OBJECTIONS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON (Continued).  
I.
 
Alleged Plagiarisms of Historical and Biblical Events.
 
It is charged against the Book of Mormon that many of its historical incidents are mere plagiarisms of historical and Biblical events. I shall only be able to indicate a few of these charges, and point out the means by which they may be fairly met. I call attention to the fact, in the first place, that some of the charges are absolutely false; that they are based on misquotations and misstated incidents. In other cases the comparison is very much strained to get the result of likeness, and throughout the likelihood of similarity in human experience is entirely overlooked.
 
Mr. John Hyde declares that Nephi's description of the rise of a great and abominable church immediately after the days of the Messiah on earth, together with his description of her pride, power, and cruelty, is a quotation from the book of Revelations, "A description of the Church of Rome;"[1] the abduction of the daughters of the Lamanites by the Priests of King Noah;[2] the martyrdom of Alma's converts in the land of Ammonihah;[3] and the slaughter of the converts of Ammon among the Lamanites,[4] are events "borrowed from the history of Nero, Caligula, and Fox's book of Martyrs."
 
In Alma's conversion, he sees "an imitation of Paul's miraculous conversion" with this difference; that Paul was struck with blindness for three days, and Alma is struck dumb for two days![5] In the remarks of King Mosiah on the advantages of a government by the people as against the rule of absolute monarchs, our author sees the doctrine of "Vox populi vox Dei,"[6] although that idea nowhere occurs in the passage to which he gives reference, and in fact, in no passage of the Book of Mormon. These citations from the long list that our author makes out will perhaps be sufficient from him. Those who wish to trace out this class of objections, as he makes them, may consult his work.[7]
 
A more recent writer enters into the same line of argument in greater detail.[8] His theory is that the author of the Book of Mormon set out to "beat the Bible" in the matter of wonderful things recorded. Thus in the "eight barges" of the Jaredites he sees an attempt to outdo the Bible account of Noah's "one ark." In a complete vision granted to the brother of Jared of the pre-existent spirit-personage of the Messiah, he sees the partial view of the same personage granted to Moses outdone. In the fact that the Nephite prophet, Abinadi, interpreted certain writings upon the wall of a temple, he sees an imitation of Daniel's exploit of reading the writing on the wall of Belshazzar's palace. In Ether's expressed doubt as to his own fate, whether he would be granted the privilege of translation or be required to pass through the ordeal of death, he sees the counterpart of the story of Elijah's ascent into heaven. In the retention of three of the Nephite apostles on earth until Messiah shall come in his glory, he sees the New Testament intimation and the early Christian notion that the apostle John might be granted such a privilege—if such it could be regarded—outdone. In the signs of Messiah's birth, granted to the Nephites—the night of continuous light and the appearance of a new star in the heavens; as also in the signs of his crucifixion and burial—three hours of tempest and earthquake while the Son of Man was on the cross, and three days of darkness while he lay in the tomb[9]—our author sees again an effort to outdo the Bible signs accompanying Messiah's birth and death.
 
In the account given in III Nephi[10] of the multitude being permitted to come in personal contact with the Savior one by one, and touch the scars of the wounds he had received in crucifixion, Rev. Lamb sees an effort to outdo the New Testament story of Thomas thrusting his hands in the wounds of our Savior, that he might be convinced of the reality of his resurrection. Indeed, the Reverend gentleman makes very much of this circumstance. He supposes the multitude granted this privilege numbered 2,500; and allowing that five persons would pass the Savior every minute, giving each one twelve seconds to thrust his hand into Messiah's side, and feel the print of the nails, would require "eight hours and twenty minutes of time!"[11] The Reverend Gentleman, however, neglected to give the matter due consideration. The number of the multitude, 2,500, is given at the close of the first day's visit of Messiah to the Nephites; whereas, the circumstance of the people being allowed to personally come in contact with the Savior, is an event that took place early in the day, almost immediately upon the Christ's appearance in fact, and when the "multitude" was much smaller than at the close of the day. Two circumstances lead to the belief that the crowd was greatly augmented through the day. For instance, after some considerable time had elapsed after his appearing, and after the multitude had gone forth and felt the wounds in his hands and feet, Jesus called for their sick and afflicted, that he might heal them. It is unreasonable to suppose that the blind and halt and sick were with the "multitude" when Jesus first appeared, as the latter were a party strolling about the temple viewing the changes wrought in the land by the recent cataclysms, while the sick and maimed with their attendants would doubtless be at their homes. Therefore, many of the people departed from the presence of Jesus to bring to him these afflicted ones; and as they went on this errand of mercy they doubtless spread the news of Christ's presence among them, with the result that the people were gathered together throughout the day.
 
