their deserts; and the rule of the distribution is the same as before, that he who had most of desert originally, and most of its proper reward already, receives the greatest share of this extra reward also.

This truth seems to be intimated by that observation attributed to the bystanders, on receiving the commands of the king to transfer the mina from the unprofitable servant to him who had the ten minæ: "Sir, he hath ten minæ." This observation surely could not be intended as a remonstrance with the king on account of this command; nor be expected to have the effect of changing his resolution in favour of the servant in question. If so, it was designed, we may presume, merely to fix the attention on the object of this extra distinction, and on the peculiarity of the reasons for which it was awarded to him that the most meritorious and successful in the use of a common trust, though rewarded in proportion to his merit already, was the fittest to become the recipient of any share of the common reward of that trust, to which others, invested with the trust, might have been admitted, had they been entitled to admission-in their own right—as the consequence of its use.

THE MORAL.

It appears from the above review of the material circumstances of the parable, that besides the œconomy, considered at large in the first instance, and exclusively concerning the acquisition and enjoyment of a certain kingdom; another is combined with it, subordinate to it, yet independent of it, which concerns the inferior parties in the complex

of the parabolic transaction, as directly as the other does the principal one in the same.

This peculiarity of structure is characteristic of the present parable. There is in almost every parable, and certainly in almost all of the allegorical or prophetical class, the same distinction of agents into principal and subordinaté, as in this: but there is no parable, besides this, which is made up of two integral and independent parts, and combines together in the tissue of the same narrative, two distinct œconomies-one relating exclusively to the principal, and the other to the subordinate agents in the same transaction.

It is a consequence of the association of two such different œconomies in one and the same account, that though, under the circumstances of the case, they cannot be detached asunder-they must conspire individually to one and the same result; yet either was capable, a priori, of standing apart from the other either would have had a proper use and moral of its own, independent of connection with the other. The peculiar œconomy for the personal acquisition of a kingdom by the proper party, has necessarily nothing to do with the peculiar œconomy for the trial of persons invested with a certain responsible trust; nor conversely, this latter œconomy with the former.

The connection of these two œconomies in the present instance, and yet their independence one of the other a priori, could not be better elucidated than by comparing the present, with another parable which will follow and require to be considered hereafter; I mean the parable of the talents, which

forms a part of St. Matthew's account of the prophecy upon the mount. The coincidence between these two, if specified and illustrated in every point of the resemblance which one of them bears to the other, would shew that while they certainly differ in some things, they agree in others to an extent which approaches almost to identity. There is no more difference observable between them, than would seem at first sight to be due to the incorporation of a separate and an integral history in the one, over and above what they possess in common-and to its absence in the other; and consequently to an excess and a defect, respectively, measured by the very same criterion in either case. Add to the parable of the talents, an œconomy like that of the kingdom -the result would be the parable of the pounds; take away from the parable of the pounds, the particular history in relation to the kingdom-the residuum would be the parable of the talents.

The principal points of distinction which would require to be attended to, in ascertaining the moral of this œconomy relating to the kingdom, have been already alluded to; viz. that the kingdom, before it is acquired, is in the gift of one person, and after it is acquired, becomes the property of another; that the possessor of the kingdom goes abroad to acquire it, and returns home to enter upon it; that the kingdom is acquired by the proper person against the will and inclination of his proper subjects; that the first acts and exertions of the power and authority of a king, within their proper sphere and over their proper subjects, go no further than what was to be e Matt. xxv. 14-30. Harm. iv. 79.

expected as the most direct and preliminary effect of the overt assertion of kingly power, under such circumstances the punishment of the personal enemies of the king, and the disaffected subjects of his government, on the one hand, and the distribution of offices of trust and dignity, subordinate to his own, among those whose attachment and fidelity were to be relied upon, on the other; the former essential to the peace and security, and the latter to the order, good government, and well-being of any kingdom.

To these considerations we may now add, that the necessity which the future possessor of this kingdom is placed under, of departing from home, in order to its acquisition, and the interval which must ensue before he could expect to return for its administration, suggests the idea, and affords scope and opportunity for the execution of that scheme and course of things, subordinate to the acquisition and enjoyment of the kingdom in the person of the principal party, which begin with his departure, and continue to proceed during his absence, for the trial of the inferior parties-with a view to certain results affecting both them and his kingdom, upon his return.

At this point of time, then, the œconomy relating to the subordinate persons, described as the members of the household of the future king, and therefore as standing in a peculiar relation to him, begins to be interwoven with that which relates to the principal one, and the final end of the one to be subservient to that of the other. And with respect to this particular œconomy itself that so far as it consists in the delegation of a certain trust by one person, in his proper capacity of master, to others, in their proper relation as servants, to be discharged and ad

ministered, while held, after a specified manner, for the good of the principal party, but disclosing by the mode of the administration, the personal talents and disposition of the inferior ones, and serving consequently as a test of character, and a criterion of merit; it would answer in all respects to an œconomy of probation, such as we defined and described elsewhere, is too evident to require any proof: and that so far as it consists in the process of an account or inquiry at last, passing between the author of the trust on the one hand, and the receivers of it on the other, which turns on the use and administration of the trust itself previously, and leads to consequences which have the nature of reward or punishment, at the hands of the author of the trust, to the holders of it, according to the merits of the case in each instance-it would answer to the idea of an œconomy of retribution, arising out of, and critically adapted to give effect to a preceding œconomy of probation-such also as we described elsewhere, seems as little to be doubted.

With regard, then, to the further consideration of the parabolic history, (including its Interpretation, to which we must now proceed,) and what still remains to be said for the determination of its proper moral-the method which I propose to follow is this; As two œconomies are combined in the same account, each of which might have stood by itself, and would have had an use and meaning of its own, I shall consider them first separately, and afterwards in conjunction: beginning with that to which the other is found to be ultimately subservient, the œconomy of the kingdom.

f Vol. i. chap. ix. 105–119.

g Ibid.