THE SPECULATION of Usury. Psalm. 15. 1, 5. Lord, who shall dwell in thy Tabernacle? He that giveth not his money unto usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. Basilius in Psal. 14. Animalia pariendo desinunt, cum foetus ipsorum parere incipiunt; argentum vero foeneratoris tam antiquum quam nowm parit. LONDON Printed by Valentine Symmes. 1596 To the right Worshipful sir Thomas Egerton knight, the worthy master of the Rolls. TRuly wrote the elect vessel of our Lord jesus, 1. Cor. 10. v. 11. that upon us are come the ends of the world. For as Christ told us, we see, Matth. 24. v. 12. that in this last age Charity waxeth cold, that iniquity hath gotten the upper hand. Now piety is deemed folly; now scurrility is reputed bravery; now fidelity is judged vanity; now perjury is thought skilful policy; now charity is termed hypocrisy; now deceitful dealing is highly commended, and treason practised every where; 2. Sam. 17. v. 14 now crafty Achitophel's are much esteemed, and faithful Chusaies' little or nothing at all regarded. Psal. 12. v. 1. Now have we need to exclaim with God's anointed Prophet, Help Lord, for good and godly men do perish and decay; now faith and truth from worldly men is parted clean away. Now, now, is nothing more frequent with the rich men of this world, than to writhe about the necks of their poor neighbours, and to impoverish them with the filthy lucre of Usury. Which Usury is this day amiably embraced of innumerable; and so magnified of many, that they blush not with brazen faces to defend it, and to term it a lawful contract. Yea, some are so ravished with this kind of impiety, that they have sold their inheritance, and thereby provided a stock of money; which they lend out continually for this filthy lucre, to the utter undoing of their honest needy neighbours. In regard hereof, that all Usurers may behold the turpitude of their dishonest lucre, and once have true internal remorse for the same (if it will please our merciful God to bestow it on them) I have according to the measure of my small talon, employed seriously my earnest study, care, and industry, in compiling this succinct and plain Treatise. Your Worship's zeal in Gods true religion; your painful service in her majesties affairs; your cheerful countenance towards all loyal subjects; your sincere proceeding in all manner of justice, aswell in the behalf of the poorest as of the rich; your rare great affection to all painful labourers in Christ's vineyard; and especially your wonderful kindness, your unspeakable courtesies, and other your manifold benefits towards my silly self the meanest of many thousands; have worthily deserved far better things, both of others and at my hands. Your worship I know, delighteth not to hear these commendations, though in deed (absit verbo adulatio) they be far inferior to your condign deserts. For as it is truly said, they are best worthy of true praise, that least desire the same. I therefore, though not able to render condign compensation for your manifold goodness to me wards; do humbly present unto your Worship, that which I may, and as I can; that is, this my unpolished Speculation, as an infallible argument of my ready grateful mind, if power were correspondent unto will. Accept the gift I pray you hearty in good part, as if it were a better thing: so commending your Worship, and all your actions, words, and thoughts to the grace of our good God, I humbly take my leave. From my study this 18. of March 1595. Your Worships ever to command, THOMAS BELL. ❧ Of the essence, nature, and definition of Usury. The first Chapter. BEfore I come to the precise description or definition of Vssurie, I must require thee (gentle reader) to observe two things with me. First, that it is one thing to speak of usury itself, an other thing to speak of the sin of it. Secondly, that these words are fitly and plainly distinguished in the Latin tongue; A distinction very necessary to be observed. to wit, commodatum, locatum, and mutuum, which are confounded in our English tongue, and taken only for loan or the thing that is lent. When therefore and so often as I shall speak of loan or the thing lent, my meaning ever is to speak of that loan, or of that thing lent, which is called in latin mutuum. which I here admonish once for all; to avoid confusion and tedious repetition, in this my discourse following. The sin of usury, The definition of usury. is the exacting, intending, or receiving of the usury, or of that gain which is given for the loan. Usury itself is that gain, which is exacted or principally intended for the loan of our money, or of other things estimable with money. I say first, (exacted,) because a thing given voluntarily in the way of gratitude, A deformed adjunct. is not usury; neither doth it make the receiver to be an usurer, if it have not a deformed adjunct. I say secondly, (principally intended) because gain intended secondarily doth not make usury, nor him that desireth it to be an usurer; though the principal intention of it be enough for mental usury, as shall appear hereafter. I say thirdly, (of money, or things estimable with money) because usury may be aswell committed in other things as in money, although many of the vulgar sort, and some also that otherwise be learned; seem not so to conceive the matter. This definition of usury, may be evidently proved out of the holy Scriptures in the old and new Testament; as also by the uniform consent of the ancient Fathers, and by the constitutions made in counsels of best approved antiquity. Which thing shall be proved copiously, in the next Chapter following. Of the deformity and great sin of Usury. Chap. 2. WHen I consider God's holy will revealed in his sacred word, the manifold testimonies of the ancient fathers, and the decrees of approved Synods; I cannot but admire the condition of many in these our days; who are so far from condemning usury, that they do not only practise it, but without blushing defend the same, as an honest and lawful thing. I will therefore by God's holy assistance, so discover the curpitude of filthy usury by three several testimonies; as every child may with facility, behold how grievous a sin it is. The first distinction, of the testimony of the holy Scriptures. THe first place of my first proof, is taken out of the book of Exodus in these words: Exod. 22. v. 25. If thou lend money to my people, that is, to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be an usurer to him: ye shall not oppress him with usury. The second place is contained in Leviticus, in these express words: Levit. 25. v. 35. 36. If thy brother be impoverished, and fallen in decay with thee, thou shalt relieve him: thou shalt take no usury of him, nor vantage, but thou shalt fear thy God, that thy brother may live with thee. The third place is taken out of the Psalms, Psal. 15. v. 1. 5. and these are the words: Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle, who shall rest in thine holy mountain? he that giveth not his money unto usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. The fourth place is in the Prophet Ezechiel, Ezek. 18. v. 13. who writeth in this manner (He that) hath given forth upon usury, or hath taken increase, shall he live? he shall not live; seeing he hath done all these abominations, he shall die the death, and his blood shall be upon him. The fift and last place, Luke ●. v. 35. is taken out of the holy Gospel, in these express words: Wherefore love ye your enemies, & do good, and lend, not hoping for any gain, and your reward shallbe great, and ye shallbe the children of the most High. Out of these texts I note first, that usury is a very great sin, as which is not only against charity, but against justice also. I note secondly, that no usurer loveth or feareth God, but seeketh the destruction of his Christian brother. I note thirdly, that it is not only unlawful to take or require usury, but also to wish or desire usury in our hearts. I note four, that usurers cannot dwell in God's house, but that their blood must be upon them, and they perish everlastingly. These annotations are effectually contained in the texts of sacred Scripture already rehearsed. Whosoever will peruse them seriously, cannot but conceive it to be so. The second distinction, of the testimony of ancient Councils. THe ancient council Elebettine of some called Granado, decreed against usury, above one thousand, two hundred, and sixty years sithence, in the year of our Lord God 325. the words are these; Conc. Eleber. can. 20. Si quis clericorum detectus fuerit usuras accipere placuit degradari & abstinere. Si quis etiam laicus accepisse probatur usuras, & promiserit correptus, se iam cessaturum nec ulterius exacturum, placetei veniam tribui, si verò in ea iniquitate duraverit, ab ecclesia sciat se esse proijciendum If any of the clergy shall be convinced to take usury, than we decree that he shall not only surcease, but withal he degraded (for his wicked fact.) Yea if a lay man who is known to take usury, shall after admonition give it over, and deal no longer therewith, the council is content to pardon him. But if that lay man shall continue in that iniquity, let him know that the church will excommunicate him, (and deliver him up to satan, as the apostle terms it.) By these words of this holy and ancient council we may see evidently, Joe, usury is flat iniquity in all sorts of people. that usury is a grievous sin in all sorts of people; and that lay persons, who would not surcease from taking usury, were punished with excommunication, the most terrible and fearful punishment that can in this life happen ●nto man. The famous council of Nice, which was holden in the year of our Lord God 327. utterly condemneth usury, as a thing prohibited by the express word of God. These are the words; Quoniam multi clerici avaririae causa turpia lucra sectantes, Conc. Nicen. can. 18. obliti sunt divini praecepti (quo dictum est: qui pecuntam suam non dedit ad usuram) foenerantes centesimas exigunt, statuit hoc sanctum concilium, ut si quis innentus fuerit, post hanc definitionem usuras accipere, vel ex quolibet tali negotio turpia lucra sectari, veletiam species frumentorum ad septuplum dare: omnis qui tale aliquid conatus fuerit ad quaestum, deijciatur a clero, & alienus ab ecclesiasticohabeatur gradú. Because many of the clergy, Behold, usury is directly against God's commandment. while they are covetous and follow after filthy gain, do forget Gods holy precept (which pronounceth him blessed that hath not given his money unto usury,) and giving forth upon usury, require the hundred part; this holy council decreeth, that if any be found after this constitution, to take usury, or to follow unhonest gain of any such merchandise, or else to give to the seventh part their kinds of corn; let every one that shall attempt any such thing for gain, be cast out from the clergy, and be removed from ecclesiastical function. Out of these words I note first, that usury is here pronounced to be against God's word, as it was before by the council Elebertine. I note secondly, that this holy Synod assigned sharp punishment, for such as received usury. I note thirdly, that the Fathers of this council, term usury an unhonest and filthy gain. I note four, that this sacred Synod acknowledgeth usury not only in money, but even in corn and other things. The ancient council of Arles the first, Conc. 1. celebrated about the same time, Arelat. with the former Synods, taught the self same doctrine in these words; can. 12. de ministris qui foenerantur, placuit, eos juxta formam divinitus datam, a communione abstinere. concerning the ministers which are usurers, we decree that they shall abstain from the holy Communion, even as it is appointed by God. Lo, God himself doth so loath and detest usury, that he will have no usurers to receive his holy Communion. The third council of Carthage, Conc. 3. which was holden in the year of our Lord, 400. Carthag. condemneth usury as the other counsels did before it. can. 16. The third distinction, of the testimony of the ancient fathers. Usury is so condemned by all approved writers of antiquity; as no one ancient father can be named, who ever wrote one word in defence of it: nevertheless, very many of the holy fathers, have in large manner discovered