Quest. CXLII.

QUEST. CXLII. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth Commandment?

ANSW. The sins forbidden in the eighth Commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving any thing that is stolen, fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious law-suits, unjust inclosures, and depopulations; ingrossing commodities to enhance the price, unlawful callings, and all other unjust, or sinful ways of taking, or withholding from our neighbour what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves. Covetousness, inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them, envying at the prosperity of others. As likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming, and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate; and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.

This Commandment forbids, in general all kind of theft; and may include in it that which is very seldom called by this name, to wit, the robbing of ourselves and families; which we may be said to do, by neglecting our worldly calling, or by the imprudent management thereof. Also, by lending larger sums of money than our circumstances will well bear, to those who are never like to pay it again; or, which is in effect the same, by being surety for such. Moreover we rob ourselves and families, by being profuse and excessive in our expenses; and by consuming what we have, while pursuing our pleasures more than business; or by gaming, whereby we run the risque of losing part of our substance, and thereby reducing ourselves, or others, to poverty. On the other hand, we rob ourselves and families, when, out of a design to lay up a great deal for the time to come, we deprive ourselves and them, of the common necessaries of life, which is, in effect, to starve for the present, to prevent our starving for the future. But, passing this by, we shall consider this Commandment more especially, as it respects our defrauding others; and this is done,

I. By taking away any part of their wealth, or worldly substance. This is generally known by the name of theft, and that, with the greatest severity, in proportion to its aggravations; and they who are guilty of it, are, without repentance, excluded from the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. However, let it be considered, that every kind of theft does not deserve an equal degree of punishment from men; for sometimes hereby the owner of what was stolen, receives but little damage; though in this case, some punishment, short of death, ought to be inflicted, to reform the wicked person, and deter him from going on in the breach of this Commandment, from less to greater sins.

By the law of God, a simple theft was punished with restitution of double, and sometimes, four times as much as the damage amounted to, which was sustained thereby, Exod. xxii. 1, 4, 7. Yet, in other cases, the theft was punished with death, when it had in it some circumstances that aggravated it in an uncommon degree; as if an house, which ought to be reckoned a man’s castle, be broke open, and that, in the night-time, when he is in no condition of defending himself, or his worldly substance. In this case the law is not unjust, that punishes the thief with death; and this is supposed in that law which says, that he that kills such an one who breaks up his neighbour’s house by night, shall have no blood shed for him, ver. 2. But, in other instances, confinement, and hard labour, may be as effectual a way to put a stop to this sin; and is rather to be chosen than punishment with death. Thus concerning this Commandment, as broken by theft.

II. It is farther broken, by unfaithfulness, or breach of trust; whether the trust he devolved on us by nature, as that of parents towards their children; or by contract, as that of servants, who are entrusted with the goods and secrets of their masters; or, that which is founded in the desire and request of those who constitute persons executors to their wills, or guardians to orphans, under age, provided they accept of this trust; I say, if these violate their trust, by embezzling or squandering away the substance of others, defrauding them, to enrich themselves. This is not only theft, but perfidiousness, and highly provoking to God; and deserves a more severe punishment from men, than is usually inflicted.

III. This Commandment may be said to be broken, by borrowing, and not paying just debts; as the Psalmist says, The wicked borroweth and payeth not again, Psal. xxxvii. 21. Nevertheless, there are some cases in which a man is not guilty hereof, though he borrows and does not pay, viz. If, when he borrowed, there was a probability of his being able to repay it; or otherwise, if he discovered his circumstances fully to him, of whom he borrowed, to whom it would hereby appear, whether there was any likelihood of paying him or not; or if he gave full conviction, when he borrowed, that he was able to pay, but the providence of God, without his own default, has rendered him unable; in this case mercy is to be shewn him, and he is not to be reckoned a breaker of this Commandment. However, a person is guilty of the breach hereof, in borrowing, and not paying debts.

1. If the borrower pretends his circumstances to be better than they are, and so makes the lender believe, that, in a limited time, he shall be able to repay him; when, in his own conscience, he apprehends that there is no probability hereof.

2. When a person was in such circumstances at the time of his borrowing, that by industry in his calling, he might be able to pay the creditor; but, by neglect of business, or embezzling his substance, he renders himself unable to pay, such an one is chargeable with the breach of this Commandment.

