a work to perform, a commission to discharge, which the Father had given him; as coming not to do his own will in any thing, but in all respects, the will of him that sent him; should nevertheless describe himself in this parable, by the humble and menial capacity of the dresser of his Father's vineyard. Christ, says St. Paul ", though preexisting in the form of God, and consequently equal to God, thought it not a thing to be greedily caught at, a desirable privilege, to appear in the capacity of God, and as the equal of the Father, upon earth: but made himself of no reputation, emptied himself of the Godhead, and took upon him the likeness of a servant, as the character in which to appear, and to be personally estimated, accordingly.

If the Father, as the Lord of the church, must be designated by such a title, borrowed from the relations of human masters, as the owner of a vineyard -his Son, as his messenger and servant, in his proper place and ministry, must be represented in a capacity subordinate, yet conformable, to this; which could be only the capacity of the labourer in his vineyard, the dresser or keeper of his vines. With respect to the images, applied in scripture to the Deity, the distinctions of great or little, of dignified or low, must not be determined exactly by our conceptions of them. The most exalted notions which we could borrow from things around us, to transfer to him, would fall infinitely short of his real dignity; and on the same principle, the most common or familiar, which are not absolutely derogatory to it in themselves, can detract nothing from it. The same metataphorical language in which our Saviour here speaks n Philipp. ii. 6-8.

66

of himself, and of his own personal office, he will be found to apply hereafter to the Father also. "I am "the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me (as the vine—that is, every "mere professing believer) that beareth not fruit, he "taketh it away; and every branch that beareth "fruit, (that is, every true believer,) he cleanseth (or "pruneth) it, that it may bring forth more fruit "."

I take it for granted, therefore, that under the circumstances of the case, we should not be mistaken, much less be guilty of disparaging the dignity of our Saviour's office, if we considered the character and relation of the keeper of the vineyard in the parable, to be intended for those of our Saviour himself, in the discharge of the proper work of his ministry. Yet this character and relation are not necessarily to be restricted to his, nor even primarily to be understood of his, except so far as the character and relation even of our Saviour individually, agree to a still more general character and relation, which would suit to others, under the same circumstances, as well as to him.

In explanation of this assertion, I must remind the reader of what I endeavoured to prove in a dissertation of my former work, upon the ministry of John the Baptist-concerning the identity of the end and design of his personal office with those of our Lord's, and the subserviency of them both in their proper order of time, to the common purposes of what I then characterised by way of distinction, as the ministration of the Messiah, or the ministration of the kingdom P. It appeared from that discussion,

that though in point of time John was the predecessor, and Jesus the successor, yet in the nature and functions of their ministry respectively, there was no difference whatever between them. They never laboured, except for a very short time, (and perhaps, strictly speaking, not even for that,) in conjunction: but they both laboured, one after the other, in the same vocation, and for the same object.

As soon as the providence of God had removed the Baptist from the stage of public life, (which was within six weeks after the first passover,) our Saviour stepped into his place; and with no conceivable loss of time, by an immediate return into Galilee, and the commencement of his ministry there, took up the discharge of his office, and even the language of his preaching; so that, though the workman was changed, it was evident to all that the continuity of the work was unbroken. The same business was resumed by Jesus Christ, which had been necessarily abandoned by John; and the same work was completed in due time, by the former, which had been prematurely left unfinished by the latter.

The common character and relation of both, it was shewn, were those of the heralds of the future kingdom; the common business which each discharged, in his proper place and order of time, was that of proclaiming the tidings or gospel of the kingdom, in the first place, and of inculcating the practical consequences, deducible from its futurity and the expectation of its arrival, in the next; the substance of both their preaching and teaching, being expressed in this one sentence, "Repent ye! for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." They were preachers of the kingdom-that is, heralds of the approaching

66

gospel dispensation—in their first and proper capacity; and they were teachers of repentance, in a capacity subordinate to that, but intimately connected with it; because repentance, reformation, and change of life alone could prepare even those, whom their preaching had induced to believe in the futurity of the approaching dispensation, for admission into it, and participation in its privileges; besides being the natural, practical consequences of faith in its annunciation, and of the expectation of its coming.

Now the very circumstance that John the Baptist and Jesus Christ were both preachers of repentance and teachers of righteousness to the nation at large, implies the necessity of repentance and reformation to the nation at large. Their proper office then, was that of persons deputed to contend against the national impenitence and wickedness; and by their preaching and teaching, to bring about the national repentance and reformation. Speaking, therefore, in the language of the parable, we may compare the object and effect of their personal labours, to the duty of the keeper of a vineyard, who might have to overcome the sterility or unproductiveness of one or more of the trees, planted in it. They were each employed, one after the other, on a similar purpose, the reclaiming of a barren tree.

The character of the dresser of the vineyard, then, would agree equally well either to John the Baptist, or to our Saviour; and primarily considered, or in the abstract, would be designed to represent none, and could properly correspond to none but that of the instrument employed on the work of the ministration of the kingdom. This instrument was originally the Baptist, and while he was the only instru

ment as yet employed on the work in question, the abstract character of the dresser of the vineyard of God, belonged to him. The Baptist had now been superseded by our Saviour; and from the time that our Saviour took his place, the same abstract character which had belonged to his predecessor, became appropriated to Jesus Christ.

These preliminary considerations will be found far from irrelevant to the explanation of the other particulars of the parable; on which we must now proceed to enter, in order to its complete interpretation. First, a vineyard, it may be said, was not ordinarily the place in which fig-trees would be found planted; and generally speaking, this observation would be just. If the fig-tree, then, in the present instance had been purposely planted in the vineyard of its owner, one reason may be the peculiar value which he may well be supposed to have set on this species of tree. Nor is mention made of any other kind of tree, as growing in the same locality along with this. The Jews were selected to be the people of God, out of pure favour and kindness to them in particular; and they were established in the exclusive possession of the visible church, with no admixture of any other nation in the same communion, or in the enjoyment of their peculiar privileges, as the chosen family of God.

It would appear to be almost too obvious a circumstance, to be remarked upon, did not the language of the parable direct our attention to it, that the owner had a vineyard, before he had a fig-tree growing there; and that he had a fig-tree growing there, in consequence of his planting one in it. The land of Canaan was selected and set apart for the