Usury is injury Cleared in an examination of its best apologie, alleaged by a countrey minister, out of Doctor Ames, in his Cases of conscience, as a party and patron of that apologie. Both answered here, by Nath: Holmes, Dr. in Divinity.

USURY IS INJURY.

BRother, our Conference a 1.1 falling up∣on Usury, and that drawing in your mention of Doctor Ames, as if some Patron of it, or of some kinde of it, viz. 8 l' per centum, 8 l' in the hundred; upon my reading of the Doctor, at my retiring home, I could not but repeat him, and report my opinion of his passages b 1.2: So that my intent is not now to load this paper with an heap of weighty matter, that I could urge against Usu∣ry, out of Scripture, and most sorts of learned Au∣thors, Heathens, Poets, Philosophers, Polititi∣ans, Moralists, Jewes, Rabbins, Targum, Tal∣mud, Christians, Schoolmen, Lutherans, Cal∣vinists, &c. but onely to walke over and view the limits of the question, so farre as we have you and Doctor Ames in our company; whom••

sometimes I oppose; yet not I, but Scripture and reason; pardon me till you weigh my reasons. He had not beene a man, if he could not have er∣red. ••ando••ue & dormitat Homerus. Bernard•• non vi••et omne. Seraphicall Bonaventure erred soulely in his Psalter: Angelicall Aqui••••s, by a mistake, sacrificed his wit in Purgatory: Alexander of H••l••s, though stiled Irrefragable, is sometime not so tolera••le in his defence of Transubstan∣tation: Aristotle, P••••lo who am maxim••, the Maxime of the Schooles, when at a losse in hu∣mane learning was forced many times (as learn∣ed 〈…〉〈…〉 describes) to speake so equi∣vocally and amphibologically, as that he may in∣differently be understood in utramque partem. Nor are the learnedst Fathers without their n••vi, as the learned Io••an•• hath shewed in a briefe Synopsis: No; nor are our soundest moderne writers alwayes in the way. It is our misery (and therefore I•• a••cum jam causa jubet renovare dolo∣••) that the greatest Linguists have stammered with their tongues. The Septuagint 70 times. The ••yriack oft in words. The Chaldee oft losing the selfe. Ari••s, and Buxto••us, and other no∣table H••ir••••••s, inconsider•••••• in most and best copi••s usually to be had, doe read, Psal. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈◊〉〈◊〉. We know (with all reverence be it spo∣k•• 〈…〉〈…〉 Scrip••ari•••••• Canone) that the Apostles could ••erre in action,* 1.3 as Peter swerved som•• w•• ••••uching ceremonies of the Jewes, that 〈…〉〈…〉 might ha••t betw•••••• the Jewish and Christian with a kinde of dissimulation, as Saint

Paul cals it. Doctor Ames goes farther in his Bel∣larmino enervato, Tom. 1. p. 61. De sufficientia Scrip∣turae. Neque enim (saith he) omnia que P••ophetae aut Apostoli scripserunt, sunt statim Canonica, sed quae Deus in illum finem sanctificavit. No wonder therefore if Doctor Ames or you, sometimes misse your way. Therefore in all, le•• us all, seeing we are but men, divinam consulamus ••ati••nem, fol∣low one another as we follow Christ. Now to the question.

Vsura est lucrum ex mutuo quaesitum,* 1.4 vi ipsius mutui. Usury is a gaine sought by lending, by force of that lending.

Quest. An Vsura hujusmodi sit licita? Of this kinde of Usury, the question is, whether it be lawfull.

Therefore for any learned man,* 1.5 whose parts I otherwise admire, to distinguish of Vsura licita & illicita, it is a meere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.6. He makes one member of the distinction to determine a law∣full Usury, when the question is of Usury in gene∣rall, whether it be lawfull. Pace tanti viri, that in and upon the question shall so distinguish, he commits a soloecisme in disputation, too great to be seeme so great a scholler. For evidently that Questionist of the lawfulness•• of Usury is beaten with his owne distinction. For if he distinguish that there is Vsura licita, why makes he the que∣stion, An Vsura sit li••ita, indefinitely. Therefore learned Ames never so distinguisheth, but first defines, then questioneth, thirdly, stateth the question.

* 1.7 Vsura talis, qualis à danistis ac foeneratoribus vul. gò exercetur, ab omnibus meritò improbatur. Such Usury as is commonly used by the lenders on inte∣rest, and Usurers, is justly disallowed of all men.

* 1.8 Therefore you did ill to spend your breath in be∣half of Usury, for their sakes who are da••istae ac foe∣neratores, guilty talis Vsurae quae vulgò exercetur: Except in this, that its evident their Usury is worse than the commonest sort; insomuch that a Coun∣sellor was confident that it was extortion. If this exception were not, seeing our common Usury is 8 l' per Cent. strictly required by the Usurer, whe∣ther his Centum win or lose, it fully comes within the compasse of Doctor Ames his utter disallow∣ance, and his sentence that it should be disallow∣ed of all c 1.9. And if the Vsurer alleageth that he puts not the Vse in the Bond; yet he doth in his bowellesse heart and bowels: that if it be not fully paid, he will suddenly take in his Principall, the Client being so unprovided, that Vsury in the beginning, ends in unmercifull ex••orting cruelty. Summum jus summa injuria. so hang a malefa∣ctor condemned to die, without sufficient allow∣ance of time for preparation, may be the murther∣ing of his soule. And this sudden calling in of money, as in the cause, scil. mentall Vsury, is naught, so in the effect worse, viz. to make men mo••gage, or ruine their estate, to satisfie these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 these Donivoros, these Anthropopha∣gos, these man-eating Vsurers. Therefore this learned Doctor Ames bids us observe his defini∣tion,

of Vsury; it is Lucrum ex mutuo qu esitum, non conventum; quia non tantum Vsura realis in qua pa∣ctum intercedit, sed & mentalis, quae versatur in in∣tentione, lucrum ut debitum ex mutuo acquirendi, ista descriptione contineatur. i. Vsury is a gaine sought by lending, not covenanted, because not onely reall Vsury, which is by compact, but also mentall Vsury, which lies in the intention of get∣ting gaine as a due by lending, is contained in that description.

Generaliter tamen,* 1.10 & absolutè illicitam esse quam∣libet Vsuram, nulla ratione naturali solidè potest probari. But that generally all Vsury is absolute∣ly unlawfull, it cannot be proved by any naturall reason, solidly.

We must remember how this learned Doctor lived where the people are intolerable Vsu∣rers:* 1.11 It had beene in vaine therefore in such a place, è Cathedrâ, to have condemned all Vsury, and to have hoped to have sitten fast. And if the Doctor meane by naturall reason, reason from nature: 1. We have reason from nature, and deli∣vered by nature, I meane, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meere animals, that have nothing but nature, meere heathens: whereby my conscience is perswaded, that it is a dictate of nature in some sort, at least an experiment observed by nature, that Vsura est illicita d 1.12. Aristotle in his Politicks, lib. 1. cap. 7. saith plainly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Petrus Ramus renders so home, as that it is evident he was of Aristotles

minde; thus, Quapropter ejusmodi nummorum foe∣ne••i•• (of money bringing forth money) naturae maxime, contraria atque inimica judicanda est. Therefore that kinde of Vsury of money produ∣cing money, is to be judged as most contrary, and an enemy to nature. And 4. lib. Ethic. cap. 3. 〈…〉〈…〉 That I may not seeme to wrest the words in translating Lam∣binus as an indifferent man shall render the Greeke for us;* 1.13 Alii (saith he) ••u••sus in accipien∣do sant ••imit, quia undique, & puia••••le acc••p••unt, ••••ales sunt it ••ui il i••e••ales o••e••as praestant, sordi∣da ••ue artes exe••cent, & lenones, & omnes hujus notae homines, & ••oe••e••at••res•• & ii quibus exigu∣um lucrum magna mercede constat. Hi omnes a qui∣bus non de••ent, & quantum non delent, auferunt. The Philosopher concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Communis autem eorum videtur esse lucri tu••pitudo. O her; exceed in taking, viz any thing from any, viz. men of illiberall and sordid arts, Bawds, &c. Vsurers, &c. all which receive of whom and how much they ought not, and sordid gaine is common to them all. The Poet Horace, lib. 1. Serm. Satyr. 2. condemns Vsury of 5 l' per cent. his words are, Dives agris, dives positis in foenore nummis. ••inas hic capiti mercedes e••secat, i. e. five upon the principle: so learned Commentators: and a little before, Omnia conductis co••mens obso∣nia nummis. i. Saith the Commentator, Num∣mis

foenori acceptis, pro quibus merces solvitur. Ci∣cero a Heathen, condemns Vsury, Primum impro∣bantur hi•• qu s••us qui in odia hominum incurrunt, ut po••ti••orum & oe••era••orum. Cato a Heathen, con∣demnes Vsury, saying it is idem a•• occide••e. 2. I might thus in the second place prove Vsury to be condemned by the Dictates of Nature, be∣cause condemned of all mankinde, all peoples, Nations and Countries, more or lesse. Of Hea∣thens we have heard. Of Jewes after. For the lawes of Nations, such as are the civill lawes, re∣ceived in all Kingdomes and Common-wealths, where men are not savage, first they deny a known Vsurer power to make a Will. Secondly, deny him right to be buried in Church or Church-yard. Thirdly, in Court they allow not Vse for money detained when recovered. Againe, for Canon Lawes received of Christians, Papists and Protestants, in some sort: I meane Latine Ca∣nons, they injoyn tithes to Ministers to be paid of all profits, and so Vsurers to pay the tenth of their Vse; but Ministers may not receive it, because the gaine is all unlawfull and wicked and so the tithe. The Canonists and Canon Law doe con∣demne all Vsury and interest whatsoever. So ••il∣let on Exod. 22. Our S••••ute Lawes expre••ly disal∣low the Vsury of 8 l' per Cent. i•• point of Religi∣on, and Conscience. And in the judgement of Councellors his au••••lus la••t the ••atute do ••not allow and approve of taking any Vse, but onely provides a man shall not be punished by the Common Law if he take but •• l per Centum. The

parent may omit correction of a younger childe for that vice which the parent doth not allow. Againe they say, the maine intent of the Statute is to hinder above 8. not to encourage to take 8 l' per Centum. Our English Canon, viz. Can. 109. is expresse that it is a great sinne,* 1.14 and pre∣sentable. And our Episc. Trienn. visit last held, expressed in articles that it was presentable ••. 2. If D. Ames meanes by naturall reason, proper, and pertinent, and evident reason; sure that reason that doth convince, is such. And whether our reasons will convince, we will leave to the Reader to judge in the premises and that which is to follow.

