" In the mouth of two or three witness shall every I word be established," says the apostle. (2 Cor. 13:1:) This is in accord with the injunction of our blessed Lord, when He said, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." (Matt. xviii 16.) This is the well-known rule of the law also:"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deut. 19:15.) In this connection see also Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; John 8:17; i Tim. 5:19; and Heb. 10:28. The reason for this wise provision is manifest, guarding, as it does, not only against false witness, but also against the mistakes of those who do not intentionally testify contrary to truth. To some degree, and in some cases, the rule is found in modern jurisprudence; but, the legal systems of men not being framed on a spiritual basis, nor intended to be administered in accordance with the scriptural exhortations to charity (i Pet. 4:8; i Cor. 16:14), the testimony of two witnesses is not, as a general thing, required. If, however, we see that the practical effect of insisting that every word shall be established "in the mouth of two or three witnesses," in our intercourse with our brethren, will be to promote the proper exercise of charity (Prov. 10:12), we will not be averse to the undoubted scriptural rule being enforced in our consciences with all its strictness. The observance of this rule will tend to make us far less ready to believe the latest breath of gossip, and certainly very unwilling to pass along an unsubstantiated report.

But one exception to the teaching of Scripture, as above stated, has ever been urged, the alleged exception being based on i Cor. 5:1:" It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you." It is thought by some that the apostle Paul accepted the "common report," referred to in the passage just quoted, as the basis of the judgment expressed by him in verse three, where he says, "For I, verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed." In other words, in their view, Paul accepted "common report" in lieu of the testimony of two or three witnesses, as required by the law, the Lord, and the apostle himself in his second epistle to this same church. They overlook the fact that such a view imports a con-tradition into Scripture, when, as we know, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." (i Cor. 14:33.) This view makes i Cor. 5:i, bear too heavy a burden; it is thereby made to mean too much.

In the first place, the Revised Version so changes the translation of i Cor. 5:i, as to divest it of even any apparent sanction of this unscriptural view. The rendering of the R. V. is, "It is actually reported," etc.

In the second place, it is preposterous to suppose that this same apostle would write to this same church (2 Cor. 13:i), saying, " In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," if he himself had not had, in conformity with the law, (which he knew) and the words of Christ, the testimony of two or three witnesses prior to forming his personal judgment "concerning him that hath so done this deed." (i Cor. 5:3.) Paul was at Ephesus when he wrote this epistle (i Cor. 16:8, 9,) and Ephesus was not so far from Corinth that it is unlikely Paul personally had the testimony of, at least, two witnesses; in fact, it is in every way highly probable that he did have that testimony, especially in view of 2 Cor. 13:1:
In the third place, to make "common report" a test of truth, a ground of belief, as is done by the adherents of the view under consideration, in the place of the "two or three witnesses " in whose mouth "every word shall be established," proves entirely too much for their purpose. It would equally prove that our blessed Lord's disciples "came by night and stole Him away while " the guard "slept" (Matt, 28:13 and 15.) This is important. The "evil report" against Paul (2 Cor. 6:8) was undoubtedly false, and we know that the "slanderous report" (Rom. 3:8) was undeniably so.

In the fourth place, to make assurance doubly sure, the word of God even gives the names of the witnesses whose testimony Paul had, besides mentioning a "letter" which the church at Corinth wrote to Paul, which undoubtedly, afforded him written evidence of the fact. Paul had labored in Corinth for "a good while" over "a year and six months" (Acts 18:11, 18), that church being the fruit of his labors. After his departure for Ephesus (vers. 18,19), the church had fallen into a very low spiritual condition ; they became " carnal," says the apostle, (i Cor. 3:1:) They greatly needed the instruction of the apostle in regard to a variety of matters; and, therefore, they wrote unto him. (i Cor. 7:1:) As we see from the seventh chapter, this letter referred to a matter akin to that treated of in chapter five of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians; in fact, it must have referred to the very fact itself of sin in their midst, thus giving the distinct and definite testimony of the church in regard to the reality of the fact. This letter was conveyed to Paul, at Ephesus (Acts 19:i; i Cor. 16:8,19), by three of the brethren from Corinth, whose names were Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (i Cor. 16:17, and cf. i Cor. 1:ii, and chap. 11:18. In i Cor. 16:17, Paul says, "I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied." That this means that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus came to Paul from Corinth, there can be no doubt; otherwise, there would have been no occasion for mentioning their coming. This view is, however, verified beyond cavil by i Cor. 1:16, which refers to Stephanas by name as one of the Corinthian saints, whose household Paul had baptized, and i Cor. 16:15, which tells us that the house of Stephanas was '' the first-fruits of Achaia" (the Roman proconsular province where Corinth was situated. Moreover, the name of one of the brethren named with Stephanas is Achaicus, which name means "an Achaian"-1:e., a native of Achaia (Greece). Thus Paul undeniably had the testimony of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and also a letter from the church of Corinth on the subject, regarding which he expresses His judgment in i Cor. 5:3.

In addition to this testimony which Paul undeniably had, it is highly probable that he had also the testimony of Apollos. An examination of Acts 18:24, 27; 19:i, and i Cor. 3:6, will show that Apollos succeeded Paul in ministering in the Word at Corinth. " I have planted, Apollos watered," is very plain on this point. In i Cor. 16:12, at the time Paul was writing to the Corinthians, we find Apollos with Paul at Ephesus. Apollos was, undoubtedly, able to confirm the testimony of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and the letter from the church at Corinth. So, it seems to be established, in an irrefragable manner, that, so far from receiving "common report" in lieu of the testimony of "two or three witnesses," Paul unquestionably had more than the required proof, viz., certainly the testimony of three witnesses and a written statement, and probably the testimony of a fourth witness, besides.* *In addition to what has been said, the shameless publicity of the whole matter made it universally known. It was trifled with apparently by the entire assembly. At least, there was no brokenness and humiliation. [ED.]*

Daily experience confirms to us the truth of Cicero's remark, that '' there is nothing which wings its flight so swiftly as calumny, nothing which is uttered with more ease; nothing is listened to with more readiness, nothing dispersed more widely." But is it conduct "as becometh saints "to indulge in this, the world's favorite pastime ? Or is it not rather the case that the mere requirement that every word shall be established '' in the mouth of two or three witnesses " will, if acted out, effectually prevent the repetition of many choice morsels of gossip !

Let us weigh well, and endeavor to practice, this apostolic injunction, "In the mouth of two or three
witnesses shall every word be established." Let us "speak the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15), avoiding "backbitings" and "whisperings," which render saints not such as an apostle would desire. (2 Cor. 12:20.) H. K. W.