were taken against possible peculation on the part of the two
officials who had received the money, for it was apparently 'weighed
out into the hands' of the overseers, who would thus be able to check
what they received by what the secretary and the high-priest had taken
from the chest, and would be responsible for the expenditure of the
amount which the two officials knew that they had received.

But all this system of checks seems to break down at the very point
where it should have worked most searchingly, for 'they reckoned not
with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money' to pay the
workmen, 'for they dealt faithfully.' That last clause looks like a
hit at the priests who had not dealt so, and contrasts the methods of
plain business men of no pretensions, with those of men whose very
calling should have guaranteed their trustworthiness. The contrast has
been repeated in times and places nearer home. But another suggestion
may also be made about this singular lapse into what looks like unwise
confidence. These overseers had proved their faithfulness and earned
the right to be trusted entirely, and the way to get the best out of a
man, if he has any reliableness in him, is to trust him utterly, and
to show him that you do. 'It is a shame to tell Arnold a lie; he
always believes us,' said the Rugby boys about their great
head-master. There is a time for using all precautions, and a time for
using none. Businesslike methods do not consist in spying at the heels
of one's agents, but in picking the right men, and, having proved
them, giving them a free hand. And is not that what the great Lord and
Employer does with His servants, and is it not part of the reason why
Jesus gets more out of us than any one else can do, that He trusts us
more?

One more point may be noticed; namely, the order of precedence in