1. There is a saying which is in all good men's mouths; namely, that they
are stewards or ministers of whatever talents are entrusted to them. Only,
is it not a strange thing that while we more or less accept the meaning of
that saying, so long as it is considered metaphorical, we never accept its
meaning in its own terms? You know the lesson is given us under the form
of a story about money. Money was given to the servants to make use of:
the unprofitable servant dug in the earth, and hid his Lord's money. Well,
we in our poetical and spiritual application of this, say that of course
money doesn't mean money--it means wit, it means intellect, it means
influence in high quarters, it means everything in the world except
itself.

2. And do you not see what a pretty and pleasant come-off there is for
most of us in this spiritual application? Of course, if we had wit, we
would use it for the good of our fellow-creatures; but we haven't wit. Of
course, if we had influence with the bishops, we would use it for the good
of the church; but we haven't any influence with the bishops. Of course,
if we had political power, we would use it for the good of the nation; but
we have no political power; we have no talents entrusted to us of any sort
or kind. It is true, we have a little money, but the parable can't
possibly mean anything so vulgar as money; our money's our own.

3. I believe, if you think seriously of this matter, you will feel that
the first and most literal application is just as necessary a one as any
other--that the story does very specially mean what it says--plain money;
and that the reason we don't at once believe it does so, is a sort of
tacit idea that while thought, wit and intellect, and all power of birth
and position, are indeed given to us, and, therefore, to be laid out for
the Giver,--our wealth has not been given to us; but we have worked for
it, and have a right to spend it as we choose. I think you will find that