Whether Interest or Use, though permitted by the Laws of the Land, is absolutely or in it self Lawful, as being Warrantable by the Law of God and Principles of Right Reason?

NOw, Madam, though I intend chiefly your satisfaction in this Pa­per; and consequently this Discourse is penn'd for your pri­vate perusal only; yet because it may possibly contrary to my intention, happen into their hands who will take the liberty to examine the grounds of this Assertion, I must crave leave to proceed somewhat after the manner of the Schools: However I hope with so much candour and perspicuity, as may no ways prejudice its main design; which, as I premised, was solely the removal of your difficulties. And to testifie my own fidelity, and unbiassedness in the present Controversie, when ever I have occasion to quote Authorities, either Sacred or Prophane, I [Page 5]shall readily put my self to the double pains, both of Transcribing, and Translating, that so impartial Judges may be better censure.

To begin then with the Quid Nominis & Rei, or what it is we dis­pute against Usury (in Latine Ʋsura, in Greek [...]) or as we now adayes mince the matter, Interest is, Quidcunque solutioni Rei Mutuatae accedit, ipsius Rei Ʋsus gratia, pactione interposita, vel hac Intentione habita, in contractu, vel exactione habita post contractum, as the Summu­lists usually define it: That is to say, what ever is more than the pay­ment of the thing Lent, upon the account of the Use of the thing, either by vertue of a Contract or Bargain interposed, or only with this Inten­tion in the Bargain (namely, of receiving More than was Lent) or lastly by reason of some action occurring after the Bargain.

This Description is very exact, and includes all, or most of the kindes of Usury. But being something obscure to those who are not versed in Schoo-Learning, I shall rather give you this following Character of it out of the Angelical Doctor of the Church S. Thomas Aquinas 2.2. q. 78. Ʋsura est quicquid supra sortem accedit: What ever surmounts the Principal is Usury. Or, Ʋsura est Pretium pecuniae mutuatae, vel cu­juscunque Rei, cujus Ʋsus est Consumptio vel Distractio ejus. Usury is Gaine Received by lending of Money, or any other thing, the Use whereof consists in its Consuming or Alienation.

Where by the way is to be Noted, that through the barrenness of our English Language, we are forced to use the word (Lend) in the busi­ness of Usury, though it be very improper: For Mutuum or Mutua­tum in Latine, which we render by Lending in English, is, facere de Meo Tuum, or a Contract, in which the Dominion or Right to any thing con­sisting of Number, Weight, or Measure, is translated from the Lender to the Borrower (a Mutuante in Mutuarium) with Obligation to re­store either the same, or the like in kinde and goodness. And this for the most part happens in things Consumptible by their very Use, as Corne, Wine, Oyle, &c. among which, Money may be reckoned; for though it be not consumed, nor perish in it self, yet it passes away from him who trades with it: Whereas in Lending, strictly speaking, we give away no Right nor Dominion, but only the Ʋse and Profit for a time. As for example, when I lend my Horse for a Journey, or my Cloak upon any other occasion, I grant the Ʋse, but not the Thing. Whereas in Lending Money, the Borrower is absolute Master, to dis­pose of it as he pleases, when he hath it. The same may be said of Pawning and Hiring proportionably, this I thought good to intimate, [Page 6]for the better understanding of the subsequent Reasons in this dis­course.

In brief then, Ʋsury is Gain, or Profit bargain'd for, by reason of some­thing Lent; Or, Ʋsury is what ever is Received besides the Principal. The Council of Agatha defines it, Quando amplius requiritur quam da­tur; when more is demanded than was Lent, chap. 3. St. Augustine upon the 36 Psalm is very clear, Si faenerareris hominem, i. e. si mutuo dederis pecuniam tuam, a quo plus quam dedisti expectes; non pecuniam solum, sed aliquid plus quam dedisti, sive illud triticum sit, sive vinum, sive olcum, sive quod libet aliud, si plus quam dedisti, expectes accipere, faene­ratores, &c. If, sayes that most learned and holy Father, thou lendest thy Money to any one, from whom thou expectest more than thou didest Lend; not only Money, but any thing more than thou lendest, whe­ther it be Corne, Wine, or Oyle, or any thing else, if thou expectest more than thou gavest, thou art a Usurer, &c. Nor is St. Jerom less pe­remptory in his Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel; Putant quidam Ʋsuras tantum esse in pecunia; quod praevidens sacra scriptura, omnis Rei aufert superabundantiam, ut plus non recipias quam dedisti, Some think that Usury consists only in Money, which the Holy Scrip­ture foreseeing, takes away the overplus of every thing, forbidding to Receive more than we gave or lent.— What the Holy Scripture determines, we shall more fully discover by and by.— But Divine St. Ambrose in his first book concerning David, hath so resolutely ended this Question, that I know not what reply it can admit of; Item Esca Ʋsura est, & vestis Ʋsura est, & Quodcunque accedit sorti, Ʋsura est; &, quod velis, ei, nomen imponas, Ʋsura est; Usury, fayes he, may be committed in things eatable; Usury may be in Garments, and what­soever is over and above the Principal, is Usury, and guild it over with what name you will, it is Usury.— It is worth our Observation (to name it only by the By) how shamefac'd and modest the Antient Usu­rers were in comparison of our Modern Exactors; they only exact­ed some gratuity (I speak of the honest sort) or Consideration for the Courtesie, and that usually in another kinde; a present of Corne, Oyle, Wine, or Cloath, or the like, (not 6.10. or 12. per cent) and yet how sharply they are taxed by the Primitive Fathers, and brought within the circle of all those Curses thundred out against the most Rigorous and Exacting Usury.

But if nothing but Gods own Voyce will satisfie in this point, we have it as express as is possible, Ezekiel, 18.8. where delineating forth a [Page 7]Righteous Man, he describes him to be one, Qui ad Ʋsuram non Com­modaverit, & Amplius non acceperit; who hath not Lent to Usury, and hath not taken more, to wit, than the main sum. So that receiving more, and Lending to Usury, in Gods account, are the very self same thing. From the mouths of so many Witnesses it cannot but be evident what Usury is. And indeed this is the Concepit which all men frame Natu­rally of it.

The notion of the Thing, being thus established, that we might not Aerem Verberare, as St. Paul phrases it, combate with the Winde, or argue against what no man owns; it remains, that we deliver our sen­timents as to the Problem proposed, which must be in the Negative, namely, that

Use or Interest, though permitted (or rather limited) by the Laws of this Kingdom and others, is yet absolutely unlawful, as be­ing condemned by the Law of God, and Principles of Right Reason.

AS to the Law of God, the case is so clear, that I scarce know any thing more evidently or frequently, both forbid and threaten'd. And this Topick being of weightiest moment with those, who set the fear of God before their eyes, and have not their Consciences seared, as it were with a hot iron ( Authorized to borrow the Apostles manner of expression) that is to say, altogether senseless, hardened, stupid, and mortified, and the principles of Religion, Grace, and Good Nature, desperately extinct through continual Custome, sensuality and practice of sin; I shall be the more punctual in pressing those Conside­rations that may be drawn from Divine Prohibition.

I begin with Exod. 22.25. Si pecuniam mutuam dederis populo meo pauperi, qui habitat tecum, non urgebis eum quasi exactor, nec usuris op­primes.— If thou lend Money to my people, being Poor, who dwell­eth with thee, thou shalt not urge them as an Exactor, nor oppress them with Usuries.

I am not ignorant, that Covetous Wits, and the profess'd Patrons of Usury, have sound out a double reply to this place. 1. That all Usury is not here condemned, but only Exaction, Excess, Tyrannical proceed­ings, and, in a word, only that Usury which either ruines, or very much Oppresses the borrowing party. This conceipt is seconded by the signi­fication of Neshec (the Hebrew word for Usury) which comes from a [Page 8]Root importing to Pinch, Bite, Eat out, &c. So that petty Interest and smaller Considerations fall not within the compass of Non Ʋrgchis in the Text, Thou shalt not Ʋrge them. 2. Another Evasion is discovered in those words, If thou lend Money to my People, being Poor. From whence our Money-mongers argue, provided they trade only with Dives, those Golden Lads, whose backs are able to bear it, and not with poor Lazarus, the needy Handycraft-man, or Labouring, Peasant, Salva Res est, they are safe enough and shot-proof against the Cannon-Law of Exod. 22. Their Banks may fructifie by an inundation from the Ocean, so they derive no advantage from the shallower Brooks.

