Mr. DAVID JONES's VINDICATION Against the Athenian Mercury CONCERNING USURY.
UPon March the 5th you took upon you to answer that part of Mr. David Jones's Farewel Sermon that related to Usury. But in reality you have done no such thing. For, if you had: Then in the
First place, You must have answer'd
His Challenge, Pag. 35. I do here openly make this Challenge to all the Patrons of Ʋsury; if they will bring me any one approved Author among the Ancients that has defended Ʋsury, I will bring them Fifty, I will bring them Hundreds, yea, I will bring them whole Councils and Fathers that have unanimously condemned it. And certainly that must needs be a very great Sin [Page 2] that, among all the Ancients, has no Patron that dares appear in it's Defence, but has All against it with one consent.
And likewise, What he there quoted out of Bishop Sanderson. And till you do so, all your Answers will be nothing at all to his Sermon. And I do verily believe, that neither You, nor all Men living, will ever be able to answer him as to that particular.
Secondly, You must have answer'd
The 17th Canon of the first Nicene Council (which is referred to Pag. 35.) whereby all Usurious Clergymen were degraded from Holy Orders. Which I am credibly informed, was never done but for a Mortal Sin. And therefore, Bishop Bedel (that most excellent Reformer of Clerical Abuses in the Church of Ireland) thought the degrading of a Bishop was too Sacred a thing to be done meerly upon Politick Considerations; which I would have writ in Letters of Gold. Bp. Bedell's Life, Pag. 145.
As likewise the 20th Canon of the Elibertin Council (which is referred to in the same place) whereby all Usurious Lay-men were Excommunicated in their Life-time.
As likewise the Lateran Council under Alexander the Third, where it was Decreed that all manifest Usurers should be deprived of Communion and Fellowship of Christians in their Life, and of Christian Burial after Death, till their Heirs had restored their Usury. At which Council this Question was put by Panormitan an Archbishop, Whether Usury might not be dispensed with for the Redemption of poor Christians taken Captive by the Saracens? And the Answer he had was to this effect. Since both Old and New Testament detest the Crime of Usury, no Dispensation was to be admitted for it, no, not for so charitable a Work, as the Redemption of Christian Captives.
As likewise the 109th Canon of our Church, where Usury (not only excessive Usury, any more than excessive Adultery, but all Usury in general, the least as well as the greatest) is thought a sufficient Crime to keep any Man from the Sacrament. And there, you must have reconciled the Canon and the Statute-Law, the one of which seems to allow of Usury, and the other Excommunicates any Man that is guilty of it. And that you might easily have done thus. The Statute-Law does not Allow Usury, but only Stints and Limits it to Six in the Hundred, and so far gives way to it, for the preventing of greater Mischiefs. And this is not enough to excuse the Usurer in the Court of Conscience. And thus the Jews deceived themselves in the matter of Polygamy and Divorce: They thought Moses's Law had allowed them in those Sins: But our Saviour shew'd them plainly, that Moses gave them only a Toleration in them for the hardness of their Hearts. The very Toleration or Permission of a thing, shews its Badness. For if it were Good, it might be done without any Toleration or Permission at all. And therefore we find in the 21 of King James the First, That no Words [Page 3] contained in the Law about Usury, should be Construed or Expounded to allow the practice of Ʋsury in point of Religion or Conscience. And therefore, notwithstanding the Statute-Law does stint and limit Usury for the avoiding of greater Evils; yet it does not, it cannot, exempt the Usurers from Ecclesiastical Censures, but leaves them to be Excommunicated by the 109 Canon. And therefore, Dominicas à Soto de Just. & Jur. l. 1. qu. 6. Art. 2. is in the right on't, when he says, Stews are permitted to prevent Adulteries, and Ʋsury to avoid Theft.
As likewise, Ezek. 18. 8, 13. Where All Ʋsury, and All Increase that way, though never so little, is said to be so great a Sin, that whoever is guilty of it, shall surely dye for it, and his Blood shall be upon his own Head.
As likewise, Jer. 15. 10. Where it is plain, that if the Prophet had either taken or given upon Usury, every one in the whole Earth might lawfully have Cursed him.
Thirdly, You must have shew'n, whether, if Usury be at all lawful; it be so lawful as to make a Trade of it; as Mr. Jones's former Hearers in Lombard-Street do. And there you must have answered what Bishop Sanderson says, Pag. 37. If any thing can make a Calling Ʋnlawful, certainly the Ʋsurer's Calling cannot be Lawful. And therefore, have a great care lest you by countenancing Usury after your Ability, do harden any Man in his Sin, and thereby do become guilty of his Sin, and smart for it at the Day of Judgment. He that approves or defends what Wicked Men do, is worse than those Wicked Men that do those wicked things, Rom. 1. 32.
