USURIES sprite CONJURED: OR A Scholastical Determination of Usury by T.P. Doct. of Divinity, being Moderator at the disputing thereof by certain Bachelors of Divinity and other learned Preachers: With his Answer to a Treatise, written in defence of Usury.  
BASIL, hom. adv. usur. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Seen and allowed.  
LONDON, Printed by MELCHISEDECH BRADWOOD dwelling in the Little-Old-Bailie in eliot's Court. 1604.   

TO THE RIGHT Honourable, my singular good Lord, the Earl of Dorset, L. high Treasurer of England, Knight of the noble Order of the Garter, and of his majesties Honourable Privy Council.  
THere have been many excellent men in our Church, Right Honourable, that have written exceeding well against the common, but crying sin of Usury, among other (whom for honours sake I name) the Reverend prelate I. jewel, L. Bishop of Sarum; the most accomplished Divine, D. Humphrey, public Reader of Oxford; and the sage Counsellor and wise Statesman, D. Wilson, Secretary to our Queen Elizabeth of aeternal memory. All whose learned discourses, sound reasons, impregnable arguments, godly admonitions, and severe comminations, little prevailing with the deaf Usurers; for that the same are over grown 
a Math. 13.  and choked in their thorny hearts with the deceitfulness of riches; that they could not yield their due and wished fruit: it hath seemed good to some, other since them, to deal with Usury by course of Law and judiciary proceeding. Whereupon at Oxford, Usury was 
b Potions concerning Usury by G. powel.  set upon and apprehended; at London, 
c Examination of Usury by M. Smith.  examined; 
d Arraignment and conviction of Usury by M. Moss.  arraigned, and convicted at S. Edmondsburie: and lastly at Cambridge, executed and put to 
e The death of Usury, printed at Cambridge.  death, and yet notwithstanding all this, Usury is as rife in this land, and as commonly and cruelly practised, as ever, I think, in any age before: as jewishly, as when the jews were here in their prime: as unmercifully, as when the cursed Caorsini, the Pope's factors, by his holy countenance, were here in their pride. Which thing, (as I conceived) could not otherwise be, after Usuries death, but that his ghost or sprite did walk. Wherefore taking my Books in hand, I thought good to conjure this sprite: and therein have gone so far (as your L. may see in this short discourse) that I have made the sprite to speak, and to tell both his name and nature, who called him up, and what makes him walk. But to bind the sprite, or to lay him, Hic labour, hoc opus est: not unwoorthy the labour of great Hercules, that could bind the threeheaded Cerberus, & shoot thorough the fell eagle which fed upon Prometheus' bowels; or the cunning of the great Miracle-maker and divel-driver, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, which could 
f Gregorius Satanae. Ingredere. Niss. mesus vita. Caes. Bar. annal. tom. 2. Anno. 253. nu. 137.  write the devil himself apasseport, and send him packing, whence and whither he pleased. Indeed, I find and confess, that it passeth my cunning and power, without the aid of some greater skill and ability. Wherefore, right Honourable, seeing Almighty God hath blessed you with great advauncementes both of dignity and honour, and also of authority and power in this commonwealth; and that by your great office of high Treasurer, you have many employments and daily experience in the virtue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Aristotle terms it) whereof Usury is a deadly enemy: 
Arist. Eth. lib. 4. c. 3. Idem. Polit. l. 1. c. 7.  I make bold to crave your Honourable help herein, that you use the means of the great favour, which God hath given you in the eyes of our gracious King, of your high place and authority in the State, and of that estimation, which the whole land hath of your wisdom, to the suppressing of this horrible sin, which like a fretting canker eats up and consumes many notable members, and great portions of this commonwealth: one part losing or endangering their goods and state, and the other part their souls. As we have had manifold experience of your wisdom in managing matters of great importance for the common good of us all: so if by your like care and prudence, this canker may be cured; undoubtedly the whole commonwealth will receive an exceeding great benefit by you, being freed from the burden of Usury, whose nature is such, that it is compared by the wise Philosopher 
g Plutarch. lib. de non foenerand.  Plutarch, to Vultures which gnaw the guts out of a man's belly; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Homer said: by the expert antiquary 
h Antiq lect. l. 12. c. 24.  Coelius Secundus, upon the experience of the poor old forlorn debtor 
i Liu. Dec. 1. l. 2.  in Livy, to a consumption, which is contagious and infectious, and which creepeth from the goods to the body itself: by the excellent Civillian 
k Bald. cons. 440.  Baldus, to the worm Teredo, which handleth as soft as silk, but will bite thorough timber: by the authentic Canonist 
l Sext. decret.  Gregory the tenth, to a whirlpool, because it swalloweth up wealth and souls; by the noble and learned King 
m Lycosth. apopht. tit. usurae.  Alfonsus, to the Harpies, which devoured the needy Troyans' sustenance; by the ancient father S. 
n Chryst. in Math. 5.  Chrysostome, to the serpent Aspis, whose stinging casteth a man into a pleasant sleep & so killeth him. God who is rich in grace, and of infinite glory, increase his graces upon you in this life, to the advancement of his Church, and comfort of the commonwealth, & reward them with eternal glory in the life to come, thorough jesus Christ our Lord. Bexhil March 30. 1604.  
Your Lordship's humble at commandment: TH. PIE.   

A SCHOLASTICAL determination of Usury upon the disputing of that question by certain learned Divines.  
The Praemble to the Disputants.  
AS you have learnedly disputed this question of Usury, & debated it pro & con, for the cleared of the Truth; so now let me, lighting my candle at the fire stricken out of these flints, make an end of this Conference, drawing my speech to three heads, in the first whereof I will show what usury is; in the second, prove it to be unlawful; in the third, answer the arguments which are urged for the lawfulness of it.  

1 What Usury is, will best appear by the Notation of the name, by the definition, and by the division.  

1 The Notation of the name.  
Usury hath his name of Usura in Latin; but there is this difference between them, That Usura in Latin is taken according to his proper and general signification sometime for the same that the masculine 
a Non Marcel. de prop. serm. Si 'pon. in epig. 1.  usus is; as 
b Plant. in Amphyl.  usurámque ejus corporis coepit sibi: he took the use of her body. 
c Cic. pro Sylla.  Lucísne hanc usuram eripere vis? wilt thou take away this use of the light? sometime metonymically it signifieth the same which foenus in Latin doth, that is, 
d Quod principali mutuo accedit. Si pont. in Plin. ep.  whatsoever is taken for a Principal lent. But usury in English is taken only in this latter signification; and it importeth sometime the action, which the Latins call Foeneratio, the Greeks' 
e Arist. pol. l. 1. c. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. as, 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato de leg. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist ibid.  he gathereth riches by usury. Sometime the effect or thing which cometh by that action, which the Greeks call ᵍ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latins 
h Quasi foetus, quia foetus est, pecuniae Varro l. 3. de Lat. ser. Pomp. fest. de propr. l. 6.  foenus, both termed of bearing or bringing fourth; because it is the fruit, which the principal in his kind engendereth or bringeth forth (whereof 
i Basil. hom. adu. usur.  Basil speaketh thus: they say that hares at one time together do 
k Plutar. de non soene. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  litter, give suck, and are with young: So to the usurer money at one time is 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  put to usury & borne and breeding) as when we say: he payeth usury: 
m Athan. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I will give thee nine obols usury for a pound. This we call also by the general word, the use: but most properly the lone. This thing in Hebrew is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tarbith, that is, increase and multiplication, because the principal increaseth itself and bringeth forth more in his kind: which cometh of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to multiply, increase, or to be more in his kind; as the commandment of Generation 
u Gen. 1.22.8.17.  increase and multiply doth show, and of the same the Chaldean Paraphrast calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ribbitha. So that the reason of the etymology in the Latin foenus, the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Chaldaean ribbitha, and the Hebrew tarbith is all one. And the Latin, Greek, and Chaldaean, have to those their nouns verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu conjugata, verbs of the like signification signify in the action, namely, foenerare, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Puhel, to lend to usury: the passives of the Latin & 
o Especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which yet Basil attributeth to the money also.  Greek become Deponentes, and are attributed to the taker upon usury, signifying to borrow upon usury: but the passive of the Chaldaean is attributed to the thing which is at usury, signifying to be lent to usury. But the Hebrues have no verb conjugatum to their noun tarbith, to signify that action, marry, they have another name for usury, and for the increase coming for a thing lent, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neshech: and to that they have verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and conjugatum. For the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying two several and distinct things, or rather there are two several and distinct verbs written with those same letters, yet differing one from another genere in kind: for in the conjugation Call one Nashach is an Active by kind, and by his syntaxis a 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Gaz. l. 4.  transitive perfect, requiring an accusative case of the sufferer, and this signifieth to bite. The other Nashach in the same conjugation Cal, is a 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.  Neuter absolute, and that is spoken 
r Deut. 23.19.  de refoeneraticia; of the thing which is at usury: which we for want of a proper word must circumlocute; as the 
s In usuram datur. Tromel.  Latin & 
t Taenori datur. Vantabl.  Greek Interpreters do, as thus; which goeth to usury: or is given, put, or lent to usury. Of which latter Nashach there is made an Active in the conjugation Hiphil which by his Syntaxis is an 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which thou shalt lend. Sept. Yet castle: saith foeneretur: and Basil would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. taking those Deponents Passively, as the Chaldean doth utter it.  Acquisitive, requiring a Dative case of the sufferer, and an Accusative case of the thing, wherein the action lieth; (which kind of compound Syntaxis the 
y Theod. Gaza. l. 4.  Grammarians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and it is signifieth only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foenerare, to usury a thing to one: or to lend one a thing to usury, and so likewise, the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neshech, which is Conjugatum to it, signifieth only Usury.   

2 The Definition.  

x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The action is thus defined: usury IS LENDING WITH GAIN FOR IT. The effect thus: 
z §. fiscalibus. l. infraudem. § de jure fici. Aquin. 2.2. q. 78. Bernard. de cura rei famil. Melancth. defin. Theolog. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch.  usury IS GAIN FOR LENDING ANY THING.  

The Declaration of the Definition.  
The Genus in the former Definition is LENDING: which Moses expresseth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
a Exod. 22.21.  when thou lendest. In respect of the party, which taketh it to use, and payeth for the use it is borrowing: which the Hebrues express with the same verb, but in another Conjugation, namely Cal, as the former was in Hiphil: as in Greek the lender is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the borrower 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of this Genus the principal (as we call it, like as the Greeks' call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and as the Latins Principale Mutuum, and in one word Caput and Sors) hath his name in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Halloah. Now lending I call that, which the Latins call Mutuatio, mutuating and the Greeks' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their proper signification (for sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for usury, omitted, and yet is used for lending upon usury) which also the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth: and not that which the Latins call Commodatio Commodating: which we also through the penury of our language, term lending. And yet they may well have one common name, because they concur in one common quality, whereby they differ from all other kinds of Contracts, viz. that in them the same thing, that is transferred and passed to another, is to be restored again, but freely, as the Lawyers say: 
b Caus. 13. q. 3. c. Quod autem in gloss.  There are two contracts, whose nature is to be free, Mutuating and Commodating. So then these 

two differ 

from those contracts, in which the thing transferred away is not to be restored again, whether it were transferred away 

freely; as giving.  
for consideration of 

1 a price; as buying and selling.  
2 some other thing, differing in kind or goodness; as exchanging.  
3 a fee; as Emphytensis, or fee-farming.  
4 a moiety of an uncertain remainder at a time; as society: for in society the venturer doth pass away the sole property of the principal or stock: So that nothing remain, nothing is to be restored; if any thing remain, every partner is to have his share.  
5 some other gift etc. as contractus innominati.      
from those contracts, in which the same thing is to be restored again, but the use was passed away for consideration either of 

hire; as letting of chattels.  
rend; as setting and farming out of land.    
one from another, because the same thing which is transferred and delivered away, is to be restored again either in 

Individuo; and that is 
c § Commod.  commodating, because the property of the thing was never passed away, but only the use of it: as I lend you my horse to ride, to draw etc. but you must restore the same horse again. This commodating if it be not free, but any thing taken for the use, is turned into letting and hiring; and 
d Exod. 22.  there the user stands to the hazard, 
e L. 2. § si certo petat.  here the owner.  
Specie, only; and that is mutuating, because the property of the thing (individui) was clean alienated to the borrower, that he might spend it by consuming of it, or alienating of it at his pleasure: otherwise there could not have been that use of it, which that kind of contract requireth, which is to be spent; and therefore the same thing in individuo can not be restored again being spent: but only the same in specie or quantity, be it by number, weight, or measure. 
f L. 2. § Appellata. ff. de reb. era. Glanvil. l. 10. c. 3.  For things only which pass from man to man, by number, weight and measure, may be mutuated: and they are mutuated, when they be delivered to another to be spent, upon covenant to have restored so much again in eadem specie, otherwise if those very things be lent to any use or end, so that the borrower spend them not, but restore the same pieces again; it is commodating, not mutuating: as if I lend you ten fair Sovereigns to carry in your purse for a show, or to decoct them in a medicine for Physic, it is commodating; for which use if I take any thing, it is letting and hiring: but if I lend you the same ten Sovereigns to spend or lay out, it is mutuating, for which use, if I take any thing, it is usury. So this genus doth exclude from usury all other contracts, save this kind of lending, which in Latin is termed Mutuatio; and all gain or profit arising from any of these other contracts.         