* 1.15Non probatur ratione eorum qui dicunt mutuum ex naturâ su•• debere esse gratuitum. Neque enim probari hoc potest, omne mutuum, quibuscunque cir∣cumstantiis vestiatur, debere esse gratuitum. i. e. It is not proved (that is Vsury to be unlawfull) by their reason that say Borrow of its owne nature ought to be gratis.

* 1.16Omne mere purum putum mutuum, and of that is the question (whether consideration be to be given for bare lending) is easily and evidently proved it ought to be gratis. Luk. 6.34, 35. If ye ••ad to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye, for sinners do so. But lead, hoping for no∣thing againeh 1.17 We explaine this in our proper

idiome of our tongue and common speech, cal∣ling that which is free in this kinde, borrow∣ing and lending: that which is not, we call by other names of contract, as letting and hiring. But the text is cleare enough, which forbids mentall expectation of gaine; calling lending for gain to be a doing as sinners do. Vpon these words Beza having fetcht a circuit, concludes point blanck, thus; Illud tamen certum est, si juvandus est proximus, etiam nullà recipiendae sortis habita ra∣tione (but this I should count rather giving than lending) multo magis (saith Beza) prohiberi foeneratorias pactiones. Gregorie Nisen on these words saith, Malignam foe••orum excogitationem si quis appelles furtum, & homicidium, non peccabit. Nam quid refert suffosso pariete quenquam erepta possidere acf••norum necessitate possidere illicita. Ba∣sil speaks to the same effect as Aristotle doth in his Politicks, that it is unnaturall and unreasonable that it should be expected that mony should bring forth money. The Papists in their Rhemes Test. shame us Protestants: The words are, It may be ta∣ken for a pretext (as well as counsell) wherein V∣sury, i. e. the expectation not of the mony lent, but of vantage for lone, is forbidden, as by other places of Scripture it is condemned. And it is a thing against the law of Nature and Nations. And great shame and pitty it is, that it should be so much used and suffered among Christians, or so covered and cloked under the habit of other contracts as it is. In a word, S. Matthew will clear it, that giving is not here spoken of; who Mat. 5.42. repeats our

text of lending, and speaks of giving beside, as a di∣stinct way of helping a neighbour. It were strange therefore that S. Luke, that is the most eloquent writer of all the four Evangelists, should confound giving & lending to be all one; especially against the nature of the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifying al∣wayes to lend,* 1.18 never to give; commonly to lend on Vsury, seldome signifying to lend otherwise; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Vsurer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vsury. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Syriack signifying alwayes to lend, ne∣ver to give; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying an Vsurer.

* 1.19Et si concedatur hoc (omne mutuum debet esse gra∣tuitum) nihil aliud inde sequeretur, quàm mutuum si gratis non fiat, transire in alium contractum, vel no∣minatū, vel innominatum, vel simplicem, vel mixtum. i.e. And if it be granted that all lending should be gratis, nothing would follow thence, but that then lending (if it be not gratis) would passe in∣to another kinde of contract, named or unnamed, simple or mixt.

* 1.20But this, Nihil aliud, is magnum aliquod quod inde sequeretur. For by the same reason that the Doctor distinguisheth that mutuum si gratis non fiat, transire in alium contractum, vel nominatum, vel innominatum, vel simplicem, vel mixtum; we may goe on, distinguishing, licitum vel illicitum, conductitium vel foeneratorium: For this will of necessity follow, that if a man lend wearable goods, that returne not in the same perfection every way as they were when lent, in consideration whereof the lender takes reward: now lending

doth transire into hire. If he lends mony, that by number, weight and quality, returnes as good as it went out, yet for the bare loane requires re∣ward, here lending doth transire into Vsury. And so the Doctor innominat, doth simpliciter grant the question.

Non probatur (viz. omnem Vsuram esse illicitam) ra∣tione eorum qui allegant,* 1.21 in rebus illis quae usu consu∣muntur dominium non distingui ab usu, at{que} adeo pro usu nihil posse accipi ultra valorem ipsius dominii; re∣sponnetur, enim lucrum accipi non simpliciter pro usu rei mutuatae quoad substantiam, sed quoad valorem aut proventum qui manet post substantiam consumptam, & subsistit saepe in rebus quae usu non consumuntur & pro officio, vel actu mutuandi unde commodum perci∣pit mutuarius. All Vsury to be unlawfull, is not proved by their argument that alleage that in those things which weare with the Vse, the rule or Mastership of them is not distinguishable from the using of them, and therefore nothing above the value of that Mastership can be taken for the Vse: For it is answered, that gaine is not taken simply forthe Vse of the thing borrowed, considered ac∣cording to the substance, but considered accord∣ing to the value or In-come which redounds after the substance is wasted, which oft-times consists in things which are not impaired by their use. A∣gaine, it is taken for the office and act of lending, from which the borrower receiveth profit.

Of things wastable by Vse,* 1.22 there is not onely an impairing, but an hazard, and an event oft-times

of utter ruine. The hired horse dies; And then he must passe only for the hire (as the Scrip∣ture speaks) without farther satisfaction The hi∣red house not onely is worse in the parts, every thing older and more rotted, but the principles and whole edifice fals, the tenant not bound, nor able to re-build. So that in taking hire there is not onely just satisfaction for wrong to the crea∣ture; But lawfull merchandize for hazard of the whole. But the Vsurer takes generally for the bare Vse; For, for hazard he will run none. He usually requires intolerable assurance, morgage, &c. His money weares not. And for that same valor aut proventus qui manet post substantiam, & subsistit saepe in rebus quae usu non consumuntur, of which the Doctor speaks observe I pray you well: That, take away the consideration of the substance of money (which the Vsurer hath in specie & nume∣ro againe) and the act of lending, (which is satisfi∣ed by just repaying) and there is nothing to come into consideration, no proventus the Vsurer is hin∣dred of, which otherwise the Vsurer would or could make of his money, in consideration where∣of he should demand Vse. For the Vsurer lends, having now no penurious need of Vse to main∣tain himselfe by: Being usually rich, and alwayes richer than the just borrower; or however, he hath, or will have nothing else to doe with his money: But (as I know upon my owne experi∣ence) makes o•• lands, stock, &c, to provide an Vsury banck. He is a lazie Caterpiller, and will not worke, and therefore turnes Vsurer. He is

upheld by learned men that there is a lawfull Vsury (though nor he, nor they, can reherse any marks the Scripture hath set down to distinguish them) and therefore he will not runne the hazard to be a partner with any body. He will not lend to be lent to againe, for he needs not borrow∣ing. If any man will borrow and doth not ex∣presse or intimate he will pay for the act of lend∣ing, he will keepe his money a companion for canker and rust, rather than lend. If a man would bring home his money a month or two before the time, he is utterly unwilling, unlesse the whole time be paid for. He will have it go on, and take for time, that was never his to sell: yet he will have Vse for all his money, for all the time he prayed, heard Sermons, received the Communion: For the time of eating sleeping, &c. when, nor he nor his client could or ought to be otherwise busied. Let not the Reader now unjustly untwist this answer, but take all together, and let him speak whether the Vsurer himselfe can alleage that he receives his Vse for any thing but lending. 2 If it were so as the Doctor speaks, that post substantiam remanet valor & proventus (which can∣not be found immediately in money) yet seeing God hath allowed recompence for using impair∣able goods, forbidden recompence for lending things that come in the same, quod & quantum, the case is altered.

Non probatur (usuram esse illicitam) ratione eo∣rum qui objiciunt pecuniam sua natura esse sterilem:* 1.23

i.e. Vsury is not proved unlawfull by the allegati∣on of those that say, that money in its owne na∣ture is barren.

* 1.24The father of the Philosophers, Aristotle, as you heard afore, thought this a good reason, not onely to condemne Vsury, but to pronounce it contrary to nature. The fathers of Christians, thinke the same. So Basil on Luk. 6. as you heard afore. It is strange that we having the eyes of the fathers to see with beside our owne, should not be able to ken as farre into the nature of vitium, as a meere heathen. ☞ Consilio Lateranensi, Vsury is thus defined; Quando ex usu rei quae non germi∣nat, nullo labore, nullo sumptu, nullo periculo lucrum conquiri studetur. To which Willet assents, and Englisheth it in this manner; Vsury is when by the Vse of a thing which increaseth not, gaine is sought without any labour, cost, or hazard. You heard before also that the Rhemish Testament saith, It is against the law of nature. Finally, many learned men from this seeking money to be borne as it were of money, have conceived the word Vsury to be derived. Vsura, q.d. Vsus aeris. Not onely Divines touch this s. Tench, but Lawyers. I have read it in the Lord Cooks Reports in French. Hence also the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which first signifies partus, then Vsury. So Latine, Foenus, q.d. Foetus, the Etymologie rising from a wonder.

* 1.25Quamvis enim pecunia sua natura & per se sit ste∣rilis, facile tamen commutari potest in merces, quae

fructum edunt, & accedeate industria utentis vim suam confert ad fructum pariendum. For though money in its owne nature is barren, yet it may easily be changed into commodities which fru∣ctifie, and by the industry of him that useth it, brings forth fruit.