And this, (if you will give me leave to speak freely, without thinking me Proud for presuming to direct your Society,) is what you must have done, if you had answered Mr. Jones's Sermon. But instead of this, let us now see what it is that you have done.
First of all, You have pick'd Two or Three Lines out of Pag. 34, 38, which you represent as His. Whereas, if you had that Charity, and Sincerity, and Respect to Truth you profess, you would have represented them as they really are in effect, the Words of God, by his Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, whose joynt Authority he there quotes for them.
Secondly, You have premised Two things, namely, That you do not intend to justifie the Rich, who exact from the Poor; nor those who immoderately desire Gain or Increase, who are Idolaters. And yet, those very things some of Mr. Jones's former Hearers in Lombard-Street are notorious for: As you may gather from His Sermon upon Family-Duties, Pag. 19. Where he seems to tax some of them with Robbing of Orphans, Oppressing Widows, Grinding the Face of the Poor, Griping Ʋsury, and Suing out Pardons from the State for Extortion. And if you had loved their Souls as well as he [Page 4] does, notwithstanding all their Injustice against him, you would have told them so as well as he did. Namely, you would have told them in plain terms, that whatever you writ in your Mercury, was not at all designed to Justifie their making Ʋsury their Calling. Which, even those few Modern Writers that are falsly esteemed Patrons of Usury, have always Condemned. And if a Man does not deal thus plainly with them, he does nothing at all. Their Jewels and their Precious Stones do so dazle and glister, and dart such a lustre upon their Eyes, that they are perfectly Blinded; insomuch that they can scarce see and know themselves, when they are told to their Faces, Thou art the Man.
And God grant that Mr. Jones's Successor may deal with them as impartially as he has done: To which purpose I would desire him to read the excellent Bishop Jewel, upon 1 Thes. p. 121. But what speak I of the ancient Fathers of the Church? There was never any Religion, nor Sect, nor State, nor Degree, nor Profession of Men, but they have disliked Usury. Philosophers, Greeks, Latins, Lawyers, Divines, Catholicks, Hereticks, all Tongues and Nations, have ever thought an Ʋsurer as dangerous as a Thief. The very Sense of Nature proves it to be so. If the Stones could speak they would say as much.
And if we had as Zealous Clergy now-a-days, Usury would be thought as Detestable a Sin now, as it was in the 13 of Eliz. and in the Reign of King Edw. VI. Where all Ʋsury or Increase, &c. was punished not only with the Forfeiture of Principal and All, but with Imprisonment and Ranson at the Kings Will and Pleasure.
Again Bishop Jewel, Pag. 144. After a long Discourse against Usury, he has these Words; Thus much I thought expedient to speak of the loathsom and Foul Trade of Ʋsury. I know not what Fruit will grow thereby, and what it will work in your Hearts. If it please God, it may do that good I wish: I have done my Duty, I call God for a Record unto my Soul, I have not deceived you. I have spoken unto you the truth: If I be deceived in this matter, O God thou hast deceived me. Thou sayst, Thou shalt take no Usury: Thou sayst, He that taketh Increase shall not live. What am I, that I should hide the Words of my God, or keep them back from the Hearing of his People? The Learned Old Fathers have taught us, It is no more Lawful to take Usury of our Brother, than it is to Kill our Brother, &c.
And again, Pag. 145. I hear there are certain in this City, which wallow wretchedly in this Filthiness, (to wit Usury,) without Repentance; I give them warning in the Hearing of you all, and in the Presence of God, that they forsake this cruel, and detestable Sin. If otherwise they continue therein, I will open their shame, and DENOƲNCE EXCOMMƲNICATION against them, and publish their NAMES in this place before you all; that you may know them, and abhor them as the PLAGƲES and MONSTERS of the World: That if they be past all Fear of God, they [Page 5] may yet repent and amend for Worldly Shame. And this I humbly offer to Mr. Jones's Successors Consideration. If he does not Preach against this Sin in Lombard-Street, he will be guilty of their Blood, and their Blood will be required at his Hands.
Thirdly, You state the Question thus, Whether it be absolutely unlawful to Receive, (I suppose you mean by Contract, not by way of Gratitude,) Any increase of Any for the use of their Monies? To which you give this Answer, In the true signification of the Word, 'tis certainly Damnable; but in the Sense you now use it, 'tis very lawful and necessary. That is, Usury in its true signification according to God's Word, is certainly Damnable; but in its false signification according to Man's Invention, it is very lawful and necessary. And here I would fain know of any Man,
First of all, Which is to take place, its true or its false signification? God's Word, or Man's Invention? Truth or a Lye? Christ or Belial?
