Of the Vncharitableness of Vsury

In the last Chapter of Dr. Fenton his second book, I did expect some extraordinary ar∣gument against Vsury, because it treats of the breach of Charity by Vsury, and the opposition between them: I did long to see it proved; but now I am come to it, I find it the shortest Chap∣ter in his book, both in quantity, and proof, the little that he saith is in effect, that Vsurers are commonly uncharitable. pag. 106.

Answ. I did expect to have i• proved that all Vsury is in it sel• uncharitable, and he tells u• that all Vsurers are so: It is the Page  149 fault of the men, and not of the thing. Thrift which of it self is a vertue, being abused is the hinderance of Charity, and yet Thrift is no breach of Cha∣rity: A thrifty man and an V∣surer may bee mercifull to the poor, because they are many times better able than others. If Vsury of it self were a breach of Charity: then not to lend to Vsury were an act of Charity; which is but a meer Privation and no Act at all. The reason why Vsurers bee commonly found merciless, is for that in many men Covetousness makes them Vsurers, and not Vsury brings them to be Covetous. Many Vsurers are found wel∣disposed to Charity, and give twice as much to Charitable u∣ses as those that have twice their estate in Lands and are no Page  [unnumbered] Vsurers. Since then all Vsurers are not uncharitable, and those that be, are found, and not made such by Vsury, it is but small Charity to say that Vsu∣ry of it self is the breach of Cha∣rity.