that filthy lucre; of which number, I will now content myself with a few. Lactantius Firmianus of this matter writeth in this manner; Lactantius lib. 6. divinar. intit. cap. 18. Pecuniae, si quam crediderit, non accipiet usuram; ut & beneficium sit incolume quod succurrit necessitati, & abstineat se prorsus alieno. in hoc enim genere officij debet suo esse contentus, quem oportet ne proprio quidem parcere, ut bonum faciat; plus autem accipere quam dederit, iniustum est quod qui facit, insidiatur quodammodo, ut ex alterius necessitate praedetur: If a man lend any money, he must not take usury for the same; aswell to make the benefit safe and sound which relieveth necessity, as to keep himself free from another man's goods. for in this kind of service, he must be content with his own; who is bound not to spare his own, that so he may do good; but to take more than he gave, Usuris is flat theft and extortion. is a thing unjust. which who so doth, worketh by deceit, that so he may make a pray of another man's necessity. Out of these golden words of this ancient writer, who lived above 1200. years ago, I note first, that whosoever taketh usury, taketh another man's right from him. I note secondly, that to receive more than was given, is usury and injustice. and consequently, that all surplusage which we take for the loan, is another man's and not our own. I note thirdly, that all usurers deal deceitfully, and make a pray of their neighbour's misery. Saint Basill, Basilius in Psal. 14. ser. ●, tom. 1. reputed so excellent a divine that he was surnamed (magnus) the great, doth so lively paint out usurers in their deserved colours; as all hearts that are not of flint or iron will be mollified with one only recital of the same: these therefore are his words; Nam Ezechiel in maximis ponit malis foenus, & plus quàm sortem accipere, & lex illud luculenter prohibet. Sequitur avarus autem videns inopem necessitate coactum ad genua sua supplicem procumbentem, ecquid non abiectum facientem? quid non loquentem? non miseretur illius, utut praeter decorum se supplicem exhibeat, communem non cogitat naturam, humilibus supplicationibus nihil cedit, sed immobilis implacabilisque consistens, & nec precibus vincitur nec lachrymis mollitur, sed negando perseverat: jurat insuper atque protestatur sese omnino carere pecunia, & quaerere si quem ipse faeneratorem inveniat, ac mendacio fidem per iuramentum faciens, iniquae & inhumanae mercaturae impudens periurium addit; postquam vero conspicit miserum illum meminisse faenor in poeturamque sortis ultro offerentem, supercilium remittere ac subridere incipit; tunc demum amicitiae paternae recordatur, & familiarem & amicum appellat. videamus inquit, si quid nobis restat depositi argenti: est n. amice hominis depositum quoddam apud nos, unde quaestum ille facit, grauéque foenus nobis imposuit. nos vero ex hoc detrahemus, longéque minore tibi dabimus. For (the Prophet Ezechiel) placeth usury and all that is more than the principal, amongst the greatest sins; and the Law doth expressly forbid the same. But the covetous man seeing the poor man enforced with necessity, fallen prostrate at his feet, making humble suit unto him, abasing himself in all kind of servility, doth not for all that extend any compassion towards him, howsoever he submit himself more then seemly order would require; he remembreth not the nature common to them both, Behold the express practice of usurers. this day in England. he giveth no place to humble request, he remaineth immovable and implacable, he is neither overcome with prayers, nor mollified with tears▪ but still continueth in denial. Besides this he sweareth and protesteth that he hath no money at all, but that himself seeketh, where to find an usurer; and so swearing falsehood to be truth, he addeth impudent perjury to naughty and cruel merchandise: yet so soon as the silly poor man maketh mention of usury, and willingly offereth the overplus above the principal, he abateth his sour councenance, and beginneth to smile; then at the length he remembreth paternal amity, and calleth him neighbour and friend. let us see saith he, if there remain any money, O wicked greediness joined with falsehood and hypocrisy. of that which was left in our hands. For a friend of mine left a piece of money with me, whereof he useth to make a gain, and hath imposed a great interest upon us; yet we will subtract a piece of it, and let you have it far better cheap. Out of these words of this holy, learned, and ancient father, I note first, that usury is proved out of holy writ, to be one of the greatest sins. So saith S. Basill, so saith the holy Prophet Ezechiel. I note secondly, that usurers are unmerciful and very cruel men, that they take pleasure in the misery of the poor, and will have no compassion on them. I note thirdly, that usurers be liars and perjured persons; as who by joining perjury to leasing, seek to increase their savage and brutish dealing. I note four, that howsoever usurers protest and swear that they have no money; yet so soon as excessive filthy gain is promised by their needy neighbours, they grant they have enough in store: nevertheless, to hide their guilefully painted hypocrisy, they say it is their friends, and not their own. Saint Ambrose doth no less exclaim against usury, than you have heard already out of Saint Basil. Yea, he handleth no other matter throughout many Chapters of a large book; some few words only I will allege, by which the Reader may have an indifferent conjecture of the rest: these are the words; Ambrose libr. dd Tobis, caa. 3. tom. 4. Numeratur pecunia, addicitur libertas, absoluitur miser minore debito, minore ligatur. Talia sunt vestra divites beneficia: minus datis, & plus exigitis. Talis humanitas, ut spolietis etiam dum subvenitis: foecundus vobis etiam pauper est ad qu●stum Vsurarius est egenus cogentibus vobis habet quod reddaet, quod impendat, non habet. Misericordes plane viri quem alij absoluitis, vobis addicitis. usuras soluit, qui victu indiget; an quicquam gravius? ille medicamentum quaerit, vos offertis venenum. Panem implorat, gladium porrigitis: libertatem obsecrat, servitutem irrogatis. absolutionem praecatur, informis laquie nodum stringitis. Money is told, liberty is sold, the silly poor man is quit of the less debt, and fast bound to the greater. Such (O rich men) are your benefits, you give less, O intolerable iniquity. and exact more; such is your humanity, that while you seem to help a man, you spoil him utterly. Your profit is wrought, even by the poor man unto your gain. the usurer is needy. by your exaction he hath something to restore, but plain nothing to bestow. You are doubtless merciful men. whom you make free to others, those you make bondmen to yourselves. he payeth usury, that hath not whereon to live. can any thing be a more grievous sin? he seeketh for a medicine, you give him poison. he asketh bread, you give him a sword. he prayeth to have liberty, you bring him into servility. he desireth to be loosed, you tie a knot on the cord. Saint Chrysostome reputeth the usurer, Chrysost. in cap. 21. Mat. hom. 38. tom. 2. p. 999. for the most cruel and abject caitiff in the world, thus doth he write; Qui autem comparat rem, ut illam ipsam integram & immutatam dando lucaretur; ille est mereator, qui de templo Dei eijcitur. unde, super omnes mercatores plus maledictus est usurarius. si. n. qui rem comparatam vendit, mercator est & maledictus; quantò magis maledictus erit, qui non comparatam pecuniam. sed a Deo donatam sibi, dat ad usuram? secundò, quia mercator dat rem, ut iam illam non repetat; iste autem postquam foenerauerit, & sua iterum repetit, & alienae tollit cum suis. He that provideth a thing to gain, by giving it entire and unchanged, is that merchant that is cast out of the temple of God. A fine epithiton for the usurer. Wherefore more accursed is the usurer than all merchants in the world. for if he that selleth the thing he hath, be a merchant, and accursed; how much more shall he be accursed, that giveth to usury not the money he hath gotten, but that which God gave him. again, because the merchant giveth the thing never henceforth to receive it again; but the usurer after he hath lent his money, both taketh his own again, and other men's with his own. S. Augustine is in this point as in all other things, August. in psa. 36. conc. 3. brief, pithy, and sweet: these are his words; Nolo sitis foeneratores, & ideo nolo, quia Deus non vult: nam si ego nolo, & Deus vult, agite. si autem Deus non vult, etiamsi ego vellem, malo suo ageret qui ageret. unde apparet Deum hoc nolle. Dictum est alio loco, qui pecuniam suam non dedit ad usuram. Et quàm detestabile sit, & quàm odiosum, quàm execrandum, puto quia & ipsi foeneratores noverunt. I will not have you to be usurers, and therefore will not I, because God will not. for though I will not, yet if God will, ye may do it. but if God will not then although I would, yet should he do it to his own harm, that would do it. But how do we know, that God will it not: because it is said in another place; He that hath not given his money to usury. Now how detestable, how odious & execrable a thing it is, I think the usurers themselves do know. S. Hierome the most excellent and skilful clerk, is in this point consonant to the rest, Hieron. libr. 6. in 18. cap. Ezee. these are his express words; Respondeat nobis breviter foenerator misericors, utrum habenti dederit, an non habenti Si habenti, utique dare non debuerat, sed dedit quasi non habenti. Ergo quare plus exigit quasi ab habente? alij pro pecuniae foenerata, solent munuscula accipere diversi generis; & non intelligunt usuram appellari, & superabundantiam, quicquid illud est, si ab eo quod dederint plus acceperint: Let the merciful usurer 〈◊〉 answer me, whether he lent to him that had, or to him that wanted: If to him that had, he doubtless should not have done it; but he gave it as to one that had not, therefore why doth he exact more, as of one that hath? Others for lent money use to take gifts of another kind; and they understand not that usury is termed that surplusage or overplus whatsoever it be that they take more than they gave. To these Fathers, the testimony of S. Bernard Guerricus shall be added for a complement; Bernard. Guerr. in epist. 〈◊〉. in fine oper. Bernas. Clarevall. these are his words: melius est gravem pati famen, quàm patrimonii venditionem: sed melius est partem vendere, quàm se usuris subiicere. Quid est usura? venenum patrimonii. Quid est usura legis? latropraecedens quod intendit: it is better to suffer great famine, then to sell thy patrimony, yet is it better for thee to sell a piece of it, then to live in the bondage of usury. What is usury? The poison of our patrimony. What is the usury of the law? A thief going before that that he intends to do. S. Bernard Clarevallensis compareth usurers with thieves and hypocrites, and saith, that they be unworthy the name of Christians; Bernat. epist. 