to the number of twenty-one.
Besides these there were prophets and
prophetesses in the New Testament church
as Agabus and the four daughters of Philip.

8. That the church was adorned in this
manner when John saw it go into the wil-
derness with the crown of twelve stars and
the Gospel light of the Son of Righteousness,
and that the same beautiful adornment aiid
working organization is revealed in the
order presented by the church to-day, and
that it is clothed with the same Gospel of
peace — the way of life and immortality.

9. That the church has not only been re-
instated in organization and Gospel light,
but that in fact the gifts, powers, blessings,
graces, promises and "faith once delivered
to the Saints" are restored again aud may
be enjoyed by all who will live godly in
Christ Jesus and seek after them.

10. That inspiration and the gift or bap-
tism of the Holy Spirit was not confined
to the first century, but that the promise
was to all, "even as many as the Lord
should call." And that truly "a manifesta-
tion of the Spirit is given to every man [in
the church of Jesus Christ] to profit with
all," and that it is thus "a spiritual house,"
"a habitation of God through the Spirit,"
when acceptable with him. "He that hath
my commandments and keepeththem, he it
is that loveth me, and my Father wi\\ love
liim and we will come unto him and make
our abode with him." "He that abideth in
the doctrine of Christ he hath both the
Father and the Son."

Has my opponent showed a single thing
wherein we diff'ered from the doctrine of
Christ ?

All of you n?ust say no. He has been all
the time telling stories on Smith, Rigdon
Whitmer, ei ai., and raking around in the
dust of the Si^aulding story. But that story
is done. I have traced that tale to its verj'
seat. I found the manuscript for him.
showed him it was placed in the hands of
one of his "^/'s^ citizens," Hulburt; that it
was then put into the hands of another of
his "_^?-s< citizens," Howe ; that then these
two "first citizens" had said it did not read
as they expected and they did not use it ;
that afterwards they tried to make out it
was not the one, in order to protect their
"statements" of certain parties ; that they
were foiled in this because the one they had
was the one on parchment wliich purported
on its face to have been "i^o?/Mc?m a Cave;^'
that Howe and Hulburt promised to return

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

377

this to Mrs. Spaiildiug which, had they
done, it would have forever prohibited,
them from claiming it was not the right
one, and that they brolte their promise and
destroyed it ; but they kept their statements
from trumped up persons who were bent
on sinking the Book of Mormon and publish-
ed them. That satisfies me on the Spauld-
ing tale forever.
I have not only showed you all of this

and the identity in faith, practices, ordin-
ances, organization and work of the church,
but that we were in fact sowing the word of
life, the good seed of the kingdom of God
Avhich Jesus promised sliould bring forth
fruit "some an hundred fold, some sixty and
som« thirty." I thank you, ladies and
gentlemen, for your every courtesy and
attention. (Applause).

I hereby certify thai I have corrected and 2yrepared the foregoing speeches of my!>elf
without access to, or constdtation ivith, those of Mr. Braden since the debate. Have read
the proofs of the same furnished by the jiublishers, and that they have been set forth as
delivered in the discussion of the respective propositions.

E. L. KELLEY.

MR, BRADEN'S EIGHTH SPEECH.

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and
Gentlemen : — We Avill merely notice the
frantic effort of my opponent to set to one
side the evidence that Joe Smith was author
of the revelation on polygamy. The facts
are these: In the first number of the official
organ of the Re-organized Mormon faction
there appeared — I. A statement in the first
and leading editorial written by Zenos H.
(iurley that Joseph was the author of that
revelation and was slain for his conduct in
the matter, Gurley was one of the Re-or-
ganizers, was a leader, and is to-day. II.
A statement by Isaac Sheen, oneof theRe-
organizers, and a leader, one of the editors,
that Smith said that he was the author of
iland said that it caused all of his trou-
bles, and would cost him his life. Kelley
says Sheen retracted it. I denj' it. He can-
not furnish one scrap of proof. III. Another
statement by W. H. Marks, another Re-or-
ganizer and editor, that while Smith was
prophet and his influence was omnipotent
in the church, polj'gamy prevailed to such
an extent that Marks declared tho only way
to purify the church was to dis-organize it ;
that Smith became alarmed and come to
Marks, whom he had been denouncing as
an apostate for opposing pol^'gamy, to get
him to help stay the tide of infamy, believ-
ing that public feeling would drive Mor-
mons and polygamy out of the country.
These declarations stood unchallenged fif-
teen years. Now Mormons are trying to lie
out of them.

In the discussion of this question we
tested Mormonism by its teachings in regard
to the eight great elements of Christianity
laid down by Paul. I. One God. II. One

Lord. III. One Spirit. IV. One faith. V.
One baptism. VI. One hope. VII. One
body. VIII. One name. We read from
the works of the Pratts and others that
were published before Smith's death, ap-
proved by him, and that were standards of
the Mormons, and that expressed M'hat were
their universal sentiments -• from their
papers published before his death, from his
own declarations published in their papers
and from publications universally accepted
by them, and from the Book of Mormon,
declarations that God has a body like man,
is a material organism with all of man's
organs, even of eating, drinking, digest-
ing, evacuating, and procreating, and that
he uses them. That he procreated spirits,
and that spirits are procreated in heaven,
before inhabiting bodies, procreated for
them by men and women on earth. That
matter is self-existent and eternal, and that
God is the creature of matter. That he is
not infinite in knowledge and power, and
not everywhere present, but has been in-
creasing his attributes since he came into
being from matter, and will ever increase.
That all Saints will increase and become
Gods. That they will equal Christ. We
exposed the materialism, idolatry and dis-
gusting sensuality of the system in its
teaching in regard to God and heaven. My
opponent tried to deny it. At last he ap-
pealed to the figurative language of the
Bible, literalizing it in the most gross man-
ner, assuming that God has literal hands,
feet, eyes, mouth, ears; that man is like
him in his physical organization, and though
he stopped short of jinnouncing it, he logi-
cally endorsed all of the gross sensualism

378

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

of the Pratts and Joe Smith. The Bible
declares that there is iiolhiug- to which God
can be likened. He is infinite everywhere
present, infinite in power and wisdom, not
finite in time, space, form or attributes.
The Mormon God has all of man's organs,
and as Pratt has it, eats, drinks, digests,
evacuates, procreates, just like man ; is an
idol of matter, a creature of matter, and
very finite, as all Saints will equal him,
surpass what he is now. Mormonism is a
disgusting compound of materialism, sen-
sualism and idolatry, and as unlike the
pure spirituality of the teachings of the
Bible as the system of the Hindoo Jugger-
naut.

\S'^e next exposed the blasphemy of the
system in regard to the origin of our Savior's
spiritual nature. We showed that it denied
tluit he is our sole divine prophet, by
placing above his teachings in the Bible,
the Book of Mormon, and Joe Smith's lying
frauds, as ''the fullness of the Gospel."
That it denied that he is our sole divine
King, by placing above his law in the Bible,
Joe Smith's lying frauds as "tha fullness of
the law of God."

We next showed that it was unscriptural
and false in every teaching in regard to the
Holy Spirit. It assumed that the only in-
fluence of the Spirit is the direct and mirac-
ulous influence, in opposition to the Scrip-
tures and common sense. The Scriptures
teach there are four powers of the Spirit.
The miraculous inspiration and revelation
and the converting, the sanctifying and
the indwelling power, and through the
truth. My opponent has denied this clear
teaching of reason and revelation, and
confounded all power exerted by the
Spirit, and claimed that all is miracu-
lous power. He has mis-apiDlied prom-
ises of the miraculous power. He has
applied what was promised to the apostles,
miraculous power to qualify tliem for their
work, to all Christians. He, in flat contra-
diction of the word of God, applies the
promise of the baptism in the Spirit to all
Christians, and claims that it is in the
church now, in flat contradiction of God's
word, that declares there is only one baptism
in the church, baptism in water. He has
absurdly tried to make one the baptism
in water and the baptism in the Spirit,
wlien John says men administer one ; Christ
alone administered the other. He does not
know the difference between immersion by
one Spirit, that is, by the command of one
Spirit, and immersion in the Spirit. Be-
tween born of the Spirit and immersion in
the Spirit ; between renewal of the Spirit
and immersion in the Spirit. He does not
know the difference between the moral in-
fluence of the Spirit, through the word in
conversion and sanctification and the
miraculous power of the Spirit in inspira-
tion, spiritual gifts, miraculous powers,
immersion in the Spirit. He does not know
the difference between the indwelling of
the Spirit and the miraculous influence of
the Spirit. He reads instances of the mirac-
ulous influence of the Spirit, claims it for

all Cbrisiians. because he finds the Spirit
promised to all Christians, overlooking the
teaching of the Bible, that all Christians
receive the moral influence, the influ-
ence through the truth alone, and
that only those that God used to
do work requiring miraculous influ-
ence, received it. He absurdly assumes
that because some men whom God used for
purposes that required miraculous influence
received it, all Christians must have it,
overlooking the fact that they are not called
to such work, and do not need it. He flatly
contradicts Paul's teaching that there is a
better way than the exercise of the best
miraculous powers. That all miraculous
powers shall cease when they have accom-
plished their purpose, the completion of the
constitution of the church, the New' Testa-
ment, and the organization of the church
under it. This clear, positive teaching of
God's word he rejects. He claims miracu-
lous powers and has utterly failed to furn-
ish one single proof of them. He might as
well claim creating power in his church.
His claim is as impudent as the claim of
liis prophet, Joe Smith, to see money with
his peep-stone — money that was never
found. We showed that not only does
Mormonism pervert the one faith, God's
word, but it blasphemously places above
the faith as "The fullnessof the Gospel" the
lying frauds of Joe Smith and other de-
ceivers and visionary fanatics. We have
rung in our opponents ears the demand,
"What need for new revelations? " Do
you say you have a truth that Christ's per-
fect Gospel did not give to the world? Dare
you say that you express any truth better
than he and his apostles expressed it? This
question he dare not answer. It meets his
lying frauds at the threshold of the temple
of God, as the angel with flaming sword
met sinful man at the gate of Eden.

We next showed the false teachings of
his system in regard to the one baptism.
After admitting that immersion in water
was in the church, it gives the lie direct to
to the Holy Spirit, and asserts there is
also in the church, immersion in the Spirit,
when the Holy Spirit declares there is in
the church one immersion, as there is one
God, and teaches that immersion in water,
in the name of the Father. Son and Holy
Spirit, unto the remission of sins is the one
baptism that is in the church. We next
exposed the farce of baptism of the living
as proxiea for tne dead, taught by Mormon-
nism. We asked how do the dead know
what the living proxy has done? How
does the living proxy know whether the
dead has believed and repented. If the
dead have believed and repented, will they
stay in hell, because of the failure of some
living person to be baptized as proxy for
him? If the living is baptized and the
dead does not repent, what good in the
farcical blunder? These questions he has
not noticed.

We exposed the materialistic, senicsualist
nature of the teachings of Mormonism in
regard to the Millennium, and the final

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE,

379

reward of the righteous. Rigdon in his
gross literalizing of the figurative teaching
of the Bible, in regard to the future, made
nonsense out of them, and taught the most
absurd, extravagant, and gross materialis-
tic ideas of the Millenium and future life.
Sensible Mormons hide there ideas, as
they do his gross literal material teaching
in regard to God.

