if there are not overwhelming reasons for abandoning this sense in Matt. xxviii. 20, arising from the context, we must, by every rule of sound criticism, adopt it here. I come, then, now to inquire, what reasons can be adduced for not giving the phrase, avvreλeia Tov auwvos, the same meaning, in our Lord's last use of it, before his return to glory, as in his use of it on previous occasions. Several objections which have been stated, go upon the supposition, that if our Lord meant to say, "Lo, I am with you alway to the end of the world," the pronoun you must mean the eleven apostles only. Yet I think a little reflection will convince every calm inquirer that the word "you" could not possibly mean those only who heard our Lord speak, whom Matthew expressly calls 'O evdeka, the eleven. Will an objector seriously maintain that this promise, whatever it means, did not include Matthias, afterwards joined to the eleven, and Paul and others, to whom the promise most certainly was as fully, if not more fully accomplished, than to the eleven themselves. Facts compel us to admit, that the term you must mean you here present, and some others like-minded with you, whether here present or not, and I would add, all that are like-minded, whether then alive, or to live in future ages. It is further objected, that if this promise has the extended meaning for which I plead, then those to whom it is fulfilled must work miracles. But this goes on the supposition, that the presence promised by Christ consisted chiefly, if not solely, in giving power to work miracles. To work miracles, however, is, in Paul's view, (1 Cor. xiii. 2,) a small thing compared with the graces of the Holy Spirit, and I think it must be conceded that missionaries, ministers, and private Christians find it a far greater favour to have Christ with them, sympathizing in their sorrows, and making his strength perfect in their weakness, than if they had power to remove mountains. Much might be deduced from the occasion and the object of this great promise: but I must not enlarge. I have written the preceding remarks in a very hasty manner, amidst numerous engagements. I had hoped, as suggested in my former letter, that others would have fully examined what I can only hastily run over. If not satisfactory, there are those well able to supply my lack of service. Again acknowledging the candour of the objector, and thanking my helper, D. E. F., praying for a very enlarged and eminent fulfilment of Christ's promise in the sense for which I plead, to both my opponent and my assistant, and to all the ministers and churches of Christ, of every name, who love him in sincerity, I am, yours, &c. T. K. ON WEEKLY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR HOME MISSIONS. (To the Editor.) DEAR SIR,-Permit me, as a warm supporter and active friend of the Congregational Union from its commencement, to express the high gratification which I felt in attending the Assembly held at Birmingham in October. From the first, I regarded Home Evangelization as the chief purpose for which a union of the Congregational churches in England was most desirable, and I have often felt disposed to regret the postponement of any practical attempt to carry into effect this primary object. The delay, however, may have been proper to allow time for the Union to acquire some degree of firmness and consolidation. The meeting at Birmingham was a most auspicious omen of success in this new department of labour, in which I trust the whole denomination is about to engage with a zeal, energy, and vigour proportioned to its immense and paramount importance. Not only was" the pressing necessity for greatly increased exertions for the spread of the gospel in destitute localities" affirmed-not only was the vigorous prosecution of this work as "an especial duty devolving on Congregational churches" distinctly recognized-the imperative demand now made upon the Independent churches of this country, to "unite in Home Missionary efforts," was also expressly laid down as the basis of the entire plan. My object in addressing this communication to you, is to direct attention to the important subject-FUNDS. A very large amount will be required for carrying on this work, and unless some new method be devised and adopted for raising the needful supply, I am apprehensive that evangelizing operations cannot be conducted on a scale nearly commensurate with the extent and magnitude of the existing urgent demand. The late assembly declared their deliberate judgment that "the primary and especial appeal for pecuniary contributions should be made to churches ;" and my honoured friend, Rev. J. A. James, in a speech reported in your November number, (p. 758) after expressing his high approbation of this feature of the plan, whereby the support of the new Home Mission will be put upon the judgment and conscience of the churches," recommended penny a week contributions. I entirely agree