Touching the Definition of VSVRY.

I Let pass his Chapter of names of Vsury, because he Confes­seth that by them he hath proved litle or nothing at all. Page 12.

The main point is the Defini­tion, which he saith must not bee [Page 2] omitted, or slightly passed over, be­cause it is a great and necessary question to resolve the understand­ing what that Vsury is, whereof we dispute, pag. 13. And therefore hee doth intitle his first book wholy about the Definition of Vsury: although when he comes unto the point, he doth nothing less than define it; As may thus appear. Actuall Vsury (saith he) pag. 15. is of divers diversly de­scribed, a variety tedious to relate. First, in stead of all unlawfull U­sury, he speakes of a description of part only, to wit of actuall usu­ry; whereas he should first de­fine, and then divide: but inver­ting the Rule of method, he suf­fers m [...]ntall usury (which hee saith is a sin) to escape out of his description.

Neither doth hee so much as describe actuall usury, onely hee [Page 3] tells us of diversity of descripti­ons of others, but never lets us know which he approves. Yet at last hee contracts the pith in three words, but resolves not how wee should place them; so leaves us to a thus, or thus, or thus. First, hee puts Lucre in the place of the Genus, and Covenant in the room of a difference. Se­condly, he makes Covenant the Genus, and Lending the difference; and lastly he puts Lending for a Genus, and Lucre for difference. Thus by turning the Genus into th [...] difference, and the difference into the Genus, he leaves us un­certain of his description, yet concludes that within the com­pass of three words we may finde Vsury; but who knowes not that three words diversly placed breed many times different, and some times contrary sen­ses. [Page 4] Yet this is all the definition you are like to find in him. And thus in few lines he passeth over sleightly that necessary question which should resolve our under­standing what Vsury is.

But let us draw a little closer, and examine the pith of these three descriptions cited by Dr. Fenton, and contracted in three words.

Pactum ex mutuo Lucrum.

Usury is

• Lucre for Lone upon Covenant, or
• The Covenant of Lucre for lending, or
• Lending upon Covenant for Lucre.

1. Whereas he saith Vsury is Lucre, he seems to make Lucre or Gain to be the Genus of Vsury. This undoubtedly is a false Ge­nus; For certainly Vsury is a sin of Commission, and therefore an [Page 5] action or operation; so that Lucre, or gain which is onely a passion or product of Lending, cannot be the Genus of it.

2 He maketh Covenant to be the Genus: Let me ask him but this question; A Father to stir up on­ly, and trie the industry of his Son, doth lend him an hundred pound with a peirastical covenant for Gain, not intending with himself to take any interest at all of his Son; Doth any man take this to bee Vsury in the Father, who never meant to take the least encrease from his Son? Surely then the bare Covenant cannot be the sin of Vsury in this case.

3 He saith, Vsury is lending up­on Covenant for Lucre. In this de­scription, as also in the two for­mer, I find a manifest contradicti­on of his own Principles and Grounds. To lend for gain is no [Page 6] lending at all; for Lending (saith he, pag. 16.) in its own proper na­ture is free; Letting is for hire or gain. So that by this his Doctrine, Lending for gain is no lending at all, but letting or hiring out. Ther­fore if Dr. Fenton had been true to his own principles, he should have defined Vsury to have been Letting upon Covenant for Lucre; or in brief, Letting or hiring of Money. But both Dr. Fenton, and all other Antidaenists cannot en­dure to have Vsury called Letting or hiring of money.

Moreover, I find in these three descriptions, that he imagineth the Gain or Lucre is for the bare act of Lending; In which hee is much mistaken: It is not for the lending, but for the using of the thing lent that men give Vsury: and answerable to the time for which Money is let, the increase [Page 7] or Vsury is more or less, although the simple act of Lending be a­like in both. The ordinary word Vsury (which Dr. Fenton derives from usus rei, the use of the thing) teacheth, even children, that V­sury is given for the Use of the thing, and not for the bare Lend­ing.

Again, in these his three de­scriptions the word Covenant is perpetually found; without any warrant of Scripture: Yet hee pretends by deduction to fetch it out of the Text in Exod. 22.25. Thou shalt not be as an Vsurer unto him, thou shalt not oppress with V­sury. In the Original it is, Thou shalt not exact, and, thou shalt not impose Vsury. From whence Dr. Fenton concludes, that there can be no exaction or imposition up­on a free person, but by way of Covenant. pag. 26. Under favour, [Page 8] this his inference is false; for ex­action may be of things neither covenanted for, nor due. In the construction of our Common Law, and of our vulgar phrase, Extortion and Exaction are thus distinguished, Extortion is a wrong in taking more than is due, Exaction is the taking of that which is not due at all: Which distinction were false, if that Ex­action must be by precedent con­tract. The poor Jews did ordina­rily borrow victuals, money, and other necessaries upon Pawns, as may appear by many Texts. The Lender, who did take the pledge as a caution for his Principall, might detain it from the poor Borower untill hee would allow some gain above the Principal, and by such unjust means exact or impose an unconscionable increase without any precedent Cove­nant.

[Page 9]There is small reason to ima­gine, that such indigent people (as are described by Moses) who borrowed onely to supply a pre­sent want, should have credit sufficient to take up so large a sum for so long a time as might de­serve an Obligation or Covenant for the payment of encrease. A man who could not have his Bond taken, might yet have his Garment received for a Pledge; and Pledges were ordinarily gi­ven with intention of speedy re­demption, because raiment is al­most as necessary as food. The borrowing in this kind being of things of so small value (that the use of them for a small season was hardly valuable) might be a great reason of the prohibition of Vsury by Moses in such cases. Nei­ther is a man that lends upon Pawns in the like hazard vvith [Page 10] him that takes Bonds, or such se­curitie.

It is the confession of Dr. Fen­ton, that When the Law against V­sury was given, there was none that borrowed but only the poor for need, and upon necessity. Therefore, without better warrant by direct and literal proof from the Scrip­ture, it cannot be evinced that this word ( Covenant) must neces­sarily be required in the definiti­on or description of Usury, al­though Dr. Fenton conclude, it is no Vsury except it be by Covenant, or by some dumb Contract at the least.

Dr. Downam omits this word Covenant in his definition of Vsury. I am strongly perswaded by a place in Nehemiah, to think that Vsury doth not consist in contracting for gain. I find in the sixt Chapter, a grievous oppres­sion [Page 11] described; A great cry of the people against their Brethren the Iews, they were forced to take up Corn for themselves, their sons and daughters, upon mortgage of their lands, vineyards, and houses, they sold their children for bond-slaves. These were men opprest by Con­tracts, and were to pay twelve in the hundred, as appeareth by the eleventh verse. And yet for all this, there are such passages and circumstances of the text as move me to think that this Oppression was not properly Usury.

First, Nehemiah never calls it V­sury, but only a Burthen; neither the word Neshec, nor Tarbith, nor Marbith is to bee found in this Chapter, and yet these are the only words in the Law to express Vsury.

Secondly, N [...]hemiah never tels the Nobles and the Rulers, that [Page 12] they had broken the Law against Usury. Any man would think, that to rebuke and reclaim men from their sin, the way had been to have named it in particular, or the Law by which it was prohibi­ted: but Nehemiah doth neither of these, he only tels them, it was not good what they did, and askes them if they ought not to walk in the fear of their God because of the re­proach of the heathen their enemie [...]; not because of a particular Law against Vsury, but for that the name of God should not be blas­phemed by the heathens, when they saw how miserably the Jews did oppress one another.

Thirdly, Nehemiah tels the No­bles, that he and his servants might have exacted as well as the other No­bles: Whereas if this exacting had been Vsury, he could not just­ly say, that he might have exacted, [Page 13] for it had been against the Law.

Lastly, Nehemiah doth not threa­ten to punish them as he was a Magistrate, but entreateth them by his charitable example to leave off their exacting that Burthen.

So then Nehemiah never naming Vsury, nor mentioning the Law against it, but supposing the act of the Nobles to be lawfull, but not expedient, doth encline my belief to think, that this Oppression was not properly Vsury, although it had a Covenant for gain.

And one reason why this was not Vsury might be, because the people were not primarily such poor necessitated brethren as are described in the first Lawes a­gainst Vsury: For though these fell into want, yet at the first they had lands, houses, vineyards, and olive-grounds, for which they were to pay unto the King a yearly Tri­bute.

[Page 14]Another reason that avails with me to perswade that all contracts for gain are not prohited as usuri­ous, is the testimony of our Savi­our, Luke 19.23. who mentions a Bank of Vsury in the Jewish Com­monwealth, out of which a man by delivering in his mony, might at length receive his own with Vsury. Although our Saviour do neither shew dislike nor approbation of such a Bank, yet for it to bee within any City of the Commonwealth of Israel, without the ordinance, or at least allow­ance of the Prince or Magistrate, is a thing most improbable. And almost as unlikely that the State should tolerate such a Bank if all Vsury were of it self unlawfull, and also so pernicious to the Commonwealth by the oppressi­on of it as Dr. Fenton pretends.

I find many reproofs in the Go­spel [Page 15] of the false glosses and in­terpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees, whereby they perver­ted the Law in many things; but I find not any rebuke of the Magistrates for this of Vsury, if it had been such a publique vio­lation of the Law, it could not have been forgotten by our Sa­viour Christ and all his Apo­stles.

But to what purpose is it to dispute about the terms of the description of Vsury? or what sort of Contract it is? when it ap­pears plainly in Dr. Fenton, that not onely the Covenant of lend­ing, but also (in his opinion) buy­ing, selling, letting, exchanging, and the rest, may be all Contracts of Vsury. To give an instance, these are his words, pag. 21. With a hundred pound I purchase an an­nuity of twenty pound per annum [Page 16] for ten years: This is Bargain and Sale, differing in the manner of the Covenant, yet is it the same thing in truth with Vsury. And so in ano­ther place ( pag. 129.) he saith the like. I must say this is an express contradiction, to affirm that pur­chasing is buying, and another man­ner of Covenant differing from Len­ding, and yet to say in truth it is the same with Vsury, which he saith is Lending, this is to make buying and lending all one, and to con­found all Contracts.

As the term of Covenant is not to be found within the Texts a­gainst Vsury, so in the Fathers of the Church there is no mention of it; they abuse us therefore, who pretend the consent of the Primitive Church for the con­demning of all Contracts of gain for the use of money. The truth is, the Canonists and School-men [Page 17] were the first broachers of these descriptions of Vsury which are now pressed upon us by some few Modern Divines. Antiquity was more modest and observant of the phrase of Scripture, which doth deliver the Laws against V­sury in such restrained terms as are by a just construction applia­ble properly to the Rules of Cha­rity and Equity, for the relief of the poor onely.

From the Canon-Lawyers (who are the Popes learned Counsell in the Law) hath Dr. Fenton borrowed not only his de­scriptions, but also his arguments and distinctions at the second or third hand: For he takes all from Dr. Downam, Dr. Downam from Melancthon and Chemnitius, and these two fetch it from Canonists, Casuists, and School-men. And al­though Dr. Fenton bee free from [Page 18] the sin of Vsury by borrowing freely his whole Treatise from Dr. Downam without paying the interest of one new Argument or Reason: Yet if Dr. Fenton did not Contract with Dr. Downam for the borrowing of the Trea­tise, he is little less than a Plagi­ary, and if we take this word in as large signification as they doe the word Vsury, it will follow, that though Dr. Fenton bee not guilty of paying Usury, yet he hath offended against another Law in Exod. 21.16. Deut. 24.7. which is the greater sin; for al­though the Law of God appoints no punishment for an Vsurer, yet a Plagiary was to be punished by death.

Of Testimonies of Scripture.

I should have proceeded now to examine the properties of len­ding [Page 19] and letting, and how they differ; but because I find menti­on of them in severall places of my Authour, I will reserve them a while, and first handle the texts of Scripture that are most mate­riall in this controversie.

