Temptations, Part
OF VSURY.
Nehemiah 5. 11.
Reſtore to them even th… …, their Lands, thei… …e-yards, their Olive … and their houſes; alſo the hundred part of the Money, the Wine, and the Oile, that yee exact of them.
THE matter here is a caſe of Reſtitution,Vulg. & Vatabl. Vſura Geneva. of Lands, & Monies gotten frō the poore by uſury,Burdens, Their note is, you preſſe them with uſury. ſo our laſt tranſlation reades it, Ver. 7. The Hebrew is Burden, Deodate.becauſe uſury is a great burthen,Gravezze His note is Le uſure. and carries an heavy weight with it.
The hundred part of the money,Exod. 22. 25 is meant either of the yeare & then it is but one in the hundred;Thou ſhalt not bee to him as an Vſurer Heb. or of the monethmonth, as ſome thinke then, it is twelve in the hundred. We ſee that covetouſneſſe is rightly tearmed, the roote of all evill, & of al wrongs and evill dealings; (beſides other ſins) elſe it could not bee imagined, that in their bondage the Iewes ſhould thus have grated one upon another. The place, the time, the ſcandall, beſides, the expreſſe law of God, one would have thought, ſhold have made them forbeare: but a covetous heart cannot hold; he cares more for money, than all reports of God and man.
The next thing of note is, that what comes in by uſury (aſwell as by other extortion) muſt ordinarily be reſtored out of hand (even this day;) it is not ſafe to give the heart of man time in any ſin, but of all, not in this wilely ſin of covetouſneſſe: if ever Satan bee a fox and a ſerpent, it is here; give him but a ſpace to play, and angle a little with our hearts, with this ſin of worldlineſſe, & he will quickly catch us with a golden hook. It is great wiſdome to be preſent, the wit of man will diſtinguiſh elſe, and creepe out by one evaſion or other; we are too apt to be pleaſed with any leafe, and ſhift to beare our ſelves in hand that we may lawfully continue in ſuch practiſes, as feed this greedy humour, this eating Wolfe: doe it then while it is called to day, doe it now, leſt our hearts deceive us,Iam. 1. 26. and wee deceive our hearts, and ſo we doe it never. Delayes are ever dangerous, but in nothing like as in getting out of the hands of ſin, but of no ſin,Quid dicam de uſuris quas etiam ipſae leges & judices reddi jubent. Auguſt. ep. 54. Decret. Cauſ. 13. q. 4. c. 11. ſo as to get out of the ſnare of this ſinne of covetouſneſſe.
The laſt thing is, that Vſurers are bound by the Law of God to make reſtitution. What ever comes in this way, comes in at the wrong doore, and it muſt out againe: If the conſcience be not …eared, it makes it ſick againe; there is paine, there is no quiet,Iob. 20. 15. till the conſcience take a vomit and up comes all: We uſe to Saint the man, who doth but give over this golden trade of uſury, but the truth is, that ſuch come but halfe way: our repentance is not thorow, our ſorrow comes not home, except (as it is here) we doe reſtore. When we leave the practiſe of uſury, we doe not properly leave the ſin (as ſin) except wee reſtore and turne the ſtolne dog home againe: when we have not wherwithall, there neceſſity hath no law. The King of heaven muſt and will loſe & will part with his right, where nothing is to be had, and there the will doth ſtand for the deed; but where there is no ſuch anſwer (that wee cannot) but we ſee that we ought, wee have wherewithall and (will not) here I ſay it is right and reaſon, that the Lord ſhould make uſe of his authority, and uſe us according to law and juſtice.
