Gentiles as two brothers; the younger, by whom he intended to represent the Gentiles, he sends from his father's house, where he had shared an equal portion of his father's affections and patrimony with his elder brother, after representing the younger brother as having become reduced to a state of beggary by debauchery and excess: in a state of starvation, poverty, and rags, he brings him home to his father's house, a miserable object of pity; and then represents his father as embracing him with tears of joy, ordering the best robe to be put on him, a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet, the fatted calf to be killed, and a feast of rejoicing to be held, because he had received his lost son. He then represents the elder brother, who signified the Jewish nation, as being of fended on the discovery of this feasting and rejoicing over his sinful brother; and makes him to murmur, as the Pharisees had just done, at this distinguished favour manifested towards a sinner. After having rebuked the murmuring Pharisees and scribes, in these parables, St. Luke informs us, he turned to his disciples and spake another parable: "And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship: for thou mayest be no longer steward." In this parable our Saviour represented the Jews in their proper character, that of a steward, who was just about to be put out of his stewardship. God, who was represented by the rich man in this parable, had committed to the Jews the treasures of his grace, as stewards of the same. The covenant and promise which God gave to Abraham, in which the blessing was not secured to Abraham and his natural descendants alone, but unto all nations, kindreds, and families of the earth, this covenant and promise, with all the services of God's house, were committed to the Jews, as stewards of the same. This bread of divine life they had not administered unto the sinners of the Gentiles, and were even offended at the Saviour of sinners for administering a portion of this common stock to some of the members of this great family of the same Almighty parent, who they considered as sinners, although no worse than themselves. The head of the church, who was sent to oversee the house of God, now informs these corrupted Israelites, he was about to put them out of their stewardship; break down the wall of partition they had raised between

Jew and Gentile; gather in the lost sheep which were scattered on the dark mountain in the cloudy day; make one fold out of Jew and Gentile; be their shepherd, and appoint stewards over his father's house who would not make it a den of thieves, but "a house of prayer for all nations;" and "give each their portion of meat in due season." From the circumstance which gave rise to these parables, it is evident the above construction gives the sense in which they were used. Having taken a general view of the foregoing parables, with their several applications, as to the parable of the rich man and the beggar, which follows next in order, there can be but little difficulty in seeing its intended application. The construction of Theophylact and Bate, follows as a matter of course, and is equally clear and forcible, whether the parable was quoted by St. Luke only, or used in the discourse of our Saviour.

The reader will recollect that in many of our Saviour's parables, as well as in that of the unjust steward, he represented to the Jews, that the kingdom of God was about to be tak en from them and given to others :

"Therefore I say unto you,the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. xxi, 43.

"What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.--Mark xii, 9.

"He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and sha}} give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said God forbid! And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour thought to lay hands upon him; and they feared the people, for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them." Luke xx. 16, 19.

"And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."-Matt. viii, 11, 12.

Here we see that the Saviour had informed the Jews in these parables, that the kingdom of heaven was to be taken from them, and given to the Gentiles. By the kingdom of heaven, the vineyard, &c. is meant the same as the house of God the church, with all its privileges here on earth. The Gentiles were to come from the east and west, and sit down with

Abraham, in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom were to be cast into outer darkness, where there was to be weeping and gnashing of teeth. This state of outer darkness is evidently that blindness that happened to Israel, that the fulness of the Gentiles might come in:-"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."-Rom. xi, 25. The children of the kingdom of heaven who were to be cast into this state of darkness were the Jews, who had a legal standing in the church. The same thing was intended to be represented in the parable of the rich man and the beggar: the rich man, who meant the Jewish nation, is represented as being cast out afar off from Abraham, while the beggar, who represented the Gentiles, is conducted to Abraham's bosom. That the rich man in this parable represented the Jews, will appear from the following circumstances:-He was clothed in purple and fine linen--the garb of the priesthood. As the Jews were governed by the priesthood, this garb of the priesthood was a proper emblem by which that nation was represented:

