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
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
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
commonly practised might justly incur the indignation of the wiser and better sort among the Heathen Take the testimonies of two Learned men in one speaking to the same effect As for the contrary testimonies Spanhem Dub. Ev. part 3. p. 672. whether of Pagans or Fathers they are to be understood in a limited sense not absolutely for some are too rigid some speak not of all Vsury but only of biting Vsury immoderate and exacted from the poor or attended with the damage of our neighbour and of an Vsurary kind of living which is deservedly odious to all good men and was long ago by Lycurgus cast out of Sparta The which hath been well observed by the famous Hugo Grotius l. 2. de Jure c. c. 12. § 20. What is said by Cato Cicero Plutarch and others against Vsury respects not so much what is intrinsecal to it as what is wont to attend and follow it 6. I have made inspection into Plutarch my self Mor. Part. 2. p. 471. De vitando aere alieno and find the Usurers by him inveighed against took Use every Moneth and Use at first lending and Use upon Use which he represents by the superfaetation of the hare and other fraudulent dealings of theirs he there speaks of as naught in themselves so against the Laws then in force Mr. C. We have it forbidden in the N. Testament p. 267. where Judicials were out of date Lend hoping for nothing again Reply 1. It is an apparent mistake to say that Judicials were out of date in Christ's time they not expiring till 40 years after when their whole polity was destroyed by Titus the which for ought I can see had for the most part continued to this day had not their Commonwealth been dissolved excepting what was typical and discriminative of them as a peculiar Church and Mr. C. himself p. 271 272. pleads for the standing power of a Political Law of Moses even in Christ's time when he justifies the Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn Mat. 12.1 Let Grotius decide the Controversie saying De Jure c. p. 24. It can be proved by no argument that the Law of Moses as concerning Judicials ceased before the City Jerusalem was demolish'd and with that both the kind and hope of the Commonwealth fell for neither in the Law of Moses is any term predefined neither Christ or his Apostles any where speak of the cessation of that Law save as far as it might seem to be comprehended in the ruine of the Commonwealth c. Politieals then were not out of date in Christ's time as Mr. C. would perswade us 2. I am very secure upon reasons formerly given that our Saviour here never intended the condemnation of all Usury And Mr. Bolt Discourse p. 58. himself understands it not as spoken directly against it but only by consequence For thus he writes Where Lending is commanded without providing for indempnity in receiving the principal if so their Brothers need truly require much more without requiring an overplus above the principal which Corist saith in the same place p. 8. even sinners would do Elsewhere our Saviour gives this testimony to the very sinners of his time among the Jews that they would lend one to another that they might receive so much as they lent c. Whence I gather that in his sense Lend hoping for nothing again is not to be understood without limitation For 1. In many Cases it is lawful to receive the principal again 2. Whereas Mr. B. saith we are not to receive the principal again in Case our Brothers need truly require it we will grant that much less in the like Case may an overplus be received 3. Our Saviours intent according to him being to take men off from contenting themselves with doing what the sinners then did and what they did was a lending to those that would besriend them another time with the like kindness It necessarily follows that this Lending hoping c. was not absolutely condemned by our Saviour but only with respect to the poor and needy 4. And if this be true down falls Mr. Jel's definition grounded on this Scripture Mr. C. The Vsurer is bound to restore p. 268. because he hath no true Title Jure Divino no not in strict Justice to what comes in that way Reply If so I would know what is more required to make the Title good for though propriety have its foundation on the Divine Law yet it is the Law of man that actually divides betwixt mine and thine and setteth Landmarks and boundaries to each mans propriety Christ himself tells us saith Doctor Hammond Pract. Cat. p. 298. that his Kingdom is not of this World that he came not to interpose in secular affairs such are the the proprietis of men but disclaimed having any thing to do to be a Judge or Divider among men Let us hear Grotius De Jure p. 10. We must also know that the Law of Nature not only passeth upon those things that do exist without the will of man