3. If pity be shewn, by compounding for a part, instead of the whole debt, in case of present insolvency; though the debtor, in form of law, be discharged, with the creditor’s consent; yet the law of God and nature, obliges him to pay the whole debt, if providence makes him able hereafter; or else he can hardly be excused from the breach of this Commandment.

This leads us to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the Israelites borrowing of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold; which we read of in Exod. xii. 35. whether they were herein guilty of the breach of this Commandment.

Answ. The word[3] which we render borrowed, might as well be rendered asked, or demanded. And so we must suppose, that the Egyptians were so desirous that the Israelites should be gone, apprehending, that if they continued, they were all dead men, that they might have of them whatever they demanded, as necessary for this expedition; and, if they came back again, as they supposed they should, they would be obliged to return them. If this be the sense of the Hebrew word, there is no difficulty in the text, nor any appearance of the breach of this Commandment.

But since the sense of the word is indeterminate, signifying to demand, as well as to borrow, as was before observed, God’s order imports the former; though they might understand it in the latter, as denoting a borrowing with a design to restore. Therefore, let it be considered,

(1.) That they did this by God’s command, who has a right to take away the goods that one possesses, if he pleases, and give them to another; for he takes away nothing but his own. Now, that they had his warrant for borrowing or demanding these things of the Egyptians, appears from the second verse.

(2.) The reason why God ordered them to do this, if we look beyond his absolute sovereignty, was, because the Israelites deserved them as wages, for their hard service; and this might be reckoned a reward of the good offices that Joseph had done to that kingdom; which had been long since forgotten.

(3.) As to what concerns the Israelites, it is probable, they expected nothing else but to return again, and restore to the owners what they had borrowed of them, after they had sacrificed to God in the wilderness; at least, they were wholly passive, and disposed to follow the divine conduct, by the hand of Moses. And when they were in the wilderness, they could not restore what they had borrowed, since the owners thereof, as is more than probable, were drowned in the Red Sea, whose revenge and covetousness, as well as Pharaoh’s orders, prompted them to follow them. Or if some of the owners might have been heard of, as yet surviving, their right to what was borrowed of them, was forfeited, by reason of the hostile pursuit of Pharaoh and his hosts, which put them into a state of war.

This may lead us farther to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the many ravages and plunders that are generally made by armies engaged in war; whether they may be reckoned a breach of this Commandment? And,

[1.] It is beyond dispute, that, if the war be unjust, as all the blood that is shed, is murder, or a breach of the sixth Commandment; so all the damage that is done by burning of houses, or taking away the goods of those against whom it is carried on, is a breach of this Commandment. But,

[2.] If we suppose the war to be just, and the damage done only to those who are immediately concerned in it, and that it is an expedient to procure peace; it is unquestionably lawful, and no breach of this Commandment. Thus when the Israelites were commanded to destroy the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, as criminals, they were admitted to seize on the spoil of other nations, who were remote from them, Deut. xx. 14, 15. when conquered by them.

[3.] As for those plunders and robberies which are committed on private persons, who are not concerned in the war any otherwise than as subjects of the government, against which it is undertaken; and especially, if their loss has no direct tendency to procure peace; this can hardly be justified from being a breach of this Commandment.

IV. This Commandment is also broken by oppression; whereby the rich may be said to rob, and even swallow up the poor, Psal. xiv. 4. Psal. x. 9. Micah iii. 2, 3. Now there are various ways by which persons may be said to oppress others.

1. By engrossing those goods which are necessary for food or clothing, thereby to enhance the price thereof, whereby the poor are brought into great extremities.

2. When persons enrich themselves out of the unmerciful labour exacted of their servants, whom they will hardly suffer to live, to eat the just reward of their service. Such a master was Laban to Jacob, Gen. xxxi. 41, 42.

3. When landlords turn their tenants out of their houses or farms, when they find that they get a comfortable subsistence by their industry, taking occasion from thence, to raise their rent, in proportion to the success God gives them therein.

4. When the rich make the poor suffer by long delays, to pay their debts, that they may gain advantage by the improvement of that money which they ought to have paid them.

