USURY IS INJURY. Cleared in an examination of its best Apology, alleged by a country Minister, out of Doctor Ames, in his Cases of Conscience, as a party and Patron of that Apology. Both answered here, By NATH: HOLMES, Dr. in Divinity. LONDON, Printed by Richard Bishop, for jasper Emery, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Eagle and Child in S. Paul's Churchyard next Watlin street. 1640. USURY IS INJURY. BRother, our Conference a F● c. 28. An Dom. SIXPENCES. falling upon Usury, and that drawing in your mention of Doctor Ames, as if some Patron of it, or of some kind of it, viz. 8 l' per centum, 8 l' in the hundred; upon my reading of the Doctor, at my retiring home, I could not but repeat him, and report my opinion of his passages b A week 〈…〉. : So that my intent is not now to load this paper with an heap of weighty matter, that I could urge against Usury, out of Scripture, and most sorts of learned Authors, Heathens, Poets, Philosophers, Politicians, Moralists, Jews, Rabbins, Targum, Talmud, Christians, Schoolmen, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. but only to walk over and view the limits of the question, so fare as we have you and Doctor Ames in our company; whom sometimes I oppose; yet not I, but Scripture and reason; pardon me till you weigh my reasons. He had not been a man, if he could not have erred. ●ando●ue & dormitat Homerus. Bernard● non vi●et omne. Seraphical Bonaventure erred soulely in his Psalter: Angelical Aqui●●s, by a mistake, sacrificed his wit in Purgatory: Alexander of H●l●s, though styled Irrefragable, is sometime not so tolerable in his defence of Transubstantation: Aristotle, P●●lo who am maxim●, the Maxim of the Schools, when at a loss in humane learning was forced many times (as learned 〈…〉 describes) to speak so equivocally and amphibologically, as that he may indifferently be understood in utramque partem. Nor are the learnedst Fathers without their n●vi, as the learned Io●an● hath showed in a brief Synopsis: No; nor are our soundest modern writers always in the way. It is our misery (and therefore I● a●cum jam causa jubet renovare dolour) that the greatest Linguists have stammered with their tongues. The Septuagint 70 times. The syriack oft in words. The Chaldee oft losing the self. Ari●s, and Buxto●us, and other notable H●ir●●●s, inconsider●●● in most and best copies usually to be had, do read, Psal. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉. We know (with all reverence be it spok● 〈…〉 Scrip●ari●●● Canone) that the Apostles could ●erre in action, 〈…〉 as Peter swerved som● w●●●uching ceremonies of the Jews, that 〈…〉 might ha●t betw●●● the Jewish and Christian with a kind of dissimulation, as Saint Paul calls it. Doctor Ames goes farther in his Bellarmino enervato, Tom. 1. p. 61. De sufficientia Scripturae. Neque enim (saith he) omnia que P●ophetae aut Apostoli scripserunt, sunt statim Canonica, sed quae Deus in illum finem sanctificavit. No wonder therefore if Doctor Ames or you, sometimes miss your way. Therefore in all, le● us all, seeing we are but men, divinam consulamus ●ati●nem, follow one another as we follow Christ. Now to the question. Vsura est lucrum ex mutuo quaesitum, D. Am●● vi ipsius mutui. Usury is a gain sought by lending, by force of that lending. Quest. An Vsura hujusmodi sit licita? Of this kind of Usury, the question is, whether it be lawful. Therefore for any learned man, Replicatio whose parts I otherwise admire, to distinguish of Vsura licita & illicita, it is a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * A begging of h● question . He makes one member of the distinction to determine a lawful Usury, when the question is of Usury in general, whether it be lawful. Pace tanti viri, that in and upon the question shall so distinguish, he commits a solecism in disputation, too great to be seem so great a scholar. For evidently that Questionist of the lawfulness of Usury is beaten with his own distinction. For if he distinguish that there is Vsura licita, why makes he the question, An Vsura sit li●ita, indefinitely. Therefore learned Aims never so distinguisheth, but first defines, then questioneth, thirdly, stateth the question. D. Ames. Vsura talis, qualis à danistis ac foeneratoribus vul. gò exercetur, ab omnibus meritò improbatur. Such Usury as is commonly used by the lender's on interest, and Usurers, is justly disallowed of all men. Replicatio. Therefore you did ill to spend your breath in behalf of Usury, for their sakes who are da●istae ac foeneratores, guilty talis Vsurae quae vulgò exercetur: Except in this, that its evident their Usury is worse than the commonest sort; insomuch that a Counsellor was confident that it was extortion. If this exception were not, seeing our common Usury is 8 l' per Cent. strictly required by the Usurer, whether his Centum win or lose, it fully comes within the compass of Doctor Ames his utter disallowance, and his sentence that it should be disallowed of all c So far therefore is Doctor Ames from allowing 8 l' per Cent a● it ●as affirmed in our discourse, ● at in this ●o●●tion, the said no more, l●e ● follows out right in the ●●●●red. . And if the Usurer allegeth that he puts not the Use in the Bond; yet he doth in his bowellesse heart and bowels: that if it be not fully paid, he will suddenly take in his Principal, the Client being so unprovided, that Usury in the beginning, ends in unmerciful ex●orting cruelty. Summum jus summa injuria. so hang a malefactor condemned to die, without sufficient allowance of time for preparation, may be the murdering of his soul. And this sudden calling in of money, as in the cause, scil. mental Usury, is naught, so in the effect worse, viz. to make men mortgage, or ruin their estate, to satisfy these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Donivoros, these Anthropophagos, these man-eating Usurers. Therefore this learned Doctor Ames bids us observe his definition, of Usury; it is Lucrum ex mutuo qu esitum, non conventum; quia non tantum Vsura realis in qua pactum intercedit, sed & mentalis, quae versatur in intention, lucrum ut debitum ex mutuo acquirendi, ista descriptione contineatur. i. Usury is a gain sought by lending, not covenanted, because not only real Usury, which is by compact, but also mental Usury, which lies in the intention of getting gain as a due by lending, is contained in that description. Generaliter tamen, D. Ames & absolutè illicitam esse quamlibet Vsuram, nulla ratione naturali solidè potest probari. But that generally all Usury is absolutely unlawful, it cannot be proved by any natural reason, solidly. We must remember how this learned Doctor lived where the people are intolerable Usurers: Replicatio It had been in vain therefore in such a place, è Cathedrâ, to have condemned all Usury, and to have hoped to have sitten fast. And if the Doctor mean by natural reason, reason from nature: 1. We have reason from nature, and delivered by nature, I mean, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere animals, that have nothing but nature, mere heathens: whereby my conscience is persuaded, that it is a dictate of nature in some sort, at least an experiment observed by nature, that Vsura est illicita d O● the 〈◊〉 mind is M●ster Cap●… o● Usury, at the end of 〈…〉 of temptations, viz. The heathens have condemned this sin by the light of nature p 44● . Aristotle in his Politics, lib. 1. cap. 7. saith plainly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Petrus Ramus renders so home, as that it is evident he was of Aristotle's mind; thus, Quapropter ejusmodi nummorum foene●i● (of money bringing forth money) naturae maxim, contraria atque inimica judicanda est. Therefore that kind of Usury of money producing money, is to be judged as most contrary, and an enemy to nature. And 4. lib. Ethic. cap. 3. 〈…〉 That I may not seem to wrest the words in translating Lambinus as an indifferent man shall render the Greek for us; Alii (saith he) cursus in accipiendo saint ●imit, quia undique, & puia●●le acc●p●unt, ●●ales sunt it ●ui il i●e●ales o●e●as praestant, sordida ●ue arts exercent, & lenones, & omnes hujus notae homines, & ●oe●e●at●res● & two quibus exiguum lucrum magna mercede constat. Hi omnes a quibus non de●ent, & quantum non delent, auferunt. The Philosopher concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communis autem eorum videtur esse lucri tu●pitudo. O her; exceed in taking, viz any thing from any, viz. men of illiberal and sordid arts, Bawds, etc. Usurers, etc. all which receive of whom and how much they ought not, and sordid gain is common to them all. The Poet Horace, lib. 1. Serm. satire. 2. condemns Usury of 5 l' per cent. his words are, Dives agris, dives positis in foenore nummis. ●inas hic capiti mercedes e●secat, i. e. five upon the principle: so learned Commentators: and a little before, Omnia conductis co●mens obsonia nummis. i. Saith the Commentator, Nummis foenori acceptis, pro quibus merces solvitur. Cicero a Heathen, condemns Usury, Primum improbantur hi● qu s●us qui in odia hominum incurrunt, ut po●ti●orum & oe●era●orum. Cato a Heathen, condemns Usury, saying it is idem a● occide●e. 2. I might thus in the second place prove Usury to be condemned by the Dictates of Nature, because condemned of all mankind, all peoples, Nations and Countries, more or less. Of Heathens we have heard. Of Jews after. For the laws of Nations, such as are the civil laws, received in all Kingdoms and Commonwealths, where men are not savage, first they deny a known Usurer power to make a Will. Secondly, deny him right to be buried in Church or Church-yard. Thirdly, in Court they allow not Use for money detained when recovered. Again, for Canon Laws received of Christians, Papists and Protestants, in some sort: I mean Latin Canons, they enjoin tithes to Ministers to be paid of all profits, and so Usurers to pay the tenth of their Use; but Ministers may not receive it, because the gain is all unlawful and wicked and so the tithe. The Canonists and Canon Law do condemn all Usury and interest whatsoever. So ●illet on Exod. 22. Our S●●ute Laws expre●ly disallow the Usury of 8 l' per Cent. i● point of Religion, and Conscience. And in the judgement of Councillors his au●●lus la●t the ●atute do ●not allow and approve of taking any Use, but only provides a man shall not be punished by the Common Law if he take but ● l per Centum. The parent may omit correction of a younger child for that vice which the parent doth not allow. Again they say, the main intent of the Statute is to hinder above 8. not to encourage to take 8 l' per Centum. Our English Canon, viz. Can. 109. is express that it is a great sin, S. August●ne condemn Vt●r Q●●dicam de ●ri, q●s et a●pse Le●es & I dic●s ●edd●●ht●t August. Epist. 