1 This answer is not sufficient,* 1.26 unlesse it be a true universall proposition, that for whatsoever worldly benefit that is barren in it selfe, yet easily commutable into profit, recompence may be gi∣ven, s. for the forbearance of it. For if the pro∣position be but particular or singular; then we want other proofes to cleare why it should be true of money, more than other things. But the proposition is not universally true. For then, be∣cause time, unprofitable in it selfe, being not res, but mensura rerum, is profitable by industry, Accedente industria utentis, therefore it may be sold. As indeed usurious and injurious merchants sell their commoditie, not according to the rate, but according to the value of time, con∣demned by the learned, that condemne Vsury. Then the Elements, Fire and Water, bona commu∣nia, and therefore gratis to be communicated to one another (saith Cicero) might be let out or sold for money, because mediately they are very use∣full. One neighbour might sell them to another wanting them: or the Magistrate lay a tax upon men for the use of them. 2 Money brings not forth profit, by all industry of all men, but by singular industry of some, and with some hazard.

Most men are not rich, most men not gaining by money, but many, many times loosing. And there∣fore one argument of Polititians against Vsury is, it is unlawfull, and against nature, because the Vsurer by Bonds, Bils, Suits, &c. requires of his Client quod non est in rerum natura; pro∣fit of money where none was, but losse k 1.27. 3 The Maxime applied to particulars, pincheth; whe∣ther Vsury money, i. e. money lent on Vsury be fruitfull mediately, & per accidens. The Text, Prov 28.8. may justly make us doubt. If God curse not, crosse not borrower or lender (for it is seldome seene but the borrower is swallowed whole at last) yet if the borrower upon Vse, sels unconscionably dear, that he may make his custo∣mers to pay for the commodity, pay his Vse, and finde him present maintenance, and an estate for time to come, what boast can there be made of the fruitfulnesse of this money to the Common-wealth? The Country is sacrificed on cruell dea∣ling to save one man. The Common-wealth must perish for the wealth of such Commons. 4 The rule of the husbandman in buying of Cattell and other commodities, or Leases, is, that he will pay for what the thing is in statu praesenti: but to pay for what it is improveable to, he hath no rea∣son. If money be fruifull that is borrowed of the Vsurer, yet seldome so fruitfull as honestly to pay the Vser for his great paines, and the Vsurer his Vse too.

* 1.28Non probatur (illicitam esse usuram) ratione eo∣rum

qui dicunt in genere nihil esse in mutuo, pro quo lucrum possit accipi. Est enim proventus fructus qui ex pecuniâ mutuo datâ potest expectari: est & onus annexum privationi pecuniae qua fit ut omnis occasio eandem cum fructu alias collocandi omittatur. Vacatio enim à pecunia utendâ eorum jure aestimari posse videtur, quo & vacatio à laboribus aestimatur. Exod. 21.19. i.e. Usury is not proved unlawfull by their reason, who say, that in generall there is no∣thing in lending for which gaine may be taken. For there is both a fruitfull in come to be expect∣ed of lent money; as also there is a burthensome inconvenience annexed to the want of that lent money, whereby all opportunity of disposing that money otherwise, is taken away: For non∣imployment of money that may be used, seemes valuable, with the same equity valuable, as non∣imployment of labour, Exod. 21.19.

I have sufficiently answered all these alrea∣dy,* 1.29 onely to the last reason or clause [Vacatio etenim, &c.] I will speak a word. As now it is the question whether Usury be lawfull (as out of doubt labour in our Callings is) and consequent∣ly, whether Gods blessing may be expected on such money-mungring. So (which is the maine of our answer) the husbandman is sure (under Gods ordinary providence) what he can get by his daily labour, day by day: but at abundance of hazards that he doth not lose by his laying out of his money (especially his Vsury-borrowed mo∣ney) as much in one day as he can get in many

weeks. Therefore there is not par ratio, that for∣bearance of mony should be recompenced (espe∣cially when men desired to lend their mony for so long time, six moneths, &c. as confident it would be no hinderance to them) as bodily labour.

* 1.30Ratione evidenti confirmatur, aliquam usuram es∣se licitam; quia nulla realis differentia potest osten∣di, inter quandam Vsuram, & alios contractus ab omnibus probatos. e. g. Est aliquis pecuniâ instructus ad praedium emendum, unde possit percipere annuos fructus centum imperialium. Idem praedium cupit al∣ter habere, sed non est pecuniâ instructus. Si prior ille emat praedium, & elocet alteri pro centum impe∣rialibus, quin justum & aequum fecerit, nemo nega∣bit. Si vero alteri det pecuniam ad idem praestandum, sc. ad idem praedium sibi emendum, & candem sum∣mam ab eo accipiat, eidem periculo sese subjiciens, cui in exemptione sua fuisset obnoxius, eadem pror∣sus est justitia. Et praeterea nonnihil accedit alteri illi qui selvit usuras ratione dominii in praedium il∣lud quod emptione su acquisivit: i.e. It is ratified by evident reason, that some Vsury is lawfull, be∣cause there cannot be shewed any reall difference betweene a certaine kinde of Vsury, and other contracts approved of all. For instance, there is a man furnished with money to buy such a Farme of an hundred pounds per annum: Another man, though wanting money, desired to buy the same Farme: If the first of these buy the Farme, no doubt but he may lawfully let it out to another for an hundred pounds by the yeare. Now if this

man now the owner, should not have bought it, but have lent his money to the other, that want∣ing money desired to buy it, wherewith he now buyes the Farme, taking of this purchaser the same summe of rent for his money, which he should have had of the Farme, putting himselfe upon the same hazard for his money to which he should have beene liable in the purchase of the Farme, there is the selfe same equity in both.

Vpon this argument and case I suppose was the speech at our conference grounded (for I finde none so like as this) that D. Ames allowed 8 l'. in the hundred.* 1.31 But there was an utter mistake in this, as will appeare easily to him that reads the bare words. It will further appeare by our answer.

1 Here the Doctor plainly allowes a man to take so much in the hundred for his money, which he lends to a purchaser of Free-land, or Farme, as the purchase bought brings in of yearely rent, if it were let. Which is in England (and I be∣leeve it to be so in other Countries; for Vsury, too too common in all lands in the practise, pre∣scribes that proportion of purchasing) I say is in England but 5 l' in the hundred, which is farre from 8 l' in the hundred. 2 The phrase eidem pe∣riculo sese su••jiciens, carries very much with it. Which the learned Doctor not so versed in pur∣chasing, as he was in perusing of books, might not so well consider. For first if by it he means simply, that a man in lending out his money to buy Centum imperialia per annum, doth run him∣selfe

into the same hazard in lending his money, as he should have done in purchasing, if he him∣selfe had laid out the money on the purchase: And that therefore he ought to have as much for the lone of the money, as he should have had of rent, if the purchase had beene his, which rent his client or borrower now takes up of the Farme as rent, and payes it him as Vse: the worthy Doctor is much mistaken. 1 What great hazard there is in purchasing (over there is in lending money, for which men are faine to give double, treble, quadruble bond, with morgages, statutes, pawnes, &c. for security, even what the Vsurer will require) I say hazard in purchasing, in regard of conveyance, lest some morgages or statutes secretly lie on the land, or some former estate be let, or the new lease be not well made, some the for a, or and for but, marring all: Or some Entailes, or Thirds, &c. worst the bargaine, with hundreds more difficulties, I leave to the Lawyer to declare. 2 What great charges for fines, re∣coveries, conveyances, with many journies to settle a purchase, over there is to lend money to Vse, which costs the Vsury-taker nothing, I leave the purchaser to discourse. 3 How uncertaine the rates of commodities be, how wearable the ground is, how alterable by seasons of excesse of wet or drought the crops are, and consequently how prices of land fall, especially in any trouble of common-wealths, of wars, &c. whiles money is still of the same value, let the husbandman speake. 4 How much labour and cost a man is

at to make the Farme yeeld his rent, let the oc∣cupier or imployer of that Farme speak, whiles the Vsurer is at none for the money he lends: and therefore it is a hard pennyworth for the bor∣rower, if he imploy his Farme, to pay the Vsu∣rer, and be paid his labour and his charges too, so as to have a maintenance. Seeing therefore in no degree doth this lender run hazard and charges as the purchaser, he is in no wise to have the same profit of his money as the purchaser of his lands.

2 If we may so take the Doctor, as that he meanes the lender of his money should alto∣gether subjicere sese eidem periculo cui in ex∣emptione sua fuisset obnoxius; then it is as plaine as if written with a Sun-beame, as evident as evi∣dent may be, that now this is not Vsury, but partnership, copurchasing, coheirship, or joint-taking. And so all that this position hath set downe, gives no allowance to Vsury.

Scriptura non tollit omnem omnino Vsur••. i. e.* 1.32 The Scripture doth not altogether take away all Vsury.

1 Answ. Most learned men (and some of them most pious) drawing out of the Scripture the selfe same definition of Vsury in effect,* 1.33 which Doctor Ames sets downe, under that their defini∣tion condemnes all Vsury, comming within the compasse thereof — Vrsinus, Vsura est lu∣crum quod accipitur solius mutuationis causa — Calv. Quicquid lucri praeter sortem dabatur, est usura, unde Haebraicè dicta Tarbit: i. e Increase of the multiplying — August.* 1.34 Si plus quam de∣disti

expectas accipere,* 1.35 foenerator es — Cajetan a Papist, Plus ex mutuo velle quam mutuatum sit, ini∣quum est — Concil. Carthag. 3. Nullus Cleri∣corum amplius accipiat quam cuiquam accommo∣davit — 2 The Scripture takes away all Usu∣ry, and it will be made to appeare even out of those arguments that the worthy Doctor allea∣geth to the contrary, which are foure. viz.

* 1.36Sed illam quae exigitur ab egeno, qui ob instantem, necessitatem & sustentationem suam aliquid mutuo petit: ita ut prohibitio fundetur in conditione personae. Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.35, 36. Pro. 28.8. Ezech. 18.17. e. i. But onely that which is exacted of the needy, who for his present urgent necessity, and the sustentation of himselfe, borroweth some∣what: so that the prohibition is grounded upon the condition of the person.

