Usury Stated Overthrown, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 25 – Section 27
NUM. XXV.
4. And whereas he tells us of the remaining of Houſes, Fields, Bargains, Wares, which are purchaſed with Money conſumed in the uſe thereof: I anſwer, True, they remain▪ but how? Not as things lent, but bought with Money lent, and do differ from them very much; becauſe Lending is only of ſuch things as conſiſt of Number, Weight, and Meaſure, as the Civil Law tells us, ſaying, (c)Doctor Vuit. Juriſpr. l. 1. c. 31.Solae autem res in quantitate conſiſtentes mutuo dari poſſunt, quae nimirum ponderari, numerari, & menſurari ſolent & poſſunt: that is, But only thoſe things can be mutuated and lent, which conſiſt in quantity, and are wont to be weighed, numbred, and meaſured. Non it's evident, that in ſuch things as paſs from man to man by number, weight, and meaſure, the uſe of them cannot be ſevered from the propriety, nor the propriety from the uſe; but they muſt of neceſſity paſs together, without diviſion or ſeparation, ſaith a famous Author, who is as well verſed in the Doctrine of Uſury, as my Adverſaries Authors; of whom hereafter. For the preſent I will uſe an Example, to make plain what was ſaid even now. I cannot lend a man Money, or Corn, or Oyl, or ſuch like things, but I muſt make them his fully, to do with them what he will; if I do not, he can make no uſe of them, nor receive any benefit by them; ſo as he cannot have the uſe of them, unleſs he have the propriety of them. And what ſhall he do with the Propriety for a time, unleſs he have the uſe of them alſo? which I make over to him with the Money lent, as one entire thing, becauſe the uſe cannot be ſeparated from the Propriety; whereupon he buyeth, it may be, a Living, or Houſe to put his Head in, or Wares, which is lawful, and may be called the uſe which he maketh of his Money lent him, and is (as I ſaid but now) one entire thing with the Money lent him, though ſevered and diſtinguiſhed, as it were, in a manner; becauſe otherwiſe (as (a)Viz. By purchaſing things which remain.Divines aſſert and ſhew it) in Truth and in Nature, it's impoſſible to divide the uſe of thoſe things which are given to loan, from the property and ownerſhip of them, as being things which may be conſumed in the uſe thereof, which uſe is then gone, when the thing lent is conſumed.
5. To his cavilling about Wine, by me inſtanced in, I anſwer, That as wiſe men as both he, and his by-him-quoted Authors, have uſed the ſame Inſtance of Wine; and one eſpecially, above the reſt, hath written it in the compaſs of three leaves three times, (b)Dr. Sand.as a thing conſiderable, and to the purpoſe mentioned; whereas the Champion tells me, That the ſelling of Wine, and the uſe thereof, is to no purpoſe by me mentioned, becauſe the Vintner doth and may take ſomewhat for his Wine above the Price laid out, and that upon the account of the Money disburſed. Whereunto I reply, And who denieth that? the Vintener's Act and Calling (if I may call it ſo) not being the Act and Calling of the Uſurer, but of 2 (a)Whereas Uſury is not.Buyer and Seller, who may gain by his Buying and Selling, not only becauſe Wine waſteth, but alſo becauſe Buying and Selling is not prohibited kind of Dealing or Contract, as Uſury is (b)Prov. 31., but allowed by God and Man; and therefore is ſaid to be Contractus (c)Dr. Vult. l. 1. c. 35.Juris Gentium, A Contract allowed by the Law of the Nations. Where, by the way, I bleſs God, that he hath put me upon the ſtudy of that Law, and that which is called the Civil, for divers years together, with the ſtudy of Divinity, that I might the better handle this noble Controverſie, as having collected the ſum and ſubſtance of the whole Corpus Juris, or Body of the Law, and of many other Civilian Authors, into a Manuſcript written with mine own hands, and very helpful and uſeful to me now in this Encounter about Uſury.
NUM. XXVI.
