When one undertakes at this late day a serious discussion of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon, he instinctively feels inclined to begin with an apology to his readers. When Pococke inquired of Grotius, where the proof was of that story of the pigeon, trained to pick peas from Mahomet's ear, and pass for an angel dictating the Koran to him, Grotius answered that there was no proof. The statement here is Carlyle's; and the gruff old Scotch philosopher adds in his sour fashion, "It is really time to dismiss all that."^[1] So indeed we think of this Spaulding myth in reference to its being the origin of the Book of Mormon.

[Footnote 1: "Heroes and Hero Worship," by Thomas Carlyle, lecture II.]

When the Church of which the Book of Mormon may be said, in a way, to have been the origin has survived the most cruel religious persecution of modern times, first in the expulsion of from twelve to fifteen thousand of its members from the state of Missouri; and, second, in the murder of its first prophet in Illinois, followed by the expatriation of between twenty and thirty thousand of its members from the territory of the United States; when that religious movement to which the Book of Mormon may be said to have given the first impulse, and is now a continuous, sustaining factor, has resulted in the founding of a number of American commonwealths in the inter-mountain country of the United States;^[2] when that people who accept the Book of Mormon as a divine revelation have established, for an extent of well nigh three thousand miles through the plateau valleys of the Rocky Mountains—from the province of Alberta, Canada, to the states of Chihuahua and Sonora in the republic of Mexico—no less than between seven and nine hundred settlements, many of them prosperous towns of large manufacturing as well as of large agriculture and trade interests; when that same people have won world-wide renown as superior colonizers, and are eagerly sought for in such enterprises because of their well known sobriety, honesty, frugality and industry; when that same people are quietly building up an educational system including as it does the rounding of universities in its principal centers, and academies elsewhere as feeders to the central educational institutions;^[3] when those who accept the Book of Mormon as a divine revelation continuously sustain a corps of missionaries, numbering from fifteen to eighteen hundred, to carry their message to the world, and these missionaries are at work in nearly all civilized nations, and in the islands of the Pacific, meeting their own expenses and manifesting the unselfishness of their faith by their works—their service for God and fellowman; when the Book of Mormon itself has been accepted in the first three-quarters of a century of its existence by hundreds of thousands of earnest people of average intelligence and certainly of independent character; when the Book of Mormon itself has been translated into and published in at least eleven languages, in a number of which it has run through many editions and the copies published run into the hundreds of thousands, and with no abatement of interest yet manifested; when the Book of Mormon is creating not only a people but also a literature, embracing history, poetry and philosophy; when it is inspiring music, painting and sculpture—when all this has come of the Book of Mormon, is it not really about time to dismiss all that silly talk of the Spaulding manuscript being stolen by Rigdon, revamped by him and palmed off upon the world by a backwoods boy as a revelation, and this practiced fraud and deception being the origin of all this that is here enumerated?

[Footnote 2: It must not be supposed that the migration of the Mormon people to the Salt Lake and adjacent valleys when that region was Mexican territory, resulted only in the founding of the state of Utah. Indirectly and directly, too, that movement contributed to the settlement of the entire inter-mountain region, and the founding of the States created out of that territory.]

[Footnote 3: This refers to the Brigham Young University at Provo, Utah, the Latter-day Saints' University in Salt Lake City, and fifteen Colleges and Academies in other parts of the territory occupied by the Saints in the inter-mountain west. See "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, p. 226.]

What faith men must have in fraud and dishonesty to think it can start and sustain all this! What a lasting victory is accorded to a thing conceived in fraud, brought forth in iniquity, and perpetuated by continuous falsehood! What credulity is required to believe all this! Let no one hereafter, standing in such ranks, dare say that "cheat" is a horse good only for a short race. They must know better than that from the stand they take in this Book of Mormon matter.

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR REPLYING TO MR. SCHROEDER

Two things, yea, three, justify a reply to Mr. Theodore Schroeder's series of articles on "The Origin of the Book of Mormon," published in the September and November numbers of the American Historical Magazine, for 1906, and the January and May numbers for 1907.

The first justification is the fact of the high standing of the magazine in which his articles appeared. Published in a periodical of such rank, if unchallenged, they might lead many to believe undeniable the theory there advanced for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and the argument by which said theory is sustained, unanswerable. It has been from just such circumstances as these with reference to articles that appeared in standard works, in histories and encyclopedias, that Mormonism suffered so much defamation in the earlier year of its existence. It now stands recorded in the earlier editions of the American Cyclopedia and in the Encyclopedia Britannica that David Whitmer denied his testimony as one of the witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that his two associate witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, had denied their testimony to that book. Being misinformed from these high sources of information, doubtless tens of thousands have been impressed with those untrue statements. David Whitmer never denied his testimony. In a brochure issued by himself, in 1887, and referring directly to these false statements, he said:

"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon."^[4]

[Footnote 4: "Address to all Believers in Christ," p. 8. The high character and reputation for truthfulness of David Whitmer is attested in this brochure by all the leading officials and citizens of Richmond, Mo., (not Mormons) where he lived for fifty years, pp. 8-10.]

People, however, can still quote the above named standard works to prove that these men denied their testimony and were false witnesses. It is to prevent as far as possible the creation of such conditions respecting Mr. Schroeder's articles in the American Historical Magazine that I think it important that they should be answered.

The second thing that justifies an answer to Mr. Schroeder, is the form in which his treatment of the subject is cast. Much in the form would lead one to believe, at first glance, that here we had a really exhaustive treatise of the origin of the Book of Mormon; that every item of obtainable information had been collected, the mass of facts sifted and net results given, instead of a specious plea made for a special theory. This is evidenced in the constant appeal to sources of information in the notes appended to the articles, of which notes there are one hundred and ninety-six. Then there is an occasional halting in the movement of the argument, as if to weigh the evidence, to balance one statement against another as if to get down to bed-rock facts, instead of a mere effort to remove some obstruction in the way of the special theory being worked out. All of which is but so much juggling with forms of treatment,—an effort to win the reader with the shows of honest argument, to betray him in deeper consequences. Shimmering under all these forms may be seen the arts of the special pleader bent on making out a case. It is the false appearance of exhaustive and fair treatment of the subject that makes it desirable to answer Mr. Schroeder.