Again, after blessing their afflicted ones, the Lord Jesus caused their children to be gathered together, that he might bless them; which doubtless in many cases caused parents to hasten again to their homes and ever as they went the news spread further and further of the Messiah's presence, until finally, at the close of the day's gathering, 2,500 were found to be present. It by no means follows, however, that all this number thrust their hands into the wounds of Messiah; but only the very much smaller number that was gathered about the temple in the land of Bountiful earlier in the day, when Messiah appeared to them.
 
Our author sees in these things I have quoted and some others that he details, plagiarisms of Bible events; and concludes that the Book of Mormon, instead of being what it claims to be, is largely but a collection of Bible events distorted by Joseph Smith's inventions.
 
It places a Christian minister, believing as he does in the divinity of both the Old and New Testament, at a very great disadvantage to make this kind of an argument. Suppose we were to apply it as a test of the New Testament? We could then say that the ascension of Jesus, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is but an imitation of the glorious ascension of Elijah into heaven in the presence of a host of angels.[12] We could say that the special miracles wrought by the hands of Paul so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs and aprons to the afflicted, and "the diseases departed from them and the evil spirits went out of them," is but an imitation of what Elijah did when he sent his staff by the hands of his servant, commanding him to lay it on the face of the dead child of his Shunammite friend to restore him to life.[13]
 
"It might be said, also, that in the subsequent conduct of Elijah in restoring this same child to life, we have the original of the New Testament story of Jarius's daughter.[14] In this same chapter of Kings we have the following story of Elisha's miraculously feeding a multitude:
 
And there came a man from Baalshalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. And his servitor said, What, should I set this before an hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof. So he set before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord.
 
"Who can doubt," the Biblical sceptic might ask, "but what this story inspired that of the Evangelists concerning the miraculous feeding of five thousand people, in a desert place, from five loaves, and two fishes.[15] The excess of people mentioned in the New Testament—five thousand thus miraculously fed as against Elijah's one hundred—"could be pointed to as an effort of the New Testament writer to merely "outdo" in the marvelous the miracles of the Old Testament.
 
Again, it might be continued that the story of tenth Revelations, where a little book is given to John the apostle to eat, one that should be bitter in his belly, but in his mouth sweet as honey, is but a plagiarism of a very similar story told in Ezekiel where that prophet is commanded to eat the roll of the book, and it was in his mouth "as the honey for sweetness."[16]
 
Thus we might continue in drawing such parallels, but there would be neither profit nor argument in doing so. Such procedure is scarcely worthy the name of criticism. It reminds one of Shakespeare's Rosalind finding the doggerel verses of the love-sick swain, Orlando, hanging upon the trees of the forest of Arden, and of Rosalind reading them—
 
  From the east to the western Ind,
  No Jewel is like Rosalind.
  All the pictures fairest lined,
  Are but black to Rosalind.
  Let no fair be kept in mind,
  But the fair of Rosalind.
Which doggerel the more sensible Touchstone, listening to—and impatient at withal—finally breaks in upon the fair reader with:
 
"I'll rhyme you so eight years together, dinners and suppers and sleepin-hours excepted:—for a taste—
 
  If a hart do lack a hind,
  Let him seek out Rosalind.
  If the cat will after kind,
  So be sure will Rosalind.
  Winter garments must be lined,
  So must slendor Rosalind.
  They that reap must sheef and bind,
  Then to cart with Rosalind.
  Sweetest nut hath sourest rind,
  Such a nut is Rosalind.
So with like result one might run on with this kind of argument based upon the Book of Mormon's alleged plagiarisms from the Hebrew scriptures.
 
