dug in it a press, and built a tower. [He] let it out to husbandmen, and went abroad into a strange country for a long time. At the season when the time of the fruits drew nigh, he sent to the husbandmen a servant to receive of the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard; who, having laid hands upon him, beat him, and sent him away empty. Again he sent another servant, and they beat him also, and stoned him, and they wounded him in the head, and, treating him reproachfully, sent him away empty. And again he sent the third, and they wounded him also, and cast him out, and him they killed. Again he sent other servants, more than the former, of whom some they beat and others they killed. Then the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be (13), when they see him, they will reverence him. Therefore, having yet one son, most dear to him, he also sent him to them last of all, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen seeing the son, they thought within themselves, saying one to the other: This is the heir; come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So, casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard shall come, what shall he do to these husbandmen? They say to him: He will bring these evil men to an evil end, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, that they shall render him the fruit in due season."

Thus, without knowing it, they pronounced the sentence of their own condemnation. As they still did not perceive that the matter concerned themselves, they gave way to that natural sense of equity which is felt by all men when they have no interest in being unjust. But Jesus, taking up their decision, said: (a) "He will come and will destroy those husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others." The manner in which he pronounced these words made

(a) St. Mark, xii. 9; St. Luke, xx. 16, 17; St. Matthew, xxi. 42-46.

side the inclosure of the walls of Jerusalem, in order that this circumstance of his passion should be found to have been foretold like the others.

(13) This man said it may be, because a man is ignorant of what may occur to him. When God says so, it is not from ignorance: he merely expresses the possibility, founded on the free-will of man, who may or may not do so. See note 4, page 63, chap. ix. Part I.

them at last sensible that they were merely a confirmation of the sentence which they had pronounced against themselves, and speaking in the sudden fear with which they were seized, "God forbid! they hearing, said to him. But he looking on them, said: What is this, then, that is written? Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected (14), the same is become the head of the corner (15)? By the Lord has this been done (16), and it is wonderful in our eyes."

It is well understood, even if He had not expressly said So, that he was the corner-stone which, blinded by their malice, these ignorant builders rejected. "Therefore," he presently added, “I say unto you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you (17), and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder (18). When the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they knew that he spoke of them, and seeking to lay hands on him, they feared the people, because they held him as a prophet.”

(14) These words are taken from the 117th Psalm. Even the Jews understood them as having reference to the Messiah; this is the reason why they can make no answer. (15) Jesus is elsewhere styled the foundation-stone. He is also termed the key of the arch. He is, in point of fact, all that is signified by these different expressions. Here he is the corner-stone, because he joins two walls previously divided, making of the two but one single edifice, viz., he combines the two people, Jew and Gentile, so that they are but one and the same people.

(16) Rejected by men, this stone is placed by the hand of God. The heavenly Jerusalem shall be built almost entirely of the stones which are the refuse of the world-the disciples who follow their Master.

(17) Heaven and the Church are styled in Scripture the kingdom of God. It is taken in both these senses from the fall of the Synagogue; the Synagogue is no longer the true Church which gives children to God, and heaven is irrevocably closed against it.

(18) Those who strike against a large stone do not hurt the stone; they hurt themselves; if this stone falls from above on any one, it crushes him. The Jews, by their opposition to Jesus Christ, have not injured him, but themselves alone; for they have injured themselves in their spiritual welfare, since they have deserved to be no longer the people of God, and in their temporal welfare, by the frightful calamities which were the effect and the chastisement of their crime. Behold them already bruised by the stone; but on the last day, when Jesus Christ shall pronounce against them the sentence of eternal reprobation, then it is that the stone shall fall upon them with its whole weight, and crush them into powder.

CHAPTER LIV.

PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST.-OBLIGATION OF PAYING THE TRIBUTE.-THE RESURRECTION PROVED.—THE FIRST COMMANDMENT OF THE LAW IS, THE LOVE OF GOD AND OUR NEIGHBOR.—THE MESSIAH IS THE SON OF DAVID, AND YET HIS LORD.

