AN ESSAY TOWARDS The Deciding of the so much, and so long Controverted CASE OF USURY.  
IN A Problematical Paradox, discussed, whether it be lawful( and not rather sinful) for any man to Borrow, merely to increase his Wealth.  
As also, some Animadversions upon the Resolution of the Case of Usury, by a Reverend, and very Learned Doctor.  
By D. C.  Prov. 28.8. 
He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.  Psal. 15.1, 5. 
Lord, who shall abide in thy Tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy Hill? He that putteth not out his money to usury.  Luk. 6.35. 
Do good and lend, looking for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, &c.  
LONDON, Printed for John Rothwell, and are to be sold at the sign of the Fountain and Bear in Cheap-side. 1661.   

TO THE conscientious READER.  
WHat my Judgement formerly was ' and now is, concerning the Case propounded, I shall not much scruple to discover to the Reader, to the World: whiles I was young and low in Estate, not furnished with Tools for the Trade of Usury( though I bless God, as I had no ability to Lend, so had I no great need to Borrow) I was in my Judgement against all Usury,( as I believe, most in that condition are: none but either Prodigals or Proud persons, would borrow upon Usury, if they might borrow freely:) but when, by the blessing of God, I came to be Master of a little Money lying by me, new thoughts, or rather temptations began to molest me; For on the one side, I thought a Talent, though little, should not lie idle, but be improved: on the other, I was  told by some Casuists, that amongst other persons, Usury was permitted to Ministers or Scholars, who are not allowed, or want skill to drive any secular Trade: and by some not meanly both learned, and pious men, that to lend to wealthy men, leaving it free to the Borrower, to give what profit he please, without any compact, was very lawful: Hereupon I was too easily persuaded to venture on this way, yet but a little, and for a little time; for finding so much said against Usury in Scripture, and by men of all Nations and Professions, I could not satisfy my Conscience with the way: and therefore I recalled my Money, with the loss of the Usury, or Gain offered me. This put me upon further study of the Case, which, at vacant times from other more necessary businesses of my calling, I have more or less, prosecuted, I think well nigh these thirty years past; and after all the disquisition I could make, have not found, where to fix the foot of my Conscience, for the lawfulness of it: but rather, by the weakness of the Arguments for it, the nicety of the distinctions upon it, and the multitude of Cautions about it, very difficult, if not impossible to be duly observed, I thought it rather unlawful, or at least so doubtful, that I took the safer way; as not to borrow without great need, so nor to lend to any that needed not( no not without Usury) unless in Cases hereafter cautioned, in the problem itself.  
All that hath been said hitherto, by learned and pious men,( as I have observed) against lending upon Usury, hath not made scarce one professed Usurer less; but rather confirmed some, and increased more, by their condescensions in the Case: For whilst they yield, Usury in some Cases, may lawfully be taken of the rich, 
Lucrum cessans, aut damnum emergens.  as 1. in case of loss of gain the Lender might have made, had his Money been in his own hand( to say nothing of the gain of loss, for want of his Money.) And 2. when the rich Borrower gains by the use of the Money: now reason will come in, and pled, Usury is very equitable: as being injurious to neither party. But they do not consider, that these Cautions may be as equitable, when they lend to a needier man: for as on the one side, he may get gain by the borrowed; so on the other, the Lender may sustain loss, whiles another hath his Money: and so all Usury almost, may be lawful. But of this more in a more proper place.  
So much labour then being lost upon the Lenders, we must try, whether we can prevail any better, with the Borrowers: for if there were no Borrowers upon Usury, there would be no Lenders: and contrarily, if there were no Lenders upon Usury, there could be no Borrowers; and till mens Consciences be convinced of the unlawfulness of Usury, both in taking and giving, and in giving, as well( though perhaps not so much) as in taking; it will be impossible to suppress Usury, or to regulate them in the Case. For let States make what Laws they can, against Usury, either wholly to suppress it, or to confine and limit it, Usurers, with the concurrence of some Borrowers, will evade, and elude them all, by secret underhand contracts, &c. Salmasius, the stoutest Champion for Usurers, tells us, and I think, 
See Jer. 15.16  truly: [ That Foenoration, if it be a sin, is a sin of both parties, the Borrower as well as the Lender:] And to make out this, I have a whole Chapter, in a larger discourse: But I say further,  
My present undertaking is far harder, to persuade men to two paradoxal truths. 1. That it is not only unlawful for men, that are not Needy, to borrow upon Usury, but to borrow at all, except in case of a just necessity. 2. To persuade rich men, that they are bound, as not to lend to any, but the needy, so to lend to the needy freely: and then there will be no Usury found. How hard a task I have undertaken, the success will prove. I do not determine the Case to other mens Consciences, but only tender this as an Essay, to give the learned, and studious in this controversy an occasion to discuss the Point, to some further issue: entreating them, that if they approve hereof, they will signify so much to me, or my Stationer, which may encourage me to publish a larger and fuller Discourse on this intricate Subject: if they approve not of my way, and will modestly convince me privately, or by publication of their Reasons, I shall either publicly aclowledge it, if I be convinced, or very modestly reply, to discover further the truth of the Case, if I be not convinced, Farewell.   

THE PREFACE.  
THere hath been a question sometimes started amongst men( of no great moment, or difficulty,( I confess) [ What profession or calling of common life, was the most Ancient?] And that is easily resolved; The gardener in Adam himself; and then, the Husbandman, and Shepherd, in his two Sons;[ Abel was a keeper of sheep, 
Gen. 4.2.  and Cain was a tiler of the ground.] The question were better put,[ Which of the many professions now, is the most innocent, and freest from doing wrong?] The Solution whereof will be more difficult: for since the time that Man corrupted himself, and got too much of the subtlety of the Serpent, all Trades, more or less, have been corrupted; and are grown, from their pristine Simplicity, to be called Mysteries; I fear too often, Mysteries of Iniquity: Even one of the most ancient, and most simplo, hath long ago been complained of, as full of fraud and oppression, Amos 8.4, 5, 6. and more generally, Jerem. 5.26, 27. Hence are those many and difficult Cases of Conscience, discussed by Learned Men, about gain taken in Trading, and after long disputes, itis left to Conscience itself, to make the Determination. Amongst other Callings, a Wise Man( but not so wise as Solomon, whom some would make the author of the Book) hath given his observation of two, that in his experience, were too prove to offend: [ A Merchant cannot lightly keep himself from Wrong, and a Victualler is not free from sin, Eccles. 26.30.] The former failing often, by monopolising, Engrossing, Fore-taking, and making a scarcity, in plenty, &c. The other of false Measures, excessive prizes, and being partaker of other mens sins, of Riot, drunkenness, and other abominations.  