* 1.37We thus retort the argument. That sin which is forbidden to all that are incident and subject to commit that sin, is altogether forbidden, that it be not committed. But Usury is forbidden to all that are incident & subject to commit Vsury; Ergo. The Minor proposition is evident thus; The takers of Usury are the richer: The bor∣rowers are the poorer. And therefore the Lord forbids all rich men to take Use of their Cli∣ents, because they are poore in comparison of the lender; and so have more need to have the Use money given them, than the rich borrower to receive it. l 1.38 For though a man of an 100 l'

per annum, borrow of a man that hath but 50 l' per annum; yet he that hath the more lands and lesse money, and more in debt, perhaps as much as halfe, or all his lands are worth, must needs be the poorer man. If any rich man borrow for wantonnesse, and superfluous and unnecessary uses; that's the speciall sin of borrowing & borrowers: forbidden under another head, sc. covetousnesse: And by other kinde of places of Scripture: Owe nothing to any one but love. So a man may abuse a godly duty, viz. pr. to seeke things to get them, to consume them on lusts, &c.* 1.39 Therefore in these places of Usury, the holy Ghost is al∣together intent against the sinne of lenders. And that is Usury: whose aggravation is this in the Texts above named (as in other Texts other ag∣gravations of that sinne are touched) that it takes gaine for lending, of them that are poorer than the lenders. Unlesse this answer be admitted as sound, it would follow by the same argument that the learned Doctor makes; That oppression is not uviversally forbidden, because the mighty and potent ones usually are forbidden that sinne, toward the weake innocent neighbour, which al∣wayes is weaker than the oppressor, else he would not be oppressed. No more would the poore borrower borrow if he were rich, but ra∣ther would be ready to lend, freely, or for Usury. m 1.40 Finally, that I may not seeme to goe an uncouth and untroden path, let the Reader looke on my company. 1 Master Capel in his Tract of Temp∣tations, hath upon this objection of the Do∣ctors,

these words in the forenamed booke, in his dispute of restitution, at the end of the said book. Read, and read his answer:

The Law (saith the objection) doth urge most, that Usury be not done to the poore: Was it not (saith Master Capel) because the Jewes were then too noble and generous to go a borrowing, except it were the poorer sort? What should the Law then forbid that to be done by rich men, which most rich men never did? But after we have probiti∣ons plenty that are indefinite: we are forbidden we must not rob the poore, because he is poore. Good sport for theeves, if therefore it may be thought to follow, that it is a lawfull matter to rob the richn 1.41. Neither can the law against Usury be thought to be a judicious law of Mo∣ses; for such lawes as such, are knowne onely by some intelligence from the books of Moses. But heathens of all sorts, who never once heard of Moses writings, have with one voice cryed sin upon Usury, and shame upon Usurers; Poets, Orators, Historians, Philosophers, all.

Thus farre Master Capel, yet alive to maintaine his words against any. We will shew you but one or two more of our company, and leave the Reader to search the multitude of ordinary authours.

2 Next followeth Master Ainsworth, on that place Exod. 22.••5. quoted by Doctor Ames. Ainsworths words are, Usury consumeth a man and his substance; and is therefore here, and elsewhere absolutely (marke it well, abso∣lutely) forbidden, viz. Deut. 23.19. Levit. 25.35, 36.

Prov. 28.8. Ezech. 18.8. Observe, Master Ainsworth quotes the same places for absolute forbidding Usury, which Doctor Ames notes for forbidding onely to the poore. And he quotes beside Deut. 23.19. where Usury is forbidden to be exerci∣sed towards any Jew whatsoever. ☜ Master Ainsworth goes on, and learnedly produceth the streames of Jewish Doctors and Rabbins to be against all Usury, Usury of any increase, Usury of victuals, cloths, labour: Usury of words and sa∣lutations: Usury of teaching one to read, for lending money. All Sureties, Scribes, Witnes∣ses, are forbidden to have to doe in Vsury. The Vsurer, say the Rabbins, offends against six pro∣hibitions, viz. Exod. 22.25. Levit. 25.37. of money. And againe, Levit. 23.37. of victuall. Againe, Levit. 25.36. of increase. Againe, Exod. 22.25. shall not lay upon him Vsury. Deut. 23.19. and Levit. 19.14. For the Rabbins say, it is a laying a stumbling blocke before the blinde, to take Vse. It is unlawfull to take Vsury before or after, viz. to send a gift before to him of whom one intends to borrow. Thus farre M. Ainsworth and his Rabbins, with much more; to make Chri∣stians blush at once moving a tongue for Vsury.

3 Vatablus on this Exod. 22.25. hath these words, Pauperi per expositionem positum. Exponit enim quem vocet populum suum, nempe pauperes: Thus Vatablus. And let me here put in mine oare, thus; That if this were a limitation of Vsury, to take onely Vsury of the poore Jew, then it would follow one might take it of a rich Jew,

which is no where allowed: And crosseth ano∣ther limitation alleaged by D. Ames, out of the text of Scripture, that allowes Vsury to be done to none but to the stranger the Canaanite. And so these limitations fight one against another: But being made aggravations, they agree.

4 Vpon this, Exod 22.25. Doctor Willet (having before named seven kinds of Vsury) hath this assertion, That Vsury is simply unlawfull. He hath this explanation. But all these kinds of V∣sury and interest, with the like, were utterly un∣lawfull, and not to be practised among Christi∣ans. He hath finally this probation. The said as∣sertions and explanation shall appeare by these reasons (whereof I will defer some of them till after, for a fitter place.) 1 Vsury (saith he) was detestable among the Heathen; much more odi∣ous ought it to be among Christians. As Cato being asked what it was to play the Vsurer, an∣swered Idem quod occidere. And further he said, that in former time they used to punish a thiefe but in twofold, an Vsurer in fourefold Willet al∣leageth for this his argument Calvin. 2 Vsury is against the first institution of money. Pecunia inventa est, that thereby things necessary for the maintenance of this life might be provided. But now it is prevented and abused to covetousnesse, that money may increase money. Master Willet alleageth this his argument out of one Borrh. 3 The Scripture absolutely condemneth Vsury, as Psal. 15.5. Ezech. 18.17. Doctor Willet may well say absolutely, for here are no limitations

mentioned, which Doctor Ames sets downe. Well, Doctor Willet goes on. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) signifieth increase. By which, saith he, all increase by Vsury is forbidden. Let me give you to understand here, whence this word Tarbith comes, viz. o 1.42. 4 His next reason is ta∣ken out of Chrysostome. Chrysostome saith (quoth Willet) Vsurarius super omnes mercatores maledictus. Cursed above all merchants and tradesmen: So Willet translates. And Chrysostome (saith Willet) further useth this comparison; Like as when one fifteth any graine, all the graine by little and little slippeth through, and so solum stercus remanet in cribro; onely the soile and dirt remaineth in the sieve: So of all the substance and ill gotten goods of Vsurers, Nihil remanet nisi peccatum. So farre Willet. Thus you see the prohibition of Vsury in the above alleaged places by Doctor Ames, Non fundetur in conditione personae, not onely in my judgement and my reasons (which notwith∣standing are unanswerable) but in the judgement of other learned men, with their invincible reasons.

Scriptura non tollit omnem omnino usuram,* 1.43 fed il∣lam quae mordet aut rodit, i.e. quando debitū exigitur cum rigore, & proximi damno. i.e. The Scripture takes not away all Vsury utterly, but the biting

and gnawing; i.e. when the debt is exacted with rigour, and damnifying our neighbour.

* 1.44To the first clause. 1 Thus as our English Trans∣lators, O. or N. take no notice of the distin∣ction: Nor French, Iun. Lat. High-dutch; so here is not a limitation of Vsury, as if Neshech, biting Vsury were unlawfull onely. As if there were another Vsury, which our old Vsurers call toothlesse Vsury. For there is no Vsury so old, as that the marke is out of its mouth, but still it may be knowne to be a sinne. Still its teeth may be seene, and so called biting Vsury. This word is oft used as an epithite of aggravation, to deterre men from any Vsury. Because any Vsury at the best is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Neshech, A biting Vsury. For if we looke after the other names of Vsury, they have a worse signification than this. 1 For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Neshech, it is agreed that is condemned. Chryso∣stome cals it on Matth. 5. Morsum aspidis venena∣tum. And that you may know what is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ne∣shech, your friend (as the Vsurers report, if any will beleeve them) Master Zanch. will shew. Ne∣shech, Morsus est, quo scilcet mordetur, id est, damno afficitur ille, qui mutuam accepit pecuniam, dum sc. v. g. pro centum cogitur reddere centum, & prater hos aliquid amplius, sive parum, sive multum. By which description of Neshech, all our Vsu∣rers hundreds for one are cast, and condemned guilty of biting Vsury. For they will have some∣what more than the principle, let the borrower get nothing at all, but lose. The Vsurer must

have a plus ultra, on his five in the hundred. An∣other his six in the hundred. Another his seven in the hundred. Another his eight in the hundred. Another his five shillings a moneth, or fifteene pence a weeke for two yeares, for five pounds; which in the pecunia numerata, by Lunary months, twelve in a yeare, comes to 20 l' per Centum: By Solary months, as the Sunne measures seven dayes to a weeke, foure weeks to a month, and so makes thirteene months in a yeare, it comes to thirty in the hundred. And in modo numerandi, the man∣ner of paying, that as soone as the stocke is out, to have some comming in within a weeke or a month, and so weekly or monthly, comes to above 30 l' in the hundred. For the 30 l' per Centum, you may reckon it thus; five shillings a moneth, for a yeare, for 5 l', comes to make the summe of 3 l', supposing but the Almanack Lunary moneths, 12 in the yeare. For 12 crowns are 3 l'. of which 3 l', 10 s is the Vse. For the sum was 5 l' for two years. Now halfe is come in at 12 Almanacke months. Now multiply; ten a yeare for 50 s, is twenty shillings for 5 l'. Then foure twenties, sc. 4 l' for foure 5 l, i e. for 20 l': that is five 4 l' (which is 20 l') for five 20 l', which is an 100 l'. So you see then that ten shillings a yeare for 50 s, is 20 l' for an hundred. Lets goe on then; if ten shil∣lings a yeare, for 50 s, comes to 20 l' per Centum, then adde halfe ten shillings, sc. five, for the odde Solary moneth, the thirteenth moneth in the yeare, and that will come to halfe as much more, i. e. 30 l' pro Centum. These things I have recko∣ned

