THE INTERPRETATION.

We are told by the Evangelist, who records the parable, that the immediate or proximate cause which produced it, was because Jesus was near to Jerusalem, and the kingdom of God was expected forthwith to appear. The cause which produced the parable then, was the expectation of a certain kingdom; whence we may reasonably infer that a parable delivered specially in reference to this expectation, and turning specifically on the economy of the acquisition of a certain kingdom, turns upon the œconomy of the acquisition of that kingdom, whose coming at this time was expected. Now this kingdom is further described as the kingdom of God. The kingdom in the parable then, is the kingdom of God. But the kingdom of God in the popular acceptation of the terms, (in which sense we must necessarily suppose them to be used here,) was but another denomination for the kingdom of the Messiah. The kingdom in the parable, then, is the kingdom of the Messiah, and the œconomy relating to the acquisition of that kingdom is an economy relating in some manner or other to the kingdom expected to be acquired and possessed by the Messiah.

If this conclusion is correct, it becomes of cardinal importance to the elucidation and interpretation of the parable. For on that principle, the nobleman who acquires the kingdom, must denote the Messiah of the Jews, and if so, must answer to Jesus Christ; and the kingdom, which belongs to him de jure, at one time, and de facto, at another-which he goes abroad to obtain, and returns home to administer,

taking himself a personal and prominent part both in the assumption of the dignity, and in the discharge of the functions of a king-must be some kingdom of Jesus Christ, the right to which he has already acquired, and the duties of which he already exercises, or which he will sometime acquire, and will sometime exercise, in his proper capacity of the Messiah of the Jews.

The discovery of this correspondence between the person of the nobleman, and the person of Jesus Christ, and the kingdom of the nobleman, and some kingdom of Jesus Christ, is the discovery of a clue to the texture of the whole parable. But before we proceed to apply it, something more deserves to be said, in reference to the immediate cause and occasion which produced it; the further consideration of which will still more effectually confirm the conclusion already deduced.

The expectation relating to a certain kingdom, prevailing at this time, it may justly be contended, would not have given occasion to a parable, expressly conceived and framed in reference to it, were the parable designed to serve no purpose and to convey no assurance with respect to this expectation, which might not have been equally well served by being conveyed in any plainer way. But if the purpose intended to be served by the parable, and the assurance designed to be conveyed by it, in reference to a certain expectation, was not otherwise to be served, nor otherwise conveyed, under the circumstances of the case, than in the disguise of a parabolic allegory; we may take it for granted that there was something wrong in the expectation,

and something in the disclosures of the parable designed to correct that error, by the statement of the truth, which, under the circumstances of the case, would not have borne to be plainly revealed; but if disclosed at all, must be so under the disguise of a parable.

Now that the error involved in the expectation in question, and therefore the error designed to be corrected by the parable, did not consist in this, that a kingdom was expected to appear, whether the kingdom of God or the kingdom of the Messiah, which was never to have an existence, which had no being either then, or in futurity, but was a perfect nonentity, and a creature of their imaginations who entertained the expectation of it-must of necessity be inferred from the analogy of the parable; if that was framed with a special reference to such an expectation, and had to do with a kingdom, which was in any manner identified with such a kingdom. For the parable itself is founded upon the reality of some kingdom, the actual right and property of a certain possessor, de jure at one time, and de facto at another; and the circumstances of the parabolic history, proceeding upon this supposition as their basis, consist exclusively of details relating to the mode of its acquisition, and to the mode of its administration; each of them implying its real exist

ence.

Admitting, too, the reality of this kingdom in general-that the error involved in the expectation of it, and the error designed to be corrected by the parable, might perhaps consist in some mistaken idea of its nature in particular, which the parabolic disclosures in reference to it might be adapted to

set right-can never be proved from the testimony of the parable itself. Whatever might be the popular persuasion, now prevailing, with respect either to the kingdom of God or the kingdom of the Messiah, the disclosures of the parable are just as favourable to the supposition of its truth, as to that of its falsehood. The popular expectation respecting the kingdom of God at this time, might be in favour of a temporal kingdom, and the popular belief respecting the person and character of the Messiah, might be in favour of a temporal monarch; but the nature of the kingdom in the parable, from any thing disclosed in reference to it, would be adapted to answer to the one, and the personal character of the nobleman, in the parable, from any thing that appears to the contrary, would be adapted to correspond to the other.

But if the error which the parable was intended to correct, in reference to this kingdom-was neither an error in the expectation of a kingdom in general, nor an error in the expectation of a certain kingdom in particular, now prevailing; in what could this error consist, except in some mistaken apprehension relating to the non-essentials of the kingdom, and not to the kingdom? some mistake, the existence of which, at this present time, and therefore the necessity of correcting and amending it at this present time, might be very possible in reference to something connected with the kingdom, without calling in question the fact of the kingdom itself? The circumstances of time and place are two of these nonessentials; about which, without calling in question the truth of the expectation of a certain kingdom in general, or even the truth of the ex

pectation of such and such a kingdom in particular, a mistake might exist, and require to be rectified by a disclosure of the real state of the case.

That the error involved in the expectation of a certain kingdom, which produced the parable in the present instance, was actually an error of this description—a mistaken idea not affecting the truth of the kingdom in general, nor the nature of the kingdom in particular, but the fact of the time when, and of the place where, even such a kingdom was to have a being, and might justly be expected to be established; appears from the historical notice premised to the parable, and declaring the occasion out of which it arose; "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."

The ostensible ground of the parable, then, was the expectation, at this time prevailing, that the kingdom of God was immediately about to appear; but the ostensible ground of this expectation was the fact that Jesus was near to Jerusalem. From this fact the people derived the inference that the kingdom of God would immediately appear; and from the fact of the inference, so drawn by them, the parable was added and spoken by our Saviour; no doubt to disprove or correct the inference itself.

Now the matter of fact, on which the inference was founded, was certain. Jesus was actually on the road to Jerusalem, and might not be far from it, at the time when he delivered the parable. The error involved in the inference then, was not owing