DIRECT EXTERNAL EVIDENCE--REFLECTIONS ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE ELEVEN
WITNESSES.
Doubtless the Lord had his own purpose to subserve in giving different
kinds of testimony--divine and human--to the same truth. The testimony
of the Three Witnesses, attended as it was by such remarkable
displays of supernatural power, he knew would be opposed from the
very circumstance of its being supernatural. It cannot be but that
God fore-knew of the rise of that so-called "Rational Criticism" of
divine things which would resolve inspired dreams, visions, revelations
and the administration of angels into hallucinations, brought
about first by an inclination to believe in the miraculous, (and
"ordinarily," argue the "Rational Critics," "expectation is the father
of its object.") [1] supplemented by the theory of self-deception,
self-hypnosis or hypnotic influence of others. This particular school
of philosophers took its rise in the last century, and in the twentieth
is much in vogue.
It will be remembered that the starting point with "Rational Criticism"
(and in that term is included the so-called "Higher Criticism")
is unbelief in what is commonly called the miraculous, and if the
followers of that school do not deny the possibility of the miraculous,
they at least say that it has never been proven; and further, they
hold that "a supernatural relation"--such as the testimony of the
Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, for instance--"cannot be
accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture." [2]
What chance, then, would the testimony of the Three Witnesses have
with those who regard it as "an absolute rule of criticism to deny a
place in history to narratives of miraculous circumstances?" This,
they hold, "is simply the dictation of observation. Such facts have
never been really proved. All the pretended miracles near enough to be
examined are referable to illusion or imposture!" [3] Nor is this the
climax of their absurdity, but they hold that the very "honesty and
sincerity" of those who testify to the miraculous make them all the
more untrustworthy as witnesses! I know this seems incredible; but what
will be thought when I set down my authority for the statement, and it
is learned that I quote no mere blatant declaimer against religion, nor
any one of the many careless, or ill-informed writers of the so-called
"Rational School of Critics," but the sober-minded, and earnest man of
science, the late Professor Huxley? The statement quoted is from his
paper on "The Value of Witnesses to the Miraculous." [4] In the course
of treating upon some statements made by one Eginhard (eighth century
A.D.), concerning miraculous events connected with SS. Marcellinus and
Petrus, the professor takes occasion to bear testimony to the high
character, acute intelligence, large instruction and sincerity of
Eginhard; then speaking of him as a witness to the miraculous, makes
this astonishing statement:
It is hard upon Eginhard to say, but it is exactly the honesty
and sincerity of the man which are his undoing as a witness to
the miraculous. He himself makes it quite obvious that when his
profound piety comes on the stage, his goodness and even his
perception of right and wrong make their exit.
In another paper to the same magazine, three months later, the
professor, writing practically on the same subject, says:
Where the miraculous is concerned, neither undoubted honesty,
nor knowledge of the world, nor proved faithfulness as civil
historians, nor profound piety, on the part of eye witnesses and
contemporaries affords any guarantee of the objective truth of
their statements, when we know that a firm belief in the miraculous
was ingrained in their minds, and was the presupposition of their
observations and reasonings. [5]
This school of critics--and its following is much larger than is
generally admitted--in this arbitrary way gets rid of the miracles
of both the Old and the New Testament. The resurrection of Jesus, to
them, is but a figment of the over-wrought minds of his disciples; and
has no better foundation than the dreams and light visions of women,
foremost among whom is Mary of Magdala, [6] the once possessed. The
glorious departure of Jesus from the midst of his disciples, on Mount
Olivet--after the resurrection--is merely a collective hallucination,
an illusion--"the air on these mountain tops is full of strange
mirages!" [7] The display of God's power on the day of Pentecost as
revealed in the Acts of the Apostles, is a thunderstorm. [8] The
speaking in tongues by the apostles on the same occasion and thereafter
in the Church, is but the ecstatic utterance of incoherent sounds
mistaken for a foreign language; while prophecy is but the fruit of
mental excitement, a sort of ecstatic frenzy. [9]
With views such as these quite prevalent in Christendom, relative to
miraculous events, it is but to be expected that the testimony of the
Three Witnesses would be accounted for on some similar hypothesis. The
early anti-Mormon writers generally assumed a conspiracy between Joseph
Smith and the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, and hence accorded no
importance [10] to the testimony of either group--the Three or the
Eight. Later, however, the force of the testimony of the Witnesses
persisting, and pressing for an explanation which the theory of
conspiracy and collusion did not satisfy, there began to be advanced
the theory that probably Joseph Smith had in some way deceived the
Witnesses and thus brought them to give their testimony to the world.
