even before it has come to maturity it may be safely eaten to appease hunger. Figs are eaten either as plucked or when dried. In the last state, they now form a considerable article of commerce.

It will be seen from these facts that Jesus had reason for expecting to find fruit on the fig-tree to which he went, especially as it already had leaves. In April it might have had winter figs, and could, with its show of leaves, not fail to furnish Jesus with refreshment from its spring produce. It had none. Agreeably to his own command, 'Čut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?' Jesus pronounced a sentence of perpetual barrenness on the tree. His aim was to give, in an actual instance, a warning to those men who, with every advantage, brought forth no fruit. That such should be cast out as withered branches, was a fact in nature before it became a Christian doctrine. The unproductive perish. The wisdom and kindness of Jesus are illustrated in that he took his example and gave his warning, not in a human being, but in a barren tree, which perished without pain to itself or loss to society. That Jesus was not actuated by a feeling of disappointment, is manifest from the fact that his mind was far too elevated to have such an emotion. He who refused to punish the Samaritan village for its want of hospitality, would not in idle revenge destroy a tree for not supplying him with food. Such a misinterpretation of his purpose our Lord took pains to correct when, drawing from the event the lessons he intended it to give, he expressly makes a forgiving spirit indispensable to the employment of similar power on the part of his disciples (Mark xi. 20—26).

Has the great Lord of the harvest a right to expect fruit from us? Let us bring forth much fruit, for hereby shall we fulfil his purposes, promote his glory, and avoid the doom of the unprofitable servant exhibited in the rapid decay of the unfruitful figtree (Matt. iii. 10, vii. 17; John xv. 2, 5, seq.; Romans vii. 4; Matt. xxv. 30).

The chief ground of Christ's expectation that he should find fruit on the tree was not the season of the year, for, as Mark declares, 'the time of figs was not yet.' Not till June would the spring crop be ripe. Still there ought to have been on the tree figs which, though not ripe, might have sufficed. These figs might have been what had outlived the winter, or certainly what spring had given birth to. For there were the leaves, which in all cases never came till fruit had been formed. Accordingly, both Matthew and Mark lay stress on the fact that the tree had leaves; while the latter, whose descriptions are pictures, represents Jesus as 'seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves. He came, if haply he might find any thing thereon; and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves.' The leaves, then, attracted

Christ's attention. Leaves, in the case, implied fruit, for the latter is developed before the former.

Hence proceeds the exact moral view of the subject. It is not mere unfruitfulness which Jesus condemned in causing the figtree to wither; but it is unfruitfulness combined with much show and promise, many leaves, no fruit,-nothing left from the past, no buddings or germs for the future,-all show, and nothing but show. And herein specially lay the condemnation of Israel in this exertion of Divine power. Ripe fruit Jesus did not expect among 'his own' people, but he had a right to look for something more than a display of religious feeling and zeal. That something he did not find, save in a few scattered individuals. The nation had become unnatural, like a fig-tree full of leaves, but destitute of fruit; had lost what the past had done for it, and gave no signs of coming life. Its vigour was gone; its productive power was at an end. It had a name to live; but that nominal life produced only a rank, unfruitful, useless vegetation. So some persons expend all the energy of their character in words, promises, and show, which lead to no result but disappointment to others, and vexation and utter sterility in themselves.

Jesus, having reached Jerusalem, entered the temple. In the early part of his ministry, he had cleansed it from the defilements of traffic. But great has always been the temptation to make a gain of godliness; and there, as before, sat the moneychangers and the sellers of doves. Resolved to make one more effort, he began to cast out of the court of the Gentiles, where they were, them that sold and bought, supporting his proceedings by an appeal to that authority which all acknowledged to be supreme: 'My house shall be called by all nations the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves' (Is. lvi. 7).

This was a bold step. Its boldness gave hope to the priests and rabbis. The people, it is true, were astonished. But wonder is sometimes not distant from disbelief. And the authorities seem to have thought it possible to turn their amazement into disavowal. The task was hard, for an earnest attention was paid to him on every side. It was, however, clear that if his influence was not destroyed, their own power had come to an end. Again, therefore, did they seek how they might destroy Jesus; but they sought in vain. When the even was come, he went out of the city and returned to Bethany (Matt. xxi. 12—17; Mark xi. 12-19; Luke xix. 45, 48).

CHAPTER IV.

JESUS, GOING AGAIN INTO JERUSALEM, COMES INTO COLLISION WITH ITS JEWISH AUTHORITIES, WHOM HE CONFUTES, REPROVES, AND DESCRIBES, IN SEVERAL SPEECHES-THE TWO SONS, THE HOUSEHOLDER WHO LET A VINEYARD, THE KING'S MARRIAGE, AND THE GUEST WITHOUT A WEDDING GARMENT-AND, HAVING DEFEATED AND SCOURGED PRIESTS, AND POLITICIANS, AND SADDUCEES, COMMENDED THE WIDOW'S OFFERING, SET FORTH THE PARABLE OF THE UNFAITHFUL SERVANT, THAT OF THE TEN VIRGINS, AND THE GREAT ADJUDICATION, HE WENT BACK TO BETHANY.

Tuesday, 12th of Nisan, 3rd day of the week, April 4th.

On the next morning, our Lord and his friends once more visited the city and the temple. On their way, the disciples saw and wondered at the withered fig-tree. When they came to Jerusalem, they found an assembly of chief-priests, scribes, and elders, prepared to meet Jesus in the sacred place. During the interval, his foes appear to have taken counsel. And of one thing they had no doubt, that the crisis had come, and that they must destroy Jesus, or he would put an end to their sway. They therefore resolved to confront and challenge him openly: encountering him as he was walking within the temple enclosure, they demanded by what authority he acted. He replied, Was the mission of John the Baptist from heaven, or of men?' They were caught in their own net. If they admitted that it was divine, then did they condemn themselves in rejecting and persecuting Jesus. If they declared it was from below, they compromised themselves with the people, many of whom crowded to hear the conversation, for all held John to be a prophet.

Having defeated their wiles, our Lord proceeded to paint their character in its true light. For this purpose, he spake the parable of the Two Sons. Two young men were bidden by their father to go and work in his vineyard. The first refused, but afterwards repented and went. The second answered, ‘I go, Sir,' and went not. 'Which,' asked Jesus, 'did his father's will?' The first,' they were compelled to reply. It is so,' our Lord in effect subjoined. 'The Gentile nations refused to obey the Divine will, but are now, in a repentant state of mind, coming into the kingdom of God; while you, the nominal sons of that kingdom, who make a pretence of obeying the great Ruler of the world, are even now attempting to ensnare his darling child, are eager to bring God's counsel to nought, and will entail ruin on yourselves and your nation. Verily, I say unto you, the tax-gatherers and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.'

Another parable spake he unto them to this effect-A householder having prepared a vineyard, let it to husbandmen, as he himself was going to a distant land. The rent was payable in kind. When harvest came, he sent servants to receive his stipulated share. These servants were beaten or put to death. A greater number were sent, who experienced a similar fate. At last he sent his own son, in the assurance that they would reverence him. The wicked husbandmen saw that if they slew the son, they should make their possession of the vineyard safe and permanent. They therefore put the son to death. But they gained not their nefarious end. The Lord came, and, miserably destroying these servants, let his vineyard to others who should render him the fruit in its season.

The allusion to the priestly powers, who, holding God's vineyard, had refused him his dues and were now taking measures for killing his Son, as they had rejected and slain his prophets, was too clear and emphatic to be mistaken. Jesus, however, growing more daring as he went on, made a direct application to the priests in scriptural language, and then expressly declared, 'I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.' The learned and priestly band saw that Jesus was aiming at them and those who had sent them. Again they attempted to lay hands on him, but they failed; for they 'feared the multitude, who took him for a prophet' (Matt. xxi. 18-46; Mark xi. 20— 33, xii. 1—12; Luke xx. 1-19).

Again Jesus addressed them in a parable, setting forth how a king, on the marriage of his son, invited a suitable company, all of whom, on some ground or other, excused themselves. He therefore caused persons to be collected from the highways, and the wedding was furnished with friends. On such occasions it was, in the East, customary for each one to appear in rich and festive attire. When the Lord came to survey the company, he saw one person who had not on a wedding garment. This was a proof that he had not the right feeling of respect. He was therefore bound and carried from the well-lighted hall, in which the marriage was celebrated in the evening, and thrust out of doors into the dark night, where, in comparison with the joy within, were sorrow and wailing. Our Lord ended by remarking that many are invited, but few chosen' (Matt. xxii. 1—14).

The general tenor of this parable is obvious. It was directed against the Jewish hierarchy, who would not come to the marriage in which Jesus was the bridegroom (John iii. 29), and whose places in consequence were to be filled from the miscellaneous multitude whom Jesus by his teachings had made favourable to the new relations into which God was about to enter with his human family. Yet not all of them, indiscriminately, would sit down as friends with the king and his son. The invi

tation was general, but a prepared state of mind was indispensable. This prepared state of mind is figured by the wedding garment, the wearing of which was a token of a spirit congenial with the occasion. He who was not clad in the sumptuous apparel worn by others, if invited among the mass, was still not welcomed by the lord, and could not therefore be allowed to remain. In order to sit at table with Jesus, we must have, at least in an elementary state, the dispositions which he loves. The Son cannot entertain uncongenial guests.

The Pharisees were discouraged; for Jesus taught as one who obeyed God rather than men. Honestly rebuking them to their face, he worked on whatever vanishing traces of conscience they had left, and enjoyed the safety which moral greatness has so often exacted from wickedness armed with the sword. Yet, though he drove his enemies back, he did not and could not overcome their malignity. That, indeed, became only more intense and more fertile in devices. They therefore tried another expedient. There was in Jerusalem a party who favoured the pretensions which Herod Antipas secretly made to the vacant throne of Judea. These were allied with the hierarchy, in order to gain and give strength, with a view to the establishment of an independent national government. These Herodians, the creatures of that prince who had so long and zealously pursued Jesus, readily took part with the priests in a common attempt to embroil our Lord with either the popular party or with the Roman governors. Accordingly, a deputation, consisting of the tools of Herod and those of the Pharisees, were sent to the Saviour with a view to catch him in his words.' Beginning with flattery, they asked Jesus whether or not it was lawful to pay the taxes imposed by Rome. This was an insidious and ensnaring question. If Jesus said 'Yes,' then he lost favour with the people, and there, before him, were the special patriots of Jerusalem, ready to bear witness that with their own ears they heard him speak in favour of Roman tyranny, and against prince Herod and his noble designs for national independence. If he answered 'No,' then he virtually refused obedience to Cæsar, and was liable to an indictment for high treason; and there, too, before him were representatives of the priesthood, who to compass the death of Jesus were ready to urge his guilt at the hated tribunal of the Roman procurator. Jesus answered neither 'No' nor 'Yes,' but again confuted his foes out of their own mouths. 'Shew me the tribute-money,' said he. A coin was put into his hands. 'Whose image is this?' 'The Roman emperor's.' 'Then you yourselves have decided the question. You acknowledge your vassalage by circulating Cæsar's coin; render, therefore, to Cæsar what is Cæsar's, and render to God what belongs to him.' They marvelled at him, and went their way' (Matt. xxii. 15-22; Mark xii. 12-17).

6