{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_71223/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_71223","id":"gutenberg_71223","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71223","summary":null,"tags":["Capitalism -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","Category: Economics","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: History - Religious","Economics -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","Great Britain -- Social conditions","Religion and sociology","Religious thought -- 16th century","Religious thought -- 17th century"],"text":"RELIGION AND THE RISE OF CAPITALISM\n\n\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_\n\n\nTHE AGRARIAN PROBLEM IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY\n\nLongmans, Green & Co. 1912. pp. 464. 8^o. $3.75.\n\nTHE ACQUISITIVE SOCIETY\n\nHarcourt, Brace & Co. 1921. pp. 242. 8^o. $1.50.\n\nSTUDIES IN THE MINIMUM WAGE\n\n1. The Establishment of Minimum Rates in the Chain-making Industry. G. Bell &\nSons. 1914. pp. 157. 8^o. 1/6.\n\n2. The Establishment of Minimum Rates in the Tailoring Industry. 1915. pp. 274.\n8^o. 3/6.\n\nA DISCOURSE UPON USURY BY THOMAS WILSON.\n\nHarcourt, Brace & Co. 1925. pp. 392. 8^o. $5.00.\n\n_With A. E. BLAND and P. A. BROWN_\n\nENGLISH ECONOMIC HISTORY: SELECT DOCUMENTS\n\nHarcourt, Brace & Co. pp. 730. 1914. 8^o. $2.75.\n\n_With DR. E. POWER_\n\nTUDOR ECONOMIC DOCUMENTS\n\nLongmans, Green & Co. 1924. 3 vols. 8^o. $5.00 each.\n\n\n\n\n  RELIGION\n\n  AND THE\n\n  RISE OF CAPITALISM\n\n  A HISTORICAL STUDY\n\n  (HOLLAND MEMORIAL LECTURES, 1922)\n\n\n  BY R. H. TAWNEY\n\n  READER IN ECONOMIC HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON; SOMETIME FELLOW OF BALLIOL\n  COLLEGE, OXFORD\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n\n  NEW YORK HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1926, BY HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY, INC.\n\n\n  PRINTED IN THE U. S. A. BY QUINN & BODEN COMPANY, INC. RAHWAY, N. J.\n\n\n\n\n  TO\n\n  DR. CHARLES GORE\n\n  WITH\n\n  AFFECTION AND GRATITUDE\n\n\n\n\n \u201cWhatever the world thinks, he who hath not much meditated upon God, the human\n mind, and the _summum bonum_, may possibly make a thriving earthworm, but will\n most indubitably make a sorry patriot and a sorry statesman.\u201d\n\n  BISHOP BERKELEY, _Siris_, 350.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe object of this book is to trace some strands in the development of religious\nthought on social and economic questions in the period which saw the transition\nfrom medieval to modern theories of social organization. It does not carry the\nsubject beyond the beginning of the eighteenth century, and it makes no pretense\nof dealing with the history either of economic theory or of economic practice,\nexcept in so far as theory and practice were related to changes in religious\nopinion. In reality, however, the connection between them was intimate and\nvital. The revolutions, at once religious, political and social, which herald\nthe transition from the medieval to the modern world, were hardly less decisive\nfor the economic character of the new civilization than for its ecclesiastical\norganization and religious doctrines. The economic categories of modern society\nhave their roots in the economic expansion and social convulsions which\naccompanied the age of the Renaissance and the Reformation.\n\nThe history of religious thought on questions of social ethics is a topic which\nhas been treated in England by the late Dr. Cunningham, by Sir William Ashley,\nwhose essay on _The Canonist Doctrine_ first interested me in the subject, by\nMr. G. G. Coulton, Mr. H. G. Wood, and Mr. G. O\u2019Brien. But it is no reflection\non their work to say that the most important contributions of recent years have\ncome from continental students, in particular Troeltsch, Choisy, Sombart,\nBrentano, Levy and, above all, Max Weber, whose celebrated essay on _Die\nProtestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus_ gave a new turn to the\ndiscussion. No one can work, on however humble a scale, in the same field,\nwithout being conscious of the heavy obligation under which these scholars have\nlaid him. While I have not always been able to accept their conclusions, I am\nglad to have this opportunity of expressing my indebtedness to them. I regret\nthat Mr. Coulton\u2019s _The Medi\u00e6val Village_ appeared too late for me to make use\nof its abundant stores of learning and insight.\n\nIt only remains for me to thank the friends whose assistance has enabled me to\nmake this book somewhat less imperfect than it would otherwise have been. Mr. J.\nL. Hammond, Dr. E. Power, and Mr. A. P. Wadsworth have been kind enough to read,\nand to improve, the manuscript. Professor J. E. Neale, in addition to reading\nthe proofs, has helped me most generously throughout with advice and criticism.\nI am deeply indebted both to Miss Bulkley, who has undertaken the thankless task\nof correcting the proofs and making an index, and to the London School of\nEconomics and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund for enabling me to\nmake use of her services. My obligation to the help given by my wife is beyond\nacknowledgment.\n\n  R. H. TAWNEY.\n\n\n\n\n  CONTENTS                                                    PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                                ix\n\n  CHAPTER\n\n  I. THE MEDIEVAL BACKGROUND                                  1\n\n    THE SOCIAL ORGANISM                                       14\n\n    THE SIN OF AVARICE                                        36\n\n    THE IDEAL AND THE REALITY                                 55\n\n  II. THE CONTINENTAL REFORMERS                               63\n\n    THE ECONOMIC REVOLUTION                                   66\n\n    LUTHER                                                    79\n\n    CALVIN                                                    102\n\n  III. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND                                  133\n\n    THE LAND QUESTION                                         137\n\n    RELIGIOUS THEORY AND SOCIAL POLICY                        150\n\n    THE GROWTH OF INDIVIDUALISM                               175\n\n  IV. THE PURITAN MOVEMENT                                    195\n\n    PURITANISM AND SOCIETY                                    198\n\n    A GODLY DISCIPLINE VERSUS THE RELIGION OF TRADE           211\n\n    THE TRIUMPH OF THE ECONOMIC VIRTUES                       227\n\n    THE NEW MEDICINE FOR POVERTY                              253\n\n  V. CONCLUSION                                               275\n\n  NOTES                                                       289\n\n  INDEX                                                       327\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE MEDIEVAL BACKGROUND\n\n\u201cLa mis\u00e9ricorde de Dieu est infinie: elle sauvera m\u00eame un riche.\u201d\n\n  ANATOLE FRANCE, _Le Puits de Sainte Claire_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE MEDIEVAL BACKGROUND\n\n\n\u201cQue pourrions-nous gagner,\u201d once wrote a celebrated economist, \u201c\u00e0 recueillir\ndes opinions absurdes, des doctrines d\u00e9cri\u00e9es, et qui m\u00e9ritent de l\u2019\u00eatre? Il\nserait \u00e0 la fois inutile et fastidieux de les exhumer.\u201d[I-1] One who studies the\ndevelopment of social theory can hardly hope to avoid the criticism which is\nbrought against those who disturb the dust in forgotten lumber-rooms. If he\nseeks an excuse beyond his own curiosity, he may find it, perhaps, in the\nreflection that the past reveals to the present what the present is capable of\nseeing, and that the face which to one age is a blank may to another be pregnant\nwith meaning. Writing when economic science was in the first flush of its\ndogmatic youth, it was natural that Say should dismiss as an unprofitable\ndilettantism an interest in the speculations of ages unillumined by the radiance\nof the new Gospel. But to determine the significance of opinion is, perhaps, not\naltogether so simple a matter as he supposed. Since the brave days when Torrens\ncould say of Political Economy, \u201cTwenty years hence there will scarcely exist a\ndoubt respecting any of its fundamental principles,\u201d[I-2] how many confident\ncertainties have been undermined! How many doctrines once dismissed as the\nemptiest of superstitions have revealed an unsuspected vitality!\n\nThe attempt to judge economic activity and social organization by ethical\ncriteria raises problems which are eternal, and it is possible that a study of\nthe thought of an age when that attempt was made, if with little success, at\nleast with conviction and persistence, may prove, even today, not wholly without\ninstruction. In the present century, the old issues seem, indeed, to have\nacquired a new actuality. The philosophy which would keep economic interests and\nethical idealism safely locked up in their separate compartments finds that each\nof the prisoners is increasingly restive. On the one hand, it is evident that\nthe whole body of regulations, by which modern societies set limits to the free\nplay of economic self-interest, implies the acceptance, whether deliberate or\nunconscious, of moral standards, by reference to which certain kinds of economic\nconduct are pronounced illegitimate. On the other hand, there are indications\nthat religious thought is no longer content to dismiss the transactions of\nbusiness and the institutions of society as matters irrelevant to the life of\nthe spirit.\n\nSilently, but unmistakably, the conception of the scope and content of Christian\nethics which was generally, though not universally, accepted in the nineteenth\ncentury, is undergoing a revision; and in that revision the appeal to the\nexperience of mankind, which is history, has played some part, and will play a\nlarger one. There have been periods in which a tacit agreement, accepted in\npractice if not stated in theory, excluded economic activities and social\ninstitutions from examination or criticism in the light of religion. A statesman\nof the early nineteenth century, whose conception of the relations of Church and\nState appears to have been modeled on those of Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine de\nBourgh, is said to have crushed a clerical reformer with the protest, \u201cThings\nhave come to a pretty pass if religion is going to interfere with private life\u201d;\nand a more recent occupant of his office has explained the catastrophe which\nmust follow, if the Church crosses the Rubicon which divides the outlying\nprovinces of the spirit from the secular capital of public affairs.[I-3]\n\nWhatever the merit of these aphorisms, it is evident today that the line of\ndivision between the spheres of religion and secular business, which they assume\nas self-evident, is shifting. By common consent the treaty of partition has\nlapsed and the boundaries are once more in motion. The age of which Froude, no\nromantic admirer of ecclesiastical pretensions, could write, with perhaps\nexaggerated severity, that the spokesmen of religion \u201cleave the present world to\nthe men of business and the devil,\u201d[I-4] shows some signs of drawing to a close.\nRightly or wrongly, with wisdom or with its opposite, not only in England but on\nthe Continent and in America, not only in one denomination but among Roman\nCatholics, Anglicans, and Nonconformists, an attempt is being made to restate\nthe practical implications of the social ethics of the Christian faith, in a\nform sufficiently comprehensive to provide a standard by which to judge the\ncollective actions and institutions of mankind, in the sphere both of\ninternational politics and of social organization. It is being made today. It\nhas been made in the past. Whether it will result in any new synthesis, whether\nin the future at some point pushed farther into the tough world of practical\naffairs men will say,\n\n        Here nature first begins\n  Her farthest verge,\n  and chaos to retire As from her outmost works, a broken foe,\n\nwill not be known by this generation. What is certain is that, as in the\nanalogous problem of the relations between Church and State, issues which were\nthought to have been buried by the discretion of centuries have shown in our own\nday that they were not dead, but sleeping. To examine the forms which they have\nassumed and the phases through which they have passed, even in the narrow field\nof a single country and a limited period, is not mere antiquarianism. It is to\nsummon the living, not to invoke a corpse, and to see from a new angle the\nproblems of our own age, by widening the experience brought to their\nconsideration.\n\nIn such an examination the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are obviously a\ncritical period. Dr. Figgis[I-5] has described the secularization of political\ntheory as the most momentous of the intellectual changes which ushered in the\nmodern world. It was not the less revolutionary because it was only gradually\nthat its full consequences became apparent, so that seeds which were sown before\nthe Reformation yielded their fruit in England only after the Civil War. The\npolitical aspects of the transformation are familiar. The theological mould\nwhich shaped political theory from the Middle Ages to the seventeenth century is\nbroken; politics becomes a science, ultimately a group of sciences, and theology\nat best one science among others. Reason takes the place of revelation, and the\ncriterion of political institutions is expediency, not religious authority.\nReligion, ceasing to be the master-interest of mankind, dwindles into a\ndepartment of life with boundaries which it is extravagant to overstep.\n\nThe ground which it vacates is occupied by a new institution, armed with a novel\ndoctrine. If the Church of the Middle Ages was a kind of State, the State of the\nTudors had some of the characteristics of a Church; and it was precisely the\nimpossibility, for all but a handful of sectaries, of conceiving a society which\ntreated religion as a thing privately vital but publicly indifferent, which in\nEngland made irreconcilable the quarrel between Puritanism and the monarchy.\nWhen the mass had been heated in the furnace of the Civil War, its component\nparts were ready to be disengaged from each other. By the end of the seventeenth\ncentury the secular State, separate from the Churches, which are subordinate to\nit, has emerged from the theory which had regarded both as dual aspects of a\nsingle society. The former pays a shadowy deference to religion; the latter do\nnot meddle with the external fabric of the political and social system, which is\nthe concern of the former. The age of religious struggles virtually ends with\nthe Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The age of the wars of economic nationalism\nvirtually begins with the war between England and Holland under the Commonwealth\nand Charles II. The State, first in England, then in France and America, finds\nits sanction, not in religion, but in nature, in a presumed contract to\nestablish it, in the necessity for mutual protection and the convenience of\nmutual assistance. It appeals to no supernatural commission, but exists to\nprotect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested\nin them by the immutable laws of nature. \u201cThe great and chief end of men uniting\ninto commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation\nof their property.\u201d[I-6]\n\nWhile the political significance of this development has often been described,\nthe analogous changes in social and economic thought have received less\nattention. They were, however, momentous, and deserve consideration. The\nemergence of an objective and passionless economic science took place more\nslowly than the corresponding movement in the theory of the State, because the\nissues were less absorbing, and, while one marched in the high lights of the\nopen stage, the other lurked on the back stairs and in the wings. It was not\ntill a century after Machiavelli had emancipated the State from religion, that\nthe doctrine of the self-contained department with laws of its own begins\ngenerally to be applied to the world of business relations, and even in the\nEngland of the early seventeenth century, to discuss questions of economic\norganization purely in terms of pecuniary profit and loss still wears an air of\nnot quite reputable cynicism. When the sixteenth century opens, not only\npolitical but social theory is saturated with doctrines drawn from the sphere of\nethics and religion, and economic phenomena are expressed in terms of personal\nconduct, as naturally and inevitably as the nineteenth century expressed them in\nterms of mechanism.\n\nNot the least fundamental of divisions among theories of society is between\nthose which regard the world of human affairs as self-contained, and those which\nappeal to a supernatural criterion. Modern social theory, like modern political\ntheory, develops only when society is given a naturalistic instead of a\nreligious explanation, and a capital fact which presides at the birth of both is\na change in the conception held of the nature and functions of a Church. The\ncrucial period is the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The most important\narena (apart from Holland) is England, because it is in England, with its new\ngeographical position as the entrep\u00f4t between Europe and America, its\nachievement of internal economic unity two centuries before France and two and a\nhalf centuries before Germany, its constitutional revolution, and its powerful\n_bourgeoisie_ of bankers, ship-owners, and merchants, that the transformation of\nthe structure of society is earliest, swiftest, and most complete. Its essence\nis the secularization of social and economic philosophy. The synthesis is\nresolved into its elements--politics, business, and spiritual exercises; each\nassumes a separate and independent vitality and obeys the laws of its own being.\nThe social functions matured within the Church, and long identified with it, are\ntransferred to the State, which in turn is idolized as the dispenser of\nprosperity and the guardian of civilization. The theory of a hierarchy of\nvalues, embracing all human interests and activities in a system of which the\napex is religion, is replaced by the conception of separate and parallel\ncompartments, between which a due balance should be maintained, but which have\nno vital connection with each other.\n\nThe intellectual movement is, of course, very gradual, and is compatible with\nboth throw-backs and precocities which seem to refute its general character. It\nis easy to detect premonitions of the coming philosophy in the later Middle\nAges, and reversions to an earlier manner at the very end of the seventeenth\ncentury. Oresme in the fourteenth century can anticipate the monetary theory\nassociated with the name of Gresham; in the fifteenth century Laurentius de\nRudolfis can distinguish between trade bills and finance bills, and St. Antonino\ndescribe the significance of capital; while Baxter in 1673 can write a\n_Christian Directory_ in the style of a medieval _Summa_, and Bunyan in 1680 can\ndissect the economic iniquities of Mr. Badman, who ground the poor with high\nprices and usury, in the manner of a medieval friar.[I-7] But the distance\ntraversed in the two centuries between 1500 and 1700 is, nevertheless, immense.\nAt the earlier date, though economic rationalism has proceeded far in Italy, the\ntypical economic systems are those of the Schoolmen; the typical popular\nteaching is that of the sermon, or of manuals such as _Dives et Pauper_; the\ntypical appeal in difficult cases of conscience is to the Bible, the Fathers,\nthe canon law and its interpreters; the typical controversy is carried on in\nterms of morality and religion as regularly and inevitably as two centuries\nlater it is conducted in terms of economic expediency.\n\nIt is not necessary to point out that the age of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell\nhad nothing to learn from the twentieth century as to the niceties of political\nintrigue or commercial sharp practice. But a cynical unscrupulousness in high\nplaces is not incompatible with a general belief in the validity of moral\nstandards which are contradicted by it. No one can read the discussions which\ntook place between 1500 and 1550 on three burning issues--the rise in prices,\ncapital and interest, and the land question in England--without being struck by\nthe constant appeal from the new and clamorous economic interests of the day to\nthe traditional Christian morality, which in social organization, as in the\nrelations of individuals, is still conceived to be the final authority. It is\nbecause it is regarded as the final authority that the officers of the Church\nclaim to be heard on questions of social policy, and that, however Catholics,\nAnglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists may differ on doctrine or ecclesiastical\ngovernment, Luther and Calvin, Latimer and Laud, John Knox and the Pilgrim\nFathers are agreed that social morality is the province of the Church, and are\nprepared both to teach it, and to enforce it, when necessary, by suitable\ndiscipline.\n\nBy the middle of the seventeenth century all that is altered. After the\nRestoration, we are in a new world of economic, as well as of political,\nthought. The claim of religion, at best a shadowy claim, to maintain rules of\ngood conscience in economic affairs finally vanished with the destruction of\nLaud\u2019s experiment in a confessional State, and with the failure of the work of\nthe Westminster Assembly. After the Civil War, the attempt to maintain the\ntheory that there was a Christian standard of economic conduct was impossible,\nnot only because of lay opposition, but because the division of the Churches\nmade it evident that no common standard existed which could be enforced by\necclesiastical machinery. The doctrine of the Restoration economists,[I-8] that,\nas proved by the experience of Holland, trade and tolerance flourished together,\nhad its practical significance in the fact that neither could prosper without\nlarge concessions to individualism.\n\nThe ground which is vacated by the Christian moralist is quickly occupied by\ntheorists of another order. The future for the next two hundred years is not\nwith the attempt to reaffirm, with due allowance for altered circumstances, the\nconception that a moral rule is binding on Christians in their economic\ntransactions, but with the new science of Political Arithmetic, which asserts,\nat first with hesitation and then with confidence, that no moral rule beyond the\nletter of the law exists. Influenced in its method by the contemporary progress\nof mathematics and physics, it handles economic phenomena, not as a casuist,\nconcerned to distinguish right from wrong, but as a scientist, applying a new\ncalculus to impersonal economic forces. Its method, temper, and assumptions are\naccepted by all educated men, including the clergy, even though its particular\nconclusions continue for long to be disputed. Its greatest English exponent,\nbefore the days of Adam Smith, is the Reverend Dr. Tucker, Dean of Gloucester.\n\nSome of the particular stages in this transition will be discussed later. But\nthat there was a transition, and that the intellectual and moral conversion\nwhich it produced was not less momentous than the effect of some more familiar\nintellectual revolutions, is undeniable. Nor is it to be refuted by insisting\nthat economic motives and economic needs are as old as history, or that the\nappeal to religion is often a decorous drapery for a triumphant materialism. A\nmedieval cynic, in expounding the canon law as to usury, remarked that \u201che who\ntakes it goes to hell, and he who does not goes to the workhouse.\u201d[I-9] Mr.\nCoulton does well to remind us that, even in the Age of Faith, resounding\nprinciples were compatible with very sordid practice. In a discussion which has\nas its subject social thought, not the history of business organization, it is\nnot necessary to elaborate that truism. Only the credulous or the disillusioned\nwill contrast successive periods as light with darkness or darkness with light,\nor yield to the temper which finds romantic virtues in every age except its own.\nTo appraise the merits of different theories of social organization must be left\nto those who feel confident that they possess an adequate criterion. All that\ncan be attempted in these pages is to endeavor to understand a few among them.\n\nFor, after all, because doctrine and conduct diverge, it does not follow that to\nexamine the former is to hunt abstractions. That men should have thought as they\ndid is sometimes as significant as that they should have acted as they did, and\nnot least significant when thought and practice are at variance. It may be true\nthat \u201ctheory is a criticism of life only in the same sense as a good man is a\ncriticism of a bad one.\u201d But the emphasis of the theorist on certain aspects and\nvalues is not arbitrary, but is itself an interpretation, and, if his answers\nare to be discounted, his questions are none the less evidence as to the\nassumptions of the period in which they were asked. It would be paradoxical to\ndismiss Machiavelli and Locke and Smith and Bentham as irrelevant to the\npolitical practice of their age, merely on the ground that mankind has still to\nwait for the ideal Prince or Whig or Individualist or Utilitarian. It is not\nless paradoxical to dismiss those who formulated economic and social theories in\nthe Middle Ages or in the sixteenth century merely because, behind canon law and\n_summ\u00e6_ and sermons, behind the good ordinances of borough and gild, behind\nstatutes and proclamations and prerogative courts, there lurked the immutable\nappetites of the economic man.\n\nThere is an evolution of ideas, as well as of organisms, and the quality of\ncivilization depends, as Professor Wallas has so convincingly shown, on the\ntransmission, less of physical qualities, than of a complex structure of habits,\nknowledge, and beliefs, the destruction of which would be followed within a year\nby the death of half the human race. Granted that the groundwork of inherited\ndispositions with which the individual is born has altered little in recorded\nhistory, the interests and values which compose his world have undergone a\nsuccession of revolutions. The conventional statement that human nature does not\nchange is plausible only so long as attention is focused on those aspects of it\nwhich are least distinctively human. The wolf is today what he was when he was\nhunted by Nimrod. But, while men are born with many of the characteristics of\nwolves, man is a wolf domesticated, who both transmits the arts by which he has\nbeen partially tamed and improves upon them. He steps into a social inheritance,\nto which each generation adds its own contribution of good and evil, before it\nbequeaths it to its successors.\n\nThere is a moral and religious, as well as a material, environment, which sets\nits stamp on the individual, even when he is least conscious of it. And the\neffect of changes in this environment is not less profound. The economic\ncategories of modern society, such as property, freedom of contract and\ncompetition, are as much a part of its intellectual furniture as its political\nconceptions, and, together with religion, have probably been the most potent\nforce in giving it its character. Between the conception of society as a\ncommunity of unequal classes with varying functions, organized for a common end,\nand that which regards it as a mechanism adjusting itself through the play of\neconomic motives to the supply of economic needs; between the idea that a man\nmust not take advantage of his neighbor\u2019s necessity, and the doctrine that\n\u201cman\u2019s self-love is God\u2019s providence\u201d; between the attitude which appeals to a\nreligious standard to repress economic appetites, and that which regards\nexpediency as the final criterion--there is a chasm which no theory of the\npermanence and ubiquity of economic interests can bridge, and which deserves at\nleast to be explored. To examine how the latter grew out of the former; to trace\nthe change, from a view of economic activity which regarded it as one among\nother kinds of moral conduct, to the view of it as dependent upon impersonal and\nalmost automatic forces; to observe the struggle of individualism, in the face\nof restrictions imposed in the name of religion by the Church and of public\npolicy by the State, first denounced, then palliated, then triumphantly\njustified in the name of economic liberty; to watch how ecclesiastical authority\nstrives to maintain its hold upon the spheres it had claimed and finally\nabdicates them--to do this is not to indulge a vain curiosity, but to stand at\nthe sources of rivulets which are now a flood.\n\nHas religious opinion in the past regarded questions of social organization and\neconomic conduct as irrelevant to the life of the spirit, or has it endeavored\nnot only to christianize the individual but to make a Christian civilization?\nCan religion admit the existence of a sharp antithesis between personal morality\nand the practices which are permissible in business? Does the idea of a Church\ninvolve the acceptance of any particular standard of social ethics, and, if so,\nought a Church to endeavor to enforce it as among the obligations incumbent on\nits members? Such are a few of the questions which men are asking today, and on\nwhich a more competent examination of history than I can hope to offer might\nthrow at any rate an oblique and wavering light.\n\n\nI. THE SOCIAL ORGANISM\n\nWe are asking these questions today. Men were asking the same questions, though\nin different language, throughout the sixteenth century. It is a commonplace\nthat modern economic history begins with a series of revolutionary changes in\nthe direction and organization of commerce, in finance, in prices, and in\nagriculture. To the new economic situation men brought a body of doctrine, law\nand tradition, hammered out during the preceding three centuries. Since the new\nforces were bewildering, and often shocking, to conservative consciences,\nmoralists and religious teachers met them at first by a re-affirmation of the\ntraditional doctrines, by which, it seemed, their excesses might be restrained\nand their abuses corrected. As the changed environment became, not a novelty,\nbut an established fact, these doctrines had to be modified. As the effects of\nthe Reformation developed, different churches produced characteristic\ndifferences of social opinion.\n\nBut these were later developments, which only gradually became apparent. The new\neconomic world was not accepted without a struggle. Apart from a few extremists,\nthe first generation of reformers were rarely innovators in matters of social\ntheory, and quoted Fathers and church councils, decretals and canon lawyers, in\ncomplete unconsciousness that innovations in doctrine and church government\ninvolved any breach with what they had learned to regard as the moral tradition\nof Christendom. Hence the sixteenth century sees a collision, not only between\ndifferent schools of religious thought, but between the changed economic\nenvironment and the accepted theory of society. To understand it, one must place\noneself at the point from which it started. One must examine, however summarily,\nthe historical background.\n\nThat background consisted of the body of social theory, stated and implicit,\nwhich was the legacy of the Middle Ages. The formal teaching was derived from\nthe Bible, the works of the Fathers and Schoolmen, the canon law and its\ncommentators, and had been popularized in sermons and religious manuals. The\ninformal assumptions were those implicit in law, custom, and social\ninstitutions. Both were complex, and to speak of them as a unity is to sacrifice\ntruth to convenience. It may be that the political historian is justified when\nhe covers with a single phrase the five centuries or more to which tradition has\nassigned the title of the Middle Ages. For the student of economic conditions\nthat suggestion of homogeneity is the first illusion to be discarded.\n\nThe medieval economic world was marked, it is true, by certain common\ncharacteristics. They sprang from the fact that on the west it was a closed\nsystem, that on the north it had so much elbow-room as was given by the Baltic\nand the rivers emptying themselves into it, and that on the east, where it was\nopen, the apertures were concentrated along a comparatively short coast-line\nfrom Alexandria to the Black Sea, so that they were easily commanded by any\nnaval power dominating the eastern Mediterranean, and easily cut by any military\npower which could squat across the trade routes before they reached the sea.\nWhile, however, these broad facts determined that the two main currents of trade\nshould run from east to west and north to south, and that the most progressive\neconomic life of the age should cluster in the regions from which these currents\nstarted and where they met, within this general economic framework there was the\ngreatest variety of condition and development. The contours of economic\ncivilization ran on different lines from those of subsequent centuries, but the\ncontrast between mountain and valley was not less clearly marked. If the sites\non which a complex economic structure rose were far removed from those of later\ngenerations, it flourished none the less where conditions favored its growth. In\nspite of the ubiquity of manor and gild, there was as much difference between\nthe life of a center of capitalist industry, like fifteenth-century Flanders, or\na center of capitalist finance, like fifteenth-century Florence, and a pastoral\nsociety exporting raw materials and a little food, like medieval England, as\nthere is between modern Lancashire or London and modern Denmark. To draw from\nEnglish conditions a picture of a whole world stagnating in economic squalor, or\nbasking in economic innocence, is as absurd as to reconstruct the economic life\nof Europe in the twentieth century from a study of the Shetland Islands or the\nUkraine. The elements in the social theory of the Middle Ages were equally\nvarious, and equally changing. Even if the student confines himself to the body\nof doctrine which is definitely associated with religion, and takes as typical\nof it the _Summ\u00e6_ of the Schoolmen, he finds it in constant process of\ndevelopment. The economic teaching of St. Antonino in the fifteenth century, for\nexample, was far more complex and realistic than that of St. Thomas in the\nthirteenth, and down to the very end of the Middle Ages the best-established and\nmost characteristic parts of the system--for example, the theory of prices and\nof usury--so far from being stationary, were steadily modified and elaborated.\n\nThere are, perhaps, four main attitudes which religious opinion may adopt toward\nthe world of social institutions and economic relations. It may stand on one\nside in ascetic aloofness and regard them as in their very nature the sphere of\nunrighteousness, from which men _may_ escape--from which, if they consider their\nsouls, they _will_ escape--but which they can conquer only by flight. It may\ntake them for granted and ignore them, as matters of indifference belonging to a\nworld with which religion has no concern; in all ages the prudence of looking\nproblems boldly in the face and passing on has seemed too self-evident to\nrequire justification. It may throw itself into an agitation for some particular\nreform, for the removal of some crying scandal, for the promotion of some final\nrevolution, which will inaugurate the reign of righteousness on earth. It may at\nonce accept and criticize, tolerate and amend, welcome the gross world of human\nappetites, as the squalid scaffolding from amid which the life of the spirit\nmust rise, and insist that this also is the material of the Kingdom of God. To\nsuch a temper, all activities divorced from religion are brutal or dead, but\nnone are too mean to be beneath or too great to be above it, since all, in their\ndifferent degrees, are touched with the spirit which permeates the whole. It\nfinds its most sublime expression in the words of Piccarda: \u201cParadise is\neverywhere, though the grace of the highest good is not shed everywhere in the\nsame degree.\u201d\n\nEach of these attitudes meets us today. Each meets us in the thought of the\nMiddle Ages, as differences of period and place and economic environment and\npersonal temperament evoke it. In the early Middle Ages the ascetic temper\npredominates. Lanfranc, for example, who sees nothing in economic life but the\nstruggle of wolves over carrion, thinks that men of business can hardly be\nsaved, for they live by cheating and profiteering.[I-10] It is monasticism, with\nits repudiation of the prizes and temptations of the secular world, which is\n_par excellence_ the life of religion. As one phase of it succumbed to ease and\naffluence, another rose to restore the primitive austerity, and the return to\nevangelical poverty, preached by St. Francis but abandoned by many of his\nfollowers, was the note of the majority of movements for reform. As for\nindifferentism--what else, for all its communistic phrases, is Wyclif\u2019s\nteaching, that the \u201cjust man is already lord of all\u201d and that \u201cin this world God\nmust serve the devil,\u201d but an anticipation of the doctrine of celestial\nhappiness as the compensation for earthly misery, to which Hobbes gave a cynical\nimmortality when he wrote that the persecuted, instead of rebelling, \u201cmust\nexpect their reward in Heaven,\u201d and which Mr. and Mrs. Hammond have revealed as\nan opiate dulling both the pain and the agitation of the Industrial Revolution?\nIf obscure sects like the Poor Men of Lyons are too unorthodox to be cited, the\nFriars are not, and it was not only Langland and that gentlemanly journalist,\nFroissart, who accused them--the phrase has a long history--of stirring up class\nhatred.\n\nTo select from so immense a sea of ideas about society and religion only the\nspecimens that fit the meshes of one\u2019s own small net, and to label them\n\u201cmedieval thought,\u201d is to beg all questions. Ideas have a pedigree which, if\nrealized, would often embarrass their exponents. The day has long since passed\nwhen it could be suggested that only one-half of modern Christianity has its\nroot in medieval religion. There is a medieval Puritanism and rationalism as\nwell as a medieval Catholicism. In the field of ecclesiastical theory, as Mr.\nManning has pointed out in his excellent book,[I-11] Gregory VII and Boniface\nVIII have their true successors in Calvin and Knox. What is true of religion and\npolitical thought is equally true of economic and social doctrines. The social\ntheories of Luther and Latimer, of Bucer and Bullinger, of sixteenth-century\nAnabaptists and seventeenth-century Levellers, of Puritans like Baxter,\nAnglicans like Laud, Baptists like Bunyan, Quakers like Bellers, are all the\nchildren of medieval parents. Like the Church today in regions which have not\nyet emerged from savagery, the Church of the earlier Middle Ages had been\nengaged in an immense missionary effort, in which, as it struggled with the\nsurrounding barbarism, the work of conversion and of social construction had\nbeen almost indistinguishable. By the very nature of its task, as much as by the\nintention of its rulers, it had become the greatest of political institutions.\nFor good or evil it aspired to be, not a sect, but a civilization, and, when its\nunity was shattered at the Reformation, the different Churches which emerged\nfrom it endeavored, according to their different opportunities, to perpetuate\nthe same tradition. Asceticism or renunciation, quietism or indifferentism, the\nzeal which does well to be angry, the temper which seeks a synthesis of the\nexternal order and the religion of the spirit--all alike, in one form or\nanother, are represented in the religious thought and practice of the Middle\nAges.\n\nAll are represented in it, but not all are equally representative of it. Of the\nfour attitudes suggested above, it is the last which is most characteristic. The\nfirst fundamental assumption which is taken over by the sixteenth century is\nthat the ultimate standard of human institutions and activities is religion. The\narchitectonics of the system had been worked out in the _Summ\u00e6_ of the\nSchoolmen. In sharp contrast to the modern temper, which takes the destination\nfor granted, and is thrilled by the hum of the engine, medieval religious\nthought strains every interest and activity, by however arbitrary a compression,\ninto the service of a single idea. The lines of its scheme run up and down, and,\nsince purpose is universal and all-embracing, there is, at least in theory, no\nroom for eccentric bodies which move in their own private orbit. That purpose is\nset by the divine plan of the universe. \u201cThe perfect happiness of man cannot be\nother than the vision of the divine essence.\u201d[I-12]\n\nHence all activities fall within a single system, because all, though with\ndifferent degrees of immediateness, are related to a single end, and derive\ntheir significance from it. The Church in its wider sense is the Christian\nCommonwealth, within which that end is to be realized; in its narrower sense it\nis the hierarchy divinely commissioned for its interpretation; in both it\nembraces the whole of life, and its authority is final. Though practice is\nperpetually at variance with theory, there is no absolute division between the\ninner and personal life, which is \u201cthe sphere of religion,\u201d and the practical\ninterests, the external order, the impersonal mechanism, to which, if some\nmodern teachers may be trusted, religion is irrelevant.\n\nThere is no absolute division, but there is a division of quality. There are--to\nuse a modern phrase--degrees of reality. The distinctive feature of medieval\nthought is that contrasts which later were to be presented as irreconcilable\nantitheses appear in it as differences within a larger unity, and that the world\nof social organization, originating in physical necessities, passes by\ninsensible gradations into that of the spirit. Man shares with other animals the\nnecessity of maintaining and perpetuating his species; in addition, as a natural\ncreature, he has what is peculiar to himself, an inclination to the life of the\nintellect and of society--\u201cto know the truth about God and to live in\ncommunities.\u201d[I-13] These activities, which form his life according to the law\nof nature, may be regarded, and sometimes are regarded, as indifferent or\nhostile to the life of the spirit. But the characteristic thought is different.\nIt is that of a synthesis.\n\nThe contrast between nature and grace, between human appetites and interests and\nreligion, is not absolute, but relative. It is a contrast of matter and the\nspirit informing it, of stages in a process, of preparation and fruition. Grace\nworks on the unregenerate nature of man, not to destroy it, but to transform it.\nAnd what is true of the individual is true of society. An attempt is made to\ngive it a new significance by relating it to the purpose of human life as known\nby revelation. In the words of a famous (or notorious) Bull: \u201cThe way of\nreligion is to lead the things which are lower to the things which are higher\nthrough the things which are intermediate. According to the law of the universe\nall things are not reduced to order equally and immediately; but the lowest\nthrough the intermediate, the intermediate through the higher.\u201d[I-14] Thus\nsocial institutions assume a character which may almost be called sacramental,\nfor they are the outward and imperfect expression of a supreme spiritual\nreality. Ideally conceived, society is an organism of different grades, and\nhuman activities form a hierarchy of functions, which differ in kind and in\nsignificance, but each of which is of value on its own plane, provided that it\nis governed, however remotely, by the end which is common to all. Like the\ncelestial order, of which it is the dim reflection, society is stable, because\nit is straining upwards:\n\n  Anzi \u00e8 formale ad esto beato esse\n  Tenersi dentro alla divina voglia,\n  Per ch\u2019una fansi nostre voglie stesse.\n\nNeedless to say, metaphysics, however sublime, were not the daily food of the\nMiddle Ages, any more than of today. The fifteenth century saw an outburst of\ncommercial activity and of economic speculation, and by the middle of it all\nthis teaching was becoming antiquated. Needless to say, also, general ideas\ncannot be kept in compartments, and the teleology of medieval speculation\ncolored the interpretation of common affairs, as it was colored by physics in\nthe eighteenth century and by the idea of evolution in the nineteenth. If the\nfirst legacy of the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century was the idea of\nreligion as embracing all aspects of human life, the second and third flowed\nnaturally from the working of that idea in the economic environment of the time.\nThey may be called, respectively, the functional view of class organization, and\nthe doctrine of economic ethics.\n\nFrom the twelfth century to the sixteenth, from the work of Beckett\u2019s secretary\nin 1159 to the work of Henry VIII\u2019s chaplain in 1537, the analogy by which\nsociety is described--an analogy at once fundamental and commonplace--is the\nsame.[I-15] Invoked in every economic crisis to rebuke extortion and dissension\nwith a high doctrine of social solidarity, it was not finally discarded till the\nrise of a theoretical individualism in England in the seventeenth century. It is\nthat of the human body. The gross facts of the social order are accepted in all\ntheir harshness and brutality. They are accepted with astonishing docility, and,\nexcept on rare occasions, there is no question of reconstruction. What they\ninclude is no trifle. It is nothing less than the whole edifice of feudal\nsociety--class privilege, class oppression, exploitation, serfdom. But these\nthings cannot, it is thought, be treated as simply alien to religion, for\nreligion is all-comprehensive. They must be given some ethical meaning, must be\nshown to be the expression of some larger plan. The meaning given them is\nsimple. The facts of class status and inequality were rationalized in the Middle\nAges by a functional theory of society, as the facts of competition were\nrationalized in the eighteenth by the theory of economic harmonies; and the\nformer took the same delight in contemplating the moral purpose revealed in\nsocial organization as the latter in proving that to the curious mechanism of\nhuman society a moral purpose was superfluous or disturbing. Society, like the\nhuman body, is an organism composed of different members. Each member has its\nown function, prayer, or defense, or merchandise, or tilling the soil. Each must\nreceive the means suited to its station, and must claim no more. Within classes\nthere must be equality; if one takes into his hand the living of two, his\nneighbor will go short. Between classes there must be inequality; for otherwise\na class cannot perform its function, or--a strange thought to us--enjoy its\nrights. Peasants must not encroach on those above them. Lords must not despoil\npeasants. Craftsmen and merchants must receive what will maintain them in their\ncalling, and no more.\n\nAs a rule of social policy, the doctrine was at once repressive and protective.\n\u201cThere is degree above degree, as reason is, and skill it is that men do their\ndevoir thereas it is due. But certes, extortions and despite of your underlings\nis damnable.\u201d[I-16] As a philosophy of society, it attempted to spiritualize the\nmaterial by incorporating it in a divine universe, which should absorb and\ntransform it. To that process of transmutation the life of mere money-making was\nrecalcitrant, and hence, indeed, the stigma attached to it. For, in spite of the\ningenuity of theorists, finance and trade, the essense of which seemed to be,\nnot service, but a mere _appetitus divitiarum infinitus_, were not easily\ninterpreted in terms of social function. Comparatively late intruders in a world\ndominated by conceptions hammered out in a pre-commercial age, they were never\nfitted harmoniously into the medieval synthesis, and ultimately, when they grew\nto their full stature, were to contribute to its overthrow. But the property of\nthe feudal lord, the labor of the peasant or the craftsman, even the ferocity of\nthe warrior, were not dismissed as hostile or indifferent to the life of the\nspirit. Touched by the spear of Ithuriel, they were to be sublimated into\nservice, vocation and chivalry, and the ritual which surrounded them was\ndesigned to emphasize that they had undergone a re-dedication at the hands of\nreligion. Baptized by the Church, privilege and power became office and duty.\n\nThat the reconciliation was superficial, and that in attempting it the Church\noften degraded itself without raising the world, is as indisputable as that its\ntendency was to dignify material interests, by stamping them with the impress of\na universal design. Gentlemen took hard tallages and oppressed the poor; but it\nwas something that they should be told that their true function was \u201cto defend\nGod\u2019s law by power of the world.\u201d[I-17] Craftsmen--the burden of endless\nsermons--worked deceitfully; but it was perhaps not wholly without value that\nthey should pay even lip-service to the ideal of so conducting their trade, that\nthe common people should not be defrauded by the evil ingenuity of those\nexercising the craft. If lord and peasant, merchant and artisan, burgess and\nvillager, pressed each other hard, was it meaningless to meet their struggles\nwith an assertion of universal solidarity, to which economic convenience and\neconomic power must alike give way? \u201cThe health of the whole commonwealth will\nbe assured and vigorous, if the higher members consider the lower and the lower\nanswer in like manner the higher, so that each is in its turn a member of every\nother.\u201d[I-18]\n\nIf the medieval moralist was often too na\u00efve in expecting sound practice as the\nresult of lofty principles alone, he was at least free from that not\nunfashionable form of credulity which expects it from their absence or from\ntheir opposite. To say that the men to whom such teaching was addressed went out\nto rob and cheat is to say no more than that they were men. Nor is it\nself-evident that they would have been more likely to be honest, if they had\nbeen informed, like some of their descendants, that competition was designed by\nProvidence to provide an automatic substitute for honesty. Society was\ninterpreted, in short, not as the expression of economic self-interest, but as\nheld together by a system of mutual, though varying, obligations. Social\nwell-being exists, it was thought, in so far as each class performs its\nfunctions and enjoys the rights proportioned thereto. \u201cThe Church is divided in\nthese three parts, preachers, and defenders, and ... laborers.... As she is our\nmother, so she is a body, and health of this body stands in this, that one part\nof her answer to another, after the same measure that Jesus Christ has ordained\nit.... Kindly man\u2019s hand helps his head, and his eye helps his foot, and his\nfoot his body ... and thus should it be in parts of the Church.... As divers\nparts of man served unkindly to man if one took the service of another and left\nhis own proper work, so divers parts of the Church have proper works to serve\nGod; and if one part leave his work that God has limited him and take work of\nanother part, sinful wonder is in the Church.... Surely the Church shall never\nbe whole before proportions of her parts be brought again by this heavenly leech\nand [by] medicine of men.\u201d[I-19]\n\nSpeculation does not develop _in vacuo_. It echoes, however radical it is, the\nestablished order. Clearly this patriarchal doctrine is a softened reflection of\nthe feudal land system. Not less clearly the Church\u2019s doctrine of economic\nethics is the expression of the conditions of medieval industry. A religious\nphilosophy, unless it is frankly to abandon nine-tenths of conduct to the powers\nof darkness, cannot admit the doctrine of a world of business and economic\nrelations self-sufficient and divorced from ethics and religion. But the facts\nmay be difficult to moralize, or they may be relatively easy. Over a great part\nof Europe in the later Middle Ages, the economic environment was less\nintractable than it had been in the days of the Empire or than it is today. In\nthe great commercial centers there was sometimes, it is true, a capitalism as\ninhuman as any which the world has seen, and from time to time ferocious class\nwars between artisans and merchants.[I-20] But outside them trade, industry, the\nmoney-market, all that we call the economic system, was not a system, but a mass\nof individual trades and individual dealings. Pecuniary transactions were a\nfringe on a world of natural economy. There was little mobility or competition.\nThere was very little large-scale organization. With some important exceptions,\nsuch as the textile workers of Flanders and Italy, who, in the fourteenth\ncentury, again and again rose in revolt, the medieval artisan, especially in\nbackward countries like England, was a small master. The formation of temporary\norganizations, or \u201cparliaments,\u201d of wage-earners, which goes on in London even\nbefore the end of the thirteenth century,[I-21] and the growth of journeymen\u2019s\nassociations in the later Middle Ages, are a proof that the conditions which\nproduced modern trade unionism were not unknown. But even in a great city like\nParis the 128 gilds which existed at the end of the thirteenth century appear to\nhave included 5,000 masters, who employed not more than 6,000 to 7,000\njourneymen. At Frankfurt-am-Main in 1387 actually not more than 750 to 800\njourneymen are estimated to have been in the service of 1,554 masters.[I-22]\n\nIn cities of this kind, with their freedom, their comparative peace, and their\nstrong corporate feeling, large enough to be prolific of associations and small\nenough for each man to know his neighbor, an ethic of mutual aid was not wholly\nimpossible, and it is in the light of such conditions that the most\ncharacteristic of medieval industrial institutions is to be interpreted. To\nsuggest that anything like a majority of medieval workers were ever members of a\ncraft gild is extravagant. In England, at any rate, more than nine-tenths were\npeasants, among whom, though friendly societies called gilds were common, there\nwas naturally no question of craft organization. Even in the towns it is a\nquestion whether there was not a considerable population of casual\nworkers--consider only the number of unskilled workers that must have been\nrequired as laborers by the craftsmen building a cathedral in the days before\nmechanical cranes--who were rarely organized in permanent societies. To invest\nthe craft gilds with a halo of economic chivalry is not less inappropriate. They\nwere, first and foremost, monopolists, and the cases in which their vested\ninterests came into collision with the consumer were not a few. Wyclif, with his\nalmost modern devotion to the conception of a unitary society over-riding\nparticular interests for the common good, was naturally prejudiced against\ncorporations, on the ground that they distracted social unity by the intrusion\nof sectarian cupidities and sinister ambitions; but there was probably from time\nto time more than a little justification for his complaint that \u201call new\nfraternities or gilds made of men seem openly to run in this curse [against\nfalse conspirators],\u201d because \u201cthey conspire to bear up each other, yea, in\nwrong, and oppress other men in their right by their wit and power.\u201d[I-23] It is\nsignificant that the most striking of the projects of political and social\nreconstruction produced in Germany in the century before the Reformation\nproposed the complete abolition of gilds, as intolerably corrupt and\ntyrannical.[I-24]\n\nThere are, however, monopolists and monopolists. An age in which combinations\nare not tempted to pay lip-service to religion may do well to remember that the\ncharacteristic, after all, of the medieval gild was that, if it sprang from\neconomic needs, it claimed, at least, to subordinate them to social interests,\nas conceived by men for whom the social and the spiritual were inextricably\nintertwined. \u201cTout ce petit monde antique,\u201d writes the historian of French\ngilds, \u201c\u00e9tait fortement imbu des id\u00e9es chr\u00e9tiennes sur le juste salaire et le\njuste prix; sans doute il y avait alors, comme aujourd\u2019hui, des cupidit\u00e9s et des\nconvoitises; mais une r\u00e8gle puissante s\u2019imposait \u00e0 tous et d\u2019une mani\u00e8re\ng\u00e9n\u00e9rale exigeait pour chacun le pain quotidien promis par l\u2019Evangile.\u201d[I-25]\nThe attempt to preserve a rough equality among \u201cthe good men of the mistery,\u201d to\ncheck economic egotism by insisting that every brother shall share his good\nfortune with another and stand by his neighbor in need, to resist the\nencroachments of a conscienceless money-power, to preserve professional\nstandards of training and craftsmanship, and to repress by a strict corporate\ndiscipline the natural appetite of each to snatch special advantages for himself\nto the injury of all--whether these things outweigh the evils of conservative\nmethods and corporate exclusiveness is a question which each student will answer\nin accordance with his own predilections. What is clear, at least, is that both\nthe rules of fraternities and the economic teaching of the Church were prompted\nby the problems of a common environment. Much that is now mechanical was then\npersonal, intimate and direct, and there was little room for organization on a\nscale too vast for the standards that are applied to individuals, or for the\ndoctrine which silences scruples and closes all accounts with the final plea of\neconomic expediency.\n\nSuch an environment, with its personal economic relations, was a not unfavorable\nfield for a system of social ethics. And the Church, which brought to its task\nthe tremendous claim to mediate between even the humblest activity and the\ndivine purpose, sought to supply it. True, its teaching was violated in\npractice, and violated grossly, in the very citadel of Christendom which\npromulgated it. Contemporaries were under no illusion as to the reality of\neconomic motives in the Age of Faith. They had only to look at Rome. From the\nmiddle of the thirteenth century a continuous wail arises against the iniquity\nof the Church, and its burden may be summed up in one word, \u201cavarice.\u201d At Rome,\neverything is for sale. What is reverenced is the gospel, not according to St.\nMark, but according to the marks of silver.[I-26]\n\n  Cum ad papam veneris,\n  habe pro constanti, Non est locus pauperi, soli favet danti.\n         *       *       *       *       *\n  Papa, si rem tangimus, nomen habet a re,\n  Quicquid habent alii, solus vult papare;\n  Vel, si verbum gallicum vis apocopare,\n  _\u2018Payez, payez,\u2019 dit le mot_, si vis impetrare.[I-27]\n\nThe Papacy might denounce usurers, but, as the center of the most highly\norganized administrative system of the age, receiving remittances from all over\nEurope, and receiving them in money at a time when the revenue of other\nGovernments still included personal services and payments in kind, it could not\ndispense with them. Dante put the Cahorsine money-lenders in hell, but a Pope\ngave them the title of \u201cpeculiar sons of the Roman Church.\u201d[I-28] Grosst\u00eate\nrebuked the Lombard bankers, and a bishop of London expelled them, but papal\nprotection brought them back.[I-29] Archbishop Peckham, a few years later, had\nto implore Pope Nicholas III to withdraw a threat of excommunication, intended\nto compel him to pay the usurious interest demanded by Italian money-lenders,\nthough, as the archbishop justly observed, \u201cby your Holiness\u2019s special mandate,\nit would be my duty to take strong measures against such lenders.\u201d[I-30] The\nPapacy was, in a sense, the greatest financial institution of the Middle Ages,\nand, as its fiscal system was elaborated, things became, not better, but worse.\nThe abuses which were a trickle in the thirteenth century were a torrent in the\nfifteenth. And the frailties of Rome, if exceptional in their notoriety, can\nhardly be regarded as unique. Priests, it is from time to time complained,\nengage in trade and take usury.[I-31] Cathedral chapters lend money at high\nrates of interest. The profits of usury, like those of simony, should have been\nrefused by churchmen, as hateful to God; but a bishop of Paris, when consulted\nby a usurer as to the salvation of his soul, instead of urging restitution,\nrecommended him to dedicate his ill-gotten wealth to the building of\nNotre-Dame.[I-32] \u201cThus,\u201d exclaimed St. Bernard, as he gazed at the glories of\nGothic architecture, \u201cwealth is drawn up by ropes of wealth, thus money bringeth\nmoney.... O vanity of vanities, yet no more vain than insane! The Church is\nresplendent in her walls, beggarly in her poor. She clothes her stones in gold,\nand leaves her sons naked.\u201d[I-33]\n\nThe picture is horrifying, and one must be grateful to those, like M. Luchaire\nand Mr. Coulton, who demolish romance. But the denunciation of vices implies\nthat they are recognized as vicious; to ignore their condemnation is not less\none-sided than to conceal their existence; and, when the halo has vanished from\npractice, it remains to ask what principles men valued, and what standards they\nerected. The economic doctrines elaborated in the _Summ\u00e6_ of the Schoolmen, in\nwhich that question receives its most systematic answer, have not infrequently\nbeen dismissed as the fanciful extravagances of writers disqualified from\nthrowing light on the affairs of this world by their morbid preoccupation with\nthose of the next. In reality, whatever may be thought of their conclusions,\nboth the occasion and the purpose of scholastic speculations upon economic\nquestions were eminently practical. The movement which prompted them was the\ngrowth of trade, of town life, and of a commercial economy, in a world whose\nsocial categories were still those of the self-sufficing village and the feudal\nhierarchy. The object of their authors was to solve the problems to which such\ndevelopments gave rise. It was to reconcile the new contractual relations, which\nsprang from economic expansion, with the traditional morality expounded by the\nChurch. Viewed by posterity as reactionaries, who damned the currents of\neconomic enterprise with an irrelevant appeal to Scripture and to the Fathers,\nin their own age they were the pioneers of a liberal intellectual movement. By\nlifting the weight of antiquated formul\u00e6 they cleared a space within the stiff\nframework of religious authority for new and mobile economic interests, and thus\nsupplied an intellectual justification for developments which earlier\ngenerations would have condemned.\n\nThe mercantilist thought of later centuries owed a considerable debt to\nscholastic discussions of money, prices, and interest. But the specific\ncontributions of medieval writers to the technique of economic theory were less\nsignificant than their premises. Their fundamental assumptions, both of which\nwere to leave a deep imprint on the social thought of the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries, were two: that economic interests are subordinate to the\nreal business of life, which is salvation, and that economic conduct is one\naspect of personal conduct, upon which, as on other parts of it, the rules of\nmorality are binding. Material riches are necessary; they have a secondary\nimportance, since without them men cannot support themselves and help one\nanother; the wise ruler, as St. Thomas said,[I-34] will consider in founding his\nState the natural resources of the country. But economic motives are suspect.\nBecause they are powerful appetites, men fear them, but they are not mean enough\nto applaud them. Like other strong passions, what they need, it is thought, is\nnot a clear field, but repression. There is no place in medieval theory for\neconomic activity which is not related to a moral end, and to found a science of\nsociety upon the assumption that the appetite for economic gain is a constant\nand measurable force, to be accepted, like other natural forces, as an\ninevitable and self-evident _datum_, would have appeared to the medieval thinker\nas hardly less irrational or less immoral than to make the premise of social\nphilosophy the unrestrained operation of such necessary human attributes as\npugnacity or the sexual instinct. The outer is ordained for the sake of the\ninner; economic goods are instrumental--_sicut qu\u00e6dam adminicula, quibus\nadjuvamur ad tendendum in beatitudinem_. \u201cIt is lawful to desire temporal\nblessings, not putting them in the first place, as though setting up our rest in\nthem, but regarding them as aids to blessedness, inasmuch as they support our\ncorporal life and serve as instruments for acts of virtue.\u201d[I-35] Riches, as St.\nAntonino says, exist for man, not man for riches.\n\nAt every turn, therefore, there are limits, restrictions, warnings against\nallowing economic interests to interfere with serious affairs. It is right for a\nman to seek such wealth as is necessary for a livelihood in his station. To seek\nmore is not enterprise, but avarice, and avarice is a deadly sin. Trade is\nlegitimate; the different resources of different countries show that it was\nintended by Providence. But it is a dangerous business. A man must be sure that\nhe carries it on for the public benefit, and that the profits which he takes are\nno more than the wages of his labor. Private property is a necessary\ninstitution, at least in a fallen world; men work more and dispute less when\ngoods are private than when they are common. But it is to be tolerated as a\nconcession to human frailty, not applauded as desirable in itself; the ideal--if\nonly man\u2019s nature could rise to it--is communism. \u201cCommunis enim,\u201d wrote Gratian\nin his _decretum_, \u201cusus omnium, quae sunt in hoc mundo, omnibus hominibus esse\ndebuit.\u201d[I-36] At best, indeed, the estate is somewhat encumbered. It must be\nlegitimately acquired. It must be in the largest possible number of hands. It\nmust provide for the support of the poor. Its use must as far as practicable be\ncommon. Its owners must be ready to share it with those who need, even if they\nare not in actual destitution. Such were the conditions which commended\nthemselves to an archbishop of the business capital of fifteenth-century\nEurope.[I-37] There have been ages in which they would have been described, not\nas a justification of property, but as a revolutionary assault on it. For to\ndefend the property of the peasant and small master is necessarily to attack\nthat of the monopolist and usurer, which grows by devouring it.\n\nThe assumption on which all this body of doctrine rested was simple. It was that\nthe danger of economic interests increased in direct proportion to the\nprominence of the pecuniary motives associated with them. Labor--the common lot\nof mankind--is necessary and honorable; trade is necessary, but perilous to the\nsoul; finance, if not immoral, is at best sordid and at worst disreputable. This\ncurious inversion of the social values of more enlightened ages is best revealed\nin medieval discussions of the ethics of commerce. The severely qualified\ntolerance extended to the trader was partly, no doubt, a literary convention\nderived from classical models; it was natural that Aquinas should laud the State\nwhich had small need of merchants because it could meet its needs from the\nproduce of its own soil; had not the Philosopher himself praised _\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1_?\nBut it was a convention which coincided with a vital element in medieval social\ntheory, and struck a responsive note in wide sections of medieval society. It is\nnot disputed, of course, that trade is indispensable; the merchant supplements\nthe deficiencies of one country with the abundance of another. If there were no\nprivate traders, argued Duns Scotus, whose indulgence was less carefully\nguarded, the governor would have to engage them. Their profits, therefore, are\nlegitimate, and they may include, not only the livelihood appropriate to the\ntrader\u2019s status, but payment for labor, skill, and risk.[I-38]\n\nThe defence, if adequate, was somewhat embarrassing. For why should a defence be\nrequired? The insistence that trade is not positively sinful conveys a hint that\nthe practices of traders may be, at least, of dubious propriety. And so, in the\neyes of most medieval thinkers, they are. _Summe periculosa est venditionis et\nemptionis negotiatio._[I-39] The explanation of that attitude lay partly in the\nfacts of contemporary economic organization. The economy of the medieval\nborough--consider only its treatment of food supplies and prices--was one in\nwhich consumption held somewhat the same primacy in the public mind, as the\nundisputed arbiter of economic effort, as the nineteenth century attached to\nprofits. The merchant pure and simple, though convenient to the Crown, for whom\nhe collected taxes and provided loans, and to great establishments such as\nmonasteries, whose wool he bought in bulk, enjoyed the double unpopularity of an\nalien and a parasite. The best practical commentary on the tepid indulgence\nextended by theorists to the trader is the network of restrictions with which\nmedieval policy surrounded his activities, the recurrent storms of public\nindignation against him, and the ruthlessness with which boroughs suppressed the\nmiddleman who intervened between consumer and producer.\n\nApart, however, from the color which it took from its environment, medieval\nsocial theory had reasons of its own for holding that business, as distinct from\nlabor, required some special justification. The suspicion of economic motives\nhad been one of the earliest elements in the social teaching of the Church, and\nwas to survive till Calvinism endowed the life of economic enterprise with a new\nsanctification. In medieval philosophy the ascetic tradition, which condemned\nall commerce as the sphere of iniquity, was softened by a recognition of\npractical necessities, but it was not obliterated; and, if reluctant to condemn,\nit was insistent to warn. For it was of the essence of trade to drag into a\nposition of solitary prominence the acquisitive appetites; and towards those\nappetites, which to most modern thinkers have seemed the one sure social\ndynamic, the attitude of the medieval theorist was that of one who holds a wolf\nby the ears. The craftsman labors for his living; he seeks what is sufficient to\nsupport him, and no more. The merchant aims, not merely at livelihood, but at\nprofit. The traditional distinction was expressed in the words of Gratian:\n\u201cWhosoever buys a thing, not that he may sell it whole and unchanged, but that\nit may be a material for fashioning something, he is no merchant. But the man\nwho buys it in order that he may gain by selling it again unchanged and as he\nbought it, that man is of the buyers and sellers who are cast forth from God\u2019s\ntemple.\u201d[I-40] By very definition a man who \u201cbuys in order that he may sell\ndearer,\u201d the trader is moved by an inhuman concentration on his own pecuniary\ninterest, unsoftened by any tincture of public spirit or private charity. He\nturns what should be a means into an end, and his occupation, therefore, \u201cis\njustly condemned, since, regarded in itself, it serves the lust of gain.\u201d[I-41]\n\nThe dilemma presented by a form of enterprise at once perilous to the soul and\nessential to society was revealed in the solution most commonly propounded for\nit. It was to treat profits as a particular case of wages, with the\nqualification that gains in excess of a reasonable remuneration for the\nmerchant\u2019s labor were, though not illegal, reprehensible as _turpe lucrum_. The\ncondition of the trader\u2019s exoneration is that \u201che seeks gain, not as an end, but\nas the wages of his labor.\u201d[I-42] Theoretically convenient, the doctrine was\ndifficult of application, for evidently it implied the acceptance of what the\nsedate irony of Adam Smith was later to describe as \u201can affectation not very\ncommon among merchants.\u201d But the motives which prompted it were characteristic.\nThe medieval theorist condemned as a sin precisely that effort to achieve a\ncontinuous and unlimited increase in material wealth which modern societies\napplaud as a quality, and the vices for which he reserved his most merciless\ndenunciations were the more refined and subtle of the economic virtues. \u201cHe who\nhas enough to satisfy his wants,\u201d wrote a Schoolman of the fourteenth century,\n\u201cand nevertheless ceaselessly labors to acquire riches, either in order to\nobtain a higher social position, or that subsequently he may have enough to live\nwithout labor, or that his sons may become men of wealth and importance--all\nsuch are incited by a damnable avarice, sensuality, or pride.\u201d[I-43] Two and a\nhalf centuries later, in the midst of a revolution in the economic and spiritual\nenvironment, Luther, in even more unmeasured language, was to say the\nsame.[I-44] The essence of the argument was that payment may properly be\ndemanded by the craftsmen who make the goods, or by the merchants who transport\nthem, for both labor in their vocation and serve the common need. The\nunpardonable sin is that of the speculator or the middleman, who snatches\nprivate gain by the exploitation of public necessities. The true descendant of\nthe doctrines of Aquinas is the labor theory of value. The last of the Schoolmen\nwas Karl Marx.\n\n\nII. THE SIN OF AVARICE\n\nIf such ideas were to be more than generalities, they required to be translated\ninto terms of the particular transactions by which trade is conducted and\nproperty acquired. Their practical expression was the body of economic\ncasuistry, in which the best-known elements are the teaching with regard to the\njust price and the prohibition of usury. These doctrines sprang as much from the\npopular consciousness of the plain facts of the economic situation as from the\ntheorists who expounded them. The innumerable fables of the usurer who was\nprematurely carried to hell, or whose money turned to withered leaves in his\nstrong box, or who (as the scrupulous recorder remarks), \u201cabout the year 1240,\u201d\non entering a church to be married, was crushed by a stone figure falling from\nthe porch, which proved by the grace of God to be a carving of another usurer\nand his money-bags being carried off by the devil, are more illuminating than\nthe refinements of lawyers.[I-45]\n\nOn these matters, as the practice of borough and manor, as well as of national\ngovernments, shows, the Church was preaching to the converted, and to dismiss\nits teaching on economic ethics as the pious rhetoric of professional moralists\nis to ignore the fact that precisely similar ideas were accepted in circles\nwhich could not be suspected of any unnatural squeamishness as to the arts by\nwhich men grow rich. The best commentary on ecclesiastical doctrines as to usury\nand prices is the secular legislation on similar subjects, for, down at least to\nthe middle of the sixteenth century, their leading ideas were reflected in it.\nPlain men might curse the chicanery of ecclesiastical lawyers, and gilds and\nboroughs might forbid their members to plead before ecclesiastical courts; but\nthe rules which they themselves made for the conduct of business had more than a\nflavor of the canon law. Florence was the financial capital of medieval Europe;\nbut even at Florence the secular authorities fined bankers right and left for\nusury in the middle of the fourteenth century, and, fifty years later, first\nprohibited credit transactions altogether, and then imported Jews to conduct a\nbusiness forbidden to Christians.