longed to him; which, in the case of the death-bed penitent, is precluded by the supposition. Repentance, under such circumstances, and resolutions of amendment, may possibly be effectual, and may deserve the name of good works; but whether they are effectual or not, can be known only to God, and even if good works, they are not such good works as were created for men to walk in, and to exemplify in the general tenor of their life and conversation, during their appointed period of trial. But the labourers last engaged were employed in the same vineyard, and on the same kind of service there, as the rest engaged before them—for a twelfth part of the day; obeying the summons into the vineyard, as soon as received, with every alacrity, and exerting themselves so diligently while there, as to deserve a special mark of the approbation of their common employer, above the rest. The efficacy of a deathbed repentance, then, can have nothing to do with the analogy of a case such as theirs. It is neither affirmed, nor denied by the example of their treatment in particular, at the hands of the master of the vineyard; while, by the example of their own conduct, or the analogy of any thing as done by themselves to deserve that treatment, it is much more strongly denied and disproved, than affirmed or established.

PARABLE TWENTY-THIRD.

ALLEGORICAL.

THE TEN PIECES OF MONEY, OR THE
POUNDS.

LUKE XIX. 11-27. HARMONY, IV. 60.

LUKE xix. 11–27.

11 And as they were hearing these things, he proceeded to speak a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and they were supposing that the kingdom of God is about to shew itself immediately. 12 He said therefore, "A certain nobleman went "into a distant country, to receive unto himself a kingdom, and "to return. 13 And having called ten servants of his, he gave "them ten minæ, and said to them, Employ yourselves in trad"ing, until I come. 14 Now his fellow-citizens hated (were hating) him; and they sent an embassy after him, saying, We "will not that this man be king over us. 15 And it came to "pass, that when he was come back, having received the kingdom, he bade these servants, unto whom he gave the money, "to be called for him, that he might know what each had gained

by employing himself in trading. 16 And the first came forward, saying, Sir, thy mina hath wrought itself in addition ten "minæ. 17 And he said to him, Well done, good servant! because thou hast become trusty in a very little thing, know thou "art possessing authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Sir, thy mina hath made five minæ. 19 And he "said to this servant likewise, Thou too become over five cities. "20 And another came, saying, Sir, here is thy mina; which I "was keeping lying by in a napkin. 21 For I was afraid of "thee, because thou art an harsh man: thou takest up that thou

"hast not put down, and reapest that thou hast not sown. "22 And he saith to him, Out of thy mouth will I judge thee, O "wicked servant. Thou knewest that I am an harsh man, tak"ing up that I have not put down, and reaping that I have not tr sown: 23 and why hast not thou committed my money to the “bank; and so, when I came, I should have exacted it with in"terest? 24 And he said to them that stood by, Take the mina 66 away from him, and give it to him who hath the ten minæ. "25 (And they said to him, Sir, he hath ten minæ.) 26 For I 66 say to you, To every one who hath it shall be given; but from "him who hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from "him. 27 Those enemies, however, of mine, those that would "not that I should be king over them, bring ye hither and utterly slay before me."

MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

THE material groundwork of the parabolic trans

action, in the present instance, is the supposed acquisition of a kingdom; and all the circumstances of the narrative are closely connected with that acquisition, either as preliminary to it, or as arising out of it. Hence, as the acquisition of a kingdom necessarily implies some one to acquire and possess it -of the parties concerned in such a transaction, it is manifest that one must be the party who acquires the kingdom, and therefore, so far as the result of the whole transaction is that acquisition, who must be the principal person concerned in it.

The acquisition of a kingdom, however, at one time, presupposes the want of it at another; and the absence of the personal attribute of royalty may entail as definite a personal character on its proper subject, as its presence. The character of the principal personage, then, before his elevation, is neces

sarily not the same with his character afterwards; and if by his elevation it becomes that of a king, before that event, it was something else-which might indeed be superseded by the character of a king, but could not exist along with it. Now one such character is evidently that of a private citizen; who may be taken from the body of his fellow-citizens, and raised to the rank of their king, but before his elevation, however distinguished in other respects, from the rest of the same community, is not yet discriminated by that which distinguishes a king from his subjects-the possession of power and supremacy over the complex of a certain community.

The character of a private citizen, as contradistinguished to that of a king, is consistent with every personal attribute, which may discriminate one member of a certain community from the rest, except that of political eminence, and exclusive authority, as the head and governor of the whole. Superior wealth might be one of these, and superior nobility of birth may be another. The character of the principal personage in the parable, while still in the state of a simple citizen, is described accordingly, as one of a certain community distinguished indeed from the rest by superior birth, and therefore properly a nobleman-but not by superior political authority, and therefore, not properly a king.

It is manifest, then, that one class of persons, likely to be concerned in such a transaction as the elevation of one member of a certain community from the rank of a simple citizen to the dignity of a king, would be the remainder of that community, over which this one of its members is promoted as

king; whose relation to the individual in question, before his elevation, would be that of his fellowcitizens, and therefore his equals in political rights and privileges; but after his exaltation, would be that of his subjects, and consequently his inferiors in all those respects which discriminate a fellow-citizen from a king.

But the public character and relation of a simple citizen, are not incompatible with the private character and relation of a master; nor the absence of political supremacy over the body of a certain community, with the possession of the power and jurisdiction of the head of a family over his own household. The principal personage, therefore, might be described, before his elevation, as standing in the relation of master to certain persons-as well as in that of fellow-citizen to others; in which case, another class of persons, likely to take a part in such a transaction as the promotion of a single individual from the rank of simple citizen to the dignity of king, besides the rest of his fellow-citizens in general, might be the members of his own household in particular.

While, then, the principal person in such a transaction would necessarily be one and the same—the subordinate personages concerned in it also, might be twofold and distinct; the fellow-citizens of the principal personage on the one hand, and his servants, or the members of his household, on the other. Between these, the essential difference to be kept in view through the sequel of the narrative, would be not merely the distinction of their individual relation to the principal party, and of the principal party to them-but with regard to the economy