The True Christians T est, Part 2 · Meditation 31
MEDITAT. XXXI. Other Reaſons for Uſury conſidered.
THe next attempt, is to prove, That though Uſury ſhould be condemn'd in the Old Teſtament, yet it is not in the New. I have already proved Uſury forbidden in the New Teſtament, both by the precept and practice of that Holy Author of that Teſtament; and proved that this is no good Argument, though it could not be prov'd; the Allegation that I am now to conſider is this, There is no intrinſick Evil in Uſury, the Laws againſt it are onelyonly Political, binding the people of the Jews; and no further concern us, than as oppreſſion is found therein. And this is further prov'd by this, that Uſury was permitted to the Jews towards Strangers.
As for the former part of this Argument; it is gratis dictum, that the Law againſt Uſury was judicial. And methinks it ſhould make any man of any tenderneſs of Conſcience, vehemently ſuſpect, that there is ſomething immoral in Uſury, when he finds it ranked by the Pſalmiſt and the Prophet (Men of more than Legal minds) amongſt the moſt notorious Immoralities, ſuch as Idolatry and Murder. What if any Papiſt or other ſhould ſay, That the Laws against Worſhipping of Images, and of keeping one Sabboth in a Week, were only Judicial and concern'd the Jewiſh Politie onelyonly; muſt theſe Commandments therefore loſe their morality? God forbid, is it not more reaſonable to conclude, that there is ſomething intrinſically evil in Uſury, becauſe the great and wiſe Law-giver has ſo flatly forbidden it, and ſo ſeverely threatned it, then to conclude there is none, becauſe we can ſee none. They ſay this Judicial Law binds no further than the Reaſons of it do bind, no further than there is oppreſſion in it. And who can tell but that God does account all Uſury to be more or leſs oppreſſive, becauſe he has forbidden all.
The gracious Lawgiver, whoſe name is Love, better knows what are the ſeveral violations of Charity than we do, and he makes Uſury to be one, ſetting if ſo plainly in oppoſition to Charitable tending: Thou ſhalt be Charitable and lend; but thou ſhall not put to Uſury.
Neither doth it hinder Uſury from being in its own nature evil and oppreſſive, becauſe it was permitted to the Jews, to exerciſe it upon ſtrangers. There is nothing ſure more unrighteous than Stealing, and yet there was a time when the Supream Law-give… (who gives no account of his ways to us) permitted, yea and bad the Iſraelites to ſpoil the Egyptians. And why might not he as well permit his people to ſpoil the Heathen Nations by uſurious Lending, as he had before permitted them to ſpoil the Egyptians by deceitful Borrowing; and yet Uſury remain in its own Nature oppreſſive. It would be a ſtrange boldneſs to draw into example all things that at any time God hath permitted unto men for a time, by reaſon of the hardneſs of their hearts, or diſpenſe with by vertue of his infinite unaccountable Prerogative, of tranſferring Rights from one to another; from Laban to Iſrael, from Egyptians to Iſraelites.
Is it not more fair to infer, that if the Law onelyonly allowed Uſury to Strangers, (who were by the juſt judgment of God to be weakened and kept under in ſlavery and poverty) the Goſpel whoſe every line breaths love and mercy, and the holy Author of it, who has broken down the Partition wall, and made all the world Brethren, do allow it towards no body at all? But if you will have ſtrangers ſtill, I hope you will not find them amongſt Chriſtians: ſo that if there be any place left for this Merchandize of Money, the Uſurer muſt tranſplant himſelf into Africa or America, and trade there: and try whether by that merciful means he can convert any of thoſe ſtrangers unto the Faith of Chriſt.
If it be pleaded, That in reaſon a man may do what he will with his own, and make the best he can of it.
It will readily be anſwer'd, That man has properly nothing of his own, the propriety is in God, and we are but his Stewards, and he has appointed us how we ſhall lay out his goods; he has forbidden us to uſe them intemperately, or improve them unjuſtly. No man may kill himſelf with a Sword, though it be his own, nor play the Whore-maſter with his own Maid, nor the Drunkard with his own Liquor. It is true, a man may make the beſt he can of his own Money, but not the moſt he can of it. This churliſh Principle will preclude all Charity, and juſtfie the moſt covetous Worldling, who ſhuts up his bowels againſt the poor.