[I-46] Cologne was one of the greatest of\ncommercial entrep\u00f4ts; but, when its successful business man came to make his\nwill, he remembered that trade was perilous to the soul and avarice a deadly\nsin, and offered what atonement he could by directing his sons to make\nrestitution and to follow some less dangerous occupation than that of the\nmerchant.[I-47] The burgesses of Coventry fought the Prior over a question of\ncommon rights for the best part of a century; but the Court Leet of that\nthriving business city put usury on a par with adultery and fornication, and\ndecreed that no usurer could become mayor, councillor, or master of the\ngild.[I-48] It was not that laymen were unnaturally righteous; it was not that\nthe Church was all-powerful, though its teaching wound into men\u2019s minds through\na hundred channels, and survived as a sentiment long after it was repudiated as\na command. It was that the facts of the economic situation imposed themselves\nirresistibly on both. In reality, there was no sharp collision between the\ndoctrine of the Church and the public policy of the world of business--its\nindividual practice was, of course, another matter--because both were formed by\nthe same environment, and accepted the same broad assumptions as to social\nexpediency.\n\nThe economic background of it all was very simple. The medieval consumer--we can\nsympathize with him today more easily than in 1914--is like a traveller\ncondemned to spend his life at a station hotel. He occupies a tied house and is\nat the mercy of the local baker and brewer. Monopoly is inevitable. Indeed, a\ngreat part of medieval industry is a system of organized monopolies, endowed\nwith a public status, which must be watched with jealous eyes to see that they\ndo not abuse their powers. It is a society of small masters and peasant farmers.\nWages are not a burning question, for, except in the great industrial centers of\nItaly and Flanders, the permanent wage-earning class is small. Usury is, as it\nis today in similar circumstances. For loans are made largely for consumption,\nnot for production. The farmer whose harvest fails or whose beasts die, or the\nartisan who loses money, must have credit, seed-corn, cattle, raw materials, and\nhis distress is the money-lender\u2019s opportunity. Naturally, there is a passionate\npopular sentiment against the engrosser who holds a town to ransom, the\nmonopolist who brings the livings of many into the hands of one, the\nmoney-lender who takes advantage of his neighbor\u2019s necessities to get a lien on\ntheir land and foreclose. \u201cThe usurer would not loan to men these goods, but if\nhe hoped winning, that he loves more than charity. Many other sins be more than\nthis usury, but for this men curse and hate it more than other sin.\u201d[I-49]\n\nNo one who examines the cases actually heard by the courts in the later Middle\nAges will think that resentment surprising, for they throw a lurid light on the\npossibilities of commercial immorality.[I-50] Among the peasants and small\nmasters who composed the mass of the population in medieval England, borrowing\nand lending were common, and it was with reference to their petty transactions,\nnot to the world of high finance, that the traditional attitude towards the\nmoney-lender had been crystallized. It was natural that \u201cJuetta [who] is a\nusuress and sells at a dearer rate for accommodation,\u201d and John the Chaplain,\n_qui est usurarius maximus_,[I-51] should be regarded as figures at once too\nscandalous to be tolerated by their neighbors and too convenient to be\naltogether suppressed. The Church accepts this popular sentiment, gives it a\nreligious significance, and crystallizes it in a system, in which economic\nmorality is preached from the pulpit, emphasized in the confessional, and\nenforced, in the last resource, through the courts.\n\nThe philosophical basis of it is the conception of natural law. \u201cEvery law\nframed by man bears the character of a law exactly to that extent to which it is\nderived from the law of nature. But if on any point it is in conflict with the\nlaw of nature, it at once ceases to be a law; it is a mere perversion of\nlaw.\u201d[I-52] The plausible doctrine of compensations, of the long run, of the\nself-correcting mechanism, has not yet been invented. The idea of a law of\nnature--of natural justice which ought to find expression in positive law, but\nwhich is not exhausted in it--supplies an ideal standard by which the equity of\nparticular relations can be measured. The most fundamental difference between\nmedieval and modern economic thought consists, indeed, in the fact that, whereas\nthe latter normally refers to economic expediency, however it may be\ninterpreted, for the justification of any particular action, policy, or system\nof organization, the former starts from the position that there is a moral\nauthority to which considerations of economic expediency must be subordinated.\nThe practical application of this conception is the attempt to try every\ntransaction by a rule of right, which is largely, though not wholly, independent\nof the fortuitous combinations of economic circumstances. No man must ask more\nthan the price fixed, either by public authorities, or, failing that, by common\nestimation. True, prices even so will vary with scarcity; for, with all their\nrigor, theologians are not so impracticable as to rule out the effect of\nchanging supplies. But they will not vary with individual necessity or\nindividual opportunity. The bugbear is the man who uses, or even creates, a\ntemporary shortage, the man who makes money out of the turn of the market, the\nman who, as Wyclif says, _must_ be wicked, or he could not have been poor\nyesterday and rich today.[I-53]\n\nThe formal theory of the just price went, it is true, through a considerable\ndevelopment. The dominant conception of Aquinas--that prices, though they will\nvary with the varying conditions of different markets, should correspond with\nthe labor and costs of the producer, as the proper basis of the _communis\nestimatio_, conformity with which was the safeguard against extortion--was\nqualified by subsequent writers. Several Schoolmen of the fourteenth century\nemphasized the subjective element in the common estimation, insisted that the\nessence of value was utility, and drew the conclusion that a fair price was most\nlikely to be reached under freedom of contract, since the mere fact that a\nbargain had been struck showed that both parties were satisfied.[I-54] In the\nfifteenth century St. Antonino, who wrote with a highly developed commercial\ncivilization beneath his eyes, endeavored to effect a synthesis, in which the\nprinciple of the traditional doctrine should be observed, while the necessary\nplay should be left to economic motives. After a subtle analysis of the\nconditions affecting value, he concluded that the fairness of a price could at\nbest be a matter only of \u201cprobability and conjecture,\u201d since it would vary with\nplaces, periods and persons. His practical contribution was to introduce a new\nelasticity into the whole conception by distinguishing three grades of prices--a\n_gradus pius_, _discretus_, and _rigidus_. A seller who exceeded the price fixed\nby more than 50 per cent. was bound, he argued, to make restitution, and even a\nsmaller departure from it, if deliberate, required atonement in the shape of\nalms. But accidental lapses were venial, and there was a debatable ground within\nwhich prices might move without involving sin.[I-55]\n\nThis conclusion, with its recognition of the impersonal forces of the market,\nwas the natural outcome of the intense economic activity of the later Middle\nAges, and evidently contained the seeds of an intellectual revolution. The fact\nthat it should have begun to be expounded as early as the middle of the\nfourteenth century is a reminder that the economic thought of Schoolmen\ncontained elements much more various and much more modern than is sometimes\nsuggested. But the characteristic doctrine was different. It was that which\ninsisted on the just price as the safeguard against extortion. \u201cTo leave the\nprices of goods at the discretion of the sellers is to give rein to the cupidity\nwhich goads almost all of them to seek excessive gain.\u201d Prices must be such, and\nno more than such, as will enable each man to \u201chave the necessaries of life\nsuitable for his station.\u201d The most desirable course is that they should be\nfixed by public officials, after making an enquiry into the supplies available\nand framing an estimate of the requirements of different classes. Failing that,\nthe individual must fix prices for himself, guided by a consideration of \u201cwhat\nhe must charge in order to maintain his position, and nourish himself suitably\nin it, and by a reasonable estimate of his expenditure and labor.\u201d[I-56] If the\nlatter recommendation was a counsel of perfection, the former was almost a\nplatitude. It was no more than an energetic mayor would carry out before\nbreakfast.\n\nNo man, again, may charge money for a loan. He may, of course, take the profits\nof partnership, provided that he takes the partner\u2019s risks. He may buy a\nrent-charge; for the fruits of the earth are produced by nature, not wrung from\nman. He may demand compensation--_interesse_--if he is not repaid the principal\nat the time stipulated. He may ask payment corresponding to any loss he incurs\nor gain he foregoes. He may purchase an annuity, for the payment is contingent\nand speculative, not certain. It is no usury when John Deveneys, who has\nborrowed \u00a319 16s., binds himself to pay a penalty of \u00a340 in the event of failure\nto restore the principal, for this is compensation for damages incurred; or when\nGeoffrey de Eston grants William de Burwode three marks of silver in return for\nan annual rent of six shillings, for this is the purchase of a rent-charge, not\na loan; or when James le Reve of London advances \u00a3100 to Robert de Bree of\nDublin, merchant, with which to trade for two years in Ireland, for this is a\npartnership; or when the priory of Worcester sells annuities for a capital sum\npaid down.[I-57] What remained to the end unlawful was that which appears in\nmodern economic text-books as \u201cpure interest\u201d--interest as a fixed payment\nstipulated in advance for a loan of money or wares without risk to the lender.\n\u201cUsura est ex mutuo lucrum pacto debitum vel exactum ... quidquid sorti accedit,\nsubaudi per pactum vel exactionem, usura est, quodcunque nomen sibi\nimponat.\u201d[I-58] The emphasis was on _pactum_. The essence of usury was that it\nwas certain, and that, whether the borrower gained or lost, the usurer took his\npound of flesh. Medieval opinion, which has no objection to rent or profits,\nprovided that they are reasonable--for is not every one in a small way a\nprofit-maker?--has no mercy for the debenture-holder. His crime is that he takes\na payment for money which is fixed and certain, and such a payment is usury.\n\nThe doctrine was, of course, more complex and more subtle than a bald summary\nsuggests. With the growth of the habit of investment, of a market for capital,\nand of new forms of economic enterprise such as insurance and exchange business,\ntheory became steadily more elaborate, and schools more sharply divided. The\nprecise meaning and scope of the indulgence extended to the purchase of\nrent-charges produced one controversy, the foreign exchanges another, the\ndevelopment of _Monts de Pi\u00e9t\u00e9_ a third. Even before the end of the fourteenth\ncentury there had been writers who argued that interest was the remuneration of\nthe services rendered by the lender, and who pointed out (though apparently they\ndid not draw the modern corollary) that present are more valuable than future\ngoods.[I-59] But on the iniquity of payment merely for the act of lending,\ntheological opinion, whether liberal or conservative, was unanimous, and its\nmodern interpreter,[I-60] who sees in its indulgence to _interesse_ the\ncondonation of interest, would have created a scandal in theological circles in\nany age before that of Calvin. To take usury is contrary to Scripture; it is\ncontrary to Aristotle; it is contrary to nature, for it is to live without\nlabor; it is to sell time, which belongs to God, for the advantage of wicked\nmen; it is to rob those who use the money lent, and to whom, since they make it\nprofitable, the profits should belong; it is unjust in itself, for the benefit\nof the loan to the borrower cannot exceed the value of the principal sum lent\nhim; it is in defiance of sound juristic principles, for when a loan of money is\nmade, the property in the thing lent passes to the borrower, and why should the\ncreditor demand payment from a man who is merely using what is now his own?\n\nThe part played by authority in all this is obvious. There were the texts in\nExodus and Leviticus; there was Luke vi. 35--apparently a mistranslation; there\nwas a passage in the _Politics_, which some now say was mistranslated\nalso.[I-61] But practical considerations contributed more to the doctrine than\nis sometimes supposed. Its character had been given it in an age in which most\nloans were not part of a credit system, but an exceptional expedient, and in\nwhich it could be said that \u201che who borrows is always under stress of\nnecessity.\u201d If usury were general, it was argued, \u201cmen would not give thought to\nthe cultivation of their land, except when they could do nought else, and so\nthere would be so great a famine that all the poor would die of hunger; for even\nif they could get land to cultivate, they would not be able to get the beasts\nand implements for cultivating it, since the poor themselves would not have\nthem, and the rich, for the sake both of profit and of security, would put their\nmoney into usury rather than into smaller and more risky investments.\u201d[I-62] The\nman who used these arguments was not an academic dreamer. He was Innocent IV, a\nconsummate man of business, a believer, even to excess, in _Realpolitik_, and\none of the ablest statesmen of his day.\n\nTrue, the Church could not dispense with commercial wickedness in high places.\nIt was too convenient. The distinction between pawnbroking, which is\ndisreputable, and high finance, which is eminently honorable, was as familiar in\nthe Age of Faith as in the twentieth century; and no reasonable judgment of the\nmedieval denunciation of usury is possible, unless it is remembered that whole\nranges of financial business escaped from it almost altogether. It was rarely\napplied to the large-scale transactions of kings, feudal magnates, bishops and\nabbots. Their subjects, squeezed to pay a foreign money-lender, might grumble or\nrebel, but, if an Edward III or a Count of Champagne was in the hands of\nfinanciers, who could bring either debtor or creditor to book? It was even more\nrarely applied to the Papacy itself; Popes regularly employed the international\nbanking-houses of the day, with a singular indifference, as was frequently\ncomplained, to the morality of their business methods, took them under their\nspecial protection, and sometimes enforced the payment of debts by the threat of\nexcommunication. As a rule, in spite of some qualms, the international\nmoney-market escaped from it; in the fourteenth century Italy was full of\nbanking-houses doing foreign exchange business in every commercial center from\nConstantinople to London, and in the great fairs, such as those of Champagne, a\nspecial period was regularly set aside for the negotiation of loans and the\nsettlement of debts.[I-63]\n\nIt was not that transactions of this type were expressly excepted; on the\ncontrary, each of them from time to time evoked the protests of moralists. Nor\nwas it mere hypocrisy which caused the traditional doctrine to be repeated by\nwriters who were perfectly well aware that neither commerce nor government could\nbe carried on without credit. It was that the whole body of intellectual\nassumptions and practical interests, on which the prohibition of usury was\nbased, had reference to a quite different order of economic activities from that\nrepresented by loans from great banking-houses to the merchants and potentates\nwho were their clients. Its object was simple and direct--to prevent the\nwell-to-do money-lender from exploiting the necessities of the peasant or the\ncraftsman; its categories, which were quite appropriate to that type of\ntransaction, were those of personal morality. It was in these commonplace\ndealings among small men that oppression was easiest and its results most\npitiable. It was for them that the Church\u2019s scheme of economic ethics had been\nworked out, and with reference to them, though set at naught in high places, it\nwas meant to be enforced, for it was part of Christian charity.\n\nIt was enforced partly by secular authorities, partly, in so far as the rivalry\nof secular authorities would permit it, by the machinery of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline. The ecclesiastical legislation on the subject of usury has been so\noften analyzed that it is needless to do more than allude to it. Early Councils\nhad forbidden usury to be taken by the clergy.[I-64] The Councils of the twelfth\nand thirteenth centuries forbid it to be taken by clergy or laity, and lay down\nrules for dealing with offenders. Clergy who lend money to persons in need, take\ntheir possessions in pawn, and receive profits beyond the capital sum lent, are\nto be deprived of their office.[I-65] Manifest usurers are not to be admitted to\ncommunion or Christian burial; their offerings are not to be accepted; and\necclesiastics who fail to punish them are to be suspended until they make\nsatisfaction to their bishop.[I-66] The high-water mark of the ecclesiastical\nattack on usury was probably reached in the legislation of the Councils of Lyons\n(1274) and of Vienne (1312). The former re-enacted the measures laid down by the\nthird Lateran Council (1175), and supplemented them by rules which virtually\nmade the money-lender an outlaw. No individual or society, under pain of\nexcommunication or interdict, was to let houses to usurers, but was to expel\nthem (had they been admitted) within three months. They were to be refused\nconfession, absolution and Christian burial until they had made restitution, and\ntheir wills were to be invalid.[I-67] The legislation of the Council of Vienne\nwas even more sweeping. Declaring that it has learned with dismay that there are\ncommunities which, contrary to human and divine law, sanction usury and compel\ndebtors to observe usurious contracts, it declares that all rulers and\nmagistrates knowingly maintaining such laws are to incur excommunication, and\nrequires the legislation in question to be revoked within three months. Since\nthe true nature of usurious transactions is often concealed beneath various\nspecious devices, money-lenders are to be compelled by the ecclesiastical\nauthorities to submit their accounts to examination. Any person obstinately\ndeclaring that usury is not a sin is to be punished as a heretic, and\ninquisitors are to proceed against him _tanquam contra diffamatos vel suspectos\nde h\u00e6resi_.[I-68]\n\nIt would not be easy to find a more drastic example, either of ecclesiastical\nsovereignty, or of the attempt to assert the superiority of the moral law to\neconomic expediency, than the requirement, under threat of excommunication, that\nall secular legislation sanctioning usury shall be repealed. But, for an\nunderstanding of the way in which the system was intended to work, the\nenactments of Councils are perhaps less illuminating than the correspondence\nbetween the papal _Curia_ and subordinate ecclesiastical authorities on specific\ncases and questions of interpretation. Are the heirs of those who have made\nmoney by usury bound to make restitution? Yes, the same penalties are to be\napplied to them as to the original offenders. The pious object of ransoming\nprisoners is not to justify the asking of a price for a loan. A man is to be\naccounted a usurer, not only if he charges interest, but if he allows for the\nelement of time in a bargain, by asking a higher price when he sells on credit.\nEven when debtors have sworn not to proceed against usurers, the ecclesiastical\nauthorities are to compel the latter to restore their gains, and, if witnesses\nare terrorized by the protection given to usurers by the powerful, punishment\ncan be imposed without their evidence, provided that the offence is a matter of\ncommon notoriety. An archbishop of Canterbury is reminded that usury is\nperilous, not only for the clergy, but for all men whatever, and is warned to\nuse ecclesiastical censures to secure the restoration, without the deduction of\ninterest, of property which has been pawned. Usurers, says a papal letter to the\narchbishop of Salerno, object to restoring gains, or say that they have not the\nmeans; he is to compel all who can to make restitution, either to those from\nwhom interest was taken, or to their heirs; when neither course is possible,\nthey are to give it to the poor; for, as Augustine says, _non remittitur\npeccatum, nisi restituitur ablatum_. At Genoa, the Pope is informed, a practice\nobtains of undertaking to pay, at the end of a given term, a higher price for\nwares than they were worth at the moment when the sale took place. It is not\nclear that such contracts are necessarily usurious; nevertheless, the sellers\nrun into sin, unless there is a probability that the wares will have changed in\nvalue by the time that payment is made; \u201cand therefore your fellow-citizens\nwould show a wise regard for their salvation if they ceased making contracts of\nthe kind, since the thoughts of men cannot be concealed from Almighty\nGod.\u201d[I-69]\n\nIt is evident from the number of doubtful cases referred to Rome for decision\nthat the law with regard to usury was not easily administered. It is evident,\nalso, that efforts were made to offer guidance in dealing with difficult and\ntechnical problems. In the book of common forms, drawn up in the thirteenth\ncentury for the guidance of the papal penitentiary in dealing with hard cases,\nprecedents were inserted to show how usurers should be handled.[I-70] About the\nsame time appeared St. Raymond\u2019s guide to the duties of an archdeacon, which\ncontains a long list of inquiries to be made on visitation, covering every\nconceivable kind of extortion, and designed to expose the various illusory\ncontracts--fictitious partnerships, loans under the guise of sales, excessive\ndeposits against advances--by which the offence was concealed.[I-71]\nInstructions to confessors define in equal detail the procedure to be followed.\nThe confessor, states a series of synodal statutes, is to \u201cmake inquiry\nconcerning merchandising, and other things pertaining to avarice and\ncovetousness.\u201d Barons and knights are to be requested to state whether they have\nmade ordinances contrary to the liberty of the Church, or refused justice to any\nman seeking it, or oppressed their subjects with undue tallages, tolls or\nservices. \u201cConcerning burgesses, merchants and officers (_ministrales_) the\npriest is to make inquiry as to rapine, usury, pledges made by deceit of usury,\nbarratry, false and lying sales, unjust weights and measures, lying, perjury and\ncraft. Concerning cultivators (_agricolas_) he is to inquire as to theft and\ndetention of the property of others, especially with regard to tithes ... also\nas to the removing of landmarks and the occupation of other men\u2019s land....\nConcerning avarice it is to be asked in this wise: hast thou been guilty of\nsimony ... an unjust judge ... a thief, a robber, a perjurer, a sacrilegious\nman, a gambler, a remover of landmarks in fields ... a false merchant, an\noppressor of any man and above all of widows, wards and others in misery, for\nthe sake of unjust and greedy gain?\u201d Those guilty of avarice are to do penance\nby giving large alms, on the principle that \u201ccontraries are to be cured with\ncontraries.\u201d But there are certain sins for which no true penitence is possible\nuntil restitution has been made. Of these usury is one; and usury, it is to be\nnoted, includes, not only what would now be called interest, but the sin of\nthose who, on account of lapse of time, sell dearer and buy cheaper. If for\npractical reasons restitution is impossible, the offender is to be instructed to\nrequire that it shall be made by his heirs, and, when the injured party cannot\nbe found, the money is to be spent, with the advice of the bishop if the sum is\nlarge and of the priest if it is small, \u201con pious works and especially on the\npoor.\u201d[I-72]\n\nThe more popular teaching on the subject is illustrated by the manuals for use\nin the confessional and by books for the guidance of the devout. The space given\nin them to the ethics of business was considerable. In the fifteenth century,\nBishop Pecock could meet the Lollards\u2019 complaint that the Scriptures were buried\nbeneath a mass of interpretation, by taking as his illustration the books which\nhad been written on the text, \u201cLend, hoping for nothing again,\u201d and arguing that\nall this teaching upon usury was little enough \u201cto answer ... all the hard,\nscrupulous doubts and questions which all day have need to be assoiled in men\u2019s\nbargains and chafferings together.\u201d[I-73] A century later there were regions in\nwhich such doctrine was still being rehearsed with all the old rigor. In 1552\nthe Parliament which made the Scottish Reformation was only eight years off. But\nthe catechism of the archbishop of St. Andrews, which was drawn up in that year,\nshows no disposition to compromise with the economic frailties of his\nfellow-countrymen. It denounces usurers, masters who withhold wages, covetous\nmerchants who sell fraudulent wares, covetous landlords who grind their tenants,\nand in general--a comprehensive and embarrassing indictment--\u201call wretches that\nwill be grown rich incontinent,\u201d and all \u201cwho may keep their neighbor from\npoverty and mischance and do it not.\u201d[I-74]\n\nOn the crucial question, how the ecclesiastical courts dealt in practice with\nthese matters, we have very little light. They are still almost an unworked\nfield. On the Continent we catch glimpses of occasional raids. Bishops declare\nwar on notorious usurers, only to evoke reprisals from the secular authorities,\nto whom the money-lender is too convenient to be victimized by any one but\nthemselves.[I-75] At the end of the thirteenth century an archbishop of Bourges\nmakes some thirty-five usurers disgorge at a sitting,[I-76] and seventy years\nlater an inquisitor at Florence collects 7,000 florins in two years from usurers\nand blasphemers.[I-77] In England commercial morality was a debatable land, in\nwhich ecclesiastical and secular authorities contended from time to time for\njurisdiction. The ecclesiastical courts claimed to deal with cases of breach of\ncontract in general, on the ground that they involved _l\u00e6sio fidei_, and with\nusury in particular, as an offence against morality specifically forbidden by\nthe canon law. Both claims were contested by the Crown and by municipal bodies.\nThe former, by the Constitutions of Clarendon,[I-78] had expressly reserved\nproceedings as to debts for the royal courts, and the same rule was laid down\nmore than once in the course of the next century. The latter again and again\nforbade burgesses to take proceedings in the courts christian, and fined those\nwho disregarded the prohibition.[I-79] Both, in spite of repeated protests from\nthe clergy,[I-80] made good their pretension to handle usurious contracts in\nsecular courts; but neither succeeded in ousting the jurisdiction of the Church.\nThe question at issue was not whether the usurer should be punished--a point as\nto which there was only one opinion--but who should have the lucrative business\nof punishing him, and in practice he ran the gauntlet of all and of each. Local\nauthorities, from the City of London to the humblest manorial court, make\nby-laws against \u201cunlawful chevisance\u201d and present offenders against them.[I-81]\nThe Commons pray that Lombard brokers may be banished, and that the ordinances\nof London concerning them may be made of general application.[I-82] The justices\nin eyre hear indictments of usurers,[I-83] and the Court of Chancery handles\npetitions from victims who can get no redress at common law.[I-84] And Holy\nChurch, though there seems to be only one example of legislation on the subject\nby an English Church Council,[I-85] continues to deal with the usurer after her\nown manner.\n\nFor, in spite of the conflict of jurisdictions, the rising resentment against\nthe ways of ecclesiastical lawyers, and the expanding capitalism of the later\nMiddle Ages, it is evident that commercial cases continued, on occasion at\nleast, to come before the courts christian. Nor, after the middle of the\nfourteenth century, was their right to try cases of usury contested by the\nsecular authorities. A statute of 1341 enacted that (as laid down long before)\nthe King should have cognizance of usurers dead, and the Church of usurers\nliving. The same reservation of ecclesiastical rights was repeated when the\nquestion was taken up a century later under Henry VII, and survived, an\nantiquated piece of common form, even into the age of lusty capitalism under\nElizabeth and James I.[I-86]\n\nThat ecclesiastical authorities had much opportunity of enforcing the canon law\nin connection with money-lending is improbable. It was naturally in the\ncommercial towns that cases of the kind most frequently arose, and the towns did\nnot look with favor on the interference of churchmen in matters of business. In\nLondon, collisions between the courts of the Official, the Mayor and the King\nwere frequent in the early thirteenth century. Men took proceedings before the\nfirst, it seems, when a speedy decision was desired, or when their case was of a\nkind which secular courts were not likely to regard with favor. Thus craftsmen,\nto give one curious example out of many, were evidently using the courts\nchristian as a means of giving effect to trade union regulations, which were\nmore likely to be punished than enforced by the mayor and aldermen, by the\nsimple device of imposing an oath and proceeding against those who broke it for\nbreach of faith. The smiths, for instance, made a \u201cconfederacy,\u201d supported by an\noath, with the object, as they declared, of putting down night-work, but, as was\nalleged in court, of preventing any but members of their organization from\nworking at the trade, and summoned blacklegs before the ecclesiastical courts.\nThe spurriers forbade any one to work between sunset and sunrise, and haled an\noffending journeyman before the archdeacon, with the result that \u201cthe said\nRichard, after being three times warned by the Official, had been expelled from\nthe Church and excommunicated, until he would swear to keep the\nordinance.\u201d[I-87]\n\nEven at a later period the glimpses which we catch of the activities of the\necclesiastical jurisdiction are enough to show that it was not wholly a dead\nletter. Priests accused of usury undergo correction at the hands of their\nbishops.[I-88] Petitioners appeal for redress to the Court of Chancery on the\nground that they have failed to secure justice in the courts of bishops or\narchdeacons, where actions on cases of debts or usury have been begun before\n\u201cspiritual men.\u201d[I-89] The records of ecclesiastical courts show that, though\nsometimes commercial questions were dismissed as belonging to the secular\ncourts, cases of breach of contract and usury continued, nevertheless, to be\nsettled by them.[I-90] The disreputable family of Marcroft--William the father\nwas a common usurer, Alice his daughter baked bread at Pentecost, and Edward his\nson made a shirt on All Saints\u2019 Day--is punished by the ecclesiastical court of\nWhalley as it deserves.[I-91] At Ripon a usurer and his victim are induced to\nsettle the case out of court.[I-92] The Commissary of London cites Thomas Hall\n_super crimine usurari\u00e6 pravitatis_, on the ground that, having advanced four\nshillings on the security of Thomas Foster\u2019s belt, he had demanded twelve pence\nover and above the principal, and suspends him when he does not appear in\ncourt.[I-93] Nor did business of this kind cease with the Reformation. Cases of\nusury were being heard by ecclesiastical courts under Elizabeth, and even in a\ngreat commercial center like the City of London it was still possible in the\nreign of James I for the Bishop\u2019s Commissary to be trying tradesmen for \u201clending\nupon pawnes for an excessive gain.\u201d[I-94]\n\nIt was not only by legal penalties, however, that an attempt was made to raise a\ndefensive barrier against the exactions of the money-lender. From a very early\ndate there was a school of opinion which held that, in view of the various\nstratagems by which usurious contracts could be \u201ccolored,\u201d direct prohibition\nwas almost necessarily impotent, and which favored the policy of providing\nfacilities for borrowing on more reasonable terms than could be obtained from\nthe money-lender. Ecclesiastics try, in fact, to turn the flank of the usurer by\nestablishing institutions where the poor can raise capital cheaply. Parishes,\nreligious fraternities, gilds, hospitals and perhaps monasteries lend corn,\ncattle and money.[I-95] In England, bishops are organizing such loans with papal\napproval in the middle of the thirteenth century,[I-96] and two centuries later,\nabout 1462, the Franciscans lead the movement for the creation of _Monts de\nPi\u00e9t\u00e9_, which, starting in Italy, spread by the first half of the sixteenth\ncentury to France, Germany, and the Low Countries, and, though never taken up in\nEngland--for the Reformation intervened--supplied a topic of frequent comment\nand eulogy to English writers on economic ethics.[I-97] The canon law on the\nsubject of money-lending underwent a steady development, caused by the necessity\nof adapting it to the increasing complexity of business organization, down at\nleast to the Lateran Council of 1515. The ingenuity with which professional\nopinion elaborated the code was itself a proof that considerable business--and\nfees--were the result of it, for lawyers do not serve God for naught. The\ncanonists, who had a bad reputation with the laity, were not, to put it mildly,\nmore innocent than other lawyers in the gentle art of making business. The\nItalians, in particular, as was natural in the financial capital of Europe, made\nthe pace, and Italian canonists performed prodigies of legal ingenuity. In\nEngland, on the other hand, either because Englishmen were unusually virtuous,\nor, as a foreigner unkindly said, because \u201cthey do not fear to make contracts on\nusury,\u201d[I-98] or, most probably, because English business was a conservative and\nslow-going affair, the English canonist Lyndwood is content to quote a sentence\nfrom an English archbishop of the thirteenth century and to leave it at\nthat.[I-99]\n\nBut, however lawyers might distinguish and refine, the essential facts were\nsimple. The Church sees buying and selling, lending and borrowing, as a simple\ncase of neighborly or unneighborly conduct. Though a rationalist like Bishop\nPecock may insist that the rich, as such, are not hateful to God,[I-100] it has\na traditional prejudice against the arts by which men--or at least\nlaymen--acquire riches, and is apt to lump them together under the ugly name of\navarice. Merchants who organize a ring, or money-lenders who grind the poor, it\nregards, not as business strategists, but as _nefand\u00e6 bellu\u00e6_--monsters of\niniquity. As for grocers and victualers \u201cwho conspire wickedly together that\nnone shall sell better cheap than another,\u201d and speculators \u201cwho buy up corn,\nmeat and wine ... to amass money at the cost of others,\u201d they are \u201caccording to\nthe laws of the Church no better than common criminals.\u201d[I-101] So, when the\nprice of bread rises, or when the London fruiterers, persuaded by one bold\nspirit that they are \u201call poor and caitiffs on account of their own simplicity,\nand if they would act on his advice they would be rich and powerful,\u201d[I-102]\nform a combine, to the great loss and hardship of the people, burgesses and\npeasants do not console themselves with the larger hope that the laws of supply\nand demand may bring prices down again. Strong in the approval of all good\nChristians, they stand the miller in the pillory, and reason with the fruiterers\nin the court of the mayor. And the parish priest delivers a sermon on the sixth\ncommandment, choosing as his text the words of the Book of Proverbs, \u201cGive me\nneither riches nor poverty, but enough for my sustenance.\u201d\n\n\nIII. THE IDEAL AND THE REALITY\n\nSuch, in brief outline, was the background of economic thought which the\nsixteenth century inherited, and which it brought to the bewildering changes in\nland tenure, in prices, in commercial and financial organization, that made the\nage a watershed in economic development. It is evident that the whole\nimplication of this philosophy was, on one side, intensely conservative. There\nwas no question of progress, still less of any radical social reconstruction. In\nthe numerous heretical movements of the Middle Ages social aspirations were\noften combined with criticisms of the luxury and pomp of the ecclesiastical\nhierarchy. The official Church, to which independence of thought among the lower\norders was but little less abhorrent when it related to their temporal\nwell-being than when it was concerned with their eternal salvation, frowned upon\nthese dangerous speculations, and sometimes crushed them with a ferocity as\nrelentless as the most savage of the White Terrors of modern history has shown\nto the most formidable of insurrections.\n\nIntellectually, religious opinion endorsed to the full the static view, which\nregarded the social order as a thing unalterable, to be accepted, not to be\nimproved. Except on rare occasions, its spokesmen repeated the conventional\ndoctrine, according to which the feet were born to labor, the hands to fight,\nand the head to rule. Naturally, therefore, they denounced agitations, like the\ncommunal movement,[I-103] designed to overturn that natural order, though the\nrise of the Free Cities was one of the glories of medieval Europe and the germ\nof almost every subsequent advance in civilization. They referred to questions\nof economic conduct, not because they were anxious to promote reforms, but\nbecause they were concerned with the maintenance of traditional standards of\npersonal morality, of which economic conduct formed an important part.\n\nPractically, the Church was an immense vested interest, implicated to the hilt\nin the economic fabric, especially on the side of agriculture and land tenure.\nItself the greatest of landowners, it could no more quarrel with the feudal\nstructure than the Ecclesiastical Commission, the largest of mineral owners\ntoday, can lead a crusade against royalties. The persecution of the Spiritual\nFranciscans, who dared, in defiance of the bull of John XXII, to maintain St.\nFrancis\u2019 rule as to evangelical poverty, suggests that doctrines impugning the\nsanctity of wealth resembled too closely the teaching of Christ to be acceptable\nto the princes of the Christian Church.\n\nThe basis of the whole medieval economic system, under which, except in Italy\nand Flanders, more than nine-tenths of the population consisted of\nagriculturists, had been serfdom or villeinage. Confronted in the sixteenth\ncentury with the unfamiliar evils of competitive agriculture, conservative\nreformers were to sigh for the social harmonies of a vanished age, which \u201cknyt\nsuche a knott of colaterall amytie betwene the Lordes and the tenaunts that the\nLorde tendered his tenaunt as his childe, and the tenaunts againe loved and\nobeyed the Lorde as naturellye as the childe the father.\u201d[I-104] Their\nidealization of the past is as misleading, as an account of the conditions of\nprevious centuries, as it is illuminating as a comment upon those of their own.\nIn reality, so far as the servile tenants, who formed the bulk of medieval\nagriculturists, were concerned, the golden age of peasant prosperity is, except\nhere and there, a romantic myth, at which no one would have been more surprised\nthan the peasants themselves. The very essence of feudal property was\nexploitation in its most naked and shameless form, compulsory labor, additional\n_corv\u00e9es_ at the very moments when the peasant\u2019s labor was most urgently needed\non his own holding, innumerable dues and payments, the obligation to grind at\nthe lord\u2019s mill and bake at the lord\u2019s oven, the private justice of the lord\u2019s\ncourt. The custom of the manor, the scarcity of labor, and, in England, the\nsteadily advancing encroachments of the royal courts, blunted the edge of the\nsystem, and in fifteenth-century England a prosperous yeomanry was rising on its\nruins. But, during the greater part of the Middle Ages, its cumulative weight\nhad been, nevertheless, immense. Those who lived under it had no illusions as to\nits harshness. The first step which the peasant who had saved a little money\ntook was to buy himself out of the obligation to work on the lord\u2019s demesne. The\nPeasants\u2019 Revolt in England, the _Jacquerie_ in France and the repeated risings\nof the German peasantry reveal a state of social exasperation which has been\nsurpassed in bitterness by few subsequent movements.\n\nIt is natural to ask (though some writers on medieval economics refrain from\nasking) what the attitude of religious opinion was towards serfdom. And it is\nhardly possible to answer that question except by saying that, apart from a few\nexceptional individuals, religious opinion ignored it. True, the Church\ncondemned arbitrary tallages, and urged that the serf should be treated with\nhumanity. True, it described the manumission of serfs as an act of piety, like\ngifts to the poor. For serfs are not \u201cliving tools,\u201d but men; in the eyes of God\nall men are serfs together, _conservi_, and in the Kingdom of Heaven Lazarus is\nbefore Dives.[I-105] True, villeinage was a legal, not an economic, category; in\nthe England of the fourteenth century there were serfs who were rich men. But to\nrelease the individual is not to condemn the institution. Whatever \u201cmad priests\u201d\nmight say and do, the official Church, whose wealth consisted largely of\nvilleins, walked with circumspection.\n\nThe canon law appears to have recognized and enforced serfdom.[I-106] Few\nprominent ecclesiastics made any pronouncement against it. Aquinas explains it\nas the result of sin, but that does not prevent his justifying it on economic\ngrounds.[I-107] Almost all medieval writers appear to assume it or excuse it.\nEcclesiastical landlords, though perhaps somewhat more conservative in their\nmethods, seem as a whole to have been neither better nor worse than other\nlandlords. _Rustica gens optima flens, pessima gaudens_, was a sentiment which\nsometimes appealed, it is to be feared, to the children of light concerned with\nrent rolls and farming profits, not less than to the feudal aristocracy, with\nwhom the heads of the ecclesiastical hierarchy were inextricably intermingled.\nWhen their chance came, John Nameless, and John the Miller, and John Carter, who\nmay be presumed to have known their friends, burned the court rolls of an abbot\nof St. Albans, and cut off the head of an archbishop, and ran riot on the\nestates of an abbot of Kempten, with not less enthusiasm than they showed in\nplundering their lay exploiters. It was not the Church, but revolting peasants\nin Germany and England, who appealed to the fact that \u201cChrist has made all men\nfree\u201d;[I-108] and in Germany, at least, their ecclesiastical masters showed\nsmall mercy to them. The disappearance of serfdom--and, after all, it did not\ndisappear from France till late in the eighteenth century, and from Germany till\nthe nineteenth--was part of a general economic movement, with which the Church\nhad little to do, and which churchmen, as property-owners, had sometimes\nresisted. It owed less to Christianity than to the humanitarian liberalism of\nthe French Revolution.\n\nThe truth was that the very triumph of the Church closed its mouth. The Church\nof the third century, a minority of believers confronted with an alien\ncivilization, might protest and criticize. But, when the whole leaven was mixed\nwith the lump, when the Church was regarded, not as _a_ society, but as society\nitself, it was inevitably diluted by the mass which it absorbed. The result was\na compromise--a compromise of which the critic can say, \u201cHow much that was\nintolerable was accepted!\u201d and the eulogist, \u201cHow much that was intolerable was\nsoftened!\u201d\n\nBoth critic and eulogist are right. For if religious opinion acquiesced in much,\nit also claimed much, and the habit of mind which made the medieval Church\nalmost impotent when dealing with the serried abuses of the medieval land system\nwas precisely that which made it strong, at least in theory, in dealing with the\neconomic transactions of the individual. In the earlier Middle Ages it had stood\nfor the protection of peaceful labor, for the care of the poor, the unfortunate\nand the oppressed--for the ideal, at least, of social solidarity against the\nnaked force of violence and oppression. With the growing complexity of economic\ncivilization, it was confronted with problems not easily handled by its\ntraditional categories. But, if applied capriciously, they were not renounced,\nand the world of economic morality, which baffles us today, was in its turn\nconverted by it into a new, though embarrassing, opportunity. Whatever emphasis\nmay be laid--and emphasis can hardly be too strong--upon the gulf between theory\nand practice, the qualifications stultifying principles, and the casuistry by\nwhich the work of canonists, not less than of other lawyers, was disfigured, the\nendeavor to draw the most commonplace of human activities and the least\ntractable of human appetites within the all-embracing circle of a universal\nsystem still glows through it all with a certain tarnished splendor. When the\ndistinction between that which is permissible in private life and that which is\npermissible in business offers so plausible an escape from the judgment\npronounced on covetousness, it is something to have insisted that the law of\ncharity is binding on the second not less than on the first. When the austerity\nof principles can be evaded by treating them as applicable only to those\nrelations of life in which their application is least exacting, it is something\nto have attempted to construct a system tough enough to stand against commercial\nunscrupulousness, but yet sufficiently elastic to admit any legitimate\ntransaction. If it is proper to insist on the prevalence of avarice and greed in\nhigh places, it is not less important to observe that men called these vices by\ntheir right names, and had not learned to persuade themselves that greed was\nenterprise and avarice economy.\n\nSuch antitheses are tempting, and it is not surprising that some writers should\nhave dwelt upon them. To a generation disillusioned with free competition, and\ndisposed to demand some criterion of social expediency more cogent than the\nverdict of the market, the jealous and cynical suspicion of economic egotism,\nwhich was the prevalent mood of the Middle Ages, is more intelligible than it\nwas to the sanguine optimists of the Age of Reason, which, as far as its theory\nof the conduct of men in society is concerned, deserves much more than the\nthirteenth century to be described as the Age of Faith. In the twentieth\ncentury, with its trusts and combines, its control of industry by business and\nof both by finance, its attempts to fix fair wages and fair prices, its\nrationing and food controls and textile controls, the economic harmonies are,\nperhaps, a little blown upon. The temper in which it approaches questions of\neconomic organization appears to have more affinity with the rage of the\nmedieval burgess at the uncharitable covetousness of the usurer and the\nengrosser, than it has with the confidence reposed by its innocent grandfathers\nin the infallible operations of the invisible hand.\n\nThe resemblance, however, though genuine, is superficial, and to over-emphasize\nit is to do less than justice to precisely those elements in medieval thought\nwhich were most characteristic. The significance of its contribution consists,\nnot in its particular theories as to prices and interest, which recur in all\nages, whenever the circumstances of the economic environment expose consumer and\nborrower to extortion, but in its insistence that society is a spiritual\norganism, not an economic machine, and that economic activity, which is one\nsubordinate element within a vast and complex unity, requires to be controlled\nand repressed by reference to the moral ends for which it supplies the material\nmeans. So merciless is the tyranny of economic appetites, so prone to\nself-aggrandizement the empire of economic interests, that a doctrine which\nconfines them to their proper sphere, as the servant, not the master, of\ncivilization, may reasonably be regarded as among the pregnant truisms which are\na permanent element in any sane philosophy. Nor is it, perhaps, as clear today\nas it seemed a century ago, that it has been an unmixed gain to substitute the\ncriterion of economic expediency, so easily interpreted in terms of quantity and\nmass, for the conception of a rule of life superior to individual desires and\ntemporary exigencies, which was what the medieval theorist meant by \u201cnatural\nlaw.\u201d\n\nWhen all is said, the fact remains that, on the small scale involved, the\nproblem of moralizing economic life was faced and not abandoned. The experiment\nmay have been impracticable, and almost from the first it was discredited by the\nnotorious corruption of ecclesiastical authorities, who preached renunciation\nand gave a lesson in greed. But it had in it something of the heroic, and to\nignore the nobility of the conception is not less absurd than to idealize its\npractical results. The best proof of the appeal which the attempt to subordinate\neconomic interests to religion had made is the persistence of the same attempt\namong reformers, to whom the Pope was anti-Christ and the canon law an\nabomination and the horror of decent men when, in the sixteenth century, its\nbreakdown became too obvious to be contested.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE CONTINENTAL REFORMERS\n\n\u201cNeither the Church of Christ, nor a Christian Commonwealth, ought to tolerate\nsuch as prefer private gain to the public weal, or seek it to the hurt of their\nneighbours.\u201d\n\n  BUCER, _De Regno Christi_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE CONTINENTAL REFORMERS\n\n\nLord Acton, in an unforgettable passage in his _Inaugural Lecture on the Study\nof History_, has said that \u201cafter many ages persuaded of the headlong decline\nand impending dissolution of society, and governed by usage and the will of\nmasters who were in their graves, the sixteenth century went forth armed for\nuntried experience, and ready to watch with hopefulness a prospect of\nincalculable change.\u201d[II-1] His reference was to the new world revealed by\nlearning, by science, and by discovery. But his words offer an appropriate text\nfor a discussion of the change in the conception of the relations between\nreligion and secular interests which took place in the same period. Its\ninevitable consequence was the emergence, after a prolonged moral and\nintellectual conflict, of new conceptions of social expediency and of new lines\nof economic thought.\n\nThe strands in this movement were complex, and the formula which associates the\nReformation with the rise of economic individualism is no complete explanation.\nSystems prepare their own overthrow by a preliminary process of petrifaction.\nThe traditional social philosophy was static, in the sense that it assumed a\nbody of class relations sharply defined by custom and law, and little affected\nby the ebb and flow of economic movements. Its weakness in the face of novel\nforces was as obvious as the strain put upon it by the revolt against the source\nof ecclesiastical jurisprudence, the partial discredit of the canon law and of\necclesiastical discipline, and the rise of a political science equipped from the\narsenals of antiquity. But it is not to under-estimate the effect of the\nReformation to say that the principal causes making the age a watershed, from\nwhich new streams of social theory descend, lay in another region. Mankind does\nnot reflect upon questions of economic and social organization until compelled\nto do so by the sharp pressure of some practical emergency. The sixteenth\ncentury was an age of social speculation for the same reason as the early\nnineteenth--because it was an age of social dislocation. The retort of\nconservative religious teachers to a spirit which seems to them the triumph of\nMammon produces the last great literary expression of the appeal to the average\nconscience which had been made by an older social order. The practical\nimplications of the social theory of the Middle Ages are stated more clearly in\nthe sixteenth century than even in its zenith, because they are stated with the\nemphasis of a creed which is menaced.\n\n\nI. THE ECONOMIC REVOLUTION\n\nThe religious revolution of the age came on a world heaving with the vastest\neconomic crisis that Europe had experienced since the fall of Rome. Art and\nscientific curiosity and technical skill, learning and statesmanship, the\nscholarship which explored the past and the prophetic vision which pierced the\nfuture, had all poured their treasures into the sumptuous shrine of the new\ncivilization. Behind the genii of beauty and wisdom who were its architects\nthere moved a murky, but indispensable, figure. It was the demon whom Dante had\nmet muttering gibberish in the fourth circle of the Inferno, and whom Sir Guyon\nwas to encounter three centuries later, tanned with smoke and seared with fire,\nin a cave adjoining the mouth of hell. His uncouth labors quarried the stones\nwhich Michael Angelo was to raise, and sank deep in the Roman clay the\nfoundations of the walls to be adorned by Raphael.\n\nFor it was the mastery of man over his environment which heralded the dawn of\nthe new age, and it was in the stress of expanding economic energies that this\nmastery was proved and won. Like sovereignty in a feudal society, the economic\nefforts of the Middle Ages, except in a few favored spots, had been fragmentary\nand decentralized. Now the scattered raiders were to be organized and\ndisciplined; the dispersed and irregular skirmishes were to be merged in a grand\nstruggle, on a front which stretched from the Baltic to the Ganges and from the\nSpice Islands to Peru. Every year brought the news of fresh triumphs. The\ngeneral who marshaled the host and launched the attack was economic power.\n\nEconomic power, long at home in Italy, was leaking through a thousand creeks and\ninlets into western Europe, for a century before, with the climax of the great\nDiscoveries, the flood came on breast-high. Whatever its truth as a judgment on\nthe politics of the fifteenth century, the conventional verdict on its futility\ndoes scanty justice to its economic significance. It was in an age of political\nanarchy that the forces destined to dominate the future tried their wings. The\nera of Columbus and Da Gama was prepared by the patient labor of Italian\ncartographers and Portuguese seamen, as certainly as was that of Crompton and\nWatt by the obscure experiments of nameless predecessors.\n\nThe master who set the problem that the heroes of the age were to solve was\nmaterial necessity. The Europe of the earlier Middle Ages, like the world of the\ntwentieth century, had been a closed circle. But it had been closed, not by the\ngrowth of knowledge, but by the continuance of ignorance; and, while the latter,\nhaving drawn the whole globe into a single economic system, has no space left\nfor fresh expansion, for the former, with the Mediterranean as its immemorial\npivot, expansion had hardly begun. Tapping the wealth of the East by way of the\nnarrow apertures in the Levant, it resembled, in the rigidity of the limits\nimposed on its commercial strategy, a giant fed through the chinks of a wall.\n\nAs was the general scheme, so were the details; inelastic in its external,\nEurope was hardly more flexible in its internal, relations. Its primary unit had\nbeen the village; and the village, a community of agrarian shareholders\nfortified by custom, had repressed with a fury of virtuous unanimity the\ndisorderly appetites which menaced its traditional routine with the evil whose\nname is Change. Beyond the village lay the greater, more privileged, village\ncalled the borough, and the brethren of borough and gild had turned on the\nforeign devil from upland and valley a face of flint. Above both were the slowly\nwaking nations. Nationalism was an economic force before nationality was a\npolitical fact, and it was a sound reason for harrying a competitor that he was\na Florentine or a man of the Emperor. The privileged colony with its dep\u00f4t, the\nSteel-yard of the Hanseatic League, the Fondaco Tedesco of the south Germans,\nthe Factory of the English Merchant Adventurers, were but tiny breaches in a\nwall of economic exclusiveness. Trade, as in modern Turkey or China, was carried\non under capitulations.\n\nThis narrow framework had been a home. In the fifteenth century it was felt to\nbe a prison. Expanding energies pressed against the walls; restless appetites\ngnawed and fretted wherever a crack in the surface offered room for erosion.\nLong before the southward march of the Turks cut the last of the great routes\nfrom the East, the Venetian monopoly was felt to be intolerable. Long before the\nplunder of Mexico and the silver of Potosi flooded Europe with treasure, the\nmines of Germany and the Tyrol were yielding increasing, if still slender,\nstreams of bullion, which stimulated rather than allayed its thirst.[II-2] It\nwas not the lords of great estates, but eager and prosperous peasants, who in\nEngland first nibbled at commons and undermined the manorial custom, behind\nwhich, as behind a dyke, their small savings had been accumulated. It was not\ngreat capitalists, but enterprising gildsmen, who began to make the control of\nthe fraternity the basis of a system of plutocratic exploitation, or who fled,\nprecocious individualists, from the fellowship of borough and craft, that they\nmight grow to what stature they pleased in rural isolation. It was not even the\nDiscoveries which first began the enormous tilt of economic power from south and\neast to north and west. The records of German and English trade suggest that the\npowers of northern Europe had for a century before the Discoveries been growing\nin wealth and civilization,[II-3] and for a century after them English economic\ndevelopment was to be as closely wedded to its continental connections as though\nDiaz had never rounded the Cape, nor Columbus praised Heaven for leading him to\nthe shores of Zayton and Guinsay. First attempted as a counterpoise to the\nItalian monopolist, then pressed home with ever greater eagerness to turn the\nflank of the Turk, as his strangle-hold on the eastern commerce tightened, the\nDiscoveries were neither a happy accident nor the fruit of the disinterested\ncuriosity of science. They were the climax of almost a century of patient\neconomic effort. They were as practical in their motive as the steam-engine.\n\nThe result was not the less sensational because it had been long prepared.\nHeralded by an economic revolution not less profound than that of three\ncenturies later, the new world of the sixteenth century took its character from\nthe outburst of economic energy in which it had been born. Like the nineteenth\ncentury, it saw a swift increase in wealth and an impressive expansion of trade,\na concentration of financial power on a scale unknown before, the rise, amid\nfierce social convulsions, of new classes and the depression of old, the triumph\nof a new culture and system of ideas amid struggles not less bitter.\n\nIt was an age of economic, not less than of political, sensations, which were\nrecorded in the letter-books[II-4] of business men as well as in the state\npapers of Governments. The decline of Venice and of the south German cities\nwhich had distributed the products that Venice imported, and which henceforward\nmust either be marooned far from the new trade routes or break out to the sea,\nas some of them did, by way of the Low Countries; the new economic imperialism\nof Portugal and Spain; the outburst of capitalist enterprise in mining and\ntextiles; the rise of commercial companies, no longer local but international,\nand based, not merely on exclusive privileges, but on the power of massed\ncapital to drive from the field all feebler competitors; a revolution in prices\nwhich shattered all customary relationships; the collapse of medieval rural\nsociety in a nightmare of peasants\u2019 wars; the subjection of the collegiate\nindustrial organization of the Middle Ages to a new money-power; the triumph of\nthe State and its conquest, in great parts of Europe, of the Church--all were\ncrowded into less than two generations. A man who was born when the Council of\nBasel was sitting saw also, if he lived to a ripe old age, the dissolution of\nthe English monasteries. At the first date Portuguese explorers had hardly\npassed Sierra Leone; at the second Portugal had been the master of an Indian\nEmpire for almost a generation. In the intervening three-quarters of a century\nthe whole framework of European civilization had been transformed.\n\nCompared with the currents which raced in Italy, or Germany, or the Low\nCountries, English life was an economic back-water. But even its stagnant\nshallows were stirred by the eddy and rush of the continental whirlpool. When\nHenry VII came to the throne, the economic organization of the country differed\nbut little from that of the age of Wyclif. When Henry VIII died, full of years\nand sin, some of the main characteristics which were to distinguish it till the\nadvent of steam-power and machinery could already, though faintly, be descried.\nThe door that remained to be unlocked was colonial expansion, and forty years\nlater the first experiments in colonial expansion had begun.\n\nThe phenomenon which dazzled contemporaries was the swift start into apparent\nopulence, first of Portugal and then of Spain. The nemesis of parasitic wealth\nwas not discerned, and it was left for the cynical rationalism of an ambassador\nof that commercial republic, in comparison with whose hoary wisdom the new\nplutocrats of the West were meddlesome children, to observe that the true mines\nof the Spanish Empire lay, not in America, but in the sodden clay of the\nwater-logged Netherlands.[II-5] The justice of the criticism was revealed when\nSpain, a corpse bound on the back of the most liberal and progressive community\nof the age, completed her own ruin by sacking the treasury from which, far more\nthan from Potosi, her wealth had been drawn. But the beginnings of that long\nagony, in which the powerhouse of European enterprise was to be struck with\nparalysis, lay still in the future, and later generations of Spaniards looked\nback with pardonable exaggeration on the closing years of Charles V as a golden\nage of economic prosperity. Europe as a whole, however lacerated by political\nand religious struggles, seemed to have solved the most pressing of the economic\nproblems which had haunted her in the later Middle Ages. During a thousand years\nof unresting struggle with marsh and forest and moor she had colonized her own\nwaste places. That tremendous achievement almost accomplished, she now turned to\nthe task of colonizing the world. No longer on the defensive, she entered on a\nphase of economic expansion which was to grow for the next four hundred years,\nand which only in the twentieth century was to show signs of drawing towards its\nclose. Once a year she was irrigated with the bullion of America, once a year\nshe was enriched with a golden harvest from the East. The period of mere\nexperiment over, and the new connections firmly established, she appeared to be\nin sight of an economic stability based on broader foundations than ever before.\n\nPortugal and Spain held the keys of the treasure-house of East and West. But it\nwas not Portugal, with her tiny population, and her empire that was little more\nthan a line of forts and factories 10,000 miles long, nor Spain, for centuries\nan army on the march, and now staggering beneath the responsibilities of her\nvast and scattered empire, devout to fanaticism, and with an incapacity for\neconomic affairs which seemed almost inspired, who reaped the material harvest\nof the empires into which they had stepped, the one by patient toil, the other\nby luck. Gathering spoils which they could not retain, and amassing wealth which\nslipped through their fingers, they were little more than the political agents\nof minds more astute and characters better versed in the arts of peace. Every\nperiod and society has some particular center, or institution, or social class,\nin which the characteristic qualities of its genius seem to be fixed and\nembodied. In the Europe of the early Renaissance the heart of the movement had\nbeen Italy. In the Europe of the Reformation it was the Low Countries. The\neconomic capital of the new civilization was Antwerp. The institution which best\nsymbolized its eager economic energies was the international money-market and\nproduce-exchange. Its typical figure, the paymaster of princes, was the\ninternational financier.\n\nBefore it was poisoned by persecution, revolution and war, the spirit of the\nNetherlands found its purest incarnation in Erasmus, a prophet without sackcloth\nand a reformer untouched by heat or fury, to the universal internationalism of\nwhose crystal spirit the boundaries of States were a pattern scrawled to amuse\nthe childish malice of princes. Of that cosmopolitan country, destined to be the\nrefuge of the international idea when outlawed by every other power in Europe,\nAntwerp, \u201ca home common to all nations,\u201d was the most cosmopolitan city. Made\nfamous as a center of learning by Plantin\u2019s press, the metropolis of painting in\na country where painting was almost a national industry, it was at once the\nshrine to which masters like Cranach, D\u00fcrer and Holbein made their pilgrimage of\ndevotion, and an asylum which offered to the refugees of less happy countries a\nhaven as yet undisturbed by any systematic campaign to stamp out heresy. In the\nexuberance of its intellectual life, as in the glitter of its material\nprosperity, the thinker and the reformer found a spiritual home, where the\nenergies of the new age seemed gathered for a bound into that land of happiness\nand dreams, for the scene of which More, who knew his Europe, chose as the least\nincredible setting the garden of his lodgings at Antwerp.\n\nThe economic pre\u00ebminence of Antwerp owed much to the industrial region behind\nit, from which the woollen and worsteds of Valenciennes and Tournai, the\ntapestries of Brussels and Oudenarde, the iron of Namur, and the munitions of\nthe Black Country round Li\u00e9ge, poured in an unceasing stream on to its\nquays.[II-6] But Antwerp was a European, rather than a Flemish, metropolis. Long\nthe competitor of Bruges for the reception of the two great currents of trade\nfrom the Mediterranean and the Baltic, which met in the Low Countries, by the\nlast quarter of the fifteenth century she had crushed her rival. The Hanse\nLeague maintained a dep\u00f4t at Antwerp; Italian banking firms in increasing\nnumbers opened businesses there; the English Merchant Adventurers made it the\nentrep\u00f4t through which English cloth, long its principal import, was distributed\nto northern Europe; the copper market moved from Venice to Antwerp in the\nnineties. Then came the great Discoveries, and Antwerp, the first city to tap\nthe wealth, not of an inland sea, but of the ocean, stepped into a position of\nunchallenged pre\u00ebminence almost unique in European history. The long sea-roads\nwhich ran east and west met and ended in its harbors. The Portuguese Government\nmade it in 1503 the dep\u00f4t of the Eastern spice trade. From the accession of\nCharles V it was the commercial capital of the Spanish Empire, and, in spite of\nprotests that the precious metals were leaving Spain, the market for American\nsilver. Commerce, with its demand for cheap and easy credit, brought finance in\nits train. The commercial companies and banking-houses of south Germany turned\nfrom the dwindling trade across the Alps, to make Antwerp the base for financial\noperations of unexampled magnitude and complexity.[II-7]\n\nIn such an economic forcing-house new philosophies of society, like new\nreligious creeds, found a congenial soil. Professor Pirenne has contrasted the\noutlook of the medieval middle class, intent on the conservation of corporate\nand local privileges, with that of the new plutocracy of the sixteenth century,\nwith its international ramifications, its independence of merely local\ninterests, its triumphant vindication of the power of the capitalist to dispense\nwith the artificial protection of gild and borough and carve his own\ncareer.[II-8] \u201cNo one can deny,\u201d wrote the foreign merchants at Antwerp to\nPhilip II, in protest against an attempt to interfere with the liberty of\nexchange transactions, \u201cthat the cause of the prosperity of this city is the\nfreedom granted to those who trade there.\u201d[II-9] Swept into wealth on the crest\nof a wave of swiftly expanding enterprise, which a century before would have\nseemed the wildest of fantasies, the liberal _bourgeoisie_ of Antwerp pursued,\nin the teeth of all precedents, a policy of practical individualism, which would\nhave been met in any other city by rebellion, making terms with the levelling\nencroachments of the Burgundian monarchy, which were fought by their more\nconservative neighbors, lowering tariffs and extinguishing private tolls,\nwelcoming the technical improvements which elsewhere were resisted, taming the\nturbulent independence of the gilds, and throwing open to alien and citizen\nalike the new Exchange, with its significant dedication: _Ad usum mercatorum\ncuiusque gentis ac linguae._\n\nFor, if Antwerp was the microcosm which reflected the soul of commercial Europe,\nthe heart of Antwerp was its Bourse. The causes which made financial capitalism\nas characteristic of the age of the Renaissance, as industrial capitalism was to\nbe of the nineteenth century, consisted partly in the mere expansion in the\nscale of commercial enterprise. A steady flow of capital was needed to finance\nthe movement of the produce handled on the world-market, such as the eastern\nspice crop--above all pepper, which the impecunious Portuguese Government sold\nin bulk, while it was still on the water, to German syndicates--copper, alum,\nthe precious metals, and the cloth shipped by the English Merchant Adventurers.\nThe cheapening of bullion and the rise in prices swelled the profits seeking\ninvestment; the growth of an international banking system mobilized immense\nresources at the strategic points; and, since Antwerp was the capital of the\nEuropean money-market, the bill on Antwerp was the commonest form of\ninternational currency. Linked together by the presence in each of the great\nfinancial houses of the Continent, with liquid funds pouring in from mines in\nHungary and the Tyrol, trading ventures in the East, taxes wrung from Spanish\npeasants, speculations on the part of financiers, and savings invested by the\ngeneral public, Antwerp, Lyons, Frankfurt and Venice, and, in the second rank,\nRouen, Paris, Strassburg, Seville and London, had developed by the middle of the\ncentury a considerable class of financial specialists, and a financial\ntechnique, identical, in all essentials, with that of the present day. They\nformed together the departments of an international clearing-house, where bills\ncould be readily discounted, drafts on any important city could be obtained, and\nthe paper of merchants of almost every nationality changed hands.[II-10]\n\nNourished by the growth of peaceful commerce, the financial capitalism of the\nage fared not less sumptuously, if more dangerously, at the courts of princes.\nMankind, it seems, hates nothing so much as its own prosperity. Menaced with an\naccession of riches which would lighten its toil, it makes haste to redouble its\nlabors, and to pour away the perilous stuff, which might deprive of plausibility\nthe complaint that it is poor. Applied to the arts of peace, the new resources\ncommanded by Europe during the first half of the sixteenth century might have\ndone something to exorcise the specters of pestilence and famine, and to raise\nthe material fabric of civilization to undreamed-of heights. Its rulers, secular\nand ecclesiastical alike, thought otherwise. When pestilence and famine were\nceasing to be necessities imposed by nature, they re\u00ebstablished them by\npolitical art.\n\nThe sluice which they opened to drain away each new accession of superfluous\nwealth was war. \u201cOf all birds,\u201d wrote the sharpest pen of the age, \u201cthe eagle\nalone has seemed to wise men the type of royalty--not beautiful, not musical,\nnot fit for food, but carnivorous, greedy, hateful to all, the curse of all,\nand, with its great powers of doing harm, surpassing them in its desire of doing\nit.\u201d[II-11] The words of Erasmus, uttered in 1517, were only too prophetic. For\napproximately three-quarters both of the sixteenth and of the seventeenth\ncenturies, Europe tore itself to pieces. In the course of the conflict the\nspiritual fires of Renaissance and Reformation alike were trampled out beneath\nthe feet of bravos as malicious and mischievous as the vain, bloody-minded and\nfutile generals who strut and posture, to the hateful laughter of Thersites, in\nthe most despairing of Shakespeare\u2019s tragedies. By the middle of the sixteenth\ncentury the English Government, after an orgy of debasement and confiscation,\nwas in a state of financial collapse, and by the end of it Spain, the southern\nNetherlands including Antwerp, and a great part of France, including the\nfinancial capital of southern Europe, Lyons, were ruined. By the middle of the\nseventeenth century wide tracts of Germany were a desert, and by the end of it\nthe French finances had relapsed into worse confusion than that from which they\nhad been temporarily rescued by the genius of Colbert. The victors compared\ntheir position with that of the vanquished, and congratulated themselves on\ntheir spoils. It rarely occurred to them to ask what it would have been, had\nthere been neither victors nor vanquished, but only peace.\n\nIt is possible that the bankruptcies of Governments have, on the whole, done\nless harm to mankind than their ability to raise loans, and the mobilization of\neconomic power on a scale unknown before armed the fierce nationalism of the age\nwith a weapon more deadly than gunpowder and cannon. The centralized States\nwhich were rising in the age of the Renaissance were everywhere faced with a\ndesperate financial situation. It sprang from the combination of modern\nadministrative and military methods with medieval systems of finance. They\nentrusted to bureaucracies work which, if done at all, had formerly been done as\nan incident of tenure, or by boroughs and gilds; officials had to be paid. They\nwere constantly at war; and the new technique of war, involving the use of\nmasses of professional infantry and artillery--which Rabelais said was invented\nby the inspiration of the devil, as a counterpoise to the invention of printing\ninspired by God--was making it, as after 1870, a highly capitalized industry.