THE Philosopher saith, The way to teach well, is to distinguish well: whosoever then di­stinguisheth ill, or not at all, teacheth ill. This I observe is one grand de­fect in The Ʋsurer Cast; as proving an inlet to all those uncharitable Censures, run­ning (like bloud in the body) through all [Page 2]the parts thereof: In that, with the gross­est oppression and most griping exaction, he blends and huddles up the receiving or ex­pectation of the least gain on the account of Mony lent; bringing the persons that do the one and the other, under the same cen­sure and condemnation; and within his cir­cle taking in the greatest part of the Na­tion; few escaping (as he saith) his Anato­my. Epist. Dedic.

With a more tender hand, and candid spirit did Pious, Of Sacra­ments p. 213. Learned Vines write, whose words are these:

To render a sin manifest and notorious, I suppose, first its requisite, that it be manifest­ly a sin, and this is Quaestio juris [an enqui­ry of what is right] for a thing may be com­monly cried down under the name of an enor­mous crime, and yet indeed be very doubtful: I instance in Ʋsury; where the question is, what it is? then, whether this in question be Ʋsury? then, whether all Ʋsury be sinful? for there are great Names of Learning and Godliness, who upon considerable reasons do deny it, &c.

Such expressions as by the Fathers were used as Rhetorical flourishes, or by them and others designed against oppressive, ex­acting Usurers, hath Mr. J. taken the pains to collect, and crown the head of o­thers with, that little deserve them. With him every one that taketh gain upon Loan, [Page 3] is a Dog, like the Devil, an Extortioner, p. 21, &c. an unjust person, a biter, a thief, covetous, a destroyer, a merciless person, Murderer, Baptised Jew, made equal with Adulterers, of the generation of Vipers, is not in case to give an Almes, &c. with other Titles of the like nature; the which, whether of right they do belong to the persons by him inten­ded, will in some sort appear by the sequel of this discourse.

For the right stating whereof, and for the timely preventing of prejudices-and mistakes, lest what is here written should be by any surmised to be designed for the justifying or palliating extravagant actings, I think it necessary to premise;

There are several practices of men, com­monly passing under the name of Usury, the which are not only condemned in the holy Scriptures, but have in most Ages and Countries been deservedly made infamous, both by Laws and Punishments; as also by Godly Writers in these respective Ages and Places. To which rank belong a cru­el griping of the Poor and Indigent, a ri­gorous and merciless exacting of Debts, a taking all possible advantages for to in­veigle other Mens Estates, and exceeding those Bounds that are prescribed by Law, and common Equity; a devising of sundry cunning sleights in Contracts, that are con­trary to plain and honest dealing, with ma­ny [Page 4]other unwarrantable pretences and cloakes, too commonly made use of by men for the increasing their own gain by others loss; all which bear the name of Usury, and under that Notion; taken notice of by the Expositor of the Catechism used in the Low-Countries, By Jer. Basting p. 226. and in the Dominions of the County Palatine.

In condemning things of this or the like Nature, I dare say, there's none of his Bre­thren would scruple to joyn with him: but whiles he overdoes it, and under the same condemnation brings all others, that receive any thing back above the Loan, or that have but an intention or expectation of gain on that account; it must not be thought strange, if all men are not of his mind here­in.

Let it be considered, whether it be not a likely way to strengthen the hands and harden the hearts of griping Usurers, to joyn with them a great part of this and o­ther Nations; and among these too, many sober, serious, pious, learned persons: I say again, such confused writing of things and persons, as we find in this Treatise, is a more likely way to harden Oppressors and greedy Cormorants in their unjust and rapacious practices, than to convince them, or abate the number of them.

Mr. J. makes choice for the ground­work of his discourse, p. 7. of Psal. 15.5. He [Page 5]that putteth not out his Mony to Ʋsury: from whence he observes, No Ʋsurer li­ving and dying in the Sin of Ʋsury can be sa­ved. To counterballance his argumenta­tion from this Text, I shall cite Mr. Dix­on's Commentary on the same. A Sixth fruit (saith he) and evidence of faith, is dispensing with Commodity, when God by a special reason calleth for so doing, albeit o­therwise a man might take reasonably more gain; many of such sort of cases do occur in Merchandize, and in exacting of Rents and Debts, as circumstances may teach, when and where God calleth for most moderation: Such was the judicial dispensing with Com­modity, put upon the Jews for loosing the Yoke of a Bought Servant, being a Jew, at at the end of six years, and quitting of Hou­ses and Lands bought from a Jew, at the Year of Jubilee, how dear soever it cost the Buyer; and not taking Ʋsury of a Jew, wherein the Jew was priviledged above men of another Country: for in all these three par­ticulars, it was lawful for the Jew to do o­therwise with other Country-Men, viz. In buying a Servant from a Stranger of another Country, and transmitting it to his own Poste­rity; and taking Ʋsury of a Stranger, ac­cording to the Rate which was acknowledged on all hands to stand with Equity; which Commodity if an Israelite did not dispense with toward an Israelite, it made him short [Page 6]of this commendation of the true Israelite, who putteth not his Mony to Ʋsury.

Thus far Mr Dixon, who understands the Law concerning Usury, with several others, to be peculiar to the Jewish Nation and Common-wealth.

To Mr. J. personating David, p. 8. I shall say, unless he use David's sling with Da­vid's spirit, it were better he let it alone; lest letting flee, as he does, amongst such a heap and Conglomeration, (as he calls them) such a mixt multitude, I mean, as take in­crease, instead of Goliah, he hit some that truly fear God, wounding his little ones, and making sad those hearts he ought not; and so be brought to Confession and Re­cantation with Job's three friends, that spake not a right of God, and to the grief of his Servant Job.

The several Names by him mention'd as given to Usury, Chap. 3. I shall not here concern my self in; there having been, and still is such rigid exaction and bitter oppression in the world, whereto all his Titles and Ety­mologies attending properly belong.

But Interest he will not have called; p. 10. Why not? Seeing Interest is an Overplus a­bove the Principal, the which he confesseth the Antient Doctors of the Church call U­sury. Let us see his reason to the contrary. Interest with him is lawful, because properly 'tis damage Money to be paid for the keeping [Page 7]back of a Mans Money. Mark the Nicety; It is unlawful in his Account for a man to receive from another any thing for the pos­session and use of his Money; but, saith he, for the same Money unduely kept back 'tis lawful to receive damage Money. That is, in other terms, if you lend your Money for a half year only, it is unlawful to take Use for the Money so lent, whatsoever loss is by you sustained; but if the person to whom the loan is made, keep it beyond the time Covenanted, then you may take (if not Use, yet) damage Money for the detai­ning thereof. If Interest may be paid, why is it not as lawful for me to give for the Improvement I have made of anothers Mo­ney, as for the loss he hath sustained by the loan?

The weakness of such reasoning with the nicety of such distinguishing, I find suf­ficiently laid open by the famous Grotius; Annot. in Luc. 6.35. Video à plerisque, &c. I perceive (saith he) that most of those, who condemn Ʋsurary con­tracts, do not disallow of such Ʋsury as doth arise from delay, and thereupon grant, that unless the loan be returned at the time appoin­ted, I may contract for Ʋsury; but what other is this, save to affix the Law to words, and not to things? For, if that opinion be receiv­ed, it shall be lawful thus to covenant; unless you repay within three days, you shall give so much for delay; if so be the mention of those [Page 8]three days were omitted, the Contract would be unlawful; such are the Subterfuges of words, whereby the subtilty of the Schools de­fends it self, which when applyed to things, then its vanity appears.

In Grotius his Account then, this legiti­mating, paying for delay, by such as plead against all use, is but a hard shift they are driven to, a playing with words or a meer evasion.

I would be satisfyed, if Mr. J. please in these following Inquiries; 1. Whether it be lawful for one that lends, to Expect something for his loan, upon a supposition of this delay? 2. Whether it was lawful for a Jew lending to his poor Brother, to receive this Damage-Money? 3. Whether, if Damage make the gain thereupon taken lawful, one that puts out his Money for a year to his damage, may not as justly re­ceive satisfaction for that years damage su­stained, as for what accrues in the years fol­lowing, when the time is expired and pay­ment delayed? with what ballances do they weigh, that hold it lawful to receive Inte­rest-money either upon the Account of gain­ceasing, or loss sustained; and yet condemn the receiving any profit for a certain sum lent for several years; seeing it is so hard to make an universal Distinction between the one and the other?

I attend his motion onward: Damage-money [Page 9](saith Mr. J.) is to be paid for the keep­ing back of a mans money; when it was due Whereas, say I, it was by the Lenders volun­tary consent, that the Money was at any time undue; being he might have kept it at first in his own hand if he pleased; and by the like voluntary consent it might have continued undue for a longer season.

I come to the Definitions of Usury pro­duced by him; some whereof place it, p. 11. in Exacting gain, others in the Compact or Co­venant, he also in the Expectation; Though Mr. J. frequently boasts of the numbers standing on his side, yet he produceth very few, that go hand in hand with him, in sta­ting it so high, viz. in the expectation or hope of any gain.

His own Definition is this, Ʋsury is a certain and absolute gain, compacted for, or expected, and taken for the loan of things, which may be consumed in the use thereof.

I know not whether this Definition be to be taken in a compounded or divided sense; I mean, whether this gain, to make it complete Usury, must be both certain and absolute, compacted for, expected and ta­ken, &c. or else any one of these differences added unto gain, as the Genus, may be e­nough to make it Usury, provided it be, for the loan of things, which may be consumed in the Ʋse thereof. If it must be taken in a divided sense (as the disjunctive particle [Page 10]would inforce) then some terms are redun­dant and superfluous; but if it be taken in a Conjunctive Sense, then whatsoever gain so taken or expected, is not absolute and certain; but uncertain and conditional is not Usury; so also, when the same is expected, but not compacted for. Besides, This limi­tation of absolute and certain (whatsoever the rest be) is not scriptural; but added ('tis like) on purpose to salve Adventuring from being Usury; For all the other parts of the Definition agree thereto. So doth his second Definition, which is, Whatsoever is more then the principal, compacted for, or expected, and taken for the loan of things, which may be consumed in the use thereof. The like doth that taken from Ambrose, viz. Whatsoever is more than the Principal is Ʋ ­sury; as also that other Definition, which he says is generally received, viz. All that a man takes over and above the Money lent; Such, I say, is gain upon adventure.

The which being denyed by Mr. J, let us examine his Reasons; The gain of adven­turing (saith he) depends upon the Ships safe coming and going.

And so doth the gain of loan, and prin­cipal too, depend on many mens single ho­nesty, ability and integrity; or if it did not, there is in the former proportionable gain that answers the hazard, in that the adventu­rer takes three times the gain (or more) [Page 11]that the other takes, who lends upon Use.

He adds, Because the Principal is lost, if the Ship be lost. I Reply, so the lenders prin­cipal is lost, if the Debtor break; and so too the Adventurers gains be great, if Ship or Bills return.

He goes on with Explaining the Term of the Definition; It is gain compacted for; —thus much thou must pay me for Ʋse.

Reply, He is not ignorant, that some lend without such a Compact, the which yet es­cape not his censure. It shall suffice here to say, that it is the law that bounds and li­mits the sum to be taken; and ordinarily to take, what the Law (grounded on Equi­ty) allows, I see not the Injustice; for if it be the Law, that distinguishes propriety, and in some cases, with us of this land, states the price betwixt buyer and seller, why it may not do so here in our Case, I under­stand not. Or Expected or Intended. Mr. J.

This is pleaded from our Saviours Injun­ction, Luke 6.35. And lend hoping or look­ing for nothing again. This being the place of Scripture he builds so much confidence on, and so often quotes to prove their state damnable, that expect any the least gain from Loan: In the sense hereof, if he be mistaken, (as I doubt not to make it appear that he is) then down totters his Definition, with all the harsh censures built thereon.

For his two Divines here cited by him to [Page 12]strengthen his Interpretation of this Text, I shall give him by and by several others, that put other senses upon the same, and these more probable.

In the mean time I shall demand, whe­ther this intention, or expectation of gain were Usury under the Law, a ore these words were spoken by Christ; or was it unlawful under the Law to lend hoping for any thing again, from any hand whatsoe­ver? if yea, where was the same prohibi­ted? produce the Text: But the contrary can be shewn, in that lending to Strangers for gain was allowed; and therefore gain expected, did not universally lay open the the expectant to censure. But if this be only a Definition of Usury under the Gos­pel, then he necessarily falls in with those which hold, that Christ did not only inter­pret, but added to, and perfected the Law by new Counsels.

He asserts, And taken, as part of the Definition, yea, enough to make it Usu­ry, if Jerom may be judge, whom he brings in saying: Whatsoever it be that a man tak­eth above that which he gave or lent, is cal­led Ʋsury or an overplus. If this be true, it makes against Interest and a free gift too, (which are yet by Mr. J. allowed) for both these are taken. We understand far­ther from him, that this taking must be nei­ther directly nor indirectly, neither by him­self [Page 13]or another, as if it were some bribe or Simoniacal Contract.

He superadds, for Loan; for that is the Ingredient that poyfons all. I may then receive a free gift from a rich man, be it Mony, House or Land: but if I expect, or receive any of these from him upon the ac­count of Loan, this is the sin of Usury.

But why may not any thing be taken for Loan? because Loan ought to be gratuitous: Mr. J. p. 1. Of a truth this is a free borrowing, or ra­ther begging the question, taking that for granted, and using it as an argument which is the very thing to be proved. How proves he that taking gain for mony lent is unlaw­ful? his reason is, because all Loan ought to be free. How doth he prove that all lend­ing even to men able to make recompense ought to be free? that of Luke 6.35. will prove no more but that we ought to lend freely to some persons there intended, viz. the Poor; so say most Divines that I have met with on this Subject; at present I shall name but one, viz. Mr. Tho. Taylor: On Tit. 2.12. p. 471. Thirdly, (saith he) be ready to distribute and lend freely to the Poor, looking for no­thing again; for there is injustice as well in withholding that which Gods Word hath made another mans Due, as in purloining his Right from him: Now the Word commanding to give to the Poor according to every ones abi­lity, and to lend to the Poor Members of [Page 14]Christ, if need require, freely; to be hard­hearted and strait handed in these cases, is to be unjust, &c.

But if all lending must be free, then let this contract pass under another name, and that sore is healed. Hear Ames;

That all Ʋsury is generally and absolutely unlawful, De Cons. l. 5. c. 44. can solidly be proved by no natu­ral reason: Not of those who say that lend­ing of its own nature ought to be free; for neither can this be proved; that all lending, how soever circumstantiated, ought to be free; and if this were granted, nothing else would thence follow; but that lending, if it be not freely done, passeth into some other Contract, either named or unnamed; either simple or compound.

The Opposer for proof of his last asser­tion, brings in God saying, ( Deut. 23.19.) Thou shalt not lend upon Ʋsury, but that is elsewhere limited, to thy poor Brother.

The close of his Definition is, for Loan of things which may be consumed in the use thereof, from Deut. 23.19.

Reply: If money be consumed in the use thereof; yet Houses, and Fields, and Land, and Wares remain which were purchased by the consumption of this money lent. Of no more strength is that argument which is taken from the selling of Wine and the use thereof: which arguing, I find be­fore hand confuted by Learned Ames, Ut supra §. 8. say­ing, [Page 15] It cannot be proved by those who alledge, that in such things as are consumed in using, the dominion is not distinguished from the use, and therefore nothing can be taken for the use, beyond the worth of the thing, or the thing it self: for it is answered, the gain is not recei­ved meerly for the use of the thing lent, as to its substance; but as to its worth or fruit, which remains after the substance is consum­ed, and subsists often in things which are not consumed in using; as also for the office and act of lending, from whence the borrower makes his advantage.

Rivet answers the same Objection; Rivet. Ex­plic. Dec. p. 287. Quod autem instant, &c. whereas they urge, That the use of money is it's consumption, but in such things, wherein the Ʋse is the same with the Consumption, in these the Ʋse is not sepa­rated from the Propriety; neither may distinct things be received for both; as Wine and the Ʋse of Wine cannot be sold apart, because this is the very consumption of the Wine: That is easily answered, by distinguishing the ambigui­ty of the Word Use, which signifies either the Consumption of the Money, or the profit gotten from the Money consumed; although there­fore the Propriety of the Money, and the right of consuming it, or the Ʋse cannot be separated; yet the Consumption it self is one thing, and the profit or gain thence arising is another; the con­sumption is but once computed, not twice; and [Page 16]the gain also is once computed; an equal sum is repaid for the principal Money consumed, and somewhat beside is not unjustly demanded for the undue Office of lending, and for the time wherein the Money was detained, and for the Creditors missing the means of increasing his own Estate.

So then the light Mr. J. promiseth from the Argument of Wine, and it's Use, as di­stinct, will prove but darkness; And the Ca­vil (if there be any) between things sett and lett, and such as are consumed in the Use thereof, remains on his side; for as much as things, that may be sett and lett are pur­chased by the Consumption of the Mo­ney.

I have examined his Definition of Usury, p. 14. his description thereof next falls in my way, which helps us to see what manner of thing Ʋsury is. In the handling whereof Mr. J. is either himself misled, or would mislead others by his wonted confusion of things that ought to be distinguished; for whatever in former Ages was spoken against the grossest Cheats, Oppressions, Frauds and Exactions, all engrost under the Name of Usury, or by any Usurers were ever pra­ctised; these he takes in, and distributes, with the blame and punishment attending equally to the most oppressive Usurer, with the most moderate taker of use or gain for Loan: with what Conscience let him see to it.

Mr. J. Ʋsury is a most abominable thing.

Reply: No doubt it is, and has been, as some have handled it; but where's the a­bomination or incongruity to Reason or Na­ture, if one mans money improved by ano­thers pains or skill, prove gainful to them both? In Grotius I meet with a saying of Andronicus Rhodius; De Jure, &c. p. 238. The gain that is received by the consent of the Contractors is neither unjust, nor to be reproved, seeing the Law grants power thereof.

And Grotius himself says; De Jure, &c. l. 2. c. 10. §. 2. Concerning things not extant, it hath pleased Mankind, that if thou art made the richer by my Goods which I have not in possession, thou art so far obliged, as thou art made richer; for how much the more thou hast gained by my Goods, so much thou hast, and I have so much the less, &c.

What is here and elsewhere brought by Mr. J. against Usury, both from the Fa­thers and Heathens, respects the practice of it as it was in their times; which I believe was bad enough, being attended with Ra­pine, rigid Exactions, over-reaching, &c. Thus saith Grotius, thus Rivet: Idem p. 235. Rivet de Decalogo.

What is cited out of Aristotle, Cicero, Plu­tarch, &c. against Ʋsury, respects not so much what is intrinsecal, as what is accidental, and commonly attends it. The like may be said of the expressions of the Fathers, which [Page 18]are very bitter against Ʋsury: for they had respect to that Ʋsury which prevailed too much in all Ages against Equity, Honesty, Charity and Faithfulness; as Chrysostome upon Matthew said, there was nothing more cruel; nothing more shameful than the Ʋsu­ry of his time: but it follows not that they un­derstood it of all Ʋsury, &c.

As for the sayings of the Heathens that are so rigid: I find in Seneca a general Rule for the right understanding of such like pas­sages.

Some things (saith he) are commanded be­yond measure, De benef. l. 8. c. 22. that they may return to their proper and right measure; as when we say a good turn ought not to be remembred by the doer, we mean this, it ought not to be publi­shed or boasted of. c. 23. Again, As often as there is little confidence in those things thou requi­rest, more must be injoyned than is sufficient; that what is sufficient may be performed: In this every Hyperbole exceeds, that we may come to the truth by a lye.

Mr. J. (2.) It is a most dangerous thing.

Reply: Not so, where no Rule of Chari­ty, Equity, Honesty or Fidelity is broken; as there is not in the thing debated, whiles kept within due bounds and limits. Saith famous Rivet; In Decal. p. 288. As far as any Contract of Loan doth contradict Charity, and hurteth our Brother, we judge it to be forbidden by [Page 19]the Law: but not so, where Equity is ob­served, and our Brother not wronged by the Loan; there it is neither repugnant to Cha­rity, nor to the Law, whose end is Chari­ty.

What is by Mr. J. produced out of Neh. 5. may be hereafter considered: on­ly this I shall say; Whereas they had pro­mised to leave Usury and restore; I wish you (said he) to promise so too: A good Rule and necessary to be practised, where 'tis rightly applyed: But I perceive we must be content with this expedient, till he be at leisure to communicate that better one in the point of Restitution, by him intend­ed to make the work more facil and easy, Epist. Ded and to keep from dispondency.

Mr. J. (3.) It is a most infamous thing, so as that whereas others in writings under­write themselves, either Husbandmen, &c. from their Callings, the Ʋsurer is ashamed to call himself an Ʋsurer.

Reply: This (and it may be the rest of his description) concerns only such as make a Trade of Usury, and have no other Cal­ling or Imployment to lay out their time & thoughts on: Such were they whom Austin called scabbed through Idleness, and Chry­sostome likens to Asses. Let Rivet answer him: — But such as lend to the wealthi­er; p. 283. if they lend only out of an idle or lazy humor, because they will not employ them­selves [Page 20]in a Calling, nor exercise any honest Function, they are unexcusable, because they propose to themselves an evil end, and contra­ry to the Divine Will: but such as out of an inability for trading, or necessiry; as Wi­dows, Orphans, Aged, Students, and the like, who are otherwise employed, and taken up with other Functions; if they enter such Compacts, they offend not: for in that they themselves cannot Trade, whatsoever sub­stance they are owners of, would be soon con­sumed, if they live upon the Stock, and take thence for the supply of all their needs; and not put it out with such as on just accounts might gain thereby, and call them in to be par­takers of the gain.

Mr. J. (4.) A most monstrously increa­sing thing it is.

Reply: Some of these Monsters he mentions, which we are nothing con­cerned in; such as the taking weekly 20 pounds for an hundred, or more: yet he that taketh the least mite for a thousand pounds, incurs as severe a censure from him, as adjudged to the same condemna­tion.

Mr. J. (5.) A most cruel thing it is; for it is always biting, — both day and night, Winter and Summer, and makes no diffe­rence between Lords days and Week days.

Reply: Such kind of reasoning, minds me of a certain Commander, mentioned by [Page 21] Cicero, who having made a truce for certain days, was wont to ravage by night, De Off. l. 1. p. 15. pre­tending, that Nights were not included in the Truce. Is it not pity our Author had been by, to have prompted the Parliament when they were making the Act concerning Usury, that borrowers might have been discharged from paying Use, at least, for the Nights and Sabbath days throughout the year?

But doth not the Adventurers gain go on at the same rate? and when the Farmer makes up his Rent for a year, do not nights and Lords days come into account, and alike fill up the time with the rest? but this reasoning (as the foregoing) is not his own; he freely borrows, and never tells the World to whom he is beholding.