The Differentia.  
The Differentia in this Definition is GAIN, Lucrum, idest, 
g Varro de ling. Lat. l. 4.  si amplius, quam ut exolverit, quanti esset coeptum: that is more, than to defray so much, as it began for, or, 
h Hier. in Ezech. 18.  quicquid illud est si ab eo quod dederint, plus acceperint, whatsoever it be, if over that they delivered they receive more, whether it be in money, 
k Incrementum pecuniae vel pecunia mensurabile. Biel in sent. l. 4. d. 15. q. 11. art. 1. a. Aquin. 22. q. 78. Arist. Eth. l. 4. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or money worth: which may serve to 
k Prou. 28.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Reg. 4.2.  increase our substance, wealth, or state.  
This Definition doth exclude from Usury these cases.  
1 The demanding, recovering, and receiving of the principal, for that is not lucrum gain, increase, or more than I laid out, and the not paying of it is accounted sin in holy Scripture. Psal. 37.21. therefore Helizaeus did help the widow to pay it with a miracle.  
2 Expenses about the paying, recovering, or receiving of the principal, as for carrying or fetching the money, making of assurance, costs, and charges of suit. 
l L. Mutuis. ff. pro socio in gloss.  For it is not gain unless the charges be deducted, and likewise charges about the thing pawned or mortgaged for assurance of the principal, for 
m Bald ad Leg. 6. de pign. & hypoth.  that which the Creditor layeth out for or about the thing assured increaseth the debt.  
3 Consideration for the peril and danger of hazard for exchanging money from place to place, as you would borrow for a time 100 pound of one in London, and give him 10. pound to transport it to Rome, and to abide the hazard.  
4 Interest: for that is not for the lending, but for lawful and due satisfaction, neither is it gain. 
n Melancth dfien. Theolog.  Interest is a debt, which he oweth to the law of nature, who hath been to another effectual cause of damage, or hinderer of his lawful gain, the lawfulness whereof is grounded upon the law of nature, that no man be enriched by another's hindrance: and the 
o Exod. 22 14.  Law of God, which provideth, that the lender be saved harmless from contingent damages: and the rule of the Apostle; 
p 2. Cor. 8.13. reduced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not that other men should be eased and you grieved. This Interest coming two 
q Ant. de But. inc. Salubriter. de usuris.  ways; 
r Aquni. 2.2. q. 78 art. 2. in resp. ad. 1. extr. de side juss. c. Pervenit. etc. Constituas.  either ex damno emergente, by loss arising: as when by missing my money at my day till which I lent it, I am damnified by forfeting a lease, or a band, or a bargain, etc. or ex lucro cessant, by gain ceasing; as when by missing my money at my day, I am hindered of buying at the best hand, provision for my house, wares for my trade, stock for my land, etc. Here the Cannonistes and Schoolmen require that the money be detained after the day 
s Innoc. ext. de usuris c. finali johan. Cald. ibidem. johan. An. ibidem.  against the lender's will. For if he lend it upon allowance for the gain, that he is like to forego, it is usury. Secondly, that the gain hindered were 
t In actu aut quasi in act. Aquin. 2.2. q. 62.  in esse, or as good as in esse, the lender being in a good way to have it, nothing wanting but that.  
5 
u Extr. de Simonia c. Dilectus.  Redeeming my own hindrance, for there I have no gain or increase, but only save my own, which may go with the Principal. As I have bargained with a Carpenter to build me a house for 10. pounds, which I have paid him all or part praemanibus: now he will not finish the work unless I lend him 5. pounds more for a year: So I lend him 5. pounds upon this covenant, that he finish his work by his time. Here is a consideration, without which I would not have lent it him: but it is not gain, nor more than my own. Or I lend a Magistrate money not to put me to a fine, which is in his choice to do or not to do.  
6 The taking of a Penalty for non payment at a time covenanted: for that is not for the mutuating or lending, but for a default made in breaking of covenant. For it is lawful to take 
x Prou. 20.16. Deut. 24.10.  assurance for a man's own, and to be saved harmless, as well in mutuating as in other contracts, and that not only by pawn, pledge, surety, etc. but also by penalty of forfeiting something for default: as for non payment of rent, to forfeit the lease, or to double the rent, or to pay ten pounds nomine poenae: so to forfeit ten shillings for not restoring my hired or borrowed horse such a day: or I sell you my horse for ten pounds to be paid at Midsummer upon penalty, that if you deceive me, you forfeit 10 pounds more. The reason and ground of the equity of Penalties is, 
y Innoc. extr. de poenis c. suam.  Quia interest Reipublicae pacta servari, It stands the Commonwealth upon to have Covenants kept. For as 
z Cic. off. lib. 2.  Tully said truly; Nec ulla res vehementius rempublicam conservat, quàm fides: There is not any thing that holdeth the Commonwealth together more strongly than faith in keeping promises and covenants, 
* Liu. dec. 1. l. 6.  cum qua omnis humana societas tollitur: together with the which all human society is overthrown: and therefore the breaking and violating thereof, must needs be a great offence, worthy to be punished with due penalty. Now there may be great oppression in this, as in other contracts; as I take 100 pounds fine for a lease of 21. years, reserving ten pounds rend, upon a covenant of re-entry. In the first payment the Leasee defaulteth; I re-enter: as this is hard dealing, and summa injuria, arising from the extremity of summum jus: so is it, if the lender take the forfeiture, being nothing damnified by the default; but it is not direct Usury. Therefore these Penalties must be squared, by the same rule of charity, by which all other contracts aught to be: as, 
b Luk. 6.31.  As you would that men should do to you; so do ye to them likewise: and, 
c 1. Thes. 4.6.  That no man oppress or defraud his brother in any matter. And the 
d C l. 4. tit. 32. de usuris. L. 15. cum allegas.  Civil law carrieth a heavy hand against the taking of a penalty for non payment of money lent at the day, and condemneth it, as savouring of Usury, and 
e Bald. ibid.  seeming to be put into the contract for the usury: and, 
f Salycet. ibid.  therefore so much as it exceedeth the lawful rate it holdeth not.    

3 The division of Usury.  
This gain or increase is taken for the lending either 

directly, which is plain usury, and here the gain is either 

compacted by both parties, that is the 
f Usurarius.  Usurer and the 
g Usuarius.  user agreeing upon some certain gain. Which kind the holy Ghost expresseth thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
h Levit. 25.37.  to give upon usury and lone. Which supposeth a contract of the giver and taker, and this compact is either 

Bare upon the users own promise.  
Secured upon assurance of bill, bond, surety, pawn, etc.    
Exacted by the Usurer after the lending, and this until the time it be exacted, is uncertain: for the usurer requireth what he list, and the user at his requiring, or for fear of farther displeasure, doth yield it: as the necessity of them which want 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Basil. hom. adu. usur.  maketh them to undergo many things readily, which are indeed against their wills. This kind is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
k Exod. 22.25.  to impose, or to put upon.  
Offered by the user voluntarily of his mere motion: either hoping the rather to borrow again, or doubting lest otherwise the lender will not take it well; or upon some other ground: but it is principally for the lending of that thing, and otherwise it had not been offered. This some term foenus liberale: the holy Ghost calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
m Levit. 25.36.  to receive usury and love. Yet for the benefit of mutuating or lending, and the commodity obtained by it, it is lawful for a man to show himself grateful, & reddere antidora: but yet in the slender difference between usury and gratitude, men need to be careful and curious, as going between the bark and the tree, lest their conscience before God be defiled thereby.    
Indirectly, which is cloaked usury; our law termeth it shifts of sale & chevisance: for the gain in outward show is made seen to be taken for some lawful contract; which contract is made the cloak to hide the usury. These cloaks and shifts are 
n Eras. in Psal. 14.  infinite: for usury is cloaked almost under every lawful contract, the gain seeming to be gotten by them, whereas indeed it is given for the very lending. I will show examples of these contracts, which are most abused hereto. usury is cloaked sometime under    
1 Selling; as I will lend you 100 pounds for a year, if you will give me for this horse 12. pounds being worth 2. pounds: so the 10. pounds seemeth to be given for the price of the horse; but it is for the use of the money.  
2 Setting to farm; as I will lend you an hundred pounds a year, but you must let me that farm for two pounds, being worth well twelve pounds, or give me twelve pounds for this farm, being worth but two pounds.  
3 Hiring out; as I let you have three pounds to buy a Cow, paying me at the years end, three pounds for the Cow, and a noble for the hire. Or I let you a Farm, with a stock of twenty kine upon it, prized at an hundred marks for seven years, to pay the rent of the Farm, and twenty nobles a year for the hire of my Kine, and at the end of the years to deliver me twenty as good Kine, or an hundred marks in money.  
4 Free mutuating; as I have not an hundred pounds in coin to lend you, but I will lend you an hundred pounds in wares for a year, and deliver you wares not worth ninety pounds, and perhaps deliver a Broker ninety pounds to give you, & receive my wares again. Or, I lend you an hundred pounds in such coin as I have, and deliver you light gold, not worth ninety pounds.  
5 Exchanging; as I lend you an 100 pounds in silver a month, so that you repay me in sovereigns, supposing them to be worth ten shillings and six pence. How Usury is cloaked under exchange by bills, see notably discovered at large by Doct. Wilson. fol. 116. etc.  
6 Society; 
a Aquin. 2.2. q. 786.  In which as one may put in money or stock to make a Principal, and another industry; so these three must be common, the Principal, the gains, the loss; and the remainder to be divided according to every one's moiety in the Principal, 
b L. Praeposita. ff. prosocio.  ex arbario boni viri. Here if I deliver money or stock to have part of the gains, 
c Bald ff. pro socio. L. Mutais 13. q. 3. si foenerareris, etc. plaerique.  so that the Principal be saved me: 
d Ang. de Pertract. de societate.  or venturing but equally take two parts of the gain; or put out cattle, 
e Monald. in sum.  covenanting to have as much as my Principal was worth, before division, etc. it is usury.  
7 Nomine poenae; as one giveth me an hundredth pounds to be paid by another, providing that every year it be detained, I be 
* Bald. L. Unica.  paid ten pounds. Or, I lend an hundredth pound upon a bond of two hundredth pounds, the bond is forfeited, I take ten pounds nomine poenae, & renew his bond, being nothing damaged, or not so much, by his non payment.  
8 Interest; when I take gain under pretence of loss sustained by missing my money at my day; having indeed sustained none, and perhaps let him keep the Principal still. Therefore it is good advice which one giveth, that the damage be cessed by the magistrates, to avoid both the cunning & colour of usury.  
9 
* Col. 6. q. 3. de his quaefoenae nomine.  Pawn; as I lend money upon a pawn, and make profit or commodity by the pawn.  
10 
a Prov. Lindw. l. 3. de vigoribus, c. unico. Extra. de pign. c. illo vos Extr. de usur. c. 1. 2. & ult. 13. q. 3. c. conquest.  Mortgage; as you bind your land worth ten pounds a year to me for lending you an hundredth pounds. In this case and the former, oftentimes there is a plain sale made of the thing, with a Proviso retrouèndendi, that the seller may redeem it again, which is a lawful contract: as appeareth Levit. 25. But hereif there be more to be repaid, then was laid down for it, 
b Monald. in sum.  it is usury. As I mortgage land, or pawn plate to you for an hundredth pounds, with a bill of sale, providing that within a year, I may redeem it for an 110. pounds, or if the borrower retain liberty to himself to demand his money again. And though the same price be to be repaid, yet if the seller stand charged with it, it is usury, 
c ff. de periculo & con. reivend. L. id quod.  because it is against the nature of selling. Moreover the opinion of 
d Host. in c. Ad nostram de empt. & vendit. Ext. de pignor. c. Illo vos. Panorm. cons. 76. joh. de Imo. in c. ad nostram de empt. & vendit. Et multi alij.  many Lawyers is, that if there concur with the covenant retrovendendi another conjecture or presumption, it is usury: as, if the price be under the value, or the buyer a known Usurer, or hath sold his own land as commodious as that, to make this contract, or it appear, that the seller had no intent of selling. But the 
e Ang. L. 2. C. de pac. inter emp & vend. Monal. in summa. Alexan. de Hales p. 3. de praec. 7.  common opinion is, that although in foro conscientiae two of these presumptions be sufficient, to make a usurer; yet in 
f Bald. in l. emption C. plus vaelere. & in c. 1. de feodo dato in vic. leg. come. Paul de Castro íne. ad nostram. Et multi alij.  foro litigioso three must concur to condemn him. In the levitical law, 
g Levit. 25.27.  whensoever the seller would redeem his inheritance (
h 28.  unless it were a house in a City) he might, and account the fruits, from the sale till the redeeming, in part of payment. But that was in respect of the jubilee, when the seller was to have his land again 
i 30.  freely: and the nearer that was, the less worth was his land.    

2 All Usury is unlawful, and the taking of usury is sin; because it is against the law of God, of Nature, of the Church, of the Commonwealth.  
1 IT is against the law of God, and his will revealed in his word: 
a Exo. 22.25.  When thou lendest money to my people the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to them like a 
b What manner of Creditor. see pag.  Creditor: ye shall not impose usury upon them. 
c Levit. 25.35.36.  If thy brother with thee go down, and his hand do shake, thou shalt stay him: and let him live with thee a stranger and sojourner. Thou shalt not take of him Usury and loan, but fear thy God and let thy brother live with thee. 
37.  Thy money thou shalt not give to him upon usury, 
38.  nor upon increase shalt thou give thy food: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be to you God. 
d Deut. 23.19.  Thou shalt not usury to thy brother, usury of money, 
20.  usury of food, usury of any thing, which is lent-to-usurie. To an Alien thou shalt lend-to-usurie, but to thy brother thou shalt not lend-to-usurie: that the Lord thy God may bless thee, etc. 
e Psal. 15.5.  His money he hath not given upon usury: 
f Ezech. 18.13  upon usury he giveth, and love he taketh, shall he live? 
g 17.  Usury and lone he doth not take, he shall not die. 
h Pro. 28 8.  He that increaseth his substance by usury and lone. 
i Luke 6.35.  Lend, hoping for nothing of them. In which places of Scripture, I would have you to note first the nature of the usury forbidden out of these phrases: 1 That God forbiddeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foenerare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to usury, or to exercise usury, which verb importeth generally all practising of usury, and taking gain or consideration for lending. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give upon usury, which phrase is used in contracts, if the circumstances do bear it, as 
k Deut. 7.3.  Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son: as here it may import a contract between the putter and the taker, the Usurer and the User: for free giving is excluded by Neshech. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to impose usury upon, which phrase the holy Ghost useth in things exacted of men against their wills, and imposed upon them, as burdens are: as, 
l 1. Reg. 12.4.  My father did put a burden upon you. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to receive usury, which phrase is used also even in those things which are voluntary: and under the same form of words, as a bribe or reward is said to be received, which is neither compacted nor exacted, but most freely offered, and yet prohibited and condemned, as in the same Chap. and verse of Ezichiel: 
m Ezech. 18.17 22.12.  They receive rewards in thee, they receive usury in thee. Of this 
n Hier. in Ezech. 18.  S. Jerome speaketh: Some for lending their money receive presents or gifts.  
Secondly I would you note out of the same places the heinousness of the offence, which appeareth, because usury is contrary to the fear of God, Levit. 25.36. a forgetting of God, Ezech. 22.12. a sin against the first Commandment, I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, Levit. 25.37. and therefore the usurer deprived of God's temporal blessing, Deut. 23.10. made subject to God's temporal curse, Prov. 28.8. and to the Magistrates punishment, Nehem. 5.7. hated of God, in so much that he claps his hands at him, Ezech. 22.13. shut out from God's tabernacle, and from the rest upon his holy hill, Psal. 15.1. excluded from eternal life, and made subject to eternal death. Ezech. 18.  
Now for the cloaking of usury, it is so far from lessening the offence, that it doth augment it: as S. Augustine said truly: 
o August. in Ps. 63.  Simulata aequitas, non est aequitas, sed duplex iniquitas, quia & iniquitas est, & simulata. Dissembled equity is no equity, but double iniquity; because it is both iniquity and dissimulation. For God who is, 
p Luk. 16.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and knoweth the heart, can discern their usury under their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their painted vizards, & goodly cloaks: who loveth simplicity and plain dealing, and hateth all hypocrisy and dissimulation: as 
q Pro. 11.20.  Solomon saith, The 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui simulant & dissimulant, & specie recti fallunt.  subtle in heart are abomination to the Lord, but the simple in way are his delight.  
2 It is against the law of Nature, as may appear by these five considerations and arguments. First the Usurer receiveth two recompenses or satisfactions for one thing; one of them being equivalent (contrary to that 
s Arist. Pol. l. 1. Plato de leg l. 6  equality which is the rule of human society) in that he requireth first restitution of his own, that is, as much as he delivered: Secondly gain for the use; whereas in mutuating (as before hath been showed) the thing and the use are but one, and cannot be severed. For the 
t Aquin. 2.2. q. 78. art. 1. ad. 6. ff. Actomod. l. 1. § penal. & finali. & l. 4.  using of it is the spending of the very thing.  
Secondly, the Usurer maketh gain of that, which is none of his own, but another man's. For the property of the thing mutuated was transferred, and alienated, and passed away from the lender to the borrower: so that if the borrower pay any thing for the use of it, he payeth 
a Scot in sent. l. 4. dis. 15. Lactant. devero cultu. l. 6. c. 18.  for his own, and of his own, which is plain contrary to 
b Suum cuique.  justice distributive, which yieldeth every one his own.  
Thirdly the Usurer maketh 
c Scot in sent. 4. dist. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristoph. in Nub.  private gain of that which is common, that is of times; contrary to the rule of human society: 
d Caus. 12. q. 2. c. qui manumittitur.  Quod est commune omnium non erit particulare singulorum.  
Fourthly the Usurer maketh that 
e Arist. pol. l. 1. c. 7.  breed, gender, and increase, which by nature is barren and unapt to increase: 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibidem.  for in usury money genders, gets, or brings forth money; whereupon Plutarch saith, that the Usurer maketh something of nothing, maugre the head of the natural Philosopher.  
Fiftly the Usurer perverteth that end and use of money, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeable to nature: namely commutation, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. ibidem.  for commutation was the end wherefore money was ordained in human society; and is the use of it, which natural use the Usurer turneth into that which is against na-nature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore it is called a kind of 
h Sodomia naturae. Hug. Card. in Ps. 15.  Sodomy. From these grounds and principles proceeded those many both wise laws, and worthy speeches of thee Heathen, led only by the starlight of reason, and destitute of the light of God's word, against usury: which you may see at large in other.  
3 It is against the laws of the Church, which doth forbid usury to the 
i Con. Nic. c. 18. Con. Arelat. 2. c. 14. Con. Colon. p 2. c. 31. Con. Laod. c. 15 Con. Carthag. 6. c. 17. Con. Tur. 1. c. 1  Clergy under penalty of deprivation both of Communion and Benefice; and to the 
i Con. Eliber. c. 20. Con. Lat. p. 1. c. 23. Con. Lugd. 1. c. 3  Laity under the penalties of excommunication, of disannulling their wills and testaments, of excluding them from Christian burial, and many other. And the 
k Canon's Synodi London anno. 1584. c. 4.  law of our Church doth set and account usury in the rank and number of most heinous sins, as heresy, schism, incest, adultery.  
4 Lastly it is against the temporal law of our own commonwealth, both common and statute. The Common law doth punish usury, by 
l Glanvil. l. 7. c. 16.  confiscation of all the Usurer's goods to the King's use: and the statute law now in force, though it punish some kind of usury (viz. ten in the hundredth or under) somewhat lightly in comparison of that heinousness of the sin which the statute doth acknowledge in that usury: yet it doth plainly affirm, 
m Eliz. 13. c. 8.  that all usury is forbidden by the law of God, and is sin and detestable. Which determination of that high Court ought to be prohibition enough to every true subject under the same government, to avoid it.   

