doth properly signifie such Laws and so must signifie Lev. 25.18 whereto this Text seems to be a Counter-part And Grotius saith the same De Jure c. p. 3. Idem discrimen apud Hebraeos reperire est qui cùm distinctè loquuntur jus naturale vocant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jus Constitutum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solent vertere Hellenistae It is not therefore a cogent Argument that Usury is not forbidden by a Political Law because the same is reproved Ezek. 18. 2. In Lev. 25.35 36 37. Usury is there forbidden but that is in the midst of other Political Laws there being none but such mentioned in that Chapter therefore by his own arguing this must be so too 3. Take a farther Instance for the weakning his Argument Acts 15.29 Fornication is reckoned amongst Ceremonials and yet no Ceremonial 4. It is worth the Inquiry whether Usury may not be against a Judicial Law and yet in them to whom it is by that Law forbidden be Morally evil e. g. Theft is a Moral evil and yet the Instances wherein it is committed may be directly or immediately only against a positive Law of this or that Nation Hither belongs what hath been already quoted out of Dr. Taylor 's Holy Living p. 205. This part of Justice viz. Commutative is such as depends upon the Laws of Men directly and upon the Laws of God only by consequence and indirect reason and from Civil Laws or private Agreements it is to take its estimate and measures And hither belongs a Saying of Austin In Joh. 6. Rivet p. 272. Every one possesseth what he possesseth by Human Right for by Divine Right The Earth is the Lords and the Fulness thereof God made the Rich and the Poor of the same Clay and the same Earth supports both Poor and Rich yet by Human Right one says this Farm is mine this House is mine This House then this Field is mine by a Humane or Political Law and yet whosoever takes it from me is guilty of a Moral evil The Law of Nature dictates this in general that we must give every man his own by what Law soever whether Divine or Human the thing become his own Atque hic obiter c. And here by the way De Jure c. p. 26. saith Grotius their error is to be noted who derive the Israelites Right to the War from thence alone that God gave them the Land of Canaan whereas what every one possesseth by Human Right is no less his than if God had given it but that Right is not taken away by the Gospel 4. I return back whence I have digressed The Law of Vsury was Political saith Judicious Calvin upon Ezek. 18. And Luther seems of the same Judgment in that he adviseth the Ministers of the Church to leave the Disputes about Vsury to Lawyers and other good men As we have seen before Mr. Hughes upon the Question In Exod. 22.25 Whether the Law against Vsury be in force Answ Not in the Political Consideration of the Jews which was special to them as to use it towards Strangers and as a Balance of Government to themselves but as to common and general Equity c. And Rivet from Junius p. 285. Therefore if it could be proved That the taking of all Increase was absolutely forbidden to the Jews even in respect of a Wealthy Brother it would not follow now all yearly Increase to be altogether unlawful for in this Law there might be somewhat Ceremonial and Civil mixt which should not bind other Nations besides the Jews for the Jews might not sell their Possessions for ever but the buyer only did receive the profits unto the year of Jubilee wherein unmoveable goods ought to be restored to the right owner Lev. 25.10 15. But if it had been lawful for a Jew to take use of his Brother that Law had been rendred useless for one would never have bought a Possession of another but rather would have received a yearly sum without any toil when he should have known that the Possession was to be restored to his Neighbour at a certain time There is another Law of releasing Debts to a brother every seventh year Deut. 15.1 But if it had been lawful to exact that increase from a brother they would have so managed their Exactions in the six years that at the time appointed there should be nothing left to be released to their Brother These Civil reasons might be why Vsuries were more severely prohibited amongst the Israelites which yet were lawful toward Strangers even as it was not lawful after 7 years to exact a Debt from a Brother which yet was lawful from a Stranger for so it is said Deut. 15.3 5. This administers another proof That this Law was Political and Usury not against the Law of Nature beeing they might lend to a Stranger upon Usury though not to a Brother Mr J. 3. The very Law of Naure is against it Reply I grant it if meant of oppressive and biting Usury not else Mr. J. here mis reports Cicero Cicero de Off. l. 3. as if he had said that Vsury is more against Nature than Death whereas Cicero speaks not there in special of Usury but of increasing a Mans Estate by damnifying another which may be the fault of the borrower as well as of the lender Rivet p. 281. and I find the words of Cicero made use of by the contrary minded to streng-then their Opinion Cicero saith thus It is against Nature to advance a mans profit by the disprofit of another Again The enlargment of a mans own estate hurting none is not to be dispised but wrong is always to be voided but to detract any thing from another and for one man to advance his profit by the disprofit of another man is more against nature than Death than Poverty than Grief than any other things which can happen to the body or outward estate for Nature will not permit that by the spoils of others we should increase our Substance Wealth Riches Neither is it only determined by Nature i. e. by the Law of Nations but also by Popular Laws whereby Commonwealths in their several Cities are sustained that it may not be lawful for any to hurt another for his own advantage for this the Laws respect this they design that the Conjunction of Citizens be safe So then the general Rules Cicero lays down concerns both Parties De Jure c. p. 215. and Grotius citing them adds So great is the equity of this Saying that hence the Lawyers define many things without the Prescript of Laws always appealing to Equity it self as the most evident By these Rules then which are fetcht from the heart of Nature It is unequal and unjust for any to grow rich by money borrowed and the lender not to have the least advantage thereby but that he
