minds have been matured (for we allude not to those who, when the expanding process of the intellect has yet been incomplete, have been led by a guiding hand to choose for themselves a better path), we confess that we have little pleasure in them. Acknowledging, then, the merits and piety which animate the great body of Scottish presbyterian ministers generally, we cannot but look upon their system with a sort of religious aversion. That it will endure for more than a brief space in the history of human faith, we cannot believe. That a communion which virtually repudiates the worship of the EVER BLESSED TRINITY can be more than permitted for a time in the counsels of THE MOST HIGH, no Christian can believe. That a truer faith will ultimately prevail, we have no doubt, although we may doubt whether the Church as now organized, and still more, as the ultraists within her pale wish to see her organized, will again be the Church of this nation.

But to return to our immediate subject. That such an undertaking as this Magazine, commencing with such feeble auspices, should succeed at first was scarcely to be expected. And yet we had little cause to complain. The few who were interested in it for the sake of the Church, did their best, and it would be highly ungrateful not to acknowledge the zeal with which those few co-operated with the Editor. But the Church in general looked on, as usual, with indifference: the prospect was not cheering, nor the encouragement such as would have induced any one to proceed, who looked either for fame or remuneration, or was actuated by any other motive than a wish to devote his humble energies to the cause of the Church. As a sample of what was at first experienced, it may be observed, that during a period of six months which the Editor spent in Edinburgh, partly in preparation for the undertaking, and partly after it was commenced, although there were there not a few individuals professing deep interest in Church matters, and avowing the same principles with this publication, of which they were fully cognisant, he never received the slightest hint or offer of assistance, either in the way of information, co-operation, or introduction to literary stores. This, however, is perhaps but a specimen of the isolated sort of system which prevails in the Scottish Church generally, and may not be confined to icy-hearted Edinburgh in particular. We believe there are many who are really devoted to their Church, and are not only willing to do her service, but have in several instances actually shewn their love by their works. But the misfortune is, that there is no union, no unanimity among them: they follow no other devices than those originating with

themselves: they ride their own hobbies only, and only in their own way, and look with coldness and indifference on the efforts of others.

In some of the preceding remarks, we have merely adverted to that portion of the Magazine which has been controversial or critical, and in this capacity has pleased or displeased the several parties interested. A great portion of it, however, has borne either a devotional or historical character, and to this we hope and expect that justice will be done by all parties; but the work is before the public, and we will hasten to the conclusion of these observations.

The primary cause of the abandonment of the Magazine, is the conviction which the Editor has for some time felt, that his health is unequal to the continued task of superintendence. But in addition to this, there are several other circumstances, chiefly personal also, which interfere with a successful management of it, and over which he has scarcely any control. And as there is no appearance of greater encouragement from the Church but rather the reverse, and at any rate, the sphere is somewhat too limited for the success of such a publication, he considers it reasonable, that, having given the Magazine a fair trial of three years, he may now retire from the field without any imputation of fickleness or deficient perseverance, at the same time, he feels less regret in discontinuing one organ of Church principles, as another cheap monthly publication, advocating the same principles, and confessedly superior to that now on the eve of departure, exists in the "Ecclesiastic." There is another point which may be touched on, briefly and with some reluctance. As all the responsibility, so also all the risk and expenditure, have remained with the same individual. People at a distance may imagine to themselves a lurking expectation of remuneration, in the low sense of pecuniary return;-in this country no such surmise could have been entertained. It is quite sufficient for the individual concerned to have been assured by a talented friend in England, that he had done far more for the Church by this publication, than if he had bestowed the sum expended therein on any local subscription for ecclesiastical or charitable purposes; and in this view he shall ever look back to his brief editorial career with a sincere feeling of satisfaction. In bidding farewell to the Church in Scotland, he can assure her members, that he does not bid farewell to the deepest interest in her welfare and real independence, ever retaining a fervent wish that peace may be within her walls, and that she may be, like the Jerusalem of the Psalmist, "built as a city that is at unity in itself.”

ON USURY, NOW COMMONLY CALLED INTEREST

OF MONEY.

THE following article is intended to be no more than a sketch of a most important subject, in every way worthy the attention of the divine and the legislator of the present day, but one which, we fear, has of late years been altogether lost sight of, both in the pulpit and the senate.

An elaborate treatise would not only, from its length, be unsuitable for a Magizine, but from the novelty of the subject, even to our own notice, we fear that we might commit ourselves to statements which we might afterwards see reason to modify or retract. We shall therefore offer very little of our own on the unlawfulness or sin of receiving any interest whatever for the use of money lent, and we shall endeavour rather to give such a brief outline of authorities and arguments used by those who have written largely on the subject, as may induce others to give that investigation to it which its importance demands.

It will be first necessary to give a definition of usury, as the common notion of it has been, the excess of interest over that allowed by the law of the land. There is no sanction given to this opinion in any one of the many authorities we have consulted.

These agree, without a single exception, that usury means, The receiving upon compact for the use of money more than the original sum lent.

