Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n old_a testament_n time_n 2,959 5 3.5347 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A36116 A Discourse upon usury, or, Lending money for increase (occasioned by Mr. David Jones's late farewel sermon) proving by undeniable arguments the lawfulness thereof and answering the plausible objections from Scripture, councils, and fathers against it / published at the request of several judicious and sober Christians for the information and satisfaction of all such as have or may be concerned in the matter of so general and weighty importance. 1692 (1692) Wing D1629; ESTC R14405 16,114 42

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Neighbour-Jews Now all the Fundamental Laws which God gave the People of the Jews as a Nation whether Moral Ceremonial or Judicial are set down in the Four Books of Exodus Leviticus Numbers and Deuteronomy only here is the difference between Deuteronomy and the other Three Books that Deuteronomy doth mostly contain a Repetition of Laws already established in the other Three Books or in some of them And though these Laws or any of them be afterwards mentioned in any of the rest of the Books of the Of Testament yet it is but in a way of Repetition or Inforcement of the Old Laws already given forth without any Alteration or Addition as to the Substance of them And therefore when in the other Books mention is made of any of those Laws in general as some times there is and any Dispute should arise about the meaning of these Laws must we not have recouse to the Original Sanction or Establishment set down in some of the said Four Books Thus ought we to proceed in the Case of Usury in those Books where the Law about Usury is established namely in Exodus and Levitious there is no Obligation to lend freely to any but the Poor And though in Deuteronomy the Law of Usury is repeated in general without mention of Poor or Rich and the like we have in some other Books of the Old Testament yet I think it is very plain that all these Places as well in Deuteronomy as in the other Books must have a Reference to and be expounded by those two express Original Laws established concerning Usury in Exodus and Leviticus and not the contrary as some would have it and these Laws twice mention poor Jews and once poor Strangers and give no Rule for Lending or not Lending the Rich of one sort or of another Therefore seeing in Deuteronomy there is no new Law added about Usury but only the former Law in general repeated and since neither here nor in other places of the Old Testament there is any Law forbidding to lend to rich Jews Why may we not without putting any force upon those places say we must understanding by them such Usury as in the Original Law was forbidden that is to say the taking it of poor Jews and poor Strangers And if they might take Increase of none that were Jews though never so Rich why should the Holy Ghost twice mention these Expressions If thy Brother be poor thou shalt lend without Vsury Surely he would never have repeated these If 's twice over if Rich as well as Poor were concerned in the Prohibition but in all the places where Usury is forbidden he would have forbid it absolutely without any Limitation And for the same Reasons we must not so construe any places in the Prophets as to take away any Liberty or Priviledge given either expresly or by a plain natural and necessary Consequence in the Original Fundamental Laws this would be to pervert not interpret Scripture and would make the Prophets Law-givers not Law Interpreters But not to insist upon this any further suppose the Case had been that no Usury was to be required of any Jews Poor of Rich which is the Opinion of those that oppose all Usury or Increase for Lending of Money Now here is the great Question I would be resolved in by those that would have all kinds of Usury or Increase for lending Money unlawful to Christians Whether if Christians are obliged to this Jewish Law against Usury which is a Law of Charity they are not as well obliged to all the other Laws or Instances of Charity I have named before and the rest enjoyned to the Jews in the Old Law That Christians are obliged to Charity in general by many Precepts in the New Testament is not to be questioned but whether they are obliged to shew it always in those particular Instances that the Jews were I not only question but positively deny Nor do I believe the Opposers of all Usury do think themselves obliged to those other Instances I have named which are as great or rather greater Acts of Charity than lending Money freely And I would fain know why they are so strict for this one Instance and yet at the same time can pass over the others although both are equally Commanded by God in the Old Testament I do not think it unlawful for a Christian to shew his Charity in any of the afore-mentioned Instances of Charity any more than in this of lending freely Nay I wish Christians were more plentiful in such Acts of Kindness as lending freely forgiving poor Debtors once in Seven years in leaving at Harvest time some of the Fruits of the Earth for the Poor and the like But the Question in Debate is Whether Christians are obliged upon account of these Jewish Precepts under the Penalty of Sin always to shew their Charity in these particular Instances Hath not a Christian in Harvest time the choice either to cause all his Fruits to be brought home and leave hone for the Poor and in lieu thereof shew his Charity in another way or manner Whether if a Christian forget a Sheaf in his Field in Harvest time he may not send for it without sinning Whether such as take Garments in Pledge for Money lent may not forbear to restore them again by that the Sun goeth down I think none will deny this Liberty to Christians but the very Letter of the Law denied it to the Jews for though they might be Charitable in other Instances as well as these yet these must not be omitted being expresly Commanded Now if a Christian is not bound to such particular Instances of Charity but is left free as to the Kinds and Methods of Charity and if lending Money freely be an Act of Charity or Kindness as certainly it is why is a Christian perpetually obliged to this Instance any more than to the former Instances of Charity If they that oppose all Usury say Though the other Instances of Charity are Commanded of God yet they peculiarly belonged to the Jews and were some of their Judicial or Political Laws that are not obligatory to Christians now but the Law against Usury is Then let them shew me their Warrant for making this Difference and Distinction between one and another It is plain all the other Instances of Charity I have named are practicable in their own Nature in a Christian Country as much as the Law against Usury nor are they any where prohibited in the Gospel A Man may be a very good Christian and yet at the end of every Seven years release all that shall then owe l●m any Money if he please Again I desire those that are against all Usury or Increase for lending Money as wicked and sinful seriously to consider that the very same Jewish Law that forbids to lend for Usury commands to lend without it to those that are waxen poor Now by this they that are against gainst all Usury are obliged to