CHAP. I. The Case Considered as to the Nature of MONY.

ARistotle defining Libera­lity, lib. 4. c. 1. to be a Vertue mo­derating the Love of Mony, and Prompting to spend, by the dictates of Reason. Un­der the Name of Mony, comprehends all things priz'd by Mony, as the standing Measure of their Worth. The present Discourse admits not of so much Lati­tude, but confines it solely, to the being the Measure of Valuation, and Price of [Page 2]Wares; so becoming the common In­strument of Sales and Purchases, the Soul of Traffick, and the Life of Markets.

As to its Origin not over Noble, I find it to have been the Child of Want, tho' since become the Parent of Abun­dance. When all other Creatures bear­ing different Coins, issued out of the Mint, if I may be so bold to say, of nothing: No Mony appear'd, which perchance may have been a Reason, why the Ser­pent brib'd our first Parents to Rebel­lion, not with Mony, but Ambition, and Pleasure.

All other Beings had God for their Creator, Mony, as to its Form, was the Creature of Man, and that only after his Fall, being multiplied upon Earth; Divisions of Property then, enter'd the World, from whence sprung a Necessity of Commerce; First, By Bartering one thing for another: In success of Time, Trade improving, a Current Measure, for the Price of Things, was judg'd re­quisit, and therefore settled by each Su­perior, in his Respective Dominion, and admitted by Communities. So that, as the first intercourse of Trade, was enter­tain'd [Page 3]by Exchange of one thing, for another, Mony became the vicar, as it were, of all things, And by consequence, was design'd to be of no less Profit. O­therwise the Exchange of other Com­modities for Mony, would have been unequal, in giving what might Produce Gain for Mony, which should afford None.

Such was the first Institution of Mo­ny, Rising by Degrees to that sway that Rome it self, Sallust. in Jug. with its grave stately Senat, would have been unsubdu'd, had a Purchaser, of sufficient Wealth, appear­ed before it. This moves no small won­der in me, that Mony vulgarly should pass for barren, and unfruitful, seeing it renders to its Owner, whatever Nature produces. For tho' of it self, or rather its matter yield nothing; Yet by the Arti­ficial Being it has from Man, it gives Profit at least equal to other Productions of Art, affording Rent, for the use of them. Nay brings in much greater en­crease, to the skilful Mannager.

The Mountebank in St. Austine, to raise expectation, took upon him to [Page 4]tell the People, De Trin. what was each ones wish and desire, Curiosity having gathered a Numerous gaping Au­ditory, he acquits himself of his Promise, saying; They would all buy cheap, and sell dear. This assuredly is the constant intent of such as expend, to encrease Mony in its Use. For he that buys cheap, and selis dear, in what he buys, ensures his Prin­cipal with Profit; so that to receive ad­vantage for Mony, without sinking the Principal, is but a sequel of its being the Price of Wares. On this account I guess, a Mony'd Man, is said to have a good Fund, from the Latin Fundus a Farm, or a good Stock, in token of its Fruit­fulness.

Of what Metal the first Mony was, or whether of any, I were yet to learn, had I hopes of a Master to Teach me. But the quality of the Matter, is indif­ferent to the character it bears. This gives it its worth, and Men may be­stow it upon Leather, Lead or other Materials in lieu of Gold, and Silver.

Mony methinks, has much of the na­ture of words, tho' not so frankly parted with. Both are Mans Tenants at Will, [Page 5]both order'd to Interchange and Com­munication, Words of thoughts, and Mony of things, neither to be falsified, but to be directed to the end, for which they were Fram'd, general Conveniency, and improvement. By a more or less Tendency, to this end, the good, or bad use, of either is determin'd. Now to decide whether the putting out of Mony at a modest Rate, drive at that end, or no, who can judge better, than the whole of a Nation.

But Usury intervenes Let him who advances so bold a Censure, Vouchsafe to mind, how in Number He's much out­voted, equall'd at least in Wisdom, and Probity by those, who teach and Practice it, as Lawful. These have open'd the law of Nature, Scripture, and Church, yet do not find it culpable; People find con­veniency in a ready Circulation, Mony otherwise would lie buried with dead Trade, the generality would be the worse, and no particular the better. Neither the nature of Mony then, nor its final cause the Publick good, do any ways op­pose the putting out of Mony at Use, but promote it, as much as the exposing other [Page 6]Goods, of which, Mony is the Substitute. This might suffice, to the quieting a well meaning Conscience, but a further dis­covery of the Nature of Usury is expected from me, to which now I proceed.

CHAP. II. The Original Notion of Ʋsury, with its NAMES.

REsolving lately upon the pefor­mance of what, almost a year since, I had engag'd my Promise to the Instan­ces of some Friends; it was my chance to fall in at the Stationers, with two short Treatises of Usury; the one writ­ten by an English Knight, Sir Robert Filmer, and Publish'd by Sir Roger Twis­den, with his Addition of Preface; the other of a Reverend French Clergyman, Monsieur Du Tertre; I found them as opposit in the Point, as if they would even in this, have maintain'd the Nati­onal Feud, had the one Known the other.

But Du Tertre's Rhetorick, takes its full Career against a Divine of his own Country, who it seems in a Letter, had joyn'd with our two Knights, in uphold­ing, that no Usury is Condemn'd by the Law of God, but such as exacts upon the Poor. Du Tertre on the contrary seems to hold forth, that all Interest taken for Mony put Out, without sinking the Principal is Usury. Neither hits the mark of Truth: the Knights fall short, and Du Tertre shoots over; to level my aim better

I begin from the Name of Usury de­riv'd from the Latin Ʋsura. And this in Property of speech imports Ʋse. So that Usury in strictness of Terms, implies no more, then the use of Mony, in it self unblameable. How then did so foul a Vice come by so fair a Name? You might as well enquire, why the Furies were call'd Eumenides. I know in Greek its called [...]. for the resemblance pay­ing Interest has, with the grief of Child­birth. In Hebrew its stiled Neshec [...] The Bite of a Dog, in Chaldaick Cabu­lia, an Ʋndoing, yet by the Jews, it was also nam'd Tarbith an Increase. Ad Probri [Page 8]effugium, (In cap. 23. Deut.) says; à Lapide uti à Latinis, honesto Nomine vocata est Ʋsura.

Wherefore my Inference is, That the gentle Name of Ʋsury, must cover sore Aggrievances, and heavy Extortions, as the Greek, the Hebrew, and Chaldaick, give us to understand; but these are not to be found in our Case; This therefore must be clear of Ʋsury; a Monsterde­testable, even to Heathens, a wonder it should be so familiarly entertain'd, and welcom'd among Christians, as is the Practice of Putting out Mony, a Token of its different Nature, from what those Names imply, which having premis'd; I shall now endeavour to Dive after its Origin; Reason, and History, discovers it to me, for such as follows.

Upon the first Imploying of Mony, of which probably he had most, who had the most to Sell, by Changing a Stock of Goods into a Stock of Coin, some En­grossing the greater Share, put others in Necessity of Borrowing; then Avarice in the Lenders, produc'd Oppressions, with other evil Arts, of unlawful Gain, for the Use of what was, or ought to [Page 9]have been Lent, according to the Law, of Natural Charity.

Such was the Proceeding, of the weal­thier Romans, with the Commonalty, as is to be seen in History, to the no small Disturbance of that only then Infant Commonwealth, let one Example suffice. The horrid sight of a stout old Soldier, scourg'd and gor'd with his own Blood for failure of Paying Interest, at the Time prefix'd, enrag'd the People to a furious Sedition. The like perhaps, may have passed, among the Jews; We have a kind of Precedent. 4 King. Chap. 4. Where the Widow to Elisha says: Ecce creditor venit ut collat duos filios ad serviendum sibi. Behold the Creditor is come, to take away my two Sons, to serve him. Exorbitant Rigour, for a Debt, which considering the Condition, of the Wi­dow, of a Poor Prophet, was not proba­bly very great.

Usages so cruel, could not but excite a horror of Usurers, even in such, as by the Law of Nature, govern'd themselves; Use-Mony therefore, was by the Romans in the 12 Tables stinted to 12 per Cent. then to 6, after to 3; and finally in the [Page 10]time of Gemutius Tribune, to remove all occasions of like Encroachments, a Prohibition of Use-Mony was Published, in favour of the People. No less was put in Execution by Agis, the Spartan, and not the Athenian General, as some have it, and ordering all the Ac­compt-Books of Usurers, to be burnt, in the Market-place. Agesilaus applaud­ing he had never seen a nobler Fire.

But the Prohibition among the Romans, soon grew out of Date, and tho' renew­ed by Caesar, to ingratiate himself with the Commonalty: yet putting out Mo­ny at Use, by Necessity was reviv'd, in his Successor's Times, growing to the extravagant Heighth, of Cent. per Cent. if you may believe Accursius, a Famous Civilian, Cited by Sir Roger Twisden in his Preface. As for my Part, I question not, but all Oppressions, Exactions, and Frauds, exercised in the putting out Mony, were included in Usury, which may have been the Cause, why in the Days of Old, witness Cato, Thieves were Condemn'd to the Double, Usu­rers to the Quadruple: To which Cu­stom, Peradventure, the Saying, (of [Page 11] Zacheus might relate (Luke 19.) Reddo quadruplum; you may see more in Covar­ruvias, lib. 3. Variarum, c. 1. n. 5. of the aversion even Heathens had to Usury.

This to have been the true, and sole Notion, of Usury as Prohibited, was Calvin's Opinion, with his Followers, amongst which our two Knights, allow­ing all Usury, not render'd sinful by op­pressing the Poor, but against Reason; It being no less Usury, to take beyond what is due from any, for the Use of Mony; since Persons of Fortune, tho' never so wealthy, have Right to what is just. I only infer, That a commodi­ous Rate, in the common Judgment of all Parties, can be no Usury; taking U­sury, as hitherto describ'd from its Ori­gin, and express'd by its Names. I come now, to its strict Definition.

CHAP. III. The Definition of ƲSƲRY.

SIr Robert Filmer sportsin his first Pa­ragraph, teazing Dr. Fenton, and in him some others of the Church of England, for their Definition of Ʋsury. I cannot excuse the Dr. of some Con­fuseness. For where a word may signify differently, to take away Equivocation, one should first distinguish, and then de­fine. This Method I shall observe with the antient Divines.

These make a three-fold Division of Usury. First it may be taken, for a Gain which is Usurious. 2dly, For a Bargain upon such Gain. 3dly, For the Intention, or Will of such a Bargain or Gain. The First is term'd Actual Ʋsury. The Second is Ʋsury express'd by Covenant. The Third is Ʋsury purely Mental. The two Lat­ter derive their Malice, from the First, as being the Object of both, all Promis­es or Intentions taking their Qualificati­on, [Page 13]from the Action, Promised or In­tended; Wherefore refixing the Word Covenant or Will, to the Definition of Actual Ʋsury, all three will be Defin'd Thus.

Ʋsury in the first Acceptance, is a Gain immediately for Lending, or for Mony Lent as Lent. Divines generally Agree in it. It's said immediately for Lending or as Lent. To exclude all other Titles of Lucre, as Gratitude, Friendship in the Borrower, or other Considerations, here­after to be specified. Gain therefore is the Genus; by the Rest, Ʋsury is differ­enced from other Acquisitions. Hence of course follow the two other Defini­tions, viz. The Second is a Covenant; the Third is a Will or Purpose of Gain pure­ly for Lending.

Sir Robert opposes thus: Gain undoubt­edly is a false Genus, for certainly, Ʋsury is a sin of Commission, and therefore an Action of Opperation. So that Lucre or Gain, which is only a Passion or Product of Lending, can­not be the Genus of it.

Answ. How far Sir Robert's Skill ex­ceeded in Law, I know not, His Logick certainly proves somewhat unfaithful to [Page 14]him. It's granted then that Ʋsury is a Sin of Commission, and an Action of O­peration, if it so please him. And so is Gain for Lending. Neither is Gain, for­mally, and strictly speaking, the imme­diate Product, of Lending, but of taking, and it includes Active and Passive; Active, naming the Person Gaining, Passive, by naming the Interest Gain'd; Gain then is an Acceptance of Interest, exclude the Acceptance, neither Lending, nor Mony, nor both together, will make up Gain. But not to be so scrupulous in Philosophy. Grant Gain to be a Pro­duct of Lending, it may be as well a Product of Selling, or Letting, why may not Gain then be drawn into a Genus, in respect of the several ways of Gaining, of which Gain by Lending is Usury?

He presses. Lending for Gain, is not Lending but Letting. Besides the Gain is not for the Bare Act of Lending, but Ʋsing the thing Lent, that Men give Ʋsury.

Answ. The instance being made in Dr. Fentons Words, If I may believe the Knight, brings him in guilty, not only of Contradiction, which Sir Robert urges upon him, but of a very [Page 15]gross Error in Morality. For if accord­ing to the Dr's Definition, Ʋsury is a Covenant of Lucre for Lending, and Lend­ing for Lucre; be Letting, a Covenant for Letting, by consequence is Usury. A Position unheard of.

To the Difficulty. Lending for Gain, is no Letting, but Lending; and Lending, and Letting essentially differ, as will ap­pear more hereafter. Lending admits of no Recompence, by way of Justice. Let­ting do's, I willingly yield to the Addi­tion, that Gain, is not for the bare act of Lending; but the Lending we speak of, includes both Act and thing as affected by the Act of Lending. For who Lends, and lends nothing? By Lending a thing, the Use of it is given, as it is not in Letting, and for what is given, to require Gain, is Usury.

Towards the full Intelligence of the Definition, it will not be amiss, to open the two-fold Sense of the Word Lend­ing, express'd in Latin by two Verbs Mutuare, and Commodare, to Lend things, not to be consum'd, in the Use, as a Horse, or House, with an Obligation, that the same individually be restored [Page 16]is what corresponds to the Latin Commo­dare, to lend things which are Spent, in the Use; as Corn, Wine, and Mony, with a tie of having as much restor'd, and of equal Worth, tho' not the very self same, is what implies the Latin Mutare.

