ted, and censuring the accused person " upon other testimony than that of two or three witnesses." If this be a just conclusion, will it not follow that we may, and, indeed, that it is an imperious duty, not only in some cases but in every case, to convict on the testimony of a single witness? This however, would be a bold stride. It would be taking ground that might make us tremble for our christian privileges, and for that standing on which we have supposed our safety very much depends.

I am constrained to say that the law, Deut. xxii. 25-27, is not to be viewed, nor was it ever designed, as an exception to any law in existence. It was a particular and special statute, given for the express purpose of applying to a particular case, should such an one ever occur. It has, therefore no bearing upon the general law of evidence; nor does it, in any degree, affect the general rule by which our decisions are to be governed, in cases of discipline. As well might F. argue from the command to Joshua to make war upon the CaDaanites, that offensive war is in all cases lawful. Joshua was not barely permitted, he was commanded, to make war upon the Canaanites. He was required to push the war to extermination, and to take possession of the country. But was it not a general rule, an established, well-known rule, that offensive war may not be engaged in that it is murder? We find, notwithstanding, a command to depart from this rule. Will it thence follow that offensive war is lawfulthat men may innocently commit murder? Has this command to Joshua such a bearing upon the general law against offensive war, as to render it an innocent, harmless thing? May the strong, at pleasure, make war upon the weak, overcome them, dispossess them, and take possession of their inheritance ? If the reasoning of F. is conclusive, I see not why this consequence will not inevitably follow.

When the statute was given that

makes the testimony of two or three witnesses to the same overt act necessary to conviction, it was designed to be a perpetual rule, not to be repealed, nor so modified as to do away its force. The law of God is as unalterable as his character, his nature, or his decrees. This is true of every law excepting such as were originally designed to cease, or go out of force at the end of a limited period. Of this class were many of the laws to the people of Israel. They were evidently of limited extent, and designed to cease with the Jewish commonwealth. Aside from statutes of this nature, the laws of God are to stand forever, and his precepts to all generations. He needs not, like imperfect men, to repeal, alter, or amend his laws. Nor need men if they were perfect. Should God alter, amend, or repeal any one of his laws it would at least, imply that it might be made better and, if so, that it was not perfect at first-and, if so, an inference might be drawn against the perfection of its author. God never had

occasion, and never will, to alter a law to make it better, or more perfect. Nor was there ever any occasion to give an exception to any divine statute, that should so alter or modify it, as to produce a different course of proceeding upon it. He might as consistently with his exalted character, totally, and forever repeal it.

He

It seems to be insinuated, if not expressly declared, that A. D. would resort to a string of circumstances which "must combine in number and weight sufficient to amount to two, or more, witnesses of veracity." And says the writer, if he maintains this, "I shall not contend with him.” surely will not be called to contend with me on that point. But says the writer, "the moment he attempts to fortify his assertion in this manner, he gives up the argument, and admits that his conclusion is erroneous." In this we fully agree. But wherein, Mr. Editor, has A. D. resorted, or proposed to resort, to circumstances "to fortify his assertion ?”

There are, it is readily admitted, many things to come into consideration in the trial and decision of a case of discipline. The testimony is to be weighed The competency of witnesses, as well as their credibility is to be inquired into, and fully ascertained. But if we inquire as to the competency of a witness, and find upon sufficient evidence that he is incompetent or if on sufficient testimony we find him deficient in point of credibility, is this resorting to circumstances in the decision of the case? I think not, Sir—A. is introduced as a witness to confirm the testimony of B-. If both are competent, and both credible, the fact is proved. But on inquiry it appears that A. is not a competent witness. He is then no witness. His testimony is not to be received. Produce such witnesses to any number, and we have not, in the sense of the divine law, two or three. Or supposing you find on enquiry, by substantial testimony, that A. is a bad character, so bad that no credit is to be given to his declaration. In that case his testimony is to be rejected and wholly disregarded, and of course you have but one witness. But is this resorting to circumstances,-placing circumstances in the place of positive testimony? No sir. It is It is setting up and supporting a fact, viz. that A. is a bad character-a person of no credibility, and therefore his testimony not to be regarded at all. This decision is formed not upon light elicited from circumstances, but upon plain facts.

There is one passage of scripture which was introduced in support of the conclusion that two or three witnesses are necessary to convict of a crime, which F. considers of primary importance in deciding the question, on which, he says, A. D. "has offered but a single remark." It is one that he acknowledges himself wholly incompetent to discuss. The passage is I. Tim. v. 19, Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. This pas sage, it is acknowledged, was introdu

ced in support of the conclusion, which I have supposed the law of evidence given us in the scriptures, fully establishes. It was thought to be directly in point; and I should not have supposed there was any peculiar obscurity or difficulty in it, had I not obtained the idea from the discussion I am examining. Says the writer of this discussion, "The natural construction of the passage, certainly is that, against those who were not elders, he might receive accusations by some other rule of evidence." He proceeds, "This text considered by itself, if it refers to the subject at all seems, therefore, to be against deciding in the negative, without any exception, the question discussed by your correspondent."

Had the person who has expressed this opinion given no other evidence of ingenuity, and sound judgment, I presume the body of your readers woul not place him in the front rank of expositors. Why should elders, pastors or ministers in the church, be a privileged order of men? What reason can be assigned why an elder should stand acquitted, and uncondemned, unless there appear against him double that weight of testimony which would consign a private brother to infamy and disgrace? This will hardly accord with the principles of liberty and equal privileges of the present day; nor will people believe, without more complete evidence than they can get from this passage, that it is a doctrine taught in the word of God. No evidence, it is believed, can be found in the whole book of God to support this construction. It is the doctrine of the scriptures, and has been the invariable practice of the church of God, it is confidently believed, to proceed with elders, and lay brethren, by the same rule of evidence. A candid attention to the passage, and a fair construction of it, cannot lead to the conclusion that two or three witnesses were not necessary to conviction and censure in the church.

