accept with gladness the proffered salvation. In this, there is no reference whatever, as yet, to the exclusion of the Jews from their former theocratic privileges, or to the rejection of the ancient city of God. But when after this, room is still left for other guests, and the servant is sent to the highways, and out of the city to the hedges in the country, to bring in all whom he may find, we have, for the first time, an obscure intimation of the call of the heathen.

But the more complex parable in Matt. 21,* indicates its origin in the last period of the Saviour's ministry, by the fact, that the relation of Christ to the Jewish nation appears here as altogether different. There are two circumstances particularly, which distinguish this parable from the first. One is, that while in that the unsusceptible Pharisees are contrasted with those of a better spirit among the despised of their own countrymen, here, on the contrary, the Jewish people themselves, as a mass, are contrasted in their stupidity with those of other nations, who had not, as yet, been called at all. The other is, that those invited in the last case reject the invitation in a far more abrupt, hostile manner. They do not consider it even worth the trouble, to excuse themselves for their neglect of the repeated invitation; they do not so much as hear it; they express studiously their scornful contempt. Instead of the distinction which is made in the first parable, between the susceptible and unsusceptible among the Jews themselves, it is the spectacle of an entire people, sunk in one common insensibility, which is here presented to us; some abandoned to it more completely than others, but none wholly exempt from it. They all belong either to the numerous class of those, who, alive only to their earthly interests, suffer the divine message, which addresses no conscious want of their souls, to pass unheeded by them, or to the hostile Pharisaic party and their organs, by whom the servants of the king, through whom he invites to the

*I coincide in this view with the suggestions of Schleiermacher in his treatise on Luke, but not with the views expressed by Strauss, 1, p. 610, Schneckenburger and De Wette. I perceive no ground at all, why, when on a comparison of the parables with each other, we find several of a kindred character, which yet differ by being in one case more simple, in another more complex, we should not assume that Christ himself varied their form in this manner, instead of regarding them in their more complicated state, as the product of different parables which have been confounded together. This latter can be affirmed only when it is shown, that heterogeneous elements are intermixed in the more complicated parables. Strauss has sought, indeed, to prove this in reference to this parable of Matthew, but he has by no means succeeded, as will appear from what is yet to be said.

marriage-supper, that is, the messengers of God, through whom the call to the kingdom of heaven is extended to them, are reviled and murdered. Hence follows now the divine judgment on the people and city, the destruction of the murderers, the dominant Pharisaic party, and the overthrow of Jerusalem. The citizens of the destroyed city can, therefore, no longer be invited to the marriage-feast, to the privileges of the Messiah's kingdom; but after the destruction of the eity, the king sends his messengers into the country, to the thoroughfares, where travellers in great numbers meet together, to invite all whom they find, to the wedding,-without doubt a prophetic intimation, that after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the rejection of the ancient theocratic people, the heathen nations, who had been hitherto excluded from the kingdom of God, would be called to be members of it. There is this difference further, which might be supposed to exist between the first and the second parables, that in the first, reference is made to the kingdom of God in general only, but in the second, to the personal Messiah; that in the first, we have an account of a festival entertainment only, but in the second, more specifically of a marriage-feast, which a king appoints for his son. Had Christ wished, however, to render this point prominent here, he would certainly have marked the gradation; the king would have first sent his servants, then finally his son himself, whose marriage was to be celebrated, and they would have reviled and murdered even him. But this turn would not have suited well the whole parable; for the son of a king could not be represented, in congruity with the figure, as a person, who, like a servant, goes about himself and invites the guests to the marriage-supper. Still the two parables remain clearly distinguished from each other, by the differences, that in the first, it is, indefinitely, a certain man who gives the feast, in the second, it is a king; in the first, it is an entertainment in general, in the second, an entertainment at the marriage of a king's son. This change now two forms of the

is adapted perfectly to the relation of the parable to each other. The greater the honor shown to those invited,—the invitation of a king to the marriage-feast of

*Without reason Strauss thinks he has found here a foreign trait in the figure. The mal-treatment or killing of those who invite to a feast, appears indeed without any adequate motive; but this was necessary. By the contemptuous ingratitude with which the people received the honor shown to them by the king, it was intended to represent, forcibly, the manner in which they requited good with evil.

his son, so much the more criminal appears the ingratitude and insolence, with which they treat so great an honor.

