תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

it; and then the duty of ministers will be obvious: but I here beg to say, that it might be useful if ministers in general would revive the old-fashioned manner of reproving professors plainly, for this and similar conformities to the present sinful world.

SIR,

USURY.

I BEG the favor of you to insert the following case of conscience:I frequently find in Scripture that Usury is particularly condemned; and that it is represented as the character of a good man, that "he hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase,” Ezekiel, xviii. 8, &c. I wish, therefore, to know how such passages are to be understood; and whether the taking of interest for money, as is universally practised among us, can be reconciled with the word and will of God?

In reply to the above the writer is recommended to consult the marginal references; by which he will find that it was lawful for the Jews, under the Mosiac dispensation, to lend money to strangers upon usury; but they were not allowed to do so to their brethren the Israelites; at least, if they were poor (see Exodus xxii. 25. Deut. xxiii. 20. Lev. xxv. 35, 36, 37 :) and it is evident that Ezekiel alludes to this law, chap. xxviii. 8.

Now it is generally admitted, that the Usury here mentioned, was an unreasonable charge for money lent, and it is remarkable that the Jews, to the present day, are guilty of this crime; as it is well known they will advance money for the sake of usury in hazardous cases,

、 272

GOSPEL TREASURY.

where others would not venture: such is their love of gain. It therefore cannot be supposed to refer to what we call lawful interest; for if it did, a man might as well let his house without rent as his money without some benefit:* besides, it is evident that, in our Lord's time, interest was a common thing; or he would not have introduced it in the relation of the unprofitable servant, who was charged with injustice for not putting his lord's money into the bank, that at his return he might have received his own with usury.

I have, therefore, no doubt, that receiving interest for money lent, as by law established among us, is consistent with the word of God; and it would be a happy circumstance if, in our day, this simple mode of receiving interest was attended to, both by the community at large and the professors of Jesus Christ in particular; but what are we to think of those who exact usury and unjust gain? This is done in various ways: for instance, if a tradesman solicits payment a short time before the expiration of the credit he gives, and the debtor requires an unreasonable discount or allowance for the time, knowing the creditor cannot do without immediate payment, surely, this is usury in the worst sense. Many other ways might be mentioned, but this may suffice. Such characters we refer to Prov. xxiii. 8.

* See Buck's Theological Dictionary, under this article. Or as it was then called, Usury.

J. W.

Luke xix. 33. Mat. xxv. 27.

ON BORROWING OF THE EGYPTIANS.

How far were the Israelites justifiable in taking from the Egyptians so many valuable articles under the pretence of borrowing them? Exod. xii. 35.

THE force of this Query, seems to rest on the sense attached to the word translated borrow; which appears more properly rendered, in the old translation, ask; for although it be a part of the character of the wicked, that he borroweth and payeth not again; yet the transaction referred to in the query, was of a quite different nature. The Egyptians had for a long time oppressed the Israelites, and had doubtless been enriched by their labors, without rendering them an adequate recompense: and now at the critical juncture of their departure, the fear of them, and of that Being who had so wonderfully interposed for them, had so fallen on the Egyptians, that they were ready to give them whatever they required; to which, they were certainly influenced by that God who has immediate access to our spirits, and can dispose of them as he pleases. Their justification consisted in its being the command of God, who has an undoubted right to the persons and possessions of all his creatures: and we are not warranted, matter, to suppose

from the Scripture account of the

that any criminal view disposed the Israelites to require,* or keep what was given them.

* See Old Translation, Exod. xi. 2.

THE DUTY OF CHRISTIAN FORGIVENESS.

In answer to Mr. RALPH WAKE, of Newcastle-uponTyne, who “requests an Explanation of Mat. xviii. 23, and following verses, according to the Calvinistic Plan."

THE manifest design of the parable is to impress upon us the duty of forgiveness one to another, from the consideration of God's freely forgiving us. That in the parable, I imagine, which struck the querist as inconsistent with Calvinistic principles, was the supposition of a man being given up to the tormentors, whose sins have been forgiven. Some expositors, in order to solve this difficulty, suppose the punishment to mean his being given up to church censures; others, to temporal calamities, and the accusations of a guilty conscience:but it appears to me that this is altogether foreign from the design of Christ. Our Lord certainly meant to suggest to all the professors of Christianity all the subjects of his visible kingdom, that unless they forgave men their trespasses, they themselves should not be forgiven, but should be cast into endless torment. The true solution of the difficulty I take to be this: It is common with our Lord in his parables, to address men upon their own principles; not according to what they were in fact, but what they were in profession and expectation. For example: "There is more joy over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance. The whole need not a physician; but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Not that there

own account.

were any among mankind who were righteous, whole, and needed no repentance in fact, but merely on their The elder son in the parable, in Luke xv. is doubtless intended to represent the scribes and pharisees, who at that time drew near, and murmured at Christ's receiving sinners, ver. 1, 2, and yet this elder son is allowed to have been very obedient (at least, he is not contradicted in this matter;) and to have a large interest in his father's inheritance; not because it was so in fact, but as reasoning with them upon their own principles.

[ocr errors]

But what is nearer still to the case in hand, is the parable addressed to Simon the pharisee. (Luke vii. 3648.) Our Lord here supposes that Simon was a little sinner, but a forgiven sinner; and yet, in fact, he was neither. No set of men were greater sinners in reality than the pharisees, Matt. xxiii. 733; and this man gave proof of his being in an impenitent and unforgiven state. But Christ reasoned with him upon his own principles; q. d. "You reckon yourself a little sinneri and that what few failings you have will doubtless be forgiven you: Well, be it so; this woman is a great sinner, and so accounts of herself: I forgave her all her transgressions, and therefore you need not wonder at her conduct; her love to me is greater than yours, even allowing, for argument's sake, that your love is sincere."

Thus in the parabie under consideration. Our Lord solemnly warns all the members of his visible kingdom, who professed to be the people of God, and who laid their expectations of being forgiven of him, without determining whether those professions were sincere, or those expectations well-founded; that, if they forgave

« הקודםהמשך »