The next Chapter begins with an Inqui­ry, Chap. 4. How Ʋsury differs from other contracts and dealings; as Inter-Ʋsury, Interest, Ship­loan, &c. which indeed are but Usury under other names, or Notions invented to palliate mens Consciences, that they have no hand in Usury, when they really practice it: not that I assert either of them unlawful; but that Usury regulated (as its requisite the other should be too) has the same plea from reason that either of them hath. Seneca. Ita sublato altè supercilio, in eadem quae caeteri, descenditis, mutatis rerum nominibus: Thus [Page 22]some men can look alost, and yet stoop to the same practices they condemn in others, only changing the names thereof. Review the three Definitions of Usury, mention'd by him: Whatsoever (saith Ambrose) is more than the principal, is Ʋsury: saith the Council of Agatha, where more is required than was given: And all that a man takes o­ver and above the mony lent: which he makes general. Take either of these three Definitions without supplement and po­stils, and examine Inter-usury, Interest and Ship-loan by them, and they will appear to be Usury, each of these being somewhat a­bove the Principal, &c. Concerning those Exactors mentioned Neh. 5. I have a desire to know, seeing they might not take Usu­ry of their brethren; Whether they might not have taken Inter-usury? for it is like they came under some incommodity through the borrowers default: or whe­ther they might safely have taken Interest for the payment of their money due for a day delayed, or neglected, as Mr. J. speakes? I shall trace him in each of these.

Mr. J. Inter-usury is money received only for an incommodity, &c.

Reply: As if many that lend Money did not feel the same incommodity in the ab­sence or want thereof for months or years; or what other incommodity can be meant, besides what is occasioned by the want or [Page 23]absence of his Money, except what may be spent in Law for the recovery thereof, I know not.

Mr. J. Interest is taken for the payment of Mony due for a day delayed, or neglect­ed.

Reply: That it was for any time undue, was by a free Contract on the lenders part, who might have stated the day for return of payment, sooner or later, as he thought behoveful for his own convenience: it seems then, for money delayed beyond the day of payment, I make Interest; but for Money lent this side that day, I may not take any thing with a safe Conscience: this is such discourse as will puzzle a man to find out the reason of.

I shall borrow help from Learned Rivet to answer this. — Adde, p. 282. that they who otherwise are wont to reject all other Contracts of whatsoever sort, wherein for mony lent, any one bargains for a sum above the Princi­pal; yet with common consent, they do pro­pose divers Causes for which they determine such a sum may be taken. 1. If the Debtor be in delay of payment, for then, if he pay not at the set time, they think that somewhat be­yond the Principal, as they call it, may be ex­acted by way of punishment; because this de­lay may prove hurtful to the Creditor. More­over, when any one suffers damage on the ac­count of his mony lent, this damage, which [Page 24]ariseth from the laying out of his money, he may by right demand some recompense, which they call gain from damage-arising: as when one with the same money which he delivered to another, at the same time, could and would have gained somewhat himself, they judge it lawful to covenant with another, and to re­quire somewhat beyond the Principal, because it is unlawful for one man to gain with anothers money to his loss, arising from gain-ceasing: yea though it be not certain, yet when loss is probably feared, may the Creditor lawfully covenant, before it happens, saith Tolet. l. 5. de instruc. sac. c. 34.

Mr. J. Ship loan is differenced from Ʋsu­ry, in that, this is a certain gain without ad­venturing; but Ship-loan is upon adventu­ring upon a Ship, Principal and all; so as that if the Ship be lost, all is lost.

Reply: Whereas he is wont to send us to Scripture for a proof of the lawfulness of lending to the rich, let him expresly prove from the same the lawfulness of this Ship­loan: and as I have said before, let him consider how the greatness of the gain, compacted for and expected, may serve to counterpoize the hazard that is run.

Hear Grotius: De Jure, &c. p. 236. That one of the company be partaker of the gain, but secured from loss, is indeed beside the nature of fellowship; yet it may be so agreed on without injury: for the Contract will be mixt; of fellowship, and of [Page 25]the Contract of Insuring; wherein an equali­ty will so be preserved, if he receive by so much the more gain, then otherwise he should receive; if he had not taken the loss upon himself.

Rivet writes thus: p. 282. Neither doth this Con­tract of Ʋsury differ much from the Contract of Fellowship, as they call it; when one man can trade, but wants money; another has money, but cannot trade: if these enter into fellowship, that the one shall bring his money, the other bestow his labour: which contract is also counted lawful on both sides; for what is wanting of money is supplied by industry, and on the account of gain resulting from the use of the money, there is somewhat given instead of a recompense to him that laid out the same.

Mr. J. Ʋsury is different from liberal in­crease, in that this comes unlooked for, and not the other.

1. Reply: Whoever hath gained by mo­ney lent him, is by nature it self bound to be thankful; yea, (upon due supposals) to make some requital; unless he would be found to have less of humanity, than the sinners of whom our Saviour speaks in Luke 6.32, &c. who love those that love them, and do good to those that do good unto them. It will be easily granted, that he which par­takes of the benefit (if able) is bound to some requital; but for the benefactor so much as to expect, or look for any returns, [Page 26]is, say they, an horrid sin. Strange Do­ctrine!

2. That one benefit ought to be answe­red with another, yea greater, may be learned from Cicero, De Off. l. 1. p. 21. in these words: If so be Hesiod do injoyn to return the things thou hast received to use, with a greater measure, if thou canst; what ought we then to do be­ing provoked by a greater benefit? should we not imitate fruitful fields which bring forth more than they received?

3. Saith the Law, Thou shalt not lend up­on use to thy brother that is poor by thee: I would hereupon be informed, if Mr. J. please, whether it were lawful for a rich Jew then to take somewhat by way of gra­tuity from such as the Law here forbids lending upon use too?

4. I appeal to godly Perkins, Vol. 1. p. 63. who plea­ding the lawfulness of taking somewhat a­bove the Principal, gives these reasons to prove it.

1. That which the Debtor may give, ha­ving himself an honest gain besides, and no man any ways endamaged, that the Creditor may safely receive. 2. It is convenient, that he which hath money lent him, and gaineth by it, should shew all possible gratitude to him by whoses goods he is enriched. 3. It is often for the benefit of the Creditor to have the goods in his own hand which he lent.

5. Rivet speaking of this gratuity, proves [Page 27]that men may by Contract be bound to re­turn it: That (saith he) which by the law of gratitude is due from others, is not unjujily received: but they that receive great profit by anothers undue loan, owe somewhat by way of gratitude; therefore it is justly received. — If any shall except; the wealthy Deb­tors are indeed obliged to gratitude, but that ought to be free, and they are not to be bound thereunto by a Writing given under their hands: I deny, that in this case such a gra­titude is so free, as we call those things free, the which it is in our power either to do, or not to do; seeing then it is a natural obligation, which may not be omitted, covenanting for the same will not contradict natural right: like as every Debtor, although he be bound by the law of Nature to render the Principal, when he is able; yet it follows not, that he ought not to be obliged so to do by Bill: the like we say of that debt of gratitude, which is contracted after that manner we have spo­ken; for since from an inbred corruption, a great ingratitude possesseth mens minds, so that unless they be tyed up by special bond, they seldom think of making returns, much less of an equal recompence: the which is com­plained of by the Son of Syrach, Chap. 29. v. 4, &c. It is fit that the Debtor be not only bound to an insuring the Principal; but also to a recompence of the kindness; the which if moderately stated by Publick Authority, he [Page 28]seems not to offend against the Law of God, that enters into a Contract with the Debtor for it, that is not indigent.

6. Seeing then the wealthy borrower, by the law of Nature and common Equity, is obliged to make some recompence for the gain he hath received by anothers money: to say, that he ought indeed to do it; but that the Creditor may not so much as hope or expect the same, is in effect to say, the Creditor may not hope or expect that the Debtor will prove an honest man, or do that which by Nature and Rules of Grati­tude he is bound unto.

7. I think it not out of my way to tran­scribe some passages of Seneca, of the like import: De ben. l. 5. c. 22.

There are many who neither know how to deny what they have received, nor to requite it; who neither are so good as the thankful, nor so bad as the unthankful; men slow and backward, persons sluggish, not wicked: those I will not accuse, but put in mind, and when o­therwise imployed, I will bring them back to their duty; from whom I shall presently receive this answer: Excuse me, in truth I little thought you expected this of me, otherwise I had done it of mine own accord; I pray think me not unthankful, I remember well what kindness you did me. Why should I doubt, to make these better to themselves and to me? whom­soever I can, I hinder from sinning; especi­ally [Page 29]a friend, both that he may not sin, and chiefly that he may not sin against me: I do him a second good turn, if I suffer him not to be unthankful: neither will I harshly upbraid him with what I have done; but monish him as gently as I can: that I may set him in way of returning thanks, I will rub up his memory, and ask a benefit, he shall understand me to to fetch it back; sometime I will use harder words, if I have any hopes he maybe amend­ed.

Mr. J. Ʋsury is differenced from setting and letting. 1. That such things are (pro­perly) not lent, as Ʋsury-money is, but hi­red, or put out to be occupied, as ground, &c.

Reply: I shall answer him in the words of Rivet: Hither belongs the argument taken from the likeness of other Contracts; For 1. By the Contract of Farming; if any buys a Field, and letts it out to another to be tilled on that condition, that for the taking up the yearly profits, he pay the owner a certain sum of money, or some bushels of Corn; there seems to be no great difference, whether one buy the Field himself, and lett it out to o­thers, or lend the money to another, that he may buy or redeem the field, and for the fruits received pay yearly a moderate sum.

I add Windeline: If thou buyest a Farm, Ethic. Vol 1. p. 801. (saith he) from whence thou maist yearly re­ceive the profit of an hundred Crowns, and [Page 30]for the same sum thou settest it out to another; none can accuse this Contract as unjust. If to buy the same Farm thou lendest money to ano­ther, and receivest the same sum from ano­ther: is it not all one whether he pay thee yearly an hundred Crowns for the Farm, or for the money lent.

Mr. J. 2. That things lett and sett are not consumed in the use thereof, as money is and other things lent.

Reply: This hath before received an an­swer: If money be consumed in the use thereof; yet such things as may be sett and lett are procured by the consumption thereof: and is not the Adventurers mo­ney also spent in the use thereof? and yet upon the Ships return he receives the Prin­cipal with plentiful increase. The last na­med Author answers also this objection: Ut supra p. 802. Obj. The proper and primary use of money is its consumption, therefore it is unlawful to receive any reward for money lent, which is Ʋsury: Thomas urgeth this as the primarie argument. — I answer, 1. The Antece­dent is not simplie and exclusivelie true, and the proof is inconsequent. The primarie use of money is not so much its consumption, as the procuring of something else by its consump­tion: for by exchange something passeth from another to us, and back again something pas­seth from us to another, whence we lose or part with the right we had to our own, and ob­tain [Page 31]the right to some other thing. 2. The consequence is false, that is not sold which is not; but profit is received by that thing which was procured by our money; which often con­sists in such Commodities, which are not con­sumed by the Ʋse: Neither is it simply un­just, that two recompences be required for two things: one for the Principal, which is re­stored; the other for the profit which the bor­rower hath gained by our money; for it is meet that some part thereof redound to us. Neither is the same twice sold: for money is lent that it may be repaid, and somewhat ought moreover to be restored for the gain: for seeing our money proves gainful to ano­ther, why not also to our selves? especially if more gain accrue to that other, than to our selves.

Stipulation is the last Contract that Mr. J. differenceth Usury from: p. 17. but wherein the difference lies, I am yet to seek, not­withstanding what he says. If stipulation be of larger extent than Usury (as he as­serts) then why should it not include Usu­ry within its compass, as the genus includes the species? Is Stipulation made sometimes before a Judge? so is the usurary Contract made under covert of, or in the prefence of the Law. In Stipulation do both parties equally oblige and bind themselves to the doing of something? so do both partys concerned [Page 32]in Usury: so that we are still at a loss where the difference lies.

Mr. J. 5. How old is Ʋsury? 6. What generation and kindred hath it? for its Fa­ther, it hath the Devil, whose work it is; be­ing Murder.

Reply: Whether he that takes any thing beyond the Principal from persons suffici­ent, be a Murderer, will admit of his new coyn'd use of Addubitation.

Mr. J. The Devil was a Metaphorical Ʋsurer from the beginning, to Adam and Eve, as two of the Ancient Doctors of the Church do make him.

Reply: Strange arguing! doth he not know and confess so much too, that Meta­phorical Divinity is not argumentative? Must all taking increase upon Loan be mur­der, because the Devil at first by drawing our first Parents into that one transgression, thereby made way for the ruine of them and Posterity, by letting in also an Inun­dation of Sin? And may not our Saviour himself be stiled a Metaphorical Usurer too, from a stronger proof than what he brings, I mean from Christ's own mouth in the Parable mentioned, Mat. 25, 27.

As for what follows concerning Mother, Sisters and Daughters; I think it not worth spending time and paper on; as carrying no weight in them, save what is fetcht from the froath of uncharitableness; if intended [Page 33]to fit all those who take any gain whatsoe­ver upon loan: otherwise it will not reach his design, nor prejudice what I am con­cerned to plead for. Only a word to what is said of Greedy's telling her Sister Ʋsury still, we must not let our Money lie idle.

Reply: I wonder how he finds greedi­ness in this inquiry it self; wherein there may be so much charitableness to our selves and others; If he that hath nothing but his hands to live on, Eph. 4.28. be by the Apostle enjoyned to labour, working with his hands the things which is good, that he may have [not only enough for his own com­fortable subsistence, but also] to give to him that needeth. Should he whom God hath blest with somewhat of this Worlds Goods, hoard the same up, or let the same lie by him idle; and not rather make care­ful improvement thereof, for the preserva­tion of himself and his; and that he may have to give to those that need? for if the Stock be exhausted, it is easy to think what will become of the Streames that are to be sent abroad for the watering of others. And I shall add further, that I dare avouch, such as having Wealth in their Coffers, and there let it lye idle, having fair and honest opportunities to bring the same forth, are none of the best Members in the Common­wealth. Such Riches thus Coffer'd up bringing no more advantage to the Pub­lick [Page 34]Good, than if it were back in the Mines: So impertinent is the tattle passing between those Sisters; of little more weight is what follows:

Mr. J. In Lev. 25.37. and Deut. 23.19. over Brother and Money there is an ac­cent put, that the Hebricians say, shews that the word must be sung with a low voice, because Ʋsury afflicts and brings low.

Reply: To one contending about a word, it was replyed, That Caesar's Fortunes did not depend upon it: Let this accent be what it will, I hope that the souls welfare and eternal Salvation doth not depend thereon; such Rabbinical Criticisms being too slight to bear a weight of such conse­quence.

Mr. J. His seventh Inquiry is; Chap. 5. What reach Ʋsury hath? It reacheth (saith he) ve­ry nigh all the World over: For, 1. The Jews who are scattered — are great Ʋsu­rers. — particularly, 1. It reacheth to some great Schollars, as Seneca: And to Learned Men in the very Church; even in Chrysostome 's time. 2. Some Princes and great Lords in Germany do espouse it: some whereof were well served in the German- Wars, when they lost their Ʋsury-Money, &c.

Reply: I know not their practice, and therefore shall not plead for them: only [Page 35]where is the wonder, or what remarkable Providence is it; if they smarted by those Wars, under which so many thousands of honest and good men, himself in that num­ber, with the whole Country, and Neigh­bour Nation too groaned?

Mr. J. It reacheth also many great Pro­fessors of Godliness; whom he sadly de­plores, as plunged, with their Posterity, into the same Gulf of this damnable Sin of Usury.

Reply: I could wish that the excess of his Pity, were not from the defect of his Cha­rity.

Mr. J. Q. 8. What reasons hath this Doctrine? How we come to try his strength; all that is past having been but light skirmishings: of a truth there is need of strong reasons to bear the weight of such assertions as are by him laid down, Viz. That all taking above the Principal, is Ʋsu­ry, and all Ʋsury is damnable: his principle reasons are two: the first condemns Ʋsury: the second, Ʋsurers for their usury: how distinct these are, I shall not stay to in­quire.

Mr. J. 1. Reason, Because this Ʋsury treated of, is condemned in both Testaments. 1. In the Old, Exod. 22.25, Lev. 25.36, 37. Deut. 23.19.

Reply: 1. To these I answer in the gene­ral: It will be hard for him to prove his [Page 36]Definition of Usury condemned by him, from these or any other Texts in the Old Testament.

2. I say, That these Texts forbid len­ding to the Poor upon Use, either expresly or implicitely; and therefore hitherto we see no reason to extend them further. If this be not enough to satisfie, then I add:

3. The Law was Political, the Natio­nal Interest of the Jews being peculiarly in­tended by it. These things are here asser­ted; but shall be vindicated, when he calls us to it again, by answering the Objecti­ons in his way.

Mr. J. — 2. It is forbidden in the New Testament, Luke 6.35. Lend, hoping for nothing again.

Reply: (1.) If this Text be understood of free-giving, it quite spoils his Market, and overthrows his Definition. So I find Learned Divines understanding these words; without any wresting of them: To this sense our Translation seems to have re­spect; Lend, hoping for nothing àgain; i. e. neither principal nor over-plus: for though men should fail; prove unthankful; make no returnes: yet their reward should be with God, in Psal. 37.26. He is mer­ciful and lendeth; the which I think is the same with what we read, v. 21. The Right­eous sheweth mercy and giveth.

If thou wouldst imitate the Gods, said E­picurus, [Page 37] do good turns, even to the unthank­ful; Sen. de be­nef. l. 4. c. 25. for the Sun riseth on the wicked, and the Seas stand open to Pirates. Give me a man (saith Seneca) upright, plain, mind­ful, Idem c. 11. thankful, abstaining from what is a­nothers, not greedy, not tenacious of his own, willing: when I have made choice of such, although he have received nothing from fortune, whereby he might be inabled to re­quite the kindness; yet the matter shall come to pass according to desire. If gain, or a sor­did reckoning do make me liberal: If I profit none, unless he again profit me; I will not do a good turn to one travailing into far Coun­tries; I will not give to one that is like to be long absent; I will not give to one so sick, that there is no hope of his recovery; I will not give when dying, for I should have no time for receiving again: But that thou mayst know that doing good is a thing to be desired for it self; we help Strangers lately come into our harbour, and presently depar­ting: an unknown shipwrackt-man, we fur­nish with a Ship wherein he may be carryed home; he departs, scarce knowing the Au­thor of his safety, and is never like more to return into our company; he assigns the Gods as Debtors to us, and prays that they would make requital on his behalf.

The Learned Casuist; Jer. Taylor, Rule of ho­ly lib. p. 309. hath these words, (with an eye, as may be thought, to this place of our Saviour.) [Page 38] Give, looking for nothing again, that is, without consideration of future advantages; give to Children, to old men, to the unthank­ful and the dying; and to those you shall ne­ver see again: for else your Almes or Courte­sie is not Charity; but Traffick and Merchan­dize; and be sure that you omit not to re­lieve the needs of your enemy, and the injuri­ous; for so possibly, you may win him to your self; but do you intend the winning him to God.

Diodate interprets the place thus: In loc. [Ho­ping for] Viz. with an intent to lose what­soever ye lend, if your neighbours want do re­quire it, and that you cannot get it again, without violating the Laws of Charity, and giving scandal and offence.

So the Dutch, so the English Annota­tors: This (say they) is to be understood with respect to mens abilities, to give to the Poor, as also that, v. 30. So that if our Neighbours necessities require, and we be a­ble, we must lend without hope of being repay­ed by them, &c.

I add Rivet: p. 276. Such as draw these words to the forbidding of Ʋsury, do not enough at­tend to the scope of our Lord; for it is not im­mediately designed of not hoping for use; but of not hoping for the Principal Sum, when our Neighbour comes to borrow, and being in extream necessity stands in need of lending too. Our Lord therefore enjoyas, that we [Page 39]do not only grant to One that we know to be able and willing to repay; but also to him whom we know not to be able, although he were willing; or of whom we have just cause to doubt that he would not be able. Dub. E­van. in loc. Spanhe­mius gives a reason why this is expressed by lending, rather than by giving, though the Principal be parted with: It being called Lending, with respect to the retribution or reward that God shall make unto them thus communicating their Goods; for we learn from Prov. 19.17. He that giveth to the Poor, lendeth to the Lord. What doth Mr. J. say to break the force of this interpretation?

Mr. J. It cannot be understood of giving to the poor, because that is there spoken of distinctly from that of lending, by Christ, who would not use a Tautology.

Reply: Giving, was commanded by our Saviour, v. 30. the same is again injoy­ned (though in other words) v. 35. Not so, saith our Author, for this were a Tau­tology: But that herein he is mistaken, you may find by looking forth to v. 38. where the same duty is pressed again: and though repeated; yet, by his leave, 'tis no tau­tology, or vain repetition, it being com­mon in Scripture to hold forth the same thing in various expressions, and press the same Duty in the same or like Notions.

If this be denied, let him answer Mr. [Page 40] Perkins, Christ the true gain. p. 22. whose words are these: (On Phil. 3.7, 8.) This Paul sets down by a gradation thus, I count them loss, I make them my los­ses, I count them as Dung: This gradation is nothing else but a repetition of one and the same thing inlarged and amplified in Speech: Now repetitions in Scripture are not idle and vain, as they are often times in the Writings of men; but they commonly signifie two things: the necessity and the certainty of the thing repeated.

Thus he, and if this be truth, then what is contrary to it deserves another name.

You have seen the whole that Mr. J. hath said to weaken this solid Interpretati­on, or strengthen his own.

2. There is a second Interpretation of this Text, the which also befriends not his design. To open the way to this Interpre­tation, read, v. 34. If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again: this is to be understood, not of receiving back any thing by way of Usu­ry; but of receiving the likekindness, [...], aequalia: as suppose they lent a sum of Mony to supply the occasions of a friend, from whom another time they expect to borrow the like sum to supply their own occasions.

This, though lawful in it self, yet Christ thinks it not enough for his Disciples to do, all persons considered. They are not only to lend to them that can answer this kindness, [Page 41]by lending to them again; but also to the Poor; yea, to Enemies, if straightned, from whom there was little grounds to expect an equal favour back. I say again, what the Sinners are here said to do, was lawful, the proof whereof you shall have by and by: In the mean time consider what Grotius writes. In loc.

If I lend to one an hundred pounds, and a­gree that another time he lend me the like summ, (the which is right exchange) how can this Covenant be proved unjust, more than if I spare my Neighbour an Ox to plow his ground, upon this condition, that he some time after do the like for me?

I do not suppose (saith our Author) that the question touching Ʋsury, properly belongs hither, which yet by most of the Antients is wont to be handled on this Text.

Zanchy puts the like interpretation up­on the Text in these words: In Ephes. 4.28. He spake therefore of lending to those from whom thou canst not look for the like favour or good turn, such as are the poor, and unthankful, and al­so enemies; but this consequence will never hold good: Love those that love not you; therefore do ye not love those love you: Do good and lend to those from whom you cannot hope for the like; therefore do not lend to those from whom you may hope for the like. — I illustrate this by a like Text, Luke 14.12. When thou makest a Supper, call not thy friends, nor thy bre­thren, &c.

