Besides the above coincidences between the general outline of the parabolic history, and that of the

precedes the parable, and is subjoined upon it: Todλoi dè éσovtai πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι, καὶ οἱ ἔσχατοι πρώτοι, and οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρώτοι, καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι· πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. From this connection between them, it may justly, perhaps, be inferred that the parable was designed to illustrate and apply the declaration, in the first instance, and the declaration to sum up and epitomize the parable, at last. Yet that the general declaration is not necessarily connected with the parable, but must have a meaning and signification of its own, appears from the fact, that St. Mark records the declaration, but omits the parable. See Mark x. 31: Harmony, iv. 53.

The received translation by rendering these words, in the first instance, "But many that are first shall be last, and the last "first," tends to raise the impression that something is meant to be conveyed by this particular declaration, opposed to and different from what precedes it, in the same paragraph; whereas it is perhaps a juster construction of it, to understand it as simply carrying on the same train of ideas, and conspiring to the same general effect. They should rather have been rendered, “ And

many shall be the first last, and the last first;" especially if, as I apprehend to be the truth, all that is intended by them is, the absolute future equalization of those who are the subjects of the assertion, in all such respects as entailed the distinction of first and last, or last and first, understood according to the circumstances of the case.

I take it for granted that we have, upon this occasion, Matt. xix. 30. and Mark x. 31. as precise an account of the manner in which our Lord expressed himself, as we had before, Luke xiii.30. in what was then said. The probable import of this last déclaration was fully considered, in the explanation of the parable of the great supper, vol. iii. p. 455–458. But there is so much difference in the phraseology of the proposition on this second occasion, compared with the terms in which it was expressed before; that with a perfect agreement in general, there may still be some actual difference in particular, between them. And without stopping to point out in what circumstances the coincidence in question may consist, I shall specify this only, as one

real one, adumbrated by it, there are many more, relating to details, which require to be particularly pointed out.

mark of distinction between them; that, whereas it was implied by the context of the declaration before, not only that whatsoever the Jews possessed, in a certain respect, entailing the possession of the character and relation of first, the Gentiles should gain, but that what was acquired by the latter, should be taken away from the former; it is implied by the context at present, that nothing should be gained by the one, or lost by the other, exclusively simply that a certain existing distinction, which made the one first, and the other last, should be abolished, and the parties, between whom it held good at present, should consequently be put upon a level. For considering the parable intended to illustrate the declaration, and to shew in what way this inversion of the existing distinctions of first and last, between the proper persons, was to take place; it is manifest that the peculiar method, by which it is carried into effect, is by advancing the last, and not by degrading the first; by placing the labourers of the last order on a level with the labourers of the first; by giving to the former more than they were strictly entiled to, not by withholding from the latter what was justly their due.

It is no unusual thing to find our Lord's discourses, though originating in some passing and casual circumstance, expand themselves by degrees, after the manner of a climax, and beginning with particulars, ascend up to generals, of a more comprehensive, yet still of a kindred nature. In the account of his discourse with the apostles, beginning with the answer to the question of Peter, Matt. xix. 27: Mark x. 28: Luke xviii. 28. (the circumstances and import of which were fully considered by me in the General Introduction, vol. i. 221–229.) out of which the present parable arose, we have an instance of this mode of speaking. The general subject of that discourse, as it appears from the explanation given of it, loc. cit. is the kind and degree of the reward which may be expected for such and such kinds and degrees of the exercise of the virtue of Christian self-denial. Three degrees of the reward in question, appropriated to so many modes of the exercise of the corresponding