54. ●e●ret. cau. 13. ● 4 c. 1 and presentable. And our Episc. Trienn. visit last held, expressed in articles that it was presentable ●. 2. If D. Ames means by natural reason, proper, and pertinent, and evident reason; sure that reason that doth convince, is such. And whether our reasons will convince, we will leave to the Reader to judge in the premises and that which is to follow. D. Ames. Non probatur ratione eorum qui dicunt mutuum ex naturâ su● debere esse gratuitum. Neque enim probari hoc potest, omne mutuum, quibuscunque circumstantiis vestiatur, debere esse gratuitum. i e. It is not proved (that is Usury to be unlawful) by their reason that say Borrow of its own nature ought to be gratis. Replicatie. Omne mere purum putum mutuum, and of that is the question (whether consideration be to be given for bare lending) is easily and evidently proved it ought to be gratis. Luk. 6.34, 35. If ye ●ad to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye, for sinners do so. But lead, hoping for nothing again h Ma●t●r Capel times this a from place against Usury 〈…〉, Nor or can 〈◊〉 Law against V● b●a th●. I● hav● of Moses; for such laws as such, are 〈…〉 by so● intell●ge●●ro●● Moses: but Heathens of all sorts, and that by ●oug●●ature, have 〈◊〉 ●nnel 〈◊〉 sin, having never heard of Moses, and theref●●● 〈…〉 ●apol treall la● of Moses. Besides we have it forbidden in the New ●es● at the ●●a●i●ials ●ere ●at of d●. Luk. 6.35. We explain this in our proper idiom of our tongue and common speech, calling that which is free in this kind, borrowing and lending: that which is not, we call by other names of contract, as letting and hiring. But the text is clear enough, which forbids mental expectation of gain; calling lending for gain to be a doing as sinners do. Upon these words Beza having fetched a circuit, concludes point blank, thus; Illud tamen certum est, si juvandus est proximus, etiam nullà recipiendae sortis habita ratione (but this I should count rather giving than lending) multo magis (saith Beza) prohiberi foeneratorias pactiones. Gregory Nisen on these words saith, Malignam foe●orum excogitationem si quis appelles furtum, & homicidium, non peccabit. Nam quid refert suffosso pariete quenquam erepta possidere acf●norum necessitate possidere illicita. Basil speaks to the same effect as Aristotle doth in his Politics, that it is unnatural and unreasonable that it should be expected that money should bring forth money. The Papists in their Rheims Test. shame us Protestants: The words are, It may be taken for a pretext (as well as counsel) wherein Usury, i. e. the expectation not of the money lent, but of vantage for loan, is forbidden, as by other places of Scripture it is condemned. And it is a thing against the law of Nature and Nations. And great shame and pity it is, that it should be so much used and suffered among Christians, or so covered and cloaked under the habit of other contracts as it is. In a word, S. Matthew will clear it, that giving is not here spoken of; who Mat. 5.42. repeats our text of lending, and speaks of giving beside, as a distinct way of helping a neighbour. It were strange therefore that S. Luke, that is the most eloquent writer of all the four Evangelists, should confound giving & lending to be all one; especially against the nature of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying always to lend, May S. L●c ch●p 6. ver●. to had spoken of g●g, and 〈…〉 to speak of lending. never to give; commonly to lend on Usury, seldom signifying to lend otherwise; whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Usurer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Usury. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Syriack signifying always to lend, never to give; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying an Usurer. D. Amet. Et si concedatur hoc (omne mutuum debet esse gratuitum) nihil aliud inde sequeretur, quàm mutuum si gratis non fiat, transire in alium contractum, vel nominatum, vel innominatum, vel simplicem, vel mixtum. i.e. And if it be granted that all lending should be gratis, nothing would follow thence, but that then lending (if it be not gratis) would pass into another kind of contract, named or unnamed, simple or mixed. Replicatio. But this, Nihil aliud, is magnum aliquod quod inde sequeretur. For by the same reason that the Doctor distinguisheth that mutuum si gratis non fiat, transire in alium contractum, vel nominatum, vel innominatum, vel simplicem, vel mixtum; we may go on, distinguishing, licitum vel illicitum, conductitium vel foeneratorium: For this will of necessity follow, that if a man lend wearable goods, that return not in the same perfection every way as they were when lent, in consideration whereof the lender takes reward: now lending doth transire into hire. If he lends money, that by number, weight and quality, returns as good as it went out, yet for the bare loan requires reward, here lending doth transire into Usury. And so the Doctor innominat, doth simpliciter grant the question. Non probatur (viz. omnem Vsuram esse illicitam) ratione eorum qui allegant, D. Ames. in rebus illis quae usu consumuntur dominium non distingui ab usu, atque adeo pro usu nihil posse accipi ultra valorem ipsius dominii; responnetur, enim lucrum accipi non simpliciter pro usu rei mutuatae quoad substantiam, sed quoad valorem aut proventum qui manet post substantiam consumptam, & subsistit saepe in rebus quae usu non consumuntur & pro officio, vel actu mutuandi unde commodum percipit mutuarius. All Usury to be unlawful, is not proved by their argument that allege that in those things which wear with the Use, the rule or Mastership of them is not distinguishable from the using of them, and therefore nothing above the value of that Mastership can be taken for the Use: For it is answered, that gain is not taken simply forth Use of the thing borrowed, considered according to the substance, but considered according to the value or Income which redounds after the substance is wasted, which ofttimes consists in things which are not impaired by their use. Again, it is taken for the office and act of lending, from which the borrower receiveth profit. Of things wastable by Use, Replicatio. there is not only an impairing, but an hazard, and an event ofttimes of utter ruin. The hired horse dies; And then he must pass only for the hire (as the Scripture speaks) without farther satisfaction The hired house not only is worse in the parts, every thing older and more rotten, but the principles and whole edifice falls, the tenant not bound, nor able to rebuild. So that in taking hire there is not only just satisfaction for wrong to the creature; But lawful merchandise for hazard of the whole. But the Usurer takes generally for the bare Use; For, for hazard he will run none. He usually requires intolerable assurance, mortgage, etc. His money wears not. And for that same valour aut proventus qui manet post substantiam, & subsistit saepe in rebus quae usu non consumuntur, of which the Doctor speaks observe I pray you well: That, take away the consideration of the substance of money (which the Usurer hath in specie & numero again) and the act of lending, (which is satisfied by just repaying) and there is nothing to come into consideration, no proventus the Usurer is hindered of, which otherwise the Usurer would or could make of his money, in consideration whereof he should demand Use. For the Usurer lends, having now no penurious need of Use to maintain himself by: Being usually rich, and always richer than the just borrower; or however, he hath, or will have nothing else to do with his money: But (as I know upon my own experience) makes o● lands, stock, &c, to provide an Usury bank. He is a lazy Caterpillar, and will not work, and therefore turns Usurer. He is upheld by learned men that there is a lawful Usury (though nor he, nor they, can rehearse any marks the Scripture hath set down to distinguish them) and therefore he will not run the hazard to be a partner with any body. He will not lend to be lent to again, for he needs not borrowing. If any man will borrow and doth not express or intimate he will pay for the act of lending, he will keep his money a companion for canker and rust, rather than lend. If a man would bring home his money a month or two before the time, he is utterly unwilling, unless the whole time be paid for. He will have it go on, and take for time, that was never his to sell: yet he will have Use for all his money, for all the time he prayed, heard Sermons, received the Communion: For the time of eating sleeping, etc. when, nor he nor his client could or ought to be otherwise busied. Let not the Reader now unjustly untwist this answer, but take all together, and let him speak whether the Usurer himself can allege that he receives his Use for any thing but lending. 