The Ethiopick Version favours this, sence, thus; And if ye shall lend to those from whom ye hope somewhat will be retribu­ted, what is your reward. Sinners lend to Sinners that they may requite the like to them. And now love you your Enemies, and doe them good and lend: not hoping for some­what to be requited, and your reward, &c.

3. There is another Interpretation ta­ken up by some, who render the Greek word by us translated, Hoping for again, by a far different sence, they rendring the same, Frustrating, or, causing to de­spaire, This sence is favoured by the Sy­riack, Persick and Arabick versions, and by some Divines that follow them.

Versio Syriaca. But love your Enemies, and doe good to them, and lend, neither frus­trate ye the expectation of any. The Transla­tor ( saith Grotius) thought the sense to be, Lend to all that aske, frustrating none of that hope which he hath conceived of your benefi­cence.

Arabica: Lend, & frustrate not the hope of any.

Persica: It behoveth you that ye love your Enemies, and be bountiful to them, and lend to them, and cause not any to despair, for great shall be your reward. The sense wherof is ( saith De Dieu commenting hereon) If any one have need of loan, be not so rigid to­ward him, as to cut of all hope of a benefit to [Page 43]be conferred, but rather shew your selves for­ward in lending.

Some ( saith Diodate) render it, despai­ring; others translate it, not any way loo­sing all manner of hope, viz. of a just retribu­tion from God, if not from man. Thus Dr Hammond: I translate it, And nothing di­strusting, In poli Sy­nops. or, despairing: the context fa­vours, which runs thus, the Heathen give and lend, knowing that they themselves may be reduced to poverty, and so they may receive upon loan from others: but a Christian ought to perform these things without any such de­signe, not distrusting but expecting God the rewarder: whereto the following words be­long.

Passing by other Interpretations, you see how many the text is favourably capable of: and those more probable (some if not all) than that Mr J. brings from the Vul­gar reading.

4. But let it be supposed, that his In­terpretation be the truest, viz. Lend, ho­ping for nothing again, by way of use, this may be, and yet not all taking of gaine for loan be here condemned, to this purpose I shall produce what Mayer writes thereon. Now (saith Mayer) we cannot be thus kind unless we lend our money, or any thing else to our Neighbour freely, if we can spare it for a time, he having need thereof: but this free lending is not without looking to have [Page 44]the thing lent referred again; but although he to whom we lend be poor and cannot, or a churle and will not, in the like requite us in our need. A man is not hereby bound to lend freely any great sum to the rich for six or twelve months, as the manner is most Common­ly of lending or borrowing, but only for some short time, that so his necessity may be suppli­ed, and the lender may have his money again in due time for his maintenance. If other­wise one man puts his money into the hands of another for his trading and commerce from year to year, it is not against this pre­cept to require recompence therefore; be­cause there is a gain coming in hereby, with all which it is no equity that the borrower should go away with and the lender not have a proportion according to the money lent.

This duty then must necessarily be re­strained to the persons that are fit objects for our charitable or free lending; for all persons may be branched into three sorts. 1. The extreamly poor and necessitous. 2. Others not so poor, but yet of mean condition, and somewhat straitned. 3. The rich or wealthier sort. As to the first ranke, Give to every man that asketh of thee, Ver. 30. Mr. J. Surely will not understand this without limitation: it must be restrained to such as are fit objects of our Almes; otherwise there would be no [Page 45]room for lending; v. 36. Lend, hoping, &c. this, let it be granted, concerns the second sort, to whom we are to lend gratis, expecting nothing back besides the Princi­pal; yet this hinders not, but that from others, beyond these in condition, we may receive somewhat back by way of reward for the Loan: for if, Give to every one, ne­cessarily hath its restrictions; why should not, Lend, hoping for nothing again, have its restrictions too?

Saith Rivet: Of the three sorts of men which ask of us; as it is not unjust if the first, who are poor, ask of us, without hope of re­storing: so again, it would be unjust, if they of the second sort, who may be sometime able to repay, should ask of us without a purpose and promise of repaying; for we are not bound to give an Almes to such, but to the former only. In like manner it follows, that it is inconsi­stent with Charity, if the third sort of Peti­tioners demand of us a loan altogether free, which is due only to the second sort of poor.

If M. J. will not receive the truth from Andrew Rivet, it may be he will receive it from the Reverend Bishop Hall, Who, pract. cas. to the Question? Whether it be lawful for one to raise any profit by the Loan of Money? begins his answer thus:

You may not expect a positive answer either way; many circumstances are considerable e're any thing can be determined. 1. Who [Page 46]it is that borrows? a poor Neighbour that is constrained out of need? or a Merchant that takes up Money for a free Trade? or a rich man that lays out upon superfluous occasions? If a poor man borrow out of necessity, you may not expect any profit for the Loan (Deut. 15.7, 8, 9.) to the poorest of all we must give, and not lend; to the next rank of poor, we must lend freely: but if a man will borrow that money (which you could improve) for the enriching of himself; or out of a wanton ex­pence, will be laying out that which might be otherwise useful to you, for his meer pleasure, the case is different; for God hath not com­manded you to love any man, more than your self; and there can be no reason why you should vail your own just advantage to ano­ther mans excess.

I shall adjoyn one Witness more, the Re­verend Perkins. Expos. on Mat. 5.42. — 4thly, Some may ask (seeing Christ bids us lend looking for nothing again) whether may a man at no time with a good Conscience receive increase for his len­ding? Answer, Lending is twofold, of due, or of courtesie: Lending of due, is the loan of the rich unto the poor, when his necessity compells him to borrow, and for this a man cannot with good Conscience take any increase: Lending of Courtesie is, when one rich friend lends unto another; this is not forbidden in the Word of God, but is left to a mans own liberty and discretion; neither hath it any [Page 47]promise of reward: Now in this case of Courtesie, I do not find in Scripture, that all taking of increase is simply condemned: Nay, in some cases, both the law of Nature, and the Laws of all Countries do allow it.

I shall give in, as overmeasure, Cicero de Off. l. 2. p. 89. what the Roman Orator saith: But (saith he) in that other kind of giving, which proceeds from liberality, we ought not to be alike affe­cted in different Causes: There is one Consi­deration of him that is pressed with Calami­ty; and another of him that seeks the en­largement of his Estate, being under no such straits.

5. To advance yet one step further: the things which the sinners are here said to do, are such as are lawful, and some, at least, commendable: only Christ's Disciples are to transcend, and not rest contented with their having done that which Sinners did: Christs Disciples are to lend freely, without taking any gain for loan, (saith Mr. J. from this Text:) If so, it follows those Sinners did lend with an expectation of gain for their loan. I pray mark it; The Sinners were not here brought in as blame-worthy in the things they are said to do: only this was not enough; Christians must exceed in righteousness and go beyond them, v. 32. sinners are said to love those that loved them: I trust it was well done; but they should have loved their Enemies also, v. 33. sin­ners [Page 48]did good unto those that did good unto them; and so far it was well done: but they should also have done good to the ungrate­ful, as need required, v. 34. sinners did lend to them of whom they hoped to receive, what? gain for their loan, (saith Mr. J.) And must this only be condemned? 'tis to me no doubt, but this was lawful as well as the aforegoing; but Christians must ex­ceed them, lending freely to the poor, whence there was little hopes of any ad­vantage, or the like courtesie to be recei­ved back. Compare this Text with, Mat. 5.44, &c. where Christians are required to do more than others: There are many things which sinners do, which may and must be done by Saints; but only these must not rest in so doing, they must do some singular things which others do not: And this is intimated in that repeated Phrase, What reward have ye? Zanchy illu­strates this place by Luke 14.12, &c. When thou makest a Dinner or a Supper, call not thy friends, &c. 'tis lawful, no question, to invite our Friends and Brethren and rich Neighbours to a Feast: but these, 'tis like, will answer them in the same kind, with Feast for Feast; therefore there is no thank due, but besides these, there must be a feeding of the Poor (especially Gods Poor) that cannot recompense thee again, but God will.

I have done with his first reason: having been the larger in answering what is pro­duced from this Text, which being the foundation of his Definition; this failing him, the rest of his building falls.

Mr. J. 2. Reason: Because the Ʋsurer standeth expresly condemned by Gods own mouth.

Reply: This is easily granted with the aforesaid limitations: Who are those U­surers, thus condemned? Such as by gri­ping Usury oppress the Poor and Indigent, of whom 'tis forbidden to take Use. I shall and do all along vindicate onely the Lender for gain, that keeps within due bounds, not offending against Equity and Charity; leaving others to stand on their own legs: And with this limitation, I come to try the strength of his Additional Reasons.

Mr. J. 1. The Ʋsurer is a Biter: for his Sin is Nesheck, biting.

Reply: What the Reverend Bishop An­drews says upon the same word, though on the other side, may serve for an answer here: He asserts from Galen, that Etymolo­gy is a deceitful witness. But if Mr. J. will needs place an Emphasis in the word to make of it an argument; we will grant him, That all Usury which is biting, is de­servedly exploded; but deny, That all gain taken for loan, is such.

Mr. J. 2. The Ʋsurer is an Exacter or Extortioner.

Reply: A man may without offence re­quire his due, if that be meant by exact­ing, and the dueness of what we are plea­ding; will be farther proved: But Exaction usually signifies, a requiring somewhat with rigour and severity: And Extortion is a wresting of anothers Goods without right and consent: Prove that these are commit­ted as often as Use is taken, or else what was intended for a reason, proves a Ca­lumny. He goes on saying; And taking ma­ny times excessively more increase than he ought to take.

Reply: Such as take excessively more than they ought, we grant, deserve this his reproof; but then it will follow, that some increase he may take.

The same word which our Translators render Increase, the Dutch Annotators Translate Excess of Gain, Ezek. 18.8.

Mr. J. 3. The Ʋsurer is an unjust per­son.

Reply: Where no Rule of Justice or E­quity is violated, there can be no Injust­ice; yea rather, he is the unjust person, that borrows Mony to enrich himself, and increase his own estate, not caring to make meet returns for the same. De Jure, &c. p. 238. Grotius (as be­fore shewn) quotes Andronicus Rhodius, saying, The gain which is taken by the con­sent [Page 51]of the Contractors, is neither unjust, nor reprovable; for the Law grants the free power thereof. And Grotius himself says, He with whom we transact, acquires, by our private consent, not only an external, but internal right, in our Goods.

Hereto may be safely applied, Rules of holy liv­ing p. 205. what Dr. Jer. Taylor, writes of Civil Contracts:

This part of Justice (faith he) is such as depends upon the Laws of Man directly, and upon the Laws of God only by consequence, and indirect reason; and from Civil Laws, or private agreements, it is to take its estimate or measure: As to the proof brought from Prov. 28.8. He that by Ʋsury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, &c. the word translated unjust gain, is in the Hebrew, in­crease, and so acknowledged in the Mar­gin: the which word is by the Dutch ren­dred, excess of gain, elsewhere, as shewn before; and so I think 'tis here.

I farther add, That Moses Writings, which are the Original Law, condemn on­ly taking Use of the Poor; and all other passages in the Prophets or Holy Writers, that condemn Usury, are to receive their limitation and construction from the Law: Or else we might answer with others, that the Law was Political and peculiar to the Jewish Nation.

Mr. J. Some make the Ʋsurer an alie­nator of that which is other mens, not his.

Reply: The Borrower that is not Indi­gent, hath no more right to the Lenders Mony, and the use thereof; than the Len­der hath to that increase which is by him spoken against: This latter, hath a right by gratitude, by compact or mutual con­sent, as also by the Civil Laws; each of these in many cases being enough to trans­ferr aright: whereas he would justifie this assertion from an expression of Bishop Hall; it shall suffice to let you see how moderate the Judgment of this Learned Man was in this Controversy; who writes thus: pract. cas. p. 10, 11. The Maximes of Traffick are almost Infinite, onely Charity (but ever inseparable from Justice) must make the application. — That will tell you, that if you can find out a way, whether by Loan or Sale, to advance your Stock, that may be free from all Oppre­ssion and Extortion, and beneficial as well to others, as to your self, you need not fear to walk in it with all honest security.

Here Mr. J. heaps up several Authori­ties, making the Usurer as bad, or worse than a Thief: Be it granted there be some such; but I think a man must forfeit rea­son, afore he can judge one that takes mo­derate gain this way, as bad or worse than a Thief, and more severely to be punished: Surely our Law-makers have not thought so. I wish some would take notice of ano­ther sort of theft in the borrower, mentio­ned [Page 53]by the Author Of the Whole Duty of Man, viz. The not paying of Debts, p. 235. §. 12. whe­ther such as we have borrowed, or such as by our own voluntary promise are become our debts, for they are equally due to him, that can lay either of these claims to them, and therefore the withholding of either of them is a theft, a keeping from my neighbour that which is his.

Mr. J. The Ʋsurer is a Covetous Per­son.

Reply: Whereto I answer in the words of Bishop Taylor: H. living, p. 325. Covetousness is to be car­ried by the proper motives to Charity, and by the proper rules to Justice; which being se­cured, the Arts of getting Money are not easily made Criminal.

Mr. J. O what indirect courses do they greedily take?

Reply: Blame those that do so and spare not: but blame not others therefore that use no courses, but what are warranta­ble.

The rest of his Additionals, as that the Ʋsurer is a Destroyer, &c. If intended for all persons by him counted Usurers; are no better than the Products of a mistaken Zeal, and serve to prove the censoriousness of the Writer.

We are now come to his Cloud of Wit­nesses, Fathers, Councils and Schoolmen, which he all Summons in to give witness to [Page 54]the Cause he hath in hand: his Forces he Musters up for his Cause, will yet admit of a defalcation; whether we consider persons or things testified against.

1. As to persons reproved for Usury; after he hath made a great flourish with Canons and Councils, p. 27. he comes to confess that Clergy men are mostly concerned therein: and upon search into the fourth Century, Magd. Cent. 41. I meet with but one Canon a­mongst all, that extends the Prohibition of Usury, See Dr. Hammond. pract. cat. p. 315. Edit. 1662 farther than to Church Men: and this one taken notice of by him: and the Triumph that is made from the Council of Nice, consisting of 318 holy Men, condem­ning the Ʋsurer, and his Ʋsury, &c. amounts to no more than this; Who­ever of the Clergy, for filthy lucre sake, ex­erciseth Ʋsury, Let him be Deposed.

And if I do say, that I suppose, that U­sury was then in common practise in the Church, by those that are commonly called the Laity, and allowed them, you shall see that I have some reasons for my conjecture. For,

1. In the same Century, Magd. Cent. 4th. c. 1273. Sylvester Bi­shop of Rome, faithfully discharging his Office, and reforming the Clergy; It is said, Clericos usuris Civilibus vacantes, ad precationes retraxit; he brought back the Clergy to their Ministerial work, from Civil-usury, wherewith they were taken up: Civil [Page 55]is here opposed, I suppose, to Ecclesia­stick, and may therefore be translated Lay-Usury, as the common, practice of such, but not allowed to those of the Cler­gy.

2. In that the Hereticks, Ibid. col. 374. called Andre­ans, left the Communion of the Church, because that Usurers were suffered there­in.

3. Those several Councils, that prohi­bited the practice of Usury to the Clergy, do assign peculiar reasons for their so do­ing, which are not so applicable to others, besides the Clergy. As

1. No man that warreth, intangleth him­self with the affairs of this life. Thus the 3d Council of Carthage, Can. 15.6. Col. 867.868. Upon this very account, the Apostles would be excused from tending of Tables, that they might wholly give themselves to the work of the Ministry. And upon this account the Councils forbad the practice of other Civil Imployments and Offices to the Cler­gy, which in themselves were lawful; so that they might not be Merchants, Far­mers, Proctors, Guardians, &c. Yea, were prohibited all secular cares and im­ployments. See the aforesaid Council, with the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 3. & Prelat. 2. Can. 14.

2. Because the Church-stock might not be disposed of for the bringing in of any pri­gain: [Page 56]And so I find that Sophronius, Col. 505. a Bi­shop was excommunicated by the Acaciani, because he had made gain of the Church-Money, and so defrauded the same, tur­ning it to his own proper Use. The Cu­stom being then, that not only the Bishops and the other Clergy were maintained out of the common Stock of the Church they belonged to, and other Revenues thereof; but also the Poor and Strangers: And Ber­nard long after, Ibid. says to the Clergy with­out exception, in Epist. 2. Whatsoever thou retainest of the Altar, beside necessary Main­tenance and simple Habit, it is not thine, it is Rapine, it is Sacriledge.

3. I read also in the same Council of Car­thage forementioned, Can. 49. That Bi­shops, Presbyters, Deacons, or any other of the Clergy, that came poor to their Ecclesia­stical Offices, and after that therein purcha­sed to themselves Fields or Farms, they were to restore them to the Church, and keep no­thing proper to themselves, unless what they obtained by other Largesses, or by the right of Inheritance.

A Canon that many, who Zealously plead against Usury from ancient Canons, would be loath to be confined to. Thus we see men can take and leave at pleasure.

4. And as for the other fathers that are u­sually brought in as witnesses against Usury: there is reason to think, they were so bitter [Page 57]against Usury as practised in their times, which it seems was very bad, they would not have called it Murder else, and many other such occasions laid to its charge; As they managed it, it was a meer cheat or Co­zenage: Lactantius else would not have said, Quid faenerarius, nisi ut fallat? And Chrysostome (as before) said, In Matt. there was no­thing more cruel, nothing more shameful than the Ʋsury of his time. No wonder then that he and others were so Sharpe a­gainst it. In ps. 1 4. And Basil saith it was then Judg­ed by Christians a very inhumane Act, if a­ny one had made gaine by Lending to the poor. Leaving our thoughts free to think that it was not so accounted, when they made advantage of lending to such as were not poor.

5. And it is beyond doubt, P. 28. that those expressions he quotes from Calvin and Lu­ther, were by them intended against the same Exorbitant Usurers; and griping op­pressors; though by him slyly brought in to bespatter all such as take any thing for loan: surely it was no fair dealing in Mr. J. After he informed us, that whatsoe­ver a man takes over and above the money lent, is Ʋsury; and that the men that did so were the persons declaimed against by the fathers: presently to subjoyn,

Calvin tels us, that this kind of men is purposely minded to suck out the bloud of o­thers: and So, Luther calls the Ʋsurer, the bloud-sucker of the people. Whereas Calvins Judgement is well known, that he held not all taking above the principal un­lawful, as may hereafter appear. P. 48. Neither is it much to the purpose whether Calvin himself were a lender upon usury, seeing he hath discovered his Judgement; yet I deny the Cogency of Mr. Js Argument; that he was not, viz. because he was poor.

And then for Luther, whom Mr. J. layes claim to; we shall be the better able to Judge of his sentiments about this contro­versie, after we have considered what Ri­vet writes concerning him, P. 278. as delivered by Gerard, Who sayes Luther was more mode­rate in his latter writings in his opinion con­cerning usury. Some of his opinions he quotes out of his own writings: as, 1. A certaine mitigation must be made of that won­ted strictness in the forbidding of usury. 2. that to widdows, Orphans and old men, that cannot trade, it it may be granted to receive profit for money lent to Merchants 3. Con­science may be provided for, if the Magi­strate, by the advice of Divines and Lawyers to that end assembled, doe prescribe a certain middle way in such contracts. 4. Cases of necessity from times and persons ought to be distinguished from those that are not liable to [Page 59]such necessity. 5. He would not much gain­say, if to restrain unlawful and and excess­cive usuries it were granted to a Noble man to take 4 florens; a Merchant, 8; and others, 6.

5. That such were the times now, that by paying 6 in the hundred a man might be a good gainer. 7. That the Ministers of the Church should leave these disputes to the Law­yers, and other good men, &c.

This is enough to let us see what was Luthers last Judgement, in the question of Usury.

4. If we come to modern Divines, he knows all are not of his Judgement: for besides those forementioned, the Lawful­ness of a regulated Usury hath been asserted by Bucer, Martyr, Zanchy, Junius, Rivet, Windeline, Hornbeck, Spanhemius, Diodate, Brentius, and many other Divines beyond the Seas both Calvinists and Lutherans; Universities and learned Professors: In dec: P: 278. some whereof are mentioned by Learned Rivet: and Windeline sticks not to say, A Pleris­que Modernis, &c. Modern Divines and Lawyers for the most part hold it lawful, as duely stated. Several of our English Divines seem of the same Judgement; viz. Perkins, Ames, Gataker, Mayer, Vines, Baxter, Hughes, besides some other Divines fore-quoted, whose moderate Judgement in this controversy there appears.

[Page 60] 5. Of Forein Divines, Laws and Usa­ges, I shall also adjoyn what Learned Zan­chy writes (treating of the lawfulness of moderate Usury.) In Ephes. — 7. To this Doctrine (saith he) do subscribe very many men, fa­mous both for their Learning and Piety. 8. I have named Bucer and Calvin, Renow­ned Divines, from whom P. Martyr dissents not, that I may not mention almost an infinite number besides. 9. Hither belong the most just Laws of Pious Emperors concerning this matter, in C. de Usuris: who also determine how much it may be lawful to take above the Principal. 10. Add to these the use and custom taken up in the Reformed Churches: I do not therefore in the least doubt but that such Ʋsury is lawful: And Carol. Molinae­us a very famous Lawyer, and a Professor of true piety, concludes the same in his large Vo­lume which he wrote of usury: Thus far Zanchy. So then, it seems, regulated U­sury is no such bug-bear, that any need be startled at the mention thereof; or be a­shamed to plead for it, after Men of such Worth and Eminency. I return to the Author.

M. J. And what should the Ʋsurer do in Heaven? there are no Bills, Bonds, &c.

Reply: 'Tis well, I see Mr. J. is not the Key-keeper of Heavens Gate; for then, 'tis like, not one of those that takes a Penny-Usury should enter: though such as [Page 61]take Interest or Inter-usury, or after-usury, probably might find so much favour at his hands, as to have admittance. Such rea­sonings as these, whosoever were the Au­thor of them, me-seems, were born before day; the which, if admitted, would turn us all into Adamites: or rather, might have been more agreeable to the men before A­dam; the Inhabitants of Ʋtopia, the New Atlantis, or Terra Incognita; for this is the ground his Argument goes on, what­soever is not to be found in Heaven, must find no place on Earth. He says, There are no lenders, no borrowers in Heaven: are there buyers then? or are any builders there? In Heaven there is no clothing used, saving those glorious Robes of Christs Righteousness: there's no feeding, unless on the fruits of the Tree of Life, that grows in the midst of the Paradice of God: there's no drinking, save of the fruit of the Heavenly Vine: there's no taking possession, unless it be of that Inheri­tance incorruptible: there's no dwelling, save in that House not made with Hands. Must we therefore disuse all these here below? Surely thus we should do, if Mr. J's Rhe­torick were found Logick.

After the making good of his own ground, Chap. 6. he comes to supplant his Antago­nists, by answering their Objections.

Obj. 1. Biting is in your Text condemned, I am no biter, and therefore I am not concer­ned in this matter, &c.