Secondly, I would fain know, whether if Usury be not absolutely Unlawful: Yet, its being of Bad Report, and its having the Appearance of Evil, is not enough to hinder it from being made a Calling? Certainly, no Man can deny, but there are a great many things, which though they be not absolutely unlawful, are yet absolutely unlawful to be made a Calling. No Man can deny, but that Usury is of Bad Report; for all Ages have decry'd it: And all the Earth may lawfully Curse an Usurer, Jer. 15. 10. And no Man can deny, but that Usury has the Appearance of Evil, if it be not Evil indeed; for it always appears in Bad Company: It appears with Lying, Backbiting, Deceit, Wrong and Bribery, Psal. 15. It appears with Idolatry, Oppression, Adultery, Cruelty, Ʋnmercifulness to the Poor, Blood-shed and Murther, Ezek. 18. And it appears with the Profanation of Holy things, the abomination of Ʋncleanness, and the unnatural Sins of Incest, Ezek. 22. And 'tis St. Basil's Observation upon it, [...]: It always appears in the midst of the greatest Evils. And therefore certainly, though it should not be absolutely unlawful, yet it is so unlawful, it is of such Bad Report, and it has such Appearance of Evil, that no Honest Man who avoids both upon pain of Damnation, will ever adventure to make it a Calling.
Fourthly, You affirm that the true Signification of Ʋsury in the Scripture, is Extortion or grinding the Face of the Poor. And you affirm also, That it being allowed the Jews to take Ʋsury of Strangers; Therefore it is not Morally Evil. From whence I make this Observation. All Men allow that Extortion and grinding the Face of the poor are Morally Evil [Page 6] and Simply unlawful. And consequently, Scripture-Usury being Extortion according to you; and Extortion or grinding the Face of the Poor being Morally Evil according to all: It necessarily follows according to you, that God never so much as allow'd the Jews▪ to take Usury even from Strangers, (which has more truth in it, as I shall shew hereafter, than both your Propositions.) For say you, He never allows that which is Morally Evil. And consequently, either your First, or Second, or both your Propositions are all false. And indeed so they are. For the Proof of which I only premise thus much.
Extortion in our Land with relation to Usury, (in the Sense you say you now use it) is the Exacting of more Usury than the Law allows. That is, It is the Exacting of more than Six in the Hundred. And therefore your
First Proposition, (which holds that Extortion or Grinding the Face of the Poor, is only meant by Scripture-Usury) is all false. For Usury in the Scripture Language is not the exacting of more than Six in the Hundred. But
First of all, The Exacting of One in the Hundred in Scripture-Usury, Nehem. 5. 11. where Exacting the Hundredth part of the Mony lent is called Usury. And v. 12. Requiring Nothing is opposed to it. And consequently, He that requires any thing, tho never so little, for the Use of Mony, is a Scripture-Usurer.
Secondly, The Law says, Levit. 25. 36. Take thou No Ʋsury or Increase from thy poor Brother. And the Prophet says, Ezek. 18. 8. He that hath not given forth upon Ʋsury, neither hath taken Any Increase. From whence it is plain, that whoever taketh any Increase, tho never so little, and not only he that taketh above Six in the Hundred, is a Scripture-Usurer.
Thirdly, If Extortion, that is, If taking above Six in the Hundred, be only meant by Scripture-Usury: Then, it was lawful for the Jews to take Six in the Hundred even of their poor Brother. Which I believe, no Man of common Sense can with any Modesty affirm. From whence I conclude, That your first Proposition is all false. And your
Second Proposition (which holds, that God never allowed the Jews any thing that is Morally Evil) is all false too. For, God has allowed the Jews some things which are Morally Evil, for the Hardness of their Hearts, as in the Cases of Polygamy and Divorce, which were not so from the beginning, Matth. 19. 8. Not to mention the allowance they had to spoil the Egyptians, which has several sort of Answers given it by Learned Men, Exod. 12. 36.
[Page 7] The Sum of which is this, If both your Propositions are true (as they are really false) then, they do utterly overthrow each other. And consequently, for all that you have hitherto said, Mr. Jones' s Sermon is Ʋnanswerable.
Gentlemen,
I confess there are a great many things more to be answer'd in your Mercury. Of which, God willing, you shall have an account in another Sheet sometime next Week. My Ordinary business is so great that I cannot well prepare above a Sheet a Week for the Press. And therefore, I hope, you'l excuse me for not giving you a full Answer at present.