Three texts onely are to bee found in the law of Moses about Vsury. In the two first the poor is most expresly named, and in the third necessarily implied. Exod. 22.25. If thou lend to my people the poor with thee, thou shalt not be as an Vsurer unto him. Thou shalt not oppress with Vsury, Levit. 25.35. If thy brother bee impoverished or fallen into decay with thee, thou shalt relieve him — take thou no Vsury of him or in­crease — thou shalt not give him thy money upon Vsury, nor lend him thy victualls for increase. By these two texts we have an exact [Page 20] description of the poor, who must be one impoverished and fallen into decay, one, whose hand (as the text is) is weakened and shaketh that hee cannot la­bour, one, whom thou hast need to receive and relieve, and one who is forced to borrow victu­alls for necessity. The third text though it doth not expresly name the poor; yet that it hath reference onely to such is most probable. First, because as in the former text in Levit. where the poor are described, and one of their properties mentioned to be borrowing of Victuall [...], so in Deut. 23.19. where the name of poor is omitted, yet the proper­ty of borrowing food is set down, which to be the Custome onely of the poor in extreme ne­cessity, common experience doth daily teach us. Secondly, the [Page 21] law here doth only use the word of biting or Nescher, which word is also only used in the first text, where the poor is named. Third­ly, if we will allow (as all men do, and as we needs must) this law in Deut. to be the same with that in Exod. & Levit. then it must have the same object the poor, and the same end, which is the re­lief of the same poor, for we find no other reason or end alleged in Scripture for the prohibition of Vsury, but that the poor brother may live with thee and have suffi­cient for his need. God where he tyes men to lend, he provides & binds them to lend freely. The law is, if there be among you a poor man of one of thy Brethren, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shu [...] thy hand from thy poor brother, but thou shalt open thy hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him [Page 22] sufficient for his need in which hee wanteth. Deut. 15.7, 8. For the ob­servation of this law God was carefull that this lending should be without Vsury: Hee makes no law to bind men to lend unto the Rich, and therefore there is no law to restrain taking Vsury of them: The lending to the poor was to be so free that it must bee in the next degree to giving, and wee finde that to this law that commanded Lending, is added in the very next ve [...]se, Thou shalt surely give him, and thy heart shall not be grieved when thou giv [...]st un­to him. Likewise in Levit. 25. it is said, thou shalt relieve him, and then it followes presently take no Vsury of him Thus the Scripture doth couple the work of Charity with the prohibition of Vsury, to teach, that they are both conver­sant about one and the same Ob­ject. [Page 23] Therefore he that shall make the Rich also the object of this law in Deut. he must of necessity invent some new End and Reason of it more than the Scripture doth afford, and also make the lawes themselves to differ; wher­as a true reason why the law in Deut. is in so short termes, may be, for that the law having been twice before more particularly set down, Moses doth in Deut. onely repeat it in brief and few words, as being sufficient to call it to their remembrance, now they were ready to enter into the land of promise. If wee consider also the unmercifulness of the Jewes amongst themselves, it was high time to make provision for the poor, they would not stick it seemes to strip a poor man stark naked for a debt, as ap­peares by the law concerning the [Page 24] restitution of pledges before sun set if they were the covering only & rayment for the skin wher­in a man might sleep, Exod. 22.26. Besides they would forbear to lend to the poor because they were in danger to lose their debt if they did not recover it before the seventh year. The law is Deut. 15.1. Every seventh year, every creditor tha [...] l [...]nd [...]th ought unto his neighbour shall re­lease it, — that which is thine with thy brother thy hand shall re­lease. This releasing of debts had the same end with the prohibi­tion of Vsury, the relief of the poore, and although this law of releasing be delivered in the ge­nerall termes of neighbour & bro­ther, yet they must be understood onely of the poor brother as it is most apparent by the exception following in the fourth verse, [Page 25] which saith this release must be save where there shall bee no poor among you: and in the 11. verse, after the releasing of debts, and the lending to the poor enjoy­ned, the conclusion is, for the poor shall never cease out of the Land, therefore lend to thy Brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy in the Land. These places do teach us that this word Brother is sometimes in a speciall sense used for the Poor. This law of releasing made men afraid to lend, and therfore God warnes them in the ninth verse, Beware that there he not a thought in th [...] wicked (or Belial) heart Say­ing, the Seaven [...]h year, the year of release is at hand, and thy e [...]che e­vill against thy poor Brother, and thou givest him nought.

Now since the law of God which prohibiteth Vsury onely in three places hath in the two [Page 26] first expresly named the poor, and described them, and in the third cleerly intimated them, By what Reason, Conscience, and Charity, can any man extend those lawes to all men in general, which the Holy Ghost hath so carefully restrained to the poor? And since the Law first given a­gainst Vsury doth mention op­pression of the poor, I wonder Dr [...]enton would not fetch his defi­nition from the text, & call Vsury oppressive lending to the poor: but never mentioning oppression of the poor, he calls it a Covenant of gain for lending; which is quite beside the text, which seemes only to forbid Vsury to such as stand in need to be relieved by our Charity.

And for this cause I doe con­jecture Calvin did say, that unto [...] it did not appear by any testi­mony [Page 27] of Scripture that all Vsury is altogether condemned, and it is conceived that one reason why the law of Moses doth appoint no kind of Iudiciall punishment for Vsury, might be, because the sinne is determinable only by the judgement of a mans own Con­science and not by any precedent contract for gain.

As for those texts in the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ezekiel, their gene­ral words cannot make any new law, but their rebukes and exhor­tations relate to the breach or observance of the law formerly given by Moses: And even Ezekiel who most declames against V­sury, Eze. 18.17. joines it with making the poor Sorrowfull, not giving bread to the hungry, and not Cloathing the naked. Nor can these texts be any exposition of the lawes of Moses against Vsu­ry, [Page 28] because the lawes themselves are expressed and explaned in more particular significant terms by Moses than by David, Solomon, or Ezekiel, who give but a touch.

Of the Names of Vsury.

I know the adversaries to all V­sury do much triumph in their Origination of the Hebrew term for Vsury; because it is derived from a root that signifies to bite, they conclude it is like the sting of a Serpent, and in that regard to be esteemed as an abominable sin. Answ: First wee must remem­ber that Dr. Fenton doth confesse that names have be [...]n no definiti­ons, and therefore are not demon­strative arguments in any que­stion. 2 ^ly, I do acknowledge that the Originall word Neshee might well denote some malignant [...]uality in Vsury, and I conceive [Page 29] a true reason of it might be, for that the first kind of borrowing which was in the world, or at the time when the law against Vsury was given, was in Case only of necessity, and to ask an overplus in such Cases was a sin that well deserved the worst name. We all know that Riches of mony and many other goods were brought into the world by de­grees, as arts & trades were mul­tiplied by the industrie and wit of man. Stately buildings, rich furniture, gorgeous apparell, and dainty feasts were not prepared against the Creation of Adam; It was a long time before so much silver was digged up and Coined as would fill mens Cof­fers that they might spare or im­ploy large sums by the negotia­tions and traffique of others; men first looked after things [Page 30] necessary only, and the want of such things taught them to bor­row of one another.

Also when the law was given, the People of God (saith D. Fenton p. 10.) were travelling in the desert, and afterwards being troubled with wars in the Land of Canaan, there was little borrowing of mony, but on­ly by the Poor for the Supply of their want, and of them to take Vsury was more sensible biting, & oppres­sion, in that they borrowed not to lay out for Commodities, but to spen [...] for necessity. Therefore David in his troublesome dayes used the word Neshee only for Vsury, as best filting those times where the poorest w [...]re most bitten by this sin.

In these passages of Dr. Fenton, we may note, what manner of borrowing Caused the first name of Vsury, which name afterwards for the similitude only of the in­crease [Page 31] might be applied to all o­ther sorts of borrowing, although they were not of the same un­charitable nature. The like ob­servation of a good name used for a bad thing Dr. Fenton produ­ceth in the Latin name of Vsury. Usura (saith he) was originally a a good honest word untill Vsury did marre it. For Usura intruth is nothing but usus rei, primitively taken for the use of other things as well as money.

In Conclusion, although the uncharitable gain that was practised upon necessitated bor­rowers did justly deserve a be­fitting name of biting, yet a gain that is taken from such as bor­row where necessity constrai­neth not, is but an equivocal bite­ing, Because properly there can bee no biting but where there is oppression, and oppression is [Page 32] onely of the poor. A man may deceive a Rich man, but oppress him he Cannot, the reason is e­vident, oppression is a Violent acti­on of Injustice, necessity compels a poor man to borrow, and the lender forceth him to pay an in­crease, in this is a violence which a rich man cannot be subject un­to, because no necessity forcing him to borrow, it is not necessary but arbitrary whether he will borrow upon encrease: for al­though there be a morall necessi­ty that if he will borrow he must pay an overplus, yet that he must borrow is not absolutely neces­sary: so then it is the necessity of the borrower that must concur to make a violent action in the lender.

If a rich man be forced to pay the whole forfeiture of a bond, it was his own folly to enter into [Page 33] such an obligation without neces­sity, whereby he doth enable the lender to deceive him by a legall meanes, who in extremity makes benefit of all that which the law did provide only for a caution of his indemnity: This deceit of the lender is injustice, but it is not the violent sin of oppressi­on which is properly found in Biting Vsury.

A second word there is found in Scripture which they say is an Exegeticall addition, which signi­fieth any increase at all. If what were said were true, it neither hurts nor helps the question if the text be understood of the poor only, for although all in­crease from the poor, yet what is that to the taking Vsury of the Rich? But let us see a little how they strain this word [ tarbith] for increase, first if tarbith do sig­nifie [Page 34] of it self a multiplying, as it doth indeed, or an excessive in­crease, it is then all one with Ne­shee, which Dr. Fenton makes to consist in the quantity of the gain, but I think to be in the qua­lity of the person from whom it is taken, and then where will they find their exegesis if these termes be Synon [...]mas. Secondly I would know how Dr. Fenton can prove that the Scripture u­seth tarbith for the Vsury of mo­ny: The Prophets (saith he) who be true expositors of the law join both words together, applying them both indifferently evermore to one and the same thing. It is true that the Prophet Ezek. joynes Neshee and tarbi [...], and so doth Solomon; but it is false that they apply them both indifferently ever­more to one and the same thing, for they apply them not at [Page 35] all, they neither name mony nor victualls; I can find them but once applied in the whole Scrip­ture, and that is by Moses in Le­vit. 25.36, there Dr. Fenton might have found them both named together, and then applied, Ne­shee to mony, and tarbith to victu­ [...]lls, so that the law of God no where in plain termes forbids the increase of Mony: which point is carefully observed by the translators of our Bible; for they all consent and agree to translate Neshee onely for Vsury: the words tarbith or marbith they have never translated by the name of Vsury. And in the Proverb: 28.8. whereas in the Ori­ginal it is tarbith, our divines have rendred it Vnjust gain, ther­by intimating they did not think all encrease or gain to be meant, but onely such as was un­just.

[Page 36]It will be said, that since Mony and Victualls are both in the same text, they are both of one nature, so that tarbith may be re­ferred indifferently to either of them. Answ. The text doth con­joyn them, not for being of one nature in spending or using, but the law did intend only the mention of such things as the poor in extr [...]y do nec [...]ssari­ly borrow for mainte [...]ance of life, which is either v [...]ctualls it self, or mony which doth easiliest and soonest p [...]ocure v [...]ctuall [...]: Otherwise these two d [...]ffer as Dr. Fenton hath sh [...]wed in the example of a loaf and mony, the first is sp [...]nt, the latter is used: victu [...]lls then when they are spent are quite consumed and no further use can be made of them, it is oth [...]rwise wi [...]h mony which cannot prop [...]rly be said [Page 37] to be spent, the same 100 l. that hath been used by one, may be used after by a 100 men succes­sively: and in the passing of it away some other Commodities may be procured by it of greater or equall valew, which may be used for increase; so that the use of mony is in a sort Perpetuall. This difference well considered, there might be a greater reason to prohibit the vsury and increase of Victualls, then Vsury onely of mony: But I do not rely upon the argument from the names of Neshee or tarbith, and the rather because I think the true propri­ety of them (as of many other words) is quite lost as to us

A third strain of Dr. Fenton is to have the word tarbith to ex­pound and explain the term Neshec: we find Neshec used alone in Exod. Deut. and the Psalmes: [Page 38] tarbith is never used alone, but is joined with Neshec in Levit. Prov. and Ezek: so then the first is used in all texts, the latter but in some. Now the question is, whether a particular word which is alwaies used shall ex­pound a generall which is used but sometimes; or on the contra­ry as Dr. Fenton thinks, for he tel­leth us, p. 39. it is the manner of Scripture after a law is given and a sin forbidden in a sensible term, by the addition of a more generall to express Gods meaning more fully, lest men should seek liberty in re­straining the former termes more narrowly; thus he, but what sense is there in his words to express a sensible by a generall? he should have said a particular by a general, or a sensible by an insensible, and then his error would have been more sensible; for I trust it is the [Page 39] nature of things sensible to ex­press things insensible, and of par­ticulars to expound generalls, as may manifestly appear by the instance alleged by Dr. Fenton, and which makes somewhat strongly against himself. Theft saith he is set down in the Sensible term of stealing, the Holy Ghost [...]dde [...]h dealing falsely or Circum­venting, teaching thereby over-rea­ching in bargaining by Cunning to be theft. Here I ask if Stealing be a sensible term, whether dealing falsely or circumventing by cun­ning be a Generall, surely Dr. Fen­ton must not say it, for deceit in contracts is but a particular kind of theft or stealing, and therefore not a more but a less generall term then stealing: so that quite contrary to Dr. Fenton his do­ctrine the generall sin of stealing is explained and expressed by [Page 40] the particular sin of deceit in dealing, therefore it is more reasonable that the particular term of biteing should expound the meaning of the generall word encrease, since nothing is more usuall then when a matter hath been particularly expressed, to mention it afterwards in more generall term.

