seed; 5. the leaven; 6. the hidden treasure; 7. the pearl; 8. the drawnet; 9. the good shepherd; 10. the servants, left in wait; 11. the servant, left instead of his lord; 12. the barren fig-tree; 13. the great supper; 14. the prodigal son; 15. the labourers in the vineyard; 16. the pounds; 17. the wicked husbandmen; 18. the wedding garment; 19. the virgins; 20. the talents.

Of this number, the first five were delivered to the people in public, without explanation; and if a part of them was afterwards explained, it was only to the disciples in private. The sixth, the seventh, the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and eighteenth, were delivered without any application at the time, or any explanation, that we know of, afterwards; the eighth and the ninth were partially explained at the time when they were delivered, the former to the disciples in private, the latter to the Jews in public; but without conveying in the former case, even to the disciples, any information which they could distinctly comprehend; and so far from enlightening the apprehensions of the Jews in the latter instance, as the evidence of the fact is sufficient to prove, that it only still more perplexed their perception of the meaning of the parable. The fifteenth is preceded and closed by a declaration, which though designed to be applied and illustrated by the parable, was not more capable of being understood at the time by the help of the parable, than without it. The seventeenth also was followed by a declaration, at some distance from the parable, which certainly referred to that as its basis, but would not clear up nor explain the parable itself; which, if it was unintelligible to its hear

ers without that declaration, was equally unintelligible with it. The sixteenth has a notice of the occasion of the ensuing parable, and to a certain extent, of its design and reference; but solely from the evangelist, St. Luke, who records it. It does not appear that our Saviour said any thing at the time, that was likely to explain the parable intelligibly to his hearers. The twentieth, as it stands, stands without note or comment of any kind; and though the nineteenth has an apparent application both premised and subjoined to it, it is such an application as I shall shew in its proper place to have been purely figurative or metaphorical; and therefore, without some further explanation, such as is not given, it was not more intelligible itself, than the parable which suggested or illustrated it.

After excepting these twenty parables from the entire number, as that part of them which were not explained, applied, or illustrated in any way, at the time when they were delivered, there still remain seven more, of which it is as evident that they were explained, applied, and elucidated for the benefit of the hearers, at the time when they were spoken, as that the others were not. These seven parables are respectively those of the king, who took account of his debtors; of the good Samaritan; of the rich man's ground; of the unjust steward; of the rich man and Lazarus; of the importunate widow; and of the Pharisee and the publican. Among this number, there is none of which the fact of its being in some manner or other explained at the time, can be considered doubtful, except that of the rich man and Lazarus; which appears indeed to stand independent of all connexion, and is certainly followed by

nothing calculated either to illustrate or apply it. But it is preceded by something, to which it bears a proper reference, and of which it furthers the moral and application. It is not, therefore, destitute of connexion with what goes before it; but makes a part of the series of a moral and didactic discourse, the drift and intention of which it is very easy to discover.

If the existence of such a difference in the historical circumstances, attending the delivery of the several parables, as this; that some were applied or explained at the time, and others were not-is an undeniable matter of fact, it may justly be considered to imply that there must have been some essential distinction in the kinds of the parables respectively. Are we to suppose that such a difference in the historical circumstances of their delivery was, in each instance, a mere matter of accident, or the effect of premeditation and design? Was it arbitrary, precarious, and resolvable into no certain rule, or necessary, uniform, and founded in the reason of things? That it is an uniform and regular consequence in every instance of the occurrence of a parable, no one can doubt: there is no parable to be produced, to which it does not apply; which is not characterized by the circumstance of its being applied and explained at the time, or by the contrary. The question then is, was this the case, in either instance, for any good and sufficient reason, or not? Was it indifferent to our Saviour, whether his parables were to be understood, or not, that he should do something to facilitate their being understood, at one time, which he did not do at another? Was there any such difference in the parables them

selves, that those which he left unexplained, might be comprehended without explanation, but those which he explained, could not? Was it intentionally that he applied or elucidated some of the number, and unintentionally that he passed over others; or equally on purpose, that he did both? Had his rule of proceeding in the delivery of his parables always been the same; had he regularly explained and applied them all, or regularly explained and applied none of them; either we should have had no ground a priori to infer the existence of a difference in the parables themselves, or it must have been some ground of a very different nature, from that which is supplied by this fact. But if the Author and Speaker of the parables is invariably seen to explain and apply a certain number of them on the spot; this fact is a sure intimation that he always intended so many of them to be explained and applied at once: if he is invariably seen not to explain or apply the rest, but to leave them exactly as they were delivered, without any comment or observation upon them, which might give the least insight into their meaning; this fact too ought to be a clear proof that he never intended to explain or apply this portion of his parables in particular.

Now a discourse of this nature, that is, like one of our Saviour's parables, which is not illustrated, cleared up, or applied, at the time when it is delivered, may very possibly not be understood; just as on the other hand, it is almost impossible that one, which happens to be explained or applied by its author, as soon as pronounced, can fail of being understood. Yet even such a discourse, though standing independent of all other matter before or after

it, which may reflect some light on its meaning, must nevertheless, we may justly presume, possess a meaning and purpose of its own, quite as much as another, which happens to be explained or applied. The only difference between them is, that the scope and purpose of the discourse, or what is the same thing, the intention of the speaker in delivering the parable, do not appear in the former case, neither from the parable itself, nor from any thing independent of it, premised or subjoined to it; but they do appear in the latter, if not from the selfevident light of the discourse itself, yet from the luminous commentary and application of the speaker. In one of these cases, a naked history, without note, observation, or comment, is set before the hearer; in the other, a history furnished with its moral, and clothed with a commentary and application. The hearer, therefore, may possibly be at a loss what to make of the former; but it can scarcely happen that he should feel himself perplexed by the latter. For the understanding of the former, he is absolutely left to his personal sagacity, penetration, conjectures; for the comprehension of the latter, he has nothing to do but to follow his guide, and to attend to the explanation which is laid before him. The clue is put into his hands, the road is chalked out for his steps, on the one hand; but he must unravel the thread, and pick out his path, for himself, on the other: he cannot go astray nor miss of the truth, in the former instance, but he is perpetually liable to be misled or to fall into error, in the latter.

Now a history of any kind, and especially a parabolic history, which, though delivered without the