1 What Vsurie is, will best appeare by the Notation of the name, by the definition, and by the diuision.

2 All Vsury is unlawfull, and the taking of usurie is sinne; because it is against the law of God, of Nature, of the Church, of the Common-wealth.

1 IT is against the law of God, and his will re­uealed in his word:Exo. 22.25. When thou lendest money to my people the poore with thee, thou shalt not be to them like a What maner of Creditor. see pag. Creditor: ye shall not impose usurie upon them. Levit. 25.35.36. If thy brother with thee goe downe, and his hand doe shake, thou shalt stay him: and let him liue with thee a stranger and sojourner. Thou shalt not take of him Vsurie and lone, but feare thy God and let thy bro­ther liue with thee. 37. Thy money thou shalt not giue to him upon usurie, 38. nor upon increase shalt thou giue thy foode: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to giue you the land of Canaan, to be to you God. Deut. 23.19. Thou shalt not usurie to thy brother, usurie of money, 20. usurie of food, usurie of any thing, which is lent-to-usurie. To an Aliant thou shalt lend-to-usu­rie, but to thy brother thou shalt not lend-to-usurie: that the Lord thy God may blesse thee, &c. Psal. 15.5. His money he hath not given upon usurie: Ezech. 18.13 upon usurie hee giveth, and loue he taketh, shall he liue? 17. Vsurie and lone he doeth not take, he shall not die. Pro. 28 8. He that increaseth his substance by usurie and lone. Luke 6.35. Lend, hoping for nothing of them. In which places of Scripture, I would have you to note first the nature of the usurie for­bidden out of these phrases: 1 That God forbid­deth [...] foenerare [...], to usurie, or to exercise usurie, which verbe importeth generally all practi­zing of usurie, and taking gaine or consideration for lending. 2 [...] to giue upon usurie, [Page 17] which phrase is used in contractes, if the circum­stances doe beare it, asDeut. 7.3. Thou shalt not giue thy daughter to his sonne: as here it may import a con­tract betweene the putter and the taker, the Usurer and the User: for free giving is excluded by Ne­shech. 3 [...] to impose usurie upon, which phrase the holy Ghost useth in things ex­acted of men against their willes, and imposed up­on them, as burthens are: as,1. Reg. 12.4. My father did put a burthen upon you. 4 [...] to receiue usurie, which phrase is used also euen in those thinges which are voluntarie: and under the same forme of words, as a bribe or reward is said to be receiued, which is neither compacted nor exacted, but most freely offered, and yet prohibited and condemned, as in the same Chap. and verse of Ezichiel: Ezech. 18.17 22.12. They receiue rewardes in thee, they receiue usurie in thee. Of thisHier. in Ezech. 18. S. Ierome speaketh: Some for lending their mo­ney receiue presents or giftes.

Secondly I would you note out of the same pla­ces the hainousnesse of the offence, which appea­reth, because usurie is contrary to the feare of God, Levit. 25.36. a forgetting of God, Ezech. 22.12. a sinne against the first Commandement, I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, Levit. 25.37. and therefore the usurer depriued of Gods temporall blessing, Deut. 23.10. made subiect to Gods temporall curse, Prov. 28.8. and to the Magistrates punishment, Nehem. 5.7. hated of God, in so much that he claps his hands at him, Ezech. 22.13. shut out from Gods tabernacle, [Page 18] and from the rest upon his holy hill, Psal. 15.1. ex­cluded from eternall life, and made subject to eter­nall death. Ezech. 18.

Now for the cloaking of usurie, it is so farre from lessening the offence, that it doth augment it: as S. Augustine said truely:August. in Ps. 63. Simulata aequitas, non est aequitas, sed duplex iniquitas, quia & iniquitas est, & simulata. Dissembled equitie is no equitie, but dou­ble iniquitie; because it is both iniquitie and dissimula­tion. For God who is,Luk. 16. [...] and knoweth the heart, can discerne their usurie under their [...], their painted visards, & goodly cloakes: who loueth simplicitie and plaine dealing, and ha­teth all hypocrisie and dissimulation: asPro. 11.20. Solomon saith, The [...] qui simulant & dis­simulant, & spe­cie recti fallunt. subtill in heart are abomination to the Lord, but the simple in way are his delight.

2 It is against the law of Nature, as may ap­peere by these fiue considerations and arguments. First the Usurer receiueth two recompences or sa­tisfactions for one thing; one of them being ae­quivalent (contrarie to thatArist. Pol. l. 1. Plato de leg l. 6 aequalitie which is the rule of humane societie) in that he requireth first restitution of his owne, that is, as much as hee deliuered: Secondly gaine for the use; whereas in mutuating (as before hath beene shewed) the thing and the use are but one, and cannot be seuered. For theAquin. 2.2. q. 78. art. 1. ad. 6. ff. Actomod. l. 1. § penall. & fi­nali. & l. 4. using of it is the spending of the verie thing.

Secondly, the Usurer maketh gaine of that, which is none of his owne, but another mans. For the propertie of the thing mutuated was transfer­red, [Page 19] and alienated, and passed away from the len­der to the borrower: so that if the borrower paie any thing for the use of it, he paiethScot. in sent. l. 4. dis. 15. Lactant. devero cultu. l. 6. c. 18. for his owne, and of his owne, which is plaine contrarie toSuum cui (que). Iu­stice distributiue, which yeeldeth everie one his owne.

Thirdly the Usurer makethScot. in sent. 4. dist. 3. [...] Aristoph. in Nub. priuate gaine of that which is common, that is of times; contrarie to the rule of humane societie:Caus. 12. q. 2. c. qui manumit­titur. Quod est commune omnium non erit particulare singulorum.

Fourthly the Usurer maketh thatArist. pol. l. 1. c. 7. breed, gen­der, and increase, which by nature is barren and unapt to increase: [...]. ibidem. for in usurie money genders, gets, or bringes foorth money; whereupon Plu­tarke saith, that the Usurer maketh something of nothing, mauger the head of the naturall Philo­sopher.

Fiftly the Usurer perverteth that end and use of money, which is [...] agreeable to nature: namely commutation, [...] Arist. ibidem. for commutation was the end wherefore money was ordeined in humane so­cietie; and is the use of it, which naturall use the Usurer turneth into that which is against na­nature, [...]. Therefore it is called a kinde ofSodomia na­turae. Hug. Card. in Ps. 15. Sodomie. From these grounds and principles pro­ceeded those many both wise lawes, and woorthy spee­ches of thee Heathen, ledde onely by the starre-light of reason, and destitute of the light of Gods word, against usurie: which you may see at large in other.

3 It is against the lawes of the Church, which doth forbid usurie to theCon. Nic. c. 18. Con. Arelat. 2. c. 14. Con. Colon. p 2. c. 31. Con. Laod. c. 15 Con. Carthag. 6. c. 17. Con. Tur. 1. c. 1 Clergie under penaltie [Page 20] of depriuation both of Communion and Benefice; and to theCon. Eliber. c. 20. Con. Lat. p. 1. c. 23. Con. Lugd. 1. c. 3 Laitie under the penalties of excom­munication, of disannulling their willes and testa­ments, of excluding them from Christian buriall, and many other. And theCanones Sy­nodi London anno. 1584. c. 4. law of our Church doth set and account usurie in the ranke and num­ber of most hainous sinnes, as haeresie, schisme, in­cest, adulterie.

4 Lastly it is against the temporall law of our owne common-wealth, both common and sta­tute. The Common law doth punish usurie, byGlanvil. l. 7. c. 16. confiscation of all the Usurers goods to the Kings use: and the statute law now in force, though it pu­nish some kinde of usurie (viz. ten in the hundreth or under) somewhat lightly in comparison of that heinousnesse of the sinne which the statute doth acknowledge in that usurie: yet it doth plainely af­firme,Eliz. 13. c. 8. that all usurie is forbidden by the law of God, and is sinne and detestable. Which determination of that high Court ought to be prohibition enough to everie true subject under the same go­vernment, to avoid it.

3 The objections and answers.

INsteed of the objections against this trueth ur­ged heere, I will take in hand the booke, which is written of purpose in the defence of usurie, as the author plainelyIn his an­swere to Prov. 28.8. professeth; by the confutation whereof, the arguments also urged in this confe­rence will receiue their satisfaction. In this booke first there are fiue questions propounded, and an­swered by M. C. whereof the first is.

[Page 21] Whether the commandement of God giuen to forbid usurie to the Iewes. Exod. 22. Levit. 25. Deut. 23.M. C. be generall and perpetuall, or not. The answere is. The commaundement of not biting, or oppressing with usurie is generall and perpetuall; albeit it were permit­ted to the Iewes because of the heardnesse of their harts, that they might oppresse the nations with usurie, which before the comming of Christ were foreners from the kingdome of God: which yet is no more permitted vnto Christians, than for every light cause to put away their Wives: And even this permission for a time prooueth that the law, whereof the question is moved is perpe­tuall. For the Iewes being so hard harted as divers vn­lawfull things were faine to be permitted them, there is no likelihood, that the Lood would have laid this com­maundement vpon them, nempe, that they should not take usurie of their bretheren, unlesse the law of God had necessarilie required the same.

First, the substance of this answere I allow,Answer. that those lawes are generall and perpetuall, notwith­standing the commaundement of taking usury of strangers, which commaundement I doe not take to be a permission of the nature of that, whereby a man did for a light cause put away his wife, as he maketh it. The difference I will not stand to shew, pertayning not to this question. The truth of this answere is better confirmed by other rea­sons; as that David reckoneth it among morall du­ties, or rather among breaches of the morall law, asPsal. 15.5. [...]. Basil. ibid. Slaunder, wrong-doing, perjurie, briberie, against the innocent; andEzech. 22.12 Ezechiel hedgeth it in betweene [Page 22] briberie, and deceite, andEzech. 18.12.13. coupleth it with oppres­sing the poore, spoyling by violence, and Idolatrie, and therefore Ierome coupleth usurie with deceit and robberie, Usuras quaerere, aut fraudare, aut rapere ni­hil interest, quia septimum praeceptum haec omnia pro­hibet. And S. Ambrose: Siquis usuram accipit, furtum facit. As for the precept for the Iewes to take usurie of [...] Deut. 23.20. aliantes, that is, [...]. Eph. 2.12. from the coue­nant of God, and the common-wealth of Israell; will make no more for the lawfulnesse of usurie, than the commaundement for the Israelites toExod. 11.2. rob the Aegytians, or for Abraham toGen. 22.2. kill his sonne, will make for the lawfulnesse of theft, or murder. Against the aliantes God commaundedAm. lib. de Tobiac. 15. worse oppression to be used than usurie, and yet that is no reason to excuse oppression of other, or in other cases, from being a breach of the morall law.

Secondly, the interpretation which he maketh of these lawes by a distinction of biting, and op­pressing, as though there were kinds of usury, which were not biting, and oppressing, and therefore not forbidden; will appeare straightway to be frivo­lous. And so unnaturall and forced it is, that him­selfe forgetteth it in the end of his former wordes, when he doth expound those commaundements generally of taking usurie of their brethren; avouch­ing, that the Law of God requireth necessarily that we should not take usurie.

M. C.The second question. If those lawes be generall and perpetuall, whether yet it may be lawfull in any rate, [Page 23] or sort to lend for gaine vnto such men as are rich, and wealthie, upon covenantes, and bonds to receive in­crease, or more then the principall; for that they are not poore, nor fallen in decay, neither doe borrow for neede, but to purchase, or to compasse great matters to increase their riches, and wealth thereby? Answere. It is lawfull notwithstanding the law to lend to usu­rie, considering that the end of the law is love: See­ing therefore it is not against the love of thy neigh­bour so to lend as both the lender, and the borrower may in all good likelihood be profited; there can be no­thing herein against love, if the affection be not worse then the action of lending, and borrowing in this kind. Yet such may be the lender, himselfe not being able to occupie his money in any lawfull trade; and such the borrower able well to traffique with the same, that not onely the persons lending, and borrowing with their families, but the common-wealth also shall be profited thereby, and hurt otherwise, if that the money of the lender be not imployed, or the cunning and skill of the borrower lye idle, and dead.

In this second question,Answer. and answere note first that he putteth his case of plaine usurie, that is, to lend for gaine, and to receive increase, and more than the principall; and that compacted usurie too: upon covenant, and moreover strongly secured, upon bondes. Secondly, note his limitation of this usu­rie, both in respect of the person of the borrower, such men as are rich, and wealthie, not poore, and fallen in decay, and also in respect of the end, to purchase, or to compasse great matters withall, to increase their [Page 24] riches, and wealth thereby, not for neede. This neede is expressed in his answere to the third, and fourth questions which concerne borrowing upon usury (which I omit to set downe here, because they belong not to the question of lending upon usurie, neither will I stand with him therein) to be for his necessarie use of preservation of himselfe, and his familie, and for pre­servation of his estate, and inheritance, under which are contayned as well occupiers, which live by their trades; as owners, which live by their rents; and farmers, which live by husbanding other mens landes: Ergo, by this limitation and restriction, and by confession of M. C. all lending upon usu­rie to the poore, that never attayned competent wealth, though it be to purchase and compasse some matter to bring them out of povertie: or to the decayed, till they be out of decay, and have recovered their former estates; or to noblemen, gentlemen, and other rich men, which are in de­caying, and in daunger to impaire, and diminish their estate and inheritance, or have not presently to preserve themselves, and their families answe­rablie to their estate, without borrowing for a time, is forbidden by those lawes. And this is enough to breake the necke of usurie, and to con­demne all the Usurers in England, I thinke.

