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his "View of the Evidences of Christianity" are scoffed at by a certain school of latter-day critics, as being somewhat out of date and insipid; but there is one statement he makes that I cannot help but believe has great force in it.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: