Usury is Injury Cleared, Treatise

Usury is Injury Cleared · Treatise

USURY IS INJURY.

Cleared in an examination of its beſt Apologie, alleaged by a countrey Miniſter, out of Doctor Ames, in his Caſes of Conſcience, as a party and Patron of that Apologie.

Both anſwered here, By NATH: HOLMES, D^r. in Divinity.

LONDON, Printed by Richard Biſhop, for Iaſper Emery, and are to be ſold at his ſhop at the ſigne of the Eagle and Childe in S. Pauls Church-yard next Watlin ſtreet. 1640.

p. 1USURY IS INJURY.

BRother, our Conference aaF… c. 28. An Dom. 6….falling upon Uſury, and that drawing in your mention of Doctor Ames, as if ſome Patron of it, or of ſome kinde of it, viz. 8 l' per centum, 8 l' in the hundred; upon my reading of the Doctor, at my retiring home, I could not but repeat him, and report my opinion of his paſſages bbA week ….: So that my intent is not now to load this paper with an heap of weighty matter, that I could urge againſt Uſury, out of Scripture, and moſt ſorts of learned Authors, Heathens, Poets, Philoſophers, Polititians, Moraliſts, Jewes, Rabbins, Targum, Talmud, Chriſtians, Schoolmen, Lutherans, Calviniſts, &c. but onelyonly to walke over and view the limits of the queſtion, ſo farre as we have you and Doctor Ames in our company; whom… p. 2ſometimes I oppoſe; yet not I, but Scripture and reaſon; pardon me till you weigh my reaſons. He had not beene a man, if he could not have erred. …ando…ue & dormitat Homerus. Bernard… non vi…et omne. Seraphicall Bonaventure erred ſoulely in his Pſalter: Angelicall Aqui…s, by a miſtake, ſacrificed his wit in Purgatory: Alexander of H…l…s, though ſtiled Irrefragable, is ſometime not ſo tolera…le in his defence of Tranſubſtantation: Ariſtotle, P…lo who am maxim…, the Maxime of the Schooles, when at a loſſe in humane learning was forced many times (as learned … deſcribes) to ſpeake ſo equivocally and amphibologically, as that he may indifferently be underſtood in utramque partem. Nor are the learnedſt Fathers without their n…vi, as the learned Io…an… hath ſhewed in a briefe Synopſis: No; nor are our ſoundeſt moderne writers alwayes in the way. It is our miſery (and therefore I… a…cum jam cauſa jubet renovare dolo… ) that the greateſt Linguiſts have ſtammered with their tongues. The Septuagint 70 times. The …yriack oft in words. The Chaldee oft loſing the ſelfe. Ari…s, and Buxto…us, and other notable H…ir…s, inconſider… in moſt and beſt copi…s uſually to be had, doe read, Pſal. 22. foreign for …. We know (with all reverence be it ſpok… … Scrip…ari… Canone) that the Apoſtles could …erre in action,… as Peter ſwerved ſom… w… …uching ceremonies of the Jewes, that … might ha…t betw… the Jewiſh and Chriſtian with a kinde of diſſimulation, as Saint p. 3Paul cals it. Doctor Ames goes farther in his Bellarmino enervato, Tom. 1. p. 61. De ſufficientia Scripturae. Neque enim (ſaith he) omnia que P…ophetae aut Apoſtoli ſcripſerunt, ſunt ſtatim Canonica, ſed quae Deus in illum finem ſanctificavit. No wonder therefore if Doctor Ames or you, ſometimes miſſe your way. Therefore in all, le… us all, ſeeing we are but men, divinam conſulamus …ati…nem, follow one another as we follow Chriſt. Now to the queſtion.

Vſura eſt lucrum ex mutuo quaeſitum, D. Am…vi ipſius mutui. Uſury is a gaine ſought by lending, by force of that lending.

Queſt. An Vſura hujuſmodi ſit licita? Of this kinde of Uſury, the queſtion is, whether it be lawfull.

Therefore for any learned man,Replicatio whoſe parts I otherwiſe admire, to diſtinguiſh of Vſura licita & illicita, it is a meere foreign **A begging of h… queſtion. He makes one member of the diſtinction to determine a lawfull Uſury, when the queſtion is of Uſury in generall, whether it be lawfull. Pace tanti viri, that in and upon the queſtion ſhall ſo diſtinguiſh, he commits a ſoloeciſme in diſputation, too great to be ſeeme ſo great a ſcholler. For evidently that Queſtioniſt of the lawfulneſſ… of Uſury is beaten with his owne diſtinction. For if he diſtinguiſh that there is Vſura licita, why makes he the queſtion, An Vſura ſit li…ita, indefinitely. Therefore learned Ames never ſo diſtinguiſheth, but firſt defines, then queſtioneth, thirdly, ſtateth the queſtion.

p. 4D. Ames.Vſura talis, qualis à daniſtis ac foeneratoribus vul. gò exercetur, ab omnibus meritò improbatur. Such Uſury as is commonly uſed by the lenders on intereſt, and Uſurers, is juſtly diſallowed of all men.

Replicatio.Therefore you did ill to ſpend your breath in behalf of Uſury, for their ſakes who are da…iſtae ac foeneratores, guilty talis Vſurae quae vulgò exercetur: Except in this, that its evident their Uſury is worſe than the commoneſt ſort; inſomuch that a Counſellor was confident that it was extortion. If this exception were not, ſeeing our common Uſury is 8 l' per Cent. ſtrictly required by the Uſurer, whether his Centum win or loſe, it fully comes within the compaſſe of Doctor Ames his utter diſallowance, and his ſentence that it ſhould be diſallowed of all ccSo far therefore is Doctor Ames from allowing 8 l' per Cent a… it …as affirmed in our di…courſe, … at in this …o…tion, the ſaid no more, l…e … followes out right in the …red.. And if the Vſurer alleageth that he puts not the Vſe in the Bond; yet he doth in his bowelleſſe heart and bowels: that if it be not fully paid, he will ſuddenly take in his Principall, the Client being ſo unprovided, that Vſury in the beginning, ends in unmercifull ex…orting cruelty. Summum jus ſumma injuria. ſo hang a malefactor condemned to die, without ſufficient allowance of time for preparation, may be the murthering of his ſoule. And this ſudden calling in of money, as in the cauſe, ſcil. mentall Vſury, is naught, ſo in the effect worſe, viz. to make men mo…gage, or ruine their eſtate, to ſatisfie theſe foreign theſe Donivoros, theſe Anthropophagos, theſe man-eating Vſurers. Therefore this learned Doctor Ames bids us obſerve his definition, p. 5of Vſury; it is Lucrum ex mutuo qu eſitum, non conventum; quia non tantum Vſura realis in qua pactum intercedit, ſed & mentalis, quae verſatur in intentione, lucrum ut debitum ex mutuo acquirendi, ista deſcriptione contineatur. i. Vſury is a gaine ſought by lending, not covenanted, becauſe not onelyonly reall Vſury, which is by compact, but alſo mentall Vſury, which lies in the intention of getting gaine as a due by lending, is contained in that deſcription.

Generaliter tamen, D. Ames& abſolutè illicitam eſſe quamlibet Vſuram, nulla ratione naturali ſolidè poteſt probari. But that generally all Vſury is abſolutely unlawfull, it cannot be proved by any naturall reaſon, ſolidly.

We muſt remember how this learned Doctor lived where the people are intolerable Vſurers:Replicatio It had beene in vaine therefore in ſuch a place, è Cathedrâ, to have condemned all Vſury, and to have hoped to have ſitten faſt. And if the Doctor meane by naturall reaſon, reaſon from nature: 1. We have reaſon from nature, and delivered by nature, I meane, foreign meere animals, that have nothing but nature, meere heathens: whereby my conſcience is perſwaded, that it is a dictate of nature in ſome ſort, at leaſt an experiment obſerved by nature, that Vſura eſt illicita ddO… the … minde is M… ſter Cap… o… Vſury, at the end of … of temptations, viz. The heathens have condemned this ſinne by the light of nature p 44…. Ariſtotle in his Politicks, lib. 1. cap. 7. ſaith plainly, foreign, which Petrus Ramus renders ſo home, as that it is evident he was of Ariſtotles p. 6minde; thus, Quapropter ejuſmodi nummorum foene…i… (of money bringing forth money) naturae maxime, contraria atque inimica judicanda eſt. Therefore that kinde of Vſury of money producing money, is to be judged as moſt contrary, and an enemy to nature. And 4. lib. Ethic. cap. 3. … That I may not ſeeme to wreſt the words in tranſlating Lambinus as an indifferent man ſhall render the Greeke for us;… Alii (ſaith he) …u…ſus in accipiendo ſant …imit, quia undique, & puia…le acc…p…unt, …ales ſunt it …ui il i…e…ales o…e…as praeſtant, ſordida …ue artes exe…cent, & lenones, & omnes hujus notae homines, & …oe…e…at…res… & ii quibus exiguum lucrum magna mercede conſtat. Hi omnes a quibus non de…ent, & quantum non delent, auferunt. The Philoſopher concludes, foreign Communis autem eorum videtur eſſe lucri tu…pitudo. O her; exceed in taking, viz any thing from any, viz. men of illiberall and ſordid arts, Bawds, &c. Vſurers, &c. all which receive of whom and how much they ought not, and ſordid gaine is common to them all. The Poet Horace, lib. 1. Serm. Satyr. 2. condemns Vſury of 5 l' per cent. his words are, Dives agris, dives poſitis in foenore nummis. …inas hic capiti mercedes e…ſecat, i. e. five upon the principle: ſo learned Commentators: and a little before, Omnia conductis co…mens obſonia nummis. i. Saith the Commentator, Nummis p. 7foenori acceptis, pro quibus merces ſolvitur. Cicero a Heathen, condemns Vſury, Primum improbantur hi… qu ſ…us qui in odia hominum incurrunt, ut po…ti…orum & oe…era…orum. Cato a Heathen, condemnes Vſury, ſaying it is idem a… occide…e. 2. I might thus in the ſecond place prove Vſury to be condemned by the Dictates of Nature, becauſe condemned of all mankinde, all peoples, Nations and Countries, more or leſſe. Of Heathens we have heard. Of Jewes after. For the lawes of Nations, ſuch as are the civill lawes, received in all Kingdomes and Common-wealths, where men are not ſavage, firſt they deny a known Vſurer power to make a Will. Secondly, deny him right to be buried in Church or Church-yard. Thirdly, in Court they allow not Vſe for money detained when recovered. Againe, for Canon Lawes received of Chriſtians, Papiſts and Proteſtants, in ſome ſort: I meane Latine Canons, they injoyn tithes to Miniſters to be paid of all profits, and ſo Vſurers to pay the tenth of their Vſe; but Miniſters may not receive it, becauſe the gaine is all unlawfull and wicked and ſo the tithe. The Canoniſts and Canon Law doe condemne all Vſury and intereſt whatſoever. So …illet on Exod. 22. Our S…ute Lawes expre…ly diſallow the Vſury of 8 l' per Cent. i… point of Religion, and Conſcience. And in the judgement of Councellors his au…lus la…t the …atute do …not allow and approve of taking any Vſe, but onelyonly provides a man ſhall not be puniſhed by the Common Law if he take but … l per Centum. The p. 8parent may omit correction of a younger childe for that vice which the parent doth not allow. Againe they ſay, the maine intent of the Statute is to hinder above 8. not to encourage to take 8 l' per Centum. Our Engliſh Canon, viz. Can. 109. is expreſſe that it is a great ſinne,S. Auguſt…ne conde…n Vt…r Q…dicam de …ri, q…s et a…pſe Le…es & I dic…s …edd… … ht…t Auguſt. Epiſt. 54. …e…ret. cau. 13. … 4 c. 1 and preſentable. And our Epiſc. Trienn. viſit laſt held, expreſſed in articles that it was preſentable …. 2. If D. Ames meanes by naturall reaſon, proper, and pertinent, and evident reaſon; ſure that reaſon that doth convince, is ſuch. And whether our reaſons will convince, we will leave to the Reader to judge in the premiſes and that which is to follow.

