respectable private houses. Now, in such circumstances, it is almost invariably to be seen that the non-smoker drinks far more wine than the smoker. In like manner, the proprietors of inns know full well that a respectable party of non-smokers will always drink more wine than a respectable party of smokers; and, on this account, the former are always the more acceptable guests. But these facts are not the only, nor the most cogent evidence to show that smoking is an antagonist of drinking. In the genuine smoker (a very different person from the tippler who happens to smoke) the use of tobacco, instead of creating thirst, produces moisture. The man who does not smoke what is called a dry pipe, is unacquainted with the rich stores of enjoyment which the bounty of the Creator has deposited in the calumniated work of his hands. The genuine smoker though after smoking, he may, now and then, take a glass of wine to acknowledge the hospitality of his friend, is always reluctant to exchange the relish of his pipe for the more earthly flavour of sherry or port. The genuine smoker is, of all men, the most unearthly and temperate. He is temperate both in meats and drinks; a combination too rarely to be found; and provided he is also temperate in smoking, (which a strictly conscientious man must be,) he is "temperate in all things."

I defend smoking, because it is highly favourable to the habitual thoughtfulness, which Christians, and especially Christian ministers, are under a solemn obligation to cherish. This, it is true, is an argument of which the party condemned is the only adequate judge. But surely the fact, that a large number of the holiest, the most cultivated, the most powerful, and the most acute minds that have ever adorned and blessed the world, have resided in men who were strongly attached to the calumniated habit, may be accepted as a proof, that, in such persons, there was a connexion between smoking and thinking. When it is considered how many of the best and of the ablest men have employed smoking as an aid to reflection, there can be no doubt that a large number of the thoughts which have enriched and blessed our race, have originated in moments which have been spent in this calumniated practice.

I defend smoking, because it is conducive to my own health and the health of my family. A healthy smoker of more than thirty years' continuance can smile at Mr. Jay's "powerful narcotic poison." Happily, the poisoned saliva has done me no harm, though I usually give no offence to others by discharging it. But though my general health is good, I am subject to a confirmed, an hereditary asthma, which, but for the use of daily, and especially of Sabbatic smoking, would long since, in all probability, have laid me aside as "a broken vessel." It is true, I may expend in the purchase of smoking materials about a fourth part of the sum which Mr. Jay speaks of as the cost of the reprobated practice, (an amount amply sufficient for a moderate man,) but to view the matter in its lowest aspect, I have saved far more than the cost, in 2 Y

N. S. VOL. VII.

the anti-pestilential effects, in my family, of the calumniated habit. The most virulent diseases have raged around, they have come nigh, but have never entered into my dwelling. I understand, though I do not vouch for it as a fact, that if a fever enters into the house of a domestic smoker, it is rarely, if ever fatal. So far as my own observation extends, this remark has been confirmed.

I defend smoking, because it tends to calm the irritation, and to soften the asperities of advancing years. I am sensible, that, without better aids, old age is likely to be irksome to the individual, and troublesome to others. But it is an unquestionable fact that smoking tends to allay mental irritation; a fact which, in a world like ours, might have secured the practice from the enmity it has encountered. This tendency to allay mental irritation commends the practice to advancing years, and cæteris paribus, I have usually found the old man who indulges his pipe a far more placid being than he who goes without it. Now, sir, as I see the terminus of middle life at no great distance before me, and as I wish the stage from old age to death should be as little irksome to myself, and as little troublesome to others, as the case will admit, I shall fill my pipe again, and do trust only to relinquish this pure enjoyment of earth, when called to taste the purer enjoyments of heaven.

I intended to say more, but I have said enough. I have no expectation that I have destroyed prejudice, or even abated it, where prejudice is violent. But I have done what I intended to do. I have shown that one Christian may be as conscientious in continuing the reprobated practice, as another may be in refraining from it. I had much rather that my conduct should be approved by my fellow Christians than condemned; but if I cannot secure that approbation, "with me it is a very small thing, that I should be condemned by human judgment, because I do not condemn myself."*

Allow me, in conclusion, kindly and respectfully, but earnestly to protest against the intolerance of the extract. Popery is the error of the day, and intolerance is one of the worst features of popery,—a feature which often discovers itself in them who abjure the other parts of the system. Mr. Payton's letter discloses the melancholy fact, that among the Independents, there is, at least, one minister and one church so destitute, not only of sobriety and good sense, but of all just views of religious liberty, as to regard "the tasting of a glass of wine a sufficient sin to disqualify for membership." Let good men have their opinions, yes, and their prejudices, if they will; but let them not utter those opinions and those prejudices with a "Thus saith the Lord;" let them not attempt to bind hand and foot Christ's free disciples. Let none cry "restraint," where he has left liberty; or the inevitable consequence will be, that some will cry "liberty," where he has imposed restraint. I am, dear Sir, yours, J. M.

* 1 Cor. iv. 3.-Macknight's Translation.

THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION AS IT AFFECTS THE
CHURCHES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.

DEAR SIR,—I am not sorry that Mr. Payton has brought this subject before your readers. The importance of the object at which the temperance "movement" aims; the great and growing number of Christians who join in this movement; the vast amount of good which it has already achieved; the vastly greater good which its friends believe would be effected, if Christians generally would unite in it; and the incidental evils which in some instances, as appears from Mr. Payton's letter, have resulted from it, combine to give it a claim on the serious consideration of every philanthropist and especially of every Christian. Yet I fear that it will be difficult to do justice to the subject without being prolix, and in this controversy, as in every other, there is danger of angry words being used, and angry feelings excited. I, for one, however, will endeavour to avoid both prolixity and asperity. For this reason I shall touch but lightly on some expressions in Mr. Payton's letter, which I will hope he would not have used had he been better acquainted with the "movement," and with those who take part in it.

