c. Reply 1. That is in other terms the borrower cannot tell how to get Money for to buy a bargain stop a gap or use Merchandizing with for nothing if he could 't is likely he would never pay Use And at the same rate are there not many that borrow that would detain the Principal if they knew how to do it or if left to the choice of their wills that do as unwillingly refund the Money lent them as the Traveler parts with his Purse to the Thief The Wicked borroweth and payeth not again 2. The Traveler delivers his Purse to the Thief and that prudently to save his life but it is unlawful say some of them to pay Use as well as to take it 3. The Traveler meets the Thief against his will the borrower out of choice and of his own accord applys himself to the lender and seeks him out 4. Is not here as great a willingness as in other Contracts Many would not buy if they could haue for nothing though I know Abraham was otherwise minded and David too Many men that take pains for livelihood would not if they could tell how to help it and so 't is beyond doubt they would not pay Use for what they borrow if they knew how to have their wants supplied otherwise But observe there is no violence or constraint offered the mans will or person here is no fraud or deceit used to blind the understanding and thereby to work the will to a compliance If a wealthy borrower like not the terms though within the compass of moderation and prescription of the Law he may let the loan alone there is no wrong done Neither the Law of God or Man lays an engagement upon another to lend to him freely If he agrees to the terms proposed here is consent and as much willingness as useth to be in the buyer who not seldom is with much ado brought up to the sellers price All the doubt then remaineth whether the Debtor have a sufficient power to transfer his right to the Over-plus he pays and why not seeing he may give a gratuity and may lend so much another time to his friend and there is no Law forbidding him whereas there was the Law of Nature forbidding Cato to lend his Wife to another how willing soever both he and his Wife were The more of the will in such practices the worse on their part but the more of the will in the case before us it is not the worse but rather the better Mr C. Zacheus did offer to restore what he fetcht in by forged Cavillation Ibid. he might like enough have kept it c. Reply What Zacheus had gotten by forged Cavillation good reason he should make restitution off so should such as have over-reacht others in bargaining and so should they that take increase if it were of that nature as they represent it and so in truth should every one that is guilty of oppression or hard dealing under the name of Usury But in other things that are not clearly stated in the word and continue disputable between good and learned Men. I think the Apostles practice may prove a good President 1 Cor. 7.35 who in another case was as heedful as well could be that he might not cast snares and expose those he wrote to to needless scruples and distractions of spirit Mr. C. The Heathens of all sorts have condemned this sin by the instinct and light of Nature p. 267. and therefore it could not be a political Law of Moses Reply 1. Cato I perceive was one of those Heathens that by the light of Nature condemned all Usury for saith Mr. Jel after B. Hall Cato severely punisht Vsurers and drove them out of the Commonwealth Let it be remembred by the way that this Cato who was against all taking gain for the loan of Money was not against taking gain for the Loan of his Wife Hortensius saith Mr. Capel did borrow Cato's Wife to breed upon Append. p. 290. and had her and did return her to Cato rich when he had served his turn on her c. Strange it is that he who was quick sighted in Natures light as thereby to boggle at the loan of mony upon Usury should not by the same light boggle at this baser Usury only I fore-see a Reply that I shall let pass unmentioned Mr. Bolton's Discourse p. 20. 2. It is apparent from their own reasonings that the Heathen commonly practised Usury or they think that they did so for this is brought in by Mr. B. as one reason why God permitted the Jews to exercise Usury toward the Heathen namely The injustice of the Gentiles with whom they did Traffick such as they would be sure to exact Vsury of the Jews How could he be sure of this if it were a sin against Natures light And seeing Mr. B. speaks of those Nations they might Traffick with how could he by Stranger understand only the Canaanite or those accursed Nations with whom the Jews were forbidden all Traffick 3. Seems it not an unlikely thing that God should by Law tolerate his own People in such practices which the Heathen yea all sorts among them condemned by the light of Nature Dub. Evang. par 3. p. 675. If every Vsurary Contract saith Spanhem were formally and in its ownkind sin and a sort of Theft then God had long ago cherished such sins when by his Law he permitted to exact Vsury from a Stranger What a reflection would this have been on the Divine Law to have granted that which Natures Law condemns what a stumbling block in the way of the Gentiles would it