\nGovernment after Government, undeterred, with rare exceptions, by the disasters\nof its neighbors, trod a familiar round of expedients, each of which was more\ndisastrous than the last. They hoarded treasure, only to see the accumulations\nof a thrifty Henry VII or Frederick III dissipated by a Henry VIII or a\nMaximilian. They debased the currency and ruined trade. They sold offices, or\nestablished monopolies, and crushed the taxpayer beneath a load of indirect\ntaxation. They plundered the Church, and spent gorgeously as income property\nwhich should have been treated as capital. They parted with Crown estates, and\nleft an insoluble problem to their successors.\n\nThese agreeable devices had, however, obvious limits. What remained, when they\nwere exhausted, was the money-market, and to the rulers of the money-market\nsooner or later all States came. Their dependence on the financier was that of\nan Ismail or an Abdul, and its results were not less disastrous. Naturally, the\nCity interest was one of the great Powers of Europe. Publicists might write that\nthe new Messiah was the Prince, and reformers that the Prince was Pope. But\nbehind Prince and Pope alike, financing impartially Henry VIII, Edward VI and\nElizabeth, Francis, Charles and Philip, stood in the last resort a little German\nbanker, with branches in every capital in Europe, who played in the world of\nfinance the part of the _condottieri_ in war, and represented in the economic\nsphere the morality typified in that of politics by Machiavelli\u2019s Prince.\nCompared with these financial dynasties, Hapsburgs, Valois and Tudors were\npuppets dancing on wires held by a money-power to which political struggles were\nirrelevant except as an opportunity for gain.\n\nThe financier received his payment partly in cash, partly in concessions, which\nstill further elaborated the network of financial connections that were making\nEurope an economic unity. The range of interests in which the German\nbanking-houses were involved is astonishing. The Welsers had invested in the\nPortuguese voyage of 1505 to the East Indies, financed an expedition, half\ncommercial, half military, to Venezuela in 1527, were engaged in the spice trade\nbetween Lisbon, Antwerp and south Germany, were partners in silver and copper\nmines in the Tyrol and Hungary, and had establishments, not only at Lisbon and\nAntwerp, but in the principal cities of Germany, Italy and Switzerland. The\ncareers of the Hochstetters, Haugs, Meutings and Imhofs were much the same. The\nFuggers, thanks to judicious loans to Maximilian, had acquired enormous\nconcessions of mineral property, farmed a large part of the receipts drawn by\nthe Spanish Crown from its estates, held silver and quicksilver mines in Spain,\nand controlled banking and commercial businesses in Italy, and, above all, at\nAntwerp. They advanced the money which made Albrecht of Brandenburg archbishop\nof Mainz; repaid themselves by sending their agent to accompany Tetzel on his\ncampaign to raise money by indulgences and taking half the proceeds; provided\nthe funds with which Charles V bought the imperial crown, after an election\nconducted with the publicity of an auction and the morals of a gambling hell;\nbrowbeat him, when the debt was not paid, in the tone of a pawnbroker rating a\nnecessitous client; and found the money with which Charles raised troops to\nfight the Protestants in 1552. The head of the firm built a church and endowed\nan almshouse for the aged poor in his native town of Augsburg. He died in the\nodor of sanctity, a good Catholic and a Count of the Empire, having seen his\nfirm pay 54 per cent. for the preceding sixteen years.[II-12]\n\n\nII. LUTHER\n\nLike the rise of the great industry three centuries later, the economic\nrevolution which accompanied the Renaissance gave a powerful stimulus to\nspeculation. Both in Germany and in England, the Humanists turned a stream of\npungent criticism on the social evils of their age. Mercantilist thinkers\nresharpened an old economic weapon for the armory of princes. Objective economic\nanalysis, still in its infancy, received a new impetus from the controversies of\npractical men on the rise in prices, on currency, and on the foreign exchanges.\n\nThe question of the attitude which religious opinion would assume towards these\nnew forces was momentous. It might hail the outburst of economic enterprise as\nan instrument of wealth and luxury, like the Popes who revelled in the\nrediscovery of classical culture. It might denounce it as a relapse into a pagan\nimmorality, like the Fathers who had turned with a shudder from the material\ntriumphs of Rome. It might attempt to harness the expanding energies to its own\nconception of man\u2019s spiritual end, like the Schoolmen who had stretched old\nformul\u00e6 to cover the new forces of capital and commerce. It could hardly ignore\nthem. For, in spite of Machiavelli, social theory was only beginning to\nemancipate itself from the stiff ecclesiastical framework of the Middle Ages.\nThe most systematic treatment of economic questions was still that contained in\nthe work of canonists, and divines continued to pronounce judgment on problems\nof property and contract with the same assurance as on problems of theology.\n\nLaymen might dispute the content of their teaching and defy its conclusions. But\nit was rarely, as yet, that they attacked the assumption that questions of\neconomic conduct belonged to the province of the ecclesiastical jurist.\nBellarmin complained with some asperity of the intolerable complexity of the\nproblems of economic casuistry which pious merchants propounded in the\nconfessional. The Spanish dealers on the Antwerp Bourse, a class not morbidly\nprone to conscientious scruples, were sufficiently deferential to ecclesiastical\nauthority to send their confessor to Paris in order to consult the theologians\nof the University as to the compatibility of speculative exchange business with\nthe canon law.[II-13] When Eck, later famous as the champion who crossed swords\nwith Luther, travelled to Italy, in order to seek from the University of Bologna\nauthoritative confirmation of his daring argument that interest could lawfully\nbe charged in transactions between merchants, no less a group of capitalists\nthan the great house of Fugger thought it worth while to finance an expedition\nundertaken in quest of so profitable a truth.[II-14]\n\nIndividualistic, competitive, swept forward by an immense expansion of commerce\nand finance, rather than of industry, and offering opportunities of speculative\ngain on a scale unknown before, the new economic civilization inevitably gave\nrise to passionate controversy; and inevitably, since both the friends and the\nenemies of the Reformation identified it with social change, the leaders in the\nreligious struggle were the protagonists in the debate. In Germany, where social\nrevolution had been fermenting for half a century, it seemed at last to have\ncome. The rise in prices, an enigma which baffled contemporaries till Bodin\npublished his celebrated tract in 1569,[II-15] produced a storm of indignation\nagainst monopolists. Since the rising led by Hans B\u00f6heim in 1476, hardly a\ndecade had passed without a peasants\u2019 revolt. Usury, long a grievance with\ncraftsman and peasant, had become a battle-cry. From city after city municipal\nauthorities, terrified by popular demands for the repression of the extortioner,\nconsulted universities and divines as to the legitimacy of interest, and\nuniversities and divines gave, as is their wont, a loud, but confused, response.\nMelanchthon expounded godly doctrine on the subject of money-lending and\nprices.[II-16] Calvin wrote a famous letter on usury and delivered sermons on\nthe same subject.[II-17] Bucer sketched a scheme of social reconstruction for a\nChristian prince.[II-18] Bullinger produced a classical exposition of social\nethics in the _Decades_ which he dedicated to Edward VI.[II-19] Luther preached\nand pamphleteered against extortioners,[II-20] and said that it was time \u201cto put\na bit in the mouth of the holy company of the Fuggers.\u201d[II-21] Zwingli and\n\u0152colampadius devised plans for the reorganization of poor relief.[II-22] Above\nall, the Peasants\u2019 War, with its touching appeal to the Gospel and its frightful\ncatastrophe, not only terrified Luther into his outburst: \u201cWhoso can, strike,\nsmite, strangle, or stab, secretly or publicly ... such wonderful times are\nthese that a prince can better merit Heaven with bloodshed than another with\nprayer\u201d;[II-23] it also helped to stamp on Lutheranism an almost servile\nreliance on the secular authorities. In England there was less violence, but\nhardly less agitation, and a similar flood of writing and preaching. Latimer,\nPonet, Crowley, Lever, Becon, Sandys and Jewel--to mention but the best-known\nnames--all contributed to the debate.[II-24] Whatever the social practice of the\nsixteenth century may have been, it did not suffer for lack of social teaching\non the part of men of religion. If the world could be saved by sermons and\npamphlets, it would have been a Paradise.\n\nThat the problems of a swiftly changing economic environment should have burst\non Europe at a moment when it was torn by religious dissensions more acute than\never before, may perhaps be counted as not least among the tragedies of its\nhistory. But differences of social theory did not coincide with differences of\nreligious opinion, and the mark of nearly all this body of teaching, alike in\nGermany and in England, is its conservatism. Where questions of social morality\nwere involved, men whose names are a symbol of religious revolution stood, with\nhardly an exception, on the ancient ways, appealed to medieval authorities, and\nreproduced in popular language the doctrines of the Schoolmen.\n\nA view of the social history of the sixteenth century which has found acceptance\nin certain quarters has represented the Reformation as the triumph of the\ncommercial spirit over the traditional social ethics of Christendom. Something\nlike it is of respectable antiquity. As early as 1540 Cranmer wrote to Oziander\nprotesting against the embarrassment caused to reformers in England by the\nindulgence to moral laxity, in the matter alike of economic transactions and of\nmarriage, alleged to be given by reformers in Germany.[II-25] By the seventeenth\ncentury the hints had become a theory and an argument. Bossuet taunted Calvin\nand Bucer with being the first theologians to defend extortion,[II-26] and it\nonly remained for a pamphleteer to adapt the indictment to popular consumption,\nby writing bluntly that \u201cit grew to a proverb that usury was the brat of\nheresy.\u201d[II-27] That the revolt from Rome synchronized, both in Germany and in\nEngland, with a period of acute social distress is undeniable, nor is any long\nargument needed to show that, like other revolutions, it had its seamy side.\nWhat is sometimes suggested, however, is not merely a coincidence of religious\nand economic movements, but a logical connection between changes in economic\norganization and changes in religious doctrines. It is implied that the bad\nsocial practice of the age was the inevitable expression of its religious\ninnovations, and that, if the reformers did not explicitly teach a\nconscienceless individualism, individualism was, at least, the natural corollary\nof their teaching. In the eighteenth century, which had as little love for the\ncommercial restrictions of the ages of monkish superstition as for their\npolitical theory, that view was advanced as eulogy. In our own day, the wheel\nseems almost to have come full circle. What was then a matter for congratulation\nis now often an occasion for criticism. There are writers by whom the\nReformation is attacked, as inaugurating a period of unscrupulous commercialism,\nwhich had previously been held in check, it is suggested, by the teaching of the\nChurch.\n\nThese attempts to relate changes in social theory to the grand religious\nstruggles of the age have their significance. But the _obiter dicta_ of an\nacrimonious controversy throw more light on the temper of the combatants than on\nthe substance of their contentions, and the issues were too complex to be\nadequately expressed in the simple antitheses which appealed to partisans. If\ncapitalism means the direction of industry by the owners of capital for their\nown pecuniary gain, and the social relationships which establish themselves\nbetween them and the wage-earning proletariat whom they control, then capitalism\nhad existed on a grand scale both in medieval Italy and in medieval Flanders. If\nby the capitalist spirit is meant the temper which is prepared to sacrifice all\nmoral scruples to the pursuit of profit, it had been only too familiar to the\nsaints and sages of the Middle Ages. It was the economic imperialism of Catholic\nPortugal and Spain, not the less imposing, if more solid, achievements of the\nProtestant powers, which impressed contemporaries down to the Armada. It was\npredominantly Catholic cities which were the commercial capitals of Europe, and\nCatholic bankers who were its leading financiers.\n\nNor is the suggestion that Protestant opinion looked with indulgence on the\ntemper which attacked restraints on economic enterprise better founded. If it is\ntrue that the Reformation released forces which were to act as a solvent of the\ntraditional attitude of religious thought to social and economic issues, it did\nso without design, and against the intention of most reformers. In reality,\nhowever sensational the innovations in economic practice which accompanied the\nexpansion of financial capitalism in the sixteenth century, the development of\ndoctrine on the subject of economic ethics was continuous, and, the more closely\nit is examined, the less foundation does there seem to be for the view that the\nstream plunged into vacancy over the precipice of the religious revolution. To\nthink of the abdication of religion from its theoretical primacy over economic\nactivity and social institutions as synchronizing with the revolt from Rome, is\nto antedate a movement which was not finally accomplished for another century\nand a half, and which owed as much to changes in economic and political\norganization, as it did to developments in the sphere of religious thought. In\nthe sixteenth century religious teachers of all shades of opinion still searched\nthe Bible, the Fathers and the _Corpus Juris Canonici_ for light on practical\nquestions of social morality, and, as far as the first generation of reformers\nwas concerned, there was no intention, among either Lutherans, or Calvinists, or\nAnglicans, of relaxing the rules of good conscience, which were supposed to\ncontrol economic transactions and social relations. If anything, indeed, their\ntendency was to interpret them with a more rigorous severity, as a protest\nagainst the moral laxity of the Renaissance, and, in particular, against the\navarice which was thought to be peculiarly the sin of Rome. For the passion for\nregeneration and purification, which was one element in the Reformation, was\ndirected against the corruptions of society as well as of the Church. Princes\nand nobles and business men conducted themselves after their kind, and fished\neagerly in troubled waters. But the aim of religious leaders was to reconstruct,\nnot merely doctrine and ecclesiastical government, but conduct and institutions,\non a pattern derived from the forgotten purity of primitive Christianity.\n\nThe appeal from the depravity of the present to a golden age of pristine\ninnocence found at once its most vehement, and its most artless, expression in\nthe writings of the German reformers. Like the return to nature in the\neighteenth century, it was the cry for spiritual peace of a society\ndisillusioned with the material triumphs of a too complex civilization. The\nprosperity of Augsburg, N\u00fcrnberg, Regensburg, Ulm and Frankfurt, and even of\nlesser cities like Rotenburg and Freiburg, had long been the admiration of all\nobservers. Commanding the great trade routes across the Alps and down the Rhine,\nthey had held a central position, which they were to lose when the spice trade\nmoved to Antwerp and Lisbon, and were not to recover till the creation of a\nrailway system in the nineteenth century made Germany again the entrep\u00f4t between\nwestern Europe and Russia, Austria, Italy and the near East. But the expansion\nof commerce, which brought affluence to the richer _bourgeoisie_, had been\naccompanied by the growth of an acute social _malaise_, which left its mark on\nliterature and popular agitation, even before the Discoveries turned Germany\nfrom a highway into a back-water. The economic aspect of the development was the\nrise to a position of overwhelming pre\u00ebminence of the new interests based on the\ncontrol of capital and credit. In the earlier Middle Ages capital had been the\nadjunct and ally of the personal labor of craftsman and artisan. In the Germany\nof the fifteenth century, as long before in Italy, it had ceased to be a servant\nand had become a master. Assuming a separate and independent vitality, it\nclaimed the right of a predominant partner to dictate economic organization in\naccordance with its own exacting requirements.\n\nUnder the impact of these new forces, while the institutions of earlier ages\nsurvived in form, their spirit and operation were transformed. In the larger\ncities the gild organization, once a barrier to the encroachments of the\ncapitalist, became one of the instruments which he used to consolidate his\npower. The rules of fraternities masked a division of the brethren into a\nplutocracy of merchants, sheltered behind barriers which none but the wealthy\ncraftsman could scale, and a wage-earning proletariat, dependent for their\nlivelihood on capital and credit supplied by their masters, and alternately\nrising in revolt and sinking in an ever-expanding morass of hopeless\npauperism.[II-28] The peasantry suffered equally from the spread of a commercial\ncivilization into the rural districts and from the survival of ancient agrarian\nservitudes. As in England, the _nouveaux riches_ of the towns invested money in\nland by purchase and loan, and drove up rents and fines by their competition.\nBut, while in England the customary tenant was shaking off the onerous\nobligations of villeinage, and appealing, not without success, to the royal\ncourts to protect his title, his brother in south Germany, where serfdom was to\nlast till the middle of the nineteenth century, found _corv\u00e9es_ redoubled,\nmoney-payments increased, and common rights curtailed, for the benefit of an\nimpoverished _noblesse_, which saw in the exploitation of the peasant the only\nmeans of maintaining its social position in face of the rapidly growing wealth\nof the _bourgeoisie_, and which seized on the now fashionable Roman law as an\ninstrument to give legal sanction to its harshest exactions.[II-29]\n\nOn a society thus distracted by the pains of growth came the commercial\nrevolution produced by the Discoveries. Their effect was to open a seemingly\nlimitless field to economic enterprise, and to sharpen the edge of every social\nproblem. Unable henceforward to tap through Venice the wealth of the East, the\nleading commercial houses of south Germany either withdrew from the trade across\nthe Alps, to specialize, like the Fuggers, in banking and finance, or organized\nthemselves into companies, which handled at Lisbon and Antwerp a trade too\ndistant and too expensive to be undertaken by individual merchants using only\ntheir own resources. The modern world has seen in America the swift rise of\ncombinations controlling output and prices by the power of massed capital. A\nsomewhat similar movement took place on the narrower stage of European commerce\nin the generation before the Reformation. Its center was Germany, and it was\ndefended and attacked by arguments almost identical with those which are\nfamiliar today. The exactions of rings and monopolies, which bought in bulk,\ndrove weaker competitors out of the field, \u201cas a great pike swallows up a lot of\nlittle fishes,\u201d and plundered the consumer, were the commonplaces of the social\nreformer.[II-30] The advantages of large-scale organization and the danger of\ninterfering with freedom of enterprise were urged by the companies. The problem\nwas on several occasions brought before the Imperial Diet. But the discovery of\nthe sage who observed that it is not possible to unscramble eggs had already\nbeen made, and its decrees, passed in the teeth of strenuous opposition from the\ninterests concerned, do not seem to have been more effective than modern\nlegislation on the same subject.\n\nThe passionate anti-capitalist reaction which such conditions produced found\nexpression in numerous schemes of social reconstruction, from the so-called\n_Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund_ in the thirties of the fifteenth century,\nto the _Twelve Articles_ of the peasants in 1525.[II-31] In the age of the\nReformation it was voiced by Hipler, who, in his _Divine Evangelical\nReformation_, urged that all merchants\u2019 companies, such as those of the Fuggers,\nHochstetters and Welsers, should be abolished; by Hutten, who classed merchants\nwith knights, lawyers and the clergy as public robbers; by Geiler von\nKaiserberg, who wrote that the monopolists were more detestable than Jews, and\nshould be exterminated like wolves; and, above all, by Luther.[II-32]\n\nLuther\u2019s utterances on social morality are the occasional explosions of a\ncapricious volcano, with only a rare flash of light amid the torrent of smoke\nand flame, and it is idle to scan them for a coherent and consistent doctrine.\nCompared with the lucid and subtle rationalism of a thinker like St. Antonino,\nhis sermons and pamphlets on social questions make an impression of na\u00efvet\u00e9, as\nof an impetuous but ill-informed genius, dispensing with the cumbrous\nembarrassments of law and logic, to evolve a system of social ethics from the\ninspired heat of his own unsophisticated consciousness.\n\nIt was partly that they were _pi\u00e8ces de circonstance_, thrown off in the storm\nof a revolution, partly that it was precisely the refinements of law and logic\nwhich Luther detested. Confronted with the complexities of foreign trade and\nfinancial organization, or with the subtleties of economic analysis, he is like\na savage introduced to a dynamo or a steam-engine. He is too frightened and\nangry even to feel curiosity. Attempts to explain the mechanism merely enrage\nhim; he can only repeat that there is a devil in it, and that good Christians\nwill not meddle with the mystery of iniquity. But there is a method in his fury.\nIt sprang, not from ignorance, for he was versed in scholastic philosophy, but\nfrom a conception which made the learning of the schools appear trivial or\nmischievous.\n\n\u201cGold,\u201d wrote Columbus, as one enunciating a truism, \u201cconstitutes treasure, and\nhe who possesses it has all he needs in this world, as also the means of\nrescuing souls from Purgatory, and restoring them to the enjoyment of\nParadise.\u201d[II-33] It was this doctrine that all things have their price--future\nsalvation as much as present felicity--which scandalized men who could not be\nsuspected of disloyalty to the Church, and which gave their most powerful\nargument to the reformers. Their outlook on society had this in common with\ntheir outlook on religion, that the essence of both was the arraignment of a\ndegenerate civilization before the majestic bar of an uncorrupted past. Of that\nrevolutionary conservatism Luther, who hated the economic individualism of the\nage not less than its spiritual laxity, is the supreme example. His attitude to\nthe conquest of society by the merchant and financier is the same as his\nattitude towards the commercialization of religion. When he looks at the Church\nin Germany, he sees it sucked dry by the tribute which flows to the new Babylon.\nWhen he looks at German social life, he finds it ridden by a conscienceless\nmoney-power, which incidentally ministers, like the banking business of the\nFuggers, to the avarice and corruption of Rome. The exploitation of the Church\nby the Papacy, and the exploitation of the peasant and the craftsman by the\ncapitalist, are thus two horns of the beast which sits on the seven hills. Both\nare essentially pagan, and the sword which will slay both is the same. It is the\nreligion of the Gospel. The Church must cease to be an empire, and become a\ncongregation of believers. Renouncing the prizes and struggles which make the\nheart sick, society must be converted into a band of brothers, performing in\npatient cheerfulness the round of simple toil which is the common lot of the\ndescendants of Adam.\n\nThe children of the mind are like the children of the body. Once born, they grow\nby a law of their own being, and, if their parents could foresee their future\ndevelopment, it would sometimes break their hearts. Luther, who has earned\neulogy and denunciation as the grand individualist, would have been horrified,\ncould he have anticipated the remoter deductions to be derived from his\nargument. Wamba said that to forgive as a Christian is not to forgive at all,\nand a cynic who urged that the Christian freedom expounded by Luther imposed\nmore social restraints than it removed would have more affinity with the thought\nof Luther himself, than the libertarian who saw in his teaching a plea for\ntreating questions of economic conduct and social organization as spiritually\nindifferent. Luther\u2019s revolt against authority was an attack, not on its rigor,\nbut on its laxity and its corruption. His individualism was not the greed of the\nplutocrat, eager to snatch from the weakness of public authority an opportunity\nfor personal gain. It was the ingenuous enthusiasm of the anarchist, who hungers\nfor a society in which order and fraternity will reign without \u201cthe tedious,\nstale, forbidding ways of custom, law and statute,\u201d because they well up in all\ntheir native purity from the heart.\n\nProfessor Troeltsch has pointed out that Protestants, not less than Catholics,\nemphasized the idea of a Church-civilization, in which all departments of life,\nthe State and society, education and science, law, commerce and industry, were\nto be regulated in accordance with the law of God.[II-34] That conception\ndominates all the utterances of Luther on social issues. So far from accepting\nthe view which was afterwards to prevail, that the world of business is a closed\ncompartment with laws of its own, and that the religious teacher exceeds his\ncommission when he lays down rules for the moral conduct of secular affairs, he\nreserves for that plausible heresy denunciations hardly less bitter than those\ndirected against Rome. The text of his admonitions is always, \u201cUnless your\nrighteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees,\u201d and his appeal is from\na formal, legalistic, calculated virtue to the natural kindliness which does not\nneed to be organized by law, because it is the spontaneous expression of a habit\nof love. To restore is to destroy. The comment on Luther\u2019s enthusiasm for the\nsimple Christian virtues of an age innocent of the artificial chicaneries of\necclesiastical and secular jurisprudence came in the thunder of revolution. It\nwas the declaration of the peasants, that \u201cthe message of Christ, the promised\nMessiah, the word of life, teaching only love, peace, patience and concord,\u201d was\nincompatible with serfdom, _corv\u00e9es_, and enclosures.[II-35]\n\nThe practical conclusion to which such premises led was a theory of society more\nmedieval than that held by many thinkers in the Middle Ages, since it dismissed\nthe commercial developments of the last two centuries as a relapse into\npaganism. The foundation of it was partly the Bible, partly a vague conception\nof a state of nature in which men had not yet been corrupted by riches, partly\nthe popular protests against a commercial civilization which were everywhere in\nthe air, and which Luther, a man of the people, absorbed and reproduced with\nastonishing na\u00efvet\u00e9, even while he denounced the practical measures proposed to\ngive effect to them. Like some elements in the Catholic reaction of the\ntwentieth century, the Protestant reaction of the sixteenth sighed for a\nvanished age of peasant prosperity. The social theory of Luther, who hated\ncommerce and capitalism, has its nearest modern analogy in the Distributive\nState of Mr. Belloc and Mr. Chesterton.\n\nFor the arts by which men amass wealth and power, as for the anxious provision\nwhich accumulates for the future, Luther had all the distrust of a peasant and a\nmonk. Christians should earn their living in the sweat of their brow, take no\nthought for the morrow, marry young and trust Heaven to provide for its own.\nLike Melanchthon, Luther thought that the most admirable life was that of the\npeasant, for it was least touched by the corroding spirit of commercial\ncalculation, and he quoted Virgil to drive home the lesson to be derived from\nthe example of the patriarchs.[II-36] The labor of the craftsman is honorable,\nfor he serves the community in his calling; the honest smith or shoemaker is a\npriest. Trade is permissible, provided that it is confined to the exchange of\nnecessaries, and that the seller demands no more than will compensate him for\nhis labor and risk. The unforgivable sins are idleness and covetousness, for\nthey destroy the unity of the body of which Christians are members. The grand\nauthor and maintainer of both is Rome. For, having ruined Italy, the successor\nof St. Peter, who lives in a worldly pomp that no king or emperor can equal, has\nfastened his fangs on Germany; while the mendicant orders, mischievous alike in\ntheir practice and by their example, cover the land with a horde of beggars.\nPilgrimages, saints\u2019 days and monasteries are an excuse for idleness and must be\nsuppressed. Vagrants must be either banished or compelled to labor, and each\ntown must organize charity for the support of the honest poor.[II-37]\n\nLuther accepted the social hierarchy, with its principles of status and\nsubordination, though he knocked away the ecclesiastical rungs in the ladder.\nThe combination of religious radicalism and economic conservatism is not\nuncommon, and in the traditional conception of society, as an organism of\nunequal classes with different rights and functions, the father of all later\nrevolutions found an arsenal of arguments against change, which he launched with\nalmost equal fury against revolting peasants and grasping monopolists. His\nvindication of the spiritual freedom of common men, and his outspoken abuse of\nthe German princes, had naturally been taken at their face value by serfs\ngroaning under an odious tyranny, and, when the inevitable rising came, the rage\nof Luther, like that of Burke in another age, was sharpened by embarrassment at\nwhat seemed to him a hideous parody of truths which were both sacred and his\nown. As fully convinced as any medieval writer that serfdom was the necessary\nfoundation of society, his alarm at the attempt to abolish it was intensified by\na political theory which exalted the absolutism of secular authorities, and a\nreligious doctrine which drew a sharp antithesis between the external order and\nthe life of the spirit. The demand of the peasants that villeinage should end,\nbecause \u201cChrist has delivered and redeemed us all, the lowly as well as the\ngreat, without exception, by the shedding of His precious blood,\u201d[II-38]\nhorrified him, partly as portending an orgy of anarchy, partly because it was\nlikely to be confused with and to prejudice, as in fact it did, the Reformation\nmovement, partly because (as he thought) it degraded the Gospel by turning a\nspiritual message into a program of social reconstruction. \u201cThis article would\nmake all men equal and so change the spiritual kingdom of Christ into an\nexternal worldly one. Impossible! An earthly kingdom cannot exist without\ninequality of persons. Some must be free, others serfs, some rulers, others\nsubjects. As St. Paul says, \u2018Before Christ both master and slave are\none.\u2019\u201d[II-39] After nearly four centuries, Luther\u2019s apprehensions of a too hasty\nestablishment of the Kingdom of Heaven appear somewhat exaggerated.\n\nA society may perish by corruption as well as by violence. Where the peasants\nbattered, the capitalist mined; and Luther, whose ideal was the patriarchal\nethics of a world which, if it ever existed, was visibly breaking up, had as\nlittle mercy for the slow poison of commerce and finance as for the bludgeon of\nrevolt. No contrast could be more striking than that between his social theory\nand the outlook of Calvin. Calvin, with all his rigor, accepted the main\ninstitutions of a commercial civilization, and supplied a creed to the classes\nwhich were to dominate the future. The eyes of Luther were on the past. He saw\nno room in a Christian society for those middle classes whom an English\nstatesman once described as the natural representatives of the human race.\nInternational trade, banking and credit, capitalist industry, the whole complex\nof economic forces, which, next to his own revolution, were to be the mightiest\nsolvent of the medieval world, seem to him to belong in their very essence to\nthe kingdom of darkness which the Christian will shun. He attacks the authority\nof the canon law, only to reaffirm more dogmatically the detailed rules which it\nhad been used to enforce. When he discusses economic questions at length, as in\nhis _Long Sermon on Usury_ in 1520, or his tract _On Trade and Usury_ in 1524,\nhis doctrines are drawn from the straitest interpretation of ecclesiastical\njurisprudence, unsoftened by the qualifications with which canonists themselves\nhad attempted to adapt its rigors to the exigencies of practical life.\n\nIn the matter of prices he merely rehearses traditional doctrines. \u201cA man should\nnot say, \u2018I will sell my wares as dear as I can or please,\u2019 but \u2018I will sell my\nwares as is right and proper.\u2019 For thy selling should not be a work that is\nwithin thy own power or will, without all law and limit, as though thou wert a\nGod, bounden to no one. But because thy selling is a work that thou performest\nto thy neighbor, it should be restrained within such law and conscience that\nthou mayest practice it without harm or injury to him.\u201d[II-40] If a price is\nfixed by public authority, the seller must keep to it. If it is not, he must\nfollow the price of common estimation. If he has to determine it himself, he\nmust consider the income needed to maintain him in his station in life, his\nlabor, and his risk, and must settle it accordingly. He must not take advantage\nof scarcity to raise it. He must not corner the market. He must not deal in\nfutures. He must not sell dearer for deferred payments.\n\nOn the subject of usury, Luther goes even further than the orthodox teaching. He\ndenounces the concessions to practical necessities made by the canonists. \u201cThe\ngreatest misfortune of the German nation is easily the traffic in interest....\nThe devil invented it, and the Pope, by giving his sanction to it, has done\nuntold evil throughout the world.\u201d[II-41] Not content with insisting that\nlending ought to be free, he denounces the payment of interest as compensation\nfor loss and the practice of investing in rent-charges, both of which the canon\nlaw in his day allowed, and would refuse usurers the sacrament, absolution, and\nChristian burial. With such a code of ethics, Luther naturally finds the\ncharacteristic developments of his generation--the luxury trade with the East,\ninternational finance, speculation on the exchanges, combinations and\nmonopolies--shocking beyond measure. \u201cForeign merchandise which brings from\nCalicut and India and the like places wares such as precious silver and jewels\nand spices ... and drain the land and people of their money, should not be\npermitted.... Of combinations I ought really to say much, but the matter is\nendless and bottomless, full of mere greed and wrong.... Who is so stupid as not\nto see that combinations are mere outright monopolies, which even heathen civil\nlaws--I will say nothing of divine right and Christian law--condemn as a plainly\nharmful thing in all the world?\u201d[II-42]\n\nSo resolute an enemy of license might have been expected to be the champion of\nlaw. It might have been supposed that Luther, with his hatred of the economic\nappetites, would have hailed as an ally the restraints by which, at least in\ntheory, those appetites had been controlled. In reality, of course, his attitude\ntowards the mechanism of ecclesiastical jurisprudence and discipline was the\nopposite. It was one, not merely of indifference, but of repugnance. The prophet\nwho scourged with whips the cupidity of the individual chastised with scorpions\nthe restrictions imposed upon it by society; the apostle of an ideal ethic of\nChristian love turned a shattering dialectic on the corporate organization of\nthe Christian Church. In most ages, so tragic a parody of human hopes are human\ninstitutions, there have been some who have loved mankind, while hating almost\neverything that men have done or made. Of that temper Luther, who lived at a\ntime when the contrast between a sublime theory and a hideous reality had long\nbeen intolerable, is the supreme example. He preaches a selfless charity, but he\nrecoils with horror from every institution by which an attempt had been made to\ngive it a concrete expression. He reiterates the content of medieval economic\nteaching with a literalness rarely to be found in the thinkers of the later\nMiddle Ages, but for the rules and ordinances in which it had received a\npositive, if sadly imperfect, expression, he has little but abhorrence. God\nspeaks to the soul, not through the mediation of the priesthood or of social\ninstitutions built up by man, but _solus cum solo_, as a voice in the heart and\nin the heart alone. Thus the bridges between the worlds of spirit and of sense\nare broken, and the soul is isolated from the society of men, that it may enter\ninto communion with its Maker. The grace that is freely bestowed upon it may\noverflow in its social relations; but those relations can supply no particle of\nspiritual nourishment to make easier the reception of grace. Like the primeval\nconfusion into which the fallen Angel plunged on his fatal mission, they are a\nchaos of brute matter, a wilderness of dry bones, a desert unsanctified and\nincapable of contributing to sanctification. \u201cIt is certain that absolutely none\namong outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any\ninfluence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty.... One thing, and one\nalone, is necessary for life, justification and Christian liberty; and that is\nthe most holy word of God, the Gospel of Christ.\u201d[II-43]\n\nThe difference between loving men as a result of first loving God, and learning\nto love God through a growing love for men, may not, at first sight, appear\nprofound. To Luther it seemed an abyss, and Luther was right. It was, in a\nsense, nothing less than the Reformation itself. For carried, as it was not\ncarried by Luther, to its logical result, the argument made, not only good\nworks, but sacraments and the Church itself unnecessary. The question of the\nreligious significance of that change of emphasis, and of the validity of the\nintellectual processes by which Luther reached his conclusions, is one for\ntheologians. Its effects on social theory were staggering. Since salvation is\nbestowed by the operation of grace in the heart and by that alone, the whole\nfabric of organized religion, which had mediated between the individual soul and\nits Maker--divinely commissioned hierarchy, systematized activities, corporate\ninstitutions--drops away, as the blasphemous trivialities of a religion of\nworks. The medieval conception of the social order, which had regarded it as a\nhighly articulated organism of members contributing in their different degrees\nto a spiritual purpose, was shattered, and differences which had been\ndistinctions within a larger unity were now set in irreconcilable antagonism to\neach other. Grace no longer completed nature: it was the antithesis of it. Man\u2019s\nactions as a member of society were no longer the extension of his life as a\nchild of God: they were its negation. Secular interests ceased to possess, even\nremotely, a religious significance: they might compete with religion, but they\ncould not enrich it. Detailed rules of conduct--a Christian casuistry--are\nneedless or objectionable: the Christian has a sufficient guide in the Bible and\nin his own conscience. In one sense, the distinction between the secular and the\nreligious life vanished. Monasticism was, so to speak, secularized; all men\nstood henceforward on the same footing towards God; and that advance, which\ncontained the germ of all subsequent revolutions, was so enormous that all else\nseems insignificant. In another sense, the distinction became more profound than\never before. For, though all might be sanctified, it was their inner life alone\nwhich could partake of sanctification. The world was divided into good and evil,\nlight and darkness, spirit and matter. The division between them was absolute;\nno human effort could span the chasm.\n\nThe remoter corollaries of the change remained to be stated by subsequent\ngenerations. Luther himself was not consistent. He believed that it was possible\nto maintain the content of medieval social teaching, while rejecting its\nsanctions, and he insisted that good works would be the fruit of salvation as\nvehemently as he denied that they could contribute to its attainment. In his\nwritings on social questions emphasis on the traditional Christian morality is\ncombined with a repudiation of its visible and institutional framework, and in\nthe tragic struggle which results between spirit and letter, form and matter,\ngrace and works, his intention, at least, is not to jettison the rules of good\nconscience in economic matters, but to purify them by an immense effort of\nsimplification. His denunciation of medieval charity, fraternities, mendicant\norders, festivals and pilgrimages, while it drew its point from practical\nabuses, sprang inevitably from his repudiation of the idea that merit could be\nacquired by the operation of some special machinery beyond the conscientious\ndischarge of the ordinary duties of daily life. His demand for the abolition of\nthe canon law was the natural corollary of his belief that the Bible was an\nall-sufficient guide to action. While not rejecting ecclesiastical discipline\naltogether, he is impatient of it. The Christian, he argues, needs no elaborate\nmechanism to teach him his duty or to correct him if he neglects it. He has the\nScriptures and his own conscience; let him listen to _them_. \u201cThere can be no\nbetter instructions in ... all transactions in temporal goods than that every\nman who is to deal with his neighbor present to himself these commandments:\n\u2018What ye would that others should do unto you, do ye also unto them,\u2019 and \u2018Love\nthy neighbor as thyself.\u2019 If these were followed out, then everything would\ninstruct and arrange itself; then no law books nor courts nor judicial actions\nwould be required; all things would quietly and simply be set to rights, for\nevery one\u2019s heart and conscience would guide him.\u201d[II-44]\n\n\u201cEverything would arrange itself.\u201d Few would deny it. But how if it does not? Is\nemotion really an adequate substitute for reason, and rhetoric for law? Is it\npossible to solve the problem which social duties present to the individual by\ninforming him that no problem exists? If it is true that the inner life is the\nsphere of religion, does it necessarily follow that the external order is simply\nirrelevant to it? To wave aside the world of institutions and law as alien to\nthat of the spirit--is not this to abandon, instead of facing, the task of\nmaking Christian morality prevail, for which medieval writers, with their\nconception of a hierarchy of values related to a common end, had attempted,\nhowever inadequately, to discover a formula? A Catholic rationalist had answered\nby anticipation Luther\u2019s contemptuous dismissal of law and learning, when he\nurged that it was useless for the Church to prohibit extortion, unless it was\nprepared to undertake the intellectual labor of defining the transactions to\nwhich the prohibition applied.[II-45] It was a pity that Pecock\u2019s douche of\ncommon sense was not of a kind which could be appreciated by Luther. He\ndenounced covetousness in general terms, with a surprising exuberance of\ninvective. But, confronted with a request for advice on the specific question\nwhether the authorities of Dantzig shall put down usury, he retreats into the\nclouds. \u201cThe preacher shall preach only the Gospel rule, and leave it to each\nman to follow his own conscience. Let him who can receive it, receive it; he\ncannot be compelled thereto further than the Gospel leads willing hearts whom\nthe spirit of God urges forward.\u201d[II-46]\n\nLuther\u2019s impotence was not accidental. It sprang directly from his fundamental\nconception that to externalize religion in rules and ordinances is to degrade\nit. He attacked the casuistry of the canonists, and the points in their teaching\nwith regard to which his criticism was justified were only too numerous. But the\nremedy for bad law is good law, not lawlessness; and casuistry is merely the\napplication of general principles to particular cases, which is involved in any\nliving system of jurisprudence, whether ecclesiastical or secular. If the\nprinciples are not to be applied, on the ground that they are too sublime to be\nsoiled by contact with the gross world of business and politics, what remains of\nthem? Denunciations such as Luther launched against the Fuggers and the\npeasants; aspirations for an idyll of Christian charity and simplicity, such as\nhe advanced in his tract _On Trade and Usury_. Pious rhetoric may be edifying,\nbut it is hardly the panoply recommended by St. Paul.\n\n\u201cAs the soul needs the word alone for life and justification, so it is justified\nby faith alone, and not by any works.... Therefore the first care of every\nChristian ought to be to lay aside all reliance on works, and to strengthen his\nfaith alone more and more.\u201d[II-47] The logic of Luther\u2019s religious premises was\nmore potent for posterity than his attachment to the social ethics of the past,\nand evolved its own inexorable conclusions in spite of them. It enormously\ndeepened spiritual experience, and sowed the seeds from which new freedoms,\nabhorrent to Luther, were to spring. But it riveted on the social thought of\nProtestantism a dualism which, as its implications were developed, emptied\nreligion of its social content, and society of its soul. Between light and\ndarkness a great gulf was fixed. Unable to climb upwards plane by plane, man\nmust choose between salvation and damnation. If he despairs of attaining the\naustere heights where alone true faith is found, no human institution can avail\nto help him. Such, Luther thinks, will be the fate of only too many.\n\nHe himself was conscious that he had left the world of secular activities\nperilously divorced from spiritual restraints. He met the difficulty, partly\nwith an admission that it was insuperable, as one who should exult in the\nmajestic unreasonableness of a mysterious Providence, whose decrees might not be\nbroken, but could not, save by a few, be obeyed; partly with an appeal to the\nState to occupy the province of social ethics, for which his philosophy could\nfind no room in the Church. \u201cHere it will be asked, \u2018Who then can be saved, and\nwhere shall we find Christians? For in this fashion no merchandising would\nremain on earth.\u2019... You see it is as I said, that Christians are rare people on\nearth. Therefore stern hard civil rule is necessary in the world, lest the world\nbecome wild, peace vanish, and commerce and common interests be destroyed.... No\none need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall\nand must be red and bloody.\u201d[II-48]\n\nThus the axe takes the place of the stake, and authority, expelled from the\naltar, finds a new and securer home upon the throne. The maintenance of\nChristian morality is to be transferred from the discredited ecclesiastical\nauthorities to the hands of the State. Skeptical as to the existence of unicorns\nand salamanders, the age of Machiavelli and Henry VIII found food for its\ncredulity in the worship of that rare monster, the God-fearing Prince.\n\n\nIII. CALVIN\n\nThe most characteristic and influential form of Protestantism in the two\ncenturies following the Reformation is that which descends, by one path or\nanother, from the teaching of Calvin. Unlike the Lutheranism from which it\nsprang, Calvinism, assuming different shapes in different countries, became an\ninternational movement, which brought, not peace, but a sword, and the path of\nwhich was strewn with revolutions. Where Lutheranism had been socially\nconservative, deferential to established political authorities, the exponent of\na personal, almost a quietistic, piety, Calvinism was an active and radical\nforce. It was a creed which sought, not merely to purify the individual, but to\nreconstruct Church and State, and to renew society by penetrating every\ndepartment of life, public as well as private, with the influence of religion.\n\nUpon the immense political reactions of Calvinism, this is not the place to\nenlarge. As a way of life and a theory of society, it possessed from the\nbeginning one characteristic which was both novel and important. It assumed an\neconomic organization which was relatively advanced, and expounded its social\nethics on the basis of it. In this respect the teaching of the Puritan moralists\nwho derive most directly from Calvin is in marked contrast with that both of\nmedieval theologians and of Luther. The difference is not merely one of the\nconclusions reached, but of the plane on which the discussion is conducted. The\nbackground, not only of most medieval social theory, but also of Luther and his\nEnglish contemporaries, is the traditional stratification of rural society. It\nis a natural, rather than a money, economy, consisting of the petty dealings of\npeasants and craftsmen in the small market-town, where industry is carried on\nfor the subsistence of the household and the consumption of wealth follows hard\nupon the production of it, and where commerce and finance are occasional\nincidents, rather than the forces which keep the whole system in motion. When\nthey criticize economic abuses, it is precisely against departures from that\nnatural state of things--against the enterprise, the greed of gain, the restless\ncompetition, which disturb the stability of the existing order with clamorous\neconomic appetites--that their criticism is directed.\n\nThese ideas were the traditional retort to the evils of unscrupulous\ncommercialism, and they left some trace on the writings of the Swiss reformers.\nZwingli, for example, who, in his outlook on society, stood midway between\nLuther and Calvin, insists on the oft-repeated thesis that private property\noriginates in sin; warns the rich that they can hardly enter the Kingdom of\nHeaven; denounces the Councils of Constance and Basel--\u201cassembled, forsooth, at\nthe bidding of the Holy Ghost\u201d--for showing indulgence to the mortgaging of land\non the security of crops; and, while emphasizing that interest must be paid when\nthe State sanctions it, condemns it in itself as contrary to the law of\nGod.[II-49] Of the attempts made at Z\u00fcrich and Geneva to repress extortion\nsomething is said below. But these full-blooded denunciations of capitalism were\nnot intended by their authors to supply a rule of practical life, since it was\nthe duty of the individual to comply with the secular legislation by which\ninterest was permitted, and already, when they were uttered, they had ceased to\nrepresent the conclusion of the left wing of the Reformed Churches.\n\nFor Calvin, and still more his later interpreters, began their voyage lower down\nthe stream. Unlike Luther, who saw economic life with the eyes of a peasant and\na mystic, they approached it as men of affairs, disposed neither to idealize the\npatriarchal virtues of the peasant community, nor to regard with suspicion the\nmere fact of capitalist enterprise in commerce and finance. Like early\nChristianity and modern socialism, Calvinism was largely an urban movement; like\nthem, in its earlier days, it was carried from country to country partly by\nemigrant traders and workmen; and its stronghold was precisely in those social\ngroups to which the traditional scheme of social ethics, with its treatment of\neconomic interests as a quite minor aspect of human affairs, must have seemed\nirrelevant or artificial. As was to be expected in the exponents of a faith\nwhich had its headquarters at Geneva, and later its most influential adherents\nin great business centers, like Antwerp with its industrial hinterland, London,\nand Amsterdam, its leaders addressed their teaching, not of course exclusively,\nbut none the less primarily, to the classes engaged in trade and industry, who\nformed the most modern and progressive elements in the life of the age.\n\nIn doing so they naturally started from a frank recognition of the necessity of\ncapital, credit and banking, large-scale commerce and finance, and the other\npractical facts of business life. They thus broke with the tradition which,\nregarding a preoccupation with economic interests \u201cbeyond what is necessary for\nsubsistence\u201d as reprehensible, had stigmatized the middleman as a parasite and\nthe usurer as a thief. They set the profits of trade and finance, which to the\nmedieval writer, as to Luther, only with difficulty escaped censure as _turpe\nlucrum_, on the same level of respectability as the earnings of the laborer and\nthe rents of the landlord. \u201cWhat reason is there,\u201d wrote Calvin to a\ncorrespondent, \u201cwhy the income from business should not be larger than that from\nland-owning? Whence do the merchant\u2019s profits come, except from his own\ndiligence and industry?\u201d[II-50] It was quite in accordance with the spirit of\nthose words that Bucer, even while denouncing the frauds and avarice of\nmerchants, should urge the English Government to undertake the development of\nthe woollen industry on mercantilist lines.[II-51]\n\nSince it is the environment of the industrial and commercial classes which is\nforemost in the thoughts of Calvin and his followers, they have to make terms\nwith its practical necessities. It is not that they abandon the claim of\nreligion to moralize economic life, but that the life which they are concerned\nto moralize is one in which the main features of a commercial civilization are\ntaken for granted, and that it is for application to such conditions that their\nteaching is designed. Early Calvinism, as we shall see, has its own rule, and a\nrigorous rule, for the conduct of economic affairs. But it no longer suspects\nthe whole world of economic motives as alien to the life of the spirit, or\ndistrusts the capitalist as one who has necessarily grown rich on the\nmisfortunes of his neighbor, or regards poverty as in itself meritorious, and it\nis perhaps the first systematic body of religious teaching which can be said to\nrecognize and applaud the economic virtues. Its enemy is not the accumulation of\nriches, but their misuse for purposes of self-indulgence or ostentation. Its\nideal is a society which seeks wealth with the sober gravity of men who are\nconscious at once of disciplining their own characters by patient labor, and of\ndevoting themselves to a service acceptable to God.\n\nIt is in the light of that change of social perspective that the doctrine of\nusury associated with the name of Calvin is to be interpreted. Its significance\nconsisted, not in the phase which it marked in the technique of economic\nanalysis, but in its admission to a new position of respectability of a powerful\nand growing body of social interests, which, however irrepressible in practice,\nhad hitherto been regarded by religious theory as, at best, of dubious\npropriety, and, at worst, as frankly immoral. Strictly construed, the famous\npronouncement strikes the modern reader rather by its rigor than by its\nindulgence. \u201cCalvin,\u201d wrote an English divine a generation after his death,\n\u201cdeals with usurie as the apothecarie doth with poyson.\u201d[II-52] The apologetic\nwas just, for neither his letter to \u0152colampadius, nor his sermon on the same\nsubject, reveal any excessive tolerance for the trade of the financier. That\ninterest is lawful, provided that it does not exceed an official maximum, that,\neven when a maximum is fixed, loans must be made _gratis_ to the poor, that the\nborrower must reap as much advantage as the lender, that excessive security must\nnot be exacted, that what is venial as an occasional expedient is reprehensible\nwhen carried on as a regular occupation, that no man may snatch economic gain\nfor himself to the injury of his neighbor--a condonation of usury protected by\nsuch embarrassing entanglements can have offered but tepid consolation to the\ndevout money-lender.\n\nContemporaries interpreted Calvin to mean that the debtor might properly be\nasked to concede some small part of his profits to the creditor with whose\ncapital they had been earned, but that the exaction of interest was wrong if it\nmeant that \u201cthe creditor becomes rich by the sweat of the debtor, and the debtor\ndoes not reap the reward of his labor.\u201d There have been ages in which such\ndoctrines would have been regarded as an attack on financial enterprise rather\nthan as a defense of it. Nor were Calvin\u2019s specific contributions to the theory\nof usury strikingly original. As a hard-headed lawyer, he was free both from the\nincoherence and from the idealism of Luther, and his doctrine was probably\nregarded by himself merely as one additional step in the long series of\ndevelopments through which ecclesiastical jurisprudence on the subject had\nalready gone. In emphasizing the difference between the interest wrung from the\nnecessities of the poor and the interest which a prosperous merchant could earn\nwith borrowed capital, he had been anticipated by Major; in his sanction of a\nmoderate rate on loans to the rich, his position was the same as that already\nassumed, though with some hesitation, by Melanchthon. The picture of Calvin, the\norganizer and disciplinarian, as the parent of laxity in social ethics, is a\nlegend. Like the author of another revolution in economic theory, he might have\nturned on his popularizers with the protest: \u201cI am not a Calvinist.\u201d\n\nLegends are apt, however, to be as right in substance as they are wrong in\ndetail, and both its critics and its defenders were correct in regarding\nCalvin\u2019s treatment of capital as a watershed. What he did was to change the\nplane on which the discussion was conducted, by treating the ethics of\nmoney-lending, not as a matter to be decided by an appeal to a special body of\ndoctrine on the subject of usury, but as a particular case of the general\nproblem of the social relations of a Christian community, which must be solved\nin the light of existing circumstances. The significant feature in his\ndiscussion of the subject is that he assumes credit to be a normal and\ninevitable incident in the life of society. He therefore dismisses the\noft-quoted passages from the Old Testament and the Fathers as irrelevant,\nbecause designed for conditions which no longer exist, argues that the payment\nof interest for capital is as reasonable as the payment of rent for land, and\nthrows on the conscience of the individual the obligation of seeing that it does\nnot exceed the amount dictated by natural justice and the golden rule. He makes,\nin short, a fresh start, argues that what is permanent is, not the rule \u201c_non\nf\u0153nerabis_,\u201d _but_ \u201c_l\u2019\u00e9quit\u00e9 et la droiture_,\u201d and appeals from Christian\ntradition to commercial common sense, which he is sanguine enough to hope will\nbe Christian. On such a view all extortion is to be avoided by Christians. But\ncapital and credit are indispensable; the financier is not a pariah, but a\nuseful member of society; and lending at interest, provided that the rate is\nreasonable and that loans are made freely to the poor, is not _per se_ more\nextortionate than any other of the economic transactions without which human\naffairs cannot be carried on. That acceptance of the realities of commercial\npractice as a starting-point was of momentous importance. It meant that\nCalvinism and its off-shoots took their stand on the side of the activities\nwhich were to be most characteristic of the future, and insisted that it was not\nby renouncing them, but by untiring concentration on the task of using for the\nglory of God the opportunities which they offered, that the Christian life could\nand must be lived.\n\nIt was on this practical basis of urban industry and commercial enterprise that\nthe structure of Calvinistic social ethics was erected. Upon their theological\nbackground it would be audacious to enter. But even an amateur may be pardoned,\nif he feels that there have been few systems in which the practical conclusions\nflow by so inevitable a logic from the theological premises. \u201cGod not only\nforesaw,\u201d Calvin wrote, \u201cthe fall of the first man, ... but also arranged all by\nthe determination of his own will.\u201d[II-53] Certain individuals he chose as his\nelect, predestined to salvation from eternity by \u201chis gratuitous mercy, totally\nirrespective of human merit\u201d; the remainder have been consigned to eternal\ndamnation, \u201cby a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible,\njudgment.\u201d[II-54] Deliverance, in short, is the work, not of man himself, who\ncan contribute nothing to it, but of an objective Power. Human effort, social\ninstitutions, the world of culture, are at best irrelevant to salvation, and at\nworst mischievous. They distract man from the true aim of his existence and\nencourage reliance upon broken reeds.\n\nThat aim is not personal salvation, but the glorification of God, to be sought,\nnot by prayer only, but by action--the sanctification of the world by strife and\nlabor. For Calvinism, with all its repudiation of personal merit, is intensely\npractical. Good works are not a way of attaining salvation, but they are\nindispensable as a proof that salvation has been attained. The central paradox\nof religious ethics--that only those are nerved with the courage needed to turn\nthe world upside down, who are convinced that already, in a higher sense, it is\ndisposed for the best by a Power of which they are the humble instruments--finds\nin it a special exemplification. For the Calvinist the world is ordained to show\nforth the majesty of God, and the duty of the Christian is to live for that end.\nHis task is at once to discipline his individual life, and to create a\nsanctified society. The Church, the State, the community in which he lives, must\nnot merely be a means of personal salvation, or minister to his temporal needs.\nIt must be a \u201cKingdom of Christ,\u201d in which individual duties are performed by\nmen conscious that they are \u201cever in their great Taskmaster\u2019s eye,\u201d and the\nwhole fabric is preserved from corruption by a stringent and all-embracing\ndiscipline.\n\nThe impetus to reform or revolution springs in every age from the realization of\nthe contrast between the external order of society and the moral standards\nrecognized as valid by the conscience or reason of the individual. And naturally\nit is in periods of swift material progress, such as the sixteenth and\neighteenth centuries, that such a contrast is most acutely felt. The men who\nmade the Reformation had seen the Middle Ages close in the golden autumn which,\namid all the corruption and tyranny of the time, still glows in the pictures of\nN\u00fcrnberg and Frankfurt drawn by \u00c6neas Silvius and in the woodcuts of D\u00fcrer. And\nalready a new dawn of economic prosperity was unfolding. Its promise was\nsplendid, but it had been accompanied by a cynical materialism which seemed a\ndenial of all that had been meant by the Christian virtues, and which was the\nmore horrifying because it was in the capital of the Christian Church that it\nreached its height. Shocked by the gulf between theory and practice, men turned\nthis way and that to find some solution of the tension which racked them. The\nGerman reformers followed one road and preached a return to primitive\nsimplicity. But who could obliterate the achievements of two centuries, or blot\nout the new worlds which science had revealed? The Humanists took another, which\nshould lead to the gradual regeneration of mankind by the victory of reason over\nsuperstition and brutality and avarice. But who could wait for so distant a\nconsummation? Might there not be a third? Was it not possible that, purified and\ndisciplined, the very qualities which economic success demanded--thrift,\ndiligence, sobriety, frugality--were themselves, after all, the foundation, at\nleast, of the Christian virtues? Was it not conceivable that the gulf which\nyawned between a luxurious world and the life of the spirit could be bridged,\nnot by eschewing material interests as the kingdom of darkness, but by\ndedicating them to the service of God?\n\nIt was that revolution in the traditional scale of ethical values which the\nSwiss reformers desired to achieve; it was that new type of Christian character\nthat they labored to create. Not as part of any scheme of social reform, but as\nelements in a plan of moral regeneration, they seized on the aptitudes\ncultivated by the life of business and affairs, stamped on them a new\nsanctification, and used them as the warp of a society in which a more than\nRoman discipline should perpetuate a character the exact antithesis of that\nfostered by obedience to Rome. The Roman Church, it was held, through the\nexample of its rulers, had encouraged luxury and ostentation: the members of the\nReformed Church must be economical and modest. It had sanctioned the spurious\ncharity of indiscriminate almsgiving: the true Christian must repress mendicancy\nand insist on the virtues of industry and thrift. It had allowed the faithful to\nbelieve that they could atone for a life of worldliness by the savorless\nformality of individual good works reduced to a commercial system, as though man\ncould keep a profit and loss account with his Creator: the true Christian must\norganize his life as a whole for the service of his Master. It had rebuked the\npursuit of gain as lower than the life of religion, even while it took bribes\nfrom those who pursued gain with success: the Christian must conduct his\nbusiness with a high seriousness, as in itself a kind of religion.\n\nSuch teaching, whatever its theological merits or defects, was admirably\ndesigned to liberate economic energies, and to weld into a disciplined social\nforce the rising _bourgeoisie_, conscious of the contrast between its own\nstandards and those of a laxer world, proud of its vocation as the\nstandard-bearer of the economic virtues, and determined to vindicate an open\nroad for its own way of life by the use of every weapon, including political\nrevolution and war, because the issue which was at stake was not merely\nconvenience or self-interest, but the will of God. Calvinism stood, in short,\nnot only for a new doctrine of theology and ecclesiastical government, but for a\nnew scale of moral values and a new ideal of social conduct. Its practical\nmessage, it might perhaps be said, was _la carri\u00e8re ouverte_--not _aux talents_,\nbut _au caract\u00e8re_.\n\nOnce the world had been settled to their liking, the middle classes persuaded\nthemselves that they were the convinced enemies of violence and the devotees of\nthe principle of order. While their victories were still to win, they were\neverywhere the spear-head of revolution. It is not wholly fanciful to say that,\non a narrower stage but with not less formidable weapons, Calvin did for the\n_bourgeoisie_ of the sixteenth century what Marx did for the proletariat of the\nnineteenth, or that the doctrine of predestination satisfied the same hunger for\nan assurance that the forces of the universe are on the side of the elect as was\nto be assuaged in a different age by the theory of historical materialism. He\nset their virtues at their best in sharp antithesis with the vices of the\nestablished order at its worst, taught them to feel that they were a chosen\npeople, made them conscious of their great destiny in the Providential plan and\nresolute to realize it. The new law was graven on tablets of flesh; it not\nmerely rehearsed a lesson, but fashioned a soul. Compared with the quarrelsome,\nself-indulgent nobility of most European countries, or with the extravagant and\nhalf-bankrupt monarchies, the middle classes in whom Calvinism took root most\ndeeply, were a race of iron. It was not surprising that they made several\nrevolutions, and imprinted their conceptions of political and social expediency\non the public life of half a dozen different States in the Old World and in the\nNew.\n\nThe two main elements in this teaching were the insistence on personal\nresponsibility, discipline and asceticism, and the call to fashion for the\nChristian character an objective embodiment in social institutions. Though\nlogically connected, they were often in practical discord. The influence of\nCalvinism was not simple, but complex, and extended far beyond the circle of\nChurches which could properly be called Calvinist. Calvinist theology was\naccepted where Calvinist discipline was repudiated. The bitter struggle between\nPresbyterians and Independents in England did not prevent men, to whom the whole\nidea of religious uniformity was fundamentally abhorrent, from drawing\ninspiration from the conception of a visible Christian society, in which, as one\nof them said, the Scripture was \u201creally and materially to be fulfilled.\u201d[II-55]\nBoth an intense individualism and a rigorous Christian Socialism could be\ndeduced from Calvin\u2019s doctrine. Which of them predominated depended on\ndifferences of political environment and of social class. It depended, above\nall, on the question whether Calvinists were, as at Geneva and in Scotland, a\nmajority, who could stamp their ideals on the social order, or, as in England, a\nminority, living on the defensive beneath the suspicious eyes of a hostile\nGovernment.\n\nIn the version of Calvinism which found favor with the English upper classes in\nthe seventeenth century, individualism in social affairs was, on the whole, the\nprevalent philosophy. It was only the fanatic and the agitator who drew\ninspiration from the vision of a New Jerusalem descending on England\u2019s green and\npleasant land, and the troopers of Fairfax soon taught them reason. But, if the\ntheology of Puritanism was that of Calvin, its conception of society, diluted by\nthe practical necessities of a commercial age, and softened to suit the\nconventions of a territorial aristocracy, was poles apart from that of the\nmaster who founded a discipline, compared with which that of Laud, as Laud\nhimself dryly observed,[II-56] was a thing of shreds and patches. As both the\nteaching of Calvin himself, and the practice of some Calvinist communities,\nsuggest, the social ethics of the heroic age of Calvinism savored more of a\ncollectivist dictatorship than of individualism. The expression of a revolt\nagainst the medieval ecclesiastical system, it stood itself, where circumstances\nfavored it, for a discipline far more stringent and comprehensive than that of\nthe Middle Ages. If, as some historians have argued, the philosophy of _laissez\nfaire_ emerged as a result of the spread of Calvinism among the middle classes,\nit did so, like tolerance, by a route which was indirect. It was accepted, less\nbecause it was esteemed for its own sake, than as a compromise forced upon\nCalvinism at a comparatively late stage in its history, as a result of its\nmodification by the pressure of commercial interests, or of a balance of power\nbetween conflicting authorities.\n\nThe spirit of the system is suggested by its treatment of the burning question\nof Pauperism. The reform of traditional methods of poor relief was in the\nair--Vives had written his celebrated book in 1526[II-57]--and, prompted both by\nHumanists and by men of religion, the secular authorities all over Europe were\nbeginning to bestir themselves to cope with what was, at best, a menace to\nsocial order, and, at worst, a moral scandal. The question was naturally one\nwhich appealed strongly to the ethical spirit of the Reformation. The\ncharacteristic of the Swiss reformers, who were much concerned with it, was that\nthey saw the situation not, like the statesman, as a problem of police, nor,\nlike the more intelligent Humanists, as a problem of social organization, but as\na question of character. Calvin quoted with approval the words of St. Paul, \u201cIf\na man will not work, neither shall he eat,\u201d condemned indiscriminate almsgiving\nas vehemently as any Utilitarian, and urged that the ecclesiastical authorities\nshould regularly visit every family to ascertain whether its members were idle,\nor drunken, or otherwise undesirable.[II-58] \u0152colampadius wrote two tracts on\nthe relief of the poor.[II-59] Bullinger lamented the army of beggars produced\nby monastic charity, and secured part of the emoluments of a dissolved abbey for\nthe maintenance of a school and the assistance of the destitute.[II-60] In the\nplan for the reorganization of poor relief at Z\u00fcrich, which was drafted by\nZwingli in 1525, all mendicancy was strictly forbidden; travellers were to be\nrelieved on condition that they left the town next day; provision was to be made\nfor the sick and aged in special institutions; no inhabitant was to be entitled\nto relief who wore ornaments or luxurious clothes, who failed to attend church,\nor who played cards or was otherwise disreputable. The basis of his whole scheme\nwas the duty of industry and the danger of relaxing the incentive to work. \u201cWith\nlabor,\u201d he wrote, \u201cwill no man now support himself.... And yet labor is a thing\nso good and godlike ... that makes the body hale and strong and cures the\nsicknesses produced by idleness.... In the things of this life, the laborer is\nmost like to God.\u201d[II-61]\n\nIn the assault on pauperism, moral and economic motives were not distinguished.\nThe idleness of the mendicant was both a sin against God and a social evil; the\nenterprise of the thriving tradesman was at once a Christian virtue and a\nbenefit to the community. The same combination of religious zeal and practical\nshrewdness prompted the attacks on gambling, swearing, excess in apparel and\nself-indulgence in eating and drinking. The essence of the system was not\npreaching or propaganda, though it was prolific of both, but the attempt to\ncrystallize a moral ideal in the daily life of a visible society, which should\nbe at once a Church and a State. Having overthrown monasticism, its aim was to\nturn the secular world into a gigantic monastery, and at Geneva, for a short\ntime, it almost succeeded. \u201cIn other places,\u201d wrote Knox of that devoted city,\n\u201cI confess Christ to be truly preached, but manners and religion so sincerely\nreformed I have not yet seen in any place besides.\u201d[II-62] Manners and morals\nwere regulated, because it is through the _minuti\u00e6_ of conduct that the enemy of\nmankind finds his way to the soul; the traitors to the Kingdom might be revealed\nby pointed shoes or golden ear-rings, as in 1793 those guilty of another kind of\n_incivisme_ were betrayed by their knee-breeches. Regulation meant legislation,\nand, still more, administration. The word in which both were summarized was\nDiscipline.