The third justification for answering Mr. Schroeder's articles arises out of a suggestion of the gentleman himself, near the close of his article, namely, that the actors who participated in the origin of the Book of Mormon are all dead, and that "upon the precise question here discussed, no new evidence is likely to be discovered. All the evidence directly affecting either side of the question has been introduced and reviewed." One may pardon the conscious or unconscious self-complacency contained in this suggestion, and even encourage it by saying to the gentleman that we think he is right; that after him there will come no other who will so diligently search for evidence "on the precise question here discussed." For who but himself will ever dare to venture to walk by such light as that by which his foot-steps have been guided?^[5] But with reference to "all the evidence directly affecting either side of the question" having been "introduced and reviewed," I must hold a different opinion. Believing, however, that Mr. Schroeder has collected, presented and, with as much art as it will be found possible to enlist in such a cause, sustained his special view of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon, one can but feel that having reached the climax of evidence and argument the case should be considered by those holding an opposite belief.

[Footnote 5: Mr. Schroeder while living in Utah some years ago was proprietor, editor and publisher of Lucifer's Lantern, a ribald infidel periodical as would be inferred from the title as well as from its contents. It is this to which allusion is made in the text.]

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

One other preliminary word should be said before coming directly to Mr. Schroeder's theory and argument, and that in relation to the authorities on which the gentleman relies for the support of his views. Of course I am not unacquainted with the old controversy concerning the degree of credibility to be allowed to interested witnesses, and also the suspicion that attaches to witnesses for the miraculous. I have too long sustained in public debate an unpopular cause not to have heard the cry that the witnesses for the truth for which I contended were "interested witnesses;" notwithstanding those who were my opponents, at the same time accepted Christianity on the testimony of "interested witnesses," and discarded entirely the testimony of unfriendly witnesses, or "interested witnesses" on the opposite side of the case. I trust that the suggestion in this paragraph will indicate the unfairness of discrediting and discarding entirely the testimony of the witnesses for Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon, on the ground that they are "interested witnesses," and taking for truth the statements of the "interested witnesses" on the other side of the controversy.

I have some acquaintance also with that school of thought which discredits witnesses of the miraculous. I am familiar with the laborious exposition of that theory by the late Professor Huxley in his article on "The Value of Witnesses to the Miraculous;"^[6] and also with his controversy on the same subject with Dr. Henry Wace, prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral, and other Church of England ministers.^[7] One could scarcely live in this critical age of ours and be unaware of the existence of the school of thought which undertakes to bar from the court of public debate the testimony of those who are witnesses of things held to "transcend human experience." Such testimony, it is said, suggests "credulity on the one hand and fraud on the other."^[8]

[Footnote 6: The Nineteenth Century Review, March, 1889.]

[Footnote 7: The Nineteenth Century Review, February, 1889; also March, April, May and June of the same magazine.]

[Footnote 8: "A supernatural relation cannot be accepted as such, * * it always implies credulity or imposture," Renan's "Life of Jesus," introduction, p. 45.]

And still, both in the history of the past and now, witnesses of the so-called miraculous are factors to be reckoned with in our world's controversies.

It may be true that the future will disclose the fact that very much which in the past has been regarded as miraculous, as transcending "all sane, human experience," to use a phrase of Mr. Schroeder's, is only such because of human ignorance at the time of a witnessed event, and that miracles only exist for the ignorant. Still I concede that one needs to be upon his guard respecting this class of evidence, for man's love for the marvelous leads him into strange self-deceptions, as also the practice of deception upon others. But while conceding this on the one hand, on the other I desire to call attention to a matter entirely neglected by Mr. Schroeder, namely, the general untrustworthiness of testimony in religious controversies, where those considering themselves orthodox feel called upon to resist what are supposed to be religious innovations. The truth of this is supported by all ecclesiastical history. Even pious men, where the innovations especially contravene particular doctrines or theories of established institutions in which they are interested, often become utterly unreliable as witnesses in matters where their opponents are concerned.

So universally is the fact here pointed out accepted that citations of particular instances are scarcely necessary as proof. But lest others forget the fact, as Mr. Schroeder apparently has forgotten it, let me ask: Is Roman Catholic historical testimony regarded as reliable where facts relating to Protestants and the Protestant movement are concerned? Where does Martin Luther stand if the testimony of Catholic contemporaries or the representations of Catholic historians are to determine his place in history? A treatise upon the "Protestant Reformers" and the value of the sixteenth century "Reformation," based wholly upon "Bossuet's Variations," and other writers of his kind, would not be regarded as of any special value among intelligent people. And Catholics have fared but little better at the hands of Protestants. The testimony of either party against the other is quite generally regarded with suspicion by those who stand aloof from their controversies, while the respective parties to the discussions mutually denounce each other as false witnesses, until "Catholic lie" and "Protestant misrepresentation" are cries and counter-cries that echo and re-echo through all the pages of Catholic and, Protestant controversial and historical literature.

But let us look further up the historic stream of sectarian animosity. What of Jesus, the Son of God himself? If the sectarian Jews, his contemporaries, are alone to be the accepted witnesses of his words and actions and character, what would be the effect of their testimony upon the historic Christ? It would make him base born, a wine bibber, an associate of harlots, publicans and sinners; it would make him an innovator of sacred customs, a desecrator of the temple, a seditious person, a blasphemer. And so well did the sectaries of his day succeed in making themselves believe that the populace of Jerusalem surged through the streets crying "crucify him, crucify him!" and he was condemned by the Sanhedrin to death, from which fate not even a friendly disposed Roman procurator could save him. The sectarian Jews suborned witnesses, who either swore falsely against the Christ, or wrongly interpreted his words and actions; and all this in a holy zeal for the preservation of the established order of things among the Jews. After his resurrection the same characters bribed the Roman guard set to watch the sepulchre, put a lie into their mouths, and pledged their influence as a guarantee against punishment from their superior officers for the neglect of duty involved in the falsehood they were bribed to tell.^[9] What was Paul's experience with the same sectarian Jews after he became a proselyte to the Christian faith? Briefly told, the same in character as his master's.^[10] So well known is the fact of sectarian bitterness; such the zeal of the orthodox for the established faith, that the Emperor Julian, usually called the "Apostate," who both understood and derided the theological disputes of the hostile Christian sects, invited to the palace the leaders of the hostile sects, that he might enjoy the agreeable spectacle of their furious encounters.

[Footnote 9: Matthew xxvi, 59-70; see also xxvi, xxvii.]

[Footnote 10: See Acts of the Apostles from Chapters viii to xxvii, inclusive.]