not have given too great occasion to their prejudices against that Religion which had God for its Author and do not the Christians commonly find fault with the Heathen Law-givers for things of this nature 4. And it is to me as great a wonder how the Heathen could see that to be so horrid a sin by Natures Light and that unanimously all agreeing therein when many Holy Learned Judicious men that have the Scriptures to guide them beside and beyond the light of Nature cannot discern this sinfulness in Usury duely stated but have pleaded the lawfulness thereof Hear Mr. C. himself saying Append. p. 297. And yet I hope Learned Men much more Learned Christians should best and soonest find out what is written by the Law of Nature in their hearts I cannot be perswaded that Cato could see farther into things of this Nature than Calvin or that an Aristotle a Plutarch should be better acquainted with cases of Conscience than Amesius Perkins Baxter 5. Understand me in the foregoing branches speaking of Usury in the same latitude that it is taken by those I oppose but I have all along granted there is an oppressive Usury which the light of Nature may be sufficient to condemn as it doth the like extravagances in buying and selling and this having been in most Ages too
to us and prays that they would make requital on his behalf The Learned Casuist Jer. Taylor Rule of holy lib. p. 309. hath these words with an eye as may be thought to this place of our Saviour Give looking for nothing again that is without consideration of future advantages give to Children to old men to the unthankful and the dying and to those you shall never see again for else your Almes or Courtesie is not Charity but Traffick and Merchandize and be sure that you omit not to relieve the needs of your enemy and the injurious for so possibly you may win him to your self but do you intend the winning him to God Diodate interprets the place thus In loc Hoping for Viz. with an intent to lose whatsoever ye lend if your neighbours want do require it and that you cannot get it again without violating the Laws of Charity and giving scandal and offence So the Dutch so the English Annotators This say they is to be understood with respect to mens abilities to give to the Poor as also that v. 30. So that if our Neighbours necessities require and we be able we must lend without hope of being repayed by them c. I add Rivet p. 276. Such as draw these words to the forbidding of Vsury do not enough attend to the scope of our Lord for it is not immediately designed of not hoping for use but of not hoping for the Principal Sum when our Neighbour comes to borrow and being in extream necessity stands in need of lending too Our Lord therefore enjoyas that we do not only grant to One that we know to be able and willing to repay but also to him whom we know not to be able although he were willing or of whom we have just cause to doubt that he would not be able Dub. Evan in loc Spanhemius gives a reason why this is expressed by lending rather than by giving though the Principal be parted with It being called Lending with respect to the retribution or reward that God shall make unto them thus communicating their Goods for we learn from Prov. 19.17 He that giveth to the Poor lendeth to the Lord. What doth Mr. J. say to break the force of this interpretation Mr. J. It cannot be understood of giving to the poor because that is there spoken of distinctly from that of lending by Christ who would not use a Tautology Reply Giving was commanded by our Saviour v. 30. the same is again injoyned though in other words v. 35. Not so saith our Author for this were a Tautology But that herein he is mistaken you may find by looking forth to v. 38. where the same duty is pressed again and though repeated yet by his leave 't is no tautology or vain repetition it being common in Scripture to hold forth the same thing in various expressions and press the same Duty in the same or like Notions If this be denied let him answer Mr. Perkins Christ the true gain p. 22. whose words are these On Phil. 3.7 8. This Paul sets down by a gradation thus I count them loss I make them my losses I count them as Dung This gradation is nothing else but a repetition of one and the same thing inlarged and amplified in Speech Now repetitions in Scripture are not idle and vain as they are often times in the Writings of men but they commonly signifie two things the necessity and the certainty of the thing repeated Thus he and if this be truth then what is contrary to it deserves another name You have seen the whole that Mr. J. hath said to weaken this solid Interpretation or strengthen his own 2. There is a second Interpretation of this Text the which also befriends not his design To open the way to this Interpretation read v. 34. If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive what thank have ye for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again this is to be understood not of receiving back any thing by way of Usury but of receiving the likekindness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aequalia as suppose they lent a sum of Mony to supply the occasions of a