II.
 
The Absence of Book of Mormon Names Both of Place and Persons in Native American Language.
 
It is objected to the Book of Mormon that there nowhere appears in native American languages Book of Mormon names. "During the one thousand years of their recorded history," says one, "as given in the Book of Mormon, the old familiar names of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel and others are constantly recurring; they held on to them with reverential pertinacity. If the Book of Mormon were a true record we should find these names in abundance among various Indian races scattered over both continents." The absence of Book of Mormon names in the native language, is held to be fatal testimony against the claims of the Book of Mormon by this writer.[17]
 
One recognizes here a real difficulty, and one for which it is quite hard to account. It must be remembered, however, that from the close of the Nephite period, 420 A. D., to the coming of the Spaniards in the sixteenth century, we have a period of over one thousand years; and we have the triumph also of the Lamanites over the Nephites bent on the destruction of every vestige of Nephite traditions and institutions. May it not be that they recognized as one of the means of achieving such destruction the abrogation of the old familiar names of things and persons? Besides there is the probable influx of other tribes and peoples into America in that one thousand years whose names may have largely taken the place of Nephite and Lamanite names.
 
I have already suggested that the name "Nahuas" and the adjective derived from it, "Nahuatl," are probably variations of the names "Nephi" and "Nephite," derived, it may be, together with the Bible names "Nepheg," "Nephish," "Nephishesim," and "Naphtali" from a common Hebrew root.[18] Also, that the name "Hohgates," by which names the seven mythical strangers were called who in ancient times settled at Point St. George on the Pacific coast near San Francisco, is a survival of the Book of Mormon name "Hagoth," who is prominent in the Book of Mormon narrative as the man who first started maritime migrations from South America, northward along the Pacific coast of North America.[19]
 
Mr. Priest, the author of "American Antiquities," declares that the word "Amazon," the name of the chief river of South America, is an Indian word.[20] Early in the century in which Messiah was born, four of the sons of the Nephite king, Mosiah II, departed from Zarahemla on a mission to the Lamanites. At that time the Lamanites occupied the lands formerly possessed by the Nephites, previous to the migration of the more righteous part of that people to Zarahemla—the old "land of Nephi." This land, so far as can be determined, corresponds somewhat to the modern country of Ecuador and perhaps the northern part of Peru.[21] In this region, it will be remembered, the river Amazon takes its rise. The leader of the Nephite missionary expedition referred to was Ammon, doubtless the oldest son of King Mosiah II.[22] Such were the achievements of this man; such his rank, and such his high character that it is not difficult or unreasonable to believe that his name was given by the people to the principal stream of the land, and that it has survived under the modern variation of the name Amazon.
 
Again, the word "Andes," the name of the chief mountain range in South America, is quite generally supposed, if not conceded by the best authorities, to come from the native Peruvian word "Anti," meaning copper.[23]
 
The Peruvians, in order to cultivate some mountainous parts of their country, terraced the mountain sides, facing the same with stone. These terraces the Spaniards called "Andenes," whence some suppose the name "Andes." "But the name," says Prescott, "is older than the Conquest, according to Varcilasso, who traces it to 'Anti,' the name of a province that lay east of Cuzco. 'Anta,' the word for copper, which was found abundant in certain quarters of the country, may have suggested the name of the province, if not immediately that of the mountains."[24]
 
In any event we have the words "Anti" and "Anta" established as native American words, and the word "Anti" is of frequent use in the Book of Mormon in a number of compound words, such as "Anti-Nephi-Lehi," the name of a Lamanite king or chief about B. C. 83.[25] The same name was given to his people, that is, they were called "Anti-Nephi-Lehi's,"[26] and possibly it may have been given to the land they occupied. If so it accounts for the word "Anti" surviving as the name of a province, according to Garcilasso, lying east of Cuzco.
 