Amongst the many grievances and complaints, in public commerce, or Trading, none is more Ancient, none more difficult to resolve, than that of Usury, the Subject of this present Discourse: Ancient it is, for, besides the Scripture, where it was prohibited early, and yet practised, it was controverted amongst the Heathens of old, and decried by men of several professions, in all succeeding Ages to this day, Philosophers, politicians, Lawyers, Divines, &c. The Difficulty appears, in that the patronage thereof, is undertaken by Learned, and some pious men: and the Case not yet decided to most Mens Satisfactions.  
The Causes of the difficulty of Decision of the Case, seem to me( after some trial and observation) to be these, or some of these: 1. The different Judgements of the Learned about the Explication of the Nature and quality of those Original laws concerning Usury, Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.36. Deut. 23.19. viz. Whether they were moral, and so concerned all Nations, or judicial, and so concerned onely the Jews: or mixed, as partly moral, and partly judicial: and so partly in force, and partly voided. 2. The New Distinctions raised upon these Texts; as amongst others, these,( to omit those old ones, of poor and rich: of biting and helping Usury) 1. Usury by compact, and Usury without any compact: e. gr. If a Man lend his money to a rich wealthy Merchant, upon bond, not specifying, nor requiring any use, this they hold lawful; and this was the Judgement and practise,( they say) of many very Learned and pious Men: wherein, I doubt, there was this double deceit; First that there was in it, mental Usury( which themselves condemned) appearing sometimes by this, that if an overplus of gain was not tendered, they grumbled at it, and would presently call in their money. Secondly, that they thought it lawful to lend to Rich men, that had no need to borrow( which is the thing, I shall endeavour to confute:) for had they lent it to needy men freely, it had been truly commendable; themselves having no power to use it, and as they made show, no great need, or care to improve it. 2. They distinguished the manner of lending their money, either as Meat, and Victuals, presently eaten and consumed; Or as Merchandise to trade with: the first utterly unlawful: the second lawful, but this also is subject to this exception,( besides others) that a poor or needy man, may borrow money as Merchandise, to keep up his Trade; and yet the laws, as they make no such distinction, in a poor mans borrowing, so they allow no Usury to be taken of him, however he use it, of which more largely hereafter. 3. Another cause of the difficulty and doubtfulness of Usury, was the prescription of so many Cautions, for the Lender, for the Borrower, and the manner of lending upon Usury; which are very hard to be remembered, and will hardlier be observed by the Usurer; if Grave, Learned, and Pious men, will but say, Usury is in any case lawful. 4. The difficulty is increased, by the Casuists propounding so many Cases of Contracts, very like to Usury,( and sometimes as bad or worse) and yet confessed lawful: The instances are well known to those, that are versed in this controversy, and largely spoken to else where. Lastly, another Cause is, that Learned Men are not agreed upon the Definition of Usury; some give one, some another, and each rather labouring to confute others Definitions, than able to maintain his own: as it is easier to pull down an house than to build it.  
And yet, notwithstanding these seeming difficulties, as some men resolve, and expound the former original Texts, the Resolution of the Case, and the Definition of Usury is easy to be made; For 1. Some make those Laws to be judicial, and so to concern only the Jewish polity: and then the Definition of Usury was this [ Usury is increase, or gain taken for lending to a Brother a Jew] which is seemingly at least confirmed by this, that Usury was by God permitted to be taken of any stranger of other Nations. Both which if they be true, the Case is easily decided, the judicial Law being annulled, all Usury is lawful, in lending to poor or rich: So concludes the Learned Salmasius; So the author of Quaestio quodlibetica, and his Publisher, and others, though( with their good leave I speak it) they sometimes contradict themselves, denying it lawful to the poor. 2. Some again, make the laws( at least in part) Moral, viz. with respect to the needy, instanced in all the laws, expressly, or by necessary consequence; and then the Definition is clear; [ Usury is gain taken for lending to the poor] and the Case easily determined: Usury is unlawfully taken of the poor, but lawful when we lend to the rich. This is the ordinary Resolution of the Case. But yet some scruples may arise, even in this way: both that it will be hard to resolve, who is poor, or rich, because, as the wisest man says, [ There is one that is poor, and maketh himself rich: and there is another that is rich, and makes himself poor,] & also, because in some cases, they yield Usury may be sinful, if taken of the rich, and sometimes lawfully taken of the poor, and more, else where specified: which may persuade tender consciences, not to meddle with lending on Usury at all, rather than to endure the perplexities arising from it: especially, there being so many tother lawful ways to improve their money.  
Seeing therefore the first way, to take Usury of all, is both too loose, and uncharitable and the other too thorny and perplexed with so many distinctions and cautions: what is to be resolved on, in this case? To assert, that all Usury is unlawful, at first sight, will seem to rich tradesman, and well moneyed man, not onely a Paradox, but a very Heterodox opinion; and as some have  told me, the way to destroy all Merchandizing, and Trading: for as the Merchant( say they) cannot traffic without borrowing upon Usury: so nor can other trades go on, or subsist, without Selling for day, at a dearer rate, which is, say some, to sell that which is none of their own, viz. Time; and no other, no better than Usury: some of those, who are patrons of some contracts, esteemed by others, to be Usurious, do roundly assert [ That all Usury is unlawful, but all lending for gain, is not Usurious.] But, under favour, this seems a contradiction to the true definition of Usury: for if Usury be rightly defined [ a gain taken for lending;] then all lending for gain is Usurious; the definition, and the thing defined, being convertible, as all Logicians know: the truth is, as I said, that the controversy is made so difficult for want of an agreement in the definition of Usury: if that were fixed, and assented to, the business were quickly ended: now the definition must be collected, not out of private mens fancies, but out of the original texts, that prohibit Usury: and it seems strange to me, that any man rational should assert, that there is no definition of Usury given in, or to be collected out of Scripture; for then( to add no more now) how should the Jews be able to observe those laws, if they did not clearly know, what the Usury was, which was forbidden them: And besides, if those Laws were Judicial, as some, to concern onely the Jews; or moral, as others, to concern all poor onely, the definitions were easily gathered, as was said afore, and there expressed. The several definitions given by several men, are else where discussed, and all, 
Lucrum ex mutuo pactum.  but one, discovered imperfect, and unsatisfying: the old and common definition, is that, which, I think, comes nearest to the truth, and scripture-texts:[ Usury is gain covenanted for lending:] and each pirticular ingredient is to be found there. 1. It is a gain, called in one text, increase. 2. For lending; when thou lendest. 3. Covenanted or compacted for; thou shalt not impose or lay upon him Usury: and itis added, nor take it of him; which thou canst not well require, without a Covenant explicit, or implicit. If any say, your definition wants one thing expressed, or implyed in all the three texts, that is the needy, who is the borrower; I answer, itis needless to add that, in the definition, which is perfect without it; as included in the word lending, which as it is an act of charity, or courtesy, supposes the borrower to be needy, and in some necessity to borrow: and consequently excludes all others from borrowing; and then, borrowing and lending being Relata, if it be unlawful for men in no necessity, to borrow, it will prove also unlawful to lend to such at all: and so there can be no Usury. This indeed is the mark I aim at, and hope to hit: more largely discussed else where: at present, to make it appear feazable, and probable, I say onely thus much; that if it be lawful to lend to the rich, which have no need to borrow, it seems to me, that thereupon it will follow, that Usury for Lending may lawfully be taken of all, poor as well as rich, in some cases; Reasons of equity and justice will be pleaded in both; as 1. When the Borrower gets well by the money lent. 2. When the lender is damaged for want of his money, by Lucrum cessans, or Damnum emergens; which may happen in lending to the poor and needy; he may gain well by the money lent: and the lender may suffer, for want of his money: therefore say some, gain may lawfully be taken of poor & rich: on the other side, some are so charitable as to deny Usury to be lawfully taken of the rich, when either he gets nothing, or loses by the money lent, though it might have concerned the lender, to have had his money in his own hand: others are not so mercifully minded: I forbear to say any more; having at large spoken of it, in another place: I onely desire it might be observed, that instead of the word poor, which in our language inports one nearer unto beggary, I use the word needy,( the original word signifying one afflicted with any necessity) which may extend to the rich sometimes, who may have just need to borrow, as well, though perhaps, not as much, as the poorer sort; and in such cases, I allow thē both to borrow, and to be lent unto; the one in courtesy, the other in charity, but both freely, without any Usury.  