322 these are the words: Sicubi desunt judaei peius iudaizare dolemus christianos foeneratores, si tamen christianos & non magis baptizatos judaeos convenit appellari: if the jews be wanting in any place, christians that be usurers (a pitiful case) are found to surpass them in judaisme; if it be that we may term them Christians, and not rather baptised jews. Of the difference between Viurie and other lawful contracts of lending. Chap. 3. FOr the exact understanding of this chapter we must observe first, how commodatum differeth from locatum: commodatum is, when we lend a thing to a certain day, not requiring any price or consideration for the loan. We must observe secondly, that locatum is, when we lend a thing to a certain day, requiring a certain price or consideration for the same. We must observe thirdly, that as I said in the beginning of the first chapter these three words, commodatum, locatum, & mutuum, are confounded in our vulgar tongue, and that mutuum is even as locatum, The difference between mutuum and locatum. when we lend a thing to a certain day, requiring a certain price or consideration for the same. But the difference is this, because in locato, we keep still the dominion and propriety of the thing which we lend; but in mutuo, the dominion and propriety of the thing lent, 〈◊〉 translated from us to him that borroweth the same. This observation ought never to be forgotten. We must observe four, that of things some be consumptible, and some inconsumptible: inconsumptible things are those, in which we can separate the use from the dominion and propriety of the thing: consumptible things are those, in which the dominion is transferred together with the use. Whereupon it cometh, that when we lend things inconsumptible with the use; Things consumptible and things inconsumptible. as our horses, our oxen, our kine, our sheep, and such like; we may take competently for the loan, use, or increase of the same; because after the loan of such things, the dominion and propriety of the same, still remaineth in ourselves. Contrariwise it falleth out, in things consumptible with the use; because the dominion and propriety of such things which before was in ourselves, passeth from us to the borrowers, ipso facto with the loan thereof. Such things are money, wine, ale, beer, bread, oil, corn, and the like. For in these things it is impossible to separate the use from the dominion of the thing itself: and consequently, whensoever ye lend me any such thing, ipso facto ye change the property of the thing, and make me the owner and lord of the same. We must observe fifthly, that money is a thing which of it own nature is barren and fruitless, and so can never yield any commodity, unless it be by the industry of man. We must observe sixtly, that we may speak of money two manner of ways; to wit, materially and formally. It is taken formally, when it is used according to the first institution, for honest and necessary permutation, Formally and materially. as the rule and measure of things to be sold. And when money thus taken is lent, the dominion & propriety is ever altered with the loan. It is taken materially: when it is lent to be given for a pledge, for ostentation, & other like intents, so as the self-same numero must be restored. The use and commodity of these observations & distinctions, will appear throughout the chapters following. Of the object of usury, that is, of the matter and things in which usury is committed. Chap. 4. MAny think that usury consisteth in the loan of money only; but they are grossly deceived, in that their imagination. For it chanceth so often as any thing is taken for the loan in what kind of things soever. This I will prove manifestly, as well by the scriptures, as by the holy fathers. Touching the Scripture, Ezech. 18. v. 17. the first place is in Ezechiel, in these words; Neither hath received usury nor increase: where the word (increase) may be supplied as well to other things as to money. The second place maketh this matter a little plainer, Levit. 25. v. 37. these are the words; Thou shalt not give him thy money to usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. Lo, not only the increase of money, but of victuals also is prohibited. The third place is in Deuteronomie, Deut. 23. v. 19 so plain and so evident, as no man be he never so subtle, can by any colour avoid the same: these are the words; Thou shalt not give to usury to thy brother; as usury of money, usury of meat, usury of any thing that is put to usury. Concerning the fathers, Hier. in 18. cap. Ezech. libr. 6. S. Hierom writeth in this manner, Putant quidam usuram tantum esse in pecunia: quod praevidens scriptura divina, omni rei aufert super abundantiam: ut plus non recipias, quam dedisti. Solent in agris frumenti, & milij, vini, & olei caeter arumque specierum usurae exigi, sive ut appellat sermo divinus abundantiae. Some men think that usury is only in money; which the holy scripture foreseeing, takes away the superabendance of every thing; that thou receive no more than that which thou gavest. They are wont to exact usury, or as holy Writ termeth it, overplus, of corn, millet, wine, Usury is only in things consumptible with the use. oil, and other things. Behold here, how usury is in all such things, as are consumptible with the use. For in other things usury can have no place. Let the Reader mark well my words, and understand and perfectly what I say. S. Austen hath these words, August in psal. 36. conc. 3. Non pecuniam solam sed aliquid plus quam dedisli, sive illud triticum sit, sive vinum, sive oleum, sive quodlibet aliud, si plus quam dedisti expectas accipere, foeneratores. If thou expect to receive more than thou gavest, not only money, but any thing more than thou didst give, whether it be wheat, or wine, or oil, or whatsoever else, thou art an usurer. Thus writes this holy & learned father, whose words are so plain, as no gloze is needful for the same. S. Ambrose writeth in this manner; Ambros. libr. de Tob. cap. 14. Et esca usura est, & vestis usura est, & quodeunque sorti accedit. usura est. Quod velis ei nomen imponas. usura est. Si licitum est, cur vocabulum refugis? cur velamen obtexis? si illsicitum est, cur incrementum requiris? quod peius est, hoc vitium plurimorium est, & maxim divitum quibus hoc nomine instruuntur cellaria. Both meat is usury, and thy garment is usury, and it is usury, whatsoever is more than the principalll. Give it what name thou wilt, it is usury. If it be lawful, why dost thou refuse the name? why dost thou hide it with a vail: if it be unlawful, why dost thou require more than thou gaves? And which is worse, many have this fault, specially rich men, whose storehouses are furnished with the name. Lo, not only money, but meat, come, garments, and what things else soever, is flat usury; if any thing above the principal be exacted for the loan. Of the several kinds of Usury, and their proper adjuncts. Chap. 5. THere be two kinds of usury, Usury mental and real to wit, mental usury, and usury real. Mental usury is, when one wisheth or expecteth overplus for the loan, but doth not exact the same by any external word or covenant. This kind is not subject to restitution. Real usury is of two sorts, to wit, manifest, and palliate: manifest usury real is, when surplusage is exacted for the loan, by express words of covenant: and this kind is not only a damnable sin, but also bindeth to restitution. Palliate usury real is, when more than the principal is exacted for the loan, yet not by express and plain terms, but in a secret and bid kind of bargaining. This palliate usury is a very detestable sin, and bindeth the receiver to restitution, although it be this day frequent (alas for pity) in all kind of bargaining. Note this point well. For, how often soever the seller selleth better cheap, because he receiveth the money before hand; or dearer, because he forbeareth his money till a day; so often doubtless is this palliate usury committed, and the overplus indeed exacted for the loan of the money. Provided ever, unless the day be to his hindrance. The example of the former, to wit, when things are sold better cheap for having the money before hand. An honest poor neighbour being in great distress, cometh to a rich covetous miser, & desireth to borrow some money for a time. The crafty dealing of the usurer. Well (saith the covetous man) you want money, but you have that which I would buy, and if not, you may provide it to serve my turn. What shall I give you for so many bushels of corn, to be delivered at such a day, and you shall have present money to serve your need? and because the poor man must needs have money in hand, such is his necessity, the rich man, (though he will not in precise terms exact more money and manifest usury, because he would not be reputed an usurer) yet doth he enforce his poor neighbour, on whom he ought by God's laws to have compassion, to sell his goods at under value, and that he doth indeed for the very loan of his money. For first the poor man might as well have given him more money in the kind, as for to provide him come at his day and rated price. 2 secondly, the poor manwould not have been bound to provide corn at his day and price to his great loss and damage, if by any reasonable mean, he could have provided money in his need. 3 Thirdly the overplus of the corn indeed, Note that this corn is vsualy bought of them, that have none to deliver, which is too too abominable. was only exacted for the loan of the money (i'll upon all crafty usury.) For otherwise, he should and would have granted the lone of the money freely, until the day in which he should receive the corn. And withal he ought to have taken the corn by the current price of the market, and not as his covetous mind did design. Some covetous wretches deal more subtle it, but no less wickedly. For example, a poor man came not long sithence, to a rich man, whom myself know, and his usual manner of dealing, (the man shall here be nameless, though neither before God nor the world blameless) and desiredt a borrow, 33. s 4. d. You have a mare quoth the rich man, I will give ye so much for her: alas, saith the poor man, I may not forego her, for she is the best part of my poor living. Well, the rich man concluded, What heart will not lament such dealing? he would buy the mare for five nobles, & sell her again to the poor man for seven nobles, with a year day for the payment, in which bargain the poor man gave no usury, save only two nobles for the loan of five: for which increase of money, the poor man kept still his own mare in his own hand: 1. joan. 3. v. 17. but alas, how did this rich man love his poor neighbour as himself? I will say no more herein, but that which Christ's Apostle said before me: he that seethe his brother need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? this usurer departed out of this life, even while I wrote these things, whose sudden death with the circumstances thereof, may be a warning to all numerciful usurers: the example of the latter, to wit, when thngs are sold dearer, for want of present payment. A poor man cometh to his rich neighbour, God help the poor, and comforteth them in their misery. to buy such things as he hath present need to use, here the richer sort, specially the merchants, take great pleasure in oppressing the poor, in their most pitiful need. Will ye buy of me, saith the rich man, for present money, or to a certain day? and when the poor man answereth, that he must needs have it till a day: then the rich man valueth his wares at such an high price, as he extorteth most grievous usury for the loan: for the forhearance of the money, is the sole cause of the surplusage in the price. The first objection. IF two rich men have this year divers opinions, concerning the price of corn, and he that thinketh it will be dearer the next year, shall give to him that thinketh it will be cheaper xx. pounds presently for so much corn to be delivered then, as he can now buy for the mony, that kind of dealing is no usury at all, albeit the corn may then perhaps be sold for thirty. pounds: therefore it seemeth lawful to sell corn at a lesser price, for the payment of money before hand. The answer. 1 I say first, that usury is never committed, (as is already proved) save then only, when overplus is exacted for the loan. 2 I say secondly, that in the case mentioned in the objection, there is no loan of money at all, neither expressed, nor yet palliate: the reason is this, because as well the buyer as the seller, exposeth himself to a mere casual event: for whether corn will then be cheaper or dearer, neither of them twain can tell. 3 I say thirdly, that if he who receiveth the money, were in present necessity, and yielded to sell the corn only or principally for the use of the money, the buyer 〈◊〉 the same at his hands, than were that kind of dealing usury indeed, A great disparity, of a far different contract. howshever the event should afterward fall out: but when neither the seller respecteth the use of the money, nor the buyer extorteth any thing for the loan of the same, as in this casual bargain, but both the parties stand upon their providence ●niectures, & politic divinations, then doubtless, the formal reason of usury ceaseth, and the buying with the sale becometh a lawful contract. The second objection. It is good reason, it cannot be denied that if my neighbour can gain five pounds by the use of my twenty pounds, then that he shall give me three pounds for the loan thereof, for the delay and nonpayment of my money, is the only and sole cause of his gain. The answer. I say first, that howsoever the gain fall out, yet may nothing be exacted for the loan, because god himself hath so appointed. 