But this Varnish is soon washed off. For, 1. Besides the fallacy that is too often couch'd in the Etimology, or Critical scanning of a word, the small force it hath in close Argumentation, and the great hazard of embroyling most of our Fundamentals in a Logomachie or Contest about words, should these Reparties to so manifest Prohibitions be admitted: It is replyed that all Usury is Exactive, Corroding and Oppressive, (though not equally, viz. 6. as much as 10. per cent.) Yet more or less, it incroaches on my Neighbours Right, and secretly gnaws the very bowels of his Estate. Not to mention its Repugnancy to Evangelical Charity, which regards not so much whether it notably incommodates, or disables, as whether it assists and advances the Good and Profit of o­thers, though our Enemies. As also that such an Interpretation thwarts the whole current of Expositors. The Chaldee, derives it from a word signifying Increase, not Exaction. The Arabick intimates whatever is above the Main or Principal. The Septuagint, St. Basil, the two St. Gre-Cories, Nyssen and Nazianzen term it [...], which Cardinal Balsa­mon, a Natural Grecian and Scholiast upon St. Gregory Nyssen, renders, Cum dat quis quidpiam, ut plus quam, dederit accipiat: When one lends something, that he may receive more, Tertullian in his fourth book a­gainst Marcian, calls it Redundantiam Faenoris the Redundance or Over­plus of Usury. St. Jerom, Amplius or More, whom Vatablus follows. Pagninus and the rest term it Incrementum, what ever Increases. And thus Three in the Hundred being more than was lent, and eating into the Borrowers Concerns, falls under the charge of Amplius, or Re­ceiving more, and of Oppression, as well, though not so much as Ten; the Theft of five shillings being as peremptorily Condemned by, Thou shalt not Steal, as of 500 pounds.

2. As to the business of the Poverty of the Borrower, this Circum­stance no wayes Extuenates the malice of Usury. For the Poor are [Page 9]here specified, that a more tender respect might be had to their Indigen­cies, as if the Text had run thus, Thou shalt not urge any of thy Neigh­bours, nor oppress them with Ʋsury; but more signally beware of Oppressing the Poor. The other is bad enough, but this will prove a Crying Sin, and draw down a suddain Vengeance. And that here is no force offered to the words, it is observable, that excepting this of Exod. 22. & Levit. 25. in all other places of holy Scripture, there is not the least notice ta­ken of the Poor, but Usury it self, or taking of more, is absolutely inter­dicted to be used to the one as well as the other. And as for Levit. 25.35. I wish it were a little better minded. Si attenuatus fuerit frater tuus, &c. If thy Brother be impoverish'd, and weak of hand, and thou receive him as a Stranger, &c. take not Usury of him, nor more than thou gavest; fear thy God, &c. Thou shalt not give him thy Money to Usury, and an Overplus of the fruits thou shalt not Exact of him.— Where we have it most evidently asserted, that to take Usury, is no­thing else but to receive More than we gave; and that both are as ex­presly forbidden, as the fear of God is Commanded; and withal it is more than hinted to us, that where the true fear of God is, those mis­chiefs will never be practised.

In short, the Poor are here Nominated, because they are more fre­quently compelled to Borrow, and consequently undergo the burden of Usury, than the Rich. Though for my own part, I see not but that the Rich may be comprehended in the number of the Poor. For when a man otherwise of a sufficient Fortune, is reduced to terms of having re­course to his Neighbour, for that time he may properly be called Poor, since he really wants, at least for a time, that which he is forced to be be­holding for to another; and according to the old saying, He that goes a Borrowing, goes a Sorrowing. So that (with submission to better judg­ments,) the meaning is this. — If thy Brother be impoverished and weak of hand, &c. that is, If any Neighbour, though perhaps at other times of a considerable Competency, be so straightened, that he needs thy assistance, either for saving or improving, by lawful means, what he already hath; or is Impoverished, to witt, in danger to be impoverished or undone, unless he have a ready sum to lay down (which very substanti­al men have not always at hand, and on that consideration may for the time be Poor.) Thou shalt lend him, if thou art able, or he give suffi­cient Surety for the Principal, or no notorious and undoubted dis­advantage arise to thy self thereby, without taking Use or More of him.

That this is the Genuine sence of this place, appears from Deut. 15.7. Si Ʋnus de fratribus tuis, &c. If one of thy Bre thren, &c. come to Poverty, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor close thy hand, but shalt open it to the poor Man, and shalt lend him that which thou perceivest he hath need of; and v. 10. Neither shalt thou do any thing Craftily in relieving his Necessities, that our Lord thy God may bless thee at all times.

From which places of Exod. 22. and Deut. 15. thus compared toge­ther, a very Learned Doctor thus argues. Pray what strange Conse­quence is this, The Law forbids to take Use from a poor Man; there­fore it permits us to receive it from the Rich? Let us examine a few Inferences of the like Nature, Exod. 22.22. Viduae & Pupillo non No­cebitis, &c. A Widdow and an Orphan you shall not hurt; if you hurt them, they will cry to Me, and I will hear their cry, and my Fury shall take Indignation, and I will strike you with the Sword, and your Wives shall be Widdows, and your Children Orphans. Let us see a parallel Conclusion; we must not hurt the Widdow nor Orphan, there­fore we may deal as rigorously as we please with those who have a Fa­ther or a Husband. Again ‘ Deut. 27.18. Maledictus qui errare facit caecum, &c. Cursed be he that maketh the Blinde go amiss in his Jour­ney.’ But there is no harm done, if we put one that hath the use of his eyes, out of his way wittingly. Once more, Deut. 24.14. Non nega­bis mercedem indigentis, &c. Thou shalt not deny the Hire of the Needy, but the same day shalt thou pay him the price of his Labour before the going down of the Sun, because he is Poor, and therewithal sustaineth his life, lest he cry against thee to our Lord, and it be imputed to thee for Sin. Now in this Logick it will follow, that those who are not in want, or have something else to live upon, may without any scruple be defrauded of their wages.

But the forecited place of Deut. 15.7. If one of thy Brethren come to Poverty, thou shalt not harden thy heart; thou shalt lend him that, which thou perceivest he hath need of, &c. affords us an unanswereable solution to this Objection. The Text commands us to Lend to the Poor; therefore we must Lend to none but the Poor, (I hope they will acknowledge their own Conclusion.) The Law forbids to take Interest of the Poor, therefore only with the Poor we may not exercise Usury. Now if we must lend only to the Poor (as by their Argument we must) and Usury exacted from the Poor, (even our Adversaries being Judges) is unlawful, since we must lend only to the Poor; it inevitably follows that all Usury is unlawful.

Calvin seems to plead thus in behalf of Usurers. The Rich have a greater stock, and therefore may without dammage spare so much as the Interest comes to. His words are, Est ditior, & potest absque damno carere. But pray, saies the forementioned Learned Man, is not this to Patronize Rogues and Thieves? Will not the same excuse serve the Robber as well as the Usurer? He is a Monied or a Landed Man, and and can without much Inconvenience, part with so much as I take. But let him be Poor or Rich, Theft is in its own Nature unlawful. No less is Usury, which is a kinde of Thievery. Yet is neither unjustifiable for the quantity or sum, whether great or small; but by reason of those words of the Law, as fatal to Usury as Robbery, Exod. 20.17. Ne­que omnia, quae illius sunt. Thou shalt not Covet thy Neighbours Wife, &c. nor any thing that is his. But those things are his which are pro­cured by his Industry and hazard, and we must all eat the Labours of our [...]wn hands.

Thus far he. And I have the rather in a manner transcribed so much, because the Author (Bishop Andrews) is generally esteemed one of the most Learned Prelats the Protestant Church of England ever injoy'd; and besides this, he writes as it were by way of Apology in defence of his Church, which he acknowledges was taxed (though unjustly as he conceives) by Catholicks abroad, for allowing, if not teaching this doctrine of the Lawfulness of Usury; so that he seems to speak the mind of the whole Church of England. And I have insisted the longer upon these two places, because they were subject to exceptions. But amends shall be made in what follows; for they are so clear from any captious Cavils, that to recount them will be sufficient both for Proof and Explaining.

The next Divine Authority is, from Deut. 23.19. Non faenerabis fra­trituo ad usuram, &c. Thou shalt not lend to thy Brother, Money to Usury, nor Corn, nor any other thing, &c. & to thy Brother thou shalt lend that which he needeth, without Usury, that our Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy work, &c. Here the Case is plain, for there is no mention either of Poor or of Tyrannical Exaction; but the act it self absolutely and generally prohibited, both as to persons and things, either in Quality, Money, Corn, or any thing else; or in Quantity with­out Usury, that is, as I before demonstrated, without Receiving More than was delivered. And it is worth our Notice that this book of Deuteronomy being but an Exegetical or declaratory Repetition of the Law of Exodus, as it were to prevent those shifts that might be made; [Page 12]wholly omits the putting in of Poor, or Exacting too much; to teach us that the thing was indifferently denyed to all persons, Rich and Poor; and that in the least quantity, six shillings as well as six pound for the hundred. For the Rule of Lawyers, is, that therefore later Sta­tutes are made, that they may explain the former.

That great Patron and Restorer of the Jews, good Nehemias most sharply taxes this vice, and spares not to reprove the Princes them­selves, 2 Esdras 5.7. (or according to the English account, Nehem. 5.7.) I was, sayes he, exceeding Angry, and rebuked the Princes and Magi­strates, and said to them, Do you every one exact Ʋsury of your Bre­thren? &c. The thing is not good which you do. Why walk you not in the fear of our God, lest we be upbraided by all the Gentiles our Enemies? Reddite eis hodie agros suos, quin & centesimam pecuniae, Restore their Fields and Vinyards, yea the hundreth part also of Mo­ney, Corn, Wine and Oyl, which you were wont to exact of them. Where we see so petty a matter as the hundreth part, not only condemn­ed as contrary to the fear of God, who had forbidden it; but even Resti­tution enjoyned, as of goods unjustly purchased, and the practice cen­sured as scandalous to the very Heathen.