"Either these Witnesses were grossly deceived by a lying prophet,"
says Daniel P. Kidder, who wrote an unfriendly book against the Church
in 1843, "or else they wickedly and wilfully perjured themselves,
by swearing to what they knew to be false." "The former," he adds,
"although not very creditable to their good sense, is yet the more
charitable opinion, and is rendered probable by the fact, that hundreds
have been deceived in the same way. It is confirmed, moreover, by
the well-known mental phenomenon, that to individuals accustomed to
disregard the laws of veracity, truth and falsehood are alike. They can
as easily persuade themselves of the one as of the other." [11]
Also the Rev. Henry Caswell, professor of divinity in Kemper College,
Missouri, writing in 1843, said:
He [Joseph Smith] then persuaded [Martin] Harris to believe, that
in some sense he actually beheld the wonderful plates. There
was a worthless fellow named Oliver Cowdery, residing in the
neighborhood, a school teacher by profession, and also a Baptist
preacher, who, together with one David Whitmer, was similarly
persuaded by our ingenious Prophet. [12]
Professor J. B. Turner, of Illinois College, Jacksonville, Illinois,
in his "Mormonism in All Ages" (1842), takes practically the same
position, but goes a step further and undertakes to explain how the
Prophet "deceived" the Witnesses, or how he "persuaded" them to
believe, "in some sense," that they had actually beheld "the wonderful
plates." In doing this the professor quotes the revelation given
through the Prophet, in June, 1829, to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer,
and Martin Harris, previous to their viewing the Nephite plates. [13]
Also the revelation to Martin Harris in which he is promised that he
shall be a witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon. [14] In the
revelations cited the Lord promises these men that they shall view the
Nephite record; and directs what they shall say after they have seen
and heard the things promised. Because some of the phraseology of these
revelations is found also in the testimony of the Three Witnesses, the
professor rushes to the conclusion that the Witnesses never really saw
the vision, nor heard the voice of God as promised, but were persuaded
to accept these revelations through Joseph Smith as their witness to
the truth of the Book of Mormon. In other words Professor Turner's
theory is that the Witnesses had no other evidence than the word of
Joseph Smith for the existence of the plates and other sacred things
connected with them! And he triumphantly exclaims:
Here, then, is the mighty power of God, the angel, and voice of the
Lord, which revealed such marvels in 1830, all concentrated in the
person, and pouring from the mouth of the Lord's Prophet in 1829. *
* * * The whole, then, of this mighty array of bombast, nonsense,
and blasphemy, resolves itself into this: "Joe Smith is not only
'author and proprietor' of the Book of Mormon, as both he and his
Witnesses declare, but he is also 'power of god,' 'angel,' 'voice,'
'faith,' 'eyes,' 'ears,' and 'hands' for the Witnesses themselves;
that is, all the evidence the world has for the Book of Mormon,
after all this bluster, is 'Joe Smith's say so.' He says that
God instructs him, he instructs the Witnesses and the Witnesses
instruct the world. _Quod erat demonstradum_!" (p. 179.)
Undoubtedly the "Illinois College" of the great State of Illinois was
to be congratulated upon having as its chief professor, in 1842, a man
of such acuteness of intelligence and profoundness of wisdom! Nor was
Governor Thomas Ford, when, some years later, he wrote the history of
Illinois, to be out-done by a mere professor of "Illinois College;" and
therefore advanced what he had heard concerning the manner in which
the testimony of the Witnesses was obtained. The Governor's peculiar
relation to "Mormonism," no less than his exalted political station in
Illinois, as also the fact that he is one of the principal historians
of that very great state of the American Union, justifies me in setting
down what he has said upon the subject in hand:
It is related that the Prophet's early followers were anxious to
see the plates; the Prophet had always given out that they could
not be seen by the carnal eye, but must be spiritually discerned;
that the power to see them depended upon faith, and was the gift
of God to be obtained by fasting, prayer, mortification of the
flesh, and exercise of the spirit; that so soon as he could see
the evidence of a strong and lively faith in any of his followers,
they should be gratified in their holy curiosity. He set them to
continual prayer, and other spiritual exercises, to acquire this
lively faith by means of which the hidden things of God could be
spiritually discerned; and at last, when he could delay them no
longer, he assembled them in a room, and produced a box, which
he said contained the precious treasure. The lid was opened; the
Witnesses peeped into it, but making no discovery, for the box was
empty, they said, "Brother Joseph, we do not see the plates." The
Prophet answered them, "O ye of little faith! How long will God
bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees,
brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of
your sins; and for a holy and living faith which cometh down from
heaven." The disciples dropped to their knees, and began to pray
in the fervency of their spirit, supplicating God for more than
two hours with fanatical earnestness; at the end of which time,
looking again into the box, they were now persuaded that they saw
the plates.