2 I say secondly, that the greater part of people are so far from gaining thereby, as they are utterly impoverished by the same. 3: I say thirdly, that by the loan of money the property thereof is altered, and the dominion translated to the borrower, and consequently, that when the lender extorteth any thing for the use thereof, Melancth. in definite. theolog. ipso facto. he robbeth the borrower and despoileth him of his lawful goods: this among the latter writers hath Melancthon well observed to his immortal fame. 4: I say four, that money is a thing so barren and unfruitful of it own nature, as is cannot yield any commodity without the industry of man: Money is not fruitful at itself. and consequently, since the whole fruit thereof precedeth from man's laborious travel, to exact anything for the use thereof, must needs be flat extortion. The third objection. MAny 〈◊〉 able neighbours are often greatly damnified by lending their money, and therefore it is good reason, that they should have some consideration for the same. The answer. I answer that no consideration can justly be exacted, No consideration for the loan. for or in respect of the loan. Nevertheless, in certain cases ●●●●plus may very lawfully, both be given and required, which cases shallbe made manifest, in the next chapter following. Of the gain ceasing, and loss ensuing, by the loan of money. Chap. 6. THere be two things, to wit, the gain that ceaseth and the damage or loss that ensueth to the londer, by reason of either of which ●●aine, surplusage may be required, and that without any usury at all i'th' reason hereof is evident, because gain ceasing & loss ensuing for the loan of money, are things essentialy and really distinguished, from the loan of the same: the example of the former, Lucrum cessans. I have in ready money an hundred pounds which I purpose presently to bestow in corn for honest and lawful gain. Now it so falleth out, that my neighbour is very urgent to borrow this hundred pounds of me, to whom I condescend to lend it with mine own hindrance, yet upon this condition, that he give me so much overplus, as would be the just gain, that ceaseth by reason of the loan: this kind of overplus is no usury, because it is not exacted for the loan, but for the gain that ceaseth thereupon: yet in this case two things must be required; first that I intent in true meaning, to bestow my money, as is already said, and thereby to seek honest & lawful gain: secondly that I exact no more overplus, then that that is truly deemed, Mark well my words, and judge thee of accordingly to be my surceasing gain, the value of which gain ought to be esteemed by indifferent men, which are expert in that kind of trade: for if I either exact more than the gain ceasing, or in truth intent not to expose my money for lawful gain, in way of honest bargaining, then is the exacting of such surplusage, become palliate usury indeed. By reason of this surceasing gain, A grave advise to the seller of any thing. merchant men and other honest bargainers, may sundry times exact a greater price, when they sell their merchandise or goods to a certain day: but here I must require all merchants and other, especially the richer sort to mark well what I say: for although the seller may ever exact overplus for his truly surceasing gain, yet may he not ever extort overplus, when he sells to a day: the reason hereof is evident, because to sell to a day, doth not ever prejudice or hinder his lawful gain, and so the formal reason of exacting overplus in this case lieth dead: for if the buyer bring the money so soon, as the seller can and meaneth to bestow the same for honest gain; then to exact any higher price for the day, is palliate usury indeed. The example of the latter: I have a sum of money which: I am to bestow in the necessary reparation of my house, and that now in the summer season: for if I shall let my house stay till the winter season, Damnum emergens. it will not only be hurtful, but also 〈◊〉 chargeable to me: in the mean time my distressed neighbour cometh to me, and in pitiful manner desireth to borrow my money, whose need I cannot relieve but with mine own loss, The judgement of men indifferent. as is already said: in this case, to exact so much as amounteth to my loss, is no usury at all, for the overplus is not extorted, by reason of the loan; yet more may not be exacted then is or would be deemed the just loss, by the judgement of indifferent men. The difficulty. THe debtor do often disappoint their creditors, and will not bring their money at the day assigned, in respect of which danger, it seemeth that a man may exact some reasonable overplus, and so value his saleable things at an higher price. The answer. I answer, To redeem a man's vexation. that the seller may value his things at an higher price, when in true meaning he doubteth of the payment, because so to deal is but a prudent proviso, to redeem his just vexation: yet here is to be observed, that the creditors must always give the overplus back again, when the debtor pay the money in due time. That usury is flat theft, prohibited by the eight commandment, and also that it bindeth to restitution. Chap. 7. ALl as w●l●lde as late Writers agree in this, The true meaning of the 8. commandment. that by the eight commandment is not only prohibited theft, but robbery also extortion, deceit, and all manner of dealings, by which we unjustly take or possess another man's goods, this case is so plain, as no ancient father or approved latter writer, can be alleged to the contrary: for the definition of theft maketh the case evident, which by uniform consent of all writers is this: Furtum est acceptio vel occupatio rei a lienae, iruito domino, theft is the taking or using an other man's goods agaisnt his will. So then sith the surplusage in usury is another man's goods, and unjustly extorted as is already proved, it followeth of necessity, that usury is flat theft and manifest injury. Now that all usurers are bound to restitution, it is a thing so consectary upon the ground already laid, as none either learning or reason can deny the same: for the virtue of justice (as the very ethnic Philosophers tell us) est reddere cuiquam quod suum est, 〈◊〉 19 v. l. is to give to every man that which is his own: therefore said good Zaccheus, that if he had done wrong to any man, he would restore it four fold: job, 2, v, 13. therefore willed holy Tobias to restore the kid, that he heard bleating in his house: therefore commanded the law of Moses, that if any man did hurt field or vineyard, or put in his beast to feed in another man's field, the same should make recompense of his own field, Exod. 22. v. 5. and of the best of his own vineyard: therefore did the same law command, that when any man's corn or other goods was destroyed by fire: he that kindled the fire should make full restitution: therefore said S. Augustine wisely and gravely, Exod. 22. v. 6. Non dimittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum: the sin is never forgiven, until that which is wrongfully taken away, be restored again, and the reason hereof is evident, which S. Augustine well observed: Aug. Maeed.. epist. 54. to wit, that when a man will not restore things wrongfully taken from his neighbour, when he is able so to do, that man cannot be truly penitent, and so neither can he attain remission at God's hands. I say (when he is able) because if an usurer, thief, extortioner, or other deceitful dealer, be so far wasted and become so beggarly, that he hath not wherewith to make restitution in part or in all, than it is enough for such a one to ask God mercy, and to have a willing mind to make restitution, when he cometh ad pinquiorem fortuna, and is able so to do. Hereupon I infer first, The first corollary. that all usurers, as also the children or heirs of usurers, who possess any lands, tenements, or goods, gotten or bought with the gain of usury, are bound to make restitution for the same: which if it were duly and truly put in execution, many that now a days are reputed rich, would be as poor as their needy neighbours: but how rich soever such seem in their own conceits, or howsoever they be esteemed by the eyes of the world, yet are they most beggarly indeed, and will one day be so found, before the tribunal seat of our Lord jesus. I infer secondly, The second corollary. that all judges & lawyers, who for bribes, friendship, or other worldly respects, do wittingly and willingly further evil causes, and by their pleading or sentence do debar poor men, from their lawful title to lands or goods, are bound to make restitution for the same. I infer thirdly, The third corollary. that all justices of the peace, bailiffs, constables, and other officers, who by reason of bribes or any other sinister respects, do favour the rich and mighty men against justice, and thereupon do oppress the poor and needy sort, are strictly bound to make restitution, for all injuries and injustice done in that behalf. I infer fourthly, The fourth corollary. that all merchants, artificers, and others that use to buy and sell, who in their merchandise, occupations, or in buying and selling, use any fraud or deceit, are bound to make restitution, for all their deceitfully gotten goods. I infer fiftly, The fift corollary. that whosoever get their neighbour's goods fraudulently, by carding, dicing, shooting, or other disport whatsoever, are bound to make restitution for the same. I infer sixtly, The sixth corollary. that whosoever will not make restitution of goods unjustly gotten, and for injuries done to his poor neighbours, can not be the child of God. Of the objections made in defence of usury. Chap. 8. The first objection of the etymology of the word. Usury in the original, and sacred hebrewe tongue, doth signify nipping or biting: which etymology doth flatly insinuate unto us, that so often as our neighbour doth gain by taking our money to usury, so often is usury lawful and no sin at all: yea, when our neighbour gaineth by giving usury, he cannot doubtless be oppressed by the same: and yet is oppression the sole and only cause, why usury is prohibited by God's law. The answer. I say first, that usury is called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bringing forth or increase, coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is to give to usury or increase: and it is fitly so termed, because it multiplieth or breedeth beyond all measure, for I heard of one that began but with a shilling, and lent it for a penny in the week, and so became very rich in a few years. I heard of another, that lent a hundred pounds for ten the first year, for xx. the second year, for thirty. the third year, for xl. the fourth year, for 50. the fift year, so that when he had paid the principal, he remained 50. pounds indebted yearly for the same. But this matter is so runningly handled now a days, They must 〈◊〉 wares, that know not how to use them. that the greatest usurers indeed, would be thought no usurers at all. For when one cometh to borrow money on them, they say they have none, but yet they will let them have wares, and procure a friend to buy the same, again for ready money: which palliate usury, hath made some that I know, to sell their whole inheritance. I heard of another poor man, who came to a rich cormorant to borrow money, but received this answer, I have no money to lend (quoth the rich man) but thou hast a good mare, for which I will give thee five nobles, and so thou shalt have money to do thy needs: alas quoth the poor man I am not able to spare my mare, because she is the greatest part of my poor living, well saith the rich man, thou shalt presently have her again till a day, if thou wilt enter into bond, to give me seven nobles for her: to which lamentable extortion, the poor man was enforced to yield. The fact is notorious, myself knew both the parties right well, as I said before, this usurer to the ensample of all others hath lately made a miserable end. I say secondly, that in Hebrew it is called Neshech of the root Nashach, Levi. 25. ●. 