The Royal Prophet David in his 14th. Psalm, having proposed the Question to God Almighty, about the Qualifications requisite for the attaining Eternal Felicity; Lord, who shall dwell in thy Tabernacle, or who shall rest in thy Holy Hill? God himself in the fifth verse returns an Answer, which may be called the Usurers Doom. He that sweareth to his Neighbour and deceiveth not; Qui pecuniam suam non dedit ad Ʋsu­ram, who hath not given his Money to Usury. Upon which words St. Ambrose thus argues. Si ergo qui non dedit, Benedictus; sine dubio Maledictus qui ad Ʋsuram dedit: If he be blessed who hath not put out to Use, without doubt he is Cursed that drives that trade. If he who hath not done it, shall ascend to Gods Holy Hill of everlasting Happiness: He that is guilty shall questionless be precipitated into the bottomless Gulfe of endless Miseries. I might here Cursorily take notice that some Cri­ticks have observed, that not only the Usurers final Damnation is here asserted, but the temporal Anathema, or Excommunication from the Church Militant is more than glanced at; since he is neither permitted to dwell in Gods Tabernacle or Catholick Church, nor to rest in his Holy Hill, or Mount Sion, in the Jerusalem that is above. But of his Excommunication.

From the Father, who was a man after Gods own heart, let us pass to the Son, who was the Wifest of Men; I mean from David to Solomon, and see what his thoughts are in this business, and we shall find that the Usurers Condition is as bad in this World, as it is threaten'd to be in the next, Prov. 28.8. Qui coacervat Divitas Ʋsuris & faenore, &c. He that heapeth up Riches by Usury, gathereth them for him that is liberal to the Poor. A most remarkable Curse upon the Usurer, that what he scrapes together shall never take root, or continue in his Fami­ly, but be transplanted by way of Gratuity to the Generation of the Merciful and Charitable.

As Usury is very pernicious to the Outward Estate thus managed, for it is no less fatal to the Credit and Reputation of the Professors. These Publicans contracting a general Odium and Malediction, which multi­plies faster than their bags, in so much that quite contrary to a right Patriot and Friend to Man-kinde, the Usurer lives more by his Neigh­bours Tears than his own Sweat, and dyes with the Tryumphs of all that know him. A man would stand astonished at that Complaint of the Prophet Jeremy, chapt. 15.10. Vaemihi, &c. Woe is me, my Mo­ther, why hast thou borne me, a man of brawling, a man of discord in all the Earth? I have not lent to Usury, &c. yet—all Curse me. The good Prophet is in amazement how his name came to be so blasted with popular Infection; and cannot imagine that the Vilest Wretch should become so loath some and nauseous to his Brethren, but by that detesta­ble aspersion of Usury, on which an Ʋniversal Curse seems to be en­tayled, which Vice he knew and proclaimed himself wholly untainted withal.

But of all the heavy Judgments denounced in Gods Word by his own mouth, seconded by a solemn Oath, and back'd with a most vehement Repetition, that seems to be levell'd with most Terrour at the Usurers head which we find Ezek. 18.7, 8, 9. &c. and indeed well-nigh through the whole Chapter; where first for his greater glory he is ranked a­mongst those, who lift up their eyes to Idols, Violate their Neighbours Wife, approach to a Menstruous Woman, make the Poor and Needy sorrowful, (either by Uncharitableness or Oppression,) Violently commit Robberies, (that is by sheding of blood as the Context seems to insinuate,) restore not the Pledge, do Abomination. And then in the Rear of this Black Regiment comes up, Ad Ʋsuram dantem & Am­plius accipientem, who giveth to Usury, or taketh More, as if this were the sum of all the rest. Then this Indictment being thus found good [Page 14]and valid, the dismal sentence is at last passed, v. 13. What, shall such an one live? He shall not live. Cum haec detestanda fecerit, Morie Morietur, Whereas he hath done these detestable things, he shall dye the death, his blood shall be upon him. This, me thinks, if duly pon­dered, should make the Usurers heart ake, his haire bristle, his joynts tremble, and himself become a horrour to himself; or as the Prophet speaks, a Terrour round about him. For as sure as God speaks these things, so sure is he to feel them (if he make not Restitution) with ut­most Rigour and Extremity.

God by the same Prophet, chap. 22. 12. speaks much to the same purpose. Munera acceperunt upud te, &c They have taken guifts in thee to shed blood, thou hast taken Usury and Overplus, and thou hast forgotten me, saith our Lord God. As if he had said, Thou hast for­gotten that I have so punctually and universally forbid and threatened this Unconsionable practice. To which may be added, that Usury is here compared with the forgetting of God, which in Scripture phrase is the Imprimis, Item and total sum, the very source and original of Sin and mischief.

Thus I have, as briefly as the matter would permit, from the Holy Writings of the Old Testament, understood according to the judgment of the Holy Fathers, most learned Expositors, and Sacred Councils, de­clared the sence of the Divine Law in point of Usury. And I think you will confess them so diametrically opposite, that it will be an equal task to reconcile Idolatry with the first Commandment, and the Common Trade of Ʋsury with the Righteous Law of God.

And lest we should flatter our selves, that Christian Liberty, Pur­chased by Christ, and held forth in the Gospel, disingages us from all those Legal Comminations and dispenses with the strictness of these prohibitions: We must observe (and this without looking through the Spectacles of our proper temporal Interest) that our Blessed Saviour at the very entrance into his Preaching, publickly protests that he came not to destroy or evacuate the Law, but to compleat and perfect it; as might be instanced in divers particulars from St. Math. 6.18.22. &c. You have heard, sayes he, it was said to them of Old, Thou shalt not Kill, but I say unto you, Whosoever shall be angry with his Brother, shall be in danger of Judgment; And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of Hell Fire. You have heard it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not Commit Adultery: But I say to you, Whosoever shall look on a Woman to Lust after her, hath already committed Adultery [Page 15]with her in his heart: You have heard it was said, Thou shalt Love thy Neighbour and Hate thine Enemy: But I say to you, Love your E­nemies, do good to them that Hate you, Pray for them that Abuse you, &c. And as to our particular Case, it is most evident he was so far from abrogating the Laws then in force, that he rather inculcates, ratifies and strongly confirms them both by his Doctrine and Practice.

By his Doctrine, thus St. Luke 6.32. If you love them that love you, what thanks have you? for Sinners also love those who love them. And if you do good to them who do good to you, what thanks have you? Sinners also do the same. And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks is it to you? For Sinners also lend to Sinners, for to receive as much. But love you your Enemies; do good and lend, hoping for nothing thereby ( [...], Mutu­umdate, nihil inde sperantes) and your Reward shall be great, and you. shall be Sons of the Highest, because he is beneficial to the unkinde and evil. Be ye therefore Merciful, as your Father in Heaven is Mer­ciful.

From which Heavenly discourse is fairly Inferred,

First, That the matter of Usury stands upon the same terms under Gospel dispensation, as it did in the Mosaical. I say the same at least, as to the business of cancelling, though perhaps otherwise more strictly interdicted than before, upon manifold Considerations.

Secondly, That Lending is a work of Mercy, and therefore should be free ( Psal. 36.26. Tota die miseretur & Commodat, & semen illius in benedictione erit. All the day (that is upon all occasions) he is Merciful and Lendeth, and his Seed shall be in Blessing, Psal. 111.5. Acceptable is the Man that is Merciful and Lendeth; Jucundus homo, as the Vulgar reads it.) For as Giving is a relief of our Neighbours ne­cessity for ever, so Lending is Relief for a time; and this is the only Circumstance that distinguishes them. Nay in some sence, Lending is a higher Act of Charity than Giving. For, in Lending I incourage the Party to Labour and Industry, that he may be able to repay me the Stock or Principal at the time assigned; whereas in Almes-giving, it is re­ferr'd to the pleasure of the Relieved, as to its disposal, who may possi­bly abuse it and squander it idly away, knowing he is no further ac­countable. Whence I conclude, that Lending in its Primary Notion and Institution, importing a singular Act of Charity (as it is sensibly ac­knowledged by those, who being to set up for themselves, enjoy the be­nefit of five or ten pounds, for so many years without any Interest, only [Page 16]putting in sufficient Security for the Principal; and they are worthily reckon'd among choyce Benefactors, who bequeath sums of Money to such pious Employments;) and Charity if you will believe St. Paul, 1 Cor. 13. [...], seeketh not her own; it necessarily follows, that by Lending to my own Profit (for where is there one in ten thou­sand that either chiefly designs the benefit of the Borrower, or so much as inquires whether he hath made any?) I commit both Sacriledge and Simony; by alienating what was designed by the Law of God, Nature and Nations to the profit of my Brother, from him to my own Cof­fers, and selling a pretended Courtesie to him (which is likewise full of hazard) for a real and unquestionable (morally speaking) advantage to my self.