Now as this act of reſtitution ſecures our hearts, ſo that the bels ring not backwards in our conſciences within; in like manner it makes much for the ſafety of our eſtate without: it ſets a marke upon our goods, and they are ſafe thereby under the Kings Seale; whereas a little of theſe ill-gotten profits, like fellons goods, endanger all; a little you know, brings all the reſt into the tenure of the Crowne, and all muſt bee as it were in capite: I am certaine, that a golden wedge will fire all the reſt of the ſtuffe;Ioſh. 7. 11. 24, 25 and therefore hee that hath been or is an Vſurer, he muſt leave his uſury and make all well by reſtitution, as hee meanes good to his ſoule, as he intends ſafety to his eſtate; and it is his happineſſe that his ſin lies in ſuch a thing, wherein he may make reſtitution, and lick the parties wronged whole againe: this makes the conſcience quiet, helpes us to peace, when as in murders, adulteries, in ſuch and ſome other the like ſins, where there is no place left for reſtitution; an hard matter it is, to ſet ſuch in comfort, when once the conſcience fals a complaining: but here, let the conſcience accuſe at the worſt, yet as it is a ſinne, godly ſorrow makes all well, and as it is a wrong, repaire is made by reſtoring; repenting takes up the matter as it is to God, reſtoring helpes & heales all, as it is to men. The moſt that can be ſaid is, that the Vſury-taker paies the uſe willingly: and where a man parts with his money willingly, reſtitution is not of force. Iudas might have retained the money, with the good content of the Prieſt, who gave it willingly, yet hee did reſtore it and was bound to doe it: and were this good Divinity, then a great deale of that which comes in by bribery, and dicery may bee lawfully and comfortably kept.If I have received any bribe, I will reſtore it, 1 Sam. 12. 3. Then I ſay, that though it bee not againſt the will of the borrower that the Vſurer keepe the uſe, yet it ſhould bee: what if hee thinke that to take uſe be no ſin in the Vſurer? What if he bee not convinced, that the fact of the Vſurer herein is a fault; in this caſe, he may be willing, he ſhould keepe it for want of true light and ſound judgement: wheras were he aware of what is truth, that the Vſurer had no right to take it, he would withall thinke, that the Vſurer hath no reaſon to keepe it; and this kinde of willingneſſe is an interpretative unwillingnes. And laſtly, I ſay, that he ſeemes many times to be willing, becauſe hee cannot tell how to helpe it: the Travellor gives his purſe to the theefe, becauſe hee cannot doe otherwiſe, or at leaſt dares not; and there is a morall neceſſity which is of force, to cauſe a man to pay uſe, and to ſhew a contentedneſſe, that the Vſurer ſhould hold it when he hath it, becauſe of great inconveniencies, in that he elſe cannot have money to ſerve his need againſt another time; this is a mixt act of willingneſſe, which is conſtrued to be naturally, done unwillingly, but willingly accidentally. All this is grounded on the law of God,Ariſt. Eth. l. 3. c. 1. wch makes uſury a ſin, and a ſinne againſt juſtice too. Zacheus did offer to reſtore that which hee did fetch in by forged cavillation, he might like enough have kept it, and no man have thought much of it; it was gotten by ſin and reſtore he would; and what the Vſurer takes is his by ſinne, and reſtore he muſt. The Law, I know, permitted it to the Iewes, 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; but the thing I ſay is, there was a law to kill the Canaanite, and yet I hope, that killing was not murther; no more was that uſury to them a ſin. The Law doth urge it moſt, that it be not done to the poore: was it not becauſe the Iewes were then too noble and generous to goe a borrowing, except it were the poorer ſort? What, ſhould the Law then forbid that to bee done by rich men, which moſt rich men never did?Neither is there any one place giving leave to a Iew, to hire his money out to a rich foe, only to (the Stranger.) but after wee have prohibitions, plenty that are indefinite; we are forbidden, wee muſt not rob the poore, becauſe hee is poore: good ſport for theeves, if therefore it may bee thought to follow, that it is a lawfull matter to rob the rich: neither can the law againſt uſury be thought to be a judiciall law of Moſes, for ſuch lawes (as ſuch) are knowne only by ſome intelligence from the bookes of Moſes; but Heathens of all ſorts, who never once heard of Moſes's writings, have with one voice cryed ſinne upon uſury, and ſhame upon Vſurers, Poets, Orators, Hiſtorians, Philoſophers, all.
They have condemned this ſin by the inſtinct and light of nature, and therefore it could not be a politicall law of Moſes. Beſides, we have it forbidden in the New Teſtament, whē judicials were out of date; lend,Luk. 6. 35. ſaith the LORD IESUS, looking for nothing againe.