Besides this shift of expressing the Sensible by the more generall term, is to imagine the wisdom of God subject to humane infir­mitie, as if God had not been able to perfect his law till the cavills of men, and their Seeking liberty to restrain the termes taught him how to mend it. No doubt if the law of God had intended the prohibition of all increase, it could have done it in plain and short termes (as it doth in Mur­ther, Theft, & Adultery) by saying [Page 41] thou shalt take no increase by len­ding or letting mony, but instead of increase the law saith biling or oppressing of the poor; if Mur­ther and Vsury were prohibited & permitted alike, why doth not the Commandement say thou shalt not murther thy poor brother but a stranger thou maiest murth [...]r? Surely God doth not use these qualifications for nought. It is demanded by Dr. Fenton upon the law thou shalt not trouble any widow or fatherless Child, whether it follow that I may trouble a married woman or a child that hath a father? Ans. I may not. But yet the reason is not for that I am prohibited by this speciall law for Widowes and Orphans, but for that by a generall Com­mandement of not stealing I am forbidden to oppress or trouble any man: The like may be said of [Page 41] the words of Solomon, thou shalt not rob the poor, yet I may not rob the rich: though these words forbid me not, but because of the former general Commandement. But the like cannot he said of Vsury, there being no former generall law that forbids taking increase of the rich.

But Dr. Fenton saith that Vsury ▪ bites the rich as well as the poor, and doth promise to prove it, but it seemes he forgot it, I am in doubt he is never able to doe it. Indeed he would perswade us that to lend to the Rich is to enable him to oppress the Com­mon-wealth and so consequent­ly the poor: But he doth not shew how the Common-wealth can be wronged by Vsury, and yet no particular person be first op­pressed; sure I am the text speaks not of oppressing the Common-wealth, [Page 42] but expresly names par­ticularly thy poor brother to whom thou lendest that he be not oppressed. So that the law points at an apparent and sensi­ble person whom Vsury bites.

But D. Fenton comes and tells us p. 36. Alas good simple widowes! can they tell when, or whom, or how ma­ny their Vsury doth bite? nay can the wisest Vsurer of them all tell? Thus Dr. Fenton because he sees that in some cases he cannot shew how any particular person is oppressed by Vsury, therefore he flies for Sanctuary to the Com­mon-wealth, to hide himself in the croud, whilest he must con­fess he cannot tell who is op­pressed, but yet the Common-wealth or some body in it (God knowes who) is oppressed.

But let us see how he knowes in general that the Common-wealth [Page 44] is oppressed by Vsury, For­sooth he saith, it maks things dea­rer & enhaunces the prices of the Mercat. p. 36. Ans. the dearness of things is caused either by the scarcity of the things themselves, or by the plenty of mony. As for the scarcity of Commodities it cannot be caused by Vsury, for it neither eats up corn nor cattle, nor weares out apparell, nor de­stroyes the native commoditie of any Country. But Contrarily merchants and others (who by Vsury are enabled to trade) do export such things as are cheaper and plentifuller here than in o­ther Countries, that so they may gain there: and doe bring back such things as are dearest and of most necessity at home, that so also they may gain here. So that Vsury doth not only not cause a scarcity; but it is the meanes of [Page 45] plenty in a kingdome, for as it Consumes not that we have, so it procures us that we want. As for dearness by reason of plen­ty of mony, it is no misery but the happiness of any Realm to know such a dearth: those places are not the Richest where things are cheapest, for then Scotland would excell England, but it is the want of mony which makes things cheap in such Countries: Nor let any man thinke that if Vsury were not, things would be one whit cheaper, for by Dr. Fen­tons confession, p. 38. if Vsury were not, men would tenter their witts either in trading themselves or im­ploying others, so that the same gain would be raised an other way; for in the point of Vsury the question is not whether gaines may be made of mony, but who shall have the gaines.

[Page 46]As for raising the mercat it is not caused by Vsury, the gover­nours and Rulers of the Rates and prices of all things are the owners of mony and the masters of stocks, for the Lenders rule the Borrowers, and the richer govern the meaner, The monyed men proportion the valuation of goods, & by practice & custome agree in a common gain to bee raised by the Contracts of bar­gaining, selling, letting and the like. For instance, the masters of mony of this kingdome by their trading raise so much gaines as ordinarily amounts to 20. or 30. in the 100 at the yeares end; which being considered by the meaner sort of people, they rec­kon with themselves, that if they can borrow at 10 in the hundred that then by such trading their gaines may both pay the use and [Page 47] leave them 20. or 10 l. gainers: so that the borrowers do trade by buying & selling in the mercat at the same prices that the ow­ners of mony do, & it is the rates of the mercat that rules their u­sing, and not their Vsury the mer­cat: The difference is onely that the owners prove the greater gainers and grow richer than the borrowers who keep but part of their gettings, because that their stocks are not their own: And questionless the Common esti­mation of men would not valew at 8. or 10 in the 100 if it did not ordinarily produce a Com­petent increase both for borrow­er and lender. If any man object that the prime gain which comes by buying and selling, and leads the rate of Vsury, is too great, I know no other answer but this, if Common Custome may not [Page 48] determine reasonable gaines, I know not how it will be resol­ved, since there is no rule in Scripture for it: but that men may grow rich by gain I find both practised and warranted by Scripture, neither are men re­strained from gaining more by trade than is simply necessary for life and being.

If Dr. Fenton and those that condemn all Vsury had been so observant of the letter or literall sense of the Law as they do pre­tend, they would never have troubled themselves so much a­bout Contracts which are not named in the Law: but would ra­ther have Concluded that the very taking of Vsury or increase (though it be not contracted for) is utterly unlawfull by the law in Levit. 25.36. where it is said, Take thou no Vsury of him. How then [Page 49] can these men justifie the Taking of their foenus liber [...]le, which they commend, or the foenus nauti­cum, which they allow, or the Contractus Societatis or partner­ship, which they so much extoll, since all these are expresly for­bidden by the law, If to take any increase be unlawfull? To the Iews themselves the letter of the law did seem to condemn the taking of a gratu [...]ty, nay, some of them did think it Vsury if a man did but salute or bid good morrow to him that had lent him mony, if he did not use to do so before he borrowed it: because in the Originall it is said, thou shal [...] take no Vsury of any word, Deut. 23. our translation hath it, Vsury of any thing: Surely such salutations were not contracted for, nor were of any valuable price or mony worth.

[Page 50]I do not find any text brought by Dr. Fen. out of the New Testa­ment against Vsury; for the truth is, there is none, although D. Dow. & some others do cite two texts, first Mat. 5.42. Give to him that ask [...]th; & from him that would bor­row of thee tu [...]n not away. If we ask D. D [...]wnam whether every one be b [...]und to lend to every one that asketh, his answer is, Respect is to be had of thine ability, and of his necessity, and also (if it be not a Case of urgent and present necessi­ty) of his honesty: if his necessity urge him to borrow, and thine estate enable thee to lend, thou art bound to lend unto him, especially if his ho­nesty deserve to be respected: Lect. on the 15. Psalm. pag 224. Why may not the same respects be ob­served in the interpretations of all texts against Vsury? Secondly he cites Luk. [...].35 Lend, looking for [Page 51] nothing thence. Lastly both he and Dr. Fenton do apply all texts that do mention lending freely, or charitableness to the poore, or mercifulness to our neighbour, as heapes of so many places against Vsury, although the name be not so much as to be found in the whole New testament as Con­demned. For my part I do glad­ly hear all exhortations to Chari­ty, and think them more than needfull; and if any man be so great an Vsurer as that he make himself thereby unable to be mercifull to the poor, such a man may be justly condemned, and I shall never defend him: But to conclude, because a man must give to the poor, therefore he may not let to the rich, is no good consequence. The text [...]hat bids me lend freely, doth not thereby forbid not to let at [Page 52] all, but that upon severall occasi­ons and according to divers Cir­cumstances I may do either; if the Commanding to observe one sort of Contract were the Prohi­biting of all other kinds, it would follow that I might neither give mony to the poor, nor sell victu­alls to the rich, because I am Commanded to lend both.

But let us admit that both in the Old and New testament the lawes against Vsury had been Morall and delivered in as gene­rall termes as can be devised: Be there not many lawes and texts which must of necessity be ex­pounded otherwise than the bare letter sounds, and according to such a sense as may stand with naturall reason, so that it contra­dict not any other plain or neces­sary doctrine, nor overthrow the [...]l [...]gie of Faith? There is a [Page 53] law of our Saviour Christ that saith, swear not at all, and again he saith, to him that asketh, Give; Neither of these Lawes must bee literally understood, but inter­preted according to the rule of natural re [...]son, & discretion. Christ forbiddeth his disciples to carry gold, or silver, or any manner of coin in their purses: I do not think that Dr. Fenton and others have followed the letter of this law, but I trust they will grant an in­terpretation over and besides the bare letter. There be divers such texts, as, if thy eye offend thee, pull it out; pray continually; if any sue thee for thy Coat, let him have thy Cloak also: all which if they were not otherwise understood than the bare words do bear, would bring great confusion with them, and such inconvenience as no reason nor law could or might [Page 54] allow in any case. The light of Nature must help to guide us in the interpretation of many texts. It is Dr. Fen. own confession, p. 34. that Vsury is a Question of that nature, as is not only determina­ble by the law of God in Scripture: but also by the law of Nature, those Maximes and Principles of Com­mon equity, which are written in the hearts of men by the finger of God, which point had need be well considered, because as Mr. Hooker saith, a number there are who think they cannot admire as they ought the power and Authority of the word of God, if in things di­vine they should attribute any force to mans reason, for which Cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace reason. Pag. 97. Nor let any man think (saith he) that following the judgment of Naturall discretion we can have no assurance [Page 55] to please God; for to the author and God of Nature how shall any operati­on pr [...]ceeding in naturall sort, be in that respect [...]nacceptable? the nature which himself hath given to wo [...]k by, he cannot but be delighted with, when wee ex [...]rcise the same any way without commandement of his to the Contrary. Pag. 60. Now if any place in the Bible may receive an interpretation from the rules and principles of naturall reason, why might not the texts of Vsury? since it is conversant altogether about Covenants and Contracts which are grounded only upon the laws of Nature and Nation [...]: and many Cases there be which are confessed by all to be no apparent breaches of Charity, nor any injustice found in them; In­somuch that Dr. Downam is brought thereby to such a straight as he is forced to main­tain [Page 56] that there be other respects which make usury unlawfull besides th [...] hurt of our neighbour, p. 44. & 125. But if Charity be the fulfilling of the whole law, I will give them leave to talke their fill, yet I can­not beleeve how Vsury can be a sin if it hurt not my neighbour. Their pretences of the oppressi­on of the Common-wealth by taking Vsury of the Rich is but a meer Sanctuary of ignorance, and a fiction which can never be pro­ved, since it is practised in the Richest Common-wealths.

