All Saints' Day and Other SermonsKingsley, Charles
Religion
All Saints' Day and Other Sermons
Kingsley, Charles
Church of England -- Sermons; Sermons, English -- 19th century
But does our Lord bid us copy a cheat? I cannot believe that; and the
text I should have said ought to give us a very different notion. We
read that the lord--that is, the steward's master--commended the unjust
steward. What? Commended him for cheating him a second time, and
teaching his debtors to cheat him? He must have been a man of a strange
character--very unlike any man whom we know, or, at all events, any man
whom we should wish to know--to have done that. But it is said--he
commended him for having acted wisely. Now that word "wisely" may merely
mean prudently, sensibly, and with common sense. But if the master
thought that to cheat, or to teach others to cheat, was acting either
wisely or prudently, then he was a very foolish and short-sighted man,
and altogether mistaken. For be sure and certain, and settle it in your
minds, that neither falsehood or dishonesty is ever either wise or
prudent, but short-sighted, foolish, certain to punish itself. Such
teaching is totally contrary to our Lord's own teaching. Agree with
thine adversary quickly, He says, while thou art in the way with him,
lest he deliver thee to the Judge. If thou hast done wrong, right it
again as soon as possible; for your sin will surely find you out, and
avenge itself. Give the devil his due, says the good old proverb. Pay
him at once and be done with him: but never think to escape out of his
clutches, as too many wretched and foolish sinners do, by running up a
fresh score with him, and trying to hide old sins by new ones. Be sure
that if the steward cheated his master a second time, the master was
foolish and mistaken, and as it were a partner in the steward's sin by
commending him. But if so; why does our Lord mention it? What had our
Lord to do, what have we to do, with the opinion of so foolish a man?
It seems to me that the only reason for our Lord's using the words of the
text, must be, that the master was right, not wrong, in commending the
steward. But it seems to me, also, that the master could be right only,
if the steward was right also--if the steward had done the right and just
thing at last, and, instead of cheating his master a second time, had
done his best to make restitution for his own sins.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account