3 The objections and answers.  
Instead of the objections against this truth urged here, I will take in hand the book, which is written of purpose in the defence of usury, as the author plainly 
n In his answer to Prov. 28.8.  professeth; by the confutation whereof, the arguments also urged in this conference will receive their satisfaction. In this book first there are five questions propounded, and answered by M. C. whereof the first is.  
Whether the commandment of God given to forbid usury to the jews. Exod. 22. Levit. 25. Deut. 23. 
M. C.  be general and perpetual, or not. The answer is. The commandment of not biting, or oppressing with usury is general and perpetual; albeit it were permitted to the jews because of the hardness of their hearts, that they might oppress the nations with usury, which before the coming of Christ were foreigners from the kingdom of God: which yet is no more permitted unto Christians, than for every light cause to put away their Wives: And even this permission for a time proveth that the law, whereof the question is moved is perpetual. For the jews being so hard hearted as diverse unlawful things were feign to be permitted them, there is no likelihood, that the Lood would have laid this commandment upon them, nempe, that they should not take usury of their brethren, unless the law of God had necessarily required the same.  
First, the substance of this answer I allow, 
Answer.  that those laws are general and perpetual, notwithstanding the commandment of taking usury of strangers, which commandment I do not take to be a permission of the nature of that, whereby a man did for a light cause put away his wife, as he maketh it. The difference I will not stand to show, pertaining not to this question. The truth of this answer is better confirmed by other reasons; as that David reckoneth it among moral duties, or rather among breaches of the moral law, as 
a Psal. 15.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. ibid.  Slander, wrong-doing, perjury, bribery, against the innocent; and 
b Ezech. 22.12  Ezechiel hedgeth it in between bribery, and deceit, and 
c Ezech. 18.12.13.  coupleth it with oppressing the poor, spoiling by violence, and Idolatry, and therefore Jerome coupleth usury with deceit and robbery, Usuras quaerere, aut fraudare, aut rapere nihil interest, quia septimum praeceptum haec omnia prohibet. And S. Ambrose: Siquis usuram accipit, furtum facit. As for the precept for the jews to take usury of 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 23.20.  aliens, that is, 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eph. 2.12.  from the covenant of God, and the commonwealth of Israel; will make no more for the lawfulness of usury, than the commandment for the Israelites to 
f Exod. 11.2.  rob the egyptians, or for Abraham to 
g Gen. 22.2.  kill his son, will make for the lawfulness of theft, or murder. Against the aliens God commanded 
h Am. lib. de Tobiac. 15.  worse oppression to be used than usury, and yet that is no reason to excuse oppression of other, or in other cases, from being a breach of the moral law.  
Secondly, the interpretation which he maketh of these laws by a distinction of biting, and oppressing, as though there were kinds of usury, which were not biting, and oppressing, and therefore not forbidden; will appear straightway to be frivolous. And so unnatural and forced it is, that himself forgetteth it in the end of his former words, when he doth expound those commandments generally of taking usury of their brethren; avouching, that the Law of God requireth necessarily that we should not take usury.  

M. C.  The second question. If those laws be general and perpetual, whether yet it may be lawful in any rate, or sort to lend for gain unto such men as are rich, and wealthy, upon covenantes, and bonds to receive increase, or more than the principal; for that they are not poor, nor fallen in decay, neither do borrow for need, but to purchase, or to compass great matters to increase their riches, and wealth thereby? Answer. It is lawful notwithstanding the law to lend to usury, considering that the end of the law is love: Seeing therefore it is not against the love of thy neighbour so to lend as both the lender, and the borrower may in all good likelihood be profited; there can be nothing herein against love, if the affection be not worse than the action of lending, and borrowing in this kind. Yet such may be the lender, himself not being able to occupy his money in any lawful trade; and such the borrower able well to traffic with the same, that not only the persons lending, and borrowing with their families, but the commonwealth also shall be profited thereby, and hurt otherwise, if that the money of the lender be not employed, or the cunning and skill of the borrower lie idle, and dead.  
In this second question, 
Answer.  and answer note first that he putteth his case of plain usury, that is, to lend for gain, and to receive increase, and more than the principal; and that compacted usury too: upon covenant, and moreover strongly secured, upon bonds. Secondly, note his limitation of this usury, both in respect of the person of the borrower, such men as are rich, and wealthy, not poor, and fallen in decay, and also in respect of the end, to purchase, or to compass great matters withal, to increase their riches, and wealth thereby, not for need. This need is expressed in his answer to the third, and fourth questions which concern borrowing upon usury (which I omit to set down here, because they belong not to the question of lending upon usury, neither will I stand with him therein) to be for his necessary use of preservation of himself, and his family, and for preservation of his estate, and inheritance, under which are contained as well occupiers, which live by their trades; as owners, which live by their rents; and farmers, which live by husbanding other men's lands: Ergo, by this limitation and restriction, and by confession of M. C. all lending upon usury to the poor, that never attained competent wealth, though it be to purchase and compass some matter to bring them out of poverty: or to the decayed, till they be out of decay, and have recovered their former estates; or to noblemen, gentlemen, and other rich men, which are in decaying, and in danger to impair, and diminish their estate and inheritance, or have not presently to preserve themselves, and their families answerably to their estate, without borrowing for a time, is forbidden by those laws. And this is enough to break the neck of usury, and to condemn all the Usurers in England, I think.  
M. C. in his answer to the fourth question maketh a quaere: whether he that is driven to borrow upon usury to preserve his estate, and inheritance, were not better to borrow of a man of no sound religion, than of one that professeth the truth, although in all other traffic the law of God doth draw us rather to deal with those which are of the household of faith, than with strangers. Which argueth, that he holdeth the lending to such a one to be sin, at the least in the lender. So then M. C. resolution is, that it is lawful to take usury only of the rich, and wealthy, and that of them too only then, when they borrow to purchase, or to compass some great matter, to increase their riches, and wealth. Now this thing which is lawful in the lender, is unlawful in the borrower, as M. C. avoucheth in his answer to the fourth question in these words. Every man may not borrow lawfully, much less of usury: For albeit it be no sin to borrow, yet it is a punishment for sin: and a correction which God layeth upon his children when they be driven to borrow, etc. Wherefore it being a curse of the Law, and a matter wherein every one of the children of God should be humbled, it is also clear that a man ought not for light causes to throw down himself into this curse, as for example, to increase his estate, being able otherwise to maintain himself honestly, etc. Whereby it appeareth, that the lender to usury in this case, must needs be helping, and accessary to the borrowers offence, and a cause of an unlawful thing, which himself might prevent, and remedy. Now let every Christian man judge, whether to lend to usury, even in this case here propounded, be not a fearful thing in this regard, that an other man is thereby brought under the curse of God's law.  
Thirdly, let us weigh his reasons for the lawfulness of this one kind of usury. The first is: It is not against love: Ergo, not against the law: for love is the end of the law. This very reason is used by the wicked Atheist, that wrote the defence of Adultery. Whatsoever is of love, is neither against the law, nor disliked of God: but to lie with another man's wife gins of love, proceeds by love, and ends with love: Ergo, etc. And he addeth the correction, or limitation which this Author here doth, so that the affection be not worse than the action. For some kind of Adultery he condemneth, as this doth some kind of usury. If M. C. would answer this argument for Adultery, he should easily perceive the weakness of it for usury. To lend indeed is an office of love, a work of Christianity, 
* Deut. 15. Luk. 6.  a commandment of God: and to take usury for the lending is of love too: but it is the love of money, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Paul calleth it, and maketh it 
a 1. Tim. 6.  the root of all evil; as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neighbourly love, or brotherly love it is quite contrary unto it; as one said: 
b Hug. Card. in Ps. 15.  Usura direct opponitur charitati: Usury is directly contrary to charity: and therefore forbidden by it, as another said: 
c Bez. annot. in Math. 19.8.  Foenerari prohibet Christiana charitas. Christian love forbiddeth to put to usury. Basil said truly, Men gather not grapes of thistles, nor figs of thorns, 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. hom. in usus.  nor love of usury.  
The second reason is as it were an Epilogisme to the former. So to lend as the lender and the borrower may in all good likelihood be profited, is not against love; But in the usury above specified, and qualified both the lender, and the borrower may in all good likelihood be profited. Ergo, that kind of usury is not against love. I deny the minor, with a double distinction: first of the persons, for in respect of the lender it is past likelihood, because his profit (for so they term usury) is certain, and sufficiently secured, and made most sure: and likewise in respect of the borrower it is past likelihood, for his loss is 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. ibid.  certain, because whatsoever he giveth for the usury is loss to him, his substance being so much diminished: and therefore Basil calleth all usury 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. ibid.  gain of loss. For it goeth out of his own to the decrease thereof. Which may further appear by the other distinction: in this action there are two things: first, Mutuating, by which together with the users industry, and God's blessing groweth the gain, if any be: secondly, usury or gain to be paid for that lending, and that is so far from profiting the payer of it, that it impaireth his substance so much as it is. This distinction 
g Heming. in fac. 5.  Hemingius hath; No good can come by usury of itself, but if there seem by chance any good to come of usury, 
Non usuris sed mutuation.  that is not to be attributed to the usury, but to the lending.  
Now this profit which he supposeth to come to the borrower by the usury, is but in all good likelihood, as he confesseth; there is no certainty in it; and yet he will have the usury, and increase to the lender not only certain, but assured by bond: is not this great inequality, and injustice? What if the borrower be indeed at loss by the using of that money? so that he cannot make up his Principal again to repay the lender, will the lender bear part of that loss? No I warrant you. But say the borrower doth gain, and get wealth, notwithstanding he pay usury, as perhaps some may; though in comparison of them that are undone by it, they be very few, as Basil said, Many, sayest thou, are made rich by usury: 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. hom. ad v. usur.  more, think I, have come to the halter by it: Yet that they gain is not to be attributed to the usury, but to the good bargains they met withal, their skill in traffic, and principally to God blessing their industry, and labour: whereby they have reasonable gain to live by, and to increase by, beside that which the Usurer taketh; and shall this excuse the Usurer's offence, which taketh away that which is none of his own, but another man's, though he take not all the other man's, but leave him part for himself? If a thief meeting me, as I come from the market, take from me but part of that I have gained there, leaving me enough to countervail my charges and somewhat over, shall his theft be excused? I will conclude this point with Leos words not much varying the sense. 
a Leo serm. 6. de jejun decimi mensis. c. 3.  Quilibet sequatur eventus, mala est ratio foenerantis. What event soever follow the Usurer's case is nought. This argument he presseth by consideration of the estate as well of the lender as of the borrower; the lender wanting skill to employ his money; the borrower having skill, but wanting wherewithal to use it; so that divisim both the one's money, and the others skill lieth idle to the damage of themselves, and of the commonwealth, but conjunctim they may benefit themselves, and the commonwealth too. All this is true: but what concludeth he hereof? mary, ergo, it is lawful to put to usury to the rich, to purchase withal, or to compass great matters to increase their wealth. Mark how the premises cross the conclusion: the premises describe a borrower, whose cunning and skill lieth idle and dead, which must be by need, or want of wherewithal, which is poverty: for were he rich himself, his skill needed not to lie idle, much less to be dead. The conclusion describeth a man that is rich, and wealthy. So then here is the coherence of this argument: by lending to the skilful poor which want wherewithal to employ their skill, the poor may be maintained, and the commonwealth benefited. Ergo, It is lawful to lend to the rich and wealthy to purchase, or to compass great matters to increase their wealth. So then we are clean gone from the question which was proposed of the rich, and wealthy, and are come to the poor, and needy. Now let us consider how this argument holdeth for them. The money of the lender wanting skill, and the skill of the needy borrower wanting wherewithal to use it, will both lie idle: Ergo, that lender may put his money to usury to this borrower. How this consequence doth hold, you may conjecture by these: A man having a wife being himself unfruitful, wanteth children to the decay of his house, and damage of the commonwealth. Ergo, it is lawful for another that is fruitful, to lie with his wife, to supply these wants, or thus: A rich man hath a barn full of corn, but cannot thrash it out, to the hindrance of the commonwealth, and himself; another being able and skilful to thrash, hath no corn to thrash: Ergo, it is lawful for this fellow to break up the others barn, thrash his corn, steal part for himself, and leave the rest ready for the others use; here both may be benefited, and the commonwealth too: oh say you; but there are other lawful means to remedy both these inconveniences; the rich man may hire another to thrash his corn; and pay him his wages, holding his own; the poor may thrash for hire, and receive wages for his maintenance. Even so it is in our case proposed, there are remedies sufficient provided in human society, without usury, that neither the money of him that is not able to use it, may lie idle; nor the skill of him, that hath not wherewithal to use it, may lie dead: among other there is society, whereby both these two may join together, and relying upon God's providence, the one venturing his money, the other his skill, by God's blessing may benefit themselves, & their families, and the commonwealth too. But the Usurer likes not this; he loves not to trust to God's providence: he can provide well enough for himself; as Ajax answered his father. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sophoc. in Ajace.  I will vanquish, & have victory, and that without God. Touching the profit which cometh by usury, it is true, that unto the Usurer nothing can be of greater yield, no gain comparable to it: but to the needy occupier (as Basil saith) usury doth not bring 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. ibid.  a full remission, but a little intermission of want, and hard fortune. No man can heal a wound with a wound, nor cure a sore with a sore, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  neither can any man remedy need by usury: for how is it possible that money should 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  overflow and multiply so excessively as to salve thy need, and satisfy the Principal, and 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  beget the usury too saith Basil; and Plutark compareth it, even as if a man that is not able to carry a Kid, should crave to have a great Ox laid upon his shoulders. And for the profit which may redound to the commonwealth by usury, I will tell you what it is; the occupier to make gains of the wares bought with usury money as will serve to sustain himself, to repay the Principal, and withal to satisfy the usury, must hold up his wares the dearer, use the more craft and deceit, lying, and swearing, to sell them the better, to the oppression of the commonwealth. So that Chrysostome said truly that the Usurer was the common enemy of all: and Basil setteth down the commodities of usury, 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  lying, ingratitude, deceiving, forswearing, and Plutark reckoneth up lying, and forgeing, as fruits of usury. As for any commodity which may accrue to the commonwealth by purchasing with usury money, I cannot imagine, unless the Purchasers rent-rearing and racking of Farmers to make up his money for die usurer, be a commodity to the commonwealth.  
Unto this answer of M. C. there is annexed a defence thereof by another, who would feign go a little further, and have usury, that is so qualified as in the answer to the former question is set down, to be a thing commanded, yet he will not at the first dash avouch it plainly, but insinuatingly cometh in with his if.  

defender.  If it be not a thing which in some case may truly be said, to he commanded, yet at the least it is in the number of those actions which are indifferent, and free, either to be used, or not used, according to the inducement of persons, time, and place counseling or discounselling the same. His reasons, and arguments I will set down in his own words, and answer them briefly.  

defender.  To this purpose of the indifferency, and freedom of the action to use it, or not to use it, cometh first the word itself of usury, which in the learned tongues carrieth a middle, and indifferent nature apt aswell to note a lawful limitation of the thing whereto it is applied, as to signify that which is unlawful.  

