There are some signs that the opponents of the Gospel of Jesus are endeavoring to revive the old exploded myth that the Spaulding manuscript, as revised by Sidney Rigdon, was the basis of the Book of Mormon. We find this theory again set forth in an article in the Chicago Daily News, paid for by a clergyman, as an advertisement; and also in the Greely Tribune.

We do not wonder that the world falls back upon this supposition, though it has been proved without foundation. The Book of Mormon is a fact. How can it be accounted for? The unlettered boy, Joseph, could not have written it. That seems to be conceded by all. Where did he obtain it? Either it was brought forth by the power of the Almighty, or some man better informed than Joseph, wrote it. But who? The sceptics who refuse to believe in divine intervention must answer that question, and they generally say Spaulding. But, in order to connect the Prophet Joseph with Spaulding, they are forced to introduce Sidney Ridgon as the connecting link. Rigdon, they say, had lived in Pittsburg and become acquainted with the manuscript written by Spaulding. To this manuscript Rigdon added some Scriptural interpolations, and the manuscript so amended became the Book of Mormon.

This hypothesis was exploded when Spaulding's manuscript was found and published, and for some time the opponents were dumfounded. If the Book of Mormon is not the work of Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon, who wrote it? Under the pressure of this question, they have reverted back to the Spaulding myth. They admit that they Book of Mormon cannot be an elaboration of the Manuscript found, but they say there was another Spaulding manuscript that has not been found, and that is the one upon which the book is elaborated.

That is a rather convenient argument. It virtually says that although it has been proved that the Book of Mormon was not an edition of the Spaulding manuscript that is known to exist, yet it remained to be proved that it is not founded on a Spaulding manuscript that is not known to exist, or to have had any existence. That is "higher criticism" with a vengeance.

Fortunately, Sidney Rigdon's testimony on the subject has been preserved, and that is conclusive Sidney Rigdon became disconnected with the Church, and we fancy any statement from him concerning fraud in the bringing forth of the sacred volume would have been worth a fortune to him. But what is his testimony?

John Rigdon, his son, has on more than one occasion told publicly that in 1863 he paid his father a visit determined to learn the truth from him regarding the origin of that work. John Rigdon id not at that time believe in the book. He laid the question before his father. "You are an old man," he said, "and you will soon pass away, and I wish to know if Joseph Smith, in your intimacy with him for fourteen years, has not said something to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other way than what he had told you." To this appeal by the son, Sidney Rigdon replied:

"My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but the one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon the gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it; and I have never, to you or to any one else, told but the one story, and that I now repeat to you."

Sidney Rigdon, although at that time he had been disconnected with the Church for about 20 year, added that Moronism is true, and that Joseph smith was a Prophet and "that this world would and it out some day."

This testimony of Sidney Rigdon as to his knowledge of the origin of the Book of Mormon, settles any Spaulding myth and forces the opponents of Mormonism to attempt some other solution of the vexed problem. But what other conclusion is there, than this, that the book is genuine and that is was translated through the Holy Spirit?

There is no other reasonable answer to the question: "Who wrote that book?" Internal evidence, as well as external, points to that conclusion. Joseph, at the time of the coming forth of that book, knew nothing of ruined cities and buried civilizations on these continents. And yet the Book of Mormon accounts for some of them. Joseph knew nothing of the ancient languages, and yet many of the proper names in the Book of Mormon, found nowhere else, are clearly related to the Hebrew. Joseph knew nothing of Biblical chronology and yet in the Book of Mormon Lehi is commanded to depart from Jerusalem at a time when Jeremiah and Baruch were compelled to go into concealment and the king destroyed the manuscript upon which the prophet had written the Word of God. Such facts cannot be set aside by the earnest inquirer after truth.

The Book of Mormon is, as President B. H. Roberts has so well expressed it, a "new witness for God." It was given at a time when such a witness was very much needed. For the last century was the century of the attack of "higher criticism" upon the old "witness for God." Higher criticism is in vain directed against the new witness. The manner of its preservation and translation so unlike the preservation and translation of the Bible, precludes that form of attack. It stands unassailable as a witness for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and it therefore, invaluable to the cause of religious truth. It invites investigation. It promises the testimony of the Spirit.