To make way then, for the further discovery of my judgement in the Case of Usury, & for the discussing of the problem propounded in the title page.; I shall lay down my thoughts in these five following Theorems, the first onely to be discoursed of, by way of essay, at present. viz.  

1. None may lawfully borrow, but the needy.  
2. No man is bound to lend to any, but the needy.  
3. To the needy, an able man is bound to lend.  
4. When he lends to the needy, he must lend freely.  
5. A man is bound not to lend to such, as are not Needy.   
This way may seem something about, to prove all Usury unlawful; but if I be not much deceived, it is the surest and nearest way to decide the controversy: If it be not, I desire, with reason, to be undeceived. Of the three middlemost, I know not, whether any can well make any doubt: the difficulty lies, in proving the first and the last; and the last by the first: And if both be sufficiently confirmed, I doubt not to make good, [ That all Usury for lending, is unlawful;] How I perform my undertaking in the first, is now to be judged, by the learned, Judicious and Conscientious Reader, to whom I humbly submit all my labours.   

THE PROBLEM, Whether it be lawful( and not rather sinful) for any man to Borrow, in no necessity, or merely to increase his wealth?  
BEfore I undertake the Discussion of the Problem or Paradox, I shall, by way of explication, premise these three things, to prevent exceptions in the way.  
1. 
1. The first laws speak onely of the needy.  That the three first Laws concerning Usury, afore name, do all, either expressly, or implicitly, by rational consequence, intend the Borrower should be a Needy man, and say nothing directly( if at all any thing) of the Rich and wealthy; as is evident to him, that consults, and seriously considers the texts: whereupon some have peremptorily concluded, that these texts, concern onely the poor; and that Usury, was ever lawful to be taken of the Rich, forbidden onely to the Needy: but then it concerns them to show some texts in Scripture, that allowed them Usury from the Rich, or some instance there, of any that did lawfully so practise, which I believe they cannot do. Some have said, that Usury was forbidden, by a Judicial Law, to rich and poorer Jews, in the word brother, opposed to a stranger: which Judicial Law, being now voided, Usury is lawful, as well from a rich brother, as from a stranger: but both these and the former, do forget to take notice, that Usury forbidden to the brother was Nesher, biting Usury, and so being oppressive, was forbidden both to Jew and gentle, be they poor or rich: how ever, my assertion is evident, that the Borrower in the texts, is held forth to be a needy man: whence, one of these things, will be consequent. 1. That either it was lawful then to lend upon Usury to wealthy men, that borrow not for need, but for some other reason, or end, which is both contrary to the judgement, and practise of the Conscientions Jews, who lent not upon Usury, to any of their Brethren poor or rich( as their rabbis tel us) and also to reason itself, as was hinted before; because Nesher being oppressive, is unlawful to rich and poor. Or, 2. That God intended, that none but the needy should borrow( rich or poor) and that freely without any Usury: who are needy, comes next to be considered; whom we allow to borrow.  

2. Necessity is two fold.  2. What we mean by need, or necessity, will appear by way of distinction: there is a double necessity,  

1. Feigned or Forced, by.  1. Feigned or forced, as made by a mans self, for ends of his own, when he needeth not: nor God allows. And this may arise from many causes, but all may be reduced to two heads, Prodigality and Covetousness,  
1. Prodigality, 
1. Prodigality.  to spend upon his Lusts, of several kinds, pride in Apparel, vain-glory in Hous-keeping or Building, riot, and Luxury, Intemperance, and incontinency; game and the like; of one of these( appliable to all) a wise man gave good counsel; [ Become not poor by making banquets of that which thou hast borrowed( on Usury) and so leave nothing in thy purse; else thou shouldst insidiously lye in wait, for thine own soul( thy life) Ecclus. 18.33,] Now all, almost, that understand Reason, or Religion, consent, that it is unlawful for such, upon such ends, to borrow, or to lend to such. And yet these are Common Usurers best Clients, if they have but sufficient to pawn or mortgage.  
2. covetousness 
2. Covetousness.  to advance his estate; to increase in wealth and riches; to load himself with thick day; to purchase manors and worships, &c. The Apostle speaks of some, that will be rich, that set up their resolution they will be rich any ways, by right or wrong, &c. As these two vices, of Prodigality and Covetousness are directly contrary; so I know- no third ground of borrowing between them, except of necessity: Some have talked of lending upon Usury,( and so of borrowing) to get to exercise their charity; by being better able to give to the poor or lend to the Needy freely: but they either forget, or misconstrue that Proverb of Solomon [ He that gathtereth riches; by Usury and increase; shall gather for him that will be merciful to the poor; Pro. 28.8.] He himself may pretend such a thing, but hardly ever intended it, yet by the just providence of God, it shall at last fall into such a mans hands, as shall be merciful to the poor. And yet if Usury were lawful, this were a probable, and speedy way to be charitable. A man of a great Estate, that had 1006 li. to spare to lend upon Usury, might be able to give more in a year to relieve the poor, than most Usurers, or rich men do in many. But I never heard an example of this way, and end of lending. Though perhaps, some might strain the words of our Saviour to such a sense: [ Thou shouldst have put thy money to the exchanger that I might receive my own with Usury] But I let that pass: the hinge of the question will hang upon this, the lawfulness to borrow out of covetousness; to get wealth, as shall appear, when we have considered the other kind of Necessity: which is  
