e higher than the first by a distinct addition to the
pecuniary recompence--that is, a contented, loving, thankful mind.

See the two groups of labourers as they severally wend their way home
that evening. As to amount of money in their pockets, they are all
equal: but as to amount of content in their spirits there is a great
difference. The last go home each with a penny in his pocket, and
astonished glad gratitude in his heart: their reward accordingly is a
penny, and _more_. The first, on the contrary, go home, each with a
penny in his pocket, and corroding discontent in his soul: their reward
accordingly is _less_ than a penny. Those who know how great a gain is
godliness with contentment, and how small a gain is even godliness, when
discontent is eating into it like rust, will allow that, while the
labourers first and last alike had each his penny, yet the last were
first and the first last in the real value of their reward.

Considering that Peter is evidently designated as one of the first who
shall be last, I cannot understand the parable otherwise than as showing
differences among the disciples of Christ,--differences in simplicity of
spirit while the labour lasts, and consequently in the value of the
reward when the labour is done. As all the labourers get the wages of a
day, so all who are represented by them, inherit the kingdom: but as
one star differeth from another star in glory, so shall it be when
Christ comes to gather all his own. They will wear the brightest crowns
who thought most of their Redeemer's goodness, and least of their own
sacrifice and work.

The latter clause of the 16th verse, "for many be called, but few
chosen," being evidently attached to the parable as its application by
the Lord, demands our earnest attention.[37] If we should understand by
it, that many hear the call of the Gospel, but few are chosen by God and
admitted through regeneration into his family, it would not be possible,
as far as I can perceive, to assign to it any proper connection with the
lesson of the parable. But by the terms in which this sentence is
introduced, it is clearly intimated that it is the very conclusion and
kernel, so to speak, of the doctrine which the parable was intended to
convey. Whether we shall be able to understand it or not, it certainly
must be something precisely in the line of the preceding instructions.
In that direction we must seek for its meaning; for it is manifestly
introduced as