Queſtion is made, whether children bee bound to reſtore that which their Parents have gotten by uſe upon uſe, and left unto them. The negative ſeemes to bee affirmed by a moſt holy man;Ne que enim tu eris obnoxius, quae pater queſivit iniquo forte compendio: e… ſi enim quae habes ex rapina collecta ſunt, non tu tamen ca rapuiſti. but my thinkes, reaſon would that we ſay, ſuch goods ſhould be reſtored, though not we, but our predeceſſors, have gotten them unlawfully; the ſaddle is anothers ſtill in equity and conſcience, and it ought to bee ſet on the right horſe: meere poſſeſſion cannot give us a right title to that,Chryſ in 1 Tom. cap. 4. which in truth & Coram Deo is anothers.Hom. 12. E. contra Navarr. And what if the property be altered,Manual. c. 17. n. 270. & ſeq. yet that makes nothing againſt reſtitution, ſith a child is bound (by the grant of all) to reſtore the price now in his hands, of any thing his father firſt ſtole, and then turned into money. Reſtitution is to be in the very kinde if that may bee; if not, then in that which is anſwerable and equivalent. The Schooles are divided in ſetting downe the reaſon of reſtitution, one ſide will have it to be becauſe the Vſurer is a dammage to the borrower: the other ſort with whom I joyne, ſay that it is, becauſe by uſury there is no true title (Iure Divino) no not in juſtice, to that which comes in that way; and (ſith this is the truth) I conclude and ſay,Vid. Greg. de Val. Tom 3. Diſ. 5. q. 21 p…n. 3. that the child is bound to make reſtitution, becauſe his father hath conveyed that to him which never was his fathers right, and therefore cannot be the ſonnes: ſome caſes may free the child, which alſo would have freed the father, as when it is not in his power, hath not the ability to doe it, and the like; but in ordinary courſe it is not his owne, it is anothers, and by that reaſon he is not to keepe it, but to reſtore it.
Papiſts teach us, that in caſe a man be in very neceſſity when he t…kes uſe, and makes profit by his money, yet if after this, neceſſity ceaſe, he is not bound to make reſtitution when hee hath wherewithall, and this neceſſity they ſtretch and will have reach to his eſtate. A large field for a man to loſe his conſcience in: for when will a man ſay that he is not in ſome neceſſity, in reſpect of his eſtate and condition; and when will hee bee out of need to beare up his port? Men will make neceſſities enough, might this goe for good doctrine. But dangerous it is, and the ground of it is moſt falſe: for (ſay they) by the law of nature all things are common, (mine & thine) came in after by law poſitive.Iure divino omnia ſunt communia: &c. Aquin. 2 2 q 66. a. 7. Now ſay they, neceſſity diſpenſeth with all poſitive lawes, and makes the goods of another mine,Lumb. Sent. 14. D. 15. and mine againe his; and ſo they ſay, that when a man to fill up his neceſſities, doth gaine by uſe from another, indeed and in right it is but his owne, becauſe then and in that caſe all things are common, & no man is after bound to reſtore that, which when he tooke it, was but his own. Write (falſe) upon theſe concluſions, for the truth is, that meere neceſſity of a mans perſon doth not take away propriety;Ferenda eſt magis omnis neceſſitas quam perpetranda eſt aliqua iniquitas, Tamen aliud eſt de neceſſitate Peccare aliliud in abundantia▪ pauper men dicus fur…um facit, ex …macie pro…eſſit iniqui…as. Aug. in Pſa. 73. in great extremity for a man to take this or that, which is anothers, is to lay hands on that which is not ones owne: what ever it ſhould have