Between these two Lendings, this di­versity intercedes. In the First; the Lend­er disposes only of the Use, of what he lends, not to be consum'd. In the Se­cond, Use being inseparable from Con­sumption, the Lender grants both Use and Consumption of the thing. The First grounds an Action to the thing Lnet. The Second grounds an Action to as much, and as good in the same kind. As to the First, What may be Lent, may be Lett, whe­ther Mony, or Goods, which perish in the Use may be Lett? shall be discuss'd. Plautus applies Locare, to let, Mony, and place ones Mony, is the Common Ex­pression.

But before I Proceed to examine this Point, I shall lay down some Truth, very matterial, to the main? Truth I think not to be shaken, as being rooted in the very Definition of Usury.

CHAP. IV. Positions drawn from the Definition of ƲSƲRY.

FIrst. Gain, upon any Account, but Lending, is no Ʋsury. The Proof. Ʋsury is a Gain, for a thing Lent as Lent. But Gain upon any account, but that of Lending, is no Gain for a Thing lent as lent, therefore no Ʋsury.

Secondly, Ʋsury is a Sin against the Law of Nature. Thus S. Thomas, with the rest of Divines. The Proof. A Lend­er by giving the Use of what he Lends, makes the said Use no more his own, but to exact Payment, for what's no more ones own, is an Injustice, visible by the Law of Nature; therefore to receive Payment of what's Lent, as Lent, in which Ʋsury consists is against the Law of Nature; and therefore, as Such, 'tis reduced to Stealth, forbidden in the Seventh Commandment.

Thirdly. Not only Extortion, or Ex­action upon the Poor, is Ʋsury. The Proof; Increase for Mony Lent, as Lent may be required of the Rich, and this is Usury; but in this no Opression of the Poor; therefore Usury consists not only in ex­acting upon the Poor, as our two Knights hold, and the Author of the Letter im­pugned by Du Tertre, seem to affirm.

Fourthly, Whatever is not reducible to Stealth, and against the Law of Nature, can be no Ʋsury. This is but a sequel of the second Assertion. The Proof. If all Usury he reducible to Stealth, and against the Law of Nature, nothing can be U­sury, which is not against the same Law, otherwise this Contradiction would en­sue, That all Usury is against the Law of Nature, and that some Usury is not; now to make nearer our Case.

Fifthly, A Joint-Agreement in a Body Politick, for the Putting out of Mony at Ʋse, cannot be against the Law of Nature. Proof. Such an Agreement would render it no more Stealth, or Injurious to any. Volenti non fit injuria. It would accord with the first Rule of Equity; Do as you would be done by; It cannot therefore oppose [Page 19]the Law of Nature, being so conform­able to it.

Conclusion. The said Agreement passed into Custom, or Law, for the taking Inter­est for Mony put out, makes it to be no Ʋ ­sury. The Proof. It makes it neither to be Stealth, nor against the Law of Na­ture, but what's not against the Law of Nature, or Stealth, is no Usury; there­fore it makes it no Usury.

If in rhe Proof of any of these Truths, Fallacy imposes upon me, I shall be grate­ful to the Discoverer. I am no stranger to the Vertue of Law, as to Temporal Concerns; it is not only Lawful, but Conscience, to submit ones private Judg­ment to the Publick. Law regulates all Contracts as to Meum and Tuum, in so much as Property or Domaine, by Divines, as well as Lawyers, is defin'd with de­ference to Law. Property, they say, Is a Right in a thing, extending its self to all Ʋses, and Dispositions of the said thing, not for­bidden by Law.

One may Object. It is not in the Pow­er of any Legislative Authority, to make Usury no Usury, or Stealth no more Stealth, and to take Interest for Mony [Page 20]Put out, is both Stealth, and Usury.

Answ. Though it be not within the Verge of Human Jurisdiction, to make Usury, no Usury, or Stealth, no more Stealth; yet it lies in the compass of that Power, and even of a Particular's Power, to prevent from being Usury, or Stealth, what otherwise would be so, not by altering the Law of God, and Nature, against Stealing and Usury, but by a voluntary Change, or Abatement of Property and Right. For Example. One bestows a Parcel of Ground to be a Com­mon, for the Poor. Had the Poor turn'd in their Goods, before its being made Common, they had been guilty of Tres­pass, and Stealth, which they incurr not, after the Right of Common granted them. The Case, if I mistake not, is ours: If a Person will freely give Five per Cent. and Security for the Principal, you may take it, as his Gift, standing good in Law, without Usury. This is what the Nation agrees to, including each Particular's Consent; Perhaps, in Recompense of the Good, accruing to the general Ease, and publick Profit; and Perchance, by way of Penalty, for [Page 21]Prodigals and Spendals; so that what excluding this general Consent and Ac­cord, might have been Usury in Vertue of the said Agreement, ceases to be such, For he that takes 5 per Cent. takes it as granted by Law and Custom, for Mony Put out; and not as Covenanted by himself, for Mony as Lent, Custom be­ing Previous to the Putting out of Mo­ny, and including a general Concur­rence, which makes the Interest allow'd spontaneous, and freely given.

Nor doth this Procedure intrench up­on any, but equally Provides for all, since as a Person putting out Mony, must Receive, so taking up, he pays as much. And it often happens, that the same Per­son, who has Mony out, is forc'd to take up, Suppose then he pay as much as he receives, Where is the Gain? This Discourse, not manag'd, as I find by others, I think fit to Promote by the following Enquiry.

CHAP. V. Whether the Law of the Land render the taking 5 per Cent. safe in Conscience?

EXception may be made against the Question, as grounded on a false Supposition, and that we have no Posi­tive Law for the Putting out Mony at Use, but that it is purely Permissive; That Law may even permit Usury, to avoid greater Evils, as Divines affirm, yet not Justifie it, as to Conscience.

Answ. That we have no Positive Sta­tute Law, which as Sir Robert Filmer, pag. 92. informs us, varies as to the Case, it matters not; for 'tis enough we have Law. But we have even Sta­tute-Law; for the Statutes against In­terest for Loan, may be understood of Interest for pure Lending; and not only may, but must be so interpreted, all Gain not purely for Lending, being no U­sury, [Page 23]as has been made out from its Definition. Much more since the Constant Practice, as the same Sir Robert tells us, of the Common Law of this Land, and also Chancery in Point of Equity, doth not only allow Interest, where there is a Contract for it, but also gives it where there is none▪ What better Interpreter of Statute-Law, than Common Law and Equity?

This Practice becomes Law, according to the Decision. L. De quibus 32. ff. de Legibus. Inveterata consuetudo, pro Lege non immerito Custoditur. An antient Cu­stom is deservedly held for Law, and Lege 35. de Legibus sed & ea quae longa con­suetudine approbata sunt, & per annos pluri­mos observata, velut tacita civium Conven­tio, non minus, quam ea quae scripta sunt servantur. But also those things, which are approved by long Custom, and have been observed for many Years, as a tacit Convention of the People, are no less to be observed than Written Laws. Quid enim interest L. 72. ff. de Legibus. An suffragiis Populus suam voluntatem declaret, an Rebus ipsis, & Factis. For what imports it, whether the People de­clare their Wills by Suffrages or Deeds?

True it is, Where the Legislative Power lodges not in the People alone, as it doth not with us, the Kings Tacit consent, is a requisit, and in our Case we have it more than Tacit, since the Courts which all act in his Name, adjudge Interest to be pay'd; Now if practise is not only the best Interpreter of written Law, but kept up for the space of some years, even prescribes against Law, and its self often becomes Law, who can except justly a­gainst the Question made, as being upon a false Supposal?

Neither can our Law be said, to be meerly Permissive, for a Permissive Law, grants no Action to an Usurer against the Borrower. But our Judges, Positive­ly uphold the Creditor, as to a Right he has by Law, to receive Interest; The Law then must allow of that Right, Judges being Oblig'd, to decide according to Law; Whence the Law appears to be Positive, and not purely Permissive; for were it meerly Permissive, it could give no Right, as is clear, to take Interest, but only wink at it, whereas our Law, grants Procuration Mony, to such, who makes it their Business, to find, and Put out [Page 25]Mony for others. And is not this Posi­tively to cooperate by the encouragement of Reward? The Law of the Nation then is clearly Positive, for the Putting out Mony at Use.

This Positive Law, I hold to be a plain Justification of the Practice, even as to Conscience; It being to be Presumed, in favour of the Law, that it would not Positively concur to what were unjust, were Usury; were against the Law of Na­ture and God. This Presumption ought to stand good, until such time as the ini­quity of the Law be Evidenc'd, which has not yet been done.

To questin its Justice, betrays an Ig­norance of what force Law is. It even overrules and debars Natural Right, of Particulars, as in the Cases of Prescripti­ons, Last Wills, and Minors, who tho' true Masters of their Estates according to the Apostles Cum sit Dominus omnium, are hindred by Law to dispose of them. What more Sacred and Binding than an Oath? Yet by the Law both of Castile, and Portugal, all Obligations, Contracts and Conventions, appertaining to the Tem­poral Court, if Sworn to, are made Void in [Page 26]Law, to the end Causes appertaining to the Temporal, in vertue of an Oath, may not devolve to the Spiritual Court, to the Prejudice and limitation of the Tem­poral Jurisdiction; so the Council of Trent, to say nothing of Clandestine Marriages, (Sess. 25. c. 16. de Reg.) Annuls even an Oath of Renounciation, made two Months before Profession. Evidence, of what force Law is, in Cases much harder than ours, in which, all Parties making up the Legislative Power agree, as to a certain Rate, for Mony to be Put out, as Pro­fitable to the Publick, and a fit means to prevent those Strifes and debates, which might arise from the Titles, Divines ge­nerally allow of, for the taking Interest, viz. Emergent Damage, Lucre ceasing, and Danger of Principal, which often vary, and are now more, now less.

Our Law then, stands upon good grounds, and makes good the ground its stands on; It being a Tenent amongst Di­vines, that Law takes away doubt, it being in Possesion of Command, Nay tho' proba­ble Reason, but not evident, appear a­gainst its uprightness, it still keeps its Post. (Suares de Legibus lib. 1.) Other­wise [Page 27]there being few Laws, against which some objection might not be star­ted, too much license in questioning them, would encourage to Non-Compliance

So that in Answer to the Question, my Opinion is, ever vailing to better Reason, that more Conscience, ought to be made of condemning the Putting out Mony, as Authoriz'd by Law, than of Practising it. For were its Lawfulness doubtful, and not in so high a degree Probable, if not Evident; as both Rea­son and Authority renders it, still Posses­sion stands for Law. Wherefore Divines hold it no wise requisit, That he that Puts out Mony, either know the grounds of the Law, or express the ways or Ti­tles justifying it. But it suffices, he intend to do what is Just, and no ways Offen­sive to God; As in Prudence he may judge to be what Law, and constant Practise stand for.

This is the Decision of Bartolus. L. Quis fugitivus §. apud Leonem de Aeadil. Edict. of Navarrus, Binsfield, and Tira­quellius, viz. That a Contract in Ʋse, with Learned Men, of known Integrity, though in Law somewhat dubious, obscure, and [Page 28]moving some apprehension of Ʋsury, is not to be judg'd Ʋsurious; What would they have said to the Case, manifestly upheld by Law and Practice? I close this Pa­ragraph with this Syllogism of S. Tho. quod l. 9. Art 15. which may serve as a Rule in this, and the like Cases. Illud quod ver­git in Commune Periculum, non est ab Eccle­sia sustinendum, sed Ecclesia sustinet, ergo non est poriculum Peccati Mortalis. That which inclines to a Common danger, is not to be born with by the Church, but the Church bears with it, therefore no danger of Mortal Sin. Therefore no Ʋ ­sury.

CHAP. VI. Whether Mony be Capable of being LETT.

THe Decision of this Question alone, might put an End to the present Controversy; for if Mony can be Lett as other Moveables, or Immoveables are, like Interest may be receiv'd, it being for Letting, and not for Lending.

That Mony is not capable of Letting, is commonly discoursed thus: Location or Letting, is a Contract by which a Person's Goods or Tenements are granted for Wages or Rent: So that what belongs to the Hirer, is the bare Use of what he pays for, the thing Lett still appertaining to him, who Letts it. But Mony is con­sum'd in the Use, How then can it be Lett to Use, which makes it away?

[Page 30] My Assertion is, That MONY may be LETT.

That it may be Lett to other uses, than Spending, as for a Show, tending to Preservation of Credit; and not to Cheat, as Sir Robert flurts at Catholich Divines, or to be a Pledge, is owned by St! Tho. 2da 2dae, and by the Schools in general, but denied by him, in order to Spending; By reason he sup­poses, that Property of things consum'd in the Use, is not distinct from the Use of them, so that who has the Use, has Property of them too. The Hirer then having the Use, has both; and therefore, is no more a Hirer, but a Proprietor, for the Time he has the Use, so that Paying Consideration for it, He'll Pay for what is his own, and the Lender receive Inte­rest for what belongs to the Borrower; and in this he places the Sin of Ʋsury.

What the Holy Doctor supposes of the indistinction of Property and Use, in things consumptible, since his time, has not only been question'd, but the op­posit goes for the more current among [Page 31]Divines, approv'd by no less then five Popes, witness Lessius (De Just. lib. 2. c. 3. Dub 8. n. 38.) in this. (the now more probable opinion.) I see no greater diffi­culty in letting Mony, than Letting a Horse, for the Hirer pays only for the Use, the Property still remaining to the Letter.

But the Property of what; Since Mony in the use Perishes, to him that lays it out?

Ans. That is to say, Mony is in the time 'tis us'd, and no longer, and for that time the Owner letts it.

But that's almost Momentary.

