Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	reason_n	scripture_n	1,850	5	6.1940	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64066	Quæstio quodlibetica, or, A discourse whether it may bee lawfull to take use for money	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.; Twysden, Roger, Sir, 1597-1672.	1653 (1653)	Wing T3555; ESTC R14802	53,162	192

in extreme necessity common experience doth daily teach us Secondly the law here doth only use the word of biting or Nescher which word is also only used in the first text where the poor is named Thirdly if we will allow as all men do and as we needs must this law in Deut. to be the same with that in Exod. Levit. then it must have the same object the poor and the same end which is the relief of the same poor for we find no other reason or end alleged in Scripture for the prohibition of Vsury but that the poor brother may live with thee and have sufficient for his need God where he tyes men to lend he provides binds them to lend freely The law is if there be among you a poor man of one of thy Brethren thou shalt not harden thy heart nor shuâ— thy hand from thy poor brother but thou shalt open thy hand wide unto him and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need in which hee wanteth Deut. 15.7 8. For the observation of this law God was carefull that this lending should be without Vsury Hee makes no law to bind men to lend unto the Rich and therefore there is no law to restrain taking Vsury of them The lending to the poor was to be so free that it must bee in the next degree to giving and wee finde that to this law that commanded Lending is added in the very next veâ—se Thou shalt surely give him and thy heart shall not be grieved when thou givâ—st unto him Likewise in Levit. 25. it is said thou shalt relieve him and then it followes presently take no Vsury of him Thus the Scripture doth couple the work of Charity with the prohibition of Vsury to teach that they are both conversant about one and the same Object Therefore he that shall make the Rich also the object of this law in Deut. he must of necessity invent some new End and Reason of it more than the Scripture doth afford and also make the lawes themselves to differ wheras a true reason why the law in Deut. is in so short termes may be for that the law having been twice before more particularly set down Moses doth in Deut. onely repeat it in brief and few words as being sufficient to call it to their remembrance now they were ready to enter into the land of promise If wee consider also the unmercifulness of the Jewes amongst themselves it was high time to make provision for the poor they would not stick it seemes to strip a poor man stark naked for a debt as appeares by the law concerning the restitution of pledges before sun set if they were the covering only rayment for the skin wherin a man might sleep Exod. 22.26 Besides they would forbear to lend to the poor because they were in danger to lose their debt if they did not recover it before the seventh year The law is Deut. 15.1 Every seventh year every creditor thaâ— lâ—ndâ—th ought unto his neighbour shall release it that which is thine with thy brother thy hand shall release This releasing of debts had the same end with the prohibition of Vsury the relief of the poore and although this law of releasing be delivered in the generall termes of neighbour brother yet they must be understood onely of the poor brother as it is most apparent by the exception following in the fourth verse which saith this release must be save where there shall bee no poor among you and in the 11. verse after the releasing of debts and the lending to the poor enjoyned the conclusion is for the poor shall never cease out of the Land therefore lend to thy Brother to thy poor and to thy needy in the Land These places do teach us that this word Brother is sometimes in a speciall sense used for the Poor This law of releasing made men afraid to lend and therfore God warnes them in the ninth verse Beware that there he not a thought in the wicked or Belial heart Saying the Seavenâ—h year the year of release is at hand and thy eâ—che evill against thy poor Brother and thou givest him nought Now since the law of God which prohibiteth Vsury onely in three places hath in the two first expresly named the poor and described them and in the third cleerly intimated them By what Reason Conscience and Charity can any man extend those lawes to all men in general which the Holy Ghost hath so carefully restrained to the poor And since the Law first given against Vsury doth mention oppression of the poor I wonder Dr â—enton would not fetch his definition from the text call Vsury oppressive lending to the poor but never mentioning oppression of the poor he calls it a Covenant of gain for lending which is quite beside the text which seemes only to forbid Vsury to such as stand in need to be relieved by our Charity And for this cause I doe conjecture Calvin did say that unto ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ it did not appear by any testimony of Scripture that all Vsury is altogether condemned and it is conceived that one reason why the law of Moses doth appoint no kind of Iudiciall punishment for Vsury might be because the sinne is determinable only by the judgement of a mans own Conscience and not by any precedent contract for gain As for those texts in the Psalms Proverbs and Ezekiel their general words cannot make any new law but their rebukes and exhortations relate to the breach or observance of the law formerly given by Moses And even Ezekiel who most declames against Vsury Eze. 18.17 joines it with making the poor Sorrowfull not giving bread to the hungry and not Cloathing the naked Nor can these texts be any exposition of the lawes of Moses against Vsury because the lawes themselves are expressed and explaned in more particular significant terms by Moses than by David Solomon or Ezekiel who give but a touch Of the Names of Vsury I know the adversaries to all Vsury do much triumph in their Origination of the Hebrew term for Vsury because it is derived from a root that signifies to bite they conclude it is like the sting of a Serpent and in that regard to be esteemed as an abominable sin Answ First wee must remember that Dr. Fenton doth confesse that names have beâ—n no definitions and therefore are not demonstrative arguments in any question 2ly I do acknowledge that the Originall word Neshee might well denote some malignant â—uality in Vsury and I conceive a true reason of it might be for that the first kind of borrowing which was in the world or at the time when the law against Vsury was given was in Case only of necessity and to ask an overplus in such Cases was a sin that well deserved the worst name We all know that Riches of mony and many other goods were brought into the world by degrees as arts trades were multiplied by the industrie and

by buying selling in the mercat at the same prices that the owners of mony do it is the rates of the mercat that rules their using and not their Vsury the mercat The difference is onely that the owners prove the greater gainers and grow richer than the borrowers who keep but part of their gettings because that their stocks are not their own And questionless the Common estimation of men would not valew at 8. or 10 in the 100 if it did not ordinarily produce a Competent increase both for borrower and lender If any man object that the prime gain which comes by buying and selling and leads the rate of Vsury is too great I know no other answer but this if Common Custome may not determine reasonable gaines I know not how it will be resolved since there is no rule in Scripture for it but that men may grow rich by gain I find both practised and warranted by Scripture neither are men restrained from gaining more by trade than is simply necessary for life and being If Dr. Fenton and those that condemn all Vsury had been so observant of the letter or literall sense of the Law as they do pretend they would never have troubled themselves so much about Contracts which are not named in the Law but would rather have Concluded that the very taking of Vsury or increase though it be not contracted for is utterly unlawfull by the law in Levit. 25.36 where it is said Take thou no Vsury of him How then can these men justifie the Taking of their foenus liberâ—le which they commend or the foenus nauticum which they allow or the Contractus Societatis or partnership which they so much extoll since all these are expresly forbidden by the law If to take any increase be unlawfull To the Iews themselves the letter of the law did seem to condemn the taking of a gratuâ—ty nay some of them did think it Vsury if a man did but salute or bid good morrow to him that had lent him mony if he did not use to do so before he borrowed it because in the Originall it is said thou shalâ— take no Vsury of any word Deut. 23. our translation hath it Vsury of any thing Surely such salutations were not contracted for nor were of any valuable price or mony worth I do not find any text brought by Dr. Fen. out of the New Testament against Vsury for the truth is there is none although D. Dow some others do cite two texts first Mat. 5.42 Give to him that asketh from him that would borrow of thee tuâ—n not away If we ask D. Dâ—wnam whether every one be bâ—und to lend to every one that asketh his answer is Respect is to be had of thine ability and of his necessity and also if it be not a Case of urgent and present necessity of his honesty if his necessity urge him to borrow and thine estate enable thee to lend thou art bound to lend unto him especially if his honesty deserve to be respected Lect. on the 15. Psalm pag 224. Why may not the same respects be observed in the interpretations of all texts against Vsury Secondly he cites Luk. â— 35 Lend looking for nothing thence Lastly both he and Dr. Fenton do apply all texts that do mention lending freely or charitableness to the poore or mercifulness