2. True and Real, cast upon a man, by some accident, 
2. True & Real, which is  and by the providence of God; and his gain, may be distinguished into imminent, or permanent.  
1. Imminent, or Occasional, 
1. Imminent or occasional.  present necessity( for I want words to express this distinction) which arises from some sudden exigent: and this sometimes is incident to the Rich, and wealthy. As in the parable of the man, that had a friend come to him in the night: he having no bread nor provision at home, runs to his neighbour, to borrow three loaves, till next day, when he would return them again with thanks: so in many the like cases, a man otherwise rich, may have a necessity cast upon him, to borrow some necessaries, even for his life: or money,( being in a strange place, & his own spent) to carry him home, &c. But then, the thing is so small, or the time so short, that it may well go for a courtesy, scarcely valuable, but with the like another time.  
2. Permanent, or continual, 
2. Permanent or( like to be) perpetual.  at least likely to be without supply, heavy upon the borrower; by reason of his poor and weak estate. And this is the case of poor men only: & to bend to such, is an act of charity, as to the former, an act of courtesy, which is a larger charity. The question then propounded, is not to be meant of this latter sort of Borrowers, whom in all reason, we must allow to borrow, in their necessity: but of the former kind, which is sometimes feigned, for the most part forced, by their own lusts of Prodigality, and covetousness, and especially of this latter, that borrows merely to increase their wealth: which shall be manifested, when we have premised a third thing.  

3. what is meant by borrowing to increase wealth  3. What we mean, by borrowing to increase his wealth( to prevent exceptions) for it may be said; you allow a Needy Trades-man to borrow, and that freely: but he may borrow to increase his( little) estate: which contradicts your problems. To which I answer; 1. It cannot properly be said, such a man borrows to increase his wealth; for that supposes him to have wealth already: but he borrows onely to be able to manage his Trade, that by getting something by the use and employment of the money borrowed, he may not need to borrow hereafter. 2. I mean it therefore of such a borrower, as hath an abundant, at least a competent estate already, which he is allowed to improve to the utmost, in all lawful ways, as his entrusted Talent: but not to borrow, merely to advance his estate, no not if he can borrow freely, much less upon Usury, when he hath no true, real, just, need to borrow. Having thus illustrated the Problem; 
The Problem proved.  I come now to endeavour the proof thereof, in manner following.  

1. Its natural principle.  1. This seems a natural notion, common to all that go to borrow; they still pretend necessity, true or false, feigned or real; or they would not borrow: I lack this or that; I have great need, I pray, lend me this or that, or so much money. And indeed borrowing is so great a trouble, that it is grown into a proverb, [ He that goes a borrowing, goes a sorrowing.] So that he were scarcely wise, that would borrow, were he not forced to it, by Necessity. Hence was that Law, or aphorism of Plato, written( it seems) by the candle-light of nature; [ No man ought to borrow water of his neighbours well till he, hath drawn his own dry to the bottom;] which holds as well, in all commodities else, of which the life of man hath need. A great Patron of Usury, 
Solmas.  approves of this Rule of Plato, but restrains it too strictly, t poor men onely. As if rich men might borrow, before they are come to the bottom of their estates, that is, before they need; but poor men might not: which seems very unreasonable. Yea, in reason, poor men should rather have this liberty, than the rich, though Plato allows it to neither. Plutarch also( by the same twilight) discerned this truth: He blamed them both, the rich and poor, for borrowing( upon Usury) when thus he argued; [ If thou beest very poor; why dost thou borrow that, which thou canst not restore? if rich, why dost borrow, when thou hast of thine own, and needst not borrow?] So that Nature itself, taught them what I affirm. And if we look back, to the beginning of nature; In innocency, as there would have been no want, so no need of borrowing. After the Fall, the first kind of borrowing was in case of necessity onely. No man had all, none but wanted something, which another had: hence it came, that they were forced, either to exchange one thing for another, or to borrow one of another; and the requital was the lending again, at another time, what they had need to borrow.  
2. The principles of Religion, that is, the Scriptures, 
2. Its a principle of Scripture.  do many ways confirm, what I assert [ that no man ought to borrow, but the needy, that is, merely to enrich himself.] this is thus made good.  
1. expressly; 
1. expressly.  the Scripture forbids running into debt, and continuing in debt, without just cause, as [ Rom. 13.8. owe nothing to any man, but to love one another.] which to me seems to require, that all civil debts, be either wisely prevented, or speedily discharged: that is, that if men be out of debt, they be careful, not to come into debt: and if they be in debt, they should hasten out; unless urgent necessity force them thereunto: either to go into debt, or to stay in debt, if able to pay it: which is the onely dispensation from this precept: but now I assume, they that borrow to enrich themselves, when they need not, run themselves into debt, without any just necessity, continue voluntarily in debt, when able to pay it, and so sin against this precept.  
2. By Consequence, 
2. By Consequence.  they forbid it often, when they forbid the very desire to be rich, much more rich endeavours to saitsfie those desires. 
1. From the contrary a ways.   
1. From the contrary; and that two ways. 1. The Scriptures, the word of God, require Contentment, with our present estate; [ 1 Tim. 6.9. If we have food and raiment( convenient for our condition) let us be therewith content. Heb. 13.5. Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with such things, as you have.] The argument is thus framed; If we be commanded to be contented with necessaries, then they that desire, and seek after Superfluities( as riches are) do sin: but the first is evidently true: ergo. Again, Covetousness is a sin, often decried in Scripture: but not to be content with our estate, is a fruit and hath a tang of covetousness: for the Apostle would have men to be content, lest they be concluded to be covetous; [ Whence it follows( saith Estius) that he, that is not contented with such things as he hath, but desires and seeks to bee richer( for he is supposed to be rich already; or not to be needy) is guilty of covetousness.] 2. What we may not pray for, that we may not desire, or seek after: but it is not lawful to pray for Superfluities: witness our Saviour himself, who teaches us to pray only for our daily bread, that is, only for necessaries, So [ Pro. 30.8, 9. Feed me with food convenient for me:] Nay so far is he from praying for riches, that he deprecates riches, as well as poverty, [ Give me neither riches nor poverty:] for reasons there given, and made use of, by and by.  
2. 