"The clamor of controversy sometimes provoked the emperor to exclaim, 'Hear me! The Franks have heard me, and the Alemanni;' but he soon discovered that he was now engaged with more obstinate and implacable enemies; and though he exerted the powers of oratory to persuade them to live in concord, or at least in peace, he was perfectly satisfied, before he dismissed them from his presence, that he had nothing to dread from the union of the Christians."^[11]

[Footnote 11: "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," by Edward Gibbon, chap. xxiii.]

Such the bitterness of sectarian strife, in which the orthodox party has ever been as harsh, as untruthful, as unscrupulous, as resourceful at invention of evil things, as savage and cruel as the heretics have been. Nay, in the sum of such things the preponderance is on their side.

VARIOUS CLASSES OF WITNESSES.

In the application of this melancholy fact to the controversy between Christendom and the Mormon Church respecting the origin of the Book of Mormon, let no one charge me with a begging of the question because I am going to insist that the witnesses quoted by Mr. Schroeder are largely unreliable, because of their zeal against an innovation of orthodox Christianity. Not so. It is not my purpose to beg the question by use of the historic fact here brought to view. I only ask that it shall be given its proper value in weighing the evidence to be considered. And I lay stress upon it only because it is an element in the evidence adduced by Mr. Schroeder which is taken no account of at all by him.

He gives no weight at all, considers not at all, the evidence of those who have accepted Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon, but he gives unbounded credence to every statement from the "interested witnesses" on the other side of the question, except, of course, where they are mutually destructive of each other, and then he seeks to explain away the inconsistencies and contradictions. A casual remark, a reported saying, or a confused recollection of some obscure person, of whose character we have no knowledge, nor any means of testing it, find their way into some one or other of the hundred anti-Mormon books published, and then are published by such controversialists as Mr. Schroeder. Citations are made of them in marginal notes, and in time they come to be regarded, by the ordinary reader, as of equal authority with any other witness; and thus the unworthy, unreliable and, in some cases, a positively vicious and false witness is given equal—and sometimes even more than equal—credence with witnesses of unimpeachable probity, and high character, and who have back of their testimony perhaps a life time of toil, suffering, sacrifice, and sometimes martyrdom.

Of this class of witnesses let me here add one further remark. I know that Arch-deacon Paley and his "View of the Evidences of Christianity" are scoffed at by a certain school of latter-day critics, as being somewhat out of date and insipid; but there is one statement he makes that I cannot help but believe has great force in it. He holds in his argument that because the early Christians in support of the Christian miracles of which they were eye witnesses, and which so called miracles could not be resolved into delusion or mistake, passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken, in attestation of the accounts which they delivered,—therefore, they are worthy of credence. To illustrate the point forcefully, he says:

"If the reformers in the time of Wickliffe, or of Luther; or those of England, in the time of Henry the Eighth, or of Queen Mary; or the founders of our religious sects since, such as were Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Wesley in our own times; had undergone the life of toil and exertion, of danger and suffering, which we know that many of them did undergo, for a miraculous story; that is to say, if they had founded their public ministry upon the allegation of miracles wrought within their own knowledge, and upon narratives which could not be resolved into delusion or mistake; and if it had appeared, that their conduct really had its origin in these accounts, I should have believed them."^[12]

[Footnote 12: Paley's "Evidences," proposition II, chap. I.]

I mention this matter here for two reasons; first because many of those witnesses who accepted the Book of Mormon as true, are of the class of witnesses here spoken of by Dr. Paley. They were men who voluntarily passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken, in attestation of the accounts they delivered to the world of the Book of Mormon's origin; and second, because having conceded that men should cautiously receive the testimony to the so-called miraculous, I desire to say that when the events to which the testimony relates are of such character that they may not be resolved into delusion or mistake, and the testimony is backed up by a life of toil, danger and suffering, not only voluntarily undertaken but persisted in—then, I say, their testimony is such that it commands respect and acceptance; and at the very lowest valuation possible to be put upon it, should out-rank in credibility whole hecatombs of such witnesses to the contrary as are quoted by Mr. Schroeder—witnesses imbued, in many cases, with personal hatred of Joseph Smith and the Mormon system, and all influenced by sectarian zeal to uphold the orthodox view of such Christianity as existed at the time and place in which they lived.

But returning now to the point at which the foregoing digression began, let me say it is the promiscuous mingling and equalizing of witnesses; and the failure to take into account the unreliability of witnesses of the orthodox party when resisting and seeking to overthrow what they regard as an innovation upon their most cherished ideas and institutions, that I charge against Mr. Schroeder's treatment of the origin of the Book of Mormon. The witnesses must be weighed as well as counted in this controversy; and the liability recognized of the anti-Mormon witnesses, in the supposed interests of orthodoxy, resorting to the invention and promulgation of falsehood.

CONFLICTING THEORIES OF ORIGIN.

It must not be supposed by the reader of Mr. Schroeder's articles that his theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon is the only anti-Mormon theory of its origin advanced. Of course Mr. Schroeder does not claim that it is, but points out quite the contrary in his first article. Why the matter is referred to in these preliminary remarks, is because I want to assure my readers that we "Mormons" get considerable amusement out of the conflicting theories advanced to account for the origin of our Book of Mormon. The necessity for a counter-theory for the origin of the book, other than that advanced by Joseph Smith, was early recognized. Christendom felt that Joseph Smith's story of the book's origin must be overthrown, else what would come of this new revelation, this new dispensation of God's work? Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the book was a direct challenge to the teachings of modern Christendom that revelation had ceased; that the awful voice of prophecy would no more be heard; that the volume of scripture was completed and forever closed, and that the Bible was the only volume of scripture. Hence Christendom must find some other origin for this book than that given by Joseph Smith.

The first to respond to this immediately "felt want" of Christendom was Alexander Campbell, founder of the sect of the Disciples. He assigned the book's origin to Joseph Smith, point blank, and charged ignorance and conscious fraud upon its author.^[13]

[Footnote 13: Campbell's critique on the Book of Mormon, appeared in the Millennial Harbinger, Vol. II, 1831, under the title "Mormonites." The criticism is exhaustive and bitter. It is, in fact, a fine example of the bitterness of religious controversialists, in defense of orthodox views.]

Next came the "Spaulding Theory" of origin, which Campbell accepted in place of his own, and of which more later. Then came Miss Dougall's theory of the prophet's self-delusion, "by the automatic freaks of a vigorous but undisciplined brain, and yielding to these, he became confirmed in the hysterical temperament which always adds to delusion self-deception, and to self-deception half-conscious fraud."^[14] Next came Mr. I Woodbridge Riley's theory (1902) of pure hallucination honestly mistaken for inspired visions "with partly conscious and partly unconscious hypnotic powers over others."