Answer.  First, this assumption of his is false: for the names of usury in the learned tongues are not apt to signify an indifferent thing. Nesheck in Hebrew hath no aptness to signify a lawful action, which is the name of usury in general: neither Nuchtetha, nor Chibbuliah in the Chaldaean tongue: nor faenus in the Latin tongue: nor Tarbith in the Hebrew tongue: for Tarbith is ever used for a thing unlawful, and condemned: and so is the English Usury, as himself confesseth, though he lay the fault upon the ignorance of the vulgar people: whereas it is in the nature and property of the thing which it is applied to signify. Secondly, this consequence the name is apt to note a thing indifferent. Ergo, the thing which in common speech it is applied to signify is indifferent is altogether insufficient. This aptness to note must be either in the Etymology, or in the use, and by this argument I could defend great sins. Adultery in the learned Latin tongue hath his name of ad and alter: Now what is apt to signify a thing indifferent than altar, another? and for the use, when a door is opened not with his own key, but of another door it is called clavis adulterinus: when a letter is signed not with the seal of the writer, but of another, it is called signum adulterina: and either of these may be lawfully, or unlawfully done according to the inducement of the circumstances of persons, place, or time, counseling, or discounselling the same: and what? shall I with this defender conclude: Ergo, adultery in some case may be lawful or indifferent? Likewise fornication cometh of fornix, an arch, or a room built archwise. Which is a lawful thing, and hath an aptness to signify an indifferent thing, a place apt as well for lawful copulation, as unlawful: is therefore fornication in some case indifferent? A thief in the learned Latin tongue is called fur, a ferendo of bringing as 
a Sipont.  some say; or of furus that is furvus, black, or dark, as 
b Noun. Marcel. de prop. serm. Varro de ling. Lat. l. 4.  other more ancient say: and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hide, or keep close: all which are of a middle, and indifferent nature, apt as well to signify a thing lawful, as unlawful. Yea by this argument tyranny may be better maintained than usury; for the word in the learned tongues both Greek and Latin is of a middle, and indifferent nature, apt by his etymology, and applied by use to signify either a good or a bad King. By this you may see also the vainness of this argument drawn from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth that which a living creature procreateth or bringeth forth by generation, and because (as Aristotle saith) as the living creature in generation bringeth forth more of the same kind, or his like: so money put to usury bringeth forth his like, that is, more money, therefore usury is likewise called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is a thing generated of the same kind. Now cometh this defender and argueth thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth children which are gotten by generation; and children are some legitimate, and some illegitimate; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also usury, ergo, usury is some lawful, and some unlawful. It is a plain Paralogism ab aequivoco: Lupus signifieth a Wolf, and wolves have tails: and Lupus signifieth also a snaffle, ergo, some snaffles have tails. Even as good as this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to hide, and that may be done either lawfully, or unlawfully: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also to steal: ergo stealing may be done either lawfully, or unlawfully. And why not this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth that which is begotten, and procreated by generation, as children, and the children are begotten of male, and female, and are themselves some male, some female: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also the usury money which is begot of the principal: ergo usury money is begot of a male, and a female: and some usury money is male, and some female. This is somewhat likelier than the other: for there are some Edward pieces, & some Elizabeth pieces; and Phillips, and Maries may stand for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In handling of this argument he goeth about to meet with an objection out of Aristotle, making us believe that Aristotle maketh for him. 
Arist. Pol. 1. c. 7.  Aristotle Pol. l. 1. cap. 7. condemning usury altogether, among other reasons useth this: Whosoever leaveth the use of a thing which is agreeable to the end, and nature of it, and maketh a use contrary to the end, and nature of it, is to be condemned: but the usurer leaveth that use of money which is agreeable to the end, and nature of it, and maketh a use contrary to the end, and nature of it; ergo, etc. The minor he proveth, because money was ordained for commutation, and the nature of it is to serve thereto in human society, which use the usurer leaveth altogether: again to make money breed, engender, or bring forth money is against nature: for money hath no such gendering, or procreating nature, being naturally barren: but the usurer maketh his money gender, and procreate more money, that is, more in the same kind. Wherefore Basil termeth usury 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a beast of a strange and monstrous nature, in bringing forth, differing from other creatures: 
Basil. hom advers. usur.  which he showeth, because other creatures have a time to bring forth perfect young: but the usurers money is borne to day, and to day gins to bring forth. Other creatures the sooner they engender, the sooner they leave of engendering: but the usurers money engendereth quickly, and never leaveth off: Other creatures coming to their growth are at a stand: but the usurers money is ever growing. Other creatures delivering over their breeding to their young, leave off teeming themselves, but the usurers money, both that is newly borne, doth beget, and the old principal is youthful still. To the second part of Aristotle's minor this defender answereth, that Aristotle condemneth only that usury which is practised with the neighbour's loss, and only for this cause that the Usurer taketh it whether the debtor hath gained, or not. Whereas in Aristotle there is no such thing, nor the least inkling of any such distinction. Aristotle's speech is general, his arguments carry with them a generality, neither is there in him one title tending that way. Yes, saith he, 
defender.  The very words do show it, where he saith, money is barren, and doth not beget money, that is, if it be alone, and of itself: and who denieth this; money in a chest, or hid in the ground doth not beget money: but that wares may be bought with it, and so by man's industry gain be made, who can deny? Therefore we say, gain may be taken of the gain, not money of the bare money. 
Answer.  Who ever heard such an absurd conceit; that Aristotle speaking of the unnaturalness of money begetting money in usury, meaneth of money taken upon usury to be locked in a chest, or to dig it in the ground? No not old Euclio in Plautus, I warrant you, would pay usury for money, to pot up, and put in the ground, as well as he loved it. If any were ever so witless, shall we think that Aristotle entreating of the common society of mankind, the weal public, and the politic state, ever dreamt of such doing? No, he spoke of that usury which was in use, and common practise: But see the absurd consequence of the rest. Wares may be bought with money: true, for that is the right end of money; commutation: A man by his industry may make gain of his wares, true, or else all trade and traffic were in vain: but what of all this? Mary, saith the defender, Ergo, the Usurer's bare money doth not yield him money. And why forsooth? what else cometh from the usurer but the bare money? or for what is the usury money paid him, but for the bare money? the wares are none of his; the money which was paid for the wares was then none of his; the commutation was not made by him; the industry is none of his; the venture is nothing to him; neither is there any thing his but the bare money which getteth him his usury money. If the Usurer will plead society and so come in for a share of the gain, let him keep the laws of society according to the rule of equity, and take his share of the gain, if any be in God's name.  
The next point, and the same the greatest, 
defender.  and most important (saith the defender) is to take a view of all those places of Scripture which are commonly alleged, as carrying in them the sentence of condemnation, written in them, against all compact for increase of money over and above the Principal, whereof the first is, Exo. 22.25. To avoid the condemnation of this place he hath four evasions, all like to Adam's fig-leaves.  
The first is this: In the 21.22.23.24. verses he doth generally forbid the oppression of the poor, 
defender.  and destitute persons; after verse 25.26.27. that which before he had spoken of oppression, he expresseth by the particularities, and the kinds thereof: now in the prohibition there being nothing spoken against, but that whereby any neighbour is oppressed, it cannot be that any thing is reckoned up in the particulars, but that wherein my neighbour is oppressed. There being then a kind of usury, and increase of money by contract which doth not oppress my neighbour, but releiveth him, it must necessarily follow that usury is not here forbidden.  
Usury is not a species, or a particular of the sin forbidden in the former verses 21.22.23.24. 
Answer.  In those verses there are two several precepts, the one concerneth strangers or sojourners, the other toucheth widows, and orphans of the people. These are disparata: and therefore cannot have one species under them. Again the persons mentioned verse 25. are God's people the Israelites, and add the adjunct unto them, the poor: it is the poor Israelites: Now they cannot come under the Genus strangers, for they are opposite: stranger, and Israelite: neither can they come under widows, and orphans, but are diverse kinds from them: for widows & orphans are respected, not in regard of poverty, unless withal they be poor; but of their inability to menage worldly affairs, & to withstand wrong, and of their aptness to be wronged: and if they be poor withal, then are they but a species of poor people. So that in respect of the persons he should rather have said contrarily, that this 25. verse had been genus to the other before. Now for the sin forbidden against the stranger there are two things prohibited; first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. D. Chimch. in lib. radicum.  which the Rabbins to distinguish from the other, do interpret it, of an abuse by words, as upbraiding, and reviling: Now hereof usury cannot be a species: for usury is no verbal matter; words will not serve the turn: If this interpretation be not liked, there will be little difference between this, and the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that signifieth to press, or thrust with violence; as the Ass thrust Balaams' foot against the wall Num. 22. and as Elizeus commanded jehoram's messenger to be used 2. Reg. 6.32. crush him in the very door, and metaphorically it signifieth that violent injury, oppression, and tyranny wherewith cruel kings crush, keep under, and afflict their subjects, as the case of the Israëlites was under the Kings of Egypt, which Moses expresseth by this word. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  I have seen the affliction wherewith the Egyptians afflict them. Now that was plain tyranny in the Egyptians, and slavery in the Israëlites being forced to all kind of drudgery by beating, and bodily punishment, as Moses showeth. Exod. 1.13.14. & 5.14. Now of this affliction usury can be no species, because in usury there is no force or violence, but all amity, and fair speech as Basil showeth, The Usurer laugheth upon him, and remembreth the acquaintance be had with his Father, 
Basil. hom. in usur.  and calleth him good neighbour, and friend. Against the widows, and orphans there is forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath the like signification, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath, that is, an unjust kind of handling with violence, as tyranny, and servitude is: for Moses expresseth the tyranny of the Egyptians, and slavery of the Israelites, with this word also. Exod. 1.11.12. & Gen. 15.13. And Sara's violent usage of Hagar is expressed with this word. Gen. 16. Now this cannot be a genus to usury, because there is no violence, or force in usury, as before was said. These sins are abuses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the irascible part of the soul: Usury is an abuse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the concupiscible part: they are breaches of the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill. Usury a breach of the eight, Thou shalt not steal: they are vices in excess of the virtue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Usury is an excess of the virtue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Philosopher speaketh: and yet this learned man will have one a species of the other.  

defender.  The second evasion is this, The particular oppression, which is spoken of in the 26. and 27. verses, being a thing not simply unlawful, but that which may be done in some case, it followeth that the former, which the holy Ghost hath made Par, and brother to it, is also not simply unlawful. As therefore there may be a man of such wealth and store of garments, that a man may lawfully keep his garment that he hath pledged with him, not a night alone, but an whole year of nights: so he may be such an one to whom he hath let money, that he may lawfully expect any increase of money for the lone thereof.  

Answer.  The Antecedent is untrue: for the particular oppression spoken of verse 26.27. is simply unlawful, and may not be done in any case, that is for any creditor to take of any poor man for pawn, his garment, having none other to cover his nakedness withal, whether it be by day, or by night, as the Rabbins understand it of both. It is inhumanity to see a man go naked, or lie naked with nothing upon him: and Christianity commandeth to cover such: but it is immanity and savage cruelty to make him go naked, and to take from him that only thing he hath to cover his nakedness: and that the law speaketh only of such a pledge, is more than manifest, vers. 27. For it is his only covering, it is the very covering of his skin, wherein shall he lie? and of such job speaketh: They make 
a Job. 24.7.9.  a man lie naked all night without a covering, and they take to pawn that which the poor hath on, and make him go naked without a covering. And yet our defender cometh in with his rich man, that may spare one garment a year of nights, as though he dreamt of nothing but rich men, and wealth. Well, let us leave him in this sweet dream of his, and come to his third evasion, which is this.  
Both in the verses before, 
defender.  and in the present verse in hand, he speaketh of the poor, and destitute, yea and very poor persons, and therefore without injury of the text, it cannot be stretched to all sorts of men.  