V. A person may be said to break this Commandment, by engaging in unjust and vexatious law-suits. However, it is to be owned, that going to law is not, at all times, unjust; for it is sometimes a relief against oppression; and it is agreeable to the law of nature for every one to defend his just rights; and for this reason God appointed judges, (to determine such-like causes) to whom the people were to have recourse, that they might shew them the sentence of judgment, Deut. xvii. 8, 9. Nevertheless, we must sometimes conclude law-suits to be oppressive; as,

1. When the rich make use of the law, to prevent, or prolong the payment of their debts, or to take away the rights of the poor, who, as they suppose, will rather suffer injuries than attempt to defend themselves.

2. When bribes are either given or taken, with a design to pervert justice, 1 Sam. viii. 2. And to this we may add, that the person who pleads an unrighteous cause, concealing the known truth, perverting the sense of the law, or alleging that for law or fact, which he knows not to be so; and the judge who passes sentence against his conscience, respecting the person of the rich, and brow-beating the poor; these are all confederates in oppression; and such methods of proceeding, are beyond dispute, a breach of this Commandment.

Obj. Our Saviour forbids going to law, though it were to recover our just rights; when he says, If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also, Matt. v. 40.

Answ. To this it may be replied; that some things may be omitted for prudential reasons, which would not otherwise be unlawful to be done. Our Saviour does not forbid using our endeavours, in a legal way, to recover our right in all cases; but more especially at that time, when his followers could hardly expect to meet with justice. And, it may be, they were oppressed by fines, or distress, laid on them, for their embracing Christianity; in this case he advises them, patiently to bear injuries, when they could hardly expect relief from their unjust judges.

VI. This Commandment is broken by extortion, or oppressive usury. Thus it is said of the righteous man, He putteth not out his money to usury, Psal. xv. 5. The word[4] signifies biting usury; which is, beyond dispute, unlawful. We have elsewhere considered in what cases the Israelites might take usury, and when not[5]. And, upon the whole, it is certainly unlawful, to exact more than the legal rate or worth of the loan of money; or to exact any usury of the poor; especially for that which was borrowed to supply them with the necessaries of life.

Having considered in what instances this Commandment is broken, we proceed to shew, what a person ought to do, who has been guilty of the breach thereof, in any of the forementioned instances, in order to his making restitution for the injuries he has done to his neighbour. This ought always to attend the exercise of sincere repentance in those who have been guilty of this sin, of which we have an instance in Zaccheus, Luke xix. 8. and the neglect hereof will be like a worm at the root of ill gotten estates, and will be little better than a continual theft.

Obj. 1. To this it is objected, that this may be a prejudice to our reputation, by making our crime public, which before was only known to ourselves.

Answ. To this it may be replied;

1. That, what we do in this matter, is not really a reproach, but an honour; and it is hardly to be supposed, that he, to whom we perform so just and unexpected a duty, will be so barbarous as to divulge or improve this against us, to our disadvantage.

2. There are private ways of retaliation, whereby the injured party may receive what is sent to him, in a way of restitution, and not know from whom it comes; or, good turns may be done to him, in a way of compensation for the damages he has received, and he not know, that they are done with this design; and, by this means, we disburden our consciences, perform a necessary duty, and, at the same time, prevent the supposed ill-consequences that might attend it.

Obj. 2. It is farther objected, that sometimes the making restitution is impracticable; as when the person injured is dead, and we know of none that has a right to receive it. And sometimes we may have been guilty of so many instances of fraud and oppression, and, that to such a great number of persons, that it is next to impossible, to make restitution.

Answ. To this it may be replied; that when it is impossible for us to make restitution to those whom we have injured; or, when we know of none that survive them, who have a right to receive it, the best expedient, I apprehend, we can make use of, is, to give it to the poor; for, since it is not, in justice, our own, we do, as it were, hereby give it to the Lord, who is the original proprietor of all things.

Footnote 3:

The Hebrew word שאל which is here used, does not only signify commodavit, or usui dedit, or accepit, but petiit, or postulavit; in the last of which senses it is to be understood, in Deut. x. 12. What doth the Lord require or demand of thee, &c. And in Judges v. 25. where the same word is used, it is said, that Sisera asked water of Jael; not as one that was borrowing it of her, but as a gratuity for former kindness which he had shewn to her.

Footnote 4:

From נשך, momordit.

Footnote 5:

See 3 vol. p. 422.