Mr. Schroeder, however, will have none of these theories, but turns back to the theory of the Spaulding manuscript origin. To him "the conclusions" of Mr. Riley, because so many material considerations were overlooked by that author, are very unsatisfactory, though admittedly Mr. Riley's effort is the best along this line.^[15] On his part, Mr. Riley, speaking of previous theories, especially including the Spaulding theory, says:

[Footnote 15: See Mr. Schroeder's note, 2.]

"In spite of a continuous stream of conjectural literature, it is as yet impossible to pick out any special document as an original source of the Book of Mormon. In particular the commonly accepted Spaulding theory is insoluble from external evidence and disproved by internal evidence. Joseph Smith's record of the Indians 'is a product indigenous to the New York wilderness,' and the authentic work of its author and proprietor. Outwardly, it reflects the local color of Palmyra and Manchester, inwardly, its complex of thought is a replica of Smith's muddled brain. This monument of misplaced energy was possible to the impressionable youth constituted and circumstanced as he was."^[16]

[Footnote 16: "The Founder of Mormonism," 1902. This is a psychological study of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. "The aim of this work is to examine Joseph Smith's character and achievements from the standpoint of recent psychology. Sectarians and phrenologists, spiritualists and mesmerists have variously interpreted his more or less abnormal performance—it remains for the psychologist to have a try at them." The quotation of the text is from the Preface. A review of Mr. Riley's book by the present writer is found in "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 41-55.]

Mr. Riley's phrase "conjectural literature" is good. It admirably describes the Spaulding theory literature at which it is particularly aimed. That theory being "insoluble from external evidence," is also good; but "disproved by internal evidence," is better. I shall not forget that either, later on. But if these variant theorizers can't convert each other, how can they hope to convert us Mormons? "When rogues fall out, honest men"—but there, the proverb is somewhat trite and I do not wish to be offensive. But let the merry disagreement of anti-Mormon theorizers go on! Meanwhile new translations of the Book of Mormon multiply, new editions are struck off, and more people are made acquainted with its contents; the Church to which it may be said to have given existence, enlarges her borders and strengthens her stakes. She is gaining a victory over her traducers, and winning her place in the world's history and in the world's religious thought.

MR. SCHROEDER'S STATEMENT OF HIS CASE.

These preliminary remarks ended, I proceed now with the consideration of Mr. Schroeder's evidence and argument. Mr. Schroeder states the "case" he proposes to prove, item by item, as follows:

"It will be shown that Solomon Spaulding was much interested in American antiquities, that he wrote a novel entitled the 'Manuscript Found,' in which he attempted to account for the existence of the American Indian by giving him an Israelitish origin;

"That the first incomplete outline of this story, with many features peculiar to itself and the Book of Mormon, is now in the library of Oberlin college, and that while the story as rewritten was in the hands of a prospective publisher, it was stolen from the office under circumstances which caused Sidney Rigdon, of early Mormon fame, to be suspected as the thief;

"That later Rigdon, on two occasions, exhibited a similar manuscript which in one instance he declared had been written by Spaulding and left with a printer for publication.

"It will be shown further that Rigdon had opportunity to steal the manuscript and that he foreknew the forthcoming and the contents of the Book of Mormon;

"That through Parley P. Pratt, later one of the first Mormon apostles, a plain and certain connection is traced between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith and that they were friends between 1827 and 1830.

"To all this will be added very conclusive evidence of the identity of the distinguished features of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found," and the Book of Mormon.

"These facts, coupled with Smith's admitted intellectual incapacity for producing the book unaided, will close the argument upon this branch of the question, and it is hoped will convince all not in the meshes of Mormonism that the Book of Mormon is a plagiarism."^[17]

[Footnote 17: I have taken the liberty of throwing the several propositions into separate paragraphs.]

THE FACTS OF THE SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT.

The facts which may be conceded in Mr. Schroeder's recital of evidences, and the claims generally made in relation to Solomon Spaulding and his precious manuscript, are: that Spaulding was born 1761, in Connecticut; that he graduated from Portsmouth in 1785; that he graduated in theology in 1787, and became an obscure preacher; that he made his residence in New Salem, Ashtabula Co., Ohio, now called Conneaut, about 1808 or 1809; that in the region about Salem were certain mounds and ruins of forts and other fortifications, relics of a supposedly pre-historic civilization; that during Spaulding's residence at Conneaut he wrote a story in some way connected with the ancient inhabitants of America; that this story reigned to be a translation from a Latin manuscript which Spaulding pretended to have found in a cave in the vicinity of Conneaut, hence the title that came to attach to it, "Manuscript Found;" that about 1812 Spaulding moved to Pittsburg where he resided some two years; that while at Pittsburg there may have been something said about publishing this story, but just what is uncertain, and the story was never published; that in 1814 Spaulding removed to Amity, Washington county, Penn.; that in 1816 Spaulding died;—

That after the death of Spaulding his wife and daughter at once removed to the home of Mrs. Spaulding's brother, a Mr. William Sabine, in Onondaga Valley, Onondaga Co., N.Y., taking with them the "Manuscript Found" with other Spaulding papers in an old trunk;^[18] that Mrs. Spaulding next moved to the home of her parents in Pomfret, Conn., but leaving her daughter with the old trunk and its papers, including "Manuscript Found," at Sabine's;^[19] that in 1820 Mrs. Spaulding married a Mr. Davidson of Hartwicks, a village near Cooperstown, N.Y., and sent for the things she had left at the home of her brother in Onondaga; that said things were sent to her, including the old trunk and its papers which reached her at Hartwicks in safety;^[20] that Mr. Spaulding's daughter, named Matilda, married Dr. A. McKinstry of Monson, Hampden Co., Mass., in 1828, and went to Monson, Mass., to reside; that soon afterwards Mrs. Davidson (formerly the wife of Spaulding) came to live with her daughter in Monson, leaving the old trunk and its papers in Hartwicks in care of Mr. Jerome Clark; that Mrs. Davidson continued to live with her daughter up to the time of her death, in 1844;—[21]

[Footnote 18: Sworn statement of Mrs. Matilda McKinstry, the daughter of Solomon Spaulding, Scribner's Magazine, August, 1880.]

[Footnote 19: Ibid.]