We also have the word "Antiomno,"[27] the name of a Lamanite king; "Antionah," the name of a chief; "Antionum," both the name of a man,[28] and also the name of a city;[29] also the word "Antiparah," a Nephite city;[30] "Antipas," the name of a mountain;[31] and "Antipus," the name of a Nephite military leader.[32]
 
It is true these words in the Book of Mormon, are written as simple words, but they are susceptible of being regarded as compound words, as follows: "Anti-Omno," "Anti-Pas," "Anti-Parah," and so following. If the Peruvian terraces derived their name from this native word "Anti," then when applied to Nephite lands Anti-Onum would doubtless mean the terraced lands of Onum, and Anti-Parah, the name of a city, would doubtless be the terraced city of Parah, and so following.
 
But after all this is said it is still a matter of regret that more of the Nephite names, both of men and countries, have not survived in the native American languages. Still the field of knowledge of American antiquities has not yet been thoroughly explored, and when its buried cities and monuments shall be more thoroughly known all the evidences that can be demanded along these lines will doubtless be produced.
 
III.
 
Nephi's Temple.
 
First Nephi gives the following account of building a temple in the New World:
 
And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon, save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land; wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine.[33]
 
This statement is unfairly dealt with by objectors. They generally represent it as saying that Nephi, in this description, holds out the idea that he duplicated Solomon's temple, excepting as to the richness of the materials employed in its construction. Then an elaborate description of the greatness and architectural grandeur of Solomon's temple is given. Attention is also called to the fact that the Hebrew nation bent all their energies through seven years of activity in constructing the temple of Solomon; that they were aided by surrounding peoples, notably by King Hiram and the Tyrians.
 
After all this is explained then comes what is supposed to be an insurmountable difficulty, namely: Lehi's colony that came from Jerusalem to America was a very small one, consisting of two families only, Lehi's and Ishmael's, and in addition the man Zoram, perhaps not exceeding a score of adult persons on their arrival in the promised land. Then after some time this colony is divided; the more righteous branch following Nephi, and the wicked following his elder brothers Laman and Lemuel. So that it is safe to conclude that during the lifetime of the first Nephi the colony remained a very small one; and since this temple was built about thirty years after the colony departed from Jerusalem, the Nephite division of it could not have included more than one hundred adults. How, then, it is triumphantly asked, could this small colony duplicate Solomon's temple, renowned for its architectural beauty and greatness, and which required seven years for the nation of the Hebrews to construct, assisted by surrounding people and the great treasuries which David, in his reign, had accumulated for that sacred purpose?
 
The answer to the objection is to be found in a denial of the construction put upon Nephi's description of his temple. That description does not warrant the conclusion that Nephi's temple was a duplicate of Solomon's, except as to the "manner of the construction," from which it is to be inferred that the general plan of the structure followed that of Solomon's, but it does not follow that it was anything like Solomon's in the extent or largeness of it; but in the arrangement of its courts; its several divisions and subdivisions were built "after the manner" and for the purposes for which Solomon's temple was constructed. So that the labored argument as to the inability of so small a colony as Lehi's duplicating Solomon's temple is merely so much wasted energy, since no one is bound to hold that in its dimensions and greatness the Nephite Temple equaled Solomon's temple. It was only like unto Solomon's temple in its arrangement and uses, but doubtless by this colony was regarded as a very great achievement, as undoubtedly it was, and they would likely speak of it in the superlative degree of admiration in describing it.
 
IV.
 
The Difficulty of Iron and Steel Among the Nephites.
 
The Book of Mormon repeatedly affirms the Nephite knowledge of the fusion of metals, and their knowledge and use of both iron and steel. As many writers on American Antiquities deny the knowledge and use of these metals by the ancient Americans, their alleged existence in the Book of Mormon is generally regarded as a capital objection to that record. Not all the influential writers, however, are on that side of the question.
 