M. C. in his answere to the fourth question maketh a quaere: whether he that is driven to borrow upon usurie to preserve his estate, and inheritance, were not better to borrow of a man of no sound religion, than of one that professeth the truth, although in all other [Page 25] traffique the law of God doth drawe us rather to deale with those which are of the household of faith, than with strangers. Which argueth, that he holdeth the lending to such a one to be sinne, at the least in the lender. So then M. C. resolution is, that it is lawfull to take usurie onely of the rich, and wealthie, and that of them too onely then, when they borrow to purchase, or to compasse some great matter, to increase their riches, and wealth. Now this thing which is lawfull in the lender, is unlawfull in the borrower, as M. C. avouch­eth in his answere to the fourth question in these wordes. Every man may not borrow lawfully, much lesse of usurie: For albeit it be no sinne to borrow, yet it is a punishment for sinne: and a correction which God layeth upon his children when they be driven to bor­row, &c. Wherefore it being a curse of the Law, and a matter wherein every one of the children of God should be humbled, it is also cleare that a man ought not for light causes to throwe downe himselfe into this curse, as for example, to increase his estate, being able other­wise to mainetaine himselfe honestly, &c. Whereby it appeareth, that the lender to usurie in this case, must needes be helping, and accessarie to the bor­rowers offence, and a cause of an unlawfull thing, which himselfe might prevent, and remedie. Now let every Christian man judge, whether to lend to usurie, even in this case here propounded, be not a fearefull thing in this regard, that an other man is thereby brought under the curse of Gods law.

Thirdly, let us waigh his reasons for the lawful­nesse [Page 26] of this one kinde of usurie. The first is: It is not against loue: Ergo, not against the law: for love is the ende of the law. This very reason is used by the wicked Atheist, that wrote the defence of Adulterie. Whatsoever is of love, is neither against the law, nor disliked of God: but to lye with another mans wife begins of love, proceedes by love, and ends with love: Ergo, &c. And he addeth the correction, or limitation which this Author here doth, so that the affection be not worse than the action. For some kinde of Adultery he condemneth, as this doth some kinde of usurie. If M. C. would answere this argument for Adulterie, he should easilie per­ceive the weaknesse of it for usurie. To lend indeed is an office of love, a worke of Christianitie,Deut. 15. Luk. 6. a commaundement of God: and to take usurie for the lending is of love too: but it is the love of mo­ney, [...], as Paul calleth it, and maketh it1. Tim. 6. the roote of all evill; as for [...], or [...] neigh­bourly love, or brotherly love it is quite contrary unto it; as one said:Hug. Card. in Ps. 15. Usura directe opponitur chari­tati: Usurie is directly contrary to charitie: and there­fore forbidden by it, as another said:Bez. annot. in Math. 19.8. Foenerari pro­hibet Christiana charitas. Christian love forbiddeth to put to usurie. Basil said truely, Men gather not grapes of thistles, nor figges of thornes, [...]. Basil. hom. in usus. nor love of usurie.

The second reason is as it were an Epilogisme to the former. So to lend as the lender and the bor­rower may in al good likelihood be profited, is not against love; But in the usurie above specified, and qualified both the lender, and the borrower may in all good like­lihood [Page 27] be profited. Ergo, that kinde of usurie is not a­gainst love. I deny the minor, with a double distinc­tion: first of the persons, for in respect of the len­der it is past likelihood, because his profit (for so they terme usurie) is certaine, and sufficiently secu­red, and made most sure: and likewise in respect of the borrower it is past likelihood, for his losse is [...]. Basil. ibid. certain, because whatsoever he giveth for the usu­rie is losse to him, his substance being so much di­minished: and therefore Basil calleth all usurie [...]. Basil. ibid. gaine of losse. For it goeth out of his owne to the decrease thereof. Which may further appeare by the other distinction: in this action there are two things: first, Mutuating, by which together with the users industrie, and Gods blessing groweth the gaine, if any be: secondly, usurie or gaine to be paid for that lending, and that is so far from pro­fiting the payer of it, that it impayreth his sub­stance so much as it is. This distinctionHeming. in fac. 5. Hemin­gius hath; No good can come by usurie of it selfe, but if there seeme by chaunce any good to come of usurie, Non usuris sed mutuation. that is not to be attributed to the usurie, but to the lending.

Now this profit which he supposeth to come to the borrower by the usurie, is but in all good likelihood, as he confesseth; there is no certaintie in it; and yet he will have the usurie, and increase to the lender not onely certaine, but assured by bond: is not this great inequalitie, and injustice? What if the borrower be indeede at losse by the using of that money? so that he cannot make up [Page 28] his Principall againe to repay the lender, will the lender beare part of that losse? No I warrant you. But say the borrower doth gaine, and get wealth, notwithstanding he pay usurie, as perhaps some may; though in comparison of them that are un­done by it, they be very few, as Basil said, Many, sayest thou, are made rich by usurie: [...]. Basil. hom. ad v. usur. more, thinke I, have come to the halter by it: Yet that they gaine is not to be attributed to the usurie, but to the good bargaines they met withall, their skill in traffique, and principally to God blessing their industry, and labour: whereby they have reasonable gaine to live by, and to increase by, beside that which the Usurer taketh; and shall this excuse the Usurers of­fence, which taketh away that which is none of his owne, but another mans, though he take not all the other mans, but leave him part for himselfe? If a theife meeting me, as I come from the mar­ket, take from me but part of that I have gayned there, leaving me enough to countervaile my charges and somewhat over, shall his theft be ex­cused? I will conclude this point with Leos words not much varying the sence.Leo serm. 6. de jejun deci­mi mensis. c. 3. Quilibet sequatur eventus, mala est ratio foenerantis. What event soever follow the Usurers case is naught. This argument he presseth by consideration of the estate as well of the lender as of the borrower; the lender wanting skill to imploy his money; the borrower having skill, but wanting wherewithall to use it; so that divisim both the ones money, and the others skill lyeth idle to the dammage of themselves, and of [Page 29] the common-wealth, but conjunctim they may be­nefite themselves, and the common-wealth too. All this is true: but what concludeth he hereof? mary, ergo, it is lawfull to put to usurie to the rich, to purchase withall, or to compasse great matters to in­crease their wealth. Marke how the premises crosse the conclusion: the premises describe a borrower, whose cunning and skill lyeth idle and dead, which must be by need, or want of wherewithall, which is povertie: for were he rich himselfe, his skill nee­ded not to lye idle, much lesse to be dead. The conclusion describeth a man that is rich, and wealthy. So then here is the coherence of this ar­gument: by lending to the skilfull poore which want wherewithall to imploy their skill, the poore may be maintained, and the common-wealth be­nefited. Ergo, It is lawfull to lend to the rich and wealthy to purchase, or to compasse great matters to increase their wealth. So then we are cleane gone from the question which was proposed of the rich, and wealthie, and are come to the poore, and needy. Now let us consider how this argu­ment holdeth for them. The money of the lender wanting skill, and the skill of the needy borrower wanting wherewithall to use it, will both lye idle: Ergo, that lender may put his money to usurie to this borrower. How this consequence doth hold, you may coniecture by these: A man having a wife being himselfe unfruitfull, wanteth children to the decay of his house, and dammage of the common-wealth. Ergo, it is lawfull for another that [Page 30] is fruitfull, to lye with his wife, to supply these wants, or thus: A rich man hath a barne full of corne, but cannot thresh it out, to the hinderance of the common-wealth, and himselfe; another be­ing able and skilfull to thresh, hath no corne to thresh: Ergo, it is lawfull for this fellow to breake up the others barne, thresh his corne, steale part for himselfe, and leave the rest ready for the others use; here both may be benefited, and the common-wealth too: oh say you; but there are other lawful meanes to remedie both these inconveniences; the rich man may hire another to thresh his corne; and pay him his wages, holding his owne; the poore may thresh for hire, and receive wages for his maintenance. Even so it is in our case propo­sed, there are remedies sufficient provided in hu­mane societie, without usurie, that neither the mo­ney of him that is not able to use it, may lye idle; nor the skill of him, that hath not wherewithall to use it, may lye dead: among other there is society, whereby both these two may joine together, and relying upon Gods providence, the one venturing his money, the other his skill, by Gods blessing may benefite themselves, & their families, and the common-wealth too. But the Usurer likes not this; he loves not to trust to Gods providence: he can provide well enough for himselfe; as Ajax answered his father. [...]. Sophoc. in Ajace. I will vanquish, & have victo­rie, and that without God. Touching the profit which commeth by usurie, it is true, that unto the Usurer nothing can be of greater yeeld, no gaine [Page 31] comparable to it: but to the needy occupier (as Basil saith) usurie doth not bring [...]. Basil. ibid. a full remission, but a little intermission of want, and hard fortune. No man can heale a wound with a wound, nor cure a sore with a sore, [...]. neither can any man remedie neede by usurie: for how is it possible that money should [...]. over­flow and multiply so excessively as to salve thy need, and satisfie the Principall, and [...]. beget the usurie too saith Basil; and Plutark compareth it, even as if a man that is not able to cary a Kid, should crave to have a great Oxe laid upon his shoulders. And for the profit which may redound to the common-wealth by usurie, I will tell you what it is; the occupier to make gaines of the wares bought with usury mo­ney as will serve to sustaine himselfe, to repay the Principall, and withall to satisfie the usurie, must hold up his wares the dearer, use the more craft and deceite, lying, and swearing, to sell them the better, to the oppression of the common-wealth. So that Chrysostome said truely that the Usurer was the common enimie of all: and Basil setteth downe the commodities of usurie, [...]. lying, ingratitude, de­ceaving, forswearing, and Plutark reckoneth up lying, and forgeing, as fruites of usurie. As for any com­moditie which may accrew to the common-wealth by purchasing with usurie money, I can­not imagine, unlesse the Purchasers rent-rearing and racking of Farmers to make up his money for die usurer, be a commoditie to the common-wealth.

Unto this answere of M. C. there is annexed a [Page 32] defence thereof by another, who would faine goe a little further, and have usurie, that is so qualified as in the answere to the former question is set downe, to be a thing commaunded, yet he will not at the first dash avouch it plainly, but insinuatingly commeth in with his if.

Defendor. If it be not a thing which in some case may truely be said, to he commaunded, yet at the least it is in the num­ber of those actions which are indifferent, and free, ei­ther to be used, or not used, according to the inducement of persons, time, and place counselling or discounselling the same. His reasons, and arguments I will set downe in his owne wordes, and answeare them briefly.

Defendor. To this purpose of the indifferencie, and freedome of the action to use it, or not to use it, commeth first the word it selfe of usurie, which in the learned tounges ca­rieth a middle, and indifferent nature apt aswell to note a lawfull limitation of the thing whereto it is applied, as to signifie that which is unlawfull.

Answer.First, this assumption of his is false: for the names of usurie in the learned tounges are not apt to signifie an indifferent thing. Nesheck in Hebrue hath no aptnesse to signifie a lawfull action, which is the name of usurie in generall: neither Nuchte­tha, nor Chibbuliah in the Chaldaean toung: nor faenus in the Latin tongue: nor Tarbith in the He­brue tongue: for Tarbith is ever used for a thing unlawfull, and condemned: and so is the English Usurie, as himselfe confesseth, though he lay the fault upon the ignorance of the vulger people: [Page 33] whereas it is in the nature and propertie of the thing which it is applyed to signifie. Secondly, this consequence the name is apt to note a thing indif­ferent. Ergo, the thing which in common speech it is applied to signifie is indifferent is altogether insuffi­cient. This aptnesse to note must be either in the Etymologie, or in the use, and by this argument I could defend great sinnes. Adulterie in the learned Latin tongue hath his name of ad and alter: Now what is apter to signifie a thing indifferent than alter, another? and for the use, when a doore is opened not with his owne key, but of another doore it is called clavis adulterinus: when a letter is signed not with the seale of the writer, but of another, it is called signum adulterina: and either of these may be lawfully, or unlawfully done ac­cording to the inducement of the circumstances of persons, place, or time, counselling, or discoun­selling the same: and what? shall I with this de­fendor conclude: Ergo, adulterie in some case may be lawful or indifferent? Likewise fornication com­meth of fornix, an arch, or a roome built archwise. Which is a lawfull thing, and hath an aptnesse to signifie an indifferent thing, a place apt as well for lawful copulation, as unlawful: is therfore fornica­tion in some case indifferēt? A thiefe in the learned Latin tongue is called fur, a ferendo of bringing asSipont. some say; or of furus that is furvus, blacke, or darke, asNoun. Mar­cel. de prop. serm. Varro de ling. Lat. l. 4. other more ancient say: and in Greeke [...] of [...] to hide, or keepe close: all which are of a middle, and indifferent nature, apt as well to sig­nifie [Page 34] a thing lawfull, as unlawfull. Yea by this argu­ment tyrannie may be better maintained than usury; for the worde in the learned tongues both Greeke and Latine is of a middle, and indifferent nature, apt by his etymologie, and applied by use to signi­fie either a good or a bad King. By this you may see also the vainenesse of this argument drawne from the Greeke worde [...], which properly sig­nifieth that which a living creature procreateth or bringeth foorth by generation, and because (as Aristotle saith) as the living creature in generati­on bringeth foorth more of the same kinde, or his like: so money put to usurie bringeth foorth his like, that is, more money, therefore usurie is like­wise called [...], that is a thing generated of the same kinde. Now commeth this Defendor and argueth thus: [...] signifieth children which are gotten by generation; and children are some legi­timate, and some illegitimate; and [...] signifieth also usurie, ergo, usurie is some lawfull, and some unlawfull. It is a plaine Paralogisme ab aequivoco: Lupus signifieth a Woolfe, and woolves haue tailes: and Lupus signifieth also a snaffle, ergo, some snaffles have tailes. Even as good as this: [...] signifieth to hide, and that may be done ei­ther lawfully, or unlawfully: and [...] signifieth also to steale: ergo stealing may be done either lawfully, or unlawfully. And why not this: [...] signifieth that which is begotten, and procreated by generation, as children, and the children are begotten of male, and female, and are themselues [Page 35] some male, some female: and [...] signifieth also the usurie money which is begot of the principall: ergo usurie money is begot of a male, and a female: and some usurie money is male, and some female. This is somewhat likelier than the other: for there are some Edward peeces, & some Elizabeth peeces; and Phillips, and Maries may stand for [...].