We next showed that Mormonism makes
a hideous monster of the one body. It dis-
cards the teaching of the New Testament,
that Mosaism with its Priesthood and
ritual is abrogated, and the simple church
of Christ has taken its place. It foists into
Christianity the Mosaic Priesthood, when
Christ's law declares that the law is
changed, the Priesthood is changed. It
gets up a fiction called the Melchezedek
Priesthood, when the Bible teaches that
there were but two — Melchezedek and an-
other priest, Christ. Only two. This
fiction of two Priesthoods — Aaronic and
Melchezedek in the churcli, has no more
founadation than the Catholic seven sacra-
ments. It ends in placing in the church
pretenders to all Spiritual gifts, when the
Bible teaches they have accomplished
their purpose, and ceased. It has presi-
dents, vice-presidents, a presidency,
twelve apostles, several seventies of
apostles, presidents of quorums of apostles,
quorums of apostles, presidents of tens, in
the seventies, councillors, high council-
lors, priests, and high priests, presidents of
stakes, bishops, presidents of bishops,
traveling elders, organizations of elders
and bishops, presidents and other officers
of such organizations, prophets, seers,
evangelists, revelators, translators, patri-
archs, and not even an inspired Mormon
can repeat all their lingo. This monstrosity
is the true church of God, like that Paul
addressed in Philiippi, when he wrote
" Paul and Timotheus to all the Saints,
Overseers and Servants of the church in
Philiippi." As much like it as a Hindoo
idol with a dozen heads, a hundred arms,
and as many feet as a millipede, is like the
human body as it came from the hands of
God. We next assailed the name. The
disciples were first called Christians at
Antioch, by the apostles, a true reading
declares. Mormons were called Latter Day
Saints at Kirtland, by Rigdon. The Holy
Spirit called the congregations " Churches
of God," "Churches of Christ." Mormons
called their monstrosity with its officers as
numerous as the devils cast out of the man
in the tombs "The Re-organized Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
We have exposed the Book of Mormon. We
traced its origin in Spaulding's "Manu-
script Found." Proved by Rigdon himself
that he took it from the ofiice, where Spaul-
ding sent it to be printed. That he re-
modelled it into a pretended revelation
by putting into it portions of the Bible
and his own notions. We have proved
that he gave it to Smith to publish to
the world as a pretended revelation, dug
from the earth and translated by his stolen

peep-stone. That he was seen at Smith's
and was absent often when engaged in this
work. That he preached its ideas and pre-
pared his congregations, converts, and cer-
tain preachers to receive it. That he pre-
dicted its coming. That Pratt went from
him to Smith, and came back to him. We
have exposed that transparent fraud, his
pretended conversion. We have exposed
the Rigdonisms on every page. We liave
exiDOsed its plagiarisms fiom King James'
translations. Its absurd imitation of the
brogue of the translators. Its quotations
of the New Testament, before it was writ-
ten. Its quotations of modern authors
hundreds of years before they lived. Its
adaptions of modern events. Its anachio-
nistas in speaking of modern things. Its
utter luck of one particle of evidence needed
to sustain an uninspired book. Its lack of
evidence needed to sustain an inspired
book. Its flat contradictions of the Bible
history, of the Bible teachings. Its scores
of self-contradictions and blunders. We
have showed the contradictions between
the Book of Mormon dnd the Bible. Be-
tween the Book of Mormon and the Inspired
Translation of Joe Smith. Between the
Inspired Translation and the Bible. Be-
tween the Inspired translation and the Book
of Doctrines and Covenants. Between the
Inspired Translation and Joe Smith's
preaching. Between the Inspired Trans-
lation in its different parts. We have
proved that the Mormon God has learned
printer's art, composition and grammar,
and has revised himself from title page to
finis; making seventeen changes on one
page and over five thousand in the book,
and changes that omit whole lines and
insert lines and entirely change the mean-
ing. We have showed the atrocious out-
rages on all grammar and composition in
all Mormon frauds called revelations. We
examined the Book of Doctrines and Cove-
nants and exposed its displays of trickery',
low cunning, avarice and selfishness, its
meaness, its flat contradictions of the Bible
in teachings and spirit. Its failure in pre-
dictions, its gross blunder. We exposed
the gross absurd and unscriptural charac-
ter of Smith's lie about the ordination of
himself r.nd Cowdery, by John the Baptist.
As this is the corner stone of Mormonism,
my opponent abandoned all hope ol»his sys-
tem, when he dodged defending this lie of
Smith. We showed it contradicted the
Bible in fourteen particulars. We showed
that Joe lacked every evidence of a prophet.
He never uttered what must have been a
revelation. He never prophecied. He
never wrought a miracle. All such claims
are transparant frauds. We then examined
Smith's antecedents, we exposed the low,
dishonest, lying character of the family, its
career and" associates. We showed that
Smith was lazy, a liar, a drunkard, a thief.
That he was noted for his lies, all through
his Career, and for his tricks, fraud and de-
ception. In New York, in Pennsylvania,
in Ohio, in Missouri, in Illinois. He began
witching for water, a lying fraud. Peep-

3S0

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

iiig for lost articles. A lyiuo fraud. Point-
ing out buried treasures. A lying fraud.
Digging for them. A lying fraud. His
pretended fac simile of what was on the
plates was a lying fraud. So were his pre-
tended plates. His pretended translation
of the Book of Abraham was a lying fraud.
So was his pretended translation of pre-
tended plates, the Book of Mormon. He ad-
mitted that he never had any plates. That
it was all a hoax. The witnesses repudiated
their testimony. Mormons excluded them
as liars and criminals of the blackest dye.
We showed the innumerable lies and con-
tradictory stories, that Smith and all con-
nected with the fraud, told, showing that
it was a clumsy fraud, gotten ujj by ignor-
ant knaves.

We exposed Joe's lying tricks of casting
out devils in New York. We showed that
all his powers was a remarkable power as
psychologist, or mesmerist, and that as
people knew nothing of this power then,
they mistook it for supernatural power, as
ignorant people so mistake the same power
in Spiritism. We traced Smith's career in
Kirtland, and that of Mormon leaders.
Their lies, frauds, swindles, that ruined
hundreds and compelled them to flee the
country to escape the penitentiary. We
exposed their career of violence, fraud,
murder, assassination, swearing and vil-
lainy in Missouri. We exposed their career
of similar villainy in Illinois, We proved
that Smith was a swindler and cheat, and
liar and villain wherever he lived. We
jDroved that nearly oire-third of the leaders
of Mormonism liave abandoned it, and de-
nounced it as a fraud. That Rigdon, the
author, did so. We proved that Joe Smith
was the author of the revelation on
polygamy, and that Mormons have i)o
more right to reject that than the Book
of Mormon. We took up the career of Mor-
monism as a religion, in Kirtland. We
exposed its fanaticism, madness and im-
morality. We exposed Smith's attempts
at assassination. His frauds called speak-
ing with tongues. We exposed the lies,
tricks and deceptions enacted to carry out
the fraud in Kirtland. ' We showed' that
the Book of Commandments published in
Independence, Missouri, was changed, re-
vised, and patched up until the Book of
Doctrines and Covenants is no more like it
than Catholicism is like Apostolic Chris-
tianity. These revelations were uttered by
Joe by inspiration, published in the "Morn-
ing and Evening Star" as revelations.
Published as revelations in the Book of
Commandments. Then so re-modelled in
the Book of Doctrines and Covenants that
the printers who set up the first book would
not recognize the second.

We charge Mormonism with blasphemy
and presumption. It claims to act under
the infallible inspiration of God, and work
miracles. Book of Doctrines and Cm'e-
nants. Its emissaries are pledged by*he
same authority to work miracles when it
is demanded of them. Mormons profess to
have intercourse with angels, that they fre-

quently see them and have intercourse with
them, Mormonism claims to be the only
true church, and that all others will be
damned. Mormonism taught that God
would send down a city from heaven, the
New Jerusalem, into Missouri and that all
Saints were to gather there under fear of
divine wrath. Afterward they gathered
under the same pretended revelation at
Nauvoo. The prophecies about Missouri
have all failed. Mormonism places its pre-
tended revelations above the New Testa-
ment. That contained only the Gosjjel,
their frauds contained the "Fullness of the
Gospel." Mormonism threatens all who
only accept the Bible and reject it with
eternal damnation. Mormonism changes
the terms of salvation laid down in God's
word. God's word teaches that if men
accept it and live it out in life they will be
saved. Mormonism teaches that they must
accept its frauds also, and even place them
above the Gospel of Christ as the "fullness
of the Gospel." We showed from the Book
of Doctrines and Covenants that Mormonism
is a scheme for enriching its knavish leaders.
Mormonism teaches resistance to evil.
Snaitli did so in his revelations. So does
the Book of Mormon.

Mormonism, like spiritismand the animal
excitements of negroes, mistakes abnormal,
unhealthy frenzy for the work of the Spirit.
It mistakes mere frenzy and nervous mes-
meric excitement for the influence of the
Spirit of God. Such delusion has ever
led to frenzy, madness, crime and pol-
lution. It did in Mormon excitements
in Kirtland. It did in Missouri, Nauvoo.
Si^iritual wifery and jjolygamy are only the
the inevitable results of such ideas of the
work of the Spirit as Mormonism teaches.
Infidelity works with Mormonism for two
reasons,' It attempts to make out that
Mormonism has as much evidence as Chris-
tianity. If men can be led to believe this and
that ilormonismis the perfection of Christi-
anity they will reject such a hum bug as Mor-
monism and rejectChristianity also. It wants
to load Christianity with Mormonism to
destroy Christianity. Again, when Mor-
monism is exposed it betrays its infidelity.
It assails Christianity and the infidel wolf
recognizes his brother wolf in sheep's
clothing. No one fact connected with this
debate has been more apparent than that.
My opponent's infidelity will stare the
reader of the debate in the face in nearly
every speech.

The ease with which this fraud has been
exposed, exploded in this debate will be a
standing proof of the difference between it
and Christianity. No such assaults can be
made on Christ or on his teachings. The
Bible is a wonderful part of the world's
history, and has evidences that no other
book has. It does not stand out apart from
the world's history, like Gulliver's Travels,
or the Book of Mormon. The discussion
will illustrate the diflTerence between the
genuine, the Bible, and the counterfeit, the
Book of Mormon. Mormonism re-hashes and
even exaggerates infidel falsehoods about

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

381

the purity or the text of the Bible. That
has been done in this debate. Any decent
infidel would denounce as an ignoramus a
person who would, make such charges as
have been made in this debate. When the
vile character of the prophet and leaders
have been exposed, it eclipses lugersoU in
his infidel attacks on the character of the
Bible personages. Every unfair mis-repre-
sentation and sneer of infidelity has been
repeated here. When its pretended mir-
acles are exposed, it assails with more
than infidel falsehood those of the Bible.
That has been done in this debate. Sneers
have been thrown out about "Jonah swal-
lowing the whale. " Yet this infidel system
is the "Fullness of the Gospel." Its organ-
ization is the only true Church of God now
on earth. Its infidel emissaries have the
miraculous power of Spirit, — can work mir-
acles— give revelations, and those who
believe the Bible, and defend it, are apos-
tates from the Bible ; because they do not
accept the lying frauds of these infidels.
Infidelity recognizes its ally wherever
Mormouism rears its head. There is never
a debate with Mormonism, that infidelity
in the place does not hurrah for the Mormon.
Mormonism had its origin in a scheme of
a backslidden doubting preacher, todeeeive
the world, in pretending that he had dug a
manuscript from the earth and translated it;
that he might get money out of it. Some
think that his"" stupid ijlagiarism of Bible
style was intended as a deliberate caricature
of the Bible. This intended fraud was stolen
by a back-slidden sceptical preacher who
blasphemously plagiarized the ideas and
language of the Bible to re-model it into
a pretended revelation, .to make a " big
thing out of it," It was given to the world
by an infidel, an admirer of Paine, who
was duping the superstitious and ig-

norant with pretences to witch for water,
peep for lost treasures, etc. It has displayed
its infidelity and hostility to the Bible' all
through its course. If an error of Mormon-
ism was exposed it retorted with an infidel
attack on the Bible, It assails the Bible
to revenge the exposure that friends of the
Bible have made of its fraudulent charac-
ter. When we point out that it is destitute
of the evidence that an inspired book should
have, it re-hashes infidel falsehoods that
the books of the Bible are no better. It
asserts, in the face of all history, that the
Books of the New Testament were composed
two or three hundred years after Christ.

Mormonism is a hodge-podge of Mosaism,
Mahommedanism, Methodism, Episcopa-
lianism, Catholicism, Campbellism, Rigdon-
ism, Smithism and Prattism, Infidelity,
Mesmeric Power and Devilism. Infidelity
was its father, ignorance and superstition
was its mother, and like Milton's whoredom
of Satan and Sin, the monstrous progeny
has been death.

All who accept the Bible and believe that
the Scriptures are given by inspiration, and
are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness,
and that by the Scriptures all children of
God are made perfect, and thoroughly fur-
nished unto all good works, will reject this
monster Mormonism, All who accept
Jesus as the only Divine Prophet, source
of all teaching, their only Divine King,
source of all law, will reject the back-
slidden, doubting Solomon Spaulding, the
unprincipled, infidel Sydney Rigdon, the
scoundrelly infidel pretender of Manchester,
Joe Smith, with his stolen peep-stone. They
will accept the one God, one Lord, one Spirit,
one faith, one baptism, one hope, one body,,
one name of the religion of Christ,

I hereby certify that my speeches appear in this book just as 1 furnished them to the
printer, ivithout any restrictions whatever. I read all the proofs myself, and my speeches
are printed just as I directed, without any chavye or i eat, iction. ^^^^^^- LEADEN.

382

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A.

" KiRTLAND, Ohio, February 22, 1884.
"Ma J. J. H. Gilbert,

"Dear Sir: Kelley assailed your statement that the
manuscript of the Book of Mormon lacked punctu-
ation— as it came to you.

He got a telegram from David Whitmer, who claims
that he has the original manuscript— that it is punctu-
ated.