Answer.  It is well that he coupleth this verse with the former verses: for by them he may see the nature of this. In the verses before, where he forbiddeth abusing with terms, oppressing with violence, and afflicting, he speaketh of the poor, yea of destitute in respect of ability defensive, namely of strangers, widows, or orphans: therefore without injury to the text, those laws cannot be stretched to all sorts of men, but that we may lawfully abuse in terms, oppress, afflict any other being neither stranger, widow, nor orphan. If the defender will grant me this consequence, I will strain myself to grant him the other, and seek some other answer to this evasion. Sed quae est ista dialectica: What Logic is this? said M. jewel. Solomon commands, rob not the poor, because he is poor. Ergo, it is lawful to rob the rich, because he is rich. I add the like out of Moses: Moses forbiddeth 
b Deut. 24.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to defraud, or deceive the hireling, that is poor and needy: Ergo, if he be rich and wealthy, I may defraud, and deceive him. But in this kind of Logic, I can help the Usurers one ace beyond their defender: for as there is a limitation of the people to the poor, so that of the rest of the people we may take usury: so there is in this law a limitation also of the poor to one special kind of poor, namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the poor with thee. Now this addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with thee, doth import not only a vicinity, commoration, or dwelling together; for the holy ghost expresseth that with other phrases, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like; but it importeth withal a bond between them of Dominion, and servitude or subjection, as to be one of his family, and within his service, as we use also to speak, he hath been with me seven years, that is, hath served me, or been in my family. Which also may appear, because the law speaking of taking a brother into service useth this word, 
a Levit. 25.  he shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with thee: and speaking of the manumission of such an one useth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
b ibidem. Deut. 15.12.  from with thee, which is not a little enforced in the latter member of this law, which mentioneth imposing upon; insinuating a superiority over him. So then the law speaking only of such poor as are with me, under me, within my service or family, it cannot be without injury to the text, to stretch it to all sorts of poor, but that I may take usury of such poor as are not with me, are nothing to me, own me no service, & perhaps dwell not near me. Now I hope I have pleased the Usurers with enlarging their liberty by following this defenders Logic. But to return to the place; there are many reasons why in these laws, and the like there is special mention of these impotent persons. First, Lyra saith, 
Lyr in Exod. 22  Lex exprimit illud quod frequentius accidit, scilicet afflictio talium, quia resistere nequeunt. The law expresseth that which usually happeneth, namely the afflicting of such, because they cannot withstand, or defend themselves: Secondly, God useth in his laws to express the grossest sins, as murder, adultery, theft, not allowing whatsoever cometh not to that degree, but in these condemning that. Thirdly, God hereby would testify to the world his care over these destitute persons, which of all other are lest cared for; and therefore he taketh them into his 
a Psal. 68.6.146.9.  special protection. Now if God forbidding to lend upon usury to the poor, should allow men to lend to usury to the rich, he should have more care of the rich, than of the poor: for no man would lend to the poor freely, when he might lend to the rich for usury. Lastly, I might deny, that this addition, the poor with thee, doth belong to that member which forbiddeth usury: for in lending money God forbids two things in that verse: First, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to be as a Creditor; such an one as shall be described 
c Pag. 46.  anon: and here it was requisite that the specification of poor should restrain it, because otherwise it is not unlawful, as appeareth, Deut. 24.10. Where there is a law made for the right and lawful practise of it. Secondly, it is forbidden to impose usury: and this member hath no mention of poor, because it is a general prohibition, and somewhat it appeareth, that this prohibition differeth from the other, because the holy Ghost setteth it down in a different form of speech, speaking in this member plurally, whereas in the former he spoke singularly. Howsoever it be in this law, that the prohibition concern the poor only, or all in general; it is manifest, that in other laws usury is generally forbidden, as Deut. 23.19. Thou shalt not put to usury to thy brother: here is no difference of poor, and rich, but a general comprehension of all Israelites, and members of the Church, which may further appear by the general opposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of aliens. And so Ps. 15.5. He that giveth not his money to usury: here is no exception of aliens neither, as the 
a Lyra in Exod. 22. Galat. de arca, Cathol. verit. l. 11. c. 4.  jews themselves confess, & our Saviour in the 
* Math 5.42. Luk. 6 35.  Gospel taketh away that difference of brother and alien, and of poor and rich too. And so in the prophet Ezechiel, and the Proverbs. For Livy by long experience in the Roman State did find, that usury was 
b Liv. dec. 1.  damnosissima etiam divitibus: and Plutarch avoucheth, that Jupiter Ctesius (so termed because he is owner of all) can not save that man, that will rather borrow upon usury, then sell his own goods to serve his turn.  
His fourth, and last evasion is, 
defender.  that the word translated usury signifieth biting; so that if there be any usury which biteth not the poor, but healeth the bite, which the tooth of poverty hath made, it cannot lie under the condemnation of this place.  
This is a great evasion with usurers, 
Answer.  which they stand much upon: insomuch that every illiterate carl, and bookelesse broker hath Neshech in his uncircumcised mouth, and can say that Neshech signifieth biting, & therefore this defender translateth this place thus: Thou shalt not lay upon him a biting: as that word is known to signify, saith he: But to fire them all out of this starting hole at once, I tell them that this word Neshech doth never signify biting: nor any thing else but only usury, that is, gain for lending. If it be such a known thing, as he maketh it, let him or any of them all show one place in Canonical Scripture, or other Hebrew writer, where Neshech signifieth a biting, or any thing else, but only that which the Hebrues with another name call Tarbith, the Greeks' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latins foenus, and we usury. I have been ten years Professor of Hebrew in a famous University, and therefore should have read somewhat, and yet I confess I could never find it. The truth is this; there are many Verbs in Hebrew, which in divers Conjugations, or with diverse constructions, or both, do signify diverse, yea sometime contrary things: and therefore though they be written with the same letters, yet may well be accounted diverse Verbs, as 
a Theod. Gaza. Gram. lib. 4.  Theodorus Gaza saith, speaking of the like in the Greek tongue. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it is manifest that the same verb being taken diverse ways, (or in diverse significations) doth differ from itself in very essence, and is diversely called, and construed. Yea in Hebrew some few of them in the same conjugation, and with the same construction too, do signify very different things: which difference, and diversity in general is discerned either by the Conjugation, or Construction, or else by the circumstances of the place: as the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in the next verse, in the conjugation Pihel signifieth to destroy, and dissolve asunder: but contrarily in Cal it signifieth to bind together; whence cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a cord, or cable which retaineth the Hebrew etymology) and because possessions and inheritances were usually divided by cord, an inheritance is also called by the same name, Chebel. Now shall I say, because this, or that man's lands were never laid out by cord, but other ways, therefore it is not inheritance, Chebel; for Chebel signifieth a cord? much less may I say, that Neshech signifieth biting, as anon shall appear. Again the same Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cal signifieth to take to pledge, and a pledge is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chabol, shall I say, that when God forbiddeth to take a millstone to pledge, I may lawfully do it, so there be no bond, or binding of it, for Chabal signifieth to bind? The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cal is taken Neutrally, and signifieth to kneel, and thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a knee, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a pond, belike because that in swimming there, men bend their knees: as in Greek such a pool is called 
* joh. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a swimming place: Now because in this, or that pond there was never any swimming, or a man cannot swim in it because of the shallowness of it, or some other cause; is it not therefore berechah, colymbethra, a pond? or shall I say, that those words signify swimming, or a swimming place? Again, the same verb barak in the conjugation Piel is used transitively, and signifieth to bless, or salute, because usually inferiors, blessing, or saluting their superiors, did kneel or bow the knee, and thence barachab is a blessing, or saluting, and sometime contrarily it signifieth to curse, or ban. Shall I therefore say, that there is no blessing where there is no kneeling? or that barachah is known to signify a kneeling? that 
a Gen. 1.22.28.  God did not bless his creatures, because he did not kneel? that 
b Psal. 103.  the heavens did not bless God, because they had no knees? that Jacob did not bless his children, 
c Gen. 49.  because he lay along in his bed? or when 
d Num. 23.24.  Balaam answered Balak that God had commanded him to bless Israel, and not to curse, might Balak have answered, notwithstanding, thou art not forbidden to use sorcery, enchantment, or witchcraft against them, so there be no kneeling, for that word is known to signify kneeling? Or might Esau have answered his Father Isaak, that the same which his brother jacob had stolen away, was not a blessing, because Isaak did not kneel. Gen. 27.37. Num. 21. Surely he might have answered so as truly, as our Usurers say, that Neshech signifieth biting. For although the verb Neshach used in Cal, transitively with an accusative case of the sufferer, signifieth to bite, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
e Num. 21.  momordit serpens virum; the Serpent did bite a man; yet in the conjugation Hiphil, (to which Neshech is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consignificant) it requireth a dative case of the sufferer, and an accusative cognatae significationis (as the Latin grammarians speak, the Greek call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and so it never signifieth to bite, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foenerare, to usury (if you will give me leave to make a word (or to put to usury as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
f Deut. 23.19.  Non foenerabis fratri tuo foenus: Thou shalt not usury to thy brother usury of silver. In which signification, or acception it is another verb from that which signifieth to bite, differing from it in very essence, as Theodorus Gaza said, which is more truly said of this verb, which differeth from the other not only in acception, 
The Hebrew conjugata cannot be expressed verbatim without making of words, & scarce with that neither, for as in Greek the usurer is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actively, and the user 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deponently, so in Hebrew the principal is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neutrally, and the user 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & the Usurer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, actively, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transiens in tertium, as Chimchi saith which kinds of speaking our tongues cannot express.  and construction, but also in conjugation; which in Hebrew maketh a great difference, as you may see by many examples: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cal signifieth to redeem, in Ptel, to pollute: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cal signifieth to create, or make; in Hiphil, to fatten: and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fat: and the same verb in Hiphil, also signifieth to choose; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one, and the same conjugation Cal, with the prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or such like signifieth to dwell: with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fear, or to be afraid of: and an hundredth more of like sort. And that Neshech signifieth usury, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nashach, to go to usury, without any respect of biting may appear. Deut. 23.19. where it is applied to the principal, or the things lent, of any thing, which doth usury, or goeth to usury. Now the thing lent be it money, meat, or whatsoever else doth never bite, but help and relieve: the intent of the lender is not to bite; the intent of the borrower is not to be bitten; the nature of the thing itself is not biting; and therefore that word there cannot probably, or possibly be translated, biting; and therefore Neshech, and Hisshech being conjugata to it, and Derivatives of it, ought not to be taken in the signification of biting; but in the same signification, wherein their original, & primitive is; and what an absurd construction would it be to translate the derivatives in that sort. Thou shalt not bite (or make to bite) to thy brother a biting of silver, or a biting of meat, etc. What a senseless speech would this be? And for further confirmation, that the word Neshech, and Nashach doth import usury without any respect of biting, let me add the judgement of the most skilful in that tongue, who do ever translate, and expound it usury, without any mention, or insinuation of biting, as the Septuaginta translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? The Chaldean Paraphrast doth call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ribbitha; The Rabbins expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which with them is the general name of usury. But grant that usury had his name in Hebrew of a Primitive, which signified biting, what is that to the purpose, when we know what the thing is, which it is applied to signify? The question is not of the Etymology, but of the lawfulness of the thing: the thing is known, what it is; whence the name was first taken that the same thing is called by, is not material. 
a Ang. Princ. Dialect. c. 6.  S. Augustine giveth a very good rule. Verbum non unde dictum sit curandum, cum quid significet intelligatur. It is no matter whence the word is derived, when we know the thing which it signifieth. In giving names to things, it is well enough, if the nature which it hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Rabbins speak) for the most part, be agreeable to it: yea if it ever had such a quality which the name importeth, though the same quality, or accident be left, or grown out of use: as carnal copulation with a single person is fornication still, though it be not committed in an arched, or vaunted room; and yet that sin had his name first a fornice; as before hath been showed, because then often it was committed in such places, and therefore 
b Galen. de H●poc. & Plat. decret. l. 2. c. 2.  Galen said truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Etymology is but a lying witness, 
Cic. in Topic.  which made Tully so afraid to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veriloqutum. Me thinks I could help the Usurers in this point better, than the defender hath done: for therere is no usury, but that which accedit sorti, as this defender said truly before; but sors importeth chance, hazard: 
Fortuitum rei eventum. Sipont.  therefore whether we lend to poor, or rich; gain they, or gain they not, if we put the principal out of hazard, and make it sure by bond, surety, or pawn, what increase soever we take, it is no usury, Quia non accedit sorti; because it cometh not to a thing put in hazard. Lastly, grant that the scripture condemned only biting of the poor, or biting of thy brother by lending; yet we might easily understand all usury to be forbidden, because all usury biteth more, or less, as one biting is worse than another; and one sooner felt than another, and therefore no marvel that the most wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and name-maker linked their names in such near affinity together. The biting of a Serpent, being done prively, when a man is asleep, or greatly busied, is not great, nor soon felt, but it groweth; and if it continue, it will overrun the whole body: and such is the nature of usury, saith Rabbi Solomon: 
Rab. Solomon in Ezech. 22.  As the Serpent maketh a little black and blue in the foot, and there is no feeling of it, but afterward it groweth, and spreadeth itself, till it come over the crown: So in usury, there is no feeling of it, no perceiving of it, till it grow great, and diminish a great deal of substance.  
The next place is Levit. 25.35.36.37. 
defender.  Out of which place the same may be confirmed, and further reasons gathered, for the strengthening of the judgement before set down. First, whatsoever is set down, and forbidden to be done, is not forbidden generally, but to thy neighbour that is brought low.  

Answer.  This argument of our usury defender, videlicet.  
God providing for a man that is decayed, forbiddeth to take usury of him, Ergo, it is lawful to take usury of one that is not decayed, hath been sufficiently answered before. And further it may be said here, that the commandment of helping, and upholding, verse 35. belongeth to the brother decayed; but the commandment forbidding usury, verse 36. pertaineth to the brother in general, as well as Deut. 23.19. which seemeth to be enforced, because in this 36. verse he nameth the brother in general. But it mattereth not much though both the commandments be restrained only to the brother decayed.  

defender.  Secondly, there is a farther reason drawn from the end, which is, that thy brother may live with thee: wherefore if the love of money be so tempered, that he may well live with thee, it is plain that such usury is not forbidden.  

Answer.  Hear the usurer discovereth his mind, that any rate of usury may be taken, so the poor borrower may live, and hold soul, and life together. And truly experience showeth, 
Nec liberum corpus superest. Liu. 1. l. 6.  that usurers have no more respect of their brethren: goods, lands, liberty, and all they get; and it is well that the brother lives, & vescitur aura aetherea. But to his argument. First these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let thy brother live with thee (for so the text is, not as Tremelius noteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the life of thy brother may be with thee) are not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rule for the rate of usury, as this defender would have it, but an argument to move us to leave it, taken from our duty to our brother: as in the verse next before, there is another argument to the same effect, taken from our duty towards God. By duty we are bound to fear God. Ergo we must not take usury, because God hath forbidden it: by duty we are bound to preserve, and maintain the life of our neighbour: ergo, we must not take usury, because usury taketh from him that, wherewith he should maintain his life, his living, his goods. Whereby appeareth, that Cato's answer was not unreasonable, when being demanded what usury was, answered 
a Quid soenerare? quid hominem occidere. Cic. office l. 2.  manslaughter: And that Licinius complaint was not unjust, 
b Foenore trucidantur. Liv. Dec. 1. l. 6.  that men were slain with usury. Now saith this defender, I may take usury so my brother may live: let him say also, I may take usury so I fear God; and then all usurers will be excused: for many of them counterfeit such holiness, that they will be taken for men that fear God; and have ever the fear of God in their mouths; for as a reverend father said publicly of late, there are of our holiest brethren which are usurers.  
Secondly, this is a bad consequence: I must not take usury of a decayed brother, who if he pay usury cannot live, ergo, I may take usury of the rich, because they may live notwithstanding they pay usury. Will the special reason of a special law, given in regard of some one circumstance, abridge & restrain the general law? Will the exaggeration of a sin in the highest degree make all those actions no sin, which come not to that degree? God forbiddeth a man, which hath bought an Israelitish maid, to sell her to a stranger, giving this reason, 
a Exod. 21.7.  because he hath abused her: Was it therefore lawful for such a master to sell an Israelitish maid, if he had not abused her? No, 
b Levit. 25.42.  that is unlawful too. Because it is an heinous offence to steal a cow from a man, that hath no more to live by: is it not a sin to steal a sheep from a man, that hath thousands, and can live well enough for all that, and perhaps never miss it? The defender might have seen a more general reason of the forbidding of usury in this place of Leviticus: for first, vers. 37. he setteth down a general law: Thou shalt not give him (that is thy brother) thy money upon usury, nor thy victual upon lone. Then vers. 38. he giveth this reason, for I am the Lord thy God, which brought you (both the lender and the borrower) out of the land of Egypt. Now he brought the rich, as well as the poor out of the land of Egypt, and therefore neither rich nor poor (though they have no other way to live but by a stock of money) may give their money upon usury either to rich, or poor. 
defender.   
Thirdly, for that the increase of victuals, and consequently of corn, is as well forbidden, as of money, wherefore corn ordinarily increasing in these Countries 100 60. 30. fold, if it be lawful to take increase of corn, it is lawful to take increase of money; But the former is not denied of some that are the greatest scourgers of usury: And therefore, even in their judgement, if they will be like themselves the other may not be denied.  
This proposition it is lawful to take increase of corn, is amphibological, and ambiguous: 
Answer.  if he mean, that it is lawful for the husbandman to receive the increase of his corn that he hath sowed, as his mentioning of the increase of 100 fold doth import, it is most true; but it will never be fitted to our question of usury: for there is no mutuation, or lending, but metaphorical. If he mean, that a man finding nothing but corn, and putting it to another to sow to parts, may take his part of that which cometh of it; be it less than he put out, or as much, or more; & so if more, to take increase, it is also true, but it is nothing to usury; for it is plain Society. If he mean, that a man lending corn to another, and the borrower sow the same, the lender may covenant with him to have his Principal again, and some increase for the use; he must prove that true. For I deny it, and, until he prove it, say it is unlawful, because it is usury. And yet this is nothing to that kind of increase, which is spoken of in this 37. verse; for that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 increase of food. And indeed it followeth consequently, that the forbidding the increase of food, forbiddeth also the increase of corn borrowed to make food of: but that differeth much from corn sowed for increase; which may be as well for merchandise, as for the sowers spending. Again, with sowing it hath an aptness to increase naturally, which by sowing reducitur ad actum: which aptness spending corn, victual, and money hath not: for the making of that corn apt to spend, spoileth it of his aptness to increase. So here is a suit of non sequiturs. Increase of victual is forbidden: Ergo, increase of corn sowed is forbidden. Corn sowed increaseth 100 fold: Ergo, it is lawful to take usury of money: or, it is lawful to take increase of corn sowed: Ergo, it is lawful to take usury of money. What media will he have to tie these together?  

defender.  The lawfulness whereof may appear by the example of joseph. Gen. 47.13. Who for food once given, took a fift for ever.  