6. But I long now to ſee what his Authors ſay to all this, and to anſwer them. And,
1. Ames, of whom the Champion ſaith, And here too Ames is before hand with him; (of whoſe Replies, and many other learned men too, he takes no notice:) wherein he wrongs me grievouſly. For I have read Ames too, and it may be a little more too, long ago; and m…ny other learned mens notable Pieces concerning Uſury, and extracted the quinteſcence of their Labours out of them; and intend, God willing, to anſwer every one of them, before I get out of this large, deep, and intricate Subject: For I am not afraid of them.
And to begin with Ames: Whereas he ſaith he is beforehand, I wonder wherein he is before-hand with him, who can well and truly ſay, that as great a Doctor as he, yea, both his Authors are, Aquinas, whom I cited in my behalf, is before-hand with Dr. Ames in two reſpects.
1. Becauſe he is the ſenior, as being one who by the brightſhining Lamp of his Writings did inlighten and irradiate the World hundreds of years before him.
2. Becauſe he is of ſo great a Repute, as that all other School-men, and Caſuiſts too, light their Candles at his; which has cauſed a great Proteſtant Writer, (a)Dr. Boys in his Poſtill.Doctor Boy…, to ſay, That all of them are but Aquinas upon Aquinas.
NUM. XXVII.
But to the matter: What ſaith Ames? Here I ſhall ſet down his Words in Latin, becauſe the Champion doth ſo, and not in Engliſh, for the Learned. Allegant in rebus illis quae uſu conſumuntur non diſtingui dominium ab uſu atque adeo nihil poſſe accipi ultra valorem ipſius rei vel dominii ejus. Reſpondetur lucrum accipi non ſimpliciter pro uſu rei mutuatae, quoad ſubſtantiam, ſed quoad valorem, aut proventum, qui manet poſt ſubſtantiam conſumptam. Whereunto I ſhall now put my Anſwer thus.
1. That he doth but briefly ſay, and not prove what he ſaith; diſtinguiſhing between the ſubſtance of the thing mutuated, and the value or profit which remains after the ſubſtance is conſumed.
2. That if that were granted, yet cometh he ſhort of his aim; for it doth not make Uſury lawful: nor are thoſe by his Diſtinction confuted, who hold, That in things which are conſumed in the uſe thereof, their propriety or dominion is not diſtinguiſhed from the uſe thereof; and that therefore nothing can be taken for the uſe thereof, beyond the value or dominion thereof: Becauſe,
1. Uſury is forbidden (b)Deut. 23.19. and Nehem. 5.expreſly, and therefore is not to be taken, if there were no ſuch Reaſon given againſt it, upon the even now mentioned account.
2. And alſo becauſe what he ſaith of a Revenue, or value of the thing mutuated, will not hold, at leaſt not generally; for when Corn, Meat, or Oyl is lent, that is eaten in the uſe thereof; ſo if it be Wine, that is conſumed in the drinking of it: becauſe that is the uſe of both Meat and Drink. And then what remains? Where ſhall one find it? And if it be Money that is lent, where one purchaſeth Land, or Leaſe, or a Houſe, there are thouſands that do not; for moſt Borrowers are ſuch as borrow for need, to keep themſelves harmleſs, or to get a Maintenance by dealing upon it, and oft-times loſe and ſpend all, Principal, and what they make of it, as I have ſaid formerly. And then where is the Profit, which they call that which (a)I add, thirdly, That becauſe they ſtand ſo much upon Houſes, Fields, Leaſes, Lands, which remain, where Money is conſumed and gone; God would have added ſuch an Exception to his forbidding and condemning of Uſury, Deut. 23.19. Pſal. 15.5. Except the Money conſumed be converted into Houſes, Fields, Lands, which remain; if he had thought it good ſo, to clear this P…int thereby, to help thoſe men who ſo ſtand upon remaining Fields, Lands, and Houſes. 2. That thoſe remaining Fields, Lands, and Houſes may be gone with the Money diſtracted, being made away ſecretly before-hand, or mortgaged, when the Uſurer is ſufficiently ſecured by Sureties.remains? Surely theſe Diſtinctions are but Spiders Webs, which will not cover the nakedneſs and ſhame of Uſury; for what is ſo ſaid for it here, is not able to do it.