Whatsoever weight there is in this Ar­gument, I think moderate taking of Use may be better justified by it, and on better grounds than he can condemn it from the same term.

Mr. J. Every Ʋsurer biteth naturally; Resp. either actually or potentially, directly or con­sequentially. Take what is said in proof hereof, and see whether he writes not as a man that understands the Market.

Mr. J. For the borrower will take up his Interest, if by any means he can; and for that end he will and must often sell the Com­modity at a far dearer rate than else he would, to be able to pay his Ʋse, and live by the Over-plus, &c.

Reply: In this, and what follows, are suppositions upon suppositions; whereof if one fail, if one pin of his building slip; the whole totters. We must then grant him, these borrowers would not sell so dear as they could, if they did not pay Interest: we must grant him that these men can raise the price of the Market, at pleasure, which is not so: we will easily grant him, that the rest of the sellers will joyn with the bor­rowers, i. e. in selling as dear as they can: we must grant him that they would not have so done, unless instigated by those [Page 63]borrowers: what a deal of begging the question here is, afore there can be room for the conclusion? Let us hear his proof out by an instance taken from the Rev. Bi­shop Jewel.

Mr. J. A Merchant takes up of his Neighbour an hundred pounds, and must answer again an hundred and ten; he be­stoweth it all in Corn, and buyeth for his hundred pound an hundred quarters of Corn, he sends it to the Market; the People have need of it, and buy it: If he sold it for eight groats a Bushel, he might make up his hun­dred pound and be a gainer; but unless he maketh up a hundred pound, and ten pound to discharge his Ʋsury, he must needs be a loser and undone; but undone he will not be, he will therefore undoe many others, therefore he selleth accordingly.

Reply: 1. Our Author you see, writes Stilo veteri: But what then, if the lender agree in partnership with the borrower, and run the hazard of the Principal, con­senting to share both in his gains and los­ses? (which with him is lawful yet;) would not the same inconveniences here i­magined, attend this Contract?

2. By the allowance here made, I per­ceive Mr. J. would oppress the seller, who according to this account, after all his pains, time and hazards run, should gain but six pound thirteen shillings and four [Page 64]pence for his hundred pound borrowed, and laid out for one whole year.

Mr. J. Or potentially the Ʋsurer biteth the borrower: — I will instance in Land: the borrower takes up 400 pound upon Interest, and buyeth Land with it worth 20 pounds by the year: — and he payeth the Ʋsurer 24 pounds by the year; in which case I ask the Ʋsurer, whether the borrower must not needs be bitten? &c.

Reply 1. I would know, if on this score, any one should come to Mr. J. to borrow this 400 pound, would he lend it him free­ly? or is any other bound to do so? I re­member Mr. Bolton says, that no man ought to borrow, but in case of need; I doubt whe­ther this mans need would pass with him. But in truth, if the Purchaser borrows the whole 400 pound, few would judge him wise in medling with the Purchase, or him much wiser, that should intrust the money with him on his single security.

2. Give me leave to make a supposition too, suppose then this purchaser meets with a friend, that lends him this 400 l for 10 l P. Annum: here is usury and yet not biting to the borrower: or, suppose there is so much Timber growing on the land bought as that therewith he makes up the 400 l in some few years, who is Injured then; or where is the biting?

Obj. But here (saith he) the Ʋsurer [Page 65]will reply; That so in other Contracts, as buying, selling, setting, a man may be bit­ten, and wronged.

And I add, that Bp. Hall makes over-reaching in these kinds the worst of Usu­ry; pract. cas. p. 11, 12. Lamenting the Ignorance, or mista­ken Zeal of those that cry down usury; but in the mean time make no bones of actions no less biting, or oppressive: they care not how high they sell any of their Commodities; at how unreasonable rates they set their grounds; how they circumvent the buyer in their bar­gains, and think any price Just, any gaine lawful, that they can make in their markets: not considering, there is neither less, nor less odious usury in selling and letting, than there is in lending. It is the Extortion in both, that makes the sin; without which the kind or terms of the transaction would not be guilty, — In the ordinary loan-usury the borrow­er hath yet time to boot for his money; but here the buyer pays down an excessive Interest without any consideration, but the sellers cru­elty.

What doth Mr. J. answer to the fore­said Objection? This,

Mr. J. So it may fall out, [viz. that a man may be bitten too in buying, selling, &c.] but herein lies the difference, that these fore­said Contracts are in themselves lawful; but usury in it self unlawful.

Reply: But the Fathers (that he pleads condemn Usury as unlawful) do some of them also condemn Merchandising, or Trading for gains sake. Rivet in Decalog. p. 290. As Hom. 38. on Mat. passing under Chrysostome's name: The Lord casting out the Buyers and Sellers of the Temple, signifies, that a Merchant can never please God. Again, No Christian ought to be a Merchant; or if he will be, let him be cast out of the Church. And Cassiodore On Psal. 70. speaks the same language: So that these Fathers, that judged one, judg­ed both alike unlawful; and Bishop Hall judged neither unlawful, any further than there was Oppression in them.

Mr. J. But lending must be free, Luke 6.35. It being reckoned amongst the liberal Contracts.

Reply; If the Civilians make good that all lending must be free; then let this Con­tract pass under another name, and that plea is answered; for it is not names or words; but things, that we are inquiring to.

Though enough hath been said before, to answer what is urged from Luke 6.35. yet I shall not think it amiss to produce the sense of the Dutch Annotators on that Scripture. And lend without hoping for at ny thing again: [or without hoping for a­ny thing from it] i. e. not only to them which ye hope will give it you again; but al­so [Page 67]to them of whom ye have not this hope; like as he here commands also, to love not on­ly our friends, but also our enemies.

Obj. 2. The Law against Ʋsury is poli­tical, concerning the Jews only, and not us, and therefore we cannot be condemned by it.

Mr. J. Answer: This is a fallacy, and the contrary can be sufficiently proved.

1. The Prophets enumerate Ʋsury among the transgressions of the Moral Law, Ezek. 18.8. Jer. 15.10. and so doth this Psal. 15.

Reply 1. Jer. 15.10. makes little to his purpose, the most that can be made of it, is what Diodate Comments thereon, thus: [ I have, &c.] i. e. I have neither had strife nor contention with them, upon any private interests nor pretences; but all is by reason of my Office. In loc. Junius to the same effect: I kept my self close to my own Calling; I have had no other transactions with them: I warily abstained from all occasion of strife, which might any way happen among men. Grotius understands the words of bare len­ding; In Synops. saying, Ʋsury was forbidden among the Jews; therefore the words must be read, Neither have I lent money to any one, nor any to me: G. Sim. Calv. I have had to do with none up­on any money-matter, whence strifes are wont to arise, say others.

2. In reply to Psal. 15. you may reflect upon Dixon's Comment thereon: I shall [Page 68]besides produce what two learned Men say on the same Scripture. Synops. Gev. Sicut, &c. As the receiving of gifts is one thing in it self; and the receiving of gifts upon an innocent man another; so is the taking above the Principal from the Wealthy, and from the Poor.

Coc. To take use from the Poor is hurtful and burthensome, because he receives that he may live; but gainfnl for the Rich to pay use, for he receives that he may gain.

3. What is asserted usually of Ezek, 18. viz. that it contains Morals only; if the same be meant by way of exclusion to Judicials, may admit of a use of addubi­tation: to me there seems to be Judicials expressed or referred to, v. 7. Oppression, though a Moral evil, yet the particulars thereof might be immediately against a Judicial Law; and in the Margin of our Bibles we are pointed to Lev. 25.14. which concerns Judicials. Restoring the Debtor his Pledge, respects a Law of the like nature, Exod. 22.26. And the exe­cuting of true judgment between Man and Man, as to the Jews, was according to the Political Laws given in special to that Nation. Again, v. 9. Statutes, Judg­ments; Surely we may not hence exclude Judicials, seeing (as Mercer Notes) the latter doth properly signifie such Laws, and so must signifie, Lev. 25.18. whereto this [Page 69]Text seems to be a Counter-part. And Grotius saith the same: De Jure, &c. p. 3. Idem discrimen a­pud Hebraeos reperire est, qui cùm distinctè lo­quuntur, jus naturale vocant [...], jus Constitutum [...], quorum illud [...], hoc [...] solent vertere Hellenistae. It is not therefore a cogent Argument, that Usury is not forbidden by a Political Law, because the same is reproved, Ezek. 18.

2. In Lev. 25.35, 36, 37. Usury is there forbidden; but that is in the midst of other Political Laws; there being none but such mentioned in that Chapter, there­fore by his own arguing, this must be so too.

3. Take a farther Instance for the weak­ning his Argument, Acts 15.29. Fornicati­on is reckoned amongst Ceremonials, and yet no Ceremonial.

4. It is worth the Inquiry, whether U­sury may not be against a Judicial Law, and yet, in them to whom it is by that Law forbidden, be Morally evil, e. g. Theft is a Moral evil, and yet the Instances where­in it is committed may be directly or im­mediately only against a positive Law of this or that Nation? Hither belongs, what hath been already quoted out of Dr. Tay­lor's Holy Living. p. 205. — This part of Ju­stice ( viz. Commutative,) is such as de­pends upon the Laws of Men directly; and upon the Laws of God, only by consequence, [Page 70]and indirect reason; and from Civil Laws, or private Agreements, it is to take its esti­mate and measures. And hither belongs a Saying of Austin; In Joh. 6. Rivet p. 272. Every one possesseth what he possesseth by Human Right; for by Di­vine Right, The Earth is the Lords, and the Fulness thereof: God made the Rich and the Poor of the same Clay, and the same Earth supports both Poor and Rich; yet by Human Right, one says, this Farm is mine, this House is mine. This House then, this Field is mine by a Humane or Political Law; and yet whosoever takes it from me, is guilty of a Moral evil. The Law of Na­ture dictates this in general, that we must give every man his own, by what Law so­ever, whether Divine or Human, the thing become his own.

Atque hic obiter, &c. And here by the way, De Jure, &c. p. 26. (saith Grotius) their error is to be no­ted, who derive the Israelites Right to the War, from thence alone, that God gave them the Land of Canaan. — whereas, what every one possesseth by Human Right, is no less his, than if God had given it; but that Right is not taken away by the Gospel.

4. I return back, whence I have digres­sed. The Law of Ʋsury was Political, saith Judicious Calvin upon Ezek. 18. And Luther seems of the same Judgment, in that, he adviseth the Ministers of the Church to leave the Disputes about Ʋsury to [Page 71]Lawyers and other good men, As we have seen before.

Mr. Hughes upon the Question; In Exod. 22.25. Whe­ther the Law against Ʋsury be in force? Answ. Not in the Political Consideration of the Jews, which was special to them; as to use it towards Strangers, and as a Balance of Government to themselves; but as to com­mon and general Equity, &c.

And Rivet from Junius: p. 285. — There­fore if it could be proved, That the taking of all Increase was absolutely forbidden to the Jews, even in respect of a Wealthy Brother; it would not follow now, all yearly Increase to be altogether unlawful: for in this Law there might be somewhat Ceremonial and Civil mixt, which should not bind other Nations besides the Jews; for the Jews might not sell their Possessions for ever; but the buyer only did receive the profits unto the year of Jubi­lee, wherein unmoveable goods ought to be re­stored to the right owner, Lev. 25.10, 15. But if it had been lawful for a Jew to take use of his Brother, that Law had been rendred use­less; for one would never have bought a Pos­session of another; but rather, would have re­ceived a yearly sum, without any toil, when he should have known that the Possession was to be restored to his Neighbour at a certain time. There is another Law of releasing Debts to a brother every seventh year, Deut. 15.1. But if it had been lawful to exact [Page 72]that increase from a brother, they would have so managed their Exactions in the six years, that at the time appointed there should be no­thing left to be released to their Brother. These Civil reasons might be, why Ʋsu­ries were more severely prohibited amongst the Israelites, which yet were lawful to­ward Strangers; even as it was not lawful after 7 years to exact a Debt from a Bro­ther, which yet was lawful from a Stranger: for so it is said, Deut. 15.3.

5. This administers another proof, That this Law was Political, and Usury not a­gainst the Law of Nature, beeing they might lend to a Stranger upon Usury, though not to a Brother.

Mr J. 3. The very Law of Naure is against it.

Reply; I grant it, if meant of oppressive and biting Usury, not else. Mr. J. here mis reports Cicero, Cicero de Off. l. 3. as if he had said, that Ʋsury is more against Nature than Death: whereas Cicero speaks not there in special of Usury; but of increasing a Mans Estate by damnifying another, which may be the fault of the borrower as well as of the len­der; Rivet p. 281. and I find the words of Cicero made use of by the contrary minded to streng-then their Opinion: Cicero saith thus; It is against Nature to advance a mans profit by the disprofit of another. Again, The en­largment of a mans own estate, hurting none, [Page 73]is not to be dispised; but wrong is always to be voided: but to detract any thing from ano­ther; and for one man to advance his profit by the disprofit of another man, is more a­gainst nature than Death, than Poverty, than Grief, than any other things which can hap­pen to the body or outward estate: for Na­ture will not permit, that by the spoils of o­thers we should increase our Substance, Wealth, Riches: Neither is it only determi­ned by Nature, i. e. by the Law of Nati­ons; but also by Popular Laws, whereby Commonwealths in their several Cities are sustained, that it may not be lawful for any to hurt another for his own advantage; for this the Laws respect, this they design, that the Conjunction of Citizens be safe.

So then, the general Rules Cicero lays down, concerns both Parties; De Jure &c. p. 215. and Grotius citing them, adds, So great is the equity of this Saying, that hence the Lawyers define many things without the Prescript of Laws, always appealing to Equity it self as the most evident.

By these Rules then, which are fetcht from the heart of Nature, It is unequal and unjust for any to grow rich by money borrowed, and the lender not to have the least advantage thereby; but that he should forgo his money to anothers pleasure and advantage to his own detriment: How then the Law of Nature should be against all [Page 74]gain opon loan; or how the Heathen, yea, all Nation among them, should be so quick-sighted, as to discern, that all ta­king of gain for money lent should be a­gainst the very Law of Nature, seems very strange. Let that be weighed we receive from Grotius (who was as quick-sighted in Natures Dictates as most others:) Per rem hactenus, Ibid. p. 601. &c. So far they are obliged in this matter, that they may not become weal­thier by anothers loss, i. e. That either they perform the Contract, from whence they are willing to receive the profit; or let them part with the profit: — But on the contrary, they cannot be excused as free from unjustice; who though they dislike the Compacts, yet keep the profit which they should not have had without these Compacts.

To one pleading for Usury, and appea­ling to the general practice of the World, and the Law of Nature written in the hearts of men: Append. Of Us. p. 296. I find Mr. Capel to answer him thus: For the general practice of the World, I do not know, nor can he know what it is; this may serve for an answer to his quota­tion out of Bishop Sands, viz. That all Nations at all times have condemned Ʋsury: the which assertion is easily spoken, but hard to be proved; yea, soon disproved by the several Laws that have been made in several Ages, by Pious Emperors, Kings, &c. for the allowance thereof, and pre­scribing [Page 75]the sum that might be taken; as Zanchy quoted, mentions; and more may be discovered in due place. I have read of a Law amongst the Ancient Greecians and Ro­mans that allowed one in the hundred, therefore called Ʋnciarie Ʋsury.

But to unfold this a little: We may come to understand, whence Usury came so generally to be forbidden among the Learned Heathen, both Greeks and Romans: If we mark what Grotius writes, viz. That the Laws of the twelve Tables among the Ro­mans were borrowed from the Grecians, and these borrowed their Laws from the Hebrews. And by the Laws of the Hebrews Usury be­ing forbidden, it came thence to be incor­porated into the Laws of other Nations; and whatsoever Laws have since by any Christian Princes been made against Usury, it is easy to believe they had their arise from the same fountain.

Mr. J. 4. Ʋsury is forbidden in the Now Testament by our Saviour, Luk. 6.35. and therefore the Law against it cannot be meerly Political.

Reply 1. Meerly Political: None, that I know, saith it is, and therefore that term is ill foisted in: it is commonly said, that the political Laws of God carried a gene­ral equity in them; and it is acknowledg­ed, there is an Usury that is against Natures Law, as we have often said. If this Law [Page 76]be proved to reach the Jewish Nation, so that one Jew might not take Use of another Jew, whatever he were, it shall suffice to say, that it was so far political.

2. Luke 6.35. hath been already spo­ken too, and it hath been proved, that all taking of Use is here forbidden, neither expresly nor consequentially; it being the Interest of his poor Disciples, that Our Lord is here pleading: Whole Duty of Man. p. 367. what is written by a Judicious Author, may serve for a farther Comment thereon.

Sometime a seasonable Loan may do as well as a gift, and that may be in the power some­times of those that are able to give but little: but when we thus lend on Charity, we must lend freely without Ʋse, and also with a pur­pose, that if he should prove unable to pay, we will forgive so much of the Principal, as his needs require, and our abilities will per­mit.

Mr. J. Here Ʋsurers make two Replys. 1. That Ʋsury is not named by Christ, — nor any where in the New Testament. 1. Ans. True, nor is Sodomie committed with a Beast named in the N. Testament.

Reply: The reason is not the same: this latter being a sin of rarer practice, and car­rying in it a greater abhorrency to nature, it was thought sufficient, that in the Anci­ent standing Law it was severely prohibi­ted; none of the Prophets that came after, [Page 77]making any mention thereof. The very naming of some sins (such as this) striking a horror into the hearers minds, no mat­ter if their names, together with their practice, were quite forgotten. The A­postle speaking of Fornication and Unclean­ness (the same very applicable here) says, let it not be once named amongst you as beco­meth Saints. Eph. 5.2. Should Mr. J. have mentio­ned that Sin he speaks of, as often as he has Usury, I think he would have abun­dantly offended modest minds there­by.

Mr. J. 2. Other famous Writers shall re­solve them about that place.

Reply: I have before cited others as fa­mous of a contrary mind: And I think very few of our late Divines interpret Luke 6.35. as condemning all Use.

Mr. J. Whereas some reply; That neither Christ, nor yet his Apostles any where menti­on Ʋsury. It is answered, That Ʋsury in those days was suppressed by the 12 Tables, and the Emperors then Reigning, Tiberius and Claudius, and Vespasian. — Tiberius himself, though otherwise wicked enough, yet would rather furnish his Banks with his own Stock to be freely lent for three yeers to the Ci­tizens, upon only the security of the sum doubled in the forfeiture, than he would en­dure this griping and oppressing Transacti­on.

[Page 78] 1. Reply: These proofs come far short of the Assertions: If these Emperors made Laws against Usury; then, 'tis like, it was grown common, and fell under Publick Notice; and as soon as Laws are made, practices of that nature are not quite sup­pressed: suppose Publick Laws Enacted in our Land against Drunkenness and Whore­dom; would that save Mr. J. the labour from Preaching down those Vices? But letting that pass; did the Roman Laws reach Judea and all the Empire? I think not; the Romans leaving the Conquered Nations mostly to enjoy their own Laws. De Jure, &c. p. 556. Augustus (as Grotius hath it from Philo in his Em­bassage to Caius) thought the custody of the Laws proper to each Nation, belonged no less to his care, than those of the Romans.

2. If this were granted too, that the Imperial Laws were imposed on Judea, and Usury thereby quite Supprest, does he not remember that Our Lord in the Gospel designed Rules, not only for the present; but also for after-times of his Church.

3. But it is a strange presumption to think, that all Usury was indeed quite sup­prest by these Laws; and he leaping from Claudius to Vespasian, gives cause of sus­picion, that the inter-mediate Emperors were not so severe against it, considering withal, that Seneca living in that Interval, was (by his own quotation) a notable U­surer, [Page 79]who was contemporary with Paul and other Apostles: And being it was pra­ctised by so great a Moralist as Seneca, it sets me a wondring how they should have so great a Charity for Tiberius, (a man made up of craft and cruelty) as to believe he should exceed the greatest Presician for Morality in his time, (not to mention some of the ablest and purest Christians of these latter days;) as also that the Law by him made against Usury was in real detestation of Oppression; and not rather, a cunning insinuation to ingratiate himself with the Multitude; and withal, a politick fetch to suppress all the Petty Usurers, that he might have vent for his money, and mono­polize the Trade to himself; pretending free lending, but intending to make his Market by the forseiture of the double Bonds; which whosoever should do a­mongst us, would probably be a far grea­ter gainer than any other Usurer, that keeps within the bounds of the Law could be.

4. And upon the whole, their case seems wide from ours, Usury then, after the Laws Enacted against it, becoming a trans­gression of a Civil Law, moderate Usury with us, not so.

5. And before and after these Laws of theirs, there being no bounds sate to the [Page 80]greedy Usurers desires, but what his ex libidi­dine locu­pletium a­gitaretur taciti Hist. l. 6. c. 16. own will, and the borrowers necessities admitted; 'tis like there was Oppression enough lurking under this name, and de­serving to be supprest; whereas with us the Laws of the Land have measured out the bounds to the lenders profit; Hitherto, but no further.

6. p. 42. And I understand from him, that some of the wiser Emperors coming after, did not absolutely forbid, but limit Usury. Alexander Severus trientariam constituit. Antonius Pius Imperator ipse trientariam exercuit ut plurimos invaret. These wise Emperors made it lawful to receive 4 per Centum.

Mr. J. Their second Reply is, That God permitted his People to lend upon Ʋsury to a stranger, and that therefore the Law against usury is Political; for if Moral, how could they lend to a Stranger, Deut. 23.19, 20.

Mr. J. Ans. Some say one thing, some a­nother. [But what saith he?] I for my part shall cut short what I have to say, and go to that most notable and emphatical expressi­on, Deut. 23.20. [...] Unto that Stran­ger thou mayst lend upon Usury, the Ca­naanite, namely, whom God would have con­sumed and destroyed, and ashom it was law­ful to kill. So blessed Ambrose decideth this Controversy. [A bad shift is better then [Page 81]none, especially if it have a venerable name to plead for it, and Antiquity to boot: but yet, it seems this is the best he could find: let us hear him out.] But that you may more fully see that it is not every Stranger; but the Canaanite whom they were to put to death: I will quote that notable place, Lev. 25.35, 36. Yea, though he be a stranger or a sojourner ( understand, saith he, become a Jew) that he may live with thee, and then v. 36. Take no Ʋsury of him nor Increase.

Reply 1. This Proof overthrows it self; for it by Stranger (to whom they were for­bidden to lend on Usury, as well as to a Brother) we are to understand a Prose­lite, or one turned to the Jewish Religion; then it follows necessarily, that by Stran­ger, to whom they were to lend upon Use, we must understand all other Strangers, not so Proselited, of what Nation soever, and not the Canaanite only.

2. The Text will clear it self; for there Brother is opposed to Stranger: The E­gyptian was not their Brother, therefore a Stranger, and consequently, one to whom they might lend upon Usury; and so len­ding to such end is not against the Law of Nature. The Jews might not oppress a Stranger, that is frequently forbidden them; but yet they might lend to Stran­gers upon Usury, and therefore all Usury [Page 82]is not Oppression, nor against the Law of Nature.