\n\nDiscipline Calvin himself described as the nerves of religion,[II-63] and the\ncommon observation that he assigned to it the same primacy as Luther had given\nto faith is just. As organized in the Calvinist Churches, it was designed\nprimarily to safeguard the sacrament and to enforce a censorship of morals, and\nthus differed in scope and purpose from the canon law of the Church of Rome, as\nthe rules of a private society may differ from the code of a State. Its\nestablishment at Geneva, in the form which it assumed in the last half of the\nsixteenth century, was the result of nearly twenty years of struggle between the\nCouncil of the city and the Consistory, composed of ministers and laymen. It was\nonly in 1555 that the latter finally vindicated its right to excommunicate, and\nonly in the edition of the _Institutes_ which appeared in 1559 that a scheme of\nchurch organization and discipline was set out. But, while the answer to the\nquestion of the constitution of the authority by whom discipline was to be\nexercised depended on political conditions, and thus differed in different\nplaces and periods, the necessity of enforcing a rule of life, which was the\npractical aspect of discipline, was from the start of the very essence of\nCalvinism. Its importance was the theme of a characteristic letter addressed by\nCalvin to Somerset in October 1548, the moment of social convulsion for which\nBucer wrote his book, _De Regno Christi_. The Protector is reminded that it is\nnot from lack of preaching, but from failure to enforce compliance with it, that\nthe troubles of England have sprung. Though crimes of violence are punished, the\nlicentious are spared, and the licentious have no part in the Kingdom of God. He\nis urged to make sure that \u201cles hommes soient tenus en bonne et honneste\ndiscipline,\u201d and to be careful \u201cque ceulx qui oyent la doctrine de l\u2019Evangile\ns\u2019approuvent estre Chrestiens par sainctit\u00e9 de vie.\u201d[II-64]\n\n\u201cProve themselves Christians by holiness of life\u201d--the words might be taken as\nthe motto of the Swiss reformers, and their projects of social reconstruction\nare a commentary on the sense in which \u201choliness of life\u201d was understood. It was\nin that spirit that Zwingli took the initiative in forming at Z\u00fcrich a board of\nmoral discipline, to be composed of the clergy, the magistrates and two elders;\nemphasized the importance of excommunicating offenders against Christian morals;\nand drew up a list of sins to be punished by excommunication, which included, in\naddition to murder and theft, unchastity, perjury and avarice, \u201cespecially as it\ndiscovers itself in usury and fraud.\u201d[II-65] It was in that spirit that Calvin\ncomposed in the _Institutes_ a Protestant _Summa_ and manual of moral casuistry,\nin which the lightest action should be brought under the iron control of a\nuniversal rule. It was in that spirit that he drafted the heads of a\ncomprehensive scheme of municipal government, covering the whole range of civic\nadministration, from the regulations to be made for markets, crafts, buildings\nand fairs to the control of prices, interest and rents.[II-66] It was in that\nspirit that he made Geneva a city of glass, in which every household lived its\nlife under the supervision of a spiritual police, and that for a generation\nConsistory and Council worked hand in hand, the former excommunicating\ndrunkards, dancers and contemners of religion, the latter punishing the\ndissolute with fines and imprisonment and the heretic with death. \u201cHaving\nconsidered,\u201d ran the preamble to the ordinances of 1576, which mark the maturity\nof the Genevese Church, \u201cthat it is a thing worthy of commendation above all\nothers, that the doctrine of the Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be\npreserved in its purity, and the Christian Church duly maintained by good\ngovernment and policy, and also that youth in the future be well and faithfully\ninstructed, and the Hospital well-ordered for the support of the poor: Which\nthings can only be if there be established a certain rule and order of living,\nby which each man may be able to understand the duties of his\nposition....\u201d[II-67] The object of it all was so simple. \u201cEach man to understand\nthe duties of his position\u201d--what could be more desirable, at Geneva or\nelsewhere? It is sad to reflect that the attainment of so laudable an end\ninvolved the systematic use of torture, the beheading of a child for striking\nits parents, and the burning of a hundred and fifty heretics in sixty\nyears.[II-68] _Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum._\n\nTorturing and burning were practised elsewhere by Governments which affected no\nexcessive zeal for righteousness. The characteristic which was distinctive of\nGeneva--\u201cthe most perfect school of Christ that ever was on earth since the days\nof the Apostles\u201d[II-69]--was not its merciless intolerance, for no one yet\ndreamed that tolerance was possible. It was the attempt to make the law of God\nprevail even in those matters of pecuniary gain and loss which mankind, to judge\nby its history, is disposed to regard more seriously than wounds and deaths. \u201cNo\nmember [of the Christian body],\u201d wrote Calvin in his _Institutes_, \u201cholds his\ngifts to himself, or for his private use, but shares them among his fellow\nmembers, nor does he derive benefit save from those things which proceed from\nthe common profit of the body as a whole. Thus the pious man owes to his\nbrethren all that it is in his power to give.\u201d[II-70] It was natural that so\nremorseless an attempt to claim the totality of human interests for religion\nshould not hesitate to engage even the economic appetites, before which the\nChurches of a later generation were to lower their arms. If Calvinism welcomed\nthe world of business to its fold with an eagerness unknown before, it did so in\nthe spirit of a conqueror organizing a new province, not of a suppliant\narranging a compromise with a still powerful foe. A system of morals and a code\nof law lay ready to its hand in the Old Testament. Samuel and Agag, King of the\nAmalekites, Jonah and Nineveh, Ahab and Naboth, Elijah and the prophets of Baal,\nMicaiah the son of Imlah, the only true prophet of the Lord, and Jeroboam the\nson of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, worked on the tense imagination of the\nCalvinist as did Brutus and Cassius on the men of 1793. The first half-century\nof the Reformed Church at Geneva saw a prolonged effort to organize an economic\norder worthy of the Kingdom of Christ, in which the ministers played the part of\nOld Testament prophets to an Israel not wholly weaned from the fleshpots of\nEgypt.\n\nApart from its qualified indulgence to interest, Calvinism made few innovations\nin the details of social policy, and the contents of the program were thoroughly\nmedieval. The novelty consisted in the religious zeal which was thrown into its\napplication. The organ of administration before which offenders were brought was\nthe Consistory, a mixed body of laymen and ministers. It censures harsh\ncreditors, punishes usurers, engrossers and monopolists, reprimands or fines the\nmerchant who defrauds his clients, the cloth-maker whose stuff is an inch too\nnarrow, the dealer who provides short measure of coal, the butcher who sells\nmeat above the rates fixed by authority, the tailor who charges strangers\nexcessive prices, the surgeon who demands an excessive fee for an\noperation.[II-71] In the Consistory the ministers appear to have carried all\nbefore them, and they are constantly pressing for greater stringency. From the\nelection of Beza in place of Calvin in 1564 to his death in 1605, hardly a year\npasses without a new demand for legislation from the clergy, a new censure on\neconomic unrighteousness, a new protest against one form or another of the\nancient sin of avarice. At one moment, it is excessive indulgence to debtors\nwhich rouses their indignation; at another, the advance of prices and rents\ncaused by the influx of distressed brethren from the persecutions in France; at\na third, the multiplication of taverns and the excessive charges demanded by the\nsellers of wine. Throughout there is a prolonged warfare against the twin evils\nof extortionate interest and extortionate prices.\n\nCredit was an issue of moment at Geneva, not merely for the same reasons which\nmade it a burning question everywhere to the small producer of the sixteenth\ncentury, but because, especially after the ruin of Lyons in the French wars of\nreligion, the city was a financial center of some importance. It might be\ninvolved in war at any moment. In order to secure command of the necessary\nfunds, it had borrowed heavily from Basle and Berne, and the Council used the\ncapital to do exchange business and make advances, the rate of interest being\nfixed at 10, and later at 12, per cent. To the establishment of a bank the\nministers, who had been consulted, agreed; against the profitable business of\nadvancing money at high rates of interest to private persons they protested,\nespecially when the loans were made to spendthrifts who used them to ruin\nthemselves. When, ten years later, in 1580, the Council approved the project\nadvanced by some company promoters of establishing a second bank in the city,\nthe ministers led the opposition to it, pointed to the danger of covetousness as\nrevealed by the moral corruption of financial cities such as Paris, Venice and\nLyons, and succeeded in getting the proposal quashed. Naturally, however, the\ncommoner issue was a more simple one. The capitalist who borrowed in order to\ninvest and make a profit could take care of himself, and the ministers explained\nthat they had no objection to those \u201cqui baillent leur argent aux marchands pour\nemploier en marchandise.\u201d The crucial issue was that of the money-lender who\nmakes advances \u201csimplement \u00e0 un qui aura besoin,\u201d and who thereby exploits the\nnecessities of his poorer neighbors.[II-72]\n\nAgainst monsters of this kind the ministers rage without ceasing. They denounce\nthem from the pulpit in the name of the New Testament, in language drawn\nprincipally from the less temperate portions of the Old, as _larrons, brigands,\nloups et tigres_, who ought to be led out of the city and stoned to death. \u201cThe\npoor cry and the rich pocket their gains; but what they are heaping up for\nthemselves is the wrath of God.... One has cried in the market-place, \u2018a curse\non those who bring us dearth.\u2019... The Lord has heard that cry ... and yet we are\nasking the cause of the pestilence!... A cut-purse shall be punished, but the\nLord declares by his prophet Amos ... \u2018Famine is come upon my people of Israel,\nO ye who devour the poor.\u2019 The threats there uttered have been executed against\nhis people.\u201d[II-73] They demand that for his second offense the usurer shall be\nexcommunicated, or that, if such a punishment be thought too severe, he shall at\nleast be required to testify his repentance publicly in church, before being\nadmitted to the sacrament. They remind their fellow-citizens of the fate of Tyre\nand Sidon, and, momentarily despairing of controlling the money-lender directly,\nthey propose to deprive him of his victims by removing the causes which create\nthem. _Pour tarir les ruisseaux il faut escouper la source._ Men borrow because\nof \u201cidleness, foolish extravagance, foolish sins, and law suits.\u201d Let censors be\nestablished at Geneva, as in Republican Rome, to inquire, among rich as well as\namong poor, how each household earns its livelihood, to see that all children of\nten to twelve are taught some useful trade, to put down taverns and litigation,\nand to \u201cbridle the insatiable avarice of those who are such wretches that they\nseek to enrich themselves by the necessities of their poor neighbors.\u201d[II-74]\n\nThe Venerable Company advanced their program, but they were not sanguine that it\nwould be carried out, and they concluded it by expressing to the City Fathers\nthe pious hope, not wholly free from irony, that \u201cnone of your honorable\nfellowship may be found spotted with such vices.\u201d Their apprehensions were\njustified. The Council of Geneva endured many things at the hands of its\npreachers, till, on the death of Beza, it brought them to heel. But there were\nlimits to its patience, and it was in the field of business ethics that they\nwere most quickly reached. It did not venture to question the right of the\nclergy to be heard on matters of commerce and finance. The pulpit was press and\nplatform in one; ministers had the public behind them, and, conscious of their\npower, would in the last resort compel submission by threatening to resign _en\nmasse_. Profuse in expressions of sympathy, its strategy was to let the cannon\nballs of Christian Socialism spend themselves on the yielding down of official\nprocrastination, and its first reply was normally _qu\u2019on y pense un peu_. To the\nclergy its inactivity was a new proof of complicity with Mammon, and they did\nnot hesitate to declare their indignation from the pulpit. In 1574 Beza preached\na sermon in which he accused members of the Council of having intelligence with\nspeculators who had made a corner in wheat. Throughout 1577 the ministers were\nreproaching the Council with laxity in administration, and they finally\ndenounced it as the real author of the rise in the prices of bread and wine. In\n1579 they addressed to it a memorandum, setting out a new scheme of moral\ndiscipline and social reform.\n\nThe prosperous _bourgeoisie_ who governed Geneva had no objection to\ndiscouraging extravagance in dress, or to exhorting the public to attend sermons\nand to send their children to catechism. But they heard denunciations of\ncovetousness without enthusiasm, and on two matters they were obdurate. They\nrefused to check, as the ministers concerned to lower prices had demanded, the\nexport of wine, on the ground that it was needed in order to purchase imports of\nwheat; and, as was natural in a body of well-to-do creditors, they would make no\nconcession to the complaint that debtors were subjected to a \u201cdouble usury,\u201d\nsince they were compelled to repay loans in an appreciating currency. Money fell\nas well as rose, they replied, and even the late M. Calvin, by whom the\nordinance now criticized had been approved, had never pushed his scruples to\nsuch lengths. Naturally, the ministers were indignant at these evasions. They\ninformed the Council that large sums were being spent by speculators in holding\nup supplies of corn, and launched a campaign of sermons against avarice, with\nappropriate topical illustrations. Equally naturally, the Council retorted by\naccusing Beza of stirring up class hatred against the rich.[II-75]\n\nThe situation was aggravated by an individual scandal. One of the magistrates,\nwho regarded Beza\u2019s remarks as a personal reflection, was rash enough to demand\nto be heard before the Council, with the result that he was found guilty,\ncondemned to pay a fine, and compelled to forfeit fifty crowns which he had lent\nat 10 per cent. interest. Evidently, when matters were pushed to such lengths as\nthis, no one, however respectable, could feel sure that he was safe. The Council\nand the ministers had already had words over the sphere of their respective\nfunctions, and were to fall out a year or two later over the administration of\nthe local hospital. On this occasion the Council complained that the clergy were\ninterfering with the magistrates\u2019 duties, and implied politely that they would\nbe well advised to mind their own business.\n\nSo monstrous a suggestion--as though there were any human activity which was not\nthe business of the Church!--evoked a counter-manifesto on the part of the\nministers, in which the full doctrine of the earthly Jerusalem was set forth in\nall its majesty. They declined to express regret for having cited before the\nConsistory those who sold corn at extortionate prices, and for refusing the\nsacrament to one of them. Did not Solomon say, \u201cCursed is he who keeps his corn\nin time of scarcity\u201d? To the charge of intemperate language Chauvet replied that\nthe Council had better begin by burning the books of the Prophets, for he had\ndone no more than follow the example set by Hosea. \u201cIf we should be silent,\u201d\nsaid Beza, \u201cwhat would the people say? That they are dumb dogs.... As to the\nquestion of causing scandals, for the last two years there has been unceasing\ntalk of usury, and, for all that, no more than three or four usurers have been\npunished.... It is notorious everywhere that the city is full of usurers, and\nthat the ordinary rate is 10 per cent. or more.\u201d[II-76] The magistrates renewed\ntheir remonstrances. They had seen without a shudder an adulterer condemned to\nbe hanged, and had mercifully commuted his sentence to scourging through the\ntown, followed by ten years\u2019 imprisonment in chains.[II-77] But at the godly\nproposal to make capitalists die the death of Achan their humanity blenched.\nBesides, the punishment was not only cruel, but dangerous. In Geneva, \u201cmost men\nare debtors.\u201d If they are allowed to taste blood, who can say where their fury\nwill end? Yet, such is the power of the spoken word, the magistrates did not\nventure on a blunt refusal, but gave scripture for scripture. They informed the\nministers that they proposed to follow the example of David, who, when rebuked\nby Nathan, confessed his fault. Whether the ministers replied in the language of\nNathan, we are not informed.\n\nRecent political theory has been prolific in criticisms of the omnicompetent\nState. The principle on which the collectivism of Geneva rested may be described\nas that of the omnicompetent Church.[II-78] The religious community formed a\nclosely organized society, which, while using the secular authorities as police\nofficers to enforce its mandates, not only instructed them as to the policy to\nbe pursued, but was itself a kind of State, prescribing by its own legislation\nthe standard of conduct to be observed by its members, putting down offences\nagainst public order and public morals, providing for the education of youth and\nfor the relief of the poor. The peculiar relations between the ecclesiastical\nand secular authorities, which for a short time made the system possible at\nGeneva, could not exist to the same degree when Calvinism was the creed, not of\na single city, but of a minority in a national State organized on principles\nquite different from its own. Unless the State itself were captured, rebellion,\ncivil war or the abandonment of the pretension to control society was the\ninevitable consequence. But the last result was long delayed. In the sixteenth\ncentury, whatever the political conditions, the claim of the Calvinist Churches\nis everywhere to exercise a collective responsibility for the moral conduct of\ntheir members in all the various relations of life, and to do so, not least, in\nthe sphere of economic transactions, which offer peculiarly insidious\ntemptations to a lapse into immorality.\n\nThe mantle of Calvin\u2019s system fell earliest upon the Reformed Churches of\nFrance. At their first Synod, held in 1559 at Paris, where a scheme of\ndiscipline was adopted, certain difficult matters of economic casuistry were\ndiscussed, and similar questions continued to receive attention at subsequent\nSynods for the next half-century, until, as the historian of French Calvinism\nremarks, \u201cthey began to lax the reins, yielding too much to the iniquity of the\ntime.\u201d[II-79] Once it is admitted that membership of the Church involves\ncompliance with a standard of economic morality which the Church must enforce,\nthe problems of interpretation which arise are innumerable, and the religious\ncommunity finds itself committed to developing something like a system of case\nlaw, by the application of its general principles to a succession of varying\nsituations. The elaboration of such a system was undertaken; but it was limited\nin the sixteenth century both by the comparative simplicity of the economic\nstructure, and by the fact that the Synods, except at Geneva, being concerned\nnot to reform society, but merely to repress the grosser kinds of scandal, dealt\nonly with matters on which specific guidance was demanded by the Churches.\n\nEven so, however, the riddles to be solved were not a few. What is to be the\nattitude of the Churches towards those who have grown rich on ill-gotten wealth?\nMay pirates and fraudulent tradesmen be admitted to the Lord\u2019s Supper? May the\nbrethren trade with such persons, or do they share their sin if they buy their\ngoods? The law of the State allows moderate interest: what is to be the attitude\nof the Church? What is to be done to prevent craftsmen cheating the consumer\nwith shoddy wares, and tradesmen oppressing him with extortionate profits? Are\nlotteries permissible? Is it legitimate to invest at interest monies bequeathed\nfor the benefit of the poor? The answers which the French Synods made to such\nquestions show the persistence of the idea that the transactions of business are\nthe province of the Church, combined with a natural desire to avoid an\nimpracticable rigor. All persons who have wrung wealth unjustly from others must\nmake restitution before they be admitted to communion, but their goods may be\nbought by the faithful, provided that the sale is public and approved by the\ncivil authorities. Makers of fraudulent wares are to be censured, and tradesmen\nare to seek only \u201cindifferent gain.\u201d On the question of usury, the same division\nof opinion is visible in the French Reformed Church as existed at the same time\nin England and Holland, and Calvin\u2019s advice on the subject was requested. The\nstricter school would not hear of confining the prohibition of usury to\n\u201cexcessive and scandalous\u201d exactions, or of raising money for the poor by\ninterest on capital. In France, however, as elsewhere, the day for these heroic\nrigors had passed, and the common-sense view prevailed. The brethren were\nrequired to demand no more than the law allowed and than was consistent with\ncharity. Within these limits interest was not to be condemned.[II-80]\n\nOf the treatment of questions of this order by English Puritanism something is\nsaid in a subsequent chapter. In Scotland the views of the reformers as to\neconomic ethics did not differ in substance from those of the Church before the\nReformation, and the Scottish Book of Discipline denounced covetousness with the\nsame vehemence as did the \u201caccursed Popery\u201d which it had overthrown. Gentlemen\nare exhorted to be content with their rents, and the Churches are required to\nmake provision for the poor. \u201cOppression of the poor by exactions,\u201d it is\ndeclared, \u201c[and] deceiving of them in buying or selling by wrong mete or measure\n... do properly appertain to the Church of God, to punish the same as God\u2019s word\ncommandeth.\u201d[II-81] The interpretation given to these offences is shown by the\npunishment of a usurer and of a defaulting debtor before the Kirk Sessions of\nSt. Andrews.[II-82] The relief of the poor was in 1579 made the statutory duty\nof ecclesiastical authorities in Scotland, seven years after it had in England\nbeen finally transferred to the State. The arrangement under which in rural\ndistricts it reposed down to 1846 on the shoulders of ministers, elders and\ndeacons, was a survival from an age in which the real State in Scotland had been\nrepresented, not by Parliament or Council, but by the Church of Knox.\n\nOf English-speaking communities, that in which the social discipline of the\nCalvinist Church-State was carried to the furthest extreme was the Puritan\ntheocracy of New England. Its practice had more affinity with the iron rule of\nCalvin\u2019s Geneva than with the individualistic tendencies of contemporary English\nPuritanism. In that happy, bishopless Eden, where men desired only to worship\nGod \u201caccording to the simplicitie of the gospel and to be ruled by the laws of\nGod\u2019s word,\u201d[II-83] not only were \u201ctobacco and immodest fashions and costly\napparel,\u201d and \u201cthat vain custom of drinking one to another,\u201d forbidden to true\nprofessors, but the Fathers adopted towards that \u201cnotorious evil ... whereby\nmost men walked in all their commerce--to buy as cheap and sell as dear as they\ncan,\u201d[II-84] an attitude which possibly would not be wholly congenial to their\nmore business-like descendants. At an early date in the history of Massachusetts\na minister had called attention to the recrudescence of the old Adam--\u201cprofit\nbeing the chief aim and not the propagation of religion\u201d--and Governor Bradford,\nobserving uneasily how men grew \u201cin their outward estates,\u201d remarked that the\nincrease in material prosperity \u201cwill be the ruin of New England, at least of\nthe Churches of God there.\u201d[II-85] Sometimes Providence smote the exploiter. The\nimmigrant who organized the first American Trust--he owned the only milch cow on\nboard and sold the milk at 2_d._ a quart--\u201cbeing after at a sermon wherein\noppression was complained of ... fell distracted.\u201d[II-86] Those who escaped the\njudgment of Heaven had to face the civil authorities and the Church, which, in\nthe infancy of the colony, were the same thing.\n\nNaturally the authorities regulated prices, limited the rate of interest, fixed\na maximum wage, and whipped incorrigible idlers; for these things had been done\neven in the house of bondage from which they fled. What was more distinctive of\nthe children of light was their attempt to apply the same wholesome discipline\nto the elusive category of business profits. The price of cattle, the\nMassachusetts authorities decreed, was to be determined, not by the needs of the\nbuyer, but so as to yield no more than a reasonable return to the seller.[II-87]\nAgainst those who charged more, their wrath was that of Moses descending to find\nthe chosen people worshipping a golden calf. What little emotion they had to\nspare from their rage against religious freedom, they turned against economic\nlicense. Roger Williams touched a real affinity when, in his moving plea for\ntolerance, he argued that, though extortion was an evil, it was an evil the\ntreatment of which should be left to the discretion of the civil\nauthorities.[II-88]\n\nConsider the case of Mr. Robert Keane. His offence, by general consent, was\nblack. He kept a shop in Boston, in which he took \u201cin some ... above 6_d._ in\nthe shilling profit; in some above 8_d._; and in some small things above two for\none\u201d; and this, though he was \u201can ancient professor of the gospel, a man of\neminent parts, wealthy and having but one child, having come over for\nconscience\u2019 sake and for the advancement of the gospel.\u201d The scandal was\nterrible. Profiteers were unpopular--\u201cthe cry of the country was great against\noppression\u201d--and the grave elders reflected that a reputation for greed would\ninjure the infant community, lying as it did \u201cunder the curious observation of\nall Churches and civil States in the world.\u201d In spite of all, the magistrates\nwere disposed to be lenient. There was no positive law in force limiting\nprofits; it was not easy to determine what profits were fair; the sin of\ncharging what the market could stand was not peculiar to Mr. Keane; and, after\nall, the law of God required no more than double restitution. So they treated\nhim mercifully, and fined him only \u00a3200.\n\nHere, if he had been wise, Mr. Keane would have let the matter drop. But, like\nsome others in a similar position, he damned himself irretrievably by his\nexcuses. Summoned before the church of Boston, he first of all \u201cdid with tears\nacknowledge and bewail his covetous and corrupt heart,\u201d and then was rash enough\nto venture on an explanation, in which he argued that the tradesman must live,\nand how could he live, if he might not make up for a loss on one article by\nadditional profit on another? Here was a text on which no faithful pastor could\nrefrain from enlarging. The minister of Boston pounced on the opportunity, and\ntook occasion \u201cin his public exercise the next lecture day to lay open the error\nof such false principles, and to give some rules of direction in the case. Some\nfalse principles were these:--\n\n \u201c1. That a man might sell as dear as he can, and buy as cheap as he can.\n\n \u201c2. If a man lose by casualty of sea, etc., in some of his commodities, he may\n raise the price of the rest.\n\n \u201c3. That he may sell as he bought, though he paid too dear, and though the\n commodity be fallen, etc.\n\n \u201c4. That, as a man may take the advantage of his own skill or ability, so he\n may of another\u2019s ignorance or necessity.\n\n \u201c5. Where one gives time for payment, he is to take like recompence of one as\n of another.\u201d\n\nThe rules for trading were not less explicit:--\n\n \u201c1. A man may not sell above the current price, i.e., such a price as is usual\n in the time and place, and as another (who knows the worth of the commodity)\n would give for it if he had occasion to use it; as that is called current money\n which every man will take, etc.\n\n \u201c2. When a man loseth in his commodity for want of skill, etc., he must look at\n it as his own fault or cross, and therefore must not lay it upon another.\n\n \u201c3. Where a man loseth by casualty of sea, etc., it is a loss cast upon himself\n by Providence, and he may not ease himself of it by casting it upon another;\n for so a man should seem to provide against all providences, etc., that he\n should never lose; but where there is a scarcity of the commodity, there men\n may raise their price; for now it is a hand of God upon the commodity, and not\n the person.\n\n \u201c4. A man may not ask any more for his commodity than his selling price, as\n Ephron to Abraham: the land is worth thus much.\u201d\n\nIt is unfortunate that the example of Ephron was not remembered in the case of\ntransactions affecting the lands of Indians, to which it might have appeared\npeculiarly appropriate. In negotiating with these children of the devil,\nhowever, the saints of God considered the dealings of Israel with Gibeon a more\nappropriate precedent.\n\nThe sermon was followed by an animated debate within the church. It was moved,\namid quotations from 1 Cor. v. 11, that Mr. Keane should be excommunicated. That\nhe might be excommunicated, if he were a covetous person within the meaning of\nthe text, was doubted as little as that he had recently given a pitiable\nexhibition of covetousness. The question was only whether he had erred through\nignorance or careless, or whether he had acted \u201cagainst his conscience or the\nvery light of nature\u201d--whether, in short, his sin was accidental or a trade. In\nthe end he escaped with his fine and admonition.[II-89]\n\nIf the only Christian documents which survived were the New Testament and the\nrecords of the Calvinist Churches in the age of the Reformation, to suggest a\nconnection between them more intimate than a coincidence of phraseology would\nappear, in all probability, a daring extravagance. Legalistic, mechanical,\nwithout imagination or compassion, the work of a jurist and organizer of genius,\nCalvin\u2019s system was more Roman than Christian, and more Jewish than either. That\nit should be as much more tyrannical than the medieval Church, as the Jacobin\nClub was than the _ancien r\u00e9gime_, was inevitable. Its meshes were finer, its\nzeal and its efficiency greater. And its enemies were not merely actions and\nwritings, but thoughts.\n\nThe tyranny with which it is reproached by posterity would have been regarded by\nits champions as a compliment. In the struggle between liberty and authority,\nCalvinism sacrificed liberty, not with reluctance, but with enthusiasm. For the\nCalvinist Church was an army marching back to Canaan, under orders delivered\nonce for all from Sinai, and the aim of its leaders was the conquest of the\nPromised Land, not the consolation of stragglers or the encouragement of\nlaggards. In war the classical expedient is a dictatorship. The dictatorship of\nthe ministry appeared as inevitable to the whole-hearted Calvinist as the\nCommittee of Public Safety to the men of 1793, or the dictatorship of the\nproletariat to an enthusiastic Bolshevik. If it reached its zenith where\nCalvin\u2019s discipline was accepted without Calvin\u2019s culture and intellectual\nrange, in the orgies of devil worship with which a Cotton and an Endicott\nshocked at last even the savage superstition of New England, that result was\nonly to be expected.\n\nThe best that can be said of the social theory and practice of early Calvinism\nis that they were consistent. Most tyrannies have contented themselves with\ntormenting the poor. Calvinism had little pity for poverty; but it distrusted\nwealth, as it distrusted all influences that distract the aim or relax the\nfibers of the soul, and, in the first flush of its youthful austerity, it did\nits best to make life unbearable for the rich. Before the Paradise of earthly\ncomfort it hung a flaming brand, waved by the implacable shades of Moses and\nAaron.[II-90]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE CHURCH OF ENGLAND\n\n\u201cIf any man be so addicted to his private, that he neglect the common, state, he\nis void of the sense of piety, and wisheth peace and happiness to himself in\nvain. For, whoever he be, he must live in the body of the Commonwealth and in\nthe body of the Church.\u201d\n\n  LAUD, _Sermon before His Majesty_, June 19, 1621.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE CHURCH OF ENGLAND\n\n\nThe ecclesiastical and political controversies which descend from the sixteenth\ncentury have thrust into oblivion all issues of less perennial interest. But the\ndiscussions which were motived by changes in the texture of society and the\nrelations of classes were keen and continuous, nor was their result without\nsignificance for the future. In England, as on the Continent, the new economic\nrealities came into sharp collision with the social theory inherited from the\nMiddle Ages. The result was a re-assertion of the traditional doctrines with an\nalmost tragic intensity of emotion, their gradual retreat before the advance of\nnew conceptions, both of economic organization and of the province of religion,\nand their final decline from a militant creed into a kind of pious\nantiquarianism. They lingered, venerable ghosts, on the lips of churchmen down\nto the Civil War. Then the storm blew and they flickered out.\n\nMedieval England had lain on the outer edge of economic civilization, remote\nfrom the great highways of commerce and the bustling financial centers of Italy\nand Germany. With the commercial revolution which followed the Discoveries, a\nnew age began. After the first outburst of curiosity, interest in explorations\nwhich yielded no immediate return of treasure died down. It was not till more\nthan half a century later, when the silver of the New World was dazzling all\nEurope, that Englishmen reflected that it might conceivably have been lodged in\nthe Tower instead of at Seville, and that talk of competition for America and\nthe East began in earnest.\n\nIn the meantime, however, every other aspect of English economic life was in\nprocess of swift transformation. Foreign trade increased largely in the first\nhalf of the sixteenth century, and, as manufactures developed, cloth displaced\nwool as the principal export. With the growth of commerce went the growth of the\nfinancial organization on which commerce depends, and English capital poured\ninto the growing London money-market, which had previously been dominated by\nItalian bankers. At home, with the expansion of internal trade which followed\nthe Tudor peace, opportunities of speculation were increased, and a new class of\nmiddlemen arose to exploit them. In industry, the rising interest was that of\nthe commercial capitalist, bent on securing the freedom to grow to what stature\nhe could, and produce by what methods he pleased. Hampered by the defensive\nmachinery of the gilds, with their corporate discipline, their organized torpor\nrestricting individual enterprise, and their rough equalitarianism, either he\nquietly evaded gild regulations by withdrawing from the corporate towns, within\nwhich alone the pressure of economic conformity could be made effective, or he\naccepted the gild organization, captured its government, and by means of it\ndeveloped a system under which the craftsman, even if nominally a master, was in\neffect the servant of an employer. In agriculture, the customary organization of\nthe village was being sapped from below and battered down from above. For a\nprosperous peasantry, who had commuted the labor services that were still the\nrule in France and Germany, were rearranging their strips by exchange or\nagreement, and lords, no longer petty sovereigns, but astute business men, were\nleasing their demesnes to capitalist farmers, quick to grasp the profits to be\nwon by sheep-grazing, and eager to clear away the network of communal\nrestrictions which impeded its extension. Into commerce, industry and\nagriculture alike, the revolution in prices, gradual for the first third of the\ncentury, but after 1540 a mill race, injected a virus of hitherto unsuspected\npotency, at once a stimulant to feverish enterprise and an acid dissolving all\ncustomary relationships.\n\nIt was a society in rapid motion, swayed by new ambitions and haunted by new\nterrors, in which both success and failure had changed their meaning. Except in\nthe turbulent north, the aim of the great landowner was no longer to hold at his\ncall an army of retainers, but to exploit his estates as a judicious investment.\nThe prosperous merchant, once content to win a position of dignity and power in\nfraternity or town, now flung himself into the task of carving his way to\nsolitary pre\u00ebminence, unaided by the artificial protection of gild or city. To\nthe immemorial poverty of peasant and craftsman, pitting, under the ever-present\nthreat of famine, their pigmy forces against an implacable nature, was added the\nhaunting insecurity of a growing, though still small, proletariat, detached from\ntheir narrow niche in village or borough, the sport of social forces which they\ncould neither understand, nor arrest, nor control.\n\n\nI. THE LAND QUESTION\n\nThe England of the Reformation, to which posterity turns as a source of high\ndebates on church government and doctrine, was to contemporaries a cauldron\nseething with economic unrest and social passions. But the material on which\nagitation fed had been accumulating for three generations, and of the grievances\nwhich exploded in the middle of the century, with the exception of the\ndepreciation of the currency, there was not one--neither enclosures and pasture\nfarming, nor usury, nor the malpractices of gilds, nor the rise in prices, nor\nthe oppression of craftsmen by merchants, nor the extortions of the\nengrosser--which had not evoked popular protests, been denounced by publicists,\nand produced legislation and administrative action, long before the Reformation\nParliament met. The floods were already running high, when the religious\nrevolution swelled them with a torrent of bitter, if bracing, waters. Its effect\non the social situation was twofold. Since it produced a sweeping redistribution\nof wealth, carried out by an unscrupulous minority using the weapons of\nviolence, intimidation and fraud, and succeeded by an orgy of interested\nmisgovernment on the part of its principal beneficiaries, it aggravated every\nproblem, and gave a new turn to the screw which was squeezing peasant and\ncraftsman. Since it released a torrent of writing on questions not only of\nreligion, but of social organization, it caused the criticisms passed on the\nchanges of the past half-century to be brought to a head in a sweeping\nindictment of the new economic forces and an eloquent restatement of the\ntraditional theory of social obligations. The center of both was the land\nquestion. For it was agrarian plunder which principally stirred the cupidity of\nthe age, and agrarian grievances which were the most important ground of social\nagitation.\n\nThe land question had been a serious matter for the greater part of a century\nbefore the Reformation. The first detailed account of enclosure had been written\nby a chantry priest in Warwickshire, soon after 1460.[III-1] Then had come the\nlegislation of 1489, 1515 and 1516, Wolsey\u2019s Royal Commission in 1517, and more\nlegislation in 1534.[III-2] Throughout, a steady stream of criticism had flowed\nfrom men of the Renaissance, like More, Starkey and a host of less well-known\nwriters, dismayed at the advance of social anarchy, and sanguine of the miracles\nto be performed by a Prince who would take counsel of philosophers.\n\nIf, however, the problem was acute long before the confiscation of the monastic\nestates, its aggravation by the fury of spoliation let loose by Henry and\nCromwell is not open to serious question. It is a mistake, no doubt, to see the\nlast days of monasticism through rose-colored spectacles. The monks, after all,\nwere business men, and the lay agents whom they often employed to manage their\nproperty naturally conformed to the agricultural practice of the world around\nthem. In Germany revolts were nowhere more frequent or more bitter than on the\nestates of ecclesiastical landowners.[III-3] In England a glance at the\nproceedings of the Courts of Star Chamber and Requests is enough to show that\nholy men reclaimed villeins, turned copyholders into tenants at will, and, as\nMore complained, converted arable land to pasture.[III-4]\n\nIn reality, the supposition of unnatural virtue on the part of the monks, or of\nmore than ordinary harshness on the part of the new proprietors, is not needed\nin order to explain the part which the rapid transference of great masses of\nproperty played in augmenting rural distress. The worst side of all such sudden\nand sweeping redistributions is that the individual is more or less at the mercy\nof the market, and can hardly help taking his pound of flesh. Estates with a\ncapital value (in terms of modern money) of \u00a315,000,000 to \u00a320,000,000 changed\nhands.[III-5] To the abbey lands which came into the market after 1536 were\nadded those of the gilds and chantries in 1547. The financial necessities of the\nCrown were too pressing to allow of its retaining them in its own possession and\ndrawing the rents; nor, in any case, would that have been the course dictated by\nprudence to a Government which required a party to carry through a revolution.\nWhat it did, therefore, was to alienate most of the land almost immediately, and\nto spend the capital as income. For a decade there was a mania of land\nspeculation. Much of the property was bought by needy courtiers, at a\nridiculously low figure. Much of it passed to sharp business men, who brought to\nbear on its management the methods learned in the financial school of the City;\nthe largest single grantee was Sir Richard Gresham. Much was acquired by\nmiddlemen, who bought scattered parcels of land, held them for the rise, and\ndisposed of them piecemeal when they got a good offer; in London, groups of\ntradesmen--cloth-workers, leather-sellers, merchant tailors, brewers,\ntallow-chandlers--formed actual syndicates to exploit the market. Rack-renting,\nevictions, and the conversions of arable to pasture were the natural result, for\nsurveyors wrote up values at each transfer, and, unless the last purchaser\nsqueezed his tenants, the transaction would not pay.[III-6]\n\nWhy, after all, should a landlord be more squeamish than the Crown? \u201cDo ye not\nknow,\u201d said the grantee of one of the Sussex manors of the monastery of Sion, in\nanswer to some peasants who protested at the seizure of their commons, \u201cthat the\nKing\u2019s Grace hath put down all the houses of monks, friars and nuns? Therefore\nnow is the time come that we gentlemen will pull down the houses of such poor\nknaves as ye be.\u201d[III-7] Such arguments, if inconsequent, were too convenient\nnot to be common. The protests of contemporaries receive detailed confirmation\nfrom the bitter struggles which can be traced between the peasantry and some of\nthe new landlords--the Herberts, who enclosed a whole village to make the park\nat Washerne, in which, according to tradition, the gentle Sidney was to write\nhis _Arcadia_, the St. Johns at Abbot\u2019s Ripton, and Sir John Yorke, third in the\nline of speculators in the lands of Whitby Abbey, whose tenants found their\nrents raised from \u00a329 to \u00a364 a year, and for nearly twenty years were besieging\nthe Government with petitions for redress.[III-8] The legend, still repeated\nlate in the seventeenth century, that the grantees of monastic estates died out\nin three generations, though unveracious, is not surprising. The wish was father\nto the thought.\n\nIt was an age in which the popular hatred of the encloser and the engrosser\nfound a natural ally in religious sentiment, schooled, as it was, in a tradition\nwhich had taught that the greed of gain was a deadly sin, and that the plea of\neconomic self-interest did not mitigate the verdict, but aggravated the offence.\nIn England, as on the Continent, doctrinal radicalism marched hand in hand with\nsocial conservatism. The most scathing attack on social disorders came, not from\nthe partisans of the old religion, but from divines on the left wing of the\nProtestant party, who saw in economic individualism but another expression of\nthe laxity and license which had degraded the purity of religion, and who\nunderstood by reformation a return to the moral austerity of the primitive\nChurch, no less than to its government and doctrine. The touching words[III-9]\nin which the leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace painted the social effects of the\ndissolution of the Yorkshire monasteries were mild compared with the\ndenunciations launched ten years later by Latimer, Crowley, Lever, Becon and\nPonet.\n\nTheir passion was natural. What Aske saw in the green tree, they saw in the dry,\nand their horror at the plunge into social immorality was sharpened by the\nbitterness of disappointed hopes. It was all to have been so different! The\nmovement which produced the Reformation was a Janus, not with two, but with\nseveral, faces, and among them had been one which looked wistfully for a\npolitical and social regeneration as the fruit of the regeneration of\nreligion.[III-10] In England, as in Germany and Switzerland, men had dreamed of\na Reformation which would reform the State and society, as well as the Church.\nThe purification, not merely of doctrine, but of morals, the encouragement of\nlearning, the diffusion of education, the relief of poverty, by the stirring\ninto life of a mass of sleeping endowments, a spiritual and social revival\ninspired by the revival of the faith of the Gospel--such, not without judicious\nencouragement from a Government alert to play on public opinion, was the vision\nwhich had floated before the eyes of the humanitarian and the idealist.\n\nIt did not vanish without a struggle. At the very height of the economic crisis,\nBucer, the tutor of Edward VI, and Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, stated\nthe social program of a Christian renaissance in the manual of Christian\npolitics which he drafted in order to explain to his pupil how the Kingdom of\nChrist might be established by a Christian prince. Its outlines were sharpened,\nand its details elaborated, with all the remorseless precision of a disciple of\nCalvin. Willful idlers are to be excommunicated by the Church and punished by\nthe State. The Government, a pious mercantilist, is to revive the woollen\nindustry, to introduce the linen industry, to insist on pasture being put under\nthe plow. It is to take a high line with the commercial classes. For, though\ntrade in itself is honorable, most traders are rogues--indeed \u201cnext to the sham\npriests, no class of men is more pestilential to the Commonwealth\u201d; their works\nare usury, monopolies, and the bribery of Governments to overlook both.\nFortunately, the remedies are simple. The State must fix just prices--\u201ca very\nnecessary but an easy matter.\u201d Only \u201cpious persons, devoted to the Commonwealth\nmore than to their own interests,\u201d are to be allowed to engage in trade at all.\nIn every village and town a school is to be established under a master eminent\nfor piety and wisdom. \u201cChristian princes must above all things strive that men\nof virtue may abound, and live to the glory of God.... Neither the Church of\nChrist, nor a Christian Commonwealth, ought to tolerate such as prefer private\ngain to the public weal, or seek it to the hurt of their neighbors.\u201d[III-11]\n\nThe Christian prince strove, but not, poor child, as those that prevail. The\nclasses whose backing was needed to make the Reformation a political success had\nsold their support on terms which made it inevitable that it should be a social\ndisaster. The upstart aristocracy of the future had their teeth in the carcass,\nand, having tasted blood, they were not to be whipped off by a sermon. The\nGovernment of Edward VI, like all Tudor Governments, made its experiment in\nfixing just prices. What the astute Gresham, its financial adviser, thought of\nrestricting commerce to persons of piety, we do not know, but can guess. As for\nthe schools, what it did for them Mr. Leach has told us. It swept them away\nwholesale in order to distribute their endowments among courtiers. There were\nprobably more schools in proportion to the population at the end of the\nfifteenth century than there were in the middle of the nineteenth. \u201cThese\nendowments were confiscated by the State, and many still line the pockets of the\ndescendants of the statesmen of the day.\u201d[III-12] \u201cKing Edward VI\u2019s Grammar\nSchools\u201d are the schools which King Edward VI did not destroy.\n\nThe disillusionment was crushing. Was it surprising that the reformers should\nask what had become of the devout imaginations of social righteousness, which\nwere to have been realized as the result of a godly reformation? The end of\nPopery, the curtailment of ecclesiastical privileges, six new bishoprics,\nlectureships in Greek and Latin in place of the disloyal subject of the canon\nlaw, the reform of doctrine and ritual--side by side with these good things had\ncome some less edifying changes, the ruin of much education, the cessation of\nmuch charity, a raid on corporate property which provoked protests even in the\nHouse of Commons,[III-13] and for ten years a sinister hum, as of the floating\nof an immense land syndicate, with favorable terms for all sufficiently rich, or\ninfluential, or mean, to get in on the ground floor. The men who had invested in\nthe Reformation when it was still a gambling stock naturally nursed the\nsecurity, and denounced the revolting peasants as communists, with the mystical\nreverence for the rights of property which is characteristic in all ages of the\n_nouveaux riches_.[III-14] The men whose religion was not money said what they\nthought of the business in pamphlets and sermons, which left respectable\ncongregations spluttering with fury.\n\nCrowley pilloried lease-mongers and usurers, wrote that the sick begged in the\nstreet because rich men had seized the endowments of hospitals, and did not\nconceal his sympathy with the peasants who rose under Ket.[III-15] Becon told\nthe gentry, eloquent on the vices of abbey-lubbers, that the only difference\nbetween them and the monks was that they were more greedy and more useless, more\nharsh in wringing the last penny from the tenants, more selfish in spending the\nwhole income on themselves, more pitiless to the poor.[III-16] \u201cIn suppressing\nof abbies, cloisters, colleges and chantries,\u201d preached Lever in St. Paul\u2019s,\n\u201cthe intent of the King\u2019s Majesty that dead is, was, and of this our king now\nis, very godly, and the purpose, or else the pretence, of other wondrous goodly:\nthat thereby such abundance of goods as was superstitiously spent upon vain\nceremonies, or voluptuously upon idle bellies, might come to the king\u2019s hands to\nbear his great charges, necessarily bestowed in the common wealth, or partly\nunto other men\u2019s hands, for the better relief of the poor, the maintenance of\nlearning, and the setting forth of God\u2019s word. Howbeit, covetous officers have\nso used this matter, that even those goods which did serve to the relief of the\npoor, the maintenance of learning, and to comfortable necessary hospitality in\nthe common wealth, be now turned to maintain worldly, wicked, covetous\nambition.... You which have gotten these goods into your own hands, to turn them\nfrom evil to worse, and other goods more from good unto evil, be ye sure it is\neven you that have offended God, beguiled the king, robbed the rich, spoiled the\npoor, and brought a common wealth into a common misery.\u201d[III-17]\n\nThis was plain speaking indeed. Known to their enemies as the \u201cCommonwealth men\u201d\nfrom their advocacy of social reconstruction, the group of which Latimer was the\nprophet and Hales the man of action naturally incurred the charge of stirring up\nclass hatred, which is normally brought against all who call attention to its\ncauses. The result of their activity was the appointment of a Royal Commission\nto inquire into offences against the Acts forbidding the conversion of arable to\npasture, the introduction of legislation requiring the maintenance of tillage\nand rebuilding of cottages, and a proclamation pardoning persons who had taken\nthe law into their own hands by pulling down hedges. The gentry were furious.\nPaget, the secretary to the Council, who was quite ready for a reign of terror,\nprovided that the gentlemen began it, prophesied gloomily that the German\nPeasants\u2019 War was to be re\u00ebnacted in England; the Council, most of whose members\nheld abbey lands, was sullen; and Warwick, the personification of the predatory\nproperty of the day, attacked Hales fiercely for carrying out, as chairman of\nthe Midland committee of the Depopulation Commission, the duties laid upon him\nby the Government. \u201cSir,\u201d wrote a plaintiff gentleman to Cecil, \u201cbe plain with\nmy Lord\u2019s Grace, that under the pretense of simplicity and poverty there may\n[not] rest much mischief. So do I fear there doth in these men called Common\nWealths and their adherents. To declare unto you the state of the gentlemen (I\nmean as well the greatest as the lowest), I assure you they are in such doubt,\nthat almost they dare touch none of them [i.e., the peasants], not for that they\nare afraid of them, but for that some of them have been sent up and come away\nwithout punishment, and that Common Wealth called Latimer hath gotten the pardon\nof others.\u201d[III-18]\n\nThe \u201cCommon Wealth called Latimer\u201d was unrepentant. Combining gifts of humor and\ninvective which are not very common among bishops, his fury at oppression did\nnot prevent him from greeting the Devil with a burst of uproarious laughter, as\nof a satyrical gargoyle carved to make the sinner ridiculous in this world\nbefore he is damned in the next. So he was delighted when he provoked one of his\naudience into the exclamation, \u201cMary, a seditious fellow!\u201d used the episode as\ncomic relief in his next sermon,[III-19] and then, suddenly serious, redoubled\nhis denunciations of step-lords and rent-raisers. Had not the doom of the\ncovetous been pronounced by Christ Himself?\n\n  You thoughte that I woulde not requyre\n  The bloode of all suche at your hande,\n  But be you sure, eternall fyre\n  Is redy for eche hell fyrebrande.\n  Both for the housynge and the lande\n  That you have taken from the pore\n  Ye shall in hell dwell evermore.[III-20]\n\nOn the technicalities of the Tudor land question the authors of such outbursts\nspoke without authority, and, thanks to Mr. Leadam and Professor Gay, modern\nresearch has found no difficulty in correcting the perspective of their story.\nAt once incurious and ill-informed as to the large impersonal causes which were\nhurrying forward the reorganization of agriculture on a commercial basis, what\nshocked them was not only the material misery of their age, but its repudiation\nof the principles by which alone, as it seemed, human society is distinguished\nfrom a pack of wolves. Their enemy was not merely the Northumberlands or\nHerberts, but an idea, and they sprang to the attack, less of spoliation or\ntyranny, than of a creed which was the parent of both. That creed was that the\nindividual is absolute master of his own, and, within the limits set by positive\nlaw, may exploit it with a single eye to his pecuniary advantage, unrestrained\nby any obligation to postpone his own profit to the well-being of his neighbors,\nor to give account of his actions to a higher authority. It was, in short, the\ntheory of property which was later to be accepted by all civilized communities.\n\nThe question of the respective rights of lord and peasant had never, at least\nwithin recent centuries, arisen in so acute a form, for, as long as the\ncustomary tenants were part of the stock of the manor, it was obviously to the\ninterest of the lord to bind them to the soil. Now all that had been changed, at\nany rate in the south and midlands, by the expansion of the woollen industry and\nthe devaluation of money. Chevage and merchet had gone; forced labor, if it had\nnot gone, was fast going. The psychology of landowning had been revolutionized,\nand for two generations the sharp landlord, instead of using his seigneurial\nright to fine or arrest run-aways from the villein nest, had been hunting for\nflaws in titles, screwing up admission fines, twisting manorial customs, and,\nwhen he dared, turning copyholds into leases. The official opposition to\ndepopulation, which had begun in 1489 and was to last almost till 1640,\ninfuriated him, as an intolerable interference with the rights of property. In\ntheir attacks on the restraints imposed by village custom from below and by the\nCrown from above, in their illegal defiance of the statutes forbidding\ndepopulation, and in their fierce resistance to the attempts of Wolsey and\nSomerset to restore the old order, the interests which were making the agrarian\nrevolution were watering the seeds of that individualistic conception of\nownership which was to carry all before it after the Civil War. With such a\ndoctrine, since it denied both the existence and the necessity of a moral title,\nit was not easy for any religion less pliant than that of the eighteenth century\nto make a truce. Once accepted, it was to silence the preaching of all social\nduties save that of submission. If property be an unconditional right, emphasis\non its obligations is little more than the graceful parade of a flattering, but\ninnocuous, metaphor. For, whether the obligations are fulfilled or neglected,\nthe right continues unchallenged and indefeasible.\n\nA religious theory of society necessarily regards with suspicion all doctrines\nwhich claim a large space for the unfettered play of economic self-interest. To\nthe latter the end of activity is the satisfaction of desires, to the former the\nfelicity of man consists in the discharge of obligations imposed by God. Viewing\nthe social order as the imperfect reflection of a divine plan, it naturally\nattaches a high value to the arts by which nature is harnessed to the service of\nmankind. But, more concerned with ends than with means, it regards temporal\ngoods as at best instrumental to a spiritual purpose, and its standpoint is that\nof Bacon, when he spoke of the progress of knowledge as being sought for \u201cthe\nglory of the Creator and the relief of man\u2019s estate.\u201d To a temper nurtured on\nsuch ideas, the new agrarian _r\u00e9gime_, with its sacrifice of the village--a\nfellowship of mutual aid, a partnership of service and protection, \u201ca little\ncommonwealth\u201d--to the pecuniary interests of a great proprietor, who made a\ndesert where men had worked and prayed, seemed a defiance, not only of man, but\nof God. It was the work of \u201cmen that live as thoughe there were no God at all,\nmen that would have all in their owne handes, men that would leave nothyng for\nothers, men that would be alone on the earth, men that bee never\nsatisfied.\u201d[III-21] Its essence was an attempt to extend legal rights, while\nrepudiating legal and quasi-legal obligations. It was against this new idolatry\nof irresponsible ownership, a growing, but not yet triumphant, creed, that the\ndivines of the Reformation called down fire from heaven.\n\nTheir doctrine was derived from the conception of property, of which the most\nelaborate formulation had been made by the Schoolmen, and which, while\njustifying it on grounds of experience and expediency, insisted that its use was\nlimited at every turn by the rights of the community and the obligations of\ncharity. Its practical application was an idealized version of the feudal order,\nwhich was vanishing before the advance of more business-like and impersonal\nforms of landownership, and which, once an engine of exploitation, was now\nhailed as a bulwark to protect the weak against the downward thrust of\ncompetition. Society is a hierarchy of rights and duties. Law exists to enforce\nthe second, as much as to protect the first. Property is not a mere aggregate of\neconomic privileges, but a responsible office. Its _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ is not only\nincome, but service. It is to secure its owner such means, and no more than such\nmeans, as may enable him to perform those duties, whether labor on the land, or\nlabor in government, which are involved in the particular status which he holds\nin the system. He who seeks more robs his superiors, or his dependents, or both.\nHe who exploits his property with a single eye to its economic possibilities at\nonce perverts its very essence and destroys his own moral title, for he has\n\u201cevery man\u2019s living and does no man\u2019s duty.\u201d[III-22]\n\nThe owner is a trustee, whose rights are derived from the function which he\nperforms and should lapse if he repudiates it. They are limited by his duty to\nthe State; they are limited no less by the rights of his tenants against him.\nJust as the peasant may not cultivate his land in the way which he may think\nmost profitable to himself, but is bound by the law of the village to grow the\ncrops which the village needs and to throw his strips open after harvest to his\nneighbors\u2019s beasts, so the lord is required both by custom and by statute to\nforego the anti-social profits to be won by methods of agriculture which injure\nhis neighbors and weaken the State. He may not raise his rent or demand\nincreased fines, for the function of the peasant, though different, is not less\nessential than his own. He is, in short, not a _rentier_, but an officer, and it\nis for the Church to rebuke him when he sacrifices the duties of his charge to\nthe greed for personal gain. \u201cWe heartily pray thee to send thy holy spirit into\nthe hearts of them that possess the grounds, pastures, and dwelling-places of\nthe earth, that they, remembering themselves to be thy tenants, may not rack and\nstretch out the rents of their houses and lands, nor yet take unreasonable fines\nand incomes, after the manner of covetous worldlings ... but so behave\nthemselves in letting out their tenements, lands and pastures, that after this\nlife they may be received into everlasting dwelling places.\u201d[III-23] Thus, while\nthe covetous worldlings disposed the goods of this transitory life to their\nliking, did a pious monarch consider their eternal welfare in the Book of\nPrivate Prayer issued in 1553.\n\n\nII. RELIGIOUS THEORY AND SOCIAL POLICY\n\nIf a philosophy of society is to be effective, it must be as mobile and\nrealistic as the forces which it would control. The weakness of an attitude\nwhich met the onset of insurgent economic interests with a generalized appeal to\ntraditional morality and an idealization of the past was only too obvious.\nShocked, confused, thrown on to a helpless, if courageous and eloquent,\ndefensive by changes even in the slowly moving world of agriculture, medieval\nsocial theory, to which the most representative minds of the English Church\nstill clung, found itself swept off its feet after the middle of the century by\nthe swift rise of a commercial civilization, in which all traditional landmarks\nseemed one by one to be submerged. The issue over which the struggle between the\nnew economic movements of the age and the scheme of economic ethics expounded by\nchurchmen was most definitely joined, and continued longest, was not, as the\nmodern reader might be disposed to expect, that of wages, but that of credit,\nmoney-lending and prices. The center of the controversy--the mystery of iniquity\nin which a host of minor scandals were conveniently, if inaccurately,\nepitomized--was the problem which contemporaries described by the word usury.\n\n\u201cTreasure doth then advance greatness,\u201d wrote Bacon, in words characteristic of\nthe social ideal of the age, \u201cwhen the wealth of the subject be rather in many\nhands than few.\u201d[III-24] In spite of the growing concentration of property,\nTudor England was still, to use a convenient modern phase, a Distributive State.\nIt was a community in which the ownership of land, and of the simple tools used\nin most industries, was not the badge of a class, but the attribute of a\nsociety, and in which the typical worker was a peasant farmer, a tradesman, or a\nsmall master. In this world of small property-owners, of whose independence and\nprosperity English publicists boasted, in contrast with the \u201choused beggars\u201d of\nFrance and Germany, the wage-earners were a minority scattered in the\ninterstices of village and borough, and, being normally themselves the sons of\npeasants, with the prospect of stepping into a holding of their own, or, at\nworst, the chance of squatting on the waste, were often in a strong position\n_vis-\u00e0-vis_ their employers. The special economic _malaise_ of an age is\nnaturally the obverse of its special qualities. Except in certain branches of\nthe textile industry, the grievance which supplied fuel to social agitation,\nwhich evoked programs of social reform, and which prompted both legislation and\nadministrative activity, sprang, not from the exploitation of a wage-earning\nproletariat by its employers, but from the relation of the producer to the\nlandlord of whom he held, the dealer with whom he bought and sold, and the local\ncapitalist, often the dealer in another guise, to whom he ran into debt. The\nfarmer must borrow money when the season is bad, or merely to finance the\ninterval between sowing and harvest. The craftsman must buy raw materials on\ncredit and get advances before his wares are sold. The young tradesman must\nscrape together a little capital before he can set up shop. Even the cottager,\nwho buys grain at the local market, must constantly ask the seller to \u201cgive\nday.\u201d Almost every one, therefore, at one time or another, has need of the\nmoney-lender. And the lender is often a monopolist--\u201ca money master,\u201d a malster\nor corn monger, \u201ca rich priest,\u201d who is the solitary capitalist in a community\nof peasants and artisans. Naturally, he is apt to become their master.[III-25]\n\nIn such circumstances it is not surprising that there should have been a popular\noutcry against extortion. Inspired by practical grievances, it found an ally,\neloquent, if disarmed, in the teaching of the Church. The doctrine as to the\nethics of economic conduct, which had been formulated by medieval Popes and\ninterpreted by medieval Schoolmen, was rehearsed by the English divines of the\nsixteenth century, not merely as the conventional tribute paid by a formal piety\nto the wisdom of the past, but because the swift changes of the period in\ncommerce and agriculture had, not softened, but accentuated, the problems of\nconduct for which it had been designed. Nor was it only against the particular\ncase of the covetous money-lender that the preacher and the moralist directed\ntheir arrows. The essence of the medieval scheme of economic ethics had been its\ninsistence on equity in bargaining--a contract is fair, St. Thomas had said,\nwhen both parties gain from it equally. The prohibition of usury had been the\nkernel of its doctrines, not because the gains of the money-lender were the only\nspecies, but because, in the economic conditions of the age, they were the most\nconspicuous species, of extortion.\n\nIn reality, alike in the Middle Ages and in the sixteenth century, the word\nusury had not the specialized sense which it carries today. Like the modern\nprofiteer, the usurer was a character so unpopular that most unpopular\ncharacters could be called usurers, and by the average practical man almost any\nform of bargain which he thought oppressive would be classed as usurious. The\ninterpretation placed on the word by those who expounded ecclesiastical theories\nof usury was equally elastic. Not only the taking of interest for a loan, but\nthe raising of prices by a monopolist, the beating down of prices by a keen\nbargainer, the rack-renting of land by a landlord, the sub-letting of land by a\ntenant at a rent higher than he himself paid, the cutting of wages and the\npaying of wages in truck, the refusal of discount to a tardy debtor, the\ninsistence on unreasonably good security for a loan, the excessive profits of a\nmiddleman--all these had been denounced as usury in the very practical\nthirteenth-century manual of St. Raymond;[III-26] all these were among the\n\u201cunlawful chaffer,\u201d the \u201csublety and sleight,\u201d which was what the plain man who\nsat on juries and listened to sermons in parish churches meant by usury three\ncenturies later. If he had been asked why usury was wrong, he would probably\nhave answered with a quotation from Scripture. If he had been asked for a\ndefinition of usury, he would have been puzzled, and would have replied in the\nwords of a member of Parliament who spoke on the bill introduced in 1571: \u201cIt\nstandeth doubtful what usury is; we have no true definition of it.\u201d[III-27] The\ntruth is, indeed, that any bargain, in which one party obviously gained more\nadvantage than the other, and used his power to the full, was regarded as\nusurious. The description which best sums up alike popular sentiment and\necclesiastical teaching is contained in the comprehensive indictment applied by\nhis parishioners to an unpopular divine who lent at a penny in the shilling--the\ncry of all poor men since the world began--Dr. Bennet \u201cis a great taker of\nadvantages.\u201d[III-28]\n\nIt was the fact that the theory of usury which the divines of the sixteenth\ncentury inherited was not an isolated freak of casuistical ingenuity, but one\nsubordinate element in a comprehensive system of social philosophy, which gave\nits poignancy to the controversy of which it became the center. The passion\nwhich fed on its dusty dialectics was fanned by the conviction that the issue at\nstake was not merely a legal technicality. It was the fate of the whole scheme\nof medieval thought, which had attempted to treat economic affairs as part of a\nhierarchy of values, embracing all interests and activities, of which the apex\nwas religion.\n\nIf the Reformation was a revolution, it was a revolution which left almost\nintact both the lower ranges of ecclesiastical organization and the traditional\nscheme of social thought. The villager who, resisting the temptations of the\nalehouse, morris dancing or cards, attended his parish church from 1530 to 1560,\nmust have been bewildered by a succession of changes in the appearance of the\nbuilding and the form of the services. But there was little to make him\nconscious of any alteration in the social system of which the church was the\ncenter, or in the duties which that system imposed upon himself. After, as\nbefore, the Reformation, the parish continued to be a community in which\nreligious and social obligations were inextricably intertwined, and it was as a\nparishioner, rather than as a subject of the secular authority, that he bore his\nshare of public burdens and performed such public functions as fell to his lot.\nThe officers of whom he saw most in the routine of his daily life were the\nchurchwardens. The place where most public business was transacted, and where\nnews of the doings of the great world came to him, was the parish church. The\ncontributions levied from him were demanded in the name of the parish. Such\neducation as was available for his children was often given by the curate or\nparish schoolmaster. Such training in co\u00f6peration with his fellows as he\nreceived sprang from common undertakings maintained by the parish, which owned\nproperty, received bequests, let out sheep and cattle, advanced money, made\nlarge profits by church ales, and occasionally engaged in trade.[III-29]\nMembership of the Church and of the State being co-extensive and equally\ncompulsory, the Government used the ecclesiastical organization of the parish\nfor purposes which, in a later age, when the religious, political and economic\naspects of life were disentangled, were to be regarded as secular. The pulpit\nwas the channel through which official information was conveyed to the public\nand the duty of obedience inculcated. It was to the clergy and the parochial\norganization that the State turned in coping with pauperism, and down to 1597\ncollectors for the poor were chosen by the churchwardens in conjunction with the\nparson.\n\nWhere questions of social ethics were concerned, the religious thought of the\nage was not less conservative than its ecclesiastical organization. Both in\ntheir view of religion as embracing all sides of life, and in their theory of\nthe particular social obligations which religion involved, the most\nrepresentative thinkers of the Church of England had no intention of breaking\nwith traditional doctrines. In the rooted suspicion of economic motives which\ncaused them to damn each fresh manifestation of the spirit of economic\nenterprise as a new form of the sin of covetousness, as in their insistence that\nthe criteria of economic relations and of the social order were to be sought,\nnot in practical expediency, but in truths of which the Church was the guardian\nand the exponent, the utterances of men of religion in the reign of Elizabeth,\nin spite of the revolution which had intervened, had more affinity with the\ndoctrines of the Schoolmen than with those which were to be fashionable after\nthe Restoration.\n\nThe oppressions of the tyrannous landlord, who used his economic power to drive\nan unmerciful bargain, were the subject of constant denunciation down to the\nCivil War. The exactions of middlemen--\u201cmerchants of mischief ... [who] do make\nall things dear to the buyers, and yet wonderful vile and of small price to many\nthat must needs set or sell that which is their own honestly come by\u201d--were\npilloried by Lever.[III-30] Nicholas Heming, whose treatise on _The Lawful Use\nof Riches_ became something like a standard work, expounded the doctrine of the\njust price, and swept impatiently aside the argument which pleaded freedom of\ncontract as an excuse for covetousness: \u201cCloake the same by what title you\nliste, your synne is excedyng greate.... He which hurteth but one man is in a\ndamnable case; what shall bee thought of thee, whiche bryngest whole householdes\nto their graves, or at the leaste art a meanes of their extreame miserie? Thou\nmaiest finde shiftes to avoide the danger of men, but assuredly thou shalte not\nescape the judgemente of God.