D. Ames.Non probatur ratione eorum qui dicunt mutuum ex naturâ ſu… debere eſſe gratuitum. Neque enim probari hoc poteſt, omne mutuum, quibuſcunque circumſtantiis veſtiatur, debere eſſe gratuitum. i. e. It is not proved (that is Vſury to be unlawfull) by their reaſon that ſay Borrow of its owne nature ought to be gratis.

Replicatie.Omne mere purum putum mutuum, and of that is the queſtion (whether conſideration be to be given for bare lending) is eaſily and evidently proved it ought to be gratis. Luk. 6.34, 35. If ye …ad to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye, for ſinners do ſo. But lead, hoping for nothing againe hhMa…t…r Capel times this a from place againſt Vſury …, Nor or can … Law againſt V… b…a th…. I… hav… of Moſes; for ſuch lawes as ſuch, are … by ſo… intell…ge… …ro… Moſes: but Heathens of all ſorts, and that by …oug… …ature, have … …nnel … ſin, having never heard of Moſes, and theref… … …apol treall la… of Moſes. Beſides we have it forbidden in the New …eſ… at the …a…i…ials …ere …at of d…. Luk. 6.35.Luke 6:35We explaine this in our proper p. 9idiome of our tongue and common ſpeech, calling that which is free in this kinde, borrowing and lending: that which is not, we call by other names of contract, as letting and hiring. But the text is cleare enough, which forbids mentall expectation of gaine; calling lending for gain to be a doing as ſinners do. VponUpon theſe words Beza having fetcht a circuit, concludes point blanck, thus; Illud tamen certum eſt, ſi juvandus eſt proximus, etiam nullà recipiendae ſortis habita ratione (but this I ſhould count rather giving than lending) multo magis (ſaith Beza) prohiberi foeneratorias pactiones. Gregorie Niſen on theſe words ſaith, Malignam foe…orum excogitationem ſi quis appelles furtum, & homicidium, non peccabit. Nam quid refert ſuffoſſo pariete quenquam erepta poſsidere acf…norum neceſſitate poſsidere illicita. Baſil ſpeaks to the ſame effect as Ariſtotle doth in his Politicks, that it is unnaturall and unreaſonable that it ſhould be expected that mony ſhould bring forth money. The Papiſts in their Rhemes Teſt. ſhame us Proteſtants: The words are, It may be taken for a pretext (as well as counſell) wherein Vſury, i. e. the expectation not of the mony lent, but of vantage for lone, is forbidden, as by other places of Scripture it is condemned. And it is a thing againſt the law of Nature and Nations. And great ſhame and pitty it is, that it ſhould be ſo much uſed and ſuffered among Chriſtians, or ſo covered and cloked under the habit of other contracts as it is. In a word, S. Matthew will clear it, that giving is not here ſpoken of; who Mat. 5.42. repeats our p. 10text of lending, and ſpeaks of giving beſide, as a diſtinct way of helping a neighbour. It were ſtrange therefore that S. Luke, that is the moſt eloquent writer of all the four Evangeliſts, ſhould confound giving & lending to be all one; eſpecially againſt the nature of the Greeke foreign, ſignifying alwayes to lend,May S. L…c ch…p 6. ver…. to had ſpoken of g…g, and … to ſpeake of lendi…g. never to give; commonly to lend on Vſury, ſeldome ſignifying to lend otherwiſe; whence foreign an Vſurer, foreign Vſury. So foreign in Syriack ſignifying alwayes to lend, never to give; and foreign ſignifying an Vſurer.

D. Amet.Et ſi concedatur hoc (omne mutuum debet eſſe gratuitum) nihil aliud inde ſequeretur, quàm mutuum ſi gratis non fiat, tranſire in alium contractum, vel nominatū, vel innominatum, vel ſimplicem, vel mixtum. i.e. And if it be granted that all lending ſhould be gratis, nothing would follow thence, but that then lending (if it be not gratis) would paſſe into another kinde of contract, named or unnamed, ſimple or mixt.

Replicatio.But this, Nihil aliud, is magnum aliquod quod inde ſequeretur. For by the ſame reaſon that the Doctor diſtinguiſheth that mutuum ſi gratis non fiat, tranſire in alium contractum, vel nominatum, vel innominatum, vel ſimplicem, vel mixtum; we may goe on, diſtinguiſhing, licitum vel illicitum, conductitium vel foeneratorium: For this will of neceſſity follow, that if a man lend wearable goods, that returne not in the ſame perfection every way as they were when lent, in conſideration whereof the lender takes reward: now lending p. 11doth tranſire into hire. If he lends mony, that by number, weight and quality, returnes as good as it went out, yet for the bare loane requires reward, here lending doth tranſire into Vſury. And ſo the Doctor innominat, doth ſimpliciter grant the queſtion.

Non probatur (viz. omnem Vſuram eſſe illicitam) ratione eorum qui allegant, D. Ames.in rebus illis quae uſu conſumuntur dominium non diſtingui ab uſu, at que adeo pro uſu nihil poſſe accipi ultra valorem ipſius dominii; reſponnetur, enim lucrum accipi non ſimpliciter pro uſu rei mutuatae quoad ſubſtantiam, ſed quoad valorem aut proventum qui manet poſt ſubſtantiam conſumptam, & ſubſiſtit ſaepe in rebus quae uſu non conſumuntur & pro officio, vel actu mutuandi unde commodum percipit mutuarius. All Vſury to be unlawfull, is not proved by their argument that alleage that in thoſe things which weare with the Vſe, the rule or Maſterſhip of them is not diſtinguiſhable from the uſing of them, and therefore nothing above the value of that Maſterſhip can be taken for the Vſe: For it is anſwered, that gaine is not taken ſimply forthe Vſe of the thing borrowed, conſidered according to the ſubſtance, but conſidered according to the value or In-come which redounds after the ſubſtance is waſted, which oft-times conſiſts in things which are not impaired by their uſe. Againe, it is taken for the office and act of lending, from which the borrower receiveth profit.

Of things waſtable by Vſe,Replicatio. there is not onelyonly an impairing, but an hazard, and an event oft-times p. 12of utter ruine. The hired horſe dies; And then he muſt paſſe only for the hire (as the Scripture ſpeaks) without farther ſatisfaction The hired houſe not onelyonly is worſe in the parts, every thing older and more rotted, but the principles and whole edifice fals, the tenant not bound, nor able to re-build. So that in taking hire there is not onelyonly juſt ſatisfaction for wrong to the creature; But lawfull merchandize for hazard of the whole. But the Vſurer takes generally for the bare Vſe; For, for hazard he will run none. He uſually requires intolerable aſſurance, morgage, &c. His money weares not. And for that ſame valor aut proventus qui manet poſt ſubſtantiam, & ſubſiſtit ſaepe in rebus quae uſu non conſumuntur, of which the Doctor ſpeaks obſerve I pray you well: That, take away the conſideration of the ſubſtance of money (which the Vſurer hath in ſpecie & numero againe) and the act of lending, (which is ſatisfied by juſt repaying) and there is nothing to come into conſideration, no proventus the Vſurer is hindred of, which otherwiſe the Vſurer would or could make of his money, in conſideration whereof he ſhould demand Vſe. For the Vſurer lends, having now no penurious need of Vſe to maintain himſelfe by: Being uſually rich, and alwayes richer than the juſt borrower; or however, he hath, or will have nothing elſe to doe with his money: But (as I know upon my owne experience) makes o… lands, ſtock, &c, to provide an Vſury banck. He is a lazie Caterpiller, and will not worke, and therefore turnes Vſurer. He is p. 13upheld by learned men that there is a lawfull Vſury (though nor he, nor they, can reherſe any marks the Scripture hath ſet down to diſtinguiſh them) and therefore he will not runne the hazard to be a partner with any body. He will not lend to be lent to againe, for he needs not borrowing. If any man will borrow and doth not expreſſe or intimate he will pay for the act of lending, he will keepe his money a companion for canker and ruſt, rather than lend. If a man would bring home his money a month or two before the time, he is utterly unwilling, unleſſe the whole time be paid for. He will have it go on, and take for time, that was never his to ſell: yet he will have Vſe for all his money, for all the time he prayed, heard Sermons, received the Communion: For the time of eating ſleeping, &c. when, nor he nor his client could or ought to be otherwiſe buſied. Let not the Reader now unjuſtly untwiſt this anſwer, but take all together, and let him ſpeak whether the Vſurer himſelfe can alleage that he receives his Vſe for any thing but lending. 2 If it were ſo as the Doctor ſpeaks, that poſt ſubſtantiam remanet valor & proventus (which cannot be found immediately in money) yet ſeeing God hath allowed recompence for uſing impairable goods, forbidden recompence for lending things that come in the ſame, quod & quantum, the caſe is altered.