The governor then very sagely remarks, with a modesty so worthy to keep
company with the exalted intelligence that could stoop to detail such
mere drivel as above:
I leave it to philosophers to determine whether the fumes of an
enthusiastic and fanatical imagination are thus capable of binding
the mind and deceiving the senses by so absurd a delusion. [15]
Inadequate as these theories are to account for the testimony of the
Three Witnesses, and contemptible as they are for their childishness,
they do not fail of more modern advocates. In 1899 a work published by
the Appletons, which, while it was a work of fiction, was nevertheless
an earnest effort to account for Joseph Smith on some other basis
than that of his being a conscious fraud, wickedly bent on deceiving
mankind, adopted the theory that "Smith was genuinely deluded by the
automatic freaks of a vigorous but undisciplined brain, and that
yielding to these he became confirmed in the hysterical temperament,
which always adds to delusion, self-deception, and to self-deception
half-conscious fraud. In his day it was necessary to reject a marvel or
admit its spiritual significance; granting an honest delusion as to his
visions and his book, his only choice lay between counting himself the
sport of devils or the agent of heaven; an optimistic temperament cast
the die." [16]
It remained, however, for the year of grace 1902 to witness the setting
forth of these theories under the learned formulas of a scientific
treatise, in which the testimony of the Witnesses received special
consideration. Mr. I. Woodbridge Riley, the author of the work referred
to, after quoting the account of the exhibition of the plates by the
angel to the Three Witnesses, as related in the History of Joseph
Smith, [17] regards the duty before him to be to find to what degree
the manifestations are explicable on the grounds "of subjective
hallucination, induced by hypnotic suggestion." [18]
Mr. Riley proceeds to show that the Prophet possessed "magnetic power,"
and that the Witnesses were "sensitive subjects," and then says:
Given, then, such an influence, and sensitive subjects, and mental
suggestion could produce anything in the way of illusion. Thus the
explanation is subjective, not objective; it was captivation but
not fascination; there was leader and led, and the former succeeded
in inducing in the latter all the phantasmagoria of religious
ardor. * * * * Again, the vision of the plates may be related in
a larger way with what has gone before. Of the three classes of
hallucinations, two have already been explicated. Joseph's father
had the ordinary hallucination of dream; his grandfather that which
persists into the waking state. The vision of the Three Witnesses
is that form of hallucination which may occur either in the normal
state, or be induced in the state of light hypnosis. The former is
exemplified in day dreams; it is largely self-induced and implies
some capacity or visualizing. The latter may also occur with the
eyes open, but it is induced by the positive suggestion of another.
* * * * * As the hypnotized soldier will hear the voice of his old
commander, or the devout French peasant see his patron Saint, so
was it in these manifestations. The ideas and interest which were
uppermost in the mind were projected outwards. Harris had received
the first "transcription of the gold plates;" Whitmer had been
saturated with notions of ancient engravings; Cowdery, for weeks at
a time, had listened to the sound of a voice translating the record
of the Nephites. When the voice was again heard in the grove, when
the four sought "by fervent and humble prayer to have a view of the
plates," there is little wonder that there arose a psychic mirage,
complete in every detail. Furthermore, the rotation in prayer,
the failure of the first two attempts, the repeated workings of
the Prophet over the doubting Harris, but served to bring out the
additional incentives to the hypnotic hallucination. [19]
Thus "Rational Criticism" would explain away the testimony given by
the Three Witnesses. The vision of the plates, of the angel, the glory
of God that shone about the Witnesses, the voice of God from the midst
of the glory--all was illusion, hallucination produced by mental
suggestion, on the part of the Prophet. All was chimerical, a mental
mirage!
But what of the testimony of the Eight Witnesses--all so plain,
matter-of-fact, straight-forward and real? How shall that be accounted
for? Here all the miraculous is absent. It is a man to man transaction.
