HOMILETICS. Ver. 14.-77,e duty of borrowers. The duty of borrowers is very simple. It is to take care that that which they borrow suffers as little hurt as possible while it remains in their possession, and to return it unhurt, or else make compensation to the len<ler. People will not often be found to question the propriety of these rules ; but in action there are not very many who conform to them. It is a co=on thing to take but little care of what we have borrowed ; to keep it an unconscionable time; to neglect returning it until the lender has asked for it repeatedly; to keep it without scruple, if he does not happen to ask for it. Curiously enough, there are particular things-e.g., umbrellas and books, which it is supposed not to be necessary to return, and which borrowers are in the habit of withholding. Many go further, and feel under no obligation to repay even money which they have borrowed. All such conduct is, however, culpable, since it is tainted with dishonesty. Borrowers should remember- !. THAT THEY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO THElllSELVES IF THEY DO NOT RESTORF. WHAT THEY HAVE BORROWED. Self-respect should prevent them from a line of conduct which assimilates them to thieves, and is wanting in the boldness and straightforwardness that characterise ordinary thieves. II. THAT THEY FAIL EGREGIOUSLY IN THEIR DUTY TO THE LENDER, who has put them u11rler a special obligation to him. III. THAT THEY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO MANKIND AT LARGE, since they do their best tu deter men from ever lending, and so place difficulties in the way of borrowers. We all need to borrow at times. IV. THAT THEY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO GoD, who has declared in his word, that it is •• the wicked" who "borroweth and payeth not again" (Ps. x.xxvii. 21).
HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS. Vers. 1-16.-Restitution. We have to mark ~aain in this chapter with how even a hand the law of Moses holds the scales of justice. 'l'he cases ruled by the principle of restitutioh are the following:- I. 'l'REFT (vers. 1-5). The illustrations in the law relate to thefts of cattle. But the principles embodied apply to thefts generally (cf. ver. 7). Note-1. The law which punishes the theft, protects the thief's life. It refuses, indeed, to be responsible for him in the event of his being smitten in the night-time, while engaged in the act of house- breaking (ver. 2}--large rights of self-defence being in this case i:iecessary f~r tha protection of the community. The thief might be killed under a m.1sapprehens10n of his purpose; or by a blow struck at random in the darkness, and under the mfluence of panic; or in justifiable self-defence, in a scuffle arising from the attempt to detain him. In other circumstances, the law will not allow the thief's life to be taken (ver. 3). _.\Jl the ends of justice are served by his being compelled to make restitution. Blood is not to be spilt needlessly. 'l'he killin<> of a thief after sunrise is to be dealt with as munler. We infer from this that theft ought not to be made a capital offence. English law, ,,t. TIIF. DOOR OF EXODU~. [('11. x:111. rn, 11 the beginning of this century, we.s, in this respect, far behind the Jaw of Moses. 2. Theft i~ to he dealt, with on the principle of restitution. (1) It calls for more th0n timple restitution. At moat the restitution of t.he simple equivalent bring~ matters ha~k to the position in which they were before the crimine.l act was committed. That position ought never t-0 ha,·e been disturbed; e.nd punishment is still due to the wrong- <loer for hR,·ing diaturhed it. Hence the IRw thRt if the stolen animal is found in the thier~ hand a!i,•e, he shall restore double (ver. 4); if he has gone the length of killing or l'elling it, he shall rest.ore five oxen for Rn ox, and four sheep for a sheep (ver. I). (2) Penalty is proportioned to offence. Both RS respects the value of the things stolen, and e,s respects the lengths to which criminality has proceeded. 3. If direct restitution is impossible, the thief shall be compelled to make restitution by his le.hour-" He shall be sold for his theft" (ver. 3). It would be an improvement in the administration of ju8tice if this principle were more frequently acted on. The imprisoned thief might be made to work oiit an equh•alent for his theft; and this, in addition to the hardships of his imprisonment, might be accepted as legal restitution. 11. DAIIAOE (vers. 5, 6). The damage done, in the one case to a field or vineyard, by allowing a beast to stray into it, e.nd feed upon the produce; in the other, by setting fire to thorn hedges, e.nd injuring the corn-stacks, or standing corn, is supposed to be unintentional. Yet, e.s arising from preventible causes-from carelessness and neglect -the owner of the beast, or the person who kindled the fire, is held responsible. He must make good the damage from the best of his own possessions. We are held fully responsible for the consequences of neglect (cf. Heh. ii. 3). III. DrsBOts'EST BETEts'TION OF PROPERTY (vers. 7-14). C'..e.ses of this kind involved judicial investigation. 1. If the charge of dishonest retention was made out, the fraudu- lent party was to restore double (ver. 9). 2. If an o~ ass, sheep, or any beast, entrusted to another to keep, died, we.s hurt, or was driven e.way, "no man seeing it," the person responsible for its safety could clear himself by e.n oath from the suspicion of having unlawfully" put his he.nd" to it (ver. 11). In this case, he was not required to make p:ood the loss. 3. If, however, the animal we.s stolen from his premises, under circum- stances which implied e. we.nt of proper care, he was required to make restitution (ver. 12). 4. If the e.nim.e.l 'W8S alleged to have been tom to pieces, the trustee was required to prove this by producing the mangled remains (ver. 13). IV. Loss OF WHAT rs BORROWED (vers. 14, 15). 1. If the owner is not with his pro- perty, the borrower is bound to ma.ke good loss by injury or death. 2. If the owner is with it, the borrower is not held responsible. 3. If the article or beast be lent on hire, the hire is regarded as covering the risk.-J. 0.