While, for the sake of brevity, I wish to avoid entering on the general subject, I must be allowed to state the grounds on which I abstain from the use of strong drink, because I cannot otherwise satisfactorily answer the questions which Mr. Payton asks. The reason, then, of my total abstinence is not the supposition that the drinking of a glass of wine is in itself a wicked act. My general principle is, that I ought to do good to others in every way that is not injurious to myself. The suppression of intemperance is a great good, and I find that with regard to many thousands of persons, the best security for temperance is abstinence, because, like Dr. Samuel Johnson, "if they take a little they will take much." Abstinence may be difficult to them, especially at first, but temperance is much more difficult. I find, moreover, that the greater the number of persons, and especially of persons of good reputation, who abstain from strong drink, the greater is the likelihood of those persons abstaining, for whose temperance abstinence is requisite. As to myself, I find, as the result of uninterrupted experience of seven years, that total abstinence from strong drink injures me neither in health, nor in religious feelings, nor in the enjoyment of life, nor in property, nor in reputation, while, in some of these respects, it is decidedly advantageous. Since, then, I can thus do good without injuring myself, a sense of duty compels me to persevere. But when I consider the question of duty in reference to others, I perceive it to be right to distinguish between the general principle

on which I proceed, and the application of the principle in this particular case. No Christian will deny the justness of the principle, but I have no right to unchristianize a man because he does not agree with me in this application of the principle. Here, then, are two considerations which induce me, total abstainer as I am, to take a small portion of the wine used in the Lord's supper, by the church with which I communicate, notwithstanding that it contains some alcohol; namely, first, my not deeming the taking of such wine to be unlawful, and, secondly, my deeming it to be expedient, as the only practicable means, at present, of having full communion with the church. But there are total abstainers who view the matter differently; and, although Mr. Payton does not appear to think it necessary to be much concerned about their conscientious scruples, I cannot read the fourteenth chapter to the Romans without feeling assured that such persons have a strong claim on our sympathizing regard. The question before us (for I deem it right to view the subject rather more comprehensively than Mr. Payton purposes to do,) is whether a plan can be devised by which the peace of the church may be secured, and at the same time the consciences of these "weak" brethren may not be wounded. I ask, then, what should hinder the use of unfermented wine in the Lord's supper? Does any one imagine that such wine, for instance, as Pharaoh's butler prepared for his master would not deserve to be called "the fruit of the vine," full as much as the purple mixture, miscalled Port wine, which is frequently used? Is there not strong grounds for believing that Pharaoh's wine was much more like that which the Jews used in the passover, and which, consequently, our Lord used on instituting the supper, than what our wine merchants commonly sell? But, in answer to my question, Why should not this primitive wine be used? it may be replied, Because British Christians generally have such prepossessions in favour of other wine, that their feelings would be outraged by the use, at present, of unfermented wine. Granted; and for this reason I have made no effort to bring such wine into use in the church with which I am connected; but the wine we use is as weak as is deemed compatible with the feelings of the communicants generally; and where there are individual members of a church who object to the use of strong drink at the Lord's table, I conceive it would be well for the officers of the church to converse with them, and see if it may not be practicable to meet their wishes by some alteration in the wine used, without outraging the feelings of the other communicants. But suppose that the case cannot be thus met, and that an individual should still refuse to partake of the cup, what shall be done? Shall he, after due expostulation, be excluded? I think not. Were he to attempt to "cause divisions," the case would be different; though even then the question would deserve consideration, whether the originators of the "heresy" were not the other party, who refused

to make concessions which might have relieved his conscience without injuring their consciences. Allowing, however, for the sake of argument, that the church would be justified in ejecting the man in question, provided he were "causing divisions," my opinion is that if he be a peaceable and in other respects a consistent Christian, he ought not to be excluded merely for refusing to take the cup. I am of opinion that the Lord's supper itself, though one of the chief acts of Christian fellowship, is not absolutely essential to that fellowship. If it be, what shall be said of those church members who, for ten years together, are prevented by illness from sitting down at the Lord's table? While I believe that both baptism and the Lord's supper should be celebrated, I consider neither of them to be indispensable conditions of church fellowship, for the simple reason, that neither of them is essential to personal piety; supposing, of course, the individual, who has never been baptized, and who declines receiving the Lord's supper, to be apparently influenced by such considerations as are compatible with his believing on Christ and submitting to him. But, even if I regarded the celebration of the Lord's supper to be essential, generally, to church fellowship, I should hesitate to vote, under the circumstances supposed, for the expulsion of a member for his refusing to drink of the cup. I would rather recommend mutual forbearance both to him and to those who differ from him, and that each party should use all practicable means both for becoming enlightened and for enlightening the other. I am, dear Sir, yours sincerely,

Stroud, April 13th, 1843.

JOHN BURDER.

STRICTURES ON THE "VINDICATION OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF ACTS XIII. 48."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.

SIR,-For some time past I have turned attention to various controverted passages of Scripture, and among the rest to Acts xiii. 48, "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Knowing that the above passage would occur in my ordinary course of pulpit duties, I devoted the week previous to the study of the chapter, but especially to the above passage. I was dissatisfied with the "authorized version," as it did not seem to harmonize with the design of the apostle's discourse. Between the interval of making up my own mind, and entering the pulpit, I incidentally took up the "Congregational Magazine for January, and saw, "A Vindication of the Authorized Version of Acts xiii. 48," which I read with avidity, but was disappointed. The vindication of your respected correspondent seemed to betray the trammels of system, the result of theorizing, and special pleading for a passage of doubtful import in support of a truth so