tentive to hear him. It seems his sermons made a great impres sion on those who heard him; for the number of his followers and admirers increased so as to alarm the rulers, who feared that the people on his account would shake off the Roman yoke. They consulted therefore among themselves how they might kill him, and resolved to do it under pretext of law; the attachment which the multitude had to him, hindering them from laying violent hands on him. See Mark xi. 18. § 112. and Matt. xxi. 46. § 115. In consequence of their resolution, the chief priests, and scribes, and elders, that is, some of the first men of the nation, came, by appointment of the senate, to Jesus one day as he was teaching in the temple, and before all the people put two questions to him. The first was concerning the nature of the authority by which he acted, whether it was as a prophet, a priest, or a king; no other person having a right to make any reformation in church or state. The second question was, That if he claimed the authority of any, or all of these characters, they desired to know from whom he derived it. Luke xx. 1. And it came to pass, that on one of those days as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him, with the elders (Matt. of the people). 2. And spake unto him, saying, Tell us by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? Mark xi. 28. to do these things? They meant his entering the city with such a numerous train of attendants; his taking upon him to reform the economy of the temple, his receiving the acclamations of the people, who gave him the title of Messiah, &c. Matt. xxi. 24. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? Mark xi. 31. Answer me: This question reduced the priests to an inextricable dilemma. They considered on the one hand, that if they should acknowledge John's mission from God, it would oblige them to acknowledge Christ's authority; John having more than once borne testimony unto him as the Messiah. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, if we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? On the other hand, if they denied John's authority, they did not know but the people who stood round them listening to Jesus, might stone them; for they generally believed John to have been a prophet, many of them had submitted to his baptism, and at present not a few held him in high esteem on Christ's account. 26. But if we shall say, Of men, we fear the people, (Luke, All the people will stone us) for all hold John as a prophet. Wherefore as matters stood, they judged it safest to answer, that they could not tell whence John's baptism was. By returning this answer, the priests left Jesus at VOL. II. liberty 3 В liberty to decline giving the council the satisfaction they were demanding. That court, whose prerogative it was to judge of prophets, required our Lord to make good his pretensions to the character he assumed. But by the question which he put to them, he obliged them to confess, that they had not been able to pass any judgment upon John Baptist, notwithstanding he claimed the character of a messenger from God, and they had sent to examine his pretensions. This, in effect, was to acknowledge themselves incapable of judging any prophet whatsoever. Ye are come, said he, to inquire into the proofs of my mission; I agree to submit myself to your examination, on condition that you tell me what your determination was concerning John. Was he a true or a false prophet? You say, you don't know. Well. But if you were not able to form a judgment concerning John, how can you take upon you to judge me? In this light, our Lord's question in answer to theirs, appears to have been formed with the greatest address; because, whether the priests replied in the affirmative, or in the negative, or gave no reply at all, they absolutely condemned themselves. 27. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell, (Luke, whence it was). And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things: You have no right to ask, since you are not able to judge. For which reason, I will not tell you by what authority I do these things. Besides, Jesus knew very well that they would not have believed, though he had taken the pains to explain and prove his commission; having often done it before to no pur pose, at the passovers and other feasts recorded by John. But because the chief priests and elders had said, that they did not know from whence John's baptism was, Jesus sharply rebuked them for disbelieving him. This reproof he conveyed in the parable of the two sons that were commanded to work in their father's vinevard, and by asking their opinion of the beha viour of the two, made them condemn themselves. Matt. xxi. 28. But what think you? A certain man had two sons: and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in my vineyard. 29. He answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repent ed, and avent. 30. And he came to the second, and said likewise, And he answered and said, I go, Sir, and went not. The tem per and behaviour of the second son, was an exact picture of the temper and behaviour of the Pharisees; for in their prayers and praises, they gave God the most honourable titles, and professed the utmost zeal to serve him; but at the same time, would de no part of the work that he enjoined them, and particularly, would not hearken to the Baptist's exhortations. In the charac ter of the other son, the disposition of the tax-gatherers and barlots is well described. They neither professed nor promised to do the will of God; yet, when they came to think seriously, they they submitted themselves first to John, then to Christ, and, in consequence of their faith, amended their lives. When Jesus had finished the parable, he asked, Matth. xxi. 31. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. It seems they did not perceive that by this answer they condemned themselves, till Jesus made a direct application of the parable in that sharp but just rebuke: Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32. For though you pretend that ye do not know from whence John's baptism was, John came unto you in the way of righteousness; he clearly proved his mission from God, and ye believed him not: gave no credit to the testimony which he bare to me, and consequently would not go into the vineyard: but the publicans and the harlots believed him, they received his testimony and obeyed the gospel. And ye when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him: When ye had seen persons of the most abandoned characters reformed by his sermons, which doubtless was a strong proof of his mission from God, ye did not repent of your opposition to that holy man, nor of your disobedience to his instructions; at least your remorse was not of such a kind, as to make you afterwards believe him. The moral reflection suggested by this passage of the history is, that the