All Oſury # not forbidden (faith Horn- beck, ), neither is the Contratt for gain upon Loan, ſwifulin it ſelf, or againſt the Law; otherwiſe, th:, had jot been at all allowed or granted ; the which God indeed prohibited the Jews amone ſt themſelves, not with Stramt gers-. for whats 4n it ſelf a ſin, 1s every where ſuch, and can no where be counted law- ful, or be approved : no not with the Gen- tile, The Laws are ſuch, for here are tw to be conſidered, the one which forbids Uſu- ryta the Jews, the-other which grants it, Lev. 25. 35, g8-.. The reaſon is, becauſe they were Brethren amongſt themſelves, had ong common father after a ſingular manner, an the Inherutance, andthe Goods of the land 1mmediatcly delivered them by God, and af- tcr afort common, which were the foundation of that Political Law, as far asit concerned t he Re Uſurer Caſt; : 8; the Jews, Deut. 15. 3. and 23. 19, 20. Thou mayſt lend, &c. It was unlawful to ) | take Uſe of a Brother, not only for this or 2 | that thing, but for any thing whatſoever; not - | /o of a Gentile, ------ for what favour: they t | were bound to fhew toa Brother, they did not e || therefore owe to the Gentiles : | T he reaſon of i thediſparity is manifeſt. It is lawful at no | time todoill, although the ſame degrees of y 8 bounty and kindneſs are not due toall: they ef were not bound to offer the ſame Offices to tf Gentile, which they owed to a Brother : - wherefore not to lend to a Gentile, without - | Uſury; which degree of mutual Charity be- n} longedonly to a Brother. SIO - | + Ihave been thelonger in this Quotation, 1 betauſe of the ſeveral reaſons it carries eW init. Iſhall take the ſame liberty in CG Comment > | ting Grote, on the ſame account, who in Luc. | ſpeaks excellently to this purpoſe, and ©. 35+ -} anſwers the uſual cavils made againſt this -|| Reply. | 'q I come (ſaith he) to: that Right which - Y Gedgrantedto the Jamilh Natioz, Deut: 23. 194 | Thou ſhaltnot lend to thy, Bro- ther uporrUſvry, &c. here.they that} judge all Uſury to be again#t the law of Nature, un- infland what ts ſpoken of lending upon Uſe to a Stranger, to be a permiſſion of Fa&t, not of Right: which neither the words admit, nor ever was ſo underſtood by that People to whom the Law was given: I have Jole- | G 2 phus JK 8 OO BY DW SC S_ oe $4 A Reyly to Mr. Jelinger's FI phius ----- and Philo: for Witneſſes, -«-«- to whom all the Rabbines conſent ;, from whence it'rs ſufficiently apparent, if I miſt ake not, that the Law was underſtood of Citizens to- ward Citizens, -which alſo,the words in Le- viticus ſhew : for there alſo uſury is forbidden, this reaſon being added, that thy Brother may live by thee, Lev. 25. 36. wherefore when in the Plalms and 1n Ezek. he 1s com- mended that exertiſerh not uſury, that ts to be underſtood. accord ing to the laws preſcrip- tion. Ambroſe, and fome following him, by Strangers «nderSFand thoſe ſeven Nations With whows the Jews had a juſt War, and he thinks'it 10 wonder if. it were lawful to take #/o ofthoſe whom it was lawful to kill, But neither doth this Interpretation agree to the words of thel aw : for ſeeing Strangers are oppoſedto Brethyen, i. e. Citizens, t 15 cer- tain, not theſe or theſe, but all Strangers muſt be underſtood, Add, that it in no wiſebecame ' th: gravity of a Law, to grantuſury towards ny whom they were . bound wholly to ſlay, The cauſe of the differemte therefore was this, ' That God wonld\have the Jews to obſerve a- moneſt themſelves, notonly thoſe Offices which art common amongſt all-men, one towards a- nather, and whichin #ritt reaſon of right and due: but alſo many Offices of a nearer tye and charity : As in the Law of Servants, Pleages, plucking the Ears of Corn, and many other may be ſeen, ----- But that Law of Uſurer Caft. of Moſes, in that it reſpetts the State of that Nation,” and was gruer 19 one Nation only, binds not others, any farther than it contains a Natural Equity, What Corift would have #8 do, ſeeing there ts no particular Command extant of this matter, muſt be collefted from eneral Rules. | Thus far Grote. Think on it once a- gain, bow unlikely it was, that the Fews might lend to thoſe Nations, whom they were bound utterly to deftroy : And Deut. 7. begin, they are charged to make no Covenant with them, nor ſhew any Mercy to them, nor enter Marriages with them : And the reaſon there given is, becauſe theſe Na- tions wonld entice them from the Service of God to Idolarry: which fame reaſon would allo hinder them from lending, or having a- ny civil Commerce with them. 3. Fora farther Confirmation of what is here ſaid, take a parallel place, Det. 15. 