join with him in cheating his master to their advantage, that they would faithfully return the advantage to him. But unless we had positive knowledge of the fact having occurred, we think such an issue very doubtful, to say the least. It is not an unfailing rule, that those who join in cheating others are always faithful to each other, especially to one in difficulty, who can do them no more good or ill; and unless such success had been proved, the example, as one of prudence, fails. It is true that it is said the lord commended the unjust steward, and so he may be said to have had success in that way; but if so unlikely and unnatural a thing is to be taken as literally true, it was a success which the steward did not reckon on, and which no prudent man would be wise in reckoning on again; and in so far as it was not, and could not be anticipated, however favorable to him it might be, it was no real commendation of his prudence and foresight.

We consider, however, that the sentence, "The lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely," was spoken ironically, and is to be understood in the reverse of its direct meaning; for such an unlikely and unnatural thing, even allowing that it might in a particular case occur, would be unsuited for the purpose of a parable, the whole force of which depends upon every character acting in a natural and usual, or, at least, likely way; and the statement that the lord commended the steward-who cheated him-for his cleverness in so doing, is so unusual and unnatural as to suggest the opposite. In calling it unusual and unnatural, we do not mean to say that what the poet says about

"The stern joy which warriors feel

In foemen worthy of their steel,"

is mere fancy; or, that two rogues contending in a game of knavery may not commend each other's superior adroitness even when losing by it. But none of these at all meets the case in hand; for where the warrior commends his foeman's valor, and the knave his opponent's adroitness, it is the case of rivals in the same kind of excellence, commending superiority in that after which they are striving. Here the

case is widely different. ness, is not a rival in that line, nor a mere indifferent spectator; but he is a master who suffers injury from a servant of whom he expected faithfulness. And we venture to affirm that it is contrary both to the commonest and to the deepest knowledge of human nature, that admiration and praise of the villain's sharpness should be the readiest and most noticeable result of injured outraged confidence. We should expect wrath and vengeance rather than commendation; and when we reflect on the power which a master had in Judæa to imprison and torment, and even sell, his fraudulent debtors, the steward's wise scheme must appear as anything but an example of prudence.

He who is said to commend sharp

We apprehend that the true key to the parable is the understanding of this statement, and on till the end of the ninth verse, in the reverse of its direct signification. And there are many other considerations, in addition to those already stated, which favor this view.

First: Such an ironical use of language is both natural and common, and to be met with in all literature, sacred and profane. Not to mention Elijah's mocking the prophets of Baal, and some passages in Paul's epistles, we merely refer to what our Lord says of John the Baptist :-" What went ye out to see?" he asks, "a reed shaken with the wind?" In what more forcible way could He have called attention to John's unshaken, unflinching constancy? And so, again, his indifference to, his contempt of, earthly comforts in the fulfilment of his important mission, is set forth :—" "What went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment ?"

In these instances, there is a peculiar appropriateness in this ironical use of language; and there seems equal appropriateness in the use of it in this parable. It gives a more striking view of the folly of unfaithfulness—this sudden confronting of the steward, in the midst of his villainy, with his offended master, breaking in upon our almost unconscious admiration of the steward's cleverness by the suggestion, "and the lord commended the unjust steward."

It is as if the Great Teacher, to show us the folly and danger of a way we thought safe and pleasant to walk in, should take us along what we regarded as its safe and even path, and as we looked with pleasure on its flowery borders, in an instant should point us to a chasm yawning before us, deep and wide, on the edge of which our feet were slipping, and call to us, "that is your safe and pleasant way— go forward," so forcibly does the thought of the offended master's knowledge of his villainy turn all his seeming wisdom. to folly. And the proverbial maxim which follows, seems to be a retrospect of the steward's folly in the same ironical manner. "The children of this world are wiser towards their generation than the children of light" (the correct translation), reads like, "knaves know best to deal with their fellows for their own lasting advantage," a maxim in its direct meaning so contrary to experience, and to the Jewish ideas under the theocracy, and to the innumerable adages scattered through the Proverbs of Solomon, and the Psalms, and the prophets, to this purpose. "Trust in the Lord, and do good, and so shalt thou possess the land." "The crafty are taken in their own net." And so especially contrary is it to every sentence of the 37th Psalm, that it seems the reverse rendering of a Jewish proverb, as if we should say, "Knavery is the best policy."

The direction, "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," follows aptly in its forcible irony, as the application of the parable to Christian conduct. Its plain direction to make friends of wealth unjustly gotten, who will take us into their everlasting dwellings when we die, or it fails, is so contrary to all religious truth, that every interpreter agrees that the Saviour cannot intend in reality to give us such an advice, and seeks by some peculiar rendering of the words to avert such a conclusion. But not to mention the unsatisfactoriness of such a twisting of words, it seems to us to be more truthful, and to evince a truer reverence for the Saviour's words of wisdom, to conclude that He used these expressions in a forcible irony, intended by Himself, and

understood by His hearers-tone and manner expressing itthan to suppose such tampering with plain words, as seems to imply some ignorance or negligence on the part of Him who uttered them.

Such a view of these verses renders the whole parable, we conceive, plain and intelligible. We regard the steward as an example of the folly of unfaithfulness; that is the natural lesson we should expect from the story of a master and his steward, and it gives a unity and consistency to the whole lesson; adds force to the remark, "faithful in least, faithful in much," and wings the arrow of the moral to its mark, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon.'

Faithfulness, then, we conceive to be the duty inculcated in this parable; faithfulness in regard to the wealth and possessions of earth, faithfulness in money matters, not merely as justice to man, but as a duty to God. This duty is enforced by exposing the folly of unfaithfulness, the madness of trying to unite the service of God and mammon.

What the peculiar manifestation of the error exposed and rebuked by this parable, was, is not expressly stated in the context. It was addressed by the Saviour to His disciples and the general body of His followers, who no doubt needed the lesson, but the Pharisees seem to have felt the especial weight of its rebuke, for we are told that the Pharisees who were covetous heard all these things, and they derided Him. Hence we may conclude that it was an error emanating from them, and in which they were especially guilty. From the. form of the parable we might almost be tempted to suppose, that the Pharisees had propagated a doctrine similar to that blasphemous proclamation of the Romish Church, which roused the slumbering spirit of Christianity to its rebuke in the past ages, and gave occasion to the reformers to throw aside the trammels of Romish superstition, and light the torch of the Reformation-the doctrine that men, by giving money and giving largely to pious and charitable purposes, might, through the merits of saints, and the prayers of priests and the blessings of the poor, be admitted into heaven, however

great their sins, or aggravated their transgressions. And there are some things recorded of the Pharisees that give some color to such a supposition. They are often rebuked for their hypocrisy and covetousness. Ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, but inwardly ye are full of extortion and excess, is the accusation against them; and again: "They devour widows' houses and for a shew make long prayers." They even turned God's house into a den of thieves. But although their practices seemed to favor such a view of uniting the service of God and mammon, and it is hardly possible but such practices must have in a great measure influenced their religious teachings, yet inasmuch as we have no direct evidence that they proceeded to such a height of blasphemy as openly to proclaim, that to give money to saints, to build the tombs of prophets and give abundant alms to the poor, would gain such favor with these, that they would receive them to their heavenly habitations, we think that they had not preached such a blasphemy openly and undisguisedly.

It would rather seem that the full development of this shameless lie was reserved for Christian times, when the mystery of iniquity exhibited its most appalling power of wickedness. It would rather seem that the stern rigidity of the Mosaic economy, while it failed to develop fully the religious thought of man, and in some measure acted as a restraint on free thought, also restrained much of the excesses and corruptions of the evil heart of man, and prevented the full play of the Mystery of Iniquity.

But although that error was not displayed in its full magnitude of iniquity in Judea, yet the elements of that error were there, perverting and destroying, and it is against the elements of error that this parable is directed. It exposes the folly of that hypocrisy which looks to men for commendation, and the madness of that blinding mammon-worship which makes men believe that all blessings in earth and heaven may be procured with money.

This is done in the most effectual way by establishing the