Neither superstition, nor expectation of the supernatural can play any
part in working up an illusion or mental mirage respecting what the
Eight Witnesses saw and handled. Their testimony must be accounted for
on some other hypothesis than that of hallucination. And indeed it
is. Some regard it as a mere fabrication of interested parties to the
general scheme of deception. This, however, is an arbitrary proceeding,
not warranted by a just treatment of the facts involved. Others,
impressed with the evident honesty of the Witnesses, or not being able
to account for the matter in any other way, admit that Joseph Smith
must have had plates which he exhibited to the Eight Witnesses, but
deceived them as to the manner in which he came in possession of them.
Of the latter class is Pomeroy Tucker, whose home during the coming
forth of the Book of Mormon was at Palmyra, where the book was printed,
and who claims a personal acquaintance with the Prophet and all his
associates in the work at Palmyra. He refers to the fact of metallic
plates covered with hieroglyphics having been discovered in various
parts of the country, making special mention of some found in Mexico by
Professor Rafinesque, and mentioned by the Professor in his _Asiatic
Journal_ for 1832; and some others found in Pike County, Illinois,
a cleansing of which by sulphuric acid brought out the characters
engraven upon them very distinctly. Mr. Tucker then says:
Smith may have obtained through Rigdon (the literary genius
behind the screen) one of these glyphs, which resemble so nearly
his description of the book he pretended to find on Mormon Hill
[Cumorah]. For the credit of human character, it is better at any
rate to presume this, and that the eleven ignorant Witnesses were
deceived, by appearances, than to conclude that they wilfully
committed such gross moral perjury before high heaven as their
solemn averments imply. [20]
Rev. William Harris, writing in 1841, while not admitting the honesty
of the Witnesses himself, suggests, nevertheless, the possibility of
Joseph Smith deceiving the Eight Witnesses by presenting to them plates
of his own manufacture:
Now, even admitting, for the sake of argument, that these Witnesses
are all honest and credible men, yet what would be easier than for
Smith to deceive them? Could he not easily procure plates to be
made, and inscribe thereon a set of characters, no matter what, and
then exhibit them to his intended Witnesses as genuine? What would
be easier than thus to impose on their credulity and weakness? And
if it were necessary to give them the appearance of antiquity, a
chemical process could easily effect the matter. [21]
So Daniel P. Kidder, writing in 1842, says, in commenting on the
testimony of the Witnesses:
That these men may have seen plates is very possible. * * * *
* That Smith showed them plates, which to ignorant men had the
appearance of gold, is easy enough to be believed; and if he had
manufactured the same, it would have been no great stretch of
ingenuity. [22]
Professor J.B. Turner, writing in 1842, adopts the same theory with
reference to the testimony of the Eight Witnesses:
We are not only willing, but anxious to admit that Smith did show
some plates of some sort; and that they [the Eight Witnesses]
actually testify to the truth, so far as they are capable of
knowing it. [23]
So John Hyde, [24] 1857:
Every careful reader must be compelled to admit that Smith did have
some plates of some kind. Smith's antecedents and subsequents,
show that he did not have genius sufficient to originate the whole
conception, without some palpable suggestion. The having chanced to
have found some plates in a mound, as Wiley found his, or as Chase
discovered Smith's "Peepstone," would be just such an event as
would suggest every peculiar statement Smith made about his plates,
at the same time account for what is known; and, therefore, it is
more than reasonable to conclude that Smith found his plates while
digging gold. This entirely destroys all the shadow of argument
so laboriously compiled by the "Mormon" apologists, which, even
without this, although their strongest argument, only proves that
he had some plates, but at the same time has no force of proof as
to Smith's obtaining them from an angel. [25]
Professor Riley, with some other anti-"Mormon" writers, suggests the
possibility of collective hypnotization in the case of the Eight as
well as in that of the Three Witnesses: and hypnotization produced
both visual and sense illusion; but it is only a suggestion. While
maintaining, with the utmost confidence the mental mirage theory,
induced by hypnotic suggestion, as an adequate accounting for the
testimony of the Three Witnesses, he can only suggest it as a possible
solution of the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, and inclines rather
to the theory of "pure fabrication." "It is a document," he remarks,
"due to the affidavit habit." [26]
As for the rest of the anti-"Mormon" critics on this point, they adopt
the pure fabrication theory, or admit that the Prophet Joseph had in
his possession some kind of plates which he either manufactured or
accidentally discovered in his alleged searching after hidden treasures
for some of his employers, and which he really exhibited to the Eight
Witnesses. But why have the "pure fabrication" theory to account for
the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, and the "mental hallucination"
theory to account for the testimony of the Three? If the testimony of
the Eight is pure fabrication is not the testimony of the Three pure
fabrication also? Or, at least, is it not most likely to be so? For if
conscious fraud, and pure fabrication lurks anywhere in Joseph Smith's
and the Eleven Witnesses' account of the coming forth of the Book of
Mormon, would it not exist throughout the whole proceeding? Professor
Turner, already twice quoted, in admitting that the Prophet had in his
possession some sort of plates, which he showed the Eight Witnesses,
says that he is anxious to make the admission "in order to keep up
the just and charitable equilibrium between the knaves and fools in
'Mormonism' and the world at large. Three to Eight is at once a happy
and reasonable proportion. We will not disturb it. It is gratifying
to human philanthropy to be able to account for all the facts in the
case by this charitable solution." This sarcasm, however, is not a
"solution;" nor is it refutation of the testimony of the Witnesses;
nor is it argument; nor anything but the fuming of a small mind; yet
it is the only "reason" I have ever heard advanced for adopting the
hallucination theory in the case of the Three Witnesses, and either the
pure fabrication or deception theory in the case of the Eight Witnesses.