Non probatur (uſuram eſſe illicitam) ratione eorum qui objiciunt pecuniam ſua natura eſſe ſterilem: p. 14D. Ames.i.e. Vſury is not proved unlawfull by the allegation of thoſe that ſay, that money in its owne nature is barren.

ReplicatioThe father of the Philoſophers, Ariſtotle, as you heard afore, thought this a good reaſon, not onelyonly to condemne Vſury, but to pronounce it contrary to nature. The fathers of Chriſtians, thinke the ſame. So Baſil on Luk. 6. as you heard afore. It is ſtrange that we having the eyes of the fathers to ſee with beſide our owne, ſhould not be able to ken as farre into the nature of vitium, as a meere heathen. ☞ Conſilio Lateranenſi, Vſury is thus defined; Quando ex uſu rei quae non germinat, nullo labore, nullo ſumptu, nullo periculo lucrum conquiri ſtudetur. To which Willet aſſents, and Engliſheth it in this manner; Vſury is when by the Vſe of a thing which increaſeth not, gaine is ſought without any labour, coſt, or hazard. You heard before alſo that the Rhemiſh Teſtament ſaith, It is againſt the law of nature. Finally, many learned men from this ſeeking money to be borne as it were of money, have conceived the word Vſury to be derived. Vſura, q.d. Vſus aeris. Not onelyonly Divines touch this ſ. Tench, but Lawyers. I have read it in the Lord Cooks Reports in French. Hence alſo the Greeke word foreign, which firſt ſignifies partus, then Vſury. So Latine, Foenus, q.d. Foetus, the Etymologie riſing from a wonder.

D. Ames.Quamvis enim pecunia ſua natura & per ſe ſit ſterilis, facile tamen commutari poteſt in merces, quae p. 15fructum edunt, & accedeate induſtria utentis vim ſuam confert ad fructum pariendum. For though money in its owne nature is barren, yet it may eaſily be changed into commodities which fructifie, and by the induſtry of him that uſeth it, brings forth fruit.

1 This anſwer is not ſufficient,Replicatio. unleſſe it be a true univerſall propoſition, that for whatſoever worldly benefit that is barren in it ſelfe, yet eaſily commutable into profit, recompence may be given, ſ. for the forbearance of it. For if the propoſition be but particular or ſingular; then we want other proofes to cleare why it ſhould be true of money, more than other things. But the propoſition is not univerſally true. For then, becauſe time, unprofitable in it ſelfe, being not res, but menſura rerum, is profitable by induſtry, Accedente induſtria utentis, therefore it may be ſold. As indeed uſurious and injurious merchants ſell their commoditie, not according to the rate, but according to the value of time, condemned by the learned, that condemne Vſury. Then the Elements, Fire and Water, bona communia, and therefore gratis to be communicated to one another (ſaith Cicero) might be let out or ſold for money, becauſe mediately they are very uſefull. One neighbour might ſell them to another wanting them: or the Magiſtrate lay a tax upon men for the uſe of them. 2 Money brings not forth profit, by all induſtry of all men, but by ſingular induſtry of ſome, and with ſome hazard. p. 16Moſt men are not rich, moſt men not gaining by money, but many, many times looſing. And therefore one argument of Polititians againſt Vſury is, it is unlawfull, and againſt nature, becauſe the Vſurer by Bonds, Bils, Suits, &c. requires of his Client quod non eſt in rerum natura; profit of money where none was, but loſſe kkNo man extols Midas e…er the more, that his fingers could turne bread into gold, as long as he loſt in bread what he …t in gold. Nor is the Vſurers money to be admired, if it could be turned into …read: ſeeing what is …on in bread, is loſt in comfort of ſoule. F…r without in …t… not conve… ted to bread, &c. 1. M…das bread was not turned into gold without a moſt fooliſh wiſh.. 3 The Maxime applied to particulars, pincheth; whether Vſury money, i. e. money lent on Vſury be fruitfull mediately, & per accidens. The Text, Prov 28.8. may juſtly make us doubt. If God curſe not, croſſe not borrower or lender (for it is ſeldome ſeene but the borrower is ſwallowed whole at laſt) yet if the borrower upon Vſe, ſels unconſcionably dear, that he may make his cuſtomers to pay for the commodity, pay his Vſe, and finde him preſent maintenance, and an eſtate for time to come, what boaſt can there be made of the fruitfulneſſe of this money to the Common-wealth? The Country is ſacrificed on cruell dealing to ſave one man. The Common-wealth muſt periſh for the wealth of ſuch Commons. 4 The rule of the husbandman in buying of Cattell and other commodities, or Leaſes, is, that he will pay for what the thing is in ſtatu praeſenti: but to pay for what it is improveable to, he hath no reaſon. If money be fruifull that is borrowed of the Vſurer, yet ſeldome ſo fruitfull as honeſtly to pay the Vſer for his great paines, and the Vſurer his Vſe too.

D. Ames.Non probatur (illicitam eſſe uſuram) ratione eorum p. 17qui dicunt in genere nihil eſſe in mutuo, pro quo lucrum poſsit accipi. Eſt enim proventus fructus qui ex pecuniâ mutuo datâ poteſt expectari: eſt & onus annexum privationi pecuniae qua fit ut omnis occaſio eandem cum fructu alias collocandi omittatur. Vacatio enim à pecunia utendâ eorum jure aeſtimari poſſe videtur, quo & vacatio à laboribus aeſtimatur. Exod. 21.19. i.e. Uſury is not proved unlawfull by their reaſon, who ſay, that in generall there is nothing in lending for which gaine may be taken. For there is both a fruitfull in come to be expected of lent money; as alſo there is a burthenſome inconvenience annexed to the want of that lent money, whereby all opportunity of diſpoſing that money otherwiſe, is taken away: For nonimployment of money that may be uſed, ſeemes valuable, with the ſame equity valuable, as nonimployment of labour, Exod. 21.19.

I have ſufficiently anſwered all theſe already,Replicatio. onelyonly to the laſt reaſon or clauſe [Vacatio etenim, &c.] I will ſpeak a word. As now it is the queſtion whether Uſury be lawfull (as out of doubt labour in our Callings is) and conſequently, whether Gods bleſſing may be expected on ſuch money-mungring. So (which is the maine of our anſwer) the husbandman is ſure (under Gods ordinary providence) what he can get by his daily labour, day by day: but at abundance of hazards that he doth not loſe by his laying out of his money (eſpecially his Vſury-borrowed money) as much in one day as he can get in many p. 18weeks. Therefore there is not par ratio, that forbearance of mony ſhould be recompenced (eſpecially when men deſired to lend their mony for ſo long time, ſix moneths, &c. as confident it would be no hinderance to them) as bodily labour.

D. Ame….Ratione evidenti confirmatur, aliquam uſuram eſſe licitam; quia nulla realis differentia poteſt oſtendi, inter quandam Vſuram, & alios contractus ab omnibus probatos. e. g. Eſt aliquis pecuniâ inſtructus ad praedium emendum, unde poſsit percipere annuos fructus centum imperialium. Idem praedium cupit alter habere, ſed non est pecuniâ inſtructus. Si prior ille emat praedium, & elocet alteri pro centum imperialibus, quin juſtum & aequum fecerit, nemo negabit. Si vero alteri det pecuniam ad idem praeſtandum, ſc. ad idem praedium ſibi emendum, & candem ſummam ab eo accipiat, eidem periculo ſeſe ſubjiciens, cui in exemptione ſua fuiſſet obnoxius, eadem prorſus eſt juſtitia. Et praeterea nonnihil accedit alteri illi qui ſelvit uſuras ratione dominii in praedium illud quod emptione ſu acquiſivit: i.e. It is ratified by evident reaſon, that ſome Vſury is lawfull, becauſe there cannot be ſhewed any reall difference betweene a certaine kinde of Vſury, and other contracts approved of all. For inſtance, there is a man furniſhed with money to buy ſuch a Farme of an hundred pounds per annum: Another man, though wanting money, deſired to buy the ſame Farme: If the firſt of theſe buy the Farme, no doubt but he may lawfully let it out to another for an hundred pounds by the yeare. Now if this p. 19man now the owner, ſhould not have bought it, but have lent his money to the other, that wanting money deſired to buy it, wherewith he now buyes the Farme, taking of this purchaſer the ſame ſumme of rent for his money, which he ſhould have had of the Farme, putting himſelfe upon the ſame hazard for his money to which he ſhould have beene liable in the purchaſe of the Farme, there is the ſelfe ſame equity in both.

VponUpon this argument and caſe I ſuppoſe was the ſpeech at our conference grounded (for I finde none ſo like as this) that D. Ames allowed 8 l'. in the hundred.Repicatio But there was an utter miſtake in this, as will appeare eaſily to him that reads the bare words. It will further appeare by our anſwer.

1 Here the Doctor plainly allowes a man to take ſo much in the hundred for his money, which he lends to a purchaſer of Free-land, or Farme, as the purchaſe bought brings in of yearely rent, if it were let. Which is in England (and I beleeve it to be ſo in other Countries; for Vſury, too too common in all lands in the practiſe, preſcribes that proportion of purchaſing) I ſay is in England but 5 l' in the hundred, which is farre from 8 l' in the hundred. 2 The phraſe eidem periculo ſeſe ſu…jiciens, carries very much with it. Which the learned Doctor not ſo verſed in purchaſing, as he was in peruſing of books, might not ſo well conſider. For firſt if by it he means ſimply, that a man in lending out his money to buy Centum imperialia per annum, doth run himſelfe p. 20into the ſame hazard in lending his money, as he ſhould have done in purchaſing, if he himſelfe had laid out the money on the purchaſe: And that therefore he ought to have as much for the lone of the money, as he ſhould have had of rent, if the purchaſe had beene his, which rent his client or borrower now takes up of the Farme as rent, and payes it him as Vſe: the worthy Doctor is much miſtaken. 1 What great hazard there is in purchaſing (over there is in lending money, for which men are faine to give double, treble, quadruble bond, with morgages, ſtatutes, pawnes, &c. for ſecurity, even what the Vſurer will require) I ſay hazard in purchaſing, in regard of conveyance, leſt ſome morgages or ſtatutes ſecretly lie on the land, or ſome former eſtate be let, or the new leaſe be not well made, ſome the for a, or and for but, marring all: Or ſome Entailes, or Thirds, &c. worſt the bargaine, with hundreds more difficulties, I leave to the Lawyer to declare. 2 What great charges for fines, recoveries, conveyances, with many journies to ſettle a purchaſe, over there is to lend money to Vſe, which coſts the Vſury-taker nothing, I leave the purchaſer to diſcourſe. 3 How uncertaine the rates of commodities be, how wearable the ground is, how alterable by ſeaſons of exceſſe of wet or drought the crops are, and conſequently how prices of land fall, eſpecially in any trouble of common-wealths, of wars, &c. whiles money is ſtill of the ſame value, let the husbandman ſpeake. 4 How much labour and coſt a man is p. 21at to make the Farme yeeld his rent, let the occupier or imployer of that Farme ſpeak, whiles the Vſurer is at none for the money he lends: and therefore it is a hard pennyworth for the borrower, if he imploy his Farme, to pay the Vſurer, and be paid his labour and his charges too, ſo as to have a maintenance. Seeing therefore in no degree doth this lender run hazard and charges as the purchaſer, he is in no wiſe to have the ſame profit of his money as the purchaſer of his lands.