with Mr. James, that this involves the true principle, but I beg leave to offer my humble opinion against any fixed amount, either as a maximum or minimum. Let every member of a church, who is not absolutely poor, be requested to contribute a weekly sum, whether larger or smaller. Our motto should be, "every one (71) according to his ability," Acts xi. 29. We are perhaps too apt to be looking on such occasions to the rich, as if they were to do all. No doubt they are bound to set an example, and to contribute largely and liberally; but let us not despise the poor and their offerings. Let " every one whose heart stirreth him up to offer willingly," (Exod. xxxv. 21-29,) be invited to contribute, "according as he purposeth in his heart," (2 Cor. ix. 7,) remembering that" if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what N. S. VOL. IV. F any one hath, and not according to what he hath not." (2 Cor. viii. 12.) Surely it is the duty of every disciple of Christ, who is not in circumstances of utter destitution, to render aid to the spread of the gospel, at home as well as abroad. That the duty of contributing a portion of " this world's good" for the temporal and spiritual welfare of others, is not confined to those who possess wealth, appears from Acts xx. 33-35; 2 Cor. viii. 1-4; Ephes. iv. 28. The scriptural precedent (whether obligatory or not) for presenting these weekly contributions on the Lord's day, has been generally, I believe, deduced from 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." I am, dear Sir, JOSHUA WILSON. Highbury Place, December 17th, 1839. THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION. INTEMPERANCE, it must be admitted, is an evil which has reached an alarming height, and, as was inevitable, has been attended by the most melancholy consequences, throughout the length and breadth of this land. Nor will it be denied that the gravest consideration of every friend of happiness and good order, and especially of every enlightened Christian, is demanded as to the plans to be adopted, and the expedients to be employed to stay the progress of this fearful enormity, and to avert the catastrophe which it manifestly threatens. It is impossible, indeed, to reflect for a moment on the debasing and ruinous tendency of habits of intemperance-on the present wretchedness and future misery to which they expose their unhappy victims, without recognising it to be one of the special provinces of christian philanthropy to endeavour to repress such habits, and to shield the population of this and every other country from their dominion. And hence it must be gratifying to every one, whom ignorance or selfishness has not rendered insensible to the claims of benevolence and the precepts of Christianity, to perceive that amid the numerous and varied questions of humanity, morals and religion, which are pressed on the attention of the British public, that of intemperance has not been overlooked-that in some instances the abandoned have been reclaimed, and that impressions have been produced among all sorts and conditions of the people, which cannot fail to issue in the happiest consequences. The extinction or abatement of any form of immorality and crime, and especially of intemperance, which not only enfeebles the body, but blasts and ruins the soul, must unquestionably awake the interest and kindle the gratitude of every one who professes to be a friend of man and a servant of God. But whilst it cannot be doubted that good has been effected by the societies which have been organized, and the efforts which are so extensively made, to arrest the progress of intemperance, it is much to be feared that the grounds on which the question has been generally advocated, the tone of crimination and uncharitableness often adopted by its friends, and the rash dereliction of christian obedience of which some have been guilty in order to attest their zeal, have tended not only to offend prejudices but to alarm principles-have provoked the direct opposition of the interested and self-indulgent, and have forbidden the active encouragement of multitudes among the best friends of temperance and sobriety. It is manifest, indeed, that, in too many instances the advocates of total abstinence, in the intensity of their zeal and eagerness to effect the speedy and triumphant extinction of a deep-seated and gigantic evil, have forgotten that vehemence and special pleading cannot achieve what belongs to the province of argument-that every combatant in a moral struggle should be distinguished by the fortiter in re and the suaviter in modo -and that attachment to any cause amounts to positive criminality, when it leads to the neglect or infringement of known and recognised duty. This may appear harsh, but, nevertheless, observation cannot fail to beget and mature in the mind of every dispassionate enquirer convictions of its truth. For, total abstinence has hitherto been defended and