The testimony of the Three and the Eight Witnesses, respectively,
stands or falls together. If the pure fabrication theory is adopted
to explain away the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, there is no
reason why it should not be adopted to explain away the testimony of
the Three. But every circumstance connected with the testimony of all
these Witnesses, as we have seen, cries out against the theory of
"pure fabrication." It is in recognition of the evident honesty of the
Three Witnesses that the theory of mental hallucination is invented
to account for their testimony; as it is also the evident honesty of
the Eight Witnesses that leads to the admission by many anti-"Mormon"
writers that Joseph Smith must have had some kind of plates which he
exhibited to the Eight Witnesses, though he may not have obtained them
through supernatural means.
The theory of pure fabrication of the testimony of the Witnesses is
absolutely overwhelmed by the evidence of their honesty.
The hallucination theory breaks down under the force of the
matter-of-fact testimony of the Eight Witnesses, from which all
possible elements of hallucination are absent.
The manifestation of the divine power, through which the Three
Witnesses received their testimony, destroys the theory of deception
alleged to have been practiced by the Prophet on the credulity of the
Eight Witnesses by exhibiting plates either manufactured by himself or
accidentally discovered.
Such, then, is the force of this direct testimony of the Eleven
Witnesses to the truth of the Book of Mormon--the testimony of the
Three and the Eight when considered together. It is so palpably true
that it cannot be resolved into illusion or mistake. It is so evidently
honest that it cannot be resolved into pure fabrication. It is of such
a nature that it could not possibly have been the result of deception
wrought by the cunning of Joseph Smith. There remains after these but
one other theory: "The Witnesses were honest." They saw and heard and
handled what they say they saw, and heard, and handled. Their testimony
stands not only unimpeached, but unimpeachable.
Footnotes
1. Renan, _The Apostles_, p. 67 and note 46.
2. Renan, _Life of Jesus_, introduction, p. 14; also New Witnesses,
vol. I, chapter 1.
3. Renan, _The Apostles_, p. 37.
4. _The Nineteenth Century_, March, 1889.
5. _The Nineteenth Century_, June, 1889. Professor Huxley's papers
quoted here will also be found in _Agnosticism and Christianity_, pp.
84, _et seq._ and 96 _et seq._
6. Renan closes his treatise upon this subject as follows: "The glory
of the resurrection, then, belongs to Mary of Magdala. After Jesus it
is Mary who had done most of the foundation of Christianity. The shadow
created by the delicate sensibility of Magdalene wanders still on the
earth. Queen and patroness of idealists, Magdalene knew better than any
one how to assert her dream, and impose on every one the vision of her
passionate soul. Her great womanly vision: 'He has risen,' has been the
basis of the faith of humanity. Away, impotent reason! Apply no cold
analysis to this _chef d'oeuvre_ of idealism and of love. If wisdom
refuses to console this poor human race, betrayed by fate, let folly
attempt the enterprise. Where is the sage who has given to the world as
much joy as the possessed Mary of Magdala?"--_The Apostles_, p. 61.
