character denoted by that name, even though he should do nothing contrary to his duty of allegiance, -if he yet is actuated by no feelings of loyalty, nor has any respect, in his conduct, to the supreme authority under whose dominion he lives.

Thus, also, it is with the allegiance which as subjects we owe to God. If a man punctually fulfils the duties of his place in life,—but with no religious sentiment pervading and prompting his conduct,if he thinks not of the service or allegiance which he owes to his Supreme Sovereign,-nor regards all the acts that compose his life as parts of the service appointed him as an occupant of this portion of the Divine dominions ;-then his duty, though punctually done,—is not characterized by the spirit which should have prompted it,-and cannot be viewed as a service done to the Being under whose sovereignty he holds his place, and as whose subject he ought to consider himself, in the discharge of all his duties

And if any man shall still insist that it matters little from what views the business is done, provided it be effectually discharged, the answer is, that it signifies much ;-for it is not done as it ought to be done by a being so constituted,—having such fine and high capacities,—and capable of exalting all his

actions, by a full employment of the feelings and powers committed to him, into the august character of a service done by him to his supreme and legitimate Sovereign.

The whole of this argument, then, proceeds on the idea, that man is a religious being essentially and characteristically,—not because, as we commonly conceive this matter, he is capable of occasionally feeling religious sentiments, or performing religious acts, but because religious feelings make constituent, and characteristic, and pre-eminent part of his entire constitution; because they are intended to pervade, and modify, and characterize all the other acts and tendencies of his nature;-and because his full character is not developed, nor, consequently, does he act in the entire character of a man,-till these pre-eminent powers are permitted to extend their pervading influence to the whole tenor of his life.

And the conclusion of this reasoning is, that, as the object proposed to man, as a subject of the Divine kingdom, is the due discharge of the duties pointed out to him by his peculiar place in life,—these duties, however, are not done by him in the full character of a man, if they are merely viewed as subser

vient to his own temporal and sensual advantage; --and cannot, therefore, when so limited, be regarded as a service done by him to God.

But, on the other hand, when these duties are done by him with a reference to the authority of his Creator, as a subject of that empire which God exercises over all creatures, and as an occupant of this beautiful and favoured portion of the Divine dominions, then a high consecration is given to even his most common actions ;-they are done as appointments of his Sovereign;—it is by the due discharge of them that he fulfils his part as an efficient member of the vast community of rational and active beings with whom he is connected;-and, when done in “ this high and holy spirit," they become, in the strictest and most pleasing of all senses,-a service done to his supreme Lord.

So that, to use the words of Jeremy Taylor,"It becomes us to remember-and adore God's goodness for it, that he hath not only permitted us to serve the necessities of our nature, but hath made them to become parts of our duty. God is pleased to esteem it a part of his service if we eat or drink, --so it be done temperately, and as may best preserve our health,-that our health may enable our

services towards him ;-and there is no one minute of our lives (after we are come to the use of reason,) but we are or may be doing the work of God, even then when we most of all serve ourselves."

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PRECEDING VIEWS AND THOSE EXHIBITED BY CHRISTIANITY RESPECTING THE OBJECT PROPOSED TO MAN, IN THIS LIFE, AS A SUBJECT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

We have now fully evolved our idea respecting the object proposed to man, in order that he may accomplish the purpose for which he has been called into being, and placed amidst the magnificent scenery, and the progressive changes of this subordinate portion of the Divine dominions ;-and that object, we have seen, is simply, that he should fulfil, with all his the trust committed to him by his pecupowers, liar station in existence; but, at the same time, with a constant view to the authority of that Sovereign, as whose subject he holds his place in life;—so that, by this religious feeling diffused over all his conduct, even his most common occupations may be

come a service of obedience offered to the gracious Father and Preserver of his spirit.

In what remains of this portion of the work we have only to notice some considerations which may serve to reconcile this idea with certain general impressions which have become current in the world ;and, in the first place, we naturally inquire how far this view of the object proposed to man coincides with the view of duty exhibited by the Founder of Christianity,—and by the peculiar genius of his religion?

This particular topic, indeed, would open up a fine and most extensive field of observation,-but we intend only to offer a few cursory and general re

marks.

And, in the first place, the parable of “the talents” naturally offers itself to our thoughts as one of the most beautiful coincidences which this subject presents. This parable has always been felt to be one of the most striking and interesting which the Gospels contain; and, if we endeavour to state to ourselves what it is that has so particularly recommended that parable to the understandings and hearts of men, we shall perceive that its distinctive excellence consists in its having represented the trust