ther is this precluded by sacramental communion with any who, even though they may be considered as giving countenance to those sins, are yet to be regarded as members of Christ. The apostle Paul did not think himself precluded from an open testimony against the sins of the Corinthian Christians-their party strifes, their litigious spirit, and their profanation of the sacred supper, because at the same time he acknowledged them to be "a church of God, sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints." Nor did the Lord Jesus Christ forbear to testify against the sins of the seven churches of Asia, nor to call on all who had ears to hear what the spirit said to those churches, because he walked among them as the golden candlesticks of his spiritual temple. And what minister of Christ is there who reproves the church of his care with the less freedom or boldness, because he glorifies God for the grace that is conferred upon it?

There is indeed a way of testifying against sin, which the conscience of no man, that is not past feeling, can permit him to employ with those whom he admits to an interchange of the sacramental pledges of christian affection. Brethren cannot go from the table of the Lord to brand each other with names and epithets which belong to the vilest of men. Herein lies the moral power-the restraining-the divinely blessed influence of the ordinance on those who seriously observe it. And if there are any who would cast out their brethren for the very purpose of feeling themselves at liberty in this manner to judge them, let them first judge their own selves, and solemnly inquire whether no spirit of vindictiveness has unconsciously mingled itself with their zeal against sin.

An argument has been extensively circulated asserting that by the authority of the apostle Paul, slave-holders are expressly excluded from the Lord's supper, as "extortioners :"-enjoining on us, as he does 1 Cor. 5: 11, "if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, not to keep company, no, not to eat." It should be considered that in close connection with this injunction 1 Cor. 6: 9, 10, the apostle declares concerning the very same class of persons, "fornicators, idolaters, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, and others, that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The argument, then, whether sound or otherwise, makes nothing against our position. That we are to join in sacramental communion with any whom the Bible declares specifically to have

no inheritance in the kingdom of God, certainly is not pretended. But it has been generally conceded on all hands that there are slave-holders whose christian character is not to be questioned. It has been avowedly with the hope of first disenthralling their minds of the perverting influence of the system, and by their means reforming public sentiment around them, that the anti-slavery enterprize has been carried forward. Whether wisely or not, this is not the place to show. It is only with a view to their bearing on a fundamental principle of the church of God, that these remarks are made. There are, then, slave-holders who are not "extortioners," in the sense of the declaration that "extortioners shall not inherit the kingdom of God." For the same reason there are those who are not extortioners in the sense of the injunction," with such not to keep company, no, not to eat." It is true that to take advantage of another's weakness to wrest from him his due, whether by slavery or in any other way, and even the desire of doing this, is, in the sight of God, of the nature of extortion. So also is the harboring of impure desire, adultery-and hankering for that which is another's, covetousness; and inordinate love for the world, idolatry-and the unkind application of any opprobrious epithet to another, reviling. But if all those who are chargeable before God with sins of this nature, of whatever degree or form, may therefore be properly characterized as "fornicators, covetous, idolaters, revilers, and extortioners," whom can we know to be those with whom in the sacred supper of the Lord, we may eat?—who would dare himself to partake in that ordinance? who, indeed, could be saved? Surely it becomes those who on such grounds assume the authority of shutting away acknowledged brethren from the ordinance, to inquire whether there are not "with them also sins against the Lord."

The spiritual power with which Christ has armed his church is high and awful. As the means in the last resort of softening and reclaiming, when duly exercised, it has no parallel on earth. Many, however, seem to forget that its efficacy depends entirely on its harmonizing with the conscience of the transgressor. Responded to there, it comes as the voice of God to the soul, by the organ which he has expressly instituted, to be confirmed, unless repentance intervene, by a corresponding sentence, at the last day. But when the censure falls on those who are sustained by the consciousness of integrity, and more especially if they are also fortified by the approving sentiments of the com