friend from whom another time they expect to borrow the like sum to supply their own occasions This though lawful in it self yet Christ thinks it not enough for his Disciples to do all persons considered They are not only to lend to them that can answer this kindness by lending to them again but also to the Poor yea to Enemies if straightned from whom there was little grounds to expect an equal favour back I say again what the Sinners are here said to do was lawful the proof whereof you shall have by and by In the mean time consider what Grotius writes In loc If I lend to one an hundred pounds and agree that another time he lend me the like summ the which is right exchange how can this Covenant be proved unjust more than if I spare my Neighbour an Ox to plow his ground upon this condition that he some time after do the like for me I do not suppose saith our Author that the question touching Vsury properly belongs hither which yet by most of the Antients is wont to be handled on this Text. Zanchy puts the like interpretation upon the Text in these words In Ephes 4.28 He spake therefore of lending to those from whom thou canst not look for the like favour or good turn such as are the poor and unthankful and also enemies but this consequence will never hold good Love those that love not you therefore do ye not love those love you Do good and lend to those from whom you cannot hope for the like therefore do not lend to those from whom you may hope for the like I illustrate this by a like Text Luke 14.12 When thou makest a Supper call not thy friends nor thy brethren c. The Ethiopick Version favours this sence thus And if ye shall lend to those from whom ye hope somewhat will be retributed what is your reward Sinners lend to Sinners that they may requite the like to them And now love you your Enemies and doe them good and lend not hoping for somewhat to be requited and your reward c. 3. There is another Interpretation taken up by some who render the Greek word by us translated Hoping for again by a far different sence they rendring the same Frustrating or causing to despaire This sence is favoured by the Syriack Persick and Arabick versions and by some Divines that follow them Versio Syriaca But love your Enemies and doe good to them and lend neither frustrate ye the expectation of any The Translator saith Grotius thought the sense to be Lend to all that aske frustrating none of that hope which he hath conceived of your beneficence Arabica Lend frustrate not the hope of any Persica It behoveth you that ye love your Enemies and
Tiberius a man made up of craft and cruelty as to believe he should exceed the greatest Presician for Morality in his time not to mention some of the ablest and purest Christians of these latter days as also that the Law by him made against Usury was in real detestation of Oppression and not rather a cunning insinuation to ingratiate himself with the Multitude and withal a politick fetch to suppress all the Petty Usurers that he might have vent for his money and monopolize the Trade to himself pretending free lending but intending to make his Market by the forseiture of the double Bonds which whosoever should do amongst us would probably be a far greater gainer than any other Usurer that keeps within the bounds of the Law could be 4. And upon the whole their case seems wide from ours Usury then after the Laws Enacted against it becoming a transgression of a Civil Law moderate Usury with us not so 5. And before and after these Laws of theirs there being no bounds sate to the greedy Usurers desires but what his * ex libididine locupletium agitaretur taciti Hist l. 6. c. 16. own will and the borrowers necessities admitted 't is like there was Oppression enough lurking under this name and deserving to be supprest whereas with us the Laws of the Land have measured out the bounds to the lenders profit Hitherto but no further 6. p. 42. And I understand from him that some of the wiser Emperors coming after did not absolutely forbid but limit Usury Alexander Severus trientariam constituit Antonius Pius Imperator ipse trientariam exercuit ut plurimos invaret These wise Emperors made it lawful to receive 4 per Centum Mr. J. Their second Reply is That God permitted his People to lend upon Vsury to a stranger and that therefore the Law against usury is Political for if Moral how could they lend to a Stranger Deut. 23.19 20. Mr. J. Ans Some say one thing some another But what saith he I for my part shall cut short what I have to say and go to that most notable and emphatical expression Deut. 23.