The Scripture (saith Learned Ames) seems to indicate some Ʋsury to be lawful in it self, De Cons. l. 5. c. 44. p. 375. seing it was granted to the Jews to re­ceive Ʋsury from any Stranger that was not poor, Deut. 23.20. for if all Ʋsury were intrinsecally, and in its own nature sinful; then the Jews might not have taken Ʋse from the Gentiles without great scandal, whereby the Gentiles would he turned away from the Jews Religion and Law, as admitting that for lawful which was unlawful.

All Ʋsury is not forbidden (saith Horn­beck). Contra Judeos. l. 7. c. 7. p. 526. neither is the Contract for gain upon Loan, sinful in it self, or against the Law: otherwise, this had not been at all allowed or granted; the which God indeed prohibited the Jews amongst themselves, not with Stran­gers: for what is in it self a sin, is every where such, and can no where be counted law­ful, or be approved: no not with the Gen­tile. The Laws are such, for here are two to be considered, the one which forbids Ʋsu­ry to the Jews, the other which grants it, Lev. 25.35, 38. The reason is, because they were Brethren amongst themselves, had one common father after a singular manner, and the Inheritance, and the Goods of the land immediately delivered them by God, and af­ter a sort common, which were the foundation of that Political Law, as far as it concerned [Page 83]the Jews, Deut. 15.3. and 23.19, 20. Thou mayst lend, &c. It was unlawful to take Ʋse of a Brother, not only for this or that thing, but for any thing whatsoever; not so of a Gentile, — for what favour they were bound to shew to a Brother, they did not therefore owe to the Gentiles: The reason of the disparity is manifest. It is lawful at no time to do ill, although the same degrees of bounty and kindness are not due to all: they were not bound to offer the same Offices to a Gentile, which they owed to a Brother: wherefore not to lend to a Gentile, without Ʋsury; which degree of mutual Charity be­longed only to a Brother.

I have been the longer in this Quotation, because of the several reasons it carries in it. I shall take the same liberty in ci­ting Grotius, on the same account, Comment in Luc. 6.35. who speaks excellently to this purpose, and answers the usual cavils made against this Reply.

I come (saith he) to that Right which God granted to the Jewish Nation, Deut. 23.19. Thou shalt not lend to thy Bro­ther upon Usury, &c. here they that judge all Ʋsury to be against the law of Nature, un­derstand, what is spoken of lending upon Ʋse to a Stranger, to be a permission of Fact, not of Right: which neither the words admit, nor ever was so understood by that People to whom the Law was given: I have Jose­phus [Page 84]— and Philo for Witnesses, — to whom all the Rabbines consent; from whence it is sufficiently apparent, if I mistake not, that the Law was understood of Citizens to­ward Citizens, which also the words in Le­viticus shew: for there also usury is forbidden, this reason being added, that thy Brother may live by thee, Lev. 25.36. wherefore when in the Psalms and in Ezek. he is com­mended that exerciseth not usury, that is to be understood according to the laws prescrip­tion. Ambrose, and some following him, by Strangers understand those seven Nations with whom the Jews had a just War, and he thinks it no wonder if it were lawful to take use of those whom it was lawful to kill. But neither doth this Interpretaetion agree to the words of the law: for seeing Strangers are opposed to Brethren, i. e. Citizens, it is cer­tain, not these or these, but all Strangers must be understood. Add, that it in no wise became the gravity of a Law, to grant usury towards those, whom they were bound wholly to slay. The cause of the difference therefore was this, That God would have the Jews to observe a­mongst themselves, not only those Offices which are common amongst all men, one towards a­nother, and which in strict reason of right and due: but also many Offices of a nearer tye and charity: As in the Law of Servants, Pledges, plucking the Ears of Corn, and many other may be seen, — But that Law [Page 85]of Moses, in that it respects the State of that Nation, and was given to one Nation only, binds not others, any farther than it contains a Natural Equity. What Christ would have us do, seeing there is no particular Command extant of this matter, must be collected from general Rules.

Thus far Grotius. Think on it once a­gain, how unlikely it was, that the Jews might lend to those Nations, whom they were bound utterly to destroy: And Deut. 7. begin. they are charged to make no Covenant with them, nor shew any Mercy to them, nor enter Marriages with them: And the reason there given is, because these Na­tions would entice them from the Service of God to Idolatry: which same reason would also hinder them from lending, or having a­ny civil Commerce with them.

3. For a farther Confirmation of what is here said, take a parallel place, Deut. 15.2, 3. where the like opposition is between Brother and Stranger, and the like privi­ledge there granted to the former in the matter of the Release, that is elsewhere gi­ven him in the matter of Usury: All Debts were to be released every seventh year, v. 3. Of a Stranger thou mayst exact it a­gain; but that which is thine with thy Bro­ther, thine hand shall release: [...]: The expression is as emphatical al­together, as that which they translate, [Page 86] That Stranger: And yet none, I dare say, understands Stranger in this place, barely of the Canaanite: but as respecting all other Nations beside that they might have any Commerce with.

Calvin upon Deut. 23. saith, But in this place there is no mention made of Hittites, — nor of any other people of that land: but in general, of all Nations of the World: Egypt is here comprised, and Syria, and all the Isles of the Sea, and all those who had in­tercourse of Merchandise with the Jews, Vid. Diodate in loc.

Obj. 3. Doth not Christ allow of Ʋsury, when he saith, Mat. 25.27. Thou oughtest therefore to have put my Money to the Ex­changers: and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

Mr. J. Answ. The words are part of a Parable, and — symbolical Scripture is not Argumentative.

Reply 1. And yet he made it before one of his Arguments against Usury, because the Divel was a Metaphorical Usu­ter.

2. Though I have not thought any Argument of cogency could be deduced from this Text, De Consc. p. 375. yet I shall propose to con­sideration what the Learned Ames writes: Hither (saith he) may be referred, that it is very probable from that Parable of the Ta­lents, [Page 87]Mat. 25.27. Not only that there was some usury of Money-Changers in common use amongst the Jews, but also that it was not disallowed of Our Lord: because under that Similitudo he requires a spiritual Office, with­out the least hint of any disallowance, the which he was wont to use in other Parables, which illustrated duty from disallowed Cu­stomes, as Luke 16.8.

The Fourth Objection that Mr. J. an­swers, Chap. 7. contains this Plea: That Usury is by God forbidden to the Poor only, and not toward the Rich, and therefore lending to the Rich for use is lawful, As Exod. 22.25. Lev. 25.36.

Mr. J. Answ. This is a very specious Plea, I confess: but yet I hope through mer­cy to overthrow it.

1. The most wise God foreseing how some would abuse such namings of the poor people, leaveth out the poor in the repetition of his Laws, i. e. in Deut. 23.19. Thou shalt not lend upon Usury to thy Brother: Mark, Brother, And is not the Rich thy Brother too?

Reply 1. I like this answer the worse, be­cause it reflects upon the Wisdom of God, in effect, attributing over-right to him: as if the inconveniences happening had not been fore-seen at first; the which over­sights are frequent with men, which they [Page 88]are wont to rectifie by an after-act, revo­king the former. But far be it from us, that we should thus charge God with fol­ly.

2. To see farther yet, that Mr. J. is out in his reckoning, and that, where men­tion is made of lending in the repetition of the Law, the Poor were not left out upon any such account, as is pretended; you shall find the Poor expresly mentioned in the business of lending, in this Book of Deut. viz. Chap. 15.7, 8. If there be a­mong you a poor man of one of thy Brethren, within any of thy Gates, — thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy poor Brother: but thou shalt open thy hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him suf­ficient for his need, in that which he wan­teth.

This place joyneth Poor and Brother to­gether. So Ezek. 18.17. the place so often pointed to, and the which was written long after this foresight he mentions; there we have these expressions: — that have taken off his hand from the Poor, and hath not received Ʋsury or Increase.

3. To come closer yet; Deut. 23.19. where 'tis pleaded, the Poor is left out, and Brother put in its room; yet there, say I, the expressions, in effect, do limit it to the Poor, for who are wont to bor­row Victuals, and the like, save the Poor? [Page 89]Hear Zanchy; Also put not out thy meat to usury; therefore he spake of the Poor. And Rivet: Let us consider the places: P. 284. — Deut. 23. where is no mention of the Poor, We mean all, and do contend, that that third place contains the same restriction, if not in express terms; yet both in the comparing of what goes before, and what follows after: for when he injoyns, that none should lend to his Neighbour, either Money or Victuals u­pon usury; he shews that usury to be forbid­den, which should be received from him, who had need of meat; and borrowed money, not for that end we have spoken off, viz. for gain; but for his Maintenance, forced through necessity, as is evinced from other pla­ces.

4. I shall add farther Testimonies: Mr. Baxter in his Directory, Part. 4. p. 125. §. 18. Ʋsury [as by him stated] is not forbidden us by the Law of Moses. 1. Be­cause Moses law never did forbid it: for 1. It is expresly forbidden as an act of un­mercifulness; and therefere forbidden only to the Poor and to Brethren. 2. It is expresly allowed to be used to Strangers, Deut. 23.19, 20. to whom nothing unjust or unchari­table might be done: onely such a measure of Charity was not required toward them, as un­to Brethren. — So that the Prohibition of Ʋsury is in the Law it self restrained only to their lending to the Poor: but in the Prophets [Page 90]who do but reprove the sin, it is expressed without that limitation, partly because it sup­poseth the meaning of the Law to be known, which the Prophets did but apply: and part­ly because there was little or no lending used amongst the Jews, but to the needy, as an act of charity. 2. And if it had been for­bidden in Moses only, it would not extend to Christians now, because the Law of Mo­ses as such as is not in force.

5. What need of farther witness? The first Law against Usury limits it to the poor, and there is no Law or Comment following in Scripture that extends it to the rich, why then should we extend it to the rich? The Law saith, Thou shalt not lend to thy Brother that is waxen poor by thee upon Ʋsury: that is, (saith Mr. J. in his Comment) Thou shalt not lend to the poor or rich upon Usury: Strange Comment!

Again, In Lev. 25. The Law against Usury is not only restrained to the poor by name, but his poverty is intimated as the reason of this free Lending: So it runs, If thy Brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, that he may live with thee: This last reason is twice repeated: All this in­timating the persons to be such as borrow for a Livelyhood; necessity is the reason of his borrowing. ‘Where the object and [Page 91]reason of a prohibition ceaseth, the pro­hibition also ceaseth, saith Rivet.’ There are several Laws mentioned in this Chap­ter that are also limited to the poor, see v. 25.35, 39, 47. And the same general reason annext to them all, viz. I am the Lord your God.

Mr. J. 2. And what were those usurers whom Nehemiah did so blame and condemn for usury? were they not such as lent to them that had Lands, Vineyards, &c. Neh. 5.6, 9, 11. Will you usurers call such Land­ed men poor?

Reply 1. Mr. J. himself called them poor borrowers; And were he in the like case with most of them, he would count his Condition poor. Some of them so poor, they were forced to sell their Children to keep themselves from starving, after they had morgaged their Lands and Vineyards, &c.

2. But whether they are to be called poor or no, it seems they were for that present very necessitous; otherwise they would not have mortgaged their Estates, Lands, Houses, &c. To buy Corn, and for a Livelyhood; nor have suffered their Sons, and Daughters to have been brought into bondage.

3. Here I consult Rivet again. P. 279. We grant there must be lending to a poor man place in Extremity, not only without the hope of [Page 92]an early return, but also although there should be no hope of the principal: farther, to those which otherwise do not want goods, but are in such a condition wherein for a time they cannot injoy their own, loan must be granted freely, which they require to the necessary support of their life for a time.

4. In my Animadversions on what is written by Mr. Capel on this sub­ject, I have given a fuller Answer to this place, viz. Neh. 5. Only this here; Let it be considered, whether the Case men­tioned were not extraordinary; as was that of the Primitive Christians, Acts 2. when they sold their possessions, and laid down the price at the Apostles feet. And I think those none of the wisest Divines (whatever their Zeal may be) that draw Ordinary Rules from Extraordinary Cases or Examples: As they that would destroy propriety, and make all things Common, from the foresaid instance of the primitive Christians: So they that would bring in a necessity on Ministers ordinarily to work for a Livelyhood, because the Apostle Paul under Extraordinary Circumstances did so.

What Mr. J. saith (1.) Of a sallacy of Causae non pro causa, p. 36. avails nothing. For (upon supposition that the Law it self be not political and proper to the Jews, but universal, and in its full force to this [Page 93]day) I say, that usury in Scripture is for­bidden only with respect to the poor; or, wheresoever free lending is exprest with its object, there the poor are exprest or implied; and the reason used for free lend­ing reacheth not others.

Mr. J. 2. Fallacy of consequence, for it doth not therefore follow a man may lend up­on usury to a rich man; no more than this, that a man may rob a rich man, because it is written, Rob not the poor, Prov. 22.22.

Reply 1. I grant his reasoning were good, if it were proved that all gain for Loan were a moral evil, or against Natures Law, as Robbery; but that cannot be proved.

2. In the Text mentioned, there is a particular reason added, whereon the diswasion is grounded, or which was the temptation to the sin, viz. Because he is poor, taking occasion from his poverty which is without power or defence, saith Dio­date.

3. Learned Rivet hath answered this objection, as urged by the Bishop of Win­chester: Thus. He urgeth, What a con­sequence is this? The Law forbids taking use from a poor man, therefore it permits taking from the rich. This being said, he knits many absurd consequences, which he pretends to be of the the like import: As, [Page 94]The Law forbids to oppress Widows or Or­phans, therefore it permits, that such as have husbands and parents may be opprest, &c. But in such Consequences there is a dis­simititude, because oppression and the like are evil in themselves, as is clearly proved from other places, but it is not in it self evil, to take any increase for loan, but in some cases only, into which the rich man, while such, falleth not.

Mr. J. The Stranger is Excepted, and not the Rich, Deut. 23.29.20.

Reply. Neither was it necessary; the person to whom it was unlawful thus to lend. being sufficiently pointed out in former rehearsals of the Law. The Dutch Annotators upon Deut. 23.20. Ʋnto the Stranger thou shalt lend upon usury, i. e. Thou mayest lend upon usury; because they had dealing with the Jews, not as the poor Israelites had by reason of poverty, but to trade and traffick with them, and to be enriched by them.

Mr. J. A gracious promise is here made to such as shall so freely, and without Usury lend to rich and poor.

Reply. 1. This is more than I can see from the Text (or any other) the bor­rowers here being such as borrowed Victu­als & Money to supply their urgent necessi­ty, but on the contrary there is a curse upon the head of any that is liberal to the rich, Prov. 22.16. He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.

[Page 95] 2. Let the Reader observe how Mr. J. makes it our duty equally to lend freely to poor and rich. The Law saying, Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy Brother? And is not the Rich thy Brother too? saith he. In that the Law saith, Thou shalt not lend upon usury, It doth say, Thou shalt lend; Under this Prohibition (saith Ainsworth in Deut. 23.20.) the contrary is commanded, that we should lend unto our poor Brother freely, and not take again any thing more than was lent. And to our rich Brother too, saith Mr. J. But so far I think he will have but few of his mind. But if we are not bound to lend to the rich, I see not, how we can be bound to lend freely to them.

3. Of a truth there should be some dif­ference put between rich and poor in the business of lending: So thought the learn­ed Dr. Hammond, Pract. Catech. p. 316. who after he hath given us (as he saith) the one only ground a­gainst Usury in the New Testament, taken from Luke 6.20. p. 313, &c. And having declared his Judgment against taking use of the Poor, he adds; As for the Case of the rich mans lending to the rich, there hath appear­ed nothing in either of these Interpretations which will oblige us to it, or (if he do) which will prohibit the taking Interest of him.— So do I not know any other, so much as colour of Text in the New Testament that forbids [Page 96]it, nor indeed reason nor Analogy, &c.

So then Mr. I. might have taken notice of others besides Presbyterian and Con­gregational men, p. 38. that all allow of taking use of the Rich: here you have this learn­ed Doctor putting a difference betwixt Poor and Rich in the transaction of Lend­ing; Rules of holy liv­ing p. 205. as also Doctor Taylor doth in that of buying and selling: That to poor persons the utmost measure and extent of Justice, is unmerciful; which to a rich person is Innocent, because it is Just, and he needs not thy mercy and remission.

4. Yea, p. 56. we learn from Mr. J. himself, That by lending to such as are rich, we do but furnish them with Nerves and Sinews to do mischief with, to oppress others in bar­gaining, &c. If we lend freely to the rich, would not the same mischiefs follow, yea, be increased?

His Answer to the second Reply needs no farther consideration, as being abun­dantly satisfied from what hath been al­ready spoken. p. 38. Only, As to what he whis­pers into the Ministers Ear; I am to seek out of his meaning, when he saith, If thou art against usury indeed, as thou sayest thou art, then why dost thou speak against me that speak against it, when I do not once mention lending to the rich?

Hath he not once and again mentioned Lending to the rich? Vide p. 35, &c. Doth he not plead [Page 97]for a free Lending to such? Doth he not make a Lending for gain to such sin­ful?

Reply 3. We must not make more sins then God maketh.

Mr. J. I confess it, but doth God make Lending to the rich no sin? I pray where is the place? shew it if you can.

Reply: His Answer depends upon this Medium, ‘whatever is not exprest in Scripture to be lawful, is sinful:’ the which, how weak it is I need not stand to shew: It being, as far as I have learnt, a certain rule, that in things of this nature, where Civil Contracts and dealings are concerned, whatsoever is no way forbid­den, is lawful. God hath no where made lending to the rich for gain a sin; Ergo, It is no sin.

Obj. 5. I show Charity to my Nelghbour, for by my loan; he preserveth his Estate, &c.

Mr. J. Answ. 1. Charity is kind, but usu­ry is Cruel.

Reply. This is said, but not proved, as to the Usury I am pleading for. It is evi­dent and undeniable, being every days experience, that many men have not only preserved, but increased their Estates by this means, and the Commonwealth not at all bitten.

Mr. J. 2. Charity should be free in lend­ing, Luke 6.35.

Reply. So Charity should be free in gi­ving too; Only both must be where there are due objects, to some we ought to give freely, to others we ought to lend freely; but others there are to whom we owe nei­ther, either by the Laws of God or Man.

Give to every one that asketh: Ut supra p. 314. Though the words (saith Dr. Hammond) are in an unlimited latitude, yet ordinary prudence will interpret them so, that if a covetous rich man ask of me, I am not bound to give to him, but only to him whose wants set him on asking: And so consequently in like manner the prohibition or forbidding to exact, take, or require use of him that borrows, belongs not again to the poor or mean Creditor, when a rich man borrows of him, &c.

Obj. 6. I will never be perswaded God will damn that man who doth as he would be done to,—Mat. 7.12. I would be willing to pay, &c.

Mr. J. Answ. 1. Nor would I be per­swaded that the Ʋsurer would be willing by an absolute and free will to pay Interest.—

Reply. I am in this of his mind, if any would so far befriend the Borrower, as to lend him gratis: this being of the two more eligible. Quis nisi mentis inops, &c.

Mr. J. adds, To pay Interest; if he were in many Borrowers Case.

Reply. 1. This is not well stated: the question being, whether it be not reasona­ble [Page 99]for some that borrow to pay interest, that can do it, and not be prejudiced by the Contract.

2. I shall not pass farther, until I have look'd a little nearer into the Golden Rule laid down by our Saviour, Of doing as we would be done unto: which is the Rule of all Civil Trade and Commerce.

So B. Taylor thought: Rule of ho­ly liv. p. 180. Whatsoever ye would that Men, &c. This is the measure (saith he) of Commutative Justice, or of that Justice which supposeth the Exchange of things profitable, for things profitable: that as I supply your need, you may supply mine; as I do a benefit to you, I may receive one by ou.

3. Dr. Hammond treating (as before) of Lending to the rich for gain, Pract. Cat. p. 316. writes thus; I do not know any other so much as colour of Text in the New Testament which forbids it, nor indeed reason, nor Analogy, either from that great Rule in hand, Of doing as I would be done to (for if I were a rich man, I would, in Case of con­venience or advantage, that a loan would probably bring in me, be willing to pay use for it) Or of loving my Neighbour as my self.

3. From this very Rule Zanchy pleads the Lawfulness of taking Use or Interest. In Eph. 4.28. Add (saith he) the Rule of Christ, what­soever therefore ye would, &c. But who [Page 100]is there that would not (and that from a right Judgment) be made partakers of that gain, which is made by the Communication of thy money?

5. Such a Contract (saith Rivet) hath its foundation in natural equity, p. 280. — for natu­ral equity requires an equality: which is not where one receives all the profit, but the other all the disprofit. It is meet therefore in bargaining, that the profits and dispro­fits be equal: that therefore things unequal may become equal, the very Law of nature perswades that the profits be divided, there­fore a wealthy person, to whom an undue office of Lending is performed without any necessity, ought to pay to the Lender by way of recompence, part of the gain gotten by the money lent: and may be bound thereunto before lending, as unto a Condition. The which is confirmed by this Rule of natural right, As you would that men, &c. Luke 6.31. But there is none that would not be ad­mitted to a participation of the gain, which was procured by the loan he made with the foresaid Circumstances: Therefore he ought to deal so with his Creditors, and not think himself aggrieved by so doing.

Lastly, p. 9. Hear Bishop Hall: Shortly (saith he) for the guidance either of our caution or liberty in matter of borrowing and lending, the only Cynosure, is our Charity; for in all humane and Civil acts of Commerce, it is a [Page 101]sure Rule, that what soever is not a violation of charity, cannot be unlawful; and what­soever is not agreeable to charity, can be no other than sinful: and as Charity must be your rule, so your self must be the Rule of your Charity, look what you would wish to be done to you by others, do but the same to others, you cannot be guilty of the breach of Charity.

But the equity and reasonableness of the transaction, here pleaded for, as grounded on this Rule, will farther appear, if it be remembred that Charity begins at home.

1. Bishop Hall says, God hath not Com­manded you to love any man more than your self; p. 2. and there can be no reason why you shouldvail your own just advantage to another man's Excess. — Again; What reason can there be, that to pleasure another man, I should hurt my self, or that I should enrich a­nother by mine own loss?

2. God would not have thee (saith Mr. Burton, p. 4.6. in Caveate for Sureties) to help thy Neighbour without any care to save thy self: For although he hath said, Love thy Neighbour as thy self, yet he never said, Love thy Neighbour better than thy self; or, Love thy self less than thy Neighbour, but love him as thy self: i. e. help him and save thy self too, or else thou shouldst love [Page 102]him, and hate thy self, which in the same words is condemned.

3. Thus Cicero; De Off. l. 3. p. 115. Neither are our own profits to be omitted by us, and delivered to others, when we want them our selves: but every one must look to his own profit; which may be obtained with anothers wrong: wise­ly speaks Chrysippus; He that runs a Race, ought to strive and endeavour to the utmost that he may overcome: but he ought not at all to supplant him, with whom he striveth, or thrust him by with his hand. Thus in our life it is not unjust for any one to seek after what makes for use, but to take from another is not lawful.