the manner nor restrain it unless it be be in the general that we lend observing the Laws of Piety and Charity Mr. B. The Holy Prophets range it amongst the greatest abominations c. Psal 15. Ezek. 18. Reply Read what hath been before answered to these places Psal 15.5 That doth not put out to Vsury viz. To his poor Brother say Jun. and Tremelius In loc p. 667. Saith Spanhem 1. This is to be understood of the Vsurer that spoyleth his Brother by biting Vsury 2. As several expressions in this Psalm are to be taken in a limited sense so should this such are that doth no evil to his Neighbour nor receiveth a reproach against his Neighbour who sweareth to his hurt and changeth not No wonder then if this also admit of a limitation and the same Answer will serve for other places Thus far Spanhemius Mr. B. Proceeds to Answer an Exception Except God permitted the letting out of Vse to the Stranger therefore the prohibition cannot be moral For God is not wont to permit any transgression of the Moral Law Mr. B. Answ 1 Permission rather proves it to be unlawful in it self For if it were lawful it needed not to be permitted Reply 1. It is rather an exception to the Law then a permission and things excepted from a prohibiting Law may be in themselves lawful and usually are so antecedent to that Law 2. I deny that permission is always of things unlawful that expression of our Saviour relating to his Baptism evidenceth the contrary Mat. 3.15 Suffer it to be so now c. Mr. B. Answ 2. The putting away of a mans innocent Wife being a thing simply and in it self evil was notwithstanding permitted to the Jews Reply 1. It is a mistake that the putting away of an Innocent Wife was permitted to the Jews It is an Assertion against the express letter of the Law Deut. 4. beginning Because he hath found some uncleanness in her 2. It is denied by some Learned men that Divorce for weighty causes supposed in the Law was against the Law of Nature De Jure p. 4. and in it self evil Of this Judgment was Grotius de Jure c. p. 21. And he saith moreover The Law of Nature is so immutable that it cannot be changed no not by God himself Of the like Judgment was Spanhemius Dub. Evang. par 3. p. 666. in Answer to this exception of the Schoolmen Excep Vsury was permitted to the Jews toward Strangers not as somewhat lawful but less evil as the Bill of Divorce c. Answ 1. That gloss of theirs is rather supposed than proved 2. If according to the Schoolmen all Vsury were of it self and in its kind evil and had an inward dishonesty contrary to the Law of nature so it could in no case be permitted by the Divine Law but that the holiness both of the Law and Law-maker would be violated That of the Apostle is also known evils are not to be done that good may come and therefore things that are absolutely such are not to be permitted by an express sanction 3. The instance of Divorce is inconsequent for neither is Divorce of that kind and order or any such thing which hath in it an intrinsecal dishonesty contrary to the Law of nature the which is by the Schoolmen ascribed to all Vsury If what is here spoken be reason as I think it is then it evacuates the two following reasons used by Mr. B. for this toleration of Usury viz. 1. The hard hartedness of the Jews 2. The injustiee of the Gentiles with whom they did traffick such as they would be sure to exact Vsury of the Jews Which Arguments seem not of force enough to bear up the weight laid thereon For 1. How could any man be sure that the Gentiles would practice Usury upon the Jews if it were as they say a sin against nature and generally by the Heathens condemned 2. Neither is it likely that God would give a positive toleration for one sin to prevent another 3. And it seems very derogatory to the Laws and Holiness of God to give a positive permission to such practices as the very Heathen would cry shame upon I am sure Christians are wont to look on it as no small blemish in the Heathen Laws for things of this nature or that he should permit the Jews to use injustice towards other Nations because there was a probability they would use the same injustice toward the Jews Thus you have his plea if by Stranger be understood the Stranger at large But if by Stranger be meant the Canaanite which he takes to be the right Then he Answers thus Mr. B. Permission of Usury toward the Canaanite doth no more prove the Law against Usury not to be Moral than the allowance of manslaughter in War doth prove the Law forbidding Murder to be judicial for although the Law condemning Usury be never so perpetual or moral yet notwithstanding as other Commandments of God so is it to be understood with this Limitation and restraint viz. Unless God otherwise appoint Reply 1. This limitation would seem strange if applied to all Gods Laws for observe how ill it sounds to understand the Command thus Thou shalt not commit Adultery unless God otherwise appoint Thou shalt not steal or serve Idols c. Unless God otherwise