Will you please answer these queries:

I. As the manuscript was handed to you was it
punctuated ? If it was, to what extent?

II. Were the sentences commenced with capital let-
ters. If so, to what extent ?

III. Were there mis-spelled words? Were they
frequent?

IV. Did you correct grammatical blunders to any
extent?

Please to answer these queries, stating the facts in
each case. Return questions, and answers. You
can append your statement to this. Do not fail to do
this, as Kelley has read what he wrote in "Saint's
Herald," which is the reverse of what you told me.
Answer as soon as you can. ' ' Yours,

" Clark Braden."

" Palmyra, February 27, 1884.
*'Mr. Braden,

"Dear Sir: Answer to questions

I. " Not a punctuation mark of any kind from be-
ginning to end of manuscript.

II. "Sentences were not commenced with capitals:
If they had been there would not have been so much
difficulty in punctuation.

III. "The spelling was good. The word "travail"
occurred twice in one "form" and was spelled "travel"
in both instances. The copyist evidently not knowing
the meaning of the word ; and furthermore, Cowdery
looked over the manuscript when the proof was read.

IV. " We were not allowed 10 correct any grammati-
cal errors.

" If Mr. Whitmer claims that he has the manuscript
that I used in setting up the Mormon Bible, and that
it is punctuated and the sentences begin with a capital,
I say it has been altered since it left my hands, or that
he lias not got the original.

" Mr. Kelley mis-repie.sented me in every important
particular in his article published in the " Saint's
Herald" of Piano, Illinois. If Mr. Kelley has to
resort to falsehood and mis-representation to defend
Mormonism, he had better leave them and become an
honest man if possible. " Yours truly,

(Signed) J. H. Gilbert."

APPENDIX B.

■"State op New Y^ork,)
Wayne County. j **•

" Saniuel J. Mclntyre being duly sworn, says:
Since 1851, have been au attorney and Counselor prac-
tising in all the Courts of this State, and in the United
States Courts. During all my life I have resided in
the village of Palmyra, in this county, except from
August 1862 to September 18G5, when I was in the army,
and am fifiy-six years of age.

" I have been shown a letter of inquiry from Mr.
Clark Braden of Kirtland, Ohio, and requested to
answer the inquiries therein, as to Thomas P. Baldwin
and his holding the office of Judge of Wayne County in
1833. Was also informed of the fact that our County
Clerk had written to a Mr. Kelley, that no such person
was Judge of Wayne County Court.

" To properly understand the matter, and perhaps
explain the mistakes that have been made, let me pre-
face, by stating that since the change in the constitu-
tion of the State in 1846, which took effect January 1,
1847, we have but one County Judge, and two "side
judges," who are entitled "Justices of sessions."
These two-side judges, are justices of the peace elected
to the position of Justices of sessions. They sit with
the County Judge in criminal trials, and form with
him the Court of sessions. The County Judge is also
elected.

This constitution of 1846, made a radical change
in the Judiciary all over the State, and of all Courts.

" Before the constitution of 1846, there were appointed
in each County five judges of County Courts, one of
whcm was designated as first judge of the Countv,
who presided at the Sessions. The other four sat with
him as associated Judges. The first Judge was en-
titled First Judge of Wavne County Courts, and the
others were entitled Judges of Wayne County Courts.
Each of these Judges was appointed by the Governor,
and confirmed by the Senate, and held office for five
years. This was the order of things at the organiza-
tion of this County in 1823.

"I find by the records in Wayne County Clerk's office
which I have examined and also by the examination
of authentic histories of Wayne County, that in Febru-
ary 1830 William Sisson was appointed 'First Judge of
Wayne County Courts' and that he held the office until
February 1835 when he was re-appointed; and that
during the same time Russell Whipple, Daniel Eddy,
Thomas P. Baldwin and David Arne, jr., were Judges
of Wayne Countv Courts and acted as such from Febru-
ary 1830 to February 1885. The records of the Courts
on file in the Wayne County Clerk's office at Lyons,
New Tork. show them to have acted as such during
this time. On file in said office are the appointments
of these gentlemen to the.se offices under the hand of
the Governor of the State (or rather of Enos T. Throop
who was then acting Governor) with the Seal of the
State attached. Certified copies of these papers can
be obtained at any time from the Clerk of Wayne
County.

"Either of these Judges of Wayne County Courts had
the jurisdiction to take affidavits and acknowledge-
ments.

"The Wayne County Courts in which these Judges
sat was the Court of Common Pleas for the trial of
civil matters of small amount, and hearing argument
of appeals from judgments rendered by Justices of the
Peace; and the Court of Sessions for the trial of
criminal matters where the punishment was lower than
imprisonment for life; also all five of these Judges sat
with the Circuit Judge when he held a Court of Oyer
and Terminer in the County which is a Criminal Court
at whi'^h a Grand Jury sat and found indictments, and
the Oyer and Terminer tried the criminal cases of a
higher grade and all criminal cases that were not
ordered by it to be tried at the Sessions.

"Therefore the propriety of the titles 'Judges of
Wayne County Courts,' and not as now simply 'County
Judge.'

"Thomas P. Baldwin was a lawyer and for a long
time held the office of Commissioner of Deeds having
authority to take affidavits and acknowledgements.
In my practice I have seen a very large number of
documents signed by him as Commissioner of Deed.*
and some as 'Judge of Wayne County Courts,' and in all
cases be signed his name of 'Th. P. Baldwin.' His
oaths of office on file in Wayne County Clerk's office
are all so signed.

"After all this it is perhaps unnecessary to say that
such a man as Thomas P. Baldwin lived and riioved
and had his being in Wayne county. Although young
myself at the time spoken of I very well recollect the
man. He was spoken of as 'Judge Baldwin' and 'Tom
Baldwin.' His daughter (now Mrs. Breck of Greenfield,
Massachusetts, near Springfield, Massachusetts) was
here on a visit but a month ago to her half brother,
William H. Cuylerof this place.

"Her father," Thos. P. Baldwin, married the widow
of William Howe Cuyler who had two sons, Geo. W.
Cuyler formerly President of the First National Bank
of this place who is now dead, and Wm. H. Cuyler now
living here. By this marriage there was the child
Mary Baldwin, new Mrs. Breck. The widow of George
W. Cuyler now lives in the place where Judge Baldwin
formerly lived in this village.

"Theletter of Mr. Braden was handed to me yester-
day, and being very much surprised at learning from
it that our County Clerk had written a letter containing
such a mistake as to the judgeship of Thomas P.
Baldwin, while on an errand to Lyons to-day I took
pains to investigate and found that the letter of Mr.
Kelley had been turned over to a young man in the
office bv the name of Van Marten who was utterly

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

383

ignorant of the changes of our judiciary and judicial
system and knew of no Judges of Wayne County Courts
except the County Judge of the present day or since
1816. 1 asked him to make a certificate of the facts
after examining the records and documents and send
to me, and hope to receive the same in time to accom-
pany this.

"I have made this statement in a narrative form
rather than in the strict form of a deposition as I
thoughtit would be more easily understood.

"(Signed) S. B. McIntyre.
"Sworn to before me, February 27, 1884.

"(Signed) T. W. Collins,

"Wayne County Judge.

STATE OF NEW YORK,) g.
Wayne County. J

"William H. Cuyler of the village of Palmyra, New
York, being dulv sworn says, I am 72 years old, and
have resided in this village all my life. I am the son
of Major Wm. Howe Cuyler who was killed in the war
of 1812. . ^^^

"After my father's death, mv mother married Thomas
P. Baldwin and by him had one daughter, Mary, now
Mrs. Breck of Greenfield, Mass."

" The wife of Joseph Smith, the father of the Mormon,
nursed mv mother al the birth of Mary Baldwin. I at-
tended school with Joseph Smith the Mormon, and his
brothers— particularly Alvin and William."

" Thomas P. Baldwin was a lawyer, held the oflBce of
Commissiiner of deeds for a long time, and was one of
the judges of Wavne County Courts from 1830 to 1835,
being appointed to" the posiiion by Enos T. Throop, the
Lieutenant Governor of the State then acting as Gov-
ernor, as the Governor Martin Van Buren resigned in
1829, on being appointed Secretary of State umder Pres-
ident Jackson.

"My step-father always sigmed his name 'Th. P.
Baldwin'. He died early in the year 1858 at Greene
Bay, Wisconsin and was buried there.'

"(Signed) W. T. Cuylee."
"Sworn to before me February 27th, 18St.

" (Signed) T. W. Collins.

"Wayne County Judge."

Lyons, New York, February 27th, 1884.
" I, J . M. Van Marten, Special Deputy Clerk of Wayne
County, New York, do hereby certify that on or about
February 1, 1884, and February 7, 1884, there were re-
ceived at this oflice two letters, which are hereto
attached, and in reply to the inquiry in the first letter,
and to the first enquiry in the second letter, I replied
substantially that no person named Thomas P. Baldwin
was a iudge of the County Courts of Wayne County,
New York in 1833 or 1834, and that David Arne, Jr., was
Wayne County Judge. When I made those statements
I supposed the ofllce of County Judge was always the
saine.in title and jurisdiction, as it is at present, i.e., one
County Judge and two side judges, called Justices of
Sessions. . , ,- ^

"But I find upon investigation that prior to 184fi, at
which time the new State Constitution went into effect,
there was appointed by the Governor and confirmed by
the Senate one person with the title of First Judge of
the County, and four others 'Associate Judges,' who
were each" called " Judge of Wayne County Courts." I
find by the records of this oflice that Thomas P. Bald-
win of Palmyra and David Eddv of Marion, were on
the 10th day of February, 1830. duly appointed by the
Governor of the State of New York and confirmed by
the Senate "Judges of the County Courts of the County
of Wavne." Their commission is on file in this oflice,
and it"now lies before me. It was filed February 15th,
'1830. I also find by the records of this oftice that the
said Thomas P. Baldwin sat and acted as such Judge
of Wayne County Courts during the years 1830, 1831,
1832, 1833 and 1834, the first Court at which he acted
commencing June 14. 1830, and the last Court, Septem-
ber 8, 1834. I also find that prior to 1S30 and after 1834
he was a Commissioner of Deeds in the town of Palmyra,
in this County, and find his signature as such to a
number of documents. In each case his signature is
written thus: " Th. P. Baldwin."

" He was a practising attorney at the time of the or-
gani7ation of this County in 1823, as I find by the list of
attorneys and their signatures on file in this office of
that date. I also certifv that David Arne, Jr. was for a
long time an associate Judge of the same rank and title
as said Baldwin and acted as such Judge at the same
time with Baldwin, I further find by the records of
this office that William Sisson was the first Judge of the
Courts of Wavne County from January, 1830, to Feb-
ruary, 1835. When he was re-appointed as such judge.
During that time the following were associate Judges,
Laving the title of Judges of Courts of Wayne County,

viz: Thomas P, Baldwin. Daniel Eddy. Russell Whip-
ple, and David Ar«e, Jr. And I will also add that at
that time the oath of office was not always adminis-
tered by the County Clerk.

"(Signed) M. J. Van Makten,

"Special Deputy Clerk."

APPENDIX C.
Evidence taken in open Court before
S. C. Carpenter, Esq., justice of tlie peace
in and for the towusliip of Kirtland, Lake
county, Oiiio, Lorenzo Fay, reporter. Taken
on the 8th day of March, 1884, upon the
matter of the faitli and practices of the
Re-organized Cliurch of Jesus Clirist of
Latter Day Saints, and the reputation and
moral character of certain of the promi-
nent men of the church as existing iii Kirt-
land, Ohio, and elsewhere, between the
years of 1830 and 1844, by mutual agreement,

PBESENT :

Elder Clark Braden, representing the
Disciple Church.

Elder E. L. Kelley, representing Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

J. J. Moss being produced, first being
duly sworn, testified as follows :

EXAMINED BY MR. BRADEN.

Q. Mr. Moss may state the time when he
was teaching school here and the appear-
ance of three Mormon preachers here, liis
attending meetings. What the facts are?
A. I commenced teaching school in Kirt-
land, in the old red school house, just across
the bridge that goes from the post-office on
the road to Chardon on the right hand side,
in the fall of 1830. The week that I com-
menced my school three Mormon preachers
came from York State. If any one can tell
me the time of the month I can get at the
time. Two of these preachers I recollect,
the other I do not. Parley Pratt and Oliver
Cowdery I recollect. In the course of the
winter I attended their meetings. The
things that were stated last night in refer-
ence to the things that took place here are
correct. On the side hill across the flat,
east of the present mill at night, Black
Pete and two white men went from a meet-
ing in a log house on the flat and got up on
to stumps, and were preaching to imaginary
audiences.