Whether the law of Vsury be Iudiciall.

To prove the lawes against Vsury to be Morall and not Iudici­all Dr. Downam produceth a main argument which is not in Dr. F. his words are, The law which Com­mandeth free lending is not Iudici­all, but Morall; for the same law [Page 57] which commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the Negative. Ans. 1. Dr. Downam mistakes in thinking free lending and lending for gain to be termes of affirmation and nega­tion: Lending and not lending which are Contradictorily oppo­sed are only Affirmative & Nega­tive termes; Lending freely or for gain are only severall sorts of len­ding, and differing in qualities, and though their qualities differ yet they are both positive and affirmative; for it is an axiome C [...]ntrario [...]um utrumque membrum [...] vu [...], In Contradictions and Privations, one term is al­waies negative, but it is not so in Contraries. Secondly let me re­tort Dr. D [...]wnams argument in a stronger Case. The law which [...] resting on the Sabbath is not Iudiciall but Morall, there­fore the law which forbiddeth [Page 58] Kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is Morall, for the law which com­mandeth the affirmative, forbid­deth the negative: what will Dr. D [...]w. answer to this his own ar­gument? here is affirmation and negation, Resting and not Resting in the kindling of a fire, not Con­traries onely but Contradicto­ries, yet I presume Dr. Downam will not conclude that kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is a breach of the Morall law. Dr. Fen­ton is of opinion that if God doth forbid biting and oppr [...]ssing Vsury onely by his law, that th [...]n the law must needs be Morall, and not Iu­diciall, except we will give liber­ty to Christians to oppress and bite their Brethren. pag. 44. The an­swer is, The Equity of the law is stil in force, the Rigor of it is abroga­ted; or thus, the poor should not be oppressed is Morall, that they should [Page 59] not be oppressed by Vsury is Iudicial. To make the meaning of this di­stinction clear, we must know that All Iudicial lawes were made for the hedging in or enclosing of the Morall law, and whereas the Morall law was delivered either in Generall affirmative commandements, or Negative prohibitions, the Iudiciall comes after and gives some particular politique directions in the ob­servation of them; for example, the Morall law saith in generall [...]hou shalt Sanctifie the Sabbath, then comes the Iudiciall and saith, Ye shall kindle no fire through­ [...]ut your habitations upon the Sab­bath day, Exod: 35.3. so the Mo­rall law tells us thou shalt not steal, the Judiciall adds, if a man Steal an oxe, or a sheep, he should pay five or four sold for it, and in most ca­ses but double, Exod: 22.1.4. So [Page 58] then there is a generall equity in all Judicialls which is Morall and eternall. There is a law Levit. 25.23. the land shall not be sold for ever: whereby selling of inheritance is forbidden, and this law did bind [...] 1 Kings 21.3. that he would not [...]ell his inheritance to king Ahab. The equity of this law which binds all men even infidels, to preserve or procure an inheritance or e­state for their posterity remaines stil in force▪ yet absolutely, not to sell any land is esteemed no o­therwise than a Judiciall law sit­ted for the Common-wealth of the Jews: so the perpetuall equi­ty of Sanctifying the Sabbath, and of not Stealing abides▪ although the kindling of a fire on that day is now arbitrary; and the Compensation of stealing is left to the positive lawes of each [Page 61] nation. The same law that for­bids us to steal, bids us to relieve the poor, and so doth the equity of the law of Vsury. It is suffici­ent that the generall equity of this law be observed, and the poor relieved, but that in parti­cular they must be relieved by the not taking Vsury of them is not necessary. It was a sin in any Jew to take Vsury of his poor, although he did relieve him o­therwayes, because God did re­strain him to that particular manner of relieving the poor. But with us it is otherwise; if by any other meanes we do suffici­ently relieve the poor, then even the taking of V [...]ury of them is no sin nor oppression.

Concerning the Judicials of Moses we must also observe, that they were not so particular, but that many things were lest to the [Page 62] Ordinance of the Magistrate or high Priest, and humane ordi­nances (as Mr. Hooker doth ob­serve) are many times presupp [...]sed as grounds in the statutes of God, Deut. 24.10. There is a Judiciall Law which ordereth onely the manner how a pledge must be ta­ken; this necessarily doth presup­pose some former humane law that did order that pledges might be taken. Even that ill law or Custome of divorce, Deut. 24.1. is regulated by a Judiciall law, that it might therby be made less hurtfull. The reason why I note these things is, because the law of God concerning Vsury did pre­suppose and was grounded on a former law or custome of the Jews which was then i [...] [...]ase and practice; And the special [...] caution for the Poor might leave the Rich to the customes and lawes [Page 63] of the Magistrats w ^ch did always regulate all sorts of contracts. And wheras the law of Moses did allow Vsury only to Strangers; It doth not follow but that others that were neither Poor nor Stran­gers were left to the ordinary laws of the Country. No Magi­strate could give a dispensation for Vsury towards the Poor, nor a Prohibition for it towards Stran­gers: so much as God ordered no human laws might alter; as for o­ther cases not specified, they were left to the ordinary policy of the State. For we must not think that God provided all the civill lawes of Israel: His especiall care was to ordain lawes for the reformation of such sins as had been learnt by his people of the Egyptians, or for the prevention of such as might be taught them by the Cananites.

I know that Dr. Fenton doth [Page 64] inferre that the law which pro­hibits Vsury is Moral [...], pag. 45. be­cause the allowance of it to stran­gers is onely a Judiciall, for un­less it had been a sin, what needs a toleration: since lawfull things have no need of a permission? Ans. 1. If the allowing of Vsury to strangers be no Law at all but onely an Exception or proviso annexed to a former law, then it can be no Judiciall; all lawes do Command or Forbid something, but this if it be an exception doth neither, because it leaves the thing indifferent as it is the na­ture of all such provisoes in sta­tutes. But if they will have it to be a Law, then it must bind af­firmatively, and not only that one May, but that one Must take Vsury of a stranger, for in the O­riginall it is thou shalt lend upon Vsury or shalt cause to bite; And [Page 65] the Hebrews understand this to be a Commandement and not a Permission only.

Secondly whereas they Com­pare the allowance of Vsury to the permission of Divorce, they erre notoriously: for the diffe­rence between allowing and per­mitting is most manifest, as Dr. Downam Confesseth pag: 298. We allow those things only which we suppose to be good, or at least indifferent: But we permit only such things as are esteemed e­vill. God hath said by Moses thou mayst or thou shalt take Vsu­ry of a stranger, he never saith thou mayst divorce thy wife if she displease thee, or thou shalt put her away. But the law is, If she do dis­please thee, and find no favour in thine eyes, and if thou shalt put her away, and [...]f she do marry an other, and if he also put her away, Then [Page 66] (saith the law) her first husband may not take her again. Deut. 24.1, 2, 3, 4. so that the end of the whole law of divorce is onely to keep the woman from retur­ning to her first husband after a second mariage; all that goeth before is but by way of supposi­tion: But if any man will Con­tend that the Writing of a bill of divorce is enjoyned in the law, it must follow that it is not a Per­mission but a Command, contra­ry to our Saviours doctrine who calls it a Permission, Mat: 19.8. And if it be a Cōmand, we must needs understand it as an order only how and after what manner the divorce should be, to wit by bill in writing: but not as an order that did Command men simply to be divorced. It is very little less than blasphemy to say that Moses law should allow any [Page 67] thing that was evill. It is the power of the lawgiver to make both the Rule & the Exception to it. It is an over-bould speech of Dr. Fenton to say, that notwith­standing Moses law had given liberty to the Jews to take Vsury of strangers, yet it was a sin to do it, and that they Could not be absolved in the Court of Conscience, although they might be absolved in the externall Court, pag. 45.

Whereas Dr. Fenton doth pre­tend that a Reason that moved God to permit this sin of Vsury to strangers, was to prevent the greater oppression of his own Peo­ple, and that the hardness of the Iewish hearts was such that if they might not have taken Vsury of Strangers they would have made a Prey of their own Brethren. ib. Ans: How much doth this derogate from the lawes of God? as if they [Page 68] were not able to bridle one sin but by the toleration of some o­ther; and if the hardness of mens hearts must be born with, since mens hearts are as much harde­ned in other sins as in Vsury, why are not some other sins tolerated as well as Vsury? surely the Idola­try of the Jews was as great as their Vsury, & their hearts went a whoring after strange Gods, yet Dr F. cannot shew that any Idolatry was permitted them in any kind.

I find some Criticism used by Dr. Downam, upon the Hebrew names in Scripture which signifie a Stranger, pag: 208. but I cannot find that Dr Fenton doth make any use: the three sorts of Ger, Toshab, and Nocre (which he tran­slates to be Advena, Inquilinus, and Hostis) are insisted upon by him. He would have Nocre to signifie an alien by birth, Religi­gion, [Page 69] affection, and Dwelling. This distinction he labours not to prove, neither do I think it sound, because I am informed by those that are skilfull in the tongues that the Hebrew root doth signifie to be ignorant or not to know, so that whosoever was unknown, was Nocre, a stranger, though he were not of another nation, if he were but onely of an unknown family; the word is u­sed by Salomon Pro. 5.20. and 6.24. where he calls a Whore a strange woman, no man must think that he meanes such whores onely as are of an other nation or religion, but all such as were not to be known to them as wives; So God forbids the Jews Deut. 17.15. that they should not set a [...] to be King over them: sur [...]ly he meant such strangers as dwelt amongst them, there [Page 70] was little danger that they would Choose an Enemy that dwelt in another Country. I find in Levit. 22.10. it is said, there shall no stranger eat of the holy thing, that is, whosoever is not of the Priests family; so that the word stranger may some­times signifie an Israelite of ano­ther family or tribe.

Dr. Downam affirms that a Jew was permitted to take Vsury of such strangers onely as were e­nemies and aliens both in affecti­on and religion, birth and habi­tation: so that if a stranger did but dwell or converse amongst the Jewes, they might not take Vsury of him. But Dr. Downam should remember that a Broth [...]r and a Stranger in the Leviticall law are Membra dividentia, he that is not a brother is a stranger, and è contra, &c. Now a brother [Page 71] Levit: 25.42. is onely an Israelite circumcised brought out of Egypt, If therefore the law had prohi­bited only the taking of Vsury of an Israelite, and allowed onely the taking of it of an enemy stranger, then the law had been very imperfect and defective, because there had been no direction in the law for such strangers as had been sojourners or prose­lytes, who are neither Brethren nor enemies; if any man think that a proselyte or sojourner might be accompted a brother let him but read Levit: 25. verse 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, and 46.

I Know D.F. p. 46. would have us think that a Jew might take Vsury of a stranger, because he might also kill him: But I must deny that any privat man might kill a stranger but in a publick warre; neither can the like text [Page 72] be shewed for the allowing of the murther of a stranger by a privat man. Many places there be in which the Jews were en­joyned to be Charitable to stran­gers, Thou shalt not vex a stranger, Exod. 22.21. Love ye the stranger, for ye were Strangers in the land of Egypt. Deut. 10.19. Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, because ye were strangers in the land of Egypt, Exod: [...]3. [...]. There was in many Cases the self same Charity to be shewed to the stranger as to the poor; The corners of the harvest-field, the gleaning [...] of it, and the single grape [...], Thou shalt leave for the poor and the stranger, Levit. 19.9. Also the third yeares t [...]th, the forg [...]n sheafs, the feast [...] of Pentec [...], and of Tabernacles, were apointed for the relief and benefit of the stranger, the [...] ▪ & the [...]idow.

[Page 73]There are many more lawes to be found in the books of Mo­ses which are made for the bene­fit of the poor; the equity of them certainly continues unto this day; but no man but a Jew is so mad as to say the rigorous observation of them is to be re­quired of us; why then must the law against Vsury more than all the rest be necessary? It may as well be affirmed that all the Iu­diciall lawes are Morall; let them shew us by what rules they do distinguish these lawes: I doe apprehend that the Iudicialls were conversant about the mo­rality of outward actions, as a­bout the distinctions of rights, the distributions of inheritance [...], the Punishments of Crimes, as of Blas­phemy, Perjury, Murther, Adultery, Manslaughter, Fornication or the like, about the rites of Mariage, [Page 74] of Divorces, of Bondage, of Vsury, of Witnesses, and of many other actions, the equity of all which is reducible to some one Com­mandement or other of the Mo­rall law.