4. You may find it applied to the pre­sent Case by Grotius: Annot. in Luc. 6.35. Nature dictates that none is bound to profit another to his own loss: but he that parts with his money for a time to pleasure another could have laid it out up­on Fields, or Houses, and receive the fruits the mean while, the which, if any call uncer­tain, yet that uncertainty, as all chance, hath its value, and may be sold.

More fully Rivet. p. 280. Christian Charity re­quires that every man chiefly look to himself and his Relations, all things considered; If any provide not for his own, &c. 1 Tim. 5.8. And Parents are bound to lay up for their Children, 2 Cor. 12.4, &c.

[Page 103] 5. The same is applied by Dr. Ham­mond to selling: pract. cat. p. 301. He that sells too low, may offend against himself and his own Family; and a man is to love himself, and not his Neighbour only.

Obj. 5. The laws of men, and even of Christians, the Civil law, the Canon law, the Statute law, do allow of usury, and do you think they would, if all Usurers should be damned, as you say?

Mr. J. Answ. 1. Denying the Assertion, that they allow of it; they do but tolerate, per­mit and restrain it for some Civil good, and to avoid greater evils.

Reply 1. Greater evils? What greater than the damnation of so many souls? (for that is the doom he hath passed on all that take Use) I cannot believe it: neither can there be any Civil good sufficient to coun­terballance such a mischief, by him suppo­sed.

2. Neither can I be perswaded, (howe­ver God might tolerate a Bill of Divorce for the hardness of the Jews hearts) that men may take so much upon them, and contrary to an express Prohibition of God, by Law, positively tolerate or permit that which is in it self unlawful, against the light of Nature, and so destructive to the Souls of men; for what would this be, but a vir­tual dispensation given for the breach of [Page 104]the Divine Laws? And might not the Pa­pists plead for the like Toleration of Stews in their Dominions, even on the same ground, of avoiding greater mischiefs.

3. But I think it not difficult to prove, that it is somewhat more than a bare per­mission, or immunity from punishment that Usury lays claim to from these Laws; I mean, an allowance, (by him denied:) for by vertue of these Laws, may not a man recover the Use by them prescribed? In some Cases, the Law of Nature, and the Laws of all Countries do allow it, saith Mr. Perkins. It is expresly allowed to be used to Strangers, Deut. 23. saith Mr. Baxter. Hither belong (saith Zanchy) the just laws of Pious Emperors—who also determine how much it may be lawful to take above the Prin­cipal. And that Mr. J. is mistaken concer­ning our Laws, I shall send him to the last Statute, (which is the only Law in force in this Land:) This looking back u­pon the Law immediately preceding, ex­presseth, Its allowance of eight in the hun­dred. And now I am come so far, I shall take a little more notice of the Law in force: This forbids taking above six per Cent. by way of bargain, loan, exchange, chievesance, shift or interest: some whereof are by Mr. J's concession in themselves lawful, and therefore here not only per­mitted, but also allowed, as long as they [Page 105]keep within the bounds prescribed: And all these fore-mentioned dealings are for­bidden, not only with respect to Money, but also to Wares, Merchandize, or other thing or things whatsoever; and with respect to the forbearing and giving day of payment for one whole year, &c.

Mr. Bolton rejects this last too, as Usu­ry; what are Mr. J's thoughts herein I know not; but by that Opinion, I suppose, few of the Shop-keepers, Traders, Mer­chants, &c. in the Nation will escape cen­sure. Whatever he thinks in this matter, I shall hereafter prove it reasonable, and the taking of Use to stand on the same foun­dation of Justice and Equity with this.

4. Let it be also considered, that foras­much as propriety (which is sounded on the Law of Nature) receives its limitation and application from Human Laws; whe­ther any man hath not the same right to 6 per Cent. in this land, that lends his mony, as any one one has to his Lands and Tene­ments, or any Goods he enjoys by vertue of these Laws? pract. cat. p. 298. Dr. Hammond speaking against the founding dominion in Grace; brings to disprove it: That known Maxime, that Christs Kingdom is not of this World, that he came not to interpose in Secular Af­fairs, (such are the proprieties of men) but disclaimed having any thing to do to be a [Page 106]Judge, or divider amongst men, and himself pays Tribute, &c.

And these things we are treating of, be­ing Civil, Political, and depending on hu­man Contracts, are the proper subjects wherein human Laws are concerned, for the stating the bounds between borrower and lender in the matter of gain; as they also do in some cases between the buyer and seller: provided still, that these Laws do keep within the general bounds of Equity and Moderation that may be collected from Scripture or right Reason. It appertains to these Laws to state and appoint; as at what rate Gold and Silver shall be valu­ed; so also what rate Money lent shall bear.

'Tis what we have learnt before from Dr. Taylor: H. living. p. 205. That commutative Justice is such as depends upon the laws of Man direct­ly, and upon the laws of God only by conse­quence, &c. And we have Luther's Judg­ment too, favouring what I aim at.

Conscience (saith he) may be consulted for, If the Magistrate, with the advice of Divines and and Lawyers, prescribe a cer­tain middle way in these Contracts. And Gro­tius. In luc. 6.35.

First, They ought to take heed, that un­der the covert of Ʋsury they exact not more than is meet, the which because it is not pla­ced in a certain point, but admits of a lati­tude [Page 107]according to the diversity of Countrys and Nations, ought to be defined by Civil Law.

5. I shall close this Subject with Learned Rivet: P. 281. In these Cases, neither Christian Charity, nor Natural Equity, nor Humanity is violated, if beside the Principal there be an addition of some increase, and so much gain, as by Publick Law is allowed and defi­ned; and that by the same right by which it is lawful with a safe Conscience, to buy from the same person part of his Revenues or E­state.

Afterward: p. 282. A wise Magistrate is not to be blamed; if to prevent strifes, he shall be pleased to use a certain moderation, by ap­pointing a certain sum for an yearly Pension: And seeing the Magistrate rewards Money disbursed by Subjects with such an yearly Pen­sion of five or six Florens, as is done in these Provinces, therefore the appointment there­of ought so much the more to be approved, (Not as a toleration, or some bounds put to Ʋsury, otherwise unlawful) for the preven­ting of abuses: otherwise he ought not to ad­minister an occasion to sin; but because he sees it necessary for Civil Society, and not against Equity, being he had an eye to that, and de­signed to stop many Controversies. Therefore the opinion of Learned Men is not amiss, that as in Civil Commerce the Magistrate may make use of other Constitutions, so of this al­so, [Page 108]without any scruple of Conscience; when he knows the Magistrate to be the Minister of God, and furnished by him with the power of making Laws, whom in this his Ordination he knows to have respect to Natural Equi­ty.

I come to particulars: What Mr. J. 1. says of the Civil Law,— Whereby an­cient burdens were reduced (saith he) to some Mediocrity, makes more against him than for him, in that it acknowledgeth a Me­diocrity may be found out in the transaction between borrower and lender.

2. Canon Law: The Doctors of it (saith he) use this Argument, That an Inferior law cannot take off the law of the superi­or.

Reply: Gods Law of Usury being pecu­liar to that Nation, or restraining it to the poor; there is room enough for Human Laws in this case.

Not impertinent to my purpose is what is laid down by the Rev. D. Hammond: pract. cat. p. 313. I must tell you, that the business of Ʋsury is not so clearly stated in the N. T. ( and for that among the Jews in the Old, it is both obscure, and only to a fellow-Jew, and so be­longs not unto Christians, who are not obli­ged by their Judicial Laws, any further than the equity of them is imitable by us) as that I can set strict and certain Laws to any mans actions from thence, &c.

Mr. J. 3. Statute-Law, Jac. 21. Pro­vided that no words in this Law contained, shall be construed or expounded to allow the practice of Ʋsury in the point of Religion or Conscience.

Reply: Allow it then it doth in civil con­verse. And the determination of the Con­troversie, whether the Law of Old among the Jews made against Usury; be in force, is foreign and extrinsick to a Civil Court or Judicature. If the Civil Law forbids flesh in Lent, the use thereof at that time, in point of Conscience, remains lawful as before.

Mr. J. Answ. 2. That these Laws are so far from allowing of Ʋsury, that they shew themselves most bitter enemies to it.

Reply: Not all Laws surely: we have in part seen the contrary already: nor against all Usury, but such as is vexatious and op­pressive. In Ephos. 4.28. So Learned Zanchy understood the Laws that were made against Usury; saying, Hither belong all the Laws of Hea­then and pious Emperors, whereby heed was taken, that such like Ʋsury should not be exer­cised.

Mr. J. 1. The Civil Law in old time was so strict against Ʋsurers, that they would not admit an Ʋsurer to the administration of the Commonwealth.

Reply 1. I can tell him too, when they would not admit a Christian to the same Im­ployment.

2. Whereas he saith, In old time: how old it was we may learn from Grotius: In Luc. 6. Leo [who lived in the ninth Cent. and began his Reign, Anno 936.] was the first Empe­ror, — who thinking all Ʋsury forbidden Christians, established it by a common Law, whereas before the Churches themselves were wont to take Money [sub trientalibus Usu­ris] after four in the hundred.

And the Emperors which sorbad Usury, forbad Suretiship too, says the same Au­thor: Grotius De Jure, &c. l. 5. c. 2. §. 1, 2. which strict Laws some Emperors since have recalled; or else Zanchy was mistaken, who says; Hither belong the Laws of Pious Emperors, — who also have determined, how much above the Principal it may be lawful to take.

3. Whereas the Laws Ecclesiastical and Canon, denyed them the Sacraments, &c. This also was toward the latter Ages, not in the purest Antiquity, if we credit Gro­tius: Amongst the Ancient Canons (saith he) I find none, which removes from the Sacra­ment all those that exercise Ʋsury promis­cuously; that was done in the latter A­ges.

4. Statute-Law: Though some of these condemned Usury; yet they took it from Tradition as granted: not undertaking in [Page 111]point of Conscience to determine whether lawful or not; this not belonging to their Jurisdiction. And our late Statute of U­sury, passeth no such reflections thereon, as some before had done; and the Laws in several other Countries, looking on it with a more savourable eye, allowing the practice thereof for their Christian Subjects, under due simits and restraints.

Mr. J. Some will reply: That the law may be understood to be so bitter against all Oppressive Ʋsury. But I answer, No.

Reply: It may be reasonably supposed; that it was this oppressive Usury, that gave the occasion to those severe Laws against it: from which oppressive Usury, they did not think themselves, 'tis like, secure enough, unless they condemned all in ge­neral. Here Mr. J. grants, that all Usu­ry is not oppressive: Let us consider his Answer.

No, for it declareth also what Ʋsury is, namely, when a man taketh any thing over and above his loan: So Ʋsury is committed, when a man having lent any thing that doth consist upon number weight and measure, doth take any thing over and above his loan.

Resp. A man lends his Neighbour a thou­sand pounds of Wool, or an hundred Bu­shels of Corn, suppose for two years; here is number, weight and measure: at the [Page 112]two years end may he not take somewhat over and above this loan; seeing the other, with his leave, hath the advantage of making the best profit of his Goods all this while? Grotius states it lawful, In Luke 6.35. saying, All ac­knowledge that he has more, that receives for the present time any thing, than he that re­ceives a long time after, for the advantage the natural possession brings with it; which takes place no less in loan, than in a thing hi­red: if we stand more upon the weight of things than the Nicity of words; but this ve­ry thing which is placed in the delay of time, without doubt may be valued, and therefore may be put into the bargain.

Obj. 8. Divers Modern Divines allow of usury, if it doth not exceed the sum limited by Law, and be moderate.

Mr. J. Answ. I know some few such Di­vines do, &c.

Reply 1. The way to find out the truth, is not to go to the Poll: Testimonies must be rather weighed than numbred: Errornot seldom having the major-vote. In this our concern, I doubt not, Grotius is in the right Nothing, In Luke 6.35. saith he, is more safe, than to tye up Rules, either to the bounds of right Reason, or of the Divine Oracles.

2. Yet, as far as I can understand, the number is not so great on his part, as he would perswade us; but may admit of a [Page 113]defalcation: few coming up to the height of his censure and strict definition, so as to make all expectation of the least gain Usury; and all such Usury damna­ble.

3. Whereas he brings in one Mustering up 18. for it, but answered by Mr. Bolton, and thereby, he saith, his labour saved.

I think on the same account he might have saved his whole Treatise, at least what concerns the objections forementioned, the work being done to his hands, by the same Learned Author.

Mr. J. But what speak I ( saith B. Jewel) of the Ancient Fathers? — There was never any Religion nor Sect, nor State, nor Degree, nor Profession of men, but they have misliked it.

Reply. And that deservedly too, if this be meant of oppressive Usury: otherwise none is bound to believe him; and 'tis hard to prove the truth of it. He brings in B. Sands saying, All Nations have at all times condemned Ʋsury; and Mr. Bolton—None have stood for Ʋsury, sor the space of 1500. years after Christ: If they meant of this Usury I am pleading for the Lawful­ness of it will appear; that they did not take right measures, nor cast their Ac­compts right, if we call to mind what be­fore we received from Grotius, viz. Ibid. That Leo was the first Christian Emperour that [Page 114]made a law against all Ʋsury; whereas be­fore that the Churches themselves were wont to take Ʋsury according to 4 per Cent.

And Mr. J. himself affirmeth, That it reached to learned men in the Church in Chrysostome 's time; — and also to many great Professors of Godliness; And I shall add, to Martyrs and Confessors too, with­in this last Century: As I find it in the Hi­story of the Bohemian Persecution, where­in the Protestant Professors are said to suf­fer grievously under the Emperor, Circa An. 1620. The words of the Historian are these:

And because they thought that many had Mony at Use; that they might also squeeze out this; they commanded that every man should bring what Bonds he had, upon pain of loosing the whole sum, if any one did but conceal the least. In Moravia there was a peculiar Judicature erected for this thing, which they called Grida, at Mulas-berg, where all were bound to appear; some were re­stored the whole, viz. those of less value, for an appearance of Justice, others were suppressed for counterfeit reasons, from o­thers a part was set apart for the Emperor, &c.

2. Whereas Mr. Bolton says, That all Councils ( besides the Nicene) that ever men­ioned it, did condemn it: I may say, neither that Council, nor any other for the first four [Page 115]hundred years condemned it (one excepted) save in the Clergy.

What is urged by him out of the Rev. Bishop Hall; I shall make so bold as to ex­amine.

Bishop Hall: Nature teacheth, that Me­tals are not things capable of superfetation: that the use of the Stock once received, it is not the lenders, but the borrowers: for the power and right of disposing the Principal, is by Contract transferred for the time to the hands of him that receiveth it, &c.

Reply 1. Let it be observed how this learned Bishop, On the same question, doth as good as allow taking Use of the Rich, and is not, that I can find, of Mr. J's mind, in making the expectation of gain, Usu­ry: only he is against binding by Contract to pay Use: Yet, In that the power and right of disposing the Principal (as he says) is by Contract transferred to the borrower: I see no reason, why by the same Contract, a right to somewhat of the gains procured by this Money, may not be transferred to the lender.

2. I shall consider what he pleads: Na­ture teacheth, that Metals are not capable of superfetation.

Reply 1. If they be capable of fetation, it is enough. Of all other, this seems to me the most barren Argument: Upon search, I find that Calvin speaking of this [Page 116]Argument, that Money begets not Money, calls it a foolish, childish reason. And Mr. Bolton himself judgeth it a weak argument, and prejudicial to the cause it pleads for. But when the barenness of Metals is plea­ded, I may safely think, it is not meant of Metals in the Mine; for there they re­ceive a Natural Increase, at least by appo­sition.

If it be meant of a Civil Increase, so ex­perience manifesteth, that Metals are not fruitless, but capable of producing In­crease: The World, I trust, is not now to learn, that we ow the value of Metals, (I mean of currant Coyn) not to Natures Law, but to Civil and Human Institution. In a political sense, I say, Money is capa­ble of Increase. Vol. 1.63. Pious Perkins hath an­swered this Objection: Let us hear him. Albeit (saith he) Money in it self be not fruitful, yet it is made very fruitful by the borrowers good use; as ground which is not fruitful except it be tilled. Thus learned Ames: De Cons. p. 374. In luc. 6.35. Thus Grotius: Many that they may prove all gain to be unlawful from the use of Money, — say, Money in its own nature is barren: But in this Argument there is an evident false reasoning; for Money is said to be barren by nature, not that the law of na­ture ordains so; but because the industry of men, not Nature it self, hath given the ground-work to such fruit: As also a House [Page 117]is barren by nature, yet the Rent thereof, none will say is unjustly taken by the Land­lord.

Bishop Hall urgeth, That the use of the Stock once received, is not the lenders, but the borrowers; for the power and right of disposing, — is transferred, &c.

Reply 1. But on what condition was this right transferred? or is the lender bound to transfer this right of using and disposing his money to another, as rich, or richer than himself? and is not this right of using, &c. valuable? If so, (which cannot be denied) by the same Contract that the lender passeth away his right, may he not as justly, for this right transferred, have some gain secured to himself?

2. But this and the foregoing Argument being fully answered by Rivet, I shall tran­scribe what he writes.

4. Obj. Money is of its own nature bar­ren.

Resp. Carolus Molinaeus answered, Rivet P. 287 That Money by the help of a mans labour, was a fruitful thing, as a Field, which of its own nature brings forth no fruit without human industry.

They Reply: That will make nothing for his cause that takes any sum above the Prin­cipal, but by this very thing his wickedness is reproved; for Money as by human indu­stry [Page 118]it is fruitful, so its fruitful to his ow­ner alone, not to another, not to him that by lending hath deprived himself of the proprie­ty.

What hath been said, may serve for an answer to this Objection. For the Creditor may be considered, either as before the deli­very of this money, whereof he is yet the owner; or after the voluntary delivery of the Money. In the first State, seeing he is the owner of the thing, he may Covenant before he deliver it. In the second, if he absolutely gives the Money without any other Covenant, then that the like Sum may be re­paid, he hath parted with his right thereto, and may not demand any thing for its use: but we speak not of what is lawful after the Money absolutely delivered; but of the first condition, wherein the disposing of the Money is in the hand of the Creditor, with a power either of not delivering it without a condition, or of delivering. Neither may it be object­ed, that the right of using the Money, or of any other Commodity which may be consumed by using, cannot be distinguished from the Commodity, and therefore nothing can justly be required for it: for that is nor absolute­ly true, — for that right is valuable, the which he that lends his Money wants.

B. H. How odious and severely inter­dicted usurary Contracts have been in all times.

Reply. 1. If by Usurary Contracts he means the taking of Interest beyond mea­sure and common equity; let it be rendred as odious as they please.

2. If thereby be meant any thing re­ceived above the principal, we deny it in­terdicted at all times; not surely in our times wherein the taking of such a Sum is by Law allowed. And I perceive, that by Ʋsurary Contract, or Obligation, is meant an illegal Contract, viz. The Covenant for taking more for Lending than the Law al­lows. For I have read, Orphans Legacy. p, 206. Vide Crooks Reports. part. 1. p. 20. and 27. De off. l. [...] p. 106. If one be bound in an Obligation which is Ʋsurious, the Bond is void betwixt the parties.

3. But if true, that such moderate ta­king above the principal were so odious in all times foregoing: we may find Cicero's observation verified herein.

Saith he, It often comes to pass in time, that what was generally wont to be accounted odious, may be discovered not to be so.

4. I shall anon shew how these Heathens that were against all usury, were against borrowing too; unless in case of extremi­ty.

B. H. Wise Cato drove them out of all Sicily: and Lucullus from Asia, &c.

Reply. I know the Grandees among the Romans were went to take much upon them in the conquered Provinces: and that many then (as well as since) forbad such [Page 120]practices in others, that in themselves they frequently allowed, or other things as bad. And of this Sage Cato (who knew, it seems, Sen. de vitabeata. c. 17.18. Idem. c. 22. fortius loqui quàm vivere.)

Seneca says, ‘that he was wont to com­mend Curius and Coruncanius, and that Age, wherein it was a fault fit to be punished by the Censor, to have a few Silver Plates, and yet this while he pos­sessed four Millions of Sestertia's;’ that is above a Million and Quarter of pounds, ac­cording to our Count.

How he should heap up so much wealth without Usury, or Courses that were worse, it is not easie to conceive.

I find Cicero also (though no Enemy to him) to perstringe him of over rigid­ness in relation to their Allies, De off. l. 3. p. 137. Mr. Ca­pels Ap­pendix. p. 290. and in the business of the treasure and tribute. And I understand too, that this Cato, who was so bitter against lending money for Use, could willingly lend his own Wife to Hor­tensius for Use and Increase. Strange it is that he should discern the one to be against the Light of nature, and not the other!

Mr. J. brings in Mr. Trap saying, That at Rome (this day) all Ʋsurers are Excommunicated Monthly.

Reply. And do not all Protestants, as well as these, stand Excommunicate at this day, by the same Church of Rome? are Idolaters, Harlots, and Adulterers, [Page 121]so often Excommunicated with them? Or, why should they, that think it not incon­sistent with their piety to tolerate Stews, &c. be so over angry with such as receive any gain for loan? Unless the Pope have the same design in it, that I hinted before as projected by Tiberius, in forbidding of lesser Traders this way, that he might have the greater custom.

Mr. J. Ex Weems. — The Primitive Church ordained that no man should eat or drink with such Ʋsurers, nor fetch fire from them.

Reply. Still the Question recurs what is meant by such Usurers? Such, I trust, who made it their Trade to oppress, overreach, and cheat: And what Primitive Church he means I know not: The Canons that were made Cent. 4th. Against Usury, con­cern the Clergy only, save one that looks farther.

Mr. J. brings in Pareus affirming the Usury of Christians to be so great a pro­faneness, p. 46. Worth of Souls. p. 213. marg. that it hinders the Conversion of the Jews.

Reply 1. Oppressive Usury, as well as other sins, may have a hand in the hin­drance of that great work; (not that I think the Jews are much stumbled at it, who are notorious for practising thereof; and look on the Law against Usury, as made in favour of those of their own Na­tion) [Page 122]but how this moderate taking of gain should contribute thereto, Ut supra. p. 215. I am still to seek: though this I perceive passeth with him for profaneness too.

2. Pareus calls the Jews, [famulos Christianorum] the Christians Servants. The Christians, 'tis sike imploying the Jews as their Brokers to put out their money for them, either because they would seem shy of Usury themselves, or because the Jews were more skilful and dextrous at the work.

3. I meet with Hornbeck reproving the Jews for the oppression and griping Usury by them practised against the Chri­stians, Contra Jud. l. 7. c. 7. under the notion of Strangers, and withall he minds Christian Magistrates of their failure in suffering the Jews to use their Cheats and griping Exactions a­mongst Christians, shewing the ill conse­quences thereof; and amongst others this, viz. ‘The hinderance of their Conversion: which he saith, is made a Common obser­vation by our Divines,’ viz. Luther, Fa­gius, Sands, Prolego. p. 28. &c.

