influences derived from other sources, which have wrought either good or evil, for the church and the world. They were not free from the frailties incident to our race. Their decisions were not, in every case, in harmony with the word of God. They assigned undue importance, in some instances, to custom and tradition. They gave their influence in favor of a forced conformity, and encouraged the union of church and state. But through their instrumentality, the teachings of the word of God in respect to the great doctrines of the evangelical system were brought into clear light. The glory of a spiritual faith which had shone among the hills of Scotland, was made to penetrate England, and mingle with its dim fires of gospel truth, to give them a brighter glow, and at the same time, to yield a fostering heat, which promoted, even in that irreligious and restless age, the growth of a pure Christianity. The truths which they sought out and set in order in Henry the Seventh's chapel, the Jerusalem chamber, and the House of Convocation, travelling across the ocean, and working their way among the solitudes of New England, have illuminated many a young mind; aided the work of parental instruction; implanted correct views of doctrine in Christian converts; given stability and comfort to private believers, confirmation to the church, and power to the pulpit. EDITOR.

ARTICLE VI.

NEANDER ON THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.

Translated from his "Das Leben Jesu Christi, in seinem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange und seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung." By H. B. HACKETT, Professor in Newton Theological Institution.

[CONCLUDED FROM PAGE 220.]

9. Activity in the kingdom of God. (a.) Parable of the vineyard, or the wicked vine-dressers, Matt. 21: 33-41; intimation of the rejection of the Jews and the call of the heathen.

THE kingdom of God may be contemplated under two aspects, the one that of enjoyment in it, the other that of

labor for it; or the kingdom of God in its consummation, as the communion of the redeemed, and this kingdom in its gradual development on earth, as demanding the labor of men for its promotion. To this two-fold view correspond the different illustrations of the feast and the vineyard. The parable of the vineyard, as likewise that of the supper, is used for the purpose of indicating the rejection of the Jewish nation, and the call of the heathen. Matt. 21: 33. As the proprietor of the vineyard has employed all suitable means. for its cultivation, so God has done every thing which wisdom could suggest, for the prosperity of his kingdom among the Jews. It is now left with them to use faithfully the means of culture which have been provided for them. As the owner of the vineyard has a right to require of those to whom he has leased his property, a certain proportion of the fruits in the time of harvest, so God demands of the Jews, to whom he has committed the theocracy, as an inheritance to be improved and cultivated, the fruits of a life corresponding with their privileges. After the previous messengers of God, who were commissioned to call the nation to repentance, had been received with a hostile spirit, and put to death, God sends his Son, who is the destined heir of the vineyard, the king of the theocracy. But as But as they in like manner refuse to honor him, and even take his life, in order to render themselves entirely independent, the divine judgment is threatened against the guilty people; the theocratic relation, which has hitherto existed, will cease; and the kingdom of God pass to other nations that shall bring forth the fruits which correspond to it.

10. Parable of the talents and the one pound, Matt. 25: 14-30, Luke 19: 12-27; the simpler form in Matthew; the difference; the truth and application common to both.

Here are to be considered further those parables in which labor for the kingdom of God, with such gifts as men have had entrusted to them, is represented under the figure of a capital, which the proprietor loans on interest. A comparison of the parables, Matt. 25: 14, and Luke 19: 12, furnishes us with another example of the manner in which a more complex parable has arisen from a simpler one. In the first form of these parables, the subject of discourse is merely the relation of Christ to his disciples, as his organs for the spiritual development of his kingdom among mankind. Under the

figure of the master, travelling into a distant country, he presents himself with reference to his departure from his followers. The different number of the talents, which are given to each one, according to the measure of his ability, for the purpose of being improved by trade, is a figure of the smaller or greater sphere of labor for the cause of God, which has been assigned to each one, according to the measure of his power.* The principal thought is as follows: The question, as regards his acceptance, is not, whether a person, in proportion to his peculiar powers, and the wider or narrower sphere of action in which he is placed, has accomplished much or little, but whether he has applied his talents, and improved his opportunities, whatever their number and extent, with conscientious zeal and faithfulness. It is the disposition alone which determines the moral worth of the service; and this disposition receives, consequently, the same praise, whether an individual, as compared with his means and facilities, has accomplished more or less. Thus the Master, in receiving the account from his servants, says the same to him who, with five talents, had gained five others, which he says to the one who, with two, had gained other two. The only servant censured is he who, with more limited powers, had been appointed to a narrower circle of labor; and this condemnation he incurs, not because he had not effected more, but because he had not exerted himself in proportion to his ability; because he had suffered his fewer talents to lie unimproved, and had accomplished nothing for the kingdom of God. The two servants, who improve their talents, and restore them doubled to their owner, correspond manifestly to different classes of men; and we cannot doubt, that Christ intended, also, in the description of the third, to set forth an exemplification of actual character. He might, of course, have designated the individual, to whom a greater number of talents had been entrusted, as the one who was unfaithful in the use of the capital committed to him. Why, then, it may be asked, is this trait ascribed particularly to him who was accountable for least? The reason certainly is, that Christ