If all the Leviticall lawes be read over, it cannot be found that ever any Judiciall was de­livered with such restrictions, qualifications, and diminishing termes, as the law of Vsury: thy brother, thy poor brother, thy poor brother that is with thee; the ge­nerall name of neighbour is not so much as used about it: it is no where said thou shalt take no Vsu­ry of thy neighbour. Besides this law hath an allowance which no other Judiciall hath. And lastly, this law of Vsury taken in the sense of our adversaries (for all increase from the rich also) can be no breach of Charity in [Page 75] some Cases, and then there will be no Equity in it, which is found even in all Iudicialls. In­deed I find Dr. Downam brought to such straights as to maintain that there be other respects which make Vsury unlawfull besides the hurt of the neighbour, pag. 295. But if it be forbidden by the Morall law, and that law be a branch of the second table (as Dr. Fenton affirmes) how it can be a sin without breach of Cha­rity to the neighbour, passeth my understanding, since Charity is the fulfilling of the law.

Whereas Dr. Downam doth compare Vsury to an officious lye, which is a sin, though it hurt not but help the neighbour, pag. 277. It is true an officious lye is a sin: but a sin against the first Com­mandement of the first Table as it is repugnant to Truth which [Page 76] is an essential Attribute of God: Every one that lyeth doth ther­by deny and forsake the true God. Let Dr. Downam tell us, which Commandement of the first Table is by Vsury violated. It is not sufficient to say, that all Vsury is a breach of our allegiance to God, this is but begging of the question, unless this disobe­dience can bee referr'd to some particular precept of the Deca­logue, as the officious lye is to the first; as for general disobedience, it is a sin that goeth through all the Commandements, and is to bee referred to each particular precept according to the several objects of it.

It is further insisted on, that the prohibition of Vsury is cou­pled in Ezechiel 18, with sinnes against the Moral Law, from thence an inference is made, that [Page 77] it self must be Moral.

Answ. 1. If we look upon o­ther Scriptures we shall find Ju­dicials and Morals mingled to­gether in the giving of the Law: We may see in Levit. 19.9, the prohibition of Reaping the cor­ners of the field, and gleaning the Vineyards, which were Judi­cials, set immediately before the forbidding of Stealing, Lying, and Swearing, which are parcels of the Moral Law. In the 13 verse of the same Chapter it is said, Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, nor rob him: The w [...]ges of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night untill the morn­ing. The former of these is Mo­ral, the latter is Judicial. And also in the 16 verse, the prohibi­tion of Enchantment, or Witch­craft, is set between the for­bidding of eating bloud, and [Page 78] rounding the corners of the head, and marring the corners of the beard.

Secondly, whereas Dr. Downam saith pag. 219. The Holy Ghost de­ciphers a wicked man, that should dye the death if he did any of these things. Wee find first that the words in the Original are, if he do like to any one of these things; or as our new Translation hath it in the Margent, or that doth to his brother besides any of these.

Thirdly, whereas Dr. Downam conjoyns these sins by the disjun­ctive Or, our new Translators use the Copulative And.

Lastly, to confound Dr. Dow­nam's opinion, the Text in the 13 verse saith, He hath done All these abominations he shall surely dye. And good reason; for some of the crimes were capital by the Law of Moses, as Idolatry and A­dultery, [Page 79] but Vsury, or the taking and keeping of a pledge hath no kind of punishment appointed by Moses, neither hath any man denied, but that the law of re­storing the pledge was Judicial, and not Moral.

But let it bee granted to Dr. Downam (that which he can ne­ver prove) that death is threat­ned by Ezekiel to Usury; May it not stil be a Judicial Law for all that? Was not the Law in Exod. 21.1. a Judicial, whereby it is ordered that an Hebrew bond-ser­vant should at seven yeares end be free and at liberty? Yet God doth threaten the people for breaking this Law, by reassuming their servants with a liberty to the Sword, to the Pestilence, and to the Famin [...], Ierem. 34.17. Also in Numb. 15.35. the man that gather­ed sticks on the Sabbath day was [Page 80] stoned by Gods appointment, and yet the Law was but Judicial, and not Moral.

Before I conclude this questi­on about the nature of the Law against Vsury, it is not imperti­nent to remove a scruple that is objected. It may be asked of me that maintain there is no Law in Scripture now in force against V­sury, what Text can be shewed that it is lawful?

Answ. There needeth none; for if the Law of God doe not now forbid it, it is sufficient that the Law of Nature, Reason, and Custom doth make it lawful. A­bout things easie and manifest (saith Mr. Hooker) by common sense, there needeth no higher consultati­on— the meanes of some things is such, that to search the Scripture of God for the ordering of them, w [...]re to derogate from the reverend au­thority, [Page 81] and dignity of the Scrip­ture.

If I should ask Dr. Fenton what Text he hath to prove that Let­ing of Land is lawful, it would ask him sometime to find it; or how he can warrant the selling of Land which is expresly forbid­den in the Law, Levit. 25.23. It may be I can allege as good a Text for Vsury. I think the 6 of Luke which is alleged against it may with better reason be pro­duced for it, and if we will stand to the literal and common sense of the word in the Originall, we may conclude that it is not only allowed, but commanded there; what exceptions can be taken, if a man should translate [...], lend upon usury; Is not that the proper signification of the word in all Authors? Hath not the La­tin borrowed the words▪ Danista [Page 82] an Vsurer, and Danisma Vsury, from the Greek? Although our Translation saith only Lend, this general word may also compre­hend Lending upon use. It accords with the Original, and crosseth not the Translation. But it may be Lending upon usury may be here in this Text allowed by our ad­versaries, if we will observe, as it followeth in the Text, to look for nothing again. These words of looking, or hoping for nothing again, although they be answer­able to the vulgar Translation, yet in the Original they have a­nother more proper significati­on, as is shewed by Beza, who is no friend to Vsury; you shall have his words in his Annotati­ons upon Luke 6.35. I confess (saith he) that I never read in any other place the word [...] in this signification [to hope for] when [Page 83] as properly it signifieth to Despair. And surely it may seem that our Lord in this place did consider what doth many times hinder men from lending their money to their poor brethren (to wit the fear lest they lose what they lend to the poor) and therefore he would remove that fear from us, and bring us to this pass, that as often as we help our neigh­bour for Gods sake, we should never think that it may be to our loss, since God makes himself a pledge and surety that we shall receive with much usury whatsoever wee lend: If we follow this interpretation, then instead of [looking for] we must say [despairing] and so the [...]riack Interpreter understood this place— They are deceived which wrest this place for the prohibition of Vsury; as if Christ had forbid­den us to covenant or exact any thing above the principall. Thus [Page 84] far Beza; wherein we have his opinion and reason, and by the help of his direction the Text may bee most fitly translated, Lend upon Vsury not Despairing; for to lend looking for nothing again, is, as the Bishop of Win­chester hath observed, not to Lend but to Give.

Of the Properties of Letting.

Dr. Fenton and Dr. Downam cannot endure to hear that Vsury should be called Letting of money. Many are the properties that are (as they think) inseparable from Letting, and cannot be found in the putting out of money. Hi­ring or Letting (say they) is of such things as are not spent in the use, But have a fruitfull use in them­selves naturally; which use may be valued a part and be let, the proper­ty remaining in the letter, and the [Page 85] thing if it miscarry without the fault of the hirer belongeth to the letter only. If we ask from whence they collect these distinctions and properties of Letting, or whether they have any rule for them in Scripture; They answer, though there bee no Text for them, yet the Law of Nature and Reason which ordereth and regulateth all humane contracts, doth teach them. Let it be so: And let us have leave a little to examine by the same Law of Reason and common sense these properties of Letting, and see whether any or all of them may be applyed to money.

I confess things hired are not to be spent in their use. Neither is money properly said to bee spent in the use, it is not to speak like a Grammarian, to say any thing is spent in the use, for [Page 86] spending and using are in propri­ety of speech distinct actions, howsoever by reason of some si­militude between them they be used promiscuously by the vul­gar phrase. A thing used doth remain the same after the use to be used again; but a thing spent perisheth or is consumed in the spending, so that no further use can be made of it. Money is not thus spent, at the most it is but said to be spent to him that hath made no profitable use of it, in it self it remains unspent and use­full to others. Thus much Dr. Fenton saw very wel, & therfore he doth not urge this property as Dr. Downame doth, but seems to yeeld, and say pag. 65. That also of spending money in the first use, as if the use and property were inseparable, so much stood upon by School Divines (he might also [Page 87] have said Canonists) is much sub­ject to cavill, for there is sensible di­ference between spending a loaf of bread, and disbursing mony for gain — a loaf once eaten hath no second use to him that eat it, or to any other: mony laid out remai­neth still the same to be used by a­nother; and the same in the Equiva­lent to him that laid it out: and the same individuall peeces which once delivered shall never happi­ly return again to the same per­son; there may be some difference in a Philosophers brain, but not in a merchants purse, it is all one whether it be the same shilling or another as good.

Things let (say they) must have a fruitfull use naturally in them­selves. If this property were true I would confess mony might not be Let. But Common sense doth Confute this asser­tion. [Page 88] What fruitfull use hath a house naturally? doth one house beget or bring forth another? is it not an artificiall thing as tools, instruments, and furni­ture? all which are lawfully Let although they have no more fruitfull use by nature than mo­ny hath. All things that are use­full either by Nature or Art, that have either fructum in them­selves, or questum by industry, are the object of Letting: no man will deny the artificiall use of mony, yet I find Dr. Fenton to contradict himself in this point of the use of mony, his words are, pag. 20. The monyes of a tradesman be his tooles by which he getteth his living: if therefore they be retained from him, to his sensibl [...] detriment, satisfaction is due in ju­stice and equitie without touch of Vsury. In an other place ( pag. [Page 89] 94.) forgetting this he deter­mines that Nothing whatsoever it be, naturall or artificiall, but it ser­veth either to feed, or to cloath, or to work withall, or to play withall: yet for mony there is no use to be made of it.

Mony having thus an Artifi­ciall use distinct from the spen­ding of it, this use of it is valua­ble a part, and to be guided by the same rule which serves for the true valuation of any other Lettable thing: we see by dayly experience that the valuation of the use of mony is more cer­tain than of other things. It re­maines then, that mony hath an artificiall use which is valuable, and in that respect may be let as other artificiall things are.

To proceed. Another proper­ty (say they pag. 16.) of Letting is, that the use only is passed over, [Page 90] the property resting in the Lender. Whereas Lending passeth over the property with the use for the time it is Lent. Is this true? Then a man had need take heed of Lending, If when he lends he loseth the property of the thing lent? Surely I should think that the use and possession only (and not the property) is passed away in Lending and Letting also. He that hath Lent his mony during the time that it is Lent and out of possession, hath power in law and a right to give or be­queath at his pleasure, which he could not dispose of, if he had no property in it. A pro­perty in the sum Lent, or to the equivalent, which is all one as Dr. Fenton hath ingenuously con­fessed. It is a frivolous excep­tion to say he hath not a pro­perty in that Individual shilling [Page 91] which he lent, since art hath so ordered it that all shillings are the self same in use, and as one shilling. If all other naturall and artificiall things, which are con­fessed to be Lettable, were of e­quall value and use; if all hor­ses and sheep were alike in all things without any reall diffe­rence in their goodness and use, it would be all one to him that had let his horse, to receive his own horse or another.

We must understand (saith Dr. Fenton) a speciall kind of Lending which for penury of wordes, and narrowness of our English wanteth a proper term. In Latine it is called [Mutuum] or mutuatio — which is saith he the free passing over both of use and property for a time, at the time ended to receive the like again; thus he. If it be pas­sed over but for a time, then at [Page 92] the time ended the same again must be restored; why then doth he name only the like again? if onely the like be restored then the thing it self is passed over for e­ver.

Dr. Wilson the Civilian in his booke of Vsury puts the Case how hiring of mony may bee lawfull; if a man borrow a 100l onely to make shew of, either at some bank, or otherwise to per­swade the world that he hath a 100l of his own, and if he never spend it but presently restoreth the self same 100. pound which he borrowed, in this Case the Lender may lawfully take and Contract for hire or use of his mony because it is not spent in the use. This Case is borrow­ed from the Papists, and allowes a man to take Vsury for helping to Cosen the world, although [Page 93] himself be no way damnified by the want of his mony.