\u201d[III-31] Men eminent among Anglican divines, such\nas Sandys and Jewel, took part in the controversy on the subject of usury. A\nbishop of Salisbury gave his blessing to the book of Wilson; an archbishop of\nCanterbury allowed Mosse\u2019s sharp _Arraignment_ to be dedicated to himself; and a\nclerical pamphleteer in the seventeenth century produced a catalogue of six\nbishops and ten doctors of divinity--not to mention numberless humbler\nclergy--who had written in the course of the last hundred years on different\naspects of the sin of extortion in all its manifold varieties.[III-32] The\nsubject was still a favorite of the ecclesiastical orator. The sixteenth-century\npreacher was untrammeled by the convention which in a more fastidious age was to\npreclude as an impropriety the discussion in the pulpit of the problems of the\nmarket-place. \u201cAs it belongeth to the magistrate to punishe,\u201d wrote Heming, \u201cso\nit is the parte of the preachers to reprove usurie.... First, they should\nearnestly inveigh against all unlawfull and wicked contractes.... Let them ...\namend all manifest errours in bargaining by ecclesiasticall discipline.... Then,\nif they cannot reforme all abuses which they shall finde in bargaines, let them\ntake heede that they trouble not the Churche overmuche, but commende the cause\nunto God ... Last of all, let them with diligence admonishe the ritche men, that\nthey suffer not themselves to be entangled with the shewe of ritches.\u201d[III-33]\n\n\u201cThis,\u201d wrote an Anglican divine in reference to the ecclesiastical condemnation\nof usury, \u201chath been the generall judgment of the Church for above this fifteene\nhundred yeeres, without opposition, in this point. Poor sillie Church of Christ,\nthat could never finde a lawfull usurie before this golden age wherein we\nlive.\u201d[III-34] The first fact which strikes the modern student of this body of\nteaching is its continuity with the past. In its insistence that buying and\nselling, letting and hiring, lending and borrowing, are to be controlled by a\nmoral law, of which the Church is the guardian, religious opinion after the\nReformation did not differ from religious opinion before it. The reformers\nthemselves were conscious, neither of the emancipation from the economic follies\nof the age of medieval darkness ascribed to them in the eighteenth century, nor\nof the repudiation of the traditional economic morality of Christendom, which\nsome writers have held to have been the result of the revolt from Rome. The\nrelation in which they conceived themselves to stand to the social theory of the\nmedieval Church is shown by the authorities to whom they appealed. \u201cTherefore I\nwould not,\u201d wrote Dr. Thomas Wilson, Master of Requests and for a short time\nSecretary of State, \u201chave men altogether to be enemies to the canon lawe, and to\ncondempne every thinge there written, because the Popes were aucthours of them,\nas though no good lawe coulde bee made by them.... Nay, I will saye playnely,\nthat there are some suche lawes made by the Popes as be righte godly, saye\nothers what they list.\u201d[III-35] From the lips of a Tudor official, such\nsentiments fell, perhaps, with a certain piquancy. But, in their appeal to the\ntraditional teaching of the Church, Wilson\u2019s words represented the\nstarting-point from which the discussions of social questions still commonly set\nout.\n\nThe Bible, the Fathers and the Schoolmen, the decretals, church councils, and\ncommentators on the canon law--all these, and not only the first, continued to\nbe quoted as decisive on questions of economic ethics by men to whom the\ntheology and government of the medieval Church were an abomination. What use\nWilson made of them, a glance at his book will show. The writer who, after him,\nproduced the most elaborate discussion of usury in the latter part of the\ncentury prefaced his work with a list of pre-Reformation authorities running\ninto several pages.[III-36] The author of a practical memorandum on the\namendment of the law with regard to money-lending--a memorandum which appears to\nhave had some effect upon policy--thought it necessary to drag into a paper\nconcerned with the chicanery of financiers and the depreciation of sterling by\nspeculative exchange business, not only Melanchthon, but Aquinas and\nHostiensis.[III-37] Even a moralist who denied all virtue whatever to \u201cthe\ndecrees of the Pope\u201d did so only the more strongly to emphasize the prohibition\nof uncharitable dealing contained in the \u201cstatutes of holie Synodes and sayings\nof godlie Fathers, whiche vehemently forbid usurie.\u201d[III-38] Objective economic\nscience was developing in the hands of the experts who wrote on agriculture,\ntrade, and, above all, on currency and the foreign exchanges. But the divines,\nif they read such works at all, waved them on one side as the intrusion of\nMammon into the fold of Christian morality, and by their obstinate obscurantism\nhelped to prepare an intellectual nemesis, which was to discredit their fervent\nrhetoric as the voice of a musty superstition. For one who examined present\neconomic realities, ten rearranged thrice-quoted quotations from tomes of past\neconomic casuistry. Sermon was piled upon sermon, and treatise upon treatise.\nThe assumption of all is that the traditional teaching of the Church as to\nsocial ethics is as binding on men\u2019s consciences after the Reformation as it had\nbeen before it.\n\nPamphlets and sermons do not deal either with sins which no one commits or with\nsins that every one commits, and the literary evidence is not to be dismissed\nmerely as pious rhetoric. The literary evidence does not, however, stand alone.\nUpon the immense changes made by the Reformation in the political and social\nposition of the Church it is not necessary to enlarge. It became, in effect, one\narm of the State; excommunication, long discredited by abuse, was fast losing\nwhat little terrors it still retained; a clergy three-quarters of whom, as a\nresult of the enormous transference of ecclesiastical property, were\nhenceforward presented by lay patrons, were not likely to display any excessive\nindependence. But the canon law was nationalized, not abolished; the assumption\nof most churchmen throughout the sixteenth century was that it was to be\nadministered; and the canon law included the whole body of legislation as to\nequity in contracts which had been inherited from the Middle Ages. True, it was\nadministered no longer by the clergy acting as the agents of Rome, but by\ncivilians acting under the authority of the Crown. True, after the prohibition\nof the study of canon law--after the estimable Dr. Layton had \u201cset Dunce in\nBocardo\u201d at Oxford--it languished at the universities. True, for the seven years\nfrom 1545 to 1552, and again, and on this occasion for good, after 1571,\nparliamentary legislation expressly sanctioned loans at interest, provided that\nit did not exceed a statutory maximum. But the convulsion which changed the\nsource of canon law did not, as far as these matters are concerned, alter its\nscope. Its validity was not the less because it was now enforced in the name,\nnot of the Pope, but of the King.\n\nAs Maitland has pointed out,[III-39] there was a moment towards the middle of\nthe century when the civil law was pressing the common law hard. The civil law,\nas Sir Thomas Smith assured the yet briefless barrister, offered a promising\ncareer, since it was practiced in the ecclesiastical courts.[III-40] Though it\ndid not itself forbid usury, it had much to say about it; it was a doctor of the\ncivil law under Elizabeth by whom the most elaborate treatise on the subject was\ncompiled.[III-41] By an argument made familiar by a modern controversy on which\nlay and ecclesiastical opinion have diverged, it is argued that the laxity of\nthe State does not excuse the consciences of men who are the subjects, not only\nof the State, but of the Church. \u201cThe permission of the Prince,\u201d it was urged,\n\u201cis no absolution from the authority of the Church. Supposing usury to be\nunlawfull ... yet the civil laws permit it, and the Church forbids it. In this\ncase the Canons are to be preferred.... By the laws no man is compelled to be an\nusurer; and therefore he must pay that reverence and obedience which is\notherwise due to them that have the rule over them in the conduct of their\nsouls.\u201d[III-42]\n\nIt was this theory which was held by almost all the ecclesiastical writers who\ndealt with economic ethics in the sixteenth century. Their view was that, in the\nwords of a pamphleteer, \u201cby the laws of the Church of England ... usury is\nsimply and generally prohibited.\u201d[III-43] When the lower House of Convocation\npetitioned the bishops in 1554 for a restoration of their privileges, they\nurged, among other matters, that \u201cusurers may be punished by the canon lawes as\nin tymes past has been used.\u201d[III-44] In the abortive scheme for the\nreorganization of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction drawn up by Cranmer and Foxe,\nusury was included in the list of offenses with which the ecclesiastical courts\nwere to deal, and, for the guidance of judges in what must often have been\nsomewhat knotty cases, a note was added, explaining that it was not to be taken\nas including the profits derived from objects which yielded increase by the\nnatural process of growth.[III-45] Archbishop Grindal\u2019s injunctions to the laity\nof the Province of York (1571) expressly emphasized the duty of presenting to\nthe Ordinary those who lend and demand back more than the principal, whatever\nthe guise under which the transaction may be concealed.[III-46] Bishops\u2019\narticles of visitation down to the Civil War required the presentation of\nuncharitable persons and usurers, together with drunkards, ribalds, swearers and\nsorcerers.[III-47] The rules to be observed in excommunicating the impenitent\npromulgated in 1585, the Canons of the Province of Canterbury in 1604, and of\nthe Irish Church in 1634, all included a provision that the usurer should be\nsubjected to ecclesiastical discipline.[III-48]\n\nThe activity of the ecclesiastical courts had not ceased with the Reformation,\nand they continued throughout the last half of the century to play an important,\nif increasingly unpopular, part in the machinery of local government. In\naddition to enforcing the elementary social obligation of charity, by punishing\nthe man who refused to \u201cpay to the poor men\u2019s box,\u201d or who was \u201cdetected for\nbeing an uncharitable person and for not giving to the poor and\nimpotent,\u201d[III-49] they dealt also, at least in theory, with those who offended\nagainst Christian morality by acts of extortion. The jurisdiction of the Church\nin these matters was expressly reserved by legislation, and ecclesiastical\nlawyers, while lamenting the encroachments of the common law courts, continued\nto claim certain economic misdemeanors as their province. That, in spite of the\nrising tide of opposition, the references to questions of this kind in articles\nof visitation were not wholly an affair of common form, is suggested by the\nprotests against the interference of the clergy in matters of business, and by\nthe occasional cases which show that commercial transactions continued to be\nbrought before the ecclesiastical courts. The typical usurer was apt, indeed, to\noutrage not one, but all, of the decencies of social intercourse. \u201cThomas\nWilkoxe,\u201d complained his fellow burgesses, \u201cis excommunicated, and disquieteth\nthe parish in the time of divine service. He is a horrible usurer, taking 1_d._\nand sometimes 2_d._ for a shilling by the week. He has been cursed by his own\nfather and mother. For the space of two years he hath not received the Holy\nCommunion, but every Sunday, when the priest is ready to go to the Communion,\nthen he departeth the church for the receiving of his weekly usury, and doth not\ntarry the end of divine service thrice in the year.\u201d[III-50] Whether the\narchdeacon corrected a scandal so obviously suitable for ecclesiastical\ndiscipline, we do not know. But in 1578 a case of clerical usury is heard in the\ncourt of the archdeacon of Essex.[III-51] Twenty-two years later, a usurer is\npresented with other offenders on the occasion of the visitation of some\nYorkshire parishes.[III-52] Even in 1619 two instances occur in which\nmoney-lenders are cited before the Court of the Commissary of the Bishop of\nLondon, on the charge of \u201clending upon pawnes for an excessive gain commonly\nreported and cried out of.\u201d One is excommunicated and afterwards absolved; both\nare admonished to amend their ways.[III-53]\n\nThere is no reason, however, to suppose that such cases were other than highly\nexceptional; nor is it from the occasional activities of the ever more\ndiscredited ecclesiastical jurisdiction that light on the practical application\nof the ideas of the age as to social ethics is to be sought. Ecclesiastical\ndiscipline is at all times but a misleading clue to the influence of religious\nopinion, and on the practice of a time when, except for the Court of High\nCommission, the whole system was in decay, the scanty proceedings of the courts\nchristian throw little light. To judge the degree to which the doctrines\nexpounded by divines were accepted or repudiated by the common sense of the\nlaity, one must turn to the records which show how questions of business ethics\nwere handled by individuals, by municipal bodies and by the Government.\n\nThe opinion of the practical man on questions of economic conduct was in the\nsixteenth century in a condition of even more than its customary confusion. A\ncentury before, he had practised extortion and been told that it was wrong; for\nit was contrary to the law of God. A century later, he was to practise it and be\ntold that he was right; for it was in accordance with the law of nature. In this\nmatter, as in others of even greater moment, the two generations which followed\nthe Reformation were unblessed by these ample certitudes. They walked in an\nobscurity where the glittering armor of theologians\n\n                                    made\n  A little glooming light, most like a shade.\n\nIn practice, since new class interests and novel ideas had arisen, but had not\nyet wholly submerged those which preceded them, every shade of opinion, from\nthat of the pious burgess, who protested indignantly against being saddled with\na vicar who took a penny in the shilling, to the latitudinarianism of the\ncosmopolitan financier, to whom the confusion of business with morals was a\nvulgar delusion, was represented in the economic ethics of Elizabethan England.\n\nAs far as the smaller property-owners were concerned, the sentiment of laymen\ndiffered, on the whole, less widely from the doctrines expounded by divines,\nthan it did from the individualism which was beginning to carry all before it\namong the leaders of the world of business. Against the rising financial\ninterests of the day were arrayed the stolid conservatism of the peasantry and\nthe humbler _bourgeoisie_, whose conception of social expediency was the defence\nof customary relations against innovation, and who regarded the growth of this\nnew power with something of the same jealous hostility as they opposed to the\neconomic radicalism of the enclosing landlord. At bottom, it was an instinctive\nmovement of self-protection. Free play for the capitalist seemed to menace the\nindependence of the small producer, who tilled the nation\u2019s fields and wove its\ncloth. The path down which the financier beguiles his victims may seem at first\nto be strewn with roses; but at the end of it lies--incredible nightmare--a\n_r\u00e9gime_ of universal capitalism, in which peasant and small master will have\nbeen merged in a propertyless proletariat, and \u201cthe riches of the city of\nLondon, and in effect of all this realm, shall be at that time in the hands of a\nfew men having unmerciful hearts.\u201d[III-54]\n\nAgainst the landlord who enclosed commons, converted arable to pasture, and\nrack-rented his tenants, local resentment, unless supported by the Government,\nwas powerless. Against the engrosser, however, it mobilized the traditional\nmachinery of maximum prices and market regulations, and dealt with the usurer as\nbest it could, by presenting him before the justices in Quarter Sessions, by\nadvancing money from the municipal exchequer to assist his victims, and even, on\noccasion, by establishing a public pawnshop, with a monopoly of the right to\nmake loans, as a protection to the inhabitants against extreme \u201cusurers and\nextortioners.\u201d The commonest charity of the age, which was the establishment of\na fund to make advances without interest to tradesmen, was inspired by similar\nmotives. Its aim was to enable the young artisan or shopkeeper, the favorite\nvictim of the money-lender, to acquire the indispensable \u201cstock,\u201d without which\nhe could not set up in business.[III-55]\n\nThe issues which confronted the Government were naturally more complicated, and\nits attitude was more ambiguous. The pressure of commercial interests growing in\nwealth and influence, its own clamorous financial necessities, the mere logic of\neconomic development, made it out of the question for it to contemplate, even if\nit had been disposed to do so, the rigorous economic discipline desired by the\ndivines. Tradition, a natural conservatism, the apprehension of public disorder\ncaused by enclosures or by distress among the industrial population, a belief in\nits own mission as the guardian of \u201cgood order\u201d in trade, not unmingled with a\nhope that the control of economic affairs might be made to yield agreeable\nfinancial pickings, gave it a natural bias to a policy which aimed at drawing\nall the threads of economic life into the hands of a paternal monarchy.\n\nIn the form which the system assumed under Elizabeth, considerations of public\npolicy, which appealed to the State, were hardly distinguishable from\nconsiderations of social morality, which appealed to the Church. As a result of\nthe Reformation the relations previously existing between the Church and the\nState had been almost exactly reversed. In the Middle Ages the former had been,\nat least in theory, the ultimate authority on questions of public and private\nmorality, while the latter was the police-officer which enforced its decrees. In\nthe sixteenth century, the Church became the ecclesiastical department of the\nState, and religion was used to lend a moral sanction to secular social policy.\nBut the religious revolution had not destroyed the conception of a single\nsociety, of which Church and State were different aspects; and, when the canon\nlaw became \u201cthe King\u2019s ecclesiastical law of England,\u201d the jurisdiction of both\ninevitably tended to merge. Absorbing the ecclesiastical authority into itself,\nthe Crown had its own reasons of political expediency for endeavoring to\nmaintain traditional standards of social conduct, as an antidote for what Cecil\ncalled \u201cthe license grown by liberty of the Gospel.\u201d Ecclesiastics, in their\nturn, were public officers--under Elizabeth the bishop was normally also a\njustice of the peace--and relied on secular machinery to enforce, not only\nreligious conformity, but Christian morality, because both were elements in a\nsociety in which secular and spiritual interests had not yet been completely\ndisentangled from each other. \u201cWe mean by the Commonwealth,\u201d wrote Hooker, \u201cthat\nsociety with relation unto all public affairs thereof, only the matter of true\nreligion accepted; by the Church, the same society, with only reference unto the\nmatter of true religion, without any other affairs besides.\u201d[III-56]\n\nIn economic and social, as in ecclesiastical, matters, the opening years of\nElizabeth were a period of conservative reconstruction. The psychology of a\nnation which lives predominantly by the land is in sharp contrast with that of a\ncommercial society. In the latter, when all goes well, continuous expansion is\ntaken for granted as the rule of life, new horizons are constantly opening, and\nthe catchword of politics is the encouragement of enterprise. In the former, the\nnumber of niches into which each successive generation must be fitted is\nstrictly limited; movement means disturbance, for, as one man rises, another is\nthrust down; and the object of statesmen is, not to foster individual\ninitiative, but to prevent social dislocation. It was in this mood that Tudor\nPrivy Councils approached questions of social policy and industrial\norganization. Except when they were diverted by financial interests, or lured\ninto ambitious, and usually unsuccessful, projects for promoting economic\ndevelopment, their ideal was, not progress, but stability. Their enemies were\ndisorder, and the restless appetites which, since they led to the encroachment\nof class on class, were thought to provoke it. Distrusting economic\nindividualism for reasons of state as heartily as did churchmen for reasons of\nreligion, their aim was to crystallize existing class relationships by\nsubmitting them to the pressure, at once restrictive and protective, of a\npaternal Government, vigilant to detect all movements which menaced the\nestablished order, and alert to suppress them.\n\n  Take but degree away, untune that string,\n  And, hark, what discord follows!...\n  Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong\n  (Between whose endless jar justice resides)\n  Should lose their names, and so should justice too.\n  Then every thing includes itself in power,\n  Power into will, will into appetite;\n  And appetite, an universal wolf,\n  So doubly seconded with will and power,\n  And, last, eat up himself.\n\nIn spite of the swift expansion of commerce in the latter part of the century,\nthe words of Ulysses continued for long to express the official attitude.\n\nThe practical application of such conceptions was an elaborate system of what\nmight be called, to use a modern analogy, \u201ccontrols.\u201d Wages, the movement of\nlabor, the entry into a trade, dealings in grain and in wool, methods of\ncultivation, methods of manufacture, foreign exchange business, rates of\ninterest--all are controlled, partly by Statute, but still more by the\nadministrative activity of the Council. In theory, nothing is too small or too\ngreat to escape the eyes of an omniscient State. Does a landowner take advantage\nof the ignorance of peasants and the uncertainty of the law to enclose commons\nor evict copyholders? The Council, while protesting that it does not intend to\nhinder him from asserting his rights at common law, will intervene to stop gross\ncases of oppression, to prevent poor men from being made the victims of legal\nchicanery and intimidation, to settle disputes by common sense and moral\npressure, to remind the aggressor that he is bound \u201crather to consider what is\nagreeable ... to the use of this State and for the good of the comon wealthe,\nthan to seeke the uttermost advantage that a landlord for his particular profit\nmaie take amonge his tenaunts.\u201d[III-57] Have prices been raised by a bad\nharvest? The Council will issue a solemn denunciation of the covetousness of\nspeculators, \u201cin conditions more like to wolves or cormorants than to natural\nmen,\u201d[III-58] who take advantage of the dearth to exploit public necessities;\nwill instruct the Commissioners of Grain and Victuals to suspend exports; and\nwill order justices to inspect barns, ration supplies, and compel farmers to\nsell surplus stocks at a fixed price. Does the collapse of the continental\nmarket threaten distress in the textile districts? The Council will put pressure\non clothiers to find work for the operatives, \u201cthis being the rule by which the\nwool-grower, the clothier and merchant must be governed, that whosoever had a\npart of the gaine in profitable times ... must now, in the decay of trade ...\nbeare a part of the publicke losses, as may best conduce to the good of the\npublicke and the maintenance of the generall trade.\u201d[III-59] Has the value of\nsterling fallen on the Antwerp market? The Council will consider pegging the\nexchanges, and will even attempt to nationalize foreign exchange business by\nprohibiting private transactions altogether.[III-60] Are local authorities\nnegligent in the administration of the Poor Law? The Council, which insists on\nregular reports as to the punishment of vagrants, the relief of the impotent,\nand the steps taken to provide materials on which to employ the able-bodied,\ninundates them with exhortations to mend their ways and with threats of severer\nproceedings if they fail. Are tradesmen in difficulties? The Council, which\nkeeps sufficiently in touch with business conditions to know when the\ndifficulties of borrowers threaten a crisis, endeavors to exercise a moderating\ninfluence by making an example of persons guilty of flagrant extortion, or by\ninducing the parties to accept a compromise. A mortgagee accused of \u201chard and\nunchristianly dealing\u201d is ordered to restore the land which he has seized, or to\nappear before the Council. A creditor who has been similarly \u201chard and\nunconscionable\u201d is committed to the Fleet. The justices of Norfolk are\ninstructed to put pressure on a money-lender who has taken \u201cvery unjust and\nimmoderate advantage by way of usury.\u201d The bishop of Exeter is urged to induce a\nusurer in his diocese to show \u201ca more Christian and charitable consideration of\nthese his neighbors.\u201d A nobleman has released two offenders imprisoned by the\nHigh Commission for the Province of York for having \u201ctaken usury contrary to the\nlaws of God and of the realm,\u201d and is ordered at once to recommit them. No\nGovernment can face with equanimity a state of things in which large numbers of\nrespectable tradesmen may be plunged into bankruptcy. In times of unusual\ndepression, the Council\u2019s intervention to prevent creditors from pressing their\nclaims to the hilt was so frequent as to create the impression of something like\nan informal moratorium.[III-61]\n\nThe Governments of the Tudors and, still more, of the first two Stuarts, were\nmasters of the art of disguising commonplace, and sometimes sordid, motives\nbeneath a glittering fa\u00e7ade of imposing principles. In spite of its lofty\ndeclarations of a disinterested solicitude for the public welfare, the social\npolicy of the monarchy not only was as slipshod in execution as it was grandiose\nin design, but was not seldom perverted into measures disastrous to its\nostensible ends, both by the sinister pressure of sectional interests, and by\nthe insistent necessities of an empty exchequer. Its fundamental conception,\nhowever--the philosophy of the thinkers and of the few statesmen who rose above\nimmediate exigencies to consider the significance of the system in its\ntotality--had a natural affinity with the doctrines which commended themselves\nto men of religion. It was of an ordered and graded society, in which each class\nperformed its allotted function, and was secured such a livelihood, and no more\nthan such a livelihood, as was proportioned to its status. \u201cGod and the Kinge,\u201d\nwrote one who had labored much, amid grave personal dangers, for the welfare of\nhis fellows, \u201chathe not sent us the poore lyvinge we have, but to doe services\ntherfore amonge our neighbours abroade.\u201d[III-62] The divines who fulminated\nagainst the uncharitable covetousness of the extortionate middleman, the\ngrasping money-lender, or the tyrannous landlord, saw in the measures by which\nthe Government endeavored to suppress the greed of individuals or the collision\nof classes a much needed cement of social solidarity, and appealed to C\u00e6sar to\nredouble his penalties upon an economic license which was hateful to God. The\nstatesmen concerned to prevent agitation saw in religion the preservative of\norder, and the antidote for the cupidity or ambition which threatened to destroy\nit, and re\u00ebnforced the threat of temporal penalties with arguments that would\nnot have been out of place in the pulpit. To both alike religion is concerned\nwith something more than personal salvation. It is the sanction of social duties\nand the spiritual manifestation of the corporate life of a complex, yet united,\nsociety. To both the State is something more than an institution created by\nmaterial necessities or political convenience. It is the temporal expression of\nspiritual obligations. It is a link between the individual soul and that\nsupernatural society of which all Christian men are held to be members. It rests\nnot merely on practical convenience, but on the will of God.\n\nOf that philosophy, the classical expression, at once the most catholic, the\nmost reasonable and the most sublime, is the work of Hooker. What it meant to\none cast in a narrower mould, pedantic, irritable and intolerant, yet not\nwithout the streak of harsh nobility which belongs to all who love an idea,\nhowever unwisely, more than their own ease, is revealed in the sermons and the\nactivity of Laud. Laud\u2019s intellectual limitations and practical blunders need no\nemphasis. If his vices made him intolerable to the most powerful forces of his\nown age, his virtues were not of a kind to commend him to those of its\nsuccessor, and history has been hardly more merciful to him than were his\npolitical opponents. But an intense conviction of the fundamental solidarity of\nall the manifold elements in a great community, a grand sense of the dignity of\npublic duties, a passionate hatred for the self-seeking pettiness of personal\ncupidities and sectional interests--these qualities are not among the weaknesses\nagainst which the human nature of ordinary men requires to be most upon its\nguard, and these qualities Laud possessed, not only in abundance, but to excess.\nHis worship of unity was an idolatry, his detestation of faction a superstition.\nChurch and State are one Jerusalem: \u201cBoth Commonwealth and Church are collective\nbodies, made up of many into one; and both so near allied that the one, the\nChurch, can never subsist but in the other, the Commonwealth; nay, so near, that\nthe same men, which in a temporal respect make the Commonwealth, do in a\nspiritual make the Church.\u201d[III-63] Private and public interests are\ninextricably interwoven. The sanction of unity is religion. The foundation of\nunity is justice: \u201cGod will not bless the State, if kings and magistrates do not\nexecute judgment, if the widow and the fatherless have cause to cry out against\nthe \u2018thrones of justice.\u2019\u201d[III-64]\n\nTo a temper so permeated with the conception that society is an organism compact\nof diverse parts, and that the grand end of government is to maintain their\nco\u00f6peration, every social movement or personal motive which sets group against\ngroup, or individual against individual, appears, not the irrepressible energy\nof life, but the mutterings of chaos. The first demon to be exorcised is party,\nfor Governments must \u201centertain no private business,\u201d and \u201cparties are ever\nprivate ends.\u201d[III-65] The second is the self-interest which leads the\nindividual to struggle for riches and advancement. \u201cThere is no private end, but\nin something or other it will be led to run cross the public; and, if gain come\nin, though it be by \u2018making shrines for Diana,\u2019 it is no matter with them though\nEphesus be in an uproar for it.\u201d[III-66] For Laud, the political virtues, by\nwhich he understands subordination, obedience, a willingness to sacrifice\npersonal interests for the good of the community, are as much part of the\nChristian\u2019s religion as are the duties of private life; and, unlike some of\nthose who sigh for social unity today, he is as ready to chastise the rich and\npowerful, who thwart the attainment of that ideal, as he is to preach it to the\nhumble. To talk of holiness and to practice injustice is mere hypocrisy. Man is\nborn a member of a society and is dedicated by religion to the service of his\nfellows. To repudiate the obligation is to be guilty of a kind of political\natheism.\n\n\u201cIf any man be so addicted to his private, that he neglect the common, state, he\nis void of the sense of piety and wisheth peace and happiness to himself in\nvain. For whoever he be, he must live in the body of the Commonwealth, and in\nthe body of the Church.\u201d[III-67] To one holding such a creed economic\nindividualism was hardly less abhorrent than religious nonconformity, and its\nrepression was a not less obvious duty; for both seemed incompatible with the\nstability of a society in which Commonwealth and Church were one. It is natural,\ntherefore, that Laud\u2019s utterances and activities in the matter of social policy\nshould have shown a strong bias in favor of the control of economic relations by\nan authoritarian State, which reached its climax in the eleven years of personal\ngovernment. It was a moment when, partly in continuance of the traditional\npolicy of protecting peasants and maintaining the supply of grain, partly for\nless reputable reasons of finance, the Government was more than usually active\nin harrying the depopulating landlord. The Council gave sympathetic\nconsideration to petitions from peasants begging for protection or redress, and\nin 1630 directions were issued to the justices of five midland counties to\nremove all enclosures made in the last five years, on the ground that they\nresulted in depopulation and were particularly harmful in times of dearth. In\n1632, 1635, and 1636, three Commissions were appointed and special instructions\nagainst enclosure were issued to the Justices of Assize. In parts of the\ncountry, at any rate, land which had been laid down to grass was plowed up in\nobedience to the Government\u2019s orders. In the four years from 1635 to 1638 a list\nof some 600 offenders was returned to the Council, and about \u00a350,000 was imposed\nupon them in fines.[III-68] With this policy Laud was whole-heartedly in\nsympathy. A letter in his private correspondence, in which he expresses his\ndetestation of enclosure, reveals the temper which evoked Clarendon\u2019s gentle\ncomplaint that the archbishop made himself unpopular by his inclination \u201ca\nlittle too much to countenance the Commission for Depopulation.\u201d[III-69] Laud\nwas himself an active member of the Commission, and dismissed with impatient\ncontempt the squirearchy\u2019s appeal to the common law. In the day of his ruin he\nwas reminded by his enemies of the needlessly sharp censures with which he\nbarbed the fine imposed upon an enclosing landlord.[III-70]\n\nThe prevention of enclosure and depopulation was merely one element in a general\npolicy, by which a benevolent Government, unhampered by what Laud had called\n\u201cthat noise\u201d of parliamentary debate, was to endeavor by even-handed pressure to\nenforce social obligations on great and small, and to prevent the public\ninterest being sacrificed to an unconscionable appetite for private gain. The\npreoccupation of the Council with the problem of securing adequate food supplies\nand reasonable prices, with poor relief, and, to a lesser degree, with questions\nof wages, has been described by Miss Leonard, and its attempts to protect\ncraftsmen against exploitation at the hands of merchants by Professor\nUnwin.[III-71] In 1630-1 it issued in an amended form the Elizabethan Book of\nOrders, instructing justices as to their duty to see that markets were served\nand prices controlled, appointed a special committee of the Privy Council as\nCommissioners of the Poor and later a separate Commission, and issued a Book of\nOrders for the better administration of the Poor Law. In 1629, 1631, and again\nin 1637, it took steps to secure that the wages of textile workers in East\nAnglia were raised, and punished with imprisonment in the Fleet an employer\nnotorious for paying in truck. As President of the Council of the North,\nWentworth protected the commoners whose vested interests were threatened by the\ndrainage of Hatfield Chase, and endeavored to insist on the stricter\nadministration of the code regulating the woollen industry.[III-72]\n\nSuch action, even if inspired largely by the obvious interest of the Government,\nwhich had enemies enough on its hands already, in preventing popular discontent,\nwas of a kind to appeal to one with Laud\u2019s indifference to the opinion of the\nwealthier classes, and with Laud\u2019s belief in the divine mission of the House of\nDavid to teach an obedient people \u201cto lay down the private for the public sake.\u201d\nIt is not surprising, therefore, when the Star Chamber fines an engrosser of\ncorn, to find him improving the occasion with the remark that the defendant has\nbeen \u201cguilty of a most foule offence, which the Prophet hath [called] in a very\nenergeticall phrase grynding the faces of the poore,\u201d and that the dearth has\nbeen caused, not by God, but by \u201ccruell men\u201d;[III-73] or taking part in the\nproceedings of the Privy Council at a time when it is pressing justices,\napparently not without success, to compel the East Anglian clothiers to raise\nthe wages of spinners and weavers; or serving on the Lincolnshire sub-committee\nof the Commission on the Relief of the Poor, which was appointed in January\n1631.[III-74]\n\n\u201cA bishop,\u201d observed Laud, in answer to the attack of Lord Saye and Sele, \u201cmay\npreach the Gospel more publicly and to far greater edification in a court of\njudicature, or at a Council-table, where great men are met together to draw\nthings to an issue, than many preachers in their several charges can.\u201d[III-75]\nThe Church, which had abandoned the pretension itself to control society, found\nsome compensation in the reflection that its doctrines were not wholly without\ninfluence in impressing the principles which were applied by the State. The\nhistory of the rise of individual liberty--to use a question-begging phrase--in\neconomic affairs follows somewhat the same course as does its growth in the more\nimportant sphere of religion, and is not unconnected with it. The conception of\nreligion as a thing private and individual does not emerge until after a century\nin which religious freedom normally means the freedom of the State to prescribe\nreligion, not the freedom of the individual to worship God as he pleases. The\nassertion of economic liberty as a natural right comes at the close of a period\nin which, while a religious phraseology was retained and a religious\ninterpretation of social institutions was often sincerely held, the supernatural\nsanction had been increasingly merged in doctrines based on reasons of state and\npublic expediency. \u201cJerusalem ... stands not for the City and the State only ...\nnor for the Temple and the Church only, but jointly for both.\u201d[III-76] In\nidentifying the maintenance of public morality with the spasmodic activities of\nan incompetent Government, the Church had built its house upon the sand. It did\nnot require prophetic gifts to foresee that the fall of the City would be\nfollowed by the destruction of the Temple.\n\n\nIII. THE GROWTH OF INDIVIDUALISM\n\nThough the assertion of the traditional economic ethics continued to be made by\none school of churchmen down to the meeting of the Long Parliament, it was\nincreasingly the voice of the past appealing to an alien generation. The\nexpression of a theory of society which had made religion supreme over all\nsecular affairs, it had outlived the synthesis in which it had been an element,\nand survived, an archaic fragment, into an age to whose increasing individualism\nthe idea of corporate morality was as objectionable as that of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline by bishops and archdeacons was becoming to its religion. The\ncollision between the prevalent practice, and what still purported to be the\nteaching of the Church, is almost the commonest theme of the economic literature\nof the period from 1550 to 1640; of much of it, indeed, it is the occasion.\nWhatever the Church might say, men had asked interest for loans, and charged\nwhat prices the market would stand, at the very zenith of the Age of Faith. But\nthen, except in the great commercial centers and in the high finance of the\nPapacy and of secular Governments, their transactions had been petty and\nindividual, an occasional shift to meet an emergency or seize an opportunity.\nThe new thing in the England of the sixteenth century was that devices that had\nformerly been occasional were now woven into the very texture of the industrial\nand commercial civilization which was developing in the later years of\nElizabeth, and whose subsequent enormous expansion was to give English society\nits characteristic quality and tone. Fifty years later, Harrington, in a famous\npassage, described how the ruin of the feudal nobility by the Tudors, by\ndemocratizing the ownership of land, had prepared the way for the _bourgeois_\nrepublic.[III-77] His hint of the economic changes which preceded the Civil War\nmight be given a wider application. The age of Elizabeth saw a steady growth of\ncapitalism in textiles and mining, a great increase of foreign trade and an\noutburst of joint-stock enterprise in connection with it, the beginnings of\nsomething like deposit banking in the hands of the scriveners, and the growth,\naided by the fall of Antwerp and the Government\u2019s own financial necessities, of\na money-market with an almost modern technique--speculation, futures and\narbitrage transactions--in London. The future lay with the classes who sprang to\nwealth and influence with the expansion of commerce in the later years of the\ncentury, and whose religious and political aspirations were, two generations\nlater, to overthrow the monarchy.\n\nAn organized money-market has many advantages. But it is not a school of social\nethics or of political responsibility. Finance, being essentially impersonal, a\nmatter of opportunities, security and risks, acted among other causes as a\nsolvent of the sentiment, fostered both by the teaching of the Church and the\ndecencies of social intercourse among neighbors, which regarded keen bargaining\nas \u201csharp practice.\u201d In the half-century which followed the Reformation, thanks\nto the collapse of sterling on the international market, as a result of a\ndepreciated currency, war, and a foreign debt contracted on ruinous terms, the\nstate of the foreign exchanges was the obsession of publicists and politicians.\nProblems of currency and credit lend themselves more readily than most economic\nquestions to discussion in terms of mechanical causation. It was in the long\ndebate provoked by the rise in prices and the condition of the exchanges, that\nthe psychological assumptions, which were afterwards to be treated by economists\nas of self-evident and universal validity, were first hammered out.\n\n\u201cWe see,\u201d wrote Malynes, \u201chow one thing driveth or enforceth another, like as in\na clock where there are many wheels, the first wheel being stirred driveth the\nnext and that the third and so forth, till the last that moveth the instrument\nthat striketh the clock; or like as in a press going in a strait, where the\nforemost is driven by him that is next to him, and the next by him that\nfolloweth him.\u201d[III-78] The spirit of modern business could hardly be more aptly\ndescribed. Conservative writers denounced it as fostering a soulless\nindividualism, but, needless to say, their denunciations were as futile as they\nwere justified. It might be possible to put fear into the heart of the village\ndealer who bought cheap and sold dear, or of the pawnbroker who took a hundred\nquarters of wheat when he had lent ninety, with the warning that \u201cthe devices of\nmen cannot be concealed from Almighty God.\u201d To a great clothier, or to a\ncapitalist like Pallavicino, Spinola, or Thomas Gresham, who managed the\nGovernment business in Antwerp, such sentiments were foolishness, and usurious\ninterest appeared, not bad morals, but bad business. Moving, as they did, in a\nworld where loans were made, not to meet the temporary difficulty of an\nunfortunate neighbor, but as a profitable investment on the part of not too\nscrupulous business men, who looked after themselves and expected others to do\nthe same, they had scanty sympathy with doctrines which reflected the spirit of\nmutual aid not unnatural in the small circle of neighbors who formed the\nordinary village or borough in rural England.\n\nIt was a natural result of their experience that, without the formal enunciation\nof any theory of economic individualism, they should throw their weight against\nthe traditional restrictions, resent the attempts made by preachers and popular\nmovements to apply doctrines of charity and \u201cgood conscience\u201d to the impersonal\nmechanism of large-scale transactions, and seek to bring public policy more into\naccordance with their economic practice. The opposition to the Statutes against\ndepopulation offered by the self-interest of the gentry was being supported in\nthe latter years of Elizabeth by free-trade arguments in the House of Commons,\nand the last Act, which was passed in 1597, expressly allowed land to be laid\ndown to pasture for the purpose of giving it a rest.[III-79] From at any rate\nthe middle of the century, the fixing of prices by municipal authorities and by\nthe Government was regarded with skepticism by the more advanced economic\ntheorists, and towards the end of the century it produced complaints that, since\nit weakened the farmer\u2019s incentive to grow corn, its results were the precise\nopposite of those intended.[III-80] As markets widened, the control of the\nmiddleman who dealt in wool and grain, though strictly enforced in theory,\nshowed unmistakable signs of breaking down in practice. Gresham attacked the\nprohibition of usury, and normally stipulated that financiers who subscribed on\nhis inducement to public loans should be indemnified against legal\nproceedings.[III-81] Nor could he well have done otherwise, for the sentiment of\nthe City was that of the merchant in Wilson\u2019s Dialogue: \u201cWhat man is so madde to\ndeliver his moneye out of his owne possession for naughte? or whoe is he that\nwill not make of his owne the best he can?\u201d[III-82] With such a wind of doctrine\nin their sails men were not far from the days of complete freedom of contract.\n\nMost significant of all, economic interests were already appealing to the\npolitical theory which, when finally systematized by Locke, was to prove that\nthe State which interferes with property and business destroys its own title to\nexist. \u201cAll free subjects,\u201d declared a Committee of the House of Commons in\n1604, \u201care born inheritable, as to their land, so also to the free exercise of\ntheir industry, in those trades whereto they apply themselves and whereby they\nare to live. Merchandise being the chief and richest of all other, and of\ngreater extent and importance than all the rest, it is against the natural right\nand liberty of the subjects of England to restrain it into the hands of some\nfew.\u201d[III-83] The process by which natural justice, imperfectly embodied in\npositive law, was replaced as the source of authority by positive law which\nmight or might not be the expression of natural justice, had its analogy in the\nrejection by social theory of the whole conception of an objective standard of\neconomic equity. The law of nature had been invoked by medieval writers as a\nmoral restraint upon economic self-interest. By the seventeenth century, a\nsignificant revolution had taken place. \u201cNature\u201d had come to connote, not divine\nordinance, but human appetites, and natural rights were invoked by the\nindividualism of the age as a reason why self-interest should be given free\nplay.\n\nThe effect of these practical exigencies and intellectual changes was seen in a\nreversal of policy on the part of the State. In 1571 the Act of 1552, which had\nprohibited all interest as \u201ca vyce moste odyous and detestable, as in dyvers\nplaces of the hollie Scripture it is evydent to be seen,\u201d had been repealed,\nafter a debate in the House which revealed the revolt of the plain man against\nthe theorists who had triumphed twenty years before, and his determination that\nthe law should not impose on business a utopian morality.[III-84] The exaction\nof interest ceased to be a criminal offence, provided that the rate did not\nexceed ten per cent., though it still remained open to a debtor, in the\nimprobable event of his thinking it expedient to jeopardize his chance of future\nadvances, to take civil proceedings to recover any payment made in excess of the\nprincipal. This qualified condonation of usury on the part of the State\nnaturally reacted upon religious opinion. The Crown was supreme ruler of the\nChurch of Christ, and it was not easy for a loyal Church to be more fastidious\nthan its head. Moderate interest, if without legal protection, was at any rate\nnot unlawful, and it is difficult to damn with conviction vices of which the\ndegrees have been adjusted on a sliding scale by an Act of Parliament. Objective\neconomic science was beginning its disillusioning career, in the form of\ndiscussions on the rise in prices, the mechanism of the money-market, and the\nbalance of trade, by publicists concerned, not to point a moral, but to analyze\nforces so productive of profit to those interested in their operation. Since\nCalvin\u2019s indulgence to interest, critics of the traditional doctrine could argue\nthat religion itself spoke with an uncertain voice.\n\nSuch developments inevitably affected the tone in which the discussion of\neconomic ethics was carried on by the divines, and even before the end of the\nsixteenth century, though they did not dream of abandoning the denunciation of\nunconscionable bargains, they were surrounding it with qualifications. The\n_Decades_ of Bullinger, of which three English translations were made in the ten\nyears following his death, and which Convocation in 1586 required to be obtained\nand studied by all the inferior clergy, indicated a _via media_. As\nuncompromising as any medieval writer in his hatred of the sin of covetousness,\nhe denounces with all the old fervor oppressive contracts which grind the poor.\nBut he is less intolerant of economic motives than most of his predecessors, and\nconcedes, with Calvin, that, before interest is condemned as usury, it is\nnecessary to consider both the terms of the loan and the position of borrower\nand lender.\n\nThe stricter school of religious opinion continued to cling to the traditional\ntheory down to the Civil War. Conservative divines took advantage of the section\nin the Act of 1571 declaring that \u201call usurie being forbydden by the lawe of God\nis synne and detestable,\u201d to argue that the Statute had in reality altered\nnothing, and that the State left it to the Church to prevent bargains which, for\nreasons of practical expediency, it did not think fit to prohibit, but which it\ndid not encourage and declined to enforce. It is in obedience to such doctrines\nthat a scrupulous parson refuses a cure until he is assured that the money which\nwill be paid to him comes from the rent of land, not from interest on\ncapital.[III-85] But, even so, there are difficulties. The parson of Kingham\nbequeaths a cow to the poor of Burford, which is \u201cset to hire for a year or two\nfor four shillings a year,\u201d the money being used for their assistance. But the\narrangement has its inconveniences. Cows are mortal, and this communal cow is\n\u201cvery like to have perished through casualty and ill-keeping.\u201d[III-86] Will not\nthe poor be surer of their money if the cow is disposed of for cash down? So it\nis sold to the man who previously hired it, and the interest spent on the poor\ninstead. Is this usury? Is it usury to invest money in business in order to\nprovide an income for those, like widows and orphans, who cannot trade with it\nthemselves? If it is lawful to buy a rent-charge or to share in trading profits,\nwhat is the particular criminality of charging a price for a loan? Why should a\ncreditor, who may himself be poor, make a loan _gratis_, in order to put money\ninto the pocket of a wealthy capitalist, who uses the advance to corner the wool\ncrop or to speculate on the exchanges?\n\nTo such questions liberal theologians answered that the crucial point was not\nthe letter of the law which forbad the breeding of barren metal, but the\nobservance of Christian charity in economic, as in other, transactions. Their\nopponents appealed to the text of Scripture and the law of the Church, argued\nthat usury differed, not merely in degree, but in kind, from payments which,\nlike rent and profits, were morally unobjectionable provided that they were not\nextortionate in amount, and insisted that usury was to be interpreted as\n\u201cwhatever is taken for a loan above the principal.\u201d The literature of the\nsubject was voluminous. But it was obsolete almost before it was produced. For,\nwhether theologians and moralists condemned all interest, or only some interest,\nas contrary to Christian ethics, the assumption implied in their very\ndisagreement had been that economic relations belonged to a province of which,\nin the last resort, the Church was master. That economic transactions were one\ndepartment of ethical conduct, and to be judged, like other parts of it, by\nspiritual criteria; that, whatever concessions the State might see fit to make\nto human frailty, a certain standard of economic morality was involved in\nmembership of the Christian Church; that it was the function of ecclesiastical\nauthorities, whoever they might be, to take the action needed to bring home to\nmen their social obligations--such doctrines were still common ground to all\nsections of religious thought. It was precisely this whole conception of a\nsocial theory based ultimately on religion which was being discredited. While\nrival authorities were discussing the correct interpretation of economic ethics,\nthe flank of both was turned by the growth of a powerful body of lay opinion,\nwhich argued that economics were one thing and ethics another.\n\nUsury, a summary name for all kinds of extortion, was the issue in which the\nwhole controversy over \u201cgood conscience\u201d in bargaining came to a head, and such\nquestions were only one illustration of the immense problems with which the rise\nof a commercial civilization confronted a Church whose social ethics still\nprofessed to be those of the Bible, the Fathers and the Schoolmen. A score of\nbooks, garnished with citations from Scripture and from the canonists, were\nwritten to answer them. Many of them are learned; some are almost readable. But\nit may be doubted whether, even in their own day, they satisfied any one but\ntheir authors. The truth is that, in spite of the sincerity with which it was\nheld that the transactions of business must somehow be amenable to the moral\nlaw, the code of practical ethics, in which that claim was expressed, had been\nforged to meet the conditions of a very different environment from that of\ncommercial England in the seventeenth century.\n\nThe most crucial and the most difficult of all political questions is that which\nturns on the difference between public and private morality. The problem which\nit presents in the relations between States is a commonplace. But, since its\nessence is the difficulty of applying the same moral standard to decisions which\naffect large masses of men as to those in which only individuals are involved,\nit emerges in a hardly less acute form in the sphere of economic life, as soon\nas its connections ramify widely, and the unit is no longer the solitary\nproducer, but a group. To argue, in the manner of Machiavelli, that there is one\nrule for business and another for private life, is to open a door to an orgy of\nunscrupulousness before which the mind recoils. To argue that there is no\ndifference at all is to lay down a principle which few men who have faced the\ndifficulty in practice will be prepared to endorse as of invariable application,\nand incidentally to expose the idea of morality itself to discredit by\nsubjecting it to an almost intolerable strain. The practical result of\nsentimentality is too often a violent reaction towards the baser kinds of\n_Realpolitik_.\n\nWith the expansion of finance and international trade in the sixteenth century,\nit was this problem which faced the Church. Granted that I should love my\nneighbor as myself, the questions which, under modern conditions of large-scale\norganization, remain for solution are, Who precisely _is_ my neighbor? and, How\nexactly am I to make my love for him effective in practice? To these questions\nthe conventional religious teaching supplied no answer, for it had not even\nrealized that they could be put. It had tried to moralize economic relations by\ntreating every transaction as a case of personal conduct, involving personal\nresponsibility. In an age of impersonal finance, world-markets and a capitalist\norganization of industry, its traditional social doctrines had no specific to\noffer, and were merely repeated, when, in order to be effective, they should\nhave been thought out again from the beginning and formulated in new and living\nterms. It had endeavored to protect the peasant and the craftsman against the\noppression of the money-lender and the monopolist. Faced with the problems of a\nwage-earning proletariat, it could do no more than repeat, with meaningless\niteration, its traditional lore as to the duties of master to servant and\nservant to master. It had insisted that all men were brethren. But it did not\noccur to it to point out that, as a result of the new economic imperialism which\nwas beginning to develop in the seventeenth century, the brethren of the English\nmerchant were the Africans whom he kidnaped for slavery in America, or the\nAmerican Indians whom he stripped of their lands, or the Indian craftsmen from\nwhom he bought muslins and silks at starvation prices. Religion had not yet\nlearned to console itself for the practical difficulty of applying its moral\nprinciples by clasping the comfortable formula that for the transactions of\neconomic life no moral principles exist. But, for the problems involved in the\nassociation of men for economic purposes on the grand scale which was to be\nincreasingly the rule in the future, the social doctrines advanced from the\npulpit offered, in their traditional form, little guidance. Their practical\nineffectiveness prepared the way for their theoretical abandonment.\n\nThey were abandoned because, on the whole, they deserved to be abandoned. The\nsocial teaching of the Church had ceased to count, because the Church itself had\nceased to think. Energy in economic action, realist intelligence in economic\nthought--these qualities were to be the note of the seventeenth century, when\nonce the confusion of the Civil War had died down. When mankind is faced with\nthe choice between exhilarating activities and piety imprisoned in a shriveled\nmass of desiccated formul\u00e6, it will choose the former, though the energy be\nbrutal and the intelligence narrow. In the age of Bacon and Descartes, bursting\nwith clamorous interests and eager ideas, fruitful, above all, in the germs of\neconomic speculation, from which was to grow the new science of Political\nArithmetic, the social theory of the Church of England turned its face from the\npractical world, to pore over doctrines which, had their original authors been\nas impervious to realities as their later exponents, would never have been\nformulated. Naturally it was shouldered aside. It was neglected because it had\nbecome negligible.\n\nThe defect was fundamental. It made itself felt in countries where there was no\nReformation, no Puritan movement, no common law jealous of its rights and eager\nto prune ecclesiastical pretensions. But in England there were all three, and,\nfrom the beginning of the last quarter of the sixteenth century, ecclesiastical\nauthorities who attempted to enforce traditional morality had to reckon with a\ntemper which denied their right to exercise any jurisdiction at all, above all,\nany jurisdiction interfering with economic matters. It was not merely that there\nwas the familiar objection of the plain man that parsons know nothing of\nbusiness--that \u201cit is not in simple divines to show what contract is lawful and\nwhat is not.\u201d[III-87] More important, there was the opposition of the common\nlawyers to part, at least, of the machinery of ecclesiastical discipline.\nBancroft in 1605 complained to the Privy Council that the judges were\nendeavoring to confine the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to\ntestamentary and matrimonial cases, and alleged that, of more than five hundred\nprohibitions issued to stop proceedings in the Court of Arches since the\naccession of Elizabeth, not more than one in twenty could be sustained.[III-88]\n\u201cAs things are,\u201d wrote two years later the author of a treatise on the civil and\necclesiastical law, \u201cneither jurisdiction knowes their owne bounds, but one\nsnatcheth from the other, in maner as in a batable ground lying betweene two\nkingdomes.\u201d[III-89] The jurisdiction of the Court of High Commission suffered in\nthe same way. In the last resort appeals from the ecclesiastical courts went\neither to it or to the Court of Delegates. From the latter part of the sixteenth\ncentury down to the removal of Coke from the Bench in 1616, the judges were from\ntime to time staying proceedings before the Court of High Commission by\nprohibitions, or discharging offenders imprisoned by it. In 1577, for example,\nthey released on a writ of _Habeas Corpus_ a prisoner committed by the High\nCommission on a charge of usury.[III-90]\n\nMost fundamental of all, there was the growth of a theory of the Church, which\ndenied the very principle of a discipline exercised by bishops and archdeacons.\nThe acquiescence of the laity in the moral jurisdiction of the clergy had been\naccorded with less and less readiness for two centuries before the Reformation.\nWith the growth under Elizabeth of a vigorous Puritan movement, which had its\nstronghold among the trading and commercial classes, that jurisdiction became to\na considerable proportion of the population little less than abhorrent. Their\ndislike of it was based, of course, on weightier grounds than its occasional\ninterference in matters of business. But their attitude had as an inevitable\nresult that, with the disparagement of the whole principle of the traditional\necclesiastical discipline, that particular use of it was also discredited. It\nwas not that Puritanism implied a greater laxity in social relations. On the\ncontrary, in its earlier phases it stood, at least in theory, for a stricter\ndiscipline of the life of the individual, alike in his business and in his\npleasures. But it repudiated as anti-Christian the organs through which such\ndiscipline had in fact been exercised. When the Usury Bill of 1571 was being\ndiscussed in the House of Commons, reference to the canon law was met by the\nprotest that the rules of the canon law on the matter were abolished, and that\n\u201cthey should be no more remembered than they are followed.\u201d[III-91] Feeling\nagainst the system rose steadily during the next two generations;\nexcommunications, when courts ventured to resort to them, were freely\ndisregarded;[III-92] and by the thirties of the seventeenth century, under the\ninfluence of Laud\u2019s _r\u00e9gime_, the murmur was threatening to become a hurricane.\nThen came the Long Parliament, the fierce denunciations in both Houses of the\ninterference of the clergy in civil affairs, and the legislation abolishing the\nCourt of High Commission, depriving the ordinary ecclesiastical courts of penal\njurisdiction, and finally, with the abolition of episcopacy, sweeping them away\naltogether.\n\n\u201cNot many good days,\u201d wrote Penn, \u201csince ministers meddled so much in laymen\u2019s\nbusiness.\u201d[III-93] That sentiment was a dogma on which, after the Restoration,\nboth Cavalier and Roundhead could agree. It inevitably reacted, not only upon\nthe practical powers of the clergy, which in any case had long been feeble, but\non the whole conception of religion which regarded it as involving the control\nof economic self-interest by what Laud had called \u201cthe body of the Church.\u201d The\nworks of Sanderson and of Jeremy Taylor, continuing an earlier tradition,\nreasserted with force and eloquence the view that the Christian is bound by his\nfaith to a rule of life which finds expression in equity in bargaining and in\nworks of mercy to his neighbors.[III-94] But the conception that the Church\npossessed, of its own authority, an independent standard of social values, which\nit could apply as a criterion to the practical affairs of the economic world,\ngrew steadily weaker. The result, neither immediate nor intended, but\ninevitable, was the tacit denial of spiritual significance in the transactions\nof business and in the relations of organized society. Repudiating the right of\nreligion to advance any social theory distinctively its own, that attitude\nbecame itself the most tyrannical and paralyzing of theories. It may be called\nIndifferentism.\n\nThe change had begun before the Civil War. It was completed with the\nRestoration, and, still more, with the Revolution. In the eighteenth century it\nis almost superfluous to examine the teaching of the Church of England as to\nsocial ethics. For it brings no distinctive contribution, and, except by a few\neccentrics, the very conception of the Church as an independent moral authority,\nwhose standards may be in sharp antithesis to social conventions, has been\nabandoned.\n\nAn institution which possesses no philosophy of its own inevitably accepts that\nwhich happens to be fashionable. What set the tone of social thought in the\neighteenth century was partly the new Political Arithmetic, which had come to\nmaturity at the Restoration, and which, as was to be expected in the first great\nage of English natural science--the age of Newton, of Halley, and of the Royal\nSociety--drew its inspiration, not from religion or morals, but from mathematics\nand physics. It was still more the political theory associated with the name of\nLocke, but popularized and debased by a hundred imitators. Society is not a\ncommunity of classes with varying functions, united to each other by mutual\nobligations arising from their relation to a common end. It is a joint-stock\ncompany rather than an organism, and the liabilities of the shareholders are\nstrictly limited. They enter it in order to insure the rights already vested in\nthem by the immutable laws of nature. The State, a matter of convenience, not of\nsupernatural sanctions, exists for the protection of those rights, and fulfills\nits object in so far as, by maintaining contractual freedom, it secures full\nscope for their unfettered exercise.\n\nThe most important of such rights are property rights, and property rights\nattach mainly, though not, of course, exclusively, to the higher orders of men,\nwho hold the tangible, material \u201cstock\u201d of society. Those who do not subscribe\nto the company have no legal claim to a share in the profits, though they have a\nmoral claim on the charity of their superiors. Hence the curious phraseology\nwhich treats almost all below the nobility, gentry and freeholders as \u201cthe\npoor\u201d--and the poor, it is well known, are of two kinds, \u201cthe industrious poor,\u201d\nwho work for their betters, and \u201cthe idle poor,\u201d who work for themselves. Hence\nthe unending discussions as to whether \u201cthe laboring poor\u201d are to be classed\namong the \u201cproductive\u201d or \u201cunproductive\u201d classes--whether they are, or are not,\nreally worth their keep. Hence the indignant repudiation of the suggestion that\nany substantial amelioration of their lot could be effected by any kind of\npublic policy. \u201cIt would be easier, where property was well secured, to live\nwithout money than without poor, ... who, as they ought to be kept from\nstarving, so they should receive nothing worth saving\u201d; the poor \u201chave nothing\nto stir them up to be serviceable but their wants, which it is prudence to\nrelieve, but folly to cure\u201d; \u201cto make society happy, it is necessary that great\nnumbers should be wretched as well as poor.\u201d[III-95] Such sentences from a work\nprinted in 1714 are not typical. But they are straws which show how the wind is\nblowing.\n\nIn such an atmosphere temperatures were naturally low and equable, and\nenthusiasm, if not a lapse in morals, was an intellectual solecism and an error\nin taste. Religious thought was not immune from the same influence. It was not\nmerely that the Church, which, as much as the State, was the heir of the\nRevolution settlement, reproduced the temper of an aristocratic society, as it\nreproduced its class organization and economic inequalities, and was disposed\ntoo often to idealize as a virtue that habit of mean subservience to wealth and\nsocial position, which, after more than half a century of political democracy,\nis still the characteristic and odious vice of Englishmen. Not less significant\nwas the fact that, apart from certain groups and certain questions, it accepted\nthe prevalent social philosophy and adapted its teaching to it. The age in which\npolitical theory was cast in the mould of religion had yielded to one in which\nreligious thought was no longer an imperious master, but a docile pupil.\nConspicuous exceptions like Law, who reasserted with matchless power the idea\nthat Christianity implies a distinctive way of life, or protests like Wesley\u2019s\nsermon on _The Use of Money_, merely heighten the impression of a general\nacquiescence in the conventional ethics. The prevalent religious thought might\nnot unfairly be described as morality tempered by prudence, and softened on\noccasion by a rather sentimental compassion for inferiors. It was the natural\ncounterpart of a social philosophy which repudiated teleology, and which\nsubstituted the analogy of a self-regulating mechanism, moved by the weights and\npulleys of economic motives, for the theory which had regarded society as an\norganism composed of different classes united by their common subordination to a\nspiritual purpose.\n\nSuch an attitude, with its emphasis on the economic harmony of apparently\nconflicting interests, left small scope for moral casuistry. The materials for\nthe reformer were, indeed, abundant enough. The phenomena of early commercial\ncapitalism--consider only the orgy of financial immorality which culminated in\n1720--were of a kind which might have been expected to shock even the not\nover-sensitive conscience of the eighteenth century. Two centuries before, the\nFuggers had been denounced by preachers and theologians; and, compared with the\nmen who engineered the South Sea Bubble, the Fuggers had been innocents. In\nreality, religious opinion was quite unmoved by the spectacle. The traditional\nscheme of social ethics had been worked out in a simpler age; in the commercial\nEngland of banking, and shipping, and joint-stock enterprise, it seemed, and was\ncalled, a Gothic superstition. From the Restoration onward it was quietly\ndropped. The usurer and engrosser disappear from episcopal charges. In the\npopular manual called _The Whole Duty of Man_,[III-96] first published in 1658,\nand widely read during the following century, extortion and oppression still\nfigure as sins, but the attempt to define what they are is frankly abandoned. If\npreachers have not yet overtly identified themselves with the view of the\nnatural man, expressed by an eighteenth-century writer in the words, \u201ctrade is\none thing and religion is another,\u201d they imply a not very different conclusion\nby their silence as to the possibility of collisions between them. The\ncharacteristic doctrine was one, in fact, which left little room for religious\nteaching as to economic morality, because it anticipated the theory, later\nepitomized by Adam Smith in his famous reference to the invisible hand, which\nsaw in economic self-interest the operation of a providential plan. \u201cNational\ncommerce, good morals and good government,\u201d wrote Dean Tucker, of whom Warburton\nunkindly said that religion was his trade, and trade his religion, \u201care but part\nof one general scheme, in the designs of Providence.\u201d\n\nNaturally, on such a view, it was unnecessary for the Church to insist on\ncommercial morality, since sound morality coincided with commercial wisdom. The\nexisting order, except in so far as the short-sighted enactments of Governments\ninterfered with it, was the natural order, and the order established by nature\nwas the order established by God. Most educated men, in the middle of the\ncentury, would have found their philosophy expressed in the lines of Pope:\n\n  Thus God and Nature formed the general frame,\n  And bade self-love and social be the same.\n\nNaturally, again, such an attitude precluded a critical examination of\ninstitutions, and left as the sphere of Christian charity only those parts of\nlife which could be reserved for philanthropy, precisely because they fell\noutside that larger area of normal human relations, in which the promptings of\nself-interest provided an all-sufficient motive and rule of conduct. It was,\ntherefore, in the sphere of providing succor for the non-combatants and for the\nwounded, not in inspiring the main army, that the social work of the Church was\nconceived to lie. Its characteristic expressions in the eighteenth century were\nthe relief of the poor, the care of the sick, and the establishment of schools.\nIn spite of the genuine, if somewhat unctuous, solicitude for the spiritual\nwelfare of the poorer classes, which inspired the Evangelical revival, religion\nabandoned the fundamental brain-work of criticism and construction to the\nrationalist and the humanitarian.\n\nSurprise has sometimes been expressed that the Church should not have been more\neffective in giving inspiration and guidance during the immense economic\nreorganization to which tradition has assigned the not very felicitous name of\nthe \u201cIndustrial Revolution.\u201d It did not give it, because it did not possess it.\nThere were, no doubt, special conditions to account for its silence--mere\nignorance and inefficiency, the supposed teachings of political economy, and,\nafter 1790, the terror of all humanitarian movements inspired by France. But the\nexplanation of its attitude is to be sought, less in the peculiar circumstances\nof the moment, than in the prevalence of a temper which accepted the established\norder of class relations as needing no vindication before any higher tribunal,\nand which made religion, not its critic or its accuser, but its anodyne, its\napologist, and its drudge. It was not that there was any relapse into abnormal\ninhumanity. It was that the very idea that the Church possessed an independent\nstandard of values, to which social institutions were amenable, had been\nabandoned. The surrender had been made long before the battle began. The\nspiritual blindness which made possible the general acquiescence in the horrors\nof the early factory system was, not a novelty, but the habit of a century.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE PURITAN MOVEMENT\n\n\u201cAnd the Lorde was with Joseph, and he was a luckie felowe.\u201d\n\n  _Genesis xxxix. 2 (Tyndale\u2019s translation)._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE PURITAN MOVEMENT\n\n\nBy the end of the sixteenth century the divorce between religious theory and\neconomic realities had long been evident. But in the meantime, within the bosom\nof religious theory itself, a new system of ideas was being matured, which was\ndestined to revolutionize all traditional values, and to turn on the whole field\nof social obligations a new and penetrating light. On a world heaving with\nexpanding energies, and on a Church uncertain of itself, rose, after two\ngenerations of premonitory mutterings, the tremendous storm of the Puritan\nmovement. The forest bent; the oaks snapped; the dry leaves were driven before a\ngale, neither all of winter nor all of spring, but violent and life-giving,\npitiless and tender, sounding strange notes of yearning and contrition, as of\nvoices wrung from a people dwelling in Meshec, which signifies Prolonging, in\nKedar, which signifies Blackness; while amid the blare of trumpets, and the\nclash of arms, and the rending of the carved work of the Temple, humble to God\nand haughty to man, the soldier-saints swept over battlefield and scaffold their\ngarments rolled in blood.