and Contracts which are grounded only upon the laws of Nature and Nationâ— 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 make usury unlawfull besides the hurt of our neighbour p. 44. 125. But if Charity be the fulfilling of the whole law I will give them leave to talke 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 Iudiciall To prove the lawes against Vsury to be Morall and not Iudiciall Dr. Downam produceth a main argument which is not in Dr. F. his words are The law which Commandeth free lending is not Iudiciall but Morall for the same law which commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the Negative Ans. 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 Negative termes Lending freely or for gain are only severall sorts of lending and differing in qualities and though their qualities differ yet they are both positive and affirmative for it is an axiome Câ—ntrarioâ—um utrumque membrum 〈…〉 vuâ— In Contradictions and Privations one term is alwaies negative but it is not so in Contraries Secondly let me retort Dr. Dâ—wnams argument in a stronger Case The law which 〈◊〉 resting on the Sabbath is not Iudiciall but Morall therefore the law which forbiddeth Kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is Morall for the law which commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the negative what will Dr. Dâ—w answer to this his own argument here is affirmation and negation Resting and not Resting in the kindling of a fire not Contraries onely but Contradictories yet I presume Dr. Downam will not conclude that kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is a breach of the Morall law Dr. Fenton is of opinion that if God doth forbid biting and opprâ—ssing Vsury onely by his law that thâ—n the law must needs be Morall and not Iudiciall except we will give liberty to Christians to oppress and bite their Brethren pag. 44. The answer is The Equity of the law is stil in force the Rigor of it is abrogated or thus the poor should not be oppressed is Morall that they should not be oppressed by Vsury is Iudicial To make the meaning of this distinction clear we must know that All Iudicial lawes were made for the hedging in or enclosing of the Morall law and whereas the Morall law was delivered either in Generall affirmative commandements or Negative prohibitions the Iudiciall comes after and gives some particular politique directions in the observation of them for example the Morall law saith in generall â—hou shalt Sanctifie the Sabbath then comes the Iudiciall and saith Ye shall kindle no fire throughâ—ut your habitations upon the Sabbath day Exod 35.3 so the Morall law tells us thou shalt not steal the Judiciall adds if a man Steal an oxe or a sheep he should pay five or four sold for it and in most cases but double Exod 22.1.4 So then there is a generall equity in all Judicialls which is Morall and eternall 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 〈◊〉 1 Kings 21.3 that he would not â—ell 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 stil in force yet absolutely not to sell any land is esteemed no otherwise than a Judiciall law sitted for the Common-wealth of the Jews so the perpetuall 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 lawes 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 generall 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 otherwayes 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 Vâ—ury 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 lest to the Ordinance of the Magistrate or high Priest and humane ordinances as Mr. Hooker doth observe are many times presuppâ—sed as grounds in the statutes of God Deut. 24.10 There is a Judiciall Law which ordereth onely 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 Judiciall law that it might therby be made less hurtfull 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 custome of the Jews which was then iâ—â—ase and practice And the specialâ— caution for the Poor might leave the Rich to the customes and lawes of the Magistrats wch 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 human 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 civill lawes of Israel His especiall care was to ordain lawes 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 Cananites I know that Dr. Fenton doth inferre that the law which prohibits Vsury is Moralâ— pag. 45. because the allowance of it to strangers is onely a Judiciall for unless it had been a sin what needs a toleration since lawfull things have no need of a permission Ans. 1. If the allowing of Vsury to strangers be no Law at all but onely an Exception or proviso
relief and benefit of the stranger the 〈◊〉 the â—idow There are many more lawes to be found in the books 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 the law against Vsury more than all the rest be necessary It may as well be affirmed that all the Iudiciall lawes are Morall let them shew us by what rules they do distinguish these lawes I doe apprehend that the Iudicialls were conversant about the morality of outward actions as about the distinctions of rights the distributions of inheritanceâ— the Punishments of Crimes as of Blasphemy Perjury Murther Adultery Manslaughter Fornication or the like about the rites of Mariage of Divorces of Bondage of Vsury of Witnesses and of many other actions the equity of all which is reducible to some one Commandement or other of the Morall law If all the Leviticall lawes be read over it cannot be found that ever any Judiciall 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 generall 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 Judiciall 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 Iudicialls Indeed I find Dr. Downam brought to such straights as to maintain that there be other respects which make Vsury unlawfull besides the hurt of the neighbour pag. 295. But if it be forbidden by the Morall law and that law be a branch of the second table as Dr. Fenton affirmes 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 therby 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 bee referr'd to some particular precept of the Decalogue as the officious lye is to the first as for general disobedience it is a sin that goeth through all the Commandements and is to bee 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 Ezechiel 18 with sinnes 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 wâ—ges 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 Wee find first that the words in the Original 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 disjunctive 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 bee granted to Dr. Downam that which he can never prove that death is threatned by Ezekiel to Usury May it not stil 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 yeares 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 Faminâ— Ierem. 