him their God, and become, in m1my privileges, his })8()ple. What a monstrous thing: then for an lRraelite, through cupidity or revenge, to sell away his brother from peculiar, from unique possibilities I Be would not find in any other land the things which God intended him to have at home. lY. Tm; KNOV."ING O'l\"NER OF A DANGEROUI! BEAST. (Ver. 29.) Here is the sound JlTinciple--i\ principle which goes deep in its application-that a man is responsible lnr all fore~een consequences of an act which it is in his power to prevent. Examine the illustrati\•e instances mentioned. A man is the owner of a push- ing ox, well known to be a brute of vicious and uncertain temper. The Ol\"Der indeed has been made specially acquainted with the fact. He can then take one of the two courses, either put 11ufficient watch over the beast, as not knowing when it may be dangerous to human life and limb, or el,re in sheer recklessness determine to take the cha.nee of all keeping right. How plain it is that a man of such a heedless i;pirit iii not fit to have free course among his fellow-men! A human life, be it that of the veriest stranger, a mere waif and stray, or say that of an old man on the very verge of the grave, is of much more account th1tn the life of an ox, th:st it be in the very prime of its strength and usefulness. The property even of a • ·onaire must perish sooner than the life of the poorest be imperilled. The owner of the ox is looked to here, just because the brute itself cannot he looked to. The master would not be held responsible for the action of a human servant as for that of a brute beast. And is it not plain that the announcement of this penalty here has a very stringent application to a:: self indulgence? Vi1ben a man is told that his course of action, however profitable, however pleasant to himself, has been actually injurious to some and is likely to be injurious to others, what is he to do? If he would do as Christ wishes him-the Christ who came to fulfil the law and the prophets-he would straightway refrain from that course of action. Commercial profits and temporal pleasures will be dearly purchased by us, if one day we have to stand before the throne of him who judges righteous judg- ment, to answer for selfish, reek.less trifling with the best interests of our neigh hours 'l'he owner of the ox may say," Let people keep out of my animal's way and guard themselves." God, we see, did not admit that principle with regard to the pushing ox; .ior will he with r~<rard to our pushing business habits or our pushing pleasures-our reckless resolution to get e.11 we ca.n for ourselves, at whatever risk of loss to those who may come in our way. V. From the instances given. we may easily infer WH.A T OTBEB OFFENCES OF THE BAME KD.'D WOULD BE Ptn.'lSBED IN THE SAJ4E WAY. Wherever there was anything peculiarly presumptuous or daring, there the occasion for death seems to have been found. 'l'hnt which most deeply affects the constitution of society is to be treated with the greate8t severity. One man might kill another; but because it was misadventure, he would escape with temporary inconvenience. Another man, for no more than the utterance of the tongue, has to die the death. Thns, even in a scheme of government which had so much to do with outward acts as had God's government of Israel, we have regulations which gut their severity almost entirely from the evidenced state of heart on the part of the 1 ra.ntigressor. In purely human laws the m~anitude of the actual offence is always taken iuto accoUDt; there must be some tangible injury to person or property. But it is the very glory of these illustrative penalties here, that cursing father or mother is punished with as much severity as the actual taking away of life. How true it is from these five instances that God's thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways !-Y.
Vers. 22-25.-The requirement of strid equivalents in making rompensation for i'Tljwria. The particular illustration here is ~nfessedly obsclJ!e_; bu~ t~er~ can hardly be a mistake as to the principle illustrated, viz., that when mJury 1s mflicted on the person, the very best should be done that can be done to make an adequate compensa- tion. When property is taken it can often be restored or things put practically as they were before; but when the person is seriously injured, there is then no possibility of t:xact restoration. Ilence the injurer might be inclined to say that because he could not du t,·erything by w,1y or compensation he was ~t liberty~ do nothing. But t~e require- ment cumes in to stop him from such easy-gomg reflections. Eye for eye 16 wanted. Yuu must do your Lest to restore what you have destroyed. Obviousiy the purpose of lL.t reguLtiun is, not to justify or aid in anything like revenge, but to make men be con- c11. xxr. 5, G.] THE BOOK OF EXODUS.