enforced by arguments drawn from the noxious character of alcohol, and from trivial questions in Greek and Hebrew philology rather than on moral grounds-those, who have refused to sign the pledge, have not unfrequently had their motives impeached and their honesty libelled-and, in not a few instances, the claims of prayer-meetings, Sunday-schools, and even of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, have been deemed less binding than those of Temperance Societies. Now surely, to say the least of all this, it must be acknowledged that to contend for any question chiefly on grounds which are subordinate rather than paramount, assumes an aspect of special pleading, and consequently of weakness-that to suspect the honesty and misjudge the motives of others will inevitably beget distrust, suspicion, and dislike, on the part of those who are thus unjustly dealt with-and that to postpone the claims of any distinctly defined and recognised duty, to those of any other, is almost sure to blunt the sense of obligation, and eventually to produce an incapacity to distinguish right from wrong, or good from evil. If, then, the friends of total abstinence would give birth to general confidence in the righteousness of their cause, and if they would not foster a false and ignorant zeal, which must speedily consume itself, and, perhaps, may provoke to fresh and aggravated forms of intemperance, let them principally, if not exclusively, dwell on the moral elements of the question, let them cease to impeach the motives of their neighbours, and let them beware of seeming to make the ordinances of the gospel and the duties of religion, merely supplementary to the claims and engagements which arise out of the cause of temperance. It must, indeed, be obvious to themselves, that when injudicious means, or rash and violent expedients are adopted, the end which they contemplate, however desirable and praiseworthy, must be defeated, or, at all events, must be indefinitely delayed, simply because general opinion becomes enlisted against them, either as self-conceited mountebanks, or as officious censors and public aggressors. If they would study, and endeavour to reduce to practice the beautiful philosophy contained in the fable of the sun and the wind, it cannot be doubted that fresh accessions would be duly made to their numbers, and that their cause would be crowned with triumphs to which it has hitherto been a stranger, and to which it must for ever remain such, until its friends are distinguished by more of that charity which "thinketh no evil," and less of that zeal which is destitute of knowledge, than has hitherto fallen to the lot of not a few who have gathered around the standard of total abstinence. These brief remarks are made, not in the spirit of hostility, but in that of regret, at finding a cause, which has undoubtedly originated in benevolence, and is destined hereafter to expand into something commanding and efficient, crippled and encumbered by the ignorance, rashness, and extravagance of many who profess to be its friends. Nor will they have been made in vain, should they, in the remotest degree, lead to the exercise of more of the wisdom of the serpent combined with the harmlessness of the dove, on the part of the friends of temperance, and thus tend to give stability to the plans, and secure certain, if not rapid, success to the operations of a Society whose great principles are evidently in accordance with the genius and design of the gospel. C. DR. PAYNE ON THE NEGLECT OF OUR DENOMINATIONAL PRINCIPLES. (To the Editor.) I OBSERVED in your last Magazine, in a letter from one of your correspondents, a sentence, at p. 804, which astonished and grieved me not a little. "Dr. Payne's proposal," says the writer of that letter, "for a new Magazine, should never be listened to for a moment, while yours is capable of such ready adaptation to all that is required." I scarcely need say to you, that no proposal of the kind was ever made by me; and, I may add, none such was ever thought of by me. I heartily join with E. D. L. in the mortification he expresses, that so many of our pastors who ought to encourage the Magazine, personally and officially, do not. It is, in my opinion, well deserving of the general support of our denomination; and, if it be not extensively supported, (of the exact state of the case I am ignorant,) the blame rests on us, not on the Magazine. My convictions deepen every day, that we have not been faithful to our denominational principles, or rather, to the word of truth on the authority of which we profess to hold them; and that, on this account, we enjoy less of the approbation and blessing of our Divine Master than would otherwise have been the case. We do not yield full obedience to Christ by preaching the gospel merely. He commands us, in addition to this, to teach the "all things" which he has commanded. I cannot deem any man faithful to Christ, who allows |