36, 37 which doth signify to bite, and that very fitly, because it biteth poor men pitifully, and as it were gnaweth all their silly substance from them. I say thirdly, that the gain of the borrower, cannot make usury without biting: the reason is manifest, because biting is included in the formal cause thereof: for as it is already proved, in things consumptible with the use, the dominion thereof is translated by the loan. & to exact surplusage for the use of a man's own, is mere injustice and flat extortion. For example, if a rich Landlord should borrow of his poor tenant ten pounds, & would not repay the same thankfully, neither at all without some gain, if then the tenant not able without greater damage to recover his money, should give to his landlord 40. shillings for the peaceable payment thereof, in such a case the exacting of 40. shillings were mere injustice and flat extortion: This obtrect must be remembered. and yet for all that, the poor tenant should gain by giving the 40. shillings: ad hereunto that money of it own nature is fruitless, and would yield no gain at all without the industry of man, that employeth it to use. The second objection. God himself allowed usury in the jews, Deut. 23. 30, when they took usury of strangers only, but not one of an other. Usury therefore is not simply evil, for God never approveth sin. The answer. I say first, that as one jew might not take usury of another, because they were all brethren, no more may one christian of another, as who are all brethren created by one and the same father, redeemed by one and the same son, sanctified by one & the same holy Ghost, three persons and one God: and therefore do we all jointly pray, Our father which art in heaven. I say secondly, that God dispensed with the jews for the hardness of their hearts, that they might by usury oppress strangers, that is to say, the Amalechites and Ammorites, Gods enemies and theirs, because they had justly deserved to be dispossessed, Divine dispensation. not only of their goods, but of their lives also: for God the eternal law maker is not so tied to his law, but that he may at his good will and pleasure dispense with the same: and therefore said Christ himself, to the Pharisees, when they charged his disciples with the breach of the sabbath, Matt. 12. v. 8. that the son of man is Lord, even of the Sabbath, and according to the common received axiom, privilegium paucorum non facit legem communem, a privilege granted to some few, cannot establish a common law: Ambr. in libr. de Tobia ca 14. yea, S. Ambrose showeth in a large discourse, that the taking usury of the Amalechites and Ammorites, cannot make usury lawful amongst us christians; who so listeth may read his words in his learned book de Tobia. The third objection. IT is lawful for to take increase of money for the delivery of money at such a time in such a place: for example, I may take overplus in gold at Paris, to deliver gold at Lions, Genua, Milan, or Rome: for this is daily practised and never reproved by any learned writer. I may therefore in like manner, for the delivery of present money in january, receive increase of money in december, and not thereby sin at all. The answer. I answer, that in these two cases great disparity may be found. For in your delivery of present money, increase is exacted only and solely for the loan. But in the other delivery, increase is required for assecuration sake: that is to say, the party that delivereth money or gold at Paris, is in fear to fall among thieves, and so to be despoiled of all he hath: in regard whereof he cometh to a banker, who partly of charity, and partly to get an honest living, keepeth servants at Milan, Lions, and Genua, with a stock of money in every place. To this banker the traveler giveth a competent consideration, that he may have his ticket to receive so much money, when he comes to such a place, or to his journeys end. Which increase this banker taketh not for the loan of his money (for he may rather be said to borrow then to lend) but for the safe delivery of my money at such a place, and for the charges he is at, by keeping servants to that only end. Which thing is so far from being usury, that it is a very commendable and charitable act. Yea in those countries where these banks be allowed, all usury is utterly condemned. And such as die known usurers without satisfaction to the parties damnified, cannot be buried among other christians. The fourth objection. IF a man give an hundred crowns in hand, he may have for the same out of the banks at Rome, at Genua, and at other places, twelve crowns yearly for the term of his life; or ten crowns yearly to him and his assigns for ever. Which increase is given for paying the money before hand: and yet no learned man did ever reprove this kind of dealing, but rather hath highly commended the same. The answer. I answer, that in these kinds of banks, there is no usury at all committed, the reason hereof is this; because these bankers have lands in fee simple, out of which they grant for so much in hand, either a yearly rent of so many crowns for ever, or at least for term of life. Which to do is a lawful contract, as which is nothing else but to sell for an hundred crowns in hand, the yearly rent of ten crowns for ever. And the same thing may be proportionably verified, in all other like banks and contracts. Of certain doubts or difficult questions, tending to the perspicuous explication of Usury. Cham 9 The first question. THere is in sundry countries, a bank called mons pietatis, the mountain of piety. This mount or bank was founded by certain devout persons, so then and this day esteemed, for the honest help of poor and needy folk. And this mons pietatis is virtually practised, Mons pietatis no usury. in many famous universities. The case thus standeth; certain men having a charitable care how to provide for the poorer sort, that they might borrow money in their need, and not be oppressed with usury, gave great sums of money to be kept in a bank, and appointed certain chosen servants, for the giving out, and the taking in of the said money. Which servants have in charge, to lend to poor folks such sums of money as they need, A provident cautel and proviso. unto a very reasonable day. Yet, lest the mount should in time be spent and consumed, they have providently made this double proviso, First, that they which borrow the money, shall deliver some sufficient pledge for the repayment of the same, at the day or days appointed. Secondly, that they which borrow the money shall give some competent consideration to the said servants, who continually attend for the delivery and receiving of the money. Now would I know, why this kind of dealing is not usury. The answer. I answer, that here I behold great charity, but usury I can find none. For nothing at all is taken for the loan of the money, but for the necessary maintenance of the servants, who attend continually for the convenient help of the borrowers. To which consideration, if the borrowers should not yield, neither could the bank endure, neither the pledges be kept in safety and good order. For the pledges or gages are of sundry sorts, and oftentimes can not be kept, without both cost and care. Marry if they take above measure, I grant that it is hard dealing, and contrary to the true meaning of the founders. The second question. You said before, that it is not usury, when one taketh consideration for his gain ceasing: which if it be so, then may all usurers be excused, for when the usurer dareth out his money, that gain doubtless ceaseth, which he might make thereupon. The answer. I say first, that rich men, who have great store of money, are bound by God's laws, not only to lend their money without gain, but also to give it freely, for the necessary relief of their honest poor neighbours: 1. joan. 3. v. 17. for as S. john saith, he that hath the wealth of this world, and knoweth his brother's need, and shutteth up his bowels from him, in that man dwelleth not the love of God. When thou comest to the Church to pray saith S. Chrysostome, Chrysost. hom. 9 in Matth. bring thy reward in thy hand: give to them that want, and ask of him that hath, that thy prayer may be commended with good works: the hand of the poor faith Ravennus is the treasure of Christ, Raven. and what the poor receiveth, that Christ accepteth, which saying our Saviour Christ confirmeth in the gospel, telling us, Matth. 10. v. 4●. that if one give but a cup of cold water to the poor for his sake, it shall not be unrewarded: why saith S. Basill, Basilius. is one made rich and another poor, but that God will reward the fidelity of the one, and the patience of the other▪ It is the bread of the hungry which thou hast, the coat of the naked, which thou lockest up, the shoe of the barefooted, which thou holdest, the money of the needy, which thou possessest, wherefore thou killest so many as thou canst relieve and wilt not. Ambr. This saith S. Ambrose, is to kill a man, to deny to help him in his need: beware lest thou shut up in thy bags, the life of the poor: wilt thou be a fine merchant and rich usurer, August. saith S. Austen? then give that thou canst not keep, to receive that thou canst not lose, give a little to receive much: give temporal possession, to attain eternal salvation. I never read of any man saith S. Hierome, Hier. that made an ill end, who in his life time, cheerfully exercised the works of charity. And Christ's holy Apostle confirmeth all this, jac. 1. v. 27. when he pronounceth it to be the pure and undefiled religion before God, to relieve the fatherless and widows in their necessity, 〈◊〉 cruel usurers, then, are of a new no religion, and god will one day vomit them out of his mouth: Note well this point. for the which cause such usurers as will not make restitution before their death, of all goods gotten by usury, cannot be permitted in many christian countries to be buried in christian man's burial, for such sharp punishment seemeth detested usury to deserve. I say secondly, that when overplus is taken for game truly ceasing, no usury is or can be committed, albe it the party that taketh the overplus being a rich man may sin grievously against the rule of charity. I say (truly ceasing) because merchants and other bargainers, do often fain to cease, when there is no such true ceasing at al. I say thirdly, that the notorious usurers, who will no way employ their money, but to get gain by the loan thereof, (of which sort are they, that have sold their lands to get money to lend for gain) can never truly pretend the ceasing of gain, for since money is fruitless of it own nature, as is already said, there can no gain truly cease to him thereby, who never meant to put it to honest use. I say four, that other rich men, who use honest bargaining for honest gain, cannot for all that truly pretend the ceasing of gain, when they lend money to their needy neighbours, at such time and times, as they neither would nor could bestow the same, during the time of such their loan. The third question. What say you to those merchant men, that sell their wares continually for more when they give a day, and take less when they receive money in hand: for this is a thing most common nowadays, not only with merchants and mercers, but even amongst all other bargainers. The answer. I say first, that albeit the greater part self dearer for the day, (the mane is the pity) yet god be thanked for it, many well disposed persons, (of whom myself and well acquainted with some) are so far from that kind of dealing, as they utterly abhor and detest the same. I say secondly, that when the forbearance of the money till such a day, is truly and without fraud prejudicial to the seller, because he cannot use his money in due time, then for that end, and in that respect, he may take 〈…〉, for his lawful 〈◊〉 game: but when his money is so paid, and in such time, as the seller is no way damnified thereby, them and in such a case, he can take nothing for the day, without the crime of usury. The fourth question What say you to those merchants and others, who are so rich, that they have always good store of gold and money locked up in their coffers, and yet sell dearer to the day, & to those who though they be not so rich, yet need they not the money, before the day, and yet for all that sell their wares and goods dearer for the day. The answer. I say first to the former sort, that they