Selected quad for the lemma: land_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A36116
|
A Discourse upon usury, or, Lending money for increase (occasioned by Mr. David Jones's late farewel sermon) proving by undeniable arguments the lawfulness thereof and answering the plausible objections from Scripture, councils, and fathers against it / published at the request of several judicious and sober Christians for the information and satisfaction of all such as have or may be concerned in the matter of so general and weighty importance.
|
|
1692
(1692)
|
Wing D1629; ESTC R14405
|
16,114
|
42
|
most part little or nothing in the substance For though Land naturally yields Increase yet it will not do so proportionably to the full Rent required without the great Pains and Labour of the Tenant in which the Landlord does not concern himself any more than a Man that lends Money does in the Improvement of it And if Tenants by Lease are bound to Repair Houses and to leave them repaired at the End of the Term besides paying their Rents then there is very little difference in the reason of the Case between letting for Rent and letting at Interest and especially where a Man lets a piece of Ground to build on reserving a certain Ground-Rent during the Lease for this Ground it may be is not worth five shillings a year unbuilt for what will grow upon it naturally when yet a Ground-Rent of five pounds a year may be made of it and nevertheless all the Improvement is purely at the charge and by the Pains and Industry of the Tenant and nothing by the Owner of the Ground and when he has built his House though he cannot get a Tenant for it a great while or though he looses Rent by bad Tenants yet the Ground Landlord expects his Ground-Rent and thinks he may do it honestly and lawfully And when the Term of the Lease is expired this Ground that naturally of it self could have yielded so very little in comparison wiâ—hout the Tenants Charge and Pains is left up to the Landlord in as good a plight as any Money upon Usury when it is repaid besides all the Buildings upon it which may be worth much more than the Ground it self And I suppose no Pleader against Usury would think it unlawful to be such a Landlord There is but one Circumstance wherein this Instance differs considerably in reference to the matter in quesion from that of lending Money on Usury and that it Principal Money in the Borrowers hand is liable to Providential loss in Trading or otherwise but Ground is not which I grant to be true But a House built on Ground is liable to be burnt or demolished and a Tenant in that Case is bound to build it again and yet the Ground Landlord will look for all his Rent and the same is agreed and expected where a House is let by Lease upon a Rack-Rent Another great Argument why Usury is unlawful say some is this It is hurtful not only to the Borrower but to the Commonwealth in general For when People borrow upon Usury to carry on their Trades they will set their Goods at higher Prices to enable them to pay Use-money which otherwise they could afford cheaper But if this Argument be an Argument against Usury it will much more be so also against House-rents for were it not for Rents all Trades-men might afford their Goods Cheaper and some have as much need to hire Money as Houses to carry on their Trades But I conceive this Argument is more in conceit than in reality 'T is true if all Trades-men of one and the same Trade did borrow Money upon Interest it might occasion some Increase of Prices but if only some do it is plain they must sell as cheap as the rest that do not borrow Money are willing to do unless they will lose their Customers To me it is very plain That were there a Law made and truly observed that no Money should be lent at Interest unless at the same time a Law could be made that men who have spare Money should be obliged to lend without Usury which is never like to be this would be far more prejudicial to the Commonwealth and more occasion the dearness of Prices than the Law to lend upon Interest would for in case of a general Restraint of taking Interest I think it is very plain few would lend Money because they would not only be sure of receiving no profit by it but must run the risque of losing it for nothing Now in this case only the great and rich men and Traders that have Money enough of their own would engross the most useful Commodities to themselves and make their own Prices and inferiour Traders for want of Moneys to buy at the same Market must be forced to buy of them at their price which might make Commodities as dear again to common Buyers as they would have been in case a general biberty of lending upon moderate Increase were permitted when by paying 5 or 6 per Cent. they may get or save 10 or 20 per Cent. or more And therefore I am fully perswaded were a Law against all Usury put in Execution the prices of all sorts of Goods would immediately rise very considerably And then what must those many Widows and Orphans and several others do that have nothing but Money to live on and are not in a capacity to manage Trades they must not lend it for profit they cannot trade with it why the next thing they must pitch upon is to buy Houses or Land with it this will immediately raise Houses and Lands to excessive prices as to Purchase and by consequence to such low Rents as will not answer the value of the Money nor give perhaps so much as 2 or 3 per Cent. improvement Whether this would be an Advantage to the Publick I leave to the considering Reader to judge And if those who are against all Usury would have Christians perpetually obliged to particular Precepts that were given to the Jews in their Laws should they not be much more positive from Gospel Precepts to maintain it unlawful for Christians to swear in any case or to eat Puddings made with blood or any thing that dyes by strangling than out of the Jewish Law to maintain it unlawful for Christians to lend Money for Increase The sum of all is If moderate Usury or Increase rightly circumstantiated be not in its own nature unlawful as against Justice though to require it in some cases may be against Charity and if those Precepts the Jews were under in this Particular do not perpetually oblige Christians any more than those other Instances of Charity to which they were obliged then I conclude It is the Law of every Christian Country and the Judgment of a Conscientious Man that must state this Matter what degrees of Interest upon Lending shall be lawful or unlawful both in general and in particular Circumstances and this Law we of this Country must have recourse to in this Matter and as in Civil Matters the Gospel commands us to be Subject to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake so we must herein be subject to that which the Wisdom of the Nation in the Legislative Power thereof has determined And by this Law a Christian is left at Liberty to lend either in a way of common Justice for Increase or of Kindness or Charity freely as the Nature and Circumstances of the Case may require Object I know some object again The Law of the Land doth not allow