7. Renan. He thus tells the story of the appearing of Jesus to the five
hundred brethren at once: "More than five hundred persons were already
devoted to the memory of Jesus. In the absence of the lost Master, they
obeyed the chief of the disciples, and above all, Peter. One day when
following their spiritual chiefs, the Galileans had climbed one of the
mountains to which Jesus had often led them, they fancied they saw
him again. The air on these mountain tops is full of strange mirages.
The same illusion which had previously taken place in behalf of the
more intimate of the apostles [he refers to the transfiguration, Matt.
17] was produced again. The whole assembly imagined that they saw the
divine spectre displayed in the clouds; they fell upon their faces and
worshiped." _The Apostles_, p. 76.
8. Renan. This is his "rational" (!) conception of the event: "One day
when they were assembled together a thunder storm arose. A violent wind
burst the windows open--the sky seemed on fire. Thunder storms in those
countries are accompanied by wonderful illuminations; the atmosphere is
furrowed, as it were, on every side with garbs of flame. Whether the
electric fluid had penetrated into the very chamber itself or whether a
dazzling flash of lightning had suddenly illuminated all their faces,
they were convinced that the spirit had entered, and that he was poured
out upon the head of each one of them under the form of tongues of
fire." _The Apostles_, p. 95.
9. Renan, _The Apostles_, p. 98 _et seq._
10. Thus Alexander Campbell in _Millennial Harbinger_, vol. II, (1831)
pp. 86-96. Also _Howe's Mormonism_ (1834). He thinks the Witnesses
incompetent, "Nor will any one disagree with us, when we shall have
proven that the Book of Mormon was a joint speculation between
the 'Author and Proprietor.' [Joseph Smith is alluded to] and the
Witnesses," ch. 7.
11. _Mormonism and the Mormons_, by Daniel P. Kidder, pp. 54, 55.
12. _Prophet of the Nineteenth Century_, p. 46.
13. Doc. and Cov. sec. 17.
14. Doc. and Cov. 5:24-26.
15. _Hist. Illinois_, (Ford) pp. 257-8.
16. _The Mormon Prophet_, by Lily Dougall, preface, p. 7.
17. History of the Church, vol. I, pp. 54, 55.
18. "_The Founder of Mormonism_. A Psychological Study of Joseph
Smith, Jr., by I. Woodbridge Riley, one time instructor in English,
New York University," (Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1902). It
cannot be denied that Mr. Riley's book is an ingenious work, and
bears evidence of wide erudition, and an intimate knowledge of the
subject. Mr. Riley's treatise, a book of 426 pages, was offered to the
Philosophical Faculty of Yale University as a thesis for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy. His materials were also used in 1898 for a
"Master of Art" thesis on the "Metaphysics of Mormonism." The book has
an introductory, preface, by Professor George Trumbull Ladd, of Yale
University, commending the work by laudatory praise of it. The author
himself explains that his aim is "to examine Joseph Smith's character
and achievements from the standpoint of recent psychology." He makes a
careful pathological study of the ancestors of the Prophet, and reaches
the conclusion that Joseph Smith's "abnormal experiences" (meaning
his visions, revelations and visitations of angels) are the result
of epilepsy. This is his working hypothesis in accounting for Joseph
Smith, supplemented by what he considers is the Prophet's unconscious
liability to self-hypnosis, and his hypnotic power over others
sufficient to make them partakers in his own vivid hallucinations. The
hypothesis is an adroitly conceived one, and worked out on lines of
sophistry that by many will be mistaken for sound reasoning. The whole
theory is overthrown, however, by the work the Prophet achieved, the
institution he founded, the Church, the religion he established, the
philosophy he planted; all of which to madness would be impossible;
besides, as remarked by M. Renan, "Hitherto it has never been given to
aberration of mind to produce a serious effect upon the progress of
humanity." _Life of Jesus_, p. 105.
An extended review of Mr. Riley's book will be found in the author's
work, _Defense of the Faith and the Saints_, pp. 39-61.
19. _The Founder of Mormonism_, by I. Woodbridge Riley, pp. 226, 227,
228.
20. _Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism_, by Pomeroy Tucker, p. 75.
21. _Mormonism Portrayed_, by Rev. William Harris, pp. 410.
22. _Mormonism_, Kidder, pp. 52, 53.
23. _Mormonism in all Ages_, Turner, p. 178.
24. _Mormonism, Its Leaders and Designs_, by John Hyde, Jr., pp. 269,
270.
25. _Mormonism, Its Leaders and Designs_, by John Hyde, Jr., pp. 269,
270.
26. _The Founder of Mormonism_, pp. 228-231.