but also upon many things which follow the Act of mans will Thus propriety such as is now in use was brought in by mans will but that being once brought in the Law of nature declares it to be wicked for me to take away what thou hast such a propriety to c. Now here in the Case of Usury the Law of man interposes and the consent of the Borrower and somewhat valuable on the Lenders part for I cannot be perswaded but that the Loan of money is worth money And Mr. B. though he starts this Objection thinks not good to deny it but only endeavours by declining to avoid the force of this Arrow And Mr. J thought it the best way to let it alone Upon these considerations foresaid what is wanting to beget a title to this money spoken of I cannot see The matter it self being political is capable of limitation by the political Laws of men keeping within the compass of a general equity The question of Usury being concerning things political as well as that concerning thievery or murder and propriety I see no 〈…〉 reason why the handling thereof should be so peculiar to Divines as that a Grotius or Salmasius may not concern himself in debating it Append. p. 293. p. 269. whatsoever Mr. C. suggests to the contrary I am not much concerned in the Schoolmens opinion and what he replies upon it The former as represented by him holding that in Cases of necessity the distinction of humane propriety being grounded on mens Laws ceaseth and ought to give place to the Law of Nature which teacheth self-preservation Although I have prepared some Animadversions on what is here by him debated yet I have chosen to pass them over because somewhat foreign to the question I am concerned to vindicate and because I would make this Discourse no larger than is needful But they that have a desire to be
for those many learned grave and to all appearance Godly Divines that in the integrity of their hearts have pleaded for the Lawfulness of moderate Usury Surely he will honour these If you will take his thoughts from his words these likewise are no better nor worse than damned unless they repented of this the which it is more than we know they did p. 39. How wilt thou answer it saith he at that great day when Christ shall ask thee how durst thou preach or say that it is lawful to lend to the rich upon Vsury when thou never heardest me say so O I would not then stand before Christ in thy Condition for ten thousand Worlds And here I perceive the censure I have incurred by writing against his Book but this is my comfort that I have done it in the Integrity of mine heart and God Judgeth not always as Man Judgeth for he Judgeth righteous Judgment He might have learned more moderation from Mr. Capel a man alike affected with himself in the question of Usury but far more charitable in his censure of persons as may be seen in his Treatise of Tentations Part 2. Chap. 13. p. 256. And in his Apology p. 282. ANIMADVERSIONS ON Mr. BOLTON'S DISCOURSE OF USURY HAving brought to the Test what Mr. Jel is pleased to write on this Subject I think my work not fully done until some passages relating to the same Controversie in the Discourses of the Reverend Mr. Bolton and Mr. Capel be examined Pretious is the remembrance of those Men of God in his Church It was not a design to repeat or proclaim the mistakes or failures of the dead that put me on this work but a desire of Truths vindication before the Living I shall begin with Mr. Bolt and because I intend to contract my Discourse I shall not observe any strict method but pass some remarks on what hath been passed by or barely glanced on by Mr. J. And to that end I shall lay down certain enquiries and therein Animadvert on what Mr. B. asserts Is not the use of money for some time worth money 1 Q. This I think is the only objection that Mr. B. hath which was omitted by Mr. J. For what reason he himself knows However I think the decision thereof would bring no small helps towards satisfaction in this Controversie Mr. B. Doth not deny the question neither do I see how he could For who is there that doth not think the Loan of 100 l. for a Year worth somewhat And if it be worth somewhat 't is worth money that being the common measure whereby the worth of any thing is valued And if the Loan or the use of this Loan be worth somewhat where is the wrong if a man take for it what it is worth Is the buyer bitten if he gives no more for a commodity than it is worth If not how is the borrower bitten if he have a penniworth for his peny All that can be said is this is buying not borrowing I reply call it what you will as long as we are agreed in the thing that here is no wrong done there is no reason we should differ about words or Notions Let us now weigh Mr. B's Answer Mr. B. So money which was ordained to be the price of all Wares and the measure of all Bargains is made a Ware contrary to the nature of it For Quod est medium venditionis