2, 3. where the like oppoſition 1s between Brother and Stranger, and the like privi- ledge there granted to the former in the matter of the Releaſe, that is elſewhere gi- ven him inthe matter of Uſury : All Debts were to be relcalcd every ſeventh = v.3. Of a Stranger thou mayſt exact it a- gain ;, but that which is thine with thy Bro- ther, thine hand ſhall releaſe : Y1DIN DS W3N : The expreſſion.is as emphatical al- ' together, as that which they tranſlate, G 3 That | _ A Reply to Mr. Jelinger's That Stranger : And yet none, I dare ſay, underſtands Szrarger. in this place, barely of the Canaanite: but as reſpetting all other Nations beſide that they might 'have any Commerce with. | Calvin upon Dext. 23. ſaith, But in this place there 1s no mention made of Hittites, ---- nor of any other people of that land : butingeneral, of all Nations of the World : Egypt #s here compriſed, and Syria, and all the [ſles of the Sea, and all thoſe who had in- tercourſe of M:rchandife with the Jews, Vid. Drodate in loc. Obj. z. Doth not Chriſt allow of Uſury, when he ſaith, Mat. 25. 27. Thou onghteſt De Conlc, Po 37%» therefore to have put my Money to the Ex- changers: and then as my coming] ſhould have received mine own with uſury. Mr. 7. Anlw. The words are part of 4 Parable, and --- fymbolical Scripture is not Argumentative. Reply 1. And yet he made it before one ofthis Arguments againſt Uſury, becauſe the Divel was a Metaphorical Uſu- rr. | 2. Though I have not thought any Argument. of cogency could be deduced from this Text,, yet fhall-propoſe to ccn- ſfderation what the Learned Ames writes : Hither (ſaith he) may be referred, that it is very probable from that Parableof the T a- lents, hs. os» a> a. 2. *. 2 or os "AY WW © ' aH&@ MA a ea Uſurer Caſt. lents, Mat. 25. 27. Not only that there was ſowe uſury of Money- Changers in common uſe among ſt the Jews, but alſo that it was not diſallowed of Our Lord : becauſe under that Sumilitudo he requires a ſpiritual Office, with- ont the leaſt hint of any diſallowance, the which he was wont to uſe in other Parables, which luſtrated duty from diſallowed Cu- ſtomes, as Luke 16. 8. The Fourth ObjeAion that Mr. F. an- lwers, contains this Plea : That Uſury is oy God forbidden to the Poor enly, and not toward the Rich, and therefore lendin# to the Rich for uſe is lawful, As Exod. 22. 25. Lev. 25. 36. Mr. F. Anſw. This 1s 4 very ſpecions Plea, I confeſs : but yet I hope through mer- cy to overtbrow it. I. The moſt wiſe God foreſeing how ſome would abuſe ſuch namings of the poor people, leaueth om the poor in the repetition of his Laws, 1. e. i Deut. 23. 19. Thou ſhalt not lend upon Ulſury to thy Brother : Mark, Brother, And is not the Rich thy Brother too ? Reply 1. Ilike this anſwer the worſe, be- cauſe it reflefts upon the Wiſdom of God, in effe&, attributing over-right to him : as ifthe inconveniences happening had not been fore-ſeen at firſt; the which over- fights are frequent with men, which they G 4 arc 4 Chap. 7, w Pa hv + © : | : *% | E » _ : - - - i - A Reply toMr. Jelinger's are wont to reRifie by an after-a&t, revg- king the former. But far þe it from us, that we ſhould thus charge God with fol- ly. | | 2, To ſee farther yet, that Mr. F. is out in his reckoning, and that, where men- tion is made of lending in the repetition of the Law, the Poor werenot left out upon any ſuch account, as is pretended; you ſhall fin1 the Poor expreſly mentioned in the, buſineſs of lending, in this Book of Dent. viz. Chap. 15. 7,8. If there bea- mogg you a poor man of one of thy Brethren, within any of thy Gates, ---- thou ſhalt nor harden thy heart, nor ſhut thy had from thy poor Brother + but thou ſhalt open thy hand wide unto him, and ſhalt ſurely lend him ſuf- *ficient for his need, in that which he wan- teth. Thisplace joyneth Poor and Brother to- gether. So Ezek. 18.17, the place fo often prouns to, and the which was written ong after this foreſight he mentions ; there we have theſe expreſſions : ---- that have taken off his hand from the Poor, and hath 70t received Uſury or Increaſe. 3- Tocome cloſer yet, Tent. 23. 19. | Where 'tis pleaded, the Poor is left out, and Brother put in its room; yet there, ſayl, the expreſſigns, in effeR, do limit it to the Poor, for who are wont to bor- row Viiuals, and the like, fave the Poor ? Hcar __ as ws oo ras 4, Y awry mercifulnels ; their lending to the Poor : but in the Prophets Uſurer Caf, Hear Zaneby ;, Alſo pt not out thy meat to uſury;, therefore he ſpake of the Poor. And Rivet: Let m4 conſider the places : ----- P. 284. Deut. 23. where tis no mention of the Poor, We mean all, and do contend, that that third place contains the ſame reftriftion, if not in expreſs terms; yet both in the comparing of what goes before, and what follows after : for when he tnjoyns, that none ſhould lend to his Neighbour, either Money or Vittuals u- pon uſury;, he ſhews that uſury to be forbid- den, which ſhowd be received from him, who had need of meat ;, and borrowed money, not for that end we have ſpoken off, viz.. for gain; but for his Maintenance, forced throuch neceſſity, as 15 evinced from other pla- ces. 4+ I ſhall add farther Teftimonies : Mr. Baxter in his DireQory, Part. 4. þ. 125. $. 18. Uſury | as by him ſtated } # or forbidden u4 by the Law of Moles. 1. Be- cauſe Moſes law never did forbid it : for 1. /t #5 expreſly forbidden as an att of un- { ; and therefere forbidden onlyto the Poor and to Brethren, 2. It ts expreſly allowed to be uſed to Stranvers, Deut. 23. 19, 20. to whom nothing unj1ſt or unchari- table might be done : onely ſuch a meaſure of Coarity was not required toward them, 4s un- to Brethren. -- - So that the Prohibition of Ufury is in the Law it ſelf reſtrained only to who E” 5 " ABReplyto Mr. Jelinger's ' who do but reprove the ſin, it is expreſſed . without that limitation, partly becauſe it ſup- poſeth the meaning of the Law to be known, which the Prophets did but apply : and part- ly becauſe there was little or no lending uſed amongſt the Jews, but to the needy,” as an att of charity. 2. And if it had been for- biddea 1m Moles only, it would not extend to Coriſitans now, becauſe the Law of Mo-. les as ſuch as is not m force. 5- What nced of farther witneſs * The firſt Law. againſt Uſury limits it to the poor, and there is no Law or Comment, fol 'owing in Scripture that extends it to the rich, *why then ſhould we extend it to therich? The Law ſaith, Thou ſhalt not lend to thy Brother that is waxen poor b thee upon Uſury : that is, (laith Mr. F. in his Comment) Thou ſhalt not lend to the poor- or rich upon Ulury : Strange Comment! Again, In Lev. 25. The Law againſt Uſury is not only reſtrained to the poor by name, but his poverty is intimated as the reaſon of, this free Lending : So it runs, If thy Brother be waxen poor,e and fallen in - ho with thee, then thou ſhalt relieve him, that he may lvye with thee © This laſt reaſon. is twice repeated : All this in- timating the perſons to be ſuch as borrow for a Livelyhood ; neceſſity is the reaſon of his borrowing. © Where the obje and I "HON reaſon , * Ufurer Caſt. &« reaſon of a, prohibition ceaſeth,the pro- « hijbition alſo ceaſeth,ſaith River. There are ſeveral Laws mentioned in this Chap- ter that are alſo limited to the poor, ſec © v.25. 35, 39,47- And the ſame general realon annext to them all, viz. 1am the Lord your Goa, Mr. F. 2. And what were thoſe uſurers whom Nehemiah did ſo blame apd condemn for uſury ? were they not ſuch as lent to them that had Lands, Vineyards,@c. Neh. 5.699,11. Will you uſurerscall ſuch Land- ed men poor ? : Reply 1. Mr. 7. himſelf called them poor borrowers ; And were he in the like . caſe with moſt of them, he would count his Condition poor. Some of them ſo poor, they were forced to ſell their Children to keep themſelves from ſtarving, after they had morgaged their Lands and Vineyards, EXC. - 2, But whether they are to be called ' Poor or no, it ſeems they were for that preſent very neceſſitous; otherwiſe they would not have mortgaged their Eſtates, Lands, Houles, cc. To buy Corn, and ſor a Livelyhood ; nor have ſuffered their Sons, and Daughters to have been brought into bondage. 