dom of heaven as the spiritual kingdom, which God has established in the world through the atoning work of Christ, their essential unity will appear, and the aim of his work be achieved. The vital question is: Has he accomplished this task? The answer will be found in the degree of accuracy with which he has held to his definition of the kingdom, and the success with which he has grouped all the parables around this central point.

What will first attract the reader's attention is that Prof. Calderwood has not included in his scheme all the parables of our Lord. Several are omitted without any excuse or explanation whatever. This omission, considering the aim of the work, looks suspicious. Of course a writer on the parables may, if he please, deal with only a part of them. But when he has proposed a plan of arrangement, with the expressed special design of exhibiting the unity and relations of the parables, the reader will naturally expect the scheme to include all the parables, and will ask why any are omitted. Nor are the suspicions of the reader allayed when he discovers that the parables omitted are, in most cases, those not introduced by the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," and that, therefore, it does not at once appear how they fall into the scheme of arrangement proposed. The only apparent reason for their omission is, that the plan for showing the unity and relations of the parables not being broad enough to include them all, such as interfered with this design are rejected.

66

As far as complete achievement of the main design of the work is concerned, this omission is fatal. Still much may be overlooked, if the proposed scheme applies consistently to the remaining twenty five parables. But here a graver difficulty appears. Prof. Calderwood has given in his definition of the phrase kingdom of heaven," or "kingdom of God," a single signification; and upon his keeping strictly to this definition depends his success in analytically exhibiting the unity and relations of the parables. That the variety and extent of the application of the phrase in the teachings of our Lord should perplex him in this attempt is not to be wondered at. The

point, however, is an important one. If he fail here the result is total disaster; and he will fail if he play with a double signification of the phrase. Let the reader, then, note carefully Prof. Calderwood's use of the phrase kingdom of heaven. Does he, at all times, use it in the same signification? This point can be settled with clearness and brevity. In his treatment of the "Parable of the Net," Prof. Calderwood says,

"What, then, is this net? The kingdom of heaven thus described is the kingdom of grace, in the plentitude of its range. It is that kingdom which God has in this sin-troubled world, where judgment is withheld, vengeance is restrained, and Divine forbearance and comparison are reaching to all men. It is a kingdom whose sovereignty is grace, all whose administration is gracious, within which are all men on earth." "True, indeed, it is, that only some, with spiritual natures renewed, appreciate and enjoy the choicest blessings; but no less true is it that all the wicked, as well as the just, are meanwhile within the kingdom of grace." "No man passes from under the reign of God, which is for every man here a reign of grace. There is, indeed, another and more restricted view of the kingdom of heaven. It is a fold within which come only as many as know the voice of Jesus, and follow him for defence and satisfaction. But under this wider view, it is a

net, embracing all without distinction.".

Here Prof. Calderwood does give a double signification to the phrase "kingdom of heaven." In its wider sense, the kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of grace, in the plentitude of its range, within which are all men on earth. In another and more restricted sense, it is a fold within which come only as many as know the voice of Jesus, and follow him for defence and satisfaction. Whether the phrase "kingdom of heaven is used by our Lord with various significations; or, whether Prof. Calderwood has hit upon a true distinction in regard to its use, does not matter, so far as the reader is at present concerned. But it does matter whether he holds strictly in his classification of the parables to a single view of the phrase. And surely it matters whether he plays fast and loose, as occasion prompts, with two distinct views of it. In

his treatment of the parable of the net, Prof. Calderwood states distinctly in what sense he uses the phrase. "It is under the wider view that the kingdom is a net embracing all without distinction." But does he, throughout his work, hold to this sense of the phrase? How is it in regard to the four parables that he has grouped in the first division? These parables, according to his exposition, treat of man's entrance into the kingdom. But what kingdom? Does the Saviour, as a shepherd searching for his lost sheep, bring the lost one into the kingdom of grace only, "within which are all men on earth"? Or did the Prodigal Son, in returning to his father's house, enter beneath that reign of God only, "from under which no man passes"? It is evident that Prof. Calderwood, in treating this entire group of parables, has in mind the more restricted view of the kingdom as a fold; for it were foolishness to talk of men outside of that wider kingdom, within which are all men. "The Wandering Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, and the Suppliant Publican, all represent men without; their recovery bringing to view entrance into the kingdom of grace. All who do enter appear as saved ones rescued from their lost state, secure within the kingdom which God has established as a home for sinful men." The kingdom here represented, into which are gathered the saved alone, can not be the kingdom represented by the net, within which are all men, the wicked, as well as the good. Here are two distinct kingdoms; and in connection with the interpretation of each parable, the reader must ask: To which kingdom does the author refer?