non potest esse terminus Reply 1. That money is used as an Instrument for exchange or merchandizing is from humane institution and not designed thereto by nature Time was when Gold and Silver were forbidden in the Lacedemonian Commonwealth Sen. de ben l. 5. c. 14. and only Iron the currant coyn And another while Leather having the publick stamp on it passed there for money 2. Money may be exchanged for Money Grotius saith De Jure p. 229. p. 238. That exchange is more simple and ancient than buying And that Tacitus of the Germans saith They that live more inward viz. from the Sea do more simply and antiently use the Exchange of Wares Grotius also writes of Changing Money for Money which saith he the Greeks call Collybus and the Merchants at this day Exchange As also of Money brought from Illyricum to Italy as a Ware Again Money is delivered that after some time so much and the same in kind may be repaid in loan which hath place in those things which consist in number weight and measure as well other things as Money And how common is it to exchange Silver for Gold and Gold for Silver giving somewhat above the currant price thereof May not that which is Medium hujus venditionis be terminus alterius 3. But in this case before us the borrower pays not for the Money lent so much as for the Use of this Money lent or rather for the right and power to use that Money which before was none of his and for the advantages attending the same whereof Spanhemius writes thus Dub. Ev. part 3. p. 673. The Overplus is required for the undue Office performed for parting from our own right to the Money for sometime which was ours and might have been kept by us for the liberty and opportunity we deprive our selves of for a while of laying out that Money on Vses and Commodities of our own for power granted the Debtor of gaining and also for the advantage or gain he hath made of our Money But all these thing are valuable and somewhat may be demanded for them Mr. B. 2. Answ The rule holds in buying and selling but not in acts of Charity therein it is no good rule Thou bidst for the purpose thy poor Neighbours to dinner this is money worth for it cost thee money and saveth them money at home yet thou wilt not set a price upon it why because it is a work of Charity Thou bidst thy rich Neighbour sometime that which he eateth is worth money yet thou wilt take none but think it foul scorn it should be offered why because it is an act of kindness of neighbourbood and friendship Reply 1. To the first sort of Guests viz. Poor Neighbours I would advise free lending as well as free entertainment to be used 2. But turn the Tables Suppose the Inviter's poor and the Guests rich may not somewhat be received honestly for the entertainment made this is commonly done and not reproved by any as dis-honest that I know of See Mr. J. Vsur Cast p. 18. but yet they will not allow the poor with these circumstances to take any thing for his money lent 3. Dinners are made at Common-Inns and Victualing-Houses where men pay for them and good reason they should If you say that men are not here invited but invite themselves I answer it is enough however to shew that Dinners may be allowed for without offence and they that lend do not always invite Customers but are sought unto It were an absurd
satisfied in the question how far the Laws of propriety are to give place to that of self-preservation may find it stated by Grotius de Jure Belli pacis l. 2. c. 2. § 6. Mr. C. But when both parties gain who is bitten The Commonwealth say I that is hurtful to the Commonwealth which is a burden to the most Append. p. 289. and those who have most need Reply 1. I doubt his proof is lame the more of Traders the cheaper mostly are Commodities If none should be Traders but such as are monied men then such Traders would be fewer and by consequence the Trade being in the management of the hands of few Commodities would be dearer and scarcer than they are both upon the account of the paucity of sellers and their indifferency in parting with the Commodity unless the buyer comes up to their demands This is apparent if applied to forreign wares for the bringing in whereof I do not know that they that have money are bound to Lend to the Merchants freely that they might sell the cheaper neither can I be perswaded that if they borrowed freely they would sell much the cheaper but the gains would remain in their own Coffers and the poor pay as dear as before and would not things bear the same price and come to the same Market provided the Lender entred fellowship and bare a share both in the losses and gains 2. All Commodities sold are either such as are necessary or such as are only convenient or superfluous the measure in the former commonly is scarcity the measure of worth in the latter is mostly fancy or the will of man So I learn from Grotius The most natural measure of every