munity or a respectable portion of the community around them; when the voice is regarded not as the voice of God, or of his appointed organ, but only of a party and is opposed by a contrary decision equally claiming a divine sanction, how much worse than powerless it becomes! As it confessedly carries no argument, so it is regarded only as a perversion of authority. It has no tendency to convince, and can have no influence but to excite prejudice and provoke disgust. As a public testimony also it is contemptible in its weakness; while it presents the church in an attitude by which supremely God is dishonored, his enemies triumph, and his friends are forced to retire and weep, disheartened, wounded, enfeebled. O when will these things cease? When shall "the envy of Ephraim depart, and the adversaries of Judah be cut off; that Ephraim shall not envy Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim ?" When will the followers of "the martyred Lamb" learn that to testify against sin, they have no need to thrust out the sinner;-that to pronounce a man criminal, is not of course to pronounce him unfit for the communion of the faithful; that the church of God is one; the common refuge and home of the Jew and the Gentile; the bond and the free; the strong and the weak; the enlightened and the ignorant; all of every nation, class and character who call upon the name of Jesus Christ in sincerity; and that its essential bond is love, pure, fervent, unfeigned; love surmounting all distinctions of nation, color, caste, rank, and sect; love prevailing over all errors, mistakes and infirmities among those who feel its power; constraining them to cover each other's imperfections, bear with each other's wrongs, befriend one another in trials, be careful of each other's reputation and feelings, deny themselves to do each other good, and labor, pray and suffer together, to promote the common end of all, the glory of God, in the salvation of souls, with the hope of standing together at last before the throne of glory, and there with perfect union of heart and voice, saying "Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb."

ARTICLE II.

EVIDENCE OF TESTIMONY.

By the Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D. Bangor Theological Seminary, Maine.

The evidence of testimony is that species of evidence which is derived, not from intuition, or reflection, or originally from the senses, but from the communications of others. A moment's consideration will satisfy every reader as to the vast importance of this species of evidence. Our own personal observation is circumscribed within narrow limits. Few comparatively are the important facts with which we become acquainted in this way. Almost all our knowledge-those branches of it especially on which we set the highest value, are the result of testimony.

It is testimony, not personal observation, which opens to us the lights of history, and makes us acquainted with what has been transacted in other times, and in distant portions of the globe.

Our geographical knowledge is almost all of it acquired in the same way. We have not personally traversed the surface of the earth, to observe its mountains, its rivers, its islands, plains, and seas; and what we know of it, for the most part, we receive from others.

The same must be said of by far the greater part of our philosophical knowledge. How few have actually searched out and demonstrated the truth of those propositions, which are laid down in our books of natural science. We satisfy ourselves as to the competency and accuracy of those who have investigated these subjects, and take their conclusions upon trust.

Indeed, most of the important business of life-of professional life, and of common life-proceeds upon the evidence of testimony. That system of religion which the christian minister is called upon to inculcate and enforce, rests very materially on testimony. A large proportion of the labor of the jurist consists in weighing and canvassing testimony, and in framing his decisions according to it. The merchant freights his ships, and sends them across the ocean to lands he never saw, and of which he has no knowledge, but from testimony. In short, all men

act, habitually, more or less on this species of evidence; and they feel as secure in acting on it, as they do on the evidence of their senses.

It has been urged by Hume, and others, that our reliance on testimony is wholly the result of experience. We hear those around us, for the most part, speaking the truth, and we learn, at length, to believe them, and confide in them. But this, obviously, is an inadequate view of the subject. We do not learn to believe testimony, in the manner here described. Were this the case, children and persons of little experience would believe almost nothing. Whereas, in fact, they believe almost everything. They are proverbially credulous, until experience of the falsehood and treachery of the world has taught them to hesitate. We learn from experience, not to believe, but to doubt; not to confide in testimony, but to suspect it.

The foundation of our reliance on testimony is laid deep in our own nature. It is too important to us to be laid anywhere else. We as naturally confide in well authenticated testimony, as we do in our memories, or in our external senses. Nor is our confidence in the former source of knowledge more easily shaken, than in the two latter sources. Our senses sometimes deceive us, and so do our memories, and so does the evidence of testimony; but we do not, on this account, throw either of them away, or reckon them of no value. Our experience of the fallibility of these great sources of knowledge-these lights of the soul-should only lead us the more carefully to look after them, to investigate their nature and laws, that we may the better determine when to confide in them, and when not.

My principal object, in this paper, is to state and illustrate some of the laws of testimony; or to specify the conditions, the circumstances, under which the evidence of testimony is conclusive. And,

1. In order that testimony may be admitted, the thing testified to must be possible. This is too obvious almost to require notice. No amount of testimony can justify us in believing an impossibility. We may be required to believe a strange thing, a marvellous thing, a thing to our apprehension supernatural and unaccountable; but it must at least be a possible thing; -a thing involving, in the idea of it, no palpable contradiction or absurdity. Otherwise, no testimony, however unexceptionable in other respects, can justify us in believing it.

This point is pleasantly illustrated by President Edwards.