THE actual dispositions of the rulers of the Jewish nation, the crime which they meditated and which they were on the point of perpetrating, and the vengeance which the Lord was subsequently to wreak upon them, constitute the principal part of what the reader has just perused. The sequel contains the history of what was to occur immediately after the Saviour's death. We here see his Gospel preached, and once more rejected by the Jews, whether in consequence of their ancient prejudices, or from an excessive attachment to the goods of the earth, from which those who obey his law must be entirely detached. Several of his ministers are cruelly put to death: others, called the Gentiles (who are sent in place of the first), throng in crowds to form for Jesus Christ a Church so numerous and so flourishing that it indemnifies him a hundred times over for the loss of the obdurate Synagogue. But, lest these new-comers might fancy that, by recognizing him for the Messiah, they had finally secured their salvation, he introduced, by way of episode, the parable of a man who had not the nuptial robe, in order to teach them that faith alone does not save, and that they might expect to be condemned with the incredulous, if they did not take care to preserve the innocence which they received in baptism, or if, after having lost it, they do not regain it by sincere repentance. (a)“Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a man being a king (1), who made a marriage for his

(a) St. Matthew, xxii. 1-14.

(1) The parable of the great supper, which we have already seen, page 327, Part II., bears so close a resemblance to this, that some have thought, and with great probability, that it was the same parable spoken but once by the Saviour, and related by two evangelists, with the same circumstances, more or less varied. Without going into detail, we

son (2); and he sent his servants to call them that were invited to the marriage; and they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited: Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my beeves and fatlings are killed. All things are ready: come ye to the wedding. But they neglected, and went their ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise. And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. When the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. Then he saith to his servants: The wedding indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy; go ye, therefore, into the highways, and as many as you shall find, invite to the wedding. His servants going His servants going out into the highways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good, and the wedding was filled with guests. The king went in to see the guests; he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment; and he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding-garment? But he was silent (3). Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen."

agree that these circumstances are not in reality essential; that in point of fact the substance is the same; that the sense of the two parables is also the same, inasmuch as, on both sides, it is evidently the Church formed of Gentiles after the obstinate refusal of the Jews to enter into it. However, it appears certain that Jesus Christ spoke them at different times and in different places, and it is highly probable that the two parables were marked, when he uttered them, by the same difference which we find them to have in the sacred writers.

(2) God is the king, Jesus Christ is the bridegroom, and the Church is his spouse. The servants are the preachers of the Gospel. The guests first invited are the Jews, as we have said; and the second are the Gentiles, who embrace the faith. They are the principal portion of the Church, which is the consort; but they only compose it collectively; and, taken separately, they do not constitute a necessary part, because there is not one amongst them which the Church may not lose without ceasing to be the Church. Witness the man who had not the nuptial garment, whose expulsion deprived the Church of none of her integrity.

(3) If he be silent, how can he justify himself? if his hands are tied, how can he resist? and if his feet are also tied, how can he escape by flight? This is said in order to make manifest the inevitable effect of God's judgments; for, in short, there can be only three ways of securing one's self-apology, resistance, or flight.

But (a)" then the Pharisees," who could not now prevail by force, had recourse to artifice: "going, [they] consulted amongst themselves how to ensnare him in his speech. And being upon the watch, they sent spies, who should feign themselves just." These emissaries were some of the Pharisees, and their disciples with the Herodians." We have said that this was in order to ensnare him in his speech, "that they might deliver him up to the authority and power of the governor." Seeing in him but an ordinary man, they held out to him the only lure by which all men are caught, which is that of praise; and as they seemed to desire that he would speak to them frankly and freely, they affected to praise him more especially for his freedom and his candor. "Who coming, say to him: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker, and carest not for any man. For thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth (4). Tell us, therefore, what dost thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not?"

The question was as captious as it could possibly be; for he must either have answered yes or no, supposing that he wished to give any answer; and whatever way he answered, the snare appeared inevitable. If he authorized the tribute, besides that he could no longer give himself out to be the Messiah, who, according to the common belief, was to emancipate the nation from every species of slavery, they might also avail themselves of his reply in order to render him odious to the people, who held this tribute in horror. Or, if he denied the obligation of paying it, they would then denounce him at once to the governor, who would cause him to be punished as a rebel. The trick was, therefore, skilfully devised. But of what avail is subtlety against truth, and trickery against wisdom? (b) "Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the coin of the tribute. They (a) St. Matthew, xxii. 15; St. Luke, xx. 20; St. Mark, xii. 13.

(b) St. Matthew, xxii. 18–21.

(4) This testimony which they rendered to Jesus Christ was true, and, therefore, honorable to him. If given by well-meaning persons, it would have deserved acknowledgment and reward from the Saviour; but being thus spoken, it was as criminal as the blackest calumny could have been. We here see what a difference the intention makes in the same action.