As, first, the principal personage, it appears, was possessed of a vineyard, before he engaged labourers

virtue, and to so many classes of persons, as the subjects of the one and the recipients of the other, are specified by it; and the first of these classes being the apostles, the second the Hebrew Christians, what can the third be so properly as the Gentile converts to Christianity, opposed to both? The promised reward to the self-denial of the apostles, we have seen to be peculiar to them; that of the same meritorious virtue in the Hebrew Christians, to be peculiar to them also, in the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come (see vol. iii. 160—279); and, if the explanation which has been given of the parable is correct, the specified reward of the faith and obedience of the Gentile, is the promise of eternal life, and the privilege of becoming the people of God and of sharing in the blessings attached to that relation, as much as the Jews. The first effect of this dispensation would be, not to make the Jew change places with the Gentile, but to put them both on a par; to advance the latter, but not to degrade the former. But it might be a secondary effect of it, to make the Gentile step into the place of the Jew, and so to invert the actual preexisting relation between them. For if the Jew should not be content to acquiesce in this dispensation in behalf of the Gentile, nothing less than his own degradation from his existing station above the Gentile, could be the consequence of it to himself. He could not refuse to allow the Gentile to be placed on a par with himself, and yet continue to rank as his superior. The effect of his obstinacy must be to degrade himself, while the Gentile would be left standing in his newly-acquired eminence. And, therefore, it might be added, at the end of the parabolic narrative, when the effect of the dispensation in favour of the labourers of the last order had been shewn by the event to be of this nature to the labourers of the first order, that rather than receive the same wages as the former, they preferred to lose their due itself" Thus shall the last be first, and the first be

last; for many are called but few are chosen"-words which we shall have occasion to consider in treating of the parable of the wedding garment. At present it is sufficient to remark upon them, that without restricting them to the acceptance or

for any purpose connected therewith; and God, who was always the Lord of the whole earth, had already set apart Judæa to be the local habitation of his visible church, before he made choice of a particular community to dwell therein. The formation and planting of the vineyard were over, before the action in the parable began; and the designation of the limits of the future church, as comprehended within the local boundaries of Judæa, had been long before made, according to the testimony of the inspired writer, "when the Most High divided to "the nations their inheritance, when he separated "the sons of Adam"." The labourers were hired to till the vineyard, and to prepare it for the production of its fruits; and a particular people was chosen to be the congregation of the church on earth, and to dwell in the country appropriated to it, that they might bring forth the fruits of righteousness, and glorify their God and their Maker by a perfect obedience to his will. The labourers first engaged were hired in one locality, and sent to perform the work

rejection of such an offer as that which is supposed in the parable-whatever may be its nature-their general sense is, that in all the dispensations of Divine grace for the good of mankind, the offer of such and such privileges, subject to such and such conditions, is indiscriminate, and made to all; but the acceptance of the offer, subject to the conditions in question, as the event invariably proves, is not indiscriminate, nor equally characteristic of all. Consequently, neither is the actual enjoyment of the promised blessing or privilege, alike characteristic of all, nor are the benefits of the offer as general as the intention thereof. In this sense, it is true of all the dispensations of Divine grace for the good of its moral creatures, whatever may be their particular object, that "Many are called but few are chosen.” u Deuteron. xxxii. 8.

for which they were hired in another; and the Jews were taken to be the people of God, out of the land of Egypt, and then settled, in that capacity, in a land of their own. The several additions to the numbers of the workmen, subsequently made, were all made from the same agora, or place of general resort; and the several augmentations of the numbers of the Jewish church, by the admission of one new class of persons after another, were all derived from the same body of mankind-from the rest of the world in general, as distinct from the Jews in particular.

The engagements of the different orders of the labourers, respectively, were made at the most remarkable points of time, in the duration of one and the same day; and the various accessions of numbers to the complex of the congregation of the visible church, took place at equally remarkable periods in the history of the œconomy of that church; the first, at the Exodus from Egypt, the second at the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel, the third and the fourth, at the dissolution of the kingdom of Judah, in the united effect of the second captivity along with the first; and the fifth, at the close of the duration of the Mosaic economy, or when the era was arrived of the transition of the Jewish into the Christian church.

If the labourers at first engaged had been sufficient for the wants of the vineyard, it would not have been necessary to engage more after them. Whatever accessions, then, to the numbers of the workmen engaged in the vineyard, might have been made at different periods of the day before; it does not appear to have been adequately supplied with