2 If we may ſo take the Doctor, as that he meanes the lender of his money ſhould altogether ſubjicere ſeſe eidem periculo cui in exemptione ſua fuiſſet obnoxius; then it is as plaine as if written with a Sun-beame, as evident as evident may be, that now this is not Vſury, but partnerſhip, copurchaſing, coheirſhip, or joint-taking. And ſo all that this poſition hath ſet downe, gives no allowance to Vſury.

Scriptura non tollit omnem omnino Vſur…. i. e. D. Ames.The Scripture doth not altogether take away all Vſury.

1 Anſw. Moſt learned men (and ſome of them moſt pious) drawing out of the Scripture the ſelfe ſame definition of Vſury in effect,Replicatio. which Doctor Ames ſets downe, under that their definition condemnes all Vſury, comming within the compaſſe thereof — Vrſinus, Vſura est lucrum quod accipitur ſolius mutuationis cauſa — Calv. Quicquid lucri praeter ſortem dabatur, eſt uſura, unde Haebraicè dicta Tarbit: i. e Increaſe of the multiplying — Auguſt. Aug. in Pſal. 36.Ps 36Si plus quam dediſti p. 22expectas accipere, C. 14. q. 3. c. … Se…. 10.foenerator es — Cajetan a Papiſt, Plus ex mutuo velle quam mutuatum ſit, iniquum eſt — Concil. Carthag. 3. Nullus Clericorum amplius accipiat quam cuiquam accommodavit — 2 The Scripture takes away all Uſury, and it will be made to appeare even out of thoſe arguments that the worthy Doctor alleageth to the contrary, which are foure. viz.

D. Ames.Sed illam quae exigitur ab egeno, qui ob inſtantem, neceſsitatem & ſuſtentationem ſuam aliquid mutuo petit: ita ut prohibitio fundetur in conditione perſonae. Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.35, 36. Pro. 28.8. Ezech. 18.17. e. i. But onelyonly that which is exacted of the needy, who for his preſent urgent neceſſity, and the ſuſtentation of himſelfe, borroweth ſomewhat: ſo that the prohibition is grounded upon the condition of the perſon.

ReplicatioWe thus retort the argument. That ſin which is forbidden to all that are incident and ſubject to commit that ſin, is altogether forbidden, that it be not committed. But Uſury is forbidden to all that are incident & ſubject to commit Vſury; Ergo. The Minor propoſition is evident thus; The takers of Uſury are the richer: The borrowers are the poorer. And therefore the Lord forbids all rich men to take Uſe of their Clients, becauſe they are poore in compariſon of the lender; and ſo have more need to have the Uſe money given them, than the rich borrower to receive it. llThat the Vſurer is the …c… man; & others in oppoſition to him are termed the poo…: we have an infallible place of Scripture, Pro. 22 2. The rich and the poore meet together. See poore put in oppoſition to this rich man …e the onelyonly rich man. Who is he? The Vſurer. See Prov, 29 13. comp. the margent.Prov 22:2For though a man of an 100 l' p. 23per annum, borrow of a man that hath but 50 l' per annum; yet he that hath the more lands and leſſe money, and more in debt, perhaps as much as halfe, or all his lands are worth, muſt needs be the poorer man. If any rich man borrow for wantonneſſe, and ſuperfluous and unneceſſary uſes; that's the ſpeciall ſin of borrowing & borrowers: forbidden under another head, ſc. covetouſneſſe: And by other kinde of places of Scripture: Owe nothing to any one but love. So a man may abuſe a godly duty, viz. pr. to ſeeke things to get them, to conſume them on luſts, &c.Iam 4 3.Jas 4:3 Therefore in theſe places of Uſury, the holy Ghoſt is altogether intent againſt the ſinne of lenders. And that is Uſury: whoſe aggravation is this in the Texts above named (as in other Texts other aggravations of that ſinne are touched) that it takes gaine for lending, of them that are poorer than the lenders. Unleſſe this anſwer be admitted as ſound, it would follow by the ſame argument that the learned Doctor makes; That oppreſſion is not uviverſally forbidden, becauſe the mighty and potent ones uſually are forbidden that ſinne, toward the weake innocent neighbour, which alwayes is weaker than the oppreſſor, elſe he would not be oppreſſed. No more would the poore borrower borrow if he were rich, but rather would be ready to lend, freely, or for Uſury. mmTo the ſame M. Elton anſwers. If this conſequence were good, then becauſe it is ſaid, Pro. 22.22. Rob not the poore, becauſe he is poore. Therefore a man may rob the rich, becauſe he is rich. And Deut. 23.19. No mention is made of the poore, but Vſury is forbidden towards a brother, whether poore or rich.Prov 22:22Deut 23:19Finally, that I may not ſeeme to goe an uncouth and untroden path, let the Reader looke on my company. 1 Maſter Capel in his Tract of Temptations, hath upon this objection of the Doctors, p. 24theſe words in the forenamed booke, in his diſpute of reſtitution, at the end of the ſaid book. Read, and read his anſwer: The Law (ſaith the objection) doth urge moſt, that Uſury be not done to the poore: Was it not (ſaith Maſter Capel) becauſe the Jewes were then too noble and generous to go a borrowing, except it were the poorer ſort? What ſhould the Law then forbid that to be done by rich men, which moſt rich men never did? But after we have probitions plenty that are indefinite: we are forbidden we muſt not rob the poore, becauſe he is poore. Good ſport for theeves, if therefore it may be thought to follow, that it is a lawfull matter to rob the richnnThe Scripture forbids taking Vſe of a poore brother a Iew, this is no toleration of Vſury to be done to any Iew, for (ſaith Maſter Capel) there is no one place gives leave to hire his mony out to a rich Iewiſh f…e.. Neither can the law againſt Uſury be thought to be a judicious law of Moſes; for ſuch lawes as ſuch, are knowne onelyonly by ſome intelligence from the books of Moſes. But heathens of all ſorts, who never once heard of Moſes writings, have with one voice cryed ſin upon Uſury, and ſhame upon Uſurers; Poets, Orators, Hiſtorians, Philoſophers, all. Thus farre Maſter Capel, yet alive to maintaine his words againſt any. We will ſhew you but one or two more of our company, and leave the Reader to ſearch the multitude of ordinary authours.

2 Next followeth Maſter Ainſworth, on that place Exod. 22.…5. quoted by Doctor Ames. Ainſworths words are, Uſury conſumeth a man and his ſubſtance; and is therefore here, and elſewhere abſolutely (marke it well, abſolutely) forbidden, viz. Deut. 23.19. Levit. 25.35, 36. p. 25Prov. 28.8. Ezech. 18.8. Obſerve, Maſter Ainſworth quotes the ſame places for abſolute forbidding Uſury, which Doctor Ames notes for forbidding onelyonly to the poore. And he quotes beſide Deut. 23.19. where Uſury is forbidden to be exerciſed towards any Jew whatſoever. ☜ Maſter Ainſworth goes on, and learnedly produceth the ſtreames of Jewiſh Doctors and Rabbins to be againſt all Uſury, Uſury of any increaſe, Uſury of victuals, cloths, labour: Uſury of words and ſalutations: Uſury of teaching one to read, for lending money. All Sureties, Scribes, Witneſſes, are forbidden to have to doe in Vſury. The Vſurer, ſay the Rabbins, offends againſt ſix prohibitions, viz. Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.37. of money. And againe, Levit. 23.37. of victuall. Againe, Levit. 25.36. of increaſe. Againe, Exod. 22.25. ſhall not lay upon him Vſury. Deut. 23.19. and Levit. 19.14. For the Rabbins ſay, it is a laying a ſtumbling blocke before the blinde, to take Vſe. It is unlawfull to take Vſury before or after, viz. to ſend a gift before to him of whom one intends to borrow. Thus farre M. Ainſworth and his Rabbins, with much more; to make Chriſtians bluſh at once moving a tongue for Vſury.

3 Vatablus on this Exod. 22.25. hath theſe words, Pauperi per expoſitionem poſitum. Exponit enim quem vocet populum ſuum, nempe pauperes: Thus Vatablus. And let me here put in mine oare, thus; That if this were a limitation of Vſury, to take onelyonly Vſury of the poore Jew, then it would follow one might take it of a rich Jew, p. 26which is no where allowed: And croſſeth another limitation alleaged by D. Ames, out of the text of Scripture, that allowes Vſury to be done to none but to the ſtranger the Canaanite. And ſo theſe limitations fight one againſt another: But being made aggravations, they agree.

