THE Jews by God's own appoint­ment were obliged to several sorts of Laws, as first Ceremonial or Typical, such as Circumcision, the Passover, Sacrifices, &c. They that are against all Usury will own that Christians are not ob­liged to these. Secondly, To Laws which in their very Nature are Moral and Perpetual, and therefore bind us as much as them. And that the Law against Usury is not of this sort, I [Page 2]think is plain, because God did permit even the Jews to lend upon Usury to Strangers, which he would not have done, had it been a Sin in its own Nature, and as obligatory to all as the other Moral Laws are: For God did not give them leave to Rob, or to com­mit Adultery, [...] Drunk with Strangers, provided they did not do so among them­selves: Nay, God commanded the Jews that they should not oppress even Strangers, be­cause they themselves were Strangers in the Land of Egypt. From whence it is plain, That Usury in its own Nature is not unlawful or unjust, nor can be reckoned Oppression, as they that plead against it affirm it is. For had it been so, then God would not have al­lowed the Jews to lend to Strangers upon U­sury as he did; Nay, God made it one of the Blessings that should attend their [...]bedi­ence, that They should lend to many N [...]tions, and not borrow; (this could never be meant of Free Loan.) So that for ought I can see, an Ability to lend upon Usury to many, was one of the Blessings of Canaan. Thirdly, God obliged the Jews to certain Politick Laws, which were, First, Either such as re­spected Common Justice (of which there are [Page 3]abundance of Instances) or Secondly, Laws of Charity and Kindness one to another, and that not only in general, but in particular Instances (among which that of lending free­ly was one) and which otherwise they had not been bound perpetually to observe from the nature of the things themselves; and which Precepts (respecting both Justice and Charity) were part of that Theocracy or Di­vine Government that was peculiar to them as Jews, I shall here set down some of these Laws of Charity.

Now I humbly conceive it may be rea­sonably questioned, Whether these Scrip­tures do totally forbid lending upon Usury, even to all sorts of Jews. You see there is two places in Exodus and Levitious that plainly limit it to poor Neighbour-Jews. Now all the Fundamental Laws which God gave the People of the Jews, as a Nation, whe­ther Moral, Ceremonial, or Judicial, are set down in the Four Books of Exodus, Leviti­cus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; only here is the difference between Deuteronomy and the other Three Books, that Deuteronomy doth mostly contain a Repetition of Laws already established in the other Three Books, or in some of them. And though these Laws, or any of them, be afterwards mentioned in a­ny of the rest of the Books of the Of Te­stament, yet it is but in a way of Repetition or Inforcement of the Old Laws already gi­ven forth, without any Alteration or Addi­tion, as to the Substance of them: And therefore when in the other Books mention is made of any of those Laws in general, (as some times there is) and any Dispute should arise about the meaning of these Laws, must we not have recouse to the Original Sanction [Page 6]or Establishment, set down in some of the said Four Books. Thus ought we to pro­ceed in the Case of Usury in those Books where the Law about Usury is established, namely in Exodus and Levitious; there is no Obligation to lend freely to any but the Poor: And though in Deuteronomy the Law of U­sury is repeated in general, without mention of Poor or Rich, and the like we have in some other Books of the Old Testament, yet I think it is very plain, that all these Places (as well in Deuteronomy as in the other Books) must have a Reference to, and be expound­ed by those two express Original Laws esta­blished concerning Usury in Exodus and Levi­ticus, and not the contrary, as some would have it; and these Laws twice mention poor Jews, and once poor Strangers, and give no Rule for Lending or not Lending the Rich of one sort or of another: Therefore see­ing in Deuteronomy there is no new Law ad­ded about Usury, but only the former Law in general repeated; and since neither here, nor in other places of the Old Testament, there is any Law forbidding to lend to rich Jews, Why may we not (without putting any force upon those places) say we must [Page 7]understanding by them such Usury as in the O­riginal Law was forbidden (that is to say) the taking it of poor Jews and poor Stran­gers. And if they might take Increase of none that were Jews, though never so Rich, why should the Holy Ghost twice mention these Expressions, If thy Brother be poor, thou shalt lend without Ʋsury. Surely he would ne­ver have repeated these If's twice over, if Rich as well as Poor were concerned in the Prohibition; but in all the places where U­sury is forbidden, he would have forbid it absolutely without any Limitation: And for the same Reasons we must not so construe any places in the Prophets, as to take away any Liberty or Priviledge given (either ex­presly, or by a plain, natural, and necessary Consequence) in the Original Fundamental Laws: this would be to pervert (not inter­pret) Scripture, and would make the Pro­phets Law-givers, not Law Interpreters. But not to insist upon this any further; suppose the Case had been that no Usury was to be requi­red of any Jews, Poor of Rich, which is the Opinion of those that oppose all Usury or In­crease for Lending of Money.