2. From the causes of it. 1. Discontent.  2. From the causes, that set men on borrowing, to this end, to be rich: and they are one of these; 1. discontentedness with their condition: this is intimated in the former Scriptures, that require Contentment. Men are not contented to be men of mean rank; 
2. covetousness appearing, 1. By desire to be rich.  but they will be rich, that they may be honoured, that they may live in pleasures, and worldly delights, which their present estate will not procure them. 2. Covetousness, which is discovered, 1. by the will to be rich. 1 Tim. 6.9. called the love of money; the root of all evil; even of prodigality itself; sometimes the same man that is prodigal, may be covetous also he covets to have abundance, which he may prodigally spend upon his lusts: he spares where he should spend, that he may spend, where he should spare. 2. By Hasting to be rich, 
2. By hasting to be rich.  [ Prov. 23.4. Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own Wisdom.] These think themselves to be Wise men; and if they had but money, they could easily, and speedily be rich: this puts them upon borrowing, what they want, to get, what they so earnestly desire; So [ Prov. 28.22. He that hath an evil eye, hasteth to be rich; or he that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye.] that is, a covetous eye, which is called, the lust of the eyes: for a man may commit, or act covetousness( as well as adultery) with his eye: But what follows in the place? [ He considereth not, that poverty shall come upon him.] God commonly crossing, if not cursing such Covetous( indeed Idolatrous) desires, of such as set up Mammon for their God.  
3. From the Ends of such unnecessary Borrowing: 
3. From the ends of such unnecessary Borrowing.  which are specified above, to be one of these two. 1. Prodigality to spend upon their lusts, of several kinds; Pride, Vain-glory, Riot, game, &c. 2. covetousness to advance an Estate, to make themselves and their posterity great, by great Trading, Purchasing, &c. To borrow to spend it prodigally, will not be defended( I think) by any Patron: The other of growing great, &c. is clothed with better garments, cloaked by other names of good Husbandry, Diligence, activeness in a calling, &c. Some men,( they say) have more nimble fancies, more Active Spirits, more able to manage a bigger stock, to drive a greater trade, to improve five Talents better, than others can two. But what are their ends and intentions? are they not to grow rich hastily? and that with undermining, if not the undoing of others, of their own profession: Yea, of other professions also sometimes, by dealing in, and meddling with more callings than one.  
4. From the many evil effects, and mischiefs, 
4. From the evil effects.  that attend upon such unnecessary Borrowing, for this end to become Rich: whereof these are some:  
1. Upon Himself, 
1. Upon himself.  in his own personal condition: and they these two: 1. A Curse, 
1. A Curse.  by borrowing when he needs not; It is so threatened, Deut. 28 44. to borrow, as contrarily, promised as a Blessing, to be able to lend. If any shall say( as some do say) To borrow for need, is indeed a curse, but not to borrow when he hath no need: I answer( besides that this begs the question now before us, that it is lawful to borrow without any need) it seems strange to me, that a man should be able, by his own Wit and Wisdom, to turn a Curse into a Blessing: or rather turn a Blessing into a Curse: that is, that when he needs not borrow, but is able to lend, which is a Blessing, he should run himself into a Curse( as the consequent mischiefs will evince) to borrow when he needeth not. 2. Another mischief is, 
2. Slavery.  that being free, by borrowing when he needs not, he runs himself into Slavery: which is a misery sufficient, as Liberty and Freedom is a special mercy: and we ought to stand fast, in the liberty, which God hath given us;( as the Apostle in another case.) Now Solomon tells us, [ Prov. 22.7. The borrower is servant to the lender.] He is indeed his slave, whom he keeps in bonds, and fetters of bills and obligations, &c. and upon all occasions, though he be his far inferior, is ready to Lord it over him, and for non-paiment, at his day, 
Cartwright in locum.  to lay him up in prison. So that( as one says) [ Such a man hath so many cruel Lords and Masters, as he hath Creditors: And this may teach us( saith he) not hastily to cast ourselves into debt, though we need much more, if we need not.] 3. To run voluntarily into debt, when there is no need, fills the head and heart with cares, or scares, or griefs, and many perplexities; which as th●rnes, do prick and torment the soul. [ 1 Tim. 6.9, 10. They that will be rich, fall into snares, and pierce themselves thorough with many sorrows.] And were not he a mad man, that when he might lye upon a Down-bed, would willingly cast himself into a thicket of thorns to sleep upon? Debt( at least to an honest man) breaks his sleep, distastes his food, distempers his heart and affections, &c.  

2. Upon his Estate and posterity.  2. But he proves as injurious, to his estate and posterity: It's observable, what the wisest of men says, [ Prov. 20.21. An inheritance may be gotten hastily at the first, but the end thereof shall not be blessed.] Those great Dealers, & borrowers in the wo●ld; either they thrive not at all, God crossing them for their Discontent, and worldly mindedness; or if they do, yet either they live, to see it all wasted; or in a generation or two, the world may see it all dispersed; and their posterity reduced again to their Parents first condition, and well if not to a worse.  

3. Upon his own soul exposing it.  3. The worst of alls, that such Borrowers, are too often injurious to their own souls, exposing themselves needlessly both to temptations and sins. 1. To temptations; 
1. To temptations.  so the Apostle expressly, [ 1 Tim. 6.9. They that will be rich, fall into temptation:] and that two ways, first, passively to be tempted by riches; either get to them ill, or spend them ill, or keep them ill: which is to across their daily prayer, [ led us not into temptation;] and these led themselves into temptation. Secondly, actively by tempting God, having no permission of such desires; and endeavours to be rich, nor promise of a blessing: This is to tempt and try God, whether he will prosper such endeavours or no: Suppose he do succeed them, yet having no promise, there can be no solid comfort in them: If he crosses them in these undertakings,( as oft he does) how are they exposed to other temptations, to use shifts and frauds, to deceive their Creditors, &c. 