All these authorities, moreover, state, that it matters not whether the interest be more or less, or whether a certain rate be tolerated by human law or not, but that all lending with the compact or intention of receiving more in return, is usury. In the consideration of the subject it is of the greatest importance that this definition be borne in mind.

"Si plus quam dedisti expectas accipere fœnerator es."Augustine.

66

Usura est lucrum quod accipitur solius mutationis causâ." -Ursinus.

"Plus ex mutuo velle quam mutuatum sit iniquum est."-Caietan.

"Quidquid lucri præter sortem dabatur.-Calvin.

"Certain it is, that usury was allowed by the laws of this realm, yet it follows not that usury was godly, nor allowed before God. Usury is wicked before God, be it small or great." -Latimer.

Of such a character are all the other descriptions or defi

nitions of usury. bankers are usurers? Such being usury, we shall proceed to mention the authorities which have condemned it as a deadly and detestable sin. Holy Scripture, in the Old Testament by direct prohibition, in the New Testament by equally positive inference, has forbidden its practice. Successive general councils; the fathers of the Eastern and Western Churches; the laws of heathen and Christian commonwealths; some of the greatest heathen and Christian philosophers, writers on political economy, and poets; the fathers of the Reformation; many of the best English divines at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century; canon, civil and common law, bave all joined in condemning it as a sin against natural or revealed religion.

Does it not follow from all these, that our

To enumerate alone the particular authorities here cited would be too long for the present place. We shall therefore confine our authorities as much as possible to English history and divinity.

1. The common law of England has, from the earliest ages, forbidden and punished it.

2. The canon law has forbidden it most precisely, and punished it most severely. To this it may be added, that the Homilies condemn it, the canons of 1603 (see No. 109) class it with "adultery, whoredom, incest, drunkenness, swearing, and ribaldry."

3. The history of the Statute Law is curious. The following is a brief outline :

:

In early times, E. G. Edward I., the legislature was satisfied with condemning usury in round terms as unlawful. The 37th Henry VIII., cap. 9 (1545), abolished all previous laws against usury, on account of their ambiguity, tolerating ten per cent. to be taken for any loan or forbearance of money or mortgage.

This law, seeming too loose, was repealed by the 5th and 6th Edward VI., c. 20 (1551–2), which declares "that usury is, by the Word of God, utterly prohibited as a vice most odious and detestable, as in divers places in Holy Scripture is evident to be seen." And it then declares "that all usurie, increase, lucre, gain, interest for loans, forbearing or giving dayes of any summe of money, had, received, or hoped for, above the summe lent, given, set over, delivered, or forborne, should be punished not only with the forfeiture of the principall and all, but with imprisonment and ransome at the King's will and pleasure." This law, on the other side, seeming too strict for human law, was repealed by the 13th Elizabeth, c. 8 (1571),

and the statute of Henry VIII, re-enacted, tolerating ten per cent, or rather leaving it unpunished. In this law, also, the following remarkable words are used:-" that all usurie is forbidden by God's law as a detestable sin."

By the 21 James I., usury was limited to 8 per cent, and at the latter end of the act it is provided "that no words in that law contained should be construed or expounded to allow the practise of usury in poynt of religion or conscience." Subsequent legislation reduced the rate of usury, tolerating yet restricting, till in 1839 all restrictions were virtually abolished.

We see then how the statute law has ever been against it till our own time, when our Parliament, having ceased to be Christian, all those bonds of religion and morality which wise and holy men of former days, taught by God's word and Spirit, joined together, have been rashly and profanely put asunder.

4. Some of our most eminent Divines of the 16th and 17th centuries have spoken most clearly and strongly against it as one of the most heinous and deadly sins. We beg to refer the reader to the writings of Archbishop Sands, of the Bishops Latimer, Jewell, King, Babington, Donnam, and Lake, of Doctors Pie, Willet, Smith, Williams, Sutton, and Wilson, and particularly of Messrs Smith, Fenton, and Blaxton. The Treatises on Usury by the two last named writers are, for research, candour, and argument, beyond all praise.

Lastly, as an instance of usury and interest being considered as synonymous in Shakespere's time, and as an illustration of the regard in which it was then viewed, see act 1, scene 3, in the Merchant of Venice.

One would think that there is sufficient weight in the authorities just now mentioned to excite a doubt, at least, in the minds even of the most prejudiced with regard to the lawfulness of the practice. Of course it is impossible here to enter upon the arguments which many of these writers urge for their deep condemnation of it. We shall content ourselves with merely stating a few of the most prominent reasons given by them. 1. Because if it is doubtful, it is sinful.

2. Because of its scandal.

3. Because it has always been contrary to law.

4. Because it is unnatural.

5. Because it is ungodly.

6. Because it is unjust.

7. Because it is uncharitable.

It is remarkable that Dante * puts the Usurer in the most doleful and painful region of his Inferno, and represents him as * Quære-Had Dante ever been accommodated by a Friend at 5 per cent?