Answer.  The Relative (whereof) is referred by him to the increase of corn, as I take it, not to the increase of money. So the argument is this. joseph for food once given took a fift for ever; Ergo, it is lawful to take increase of corn; and consequently of money. I answer, first the Antecedent is false. It was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 food, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frumentum, bread-corn, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seed, or seede-corne that joseph gave the Egyptians, as Moses showeth, Gen. 47.23. Again joseph's contract, and bargain was not to have his Principal again, and increase beside, as in usury is requisite: but the Principal was transferred away for ever by that contract, in consideration of that fift part; which is contrary to mutuating, and lending. Lastly, he did not only give them seed, but also did let them land to sow it upon, and to occupy withal; else their seed without land would have done them no good: for land they had none, unless they farmed it of Pharaoh: for Joseph had 
a Gen. 47.20.  bought all their land for Pharaoh, and had 
b 21.  put them clean out of possession; so they took land again in 
c 24.  farm; and afterward by statute it was granted unto them 
d 26.  in fee-farm, and they became Emphytentae, fee-farmers to Pharaoh. Now letting of land in fee-farm will be a slender patronage of putting of money, victual, or corn to usury. This consequence will never be proved: Joseph did let to the Egyptians land with a stock of corn with it in fee-farm, ergo it is lawful to put corn, victual, and money to usury. And mark his corollary.  
Out of which place it further appeareth, 
defender.  how ungroundedly out of Aristotle the increase upon lone of money is condemned as unnatural, because, forsooth, money begetteth not money; whereas the Scripture condemneth indifferently the increase of food, as well as of money: for notwithstanding it increaseth not, yet being well, and wisely employed, turned and returned, it causeth greater increase than other things which are lent, which without employment, and manuring will bring no increase; no not the ground itself of other commodities the best and surest.  
Indeed out of this speech it appeareth how ungroundedly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Answer.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this defender argueth, and reasoneth: here is his argument in the best fashion that I can bring it into: God condemneth the increase of victual, as well as of money: but victual though it do not increase of itself, or lying still, yet being employed it doth increase, and that increase is lawful to be taken; ergo, money though not increasing itself, yet being well, and wisely employed, turned, and returned, it causing increase, that increase likewise is lawful to be taken. I deny in his antecedent that victual doth increase, for I cannot devise how it can, unless it be by miracle, as the woman of sarepta's meal, and oil; or as the Disciples loaves and fishes: for victual hath no aptness to increase, no more than money hath. How long shall a man keep a loaf or bread, a gallon of Beer, a pound of Butter, or Cheese, a stone of Mutton, or Beef before it increase? or what may he do to it to make it increase? If he mean that the victuler maketh increase, and gain by uttering his victual, that must be by selling, which contract he cannot make of money; for money is the price, which 
a Eccles. 10.19.  answereth to all; and therefore cannot be the ware, and merchandise too. If he mean of corn; indeed that hath a vegetative, augmentative, and increasing nature, apt to increase; but being turned to victual, and made edible, as parched, sodden, grinded, it is deprived, and spoiled of that nature, and aptness. If he mean of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seed-corn, he is clean beside the law, and out of the question; neither will his comparison hold: for money hath not in it naturally such an aptness to increase, as all kind of seed hath: do what you can to money, you cannot make that increase, or more to grow of it, unless it be by Alchemy, which they call the art of Multiplication: and whether it be lawful to take increase for money put to the Alchemists, I leave to them which know the virtue of the Philosopher's stone, and have skill in that art. But without Alchemy I am sure it cannot be. Well more money may be added to it, but that more never came of it, or grew of it: for it hath no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, potentiam, faculty, aptness, or nature to increase, or to yield a profit, and commodity besides the thing, as ground hath, which he produceth for example: but how wisely a blind man may see: for who did ever lend or mutuate ground? Ground, because it hath a natural aptness to yield profit, and commodity, so that the use may be severed from the thing, may be commodated; & consequently, something being paid for that use, it may be hired. Now such a use there cannot be of money, as money; of gold, as gold; of silver, as silver, perhaps there may be; but not of coin, or money. And if there be any such use, which may be transferred to the borrower, the property remaining in the lender, it cometh not within our question, or the contract of mutuating. Now here our defender produceth two excellent properties of money.  
First, 
defender.  money hath a property of continuance without danger of perishing, which cattle, and other things subject to death, and diseases have not.  
Our Saviour Christ telleth us otherwise; 
Answer.  whom this defender, be he never so great, and learned a man, must give me leave rather to credit. For dehorting us from the treasuring up of earthly treasures (whereof coin is no small part) he useth one argument taken from the nature of it, subject of itself to corruption, 
a Math. 6.28.  namely to rust. And S. james telleth us plainly, that silver and gold are subject to rust, and canker: 
b Jam. 5.3.  Your gold, and silver is cankered, and the rust of them shall be a witness against you. 
c Math. 6.28.  Another argument is taken from the danger of them, because they are subject to stealing, not only if a man carry them in his purse, or keep them in a chest; but even if he wall them within a stone wall. The thieves dig through, and steal. And 
d Act. 8.  S. Peter telleth Simon Magus, Thy money perish with thee. Therefore he did not think that money was not subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to perishing, as this defender doth. Now compare it to cattle, and it is far inferior in the property of continuance. For though cattle be subject to diseases, & death too: yet they are by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 auctificous, and multiplicative, and therefore leave other in their room behind them; whereby they have indeed a property of continuance, and almost of perpetuity. But grant that money had such a property of continuance without danger of perishing; is it therefore lawful to take usury for lending of it? Why, who borroweth money to keep it continually, or to hoard it up? Or who is so mad as to pay usury for this use, and property of it? The poor user or borrower cares for no more, then if it will last telling it to his Creditor.  
The second property of it is; 
defender.  that having money there is no commodity which a man may not have: so that though money be barren in one respect, yet it is more fruitful than other commodities in regard of a greater and an oftener burden it is delivered off to the comfort of them, that know how to use it.  
First, this is not generally true; 
Answer.  as the Spaniards found by experience, who coming into the West Indies, had many commodities of the Country, which they needed, brought unto them by the Inhabitants: to whom they would offer for them money, goodly pieces of gold coin, but the Indians taking the money, would put it into their mouths, and spit it out to the Spaniards again, signifying that they could not eat it, or make use of it; and therefore would not part with their commodities for money, unless they had such other commodities as would serve their use. Secondly though money commonly be the mean for all commodities, and do answer to all; yet this use of money cannot be severed from the thing itself, that we may make that use of it, and keep the thing, or the property in the thing too. For indeed it is the very right use of money, and this use of it, is the spending of the very thing: and therefore can never be made of that thing but once; for money cannot be spent twice, nor be twice delivered of young, save only in Usury: which kind of birth, if he mean here, when he speaketh of the great and often burden, which money is delivered of, he doth but principium petere: for the lawfulness of that kind of birth, is the thing in question. Now than the use of money being the spending of the thing, shall I make even, and equal recompense for the thing, and give for the use beside? No, but one thing answereth to both, they both being but one thing, and not severable. Because a pot of beer hath a property to cool thirst; shall I give a pot of beer again for the beer I borrowed, and somewhat beside for the property of it, to cool my thirst? Because ten pounds in money will buy a horse worth ten pounds, must I answer ten pounds for the money, and ten shillings more for the property of the money to buy a horse? This is the comfort which the defender speaketh of, 
Job 16.2.  A miserable comforter are you, may the poor borrower say.  

defender.  Now where in this text vers. 36. There is beside the word of biting, another word which signifieth increase in the 37. verse, it is evident that the word of biting was ascribed to the money, and the word of increase restrained to the food. So that they do evidently force the words of this place, which apply the word of increase unto money, which is here by the holy Ghost carried only unto food. Wherefore also the Prophets being interpreters of the Law, it followeth that the places of Ezech. 18. and Proverb. 28. where both these words are used of biting, and multiplying: aught to be so expounded, as the biting be referred to the money, and the word of multiplication to the food, or victuals, and not to money as is commonly done. If the holy Ghost had in any place forbidden the increase of money, as he forbiddeth the biting of the brother in all things, as well money, as victuals; then there had been reason to have applied the increase to money, but the Scripture not forbidding that any where, it is an overreach so to apply it.  
This evasion is both untrue, and also idle, 
Answer.  and unable to do him good. It is untrue, that it is an overreach to apply Tarbith to money, or that Tarbith is restrained only to victual. For the word which the holy Ghost vers. 37. carrieth expressly to victual, is not Tarbith, as he belying the holy Ghost telleth us; but Marbith, which is a word of more general signification, applied to 
a 1. Sam. 2.  issue of body, increase of children, 
b 2. Chron. 9  increase of wisdom, and so forth. But the word Tarbith which is used vers. 36. and Prov. 28. and Ezech. 18. & 22. is the proper name of usury, and signifieth nothing else: so that Tarbith, and Neshech be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Hebrues call them) that is Synonyma, words of one signification, though they differ in Etymology, and origination: as the Latin usura, and foenus be: which though the one come of faetus, the other of usus, yet signify one, and the same thing, which we call usury: as appeareth in Tully, 
c Cic. de Senect.  terra nunquam sine usura reddit quod accepit; sed aliàs minore, plaerumque majore cum faenore: and so we have in English use, and lone. And this is a usual figure in Hebrew, as their Doctors often note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to double the thing with two words. And that Tarbith and Neshech be Synonyma may appear by many reasons. First whereas in this place Moses restraineth Neshech to money; yet Deutr. 23.19. he stretcheth it to victual also; which argueth that Neshech is generally of all things as well as of money. Secondly, the Chaldaean Paraphrast, when Neshech, and Tarbith be put together, as he translateth Tarbith always ribbitha, which come both of one primitive, have one etymon, and are one word differing only in Dialect, but Neshech he translateth sometimes Chibbulja, sometime Nuchtetha: yet Deut. 23.19. he translateth Neshech also Ribbitha: showing plainly, that he took Tarbith to be the same which Neshech is, and as general as it, and of money as well as it: for Ribbitha, and Tarbith differ in nothing but in dialect. Thirdly, as the Verb signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foenerare, to put to usury, in Hebrew is conjugatum to Neshech: so in Chaldaean, which is but a dialect of the Hebrew, it is conjugatum to Tarbith, which maketh them plain Synonymaes. Fourthly the Hebrew Doctors make them Synonyma, & say Tarbith is the same which Neshech is, as Mordochai Nathan in his jair Nathib saith, Tarbith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same which Neshechis. Fiftly, the Septuagint do always translate Neshech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Tarbith are all one, and have one and the same reason of their Etymology, as before hath been showed. And so likewise doth the vulgar Latin translation translate Neshech sometime usuram, and sometime foenus: Now faenus also is all one with Tarbith, 
Nonn. Marcel. de propr. Serm.  and hath the same reason of the Etymology, being so called quia foetus est mutui accepti; and so is Tarbith, as before hath been showed. Sixtly, there can be no reason given why Tarbith should be attributed to victual, but by the same reason it may be attributed to money: for the nature of victual, and money in this respect is all one, and the one doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, parere, increase, as well as the other; both naturally unfruitful, and barren; in usury both made to yield fruit contrary to nature: the damage to the borrower in both alike. For what odds whether I lend you ten pound of butter to have as much again, & one pound over for lone: or lend you ten groats in money to buy it withal, to have as much money again, and one pound of butter over, or one groat over for the lone: and so for all other kind of victuals. And this evenness, and equality in the nature of the things (namely that increase is alike lawful, or unlawful in the one as in the other) the defender himself confesseth. For seeing by his own construction that Marbith, increase above the principal lent, is directly forbidden even in victual, he cometh in with his old limitation, and qualification, so it be such as doth not oppress him, but relieve him: which is the self-same limitation, and qualification with which usury of money is allowed by him: & without which the usury of money is condemned by him. So that howsoever he would blear the eyes of the ignorant with a distinction of the words, yet he maketh the things all one, that is, alike lawful, or unlawful; and so indeed maketh his goodly distinction merely void, and vain. Now to prove that the increase of victual so qualified is lawful, he useth this argument.  

defender.  The word which is termed increase signifieth multiplication, which is not always where more is taken then was given, but where much is given: it being more to multiply then to increase, as appeareth, Deut. 17.16. where it being forbidden to the King to multiply horses, yet thereby is not forbidden, that the King should have many horses, but that he should not exceed and go beyond measure. For it is manifest, that the good and religious Kings in their great victories against the Church's enemies, having many horses, reserved some for their own use. And therefore if such an increase of victuals be taken as the poor may well live of, I see not how it is simply unlawful. Where also may be recalled back again the example of the Egyptians, which albeit they were brought to extreme poverty, yet received corn for the yielding of an annual increase for ever: and that at the hands of joseph, which governed the land in justice, and was beneficial to all the subjects of the same.  

Answer.  All the copies of this book, which I have seen, have (when more is given) but I take his meaning to be, when more is taken, that is, overmuch, and excessive: which appeareth to be his meaning, both by his comparison, that to multiply is more than to increase, and also by his testimony alleged out of Deut. 17. Now this acception, and signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the holy Ghost useth, Deut. 17. and whereof Tarbith is derived, is untrue. For it doth not import an excess, or multiplication beyond measure, but an increase in any measure, that is, more than that, which it is compared withal, be it itself, or another thing; For it is opposite to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 less; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is less: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to grow more, or increase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to grow less, or decrease: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make more: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make less: as you may see, Exod. 16.18. Num. 26.54. Hag. 1.6. and other places, where there is a bare comparison made by these words, without any respect of excess any way. Therefore, when an excess beyond measure is signified, the word is either doubled, as in multiplying I will multiply. Gen. 3.16. & 22.17. or else some word of excess is added: as in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 valde, over much, or exceedingly, verse 17. which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood in the rest, according to the exigence of the circumstances; else absurdities would follow. This place yieldeth rather arguments against his assertion, than anything in favour of it. As first, 
1. Cor. 7.2.  God forbiddeth to multiply wives: but all increase of wives is unlawful above his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own one: Ergo, God forbidding Marbith, increase of victuals; all increase of victuals is unlawful above his own Principal. Secondly, the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 harbeh, to increase, or multiply is attributed to money, Ergo, the noun Tarbith which is conjugatum to it, is attributed to money. And this may stand for a seventh argument, to prove that Tarbith is a synonyma to Neshech, and is of money, as well as of victual.  
Secondly, his evasion is idle, and would do him no good. For grant that this distinction of his were true, that in the phrase of Moses the word Tarbith were restrained only to that one kind of usury which was in victual, and never used for that kind which was in money, what would he get by it? Surely if Tarbith had never been mentioned, the law of usury had not been one whit enlarged; and being mentioned, it is not one ace abated, or restrained: for the word Neshech is large, forcible, and effectual enough against usury, as before hath been showed. And so for his recalling back the example of the Egyptians to this purpose, I desire the reader to remember what hath been said of it before.  

defender.  In Deuteronomie 23.19. he forbiddeth to lend to usury generally to any Jew, but there expressly in all those interdictes he useth the word of biting only; a thing which is confessed simply unlawful to be used to any man at any time, which is also the answer to the place of Psal. 15. where the word biting is also used.  