are not only usurers, but also extortioners, and cruel murderers of their christian neighbours: neither is this my bare doom, but the flat judgement of Christ himself, and of all the holy fathers. I say secondly to the latter sort, that they are tangled with the crimes of usury, and consequently bound to restitution. The first question. Is it usury to lend our kine or sheep after a competent rate, and to receive the stock again. The answer. I say first, that kine and sheep ve things fruitful of their own nature, and therefore may be lent out for gain, and that without usury or other injustice at all. I say secondly, that when kine, shrepe or other cattle, are lent out or set over for gain, with covenant in bond to restore the principal, or the just price thereof, what event soever befall, than the gain taken in that order, and with those cricumstances is flat usury, He that hath no horse can lose Horse. it cannot be denied: the reason hereof is evident, because over and besides the overplus taken for the fertalitie of the rattle, the lender requireth security for the principal, and thatby reason of the loan, and consequently the dominion of the principal is translated, which is the formal reason of usury: for when anything perisheth it perisheth to the owner, and not to him that hath no title thereunto. I say thirdly, that he, who dareth or setteth over to his poor neighbours, kine, sheep, or other cattle, after a reasonable and competent rate, without covenant or bond to deliver the principal again, in as good case, state, and order as it was received, both a very charitable art, but committeth no usury at al. The reply. Marry fie, if this he so, then must I be at great charges, and sustain no final losses at his hands, who hired my horses, sheep or kine, and so for doing good to my neighbour, be utterly impoverished myself, but I will none of that, I thank you. The answer. I answer, that the case is far otherwise: for if your goods be hurt or miscarried any way, by the negligence or default of him that borroweth or hireth them, then both in conscience and by the course of the common law, he is bound to make satisfaction for the same: and thus much you may draw into covenant if you list, without any suspicion of usury at all: but if 〈…〉 your horse, kine, or sheep; and do to them that which an honest man ought to do, then if they die, or otherwise miscarry, yourself must stand to the loss, and not I, for the goods are yours, and not mine, they must perish to you the owner, & not to me the hirer: if you defend the contrary, you fall into the flat case of usury. The sixth question. A friend of mine gave me an hundred and twenty pounds freely, so as I must never pay the principal again, but yet with this prowish, that I must give to him during his natural life, twenty pounds by year. Now would I know if this be usury. The answer. I answer that it is no usury indeed, The contains called in latin, Do ut. but a very lawful contract or bargain, termed of the Latins, do ut des: the reason is evident, because here is nothing taken for the loan: over and beside this, it is a mere 〈◊〉 contract, putting the receiver in far better state, than he was before: for the giver may die the next day, and so the receiver have the principal for nothing at all. Again, if the giver should live as long as the common sort of men do, yet could the receiver be at no loss, unless his own negligence were in default. The reply. Then it is no usury if I lend my neighbour twenty pounds, upon this condition, that he shall give me thirty pounds, if I be living at the end of the half year, and if I die before, he shall be bound only to pay the twenty pounds again: indeed many good men use this kind of dealing, and I am glad to hear you say, it is no usury. The answer. I say first, that you seem to interpret my instruction according to your own best liking. I say secondly, that there is great disparity, in these two proposed cases: for in the former, the principal must never return to the giver, neither is there any thing exacted, in respect of the loan: but in the latter, the principal must ever be restored, and that which is exacted, is in respect of the loan, for no other consideration can be yielded: and therefore this filthy lucre, is detestable palliate usury. I say thirdly, that the dealing is plain diabolical, howsoever the worldlings esteem thereof: yea, the practitioners are so far from being good men, that they are thereby become the catchpolls of satan: Ambr. in libr. de Tobia. for as S. Ambrose hath well concluded out of the holy writ, if they be blessed that give not their money to usury, as the holy Prophet of God avoucheth plainly then doubtless are they accursed, Psal. 15. that practice usury and rejoice therein. The seventh question. It was ever thought lawful, to set over the portions of infants for gain, neither to this day hath any learned man reproved the same: what therefore must be think thereof? The answer. I say first that many things have been often by learned men reproved, which were seldom or never wholly reform. I say secondly, that the least sin may not be committed, to gain the whole world unto us: for as the learned men have collected out of S. Paul, Rom. 3. v. ●. non sunt facienda mala, ut inde eveniant bona: evil may not be done, that good may come thereupon. We may not steal from a rich man, for the relief of the poor: the causes and cases of infants and poor folks, are to be favoured indeed, but yet ever with justice, and never with sin: The portions of infants. and therefore we must judge of lending or setting over the overplus of infants, even as we do of other things, that is to say, if the portions be in money, then to take any thing for the loan, as the maintenance of the infants, or some consideration to that end, is flat usury indeed: if the portions be in lands, or other goods that be fruitful of their own nature; then competent consideration may be had, for the increase of the same. Always provided, that if the goods miscarry without the negligence or other default of the borrower, that then as is already said, they perish or miscarry to the lender, who only and solely hath the dominion thereof. The reply. If the poor infants may have nothing, in consideration of the use of their portions, then will their portions often be consumed, or at left much wasted, even during their nonage and minority. The answer. Neither law, By the way of gratitude, but not of compulsion. conscience, nor reason, doth or can make a man in worse condition for bestowing a benefit, than he was before the gift thereof: and therefore, as he might afore accept of a free donation, so may be much more after his good deseres, receive that which is freely given him, in the way of gratitude. My answer now is, that since, as the common proverb saith, (one good turn deserveth another) and since ingratitude as well by the law of nature, as by the law divine, is reproved for a grievous sin, it followeth consequently, that whosoever reapeth commodity by taking an infant, with his portion, and will not to his power make thankful conspensation for the same, may justly be condemned of ingratitude: yet as he is to be condemned of ingratitude, if he render not thankfully of his own accord, so if he be compelled by bond of covenant thereunto, then by and by is committed the sin of usury: yet in things fruitful some consideration may be had, according to the true sense already touched. The eight question. If usury be so grievous a sin, what shall we say to the laws of this Realm, that this day approve and allow the same: The answer. I say first, that they who seek thus to defend their abominable usury, commit no small trespass against the Queen's most excellent majesty, & the godly settled laws of this realm. I say secondly, that the laws of this realm do not approve usury for good, but barely tolerate the same punishment in some degree, so to avoid and eschew a greater evil. I prove it by a double reason: first because the common law doth punish all usurers, that take above ten in the hundredth: secondly because the common law referreth all usurers from the highest to the lowest, to be punished by the ecclesiastical censures of the church: Where the least usury may this day be sharply punished in this Realm of England, if due information be made thereof: and if such faults in some places at sometimes, Good laws are sometimes slowly put in execution. pass unpunished after information given, (of which kind of dealing and the like, the poor people make pitiful complaints God wots) that truly must be imputed to the iniquity of the inferior Magistrates, who now and then are corrupted with flattery, friendship, or gifts, and not to the just and godly laws of this Realm. The reply. Sundry learned men do hold, that the civil Magistrate is appointed by God to punish male factors, and therefore may not tolerate or leave any sin unpunished. The answer. I answer, that albeit some otherwise learned indeed, do hold the contrary opinion, yet do I repute it for an undoubted truth, that Kings, Queens, absolute Princes, and independent Magistrates, may in certain cases upon godly considerations, either tolerate sin unpunished, or pardon malefactors: for otherwise we must not only condemn her excellent majesty, Note the practice of all christendom. that now happily reigneth over us, but also all her most noble progenitors, yea and all other kings at all times in all ages, throughout all the christian world: for when was the King, and where is the kingdom, in which kings upon good causes, have not pardoned malefactors & the time cannot be named, the kingdom is unknown. Now for the exact handling of this point, (because it is not only pertinent to my present theme, but necessary also for many other respects) I think it to the purpose, to lay down some strong foundations in that behalf. The first foundation. First, this is a constant maxim, approved by uniform consent of all learned divines; cessant fine legis cessat lex ipsa; when the final cause or end for which the law was made, ceaseth, then doth the law even of necessity also cease. This foundation is grounded upon the holy Scripture in the 15. of the Acts. Whereby the flat decree and settled law of the Apostles, Act. 15. v. 28. 19 we are bound to abstain from blood and strangled meats. This notwithstanding, no man hath this day any scruple of conscience to eat the same: and yet hereof no other sound reason can be yielded, save only that the end for which that law was made, did long sithence cease. For even at that time there was no precise necessity to abstain from blood and strangled meats. Let this point be welmarked But this law was only made in respect of the state of that time, that the Gentiles and the jews might live more peaceably together, and thereby avoid all occasion of quarreling. And therefore as soon as that end ceased, this law also ceased with it; and so we this day are freed from the same. Yea this maxim is evident lumine naturali, even by natural reason. For every law is made for some end; which end how oft soever it may be accomplished without the law, so often the execution of the law is needless. Secondly, The second foundation. we must hold this for a constant foundation, that albeit the civil magistrate be commanded to punish malefactors; yet is neither the kind of the punishment, nor the quantity thereof taxed by the law of God; but it still abideth indifferent, to be determined by the supreme civil magistrate. For although there were special punishment prescribed in the indiciall law of Moses, The usual punishment of malefactors may be changed. for transgressors of the sabbath, for adulterers, for murderers and such like; yet neither by the law moral, neither by the law of the new testament, to which laws only we christians are this day bound, is any such punishment determined. And therefore the civil magistrate (if it so seem good unto him) may change the usual punishment of thieves, (which with us is to be hanged) and cause them to be cast into the bottom of the sea, with millstones about their necks. And the same may be said, of the punishment for other malefactors. Thirdly, The third foundation. we must repute this for an undoubted foundation, that the end for which Gods law appointeth malefactors to be