A slip from some periodical, the title of which does not appear, has been sent, impugning our brother's witness, because it was not accompanied by one or two others. Undoubtedly for a case of discipline, or formal judicial decision, this is necessary. It was simply given for what it was worth, as that of an earnest God-fearing laborer, known widely in town and country, as later in America (U.S. and British). In such a case who acquainted with him can doubt that he could and would have produced adequate testimony when challenged? But he departed to be with Christ years ago; so that it is impossible to get his facts and witnesses. But it appears to me that the language of the objector is unwarranted, and his denial absurd. What does he know of the meeting referred to? Still less can he speak of its constituents then. Of his own name I have only heard within a comparatively short time whereas the case in question occurred at least a quarter of a century ago in the south wherein I never heard of his living or working so as to be able to speak with the least weight. I am glad to be assured that he at least is firm in rejecting God-dishonoring laxity. But he is absolutely without title to charge the departed, or those who believed him, with slander; and I trust he will himself recognize this when less heated.