In handling of this argument he goeth about to meet with an objection out of Aristotle, making us beleeve that Aristotle maketh for him.Arist. Pol. 1. c. 7. Aristotle Pol. l. 1. cap. 7. condemning usurie altogether, a­mong other reasons useth this: Whosoever lea­veth the use of a thing which is agreeable to the end, and nature of it, and maketh a use contrarie to the end, and nature of it, is to be condemned: but the usurer leaveth that use of money which is agre­able to the end, and nature of it, and maketh a use contrarie to the end, and nature of it; ergo, &c. The minor he prooveth, because money was ordei­ned for commutation, and the nature of it is to serve thereto in humane societie, which use the usurer leaveth altogether: againe to make money breed, ingender, or bring foorth money is against nature: for money hath no such gendring, or pro­creating nature, being naturally barren: but the usurer maketh his money gender, and procreate more money, that is, more in the same kinde. Wherefore Basil termeth usurie [...], a beast of a strange and monstrous nature, in bringing foorth, differing from other creatures:Basil. hom ad­vers. usur. which he sheweth, because other creatures have a time to [Page 36] bring foorth perfect yongue: but the usurers money is borne to day, and to day begins to bring foorth. Other creatures the sooner they ingender, the sooner they leave of ingendring: but the usurers money ingendreth quickly, and never leaveth off: Other creatures com­ming to their growth are at a stande: but the usurers money is ever growing. Other creatures delivering over their breeding to their yongue, leave off teeming themselves, but the usurers money, both that is newly borne, doth beget, and the old principall is youthful stil. To the second part of Aristotles minor this defen­dor answereth, that Aristotle condemneth onely that usurie which is practized with the neighbours losse, and onely for this cause that the Usurer taketh it whe­ther the debtor hath gained, or not. Whereas in Ari­stotle there is no such thing, nor the least inkling of any such distinction. Aristotles speech is general, his arguments cary with them a generalitie, nei­ther is there in him one title tending that way. Yes, saith he,Defendor. The very words doe shew it, where he saith, money is barren, and doth not beget money, that is, if it be alone, and of it selfe: and who denyeth this; money in a chest, or hid in the ground doth not beget money: but that wares may be bought with it, and so by mans industrie gaine be made, who can deny? Therefore we say, gaine may be taken of the gaine, not money of the bare money. Answer. Who ever heard such an absurd con­ceite; that Aristotle speaking of the unnaturalnesse of money begetting money in usurie, meaneth of money taken upon usurie to be locked in a chest, or to digge it in the ground? No not old Euclio in [Page 37] Plautus, I warrant you, would pay usurie for mo­ney, to pot up, and put in the ground, as well as he loved it. If any were ever so witlesse, shall we thinke that Aristotle intreating of the common so­cietie of mankind, the weale publike, and the po­litique state, ever dreamed of such doing? No, he spake of that usurie which was in use, and common practize: But see the absurd consequence of the rest. Wares may be bought with money: true, for that is the right ende of money; commutation: A man by his industrie may make gaine of his wares, true, or else all trade and traffique were in vaine: but what of all this? Mary, saith the Defendor, Ergo, the Usu­rers bare money doth not yeeld him money. And why forsooth? what else commeth from the usurer but the bare money? or for what is the usurie money paid him, but for the bare money? the wares are none of his; the money which was paide for the wares was then none of his; the commutation was not made by him; the industrie is none of his; the venture is nothing to him; neither is there a­ny thing his but the bare money which getteth him his usurie money. If the Vsurer will plead societie and so come in for a share of the gaine, let him keepe the lawes of societie according to the rule of equitie, and take his share of the gaine, if any be in Gods name.

The next point, and the same the greatest, Defendor. and most important (saith the Defendor) is to take a view of all those places of Scripture which are commonly allead­ged, as carriyng in them the sentence of condemnation, [Page 38] written in them, against all compact for increase of mo­ney over and above the Principall, whereof the first is, Exo. 22.25. To avoid the condēnation of this place he hath foure evasions, all like to Adams fig-leaves.

The first is this: In the 21.22.23.24. verses he doth generally forbid the oppression of the poore, Defendor. and destitute persons; after verse 25.26.27. that which before he had spoken of oppression, he expresseth by the particularities, and the kindes thereof: now in the prohibition there being nothing spoken against, but that whereby any neighbour is oppressed, it cannot be that any thing is reckoned up in the particulars, but that where­in my neighbour is oppressed. There being then a kind of usurie, and increase of money by contract which doth not oppresse my neighbour, but releiveth him, it must necessarily follow that usurie is not here forbidden.

Usurie is not a species, or a particular of the sinne forbidden in the former verses 21.22.23.24.Answer. In those verses there are two several precepts, the one concerneth strangers or sojourners, the other toucheth widowes, and orphanes of the people. These are disparata: and therefore cannot have one species under them. Againe the persons mentioned verse 25. are Gods people the Israelites, and adde the adjunct unto them, the poore: it is the poore Israe­lites: Now they cannot come under the Genus strangers, for they are opposite: stranger, and Is­raelite: neither can they come under widdowes, and orphanes, but are divers kinds frō them: for widowes & orphanes are respected, not in regard of poverty, unlesse withall they be poore; but of their inha­bilitie [Page 39] to menage worldly affaires, & to withstand wrong, and of their aptnesse to be wronged: and if they be poore withall, then are they but a species of poore people. So that in respect of the persons he should rather have said contrarily, that this 25. verse had beene genus to the other before. Now for the sinne forbidden against the stranger there are two things prohibited; first, [...], [...] R. D. Chimch. in lib. radicum. which the Rabbines to distinguish from the other, doe inter­pret it, of an abuse by words, as obraiding, and re­viling: Now hereof usurie cannot be a species: for usurie is no verball matter; wordes will not serve the turne: If this interpretation be not liked, there will be little difference between this, and the other word [...] and that signifieth to presse, or thrust with violence; as the Asse thrust Balaams foote a­gainst the wall Num. 22. and as Elizeus comman­ded Iehorams messenger to be used 2. Reg. 6.32. crush him in the very doore, and metaphorically it sig­nifieth that violent injurie, oppression, and tyranny wherewith cruell kings crush, keepe under, and af­flict their subjectes, as the case of the Israëlites was under the Kings of Aegypt, which Moses expres­seth by this word. [...] I have seene the affliction where­with the Aegyptians afflict them. Now that was plain tyranny in the Aegyptians, and slavery in the Israë­lites being forced to all kind of drudgerie by bea­ting, and bodily punishment, as Moses sheweth. Exod. 1.13.14. & 5.14. Now of this affliction usurie can be no species, because in usurie there is no force or violence, but all amitie, and faire speech [Page 40] as Basil sheweth, The Usurer laugheth upon him, and remembreth the acquaintance be had with his Fa­ther, Basil. hom. in usur. and calleth him good neighbour, and friend. A­gainst the widowes, and orphanes there is forbid­den [...] which hath the like signification, that [...] hath, that is, an unjust kind of handling with voi­lence, as tyrannie, and servitude is: for Moses ex­presseth the tyrannie of the Aegyptians, and slave­rie of the Israelites, with this word also. Exod. 1.11.12. & Gen. 15.13. And Saraes violent usage of Hagar is expressed with this word. Gen. 16. Now this cannot be a genus to usurie, because there is no violence, or force in usurie, as before was said. These sinnes are abuses [...], of the irascible part of the soule: Usurie is an abuse [...] of the concupiscible part: they are breaches of the sixt commandement, Thou shalt not kill. Usurie a breach of the eight, Thou shalt not steale: they are vices in excesse of the vertue, [...]. Usurie is an ex­cesse of the vertue [...] as the Philosopher speaketh: and yet this learned man will haue one a species of the other.

Defendor.The second evasion is this, The particular oppres­sion, which is spoken of in the 26. and 27. verses, being a thing not simply vnlawfull, but that which may be done in some case, it followeth that the former, which the holy Ghost hath made Par, and brother to it, is also not simply vnlawfull. As therefore there may bee a man of such wealth and store of garments, that a man may lawfully keepe his garment that hee hath pledged with him, not a night alone, but an whole yeere of nights: [Page 41] so he may be such an one to whom he hath let money, that he may lawfully expect any increase of money for the lone thereof.

Answer. The Antecedent is untrue: for the particular oppression spoken of verse 26.27. is simply unlaw­full, and may not bee done in any case, that is for any creditor to take of any poore man for pawne, his garment, hauing none other to cover his na­kednesse withall, whether it be by day, or by night, as the Rabbines understand it of both. It is inhu­manitie to see a man goe naked, or lie naked with nothing upon him: and Christianitie comman­deth to couer such: but it is immanitie and savage crueltie to make him goe naked, and to take from him that onely thing he hath to cover his nakednes: and that the law speaketh onely of such a pledge, is more then manifest, vers. 27. For it is his onely cove­ring, it is the very covering of his skin, wherein shall he lie? and of such Iob speaketh: They make Job. 24.7.9. a man lie naked all night without a covering, and they take to pawne that which the poore hath on, and make him goe naked without a covering. And yet our Defendor commeth in with his rich man, that may spare one garment a yeere of nights, as though he dreamed of nothing but rich men, and wealth. Well, let us leaue him in this sweete dreame of his, and come to his third evasion, which is this.

Both in the verses before, Defendor. and in the present verse in hand, he speaketh of the poore, and destitute, yea and ve­ry poore persons, and therefore without injurie of the text, it cannot be stretched to all sorts of men.

[Page 42] Answer.It is well that hee coupleth this verse with the former verses: for by them he may see the nature of this. In the verses before, where he forbiddeth abusing with termes, oppressing with violence, and afflicting, he speaketh of the poore, yea of destitute in respect of abilitie defensiue, namely of stran­gers, widowes, or orphanes: therefore without in­jurie to the text, those lawes cannot be stretched to all sorts of men, but that we may lawfully abuse in termes, oppresse, afflict any other being neither stranger, widow, nor orphane. If the Defendor will grant me this consequence, I will straine my selfe to grant him the other, and seeke some other answere to this evasion. Sed quae est ista dialectica: What Logique is this? said M. Iewel. Solomon com­mands, rob not the poore, because he is poore. Ergo, it is lawfull to rob the rich, because he is rich. I adde the like out of Moses: Moses forbiddethDevt. 24.14. [...] to defraud, or deceiue the hireling, that is poore and needie: Ergo, if he be rich and wealthie, I may defraud, and deceiue him. But in this kinde of Logique, I can helpe the Usurers one ace beyond their Defendor: for as there is a limitation of the people to the poore, so that of the rest of the people we may take usury: so there is in this law a limitation also of the poore to one speciall kind of poore, namely [...] the poore with thee. Now this addition [...] with thee, doth import not onely a vicinitie, com­moration, or dwelling together; for the holy ghost expresseth that with other phrases, as [...] and such like; but it importeth withall a bond be­tweene [Page 43] them of Dominion, and servitude or sub­jection, as to be one of his familie, and within his service, as we use also to speake, he hath beene with me seaven yeeres, that is, hath served me, or beene in my familie. Which also may appeare, because the law speaking of taking a brother into service useth this word,Levit. 25. he shall be [...] with thee: and speaking of the manumission of such an one useth the same word [...] ibidem. Deut. 15.12. from with thee, which is not a little inforced in the latter member of this law, which mentioneth imposing upon; insinuating a superioritie over him. So then the law speaking only of such poor as are with me, under me, within my service or familie, it cannot be without injurie to the text, to stretch it to all sorts of poor, but that I may take usury of such poor as are not with me, are nothing to me, owe me no service, & perhaps dwel not neere me. Now I hope I have pleased the Usu­rers with inlarging their libertie by following this Defendors Logique. But to returne to the place; there are many reasons why in these lawes, and the like there is speciall mention of these impotent persons. First, Lyra saith,Lyr in Exod. 22 Lex exprimit illud quod frequentius accidit, scilicet afflictio talium, quia resiste­re nequeunt. The law expresseth that which usually hap­peneth, namely the afflicting of such, because they can­not withstand, or defend themselves: Secondly, God useth in his lawes to expresse the grosest sinnes, as murther, adulterie, theft, not allowing whatsoever commeth not to that degree, but in these condem­ning that. Thirdly, God hereby would testifie to [Page 44] the world his care over these destitute persons, which of all other are least cared for; and therefore he taketh them into hisPsal. 68.6.146.9. speciall protection. Now if God forbidding to lend upō usurie to the poore, should allow men to lend to usurie to the rich, he should have more care of the rich, than of the poore: for no man would lend to the poore freely, when he might lend to the rich for usurie. Lastly, I might deny, that this addition, the poore with thee, doth belong to that member which forbiddeth usurie: for in lending money God forbids two thinges in that verse: First, [...] to be as a Creditor; such an one as shall be describedPag. 46. anone: and here it was requisite that the specification of poore should restraine it, because otherwise it is not unlawfull, as appeareth, Deut. 24.10. Where there is a law made for the right and lawfull practize of it. Se­condly, it is forbidden to impose usurie: and this member hath no mention of poore, because it is a generall prohibition, and somewhat it appeareth, that this prohibition differeth from the other, be­cause the holy Ghost setteth it downe in a different forme of speech, speaking in this member plurally, whereas in the former he spake singularly. Howso­ever it be in this law, that the prohibition concern the poore onely, or all in generall; it is manifest, that in other lawes usurie is generally forbidden, as Deut. 23.19. Thou shalt not put to usurie to thy brother: here is no difference of poore, and rich, but a generall comprehension of all Israelites, and members of the Church, which may further ap­peare [Page 45] by the generall opposition [...] of ali­antes. And so Ps. 15.5. He that giveth not his money to usurie: heere is no exception of aliants neither, as theLyra in Exod. 22. Galat. de arca, Cathol. verit. l. 11. c. 4. Iewes themselves confesse, & our Saviour in theMath 5.42. Luk. 6 35. Gospel taketh away that difference of bro­ther and aliant, and of poore and rich too. And so in the prophet Ezechiel, and the Proverbs. For Li­vie by long experience in the Romane State did finde, that usurie wasLiv. dec. 1. damnosissima etiam diviti­bus: and Plutarke avoucheth, that Jupiter Ctesius (so termed because he is owner of all) can not save that man, that wil rather borrow upon usurie, then sell his owne goods to serve his turne.