Mr. J. I will set down the Theses of the Ʋniversity of Wittenburgh, publickly there disputed a little after Luther was risen.

Reply. This was but a little after Luther was risen: but we have seen before, how Luther himself, when grown more Expe­rienced, and toward his latter days, was [Page 123]grown more moderate in his thoughts a­bout this subject: And the like may well be supposed from this same University, not only from the influence Luther had there­on; but for that in Rivet's Catalogue of those that favour it, I find, Salomon Ges­ner, Professor at Wittenberg to be one: Of the same Judgment was Wollebius and Windeline, Christ Theol. l. 2. c. 12. Moral Phi­los. p. 800. both famous Professors of Di­vinity, the one at Basil, the other at An­halt; who also asserts, that most Modern Divines, Lawyers and Moralists were of the same Judgment: And to his Universi­ty, I shall oppose another, viz. The Uni­versity of Tubing.

M. J. Univ. Wit. 1. pos. Forasmuch as all Ʋsurys are in themselves evil, — It fol­loweth that all stipulations for Ʋsury are of no moment.

Reply: May then the borrower promi­sing, with a safe Conscience break his promise, and save his money? Whereas of the godly man, before his Text, 'tis said, He sweareth [or promiseth] to his own hurt, and changeth not. Whether all Usury be in it self evil, we may consider more hereafter, when we look into Mr. Bolton's discourse upon Usury.

Mr. J. 3. Answ. I am ashamed to see and read how our adversaries the Papists, who [Page 124]scorn to appear for Ʋsury, do cast it in our teeth, that the Calvinists, especially, — al­low that usury, which doth not exceed the Princes Tax, as they call it, that is, the sum permitted to be taken by Law, over and a­bove the Principal: And will you own your selves to be such Calvinists, and such Here­ticks.

Reply 1. Good words Sir; such language ill becomes you, how well soever it might become a Papists Pen.

2. But I come to apply salve to this sore.

1. Do the Papists scorn to appear for Usury? not all surely; and the rest it is like desire to play least in sight. p. 33. Marg. He him­self mentions several Popish Schoolmen of another Judgment; as Abulensis, Conrade, &c.

2. Read what is written by Mr. Capel (an Anti-Usurer) of the Papists, Oftentat. p. 269. even of those amongst them that are most severe against Usury. Papists (saith he) teach, that in case a man be in very necessity when he takes use, and makes profit by his Money, yet if after this, necessity cease, he is not bound to make restitution, when he hath wherewithal, and this necessity they stretch, and will have reach to his Estate: for, say they, by the Law of Nature all things are common, Mine and Thine came in after by law positive, &c. the Papists then that hold [Page 125]Use unlawful, do not hold it unlawful for all persons to take it.

2. And to Jews they give leave to use their griping Usuries, when they can re­prove what is moderate in Christians. I receive it from Hornbeck, Cont. Jud. proleg. P. 28. speaking of the oppressive Usury practised by the Jews towards the Christians, but condemned by Synods and Decrees of the Emperors, and commonly decryed by our Christian Writers, as a cause of the Jews hardening and estrangement from the Christian Faith; he adds, So that it is a wonder that there are some among the Papists that defend these things; and that usury, which all the Canons banne, they grant to the Jews: to wit, because the same seemed good to the Lord Pope for gains sake. But our Divines think otherwise, and with one consent detest these things.

3. And though the Papists generally condemn Usury; it is but the name mostly, whiles under other names they allow the practice thereof. Publick Banks having been instituted by the Popes themselves; as Rivet informs, who shewing what sad work they made therewith, concludes thus: p. 289. The which things I were willing to mention by the way, that one might see how serupulous their Conscience is, who do so a­cutely dispute of usury, wherein they will ad­mit no moderation, so as that in any case, [Page 126]upon the account of loan, it should be lawful to receive any thing above the Principal.

4. And the same Author brings in Sco­tus and Maldonate speaking as much, p. 282. in ef­fect, as the Calvinists do.

He brings in Scotus excepting those cases from unlawful Usury. 1. When one takes above the Principal from Compact, in respect of a Conventional Penalty. — 2. Ʋpon the account of Interest. — 3. When both Principal and Over-plus are put to an ha­zard; Yea the same Author affirmeth, That it is lawful to take somewhat over, be­cause Money may be borrowed for a shew, for an ornament, and to make pretence of a­bility, that one may appear rich. Which last case (saith Rivet) hath not so much equity, as that which covenants for an yearly Pen­sion.

Maldonate to the forementioned cases, adds Suretiship. — The same Author also brings this distinction, which falls in with that we have used above. In lending Money or any other thing, there are two Rules to be observed for the avoiding of Ʋ ­sury. 1. Whether he that asks to borrow, do ask out of necessity, or for the sake of gai­ning: for if he ask out of necessity, it must be delivered without gain: If he ask to gain therewith, here Charity hath no place, but the same may be laid out as an instrument of Traffick; for which Money thus exposed to [Page 127]Traffick, he that takes gain doth not commit Ʋsury. 2. That it may be considered by what art he is wont to gain, that asketh the Money; for if he he honest, and doth not ask to get unjust gain, all scruple is taken away, &c.

What say we more than is here said?

3. The same Popish Writers, that deny all Usury as unjust, can yet palliate or ap­prove of some kinds of theft directly against the eighth Commandment: if we believe the learned Spanhemius. Dub. Ev. part 3. p. 672. As for the Opi­nions (saith he) and Decrees of the School­men, Canonists and Casuists, we weigh them not, seeing their authority is of no force, de­cisions weak, and foundation slippery, not ap­proved by Abulensis himself, and many other learned men. Truly it is a wonder these men should so scrupulously and anxiosly proscribe all Ʋsury, yea, that which is moderate, grounded on the best right, and bounded with due cautions: and yet in the mean time do alleviate or cherish other sins, yea many Thefts directly contrary to the eighth Com­maendment, of which sort many are to be found in Navar's Enchiridion, Emanuel Sa's Aphorisms, and Tolet's Cases of Conscience; &c.

Mr. J. 5. Divers Modern Divines were against the strict keeping of the Sabbath. — And will you prophane the Sabbath? — [Page 128]because such and such French and German Divines are against the Morality of the Sab­bath? —

Reply: This is not reasoning nor dispro­ving; but a needless laying open the shame of good men: because they were mistaken in one, must they necessarily be mistaken in another thing? If Peter were to be re­proved for symbolizing with the Jews, must he therefore be reproved for preach­ing to the Gentiles? I could name him too some that are against Usury, that are also against the Morality of the Sabbath; will it follow, or will he grant, that because they were mistaken in the latter, they were therefore so in the former? I think not; and yet of no more force is his reaso­ning.

Mr. J. Is it not the best way, where two ways meet, the one doubtful and dange­rous, the other not, to chuse the best and nea­rest way?

Reply 1. If Mr. J. himself had follow­ed this Rule, he would have spared many harsh censures, and not have so perempto­rily condemned the innocent. Christian Direct. Tom. 4. p. 129. Mr. Bax­ter's Judgment in this matter is, It is a bad thing to corrupt Religion, and fill the World with causeless scruples, by making that a sin which is no sin. Divines that live in great Cities, and among Merchandize, are usually fitter Judges in this case, than those that live [Page 129]most obscurely (without experience) in the Country.

2. I add Pious Calvin (whom Mr. J. clears from the guilt of Usury, because he dyed poor) If we wholly condemn Ʋsury, Rivet. p. 277. we put a stricter tye upon Consciences than the Lord would have.

3. Bishop Hall shall instruct him; p. 10. Cha­rity will tell you, that if you can find out a way, whether by loan or sale, to advance your Stock, that may be free from Oppression and Extortion; and beneficial as well to o­thers, as to your self, you need not fear to walk in it with all honest security.

4. Hear also the famous Grotius: In Luc. 6.35. But again I see for the most part it comes to pass, that too much rigour gives occasion to a boundless liberty: for when men perceive how that which is too far stretcht is not proved by sufficient reasons, sliding into the other ex­tream, they indulge themselves without end and measure.

5. I have somewhere met with the say­ing of a Learned Divine, sounding, as I remember, to this effect: That to forbid lawful delights and Recreations to Youth, is the way to make them break over to what is unlawful: I have cause to think, that in Civil Contracts, and mutual Com­merce, the forbidding of what is lawful, is the ready way to make men betake them­selves to unlawful shifts: 'tis like the too [Page 130]strait bracing of tender bodys to make them over-neat and fine; which frequently proves an occasion of deformity and crook­edness: for Nature, if possible, will find a passage, and how much the more it is pent in, by so much the more violent is the ir­ruption, where it finds the restraint wea­ker than elsewhere.

6. We need not then be to seek of rea­sons for the pleading for a moderate Usu­ry, besides the interest of the Nation, which is not a little therein concerned; and besides the many scruples that are by his Doctrine occasioned in tender Consci­ces.

Mr J. 7 Answ. Those very Divines you lean upon, will be but a broken Reed — because they have such and so many con­ditions, and temper it with so many limita­tions, as scarce any Ʋsurer in the world doth observe. And at last they make it no Ʋsury at all, such, I mean, as is commonly practi­sed.

Reply 1. It seems then, he is so favoura­ble, as to allow some Usury for lawful, though it be not that in common practice: But to me it sounds strange, that Judici­ous Men, who know what they say, should plead for some Usury, and yet make it no Usury, or at least not practicable. It is all one as if any should undertake with [Page 131]great pains and study, to shew others the North-west passage to the Indies; and yet set it forth with so many, and so intricate marks and observations, that it were next to impossible for any to observe.

2. Divines too lay down so many rules in buying and selling, and other Civil Contracts, which, I suppose, but few do fully observe: It being not easie for the Sons of Adam that have so much of Cor­ruption within, to come up exactly to the Rules of righteousness. Who in these things can say, I have made my heart clean? so in Preaching or Praying, it is hard not to fail in one or other of the Rules prescribed for the exact perfor­mance thereof. In all these cases, Vide Sen. de vita beata. c. 17. p. 495. Magistr. Origin. p. 200, we must set perfection for the mark; and he is the best man, that has the fewest miscar­riages or defects.

3. For a closer Answer, I will propose what I have read in Mr. Gee, There is (saith he) some wrong in getting, which is so deep and intrinsecal to the substance of the Title, as that it doth vitiate and destroy its being; and the Contract, or other way of procuring the Goods by means thereof is nul, as to the producing of a property to the pro­eurer: and there is some injustice that reach­eth not so far as to evacuate the Title. Eve­ry slip or deviation from the path of upright­ness doth not make void a Bargain, or Title [Page 132]about which it is used. Casuists therefore distinguish betwixt that [dolus malus] evil dealing, which gives cause to the Contract, and that which is only incident or Circum­stantial to it; and say, the former doth nul­lifie a Contract, but not the latter.

But what do our Divines say, that plead for Usury, and yet so temper it, as to make it none? He brings in Zanchy for a proof; saying; Thou must be, O Lender, of this mind, that if the Borrower have not only not made gain, but sustained loss, thou also art to bear part of his loss. Is not this Partner­ship? saith Mr. J.

Reply 1. No; Zanchy meant not surely that this condition should have entred into the Contract (which was requisite to have made it suretiship) but that the Lender ought out of charity thus to do: for if by Contract he were to bear a proportiona­ble part of his losses; then by the same also, he ought to have received a propor­tionable part of the others gains, be they never so great: whereas in the case of Lending for Use it is not so; his pension being stated within such a Sum; and let the Borrower make the best of his money: which is sometimes double, sometime four­fold, &c. To what comes in to the Lend­er.

[Page 133] 2. That this Condition mentioned is not intended as part of the Contract, but to be left free to the Creditors charity; it farther appears, because though the prin­cipal it self may be justly secured by Bond, yet there may be cases wherein this may admit of an abatement, as well as the over­plus: so say our Divines. Vol. 1. p. 63. So Mr. Perkins — He must be so far from taking gain sometimes, that he must not require the prin­cipal, if his debtor be by inevitable and just Casualties brought behind, and it be also plain that he could not make, no not by great diligence, any Commodity of the money bor­rowed.

3. Sen. de benef. l. 7. c. 16. What (saith Seneca) dost thou judge our Ancestors to have been so imprudent, that they thought it not to be most unjust, to make the same account of one, who hath spent his money received from a Creditor on his lust and gaming, as of another who lost anothers Goods with his own, through fire, plundering, or some sadder accident?

4. Still I say, this abatement made on the Creditors part, in Case of the Debtors loss, is free and of his own choice, and not part of the Compact: It may be this will be received from Bishop Hall, Practic. cases. p. 53. though not from me. Yea, but you say the money or goods miscarried, either by robbery, or false trust, e're you could employ them to any profit at all; this will not excuse you; after [Page 134]they came into your power you are responsible for them, what Compassion this may work in the good nature of the Owner for the favour of an abatement, must be left to his own Brest; your tye to restitution is not the less; for it is supposed, had they remained in the Owners hands, they had been safe: If it were not your fault, yet it was your cross, that they miscarried; and who should bear your Cross but your self?

Thus the Bishop looks on this abatement not as an act of strict Justice, but of Chri­stian Compassion.

5. I doubt not to say, there is room enough for the like Compassion between buyer and seller, the Landlord and Tenant; when that the bargain, through inevitable accidents, proves very sore and burden­some to the party concerned.

To break the force of a reply which pleads that the expressions of the Fathers, and of late Writers by him quoted against Usury, p. 50. are to be understood of griping Ʋ ­sury: Thereto Mr. J. answers, No such matter.

Reply. See p. 21, 22, 29, &c. Are they then to be understood of Ʋsury that is not griping? We must pardon his memory; having told us before once and again, that all Usury was gri­ping. And therefore called Nesheck Nei­ther can those severe reflexions of the Fa­thers and others, be understood better [Page 135]than of the worst of the kind. Neither can those definitions given by one or two prove, that that was the Usury declaimed against by all which they define. Let us hear the Divines of Wittenburgh brought in by him to avouch what he saith.

1. They are Ʋsurers, whosoever take any thing for money lent; though it be but a mite, or a Cup of cold water, upon a Convention beyond the principal. So Aretius too.

Reply. Be it so that they are Usurers; yet possibly some such as do so may be ho­nest Usurers: and I think that such reaso­ning is the way to bring Usury into great­er credit and request than some are aware of.

It is the scruing things so high, as Gro­tius notes, that tempts men to run into the other extream.

Mr. J from a forreign Divine, says, that only Earth-use is lawful.

Reply. Cicero will teach such as receive Commodities, De Off. l. 1. p. 21. to make returns thereof with a larger measure; and therein to i­mitate the Mother-Earth, or fertile Fields, which bring forth much more than they received.

Mr. J. But some will say, that they take no Bond: but only take what comes for them of the gain which the borrower hath made: whereas some of the foresaid Divines speak of and against Exacting, and a Convention. [Page 136]I Answer, though some do, all do not.

Reply 1. It appears then, how they which condemn Usury, do not agree wherein the essence of it doth consist, or what the thing is they write against. Some placing it in the Contract, some in the Exaction, some in the taking of gain; and some sew others with Mr. J. place it in the Intention or Expectation.

2. I am yet to seek how the Contract can make that to be Usury, which other­wise would not be such, the Contract or Covenant being but Circumstantial to the question of Usury: I find others of the same mind.

Mr. Baxter, Christian Direct. part. 4. p. 128. Note also, that in all these it appeareth, that the Case is but gradually different between the taking the use, and take­ing the principal; for when the reason for remitting is the same, you are as well bound to remit the principal as the use. And yet the Compact for the principal is held law­ful by all.

3. What is here said of a silent Contract, where the Borrower and Lender know one anothers mind. as if they were a hatching, some secret mischief they are ashamed of before the World; Let it suffice for an­swer, that honest men may make honest Contracts at this rate, if we give credit to pious Ames saying, It is not necessarily required, that such like Contracts be made [Page 137]distinctly and expresly; but it sufficeth if they be made implicitly, with a sincere intention, and according to the estimation of good men, and such as are understanding in things of that nature.

4. Mr. J. having cited Chemnitius to prove a secret compact to be Usury; (whose words are, If a compact or inten­tion precede, it is surely usury) for inter­pretation adds, It is so, If an expectation or hoping of more than the principal do pre­cede, though the lender do not exact it, but on­ly take it, as the very taking is used Ezek. 18.13.

Reply. I profess my Ignorance of his intention here. What? Means he that taking of Use is necessary to make the In­tention or Expectation Usury? but then the intention is not Usury before the ta­king. Or does he think the Intention or Expectation it self the sin of usury? (As Chemnitius here, and he too a little before) why then to expectation doth he add this requisite? If the Lender do but take it. I leave him to be his own Interpreter.

4. Mr. J. A Compact Literal and silent. Thus the Lender taketh for his principal a Bond for security; but doth not put it upon the Interest [trusting so far, tis like, to the borrowers good nature] And so the borrower Covenants in his heart, so much I intend to give him, as I give to another: For [Page 138]I know he lookt for it. — And I must else pay so much to another. Here the Compact is secretly made in both their hearts; and the principal secured by writing, and so usury is compleated. q. d. The Lender thinks he hath reason to look for some acknowledg­ment for his money lent, and the borrower proposeth honestly to give it, as not knowing how to speed better. Yet here­upon we have this Outcry made; O sad! how will this wretched World be Cosened!

Reply 1. I would apply what Grotius saith, if possible, to allay this heat.

It was not amiss said by Javolene, De Jure p. 3. c. 24. Sect. 1. that some Contracts were made by silence, which is a thing common, both in publick, private, and mixt Contracts. The Cause is this, in that the Consent, which way soever manifested and accepted, hath a power of transferring a right: but now there are other signs of consent besides the voice and writing.

2. Deben. l. 3. c. 10. Seneca says; The greatest benefits have no proof: they frequently lye hid between the Consciences of two. Would we inforce this, that none confer benefits without a witness?

3. p. 53. Ezek. 18. Whereas Mr. J. useth the Authori­ty of Three Divines, to prove, the taking of gifts for Loan to be usury:

I Reply. 1. I find, the taking of Increase forbidden in the Chapter mentioned, but not the taking of gifts.

2. Whereas the taking of Gifts is in [Page 139]Scripture frequently reproved; as far as I can understand, it is a taking of gifts by way of bribery, or in the sale of Justice that is meant, they being Magistrates that are mostly rebuked for taking such gifts: See Exod. 23.8. Deut. 16.19.

3. The taking of Gifts or Gratuities from the poor, or such as borrow for ex­tream necessity, was then, & is now unlawful.

4. If they mean, it is Usury to take gifts of the Rich for money lent them, this would throw down what he had before built up, who had granted Gratuities to be lawful. And the same would make ingratitude necessary, which yet is no small degree of inhumanity: And for this, among the Medes, Sen. de benef. l. 3. an Action laid against an ungrateful person.

5. To make their words therefore com­ply with his sense he is fain to piece it out with [understand a Gift intended or expect­ed.] When it is plain and beyond denial, that they mean it of a gift received: and let reason Judge, where it is sinful to ex­pect a Gift; is it not sinful also to receive it?

9. Obj. I am a Widow saith one, I am an Orphan saith another: And God knoweth that such cannot employ their money as others.

Mr. J. Answ. What a mad inference is here made? If God did I intend to Exempt the Fatherless and Widows, he would have said somewhat of them, when he named them and usury together: Exod. 22.22, &c.

Reply 1. If we say, with some, that the Law concerning Usury was political, and proper to that Nation, and so extensive to all therein, the objection is answered: or, if we say, the Law was intended only for the benefit of the poor, from whom it was, and is still, unlawful to take use: nei­ther of these hinder but that Widows and Orphans may now improve their stocks, left them, this way.

2. In the Case of Orphans, Mr. Bax­ter's Instance carries abundant reason with it. Certain Orphans having nothing left them, but so much money as will, by the al­lowed use of it, find them bread and poor clothing: the Guardian cannot lay it out in Lands for them: and if he maintain them upon the stock, Christ. di­rect. part. 4. p. 126. it will be quickly spent, and he must answer for it: A rich man that is their Neighbour tradeth in Iron-work (Fur­nances and Forges) or Lead-works, or other such commodities; in which he constantly get­teth the double of the stock which he employeth, or at least 20 l. or 40 l. in the hundred: the Guardian dare not lend the money to any poor man, least he break, and be never able to pay it: therefore he lendeth it to this rich man; and if he have it without Ʋsury, the poor Or­phans give the rich man freely 20 l. or 40 l. by the year, supposing their stock to be one Hun­dred pound, If he take use, the rich man doth but give the poor Orphans some part of his constent gain, &c.

[Page 141] 3. It is worth the Inquiry, if the por­tion left Orphans were before for some time in the hands of other men, that tra­ded therewith, whether the Guardian may, according to Law or Reason, take in the principal and remit the Use or Interest due? and whether the Guardian be not responsible for so doing, when the Orphans come to Age?

4. The Text saith; Ye shall not afflict any Widow or Fatherless Child. I think this is one way of afflicting such to tell them, that when their money hath been out in the hands of persons that have suffi­ciently gained thereby, and increased their own Estates, It is damnable for them to re­ceive one peny or mite above the princi­pal, by vertue of any Convention past, or upon the account of their money thus lent.

5. I shall step aside to look into Mr. Bol­ton, Discourse, &c. p. 49. whose Fifth Answer to this objection is this, Widowhood and Fatherlesness, in respect of the former State of having Hus­band and Parents, are a State of humilia­tion, for the outward Condition of this life: but by this unhappy trade of Ʋsury, they are made a State of exaltation.

Reply 1. q. d. Widows and Orphans would live too well, and yet their lively­hood too easily for some of their condition, if taking of Use be allowed them: As if the loss of their Husbands and Parents [Page 142]were not affliction enough to those in their condition, whereby they lye open to the frauds and injuries of such as seek oppor­tunities.

2. If this reasoning hold good in our days, it should set us a petitioning for the Court of Wards again, that the condition of Orphans may not prove too happy, and be a state of exaltation.

Mr. J. They should rather trust God in a lawful way. Reply. This is a taking for granted, what is in question; This way we say still is Lawful: and see no reason to change our thoughts by any thing that is said to the contrary. God hath, 'tis true, promised to take care for the Fatherless and Widows; but must they therefore cast off all due care and diligence, and the use of all lawful means within their power for a comfortable subsistance? Pract. Cat. p. 315. Dr. Hammond holds taking of Use Lawful; provided it prove not oppressive to the borrower, and be not an act of worldly-mindedness, and illiberality; but only a way of subsisting on that small portion my Friends have left me.

Mr. J. As for them that put out their money, and say; what will become of them in particular? I Answ. That they should ra­ther ask, what will become of them that have no money left? how shall they live?

Reply. Though they that have Wives, must be as they that have none, and they [Page 143]that buy, as though they possessed not, and they that have money, as though they had none: yet this is to be understood in regard of affection, and not otherwise. For Men that have Estates and Money ought to live as becomes them that have these: and to improve them for their own comfortable subsistence, and the relief of their Relations: otherwise it would bor­der upon ingratitude, and a tempting of God, by neglecting the means he hath put into their hands in the course of his pro­vidence for their subsistance.