4 VponUpon this, Exod 22.25. Doctor Willet (having before named ſeven kinds of Vſury) hath this aſſertion, That Vſury is ſimply unlawfull. He hath this explanation. But all theſe kinds of Vſury and intereſt, with the like, were utterly unlawfull, and not to be practiſed among Chriſtians. He hath finally this probation. The ſaid aſſertions and explanation ſhall appeare by theſe reaſons (whereof I will defer ſome of them till after, for a fitter place.) 1 Vſury (ſaith he) was deteſtable among the Heathen; much more odious ought it to be among Chriſtians. As Cato being asked what it was to play the Vſurer, anſwered Idem quod occidere. And further he ſaid, that in former time they uſed to puniſh a thiefe but in twofold, an Vſurer in fourefold Willet alleageth for this his argument Calvin. 2 Vſury is againſt the firſt inſtitution of money. Pecunia inventa eſt, that thereby things neceſſary for the maintenance of this life might be provided. But now it is prevented and abuſed to covetouſneſſe, that money may increaſe money. Maſter Willet alleageth this his argument out of one Borrh. 3 The Scripture abſolutely condemneth Vſury, as Pſal. 15.5. Ezech. 18.17. Doctor Willet may well ſay abſolutely, for here are no limitations p. 27mentioned, which Doctor Ames ſets downe. Well, Doctor Willet goes on. The word foreign (ſaith he) ſignifieth increaſe. By which, ſaith he, all increaſe by Vſury is forbidden. Let me give you to underſtand here, whence this word Tarbith comes, viz. ooArabi…e foreign m…ltipl…catus eſt, up …n which word Tarinth, Schindler, one of the greateſt lingu…ſts in fi…e of the Eaſtern tongues, Hebr. Cha'd S…r. Ra…in-…almudie. & Arab. ſaith that Pro 28.8. foreign …m fo… …e & …uſura foreign multilica …, viz. ſubſtant am ſaam, eſt …tymologia e…preſſa, viz. uſura. ☞Yet this is one of the places Doctor Ames urged, that Vſury is here forbidden with a limitation, ſc. to the poore. When Schindler ſheweth that hence is fetcht the etymologie of Vſury, what it is, ſc. all increaſe for bare lending. And as our learned Engliſh Tranſlators have rendred Tharbith, the caſe goes farre worſe againſt the Vſurer; for they rende Tarbith, unjuſt gaine. So that if one asketh what is foreign Vſury. It is ſaith Schindler, Tarbit…: what is Tarbit…? It is unjuſt gaine, ſay our Engliſh new Tranſlators; Therefore I conclude Vſury is unjuſt gaine.Prov 28:8. 4 His next reaſon is taken out of Chryſoſtome. Chryſoſtome ſaith (quoth Willet) Vſurarius ſuper omnes mercatores maledictus. Curſed above all merchants and tradeſmen: So Willet tranſlates. And Chryſoſtome (ſaith Willet) further uſeth this compariſon; Like as when one fifteth any graine, all the graine by little and little ſlippeth through, and ſo ſolum ſtercus remanet in cribro; onelyonly the ſoile and dirt remaineth in the ſieve: So of all the ſubſtance and ill gotten goods of Vſurers, Nihil remanet niſi peccatum. So farre Willet. Thus you ſee the prohibition of Vſury in the above alleaged places by Doctor Ames, Non fundetur in conditione perſonae, not onelyonly in my judgement and my reaſons (which notwithſtanding are unanſwerable) but in the judgement of other learned men, with their invincible reaſons.

Scriptura non tollit omnem omnino uſuram, D. Ames.fed illam quae mordet aut rodit, i.e. quando debitū exigitur cum rigore, & proximi damno. i.e. The Scripture takes not away all Vſury utterly, but the biting p. 28and gnawing; i.e. when the debt is exacted with rigour, and damnifying our neighbour.

Replicatio.To the firſt clauſe. 1 Thus as our Engliſh Tranſlators, O. or N. take no notice of the diſtinction: Nor French, Iun. Lat. High-dutch; ſo here is not a limitation of Vſury, as if Neſhech, biting Vſury were unlawfull onelyonly. As if there were another Vſury, which our old Vſurers call toothleſſe Vſury. For there is no Vſury ſo old, as that the marke is out of its mouth, but ſtill it may be knowne to be a ſinne. Still its teeth may be ſeene, and ſo called biting Vſury. This word is oft uſed as an epithite of aggravation, to deterre men from any Vſury. Becauſe any Vſury at the beſt is foreign Neſhech, A biting Vſury. For if we looke after the other names of Vſury, they have a worſe ſignification than this. 1 For foreign Neſhech, it is agreed that is condemned. Chryſoſtome cals it on Matth. 5. Morſum aſpidis venenatum. And that you may know what is foreign Neſhech, your friend (as the Vſurers report, if any will beleeve them) Maſter Zanch. will ſhew. Neſhech, Morſus eſt, quo ſcilcet mordetur, id eſt, damno afficitur ille, qui mutuam accepit pecuniam, dum ſc. v. g. pro centum cogitur reddere centum, & prater hos aliquid amplius, ſive parum, ſive multum. By which deſcription of Neſhech, all our Vſurers hundreds for one are caſt, and condemned guilty of biting Vſury. For they will have ſomewhat more than the principle, let the borrower get nothing at all, but loſe. The Vſurer muſt p. 29have a plus ultra, on his five in the hundred. Another his ſix in the hundred. Another his ſeven in the hundred. Another his eight in the hundred. Another his five ſhillings a monethmonth, or fifteene pence a weeke for two yeares, for five pounds; which in the pecunia numerata, by Lunary months, twelve in a yeare, comes to 20 l' per Centum: By Solary months, as the Sunne meaſures ſeven dayes to a weeke, foure weeks to a month, and ſo makes thirteene months in a yeare, it comes to thirty in the hundred. And in modo numerandi, the manner of paying, that as ſoone as the ſtocke is out, to have ſome comming in within a weeke or a month, and ſo weekly or monthly, comes to above 30 l' in the hundred. For the 30 l' per Centum, you may reckon it thus; five ſhillings a monethmonth, for a yeare, for 5 l', comes to make the ſumme of 3 l', ſuppoſing but the Almanack Lunary moneths, 12 in the yeare. For 12 crowns are 3 l'. of which 3 l', 10 s is the Vſe. For the ſum was 5 l' for two years. Now halfe is come in at 12 Almanacke months. Now multiply; ten a yeare for 50 s, is twenty ſhillings for 5 l'. Then foure twenties, ſc. 4 l' for foure 5 l, i e. for 20 l': that is five 4 l' (which is 20 l') for five 20 l', which is an 100 l'. So you ſee then that ten ſhillings a yeare for 50 s, is 20 l' for an hundred. Lets goe on then; if ten ſhillings a yeare, for 50 s, comes to 20 l' per Centum, then adde halfe ten ſhillings, ſc. five, for the odde Solary monethmonth, the thirteenth monethmonth in the yeare, and that will come to halfe as much more, i. e. 30 l' pro Centum. Theſe things I have reckoned p. 30if I forget not my ſelfe, before exact Shop-keepers, Civill Lawyers, Common Lawyers, and Divines, and they have aſſented to the reckoning to be right. And the Lawyer hath pronounced directly this to be indirect Vſury (though a man pretend to ſell his money) and ſo lies liable to the penalty of the Statute. But then how much more than 30 in the 100 it comes to, to take in ſome of the Principall and Vſe together, the firſt week, or firſt month, and ſo weekly or monthly, for two years, till all in, I muſt confeſſe I cannot tell; I nevet yet tryed to reckon: and it ſeemes ſomewhat intricate: we had need have the helpe of the Almanack-maker. Others, may be, ſaile lower, and take but 20 s in the hundred; yet if the borrower hath not gained thus much, this is Neſhech with Maſter Zanchie. Nay, if a man doth not leave the borrower ſome gaine, if he gat but one ſhilling, ſo that Creditor fit tamen particeps benignitatis, of the gaine. that is Neſhech. We adde the judgment and reaſons of other learned men, that are contrary to D. Ames; that Neſhech doth not intend only to forbid one kinde of Vſury, but is a common name to diſgrace, and forbids all Vſury, as all Uſury being Neſhech, biting. It is Willets argument, & he hath it out of learned Cajetan, Vſura eſt ex ſuo genere nociva, becauſe it is called Neſhech. And the law of nature, ſaith Willet, teacheth we ſhould not do as we would not be done by. It is Ainſworths poſition, Evod. 22.25. That Vſury is called biting, becauſe indefinitely all Vſury is biting, and therefore here ſaith he, abſolutely p. 31forbidden. He hath this poſition as out of many Scriptures there quoted, of which afore: So out of the Heb. Rab. viz. Maimonid. Vſury indefinitely called Neſhech or Noſhech, it nippeth and eateth his neighbours fleſh. — Iun. out of Bernard, Vſura is called Neſhech, lucrum rodens, ſeu exedens; for it is, ſaith Bernard, Venenum patrimonii. — Willet out of R. Sol. and Lyran. Vſury is Neſhech, q. mordet ut ſerpens; parum percipitur in principio, tandem devorat totam hominis ſubſtantiam. Out of Galaſſ. q. tanquam hirudo, omnem ſuccum & ſanguinem exſugit, as an horſleech, ſaith Willet. — Out of Simler, q. ut morſus ſerpentis non ſinit dormire.—Out of Calvin, Neſhech quia foenerator tanquam canis famelicus, alios mordendo ſeipſum paſcit. — Finally, q. lethaliter mordet eos, qui eâ gravantur. ex Anonymo. Elton is of the ſame minde. All Vſury is Neſhech. You ſee then how bad Vſury is at beſt. How Neſhech is enough to condemne all Vſury almoſt. The next words are worſe. For Tharebith, in the words and judgement of Maſter Zanchie, is of Rabbah. Quod eſt creſcore, i.e. augere. Vocem hanc habemus, Levit. 25. Significatur autem hac voce, uſura ſeſe multiplicans, (for indeed it is a Nowne from the Conjugation Hithpael.) Cum ſcilicet Vſura, (nempe iniqua) non perſoluta, novam parit Vſuram. Quam certè damnat Lex Dei, Levit. 25.36. Vbi utramque vocem conjungit Neſhech & Tharebith, & utramque damnat, cavetque ne fiat. Quare neque haec vox in ſacris literis in bonam partem accipi poteſt. Atque illam primam Vſuram, quae Neſhech dicitur, vocant Iuriſperiti p. 32noſtri Vſuram ſimplicem; alteram, uſuram uſurarum; cumſc. Vſura non exacta, parit novam Vſuram; & Graeci vocant foreign, quaſi dicat repetitam Vſuram. So then this Tharebith is not the toothleſſe or tolerable Vſury, but worſe than Neſhech, and therefore condemned by Scripture with Neſhech, in the ſame text. Yea, condemned by Zanchie, yea, as he explains it, by humane laws as moſt odious. ppPray marke now, that this piece of Levit. 25.35, 36. is one of thoſe places which Doctor Ames produceth that Vſur… is forbidden, with this limitation, viz. to the poore. When a… you heare that the two words there to expreſſe Vſury, ſignifying ſuch a Vſury as for the nature is unlawfull to be done to any man whatſoever, poore or rich. And it is not my judgement only, but Zanchies, that ſeemes to be a favourer to Vſurers. And Neſhech there uſed, is condemned by Doctor Ames himſelfe, and therefore he ſomewhat ſmiteth himſelfe to ſay Vſury is forbidden, Levit. 25.36. to poore, becauſe poore. When it is rather forbidden, becauſe Neſhech: and ſoone makes any Client ſo poore new as to borrow, a non to be very poore.Lev 25:35Lev 25:36Me thinks, Zanchie or Ames, or any man that would intimate a tolerable Vſury, ſhould have done ſo much as told us by what name that tolerable lawfull Vſury is called in old Teſtament, where they pretend it is allowed. But they leave us to our ſelves. Well therefore I goe on. The third word for Vſury is foreign which ſignifies Fraudes, Doli, Vſurae: It ſignifies cheating and cozening as well as Vſury, intimating that Vſury is of an odious abominable nature, to be ſhunned as a dangerous thing to intrap ones eſtate and livelihood. You ſhall not take my word for this, or learned Shindlers; but I will produce our Engliſh Bibles, and the beſt and laſt tranſlation. Prov. 29.13. it is ſaid, The poore and the deceitfull man meet together. The Hebrew word for deceitfull man is Iſh Terakim, the word before named. The man of cunning deceits; which becauſe it ſignifies the Vſurer, therefore in the margent it is rendred Vſurer. Beſide theſe three words for Vſury, I can finde not one Hebrew p. 33word more, upon divers diligent ſearchings. Nor did others handling Vſury, ever name ſo many as I have, that I could finde, or heare of. As for N. T. it is expreſly named there, but implicitely forbidden under the precept of free lending. And under all theſe names Vſury is made odious; therefore where is the name of that Vſury that Doctor Ames, or any, would intimate to be lawfull? 2 Reply to the clauſe is this: All Vſury in Scripture is either Neſhech, or Tharbith, or Terakim: But all theſe are vilified and diſgraced in Scripture as odious, therefore all Vſury in Scripture is forbidden, or diſgraced as unlawfull. The two firſt expreſly forbidden. The laſt word is, you ſee, not uſed in any precept or poſition about Vſury, but onelyonly as a name of the wicked rich man, and you ſee what an odious ſignification it hath; inſomuch that the Vſurers conſcience ſhall judge whether Terakim is not ſpoken againſt in Scripture, when called cozening or deceitfull dealing Vſury. For the Vſurer will not have his Vſury called cozening, or fraud, or deceit. Nay, if they would but ſee how they are hated and curſed for taking Vſe, they would diſallow their Vſury. So Cic. Attic. 85.6. Primum improbantur hi quaeſtus, qui in odia hominum incurrunt, ut portitorum (toll or tax takers) & foeneratorum. But alas Uſury in this is worſe than the worſt ſins. Thoſe deny the fact, but excuſe not the ſinne: Theſe confeſſe the fact but deny the ſinne. 2 Our reply to the laſt clauſe, that Vſury is taken away, quando debitum exigitur cum p. 34rigore, &c. is briefly this. The breach of the Law, conſiſtit in indiviſibili. foreign, be it never ſo ſmall, is ſinne. 1 Ioh. 3.8, 9. David ſmote him for cutting of Sauls garment. It is laid to the charge of the old world, Gen. 6.5. that they brake the Law in the thoughts of their imaginations, and therefore God would bring upon them the flood. And, Curſed is he that continueth not in all the Law, &c. Gal. 3.10. But the Law takes hold of thoughts, Thou ſhall not covet, &c. in the tenth Commandement. See how Paul applies it, Rom. 7. Therefore if all gaine forbare lending, for a bare principle, fully repayed, or to be repayed, be taken, be it more or leſſe, cum rigore, or abſque rigore, it is all the ſame. For how is it conceiveable that ſuch gaine ſhould be taken, ſine damno proximi, when the moſt Divines that preſſe reſtitution, doe it on this ground, Vſury ought to be reſtored, becauſe it hath bin a damma…e to the ſo borrower. But ſaith Maſter Capel, The other part of the Schooles, with whom, ſaith he, I joyne, hold reſtitution, becauſe by Vſury there is no true title jure divino, no not in juſtice, to that which comes in that way. He quotes in the margent, Greg. de Valent. Tom. 3. diſ. 5. q. 21. pu. 3.