His fourth, and last evasion is,Defendor. that the word tran­slated usurie signifieth biting; so that if there be a­ny usurie which biteth not the poore, but healeth the bite, which the tooth of pouertie hath made, it cannot lie under the condemnation of this place.

This is a great evasion with usurers,Answer. which they stand much upon: insomuch that everie illiterate carle, and bookelesse broker hath Neshech in his uncircumcised mouth, and can say that Neshech signifieth biting, & therefore this Defendor tran­slateth this place thus: Thou shalt not lay upon him a biting: as that word is knowne to signifie, saith he: But to fire them all out of this starting hole at once, I tell them that this word Neshech doth never signi­fie biting: nor any thing else but onely usurie, that is, gaine for lending. If it be such a knowne thing, as he maketh it, let him or any of them all shew one place in Canonicall Scripture, or other He­brue [Page 46] writer, where Neshech signifieth a biting, or any thing else, but onely that which the Hebrues with another name call Tarbith, the Greekes [...], the Latines foenus, and we usurie. I haue beene ten yeeres Professor of Hebrue in a famous Universi­tie, and therefore should haue read somewhat, and yet I confesse I could never finde it. The trueth is this; there are many Verbes in Hebrue, which in diuers Conjugations, or with divers constructi­ons, or both, do signifie divers, yea sometime con­trary things: and therefore though they be writ­ten with the same letters, yet may well be accoun­ted divers Verbes, asTheod. Gaza. Gram. lib. 4. Theodorus Gaza saith, speak­ing of the like in the Greeke tongue. [...]: it is manifest that the same verbe being takē divers waies, (or in divers sig­nifications) doth differ from it selfe in verie essence, and is diversly called, and construed. Yea in Hebrue some few of them in the same conjugation, and with the same construction too, do signifie verie different things: which difference, and diversitie in gene­rall is discerned either by the Conjugation, or Construction, or else by the circumstances of the place: as the Verbe [...] which is used in the next verse, in the conjugation Pihel signifieth to destroy, and dissolve asunder: but contrarily in Cal it signifi­eth to binde together; whence commeth [...] a cord, or cable which reteineth the Hebrue etymologie) and because possessions and inheritances were usu­ally devided by corde, an inheritance is also called [Page 47] by the same name, Chebel. Now shall I say, because this, or that mans landes were never laide out by cord, but other waies, therefore it is not inheri­tance, Chebel; for Chebel signifieth a cord? much lesse may I saie, that Neshech signifieth biting, as anone shall appeare. Againe the same Verbe [...] in Cal signifieth to take to pledge, and a pledge is called [...] Chabol, shall I say, that when God for­biddeth to take a milstone to pledge, I may law­fully doe it, so there be no bond, or binding of it, for Chabal signifieth to binde? The Verbe [...] in Cal is taken Neutrally, and signifieth to kneele, and thence [...] is a knee, and [...] is a pond, belike because that in swimming there, men bend their knees: as in Greeke such a poole is calledIoh. 5. [...], a swimming place: Now because in this, or that pond there was never any swimming, or a man cannot swimme in it because of the shallow­nesse of it, or some other cause; is it not therefore berechah, colymbethra, a pond? or shall I say, that those words signifie swimming, or a swimming place? Againe, the same verbe barak in the conju­gation Piel is used transitively, and signifieth to blesse, or salute, because usually inferiours, blessing, or saluting their superiors, did kneele or bow the knee, and thence barachab is a blessing, or saluting, and sometime contrarily it signifieth to curse, or ban. Shall I therefore say, that there is no blessing where there is no kneeling? or that barachah is knowne to signifie a kneeling? thatGen. 1.22.28. God did not blesse his creatures, because he did not kneele? that [Page 48] Psal. 103. the heavens did not blesse God, because they had no knees? that Jacob did not blesse his chil­dren,Gen. 49. because he lay along in his bed? or whenNum. 23.24. Balaam answered Balak that God had commaun­ded him to blesse Israell, and not to curse, might Ba­lak have answered, notwithstanding, thou art not forbidden to use sorcerie, inchauntment, or witch­craft against them, so there be no kneeling, for that word is knowne to signifie kneeling? Or might Esau have answered his Father Isaak, that the same which his brother Iacob had stolen away, was not a blessing, because Isaak did not kneele. Gen. 27.37. Num. 21. Surely he might have answered so as truely, as our Usurers say, that Neshech signifieth biting. For although the verbe Neshach used in Cal, transitively with an accusative case of the sufferer, signifieth to bite, as [...] Num. 21. momor­dit serpens virum; the Serpent did bite a man; yet in the conjugation Hiphil, (to which Neshech is [...] and consignificant) it requireth a dative case of the sufferer, and an accusative cognatae significationis (as the Latin Gramarians speake, the Greeke call them [...]) and so it never signifieth to bite, but onely [...], foenerare, to usurie (if you will give me leave to make a word (or to put to usury as [...] Deut. 23.19. Non foenerabis fratri tuo foenus: Thou shalt not usurie to thy brother usurie of silver. In which signification, or acceptiō it is another verbe from that which signifieth to bite, differing from it in very essence, as Theodorus Gaza said, which is more truely saide of this verbe, which differeth [Page 49] from the other not onely in acception,The Hebrue conjugata can­not be expres­sed verbatim without ma­king of words, & scarse with that neither, for as in Greek the usurer is said [...] actively, and the user [...] deponēt­ly, so in He­brue the prin­cipall is saide [...] neu­trally, and the user [...], as in Greeke [...], & the Usurer [...], ac­tively, which is [...] transiens in ter­tium, as Chim­chi saith which kinds of spea­king our tongs cannot ex­presse. and con­struction, but also in conjugation; which in He­brue maketh a great difference, as you may see by many examples: as [...] in Cal signifieth to redeeme, in Ptel, to pollute: [...] in Cal signifieth to create, or make; in Hiphil, to fatten: and so [...] is fat: and the same verbe in Hiphil, also signifieth to chuse; [...] in one, and the same conjugation Cal, with the prepositions [...], or such like signifieth to dwell: with [...] or [...] to feare, or to be afraid of: and an hundreth more of like sort. And that Neshech signifieth usurie, and [...] Nashach, to goe to usurie, without any respect of biting may appeare. Deut. 23.19. where it is applyed to the principall, or the things lent, of any thing, which doth usurie, or goeth to usurie. Now the thing lent be it money, meate, or whatsoever else doth never bite, but helpe and relieve: the intent of the lender is not to bite; the intent of the borrower is not to be bitten; the na­ture of the thing itselfe is not biting; and therefore that word there cannot probably, or possibly be translated, biting; and therefore Neshech, and Hisshech being conjugata to it, and Derivatives of it, ought not to be taken in the signification of bi­ting; but in the same signification, wherein their originall, & primitive is; and what an absurd con­struction would it be to translate the derivatives in that sort. Thou shalt not bite (or make to bite) to thy brother a biting of silver, or a biting of meate, &c. What a sencelesse speech would this be? And for further confirmation, that the word Neshech, and [Page 50] Nashach doth import usurie without any respect of biting, let me adde the judgement of the most skilfull in that tongue, who doe ever translate, and expound it usurie, without any mention, or insi­nuation of biting, as the Septuaginta translate it [...]? The Chaldean Paraphrast doth call it [...] ribbitha; The Rabbines expound it [...] which with them is the generall name of usury. But grant that usurie had his name in Hebrew of a Primi­tive, which signified biting, what is that to the pur­pose, when we know what the thing is, which it is applyed to signifie? The question is not of the Etymologie, but of the lawfulnesse of the thing: the thing is knowne, what it is; whence the name was first takē that the same thing is called by, is not ma­teriall.Ang. Princ. Dialect. c. 6. S. Augustine giveth a very good rule. Ver­bum non unde dictum sit curandum, cum quid significet intelligatur. It is no matter whence the word is deri­ved, when we know the thing which it signifieth. In giving names to things, it is well enough, if the na­ture which it hath [...] ( [...] as the Rab­bines speake) for the most part, be agreeable to it: yea if it ever had such a qualitie which the name importeth, though the same qualitie, or accident be left, or growen out of use: as carnall copulation with a single person is fornication still, though it be not committed in an arched, or vanted roome; and yet that sinne had his name first a fornice; as before hath beene shewed, because then often it was committed in such places, and thereforeGallen. de H [...]poc. & Plat. decret. l. 2. c. 2. Gal­len saide truely [...], Etymologie is [Page 51] but a lying witnesse, Cic. in Topic. which made Tullie so afraid to translate [...] veriloqutum. Me thinkes I could helpe the Usurers in this point better, then the De­fendor hath done: for therere is no usurie, but that which accedit sorti, as this Defendor saide truely before; but sors importeth chance, hazard: Fortuitum rei eventum. Si­pont. there­fore whether we lend to poore, or rich; gaine they, or gaine they not, if we put the principall out of hazard, and make it sure by bond, suerty, or pawne, what increase soever we take, it is no usurie, Quia non accedit sorti; because it commeth not to a thing put in hazard. Lastly, grant that the scrip­ture condemned only biting of the poore, or bi­ting of thy brother by lending; yet we might easi­ly understand all usurie to be forbidden, because all usurie biteth more, or lesse, as one biting is worse then another; and one sooner felt than ano­ther, and therefore no marvaile that the most wise [...], and name-maker linked their names in such neere affinitie together. The biting of a Ser­pent, being done prively, when a man is asleepe, or greatly busied, is not great, nor soone felt, but it groweth; and if it continue, it will overrunne the whole body: and such is the nature of usurie, saith Rabbi Solomon: Rab. Solomon in Ezech. 22. As the Serpent maketh a little blacke and blew in the foote, and there is no feeling of it, but afterward it groweth, and spreadeth it selfe, till it come over the crowne: So in usurie, there is no feeling of it, no perceiving of it, till it grow great, and diminish a great deale of substance.

The next place is Levit. 25.35.36.37.Defendor. Out of [Page 52] which place the same may be confirmed, and further reasons gathered, for the strengthning of the judge­ment before set downe. First, whatsoever is set downe, and forbidden to be done, is not forbidden generally, but to thy neighbour that is brought low.

Answer.This argument of our usurie Defendor, vide­licet.

God providing for a man that is decayed, for­biddeth to take usurie of him, Ergo, it is lawfull to take usurie of one that is not decayed, hath beene sufficiently answered before. And further it may be said here, that the commaundement of help­ing, and upholding, verse 35. belongeth to the brother decayed; but the commaundement for­bidding usurie, verse 36. pertayneth to the brother in generall, as well as Deut. 23.19. which seemeth to be inforced, because in this 36. verse he nameth the brother in generall. But it mattereth not much though both the commaundements be restrained onely to the brother decayed.

Defendor. Secondly, there is a farther reason drawne from the end, which is, that thy brother may live with thee: wherefore if the loue of money be so tempered, that hee may well live with thee, it is plaine that such usurie is not forbidden.

Answer.Heere the usurer discovereth his minde, that a­ny rate of usurie may be taken, so the poore bor­rower may live, and hold soule, and life together. And truely experience sheweth,Nec liberum corpus superest. Liu. 1. l. 6. that usurers have no more respect of their brethren: goods, landes, libertie, and all they get; and it is well that the [Page 53] brother lives, & vescitur aura aetherea. But to his argument. First these words [...] let thy brother live with thee (for so the text is, not as Tre­melius noteth [...] that the life of thy brother may be with thee) are not the [...] or rule for the rate of usurie, as this Defendor would have it, but an argument to moove us to leave it, taken from our dutie to our brother: as in the verse next before, there is another argument to the same ef­fect, taken from our dutie towards God. By dutie we are bound to feare God. Ergo we must not take usurie, because God hath forbidden it: by dutie we are bound to preserve, and maintaine the life of our neighbour: ergo, we must not take usurie, be­cause usurie taketh from him that, wherewith he should maintaine his life, his living, his goods. Whereby appeareth, that Catoes answer was not unreasonable, when being demaunded what usu­rie was, answeredQuid soenera­re? quid homi­nem occidere. Cic. offic. l. 2. manslaughter: And that Licinius complaint was not unjust,Foenore truci­dantur. Liv. Dec. 1. l. 6. that men were slaine with usurie. Now saith this Defendor, I may take usurie so my brother may live: let him say also, I may take usurie so I feare God; and then all usurers wil be excused: for many of them counterfeit such holinesse, that they will be taken for men that feare God; and have ever the feare of God in their mouthes; for as a reverend father said publikely of late, there are of our holiest brethren which are usurers.