Ans. Be it never so short, 'tis preferable, or at least, equivalent to the longer use of a Horse, or House. This holds, speak­ing of the same Physical and Individual Mony, which in its uses Perishes not in it self, but to its Hirer. Yet Morally it still remains, in the right the Creditor has to as much, it remains in the Security for its Reimbursment, it may also remain in the effects of using it, redounding to the Hirers Profit. So that the Letter retains the Property, tho' not the Possession, of as much as the Hirer ows, and according to Law, may dispose of it by Gift or Sale.

To the confirming what has been said, upon due Reflection you'l discover, little or no difference, between the Letting Mo­ny or a Horse. A Horse is let to be re­stor'd the same, not absolutely, but con­ditionally, for if by the Hirers fault it dies, he's only oblig'd, to make amends, to its full Worth. And tho' the same be not return'd, yet it cannot be deny'd that it was Lett. The like happens in Putting out Mony; the Letter retains a Right either to the same, or as much; for the Nature and Intention of Hirage, is to have a Horse proper for the Turn; the being This, or that, is wholly in­different; by reason it is the Species, or Quality, which render things Valuable and Serviceable for Hirage, and not the individuality.

In like manner the Letter being insur­ed of having back a Horse, in all respects as good as his own, ought to content himself as well, as with the Right he has to his own. And what if one should Lett a Horse, Conditioning to have as good, if not his own back; I inquire, whether this would not be a true Letting? Certainly it would. Why may not one [Page 33]ther, in the same manner Put out Mony? For the Letter keeps a Right to have his Summ back, and one 20 l. in Moral esti­mation, is the same with another 20. So that the Summ remains still the Cre­ditor's to be restored, as a Horse to the Lettor.

This seems to have been acknowledg­ed by the Learned Cajetan, Verbo Ʋsura exterior §. Nov. fol. 578. Nota 2do quod­quia Lucrum Ʋsurarium est ex mutuo, ideo siquis non mutuat sed accommodat seu locat, aut Vendit Pecuniam cum pacto re­cipendi aliquid Plus, non est Ʋsure, sed lici­ti sunt hujusmodi contractusque dum modo Pacta fint moderata juxta qualitatem Tem­poris. Since Usurious Gain is for Lending, therefore if a Person doth not Lend, but Lett, or Sells Mony, Bargaining for somewhat more, it is no Usury, but such Contracts are lawful, so they be moderate, according to the quality of Times. Now our Law has struck up a Bargain for all, to the easing each Par­ticulars of that Trouble; It hath also Provided against all immoderate Gain, assigning a Set Interest now more, and now less, Proportion'd to the Condition [Page 34]of Times, to the exclusion of all Exa­ctions, and Extortions. and thus the Law renders the Putting out Mony, no Lending, and the Interest allow'd, no Usury.

Whereby the way, I take notice of a Construction in Common Law, which Sir Robert teaches us, of the Word Ex­tortion and Exaction. They are thus Di­stinguished, says He: Extortion is a Wrong, in taking more than is due. Exaction is the tak­ing of what is not due at all. This distinction, had it come from a School Divine, would scarce have escaped Sir Robert's Censure, he's so severe upon them; for my part, I should conceive, that the more that is due, is not due at all; He then who takes more than is due, in that more he takes, takes what's not due at all; and so Extortion in Substance, falls in with Exaction. The Digression may serve at least, for the Promiscuous use, with Sir Robert's leave, of the Words Extortion and Exaction whithout Cavil, upon a Nicety scarce worth the Laws Notice.

CHAP. VII. Of the Obligation of Lending.

ON what has been said in the Pre­ceding Chapter, an enquiry attends by Course, concerning the Obligation of Lending, it being Manifest, that where the Obligation of giving or lending Mo­ny ceases, it may be Lett. To Assigne the bounds of this Obligation.

First. I reduce Dealings relating to Exchange of Property, either to Dona­tion, or Sale, in Contracts reducible to Buying and Selling, a just Profit is al­low'd of, Acts appertaining to Dona­tion, as such admit of no Gain, by way of Justice; for such a Gain were Usury in taking Interest, for what Donation, has made no more ones Own.

Now Lending, is as sort of Giving, as Letting, is of Selling, and one, and the same thing, may be Lett or Lent, or Given; Giving makes the Thing no more the Do­nors, Lending makes a Thing, or at least, [Page 36]the use of a Thing, no more the Lender's. For the space of the time tis Lent, so that, to require Payment for what is given or Lent, as being another's, is Palpable In­justice, and Usury, as has already been declar'd. In Letting, one Sells the use of what he Letts.

I Secondly Reflect, that as no man is Oblig'd to Prejudice himself, so where Self-prejudice Intrudes not it self, the Law of Nature Obliges one Man to help a­nother, the Preservation of each, having a Reference to the Whole; and in this Case arises an Obligation, of Supplying our Neighbours.

Thirdly. In extreme Necessity, no place for Lending. The Necessitous hav­ing a Natural Right, to take what may relieve their present Want, all things in that occasion becoming Common, and to Refuse a Person, in extreme Necessity, is a sort of Theft, in retaining from him, what Necessity makes to be his own, and no less Folly, in pretending to Lend, what in extreme Necessity is more another's, then yours.

Fourthly. In Cases of great, tho' less urgent Necessity, than Extreme; the [Page 37]Wealthy are bound, under Mortal sin, to Succour the Poor, out of what they have Superfluous; in ordinary Necessities, they'r Oblig'd under Venial; Yet in those Cases, if Letting or Lending, will suffice their occasions, all Obligation of giving ceases: This is generally the Do­ctrine of Divines.

Hence this Conclusion follows. The Obligation of Lending is Conditional. Thus to be express'd. If a Person, will not by gi­ving, by Selling, or Letting; cannot relieve his poor Neighbour, by the Law of Nature, He's bound to Lend out of what He abounds with. And in that Case to exact Interest, is Usury unjustifiable, by any Law what­soever. The saying of St. Basil being most true, upon the Text of the 14 Psal. Qui Pecuniam suam non dedit ad Ʋsuram. He that hath not given his Mony to U­sury. Enim vero inhumanitas est maxima, Si is qui egestate premitur, mutuum ad Vitae Subsidium qui erat; Dans vero minime contentus, ex Miseri calamitate Provertus & opes excogitet. For certainly, says the Saint: It is the greatest inhumanity, whilst one Borrows a Subsidy for life, the Lender not content with the Principal, Devises In­comes, [Page 38]and Riches, out of the Calamity, of one in Misery. In this Passage you have, in what, according to the Sense of St. Basil, Ʋsury consist.

In other Cases, containing no Obliga­tion of Lending, Mony may be Lett, or Put out, as Law and Custom allows. Since the Obligation of Lending, gene­rally speaking, extends no farther, than to small Sums, sufficient to Relieve Pres­sing Necessity. Yet in case a Person free­ly Lends never so great a Sum, the Law cannot allow him Consideration for it; for This were Usury, as hath been more than once repeated, and Prov'd, forbid­den by the Law of Nature, and God; to which Inferior Laws, to be Laws, must Conform.

Having prov'd what Occurr'd unto me, not so expresly Treated of in Schools, towards the making out the Lawfulness of taking Interest, for Mony Put out; 'tis time I should produce, the Common Ti­tles, Assign'd by Divines, for the Justifica­tion of it.

CHAP. VIII. The Common Title assign'd by, DIVINES.

COnsidering the Nature of Things, which may be Lett, I find in none, so many, and so good Titles, for just Gain, as in the Letting of Mony. A House for Instance, stands Empty, of no Profit, or present use, to the Owner, apt to de­cay, for want of Inhabiting; yet it may be Lett, and Rent received for it. Upon what Score? For the living in it? But that kept it in Repair; And is it Just, the Inhabitant should pay for what he betters? It may be said, it is the Tenant's Conveniency, which deserves the Rent. The same with greater Reason, may it not be said of Mony?

But besides the Hirers Convenience, the inconveniencies which attend the Lettor, are yet more Considerable, by Reason, Mony being the Price of Things, Con­tingencies Daily, Produce occasions of [Page 40]Lucre, and the want of it, unforeseen Damage. The depriving oneself of the Profit, which probably might be made, and the Danger of undergoing Prejudices, are rateable, worth Recompence, and may be Bargain'd for, Reason dictating as Just, to provide for Self indemnity. For which Cause, as I suppose the Mony taken upon those Accounts, is named Interest; as behoving each one, to require it as Due.

One may interpose: These Titles have no Place in such as Hoard and Keep Mony idle in their Coffers.

A. An inconsiderate Objection. Whilst the Mony lies in Coffers, the Difficulty may be shut up with it. But every one hath Right to open his Coffers and to make Use of his Mony, to his best Advantage; and this Right by Putting it out, he makes it over to another. Besides in good Philo­sophy, Mony being a pure Medium, it is not coveted and lov'd for its own sake, but for the Service it may be put to; as ad­vantageous Purchases, Traffick, and the like, in order to Profit; and in Cases of Suits, Sicknesses, imprisonments, and other too frequent Accidents, in order to prevent the harm, the Want of Mo­ny [Page 41]in like Misfortunes, would Occasion; of these Services he that puts out Mony, deprives himself, and that Deprivation deserves to be consider'd. Upon this ground runs the Decision of S. Thomas, Opusc. de Ʋsuris, where treating of such as sell dearer, because upon Trust, af­firms 'tis Usury. Si tantum propter ex­pectationem solutionis fiat; That is, if it be for meer forbearance, but if it be to keep himself harmless, that it neither may be Usury nor Injustice. But grant that neither Cessation of Profit, nor E­mergent Damage, be in the Case.

Still the Hazard of Principal is Con­stant and great. What a multiplicity of false Dealers? Casualties frustrate the best Intentions, Securities of soundest Appearance, prove often Litigeous, producing much Cost, Trouble and Care; the exposing ones self to all this, Is it not estimable and worth its Value?

It may be said: All Lenders are ex­pos'd to these Inconveniencies, for which cause, they being essentially con­nex'd with Lending, either Use-Mony, up­on such Titles, as being for Lending is Usury; or those Titles, taking away the [Page 42]Nature of Lending, Usury will become a meer Sound, and not a Word, as signify­ing nothing.

Answ. It is granted that all Lenders, are more or less Subject to those Incon­veniencies, but 'tis deny'd that they are Essential to Lending. For Lending in­cludes no more than the Act of Lending, the Ʋse of what's Lent, and futurity of Repayment; these possibly may consist without loss of Gain, adventitious Da­mage, or Hazard of Principal, as a Lend­er presumes they will, and ventures it. So that he retains no Title for Interest; This an Usurer heeds not, but blinded by Avarice, even in that Case will have Profit, with the Principal. A lender then, tho' he be expos'd to Loss, it is because he will lend, be it for Motives of Charity, so commended in Holy Writ, and he is to expect his Interest from God; or be it out of Friendship, and he's repaid by his own Judgment, that it becomes him so to do. But it were a bad illution to say: he could not Bargain upon the score of those Dangers, and so doing, he had been no more a Lender, and therefore no Usurer.

The Inference which was added, that Usury will become a meer Sound, and not so much as a significant Term, ends in Air, and is of no Substance. Sir Ro­ger Twisden, and some others, make U­sury a pure Invention of Churchmen, to bring more Grist to their Mills, which were it true, they would not study to bring it to nothing, as the Objection Pretends. But Divines according to Duty, distin­guish no Usury from Usury. To exact Interest for what was freely Lent still remains Usury, independently of all Churchmen and Canons. To Lett where oblig'd to Lend, is Usury; taking above what Law allows, is Usury, at least Pre­sumptive; Continuation Mony, too much in Practice, if some new Consideration arise not, I hold to be Rank Usury, as receiv'd Purely for Lending; all other Titles, being satisfied with the Interest, Taxed by Law.

Some not over-vers'd in these Mat­ters, may require what I mean by Con­tinuation-Mony?

Answ. I mean too frequent a Practice of Usurers, their Custom is ever to have Mony at hand, to Supply such as [Page 44]shall Address unto them, First, They re­quire so much for Procuring the Mony, then they Prefix a Set Time, for which they Lett it. Finally, The Term expir'd, they Demand what they think fit, for Continuing it in the Borrower's Hands This Last I stile Continuation Mony, and hold to be plain Ʋsury.

Against these Titles from the Name of Ʋsury, Du Tertre discourses it after this Manner. A name is taken from the Nature of the Thing 'tis plac'd for, but the Name which is given to Ʋsury, is for taking Increase, for the Ʋse of Mony; therefore Ʋsury consists precise­ly in taking the said Interest. He pro­motes it thus: General Idea's imprinted in the Minds of all Men, cannot be false but Ʋsury in the Idea of Scripture, Fa­thers, Philosophers, imports Interest for the Ʋse of Mony, without Exception of emergent Damage, loss of Gain, or danger of Principle; To receive Inte­rest therefore for the Ʋse of Mony, even with those Exceptions, is Ʋsury.

Answ. I pass by the Major of his first Syllogism, tho' it be false, that Names be taken from the Nature of things, ex­cept [Page 45]the Names given by Adam; for the same thing in different Languages, is ex­press'd by different Names, made signi­ficant by the Will of Men. The Minor is deny'd; for one that buys Cheap, re­ceives Interest for the Ʋse of his Mony, and yet incurs no guilt of Ʋsury. The Consequence therefore is no better than the Premises.

To the Promotion of his Argument, the Major is granted, the Minor deny'd, and so is the Consequence; his Major I Reassume and Retort it. General Idea's, Pag. 114. Imprinted in the Minds of all Men, cannot be false; but it is an Idea drawn out in the Minds of all Men, by the Author of Nature, that Man may provide against emergent Damage, loss of Gain, and danger of Principal, that he may submit to the Agreement of his Nation, tending to the Common good, therefore its Contradictory must be false.

He instances Usury by all is under­stood, for Interest taken for the Use of Mony. Ʋsura quae scilicet pro usu Pecuniae accipitur. Usury by Reason 'tis taken for the Use of Mony. Says the Law.