3. Here I conſult River again., We grant p, 279. there muſt be lending to a poor ws, . oy im Fxtremity, not only without the ope of an g2 A Replyto Mr. Jelinger's an early return, but alſo although there ſhould be no hope of the principal : farther, ' to thoſe which atherwiſe do not waut goods, but are in ſuch a condition wherein for a time they cannot injoy their own, loan muſe be granced freely, which they require to the neceſſary ſupport of their life for a time. 4. In my Animadverſions on what is written by Mr. Cape/ on this 1ub- ject, I have given a fuller Anſwer to this place, viz. Neh. 5. Only this here; Let it be conſidered, . whether the Caſe men- tioned were not extraordinary 5 as was As that of the Primitive Chriſtians, when' © they ſold their poſſeſſions, and laid down | the price at the Apoſtles feet. And I think thoſe none of the wiſeſt Divines ( whatever their Zeal mzy be.) that draw Ordinary Rules from Extraordinary Cales orExamples: As they that would deſtroy propriety, and make all things Common, trom the foreſaid inſtance of the primitive Chriſtians : So they that would bring in a neceſſity on Miniſters ordinarily tro work for a Livelyhood , becauſe the Apoſtle Paul under Extraordinary Circumſtances did fo. - ; What Mr.F.ſaith (a.) Ofa fallacy of Pe3%% 8 Ciuſe non procauſa, anails nothing. For ( upon ſuppoſition that the Law it ſelf be nor political and proper to the 7ews, but univerſal, and. in its full force to this | day ) = Uſyrir Calf, , day ) Hay, that uſury in Scripture is fot- bidden only with refſpe& tothe poor ; or, whercſoever free lending is expreſt with its objeft, there the poor are cxpreſt or implied ; and the reaſon uſed for free lend- ing reacheth not others. Mr. F. 2. Fallacy of conſequence, for it doth nct therefore folow a man may lend up- on uſury to a rich maht ;, no more thanthis, that a man may rob a rich man , becauſe it 1s written, Rob not the poor, Prov. 22. 22. Reply 1. 1 grant his reaſoning were good, if it were proved that all gain for Loan werea moral evil, or againſt Natures . Law, as Robbery; but that cannot be proved. | 2. In the Text mentioned , there is a particular reaſon added, whereon the diſlwaſion is grounded, or whish was the temptation. to- the ſin, viz. Becauſe he 1s ppor, taking.occafion from his poverty wbich rs without power or defence , ſaith Dio- te. 2, Learned Rivet hath anſwered this objeRion,' as urged by the Biſhop of Win- cheſter : Thus. He urgeth, What a con- ſequence is this? The Law forbids. taking uſe from a poor man, therefore ut permits taking from the rich, This being ſaid. , he knits many' abſurd conſequenses,. which he pretends to be of the the like import : As, 4 The 93 ' The Law forbids to oppreſs Widows or Or- hans , "therefare it permits, that ſuch. as Low huſbands and parents may be oppreſt, &c. But in ſuch Conſequences there is a diſ- ſrmititude, becauſe oppreſſion and the like are evil sn themſelves, as 15 clearly proved from other places,but it is not in it ſelf evil, to take any increaſe for loan,but in ſome caſes only, snto whichthe rich man,while ſuch,falleth not, Mr. F. TheStranger is Excepted, and not the Rich, Demt.2 3.29.20, Reply. Neither was it neceſſary; the perfon to whom it was unlawful thus to lend. being ſufficiently pointed -out in former rehearſals of the Law. The Dutch Annotators upon Deut. 23. 20. Unte the Stranger thou ſhalt lend upon uſury, i. e; Thou mayeſt lend upon uſury;becanſe they had dealing with the7ew5,not as the poorl{raclites had by reaſon of poverty, but totrade and rraffick with them,aud to be enriched by them, : Mr.F. A gracious promiſe is here made to ſuch as ſhall fo freely, and without Ulſury lend to rich and poor. Reply. 1. This.is more. thanl can ſee from the Text (or any other). the bor- rowers here being ſuch as borrowed Vitu- als & Money to ſupply their urgent neceſſi- ty,but on the contrary there tsa curſe upon the head of any that is liberal tothe rich, Prov. 22.16. Hethat oppreſſeth the poor to #ncreaſe his riches, andhe that giveth to the rich, ſhall ſurely comg to want. 2, Let 294 A Reply td dir. Jelinger's 2. Let the Reader obſerve how Mr. F. makes it our duty equally to lend freelyto poor and rich. The Law ſaying, Thos ſhalt not lend upon uſury to thy Brother ? And-is ndt the Rich thy Brother too ? {aith he, In that the Law faith, Thou ſhalt not lend upon uſury, It doth ſay,Thou ſhalt lend, Under this Prohibition (faith Ainſworth i Deut. 23. 20. ) the contrary is commanded, that we ſhould lend unto our poor Brother. freely, and not take again any thing more than was lent. ' And to our rich Brother too, faith Mr. F. But fo far I think he will have but few of his mind. But if we are-not bound to lend "to the rich, lee not, how we can be' bonnd to lend freely to them. 3. Ofa truth there ſhould be ſome dif- ference put between rich and paor inthe buſineſs of lending : So thought the [earn- I ed Dr. Hammond, who after he hath given (1.1 us ( as he ſaith ):the one only ground a- p, 316. gainſt Uſury in the New Teftament, taken FAY from Luke 6. 20. And having declared *'3*7 6+ his Judgment againſt 4aking -ufe. of - the Poor, he adds 3 As for the Caſe of. the rich mans lending tothe rich, therehath appear- ed nothing in either of theſe Interpretations which will oblige ua to it, or (if he do) which will prohibit the taking Intereſt of him.---- So do I not know any other, ſo muth:as colour of Text in the New Teſtament that forbids it, "= o6 *. A Keplyto Mr. Jelinger's | 4 it, nor indeed reaſon nor Analogy, &c. P4383: Sothen Mr. 7; might have taken notice of others belides Presbyterian and Con- gregational mcn, that all allow of taking uſeof the Rich : here you have this learn- ed Door putting a difference betwixt Poor and Rich in the tranſation of Lend- Rules of 52g; as alſo Dottor Taylor dothin that of holy liv- þbuying- and ſelling: That to poor perſons IS P+205* the utmoſt meaſure and 'extent of Juſtice, is unmerciful ; which to a rich perſon is Innocent, becauſe it is Juſt, and he needs not thy mercy and remiſſion, 4+ Yea, we learn from Mr. F. himſelf, That by lending to ſuch as are rich, we do but furniſh them with Nerves and Sinews to do miſchief with, to oppreſs others mn bar- gaming, &c. If welend freely to the rich, would not the ſame miſchiefs follow, yea, be increaſed ? | His Anſwer to-the ſecond Reply needs no farther conſideration , [as being abun- | dantly fatisfied from what hath bcen al- Þ- 38. ready ſpoken. Only, As to what he whit- pers -into:the Miniſters' Ear; lam to ſeek - out of his rmeaning, when he ſaith, 1f :bou art againſkafury indeed, as thou ſayeſt thou art, then why doſt thou ſpeak againſt me that ſpeak, agamdt it, when I do not once mention | tending to the rich ? "»Y Videp; , Hath he not onceand again mentioned 35, &c Lending to the rich? Dothhe not _ | OY / img, Luke 6.35. H Uſurer Caif, fora ſree Lending to ſuch * Dygth he not make a Lending for gain to fich {in- tul ?. Reply 3. We muſt not make more fins then God maketh. Mr. F. I confeſs it, but doth God make Lending to the rich no. ſm? I pray where 1s theplace ? ſhew it if you can. Reply : His Anſwer depends upon this Medium, ** whatever .is not cypreſt in «Scripture to be lawful, is fin!ul : the which, how weak itis I need not ſtand to ſhew-: It being, as far as I have learnt, a certain rule, that in things of this nature, where Civil Contracts and dealings are concerned, whatſoever is no way forbid- den, is lawful. God hath no where made lending to the rich tor gain a fin z Ergo,lt Is no ling Obj. 5. 1 ſhow Charity tro my Nelghbonr, for by my loan ;, hepreſerveth his Eſtate, &c, Mr. ]. Anfſw. 1. Charity is kind, but uſu4- ry 1s Cruel. Reply. This is ſaid, but not proved, as to the Uſory lam pleading for. Ir 1s evi- dent and undeniable, being every days experience, that many men have not only preſerved, but increaſed their Eſtates by this means, and the Commonwealth not at all bitten. Mr. 7.2. Charity Thould be free in lena- Reply. 97. '98 _ © A ReplytoMr. Jclinger's Reply. So Charity ſhould be free in gi- ving too 3 Only both muſt be where there are due objeRs, to ſome we ought to give freely, to others we ought to lend freely ; but others there are to whom we owe 'nci- $$ .ther, cither by the Laws of God or Man. Ut ſupra Give 'to every one that atheth: Though P-314 the words ( faith Dr. Hammond ) are in an. unlimited latitude, yet ordinary prudence will interpret them ſo, that if a covetous rich man ask, of me, 1 am not boundto give t0 him, but only to him whoſe wants ſet him on acking : And ſo conſequently in likg manner the prohibition or forbidding to exatt, take, or require uſe of him that borrows, belong; not again to the poor or mean Creditor, when ' a rich man borrows of him, &c. Obj. 6. I will never be perſmaded God will damn that man who doth as he would be done to,--- Mat, 71.12. I would be'willing to pay, &c. Mr. F. Anſw. 1. Dor would I be per ſwaded tharsthe Uſurer would be willing by an abſolute and free will to pay Intereſt.--- Reply. I amin this of His mind, if any would to far befriend the Borrower, as to lend him gratis: this being of the two moreeligible. Qui niſi mentis inops, QC. Mr. 7. adds, To pay Intereſt ;, if he were m many Borrowers Caſe. Reply. 1. This i#nor well ſtated : the queſtion being, whether it be not r_ i [4 _— . #1 4 Tanabenefit to you, I may receive one by -.. GſyrerCaſt. .. og ble {or ſome that boxrow to pay intereſt, that can.do it, and not be prejudiced by the Contract. .. . et ' 2. I ſhall not paſs farther, until I have look'da little nearer into the Golden Rule laid down by our Saviour, Of dom 4s we : world be done unto: which is the Rule of all Civil Trade and Commerce. . So B. Taylor tought Whatſocver ye Rule of he- would that Men, &c. This is the meaſure iv. (faith he.) of Commutative Fuſtice, or of that 190. Zuſtice which ſuppoſeth the Exchange of thing s profitable, for things profitable : that f a6. your need, you may ſupply mine; ou. ; 3- Dr. Hammond treating (as before) Pratt. of Lending to the rich for gain , writes Cat- thus 3 / do not know any other ſo much as P-316- colour of Text in the New Teſtament which forbids it, nor indeed reaſon, nor Analogy, either from that great Rule in hand, Of doing as I would be done to ( for if / were 4 rich man, I would, inCaſe of con- venience or advantage, that a loan would probably bring in me, be willing to pay uſe ih Or of loving my Neighbour as my Ell, 3- From this very Rule Zanchy pleads In Eph. 4. the Lawfulneſs of taking Uſe or Intereſt, 25: Add (laith he) the Rule of Chriſt, what- loever therefore ye would, Cc. But who H 2 's z* "ES... « "RO _— EDO - 4s | {-£ a4 t p Sw ,'9 : k Lt - x \ : .. F 4A - Sa _ | IS : | P- 280. is there that wouldnt ( and that from a , : _e I 3 " _ oy - ms ty) TS -. . Y bo &> .%) 4 : 3k £3 hs r- WH? - » wy 9% are Mm «a ») 6H $47 : os 0 o— , «4 by . , . % aw+, « i . 4 - $"'% » 4, . Y : $ £ "$$. » : t i , - . : ad 3 | Mr. el nger DO. . I Y . ; - o - o a % 7 "iv right Tudgment) be made partaker rof that - gain, Which is made by the Communication of thy money ? 4 5- Such a Contraf (faith Rivet) hath its foundation in natural equity,---for natu- ral equity requires an equality : which «s not where one receives all the profit, but the other all the diſprofit. Jt is meet therefore in bargaining, that the profits and diſpro- fits be equal : that therefore things unequal may become equal, the ' Law of nature per ſwades that the profits be divided, there: _ ' fore a wealthy perſon , to whom an undue office of Lending 1s performed without any neceſſity, ought to pay to the Lender by way of recompence, part of the gain gotten by the money lent : and may-be bound thereunto before lending, as unto a Condition. The which is confirmed by this Rule of natural right, As you would that men,&c. Luke 6.31. Butthere i none that would not be ad- mitted to a participation of the gain,which was procured by the loan he made with the foreſaid C:rcumſtances : Therefore he ought to deal ſo with his Creditors, and net think, himſelf aggrieved by ſo doing. Laſtly, Hear B:ſhop Hall - Shortly(ſaith he ) for the guidamte either of our caution or liberty in matter of borrowing and lending, the only Cynoſure, is our Charity, for inal humane and Civil atts of Commerce, it #4 | | ſure dy OP.» .. hc, > _ » Oh. I, | Neighbour as thy ſelf, yet he never ſar - Uſurer Caf. , T5: ſure Rule, that whatſoever is not a violation of charity, cannot be unlawful, and what- þ fave is not agreeable to charity, can be no other than ſinful : and as Charity muſs be your rule, ſo your ſelf muſt be the Rule 0 ou Charity, lock, what Fa would wiſh to be done to you by others, do but the ſame to others, you cannot be guilty of the breach of Coarity, | .* But the equity and reaſonableneſs of the tranſaftion , here pleaded for , - as rounded on this Rule, will farther appear, it it de remembred that Charity begins at home, TI t. Biſhop Hull fays, God hath ndt Com. , , mandcd: you to love any man more than your felf;, and there can be no reaſon why you ſheulduail your ownjuFft advantage to another mans Exceſs. ---- Again, What reaſon can there be, that to pleaſure another man, I (auld hurt my ſelf, or that I ſhouldenrich a- nother by mine own. loſs? 2. (od would not have thee ( ſaith Mr. p.4.6. Burton, in Caveate for Sureties)' to help thy Neighbour without any care to ſave thy ſelf : :For although he hath ſaid, Love of 3 Love thy Neighbour better than thy ſelf ; or, Love thy ſelf leſs than thy Neighbour, but love him as thy ſelf* i. e. help him and ſave thy ſelf too, or elſe chow ſhouldſt love. Z him .. "ys De Of. 1,3-P» I IT 'A Reply to Mr Me.” felinger's ; "ke and bate thy {elf, which in the ſane ors is condemned. Thus Cicero ;, © Nether are dr own AS, s tobe omitted by us, and atlrered to other's, when we want thers our ſelves > but every ohe muſt look to.hts own profit ; which may be obtained with attethers wrong : wiſe- Iy ſpeaks Chryſippus;' Be&that runs a Race, ought to ſtrive and endeavour to the utmoſt that hz may overcome + but he onght not at all fo Japplant him, with. whom. he ftriveth;or foruſt.1 him by with his hand. Thus in our tife it 15908 unjuſt for any ont 'to feth after what ras {ors wſe, but fo take from another is mot ' law Annot, in -LUCe6, 7 4+ You may FRA it applied to the pre- fete, Caſe by- G TIRE ature diFates that none 13, bound to proit ahipther to his "oypn.1o $5 bit he'that parts wt br his money f or # 40it ro pleaſure another cont4* have ph it , on Fields, or Houſes, an-receivt the the mean while, the Which, if anytall Wer Fain F., that ance aigty, a5 all Chavce foath ' Þ« 2800 -#tt value, and may be [c od More fully Rot 1an Chaviry e- wires that every man eſs lock, to A ff id bis Relations, all things nfl, ny. provide not for his 6wn, &c. I lim. $..8.. . And Parents are bound to layup for their Children, 2019-4, 06, 5. The nn Um > Al © "Ufurer Caſt, "RIM 5. The ſame is applied by Dr. Hams pratt, cat. mond to ſelling : He thai ſells too low, may P+ 30s Loos md. Gi. 4 _ 3. 1 YR 6 off end againft himſelf and his own F amily ; and a man is to love himſelf, and not his Neighbonr only. Obj. 5. The laws of men, and evell of Chriftians, the Civil law, the Canin law, the Statute law, do allow of uſury, and do you think they would, if all Uſurers ſhould be _ damned, as you ſay ? Mr. F. Anſw. 1. Denying the Aſſertion, that they alloy of it ;, they do but tolerate, per- mit and reſtrain it for ſome Civil good, and to avoid greater cvils. . Reply 1. Greater evils ? What greater thanthe damnation of ſo many ſouls ? (for that is the doom he hath paſſed on all that take Uſe) I cannot. helieve it : neither can there be any Civil paod ſufficient to coun- terhalopce fucha miſchief, by him ſuppo- Ying | 2. Neither can [ be perfſwaded, (howe- yer God might tolerate a Bill 'of Divorce ſar the hardnels of the has hearts ) that men may take ſo much upon them, and contrary to an expreſs Prohibition of God, byLaw, poſitively tolerate or permit that which is in it ſelf unlawful, againft the lighr of Natute, and ſo'deftruttive to the | Souls of men; for what would this be, but a vir- tual diſpenſation given for the breach of <— —— the '., TO4 - the Divine Laws ? And might not the Pa- piſts plead for the like Toleration of Stews in. their Dominions , even on the ſame ground, of avoiding greater miſchieſs. 3- But I think it not difficult to prove, thatuit is ſomewhat more than abare. per- miſhon', or unmunity from puniſhment that Uſury lays claim to from theſe Laws; | many; an allowance, (by him denicd :) for by ve'tue of thele Laws,may not a man recover the Uſe by them preſcribed? ' /: fomg Caſes, the Law of Nature, arid the 1 Laws of all Countxtes do allow it; faith Mr. EE”. - Ferbiwg” It is expreſly allowed tobe uſed ro ; ' Strangers, Deut. 23. laith Mr. Baxter. Hither belong (4 Fanchy) the juFt laws of Pow Emper much tt-nay be lawful forake above the Prin- Cipal., And that Mr. eY is miſtaken concer- Laws, Hey fend him to the laſt State - "I 6 « 12 "Law in force in.this Land. preſſeth, Its allowance of; eight in the hun- ared. ' And now [am come fo far, I ſhall rake a, little more natice of the Law in force: This forbids taking above: ſix per Cent, by way of bargain, loan, 16h of c neveſance, ſhift or zntereſt : fome whereof are by. Mr. 7's conceſhon in themſelves lawſal, and there ore. here not only per- mitted, 'but allo allowed, as long as they 7 keep CN £ CY A Reply to Mr. Jelinger's 4) = - who-; alſo determine how e only pa lookis back'u-' ponthe-Law immediately. preceding, ex- _ Uſurer Caff, © 195 keep within the bourids preſcribed : And all theſe fore-mentioned dealings are for- bidden, not onlywith reſpe&t to Money, but alſo to Wares, Merchandize, or other thing or things whatſoever ;, and with reſpett to the forbearing and giving day of payment for one whole year, &c. Mr. Bolton reje&ts this laſt too, as Ulu--. ry, whatare Mr. 7's thoughts herein [ know not ; but by that Opinion, I ſuppole, few of the Shop- keepers, Tracers, Mer-: chants, &c, in the Nation-will eſcape cen-- ſure. Whatever he thinks in this matter, | ſhall hereafter prove it. reaſonable, and the taking of Ute to ſtand on the fame foun- dation 6t Juſtice and Equity with this. 4. Let it bealfo conlidered,;tnat foral- mych as propriety (which is founded on the Lav of Nature): receives ats limitation and application fram Human Laws ; whe-. ther any mar hath notthe ſame right to 6 per Cent. in this-land, that lends his mony,, as any one one has to his Lands and Tene- ments, or any, Goods he enjoys by vertue, of theſe Laws? . Dr. Hammond peaking 2/24. cate againſt the, founding dominion in Grace ; Do brings to diſprove it: That known Maxime, that Chrifts\ Kingdom is not of this World, that hecame not to interpoſe in Secular Af- Fairs, ( ſach are the proprieties of men) but iſclaimed having any thing to. da to bt a | Fnage, : A Replyto Mr. Jelinger's Fudge, or divider amontſt men, and himſelf -pays Tribute, &c. And theſe things we areytfeating of, be- ing Civil, Political, and depending on hu- man Contrats, are the proper tubjecs. wherein human® Laws are concerned, for the ſtating the bounds between borrower and lender in the matter of gain; as they alſo do in ſome caſes between the buyer and ſeller : provided till, that theſe Laws do keep within the general bounds of Equity and Moderationthar may be colleted from Scripture or right Reaſon.” It appertains to thele Laws to ftate and appoint; as at what rate-Gold and Silver ſhall be valu- ed; ſo alſo what rate Money lent ſhall bear. 'Tis what. we have learnt 4 from H. living. Dr. Taylor © -That comtmutative; Fuſtice+ 6 Pe 205+ {uch as depends upon the laws of . Man direct - ly, aud An128 + wack of God. onlyiby con ſe- quence, &e.- And we have Lither's Judg- ment t00, favouting whatl aim ar. | Conſcience (faith he ) may. che conſulted for, If the Magiſtrate, with the. advice of. . ., Drvines and and Lawyers, preſerybe 4 6r- Tainmiddlti Way antheſe Conogaiiy, And Gre: In luc, p14 6.35 Firſt, They oaght to ck a7 ahve 007- der the covert of Uſury they exatt not more than 1 meets the which becauſe it1s nat Ola . ced ina certain point, but admits of a lati- | tude — * AL <3 3k WV, . —.. . —_ | EY the = Uſurer Caf, 107 +, trade according to the diverſity of Conntrys | and Nations, ought to be defined by Civil Law. ; L | . 5. I ſhall cloſethis SubjeR with Learned 7- 23 Rivet : In theſe Caſes, neither Chriſtian Charity, nor Natural Equity, nor Humanity 65violated, if beſide the Principal there be an addition of ſome mncreaſe, and ſ# much gain, as by Publick Law ts allowed and defi ted ;, 'and that by the ſame right by which it is lawful with a fafe Conſcience, to buy from the ſame perſon part of his Revermes or E- ate. = | | "Afterward: Awi/e Magiſtrate 15 not to p. 282. be blamed; rf to prevent ſtrifes, the ſhall be pleaſed to'nſe' avertain moderation, by ap- pointing 4 nfben;” for an yearly Penſion * | And ſeetnig the Magiſtrate rewards. Money disbu? fed by ShbjetFs with ſuch an yearly Pen: Aetrof Fu or fix Florens, as is done in theſe Provitjets, therefore the appointment there> of onght ſo much" the more to be approved, ( Not as a toleration, or ſome bounds put to &/ury, otherwiſe unlawful) for the preven- * ting of abuſes : otherwiſe he oupht not ro ad- miniſter an _— to ſin; but becauſe he ſees it neceſſary for Civil Society,” andy againſt Equity, being he had aneye tothit, and de- ſrened to ſtop many Controverſies,” "Therefore the opinion 'of Learned Men & "not amiſs, that as in Cruil Commerce the Maoiftrate nm make uſe of other Conſtitutions, (fo'of this al- % 103 A Replyto Mr. Jelinger's < LIM ſo, without any ſcruple of. Conſcience ; when he knows the Magiſtrate to be the Miniſter of . © God, _ furniſhed by him with the power of ' tnaking Laws, whom in thu by Ordination he knews to have reſpett to. Natural Equi- ty. 