appoint I say it is a great reflection of dishonour upon the wise God thus to interpret his Laws 2. The instances brought of Abraham's killing his Son and of the Israelites taking away the Aegyptians Goods will not prove the thing intended For 1. These things were commanded and so made lawful after this Command 2. It had been sin in them not to have done them will any say so of Usury toward the Stranger was this Commanded then it had been their sin not to have done it But he said before it was permitted only as the Bill of Divorce and permission saith he is only of things evil even after they are permitted 3. In the Instances mentioned there was no dispensing with Gods Laws in a proper sense Murder is the taking of the life of a person without a lawful Warrant or Authority This Abraham wanted not and therefore his fact if accomplished had not been Murder nor against that Law Theft is the taking away of anothers Goods without right did the Israelites do so when they spoyled the Aegyptians If it be said that the one had been Murder and the other Theft unless God had given them leave for doing of what they did and therefore the Law was dispensed with I reply so what the Executioner doth in taking away a mans life would be murder and what the Bailiff does in distraining Goods would be theft without a Warrant from the Magistrate for so doing yet none will dare say that therefore the Magistrate doth or can dispence with those Laws 4. We have heard before from Grotius that the Law of Nature is immutable even to God
by the Law of Moses 1. Because Moses law never did forbid it for 1. It is expresly forbidden as an act of unmercifulness and therefere forbidden only to the Poor and to Brethren 2. It is expresly allowed to be used to Strangers Deut. 23.19 20. to whom nothing unjust or uncharitable might be done onely such a measure of Charity was not required toward them as unto Brethren So that the Prohibition of Vsury is in the Law it self restrained only to their lending to the Poor but in the Prophets who do but reprove the sin it is expressed without that limitation partly because it supposeth the meaning of the Law to be known which the Prophets did but apply and partly because there was little or no lending used amongst the Jews but to the needy as an act of charity 2. And if it had been forbidden in Moses only it would not extend to Christians now because the Law of Moses as such as is not in force 5. What need of farther witness The first Law against Usury limits it to the poor and there is no Law or Comment following in Scripture that extends it to the rich why then should we extend it to the rich The Law saith Thou shalt not lend to thy Brother that is waxen poor by thee upon Vsury that is saith Mr. J. in his Comment Thou shalt not lend to the poor or rich upon Usury Strange Comment Again In Lev. 25. The Law against Usury is not only restrained to the poor by name but his poverty is intimated as the reason of this free Lending So it runs If thy Brother be waxen poor and fallen in decay with thee then thou shalt relieve him that he may live with thee This last reason is twice repeated All this intimating the persons to be such as borrow for a Livelyhood necessity is the reason of his borrowing Where the object and reason of a prohibition ceaseth the prohibition also ceaseth saith Rivet There are several Laws mentioned in this Chapter that are also limited to the poor see v. 25.35 39 47. And the same general reason annext to them all viz. I am the Lord your God Mr. J. 2. And what were those usurers whom Nehemiah did so blame and condemn for usury were they not such as lent to them that had Lands Vineyards c. Neh. 5.6 9 11. Will you usurers call such Landed men poor Reply 1. Mr. J. himself called them poor borrowers And were he in the like case with most of them he would count his Condition poor Some of them so poor they were forced to sell their Children to keep themselves from starving after they had morgaged their Lands and Vineyards c. 2. But whether they are to be called poor or no it seems they were for that present very necessitous otherwise they would not have mortgaged their Estates Lands Houses c. To buy Corn and for a Livelyhood nor have suffered their Sons and Daughters to have been brought into bondage 3. Here I consult Rivet again P. 279. We grant there must be lending to a poor man place in Extremity not only without the hope of an early return but also although there should be no hope of the principal farther to those which otherwise do not want goods but are in such a condition wherein for a time they cannot injoy their own loan must be granted freely which they require to the necessary support of their life for a time 4. In my Animadversions on what is written by Mr. Capel on this subject I have given a fuller Answer to this place viz. Neh. 5. Only this here Let it be considered whether the Case mentioned were not extraordinary as was that of the Primitive Christians Acts 2. when they sold their possessions and laid down the price at the Apostles feet And I think those none of the wisest Divines whatever their Zeal may be that draw Ordinary Rules from Extraordinary Cases or Examples As they that would destroy propriety and make all things Common from the foresaid instance of the primitive Christians So they that would bring in a necessity on Ministers ordinarily to work for a Livelyhood because the Apostle Paul under Extraordinary Circumstances did so What Mr. J. saith 1. Of a sallacy of Causae non pro causa p. 36. avails nothing For upon supposition that the Law it self be not political and proper to the Jews but universal and in its full force to this day I say that usury in Scripture is forbidden only with respect to the poor or wheresoever free lending is exprest with its object there the poor are exprest or implied and the reason used for free lending reacheth not others Mr. J. 2. Fallacy of consequence for it doth not therefore follow a man may lend upon usury to a rich man no more than this that a man may rob a rich man because it is written Rob not the poor Prov. 22.22 Reply 1. I grant his reasoning were good if it were proved that all gain for Loan were a moral evil or against Natures Law as Robbery but that cannot be proved 2. In the Text mentioned there is a particular reason added whereon the diswasion is grounded or which was the temptation to the sin viz. Because he is poor taking occasion from his poverty which is without power or defence saith Diodate 3. Learned Rivet hath answered this objection as urged by the Bishop of Winchester Thus. He urgeth What a consequence is this The Law forbids taking use from a poor man therefore it permits taking from the rich This being said he knits many absurd consequences which he pretends to be of the the like import As The Law forbids to oppress Widows or Orphans therefore it permits that such as have husbands and parents may be opprest c. But in such Consequences there is a dissimititude because oppression and the like are evil in themselves as is clearly proved from other places but it is not in it self evil to take any increase for loan but in some cases only into which the rich man while such falleth not Mr. J. The Stranger is Excepted and not the Rich Deut. 23.29.20 Reply Neither was it necessary the person to whom it was unlawful thus to lend being sufficiently pointed out in former rehearsals of the Law The Dutch Annotators upon Deut. 23.20 Vnto the Stranger thou shalt lend upon usury i. e. Thou mayest lend upon usury because they had dealing with the Jews not as the poor Israelites had by reason of poverty but to trade and traffick with them and to be enriched by them Mr. J. A gracious promise is here made to such as shall so freely and without Usury lend to rich and poor Reply 1. This is more than I can see from the Text or any other the borrowers here being such as borrowed Victuals Money to supply their urgent necessity but on the contrary there is a curse upon the head of any that is liberal to the rich
it that I hinted before as projected by Tiberius in forbidding of lesser Traders this way that he might have the greater custom Mr. J. Ex Weems The Primitive Church ordained that no man should eat or drink with such Vsurers nor fetch fire from them Reply Still the Question recurs what is meant by such Usurers Such I trust who made it their Trade to oppress overreach and cheat And what Primitive Church he means I know not The Canons that were made Cent. 4th Against Usury concern the Clergy only save one that looks farther Mr. J. brings in Pareus affirming the Usury of Christians to be so great a profaneness p. 46. Worth of Souls p. 213. marg that it hinders the Conversion of the Jews Reply 1. Oppressive Usury as well as other sins may have a hand in the hindrance of that great work not that I think the Jews are much stumbled at it who are notorious for practising thereof and look on the Law against Usury as made in favour of those of their own Nation but how this moderate taking of gain should contribute thereto Ut supra p. 215. I am still to seek though this I perceive passeth with him for profaneness too 2. Pareus calls the Jews famulos Christianorum the Christians Servants The Christians 't is sike imploying the Jews as their Brokers to put out their money for them either because they would seem shy of Usury themselves or because the Jews were more skilful and dextrous at the work 3. I meet with Hornbeck reproving the Jews for the oppression and griping Usury by them practised against the Christians Contra Jud. l. 7. c. 7. under the notion of Strangers and withall he minds Christian Magistrates of their failure in suffering the Jews to use their Cheats and griping Exactions amongst Christians shewing the ill consequences thereof and amongst others this viz. The hinderance of their Conversion which he saith is made a Common observation by our Divines viz. Luther Fagius Sands Prolego p. 28. c. Mr. J. I will set down the Theses of the Vniversity of Wittenburgh publickly there disputed a little after Luther was risen Reply This was but a little after Luther was risen but we have seen before how Luther himself when grown more Experienced and toward his latter days was grown more moderate in his thoughts about this subject And the like may well be supposed from this same University not only from the influence Luther had thereon but for that in Rivet's Catalogue of those that favour it I find Salomon Gesner Professor at Wittenberg to be one Of the same Judgment was Wollebius and Windeline Christ Theol. l. 2. c. 12. Moral Philos p. 800. both famous Professors of Divinity the one at Basil the other at Anhalt who also asserts that most Modern Divines Lawyers and Moralists were of the same Judgment And to his University I shall oppose another viz. The University of Tubing M. J. Univ. Wit 1. pos Forasmuch as all Vsurys are in themselves evil It followeth that all stipulations for Vsury are of no moment Reply May then the borrower promising with a safe Conscience break his promise and save his money Whereas of the godly man before his Text 't is said He sweareth or promiseth to his own hurt and changeth not Whether all Usury be in it self evil we may consider more hereafter when we look into Mr. Bolton's discourse upon Usury Mr. J. 3. Answ I am ashamed to see and read how our adversaries the Papists who scorn to appear for Vsury do cast it in our teeth that the Calvinists especially allow that usury which doth not exceed the Princes Tax as they call it that is the sum permitted to be taken by Law over and above the Principal And will you own your selves to be such Calvinists and such Hereticks Reply 1. Good words Sir such language ill becomes you how well soever it might become a Papists Pen. 2. But I come to apply salve to this sore 1. Do the Papists scorn to appear for Usury not all surely and the rest it is like desire to play least in sight p. 33. Marg. He himself mentions several Popish Schoolmen of another Judgment as Abulensis Conrade c. 2. Read what is written by Mr. Capel an Anti-Usurer of the Papists Oftentat p. 269. even of those amongst them that are most severe against Usury Papists saith he teach that in case a man be in very necessity when he takes use and makes profit by his Money yet if after this necessity cease he is not bound to make restitution when he hath wherewithal and this necessity they stretch and will have reach to his Estate for say they by the Law of Nature all things are common Mine and Thine came in after by law positive c. the Papists then that hold Use unlawful do not hold it unlawful for all persons to take it 2. And to Jews they give leave to use their griping Usuries when they can reprove what is moderate in Christians I receive it from Hornbeck Cont. Jud. proleg P. 28. speaking of the oppressive Usury practised by the Jews towards the Christians but condemned by Synods and Decrees of the Emperors and commonly decryed by our Christian Writers as a cause of the Jews hardening and estrangement from the Christian Faith he adds So that it is a wonder that there are some among the Papists that defend these things and that usury which all the Canons banne they grant to the Jews to wit because the same seemed good to the Lord Pope for gains sake But our Divines think otherwise and with one consent detest these things 3. And though the Papists generally condemn Usury it is but the name mostly whiles under other names they allow the practice thereof Publick Banks having been instituted by the Popes themselves as Rivet informs who shewing what sad work they made therewith concludes thus p. 289. The which things I were willing to mention by the way that one might see how serupulous their Conscience is who do so acutely dispute of usury wherein they will admit no moderation so as that in any case upon the account of loan it should be lawful to receive any thing above the Principal 4. And the same Author brings in Scotus and Maldonate speaking as much p. 282. in effect as the Calvinists do He brings in Scotus excepting those cases from unlawful Usury 1. When one takes above the Principal from Compact in respect of a Conventional Penalty 2. Vpon the account of Interest 3. When both Principal and Over-plus are put to an hazard Yea the same Author affirmeth That it is lawful to take somewhat over because Money may be borrowed for a shew for an ornament and to make pretence of ability that one may appear rich Which last case saith Rivet hath not so much equity as that which covenants for an yearly Pension Maldonate to the forementioned cases adds
himself De Jure p. 10. This is spoken not by way of check to his power but in that it carries an inconsistency to his will and holy nature I shall borrow somewhat more from the same Author on this Subject The Law of Nature is the dictate of right reason shewing an Act to have either a moral turpitude or moral necessity from its convenience or disconvenience with a rational nature and consequently such an Act to be either forbidden or commanded by God the Author of nature The actions concerning which there is such a dictate extant are lawful or unlawful in themselves and therefore are understood to be necessarily commanded or forbidden by God By which mark this Law differs not only from Mans Law but from the Divine voluntary which doth not command or forbid those things which in themselves and of their own nature are either lawful or unlawful but makes them unlawful by forbidding lawful by commanding Again Yet it sometimes comes to pass p. 4. that in those Acts wherein the light of Nature doth determine somewhat a certain shadow of change deceiveth the Non-observant when in truth the Law of Nature is not changed it being unchangeable but the thing of which the Law of nature doth determine receives some change e. g. If a Creditor c. So if God command any to be slain if what is anothers to be taken away Murder or Theft will not become Lawful these words carrying sinfulness within them but it shall not be murder or theft which is done by the Authority of the supream Lord of Life and Goods Thus far Grotius And indeed how can this be a dispensing with the Law of nature the highest Law of nature it self being that God must be obeyed unless we should imagine one of natures Laws to be contrary to another Lastly There is one difference more to be observed between the instances brought and what they suppose Usury to be for they assert Usury to be In it self and by the Law of nature unlawful such as Adultery Mr. B. p. 47. p. 13. p. 45. Lying and Theft is Again Biting is individual and essential to the nature of it And from the Schoolmen Vsury is a sin not only in it self but according to it self and therefore cannot be made good by any Circumstance Will they say the like of taking away the Goods or Life of another Are these so sinful in themselves and against the Law of nature that they can be made good by no Circumstances We see they were made good by the Command of God we know they may be made good by the Magistrates lawful Warrant And therefore it appears the instances will not reach the mark unless he had instanced in Theft and Murder which carry a natural sinfulness in them but neither of these could be affirmed of Abrahams killing his Son or of the Israelites spoyling the Aegyptians Concerning the latter of these It is commonly taken for granted that the Israelites Fact had been sinful secluding the special Command of God for their so doing and according to this supposition I have formed my Answer foregoing However I think I need not have granted so much but have called in question their supposition I know it was the extraordinary injunction of Jehovah put them upon the fact but doubt whether it were for this end to legitimate that which had been otherwise sinful Let us see what the Israelites did saith our Translation Exod. 12.35 36. They borrowed of the Egyptians Jewels of Silver c. And was not this fact of borrowing in it self lawful After they had thus borrowed the Egyptians were urgent upon them and thrust them out of the Land in haste Gen. 3.22 Presently after this grant saith Diodate the Egyptians moved War against the Israelites and did unjustly assault them so that by right their spoils belonged to the Victors who were assaulted which was brought to pass by Gods secret providence to recompence his people for the slavery they had endured in Egypt The word translated to borrow is Shaal which primarily signifies to ask so rendred by Diodate so by Junius and Tremelius God bad the People ask of the Egyptians Instruments of Silver and Gold and Raiment was not the thing in it self lawful even antecedent to the special Command from God if you say they asked with a promise of restoring that cannot be proved and that had been a lye in them and therein they had gone beyond the Command if it be urged the Egyptians designed to lend only and not to give neither can that be proved They gave to them asking dederunt eis petentibus say Jun. and Trem. Exod. 12.36 neither is it likely they should deliver these Jewels c. with such an intent when the Israelites were just upon taking their farewel of them If it be demanded how came it to pass that the Egyptians were so free and liberal The Scripture it self will remove this scruple The Lord gave the People favour in the sight of the Egyptians so that they gave them what they asked The Lord inclined the hearts of the Egyptians to be thus free and bountiful if it be again urged that they are said to spoil the Egyptians that is but spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and relates to the event rather than to the action spoiling properly signifying a hostile forcible taking away of anothers Goods which in this case was not but this may receive some farther light by comparing it with Gen. 31.9 Thus God said Jacob hath taken away the Cattle of your father and given them to me If it be again inquired what was Gods intent in putting the Israelites upon this demanding instruments of Silver c. I answer God had then the building of his Sanctuary in his eye whereto much of the things they received proved serviceable and was after consecrated for all was not cast away upon the Golden-Calf Having spoken of that Question that concerned the Israelites borrowing what I thought requisite to remove that rub out of the way I return to attend Mr. B. Mr. B. God appointed his People to destroy the Canaanites and it was fittest by little and little usurie was therefore a fit Consumption so to eat them out Reply 1. Believe it he that can I can call this no other than a groundless furmise as having no footing on reason or Scripture the latter not affording the least discovery that any of the Cursed Nations were eaten out by this means 2. Neither will the conjecture receive any help from Reason Suppose a Command given to the English to shew no kindness to any of their neighbour Nations but to destroy them utterly and root them out would any think that this Command were obeyed by lending to them upon Usury or that this were a likely means to effect it 3. If you look to the end of the Command for extirpation seems it likely that the Jews might lawfully exercise converse with the Cursed Nations in
consenting to share both in his gains and losses which with him is lawful yet would not the same inconveniences here imagined attend this Contract 2. By the allowance here made I perceive Mr. J. would oppress the seller who according to this account after all his pains time and hazards run should gain but six pound thirteen shillings and four pence for his hundred pound borrowed and laid out for one whole year Mr. J. Or potentially the Vsurer biteth the borrower I will instance in Land the borrower takes up 400 pound upon Interest and buyeth Land with it worth 20 pounds by the year and he payeth the Vsurer 24 pounds by the year in which case I ask the Vsurer whether the borrower must not needs be bitten c. Reply 1. I would know if on this score any one should come to Mr. J. to borrow this 400 pound would he lend it him freely or is any other bound to do so I remember Mr. Bolton says that no man ought to borrow but in case of need I doubt whether this mans need would pass with him But in truth if the Purchaser borrows the whole 400 pound few would judge him wise in medling with the Purchase or him much wiser that should intrust the money with him on his single security 2. Give me leave to make a supposition too suppose then this purchaser meets with a friend that lends him this 400 l for 10 l P. Annum here is usury and yet not biting to the borrower or suppose there is so much Timber growing on the land bought as that therewith he makes up the 400 l in some few years who is Injured then or where is the biting Obj. But here saith he the Vsurer will reply That so in other Contracts as buying selling setting a man may be bitten and wronged And I add that Bp. Hall makes over-reaching in these kinds the worst of Usury pract cas p. 11 12. Lamenting the Ignorance or mistaken Zeal of those that cry down usury but in the mean time make no bones of actions no less biting or oppressive they care not how high they sell any of their Commodities at how unreasonable rates they set their grounds how they circumvent the buyer in their bargains and think any price Just any gaine lawful that they can make in their markets not considering there is neither less nor less odious usury in selling and letting than there is in lending It is the Extortion in both that makes the sin without which the kind or terms of the transaction would not be guilty In the ordinary loan-usury the borrower hath yet time to boot for his money but here the buyer pays down an excessive Interest without any consideration but the sellers cruelty What doth Mr. J. answer to the foresaid Objection This Mr. J. So it may fall out viz. that a man may be bitten too in buying selling c. but herein lies the difference that these foresaid Contracts are in themselves lawful but usury in it self unlawful Reply But the Fathers that he pleads condemn Usury as unlawful do some of them also condemn Merchandising or Trading for gains sake Rivet in Decalog p. 290. As Hom. 38. on Mat. passing under Chrysostome's name The Lord casting out the Buyers and Sellers of the Temple signifies that a Merchant can never please God Again No Christian ought to be a Merchant or if he will be let him be cast out of the Church And Cassiodore On Psal 70. speaks the same language So that these Fathers that judged one judged both alike unlawful and Bishop Hall judged neither unlawful any further than there was Oppression in them Mr. J. But lending must be free Luke 6.35 It being reckoned amongst the liberal Contracts Reply If the Civilians make good that all lending must be free then let this Contract pass under another name and that plea is answered for it is not names or words but things that we are inquiring to Though enough hath been said before to answer what is urged from Luke 6.35 yet I shall not think it amiss to produce the sense of the Dutch Annotators on that Scripture And lend without hoping for at ny thing again or without hoping for any thing from it i. e. not only to them which ye hope will give it you again but also to them of whom ye have not this hope like as he here commands also to love not only our friends but also our enemies Obj. 2. The Law against Vsury is political concerning the Jews only and not us and therefore we cannot be condemned by it Mr. J. Answer This is a fallacy and the contrary can be sufficiently proved 1. The Prophets enumerate Vsury among the transgressions of the Moral Law Ezek. 18.8 Jer. 15.10 and so doth this Psal 15. Reply 1. Jer. 15.10 makes little to his purpose the most that can be made of it is what Diodate Comments thereon thus I have c. i. e. I have neither had strife nor contention with them upon any private interests nor pretences but all is by reason of my Office In loc Junius to the same effect I kept my self close to my own Calling I have had no other transactions with them I warily abstained from all occasion of strife which might any way happen among men Grotius understands the words of bare lending In Synops. saying Vsury was forbidden among the Jews therefore the words must be read Neither have I lent money to any one nor any to me * G. Sim. Calv. I have had to do with none upon any money-matter whence strifes are wont to arise say others 2. In reply to Psal 15. you may reflect upon Dixon's Comment thereon I shall besides produce what two learned Men say on the same Scripture Synops. * Gev. Sicut c. As the receiving of gifts is one thing in it self and the receiving of gifts upon an innocent man another so is the taking above the Principal from the Wealthy and from the Poor †Coc. To take use from the Poor is hurtful and burthensome because he receives that he may live but gainfnl for the Rich to pay use for he receives that he may gain 3. What is asserted usually of Ezek 18. viz. that it contains Morals only if the same be meant by way of exclusion to Judicials may admit of a use of addubitation to me there seems to be Judicials expressed or referred to v. 7. Oppression though a Moral evil yet the particulars thereof might be immediately against a Judicial Law and in the Margin of our Bibles we are pointed to Lev. 25.14 which concerns Judicials Restoring the Debtor his Pledge respects a Law of the like nature Exod. 22.26 And the executing of true judgment between Man and Man as to the Jews was according to the Political Laws given in special to that Nation Again v. 9. Statutes Judgments Surely we may not hence exclude Judicials seeing as Mercer Notes the latter
