on the subject. 4. By answering some particular arguments and objections of my opponent.

1. Let us endeavour clearly to state the point, or subject in debate, which, in every controversy, is of the first importance. It is not, as I understand it—whether a man who performs good actions with bad motives, is entitled to any reward? Neither side supposes this. In the sight of the heart-searching God nothing is done rightly, the motive to which is not right; and therefore, no reward, either great or small, will be conferred on him whose actions are good, if so they be called, while his motives or intentions are vile. Again: It is not held by either side, that pure motives, accompanied with zeal and diligence in duty, will in any case fail of a suitable reward. My opponent seems desirous to inculcate the idea that the faithful service of of God will, in all cases, be rewarded graciously, adequately, and fully; and I advert to the fact to show that I understand and recollect that he has made this statement. But the point in controversy is distinctly this: That, other things being equal, something more will be awarded to him who is successful than to him who is not. So that take two persons whose purity of views and whose vigorous and persevering exertions to promote the gospel, are supposed to be exactly the same, but the one successful, and the other not; then, he who is successful will have a higher reward than he who is not. This is what my opponent affirms, and what I deny. I deny that in the case supposed the reward will be unequal, but maintain, that it must be perfectly the same; and consequently that it will not depend more or less upon success, but entirely on other considerations and causes, and will be meted out according to "the sincerity, the strength, and the constancy of our exertions."

2. The principles of natural reason and equity, confirmed by the general scope of revelation, are, in my apprehension, decisively in favour of the opinion which I advocate. That mortals cannot command success, is a maxim confirmed explicitly by scripture." I returned," says Solomon," and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." "I have planted," says Paul," Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth but God that giveth the increase." If then the best dispositions and most judicious, able and persevering efforts, will not ensure success, and yet re

ward is in any measure made to depend upon it, in that very measure, it will depend on something with which our personal qualities, character, and exertions have nothing to do. Now, I think that reward thus conferred is, to the apprehension of our natural reason and sense of equity, bestowed capriciously, wantonly, arbitrarily, and unjustly. Or rather, indeed, what is so conferred cannot properly be called reward at all. It is something bestowed for nothing. The success was nothing that was properly produced by him to whom it fell to be successful. Before success crowned his labours, and when it crowned them, he was, by the supposition, in possession of no one internal, inherent, or personal excellence, to which his brother could not make as fair and full a claim as himself. And yet for the event of success, with which the personal agency of the one had no more to do than that of the other; which depended on a power exterior, and equally and perfectly beyond them both, the one is to receive a reward, and the other not. He who was not successful, might as properly have been so as he who was; and he who was, had no more to do with it, than he who was not; yet the one receives as a reward what is denied to the other. If our natural reason and sense of equity do not pronounce this procedure to be unjust, I can scarcely conceive a case, in which they would give such a sentence.

It is readily admitted, that among men it is usually success rather than desert, which receives a reward. But it is believed, that this always proceeds from ignorance or injustice, or from both united. To show that such is the fact, let us suppose the following case. A father has two sons, to whom he assigns a service to be done for himself, with the expectation on their part of a just remuneration for what they shall do. The service is performed, and the father admits, that the one son has been just as capable, faithful, and persevering, as the other; but the one has been more successful than the other; I put it to my opponent whether the father, in these circumstances, ought to remunerate the successful child more than his brother: whether, if he did, the child who received the less reward would not think, and every equitable person think with him, that a hard, unjust, and cruel award had been made. On the contrary, suppose the father to say to the unsuccessful son, "You have not been a❤ much favoured in the event of your exertions as your brother; but this was no fault of your's; you did in all respects as well as he, and therefore I reward you equally with him." Would not all impartial persons, would not the successful child himself, if

he possessed a proper temper, approve and commend this as an equitable decision?

In reply to all this, however, it is probable that my opponent will be ready to remark, that the apostle Paul declares, that he "obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful," and that the scope of scripture manifestly shows, that fidelity in the gospel ministry is as much the gift of God as success itself; and that if he reward his own gift of fidelity, he may also reward his own gift of success: this is certainly specious; and yet, if I mistake not, it is no more than specious; it is not solid and conclusive. To demonstrate this, let it be carefully observed, that in whatever way fidelity is obtained, it is, when obtained, a personal possession, á personal quality, a personal excellence, and as such precisely it is viewed and treated, when it becomes the subject of reward. But success is never a personal possession, a personal quality, a personal excellence, and therefore differs essentially from the other; and cannot be the subject of reward. Fidelity, howsoever obtained, is a christian grace. But success is no christian grace. It always remains simply a gift or act of God. In a word, fidelity is man's, success is God's. This distinction is most pointedly and clearly kept up by the apostle Paul in the passage already quoted: "I have planted, Appollos watered, but God gave the increase." Here planting and watering are recognised as the acts of man, the increase or success is stated, and in the way of contradistinction, to be simply the act or gift of God. And the same idea is repeated and fortified in what follows: "So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase." That is, in the matter of success man has no immediate agency, no personal propriety, he is, and always remains, absolutely nothing. God is here to be considered as acting by himself; he and he only has to do with success. To say, therefore, that success will be rewarded, is to say, that man will receive a reward from God for one of his own acts. No one can more sincerely believe than I do that the entire reward of every believer will be of grace. It will be in virtue of his union with the Saviour as the meritorious cause; a union produced by the sovereign grace of God conferred upon him; and every grace that shall be rewarded is entirely the divine gift. Still, however, it is a gift that has had an effect in making the believer possess a personal character and excellence, and in making him active in his Saviour's cause. This, I apprehend, is to decide the measure of his reward. Such is the determination of God, and such the dictate of equity. For to apportion reward in any measure or de

gree, without regard to personal character and excellence, is, as far as I can see, an act that must always appear to us arbitrary, capricious, and unjust; and since success is, in no measure or degree, a man's personal character or excellence, it can, in no mea sure or degree, be the subject of reward.

BUNYAN'S COMMENDATION OF WOMEN.

GAIUS, also proceeded and said:

"I will now speak on the behalf of Women to take away their reproach. For as death and the curse came into the world by a woman so did also life and health. God sent forth his son made of a woman.' Yea, to shew how much those that came after did abhor the act of the mother, this sex in the old Testament coveted children, if haply, this or that woman might be the mother of the Saviour of the world. I will say again, that when the Saviour was come women rejoiced in him before either man or angel. I READ NOT, EVER MAN DID GIVE UNTO CHRIST SO MUCH AS ONE GROAT; but the women followed him and ministered unto him of their substance.' It was a woman that washed his feet with her tears and a women that anointed his body to the burial. They were women that wept when he was going to the cross, and woman that followed him from the cross, and sat by the sepulchre when he was buried. They were women that were first with him at his resurrection morn, and women that brought tidings first to his disciples that he was risen from the dead; women therefore are highly favoured and are sharers with us in the grace of life."

ANECDOTE OF THE REV. JOHN ELIOT.

THE ardent zeal, and heroic fortitude, so commendable in a missionary, are finely illustrated in the character of the Rev. John Eliot, the apostle of the American Indians. In his attempts to christianize the Indians, soon after the first settlement of NewEngland, he met with great opposition from the sachems, who feared that the christian religion would deprive them of that tyranny they exercised over their people. Mr. Eliot, in the wilderness, remote from the society or aid of the white people, was often treated in a very rough and threatening manner by the sachems. But he boldly told them, "I am about the work of the great God; and my God is with me; so that I fear neither you, nor all the sachems in the country? I'll go on, and do you touch me if you dare!" Upon this, says the historian, the stoutest of them have shrunk before him.

RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.