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Unto that Stranger thou mayst lend upon Usury the Canaanite namely whom God would have consumed and destroyed and ashom it was lawful to kill So blessed Ambrose decideth this Controversy A bad shift is better then none especially if it have a venerable name to plead for it and Antiquity to boot but yet it seems this is the best he could find let us hear him out But that you may more fully see that it is not every Stranger but the Canaanite whom they were to put to death I will quote that notable place Lev. 25.35 36. Yea though he be a stranger or a sojourner understand saith he become a Jew that he may live with thee and then v. 36. Take no Vsury of him nor Increase Reply 1. This Proof overthrows it self for it by Stranger to whom they were forbidden to lend on Usury as well as to a Brother we are to understand a Proselite or one turned to the Jewish Religion then it follows necessarily that by Stranger to whom they were to lend upon Use we must understand all other Strangers not so Proselited of what Nation soever and not the Canaanite only 2. The Text will clear it self for there Brother is opposed to Stranger The Egyptian was not their Brother therefore a Stranger and consequently one to whom they might lend upon Usury and so lending to such end is not against the Law of Nature The Jews might not oppress a Stranger that is frequently forbidden them but yet they might lend to Strangers upon Usury and therefore all Usury is not Oppression nor against the Law of Nature The Scripture saith Learned Ames seems to indicate some Vsury to be lawful in it self De Cons l. 5. c. 44. p. 375. seing it was granted to the Jews to receive Vsury from any Stranger that was not poor Deut. 23.20 for if all Vsury were intrinsecally and in its own nature sinful then the Jews might not have taken Vse from the Gentiles without great scandal whereby the Gentiles would he turned away from the Jews Religion and Law as admitting that for lawful which was unlawful All Vsury is not forbidden saith Hornbeck Contra Judeos l. 7. c. 7. p. 526. neither is the Contract for gain upon Loan sinful in it self or against the Law otherwise this had not been at all allowed or granted the which God indeed prohibited the Jews amongst themselves not with Strangers for what is in it self a sin is every where such and can no where be counted lawful or be approved no not with the Gentile The Laws are such for here are two to be considered the one which forbids Vsury to the Jews the other which grants it Lev. 25.35 38. The reason is because they were Brethren amongst themselves had one common father after a singular manner and the Inheritance and the Goods of the land immediately delivered them by God and after a sort common which were the foundation of that Political Law as far as it concerned the Jews Deut. 15.3 and 23.19 20. Thou mayst lend c. It was unlawful to take Vse of a Brother not only for this or that thing but for any thing whatsoever not so of a Gentile for what favour they were bound to shew to a Brother they did not therefore owe to the Gentiles The reason of the disparity is manifest It is lawful at no time to do ill although the same degrees of bounty and kindness are not due to all they were not bound to offer the same Offices to a Gentile which they owed to a Brother wherefore not to lend to a Gentile without Vsury which degree of mutual Charity belonged only to a Brother I have been the longer in this Quotation because of the several reasons it carries in it I shall take the same liberty in citing Grotius on the same account Comment in Luc. 6.35 who speaks excellently to this purpose and answers the usual cavils made against this Reply I come saith he to that Right which God granted to the Jewish Nation Deut. 23.19 Thou shalt not lend to thy Brother upon Usury c. here they that judge all Vsury to be against the law of Nature understand what is spoken of lending upon Vse to a Stranger to be a permission of Fact not of Right which neither the words admit nor ever was so understood by that People to whom the Law was given I have Josephus and Philo for Witnesses to whom all the Rabbines consent from whence it is sufficiently apparent if I mistake not that the Law was understood of Citizens toward Citizens which also the words in Leviticus shew for there also usury is forbidden this reason being added that thy Brother may live by thee Lev. 25.36 wherefore when in the Psalms and in Ezek. he is commended that exerciseth not usury that is
estimation of good men and such as are understanding in things of that nature 4. Mr. J. having cited Chemnitius to prove a secret compact to be Usury whose words are If a compact or intention precede it is surely usury for interpretation adds It is so If an expectation or hoping of more than the principal do precede though the lender do not exact it but only take it as the very taking is used Ezek. 18.13 Reply I profess my Ignorance of his intention here What Means he that taking of Use is necessary to make the Intention or Expectation Usury but then the intention is not Usury before the taking Or does he think the Intention or Expectation it self the sin of usury As Chemnitius here and he too a little before why then to expectation doth he add this requisite If the Lender do but take it I leave him to be his own Interpreter 4. Mr. J. A Compact Literal and silent Thus the Lender taketh for his principal a Bond for security but doth not put it upon the Interest trusting so far t is like to the borrowers good nature And so the borrower Covenants in his heart so much I intend to give him as I give to another For I know he lookt for it And I must else pay so much to another Here the Compact is secretly made in