Secondly, this is a bad consequence: I must not take usury of a decaied brother, who if he pay usury cannot live, ergo, I may take usurie of the rich, be­cause [Page 54] they may live notwithstanding they pay usu­rie. Will the speciall reason of a speciall law, given in regard of some one circumstance, abridge & re­straine the generall law? Will the exaggeration of a sinne in the highest degree make all those actions no sinne, which come not to that degree? God forbiddeth a man, which hath bought an Israeli­tish maide, to sell her to a stranger, giuing this rea­son,Exod. 21.7. because he hath abused her: Was it therefore lawfull for such a master to sell an Israelitish maid, if he had not abused her? No,Levit. 25.42. that is unlawfull too. Because it is an heinous offence to steale a cow from a man, that hath no more to live by: is it not a sinne to steale a sheepe from a man, that hath thousands, and can live well enough for all that, and perhaps never misse it? The Defendor might have seene a more generall reason of the forbidding of usurie in this place of Leviticus: for first, vers. 37. he setteth downe a generall law: Thou shalt not give him (that is thy brother) thy money up­on usurie, nor thy vittaile upon lone. Then vers. 38. he giveth this reason, for I am the Lord thy God, which brought you (both the lender and the borrower) out of the land of Egypt. Now he brought the rich, as well as the poore out of the land of Egypt, and therfore neither rich nor poore (though they have no other way to live but by a stocke of money) may give their money upon usurie either to rich, or poore.Defendor.

Thirdly, for that the increase of victuals, and con­sequently of corne, is as well forbidden, as of money, [Page 55] wherefore corne ordinarily increasing in these Countries 100. 60. 30. fold, if it be lawfull to take increase of corne, it is lawfull to take increase of money; But the former is not denied of some that are the greatest scour­gers of usurie: And therfore, even in their judgement, if they will be like thēselves the other may not be denied.

This proposition it is lawfull to take increase of corne, is amphibologicall, and ambiguous:Answer. if he meane, that it is lawfull for the husbandman to re­ceive the increase of his corne that he hath sowed, as his mentioning of the increase of 100. fold doth import, it is most true; but it will never be fitted to our question of usurie: for there is no mutuati­on, or lending, but metaphoricall. If he meane, that a man finding nothing but corne, and putting it to another to sow to parts, may take his part of that which cōmeth of it; be it lesse then he put out, or as much, or more; & so if more, to take increase, it is also true, but it is nothing to usurie; for it is plaine Societie. If he meane, that a man lending corne to another, and the borrower sow the same, the lender may covenant with him to have his Principall againe, and some increase for the use; he must proue that true. For I deny it, and, untill he proue it, say it is unlawfull, because it is usurie. And yet this is nothing to that kind of increase, which is spoken of in this 37. verse; for that is [...] increase of food. And indeede it fol­loweth consequently, that the forbidding the in­crease of food, forbiddeth also the increase of corne borrowed to make foode of: but that differeth [Page 56] much from corne sowed for increase; which may be as well for marchandize, as for the sowers spen­ding. Againe, with sowing it hath an aptnesse to increase naturally, which by sowing reducitur ad actum: which aptnesse spending corne, vitaile, and money hath not: for the making of that corne apt to spend, spoyleth it of his aptnesse to increase. So here is a suite of non sequiturs. Increase of victuall is forbidden: Ergo, increase of corne sowed is for­bidden. Corne sowed increaseth 100. fould: Ergo, it is lawfull to take usurie of money: or, it is law­full to take increase of corne sowed: Ergo, it is law­full to take usurie of money. What media will he have to tye these together?

Defendor. The lawfulnesse whereof may appeare by the exam­ple of Ioseph. Gen. 47.13. Who for foode once given, tooke a fift for ever.

Answer.The Relative (whereof) is referred by him to the increase of corne, as I take it, not to the increase of money. So the argument is this. Ioseph for food once given tooke a fift for ever; Ergo, it is lawfull to take increase of corne; and consequently of mo­ney. I answere, first the Antecedent is false. It was not [...] foode, nor [...] frumentum, bread-corne, but [...] seede, or seede-corne that Ioseph gave the Aegyptians, as Moses sheweth, Gen. 47.23. Againe Iosephs contract, and bargaine was not to have his Principall againe, and increase besides, as in usurie is requisite: but the Principall was transferred a­way for ever by that contract, in consideration of that fift part; which is contrary to mutuating, and [Page 57] lending. Lastly, he did not onely give them seede, but also did let them land to sow it upon, and to occupie withall; else their seede without lande would have done them no good: for lande they had none, unlesse they farmed it of Pharao: for Joseph hadGen. 47.20. bought all their land for Pharao, and had21. put them cleane out of possession; so they tooke land againe in24. farme; and afterward by sta­tute it was graunted unto them26. in fee-farme, and they became Emphytentae, fee-farmers to Pharao. Now letting of land in fee-farme will be a slender patronage of putting of money, victual, or corne to usurie. This consequence will never be proved: Joseph did let to the Egyptians land with a stocke of corne with it in fee-farme, ergo it is lawful to put corne, victuall, and money to usurie. And marke his corollarie.

Out of which place it further appeareth, Defendor. how un­groundedly out of Aristotle the increase upon lone of money is condemned as unnaturall, because, forsooth, money begetteth not money; whereas the Scripture con­demneth indifferently the increase of foode, as well as of money: for notwithstanding it increaseth not, yet being well, and wisely imploied, turned and returned, it cau­seth greater increase than other things which are lent, which without imployment, and manuring will bring no increase; no not the ground it selfe of other commodities the best and surest.

Indeed out of this speech it appeareth how un­groundedly [...],Answer. and [...] this Defendor ar­gueth, and reasoneth: heere is his argument in the [Page 58] best fashion that I can bring it into: God condem­neth the increase of vittaile, as well as of money: but vittaile though it doe not increase of it selfe, or lying still, yet being imploied it doth increase, and that increase is lawfull to be taken; ergo, money though not increasing it selfe, yet being well, and wisely imploied, turned, and returned, it causing increase, that increase likewise is lawfull to be ta­ken. I denie in his antecedent that vittaile doth in­crease, for I cannot devise how it can, unlesse it be by miracle, as the woman of Sareptaes meale, and oile; or as the Disciples loaves and fishes: for vi­ctuall hath no aptnesse to increase, no more then money hath. How long shall a man keepe a loafe or bread, a gallon of Beere, a pound of Butter, or Cheese, a stone of Mutton, or Beefe before it in­crease? or what may he do to it to make it increase? If he meane that the victuler maketh increase, and gaine by uttering his victual, that must be by sel­ling, which contract he cannot make of money; for money is the price, whichEccles. 10.19. answereth to all; and therefore cannot be the ware, and merchan­dize too. If he meane of corne; indeed that hath a vegetative, augmentative, and increasing nature, apt to increase; but being turned to victuall, and made edible, as parched, sodden, grinded, it is de­prived, and spoiled of that nature, and aptnesse. If he meane of [...] seed-corne, he is cleane beside the law, and out of the question; neither wil his com­parison hold: for money hath not in it naturallie such an aptnesse to increase, as all kinde of seede [Page 59] hath: doe what you can to money, you cannot make that increase, or more to grow of it, unlesse it be by Alcumie, which they call the arte of Multi­plication: and whether it be lawful to take increase for money put to the Alcumists, I leave to them which know the virtue of the Philosophers stone, and haue skill in that arte. But without Alcumie I am sure it cannot be. Well more money may be added to it, but that more never came of it, or grew of it: for it hath no [...], potentiam, facultie, apt­nesse, or nature to increase, or to yeeld a profite, and commodity besides the thing, as ground hath, which he produceth for example: but how wisely a blinde man may see: for who did ever lende or mutuate ground? Ground, because it hath a natu­rall aptnesse to yeeld profit, and commoditie, so that the use may be severed from the thing, may be cōmodated; & consequently, something being paid for that use, it may be hired. Now such a use there cannot be of money, as money; of gold, as gold; of silver, as siluer, perhaps there may be; but not of coine, or money. And if there be any such use, which may be transferred to the borrower, the propertie remaining in the lender, it cōmeth not within our question, or the contract of mutua­ting. Now heere our Defendor produceth two excellent properties of money.

First, Defendor. money hath a propertie of continuance with­out danger of perishing, which cattell, and other things subject to death, and diseases have not.

Our Saviour Christ telleth us otherwise;Answer. whom [Page 60] this Defendor, be he never so great, and learned a man, must give me leave rather to credit. For de­horting us from the treasuring up of earthly trea­sures (whereof coine is no small part) he useth one argument taken from the nature of it, subject of it selfe to corruption,Math. 6.28. namely to rust. And S. Iames telleth us plainly, that silver and gold are subject to rust, and canker:Jam. 5.3. Your gold, and silver is canke­red, and the rust of them shall be a witnesse against you. Math. 6.28. Another argument is taken from the danger of them, because they are subject to stealing, not onely if a man carry them in his purse, or keepe them in a chest; but even if he wall them within a stone wall. The theeues digge through, and steale. AndAct. 8. S. Peter telleth Simon Magus, Thy money pe­rish with thee. Therefore he did not thinke that money was not subject [...] to perishing, as this Defendor doth. Now compare it to cattell, and it is farre inferiour in the propertie of continuance. For though cattell be subiect to diseases, & death too: yet they are by nature [...] aucti­ficous, and multiplicative, and therefore leave other in their roome behinde them; whereby they have indeede a propertie of continuance, and almost of perpetuitie. But graunt that money had such a propertie of continuance without danger of pe­rishing; is it therefore lawfull to take usury for len­ding of it? Why, who borroweth money to keepe it continually, or to hoord it up? Or who is so madde as to pay usurie for this use, and propertie of it? The poore user or borrower cares for no [Page 61] more, then if it will last telling it to his Creditor.

The second propertie of it is; Defendor. that having money there is no commoditie which a man may not have: so that though money be barren in one respect, yet it is more fruitfull than other commodities in regard of a greater and an oftner burden it is delivered off to the comfort of them, that know how to use it.

First, this is not generally true;Answer. as the Spaniards found by experience, who cōming into the West Indies, had many commodities of the Countrie, which they needed, brought unto them by the In­habitants: to whom they would offer for them mo­ney, goodly pieces of golde coine, but the Indians taking the money, would put it into their mouths, and spit it out to the Spaniards againe, signifying that they could not eate it, or make use of it; and therefore would not part with their commodities for money, unlesse they had such other commodi­ties as would serue their use. Secondly though money commonly bee the meane for all commo­dities, and do answere to all; yet this use of money cannot be seuered from the thing it selfe, that wee may make that use of it, and keepe the thing, or the propertie in the thing too. For indeed it is the very right use of money, and this use of it, is the spending of the very thing: and therefore can ne­ver bee made of that thing but once; for money cannot be spent twise, nor be twise delivered of yong, saue onely in Usurie: which kinde of birth, if he meane here, when hee speaketh of the great and often burthen, which money is delivered of, [Page 62] he doeth but principium petere: for the lawfulnesse of that kind of birth, is the thing in question. Now then the use of money being the spending of the thing, shall I make euen, and equall recompence for the thing, and give for the use beside? Noe, but one thing answereth to both, they both being but one thing, and not severable. Because a pot of beere hath a propertie to coole thirst; shall I give a pot of beere againe for the beere I borrow­ed, and somewhat beside for the propertie of it, to coole my thirst? Because ten pounds in money wil buy a horse worth ten pounds, must I answere ten pounds for the money, and ten shillings more for the propertie of the money to buy a horse? This is the cōfort which the Defendor speaketh of,Job 16.2. A mi­serable comforter are you, may the poore borrower say.

Defendor. Now where in this text vers. 36. There is beside the word of biting, another word which signifieth increase in the 37. verse, it is evident that the worde of biting was ascribed to the money, and the word of increase re­strained to the food. So that they doe euidently force the words of this place, which apply the worde of increase unto money, which is here by the holy Ghost carried onely unto food. Wherefore also the Prophets being interpre­ters of the Law, it followeth that the places of Ezech. 18. and Proverb. 28. where both these words are used of biting, and multiplying: ought to be so expounded, as the biting be referred to the money, and the worde of multiplication to the food, or victuals, and not to money as is commonly done. If the holy Ghost had in any place [Page 63] forbidden the increase of money, as he forbiddeth the biting of the brother in all things, as well money, as vi­ctuals; then there had beene reason to have applied the increase to money, but the Scripture not forbidding that any where, it is an over-reach so to apply it.