But the second parable contains another new and important allusion, in the distinction made between the genuine and false members of this church, which is to be collected from all nations. This is in accordance with the anxiety which the Redeemer always manifests, to hold up distinctly to view the fact, that an external profession, without the true Christian spirit, avails nothing; that it is only by a deep, moral renovation, that a man can become a true member of the kingdom of God. This is expressed in the words, which denote the point of the second part, added to the parable, " many are called, but few are chosen;" that is, many hear the offers of the gospel, many connect themselves externally with the divine kingdom, and belong to the visible church, who yet are not chosen to actual membership in it, inasmuch as they are deficient in the necessary moral qualifications. Those who came without the wedding garment, who went with the rest in their ordinary garb, in which they happened to be found at the time, who did not give themselves the trouble to procure first their festival attire,* represent those, who obey indeed externally the call, but are not careful to see to it, that they possess the character, which is demanded for admission into the kingdom of heaven.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

* Many expositors have thought, that the case is to be conceived of thus: The wedding dress, the Kaften, according to oriental custom, was offered to the guests by the host himself; and they had manifested their neglect of the honor shown to them, by contemptuously refusing the proffered raiment. This was intended now to represent the righteousness of faith, as a gift of divine grace. But not to mention, that the existence of such a practice in regard to the Kaften in ancient times, has by no means been proved (which does not determine so much, since we find in the east so great an agreement between the customs of ancient and modern times), Christ would not, certainly, had he wished here to give prominence to so important a thought, have failed to express it definitely. In that case, this would have been specified in the accusation against the guests, who did not appear in bridal attire. "The wedding garment has been offered to you, and you have not accepted it. So much the greater your guilt!' On the contrary, the point lies rather here, that they had not done what was their duty to procure the wedding raiment. In what way they could have furnished themselves with it, was not in this respect important to the case, and could be passed over in silence. Hence, it can by no means be said with Strauss, that this appears here as a foreign trait, because one does not perceive how they could have obtained such a wedding dress.

*This is a Turkish word, denoting a long, and as to its ground-color, white, dress, worn by the Turks. It was made of the richest materials, embroidered often with flowers, and other figures, interlaced with golden or silver threads, and was used only on occasions of special festivity.-See ROSENMÜLLER'S "Das alte u. Neue Morgenland," v. 5, p. 77.

ARTICLE IV.

REVIEW OF TAPPAN ON THE WILL.

AND is it possible that Edwards is refuted at last? Has all Europe been dazzled by the brilliancy of a luminary, which is now set, to rise and shine no more? Can it be that Edwards, after receiving the thanks of the most distinguished professors of foreign universities, for the light which he cast upon a most difficult subject, should, himself, at last, prove but the patron of infidelity? Can it be true, that those profound reasonings are now completely demolished, by which he gained for himself, though unsought, the highest honors of philosophy, and the admiration of the most gifted minds of his age? All this, the work of Prof. Tappan proposes to show. Surely, a work of such pretensions has some claim upon our attention; unless, indeed, it be obviously the production of one of those reckless literary adventurers, who hesitate not to make their onset upon our most sainted authors, without any just appreciation of the subjects they are attempting, or of the men whom they denounce. But we should do

the greatest injustice to Prof. Tappan, to number him with such a class. He ranks himself among the highest admirers of the piety and talents of Edwards; he also, unquestionably, brings to his subject some just sense of its numerous difficulties, and of its profound importance. Without the advantage of the least personal acquaintance with the author, we are bound to receive his work as an honest effort in defence of what he considers to be truth, and as the result of a sincere desire to bring some valuable contribution to the cause of science and of religion. We think we see evidence in it of a soul deeply stirred with important thoughts; we see a mind of no ordinary powers, manfully struggling to give clearness and consistency to what many have regarded as the only philosophical theory which can harmonize with the facts of consciousness, and the teachings of revelation. And, with his views of the momentous consequences suspended upon the decision of the question he approaches, we are not surprised, that Prof. T. enters upon the discussion of it with

We cannot but

all the powers of his intellect and heart. hope, however, that the views he has formed of Edwards's system may prove to be owing only to the unfortunate medium through which he contemplates it. "The system itself," he says, "is a system of fatalism,-here then I charge. directly this consequence, or feature, upon the system." He maintains, also, that the doctrine of a self-determining power in the will, furnishes the only possible escape from pantheism. These are weighty assertions. Surely one must feel that great interests are at stake, when a question is pending, which must decide whether he is to regard himself as a man or a god. Again he says, "It is only by admitting the idea of contingent causality, that the dogma which affirms God to be the author of sin can be set aside." Some may find it difficult to conceive how these two errors can be compatible with each other, or spring from the same root. We should judge, that if pantheism can once be shown to be a legitimate deduction from the system of Edwards, it would follow, not that God is the author of sin, but that, according to this system, the very existence of sin is impossible.

Yet we see, from these intimations, the nature of the task to which our author is committed. He stands virtually pledged to refute Edwards, or embrace pantheism, and charge God as the author of sin. His position is one of most momentous responsibility. Suppose he should not succeed in disproving the doctrine of Edwards, in the estimation of his readers; is he willing that they should adopt the only alternative he leaves them? Or, should he himself hereafter become convinced that these doctrines are impregnable; what would he do? We venture to say, he would make a violent effort to find some other method of egress from pantheism, that he would be too modest to wear upon his shoulders the mantle of the divinity, and too tenacious of his individual privilege, to merge his own personality in the illimitable gulf of absolute being. We cannot but regret, that our author should have brought things to such an issue; and that he should have allowed himself to make such liberal concessions in favor of pantheism and infidelity, as to intimate that, on any conditions, the possibility of their truth is even conceivable. We regret, that any expressions should have escaped him, which would seem like staking the whole truth of the Christian religion upon a mere metaphysical discussion.