But the grand impediment of Letting mony is that the Bor­rower (say they pag. 17.) stands to the hazard of it, which they think to be against the law of Ezod. 22.14.

Answ. Concerning hazard, we find that in the Law Exo. 22.12. about beasts delivered to a neighbour onely to keep, that if a beast be stoln he shal [...] make re­stitution to the owner thereof, which Case shews the owner doth not stand to the hazard but the keeper only, who yet hath not so much as the use or property but only the possessi­on of the beast, so Iacob tells Laban Gen. 31.3 [...]. that if any of his sheep were stoln by day or by night, that he made them good; therefore their rule faileth which [Page 94] saith every thing perisheth to the right owner. pag: 17

It may be answered, that whatsoever the Law was for things deposited, yet for things Let the Law is Cleer that the borrower shall not make it good or stand to the hazard, because it came for the hire. Exod. 22.14. This Text is either not under­stood, or wrested to a false sense, as may best appear if we cite the whole Text which Dr. Fen­ton hath curtald to fit his own turn; the words are, If a man borrow ought of his neighbour and it be hurt or dye, the owner thereof not being with it, he shall surely make it good, but if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not mak [...] it good, If it be a hired thing it came fer the h [...]re.

Answ: 1. It may be thought the Text intends beasts only and [Page 95] not other goods or mony, be­cause the four precedent ver­ses to which the Text hath re­ference are restrained to ox, asse or sheep, or any beast: and the same words of dying and hur­ting are used in this verse which are used in the tenth verse where beasts onely are meant, which words are not so proper to ex­press all sorts of hazards of other goods: withall there is greater reason that the hazards of beasts should not light upon the borrower, because, they by the course of nature are daily subject to decay and perish, and many secret diseases lurk in them which the borrowers can­not discern; whereas other goods, and especially mony, are not of so perishable a dispositi­on, but their suddain destructi­on is most times by the act or [Page 96] folly of man, and not from the God of Nature. But if it be gran­ted that the Text understands all goods, then indeed it comes home to the point of Vsury; but it makes for it and not against it: for the law is for things [...]et, that if they be hurt the owner ther­of not being by, he (the borrow­er) shall surely make it good. Now in Usury the owners do not, and for the most part can not stand by and see how their mony mis­carries. Indeed when a thing is hired for some particular end wherewith the Letter is made acquainted, then he may stand by and see how it perisheth, and of such a lending the Text is best understood. It is plain that the Letter (though he had the pro­perty) did not alwaies stand unto the hazard but onely when he stood by, that it might appear [Page 97] (saith Dr. Fenton pag. 17.) not to be the Borrowers default. The Rabbines exposition of this text may give some light to the understanding of it, and it is thus; The words are, if it be hurt or dy: that is, hurt in the use, or dye in the work for which it was hired: If a man (say they) hire a tool for some particular, if it be hurt in doing the work it must not be made good: so if I hire a horse to plow with, and the horse whilest he is in ploughing dy, then I am free. But if I borrow goods or beasts, and they be lost or stoln, or hurt, or taken away by violence, or dy, I am bound to pay all, if such violence do not befall it in the time of the work. If I borrow a horse to plow with, and he dy ei­ther before or after the ploughing I must make him good.

To apply this Text to mony, [Page 98] the most that can be gathered is, that if mony be hurt in the using of it without the Borrowe [...]s de­fault it must be at the Lenders hazard. But since mony is not ordinarily hired for any one particular use expressed, but in generall to be imployed at the Borrowers discretion; how can the Lender of mony be compre­hended within that law which did onely relieve the Bor­rower in case the thing hired did perish in that speciall use for which it was borrowed? The ground of the equity of this Law is, if the thing hired be not [...]ble in its own nature to do the thing for which it was hired with­out perishing, the Hirer is not to be it the hazard of it; mony all men know to be able of its own na­ture to do the thing for which it was hired; if by any Casuall or [Page 99] externall accident mony peri­sheth, the Law provides no reme­dy in such Cases. It is one of the singular benefits and the pri­vilege of mony in traffique that it is not of a perishable nature. The ends why policy found out the use of mony were many: the Chief are, that it might be Dura­ble, Portable, and Partible.

But to grant them that he that stands to the hazard should have all the gaines: Is there not ha­zard to be found in the Letter as well as in the Borrower of mony? many that have Contracted for Vsury by bonds and o­ther security have lost both Principal and Use, and have been thereby undone; surely such people find hazard in it. It is a rule in the Civil law, that omnis mutuatio plerumque dam­nesa, [...]o (que) meretur compensationem. [Page 100] It is fit therefore in equity, that since the Lender stands in hazard there should be a gain due to him also.

But this gain they allow, So it may be conditional, if the borrower gain. And this conditionall gain can only be by Partnership. As for let­ting of mony upon Condition of the Borrowers gain, it is a course as mischievous and impossible as the letting of land upon like Condition; without experience no man can sufficiently describe it. It would make all bargaines to be nothing but sute in law, no debts should be due but up­on proof and witnesses exami­ned; nay there is no possibility of knowing mens gaines or los­s [...]s without racking their Con­sciences, and opening a gap to perjury for every unthrift in his own Cause. Or if loss and gain [Page 101] could be discovered, how shall it appear, whether it be by de­fault of the party or by the act of God? many times they both concur, and are so twisted that no eye of reason can distinguish them. In effect, hereby every man is tied to have an eye to watch the disbursing of every penny which he lends, which is a thing impossible, and there­fore the law of reason and of all nations doth think it fitter to tolerate sometimes a mischief which may happen by an un­fortunate bargain upon an abso­lute contract, than to allow of a perpetuall inconvenience which would follow a Conditionall Co­venant and overthrow the con­tracts of all Common-wealthes. In all letting there is a conside­ration had of the casualties, and because there may be a possibi­lity of extraordinary gaines it [Page 102] must countervalue the extraor­dinary loss if any happen, both which being contingent, and sel­dom happening, they are set one against the other, and a middle indifferent rate between them, which doth ordinarily happen, belongs to the Lender, who is not to partake in the extremes: Because it is rarely to be shewed that any loss can befall a man in liveless goods meerly by the act of God, without the concurrence of some fault of man, either of negligence, ignorance, indiscre­tion, wilfulness, or the like. To conclude, the rule that guides the valuation in all Contracts, is not what Casually is or may be, but what ordinarily is like to happen.

As for Partnership (which is a project much magnified by the adversaries of Vsury) let it be ex­amined [Page 103] what it is. Those are truly Partners who in a Ioint stock communicate their paines and travel: so that an equal industry and privity goes along with the imployment of the stock. There the Trust being reciprocal, the covenants may be equal, and the Laws do relieve men upon their Covenants and mutual agree­ments in such Partnership: But in this their pretended Partner­ship, where there is but a trust of one side, no equality of pains, no privity in trade, no partner­ship in the matter of stock, nor in the form or consent of negoti­ation, but onely a Partnership in the gains, this cannot truly be called a Partnership, but it is only the office of Master and Servant under another name, or false title, and differs only in the manner of the wages, which in [Page 104] this their case of Partnership is contingent, and in the other ab­solute. Besides, in this their counterfeit Partnership, a man may make no covenants that can be good in Law, nor so much as take a Bond for his Principal, but hee must onely trust to the honesty of his friend, since no articles can be made that shall be legal except they bee Vsurious: nor can be drawn so reasonable as an honest man will be bound by them, or so firm that a disho­nest man cannot safely break them.

It seems to me, that after all the stir about Vsury, Dr. Fenton, and all his fellows doe allow of Vsury under another name, Inte­rest; they all agree a man may lawfully take so it be against his will; that is, when a man detains his money from him against his [Page 105] will; but if a man be so courte­ous as to consent that another shall keep his money, hee must then stand to the curtesie of the Borower.

Now that which they doe call Interest, they doe allow in two cases; Either where there is, first Damnum contingens, a loss arising; or secondly, where there is Lu­crum cessans, gain ceasing: so that if either a man receive damage, or that his gain be but hindered, he may take interest. Now in all lending a mans gain is hindered, because he hath not his mony to employ when occasion serveth, or shall be offered: Nor is it re­quisite that ceasing gain must be certainly proved; for that is im­possible, being a thing contin­gent, but a probable estimation of it may bee allowed (by Dr. Downams confession pag. 166.) & [Page 106] in all probability gain ceaseth, or is hindered, wheresoever there is Lending. Therefore by this their own Scholastical distincti­on there is Interest due for all Lending. Only successive or inter­usury which is before delay of Payment they would fain ex­clude. But if Interest be (as their own Melancthon saith) a debt which hee oweth by the Law of Nature, who hath been to ano­ther an effectuall cause of da­mage, or hath hindered his gain, because Nature teacheth that no man must be enriched by the hin­dring of another, according to the Rule of St. Paul 2 Cor. 8.13. That one be not eased, that a­nother may be burdened: Then it will follow, that delay of Payment doth naturally begin from the first minute of Lending; if any will abridge himself of the privilege [Page 107] of Nature by the giving day for payment, yet if it be by a Cove­nant conditional to pay so much interest at the day appoin­ted, then such a Contract is but the ratifying of a naturall debt, with a dilatory payment for the benefit of the Bor­rower.

Thus after all their pretended impediments of Letting money, they are forced to confess at last, that an interest may be justly due and taken; which is nothing else but a hire, a recompense, or an increase of it. The sole doubt they make is about the contract­ing for interusury. Neither is Dr. Fenton nor Dr. Downam, so stif a­gainst contracts when they come to the point▪ as at first they made shew of. Dr. Fenton saith, pag. 64. It is great reason that the deb­tor should trust the creditors chari­ty [Page 108] & not the creditor rely upon the fidelity of the debtor; and Bonds may in some cases be lawfully made, which cannot so lawfully be exact­ed. This he speaks of contracts without any condition of hazard expressed.

Also Dr. Downam doth adde, That if there be a covenant of the one side in eventum lucri, to par­take of the gain, and on the other side but a purpose of bearing part of the loss — I would not altoge­ther condemn such a contract, pag. 163.

Thus both these Divines doe consent that a contract may bee made for interest, if there be but a purpose in the Lender not to exact or oppress thereby. Yet like men uncertain and doubtful what to conclude, they some­times allow a man to take inte­rest so he doe not contract for it, [Page 109] at other times to contract for it, so he do not take it, ( pag. 27.) One while a Bond may be lawfully made, so it be not exacted; another while it is lawfull to take where it is not lawfull to covenant or con­tract. Again, Dr. Fenton saith, pag. 129. That the poyson of Vsury is in some contracts so closely and cunningly conveyed, as the very turn of the intention of the minde may alter the case to make it just or unjust; the contract remaining one and the same. If one and the same contract may be just and unjust, then all contracts are not unjust by his own confession. In another place ( pag. 125.) he tells us, We may puzzle him with some cases so cunnin [...]ly contrived where­in we can find no difference either in Iustice or Charity from other lawfull contracts: Then quaere whe­ther it be within the Definition of [Page 110] Vsury—If it appear just and law­full, it shall not appear usurious, it may perhaps border or coast upon Vsury. Yet our conclusion shall still remain entire, That Usury pro­perly so called is simply unlaw­full. A trim Conclusion. But what are we the wiser for know­ing that all Vsury is unlawfull, unless he teach us what is proper­ly called Vsury? This is the main doubt, what is Vsury, and what is not; whether all increase, or in­crease onely from the poor; whether all contracts for gain by mony be V­sury. If Dr. Fenton may be puzled, and not be able to tell us what Contracts differ from Justice and Charity, and what not; If one and the same contract may bee just and unjust; if that usurious contracts, as they do approach un­to equity so far forth do decline the nature of Vsury, then are we still igno­rant [Page 111] what properly is Vsury, onely we may know that it is unlawfull if we knew what it were. This is the last and safest retreat that Dr. Fenton findeth.

Concerning humane Testimonies of Fathers, Councils, Divines, Heathens, and Laws.

