haste their notes of hand, ordered them to so alter the bonds that the debt of the first was reduced by one-half, that of the second by one-fifth, and so on with the others according as he expected from each more or less kindness when he failed. And his master, we are told, commended his action for that he had done wisely. Herein consists the crux of the parable's difficulty. We may say that the steward had not yet been deposed; that he was steward still and acted strictly within his right in trying to undo some of his past oppression, but none the less humanly speaking his proceeding was dishonest and practically forgery. Yet in the purely human aspect of the case may we not find some sort of justification for him? You remember the parable of the unmerciful servant who, though his master had forgiven him all his debts, was still unwilling to forego his claims against his fellow servant and was consequently sold into slavery until he had paid the last farthing. And, as mercy's rule works both ways, should not the steward be forgiven now in consideration of his willingness to forgive others? But, you say, he is robbing Peter to recompense Paul! Well, recollect that we are dealing with a parable, and that it is necessary to strain human conditions to bring them into parallel with the divine. The steward did wisely, because the foolishness of this world is wisdom with God, and the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. To store up riches or to scatter them among the poor will appear to us to be folly or wisdom, according as our point of view is material or