Answ. In Law the word Ʋsura has both a good and bad Sense; Interest taken for the Use of Mony Lent, is Ʋsury; Interest for the Ʋse of Mony upon other Accounts, is no Ʋsury. And de Facto in his 7th Chap. He justifies several Cases, in which Interest is taken for the Ʋse of Mony. It was a piece of Oscitation in him, not to take Notice of Ʋsury, as ex­press'd in other Languages; the Greek, the Hebrew, and Chaldaick, import more than Pure Interest for the Ʋse of Mony, and could not be derived from the Latin Ʋsus.

But besides the aforesaid Titles;

This other way, Divines propose for the Justice of Putting out Mony. One may purchase a Pension, or Rent Charge affecting some Land; or Tenement, and it is stiled Real, or affecting only the Person, and 'tis nam'd Personal. The Contract is so to be drawn up, that by Repayment of the Principal, the Obligation of giving the Pension, be clear'd; or upon Releasing the Pension, the Principal restor'd, both Parties Co­venanting for Performance. As to the Real, 'tis judg'd by most Divines to be [Page 47]no ways Ʋsurious, by many, and of great Credit, as to the Personal, Reason be­ing much the same for both; so that ex­cluding all Ʋsurious intentions, both Contracts are held safe in conscience. Our Custom then may be said to involve a general Covenant of this Nature.

Whatever Statute therefore has been Enacted, against taking Interest for Loan, can only be in force, in Cases of unlawful Gain; and we are beholden to Divines, for finding out just ways of at­taining to a Profit, which could not be made by Ʋsury, without sin. This is in­genuously confess'd by Sir Robert Filmer, tho' no Friend to Catholick Divines. But Reason, is ever Reason, come it from who it will. His words are Pag. 124. It is no Sin to avoid a Statute by Lawful means: If the Contract of Bargain, and Sale be in it self Lawful, why should it be a Vice, and not a Vertue, thereby to avoid the Penalty of the Law, since Laws are properly made, to force Men to avoid them, by Lawful means?

CHAP. IX. Whether in some Case, it stand with Law, and Conscience, to take More than Five per. CENT.

THe ordinary Method of Putting out Mony, having been discharg'd of the Imputation of Ʋsury; a Motion may be made, whether in some Case, one may not improve his Mony, to more than the Current Interest? That one may do it, by way of Traffick is unquestionable. So that any mans of Gaining, more than Five per Cent. justifiable, by the same Reasons, and Law, as Traffick is, cannot but be Approv'd of, even if Putting out of Mony.

My Conclusion is that, in some Case, the Gain of more then Five per Cent. is Law­ful.

The Case is of a Triple Contract, taught by most and ablest Divines. The first is a Contract of Partnership. the se­cond [Page 49]of Insuring the Principal. The Third of Insuring the Interest, all three Maintain'd by Law, and Practis'd upon Exchanges, which certainly they would not be, were they against the Law of Na­ture and Usurious.

Suppose then, that all Succeeding ac­cording to Expectation, by the first Con­tract, each Partie's Gain in a Year, be Computed Thirty per Cent; Suppose by the second, a Partner Insure his Principal, by giving Ten per Cent. Suppose finally, that by a third, He seu for Ten more, the hopes he has of Gaining Twenty; for hope of Gain is Valuable, and matter of Purchase, as appears in the Buying the Cast Nett. Thus Acting, the said Partner, will have Right, to Ten per Cent. and the Conclusion is made good.

In Sevil, as I am inform'd, no less than Twelve per Cent. is taken and given by Merchants, and Du Tertre acknowledges, that Merchants of the Town-house, of Pa­ris, and Exchange of Lyons, pay each Term, which is Quarterly, two and a half, Am­mounting to Ten per Cent. in a Year. And questioning himself, what may be said to it? He coldly Answers que pour L. ordinaire [Page 50]cet Interest est Ʋsuraire. That for most part, such Interest is Usurious. So that of its own Nature, it is not, for were it, of its own Nature, Usurious, it would al­ways be so, and not only ordinarily. But to return.

Divines agree in the Lawfulness of the Triple Contract, so it be made, with di­stinct Persons, and not with a Partner. Some modern Rigorists, except against it when made with the same. Their Rea­son is, that the Nature of the Contract of Society, is to be such, that both Loss, and Profit, be equal to all Parties. L. 1. & Seq. π .& leg. 1. & Seq. c. pro socio. But the two latter Contracts excludes, partaking in the Loss, therefore not to be made with a Partner.

Answ. At least the Point is gained, of its Lawfulness in some Case, of making more than Five per Cent. To the difficul­ty of Contracting with the same Partner, Divines answer, That by the Law 'tis only evinc'd, that in Vertue of the sole Contract of Society, one cannot require from a Partner, to be insured, but that it is no ways against the improving the said Contract, by Addition of the two others.

I add, That the Person so contracting in Law, is not the same, but in this Case, as in others, is equivalent to three, per fictionem Juris, as the Civilians term it. In the First, he acts as a Partner, in the Second, as an Insurer of the Prnci­pal, in the Third, as a Purchaser of the Hope of Gain, which the Partner Sells him; so that in each he acts, as a several Person; and why may not all this be perform'd by a Partner, as well as ano­ther? Since Partnership, rather gives him the Preference, to the Gain in Pro­spect?

Against this, Du Tertre urges the Bull of Sixtus Quintus's Beginning. Detestabilis Avaritia, where he condemns the Con­tracts of Society, in which the loss of Principal remains not in him, who Puts out his Mony, but is to be restor'd him with Interest, in Case it Perish in the Partner's hands, without any Profit ac­cruing to him.

Answ. First in that Bull, such Con­tracts only are condemned, wherein by the sole Contract of Society, or Cove­nants by Constraint involved in it, the whole Danger of Principal, without a­ny Consideration, is cast upon a Fellow-Partner, [Page 52]without any Contract of Insur­ing, freely made, and agreed to by both Parties, which Jure Communi hold good. See Bouoc. Disp. 394. Puncto Ʋnico. n. 46. citing many as Molina, Salon, Nav. &c. and F. Tuccius, a Man of known Sacti­ty and Learning, in his Letter to Co­mitolus, witnesses plainly, that Sixtus Quintus, being ask'd concerning this Bull, answer'd; That he only forbid the Conventions usually joyn'd to the Con­tract of Partnership, which are com­monly condemn'd by Classical Authors, not such as they thought just; And this Tuccius had from the Cardinals, Toletus, and Sanctorius, who were Commissioned to draw up that Prohibition.

Secondly, The Bull is of no force, where not receiv'd, as the same Bonac observes, nor is it Accepted in Germany, France, Sicily, or Flanders. Less. lib. 2. de Just. cap. 23. Dub. 13. and England may be added. But whether receiv'd or no, 'tis decided by the Rota in Farinaeci­us Decis, 137, and 138. And Coccius a Famous Canonist, Dean of the Rota, in a Rotal Decis, An. 1602. concludes ex­presly, That the Bull comprehends only [Page 53]such Cases, as are Usurious Jure Com­muni; which Decision you'll find in Cherubinus, in the Compendium of the Ballarium, Scholio primo ad Bullam 45. Sixti Quinti.

By these Allegations it appears, with how small Consideration, and much want of Study, Du Tertre insists upon that Bull. It cannot but be very disagreea­ble to Men of Sense and Reading, to hear some wordy, shallow Preachers, and lesser Divines, condemn these com­mon Methods of Palliated Usury. Let the best of them uncloak it, by Proving that the Gain made in any of the ways hitherto Rehears'd, and Authoriz'd by the Publick Good; By Civilians, by Ca­nonists, and Divines is purely for Lend­ing, in which consists the Essence of U­sury; or that they are against the Law of Nature.

This is to be done to Evidence, for if it remains doubtful, Possession carries it for Custom-and Law. And were it not a Tyrannizing over Souls, to send them to Hell, more than God himself can do without Evidence for Usurers? Whole Nations for Practising of it, to Hell; [Page 54]Divines for Teaching it, to Hell; Lawyers to Hell, for Abetting it, Judges for upholding, to Hell. But Practising what? Teaching what? Abetting what? Upholding what? What only they deem'd an Injury to None; a Conveni­ency to All, suitable to the Law of Na­ture, and no wise offensive to the Al­mighty: And for this to Hell? If this be a Zeal! It is a Zeal no better than Injustice. What an embroilment of Con­sciences? What a confusion of Restitu­tions to be made by the now Living, for their Ancestors, and for the yet Living, by themselves, could the misapprehensi­on of a few Austere Fancies, without any I Say, not manifest, but even proba­bable Reason, ground an Obligation of believing them? Were I furnished with Monsieur Du Tertre's Oratory, How would it pleasure it self, with a breath­ing or two, upon so fair a Course? But enough, if not too much of what's un­necessary, and with the three following Enquiries, I close this first Part.

CHAP. X. Of the Bristol Bargain, Pawn Bro­cage, and Interest upon Interest.

FIrst Assertion. The Bristol-Bargain no Ʋsury. The Reason is, That the Gain made by it, is not for Lending, but a Real Purchase of an Annuity, to be paid for a set Number of Years. And tho' the Interest by the Seller's Industry, may come to more than Five or Six per Cent. this cannot make It Usury, other­wise the Profit made by Selling and Buy­ing, which in a Year, may exceed 20. would be Usury, to the destruction of Traffick.

Second Assertion. The Bristol Bargain, as represented, is both Just and Com­mendable.

The Bargain as proposed to me some 20 Years ago, is this; Five hundred Pounds then running at Six per Cent. was given for an Annuity of T [...] hundred [Page 56]Pounds to be Paid Yearly, the space of Seven Years. I then thought it safe, in Conscience, and still do, the more that I hear, 'tis warranted by Law; For it contains the requisit of Equality between the Price, and what's Bought, so that 'tis guilty of no Injustice; It is not purely for Lending, so that it is free from Usury. 'Tis true, the Purchaser by Putting out the hundred Pounds yearly Paid him in, upon the expiring of Seven Years, Reimburses his Capital, and comes to Gain 330 l. and somewhat more, but this, without the least Op­pression of the Seller, who, I suppose, takes the Principal, in order to make a Purchase, or the Paying a Debt; and not able to pay in the Whole at once, is eased by Paying in yearly, a Hundred, and the last Two hundred, paid in lieu of Interest, falls short by Ten of the Current Interest at Six per Cent. So that albeit the Purchaser may Gain a hundred and Twenty Pounds, above the Current Interest, the Seller of the Annuity, gives less by Ten, and by consequence the Bargain is commendable.

Third Assertion Pawn Brocage, not to be excus'd from Ʋsury.

By Pawn-Brocage. I understand not, the taking a Pawn for Security, of or­dinary Interest, without Power, of Alienating the said Pawn; But in the Assertion I mean the Practice, of taking more than the usual; and that Monthly, under forfeiture of the Pawn, in Case of Failure. This I take to be Ʋsury; my Reasons are.

First, It is expressly against Law, so that that the general Agreement, which justi­fies the Common way, of Putting out Mony, is against Pawn-Brocage.

Secondly, The overplus a Pawn-broker takes, other Titles being fully Recom­pense'd is presum'd to be taken purely for Lending.

Thirdly. 'Tis the pressing Necessity of the Poorer sort, which Pawn-brokers prey upon, Exacting no less, than Fifteen per Cent. and often more, to the great Oppression, of their Poor Brethren, which is the very Notion of Usury, deliver'd in Scripture.

Fourthly. Pawn-brokers are so Insured, of their Principal, by Pawn, that the [Page 58]Title of it Danger, and Trouble in Re­covering it, almost wholly Vanishes. But Emergent Damage, and Cessation of Lucre, still remain.

Answ. Grant they do, which Brokers themselves know best, yet the Danger of Principal, equaling both, and ceasing; either Pawn-brokers are bound to take, but half Interest, upon those Considera­tions, or others may taken the Double, for the Danger of the Prinicpal; But this would be Judg'd Extortion. Pawne-bro­cage therefore, can be no better.

In favour of Prawn-Brocage, Presidents are taken from the Mounts, as they are call'd of Piety, Erected in most Catholick Cities, and approv'd of by the See Apostolick, as receiving something more than Current Interest, towards the Maintenance of Mi­nisters and other requisits to that Pious Work.

Answ. The Disparity is great. First its no good Consequence, from Publick to Private Autority, for were it, whatever the Publick Acts, each Particular might Persume to do, to a Confusion of Order, and Justice. For example, vindicative Justice, as incumbent to the Publick, is [Page 59]a Vertue, yet to good President, for a private Man, to Revenge himself, This being reserv'd from him, as an Incompe­tent judge. It doth not follow then, that Pawn-brocage Practis'd by those Mounts, and Administred by the Publick, may be put in use, by every Particular, Avarice being as dangerous a Passion, and as blind as Revenge.

Secondly. Those Mounts, are to take no more than what's precisely Necessary to uphold them, for Relief of the Poor, without making the least Gain to them­selves. Pawn-brokers aim at raising For­tunes.

Thirdly, It ensues that Pawn-brokers, are an agrievance to the Poor; whereas those Mounts, are an ease from the Dou­ble, Treble, and more, which by Jews, and Jewish Brokers, would be Exacted of them; They were named Mounts from the Bulk of Mony Levied by the Prince, Magistrat, or Charitable Coutributions of Piety from the end they were Found­ed, the Relief of the Poor.

Fourthly. If after a year, which is the space given to redeem the Pawn, the Pawn be Sold, Satisfaction being made [Page 60]for Principal and Interest, the Surplus is to be restored to the Borrower. How well, this is perform'd, by Pawn­brokers, let their Conscience tell. How­ever, according to the Law of Nature, they ought not to be their own Dealers, and take advantage from the Misery of the Poor. For this Reason I apprehend Leo the 10th. with the Approbation of the Lateran Council, held by his appoint­ment, requires the Confirmation of the See Apostolick, to the Erecting the said Mounts. On what Authority then can Pawn-brokers rely, who not only Act without it, but consequently against it, and our National Laws? So that Reason and Authority duly considered, our As­sertion holds.

