tion of mankind. Is it true? Is it the whole truth in consequence of a fitting form? Does it minister to the common needs of men, with power to quicken and strengthen whatever is best and worthiest in our nature? If so it will live, live among the

"Truths that wake

To perish never."

ARTICLE V.

THE UNJUST STEWARD: AN EXPOSITION OF LUKE xvi. 1—12, IN A NEW VIEW.

MOST readers of this parable have felt great difficulty in discovering in what respect the conduct of the steward, here referred to, is called wise; or how it could with propriety be set forth as an example for Christians. We may infer this from the almost innumerable explanations which have been offered by interpreters.

The Saviour is here admonishing his disciples to act justly, wisely, and to use their property, talents and opportunities of doing good in such a manner, that when they shall be removed from their employments in this world, they may give up their accounts with joy, and be received into everlasting habitations as good and faithful stewards.

But how such conduct is taught and illustrated by the example of a man who seems, at first view, to have acted neither justly, wisely, nor charitably, who first wasted his lord's goods, and then endeavored to deceive and defraud him, is somewhat hard to be made out by the common interpretation of the parable.

We can not suppose that our Saviour meant to justify dishonesty, however cunningly practiced, and to exhort his disciples to imitate the conduct of a man who was turned out of his office for scandalous breach of trust, and made provision for

his future support by joining with fraudulent debtors to cheat his employer.

And yet the passage declares that the lord of the unjust steward commended him because he had done wisely; while our Saviour urges the children of light to adopt the same principle of action.

The parable is, doubtless, capable of an explanation which will set the conduct of the steward in a better light, and show that he was commended, not for a low and dishonest cunning, which is never in the Bible called wisdom, but for strict justice, and a wise forecast.

If it can be made to appear that, in making up his accounts, and in his arrangement with these debtors, he acted faithfully and wisely both toward his employer and those with whom he transacted his business, we shall see in the Saviour's address a just and necessary inference from the parable, and an essential doctrine of Christianity. Let us then examine this parable.

A certain rich man had a steward, to whom he had committed the management of his estate. Upon a charge of having, in some way, wasted or injured the property, he was called to account, and threatened with expulsion from his office. In order to silence his accusers, to satisfy his employer, and to retain his place, he sent for those who were indebted to the estate, and reduced their debts, some one half, others one fifth, from the original amount, thus giving up a large amount as the price of safety. This proceeding merited the approbation of the employer, of the debtors, and of our Lord.

Now in order to understand the ground upon which this proceeding is commended, we must ascertain the relation in which this man stood to his master on the one side, and to the debtors on the other.

It was common in the East, as it is in many parts of the world now, for the owner of a very large estate, which he was either indisposed or unable to manage himself, to put it into the hands of an agent who had skill and experience, who managed it according to his own discretion, and, so far as others were concerned, stood in the place of the owner.

The agent, or steward, was bound to pay the owner a round sum annually; and so long as this was paid punctually, the pro

prietor did not trouble himself to inquire how it was raised, and was frequently as ignorant of the manner in which the estate was managed as a stranger.

The steward received no salary from the owner for his care and labor. But in order to pay himself, he rented the estate to under tenants upon such terms as could be agreed upon, and thus was enabled to satisfy the owner, and to maintain himself.

Now if the steward were a just, honest and benevolent man, and the estate was a good one, he could discharge his obligation to the proprietor, and at the same time, deal with the tenants as the different circumstances might require, thus gaining their friendship and good will by many acts of kindness, which could be no injury to the owner, but would on the contrary, benefit the estate by rendering the tenants contented and industrious.

If a blight injured the crops, if illness rendered the tenants unable to labor, if any affliction came upon the families, the steward could, in many ways, relieve them; and if, in doing so, he did not rapidly enrich himself, he could enjoy the satisfaction of doing good with his means, without diminishing the income which the lord had a right to expect and demand.

