A practical exposition of the X. Commandments with a resolution of several momentous questions…A practical exposition of the X. Commandements with a resolution of several momentous questions…

5. In matter of communicating and charity, the Apostle requireth an equality, 2 Cor. 8.13, 14. and that one should not be burdened and another free: Now suppose one of a lesser estate to have only money, shall he be obliged to the punishing and burdening of himself to lend more; and that freely (upon the account of charity, for there is no other meant here) then a man of a greater estate is, because he hath it not in money, where is the equality?

5. In matter of communicating and charity, the Apostle requireth an equality, 2 Cor. 8.13, 14. and that one should not be burthened and another free: Now suppose one of a lesser estate to have only money, shall he be obliged to the punishing and burthening of himself to lend more; and that freely (upon the account of charity, for there is no other meant here) then a man of a greater estate is, because he hath it not in money, where is the equality?

6. Right reason agreeable to Scripture will clear this; suppose one gives another so much land for so much money, and the buyer desires to retain a part of the money, shall the seller be incapacitated to receive now any thing less of his estate when in money, then formerly when it was in land? Is it not still his estate and of the same value? and therefore may it not yield that same equivalent by moderate usury or interest?

7. If it were absolutely denied, then these absurdities would follow, 1. That some estates would be useless to their masters or owners, and others not: 2. That some, for instance, Ministers, Orphans, and persons unable for trade, should be incapacitated to make any use of their estates, or any provision for their families merely on this account, because either they are in such stations, or have their estates in such a condition: 3. Then should one get no payment of money, no not the principal, suppose the person owing could not repay the principal without selling some part of his estate (seeing we ought not to seek in the principal debt more then its increase to his hurt) because then (according to their principles) we continued not to lend freely. Then we ought not to turn our estate from money to land, because in doing so we disenable our selves to lend freely. Then also there needed not, nay there ought not to be any selling of land or buying amongst neighbours (as in some respect it was not amongst the Jews, but to the year of Jubilee) because 1. If men get money freely, they might still, and no doubt would still keep their estates, and not pay their debts: 2. If men could not take any increase for money it self, then could not a man buy another mans possession, which can yield him afterwards that same principal sum, and also yearly so much more, for this doth infer an increase also: And beside, if this did hold true, then what rule were to be kept in lending? If it be said charity, that is granted, but so long as a mans estate is better then mine, can any say I am in charity obliged to give him, or lend him, and get nothing again? If any say equity should be the rule; none will say it is equity the borrower should possess his own estate, and mine also, and give nothing to me, when by my loan benefit accresseth to him: And if one may give money for land, and then exact rent, why may not one give