Now, a word in conclusion about the "gold test" that our ministerial friend proposes to apply to the Fifth Gospel. I think the gentleman puts that forth for a special reason, and that in doing so he exhibits a weakness on his part. He says "The question is not, where do men say they get it, but, is it gold." Well, but it is also important to know where men got it, and we can establish that so far beyond all question, and can sustain it by testimony that has not only not been impeached, but is unimpeachable. The question: "Where do men say they got it" is important. The "how" and the "where" men got it is part of the evidence of its truth, which this gentleman dodges by saying that it does not matter where the Fifth Gospel came from. But having just hinted at the importance of this matter of where and how it came, I will set all that aside and declare my willingness as one of the believers in the Book of Mormon to see it submitted--as perforce it must be--to the "assay test." Is it gold? Are these important truths we have been considering this evening, wherein the welfare of half the world is concerned, gold or dross? Is the light which it throws upon the word of God contained in the Four Gospels, of importance? Is the fact that Jesus visited this western world and announced the saving power of his gospel in such a manner that millions would come to the knowledge of salvation a golden truth? Is the solemn warning to the Gentile nations inhabiting the western world worth while considering? May it not be golden, especially if heeded? I shall leave you to answer that. But I want to suggest an improvement on the gentleman's simile--this "assay test" of his. Although he praises it so highly himself in the synopsis he gave to the papers of his discourse, I think it could be improved. The question is not so much as to whether in the Four Gospels or in the Fifth, all is gold, but is there gold in them. I do not think the Four Gospels are without alloy. In other words I do not think the Four Gospels are perfect. I believe there are imperfections in them, in forms of expression and in the fact that they do not convey all that Jesus both taught and did; at best they are fragmentary. St. John informs us in his gospel that if all the things that Jesus had done and taught were written, the world itself would hardly contain the books. We have not the full reports of Messiah's discourses. The full and absolute pure word of God just as it fell from the lips of the Savior, is not in the Four Gospels. For the most part we have but the recollections of the evangelists of what Jesus both said and did. Only those who read the Greek--and unfortunately they are very few--may read even the Four Gospels in the language in which the Apostles wrote them. But we have translations of these records, and each time they are translated a dilution takes place. The force of what is said becomes in the translation somewhat abated as all know who are acquainted with