to our neighbour as heapes of so many places against Vsury although the name be not so much as to be found in the whole New testament as Condemned For my part I do gladly hear all exhortations to Charity and think them more than needfull and if any man be so great an Vsurer as that he make himself thereby unable to be mercifull to the poor such a man may be justly condemned and I shall never defend him But to conclude because a man must give to the poor therefore he may not let to the rich is no good consequence The text â—hat bids me lend freely doth not thereby forbid not to let at all but that upon severall occasions and according to divers Circumstances I may do either if the Commanding to observe one sort of Contract were the Prohibiting of all other kinds it would follow that I might neither give mony to the poor nor sell victualls to the rich because I am Commanded to lend both But let us admit that both in the Old and New testament the lawes against Vsury had been Morall and delivered in as generall termes as can be devised Be there not many lawes and texts which must of necessity be expounded otherwise than the bare letter sounds and according to such a sense as may stand with naturall reason so that it contradict not any other plain or necessary doctrine nor overthrow the â—â—â—lâ—gie of Faith There is a law of our Saviour Christ that saith swear not at all and again he saith to him that asketh Give Neither of these Lawes must bee literally understood but interpreted according to the rule of natural reâ—son discretion Christ forbiddeth his disciples to carry gold or silver or any manner of coin in their purses I do not think that Dr. Fenton and others have followed the letter of this law but I trust they will grant an interpretation over and besides the bare letter There be divers such texts as if thy eye offend thee pull it out pray continually if any sue thee for thy Coat let him have thy Cloak also all which if they were not otherwise understood than the bare words do bear would bring great confusion with them and such inconvenience as no reason nor law could or might allow in any case The light of Nature must help to guide us in the interpretation of many texts It is Dr. Fen. own confession p. 34. that Vsury is a Question of that nature as is not only determinable by the law of God in Scripture but also by the law of Nature those Maximes and Principles of Common equity which are written in the hearts of men by the finger of God which point had need be well considered because as Mr. Hooker saith a number there are who think they cannot admire as they ought the power and Authority of the word of God if in things divine they should attribute any force to mans reason for which Cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace reason Pag. 97. Nor let any man think saith he that following the judgment of Naturall discretion we can have no assurance to please God for to the author and God of Nature how shall any operation prâ—ceeding in naturall sort be in that respect â—nacceptable the nature which himself hath given to woâ—k by he cannot but be delighted with when wee exâ—rcise the same any way without commandement of his to the Contrary Pag. 60. Now if any place in the Bible may receive an interpretation from the rules and principles of naturall reason why might not the texts of Vsury since it is conversant altogether about Covenants

charity not the creditor rely upon the fidelity of the debtor and Bonds may in some cases be lawfully made which cannot so lawfully be exacted This he speaks of contracts without any condition of hazard expressed Also Dr. Downam doth adde That if there be a covenant of the one side in eventum lucri to partake of the gain and on the other side but a purpose of bearing part of the loss I would not altogether condemn such a contract pag. 163. Thus both these Divines doe consent that a contract may bee made for interest if there be but a purpose in the Lender not to exact or oppress thereby Yet like men uncertain and doubtful what to conclude they sometimes allow a man to take interest so he doe not contract for it at other times to contract for it so he do not take it pag. 27. One while a Bond may be lawfully made so it be not exacted another while it is lawfull to take where it is not lawfull to covenant or contract Again Dr. Fenton saith pag. 129. That the poyson of Vsury is in some contracts so closely and cunningly conveyed as the very turn of the intention of the minde may alter the case to make it just or unjust the contract remaining one and the same If one and the same contract may be just and unjust then all contracts are not unjust by his own confession In another place pag. 125. he tells us We may puzzle him with some cases so cunninâ—ly contrived wherein we can find no difference either in Iustice or Charity from other lawfull contracts Then quaere whether it be within the Definition of Vsury If it appear just and lawfull it shall not appear usurious it may perhaps