a Lamb and that Sheep and Lamb in time bring forth a double increase which multiplies to a third and so forward so one hundred pound brings forth ten pound and both together in time increase to produce eleven pound The only difference is that mony is more durable than other fruitful things which by course of Nature are more perishable 8. Of the ungodliness of Vsury It is ungodly and impious against the first Table because it dependeth not upon Gods Providence but is assured by Bonds against the Act of God Answ 1. Dr. Fenton forgets that he said Vsury belongs to the second Table Why is it here made a breach of the first Secondly the Vsurers security is to arm himself against the ordinary frauds negligences or other follies of the Borrower If by the hand of God an extraordinary loss do happen by the like meanes also an extraordinary gaine may be raised sometimes both which belong to the borrower except the mercy of the lender to whom he is to trust relieve him And surely the Vsurer hath greater cause and seems also to trust God more than any other man and is least armed against him He had need pray against foul weather tempest wind and wrack for although he be no Husbandman Merchant Tradesman no Labourer yet by the thriving of all these he must live if all or any of these miscarry it is not his bonds many times which help him Neither against the hand of God only is he unarmed but against the frauds of men many times his security cannot defend him How many have been defrauded of their principal debts by fraudulent deeds of gift by concealing of goods and divers other wayes It is true some few in a City may sometimes attain to a noted wealth by Usury but these are but as cyphers in comparison of hundreds who living by the like employment of money do scarce attain to a moderate gain whereby to maintain themselves in their first condition and many times as skilful Usurers as the best what by the loss sometimes of interest sometimes of Principal and other whiles of both and many times by the lying still of their mony for want of reasonable security have proved in the end perfect Beggars by this trade And what greater Argument can there be of the hazard and danger of mony that is lent than the Common opinion of the world which esteems a small revenew in land of Fee simple more safe and certain than almost a double encrease in mony with perpetual hazard and for this cause land is dearer than mony As for taking of Bonds for payment it is no more injurious to the Providence of God than to have a bond or covenant of a Tenant for the payment of his rent for although some years by the unseasonableness of the year or by some other act of God the land yields not the rent contracted for yet the Tenant is absolutely bound to pay it without any condition of gaining so much by the land And the reason is grounded upon great equity and is all one both for contracts of land and mony to be absolute Nither GOD nor Nature have proportioned the valuation of Lands Commodities or Moneys no Text can be brought to prove an Acre must be just sold at such a price or a commodity at such a rate the worth of things in proportion one to another is a humane arbitrary custome grounded upon the several necessities or opinions of each particular Nation Thus the common estimation doth allow Lands Goods and Mony taken with all casualties hazards and charges to be worth one year with another about a certain value and it is reasonable that such a certain value should be contracted for so that as the Seller or Letter is not to participate of the extraordinary gaines that may be raised so he is not to sustain the losses if any do happen 9. Of the Injustice of Vsury It is further urged pag. 98. that it is unjust because it takes hire for loan and sels Charity which should be free so that things are not lent but let if they goe for hire Answ 1. Dr. Fenton can shew no reason why mony may not be let as well as lent as well as a house or a horse which may be both I ought in great necessity to lend freely to the poor yet this work of Charity doth not hinder me from letting the same thing where there is not the like necessity If the use of money for a time be worth money in buying and selling as Dr. F. confesseth pag. 99. The rule may better hold in Letting which is no work of Charity though both in Letting and Selling Charity is to guide us It doth not follow that because I must lend a shilling for a day therefore I may not lend a pound for a year Besides even in letting for hire there is often both Charity and Friendship shewed As if I let a thing for half the value the use of it is worth to one whom others dare not trust with their goods If some things which are spent in the first use may be sold for increase why may not other things that are used be let in the same sort since letting is but a temporary kind of selling and selling in effect a perpetual kind of letting If such things as are bought this day for ten pound may be sold to morrow for eleven pound may not the same ten pound which by buying and selling may encrease in one day to this eleven pound may it not by letting increase in a whole year to as much Nor can there be any reason shewed since money hath a gainful use in it self and as Solomon saith answereth all things why I may not as well let a hundred pound in money as a hundred pounds worth of Cattel Houses or Lands which I buy with my money And because they often tell us that he that bears the hazard must have the gain I must ask what they will say to a Lease for Life wherein both Parties hazard yet but one gains Dr. Andrews Bishop of Winchester hath an argument against Vsury taken from the Rule of our Saviour Luke 6. 31. as ye would that men should do to you do ye also to them likewise Nemo saith he sibi vellet Vsuras infligi cum fratre sio agat igitur No man is willing to have Vsury taken of him therefore he must not take himself every man desires to borrow freely therefore he must lend freely Answ The Rule of our Saviour must necessarily be thus expounded Whatsoever ye will that is Whatsoever you will according to right reason or common Justice for if any man be so unreasonable or so frantick as to will that others should kill him yet my Lord of Winchester will not say that therefore that man may kill another So he that desires to borrow freely breaks the Rule of common equity and rectified reason by coveting his neighbours goods for he that desireth to
I must produce some places of judicious Hooker The will of God saith he by which we are to judge our actions no sound Divine in the world ever denied to be in Part made manifest even by the light of Nature and not by Scripture alone pag. 97. And he adds in another place that there may be a certain belief grounded upon other assurance than Scripture we are said to believe whatsoever we are certainly perswaded of whether it be by reason or sense pag. 60. And in a third he gives this reason It is not required nor can be exacted at our hands that we should yield unto any thing other assent than such as doth answer the evidence which is to be had of that we assent unto for which cause even in matters divine concerning some things we may lawfully doubt of some things we may very well retain an opinion that they are probable and not unlikely to be true Then are our Consciences best resolved and in most agreeable sort unto God and Nature settled when they are so far perswaded as those grounds of perswasion which are to be had will bear which thing I so much the rather set down for that I see how a number of Souls are for want of right information in this point oftentimes grievously vexed when bare and unbridled conclusions are put into their minds they finding not themselves to have thereof any great certainty Imagin this proceedeth only from lack of faith and that the Spirit of God doth not work in them as it doth in true believers by this means their hearts are much troubled they fall into anguish and perplexity whereas the truth is that how bold and confident soever we may be in words when it cometh to the point of tryal such as the evidence is which the truth hath either in it self or through proof such is the hearts assent thereto neither can it be stronger being grounded as it should be page 73. 74. Thus far Mr. Hooker Therefore it is no argument to conclude that because the Scripture doth not allow Vsury therefore it may not be used for if the Scripture do not absolutely condemn it it is sufficient if Reason or Sense do guide our belief for the practice of it I leave those that doubt to consider what Dr. Fenton himself saith within a few lines in the same page p. 75. This Vsury which we have in hand is no principle of faith no mystery of Salvation to be apprehended in the simplicity of belief but a point of Morality belonging to the second Table and so determinable by the rules of Equity and Charity It is objected p. 77. that it is Scandalous and therefore unlawful Answ If Scandal be taken and not given it is not in it self unlawful Still he flies from the question 7. Of the unnaturalness of Vsury A fourth Reason of Dr. Fenton is p. 91. that the encrease of mony is unnatural Therefore unlawful Answ This is no argument of Divinity from Scripture but of Philosophy from Aristotle Secondly If it were of force it serves only against Vsury of mony but not of all other things Thirdly It is confessed that mony considered as it is a metal is not perhaps by nature apt to generation increase and yet even that may be doubted of But mony considered as it is mony which Art not Nature hath produced may be allowed an artificial increase or gain as well as houses ships and mamy other things not natural Policy hath ordained the value of Metals to be the common rule and measure for the worth of all things vendible and by common estimation it is accompted in the place and stead of such things so that in opinion and use mony is both land house horse corn or any thing that is valued by it even man himself who in worth exceeds all other creatures is by Gods own valuation prized at a certain sum of mony and fifty Shekels of Silver were accepted by God in the place and stead of a man who by vow belonged unto him Levit. 27 3. It being then so apparent that Mony is by Art taken and used for all things valuable both by man and God himself who had his peculiar Coin the Shekel of the Sanctuary for all sacred uses Exodus 30. 13. It follows in all reason that since the nature of most things that are valued and sold is to bring forth an increase that Mony it self also which is esteemed for them should doe the like or else Art is frustrated of her intention who found out the use of mony only for the ease and benefit of Trade which proves to be a discommoditie if the benefit of inincrease be lost by the conversion into mony It is further objected by Dr. Fenton that mony may not be let for hire as a horse a house or a cow because these things are the worse for letting Answ What thinks he may a man take hire for a house when he binds the Lessee to leave it in as good repair as he found it Many times a horse by a moderate journey after long rest is the better whether may the Letter take mony for his hire If this Argument were sound that no hire ought to be taken but where the things are the worse for using then I believe all the Rent that hath been paid for land since Noahs Floud hath been unjustly taken For it will hardly appear that any Acre of Land is worse now than in his dayes since many Acres are bettered by tillage and manuring which by lying waste are hurt and houses also decay most for want of inhabiting The true rule of Letting is not only the Lenders loss in the impairing of the thing lent but the Borrowers gain by the use of it And we must consider as well what the owner is the worse by the want of that use as what the thing lent is impaired If another use my land though it be not the worse yet he is the better by having the crop of it and I am the worse by wanting that benefit of it which he made therefore I justly challenge Rent for it The like case is for mony the Borrower hath the use of it and though the mony be not the worse for using yet the Lender is the worse by missing the commoditie which the other makes of it and the Borrower is bettered by the employment of it Also it is objected pag. 148. That mony is void of all immediate use in it self to the possessor while he doth enjoy it Answ So it is with Land which immediately neither clothes nor feeds any man but by the mediation of tillage and pasturage both are effected and though no man immediately eats or wears mony yet by the meanes of it food and raiment are procured Another objection is That mony the more it doth increase the more it may which is unnatural and contrary to other increase Answ It is so in other sorts of increase for one sheep brings forth
benefit himself by the use of another mans goods doth therein uncharitably desire the hindrance of his neighbour Also it is objected that the greatness of gain which is made by Vsury is unlawful pag. 100. Answ 1. This is no proof against all increase of money but onely against excessive gains whereas it should be proved that Vsury of a penny in the hundred is a sin as well as of ten pounds Secondly By this Rule all gain of merchandizing is condemned which is ordinarily far greater than that of ten in the hundred Thirdly The greatness of gain by Lending must be estimated by the common opinion of the Countrey otherwise how can any mans Conscience warrant him to purchase any inheritance Men buy Land to them and to their heirs for ever that is till Dooms-day which when it will come no man knows and yet as if every purchaser knew the hour he bargaineth for Land at fifteen or sixteen years purchase But the last day may come within a year or within fifteen or perhaps not within fifteen hundred years howsoever it be uncertain yet the publick valuation doth esteem it Certain And no man buyes land at fifteen years purchase upon Condition that Dooms-day come not before because perhaps then he may have a dear penny-worth Nor upon Condition that if the World last longer than fifteen years that thenceforward the Purchaser should pay a further sum No but Custome thinks fit to make an absolute bargain though by the meer act of God it may be made a dear purchase As the Argument of the greatness of gain in Vsury makes against trading or merchandizing so thereby also bargaining for Leases for term of years will be made unjust And this may the better appear if we examine one of Dr. Fenton 's examples of Vsury in this kind If saith he pag. 21. purposely to avoid the Statute I will purchase an annuity of twenty pound per annum with an hundred pound for ten years this is bargain and sale yet the very same with Vsury differing only in parchment and manner of Covenanting subject to the same iniquity and inequality poisoned with purpose of avoiding the Statute and penalty of Vsury Ans 1. If onely the purpose to avoid the Statute makes his Case to be Vsury then before the Statute it was no Vsury for there could be no purpose to avoid a penalty that was not and this is to make Vsury a breach only of Mans Law and not of God's Let us ask Dr. Fenton whether a Lease for years and annuity bought with money be Vsury simply in it self he dares not say it his answer is pag. 129. We cannot condemn it for Vsury and yet he seeth most apparently it is of the very self-same nature with Lending upon Bonds and differs only in the security upon Bond a man ties himself upon a Lease a man ties his Land in both these there is the like increase by Money and both pay alike at the end Secondly This Case I find put of a Lease that brings in above ten in the hundred thereby to make it more odious but give us leave to put it in other termes and then ask his opinion If with a hundred pound I purchase an annuity of ten pounds per annum and twenty shillings over yearly for ten yeares is this Vsury because it is an increase above the principal It is the very self-same bargain in nature with his it differs only in the quantity of increase Now both by his definition and argument as well the increase of a penny is Vsury as of ten pounds in the hundred so then by his doctrine a man may not buy a lease worth one penny more than his principal If it be pretended that bargain and sale of leases be lawful if it be reasonable otherwise not then if the unreasonableness only of the bargain make it a sin of Vsury then the former doctrine which saith all increase is Vsury is thereby denied And I confess that an unreasonable bargain is a sin but of theft in general not of Vsury Thirdly The principal purpose in buying an annuity or lease for yeares is to gain by a hundred pound which since it could not safely be done by bonds therefore by a second intention men labour to avoid the Statute so that to gain and in gaining to avoid the Statute is the purpose of such Contracts and not chiefly to avoid the Statute which might best be avoided by not purchasing at all Fourthly It is no sin to avoid a Statute by lawful meanes if the Contract of bargain and sale be in it self lawful why should it be a vice and not a vertue thereby to avoid the penalty of the Law since laws are purposely made to force men to avoid them by lawful meanes Fiftly Whereas Dr. Fenton pag. 129. concludeth that if simply without any pretence such annuity of rent be bought or sold we cannot condemn it for Vsury It follows that the pretence or intention of the heart and not the Contract makes it Vsury and that as he himself confesseth pag. 128. if the intention be right that which formally is Vsurious upon the matter may in justice be equivalent to a lawful Contract If formal Vsury may be no Vsury we must look for a new definition of Vsury in the Consciences of men and not in Dr. Fenton's treatise And if Vsury be committed in Buying and Selling what Contract will be found in the world without Vsury To Instance in some other Contracts let us consider of the absolute buying and selling of land or of purchasing an annuity for life because these two Contracts are esteemed by most men to be the lawfullest of all others yet in both these the just and ordinary valuation both of fee simple land and of leases for lives is grounded and guided by Vsury only and as the use of mony goeth higher or lower so the prices of these rise and fall so that in very truth he that purchaseth land is the greatest Vsurer in the world because he maketh the greatest and certainest gain by his bargain for example Admit land is bought and sold for sixteen yeares purchase and let the inheritance of the land be made away for so little a summ as the land will bring home in sixteen years what Conscience is there to keep that for ever which in so short a time payeth the purchaser his principal There can be no other reason yielded for this great disproportion but this that both the Purchaser and Seller do equally value the use of the mony and do make the bargain accordingly The purchase-mony considered with the Use of it would last about a 1000 years in paying yearly so much as the Rent of the land is therefore the Purchaser expects to enjoy and the Seller intends to part with the land for ever because the inheritance of the land after a thousand yeares is not valuable for that ordinarily within four or five hundred yeares the possessions of the ancientest
free lending is not Judicial but Moral for the same law which commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the Negative Answ 1. Dr. Downam mistakes in thinking free lending and lending for gain to be termes of affirmation and negation Lending and not lending which are Contradictorily opposed are only Affirmative and Negative terms Lending freely or for gain are only several sorts of lending and differing in qualities and though their qualities differ yet they are both positive and affirmative for it is an axiome Contrariorum utrumque membrum est positivum In Contradictions and Privations one term is always negative but it is not so in Contraries Secondly let me retort Dr. Downams argument in a stronger Case The law which commandeth resting on the Sabbath is not Judiciall but Moral therefore the law which forbiddeth Kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is Moral for the law which Commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the negative what will Dr. Downam answer to this his own argument here is affirmation and negation Resting and not Resting in the kindling of a fire not Contraries only but Contradictories yet I presume Dr. Downam will not conclude that kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is a breach of the Moral law Dr. Fenton is of opinion that if God doth forbid biting and oppressing Vsury only by his law that then the law must needs be Moral and not Judicial except we will give liberty to Christians to oppress and bite their Brethren pag. 44. The answer is The Equity of the law is still in force the Rigor of it is abrogated or thus that the poor should not be oppressed is Moral that they should not be oppressed by Vsury is Judicial To make the meaning of this distinction clear we must know that all Judicial laws were made for that hedging in or enclosing of the Moral law and whereas the Morall law was delivered either in General affirmative commandements or negative prohibitions the Judiciall comes after and gives some particular politick directions in the observation of them for example the Moral law saith in general thou shalt Sanctifie the Sabbath then comes the Judicial and saith Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day Exod. 35. 