Answer.  This is no good answer, for the word doth not signify biting, but only usury, as before hath been showed.  

defender.  There followeth Ezech. 18.8.13.17. In all which places the general which is forbidden is the oppression of the poor: of which general, this is one special of biting, and multiplication: the one, as hath been said, by money, the other by victuals, and other things. Wherefore if usury be so tempered, and qualified that it oppress not the poor; it is plain that it is not forbidden in that place: much less if it be so measured as it doth greatly comfort, and relieve him. Moreover, as he forbiddeth usury there, so doth he in like degree forbidden the retaining of a pledge for debt. Wherefore if there may be such a debtor, whose Creditor may keep the pledge laid down with him, until he be satisfied of the debt: there may be also such a borrower, as the lender may without breach of the law take lone of him. But the former of these two is confessed, therefore the later cannot be denied.  
Usury is not a species of any thing going before in that place of Ezechiel. 
Answer.  Neither is oppression of the poor any genus there. In the 8. verse there goeth next before it the exercise of liberality in feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked; whereto Usury is an enemy, and therefore next forbidden: and next after it followeth committing of iniquity, and not executing true judgement between man, and man: which in the 8. verse are coupled with it, and which may be done to other than to the poor. In the 13. verse he puts it next to Idolatry, and abomination: and therefore he cannot make Usury a species of the oppression of the poor, unless he make them so too. But this evasion hath before been answered; and so have his other evasions of biting, & keeping of a pledge.  
Proverb. 28.8. 
defender.  He that increaseth his substance by biting (which must be understood through money, as before hath been showed) or by multiplication (which must be understood by victuals, or such like, as there also is set down) shall gather it for him, that will show grace to the poor. Which if it be the true exposition of this place, the usury before defended remaineth still untouched. But if this exposition be not admitted; then the latter end of the verse, which is an exposition of the former part thereof, declareth, that this is to be meant of such as take increase of the poor, & oppress them by lending. For the Proverb seemeth not obscurely to set forth this sense; that that which hath been by a wicked covetous man taken away from the poor, shall be by a righteous liberal man restored to the poor again. Thirdly, it must be observed, that this Proverb, etc.  

Answer.  His distinction of Tarbith, and Neshech, which himself doubteth of, and distrusteth here, hath been answered before. His other evasion, that the later part of the verse is an exposition of the former, is contrary to the rules of interpretation; for the one containeth the sin, and the other the punishment. And it is but a shallow conceit, and forced construction, that the Usurer got his goods of the poor, because his successor will bestow them upon the poor; whereas Solomon speaketh generally. He that increaseth his riches by usury.  

defender.  Thirdly, it must be observed, that the Proverb speaketh of him, whose trade is to gain by usury, and whose great wealth riseth no other way then from thence, and so consequently is without the compass of that usury, which by the answer to the question is maintained.  

Answer.  Though the defender say it must be, I think it may not be. For the Proverb saith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that increaseth, or augmenteth his substance, or maketh it more. Now if a man hath gotten 10000 pounds by other ways, and taken but 10. pounds, or 10. shillings for usury once in his life, doubtless he doth thereby increase & augment his substance so much, and make it so much more; and therefore comes within the condemnation of this sentence, though he make no occupation of usury, nor have any great wealth arising by it. But I marvel, what is in the foresaid answer, to shut out him whose trade is to gain by usury, out of the compass thereof. For truly I can see nothing there, but, so that I lend only to the rich, to purchase or compass great matters withal, he may lawfully make a trade of it, and have his greatest wealth arising by it.  
There is one place more in the old Testament from which M.C. gathereth an argument to prove the lawfulness of usury, as a thing in his own nature indifferent; namely, jer. 15.10. which he produceth in his answer to the fift question, which question being the last, containeth an objection against the lawfulness of borrowing upon usury, in these words. Lastly, 
M. C.  when the Prophet jeremy saith, I have neither lent upon usury, nor any hath lent to me upon usury, and yet they curse me, whether the word usury expressed there twice, have one and the same sense and signification in either places, or in the first place to be taken in evil part, but not in the second. To this M.C. answereth thus: The root of the word in both places is one, and the same, and in neither place taken in evil part, neither in the signification of lending upon usury; nor in the signification of borrowing upon usury, but is of a thing indifferent of itself. And it is so far, that that place doth make any thing against the lawfulness of usury, that it rather giveth some strength to it. For the Prophet declareth his injury to be so great, that he did not give them any cause, nay not so much as any occasion justly to hate him; considering that he did abstain from that, which was not simply unlawful: whereas if to lend, or borrow upon usury had been simply unlawful, their unreasonableness had not so greatly appeared.  
In this answer M. C. bewrayeth some want of skill in the Original tongue. For the word which the Prophet jeremy useth, doth never signify Usury, or Vsurarious contract; but is quite another thing: and therefore his indifferency of the practice of usury cannot be proved, or helped by that. The interpretation of the place is: I did not credit them, nor they did credit me. But it was not such a kind of creditor, and debtor, crediting, and owing, which is usual amongst us, and according to the course of our law: but such a creditor cui acquirebatur jus in bona debitoris: which had acquired, and gotten a right unto the goods of the debtor, that he might seize the same to his proper use, and detain them without further course of law (for so much as I can find in the jews judicials) but only of his own authority, & 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  handfasting, as Moses speaketh, Deut. 15. till he were satisfied his debt. So it was not in the nature of an execution, whereby the thing is transferred to the Creditor absolutely, without liberty to the debtor to redeem it: neither in the nature of a bare debt, by which with us the Creditor hath no right to the debtor's goods; neither of an arrest, or distress which requireth a course of law, and yet doth not transfer the property, or use of the thing presently to the Creditor; but it is a thing of another nature, after the judicial law of that state, whereby the Creditor had authority to take any of the goods of the Debtors for his debt, and to detain the same till he was satisfied; only provided that the Creditor might not draw latch, or enter into the Debtors house to take what he thought good; 
Deut. 24.10.12.13.  but to take such as the Debtor could, and would spare: and also provided, that if it were the only garment of a poor man, he restored it to him when he needed it to cover his nakedness. Such a Creditor is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Prophet's wife feared would come and seize her two sons: 
2. Reg. 4.7.  Wherefore Elisha furnished her with Oil to sell and satisfy him. 
1. Sam. 22.2.  And in danger of such Creditors stood the men that fled to David: and such a debt was to be remitted in the year of Jubilee, 
Deut. 15.  the Creditors being forbidden to touch, or seize the Debtor, or his goods. And such a kind of crediting to the poor is against the law of charity, and overthroweth the office of mutuating, or lending, and therefore prohibited by God, as well as usury. If thou lend money unto my people (I mean) to the 
Exod. 22.25.  poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a Creditor. Not meaning a plain Creditor, for that must he be, so long as the other was in his debt, and did owe him the thing lent; but such a Creditor as I have described. 
Nehem 5.7.  And therefore Nehemias condemned it in the rich jews, and commandeth release thereof both in restoring the goods seized, 
10.11.3.4.  as lands, Vineyards, Olive-yardes, houses: as also in remitting the debt, were it money, or wares, as Corn, Wine, Oil, which appeareth before to be the matter for which they grew in debt. And by this short discourse the defender also may see his error, who maketh Nosheh, to be all traffic and negatiation; whereas it is but one kind of crediting, as hath been described, the debtor whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obaratus) is called periphrasticons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Out of the new Testament there is alleged one place, Luke 16.35. where our Saviour exhorteth to Christian liberality toward those that want, and to true brotherly love, whose nature is in her benefits to respect the good of other, 
1. Cor. 10.4.  not her own: and for that part thereof which consisteth in mutuating, or lending, our Saviour setteth down the rule thus (as S. Matthew recordeth it) And from him that would borrow of thee, 
Math. 6.42.  turn not away: expressing the same, which Moses in his rule for mutuating delivereth thus, 
Deut. 15.9.  Let not thy eye be evil against thy brother. S. Luke setteth the rule down thus: lend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not red in any other place of the New Testament, and in other Greek writers it signifieth to be in wan-hope, or out of hope, with an accusative case, as is here, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be out of hope of the sick man, or to despair of the sick man. In which sense if we take it here, it seemeth that our Saviour respecteth that wan-hope, or despair of the principal in regard of the nearness of the year of freedom, wherein there was to be a plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and general release of all debts, which despair Moses in his rule of mutuating mentioneth: Beware that there be no wicked thought (of despairing thy debt) in thee, that thou shouldest say, the seventh year is at hand, the year of freedom, therefore it grieveth thee to look on thy poor brother, and lend him nothing. Which year of freedom, when our Saviour spoke this, was at hand, as I have showed in my book of the ground of Chronologie. But the Interpreters do take this word here in another signification, in which elsewhere it is never read, in this sense, lend, hoping for nothing of them: so that the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth to be taken out of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former verse, and if you lend to them, whom you hope to receive of. Now what was that, which our Saviour would not have them to hope for of the borrower? The Principal? or the like kindness in pleasuring them with lending again, or such offices, when they had need? Not the Principal, as I take it, for these reasons. First, because than it should not be lending, but giving. Now our Saviour doth distinguish these two evidently: Give to him that asketh; 
Math. 6.42.  and from him that would borrow turn not away: saith S. Matthew. Give to every one that asketh, 
Luk. 6.35.  and lend hoping for nothing, saith S. Luke. The difference of these two is, that in giving, the thing is quite transferred away, without any restoring of it again, or hoping for it: in lending, the thing transferred away is to be restored again. Secondly, in the end of the former verse, in the example of the thing forbidden, there is expressed what it is, which in lending, we may not hope to receive, namely, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the like. Now the Principal is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the like; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same in specie, as before hath been showed. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth the requiting the kindness and good turn, in doing the like again. For that which the Latins say par pari refer, to do him as good a turn: the Greeks' say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Col. 4.1.  or requiting, Paul would have Masters yield their servants, that they requite their diligence, and faithfulness with due wages, and kindness. Thirdly, the relation of the other Christian offices here expressed by our Saviour doth import so much: If you love them which love you; if you do good to them which do good to you, and so, if you lend to them of whom ye hope to receive the like, that is, which lend to you: and proportionably in the precepts; love your enemies, which love you not; do good to them, which do not good to you: lend to them, which lend not to you. This sense of this place doth utterly overthrow usury. For if in lending we must not respect, or expect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the like good turn again of the borrower; much less may we compact for usury. For usury is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more, which is contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the excess: and he which forbiddeth the like, doth rather forbid that which is more. Now let us see what he saith against it.  
This place maketh as little against usury, 
defender.  as that which doth least. For, First of all our Saviour speaketh not at all of any negotiation, or contracts for gain, but only of relieving the poor, as appeareth in the 30. verse.  
It is true that he speaketh not of any negotiation, or contracts for gain, 
Answer.  but of relieving the poor; but he speaketh of giving, and lending, which are contractus gratuiti, free contracts, or else the nature of them is marred: which two kinds of communicating goods, giving, and lending, are not only allowed by God, as the contracts of buying, selling, setting, and hiring, and such like are, but also are straightly and severely commanded by God toward the poor and needy, having many threatenings menazed, if they be neglected, and many goodly promises annexed, if they be exercised according to God's commandment, and therefore our Saviour would have them exercised, & practised most freely, even without all hope of any recompense. But it is not true, that he speaketh there only of relieving the poor: for he speaketh in the same verse of loving one another, and of doing good one to another: which duties are not restrained only to the relieving of the poor; neither doth any such thing appear in the 30. verse. Whereas he speaketh of giving them that ask, which commonly indeed is of the poor: so he joineth wthi it, and from him that taketh away thy goods from thee, ask them not again, which is more likely to be done of other, than the poor, neither doth it touch the relieving of the poor.  

defender.  Secondly, for that this, which is to be done, Christ commandeth to be done even to our enemies. Now there is no reason, or law of God that I should lend my money to mine enemy.  

Answer.  First, the words of the text have no such necessity of lending to our enemies; for enemies have relation to love, and therefore do not love: but lending hath relation to such as are not able to lend again. Yet by consequence it will follow from the text, that we must lend to our enemies; for we are commanded there to do as-much, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do good, verse 27. & 35. yea to do more a great deal than lending, that is, to love. For it is an easier thing to lend to an enemy, than to love him. And there is great reason that we should lend to our very enemies, because God did more than lend to us being more his enemies. But I pray you how doth his conclusion follow hence? That which he forbiddeth to be done, he commandeth to be done to an enemy; Ergo, This place maketh nothing against usury. I understand neither the antecedent, nor the consequence: that which is forbidden to be done is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hope for the like: doth he command this, that is, to hope for the like of our enemies? This I understand not: but this I understand out of this place, as he expoundeth it: It is not lawful to hope for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the like, of our enemies to whom we lend: Ergo, it is a great deal less lawful to take usury of our friends, and neighbours.  
Thirdly, for that I am commanded to lend him, 
defender.  although I were in apparent danger, or rather manifest to lose all, even the Principal: for the Greek word signifieth to look for nothing of that thou lendest; which is not only proved out of the nature of the word, but also out of the circumstances of the place: for verse 34. he teacheth that one sinner dareth to another to receive like, or as much again.  
What the Greek word signifieth, 
Answer.  and what the circumstances of the place bear, you have heard better reasons before, than this defenders bare word: and therefore I say no more, till I see more. But to his consequence: Doth this place make nothing against usury, because, you are commanded to lend frankly, & freely without hoping, or looking for the principal again? I think nothing maketh more against it: 
a If our neighbour must be helped even without any respect had of receiving the Principal again: much more are usury compacts forbidden, Beza in Luc. 6.35.  For much less may you compact for certain gain above the Principal. The speech of our Saviour Christ in this place is indefinite, and in the other member, which is brother to it, and more than it, it is universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to every one that asketh.  
To make some show, that this place maketh nothing against usury: he taketh upon him to answer two objections, which he imagineth may be made here.  
If happily you say, 
defender.  we must lend to the poor oftentimes without hope of recompense, yea, with hazard of the Principal: Ergo, we may not lend to the rich, of whom recompense may be looked for again: non sequitur. Christ commandeth us to call the poor to our table, which cannot call us again, Ergo, we may not invite our rich friends, which can invite us again: non sequitur.  

Answer.  And to conclude, Ergo, we may lend to the rich upon usury, Minùs sequitur.  

defender.  If you say, if he meant of relieving the poor, he would rather have spoken of giving, then of lending. I answer, that there is oftentimes more charity showed to a poor man in lending him somewhat, than in giving: for there are many poor, which being ashamed to beg, and receive an alms, would yet willingly borrow a piece of money, with mind to repay it, etc.  