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 Vsury 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 Vsury what Text can be shewed that it is lawful Answ. There needeth none for if the Law of God doe 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 meanes of some things is such that to search the Scripture of God for the ordering of them wâ—re to derogate from the reverend authority and dignity of the Scripture If I should ask Dr. Fenton what Text he hath to prove that Leting of Land is lawful it would ask him sometime 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 allege as good a Text for Vsury I think the 6 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 Originall we may conclude that it is not only allowed but commanded there what exceptions can be taken if a man should translate {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}
greatest part of them oppose or mislike the rigid assertion of such as condemn All Contracts for gain by lending Namely Bishop Babington Mr. Perkins Dr. Willet Dr. Mayer Mr. Brinsley and others here at home and abroad Calvin Martyr Bucer Bullinger Danaeus Hemingius Zanchius Vrsinus Bucanus Junius Polanus Molineus Scultetus Alstedius Amesius Grotius Salmasius The Author though he be neither Divine by calling nor by profession a Scholar yet as he is a rationall man he may and as he is a Christan he ought for the direction of his own practice to examine what may be done with a safe conscience and what not The Civilians and Canonists frequently dispute of the nature of Vsury he knowes not but that any other Laique may doe the like The Argument was first undertaken for the satisfaction of the tenderness of the conscience of others and not to justifie any practice of the Authors who hath alwaies given but not taken Vsury This point of Vsury as it is at this day controverted is a meer popish question first broached by the Schoolemen and Canonists no antient Father or writer that I know of ever defined or disputed it Since the Reformaton Melancthon and Chemnitius are the only noted men abroad and here at home Dr. Downam now Bishop of London-derry in Ireland Dr. Fenton and learned Dr. Andrewes late Bishop of Winchester I have made choice of Dr Fentons 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 â—eader of the substance of the scattered arguments in this Tractate he must know That my scope and intention is to shew that Vsury is no where in Scripture forbidden to Christians but that it is as lawfull as any other contract or bargain unless the lawes of the Land do prohibit or moderate it as a point of state or policy And that no State or Commonwealth 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 Vsury was never forbidden to the Iewes only by reason that by a more speciall appointment of God they dwelt in a land in the midst of many strangers Moses made a politique Iudiciall law that the Iewes should take Vsury of those strangers and not of their poor brothers not much unlike as if the King should ordain in London That Citisens should take Vsury of men of Midlesex and not of poor tradesmen of the City More particularly I undertake to manifest that the Definitions of Vsury wherein Dr. Down and Dr. Fenton mainly differ between themseâ—ves 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 Councils or Fathers And that the lawes given by God about Vsury are such as by the Coherence of the Texts and the Conference of other places do shew that those lawes did only intend a prohibition of taking Vsury of such as borrowed in case of extreme necessity and were so poor that they were in Charity to be relieved And yet those lawes which did in such case only prohibit Vsury to the Iewes were not moral or perpetual but Iudiciall and temporary and no way bind us but we are left to the lawes and customes of the Kingdome to guide us in our Contracts so long as they bee not contrary to the rules of Charity I shew that all the properties of Letting do agree to money And that Vsury in it self is neither unnaturall ungodly unjust or uncharitable Lastly I do shew that Dr. Downam Dr. Fenton and all others that do most condemn Vsury are forced to confess at last that Vsury may be lawfull 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 Vsury and doe only differ in the manner of the security or contract after they have eagerly disputed that all Contracts for gain by lending are Vsurious at the end they quietly conclude that the Contracts are not Usury but onely the secret intention of the heart makes it to be Vsury or not Vsury 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 Vsury is lawfull or els 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 onely endeavoured to extract the quintessence of his reasons and to apply my self to the examinatiom of them His Reasons not his Rhetorique I except against whether Justly or Vnjustly let others judge to whose Censure I submit these Papers I would fain know of the Ministers of the Gospell who do often reckon up in the pulpit Vsury as one of the Crying sins what warrant they have in the Gospell for such boldness we find severall sinnes numbred up by our Saviour and the Apostles but Vsury never so much as named for a sin in the whole New Testament St. Paul in the fift to the Galathians doth with one breath reckon up together seventeen sins which he reproves yet Vsury is none of them But many preachers cannot not Reckon up seven deadly sins except they make Vsury one of them R. F. Errata Pag. 3. l. 14. for different lege for a different pag. 100. l. 26. sute lege sutes in law p. 123. l. 22. for Exod. 0.13 lege Exod. 30.13 p. 131. l. 22. be sold lege must be just sold AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. FENTONS Treatise of VSVRY Touching the Definition of VSVRY I Let pass his Chapter of names of Vsury because he Confesseth that by them he hath proved litle or nothing at all Page 12. The main point is the Definition which he saith must not bee 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 hee doth intitle his first book wholy about the Definition of Vsury although when he comes unto the point he doth nothing less than define it As may thus appear Actuall Vsury saith he pag. 15. is of divers diversly described a variety tedious to relate First in stead of all unlawfull Usury he speakes of a description of part only to wit of actuall usury whereas he should first define and then divide but inverting the Rule of method he suffers mâ—ntall usury which hee saith is a sin to escape out of his description Neither doth
by buying selling in the mercat at the same prices that the owners of mony do it is the rates of the mercat that rules their using and not their Vsury the mercat The difference is onely that the owners prove the greater gainers and grow richer than the borrowers who keep but part of their gettings because that their stocks are not their own And questionless the Common estimation of men would not valew at 8. or 10 in the 100 if it did not ordinarily produce a Competent increase both for borrower and lender If any man object that the prime gain which comes by buying and selling and leads the rate of Vsury is too great I know no other answer but this if Common Custome may not determine reasonable gaines I know not how it will be resolved since there is no rule in Scripture for it but that men may grow rich by gain I find both practised and warranted by Scripture neither are men restrained from gaining more by trade than is simply necessary for life and being If Dr. Fenton and those that condemn all Vsury had been so observant of the letter or literall sense of the Law as they do pretend they would never have troubled themselves so much about Contracts which are not named in the Law but would rather have Concluded that the very taking of Vsury or increase though it be not contracted for is utterly unlawfull by the law in Levit. 25.36 where it is said Take thou no Vsury of him How then can these men justifie the Taking of their foenus liberâ—le which they commend or the foenus nauticum which they allow or the Contractus Societatis or partnership which they so much extoll since all these are expresly forbidden by the law If to take any increase be unlawfull To the Iews themselves the letter of the law did seem to condemn the taking of a gratuâ—ty nay some of them did think it Vsury if a man did but salute or bid good morrow to him that had lent him mony if he did not use to do so before he borrowed it because in the Originall it is said thou shalâ— take no Vsury of any word Deut. 23. our translation hath it Vsury of any thing Surely such salutations were not contracted for nor were of any valuable price or mony worth I do not find any text brought by Dr. Fen. out of the New Testament against Vsury for the truth is there is none although D. Dow some others do cite two texts first Mat. 5.42 Give to him that asketh from him that would borrow of thee tuâ—n not away If we ask D. Dâ—wnam whether every one be bâ—und to lend to every one that asketh his answer is Respect is to be had of thine ability and of his necessity and also if it be not a Case of urgent and present necessity of his honesty if his necessity urge him to borrow and thine estate enable thee to lend thou art bound to lend unto him especially if his honesty deserve to be respected Lect. on the 15. Psalm pag 224. Why may not the same respects be observed in the interpretations of all texts against Vsury Secondly he cites Luk. â— 35 Lend looking for nothing thence Lastly both he and Dr. Fenton do apply all texts that do mention lending freely or charitableness to the poore or mercifulness to our neighbour as heapes of so many places against Vsury although the name be not so much as to be found in the whole New testament as Condemned For my part I do gladly hear all exhortations to Charity and think them more than needfull and if any man be so great an Vsurer as that he make himself thereby unable to be mercifull to the poor such a man may be justly condemned and I shall never defend him But to conclude because a man must give to the poor therefore he may not let to the rich is no good consequence The text â—hat bids me lend freely doth not thereby forbid not to let at all but that upon severall occasions and according to divers Circumstances I may do either if the Commanding to observe one sort of Contract were the Prohibiting of all other kinds it would follow that I might neither give mony to the poor nor sell victualls to the rich because I am Commanded to lend both But let us admit that both in the Old and New testament the lawes against Vsury had been Morall and delivered in as generall termes as can be devised Be there not many lawes and texts which must of necessity be expounded otherwise than the bare letter sounds and according to such a sense as may stand with naturall reason so that it contradict not any other plain or necessary doctrine nor overthrow the â—â—â—lâ—gie of Faith There is a law of our Saviour Christ that saith swear not at all and again he saith to him that asketh Give Neither of these Lawes must bee literally understood but interpreted according to the rule of natural reâ—son discretion Christ forbiddeth his disciples to carry gold or silver or any manner of coin in their purses I do not think that Dr. Fenton and others have followed the letter of this law but I trust they will grant an interpretation over and besides the bare letter There be divers such texts as if thy eye offend thee pull it out pray continually if any sue thee for thy Coat let him have thy Cloak also all which if they were not otherwise understood than the bare words do bear would bring great confusion with them and such inconvenience as no reason nor law could or might allow in any case The light of Nature must help to guide us in the interpretation of many texts It is Dr. Fen. own confession p. 34. that Vsury is a Question of that nature as is not only determinable by the law of God in Scripture but also by the law of Nature those Maximes and Principles of Common equity which are written in the hearts of men by the finger of God which point had need be well considered because as Mr. Hooker saith a number there are who think they cannot admire as they ought the power and Authority of the word of God if in things divine they should attribute any force to mans reason for which Cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace reason Pag. 97. Nor let any man think saith he that following the judgment of Naturall discretion we can have no assurance to please God for to the author and God of Nature how shall any operation prâ—ceeding in naturall sort be in that respect â—nacceptable the nature which himself hath given to woâ—k by he cannot but be delighted with when wee exâ—rcise the same any way without commandement of his to the Contrary Pag. 60. Now if any place in the Bible may receive an interpretation from the rules and principles of naturall reason why might not the texts of Vsury since it is conversant altogether about Covenants