This evasion is both untrue, and also idle,Answer. and unable to doe him good. It is untrue, that it is an over-reach to apply Tarbith to money, or that Tarbith is restrained onely to victuall. For the worde which the holie Ghost vers. 37. carieth expresly to victuall, is not Tarbith, as he belying the holie Ghost telleth us; but Mar­bith, which is a worde of more generall signi­fication, applied to1. Sam. 2. issue of body, increase of chil­dren, 2. Chron. 9. increase of wisedome, and so foorth. But the word Tarbith which is used vers. 36. and Prov. 28. and Ezech. 18. & 22. is the proper name of usurie, and signifieth nothing else: so that Tarbith, and Neshech be [...] (as the Hebrues call them) that is Synonyma, words of one significati­on, though they differ in Etymologie, and originati­on: as the Latin usura, and foenus be: which though the one come of faetus, the other of usus, yet sig­nifie one, and the same thing, which we call usury: as appeareth in Tully, Cic. de Senect. terra nunquam sine usura red­dit quod accepit; sed aliàs minore, plaerumque majore cum faenore: and so we have in English use, and lone. And this is a usuall figure in Hebrue, as their Do­ctors often note [...] to dub­ble the thing with two wordes. And that Tarbith and Neshech be Synonyma may appeare by many rea­sons. [Page 64] First whereas in this place Moses restraineth Neshech to money; yet Deutr. 23.19. he stretcheth it to victuall also; which argueth that Neshech is generally of all things as well as of money. Se­condly, the Chaldaean Paraphrast, when Neshech, and Tarbith be put together, as he translateth Tar­bith alwaies ribbitha, which come both of one Pri­mative, haue one etymon, and are one word dif­fering onely in Dialect, but Neshech he translateth sometimes Chibbulja, sometime Nuchtetha: yet Deut. 23.19. he translateth Neshech also Ribbitha: shewing plainely, that he tooke Tarbith to be the same which Neshech is, and as generall as it, and of money as well as it: for Ribbitha, and Tarbith dif­fer in nothing but in dialect. Thirdly, as the Verbe signifying [...], foenerare, to put to usurie, in He­brue is conjugatum to Neshech: so in Chaldaean, which is but a dialect of the Hebrue, it is conjuga­tum to Tarbith, which maketh them plaine Syno­nymaes. Fourthly the Hebrue Doctors make them Synonyma, & say Tarbith is the same which Neshech is, as Mordochai Nathan in his Iair Nathib saith, Tarbith is [...] the same which Neshechis. Fiftly, the Septuagint doe alwaies tran­slate Neshech [...]; and [...], and Tarbith are al one, and have one and the same reason of their Etymo­logie, as before hath beene shewed. And so like­wise doth the vulgar Latine translation translate Neshech sometime usuram, and sometime foenus: Now faenus also is all one with Tarbith, Nonn. Marcel. de propr. Serm. and hath the same reason of the Etymologie, being so cal­led [Page 65] quia foetus est mutui accepti; and so is Tarbith, as before hath beene shewed. Sixtly, there can be no reason given why Tarbith should be attributed to victuall, but by the same reason it may be attribu­ted to money: for the nature of victuall, and mo­ney in this respect is all one, and the one doth [...], parere, increase, as well as the other; both naturally unfruitefull, and barren; in usurie both made to yeeld fruit contrarie to nature: the dammage to the borrower in both alike. For what oddes whether I lend you ten pound of butter to have as much againe, & one pound over for lone: or lend you ten groats in money to buy it withall, to have as much money againe, and one pound of butter over, or one groat over for the lone: and so for all other kinde of victuals. And this evennesse, and equalitie in the nature of the things (namely that increase is alike lawful, or unlawfull in the one as in the other) the Defendor himselfe confesseth. For seeing by his own construction that Marbith, increase above the principall lent, is directly for­bidden even in victuall, he commeth in with his old limitation, and qualification, so it be such as doth not oppresse him, but relieue him: which is the selfe-same limitation, and qualification with which usu­rie of money is alowed by him: & without which the usurie of money is condemned by him. So that howsoever he would bleare the eies of the igno­rant with a distinction of the wordes, yet he ma­keth the things all one, that is, alike lawfull, or un­lawfull; and so indeed maketh his goodly distin­ction [Page 66] meerely void, and vaine. Now to proove that the increase of victuall so qualified is lawfull, he useth this argument.

Defendor. The word which is termed increase signifieth multi­plication, which is not alwaies where more is taken then was given, but where much is given: it being more to multiply then to increase, as appeareth, Deut. 17.16. where it being forbidden to the King to multiply hor­ses, yet thereby is not forbidden, that the King should have many horses, but that he should not exceede and goe beyond measure. For it is manifest, that the good and religious Kings in their great victories against the Churches enimies, having many horses, reserved some for their owne use. And therefore if such an increase of victuals be taken as the poore may well live of, I see not how it is simplie unlawfull. Where also may be re­called backe againe the example of the Egyptians, which albeit they were brought to extreme povertie, yet re­ceived corne for the yeelding of an annuall increase for ever: and that at the hands of Ioseph, which gover­ned the land in justice, and was beneficiall to all the subjectes of the same.

Answer.All the copies of this booke, which I have seene, have (when more is given) but I take his mea­ning to be, when more is taken, that is, over-much, and excessiue: which appeareth to be his meaning, both by his comparison, that to multiplie is more than to increase, and also by his testimonie allea­ged out of Deut. 17. Now this acception, and sig­nification of [...] which the holy Ghost useth, Deut. 17. and whereof Tarbith is derived, is un­true. [Page 67] For it doth not import an excesse, or mul­tiplication beyond measure, but an increase in any measure, that is, more than that, which it is compared with-all, be it it-selfe, or another thing; For it is opposite to [...] lesse; [...] is more, [...] is lesse: [...] to grow more, or increase, [...] to grow lesse, or decrease: [...] to make more: [...] to make lesse: as you may see, Exod. 16.18. Num. 26.54. Hag. 1.6. and other places, where there is a bare comparison made by these wordes, without any respect of excesse any way. There­fore, when an excesse beyond measure is signified, the word is either doubled, as in multiplying I will multiplie. Gen. 3.16. & 22.17. or else some word of excesse is added: as in this place [...] valde, over much, or exceedingly, verse 17. which [...] is to bee understood in the rest, according to the exigence of the circumstances; else absurdities would follow. This place yeeldeth rather argu­mentes against his assertion, then anything in fa­vour of it. As first,1. Cor. 7.2. God forbiddeth to multiply wives: but all increase of wives is unlawfull aboue his [...] his owne one: Ergo, God forbidding Marbith, increase of victuals; all increase of victu­als is unlawfull above his owne Principall. Se­condly, the Verbe [...] harbeh, to increase, or mul­tiplie is attributed to money, Ergo, the nowne Tar­bith which is conjugatum to it, is attributed to mo­ney. And this may stand for a seaventh argument, to prove that Tarbith is a synonyma to Neshech, and is of money, as well as of victuall.

[Page 68]Secondly, his evasion is idle, and would doe him no good. For graunt that this distinction of his were true, that in the phrase of Moses the word Tarbith were restrained onely to that one kind of usurie which was in victuall, and never used for that kinde which was in money, what would he get by it? Surely if Tarbith had never beene mentioned, the law of usury had not beene one whit inlarged; and being mentioned, it is not one ace abated, or restrained: for the word Neshech is large, forcible, and effectuall enough against usu­rie, as before hath beene shewed. And so for his recalling backe the example of the Aegyptians to this purpose, I desire the reader to remember what hath beene said of it before.

Defendor. In Deuteronomie 23.19. he forbiddeth to lend to usurie generally to any Jew, but there expresly in all those interdictes he useth the word of biting onely; a thing which is confessed simply unlawfull to be used to any man at any time, which is also the answere to the place of Psal. 15. where the word biting is also used.

Answer.This is no good answere, for the word doth not signifie biting, but onely usurie, as before hath beene shewed.

Defendor. There followeth Ezech. 18.8.13.17. In all which places the generall which is forbidden is the oppression of the poore: of which generall, this is one speciall of biting, and multiplication: the one, as hath been said, by money, the other by victuals, and other thinges. Wherefore if usurie be so tempered, and qualified that it oppresse not the poore; it is plaine that it is not for­bidden [Page 69] in that place: much lesse if it be so measured as it doth greatly comfort, and relieve him. Moreover, as he forbiddeth usurie there, so doth he in like degree for­bid the retaining of a pledge for debt. Wherefore if there may be such a debtor, whose Creditor may keepe the pledge laid downe with him, untill he be satisfied of the debt: there may be also such a borrower, as the lender may without breach of the law take lone of him. But the former of these two is confessed, therefore the later cannot be denied.

Usurie is not a species of any thing going before in that place of Ezechiel. Answer. Neither is oppression of the poore any genus there. In the 8. verse there goeth next before it the exercise of liberalitie in feeding the hungrie, and cloathing the naked; whereto Usurie is an enimie, and therefore next forbidden: and next after it followeth committing of iniquitie, and not executing true judgement be­tweene man, and man: which in the 8. verse are coupled with it, and which may be done to other than to the poore. In the 13. verse he puts it next to Idolatrie, and abomination: and therefore he cannot make Usurie a species of the oppression of the poore, unlesse he make them so too. But this evasion hath before beene answered; and so have his other evasions of biting, & keeping of a pledge.

Proverb. 28.8.Defendor. He that increaseth his substance by biting (which must be vnderstood through money, as before hath beene shewed) or by multiplication (which must be understood by victuals, or such like, as there also is set downe) shall gather it for him, that will [Page 70] shew grace to the poore. Which if it be the true expo­sition of this place, the usurie before defended remay­neth still untouched. But if this exposition be not ad­mitted; then the latter end of the verse, which is an exposition of the former part thereof, declareth, that this is to be ment of such as take increase of the poore, & oppresse them by lending. For the Proverbe seemeth not obscurely to set foorth this sence; that that which hath beene by a wicked covetous man taken away from the poore, shall be by a righteous liberall man restored to the poore againe. Thirdly, it must be observed, that this Proverbe, &c.

Answer.His distinction of Tarbith, and Neshech, which himselfe doubteth of, and distrusteth here, hath beene answered before. His other evasion, that the later part of the verse is an exposition of the former, is contrarie to the rules of interpretation; for the one containeth the sinne, and the other the punish­ment. And it is but a shallow conceite, and for­ced construction, that the Usurer got his goods of the poore, because his successor will bestow them upon the poore; whereas Solomon speaketh generally. He that increaseth his riches by usurie.

Defendor. Thirdly, it must be observed, that the Proverbe speaketh of him, whose trade is to gaine by usurie, and whose great wealth riseth no other way then from thence, and so consequently is without the compasse of that usurie, which by the answere to the question is maintained.

Answer.Though the Defendor say it must be, I thinke it may not be. For the Proverbe saith onely [...] [Page 71] [...] He that increaseth, or augmenteth his substance, or maketh it more. Now if a man hath gotten 10000. pounds by other waies, and taken but 10. pounds, or 10. shillings for usurie once in his life, doubtles he doth thereby increase & augment his substance so much, and make it so much more; and therefore comes within the condemnation of this sentence, though he make no occupation of usurie, nor have any great wealth arising by it. But I marveile, what is in the foresaid answere, to shut out him whose trade is to gaine by usurie, out of the com­passe thereof. For truely I can see nothing there, but, so that I lend onely to the rich, to purchase or compasse great matters withall, he may law­fully make a trade of it, and have his greatest wealth arising by it.

There is one place more in the olde Testament from which M.C. gathereth an argument to proue the lawfulnesse of usurie, as a thing in his owne nature indifferent; namely, Ier. 15.10. which he produceth in his answere to the fift questiō, which question being the last, containeth an objection against the lawfulnesse of borrowing upon usu­rie, in these words. Lastly, M. C. when the Prophet Iere­mie saith, I have neither lent upon usurie, nor any hath lent to me upon usurie, and yet they curse me, whether the word usurie expressed there twise, have one and the same sence and signification in either pla­ces, or in the first place to be taken in evill part, but not in the second. To this M.C. answereth thus: The roote of the word in both places is one, and the same, [Page 72] and in neither place taken in evill part, neither in the signification of lending upon usurie; nor in the signifi­cation of borrowing upon usurie, but is of a thing indif­ferent of it selfe. And it is so farre, that that place doth make any thing against the lawfulnesse of usurie, that it rather giveth some strength to it. For the Prophet declareth his injurie to be so great, that he did not give them any cause, nay not so much as any occasion justly to hate him; considering that he did abstaine from that, which was not simply unlawfull: whereas if to lend, or borrow upon usurie had beene simply un­lawfull, their unreasonablenesse had not so greatly ap­peared.