both their hearts and the principal secured by writing and so usury is compleated q. d. The Lender thinks he hath reason to look for some acknowledgment for his money lent and the borrower proposeth honestly to give it as not knowing how to speed better Yet hereupon we have this Outcry made O sad how will this wretched World be Cosened Reply 1. I would apply what Grotius saith if possible to allay this heat It was not amiss said by Javolene De Jure p. 3. c. 24. Sect. 1. that some Contracts were made by silence which is a thing common both in publick private and mixt Contracts The Cause is this in that the Consent which way soever manifested and accepted hath a power of transferring a right but now there are other signs of consent besides the voice and writing 2. Deben l. 3. c. 10. Seneca says The greatest benefits have no proof they frequently lye hid between the Consciences of two Would we inforce this that none confer benefits without a witness 3. p. 53. Ezek. 18. Whereas Mr. J. useth the Authority of Three Divines to prove the taking of gifts for Loan to be usury I Reply 1. I find the taking of Increase forbidden in the Chapter mentioned but not the taking of gifts 2. Whereas the taking of Gifts is in Scripture frequently reproved as far as I can understand it is a taking of gifts by way of bribery or in the sale of Justice that is meant they being Magistrates that are mostly rebuked for taking such gifts See Exod. 23.8 Deut. 16.19 3. The taking of Gifts or Gratuities from the poor or such as borrow for extream necessity was then is now unlawful 4. If they mean it is Usury to take gifts of the Rich for money lent them this would throw down what he had before built up who had granted Gratuities to be lawful And the same would make ingratitude necessary which yet is no small degree of inhumanity And for this among the Medes Sen. de benef l. 3. an Action laid against an ungrateful person 5. To make their words therefore comply with his sense he is fain to piece it out with understand a Gift intended or expected When it is plain and beyond denial that they mean it of a gift received and let reason Judge where it is sinful to expect a Gift is it not sinful also to receive it 9. Obj. I am a Widow saith one I am an Orphan saith another And God knoweth that such cannot employ their money as others Mr. J. Answ What a mad inference is here made If God did I intend to Exempt the Fatherless and Widows he would have said somewhat of them when he named them and usury together Exod. 22.22 c. Reply 1. If we say with some that the Law concerning Usury was political and proper to that Nation and so extensive to all therein the objection is answered or if we say the Law was intended only for the benefit of the poor from whom it was and is still unlawful to take use neither of these hinder but that Widows and Orphans may now improve their stocks left them this way 2. In the Case of Orphans Mr. Baxter's Instance carries abundant reason with it Certain Orphans having nothing left them but so much money as will by the allowed use of it find them bread and poor clothing the Guardian cannot lay it out in Lands for them and if he maintain them upon the stock Christ direct part 4. p. 126. it will be quickly spent and he must answer for it A rich man that is their Neighbour tradeth in Iron-work Furnances and Forges or Lead-works or other such commodities in which he constantly getteth the double of the stock which he employeth or at least 20 l. or 40 l. in the hundred the Guardian dare not lend the money to any poor man least he break and be never able to pay it therefore he lendeth it to this rich man and if he have it without Vsury the poor Orphans give the rich man freely 20 l. or 40 l. by the year supposing their stock to be one Hundred pound If he take use the rich man doth but give the poor Orphans some part of his constent gain c. 3. It is worth the Inquiry if the portion left Orphans were before for some time in the hands of other men that traded therewith whether the Guardian may according to Law or Reason take in the principal and remit the Use or Interest due and whether the Guardian be not responsible for so doing when the Orphans come to Age 4. The Text saith Ye shall not afflict any Widow or Fatherless Child I think this is one way of afflicting such to tell them that when their money hath been out in the hands of persons that have sufficiently gained thereby and increased their own Estates It is damnable for them to receive one peny or mite above the principal by vertue of any Convention past or upon the account of their money thus lent 5. I shall step aside to look into Mr. Bolton Discourse c. p. 49. whose Fifth Answer to this objection is this Widowhood and Fatherlesness in respect of the former State of having Husband and Parents are a State of humiliation for the outward Condition of this life but by this unhappy trade of Vsury they are made a State of exaltation Reply 1. q. d. Widows and Orphans would live too well and yet their livelyhood too easily for some of their condition if taking of Use be allowed them As if the loss of their Husbands and Parents were not affliction enough to