[Footnote 20: Ibid. The language of Mrs. McKinstry is, "I remember that the old trunk with its contents reached her [Mrs. Davidson] in safety."]

[Footnote 21: Ibid.]

That while these former Spauldings were living in Monson, in 1834, one Hurlburt came to them representing that he had been sent by a committee to procure the "Manuscript Found" written by Solomon Spaulding for the purpose of comparing it with the "Mormon Bible;"^[22] that he represented that he had been a convert to the Mormon faith but had given it up and through the Spaulding manuscript wished to expose its wickedness;^[23] that he presented a letter from William H. Sabine, brother of the former Mrs. Spaulding, requesting her to loan the "Manuscript Found," written by her former husband, to Hurlburt, representing that he (Sabine) was desirous "to up-root this Mormon fraud;"^[24] that Mrs. Davidson reluctantly consented to the solicitations of her brother and Hurlburt and gave the latter a note to Jerome Clark, instructing Mr. Clark to open the trunk and deliver the manuscript to Hurlburt; that Hurlburt went to Hartwicks, presented his order to Mr. Clark and got the Manuscript; that Hurlburt got but one manuscript;^[25] that this manuscript Hurlburt delivered to E. D. Howe, then having in course of preparation his anti-Mormon book "Mormonism Unveiled;"^[26] that Howe kept said manuscript until after "Mormonism Unveiled" was published, then it passed out of sight and he supposed it to have been burned;^[27] that really, however, it was unwittingly conveyed by Howe to one L. L. Rice who purchased Howe's Painsville Telegraph and business in 1834, or 1840; the transfer of the printing department being accompanied with a collection of books and manuscripts, Spaulding's "Manuscript Found" going with the rest;—[28]

[Footnote 22: "History of the Church," Vol. II, pp. 2, 3, 47, 49 and note. Also Mrs. McKinstry's affidavit.]

[Footnote 23: Ibid.]

[Footnote 24: Ibid.]

[Footnote 25: "New Light on Mormonism," p. 260-Hurlburt's letter.]

[Footnote 26: Statement of D.P. Hurlburt in a letter, dated at Gibsonburg, Ohio, August 19, 1870, "New Light on Mormonism," p. 260.]

[Footnote 27: Statement of Hurlburt, "New Light on Mormonism," p. 260; also statement E.D. Howe, in a letter to Hurlburt, August 7, 1880, "New Light on Mormonism," p. 259.]

[Footnote 28: See "The Manuscript Found," Rice's verbatim et literatim copy, printed by the Deseret News, 1886, preface.]

That some years afterwards Mr. Rice closed up his business affairs in Painsville, Ohio, and made his home in Honolulu, taking with him his books, papers, etc.;^[29] that in 1884 he was visited by James H. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College, Ohio; that President Fairchild, while at the residence of Rice suggested that a look through his (Mr. Rice's) papers might discover some anti-slavery documents of importance, (Mr. Rice while editor and proprietor of the Painesville Telegraph having been especially interested in the question of slavery); that in his search Mr. Rice found a package marked in pencil on the outside, "Manuscript Story—Conneaut Creek;" that on the manuscript was endorsed the following:

[Footnote 29: Ibid.]

The Writings of Solomon Spaulding Proved by Aaron Wright Oliver Smith John Miller and others

The testimonies of the above gentlemen are now in my possession

D. P. Hurlburt^[30]

[Footnote 30: For the above Bibliotheca Sacra, published in Oberlin, Ohio, January Number. 1885. Also "The Manuscript Found," Deseret News print, p. 113.]

That this manuscript, unquestionably Spaulding's, and the one known as "Manuscript Found," was deposited by Mr. Rice with Oberlin College, Ohio, where it now is preserved; that Mr. L. L. Rice himself made a verbatim et literatim manuscript copy of this paper, including all erasures, alterations, errors, etc., and from this copy the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published "Manuscript Found" in 1886;^[31] that it makes a pamphlet of one hundred and twelve pages of printed matter, of about three hundred and fifty words to the page; that in nothing does it resemble the Book of Mormon—"there seems to be no name or incident common to the two," says President Fairchild, "the solemn style of the Book of Mormon, in imitation of the English Scriptures, does not appear in the Manuscript."^[32]

[Footnote 31: "The Manuscript Found," Deseret News print, Preface.]

[Footnote 32: Letter of President Fairchild, Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1885. Mr. Schroeder, by the way, seems much disturbed over the very frank statement of President Fairchild, published in 1885, to the effect that the theory of "the origin of the Book of Mormon in the traditional manuscript of Solomon Spaulding will probably have to be relinquished." * * * "Mr. Rice, myself, and others compared it with the Book of Mormon, and could detect no resemblance between the two in general or detail. Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon must be found, if an explanation is required." This is said, of course, of the manuscript now at Oberlin. It is said of the only manuscript of Solomon Spauldng's treating on ancient America, that any one knows anything about.]

The foregoing recital represents the facts concerning Spaulding's "Manuscript Found." The claim that the manuscript as above traced, was but a first rough sketch of a story which Spaulding abandoned, and that he wrote a second story dealing with matters of more ancient date; that it was written in imitation of scriptural style, and assigned an Israelitish origin for his colony that came from Jerusalem to America; that in this second story many names were used that are also found in the Book of Mormon, such as Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Zarahemla, etc.; that there is a close structural resemblance between the reigned historical incidents in Spaulding's second story and the Book of Mormon; that this second Spaulding story was deposited with printers at Pittsburg for publication; that while there Sidney Rigdon either stole it and never returned it (Mr. Schroeder's theory), or else that Rigdon borrowed it, copied it and returned the original to the printer; that there were several Spaulding manuscripts, and that Sidney Rigdon stole the one that was finally prepared for the press by Spaulding, and perhaps Joseph Smith stole one of the unfinished Spaulding manuscripts, (Mr. Clark Branden's theory);^[33] that this manuscript, plus the religious matter of the Book of Mormon, added by Sidney Rigdon, became the foundation of the Book of Mormon; that Sidney Rigdon either directly or else indirectly through Parley P. Pratt acted as intermediary, and collaborated with Joseph Smith in the production of the Book of Mormon—all this, upon which the conclusions of Mr. Schroeder and others who attempted to sustain the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon depends, is but a conglomerate of wicked invention by embittered sectaries fighting against innovation of their orthodoxy; a bitter personal fight against Joseph Smith and his work; a mere assumption and inference bottomed on flimsiest premises, under which lies a mass of contradictions and conflicting suppositions which discredit the whole theory, and make any serious support of it, however learned in form and exhaustive in appearance it may be, absolutely contemptible; nay, the more learned and exhaustive the treatment appears to be, the more absolute must become the contempt.