if I forget not my selfe, before exact Shop-keepers, Civill Lawyers, Common Lawyers, and Divines, and they have assented to the reckon∣ing to be right. And the Lawyer hath pronounced directly this to be indirect Vsury (though a man pretend to sell his money) and so lies liable to the penalty of the Statute. But then how much more than 30 in the 100 it comes to, to take in some of the Principall and Vse together, the first week, or first month, and so weekly or monthly, for two years, till all in, I must confesse I cannot tell; I nevet yet tryed to reckon: and it seemes some∣what intricate: we had need have the helpe of the Almanack-maker. Others, may be, saile low∣er, and take but 20 s in the hundred; yet if the borrower hath not gained thus much, this is Ne∣shech with Master Zanchie. Nay, if a man doth not leave the borrower some gaine, if he gat but one shilling, so that Creditor fit tamen particeps be∣nignitatis, of the gaine. that is Neshech. We adde the judgment and reasons of other learned men, that are contrary to D. Ames; that Neshech doth not intend only to forbid one kinde of Vsury, but is a common name to disgrace, and forbids all Vsury, as all Usury being Neshech, biting. It is Wil∣lets argument, & he hath it out of learned Cajetan, Vsura est ex suo genere nociva, because it is called Neshech. And the law of nature, saith Willet, teach∣eth we should not do as we would not be done by. It is Ainsworths position, Evod. 22.25. That Vsury is called biting, because indefinitely all Vsury is biting, and therefore here saith he, ab∣solutely

forbidden. He hath this position as out of many Scriptures there quoted, of which afore: So out of the Heb. Rab. viz. Maimonid. Vsury indefinitely called Neshech or Noshech, it nippeth and eateth his neighbours flesh. — Iun. out of Bernard, Vsura is called Neshech, lucrum rodens, seu exedens; for it is, saith Bernard, Venenum pa∣trimonii. — Willet out of R. Sol. and Lyran. Vsu∣ry is Neshech, q. mordet ut serpens; parum percipi∣tur in principio, tandem devorat totam hominis sub∣stantiam. Out of Galass. q. tanquam hirudo, omnem succum & sanguinem exsugit, as an horsleech, saith Willet. — Out of Simler, q. ut morsus serpentis non si∣nit dormire.—Out of Calvin, Neshech quia foenera∣tor tanquam canis famelicus, alios mordendo seipsum pascit. — Finally, q. lethaliter mordet eos, qui eâ gravantur. ex Anonymo. Elton is of the same minde. All Vsury is Neshech. You see then how bad Vsury is at best. How Neshech is enough to condemne all Vsury almost. The next words are worse. For Tharebith, in the words and judge∣ment of Master Zanchie, is of Rabbah. Quod est crescore, i.e. augere. Vocem hanc habemus, Levit. 25. Significatur autem hac voce, usura sese multiplicans, (for indeed it is a Nowne from the Conjugation Hithpael.) Cum scilicet Vsura, (nempe iniqua) non persoluta, novam parit Vsuram. Quam certè damnat Lex Dei, Levit. 25.36. Vbi utramque vocem con∣jungit Neshech & Tharebith, & utramque damnat, cavetque ne fiat. Quare neque haec vox in sacris li∣teris in bonam partem accipi potest. Atque illam pri∣mam Vsuram, quae Neshech dicitur, vocant Iurispe∣riti

nostri Vsuram simplicem; alteram, usuram usu∣rarum; cumsc. Vsura non exacta, parit novam Vsu∣ram; & Graeci vocant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quasi dicat repe∣titam Vsuram. So then this Tharebith is not the toothlesse or tolerable Vsury, but worse than Ne∣shech, and therefore condemned by Scripture with Neshech, in the same text. Yea, condemned by Zan∣chie, yea, as he explains it, by humane laws as most odious. p 1.45 Me thinks, Zanchie or Ames, or any man that would intimate a tolerable Vsury, should have done so much as told us by what name that tolerable lawfull Vsury is called in old Testament, where they pretend it is allowed. But they leave us to our selves. Well therefore I goe on. The third word for Vsury is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies Fraudes, Doli, Vsurae: It signifies cheat∣ing and cozening as well as Vsury, intimating that Vsury is of an odious abominable nature, to be shunned as a dangerous thing to intrap ones estate and livelihood. You shall not take my word for this, or learned Shindlers; but I will produce our English Bibles, and the best and last transla∣tion. Prov. 29.13. it is said, The poore and the de∣ceitfull man meet together. The Hebrew word for deceitfull man is Ish Terakim, the word before named. The man of cunning deceits; which be∣cause it signifies the Vsurer, therefore in the margent it is rendred Vsurer. Beside these three words for Vsury, I can finde not one Hebrew

word more, upon divers diligent searchings. Nor did others handling Vsury, ever name so many as I have, that I could finde, or heare of. As for N. T. it is expresly named there, but im∣plicitely forbidden under the precept of free lending. And under all these names Vsury is made odious; therefore where is the name of that Vsury that Doctor Ames, or any, would intimate to be lawfull? 2 Reply to the clause is this: All Vsury in Scripture is either Neshech, or Tharbith, or Terakim: But all these are vilified and disgra∣ced in Scripture as odious, therefore all Vsury in Scripture is forbidden, or disgraced as unlawfull. The two first expresly forbidden. The last word is, you see, not used in any precept or position about Vsury, but onely as a name of the wicked rich man, and you see what an odious signification it hath; insomuch that the Vsurers conscience shall judge whether Terakim is not spoken a∣gainst in Scripture, when called cozening or de∣ceitfull dealing Vsury. For the Vsurer will not have his Vsury called cozening, or fraud, or de∣ceit. Nay, if they would but see how they are ha∣ted and cursed for taking Vse, they would disal∣low their Vsury. So Cic. Attic. 85.6. Primum im∣probantur hi quaestus, qui in odia hominum incur∣runt, ut portitorum (toll or tax takers) & foene∣ratorum. But alas Usury in this is worse than the worst sins. Those deny the fact, but excuse not the sinne: These confesse the fact but deny the sinne. 2 Our reply to the last clause, that Vsury is taken away, quando debitum exigitur cum

rigore, &c. is briefly this. The breach of the Law, consistit in indivisibili. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be it never so small, is sinne. 1 Ioh. 3.8, 9. David smote him for cut∣ting of Sauls garment. It is laid to the charge of the old world, Gen. 6.5. that they brake the Law in the thoughts of their imaginations, and therefore God would bring upon them the flood. And, Cursed is he that continueth not in all the Law, &c. Gal. 3.10. But the Law takes hold of thoughts, Thou shall not covet, &c. in the tenth Commandement. See how Paul applies it, Rom. 7. Therefore if all gaine forbare lending, for a bare principle, fully repayed, or to be repayed, be taken, be it more or lesse, cum rigore, or absque rigore, it is all the same. For how is it conceiveable that such gaine should be taken, sine damno proximi, when the most Divines that presse restitution, doe it on this ground, Vsury ought to be restored, be∣cause it hath bin a damma••e to the so borrower. But saith Master Capel, The other part of the Schooles, with whom, saith he, I joyne, hold re∣stitution, because by Vsury there is no true title jure divino, no not in justice, to that which comes in that way. He quotes in the margent, Greg. de Valent. Tom. 3. dis. 5. q. 21. pu. 3.

* 1.46Scriptura tollit illam usuram quae charitati repug∣nat, Luc. 6.35. i.e. The ••cripture takes away the Vsury that is repugnant and opposite to charity.

* 1.47Therefore the Scripture takes away all Vsury. 1 Because all is opposite to charity. No man but would borrow freely if he could, therefore you

ought so to lend. 2 Because opposite to the Law of God as we heare, Ezech. 18. Psal. 15. Nehem. 5. restore the hundreth part, without mention of bro∣ther that is poore, or biting, &c. But the summe of the Law is charity. As Christ approves the answer of the Lawyer. Ergo. 3 Because opposite to that place, Luk. 6.35. alleaged by Doct. Ames, Lend freely, looking for nothing. Finally take notice, that whereas before the learned Doctor averred, that borrowing ought to be free could not be proved; yet here he alleageth this of Luk. 6.35. Lend freely, which not to observe, is against the law of charity, saith the Doctor. Vsu∣ry, saith Master Smith, is against charity.

Forsan & illam omnem Vsuram tollit,* 1.48 quae ex lege politica Iudaeis inter se exercere non licebat. Deut. 33.19, 20. Perhaps also it takes away all that Vsu∣ry which was not lawfull for the Jews, by the poli∣ticall Law, to exercise one towards another. Unto a stranger thou maist lend upon Usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon Usury; that the Lord thy God may blesse thee in all thou set∣test thy hand unto, &c. Vnae Scriptura indicare videtur aliquam Vsuram esse per se licitam: Dum aequali, non egeno extraneo accipere Vsuras Iudaeis permittebat.