3. so the Moral law tells us thou shalt not steal the Judicial adds if a man steal an oxe or a sheep he should pay five or four fold for it and in most cases but double Exod 22. 1. 4. So then there is a general equity in all Judicials which is Moral and eternal There is a law Levit. 25. 23. the land shall not be sold for ever whereby selling of inheritance is forbidden and this law did bind Naboth 1 Kings 21. 3. that he would not sell his inheritance to king Ahab The equity of this law which binds all men even infidels to preserve or procure an inheritance or estate for their posterity remaines still in force yet absolutely not to sell any land is esteemed no otherwise than a Judicial law fitted for the Common-wealth of the Jews so the perpetual equity of Sanctifying the Sabbath and of not Stealing abides although the kindling of a fire on that day is now arbitrary and the Compensation of stealing is left to the positive laws of each nation The same law that forbids us to steal bids us to relieve the poor and so doth the equity of the law of Vsury It is sufficient that the general equity of this law be observed and the poor relieved but that in particular they must be relieved by the not taking Vsury of them is not necessary It was a sin in any Jew to take Vsury of his poor although he did relieve him otherways because God did restrain him to that particular manner of relieving the poor But with us it is otherwise if by any other meanes we do sufficiently relieve the poor then even the taking of Vsury of them is no sin nor oppression Concerning the Judicials of Moses we must also observe that they were not so particular but that many things were left to the Ordinance of the Magistrate or high Priest and humane ordinances as Mr. Hooker doth observe are many times presupposed as grounds in the statutes of God Deut. 24. 10 There is a Judicial Law which ordereth only the manner how a pledge must be taken this necessarily doth presuppose some former humane law that did order that pledges might be taken Even that ill law or Custome of divorce Deut. 24. 1. is regulated by a Judicial law that it might thereby be made less hurtful The reason why I note these things is because the law of God concerning Vsury did presuppose and was grounded on a former law or custom of the Jews which was then in use and practice And the speciall caution for the Poor might leave the Rich to the customs and laws of the Magistrates which did always regulate all sorts of contracts And wheras the law of Moses did allow Vsury only to Strangers It doth not follow but that others that were neither Poor nor Strangers were left to the ordinary laws of the Country No Magistrate could give a dispensation for Vsury towards the Poor nor a Prohibition for it towards Strangers so much as God ordered no humane laws might alter as for other cases not specified they were left to the ordinary policy of the State For we must not think that God provided all the civil laws of Israel His especial care was to ordain laws for the reformation of such sins as had been learnt by his people of the Egyptians or for the prevention of such as might be taught them by the Canaanites I know that Dr. Fenton doth inferre that the law which prohibits Vsury is Moral pag. 45. because the allowance of it to strangers is only a Judicial for unless it had been a sin what needs a toleration since lawful things have no need of a permission Answ 1. If the allowing of Vsury to strangers be no Law at all but only an Exception or proviso annexed to a former law then it can be no Judicial all laws do Command or forbid something but this if it be an exception doth neither because it leaves the thing indifferent as it is the nature of all such provisoes in statutes But if they will have it to be a Law then it must bind affirmatively and not only that one May but that one Must take Vsury of a stranger for in the Original it is thou shalt lend upon Usury or shalt cause to bite And the Hebrews understand this to be a Commandement and not a Permission only Secondly whereas they Compare the allowance of Vsury to the permission of Divorce they erre notoriously for the difference between allowing and permitting is most manifest as Dr. Downam confesseth pag. 298. We allow those things only which we suppose to be good or at least indifferent But we permit only such things as are esteemed evill God hath said by Moses thou mayst or thou shalt take Vsury of