They ſeem to plead ſtrangely for Uſury, who reduce it to the head of letting out to hire, and match it with letting out of Lands or Houſes for Rent. If they would compare it to a Mans lending his Neighbour a Loaf of Bread, and afterwards requiring as good a Loaf back again, and a good Shiver over and above, for his eating that Loaf which he lent him to eat, it had been a fitter compariſon I think, and much more congruous. But to wave thoſe ſeveral diſſimilitudes that might be brought to ſpoil this Compariſon, there is juſt ſuch difference between letting out Land and Houſes for Rent, and Money for Uſury, as there is between a thing allow'd of God and all Men, and another thing univerſally forbidden. The great Law-giver I ſuppoſe will at laſt (but to our great aſtoniſhment) either ſhew us a convincing reaſon for all his Commands, or convince us that his Authority was reaſon ſufficient. If any one ſay, That lending upon Uſury is an Act of Charity (as I have heard ſome ſay) becauſe it often proves the ſupport of Families, or at leaſt preſerves them and their Eſtates from Ruin for a Seaſon, until time and induſtry have wrought out better fortunes for them. I will not ſay with Biſhop Jewel, that this relief is as if a man ſhould pull out the Eye, to cure a blemiſh in the ſight, and that Uſerers are ſo neceſſary to men, as a ruſt is to Iron; nor with St. Ambroſe, that ſuch is the kindneſs of Uſurers, that they undoe thoſe whom they help; comparing them therefore to the Scorpion, that embraceth kindly with his leggs, and at the ſame time ſtingeth with his Tail; whoſe poyſon alſo delights men at preſent, but afterwards kills; but I will ſuppoſe that Uſury has been accidentally beneficial even to the borrower. And yet this is no more than what the worſt things in the world have ſometimes been. Divines ſay, That the Devil himſelf has eventually ſerv'd the Salvation of many Souls; though I ſuppoſe no body ever yet juſtifi'd the Piety of his intentions, or commended the juſtneſs of his methods. But to ſpeak plainly, it is not the Uſury, but the Lending that has been found beneficial. Lending indeed is a great Act of Charity, and ſo neceſſary, that as the world ſtands, it could ſcarce ſtand without it: But I hope there may be Lending without Uſury. If the minds of men were univerſally formed into that Charitable and Benign Temper, in which they came out of the hands of God at firſt, they would give what they could ſpare, and lend what they could not give, and compaſſionately wiſh their poor Neighbour what they have not to lend. In a word, they would do to others, as they would that others ſhould do to them; and then I am ſure there would be no need of ſuch a thing as Uſury, to be a Vehicle for Charity. If there be at this day a neceſſity of Uſury, it is but ſuch an one as the luſts of men have made; if there be any Charity in it, it is to the Uſurers ſweet ſelf; it begins at home, and we muſt thank the providence of God more than the kind intention of the Uſurer, if it do not end there too: for I durſt make any Uſurer his own Caſuiſt here, to ſay what is his Predominant Conſideration in his Uſurious Contracts, the relief of his Neighbour, or his own gratification.
But is there any reaſon why another man ſhould make gainful Purchaſes or Bargains with my Money, and I not ſhare with him in the gain? To this is anſwer'd, that there is no reaſon to enforce me to lend my Money to make other men Rich, the poor are the object of lending as well as of giving. To lend to the rich to make them ſtill Richer, is ſomewhat like giving to the poor, to make them Idle.
But if you have ſuch an exceſſive kindneſs for a Rich Friend, that you will make him ſtill Richer, you may either lend him your Money freely, or ſhare with him in the hazzard, and ſo for ought I know you may ſafely ſhare with him in the gain.
But can God ſpread a Table in the Wilderneſs; can he provide for Orphans, without this ingenious expedient of Uſury? Yes ſure he can: and they have the greateſt ſecurity imaginable that he will; for he has as it were taken them into his own Attributes, ſtiling himſelf the Father of the Fatherleſs.
However there are many ways of paying Paul and not rob Peter to do it, many ways of ſecuring and improving the Portions of Orphans, and not be beholden to Uſury. And if there were none, it were better that all the Orphans in the World broke, than that the Commands of God ſhould be broke: Fait Juſtitia etiam ruente Coelo.