\n\nIn the great silence which fell when the Titans had turned to dust, in the\nAugustan calm of the eighteenth century, a voice was heard to observe that\nreligious liberty was a considerable advantage, regarded \u201cmerely in a commercial\nview.\u201d[IV-1] A new world, it was evident, had arisen. And this new world, born\nof the vision of the mystic, the passion of the prophet, the sweat and agony of\nheroes famous and unknown, as well as of mundane ambitions and commonplace\ncupidities, was one in which, since \u201cThorough\u201d was no more, since property was\nsecure, and contracts inviolable, and the executive tamed, the judicious\ninvestments of business men were likely to yield a profitable return. So the\nepitaph, which crowns the life of what is called success, mocks the dreams in\nwhich youth hungered, not for success, but for the glorious failure of the\nmartyr or the saint.\n\n\nI. PURITANISM AND SOCIETY\n\nThe principal streams which descended in England from the teaching of Calvin\nwere three--Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and a doctrine of the nature of\nGod and man, which, if common to both, was more widely diffused, more pervasive\nand more potent than either. Of these three off-shoots from the parent stem, the\nfirst and eldest, which had made some stir under Elizabeth, and which it was\nhoped, with judicious watering from the Scotch, might grow into a State Church,\nwas to produce a credal statement carved in bronze, but was to strike, at least\nin its original guise, but slender roots. The second, with its insistence on the\nright of every Church to organize itself, and on the freedom of all Churches\nfrom the interference of the State, was to leave, alike in the Old World and in\nthe New, an imperishable legacy of civil and religious liberty. The third was\nPuritanism. Straitened to no single sect, and represented in the Anglican Church\nhardly, if at all, less fully than in those which afterwards separated from it,\nit determined, not only conceptions of theology and church government, but\npolitical aspirations, business relations, family life and the _minuti\u00e6_ of\npersonal behavior.\n\nThe growth, triumph and transformation of the Puritan spirit was the most\nfundamental movement of the seventeenth century. Puritanism, not the Tudor\nsecession from Rome, was the true English Reformation, and it is from its\nstruggle against the old order that an England which is unmistakably modern\nemerges. But, immense as were its accomplishments on the high stage of public\naffairs, its achievements in that inner world, of which politics are but the\nsqualid scaffolding, were mightier still. Like an iceberg, which can awe the\ntraveller by its towering majesty only because sustained by a vaster mass which\nescapes his eye, the revolution which Puritanism wrought in Church and State was\nless than that which it worked in men\u2019s souls, and the watchwords which it\nthundered, amid the hum of Parliaments and the roar of battles, had been learned\nin the lonely nights, when Jacob wrestled with the angel of the Lord to wring a\nblessing before he fled.\n\n  We do it wrong, being so majestical\n  To offer it the show of violence.\n\nIn the mysticism of Bunyan and Fox, in the brooding melancholy and glowing\nenergy of Cromwell, in the victorious tranquillity of Milton, \u201cunshaken,\nunseduced, unterrified,\u201d amid a world of self-seekers and apostates, there are\ndepths of light and darkness which posterity can observe with reverence or with\nhorror, but which its small fathom-line cannot plumb.\n\nThere are types of character which are like a prism, whose various and brilliant\ncolors are but broken reflections of a single ray of concentrated light. If the\ninward and spiritual grace of Puritanism eludes the historian, its outward and\nvisible signs meet him at every turn, and not less in market-place and\ncounting-house and camp than in the student\u2019s chamber and the gathering of the\nelect for prayer. For to the Puritan, a contemner of the vain shows of\nsacramentalism, mundane toil becomes itself a kind of sacrament. Like a man who\nstrives by unresting activity to exorcise a haunting demon, the Puritan, in the\neffort to save his own soul, sets in motion every force in heaven above or in\nthe earth beneath. By the mere energy of his expanding spirit, he remakes, not\nonly his own character and habits and way of life, but family and church,\nindustry and city, political institutions and social order. Conscious that he is\nbut a stranger and pilgrim, hurrying from this transitory life to a life to\ncome, he turns with almost physical horror from the vanities which lull into an\nawful indifference souls dwelling on the borders of eternity, to pore with\nanguish of spirit on the grand facts, God, the soul, salvation and damnation.\n\u201cIt made the world seem to me,\u201d said a Puritan of his conversion, \u201cas a carkass\nthat had neither life nor loveliness. And it destroyed those ambitious desires\nafter literate fame, which was the sin of my childhood.... It set me upon that\nmethod of my studies which since then I have found the benefit of.... It caused\nme first to seek God\u2019s Kingdom and his Righteousness, and most to mind the One\nthing needful, and to determine first of my Ultimate End.\u201d[IV-2]\n\nOverwhelmed by a sense of his \u201cUltimate End,\u201d the Puritan cannot rest,\nnevertheless, in reflection upon it. The contemplation of God, which the\ngreatest of the Schoolmen described as the supreme blessedness, is a blessedness\ntoo great for sinners, who must not only contemplate God, but glorify him by\ntheir work in a world given over to the powers of darkness. \u201cThe way to the\nCelestial City lies just through this town, where this lusty fair is kept; and\nhe that will go to the City, and yet not go through this town, must needs go out\nof the world.\u201d[IV-3] For that awful journey, girt with precipices and beset with\nfiends, he sheds every encumbrance, and arms himself with every weapon.\nAmusements, books, even intercourse with friends, must, if need be, be cast\naside; for it is better to enter into eternal life halt and maimed than having\ntwo eyes to be cast into eternal fire. He scours the country, like Baxter and\nFox, to find one who may speak the word of life to his soul. He seeks from his\nministers, not absolution, but instruction, exhortation and warning.\nProphesyings--that most revealing episode in early Puritanism--were the cry of a\nfamished generation for enlightenment, for education, for a religion of the\nintellect; and it was because much \u201cpreaching breeds faction, but much praying\ncauses devotion\u201d[IV-4] that the powers of this world raised their parchment\nshutters to stem the gale that blew from the Puritan pulpit. He disciplines,\nrationalizes, systematizes, his life; \u201cmethod\u201d was a Puritan catchword a century\nbefore the world had heard of Methodists. He makes his very business a travail\nof the spirit, for that too is the Lord\u2019s vineyard, in which he is called to\nlabor.\n\nFeeling in him that which \u201cmaketh him more fearful of displeasing God than all\nthe world,\u201d[IV-5] he is a natural republican, for there is none on earth that he\ncan own as master. If powers and principalities will hear and obey, well; if\nnot, they must be ground into dust, that on their ruins the elect may build the\nKingdom of Christ. And, in the end, all these--prayer, and toil, and discipline,\nmastery of self and mastery of others, wounds, and death--may be too little for\nthe salvation of a single soul. \u201cThen I saw that there was a way to Hell even\nfrom the Gates of Heaven, as well as from the City of Destruction\u201d[IV-6]--those\ndreadful words haunt him as he nears his end. Sometimes they break his heart.\nMore often, for grace abounds even to the chief of sinners, they nerve his will.\nFor it is will--will organized and disciplined and inspired, will quiescent in\nrapt adoration or straining in violent energy, but always will--which is the\nessence of Puritanism, and for the intensification and organization of will\nevery instrument in that tremendous arsenal of religious fervour is mobilized.\nThe Puritan is like a steel spring compressed by an inner force, which shatters\nevery obstacle by its rebound. Sometimes the strain is too tense, and, when its\nimprisoned energy is released, it shatters itself.\n\nThe spirit bloweth where it listeth, and men of every social grade had felt\ntheir hearts lifted by its breath, from aristocrats and country gentlemen to\nweavers who, \u201cas they stand in their loom, can set a book before them or edifie\none another.\u201d[IV-7] But, if religious zeal and moral enthusiasm are not\nstraitened by the vulgar categories of class and income, experience proves,\nnevertheless, that there are certain kinds of environment in which they burn\nmore bravely than in others, and that, as man is both spirit and body, so\ndifferent types of religious experience correspond to the varying needs of\ndifferent social and economic _milieux_. To contemporaries the chosen seat of\nthe Puritan spirit seemed to be those classes in society which combined economic\nindependence, education and a certain decent pride in their status, revealed at\nonce in a determination to live their own lives, without truckling to earthly\nsuperiors, and in a somewhat arrogant contempt for those who, either through\nweakness of character or through economic helplessness, were less resolute, less\nvigorous and masterful, than themselves. Such, where the feudal spirit had been\nweakened by contact with town life and new intellectual currents, were some of\nthe gentry. Such, conspicuously, were the yeomen, \u201cmounted on a high spirit, as\nbeing slaves to none,\u201d[IV-8] especially in the freeholding counties of the east.\nSuch, above all, were the trading classes of the towns, and of those rural\ndistricts which had been partially industrialized by the decentralization of the\ntextile and iron industries.\n\n\u201cThe King\u2019s cause and party,\u201d wrote one who described the situation in Bristol\nin 1645, \u201cwere favored by two extremes in that city; the one, the wealthy and\npowerful men, the other, of the basest and lowest sort; but disgusted by the\nmiddle rank, the true and best citizens.\u201d[IV-9] That it was everywhere these\nclasses who were the standard-bearers of Puritanism is suggested by Professor\nUsher\u2019s statistical estimate of the distribution of Puritan ministers in the\nfirst decade of the seventeenth century, which shows that, of 281 ministers\nwhose names are known, 35 belonged to London and Middlesex, 96 to the three\nmanufacturing counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, 29 to Northamptonshire, 17\nto Lancashire, and only 104 to the whole of the rest of the country.[IV-10] The\nphenomenon was so striking as to evoke the comments of contemporaries absorbed\nin matters of profounder spiritual import than sociological generalization.\n\u201cMost of the tenants of these gentlemen,\u201d wrote Baxter, \u201cand also most of the\npoorest of the people, whom the other called the Rabble, did follow the gentry,\nand were for the King. On the Parliament\u2019s side were (besides themselves) the\nsmaller part (as some thought) of the gentry in most of the counties, and\nfreeholders, and the middle sort of men; especially in those corporations and\ncounties which depend on cloathing and such manufactures.\u201d He explained the fact\nby the liberalizing effect of constant correspondence with the greater centers\nof trade, and cited the example of France, where it was \u201cthe merchants and\nmiddle sort of men that were Protestants.\u201d[IV-11]\n\nThe most conspicuous example was, of course, London, which had financed the\nParliamentary forces, and which continued down to the Revolution to be _par\nexcellence_ \u201cthe rebellious city,\u201d returning four Dissenters to the Royalist\nParliament of 1661, sending its mayor and aldermen to accompany Lord Russell\nwhen he carried the Exclusion Bill from the Commons to the Lords, patronizing\nPresbyterian ministers long after Presbyterianism was proscribed, nursing the\nWhig Party, which stood for tolerance, and sheltering the Whig leaders against\nthe storm which broke in 1681. But almost everywhere the same fact was to be\nobserved. The growth of Puritanism, wrote a hostile critic, was \u201cby meanes of\nthe City of London (the nest and seminary of the seditious faction) and by\nreason of its universall trade throughout the kingdome, with its commodities\nconveying and deriving this civill contagion to all our cities and corporations,\nand thereby poysoning whole counties.\u201d[IV-12] In Lancashire, the clothing\ntowns--\u201cthe Genevas of Lancashire\u201d--rose like Puritan islands from the\nsurrounding sea of Roman Catholicism. In Yorkshire, Bradford, Leeds and Halifax;\nin the midlands, Birmingham and Leicester; in the west, Gloucester, Taunton and\nExeter, the capital of the west of England textile industry, were all centers of\nPuritanism.\n\nThe identification of the industrial and commercial classes with religious\nradicalism was, indeed, a constant theme of Anglicans and Royalists, who found\nin the vices of each an additional reason for distrusting both. Clarendon\ncommented bitterly on the \u201cfactious humor which possessed most corporations, and\nthe pride of their wealth\u201d;[IV-13] and, after the Civil War, both the politics\nand the religion of the boroughs were suspect for a generation. The bishop of\nOxford warned Charles II\u2019s Government against showing them any favor, on the\nground that \u201ctrading combinations\u201d were \u201cso many nests of faction and sedition,\u201d\nand that \u201cour late miserable distractions\u201d were \u201cchiefly hatched in the shops of\ntradesmen.\u201d[IV-14] Pepys commented dryly on the black looks which met the\nAnglican clergy as they returned to their City churches. It was even alleged\nthat the courtiers hailed with glee the fire of London, as a providential\ninstrument for crippling the center of disaffection.[IV-15]\n\nWhen, after 1660, Political Arithmetic became the fashion, its practitioners\nwere moved by the experience of the last half-century and by the example of\nHolland--the economic schoolmaster of seventeenth-century Europe--to inquire, in\nthe manner of any modern sociologist, into the relations between economic\nprogress and other aspects of the national genius. Cool, dispassionate, very\nweary of the drum ecclesiastic, they confirmed, not without some notes of gentle\nirony, the diagnosis of bishop and presbyterian, but deduced from it different\nconclusions. The question which gave a topical point to their analysis was the\nrising issue of religious tolerance. Serenely indifferent to its spiritual\nsignificance, they found a practical reason for applauding it in the fact that\nthe classes who were in the van of the Puritan movement, and in whom the\nClarendon Code found its most prominent victims, were also those who led\ncommercial and industrial enterprise. The explanation, they thought, was simple.\nA society of peasants could be homogeneous in its religion, as it was already\nhomogeneous in the simple uniformity of its economic arrangements. A many-sided\nbusiness community could escape constant friction and obstruction only if it\nwere free to absorb elements drawn from a multitude of different sources, and if\neach of those elements were free to pursue its own way of life, and--in that age\nthe same thing--to practice its own religion.\n\nEnglishmen, as Defoe remarked, improved everything and invented nothing, and\nEnglish economic organization had long been elastic enough to swallow Flemish\nweavers flying from Alva, and Huguenots driven from France. But the traditional\necclesiastical system was not equally accommodating. It found not only the alien\nrefugee, but its home-bred sectaries, indigestible. Laud, reversing the policy\nof Elizabethan Privy Councils, which characteristically thought diversity of\ntrades more important than unity of religion, had harassed the settlements of\nforeign artisans at Maidstone, Sandwich and Canterbury,[IV-16] and the problem\nrecurred in every attempt to enforce conformity down to 1689. \u201cThe gaols were\ncrowded with the most substantial tradesmen and inhabitants, the clothiers were\nforced from their houses, and thousands of workmen and women whom they employed\nset to starving.\u201d[IV-17] The Whig indictment of the disastrous effects of Tory\npolicy recalls the picture drawn by French _intendants_ of the widespread\ndistress which followed the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.[IV-18]\n\nWhen the collision between economic interests and the policy of compulsory\nconformity was so flagrant, it is not surprising that the economists of the age\nshould have enunciated the healing principle that persecution was incompatible\nwith prosperity, since it was on the pioneers of economic progress that\npersecution principally fell. \u201cEvery law of this nature,\u201d wrote the author of a\npamphlet on the subject, is not only \u201cexpressly against the very principles and\nrules of the Gospel of Christ,\u201d but is also \u201cdestructive to the trade and\nwell-being of our nation by oppressing and driving away the most industrious\nworking hands, and depopulating, and thereby impoverishes our country, which is\ncapable of employing ten times the number of people we now have.\u201d[IV-19]\n\nTemple, in his calm and lucid study of the United Netherlands, found one reason\nof their success in the fact that, Roman Catholicism excepted, every man might\npractise what religion he pleased.[IV-20] De la Court, whose striking book\npassed under the name of John de Witt, said the same.[IV-21] Petty, after\npointing out that in England the most thriving towns were those where there was\nmost nonconformity, cited the evidence, not only of Europe, but of India and the\nOttoman Empire, to prove that, while economic progress is compatible with any\nreligion, the class which is its vehicle will always consist of the heterodox\nminority, who \u201cprofess opinions different from what are publicly\nestablished.\u201d[IV-22] \u201cThere is a kind of natural unaptness,\u201d wrote a pamphleteer\nin 1671, \u201cin the Popish religion to business, whereas on the contrary among the\nReformed, the greater their zeal, the greater their inclination to trade and\nindustry, as holding idleness unlawful.... The domestic interest of England\nlieth in the advancement of trade by removing all obstructions both in city and\ncountry, and providing such laws as may help it, and make it most easy,\nespecially in giving liberty of conscience to all Protestant Nonconformists, and\ndenying it to Papists.\u201d[IV-23]\n\nIf the economists applauded tolerance because it was good for trade, the Tory\ndistrust of the commercial classes was aggravated by the fact that it was they\nwho were most vocal in the demand for tolerance. Swift denounced, as part of the\nsame odious creed, the maxim that \u201creligion ought to make no distinction between\nProtestants\u201d and the policy \u201cof preferring, on all occasions, the monied\ninterests before the landed.\u201d[IV-24] Even later in the eighteenth century, the\nstale gibe of \u201cthe Presbyterians, the Bank and the other corporations\u201d still\nfigured in the pamphlets of the statesman whom Lord Morley describes as the\nprince of political charlatans, Bolingbroke.[IV-25]\n\n\u201cThe middle ranks,\u201d \u201cthe middle class of men,\u201d \u201cthe middle sort\u201d--such social\nstrata included, of course, the widest variety of economic interest and personal\nposition. But in the formative period of Puritanism, before the Civil War, two\ncauses prevented the phrase from being merely the vapid substitute for thought\nwhich it is today. In the first place, outside certain exceptional industries\nand districts, there was little large-scale production and no massed proletariat\nof propertyless wage-earners. As a result, the typical workman was still\nnormally a small master, who continued himself to work at the loom or at the\nforge, and whose position was that described in Baxter\u2019s Kidderminster, where\n\u201cthere were none of the tradesmen very rich ... the magistrates of the town were\nfew of them worth \u00a340 _per annum_, and most not half so much; three or four of\nthe richest thriving masters of the trade got but about \u00a3500 to \u00a3600 in twenty\nyears, and it may be lost \u00a3100 of it at once by an ill debtor.\u201d[IV-26] Differing\nin wealth from the prosperous merchant or clothier, such men resembled them in\neconomic and social habits, and the distinction between them was one of degree,\nnot of kind. In the world of industry vertical divisions between district and\ndistrict still cut deeper than horizontal fissures between class and class. The\nnumber of those who could reasonably be described as independent, since they\nowned their own tools and controlled their own businesses, formed a far larger\nproportion of the population than is the case in capitalist societies.\n\nThe second fact was even more decisive. The business classes, as a power in the\nState, were still sufficiently young to be conscious of themselves as something\nlike a separate order, with an outlook on religion and politics peculiarly their\nown, distinguished, not merely by birth and breeding, but by their social\nhabits, their business discipline, the whole bracing atmosphere of their moral\nlife, from a Court which they believed to be godless and an aristocracy which\nthey knew to be spendthrift. The estrangement--for it was no more--was of\nshorter duration in England than in any other European country, except\nSwitzerland and Holland. By the latter part of the seventeenth century, partly\nas a result of the common struggles which made the Revolution, still more\nperhaps through the redistribution of wealth by commerce and finance, the former\nrivals were on the way to be compounded in the gilded clay of a plutocracy\nembracing both. The landed gentry were increasingly sending their sons into\nbusiness; \u201cthe tradesman meek and much a liar\u201d looked forward, as a matter of\ncourse, to buying an estate from a bankrupt noble. Georgian England was to\nastonish foreign observers, like Voltaire and Montesquieu, as the Paradise of\nthe _bourgeoisie_, in which the prosperous merchant shouldered easily aside the\nimpoverished bearers of aristocratic names.[IV-27]\n\nThat consummation, however, was subsequent to the great divide of the Civil War,\nand, in the main, to the tamer glories of the Revolution. In the germinating\nperiod of Puritanism, the commercial classes, though powerful, were not yet the\ndominant force which a century later they were to become. They could look back\non a not distant past, in which their swift rise to prosperity had been regarded\nwith suspicion, as the emergence of an alien interest, which applied sordid\nmeans to the pursuit of anti-social ends--an interest for which in a\nwell-ordered commonwealth there was little room, and which had been rapped on\nthe knuckles by conservative statesmen. They lived in a present, where a\nGovernment, at once interfering, inefficient and extravagant, cultivated, with\nan intolerable iteration of grandiloquent principles, every shift and artifice\nmost repugnant to the sober prudence of plain-dealing men. The less reputable\ncourtiers and the more feather-pated provincial gentry, while courting them to\nraise a mortgage or renew a loan, reviled them as _parvenus_, usurers and\nblood-suckers. Even in the latter part of the seventeenth century, the influence\nof the _rentier_ and of the financier still continued to cause apprehension and\njealousy, both for political and for economic reasons. \u201cBy this single\nstratagem,\u201d wrote an indignant pamphleteer of the Puritan capitalists who\nspecialized in money-lending, \u201cthey avoyd all contributions of tithes and taxes\nto the King, Church, Poor (a soverain cordial to tender consciences); they\ndecline all services and offices of burthen incident to visible estates; they\nescape all oaths and ties of publick allegiance or private fealty.... They enjoy\nboth the secular applause of prudent conduct, and withal the spiritual comfort\nof thriving easily and devoutly ... leaving their adversaries the censures of\nimprovidence, together with the misery of decay. They keep many of the nobility\nand gentry in perfect vassalage (as their poor copyholders), which eclipses\nhonour, enervates justice and oft-times protects them in their boldest\nconceptions. By engrossing cash and credit, they in effect give the price to\nland and law to markets. By commanding ready money, they likewise command such\noffices as they widely affect ... they feather and enlarge their own nests, the\ncorporations.\u201d[IV-28]\n\nSuch lamentations, the protest of senatorial dignity against equestrian upstarts\nor of the _noblesse_ against the _roturier_, were natural in a conservative\naristocracy, which for a century had felt authority and prestige slipping from\nits grasp, and which could only maintain its hold on them by resigning itself,\nas ultimately it did, to sharing them with its rival. In return, the business\nworld, which had its own religious and political ideology, steadily gathered the\nrealities of power into its own hands; asked with a sneer, \u201chow would merchants\nthrive if gentlemen would not be unthriftes\u201d;[IV-29] and vented the indignant\ncontempt felt by an energetic, successful and, according to its lights, not too\nunscrupulous, generation for a class of _fain\u00e9ants_, unversed in the new\nlearning of the City and incompetent to the verge of immorality in the\nmanagement of business affairs. Their triumphs in the past, their strength in\nthe present, their confidence in the future, their faith in themselves, and\ntheir difference from their feebler neighbours--a difference as of an iron wedge\nin a lump of clay--made them, to use a modern phrase, class-conscious. Like the\nmodern proletarian, who feels that, whatever his personal misery and his present\ndisappointments, the Cause is rolled forward to victory by the irresistible\nforce of an inevitable evolution, the Puritan _bourgeoisie_ knew that against\nthe chosen people the gates of hell could not prevail. The Lord prospered their\ndoings.\n\nThere is a magic mirror in which each order and organ of society, as the\nconsciousness of its character and destiny dawns upon it, looks for a moment,\nbefore the dust of conflict or the glamour of success obscures its vision. In\nthat enchanted glass, it sees its own lineaments reflected with ravishing\nallurements; for what it sees is not what it is, but what in the eyes of mankind\nand of its own heart it would be. The feudal _noblesse_ had looked, and had\ncaught a glimpse of a world of fealty and chivalry and honor. The monarchy\nlooked, or Laud and Strafford looked for it; they saw a nation drinking the\nblessings of material prosperity and spiritual edification from the cornucopia\nof a sage and paternal monarchy--a nation \u201cfortified and adorned ... the country\nrich ... the Church flourishing ... trade increased to that degree that we were\nthe exchange of Christendom ... all foreign merchants looking upon nothing as\ntheir own but what they laid up in the warehouses of this Kingdom.\u201d[IV-30] In a\nfar-off day the craftsman and laborer were to look, and see a band of comrades,\nwhere fellowship should be known for life and lack of fellowship for death. For\nthe middle classes of the early seventeenth century, rising but not yet\ntriumphant, that enchanted mirror was Puritanism. What it showed was a picture\ngrave to sternness, yet not untouched with a sober exaltation--an earnest,\nzealous, godly generation, scorning delights, punctual in labor, constant in\nprayer, thrifty and thriving, filled with a decent pride in themselves and their\ncalling, assured that strenuous toil is acceptable to Heaven, a people like\nthose Dutch Calvinists whose economic triumphs were as famous as their iron\nProtestantism--\u201cthinking, sober, and patient men, and such as believe that labor\nand industry is their duty towards God.\u201d[IV-31] Then an air stirred and the\nglass was dimmed. It was long before any questioned it again.\n\n\nII. A GODLY DISCIPLINE _versus_ THE RELIGION OF TRADE\n\nPuritanism was the schoolmaster of the English middle classes. It heightened\ntheir virtues, sanctified, without eradicating, their convenient vices, and gave\nthem an inexpugnable assurance that, behind virtues and vices alike, stood the\nmajestic and inexorable laws of an omnipotent Providence, without whose\nforeknowledge not a hammer could beat upon the forge, not a figure could be\nadded to the ledger. But it is a strange school which does not teach more than\none lesson, and the social reactions of Puritanism, trenchant, permanent and\nprofound, are not to be summarized in the simple formula that it fostered\nindividualism. Weber, in a celebrated essay, expounded the thesis that\nCalvinism, in its English version, was the parent of capitalism, and Troeltsch,\nSchulze-Gaevernitz and Cunningham have lent to the same interpretation the\nweight of their considerable authority.[IV-32] But the heart of man holds\nmysteries of contradiction which live in vigorous incompatibility together. When\nthe shriveled tissues lie in our hand, the spiritual bond still eludes us.\n\nIn every human soul there is a socialist and an individualist, an authoritarian\nand a fanatic for liberty, as in each there is a Catholic and a Protestant. The\nsame is true of the mass movements in which men marshal themselves for common\naction. There was in Puritanism an element which was conservative and\ntraditionalist, and an element which was revolutionary; a collectivism which\ngrasped at an iron discipline, and an individualism which spurned the savorless\nmess of human ordinances; a sober prudence which would garner the fruits of this\nworld, and a divine recklessness which would make all things new. For long\nnourished together, their discords concealed, in the furnace of the Civil War\nthey fell apart, and Presbyterian and Independent, aristocrat and Leveller,\npolitician and merchant and utopian, gazed with bewildered eyes on the strange\nmonsters with whom they had walked as friends. Then the splendors and illusions\nvanished; the force of common things prevailed; the metal cooled in the mould;\nand the Puritan spirit, shorn of its splendors and its illusions, settled\nfinally into its decent bed of equable respectability. But each element in its\nsocial philosophy had once been as vital as the other, and the battle was\nfought, not between a Puritanism solid for one view and a State committed to\nanother, but between rival tendencies in the soul of Puritanism itself. The\nproblem is to grasp their connection, and to understand the reasons which caused\nthis to wax and that to wane.\n\n\u201cThe triumph of Puritanism,\u201d it has been said, \u201cswept away all traces of any\nrestriction or guidance in the employment of money.\u201d[IV-33] That it swept away\nthe restrictions imposed by the existing machinery is true; neither\necclesiastical courts, nor High Commission, nor Star Chamber, could function\nafter 1640. But, if it broke the discipline of the Church of Laud and the State\nof Strafford, it did so but as a step towards erecting a more rigorous\ndiscipline of its own. It would have been scandalized by economic individualism\nas much as by religious tolerance, and the broad outlines of its scheme of\norganization favored unrestricted liberty in matters of business as little as in\nthe things of the spirit. To the Puritan of any period in the century between\nthe accession of Elizabeth and the Civil War, the suggestion that he was the\nfriend of economic or social license would have seemed as wildly inappropriate\nas it would have appeared to most of his critics, who taunted him, except in the\nsingle matter of usury, with an intolerable meticulousness.\n\nA godly discipline was, indeed, the very ark of the Puritan covenant. Delivered\nin thunder to the Moses of Geneva, its vital necessity had been the theme of the\nJoshuas of Scotland, England and France. Knox produced a Scottish edition of it;\nCartwright, Travers and Udall composed treatises expounding it. Bancroft exposed\nits perils for the established ecclesiastical order.[IV-34] The word\n\u201cdiscipline\u201d implied essentially \u201ca directory of Church government,\u201d established\nin order that \u201cthe wicked may be corrected with ecclesiastical censures,\naccording to the quality of the fault\u201d;[IV-35] and the proceedings of Puritan\n_classes_ in the sixteenth century show that the conception of a rule of life,\nto be enforced by the pressure of the common conscience, and in the last resort\nby spiritual penalties, was a vital part of their system. When, at the beginning\nof Elizabeth\u2019s reign, the sectaries in London described their objects as not\nmerely the \u201cfree and pure\u201d preaching of the Gospel, nor the pure ministration of\nthe sacraments, but \u201cto have, not the fylthye cannon lawe, but disciplyne onelye\nand altogether agreeable to the same heavenlye and Allmightye word of our good\nLorde Jesus Chryste,\u201d[IV-36] the antithesis suggests that something more than\nverbal instruction is intended. Bancroft noted that it was the practice, when a\nsin was committed by one of the faithful, for the elders to apply first\nadmonishment and then excommunication. The minute-book of one of the few\n_classes_ whose records survive confirms his statement.[IV-37]\n\nAll this early movement had almost flickered out before the end of the sixteenth\ncentury. But the conception lay at the very root of Presbyterianism, and it\nre\u00ebmerged in the system of church government which the supercilious Scotch\nCommissioners at the Westminster Assembly steered to inconclusive victory,\nbetween Erastians on the right and Independents on the left. The destruction of\nthe Court of High Commission, of the temporal jurisdiction of all persons in\nHoly Orders, and finally, with the abolition of episcopacy, of the\necclesiastical courts themselves, left a vacuum. \u201cMr. Henderson,\u201d wrote the\ninsufferable Baillie, \u201chas ready now a short treatise, much called for, of our\nchurch discipline.\u201d[IV-38] In June 1646 an unenthusiastic Parliament accepted\nthe ordinance which, after a three years\u2019 debate of intolerable tedium, emerged\nfrom the Assembly\u2019s Committee on the Discipline and Government of the Church,\nand which provided for the suspension by the elders of persons guilty of\nscandalous offences. Detested by the Independents and cold-shouldered by\nParliament, which had no intention of admitting the divine right of\npresbyteries, the system never took deep root, and in London, at least, there\nappears to be no evidence of any exercise of jurisdiction by elders or\n_classes_. In parts of Lancashire, on the other hand, it seems to have been\nactively at work, down, at any rate, to 1649. The change in the political\nsituation, in particular the triumph of the army, prevented it, Mr. Shaw thinks,\nfrom functioning longer.[IV-39]\n\n\u201cDiscipline\u201d included all questions of moral conduct, and of these, in an age\nwhen a great mass of economic relations were not the almost automatic reactions\nof an impersonal mechanism, but a matter of human kindliness or meanness between\nneighbors in village or borough, economic conduct was naturally part. Calvin and\nBeza, perpetuating with a new intensity the medieval idea of a\nChurch-civilization, had sought to make Geneva a pattern, not only of doctrinal\npurity, but of social righteousness and commercial morality. Those who had drunk\nfrom their spring continued, in even less promising environments, the same\ntradition. Bucer, who wrote when something more fundamental than a politician\u2019s\nreformation seemed possible to enthusiasts with their eyes on Geneva, had urged\nthe reconstruction of every side of the economic life of a society which was to\nbe Church and State in one.[IV-40] English Puritanism, while accepting after\nsome hesitation Calvin\u2019s much qualified condonation of moderate interest, did\nnot intend in other respects to countenance a laxity welcome only to worldlings.\nKnewstub appealed to the teaching of \u201cthat worthy instrument of God, Mr.\nCalvin,\u201d to prove that the habitual usurer ought to be \u201cthrust out of the\nsociety of men.\u201d Smith embroidered the same theme. Baro, whose Puritanism lost\nhim his professorship, denounced the \u201cusual practice amongst rich men, and some\nof the greater sort, who by lending, or by giving out their money to usury, are\nwont to snare and oppress the poor and needier sort.\u201d Cartwright, the most\nfamous leader of Elizabethan Puritanism, described usury as \u201ca hainous offence\nagainst God and his Church,\u201d and laid down that the offender should be excluded\nfrom the sacraments until he satisfied the congregation of his penitence.[IV-41]\nThe ideal of all was that expressed in the apostolic injunction to be content\nwith a modest competence and to shun the allurements of riches. \u201cEvery Christian\nman is bound in conscience before God,\u201d wrote Stubbes, \u201cto provide for his\nhousehold and family, but yet so as his immoderate care surpasse not the bands,\nnor yet transcend the limits, of true Godlynes.... So farre from covetousnes and\nfrom immoderate care would the Lord have us, that we ought not this day to care\nfor tomorrow, for (saith he) sufficient to the day is the travail of the\nsame.\u201d[IV-42]\n\nThe most influential work on social ethics written in the first half of the\nseventeenth century from the Puritan standpoint was Ames\u2019 _De Conscientia_, a\nmanual of Christian conduct which was intended to supply the brethren with the\npractical guidance which had been offered in the Middle Ages by such works as\n_Dives et Pauper_. It became a standard authority, quoted again and again by\nsubsequent writers. Forbidden to preach by the bishop of London, Ames spent more\nthan twenty years in Holland, where he held a chair of theology at the\nUniversity of Franeker, and his experience of social life in the country which\nwas then the business capital of Europe makes the remorseless rigor of his\nsocial doctrine the more remarkable. He accepts, as in his day was inevitable,\nthe impossibility of distinguishing between interest on capital invested in\nbusiness, and interest on capital invested in land, since men put money\nindifferently into both, and, like Calvin, he denies that interest is forbidden\nin principle by Scripture or natural reason. But, like Calvin, he surrounds his\nindulgence with qualifications; he requires that no interest shall be charged on\nloans to the needy, and describes as the ideal investment for Christians one in\nwhich the lender shares risks with the borrower, and demands only \u201ca fair share\nof the profits, according to the degree in which God has blessed him by whom the\nmoney is used.\u201d His teaching with regard to prices is not less conservative. \u201cTo\nwish to buy cheap and to sell dear is common (as Augustine observes), but it is\na common vice.\u201d Men must not sell above the maximum fixed by public authority,\nthough they may sell below it, since it is fixed to protect the buyer; when\nthere is no legal maximum, they must follow the market price and \u201cthe judgment\nof prudent and good men.\u201d They must not take advantage of the necessities of\nindividual buyers, must not overpraise their wares, must not sell them dearer\nmerely because they have cost them much to get.[IV-43] Puritan utterances on the\nsubject of enclosing were equally trenchant.[IV-44]\n\nNor was such teaching merely the pious pedantry of the pulpit. It found some\necho in contrite spirits; it left some imprint on the conduct of congregations.\nIf D\u2019Ewes was the unresisting victim of a more than ordinarily aggressive\nconscience, he was also a man of the world who played a not inconspicuous part\nin public affairs; and D\u2019Ewes not only ascribed the fire which destroyed his\nfather\u2019s house to the judgment of Heaven on ill-gotten gains, but expressly\nprescribed in his will that, in order to avoid the taint of the accursed thing,\nprovision should be made for his daughters, not by investing his capital at a\nfixed--and therefore usurious--rate of interest, but by the purchase either of\nland or of annuities.[IV-45] The _classis_ which met at Dedham in the eighties\nof the sixteenth century was concerned partly with questions of ceremony, of\nchurch government, of the right use of Sunday, and with the weighty problems\nwhether boys of sixteen might wear their hats in church, and by what marks one\nmight detect a witch. But it discussed also what provision could be made to\ncheck vagrancy; advised the brethren to confine their dealings to \u201cthe godliest\nof that trade\u201d (of cloth making); recommended the establishment in the township\nof a scheme of universal education, that of children of parents too poor to meet\nthe cost being defrayed from collections made in church; and urged that each\nwell-to-do householder should provide in his home for two (or, if less able,\none) of his impoverished neighbors who \u201cwalke christianly and honestlie in their\ncallinges.\u201d[IV-46] In the ever-lengthening list of scandalous and notorious sins\nto be punished by exclusion from the sacrament, which was elaborated by the\nWestminster Assembly, a place was found, not only for drunkards, swearers, and\nblasphemers, worshippers and makers of images, senders or carriers of\nchallenges, persons dancing, gaming, attending plays on the Lord\u2019s day, or\nresorting to witches, wizards, and fortune-tellers, but for the more vulgar\nvices of those who fell into extortion, barratry and bribery.[IV-47] The\n_classis_ of Bury in Lancashire (_quantum mutatus!_) took these economic lapses\nseriously. It decided in 1647, after considerable debate, that \u201cusury is a\nscandalous sin, deserving suspention upon obstinacy.\u201d[IV-48]\n\nIt was a moment when good men were agog to cast the money-changers from the\ntemple and to make straight the way of the Lord. \u201cGod hath honnored you in\ncallinge you to a place of power and trust, and hee expects that you should bee\nfaithfull to that trust. You are postinge to the grave every day; you dwell\nuppon the borders of eternity; your breath is in your nostrells; therfore duble\nand treble your resolutions to bee zealous in a good thinge.... How dreadfull\nwill a dieinge bed bee to a negligent magistrate! What is the reward of a\nslothfull servant? Is it not to bee punished with everlastinge destruction from\nthe presence of the Lord?\u201d[IV-49] Such, in that singular age, was the language\nin which the mayor of Salisbury requested the justices of Wiltshire to close\nfour public-houses. Apparently they closed them.\n\nThe attempt to crystallize social morality in an objective discipline was\npossible only in a theocracy; and, still eloquent in speech, theocracy had\nabdicated in fact, even before the sons of Belial returned to cut down its\ngroves and lay waste its holy places. In an age when the right to dissent from\nthe State Church was still not fully established, its defeat was fortunate, for\nit was the victory of tolerance. It meant, however, that the discipline of the\nChurch gave place to the attempt to promote reform through the action of the\nState, which reached its height in the Barebones Parliament. Projects for law\nreform, marriage reform and financial reform, the reform of prisons and the\nrelief of debtors, jostled each other on its committees; while outside it there\nwere murmurs among radicals against social and economic privilege, which were\nnot to be heard again till the days of the Chartists, and which to the\nconservative mind of Cromwell seemed to portend mere anarchy. The transition\nfrom the idea of a moral code enforced by the Church, which had been\ncharacteristic of early Calvinism, to the economic individualism of the later\nPuritan movement took place, in fact, by way of the democratic agitation of the\nIndependents. Abhorring the whole mechanism of ecclesiastical discipline and\ncompulsory conformity, they endeavored to achieve the same social and ethical\nends by political action.\n\nThe change was momentous. If the English Social Democratic movement has any\nsingle source, that source is to be found in the New Model Army. But the\nconception implied in the attempt to formulate a scheme of economic ethics--the\ntheory that every department of life falls beneath the same all-encompassing\narch of religion--was too deeply rooted to be exorcised merely by political\nchanges, or even by the more corroding march of economic development. Expelled\nfrom the world of fact, where it had always been a stranger and a sojourner, it\nsurvived in the world of ideas, and its champions in the last half of the\ncentury labored it the more, precisely because they knew that it must be\nconveyed to their audiences by teaching and preaching or not at all. Of those\nchampions the most learned, the most practical, and the most persuasive was\nRichard Baxter.\n\nHow Baxter endeavored to give practical instruction to his congregation at\nKidderminster, he himself has told us. \u201cEvery Thursday evening my neighbours\nthat were most desirous and had opportunity met at my house, and there one of\nthem repeated the sermon, and afterwards they proposed what doubts any of them\nhad about the sermon, or any other case of conscience, and I resolved their\ndoubts.\u201d[IV-50] Both in form and in matter, his _Christian Directory, or a Summ\nof Practical Theologie and Cases of Conscience_[IV-51] is a remarkable book. It\nis, in essence, a Puritan _Summa Theologica_ and _Summa Moralis_ in one; its\nmethod of treatment descends directly from that of the medieval _Summ\u00e6_, and it\nis, perhaps, the last important English specimen of a famous _genus_. Its\nobject, as Baxter explains in his introduction, is \u201cthe resolving of practical\ncases of conscience, and the reducing of theoretical knowledge into serious\nChristian practice.\u201d Divided into four parts, Ethics, Economics, Ecclesiastics,\nand Politics, it has as its purpose to establish the rules of a Christian\ncasuistry, which may be sufficiently detailed and precise to afford practical\nguidance to the proper conduct of men in the different relations of life, as\nlawyer, physician, schoolmaster, soldier, master and servant, buyer and seller,\nlandlord and tenant, lender and borrower, ruler and subject. Part of its\nmaterial is derived from the treatment of similar questions by previous writers,\nboth before and after the Reformation, and Baxter is conscious of continuing a\ngreat tradition. But it is, above all things, realistic, and its method lends\nplausibility to the suggestion that it originated in an attempt to answer\npractical questions put to its author by members of his congregation. Its aim is\nnot to overwhelm by authority, but to convince by an appeal to the enlightened\ncommon sense of the Christian reader. It does not overlook, therefore, the\npractical facts of a world in which commerce is carried on by the East India\nCompany in distant markets, trade is universally conducted on credit, the iron\nmanufacture is a large-scale industry demanding abundant supplies of capital and\noffering a profitable opening to the judicious investor, and the relations of\nlandlords and tenants have been thrown into confusion by the fire of London. Nor\ndoes it ignore the moral qualities for the cultivation of which an opportunity\nis offered by the life of business. It takes as its starting-point the\ncommercial environment of the Restoration, and its teaching is designed for\n\u201cRome or London, not Fools\u2019 Paradise.\u201d\n\nBaxter\u2019s acceptance of the realities of his age makes the content of his\nteaching the more impressive. The attempt to formulate a casuistry of economic\nconduct obviously implies that economic relations are to be regarded merely as\none department of human behavior, for which each man is morally responsible, not\nas the result of an impersonal mechanism, to which ethical judgments are\nirrelevant. Baxter declines, therefore, to admit the convenient dualism, which\nexonerates the individual by representing his actions as the outcome of\nuncontrollable forces. The Christian, he insists, is committed by his faith to\nthe acceptance of certain ethical standards, and these standards are as\nobligatory in the sphere of economic transactions as in any other province of\nhuman activity. To the conventional objection that religion has nothing to do\nwith business--that \u201cevery man will get as much as he can have and that _caveat\nemptor_ is the only security\u201d--he answers bluntly that this way of dealing does\nnot hold among Christians. Whatever the laxity of the law, the Christian is\nbound to consider first the golden rule and the public good. Naturally,\ntherefore, he is debarred from making money at the expense of other persons, and\ncertain profitable avenues of commerce are closed to him at the outset. \u201cIt is\nnot lawful to take up or keep up any oppressing monopoly or trade, which tends\nto enrich you by the loss of the Commonwealth or of many.\u201d\n\nBut the Christian must not only eschew the obvious extortion practiced by the\nmonopolist, the engrosser, the organizer of a corner or a combine. He must carry\non his business in the spirit of one who is conducting a public service; he must\norder it for the advantage of his neighbor as much as, and, if his neighbor be\npoor, more than, for his own. He must not desire \u201cto get another\u2019s goods or\nlabour for less than it is worth.\u201d He must not secure a good price for his own\nwares \u201cby extortion working upon men\u2019s ignorance, error, or necessity.\u201d When\nprices are fixed by law, he must strictly observe the legal maximum; when they\nare not, he must follow the price fixed by common estimation. If he finds a\nbuyer who is willing to give more, he \u201cmust not make too great an advantage of\nhis convenience or desire, but be glad that [he] can pleasure him upon equal,\nfair, and honest terms,\u201d for \u201cit is a false rule of them that think their\ncommodity is worth as much as any one will give.\u201d If the seller foresees that in\nthe future prices are likely to fall, he must not make profit out of his\nneighbour\u2019s ignorance, but must tell him so. If he foresees that they will rise,\nhe may hold his wares back, but only--a somewhat embarrassing exception--if it\nbe not \u201cto the hurt of the Commonwealth, as if ... keeping it in be the cause of\nthe dearth, and ... bringing it forth would help to prevent it.\u201d If he is buying\nfrom the poor, \u201ccharity must be exercised as well as justice\u201d; the buyer must\npay the full price that the goods are worth to himself, and, rather than let the\nseller suffer because he cannot stand out for his price, should offer him a loan\nor persuade some one else to do so. In no case may a man doctor his wares in\norder to get for them a higher price than they are really worth, and in no case\nmay he conceal any defects of quality; if he was so unlucky as to have bought an\ninferior article, he \u201cmay not repair [his] loss by doing as [he] was done by,\n... no more than [he] may cut another\u2019s purse because [his] was cut.\u201d Rivalry in\ntrade, Baxter thinks, is inevitable. But the Christian must not snatch a good\nbargain \u201cout of greedy covetousness, nor to the injury of the poor ... nor ...\nso as to disturb that due and civil order which should be among moderate men in\ntrading.\u201d On the contrary, if \u201ca covetous oppressor\u201d offer a poor man less than\nhis goods are worth, \u201cit may be a duty to offer the poor man the worth of his\ncommodity and save him from the oppressor.\u201d\n\nThe principles which should determine the contract between buyer and seller are\napplied equally to all other economic relations. Usury, in the sense of payment\nfor a loan, is not in itself unlawful for Christians. But it becomes so, when\nthe lender does not allow the borrower \u201csuch a proportion of the gain as his\nlabour, hazard, or poverty doth require, but ... will live at ease upon his\nlabours\u201d; or when, in spite of the borrower\u2019s misfortune, he rigorously exacts\nhis pound of flesh; or when interest is demanded for a loan which charity would\nrequire to be free. Masters must discipline their servants for their good; but\nit is \u201can odious oppression and injustice to defraud a servant or labourer of\nhis wages, yea, or to give him less than he deserveth.\u201d As the descendant of a\nfamily of yeomen, \u201cfree,\u201d as he says, \u201cfrom the temptations of poverty and\nriches,\u201d[IV-52] Baxter had naturally strong views as to the ethics of\nlandowning. Significantly enough, he deals with them under the general rubric of\n\u201cCases of oppression, especially of tenants,\u201d oppression being defined as the\n\u201cinjuring of inferiors who are unable to resist or to right themselves.\u201d \u201cIt is\ntoo common a sort of oppression for the rich in all places to domineer too\ninsolently over the poor, and force them to follow their wills and to serve\ntheir interest, be it right or wrong.... Especially unmerciful landlords are the\ncommon and sore oppressors of the countrymen. If a few men can but get money\nenough to purchase all the land in a county, they think that they may do with\ntheir own as they list, and set such hard bargains of it to their tenants, that\nthey are all but as their servants.... An oppressor is an Anti-Christ and an\nAnti-God ... not only the agent of the Devil, but his image.\u201d As in his\ndiscussion of prices, the gist of Baxter\u2019s analysis of the cases of conscience\nwhich arise in the relations of landlord and tenant is that no man may secure\npecuniary gain for himself by injuring his neighbor. Except in unusual\ncircumstances, a landlord must not let his land at the full competitive rent\nwhich it would fetch in the market: \u201cOrdinarily the common sort of tenants in\nEngland should have so much abated of the fullest worth that they may\ncomfortably live on it, and follow their labours with cheerfulness of mind and\nliberty to serve God in their families, and to mind the matters of their\nsalvation, and not to be necessitated to such toil and care and pinching want as\nshall make them liker slaves than free men.\u201d He must not improve (i.e., enclose)\nhis land without considering the effect on the tenants, or evict his tenants\nwithout compensating them, and in such a way as to cause depopulation; nor must\na newcomer take a holding over the sitting tenant\u2019s head by offering \u201ca greater\nrent than he can give or than the landlord hath just cause to require of him.\u201d\nThe Christian, in short, while eschewing \u201ccauseless, perplexing, melancholy\nscruples, which would stop a man in the course of his duty,\u201d must so manage his\nbusiness as to \u201cavoid sin rather than loss,\u201d and seek first to keep his\nconscience in peace.\n\nThe first characteristic to strike the modern reader in all this teaching is its\nconservatism. In spite of the economic and political revolutions of the past two\ncenturies, how small, after all, the change in the presentation of the social\nethics of the Christian faith! A few months after the appearance of the\n_Christian Directory_, the Stop of the Exchequer tore a hole in the already\nintricate web of London finance, and sent a shiver through the money-markets of\nEurope. But Baxter, though no mere antiquarian, discourses of equity in\nbargaining, of just prices, of reasonable rents, of the sin of usury, in the\nsame tone, if not with quite the same conclusions, as a medieval Schoolman, and\nhe differs from one of the later Doctors, like St. Antonino, hardly more than\nSt. Antonino himself had differed from Aquinas. Seven years later Bunyan\npublished _The Life and Death of Mr. Badman_. Among the vices which it pilloried\nwere the sin of extortion, \u201cmost commonly committed by men of trade, who without\nall conscience, when they have an advantage, will make a prey of their\nneighbour,\u201d the covetousness of \u201chucksters, that buy up the poor man\u2019s victual\nwholesale and sell it to him again for unreasonable gains,\u201d the avarice of\nusurers, who watch till \u201cthe poor fall into their mouths,\u201d and \u201cof those vile\nwretches called pawnbrokers, that lend money and goods to poor people, who are\nby necessity forced to such an inconvenience, and will make by one trick or\nanother the interest of what they so lend amount to thirty and forty, yea,\nsometimes fifty pounds by the year.\u201d As Christian and Christiana watched Mr.\nBadman thus bite and pinch the poor in his shop in Bedford, before they took\nstaff and scrip for their journey to a more distant City, they remembered that\nthe Lord himself will plead the cause of the afflicted against them that oppress\nthem, and reflected, taught by the dealings of Ephron the son of Zohar, and of\nDavid with Ormon the Jebusite, that there is a \u201cwickedness, as in selling too\ndear, so in buying too cheap.\u201d[IV-53] Brother Berthold of Regensburg had said\nthe same four centuries before in his racy sermons in Germany. The emergence of\nthe idea that \u201cbusiness is business,\u201d and that the world of commercial\ntransactions is a closed compartment with laws of its own, if more ancient than\nis often supposed, did not win so painless a triumph as is sometimes suggested.\nPuritan as well as Catholic accepted without demur the view which set all human\ninterests and activities within the compass of religion. Puritans, as well as\nCatholics, essayed the formidable task of formulating a Christian casuistry of\neconomic conduct.\n\nThey essayed it. But they succeeded even less than the Popes and Doctors whose\nteaching, not always unwittingly, they repeated. And their failure had its\nroots, not merely in the obstacles offered by the ever more recalcitrant\nopposition of a commercial environment, but, like all failures which are\nsignificant, in the soul of Puritanism itself. Virtues are often conquered by\nvices, but their rout is most complete when it is inflicted by other virtues,\nmore militant, more efficient, or more congenial, and it is not only tares which\nchoke the ground where the good seed is sown. The fundamental question, after\nall, is not what kind of rules a faith enjoins, but what type of character it\nesteems and cultivates. To the scheme of Christian ethics which offered\nadmonitions against the numberless disguises assumed by the sin which sticketh\nfast between buying and selling, the Puritan character offered, not direct\nopposition, but a polished surface on which these ghostly admonitions could find\nno enduring foothold. The rules of Christian morality elaborated by Baxter were\nsubtle and sincere. But they were like seeds carried by birds from a distant and\nfertile plain, and dropped upon a glacier. They were at once embalmed and\nsterilized in a river of ice.\n\n\u201cThe capitalist spirit\u201d is as old as history, and was not, as has sometimes been\nsaid, the offspring of Puritanism. But it found in certain aspects of later\nPuritanism a tonic which braced its energies and fortified its already vigorous\ntemper. At first sight, no contrast could be more violent than that between the\niron collectivism, the almost military discipline, the remorseless and violent\nrigors practiced in Calvin\u2019s Geneva, and preached elsewhere, if in a milder\nform, by his disciples, and the impatient rejection of all traditional\nrestrictions on economic enterprise which was the temper of the English business\nworld after the Civil War. In reality, the same ingredients were present\nthroughout, but they were mixed in changing proportions, and exposed to\ndifferent temperatures at different times. Like traits of individual character\nwhich are suppressed till the approach of maturity releases them, the tendencies\nin Puritanism, which were to make it later a potent ally of the movement against\nthe control of economic relations in the name either of social morality or of\nthe public interest, did not reveal themselves till political and economic\nchanges had prepared a congenial environment for their growth. Nor, once those\nconditions were created, was it only England which witnessed the transformation.\nIn all countries alike, in Holland, in America, in Scotland, in Geneva itself,\nthe social theory of Calvinism went through the same process of development. It\nhad begun by being the very soul of authoritarian regimentation. It ended by\nbeing the vehicle of an almost Utilitarian individualism. While social reformers\nin the sixteenth century could praise Calvin for his economic rigor, their\nsuccessors in Restoration England, if of one persuasion, denounced him as the\nparent of economic license, if of another, applauded Calvinist communities for\ntheir commercial enterprise and for their freedom from antiquated prejudices on\nthe subject of economic morality. So little do those who shoot the arrows of the\nspirit know where they will light.\n\n\nIII. THE TRIUMPH OF THE ECONOMIC VIRTUES\n\n\u201cOne beam in a dark place,\u201d wrote one who knew the travail of the spirit, \u201chath\nexceeding much refreshment in it. Blessed be His name for shining upon so dark a\nheart as mine.\u201d[IV-54] While the revelation of God to the individual soul is the\ncenter of all religion, the essence of Puritan theology was that it made it, not\nonly the center, but the whole circumference and substance, dismissing as dross\nand vanity all else but this secret and solitary communion. Grace alone can\nsave, and this grace is the direct gift of God, unmediated by any earthly\ninstitution. The elect cannot by any act of their own evoke it; but they can\nprepare their hearts to receive it, and cherish it when received. They will\nprepare them best, if they empty them of all that may disturb the intentness of\ntheir lonely vigil. Like an engineer, who, to canalize the rush of the oncoming\ntide, dams all channels save that through which it is to pour, like a painter\nwho makes light visible by plunging all that is not light in gloom, the Puritan\nattunes his heart to the voice from Heaven by an immense effort of concentration\nand abnegation. To win all, he renounces all. When earthly props have been cast\ndown, the soul stands erect in the presence of God. Infinity is attained by a\nprocess of subtraction.\n\nTo a vision thus absorbed in a single intense experience, not only religious and\necclesiastical systems, but the entire world of human relations, the whole\nfabric of social institutions, witnessing in all the wealth of their idealism\nand their greed to the infinite creativeness of man, reveal themselves in a new\nand wintry light. The fire of the spirit burns brightly on the hearth; but\nthrough the windows of his soul the Puritan, unless a poet or a saint, looks on\na landscape touched by no breath of spring. What he sees is a forbidding and\nfrost-bound wilderness, rolling its snow-clad leagues towards the grave--a\nwilderness to be subdued with aching limbs beneath solitary stars. Through it he\nmust take his way, alone. No aid can avail him: no preacher, for only the elect\ncan apprehend with the spirit the word of God; no Church, for to the visible\nChurch even reprobates belong; no sacrament, for sacraments are ordained to\nincrease the glory of God, not to minister spiritual nourishment to man; hardly\nGod himself, for Christ died for the elect, and it may well be that the majesty\nof the Creator is revealed by the eternal damnation of all but a remnant of the\ncreated.[IV-55]\n\nHis life is that of a soldier in hostile territory. He suffers in spirit the\nperils which the first settlers in America endured in body, the sea behind, the\nuntamed desert in front, a cloud of inhuman enemies on either hand. Where\nCatholic and Anglican had caught a glimpse of the invisible, hovering like a\nconsecration over the gross world of sense, and touching its muddy vesture with\nthe unearthly gleam of a divine, yet familiar, beauty, the Puritan mourned for a\nlost Paradise and a creation sunk in sin. Where they had seen society as a\nmystical body, compact of members varying in order and degree, but dignified by\nparticipation in the common life of Christendom, he saw a bleak antithesis\nbetween the spirit which quickeneth and an alien, indifferent or hostile world.\nWhere they had reverenced the decent order whereby past was knit to present, and\nman to man, and man to God, through fellowship in works of charity, in festival\nand fast, in the prayers and ceremonies of the Church, he turned with horror\nfrom the filthy rags of human righteousness. Where they, in short, had found\ncomfort in a sacrament, he started back from a snare set to entrap his soul.\n\n                We receive but what we give,\n  And in our life alone does Nature live.\n\nToo often, contemning the external order as unspiritual, he made it, and\nultimately himself, less spiritual by reason of his contempt.\n\nThose who seek God in isolation from their fellowmen, unless trebly armed for\nthe perils of the quest, are apt to find, not God, but a devil, whose\ncountenance bears an embarrassing resemblance to their own. The moral\nself-sufficiency of the Puritan nerved his will, but it corroded his sense of\nsocial solidarity. For, if each individual\u2019s destiny hangs on a private\ntransaction between himself and his Maker, what room is left for human\nintervention? A servant of Jehovah more than of Christ, he revered God as a\nJudge rather than loved him as a Father, and was moved less by compassion for\nhis erring brethren than by impatient indignation at the blindness of vessels of\nwrath who \u201csinned their mercies.\u201d A spiritual aristocrat, who sacrificed\nfraternity to liberty, he drew from his idealization of personal responsibility\na theory of individual rights, which, secularized and generalized, was to be\namong the most potent explosives that the world has known. He drew from it also\na scale of ethical values, in which the traditional scheme of Christian virtues\nwas almost exactly reversed, and which, since he was above all things practical,\nhe carried as a dynamic into the routine of business and political life.\n\nFor, since conduct and action, though availing nothing to attain the free gift\nof salvation, are a proof that the gift has been accorded, what is rejected as a\nmeans is resumed as a consequence, and the Puritan flings himself into practical\nactivities with the d\u00e6monic energy of one who, all doubts allayed, is conscious\nthat he is a sealed and chosen vessel. Once engaged in affairs, he brings to\nthem both the qualities and limitations of his creed in all their remorseless\nlogic. Called by God to labor in his vineyard, he has within himself a principle\nat once of energy and of order, which makes him irresistible both in war and in\nthe struggles of commerce. Convinced that character is all and circumstances\nnothing, he sees in the poverty of those who fall by the way, not a misfortune\nto be pitied and relieved, but a moral failing to be condemned, and in riches,\nnot an object of suspicion--though like other gifts they may be abused--but the\nblessing which rewards the triumph of energy and will. Tempered by\nself-examination, self-discipline, self-control, he is the practical ascetic,\nwhose victories are won not in the cloister, but on the battlefield, in the\ncounting-house, and in the market.\n\nThis temper, of course with infinite varieties of quality and emphasis, found\nits social organ in those middle and commercial classes who were the citadel of\nthe Puritan spirit, and whom, \u201cennobled by their own industry and\nvirtue,\u201d[IV-56] Milton described as the standard-bearers of progress and\nenlightenment. We are so accustomed to think of England as _par excellence_ the\npioneer of economic progress, that we are apt to forget how recently that r\u00f4le\nhas been assumed. In the Middle Ages it belonged to the Italians, in the\nsixteenth century to the Netherland dominions of the Spanish Empire, in the\nseventeenth to the United Provinces and, above all, to the Dutch.\n\nThe England of Shakespeare and Bacon was still largely medieval in its economic\norganization and social outlook, more interested in maintaining customary\nstandards of consumption than in accumulating capital for future production,\nwith an aristocracy contemptuous of the economic virtues, a peasantry farming\nfor subsistence amid the organized confusion of the open-field village, and a\nsmall, if growing, body of jealously conservative craftsmen. In such a society\nPuritanism worked like the yeast which sets the whole mass fermenting. It went\nthrough its slack and loosely knit texture like a troop of Cromwell\u2019s Ironsides\nthrough the disorderly cavalry of Rupert. Where, as in Ireland, the elements\nwere so alien that assimilation was out of the question, the result was a wound\nthat festered for three centuries. In England the effect was that at once of an\nirritant and of a tonic. Puritanism had its own standards of social conduct,\nderived partly from the obvious interests of the commercial classes, partly from\nits conception of the nature of God and the destiny of man. These standards were\nin sharp antithesis, both to the considerable surviving elements of feudalism in\nEnglish society, and to the policy of the authoritarian State, with its ideal of\nan ordered and graded society, whose different members were to be maintained in\ntheir traditional status by the pressure and protection of a paternal monarchy.\nSapping the former by its influence and overthrowing the latter by direct\nattack, Puritanism became a potent force in preparing the way for the commercial\ncivilization which finally triumphed at the Revolution.\n\nThe complaint that religious radicalism, which aimed at upsetting the government\nof the Church, went hand in hand with an economic radicalism, which resented the\nrestraints on individual self-interest imposed in the name of religion or of\nsocial policy, was being made by the stricter school of religious opinion quite\nearly in the reign of Elizabeth.[IV-57] Seventeenth-century writers repeated the\ncharge that the Puritan conscience lost its delicacy where matters of business\nwere concerned, and some of them were sufficiently struck by the phenomenon to\nattempt an historical explanation of it. The example on which they usually\nseized--the symbol of a supposed general disposition to laxity--was the\nindulgence shown by Puritan divines in the particular matter of moderate\ninterest. It was the effect, so the picturesque story ran,[IV-58] of the Marian\npersecution. The refugees who fled to the Continent could not start business in\na foreign country. If, driven by necessity, they invested their capital and\nlived on the proceeds, who could quarrel with so venial a lapse in so good a\ncause? Subsequent writers embellished the picture. The redistribution of\nproperty at the time of the Dissolution, and the expansion of trade in the\nmiddle of the century, had led, one of them argued, to a great increase in the\nvolume of credit transactions. The opprobrium which attached to loans at\ninterest--\u201ca sly and forbid practice\u201d--not only among Romanists and Anglicans,\nbut among honest Puritans, played into the hands of the less scrupulous members\nof \u201cthe faction.\u201d Disappointed in politics, they took to money-lending, and,\nwithout venturing to justify usury in theory, defended it in practice. \u201cWithout\nthe scandal of a recantation, they contrived an expedient, by maintaining that,\nthough usury for the name were stark naught, yet for widows, orphans and other\nimpotents (therein principally comprising the saints under persecution) it was\nvery tolerable, because profitable, and in a manner necessary.\u201d Naturally,\nCalvin\u2019s doctrine as to the legitimacy of moderate interest was hailed by these\nhypocrites with a shout of glee. \u201cIt took with the brethren like polygamy with\nthe Turks, recommended by the example of divers zealous ministers, who\nthemselves desired to pass for orphans of the first rank.\u201d[IV-59] Nor was it\nonly as the apologist of moderate interest that Puritanism was alleged to reveal\nthe cloven hoof. Puritans themselves complained of a mercilessness in driving\nhard bargains, and of a harshness to the poor, which contrasted unfavorably with\nthe practice of followers of the unreformed religion. \u201cThe Papists,\u201d wrote a\nPuritan in 1653, \u201cmay rise up against many of this generation. It is a sad thing\nthat they should be more forward upon a bad principle than a Christian upon a\ngood one.\u201d[IV-60]\n\nSuch, in all ages, is history as seen by the political pamphleteer. The real\nstory was less dramatic, but more significant. From the very beginning,\nCalvinism had comprised two elements, which Calvin himself had fused, but which\ncontained the seeds of future discord. It had at once given a whole-hearted\n_imprimatur_ to the life of business enterprise, which most earlier moralists\nhad regarded with suspicion, and had laid upon it the restraining hand of an\ninquisitorial discipline. At Geneva, where Calvinism was the creed of a small\nand homogeneous city, the second aspect had predominated; in the many-sided life\nof England, where there were numerous conflicting interests to balance it, and\nwhere it was long politically weak, the first. Then, in the late sixteenth and\nearly seventeenth centuries, had come the wave of commercial and financial\nexpansion--companies, colonies, capitalism in textiles, capitalism in mining,\ncapitalism in finance--on the crest of which the English commercial classes, in\nCalvin\u2019s day still held in leading-strings by conservative statesmen, had\nclimbed to a position of dignity and affluence.\n\nNaturally, as the Puritan movement came to its own, these two elements flew\napart. The collectivist, half-communistic aspect, which had never been\nacclimatized in England, quietly dropped out of notice, to crop up once more,\nand for the last time, to the disgust and terror of merchant and landowner, in\nthe popular agitation under the Commonwealth. The individualism congenial to the\nworld of business became the distinctive characteristic of a Puritanism which\nhad arrived, and which, in becoming a political force, was at once secularized\nand committed to a career of compromise. Its note was not the attempt to\nestablish on earth a \u201cKingdom of Christ,\u201d but an ideal of personal character and\nconduct, to be realized by the punctual discharge both of public and private\nduties. Its theory had been discipline; its practical result was liberty.\n\nGiven the social and political conditions of England, the transformation was\ninevitable. The incompatibility of Presbyterianism with the stratified\narrangement of English society had been remarked by Hooker.[IV-61] If the City\nFathers of Geneva had thrown off by the beginning of the seventeenth century the\nreligious collectivism of Calvin\u2019s r\u00e9gime, it was not to be expected that the\nlandowners and _bourgeoisie_ of an aristocratic and increasingly commercial\nnation, however much Calvinist theology might appeal to them, would view with\nfavor the social doctrines implied in Calvinist discipline. In the reign of the\nfirst two Stuarts, both economic interests and political theory pulled them hard\nin the opposite direction. \u201cMerchants\u2019 doings,\u201d the man of business in Wilson\u2019s\n_Discourse upon Usury_ had observed, \u201cmust not thus be overthwarted by preachers\nand others that cannot skill of their dealings.