"There is no evidence," says Bancroft, "that the use of iron was known except the extreme difficulty of clearing forests and carving stone with implements of stone and soft copper."[34]
 
Referring to some of the stones in the ruins of Peruvian buildings, Prescott remarks:
 
Many of these stones were of vast size; some of them being full thirty-eight feet long, by eighteen broad, and six feet thick. We are filled with astonishment when we consider that these enormous masses were hewn from their native bed and fashioned into shape by a people ignorant of the use of iron.[35]
 
But why could not the argument of Wilkinson be followed when confronted with a similar problem respecting the ancient Egyptian works in stone? He allowed that the achievements of that ancient people in quarrying and shaping huge blocks of stone to be an evidence of their knowledge and use of iron, but that its tendency to decomposition and oxidation prevented any specimens of it from being preserved.[36]
 
Later, notwithstanding Prescott's disagreement with the argument, some of the best authorities sustained the conclusions of Wilkinson. George Rawlinson, for instance, in his "History of Ancient Egypt," says:
 
In metals Egypt was deficient. * * * * Copper, iron, and lead do, however, exist in portions of the eastern desert, and one iron mine shows signs of having been anciently worked.
 
"Then," he remarks, "the metal is found in form of specular and red iron ore. Still, none of these metals seem to have been obtained by the Egyptians from their own land in any considerable quantity. In a foot note he says this mine lies in the eastern desert between the Nile and Red Sea, at a place called Hammami."[37] Later, he says:
 
It has been much questioned whether iron was employed at all by the Egyptians until the time of the Greek conquest. The weapons and implements and ornaments of iron which have been found in the ancient cities are so few, while those of bronze are so numerous, and the date of the few iron objects discovered is so uncertain that there is strong temptation to embrace the simple theory that iron was first introduced into Egypt by the Ptolemies. Difficulties, however, stand in the way of a complete adoption of this view. A fragment of a thin plate of iron was found by Col. Vyse imbedded in the masonry of the great pyramid.[38]
 
Continuing, he says:
 
Some iron implements and ornaments have been found in the tombs with nothing about them indicative of their belonging to the late period. The paucity of such instances is partially, if not wholly accounted for, by the rapid decay of iron in the nitrous earth of Egypt, or when oxidized by exposure to the air. It seems very improbable that the Hebrew and Canaanites should for centuries have been well acquainted with the use of iron, and their neighbors of Egypt, whose civilization was far more advanced, have been ignorant of it. On these grounds the most judicious of modern Egyptologists seem to hold, that while the use of iron by the Egyptians in Pharaonic times was at the best rare and occasional, it was not wholely unknown, though less appreciated than we should have expected. Iron spear-heads, iron cycles, iron gimlets, iron bracelets, iron keys, iron wire were occasionally made use of, but the Egyptians on the whole were contented with their bronze implements and weapons, which were more easily produced and which they found to answer every purpose.[39]
 
May it not be argued with equal reason, that the Lamanites, after the conquest of the Nephites, found themselves in the same condition, that is, it was easier for them to convert copper into such implements as they desired than iron, until finally the use of iron was discontinued and the art of manufacturing it lost.
 
Baldwin says of the Peruvians:
 
Iron was unknown to them in the time of the Incas, although some maintain that they had it in the previous ages, to which belong the ruins of Lake Titicaca. Iron ore was and still is very abundant in Peru. It is impossible to conceive how the Peruvians were able to cut and work stone in such a masterly way, or to construct their great roads and aqueducts without the use of iron tools. Some of the languages of the country, and perhaps all, had names for iron; in official Peruvian it was called "quillay," and in the old Chilian tongue "panilic." "It is remarkable," observes Molina, "that iron, which has been thought unknown to the ancient Americans, has particular names in some of their tongues." It is not easy to understand why they had names for this metal, if they never at any time had knowledge of the metal itself. In the "Mercurio Peruano," (tome i., p. 201, 1791), it is stated that, anciently, the Peruvian sovereigns, "worked magnificent iron mines at Ancoriames, on the west shore of Lake Titicaca;" but I can not give the evidence used in support of this statement.[40].
 