*We might suppose the talents to denote the measure of the different gifts which individuals possess, if this construction were not excluded by the words, xarà iηy idiar dóraur-by which something is presupposed, which is determined by the dia dúrauis of each one, and is, therefore, itself distinct from

this.

had in view the person, who would derive an excuse for his inactivity from the inferiority of his gifts, and the restricted circle of his influence. There are those who are disposed to compare themselves with others, who have been more liberally endowed by nature, and placed by Providence in wider fields of action, and to say,- for what can I be accountable, to whom so little has been committed?' The nature of the apology, which the possessor of the one talent makes for his conduct, enables us to determine still more exactly what particular character is here meant. He appears as one of those, who entertain suspicions of the justice of their Lord. He stands in fear of him, as disposed to be unreasonably severe, to exact more of him than could be performed; and in order, therefore, to be secure against losing any part of his talent, he buried it in the earth. We are led, in seeking for an appropriation of this trait, to think most naturally of one who is conscientious, rather than enlightened with just views of the gospel. The prospect of encountering his Judge, fills him with fear and misgiving. He shrinks from the temptations of life, fears to trust himself to the dangers of the world, and seeks in seclusion from it, and in indolent repose, the consciousness of such virtue as consists in exemption from outward solicitations. There were those among the disciples, perhaps, to whom the prospect of this approaching conflict with the world might have suggested the thought of such retirement from it; especially in the case of those, who, whether with reason or without it, were accustomed to entertain least confidence in themselves, while they were deficient also in a proper confidence in God.

The parable in Luke is distinguished from that in Matthew by a more complex character; since, while that which is common to both appears in a different modification, it exhibits to us the conduct of Christ, not only towards his disciples, but towards the enemies of his government. The existence, however, of such a partial similarity and partial diversity warrants by no means the assertion,* that we have, in these parables of the insurgent husbandmen and of the talents, two different illustrations, which have been incongruously blended together. For this assertion we should have some ground, only in case there could be found no instance else

* This has been affirmed by Strauss.

where of the expansion of a parable into one of greater fulness; or unless it could be clearly shown, that the parable consists of parts which are essentially dissimilar, and incapable of any natural connection. But neither of these cases can be made out here.* Further, the union of these two parts in the last parable agrees well with the relations of time under which, and the object for which, according to the narrative of Luke, Christ delivered this parable. It seems, as he left Jericho, on his last journey to Jerusalem, accompanied by the shouting multitude, and when the disciples were expecting the establishment of a visible kingdom, that the Saviour uttered this parable, in order to give a new direction to their expectations and prospects. There were three points, on which he would fasten their thoughts,-upon the opposition which he was to encounter at Jerusalem, upon his approaching departure from them and subsequent return to vanquish his enemies and establish triumphantly his kingdom, and finally, upon their own duty, as his friends and disciples. Instead of standing idly aloof in the mean time, and expecting the triumph of the Messiah's kingdom, as a spontaneous movement, without any co-operation of their own, it belonged to them to use their incessant efforts to help forward its extension. The intimation of the departure of Christ from the earth, of his ascension to heaven, and his return to inflict judgment on the rebellious nation whom God had so highly favored, is more distinctly unfolded in this parable than in any other. It presents to us a man of rank, who travels into a distant country to the court of the emperor, to receive from him the government over his countrymen, and then to return again to them with royal dignity and power. Under this figure Christ designates himself, his departure, his ascension to heaven, where he is constituted by God theocratic king, and whence he descends again to exercise his contested royal authority. His subjects who rebel against his reign are the

With reference to the second point, the assertion of Strauss is certainly unwarranted. He says, that the figure of the money, with which the servants were to trade, is not appropriate to the first part of the parable; that in this case rather, if the whole parable were of one stamp, the figure of a distribution of weapons for fighting the insurgent citizens, would be required. Such a figure as this, Christ could not employ, because he must avoid, with the apostles, all appearance of designing to advance his kingdom by external force. And further, the point in illustration here respects not the call of the disciples to combat the foes of the kingdom of God among the Jews, whom they were to leave to the divine judgment, but rather their own duty to employ all their powers for the advancement of the gospel. For this idea, the figure selected is the most appropriate.