openly profane are more apt to repent than hypocrites; which experience also shews to be true. The reason is, persons openly profane have nothing by which they can defend themselves against the terrors of God, when once they begin to fasten upon their consciences. Whereas, hypocrites having à form of godliness, screen themselves therewith from all the attacks that can be made upon them, by the strongest arguments drawn, whether from reason, or from the word of God. (CXV. The parable of the vineyard that was let out to husbandmen. Matth. xxi. 33,-46. Mark xii. 1,-12. Luke xx. 9-19. OUR Lord did not rest satisfied with shewing the rulers the heinousness of their sin in rejecting the Baptist. He judged it proper likewise, publicly to represent the crime of the nation, in rejecting all the messengers of God from first to last, and among the rest, his only begotten Son; and in misimproving the Mosaical dispensation, under which they lived. At the same time, he warned them plainly of their danger, by reason of the punishment which they incurred, on account of such a continued course of rebellion. The outward economy of religion in which they gloried was to be taken from them, their relation to God as his people cancelled, and their national constitution destroyed. But because these were topics extremely disagreeable, he couched them them under the veil of a parable, which he formed upon one made use of long before by the prophet, Isaiah v.l.: Mattáxi, 33. Hear another parable. (Luke, Then began, he to speak to the people this parable. Mark, And he began to speak unto them by parables. There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine-press in it, (Mark, a place for the wine fat) and built a tower, that is, a house for lodging the wine,dressers, and watching the vineyard, for which reason, it was built so high as to have a prospect of the whole vineyard. The vineyard, with its appurtenances, represents the Mosaical dispensation of religion, a dispensation that was attended with great present advantages, and had many promises of future blessings; and let it out to husbandmen, bestowed this excellent dispensation of religion on the Jewish people, and went into a far country, (Luke, for a long time) gave them the enjoyment of this dispensation of religion for a long time. 34. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants (Mark, Luke, a servant) to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. He sent the prophets to exhort the Jews to entertain-just sentiments in religion, and to lead holy lives, these being the returns due from persons who enjoyed so clear a revelation of the Divine will. 35. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Mark gives this branch of the parable more fully, xii. 3. And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. 4. And again he sent unto them another servant, and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. 5. And again he sent another, and him they killed. In this passage Mark and Luke agree. See the Harmony. The meaning is, that the Jews, extremely irritated at the prophets for the freedom they used in reproving their sins, and exhorting them to a holy life, persecuted and slew them with unrelenting fury. 36. Again he sent other servants more than the first, and they did unto them likerise. (Mark, and many others, beating some and killing some.) The wickedness of the Jews in killing the prophets, did not provoke God instantly to pour down vengeance on them; but being very merciful and patient toward the nation, he sent more prophets to exhort and reclaim them. However, they met with no better treatment than the former. 37. But last of all he sent unto them his Son, saying, They will reverence my Son. (Luke 13. Then said the Lard of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved Son; it may be they will reverence him when they see him. Mark, Having yet therefore one Son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unte them, saying, They will reverence my Son.) That no means might be left untried, God sent unto them his own Son, whose authority, clearly established by undeniable miracles, ought to have been acknowledged with cheerfulness by these wicked men. Matt. xxi. 38. But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said `(Luke, reasoned) among themselves, This is the heir, come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance (Luke, that the inheritance may be ours J. From this it would seem, that the Jews knew Jesus to be the Son of God. Yet Peter says, both of the rulers and the people, that they crucified the Lord ignorantly, Acts iii. 17. Perhaps, therefore, like the other circumstance of their seizing on the inheritance, it may have been added, for the sake of completing the parable, without any particular design. Matthew and Luke say, the husbandmen cast the Son out of the vineyard, and killed him. 39. And they caught him: laid hands on him, and cast him out of the vineyard and sleru him. Luke xx. 15. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Mark says, they first killed him, and then cast him out, xii. 8. And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. But his meaning may have been this; they so beat and bruised him before they cast him out, that he could not live, and, after having cast him out, they completed the murder, killing him outright. The manner in which Mark has expressed it, insinuates, that after they had killed him, they threw out his body, without burial, to the dogs; a circumstance which does not seem to have any particular meaning, but is formed to shew the greatness of the rebellion of these husbandmen. Luke, What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? According to Mark and Luke, Jesus answered this question himself. Luke xx. 16. He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others; for Luke adds, And when they (the priests) heard it, they said, God forbid. But Matthew seems to say, that the priests answered the question, xxi. 40. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41. They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. This apparent inconsistency may be reconciled, by supposing, that after they had said to him, God forbid, as Luke tells us, they repeated his words ironically: He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen: speaking with a tone of voice expressive of the disposition of their mind, then added contemptuously, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons, which shall behave better no doubt than we have done; for they understood his parables, and designed to affront him by ridiculing what he said. Besides, unless the priests had spoken these things ironically, the answer which Matthew him. self tells us Jesus returned to them was improper, because it implied that the priests had denied the vineyard was to be taken from them, and given to others. Matt. xxi. 42. Jesus saith to them, |