Now here is the great Question I would be resolved in by those that would have all kinds of Usury, or Increase for lending Mo­ney, unlawful to Christians, Whether if Christians are obliged to this Jewish Law a­gainst Usury (which is a Law of Charity) they are not as well obliged to all the other Laws or Instances of Charity I have named before, and the rest, enjoyned to the Jews in the Old Law?

That Christians are obliged to Charity in general, by many Precepts in the New Testa­ment, is not to be questioned; but whether they are obliged to shew it always in those particular Instances that the Jews were, I not only question, but positively deny. Nor do I believe the Opposers of all Usury do think themselves obliged to those other Instances I have named, which are as great, or rather greater Acts of Charity than lending Money freely. And I would fain know why they are so strict for this one Instance, and yet at the same time can pass over the others, although both are equally Commanded by God in the Old Testament. I do not think it unlawful for a Christian to shew his Charity in any of the afore-mentioned Instances of Charity, any [Page 9]more than in this of lending freely: Nay, I wish Christians were more plentiful in such Acts of Kindness as lending freely, forgiving poor Debtors once in Seven years, in leaving at Harvest time some of the Fruits of the Earth for the Poor, and the like: But the Question in Debate is, Whether Christians are obliged upon account of these Jewish Pre­cepts, under the Penalty of Sin, always to shew their Charity in these particular Instances; Hath not a Christian in Harvest time the choice either to cause all his Fruits to be brought home, and leave hone for the Poor, and in lieu thereof shew his Charity in another way or manner? Whether if a Christian forget a Sheaf in his Field in Harvest time, he may not send for it without sinning? Whether such as take Garments in Pledge for Money lent, may not forbear to restore them again by that the Sun goeth down? I think none will deny this Liberty to Christians; but the very Let­ter of the Law denied it to the Jews; for though they might be Charitable in other In­stances, as well as these, yet these must not be omitted, being expresly Commanded. Now if a Christian is not bound to such particular Instances of Charity, but is left free as to the [Page 10]Kinds and Methods of Charity; and if lend­ing Money freely be an Act of Charity or Kindness (as certainly it is) why is a Christi­an perpetually obliged to this Instance, any more than to the former Instances of Charity? If they that oppose all Usury say, Though the other Instances of Charity are Commanded of God, yet they peculiarly belonged to the Jews, and were some of their Judicial or Po­litical Laws that are not obligatory to Christians now, but the Law against Usury is; Then let them shew me their Warrant for making this Difference and Distinction between one and another. It is plain all the other Instan­ces of Charity I have named are practicable in their own Nature in a Christian Country, as much as the Law against Usury; nor are they any where prohibited in the Gospel. A Man may be a very good Christian, and yet at the end of every Seven years release all that shall then owe l [...]m any Money if he please. A­gain, I desire those that are against all Usury, or Increase for lending Money, as wicked and sinful, seriously to consider that the very same Jewish Law that forbids to lend for Usury, commands to lend without it to those that are waxen poor. Now by this, they that are a­gainst [Page 11]gainst all Usury, are obliged to be as careful to lend their poor Neighbours when they want, as they are conscientious not to do it upon U­sury; or otherwise they perform but the least part of that Law; for lending Money freely in such a case, is a greater kindness than the meer scrupling to take Use: Therefore it will do well for such to take care, while they shew their Zeal in shunning all Usury, they do not fall into the greater Sin of Hypocrisie in being so un­charitable as not to lend at all when the Case re­quires it; for it's a greater deed of Charity to lend upon moderate Usury, even to the Poor, than not to lend to them at all in their Wants. Now if the Law to lend Money freely were a particular Law of Charity, and not of Common Justice, and peculiarly relating to the Jews as such, and not universally obliging them nei­ther, (for they might lend to all the World at Usury, except to one another, and to poor Strangers that were with them, and the Jews were but a handful in comparison of the rest of the World) If the Gentile Christians are no more perpetually obliged to this Instance of Charity than the others before-mentioned; (as I am fully satisfied they are not.) If to lend upon moderate Increase be not in its own na­ture [Page 12]unjust (as I hope I have in part already proved, and shall presently further manifest by answering the most material Objections against it) If it be not forbidden in the Gospel (as I am satisfied it is not) then I humbly conceive that those Arguments against all Usury, or In­crease upon Loan of Money, taken not only from the Old Testament, but from Councils, Fathers, and other Doctors and Writers in former Ages (that are so cried up as Enemies of all Usury) will fall to the Ground; unless Christians must be compelled so far to Judaize as perpetually to observe those other Laws of Charity imposed upon the Jews, which I doubt they will not, nor indeed are they obliged to do so; though they who oppose all Usury as unlawful, are bound so to do from their own Principles or Arguments, or must confess them­selves guilty of unaccountable partiality in their zealous asserting of, and stickling for the per­petuity of one Jewish Law of Charity or Kind­ness, and disobeying and rejecting all the rest.

