Erise win the prince's warm approval, and, since e has been faithful in a very little, he receives authority over ten cities. The second has been less successful, his pound has made only five. He receives a reward i^roportionate to that of the other ; that is, he is set over five cities ; but ap- parently the prince suspects that his relative failure is due not simply to his slighter capacity, but to his feebler devotion to his master's interests. Accordingly he meets with a chill reception, and there is no word of approval, but simply the curt indication of the office he is to fill in the govern- ment. When we compare the treatment of the two servants in the parable of the Talents, the difference becomes significant. In that parable the two slaves have unequal capacity, but they have exhibited the same zeal for their master, and achieved a similar result ; that is, each has doubled his capital : accordingly they receive the same reward with the same warmth of praise. In the parable of the Pounds the slaves start from an equal position, but achieve an unequal result. They therefore receive an unequal reward, and the commendation given in the one case is withheld in the other. The case of the third servant is sub- stantially the same in both, though with verbal and other differences. It is, of course, obvious that the slave who has received a pound will treat it otherwise than the slave who has received a talent : the large sum is naturally buried in the earth, the smaller one is carefully put by in a napkin. He, too, is deprived of his pound, and it is given, in spite of the protests of the bystanders, to the one who has ten. The parable concludes with the genuinely Oriental trait of the execution of the malcontents who sought to keep the prince out of his kingdom.
It will be clear, then, from this comparison, that the two parables presuppose different situations, each of which is harmoniously worked out in detail, and that each has different lessons to teach. There is, therefore, no substantial reason for assuming that the same original jiarable has developed into these two very different stories. It is difficult to believe that, had this been the case, the internal consistency of each should have been what it is.
The above conclusion is due to no harmonistic prejudices, for it may be freely granted that different versions of the same sayings were current in the Church, and have been incorporated in our Gospels. But it is a mere prejudice, on the other side, to imagine that similarities are always to be accounted for as variants of the same original, and we may well hold that Jesus deliberately developed a similar story along these two different lines, just because He thus brought out significantly different lessons. It is by the comparison of the two that the full meaning of each becomes clear. At most, it might be admitted that the two stories exercised a mutual influence on each other. Possibly the words, ' I will set thee over many things,' are an intrusion in the story of the Talents. Apparently the main portion of the master's capital has already been entrusted to his slaves (v. 1-4), so that there is an incongruity when the five talents are called ' few things,' and that over which the slave is to be set is called ' many things.' And the incongruity is even greater when the same promise is repeated to the second slave. ■The total amount is in each case merely a doubling of tlie original capital, and the contrast between half and the \\hole is exaggerated if it is described as a contrast between few and many. Acordingly, it is not impossible that here the parable of the Pounds has influenced the report. There the contrast between the one pound and the ten cities might well be described in the terms employed in the parable of the Talents. It is, how- ever, possible that here the application determined the form of the story, and that Jesus, or possiblj' His reporter, is thinking of the contrast between earthly opportunities and the heavenly reward. In that case the contrast between the many and the few is quite appropriate. The passage, however, reminds us strongly of Mt 24'»5'47 = Lk 1242-44 on the faithful servant whom his lord set over his household in his absence, and whom on his return he will set over all that he has. In the parable of tlie Pounds the description of the sum entrusted as very little is entirely appropriate.
The significance attached to the parts relating to the first two servants has already been jjointed out in the course of the comparison. In the parable of the Talents the lesson is, that difference in endowment or opportunity involves no difference in the reward. It is assumed that such differences exist ; all that is demanded is that the opportunities afforded should be faithfully employed. Where like faithfulness has been shown, like reward will be given, in spite of the disparity of opjjor- tunity and of result. The significance in the parable of the Pounds is different : each starts from the same level, but they reach a very different result. To what the difference is due is not stated, but to a certain extent, at any rate, it seems to be to the comparative slackness of the second servant. The lesson again is that devotion to the master's interests is what counts in the final reward. Another lesson, common to both parables, is that reward for work is more "work, but work on a larger scale with ampler opportunities. In the case of the third servant, some of the lessons are quite clear. Slothfulness in the service of the king is the unpardonable sin. The failure to use opportunity is punished by the withdra"wal of opportunity and dismissal from the master's ser- vice. What further lessons can be drawn out depends on the view we take of the servant's excuse. If it really represented his belief, it suggests that unjust thougdits of God may paralyze a man's action. The servant had constructed a caricature of his mastei', and feared that his grasp- ing avarice might be disappointed if he lost part of the capital in trade ; and therefore he felt that his duty was done if he returned it to his master as he received it. But the words of the master, ' Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,' suggest rather that the fault did not lie with the wrong estimate that he had formed of his master's char- acter, but with the laziness of his disposition. If i he was unwilling to trade with it himself, he might