to take one or two more. But while one individual alone knows of the fact, without any other evidence, it is not to be brought to a public trial. For the words that follow verse 9: "But thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him," must be understood of the case in which more than one have been "secretly enticed," and can witness to the fact, and must be explained by chap. xvii. 2-6. "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and behold it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel, then thou shalt bring forth that man or woman which have committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death, be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness, he shall not be put to death."

The Apostle seems to quote this as a general rule for all cases in which the testimony of witnesses is the only evidence. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. 2 Corinth. xiii. 1. Suppose then I have been enticed to an act as bad as the above, but I am the only one who knows it; if I walk up to the directions of ch. xiii. 6, I shall not be defiled by the fellowship of the offender.

It cannot be doubted, that our Lord held fellowship with Judas, in the worship of the temple, and set down with him at the passover, and yet he knew that Judas was living in sin; that he was a thief and had the bag and bear what was put therein;" that "he was a devil," and had all the time the heart of a traitor in him; and yet our blessed Lord was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." His being the. head of the church, instead of making this to be no example for us to follow, makes it so much the stronger. For in all his imitable conduct, he was "setting us an example that we should follow his steps." For he certainly knew that Judas was living in sin, but it could not be proved according to the rules laid down, for the church, she is not authorised to call in Omniscience to give testimony.

It may not be altogether irrelevant to the purpose of the querist, or at any rate to the design of the answer which I am writing, to notice some cases in which the conscience is defiled on occasion of another's sin, even when we stand back from fellowship, in sealing ordinances with him. It is not an uncommon thing to see members standing back on account of the of fences, real or supposed of others. And by so doing, they commonly reckon that they keep their conscience clear. But it is frequently very far from it. We have this precept, Levit. xix. 17, applicable to such cases. "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him."

Now it not unfrequently happens, that professors come to the certain knowledge of their neighbour's sin, and take no step to have it purged, neither do they deal with the offender himself, nor take any measure to have it removed. There are different motives for this in different persons. "The offender is so much older or superior in knowledge, or is in office, that they think he ought to know it without being told of it," so they think themselves excused. Others suppose that "it would be of no use to speak," and thereby they are excused. Others again apprehend "that it would breed so much disturbance, that it had better be let alone." Others say, "the offender is a person of such influence, or contributes so much salary, that if he or she should be offended and go off, it might

break up the congregation." Others "do not like to be the first to speak." Nevertheless, the above text seems to consider their conduct in this matter as equal to "hating their brother, and suffering sin upon him." Sin is, itself, so deadly an evil, and so poisonous to the soul, that no countervailing motive can free our neglect to warn him of it, from the charge of constructive hatred to him. If members, then, knowing certainly their brother to be in fault, or strongly apprehending him to be so, and reprove him not for it, supposing this to be within their reach, whatever they may allege to be their reason, whether they go to, or stay from, the table, their conscience is defiled. They are "suffering sin upon their brother."

Again If, as may sometimes be the motive, they will not speak to him, because they despise him in heart, or because of some other deadly feeling toward him; or because they fear he would submit to them, whereas they wish to see him brought to open shame: the conscience of such persons are so much the more defiled, for they are positively "hating their brother in their heart." Their standing back from the table of the Lord on this ground, instead of keeping their conscience clear, is itself censurable.

Sometimes (I may say frequently) church members, while they have not spoken to the offender themselves, and for some reason or other, will not do it, but they take up a sore displeasure at the session, because they have not taken notice of it, and they stand back from the table. But are they therefore clean? Nay, they are doubly guilty and defiled. They, according to what was stated before, hate their brother in their heart, and are most inconsistently finding fault with the session, for the supposed neglect of their official duty, and sometimes this is most unreasonable and absurd, because their own negligence about the matter has been a bar in the session's way, and sometimes the session does not even know it at all. Such persons ought not to stand back on account of their neighbour's offence, but also to be kept back for their own fault.

It is sometimes the case, that professors have not indeed spoken to the offender, neither are they offended at the session, but they have diligently talked of the matter to all the neighbours round. They have arraigned, tried, and condemned their brother without being heard; without other evidence than their own, and without authority. It is needless to say they are defiled. The common sense justice of the very heathen frowns reprobation on their base conduct. Such a practice strikes at the very foundation of all order in society, civil and religious. The Lord's table is not a place for them, whatever be the conduct of their brother.

I would seriously beseech all those whose conscience applies to them the charge brought in these supposed cases, to pause a moment and enquire, whether their displeasure at their offending brother be indeed real or only affected? and if it be real, whether a holy displeasure, on account of God's dishonor and the jeopardising of their own precious souls; or a sinful wrath issuing from their corrupt heart, on which "the sun is suffered to go down" and rise again?