"And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons. And they shall take gold and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen."Exodus xxviii, 1, 5. "And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made clothes of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron, as the Lord commanded Moses. And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. And they did beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it into wires, to work it in the blue, and in the purple, and in the scarlet, and in the fine linen with cunning work. They made shoulder pieces for it, to couple it together: by the two edges was it coupled together. And the curious girdle of his ephod, that was upon it, was of the same, according to the work thereof, of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, as the Lord commanded Moses. And they wrought onyx stones in closed in ouches of gold, graven as signets are graven, with the names of the children of Israel. And he put them on the shoulders of the ephod, that they should be stones for a memorial to the children of Israel, as the Lord had com

manded Moses. And he made the breast-plate of cunning work, like the work of the ephod; of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen " "And the stones were

according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet, every one with his name according to the twelve tribes."-Exodus, ch. xxxix, 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14.

Here we see that the breast-plate, which belonged to the attire of the priesthood, as well as the girdle with which they were bound, had the names of the twelve tribes of Israel engraven on the same, which showed that those who were thus attired represented the whole nation when feasting in the tabernacle of the Lord. He fared sumptuously every day--so did the priesthood, for they fed on the fat of the flock. He is represented as calling Abraham Father, and Abraham as calling him son--the Jews boasted that they had Abraham to their father. He wanted an instructor for his brethren, and was informed they already had Moses and the prophets:-the Jews boasted that they had Moses and the prophets, but the Gentiles had them not.

That Lazarus represented the Gentiles will appear from the circumstance of his lying at the rich man's gate and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from his table. These sinners of the Gentiles who dwelt in the land of Judea, but refused to be circumcised, were called proselytes of the gate, and were permitted to offer sacrifice at the gate of the temple, but not suffered to enter. This privilege granted to the Gentiles was called eating the crumbs which fell from their master's table. This will appear from the remarks of our Saviour to the woman of Canaan, and her reply to the same:"Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord help me. But he answered and said, it is not meet to take the childrens' bread and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table."-Matt. xv, 25, 26, 27. Here our Saviour referred to a proverbial saying: it was customary among the Jews, when speaking of the Gentiles, to call them dogs--hence the saying, "Without are dogs and sorcerers." The Gentile woman, who well understood the Saviour's ironical use of this proverb, ingeniously reminded him of another; as much as if she had said, "I know, my Lord, we are accounted as dogs, and I only ask for a dog's privilege--we are permitted to eat of the crumbs which fall from the master's table,'

When we consider that these reproachful sayings were so lavishy applied to these sinners of the Gentiles, who cringingly begged the privilege of worshipping the God of Abraham at the gate of the temple, is it any thing strange to suppose their nation should be represented as a man whose compan ions were dogs lying at the rich man's gate, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from his table.

"But," says Mr. Ray, "the beggar died, and was carried by angels to Abraham's bosom." Mr. Ray should recollect, if he died, he was not buried. So did these sinners of the Gentiles, who received the bread of life, "become indeed dead to sin, but alive unto righteousness;" and were carried by angels, messengers of the gospel, into Abraham's bosom. They ca de from the east and west, and sat down with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven, out of which the rich man, who represented the Jews, ("the children of the kingdom,") was cast into outer darkness. That kingdom of heaven, out of which the "children of the kingdom" was cast, and in which the Gentiles sat down with Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob, was in this state of existence; and so was this beggar when carried to Abraham's bosom.

By Abraham's bosom is simply meant reclining on the promises made to Abraham, that all the nations should be blessed in his seed-"walking in the steps of Abraham's faith."

"The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." This Mr. Ray thinks a decided proof of a state of future punishment, and that the passage will admit of no other explanation. Yet he admits it to be a parable; and if a parable, an individual was not intended by this rich man: neither was the death here spoken of a literal death. When Mr. Ray admits this to be a parable, he admits, as a matter of course, that this rich man represented a certain class of community; in no other sense could it be a parable; and if the rich man represented a certain class of the human family, I ask what class of men did he represent? Was it not that class who called Abraham their father? and what class was that except the Israelites! Thus we see, whenever Mr. Ray admits this to be a parable, he admits indirectly that my construction of the parable is a correct one. As it is admitted that this is a parable, and that the rich man represented a certain class of the human family, and as it follows by a clear consequence that the Jews were that class intended to be rep