Fourth, Assertion Interest upon In­terest, as the words sound declares it self Ʋsury, they importing double Interest, for one and the same Principal, which is Exaction.

But the Case may be stated thus, a years Interest for example of Twenty Pound is due. Now in case of non Pay­ment, and the Creditor demand new In­terest, for what's unpay'd, from the time it was due?

Answ. If the Creditor at the due time, demands not his Interest, but voluntarily lets it run on, by way of for bearance, he can demand nothing, by reason the forbear­ance, as being of his own free Will, invests the Nature of a Gift, for which as such, nothing can be required, and so to take In­terest, for what still remains Interest, as never having been Converted, into a Principal, would be Usury. But suppose the Creditor, in due time call for his Interest, and by Agreement, with the Debtor, in place of receiving it, Converts it into a Principal. I see no Usury in it, for as he may joyn an other Sum to the former, so he may the Interest; and the Consideration to be had for it, cannot be said to be Interest, upon Interest, but up­on what was Interest, and is now become a Principal.

What if the Debtor being call'd upon, re­fuse to Pay what's due?

Answ. The Case is the same. For from the time 'tis Challeng'd, the Debtor is an unjust detainer of what would be a Principal, in the Creditor's hands, and capable of improving; now the loss of the said Improvement, is to be made Good.

Wherefore the Civil Law distin­guishes Usury of pure Gain, for Lending, and Usury of Compensation. The first is ever forbidden, the second is allow'd of (L. Socium. ff. pro socio.) Where if a Partner defers to Pay in due time, his fellow Partner, 'tis thus decided: Ʋsu­ras quoquae praestare debet, sed non quasi Ʋsu­ras, sed quod socii Interest, Moram eam ad­hibuisse. He must also PayƲsury, not as Ʋsury, but because it concerns a Partner, that he hsould not suffer by Delay, and L. Usuras Cod. de Usuris. Cogitur Emptor qui in Solutionis Mora est Ʋsuras insuper solvere Venditori. The Buyer who defers Payment, is to Pay over and above, Interest to the Seller.

Notwithstanding what has been said, if we have any Peculiar Law, against taking Interest for what was Interest; I Think it not safe in Conscience to require it. Law being a Rule of Property and consequently just Gain. And there may be just Reason for the Laws for bidding it. viz. to put a Stop to the Ruin of Fa­milies which certainly attends such, as either cannot, or neglect to Pay the first Interest. For the burden, of a new Payment coming upon them, will render them less able to Pay the Second.

Having performed, I hope as far as Necessary, the first Part of my Task, in clearing the Putting out Mony at Use, from the foul Scandal of Usury, by con­fronting it with the Law of Nature, as interpreted by Divines, and Lawyers, I conclude with an Answer to the Com­plaint of Du Tertre: That if Divers by taking up Mony, run themselves into Poverty; others by Putting out, for­feit their Principal, 'tis the fault of Parti­culars, and no want of Provision in the Law, which by moderating Interest, pro­vides for the First against Extortion; and allows to the Second, the Security they shall require. Casualties ought not to be Rules, otherwise on the same Ac­count, all Trades must Cease, since a Profession which is one Man's Making, is often the Undoing of another. One by taking up Mony clears his Estate, and prevents great Mischiefs; or Recruits his sinking Trade and Reputation; ano­ther Redoubles his Debts; the Fault is not in taking up the Mony, but in the Management.

CHAP. XI. ƲSƲRY Consider'd as to the Old TESTAMENT.

THe Reverence and Compliance due to God's Word in Holy Writ, takes Place of all Reasons and Authori­ties hitherto made use of; nor can any Human Law, or Custom, tho' seeming­ly tending to the Publick Welfare be of force, in opposition to Divine Command. For, as Tertullian solidly Determins; Ad exhibitionem operis Prior est Majestas Divinae Potestatis, Prior est Auctoritas im­perantis, quam utilitas servientis. The [Page 65]Majesty of Divine Power, the Com­manding Authority, precedes the Utili­ty of him that serves. It is but Ration­al therefore, that I should confer what has been said, with those Texts of Scri­pture, in which Usury is condemn'd.

To the Explaining how far they relate to our Case.

The first Passage is, Exod. 22. v. 25. Si pecuniam mutuam &c. If thou lendst Mo­ny to any of my people being poor, that dwel­leth with thee, thou shalt not urge them, as an Exactor, nor oppress them with Ʋsuries. The Second is Levit. cap. 25. v. 35. Si attenuatus, &c. If thy Brother be impover­ished and weak of hand, and thou receivest him as a Stranger, and sojourner, and he live with thee, take no Ʋsury. And Ver. 27. Thou shalt not give him thy Mony to Ʋ ­sury, and an overplus of the Fruits, thou shalt not exact of him. The third is Deut. c. 23. v. 19. Non faeneraberis Fratri tuo, &c. Thou shalt not lend to thy Brother Mo­ny to Ʋsury, nor Corn, nor any other thing, but to a Stranger. This is whatever Moises has left in his Law touching Usury.

The two first places are but an Expla­nation of the Law of Nature, both Conditional, and no absolute Com­mand. The Condition is, If thou Lend, which implies not so much as a Precept of Lending. But that's not all; the Con­dition requir'd to the guilt of Usury, as the Words lie, is not meerly of Lend­ing, but lending to the Poor, and weak of hand, viz. not able to work; From them to take more than was Lent, is Op­pression, Prohibited under the Notion, Thou shalt not oppress them.

To the Poor, little suffices for their present Wants, and to require sole Re­payment of them, is more, than to take Interest for greater Sums from the Suf­ficient. The Law therefore aims not the least at the Case we are in; for who puts out Mony to Poor and weak of hand? Few or None. And yet the Law condemns only such of inhuma­nity as do, by stiling this Ʋsury; Neshec, a Ravenous bite, or the bite of a Dog. A name perfectly misbecoming the Practice of Putting out Mony, Profitable to all Parties concern'd. And no wonder if Ʋsury, as express'd in Law, grounded [Page 67]so just a Detestation of it in holy Fathers, moving them to so frequent, and vehe­ment invectives against it. The Plainess of the Expression in the Law, has en­courag'd some to fix all Usury upon the Oppression of the Poor, and would in­cline me to do the same, did not Evi­dence of Reason, the Light and Law of Nature, extends its Notion yet farther, to a Gain made purely for Lending.

The third place in Deuteronomy, tho' somewhat varying in Words, contains no more than the former. This I make out; First, from the Title, Oc­casion, and scope of the Book. Se­condly, from the Text it self.

The Title of the Book given by the Rabbins, is Misne, a Reiteration of the Law, and by the Septuagint, Deuterono­mium, Signifying a Second Law; not as different from the former, Publish'd on Mount Sina; but as being a Repetition of it. See Theodoret. q. 1. in Deut. S. Austine. q. 49. S. Athanasius, In Prolo­go Galeato. in Synopsi. S. Je­rome words it thus; Deutero­nomium 2da Lex, & Evangelicae Legis pre­figuratio, nonne sic habet ea quae prima sunt, [Page 68]ut tamen nova sint omnia de Veteribus? Deuteronomy Prefiguring the Evangelical Law, hath it not the first things after such a manner, that of Old, they seem new? And this by Reason of the Dif­ferent and statelier Tone, Moises takes in this Book; When after 40 Years Travel, and glorious Atchievments, being upon his Departure for a better Life. He, to a new People, their Pro­genitors being deceased, makes a second Promulgation of the Law, but more Emphatically, to ratify the Covenant be­tween God and that People. By the Ti­tle therefore of the Book, it's Occasion and Intent, the Law written in it, in Substance, varies nothing from it self, given in the former.

This 2dly, is made out from the Text it self. For the Negative, Thou shalt not Lend to Ʋsury, is no more than equivalent to the Conditional. If thou Lend, thou shalt not take Ʋsury. And so 'tis coinci­dent with the former. Whether this Law were only Judicial, as the Knights will have it, proper to the Jews, or Mo­ral, extending it self to all Mankind; I examin not, but supposing it Moral, [Page 69]yet it nothing affects the Case of Putting out Mony, without Oppression, or Injury.

The Law thus expounded, affords us in few words, a general and true Con­struction to the many and vehement Ex­pressions of the Prophets against Ʋsury. For the Prophets, tho' inspir'd to be the Preachers, and Interpreters of the Law, yet they were no Givers of a new Law; Wherefore our Saviour, Mat. 22. puts a distinction between the Law and the Prophets; Usury therefore with them, must signify no more than what is written in the words of the Law. According to these, S. Basil glosses the 5th Verse of the 14th Psalm. And David in the 71 Ps-Verse 13. by the words, He shall spare the Poor and Needy, gives us the Sense of the following Vers. From Ʋsury and Ini­quity, he shall redeem their Souls; As Psal. 54. he joins Ʋsury with Guile.

Neither doth the Place in Ezek. c. 18. much Exagerated to little purpose by du Tertre, express any thing, not Mentioned in the Law, for that more or increase there mention'd, and in other Places, is the same specified in the Law, for Ʋsury, for­bidden under the Proper Name of Neshec. [Page 70]And the milder of Tarbith or Increase, given it by the Jews, as was Remark'd in the 2d. Chapter. An honest Increase, and upon just Considerations, is no where blamed.

Christ indeed, to whom all Power was given, in Heaven and Earth, abroga­ting the Ceremonial Law, and some Judicial of the Old Testament, might have Established, a Peculiar as to the present Cafe, But his Divine Wisdom, left things, as to that Point in the state they were; Declaring only when questi­oned, by a Sawcy Doctor, Matt. 22. That on Charity, the whole Law depended, and the Prophets. So that if the Putting out Mony, be no Aggrievance, by conse­quence not against Charity; As to Law, and Prophets it rests Good.

CHAP. XII. ƲSƲRY Consider'd, as to the New TESTAMENT.

THe single Text, making to the pre­sent Purpose, is Luke c. 6. v. 35. mu­tuum date nihil inde sperantes. Lend, hop­ing nothing thereby. This passage, however so much Insisted upon, gives little As­sistance to such as are Averse to the Put­ting out Mony at use. Our Saviour in that Chapter Intermixing many things of Counsel, with others of Precept; Be pleas'd to peruse it. This saying, Divines hold to be only of Counsel, and the Conjunction of Lending, with other Works, which are not of Precept, Is no feeble Confirmation of it. Verse 29. 'Tis said: Ʋnto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And verse 30. Give to every man that asketh. This lays no Obligation of Giving; no more doth the first of Lending.

Besides Reason dictates the Proposition [Page 72]to be capable of Restriction; For tho' a Lender, be bound to hope no Increase by Lending, he may hope for a Requital of Gratitude, Friendship, or a like return; This indeed as being of less Perfection, than to hope it from God, we are Coun­selled to abstain from, by hoping nothing from Man. Otherwise, why might not the unnam'd Contract, Do ut Des. I give to be given to, as well hold Good, being Authoris'd by Christ in the same Chapter if words be taken as Writen; Give; and it shall be given to you?

But no need of all this. This particle thereby Moderates and restrains the Ne­gative nothing; So that the words of Christ, as I Apprehend, contains both Counsel and Precept, Counsels in the Affarmitive part; Lend, out of the Case of Necessity; in Case of Necessity; Precept, and Prohibition in the Negative part, hop­ing nothing thereby, viz. for Lending.

Three other Places, in the New Testa­ment, present themselves. The first, Mat. 25. v. 27. in the Parable of the Talents. Thou oughtst therefore, says the Lord, to the Idle Servant, to have put my Mony to the Bankers, and then at my coming, I should [Page 73]have receiv'd mine own, with Ʋsury. The second is, Luke the 19. v. 23. Where the Noble Man, to the same Purpose utters himself. Wherefore then gav'st not thou my Mony into the Banks, that at my coming, I might have required mine own with Ʋsury?

My intent go's no farther than to shew by these Parables, How the putting out Mony at Use, was Customary among the Jews; a Parable being: The applica­tion of a well known thing, as the Putting out Mony was; to aless known, as the King­dom of Heaven. The Parable moreo­ver represents unto us a twofold Gain: the one of Trade, the other by Putting out Mony at Use. The omission of this, as obvious and of less Trouble, as also less Profit, is reproached to the idle Ser­vant; Usury in that place, being taken in a good Sense, as Interpreters observe. It having then been a Custom of the Jews, to put out Mony, had it been Usury so to do, expressly against Law; Christ so Zealous in the reform of other Disor­ders, had never passed so great an one in silence.

The third place, Matth. the 21th, and Jo. the 2. relating the Execution done by our Saviour upon the Bankers in the [Page 74] Temple, has scarce a shadow of Difficul­ty; that Comportment of his, having proceeded from the abhorrence not of Usury, but of the Profanation of the Temple, as appears from his Words; Make not the House of my Father, a House of Trading.

St. Paul in his first to the Corinthians, Chap. 6. in the Number of the excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, specifies Thieves and Avaricious, but makes no mention of the Putters out of Mony; the true Son of Usury being compre­hended in Theft and Avarice. For Ava­rice is the Parent of Extortion, Fraud, and other unlawful Dealings, and there­fore Extortioners are nam'd there. For such is the violence of Avarice, where it reigns, that it murders all thoughts of Charity, and breeds such a Passion for Lucre, that it catches at all Means, Just, or Unjust; and one of its proper Effects, questionless is Usury. A Disposition of this Nature, constitutes an habitual U­surer, its Execution, and Actual.

More than this is not to be cull'd out of Scripture, as to the true Conception of Usury, so frequently, and severely [Page 75]reprov'd by Holy Fathers; Out of whom Monsieur Du Tertre has handed the choicest places to me. Wherefore, my next work is, to give them their true Construction, that by Mistake, they may not work upon the Weaker.

CHAP. XIII. CITATIONS of the Latin Fa­thers.