Object. But it is objected, 'Tis strange so ma­ny Fathers, Councils, and other holy Men in all Ages have so condemned Usury, if it were not unlawful; and who shall be believed, they, or those that would have it lawful?

Answ. I answer, neither the one nor the o­ther without due proof: If this be a good Ar­gument against all Increase for Loan of Money, it would be so against the Protestant Religion it self; and that Question of the Papists (I think) would be unanswerable, Where was your Religion before Luther? The Question is nor whether is best, to lend Money freely, or upon Increase; for I grant it most Christian for them that are able to lend Money freely when the reason of the Case requires it: So if poor People come to buy of a rich Trades­man necessary Provision or Apparel, it is better and more pleasing to God, to give away his Profit to such than to take it; yea, and it may be a Sin in some Cases of Extream Necessity to exact of the Poor what is due from them: But is buying and selling for profit, in a way of Common Justice therefore unlawful in its own Nature. It may be a Sin (in some Cir­cumstances a Borrower may be in) not only to force him to pay Usury, but the very Princi­pal, or at least the whole of it: But must this be therefore observed of all as a general Rule, and in all Cases and Circumstances.

And as to the Objection that so many Holy Men and Councils are against all Usury, [Page 14]I answer, I doubt not I shall presently make it out, that all these Councils and Fathers were not against all Usury or Increase in the Sense of those that now plead against it: But put the Case they, or some of them were, I say we are not to pin our Faith upon such, no more in this than in any other Cases or Instances, wherein many (if not most) of these Fathers and Councils have erred, and that in many A­ges of the Church. It is well known that the indiscreet Zeal of many Holy Men and Councils has been the Original, as well as a Means of the Continuance of Abundance of Superstition and Idolatry that has been practised in many Ages of the Church, such as the Mass, Praying to or for the Dead, and many Errours about the Sacraments, besides several other Doctrinal Errours from the Primitive Age of the Church down to this time, which are all now discard­ed and disowned by Protestants: And why are we bound to think them any more infallible in their Judgments about Usury, wherein they might more easily mistake it (being expresly forbidden to the Jews in the Old Testament in some Cases;) I will not pretend to have my self read either the Councils or Fathers, but I have read those who have given some [Page 15]account of them relating to the Matters in De­bate; I doubt not those Councils and Fathers (whole Opinions and Judgments we have most reason to value, though none to build on) are ignorantly or carelesly misrepresented by those that are against all Increase upon Loan of Mo­ney.