beene, had not Adam fallen, I enquire not; but ſince Adams fall, there is ſuch a propriety of Meum & Tuum, that no neceſſity, bee it never ſo urgent, can diſſolve. Tully reſolves the caſe thus, that ſay a man bee on the point to ſtarve, yet rather than hee ſhould take the leaſt matter from another,Porſitan quiſpiam …ixerit, non… …e igitur ſa…iens, &c. Offic. lib. 3. he ſhould rather famiſh, it being better to dye the death, than to violate any man for ones owne cauſe. Eraſmus doth deſcant on this quid…y of the Schooles,Colloq. in foreign. what (ſaith he merrily and truly) is not theft, theft in caſe of neceſſity, nay, though one do it with a minde to make it good again? ſay one muſt loſe his life if hee doe not perjure himſelfe, and beare falſe witneſſe, doth that neceſſity make it no ſin? ſay one by committing adultery without offering violence to the perſon of the adultereſſe, may ſave his owne life, doth the neceſſity of ſaving ones life make adultery lawfull now?Antiochus Seleuci filius, contrahendis inceſtis cum noverca nuptiis egra viſſimo eváſit morbo. Put the caſe (ſaith he) that a man muſt dye or tell a lye, is it not a ſinne in this caſe of neceſſity to lye? If then meere perſonall neceſſity doth not diſpence with theſe Commandements,Appian: de Bell▪ Syriac Plut: vita Demetr. Thou ſhalt not lye, Not beare falſe witneſſe, Not commit adultery: what colour of truth can there bee in this, to affirme that any neceſſity whatſoever can make that law to be no law, when he ſaith, Thou ſhalt not ſteale. If neceſſity cannot make an others wife at my command; no more can neceſſity make an others goods mine owne. Gods Ten lawes are in the ſubſtance of them, the very lawes of nature: and by the Decalogue, there is in all caſes of neceſſity ſtill a propriety of goods; the argument in Melancthon is firme. The eight Commandement is a naturall law,Quaeſt. a Paulo Ebero propoſ. Georgio Mullero an 1552. it ſtands Iure Divino; but by the eighth Commandement there is eſtabliſhed a diſtinction between mine and thine,Vid. Sclat. in 2 Theſſ. c. 3. v. 12. & ſo it concludes ſtrongly, that propriety of things is not by law poſitive, but by law Divine and naturall. Moreover if that community of things were a law of nature, it had bin immutable, and al things ſhold and ought to be common in all times and caſes. Neither can any man ſhew, why the eighth Commandement being a law of nature, ſhould be ſubject to be diſpenſed, with by caſes of neceſſity any more than any other, or al the ten Commandements. Al the reſt ſtand firme in the body of thē againſt all neceſſities whatſoever and therefore this.
Next, we prove our caſe out of the Word. There is a ſtealing for need (ſaith Salomon,) Pro. 6. 30.but if this be ſo, that need maks all things common, there can bee no ſtealing for need,And the law did count it to be done for need, though a man were able to make fourefold reſtitution. ſith in caſes of neceſſity, what ever a man takes to ſupply his need, he takes but his owne, ſay they. I am ſorry then, that any Proteſtant ſhould write and print that in this caſe, neceſsity taketh away all reaſon of ſinning.Ames de conſc: l. 5. c. This is but to cloſe with Bellarmine, 1. Sect. 17.as though now in extreame neceſsity it were (alienated) no longer.De matrim. lib. 1. c. 27.
The onelyonly objection worth the anſwering, is from Mat. 12 1. where we read, that the Diſciples being an hungred, did pluck and eate the eares of c…rne, and that therefore (they doing well in it) it is a lawfull thing to take that which is anothers in caſe of neceſſity.