Great glory is made of this Text,* 1.49 to prove Usury not simply unlawfull. But as permission by law to execute death upon malefactors, doth not prove murther not simply unlawfull: So to∣leration of Vsury here towards them whose lives

the Jewes might take away, doth not prove but that Vsury is neverthelesse simply unlawfull. For al•• that ever gave a reason why Vsury towards the Canaanites (for the seven kingdomes of the Canaanites are the onely strangers here meant, by the confession of the learned, and no other strangers) was permitted, was because their lives were given to the Jewes, and consequently their estates too. Therefore to object a private Jew might not take away a Canaanites life, is onely to argue, that a private Jew might not take Vsu∣ry of a Canaanite. For the Canaanites goods is not his, except the life. Therefore this obje∣ction (that is grounded on that which doth not appeare in the Text, that a private Jew might not kill a Canaanite) doth inferre theft to be law∣full, to prove Vsury not unlawfull. For if a pri∣vate Jew hath no power over the Canaanites life, then not over his estate; for what other rule is there? and so taking that he hath nothing to doe with, he robs. If he, a private Jew, takes use of him, surely if he doth it by vertue of the pub∣lick politicall Law, dirived to him particularly; sure then the reason or ground of that law being publick that Jewes are to have power over the Canaanites lives, comes downe to him in particu∣lar: Or else his particular and private Vsury is without reason. 2 God tolerated the Jewes rob∣bing the Egyptians: yet it doth not follow thence, that theft is not simply unlawfull q 1.50.

* 1.51 Suppose this were a toleration of Vsury for the Jew upon the Canaanite, without consideration

of power over the Canaanites lives; yet what were this to uphold any kinde of Vsury to be used of and towards Christians? when as two learned men, Calvin and Willet, doe not doubt from this place (which seemes a toleration) to conclude Vsury to be utterly unlawfull among Christians. Their argument is this. The He∣brewes were forbidden to take any Vsury at all of their brethren; of the Gentiles they might; but now diruta est maceries, the wall of partition is taken away, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ: therefore Christians may not take use of Christians. Before this argument Master Willet puts this position [Vsury is sim∣ply unlawfull:] He makes the said argument his first argument, and at the end of it he subscribes Calvin. The second particular Reply, From the manner of the Holy Ghosts setting downe this rule touching Vsury, and mens urging, sc. as a toleration. Vpon which, Master Capels posi∣tion is this:

I know, saith he, the Law per∣mitted Vsury to the Jewes to the stranger. What of that? It followes the rather, that it is of it selfe a sin; because permission is of sins, not of duties.

So Master Capel. Meditate well on this answer. Perhaps at the first sight you will wonder, and object, Doth God then tolerate sin? Before he tolerated it is simply sinne, and so it is when his toleration ceaseth. But God being above the Commandement, his Will being the everlasting platforme of the Commandement, he may dispense; and when and how farre he

makes it no Law, there is no transgression. The morall Law was written, say the generall consent of Divines, in Adams heart, and so was from the beginning, and yet still is in force. Yet at first it was no adultery for the brother to marry the sister: I meane no breach of the Commandement of Adultery: God shewing by necessity, his Will for that generation, to dispence. So, Thou shalt not steale, is a Negative Commandement, and so binds semper, and ad semper. But when God bids the Israelites borrow of, and not pay the Egyp∣tians, this is no theft: God having a reason, that the breach of this Commandement then was greater justice than to keepe it. The same may be said for Vsury. If Kings and Emperours must be obeyed in their wholsome lawes, under penal∣ty of sin: But it is no sin to doe contrary to any law they make, when first they have for that time repealed them. Then God hath much more that power. The third particular reply is, That in the judgement of most learned men, the reason of this dispensation, viz. the leave the Jewes had to slay the Canaanites, doth the more shew the vilenesse and cruelty of Vsury. First, let us heare Master Capel, that we may knit this to that which was but quoted of him, that he may the better cleare himselfe. The thing is (saith Master Capel) There was a Law to kill the Canaanite, and yet I hope that killing was not murther: No more was that Vsury a sinne to them. Next, let us heare Master Willet, backing himselfe with the judge∣ments and reasons of the Fathers. if it be ob∣jected

(saith Master Willet) that God permitted the Hebrewes to take Vsury of the Gentiles, therefore it was not simply unlawfull. To this (saith he) it may be answered, that they were those seven Nations of the Canaanites, of whom they might take Vsury: which Nations they were commanded to destroy, and so by this meanes they might weaken their estate, and im∣poverish them. Whereupon (saith Master Wil∣let) Ambrose inferreth, Ab hoc Vsuram exige, quem non sit crimen occidere r 1.52. And so (saith he) Augu∣stine also concludeth, Non minus crudelis qui pau∣perem trucidat f••nore, quam qui eripit diviti. Adde to these Simler; Vbi jus belli, ibi jus Vsurae.

Si enim omnis Vsura esset intrinsecè ac suâ naturâ mala,* 1.53 tum non potuere Iudaei à gentibus accipere Vsu∣ras sine scandalo gravi, quo gentes averterentur à religione ac lege Iudaeorum, quae admitteret rem il∣licitam tanquam licitam. i.e. For if all Vsury in∣trinsecally, and in its owne nature were evill, then the Jewes could not have taken Vsury of the Gentiles, without great scandall, to the averting of the Gentiles from the religion and law of the Jewes tolerating a thing unlawfull.

By the same reason we may say,* 1.54 If theft had beene intrinsecally, and in its owne nature un∣lawfull, then the Jewes could not have borrowed of the Egyptians jewels, not repaying them, with∣out great scandall, whereby the Egyptians might be turned away from the religion and Law of the

Jewes, which did admit of a thing, unlawfull in the opinion of the Egyptians, to be as lawfull. But we know that theft was simply, and in its owne nature unlawfull, notwithstanding this dispensa∣tion. So was Usury, notwithstanding that per∣mission. For 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this borrowing of jewels, as that lending upon Usury, was an act of distributive ju∣stice, to justly punish male factors, as enemies of the common state of the Church, not belonging to commutative justice of trading and trafficking, borrowing, lending, &c. 2 We are not to exa∣mine Gods Lawes by the uncertaine rule of scan∣dall taken by gracelesse men s 1.55, but rather by the holinesse and uprightnesse of Gods will, which we know to be so perfect, that the lawes and di∣spensations it dictates, cannot be condemned of scandall-giving. 3 We know murther was simply unlawfull. And no doubt but the Canaanites would take great offence at Jew & Jewish religi∣on, if the Jews invading their Kingdomes, would kill any of the Canaanites; yet neither of these rea∣sons made it unlawfull or inconvenient (God gi∣ving them this liberty) to kill & destroy all Jericho and Ay, &c So, nor the law against theft, nor of∣fence that might be taken by the Gentile, made it unlawfull or inconvenient for the Jew to pick the Cannaanites pocket by Usury, seeing they might doe more (by divine dispensation) viz. cut their throats, as an act of just war. The Kings law is still current, that murther and robbing is felony and death; though he sends his officer to take away the life and goods of one that is not to be owned

for a free Denison, but rather standing under a for∣raine power, denying the Kings Supremacy, as Jesuites, &c. So the Canaanites denied the Is∣raelites to have any right to Canaan, or authori∣ty over them; and therefore the Jewes took their lives, or goods, or both, as forfeited, without pre∣judice to the simple unlawfulnesse of murther, theft, Usury, &c. 4 This toleration, in stead of taking offence, might probably bring in the Ca∣naanites to turne to the Jewish Religion. For when they saw no Jewes life or goods in jeopardy by war and Usury, but the Cananites, they might reason within themselves who would be a Ca∣naanite, and not a Jew? Seeing that which is simply illicitum, unlawfull among the Jewes and their confederates, is counted as a lawfull act and execution of common justice upon a Canaanite, to take away his goods by Usury, nay, Neshech, biting Usury, and his life by warre. For so in Deut. 23.19. Of thy brother thou shalt not take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Neshech, but vers. 20. extraneo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tashich, foenerabis; which Tashich is of the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies to take Neshech, biting Usury: which Doctor Ames condemned as simply unlawfull.

Huc etiam referri potest,* 1.56 quod maximè probabile sit ex parabola illa de Talentis. Matth. 25.27. Non tantum in vulgari usu fuisse apud Iudaeos mensario∣rum aliquod foenus, sed etiam à Domino non fuisse im∣probatum, quia sub illa similitudine exigit officium spirituale sine ulla infinuatione alicujus improbatio∣nis, qualem in aliis parabolis, quae ab usu improbato

officium illustrabant, solebat adhibere. Luc. 16.8. i. e. Thither may be referred that likely conjecture out of the Parable, Matth. 25.27. viz. that not only there was a certaine Usury among the Jewes, commonly used by the money-changers, but also that it was not disallowed of the Lord; because under that similitude he requireth a spirituall du∣ty, without any intimation of disallowing it; which he was wont to expresse in other parables, illustrating a duty from or by some disallowable act. Luk. 16.8.

* 1.57As for the Parable of the Talents, I never heard any learned Divine, or any other Christian urge it, but those that are Usurers, in the behalfe of Usury. For if the Text be well weighed, the comparison smites Usury: For this comparison was not used, but upon a speciall occasion of re∣tortion. The man of one Talent alleageth for his idlenesse, the unreasonablenesse of th•• Ma∣ster, that he reaped where he sowed not. Why then saith the Master, if thou hadst thought so indeed, or if I had beene so indeed, thou shouldst and wouldst have runne upon unreasonable wages of bringing in advantage to me, even to have put my money to Use, to give me content: but be∣cause thou didst not doe so, it is evident that thou didst not take me for a cruell Master, but ra∣ther presumedst on my clemencie, and so didst not by honest gaine peruse my Talent, as all the rest have done, and brought in advantage, with∣out Usury. For had our Saviour in the least mea∣sure

connived at Usury, he would as well have aggravated the sluggishnesse of this owner of one Talent, from the manner how they got their in∣crease (if they had meddled with Usury) as from the matter they had gained. To this effect Pareus Comments on the place; Abscondisti talentum, quia sciebas me metere quod non seminavi. Imo, si sciebas me talemesse; si vera esset tua criminatio, ab∣scondere non debuisti, sed elocare talentum, ut reci∣perem cum lucro. Sic falsam criminationem ipsius facto convincit, & vanum ignavia praetextum re∣fellit. So that to me it seemes evidently, that the Lord intimates that to be such a one as to reape where another sowes, is just to be as a Usurer; and that there is no satisfying such a Master, but by paying Use-money. Were this a good Com∣mentary upon the comparison, Matth. 24.43, 44. 1 Thess. 5.2. 2 Pet. 3.10. De Domino, dieque illo Do∣mini, ut fure noctu veniente, ita venturo, quod maxi∣mè probabile sit, non tantum in vulgari usu fuisse apud Iudaeos furtum, sed etiam à Domino non fuisse impro∣batum; quia sub illa similitudine exigit officium spi∣rituale (nempe vigilias spirituales) sine ulla insi∣nuatione alicujus improbationis, qualem in aliis para∣bolis quae ab usu improbato officiū illustrabant, solebat adhibere. Luc. 16.8? No, I should be cryed out against for such a Glosse. Then may I dislike the like Glosse upon the Parable of the Talents, like word for word. Others answer this place to the same effect, viz. This place (say they) will no more warrant lending on Usury, than Christ his comparing his comming to judgement to the

sudden comming of a thiefe, Mat. 24.43, 44. will warrant their suddenly breaking into mens houses.