2. To many sins.  But 2. They expose themselves to many sins; [ They that will be rich, fall into a snare also, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drowned men in destruction, and perdition.] In general, the same Wise man tells us, [ He that maketh hast to be rich, shall not be innocent, Prov. 28.20.] This is illustrated by the contrary, [ A faithful man shall abound with blessings.] A faithful man( whether he mean one, that hath faith to trust God, which is opposed to making hast to be rich, as the Prophet,[ He that believeth, maketh not hast, Isa. 28, 16.] or a man of faithfulnesses, as the Original hath it; one that is true in his words, and plain, just, faithful in his dealings; which way, the world thinks, either none, or about, and too long, to get riches) such a man going slowly, shall abound with blessings: intimating, that a man that makes hast to be rich,( as such Borrowers do) is a man that [ trusts not on the Lord, but leans on his own wisdom, Prov. 3.5.] and is too often, false in his words and promises, and fraudulent in his deeds; subject to lying, defrauding, oppression, &c. which are( as he thinks) the shortest, and nearest way to satisfy his hasty desires to be rich: but more often prove the furthest way about, and expose him to the curses of God. And upon this consideration, it is observed by one: 
Salmas.  That the Persians of old, did utterly dislike borrowing( upon Usury) because Borrowers are very prove to lye, deceive and be unthankful: In a word, Hasty desires, and endeavours to be rich( whereof great borrowing without need, is a Symptom, exposes a man to sins of all kinds of Omission, multitude of businesses causing him to neglect holy services in private or public, and of Commission; as lying, fraud, oppression) pride, and noisome lusts: Therefore Agur deprecated Riches, [ Give me not riches, lest I be full and deny thee, &c. Pro. 30.9.] These at present eat out the heart and vitals of Religion, and the power of Godliness, and at last, drown too many in perdition and destruction, 1 Tim. 6.10. Riches, at which they aim, are well compared to thorns, not onely because they pierce the soul, with cares, fears, &c. but also because they choke the Word, and make it unfruitful. Mark your great Dealers in the world, either they have no Religion, or if any, it is eaten up and withered, by worldly-mindedness: that therefore which is the root that bears such gull and wormwood, cannot be good.  
5. We may argue à pari, from the like: It is not lawful to beg without urgent, 
5. A pari from the like.  real necessity, therefore nor to borrow: The reason is, because they are both alike objects of charity; allowed only in cases of such necessity. As then it is unlawful for a rich man, that needs not, to beg; so for a man that needs not, to borrow. Borrowing and begging,( and so lending and giving) are commonly joined together in Scripture; [ Deut. 15.8, 9 Mat. 5.42. Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away.] Hence it was observed afore, that the texts which speak of borrowing( and forbid Usury) Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.37. Deut. 23.19. apply lending, only to needy borrowers: [ My people, that is poor; waxed poor, whose hand shakes, that borrows victuals.] The argument from all this, shall close up this discourse, when an objection is removed, which is this; Usury in all the texts,( in your own assertion and confession) is prohibited to be taken only of the poor and needy; and consequently lawful of the rich; and then the rich may borrow, that need not: I answer, 1. By denying the consequence; by a like inference; Oppression is forbidden towards the poor and stranger, Exod. 22.21. will it follow hence, that its lawful to oppress the rich, or a neighbour? 2. All Usury being Nesher, biting and oppressive, it is here intended to be forbidden to the rich, though chiefly to the poor, who most need to borrow. 3. If a rich man fall( as he may) into a present urgent need, he also falls under the Law, as at this time, and in this case, a needy man, and so is by me allowed to borrow, but still freely.  

6. A Testimonio  6. Lastly, we dispute à Testimonio, the assertions of the patrons of Usury; hear how, near they come, to affirm our Paradox, That necessity is the only true ground of borrowing.  
1. Salmasius himself, the greatest and strongest Advocate for Usury, saith thus, [ In Judaea, where was neither merchandise, nor Money, nor was there any great Wealth or riot, by means thereof, only poor men did need to borrow: but that they should be oppressed, especially of their own brethren, seemed hard to the Law-giver.]  
2. The Author of a Tract, called Quaest. Quodlibetica, &c. pag. 8. [ The borrowing of such Indigent persons, as are spoken of in the Law, being of things of so small value( that the use of them for a small season, was scarcely valuable) might be a great reason, of the prohibition of Usury.] And pag. 28. [ I aclowledge( saith he) the word Nesher, might well denote some malignant quality in Usury, because the first kind of borrowing in the world, was in case only of necessity: and to ask an overplus in such a case, was a sin, that well deserved the worst name.] And yet, both Salmasius, and himself, do pled strongly, that Usury now is lawfully taken of the poor; if at least, we relieve him some other way: which I leave to the Readers consideration: And propound the Argument.  
[ If none but the really needy( as afore explained) may borrow, and when they borrow must be lent unto, freely; then all Usury is unlawful:] The Antecedent is proved above, in both the parts of it, from the three Original Texts, & from light of nature, and Scripture reason. The Consequence, is thus made good; If wealthy men, that need not, may not borrow at all, either to spend it prodigally, or to use it covetously; to increase their wealth, then none may lend to such; and consequently not upon Usury; and so all Usury is unlawful, taken of rich or poor. This Consequence, that none may lawfully lend to such, is my fift Theorem, which waits its time of further confirmation.  

Some ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Resolution of the Case of Usury, by a Reverend and very Learned Dr. D. H. decade. 1. Case 1. " Whether it be lawful, to raise any profit, by the loan of Money?  
HAving given forth the former Essay, upon the main question, which if it be strongly bottomed, may of itself, put an end to the present controversy: yet it shall not be amiss, to manifest the strength, or weakness, of some of the Arguments, and distinctions, brought by some very learned men, for the Allowance of some kind of Usury: And amongst many Patrons thereof, I have made choice of one, who, as he appears latest in public, and so may be thought, to bring the strength of all the former: So he was well known, to be a man, of no less piety, than learning; and by his Age, and Gravity believed to be of a Mature and Solid Judgement; fit to make a Casuist, on whole Resolutions of Cases in matters of Conscience, men that were Scrupulous, might more safely rest and rely. Upon which considerations, I was very eager to red his Determination upon the Case in hand; here( if any where) expecting that Satisfaction, which( under favour be it spoken) upon search I have not found; but by want thereof, am rather confirmed in my own opinion, as I fear, others are in their practise of Usury: Some things I shall say in general, to his Resolution; 1. That I find not in it, any Definition of Usury( wherein others also are defective) which had it been done, it might have been more easy, both for him to Resolve the Case, and for others to judge of his Resolution. 2. That he is inconstant, in his assertions, and sometimes contradictorius to himself, implicitly, if not expressly and directly. 3. That yet this must be said for the Honour of the Rev: Doctor, that he, though he seem to allow, in some cases, profit, for the loan of money, yet makes all Usury, properly so called, especially taken of the poor and needy, to be unlawful: whereas some of late, make all to be lawful, taken of poor or rich.  
To the Decision of the question, he proceeds warily, by distinction of circumstances,( which some others have altogether neglected) before he make his determination of the Case, as thus.  