D. Ames.Scriptura tollit illam uſuram quae charitati repugnat, Luc. 6.35. i.e. The …cripture takes away the Vſury that is repugnant and oppoſite to charity.

Replicatio.Therefore the Scripture takes away all Vſury. 1 Becauſe all is oppoſite to charity. No man but would borrow freely if he could, therefore you p. 35ought ſo to lend. 2 Becauſe oppoſite to the Law of God as we heare, Ezech. 18. Pſal. 15. Nehem. 5. reſtore the hundreth part, without mention of brother that is poore, or biting, &c. But the ſumme of the Law is charity. As Chriſt approves the anſwer of the Lawyer. Ergo. 3 Becauſe oppoſite to that place, Luk. 6.35. alleaged by Doct. Ames, Lend freely, looking for nothing. Finally take notice, that whereas before the learned Doctor averred, that borrowing ought to be free could not be proved; yet here he alleageth this of Luk. 6.35. Lend freely, which not to obſerve, is againſt the law of charity, ſaith the Doctor. Vſury, ſaith Maſter Smith, is againſt charity.

Forſan & illam omnem Vſuram tollit, D. Ames.quae ex lege politica Iudaeis inter ſe exercere non licebat. Deut. 33.19, 20. Perhaps alſo it takes away all that Vſury which was not lawfull for the Jews, by the politicall Law, to exerciſe one towards another. Unto a ſtranger thou maiſt lend upon Uſury, but unto thy brother thou ſhalt not lend upon Uſury; that the Lord thy God may bleſſe thee in all thou ſetteſt thy hand unto, &c. Vnae Scriptura indicare videtur aliquam Vſuram eſſe per ſe licitam: Dum aequali, non egeno extraneo accipere Vſuras Iudaeis permittebat.

Great glory is made of this Text,Replicat…o. in gener. to prove Uſury not ſimply unlawfull. But as permiſſion by law to execute death upon malefactors, doth not prove murther not ſimply unlawfull: So toleration of Vſury here towards them whoſe lives p. 36the Jewes might take away, doth not prove but that Vſury is nevertheleſſe ſimply unlawfull. For al… that ever gave a reaſon why Vſury towards the Canaanites (for the ſeven kingdomes of the Canaanites are the onelyonly ſtrangers here meant, by the confeſſion of the learned, and no other ſtrangers) was permitted, was becauſe their lives were given to the Jewes, and conſequently their eſtates too. Therefore to object a private Jew might not take away a Canaanites life, is onelyonly to argue, that a private Jew might not take Vſury of a Canaanite. For the Canaanites goods is not his, except the life. Therefore this objection (that is grounded on that which doth not appeare in the Text, that a private Jew might not kill a Canaanite) doth inferre theft to be lawfull, to prove Vſury not unlawfull. For if a private Jew hath no power over the Canaanites life, then not over his eſtate; for what other rule is there? and ſo taking that he hath nothing to doe with, he robs. If he, a private Jew, takes uſe of him, ſurely if he doth it by vertue of the publick politicall Law, dirived to him particularly; ſure then the reaſon or ground of that law being publick that Jewes are to have power over the Canaanites lives, comes downe to him in particular: Or elſe his particular and private Vſury is without reaſon. 2 God tolerated the Jewes robbing the Egyptians: yet it doth not follow thence, that theft is not ſimply unlawfull qqTherefore Maſter Pe…ins m…es this a r…e of underſtanding the Law. That the Law is ſtill peremptory, and ſtill the ſame in nature. The Law-makers diſpenſation being but for a ſpeciall & particular time or occaſion. And his act tranſcendent..

Replicatio in partic. 1.Suppoſe this were a toleration of Vſury for the Jew upon the Canaanite, without conſideration p. 37of power over the Canaanites lives; yet what were this to uphold any kinde of Vſury to be uſed of and towards Chriſtians? when as two learned men, Calvin and Willet, doe not doubt from this place (which ſeemes a toleration) to conclude Vſury to be utterly unlawfull among Chriſtians. Their argument is this. The Hebrewes were forbidden to take any Vſury at all of their brethren; of the Gentiles they might; but now diruta eſt maceries, the wall of partition is taken away, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Chriſt: therefore Chriſtians may not take uſe of Chriſtians. Before this argument Maſter Willet puts this poſition [Vſury is ſimply unlawfull:] He makes the ſaid argument his firſt argument, and at the end of it he ſubſcribes Calvin. The ſecond particular Reply, From the manner of the Holy Ghoſts ſetting downe this rule touching Vſury, and mens urging, ſc. as a toleration. VponUpon which, Maſter Capels poſition is this: I know, ſaith he, the Law permitted Vſury to the Jewes to the ſtranger. What of that? It followes the rather, that it is of it ſelfe a ſin; becauſe permiſſion is of ſins, not of duties. So Maſter Capel. Meditate well on this anſwer. Perhaps at the firſt ſight you will wonder, and object, Doth God then tolerate ſin? Before he tolerated it is ſimply ſinne, and ſo it is when his toleration ceaſeth. But God being above the Commandement, his Will being the everlaſting platforme of the Commandement, he may diſpenſe; and when and how farre he p. 38makes it no Law, there is no tranſgreſſion. The morall Law was written, ſay the generall conſent of Divines, in Adams heart, and ſo was from the beginning, and yet ſtill is in force. Yet at firſt it was no adultery for the brother to marry the ſiſter: I meane no breach of the Commandement of Adultery: God ſhewing by neceſſity, his Will for that generation, to diſpence. So, Thou ſhalt not ſteale, is a Negative Commandement, and ſo binds ſemper, and ad ſemper. But when God bids the Iſraelites borrow of, and not pay the Egyptians, this is no theft: God having a reaſon, that the breach of this Commandement then was greater juſtice than to keepe it. The ſame may be ſaid for Vſury. If Kings and Emperours muſt be obeyed in their wholſome lawes, under penalty of ſin: But it is no ſin to doe contrary to any law they make, when firſt they have for that time repealed them. Then God hath much more that power. The third particular reply is, That in the judgement of moſt learned men, the reaſon of this diſpenſation, viz. the leave the Jewes had to ſlay the Canaanites, doth the more ſhew the vileneſſe and cruelty of Vſury. Firſt, let us heare Maſter Capel, that we may knit this to that which was but quoted of him, that he may the better cleare himſelfe. The thing is (ſaith Maſter Capel) There was a Law to kill the Canaanite, and yet I hope that killing was not murther: No more was that Vſury a ſinne to them. Next, let us heare Maſter Willet, backing himſelfe with the judgements and reaſons of the Fathers. if it be objected p. 39(ſaith Maſter Willet) that God permitted the Hebrewes to take Vſury of the Gentiles, therefore it was not ſimply unlawfull. To this (ſaith he) it may be anſwered, that they were thoſe ſeven Nations of the Canaanites, of whom they might take Vſury: which Nations they were commanded to deſtroy, and ſo by this meanes they might weaken their eſtate, and impoveriſh them. Whereupon (ſaith Maſter Willet) Ambroſe inferreth, Ab hoc Vſuram exige, quem non ſit crimen occidere rrAnd, cui jure inferuntur arma, huic legitima indicuntur Vſura.. And ſo (ſaith he) Auguſtine alſo concludeth, Non minus crudelis qui pauperem trucidat f…nore, quam qui eripit diviti. Adde to theſe Simler; Vbi jus belli, ibi jus Vſurae.

