in comparison with that eternity of ineffable happiness enjoyed by the immortal spirits of the higher spheres? Yet Mr. Harbaugh, with the simplicity of blind faith, quotes this without perceiving how meagre is the gospel evidence thus afforded of the joys awaiting the faithful as a reward for their good conduct in this life. 744. The following remarks, made by Mr. Harbaugh, demonstrate how partial sectarians are in reading Scripture: “_What shall we have therefor? This is a question that frequently arises in the Christian’s mind, as he endeavours to cheer his ofttimes drooping spirits with a look toward the recompense of reward. What shall we have? We have left all for thee, and by following thee we have confessed that we are pilgrims and strangers upon earth. In this world we shall have tribulation; but thou didst overcome the world; what shall those have who overcame with thee?_” Harbaugh remarks: “_Here then is curiosity which the Saviour himself approves, because he satisfies it. The same pious curiosity still manifests itself in the minds of God’s people in their holiest hours, and shall there be nothing revealed to satisfy them? Yes, God will approve of such inquiries, and will grant the influence of that Spirit, who leads unto all truth to all those who search the Scripture for an answer._” Drawing an eloquent picture of the aspirations of the soul for some realization of the vague ideas of the rewards of the faithful in a future state of existence, he exults that this _curiosity_, as he calls it, should be sanctioned by Christ, “who approves this curiosity because he satisfies it.” How does he satisfy it? Is it by holding up the hope of a judgeship for each? It seems it was not then foreseen that instead of performing the part of the Jewish Messiah, with which he thus identified himself, that of gathering together the _chosen_ people of God, he was to put forth opinions which were to scatter them through the world. “Wo unto you, Chorazin,” &c., for the heinous offence of not admitting him to be both the Messiah and the Son of God. The promise of the judgeships was quite consistent with the former character, and strengthens the idea that he never pretended to any higher mission. With this the promise in question is consistent, but is wholly irreconcilable with his divinity, which would make these judgeships worse than giving a stone for bread or a serpent for a fish. In order to have bestowed these judgeships, the Roman empire must have been subverted. It seems that if (as stated by the worthy Mr. Harbaugh) _the curiosity of the disciples was truly and correctly satisfied_, that this satisfaction was the sum total of the heaven with which they were remunerated; since not the slightest hint is given that they were, like the penitent thief, to be with their object of devotion in paradise. It would seem, on the whole, that the rewards of the thief and the beggar Lazarus were of a