In this answere M. C. bewrayeth some want of skill in the Originall tongue. For the word which the Prophet Ieremy useth, doth never signifie Vsury, or Vsurarious contract; but is quite another thing: and therefore his indifferencie of the practise of u­surie cannot be prooued, or holpen by that. The interpretation of the place is: I did not credit them, nor they did credit me. But it was not such a kind of creditor, and debtor, crediting, and owing, which is usuall amongst us, and according to the course of our law: but such a creditor cui acquirebatur jus in bona debitoris: which had acquired, and gotten a right unto the goods of the debtor, that he might seize the same to his proper use, and detaine them with­out further course of law (for so much as I can find in the Iewes judicialls) but onely of his owne au­thoritie, & [...] handfasting, as Moses speaketh, Deut. 15. till he were satisfied his debt. So it was not in [Page 73] the nature of an execution, whereby the thing is transferred to the Creditor absolutely, without li­bertie to the debtor to redeeme it: neither in the nature of a bare debt, by which with us the Cre­ditor hath no right to the debtors goods; neither of an arrest, or distresse which requireth a course of law, and yet doth not transferre the property, or use of the thing presently to the Creditor; but it is a thing of another nature, after the Iudiciall law of that state, whereby the Creditor had au­thoritie to take any of the goods of the Debtors for his debt, and to detaine the same till he was satisfied; onely provided that the Creditor might not draw latch, or enter into the Debtors house to take what he thought good;Deut. 24.10.12.13. but to take such as the Debtor could, and would spare: and also pro­vided, that if it were the onely garment of a poore man, he restored it to him when he needed it to cover his nakednesse. Such a Creditor is called [...] and [...] whom the Prophets wife feared would come and seize her two sonnes:2. Reg. 4.7. Wherefore Elisha furnished her with Oyle to sell and satisfie him.1. Sam. 22.2. And in danger of such Creditors stood the men that fled to David: and such a debt was to be remitted in the yeere of Jubilie, Deut. 15. the Creditors being forbidden to touch, or seize the Debtor, or his goods. And such a kinde of credi­ting to the poore is against the law of charitie, and overthroweth the office of mutuating, or lending, and therefor prohibited by God, as well as usurie. If thou lend money unto my people (I meane) to the Exod. 22.25. [Page 74] poore with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a Creditor. Not meaning a plaine Creditor, for that must he be, so long as the other was in his debt, and did owe him the thing lent; but such a Creditor as I have described.Nehem 5.7. And therefore Nehemias condem­ned it in the rich Iewes, and commaundeth release therof both in restoring the goods seized,10.11.3.4. as lands, Vine-yardes, Olive-yardes, houses: as also in remit­ting the debt, were it money, or wares, as Corne, Wine, Oyle, which appeareth before to be the mat­ter for which they grew in debt. And by this short discourse the Defendor also may see his error, who maketh Nosheh, to be all traffique and negatiation; whereas it is but one kinde of crediting, as hath been described, the debtor whereof [...], oba­ratus) is called periphrasticōs [...]. Out of the newe Testament there is alleaged one place, Luke 16.35. where our Saviour exhorteth to Christian liberalitie toward those that want, and to true brotherly love, whose nature is in her benefites to respect the good of other,1. Cor. 10.4. not her owne: and for that part thereof which consisteth in mu­tuating, or lending, our Saviour setteth downe the rule thus (as S. Mathew recordeth it) And from him that would borrow of thee, Math. 6.42. turne not away: expressing the same, which Moses in his rule for mutuating delivereth thus,Deut. 15.9. Let not thy eye be evill against thy brother. S. Luke setteth the rule downe thus: lend [...]: now [...] is not red in any o­ther place of the Newe Testament, and in other Greeke writers it signifieth to be in wan-hope, or out [Page 75] of hope, with an accusative case, as is here, as [...], to be out of hope of the sicke man, or to despaire of the sicke man. In which sence if we take it here, it seemeth that our Saviour respecteth that wan-hope, or despaire of the principall in regard of the neerenesse of the yeere of freedome, where­in there was to be a plaine [...], and generall release of all debts, which despaire Moses in his rule of mutuating mentioneth: Beware that there be no wicked thought (of despairing thy debt) in thee, that thou shouldest say, the seaventh yeere is at hand, the yeere of freedome, therefore it grieveth thee to looke on thy poore brother, and lend him nothing. Which yeere of freedome, when our Saviour spake this, was at hand, as I have shewed in my booke of the ground of Chronologie. But the In­terpretors doe take this word here in another sig­nification, in which else-where it is never read, in this sence, lend, hoping for nothing of them: so that the preposition [...] seemeth to be taken out of the verbe [...] in the former verse, and if you lend to them, whom you hope to receive of. Now what was that, which our Saviour would not have them to hope for of the borrower? The Principall? or the like kindnesse in pleasuring them with lending a­gaine, or such offices, when they had neede? Not the Principall, as I take it, for these reasons. First, because then it should not be lending, but giving. Now our Saviour doth distinguish these two evi­dently: Give to him that asketh; Math. 6.42. and from him that would borrow turne not away: saith S. Mathew. Give [Page 76] to every one that asketh, Luk. 6.35. and lend hoping for nothing, saith S. Luke. The difference of these two is, that in giving, the thing is quite transferred away, with­out any restoring of it againe, or hoping for it: in lending, the thing transferred away is to be resto­red againe. Secondly, in the ende of the former verse, in the example of the thing forbidden, there is expressed what it is, which in lending, we may not hope to receive, namely, [...] the like. Now the Principall is not [...] the like; but [...], the same in specie, as before hath beene shewed. For [...] importeth the requiting the kindnesse and good turne, in dooing the like againe. For that which the Latines say par pari referre, to doe him as good a turne: the Greekes say [...], & such an [...],Col. 4.1. or requiting, Paule would have Masters yeeld their servants, that they requite their dili­gence, and faithfulnesse with due wages, and kindnesse. Thirdly, the relation of the other Chri­stian offices here expressed by our Saviour doth import so much: If you love them which love you; if you doe good to them which doe good to you, and so, if you lend to them of whom yee hope to receive the like, that is, which lend to you: and proportionably in the preceptes; love your enemies, which love you not; doe good to them, which doe not good to you: lend to them, which lend not to you. This sence of this place doth utterly overthrow usurie. For if in lending we must not respect, or expect [...], the like good turne againe of the borrower; much lesse may we compact for usurie. For usurie is [...], [Page 77] more, which is contrarie to [...], in the excesse: and he which forbiddeth the like, doth rather for­bid that which is more. Now let us see what he saith against it.

This place maketh as little against usurie, Defendor. as that which doth least. For, First of all our Saviour speaketh not at all of any negotiation, or contractes for gaine, but onely of relieving the poore, as appeareth in the 30. verse.

It is true that he speaketh not of any negotiati­on, or contractes for gaine,Answer. but of relieving the poore; but he speaketh of giving, and lending, which are contractus gratuiti, free contractes, or else the nature of them is marred: which two kindes of communicating goods, giving, and lending, are not onely allowed by God, as the contractes of buying, selling, setting, and hiring, and such like are, but also are straightly and severely commaunded by God toward the poore and needy, having ma­ny threatnings menazed, if they be neglected, and many goodly promises annexed, if they be exer­cised according to Gods commaundement, and therefore our Saviour would have them exercised, & practized most freely, even without all hope of any recompence. But it is not true, that he speaketh there onely of relieving the poore: for he speaketh in the same verse of loving one another, and of doing good one to another: which duties are not restrained onely to the relieving of the poore; neither doth any such thing appeare in the 30. verse. Whereas he speaketh of giving them that aske, which com­monly [Page 78] indeed is of the poore: so he ioyneth wthi it, and from him that taketh away thy goods from thee, aske them not againe, which is more likely to be done of other, than the poore, neither doth it touch the relieving of the poore.

Defendor. Secondly, for that this, which is to be done, Christ commaundeth to be done even to our enimies. Now there is no reason, or law of God that I should lend my money to mine enimie.

Answer.First, the words of the text have no such neces­sitie of lending to our enimies; for enimies have re­lation to love, and therefore doe not love: but len­ding hath relation to such as are not able to lend againe. Yet by consequence it will follow from the text, that we must lend to our enimies; for we are commaunded there to doe as-much, that is, [...] to doe good, verse 27. & 35. yea to doe more a great deale than lending, that is, to love. For it is an easier thing to lend to an enimie, than to love him. And there is great reason that we should lend to our very enimies, because God did more than lend to us being more his enimies. But I pray you how doth his conclusion follow hence? That which he forbiddeth to be done, he commaundeth to be done to an enimie; Ergo, This place maketh no­thing against usurie. I understand neither the ante­cedent, nor the consequence: that which is forbid­den to be done is [...], to hope for the like: doth he commaund this, that is, to hope for the like of our enimies? This I understand not: but this I under­stand out of this place, as he expoundeth it: It is [Page 79] not lawfull to hope for [...], the like, of our eni­mies to whom we lend: Ergo, it is a great deale lesse lawfull to take usurie of our friends, and neigh­bours.

Thirdly, for that I am commanded to lend him, Defendor. al­though I were in apparant danger, or rather manifest to lose all, even the Principall: for the Greeke word sig­nifieth to looke for nothing of that thou lendest; which is not onely proved out of the nature of the word, but also out of the circumstances of the place: for verse 34. he teacheth that one sinner lendeth to another to receive like, or asmuch againe.

What the Greeke word signifieth,Answer. and what the circumstances of the place beare, you have heard better reasons before, than this Defendors bare word: and therefore I say no more, till I see more. But to his consequence: Doth this place make nothing against usurie, because, you are com­manded to lend franckly, & freely without hoping, or looking for the principal againe? I think nothing maketh more against it:If our neigh­bour must be holpen even without any re­spect had of re­ceiving the Principall a­gaine: much more are usurie compactes for­bidden, Beza in Luc. 6.35. For much lesse may you compact for certaine gaine above the Principall. The speech of our Saviour Christ in this place is indefinite, and in the other member, which is bro­ther to it, and more than it, it is universall [...], to every one that asketh.

To make some shew, that this place maketh no­thing against usury: he taketh upon him to answere two objections, which he imagineth may be made here.

If happely you say, Defendor. we must lend to the poore often­times [Page 80] without hope of recompence, yea, with hazard of the Principall: Ergo, we may not lend to the rich, of whō recompence may be looked for again: non sequitur. Christ cōmandeth us to call the poore to our table, which cannot call us againe, Ergo, we may not invite our rich friends, which can invite us againe: non sequitur.

Answer.And to conclude, Ergo, we may lend to the rich upon usurie, Minùs sequitur.

Defendor. If you say, if he meant of relieving the poore, he would rather have spoken of giving, then of lending. I answere, that there is oftentimes more charitie shewed to a poore man in lending him somewhat, than in gi­ving: for there are many poore, which being ashamed to begge, and receive an almes, would yet willingly bor­row a peece of money, with mind to repay it, &c.

Answer.Grant this (for God commandeth lending to the poore, as well as giving, and they are both ve­rie necessarie and beneficiall to the poore, in their severall places) yet will it not follow, that it is anie charitie to take usurie,Basil. hom. in usurer. or reliefe to pay usu­rie, for that which is lent to poore, or rich. Basil advising them that were unable to live, unlesse they tooke upon usurie, rather to begge; and they objecting that they were ashamed to begge; an­swereth, that it is more shame [...]. to take upon usu­rie, and deceive: for (saith he) any thing is more [...]. to­lerable than to take upon usurie. Plut. de non foen. And Plutarke having rekoned up many waies and trades for men to live by, concludeth, that of all those, none is so servile or shamefull, as to heare this voice of the Usurer, Pay that thou owest. And whereas many object, that [Page 81] they cannot live without taking upon usurie: Basil answereth, [...]: There are many devises for a man to live by, many occasions: and Plutark, dost thou not see, how many waies the land, and how many meanes the sea doth offer thee to live by? And what kinde of charitie it is, and how much better than giving, to lend upon usurie, Basil sheweth in these wordes, [...], a bad giving to both, to wit, the giver, and the receiver, bringing losse & damage, to the ones goods, and to the others soule. For the further defence, and main­taining of usurie, out of the new Testament he pro­duceth three arguments.

1 The Apostles of our Saviour Christ in their sun­drie catalogues of sinne, Defendor. doe never once make any speci­all mention of usurie in all their writings, whereby gro­weth a strong praesumption of the lawfulnesse thereof. For in all likelihood they would not have kept silence therein, if their predecessors the Prophets had laboured so much against it, as they are supposed to have done by such as draw the testimonies above-said to the condem­nation thereof: specially seeing it is well knowne that in the Romane Empire, under which they preached usurie, and lone for money was much used, and that as lawfull, to the value of twelve in the hundreth. At the least James, Peeter, and John would not likely have for­gotten it, which wrote particularly to the Jewes much given to that kind of gaine.

First I denie this consequence:Answer. There is no speciall mention of the forbidding of it by name in [Page 82] the new Testament: ergo it is lawfull: for there are many breaches of the Morall law, yea many grosse sinnes, which are not expresly mentioned, and forbidden by name in the New Testament: as namely profaning of the Sabboth day: all the degrees of Incest save one; removing the neighbours marke: taking for pledge, or upon execution a poore mans onely weed; removing of land marks: Polygamie; gelousie, &c. 2. It is forbidden in the old: and the new gi­veth no inlargement to sinne. 3. Neither is the ta­king of usurie of a poore man, that is in never so great distresse, forbidden by name in the new Te­stament, and therefore by this argument it should be also lawfull, contrarie to the assertion of M.C. who affirmeth it to be a breach of the morall law, and unlawfull. And yet by consequence usurie is sufficiently forbidden in the new Testament, as the learnedBasil. hom. ad usur. Ambros. de To­bia. l. 1. c. 15. Hier. in Ezech. 18. Conc. lat. p. 16. Tit. de usura. Theses Wittenb. Melancthon. &c. Divines both of ancient time, and of lat­ter ages doe acknowledge:Nazi. de theol. l. 5. and those things which are collected out of the Scripture, are as well, as those things which are written in the Scripture, as Nazian­zene said, and they come under the second mem­ber of his quadripartite division there, [...]: which are in the Scripture, and yet are not na­med there.