Si enim omnis Vſura eſſet intrinſecè ac ſuâ naturâ mala, D. Ames.tum non potuere Iudaei à gentibus accipere Vſuras ſine ſcandalo gravi, quo gentes averterentur à religione ac lege Iudaeorum, quae admitteret rem illicitam tanquam licitam. i.e. For if all Vſury intrinſecally, and in its owne nature were evill, then the Jewes could not have taken Vſury of the Gentiles, without great ſcandall, to the averting of the Gentiles from the religion and law of the Jewes tolerating a thing unlawfull.

By the ſame reaſon we may ſay,Replicatio. If theft had beene intrinſecally, and in its owne nature unlawfull, then the Jewes could not have borrowed of the Egyptians jewels, not repaying them, without great ſcandall, whereby the Egyptians might be turned away from the religion and Law of the p. 40Jewes, which did admit of a thing, unlawfull in the opinion of the Egyptians, to be as lawfull. But we know that theft was ſimply, and in its owne nature unlawfull, notwithſtanding this diſpenſation. So was Uſury, notwithſtanding that permiſſion. For … this borrowing of jewels, as that lending upon Uſury, was an act of diſtributive juſtice, to juſtly puniſh male factors, as enemies of the common ſtate of the Church, not belonging to commutative juſtice of trading and trafficking, borrowing, lending, &c. 2 We are not to examine Gods Lawes by the uncertaine rule of ſcandall taken by graceleſſe men ſſFor the Goſpel, and the liberty thereof was a ſcandall to the Iewes, & fooliſhneſſe to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 1.1 Cor 1, but rather by the holineſſe and uprightneſſe of Gods will, which we know to be ſo perfect, that the lawes and diſpenſations it dictates, cannot be condemned of ſcandall-giving. 3 We know murther was ſimply unlawfull. And no doubt but the Canaanites would take great offence at Jew & Jewiſh religion, if the Jews invading their Kingdomes, would kill any of the Canaanites; yet neither of theſe reaſons made it unlawfull or inconvenient (God giving them this liberty) to kill & deſtroy all Jericho and Ay, &c So, nor the law againſt theft, nor offence that might be taken by the Gentile, made it unlawfull or inconvenient for the Jew to pick the Cannaanites pocket by Uſury, ſeeing they might doe more (by divine diſpenſation) viz. cut their throats, as an act of juſt war. The Kings law is ſtill current, that murther and robbing is felony and death; though he ſends his officer to take away the life and goods of one that is not to be owned p. 41for a free Deniſon, but rather ſtanding under a forraine power, denying the Kings Supremacy, as Jeſuites, &c. So the Canaanites denied the Iſraelites to have any right to Canaan, or authority over them; and therefore the Jewes took their lives, or goods, or both, as forfeited, without prejudice to the ſimple unlawfulneſſe of murther, theft, Uſury, &c. 4 This toleration, in ſtead of taking offence, might probably bring in the Canaanites to turne to the Jewiſh Religion. For when they ſaw no Jewes life or goods in jeopardy by war and Uſury, but the Cananites, they might reaſon within themſelves who would be a Canaanite, and not a Jew? Seeing that which is ſimply illicitum, unlawfull among the Jewes and their confederates, is counted as a lawfull act and execution of common juſtice upon a Canaanite, to take away his goods by Uſury, nay, Neſhech, biting Uſury, and his life by warre. For ſo in Deut. 23.19. Of thy brother thou ſhalt not take foreign Neſhech, but verſ. 20. extraneo, foreign Taſhich, foenerabis; which Taſhich is of the root foreign which ſignifies to take Neſhech, biting Uſury: which Doctor Ames condemned as ſimply unlawfull.

Huc etiam referri poteſt, D. Ames.quod maximè probabile ſit ex parabola illa de Talentis. Matth. 25.27. Non tantum in vulgari uſu fuiſſe apud Iudaeos menſariorum aliquod foenus, ſed etiam à Domino non fuiſſe improbatum, quia ſub illa ſimilitudine exigit officium ſpirituale ſine ulla infinuatione alicujus improbationis, qualem in aliis parabolis, quae ab uſu improbato p. 42officium illuſtrabant, ſolebat adhibere. Luc. 16.8. i. e. Thither may be referred that likely conjecture out of the Parable, Matth. 25.27. viz. that not only there was a certaine Uſury among the Jewes, commonly uſed by the money-changers, but alſo that it was not diſallowed of the Lord; becauſe under that ſimilitude he requireth a ſpirituall duty, without any intimation of diſallowing it; which he was wont to expreſſe in other parables, illuſtrating a duty from or by ſome diſallowable act. Luk. 16.8.

Replicatio.As for the Parable of the Talents, I never heard any learned Divine, or any other Chriſtian urge it, but thoſe that are Uſurers, in the behalfe of Uſury. For if the Text be well weighed, the compariſon ſmites Uſury: For this compariſon was not uſed, but upon a ſpeciall occaſion of retortion. The man of one Talent alleageth for his idleneſſe, the unreaſonableneſſe of th… Maſter, that he reaped where he ſowed not. Why then ſaith the Maſter, if thou hadſt thought ſo indeed, or if I had beene ſo indeed, thou ſhouldſt and wouldſt have runne upon unreaſonable wages of bringing in advantage to me, even to have put my money to Uſe, to give me content: but becauſe thou didſt not doe ſo, it is evident that thou didſt not take me for a cruell Maſter, but rather preſumedſt on my clemencie, and ſo didſt not by honeſt gaine peruſe my Talent, as all the reſt have done, and brought in advantage, without Uſury. For had our Saviour in the leaſt meaſure p. 43connived at Uſury, he would as well have aggravated the ſluggiſhneſſe of this owner of one Talent, from the manner how they got their increaſe (if they had meddled with Uſury) as from the matter they had gained. To this effect Pareus Comments on the place; Abſcondiſti talentum, quia ſciebas me metere quod non ſeminavi. Imo, ſi ſciebas me talemeſſe; ſi vera eſſet tua criminatio, abſcondere non debuiſti, ſed elocare talentum, ut reciperem cum lucro. Sic falſam criminationem ipſius facto convincit, & vanum ignavia praetextum refellit. So that to me it ſeemes evidently, that the Lord intimates that to be ſuch a one as to reape where another ſowes, is juſt to be as a Uſurer; and that there is no ſatisfying ſuch a Maſter, but by paying Uſe-money. Were this a good Commentary upon the compariſon, Matth. 24.43, 44. 1 Theſſ. 5.2. 2 Pet. 3.10. De Domino, dieque illo Domini, ut fure noctu veniente, ita venturo, quod maximè probabile ſit, non tantum in vulgari uſu fuiſſe apud Iudaeos furtum, ſed etiam à Domino non fuiſſe improbatum; quia ſub illa ſimilitudine exigit officium ſpirituale (nempe vigilias ſpirituales) ſine ulla inſinuatione alicujus improbationis, qualem in aliis parabolis quae ab uſu improbato officiū illuſtrabant, ſolebat adhibere. Luc. 16.8? No, I ſhould be cryed out againſt for ſuch a Gloſſe. Then may I diſlike the like Gloſſe upon the Parable of the Talents, like word for word. Others anſwer this place to the ſame effect, viz. This place (ſay they) will no more warrant lending on Uſury, than Chriſt his comparing his comming to judgement to the p. 44ſudden comming of a thiefe, Mat. 24.43, 44. will warrant their ſuddenly breaking into mens houſes.

D. Ames.Aequitas lucri demonſtrari poteſt, ex aequitate manifeſtâ, de qua nemo poteſt dubitare, ſi quis nulum certum reditum vel ſummam ſibi praeciſe pendi ſtipuletur, ſed ita pecuniam ſuam apud probum virum collocet ut in illius fide acquieſcat. De hujuſmodi pecuniae collocatione nulla poteſt eſſe quaeſtio, ſi periculum capitalis maneat commune. Nihil enim eſt aliud quam contractus ſocietatis in lucro & damno. i. e. The equity of gaining, can be demonſtrated by a manifeſt equity doubted of by none; viz. If any one ſhall not bargain for any certaine returne, or ſumme of gaine to be preciſely paid unto him, but ſo putteth out his money to an honeſt man, that he reſts in his faithfulneſſe. Of this way of putting out of money there can be no queſtion, if the hazard of the Principle be common to them both; for its nothing but partnerſhip in gain & loſſe.

Replicatio.Doth the Uſurer thus put out his money? No in no caſe: His conſcience and his ſecurity will witneſſe the ſame. What is all this then to prove the lawfulneſſe of putting to Uſe? No more than he that to prove a thing to be chalke, uſeth this argument, becauſe it is cheeſe.

D. Ames.Nihil contra aequitatem committitur ſi lucrum incertum, quod probabiliter ſequetur, vendatur pro certo moderato. i. e. There is nothing committed contrary to equity, if a gaine uncertaine, but probably p. 45following, be ſold for a moderate gaine certaine.

But what proofe is there of this? Not a word.Replicatio. We therefore that are nullius addicti jurare in verba magiſtri, may juſt ſo anſwer the argument as it is propoſed, ſaying, it is contra aequitatem. And what is now won or loſt? But we will give a reaſon of what we ſay. If falſe ballances be abominable, to fell leſſe for money than one ought; If going beyond ones brother, and circumventing him, to ſell naughty commoditie for good, is unlawfull; then ſure it is unlawfull to ſell nothing for money; which a man doth often, when a man ſels lucrum incertum. So the Doctor confeſſeth. He ſaith, quod probabiliter ſequetur. We ſay that alſo, probabiliter non ſequetur. For ſo we ſee by experience in trading. So we finde by Scripture upon all men. All things come alike to all.Pe…ſ 9.… Of riches in particular: They have wings. And of dealing ſo as to break the Commandements, it brings a curſe on all we put our hands to. Deut. 28. And of this ſort is Uſury, ſc. unjuſt gaine. Prov. 28.8. And it brings a curſe on all we put our hands to, Deut. 23.19, 20. Whiles therefore the Uſurer will ſell, and the borrower will buy Gods providence over his head, you ſee more likely in Uſury Gods curſe, and loſſes are bought and ſold over mens heads.

