The critic says: "If it said 'this _office_ of the Priesthood,' there might be some shadow of reason in his contention, but it does not." Is our friend not aware of the fact that the office of the Evangelist (Patriarch) is spoken of as an order of Priesthood? The Lord said pertaining to Hyrum Smith: "That my servant Hyrum may take the office of _Priesthood_ and Patriarch which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right." (Sec. 124:91). And in the blessing of Hyrum by his brother Joseph at Kirtland: "He shall stand in the tracks of his father, and be numbered among those who hold the right of Patriarchal _Priesthood_, even the Evangelical _Priesthood_ and power shall be upon him." It is spoken of as an order of Priesthood, although a part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, just as the Levitical is spoken of as an order, included in the Aaronic Priesthood. 3. The "defense" writer says: "There is not a scrap of evidence that Moses confirmed upon Joshua a particle of Priesthood--merely the civil leadership" The Scriptures say: "And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; _for Moses had laid his hands upon him_; and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses." (Deut. 34:9). He may, of course, quibble because it does not say he gave him "the priesthood" when he laid hands upon him; but surely he did not lay hands on Joshua merely to give him civil leadership. It was by the power of the Priesthood that he led Israel and commanded the sun and moon, he could have done it by no other power. In regard to the others mentioned here who were ordained, the "defender" is absolutely silent. 4. Of this argument and the testimony that follows the "defense" writer remains silent, the editor of the Herald, however, takes exception to the statement that Lyman Wight was at the meeting on the 8th of August, having refused to attend. He says: "Heber C. Kimball and George Miller came to his house, in her presence, (L. Wight's oldest daughter) with a summons from Brigham Young to appear, which he declined to do, declaring that the Twelve were usurping authority. This resulted in a personal encounter during which Miller was forcibly evicted from the room by Wight and Kimball followed without awaiting the enforcement of the order." If Lyman Wight refused to attend that meeting then he is incompetent to say that the Apostles were usurping authority, for he knew nothing about it. Moreover, if this statement is true it merely shows the bitter apostate spirit manifested by Lyman Wight at that time. It was his duty to meet with the Twelve and if things were not going as he thought they should he had the privilege of stating his feelings; this he refused to do, if the statement is correct. His hasty unchristian-like action and sulking in his house does not redound to the credit of the man. 5. Blood Atonement and Origin of Plural Marriage, p. 104.