border or coast upon Vsury Yet our conclusion shall still remain entire That Usury properly so called is simply unlawfull A trim Conclusion But what are we the wiser for knowing that all Vsury is unlawfull unless he teach us what is properly called Vsury This is the main doubt what is Vsury and what is not whether all increase or increase onely from the poor whether all contracts for gain by mony be Vsury If Dr. Fenton may be puzled and not be able to tell us what Contracts differ from Justice and Charity and what not If one and the same contract may bee just and unjust if that usurious contracts as they do approach unto equity so far forth do decline the nature of Vsury then are we still ignorant what properly is Vsury onely we may know that it is unlawfull if we knew what it were This is the last and safest retreat that Dr. Fenton findeth Concerning humane Testimonies of Fathers Councils Divines Heathens and Laws As for the Testimonies of Fathers and Councils we do affirm that neither Father nor Councill did ever define Vsury to consist in the contracting for gain they were not so curious or subtle in those Ages as to define it at all But most of those few passages that are in them may best be understood to mean only such Vsury as was an oppression to the poor As for Aristole Plutarch Cato Seneca Pliny and some others I shall offer the confession of Dr. Fenton pag. 65. Who is perswaded that the very conceit of these grounds of the Philosophers arguments hath moved many to think more favourably of Vsury it self than there is just cause The force of the Philosophers argument taken from the barrenness of money and the unnatural brood of Vsury being mingled with metaphors if it bee not rightly apprehended is obscure and doubtfull That also of spending money in the first use as if use and property were inseparable is much subject is cavil By these passages wee may see what little confidence Dr. Fenton putteth in the arguments of the Heathen Philosophers against Vsury As for the bare authority of these men the speculative determinations of so few Philosophers are no way to bee compared with the grave wisdom of whole states which by practice and by Customes in all ages have approved thereof I know the abuse of Vsury hath given just cause both to Christians and Heathens to declame bitterly against it Merchandising as Dr. Fenton tells us also Letting of Land and other tradings have their manifold abuses and yet are things lawfull in themselves and whereas all other trades do oppress but within their own Circle or limits and in such particulars wherein they deal Vsury dealing with mony which is used in all trades hath made the abuse thereof more generall and therefore all men have the more frequent occasion to speak against it The Civill law which was gathered out of all the best antient Lawes both Heathen and Christian and which is most in use at this day doth allow Vsury The Lawes of Venice Genoa and the Low-countries three simply the richest states in Europe do allow thereof and yet are free from poor which perswades that Vsury is not so hurtfull to a state As for the statute Lawes of this land they do vary and one statute mislikes and repeales another but they all allow Vsury of Orphans And the Law last made since the death of Dr. Fenton in the 21. year of king Iames doth allow eight in the hundred The Constant practice of the Common Law of this land and also of the Chancery in point of equity doth not only allow Interest where there is a Contract for it but also doth give it where there is none To end this point if all Laws and states had thought all Vsury to be unlawfull and also mischievous to a Common-wealth And if that Partnership be a meanes both lawfull and beneficiall It were strange that no practice nor Law of any nation would never establish this latter And for all the world to tollerate a sin when so easy a remedy had been at hand had been an universall madness Argument against Vsury It is to some Doubtfull therefore unlawfull because Whatsoever is not of faith is Sin Answ This argument doth not make it simply unlawfull to all but onely to such as doubt and therefore it proves not the point For Dr. Fenton his position is that all Vsury is of it self a sin and so nothing indifferent By this Doctrine he first perplexeth the understanding of the weak and so makes them doubt and when he finds them doubtfull he useth their doubting to prove it unlawful because they doubt whereas if it be simply a sin of it self it is as well a sin if a man doubt not as if he doubt And the place of St Paul Rom 14. by him alleged speaks not of sins but of things indifferent as eating which by doubting onely are made sins to the doubters and to no body els Now if the Cause why men doubt whether all Usury be sin be onely for that Dr. Fenton and some others teach so then the sin of those that doubt may fall heavy upon the Causers of it And if Dr. Fenton allow Usury to be doubtfull it cannot

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad