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
all which is reducible to some one Commandment or other of the Moral law If all the Levitical laws be read over it cannot be found that ever any Judicial was delivered with such restrictions qualifications and diminishing termes as the law of Vsury thy brother thy poor brother thy poor brother that is with thee the general name of neighbour is not so much as used about it it is no where said thou shalt take no Vsury of thy neighbour Besides this law hath an allowance which no other Judicial hath And lastly this law of Vsury taken in the sense of our adversaries for all increase from the rich also can be no breach of Charity in some Cases and then there will be no Equity in it which is found even in all Judicials Indeed I find Dr. Downam brought to such straights as to maintain that there be other respects which make Vsury unlawful besides the hurt of the neighbour pag. 295. But if it be forbidden by the Moral law and that law be a branch of the second table as Dr. Fenton affirms how it can be a sin without breach of Charity to the neighbour passeth my understanding since Charity is the fulfilling of the law Whereas Dr. Downam doth compare Vsury to an officious lye which is a sin though it hurt not but help the neighbour pag. 277. It is true an officious lye is a sin but a sin against the first Commandement of the first Table as it is repugnant to Truth which is an essential Attribute of God Every one that lyeth doth thereby deny and forsake the true God Let Dr. Downam tell us which Commandement of the first Table is by Vsury violated It is not sufficient to say that all Vsury is a breach of our allegiance to God this is but begging of the question unless this disobedience can be referred to some particular precept of the Decalogue as the officious lye is to be first as for general disobedience it is a sin that goeth through all the Commandement and is to be referred to each particular precept according to the several objects of it It is further insisted on that the prohibition of Vsury is coupled in Ezekiel 18. with sins against the Moral law from thence an inference is made that it self must be Moral Answ 1. If we look upon other Scriptures we shall find Judicials and Morals mingled together in the giving of the Law We may see in Levit. 19. 9. the prohibition of Reaping the corners of the field and gleaning the Vineyards which were Judicials set immediately before the forbidding of Stealing Lying and Swearing which are parcels of the Moral Law In the 13. verse of the same Chapter it is said Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour nor rob him The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night untill the morning The former of these is Moral the latter is Judicial And also in the 16. verse the prohibition of Enchantment or Witchcraft is set between the forbidding of eating bloud and rounding the corners of the head and marring the corners of the beard Secondly Whereas Dr. Downam saith pag 219. The Holy Ghost deciphers a wicked man that should dye the death if he did any of these things We find first that the words in the Orginal are if he do like to any one of these things or as our new Translation hath it in the Margent or that doth to his brother besides any of these Thirdly Whereas Dr. Downam conjoyns these sins by the disjumctive Or our new translators use the Copulative And Lastly To confound Dr. Downam's opinion the Text in the 13. verse saith He hath done all these abominations he shall surely dye And good reason for some of the crimes were capital by the Law of Moses as Idolatry and Adultery but Vsury or the taking and keeping of a Pledge hath no kind of Punishment appointed by Moses neither hath any man denied but that the law of restoring the pledge was Judicial and not Moral But let it be granted to Dr. Downam that which he can never prove that death is threatned by Ezekiel to Usury May it not still be a Judicial Law for all that Was not the Law in Exod. 21. 1. a Judicial whereby it is ordered that an Hebrew-bond-servant should at seven years end be free and at liberty Yet God doth threaten the People for breaking this Law by reassuming their servants with a liberty to the Sword to the Pestilence and to the Famine Jerem. 34. 17. Also in Numb 15. 35. the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day was stoned by Gods appointment and yet the Law was but Judicial and not Moral Before I conclude this question about the nature of the Law against Usury it is not impertinent to remove a scruple that is objected It may be asked of me that maintain there is no Law in Scripture now in force against Usury what Text can be shewed that it is lawful Answ There needeth none for if the Law of God do not now forbid it it is sufficient that the Law of Nature Reason and Custom doth make it lawful About things easie and manifest saith Mr. Hooker by common sense there needeth no higher consultation the means of some things is such that to search the Scripture of God for the ordering of them were to derogate from the reverend authority and dignity of the Scripture If I should ask Dr. Fenton what Text he hath to prove that Letting of Land is lawful it would ask him some time to find it or how he can warrant the selling of Land which is expresly forbidden in the Law Levit. 25. 23. It may be I can alledge as good a Text for Usury I think the 6th of Luke which is alleged against it may with better reason be produced for it and if we will stand to the literal and common sense of the word in the Original we may conclude that it is not only allowed but commanded there what exceptions can be taken if a man should translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lend upon Vsury Is not that the proper signification of the word in all Authors Hath not the Latin borrowed the words Danista an Vsurer and Danisma Vsury from the Greek Although our Translation saith only Lend this general word may also comprehend Lending upon use It accords with the Original and crosseth not the Translation But it may be Lending upon Vsury may be here in this Text allowed by our adversaries if we will observe as it followeth in the Text to look for nothing again These words of looking or hoping for nothing again although they be answerable to the vulgar Translation yet in the Original they have another more proper signification as is shewed by Beza who is no friend to Vsury you shall have his words in his Annotations upon Luke 6. 35. I confess saith he that I never read in any other place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this signification to hope
and Chemnitius are the only noted men abroad and here at home Dr. Downam Bishop of London-derry in Ireland Dr. Fenton and learned Dr Andrews late Bishop of Winchester I have made choice of Dr. Fenton's Treatise to examine because it is the latest and I find little of any moment but is in him I desire his book may be first throughly read for otherwise what I write will not so easily be understood To give some brief accompt to the Reader of the substance of the scattered arguments in this Tractate he must know That my scope and intention is to shew that Usury is no where in Scripture forbidden to Christians but that it is as lawful as any other contract or Bargain unless the laws of the Land do prohibit or moderate it as a point of state or policy And that no State or common-wealth can or ever did stand without it or that which in contracts is equivalent to it since the valuation of the use of money is the foundation and rule which govern the valuation of all other sorts of Bargains I further maintain that Usury was never forbidden to the Jewes only by reason that by a more special appointment of God they dwelt in a land in the midst of many strangers Moses made a politick Judiciall law that the Jews should take Usury of those strangers and not of their poor brothers not much unlike as if the King should ordain in London That Citizens should take Usury of men of Midlesex and not of poor tradesmen of the City More particularly I undertake to manifest that the Definitions of Usury wherein Dr. Down and Dr Fenton mainly differ between themselves are neither warrantable by the rules of art nor justifiable by any proof or ground in Scripture or by any testimony of antiquity either in Councels or Fathers And that the laws given by God about Usury are such as by the Coherence of the Texts and the conference of other places do shew that those laws did only intend a prohibition of taking Usury of such as borrowed in case of extreme necessity and were so poor that they were in Charity to be relieved And yet those laws which did in such case only prohibit Usury to the Jewes were not moral or perpetual but Judiciall and temporary and no way bind us but we are left to the laws and customs of the Kingdom to guide us in our Contracts so long as they be not contrary to the rules of Charity I shew that all the properties of Letting do agree to money And that Usury in it self is neither unnatural ungodly unjust or uncharitable Lastly I do shew that Dr Downam Dr Fenton and all others that do most condemn Usury are forced to confess at last that Usury may be lawful they all allow the taking of Interest Mortgages Annuities and Leases for yeares all which by their own expositions and confessions are of the same nature with Usury and do only differ in the manner of the security or contract after they have eagerly disputed that all Contracts for gain by lending are Usurious at the end they quietly conclude that the Contracts are not Usury but only the secret intention of the heart makes it to be Usury or not Usury Thus in few words they overthrow at last the foundation of their own doctrine and play fast and loose by a multitude of their irresolute distinctions so that either their conclusion must be that Usury is lawful or else they can conclude nothing at all If I wrong either Dr. Fenton or the truth I desire friendly to be shewed my error I do not follow him here Line by Line for so I might tire my self and vex others with unnecessary tautologies I have only endeavoured to extract the quintessence of his reasons and to apply my self to the examination of them His Reasons not his Rhetorick I except against whether Justly or Unjustly let others judge to whose Censure I submit these Papers I would fain know of the Ministers of the Gospel who do often reckon up in the pulpit Vsury as one of the Crying sins what warrant they have in the Gospel for such boldness we find several sins numbred up by our Saviour and the Apostles but Usury never so much as named for a sin in the whole New Testament St. Paul in the fift to the Galatians doth with one breath reckon up together seventeen sins which he reproves and yet Usury is none of them But many preachers cannot Reckon up seven deadly sins except they make Usury one of them Robert Filmer THE CONTENTS 1. TOuching the Definition of Usury 2. Of Testimonies of Scripture 3. Of the names of Usury 4. Of the Properties of Letting 5. Concerning humane Testimonies of Fathers Councils Divines Heathens and Laws 6. Arguments against Usury 7. Of the unnaturalness of Usury 8. Of the ungodliness of Usury 9. Of the injustice of Usury 10. Of the uncharitableness of Usury A TREATISE OF USURY Touching the Definition of Usury I Let pass Dr. Fenton's Chapter of names of Vsury because he Confesseth that by them he hath proved little or nothing at all Page 12. The main point is the Definition which he saith must not be omitted or slightly passed over because it is a great and necessary question to resolve the understanding what that Vsury is whereof we dispute pag. 13. And therefore he doth intitle his first book wholly about the Definition of Vsury although when he comes unto the