As for the Testimonies of Fa­thers and Councils we do affirm that neither Father nor Councill did ever define Vsury to consist in the contracting for gain, they were not so curious or subtle in those Ages, as to define it at all. But most of those few passages that are in them may best be un­derstood to mean only such V­sury as was an oppression to the poor.

As for Aristole, Plutarch, Cato, Seneca, Pliny, and some others, I shall offer the confession of Dr. [Page 112] Fenton (pag. 65.) Who is perswa­ded that the very conceit of these grounds (of the Philosophers argu­ments) hath moved many to think more favourably of Vsury it self than there is just cause—The force of the Philosophers argument taken from the barrenness of money, and the unnatural brood of Vsury, being mingled with metaphors, if it bee not rightly apprehended, is obscure and doubtfull. That also of spend­ing money in the first use, as if use and property were inseparable—is much subject is cavil.

By these passages wee may see what little confidence Dr. Fenton putteth in the arguments of the Heathen Philosophers against V­sury. As for the bare authority of these men, the speculative de­terminations of so few Phi­losophers, are no way to bee compared with the grave wis­dom [Page 113] of whole states which by practice and by Customes in all ages have approved thereof. I know the abuse of Vsury hath given just cause both to Christi­ans and Heathens to declame bitterly against it. Merchandi­sing (as Dr. Fenton tells us) also Letting of Land, and other tra­dings have their manifold abu­ses, and yet are things lawfull in themselves; and whereas all other trades do oppress but within their own Circle or li­mits, and in such particulars wherein they deal, Vsury dea­ling with mony which is used in all trades, hath made the abuse thereof more generall, and there­fore all men have the more fre­quent occasion to speak against it.

The Civill law which was gathered out of all the best an­tient [Page 114] Lawes both Heathen and Christian, and which is most in use at this day, doth allow Vsury. The Lawes of Venice, Genoa, and the Low-countries (three sim­ply the richest states in Europe) do allow thereof, and yet are free from poor, which perswades that Vsury is not so hurtfull to a state. As for the statute Lawes of this land they do vary, and one statute mislikes and repeales another, but they all allow Vsu­ry of Orphans; And the Law last made since the death of Dr. Fenton in the 21. year of king Iames doth allow eight in the hundred.

The Constant practice of the Common Law of this land, and also of the Chancery in point of equity, doth not only allow In­terest where there is a Contract for it, but also doth give it where there is none.

[Page 115]To end this point, if all Laws and states had thought all Vsury to be unlawfull, and also mis­chievous to a Common-wealth, And if that Partnership be a meanes both lawfull and bene­ficiall, It were strange that no practice nor Law of any nation would never establish this lat­ter; And for all the world to tol­lerate a sin when so easy a reme­dy had been at hand, had been an universall madness.

Argument against Vsury.

It is to some Doubtfull, therefore unlawfull, because Whatsoever is not of faith is Sin.

Answ: This argument doth not make it simply unlawfull to all, but onely to such as doubt, and therefore it proves not the point. For Dr. Fenton his positi­on [Page 116] is, that all Vsury is of it self a sin, and so nothing indifferent. By this Doctrine he first per­plexeth the understanding of the weak, and so makes them doubt, and when he finds them doubtfull, he useth their doubt­ing to prove it unlawful, be­cause they doubt, whereas if it be simply a sin of it self it is as well a sin if a man doubt not as if he doubt. And the place of St Paul Rom: 14. by him alleged, speaks not of sins, but of things indifferent (as eating) which by doubting onely are made sins to the doubters, and to no body els. Now if the Cause why men doubt whether all Usury be sin, be onely for that Dr. Fenton and some others teach so, then the sin of those that doubt may fall heavy upon the Causers of it. And if Dr. Fenton allow Usury [Page 117] to be doubtfull, it cannot but ar­gue rashness peremptorily to de­termine there is no doubt of it, thereby to ensnare the Consci­ences of the simple.

Besides the doubting spoken of by the Apostle, though it were of things indifferent, yet for­merly before the comming of Christ they were things necessa­rily prescribed by the Law, but, after, taken away by the Gospel, so that to doubt of them was consequently to condemn the Gospell, and deny the faith in Christ. But the doubting of U­sury is no establishng of the Ce­remoniall Law, or overthrow­ing of our belief and faith in the Gospell. Neither is all doubt [...]ing meant but such onely as o­vercometh Faith, for there is no faith but it is mingled with some doubting. Lastly it is not [Page 118] necessary that faith should be alwaies grounded upon the Word of God, for if a man be perswaded of any thing by the light of Reason, or by Sense, he is justly said to beleeve it. To the confirmation of this doctrine I must produce some places of ju­dicious Hooker. The will of God (saith he) by which we are to judge our actions, no sound divine in the world ever denied to be in Part made manifest, even by the light of Nature, and not by Scripture a­lone, pag: [...]7. And he adds in ano­ther place, that there may be a cer­tain belief grounded upon other assurance than Scripture — we are said to believe whatsoever we are certainly perswaded of, whe­ther it be by reason or sense, pag: 60. And in a third he gives this reason; It [...]s not required, nor can be exacted at our hands, that wee [Page 119] should yield unto any thing other assent than such as doth answer the evidence which is to be had of that we assent unto: for which cause e­ven in matters divine concerning some things we may lawfully doubt; of some things we may very well re­tain a [...] opinion that they are pro­bable, and not unlikely to be true. Then are our Consciences best re­solved and in most agreable sort unto God and Nature setled, when they are so far perswaded, as those grounds of perswasion which are to be had will bear, which thing I so much the rather set down, for that I see how a number of Soules are for want of right information in this point oftentimes grievously vexed, when bare and unbridl [...]d conclusions are put into their minds: they finding not themselves to have thereof any great certainty Ima­gin this proceedeth only from lack of [Page 120] faith, and that the Spirit of God doth not work in them, as it doth in true beleevers: by this meanes their hearts are much troubled, they fall into anguish and perplex­ity; whereas the truth is that how bold and confident soever we may bee in wordes when it commeth to the point of tryall, such as the e­vidence is, which the truth hath either in it self or through proof, such is the hearts assent thereto, neither can it bee stronger being grounded as it should bee: pag. 73 74. Thus far Mr. Hooker. There­fore it is no argument to con­clude that because the Scripture doth not allow Vsury, therefore it may not be used: for if the Scripture do not absolutely con­demne it, it is sufficient if reason or Sense do guide our belief for the practice of it.

I leave those that doubt to [Page 121] consider what Dr. Fenton him­self saith within a few lines in the same page. pag: 75. This Vsu­ry which we have in hand is no principle of faith, no mystery of Salvation to be apprehended in the simplicity of belief: but a point of Morality belonging to the second table, and so determinable by the rules of Equity and Charity.

It is objected ( pag. 77) that it is Scandalous, and therefore unlaw­full.

A [...]s. If scandall be taken and not given, it is not in it self un­lawfull. Still he flies from the question.

Of the unnaturalness of Vsury

A fourth Reason of Dr. Fenton is, p. 91. that the encrease of mony is unnatural. Therefore unlawfull.

[Page 122] Ans. This is no argument of Divinity from Scripture, but of Philosophy from Aristo­tle.

Secondly, if it were of force, it serves onely against Vsury of money, but not of all other things.

Thirdly, it is confessed, that money considered as it is a metal, is not perhaps by nature apt to generation and increase; and yet even that may bee doubted of: But money considered as it is money, which Art not Na­ture hath produced, may be al­lowed an artificial increase or gain, as well as houses, ships, and many other things not natural. Policy hath ordained the value of Metals to bee the common rule and measure for the worth of all things vendible, and by common estimation it is ac­compted [Page 123] in the place and stead of such things; so that in opi­nion and use mony is both land, house, horse, corn, or any thing that is valued by it; even man himself, who in worth ex­ceeds all other creatures, is by Gods own valuation prized at a certain sum of money, and fifty Shekels of Silver vvere ac­cepted by God in the place and stead of a man who by vow be­longed unto him. Leviticus 27.3.

It being then so apparent, that Money is by Art taken, and used for all things valuable, both by man and God him­self (vvho had his peculiar Coin, the Shekel of the Sanctu­ary, for all sacred uses, Exodus 30.13.) It follows in all reason, that since the nature of most things that are valued and sold [Page 124] is to bring forth an increase, that money it self also which is esteemed for them should doe the like, or else Art is frustrated of her intention, who found out the use of money onely for the ease and benefit of Trade, which proves to be a discommo­dity if the benefit of increase be lost by the conversion into mo­ney.

It is further objected by Dr. Fenton, That money may not bee l [...]t for hire, as a horse, a h [...]use, or [...], because these things are the w [...]rse for letting.

[...]nsw. What thinks h [...], may a [...] man take hire for a house when he binds the Lessee to leave it in as good repair as hee found it? Many times a horse by a mode­rate journey after long rest is the better, whether may the Letter take money for his hire? [Page 125] If this Argument were sound, that no hire ought to be taken, but where the things are the worse for using, then I believe all the Rent that hath been paid for land since N [...]h [...] Flood hath been unjustly taken: For it will hardly appear that any Acre of land is worse now than in his dayes; since many Acres are bettered by tillage and ma­nuring, which by lying waste are hurt; and houses also decay most for want of inhabiting. The true rule of Letting is not onely the Lenders loss in the impairing of the thing lent, but the Borrowers gain by the use of it. And we must consider, as well what the owner is the worse by the want of that use, as what the thing lent is im­paired. If another use my land, though it be not the worse, yet [Page 126] he is the better by having the crop of it, and I am the worse by vvanting that benefit of it which hee made; therefore I justly challenge Rent for it. The like case is for money, the Borrower hath the use of it, and though the money bee not the worse for using, yet the Lender is the worse by missing the commodity which the o­ther makes of it, and the Bor­rower is bettered by the employ­ment of it.

Also it is objected ( pag. 148.) That money is voyd of all immediate use in it self to the possessor while hee doth enjoy it.

Ans. So it is with Land, which immediately neither clothes nor feeds any man, but by the medi­ation of tillage and pasturage both are effected, and though no [Page 127] man immediately eats or wears money, yet by the meanes of it food and raiment are procu­red.

Another objection is, That money the more it doth increase the more it may, which is un­naturall, and contrary to other en­crease.

Answ. It is so in other sorts of increase; for one Sheep brings forth a Lamb, and that Sheep and Lamb in time bring forth a double increase, which multi­plies to a third, and so forward: so one hundred pound brings forth ten pound▪ and both toge­ther in time increase to produce eleven pound. The only dif­ference is, that money is more durable than other fruitfull things, which by course of Na­ture are more perishable.

Of the ungodliness of Vsury.

It is ungodly and impious, against the first Table, because it dependeth not upon Gods Providence, but is as­sured by [...]onds against the Act of God.

Ans. 1. Dr. Fenton forgets that he said Vsury belongs to the second Table; Why is it here made a breach of the first?

Secondly, the Vsurers security is to arm himself against the [...]dina­ry fraudes, negligencies, or other follies of the borrower. If by the hand of God an extraordinary loss do happen, by the like means also an extraordinary gaine may be raised sometimes, both which belong to the borrower, except the mercy of the lender, to whom he is to trust, relieve him▪ [Page 129] And surely the Vsurer hath great­er cause, and seems also to trust God more than any other man, and is least armed against him. He had need pray against foul-weather, tempest, wind, and wrack; for although hee be no Husbandman, Merchant, Trades­man, nor Labourer, yet by the thriving of all these he must live, if all or any of these miscarry, it is not his bonds many times which help him. Neither against the hand of God onely is he un­armed, but against the fraudes of men many times his security cannot defend him. How many have been defrauded of their principall debts by fraudulent deeds of gift, by concealing of goods, and divers other waies? It is true some few in a City may sometimes attain to a noted wealth by Usury; but these are [Page 130] but as ciphers in comparison of hundreds, who living by the like employment of money do scarce attain to a moderate gain where­by to maintain themselves in their first condition; and many tim [...]s as skilfull Usurers as the best, what by the loss sometimes of interest, sometimes of princi­pal, and other whiles of both, and many times by the lying still of their mony for want of rea­sonable security, have proved in the end perfect Beggers by this trade. And what greater argu­ment can there be of the hazard and danger of mony that is lent, than the common opinion of the world, which esteems a small re­venew in land of Fee simple, more safe and certain than al­most a double encrease in mony with perpetual hazard? and for this cause land is dearer than mo­ney.