John Taneur and myself were at the foot
of the hill. John Taneur came from the
State of New York with me, and when I
took a school at the flats he took a school in
the Newell district. He put his hands to
his mouth and made an awful screech, when
they all jumped from the stumps. The two
white men ran angling down the hill, and
black Pete ran straight down on the snow
and ice, crying out, "Here we go. here we
go." His feet slipped from under him, and
as his seat struck the ground he sang out,
"Oh God, here we go." He went back into
the house, and they had some tomahawk-
ing, scalping and ripping up the bowels,
and Indian talk ; and that was the scene
that night. I saw Black Pete in the orchard
on the left hand side of the road from the
post-office as you go to Mentor, or where the

384

THE BR ADEN A^^D KELLEY DEBATE.

road now goes to Painesville, There was
but one house on that corner then ; the
orchard Avas just back of that house. Black
Pete chased the Devil sometimes, and some-
times the Devil was chasing him around
the stumps and apple trees. That I saw.
I was called out of my school in to the shoe-
maker's shop of Mr. Gaboon — I do not
remember his first name — right by the side
of my school house, I left my school in
charge of one of my largest scholars, went
out after he called. I found his eldest son,
I do not remember his first name, figliting
with the Devil. I seems when I got in he
had got a little the advantage of the Devil,
and had him under, but still the Devil was
trying to steal a march on him. He acted
like a crazy man as much as anything else,
and would say, "there you come; I see
you," And when the Devil got pretty close
to him he would jab his fingers at him and
say, "Zick! Zick!" I went to my school
room and called in eight or ten ot my larg-
est scholars, some young men and some
young women, to witness the scene. He
got the Devil at last in the corner where
there was some old boots and shoes, jabbing
his fingers at him — "Zick ! Zick !" I slipped
behind the scholars and got my foot behind
an old shoe, and when the Devil was com-
ing again I suddenly shoved it before him.
He jumped about two feet high and ran
down stairs out into tlie field, just back of
the school house, and there was quite a
number of stumps, and the Devil was after
him ; he dodged first around one stump and
then another,

I believe I was the first person, with a
young man, whose name I have forgotten,
who was present when they took what
•was called the sacrament up at the Morley
house. They were in the habit of turning
every body out of the door when they par-
took of the bread and wine, putting blankets
up at the windows, shutting oflT the sight
from without. They started a regular
pow-wow, and when they got well going,
then they opened the door and let us all
come in again. A young man and myself
made it up that we would stay in unless
they took us out by force. The young man
got asleep, and I had a dumb evil and
could not talk ; but they did not carry us
out but went on with the sacrament. The
poor-house in Portage County, Ohio, where
there were half a dozen insane and idiotic
persons, was the best comparison of any-
thing to the scene that night. And if I had
had my cloak on I would have stolen the
wine and carried it home to see whether it
was drugged or not.

By Mr, Kelley : Q. I would like to know
whether those three preachers, including
Oliver Cowdery, were at the pow-wow?
A. I do not think they were, I told them
in the public meetings and on the street,
that that was from the Devil, the Spirit of
God had nothing to do with it. Some time
after they got a revelation from Joseph
Smith, and he said such conduct was from
the Devil, and then they quit their per-
formances. They believed him but they

would not believe me. They lield meetings
at the Morley Farm a good deal, and they
used to invite people that came from abroad
to stay all night, and it so happened by ac-
cident or some other cause, that all that
stayed overnight were immersed by the
Mormons before noon the next day, ai\d
after awhile they got to inviting some of
the citizens of the vicinity to stay all night.
Some of them I knew were bitterly opposed
the day before, and they were immersed
before noon, I made up my mind I wanted
to stay all night. I asked some people who
lived in the neighborhood how it happened
"you did not believe in Mormonism yester-
day and to-day you are a Mormon?" They
said "Oh! If you had seen what I have
seen, and heard what I have heard, you
would believe as well as I." " What have
you seen and heard?" "I can't tell," I
then began to wear a long face, stopped
arguing against the Mormons either on the
street or in their meetings. So I got an in-
vitation to stay all night, and that was
what I was after. They came to me at the
close of the meeting and said that there
were so many that had come from abroad,
and asked me if I would not wait till the
next night. Before the third night came,
Matthew Clapp, of Mentor, came all the
way from there to see if he could not save
me from Mormonism, and he cried over me
and shed tears till he wrought upon my
feelings and I told him what I was at, but
I enjoined it upon him to keep it to himself
until I got to stay there all night; but he
told it, and before 'the third night came it
got out ; and I did not get a chance to stay
there another night. And it was found out
why 1 was wearing my long face, and that
what I wanted to stay there for was to see
if they had got angels there that appeared
in the night that caused everyone that the
angels appeared to go to the water the next
day.

I stated that T had studied the black art,
and leger-de-main once, and I knew just how
those things were done. I can appear to
you in a dark room or on a dark night as a
living pillar of fire. That got noised all
over the country, and that was the last of
their inviting anybody to stay over night.
The angel that held the lamp to baptize I
did not see. I heard of it when I came to
my school m the morning.

There is one thing more that I will statd
and then I think I am done with every-
thing that is personal. In one of these
meetings there was a young married woman
that I was perfectly satisfied was making
her own calculation to get the power and
fall into my lap, I watched for it, and was
loolting for it and finally it came, and she
came down with the power right into my
lap, but she got up quicker than she came
down. I guess the Mormons never knew
how she got up so quick.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. KELLEY:

Question. Who was it fell in your lap?
Answer. I could not give the name now,

Q. When did you say that was? A. It \
was in the winter of 1830-31,

THE BRADEX AND KELLEY DEBATE.

385

Q. Who was present at the time the lady
fell into your lap? A. I could not tell
that.

Q. What was Mr. Morley's first name?
A. I can not tell that.

Q. Who did you tell that you supposed
they liad angels there? A. I told a good
many people; I told Mr. Riggs who kept
the hotel, and Squire Moss and. Mr. Jones,
who lived at the foot of the hill on the road
that goes to Cluirdon, and Mr. Howe that
lived opposite the school-house, and his
wife.

Q, Wl\y did you .tell them that they
kept angels there? A. Because I got that
into my head.

Q. How did you know they had angels
there? A. I did not say I knew it.

Q. What did you say they kept angels
for then ? A. I did not tell them it was
so.

Q Who was it that invited you to stay
there the first night? A. I cannot tell that
now. It is fifty-three years ago.

Q. Was this before or after Mr. Morley
united with the church? A. The Mormon
church you mean, I suppose?
Q,. Yes, sir. A. It was after.
Q. What citizens do you know, who staid
over night and were baptized the next
day? A. I do not remember any of their
names now.
Q. Can't you give one? A. No.
Q. How do you know it was the first
time they staid over night? A. I did not
say it was tlie first time they staid all
night. I said they were invited to stay
over night.

Q. You do not know but that they had
been to the preaching a number of times
before that? A. No, sir.

Q. Why did you think staying over all
night, had anything to do with it? A. Be-
cause they that stayed over all night, most
all joined.

Q,. What were the names of some that
were baptized ? A. I cannot give you the
names.

Q. You say that a short time after that
Mr. Smith reneived a revelation thatit was
all from the Devil A. Yes, sir, that was in
the year 1830-1831.

And after they got that revelation there
was no more scenes of tliat kind. A. No,
sir,

Q. How long were you here? A, Five
months.

Q. And that time was the time that they
received a revelation of Joseph Smith ? A.
Yes, sir, they got that revelation at the time
I was teaching school here. That was not
the revelation I took out of Martin Harris's
hat.

Q. How long before had the members you
spoke of being in those conditions been
members of some church? A. That I could
not tell you.

Q. Was the Morley family all the mem-
bers of the Christian church that joined the
Sain ts ? A. I did not know how many there
were.

Q. Did not they have that same falling
down before the preachers came. Wlien
they belonged under the Disciple faith? A.
I cannot tell.

Q. How long before this had they been
members of the Disciple church? A. I do
not know how long they had been members;
they were members when I came here, all
of them.

Q. Was there any of our ministers around
or about here when the ('ahoon boy was
acting as he was? A. No, sir, I think
Gaboon had been ordained to some office in
the church ; I am pretty sure he was.

Q. Did you ever hear any of our preach-
ers endorse such actions as that as being
according to our faith? A. I do not know
as I did? they were about here and knew
as it was going on.

Q. Which ones were about here? A.
Why, all three of them that came from
York State. They were preaching around
the country and were here occasionally
when the things were going on.

Q. What time of day was it when the
sacrament meeting took place? A. It was at
night

Q. How did they partake of the sacra-
ment at the meeting? A. Passed bread and
wine just as other folks do.

Q. How did they passit? A. They passed
it to the different members.

Q. Who passed it? A. I do not know
whether they were called deacons or what
kind of officers.

Q. What did they do previous to passing
this? A. They gave thanks once or twice,
and then they gave it to the members, and
passed it around similar to the Disciples.
I have no recollection, but it was the same
as I have seen it, and if I had my cloak on I
would have carried off the wine.

Q. Do you think that would have been
right? A. Yes. That would have been
just as proper as to carry oft' the revelation.

Q. Do you not know that it is the law of
the church that they cannot use any wine
except it is new wine? A. I do not know
anything about it.

Q, Did you not know that they could not
cast people out of the Sacrament? A. I
know they did. I have seen them put
people out.

Q. What did they doit for. Because they
were making a noise? A. I do not know !
may be you can tell.

Q,. Did you not hear me read out of the
Book of Mormon that they should not cast
any one out of their sacrament meetings?
A. I did not know what you read. I know
what they did there.

Q. You did not know any of our minis-
ters that were there? A. No sir. I did
not know any.

Q. Now that girl that dropped in your
lap Had she been a member of the Dis-
ciple church? A. She was not a ^irl, she
was a young married woman.

Q. You can remember how she looked,
but cannot remember whether she was ever
a member of your church? A. No sir.

386

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

O. How long- (]\(] you know her? A.
"Well I think 1 had knowu lier four or five
weeks at the meeting's. I think I knew
lier only at the meetings.

Q. Who was presiding- at the meeting at
the time the woman fell into your lap? A.
1 do not know who was presiding at the time.

Q. What made her get up so quick when
she fell? A. That is my business.

Q,. How often did you hear Parley Pratt
and Oliver Cowdery preach Mr. Moss? A.
That I could not tell.

Q, Did you hear them a number of times?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Did these preachers endorse any such
actions that you say were practiced from
time to time while they were about here?
And did they endorse aay such actions to
you? A. No sir.

Q. Did they teach any such prmciples?
A. They said it Avas the Holy Ghost.

Q,. Then tiiey did endorse those actions,
and they told j'ou those actions were the
Holy Ghost? A. If endorse and declare
are the same, and if actions are the Holy
Spirit, then tliey endorsed it.

Q. When was that? A. I could not tell
you.

Q. Did you hear any of those preachers
declare that the falling down perforniances
in the meeting was the influence of the
Holy Spirit? A. Cahoou said so in the
shoe shop.

Q,. Did you he.ir them after that revela-
tion came, preach against the failing down
power? A. I heard the officers speak
against it in private.

Q. Did you ever see their revelation? A.
What revelation ?

Q. The one .Joseph Smith gave in regard
to the falling down power? A. No sir.

Q. Can you identify that revelation if you
heard what was in it? A. I never heard it
but they said they had got a revelation that
the fall down power was of the devil.

Q,. Was all tliis transaction denounced as
from the devil? A. That is what they said.

Q. You understand that? A. I did at
the time.

Q,. Why have you been telling it then as
the practice of tile church now ? A. I did
not. do it.

Q,. Why did you bring it into this con-
troversy? A. I did not bring it into con-
troversy, I was only telling what happened
that year.

Q,. It is just something that occurred by
members that came out of the Disciple
Church? A. Some of them were Disciples
and some of them were Methodists.

Q. Was he a member of the Church? I
mean Black Pete. A. He attended their
meetings.

Q,. Did you see him partake of the sacra-
ment? A. I think 1 did. I could not swear to
that positively.

Q,. How old was Black Pete? A. He was
about 20 to 25 somewhere. He was the one
that was on the stump.

Q,, What other preachers did you say
"were on the stump ? A. I do no know their
names.

Q. Was it either Pratt or Cowdery? A.
It was neither.

Q. What is your business? A. Preaching.

Q. In what Church or Society? A. The
Disciples or Christians.

Q,. Were you ever here after vou left in
the early part of 1831? A. Yes, "sir.

Q. When? A. I cannot tell the time it
was ; after the temple was finished.

Q. Did you ever meet any of < ur preach-
ers after the year 1831? A. Yes, sir. I
have had more debates with them than I
have fingers and toes.