The first Nicene Council is suppos'd to be the best, as well as the first General Council, after that of the Apostles, and they did indeed forbid all Usury; but to whom? to all the Clergy, not to the Laity; the Words of the Council, in effect amount to no more than this, Whoever of the Clergy, for filthy Lucres sake exerciseth Ʋsury, let him be Deposed. And this by the way seems to imply, That Usury in its own Nature was not unlawful, (for then it should have been Censured in the Lai­ty also) but they thought it did not look well in the Clergy to receive Usury. Now it the first and best General Council that e­ver was in the World, did not deem it in their Province to Judge or Censure the Pra­ctice of Usury in the Laity, but left that mat­ter to the Civil Magistrate, it is sure a sign of too great Boldness and Rashness in any particular Clergy-man, upon less Authority to [Page 16]Censure and Damn all that deal in Usury or Interest, as several have ignorantly or uncha­ritably done. And if there were a Law now in England forbidding the Clergy to take U­sury, how would this affect the Laity, or those who follow Trades and Merchandise. We read, the Antichristian Apostacy had so prevailed in the Christian Would, at the time even of this first General Council (which is said to Consist of Three hundred and eighteen Fathers) that even the generality of these Fa­thers were within an Ace of Establishing that which the Apostle calls the Doctrine of Di­vels, I mean Forbidding the Clergy to Marry; and the there was only one Bishop that opposed the rest, and turned the Scale on the right side: If they were so ready to bind all the Clergy to abstain from Marriage, against the express Doctrine and Determinations of the New Testament, no wonder if they pro­hibit the Clergy all Usury, having a Colour or Pretence so to do from some old Testament Precepts, which do not oblige Christians.

Now suppose, after this Nicene Council, a Man finds Usury condemned in the Works or Writing of several Fathers or Doctors of the Church, so called; yet (I doubt not but) [Page 17]a great many of them may be fairly interpre­ted to mean, either such Usury as was for­bidden in the Law to be taken of the Poor, or such as was forbidden by this Nicene Coun­cil to be taken by the Clergy; neither of which will make at all against that Usury I de­fend.

If it be still objected, That after this first Council there were afterwards other Councils and Doctors of the Church which did con­demn Usury in all Cases and Persons. I grant it to be true; but then pray consider their Grounds and Reasons for it, and then you will not have a jot the worse thought of U­sury upon the account of their Opinion. For from the time of this Nicene Council, the Church was continually growing more and more into that Antichristian Apostacy that did at last totally Eclipse the Glory of it. And the Pope and Clergy by degrees began to encroach upon the Office and Laws of the Civil Magistrate, and so assumed to meddle and determine in Civil Matters, which did not belong to them. And since the Clergy were all forbidden to take Usury by this first Nicene Council, many of them afterwards (partly through Envy, and partly through In­terest, [Page 18]as may rationally be suppos'd by their other Worldly and Ambitious Designs and Proceedings) made it their work to condemn all Usury in the Laity; for had they been as much at liberty, as the Nicene Council left the Laity, I do not question but the Clergy af­ter the Council would have taken Usury as much as the Clergy before the Council did, (which was the occasion of that Councils De­cree;) for we have no reason to believe, the Clergy that rose up in successive Ages after that Council, were better Men (or so good as) those that lived at the time of that Coun­cil, or before it: Therefore seeing these Cler­gy-men were totally forbid Usury themselves, they (not minding or regarding the vast dif­ference between the Case of those whose bu­siness it is to win Souls, and that of those who are to drive Trades and follow Merchandize in the World) did afterwards condemn all Usury in the Laity too; that by this means, as they could not lend to the Laity upon U­sury, they themselves would not be bound to pay any usury to the Laity, when they had occasion to borrow of them: So that we have reason to believe it was Self-interest was the greatest Cause of many of the Clergy's stick­ling against usury.

Again, I would desire any Man seriously to tell me, Whether the Censures or Opinions of any of the Fathers or Councils, after the first Nicene Council, are to be preferred to, or equalled with the Opinions or Censures of those Nicene Fathers? If the Clergy at that time did exercise usury (as the words of the Cannon do expresly declare) no doubt but the Laity did practice it as much or more; and if it were so sinful and damnable in its own Nature, as some have affirm'd it is, no doubt but those Fathers (though they would not as­sume to themselves a Power to prohibit usu­ry to the Laity, yet they) would at least have earnestly recommended it to the pious Em­perour Constantine the Great, that he would make a general Law to prohibit it in all pla­ces of his Dominions, which I cannot learn that ever he did, but only by his Edict con­firmed the Decree of this Council against the Clergies taking of usury. But suppose the Emperour then, or any Civil Magistrate since, had by Civil Laws totally forbidden all usury in their Dominions, both Clergy▪ and Laity, unless it be in all cases and curcumstances a Moral Evil (which can never be proved) how are we in this Nation obliged by any such [Page 20]Laws? Are we of this Nation bound by the Laws of any other Country as such, besides and different from the Laws of our own?