2 If it were so as the Doctor speaks, that post substantiam remanet valour & proventus (which cannot be found immediately in money) yet seeing God hath allowed recompense for using impairable goods, forbidden recompense for lending things that come in the same, quod & quantum, the case is altered. Non probatur (usuram esse illicitam) ratione eorum qui objiciunt pecuniam sua natura esse sterilem: D. Ames. i.e. Usury is not proved unlawful by the allegation of those that say, that money in its own nature is barren. Replicatio The father of the Philosophers, Aristotle, as you heard afore, thought this a good reason, not only to condemn Usury, but to pronounce it contrary to nature. The fathers of Christians, think the same. So Basil on Luk. 6. as you heard afore. It is strange that we having the eyes of the fathers to see with beside our own, should not be able to ken as fare into the nature of vitium, as a mere heathen. ☞ Consilio Lateranensi, Usury is thus defined; Quando ex usu rei quae non germinat, nullo labour, nullo sumptu, nullo periculo lucrum conquiri studetur. To which Willet assents, and Englisheth it in this manner; Usury is when by the Use of a thing which increaseth not, gain is sought without any labour, cost, or hazard. You heard before also that the Rhemish Testament saith, It is against the law of nature. Finally, many learned men from this seeking money to be borne as it were of money, have conceived the word Usury to be derived. Vsura, q.d. Vsus aeris. Not only Divines touch this s. Tench, but Lawyers. I have read it in the Lord Cooks Reports in French. Hence also the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which first signifies partus, then Usury. So Latin, Foenus, q.d. Foetus, the Etymology rising from a wonder. D. Ames. Quamvis enim pecunia sua natura & per se sit sterilis, facile tamen commutari potest in merces, quae fructum edunt, & accedeate industria utentis vim suam confert ad fructum pariendum. For though money in its own nature is barren, yet it may easily be changed into commodities which fructify, and by the industry of him that useth it, brings forth fruit. 1 This answer is not sufficient, Replicatio. unless it be a true universal proposition, that for whatsoever worldly benefit that is barren in itself, yet easily commutable into profit, recompense may be given, s. for the forbearance of it. For if the proposition be but particular or singular; then we want other proofs to clear why it should be true of money, more than other things. But the proposition is not universally true. For then, because time, unprofitable in itself, being not res, but mensura rerum, is profitable by industry, Accedente industria utentis, therefore it may be sold. As indeed usurious and injurious merchants sell their commodity, not according to the rate, but according to the value of time, condemned by the learned, that condemn Usury. Then the Elements, Fire and Water, bona communia, and therefore gratis to be communicated to one another (saith Cicero) might be let out or sold for money, because mediately they are very useful. One neighbour might sell them to another wanting them: or the Magistrate lay a tax upon men for the use of them. 2 Money brings not forth profit, by all industry of all men, but by singular industry of some, and with some hazard. Most men are not rich, most men not gaining by money, but many, many times losing. And therefore one argument of Politicians against Usury is, it is unlawful, and against nature, because the Usurer by Bonds, Bills, Suits, etc. requires of his Client quod non est in rerum natura; profit of money where none was, but loss k No man extols Midas e●er the more, that his fingers could turn bread into gold, as long as he lost in bread what he ●●t in gold. Nor is the Usurer's money to be admired, if it could be turned into ●read: seeing what is ●on in bread, is lost in comfort of soul. F●r without in ●t● not conve●ted to bread, etc. 1. M●das bread was not turned into gold without a most foolish wish. . 3 The Maxim applied to particulars, pincheth; whether Usury money, i. e. money lent on Usury be fruitful mediately, & per accidens. The Text, Prov 28.8. may justly make us doubt. If God curse not, cross not borrower or lender (for it is seldom seen but the borrower is swallowed whole at last) yet if the borrower upon Use, sells unconscionably dear, that he may make his customers to pay for the commodity, pay his Use, and find him present maintenance, and an estate for time to come, what boast can there be made of the fruitfulness of this money to the Commonwealth? The Country is sacrificed on cruel dealing to save one man. The Commonwealth must perish for the wealth of such Commons. 4 The rule of the husbandman in buying of Cattles and other commodities, or Leases, is, that he will pay for what the thing is in statu praesenti: but to pay for what it is improveable to, he hath no reason. If money be fruifull that is borrowed of the Usurer, yet seldom so fruitful as honestly to pay the user for his great pains, and the Usurer his Use too. D. Ames. Non probatur (illicitam esse usuram) ratione eorum qui dicunt in genere nihil esse in mutuo, pro quo lucrum possit accipi. Est enim proventus fructus qui ex pecuniâ mutuo datâ potest expectari: est & onus annexum privationi pecuniae qua fit ut omnis occasio eandem cum fructu alias collocandi omittatur. Vacatio enim à pecunia utendâ eorum jure aestimari posse videtur, quo & vacatio à laboribus aestimatur. Exod. 21.19. i.e. Usury is not proved unlawful by their reason, who say, that in general there is nothing in lending for which gain may be taken. For there is both a fruitful in come to be expected of lent money; as also there is a burdensome inconvenience annexed to the want of that lent money, whereby all opportunity of disposing that money otherwise, is taken away: For non-imployment of money that may be used, seems valuable, with the same equity valuable, as non-imployment of labour, Exod. 21.19. I have sufficiently answered all these already, Replicatio. only to the last reason or clause [Vacatio etenim, etc.] I will speak a word. As now it is the question whether Usury be lawful (as out of doubt labour in our Callings is) and consequently, whether God's blessing may be expected on such money-mungring. So (which is the main of our answer) the husbandman is sure (under God's ordinary providence) what he can get by his daily labour, day by day: but at abundance of hazards that he doth not lose by his laying out of his money (especially his Vsury-borrowed money) as much in one day as he can get in many weeks. Therefore there is not par ratio, that forbearance of money should be recompensed (especially when men desired to lend their money for so long time, six months, etc. as confident it would be no hindrance to them) as bodily labour. D. Ame●. Ratione evidenti confirmatur, aliquam usuram esse licitam; quia nulla realis differentia potest ostendi, inter quandam Vsuram, & alios contractus ab omnibus probatos. e. g. Est aliquis pecuniâ instructus ad praedium emendum, unde possit percipere annuos fructus centum imperialium. Idem praedium cupit alter habere, sed non est pecuniâ instructus. Si prior ille emat praedium, & elocet alteri pro centum imperialibus, quin justum & aequum fecerit, nemo negabit. Si vero alteri det pecuniam ad idem praestandum, sc. ad idem praedium sibi emendum, & candem summam ab eo accipiat, eidem periculo sese subjiciens, cui in exemptione sua fuisset obnoxius, eadem prorsus est justitia. Et praeterea nonnihil accedit alteri illi qui selvit usuras ratione dominii in praedium illud quod emptione so acquisivit: i.e. It is ratified by evident reason, that some Usury is lawful, because there cannot be showed any real difference between a certain kind of Usury, and other contracts approved of all. For instance, there is a man furnished with money to buy such a Farm of an hundred pounds per annum: Another man, though wanting money, desired to buy the same Farm: If the first of these buy the Farm, no doubt but he may lawfully let it out to another for an hundred pounds by the year. Now if this man now the owner, should not have bought it, but have lent his money to the other, that wanting money desired to buy it, wherewith he now buys the Farm, taking of this purchaser the same sum of rent for his money, which he should have had of the Farm, putting himself upon the same hazard for his money to which he should have been liable in the purchase of the Farm, there is the self same equity in both. Upon this argument and case I suppose was the speech at our conference grounded (for I find none so like as this) that D. Ames allowed 8 l'. in the hundred. Repicatio But there was an utter mistake in this, as will appear easily to him that reads the bare words. It will further appear by our answer. 1 Here the Doctor plainly allows a man to take so much in the hundred for his money, which he lends to a purchaser of Free-land, or Farm, as the purchase bought brings in of yearly rent, if it were let. Which is in England (and I believe it to be so in other Countries; for Usury, too too common in all lands in the practice, prescribes that proportion of purchasing) I say is in England but 5 l' in the hundred, which is fare from 8 l' in the hundred. 2 The phrase eidem periculo sese su●jiciens, carries very much with it. Which the learned Doctor not so versed in purchasing, as he was in perusing of books, might not so well consider. For first if by it he means simply, that a man in lending out his money to buy Centum imperialia per annum, doth run himself into the same hazard in lending his money, as he should have done in purchasing, if he himself had laid out the money on the purchase: And that therefore he ought to have as much for the loan of the money, as he should have had of rent, if the purchase had been his, which rend his client or borrower now takes up of the Farm as rend, and pays it him as Use: the worthy Doctor is much mistaken. 1 What great hazard there is in purchasing (over there is in lending money, for which men are feign to give double, triple, quadruble bond, with mortgages, statutes, pawns, etc. for security, even what the Usurer will require) I say hazard in purchasing, in regard of conveyance, lest some mortgages or statutes secretly lie on the land, or some former estate be let, or the new lease be not well made, some the for a, or and for but, marring all: Or some Entails, or Thirds, etc. worst the bargain, with hundreds more difficulties, I leave to the Lawyer to declare. 