2. His Answers to the following replies is guilty of the common failure, viz. pe­titio principii: He beats down the Widows and Orphans Improving their money by loan, by this, that Lending for gain is not lawful: may he not as well say, all bor­rowing for gain is unlawful? may another gain by my mony & may not I gain by the same? Let Grotius moderate betwixt us.

But that Law of Moses, In Luc. 6.35. seeing it pecu­liarly respects the State of that people, and was given to one Nation alone, it binds o­thers no farther than it contains a natural equity: What Christ would have us do; seeing there is no particular precept ex­tant thereof, must be drawn from general precepts: In that all excess is forbidden, there is no doubt but an equality is requi­red of us in all commerces.

[Page 144] 3. p. 286. Rivet writes: Such a Contract hath its foundation in natural equity, therefore it is not forbidden by the Law of God, for natural equity requires an equality: which is not when one takes all the profit, and the other feels all the disprofit, &c.

4. Cicero's saying is not beside our pur­pose. For it is lawful for every one to en­deavour rather the procuring to himself than to another, what belongs to the support of life, Nature it self not gainsaying.

A Second reply: Suppose a poor Widows or Orphans money be employed any other way, and lost: who shall stand to the loss? The Employer? or Widow, or Orphan?

Mr. J.— Answ. 2. Let the employer employ it, and secure it in the best manner he can: — And if notwithstanding all care used by the employer, any loss come, who shall bear that loss, but the Widow or Or­phan?

Reply: It matters not much what he or I state, for the Law will take its own course at last, in things of this nature; and I doubt whether it will go on his side.

Obj. 10th. God knoweth that I cannot live else, — because I know not how to em­ploy my money otherwise, and therefore I hope he will not damn me, though you do in your harsh Doctrine.

Mr. J. Answ. 1. Are there no other ways in the world to live by, than Ʋsu­ry?

Reply: Let Mr. Baxter answer this, Christ Di­rect Tom. 4. p. 127. in these words: As for them that say, it may be as well improved otherwise, they are un­experienced men: It is a known falshood as to the most; though some few may meet with such opportunities: at least it is nothing to them that cannot have other ways of improving it; who are very many.

Mr J. How do those live that have no money to lend?

Reply: You may be answered by another question: How do they live that have no Lands, Livings, nor houses of their own? if some subsist without these, must others that have them, neglect the due improve­ment of them?

Mr. J. How do they live in those Coun­trys where Ʋsury is not known: — As the Indians?

Reply 1. Those of the Western parts live poorly enough, if we credit History: In a very late History of the Wars of New- England; p. 50. speaking of the advantages the Indians had for the War above the English, it is written; They know where to find us, but we know not where to find them, who ne­vertheless are always at home, and have in a manner nothing but their lives and souls (which they think not of) to lose: every [Page 146]Swamp is a Castle to them, and they can live comfortably on that which would starve Eng­lish-men.

2. Amongst them too Gold and Silver are no currant Money, no wonder then that Usury is not there exercised in the Loan thereof. Grotius De Jure. p. 42. Justin of the Scythians: They have no desire of Gold and Silver as o­ther Mortals have: — this continency in manners begets justice in them no wise desiring what is anothers, for there is the desire of riches where is the use.

What he quotes out of Mr. Bolton, I shall meet with in my Examination of the same Author.

Mr. J. From Chrysostome; Are there no other ways of living, justly to be found? No Husbandry? Object. But that is sub­ject to Casualties. Answ. And so is Ʋsu­ry.

Reply 1. Where a man runs a hazard in lending, he may take somewhat by way of recompence, and yet not be guilty of Usu­ry, saith Scotus. For the hazard of losing the Principal, if any thing be required, it is not truly Ʋsury, saith Grotius. Although it be not certain, yet when loss is probablie fea­red, the Creditor may lawfullie Contract, be­fore it happen, Pract. Cat. p. 301. saith Tolet.

It is among all men resolved, that every mans art and his pains, and the charges, and [Page 147]the hazard he is put to, are rateable, and may be sold, saith Dr. Hammond.

2. If the seller may increase the price of his Wares upon the account of the ha­zard he runs in giving time; why may not the lender receive as lawfully somewhat by way of recompence of the hazard he runs? the former is approved of by Jer. Taylor. Rule of ho­ly liv. p. 207.

He that sells dearer by reason he sells not for ready money, must increase his price no higher, than to make himself recompence for the loss which according to the rules of Trade he sustained by his forbearance, according to the common computation, reckoning in also the hazard, which he is prudently, warily, and charitably to estimate.

3. The same Chrysostome, that demands, whether there be no other way of living besides Ʋsury? is against negotiation or Merchan­dizing too, as hath been before shewn.

Obj. 11th. I lend for pity's sake, and do good with my monie to many, and they are glad and give me thanks, &c.

Mr. J. Answ. 1. Doest thou do good with thy money? thou doest but furnish many men with nerves and sinews to do mischief with, to oppress others in bargaining, &c.

Reply: If this be intended of all that lend, it is an untruth, to say no worse: if it be meant of what may be by accident, [Page 148]through the borrowers sault, would not the same inconveniences be in case the len­ding were free, if not more abundant? and yet we have heard him pleading be­fore for a free lending to the rich. Such ill accidents may prove consequential to giving too: how many having gotten by begging or largesses, spend it as freely in the Ale-house, in Drunkenness or Ga­ming?

Mr. J. Answ. 2. Nay, many men and families are undone, or at least so en­tangled, oppressed and kept down by Ʋsu­rie.

Reply 1. This may be true, and yet the borrowers may thank themselves for all this; I mean, their own indiscretion, va­nity or Luxury. 2. Or however, then this we will say is the sin of Usury, and all sober men cry out against, as well as he. 3. But have not others come to the same pass by buying and selling and merchandizing too? and yet these we hope are transactions law­ful.

3. Reply: The Usurer is brought in re­plying, That the borrower giveth thanks, and is glad, and that he lends out of pity and pietie.

Mr. J. Answ. That being forced, he borroweth, and giveth thanks, and is glad, because he is necessitated to go to the Ʋsurer for Money.

Reply 1. If this necessity be of natures making, and he borrows to keep himself alive; here lending ought to be free, or else it will prove biting: but if the necessi­ty be only occasional, such as may some­times befal men of wealth and estates, and such as many times sends the buyer to the Market; what reason or shadow of reason can be thought of, that any should be bound to lend to this man freely? that he should grow the richer by my loan, and I the poorer by the same? may not the owner of two bargains be bound to spare me one upon as good grounds?

2. Who forced him? Nothing but his own conveniences drew him to it: If the force were caused by the lender, it were somewhat to the purpose. Saith Grotius, De Jure. &c. p. 227, Seneca following Nature, saith; So the things that have been done through force and necessity are made void, if this force and ne­cessity were caused by the Contractor: for it nothing concerns me, whether thou be forc'd, if thou art not forc'd by me: it ought to be my fault, that it may be my punishment.

Again, It is not a using of force, to pro­mise a thing under a certain condition: if it be any force, it is one of thy own using toward thy self, &c.

3. To go on: May not a man gain by that money he payeth a reasonable Use for? if he may, then he oweth thanks for that [Page 150]he hath so gained by: and then Demosthe­nes affirmeth, this ought not to be accoun­ted Usury, viz. such as is sinful, and af­fronts the Law.

Demosthenes denys (saith Grotius) that he who having gotten by merchandize or some honest Employment, De Jure 236. and puts it out for mo­deate gain, partly that he may preserve his own, partly that he may do a kindness to ano­ther, ought to be accounted in the number of Ʋsurers.

4. It seems Mr. J. thinks there is no thanks due to him that designes his own gain as well as another: but the Mora­list was of another, Sen. de be­nes. l. 6. c 13. and perhaps a righter, Judgment.

Again, (saith Seneca) I am not so unjust, as to acknowledge nothing due to him, who when he was presitable to me, was so too to himself: for I do not require, that without any respect to himself, he should consult my good: yea I desire, that the benefit given me, may more profit the giver, so that he that gave it had respect to two when he gave, and di­vided it between himself and me, although he possess the greater part thereof, if so be he received me into partnership, if he thought on two: I am not only unjust, but unthankful also, unless I rejoice that the same profited him which profited me. It is a sign of the grea­test malignity, not to call that a benefit, unless [Page 151]what brings some inconvenience to the giver, &c.

Mr. Jel. In his Next Chapter, Chap. 8. descends to some other objections in his way, which he calls Additional and Secondary; the which it may suffice if I do but glance on here: because they will receive a fur­ther consideration in the Discourse follow­ing this.

Obj. 1. Ʋsurers plead that Countrys, Common-Wealths and Kingdoms cannot sub­sist without some Usury, &c.

Mr. J. Answ. 1. 'Tis false that King­doms, &c. cannot subsist without Usury: for 1. Did not Israel subsist without Usu­ry?

Reply: 'Tis likely they did not: For First, It was lawful for the Israelites to take Use of other Nations, as before shewn. Secondly, There is a promise made to Is­rael upon their good behaviour, Deut. 15.6. For the Lord thy God shall bless thee, — and thou shalt lend to many Nations, but thou shalt not borrow, &c. Here was a promise they should not want ability to lend, and, de jure, they might lend to the Nations; it is likely also they, de facto, did lend, and took use of those Nations they lended to; or else they would be on the losing hand, should they lend freely to the Na­tions, [Page 152]and the Nations relend to them upon Use.

Mr. J. 2. Happy was the State of Germa­ny before it knew usurie.

Reply 1. And so it might be too before it know Printing or Guns: but was Usury the cause of all those grievances it groaned under? Not, I dare say, this regulated Usury here pleaded for. (as it was by ma­ny German Divines, and Luther himself not averse to it:) this was the thing to be proved by him, or else his arguing will be left in the lurch, as guilty of a fallacy, called Non causa pro causâ.

Bishop Hall discoursing concerning the Sale of Commodities the dearer for giving days of payment, pract. ca­ses p. 26. (the which is acknow­ledged by him to be equivalent to Usury) Affirms it, A practice that is now so habitu­ated amongst all Nations into the course of Trading, that it cannot well consist without it.

Mr. J. I confess there is a necessity of len­ding, but not of usurie.

Reply 1. It is enough that there is a neces­sity of lending, for the supporting of socie­ties, the other will follow, as long as it is proved, there is an equity in taking Interest upon some lending. In Exod. 22.25.

There may be (saith Mr. Hughes) such just converse and Trading about it unto mu­tual [Page 153]good and comfort, wherein equitie may be maintained, and no partie opprest.

2. Where there is merchandizing, there must be lending upon Interest, or else tra­ding will surely fail, or the ballances will be very unequally held to the unreasonable advantage of the borrower; and Mr Bol­ton saw this, when he made it a reason of Gods permitting Israel to lend to the Nati­ons upon Usury.

3. Whether this Usury, I plead for, be so destructive to Common-Wealths, let Holland stand for an example, where Usu­ry is by Law allowed; if we credit the Hollander, saying; Grotius De Jure. p. 236. Those Human Laws whioh give leave to stipulate somewhat for the use of Money, or any other thing; ( as long e're this was granted among the Hollan­ders, to some to take 8 in the hundred, but to Merchants 12 for an yearlie use,) seeing they consist within the recompence of that which is wanting, or may be wanting, they are not against Natural or Divine Right.

Mr. J. 3. Answ. I grant there is a kind of necessity, which, not God hath brought up­on Kingdoms, — but mens sins —

Reply: Every necessity that is by sin brought in, is not always sinful; Marriage is now become necessary to some, and yet that necessity is of sins procuring. Servi­tude, Lordship and slaying of Beasts, are now become necessary through sin; and so [Page 154]is eating Mans bread in the Sweat of his Brow, (whatsoever buying and selling be) and yet these are not thereupon unlaw­ful.

2. Obj. Addit: Divines themselves, which speak so much against Ʋsury, allow of diverse sorts of Ʋsury; as Ship-Ʋsury, Recompensatory-Ʋsury, and Liberal-Ʋsu­ry.

Mr. J. Answ. 1. I wish some had ab­stained from such expressions, — there being fitter names to be given to each. —

Reply 1. Usury (through ill usage) ha­ving gotten an ill name, thence such as de­claimed against Usury without exception, when they found it lawful in any case speci­fied to take gain by the means of money laid out, they would not call that Usury, at least, they would add to it a distingui­shing title; though the common definition of Usury agree thereto; as may appear from several passages of Demosthenes, Mal­donate and others forementioned, as it al­so appears from Interest or Damage-Mo­ney generally held lawful.

2. It is, I perceive, the name that many are frighted at, rather than the real pra­ctice, or of somewhat equivalent thereun­to.

Some there be that baulk Usury as un­lawful, yet can take up with customs and [Page 155]practices more disadvantageous to their neighbours, and so less innocent, which calls to mind a Story I sometime met with in Heylin's Cosmography, otherwise by him applied. A People of Africk, who having received much hurt by the Tygers, p. 413. made a Decree, that no man should from thenceforth call them Tygers, but give them a more harmless, or less hated Name, and then all was well. Thus if Usury be called by some other Name, then Mr. J. and many o­thers can be be better reconciled to it.

3. I like Calvin's design; Rivet. p. 278. That laying aside names, things be weighed, whether to take any thing above the principal, be al­ways repugnant to the Law of God? He Answers, It is not: on Ezek. 18.

Obj. 3 Addit: why may I not get by my Money, as well as others by their Ground, Houses, &c.

Mr. J. Answ. 1. The one Ʋsury is ex­presly forbidden by God, the other not.

Reply. It is not enough to his purpose, that it is expresly forbidden; he must prove it forbidden Universally to all Na­tions, to all Persons: whereas the privi­ledge of the Jew, or of the Poor, was by these Laws peculiarly designed, and the prohibition was not confined to money on­ly; but extended to Victuals and what­soever might be lent: And as for Ground and Houses, &c. There were other Laws [Page 156]that moderated dealings about them.

Mr. J. Answ. 2. Lending is a liberal Contract, whereas setting and letting are not: but mercenary.

Reply. This, if understood Universally, is as easily denied as affirmed: and all the reason he here gives for the affirmation, is, that by some Civilians it is reckoned a­mongst the liberal contracts.

Mr. J. Answ. Ground is wont and apt to bring forth Fruit, Grass and Corn, answe­rable to the Rent: but the Money Lent is spent in the use thereof.

Reply 1. The former brings not forth without labour and industry: the first curse is still upon it; so that it brings forth Bri­ars and Thorns of its own accord; but not good fruit without the sweat of the brow: Yea, Gen. 3.17. &c. and Cains Curse is sometimes super­added, so that when a man tilleth the Ground, Gen. 4, 12. it yieldeth not forth her strength.

2. Whereas he saith Money is spent in the using; the Apostle faith of all Earthly things, Col. 2.22. they perish in the using. However if Money be thus spent, the Axiome holds true here, that the corruption of one thing, is the generation of another; so that Fields, Houses, &c. Are the product or purchase of this Money spent: We also learn from Solomon, Eccles. 10.19. that Money answereth all things: i. e. Money is virtually Houses, Fields, and Tenements, and all things else saleable. [Page 157]For we read, Exod. 21 21. that a Servant is stiled a mans money, because he was bought for Mo­ney.

Mr. J. The gain that cometh of it is not produced by the Money; but by the pains and industry of the Borrower.

Reply 1. And is not Ship-usury so too? Rather it should have been said, by the Money improved by the pains and industry of the Borrower, whose pains we suppose to be contented for. He goes on, And being uncertain, should not oblige him to pay a certain sum. — Reply 2. As if the same might not be said of all other incomes, as from ground rented; where the gain is uncertain, and yet the Farmer tyed up to a certain sum. 3. I propose to considera­tion whether it be not as equitable to tye a man up to a certainty for a sum of mo­ney borrowed, as for a Tenement set to farm; seeing on both hands the gains and losses are alike uncertain? Take what is written by Grotius, and weigh whether, De Jure, &c. p. 234. mu­tatis mutandis, it be not applicable to the Case in hand.

Wherefore (saith he) as the Commodity perisheth to the Owner; so naturally barren­ness and other hazards, that hinder the using prove a damage to the hirer: and the setter shall not have the least right to the money pro­mised, because he delivered over the power of using, which at that time was worth so much.

Mr. J. Houses lack repair still, and are very chargeable, &c.

Reply 1. What is it but Money that these Houses cost in repairing? 2. Are Houses chargeable in building and repairing? so Money cost time, pains, trouble and in­dustry in getting.

Mr. J. Answ. 5. Other things also may be the worse for using, so that the Owner thereof may take recompence.

Reply 1. Some things may not be the worse for using: a House we say is the bet­ter for having a Tenant in it, and a Field may be better when the Farmer leaves it, then when he came to it.

2. Though Money may not be the worse for using, yet it comes under a hazard in Lending, which answers the other.

Mr. J. And in all such things, the use thereof, and the things may be severed.

Reply. So may money and the gain there­of: or money, and your right to use it are two things. In Luc. 8.35. But now gain (saith Grotius) that obligation of lending, may (as all other things) be valued by the common measure, to wit, money. I have spoken to these things formerly, and may meet with them again,

Mr. J. Lastly, things hired, if they be consumed or lost, without the default of him that hireth them, are lost or perish to the Own­er, according to Exod. 22.15. and according to the Law of Man also. —

Reply. Upon inspection, I find we have here but a lame account of that Text of Scripture; v. 14. (upon which the next de­pends) which saith; If a man borrow ought of his Neighbour, and it being hurt or dye, the Owner thereof being not with it, he (i.e. The Borrower) shall surely make it good: but not so, if the Owner be with it. If he can get Gold out of Stubble, let him.

Mr. J. — And according to the Law of Man also; which saith that the Commodary is not bound to a fortuitous case or accident; unless he have bound himself so: whereas in money lent, the borrower standeth to all ha­zards, and the Ʋsurer to none.

Reply 1. Hath not the borrower bound himself so too? 2. Doth the lender stand to no hazards: Whatsoever there may be, or not be by Contract; otherwise hazards he meets with, even the same that the seller doth that gives days for payment: whereof Bishop Hall maketh mention, saying: Pract. Ca­ses. p. 27. There are two incidents into this practice, which may render it not unwarrantable [ viz. To take the more for a commodity on the ac­count of payment deferred;] The one is the hazard of the sum agreed upon: which too often comes short in the payment. —

3. Of the Commodary Grotius gives this account, De Jure p. 232. That the Commodary is bound to make good the thing hired if it be lost, — unless it would have suffered the same loss if [Page 160]it had remained with the Owner: for in this case nothing is lost to the Owner by means of the Hirer.

Mr. J. Obj. 4. But what need had you to trouble your self so much about Ʋsury, and so to appear against it, &c.

It is beyond dispute between us, whe­ther sinful practices, and such especially as are most in fashion, ought to be preached and printed down: as also whether there be not too much of oppression to be found in the Land, under the covert of Usury, as well as in buying and selling, and in the Administration of Justice too. But whe­ther moderate gain from Loan be such, he knows is in dispute between Learned, pious, and good men. And I think, a man may hold either side of the question, and his salvation be little concerned in it: only I shall say, the practice thereof on one hand is of great consequence to the Nation we live in, as well as to the Estates of many single persons: and the peremptory con­demnation of all that use it, is of dange­rous consequence on the other hand, upon supposals that it be false. And whereas he appears the only Champion herein in these days; I shall not determine whether it be because he exceeds others in Zeal, or from his unacquaintedness with the State of the Nation, and the Interest thereof de­pending upon Lending: yet, to him plead­ing, [Page 161] that it belongs to him as a watchman thus to warn; some will be ready to reply; how hath he watched, that hath deferred this work these thirty years? for so long time hath past at least since his Sermons against Usury were preached, afore this Treatise of his was Printed.

Being now come to the last Chapter that contains his application, instead of an an­swer whereto, I shall draw up a Scheme of his discourse by way of summary re­hearsal; wherein as in a Map may be seen the censure that is past; The applicati­on thereof I shall leave to himself to make.

After Mr. J. hath represented the Usu­rer as vile as he can, heaping on him all the opprobrious terms that came in his way; and damned him ten times over to the pit of Hell: 1. Least he should be mistaken by his Readers as intending all this for griping Usurers, and devouring Cormorants only, and not for others that take moderate gain, and mean no harm: he plainly says, he takes in all, and intends this discourse of all, even of such too as take moderate use, p. 46, 50, &c. And makes them as bad as Adulterers and Thieves, yea worse, p. 23. and 48.

2. But may not some lend for gain, that yet design good to their Neighbour? No: [Page 162] The Ʋsurer aimeth not at anothers good, but his own filthy gain, p. 41.

3. But suppose they do not bind others by Contract to pay use, but only take it, what is to be thought of these? these also fall under the same condemnation: For e­ven the intention of the heart to receive more than the principal, and the expectation of it makes a Loan of money Ʋsury, p. 51.

4. However, may not the case be alte­red as to Orphans and Widows, who have frequently no other way of improving their Money? Not so neither: Ʋsury being pro­ved in it self unlawful and damnable, there­fore no circumstance of persons, nor any pre­tended necessity can make it lawful, p. 55.

5. Suppose then that all such Usury be a sin, may we not charitably think, that such as have a hand in it coming to the sight thereof, may repent of this, as we find some others do of some other sins? he leaves not room for so much charity; For usurers sel­dom repent, but at last into Hell they go: p. 24.

6. May there not be hopes, that some such do it ignorantly, as Paul speaks of him­self, and as the Patriarchs lived in the sin of Polygamy, and yet repenting thereof in the Lump, amongst their other unknown sins, found mercy? I cannot learn he hath so much kindness for them neither: his whole discourse, and particularly his ap­plication makes directly against this; re­presenting [Page 163]him as one going against light and conviction: And in his Treatise of the Worth of Souls, p. 215. See Ca­pell. of tentat. part. 1. p. 232. He thrusts in the Usurer amongst the sinners mentioned, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. That shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

7. If he then have so little Charity for the practiser of Usury, what charity has he yet for those many learned, grave, and (to all appearance) Godly Divines, that in the integrity of their hearts have plead­ed for the Lawfulness of moderate Usu­ry? Surely he will honour these: If you will take his thoughts from his words, these likewise are no better, nor worse than damned; unless they repented of this; the which it is more than we know they did, p. 39. How wilt thou answer it (saith he) at that great day? when Christ shall ask thee, how durst thou preach or say, that it is lawful to lend to the rich upon Ʋsury, when thou never heardest me say so? O I would not then stand before Christ in thy Condition for ten thousand Worlds.

And here I perceive the censure I have incurred by writing against his Book: but this is my comfort, that I have done it in the Integrity of mine heart, and God Judg­eth not always as Man Judgeth, for he Judgeth righteous Judgment.

He might have learned more modera­tion from Mr. Capel, a man alike af­fected [Page 164]with himself in the question of Usu­ry; but far more charitable in his censure of persons; as may be seen in his Treatise of Tentations, Part 2. Chap. 13. p. 256. And in his Apology, p. 282.