punished, is the public peace and good of the whole commonweal. For this is so evident by the course of the whole scripture, as it can neither with learning nor reason be denied. Out of these three foundations thus firmly established, The first corollary. these two corollaries may evidently be inferred. First, that whensoever any member of the commonweal committeth any capital crime, for which he ought to die by the law, whose life notwithstanding is more profitable to the weal public, than his death, in such a case the prince may pardon such a malefactor, 〈…〉 thereby sin at all. Which thing christian princes seem to respect, when in the time of wars they set such felons at liberty as are able to do service in defence of the realm. The second corollary. Secondly, that when any malefactor is so mighty or so strongly seated, that the prince cannot without probable danger of his royal persm, or great damage to the commonweal punish the said malefactor; in such a case the prince may tolerate such a malefactor unpunished, and not thereby sin at all. These foundations and these illations once well understood and marked, this important controversy can not but be manifest: nevertheless I will adjoin certain sound reasons hereunto for the better confirmation of the same. The first reason. It is a common atiome received of all as well Civilians as Divines; The first reason. quod lex ron obligat vitra intentionem legislatoris, that the law doth not bind a man beyond the intention of the lawmaker. Whereupon I infer first, that the civil magistrate may dis●●sre, with his own law. I infer secondly, that the prince being God's minister, may tolerate or pardon malefactors; when and so often as such toleration or pardoning tendeth to the common good of the public weal. The reason is evident, because the intention of God the supreme lawmaker, was even that and none other, when he appointed his ministers to punish malefactors. The second reason. Prodigality is a great sin, The second reason. condemned aswell in philosoph as in, it neither will nor can be denied. It is the exceeding extreme, of the vertu liberality. This notwithstanding, all christian kings, as far as I can learn, have ever tolerated the same unpunished at least in some degree; neither were they for such tolerations reproved at any time, by any ancient approved writer or learned father whosoever. Which doubtless is and aught to be so deputed, an argumental no small importance. For although emperors, kings, 〈…〉 do sin aswell as others of meaner calling yet neither have they, neither ever can they live unreproved, if at any end they 〈…〉 either by stablishing wicked laws publicly; or by suffering their 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 of God's laws dissolutely: Matth. 3. v. 9 For God 〈…〉 of stones to Abraham, and neither is he, nor ever 〈◊〉 he be destitute of faithful courageous servants, who will constantly and without all lere, Esai. 2. v. 6. reprove all such as 〈◊〉 his holy laws. He hath watch men on the walls of his jerusalem, who will reprove sin 〈…〉 He is not without his Elias, 1. Reg. 18. v. 18. that will stoutly reprove at wicked Achabs'. He hath in store a Danie 〈…〉 all naughty judges, Dan. 13. v. 61. and to acquit his faithful Susannes. He will find a prophe●●● 〈…〉 out against ●ool any, and to teach every Jeroboam his duly. He can and will provide another john Baptist, Matt. 14. v. 4. to speak boldly to all bloody Herod's. And yet in so many hundred years, such tolerations have not been reproved to my knowledge, by any learned writer. The third reason. It is a general axiom, The third reason. received not only indivinitie, but in philosophy also, ex 〈◊〉 mali● mique eligend●m, of 〈…〉 the lesser is to be chosen. And to spea●●● more plaindey, that which is often sin, Mark well this point. if it be absolutely considered; the same done respectfully, will be no sin at al. For example sake, murder is against the law divine, and yet to kill one neighbour in our own defence, both is and ever was reputed lawful. S●t for a man to cut off his arm or leg, lest the whole body put●●efie or perish is a very lawful thing. Which thing all 〈◊〉, kings seem to respect, when they in sundry cases, tolerate 〈◊〉 unpunished: for they think that 〈…〉 their realms by punishing, than by 〈…〉 in such cases. Yea, if kings should at all times punish all malefactors, the church of God should often thereby want many most excellent and profitable members. For which respect our Savour himself telleth us, that when the ●ares can not be sever 〈◊〉 the good corn, unless both be pulled up together, then may they tolerate the tars or weeds with the good corn even 〈◊〉 the harvest: Matth. 13. v. 30. as if he had said; when the wicked can not be punished, but with great damage to the good; then may the magistrate tolerate such malefactors unpunished, and not thereby sin at all. The fourth reason which is insoluble and irrefringible. The blessed man Moses so highly renowned in holy writ, The fourth reason. and so great in the favour of God, pardoned great malefactors, in the heinous crime of divorce. And this he did to avoid a greater evil, that is, lest they upon every light cause should poison those wives, whom they did not love. For that such light divorcement was only permitted, but neither by God nor Moses approves, I will demonstrate by these important reasons. First, because these are Christ's own words; Moses because of the hardness of your hearts, Matth. 19 v. 8. suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Secondly, because the marriage after such light divorce, was indeed unlawful by the law. Rom. 7. v. 1, 2, 3. For thus writeth S. Paul, know ye not brethren (for I speak to them that know the law) that the law hath dominion over the man, as long as he liveth? for the woman which is in subjection to a man, is bound by the law to the man, while he liveth; but if the man be dead, she is delivered from the law of the man. So then, if while the man liveth she take another man, she shallbe called an adulteress. Out of these words I note first, that marriage cannot be dissolved, ●●ring the life of the former husband. I note secondly, that 〈◊〉 was so even in Moses law, because S. Paul saith he speasath to them that know the law, I note thirdly, that to be ma●●d after divorce for a light cause, during the life of the former husband, is 〈◊〉 and flat adultery. I therefore conclude, that at idlerate sin unpunished upon good cause, is 〈◊〉 at all. 〈◊〉 this mine assertion of divorce, is not only grounded upon the scriptures, but also confirmed by the best approved fathers, and eke by the late writers of this our age. The fift reason. We have many examples in the holy scriptures, The fift reason. of blessed kings who have often pardoned malefactors, and to this day were never reproved for the same: King David a man full of the holy ghost, pardoned wicked Nabal at the petition of his virtuous wife Abigail. 1. Reg. 25. 35. The same king David pardoned Abner, who rebelled against him for the house of Saul: the same king David tolerated joab in his naughty dealings, 2. Reg. 3. 6, 22. albeit be was more than a little offended with his manners: the same king David tolerated cursed Shemei, ●. Reg. 3. though he commanded his son Solomon do executian on them both, 3. Reg. 2. v, 8, 9 after that himself was dead. The sixth reason out of Saint Austen. Saint Austen saith plainly, The sixth reason. that the church doth tolerate many evils, Aug. epist. 119. which she doth not approve: and the same sane Austen in his epistle to Macedonius, proveth by the ensample of Christ, that not only secular magistrate may give pardon to offenders, but also that clergy men may require the same at their hands: Aug. epist. 54. ad Macedon. joan. 8. v. 11. our Lord saith he, made suit that the woman taken in adultery, should not be stoned, and by that fact commended to us the office of intercession: yea, Saint Austen was greatly offended with the Magistrates of Africa, if at any time they denied his request therein: the difference is only in this, that we must do that by prayer, which he did by terrourr for he was the Lord, & we are his servants: this and many other reasons S. Austen useth, which whoso listeth may read at large, in that learned epistle which he wrote to Macedonius. Hereunto agreeth S. Paul's intercession unto Philemon, Paulus ad Philemonem. for Onesimus his servant. The seventh reason out of S. joseph his holy fact. The blessed virgin Marie, The seventh reason. was found to be with child b●t the holy ghost, before joseph & she came together: wherefore joseph because he was a just man & would not put her to ope● shame, Matth. 1. v. 19 was minded to put her away privily: thus recordeth 〈◊〉 holy scripture. Out of the which words I note first, that joseph knew the holy virgin to be with child. I note secondly, that he knew himself not to be the father of the child. I note thirdly, that joseph knew no other, but that Mary his wife was an adulteress. I note four, that he thought to have put her away secretly, so to keep her from shame and punishment. I note fifthly, that joseph was even then just, when he sought to keep her from shame, although in his judgement she deserved death by the law. The first objection. No inferior, hath power to alter the law of his superior, and therefore man can not pardon or tolerate malefactors, whom God appointeth to be punished. The answer. I say first, that precepts delivered to us in holy writ, are of two sorts some affirmative, othersome negative: the negative bind us at all times, every hour, and in every place, but the affirmative, though they be ever apt to bind, Precepta sunt duplicis generis. yet do they not actually kind us, save then only, when the due circumstances of time, place, and persons do occur: hereupon it comes, that it is never lawful to steal, never lawful to commit adultery, neither lawful to bear false witness, neither at any time nor in any place: the reason hereof is this, because these be precepts negative. This notwithstanding, it is sometime lawful to omit the precepts affirmative: for example sake, it is lawful sometime to smite him that smiteth us, and yet it is God's commandment, Matth. 5. v. 39 40, 41, 42. that whose shall smite thee on the right cheek, to him thou turn the other also. Again, it is God's commandment to give him thy cloak, that will sue thee at the law, & take away thy coat, and yet mayest thou at sundry times for sundry respects, deny him both thy coat and thy cloak: thirdly, it is God's commandment to go with him miles twain, that will compel thee to go one, and yet mayest thou sundry times deny, to go with him either more or less: four, it is God's commandment never to turn away from him, that would borrow money or other goods of thee; & yet mayest thou sundry times for good respects deny to lend thy money or other things: fifthly it is God's commandment not to ask thy goods again, of him that taketh them away from thee; and ●et doth every man know, Luc. 6. v. 30. that we may sundry times not only ask our goods again, which are unjustly taken from us, but even with suit of law, seek to recover the same: sixtly, it is God's commandment to confess our faith openly, as a thing most necessary to salvation: Rom. 10. v. 10. and yet we are not bound to confess our faith openly and vocally, at all times and in every place, but where and when the glory of God, or the utility of our neighbour, shall so require: for example sake, than we are bound to confess our faith vocally, The like may be said of praying always. when by our silence and taciturnity they that demand us of our faith, would either believe that we had no faith, Luc. 18. 1. or that our faith were not the true faith, or otherr would thereby be altered from the faith, and so forsake the everliving God. All which and other the like, have this only ground and foundation, to wit, that they be precepts affirmative, which neither bind us at all times nor in all places. For precepts affirmative to use school terms: Modus loquendi scholarum. obligant semper, sed non ad semper. I say secondly, that the civil magistrate, had authority, to mitigate many punishments ordained for malefactors, even in the time of the old testament: for though he were appointed to punish them that used false weights and measures, Deut. 25. 