Thirdly, That the style of the New Law runs thus; We are in our Lending not so much as to hope for any thing thereby; that is to say, any thing more than our own, or what we Lent. For our Saviour speaks not here of Giving, which is an entire quitting of all Right and Domi­nion to the thing bestowed, and that for ever; but of Lending, which necessarily involves both a Right of demanding, and an Obligation of repaying what was disbursed. So that by Lending and hopeing for nothing thereby, cannot be understood an Evangelical Counsel, or matter of indifferency, as if we should Lend and expect nothing again, not so much as the Principal, for this would not be Lending but pure Guift; but a Precept of Charity to supply the wants of our Neighbour for a time (when we cannot conveniently for good and all) if it may be done without eminent prejudice to our selves (for all the Commands of assisting the Poor oblige no further) and not so much as hope, have an eye or the least regard and respect to self-Interest, which may accrue upon the score of Lending; which is properly to hope for nothing thereby, namely by the act of Lending, but only the satisfaction to have done our Neighbour a Courtesie, which I confess by the Law of Gra­titude he is bound to acknowledge, and (if his Improvements have been notable) in some measure to repay; but by the Law of God I can neither bargain for, nor exact upon the bare account of Lending.

To close this Argument; I think this Dilemma is unanswerable. Ei­ther our Lord and Saviour, when he bids us do good and Lend, hoping for nothing thereby, imposes some duty upon us, or his words were to no purpose, and signifie nothing. To affirm the latter is little better than Blasphemy, since he himself so solemnly proclaimes that Heaven and Earth shall pass away but one Iota or Tittle of his Words shall not [Page 17]pass. If he layes any Obligation upon us, then either it is, that we should lend, and hope for nothing, not so much as the Principal, and this is more than I urge, or the Defenders of Interest will willingly hearken to; or else, we must lend and hope for nothing by way of Augmentation or Overplus, over and above what was delivered. One of these Interpretations must be fastened upon these words, or else [...] nothing will be Terminus Impertinens as the School speaks, and stand for as much as the Advice, just nothing at all. And now I leave the Usurer to his choyce; let him take which Exposition he pleases, one of them he cannot avoyd.

This for the Doctrine of the Blessed Jesus, to which his practice was conformable, though with some difference; that what he only disswad­ed in words, he severely punished in his actions, as may be Collected from the 2 of St. John's Gospel, v. 14. where we read, that Jesus finding in the Temple them who sold Oxen, Sheep, and Doves; and the Bankers ( Numularios, [...] is St. Matthew's word) Those who sat with ready Money for such who would Borrow) sitting, he made a whip of small Cords, and cast them all out of the Tem­ple, &c. and the Money of the Bankers he poured out, and the Tables he overthrew. St. John indeed reports that he said only to the Sellers of Oxen, Sheep and Doves, Take away these things from hence, and make not the House of my Father, a House of Merchandize. But St. Mat­thew, chap. 21. 13. recounting the same History, adds, that he threw them out of the Temple with this smart sarcasme, My House shall be called the House of Prayer, but you have made it ( [...]) a Den of Thieves. Now those who bought and sold could not properly be stiled Thieves, since in it self, buying or selling is an honest Vocation; and therefore it is more than probable that St. John only mentions what he said to the Buyers and Sellers of Oxen, &c. but St. Matthew adjoyns what was particularly addressed to the Bankers or Usurers; and shews that our Saviour made no distinction between their Profession and that of common Rogues. And yet as we may discover from the Hebrew Antiquities, these Bankers only accepted of some small present, as fruits or some such like Commodity, for the use of their Money, far less considerable, and indeed nothing in respect of what is demanded now adays.

It would not be besides the purpose to reflect here with many Holy Fathers and great Doctors, how our Saviour by driving Usurers out of the material Temple, did leave a sufficient Authority for the succeed­ing [Page 18]Prelates of his Church, to exclude them from the Communion of Saints by Excommunication, as is to this day, and hath for many hundred years been practised in Catholick Countries by Ecclesiastical Canons.

Let me deal ingeniously with you; either our Blessed Saviour in these two places so much insisted on, did absolutely forbid the practice of Usury; or we must confess that at least in this point the Gospel falls short of the Law and Charity (which yet breaths in every line of the Gospel) is more coldly pressed in This than That, which in effect is to make Christians worse than Jews, and affirm that Christians are allow­ed more unconscionable Exactions from one another, than was ever per­mitted in the Mosaical Occonomie; which assertion, how offensive it would prove to pious Ears, and discreditable to our Religion both with Jews and Heathens, I leave it to your good judgment, Madam, to conceive more amply than I can represent.

Before I dismiss this Motive of the Divine Prohibition, it will be worth the while to prevent a double Objection; one is produced out of the Old Testament, the other out of the New.

The former is from Deut. 23.19. Thou shalt not lend thy Brother Money to Ʋsury, &c. sed Alieno, but to a stranger. So that it seems U­sury is not intrinsecally, or in its own Nature Evil, for then the exer­cise of it would have been indifferently denied towards All, the Stran­ger as well as the Native or Inhabitant. But to this the Answer is Ob­vious; for,

I. This favours not at all our Modern Money-Merchants, who take all fish that comes to Net; not distinguishing between Strangers and their own Brethren.

2. Since the coming of the Messias, or the Blessed Jesus, the Wall of Partition between Jews and Gentiles, or Brethren and Strangers, is now pulled down, and both are made one, ( [...], as St. Paul speaks, Ephes. 2.14. fecit utraque unum, medium parietom maceriae solvens,) we are now all one Flock under that great Shepherd of our Souls, and so all men are our Brethren, and the By-word of Strangers is wholly Anti­quated, and consequently Universally Interdicted.

3. By this Argument, stretch'd to the utmost, we could only take Use of Jews, Turks, and Insidels, which I presume our Bankers will not be content with,

4. I may speak in this matter as our Saviour himself did in the point of Divorce, Math. 19.6, 7. He had told the Pharises, that Man and Wife were not two, but one flesh; and therefore what God had joyned to­gether, no man could separate. To this the Pharises retort, Why then did Moses command to give a Bill of Divorce and dismiss her? our Savi­our Answers, Because Moses for the hardness of your hearts ( [...]) permitted you to dismiss your Wives, but from the Beginning it was not so. Thus because the Jews, as it is still observed, were of a penuri­ous, griping, exacting Nature; to prevent a greater mischief, namely of Usury and Exaction, and consequently of Contention, Law-suites and Ruining of Families among themselves; for the hardness of their hearts God permitted them to take advantage of Strangers. Just as in hotter Climats, the Stews and Publick Brothels are tolerated, not as justifiable, but to divert the grosser Crimes of Adultery, Sodomy and Bestiality. And humane affairs are many times reduced to those Exi­gencies, that smaller offences force the Magistrate to connive at them on purpose to stave off more notable Enormities; of two Evils the less being always to be chosen. Nor doth this Doctrine infringe St. Pauls Rule of not doing Evil, that Good may come of it: For behaving ones self purely permissively, or Negatively, i. e. not actually concurring to sin, is not positive committing it, as appears by the Toleration of all the Extravagancies and Impieties acted upon the Worlds Theatre, which yet might be easily stopp'd, if the All-Wise Providence did not know how to extract greater Good out of them; which Reason, as it sufficiently vindicates the Supreme Purity, so may it justifie Subordinate Authority, when necessitated upon the Emergencies of Humane Frail­ty or Malice, to transcribe the Divine Original in its proceedings, and especially when it hath not only hopes, but assured experience of pro­duceing the same happy effects.

The Indulgence then, or permission of dealing after this fashion with Strangers, was altogether Extraordinary, and much of the same Na­ture with that grant God made them, Exod. 11.2. of Robbing and Spoyling the Aegyptians, under the pretence of Borrowing, which was a special act of Gods Perogative and Supreme Dominion to transfer Right whither, and to whom he pleases, and so both Impertinent to our purpose, and the like Consequences most pernicious to be reduced to practice. Moreover you will perceive by the sequel of this Dispute, that the Authorities and Reasons hereafter to be alleaged (as the Texts of Holy Scripture already produced have done) as forceably conclude against wronging a Stranger as our Brother.

The other Pretext that Usury palliates her deformity withal, is ex­torted from one of our Saviours Parables, St. Math. 25.14. &c. where he speaks of a man that was going into a far Country, and delivered his Goods to his Servants, that they might Traffick; to one he gives five Talents, to another two, and to the third one: The first Traded, and made his five Talents ten; the other likewise advanced his couple to four; but the last digging in the Earth, hid his Masters Money: Now at the return of their Lord, the two former for their diligence are dis­missed with an Euge serve bone & fidelis, &c. Well done Good and Faith­ful Servant, enter into the joy of thy Lord; whereas the third, though he faithfully restored what he had received, and that entire, without the least embezlement, yet for not employing his one Talent proportiona­bly to the others five and two, meets with this terrible Sentence, [...], &c. Serve male & Piger, &c. Thou Wicked and Sloathful Ser­vant, thou oughtest to have committed my Money to the Bankers, that coming home, I might have received my own with Ʋsury. Cast ye out the Ʋnprofitable Servant into utter darkness, there shall be weeping and gnash­ing of Teeth.—Here our Money-mongers think their profession not on­ly tolerated, but highly applauded by Christ's own Approbation.

