being mere morality, having no intrinsic principle of life in it, could not stand the test applied to it by the Judge of the living and the dead (Matt. xix. 16; Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18-23).

The reply made by our Lord was an appeal to the convictions of the questioner, who, in agreement with many learned expositors of the law, held that eternal life, the idea of which was now prominent in the national mind, was obtainable through the observance of the Mosaic law. In this extension of that law to meet the growth of the Hebrew intellect, and in the general belief in a future state of existence, we see instances of that preparation for the days of the Messiah which was the design and the result of Providential ordinations, and which, with many other facts, combine to show that the Bible is true in one of its greatest implications, namely, that from the creation downwards God pursued a systematic plan for the religious training of his human family, which, so far as generic means and instruments are concerned, being completed and perfected in his Son Jesus Christ, is now, in divers ways, being applied and realised in the advance of civilisation, the refinement of manners, the elevation of the public mind, the prevalence of mutual love, the reconciliation of the heart to the will of heaven, and in general to the salvation of the world.

From the young ruler Jesus had required the sacrifice of his wealth. In the selection of that test, Jesus showed his acquaintance with the great sources of our conduct. With the ruler, that was the vital point. If sound there, his virtue was altogether sound. The test was applied, and the result was disappointment. Jesus took occasion hence to remark on the almost insuperable obstacle placed by opulence in the way of a true conversion. There are other obstacles which, if not insuperable, are very great. This man's obstacle is ambition, that man's the love of letters. One is required to sacrifice his ease; another, his fame; a third, too easy a disposition; a fourth, too stern and rugged a force of principle. It is our weak point we should make strong; it is our besetting sin we should overcome. There is little difficulty, and no virtue, in being and doing that which nature made easy and habit has made unavoidable. No man is praised for sleeping soundly or walking home to his dinner. That which costs us an effort it is which is capable of being virtuous. Virtue is in the effort made, the resistance overcome, the straining after a good object, the pursuit of noble ends by righteous means.

The forward Peter, however, having heard his Master speak of surrendering riches at the demand of duty, interposed his word-'Behold we have forsaken all and followed thee; what, therefore, shall we have?' 'A due return,' was the reply; but in such a way that many that are first shall be last, and the last first' (Matt. xix. 27; Luke xviii. 28, comp. Mark x. 35, seq.). 'A due return,' but of a far higher kind than you suppose. You

want the temporal; it is the eternal that I will give you. You ask for civil power; I will put into your hands the sceptre of an everlasting dominion. Being fishermen, you shall become apostles; from Galilean peasants, I will change you into the instructors of the world. But be on your guard. I love not the spirit which demanded, 'What therefore shall we have?' That spirit of cupidity, if not eradicated, will make him who is so often the first to speak, the last to receive my blessings.'

CHAPTER XI.

JESUS, PREPARING TO GO UP TO JERUSALEM AND SUFFER DEATH, WISHES TO STRENGTHEN HIS DISCIPLES' MINDS - DELIVERS THE PARABLE OF THE HOUSEHOLDER, AND LAYS DOWN HIS DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

Jesus was now about to proceed to Jerusalem. The Passover was at hand. He felt bound in spirit to go thither. He knew the visit would end in his death. Once more, therefore, would he give his immediate attendants information of what was before him. Thus might they be prepared and strengthened, so as to stand firm in the coming shock. In terms the most distinct did he in consequence lay before the twelve apostles the predicted facts that he was about to be delivered to the Roman civil power, when he would be ignominiously treated and put to death, but 'the third day he shall rise again.' And they understood none of these things.' Such is the blinding power of preconceived ideas! The apostles, participating in the popular state of mind respecting the Messiah, believed that Jesus was to be a temporal prince, who, whatever clouds and darkness lay around him, waited only for his hour to shine forth in pure splendour, when he would disperse his enemies, and give triumph and dominion to his friends. True, much of what Jesus said and did ill comported with these conceptions; but then, who could expect to understand the Messiah? In the very strangeness of some things they found evidences of his divinity. The Messiah, however, he was; the desire especially of the Jewish nation, the national champion as depicted in its sacred books. Such was their belief; under this conviction they had followed him; for its truth they had his own assurances. Yes, he was the Christ, and would soon appear in his glory. Nor was this humble condition in which he and they lived altogether unknown in the Scriptures. Equally it was not unnatural; for the actual rulers of the land, whether Jewish or Roman, would be removed, and find no place in the new king

dom. Well, therefore, might they resist and persecute Jesus, and keep him and them in poverty and constant alarm. The period of humiliation, however, was to be followed by a period of glory. So said the Scriptures; and Jesus himself declared, 'All things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished' (Luke xviii. 31-34). Hence it is obvious that every thing, with the apostles, turned on the interpretation of the prophecies. Until they rightly comprehended them, they could not enter into the true idea of the kingdom of Christ. Accordingly, it was by the exposition of their import which the fact of his death and resurrection enabled Jesus to make, that on the way to Emma'us he opened the eyes of two of the disciples, who, enlightened by this and other means, came at length to a full understanding of the spirituality of the Messiah's mission, and, under the convictions which hence ensued, spent their strength, and gave up their lives, in preaching the glorious gospel of the blessed God' (Luke xxiv. 13).