2 What great charges for fines, recoveries, conveyances, with many journeys to settle a purchase, over there is to lend money to Use, which costs the Vsury-taker nothing, I leave the purchaser to discourse. 3 How uncertain the rates of commodities be, how wearable the ground is, how alterable by seasons of excess of wet or drought the crops are, and consequently how prices of land fall, especially in any trouble of commonwealths, of wars, etc. whiles money is still of the same value, let the husbandman speak. 4 How much labour and cost a man is at to make the Farm yield his rent, let the occupier or imployer of that Farm speak, whiles the Usurer is at none for the money he lends: and therefore it is a hard pennyworth for the borrower, if he employ his Farm, to pay the Usurer, and be paid his labour and his charges too, so as to have a maintenance. Seeing therefore in no degree doth this lender run hazard and charges as the purchaser, he is in no wise to have the same profit of his money as the purchaser of his lands. 2 If we may so take the Doctor, as that he means the lender of his money should altogether subjicere sese eidem periculo cui in exemptione sua fuisset obnoxius; then it is as plain as if written with a Sunbeam, as evident as evident may be, that now this is not Usury, but partnership, copurchasing, coheirship, or joint-taking. And so all that this position hath set down, gives no allowance to Usury. Scriptura non tollit omnem omnino Vsur●. i e. D. Ames. The Scripture doth not altogether take away all Usury. 1 Answ. Most learned men (and some of them most pious) drawing out of the Scripture the self same definition of Usury in effect, Replicatio. which Doctor Ames sets down, under that their definition condemns all Usury, coming within the compass thereof— Vrsinus, Vsura est lucrum quod accipitur solius mutuationis causa— Calv. Quicquid lucri praeter sortem dabatur, est usura, unde Haebraicè dicta Tarbit: i. e Increase of the multiplying— August. Aug. in Psal. 36. Si plus quam dedisti expectas accipere, C. 14. q. 3. c. ● Se●. 10. foenerator es— Cajetan a Papist, Plus ex mutuo velle quam mutuatum sit, iniquum est— Concil. Carthag. 3. Nullus Clericorum amplius accipiat quam cuiquam accommodavit— 2 The Scripture takes away all Usury, and it will be made to appear even out of those arguments that the worthy Doctor allegeth to the contrary, which are four. viz. D. Ames. Sed illam quae exigitur ab egeno, qui ob instantem, necessitatem & sustentationem suam aliquid mutuo petit: ita ut prohibitio fundetur in conditione personae. Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.35, 36. Pro. 28.8. Ezech. 18.17. e. i. But only that which is exacted of the needy, who for his present urgent necessity, and the sustentation of himself, borroweth somewhat: so that the prohibition is grounded upon the condition of the person. Replicatio We thus retort the argument. That sin which is forbidden to all that are incident and subject to commit that sin, is altogether forbidden, that it be not committed. But Usury is forbidden to all that are incident & subject to commit Usury; Ergo. The Minor proposition is evident thus; The takers of Usury are the richer: The borrowers are the poorer. And therefore the Lord forbids all rich men to take Use of their Clients, because they are poor in comparison of the lender; and so have more need to have the Use money given them, than the rich borrower to receive it. l That the Usurer is the ●c● man; & others in opposition to him are termed the poo●: we have an infallible place of Scripture, Pro. 22 2. The rich and the poor meet together. See poor put in opposition to this rich man ●e the only rich man. Who is he? The Usurer. See Prov, 29 13. comp. the margin. For though a man of an 100 l' per annum, borrow of a man that hath but 50 l' per annum; yet he that hath the more lands and less money, and more in debt, perhaps as much as half, or all his lands are worth, must needs be the poorer man. If any rich man borrow for wantonness, and superfluous and unnecessary uses; that's the special sin of borrowing & borrowers: forbidden under another head, sc. covetousness: And by other kind of places of Scripture: Own nothing to any one but love. So a man may abuse a godly duty, viz. pr. to seek things to get them, to consume them on lusts, etc. jam 4 3. Therefore in these places of Usury, the holy Ghost is altogether intent against the sin of lender's. And that is Usury: whose aggravation is this in the Texts above named (as in other Texts other aggravations of that sin are touched) that it takes gain for lending, of them that are poorer than the lender's. Unless this answer be admitted as sound, it would follow by the same argument that the learned Doctor makes; That oppression is not uviversally forbidden, because the mighty and potent ones usually are forbidden that sin, toward the weak innocent neighbour, which always is weaker than the oppressor, else he would not be oppressed. No more would the poor borrower borrow if he were rich, but rather would be ready to lend, freely, or for Usury. m To the same M. Elton answers. If this consequence were good, then because it is said, Pro. 22.22. Rob not the poor, because he is poor. Therefore a man may rob the rich, because he is rich. And Deut. 23.19. No mention is made of the poor, but Usury is forbidden towards a brother, whether poor or rich. Finally, that I may not seem to go an uncouth and untrodden path, let the Reader look on my company. 1 Master Capel in his Tract of Temptations, hath upon this objection of the Doctors, these words in the forenamed book, in his dispute of restitution, at the end of the said book. Read, and read his answer: The Law (saith the objection) doth urge most, that Usury be not done to the poor: Was it not (saith Master Capel) because the Jews were then too noble and generous to go a borrowing, except it were the poorer sort? What should the Law then forbidden that to be done by rich men, which most rich men never did? But after we have probitions plenty that are indefinite: we are forbidden we must not rob the poor, because he is poor. Good sport for thiefs, if therefore it may be thought to follow, that it is a lawful matter to rob the rich n The Scripture forbids taking Use of a poor brother a jew, this is no toleration of Usury to be done to any jew, for (saith Master Capel) there is no one place gives leave to hire his money out to a rich jewish f●e. . Neither can the law against Usury be thought to be a judicious law of Moses; for such laws as such, are known only by some intelligence from the books of Moses. But heathens of all sorts, who never once heard of Moses writings, have with one voice cried sin upon Usury, and shame upon Usurers; Poets, Orators, Historians, Philosophers, all. Thus fare Master Capel, yet alive to maintain his words against any. We will show you but one or two more of our company, and leave the Reader to search the multitude of ordinary authors. 2 Next followeth Master Ainsworth, on that place Exod. 22. ●5. quoted by Doctor Ames. Ainsworths' words are, Usury consumeth a man and his substance; and is therefore here, and elsewhere absolutely (mark it well, absolutely) forbidden, viz. Deut. 23.19. Levit. 25.35, 36. Prov. 28.8. Ezech. 18.8. Observe, Master Ainsworth quotes the same places for absolute forbidding Usury, which Doctor Ames notes for forbidding only to the poor. And he quotes beside Deut. 23.19. where Usury is forbidden to be exercised towards any Jew whatsoever. ☜ Master Ainsworth goes on, and learnedly produceth the streams of Jewish Doctors and Rabbins to be against all Usury, Usury of any increase, Usury of victuals, , labour: Usury of words and salutations: Usury of teaching one to read, for lending money. All Sureties, Scribes, Witnesses, are forbidden to have to do in Usury. The Usurer, say the Rabbins, offends against six prohibitions, viz. Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.37. of money. And again, Levit. 23.37. of victual. Again, Levit. 25.36. of increase. Again, Exod. 22.25. shall not lay upon him Usury. Deut. 23.19. and Levit. 19.14. For the Rabbins say, it is a laying a stumbling block before the blind, to take Use. It is unlawful to take Usury before or after, viz. to send a gift before to him of whom one intends to borrow. Thus fare M. Ainsworth and his Rabbins, with much more; to make Christians blush at once moving a tongue for Usury. 3 Vatablus on this Exod. 22.25. hath these words, Pauperi per expositionem positum. Exponit enim quem vocet populum suum, nempe pauperes: Thus Vatablus. And let me here put in mine oar, thus; That if this were a limitation of Usury, to take only Usury of the poor Jew, than it would follow one might take it of a rich Jew, which is not where allowed: And crosseth another limitation alleged by D. Ames, out of the text of Scripture, that allows Usury to be done to none but to the stranger the Canaanite. And so these limitations fight one against another: But being made aggravations, they agree. 4 Upon this, Exod 22.25. Doctor Willet (having before named seven kinds of Usury) hath this assertion, That Usury is simply unlawful. He hath this explanation. But all these kinds of Usury and interest, with the like, were utterly unlawful, and not to be practised among Christians. He hath finally this probation. The said assertions and explanation shall appear by these reasons (whereof I will defer some of them till after, for a fit place.) 1 Usury (saith he) was detestable among the Heathen; much more odious aught it to be among Christians. As Cato being asked what it was to play the Usurer, answered Idem quod occidere. And further he said, that in former time they used to punish a thief but in twofold, an Usurer in fourfold Willet allegeth for this his argument Calvin. 