\u201d[IV-62] Behind the elaborate\nfa\u00e7ade of Tudor State control, which has attracted the attention of historians,\nan individualist movement had been steadily developing, which found expression\nin opposition to the traditional policy of stereotyping economic relations by\nchecking enclosure, controlling food supplies and prices, interfering with the\nmoney-market, and regulating the conditions of the wage contract and of\napprenticeship. In the first forty years of the seventeenth century, on grounds\nboth of expediency and of principle, the commercial and propertied classes were\nbecoming increasingly restive under the whole system, at once ambitious and\ninefficient, of economic paternalism. It was in the same sections of the\ncommunity that both religious and economic dissatisfaction were most acute.\nPuritanism, with its idealization of the spiritual energies which found\nexpression in the activities of business and industry, drew the isolated\nrivulets of discontent together, and swept them forward with the dignity and\nmomentum of a religious and a social philosophy.\n\nFor it was not merely as the exponent of certain tenets as to theology and\nchurch government, but as the champion of interests and opinions embracing every\nside of the life of society, that the Puritan movement came into collision with\nthe Crown. In reality, as is the case with most heroic ideologies, the social\nand religious aspects of Puritanism were not disentangled; they presented\nthemselves, both to supporters and opponents, as different facets of a single\nscheme. \u201cAll that crossed the views of the needy courtiers, the proud\nencroaching priests, the thievish projectors, the lewd nobility and gentry ...\nwhoever could endure a sermon, modest habit or conversation, or anything\ngood--all these were Puritans.\u201d[IV-63] The clash was not one of theories--a\nsystematic and theoretical individualism did not develop till after the\nRestoration--but of contradictory economic interests and incompatible\nconceptions of social expediency.\n\nThe economic policy haltingly pursued by the Government of Charles I bore some\nresemblance to the system of which a more uncompromising version was developed\nbetween 1661 and 1685 by Colbert in France. It was one which favored an\nartificial and State-promoted capitalism--a capitalism resting on the grant of\nprivileges and concessions to company promoters who would pay for them, and\naccompanied by an elaborate system of State control, which again, if partly\ninspired by a genuine solicitude for the public interest, was too often smeared\nwith an odious trail of finance. It found its characteristic expression in the\ngrant of patents, in the revival of the royal monopoly of exchange business,\nagainst which the City had fought under Elizabeth, in attempts to enforce by\nadministrative action compliance with the elaborate and impracticable code\ncontrolling the textile trades and to put down speculation in foodstuffs, and in\nraids on enclosing landlords, on employers who paid in truck or evaded the rates\nfixed by assessment, and on justices who were negligent in the administration of\nthe Poor Laws. Such measures were combined with occasional plunges into even\nmore grandiose schemes for the establishment of county granaries, for taking\ncertain industries into the hands of the Crown, and even for the virtual\nnationalization of the cloth manufacture.[IV-64]\n\n\u201cThe very genius of that nation of people,\u201d wrote Strafford to Laud of the\nPuritans, \u201cleads them always to oppose, as well civilly as ecclesiastically, all\nthat ever authority ordains for them.\u201d[IV-65] Against this whole attempt to\nconvert economic activity into an instrument of profit for the Government and\nits hangers-on--against, no less, the spasmodic attempts of the State to protect\npeasants against landlords, craftsmen against merchants, and consumers against\nmiddlemen--the interests which it thwarted and curbed revolted with increasing\npertinacity. Questions of taxation, on which attention has usually been\nconcentrated, were in reality merely one element in a quarrel which had its\ndeeper cause in the collision of incompatible social philosophies. The Puritan\ntradesman had seen his business ruined by a monopoly granted to a needy\ncourtier, and cursed Laud and his Popish soap. The Puritan goldsmith or\nfinancier had found his trade as a bullion-broker hampered by the\nre\u00ebstablishment of the ancient office of Royal Exchanger, and secured a\nresolution from the House of Commons, declaring that the patent vesting it in\nLord Holland and the proclamation forbidding the exchanging of gold and silver\nby unauthorized persons were a grievance. The Puritan money-lender had been\npunished by the Court of High Commission, and railed at the interference of\nbishops in temporal affairs. The Puritan clothier, who had suffered many things\nat the hands of interfering busy-bodies despatched from Whitehall to teach him\nhis business, averted discreet eyes when the Wiltshire workmen threw a more than\nusually obnoxious Royal Commissioner into the Avon, and, when the Civil War\ncame, rallied to the Parliament. The Puritan country gentleman had been harried\nby Depopulation Commissions, and took his revenge with the meeting of the Long\nParliament. The Puritan merchant had seen the Crown both squeeze money out of\nhis company, and threaten its monopoly by encouraging courtly interlopers to\ninfringe its charter. The Puritan member of Parliament had invested in colonial\nenterprises, and had ideas as to commercial policy which were not those of the\nGovernment. Confident in their own energy and acumen, proud of their success,\nand regarding with profound distrust the interference both of Church and of\nState with matters of business and property rights, the commercial classes, in\nspite of their attachment to a militant mercantilism in matters of trade, were,\neven before the Civil War, more than half converted to the administrative\nnihilism which was to be the rule of social policy in the century following it.\nTheir demand was the one which is usual in such circumstances. It was that\nbusiness affairs should be left to be settled by business men, unhampered by the\nintrusions of an antiquated morality or by misconceived arguments of public\npolicy.[IV-66]\n\nThe separation of economic from ethical interests, which was the note of all\nthis movement, was in sharp opposition to religious tradition, and it did not\nestablish itself without a struggle. Even in the very capital of European\ncommerce and finance, an embittered controversy was occasioned by the refusal to\nadmit usurers to communion or to confer degrees upon them; it was only after a\nstorm of pamphleteering, in which the theological faculty of the University of\nUtrecht performed prodigies of zeal and ingenuity, that the States of Holland\nand West Friesland closed the agitation by declaring that the Church had no\nconcern with questions of banking.[IV-67] In the French Calvinist Churches, the\ndecline of discipline had caused lamentations a generation earlier.[IV-68] In\nAmerica, the theocracy of Massachusetts, merciless alike to religious liberty\nand to economic license, was about to be undermined by the rise of new States\nlike Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, whose tolerant, individualist and\nutilitarian temper was destined to find its greatest representative in the\ngolden common sense of Benjamin Franklin.[IV-69] \u201cThe sin of our too great\nfondness for trade, to the neglecting of our more valuable interests,\u201d wrote a\nScottish divine in 1709, when Glasgow was on the eve of a triumphant outburst of\ncommercial enterprise, \u201cI humbly think will be written upon our judgment.... I\nam sure the Lord is remarkably frowning upon our trade ... since it was put in\nthe room of religion.\u201d[IV-70]\n\nIn England, the growing disposition to apply exclusively economic standards to\nsocial relations evoked from Puritan writers and divines vigorous protests\nagainst usurious interest, extortionate prices and the oppression of tenants by\nlandlords. The faithful, it was urged, had interpreted only too literally the\ndoctrine that the sinner was saved, not by works, but by faith. Usury, \u201cin time\nof Popery an odious thing,\u201d[IV-71] had become a scandal. Professors, by their\ncovetousness, caused the enemies of the reformed religion to blaspheme.[IV-72]\nThe exactions of the forestaller and regrater were never so monstrous or so\nimmune from interference. The hearts of the rich were never so hard, nor the\nnecessities of the poor so neglected. \u201cThe poor able to work are suffered to\nbeg; the impotent, aged and sick are not sufficiently provided for, but almost\nstarved with the allowance of 3_d._ and 4_d._ a piece a week.... These are the\nlast times indeed. Men generally are all for themselves. And some would set up\nsuch, having a form of religion, without the power of it.\u201d[IV-73]\n\nThese utterances came, however, from that part of the Puritan mind which looked\nbackward. That which looked forward found in the rapidly growing spirit of\neconomic enterprise something not uncongenial to its own temper, and went out to\nwelcome it as an ally. What in Calvin had been a qualified concession to\npractical exigencies appeared in some of his later followers as a frank\nidealization of the life of the trader, as the service of God and the\ntraining-ground of the soul. Discarding the suspicion of economic motives, which\nhad been as characteristic of the reformers as of medieval theologians,\nPuritanism in its later phases added a halo of ethical sanctification to the\nappeal of economic expediency, and offered a moral creed, in which the duties of\nreligion and the calls of business ended their long estrangement in an\nunanticipated reconciliation. Its spokesmen pointed out, it is true, the peril\nto the soul involved in a single-minded concentration on economic interests. The\nenemy, however, was not riches, but the bad habits sometimes associated with\nthem, and its warnings against an excessive preoccupation with the pursuit of\ngain wore more and more the air of after-thoughts, appended to teaching the main\ntendency and emphasis of which were little affected by these incidental\nqualifications. It insisted, in short, that money-making, if not free from\nspiritual dangers, was not a danger and nothing else, but that it could be, and\nought to be, carried on for the greater glory of God.\n\nThe conception to which it appealed to bridge the gulf sprang from the very\nheart of Puritan theology. It was that expressed in the characteristic and\noft-used phrase, \u201ca Calling.\u201d[IV-74] The rational order of the universe is the\nwork of God, and its plan requires that the individual should labor for God\u2019s\nglory. There is a spiritual calling, and a temporal calling. It is the first\nduty of the Christian to know and believe in God; it is by faith that he will be\nsaved. But faith is not a mere profession, such as that of Talkative of Prating\nRow, whose \u201creligion is to make a noise.\u201d The only genuine faith is the faith\nwhich produces works. \u201cAt the day of Doom men shall be judged according to their\nfruits. It will not be said then, Did you believe? but, Were you doers, or\ntalkers only?\u201d[IV-75] The second duty of the Christian is to labor in the\naffairs of practical life, and this second duty is subordinate only to the\nfirst. \u201cGod,\u201d wrote a Puritan divine, \u201cdoth call every man and woman ... to\nserve him in some peculiar employment in this world, both for their own and the\ncommon good.... The Great Governour of the world hath appointed to every man his\nproper post and province, and let him be never so active out of his sphere, he\nwill be at a great loss, if he do not keep his own vineyard and mind his own\nbusiness.\u201d[IV-76]\n\nFrom this reiterated insistence on secular obligations as imposed by the divine\nwill, it follows that, not withdrawal from the world, but the conscientious\ndischarge of the duties of business, is among the loftiest of religious and\nmoral virtues. \u201cThe begging friars and such monks as live only to themselves and\nto their formal devotion, but do employ themselves in no one thing to further\ntheir own subsistence or the good of mankind ... yet have the confidence to\nboast of this their course as a state of perfection; which in very deed, as to\nthe worthiness of it, falls short of the poorest cobbler, for his is a calling\nof God, and theirs is none.\u201d[IV-77] The idea was not a new one. Luther had\nadvanced it as a weapon against monasticism. But for Luther, with his\npatriarchal outlook on economic affairs, the calling means normally that state\nof life in which the individual has been set by Heaven, and against which it is\nimpiety to rebel. On the lips of Puritan divines, it is not an invitation to\nresignation, but the bugle-call which summons the elect to the long battle which\nwill end only with their death. \u201cThe world is all before them.\u201d They are to\nhammer out their salvation, not merely _in vocatione_, but _per vocationem_. The\ncalling is not a condition in which the individual is born, but a strenuous and\nexacting enterprise, to be undertaken, indeed, under the guidance of Providence,\nbut to be chosen by each man for himself, with a deep sense of his solemn\nresponsibilities. \u201cGod hath given to man reason for this use, that he should\nfirst consider, then choose, then put in execution; and it is a preposterous and\nbrutish thing to fix or fall upon any weighty business, such as a calling or\ncondition of life, without a careful pondering it in the balance of sound\nreason.\u201d[IV-78]\n\n_Laborare est orare._ By the Puritan moralist the ancient maxim is repeated with\na new and intenser significance. The labor which he idealizes is not simply a\nrequirement imposed by nature, or a punishment for the sin of Adam. It is itself\na kind of ascetic discipline, more rigorous than that demanded of any order of\nmendicants--a discipline imposed by the will of God, and to be undergone, not in\nsolitude, but in the punctual discharge of secular duties. It is not merely an\neconomic means, to be laid aside when physical needs have been satisfied. It is\na spiritual end, for in it alone can the soul find health, and it must be\ncontinued as an ethical duty long after it has ceased to be a material\nnecessity. Work thus conceived stands at the very opposite pole from \u201cgood\nworks,\u201d as they were understood, or misunderstood, by Protestants. They, it was\nthought, had been a series of single transactions, performed as compensation for\nparticular sins, or out of anxiety to acquire merit. What is required of the\nPuritan is not individual meritorious acts, but a holy life--a system in which\nevery element is grouped round a central idea, the service of God, from which\nall disturbing irrelevances have been pruned, and to which all minor interests\nare subordinated.\n\nHis conception of that life was expressed in the words, \u201cBe wholly taken up in\ndiligent business of your lawful callings, when you are not exercised in the\nmore immediate service of God.\u201d[IV-79] In order to deepen his spiritual life,\nthe Christian must be prepared to narrow it. He \u201cis blind in no man\u2019s cause, but\nbest sighted in his own. He confines himself to the circle of his own affairs\nand thrusts not his fingers in needless fires.... He sees the falseness of it\n[the world] and therefore learns to trust himself ever, others so far as not to\nbe damaged by their disappointment.\u201d[IV-80] There must be no idle leisure:\n\u201cthose that are prodigal of their time despise their own souls.\u201d[IV-81] Religion\nmust be active, not merely contemplative. Contemplation is, indeed, a kind of\nself-indulgence. \u201cTo neglect this [i.e., bodily employment and mental labor] and\nsay, \u2018I will pray and meditate,\u2019 is as if your servant should refuse your\ngreatest work, and tye himself to some lesser, easie part.... God hath commanded\nyou some way or other to labour for your daily bread.\u201d[IV-82] The rich are no\nmore excused from work than the poor, though they may rightly use their riches\nto select some occupation specially serviceable to others. Covetousness is a\ndanger to the soul, but it is not so grave a danger as sloth. \u201cThe standing pool\nis prone to putrefaction: and it were better to beat down the body and to keep\nit in subjection by a laborious calling, than through luxury to become a\ncast-away.\u201d[IV-83] So far from poverty being meritorious, it is a duty to choose\nthe more profitable occupation. \u201cIf God show you a way in which you may lawfully\nget more than in another way (without wrong to your soul or to any other), if\nyou refuse this, and choose the less gainful way, you cross one of the ends of\nyour Calling, and you refuse to be God\u2019s steward.\u201d Luxury, unrestrained\npleasure, personal extravagance, can have no place in a Christian\u2019s conduct, for\n\u201cevery penny which is laid out ... must be done as by God\u2019s own appointment.\u201d\nEven excessive devotion to friends and relations is to be avoided. \u201cIt is an\nirrational act, and therefore not fit for a rational creature, to love any one\nfarther than reason will allow us.... It very often taketh up men\u2019s minds so as\nto hinder their love to God.\u201d[IV-84] The Christian life, in short, must be\nsystematic and organized, the work of an iron will and a cool intelligence.\nThose who have read Mill\u2019s account of his father must have been struck by the\nextent to which Utilitarianism was not merely a political doctrine, but a moral\nattitude. Some of the links in the Utilitarian coat of mail were forged, it may\nbe suggested, by the Puritan divines of the seventeenth century.\n\nThe practical application of these generalities to business is set out in the\nnumerous works composed to expound the rules of Christian conduct in the varied\nrelations of life. If one may judge by their titles--_Navigation Spiritualized_,\n_Husbandry Spiritualized_, _The Religious Weaver_[IV-85]--there must have been a\nconsiderable demand for books conducive to professional edification. A\ncharacteristic specimen is _The Tradesman\u2019s Calling_,[IV-86] by Richard Steele.\nThe author, after being deprived of a country living under the Act of\nUniformity, spent his declining years as minister of a congregation at Armourers\nHall in London, and may be presumed to have understood the spiritual\nrequirements of the City in his day, when the heroic age of Puritanism was\nalmost over and enthusiasm was no longer a virtue. No one who was writing a\ntreatise on economic ethics today would address himself primarily to the\nindependent shopkeeper, as the figure most representative of the business\ncommunity, and Steele\u2019s book throws a flood of light on the problems and outlook\nof the _bourgeoisie_, in an age before the center of economic gravity had\nshifted from the substantial tradesman to the exporting merchant, the industrial\ncapitalist and the financier.\n\nLike Baxter, he is acquainted with the teaching of earlier authorities as to\nequity in bargaining. He is doubtful, however, of its practical utility. Obvious\nfrauds in matters of quality and weight are to be avoided; an honest tradesman\nought not to corner the market, or \u201caccumulate two or three callings merely to\nincrease his riches,\u201d or oppress the poor; nor should he seek more than \u201ca\nreasonable proportion of gain,\u201d or \u201clie on the catch to make [his] markets of\nothers\u2019 straits.\u201d But Steele rejects as useless in practice the various\nobjective standards of a reasonable profit--cost of production, standard of\nlife, customary prices--which had been suggested in earlier ages, and concludes\nthat the individual must judge for himself. \u201cHere, as in many other cases, an\nupright conscience must be the clerk of the market.\u201d\n\nIn reality, however, the characteristic of _The Tradesman\u2019s Calling_, as of the\nage in which it was written, is not the relics of medieval doctrine which linger\nembalmed in its guileless pages, but the robust common sense, which carries the\nauthor lightly over traditional scruples on a tide of genial, if Philistine,\noptimism. For his main thesis is a comfortable one--that there is no necessary\nconflict between religion and business. \u201cPrudence and Piety were always very\ngood friends.... You may gain enough of both worlds if you would mind each in\nits place.\u201d His object is to show how that agreeable result may be produced by\ndedicating business--with due reservations--to the service of God, and he has\nnaturally little to say on the moral casuistry of economic conduct, because he\nis permeated by the idea that trade itself is a kind of religion. A tradesman\u2019s\nfirst duty is to get a full insight into his calling, and to use his brains to\nimprove it. \u201cHe that hath lent you talents hath also said, \u2018Occupy till I come!\u2019\nYour strength is a talent, your parts are talents, and so is your time. How is\nit that ye stand all the day idle?... Your trade is your proper province....\nYour own vineyard you should keep.... Your fancies, your understandings, your\nmemories ... are all to be laid out therein.\u201d So far from their being an\ninevitable collision between the requirements of business and the claims of\nreligion, they walk hand in hand. By a fortunate dispensation, the virtues\nenjoined on Christians--diligence, moderation, sobriety, thrift--are the very\nqualities most conducive to commercial success. The foundation of all is\nprudence; and prudence is merely another name for the \u201cgodly wisdom [which]\ncomes in and puts due bounds\u201d to his expenses, \u201cand teaches the tradesman to\nlive rather somewhat below than at all above his income.\u201d Industry comes next,\nand industry is at once expedient and meritorious. It will keep the tradesman\nfrom \u201cfrequent and needless frequenting of taverns,\u201d and pin him to his shop,\n\u201cwhere you may most confidently expect the presence and blessing of God.\u201d\n\nIf virtue is advantageous, vice is ruinous. Bad company, speculation, gambling,\npolitics, and \u201ca preposterous zeal\u201d in religion--it is these things which are\nthe ruin of tradesmen. Not, indeed, that religion is to be neglected. On the\ncontrary, it \u201cis to be exercised in the frequent use of holy ejaculations.\u201d What\nis deprecated is merely the unbusinesslike habit of \u201cneglecting a man\u2019s\nnecessary affairs upon pretence of religious worship.\u201d But these faults, common\nand uncommon alike, are precisely those to be avoided by the sincere Christian,\nwho must not, indeed, deceive or oppress his neighbor, but need not fly to the\nother extreme, be righteous over-much, or refuse to \u201ctake the advantage which\nthe Providence of God puts into his hands.\u201d By a kind of happy, pre\u00ebstablished\nharmony, such as a later age discovered between the needs of society and the\nself-interest of the individual, success in business is in itself almost a sign\nof spiritual grace, for it is a proof that a man has labored faithfully in his\nvocation, and that \u201cGod has blessed his trade.\u201d \u201cNothing will pass in any man\u2019s\naccount except it be done in the way of his calling.... Next to the saving his\nsoul, [the tradesman\u2019s] care and business is to serve God in his calling, and to\ndrive it as far as it will go.\u201d\n\nWhen duty was so profitable, might not profit-making be a duty? Thus argued the\nhonest pupils of Mr. Gripeman, the schoolmaster of Love-gain, a market-town in\nthe county of Coveting in the north.[IV-87] The inference was illogical, but how\nattractive! When the Rev. David Jones was so indiscreet as to preach at St. Mary\nWoolnoth in Lombard Street a sermon against usury on the text, \u201cThe Pharisees\nwho were covetous heard all these things and they derided Christ,\u201d his career in\nLondon was brought to an abrupt conclusion.[IV-88]\n\nThe springs of economic conduct lie in regions rarely penetrated by moralists,\nand to suggest a direct reaction of theory on practice would be paradoxical.\nBut, if the circumstances which determine that certain kinds of conduct shall be\nprofitable are economic, those which decide that they shall be the object of\ngeneral approval are primarily moral and intellectual. For conventions to be\nadopted with whole-hearted enthusiasm, to be not merely tolerated, but\napplauded, to become the habit of a nation and the admiration of its\nphilosophers, the second condition must be present as well as the first. The\ninsistence among men of pecuniary motives, the strength of economic egotism, the\nappetite for gain--these are the commonplaces of every age and need no emphasis.\nWhat is significant is the change of standards which converted a natural frailty\ninto a resounding virtue. After all, it appears, a man can serve two masters,\nfor--so happily is the world disposed--he may be paid by one, while he works for\nthe other. Between the old-fashioned denunciation of uncharitable covetousness\nand the new-fashioned applause of economic enterprise, a bridge is thrown by the\nargument which urges that enterprise itself is the discharge of a duty imposed\nby God.\n\nIn the year 1690 appeared a pamphlet entitled _A Discourse of Trade, by N. B.,\nM.D._[IV-89] Notable for its enlightened discussion of conventional theories of\nthe balance of trade, it is a good specimen of an indifferent _genus_. But its\nauthorship was more significant than its argument. For N. B. was Dr. Nicholas\nBarbon; and Dr. Nicholas Barbon, currency expert, pioneer of insurance, and\nenthusiast for land-banks, was the son of that Praise-God Barebones, by the\nparody of whose alluring surname a cynical posterity recorded its verdict on the\nbrief comedy of the Rule of the Saints over Laodicean Englishmen. The reaction\nfrom Puritan rigor to Restoration license is the most familiar of platitudes.\nThe reaction to a mundane materialism was more gradual, more general, and\nultimately of greater significance. The profligacy of the courtier had its\ndecorous counterpart in the economic orgies of the tradesman and the merchant.\nVotaries, not of Bacchus, but of a more exacting and more profitable divinity,\nthey celebrated their relief at the discredit of a too arduous idealism, by\nplunging with redoubled zest into the agreeable fever of making and losing\nmoney.\n\nThe transition from the anabaptist to the company promoter was less abrupt than\nmight at first sight be supposed. It had been prepared, however unintentionally,\nby Puritan moralists. In their emphasis on the moral duty of untiring activity,\non work as an end in itself, on the evils of luxury and extravagance, on\nforesight and thrift, on moderation and self-discipline and rational\ncalculation, they had created an ideal of Christian conduct, which canonized as\nan ethical principle the efficiency which economic theorists were preaching as a\nspecific for social disorders. It was as captivating as it was novel. To\ncountless generations of religious thinkers, the fundamental maxim of Christian\nsocial ethics had seemed to be expressed in the words of St. Paul to Timothy:\n\u201cHaving food and raiment, let us be therewith content. For the love of money is\nthe root of all evil.\u201d Now, while, as always, the world battered at the gate, a\nnew standard was raised within the citadel by its own defenders. The garrison\nhad discovered that the invading host of economic appetites was, not an enemy,\nbut an ally. Not sufficiency to the needs of daily life, but limitless increase\nand expansion, became the goal of the Christian\u2019s efforts. Not consumption, on\nwhich the eyes of earlier sages had been turned, but production, became the\npivot of his argument. Not an easy-going and open-handed charity, but a\nsystematic and methodical accumulation, won the meed of praise that belongs to\nthe good and faithful servant. The shrewd, calculating commercialism which tries\nall human relations by pecuniary standards, the acquisitiveness which cannot\nrest while there are competitors to be conquered or profits to be won, the love\nof social power and hunger for economic gain--these irrepressible appetites had\nevoked from time immemorial the warnings and denunciations of saints and sages.\nPlunged in the cleansing waters of later Puritanism, the qualities which less\nenlightened ages had denounced as social vices emerged as economic virtues. They\nemerged as moral virtues as well. For the world exists not to be enjoyed, but to\nbe conquered. Only its conqueror deserves the name of Christian. For such a\nphilosophy, the question, \u201cWhat shall it profit a man?\u201d carries no sting. In\nwinning the world, he wins the salvation of his own soul as well.\n\nThe idea of economic progress as an end to be consciously sought, while ever\nreceding, had been unfamiliar to most earlier generations of Englishmen, in\nwhich the theme of moralists had been the danger of unbridled cupidity, and the\nmain aim of public policy had been the stability of traditional relationships.\nIt found a new sanction in the identification of labor and enterprise with the\nservice of God. The magnificent energy which changed in a century the face of\nmaterial civilization was to draw nourishment from that temper. The worship of\nproduction and ever greater production--the slavish drudgery of the millionaire\nand his unhappy servants--was to be hallowed by the precepts of the same\ncompelling creed.\n\nSocial development moves with a logic whose inferences are long delayed, and the\nday of these remoter applications had not yet dawned. The version of Christian\nethics expounded by Puritanism in some of its later phases was still only in its\nvigorous youth. But it sailed forward on a flowing tide. It had an unconscious\nally in the preoccupation with economic interests which found expression in the\nenthusiasm of business politicians for a commercial _Machtpolitik_. The youthful\nCommonwealth, a rival of Holland \u201cfor the fairest mistress in the\nworld--trade,\u201d[IV-90] was not two years old when it made its own essay in\neconomic imperialism. \u201cA bare-faced war\u201d for commerce, got up by the Royal\nAfrican Company, was Clarendon\u2019s verdict[IV-91] on the Dutch war of 1665-7. Five\nyears later, Shaftesbury hounded the City against Holland with the cry of\n_Delenda est Carthago_. The war finance of the Protectorate had made it\nnecessary for Cromwell to court Dutch and Jewish, as well as native,\ncapitalists, and the impecunious Government of the Restoration was in the hands\nof those syndicates of goldsmiths whose rapacity the Chancellor, a survivor from\nthe age before the deluge, when aristocrats still despised the upstart\nplutocracy, found not a little disgusting.[IV-92]\n\nThe contemporary progress of economic thought fortified no less the mood which\nglorified the economic virtues. Economic science developed in England, not, as\nin Germany, as the handmaid of public administration, nor, as in France, through\nthe speculations of philosophers and men of letters, but as the interpreter of\nthe practical interests of the City. With the exception of Petty and Locke, its\nmost eminent practitioners were business men, and the questions which excited\nthem were those, neither of production nor of social organization, but of\ncommerce and finance--the balance of trade, tariffs, interest, currency and\ncredit. The rise of Political Arithmetic after the Restoration, profoundly\ninfluenced, as it was, by the Cartesian philosophy and by the progress of\nnatural science, stamped their spontaneous and doctrineless individualism with\nthe seal of theoretical orthodoxy. \u201cKnowledge,\u201d wrote the author of the preface\nto a work by one of the most eminent exponents of the new science, \u201cin great\nmeasure is become mechanical.\u201d[IV-93] The exact analysis of natural conditions,\nthe calculations of forces and strains, the reduction of the complex to the\noperation of simple, constant and measurable forces, was the natural bias of an\nage interested primarily in mathematics and physics. Its object was \u201cto express\nitself in terms of number, weight or measure, to use only arguments of sense,\nand to consider only such causes as have visible foundations in nature; leaving\nthose that depend upon the mutable minds, opinions, appetites and passions of\nparticular men to the consideration of others.\u201d[IV-94]\n\nIn such an atmosphere, the moral casuistry, which had occupied so large a place\nin the earlier treatment of social and economic subjects, seemed the voice of an\nantiquated superstition. Moreover, the main economic dogma of the mercantilist\nhad an affinity with the main ethical dogma of the Puritan, which was the more\nstriking because the coincidence was undesigned. To the former, production, not\nconsumption, was the pivot of the economic system, and, by what seems to the\nmodern reader a curious perversion, consumption is applauded only because it\noffers a new market for productive energies. To the latter, the cardinal virtues\nare precisely those which find in the strenuous toils of industry and commerce\ntheir most natural expression. The typical qualities of the successful business\nlife, in the days before the rise of joint-stock enterprise, were intensity and\nearnestness of labor, concentration, system and method, the initiative which\nbroke with routine and the foresight which postponed the present to the future.\nAdvice like that of the Reverend Mr. Steele to his City congregation was\nadmirably calculated to give these arduous excellences a heightened status and\njustification. The lean goddess, Abstinence, whom Mr. Keynes, in a passage of\nbrilliant indiscretion, has revealed as the tutelary divinity of Victorian\nEngland, was inducted to the austere splendors of her ascetic shrine by the\npious hands of Puritan moralists.\n\nSuch teaching fell upon willing ears. Excluded by legislation from a direct\nparticipation in public affairs, Dissenters of means and social position threw\nthemselves into the alternative career offered by commerce and finance, and did\nso the more readily because religion itself had blessed their choice. If they\nconformed, the character given them by their critics--\u201copinionating, relying\nmuch upon their own judgment ... ungrateful, as not holding themselves beholden\nto any man ... proud, as thinking themselves the only favorites of God, and the\nonly wise or virtuous among men\u201d[IV-95]--disposed them to the left in questions\nof Church and State. The names of the commercial magnates of the day lend some\nconfirmation to the suggestion of that affinity between religious radicalism and\nbusiness acumen which envious contemporaries expressed in their sneers at the\n\u201cPresbyterian old usurer,\u201d \u201cdevout misers,\u201d and \u201cextorting Ishban.\u201d[IV-96] The\nfour London members elected in 1661 had not only filled the ordinary civic\noffices, but had held between them the governorship of the East India Company,\nthe deputy-governorship of the Levant Company, and the masterships of the\nSalters and Drapers Companies; two of them were said to be Presbyterians, and\ntwo Independents.[IV-97] Of the committee of leading business men who advised\nCharles II\u2019s Government on questions of commercial policy, some, like Sir\nPatience Ward and Michael Godfrey, represented the ultra-Protestantism of the\nCity, while others, like Thomas Papillon and the two Houblons, were members of\nthe French Huguenot church in London.[IV-98] In spite of the bitter commercial\nrivalry with Holland, both Dutch capital and Dutch ideas found an enthusiastic\nwelcome in London.[IV-99] Sir George Downing, Charles II\u2019s envoy at the Hague,\nwho endeavored to acclimatize Dutch banking methods in England, and who,\naccording to Clarendon, was one of the intriguers who prepared the war of\n1665-7, had been reared in the Puritan severity of Salem and Harvard, and had\nbeen a preacher in the regiment of Colonel Okey.[IV-100] Paterson, who supplied\nthe idea of a joint-stock banking corporation, which Michael Godfrey popularized\nin the City and Montagu piloted through Parliament, was, like the magnificent\nLaw, a Scotch company promoter, who had haunted the Hague in the days when it\nwas the home of disconsolate Whigs.[IV-101] Yarranton, most ingenious of\nprojectors, had been an officer in the Parliamentary army, and his book was a\nlong sermon on the virtues of the Dutch.[IV-102] Defoe, who wrote the idyll of\nthe _bourgeoisie_ in his _Complete English Tradesman_, was born of nonconformist\nparents, and was intended for the ministry before, having failed in trade, he\ntook up politics and literature.[IV-103] In his admirable study of the iron\nindustry, Mr. Ashton has shown that the most eminent iron-masters of the\neighteenth century belonged as a rule to the Puritan connection.[IV-104] They\nhad their prototype in the seventeenth century in Baxter\u2019s friend, Thomas Foley,\n\u201cwho from almost nothing did get about \u00a35,000 per annum or more by iron\nworks.\u201d[IV-105]\n\nTo such a generation, a creed which transformed the acquisition of wealth from a\ndrudgery or a temptation into a moral duty was the milk of lions. It was not\nthat religion was expelled from practical life, but that religion itself gave it\na foundation of granite. In that keen atmosphere of economic enterprise, the\nethics of the Puritan bore some resemblance to those associated later with the\nname of Smiles. The good Christian was not wholly dissimilar from the economic\nman.\n\n\nIV. THE NEW MEDICINE FOR POVERTY\n\nTo applaud certain qualities is by implication to condemn the habits and\ninstitutions which appear to conflict with them. The recognition accorded by\nPuritan ethics to the economic virtues, in an age when such virtues were rarer\nthan they are today, gave a timely stimulus to economic efficiency. But it\nnaturally, if unintentionally, modified the traditional attitude towards social\nobligations. For the spontaneous, doctrineless individualism, which became the\nrule of English public life a century before the philosophy of it was propounded\nby Adam Smith, no single cause was responsible. But, simultaneously with the\nobvious movements in the world of affairs--the discrediting of the ideal of a\npaternal, authoritarian Government, the breakdown of central control over local\nadministration, the dislocation caused by the Civil War, the expansion of trade\nand the shifting of industry from its accustomed seats--it is perhaps not\nfanciful to detect in the ethics of Puritanism one force contributing to the\nchange in social policy which is noticeable after the middle of the century.\n\nThe loftiest teaching cannot escape from its own shadow. To urge that the\nChristian life must be lived in a zealous discharge of private duties--how\nnecessary! Yet how readily perverted to the suggestion that there are no vital\nsocial obligations beyond and above them! To insist that the individual is\nresponsible, that no man can save his brother, that the essence of religion is\nthe contact of the soul with its Maker, how true and indispensable! But how easy\nto slip from that truth into the suggestion that society is without\nresponsibility, that no man can help his brother, that the social order and its\nconsequences are not even the scaffolding by which men may climb to greater\nheights, but something external, alien and irrelevant--something, at best,\nindifferent to the life of the spirit, and, at worse, the sphere of the letter\nwhich killeth and of the reliance on works which ensnares the soul into the\nslumber of death! In emphasizing that God\u2019s Kingdom is not of this world,\nPuritanism did not always escape the suggestion that this world is no part of\nGod\u2019s Kingdom. The complacent victim of that false antithesis between the social\nmechanism and the life of the spirit, which was to tyrannize over English\nreligious thought for the next two centuries, it enthroned religion in the\nprivacy of the individual soul, not without some sighs of sober satisfaction at\nits abdication from society. Professor Dicey has commented on the manner in\nwhich \u201cthe appeal of the Evangelicals to personal religion corresponds with the\nappeal of Benthamite Liberals to individual energy.\u201d[IV-106] The same affinity\nbetween religious and social interests found an even clearer expression in the\nPuritan movement of the seventeenth century. Individualism in religion led\ninsensibly, if not quite logically, to an individualist morality, and an\nindividualist morality to a disparagement of the significance of the social\nfabric as compared with personal character.\n\nA practical example of that change of emphasis is given by the treatment\naccorded to the questions of Enclosure and of Pauperism. For a century and a\nhalf the progress of enclosing had been a burning issue, flaring up, from time\nto time, into acute agitation. During the greater part of that period, from\nLatimer in the thirties of the sixteenth century to Laud in the thirties of the\nseventeenth, the attitude of religious teachers had been one of condemnation.\nSermon after sermon and pamphlet after pamphlet--not to mention Statutes and\nRoyal Commissions--had been launched against depopulation. The appeal had been,\nnot merely to public policy, but to religion. Peasant and lord, in their\ndifferent degrees, are members of one Christian commonwealth, within which the\nlaw of charity must bridle the corroding appetite for economic gain. In such a\nmystical corporation, knit together by mutual obligations, no man may press his\nadvantage to the full, for no man may seek to live \u201coutside the body of the\nChurch.\u201d\n\nSabotaged by the unpaid magistracy of country gentlemen, who had been the\nobstructive agents of local administration, the practical application of such\ndoctrines had always been intermittent, and, when the Long Parliament struck the\nweapon of administrative law from the hands of the Crown, it had ceased\naltogether. But the politics of Westminster were not those of village and\nborough. The events which seemed to aristocratic Parliamentarians to close the\nrevolution seemed to the left wing of the victorious army only to begin it. In\nthat earliest and most turbulent of English democracies, where buff-coat taught\nscripture politics to his general, the talk was not merely of political, but of\nsocial, reconstruction. The program of the Levellers, who more than any other\nparty could claim to express the aspirations of the unprivileged classes,\nincluded a demand, not only for annual or biennial Parliaments, manhood\nsuffrage, a redistribution of seats in proportion to population, and the\nabolition of the veto of the House of Lords, but also that \u201cyou would have laid\nopen all enclosures of fens and other commons, or have them enclosed only or\nchiefly for the benefit of the poor.\u201d[IV-107] Theoretical communism, repudiated\nby the leading Levellers, found its expression in the agitation of the Diggers,\non whose behalf Winstanley argued that, \u201cseeing the common people of England, by\njoynt consent of person and purse, have caste out Charles, our Norman oppressour\n... the land now is to returne into the joynt hands of those who have conquered,\nthat is the commonours,\u201d and that the victory over the King was incomplete, as\nlong as \u201cwee ... remayne slaves still to the kingly power in the hands of lords\nof manors.\u201d[IV-108]\n\nNor was it only from the visionary and the zealot that the pressure for redress\nproceeded. When the shattering of traditional authority seemed for a moment to\nmake all things new, local grievances, buried beneath centuries of dull\noppression, started to life, and in several Midland counties the peasants rose\nto pull down the hated hedges. At Leicester, where in 1649 there were rumors of\na popular movement to throw down the enclosures of the neighboring forest, the\nCity Council took the matter up. A petition was drafted, setting out the\neconomic and social evils attending enclosure, and proposing the establishment\nof machinery to check it, consisting of a committee without whose assent\nenclosing was not to be permitted. A local minister was instructed to submit the\npetition to Parliament, \u201cwhich hath still a watchful eye and open ear to redress\nthe common grievances of the nation.\u201d[IV-109] The agent selected to present the\ncity\u2019s case was the Rev. John Moore, a prolific pamphleteer, who for several\nyears attacked the depopulating landlord with all the fervor of Latimer, though\nwith even less than Latimer\u2019s success.\n\nHalf a century before, such commotions would have been followed by the passing\nof Depopulation Acts and the issue of a Royal Commission. But, in the ten years\nsince the meeting of the Long Parliament, the whole attitude of public policy\ntowards the movement had begun to change. Confiscations, compositions and war\ntaxation had effected a revolution in the distribution of property, similar, on\na smaller scale, to that which had taken place at the Reformation. As land\nchanged hands, customary relations were shaken and new interests were created.\nEnclosure, as Moore complained,[IV-110] was being pushed forward by means of law\nsuits ending in Chancery decrees. It was not to be expected that City merchants\nand members of the Committee for Compounding, some of whom had found land\nspeculation a profitable business, should hear with enthusiasm a proposal to\nrevive the old policy of arresting enclosures by State interference, at which\nthe gentry had grumbled for more than a century.\n\nIn these circumstances, it is not surprising that reformers should have found\nthe open ear of Parliament impenetrably closed to agrarian grievances. Nor was\nit only the political and economic environment which had changed. The revolution\nin thought was equally profound. The theoretical basis of the policy of\nprotecting the peasant by preventing enclosure had been a conception of\nlandownership which regarded its rights and its duties as inextricably\ninterwoven. Property was not merely a source of income, but a public function,\nand its use was limited by social obligations and necessities of State. With\nsuch a doctrine the classes who had taken the lead in the struggle against the\nmonarchy could make no truce. Its last vestiges finally disappeared when the\nRestoration Parliament swept away military tenures, and imposed on the nation,\nin the shape of an excise, the financial burden previously borne by themselves.\n\nThe theory which took its place, and which was to become in the eighteenth\ncentury almost a religion, was that expressed by Locke, when he described\nproperty as a right anterior to the existence of the State, and argued that \u201cthe\nsupreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own\nconsent.\u201d But Locke merely poured into a philosophical mould ideas which had\nbeen hammered out in the stress of political struggles, and which were already\nthe commonplace of landowner and merchant. The view of society held by that part\nof the Puritan movement which was socially and politically influential had been\nexpressed by Ireton and Cromwell in their retort to the democrats in the army.\nIt was that only the freeholders really constituted the body politic, and that\nthey could use their property as they pleased, uncontrolled by obligations to\nany superior, or by the need of consulting the mass of men, who were mere\ntenants at will, with no fixed interest or share in the land of the\nkingdom.[IV-111] Naturally, this change of ideas had profound reactions on\nagrarian policy. Formerly a course commending itself to all public-spirited\npersons, the prevention of enclosure was now discredited as the program of a\nsect of religious and political radicals. When Major-General Whalley in 1656\nintroduced a measure to regulate and restrict the enclosure of commons, framed,\napparently, on the lines proposed by the authorities of Leicester, there was an\ninstant outcry from members that it would \u201cdestroy property,\u201d and the bill was\nrefused a second reading.[IV-112] After the Restoration the tide began to run\nmore strongly in the same direction. Enclosure had already become the hobby of\nthe country gentleman. Experts advocated it on economic grounds, and legislation\nto facilitate it was introduced into Parliament. Though its technique still\nremained to be elaborated, the attitude which was to be decisive in the\neighteenth century had already been crystallized.\n\nThe change of policy was striking. The reason of it was not merely that\npolitical conditions made the landed gentry omnipotent, and that the Royalist\nsquirearchy, who streamed back to their plundered manors in 1660, were in no\nmood to countenance a revival, by the Government of Charles II, of the\nadministrative interference with the rights of property which had infuriated\nthem in the Government of Charles I. It was that opinion as to social policy had\nchanged, and changed not least among men of religion themselves. The pursuit of\neconomic self-interest, which is the law of nature, is already coming to be\nidentified by the pious with the operation of the providential plan, which is\nthe law of God. Enclosures will increase the output of wool and grain. Each man\nknows best what his land is suited to produce, and the general interest will be\nbest served by leaving him free to produce it. \u201cIt is an undeniable maxim that\nevery one by the light of nature and reason will do that which makes for his\ngreatest advantage.... The advancement of private persons will be the advantage\nof the public.\u201d[IV-113]\n\nIt is significant that such considerations were adduced, not by an economist,\nbut by a minister. For the argument was ethical as well as economic, and, when\nMoore appealed to the precepts of traditional morality to bridle pecuniary\ninterests, he provoked the retort that a judicious attention to pecuniary\ninterests was an essential part of an enlightened morality. What the poor need\nfor their spiritual health is--to use the favorite catchword of the\nage--\u201cregulation,\u201d and regulation is possible only if they work under the eye of\nan employer. In the eyes of the austere moralists of the Restoration, the first,\nand most neglected, virtue of the poor is industry. Common rights encourage\nidleness by offering a precarious and demoralizing livelihood to men who ought\nto be at work for a master. It is not surprising, therefore, that the\nadmonitions of religious teachers against the wickedness of joining house to\nhouse and field to field should almost entirely cease. Long the typical example\nof uncharitable covetousness, enclosure is now considered, not merely\neconomically expedient, but morally beneficial. Baxter, with all his\nscrupulousness--partly, perhaps, because of his scrupulousness--differs from\nmost earlier divines in giving a qualified approval to enclosure \u201cdone in\nmoderation by a pious man,\u201d for the characteristic reason that a master can\nestablish a moral discipline among his employees, which they would miss if they\nworked for themselves. What matters, in short, is not their circumstances, but\ntheir character. If they lose as peasants, they will gain as Christians.\nOpportunities for spiritual edification are more important than the mere\nmaterial environment. If only the material environment were not itself among the\nforces determining men\u2019s capacity to be edified!\n\nThe temper which deplored that the open-field village was not a school of the\nseverer virtues turned on pauperism and poor relief an even more shattering\ncriticism. There is no province of social life in which the fashioning of a new\nscale of ethical values on the Puritan anvil is more clearly revealed. In the\nlittle communities of peasants and craftsmen which composed medieval England,\nall, when Heaven sent a bad harvest, had starved together, and the misery of the\nsick, the orphan and the aged had appeared as a personal calamity, not as a\nsocial problem. Apart from a few precocious theorists, who hinted at the need\nfor a universal and secular system of provision for distress, the teaching most\ncharacteristic of medieval writers had been that the relief of the needy was a\nprimary obligation on those who had means. St. Thomas, who in this matter is\ntypical, quotes with approval the strong words of St. Ambrose about those who\ncling to the bread of the starving, insists on the idea that property is\nstewardship, and concludes--a conclusion not always drawn from that well-worn\nphrase--that to withhold alms when there is evident and urgent necessity is\nmortal sin.[IV-114] Popular feeling had lent a half-mystical glamour both to\npoverty and to the compassion by which poverty was relieved, for poor men were\nGod\u2019s friends. At best, the poor were thought to represent our Lord in a\npeculiarly intimate way--\u201cin that sect,\u201d as Langland said, \u201cour Saviour saved\nall mankind\u201d--and it was necessary for the author of a religious manual to\nexplain that the rich, as such, were not necessarily hateful to God.[IV-115] At\nworst, men reflected that the prayers of the poor availed much, and that the\nsinner had been saved from hell by throwing a loaf of bread to a beggar, even\nthough a curse went with it. The alms bestowed today would be repaid a\nthousandfold, when the soul took its dreadful journey amid rending briars and\nscorching flames.\n\n  If ever thou gavest hosen and shoon,\n    _Everie nighte and alle_,\n  Sit thee down and put them on,\n    _And Christe receive thy saule_.\n\n  If hosen and shoon thou gavest nane,\n    _Everie nighte and alle_,\n  The whinnes shall pricke thee to the bare bane,\n    _And Christe receive thy saule_.\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n  If ever thou gavest meate or drinke,\n    _Everie nighte and alle_,\n  The fire shall never make thee shrinke,\n    _And Christe receive thy saule_.\n\n  If meate or drinke thou gavest nane,\n    _Everie nighte and alle_,\n  The fire will burne thee to the bare bane,\n    _And Christe receive thy saule_.\n\n  This ae nighte, this ae nighte,\n    _Everie nighte and alle_,\n  Fire, and sleete, and candle-lighte,\n    _And Christe receive thy saule_.[IV-116]\n\nThe social character of wealth, which had been the essence of the medieval\ndoctrine, was asserted by English divines in the sixteenth century with\nredoubled emphasis, precisely because the growing individualism of the age\nmenaced the traditional conception. \u201cThe poor man,\u201d preached Latimer, \u201chath\ntitle to the rich man\u2019s goods; so that the rich man ought to let the poor man\nhave part of his riches to help and to comfort him withal.\u201d[IV-117] Nor had that\nsovereign indifference to the rigors of the economic calculus disappeared, when,\nunder the influence partly of humanitarian representatives of the Renaissance\nlike Vives, partly of religious reformers, partly of their own ambition to\ngather all the threads of social administration into their own hands, the\nstatesmen of the sixteenth century set themselves to organize a secular system\nof poor relief. In England, after three generations in which the attempt was\nmade to stamp out vagrancy by police measures of hideous brutality, the\nmomentous admission was made that its cause was economic distress, not merely\npersonal idleness, and that the whip had no terrors for the man who must either\ntramp or starve. The result was the celebrated Acts imposing a compulsory\npoor-rate and requiring the able-bodied man to be set on work. The Privy\nCouncil, alert to prevent disorder, drove lethargic justices hard, and down to\nthe Civil War the system was administered with fair regularity. But the\nElizabethan Poor Law was never designed to be what, with disastrous results, it\nbecame in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the sole measure for\ncoping with economic distress. While it provided relief, it was but the last\nlink in a chain of measures--the prevention of evictions, the control of food\nsupplies and prices, the attempt to stabilize employment and to check\nunnecessary dismissals of workmen--intended to mitigate the forces which made\nrelief necessary. Apart from the Poor Law, the first forty years of the\nseventeenth century were prolific in the private charity which founded\nalms-houses and hospitals, and established funds to provide employment or to aid\nstruggling tradesmen. The appeal was still to religion, which owed to poverty a\nkind of reverence.\n\n  It was Thy choice, whilst Thou on earth didst stay,\n  And hadst not whereupon Thy head to lay.[IV-118]\n\n\u201cWhat, speak you of such things?\u201d said Nicholas Ferrar on his death-bed to one\nwho commended his charities. \u201cIt would have been but a suitable return for me to\nhave given all I had, and not to have scattered a few crumbs of alms here and\nthere.\u201d[IV-119]\n\nIt was inevitable that, in the anarchy of the Civil War, both private charity\nand public relief should fall on evil days. In London, charitable endowments\nseem to have suffered from more than ordinary malversation, and there were\ncomplaints that the income both of Bridewell and of the Hospitals was seriously\nreduced.[IV-120] In the country, the records of Quarter Sessions paint a picture\nof confusion, in which the machinery of presentment by constables to justices\nhas broken down, and a long wail arises, that thieves are multiplied, the poor\nare neglected, and vagrants wander to and fro at their will.[IV-121] The\nadministrative collapse of the Elizabethan Poor Law continued after the\nRestoration, and twenty-three years later Sir Matthew Hale complained that the\nsections in it relating to the provision of employment were a dead\nletter.[IV-122] Always unpopular with the local authorities, whom they involved\nin considerable trouble and expense, it is not surprising that, with the\ncessation of pressure by the Central Government, they should, except here and\nthere, have been neglected. What is more significant, however, than the\npractical deficiencies in the administration of relief, was the rise of a new\nschool of opinion, which regarded with repugnance the whole body of social\ntheory of which both private charity and public relief had been the expression.\n\n\u201cThe generall rule of all England,\u201d wrote a pamphleteer in 1646, \u201cis to whip and\npunish the wandring beggars ... and so many justices execute one branch of that\ngood Statute (which is the point of justice), but as for the point of charitie,\nthey leave [it] undone, which is to provide houses and convenient places to set\nthe poore to work.\u201d[IV-123] The House of Commons appears to have been conscious\nthat the complaint had some foundation; in 1649 it ordered that the county\njustices should be required to see that stocks of material were provided as the\nlaw required,[IV-124] and the question of preparing new legislation to ensure\nthat persons in distress should be found employment was on several occasions\nreferred to committees of the House.[IV-125] Nothing seems, however, to have\ncome of these proposals, nor was the Elizabethan policy of \u201csetting the poor on\nwork\u201d that which was most congenial to the temper of the time. Upon the\nadmission that distress was the result, not of personal deficiencies, but of\neconomic causes, with its corollary that its victims had a legal right to be\nmaintained by society, the growing individualism of the age turned the same\nfrigid scepticism as was later directed against the Speenhamland policy by the\nreformers of 1834. Like the friends of Job, it saw in misfortune, not the\nchastisement of love, but the punishment for sin. The result was that, while the\npenalties on the vagrant were redoubled, religious opinion laid less emphasis on\nthe obligation of charity than upon the duty of work, and that the admonitions\nwhich had formerly been turned upon uncharitable covetousness were now directed\nagainst improvidence and idleness. The characteristic sentiment was that of\nMilton\u2019s friend, Hartlib: \u201cThe law of God saith, \u2018he that will not work, let him\nnot eat.\u2019 This would be a sore scourge and smart whip for idle persons if ...\nnone should be suffered to eat till they had wrought for it.\u201d[IV-126]\n\nThe new attitude found expression in the rare bursts of public activity provoked\nby the growth of pauperism between 1640 and 1660. The idea of dealing with it on\nsound business principles, by means of a corporation which would combine profit\nwith philanthropy, was being sedulously preached by a small group of\nreformers.[IV-127] Parliament took it up, and in 1649 passed an Act for the\nrelief and employment of the poor and the punishment of beggars, under which a\ncompany was to be established with power to apprehend vagrants, to offer them\nthe choice between work and whipping, and to set to compulsory labor all other\npoor persons, including children without means of maintenance.[IV-128] Eight\nyears later the prevalence of vagrancy produced an Act of such extreme severity\nas almost to recall the suggestion made a generation later by Fletcher of\nSaltoun, that vagrants should be sent to the galleys. It provided that, since\noffenders could rarely be taken in the act, any vagrant who failed to satisfy\nthe justices that he had a good reason for being on the roads should be arrested\nand punished as a sturdy beggar, whether actually begging or not.[IV-129]\n\nThe protest against indiscriminate almsgiving, as the parade of a spurious\nreligion, which sacrificed character to a formal piety, was older than the\nReformation, but it had been given a new emphasis by the reformers. Luther had\ndenounced the demands of beggars as blackmail, and the Swiss reformers had\nstamped out the remnants of monastic charity, as a bribe ministered by Popery to\ndissoluteness and demoralization. \u201cI conclude that all the large givings of the\npapists,\u201d preached an English divine in the reign of Elizabeth, \u201cof which at\nthis day many make so great brags, because they be not done in a reverent regard\nof the commandment of the Lord, in love, and of an inward being touched with the\ncalamities of the needy, but for to be well reported of before men whilst they\nare alive, and to be prayed for after they are dead ... are indeed no alms, but\npharisaical trumpets.\u201d[IV-130] The rise of a commercial civilization, the\nreaction against the authoritarian social policy of the Tudors, and the progress\nof Puritanism among the middle classes, all combined in the next half-century to\nsharpen the edge of that doctrine. Nurtured in a tradition which made the\ndiscipline of character by industry and self-denial the center of its ethical\nscheme, the Puritan moralist was undisturbed by any doubts as to whether even\nthe seed of the righteous might not sometimes be constrained to beg its bread,\nand met the taunt that the repudiation of good works was the cloak for a\nconscienceless egoism with the retort that the easy-going open-handedness of the\nsentimentalist was not less selfish in its motives and was more corrupting to\nits objects. \u201cAs for idle beggars,\u201d wrote Steele, \u201chappy for them if fewer\npeople spent their foolish pity upon their bodies, and if more shewed some wise\ncompassion upon their souls.\u201d[IV-131] That the greatest of evils is idleness,\nthat the poor are the victims, not of circumstances, but of their own \u201cidle,\nirregular and wicked courses,\u201d that the truest charity is not to enervate them\nby relief, but so to reform their characters that relief may be\nunnecessary--such doctrines turned severity from a sin into a duty, and froze\nthe impulse of natural pity with the assurance that, if indulged, it would\nperpetuate the suffering which it sought to allay.\n\nFew tricks of the unsophisticated intellect are more curious than the na\u00efve\npsychology of the business man, who ascribes his achievements to his own unaided\nefforts, in bland unconsciousness of a social order without whose continuous\nsupport and vigilant protection he would be as a lamb bleating in the desert.\nThat individualist complex owes part of its self-assurance to the suggestion of\nPuritan moralists, that practical success is at once the sign and the reward of\nethical superiority. \u201cNo question,\u201d argued a Puritan pamphleteer, \u201cbut it\n[riches] should be the portion rather of the godly than of the wicked, were it\ngood for them; for godliness hath the promises of this life as well as of the\nlife to come.\u201d[IV-132] The demonstration that distress is a proof of demerit,\nthough a singular commentary on the lives of Christian saints and sages, has\nalways been popular with the prosperous. By the lusty plutocracy of the\nRestoration, roaring after its meat, and not indisposed, if it could not find it\nelsewhere, to seek it from God, it was welcomed with a shout of applause.\n\nA society which reverences the attainment of riches as the supreme felicity will\nnaturally be disposed to regard the poor as damned in the next world, if only to\njustify itself for making their life a hell in this. Advanced by men of religion\nas a tonic for the soul, the doctrine of the danger of pampering poverty was\nhailed by the rising school of Political Arithmeticians as a sovereign cure for\nthe ills of society. For, if the theme of the moralist was that an easy-going\nindulgence undermined character, the theme of the economist was that it was\neconomically disastrous and financially ruinous. The Poor Law is the mother of\nidleness, \u201cmen and women growing so idle and proud that they will not work, but\nlie upon the parish wherein they dwell for maintenance.\u201d It discourages thrift;\n\u201cif shame or fear of punishment makes him earn his dayly bread, he will do no\nmore; his children are the charge of the parish and his old age his recess from\nlabour or care.\u201d It keeps up wages, since \u201cit encourages wilful and\nevil-disposed persons to impose what wages they please upon their labours; and\nherein they are so refractory to reason and the benefit of the nation that, when\ncorn and provisions are cheap, they will not work for less wages than when they\nwere dear.\u201d[IV-133] To the landowner who cursed the poor-rates, and the clothier\nwho grumbled at the high cost of labor, one school of religious thought now\nbrought the comforting assurance that morality itself would be favored by a\nreduction of both.\n\nAs the history of the Poor Law in the nineteenth century was to prove, there is\nno touchstone, except the treatment of childhood, which reveals the true\ncharacter of a social philosophy more clearly than the spirit in which it\nregards the misfortunes of those of its members who fall by the way. Such\nutterances on the subject of poverty were merely one example of a general\nattitude, which appeared at times to consign to collective perdition almost the\nwhole of the wage-earning population. It was partly that, in an age which\nworshiped property as the foundation of the social order, the mere laborer\nseemed something less than a full citizen. It was partly the result of the\ngreatly increased influence on thought and public affairs acquired at the\nRestoration by the commercial classes, whose temper was a ruthless materialism,\ndetermined at all costs to conquer world-markets from France and Holland, and\nprepared to sacrifice every other consideration to their economic ambitions. It\nwas partly that, in spite of a century of large-scale production in textiles,\nthe problems of capitalist industry and of a propertyless proletariat were still\ntoo novel for their essential features to be appreciated. Even those writers,\nlike Baxter and Bunyan, who continued to insist on the wickedness of\nextortionate prices and unconscionable interest, rarely thought of applying\ntheir principles to the subject of wages. Their social theory had been designed\nfor an age of petty agriculture and industry, in which personal relations had\nnot yet been superseded by the cash nexus, and the craftsman or peasant farmer\nwas but little removed in economic status from the half-dozen journeymen or\nlaborers whom he employed. In a world increasingly dominated by great clothiers,\niron-masters and mine-owners, they still adhered to the antiquated categories of\nmaster and servant, with the same obstinate indifference to economic realities\nas leads the twentieth century to talk of employers and employed, long after the\nindividual employer has been converted into an impersonal corporation.\n\nIn a famous passage of the _Communist Manifesto_, Marx observes that \u201cthe\n_bourgeoisie_, wherever it got the upper hand, put an end to all feudal,\npatriarchal, idyllic relations, pitilessly tore asunder the motley feudal ties\nthat bound man to his \u2018natural superiors,\u2019 and left remaining no other bond\nbetween man and man than naked self-interest and callous cash payment.\u201d[IV-134]\nAn interesting illustration of his thesis might be found in the discussions of\nthe economics of employment by English writers of the period between 1660 and\n1760. Their characteristic was an attitude towards the new industrial\nproletariat noticeably harsher than that general in the first half of the\nseventeenth century, and which has no modern parallel except in the behavior of\nthe less reputable of white colonists towards colored labor. The denunciations\nof the \u201cluxury, pride and sloth\u201d[IV-135] of the English wage-earners of the\nseventeenth and eighteenth centuries are, indeed, almost exactly identical with\nthose directed against African natives today. It is complained that, compared\nwith the Dutch, they are self-indulgent and idle; that they want no more than a\nbare subsistence, and will cease work the moment they obtain it; that, the\nhigher their wages, the more--\u201cso licentious are they\u201d[IV-136]--they spend upon\ndrink; that high prices, therefore, are not a misfortune, but a blessing, since\nthey compel the wage-earner to be more industrious; and that high wages are not\na blessing, but a misfortune, since they merely conduce to \u201cweekly debauches.\u201d\n\nWhen such doctrines were general, it was natural that the rigors of economic\nexploitation should be preached as a public duty, and, with a few exceptions,\nthe writers of the period differed only as to the methods by which severity\ncould most advantageously be organized. Pollexfen and Walter Harris thought that\nsalvation might be found by reducing the number of days kept as holidays. Bishop\nBerkeley, with the conditions of Ireland before his eyes, suggested that \u201csturdy\nbeggars should ... be seized and made slaves to the public for a certain term of\nyears.\u201d Thomas Alcock, who was shocked at the workman\u2019s taste for snuff, tea and\nribbons, proposed the revival of sumptuary legislation.[IV-137] The writers who\nadvanced schemes for reformed workhouses, which should be places at once of\npunishment and of training, were innumerable. All were agreed that, on moral no\nless than on economic grounds, it was vital that wages should be reduced. The\ndoctrine afterwards expressed by Arthur Young, when he wrote, \u201cevery one but an\nidiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be\nindustrious,\u201d[IV-138] was the tritest commonplace of Restoration economists. It\nwas not argued; it was accepted as self-evident.\n\nWhen philanthropists were inquiring whether it might not be desirable to\nre\u00ebstablish slavery, it was not to be expected that the sufferings of the\ndestitute would wring their hearts with social compunction. The most curious\nfeature in the whole discussion, and that which is most sharply in contrast with\nthe long debate on pauperism carried on in the sixteenth century, was the\nresolute refusal to admit that society had any responsibility for the causes of\ndistress. Tudor divines and statesmen had little mercy for idle rogues. But the\nformer always, and the latter ultimately, regarded pauperism primarily as a\nsocial phenomenon produced by economic dislocation, and the embarrassing\nquestion put by the genial Harrison--\u201cat whose handes shall the bloude of these\nmen be required?\u201d[IV-139]--was never far from the minds even of the most\ncynical. Their successors after the Restoration were apparently quite\nunconscious that it was even conceivable that there might be any other cause of\npoverty than the moral failings of the poor. The practical conclusion to be\ndrawn from so comfortable a creed was at once extremely simple and extremely\nagreeable. It was not to find employment under the Act of 1601, for to do that\nwas only \u201cto render the poor more bold.\u201d It was to surround the right to relief\nwith obstacles such as those contained in the Act of 1662, to give it, when it\ncould not be avoided, in a workhouse or house of correction, and, for the rest,\nto increase the demand for labor by reducing wages.\n\nThe grand discovery of a commercial age, that relief might be so administered as\nnot merely to relieve, but also to deter, still remained to be made by\nUtilitarian philosophers. But the theory that distress was due, not to economic\ncircumstances, but to what the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 called \u201cindividual\nimprovidence and vice,\u201d was firmly established, and the criticism on the\nElizabethan system which was to inspire the new Poor Law had already been\nformulated. The essence of that system was admirably expressed a century later\nby a Scottish divine as \u201cthe principle that each man, simply because he exists,\nholds a right on other men or on society for existence.\u201d[IV-140] Dr. Chalmers\u2019\nattack upon it was the echo of a note long struck by Puritan moralists. And the\nviews of Dr. Chalmers had impressed themselves on Nassau Senior,[IV-141] before\nhe set his hand to that brilliant, influential and wildly unhistorical Report,\nwhich, after provoking something like a rebellion in the north of England, was\nto be one of the pillars of the social policy of the nineteenth century.\n\nIt would be misleading to dwell on the limitations of Puritan ethics without\nemphasizing the enormous contribution of Puritanism to political freedom and\nsocial progress. The foundation of democracy is the sense of spiritual\nindependence which nerves the individual to stand alone against the powers of\nthis world, and in England, where squire and parson, lifting arrogant eyebrows\nat the insolence of the lower orders, combined to crush popular agitation, as a\nmenace at once to society and to the Church, it is probable that democracy owes\nmore to Nonconformity than to any other single movement. The virtues of\nenterprise, diligence and thrift are the indispensable foundation of any complex\nand vigorous civilization. It was Puritanism which, by investing them with a\nsupernatural sanction, turned them from an unsocial eccentricity into a habit\nand a religion. Nor would it be difficult to find notable representatives of the\nPuritan spirit in whom the personal austerity, which was the noblest aspect of\nthe new ideal, was combined with a profound consciousness of social solidarity,\nwhich was the noblest aspect of that which it displaced. Firmin the\nphilanthropist, and Bellers the Quaker, whom Owen more than a century later\nhailed as the father of his doctrines, were pioneers of Poor Law reform. The\nSociety of Friends, in an age when the divorce between religion and social\nethics was almost complete, met the prevalent doctrine, that it was permissible\nto take such gain as the market offered, by insisting on the obligation of good\nconscience and forbearance in economic transactions, and on the duty to make the\nhonorable maintenance of the brother in distress a common charge.[IV-142]\n\nThe general climate and character of a country are not altered, however, by the\nfact that here and there it has peaks which rise into an ampler air. The\ndistinctive note of Puritan teaching was different. It was individual\nresponsibility, not social obligation. Training its pupils to the mastery of\nothers through the mastery of self, it prized as a crown of glory the qualities\nwhich arm the spiritual athlete for his solitary contest with a hostile world,\nand dismissed concern with the social order as the prop of weaklings and the\nCapua of the soul. Both the excellences and the defects of that attitude were\nmomentous for the future. It is sometimes suggested that the astonishing\noutburst of industrial activity which took place after 1760 created a new type\nof economic character, as well as a new system of economic organization. In\nreality, the ideal which was later to carry all before it, in the person of the\ninventor and engineer and captain of industry, was well established among\nEnglishmen before the end of the seventeenth century. Among the numerous forces\nwhich had gone to form it, some not inconsiderable part may reasonably be\nascribed to the emphasis on the life of business enterprise as the appropriate\nfield for Christian endeavor, and on the qualities needed for success in it,\nwhich was characteristic of Puritanism. These qualities, and the admiration of\nthem, remained, when the religious reference, and the restraints which it\nimposed, had weakened or disappeared.