AS beyond all Doubt, Holy Fathers were given to the Church for In­terpreters of the Divine Law, and true Sense of Scripture; so the Practice of [Page 76]the Church interprets them; and is to be their final Rule, and Judge, as well as ours. Some things are spoken by them Orator like, others Dogmatically. Di­ctates of the first Nature, are no ways Obligatory; Sayings of the Second are yet no farther binding than the Church accepts of them. I say not this, that I meet with any one Quotation, that con­demns the Common Practice, but only to give a true Account, how far their Authority reaches. They generally run down Usury, viz. Either taking Interest for Lending, or Extortion. And he that puts out his Mony at Reasonable Rate, cannot be said to receive meerly for Lending, or to Extort.

A regard also is to be had, to the Times and Circumstances, in which they Writ; Mony then Running at Cent. per Cent. and Heathenish Customs, of Exacting upon the Poor, still being in Vogue. These Reasons might influence their Zeal. and give Fire to their Vehement expressions; and tho' chief respect; is to be had, to the Primitive Doctors of the Church, yet we are not to lose the Esteem, due to those who according to the Apostle, God has [Page 77]plac'd in his Church, from time to time, to Succeed them; nor ought they to be Slighted, with the Lessening Character, of a few Casuists, as du Tertre makes bold to do. The Casuists, are Devines, neither a few, but the greatest Part, and the Learnedst, on which we ground our selves, as to the Case.

The Holy Father, most quoted, is St. Amb. in his Book upon Tobias. The Title of his 14. Chap. is de Ʋsura Divina Lege Prohibita, Of Ʋsury forbidden by the Divine Law. There he thus defines. Quod cun­que sorti accedit, Ʋsura est, quod velis ei no­men imponas. Whatever accrues to the Principal, is Usury, call it as you Please; and in the following Chapter Expounding that Passage of Deut. Non Feneraberis Fra­tri tuo sed Alieno. Thou shalt not Lend Mony for Ʋsury to thy Brother, but to the Stranger, Quis erat, says he; Tunc Aliene­gena, nisi Amalec, nisi Amorrhaeus, nisi Hostis? Ibi Ʋsuram exige, cui merito nocere desideras, cui jure inferuntur Arma huic Legitime in­dicantur Ʋsura-.-Ab hoc Ʋsuram exige, quem non sit Crimen occidere.—Ʋbi Jus belli, ibi etiam Jus Ʋsurae. Who was then the Stranger, but Amalec, but the Amorrhaeans, [Page 78]but an Enemy? From him who justly thou de­sires to Harm, Exact Ʋsury—Take Ʋsury from him, who it is not a Crime to Kill— Where there is Right to War, There, then is Right to Ʋsury. So far St Amb. after his Eloquent Manner, in a Transport of Zeal; For these words of his, contain much Matter of Dispute; As for example; He re­strains the Word Stranger, to sole Ene­mies, which Argues not so strict a Dis­course. Nor do any as I know hold it Lawful to take Usury from an Enemy. But to Examine each Particular of the Passage.

The First, whatever accrues to the Principal is Usury. Must either be un­derstood with St. Basil, of an Increase, Extorted upon the Poor, or as Divines commonly do of an Increase, meerly for Lending. Wherefore Lancelot, by du Ter­tre, so Highly Commended. Lib. 4. of his Institutions. Titulo Sept. de Ʋsuris. Thus defines Usury. Ʋsura est quidquid ultra sortem mutuatam percipitur. What­ever is receiv'd above the Principal Lent, is Usury. Now that this must be the Mean­ing of the Saint. I Prove it from the Title of the Chap. which is of Ʋsury, &c. But no [Page 79] Ʋsury but in one of those two ways; there­fore the Increase the Saint speaks of, must be in one of the said ways. If the Place be not thus Expounded, it fails of Truth. A free acknowledgement, made by the Borrowers, accrue to the Principal, is it U­fury? And tho' in the Banks of Rome, it be not in the power of him that Puts out his Mony, to call it in at Pleasure; yet it lying safe, and the Principal remaining still his, The Interest accrues to the Prin­cipal; and will any one Presume to con­demn the said Mounts of Usury?

The second Place; may be retorted a­gainst the Alledger. The Usury S. Amb. speaks of, is Parallel'd to Killing, conse­quently to the greatest Blow, to be given by an Enemy; such may be heavy Extortion, and Oppression of the Poor, or a Trea­cherous Exacting Interest, for what was Lent; but nothing of this, in our Case, Sustained by mutual Conveniency. Sup­pose the Amalecites or Amorrhaeans, had made some Consttiution amongst them, of giv­ing Five or Six per Cent. for the Benefit of Trade, and ease of the Indebted, who otherwise, would be exposed to much greater Damages, and for other ends tend­ing [Page 80]to the Publick Good; would the Jews, by placing Moneys in their Hands, have made a Bloody War upon them? Would they have put them to Slaughter? Would they in the least have injured them? Surely no. It is violent then, to inforce those sayings upon the Case be­fore us.

To S. Amb. Succeeds S. Jerom, in his Commentaries on the 18 Chap. of Eze­kiel, where having declared, That Usury is not only for Mony, but also for other Consumptible Goods; he exemplifies it in Seed time, in Corn; in which occasion, one lends ten Bushels, to receive 15 at Harvest, and this by way of Charity. The Saint thus insults their Usurious Hypocrisy. Respondeat enim nobis breviter, Faenerator Misericors; utrum habenti dederit, an non habenti? Si habenti utique dare non deberat, sed dedit quasi non habenti, ergo quare plus exigit, quasi ab habente? Let the Merciful Ʋsurer, answer us in short, whether he gave to one, that has, or to one that has not? If to one that has, he ought not to have given it, if to him that has not, Why exacts he more from him, as from one that has?

St. Jerom's Ironical Challenge, given to an Usurer, reflects not upon the Putting out Mony, as is clear. By one that has, and one that has not, he means Rich and Poor; as to Rich, no Occasion for Lend­ing, as to Poor, they ought not to be treated as Rich; This is the whole strength of the Dilemma, which seems rather to allow taking Interest of the Rich, and not of the Poor; for could Interest be receiv'd from neither; How would that Instance hold good? Or why exacts he more from him, that has not, as if he were one that has? It also deserves reflection; that the more exacted of the Poor, was no less than 50 per. Cent. or by such as thought themselves most Just, as the Saint ex­presses it, 25. And this for Corn, which could have render'd its owner, who had it to spare, no more, than the Market Price; whereas Mony, is highly improv­able. Let some of our Country Usurers therefore, answer the 2d Part. With what Conscience, do you exact the more, for what you lend, and that only from Seed-Time, to Harvest of 50 or 25 per. Cent. from the Poor?

Again by the word Giving, he may mean Lending; This being a sort of Gift, and then St. Jerom instances well, he ought not to have Lent, to one that has' since the obligation of Lending, is grounded upon our Neighbour's Neces­sity. And what doth this concern us? For tho' there be no Occasion of Lend­ing, there may be just Cause of Put­ting out Mony, and placing it with such as think it but Reasonable to pay the Lawful Interest.

The 3d is S. Austine, upon the 36 Ps. Conc. 3. He writes in this Manner. Si fae­eneraveris homini id est Mutuam Pecuniam dederis, &c. If you lend Mony to a Man, from whom you hope to receive Increase, or more, than you gave him, be it Corn, Oil, &c. You are an Ʋsurer, to be disapprov'd, and not Prais'd: Mark what the Usurer does, He will give less, to receive more.

A. S. Austine plainly tell us, what Usury is, and only confirms the Common Definition; Usury, says he, is a Will of giving less to receive more; And that you may not mistake, what he means by Giv­ing, it is Lending, as the Preceding words make out. If you Lend a Man, By S. Austin [Page 83]then is defin'd an Usurer, who for Lending will have more, than he lent. And he who gainsays this, knows not the nature of Usury.

These are the three Doctors, Mon­sieur Du Tertre, thought fit to select from among the Latins, out of which a Place or two more, I have omitted for brevity sake, as having their Answer in what has been said.

CHAP. XIV. AƲTHO RITIES of Greek Fathers, Answer'd.

TO the three Latins, are join'd three of the Greek Church, by Du Tertre, concluding in S. Austin's words; Quomo­do Verba Scripturae intellexerunt Sancti, sic utique intelligenda sunt. Words of Scripture are to be understood, as the Saints under­stood them. By Saints, S. Austine, with­out doubt means the unanimous consent of Fathers, and not a few dubious Sentences.

I begin with the Author of the imper­fect Work, Hom. 38. upon S. Matthew; Tho' cited last, as Arguing closer than the other Two. To reflect upon the Author's Guilt of Heresie in some Pas­sages, I take to be little to the Pur­pose; but I weigh his Reason. He en­larges himself, upon the Difference be­tween Letting of Lands, and Letting of Mony. First. Quoniam Pecunia, non ad aliquem Ʋsum disposita est, &c. Mony is not order'd to any Use, as a Field, but only to be the Price of Things, in Buying and Selling. Secondly, He that Hires a Piece of Land, or House, has the Fruits of the Land, or Conveniency of Lodging; so that it is an Exchange of Gain for Gain. But if you retain your Mony, it fruits you nothing. Thirdly, Lands or Houses decay with Use, Mony when 'tis Lent neither Diminishes, nor Deteriorates.

Answ. Authority grounded upon Rea­son, go's no farther than the Ground it builds upon; Wherefore, answering Reason, I satisfy Authority. To the first 'tis granted, That the Use of Mony, and a Field, much differ. Mony of it [Page 85]self produces nothing; a Field of its own Nature is fruitful; The Use of Mo­ny, is to be the Price of things; the Use of a Field is not; yet in this they agree; That as a Field gives Grass, or Corn by Tillage, so Mony employed in Buying, or Selling, yields Profit, and of the Right to this, he that Puts out Mony deprives himself. I further wish the Opposers would acquaint me with the Products of a House, and other Artifici­al things, or even of Mony, when Lett out only for Show, or to be a Pledge; as on those Accounts, S. Tho. allows it may be 2da. 2dae. Qu. 78.

To the 2d. He that Hires Mony, has the Profit, or at least the Right to Profit by it; and so makes an Exchange of Gain for Gain. But Mony by Keeping, affords nothing.

What then ? But it would by Spending. And before Spending, doth it not enable the Owner to profit by it, as Occasion serves? And is this Nothing? Hath it not more of Hardship, that another should have the whole Gain by Laying out ones Mony, than the Onwner should take part with him?

To the 3d. That House and Land decay [Page 86]with use 'tis answer'd, they decay more without it; and tho' Mony as to it self, do not deteriorate; yet a Principal may pe­rish wholly to the Creditor, but Land can­not; Besides, he that Puts out his Mony, is at least depriv'd of its Use, in order to Gain, which is equivalent to a Decay, in House, or Land; And what doth a Horse, or House yield by Keeping unlett?

Greg. of Nyssa, in his 4th Hom. upon Ecclesiasticus, Elegantly delivers himself in these Terms: Faenus qui aliud Latroci­nium & Parricidium nominaverit, &c. Who­ever shall stile Ʋsury a second Robbery, or Murthering of a Parent, will say no more than becomes. For what matters it whether you break a House as a Thief, to seize ano­ther's Goods; or Assassinate a Man upon the Road to take what he has; or whether by Necessity of Paying Ʋse-Mony, you get what appertains not to you? God said to the living Creatures, be fruitful and multiply. But the Brood of Gold, of what Matrimo­ny do's it come? What Mother gave it Con­ception? &c.

Answ. Who sees not, how enormous the Usury must be, against which, S. Gre­gory declares, with this Eloquent Flourish? [Page 87]But if no Murther of Parent, no Rob­bery, no Assassination, be incident to the Putting out of Mony, this cannot be the Usury, at which he aims. A just Con­tract is the Matrimony, from which the Brood of lawful Interest comes; publick Conveniency is its first Parent; whereas the Usury against which he inveighs, was, (they are his Words;) Conceiv'd by Avarice, brought forth by Iniquity, Cruelty being the Midwife.

S. Chrysostom. Hom. 57. upon S. Matth. appears much of the same mind; Quid irrationabilius quam ut sine Agro, Pluvia, & Aratro seminare contendas? &c. What more irrational, than to Sow without Land, Rain, or Plow? I give, and grant, says the Usurer, Not to have and to Hold, but to have more Return'd.

Answ. Granting it were a madness to Plow without Land, Rain, or Plow, as it were, to Sow in the Air; yet I am of Opininon, that neither the Saint, nor any other would deny; there are other ways of Just Gain, without Land, Rain, or Tillage; whereof one is, the Putting out of Mony at Use. In the words of the Usurer: I give and grant, not to have and [Page 88]hold, but to have more Restor'd; Usury is both expos'd, and condemn'd; for in the Terms Giving and Granting, is expressed an Usurer's Lending, in order to Receive more thereby; and that more, was at the immoderate heighth of that Age.

I close this Chapter, Entreating only the Reader, to consider, whether these, and like Allegations, are not equally a­gainst all Princes, Exchequers, and Banks in Christendom, beginning from that at Rome, which ought to be a President as to Conscience? For tho' such as place their Mony in the Bank of Rome, to take away even the Shadow of meer Lend­ing, cannot call it in at Pleasure, yet they may Sell the Pension, or Interest they duly Receive; and so Reimburse them­selves of their Principal, and there ne­ver being scarcity of Buyers, it comes to be equivalent to the Power of Calling it in; Which being so, I hope Du Tertre, and his Adherents, will grant Rome to be no less Vers'd in Scripture, and the obli­ging Authority of Holy Fathers, than themselves; and yet not so Presumptu­ous, as to run, and Act in opposition to the said Authority. It remains now to [Page 89]discuss, whether it succeeds better with him, in his Pretensions to Popes and Councils?

CHAP. XV. Of the AƲTHORITIES of Councils.