2 Usury is against the first institution of money. Pecunia inventa est, that thereby things necessary for the maintenance of this life might be provided. But now it is prevented and abused to covetousness, that money may increase money. Master Willet allegeth this his argument out of one Borrh. 3 The Scripture absolutely condemneth Usury, as Psal. 15.5. Ezech. 18.17. Doctor Willet may well say absolutely, for here are no limitations mentioned, which Doctor Ames sets down. Well, Doctor Willet goes on. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) signifieth increase. By which, saith he, all increase by Usury is forbidden. Let me give you to understand here, whence this word Tarbith comes, viz. o Arabi●e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m●ltipl●catus est, up ●n which word Tarinth, Schindler, one of the greatest linguists in fi●e of the Eastern tongues, Hebr. Cha'd S●r. Ra●in-●almudie. & Arab. saith that Pro 28.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●m fo●●e & ●usura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multilica 〈◊〉, viz. substant am saam, est ●tymologia e●pressa, viz. usura. ☞ Yet this is one of the places Doctor Ames urged, that Usury is here forbidden with a limitation, sc. to the poor. When Schindler showeth that hence is fetched the etymology of Usury, what it is, sc. all increase for bare lending. And as our learned English Translators have rendered Tharbith, the case goes fare worse against the Usurer; for they rend Tarbith, unjust gain. So that if one asketh what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Usury. It is saith Schindler, Tarbit●: what is Tarbit●? It is unjust gain, say our English new Translators; Therefore I conclude Usury is unjust gain. . 4 His next reason is taken out of Chrysostome. Chrysostome saith (quoth Willet) Vsurarius super omnes mercatores maledictus. Cursed above all merchants and tradesmen: So Willet translates. And Chrysostome (saith Willet) further useth this comparison; Like as when one fifth any grain, all the grain by little and little slippeth through, and so solum stercus remanet in cribro; only the soil and dirt remaineth in the sieve: So of all the substance and ill gotten goods of Usurers, Nihil remanet nisi peccatum. So fare Willet. Thus you see the prohibition of Usury in the above alleged places by Doctor Ames, Non fundetur in conditione personae, not only in my judgement and my reasons (which notwithstanding are unanswerable) but in the judgement of other learned men, with their invincible reasons. Scriptura non tollit omnem omnino usuram, D. Ames. fed illam quae mordet aut rodit, i.e. quando debitum exigitur cum rigore, & proximi damno. i.e. The Scripture takes not away all Usury utterly, but the biting and gnawing; i.e. when the debt is exacted with rigour, and damnifying our neighbour. Replicatio. To the first clause. 1 Thus as our English Translators, O. or N. take no notice of the distinction: Nor French, jun. Lat. High-dutch; so here is not a limitation of Usury, as if Neshech, biting Usury were unlawful only. As if there were another Usury, which our old Usurers call toothless Usury. For there is no Usury so old, as that the mark is out of its mouth, but still it may be known to be a sin. Still its teeth may be seen, and so called biting Usury. This word is oft used as an epithet of aggravation, to deter men from any Usury. Because any Usury at the best is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neshech, A biting Usury. For if we look after the other names of Usury, they have a worse signification than this. 1 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neshech, it is agreed that is condemned. Chrysostome calls it on Matth. 5. Morsum aspidis venenatum. And that you may know what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neshech, your friend (as the Usurer's report, if any will believe them) Master Zanch. will show. Neshech, Morsus est, quo scilcet mordetur, id est, damno afficitur ille, qui mutuam accepit pecuniam, dum sc. v. g. pro centum cogitur reddere centum, & prater hos aliquid amplius, sive parum, sive multum. By which description of Neshech, all our Usurers hundreds for one are cast, and condemned guilty of biting Usury. For they will have somewhat more than the principle, let the borrower get nothing at all, but lose. The Usurer must have a plus ultra, on his five in the hundred. Another his six in the hundred. Another his seven in the hundred. Another his eight in the hundred. Another his five shillings a month, or fifteen pence a week for two years, for five pounds; which in the pecunia numerata, by Lunary months, twelve in a year, comes to 20 l' per Centum: By Solary months, as the Sun measures seven days to a week, four weeks to a month, and so makes thirteen months in a year, it comes to thirty in the hundred. And in modo numerandi, the manner of paying, that as soon as the stock is out, to have some coming in within a week or a month, and so weekly or monthly, comes to above 30 l' in the hundred. For the 30 l' per Centum, you may reckon it thus; five shillings a month, for a year, for 5 l', comes to make the sum of 3 l', supposing but the Almanac Lunary months, 12 in the year. For 12 crowns are 3 l'. of which 3 l', 10 s is the Use. For the sum was 5 l' for two years. Now half is come in at 12 Almanac months. Now multiply; ten a year for 50 s, is twenty shillings for 5 l'. Then four twenties, sc. 4 l' for four 5 l, i e. for 20 l': that is five 4 l' (which is 20 l') for five 20 l', which is an 100 l'. So you see then that ten shillings a year for 50 s, is 20 l' for an hundred. Let's go on then; if ten shillings a year, for 50 s, comes to 20 l' per Centum, then add half ten shillings, sc. five, for the odd Solary month, the thirteenth month in the year, and that will come to half as much more, i. e. 30 l' pro Centum. These things I have reckoned if I forget not myself, before exact Shopkeepers, Civil Lawyers, Common Lawyers, and Divines, and they have assented to the reckoning to be right. And the Lawyer hath pronounced directly this to be indirect Usury (though a man pretend to sell his money) and so lies liable to the penalty of the Statute. But then how much more than 30 in the 100 it comes to, to take in some of the Principal and Use together, the first week, or first month, and so weekly or monthly, for two years, till all in, I must confess I cannot tell; I nevet yet tried to reckon: and it seems somewhat intricate: we had need have the help of the Almanac-maker. Others, may be, sail lower, and take but 20 s in the hundred; yet if the borrower hath not gained thus much, this is Neshech with Master Zanchie. Nay, if a man doth not leave the borrower some gain, if he got but one shilling, so that Creditor fit tamen particeps benignitatis, of the gain. that is Neshech. We add the judgement and reasons of other learned men, that are contrary to D. Ames; that Neshech doth not intent only to forbid one kind of Usury, but is a common name to disgrace, and forbids all Usury, as all Usury being Neshech, biting. It is willet's argument, & he hath it out of learned Cajetan, Vsura est ex suo genere nociva, because it is called Neshech. And the law of nature, saith Willet, teacheth we should not do as we would not be done by. It is Ainsworths' position, Evod. 22.25. That Usury is called biting, because indefinitely all Usury is biting, and therefore here saith he, absolutely forbidden. He hath this position as out of many Scriptures there quoted, of which afore: So out of the Heb. Rab. viz. Maimonid. Usury indefinitely called Neshech or Noshech, it nippeth and eateth his neighbour's flesh.— jun. out of Bernard, Vsura is called Neshech, lucrum rodens, seu exedens; for it is, saith Bernard, Venenum patrimonii.— Willet out of R. Sol. and Lyran. Usury is Neshech, q. mordet ut serpens; parum percipitur in principio, tandem devorat totam hominis substantiam. Out of Galass. q. tanquam hirudo, omnem succum & sanguinem exsugit, as an horseleech, saith Willet.— Out of Simler, q. ut morsus serpentis non sinit dormire.— Out of Calvin, Neshech quia foenerator tanquam canis famelicus, alios mordendo seipsum pascit.— Finally, q. lethaliter mordet eos, qui eâ gravantur. ex Anonymo. Elton is of the same mind. All Usury is Neshech. You see then how bad Usury is at best. How Neshech is enough to condemn all Usury almost. The next words are worse. For Tharebith, in the words and judgement of Master Zanchie, is of Rabbah. Quod est crescore, i.e. augere. Vocem hanc habemus, Levit. 25. Significatur autem hac voce, usura sese multiplicans, (for indeed it is a Noun from the Conjugation Hithpael.) Cum scilicet Vsura, (nempe iniqua) non persoluta, novam parit Vsuram. Quam certè damnat Lex Dei, Levit. 25.36. Vbi utramque vocem conjungit Neshech & Tharebith, & utramque damnat, cavetque ne fiat. Quare neque haec vox in sacris literis in bonam partem accipi potest. Atque illam primam Vsuram, quae Neshech dicitur, vocant jurisperiti nostri Vsuram simplicem; alteram, usuram usurarum; cumsc. Vsura non exacta, parit novam Vsuram; & Graeci vocant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quasi dicat repetitam Vsuram. So then this Tharebith is not the toothless or tolerable Usury, but worse than Neshech, and therefore condemned by Scripture with Neshech, in the same text. Yea, condemned by Zanchie, yea, as he explains it, by humane laws as most odious. p Pray mark now, that this piece of Levit. 25.35, 36. is one of those places which Doctor Ames produceth that Vsur● is forbidden, with this limitation, viz. to the poor. When a● you hear that the two words there to express Usury, signifying such a Usury as for the nature is unlawful to be done to any man whatsoever, poor or rich. And it is not my judgement only, but Zanchies, that seems to be a favourer to Usurers. And Neshech there used, is condemned by Doctor Ames himself, and therefore he somewhat smiteth himself to say Usury is forbidden, Levit. 