Truly at the first proposal of this place, I knew not well whether the Objector were in earnest or jest; for the Consequences of it are so monstrously absurd, that I could not conceive it possible for any serious man to put such an Application or Construction upon it. Yet occasio­nally finding that Amesius (otherwise no unlearned Clerk) makes use of this very Text to countenance what I now plead against, I shall reply somthing to what else would probably have produced nothing but my smile.

1. And to omit that known Maxim in Divinity, Parabola vel simili­tudo non est Argumentativa. No solid conclusion can be drawn from Me­taphorical or Allegorical premises; if they be not else-where clearly (terminis terminantibus) delivered. For why might I not as well justifie a Servants cheating his Master, from the Allusion to the unjust Steward in Luk. 16.1.2. &c. as Usury from this Reference to the Talents? I am sure the Circumstances are parallel, and the Bayliffe is as highly commended for reckoning but fourscore quarters of Wheat to his Ma­ster instead of an hundred, as here the improvement of five Talents to ten, is v. 8. Et laudavit Dominus Villicum Iniquitatis, &c. And the Lord praised the Bayliffe of Iniquity, because he had done wisely. And then our B. Saviour subjoynes, For the Children of this World are Wiser [Page 21]in their Generation than the Children of Light. I commend these two Parables to your serious perusal, and I am confident you will easily dis­cover, that if such kind of Argumentations be allowed, the slie, pilfer­ing Steward or Apprentice will finde as fair a Cloak for his Knavery in the latter, as the griping Miser can in the former for his greediness.

The sum of the business is this; neither the one nor the other, can any ways pretend a Warrant for their proceedings from these two Scriptures; for simile non est Idem: In every Similitude or Parable, one thing is express'd to the Sence, & another suggested to the Understanding. And therefore we must (unless we resolve to mistake in unridling such obscure speeches) attend principally to the drift and scope of the propounder, which we shall find to be quite different from what is pretended. For the design of the Blessed Jesus in the first of these Resemblances, was only to inform us how dreadful a thing it is not to employ the very least Talent, Guift or Grace of God to its proper use, His Glory, the good of our Neighbour, and the advantage of our own soul. So that it is Spiritual Ʋsury that is here urged, and that by a consideration a fortiori: If worldlings be so sollicitous in improving their temporal, fading stock; and Carnal Masters are so rigorous in ex­acting an account of the profit and in-come redounding from the same; it neerly behoves us, who have all, more or less, received some Talent or other (as Learning, Strength, Beauty, Riches, Time; but above all, the saving knowledg of God reconciled to us through the blood of his Son,) from our Heavenly Father, not idly to lay it up in a Napkin, (which in St. Paul's judgment is the Receiving the Grace of God in vain) or Prodigally consume it on our Lusts and Vanities, but to use it faith­fully to the intents and purposes abovesaid, most certainly expecting to undergoe a severe Examin, both at the private Audit of our Death, and at the final Return of our Great Master to the General Judgment; when, if our scores be not quitted in this life, it is to be feared, [...], &c. Ne forte tradat te Adversarius, &c. lest the Adversary deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge to the Officer, and thou be cast into Prison. Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go thence, till thou hast paid [...], Ʋltimum Quadrantem, the utter­most farthing, St. Math. 5.26.

The example of the Bayliffe of Iniquity, is near of kin to this, and both together teach us this great Lesson: That if Bankers by Usury, and unjust Stewards by Dishonesty, are so hotly set upon their outward affairs, though with manifest hazard of their souls, it will be a burning [Page 22]shame for Professors of Christianity, whose hopes are nobler, whose helps are ampler, and Obligations stricter, to be outstript in the zeal and fer­vour of prosecuting their designs, since the eagerness of the one, and the craft of the other in so bad a cause, will rise up in Judgment against our Indifferency and Tepidity in matters of grandest Importance.

In short, we have view'd our Saviours mind in clear words, and more clear actions before, and therefore it is a very pittiful evasion to recurr to Mysteries and Oracles, since it is a most undoubted truth, that what was so solemnly condemned both by his preaching and practice, cannot possibly now be authorized by a dark Parable. The litteral meaning whereof, I look upon as a Sea-mark to be avoyded, but the Moral as a Land-mark to be followed in our Journey to Heaven.

This might satisfie any Ingenious disinterested Spirit; but that I may for ever stop the mouth of Avaricious Sophistry, I Answer:

Secondly: If any thing at all can be deduced from this Parable, it must needs be these prodigious Paradoxes following, which I presume the boldest Usurer will never have the Confidence to own.

1. That there is an Indispensable tye, and Obligation laid upon all without exception, to turn Usurers [...], &c. Oportuit itaque, &c. Thou oughtest to have committed my money to the Bankers. It is neither matter of permission only, nor of meer indifferency.

2. That Usurers have, not only a Right to their Goods so purchased, (quite contrary to what was evinced before out of the Old Testament, and the main currant of the Catholick Church) but likewise to the Goods of all others who are not of their society and profession. [...] tollite itaque, &c. Take away his Talent (to wit, who put it not out to the Bank) and give it to him that hath ten.

But 3dly. The most ridiculous and unheard-of Inference is this, That none but Usurers shall be saved. This naturally results from [...]. Et Inutilem servum ejicite in tenebras exteriores. Cast ye the unprofitable Servant into utter darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth: That is to say, in our Adversaries sence; He who knows not the thriving knack, and so cannot, or hath a squamish Conscience, and will not thus increase and multiply five to ten, and two to four, gain six or ten to the hundred, must ee'n sing Fortune my Foe in this World, and Lachrymae in the next, to the doleful tune of Gnashing of Teeth. This is all that can with any shew of probability be gather'd hence, as to our present purpose; so that certainly, if ever, here Litera Occidit, the Letter kills; and something of a nobler nature must be in­shrin'd [Page 23]within the Curtains of this Oracle, which the Usurer is as un­mindful to practice, as he is averse to hear. What it is, was before hinted.

But these men being beaten from their Out-works, begin now to retire to their Cittadel. Since therefore they appeal to Reason, to Rea­son shall they go.

Though there remain little or nothing for humane Congruity to al­leage, when the Divine Will (that supreme Reason and Rule of Equi­ty) remains so positive against what is here impugned. Stat pro Rati­one; and it ill becomes Children of Obedience to dispute the Why and Wherefore of Soveraign Injunctions. Nay, did the Principles of Con­venience as much protect, as they do in reallity oppose, what some wish (for I can scarce perswade my self that they believe it) yet there being many things, as St. Aug. hath long since accurately observed, Ideo Mala, quia Prohibita; non ideo Prohibita quia mala, Evil only upon the account of being forbidden, not prohibited because Evil of themselves, (as appears by various instances, wherein the liberty of the Patriarches and Israelites was abridged, purely to experiment the complyance and conformity of inferiour Inclinations to the dictates of their Creator) these notifications of the Divine Pleasure, even in Adiaphoricals or In­different matters, ought as promptly to be acquiesced in, as if they were (as in truth they are) indissolubly twisted with our nearest concerns. Here at last blind Obedience carries away the Palme from fruitless In­quisitiveness; I mean where the minde of the Eternal Law-giver is so express, as we have seen, though perhaps abused Wit may pretend with some plausibility, that there is a little jangling with the advanta­geous management of sublunary transactions.

We must not therefore attempt the reduceing of Divine Statutes to our shallow understandings and private concerns, but rather believe them infinitely just and reasonable. Whereof, he that fees not the Reason, would do well to consider, there may be a Reason which he does not see, and that it is not only possible, but usual for finite In­tellects to mistake Lust or Interest, for the Standard of Right and Equi­ty; whereas for the supreme minde to deviate, or the All powerful Will to be biassed, but by essential truth and goodness, is a contradiction in terms; that being the inexhausted fountain of both, and by its Ema­nations bestowing Reallity and Coherence as well as Existence on all Creatures; so that a thing is therefore true and good, because compre­hended by this Immense and Un-obliquable Will. Whence it follows, [Page 24]that our only Lawful Scrutiny in this matter, is that of St. Paul at his Conversion, Act. 9.6. Domine, quid me vis facere? Lord what Wilt thou have me to do? The eccho to the Creators commands, must be no other than the Creatures obedience.

I argue after this manner; because, should I not be able to make out the unlawfulness of what I here contend against, so Demonstratively as some may expect, (which perhaps the matter it self will not beare;) yet the manifest intimation of that Law, from whence there is no appeal, which I am confident I have sufficiently evinced, will ex abundante, as we say, conclude the Thing unreasonable, and the Practisers inexcusa­ble. Indeed I scarce know any one Divine Precept, which corrupt Nature may not nibble at, nay at some time or other hath not quarrell'd with. The most effectual course to silence the debate, is, [...], Dixit Dominus, the Lord hath said it; whom who can resist and be guiltless? Now what He hath said in the present business, hath been over and o­ver cleared in the precedent Lines.