[ First, Who it is that borrows? A poor neighbour that is constrained out of need: or a Merchant, that takes up money for a free Trade, for the enriching of himself: or a rich man, that lays it out upon superfluous occasions. From the first, you must not expect any profit, for the loan: but for the other, the case is different. For God hath not commanded you, to love any man more than yourself: and there can be no reason, why you should vail your own just advantage, to another mans excess.] Where 1. It is observable, that the Doctor hath made a right and full enumeration of Borrowers. 1. Poor and needy. 2. Such as borrow to enrich themselves, the rich Merchant,( that is, the covetous.) 3. Prod●gals that borrow to spend it on their excessive lusts, and superfluities. 2. But herein he yields, I think, too much, that the Merchant borrowing to enrich himself, or the prodigal to spend it on superfluities, may borrow, and be lent unto; who have( I yet believe) no right to borrow, nor can be lent unto, without being accessary to their sins. The latter, [ To lend to a prodigal, to promote his wanton lusts, and superfluous expenses] is by all sober men granted to be sinful. The former is as truly sinful, though not so easily granted, or proved to be such: Yet to borrow( for no need) merely to enrich himself, seems to be a sprig of that root of all evil, covetousness, so much decried in Scripture; which if it be sinful in the Borrower, cannot but be so in the Lender, who waters that cursed root by lending his money: Now if these two sorts may not borrow, it remains to assert, that none but the Needy, may borrow, or be lent unto; and then no profit for the loan of money, being lawful to be taken of him, all Usury for lending, is unlawful. 3. His reasons are in themselves good and true, but if applied to the case, they beg the question; That it is lawful to lend, to such, or for such, as the two last sorts, to borrow. True it is, God hath not commanded men to love another better than themselves; nor yet to veil their own advantage to anothers excess: But suppose the Merchant borrow, not to use it to excess, but to get gain, to enrich himself, and to satisfy his lust of the eyes which is covetousness; the question is, whether such may borrow, which this reason supposes to be granted. On the other side, I am not to veil my own just advantage to anothers excess; but suppose I cannot use it at my own advantage( the Patrons of Usury, allow only such to lend upon Usury, Orphans, Widows, &c.) is it lawful then to lend it upon Usury, to such as will use it to excess? this is taken for granted also. In a word, suppose I can improve it( which the Dr. supposes I can) is it necessary for me, or lawful, to lend it to one that is prodigal, that will use it to excess? If not, then I ought not to lend it to another, that will so use it: If so, then I say again, he begs the question; for I ought to use, and improve it myself, and not to lend it to one that will so abuse it, to excess; nor( I think) to one that needs it not, but to increase his own wealth. 4. I think, there is no Usurer, but will go away satisfied with these grants from the pen of so grave, learned, pious a Divine: and think himself wise enough now, to justify the worst of his Usury. For as he will think no man poor, that is able to give him good security for his money: So he is willing, and desirous to deal with none, but [ the rich Merchant, that takes up money for a free Trade, for the enriching of himself, or the prodigal person, that lays it out upon excess, and superfluous occasions] from whom the Dr. more than seems, for good reasons, to allow him Usury, yet not without some other Cautions.  
[ Secondly, Upon what terms do you lend? Upon an absolute compact, for certain increase( what ever become of the principal) or upon a friendly trust to a voluntary satisfaction, according to the improvement of the money? The former is not safe, if benefit be disappointed, and rigorously to require profit in that case, is manifest oppression: The other is lawful, being nothing but gratitude, which with the conscionable, is a bond no less strong, than that of law, and justice.] To which, it may be returned, 1. The compact, is a part of the Definition of Usury, Lucrum ex mutuo pactum: So that if there be no compact, express or implicit, it is not Usury, which cannot be required,( nor need to be paid) without a compact: and it is absolute, among Usurers, what ever become of the principal. 2. Gratitude is one thing, Usury another: Even the poorest borrower, gain or gain not, is bound to be thankful, yet to take profit of him, for the loan of money, is already judged to be unlawful. 3. This also supposes, what is denied, that it is lawful for such as borrow for no need, but to the ill ends afore, to borrow, and to be lent unto. 4. We shall find hereafter, that the Dr. allows an absolute compact, of certain gain, in some cases, and so, I think, differs from himself. But I go on.  
[ Thirdly, If upon an absolute compact, is it upon a certainty, or an adventure? for where you are willing to hazard the principal, there can be no reason, but you should take part of the advantage.] But besides that I understand not, how an absolute compact, can be upon an Adventure; this varies the question, from loan or lending, or partnership, and so is not to the case of Usury: for in partnership a man must be content to bear a part in the loss, as well as in the advantage: and if a man resolve to do so, there is no reason but he should take part of the profit.  
[ Fourthly, Where the Trade is ordinarily certain, there are yet further considerations to be had. 1. That the value of money is arbitrable, in several places. 2. What ever is saleable, is capable of profit, in the loan of it, as an horse or an ox may be let. 3. Money is not only the price of other commodities, but itself in some cases is a traffiqueable commodity; the price whereof rises and falls, in several Countreys, and money thus considered, may be bought & sold, and improved to a just profit.] To which it may briefly be said; 1. Where money is a traffiqueable commodity, yet there is commonly a State-prohibition, to transport money to a place where it is dearer prized, and so it's unlawful to raise any profit by it, that way. 2. From the 2d consideration, we may reasonably conclude against lending of money upon Usury: Whatsoever commodity is not saleable, is not capable of profit, in the loan of it: But money, as it is the price of other commodities, is not saleable. Ergo. The instances by him given, of an horse, or ox, are heterogeneous; for they are capable of more contracts, lending, letting, selling, as things, not spent in the use; but money, being only the price of other commodities, is spent in the use, and so cannot, or should not be sold, or let: At least, that's the question, of which in the next: but I add, 3. If money as merchandise, may be bought and sold, that's nothing to the Case in hand; which is in lending; where not the money itself, but the use of the money( if any thing) is sold, and bought. To which he speaks in the next.  
[ The main doubt is, whether money merely considered, as the price of all other commodities, may be let forth to profit, and a warrantable increase: For the resolving whereof, be it determined, That all Usury, which is an absolute contract, for the mere loan of money, is unlawful, by all kind of laws, both divine, and human.] This alone were a full Resolution of the Case, and utterly destroys the Usurers Trade; for as he lends his money, merely as the price of other things( not as a merchandise favourable elsewhere) so, his contract is absolute, for the mere loan of money,( whatever become of the principal) and for nothing else in him the Lender; whether the Borrower be rich or poor, gain or lose: His Reasons are very considerable to this purpose, and weighty. [ 1. Nature teaches us, that metals are not a thing capable of superfetation. 2. that no man ought to set a price, on that which is none of his own Time. 3. That the use of the stock, once received is not the Lenders, but the Borrowers: the power and right of disposing the principal, is, by contract, transferred to him that receives it. So that he that takes the Interest, by virtue of such transaction, doth but in a mannerly, and legal fashion, rob the Borrower.] This witness is full, and the reasons strong, against all Usury whatever, of any persons whatever, rich or poor. For 1. money does not breed money, more to a rich man, than to a poor man. 2. Time cannot be prized, more to one, than to another. 3. The use of it, once received, is the Borrowers, rich, as well as poor; the power and right of disposing the principal, being equally transferred to both. Let the conclusion then be added; He that takes Interest, by virtue of such transaction, doth but in a mannerly and legal fashion, rob the Borrowers. How this is reconcilable with what was said in the first Paragraph, I cannot imagine: or with that which now follows.  