DeRoo says:
 
Iron seems to have been unknown in America at the time of the Spanish discovery, but the Mound-Builders' graveyards, afford proof that they not only knew it, but manufactured it into tools and implements. In the sepulchral mound at Marietta (Ohio) there was found in the year 1819 a little lump of iron ore that had almost the specific gravity of pure iron, and presented the appearance of being partially smelted, while in the mound at Circleville oxidized iron was unearthed in the shape of a plate.[41]
 
Referring again to what was found in the mound at Marietta, he says:
 
In June of 1819, upon opening a mound at Marietta, some very remarkable objects were discovered, consisting of three large circular copper bosses thickly overlaid with silver, and apparently intended as ornaments for a buckler or a sword-belt. On the reverse were two plates fastened by a copper rivet or nail, around which was a flaxen thread, while between the plates were two small pieces of leather. The copper showed much signs of decay; it was almost reduced to an oxide; but the silver, though much corroded, resumed its natural brilliancy on being burnished. In the same tumulus was also found a hollow silver plate six inches long and two broad, intended apparently as the upper part of a sword-scabbard. The scabbard itself seems to have perished in the course of time, as no other portion of it was found, with the exception of a few broken, rust-eaten pieces of a copper tube, which was likely intended for the reception of the point of the weapon.[42]
 
Josiah Priest has the following passages on the subject of the discoveries of iron in the mounds of America:
 
We have examined the blade of a sword found in Philadelphia, now in Peel's Museum, in New York, which was taken out of the ground something more than sixty feet below the surface. The blade is about twenty inches in length, is sharp on one edge, with a thick back, a little turned up at the point, with a shank drawn out three or four inches long, on which was doubtless, inserted in the handle, and clenched at the end. It is known that the swords of all ancient nations were very short, on which account, their wars on the field of battle, were but an immense number of single combats.[43]
 
Describing what was found in one of the mounds at Circleville, in Ohio, upon the authority of Mr. Atwater, who was present when the mound was opened, he says:
 
The handle, either of a small sword, or a large knife, made of an elk's horn; around the end where the blade had been inserted, was a ferule of silver, which, though black, was not much 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 similiar shape and size. The swords of the ancient nations of the old world, it is known, were very short. Charcoal, and wood ashes, on which these articles lay, were surrounded by several bricks, very well burnt. The skeleton appeared to have been burnt in a large and very hot fire. * * About twenty feet to the north of it (i. e. the skeleton) was another, with which was found a large mirror. * * * On this mirror was a plate of iron, which had become an oxide, but before it was disturbed by the spade, resembled a plate of cast iron. The mirror answered the purpose very well for which it was intended.[44]
 
Iron was known to the antediluvians; it was also known to the ancients of the west. Copper ore is very abundant, in many places of the west; and, therefore, as they had a knowledge of it when they first came here they knew how to work it, and form it into tools and ornaments. This is the reason why so many articles of this metal are found in their works; and even if they had a knowledge of iron ore, and knew how to work it, all articles made of it must have become oxidized as appears from what few specimens have been found, while those of copper are more imperishable.[45]
 
Quoting Mr. Atwater again, Priest says:
 
There is a tradition (among the Indians) that Florida had once been inhabited by white people, who had the use of iron tools; their oldest Indians say, when children, they had often heard it spoken of by the old people of the tribe, that anciently, stumps of trees covered with earth, were frequently found, which had been cut down by edged tools. Whoever they were, or from whatever country they may have originated, the account, as given by Morse, the geographer, of the subterranean wall found in North Carolina, goes very far to show they had a knowledge of iron ore; and consequently knew how to work it, or they could not have had iron tools, as the Shawanese Indians relate.[46]
 
Again:
 
On the river Gasconade, which empties into the Missouri, on the southern side, (about 70 miles west of St. Louis) are found the traces of ancient works, similar to those in North Carolina. In the saltpetre caves of that region, the Gasconade country, in particular, were discovered, when they were first visited, axes and hammers made of iron; which led to the belief that they had formerly worked those caves for the sake of the nitre. Dr. Beck, from whose Gazetteer of Missouri and Illinois, (p. 234), we have this account, remarks, however, that "it is difficult to decide whether these tools were left there by the present race of Indians, or a more civilized race of people. * * * * This author considers the circumstance of finding those tools in the nitre caves, as furnishing a degree of evidence that the country of Gasconade river was formerly settled by a race of men who were acquainted with the use of iron, and exceeded the Indians in civilization and a knowledge of the arts.[47]
 
In the town of Pompey, Onondaga county, New York, in one of the mounds where Mr. Priest describes the finding of glass, he also says:
 
In the same grave with the bottle was found an iron hatchet, edged with steel. The eye, or place for the helve, was round, and extended or projected out, like the ancient Swiss or German axe. * * * * In the same town, on lot No. 17, were found the remains of a blacksmith's forge; at this spot have been ploughed up crucibles, such as mineralogists use in refining metals.
 