But, on the other hand, if the steward was an unjust, avaricious, hard man, he had it in his power to enrich himself by oppressing his tenants, while he seemed to act in good faith and honestly toward his employer. He could demand exorbitant rents. He could embrace every opportunity which the necessities of his tenants, or the state of the times offered to amass wealth. He could lend upon oppressive usury; he could sell the productions of the land at ruinous prices; he could seize the goods of debtors to the estate, and demand payment for restoring them. He could in many ways exercise over those who served him a grinding oppression.

By these means he could unjustly enrich himself, without affecting the income of the proprietor, who, so long as he received his stipulated income, might not inquire into the manner in which it was raised; and being removed from all personal intercourse with the occupants of his estate, perhaps also to a great distance from it, might not hear any complaint, nor suspect that his steward, so faithful, apparently, to him, was, at

the same time, grinding the faces of the poor, and amassing wealth by extortion and virtual robbery.

But an estate managed in this manner, must be greatly injured. The tenants would become discontented and discouraged. Only those whose necessities compelled them to hold lands upon hard terms, would submit to oppressive exactions. And the steward would naturally resort to all iniquitous measures in order to enrich himself speedily. Thus the estate would be wasted, and the proprietor eventually sustain great loss.

Such seems to have been the condition of the estate referred to in the parable. The steward described by the Saviour was entrusted with the management of property that he was wasting, or injuring by intolerable extortion. The owner was informed at last of the manner in which his estate was managed, and to bring this system of injustice and oppression to an end, he called the steward suddenly to account, thus at once arresting his career of oppression, relieving his tenants, and forcing the wrong-doer to look about for a refuge from the storm that was gathering over him. It is therefore with great earnestness that the unjust steward raises the practical question, "What shall I do?"

Upon inquiry into the various conditions and responsibilities of the tenants, he found that one owed, or had obligated himself to pay, an hundred measures of oil," or at least the value of it; another, an hundred measures of wheat, and so on.

९९

With apparent surprise at the exorbitance of the debts, as if he had had known nothing of his lord's demands, and with a show of justice, if not of great benevolence, the steward desired one to take his bill, lease, or obligation, and write what he would, say fifty; and the other, eighty. And, although no more examples are given, doubtless he administered equal justice to all.

The effect seems to have been just what he desired and anticipated. The debtors had been oppressed, and probably nearly ruined. Yet they had no legal claims for redress. They had voluntarily agreed to pay so much; and they could not release themselves from the hard obligation.

And now, when the steward voluntarily, kindly, and honestly, as it appeared, inquired into their circumstances, as if it

was his lord and not himself that was to blame in this matter, and lightened their burdens at his own peril, while they were expecting to be treated with still greater rigor; and when they found the seeming oppressor changed into a considerate friend, a hard creditor into a liberal benefactor, it is not strange that they should be inclined to reciprocate his benevolent regards, and, if he should be turned out of his stewardship for an act of such palpable generosity, to receive him into their houses.

On the other hand, in doing this act of strict justice, if not of benevolence and mercy, he did not defraud or injure the proprietor. His own obligation to his employer remained uncancelled. The waste which he was accused of committing, consisted in oppressing the tenants by the extortion of these very sums which he now, by a constrained justice, voluntarily gave

So far indeed was the proprietor from being injured by these acts of the steward, that he was directly and greatly benefitted by them. The estate was relieved and brought into better condition. The tenants were satisfied and made contented, and the man who had become the object of their fear and hate, had suddenly become their friend in appearance, if not in reality.

And the lord of the estate, as we should have supposed, commended the unjust steward, once unjust but now honest, not because he had cheated his employer with consummate dexterity, not because he had acted with a wonderful, but guilty cunning, not because he had laid a deep plot to outwit his master, and procure a precarious and dishonest livelihood for himself, but "because he had done wisely." And so far as we can learn from the parable, he was retained in his office as a faithful and trustworthy servant.

We find no ground for the exposition that he made friendship with the debtors by reducing their bills, and thus defrauding the owner of the estate.

For where was the wisdom of a shallow fraud that would be at once detected? What prudence or foresight was there in calling witnesses to an act of treachery and dishonesty? What profound insight into human nature was manifested in the hope that those debtors, who were witnesses of his frauds, and partakers of his crime, would treat him with confidence, or show him any favor when he received from his master the just reward of his