From all which I conclude that while in a way originality may be regarded as affording some evidence in favor of the claims of a prophet and his message, or of a book and its revelation, still originality is not an indispensable quality in either prophet or book. Contemporary prophets, or prophets living in succession, may come burdened with the same word of the Lord, with the same divine message; but the one who speaks secondly or thirdly, and hence with all claim to originality gone, is none the less God's messenger; and the word he speaks may not with safety be rejected for that it lacks the quality of originality. So, too, with books. It would be a senseless manner of handling the scriptures to reject the books called first and second Chronicles because they chiefly duplicate the matter of the books called first and second Kings, and have little originality to commend them to our acceptance. So with the books of the New Testament. Accepting for our purpose here the order in which they stand in the commonly received versions of the New Testament, as the order in which the books were written, shall the book of Mark be rejected because in the main it deals with the same matter that engages the attention of Matthew, and there is but little on the score of its originality of matter to commend it as an inspired book? The same question could be asked in relation to the book of Luke. The truth is that God in books as in prophets sometimes requires more than one for a witness to his message, and hence repeats the revelation in a number of inspired books, in which case the books merely repeating the revelation are as truly inspired, as truly scripture as the one in which the message first appeared, although it could be said that the quality of originality is wholly wanting. Since the Book of Mormon feigns the introduction of no new religion, but gives merely an account of the introduction of the Christian religion in the western hemisphere, by inspired teachers, both before and after the coming of Messiah, and by the personal ministry of Messiah after his resurrection; and as the Christian religion is always the same, in all times and in all lands, it must have been the same when introduced into America as when taught in Judea--where is room for originality? Is not originality by the very nature of the claims of the Book of Mormon excluded? The reader, I believe, will recognize the force of the question; and I take occasion here to remark that the point in the question exhibits the weakness of those objections that are sometimes urged against the Book of Mormon on the score of sameness of matter in it and the New Testament; and also it exhibits how senseless is the clamor for the existence of some new moral or religious truth [3] in the Book of Mormon, not to be found in the Old or New Testaments.