However, that I may disengage my promise, and leave no occasi­on of complaint to the Antagonists, it will be very well worth your while, Madam, to view how exactly Dissinterested Reason both cor­responds with, and presses the Observance of the forementioned Pro­hibition.

I can hardly conceive but that all Indifferent persons will easily dis­cover many Absurdities immediatly consequent upon the Hypothesis of Usuries Warrantableness; I shall consult your patience, and therefore rather name, than prosecute some few which I find alleaged by the most learned and sincere Writers.

1. The Lender reaps very notable advantage by that which is no lon­ger his own. For I suppose, & it hath been in part proved, that money, or any other thing Lent (as Casulsts here use the word) is always made over, and is in the Right Possession and Dominion of the Borrower for such a terme of time. In which respect only, it differs from Gift, which conveys the said Right and Dominion away for ever. This is most apparent, because if the Money or Principale be lost, it perishes to the Borrower, and not to the Lender, who makes that sure against all contingencies by transferring his Right as to all Intents to the said Borrower for the time agreed upon. Neither is he able to call it in, or otherwayes dispose of it, till that date is expired. All which, are most clear evidences that by Receiving Interests he partakes the benefit of that which is not his, and unconsionably requires to share in the prize, [Page 25]without ever communicating in the hazard. Now how hard it is, and unreasonable for me to make my markets of that which is strict­ly speaking anothers Commodity, is obvious enough to any one who duly considers it. Hence arises a general Rule, that every Con­dition or burthen annexed to Lending, except such as is proper and in­trinsical to it, renders the contract Ʋsurary.

2. The end of Money is perfectly abused: For That, by vertue of its primary Institution is the Universal Instrument of Commerce, and the common means of exchanging other Wares. But the Usu­rer sells Money for Money, very preposterously confounding the Merchandise and the price together.

3. The Usurer sells that which is his duty by a three-fold Law of Nature, Moses, and Grace. By the Law of Nature, the Rich are obliged to lend to the Poor: (I understand, when they cannot conve­niently give out right,) for that teaches us to do to others, as we would be done to our selves. Now I refer it to the Conscience of whom you please, whether they themselves had not much rather borrow, when forc'd by necessity, without other Tye, but of Thanks and the Principal, than even of 3 per cent. By Moses his Law, the Rich were severely Commanded to assist the Poor by Lending Gratis. And what our Saviours Judgment is, appears by what hath been re­hearsed before, but more fully from St. Math. 5.42. Qui petit a te, da ei, &c. Give to him that asks of thee, and turn not away from him that would borrow; and in all this, Nihil inde sperantes; we must hope for nothing again. Surely the Poor are little beholding to these Laws, if they meant only that there should indeed lye a strong Ingage­ment on the Rich to Relieve them, either by Giving or Lending; but withal, they should pay dear for it, by returning a great deal more than ever they received, to stuff up the Usurers Coffers.

4. The Usurer acts in compleat Contradiction to Nature and Rea­son; and that upon divers accounts. For Accommodare est ad Com­modum Proximi dare, & Dare Mutuum, est Dare Meum ut sit Tu­um, To Lend, is to profit my Neighbour, or do him a Courtesie. But the Usurer pretending to do this, mindes nothing less, granting an uncertain (either for substance or quantity) and future profit to the Borrower, but reserving a morally infallible and fix'd Benefit to him­self. Again, Money is of a barren Nature, in token whereof, the metal is formed by Nature in the most sterile, inhabitable places,— [Page 26] (Itum est in Viscera Terrae—Effodiuntur Opes—) Now to bring forth the same species, is proper only to things indued with life. Yet in spite of God and Nature, the Usurer will make his Money fruit­ful, and that without Intermission, day and night, Winter and Sum­mer, and will have it work and improve, whilst he himself takes his ease and rest. Besides all this, he most audaciously attempts upon that High Prerogative of God, Creation, or producing Something out of Nothing; for 100 l. can be worth but an 100 l. wherefore the 6. or more for Interest, must necessarily be the product of Nothing. Or as the great Lawyer Baldas speaks, the Ʋsurer indeavours Im­possibilities, that One should be more than One, a 100 l. should be an 106 l. nay in time 200 l. He receives profit from that which is not, nor perhaps will ever be, and therefore sells to the Borrower either Time or Nothing, or the same thing twice, or the Borrowers proper Labour and Industry. All which actions are most unjust and intollerable, as I might easily amplifie in every particular, but that I relinquish to your own pregnant Imagination, abundantly able to supply what is here rudely shuffled together and slubberd over. The utmost that can be said is, he doth spem pretio vendere, sell the hope of very uncertain gain, which is not yet, and God alone knows whe­ther it ever will be, for most assured profit; which by the Heathen themselves was esteemed injurious in a high degree. For Aristotle himself by the Light of Nature, 1 Politic. c. 7. could inform us, [...], &c. Usury saies he, is Money of Money, and therefore this sort of gain is directly against Nature. Hence [...] pario, and Foenus a Foetu.

5. The Usurer violates Gods Law continually, without the least Cessation either as to Time or Place; in which regard he may be stiled an Everlasting Offendor. Nay he commits his Transgressions in an hundred several places together sometimes, to wit, when his Money is breeding in so many distant Banks. The Fornicator hath his Quietus est at certain seasons, nor is he wholly taken up in the Tents of Venus. The good Fellow hath his lucid and serious Intervals. Only the Usurer both sleeping and waking, night and day, in his Chamber & a Church, Praying and Playing, is still trading, brooding, and hatching more Money, without the least respite, and thus [...] (as St. Paul threatens, Rom. 2.5.) he Treasures up every moment to himself, Wrath against the day of Wrath.

6. The Usurer hath less Charity to his fellow Christian, than a Jew to his Brother Jew; for a Jew durst not offer to take one penny Interest from one of his own Religion. This may seem a weak Ar­gument, but it is our Saviour's own motive in the fore-mentioned sixth Chapter of St. Luke. If you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks have ye? Nam & pecatores peccatoribus senerantur, ut recipiant aequalia, For even Sinners lend to Sinners, that they may receive equal. For shame, Christians, let not Publicans and Sinners, nay Jews rise up in Judgment against us; for they lend, and only expect Aequalia [...], an equal sum to what they lent, (if you will Credit Truth it self, who avouches so) whereas Professors of, and Pretenders to the Doctrine of this great Master, will not plea­sure one another, without exacting their own and much more into the bargain.

7. All the Usurers goods are Monstrous, Dentata, sull of Teeth, and Claws to prey upon his Neighbour. His Corn, which was created by God to be the Food of Man, in lieu thereof, eats up those who borrow and make use of it, and so of the rest. This in effect is the sence of those frequent complaints we meet with, I owe 50, 60, or 100 l. the very use whereof consumes and devours me! I could of ten have refunded the main, but being rejected, because not attended by the Accessory or Interest, that now hath even surmounted the former? I failed but one day, and was forced to renew my Lease, and submit my neck to the yoak of another six moneths Exaction, though both Inte­rest and Principal were faithfully tendered! Oh the corroding, de­vouring expenses of Procuration, Continuation, &c! under which I now groan! These, with the like grievous moans and sighs of op­pressed Families, make me ready to burst forth into his Exclamati­on, Aut hoc non est Evangelium, aut Nos non sumus Christiani! Either the Texts before alleaged, are not Scripture and Gospel, or we who practice the contrary are hardly Christians! And whereas in the Primitive Age, the very Badge and Characteristical note of our Reli­gion, was Ecce, quomodo se invicem diligunt Christiani! Behold, said the Infidels, how these Christians Love one another! I fear it it would be now understood but Ironically, or rather alter'd of necessi­ty into its contrary, as matter of the World's astonishment; Behold how these mock-Christians Trappan and swallow up one another! Nay, more like a Canibal than civiliz'd Creature, the Usurer eats up [Page 28]the very heart of the Labours, drinks the tears and sweat of the poor with a great deal of gust, content and jocundness.

8. Money, as I have observ'd else-where, is reducible to those things, the Right or Dominion whereof is inseparable from the use. I can no more Use Money without parting with it, than Victuals without eating them. Wherefore as he would be deservedly esteemed a man of strange principles, who for a loaf of bread should first ask me the true value for it, and after that was paid, demand something con­siderable for my using or eating it; so it seems little less Exaction to Lend money, and have the same again at such a time; and yet not to be content with this, but over and above expect and extort some­thing extraordinary for the Ʋse or spending of it. Thus in truth it is, for I challenge any one Banker among ten thousand, who dares ac­knowledg that he either bargains only for an equitable share in the Adventure or Purchase, or so much as inquires whether a considera­ble Return was made or no; nay, whether the Stock or Principal it self did not utterly miscarry, or at least fall short to the expectation of the Employer, who is bound fast enough by Wax, Parchment and Friends, both for the payment of that, and something else.

