Those possessing a competent acquaintance with the doctrines of theology, and ethical and metaphysical discussions, cannot, we think, read this necessarily faint and imperfect outline of what Dr Whewell has thus far advanced on the subject, without appreciating the caution and discretion with which he handles the subject which he here discusses—one of a critical character—in all its aspects and bearings. It is deeply suggestive to reflecting minds, who may be disposed to note with satisfaction how closely his doctrine, as thus far developed, quadrates with those of the Christian system. He has well reminded us, in the _Dialogue_, of a saying of Kant—that two things impressed him with awe: the starry heaven without him, and _the Moral Principle within_; and the current of his reflections tends towards that awful passage in the New Testament,—words which fell from the lips of the Saviour of mankind: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain _the whole world_, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” “FOR the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”[41] These two questions (to say nothing of the significance of the expression with reference to the subject now under discussion, “the whole world”), and the reason which is proposed to those who would answer the question, as that which should govern the choice between their own soul and the whole world, justify our attaching the highest conceivable value and importance to man, as a rational, a moral, an accountable being. In the _Dialogue_, an objector suggests, “But in your inclination to make man the centre of creation, and the object of all the rest of the universe, are you not forgetting the admonitions of those who warn us against this tendency of self-glorification? You will recollect how much of this warning there is in the _Essay on Man_:— ‘Ask for what end the heavenly bodies shine? Earth for whose use? Pride answers, ’Tis for mine.’ To imagine ourselves of so much consequence in the eyes of the Creator is natural to us, self-occupied as we are, till philosophy rebukes such conceit.” To which it is justly answered—“It is quite right to attend to such warnings. But warnings may also be useful on the other side: warnings against self-disparagement; against the belief that man is _not_ an important object in the eyes of the Creator. I do not know what philosophy represents man as insignificant in the eyes of the Deity; and still less does religious philosophy favour the belief of man’s insignificance in the eyes of God. What great things, according to the views which religion teaches, has He done for mankind, and for each man!”[42]