THE Quotations taken out of the Decretals, and some Synods, make me suspect, that either Du Tertre, un­derstood them not, or mistook the Que­stion. The cause of this my Apprehen­sion will appear, in the Examination of what he Produces.

I say not, says he, That the Council of Nice. Chap. 17. Forbad Ʋsury to the Clergy, each one Interpreting the Place, in his own Sense; But the Council of Carthage hath Prohibited the Clergy to Exact Inte­rest of any Kind: c. 16. Nullus Clerico­rum amplius recipiat, quam cuiquam commo­daverit, Let none of the Clergy receive from any one more than he Lent.

Answ. Much to the Purpose; to re­ceive more than is Lent, and on the Score of Lending is Usury, so that the Difinition of Usury, has the Councils Liking. Yet what if the Council, should have forbid the Clergy to Putt out Mony at Use, as improper to their Calling; It nothing concerns the Layety nor questions its Justice; but now it is in Practice with Clergy, as well as Layety. Wherefore Doctor Gage's President of the English College at Doway, being De­manded by a Person of Quality, of the Opinion of his Community, as to the Case, with great Ingenuity Answer'd, they were Divided, for such as had Mony to put out, thought it Lawful, such as had none were against it.

What he brings out of an Epist. of St. Leo, to the Bishops of Campania, is much of the same Strain, the Pope orders punish­ment for those, who Practice Ʋsury, and Strive to grow Rich by it. Qui usurariam ex­ercent Pecuniam & faenore volunt ditescere.

Ans. Had Du Tertre prov'd the Com­mon Practice Usury; This and the Rest, might have been Serviceable to him. But to suppose it to be Usury without Proof, [Page 91]and then to Condemn it as Prov'd is not fair, but a sort of Juggle, to amuse the unlearned with Quotations,

Gratian is Cited in the 2d. Part of his Decretals, Cause the 14. q. the 3. c. 4. who out of an Ancient Council of Agde, held the 6th Century, An. 506 Defines U­sury, Ʋsura est, &c. Ʋsury is when more is Required than was given; as for example, if you give 10s. and require more Back, or a Bushet of Corn, and Exact somewhat a­bove.

Ansu. Giving is taken there for Lend­ing, and that to the Poor, as may be gather'd from the Smallness of the Summs; Besides in Reality, in our Case, one receives no more, than he gives; for a yearly Improvement, being worth at least Five per Cent. of this he's made Master, who receives the Principal. So that even in Compliance with the Decision as it lies, no more is taken than given.

This is all, the Author could Pick, out of Ancient Councils, against which, he Apprehending length of Custom had Prescrib'd, he passes to later De­cisions. A Transition which betrays, either Shallowness, or Prevarication, as [Page 92]to the Cause he undertakes, since Custom is the best Interpreter of Law. Lib. 37. ff. de Legibus Optima Legum Interpres est Consuetudo. Now Usury being against the Law of God, no Custom can pre­scribe against the said Law, but it has Prescrib'd in favour of the Common Pra­ctice, as he Apprehends; Therefore the Common Practice can be no Usury, and if Custom of time Pass'd, could Prescribe against the Ancient, why may not pre­sent Custom Prescribe against what he Quotes of Fresher Date? For that both Clergy and Regulars, take up, and put out Mony as Occasion requires, 'tis too well Known now a days, to be denied.

Little or nothing therefore to his Pur­pose, being to be gathered out of General Councils, DuTertre passes to Provincial Sy­nods In that of Milan under Pius Quartus, it is forbid to take Interest, upon any Ac­count whatsoever Yearly, for Mony of­fer'd to be Paid in. In that of Mecklin in the time of Pius Quintut. 1566. Du Tertre seems to Triumph, tho' of no General Obliging Authority. Its Decree is, Syno­dus Statuit & ordinat ne quis Tutor, &c. The Synod Decrees and Ordains that no [Page 93]Trustee or Guardian, under Pretence of In­creasing the Patrimony of their Pupils, Lend the said Pupills Mony to receive Yearly, a certain Lucre above the Principal, with Power of calling in the said Principal, De­claring such Bargain to be Ʋsurious and that against such Lenders as Ʋsurers, to be Pro­ceeded to Punishment, as Prescribed by Canons.

Answ. The Synod of Milan Deter­mining only as far as Cited by Du Tertre, in the Case Mony be offer'd to be Paid in, rather Allows, than Disallows Interest for it, when not offer'd to be Pay'd in, or when it is Put out, according to the Rule, Exceptio firmat Regulum in alijs; but the Synod in express Terms agrees unto it, when Granted by Law, closing its Prohibition, Nisi quatenus jure nominatim permittatur. In so much that Bonac, tho' a Milanese thought it not worth his while, to take notice, of what no ways opposes his, and our Opinion. Bail therefore the Learned compiler of Councils Tom. 2do, Pag. 492. judges the Council to be no ways in force against the Common Tenents; for were it, he Rightly Instances, Cur ergo Bonacina, & [Page 94]alij Scriptores hujus Provencia, Plures exhu­jasmodi Casibus licitos tutati sunt sine cujus­qam offensione? Why then has Bonacina, and other Writers of this Province, de­fended many of the Cases Mentioned in the Council, without offence to any?

The Synod of Mecklin, in the sense D [...] Tertre wrings it to, is not excepted of, in the very Province, which only it could Oblige, as appears from constant Practice. For my Part, I Guess the Decree strikes, at deceitful Trustees, and Guardians, the word under Pretext Denotes as much. They commit Usury, in taking Mony for Lending; express'd twice in the Decree, they Cloak it under a Specious Pretext, of the Orphan's Prosit, and it is no won­der if such Practices be Condemn'd by the Synod. Setting aside this or a like Gloss; The Synod would pass for Extravagantly Uncharitable, in forcing Orphans, to live from their Infancy, upon the Principal, to the Beggaring them, when come to Age; Wherefore even our Statute Laws, tho' Judg'd by some Dubious in the Point of Loan, allows the Putting out Orphan's Mony. On the other Part with what Conscience can a Guardian expose his Pu­pil's [Page 95]Mony, without securing the Prin­cipal, and Power of calling it in?

Trustees therefore may put out their Pupil's Stock, so it be effectually for their Profit, as it is done without reclaim ei­ther of Church, or Magistrate, taking always such Methods, as may exclude not only the Intention, but all appearance of Usury. Hence Lessius, not long as­ter this Synod, writing in that same Diocess makes no mention of this De­cree, but justifies the way of Putting out Orphan's Mony; and tho', he thinks fit it should be forbid for the future. I conceive, he added that Clause, for fear Ignorance might be an Occasion to some of commit­ting Usury, by taking Interest purely for Lending, which without Usury, might have been bargain'd for, on other Accounts, and in due forms.

The Assemblies of Melun, Bordeaux, and Rheimes, are fully Answer'd, by what has been said, and the Practice of all France, in Case of real Opposition, Oversways in Authority, those few Parti­cular Synods.

The Assembly of Melun, Du Tertre tells us: repeats the words of that of Milan, [Page 96]concluding with the Saying of Christ, Lend hoping nothing thereby; the like doth that of Bourdeaux. The Council of Rheimes, of greater Authority, as being approv'd by the Pope, clearly allows the Doctrin delivered hitherto of Usury, In these Terms, Tit. de Faenore cum sacra litterae excludant eum a Divino Tabernaculo, qui Pecuniam dederit ad Ʋsuram aperte (que) nuntient, ut mutuum Demus, nihil inde spe­rantes: Quisquis praeter sortem Praecipuam ex mutuo aliquid amplius exegerit, vel ac­ceperit, cujuscunque generis illud sit modo Pecunia estimari possit Ʋsurarius esse cense­atur. Since the Holy Scripture, excludes him from the Tabernacle, who gives his Mony to Usury, and manifestly declares, That we lend hoping nothing thereby; who­ever shall Exact, or receive above the Principal of what was Lent, of what­soever kind it be, so it be worth Mony, let him be judg'd an Usurer. Remark well the Expression, For what was Lent; there lies the Stress: But what Council, or Assembly ever say, That Mony Put out, as in our Case, is Mony Lent?

CHAP. XV The AƲTHORITIES of Popes.

ALexander the III. having condemn'd Usurers in the Councils of Tours and Lateran; To the Case of the Arch-Bishop of Genoa, proposing the Dealings of some Merchants, who Sold dearer for retardment of Pay, writes thus: Licet contractus hujusmodi, ex tali forma non possit censeri nomine Ʋsurarum, nihilo mi­nus tamen, venditores Peccatum incurrunt, cum cogitationes hominum, omnipotenti Deo ne­queant occultari.

Answ. What could be alledg'd less favourable, to Du Tertre's Purpose? For the Pope seems to excuse from Usury, what Divines condemns for such; Tho' such Contracts, says the Pope, as to their forms, be not to be held Ʋsurious, yet those that Sell after that Manner, sin; whereas [Page 98]Divines, affirm to be Usury, to take any thing for pure Delay of Payment; the said Delay being essential to Lending. The Pope's then Meaning I take to be, that such a Contract, cannot be prosecuted in the exterior Court as Usurious; yet that such Dealers, for the ordinary sin, by forcing those; who cannot give present Mony, to pay for the forbearance, which is plain Oppression, arguing an Usuri­ous intention of Gain, such to have been His Holinesses Meaning appears from the ensuing Clause: Since the Thoughts of Men, cannot be hidden from the Omnipo­tent God; If this wise Pope was so Cau­tious, as not to condemn for express U­sury, Interest for pure Forbearance; Would he approve the forwardness of some, no Popes, in condemning of U­sury, an Interest settled by common A­greement, or by Covenants, and Titles thought just by Divines? One of these is the danger the Seller undergoes, of losing both his Ware and Price, with the Trouble in recovering it, and that Con­sideration on this score may be taken, is not only the Opinion of Iconnes Marti­nez de Prado. Tom. 2. Theolog. Moralis, [Page 99]c. 27. §. 2. Citing 16 more, but before him of the Learned Sylvester, Master of the sacred Palace, and eight others quoted by him, insisting on the Doctrin of their great Master, St. Tho. Opusc. 73. c. 10. Si enim Venditor Rem suam, &c. If a Seller intends to sell Dearer, not for the Time only, but for the Damage like to befall him, or to redeem the Vexation, probably to be suffer'd, in Re­covering his Debt, either by Reason of the Malice, or Impotency of his Debtor; then he's excus'd from sin.

To Ʋrban the III. three like Questions were Propos'd. cap. Consuluit; Whether those were to be look'd upon as Ʋsurers, who sold Dearer by reason of Staying for their Mony? Or those who tacitly intended it? Or finally those, who would not Release the Buyer, without drawing Advantage on that Account? The Pope declares them Usu­rers, as sinning against the Command. Lend, hoping nothing therby.

Answ. Voluntary Forbearance, is equivalent to Lending; and therefore the Seller is no more oblig'd, to forbear, than to Lend; but in case he forbear, he doth as good as Lend, and in that [Page 100]Case sins against Christ's Precept. And this is the full of the Pope's Answer: He makes no mention of any other Ti­tle, as the Prejudice ensuing to a Trades­man, and hinderance of Gain for want of his Mony, or the danger of no Pay, or the Losing all; these are considerable, and it is but just, the Buyer should make them good.

Leo the 10th. in the Lateran Council, having alledg'd Christ's Words. Lend hoping nothing therby: Concludes; Ea e­nim est Propria Ʋsurarum Interpretatio, quando videlicet ex usu Rei quae non ger­minat, de nullo labore, nullo sumptu, nullo periculo, Lucrum fetu conquiri stadetur. For this is the proper Interpretation of Usuries, viz. When one Studies to Gain, and receive Profit from things which are unfruitful, without Labour, without Expence, and without Danger.

Answ. I should think the Author had made it his Employment to cull out places, to the settling what he pretends to overthrow. The Pope in that Bull, silences the Zeal of such, as impugned the Mounts of Piety, as Usurious, hav­ing premis'd the Reasons invented by [Page 101]them; of those Reasons, one is contain­ed in the Words, which Du Tertre, ei­ther by oversight, or disingenuity, makes to be the Pope's. Whereas His Holiness, having related the Arguments of such, as disapprov'd of the Mounts of Piety, as Usurious, encourages the erecting of them, by granting Indulgencies; And who shall either by word or writing, Preach or Dispute against them, he makes liable to the Punishment of Excommu­nication. Latae sententiae, nullo obstante Privilegio. That is, Ipso facto, to be incurr'd no Priviledge whatsoveer withstanding it. What greater evidence of this Pope's Judgment of the invalidity of their Rea­sons, and amongst the rest of this ob­jected, which Du Tertre inconsiderately brings for the Pope's, tho' rejected by His Holiness. But Du Tertre would ap­pear some Body.

To answer Reason with Reason. That Mony cannot fructify, has often been denied, and is apparently untrue, in the Gain to be made in Purchasing good Pennyworths; insomuch after all, Du Tertre himself, Pag. 134, and 135. acknowledges that Saying to be verified [Page 102]only of Mony Lent, which being no more the Lender's, but the Borrowers, can yield nothing to the Lender; By reason, Res fructificat Domino. The thing fruits to its Owner, and so far he is in the Right; but seems not to reflect, that it may fructify before 'tis Lent, and then to Bargain for what it may yield, is no Lending, nor Ʋsury. Nor is it without Labour, Expences, and Danger, that Mony is Lett out. What Labour in Get­ting it? In Preserving it? To omit les­ser Cares and Troubles, in drawing up Deeds, Counting? &c. The want of its Profit, Is it not a sort of Charges? The danger of Damage, the Exposer of his Mony, takes upon himself, which may happen from frequent Casualties, for want of his Mony, as in Accidents of Fire, Sickness, Imprisonments, War, or the like; Is it not very Sensible? And where is the Principal? And yet by con­fession of those very Divines, no Ʋsury where such Causes intervene.