9. In all Contracts or Bargains, three Circumstances are very at­tentively to be heeded, Labour, Charge, and Danger. But with which of these doth the Usurer so much as concern himself? All these Incumbrances lye on the back of the Borrower. As for the Labour and Pains, let the Usurer stand, sit, sleep, laugh, eat and drink,; whole weeks, months, and years run on, and the Use keeps even pace with them. So that in flat defiance of In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane, In the sweat of thy brows thou shalt eat thy bread, (which was the heavy penalty laid on all the Children of Adam) he is resolved only to dip his in that of his Neighbours. Then as to the charge and cost, that is altogether the Borrowers, the Lender ventures not one penny. The danger likewise is only his; for if the Stock faile, the Debtor is Responsible, whereas the Creditor is secured all the ways that humane Wit, Policy, and Law can invent, to make him safe, by Bonds, Witnesses, Sureties, and I know not what. Now what Lawful profit is to be made, that is not conjoyned with one or more of these three? the Usurer medles with none of them.

I foresee what will be replyed, and it is in every man's mouth, Damnum ex Lucro Cessante, He suffers loss by reason of the Gain [Page 29]that ceaseth by not having the Money in his own hands. This is the Usurers thread-bare plea. But, pray what manner of loss is this that is alleaged? The loss of a possible gain is sufficiently recompens­ed by a possible loss that is avoyded. This I am confident of, that did any know how to make greater or equal advantage by retayning their Money in their own possession, the Borrower should never have the trouble of it. Here then lies the sweet of Usury; the Money, morally speaking, is far safer in other mens hands than our own; for what Bonds or Security have we from Thieves, Fire, and other Casualties of all sorts? all which by this trick of Lending, are suffi­ciently warded off; besides a certain delicious morsel which must ac­company home the Principal to make it more welcome.

By which way of proceeding, the Usurer falls very near within the Verge of Atheisme, totally as it were substracting himself from Pro­vidence; for what need he depend upon the Influences of Heaven, pray for rain, fair weather, or other blessings, since all is one to him? Let it shower or shine, he knows his Debtor is acquainted with his day prefixt, which if he fayle, the greatest mercy to be look'd for, is, either the Goale, Forfeiture of a Mortgage, or a dismal Continua­tion of the former devouring Courtesie, from time to time, to his final Ruine.

10. I might urge the very nature of Lending, which as hath been declared in its essential notion, speaks Gratuitousness, and is one of the works of Corporal Mercy, chiefly respecting the Temporal good of another, providing only for mine own Indemnity. Whereas in the Usurers practice, it is clean perverted to the contrary, my own Convenience, and my Brothers Prejudice.

But for brevity sake, I shal pretermit that, with sundry other weigh­ty Reasons, and wind up all with this convincing one. It is a most solemne and indispensable Statute, Levit. 19.36. Nolite facere iniquum aliquid in pondere, in mensura. Statera justa & aequa sint pondera; Ego Dominus Deus vester: Do nothing unjust in weight, or measure; let the ballance be just, and the weights equal; I am the lord your God, &c. I subsume, but Money now by general con­sent is the Common Standard or measure of Exchange. How un­just then must the Usurer be, who makes the measure it self, whence all Equality depends, Ʋn-even and Ʋn-equal. An hundred pounds in the exchange of any Commodity, are precisely worth but an hun­dred [Page 30]pounds. But to the Usurer, an hundred pounds are of the va­lue of an hundred and six, or more, according to his own pleasure (for his Will must be the Standard of Worth, Price, and Value) and to the Debtor or Borrower, they avayle but ninety four pounds or under. I would fain see the Commutative Justice of this, which according to all, consists in an Arithmetical exact proportion.

Here again they have recourse to their former refuge; The Usu­rer forsooth, only recompenses the loss of a possible gain he might have purchased; and he takes the Interest as a Reward of that possible pro­fit the Borrower is presum'd to have made with his Money. But I answer for once and all.

1. That there is no sufficient Proportion between an Actual, In­fallible gaine, and a meer possible one, attended by a multitude of Casualites; this is apparent in other bargains. For example, why may not a Horse-courser sell a Horse with a safe Conscience for five times as much as he knows him to be worth, because there is a possi­bility of the Buyers being set upon by Robbers, and for-ought he knows the Horse being very fleet, may save both his life and 200 pieces he has about him? The like may be instanced in an hundred o­ther occasions. So that it is not the uncertain hopes of a future Ad­vantage, but the present, real and intrinsecal value of the thing, that must sway in setting the rate and price of it.

2. Whosoever will adjoyn such Cautions as these, in his Lending, namely, to receive an equitable part (according to the Estimate of prudent, honest, and indifferent Judges) of the In-comes from the Principal, when they are actually in Being, and in the Borrowers hand; and withal, be willing to venture a competent share of his own Principal, should it happen to miscarry; I have nothing to ar­gue against his contract, but conclude it warrantable. However, to think that our Money-Merchants now a-days act upon such ingenu­ous principles in their dealings,— Credat Indaus Apella,—it is beyond my Faith, and I am sure out of the common roade both of their Law and practice.

That I have not been over rigid in censuring, I might easily evince from the writings of Authors of the highest Ranck and undoubted Authority, who unanimously condemn far smaller matters than I have here impeached. I will but give you a taste of some few. The The Learned Cardinal Tolet sayes, It is Usury, though I have but [Page 31]an intention, without expressing it in the contract of receiving more than I gave forth, as due upon the score of Lending. Cardinal Lugo calls it Usury to Lend Money, that I may obtain some Office or Em­ployment under him to whom I Lend. To Lend old Corn, with obligation of repaying new, if I foresee the new will be better and dea­rer, is Usury, as Sylvester and Navarre teach. It is Usury to lend and lay a Juridical Obligation on the Borrower, either to lend to thee again, or to buy in thy shop, or to serve under thee, &c. as Lessius, Layman, and Bonacina affirm. It is Usury, as Salas very well proves, to lend to the Prince or Common-wealth, that thou mayst be free from Tribute and Taxes. It is Usury to oblige the Borrower to accept part of the Money in thy Wares and Merchan­dice, in the judgment of that great Casuist Diana. To lend Money on this Condition, that the Borrower at his great cost and charges procure it from one of my Debtors, of whom I could not have got it without much difficulty and trouble, is Usury, if we believe the ju­dicious Merchantius.

To go a little higher. In the Provincial Synods of Cambray, Anno 1586. Mechline 1570. St. Omers, 1583. Ipres. 1577. In a special Edict set forth by Philip the second, King of England and Spain, it was peremptorily decreed, that No Tutor or Guardian of Orphans, under pretence of increasing their Patrimony, should let out their Mo­ney from year to year for a certain gain above the Capital, reserving a faculty or power of calling in the Principal or Capital sum, either when the Pupils came to age, the day of Marriage, or otherwise at their plea­sure. The aforesaid Authority calls all such Contracts Usury, and proceeds against such Lenders, as Usurers, and declares the Con­tract or Obligation invalid or of no force.

From Provincial Synods, let us ascend to General Councils. The Council of Agatha before cited, positively defines Usury to be the receiving of more than was lent, chap. 3. The first Nicene Council declares it a mortal or heinous sin, and punishes it in the Clergy with Degradation, Can. 17. The first Council of Arles forbids Usu­rers the Participation of the Eucharist. The second ratifies the De­cree of the first, chap. 14. The first Council of Carthage uses the A­postles word, and terms it Turpe Lucrum, filthy gain, cap. 13. The Eliberitan Council formally degrades the Clergy, and Excommuni­cates the Laity that are Guilty, cap. 20. and the Council of Toures [Page 32]severely prohibits it, chap. 13. But the most terrible of all is the Lateran Council under Alexander the III. chap. 25. It is too long to transcribe, but it confirms the censures that went before, and su­per-adds others.

As to the matter of Law, I fear the Usurer will find but little fa­vour.

1. The Canon Law both finds him guilty, and condemns him. The fifth book of Decretals, the 47th. distinction in the Decrees, Caus. 14. Quest. 3. & 4. wholly consound him. Two Decretal E­pistles, one of Pope Gelasius, the other of Pope Leo the first, thun­der against him; by vertue of which, while he is well in health, he must not receive the Eucharist in the Church, nor make any Offer­ing; when he is sick, he is not so much as to be visited, or permitted to make his Will; nor when dead, is he admitted to Christian Bu­rial. Nay, which I wish would be laid well to heart, the Sollici­tors who perswade, the Procurers, the Publick Notaries and Wit­nesses, who assist at, the Lawyers who defend, the Judges and Magi­strates who countenance such Contracts, the Confessors who absolve him, are all involved in the same crime, and subjected to the same Anathema. The Authentick Records of Primitive times assure us, that the person who was but suspected of Usury, was neither vouch­safed the Kiss of Peace in the Church, nor respected with common salutation in the streets; his house was generally called the Seat of Satan, nor was it lawful for any Christian to setch fire from thence.

Nor doth the Civil Law handle him more civilly. Cato a Heathen in his Treatise de Re Rustica, speaking of the Law of 12 Tables, sayes thus, Our Ancestor's both thought so, and put it among their Laws, that a Thief should be condemned in double, but an Ʋsurer in four­fold Restitution. So much harsher an Opinion had they of an Usu­rer than of a Thief.