These axes are similar, and correspond in character with those found in the nitrous caves on the Gasconade river, which empties into the Missouri, as mentioned in Professor Beck's Gazatteer of that country. * * * * * Within the range of these works have been found pieces of cast iron, broken from some vessel of considerable thickness. These articles cannot well be ascribed to the era of the French war, as time enough since then till the region around about Onondaga was commenced to be cultivated, had not elapsed to give the growth of timber found on the spot, of the age above noticed; and, added to this, it is said that the Indians occupying that tract of country had no tradition of their authors.[48]
 
Again he states:
 
Anv'ls of iron have been found in Pompey, (Onondaga county) in the same quarter of the country with the other discoveries, as above related; which we should naturally expect to find, or it might be inquired how could axes, and the iron works of wagons, be manufactured?[49]
 
As I have before remarked, it has been contended that the ancient Americans knew nothing of the fusion of metals, but the presence of these materials for such purpose goes far towards dispelling that opinion. It is true that Mr. Priest advances the opinion that this forge and these crucibles found in New York, may have been of Scandinavian origin; still that is but a conjecture, and here I wish to introduce the testimony of Columbus, quoted by Nadaillac, who says:
 
The Mayas knew nothing of iron; copper and gold were the only metals they used, and it is doubtful whether they understood smelting metals. Christopher Columbus is said, however, to have seen, off the coast Honduras, a boat laden with crucibles, filled with ingots of metal and hatchets made of copper which had been fetched from a distance. ("Prehistoric America," p. 269).
 
Speaking again of discoveries in the ancient tumuli of America, Priest says:
 
A vast many instances of articles made of copper and sometimes plated with silver, have been met with on opening their works. Circular pieces of copper, intended either as medals or breast plates, have been found, several inches in diameter, very much injured by time. In several tumuli the remains of knives, and even of swords, in the form of rust, have been discovered. * * * * * But besides, there have been found very well manufactured swords and knives of iron, and possibly steel, says Mr. Atwater; from which we are to conclude that the primitive people of America, either discovered the use of iron themselves, as the Greeks did, * * * * or that they carried a knowledge of this ore with them at the time of their dispersion.[50]
 
Speaking of the discovery of a skeleton of a man in one of the mounds of Merrietta, Ohio, he says:
 
Two or three pieces of a copper tube were also found with this body, filled with iron rust. The pieces from their appearance composed the lower end of the scabbard near the point of the sword, but no sign of the sword itself, except a streak of rust its whole length.[51]
 
A. J. Connant, A. M., member of the St. Louis Academy of Science, and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published the following, in 1879:
 
From an interesting account of certain mounds in Utah, communicated by Mr. Amasa Potter to the Eureka Sentinel, of Nevada, as copied by The Western Review of Science and Industry, I make the following extracts: The mounds are situated on what is known as the Payson Farm, and are six in number, covering twenty acres of ground. They are from ten to eighteen feet in height, and from 500 to 1,000 feet in circumference. "The explorations divulged no hidden treasure so far, but have proved to us that there once undoubtedly existed here a more enlightened race of human beings that that of the Indian who inhabited this country, and whose records have been traced back hundreds of years." While engaged in excavating one of the larger mounds, we discovered the feet of a large skeleton, and carefully removing the hardened earth in which it was embedded, we succeeded in unearthing a large skeleton without injury. The human framework measured six feet, six inches in length, and from appearances it was undoubtedly that of a male. In the right hand was a large iron or steel weapon, which had been buried with the body, but which crumbled to pieces on handling. Near the skeleton we also found pieces of cedar wood, cut in various fantastic shapes, and in a state of perfect preservation; the carving showing that the people of this unknown race were acquainted with the use of edged tools.[52]
 
Mr. Conant also refers with approval to several passages I have already quoted from Dr. Priest's works, and adds on his own account:
 
There are certain facts which have been quoted from time to time, which fit into none of the popular theories concerning the state of the arts of the Mound-builders. It has been stated, and often repeated, that they had no knowledge of smelting or casting metals, yet the recent discoveries in Wisconsin of implements of copper cast in molds—as well as the moulds themselves, of various patterns, and wrought with much skill—prove that the age of metallurgical arts had dawned in that region at least.
 