[Footnote 33: "Braden-Kelly Debate," pp. 73, 77.]

THE TASK OF THE PRESENT WRITER.

To prove the things here alleged becomes now the task of the present writer.

First then as to the matter of Spaulding's having re-written his story, "Manuscript Found;" in which, it is said, he changed the character of it by going further back with his dates, "and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more, ancient." Also he must have further changed the character of his story, giving the colony he brought to America an Israelite instead of a Roman origin, giving his characters the names of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Moroni, etc., instead of Sambol, Hambock, Labanko, Moon-rod, Ulipoon, etc.; and the names of the people from Sciotans and Kentucks, to Nephites and Lamanites! This second manuscript and these changes are necessary both to the evidence and the argument of Mr. Schroeder—necessary to his whole theory; without the existence of this second manuscript and these changes that differentiate it from the manuscript at Oberlin, his "case" collapses. It is conceded by Mr. Schroeder and all through whose hands it has passed, including Mr. Fairchild, president of the Oberlin College, Ohio, and Mr. Rice, among whose papers the manuscript now at Oberlin was found, that this Oberlin manuscript, which beyond any doubt Spaulding wrote, could not have been the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon;^[34] therefore a second Spaulding manuscript altogether different from this half ribald, silly "Manuscript Found" story must be had; and its mythical existence was brought about in the following manner:

[Footnote 34: President Fairchild I have already quoted (See Note 32). Mr. Rice says: "I should as soon think the Book of Revelation was written by the author of Don Quixote, as that the writer of this manuscript [the Spaulding Oberlin manuscript] was the author of the Book of Mormon." From a letter of Mr. L. L. Rice to Mr. Joseph Smith, President of the Reorganized Church—"History Church of Jesus Christ," Vol. IV, pp. 471-3.]

THE ENEMIES OF THE PROPHET.

Living in Kirtland and vicinity, and throughout northeastern Ohio, where the headquarters of the Church were established in 1831-7, there were many and very bitter enemies of the prophet Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon; and also strong antagonism towards the whole Mormon Church, since its doctrines were regarded as a menace to orthodox opinions. Among these enemies of the prophet and the Church none perhaps were more bitter than "Dr." Philastus Hurlburt, E. D. Howe, Adamson Bentley, Onis Clapp (usually called Deacon Clapp) and his two sons, Thomas J. and Mathew S. Clapp, both of whom were Campbellite preachers; Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, both prominent in founding the sect Of the Disciples; Thomas Campbell, Dr. John Storrs, of Holliston, Mass., Dr. Austin, also of Massachusetts, all sectarian ministers, and many others. Less than fifty miles away from Kirtland, then the centre of Mormon propaganda, was Conneaut, the former home of Solomon Spaulding, and on the direct line of travel between the branches of the Church in Ohio and those in the state of New York and Canada.

It is said,—but I shall develop a somewhat different account of the origin of the Spaulding theory near the close of these articles than is here set down—that "a woman preacher"^[35] of the Mormon Church, holding a public meeting at Conneaut, read some passages from the Book of Mormon which the old settlers of the vicinity, and former neighbors of Solomon Spaulding, recognized as very nearly identical with a manuscript story he had read to them some twenty-two or three years before; and as he had feigned to derive this story from a certain manuscript which he pretended to have found in a stone box in a cave, which he afterwards translated into English, there was thought to be sufficient similarity between these circumstances and the Book of Mormon to warrant the charge that the latter was a plagiarism of Spaulding's manuscript. This conclusion led to the sending of "Dr. Philastus Hurlburt to the widow of Spaulding to obtain his manuscript and incidentally to visit the former home of the Smiths for the purpose of obtaining affidavits respecting their character, and more especially respecting the character of Joseph Smith the Prophet."^[36] Indeed, the whole purpose of the conspirators was to overthrow Mormonism, "to up-root this Mormon fraud."^[37] Hurlburt presented himself at the home of the former wife and the daughter of Spaulding, who were then living in Monson, Mass. He obtained an order from the former Mrs. Spaulding upon those with whom she had left the trunk containing the papers of her late husband, directing them to deliver to Hurlburt the "Manuscript Found." Hurlburt obtained the manuscript and returned to those who sent him upon this mission, chief among whom was E. D. Howe of Painesville, Ohio, the editor of the Painesville Telegraph. To Mr. Howe Hurlburt delivered the "Manuscript Found," obtained by him from the Spaulding papers; but lo! when it came to be examined by the conspirators, it was a very disappointing document.^[38] Howe himself describes it as follows:

[Footnote 35: See "Mrs. Davidson's statement,", first published in the Boston Recorder, May, 1839; also Smucker's "History of the Mormons," p. 41 et seq. It is claimed that "woman preacher," was merely a "typographical error," of which more in a later note, and should read "Mormon preacher."]

[Footnote 36: These are the affidavits collected by Hurlburt and delivered to Howe for his book "Mormonism Unveiled," chapter xvii; see also "Origin of the Spaulding Story," by B. Winchester, (1840) p. 10.]

[Footnote 37: Statement of Mrs. McKinstry, daughter of Solomon Spaulding, Scribner's Magazine, August, 1880.]

[Footnote 38: "New Light on Mormonism,"—statement of Hurlburt, pp. 245, 260.]

"This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found in 24 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 coast, while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by Indians."^[39]

[Footnote 39: Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," p. 288.]

This description completely identifies this manuscript delivered by Hurlburt to Howe with the one afterwards found in the papers of Mr. L. L. Rice, and now at Oberlin College. "This old manuscript," says Mr. Howe, "has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spaulding's." The witnesses here alluded to are the old neighbors of Spaulding who testify as to the existence of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found," and of its similarity to the Book of Mormon; and they are eight of Mr. Schroeder's twelve witnesses on whom he relies to prove the same allegement. Right here we reach the crucial point in the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon; and now let us present it in one view.

