The True Christians T est, Part 2 · Meditation 30
MEDITAT. XXX. The Arguments for Uſury conſidered.
AGainſt theſe Authorities, Divine and Humane, Uſury defends it ſelf moſtly by Reaſons; though indeed the Uſurers of the preſent Age, do juſtifie themſelves from ſome Authorities of the laſt Age; which I will alſo conſider in its place. And here in the firſt place, if I had a mind to eſpouſe a Party, I might juſtly demand, ſince the Word of God hath ſo plainly and frequently condemned, forbidden and threatned Uſury, with what Confidence any mortal Man can or dare juſtifie it, leſt he ſhould be found foreign, as the great Doctor of the Jews ſometimes argued; and might ask with the great Apoſtle, Who art thou, O man, that repliest, and campleſt against God? Shall the Creature demand of the Creator a reaſon of his Law? that were bold. But ſhall he ſeek out Reaſons to evacuate and make void his Lawes? that is Rebellious. St. Auguſtine ſomewhere ſays, That as many things are forbidden becauſe they are evil, ſo ſame things are evil becauſe forbidden. Whether it be ſo or on, I cannot determine; but ſure I am, That all things are evil that are forbidden. And cannot God have a reaſon of his Laws, except we can comprehend it? Are not his Thoughts higher than our thoughts; his Thoughts of Commanding, higher than our thoughts of conceiving? And if we have not ſo much Wit as to ſee a reaſon of every Divine Command, yet we ought to have ſo much Grace, as to think there may be a reaſon which we do not ſee. Alas! Degenerate Man is apt to make his own Luſt and Intereſt the Standard of Right and Wrong, but the Supreme Mind is the Fountain of Truth and Goodneſs, and beſtows Reality and Coherence on all things: So that a thing is therefore true and good, becauſe comprehended by this infinite unerring Wiſdom and Will. If there were no evil Luſts in Men, there would be no Ufury, no Oppreſſion, no Unmerciful or Covetous Practices: And whil'ſt there are theſe Luſts, there ſhall be no Law againſt Unmercifulneſs or Covetouſneſs, which they will not quarrel at. And no wonder, for I have run over the Ten Commandments, thoſe plain words, which for their Authority, Moſes tells us, Were written with the Finger of God; and for their plainneſs, one might ſay, Were written with a Beam of the Sun. And I find there is never an one of them, but the Wit of Man has been nibling at it. One may ſafely ſay, That not only a third part of the Stars of Heaven have been aſſaulted by this Dragons Tail, but that there is not a Star in the Scripture Firmament which has not been ſtruck at thereby:
Et ſi non cecidit potuit cecidiſſe videri.
I think it is a paſſage of Seneca's ſomewhere, If it were enough to be Accuſed, no one ſhould be Innocent. And I think it is as proper to ſay, If it be Confutation enough for a Law or Doctrine to be queſtioned and quarrelled at, nothing in the Scripture ſhall be true.
But becauſe Men will cry out and clamour if they be not heard, I will hear what is ſaid, and ſuppoſe every thing that I think may be ſaid in defence of Uſury; ſo long as the Texts ſtand Tranſlated againſt Uſury in our Bibles as they do, moſt Men are ſo modeſt or ſo wary, that they think it not worth the while to go about to eſtabliſh the Doctrine of Uſury, till theſe Texts be undermined: And therefore the firſt attempt is to prove, That Uſury is not condemned in thoſe Texts of the Old Teſtament, that men think do condemn it. The next is to prove, That though it be condemned in the Old Teſtament, yet it is not in the New.
To prove that Uſury is not ſimply condemned in the Old Teſtament, it is vehemently urged, that the word Neſhek, ſignifies Biting and Oppreſſing Uſury; this they are content ſhould be condemned, but this does not hurt the Uſury, that does not hurt. Knock out the Teeth of that Uſury that has none, and ſpare not.
To this is anſwered, That all Uſury does in one degree or other hurt, if it be compared to Charity; and that the whole kind of it is born Toothed, though ſome ſorts of it have ſharper Teeth than others. And what matters it, if one ſort be leſs Rapacious than another, where every one is an Harpye?