But Greg. the 9th, even excludes even the Danger of Losing the Principal, from be­ing a good Title. Cap. Naviganti vel e­unti ad Nundinas, &c. The Person Lend­ing [Page 102]a certain Summ of Mony, to one that Puts to Sea, or go's to a Fair, receiving somewhat above the Capital for taking upon himself the Danger, is to be judg'd an Usurer.

Answ. How doth this cohere with the Objection of the Precedent pretended Authority? There 'tis required there be no danger; Here, even in case of Dan­ger, 'tis made Usury to take Interest. Bernartius cited by Laym. n. 13. de Ʋsura. suspects a Mistake of Print, by the O­mission of a Non. So that in the place of is to be judg'd, ought to be read, is not to be judg'd. This is clearly gather'd from the Connexion, as you may see there. If this like you not, e'en take the words as they lie. He that Lends ventures the Danger of Losing; so that to Bargain for that Danger, by way of Insurance, is either not to Lend, or taking for the Danger of what is Lent, is Usury.

Innocent the 3d. Declares Ʋsury to be against both Testaments.

Answ. We say 'tis also against the Law of Nature, and by its being so, we have evinced, that the Putting out Mo­ny, as in Practice, is no Ʋsury.

To make an end of tiring my Reader with these and like Citations; Custom, the best interpreter of Authority, and the Definition of Ʋsury, by which all Ʋsury must be tried, are fully sufficient, to solve whatever Objection. I have not made it my Business to trace Du Tertre, step by step, he is ever upon the wing, and rather flutters, than walks to amuse with the Noise of his Prones, where he cannot convince with Reason, himself Presumptuous, inflicts that Character, upon three Divines of Known Ability, Medicina, Lessius, Valentia, Pag. 138. where he abuses his Reader, by imposing upon Lessius very grosly, as will appear to the Examiner, from whence I guess, how he treats the others, which I have not by me. To what purpose, Pag. 145. doth he unite Opposits, as Lessius, and Valentia, with the Author of the Letter he impugns? Is itany wise astonishing, that Opposits should contradict one another? His inference, that the Danger of the Principal is greater, when in the hands of the Poor; therefore more may be taken from them, than of the Rich, is a pure Inference of his own Brain, [Page 105]without Premises. Who commits any con­siderable Summs to the Poor, and knows he not that Interest tax'd by Law, can­not be exceeded; and that this only in­creases, as the Sums putt out do, less for little Sums, and more for greater? The Law therefore is favourable to the Poor, where the Danger of the Principal is greater.

Who will not smile at the Man's E­loquent Simplicity, Pag. 144? Where after pretensions to Universality, after having in one Leaf, no less than thrice rallied up Fathers, Popes, and Councils, by way of Crowning all he tells you, That many Learned Doctors of Sorbon, and of the Faculty of Divinity of Paris, among which, were the most Illustrious Cu­rats of that great City have Signed the Common Sentiment of the Church in the Matter of Ʋsury. I suppose in Condemn­ing the common Practice.

Answ. Was it their Signing that made it common? Or if common before, what need of their Signing? They Sign'd then what was not common to all, and what he would make common. But how? By the Signing of Many. He says, not by the Signing of all; he says not of the [Page 106]greatest Part, the opposit then, might be as common, as what they Sign'd. Many Doctors therefore, and they Do­ctors of the Sorbon too; Many Curats, and they Curats of Paris too, with whole Towns, and Provinces in France, pra­ctising what he abusively stiles Usury, are of poise enough, not only to coun­ter ballance, but so outweigh the Autho­rity of his many Doctors and Curats, as to the common Sense of the Church. And the Bishops of France, Are they to be slighted, because silent Lovers of Peace, and Enemies of Novelty? Can they be thought to be less concern'd for the good of Souls, or less knowing than some Curats of Paris? And their Silence, is it not a loud rebuke, to his Many? And the Divines of other Nations, Are they to pass for Shadows? With all respect due to the Sorbon, be it said, o'ther Countries, have given, and daily afford to the World, Men as Eminent for Learning; Why not then to be relied on, as well as his Many? For which we have his bare Word. England alone has oftner given Masters to the Sorbon, than the Sorbon to England.

Perchance Du Tertre might have in­sisted, as some of late have done, upon the Propositions condemn'd by Innocent the 11th, Anno. 1679. I therefore set them down, leaving to the Reader, to judge how far they affect our Case.

The 24th Proposition runs thus: Ʋ ­sura non est, dum aliquid ultra sortem exigi­tur, tanquam ex Benevolentia, & gratitu­dine debitum, sed tantum si exigatur, tan­quam debitum ex Justitia. 'Tis no Usury if something above the Principal be exacted, as due by way of Benevolency, and Gra­titude, but only as exacted by way of Justice.

Answ. The Proposition is deservedly condemn'd, and condemns it self. For a Benevolence, or spontaneous Act of Gratitude, cannot be said properly to be Due, and therefore to Exact it as Due, is Injustice; and if for the Use of a Prin­cipal Lent, 'tis Usury. To receive a Benevolence, or Gift by way of Grati­tude, is not condemned? Nay to Exact a Gift once made, is not even Injustice, it being his, to whom it is given; now by the general Agreement this Gift is made, antecedently to the Putting out Mony, [Page 108]it may therefore be required; Besides, the Proposition reaches none of the foremen­tioned ways, or Titles, for which Inte­rest is Due, by way of Justice.

The 41. Proposition is: Cum Mu­tuata Pecunia sit Preciosior numeranda, & nullus sit qui non Majoris faciat Pecuniam Presentem quam futuram, potest Creditor aliquid ultra sortem a Mutuatario exigere, & eo titulo excusari. Since Mony Lent, is better than Mony to be Pay'd, and that there is no Body, who doth not esteem Present Mony, more than future, the Creditor upon that Account, may re­quire something above the Principal, from the Borrower, and so be excus'd from Usury.

Answ. Condemnations being stricti Juris, fall upon Propositions Precisely as they lie; Now this Proposition taken as it is worded, is both Scandalous and false. For one that Lends, parts with present Mony, upon future repay­ment, a token they are equal, at least, in his esteem. Is he no Body? Besides, dif­ference of time, alters not the worth of Mony Whence it ensues that to ground a Title of receiving Interest, upon so [Page 109]clear an untruth, and Futurity of repay­ment, essential to Lending, is to excuse taking Interest for Lending, which is Scandalous, and therefore justly Con­demned.

To the aforesaid Propositions, may be added the 47th. Among those Condemn'd by Alex. the 7th. Licitum est mutuanti ali­quid ultra sortem exigere si se Obliget ad non repetendam. sortem usque ad certum Tempus. 'Tis Lawful for a Lender, to Exact something above the Principal, provided he Oblige himself, not to call it Back, for a Set time.

Answ. Who sees not, that such a Len­der would have Interest, for a pure For­bearance, which is Flat Usury, as we have often Affirm'd, and follows from its Definition. So that the Propositions Con­demn'd by the late Popes, leave our Case untouched. And no ways oppose what has been said for the Lawfulness, of Putting out Mony, consider'd as was Promised, as to the Law of Nature, Scripture, and Church.

I should not have Concern'd my Self in an Answer to Monsieur Du Tertre's Book, long since Printed, and I Question [Page 110]not, but already Answer'd, by some of his own Nation, had not his Genius pass'd the Seas, and appear'd with no o­ther Weapons than his, to the Terror of Timorous Souls, and perplexing of Consciences.

CHAP. XVII. The CONCLƲSION.

TO Conclude as I Prefac'd. Having presented the Reader, according to Promise, with what your Reformers, in the Point of Putting out Mony, have to say to Us, and we in Answer to them, let Him call a Jury, of his Impartial Thoughts, to the Case of Putting out Mony, and upon Evidence, brought in a­gainst it, let him Condemn it, of Usury. But if no Evidence appears, Possession of its Innocency still holds, Ground­ed in Agreement, and Custom, upheld by Judges, Justified by Divines, upon several Titles, and generally Practis'd. If Scripture, Church, and Fathers in [Page 111]veighing against Usury, reflect not up­on it, if the Law of Nature disallows it not, let it be clear'd at the Barr, of unby­ass'd Reason. Let the Practisers make Conscience, of Real Sins; let them of their Just Gains, be Charitable to the Needy; let them hope no Increase for Lend­ing, but from God, yet at the same time; they are Rightly inform'd, they have no Obligation of Prejudicing themselves, but a Duty to Improve Honestly the Talents God has left with them, by Put­ing them out at an easy Rate. It is a ser vice they owe to the Publick, for which we are Born. Such as Scrupulise at it; let them much more make Conscience of judging others. Let them be Careful, lest upon Surmises of Usury, or rather under a false Pretext, they become Slaves of Avarice, make their Coffers Temples, and Mony their Idols; by so doing, they Clip the Common Stock; so that the Share they have, goes no more, they cast Trade into a Deep Consumption, by de­priving it, of its Nourishment, and wholly Cross the design of the General welfare of a Nation, Mantain'd by a Circulation of Mony, as our Bodies are, by a Circula­tion of Blood.

No less Zeal was shown, by some Preachers, and Divines, against the Mounts of Piety, than since has been, by a few others, against Putting out of Mony; When the Pope Heading a Council, in regard of the Poor; and Common Ne­cessities, judg'd fit not only to Curb it, but when Transported either to Words, or Writing, to Excomunicate it as a Disquiet to the Christian world, The Rule of Law, Quod qui commodum sentit, onus quoque sentire debet, on which the Pope and Council appear to ground themselves, is of no less Force in our Case: The Rule is: That he who Partakes of a Conveniency, ought also to share of the Bur­den annex'd to it. It is for Conveniency Mony is taken up, the Burden annex'd to it, is Interest, which for Just Conside­rations, the Law judges Reasonable. It were a Piece of Signal Temerity, to Question the said Mounts of Piety, and if the Common Practise have the same Reason, even with some advantage, were it not too Venturesome, to Condemn it? Would not the Censure by Parity of Reason, equally affect both? And were not this to forfeit, the Respect, and Sub­mission [Page 113]due to Popes, the Lateran Coun­cil, and Christendom in General? The ends of the Mounts of Piety, is to re­lieve such as Necessity compels to take up Mony at exorbitant Rates; This also is Provided for, by the common Practice, tho not so fully, it being not easy to find Mony to take up; whereas the said Mounts are ever ready to Supply; on which Account they are to be wished for in this Realm. The Mounts of Piety, towards the Maintenance of Necessaries, receive somewhat more, than Current Interest; with Current Interest alone, the common Practice contents it self, the Mounts are secured of their Princi­pal; the eommon Practice for most part leaves it Hazardous. Is it the taking less? Is it the Hazard that creats Usury? If not, How can that Guilt be charged upon the common Practice, and not the Mounts of Piety? And to reflect upon them as Usurious, Doth it not betoken unduti­sulness, and more want of Charity, than provision of true Zeal, more Temerity, than Prudence.

The simplicity of the Dove, is to be guided by the Prudence of the Serpento [Page 114] Believe not every Spirit, (says St. John, 1 Epist. Chap. 4.) Too much Austerity of Doctrine, favours more of Affecta­tion, than Discretion, and drives oftner at Libertinism, than true Reform, every one inclining to shake off the Yoke, who rendred too heavy. Excess of Rigor is a kind of Usury, in that it extorts upon Conscience to the Oppression of a weak Brother. The way to Heaven is narrow, we ought not to streighten it more; nor to lay stumbling blocks in the way.

This was the Sense of the most Learn­ed and Illustrious Order of St. Dominick, in the Gloss upon the Prologue, to their Constitutions, Tex. 1. §. 3. to those Words, Cum Ordo Noster, &c. Decla­ramus, &c. Say they, We declare, That three things Chiefly hinder the saving of Souls; of these, the Third is too much Ri­gor, and Austerity in Counsels, and Opinions, or Men are so terrified with them, as to neglect the Salvation of their Souls; wherefore Ri­gor and Severity, are to be Relented, as much as may be, and Men are to be Treated with Benignity.

Yet nearer to our Purpose the great Son of so Wise, and Religious a Parent, [Page 115]St. Tho. qudl. 9. Art. 15. In Corp Dis­courses it thus: Omnis Questio, in qua de Peccato Morali quaeritur, &c. 'Tis dan­gerous to decide a Question, treating of a Mortal Sin; if no express Truth ap­pears; by reason the Error, by which it is apprehended to be mortal, what is not mortal, binds under Mortal. The express Truth against the Common Pra­ctice, has not yet been discovered.

Du Tertre therefore, and those of his Humor, should have taken and Con'd the Lesson, being of so high Importance, given them by the Renowned Chancellor, John Gerson, lib. 4. de Vita spirituali. Littera. O. pag. 3. Doctores Theologo, &c. Doctors of Divinity, must not easily conclude certain Actions, or Omissions, to be mortal Sins; for by such Wilful, Rigid, Hard, and too strict Assertions, Men are never drawn out of the Mire of Sin, but are plung'd into another, deeper, because more Desperate. To what Purpose then to render more bitter, and heavy the Yoke of Christ, which is sweet, and the Burden which is light?

This had been much to Du Tertre's Purpose, and perchance might have al­lay'd [Page 116]his too fervorous Rigor; when, Pag. 172. he pretends with a Scrap or two of a holy Father, to block up the way to Heaven, and to exclude all Merchants, and Tradesmen from Eternal Bliss. And i [...] not this to endeavour to render Salvation and God's Precepts Morally impossible? Or at least as impossible, as it is for Hu­man Society to be maintained without Merchandizing and Commerce? Doth it not reflect upon Providence, as Esta­blishing a Religion incoherent with all Trading, so necessary co the Welfare and Preservation of Mankind? It is a Pe­culiar Genius rules his Pen; Whether for love of Novelty, or to appear some­body in the World, or out of mistaken. Zeal, to correct what needs no Amend­ment, it is not for me to decide. As to my self, whatever I have writ in De­fence of the Common Practice, I shall entirely submit to better Reason, it is my Duty so to do; and having done what I thought my Duty, to the quieting of Conscience, in the Case of putting out Mony, I end.