25.36. to poor, because poor. When it is rather forbidden, because Neshech: and soon makes any Client so poor new as to borrow, a non to be very poor. Me thinks, Zanchie or Ames, or any man that would intimate a tolerable Usury, should have done so much as told us by what name that tolerable lawful Usury is called in old Testament, where they pretend it is allowed. But they leave us to ourselves. Well therefore I go on. The third word for Usury is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Frauds, Doli, Vsurae: It signifies cheating and cozening as well as Usury, intimating that Usury is of an odious abominable nature, to be shunned as a dangerous thing to entrap one's estate and livelihood. You shall not take my word for this, or learned Shindlers; but I will produce our English Bibles, and the best and last translation. Prov. 29.13. it is said, The poor and the deceitful man meet together. The Hebrew word for deceitful man is Ish Terakim, the word before named. The man of cunning deceits; which because it signifies the Usurer, therefore in the margin it is rendered Usurer. Beside these three words for Usury, I can find not one Hebrew word more, upon divers diligent search. Nor did others handling Usury, ever name so many as I have, that I could find, or hear of. As for N. T. it is expressly named there, but implicitly forbidden under the precept of free lending. And under all these names Usury is made odious; therefore where is the name of that Usury that Doctor Ames, or any, would intimate to be lawful? 2 Reply to the clause is this: All Usury in Scripture is either Neshech, or Tharbith, or Terakim: But all these are vilified and disgraced in Scripture as odious, therefore all Usury in Scripture is forbidden, or disgraced as unlawful. The two first expressly forbidden. The last word is, you see, not used in any precept or position about Usury, but only as a name of the wicked rich man, and you see what an odious signification it hath; insomuch that the Usurer's conscience shall judge whether Terakim is not spoken against in Scripture, when called cozening or deceitful dealing Usury. For the Usurer will not have his Usury called cozening, or fraud, or deceit. Nay, if they would but see how they are hated and cursed for taking Use, they would disallow their Usury. So Cic. Attic. 85.6. Primum improbantur hi quaestus, qui in odia hominum incurrunt, ut portitorum (toll or tax takers) & foeneratorum. But alas Usury in this is worse than the worst sins. Those deny the fact, but excuse not the sin: These confess the fact but deny the sin. 2 Our reply to the last clause, that Usury is taken away, quando debitum exigitur cum rigore, etc. is briefly this. The breach of the Law, consistit in indivisibili. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be it never so small, is sin. 1 joh. 3.8, 9 David smote him for cutting of saul's garment. It is laid to the charge of the old world, Gen. 6.5. that they broke the Law in the thoughts of their imaginations, and therefore God would bring upon them the flood. And, Cursed is he that continueth not in all the Law, etc. Gal. 3.10. But the Law takes hold of thoughts, Thou shall not covet, etc. in the tenth Commandment. See how Paul applies it, Rom. 7. Therefore if all gain forbore lending, for a bare principle, fully repaid, or to be repaid, be taken, be it more or less, cum rigore, or absque rigore, it is all the same. For how is it conceivable that such gain should be taken, sine damno proximi, when the most Divines that press restitution, do it on this ground, Usury ought to be restored, because it hath been a damage to the so borrower. But saith Master Capel, The other part of the Schools, with whom, saith he, I join, hold restitution, because by Usury there is no true title jure divino, no not in justice, to that which comes in that way. He quotes in the margin, Greg. de Valent. Tom. 3. dis. 5. q. 21. pu. 3. D. Ames. Scriptura tollit illam usuram quae charitati repugnat, Luc. 6.35. i.e. The scripture takes away the Usury that is repugnant and opposite to charity. Replicatio. Therefore the Scripture takes away all Usury. 1 Because all is opposite to charity. No man but would borrow freely if he could, therefore you ought so to lend. 2 Because opposite to the Law of God as we hear, Ezech. 18. Psal. 15. Nehem. 5. restore the hundreth part, without mention of brother that is poor, or biting, etc. But the sum of the Law is charity. As Christ approves the answer of the Lawyer. Ergo. 3 Because opposite to that place, Luk. 6.35. alleged by Doct. Ames, Lend freely, looking for nothing. Finally take notice, that whereas before the learned Doctor averred, that borrowing aught to be free could not be proved; yet here he allegeth this of Luk. 6.35. Lend freely, which not to observe, is against the law of charity, saith the Doctor. Usury, saith Master Smith, is against charity. Forsan & illam omnem Vsuram tollit, D. Ames. quae ex lege politica Iudaeis inter se exercere non licebat. Deut. 33.19, 20. Perhaps also it takes away all that Usury which was not lawful for the Jews, by the political Law, to exercise one towards another. Unto a stranger thou mayst lend upon Usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon Usury; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thou settest thy hand unto, etc. Vnae Scriptura indicare videtur aliquam Vsuram esse per se licitam: Dum aequali, non egeno extraneo accipere Vsuras Iudaeis permittebat. Great glory is made of this Text, Replicat●o. in gener. to prove Usury not simply unlawful. But as permission by law to execute death upon malefactors, doth not prove murder not simply unlawful: So toleration of Usury here towards them whose lives the Jews might take away, doth not prove but that Usury is nevertheless simply unlawful. For al● that ever gave a reason why Usury towards the Canaanites (for the seven kingdoms of the Canaanites are the only strangers here meant, by the confession of the learned, and no other strangers) was permitted, was because their lives were given to the Jews, and consequently their estates too. Therefore to object a private Jew might not take away a Canaanites life, is only to argue, that a private Jew might not take Usury of a Canaanite. For the Canaanites goods is not his, except the life. Therefore this objection (that is grounded on that which doth not appear in the Text, that a private Jew might not kill a Canaanite) doth infer theft to be lawful, to prove Usury not unlawful. For if a private Jew hath no power over the Canaanites life, than not over his estate; for what other rule is there? and so taking that he hath nothing to do with, he robs. If he, a private Jew, takes use of him, surely if he doth it by virtue of the public political Law, dirived to him particularly; sure then the reason or ground of that law being public that Jews are to have power over the Canaanites lives, comes down to him in particular: Or else his particular and private Usury is without reason. 2 God tolerated the Jews robbing the Egyptians: yet it doth not follow thence, that theft is not simply unlawful q Therefore Master Pe●●ins m●●es this a r●●e of understanding the Law. That the Law is still peremptory, and still the same in nature. The Lawmakers dispensation being but for a special & particular time or occasion. And his act transcendent. . Replicatio in partic. 1. Suppose this were a toleration of Usury for the Jew upon the Canaanite, without consideration of power over the Canaanites lives; yet what were this to uphold any kind of Usury to be used of and towards Christians? when as two learned men, Calvin and Willet, do not doubt from this place (which seems a toleration) to conclude Usury to be utterly unlawful among Christians. Their argument is this. The Hebrews were forbidden to take any Usury at all of their brethren; of the Gentiles they might; but now diruta est maceries, the wall of partition is taken away, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ: therefore Christians may not take use of Christians. Before this argument Master Willet puts this position [Usury is simply unlawful:] He makes the said argument his first argument, and at the end of it he subscribes Calvin. The second particular Reply, From the manner of the Holy Ghosts setting down this rule touching Usury, and men's urging, sc. as a toleration. Upon which, Master Capulets position is this: I know, saith he, the Law permitted Usury to the Jews to the stranger. What of that? It follows the rather, that it is of itself a sin; because permission is of sins, not of duties. So Master Capel. Meditate well on this answer. Perhaps at the first sight you will wonder, and object, Doth God then tolerate sin? Before he tolerated it is simply sin, and so it is when his toleration ceaseth. But God being above the Commandment, his Will being the everlasting platform of the Commandment, he may dispense; and when and how fare he makes it no Law, there is no transgression. The moral Law was written, say the general consent of Divines, in Adam's heart, and so was from the beginning, and yet still is in force. Yet at first it was no adultery for the brother to marry the sister: I mean no breach of the Commandment of Adultery: God showing by necessity, his Will for that generation, to dispense. So, Thou shalt not steal, is a Negative Commandment, and so binds semper, and ad semper. But when God bids the Israelites borrow of, and not pay the Egyptians, this is no theft: God having a reason, that the breach of this Commandment than was greater justice than to keep it. The same may be said for Usury. If Kings and Emperors must be obeyed in their wholesome laws, under penalty of sin: But it is no sin to do contrary to any law they make, when first they have for that time repealed them. Then God hath much more that power. The third particular reply is, That in the judgement of most learned men, the reason of this dispensation, viz. the leave the Jews had to slay the Canaanites, doth the more show the vileness and cruelty of Usury. First, let us hear Master Capel, that we may knit this to that which was but quoted of him, that he may the better clear himself. The thing is (saith Master Capel) There