Going on the ground that it is a

standing rule that no person is to be convicted, and censured in the church, except by the testimony of two or three credible witnesses to the same overt act; and at the same time with this passage in view, against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses; we have two remarks by way of solution. One is that the ministers of the gospel who preached clearly the humbling and offensive doctrines of christianity, and faithfully told sinners their danger, were peculiarly exposed to the enmity of the wicked. So it has been in every age of the christian church. We are and have been, a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men. The ministers of Christ, in the first ages of christianity, stood in the front rank of those who were to meet opposition. They were condemned as having "turned the world upside down." Many of them were put to death; and those who escaped the gibbet were reproached, reviled, and had all manner of evil said of them. This course of persecution has followed them even down to the age in which we live. In view of this, Paul might conclude attempts would be made to condemn and consign them to infamy, on less weight of evidence than was required by the established rule. He, therefore, expressly enjoined it on Timothy not to depart from the well known, and long established rule, even in the case of an elder-to see to it that such be allowed to enjoy the same privileges as private christians. He doubtless alluded, and Timothy so understood him, to the rule that had been given to the people of God nearly fifteen hundred years before the commencement of the christian era, and after so long use was recognized and confirmed by Christ and his apostles.

Another remark I think is in point. It may be confidently affirmed, that this does not relate, specially, to the testimony by which the charge against an elder is to be supported; but to the ground on which it is to be recei

ved for investigation and trial. His character and standing in the church are so important, that no accusation against him shall be received for trial and adjudication, till two or three witnesses have attested to the the truth of the accusation or charge. In this opinion I am supported by the venerable Poole. He says, Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. "That is, not to proceed to any judicial inquiry upon it. This was a law concerning all elders or younger persons, especially in capital causes; but the apostle willeth this to be more especially observed as to officers in the church, whose faithful discharge of their trust usually more exposeth them to people's querulous tongues."

The opinion of the pious and learned Mr. Scott, is to the same purpose.

He observes on the words, "The character of an elder, or pastor, was of great importance; it would therefore, be improper, not only to condemn him, but even to receive an accusation against him, except it was attested by two or three credible witnesses. Many might be disposed to revile those faithful ministers, whose doctrine and reproofs had offended them; and indeed, the grand enmity of " the accuser of the brethren," and of all his servants would be excited against them. It was, therefore, highly reasonable, that no accusation, tending to bring the conduct of an elder to a public investigation, and thus to endanger his character, should be regarded, if supported only by one solitary testimony, which his denial of the crime would at least counterballance."

It seems, on the whole, that the opinion of Farel rests chiefly, or solely, on the supposed exception to the general law of evidence, Deut. xxii. 25-27; for he says, "I have, if I do not mistake, shewn one exception, to the general rule, and this will answer in the room of a thousand, to prove that the decision of A. D. is not correct." It must "answer in the room of a thousand." It must, Mr. Editor,

stand alone, however feeble and trembling, so long as the Bible remains a rule of faith and practice to the church. For I am confident another passage cannot be found, in the whole book, on which F. does rely as bearing the least resemblance of an exception to the general rule. And I have, if I do not mistake, shewn that Deut. xxii. 25-27, is not an exception to the general rule, but a special statute, made for a particular case, and not designed to have the least bearing upon any rule, or law, then in exis

II. What is affirmed concerning it in the word of God.

The term world is used to desiggate those who have not experienced that change of heart, by which men become, in a spiritual sense, christians. This is manifest from the context, "we know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not:" and in the text it is added "and we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness"--that is, we (Christians) are born of God, but the world is not. Whatever therefore may be intended by the term regeneration, the world, in the scriptural sense of the term,de notes the unregenerate. But the term regenerate is used to designate those who are christians not nominally by birth in a christian land, or ostensibly by an outward profession, but spiritually by the renewing operation of the Spirit upon their hearts. This truth and the meaning of the term world, will be made manifest by a consideration of the following passages, John 1. 10, "He was in the world and the world knew him not," but christians know Christ, for "This is life eternal to know Jesus Christ. John xvii. 3. The world then who knew him not,

represents all those who do not believe on him. John xvii. 6. “I have manifested thy name unto the men that thou gavest me out of the world." v. 9. "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." v. 16. "They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.”

In these passages the term world is employed to describe the entire community of men, who are not in heart christians. John iii. 16. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son." v. 17. "God sent not his son to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved." The world, in these passages, means all men as sinful for whom Christ died, that they might become holy and be saved. John xiv. 22. "Lord how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us and not unto the world."

The world here is contrasted with the community of christians, and descibes those to whom God does not manifest himself, with the complacency which he bestows upon his people. John xv. 19. "If ye were of the world the world would love his own, but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world therefore the world hateth you." Here again the term world intends the community which is not christian but which is opposed to the church of Christ. John xvii. 25. “O righteous Father the world hath not known thee, but these have known that thou hast sent me." Here, the world is still characterised by its ignorance of God, in distinction from christians. 1 John iv. 4, 5. "Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world, they are of the world, therefore speak they of the world and the world heareth them." The apostle is describing in this passage the advantages which teachers of false doctrine, possess over those who preach the truth. They are not christians, they preach doctrines palatable to those who themselves are not christians, and are therefore heard with pleasure.

II. What is affirmed concerning the world.