Again, Let us consider, though many good Men in former times (whether before or since the Reformation) were indeed against all sorts of Increase or Usury upon lending Money, yet there are now, for ought I know, as ma­ny holy and good Men that hold it lawful: And why are we bound to the Judgment of the other more than of these. And by the way, this Consideration, I humbly conceive, shou'd have moved Mr. Jones to have been less positive in declaring his Opinion upon this Point.

His zealous, but rash Censures of all Usu­ry or Increase upon Loan of Money, has gi­ven (I doubt) a needless occasion to many to have less regard (than otherwise they might have had) to his zealous Exhortations against those other known Sins he justly condemns in his Sermon: I believe he would have done much better to have spoken against the Abu­ses in Usury, than the thing it self. There are Sins enough (God knows) in the Nation, that are confessed by all to be such, which will find Preachers work enough, so that they [Page 21]will not need to be so peremptory against a thing which so many wise and good Men approve as lawful. That there are a great many abuses in many cases and circumstances about lending Money upon use, I easily grant, (and am as heartily sorry for, as they that are against Usury) but the abuse of a thing by some, yea by many, will not infer the unlawfulness of it: If so, then Buying, and Selling, and all sorts of Tranding must be unlawful, because abused by many, and pra­ctised against the strict Laws of Justice and Charity; yea, and the Office of preaching it self, would then be unlawful, because 'tis possible many (as I suppose Mr. Jones will not deny) may regard the Flock only, or chiefly for the Fleece sake, or for filthy Lucre sake.

I shall in the next place consider and re­fute some of the most material Arguments (that I have met with) whereby the Oppo­sers of all Usury would pretend to prove it unlawful in its own Nature, and to differ from other ways of disposing Money upon Increase or Profit, (which all grant to be law­ful) and one is this; They say, If a Man lends Money, it's unreasonable to take In­crease, [Page 22]besides the Principal again; forasmuch as Money naturally yields no Increase, but what is got by the pains of the Borrower, and not of the Lender: Whereas if a Man lets Land for profit, it naturally yields Fruit; and if one lets a House, it will grow worse by time and wearing, in consideration whereof a Man receives Rent.

To which I answer, and grant there is a difference between lending of Money and these other Instances, in some circumstances; but for the most part, little or nothing in the substance: For though Land naturally yields Increase, yet it will not do so proportionably to the full Rent required, without the great Pains and Labour of the Tenant; (in which the Landlord does not concern himself, any more than a Man that lends Money does in the Improvement of it) And if Tenants by Lease are bound to Repair Houses (and to leave them repaired at the End of the Term) besides paying their Rents, then there is very little difference in the reason of the Case be­tween letting for Rent, and letting at Inter­est; and especially where a Man lets a piece of Ground to build on, reserving a certain Ground-Rent during the Lease; for this [Page 23]Ground (it may be) is not worth five shil­lings a year unbuilt, (for what will grow upon it naturally) when yet a Ground-Rent of five pounds a year may be made of it; and nevertheless all the Improvement is pure­ly at the charge, and by the Pains and Industry of the Tenant, and nothing by the Owner of the Ground; and when he has built his House, though he cannot get a Te­nant for it a great while, or though he looses Rent by bad Tenants; yet the Ground Land­lord expects his Ground-Rent, and thinks he may do it honestly and lawfully. And when the Term of the Lease is expired, this Ground (that naturally of it self could have yielded so very little in comparison, wi [...]hout the Te­nants Charge and Pains) is left up to the Landlord in as good a plight as any Money upon Usury when it is repaid, besides all the Buildings upon it, which may be worth much more than the Ground it self: And I suppose no Pleader against Usury would think it un­lawful to be such a Landlord. There is but one Circumstance wherein this Instance differs considerably in reference to the matter in que­sion, from that of lending Money on Usu­ry, and that it, Principal Money in the Bor­rowers [Page 24]hand is liable to Providential loss in Trading, or otherwise, but Ground is not; which I grant to be true: But a House built on Ground is liable to be burnt or demolished, and a Tenant in that Case is bound to build it again, and yet the Ground Landlord will look for all his Rent; and the same is agreed and expected where a House is let by Lease upon a Rack-Rent.