Answer.  Grant this (for God commandeth lending to the poor, as well as giving, and they are both very necessary and beneficial to the poor, in their several places) yet will it not follow, that it is any charity to take usury, 
Basil. hom. in usurer.  or relief to pay usury, for that which is lent to poor, or rich. Basil advising them that were unable to live, unless they took upon usury, rather to beg; and they objecting that they were ashamed to beg; answereth, that it is more shame 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to take upon usury, and deceive: for (saith he) any thing is more 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  tolerable than to take upon usury. 
c Plut. de non foes.  And Plutarch having reckoned up many ways and trades for men to live by, concludeth, that of all those, none is so servile or shameful, as to hear this voice of the Usurer, Pay that thou owest. And whereas many object, that they cannot live without taking upon usury: Basil answereth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: There are many devises for a man to live by, many occasions: and Plutark, dost thou not see, how many ways the land, and how many means the sea doth offer thee to live by? And what kind of charity it is, and how much better than giving, to lend upon usury, Basil showeth in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a bad giving to both, to wit, the giver, and the receiver, bringing loss & damage, to the ones goods, and to the others soul. For the further defence, and maintaining of usury, out of the new Testament he produceth three arguments.  
1 The Apostles of our Saviour Christ in their sundry catalogues of sin, 
defender.  do never once make any special mention of usury in all their writings, whereby groweth a strong presumption of the lawfulness thereof. For in all likelihood they would not have kept silence therein, if their predecessors the Prophets had laboured so much against it, as they are supposed to have done by such as draw the testimonies abovesaid to the condemnation thereof: specially seeing it is well known that in the Roman Empire, under which they preached usury, and lone for money was much used, and that as lawful, to the value of twelve in the hundredth. At the least James, Peter, and John would not likely have forgotten it, which wrote particularly to the Jews much given to that kind of gain.  
First I deny this consequence: 
Answer.  There is no special mention of the forbidding of it by name in the new Testament: ergo it is lawful: for there are many breaches of the Moral law, yea many gross sins, which are not expressly mentioned, and forbidden by name in the New Testament: as namely profaning of the Sabbath day: all the degrees of Incest save one; removing the neighbour's mark: taking for pledge, or upon execution a poor man's only weed; removing of land marks: Polygamy; controversy, etc. 2. It is forbidden in the old: and the new giveth no enlargement to sin. 3. Neither is the taking of usury of a poor man, that is in never so great distress, forbidden by name in the new Testament, and therefore by this argument it should be also lawful, contrary to the assertion of M.C. who affirmeth it to be a breach of the moral law, and unlawful. And yet by consequence usury is sufficiently forbidden in the new Testament, as the learned 
a Basil. hom. ad usur. Ambros. de Tobia. l. 1. c. 15. Hier. in Ezech. 18. Conc. lat. p. 16. Tit. de usura. Theses Wittenb. Melancthon. etc.  Divines both of ancient time, and of latter ages do acknowledge: 
b Nazi. de theol. l. 5.  and those things which are collected out of the Scripture, are as well, as those things which are written in the Scripture, as Nazianzene said, and they come under the second member of his quadripartite division there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which are in the Scripture, and yet are not named there.  
Now for his surmise of likelihood for the lawfulness of usury in the Roman Empire, he should have showed how it is so well known, else we shall hardly believe it, upon these inducements. 
c Appian. de bello Civili. l. 1.  Appian affirmeth that the ancient Romans abhorred usury, and accounted it as cheating, and consening (as the Persians judged it full of deceit, and lying) and as a natural breeder of enmity, and discord, as the often and horrible 
a See Liu. dec. 1. l. 2. & l. 5.  troubles of that state, tumults, uproars, secessions, and seditions about usury do testify: which Usury grew, and was practised among them, as Appian there saith, 
Appian. de bello civili. l. 1. etc.  by evil custom, and corruption of the times; not by any law, for their laws were ever against it, either to restrain it, when by means of the power of the Usurers they could do no more; or utterly to abolish and forbidden it; and to punish the Usurers. 
b Livi. dec. 1. l. 7. de unciario soenore.  For in the year of Rome 398. M. Duellius, L. Menenius got a law made, that the rate of Usury should not exceed an ounce, that is, 8⅓ in the 100 which was the highest rate that they suffered by law unpunished: and within ten years after, it was brought to 
c Liu. ibid. soenus Semiuneiarium.  half an ounce, that is, to 4⅙ in the 100 and all debts were forestald to be paid at four payments in three years: and in the year 
d Liu. ibid.  411. the Aediles sued diverse usurers upon that Plebiscite, and had them 
e judicia tristia.  cruelly punished. But in the year 
f Liu. ibid. infine.  413. L. Genitius got a Plebiscite enacted 
g Ne foenerare liceret.  that no usury should be taken, as our late Noble King Edward the sixth ordained in his 
h Anno 5. Edw. 6. c. 20.  statute. Of this proceeding against usury from an ounce to nothing 
i Corn. Tac. annal. lib. 6.  Cornelius Tacitus, who lived near the Apostles times, maketh mention. The punishment of Usurers in that state, was to forfeit 
k Cato de re rust. l. 1. c. 1.  fourfold, whereas theft was punished with restoring only double, as Cato saith. The two 
l Liu. dec. 1. l. 10  Ogulnies being Aediles in the year 457. indicted diverse Usurers, and of that part of the forfeitures, which came to the common treasury, made divers great and memorable works, which you may see in Livy. Likewise 
a ●in. dec. 4. l. 5.  M. Tuccius, and P. junius Brutus, being Aediles in the year of Rome 502, made of the forfeitures of Usurers, golden chariots which they dedicated to jupiter, and twelve golden shields; and built a porch without the gate Trigemina: and the like severe proceeding against usurers was followed afterward by other good magistrates of that state. For 
b Appian. de ●lo civili. l. 1.  Asellius the Praetor punished them severely in the year 665: and a little before the time of Christ & his Apostles, 
c Cic. ad Attic. 5. epist. 20.  Tully had restrained it in Sicily; I. Caesar suppressed it generally by a law 
d Suet. in jul. ●es. c. 42.  that no usury should be taken, but the Principal only paid: and 
e Plut. in Lu●llo.  Lucullus in Asia (where the Apostles were most conversant) had utterly abandoned it, forestalling the debts in such sort, that the Creditor should receive the fourth part of the debtors revenues, till the Principal was paid, and if he exacted any usury he should lose both usury, and Principal; and so indeed was 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plat. de leg. l. 5.  Plato's law, which doubtless Lucullus remembered, and specially respected, being himself a great Academic, as 
g Plut. ibidem.  Plutarch reports him, and 
h Cic. quaest. Acad.  Tully makes him in his Academic questions. Therefore it is unlikely that Usury was so used in the Roman Empire, as he pretends. And for his other surmise, that the jews were so much given to it; and therefore that the Apostles which wrote particularly to them would not have forgotten it; I think that he slandereth the jews of that time, which did not practise usury so commonly, as he weeneth, but rather they offended in another kind, which S. james reprehended in them, namely, hoarding up of money till it rusted, and cankered: Your gold, and silver is cankered, 
jam. 5.3.  and the rust thereof, etc. Now had these jews been so much given to usury, as this defender would persuade us; doubtless the turning, and returning of their money, would have kept it from rusting, and cankering. Moreover, if the jews did practise usury in the Apostles times, yet it was but unto Aliens, (for even at this day they will not in any wise take usury of their brethren) and that usury was lawful, and commanded by Moses, 
Deut. 23.20.  To the Alien thou shalt usury. With whose ordinances the Apostles were loath to be over-busy, as appeareth by the fact of Paul, and the opinion of all the Apostles. Act. 21.20.21.  
2. 
defender.  Our Saviour Christ is so far from condemning it, that he seemeth to give some allowance to it: for reproving the servant which suffered his talon lie idle, he affirmeth, that he should have delivered it to the bankers, that the Lord might have received his own with increase. Whereby he doth speak of that gain, as of a lawful use of money: and withal seemeth to note, that if a man have no other lawful trade to occupy his money in; it were better for him to let it out to use, then to let it lie idle by him. For Parables, especially of our Saviour Christ do keep a comeliness, and seemliness of speech, fit for the persons, and the things, by whom, and of which they are spoken. This part of the Parable being the speech of a Master, which resembleth the Son of God himself, it is not like that our Saviour Christ would ascribe such a speech unto him, which representeth his own self, as should carry a note of an evil, and unhonest thing. Neither can it serve for an answer, that he compareth his coming to the sudden breaking of a thief into the house. For although theft be an unlawful act, that wherein Christ his coming only is compared, is not unlawful, nor condemned.  

Answer. Exod. 22.6.  No? Is not a thiefs privy breaking into a man's house in the night an act unlawful? Then Moses did ill to make the kill of such a man a lawful act, though he were taken but in breaking in, before he had stolen any thing, or done any harm. Our Saviour likewise setteth forth the carefulness, and forecasting, which Christians should have in compassing eternal life, 
Luk. 16.  to a servant, which to maintain his bodily life deceived his Master in his accounts, and saved somewhat to maintain his life; and the servant is commended for his wisdom in it in holy Scripture: doth our Saviour therein give any allowance to servants deceiving of their masters in their accounts? and yet the servants very deceiving of his master in his accounts, is that wherein the care of Christians is compared, to use the defenders words. That which is set down in the Parable is a thing of itself unlawful; but yet is often done by the men of the generation of this world; and therein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the decorum, and comeliness consisteth, and is observed: but that which is set forth, and represented by the Parable, is a thing lawful, namely, the increase of spiritual graces in the Church to the glory of Christ, gotten by the profitable employment of the gifts lent us of God. Thus much in defence of that answer. Yet that answer is not needful to this argument: for that usury, which those bankers used, was then a lawful trade, and action: namely, for the jews to lend upon usury to the aliens, and to receive usury of them: being made lawful in that case by God's law, being yet then in force: and therefore lawfully practised by the jews upon the aliens at that time when our Saviour uttered this Parable: unless he can prove that those bankers took usury of their brethren the jews; which they abhor to do at this day.  
3 There is not any of the properties of true love recited 1. Cor. 13, contrary to this usury. 
defender.  For even that which seemeth most to strike at it, Love seeketh not her own, may dwell together with usury which is here propounded: considering that I am bound to love my brother no otherwise than myself: and therefore not to seek him, and his, but that withal I have regard to me, and mine: both which are performed, when usury is so handled, that both the lender, and the borrower have reasonable gain, etc.  
But usury can never be so handled that the borrower may gain by paying it: 
Answer.  because whatsoever he payeth for usury, he payeth of his own goods, and doth so much diminish his own substance, as before hath been showed. And therefore this property of love doth strike usury dead, because the Usurer seeketh not only his own, and assureth it too; which love doth not; but also seeketh, and taketh that which is none of his own, but another man's: which appeareth most evidently by the position of this defender in the next words almost, where he saith, that in some case the lender may with a good conscience exact his Principal with increase, where the borrower hath gained nothing. Here is the usurers conscience indeed. And howsoever some pretend that they look but for part of the gain; lucrum de lucro, not nummum de nummo as he said before: yet when it cometh to the point, the borrower shall find this to be their conscience, that they will be sure to have their Principal, and lone too; gain he, or gain he not; yea though he lose by it too: as this defender showeth not obscurely in the next words. If the borrower be a man fallen in decay, the lender is bound in Christian duty not only not to exact his gain so covenanted, but even to forgive the Principal if his estate will bear it. Here be two exceptions concurring together, without which the lender may exact his covenanted gain, though the borrower lose by it. First, the borrower must be in decay; so that if he be not a decayed man, though he do lose by using their money, he must pay the usury. Secondly, the lender's state must bear it. And this I doubt he will hardly be persuaded, that his estate will bear the losing of his loan, for it is his living, he cannot spare it. For there is no kind of men that make themselves more needy than the Usurers do. So then in the winding up, the defender hath acquainted us with the scantling of the Usurer's conscience: and the borrower may assure himself to find it broader, and worse, pretend they what they will. But he miscalleth it when he calls it a good conscience: for what conscience is it, that an occupier shall be a rich man's servant, to occupy his stock for him, while he lieth idly at home, or followeth his pleasures: and by such crosses, as God layeth upon him, to lose by it; and yet not only to make his stock good, but also to yield him profit, and gain for it? Or what conscience is it, that saving but the Principal, he shall pay all the Principal to the Usurer, and bear himself all the loss of his own pains, industry, and skill; as dear to him, and commonly a great deal dearer, than the money to the Usurer? Nay, what conscience is it, that a man borrowing money of another, and venturing the same together with his industry, and labour, and time; and in the end by turning, and returning of it, gain somewhat toward his maintenance: then the Usurer shall come in, and take away the best part of his gain; never venturing any thing in the action? And yet all this is good conscience with Usurers; as this defender confesseth: and if he denied it, our lamentable experience testifieth it too apparently. But all men know, that it is contrary to natural and common equity, which requireth equality in the actions and dealings between man and man: not that the one have the ease and profit, and the other be at all the pain and peril; and the faithful know, that it is against God's will, who will not that one have ease, and other the burden. 2. Cor. 8.3. Now in that he said here that usury is not against the love of our neighbour; perhaps he meaneth (as some other object) that the Usurer doth, as he would be done unto: for, wanting money for his need, he would gladly give ten in the hundred; and thanks too. But this is easily answered. First, that rule of our Saviour Christ is not general, but restrainable to that will of man, which is ruled by nature, and God's law: otherwise many absurdities would follow. The Magistrate being in the malefactor's case would gladly be pardoned; Ergo, he must pardon the malefactor. Some man could be content, that another should lie with his wife, whom he cares not for himself: Ergo, he may lie with another man's wife, whom he loveth better. Some desperate fellow would be glad that another should kill him, as Saul was: Ergo, he may kill another. Secondly; the Usurer's assumption is false, for he doth not will that absolutely, or freely; but of force, and constraint; because without paying after that rate, he cannot have it: mary absolutely he would have it to serve his turn, and pay nothing, If Usurers be so impudent as to deny, that they had rather in their need and necessity have money lent them freely, than upon usury, their own practise doth bewray their will. I have had little conversment with them, or acquaintance with their doings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as ᵃ he said) & yet I can name for need half a dozen at the least of my knowledge (& si unum noris omnes noris: ken one ken all, as the Poet said) that needing money upon occasion, their own being out at use, have borrowed of other, whom they think will take no usury, at the least they will offer him none. And other I have known, and can prove, that not having in hand to pleasure a sure man, that would give good consideration; have made means to borrow the sum of a friend, for the time, and taken the usury himself, without allowing, or offering one penny of it to him whose the Principal was: & one of these being in a sort demanded it, took it in such dudgeon, that he was scarce good friends with the demander afterwards. Try it who will, and he shall hardly find one of a thousand (that is salomon's odds) that will pay usury himself, though he lend never so much upon usury, if there be any likely means for him to get it without.  
Thus hast thou gentle reader, my good will, and endeavour to maintain the truth of God set down in his word, against the common sin of usury: the heinousness, and horribleness whereof, other men have set forth at large: of whom among many excellent writers, I specially commend to thy reading, among the Philosophers, Plutarch, de non foenerando: among the ancient Fathers S. Basils' homily against Usurers: among latter Divines, Chemnicius common place, de paupertate, c. 5. & 6: among the Civilians, our own Doctor wilson's discourse upon Usury. I thought it enough for me here, to clear the doctrine of our Church, from the cavils and sophistications of this Usurie-defendor, set forth in this Pamphlet; which I know doth much harm in our Church, and Commonwealth, in dazzling the eyes of many, and drawing them into this notorious breach of God's law, which otherwise are Christianly minded, and have a care of their ways, and would be most loath for any gain to run into contempt of God's law. And now they having here, as a brief, and familiar, so I hope a sufficient answer, showing their errors without blazing, or blemishing their names; I humbly beseech the Lord to open the eyes both of the teachers, and defenders of Usury, and also of all the practisers of the same, that they may see their nakedness under their fig-leaves, and behold the foulness of their sin, under these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and vizards, and weigh the dangerousness of their estate; that they may in time repent, and so avoid the Lords dreadful judgements, which never can be avoided with the sophistical cavilles, and colourable gloss of man's wit.  Esay. 5.20. 
Woe be to them that call evil good, setting darkness for light, sour for sweet.