In this connection, Matthew has placed Christ's comparison of his kingdom to a householder who at different periods of the day hiring labourers to work in his vineyard, at its close paid to all the same wages, a penny or denarius, that is about sevenpence. The labourers were hired at six o'clock in the morning, at nine o'clock at noon, at three o'clock and at five o'clock in the afternoon. To those who were first hired, he agreed to give a denarius for the day's work. To those who were hired at nine o'clock in the morning, he agreed to give 'whatever is right.' He made the same terms with each set hired after. When he paid the wages at night, he gave to each a denarius. At this, those who had laboured twelve hours complained. The master answers, 'Friend, I do thee no wrong; didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my Is thine eye evil because I am good?' The parable appears to have been delivered as an exemplification of the aphorism, The last shall be first, and the first last' (Matt. xx. 1-16).

own ?

In order to comprehend the import of this scripture, we must observe that the market price of a day's labour is ascertained by the wages agreed for by the first band of workmen. Having to labour for a whole day, their wages was payment for a day's work. This, then, was the just price, the value of the labour. Having received that just payment when they had performed their task, they had reason for satisfaction, and, if not gratitude, certainly not complaint. The only point, then, which asks for explanation, is the generosity of the householder in paying the rest more than their due. But he had a right to be generous, if such was his will. His bounty to them was no injury to others.

So if, in his divine ordinations, God makes some first and

some last, or makes the last first or the first last, what right of complaint is there so long as each has his due,-those that have least receiving their due, equally with those that are paid more than they could claim? If Moses, as coming before Isaiah, saw less than that prophet, was God unjust to Moses? If the moon is less bright than the sun, is not the light of the moon pleasant to the eye? Has the peacock a right of complaint because, in addition to beauty of form and colour, she does not possess the dulcet notes of the lark? The rose is not stately in form, but it is rich in odours. So the handicraftsman has not the refinement of the prince, but he is free from delicate health, has the full glow of sensuous existence, and a keen relish for his food. Provided each being is happy according to his capacity, God's goodness is illustrated, not brought in question, by the inequalities which he has occasioned. Were all equal, all would enjoy far less than now. Were all equal, the mass of life and the amount of enjoyment would be lessened. God has caused diversities in order to fill the entire universe with happy beings and lovely objects. The bee need not murmur because he is not the graceful flower from which he sips his dewy food. Were there nothing but bees in the world, bees themselves would soon cease to exist. The egg, the caterpillar, and the butterfly, are successive states of the same animal. Were there no egg, there would be no butterfly. The higher involves the lower, out of which it grows. So with the human race; we must begin in infancy and pass on to manhood, if we would rise to the perfect life of true Christian holiness and bliss. Let us not despise our 'first estate.' True, it is only rudimental; the animal prevails above the man. But in what an engaging dress is infancy arrayed! Happy is the age of childhood-happy, sweet, and lovely! If this is the beginning, what will the end be? How great and how glorious! Any way, the less is God's gift, and as such is good. And should the infant die, it has had its wages. You live longer and enjoy more; thank God for his bounty. So, in all the manifold diversities of life and condition, God, in his Sovereign will and inexhaustible bounty, has given enough to each, and a great abundance to many, in order that there may exist the greatest number of happy beings and the largest amount of life and good. In the arrangements of so just, benign, and bounteous a government, all should acquiesce, and, instead of repining so as to diminish and exhaust his store of happiness, each should acquiesce in a thankful and loving spirit, striving at the same time, in obedience to God's wishes, to make his one talent ten. It is only of the inequalities which man creates by favouritism, selfishness, and bad government, that we have any right to complain; and, even in cases of the clearest injustice of this kind, it is better to remove one evil, if only by the force of a good example, than to waste words and waste energies in profuse complaints and ceaseless murmurs.

In the midst of these important teachings we find a new law enunciated by the great Christian Lawgiver. That law relates to divorce. On this point, the practice of the times was this—a man might put away his wife, provided he gave her a formal writing which set forth that she was no longer his wife. Some cause of dissatisfaction must exist. In relation to this point there were two views-one, which made any cause sufficient that appeared sufficient to the husband; the other, which permitted divorce only in cases in which the offence related to graver matters (Deut. xxiv. 1; Matt. v. 31, xix. 9). Jesus, in opposition to both these opinions, which were severally held and maintained by two of the eminent doctors of the day, taught that the divorce allowed in the law, was allowed only out of consideration to human weakness; that it was a departure from the higher morality of an earlier and purer age; that, in truth, man and wife were one; that, in consequence, divorce was allowable only in cases of a breach of the marriage vow; and that whoever married a woman, put away for any other cause than such a breach, was guilty of adultery (Luke xvi. 18; Matt. v. 32, xix. 9; Mark x. 11). The doctrine taught by Jesus on the point is clear, full, and emphatic. Yet have both individuals and states, bearing the name of Christian, refused to comply therewith, and endeavoured to make his words say what accords with their own preconceived opinions. If, however, divorce is allowed by Christ in the case of adultery, the law of a professedly Christian land ought so to be framed as to open the door to the poor and lowly, as well as the rich and noble. Equally ought the law to refuse separation between man and wife in any other case; for the doctrine of Jesus has authority as being his, and is enforced by numerous and powerful considerations. This Christian law, equally with that of Moses, was, however, given out of consideration for human infirmity; for when the moral power of 'Christ's holy gospel' shall have leavened human hearts, they will be unsusceptible of the corruption which it pre-supposes. Coming together and living together as Christians, for high moral purposes-in a word, for moral perfection and everlasting life, husband and wife will love one another out of pure hearts fervently, and be far above temptations which could occasion a breach of conjugal fidelity and bring into operation the permission and transitory regulations of the Head of the Church.*

* See 'Lectures on Owenism,' by the author.