* 1.58Aequitas lucri demonstrari potest, ex aequitate manifestâ, de qua nemo potest dubitare, si quis nu∣lum certum reditum vel summam sibi praecise pendi stipuletur, sed ita pecuniam suam apud probum virum collocet ut in illius fide acquiescat. De hujusmodi pe∣cuniae collocatione nulla potest esse quaestio, si pericu∣lum capitalis maneat commune. Nihil enim est ali∣ud quam contractus societatis in lucro & damno. i. e. The equity of gaining, can be demonstrated by a manifest equity doubted of by none; viz. If any one shall not bargain for any certaine returne, or summe of gaine to be precisely paid unto him, but so putteth out his money to an honest man, that he rests in his faithfulnesse. Of this way of putting out of money there can be no question, if the hazard of the Principle be common to them both; for its nothing but partnership in gain & losse.

* 1.59Doth the Usurer thus put out his money? No in no case: His conscience and his security will witnesse the same. What is all this then to prove the lawfulnesse of putting to Use? No more than he that to prove a thing to be chalke, useth this argument, because it is cheese.

* 1.60Nihil contra aequitatem committitur si lucrum in∣certum, quod probabiliter sequetur, vendatur pro certo moderato. i. e. There is nothing committed con∣trary to equity, if a gaine uncertaine, but pro∣bably

following, be sold for a moderate gaine certaine.

But what proofe is there of this? Not a word.* 1.61 We therefore that are nullius addicti jurare in ver∣ba magistri, may just so answer the argument as it is proposed, saying, it is contra aequitatem. And what is now won or lost? But we will give a reason of what we say. If false ballances be abominable, to fell lesse for money than one ought; If going be∣yond ones brother, and circumventing him, to sell naughty commoditie for good, is unlawfull; then sure it is unlawfull to sell nothing for mo∣ney; which a man doth often, when a man sels lucrum incertum. So the Doctor confesseth. He saith, quod probabiliter sequetur. We say that also, probabiliter non sequetur. For so we see by experi∣ence in trading. So we finde by Scripture upon all men. All things come alike to all.* 1.62 Of riches in particular: They have wings. And of dealing so as to break the Commandements, it brings a curse on all we put our hands to. Deut. 28. And of this sort is Usury, sc. unjust gaine. Prov. 28.8. And it brings a curse on all we put our hands to, Deut. 23.19, 20. Whiles therefore the Usurer will sell, and the borrower will buy Gods providence over his head, you see more likely in Usury Gods curse, and losses are bought and sold over mens heads.

Neque iniquitatis quicquid est in eo,* 1.63 si contractus fiat legibus aequis, ut totum periculum capitalis perti∣neat ad eum qui exercet pecuniam. Nihil enim aliud

est quam contractus assecurationis quo alienae rei pe∣riculum pretio aestimabile suscipitur pro pretio. i. e. Neither is there any injustice in it, if the con∣tract be made with equall conditions, that the whole hazard of the principle lie upon him which useth the money, being nothing else but a con∣tract of insurance, whereby the hazard of ano∣thers goods valuable at a price, is undertaken for a price.

* 1.64Did not the Doctor but now say, De pecuniae collocatione nulla potest esse quaestio, si periculum capitalis maneat commune? Therefore it fol∣lowes, si non sit commune, est quaestio — 2 How there may be contractus legibus aequis factus de re injustâ facienda, is beyond any man of sound reason to conceive. 3 If it be rei alienae periculum, why should it not so abide? why should any man lend for care? why should he lay another mans sacks upon his shoulders? see∣ing every day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: especi∣ally seeing there is danger of sinne to be laid on the borrowers shoulders, as well as care, to helpe the Vsurer to sinne and live unprofitably, which could not be without the borrower. If it be rei alienae periculum, how shall it be on both sides, that neither hath wrong, sc. pretio aestimabile? It is all in Gods hands how great the periculum may be. One wedge may fire all the stuffe of Achan. By occasion of this Vsury-money, the borrower may fall into dealing that may inwrap all his estate, and all may be lost.

Non necessario requiritur,* 1.65 ut istiusmodi contra∣ctus distincte aut expresse fiant, sed satis est si fiant im∣plicitè ex intentione sincerâ, & secundū aestimationem proborum. i.e. It is not necessary that such like contracts be made distinctly and expresly, it being sufficient if they be made implicitly, out of a sincere intention ratably by honest men.

Its no need indeed that the contract be ex∣presse for the committing of the sinne of Vsury.* 1.66 For the Doctor said before, Vsura est lucrum ex mutuo quaesitum, non conventum; quia est Vsura tam mentalis, quam realis — 2 To seeke intentio∣nem sinceram in an Vsurer, is to looke a rose a∣mong nettles, figs on thornes, and grapes of thistles. 3 For the aestimatio proborum, be bold of it, they will be judges of no such matters, unlesse they may judge the losse upon the idle unprofita∣ble Vsurer, and the gaine to the labouring bor∣rower.

Si isti omnes contractus separatim sint liciti,* 1.67 con∣tractus ex iis compositus sit licitus. i.e. If all these contracts be separately and singly lawfull, then one compounded of them is lawfull.

To these severally we have answered,* 1.68 with se∣verall reasons and allegations: And therefore I wonder the worthy Doctor would once speake such a word [ut omnes concedunt.] Therefore of these lucra, single or mixt, we conclude with the old verse,

Et quae non prosint singula, mixta mala.

Or with this,

Singula si noceant, eadem quoque juncta nocebunt.

Quaestio quarta est, quaenam observanda sunt ad peccatum vitandum in pecuniâ exponenda?* 1.69 i.e. The fourth question is, what rules are to be observed, whereby to avoid sinne in putting out money?

* 1.70It should seeme there is a common fault and sinne in putting out of money, by the Doctors confession.

* 1.71But he thinks it avoidable by these cautions: 1 Ne quid ultra sortem exigatur ab egenis. 2 Ne lucri aviditas impediat foeneratorem quo minus pau∣peres simpliciter donando juvet. 3 Non totum illud exigere, quod legibus & usu recepto licet. i.e. 1 That nothing above the principle be exacted of the poore. 2 That greedinesse of gaine hinder not the Vsurer from lending to the poore. 3 That he exact not all that law and custome tolerates.

* 1.721 Let the Vsurers conscience, and vox populi witnesse, whether these cautions be observed. 2 If these be observed; yet God witnesseth a∣gainst the Vsurer. Non vitatur peccatum in pecu∣nia exponenda, as I have already cleared it out of Gods Word, canvased & argued with the allega∣tions & reasons of godly & learned authors. 3 To make the question, An Vsura sit licita; and to put downe, dictate and suggest cautions, without

proofe, as sufficient to take away the nature of Vsury, is petitio principii, a begging of the que∣stion.

Spectanda semper, & observanda regula aquitatis,* 1.73 & charitatis; ut illud tantum accipiatur, quod quis∣que bona fide vellet à se accipi in simili necessitate deprehenso. i.e. Alwayes the rule of equity and charity is to be observed. viz. That so much on∣ly be taken, which every one in very deed, would have to be taken of him, were he in the same condition.

We have already shewed,* 1.74 that in committing this sinne of Vsury more or lesse, there can be no equity or charity found: For if there could, the question were yeelded, Vsury were not sinne. 2 For doing as one would be done by, i.e. say the Schoolmen, secundum rectam rationem. Saul would have his armour-bearer run him thorow; there∣fore might Saul runne his armour-bearer thorow? The lender upon Vsury thinks it no sinne so to lend; therefore if he were in the borrowers case, he would not doubt but lawfully so to borrow. But if the Vsurer and the Borrower were well in∣formed, secundum rectam rationem, they would know (as very learned men hold) it is unlawfull to borrow or lend upon Vse, and so would neither doe, nor be done to upon Vsury.

The Caution.* 1.75 Offensiones & calumniae (quibus obnoxium est hoc genus co••ractuum. Jer. 15.10.) de∣clinari semper dabeat, quantum fieri potest. i. e. The

last Caution is, that offences and calumnies (to which this kinde of contract is liable. Ier. 15.10.) ought to be avoided as much as may be.

* 1.76This dasheth neere all the Doctor hath laid down before in favour of Vsury. 1 He confesseth Vsury to be a thing of evill report, out of Ier. 15.10. 2 That offences must be avoided, &c. we in∣ferre therefore Vsury must be left. 1 By the rule of this; Woe unto the world because of of∣fences. Better a milstone, &c. But so doe Vsu∣rers offend many of their clients, to cursing. So doe they offend their Minister, to heart-breaking sorrow, especially at times of Communion. 2 By the Apostles rule, Philip. 4. Whatsoever is of good report, &c. If there be any praise, thinke of these things.

Thus [Object.] farre of Doctor Ames urged at our Con∣ference. There was another authour named, (sed excidit memoriâ) whereby to countenance Vsury, as if the urging of mens authority without their reasons, were of any validity.