[Page 131]As for taking of Bonds for payment, it is no more injurious to the Providence of God than to have a bond or covenant of a Tenant for the payment of his rent; for although some yeares by the unseasonablness of the year, or by some other act of God, the land yeelds not the rent contracted for, yet the Tenant is absolutely bound to pay it without any condition of gaining so much by the land: And the reason is grounded up­on great equity, and is all one both for contracts of land and money to be abs [...]lute.

Neither GOD n [...]r Nature have proportioned the valuati­on of Lands Commodities, or Moneys; no Text can be brought to prove an Acre must be sold at such a price, or a commodi­ty at such a rate, the worth of [Page 132] things in proportion one to a­nother, is a humane arbitrary cu­stom, grounded upon the seve­ral necessities or opinions of each particular Nation. Thus the common estimation doth al­low Lands, Goods, and Money taken with all casualties, ha­zards and charges, to be worth one year with another about a certain value; and it is rea­sonable that such a certain va­lue should be contracted for: so that as the Seller or Letter is not to participate of the ex­traordinary gaines that may bee raised, so hee is not to su­stain the losses if any doe hap­pen.

Of the Injustice of Vsury.

It is further urged, ( pag. 98.) [Page 133] that it is unjust, because it takes hire for loan, and sels Charity, which should be free, so that things are not lent but let, if they goe for hire.

Ans. 1. Dr. Fenton can shew no reason why money may not be let, as well as len [...]; as well as a house or a horse which may be both: I ought in great necessity to lend freely to the poor, yet this work of Charity doth not hinder me from letting the same thing where there is not the like necessity.

If the use of money for a time be worth mony in buying and selling, as Dr. [...]. confesseth ( pag. 99.) The rule may better hold in Letting, which is no work of Charity, though both in Letting and Sel­ling Charity is to guide us. It doth not follow that because I must lend a shilling for a day, [Page 134] therfore I may not lend a pound for a year. Besides, even in letting for hire, there is often both Cha­rity and friendship shewed: As, if I let a thing for half the value the use of it is worth to one whom others dare not trust with their goods. If some things which are spent in the first use may be sold for increase, why may not other things that are u­sed be let in the same sort since letting is but a temporary kind of selling, and selling in effect a per­petuall kind of letting. If such things as are bought this day for ten pound may be sold to mor­row for eleven pound, may not the same ten pound which by buying and selling may en­crease in one day to thus eleven pound, may it not by letting en­crease in a whole year to as much?

[Page 135]Nor can there be any reason shewed, since mony hath a gainfull use in it self (and as Solomon saith, answereth all things) why I may not as well let a hundred pound in mony, as a hundred-pounds worth of Cattell, houses or lands, which I buy with my mony: And be­cause they often tell us that he that beares the hazard must have the gain, I must ask what they will say to a lease for life wher­in both parties hazard, yet but one gaines.

Dr. Andrews Bishop of Winche­ster hath an argument against Vsury taken from the Rule of our Saviour, Luke 6.31. as ye would that men should do to you, do yee also to them likewise. Nemo (saith he) sibi vellet Vsuras infligi, cum fratre sic agat igitur. No man is willing to have Vsury taken of [Page 136] him, therefore he must not take himself; every man desires to borrow freely, therefore he must lend freely.

Ans. The Rule of our Saviour must necessarily be thus ex­pounded, Whatsoever yee will, that is, Whatsoever you will according to right reason or commom Iustice; for if any man be so unrea­sonable or so frantick as to will that others should kill him, yet my Lord of Winche­ster will not say that therefore that man may kill another. So he that desires to borrow freely, breaks the Rule of common equity and rectified reason, by coveting his neigh­bours goods; for he that desi­reth to benefit himself by the use of another mans goods, doth therein uncharitably desire the hinderance of his neighbour.

[Page 137]Also it is objected, that the greatness of gain which is made by Vsury is unlawfull. pag. 100

Ans: 1. This is no proof a­gainst all increase of mony; but onely against excessive gaines: whereas it should bee proved that Vsury of a penny in the hundred is a sinne, as well as of ten pounds.

Secondly, By this Rule all gain of merchandising is condemned, which is ordinarily far grea­ter than that of tenne in the hundred.

Thirdly, The greatness of gain by Lending must be esti­mated by the common opinion of the Country: otherwise how can any mans Conscience war­rant him to purchase any inhe­ritance? Men buy land to them and to their heires for ever, that is till Doomesday; which [Page 138] when it will come no man knowes, and yet as if every purchaser knew the hour, he bargaineth for land at fifteen or sixteen yeares purchace. But the last day may come within a year, or within fifteen, or per­haps not within fifteen hundred yeares: howsoever it bee un­certain, yet the publique valu­ation doth esteem it Certain; And no man buyes land at 15. yeares purchace, upon Condi­tion that Doomes-day come not before, because perhaps then he may have a dear penny worth: Nor upon Condition that if the world last longer then fif­teen yeares that thence forward the purchaser should pay a further sum. No, but Custome thinks fit to make an absolute bargain, though by the meer act of God it may bee made a dear purchace.

[Page 139]As the argument of the great­ness of gain in Vsury makes a­gainst trading or merchandising, so thereby also bargaining for leases for term of yeares will be made unjust; And this may the better appear if we exa­mine one of Dr. Fentons exam­ples of Vsury in this kind: If saith he ( pag 21.) purposely to avoid the Statute I will purchase an annuity of twenty pound per annum with an hundred pound for ten yeares, this is bargain and sale, yet the very same with Vsury, differing onely in parch­ment, and manner of Covenan­ting, subject to the same iniquity and in quality; poisoned with purpose of avoiding the Statute and penalty of Vsury.

Ans. [...]. If onely the purpose to avoid the Statute makes his Case to bee Vsury, then before the Sta­tute [Page 140] it was no Vsury, for there could bee no purpose to a­void a penalty that was not, and this is to make Vsury a breach only of Mans Law and not of Gods. Let us ask Dr. Fenton whether a lease for yeares and annuity bought with mony bee Vsury simply in it self; he dares not say it, his an­swer is, pag: 129 We cannot con­dem it for Vsury, and yet he seeth most apparently it is of the very self same nature with Lending upon bonds, and differs onely in the security: upon bond a man ties himself, upon a lease a man ties his land, in both these there is the like increase by mony, and both pay alike at the end.

Secondly, this Case I find put of a lease that brings in a­bove tenne in the hundred, [Page 141] thereby to make it more odi­ous: but give us leave to put it in other termes, and then ask his opinion, If with a hundred pound I purchase an anuity of tenne pounds per annum and twenty shillings over yearly for tenne yeares, Is this Vsury because it is an increase above the principall? It is the very self-same bargain in nature with his, it differs only in the quantity of the increase. Now both by his definition and ar­gument, as well the increase of a penny is Usury as of tenne pounds in the hundred, so then by his doctrine a man may not buy a lease worth one penny more than his principall. If it bee pretended that bargain and sale of leases be lawfull if it be reasonable, otherwise not; then if the unreasonableness onely [Page 142] of the bargain make it a sinne of Vsury, then the former do­ctrine which saith all increase is Vsury, is thereby denied, And I confess that an unreasonable bargain is a sinne, but of theft in generall not of Vsury.

Thirdly, The principall pur­pose in buying an annuity or lease for yeares is to gain by a hundred pound, which since it could not safely bee done by bonds, therefore by a second intention men labour to a­void the Statute, so that to gain and in gaining to avoid the Statute is the purpose of such Contracts, and not chiefly to a­void the Statute, which might best be avoided by not purcha­sing at all.

Fourthly, It is no sinne to a­void a statute by lawfull meanes; if the Contract of bargain and [Page 143] sale bee in it self lawfull, why should it be a vice and not a vertue thereby to avoid the penalty of the Law, since lawes are purposely made to force men to avoid them by lawfull meanes.

Fiftly, Whereas Dr. Fenton (pag. 129.) concludeth, that if simply without any pretence such annuity of rent bee bought or sold, wee cannot condemn it for Vsury. It followes that the pretence or intention of the heart, and not the Contract makes it Vsury: and that (as he himself confes­seth pag. 128) if the intention be right, that which formally is Vsu­rious, upon the matter may i [...] justice bee equivalent to a lawfull Con­tract. If formall Vsury may bee no Vsury, wee must look for a new definition of Vsury in the Consciences of men, and not [Page 144] in Dr. Fentons treatise; And if Vsury bee committed in Buy­ing and Selling, what Contract will bee found in the world without Vsury?

To Instance in some other Contracts, let us consider of the absolute buying and selling of land, or of purchasing an annuity for life; because these two Con­tracts are esteemed by most men to be the lawfullest of all others, yet in both these, the just and ordinary valuation both of fee simple land and of leases for lives is grounded and guided by Vsury onely, and as the use of money goeth higher or lower, so the prices of these rise and fall, so that in very truth he that purchaseth land is the greatest Vsurer in the world▪ because he maketh the greatest and certainest gain by [Page 145] his bargain, for example; Ad­mit land is bought and sold for sixteen yeares purchase, and let the inheritance of the land bee made away for so little a summe as the land will bring home in sixteen yeares; what Conscience is there to keep that for ever, which in so short a time payeth the purchaser his principal? There can be no other reason yielded for this great disproportion but this, that both the Purchaser and Seller do equally value the use of the money, and do make the bar­gain accordingly. The purchase-mony considered with the Use of it would last about a thou­sand yeares in paying yearely so much as the Rent of the land is, therefore the Purchaser ex­pects to enjoy, and the Seller in­tends to part with the land for [Page 128] ever, because the inheritance of the land after a thousand yeares is not valuable, for that ordinarily within four or five hundred yeares the possessions of the antientest families come to a period, or decay. In like manner, an annuity for life is bought for nine yeares purchase, not because a mans life is ordi­narily taken to last but nine yeares, but because the mony with the use will last almost twice nine yeares in paying the annuity: so that if the Purchaser of the annuity dye within eigh­teen yeares, the Grantor may be a gainer, or at the least a saver, by the bargain; but if he live above eighteen yeares the Gran­tor must be at loss. This Casu­ality of a lease for life, wherein the Buyer hopes by his own life to be a gainer, and the Seller [Page 146] hopes by the death of the Buyer to bee a gainer, hath made some men (if wee will believe Thomas Aquinas) to think that a lease for life is the worst kind or dou­ble Vsury, because there is an Vsurious intention on both sides, as well in the Grantor as in the Grantee to gain.

If many men who are fit for Callings live idlely on Usury, they sinne, but no otherwise than those that let their lands: they may and ought to serve God and their Country in some Calling, if they do not, it is no fault of Vsury, but an abuse of it. Neither let any man fear that Vsury will bring idleness in the world for if all men be idle there can be no Vsury. It is the usury-imployment of men by their trading that makes the use of money to be at so high a [Page 148] value, and many must bee idle if they borrow not a stock to set them on work.

Of the Vncharitableness of Vsury

In the last Chapter of Dr. Fenton his second book, I did expect some extraordinary ar­gument against Vsury, because it treats of the breach of Charity by Vsury, and the opposition between them: I did long to see it proved; but now I am come to it, I find it the shortest Chap­ter in his book, both in quantity, and proof, the little that he saith is in effect, that Vsurers are commonly uncharitable. pag. 106.

Answ. I did expect to have i [...] proved that all Vsury is in it sel [...] uncharitable, and he tells u [...] that all Vsurers are so: It is the [Page 149] fault of the men, and not of the thing. Thrift which of it self is a vertue, being abused is the hinderance of Charity, and yet Thrift is no breach of Cha­rity: A thrifty man and an V­surer may bee mercifull to the poor, because they are many times better able than others. If Vsury of it self were a breach of Charity: then not to lend to Vsury were an act of Charity; which is but a meer Privation and no Act at all. The reason why Vsurers bee commonly found merciless, is for that in many men Covetousness makes them Vsurers, and not Vsury brings them to be Covetous. Many Vsurers are found wel­disposed to Charity, and give twice as much to Charitable u­ses as those that have twice their estate in Lands and are no [Page] Vsurers. Since then all Vsurers are not uncharitable, and those that be, are found, and not made such by Vsury, it is but small Charity to say that Vsu­ry of it self is the breach of Cha­rity.