And again: what shall be said concerning the traces of iron implements which have been discovered from time to time in the mounds, but more frequently at great depths below the surface of the soil. Though accounts of such discoveries are generally from reliable sources, they have latterly received no attention, and always have been considered as so much perilous ware which no one cared to handle.[53]
 
After referring to their stupendous works in stone, and their skill in the fine arts, involving the most delicate carving, Mr. Conant remarks of the old American race who wrought them:
 
And it is difficult to conceive how, without cutting implements equal, at least, to our own in hardness, such delicate and such stupendous works could have been executed. And to the question whether they possessed a knowledge of working iron, the wise man will hesitate long before he answers in the negative. It should be remembered, too, how quickly—unless under most favoring conditions—iron corrodes to dust and leaves scarcely a trace behind. The piles of the Swiss lake-dwellings, the cedar posts of the mounds, may endure for ages, while iron—so hard, and more precious than gold in the advancement of the world's civilization,—speedily melts away before the gentle dews and air of heaven.[54]
 
There is more to the same effect, but our limits will admit of no further quotations.
 
V.
 
The Horse and Other Domestic Animals of the Book of Mormon.
 
It has to be conceded that the weight of assertion on the part of writers on American antiquities, is against the existence of the horse, cow, ass, goat, sheep, etc., in America within historical times, and before the advent of Europeans. There is no evidence developed so far that satisfactorily proves that any of the native races of America, wild or civilized, had any knowledge of the horse and other domestic animals named at the time of the discovery of America by the Europeans. The Book of Mormon, however, repeatedly and most positively declares that all these animals existed in great numbers. The first Nephi, for instance, says:
 
We did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forest 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 animals, which were for the use of men.[55]
 
The same animals, with others, are enumerated as existing also in Jaredite times, and in the reign of King Emer—the fifth of the Jaredite line of kings—that people are said to have had—
 
All manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kind of animals which were useful for the food of man; and they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms, and cummoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants, and cureloms, and cummoms.[56]
 
It is to be observed, curiously enough, that elephants are spoken of as being in use for domestic purposes in connection with the horse and cattle, etc., and it is rather a striking circumstance that the remains of these animals, together with those of man, have been unearthed in various parts of the American continent, though their existence is accredited to very ancient times—to ages long prior to either Nephite or Jaredite times.[57]
 
It is held, of course, by opponents of the Book of Mormon that this apparent conflict between the book and the supposed facts, as they are declared to be by the writers on such subjects, constitutes a grave objection to the claims of the Book of Mormon. And, indeed, in the present state of our knowledge upon the subject, it has to be admitted that it constitutes one of our most embarrassing difficulties. Still it should be remembered that there is a wide difference between a difficulty for which one has not at hand an adequate explanation, and one that would be fatal to the claims made for the Book of Mormon. The fact has to be admitted that the native Americans seemed to have had no knowledge of the horse at the time of the discovery of America, but that does not necessarily carry with it the conclusion that he did not exist and was not used a thousand years before that time. His apparent extinction may be and is sarcastically referred to as "a very strange thing," still, "strange things" do sometimes happen; and the extinction of species of animals is not an unknown thing in the history of our earth. Indeed our scientists are confronted by just such—nay, with the identical "strange occurrence;" namely, the sudden and complete disappearance of the horse from the American continents. First let me explain that the result of recent long continued investigation upon the subject leads our scientists to the conclusion that North America was the original home of the horse—the place of his "evolution." In the Century Magazine, for November, 1904, is a very elaborate and v............