Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

order of time of any of which we need appeal to no other instances than Luke xi. 37-54. compared with Matt. xxiiib: Luke xii: Luke xiii. 1-9d: 23-35: Luke xvii. 20-36f: Luke xviii. 1-88: and lastly, the whole of the prophecy delivered upon mount Olivet b

b Harm. P. iv. 31. 77. e Ibid. 36, 37. f Ibid. 47.

c Ibid. 32.
8 Ibid. 48.

d Ibid. 33.

h Ibid. 78, 79.

CHAPTER III.

On the final end proposed by the use of Parables.

IF the kinds of parables, as we have endeavoured

to render it probable, were twofold; and if these kinds were respectively so opposed to each other, as we have assumed; the ends designed by the use of either must be similarly distinguished and opposed likewise. To suppose, then, that any common end was designed by the use of the parables generally, would be as absurd, or, at least, as inconsistent with the principles which we have attempted to establish, as to suppose there was no difference in the kinds of the parables themselves.

The state of the case appears, in fact, to be such as we should expect from our conclusions. Each kind of parables had a proper use and purpose, but they were the reverse of each other: the moral were designed to instruct, the allegorical, to withhold information; the moral were intended to make something clearer, the allegorical, to make something more obscure; the one were calculated to simplify certain truths, and to assist the comprehensions of the hearers, the other, to veil their proper subject matter in a degree of mystery, which would only perplex and confound it.

The nature and particulars of the two species of parables were, indeed, respectively very different; and therefore their office and designation were different likewise. The moral parables belong to the class of examples, which must always be applied to enforce or inculcate some point of practice; but the

allegorical are simply and purely histories, only not simply and plainly expressed. Doctrines or duties, with the principles in which they were founded, and the obligations which they entailed in practice, are the business of the former; a narrative of facts, whether past, or present, or future, is the thing represented by the latter. We can imagine no good reason for seeking to disguise the apprehension of moral truths, which are at all times equally applicable in practice, and at all times equally concerning in obligation; nor therefore, for leaving unexplained the scope and intention of parables, possessing the force of examples, and cases in point to the practical truths or doctrines, which were the subjects of discussion. But we may conceive a variety of sufficient reasons, why it might be necessary to conceal the immediate knowledge and comprehension of such and such a series of facts; why, therefore, an historical narrative of such facts should be delivered under the form of an allegory, and the allegory, so delivered, not afterwards be cleared up and explained. These facts might be such as were not yet true, that is, had not yet a real existence; and therefore were strictly future, not present or past: as future, they might be such as were not yet personally interesting to those who heard them stated, though they might afterwards become so. There could be no prejudice against the reception of a rule or principle of duty, nor any difficulty with respect to its comprehension, at one time more than another; but there might be a present repugnance to the knowledge of certain facts, and a present difficulty as to their being apprehended, which would render it not only offensive and dangerous,

but perhaps impracticable and absurd, to reveal them clearly and simply at the time. The course of events could give no additional force to the obligation of a moral duty, nor facilitate the better perception of a moral axiom; but it would do every thing in clearing up and assisting the apprehension of predictions. Parables, in short, which inculcated moral examples, were very proper means of public teaching; and those, which exhibited an allegorical narrative of facts, might be not less adapted as the medium of a certain kind of prophecy.

That some of our Lord's parables were intended for concealment, is so unquestionably true, and so open to observation, that commentators have repeatedly assumed the fact of such a purpose, as the final end of the parabolic method of teaching in general; and to evince the wisdom and utility of adopting a method of teaching, in so great a variety of instances, the reverse of the ordinary plainness and simplicity of teaching in general, and of the instructions of a moral teacher in particular, they have thought it sufficient to assign such reasons as these; the novelty or pleasurableness of the mode of teaching itself—its remarkable accordancy to the habits and genius of Oriental nations-and more especially, as we may presume, a particular desire of our Saviour's to try the understandings of his hearers, and which of them would exhibit the greatest share of sagacity, discernment, or penetration, in decyphering the meaning of his parables or to ascertain their temper and disposition, their moral qualifications in general, and their attachment to himself in particular; which of them would acquiesce in the employed mode of teaching,

[ocr errors]

notwithstanding its apparent difficulty and obscurity, out of deference to his own authority, and which of them would be scandalized by it—which of them, in a particular instance, would apply for more light and information, and which would take no further trouble to obtain it. All these, and such like reasons, though commonly proposed as an account of the origin of the method of teaching in parables, or of the end contemplated by the concealment of their meaning in certain instances, are liable to the objection of being at variance with the plain matter of fact, and with the inference deducible from it, that there was a certain number of his parables, which Jesus regularly explained at the time of their delivery, and a certain number more, which he quite as regularly did not.

We may infer, as before, from this fact with respect to parables of the former kind, that our Lord could never have intended them not to be understood, if he always explained and applied them himself; and we may argue from it with respect to those of the latter, that he could never have intended these to be understood, at the time at least, which he never explained or applied. If he acted consistently in each of these instances, and just as intentionally in the one as in the other, it must be manifest that he was as desirous to conceal his meaning in the one case, as to make it clear and intelligible in the other; it is as presumptively probable that concealment was the sole end of the one, as that instruction was the only object of the other. And concealment, under such circumstances, could not be merely partial or temporary, with regard at least to the original use of the parable,

« IndietroContinua »