Neque iniquitatis quicquid eſt in eo, D. Ames.ſi contractus fiat legibus aequis, ut totum periculum capitalis pertineat ad eum qui exercet pecuniam. Nihil enim aliud p. 46eſt quam contractus aſſecurationis quo alienae rei periculum pretio aeſtimabile ſuſcipitur pro pretio. i. e. Neither is there any injuſtice in it, if the contract be made with equall conditions, that the whole hazard of the principle lie upon him which uſeth the money, being nothing elſe but a contract of inſurance, whereby the hazard of anothers goods valuable at a price, is undertaken for a price.

D. Ames.Did not the Doctor but now ſay, De pecuniae collocatione nulla poteſt eſſe quaeſtio, ſi periculum capitalis maneat commune? Therefore it followes, ſi non ſit commune, eſt quaeſtio — 2 How there may be contractus legibus aequis factus de re injuſtâ facienda, is beyond any man of ſound reaſon to conceive. 3 If it be rei alienae periculum, why ſhould it not ſo abide? why ſhould any man lend for care? why ſhould he lay another mans ſacks upon his ſhoulders? ſeeing every day foreign: eſpecially ſeeing there is danger of ſinne to be laid on the borrowers ſhoulders, as well as care, to helpe the Vſurer to ſinne and live unprofitably, which could not be without the borrower. If it be rei alienae periculum, how ſhall it be on both ſides, that neither hath wrong, ſc. pretio aestimabile? It is all in Gods hands how great the periculum may be. One wedge may fire all the ſtuffe of Achan. By occaſion of this Vſury-money, the borrower may fall into dealing that may inwrap all his eſtate, and all may be loſt.

p. 47Non neceſſario requiritur, D. Ames.ut iſtiuſmodi contractus diſtincte aut expreſſe fiant, ſed ſatis eſt ſi fiant implicitè ex intentione ſincerâ, & ſecundū aeſtimationem proborum. i.e. It is not neceſſary that ſuch like contracts be made diſtinctly and expreſly, it being ſufficient if they be made implicitly, out of a ſincere intention ratably by honeſt men.

Its no need indeed that the contract be expreſſe for the committing of the ſinne of Vſury.Replicatio. For the Doctor ſaid before, Vſura eſt lucrum ex mutuo quaeſitum, non conventum; quia eſt Vſura tam mentalis, quam realis — 2 To ſeeke intentionem ſinceram in an Vſurer, is to looke a roſe among nettles, figs on thornes, and grapes of thiſtles. 3 For the aeſtimatio proborum, be bold of it, they will be judges of no ſuch matters, unleſſe they may judge the loſſe upon the idle unprofitable Vſurer, and the gaine to the labouring borrower.

Si iſti omnes contractus ſeparatim ſint liciti, D. Ames.contractus ex iis compoſitus ſit licitus. i.e. If all theſe contracts be ſeparately and ſingly lawfull, then one compounded of them is lawfull.

To theſe ſeverally we have anſwered,Replicatio. with ſeverall reaſons and allegations: And therefore I wonder the worthy Doctor would once ſpeake ſuch a word [ut omnes concedunt.] Therefore of theſe lucra, ſingle or mixt, we conclude with the old verſe,

Et quae non proſint ſingula, mixta mala.

p. 48Or with this,

Singula ſi noceant, eadem quoque juncta nocebunt.

Quaeſtio quarta eſt, quaenam obſervanda ſunt ad peccatum vitandum in pecuniâ exponenda? D. Ames.i.e. The fourth queſtion is, what rules are to be obſerved, whereby to avoid ſinne in putting out money?

Replicatio.It ſhould ſeeme there is a common fault and ſinne in putting out of money, by the Doctors confeſſion.

D. Ames.But he thinks it avoidable by theſe cautions: 1 Ne quid ultra ſortem exigatur ab egenis. 2 Ne lucri aviditas impediat foeneratorem quo minus pauperes ſimpliciter donando juvet. 3 Non totum illud exigere, quod legibus & uſu recepto licet. i.e. 1 That nothing above the principle be exacted of the poore. 2 That greedineſſe of gaine hinder not the Vſurer from lending to the poore. 3 That he exact not all that law and cuſtome tolerates.

Replicatio.1 Let the Vſurers conſcience, and vox populi witneſſe, whether theſe cautions be obſerved. 2 If theſe be obſerved; yet God witneſſeth againſt the Vſurer. Non vitatur peccatum in pecunia exponenda, as I have already cleared it out of Gods Word, canvaſed & argued with the allegations & reaſons of godly & learned authors. 3 To make the queſtion, An Vſura ſit licita; and to put downe, dictate and ſuggeſt cautions, without p. 49proofe, as ſufficient to take away the nature of Vſury, is petitio principii, a begging of the queſtion.

Spectanda ſemper, & obſervanda regula aquitatis, D. Ames.& charitatis; ut illud tantum accipiatur, quod quiſque bona fide vellet à ſe accipi in ſimili neceſsitate deprehenſo. i.e. Alwayes the rule of equity and charity is to be obſerved. viz. That ſo much only be taken, which every one in very deed, would have to be taken of him, were he in the ſame condition.

We have already ſhewed,Replicatio. that in committing this ſinne of Vſury more or leſſe, there can be no equity or charity found: For if there could, the queſtion were yeelded, Vſury were not ſinne. 2 For doing as one would be done by, i.e. ſay the Schoolmen, ſecundum rectam rationem. Saul would have his armour-bearer run him thorow; therefore might Saul runne his armour-bearer thorow? The lender upon Vſury thinks it no ſinne ſo to lend; therefore if he were in the borrowers caſe, he would not doubt but lawfully ſo to borrow. But if the Vſurer and the Borrower were well informed, ſecundum rectam rationem, they would know (as very learned men hold) it is unlawfull to borrow or lend upon Vſe, and ſo would neither doe, nor be done to upon Vſury.

The Caution.D. Ames. Offenſiones & calumniae (quibus obnoxium eſt hoc genus co…ractuum. Jer. 15.10.) declinari ſemper dabeat, quantum fieri poteſt. i. e. The p. 50laſt Caution is, that offences and calumnies (to which this kinde of contract is liable. Ier. 15.10.) ought to be avoided as much as may be.

Replicatio.This daſheth neere all the Doctor hath laid down before in favour of Vſury. 1 He confeſſeth Vſury to be a thing of evill report, out of Ier. 15.10. 2 That offences muſt be avoided, &c. we inferre therefore Vſury muſt be left. 1 By the rule of this; Woe unto the world becauſe of offences. Better a milſtone, &c. But ſo doe Vſurers offend many of their clients, to curſing. So doe they offend their Miniſter, to heart-breaking ſorrow, eſpecially at times of Communion. 2 By the Apoſtles rule, Philip. 4. Whatſoever is of good report, &c. If there be any praiſe, thinke of theſe things.

Thus Object. farre of Doctor Ames urged at our Conference. There was another authour named, (ſed excidit memoriâ) whereby to countenance Vſury, as if the urging of mens authority without their reaſons, were of any validity.

1 We Sol. could fill a ſheet of learned mens names, that hold againſt Vſury, if that were a confutation. I wiſh from my heart, that thoſe that are affected with the multitude of authours to ſway their Tenent, would read the Engliſh Vſurer, where they ſhall meet with a multitude of learned authors condemning Vſury, and their ſound reaſons too; viz. 6 learned pious Biſhops; 10 learned pious Doctors; 22 learned pious Divines; with an addition of the witty reaſons of three famous p. 51Engliſh Poets. 2 If we run upon mens authorities, we ſhall be robbed of all the Commandements, or the maine branches of them. The learned Atheiſt will take away the firſt Commandement.I have ſeene in Cardinall B… …onius his Talmud the ſecond Com. bl…tted out with his own pen, And left out in Rom. Catech. Concil. Viennenſ. Concil. Ta rocon…enſ. c. 3. Concil. Laterancoſ. par. 16. c. 1. See alſo Willet on Exod. 22. qu. 46.Exod 22 The Papiſt the ſecond. The Anabaptiſt the third. The Jew the fourth. The Popes diſpenſations the fifth, ſixth, & ſeventh. The Vſurer the eighth. The equivocating Jeſuite the ninth. The Papiſt the tenth, that Concupiſcence is no ſinne. 3 The Canoniſts and Canon Law have this remarkable decree; SI QUIS AFFIRMARE PRAESUMAT, EXERCERE USURAS NON ESSE PECCATUM, &c. If any preſume to affirme that it is no ſinne to practiſe Vſury, we decree him worthy to be puniſhed as an Hereticke. Finally, we have not onelyonly learned pious mens arguments in abundance to prove Vſury unlawfull, but that it is ſo unlawfull, as that reſtitution muſt be made; Vſurers being bound to it by the Law of God. See Capel of Temptations; That it is utterly unlawfull to borrow upon Vſe. So the learned Jewes and Rabbines. See Ainſworth on Exod. 22.25. They prove it out of Deut. 23.19. Thou ſhall not cauſe to bite; Thou ſhalt not cauſe to lend upon biting Vſury. By traditon we have beene taught, that this is an admonition to the borrower. Three times more in the ſaid place they ſay it is unlawfull to borrow upon Vſe. I adde, If Vſury be ſimply a ſinne, as the learned prove, and you have heard them alleaged: Then how can a man be acceſſary to it, and not be guilty?

p. 52Finally, Object. at our Conference (as I remember) there was urging of neceſſity in ſome caſes, to take and give upon Vſe; and it is common to men to make thouſands of caſes.

Sol.But if God (on paine of excluding heaven) forbids Vſury, Pſal. 15. Ezech. 18. ſure no caſe can make it neceſſary. Capel to this alleageth Tullie, That no neceſſity can licence a man to take that which is not ones owne. And Eraſmus, that theſe in caſe of neceſſity, is ſtill ſin. Nor may we, nor can we upon any pretence conceive, that God will ſo prevent mans good, that he will make it condemnation to doe that, which our Caſes (we make) ſay we muſt needs doe.

FINIS.

End of the text · Nathanael Homes, Usury is Injury Cleared (1640)