Now for his surmise of likelihood for the law­fulnes of usurie in the Romane Empier, he should have shewed how it is so well knowne, else we shall hardly beleeve it, upon these inducements.Appian. de bello Ciuili. l. 1. Appian affirmeth that the ancient Romanes abhorred usurie, and accompted it as cheating, and consening (as the [Page 83] Persians judged it full of deceite, and lying) and as a naturall breeder of enmitie, and discord, as the often and horribleSee Liu. dec. 1. l. 2. & l. 5. troubles of that state, tumults, up­rores, secessions, and seditions about usurie doe testifie: which Usurie grew, and was practized a­mong them, as Appian there saith,Appian. de bel­lo ciuili. l. 1. &c. by evill cus­tome, and corruption of the times; not by any law, for their lawes were ever against it, either to restraine it, when by means of the power of the Usurers they could doe no more; or utterly to a­bolish and forbid it; and to punish the Usurers.Liui. dec. 1. l. 7. de unciario soe­nore. For in the yeere of Rome 398. M. Duellius, L. Me­nenius got a law made, that the rate of Usurie should not exceede an ounce, that is, 8⅓ in the 100. which was the highest rate that they suffered by law unpunished: and within ten yeeres after, it was brought toLiu. ibid. soe­nus Semiuneia­rium. halfe an ounce, that is, to 4⅙ in the 100. and all debts were forestald to be paid at foure payments in three yeeres: and in the yeereLiu. ibid. 411. the Aediles sued divers usurers upon that Plebiscite, and had themIudicia tristia. cruelly punished. But in the yeereLiu. ibid. in­fine. 413. L. Genitius got a Plebiscite enac­tedNe foenerare liceret. that no usurie should be taken, as our late Noble King Edward the sixt ordeined in hisAnno 5. Edw. 6. c. 20. statute. Of this proceeding against usurie from an ounce to nothingCorn. Tac. an­nal. lib. 6. Cornelius Tacitus, who lived neere the Apostles times, maketh mention. The punishment of Usurers in that state, was to forfeiteCato de re rust. l. 1. c. 1. fourefold, whereas theft was punished with restoring onely dubble, as Cato saith. The twoLiu. dec. 1. l. 10 Ogulnies being Ae­diles in the yeere 457. indited divers Usurers, and [Page 84] of that part of the forfeitures, which came to the common treasurie, made diverse great and memo­rable works, which you may see in Livie. Likewise [...]in. dec. 4. l. 5. M. Tuccius, and P. Iunius Brutus, being Aediles in the yeere of Rome 502, made of the forfeitures of Usurers, golden chariots which they dedicated to Iupiter, and twelue golden shieldes; and built a porch without the gate Trigemina: and the like se­vere proceeding against usurers was folowed after­ward by other good magistrates of that state. ForAppian. de [...]lo ciuili. l. 1. Asellius the Pretor punished them severely in the yeere 665: and a little before the time of Christ & his Apostles,Cic. ad Attic. 5. epist. 20. Tully had restrained it in Sicilie; I. Caesar suppressed it generally by a lawSuet. in Iul. [...]es. c. 42. that no usury should be taken, but the Principall onely paid: andPlut. in Lu­ [...]llo. Lu­cullus in Asia (where the Apostles were most con­versant) had utterly abandoned it, fore-stalling the debts in such sort, that the Creditor should receaue the fourth part of the debtors revenewes, till the Principall was paid, and if he exacted any usurie he should loose both vsurie, and Principall; and so indeed was [...]. Plat. de leg. l. 5. Platoes law, which doubtlesse Lucullus remembred, and specially respected, being himself a great Academique, asPlut. ibidem. Plutarch reportes him, andCic. quaest. Acad. Tullie makes him in his Academique questions. Therefore it is unlikely that Usurie was so used in the Romane Empire, as he pretends. And for his other surmise, that the Iewes were so much given to it; and therefore that the Apostles which wrote particularly to them would not have forgotten it; I thinke that he slaundereth the Iewes [Page 85] of that time, which did not practize usurie so com­monly, as he weeneth, but rather they offended in another kind, which S. Iames reprehended in them, namely, hoording up of money till it rusted, and cankred: Your gold, and silver is cankred, Iam. 5.3. and the rust thereof, &c. Now had these Iewes beene so much given to usurie, as this Defendor would perswade us; doubtlesse the turning, and returning of their money, would have kept it from rusting, and cank­ring. Moreover, if the Iewes did practize usurie in the Apostles times, yet it was but unto Aliants, (for even at this day they will not in any wise take usurie of their brethren) and that usurie was law­full, and commaunded by Moses, Deut. 23.20. To the Aliant thou shalt usurie. With whose ordinances the Apostles were loth to be over-busie, as appeareth by the fact of Paule, and the opinion of all the Apostles. Act. 21.20.21.

2.Defendor. Our Saviour Christ is so farre from condemning it, that he seemeth to give some allowance to it: for re­proving the servant which suffered his talent lye idle, he affirmeth, that he should have delivered it to the bankers, that the Lord might have receaved his owne with increase. Whereby he doth speake of that gaine, as of a lawfull use of money: and withall seemeth to note, that if a man have no other lawfull trade to occupie his money in; it were better for him to let it out to use, then to let it lye idle by him. For Parables, especially of our Saviour Christ doe keepe a comelinesse, and seemelinesse of speech, fit for the persons, and the things, by whom, and of which they are spoken. This part of the Parable [Page 86] being the speech of a Master, which resembleth the Sonne of God himselfe, it is not like that our Saviour Christ would ascribe such a speech unto him, which re­presenteth his owne selfe, as should cary a note of an evill, and unhonest thing. Neither can it serve for an answere, that he compareth his comming to the sud­daine breaking of a thiefe into the house. For although theft be an unlawfull act, that wherein Christ his com­ming onely is compared, is not unlawfull, nor condemned.

Answer. Exod. 22.6.No? Is not a thieves privie breaking into a mans house in the night an act unlawfull? Then Moses did ill to make the killing of such a man a lawfull act, though he were taken but in breaking in, be­fore he had stolen any thing, or done any harme. Our Saviour likewise setteth forth the carefulnesse, and forecasting, which Christians should have in compassing eternall life,Luk. 16. to a servant, which to maintaine his bodily life deceived his Master in his accompts, and saved somewhat to maintaine his life; and the servant is commended for his wise­dome in it in holy Scripture: doth our Saviour therein give any allowance to servants deceiving of their masters in their accompts? and yet the ser­vants very deceiving of his master in his accompts, is that wherein the care of Christians is compared, to use the Defendors words. That which is set downe in the Parable is a thing of it selfe unlaw­full; but yet is often done by the men of the gene­ration of this world; and therein [...], the deco­rum, and comelinesse consisteth, and is observed: but that which is set forth, and represented by the [Page 87] Parable, is a thing lawfull, namely, the increase of spirituall graces in the Church to the glory of Christ, gotten by the profitable imployment of the giftes lent us of God. Thus much in defence of that answere. Yet that answere is not needfull to this argument: for that usurie, which those ban­kers used, was then a lawfull trade, and action: namely, for the Iewes to lend upon usurie to the Aliantes, and to receive usurie of them: being made lawfull in that case by Gods law, being yet then in force: and therefore lawfully practized by the Iewes upon the Aliantes at that time when our Saviour uttered this Parable: unlesse he can proue that those bankers tooke usurie of their bre­thren the Iewes; which they abhorre to doe at this day.

3 There is not any of the properties of true love recited 1. Cor. 13, contrarie to this usurie. Defendor. For even that which seemeth most to strike at it, Love seeketh not her owne, may dwell together with usurie which is here propounded: considering that I am bound to love my brother no otherwise than my selfe: and there­fore not to seeke him, and his, but that withall I have regard to me, and mine: both which are performed, when usurie is so handled, that both the lender, and the bor­ower have reasonable gaine, &c.

But usurie can never be so handled that the bor­rower may gaine by paying it:Answer. because whatsoe­ver he payeth for usurie, he payeth of his owne goods, and doth so much diminish his owne sub­stance, as before hath beene shewed. And there­fore [Page 88] this propertie of love doth strike usurie dead, because the Usurer seeketh not onely his owne, and assureth it too; which love doth not; but al­so seeketh, and taketh that which is none of his owne, but another mans: which appeareth most evidently by the position of this Defendor in the next wordes almost, where he saith, that in some case the lender may with a good conscience exact his Principall with increase, where the borrower hath gai­ned nothing. Here is the usurers conscience indeed. And howsoever some pretend that they looke but for part of the gaine; lucrum de lucro, not nummum de nummo as he said before: yet when it commeth to the point, the borrower shall finde this to be their conscience, that they will be sure to have their Principall, and lone too; gaine he, or gaine he not; yea though he lose by it too: as this De­fendor sheweth not obscurely in the next wordes. If the borrower be a man fallen in decay, the lender is bound in Christian duetie not onely not to exact his gaine so covenanted, but even to forgive the Princi­pall if his estate will beare it. Here be two excepti­ons concurring together, without which the len­der may exact his covenanted gaine, though the borrower loose by it. First, the borrower must be in decay; so that if he be not a decayed man, though he doe loose by using their money, he must pay the usurie. Secondly, the lenders state must beare it. And this I doubt he will hardly be perswa­ded, that his estate will beare the loosing of his lone, for it is his living, he cannot spare it. For [Page 89] there is no kind of men that make themselves more needy then the Usurers doe. So then in the win­ding up, the Defendor hath acquainted us with the scantling of the Usurers conscience: and the bor­rower may assure himselfe to finde it broader, and worse, pretend they what they will. But he miscal­leth it when he calles it a good conscience: for what conscience is it, that an occupier shall bee a rich mans servant, to occupie his stocke for him, while he lyeth idely at home, or followeth his pleasures: and by such crosses, as God layeth upon him, to loose by it; and yet not onely to make his stocke good, but also to yeeld him profit, and gaine for it? Or what conscience is it, that saving but the Principal, he shall pay all the Principall to the Usu­rer, and beare himselfe all the losse of his owne paines, industrie, and skill; as deere to him, and commonly a great deale dearer, than the money to the Usurer? Nay, what conscience is it, that a man borrowing money of another, and venturing the same together with his industrie, and labour, and time; and in the end by turning, and returning of it, gaine somewhat toward his maintenance: then the Usurer shall come in, and take away the best part of his gaine; never venturing any thing in the action? And yet all this is good conscience with Usurers; as this Defendor confesseth: and if he denied it, our lamentable experience testifieth it too apparantly. But all men know, that it is con­trary to naturall and common equitie, which re­quireth equalitie in the actions and dealings be­tweene [Page 90] man and man: not that the one have the ease and profit, and the other be at all the paine and perill; and the faithfull know, that it is against Gods will, who will not that one have ease, and other the burthen. 2. Cor. 8.3. Now in that he said here that usurie is not against the love of our neigh­bour; perhaps he meaneth (as some other object) that the Usurer doth, as he would be done unto: for, wanting money for his neede, he would gladly give ten in the hundred; and thankes too. But this is easily answered. First, that rule of our Saviour Christ is not generall, but restrainable to that will of man, which is ruled by nature, and Gods law: otherwise many absurdities would follow. The Magistrate being in the malefactors case would gladly be pardoned; Ergo, he must pardon the ma­lefactor. Some man could be content, that ano­ther should lye with his wife, whom he cares not for himselfe: Ergo, he may lye with another mans wife, whom he loveth better. Some desperate fel­low would be glad that another should kill him, as Saul was: Ergo, he may kill another. Secondly; the Usurers assumption is false, for he doth not will that absolutely, or freely; but of force, and con­straint; because without paying after that rate, he cannot have it: mary absolutely he would have it to serve his turne, and pay nothing, If Usurers be so impudent as to deny, that they had rather in their neede and necessitie have money lent them freely, than upon usurie, their owne practize doth bewray their will. I have had little conversment with them, [Page 91] or acquaintance with their doings, [...], as ^a he said) & yet I can name for neede halfe a dosen at the least of my knowledge (& si unum noris omnes noris: ken one ken all, as the Poet said) that needing money upon oc­casion, their owne being out at use, have borrowed of other, whom they thinke will take no usurie, at the least they will offer him none. And other I have knowne, and can prove, that not having in hand to pleasure a sure man, that would give good conside­ration; have made meanes to borrow the summe of a friend, for the time, and taken the usurie himselfe, without allowing, or offering one penny of it to him whose the Principal was: & one of these being in a sort demaunded it, tooke it in such dudgeon, that he was scarse good friends with the demander afterwards. Trie it who will, and he shall hardly find one of a thousand (that is Salomons oddes) that will pay usurie himselfe, though he lend never so much upon usurie, if there be any likely meanes for him to get it without.

Thus hast thou gentle reader, my good will, and indeuour to maintaine the truth of God set downe in his word, against the common sinne of usurie: the haynousnesse, and horriblenes whereof, other men have set forth at large: of whom among ma­ny excellent writers, I specially commend to thy reading, among the Philosophers, Plutarch, de non foenerando: among the ancient Fathers S. Basils ho­mily against Usurers: among latter Divines, Chem­nicius common place, de paupertate, c. 5. & 6: among [Page 92] the Civilians, our owne Doctor Wilsons discourse upon Usurie. I thought it enough for me here, to cleare the doctrine of our Church, from the cavils and sophistications of this Usurie-defendor, set forth in this Pamphlet; which I know doth much harme in our Church, and Common-wealth, in dazeling the eyes of many, and drawing them into this notorious breach of Gods law, which other­wise are Christianly minded, and have a care of their waies, and would be most loath for any gaine to runne into contempt of Gods law. And now they having here, as a briefe, and familiar, so I hope a sufficient answere, shewing their errors without blazing, or blemishing their names; I humbly be­seech the Lord to open the eyes both of the teach­ers, and Defendors of Usurie, and also of all the practizers of the same, that they may see their na­kednesse under their fig-leaves, and behold the foulenesse of their sinne, under these [...], and visardes, and waigh the dangerousnesse of their estate; that they may in time repent, and so avoid the Lords dreadfull judgements, which never can be avoyded with the sophisticall cavilles, and co­lourable gloses of mans wit.