The anſwer is, that this was not done by thē on this ground, becauſe neceſsity tooke away propriety, but becauſe it was their owne, they tooke by the gift of God, who is the right & chiefe owner of all the creatures in the World. In Deut. 23. 25. God had given them a warrant ſo to doe in the Land of Canaan, and that things were not then made common by neceſſity it is plaine, by the words which follow in that very text, (But thou ſhalt not move a ſickle unto thy neighbours ſtanding corn; which might have been done without offence to GOD, or wrong to man; if this were true, which Ieſuites teach; that in point of neceſsity, not onelyonly in reſpect of one perſon, but alſo in reſpect of ones condition, nothing is any mans, but all things are every mans: for the caſe may bee, that a man and his family may be caſt upon extreame need, that a ſickle put in his neighbours corne, will not ſupply the hunger of him and his, ſo much as the plucking the eares of corne did ſtay the ſtomacks and the hunger of the Diſciples; and yet I think that it was never held but as a thing forbidden to the Iewes by that law, for a man in never ſo great neceſſity to put his ſickle in his neighbours corne, and that a Iew was rather to famiſh than ſo to doe: which ſhewes the little truth that is in that aſſertion, that neceſſity maks things common amongſt men. The Diſciples did it, becauſe they had warrant and leave from God, who was the owner of that corne, and the law of God was on their ſide. And for our times, I doubt not but it is lawfull for one to pluck an apple, or to take an eare or ſo, of corne and eate it, not only for ones very need, but for ones delight and content. The equity of that judiciall law of Moſes, ſaith ſomewhat, but my ground is, becauſe a man in ſuch caſes hath an implicite and tacite conſent; the owner ſometimes is by when we pluck plums and apples or ſo, and wee never aske him leave though he looke on, and in this caſe, hee that ſaith not no, ſaith yea: and ſay he be abſent, and we know not who is the owner neither: yet I thinke this lawfull, becauſe we have an interpretative conſent; wee have a morall perſwaſion, that were the owner by, hee would give us leave to pluck an eare, to catch a peare, with heart and good will; which motion being in the heart of man, doth free him from any theft; and alſo wee ſee it a (common) matter: which ordinarineſſe of the thing helpes to make this good, that there is in all men a kinde of conſent and leave, vertually given to all paſſengers; and the like to pluck an eare, an apple, or apples, a plum, a peare, or ſo: and this is warrant enough if it bee not abuſed, to ſave the conſcience of a man harmeleſſe, againſt that law of God: Thou ſhalt not ſteale; here is no ſtealing, becauſe here is a kinde of conſent of the owner, though not actuall, yet vertuall and implicite: and ſuch a tacite conſent is enough, whether the fact be done before the owners face, or behind his back.
Againe, if need did make things ſo far forth common as might ſatisfie our need; then where no need is, we ſin if we pluck a peare or ſo: but wee may lawfully doe it onelyonly for duplicate page duplicate page delight, ſo alſo were this new Divinity right: in caſe of need, wee might ſatisfie our ſoule even againſt the conſent of the owner, he flatly forbidding us; for in their ſenſe (who thus teach) wee take but our owne, all which is falſe; wherefore we muſt rather ſpeake with the truth, and ſay, that not only for need, but for our very delight in the owners abſence (in caſe he directly forbid us not) wee may (I ſay) lawfully pluck an …are of corne or ſo, by vertue of a common ſuppoſed conſent (intimated in the equity of that law of Moſes) which in ſuch caſes doth run thorow the veines of all mankinde.
Laſtly, I conceive this matter to bee put paſt al peradventure, by the very law of God once in force amongſt the Iewes: commanding the theefe ſtealing for very need, to make reſtitution to the forth and fifth, and in a caſe to the ſeventh degree;Exod. 22. 1. and if,2 Sam. 126. ſelling all to his very ſhirt would not make up the ſumme,Pr. 6. 30, 31. Deodate then by law hee was to bee ſold and loſe his liberty,Annotat. on Pro. 6. 30, 31. to make reſtitution for the principall (not for the over-plus) of his theft.Ainſw. on Exod. 22. 3. Now this Law of God had gone againſt ſenſe: if need did diſpence with propriety, and give a right and title to ſo much of ones neighbours ſubſtance as would ſerve to ſatisfie ones want: for I hope, reaſon it ſelfe is flat againſt it, that a man ſhould be thus bound to make reſtitution for taking that which (by their Doctrine) is his owne; Aye, common underſtanding it ſelfe at the firſt ſight is againſt it, that a man, can be ſaid to ſteale his owne, can ſtand bound by Gods law, thus to reſtore his owne: and therefore to returne home again, I conclude and ſay, that our main point doth ſtand free and firme, viz. That albeit in caſe of need (as of ſome Orphans) a man take uſe, yet hee is to make reſtitution: ſith uſury in the law of God & of conſcience, carries a falſe finger: need is no ſalve, it onelyonly excuſeth á Tanto, neither can the Ieſuits or any elſe make any ſound proofe to the contrary.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Capel, Temptations (1633)