A. They do not. Both refer, according to the explicit declarations of the Saviour, to events which transpired in this life.

Q. Are there some who object to the explanation we have given to this parable, by saying that Christ did not come during that generation, as described in the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew?

A. There are. But their objections should be settled with the Redeemer, and not with us.

Q. Why?

A. Because Christ expressly declared he would come in the manner described in these chapters, during that generation; and whoever deny that he did thus come, call in question the veracity of Jesus, and must decide the point with him, and not with those who believe and rely upon his word.

Q. Do those greatly err who suppose that unless the Redeemer came literally and personally, at the overthrow of the Jews, he did not come at all?

A. They do. Christ did not assert that he should come literally, and in his own person, but his whole language shows that he designed to represent his coming as a spiritual or virtual one.

Q. What is the language of Archbishop Newcome, on this subject?

The

A. "The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus is emphatically called the coming of Christ. spirit of prophecy speaks particularly of this, because the city and temple were then destroyed, and the civil and ecclesiastical state of the Jews subverted." Q. What does the same writer say of the nature of Christ's coming?

A. "The coming of Christ, to destroy the Jews, was a virtual, and not a real one, and was to be understood figuratively, and not literally."

Q. What is the opinion of Kenrick?

A. He says, "The great power and glory of

Christ were as conspiculously displayed at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other circumstances which accompanied that event, as if they had seen him coming upon the clouds of heaven, to punish his enemies."

LESSON XXXI.

Conclusion.

Q. Have we considered all the parables in the New Testament?

A. We have not. A few of minor importance have been omitted; but their meaning is so evident that it is believed few, if any, can misunderstand them.

Q. Do most of those we have examined relate to the Jews, and especially to their overthrow and dispersion?

A. They do; and cannot, therefore, be properly applied to any other people.

Q. Were the changes and calamities which were then hanging over the Jews, of sufficient importance to receive so much of the attention of Christ?

A. They were. No age has ever witnessed such momentous events, or displayed so strikingly the wonderful movements of God's providence. And hence these things were worthy all the notice bestowed upon them in the parables.

Q. What striking evidence is there that most of the parables were designed to represent the fate which awaited the Jews, and cannot, therefore, be applicable to any other nation?

A. There is this evidence, that the Apostles, in preaching the Gospel to the Gentile nations, never repeated these parables, nor alluded to them.

Q. Would they not have urged the parables on the Gentiles, as Jesus did on the Jews, if they concerned the Gentiles at all?

Q. Must not the preaching of the Apostles have differed very essentially, in this respect, from the preaching of many modern ministers?

A. It must; for a large class of preachers at this day seem to depend upon the repetition and literal construction of the figurative language of the parables, for most of the effect of their ministry, while the Apostles never mentioned them.

Q. If it is necessary to repeat and dwell upon the parables, in preaching the gospel at this age, was it not equally necessary that it should be done in the days of the Apostles?

Q. But inasmuch as the Apostles did not pursue this course, what inference should we draw?

Q. What other evidence is there that most of the parables were designed expressly to represent the overthrow and dispersion of the Jews?

A. The parables are principally found in St. Matthew's gospel. This book is supposed to have been originally written in the Hebrew language, for the express use of the Jews, and its author was therefore careful to insert most of the parables of Christ. But the other Evangelists, writing their gospels in the Greek language, and designing them for a more extensive circulation, did not deem it important to introduce so many of the parables.

Q. What additional testimony is there to the same point?

A. The books of Matthew, Mark and Luke, were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is the opinion of the most distinguished commentators that St. John did not write his gospel until A. D. 86, which was sixteen years after the overthrow of the Jews.

Q. Does the gospel according to John, contain the parables?

A. It does not contain a single parable, properly speaking.

Q. What inference do you draw from these facts?

A. They strongly corroborate the construction we have put upon the parables. Having mostly been spoken by Jesus to represent the calamities which were about to come upon the Jews, St. John did not insert them at all.

Q. Why did he omit them?

A. Because these calamities had already comethe parables relating to them had all been fulfilled or verified-the Jews had perished in immense numbers Judea had been laid desolate-Jerusalem with its temple had been levelled to the dust-and the remnant of the unhappy descendants of Jacob were scattered into all the world. Therefore, John thought proper to omit all the parables which allude to these unhappy events.

NOTE. In order to impress the contents of the Catechism more deeply on the minds of the scholars, let the class, after having passed through the book, give a general review to each of the lessons.