The evidence thus far considered is external and direct, appealing to our senses. Another class of evidence remains which has been called internal. Applied to Christianity this kind of evidence is thus explained: If Christianity is not of divine origin, it must be a cunningly devised fable. Which is the most probable supposition? Internal evidence tries to answer that question.
The same process of reasoning by which this question is answered when applied to Christianity can also be applied to the message brought by Joseph the Prophet. If this message is not from God it must be from man; it must be forged in order to deceive and must be termed the greatest fraud of the century. It is either a divine truth or a diabolical lie. Tertium non est. Which is the more likely supposition?
In order to decide this question we must consider the moral precepts given by the messenger, his own character, and the character of those who receive it and profess to follow its precepts. For it is very clear that any message which in itself is "good" and which also produces good results in the hearts and lives of men, is not likely to be from the evil one. What is good is from God. Was Joseph the Prophet a good man? Did he inculcate holy principles unto his fellow-men? Does the gospel he preached tend to make men holy? If so, his message must be from God.
MORAL EVIDENCE.
That the moral character of a man who professes to be a divine messenger is very important as an evidence of the truth of his message is admitted on all hands. The following is the opinion of an eminent writer: "The character of Christ is a wonderful proof of the divinity of the Bible. The Hindoo cannot think of his Brahmin saint other than possessing the abstemiousness and austerity which he admires in his living models. The Socrates of Plato is composed of elements practically Greek, being a compound of the virtues deemed necessary to adorn the sage. A model of the Jewish teacher might easily be drawn from the writings of the Rabbis, and he would prove to be the very deflection of these Scribes and Pharisees who are reproved in the Gospel. But in the life of our Redeemer a character is represented which departs in every way from the national type of the writers, from the character of all ancient nations, and is at variance with all the features which custom, education, religion and patriotism seem to have consecrated as most beautiful. Four different authors have recorded different facts, but they exhibit the same conception, a conception differing from all they had ever witnessed or heard, and necessarily copied from the same original. Moreover, this glorious character, while borrowing nothing from the Greek, Indian or Jew, having nothing in common with established laws of perfection, is yet to every believer a type of excellence. He is followed by the Greek, though a founder of none of his sects, revered by the Brahmin, though preached by one of the fisherman caste, and worshiped by the red man of Canada, though belonging to the hated paleface."
This very striking picture of our Savior is true in all its details. In the Gospels we see Him described as holy (John vii, xlvi, li, 8, 46, 10, 32; Matt. xxvi, lix, 27, 23, 24; Luke xxiii, 13-45); full of benevolence and compassion (John iv, Luke ix, 55; x, 30-37); kindness and affection (Matt. xiv, 27-31; Luke xix, 5; xli, 22-61; John xi; xix, 25-27); having meekness and humility (Matt. ix, 28, xviii, 22); moral courage, firmness and resignation (Matt. xxvi, 39-46; Mark x, 32; Luke iv, 23; John xi, 7; xviii, 4); abhorring hypocrisy and popularity (Matt. vi, 1-18; x, 16-39; xxii, 18; Mark xii, 38, 40; Luke xi, 44; John xvi, 1-16); being moderate and free from enthusiastic austerity (Matt. viii, 19; xxiii, 23; Luke v, 29, 35; John ii, 1; Mark xii, 17.)
Looking at all these characteristics of our Savior, so eminently "good," and hearing Him solemnly declare that He has a message from God to man, we feel bound to admit that He is no deceiver. His words are true. He is the Son of God. Thus His character becomes an evidence.
Now, concerning the subject under consideration, must we not also admit that Joseph the Prophet was a man sent from God, when we find that his character is in perfect harmony with those qualities that are peculiar to a servant of God?
Those who want to investigate this are referred to works extant, which treat on the "Life of Joseph Smith," and I think any unprejudiced reader will feel impressed with the fact that Joseph was a good man—a "man of God."
How he urges holiness as the condition of happiness! In his benevolence he seemed boundless, embracing every race of humanity, white, red and black! His kindness and affection are touching. Of meekness and humility he exhibits the most striking examples which shall ever be worthy of imitation. The moral courage and firmness which prompted him to face a hostile world and to die "calm as a summer morning," must be admired. His straightforwardness, for which hypocrisy ever stood rebuked, is well-known to his friends and acquaintances. His whole career and the doctrines he taught are indisputable proofs that, although he was inspired by a noble enthusiasm, yet he was far from being what is called an enthusiast.