A number of people living at Conneaut on hearing the Book of Mormon read in a public meeting, and some of them afterwards reading it for themselves, claim a similarity to exist between it and a manuscript which Solomon Spaulding read to them some twenty-two or twenty-three years before. Spaulding's manuscript is unearthed—"Manuscript Found"—but it bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon! There is "no resemblance between the two," to use the language of President Fairchild, of Oberlin College. "There seems to be no name or incident," he continues, "common to the two."^[40] Now what will the conspirators do? Search further in the hope of finding another manuscript that may have been the origin of the Book of Mormon, if this one is not? It must be admitted that having gone so far in an effort "to up-root this Mormon fraud" it was worth their while to go still further. The "fraud" was making converts throughout the very region where the conspirators lived; some of their loved ones, members of the family of the conspirators, were "victims" of the "delusion." They will not rest the case here, then. They will look further. The emissary just returned, Hurlburt, or some other will be sent back to make further inquiry and research. The fate of millions may depend upon it. But did the conspirators against Mormonism take this course? No. Instead of that they resort to subterfuge. Listen: Howe, referring to the manuscript delivered to him by Hurlburt, writes:

[Footnote 40: Letter of President Fairchild, Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1885.]

"This old manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spaulding's, he having 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. They say that it bears no resemblance to the 'Manuscript Found.'"^[41]

[Footnote 41: Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," p. 288.]

That statement bears all the earmarks of an "afterthought," a silly invention. There is not a single scrap of evidence in all that has been written upon the subject, that goes beyond the date of Hurlburt's delivery of "Manuscript Found," to E. D. Howe, to the effect that Spaulding had written more than one paper that purported to deal with a found manuscript, or the ancient inhabitants of America. The "Frogs of Wyndham" and infidel disquisitions were more in his line.^[42] Why was it that the neighbors of Spaulding about Conneaut did not say before this manuscript was brought to light by Howe, Hurlburt et al., that Spaulding had written several manuscripts on the subject of the ancient inhabitants of America; one that told of a Roman colony came to America and settled in the Ohio valley, the story of their adventures being "written in modern style;" but that this story he abandoned and wrote another, going farther back with his dates and assigning to the people an Israelitish origin and writing in the old scripture style? How valuable such evidence, ante-dating Hurlburt's coming to Conneaut with Spaulding's manuscript, would be! But it does not exist.

[Footnote 42: See Mrs. McKinstry's statement, Scribner's Magazine, August, 1880. Also Deseret News print of "Manuscript Found," pp. 114, 115, where the infidel opinions of Mr. Spaulding are expressed.]

There was enough in the fact that Solomon Spaulding had written a story connected in some way with a manuscript which he feigned to have found in a stone box in a cave; which he further feigned to have translated into English; and which story had something to do with a colony coming in ancient times from the Old World to the New; and that there were great and sanguinary wars in the story—to suggest a similarity with the Book of Mormon. With so much as a basis it will go hard with human invention, under the circumstances, if out of the dim recollections, of some twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, it cannot "remember" that there was a similarity and even identity of names between those of Spaulding's Manuscript and those of the Book of Mormon. Especially since the Book of Mormon is now in their hands, and they have either read it, or heard it read and have the names of Lehi, Nephi, Moroni, Zarahemla, and some phrases such as "and it came to pass," etc., with which to refresh their "memories!"

And when they have Spaulding's found manuscript, or "Manuscript Found" placed in their hands by Hurlburt, and have identified it as Spaulding's and none of these things are true respecting it, that is, there is "no resemblance between the two, in general or in detail; * * * no name or incident common to the two," then it will again go hard with human invention if it cannot, under the circumstances, "remember" that this manuscript so thrust into their hands is merely but the rough draft of the real "Manuscript Found;" that this story, in fact was abandoned and Mr. Spaulding informed them that he had recast his whole scheme;^[43] and that he wrote into this second story the names and historical incidents now found in the Book of Mormon; that no one ever believed that this first effort of Spaulding's, the Manuscript now at Oberlin College, was the foundation of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Schroeder himself says that "from the beginning it was asserted that this manuscript, now at Oberlin, was not the one from which the Book of Mormon was alleged to have been plagiarized."^[44] But from what "beginning" was it so asserted? Well, not previous to the bringing to light of the Oberlin manuscript by Hurlburt; but from the time that this manuscript,—the only one we have any real knowledge of Spaulding ever having written on the subject of the ancient inhabitants of America—disappointed the hopes of the conspirators against Mormonism. That is the only "beginning" from which it has been asserted that the manuscript now at Oberlin was not the one from which the Book of Mormon was alleged to have been plagiarized.

[Footnote 43: Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," p. 288.]

[Footnote 44: American Historical Magazine, Vol. I, No. 5, p. 385—ante p. 18.]

The foregoing boldly charges dishonesty, fraudulent invention, and conscious deception upon those who originated this Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon; and I realize that it is incumbent upon me to set forth substantial reasons for such allegations, or else I must bear the odium of making false, or at the very least, unproved charges. Let us then consider, if not all, at least the leading characters of this conspiracy against the Mormon Church, for it will be worth our while.

"DR." PHILASTUS HURLBURT.

We start with "Dr." Philastus Hurlburt. He was not a "Doctor" by profession, but being a seventh son, his parents, following the old folklore custom, called him "Doctor." He was formerly a member of the Methodist Church from which he was excluded for immoralities. He appeared in Kirtland in 1833 and began an investigation of Mormonism, and finally claimed to be satisfied of its truth. Joseph E. Johnson, residing at Kirtland at the time, and at whose mother's home Hurlburt boarded for about one year, describes him as "a man of fine physique, very pompous, good looking, very ambitious, with some energy, though of poor education."^[45] Some time after he joined the Church he was brought before a conference of high priests in Kirtland and charged with un-Christianlike conduct with women, while on a mission to the eastern states. His commission as an elder was taken from him and he was excommunicated. Being dissatisfied with the result of this trial he appealed his case to the high council at Kirtland, and a hearing was granted him. He confessed his sin before this council and was forgiven; but a few days after this action, he boasted that he had deceived the council in his confession, "and Joseph Smith's God," and this led to his final excommunication.^[46]

[Footnote 45: Deseret Evenings News, December 28, 1880; also "History of the Church," Vol. I, p. 355, note. Also Gregg's "Prophet of Palmyra," pp. 427-430.]

[Footnote 46: "History of the Church," Vol. I, pp. 354-5 and note.]

After his excommunication "Dr." Hurlburt became very bitter against the Church, and threatened the prophet's life. He was finally arraigned before the court at Chardon, for this offense and placed under bonds to the amount of two hundred dollars "to keep the peace, and, be of good behavior to the citizens of the state of Ohio generally, and to Joseph Smith, Jun., in particular, for the period of six months." He was also required to pay the costs of the prosecution which amounted to one hundred and twelve dollars.^[47] When it is remembered how great the excitement was at this time in northeastern Ohio, respecting Mormonism, how numerous and how bitter were Joseph Smith's enemies, this decision of Judge M. Birchard is important in showing how violent and vicious must have been the character of "Dr." Hurlburt. Yet he becomes the special emissary of the conspirators of north-eastern Ohio, against Mormonism. He is commissioned to secure Spaulding's manuscript and gather information in New York concerning the character of Joseph Smith,^[48] the man whom he so bitterly hates, and whose life he had threatened. And the world is asked to form its opinion of Joseph Smith from the alleged information procured in New York by this man, and published in Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled," in the form of affidavits!

[Footnote 47: "History of the Church," Vol. II, pp. 47-49 and notes.]

[Footnote 48: "Origin of the Spaulding Story," by B. Winchester, Philadelphia, (1840) p. 10, "Mormonism Unveiled," chapter xvii. These affidavits gathered up by Hurlburt are quoted by nearly every anti-Mormon writer since 1834, until now, the year of grace, 1908 [and 1911]; all forgetful of the fact that no matter how many mirrors are brought into a room where a farthing rush light is burning, they do not increase the light burning there, but merely reflect it. It is safe to say that since Howe's publication of "Mormonism Unveiled," in 1834, little or nothing has been added to the stock of "information," from the anti-Mormon side of the controversy on this particular point.]

Even some who are parties to the Spaulding theory distrusted Hurlburt. Mrs. Davidson, formerly Spaulding's wife, "did not like his appearance, and mistrusted his motives," and it was only because he presented a letter from her brother, William H. Sabine, urging her to loan her former husbands' manuscript story to Hurlburt, that she finally, but reluctantly, consented for him to have the paper.^[49] Mrs. Ellen Dickinson, grand-niece of Solomon Spaulding, and author of "New Light on Mormonism," charges him with having betrayed his fellow conspirators in Ohio, by securing the "real" "Manuscript Found" and turning it over to the Mormons for a price, and that they destroyed it.^[50] Clark Braden in his debate on the Book of Mormon with E. L. Kelly, makes the same charge, and says that Hurlburt got $400.00 for his treachery and boasted of it.^[51]

[Footnote 49: Mrs. McKinstry's statement Scribner's Magazine, August, 1880.]

[Footnote 50: "New Light on Mormonism." p. 62-71.]

[Footnote 51: "Braden-Kelly Debate." p. 96. Braden relies upon the statement of Rev. John A. Clark, D. D., in "Gleanings by the Way," p. 265.]

Mr. E. D. Howe, author of the first anti-Mormon book of any very great pretensions or general interest—and of which Mr. Schroeder is so eulogistic, speaking of it as "the most important single collection of original evidence ever made upon the subject"—was the editor of the Painsville Telegraph, and especially bitter towards the Mormons and Mormonism, because his own wife and sister had joined the Mormon Church, at which he was greatly incensed.^[52]

[Footnote 52: "Braden-Kelly Debate." pp. 69, 81. See also the Advertisement of Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled,"—which precedes the Introduction. Also the Introduction of the same work, for manifestation of bitterness.]

REV. ADAMSON BENTLEY ET AL.

Adamson Bentley was a Campbellite preacher, also, a brother-in-law to Sidney Rigdon, having married Rigdon's wife's sister. It appears that the parents of Mrs. Rigdon had settled upon her, or expressed intention of doing so, some considerable property; but the Rev. Bentley, by his influence with the Brooke family, diverted the inheritance designed for Mrs. Rigdon to his own wife;^[53] so that in addition to the bitterness which ever attends on sectarian controversies, there must be added in the case of Mr. Bentley the bitterness of family feud; and if the claim of Sidney Rigdon be true, viz., that he was the injured party, in this controversy, there would be intensity of bitterness on the part of Bentley, since it is strangely true that men may forgive those who injure them, but they never forgive the innocence of those whom they wilfully injure. The Reverend Bentley was one of the bitterest of anti-Mormons and a warm supporter and advocate of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon.^[54] Of Mr. Alexander Campbell, Dr. Storrs and Dr. Austin we shall have occasion to speak later, when considering certain evidence Mr. Schroeder introduces from them. The point now contended for respecting these men who stand as sponsors for the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon, is simply this: that being ardent sectarian priests zealous for their particular brand of orthodoxy, which Mormonism opposed as false doctrine;^[55] and adding to this cause of bitterness the further fact that in some instances these men felt the sense of personal grievance against Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church—renders them incompetent to be reliable witnesses on the questions at issue. All history, and the well known facts respecting human nature, warrant the conclusion that under such circumstances sectaries in support of their orthodoxy, and by way of reprisal for wrongs, real or imaginary, will stoop to invention of adverse testimony; to misrepresentation; to the creation of a case, or a hurtful theory; will distort facts; in a word will bear false witness. Such false or incompetent witnesses I declare, those parties to be on whom Mr. Schroeder relies for the support of his case.

[Footnote 53: Messenger and Advocate, p. 334-5. Also Evening and Morning Star, p. 301.]

[Footnote 54: See Millennial Harbinger, for 1844, p. 38, et seq. Also "Braden-Kelly Debate," pp. 124-5. ]

[Footnote 55: "Pearl of Great Price," "Writings of Joseph Smith," p. 85, (edition of 1902); also "History of the Church," Vol. I, pp. 5, 6. For an exposition and defense of this position see the present writer's "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, p. 26-27 and note.]

Let us take first this group of Conneaut witnesses, eight of them, used by Hurlburt, Howe, Bentley et al., and chiefly relied upon by Mr. Schroeder as supplying the "clinching"^[56] evidence for the plagiarism of Spaulding's "Manuscript Found" by the author or authors of the Book of Mormon. They are the most important witnesses on the side of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon; yet, by the application of the principle that recognizes the untrustworthiness of witnesses interested in opposing religious innovation; that recognizes the zeal of witnesses interested in supporting orthodoxy; that recognizes the bitterness which characterizes sectarian strife; as also the necessary vagueness of the state of mind of these witnesses in respect of those things of which they testify; as also by the consideration of many other things that will bear upon their statements—for the evidence and argument is to be cumulative—I hope to prove quite conclusively that these witnesses are incompetent, and their statements untrue.

[Footnote 56: See sub-heading in American Historical Magazine, Vol. II, No. 1, p. 70 et seq.]