13, 14, 2, 3. yet was the punishment to be determined, even at his own discretion. Again, when the wicked was worthy to be beaten, the judge might design him to have many or few stripes, according to the quality or quantity of his trespass: Levit. 25. 53. thirdly, he that sold himself to another man, might justly be afflicted, but yet how and in what measure that should be done, was to be determined by the civil magistrate. Thirdly, that by the law of the new Testament, the Prince is only charged in general terms, to punish malefactors, for the com●●n good of his faithful people, in regard whereof, he may lawfully cease from punishing them, when the common intended good of his subjects, cannot or will not ensue thereupon. The second objection. Achab was punished with death, ●. Reg 20. because he granted pardon to Benhadad king of Ara●●. 1. Sam. 28. King Saul was deposed from his kingdom, 1. Sam. 15. because he spotted Agag king of the Amalekites. The answer. I say first, that Achab was precisely designed, to do execution 〈◊〉 upm Benhadad, Vbi supra. and so was also Saul appointed in precise terms, to put to death king Agag. Secondly, that in the new testament Princes have no such special commandment, but are only charged in general to punish malefactors. Thirdly, that affirmative precepts bind not in every season, but when the due circumstances, of time, place, persons, and the good of the common weal shall so require, as is already proved: for otherwise, In epist. ad Philemonem. I see not how S. Paul can be excused, who made earnest suit to Philemon, not to punish his servant Onesimus, who unjustly had departed from him: and the like may be said of S. Austen, who so often made intercession to the princes of Africa, to pardon the Donatists, and Circumcellions, who did not only disturb religion, but also spoiled the christians of their lawful goods: yea, it was the usual custom of the jews, as the Gospel beareth record, to set some one prisoner at liberty every Easter; which custom I find not reproved, in any place of holy Writ: yea, the sin is usually practised, in every Christian Parliament. I say four, that it is so clear by S. Paul, that malefactors may sometime be pardoned, as it is without all crime and reason, to deny the same: for what can be 〈◊〉 offence, than such fornication as is not once named among the Gentiles, to wit; that one should have his father's wife. 1 Cor. 5. v. 1. And yet when the party that did this horrible fact, seemed to give signs of true remorse, then S. Paul himself both pardoned him, 2. Cor. 2. 8, 9, 10. & willed the Corinthians to do the same. So did the fathers of the Elebertine council, Conc. Eleb. can. 20. pardon the usurers of the Last all sort, who promised to surcease from usury, and to deal no longer therewith, which counsel was holden above 1200. years ago. The reply. Saint Paul did not pardon the crime of fornication, but did speedily excommunicate the incestuous person for the same, whose pardon was nothing else, but a relaxation of that severe correction, which he had imposed upon him, for his deformed fact. The answer. I say first, that the civil magistrates among the Corinthins, aught to have put to death the incestuous person, unless we grant indeed, that Princes may sometime pardon malefactors. I say secondly, that if Princes might not in some respects at some times, pardon malefactors without offence, S. Paul who knew gods mind better than any this day living upon the face of the earth, would never have requested the Corinthians so to do, but would have charged them to cut off, and to have taken such a fellow out of the way. I say thirdly, that as S. Paul first excommunicated the person afterwards he received to mercy, even so do Princes first punish malefactors by imprisonment, attaignment, etc. whom aftherward they pardon. I say four, that S. Peter smote Aananias and Saphira, his wife with sudden death, for their hypocrisy & deceitful dealing, and yet did S. Paul pardon the incestuous Corinthian, Whereby we have to understand, that Princes may pardon malefactors, when it seems expedient for the common weal I therefore now conclude, that (in my judgement) they want due consideration, who deny that Princes may pardon malefactors, and I hearty wish and earnestly pray, that all such as do not or will not condescend thereunto, A very reasonable request. would take the pains sound and directly to solve such reasons and authorities, as I have made in that behalf. Which, (if any such can be yielded) I shall no sooner understand, than I will willingly with hearty thanks, subscribe unto the same. The ninth question. Some politic persons will lend their money as they say grati● and without any gain for the loan, yet the borrowers must this do, or else they can have no money at all: that is forsayth, they must make a lease of a piece of ground, worth 20. or 30. pounds by the year, which lease must be to the use of the creditor, for paying twelve pence or two shillings or such a trifle yearly, so long as the lent money is in their hands. Now would I know, if this be usury or no: it seemeth usury 〈◊〉 seem, and to othersome it is thought otherwise, because th● ground indeed, is set over for a yearly rent. The answer. I say first, that this is most execrable palliate usury, and prove it, because the just rent of the ground is cut off, for the sole and only loan of the money. I say secondly, that if the borrowers would make earnest complaint hereof, to the zealous executors of her majesties laws, then doubtless would these cruel usurers, these murderers of their honest needy neighbours, he sharply punished according to their deserts. I say thirdly, that the like deceitful dealing, is this day common to our symonists, Simony is the ruin of Christ's church and bringeth the greatest ruin that can be to the church of God: for blind bussards and idle lubbards possess the fat livings, and worthy learned men in the Universities can get no preferment at al. Now the patrons either prefer such as will give them money, or else the unworthy persons whom they prefer to the livings, must make them a lease of a great part of the tithes, for a yearly rent of no value: but I hope our good bishops, (who of late days God be thanked, are far better than they have been) will shortly look more warily to this matter. Myself know sundry in the North parts, who are parsons of fat livings, and yet so utterly unlearned as they can scarcely read the English bible. Others I know to be so poor, by coming to their benefices by simony, as they have not wherewith to buy them books for their studies: by means hereof the people live in ignorance, popery is fostered still, the weak are scandalised, and the free passage of Christ's gospel is more than a little hindered. The tenth question. A certain man lately deceased, gave to the chamber of a City in this land, one hundred pounds in money, which sum he gave with this limitation and condition, to wit, that the said city should, in consideration thereof, give eight pounds yearly to a preacher for ever. Now would I know, if this be the sin of usury: for to find a preacher is a work of charity. The answer. I answer, that this City, if it have lands in fee simple (as I said before of banks) out of which it granteth a perpetual rent of eight pounds by the year, for the hundred pounds paid in hand, Mark these words well. than it makes a lawful contract and commits no usury at all: but if the same city have no yearly revenues, out of which it payeth the said sum, then is it flat usury given only for the lean: note what was said before of the portions of infants during their nonage and minority: for evil deeds are not therefore good, because good followeth thereupon. The eleventh question Some devout persons give at their death, certain sums of money to townships, out of which they appoint something to be given yearly, partly for the relief of poor folks, and partly for the maintenance of the common highways, which gifts have ever been reputed the works of piety, and never once deemed to smell of usury. I would therefore know, what is to be said therein. The answer. I say first, with Christ's Apostle, that such donors had indeed a kind of zeal, Rom. 10. v. 10. but not grounded upon knowledge, a good work indeed is done, but not by a lawful mean. I say secondly, that the answer to the question aforegoing, is the flat resolution hereof. I say thirdly, that it is flat usury, because whatsoever is allotted to the poor or high ways, is only given for the loan of the money, if the case be well marked this cannot be denied. The twelfth question. What must the heirs, and such as possess the lands and goods of usurers do? and what are they bound unto? The answer. I say first, that the heirs, and such as have the lands and goods of usurers by descent or donation, stand bound in solidum and totally, to make restitution for the usury, so far forth as the lands and goods will extend. I say secondly, that others who have bought lands or goods of usurers, and pa●ed the just value thereof for them, are not bound to restitution: yet if either such goods and lands remain in their proper kind, as they were gotten by usury, or were bought at an under value, then as well the things that remain in their proper kind, as the overplus by which the buyer is enriched, must be restored to him or them that were oppressed with the usury: and if he or they cannot be known, so much must be given to the poor: Matth. 25. v. 40. for in such cases the poor succeed in Christ's room, Psal. 14. v. 1. the 〈…〉 The thirteen 〈…〉 If an 〈◊〉 buy an horse 〈…〉 usury, and give or sell the same horse to another man, what is that man bound to do, who hath the horse by free donation, or by way of sale? The answer. I say first, that if the usurer left not goods sufficient for restitution, then is he that had the horse gratis, bound to restore him to the oppressed party. I say secondly, that he that bought the horse bona fide, and gave the just price for the same, is not bound so any restitution. I say thirdly, that the man who bought the horse mala fide, is doubtless bound to restitution. First, because he concurred to an unlawful act. Again, for that he bought the horse at an under value, & so made the party impotent in way of restitution. The reply. By this it seemeth, that they who eat of stolen mutt●●● are bound to restitution, although they know nothing, of the unlawful taking thereof. The answer. I say first, that they only are not bound to restitution, who eat of stolen mutton, but even they also who eat of stolen venison. I say secondly, that they who eat thereof and are privy to the stealing, are not only bound to restitution, but withal are guilty of a grievous crime. I say thirdly, that they who eat thereof, bona fide, are indeed free from sin in respect of that eating, although they remain bound in way of civil satisfaction. The fourteenth question. What if a party damnified, will freely remit the ●estitution of the surplusage unjustly taken? The answer I answer, that so soon as the party grieved granteth relaxation, the usurer is by and by freed from all restitution, although he be not free from sin, by reason of his impenitent heart that will not give to every man his own. 〈…〉 THus 〈…〉 and painful 〈…〉 paint out fitly in her 〈◊〉 colours, the deformed and impudent lady Usury. First I have showed exactly, the essence, nature, and definition of usury: secondly the heinous sin and irksome deformity of the same: thirdly the difference between usury, and other lawful contracts of lending: four, the object of usury, and things in which it is committed: fifthly the several kinds of usury, and their proper adjuncts: sixtly, the gain ceasing, and loss ensuing by and through the loan of money; Seventhly, that usury is flat theft, and also that it bindeth to restitution. Eightly, I have solved sundry important objections, made in defence of usury. Ninthly, I have proposed certain difficult questions, with evident and plain resolutions of the same: by which my labour if thou canst reap any emolument, then see thou be thankful to God for the 〈◊〉, the principal workman of every good work: to whom with the Son and the holy ghost, be all 〈…〉, and glory now 〈◊〉 ever, Amen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.