Another great Argument why Usury is un­lawful, say some, is this, It is hurtful not only to the Borrower, but to the Commonwealth in general: For when People borrow upon Usury to carry on their Trades, they will set their Goods at higher Prices, to enable them to pay Use-money, which otherwise they could af­ford cheaper.

But if this Argument be an Argument a­gainst Usury, it will much more be so also a­gainst House-rents, for were it not for Rents, all Trades-men might afford their Goods Cheap­er; and some have as much need to hire Mo­ney, as Houses, to carry on their Trades. But I conceive this Argument is more in conceit than in reality. 'Tis true, if all Trades-men of one and the same Trade did borrow Money upon Interest, it might occasion some Increase [Page 25]of Prices; but if only some do, it is plain they must sell as cheap as the rest that do not bor­row Money are willing to do, unless they will lose their Customers. To me it is very plain, That were there a Law made and truly obser­ved, that no Money should be lent at Interest, (unless at the same time a Law could be made that men who have spare Money should be ob­liged to lend without Usury, which is never like to be) this would be far more prejudicial to the Commonwealth, and more occasion the dear­ness of Prices than the Law to lend upon Inte­rest would; for in case of a general Restraint of taking Interest, I think it is very plain, few would lend Money, because they would not only be sure of receiving no profit by it, but must run the risque of losing it for nothing: Now in this case, only the great and rich men and Traders, that have Money enough of their own, would engross the most useful Commodi­ties to themselves, and make their own Prices; and inferiour Traders for want of Moneys to buy at the same Market, must be forced to buy of them at their price, which might make Com­modities as dear again to common Buyers, as they would have been, in case a general biberty of lending upon moderate Increase were per­mitted; [Page 26]when by paying 5 or 6 per Cent. they may get or save 10 or 20 per Cent. or more. And therefore I am fully perswaded, were a Law against all Usury put in Execution, the prices of all sorts of Goods would immediately rise very considerably. And then what must those many Widows and Orphans, and several others do, that have nothing but Money to live on, and are not in a capacity to manage Trades, they must not lend it for profit, they cannot trade with it; why the next thing they must pitch upon is, to buy Houses or Land with it; this will im­mediately raise Houses and Lands to excessive prices as to Purchase, and by consequence to such low Rents as will not answer the value of the Money, nor give perhaps so much as 2 or 3 per Cent. improvement: Whether this would be an Advantage to the Publick, I leave to the considering Reader to judge.

And if those who are against all Usury, would have Christians perpetually obliged to particular Precepts that were given to the Jews in their Laws, should they not be much more positive from Gospel Precepts to maintain it unlawful for Christians to swear in any case, or to eat Pud­dings made with blood, or any thing that dyes by strangling, than out of the Jewish Law to [Page 27]maintain it unlawful for Christians to lend Mo­ney for Increase.

The sum of all is, If moderate Usury or In­crease (rightly circumstantiated) be not in its own nature unlawful, as against Justice, though to require it in some cases may be against Chari­ty; and if those Precepts the Jews were under, in this Particular, do not perpetually oblige Christians, any more than those other Instances of Charity to which they were obliged, then I conclude, It is the Law of every Christian Country, and the Judgment of a Conscientious Man, that must state this Matter, what degrees of Interest upon Lending shall be lawful or un­lawful, both in general and in particular Cir­cumstances; and this Law, we of this Country must have recourse to in this Matter; and (as in Civil Matters the Gospel commands us to be Subject to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake, so) we must herein be subject to that which the Wisdom of the Nation (in the Legislative Power thereof) has determined. And by this Law a Christian is left at Liberty to lend, either in a way of common Justice for Increase, or of Kindness or Charity freely, as the Nature and Circumstances of the Case may require.