point he doth nothing less than define it As may thus appear Actual Vsury saith he pag 15. is of divers diversly described a variety tedious to relate First in stead of all unlawful Usury he speaks of a description of part only to wit of actual usury whereas he should first define and then divide but inverting the Rule of method he suffers mental usury which he saith is a sin to escape out of his description Neither doth he so much as describe actual usury only he tells us of diversity of descriptions of others but never lets us know which he approves Yet at last he contracts the pith in three words but resolves not how we should place them so leaves us to a thus or thus or thus First he puts Lucre in the place of the Genus and Covenant in the room of a difference Secondly he makes Covenant the Genus and Lending the difference and lastly he puts Lending for a Genus and Lucre for a difference Thus by turning the Genus into the difference and the difference into the Genus he leaves us uncertain of his description yet concludes that within the compass of three words we may find Vsury but who knows not that three words diversly placed breed many times different and some times contrary senses Yet this is all the definition you are like to find in him And thus in few lines he passeth over slightly that necessary question which would resolve our understanding what Vsury is But let us draw a little closer and
being If Dr. Fenton and those that condemn all Vsury had been so observant of the letter or literal sense of the Laws 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 unlawful 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 liberale which they commend or the foenus nauticum which they allow or the Contractus Societatis or partnership which they so much extol since all these are expresly forbidden by the Law If to take increase be unlawful To the Jews themselves the letter of the Law did seem to condemn the taking of a gratuity 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 Original it is said thou shalt take no Vsury of any word Deut. 23. our translation hath it Vsury of anything Surely such saluations were not contracted for nor were of any valuable price or mony worth I do not find any text brought by Dr. Fenton out of the New Testament against Vsury for the truth is there is none although Dr. Downam and some others do cite two texts first Mat. 5. 42. Give to him that asketh and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away If we ask Dr. Dow nam whether every one be bound 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 Luke 6. 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 poor or mercifulness to our neighbour as heaps 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 needful and if any man be so great an Vsurer as that he make himself thereby unable to be merciful 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 that bids me lend freely doth not thereby forbid not to let at all but that upon several 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 fell victuals to the rich because I am Commanded to lend both But let us admit that both in the Old and New testament the laws against Vsury had been Moral and delivered in as general terms as can be devised Be there not many laws and texts which must of necessity be expounded otherwise than the bare letter sounds and according to such a sense as may stand with natural reason so that it contradict not any other plain or necessary doctrine nor overthrow the analogie 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 Laws must be literally understood but interpreted according to the rule of natural reason and discretion Christ forbiddeth his Diciples 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. Fentons 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 p. 97. Nor let any man think saith he that following the judgment of Natural discretion we can have no assurance to please God for to the Author and God of Nature how shall any operation proceeding in natural sort be in that respect unacceptable the nature which himself hath given to work by he cannot but be delighted with when we exercise the same any way without Commandement of his to the Contrary p. 60. Now if any place in the Bible may receive an interpretation from the rules and principles of natural reason why might not the texts of Vsury since it is conversant altogether about Covenants and Contracts which are grounded only upon the laws of Nature and Nations and many Cases there be which are confessed by all to be no apparent breaches of Charity nor any injustice found in them Insomuch that Dr. Downam is brought thereby to such a straight as he is forced to maintain that there be other respects which makes usury unlawful besides the hurt of our neighbour p. 44. and 125. But if Charity be the fulfilling of the whole law I will give them leave to talk their fill yet I cannot beleeve how Vsury can be a sin if it hurt not my neighbour Their pretences of the oppression of the Common-wealth by taking Vsury of the Rich is but a meer Sanctuary of ignorance and a fiction which can never be proved since it is practised in the Richest Common-wealths Whether the law of Vsury be Judicial To prove the laws against Vsury to be Moral and not Judicial D. Downam produceth a main argument which is not in Dr. Fenton his words are The law which commandeth
a stranger he never saith thou mayst divorce thy wife if she displease thee or thou shalt put her away But the law is If she do displease thee and find no favour in thine eyes and if thou shalt put her away and if she do marry another and if he also put her away Then saith the law her first husband may not take her again Deut. 24. 1. 2 3 4. so that the end of the whole law of divorce is only to keep the woman from returning to her first husband after a second marriage all that goeth before is but by way of supposition But if any man will contend that the writing of a bill of divorce is enjoyned in the law it must follow that it is not a Permission but a Command contrary to our Saviours doctrine who calls it a Permission Mat. 19. 8. And if it be a Command we must needs understand it as an order only how and after what manmer the divorce should be to wit by bill in writing but not as an order that did command men simply to be divorced It is very little less than blasphemy to say that Moses law should allow any thing that was evil It is the power of the law-giver to make both the Rule and the Exception to it It is an over-bold speech of Dr. Fenton to say that notwithstanding Moses law had given liberty to the Jews to take Vsury of strangers yet it was a sin to do it and that they could not be absolved in the Court of Conscience although they might be absolved in the external Court pag. 45. Whereas Dr. Fenton doth pretend that a Reason that moved God to permit this sin of Vsury to strangers was to prevent the greater oppression of his own People and that the hardness of the Jewish hearts was such that if they might not have taken Vsury of strangers they would have made a Prey of their own Brethren ib. Answ How much doth this derogate from the laws of God as if they were not able to bridle one sin but by the toleration of some other and if the hardness of mens hearts must be born with since mens hearts are as much hardned in other sins as in Vsury why are not some other sins tolerated as well as Vsury surely the Idolatry of the Jews was as great as their Vsury and their hearts went a whoring after strange Gods yet Dr. Fenton cannot shew that any Idolatry was permited them in any kind I find some Criticism used by Dr. Downam upon the Hebrew names in Scripture which signifie a stranger pag. 208. but I cannot find that Dr. Fenton doth make any use the three sorts of Ger Tashab and Nocre which he translates to be Advena Inquilinus and Hostis are insisted upon by him He would have Nocre to signifie an alien by birth Religion affection and Dwelling This distinction he labours not to prove neither do I think it sound because I am informed by those that are skilful in the tongues that the Hebrew root doth signifie to be ignorant or not to know so that whosoever was unknown was Nocre a stranger though he were not of another nation if he were but only of an unknown family the word is used by Solomon Pro. 5. 20. and 6. 24. where he calls a Whore a strange woman no man must think that he meanes such whores only as are of another nation or religion but all such as were not to be known to them as wives So God forbids the Jews Deut. 17. 15. that they should not set a stranger to be King over them surely he meant such strangers as dwelt amongst them there was little danger that they would choose an Enemy that dwelt in another Country I find in Levit. 22. 10. it is said there shall no stranger eat of the holy thing that is whosoever is not of the Priests family so that the word stranger may sometimes signifie an Israelite of another family or tribe D. Downam affirms that a Jew was permitted to take Vsury of such strangers only as were enemies and aliens both in affection and religion birth and habitation so that if a stranger did but dwell or converse amongst the Jews they might not take Vsury of him But Dr. Downam should remember that a Brother and a Stranger in the Levitical law are Membra dividentia he that is not a brother is a stranger and è contra c. Now a brother Levit 25. 42. is only an Israelite circumcised brought out of Egypt If therefore the law had prohibited only the taking of Vsury of an Israelite and allowed only the taking of it of an enemy stranger then the law had been very imperfect and defective because there had been no direction in the law for such strangers as had been sojourners or proselytes who are neither Brethren nor Enemies if any man think that a proselyte or sojourner might be accompted a Brother let him but read Levit. 25. verse 39 40 42 44 45 and 46. I know Dr. Fenton p. 46. would have us think that a Jew might take Vsury of a stranger because he might also kill him But I must deny that any private man might kill a stranger but in a publick warre neither can the like text be shewed for the allowing of the murther of a stranger by a private man Many places there be in which the Jews were enjoyned to be Charitable to strangers Thou shalt not vex a stranger Exod. 22. 21. Love ye the stranger for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt Deut. 10. 19. Thou shalt not oppress a stranger for ye know the heart of a stranger because ye were strangers in the land of Egypt Exod 23. 9. There was in many Cases the self same Charity to be shewed to the stranger as to the poor The corners of the harvest-field the gleanings of it and the single grapes Thou shalt leave for the poor and the stranger Levit 19. 9. Also the third yeares tyth the forgotten sheafs the feasts of Pentecost and of Tabernacles were appointed for the relief and benefit of the stranger fatherless and the widow There are many more laws to be found in the book of Moses which are made for the benefit of the poor the equity of them certainly continues unto this day but no man but a Jew is so mad as to say the rigorous observation of them is to be required of us why then must they law against Vsury more than all the rest be necessary It may as well be affirmed that all the Judicial laws are Moral let them shew us by what rules they do distinguish these laws I do apprehend that the Judicials were conversant about the morality of outward actions as about the distinctions of rights the distributions of inheritance the Punishment of crimes as of Blasphemy Perjury Murther Adultery Manslaughter Fornication or the like about the rites of Marriage of Divorces of Bondage of Vsury of Witnesses and of many other actions the equity of