Sometimes, as in the treatment of the parable of the Talents, an entirely distinct interpretation of the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is given. Under the text, "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country," are these words: "Here once more Jesus suggests his severance from his servants." "He is as a man travelling into a far country." In this instance Prof. Calderwood has apparently abandoned both the wider and the more restricted view of the NEW SERIES. VOL. XVIII

27

kingdom, and made the phrase "kingdom of heaven" synonymous with the name Jesus.

Sometimes, in the treatment of the same parable, a change is made from one view of the kingdom to the other. An instance of this is seen in the chapter on the parable of the Two Sons. This parable is treated under the subject, "The Service of the King." And this service is presented as a privilege of the kingdom. "Attention has been turned, first to the outflowing of Divine mercy for the salvation of the lost; and, next, to the privileges of the kingdom." Now we are to be shown a further privilege of the kingdom in a willing service of the King. This is, of course, within the kingdom. This is evident. But which kingdom, the wider, or the more restricted one? Evidently in the introduction of his treatment of the parable, the author has in mind the more restricted view of the kingdom, and not the one within which are all men. For this service can be rendered only after penitence. When man makes the discovery that he can render God a service, "he is quite past that dark and troubled place where the prodigal son, sitting in wretchedness of heart, wondered if his father would receive him, and let him be even a hired servant. All the surroundings are changed when God, as a reconciled Father, speaks as one who asks a service at our hands. This is the point reached now in our study of our Lord's parabolic teaching. By the avenues of grace we are advancing into the sphere of service." First, we have seen a place of humiliation and penitence; next, there has come full in view a place of pardon and peace; in close proximity with that, a place of fellowship with God, where we may have free approach to him with our petitions; and now we are on the confines of the vineyard, where work is to be done.". This representation does not apply to that view of the kingdom within which are all men. Surely when a man has come through penitence to a place of pardon, peace, and fellowship with God, he may be regarded as having advanced into the more restricted kingdom. And this, according to Prof. Calderwood, is now the position of the two sons. But how is the reader

66

perplexed by the following: "Are not there two, the younger and the elder of the parable of the Prodigal,- the Penitent and the Alienated? Are they not still the same as the two suppliants in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican? As we proceed we shall find ample warrant for an affirmative answer." In this passage, the character of the two sons is shown. The one is penitent, the other alienated, the one a Publican, the other a Pharisee. Yet both sons were represented by the author as in a place of penitence, pardon, and peace a place of fellowship with God the restricted kingdom. But the entire representation is inconsistent. The character of one of the sons is, as presented, incompatible with the position that he is made to occupy. If either of the sons is unrepentant, alienated, they can not be in the restricted kingdom, but they must be in the wider kingdom within which are the bad as well as the good. That this is the kingdom now in the mind of the author is made still further evident by the fact that he infers universal disobedience from the disobedience of the two sons.

He says: "In the account of the disobedience of these two, there lies before us a representation of the conduct of our whole race in disobeying God's demand for service. The first prominent point of the parable is discovered here. When God calls to men for service, there is universal disobedience to the call." Of course this universal disobedience could not be in the more restricted kingdom, for it would be contrary to the character of its inhabitants to disobey; and if they did disobey, disobedience could be affirmed of only as many as were within the kingdom, and not of all men.

A careful study of the author's use of the phrase, “kingdom of heaven," will show that it was in its more restricted sense that he intended to employ it as the central point about which to group the parables, and that he became so perplexed by certain representations of the kingdom that, in some instances, he was compelled to enlarge his definition; in others to abandon it entirely. In doing this he has defeated the purpose of his scheme for giving an impressive view of the unity and rela