SERMON XX.

On Reftitution.

[By the AUTHOR of this Collection.]

I SAM. xii. 3.

Bebold, bere I am, witness against me before the Lord, and before bis anointed: Whofe ox have I taken? or whofe afs bave I taken? or whom have I de

frauded? whom have I oppressed? or of whofe band have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will reStore it you.

T

HERE is no doubt but every one

will be ready to fay, that this was

a noble and generous refolution of the prophet; and that the example is highly worthy of our imitation and regard. And this indeed in fome part is true; and if every one throughout all his tranfac

tions would be fo candid as to make this profeffion, and to practise according to it, the world would be in a much better condition than now it is.

But yet this is fo far from any extraordinary and confummate height of virtue, that less than this will not justify us in the fight of God. Nay even this declaration, in its literal meaning, falls fhort of what was the law under the Mofaic difpenfation. Bare reftitution was not fufficient, in any of the inftances here produced; but fomething was required over and above, whereby to make a reasonable compenfation for the trouble and damage, which the injured perfon might have fuftained, through the want of what had been unjustly taken or detained from him.

In difcourfing therefore upon this subject, I fhall fhew,

I. How the cafe ftood, with regard to this duty of reftitution, under the Jewish law: By which though we are not bound as to the particular measures and instances of it, yet as to its reafon, which is eterBb 3 nally

nally the fame, we are still obliged. Therefore I fhall fhew,

II. That reftitution is a duty reafonable in itself.

III. That it is moreover necessary. And, IV. I fhall add fome motives to quicken the practice of it.

I. I AM to fhew, how the cafe ftood, with regard to this duty of restitution, under the Jewish law. Now the law amongst the Jews was this*: If a man offered a voluntary reftitution, he was then to retore the whole, and to add moreover a afth part; in order to make the injured perfon fome reparation for the damages he might have fuftained, during the time that his right was detained from him†.

If a man did not offer à voluntary reftitution, then to make the injured perfon fome amends, for the hazard there might be in discovering the unjust person, and for the trouble of convicting him before a magistrate, the offender was compelled to reftore double ||. As for inftance, If a + Ex. xxii. 9. Ex. xxii. 4.

*Lev, vi. 1, &c.

man

man stole an ox or an ass, or a sheep, and the theft were found in his hand alive, so that the injured perfon could certainly know them to be his own; the offender was in this cafe adjudged to restore the thing ftolen, and another as good *.

But if the thief did kill, or fell, the ox or the sheep, by which the discovery might be rendered ftill more difficult; he was then to restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. Thus king David, when he was decoyed by the prophet Nathan, to condemn himself, under the feigned character of a man who had robbed his neighbour of an ewe lamb, and had killed it, paffed fentence according to the tenor of this law: As the Lord liveth, (faith he), the man that hath done this thing fhall furely die; and he shall restore the lamb four-fold. The former part of the fentence indeed, he had no law for pronouncing, that the man fhould die for it; but the latter part, that he should reStore the lamb four-fold, is exactly conformable to the law for that purpose.

Thus, if we understand this declaration of Samuel, in its literal acceptation, to offer no more than a simple restitution, it is below the meafures of that inftitution under which he lived: In order therefore to recommend it to imitation, we must be forced to qualify it by a favourable construction; And, no doubt, the reftitutión he here proposeth muft intend at the loweft a legal reftitution; which, fince it was voluntary, muft here imply, the whole, and a fifth part befides,

Not that we are exactly bound to those measures which were prefcribed by the Jewish law. Yet there feemeth no objection to arise even against these proportions, fave only, that the circumftances of the offenders are oftentimes fo wretched and mean, that fuch a reftitution is impracticable; which may be the reafon probably why violence and fraud are punished by other inftitutions in a different manner. But this is no reason, why reftitution should not be made where it can; and even in cases where it cannot, the Jewith law did provide this remedy, namely, that the man should