thing What it is worth is scarcity p. 232. As Aristotle rightly shews but this is not the only measure for the will of man which is the Lord over things desires many things more than are necessary Mr. C. Now Vsury being no act of mercy and kindness Append. p. 291. but rather the contrary it cannot but follow that the permission to lend upon Vse to the Stranger must not be meant of ordinary Strangers to whom they were to shew all kindness and compassion but the Strangers of those cursed Nations whom they were bound to bite and eat out Reply 1. This hath been answered before It is a sign men are hard put to it when they make use of such weak shifts and evasions for so I must call it there being so little footing for it in the Scriptures from whence alone they can take it And why should they distinguish where Scripture distinguisheth not nor gives any ground towards it but rather the contrary 2. As to the enquiry whether Lending upon use be a favour or no I say that free lending was a greater favour to the borrowers and this was requisite for the Jewish Commonwealth and Polity for otherwise they would have lost the benefit of some other political Laws such as were the forgiving of debts every seventh and the releasing of Morgages every Fiftieth year But for Commonwealths addicted to Traffick I doubt not to say that Lending on use is beneficial yea necessary that money being hereby imployed this way that would otherwise be diverted and that without wrong to any man to other uses or else be hoarded up Every mans concernments leading this way besides the ordinary ingratitude unfaithfulness and undue delay on the part of most Borrowers 3. Neither is that true that the Jews were to shew all kindness to ordinary Strangers kindness indeed they were to shew this Common humanity bound them to if there had been no express Law of God in Scripture requiring it And hereupon I advance and say that lending upon use was consistent with Common kindness being they might thus lend upon use to a Stranger to whom yet they were injoyned to shew kindness But I am yet to seek that they were to shew all kindness to Strangers whether you understand it of kinds or degrees It is apparent there were several kinds and degrees of kindness they were to shew toward their own Nation the which they were not bound to shew to others this is evident from several Laws given that Nation as before hinted and amongst the rest this of Usury Whereas he saith That Vsury is no act of kindness and mercy but rather the contrary This needs a little examining before it have a let pass Let it be still remembred there is a Medium between acts of Mercy or pure Charity and uncharitableness viz. Acts of Justice Thus buying and selling which are acts of Justice are not properly acts of Charity One sells me Corn saith Seneca I cannot live unless I buy it De benef l. 6. c. 14. but I owe not my life because I have bought Though de eventu such acts of Justice may prove charitable and ordinarily the buyer is advantaged thereby as well as the seller The like I say of lending upon Usury it may be an act of Justice though not of Charity though intentionally it may be a charitable act the lender designing his neighbours advantage besides his own eventually also it may prove an act of charity or kindness when the borrower comes off a gainer by the contract And so it is really a kindness where the lender takes but 2 or 3 s where by the Law he might take 6 s. 5. But whatever this lending upon Use be it is granted that lending freely is a greater kindness to the person receiving yet the consequence is lame that if lending upon Use were a favour they should thereupon be injoined to lend upon Use to a Jew for that free lending of the two was a greater favour giving is a greater favour than selling what then must all selling be exploded to make room for giving only this would prove as absurd in it self as it would be prejudicial to the interests of persons and Nations Mr. Ainswortb quoted by Mr. Capel saith That to Strangers who were brethren in the faith they might not lend upon Vsury Is this not rather against than for him would it not follow hence that to Strangers which were not of the Faith they might lend upon Usury and again it would admit of an inquiry whether they might take Use of the Canaanite or any of those accursed Nations when they were Proselited and become brethren in the Faith If not as I think they dare not say it upon the whole we shall find the case of all Strangers to be alike in this question of Usury Mr. C. Starts an Objection p. 294. Is it not fit I should have rent for my Money as well as for my Land The sum of his answer is When Money is lent to a poor man for bread here it is acknowledged to be unlawful to take gain but not so take Money for a piece of Arable Land which this poor man rents at an indifferent rate to provide bread for him and his or to pay