I would suppose once more a case, in which all the regular steps may be taken with an offending brother, until the matter is issued according to the rule of the word. But if the complainer has been moved through the whole business, by a secret antipathy to the offender, so that had it been any other individual, he would have suffered the matter to pass unnoticed; or if he is allowing the very same sin in himself at the time, or if he is pursuing some other sinf course, or trying to wreak his vengeance on some other person, on another account, will his regular steps in processing his offending brother clear his conscience? Will it free him from "hating his brother in his heart, and suffering sin upon him """

I think not. Would not the great Master say to such a one, "thou hypocrite, why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, while a beam is in thine own?"

The Westminister confession of faith, and the larger, and the shorter catechisms, are the authorized standards of doctrine in the Presbyterian church, and are very highly esteemed by other evangelical denominations. The more we become conversant with them the more will we appreciate their value-as characterized by plainness, precision, and fulness in the statement of evangelical truth. Wherever the use of them in the religious instruction of youth is neglected, it will be found as a token for evil in the departure from the simplicity and purity of the evangelical doctrines which they contain, in those churches, where they are embraced as the standards of faith. Although not among our doctrinal standards, yet they have always been held in high estimation among the members of our communion. The shorter catechism is very generally known, and frequently used among us. Our readers probably are not generally acquainted with the history of the Westminister Assembly, which prepared and issued the above documents, and from whom their name was derived. We have therefore selected and prepared the following brief historical account of it.-Ch. Int.

The Westminister Assembly of Divines, met in the Chapel of Henry VII, in Westminister Abbey, on Saturday, 1st of July, 1643, in the reign of Charles I. Charles I. ascended the throne in 1625 with elevated notions of the prerogative of the crown of Great Britain; inheriting all the despotic principles of the house of Stewart. As compelled by a law of the kingdom, he was a Protestant by profession, while if he really had a preference for any form of religion, he was attached to Popery. The pure doctrines of the Protestant faith, drawn from the Holy Scriptures, have been always favorable to rational liberty, and hostile to the tyranical measures of despotic princes. Courting, and cherishing a spirit of liberal investigation, that spirit boldly adventured to examine the foundation on which civil authority rested. Arbitrary and unrighteous measures were arraigned before the tribunal of Truth and Reason. And however familiar all this may be in this age, and especially in the United States, to adventure so far in the days of the Reformation was the mark of a daring and noble spirit. The Popish religion has been always favorable to the doctrine of passive obedience, and non-resistance, where the powers that be, could be courted with success. Charles would very naturally lean towards such a religion. It favored the high prerogative which he claimed for his crown. Henrietta, his queen, was a bigotted papist, and had great influence at court, where she bestowed liberally her favors on the devotees of the Popish faith. Images, crucifixes, and all the trumpery of Rome, were re-instated in the churches, with as rapid a progress as he dared to adventure upon. Evening lectures were prohibited in the churches. Evangelical, and faithful Ministers were everywhere discountenanced, and in many instances compelled to desist from preaching. Arch-Bishop Abbot, too good a man to co-operate with the court, in these iniquitous measures, fell into disgrace, and his place was filled by Laud, who had before been made Chancellor of Oxford University. Laud not only seconded but outstripped the king in the exercise of his high prerogative, and oppression. The Arminian doctrine, hitherto considered almost the exclusive property of Jesuits, and other papists was encouraged by the king, and his primate. The doctrine of predestination, total depravity, and other Calvinistic tenets were forbidden to be heard from the pulpits. Highly offensive forms of worship, and popish ceremonies were ordered, under pain of the royal and prelatical displea