the Scale on the right side If they were so ready to bind all the Clergy to abstain from Marriage against the express Doctrine and Determinations of the New Testament no wonder if they prohibit the Clergy all Usury having a Colour or Pretence so to do from some old Testament Precepts which do not oblige Christians Now suppose after this Nicene Council a Man finds Usury condemned in the Works or Writing of several Fathers or Doctors of the Church so called yet I doubt not but a great many of them may be fairly interpreted to mean either such Usury as was forbidden in the Law to be taken of the Poor or such as was forbidden by this Nicene Council to be taken by the Clergy neither of which will make at all against that Usury I defend If it be still objected That after this first Council there were afterwards other Councils and Doctors of the Church which did condemn Usury in all Cases and Persons I grant it to be true but then pray consider their Grounds and Reasons for it and then you will not have a jot the worse thought of Usury upon the account of their Opinion For from the time of this Nicene Council the Church was continually growing more and more into that Antichristian Apostacy that did at last totally Eclipse the Glory of it And the Pope and Clergy by degrees began to encroach upon the Office and Laws of the Civil Magistrate and so assumed to meddle and determine in Civil Matters which did not belong to them And since the Clergy were all forbidden to take Usury by this first Nicene Council many of them afterwards partly through Envy and partly through Interest as may rationally be suppos'd by their other Worldly and Ambitious Designs and Proceedings made it their work to condemn all Usury in the Laity for had they been as much at liberty as the Nicene Council left the Laity I do not question but the Clergy after the Council would have taken Usury as much as the Clergy before the Council did which was the occasion of that Councils Decree for we have no reason to believe the Clergy that rose up in successive Ages after that Council were better Men or so good as those that lived at the time of that Council or before it Therefore seeing these Clergy-men were totally forbid Usury themselves they not minding or regarding the vast difference between the Case of those whose business it is to win Souls and that of those who are to drive Trades and follow Merchandize in the World did afterwards condemn all Usury in the Laity too that by this means as they could not lend to the Laity upon Usury they themselves would not be bound to pay any usury to the Laity when they had occasion to borrow of them So that we have reason to believe it was Self-interest was the greatest Cause of many of the Clergy's stickling against usury Again I would desire any Man seriously to tell me Whether the Censures or Opinions of any of the Fathers or Councils after the first Nicene Council are to be preferred to or equalled with the Opinions or Censures of those Nicene Fathers If the Clergy at that time did exercise usury as the words of the Cannon do expresly declare no doubt but the Laity did practice it as much or more and if it were so sinful and damnable in its own Nature as some have affirm'd it is no doubt but those Fathers though they would not assume to themselves a Power to prohibit usury to the Laity yet they would at least have earnestly recommended it to the pious Emperour Constantine the Great that he would make a general Law to prohibit it in all places of his Dominions which I cannot learn that ever he did but only by his Edict confirmed the Decree of this Council against the Clergies taking of usury But suppose the Emperour then or any Civil Magistrate since had by Civil Laws totally forbidden all usury in their Dominions both Clergy and Laity unless it be in all cases and curcumstances a Moral Evil which can never be proved how are we in this Nation obliged by any such Laws Are we of this Nation bound by the Laws of any other Country as such besides and different from the Laws of our own Again Let us consider though many good Men in former times whether before or since the Reformation were indeed against all sorts of Increase or Usury upon lending Money yet there are now for ought I know as many holy and good Men that hold it lawful And why are we bound to the Judgment of the other more than of these And by the way this Consideration I humbly conceive shou'd have moved Mr. Jones to have been less positive in declaring his Opinion upon this Point His zealous but rash Censures of all Usury or Increase upon Loan of Money has given I doubt a needless occasion to many to have less regard than otherwise they might have had to his zealous Exhortations against those other known Sins he justly condemns in his Sermon I believe he would have done much better to have spoken against the Abuses in Usury than the thing it self There are Sins enough God knows in the Nation that are confessed by all to be such which will find Preachers work enough so that they will not need to be so peremptory against a thing which so many wise and good Men approve as lawful That there are a great many abuses in many cases and circumstances about lending Money upon use I easily grant and am as heartily sorry for as they that are against Usury but the abuse of a thing by some yea by many will not infer the unlawfulness of it If so then Buying and Selling and all sorts of Tranding must be unlawful because abused by many and practised against the strict Laws of Justice and Charity yea and the Office of preaching it self would then be unlawful because 't is possible many as I suppose Mr. Jones will not deny may regard the Flock only or chiefly for the Fleece sake or for filthy Lucre sake I shall in the next place consider and refute some of the most material Arguments that I have met with whereby the Opposers of all Usury would pretend to prove it unlawful in its own Nature and to differ from other ways of disposing Money upon Increase or Profit which all grant to be lawful and one is this They say If a Man lends Money it 's unreasonable to take Increase besides the Principal again forasmuch as Money naturally yields no Increase but what is got by the pains of the Borrower and not of the Lender Whereas if a Man lets Land for profit it naturally yields Fruit and if one lets a House it will grow worse by time and wearing in consideration whereof a Man receives Rent To which I answer and grant there is a difference between lending of Money and these other Instances in some circumstances but for the