Q. Wlio did you debate with? A. I can-
not give the names. I debated with one in
Akron, N. Y., and one in Cincinnati.

Q. How long did you debate with them?
A. Sometimes longer, sometimes shorter.

Q,. Were they public debates? A, Yes,
sir, public debates of course, but I do not
remember the length of time.

Q. Can you not remember a single one?
A. I cannot remember one man.

Q. Did you know Joseph Smith when he
was here? A. I never saw him but once.

Q. Did you ever know anything bad about
him. A. No, sir.

Q. Know anything about Parly Pratt
bad? A. No, sir.

KK-DIRKCT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN:

Q,. Did the Disciples ever to your know-
ledge, in any meeting, allow such things as
you witnessed? A. No, sir.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY:

Q. When were.youin a Mormonmeeting?
A. The first time was in the P'all of 1830, I
am sure. I cannot tell the last time.

Q, Did they call themselves Mormons?
A. I thing they did.

Q. Are you as positive of that as you are
of any other statement you made? A. I
will answer it emphatically that I am just
as positive of that as I am of anything that
I have said to-day, that they called them-
selves Mormons. I think t could go to
Pittstield, Ills., and bring members of the
Mormon Cliurch, that they win testify that
they called themselves Mormons in my
presence.

Q. What else did they call themselves at
that time? A. I have no recollection of
anything but Latter Day Saints.

Q,. Did they call themselves Latter Day
Saints at that time? A. I think they did.

Q. Are you positive of that? A. No, I
am not positive of that.

Q. Are you positive that they called the
Church the Mormon Church then? A. I
am positive that I never heard them call it
the re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints until I heard it at this
debate. That was the first.

Q. Now I will ask you if you were ever
with those persons while tiiey were mem-
bers of the Disciple Ctiurcli, and do you say
you never saw them get into any of those
freaks at the Christian Church at au^' time?
A. No sir.

Q. Were you ever in the Christian
Church with them? A. No sir.

Q. Then you did not know what they did

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

S87

while they were Christians? A. You waiiu
to know whether I had any association
■with them before Iknew them as Mormons,
I answer, no. Tliose persons united witli
the Mormon Church so soon after I came
here that I liad no association with tliem
at all.

Q. Elder Moss, do you know how those
parties acted while members of the Chris-
tian Church? A. How many times do you
want it answered.

By the Court : Yes, answer it.

A. I had no association with them before
they were Mormons.

Q,. You did not know then but what they
acted in the same manner of falling down
and receiving- the power before they came
into what they termed the Saint's Church.
A. I have answered it three times.

Q. You do not know but what they had
acted that way ; do you, or do you not. A.
I have answered that question three times.
I liad no associati(m with them at all before
they were INIormons.

Q. Did you think that the Devil was
present when that fellow said " Zick? " A.
I don't know as I did.

Q,. Why did you sa^-^ it was all of the
Devil then, for? A. Because it was all
Devilish things.

Q. Afterwards a revelation came to you
thatit was of the Devil? A. Y^'es, sir.

BE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN :

Q. Y^ou may state Mr. Moss, what Mar-
tin Harris said to you abuut seeing the
Devil? A. He said he saw the Devil and
he looked like a jackass, and he had hair
like a mouse. I was present, there were
from twenty- five to thirty persons present.
It was in that brick liouse down on the
fiats.

RE-CBOSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KELI.EY :

Q. When was that? A. I could not tell.

Q,. Who was there? A. Some of them
were people of the world, and some of
them were Disciples.

Q,. Y'ou had an argument, did you not?
A. Well, the general conversation was of
the Latter Lay Saints or Mormons, and
that the Book of Mormon was a new revel-
ation.

Q,. Did he claim tnat the general form of
the Devil was like a jackass? A. I did not
ask him that question. I did not hear him
say.

Q. Plow did he come to state that? A.
I do not know.

Q. Was that in December or in the
Spring of 1831 ? A. It was the first visit he
naake here, it was the winter of 1830-:^!.

Q. What was it that brought the expres-
sion out? A. I don't know.

Q. Did Martin Harris give that as a part
of iii^ faith, or was it a joke. Was he
giving it as a joke? A. I do not think he
was.

Q,. He was giving his experience the
rejison he came to speak of it? A. That
was what called it out, the general conver-

sation in reference to the trulh of the Book
of JNlormon, and revelations, and as an
evidence that he had revelations, he stated
that the Devil appeared to him.

Q. Now, Mr. Moss did you hear Martin
state that he had received revelations from
the Lord, or make such a claim, or receive
personal revelations from the Lord? A. He
said lie saw the Devil, he was giving us as
an evidence of revelation or vision that he
had seen the Devil,

Q. W^ere not the people running on him?
A. I do not think they were, it was one of
his revelations that the Lord had revealed
to him.

Q,. Did people laugh at him? A. I do
not think there was any laughing, I do not
remember. There may have been some
laughing at one side. There was no laugh-
ing out loud. I am sure. But I smiled
some out of one corner of my mouth.

Q. Did you ever hear Martin Harris
preach? A. No sir, I have heard him talk
sometimes.

Q. Did you ever hear Sydney Rigdon
preach ? A. Yes sir.

Q,. Did you ever hear Parlj' Pratt
preiich? A. Yes sir.

Q,. Did you suspect they were into some-
thing they ought not to be in? A No, sir.

By the Court :

Q. Did Martin Harris carry that idea as
a fact that the Devil was always in such a
form as a jackass? A. I had no tlu)ught
at the time that Martin Harris told that
story to convey the idea that the jackass
wasthe real form of his Satanic Majesty.

BY MR. KELLEY:

Q. Did you know the exact language that
Martin Harris used? A. I do. The lan-
guage was that he looked like a jackass.

Q. The idea from what he said did you
take it that the Devil himself in his own
region, in his own place, lived like a jack-
ass? A. I did not get any such idea as that ;
that was the form in which he appeared to
him.

BE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN:

Q. Who immersed you, Mr. Moss? A.
Sydney Rigdon, September, 1829.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY:

Q. At that time did you suspect that he
was into anything he ought not to be? A.
No, sir.

(Signed:) J. J. Moss.

State of Ohio,") gg
Lake County'. I '
Subscribed in my presence and sworn to
before me this 13th day of March, A. D.
1884, at Willoughby in said county.

(Signed:) J. C. Ward [seal.]

^ ° ' Notary Public.

William Smith, being produced and first
being duly sworn, testified as follows:

K^rAMINED BY MR. BRADEN:

Q Mr Smith, will you please state how
you'came by that pike? A. Mr. Clutfgave
it to me.

888

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Q. What was he religiously? A. He was
a Mormon.

Q,. State the facts about the pike and how
you came by it? A. Mr. Cluff' was a neigh-
bor of mine, and we exchanged work. I
called on him for settlement, and discovered
the pike in a corner by tlie door. I asked
hiai what that was for. He said about the
time the Methodist meeting house was
burned we were afraid of being mobbed,
and we armed ourselves for self-defense.
I said if I had it I M'ould make a reamer
out of it, and when he left he gave it to me.

Q. You may state next, Mr. Smith, whether
you attended the meetings of the Saints
during the winter of 1830-31, and what you
saw? A. I have attended the meetings at
Mr. Morley's, I think the given name is
Isaac. The buildings were upon a little
flat, and if my memory serves me, when
the people began to come there they put
up a log cabin or small addition to the house
part. I am sure I have attended those
meetings, and my first attendance was
when it began to be generally noised around
that there was strange things done, and
we young folks were curious to see what it
was.

Q,. You may state about the falling and
what you saw in the meeting? A. I at-
tended three or four at Isaac Morley's in the
evening. I have heard Black Pete, as we
called him, as he went over the hills halloa-
ing and making strange noises, and the
common report was that he was speaking
in tongues and making speeches. And in
the house I have seen young men and wo-
men seemingly unconscious and the folks
said they had lain so for two days and they
were there on their beds and nobody tried
to prevent us looking at them, but we were
not allowed to go into the room. That is
all I have got to say with regard to the
meeting,

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY:

Q. Have you been in those meetings ?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Have you seen any display of power
in the meetings? A. 1 have seen people
lose their consciousness and fall off from
their seats.

Q,. Any other perfortnances aside from
this? A. No other performances in the
congregation except those I have stated to
you.

Q. Now was there any other performances
or anything of that kind? A. Black Pete
Used to make a noise like Indians but I can
Dot say how he made it. It was made close
to me sometimes in the dark and sometimes
in the moonlight. Report said it was Black
Pete, I say we all thought so.

BE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN :

Q,. Have you ever seen them jump up in
the air and go through the performance of
scalping and so on? A. I never did, sir.

Q. You may state next about your speak-
ing in tongues, and Sidney Rigdon inter-
preting? A. Shall I answer that question
by itself or shall I go farther back ?

Q. Did you ever speak in tongues and did
any man interpret it;? A. I do not think,
sir, I ever spoke in tongues. I made some
kind of a language.

Q. Did any man ever pretend to interpret
it? A. Yes, sir, Sidney Rigdon.

Q. You may describe the circumstances
connected with it. Tell what you did and
what he did. A. The first that I ever heard
of what was acknowledged to be a speaking
with tongues was at a gathering a litlle
West of here on this bank, not far from
the house where old father Smalley used to
live. I can not think of the man's name.
People were in the habit of having what
they called feasts and we would commonly
have a short address as opening of the
feasts, and the address would be from a
text something like this, "And we shall
have a feast of fat things. Wine on the
lees well refined." I have quoted one of
the texts. They generally had two pails
of wine. It was called a feast. We had
a tin cup and when the audience was
convened and a speech made then with
a cup in each pail they passed around
the pails, the women on one side of
the house and the men on the other, and
we had as much wine as we wanted.
Then we had a hymn and sometimes prayer.
Then the wine would be passed around
again, and then we would have cakes and
wine and the outside people not wishing to
sponge would take dougimuts in their
pockets from their homes and everybody
had access to them and was welcomed to
what they wanted. After the cakes and
wine had been passed it was the season
then to sj)eak with tongues and I spoke with
the rest. Of course I hf-ard the rest of them
and I made such noises as the rest of them
did ; and somehow or other the story ob-
taijied that I had the power to speak with
tongues. They had a meeting I think in
an old log house on the Ayer's place. That
was the first time, I think, I ever heard
Rigdon interpret the unknown tongues. I
talked in unknown tongues and others
talked and he interpreted my speech. And
allowing that Sidney interpreted what I
said I never made so fine a speech in my
life. Sidney said 1 had got beyond him. I
have spoken a good many times before
Rigdon and Smith.

Q. Did you ever see the patriarch Joseph ?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever see the patriarch Joseph
at any of these feasts when j'ou thought he
was under the influence of wine? A. Iwill
say I could nut tell. The old gentleman
took a place in the corner. I do not know
as I ever saw him set anywhero else when
sitting at a feast, only in a corner. I do
not know that I ever saw him leave his
position.

Q. From Mr. Smith's appearance what
was your belief with reference to his con-
dition as to intoxication M'hen you were at
those feasts? A. I would not say thai ho
was intoxicated.

Q. At the time Mr. Smith was sitting iu
the corner did ho i\pi e.>.-' to be intoxicate 1?

THE BRADEX AND KELLEY DEBATE.

389

A. I could not form any conclusion from
the looks of the man.

Q. Did you know anything^ about their
digginof for treasure or money in this
vicinity? A. Yos, sir.

Q. When was that done? A. I will fix
the time if somebody will tell me when
this temple was plastered. I burned the
lime to plaster tlie inside of the temple for
a man that belonged to the Clnirch ; that
man's name I cannot think of. I was
working for him bj' the month, and he set
me to do that kind of work, and that was
the hardest part of my month's work; the
digging was done on what is now Mr. Try-
on's farm,

BY THE COrRT :

Q. What kind of treasure were you dig-
ding for? A. You will get the idea better
to tell you how the man dug.

Q. Was it minerals of any kind or money
treasure? A. I do not remember tliat tlie
man told me what to dig for. But he took
a little leather bag and he told me to dig.
I would dig down about as deep as my
shoulders and the water would come in,
and then he would go there and set this
way ( stooping over and looking toward
the floor) a little leather bag, a little
bigger than my thumb, but not as big as a
broom handie^ there was sometiiing in the
bag that the man was very choice of, and
he kept it in a secure place. He would hold
the string up to his eyes, and the bag would
begin to vibrate, and whichever way it
swayed the farthest that is the way he
would dig. Then if we did not find any-
thing he would use the bag again, and
whichever way it swayed the farthest they
would dig the'farthest in that direction.

BY MR. KEI.LEY :

Q. You did not know what he was dig-
ging for, did you, Mr. Smith. A. No, sir,

BY MR. BBABEN :

Q. Were there any other cases of digging
that you know of? A. Yes, sir. There
was an old lady that belonged to tlie Church,
a widow Petingail, that had a vision that
the-e was money buried on a hog-back
covered with hemlock. Mr. Campbell
brought her along the road near to mj' shop,
when she pointed out the place she had
seen in her vision, and they dug there.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MB. KEI.LEY:

Q. They were digging for money there?
A. They were digging for money.

Q,. Were any "of the Church officials
in that, Mr. Smith? A. Nobody but the
old lady, I think.

Q. You did not know Avhether the man
you was working for was digging for money
or not? A. His term was this, that it was
a treasure.

Q,. Were any of the people around helping
him? A. I could not say.

Q. Now don't you know that he was not
digging under the direction of tlie Church ?
A. 1 (Jon't know anything about it. I will
eay this, that vre' burned lime for the

Church, and some of them were there for
lime twice a day, and there were a good
many there that thought there was treasure
there. I did not think there was any sanc-
tion of the Church,

Q. Did you not know of any person dig-
ging for money here before the Saints came?
A. No, I don't know that there was.

Q. What was this gentleman's name tfiafc
you were working for? A. I do not remem-
ber, he was an old gentleman. He was a
man who had lost his wife. He had found
a treasure, and it is true that he did dis-
cover a bank of horse bone lime.

Q. Was he a Mormon? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long liad he belonged to the
church? A. Indeed, sir, T do not know.

Q. Now Mr. Smith give me your opinion,
whether or not it was a kind of freak of ids
and he said something there that he thought
he could see, and it was his eccentricity
that you may find over the coun-try, or was
it anytliing according to his faith? A. I
do not think I can form any opinion now.

Q,. Did you think at the' time it was his
religion that made him do it? A. I do not
know.

Q. Did not that report about money
being buried make others dig besides the
Saints? A. I never heard of them diirging;
my impression is there was some digging
done where Mr. Smalley lived.

Q. Wlio was that digging down there
where Mr. Smalley lived? A. Idon'tknow
anything about it, but report said Martin
Harris caused it to be done.

Q. I will ask you to state with regard to
these feasts, Mr. Smith, if they were not
wedding feasts? A. No, sir. When they
first started out they were attended weekly.
It seemed to be a little expensive, so they
did not have them quite so often. I think
they had a gallon of wine or two, and they
dis-continued having them weekly and had
them semi-monthly.

Was this a sacrament meeting? A. Oh,
no! It was a feast.

Q. Did you belong to the church then ?
A. No, sir,

Q. Did you ever unite with them? A.
No, sir.

Q. Tliey never ever cast anybody out?
A. No, sir, they had attractions that called
young folks in.

Q. Did you see any immoral things in
their meetings? A. Not immoral; but I
have seen them jolly. They acted as though
they felt good.

Q,. Didyou taste of the wine? A. Yes, I
drank with the rest of them.

Q. How many glasses did j'ou generally
drink? A. About two; we were all of us
young folks, and we behaved ourselves
well. There was no bad conduct at the
feast, and we had a good time.

Q. At the time you speak of speaking in
tongues yod had heard them speak in
tongues at their meetings? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And your speaking was the represen-
tation of tlle.«e sounds. A. I heard unknown
tongues and I thought I could imitate
them.

390

THE BRHDEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Q. And when Sydney interpreted you
you do not know but wliat he actually in-
terpreted ? A. Sydney Rigdon said I spoke
three languages. That my best language
"Was Nephite.

Q. I will ask you to state the first time
that you have heard anj^body speak in
tongues ? A. I think it was here in Kirt-
land,

Q, Do you know the first man in the
Church that was ever reported to have
sp"ken in tongues? A. No, sir. I do not.

Q. You know it was some time after the
church was organized before they professed
to have that gift, do you not? A. Really I
do not know when the church was organ-
ized. I know when the feasts were held,
and about the tin^e and it might have been
the same season when they were plastering
the temple. I cannot say I first took the
thought from young boys getting up on a
stump and speaking in tongues.

Q. Those eases where they seemed to fall
over was it not sometimes from fainting
through over-crowded houses, or somethi ng
liketiiat? A. Inever sawit anj-^whereelse.
They were wholly unconscious, and some
roguish' boys would stick a pin into the
arm and there was no manifestation of sen-
sation.

Q. Did you ever know of such occur-
rences in any other church? A. No, sir.

Q. Did not such action occur in the
Christian church ? A. I do not know that
they ever did in the Christian church.

Q. What is your business Mr, Smith ? A.
Nothing ! I have no business.

Q. Are you a minister? A. No, sir.

Q. What chiarch are you a njemberof?
A. lam a member of the Christian church.

Q. You were quite well acquainted with
Joseph Smith, the old gentleman? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. Did they try to force you into their
religion? A. No, sir.

Q,. Were Joseph Smith and Sydney Rig-
don dishonest men ? A. I do not know but
what they were all right.

Q. Was this club or pike ever used by any
of our people? A. Not that I know of.

Q. Do you know how many they had
made? A. I do not know but they had those
three and Mr. ClufF said we armed our-
selves.

Q,. At that time had not a number of the
Saints left here? A. I could not answer that.
He was going away, and that was the reason
he said he did not want it ?

Q,. Had not a number gone before the
church was burned? A. L cannot remem-
ber about that.

Q. Did you ever know Joseph Smith, or
Oliver Cowdery, or Martin Harris to do
any immoral thing? A. No, I never did.
I never saw any of these things done. I
never heard any complaint about Sydney
Rigdon here in Kirtland. Oliver Cow-
dery's name was not so good, and Martin
Harris was a good honest soul as you would
"Wish to be with. Some said he was a little
"visionary. I heard him challenge Bro.

Moss here in the street for a debate, and
Bro. Moss would not go in.

Q. I will now ask you, Mr. Smith, if
sometime during the year directly after
the temple was built, if there was not some
members cut off for these pecuhar freaks?
A. rt might have been done, but I have no
recollection of it.

Q. Did not you know the Parishes? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. Perhaps you know of their being
severed from the (,'hurch? A I remember
the name of the Pai-ishes, as not a name to
be desired. 1 cannot remember what was
done with them.

. Q. Now, Mr. Smith, have you told the
worst you know about tiie people and their
worship. Personallj'^ have you told the
worst you know about the people, commonly
called the Mormons, while they were here?
A. I have, and I could satisfy you that the
Mormons called themselves Mormons.

Q. In regard to their acts, or their immoral
acts, or what they did as to immoral con-
duct, do you personally know anything that
would be derogatory to the Mormon char-
acter? A. I do not know chat I have told
the worst, 1 know I have tried to answer
thest! questions.

Q,. Are you afraid that if they should
come back they would injure anybody?
A. I would not like to have them come
back. We kept our doors all locked, and
somebody tipped over a smoke house and
carried off" nine hams. I did not know it
was Mormons though. I say honestU^this,
I am afraid we should get the same impres-
sion that we did before. I would not like
to have them carry on as they did before.

Q. Do you know whether it was them?
A. No. sir, I saj' I do not.

Q. Are there others that lived around
there then? A. Mr. Harmon and myself,
that is about all I know of.

Q. Now, were you here last Spring when
the Latter Day Saints were here? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. You met with them here, and talked
in their meeting? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did not you say, you welcomed them
back? A. No, sir. Not to my recollection.
I will tell you the first remark I did make
when Uncle Wm. Smith had been speak-
ing. He was a little older than myself, and
I arose and said. Wm. Smith had better
continue that subject a little longer, and
then I said I think you are all wrong.

Q. Did you learn anything bad at that
convention? A. No, I did not learn any-
thing bad. I heard some foolish stories
though.

Q. You hear things similar to what you
hear in any testimony meeting? A. I will
refer to one or two assertions of marvellous
interpositions of Divine power raising the
dead and healing the sick.

Q. You simply thought they were foolish
becaviseyou did not not believe such things?
A. That was all.

Q,. You would not have been in their
meetings if you had thought them baddur-

THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

so;

ing the time of the convention? A. iNIr,
Joseph Smith made the best temperance
lecture that I have e^r heard, ^and I
" warmed " to him as the German's say.
He said "I would like to see the Garfield
farm." I said " Why don't you get into
some old wagon and go there?" He said
" I would like to go to-morrow," and I said
"I would come over and take him there;"
and I came over and we went dovAn there.
I had a good ride with Joseph, and brought
him back again ; and the bretliren thou;iht
it some thing wonderful. They said " Did
he convert you?" I said I have been past
praying for, for years. It was our good
friend Mr. Blair that asked me thequestion.

BE-DIRECT EXA^llNATION BY MR. BRADEN:

Q. Is it your recollection or your impres-
sion, Mr. Smith, that you have heard of tne
sealing of women to men here in Kirtland,
aud the sealing of Nancy Rigdonto Joseph
Smith? A. My impression is I have.

Q,. You hav'e heard it spoken of and
talked of here? A. My impression is I
have.

KE-CROSS EXA]\riNATION BY MR. KELLEY :

Q. Did you ever hear it talked of while
the Saints lived liere? A. I say I have
helird it talked of. My impression is that
I have heard it talked of here in Kirtland,
and that the story obtained that the diffi-
culty between Joseph Smith and Sydney
Rigdon was in consequence of the wish or
the manifestation on tlie part of Joseph
Smith that Rigdou's daughter Nancy should
oe sealed to him.

Q, Will you say that was between Joseph
Smith and Rigdo'n, and that it was a dil^-
culty occurred here in Kirtland. Who did
you hear talk about their liaving trouble
here in Kirtland? A. I cannot tell.

Q,. Was it any of the Saints? A. I can
not tell you that.

Q. Do' you not know, Mr. Smith, that
there was not any report of any such thing
as that as of Nancy Rigdon being sealed tu
Joseph Smith while the Saints were here
in Kirtland? A. My impression is that
that report was here'in Kirtland. I went
to school with Athalia Rigdon, and there
was talk among the boys about sealing. I
think there was difficulty between .loseph
Smith and Rigdon with leference to having
Rigdou's daughter sealed to Smith. I woul4
not positively say it was so; that is my
impression.

Q. How old was Nancy Rigdon at that
time? A. I do not know ; I went to school
with Athalia Rii>don.

Q. How old was she? A. I cannot tell.
Nor can I tell how old I was. Nancy Rigdon
was the oldest. I do not know how much
older tluin Athalia.

Q,. Did you ever hear any of them talk
about sealing? A. Y'es, I am positive
that I heard that language used among the
boys.

Q. Did they not talk about the sealing of
the Holy Spirit? Is not that what you
heard them talk about? A. No, the seal-
ing was in some waj- or other with the

women. ISFy impression is that I have heard
that story of the quarrel between Rigdon
and Smith talked of here in Kirtland.

Q. Is it not probable that they were talk-
ing those things after they went to Nanvoo.
You got it mixed. A. It may be, but I give
you my best recollection.

(Signed :) Wm. S. Smith.

State of Ottio, \
Lake County, f^^'

Subscribed by ^Vm. S. Smith, and sworn
to before me this 15th day of March, A. D,
1884, at Willoughby,

(Signed) J. C. Ward,

Notary Public.

APPENDIX, No. 2.

EVIDENCEOF WITNESSES PRODUCED ON TIIK
PART OF E. L. KELLEY.

REUBEN p. HARMON, being duly
sworn, testifies as follows :

Q. What is your age Mr. Harmon? A. I
am 69 years old.

Q. How long have you lived in the vicin-
ity of Kirtland? A. I came to Kirtland
in the year 1822; I have been absent i>art of
tiie time in the South, perhaps six years
during that time; part ot the time here and
part ol the time in the South.

Q,. Were you acquainted with Martin
Harris while he lived here? A. I was, sir.
Q,. Were you acquainted with his reputa-
tion for truth and veracity a\ hen he lived
here? A. I was.

Q. State what that was. A. It was good,
«o far as I knew, sir.

Q,. What was his reputation for honesty T
A. He frequently came to my house, and
very frequently stayed overnight; some-
times two or three days.

Q. How often did you see him, and for how
many years did you know liim ? A.I knew
him most of the time until he went west ti>
Salt Lake or Utah.

Q. About how many years ago was that?
A. It is a good many years, and I would
iiave to figure up from the dates. It is
quite a number of years ago.

Q,. What was his genei-al reputation for
honesty. A. I have never heard his char-
acter for honesty questioned by any one.

Q. Were you personally acquainted with
Oliver Cowiiery. A. I was but not as inti-
mately as with JNIartin Harris.

Q,. ilow long did he live here? A. I
should think about six years, but I am not
positive.

Q. Did you know what his general repu-
tation for truth and veracity in theneigli-
borhood was at the time he lived liere? A.
I did. and tiie whole Cowdery family ; Ol-
iver Cowdery's rei)Utation was good.

Q. Did David Wiiitmer live here, or did
you know him? A. I did, and I never
heard anything against him.

Q. Were vou acquainted with Joseph
Smith? A. i was acquainted with him.
Q. Y'ou may state anything you know

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

a1i>out his conduct as bein? bad. A . I never
knew anything bad about him.

Q,. How lon"g were you acquainted with
him. A. Weil, I can't give the dates. It
might trouble me to give dates. From the
time he came here till he went West.

Q,. Did 3^ou know what his reputation was

as to truth and veracity in this place at the

time? A. Ihad opportunity of knowing it.

Q. Did you know? A. Yes, sir, I did

know.

Q,. What was that reputation? A. I re-
garded that it was good.

Q What was his reputation for honesty?
State that. A. I never heard it questioned.
Q. Did you belong to the church? A. I
did not belong to any church.

Q. Now I will ask you to state with re-
gard to the people known as Mormons,
or Latter Day Saints, wlio lived here at
that time. What was tlieir general char-
acter au compared with people of other
neighborhoods, Mr. tiarmon? Just state
how the people here compared with people
in other places. A. If I was to state what
I know, I would say that I had no right to
question their honesty. I have heard re-
ports, but I do not know anything against
them.

Q,. Mr. Harmon, was Mr. Harris's word
always considered reliable in matters of re-
ligion ? or did he tell big yarns and won-
derful stories? A. He held ideas that I did
not agree with.

Q. Well did he not tell extravagant
stories of wonderful visions of sights and
sounds? A. I never heard him tell many
stories. With regard to his testimony
about seeing the plates, and Joseph Smith,
and the method of translation, some might
think them extravagant stories.

Q. Would you regard his statements as
visionary? A. I would, that is some of
them.

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Harmon, if these
stories that you regarded as visionary, were
stories about visions, and wbether that is
the reason you call them so? A. Yes, sir.

Q, Were his stories any more extravagant
than others have stated with regard to vis-
ions, etc., in your estimation? A. About
the same. John Wesley makes more ex-
travagant expressions than I ever heard
Harris make, as found in his work.

Q. Do you set Martin Harris with the rest
of them ? Was he honest? A. I always
must regard him as being honest with re-
gard to the Book of Mormon and its
translation ; and I do not know but that he
was honest in his visions. I think that he
was honest in his visions.

Q. Did you know Sidney Rigdon ? and
when did you first know him? A. I think
I knew Sidney Rigdon in 18:i8 or 1829. He
was then preaching in Mentor; preaching
what we call Disciple doctrine. He came
to my father's and held meetings in his
barn, and i)abtized quite a number.

Q. How long afterwards did you know
him? A. I knew him all through. Most
of the time till he left Kirtland.

Q.. What was his reputation for truth

and veracity in this vicinity? A. I never
heard it questioned.

Q,. What was his character other than
for trutli and veracity? A. I shall have to
go into the description of the man. I heard
liim preach a funeral sermon in 1829. I
heard him preach frequently after that. He
is a man, I should judge, who had acquired
a classical education . I would regard him
as a good English scholar, and, perhaps, as
well versed in the Bible and history as any
other man t lat I ever heard speak ; having
read Grecian and Roman history, he fre-
quently used descriptions from these auth-
ors. He was eloquent in language, anci an
excellent speaker, and carried an audience
with him. He established a church in Men-
tor, also cam'e and held a revival in Kirt-
land. The meeting-house, a one-story build-
ing, was completed in Mentor at the time
when Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt
came on here. I heard Sidney Rigdon the
last speech that he made while he officiated
as a Disciple preacher. He said he had
been mistaken all his life-time, and he quit
preaching and went into Mr. Morley's field
and went to plowing. Worked at common
labor for some time, until he took up the
Latter Day Saint doctrine aud began to
preach it. He did not go to preaching right
away after he left the Disciple Churcli. I
heard him make the remark that he never
expected to speak in public again. There
was quite a church of the Disciples herein
Kirtland, and he carried a portion of them
with him into the Ijatter Day Saints' church.
He preached that doctrine from that time
on until he left here. I considered him a
good Latter Day Saint member.

Q. Wiiat is your opinion from what you
saw and heard of him, in regard to the
story that he was connected with Joseph
Smith in getting up the Book of Mormon .
A. I never could make out in my ov
mind that Mr. Rigdon ever had anything
to do with the getting up of the Book of
Mormon.

Q. Do you think there was an opportunity
for Mr. Rigdon to have had access to
Spaulding's manuscript at the time the
Book of Mormon was gotten up? A. At
that time he was preaching in Mentor.

Q. Did you ever hear him state his own
views as to whether he ever had any con-
nection with Smith and the Spaulding
story, as it was charged to nim? A. I heard
him make this remark in his last speech
that he made to the public here. He said,
"It was a thing that I never thought of
until Oliver Cowdery and Parley Pratt
introduced it to me." When all of these
stories first started about his having been
connected with Smith, and the getting up
of the Book of Mormon, they were first cir-
culated by a man by the name of Hurlbut.
He raised' a little contribution in order to
go to New York state, and inquire into the
matter. He was a man of bad character,
and I think he had been connected with
the Ijatter Day Saint Church. We made
up a contribution and .sent him back to
Palmyra to investigate the charade'' of th©

THE BRADEN AND ItELLEY DEBATE.

393

Smith family, and the means of their ac-
quiring the Book of Mormon. He went on
and got aflfidavits. Tlie meeting was held
in the Presbyterian church. .

Q. Were you in the meeting and one of
the parties who helped to send hlin? A.
Yes, sir ; but I will say, however, that Sid-
rie.y iiigdon at the time he made his last
epeech here, said that he knew nothing
about the Book of Mormon until it was pre-
sented to him by Oliver (.'owdery and
Parley Pratt. I never heard of theSpauld-
ing story until it was sprung on me.

Q,. Did you know anything about Hul-
burt getting the manuscript? A. No, sir.
We sent him to get the affidavits. He got
the most of them in Palmyra. The principal
ones are in a book that I have over here.

Q,. Is it the affidavits in Ho\rie's book that
you refer to? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you know about these same par-
ties sending him to New York to get a man-
uscript? A. They sent him to gather all
the information he could about the Latter
Day Saint Church.

Q. Did he get the affidavits first, or tiie
manuscript? A. He did not get the man-
uscript at all, that I know of. I never saw
the manuscript." He said he saw a man
who had read the Book of Mormon, and
tliat lie said that it resembled the manu-
script.

Q,. Did you see him after he returned
from the widow of Solomon Spaulding,
where he went to get the manuscript? A.
No, sir.

Q. Were you ever in the Saints' meet-
ings while they were held herein Kirtland?
A. Oh! Y'^es, sir.

Q. Did 3^ou ever see anything disorderly or
iinliecoming in them? A. No, sir.

Q, Did you ever attend any of the meet-
ings of the Disciple church? A. I was in
the meetings of the Disciples that were held
on Mr, Morley's farm. A, man by tlie name
of Billings preached. The first ceremony
that I remember witnessing was the wash-
ing of feet. It was in a little log building,
the Disciple church. It was while Mr.
Rigdon was preaching in Mentor. After-
wards I frequently went to their meetings
that were held on the Morley place.

Q. Did you ever hear Rigdon shout or
anything of that kind? A. I never heard
him make any other demonstration than a
plain address.

Q. When you attended the early meetings
of the Saints, how did they act? A. After
the discovery of the Book of Mo: uon there
were frequently meetings around here and
a large concourse of people attended them.
Many came out of curiosity. They had
singing and praying and a little preaching,
and sort of social meetings.

Q,. Would any of the women or men have
the power? A. This negro. Black Pete,
that they spoke of came here at an early
time with a man from Pennsylvania. I saw
hira in that condition in-alog building lying
on his back.

Q,. Was he a member of the Latter Day
.fcaiut church ? A. I do not know.

Q. Did you ever see any one else in that
condition in their meetings? A. No, sir;
only this negro. He would jump up and
display a great deal of strength and activity.

Q. Was any of tlie ministers present. A.
I do not think there was. I did not hear of
any more of such performances after Joseph
Smith came here.

Q. Did you ever see anything of the kind
in the meetings held by Parley Pratt. Oliver
Cowdery or Sidney Rigdon, after Rigdon
united with the Saints? A. No. I have
heard them talk in tongues some, and heard
Joseph Smith interpret once.

Q,. Did you ever see any one fall down in
their meetings after Joseph Smith came
here? A. No, sir, I did not. I attended
their lai'ge meetings, and when there was a
sacrament of cold water and bread.

Q,. You were well acquainted with the
people, were you? A. Yes, sir.

Q,. Tell us what you know about any one
of them having more wives than one? A.
Jf Martin Harris can be regarded as auth-
ority there was no such thing as polygamy
among them until they went to Salt Lake.
He told me so. There was nothing of the
kind here that I ever heard of. I have heard
them speak against polygamy.

Q. Would you be afraid that your prop-
erty would be insecure if the Latter Day
Saints were to come back here? A. No, I
never was afraid of my neiglibors taking
my property, and I would not be of them.
Reuben P. Harmon.

A. E. SANBOR V, having been produced
and duly sworn, testifies as follows :

Q,. Mr. Sanborn, where do you live ? A,
I live about a mile East of here.

Q. Ho^ long have you lived here? A.
About 47 years,

Q. Were you acquainted with the I^atter
Day Saints at the time they lived here? A.
Yes, sir; and before they came here.

Q. Were you acquainted with Martin
Harris? A. Yes, sir, I was.

Q. Did you know his reputation for truth
and veracity in the neighborhood when
he lived here? A. I never heard it ques-
tioned.

Q,. Was his reputation good or bad? A.
It was good. Nobody disputed his word in
anj'thing, unless it was his visionary sto-
ries. He was, to my mind, a little vision-
ary.

Q,. You may state if it was not on account
of what he related about seeing the plates
that makes you think he was visionary. A.
Why, yes, I should tliiiik so,

Q,! Were you personally acquainted with
Oliver Cowdery ? A. No, sir.

Q. Were you personally acquainted with
Joseph Sm'ith? A. Yes', sir. I was ac-
quainted with .Joseph Smith.

Q. Do you know what his reputation was
for truth and veracity at the time he lived
here in this neighborhood? A. At the time
he lived here until the time he went west
(he went before I did) it was not ques-
tioned. I lived just across the street from
him in Nauvoo.

394

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

Q. Yon may state allyou know about him.
A. Well, I knew him to be a kind, gener-
ous and truthful neighbor; he was a very
kind man.

Q,. What was his general moral charac-
ter? A. It was good.

Q. Were you acquainted with Sidney
Eigdon? A. Yes, sir. He lived pretty-
close to Smith. Probably fifteen rods away.

Q. What kind of a man was Rigdoii ?
State as nearly as you can describe him? A.
Well, he was quite a good looliing man;
would weigh about 200 pounds ; had rather
a round face, shortish countenance and
squeaking voice. For that reason I never
liked to hear him preach. Some called him
a good orator, but I did not. I never knew
anything about him but what was all right
as to character.

Q. What was his reputation for truth and
veracity? A. I never heard it questioned,
either here or in Nauvoo, and I lived there
close by him, and talked with him nearly
every week.

Q,. Did you know David Whitmer? A.
I do not recollect him. If he lived in
Kirtland I do not recollect him at all.

Q,. Wej-e you living at Nauvoo at the time
of Smith's death ? A. I lived there until the
fall of 1810, and then I came back here to
Kirtland.

Q,. Were you living here all the time the
Saints were here? A. Oh, no. They were
here when I came. This remple was built
in 1834. I came in the spring, and I think
it was dedicated in the spring of 1836. I
have been a little confounded. I supposed
the temple was dedicated when it was fin-
ished. This is all I recollect about it. I
came here the spring it was dedicated,
and think it was in 1836.

Q. What did you know of the peo]ile when
you lived here, if anything that was im-
moral? A. I do not know anytliing. There
was some stealing going on at the time the
Mormons were here. It was laid on the
Mormons by some at the time : but after-
wards there was a revival here in the Pres-
byterian churcii, in which the parties that
did the stealing owned to it. They were
Presbyterians.

Q,. State whether they were in the prac-
tice of polygamy here or not ? A. Not that
I knew of.

Q,. You would have known it if they had
been, would you not? A. I ought to, my
father was a Mormon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN :

Q,. Mr. Harris' word and honor was re-
garded good in matters of business, but
when telling his religious experience you
thought h'm visionary? A. AYe rather
thought him visionary.

RE-DIRECT :

Q,. During your acquaintance and inti-
mate association with Sydney Rigdon,
what was your judgment with reference to
his being connected with the Book of Mor-
mon before its publication? A. I do not
know anything at all as to that. I had this

Anti-Mormon Book 40 years ago, but I can
not find it now.

Q. Did you ever gather from any conver-
sation you ha,d with Kigdon that he was
connected in any way with the publication
of the Book of Mormon ? A. I never talked
with him anything about that.

Q,. State what you know about the intro-
duction of polygamy into the church. A.
I attended meetings both in Nauvoo and
here in Kirtland, both in the evenings and
on the Sabbath, and I never heard anything
of polygamy at all until after Smith's
death.

A. E. Sanborn.

J. M. PLAISTED, being duly sworn, tes-
tifies as follows :

Q. Mr. Plaisted, how long have you lived
here in Kirtland? A. I have always lived
here. I was born in Kirtland. I was born
in 1831.

Q. Were you acquainted with any of the
Latter Day Saints while they lived here?
A. I was well acquainted with Martin Har-
ris at the time he lived here.

Q. Do you know what his reputation for
truth and veracity was in the neighborhood
at the time? A. It was good.

Q. What was his general character as
to honesty? A. It was considered good. I
was well acquainted with him. Have lived
in the same house wdth him.

cross-examination by MR. BRADEN :

Q,. W^as he noted for his extravai;anfc
claims and extravagant stories in religion ?
A. Yes, sir. He always wanted to be
preaching. That seemed to be on his mind.
He understood the Bible first-rate and was
quoting Scripture a good deal of the time.

Re-direct. —

Q. Did it not arise from the fact that he
had told that he had seen the plates? A.
I think it did.

Q, He said he had seen the plates and
other people thought he had not? A. Yes,
sir; I have heard him say that the Lord
appeared to him.

Q,. In what manner did he say the Lord
appeared? A. I do not know as I can
state. I have told him that he would go
crazy if he did not quit talking on that sub-
ject "all the time.

(Signed) J. M. Plaisted.

EZRA BOND, being duly sworn testifies
as follows :

Q.. Mr. Bond, were you acquainted with
Sidney Rigdon ? A. Yes, sir ; I was.

Q,. You may state at what time you be-
came acquainted with him? A. In the
year 1834.

Q,. How long afterwards did you know
him? A. I could not state definitely, but
durino- the years of his sojourn here. I
think^from the fall of 1834 to 1836. In fact,
until he left here. This has been my home
from that time until now.

Q. You may state if you know what his
reputation was for t^uth and veracity. A.
I cannot say. I was but a boy at that time,
eight years old.

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

395

Q,. Were you acquainted with Martin
Harris? A. Yes, sir. In the years after,
while he resided here,

Q. What time was that? A. From 1834
until he left. I do not know when that
was.

Q. You freniuently met •him during the
time that he was here, did you? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. Do you know what his reputation was
for trutli and veracity in this neiirbborhood
while he lived here. A. He was considered a
truthful man. I have liad some deal with
Jbim, and always found he acted honest
and manly. That is my testimony in that
respect. He might have been liable to be
mistaken, but with no intention of telling
an untruth. >

Q. The people did not believe his state-
ment about seeing the plates and the
angel? A. No, sir. He was regarded as a
kind of an enthusiast, or monomaniac on
the religious question.

Q. Was he in the habit of making extrav-
agant statements? A. He was in tlie habit
of stating that the Lord had told him
this or that thing. He seeme'd well versed
in the scriptures, and was over anxious to
give his opinions, and would talk to any
one who would listen to him.

Q. Were not his sayings thought extrava-
gant, because they pertained to visions, or
hearing the voice of the Lord? A. Yes.
People did not believe in such things. He
was regarded in business as an honest and
truthful man. I have known people that
knew him in New York state and here,
and that is the reputation they gave of him
regarding business.

Q. Mr. Bond, you have been in the Saints'
meetings here during tlie time of your liv-
ing here, have you not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. State if yoti ever saw them fall down,
act senseless, or anything in thatway? A.
No, sir.

Q,. How old were you in 1882? A. I was
bn?-n in 1826. I remember Sidney Rigdon
i>"*terthan anyone else, as he was their
foicrnost speaker. He si)oke in the temple
a great deal.

(Signed) Ezra Bond.

F. C. RICH, being duly sworn testifies
as follows :

Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Rich? A.
In the city of Cleveland.

Q,. Did you ever live in Kirtland? A.
Yes, sir. I came here in 1831.

Q,. Did you know, or were you acquainted
with Josepli Smith, Martin Harris and
Sidney Rigdon, or either of them? Did
you know their reputation for truth and
veracity in the neighborhood at the time
they lived here ? and were you acquainted
with their moral character? A. I knew
nothing against them. I was but a boy
however, but the outsiders i^ersecu ted them
on account of their religious views.

Q,. You had an opportunity to know? A.
Yes, sir ; my father was here in an early
day and was connected with the church.

Q. Were you in their meetings frequent-
ly? A. Yes, sir. Brought right up in the
church. The first meeting I recollect very
much about was after the temple was fin-
ished. I attended meetings right alono-
after it was completed. I was too youn^
during its building to take any particular
notice outside. ^

Q. Did you ever see anything of an im-
moral tendency in the meetin-rs? A. Noth-
ing that could be considered immoral.
They shouted Hosannah, and seemed to
enjoy their religion ; and, of course, got ex-
cited as other people do.

Q,. Did you ever see them fall down and
go into tits, or anything of that kind? A.
No, sir.

Q. You may state what you know about
any of the leading men being temperate or
intemperate men; also in regard to their
swearing, or drinking, or anything of the
kind. A. They were men of good moral
habits and temperate. Men that did not
drink ardent spirits at any time.

Q,. What time did you live liere? A. T
lived in Kirtland from a boy 10 years old
until about ten years ago. I came here
before the temple was built. I never heard
of the spikes referred to before.

Q. Did your father ever have such a thing
as a spike ; such as Braden has shown ? a".
I never saw any spike. I do not think he
required any.

Q. Mr. Rich, if the spikes had been very
common around would you not have beeu
likely to have known it? A. I suppose I
should ; would have been very apt to, I
think.

Q. You may state whether they believed
in having more than one wife? A. I never
heard they were in favor of anything of the
kind here.

Q. You heard them talk with your father,
heard the elders preach, was in their meet-
ings, and mixed with them in all the affairs
of life; if there had been anything wrong
or bad in their teachings and habits would
you not have known it ? A.I am perfectly
satisfied that the church did not teach or
practice polygamy, or any other immoral
doctrine while they were in Kirtland.

(Signed) F. C. Rich.

STATE OF OHIO, )

GA. I

SS.

County of Cuyahog

The above named F. C. Rich, being duly
sworn, says that the foregoing statement to
which he has subscribed his name is true in
substance and in fact.

(Signed) F. C. Rich.

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my
presence this 10th day of June, A. D. 1884.
(Signed) Alex. Elmslik,

Notary Public.

I, S. C. Carpenter, a Justi'^e of the Peace
in and for the township of Kirtland, Lak©
county. Ohio, do hereby certify that the
above named Reuben P. Harmon, A. E.
Sanborn Ezra Bond and J. M. Plaisted were

396

THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.

by me first duly sworn to testify the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth ;
that the foregoing: depositions by them re-
spectively subscribed were reduced to writ-
ing by Mr. Fay in my presence on the 8th
day of March, A. D. 1884, atKirtland in the
county and state aforesaid ; and by said
witnesses respectively subscribed in my
presence.

In testimony whereof! have hereunto set
my hand this 11th day of June. A. D. 1884.
(Signed) S. C. Carpenter,

Justice of the Peace.

APPENDIX, NO. 3.

Olevfland, Ohio, March 1, 1884.

David Whitmer. Esq.. Richmond, Mo., Dear Sir:—k
person by the name of J. H. Gilbert, at Palmyra, N. Y.,
ciaimu, I am told, that he srt the type lor the Book of
Mormon and that there were no cnpital h tters begin-
ning sentences and proper names in the printers' man-
nscript; and if there are any in now they have been
put in since.

Will you please examine the manuscript in your
possession, which you claim to be the original of the
Book of Mormon, and ascertain as to whether there
are capital letters, and whether, if there are such, they
are in the original writing ? Or have they been placed
in since ?

Does the manuscript show any marks of having
passed through the printers' hands ? You will oblige
bv answering at once, as I desire to get the facts in the
matter. It is also claimed that Oliver Cowdery deni«d
his testimony.

Very Respectfully,

E. L. Kelley.
APPENDIX NO. 4.

Richmond, Mo., March 3, 1884.

E. L. Kelley, Dear Sir.— Yours of 1st received. In
answer to vour first question. First, the capitals are in
the first wriiing; Second, they are the manuscripts
used by the printer and bear unmistakable evidence of
the piinter's using tbem, as many of that profession
hnve attested. Oliver Cowdery never, to my knowl-
edge, denied anv partof his testimony, on the contrary,
as [ have done", protested against every fabrication
made by designing persons and parties and emphati-
fally testified, as written in the Book of Mormon, until
death which occurred in this place. His wife and child
yet living furnish one of the best pictures of a living
faith in what their father testified to before death, as
written in the Book of Mormon.

David Whitmeb.

APPENDIX NO. 5.

TESTIMONIAL OF CITIZENS.

We the undersigned cititens of Richmond, Ray
county, Missouri, where David Whitmer, Sr.. has re-
sided since the vear 1838, certify that we have been

long and intimately acquainted with him and know
him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of un-
doubted truth and veracity:
(Signed)

A W. D^'uiphan.

G. W. Dunn. Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circvit

T. D. Vt'oodson, President of Ray Co. SaTinga
Bank.

J. T. Child, Ed^lorof "The Conservator."

H. C. Garner, Cashier of Ray Co. Savings Bank.

W. A. Ilolman, County Treasurer.

J. S. Hughes, Banker, Richmond.

James Hughes, Banker, Richmond.

D. P. Whitmer, Attorney at Law.

Jas. W. Black, Attorney at Law.

L. C. Canlwell, Postmaster, Richmond.

George I. Wasson, Mayor.

Jas. A. Davis, County Collector.

C.J. Hughes, Probate Juilge and Presiding Jw-
tice of Ray County Court.

George W. Trigg, County fMerk.

W. W. Mosby, Doctor of Medicine.

Thomas McGinnis, ex-Sheriflf, Ray County.

J P. Quesen ery. Merchant.

W. R. Holman, Furnitiire Merchant.

Louis Slaughter, Recorder of Deeds.

Geo. W. Buchanan, M. D.

A. K. Reyburn.
Given at Richmond, Mo., this March 19th, 1881."

APPENDIX NO. 6.

KiRTLAND, Ohio, Jan. 31, 1884.

Hon. Clerk of Courts, Wayne County, N. Y , Dear
Sir:— Will you please turn to your records and ascer-
tain for me information upon the following questions,
to-wit:

First, was there an officer in your county in the yeara
1833 or 1834, by the name of Thomas P. Baldwin, who
was a judge of the County Courts?

Second, was there an office of your county with
that title during the year 1833, or was his title, Judg«
of Courts of Common Pleas?

If it should tiike time to examine, or turn to your
records to asertain these facts, I will gladly remit to
you the expense of the trouble, if vou will designate
the same by return mail. Very Truly,

E. L. Kelley.

APPENDIX NO. 7.

KiRTLAND. Ohio, Jan. 31, 1884.

John McGonigal, Esq., Lyons, N Y., Dear Si'-.—
Yours of Feb. 1st, in answer to inquiries is at hand.

Enchised find fee, 50 cents, and 50 cents for troufc-
ling vou additionally. , ^ , , ^ ^

Can you tell me who was the Judge of your County
Court in the year 1833, if anybody ?

Was there a Justice of the Peace in your county in
the year 18.33 by the name of Fredrick Smith ?

You need not examine for either of ihese for anf
other year except 1833; but I wish to be certain as t«
this year, as the matter is an important one.

Thanking vou for your prompt reply, and bopwg
to again hear from you, I am. Very Truly,

E. L. Kellkt.

[For answers to Nos. 6 and 7, see book.]

The matter set forth in Appendix "^, B, and C," and in Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, is by
, . E. L. KELLEY,

mutual consent. ^^^^^, ^^^ ^^^^

Copyright, 1884, by CLARK BRADEN.

ir^jy^i

• ; i I

XO^L.

- /

-£/^

DATE DUE

DEMCO 38-297

MmMMiM^m^&^^^^^m

BP871 .K29

Public discussion of the issues between

Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

1 1012 00037 8937

i^