Object. I know some object again, The Law [Page 28]of the Land doth not allow Usury, only for­bids taking more than so much in the Hundred; therefore there is no pleading the lawfulness of Usury from the Law. Answ. Which I take to be a very weak Argument, and that it has little force in it; the Judges in Law and Equity (I sup­pose) are best able to determine what the Law allows as to this Matter, when so many Judg­ments are given every Term, as well in Equity as in Law, That the Plaintiffs shall not only have their Money, but Interest also; which if the Law did not allow and approve as just, the Judges would not thus determine. Put case there were a Law that no Landlord should take above so much Rent for Houses in such a place, or of such or such Dimensions, would it hence follow, the Law doth not allow or approve of taking any Rent at all? I doubt this would be but a weak Inference, and the other is no better.

Now supposing the taking of Increase for lending Money be lawful in its own Nature to Christians, (which I hope has been sufficiently proved) the next thing to be considered is, Whether it be convenient, that is, whether the allowance of a moderate Increase be good for the Nation in general, or not; or whether it [Page 29]would be better for the Nation that no such In­crease were allowed to be given or taken. I have hinted something already of the Benefit to the Commonwealth that comes by allowance of Interest, in making Goods cheaper. I shall now in a few Particulars shew some further Advantages thereof to the Kingdom, which are never like to be obtained by a Prohibition of all Interest: As,

First, Were it not for the Allowance of a moderate Increase for lending Money, thousands that want would never be accommodated, which now are.

Secondly, Though most that lend should do it freely, yet they that borrow of them would in this way be liable to several Inconveniencies which may be as prejudicial to them, if not more than paying Interest; as thus, Suppose a Man wants a Sum of Money, his Friend tells him he will lend him freely for such a time perhaps 3 or 6 Months, but if he does not re­pay it again by that time, he shall be much in­jured for the want of it; the Borrower promi­ses to repay it accordingly; but so it happens, when the time comes, he cannot do it: This occasions a Quarrel, it may be a Suit between the Lender and him; the Lender saith he is [Page 30]damnified, and ought to have Damage-money given him (for I find some Anti-usurers them­selves do allow that Damage-money ought to be given the Lender in such Cases) Now who shall be Judge of the Quantity of Da­mage-money, and whether the Damage-money (and Charges about it) in many Cases, if not in most, may not exceed a moderate Interest for the Money during the whole time it was lent: Especially considering that the Contro­versie in adjusting the Proportion of Damage-money, may also it self occasion a Law-suit, though the Principal should not.

Thirdly, This is another Inconveniency, People that lend freely for the most part will not lend their Money for so long a time as the generality of Borrowers need it; and the Cal­ling in of Money exactly at the times of Pay­ment, may prove to their greater prejudice in some Circumstances, than paying Interest for all the time: But now when Money is lent upon moderate Increase, the Interest-Money goes on though the Day of Payment be past; this is a great Motive to the Lender to continue the Money as the Borrowers Occasions require.

Fourthly, By borrowing freely, I lay a need­less Obligation upon my self to lend as much [Page 31]Money to the Lender, or to be Surety for him another time; either of which (in some Cir­cumstances which he or I may be then in) may be very ensnaring and dangerous to me. Again, how many Children are sent up out of the Countries every day to be Apprentices in Ci­ties and Towns; and the Parents and Friends of most of them it may be with difficulty find Money to put them out to Apprentice, but can give them no Stock to set up their Trades; yet many of these having been observed to be dili­gent and careful during their Apprenticeship, have been Encouraged to set up when out of their Times, and Monies offered them (upon paying moderate Interest) to enable them so to do; and this has been the raising of many Persons, I may say multitudes, which otherwise must have lived Journey-men or Servants. Again, How many Gentlemen are there, who have Estates in Land, and but little Money, that have Daughters to dispose in Marriage, whose Advancements are successfully promoted by borrowing Money at Interest upon their Fa­ther's Estates, which otherwise could not be effected. Again, what more promotes the Trade and Merchandize of the Nation than the frequent Lending and Borrowing of Money; [Page 32]for Money is as requisite to be pass'd too and fro for the maintaining of Trade, as the Circu­lation of the Blood and Spirits is for the preser­ving of Health in the Body, as all that have Judgment and Experience in those Affairs know very well. Now what either equal or probable way is there to furnish such Sums as the Cases of greater Dealers require, without paying Interest for it. And therefore, by the way, I see not but that the Trade or Employment of Banking it self is very Convenient, if not ne­cessary for the present accommodation of Mer­chants and other considerable Traders upon se­veral Important Occasions: And therefore, I think, that upbraiding Reflexion which Mr. Jones has quoted from Bishop Sanderson, namely, That a Man should be born for nothing else but to tell out Money, and to take in Paper, is but weak­ly grounded, for those are but the Instrumen­tal and Subservient part of their main Business, which is or may be the convenient helping and supplying of other Men's Affairs, and getting reasonable Advantage to themselves. And if this be a necessary and useful Calling to a Trading Nation, why is it not as lawful to be telling Money for that purpose, as to be buy­ing, selling, and turning over Goods for as long a time.

