Matthew Poole and continuators on Luke 6:36

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your father also is merciful.

I know not how to agree what I find many Interpreters judging, that this Text is a Prohibition of Vsury. I should rather interpret it more largely, as a Command for Acts of Mercy, with respect to the Circumstances of Persons, obliging us not to with-hold a Charitable Hand, from our fear, that if we lend we shall lose what we lend, and obliging us, that if we find the Circumstances of any, that desireth us to lend him for his necessity, such a quantity of Money or Goods as we can spare, and we can well enough bear the loss of, if the Providence of God should render the Person unable to repay us, we should not be awed by such a fear from Acts of Charity, but give with a Resolution to lose it, if God please to disable the Person to whom we lend, so as he cannot repay us. For the question about Vsury, as to which some conceive this Text a Prohibition, this is not a place to handle it in the Latitude. I do not think it was ever absolutely forbidden to the Iews, they might take it of Strangers, and that not only of the Canaanites, whom some say they might kill (which I doubt after their agreement to a quiet Cohabitation) but of other Strangers also who came not under the Denomination of Canaanites. That argued the taking of Usury to be not malum per se, in its self evil, but only malum prohibitum, an Evil as forbidden, and not absolutely, and universally forbidden, but respectively, only with reference to their Brethren of the same Church, and Nation, so rather to be reckoned amongst the Municipal Laws of the Iews, than the Commons Laws of God for all Mankind. Besides that amongst the Jews there was less need of it, partly in respect of their Years of Iubilee, and partly in regard their imployments were chiefly in Husbandry, and about Cattle, which called not for such Sums of Money, as Merchandizing doth. Nor is it to be referred to any of the Ten Commandements, unless the Seventh, Thou shalt not Steal, which forbidding Sins against Charity, and such Sins against Charity being there forbidden, as are The taking away the Goods of another against their Will, and without a just cause, I cannot see, How the lending of Money for a moderate use, when it is helpful, and relieving to our Neighbour, should be any kind of Stealing, when his good Will appeareth in the Contract; nor can there be any injustice in it, where there is a Quid pro quo, but a Proportion for what I am indammaged by the loan; unless any will say it is unjustly, because against the Law of God, which is to beg the Question, this Argument being brought to prove it is not contrary to the Law of God. The Exacting of an undue Proportion for Vsury, or a moderate Proportion, when we plainly see, our Brother is fallen into Poverty, and cannot pay it, may be forbidden, as a Sin against Charity, and that love that we ought to shew to our Neighbours, and the Mercifulness here required, v. 36. yet, admitting the Law of God, Deut. 23.19, 20. to be interpreted of all Vsury, (which yet seemeth hard,) for then the Jews might not sell for any thing more at twelve Months time, then if they were paid presently, for the Words are Vsury of Money, Vsury of Victuals, Vsury of any thing lent upon Vsury) it concerned the Iews only, betwixt themselves, not in their dealings with any Strangers, which is plain, v. 20. so also. Exod. 22.25. where the Term Poor is also put in as it is, Levit. 25.35, 36, 37. By which Texts the Psalmist must be expounded, Psal. 15.5. It may possibly from the Equity of that Law oblige us, to be more kind to those that are of the same Nation and Church with us, then unto others, especially such as are no Christians; and amongst those that are Christians, to those that are Poor, then to those who have better Estates. But as I said in the beginning, I had rather interpret the Precept of the Text more largely, as a general precept of Mercy, from the Example of our Heavenly Father.