It appears by the writings of St. Augustine, who flourished, Anno 420. that in his time Usurers were Infamous by Law, and esteem­ed unworthy to be admitted to any publick Office in the Common-wealth.

As to the Principles of the Civil Law, they directly thwart the Usurers practice, as will be manifest by a brief Recapitulation of some of them. I find them reckon'd up ready to my hand by Hotto­manus, [Page 33]a Grave and Judicious Conscientious Authour, as he is cited by Bishop Andrews in his Theological Determination of this point. They are these following.

• 1. It is of the very Essence and Nature of Lending, that it be free and gratuitous.
• 2. We are not to receive most certain profit from very uncertain Negotiation or Adventures.
• 3. Where Nothing is Exchanged, Nothing of Gain is to be ex­acted.
• 4. Society cannot subsist without a Communication of Profits and Damages, or Hazards.
• 5. Things that are consumed by or in their very Using, neither in natural nor civil Reason are capable of Ʋsus fructus, which is the Use or profit of what is another's, the propriety or substance of the thing being still the Owners.
• 6. We are not to make advantage or profit of another mans Goods, the Owner being unwilling, or not yeilding plenary as­sent: As here the Borrower doth not, but is forced to undergoe such and such Conditions, or go without the Money his affairs re­quire.
• 7. The Law of an Inferiour cannot abrogate, or prejudice that of a Superiour; and therefore Humane Laws tolerating, or rather Regulating the excess of Usury, can no ways invalidate or lessen the Authority Divine, absolutely forbidding it.

These are some few of those many civil Axioms, which utterly o­verthrow the Usurers profession and pretensions.

Now for our own Native Municipal Laws, I refer the Curi­ous to the Statute-Books, with the other Elaborate Writings of the most Famous among those of the Long Robe; particular­ly my Lord Coke, in his Reports; where I presume little will be found to the Usurer's satisfaction. In short, be­cause this is out of my Sphere, as I find it set down by o­thers.

• 1. Under the Britons, it was provided by an Antient Statute, as we may see in Gildas, that it should not be judged any Cheat to deceive an Usurer.
• 2. Under the Saxons, by the 37th. Law of King Edward the Con­fessor, All Usury was forfeited to the Crown.
• [Page 34]3. Under the Normans in the Fourth of Edward the First, there was an Act against the Jews upon this very score, and they were Banished throughout the whole Kingdome: And from that time forward the Canon Law was in full force till the Fifth year of Edward the Sixth; which, how it was affected towards Usu­rers, may be more than guessed at, by what was said a little before.

I have little to say as to the political part, being so seldome conversant either with discourses of that Nature, or persons of that Employment. However let me give you, though not the words, yet the sence of one who was excellently well vers'd in both; by which you will soon discerne how incommodious, and well nigh inconsistent Usury is with the Civil Government and Pros­perity of a Nation.

To omit the frequent feuds, quarrels, and discords, say's my Authour, that principally arise from this kinde of Exaction, and those not alwayes to be decided by Gown-men, but sometimes having recourse to the Sword it self, as appears by the Roman History, where it is observed, how that first Revolt of the Ple­beians or Commons, from the Senatours or Gentlemen, sprung from the Usurary proceedings of the latter with the former: To omit likewise those continual murmurs, grudgings, repine­ings and Curses that accompany it, to the perfect alienating of Subjects mindes and Affections from one another, whence most of the Revolutions of Kingdomes are derived; it being impossible, in our Saviours reckoning, that a Community divided against it self, should be of long continuance.

I may thus Reason;

Money put out to Use, is either placed with a Poor man, or a Rich. If with a Rich man, usually he either turns Monopolist, and ingrosses a Commodity to himself; or Protopolist, fore-stalling the Markets; and afterwards by this means he inhances the Rates of Merchandize at pleasure, converting that to the private Pam­pering, and superfluous swelling of one particular Member, which Reason designes for the common nourishment of the whole Body Po­litique. And this, though it may be dissembled for a time, yet must necessarily breed bad blood in the Republick.

If a person of a slender Fortune, light upon a good round summe by borrowing; it often happens that at such an un-usu­al sight, he begins to foster extravagant hopes, attempts too high matters, turnes Prodigal, and then Bankrupt; and after that, seeing his Fortune desperate, his inclinations swim with it; let any Faction appear, let any Standard be Erected, whe­ther of David the Soveraign, or of Absolam the Rebel, it mat­ters not, thither he Posts, knowing it to be good Fishing in troubled Waters: Nor can hardly one among a thousand Bank­rupts be instanced in, who was not reduced to such exigencies first by tampering with the Usurer.

The same Author leaves it to the consideration of States­men, whether it be for the publique good to permit any to serape together, and hoard up Wealth by such idle, lazie means; since all Mechanical Arts, Adventuring in Merchandise, Do­mestick Manufactures, both in Town and Country (which are the very sinews of a Common-wealth) will quickly come to nothing. For who is so sottish as to run hazards, toyle night and day, compass Sea and Land for uncertain hopes, when he may, lurk­ing at home, without the sweat of his Browes, or the trouble of his Brayns, at his leasure Increase and Multiply by that casie Trade of Lending?

There remains nothing now but to view the Judgment of An­tiquity, the Primitive and more purer Ages of Christianity, and that both in the Greek and Latine Fathers; whereby we shall discover the minde of the Eastern and Western Church.

This hath been done in, part, scatteringly here and there be­fore, and therefore it will be sufficient summarily to supply the test.

And, first occurrs that most antient Writer Clemens Alexan­drinus, lib. Stromat. [...], &c.

St. Basil upon the 15th. Psalm (in his account the 14.) spends a whole Homily in Inveighing against Usury.

St. Gregory Nyssen, in an Epistle to a certain Bishop, assures him that both [...] and [...], &c. Ʋsury and Increase are [Page 36]forbid in Holy Scripture, though under the pretense of a Contract or Bargain. By those two words, he means Ʋsury and Overplus, or Accessorium sorti.

St Gregory Nazianzen, in his speech to the Silent Father, [...], &c. ‘Usury and Increase have corrupted the Earth, while it gathers where it never Sow'd, and Reaps, where it scattered not;’ nor doth it Till and improve the ground, but the wants of the Poor.

St. Chrysostom is a most Rigid Taxour of it. In the end of his Fifty-seaventh Homily upon St. Matthew's Gospel, he spares not the Laws themselves that connive at it. In his Forty-one Ho­mily on Genesis, he discourses thus, From the Beginning God forbad the Jews to take Ʋse.

What excuse then can they have, who are more inhumane than the Jews? and after the Law of Grace, and so great mercy live inferiour to those, who were under the Law of Moses?

The same Holy Father (or rather the Learned Authour of the Imperfect Work upon St. Matthew) in his Twelfth Homily speaks to this purpose.

This for the Eastern Church, to which the Latine Fathers unani­mously subscribe.

Tertullian. lib. 4. contra Marcion. ‘Peruse the words of the Pro­phet Ezekiel, concerning the just man.’

Therefore first the Prophet would root out the profit of ‘Usury, that he might the more easily accustome men patiently to loose even the Principal it self, if need were, since by the Law they were commanded to loose the Interest.’

Elegant Lanctantius, lib. 4. de Vero Cultu. c. 18. ‘If he have Lent any Money, he must not receive Use, that both the Courtesie may be compleat, and he keep his hands from other mens goods; For in such kindes of Civility, every man must be contented with his own, nay, sometimes not spare his own, that he may do good: But to receive more than he gave, is unjust; nor will a just man defile himself with such Gain.’

Saint Ambrose in his Fourteenth Chapter concerning Tobias; ‘What ever is above the Principal is Usury.’

What St. Jerom thinks of this business, you may see in the Title Page.

St. Augustine upon the Thirty-seaventh Psalm. ‘Whatsoever it be, if thou expect to Receive more than thou Gavest, thou art an Usurer and to be Condemned,’ and forbids us to give Almes of the Money purchased by Usury.

Leo the Great, in his Sixteenth Sermon concerning Fasting; ‘Whatever effect follows on Usury, it is a Sin: So that the Usurer must be either miserable, by loosing what he gave; or more miserable by obtaining what he gave not.’

Therefore the Iniquity of Usury is to be avoyded, quia fenus pecuniae, funus Animae, the Gain of the Money is the Loss of the Soul.

The Case of Orphans and other poor people is the greatest difficulty in this matter. But we are in a point of Justice. In which Pauperis quoque non misereberis in Judicio, Exod. 23.3. E­ven a poor Man is not to be countenanced.

He who made this Prohibition hath no where exempted them: and therefore to his Providence they must be referred, who hath [Page 38]promised to have a special care over them, and be a Father, the Fatherless, and a Husband to the Widdow.

In the interim, Merchants, and other pious disposed perso [...] may undertake the management of their Stock, to their adva [...] ­tage, without entering into any such formal Contract as we ha [...] here disputed against.

Thus having Gratified your Request in the Questio [...] proposed, I have no more to do, but Subscribe [...] ­self