sure. A book of sports upon the Lord's day, that had been published by James VI, was reprinted by Charles, and circulated to encourage the profanation of the Sabbath. Those faithful ministers who dared to disobey the mandates of the King, or Primate, were exposed to vexatious. prosecutions, and many to ignominious punishments. For refusing to read the Book of Sports, on the Lord's day, in their congregations, as ordered by Charles and Laud, many hundreds of ministers of the gospel were fined, imprisoned, or banished. Profligacy of manners prevailed to an alarming exent. Theatres, balls, revels, &c. were attended in the most public manner, on the Sabbath. The court was distinguished in this career of wickedness. It was extravagant and profligate. The exactions on the people were grievous and insupportable. Discontents and detestation of the court prevailed among all ranks. The Parliament entered into the feelings of the people. Charles had dissolved two Parliaments, on the grounds that instead of granting the monies which he demanded, they employed themselves in seeking a redress of the grievances of the people. The finances of the crown being reduced to the greatest state of depression by the prodigality of the court, and by a disastrous war, that the king had waged against Scotland-he was obliged to call another parliament, which met in 1640. It is this parliament which has been so celebrated in the history of Great Britain, usually called the long parliament. From their first convocation, they evinced that they were not likely to be more subservient to the views of the crown, than their predecessors had been. As the most violent oppressions of the people, had been, in relation to the church, on this quarter, the Commons, as the representatives of the people, thought themselves bound to interpose for their protection. Petitions from hundreds of thousands of persons, of the conflicting religious parties, were presented to the Parliament. They besought the king to call together an assembly of the most learned and upright ministers of England, of the different denominations, to consult on the best measures for advancing the morai and religious interests of the kingdom. With this request, the king perseveringly refused to comply. At length, despairing of his concurrence, the Parliament took measures for calling one in their own name, and for that purpose they wrote letters to the knights, and burgesses, of all the counties, requesting lists of the persons best qualified. From these lists they selected one hundred and thirty one divines, to which they added ten lords and twenty commoners, with equal privileges of debating and voting. Ninety six English divines attended. A great proportion were advocates for Presbyterianism. A number of the most learned Episco palians were invited, among whom was Archbishop Usher, and Bishop Prideaux; but only a few attended, the king having declared against the convocation; and the Episcopal clergy had entirely deserted the assembly, before the covenant was brought in, so that the establishment was then left without advocates. The Independents, or Congregationalists, constituted a small number at first, but increased during the session of the assembly. Unquestionably the best talent and learning were selected to form the assembly of divines. The members of Parliament had access to the best sources of information, and they had every inducement to select the rarest talent of the kingdom. The assembly of the church. of Scotland on her part would not fail to put in requisition the best intellect at their command. The members of the Westminister assembly had generally availed themselves of all the aid which the literary instistitutions of the day could afford them. The greater part of them were men of profound erudition, men who laid under contribution all the treasures of ancient and modern literature, for the illustration of the Holy Scriptures, in the originals of which they were deeply versed. Dr. VOL. XII.

19

Twisse, the prolocutor, after having gone through the usual course of study, at Westminister school, at the age of eighteen entered Oxford college, where he prosecuted with intense application, his studies for sixteen years together, before he was licensed to preach the gospel. Here was the celebrated Dr. Lightfoot, one of the greatest oriental scholars of the age; and the learned Selden, a lay member, who by his vast skill in oriental learning, and Jewish antiquities, frequently silenced the most able divines. The names of Gataker, Greenhill, Arrowsmith, Bishops, Reynolds, and Wilkins and others, will ever be conspicuous among those who were most influential in the affairs of this venerable body. Baxter, who knew most of them says, "they were men of eminent godliness, learning, ministerial abilities, and fidelity; and being not worthy to be one of them myself, (says he) I may more fully speak the truth which I know, even in the face of malice and envy, that as far as I am able to judge by the information of history, and by any other evidence; the christian world, since the days of the Apostles, had never a Synod of more excellent divines, than this Synod, and the Synod of Dort.

As before stated, the Assembly was opened on Saturday, July 1st. 1643, with a sermon by Dr. Twisse, the prolocutor: both Houses of Parliament being present. They adjourned to Monday, when certain rules. and regulations were drawn up, and agreed on. The Assembly being now ready for business, the Parliament sent them an order to review the thirty-nine articles of the Church. More than two months were spent in debating upon the first fifteen articles, and the result was only two changes in the 9th, and 11th. In this stage they called in the aid of the Scots, who stipulated a uniformity of religion and church government between the two countries. The Scotch Commissioners were the Rev. Messrs. Alexander, Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and Robert Baillie; and ruling elders, Lord Maitland, the Earl of Lowdon, and Archibald Johnston. They were introduced into the Assembly September 15. After much debate, the solemn league and covenant, which had been drawn up in Scotland, passed the Assembly with some slight amendments; was ratified by both Houses of Parliament, and by an order, dated Sept. 21, was printed and published. It was the object of this solemn compact to remove Episcopacy, and to unite the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in defence of civil liberty, and the maintenance of the Reformed religion; taking the Kirk of Scotland, as a model of the greatest purity in doctrine, discipline and worship. About the middle of July, 1646, when the discipline of the Church had been established on a Pres byterian basis, it was moved to finish their confession of faith. The English divines would have been content with revising and explaining the doctrinal part of the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, but the Scots insisting upon framing an entirely new system, the Assembly drew up the Westminster confession; and the Parliament, after a thorough examination of the several articles, agreed to its doctrinal part and ordered it to be published June 20, 1648, for the satisfaction of the foreign churches. While the Confession of Faith was under discussion in the Assembly, committees were appointed to reduce in the form of Catechisms, one larger, for the purpose of a public expositor in the pulpit; the other smaller, for the instruction of children, in both of which, the articles relating to church discipline were omitted. The shorter catechism was presented to the House of Commons on the 5th of November, but the larger, by reason of marginal references to scriptures, which the house desired might be inserted, was not ready till the 17th of April, 1648, when the house ordered six hundred copies to be printed for the service of the members, and having examined and approved it, they allowed it to be printed by authority, for public use, Sept. 15, 1648. The chief business