Again, Arguments drawn from E…ymologi…s, are accounted weak and deceitful, and very inſufficient, to build Doctrines of Divinity upon. I am not ignorant of Etymologiers, but yet where I am moſt clear and certain, I ſhould tremble to venture the ſalvation of my Soul upon the derivation of a word.
But yet allowing that the word Neſhek, ſignifies only Biting, or Oppreſſing Uſury, can any man infer, That therefore there is any Uſury that is not Biting. Would not any good Grammarian rather conclude, That all Uſury is Biting, becauſe the general word that ſignifies Uſury, comes from a Root that ſignifies to Bite. I think it as ſhrewd an Argument againſt Uſury, as Grammar can furniſh a Man with, that it is called Neſhek. As it is a good Argument in Grammar, that the nature of an Holocaust, is to be laid upon the Altar, and to aſcend up towards Heaven in the ſmoke, being conſumed with the Fire, becauſe Gnolah, the word that ſignifies a whole Burnt-offering, comes from Gnalah, to aſcend: And that the nature of an Alms is to proceed from Pity or Mercy; and that every Alms ſhould do ſo, becauſe the word foreign that ſignifies Alms, comes from a Root that ſignifies Mercy, with Thouſands more of the like nature in Hebrew and Greek, and Latine. If any Argument can be drawn from the Notion of the word, it will be this, That all Uſury is as certainly Biting, as that it is the nature of a Serpent to creep. And indeed for creeping and ſtinging, I know not how one ſhould bring a fitter word to match Neſhek; Ubi creditor mordet cum exigit quod non dedit, debitor mordetur cum reddit quod non accepit. Buxtorf.
But Laſtly, Suppoſing by Neſhek, that oppreſſive Uſury be only condemned, and that there is ſome Uſury that is not ſo; yet I hope the word Tarbith is of an innocent Extraction, coming from a Verb that ſignifies to multiply, and yet this is as flatly condemn'd as the ſtinging Neſhek, Lev. 25. 36. and the Prophet Ezekiel makes no difference, but ſtill cries Neſhek Ultarbith, Ezek. 18. 8. 22. 12.
But however, ſay the Defendants, Uſury is only forbidden towards the Poor by the Law, therefore it is permitted towards the Rich; by which it appears that it is not ſimply and abſolutely forbidden.
It is confeſt that the poor are nam'd in Lev. 25. and Exod. 22. but it muſt alſo be remembered that elſewhere there is no mention of the poor at all, but the prohibition is general: The Pſalmiſt and the Prophets ſay nothing of the poor, but flatly and without exception condemn Uſury. Secondly, It may truly be ſaid, that any man, even a rich man, when he is conſtrain'd for his neceſſary occaſions to borrow of his Neighbour, is Pro hic & nunc, as they ſpeak, for that preſent time poor.
Thirdly, The poor are therefore nam'd when they are nam'd, becauſe they are the people neceſſitated to borrow, and moſt ſubject to oppreſſion. He that argues thus, Uſury is only forbidden towards the Poor, therefore it is permitted towards the Rich, may as well argue, from the words next before, Exod. 22. 22. We are onelyonly forbidden to afflict the Widdow and the Fatherleſs, therefore we are allow'd to do what w… will at thoſe that have Husbands and Parents: or from Deut. 27. 18. We are forbidden to cauſe the blind to wander out of the way, therefore we may ſafely miſguide any that have Eys in their heads. What ſtrange work would ſuch kind of Arguing make? We are commanded plainly in Deut. 18. 7. to lend to our poor Brother; therefore (according to theſe Mens Logick) we are not to lend to the Rich: Well be it ſo: Now when we lend to the poor, we are expreſly charged (Exod. 22. 25.) to take no Uſury of them: it will neceſſarily follow then that no Uſury at all is lawful.
In a word, if it be good Logick or Divinity, to ſay, Such a man is a rich man, Uſury will not much hurt him, it will indifferently ſerve to juſtifie the Robber as well as the Uſurer: and the ingenious Hind and Bracy ſhall go nigh to be Cannoniz'd.