was a Law to kill the Canaanite, and yet I hope that kill was not murder: No more was that Usury a sin to them. Next, let us hear Master Willet, backing himself with the judgements and reasons of the Fathers. if it be objected (saith Master Willet) that God permitted the Hebrews to take Usury of the Gentiles, therefore it was not simply unlawful. To this (saith he) it may be answered, that they were those seven Nations of the Canaanites, of whom they might take Usury: which Nations they were commanded to destroy, and so by this means they might weaken their estate, and impoverish them. Whereupon (saith Master Willet) Ambrose inferreth, Ab hoc Vsuram exige, quem non sit crimen occidere r And, cui jure inferuntur arma, huic legitima indicuntur Vsura. . And so (saith he) Augustine also concludeth, Non minus crudelis qui pauperem trucidat f●nore, quam qui eripit diviti. Add to these Simler; Vbi jus belli, ibi jus Vsurae. Si enim omnis Vsura esset intrinsecè ac suâ naturâ mala, D. Ames. tum non potuere Iudaei à gentibus accipere Vsuras sine scandalo gravi, quo gentes averterentur à religione ac lege judaeorum, quae admitteret rem illicitam tanquam licitam. i.e. For if all Usury intrinsically, and in its own nature were evil, than the Jews could not have taken Usury of the Gentiles, without great scandal, to the averting of the Gentiles from the religion and law of the Jews tolerating a thing unlawful. By the same reason we may say, Replicatio. If theft had been intrinsically, and in its own nature unlawful, than the Jews could not have borrowed of the Egyptians jewels, not repaying them, without great scandal, whereby the Egyptians might be turned away from the religion and Law of the Jews, which did admit of a thing, unlawful in the opinion of the Egyptians, to be as lawful. But we know that theft was simply, and in its own nature unlawful, notwithstanding this dispensation. So was Usury, notwithstanding that permission. For 〈◊〉 this borrowing of jewels, as that lending upon Usury, was an act of distributive justice, to justly punish male factors, as enemies of the common state of the Church, not belonging to commutative justice of trading and trafficking, borrowing, lending, etc. 2 We are not to examine God's Laws by the uncertain rule of scandal taken by graceless men s For the Gospel, and the liberty thereof was a scandal to the jews, & foolishness to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 1. , but rather by the holiness and uprightness of God's will, which we know to be so perfect, that the laws and dispensations it dictates, cannot be condemned of scandall-giving. 3 We know murder was simply unlawful. And no doubt but the Canaanites would take great offence at Jew & Jewish religion, if the Jews invading their Kingdoms, would kill any of the Canaanites; yet neither of these reasons made it unlawful or inconvenient (God giving them this liberty) to kill & destroy all Jericho and Ay, &c So, nor the law against theft, nor offence that might be taken by the Gentile, made it unlawful or inconvenient for the Jew to pick the Cannaanites pocket by Usury, seeing they might do more (by divine dispensation) viz. cut their throats, as an act of just war. The King's law is still current, that murder and robbing is felony and death; though he sends his officer to take away the life and goods of one that is not to be owned for a free Denison, but rather standing under a foreign power, denying the King's Supremacy, as Jesuits, etc. So the Canaanites denied the Israelites to have any right to Canaan, or authority over them; and therefore the Jews took their lives, or goods, or both, as forfeited, without prejudice to the simple unlawfulness of murder, theft, Usury, etc. 4 This toleration, in stead of taking offence, might probably bring in the Canaanites to turn to the Jewish Religion. For when they saw no Jew's life or goods in jeopardy by war and Usury, but the Canaanites, they might reason within themselves who would be a Canaanite, and not a Jew? Seeing that which is simply illicitum, unlawful among the Jews and their confederates, is counted as a lawful act and execution of common justice upon a Canaanite, to take away his goods by Usury, nay, Neshech, biting Usury, and his life by war. For so in Deut. 23.19. Of thy brother thou shalt not take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neshech, but vers. 20. extraneo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tashich, foenerabis; which Tashich is of the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to take Neshech, biting Usury: which Doctor Ames condemned as simply unlawful. Huc etiam referri potest, D. Ames. quod maximè probabile sit ex parabola illa de Talentis. Matth. 25.27. Non tantum in vulgari usu fuisse apud judaeos mensariorum aliquod foenus, sed etiam à Domino non fuisse improbatum, quia sub illa similitudine exigit officium spirituale sine ulla infinuatione alicujus improbationis, qualem in aliis parabolis, quae ab usu improbato officium illustrabant, solebat adhibere. Luc. 16.8. i e. Thither may be referred that likely conjecture out of the Parable, Matth. 25.27. viz. that not only there was a certain Usury among the Jews, commonly used by the money-changers, but also that it was not disallowed of the Lord; because under that similitude he requireth a spiritual duty, without any intimation of disallowing it; which he was wont to express in other parables, illustrating a duty from or by some disallowable act. Luk. 16.8. Replicatio. As for the Parable of the Talents, I never heard any learned Divine, or any other Christian urge it, but those that are Usurers, in the behalf of Usury. For if the Text be well weighed, the comparison smites Usury: For this comparison was not used, but upon a special occasion of retortion. The man of one Talon allegeth for his idleness, the unreasonableness of th● Master, that he reaped where he sowed not. Why then saith the Master, if thou hadst thought so indeed, or if I had been so indeed, thou shouldst and wouldst have run upon unreasonable wages of bringing in advantage to me, even to have put my money to Use, to give me content: but because thou didst not do so, it is evident that thou didst not take me for a cruel Master, but rather presumedst on my clemency, and so didst not by honest gain peruse my Talon, as all the rest have done, and brought in advantage, without Usury. For had our Saviour in the least measure connived at Usury, he would as well have aggravated the sluggishness of this owner of one Talon, from the manner how they got their increase (if they had meddled with Usury) as from the matter they had gained. To this effect Pareus Comments on the place; Abscondisti talentum, quia sciebas me metere quod non seminavi. Imo, si sciebas me talemesse; si vera esset tua criminatio, abscondere non debuisti, sed elocare talentum, ut reciperem cum lucro. Sic falsam criminationem ipsius facto convincit, & vanum ignavia praetextum refellit. So that to me it seems evidently, that the Lord intimates that to be such a one as to reap where another sows, is just to be as a Usurer; and that there is no satisfying such a Master, but by paying Use-money. Were this a good Commentary upon the comparison, Matth. 24.43, 44. 1 Thess. 5.2. 2 Pet. 3.10. De Domino, dieque illo Domini, ut fure noctu veniente, ita venturo, quod maximè probabile sit, non tantum in vulgari usu fuisse apud judaeos furtum, sed etiam à Domino non fuisse improbatum; quia sub illa similitudine exigit officium spirituale (nempe vigilias spirituales) sine ulla insinuatione alicujus improbationis, qualem in aliis parabolis quae ab usu improbato officium illustrabant, solebat adhibere. Luc. 16.8? No, I should be cried out against for such a Gloss. Then may I dislike the like Gloss upon the Parable of the Talents, like word for word. Others answer this place to the same effect, viz. This place (say they) will no more warrant lending on Usury, than Christ his comparing his coming to judgement to the sudden coming of a thief, Mat. 24.43, 44. will warrant their suddenly breaking into men's houses. D. Ames. Aequitas lucri demonstrari potest, ex aequitate manifestâ, de qua nemo potest dubitare, si quis nulum certum reditum vel summam sibi praecise pendi stipuletur, sed ita pecuniam suam apud probum virum collocet ut in illius fide acquiescat. De hujusmodi pecuniae collocatione nulla potest esse quaestio, si periculum capitalis maneat common. Nihil enim est aliud quam contractus societatis in lucro & damno. i e. The equity of gaining, can be demonstrated by a manifest equity doubted of by none; viz. If any one shall not bargain for any certain return, or sum of gain to be precisely paid unto him, but so putteth out his money to an honest man, that he rests in his faithfulness. Of this way of putting out of money there can be no question, if the hazard of the Principle be common to them both; for it's nothing but partnership in gain & loss. Replicatio. Doth the Usurer thus put out his money? No in no case: His conscience and his security will witness the same. What is all this then to prove the lawfulness of putting to Use? No more than he that to prove a thing to be chalk, useth this argument, because it is cheese. D. Ames. Nihil contra aequitatem committitur si lucrum incertum, quod probabiliter sequetur, vendatur pro certo moderato. i e. There is nothing committed contrary to equity, if a gain uncertain, but probably following, be sold for a moderate gain certain. But what proof is there of this? Not a word. Replicatio. We therefore that are nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri, may just so answer the argument as it is proposed, saying, it is contra aequitatem. And what is now won or lost? But we will give a reason of what we say. If false balances be abominable, to fell less for money than one ought; If going beyond one's brother, and circumventing him, to sell naughty commodity for good, is unlawful; then sure it is unlawful to sell nothing for money; which a man doth often, when a man