Elder Roberts' defense seems to raise new difficulties without really settling any, although it is ingenious and skillful. On general principles, there is no reason why I should not accept the writings of Nephi and the Book of Mormon as readily as my opponent, if they were true. But the reason why I do not, is because of the extent and variety of the evidence against them, only a few points of which can be discussed in a newspaper article. Since my main object is to establish truth, I wish to treat Elder Roberts and his argument in a fair and candid way. Let us come now to the main proposition, which is twofold: Elder Roberts affirms that Nephi was a prophet of God, living and writing about 600 B.C.; and that the Book of Mormon is a divine revelation. The evidence compels me to deny both of these propositions and to declare that neither of them is true. Now let us try to find some common ground on which we can stand. As such ground, I offer these two propositions in reference to books in general, which seem to me self-evident: First, any book which professes to have been written in ancient times, and yet quotes from authors not born until centuries after, is a spurious book. Second, any book which professes to be a divine revelation to the people of the present time, and yet reveals nothing, which it did not appropriate from some other book or source of knowledge already in the possession of the people, is a spurious book. I use the term "revelation" in its ordinary sense, as referring to divine truth. These are two propositions which I think people of all creeds can stand upon, for I think they contain nothing which is not self-evident. The differences of opinion will begin when we come to apply these two fundamental principles. Still, it is my opponent's privilege to dissent from these propositions, if he thinks they are not self-evident. But I think that careful, reasoning people generally, will accept them. Anyhow, I take my stand upon them and proceed to apply them. THOSE QUOTATIONS. 1. As to the alleged Prophet Nephi. If it can be clearly shown that he quoted passage after passage from the New Testament writers, who were not born for centuries after he claims to have written, then the first fundamental principle is violated, and we have demonstrative evidence that Nephi was simply a pretender, and his writings are spurious. In my former article I referred specially to three direct quotations by Nephi, from the New Testament writers, taken from Acts iii:21, John i:26-27, and Romans xi:17-24, and found in I Nephi iii:20, x:8, and x:12-14. I also, under discussion of the third point, referred to two other quotations from Ephesians v:18, and Revelations xv:3. It did not seem necessary to quote other passages, for I deemed these sufficient to establish the point.