thing for a rich man that freely invited his friends to a Feast to make them pay for it though there may be some that know how to setch out their pennyworths again of heir Guests where according to common Custom it is taken for granted that all things come freely but not so in the business of borrowing of money where they themselves lay it down for granted that the borrower and lender know one anothers mind though there be no express Compact made for the Over-plus both Custom and common sense leading thereto 4. When the rich invites his friends usually there is a recompence made for this by the like invitation again and it may be he that made the first Dinner expects it and would take it amiss not to be re-invited you will not allow the lender to hope for any thing again Or if you will give him leave to look for the like kindness another time I doubt not to say that this is mony-worth and so esteemed by most that know their Interest 5. Luke 14.12 13. Our Saviour saith When thou makest a Dinner or a Supper call not thy friends nor thy rich neighbours c. Mr. B. here takes it for granted that we may notwithstanding this plain prohibition invite such as these to a dinner He must then put a fair construction upon our Saviours words such as this Invite not only the rich or not so much the rich as the poor Why then should not the like candid interpretation be put upon the words of our Saviour which are in controversie Luk. 6.35 viz. Lend hoping for nothing again i. e. from the poor and such as stand in need of your free lending His other reasons under the third Answer have been elsewhere examined As 1. Other things are fruitful in themselves which a man may alienate for a time reserving the property to himself Reply 1. In loan there is not a full parting with the property for if that were true it could not be recovered again 2. Money in a political sense is fruitful and Mr. B. himself rejects as weak p. 53. the usual Argument taken from the barrenness of Money Mr. B. 2. The Hirer restores the self-same-thing being for the most part impaired Reply But not always impaired and what though the borrower restore not the same thing that he received seeing it is the same in kind and no better neither Mr. B. 3. The Letter to Hire as he retains the Property so he beareth the hazard Reply 1. But not all the hazards that attend the using and improvement thereof 2. The Creditor runs hazards too in his money lent Mr. Jel p. 56. as experience as well as Chrysostome tells us 3. Though the lender part with his right to that individual sum yet not to the like sum else it were giving and not lending Mr. B. 4. The letter to hire is at cost and charge for the things he letts Reply Is not the cost and charge money and is the Creditor at no cost and pains for procuring the money he lends 2. Q. Whether the Law of Moses concerning Vsury be Moral or Judicial There be Divines that hold this Law to be Moral and yet some Usury to be lawful They are of Opinion that taking Use from the Poor is only prohibited who is expressed in the first writing of the Law and to be understood in all after repetitions of the Law or prohibitions of Usury And others that look on the Law as Political yet acknowledge a general Equity in this as in other Judicial Laws of God by Moses and so far they concern Christians also De Jure p. 10. From Grotius I understand some things may be morally honest because they may he commendably done and yet their opposites not morally dishonest and for this he instanceth in Usury To the understanding saith he of the Law of Nature we must observe that some things are said to belong to this Law not properly but by reduction as the Schools affect to speak the which are not contrary to the Law of Nature as even now we called those things just which are free from injustice Sometimes also by a Catachresis those things are said to belong to the Law of Nature which Reason shews to be honest or better than their opposites although not due And the same Author of this Law of Moses saith The matter of this Law if it be not necessary is certainly morally honest This I shall say that it is not only lawful or honest to lend freely but also in it self more commendable than its contrary though I cannot believe it is always so when all things are considered But this will not satisfie those we contend with I come therefore to consider what is here said upon this question Mr. B. 1. Prohibition of biting Vsury is moral but that usurie which is forbidden in the Law is biting E. c. Reply This is answered by what is said before I shall lay down this Syllogisme in opposition to his What is not biting is not prohibited in this Law by their concession but some Vsury as hath been proved is not biting E. 't is not prohibited by the Law His after Discourse may be comprized in this Syllogism Out of uncertain profit to covenant for certain gain is unjust and uncharitable and therefore forbidden in the Moral Law but in Usury certain profit is taken for uncertain gain E. Apply this to the setter and then see whether he doth not by covenant take certain gain for what is uncertain Mr. B. 2. The Law of free lending is moral renewed by our Saviour Mat. 5.42 Deut. 15.8 Luke 6.35 Therefore the Law which forbiddeth usury is moral Reply 1. It is granted him the free lending our Saviour requireth belongs to the moral law but then it must be understood with respect to the poor the proper objects of a free lending And to these poor the Text by him cited doth expresly limit it viz. Deut. 15.7 c. Let the other Texts be interpreted by this Our Saviour here injoyns free lending to the poorer sort they that extend it farther must say that Christ commands free lending to the rich also and that this too belongs to the Law of Nature 2. Dub. Ev. part 3. p. 663. Enough hath been said to these Texts already I shall add however what Spanhemius saith to all three Luke 6.35 1. It is inconsequent for there is a precept what is to be done not what only is to be done to Wit we must relieve the poor from whom nothing can be hoped that same thing is commended Deut. 15.7 8 9. But an indefinite proposition must not be confounded with an universal Luke has that not this 2. If the words of Christ should be stretched for it would thence follow that the principal may not be retaken from any 3. So the words of Matthew speak of the thing not of the manner thereof we must lend to one that asketh but they neither express