sells lucrum incertum. So the Doctor confesseth. He saith, quod probabiliter sequetur. We say that also, probabiliter non sequetur. For so we see by experience in trading. So we find by Scripture upon all men. All things come alike to all. Pe●s 9 ● Of riches in particular: They have wings. And of dealing so as to break the Commandments, it brings a curse on all we put our hands to. Deut. 28. And of this sort is Usury, sc. unjust gain. Prov. 28.8. And it brings a curse on all we put our hands to, Deut. 23.19, 20. Whiles therefore the Usurer will sell, and the borrower will buy God's providence over his head, you see more likely in Usury God's curse, and losses are bought and sold over men's heads. Neque iniquitatis quicquid est in eo, D. Ames. si contractus fiat legibus aequis, ut totum periculum capitalis pertineat ad eum qui exercet pecuniam. Nihil enim aliud est quam contractus assecurationis quo alienae rei periculum pretio aestimabile suscipitur pro pretio. i e. Neither is there any injustice in it, if the contract be made with equal conditions, that the whole hazard of the principle lie upon him which useth the money, being nothing else but a contract of insurance, whereby the hazard of another's goods valuable at a price, is undertaken for a price. D. Ames. Did not the Doctor but now say, De pecuniae collocatione nulla potest esse quaestio, si periculum capitalis maneat common? Therefore it follows, si non sit common, est quaestio— 2 How there may be contractus legibus aequis factus de re injustâ facienda, is beyond any man of sound reason to conceive. 3 If it be rei alienae periculum, why should it not so abide? why should any man lend for care? why should he lay another man's sacks upon his shoulders? seeing every day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: especially seeing there is danger of sin to be laid on the borrowers shoulders, as well as care, to help the Usurer to sin and live unprofitably, which could not be without the borrower. If it be rei alienae periculum, how shall it be on both sides, that neither hath wrong, sc. pretio aestimabile? It is all in God's hands how great the periculum may be. One wedge may fire all the stuff of Achan. By occasion of this Vsury-money, the borrower may fall into dealing that may inwrap all his estate, and all may be lost. Non necessario requiritur, D. Ames. ut istiusmodi contractus distincte aut expresse fiant, sed satis est si fiant implicitè ex intentione sincerâ, & secundum aestimationem proborum. i.e. It is not necessary that such like contracts be made distinctly and expressly, it being sufficient if they be made implicitly, out of a sincere intention ratably by honest men. It's no need indeed that the contract be express for the committing of the sin of Usury. Replicatio. For the Doctor said before, Vsura est lucrum ex mutuo quaesitum, non conventum; quia est Vsura tam mentalis, quam realis— 2 To seek intentionem sinceram in an Usurer, is to look a rose among nettles, figs on thorns, and grapes of thistles. 3 For the aestimatio proborum, be bold of it, they will be judges of no such matters, unless they may judge the loss upon the idle unprofitable Usurer, and the gain to the labouring borrower. Si isti omnes contractus separatim sint liciti, D. Ames. contractus ex iis compositus sit licitus. i.e. If all these contracts be separately and singly lawful, than one compounded of them is lawful. To these severally we have answered, Replicatio. with several reasons and allegations: And therefore I wonder the worthy Doctor would once speak such a word [ut omnes concedunt.] Therefore of these lucra, single or mixed, we conclude with the old verse, Et quae non prosint singula, mixta mala. Or with this, Singula si noceant, eadem quoque juncta nocebunt. Quaestio quarta est, quaenam observanda sunt ad peccatum vitandum in pecuniâ exponenda? D. Ames. i.e. The fourth question is, what rules are to be observed, whereby to avoid sin in putting out money? Replicatio. It should seem there is a common fault and sin in putting out of money, by the Doctor's confession. D. Ames. But he thinks it avoidable by these cautions: 1 Ne quid ultra sortem exigatur ab egenis. 2 Ne lucri aviditas impediat foeneratorem quo minus pauperes simpliciter donando juvet. 3 Non totum illud exigere, quod legibus & usu recepto licet. i.e. 1 That nothing above the principle be exacted of the poor. 2 That greediness of gain hinder not the Usurer from lending to the poor. 3 That he exact not all that law and custom tolerates. Replicatio. 1 Let the Usurer's conscience, and vox populi witness, whether these cautions be observed. 2 If these be observed; yet God witnesseth against the Usurer. Non vitatur peccatum in pecunia exponenda, as I have already cleared it out of God's Word, canvased & argued with the allegations & reasons of godly & learned authors. 3 To make the question, An Vsura sit licita; and to put down, dictate and suggest cautions, without proof, as sufficient to take away the nature of Usury, is petitio principii, a begging of the question. Spectanda semper, & observanda regula aquitatis, D. Ames. & charitatis; ut illud tantum accipiatur, quod quisque bona fide vellet à se accipi in simili necessitate deprehenso. i.e. Always the rule of equity and charity is to be observed. viz. That so much only be taken, which every one in very deed, would have to be taken of him, were he in the same condition. We have already showed, Replicatio. that in committing this sin of Usury more or less, there can be no equity or charity found: For if there could, the question were yielded, Usury were not sin. 2 For doing as one would be done by, i.e. say the Schoolmen, secundum rectam rationem. Saul would have his armour-bearer run him thorough; therefore might Saul run his armour-bearer thorough? The lender upon Usury thinks it no sin so to lend; therefore if he were in the borrowers case, he would not doubt but lawfully so to borrow. But if the Usurer and the Borrower were well informed, secundum rectam rationem, they would know (as very learned men hold) it is unlawful to borrow or lend upon Use, and so would neither do, nor be done to upon Usury. The Caution. D. Ames. Offensiones & calumniae (quibus obnoxium est hoc genus co●ractuum. Jer. 15.10.) declinari semper dabeat, quantum fieri potest. i e. The last Caution is, that offences and calumnies (to which this kind of contract is liable. jer. 15.10.) ought to be avoided as much as may be. Replicatio. This dasheth near all the Doctor hath laid down before in favour of Usury. 1 He confesseth Usury to be a thing of evil report, out of jer. 15.10. 2 That offences must be avoided, etc. we infer therefore Usury must be left. 1 By the rule of this; Woe unto the world because of offences. Better a millstone, etc. But so do Usurers offend many of their clients, to cursing. So do they offend their Minister, to heart-breaking sorrow, especially at times of Communion. 2 By the Apostles rule, Philip. 4. Whatsoever is of good report, etc. If there be any praise, think of these things. Thus Object. fare of Doctor Ames urged at our Conference. There was another author named, (sed excidit memoriâ) whereby to countenance Usury, as if the urging of men's authority without their reasons, were of any validity. 1 We Sol. could fill a sheet of learned men's names, that hold against Usury, if that were a confutation. I wish from my heart, that those that are affected with the multitude of authors to sway their Tenent, would read the English Usurer, where they shall meet with a multitude of learned authors condemning Usury, and their sound reasons too; viz. 6 learned pious Bishops; 10 learned pious Doctors; 22 learned pious Divines; with an addition of the witty reasons of three famous English Poets. 2 If we run upon men's authorities, we shall be rob of all the Commandments, or the main branches of them. The learned Atheist will take away the first Commandment. I have seen in Cardinal B●●onius his Talmud the second Com. bl●tted out with his own pen, And left out in Rom. Catech. Concil. Viennens. Concil. Ta rocon●ens. c. 3. Concil. Laterancos. par. 16. c. 1. See also Willet on Exod. 22. qu. 46. The Papist the second. The Anabaptist the third. The Jew the fourth. The Pope's dispensations the fifth, sixth, & seventh. The Usurer the eighth. The equivocating Jesuit the ninth. The Papist the tenth, that Concupiscence is no sin. 3 The Canonists and Canon Law have this remarkable decree; SI QUIS AFFIRMARE PRAESUMAT, EXERCERE USURAS NON ESSE PECCATUM, etc. If any presume to affirm that it is no sin to practise Usury, we decree him worthy to be punished as an Heretic. Finally, we have not only learned pious men's arguments in abundance to prove Usury unlawful, but that it is so unlawful, as that restitution must be made; Usurers being bound to it by the Law of God. See Capel of Temptations; That it is utterly unlawful to borrow upon Use. So the learned Jews and Rabbins. See Ainsworth on Exod. 22.25. They prove it out of Deut. 23.19. Thou shall not cause to by't; Thou shalt not cause to lend upon biting Usury. By traditon we have been taught, that this is an admonition to the borrower. Three times more in the said place they say it is unlawful to borrow upon Use. I add, If Usury be simply a sin, as the learned prove, and you have heard them alleged: Then how can a man be accessary to it, and not be guilty? Finally, Object. at our Conference (as I remember) there was urging of necessity in some cases, to take and give upon Use; and it is common to men to make thousands of cases. Sol. But if God (on pain of excluding heaven) forbids Usury, Psal. 15. Ezech. 18. sure no case can make it necessary. Capel to this allegeth Tully, That no necessity can licence a man to take that which is not one's own. And Erasmus, that these in case of necessity, is still sin. Nor may we, nor can we upon any pretence conceive, that God will so prevent man's good, that he will make it condemnation to do that, which our Cases (we make) say we must needs do. FINIS.