Thus he saith, [ However it is unlawful to covenant for a certain profit, for the mere loan of money: yet there may be, and are circumstances appending to the loan, which may admit some benefit to the Lender, to be lawfully made, for the use of his money, especially these two. 1. The loss that he sustains, And 2. the gain that he misses, by the want of the sum lent: for what reason, that to pleasure another man, I should hurt myself? that I should enrich another by my own loss?] To which divers things may be said; for besides that this interferes, with the last recited assertions, and with those three Arguments, strong against all Usury; I add: 1. Lending being an act( not of justice, but) of charity, the Lender is not to respect his own loss or gain he might have made, but the good and profit of the Borrower, even sometimes with the loss of his principal: [ lend looking for nothing again] 2. By this way, Usury is lawfully taken, of the poorest Borrower; for I may sustain loss, or miss some gain, I might have made for want of my money lent him. 3. It may also be lawful to Covenant for gain, for the mere loan of the money; for from the first day of lending my money, I may meet with some loss, or miss some gain, for want of my money: yea, supposing( as he does) that the Lender is one, that at the very time of lending, could improve it to his own advantage; Usury, or( as he calls it) Interest may be ever lawful, and lawfully covenanted for; and that absolutely: for so he saith, [ If there be a true danger of loss, to me imminent, when the transaction is made, nothing hinders, but that I may by compact, make sure such a sum, as may be sufficient for my indemnity or gain, I for go, &c.] p. 10, 11. and more to the same purpose: Thus now, all Usury, is nothing but Interest: whereas Interest had wont to be taken in this sense, when for delay, after the appointed day of payment, the Lender suffered loss, or missed gain( having lent it freely) but now, Interest, and so Usury may be due from the very day of lending; when the Lender foresees a danger of loss, or foregoes a present profit: and that Usury may be covenanted for, with any Lender, poor or rich, though he perhaps, makes none or little gain of the money; yea, loses of the principal upon this Argument, [ What reason, that to pleasure another man, I should hurt myself?] And what would any common Usurer desire more? so that instead of confuting him, he hath confirmed him more in his practise and Trade. And this is the issue of all the distinctions, and cautions multiplied by the Patrons of Usury: nor can it be avoided, but in their way,( bringing the Case to the bar of corrupted Reason) Usury may be just & lawful to be taken of all, poor as well as rich; at least in some cases, if there were no divine Law against it: How to prevent this mischief, I find no way; but only what I have propounded, that if none but the needy may borrow, or be lent to, then, all Usury for lending will prove unlawful: for when it is granted,( as it is by this learned Dr.) that rich and wealthy men, may borrow and be lent unto,( whether prodigal or covetous) there is a wide door opened for Usury: because of the reasons pleaded afore. 1. What reason is there, that to pleasure another, I should hurt myself? 2. That I should enrich another, by my own loss, when I could otherwise improve it? How to answer these, I know not; but by saying, In such a case, where the Borrower hath no need to borrow, but either to waste it prodigally, or to increase it covetously, and I can improve it to my own advantage, I am not bouud to lend him my money, yea( I think) bound not to lend him; but charity bids me improve it myself; if I cannot improve it myself, yet I am bound not to lend it to such Borrowers, but to employ it some other way, more safe and secure, without so many perplexities and scruples, as attend upon lending upon Usury.  
This is the substance of his Resolution of the Case, there are some other things of lesser concernment observable. First he says, p. 13 [ charity will teach you, that every increase by loan of money, is not Usurary.] But had he defined Usury, he would have found, this teaching to be erroneous: For if Usury be gain covenanted for lending of money, then gain or increase for lending of money is Usurary: the definition and the thing defined being convertible, as he well knew. And Usury thus defined, is rationally condemned by himself, by three strong Arguments.  
Secondly, Saith he, [ If you can find out a way by loan or sale, to advance your stock, 
Pag. 6.  that may be free from all oppression and extortion, and beneficial as well to others, as yourself; you need not fear to walk in it, with all honest security.] In answer to this, I shall say, 1. In way of sale, it may be possible to find out such a way; but in way of loan of money, it will be very hard, if not impossible, to meet with such a way, as is free from all oppression; if either his Assertion, or his Arguments be of any strength: unless by lending freely, to the needy only, which may expect a blessing from God: which only makes a man innocently, and comfortably rich: And therefore there can be little security, in walking in such a way, especially there being so many scruples to be answered, and so many cautions to be observed, & as he saith, [ our hearts being too apt to beguile us, in misapplications; and rather to draw the Rule to us, than ourselves to the Rule.] Better therefore it were, and safer, to improve their stocks, any other lawful way,( as he supposes they can) than to lend to such as need not, to entangle themselves, with so many scruples and cautions, and to make themselves accessary to other mens sins, which they can very hardly, if at all avoid, by lending promiscuously unto all. 2. Because its usual with the Advocates of Usury, to put stumbling cases, that are very like to Usury, and yet free( seemingly) from all oppression; beneficial as well to others, as the Lender, and Borrower, I shall put the next undertaker a case, which( I have heard) is ordinary in London. A poor Fisher-woman, or Herb-woman, comes to a Broking Usurer, and borrows 5 s. to trade with, for that week; leaving a sufficient pawn, to return it, with a penny in the shilling, for the use of it. The woman trades with it, and turns her stock, 4 or 5 times in the week, with gain every return, with which she maintains her self and her family: at the weeks end, she pays 5 d. with, and for the use of her 5 s. and receives her pawn; and the next week does the like. Now, I ask, what iniquity or oppression, is there in this contract of lending? The Borrower gets well; the Buyers of her commodities, have no wrong, but rather gain; for they are eased, by the womans fetching the fish from Billingsgate, and bringing it, to the remotest part of the City to their doors, which may justly require consideration, for the womans labour and pains: The Lender gains enough, if not too much, for after the rate of a penny in the shilling for a week, he gains but after 400 l. for an 100 l. so put out, for a a year: If then where there is no violation of Justice or Charity( as here seems none) Usury be lawful: why not this? I leave it to Resolution.  
Lastly, He laments [ the ignorance of some, whose zeal cries down Usury as most hateful, but make no bones of actions no less biting and oppressive; not caring how dear they sell; at how high rates they Let their Lands, &c. not considering, that there is no less, nor less odious Usury in Selling, and Letting than in Lending.] To which I say in a word. There may be as great, and odious oppression in Selling, and Letting; but there is no Usury to be found there, which is only committed in lending of money and things of the like nature, as the Definition does import.   
FINIS.