It is true, Christ drave the Exchangers out of the Temple, so he did the Sellers of Doves; but he condemned neither of the Callings as unlawful in themselves, but because of the un­suitableness of the Place: For it seems there were Bankers of Exchangers in Christ's Time, which he himself alludes to, when he Censures the slothful Servant for not putting his Talent to such, that so Christ might have had his own again with Usury: What need I say more, It is Increase for Money that Encourages to lend for Supplying the present Necessities of the Go­vernment, and will the better enable to furnish Moneys for the further Supplies of it when they shall be call'd for.

Now let any man prove, if he can, that so many good Effects would proceed from a to­tal Prohibition of all Increase for Lending, and whether any suppose Prejudice or Mischief that may come to a Borrower by paying Inter­est, can or ought to be an Argument never to lend at Interest, I am very well satisfied there are few Instances to be produced of any that have been ruined by borrowing at Interest, but who would have been ruined also had they borrowed without Interest, and that there are more Instances of such who have been ruined [Page 34]by buying of Goods, or paying Rents for Hou­ses or Lands.

I would here also shew that Lending Money at such Interest as our Laws allow, is liable to fewer Deceits or Frauds than selling most sorts of Goods: As suppose one sells 20 l. worth of Goods for ready Money, the Buyer may be deceived (and often is) as to the goodness of the Commodity, and for the most part he is Ignorant of the Sellers profit, neither of which Lending at Increase is liable to. Again, If the Buyer keeps his Goods a while by him, the Market may fall (which frequently happens) and then the Goods which cost 20 l. may not be worth 15 l. but the keeping Money by me never so long does not diminish the value. Again, In selling Goods a man may return his Money so many times a year, as to get 20, 30, 40, 50, per Cent. per Annum, or more; whereas in lending Money I am limitted to that mode­rate Increase per Annum which the Law al­lows; nor can I take or exact any more with­out endangering the loss or forfeiture of my Principal Money: So that on the Lender's part, though he were a Knave, there can be no deceit at all (which is the commonest Abuse in Dealing) impos'd upon the Bor­rower [Page 35]by Lending to him at Interest.

I hope the World will not interpret my Attempt in this Nature, as if I design'd or in­tended only to shew my self an Enemy to Mr. Jones; I am so far from that, That I bless God for him, and for his Diligence and Faithfulness in preaching against the Corruptions of the Times: Nor do I think much the worse of him, for his Mistake or Error in this matter a­bout Usury, (supposing it not a wilful one) only I think he should have taken more time and consideration about a Point of so great weight and concernment to many thousands, and well weighed the Arguments of those ma­ny living Saints that are for it, as well as those dead ones that have been against it: Nor would I be deemed an Enemy to any truly holy Men or Fathers, that in former Ages have been of his Judgment; whose great Love to Charity and good Works, (together with their Igno­rance of the Nature of Traffick and Commerce, not considering that more Monies are needed for the carrying of it on, that can be ob­tained by free Loan) in a Concern of this Na­ture might easily incline their Judgments to determine in favour of that Opinion, which they thought would most advance Well-doing, [Page 36]namely, That the Lending of Money should be always in a way of Charity▪ and never in a way of Common Justice; which I doubt not (by what has been said) will appear to be a Mistake, though it may be called a right hand Error.

But if any Person yet remains unsatisfied with what I have proved and alledg'd in Vindication of this Subject of Interest, and thinks fit to make a Reply thereto, I desire he would di­stinctly make out and prove, if he can, what unavoidable Moral Evil or Damage redounds to any Person, or to the Publick, by Giving and Taking Interest for Money; and from which the Practice of it cannot be freed or separated by any Circumstances.