1 We [Sol.] could fill a sheet of learned mens names, that hold against Vsury, if that were a confuta∣tion. I wish from my heart, that those that are affected with the multitude of authours to sway their Tenent, would read the English Vsurer, where they shall meet with a multitude of learned au∣thors condemning Vsury, and their sound reasons too; viz. 6 learned pious Bishops; 10 learned pious Doctors; 22 learned pious Divines; with an addition of the witty reasons of three famous

English Poets. 2 If we run upon mens authorities, we shall be robbed of all the Commandements, or the maine branches of them. The learned Atheist will take away the first Commandement.* 1.77 The Papist the second. The Anabaptist the third. The Jew the fourth. The Popes dispensations the fifth, sixth, & seventh. The Vsurer the eighth. The equivocating Jesuite the ninth. The Papist the tenth, that Concupiscence is no sinne. 3 The Canonists and Canon Law have this remark∣able decree; SI QUIS AFFIRMARE PRAESUMAT, EXERCERE USURAS NON ESSE PECCATUM, &c. If any pre∣sume to affirme that it is no sinne to practise Vsu∣ry, we decree him worthy to be punished as an Hereticke. Finally, we have not onely learned pious mens arguments in abundance to prove Vsury unlawfull, but that it is so unlawfull, as that restitution must be made; Vsurers being bound to it by the Law of God. See Capel of Temptations; That it is utterly unlawfull to bor∣row upon Vse. So the learned Jewes and Rab∣bines. See Ainsworth on Exod. 22.25. They prove it out of Deut. 23.19. Thou shall not cause to bite; Thou shalt not cause to lend upon biting Vsury. By traditon we have beene taught, that this is an ad∣monition to the borrower. Three times more in the said place they say it is unlawfull to borrow upon Vse. I adde, If Vsury be simply a sinne, as the learned prove, and you have heard them al∣leaged: Then how can a man be accessary to it, and not be guilty?

Finally, [Object.] at our Conference (as I remember) there was urging of necessity in some cases, to take and give upon Vse; and it is common to men to make thousands of cases.

* 1.78But if God (on paine of excluding heaven) forbids Vsury, Psal. 15. Ezech. 18. sure no case can make it necessary. Capel to this alleageth Tullie, That no necessity can licence a man to take that which is not ones owne. And Erasmus, that these in case of necessity, is still sin. Nor may we, nor can we upon any pretence conceive, that God will so prevent mans good, that he will make it condemnation to doe that, which our Cases (we make) say we must needs doe.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  F•• c. 28. An Dom. 6••••.
• b 1.2

  A week 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.3

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.4

  D. Am••••
• * 1.5

  Replicatio
• * 1.6

  A begging of h•• question
• * 1.7

  D. Ames.
• * 1.8

  Replicatio.
• c 1.9

  So far there∣fore is Doctor Ames from a∣llowing 8 l' per Cent a•• it ••as affirmed in our di••course, •• at in this ••o∣••••tion, the said no more, l••e •• followes out right in the ••••••••red.
• * 1.10

  D. Ames
• * 1.11

  Replicatio
• d 1.12

  O•• the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 minde is M••∣ster Cap•…•… o•• Vsury, at the end of 〈…〉〈…〉 of temptati∣ons, viz. The heathens have condemned this sinne by the light of nature p 44••
• * 1.13

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.14

  S. August••ne conde••n V∣t••r Q••••di∣cam de ••ri, q••s et a••pse Le••es & I di∣c••s ••edd•• ••∣ht••t August. Epist. 54. ••e∣••ret. cau. 13. •• 4 c. 1
• * 1.15

  D. Ames.
• * 1.16

  Replicatie.
• h 1.17

  Ma••t••r Capel times this a from place a¦gainst Vsury 〈…〉〈…〉, Nor or can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Law against V•• b••a th••. I•• hav•• of Moses; for such lawes as such, are 〈…〉〈…〉 by so•• intell••ge•• ••ro•••• Moses: but Heathens of all sorts, and that by ••oug•• ••ature, have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••nnel 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sin, having never heard of Moses, and there∣f•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 ••apol treall la•• of Moses. Besides we have it forbidden in the New ••es•• at the ••••a••i••ials ••ere ••at of d••. Luk. 6.35.
• * 1.18

  May S. L••c ch••p 6. ver••. to had spoken of g••g, and 〈…〉〈…〉 to speake of lendi••g.
• * 1.19

  D. Amet.
• * 1.20

  Replicatio.
• * 1.21

  D. Ames.
• * 1.22

  Replicatio.
• * 1.23

  D. Ames.
• * 1.24

  Replicatio
• * 1.25

  D. Ames.
• * 1.26

  Replicatio.
• k 1.27

  No man ex∣tols Midas e∣••er the more, that his fingers could turne bread into gold, as long as he lost in bread what he ••••t in gold. Nor is the Vsu∣rers money to be admired, if it could be tur¦ned into ••read: seeing what is ••on in bread, is lost in com∣fort of soule. F••r without in ••t•• not conve••∣ted to bread, &c. 1. M••das bread was not turned into gold without a most foolish wish.
• * 1.28

  D. Ames.
• * 1.29

  Replicatio.
• * 1.30

  D. Ame••.
• * 1.31

  Repicatio
• * 1.32

  D. Ames.
• * 1.33

  Replicatio.
• * 1.34

  Aug. in Psal. 36.
• * 1.35

  C. 14. q. 3. c. •• Se••. 10.
• * 1.36

  D. Ames.
• * 1.37

  Replicatio
• l 1.38

  That the Vsurer is the ••c•• man; & others in opposition to him are ter∣med the poo••: we have an in∣fallible place of Scripture, Pro. 22 2. The rich and the poore meet together. See poore put in opposition to this rich man ••e the onely rich man. Who is he? The Vsurer. See Prov, 29 13. comp. the margent.
• * 1.39

  Iam 4 3.
• m 1.40

  To the same M. Elton an∣swers. If this consequence were good, then because it is said, Pro. 22.22. Rob not the poore, be∣cause he is poore. There∣fore a man may rob the rich, because he is rich. And Deut. 23.19. No mention is made of the poore, but V∣sury is forbid∣den towards a brother, whe∣ther poore or rich.
• n 1.41

  The Scripture forbids taking Vse of a poore brother a Iew, this is no tole∣ration of Vsu∣ry to be done to any Iew, for (saith Master Capel) there is no one place gives leave to hire his mony out to a rich Iewish f••e.
• o 1.42

  Arabi••e 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m••ltipl••catus est, up ••n which word Tarinth, Schindler, one of the greatest lingu••sts in fi••e of the Eastern tongues, Hebr. Cha'd S••r. Ra∣••in-••almudie. & Arab. saith that Pro 28.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••m fo••∣••e & ••usura 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 multi∣lica 〈◊〉〈◊〉, viz. substant am sa∣am, est ••tymo∣logia e••pressa, viz. usura.

  ☞Yet this is one of the pla∣ces Doctor Ames urged, that Vsury is here forbidden with a limitation, sc. to the poore. When Schindler sheweth that hence is fetcht the etymologie of Vsury, what it is, sc. all increase for bare lending. And as our learned English Transla∣tors have rendred Tharbith, the case goes farre worse against the Vsurer; for they rende Tarbith, unjust gaine. So that if one asketh what is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vsury. It is saith Schindler, Tarbit••: what is Tarbit••? It is unjust gaine, say our English new Transla∣tors; Therefore I conclude Vsury is unjust gaine.
• * 1.43

  D. Ames.
• * 1.44

  Replicatio.
• p 1.45

  Pray marke now, that this piece of Levit. 25.35, 36. is one of those places which Doctor Ames produceth that Vsur•• is for∣bidden, with this limitati∣on, viz. to the poore. When a•• you heare that the two words there to expresse Vsury, signifying such a Vsury as for the nature is unlawfull to be done to any man whatsoe∣ver, poore or rich. And it is not my judge∣ment only, but Zanchies, that seemes to be a favourer to Vsu∣rers. And Ne∣shech there u∣sed, is condem∣ned by Doctor Ames himselfe, and therefore he somewhat smiteth himselfe to say Vsury is forbidden, Levit. 25.36. to poore, because poore. When it is rather forbidden, because Neshech: and soone makes any Client so poore new as to borrow, a non to be very poore.
• * 1.46

  D. Ames.
• * 1.47

  Replicatio.
• * 1.48

  D. Ames.
• * 1.49

  Replicat••o. in gener.
• q 1.50

  Therefore Master Pe••••ins m••••es this a r••••e of under∣standing the Law. That the Law is still pe∣remptory, and still the same in nature. The Law-makers dispensation being but for a speciall & par∣ticular time or occasion. And his act tran∣scendent.
• * 1.51

  Replicatio in partic. 1.
• r 1.52

  And, cui jure inferuntur ar∣ma, huic legiti∣ma indicuntur Vsura.
• * 1.53

  D. Ames.
• * 1.54

  Replicatio.
• s 1.55

  For the Go∣spel, and the liberty thereof was a scandall to the Iewes, & foolishnesse to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 1.
• * 1.56

  D. Ames.
• * 1.57

  Replicatio.
• * 1.58

  D. Ames.
• * 1.59

  Replicatio.
• * 1.60

  D. Ames.
• * 1.61

  Replicatio.
• * 1.62

  Pe••s 9.••
• * 1.63

  D. Ames.
• * 1.64

  D. Ames.
• * 1.65

  D. Ames.
• * 1.66

  Replicatio.
• * 1.67

  D. Ames.
• * 1.68

  Replicatio.
• * 1.69

  D. Ames.
• * 1.70

  Replicatio.
• * 1.71

  D. Ames.
• * 1.72

  Replicatio.
• * 1.73

  D. Ames.
• * 1.74

  Replicatio.
• * 1.75

  D. Ames.
• * 1.76

  Replicatio.
• * 1.77

  I have seene in Cardinall B••∣••onius his Tal∣mud the second Com. bl••tted out with his own pen, And left out in Rom. Catech. Concil. Vien∣nens. Concil. Ta rocon••ens. c. 3. Concil. La∣terancos. par. 16. c. 1. See also Willet on Ex∣od. 22. qu. 46.
• * 1.78

  Sol.