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n \u201cTher is a certaine man that shortly after my fyrst sermon, beynge asked if he\n had bene at the sermon that day, answered, yea. I praye you, said he, how lyked\n you hym? Mary, sayed he, even as I lyked hym alwayes--a sedicious fellow.\u201d\n\n  LATIMER, _Seven Sermons before King Edward VI_.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nSocieties, like individuals, have their moral crises and their spiritual\nrevolutions. The student can observe the results which these cataclysms produce,\nbut he can hardly without presumption attempt to appraise them, for it is at the\nfire which they kindled that his own small taper has been lit. The rise of a\nnaturalistic science of society, with all its magnificent promise of fruitful\naction and of intellectual light; the abdication of the Christian Churches from\ndepartments of economic conduct and social theory long claimed as their\nprovince; the general acceptance by thinkers of a scale of ethical values, which\nturned the desire for pecuniary gain from a perilous, if natural, frailty into\nthe idol of philosophers and the mainspring of society--such movements are\nwritten large over the history of the tempestuous age which lies between the\nReformation and the full light of the eighteenth century. Their consequences\nhave been worked into the very tissue of modern civilization. Posterity still\nstands too near their source to discern the ocean into which these streams will\nflow.\n\nIn an historical age the relativity of political doctrines is the tritest of\ncommonplaces. But social psychology continues too often to be discussed in\nserene indifference to the categories of time and place, and economic interests\nare still popularly treated as though they formed a kingdom over which the\n_Zeitgeist_ bears no sway. In reality, though inherited dispositions may be\nconstant from generation to generation, the system of valuations, preferences\nand ideals--the social environment within which individual character\nfunctions--is in process of continuous change, and it is in the conception of\nthe place to be assigned to economic interests in the life of society that\nchange has in recent centuries been most comprehensive in its scope, and most\nsensational in its consequences. The isolation of economic aims as a specialized\nobject of concentrated and systematic effort, the erection of economic criteria\ninto an independent and authoritative standard of social expediency, are\nphenomena which, though familiar enough in classical antiquity, appear, at least\non a grand scale, only at a comparatively recent date in the history of later\ncivilizations. The conflict between the economic outlook of East and West, which\nimpresses the traveller today, finds a parallel in the contrast between medieval\nand modern economic ideas, which strikes the historian.\n\nThe elements which combined to produce that revolution are too numerous to be\nsummarized in any neat formula. But, side by side with the expansion of trade\nand the rise of new classes to political power, there was a further cause,\nwhich, if not the most conspicuous, was not the least fundamental. It was the\ncontraction of the territory within which the spirit of religion was conceived\nto run. The criticism which dismisses the concern of Churches with economic\nrelations and social organization as a modern innovation finds little support in\npast history. What requires explanation is not the view that these matters are\npart of the province of religion, but the view that they are not. When the age\nof the Reformation begins, economics is still a branch of ethics, and ethics of\ntheology; all human activities are treated as falling within a single scheme,\nwhose character is determined by the spiritual destiny of mankind; the appeal of\ntheorists is to natural law, not to utility; the legitimacy of economic\ntransactions is tried by reference, less to the movements of the market, than to\nmoral standards derived from the traditional teaching of the Christian Church;\nthe Church itself is regarded as a society wielding theoretical, and sometimes\npractical, authority in social affairs. The secularization of political thought,\nwhich was to be the work of the next two centuries, had profound reactions on\nsocial speculation, and by the Restoration the whole perspective, at least in\nEngland, has been revolutionized. Religion has been converted from the keystone\nwhich holds together the social edifice into one department within it, and the\nidea of a rule of right is replaced by economic expediency as the arbiter of\npolicy and the criterion of conduct. From a spiritual being, who, in order to\nsurvive, must devote a reasonable attention to economic interest, man seems\nsometimes to have become an economic animal, who will be prudent, nevertheless,\nif he takes due precautions to assure his spiritual well-being.\n\nThe result is an attitude which forms so fundamental a part of modern political\nthought, that both its precarious philosophical basis, and the contrast which it\noffers with the conceptions of earlier generations, are commonly forgotten. Its\nessence is a dualism which regards the secular and the religious aspects of\nlife, not as successive stages within a larger unity, but as parallel and\nindependent provinces, governed by different laws, judged by different\nstandards, and amenable to different authorities. To the most representative\nminds of the Reformation, as of the Middle Ages, a philosophy which treated the\ntransactions of commerce and the institutions of society as indifferent to\nreligion would have appeared, not merely morally reprehensible, but\nintellectually absurd. Holding as their first assumption that the ultimate\nsocial authority is the will of God, and that temporal interests are a\ntransitory episode in the life of spirits which are eternal, they state the\nrules to which the social conduct of the Christian must conform, and, when\ncircumstances allow, organize the discipline by which those rules may be\nenforced. By their successors in the eighteenth century the philosophy of\nIndifferentism, though rarely formulated as a matter of theory, is held in\npractice as a truism which it is irrational, if not actually immoral, to\nquestion, since it is in the heart of the individual that religion has its\nthrone, and to externalize it in rules and institutions is to tarnish its purity\nand to degrade its appeal. Naturally, therefore, they formulate the ethical\nprinciples of Christianity in terms of a comfortable ambiguity, and rarely\nindicate with any precision their application to commerce, finance, and the\nownership of property. Thus the conflict between religion and those natural\neconomic ambitions which the thought of an earlier age had regarded with\nsuspicion is suspended by a truce which divides the life of mankind between\nthem. The former takes as its province the individual soul, the latter the\nintercourse of man with his fellows in the activities of business and the\naffairs of society. Provided that each keeps to its own territory, peace is\nassured. They cannot collide, for they can never meet.\n\nHistory is a stage where forces which are within human control contend and\nco\u00f6perate with forces which are not. The change of opinion described in these\npages drew nourishment from both. The storm and fury of the Puritan revolution\nhad been followed by a dazzling outburst of economic enterprise, and the\ntransformation of the material environment prepared an atmosphere in which a\njudicious moderation seemed the voice at once of the truest wisdom and the\nsincerest piety. But the inner world was in motion as well as the outer. The\nmarch of external progress woke sympathetic echoes in hearts already attuned to\napplaud its triumph, and there was no consciousness of an acute tension between\nthe claims of religion and the glittering allurements of a commercial\ncivilization, such as had tormented the age of the Reformation.\n\nIt was partly the natural, and not unreasonable, diffidence of men who were\nconscious that traditional doctrines of social ethics, with their impracticable\ndistrust of economic motives, belonged to the conditions of a vanished age, but\nwho lacked the creative energy to state them anew, in a form applicable to the\nneeds of a more complex and mobile social order. It was partly that political\nchanges had gone far to identify the Church of England with the ruling\naristocracy, so that, while in France, when the crash came, many of the lower\nclergy threw in their lot with the _tiers \u00e9tat_, in England it was rarely that\nthe officers of the Church did not echo the views of society which commended\nthemselves to the rulers of the State. It was partly that, to one important body\nof opinion, the very heart of religion was a spirit which made indifference to\nthe gross world of external circumstances appear, not a defect, but an ornament\nof the soul. Untrammelled by the silken chains which bound the Establishment,\nand with a great tradition of discipline behind them, the Nonconformist Churches\nmight seem to have possessed opportunities of reasserting the social obligations\nof religion with a vigor denied to the Church of England. What impeded their\nutterance was less a weakness than the most essential and distinctive of their\nvirtues. Founded on the repudiation of the idea that human effort could avail to\nwin salvation, or human aid to assist the pilgrim in his lonely quest, they saw\nthe world of business and society as a battlefield, across which character could\nmarch triumphant to its goal, not as crude materials waiting the architect\u2019s\nhand to set them in their place as the foundations of the Kingdom of Heaven. It\ndid not occur to them that character is social, and society, since it is the\nexpression of character, spiritual. Thus the eye is sometimes blinded by light\nitself.\n\nThe certainties of one age are the problems of the next. Few will refuse their\nadmiration to the magnificent conception of a community penetrated from apex to\nfoundation by the moral law, which was the inspiration of the great reformers,\nnot less than of the better minds of the Middle Ages. But, in order to subdue\nthe tough world of material interests, it is necessary to have at least so much\nsympathy with its tortuous ways as is needed to understand them. The Prince of\nDarkness has a right to a courteous hearing and a fair trial, and those who will\nnot give him his due are wont to find that, in the long run, he turns the tables\nby taking his due and something over. Common sense and a respect for realities\nare not less graces of the spirit than moral zeal. The paroxysms of virtuous\nfury, with which the children of light denounced each new victory of economic\nenterprise as yet another stratagem of Mammon, disabled them for the staff-work\nof their campaign, which needs a cool head as well as a stout heart. Their\nobstinate refusal to revise old formul\u00e6 in the light of new facts exposed them\nhelpless to a counter-attack, in which the whole fabric of their philosophy,\ntruth and fantasy alike, was overwhelmed together. They despised knowledge, and\nknowledge destroyed them.\n\nFew can contemplate without a sense of exhilaration the splendid achievements of\npractical energy and technical skill, which, from the latter part of the\nseventeenth century, were transforming the face of material civilization, and of\nwhich England was the daring, if not too scrupulous, pioneer. If, however,\neconomic ambitions are good servants, they are bad masters. Harnessed to a\nsocial purpose, they will turn the mill and grind the corn. But the question, to\nwhat end the wheels revolve, still remains; and on that question the na\u00efve and\nuncritical worship of economic power, which is the mood of unreason too often\nengendered in those whom that new Leviathan has hypnotized by its spell, throws\nno light. Its result is not seldom a world in which men commands a mechanism\nthat they cannot fully use, and an organization which has every perfection\nexcept that of motion.\n\n  _Er nennt\u2019s Vernunft und braucht\u2019s allein,_\n  _Nur tierischer als jedes Tier zu sein._\n\nThe shaft of Mephistopheles, which drops harmless from the armor of Reason,\npierces the lazy caricature which masquerades beneath that sacred name, to\nflatter its followers with the smiling illusion of progress won from the mastery\nof the material environment by a race too selfish and superficial to determine\nthe purpose to which its triumphs shall be applied. Mankind may wring her\nsecrets from nature, and use their knowledge to destroy themselves; they may\ncommand the Ariels of heat and motion, and bind their wings in helpless\nfrustration, while they wrangle over the question of the master whom the\nimprisoned genii shall serve. Whether the chemist shall provide them with the\nmeans of life or with tri-nitro-toluol and poison gas, whether industry shall\nstraighten the bent back or crush it beneath heavier burdens, depends on an act\nof choice between incompatible ideals, for which no increase in the apparatus of\ncivilization at man\u2019s disposal is in itself a substitute. Economic efficiency is\na necessary element in the life of any sane and vigorous society, and only the\nincorrigible sentimentalist will depreciate its significance. But to convert\nefficiency from an instrument into a primary object is to destroy efficiency\nitself. For the condition of effective action in a complex civilization is\nco\u00f6peration. And the condition of co\u00f6peration is agreement, both as to the ends\nto which effort should be applied, and the criteria by which its success is to\nbe judged.\n\nAgreement as to ends implies the acceptance of a standard of values, by which\nthe position to be assigned to different objects may be determined. In a world\nof limited resources, where nature yields a return only to prolonged and\nsystematic effort, such a standard must obviously take account of economic\npossibilities. But it cannot itself be merely economic, since the comparative\nimportance of economic and of other interests--the sacrifice, for example, of\nmaterial goods worth incurring in order to extend leisure, or develop education,\nor humanize toil--is precisely the point on which it is needed to throw light.\nIt must be based on some conception of the requirements of human nature as a\nwhole, to which the satisfaction of economic needs is evidently vital, but which\ndemands the satisfaction of other needs as well, and which can organize its\nactivities on a rational system only in so far as it has a clear apprehension of\ntheir relative significance. \u201cWhatever the world thinks,\u201d wrote Bishop Berkeley,\n\u201che who hath not much meditated upon God, the human mind and the _summum bonum_\nmay possibly make a thriving earthworm, but will most indubitably make a sorry\npatriot and a sorry statesman.\u201d The philosopher of today, who bids us base our\nhopes of progress on knowledge inspired by love, does not differ from the Bishop\nso much, perhaps, as he would wish. The most obvious facts are the most easily\nforgotten. Both the existing economic order, and too many of the projects\nadvanced for reconstructing it, break down through their neglect of the truism\nthat, since even quite common men have souls, no increase in material wealth\nwill compensate them for arrangements which insult their self-respect and impair\ntheir freedom. A reasonable estimate of economic organization must allow for the\nfact that, unless industry is to be paralyzed by recurrent revolts on the part\nof outraged human nature, it must satisfy criteria which are not purely\neconomic. A reasonable view of its possible modifications must recognize that\nnatural appetites may be purified or restrained, as, in fact, in some\nconsiderable measure they already have been, by being submitted to the control\nof some larger body of interests. The distinction made by the philosophers of\nclassical antiquity between liberal and servile occupations, the medieval\ninsistence that riches exist for man, not man for riches, Ruskin\u2019s famous\noutburst, \u201cthere is no wealth but life,\u201d the argument of the Socialist who urges\nthat production should be organized for service, not for profit, are but\ndifferent attempts to emphasize the instrumental character of economic\nactivities by reference to an ideal which is held to express the true nature of\nman.\n\nOf that nature and its possibilities the Christian Church was thought, during\nthe greater part of the period discussed in these pages, to hold by definition a\nconception distinctively its own. It was therefore committed to the formulation\nof a social theory, not as a philanthropic gloss upon the main body of its\nteaching, but as a vital element in a creed concerned with the destiny of men\nwhose character is formed, and whose spiritual potentialities are fostered or\nstarved, by the commerce of the market-place and the institutions of society.\nStripped of the eccentricities of period and place, its philosophy had as its\ncenter a determination to assert the superiority of moral principles over\neconomic appetites, which have their place, and an important place, in the human\nscheme, but which, like other natural appetites, when flattered and pampered and\noverfed, bring ruin to the soul and confusion to society. Its casuistry was an\nattempt to translate these principles into a code of practical ethics,\nsufficiently precise to be applied to the dusty world of warehouse and farm. Its\ndiscipline was an effort, too often corrupt and pettifogging in practice, but\nnot ignoble in conception, to work the Christian virtues into the spotted\ntexture of individual character and social conduct. That practice was often a\nsorry parody on theory is a truism which should need no emphasis. But in a world\nwhere principles and conduct are unequally mated, men are to be judged by their\nreach as well as by their grasp--by the ends at which they aim as well as by the\nsuccess with which they attain them. The prudent critic will try himself by his\nachievement rather than by his ideals, and his neighbors, living and dead alike,\nby their ideals not less than by their achievement.\n\nCircumstances alter from age to age, and the practical interpretation of moral\nprinciples must alter with them. Few who consider dispassionately the facts of\nsocial history will be disposed to deny that the exploitation of the weak by the\npowerful, organized for purposes of economic gain, buttressed by imposing\nsystems of law, and screened by decorous draperies of virtuous sentiment and\nresounding rhetoric, has been a permanent feature in the life of most\ncommunities that the world has yet seen. But the quality in modern societies\nwhich is most sharply opposed to the teaching ascribed to the Founder of the\nChristian Faith lies deeper than the exceptional failures and abnormal follies\nagainst which criticism is most commonly directed. It consists in the\nassumption, accepted by most reformers with hardly less _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ than by the\ndefenders of the established order, that the attainment of material riches is\nthe supreme object of human endeavor and the final criterion of human success.\nSuch a philosophy, plausible, militant, and not indisposed, when hard pressed,\nto silence criticism by persecution, may triumph or may decline. What is certain\nis that it is the negation of any system of thought or morals which can, except\nby a metaphor, be described as Christian. Compromise is as impossible between\nthe Church of Christ and the idolatry of wealth, which is the practical religion\nof capitalist societies, as it was between the Church and the State idolatry of\nthe Roman Empire.\n\n\u201cModern capitalism,\u201d writes Mr. Keynes, \u201cis absolutely irreligious, without\ninternal union, without much public spirit, often, though not always, a mere\ncongeries of possessors and pursuers.\u201d It is that whole system of appetites and\nvalues, with its deification of the life of snatching to hoard, and hoarding to\nsnatch, which now, in the hour of its triumph, while the plaudits of the crowd\nstill ring in the ears of the gladiators and the laurels are still unfaded on\ntheir brows, seems sometimes to leave a taste as of ashes on the lips of a\ncivilization which has brought to the conquest of its material environment\nresources unknown in earlier ages, but which has not yet learned to master\nitself. It was against that system, while still in its supple and insinuating\nyouth, before success had caused it to throw aside the mask of innocence, and\nwhile its true nature was unknown even to itself, that the saints and sages of\nearlier ages launched their warnings and their denunciations. The language in\nwhich theologians and preachers expressed their horror of the sin of\ncovetousness may appear to the modern reader too murkily sulphurous; their\nprecepts on the contracts of business and the disposition of property may seem\nan impracticable pedantry. But rashness is a more agreeable failing than\ncowardice, and, when to speak is unpopular, it is less pardonable to be silent\nthan to say too much. Posterity has, perhaps, as much to learn from the\nwhirlwind eloquence with which Latimer scourged injustice and oppression as from\nthe sober respectability of the judicious Paley--who himself, since there are\ndepths below depths, was regarded as a dangerous revolutionary by George III.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n[I-1] J. B. Say, _Cours complet d\u2019Economie politique pratique_, vol. vi, 1829,\npp. 351-2.\n\n[I-2] R. Torrens, _An Essay on the Production of Wealth_, 1821, Preface, p.\nxiii.\n\n[I-3] Lloyd George at Portmadoc (_Times_, June 16, 1921).\n\n[I-4] J. A. Froude, _Revival of Romanism_, in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_,\n3rd ser., 1877, p. 108.\n\n[I-5] J. N. Figgis, _From Gerson to Grotius_, 1916, pp. 21 _seqq._\n\n[I-6] Locke, _Two Treatises of Government_, bk. ii, chap. ix, \u00a7 124.\n\n[I-7] Nicholas Oresme, _c._ 1320-82, Bishop of Lisieux from 1377. His _Tractatus\nde origine, natura, jure et mutationibus monetarum_ was probably written about\n1360. The Latin and French texts have been edited by Wolowski (Paris, 1864), and\nextracts are translated by A. E. Monroe, _Early Economic Thought_, 1924, pp.\n81-102. Its significance is discussed shortly by Cunningham, _Growth of English\nIndustry and Commerce, Early and Middle Ages_ (4th ed., 1905, pp. 354-9), and by\nWolowski in his introduction. The date of the _De Usuris_ of Laurentius de\nRodolfis was 1403; a short account of his theories as to the exchanges will be\nfound in E. Schreiber, _Die volkswirthschaftlichen Anschauungen der Scholastik\nseit Thomas v. Aquin_, 1913, pp. 211-17. The most important works of St.\nAntonino (1389-1459, Archbishop of Florence, 1446) are the _Summa Theologica_,\n_Summa Confessionalis_, and _De Usuris_. Some account of his teaching is given\nby Carl Ilgner, _Die volkswirthschaftlichen Anschauungen Antonins von Florenz_,\n1904; Schreiber, _op. cit._, pp. 217-23; and Bede Jarrett, _St. Antonino and\nMedi\u00e6val Economics_, 1914. The full title of Baxter\u2019s work is _A Christian\nDirectory: a Summ of Practical Theologie and Cases of Conscience_.\n\n[I-8] See Chap. IV, p. 206.\n\n[I-9] Benvenuto da Imola, _Comentum super Dantis Com\u0153diam_ (ed. Lacaita), vol.\ni, p. 579: \u201cQui facit usuram vadit ad infernum; qui non facit vadit ad inopiam\u201d\n(quoted by G. G. Coulton, _Social Life in Britain from the Conquest to the\nReformation_, 1919, p. 342).\n\n[I-10] Lanfranc, _Elucidarium_, lib. ii, p. 18 (in _Opera_, ed. J. A. Giles).\nSee also _Vita Sancti Guidonis_ (_Bollandists\u2019 Acta Sanctorum_, September, vol.\niv, p. 43): \u201cMercatura raro aut nunquam ab aliquo diu sine crimine exerceri\npotuit.\u201d\n\n[I-11] B. L. Manning, _The People\u2019s Faith in the Time of Wyclif_, 1919, p. 186.\n\n[I-12] Aquinas, _Summa Theologica_, 2^a 2^\u00e6, div. 1, Q. iii, art. viii.\n\n[I-13] _Ibid._, 1^a 2^\u00e6, div. i, Q. xciv, art. ii.\n\n[I-14] The Bull _Unam Sanctam_ of Boniface VIII.\n\n[I-15] John of Salisbury, _Polycraticus_ (ed. C. C. I. Webb), lib. v, cap. ii\n(\u201cEst autem res publica, sicut Plutarco placet, corpus quoddam quod divini\nmuneris beneficio animatur\u201d), and lib. vi, cap. x, where the analogy is worked\nout in detail. For Henry VIII\u2019s chaplain see Starkey, _A Dialogue between\nCardinal Pole and Thomas Lupset_ (Early English Text Society, Extra Ser., no.\nxxxii, 1878).\n\n[I-16] Chaucer, _The Persone\u2019s Tale_, \u00a7 66.\n\n[I-17] _On the Seven Deadly Sins_, chap. xix (_Select English Works of John\nWyclif_, ed. T. Arnold, vol. iii, 1871, p. 145).\n\n[I-18] John of Salisbury, _op. cit._, lib. vi, cap. x: \u201cTunc autem totius rei\npublic\u00e6 salus incolumis pr\u00e6claraque erit, si superiora membra se impendant\ninferioribus et inferiora superioribus pari jure respondeant, ut singula sint\nquasi aliorum ad invicem membra.\u201d\n\n[I-19] Wyclif, _op. cit._, chaps. ix, x, xi, xvii, _passim_ (_Works of Wyclif_,\ned. T. Arnold, vol. iii, pp. 130, 131, 132, 134, 143).\n\n[I-20] See, _e.g._, A. Doren, _Studien aus der Florentiner\nWirthschaftsgeschichte_, 1901, vol. i, chaps. v, vii. His final verdict (p. 458)\nis: \u201cMan kann es getrost aussprechen: es gibt wohl keine Periode in der\nWeltgeschichte, in der die nat\u00fcrliche Uebermacht des Kapitals \u00fcber die besitz-\nund kapitallose Handarbeit r\u00fccksichtsloser, freier von sittlichen und\nrechtlichen Bedenken, naiver in ihrer selbstverst\u00e4ndlichen Konsequenz gewaltet\nh\u00e4tte, und bis in die entferntesten Folgen zur Geltung gebracht worden w\u00e4re, als\nin der Bl\u00fctezeit der Florentiner Tuchindustrie.\u201d The picture drawn by Pirenne of\nthe textile industry in Flanders (_Belgian Democracy: Its Early History_, trans.\nby J. V. Saunders, 1915, pp. 128-34) is somewhat similar.\n\n[I-21] In Jan. 1298/9 there was held a \u201cparliament of carpenters at Milehende,\nwhere they bound themselves by a corporal oath not to observe a certain\nordinance or provision made by the Mayor and Aldermen touching their craft,\u201d and\nin the following March a \u201cparliament of smiths\u201d was formed, with a common chest\n(_Calendar of Early Mayor\u2019s Court Rolls of the City of London, 1298-1307_, ed.\nA. H. Thomas, 1924, pp. 25, 33-4).\n\n[I-22] The figures for Paris are the estimate of Martin Saint-L\u00e9on (_Histoire\ndes Corporations de M\u00e9tiers_, 3rd ed., 1922, pp. 219-20, 224, 226); those for\nFrankfurt are given by B\u00fccher (_Die Bev\u00f6lkerung von Frankfurt am Main im XIV und\nXV Jahrhundert_, 1886, pp. 103, 146, 605). They do not include apprentices, and\nmust not be pressed too far. The conclusion of Martin Saint-L\u00e9on is: \u201cIl est\ncertain qu\u2019au moyen \u00e2ge (abstraction faite des villes de Flandre) il n\u2019existait\npas encore un prol\u00e9tariat, le nombre des ouvriers ne d\u00e9passant gu\u00e8re ou\nn\u2019atteignant m\u00eame pas celui des ma\u00eetres\u201d (_op. cit._, p. 227 n.). The towns of\nItaly should be added, as an exception, to those of Flanders, and in any case\nthe statement is not generally true of the later Middle Ages, when there was\ncertainly a wage-earning proletariat in Germany also (see Lamprecht, _Zum\nVerst\u00e4ndnis der wirthschaftlichen und sozialen Wandlungen in Deutschland vom 14.\nzum 16. Jahrhundert_, in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Sozial- und\nWirthschaftsgeschichte_, vol. i, 1893, pp. 191-263), and even, though on a\nsmaller scale, in England.\n\n[I-23] _The Grete Sentence of Curs Expouned_, chap. xxviii (_Select English\nWorks of Wyclif_, ed. T. Arnold, vol. iii, p. 333). The passage contains\ncomprehensive denunciations of all sorts of combination, in particular, gilds,\n\u201cmen of sutel craft, as fre masons and othere,\u201d and \u201cmarchauntis, groceris, and\nvitileris\u201d who \u201cconspiren wickidly togidre that noon of hem schal bie over a\ncerteyn pris, though the thing that thei bien be moche more worthi\u201d (_ibid._,\npp. 333, 334).\n\nWyclif\u2019s argument is of great interest and importance. It is (1), that such\nassociations for mutual aid are unnecessary. No special institutions are needed\nto promote fraternity, since, quite apart from them, all members of the\ncommunity are bound to help each other: \u201cAlle the goodnes that is in thes gildes\neche man owith for to do bi comyn fraternyte of Cristendom, by Goddis\ncomaundement.\u201d (2) That combinations are a conspiracy against the public. Both\ndoctrines were points in the case for the sovereignty of the unitary State, and\nboth were to play a large part in subsequent history. They were used by the\nabsolutist statesmen of the sixteenth century as an argument for State control\nover industry, in place of the obstructive torpor of gilds and boroughs, and by\nthe individualists of the eighteenth century as an argument for free\ncompetition. The line of thought as to the relation of minor associations to the\nState runs from Wyclif to Turgot, Rousseau, Adam Smith, the Act of the\nLegislative Assembly in 1792 forbidding trade unions (\u201cLes citoyens de m\u00eame \u00e9tat\nou profession, les ouvriers et compagnons d\u2019un art quelconque ne pourront ...\nformer des r\u00e8glements sur leurs pr\u00e9tendus int\u00e9r\u00eats communs\u201d), and the English\nCombination Acts.\n\n[I-24] _Kayser Sigmunds Reformation aller St\u00e4nden des Heiligen R\u00f6mischen\nReichs_, printed by Goldast, _Collectio Constitutionum Imperialium_, 1713, vol.\niv, pp. 170-200. Its probable date appears to be about 1437. It is discussed\nshortly by J. S. Schapiro, _Social Reform and the Reformation_, 1909, pp. 93-9.\n\n[I-25] Martin Saint-L\u00e9on, _op. cit._, p. 187. The author\u2019s remark is made _\u00e0\npropos_ of a ruling of 1270, fixing minimum rates for textile workers in Paris.\nIt appears, however, to be unduly optimistic. The fact that minimum rates were\nfixed for textile workers must not be taken as evidence that that policy was\ncommon, for in England, and probably in France, the textile trades received\nspecial treatment, and minimum rates were fixed for them, while maximum rates\nwere fixed for other, and much more numerous, bodies of workers. What is true is\nthat the medieval assumption with regard to wages, as with regard to the much\nmore important question of prices, was that it was possible to bring them into\nan agreement with an objective standard of equity, which did not reflect the\nmere play of economic forces.\n\n[I-26] \u201cThe Cardinals\u2019 Gospel,\u201d translated from the _Carmina Burana_ by G. G.\nCoulton, in _A Medi\u00e6val Garner_, 1910, p. 347.\n\n[I-27] Printed from the _Carmina Burana_ by S. Gaselee, _An Anthology of\nMedieval Latin_, 1925, pp. 58-9.\n\n[I-28] Innocent IV gave them in 1248 the title of \u201cRoman\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 filii\nspeciales\u201d (Ehrenberg, _Das Zeitalter der Fugger_, 1896, vol. ii, p. 66).\n\n[I-29] For Grosst\u00eate see Matthew Paris, _Chronica Majora_, vol. v, pp. 404-5\n(where he is reported as denouncing the Cahorsines, \u201cwhom in our time the holy\nfathers and teachers ... had driven out of France, but who have been encouraged\nand protected by the Pope in England, which did not formerly suffer from this\npestilence\u201d), and F. S. Stevenson, _Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln_,\n1899, pp. 101-4. For the bishop of London and the Cahorsines see Matthew Paris,\n_Chron. Maj._, vol. iii, pp. 331-2. A useful collection of references on the\nwhole subject is given by Ehrenberg, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 64-8.\n\n[I-30] _Registrum Epistolarum J. Peckham_, vol. i, p. 18, July 1279 (translated\nby Coulton, _Social Life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation_, p.\n345).\n\n[I-31] For cases of clerical usury see Selden Society, vol. v, 1891, _Leet\nJurisdiction in the City of Norwich_, ed. W. Hudson, p. 35; _Hist. MSS. Comm.,\nMSS. of the Marquis of Lothian_, 1905, p. 26; and Th. Bonnin, _Regestrum\nVisitationum Odonis Rigaldi_, 1852, p. 35. See also note 88 (below).\n\n[I-32] The Chapter of Notre-Dame appears to have lent money at interest to the\ncitizens of Paris (A. Luchaire, _Social France at the time of Philip Augustus_,\ntranslated by E. B. Krehbiel, 1912, p. 130). For the bishop\u2019s advice to the\nusurer see _ibid._, p. 166.\n\n[I-33] From a letter of St. Bernard, _c._1125, printed by Coulton, _A Medi\u00e6val\nGarner_, pp. 68-73.\n\n[I-34] Aquinas, _De Regimine Principum_, lib. ii, cap. i-vii, where the economic\nfoundations of a State are discussed.\n\n[I-35] Aquinas, _Summa Theol._, 2^a 2^\u00e6, Q. lxxxiii, art. vi. For St. Antonino\u2019s\nremarks to the same purpose, see Jarrett, _St. Antonino and Medi\u00e6val Economics_,\np. 59.\n\n[I-36] Gratian, _Decretum_, pt. ii, causa xii, Q. i, c. ii, \u00a7 1.\n\n[I-37] A good account of St. Antonino\u2019s theory of property is given by Ilgner,\n_Die Volkswirthschaftlichen Anschauungen Antonins von Florenz_, chap. x.\n\n[I-38] \u201cSed si esset bonus legislator in patria indigente, deberet locare pro\npretio magno huiusmodi mercatores ... et non tantum eis et famili\u00e6\nsustentationem necessariam invenire, sed etiam industriam, peritiam, et pericula\nomnia locare; ergo etiam hoc possunt ipsi in vendendo\u201d (quoted Schreiber, _Die\nvolkswirthschaftlichen Anschauungen der Scholastik seit Thomas v. Aquin_, p.\n154).\n\n[I-39] Henry of Ghent, _Aurea Quodlibeta_, p. 42_b_ (quoted Schreiber, _op.\ncit._, p. 135).\n\n[I-40] Gratian, _Decretum_, pt. 1, dist. lxxxviii, cap. xi.\n\n[I-41] Aquinas, _Summa Theol._, 2^a 2^\u00e6, Q. lxxvii, art. iv.\n\n[I-42] _Ibid._ Trade is unobjectionable, \u201ccum aliquis negotiationi intendit\npropter publicam utilitatem, ne scilicet res necessari\u00e6 ad vitam patri\u00e6 desint,\net lucrum expetit, non quasi finem, sed quasi stipendium laboris.\u201d\n\n[I-43] Henry of Langenstein, _Tractatus bipartitus de contractibus emptionis et\nvenditionis_, i, 12 (quoted Schreiber, _op. cit._, p. 197).\n\n[I-44] See Chap. II, \u00a7 ii.\n\n[I-45] Examples of these stories are printed by Coulton, _A Medi\u00e6val Garner_,\n1910, pp. 212-15, 298, and _Social Life in England from the Conquest to the\nReformation_, 1919, p. 346.\n\n[I-46] The facts are given by Arturo Segre, _Storia del Commercio_, vol. i, p.\n223. For a fuller account of credit and money-lending in Florence, see Doren,\n_Studien aus der Florentiner Wirthschaftsgeschichte_, vol. i, pp. 173-209.\n\n[I-47] Bruno Kuske, _Quellen zur Geschichte des K\u00f6lner Handels und Verkehrs im\nMittelalter_, vol. iii, 1923, pp. 197-8.\n\n[I-48] Early English Text Society, _The Coventry Leet Book_, ed. M. D. Harris,\n1907-13, p. 544.\n\n[I-49] Wyclif, _On the Seven Deadly Sins_, chap. xxiv (_Works of Wyclif_, ed. T.\nArnold, vol. iii, pp. 154-5). The word rendered \u201cloan\u201d is \u201cleeve\u201d [? leene] in\nthe text.\n\n[I-50] For examples of such cases see _Early Chancery Proceedings_, Bdle. lxiv,\nnos. 291 and 1089; Bdle. xxxvii, no. 38; Bdle. xlvi, no. 307. They are discussed\nin some detail in my introduction to Thomas Wilson\u2019s _Discourse upon Usury_,\n1925, pp. 28-9.\n\n[I-51] _Hist. MSS. Com., MSS. of Marquis of Lothian_, p. 27; Selden Soc., _Leet\nJurisdiction in the City of Norwich_, p. 35.\n\n[I-52] Aquinas, _Summa Theol._, 1^a 2^\u00e6, Q. xcv, art. ii.\n\n[I-53] _On the Seven Deadly Sins_, chap. xxiv (_Works of Wyclif_, ed. T. Arnold,\nvol. iii, p. 153): \u201cBot men of lawe and marchauntis and chapmen and vitelers\nsynnen more in avarice then done pore laboreres. And this token hereof; for now\nben thei pore, and now ben thei ful riche, for wronges that thei done.\u201d\n\n[I-54] _E.g._, \u00c6gidius Lessinus, _De Usuris_, cap. ix, pt. i: \u201cTantum res\nestimatur juste, quantum ad utilitatem possidentis refertur, et tantum juste\nvalet, quantum sine fraude vendi potest.... Omnis translatio facta libera\nvoluntate dominorum juste fit;\u201d Johannes Buridanus, _Qu\u00e6stiones super decem\nlibros Ethicorum Aristotelis_, v, 23: \u201cSi igitur rem suam sic alienat, ipse\nsecundum suam estimationem non damnificatur, sed lucratur; igitur non injustum\npatitur.\u201d Both writers are discussed by Schreiber (_op. cit._, pp. 161-71 and\n177-91). The theory of Buridanus appears extraordinarily modern; but he is\ncareful to emphasize that prices should be fixed \u201csecundum utilitatem et\nnecessitatem totius communitatis,\u201d not \u201cpenes necessitatem ementis vel\nvendentis.\u201d\n\n[I-55] St. Antonino, _Summa Theologica_, pars ii, tit. i, cap. viii, \u00a7 1, and\ncap. xvi, \u00a7 iii. An account of St. Antonino\u2019s theory of prices is given by\nIlgner, _Die volkswirthschaftlichen Anschauungen Antonins von Florenz_, chap.\niv; Jarrett, _St. Antonino and Medi\u00e6val Economics_; and Schreiber, _op. cit._,\npp. 217-23. Its interest consists in the attempts to maintain the principle of\nthe just price, while making allowance for practical necessities.\n\n[I-56] Henry of Langenstein, _Tractatus bipartitus de contractibus emptionis et\nvenditionis_, i, 11, 12 (quoted Schreiber, _op. cit._, pp. 198-200).\n\n[I-57] For these examples see _Cal. of Early Mayor\u2019s Court Rolls of the City of\nLondon_, ed. A. H. Thomas, pp. 259-60; _Records of the City of Norwich_, ed. W.\nHudson and J. C. Tingey, vol. i, 1906, p. 227; _Cal. of Early Mayor\u2019s Court\nRolls_, p. 132; J. M. Wilson, _The Worcester Liber Albus_, 1920, pp. 199-200,\n212-13. The question of the legitimacy of rent-charges and of the profits of\npartnership has been fully discussed by Max Neumann, _Geschichte des Wuchers in\nDeutschland_ (1865), and by Ashley, _Economic History_. See also G. O\u2019Brien, _An\nEssay on Medi\u00e6val Economic Teaching_ (1920), and G. G. Coulton, _An Episode in\nCanon Law_ (in _History_, July 1921), where the difficult question raised by the\nDecretal _Naviganti_ is discussed.\n\n[I-58] _Bernardi Papiensis Summa Decretalium_ (ed. E. A. D. Laspeyres, 1860);\nlib. v, tit. xv.\n\n[I-59] _E.g._, \u00c6gidius Lessinus, _De Usuris_, cap. ix, pt. ii: \u201cEtiam res futur\u00e6\nper tempora non sunt tant\u00e6 estimationis, sicut e\u00e6dem collect\u00e6 in instanti, nec\ntantam utilitatem inferunt possidentibus, propter quod oportet, quod sint\nminoris estimationis secundum justitiam.\u201d\n\n[I-60] O\u2019Brien (_op. cit._) appears, unless I misunderstand him, to take this\nview.\n\n[I-61] _Politics_, I, iii, _ad. fin._ 1258^b. See _Who said \u201cBarren Metal\u201d?_ by\nE. Cannan, W. D. Ross, etc., in _Economica_, June 1922, pp. 105-7.\n\n[I-62] Innocent IV, _Apparatus_, lib. v, _De Usuris_.\n\n[I-63] For Italy, see Arturo Segre, _Storia del Commercio_, vol. i, pp. 179-91,\nand for France, P. Boissonade, _Le Travail dans l\u2019Europe chr\u00e9tienne au Moyen\nAge_, 1921, pp. 206-9, 212-13. Both emphasize the financial relations of the\nPapacy.\n\n[I-64] _E.g._, Council of Arles, 314; Nic\u00e6a, 325; Laodicea, 372; and many\nothers.\n\n[I-65] _Corpus Juris Canonici_, Decretal. Greg. IX, lib. v, tit. xix, cap. i.\n\n[I-66] _Ibid._, cap. iii.\n\n[I-67] _Ibid._, Sexti Decretal, lib. v, tit. v, cap. i, ii.\n\n[I-68] _Ibid._, Clementinarum, lib. v, tit. v, cap. i.\n\n[I-69] The passages referred to in this paragraph are as follows: _Corp. Jur.\nCan._, Decretal. Greg. IX, lib. v, tit. xix, cap. ix, iv, x, xiii, xv, ii, v,\nvi.\n\n[I-70] _A Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary in the Thirteenth Century_, ed. H.\nC. Lea, 1892, Nos. xcii, clxxviii (2), clxxix.\n\n[I-71] _Raimundi de Penna-forti Summa Pastoralis_ (Ravaisson, _Catalogue G\u00e9n\u00e9ral\ndes MSS. des Biblioth\u00e8ques publiques des Departements_, 1849, vol. i, pp. 592\n_seqq._). The archdeacon is to inquire: \u201cWhether [the priest] feeds his flock,\nassisting those who are in need and above all those who are sick. Works of mercy\nalso are to be suggested by the archdeacon, to be done by him for their\nassistance. If he cannot fully accomplish them out of his own resources, he\nought, according to his power, to use his personal influence to get from others\nthe means of carrying them out.... Inquiries concerning the parishioners are to\nbe made, both from the priest and from others among them worthy of credence,\nwho, if necessary, are to be summoned for the purpose to the presence of the\narchdeacon, as well as from the neighbours, with regard to matters which appear\nto need correction. First, inquiry is to be made whether there are notorious\nusurers, or persons reputed to be usurers, and what sort of usury they practise,\nwhether any one, that is to say, lends money or anything else ... on condition\nthat he receive anything above the principal, or holds any pledge and takes\nprofits from it in excess of the principal, or receives pledges and uses them in\nthe meantime for his own gain; ... whether he holds horses in pledge and reckons\nin the cost of their fodder more than they can eat ... or whether he buys\nanything at a much lower price than it is worth, on condition that the seller\ncan take it back at a fixed term on paying the price, though the buyer knows\nthat he (the seller) will not be able to do so; or whether he buys anything for\na less price than it is worth, because he pays before receiving the article, for\nexample, standing corn; or whether any one, as a matter of custom and without\nexpress contract, is wont to take payment above the principal, as the Cahorsines\ndo.... Further, it is to be inquired whether he practises usury cloaked under\nthe guise of a partnership (_nomine societatis palliatam_), as when a man lends\nmoney to a merchant, on condition that he be a partner in the gains, but not in\nthe losses.... Further, whether he practises usury cloaked under the guise of a\npenalty, that is to say, when his intention in imposing a penalty [for\nnon-payment at a given date] is not that he may be paid more quickly, but that\nhe may be paid more. Further, whether he practises usury in kind, as when a rich\nman, who has lent money, will not receive from a poor man any money above the\nprincipal, but agrees that he shall work two days in his vineyard, or something\nof the kind. Further, whether he practises usury cloaked by reference to a third\nparty, as when a man will not lend himself, but has a friend whom he induces to\nlend. When it has been ascertained how many persons in that parish are notorious\nfor usury of this kind, their names are to be reduced to writing, and the\narchdeacon is to proceed against them in virtue of his office, causing them to\nbe cited to his court on a day fixed, either before himself or his responsible\nofficial, even if there is no accuser, on the ground that they are accused by\ncommon report. If they are convicted, either because their offence is evident,\nor by their own confession, or by witnesses, he is to punish them as he thinks\nbest.... If they cannot be directly convicted, by reason of their manifold\nshifts and stratagems, nevertheless their ill fame as usurers can easily be\nestablished.... If the archdeacon proceed with caution and diligence against\ntheir wicked doings, they will hardly be able to hold their own or to\nescape--if, that is ... he vex them with trouble and expense, and humiliate\nthem, by frequently serving citations on them and assigning several different\ndays for their trial, so that by trouble, expense, loss of time, and all manner\nof confusion they may be induced to repent and submit themselves to the\ndiscipline of the Church.\u201d\n\n[I-72] E. Mart\u00e8ne and U. Durand, _Thesaurus novus Anecdotorum_, 1717, vol. iv,\npp. 696 _seqq._\n\n[I-73] Pecock, _The Repressor of over-much blaming of the Clergy_, ed. C.\nBabington, 1860, pt. i, chap. iii, pp. 15-16. His words show both the\ndifficulties which confronted ecclesiastical teaching and the attempts to\novercome them. \u201cI preie thee ... seie to me where in Holi Scripture is yoven the\nhundrid parti of the teching upon matrimonie which y teche in a book mad upon\n_Matrimonie_, and in the firste partie of _Cristen religioun_.... Seie to me\nalso where in Holi Scripture is yoven the hundrid part of the teching which is\nyoven upon usure in the thridde parti of the book yclepid _The filling of the\niiij tables_; and yit al thilk hool teching yoven upon usure in the now named\nbook is litil ynough or ouer litle for to leerne, knowe and have sufficientli\ninto mannis behove and into Goddis trewe service and lawe keping what is to be\nleerned and kunnen aboute usure, as to reeders and studiers ther yn it muste\nneedis be open. Is ther eny more writen of usure in al the Newe Testament save\nthis, Luke vi, \u2018Geve ye loone, hoping no thing ther of,\u2019 and al that is of usure\nwriten in the Oold Testament favourith rather usure than it reproveth. How\nevere, therfore, schulde eny man seie that the sufficient leernyng and kunnyng\nof usure or of the vertu contrarie to usure is groundid in Holi Scripture? Howe\nevere schal thilk litil now rehercid clausul, Luke vi, be sufficient for to\nanswere and assoile alle the harde scrupulose doutis and questiouns which al dai\nhan neede to be assoiled in mennis bargenyngis and cheffaringis togidere? Ech\nman having to do with suche questiouns mai soone se that Holi Writt geveth litil\nor noon light thereto at al. Forwhi al that Holi Writt seith ther to is that he\nforbedith usure, and therfore al that mai be take therbi is this, that usure is\nunleeful; but though y bileeve herbi that usure is unleeful, how schal y wite\nherbi what usure is, that y be waar for to not do it, and whanne in a bargeyn is\nusure, though to summen seemeth noon, and how in a bargeyn is noon usure though\nto summen ther semeth to be?\u201d\n\nPecock\u2019s defence of the necessity of commentaries on the teaching of Scripture\nwas the real answer to the statement afterwards made by Luther that the text,\n\u201cLove thy neighbour as thyself,\u201d was an all-sufficient guide to action (see\nChap. II, p. 99). Examples of teaching as to usury contained in books such as\nPecock had in mind will be found in Myrc\u2019s _Instructions for Parish Priests_\n(Early English Text Society, ed. E. Peacock and F. J. Furnivall, 1902), the\n_Pupilla Oculi_, and _Dan Michel\u2019s Ayenbite of Inwyt_ (Early English Text\nSociety, ed. R. Morris, 1866).\n\n[I-74] _The Catechism of John Hamilton, Archbishop of St. Andrews_, 1552, ed. T.\nG. Law, 1884, pp. 97-9. Under the seventh commandment are denounced: \u201cFyftlie,\nal thay that defraudis or spoulyeis the common geir, aganis the common weill for\nlufe of their awin pryvate and singulare weill. Saxtlie, all usuraris and\nockiraris synnis aganis this command, that wil nocht len thair geir frelie, bot\nmakis conditione of ockir, aganis the command of Christe. Sevintlie, all thay\nquhilk hais servandis or work men and wyll nocht pay theim thair fee or waige,\naccordyng to conditioun and thair deservyng, quilk syn, as sanct James sayis,\ncryis vengeance before God. Auchtlie, all thai that strykis cowyne of unlauchful\nmetall, quhair throuch the common weil is hurt and skaithit. The nynte, all\nMerchandis that sellis corruppit and evyll stufe for gude, and gyf thay or ony\nuther in bying or sellyng use desait, falsate, parjurie, wrang mettis or\nweychtis, to the skaith of thair nychtbour, thay committ gret syn agane this\ncommand. Nother can we clenge fra breakyng of this command all kyndis of craftis\nmen quhilk usis nocht thair awin craft leillalie and trewlie as thai suld do....\nAll wrechis that wyl be ground ryche incontynent, quhay be fraud, falset, and\ngyle twynnis men and thair geir, quhay may keip thair nychbour fra povertie and\nmyschance and dois it nocht. Quhay takis ouer sair mail, ouer mekle ferme or ony\nblake maillis fra thair tennands, or puttis thair cottaris to ouir sair\nlabouris, quhair throw the tenentis and cottaris is put to herschip. Quha invies\nhis nychbouris gud fortune, ouir byis him or takis his geir out of his handis\nwith fair hechtis, or prevenis him, or begyles him at his marchandis hand.\u201d The\ndetail in which different forms of commercial sharp practice are denounced is\nnoticeable.\n\n[I-75] See _e.g._ Matt. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii, pp. 191-2, for the case\nof a priest who, for refusing to give Christian burial to an excommunicate\nusurer, is seized by order of the Count of Brittany and buried alive, bound to\nthe dead man. See also _Materials for the History of Thomas Becket_, vol. v, p.\n38.\n\n[I-76] Harduin, _Acta Conciliorum_, vol. vii, pp. 1017-20; \u201cAnno pr\u00e6dicto\n[1485], diebus Mercurii et Jovis pr\u00e6dictis, scilicet ante Ramos Palmarum, ibidem\napud Vicanum, in claustro ecclesi\u00e6 de Vicano; coram domino archiepiscopo, et\nmandato suo, person\u00e6 infrascript\u00e6, parochiani de Guorgonio, qui super usuraria\npravitate erant quam plurimum diffamati; coram domino propter hoc vocati\nabjuraverunt: et per mandatum domini summas infrascriptas, quas se confessi\nfuerunt habuisse per usurariam pravitatem, per juramentum suum restituere\npromiserunt, et stare juri super his coram eo. Bertrandus de Faveriis abjuratus\nusuras, ut pr\u00e6mittitur, promisit restituere centum solidos monet\u00e6 antiqu\u00e6: quos,\nprout ipse confessus est, habuerat per usurariam pravitatem....\u201d Thirty-six more\ncases were treated in this way.\n\n[I-77] Villani, _Cronica_, book xii, chap. lviii (ed. 1823, vol. vi, p. 142):\nVillani complains of the conduct of the inquisitor: \u201cMa per attignere danari,\nd\u2019ogni piccola parola oziosa che alcuno dicesse per iniquit\u00e0 contra Iddio, o\ndicesse che usura non fosse peccato mortale, o simili parole, condannava in\ngrossa somma di danari, secondo che l\u2019uomo era ricco.\u201d\n\n[I-78] Constitutions of Clarendon, cap. 15: \u201cPlacita de debitis, qu\u00e6 fide\ninterposita debentur, vel absque interpositione fidei, sint in justitia regis.\u201d\nOn the whole subject see Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_, 2nd\ned., 1898, vol. ii, pp. 197-202, and F. Makower, _Constitutional History of the\nChurch of England_, 1895, \u00a7 60.\n\n[I-79] _Cal. of Early Mayor\u2019s Court Rolls of the City of London_, ed. A. H.\nThomas, pp. 44, 88, 156, 235; Selden Soc., _Borough Customs_, ed. M. Bateson,\nvol. ii, 1906, pp. 161 (London) and 209-10 (Dublin); _Records of Leicester_, ed.\nM. Bateson, vol. ii, 1901, p. 49. For similar prohibitions by manorial courts,\nsee _Hist. MSS. Com., MSS. of Marquis of Lothian_, p. 28, and G. P. Scrope,\n_History of the Manor and Barony of Castle Combe_, 1852, p. 238.\n\n[I-80] _Annales de Burton_, p. 256; Wilkins, _Concilia_, vol. ii, p. 115; _Rot.\nParl._, vol. ii, p. 129_b_.\n\n[I-81] _Cal. of Letter Books of the City of London_, ed. R. R. Sharpe, vol. H,\npp. 23-4, 24-5, 27, 28, 200, 206-7, 261-2, 365; _Liber Albus_, bk. iii, pt. ii,\npp. 77, 315, 394-401, 683; Selden Soc., _Leet Jurisdiction in the City of\nNorwich_, p. 35; _Hist. MSS. Com., MSS. of Marquis of Lothian_, pp. 26, 27.\n\n[I-82] _Rot. Parl._, vol. ii, pp. 332_a_, 350_b_.\n\n[I-83] R. H. Morris, _Chester in the Plantagenet and Tudor Reigns_, 1894 (?), p.\n190.\n\n[I-84] Early Chancery Proceedings, Bdle. xi, no. 307; Bdle. xxix, nos. 193-5;\nBdle. xxxi, nos. 96-100, 527; Bdle. lx, no. 20; Bdle. lxiv, no. 1089. See also\n_Year Books and Plea Rolls as Sources of Historical Information_, by H. G.\nRichardson, in _Trans. Royal Historical Society_, 4th series, vol. v, 1922, pp.\n47-8.\n\n[I-85] Ed. Gibson, _Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani_, 2nd ed., 1761, p.\n1026.\n\n[I-86] 15 Ed. III, st. 1, c. 5; 3 Hen. VII, c. 5; 11 Hen. VII, c. 8; 13 Eliz. c.\n8; 21 Jac. I, c. 17.\n\n[I-87] _Cal. of Early Mayor\u2019s Court Rolls of City of London_, ed. A. H. Thomas,\npp. 1, 12, 28-9, 33-4, 44, 52, 88, 141, 156, 226, 235, 251. The cases of the\nsmiths and spurriers occur on pp. 33-4 and 52. In the fifteenth century a gild\nstill occasionally tried to enforce its rules by proceedings in an\necclesiastical court (see Wm. H. Hale, _A Series of Precedents and Proceedings\nin Criminal Causes_, 1847, nos. xxxvi and lxviii, where persons breaking gild\nrules are cited before the Commissary\u2019s court).\n\n[I-88] Canterbury and York Soc., _Registrum Thome Spofford_, ed. A. T.\nBannister, 1919, p. 52 (1424); and Surtees Society, vol. cxxxviii, _The Register\nof Thomas of Corbridge, Lord Archbishop of York_, ed. Wm. Brown, 1925, vol. i,\npp. 187-8: \u201c6 kal. Maii, 1303. Wilton.\u2019 Littera testimonialis super purgacione\ndomini Johannis de Multhorp, vicarii ecclesie de Garton\u2019, de usura sibi\nimposita. Universis Christi fidelibus, ad quos presentes littere pervenerint,\npateat per easdem quod, cum dominus Johannes de Multhorp\u2019, vicarius ecclesie de\nGarton\u2019, nostre diocesis, coram nobis Thoma, Dei gracia, etc., in visitacione\nnostra super usura fuisset notatus, videlicet, quod mutuavit cuidam Jollano de\nBriddale, ut dicebatur, xxxiij s. iiij d., eo pacto quod idem vicarius ab eo\nreciperet per x annos annis singulis x s. pro eisdem, de quibus eciam dictum\nfuit quod prefatus Jollanus dicto vicario pro octo annis ex pacto satisfecit et\nsolvit predicto; eundem vicarium super hoc vocari fecimus coram nobis et ei\nobjecimus supradicta, que ipse inficians constancius atque negans se optulit in\nforma juris super hiis legitime purgaturum. Nos autem eidem vicario purgacionem\nsuam cum sua sexta manu vicariorum et aliorum presbiterorum sui ordinis\nindiximus faciendam, quam die Veneris proxima ante festum apostolorum Philippi\net Jacobi (April 26), anno gracie m\u00baccc\u00ba tercio, ad hoc sibi prefixo, in manerio\nnostro de Wilton\u2019 super articulo recipimus supradicto, idemque vicarius unacum\ndominis Johanne, rectore ecclesie B.M. juxta portam castri de Eboraco, Johanne\net Johanne, de Wharrum et de Wyverthorp\u2019 ecclesiarum vicariis ac Roberto,\nJohanne, Alano, Stepheno et Willelmo, de Nafferton\u2019, Driffeld\u2019, Wetewang\u2019,\nFoston\u2019 et Wintringham ecclesiarum presbiteris parochialibus fidedignis, de\nmemorato articulo legitime se purgavit; propter quod ipsum vicarium sic purgatum\npronunciamus et inmunem sentencialiter declaramus, restituentes eundem ad suam\npristinam bonam famam. In cujus rei testimonium sigillum nostrum presentibus est\nappensum.\u201d\n\n[I-89] _Early Chancery Proceedings_, Bdle. xviii, no. 137; Bdle. xix, no. 2155;\nBdle. xxiv, no. 255; Bdle. xxxi, no. 348. See also A. Abram, _Social England in\nthe Fifteenth Century_, 1909, pp. 215-17. In view of these examples, it seems\nprobable that a more thorough examination of the _Early Chancery Proceedings_\nwould show that, even in the fifteenth century, the jurisdiction of the\necclesiastical courts in matters of contract and usury was of greater practical\nimportance than has sometimes been supposed.\n\n[I-90] Surtees Soc., vol. lxiv, 1875 (_Acts of Chapter of the Collegiate Church\nof Ripon_) contains more than 100 cases in which the court deals with questions\nof contract, debt, etc. The case which is dismissed \u201cpropter civilitatem caus\u00e6\u201d\noccurs in 1532 (Surtees Soc., vol. xxi, 1845, _Ecclesiastical Proceedings from\nthe Courts of Durham_, p. 49).\n\n[I-91] Chetham Soc., vol. xliv, 1901, _Act Book of the Ecclesiastical Court of\nWhalley_, pp. 15-16.\n\n[I-92] Surtees Soc., vol. lxiv, 1875, _Acts of Chapter of the Collegiate Church\nof Ripon_, p. 26.\n\n[I-93] Hale, _op. cit._ (note 87 above), no. ccxxxviii.\n\n[I-94] See Chap. III, p. 161.\n\n[I-95] For parishes, see S. O. Addy, _Church and Manor_, 1913, chap. xv, where\nnumerous examples are given. For a gild which appears to have acted as a bank,\nsee _Hist. MSS. Com._, 11th Report, 1887, Appx., pt. iii, p. 228 (_MSS. of the\nBorough of King\u2019s Lynn_), and for other examples of loans, H. F. Westlake, _The\nParish Gilds of Medi\u00e6val England_, 1919, pp. 61-3, _Records of the City of\nOxford_, ed. Wm. H. Turner, 1880, p. 8, _Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral_, ed. C.\nWordsworth, pt. ii, 1897, pp. 616-17, and G. Unwin, _The Gilds and Companies of\nLondon_, 1908, p. 121. For a hospital, see _Hist. MSS. Com._, 14th Report,\nAppx., pt. viii, 1895, p. 129 (_MSS. of the Corporation of Bury St. Edmunds_),\nwhere 20_d._ is lent (or given) to a poor man to buy seed for his land. A\nstatement (made half a century after the Dissolution) as to loans by monasteries\nis quoted by F. A. Gasquet, _Henry VIII and the English Monasteries_, 7th ed.,\n1920, p. 463; specific examples are not known to me.\n\n[I-96] W. H. Bliss, _Cal. of Papal Letters_, vol. i, pp. 267-8.\n\n[I-97] For the early history of the _Monts de Pi\u00e9t\u00e9_ see Holzapfel, _Die Anf\u00e4nge\nder Montes Pietatis_ (1903), and for their development in the Low Countries, A.\nHenne, _Histoire du R\u00e8gne de Charles-quint en Belgique_, 1859, vol. v, pp.\n220-3. For proposals to establish them in England see S.P.D. Eliz., vol. cx, no.\n57 (printed in Tawney and Power, _Tudor Economic Documents_, vol. iii, sect.\niii, no. 6), and my introduction to Thomas Wilson\u2019s _Discourse upon Usury_,\n1925, pp. 125-7.\n\n[I-98] Camden Soc., _A Relation of the Island of England about the Year 1500_\n(translated from the Italian), 1847, p. 23.\n\n[I-99] Lyndwood, _Provinciale_, sub. tit. _Usura_, and Gibson, _Codex Jur. Eccl.\nAngl._, vol. ii, p. 1026.\n\n[I-100] Pecock, _The Repressor of over-much blaming of the Clergy_, pt. iii,\nchap. iv, pp. 296-7: \u201cAlso Crist seide here in this present proces, that \u2018at\nGod\u2019 it is possible a riche man to entre into the kingdom of heuen; that is to\nseie, with grace which God profrith and geueth ... though he abide stille riche,\nand though withoute such grace it is ouer hard to him being riche to entre.\nWherfore folewith herof openli, that it is not forbodun of God eny man to be\nriche; for thanne noon such man schulde euere entre heuen.... And if it be not\nforbode eny man to be riche, certis thanne it is leeful ynough ech man to be\nriche; in lasse than he vowe the contrarie or that he knowith bi assay and\nexperience him silf so miche indisposid anentis richessis, that he schal not\nmowe rewle him silf aright anentis tho richessis: for in thilk caas he is bonde\nto holde him silf in poverte.\u201d The embarrassing qualification at the end--which\nsuggests the question, who then dare be rich?--is the more striking because of\nthe common-sense rationalism of the rest of the passage.\n\n[I-101] Trithemius, quoted by J. Janssen, _History of the German People at the\nclose of the Middle Ages_, vol. ii, 1896, p. 102.\n\n[I-102] _Cal. of Early Mayor\u2019s Court Rolls of the City of London_, ed. A. H.\nThomas, pp. 157-8.\n\n[I-103] See A. Luchaire, _Social France at the time of Philip Augustus_\n(translated by E. B. Krehbiel), pp. 391-2, where an eloquent denunciation by\nJacques de Vitry is quoted.\n\n[I-104] _Topographer and Genealogist_, vol. i, 1846, p. 35. (The writer is a\nsurveyor, one Humberstone.)\n\n[I-105] See e.g. Chaucer, _The Persone\u2019s Tale_, \u00a7\u00a7 64-6. The parson expresses\nthe orthodox view that \u201cthe condicioun of thraldom and the firste cause of\nthraldom is for sinne.\u201d But he insists that serfs and lords are spiritually\nequal: \u201cThilke that thou clepest thy thralles been goddes peple; for humble folk\nbeen Cristes freendes.\u201d\n\n[I-106] Gratian, _Decretum_, pt. ii, causa x, Q. ii, c. iii, and causa xii, Q.\nii, c. xxxix.\n\n[I-107] _Summa Theol._, 1^{a} 2^{ae}, Q. xciv, art. v, \u00a7 3.\n\n[I-108] An article of the German Peasants\u2019 program in 1525 declared: \u201cFor men to\nhold us as their own property ... is pitiable enough, considering that Christ\nhas delivered and redeemed us all, the lowly as well as the great, without\nexception, by the shedding of His precious blood. Accordingly it is consistent\nwith Scripture that we should be free.\u201d (The program is printed in J. S.\nSchapiro, _Social Reform and the Reformation_, 1909, pp. 137-42.) The rebels\nunder Ket prayed \u201cthat all bondmen may be made free, for God freed them all with\nHis precious blood-shedding\u201d (printed in Bland, Brown, and Tawney, _English\nEconomic History, Select Documents_, pt. ii, sect. i, no. 8).\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n[II-1] _A Lecture on the Study of History_, delivered at Cambridge, June 11,\n1895, by Lord Acton, p. 9.\n\n[II-2] W. Sombart (_Der moderne Kapitalismus_, 1916, vol. i, pp. 524-6) gives\nfacts and figures. See also J. Strieder, _Studien zur Geschichte\nkapitalistischer Organisationsformen_, 1914, kap. i, ii.\n\n[II-3] E. R. Daenell, _Die Bl\u00fctezeit der Deutschen Hanse_, 1905; Schanz,\n_Englische Handelspolitik gegen die Ende des Mittelalters_, vol. i; N. S. B.\nGras, _The Early English Customs System_, 1918, pp. 452-514.\n\n[II-4] _E.g._, _The Fugger News-Letters, 1568-1605_, ed. V. von Klarwill, trans.\nP. de Chary, 1924.\n\n[II-5] E. Alb\u00e8ri, _Le Relazione degli Ambasciatori Veneti al Senato_, serie I,\nvol. iii, 1853, p. 357 (_Relazione di Filippo II Re di Spagna da Michele Soriano\nnel 1559_): \u201cQuesti sono li tesori del re di Spagna, queste le miniere, queste\nl\u2019Indie che hanno sostentato l\u2019imprese dell\u2019 Imperatore tanti anni.\u201d\n\n[II-6] The best contemporary picture of the trade of Antwerp is that of L.\nGuicciardini, _Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi_ (1567), of which part is\nreprinted in a French translation in Tawney and Power, _Tudor Economic\nDocuments_, vol. iii, pp. 149-173. The best modern accounts of Antwerp are given\nby Pirenne, _Histoire de Belgique_, vol. ii, pp. 399-403, and vol. iii, pp.\n259-72; Ehrenberg, _Das Zeitalter der Fugger_, vol. ii, pp. 3-68; and J. A.\nGoris, _\u00c9tude sur les Colonies Marchandes M\u00e9ridionales \u00e0 Anvers de 1488 \u00e0 1567_\n(1925).\n\n[II-7] The Meutings had opened a branch in Antwerp in 1479, the Hochstetters in\n1486, the Fuggers in 1508, the Welsers in 1509 (Pirenne, _op. cit._, vol. iii,\np. 261).\n\n[II-8] Pirenne, _op. cit._, vol. iii, pp. 273-6.\n\n[II-9] Ehrenberg, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 7-8.\n\n[II-10] A short account of international financial relations in the sixteenth\ncentury will be found in my introduction to Thomas Wilson\u2019s _Discourse upon\nUsury_, 1925, pp. 60-86.\n\n[II-11] Erasmus, _Adagia_; see also _The Complaint of Peace_.\n\n[II-12] For the Fuggers, see Ehrenberg, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 85-186, and for\nthe other German firms mentioned, _ibid._, pp. 187-269.\n\n[II-13] See Goris, _op. cit._, pp. 510-45, where the reply of the Paris\ntheologians is printed in full; and Ehrenberg, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 18, 21.\nFor Bellarmin, see Goris, _op. cit._, pp. 551-2. A curious illustration of the\nmanner in which it was still thought necessary in the later sixteenth century,\nand in Protestant England, to reconcile economic policy with canonist doctrine,\nwill be found in S.P.D. Eliz., vol. lxxv, no. 54 (printed in Tawney and Power,\n_Tudor Economic Documents_, vol. iii, pp. 359-70). The writer, who is urging the\nrepeal of the Act of 1552 forbidding all interest whatever, cites Aquinas and\nHostiensis to prove that \u201ctrewe and unfayned interest\u201d is not to be condemned as\nusury.\n\n[II-14] Ashley, _Economic History_, 1893, vol. i, pt. ii, pp. 442-3.\n\n[II-15] Bodin, _La Response de Jean Bodin aux Paradoxes de Malestroit touchant\nl\u2019ench\u00e9rissement de toutes choses et le moyen d\u2019y rem\u00e9dier_.\n\n[II-16] See Max Neumann, _Geschichte des Wuchers in Deutschland_, 1865, pp. 487\n_seqq._\n\n[II-17] Calvin\u2019s views will be found in his _Epistol\u00e6 et Responsa_, 1575, pp.\n355-7, and in Sermon xxviii in the Opera.\n\n[II-18] Bucer, _De Regno Christi_.\n\n[II-19] _Third Decade_, 1st and 2nd Sermons, in _The Decades of Henry Bullinger_\n(Parker Society), vol. iii, 1850.\n\n[II-20] Luther, _Kleiner Sermon vom Wucher_ (1519) in _Werke_ (Weimar ed.), vol.\nvi, pp. 1-8; _Grosser Sermon vom Wucher_ (1520), in _ibid._, pp. 33-60; _Von\nKaufshandlung und Wucher_ (1524), in _ibid._, vol. xv, pp. 279-322; _An die\nPfarrherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen, Vermahnung_ (1540), in _ibid._, vol.\nli, pp. 325-424.\n\n[II-21] \u201c_Hie m\u00fcsste man wahrlich auch den Fuckern und der geistlichen\nGesellschaft einen Zaum ins Maul legen_\u201d (quoted by Ehrenberg, _op. cit._, vol.\n1, p. 117 n.)\n\n[II-22] See pp. 114-15.\n\n[II-23] Luther, _Wider die r\u00e4uberischen und m\u00f6rderischen Rotten der Bauern_\n(1525), in _Werke_, vol. xviii, pp. 357-61.\n\n[II-24] Latimer, _Sermons_; Ponet, _An Exhortation, or rather a Warning, to the\nLords and Commons_; Crowley, _The Way to Wealth_, and _Epigrams_ (in _Select\nWorks of Robert Crowley_, ed. J. M. Cowper, E.E.T.S., 1872); Lever, _Sermons_,\n1550 (English Reprints, ed. E. Arber, 1895); Becon, _The Jewel of Joy_, 1553;\nSandys, 2nd, 10th, 11th, and 12th of _Sermons_ (Parker Society, 1841); Jewel,\n_Works_, pt. iv, pp. 1293-8 (Parker Society, 1850). Citations from less\nwell-known writers and preachers will be found in J. O. W. Haweis, _Sketches of\nthe Reformation_, 1844.\n\n[II-25] Gairdner, _Letters and Papers of Henry VIII_, vol. xvi, no. 357.\n\n[II-26] Bossuet, _Trait\u00e9 de l\u2019Usure_. For an account of his views, see Favre,\n_Le pr\u00eat a int\u00e9r\u00eat dans l\u2019ancienne France_.\n\n[II-27] _Brief Survey of the Growth of Usury in England with the Mischiefs\nattending it_, 1673.\n\n[II-28] For an account of these changes see K. Lamprecht, _Zum Verst\u00e4ndnis der\nwirthschaftlichen und sozialen Wandlungen in Deutschland vom 14. zum 16.\nJahrhundert_, in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Sozial- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte_, Bd.\ni, 1893, pp. 191 _seqq._\n\n[II-29] Lamprecht, _op. cit._, and J. S. Schapiro, _Social Reform and the\nReformation_, 1909, pp. 40-73.\n\n[II-30] Schapiro, _op. cit._, pp. 20-39, and Strieder, _op. cit._ (see note 2),\npp. 156-212.\n\n[II-31] For the so-called Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund see Chap. I, note\n24, and for the Peasants\u2019 Articles, _ibid._, note 108.\n\n[II-32] For Geiler von Kaiserberg and Hipler see Schapiro, _op. cit._, pp. 30,\n126-31. For Hutten see H. Wiskemann, _Dartstellung der in Deutschland zur Zeit\nder Reformation herrschenden National\u00f6konomischen Ansichten_, 1861, pp. 13-24.\n\n[II-33] Quoted W. Raleigh, _The English Voyages of the Sixteenth Century_, 1910,\np. 28.\n\n[II-34] Troeltsch, _Protestantism and Progress_, 1912, pp. 44-52.\n\n[II-35] Schapiro, _op. cit._, p. 137.\n\n[II-36] See citations in Wiskemann, _op. cit._, pp. 47-8, and, for a discussion\nof Luther\u2019s social theory, Troeltsch, _Die Soziallehren der Christlichen\nKirchen_, 1912, pp. 549-93.\n\n[II-37] Luther, _An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation_ (1520), in _Werke_,\nvol. vi, pp. 381 _seqq._\n\n[II-38] Schapiro, _op. cit._, p. 139.\n\n[II-39] Luther, _Ermahnung zum Frieden auf die zw\u00f6lf Artikel der Bauerschaft in\nSchwaben_ (1525), in _Werke_, vol. xviii, p. 327.\n\n[II-40] _Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher_, in _ibid._, vol. xv, p. 295.\n\n[II-41] _An den christlichen Adel_, in _ibid._, vol. vi, p. 466 (quoted by R. H.\nMurray, _Erasmus and Luther_, 1920, p. 239).\n\n[II-42] _Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher_, in _ibid._, vol. xv, pp. 293-4, 312.\n\n[II-43] _Concerning Christian Liberty_, in Wace and Buchheim, _Luther\u2019s Primary\nWorks_, 1896, pp. 256-7.\n\n[II-44] _Grosser Sermon vom Wucher_, in _Werke_, vol. vi, p. 49.\n\n[II-45] See note 73 on Chapter I.\n\n[II-46] Printed in Neumann, _Geschichte des Wuchers in Deutschland_, Beilage F,\npp. 618-19.\n\n[II-47] _Concerning Christian Liberty_, in Wace and Buchheim, _op. cit._, pp.\n258-9.\n\n[II-48] _Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher_, in _Werke_, vol. xv, p. 302.\n\n[II-49] Zwingli, _Von der g\u00f6ttlichen und menschlichen Gerechtigkeit, oder von\ndem g\u00f6ttlichen Gesetze und den b\u00fcrgerlichen Gesetzen_, printed in R.\nChristoffel, _H. Zwingli, Leben und ausgew\u00e4hlte Schriften_, 1857, pt. ii, pp.\n313 _seqq._ See also Wiskemann, _op. cit._, pp. 71-4.\n\n[II-50] \u201cQuid si igitur ex negociatione plus lucri percipi possit quam ex fundi\ncuiusvis proventu? Unde vero mercatoris lucrum? Ex ipsius inquies, diligentia et\nindustria\u201d (quoted by Troeltsch, _Die Soziallehren der Christlichen Kirche_, p.\n707).\n\n[II-51] Bucer, _De Regno Christi_.\n\n[II-52] Roger Fenton, _A Treatise of Usurie_, 1612, p. 61.\n\n[II-53] Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, trans. by J. Allen,\n1838, vol. ii, p. 147 (bk. iii, ch. xxiii, par. 7).\n\n[II-54] _Ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 128-9 (bk. iii, ch. xxi, par. 7).\n\n[II-55] Gerrard Winstanley, _A New-Yeer\u2019s Gift for the Parliament and Armie_,\n1650 (Thomason Tracts, Brit. Mus., E. 587 (6), p. 42).\n\n[II-56] _The Works of William Laud, D.D._, ed. Wm. Scott, vol. vi, pt. i, 1857,\np. 213.\n\n[II-57] _De Subventione Pauperum._\n\n[II-58] \u201cQuod ad maiores natu spectat, a nobis quotannis repetitur inspectio\ncuiusque famili\u00e6. Distribuimus inter nos urbis regiones, ut ordine singulas\ndecurias executere liceat. Adest ministro comes unus ex senioribus. Illic novi\nincol\u00e6 examinantur. Qui semel recepti sunt, omittuntur; nisi quod requiritur\nsitne domus pacata et recte composita, num lites cum vicinis, num qua ebrietas,\nnum pigri sint et ignari ad conciones frequentendas\u201d (quoted by Wiskemann, _op.\ncit._, p. 80 n.). For his condemnation of indiscriminate almsgiving, see\n_ibid._, p. 79 n.\n\n[II-59] _De non habendo Pauperum Delectu_ (1523), and _De Erogatione\nEleemosynarum_ (1524). See K. R. Hagenbach, _Johann Oekolampad und Oswald\nMyconius, die Reformatoren Basels_, 1859, p. 46.\n\n[II-60] Carl Pestallozzi, _Heinrich Bullinger, Leben und ausgew\u00e4hlte Schriften_,\n1858, pp. 50-1, 122-5, 340-2.\n\n[II-61] Wiskemann, _op. cit._, pp. 70-4.\n\n[II-62] Quoted by Preserved Smith, _The Age of the Reformation_, 1921, p. 174.\n\n[II-63] Calvin, _Inst._, bk. iv, ch. xii, par. 1.\n\n[II-64] Printed in Paul Henry, _Das Leben Johann Calvins_, vol. ii, 1838,\n_Appx._, pp. 26-41.\n\n[II-65] R. Christoffel, _Zwingli, or the Rise of the Reformation in\nSwitzerland_, trans. by John Cochran, 1858, pp. 159-60.\n\n[II-66] Printed in Paul Henry, _op. cit._, vol. ii, Appx., pp. 23-5.\n\n[II-67] E. Choisy, _L\u2019Etat Chr\u00e9tien Calviniste \u00e0 Gen\u00e8ve au temps de Th\u00e9odore de\nB\u00e8ze_, 1902, p. 145. I should like to make acknowledgments to this excellent\nbook for most of the matter contained in the following paragraphs.\n\n[II-68] Paul Henry, _op. cit._, pp. 70-5. Other examples are given by Preserved\nSmith, _op. cit._, pp. 170-4, and by F. W. Kampschulte, _Johann Calvin, seine\nKirche und sein Staat in Genf_, 1869. Statistical estimates of the\nbloodthirstiness of Calvin\u2019s r\u00e9gime vary; Smith (p. 171) states that in Geneva,\na town of 16,000 inhabitants, 58 persons were executed and 76 banished in the\nyears 1542-6.\n\n[II-69] Knox, quoted by Preserved Smith, _op. cit._, p. 174.\n\n[II-70] Calvin, _Inst._, bk. iii, ch. vii, par. 5.\n\n[II-71] Choisy, _op. cit._, pp. 442-3.\n\n[II-72] _Ibid._, pp. 35-37.\n\n[II-73] _Ibid._, pp. 189, 117-19.\n\n[II-74] _Ibid._, pp. 35, 165-7.\n\n[II-75] _Ibid._, pp. 119-21.\n\n[II-76] _Ibid._, pp. 189-94.\n\n[II-77] Paul Henry, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 70 n.\n\n[II-78] See the description of the Church given in Calvin, _Inst._, bk. iv, ch.\ni, par. 4: \u201cQuia nunc de ecclesia visibili disserere propositum est, discamus\nvel matris elogio, quam utilis sit nobis eius cognitio, immo necessaria, quando\nnon alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero, nisi pariat,\nnisi nos alat suis uberibus, denique sub custodia et gubernatione sua nos\ntueatur, donec excuti carne mortali, similes erimus angelis. Neque enim patitur\nnostra infirmitas a schola nos dimitti, donec toto vit\u00e6 cursu discipuli\nfuerimus. Adde quod extra eius gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio\nnec ulla salus.\u201d\n\n[II-79] John Quick, _Synodicon in Gallia Reformata: Or the Acts, Decisions,\nDecrees and Canons of those famous National Councils of the Reformed Churches in\nFrance_, 1692, vol. i, p. 99.\n\n[II-80] _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 9 (pirates and fraudulent tradesmen), pp. 25, 34,\n38, 79, 140, 149 (interest and usury), p. 70 (false merchandize and selling of\nstretched cloth), p. 99 (reasonable profits), pp. 162, 204 (investment of money\nfor the benefit of the poor), pp. 194, 213 (lotteries).\n\n[II-81] _The Buke of Discipline_, in _Works of John Knox_, ed. D. Laing, vol.\nii, 1848, p. 227.\n\n[II-82] Scottish History Soc., _St. Andrews Kirk Session Register_, ed. D. H.\nFleming, 1889-90, vol. i, p. 309; vol. ii, p. 822.\n\n[II-83] W. B. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, 1890, vol.\ni, p. 11. The words are Governor Bradford\u2019s.\n\n[II-84] _Winthrop\u2019s Journal \u201cHistory of New England,\u201d 1630-49_, ed. J. K.\nHosmer, 1908, vol. i, pp. 134, 325; vol. ii, p. 20.\n\n[II-85] Weeden, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 125, 58.\n\n[II-86] Winthrop, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 20.\n\n[II-87] J. A. Doyle, _The English in America_, vol. ii, 1887, p. 57; the price\nof cattle \u201cmust not be judged by urgent necessity, but by reasonable profit.\u201d\n\n[II-88] Roger Williams, _The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution_, 1644, chap. lv.\n\n[II-89] Winthrop, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 315-18. A similar set of rules as to\nthe conduct of the Christian in trade are given by Bunyan in _The Life and Death\nof Mr. Badman_, 1905 ed., pp. 118-22.\n\n[II-90] I owe this phrase to the excellent book of J. T. Adams, _The Founding of\nNew England_.\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n[III-1] J. Rossus, _Historia Regum Angli\u00e6_ (ed. T. Hearne).\n\n[III-2] 4 Hen. VII, c. 19; 6 Hen. VIII, c. 5; 7 Hen. VIII, c. 1; 25 Hen. VIII,\nc. 13. For the Commission of 1517 see Leadam, _The Domesday of Enclosures_.\n\n[III-3] For examples see J. S. Schapiro, _Social Reform and the Reformation_,\npp. 60-1, 65, 67, 70-1.\n\n[III-4] More, _Utopia_, p. 32 (Pitt Press ed., 1879): \u201cNoblemen and gentlemen,\nyea and certeyne abbottes, holy men no doubt ... leave no grounde for tillage,\nthei enclose al into pastures.\u201d For a case of claiming a bondman see Selden\nSociety, vol. xvi, 1903, _Select Cases in the Court of Star Chamber_, pp.\ncxxiii-cxxix, 118-29 (Carter _v._ the Abbott of Malmesbury); for conversion of\ncopyholds to tenancies at will, Selden Society, vol. xii, 1898, _Select Cases in\nthe Court of Requests_, pp. lix-lxv, 64-101 (Kent and other inhabitants of\nAbbot\u2019s Ripton _v._ St. John; the change was alleged to have been made in 1471).\n\n[III-5] A. Savine, _English Monasteries on the Eve of the Dissolution_ (_Oxford\nStudies in Social and Legal History_, ed. P. Vinogradoff, vol. i, 1909, p. 100),\nestimates the net temporal income of English monasteries in 1535 at \u00a3109,736,\nand the net income from all sources at \u00a3136,361. These figures require to be\nmultiplied by at least 12 to convert them into terms of modern money. An\nestimate of the capital value which they represent can only be a guess, but it\ncan hardly have been less (in terms of modern money) than \u00a320,000,000.\n\n[III-6] For the status and payments of grantees, see the figures of Savine,\nprinted in H. A. L. Fisher, _The Political History of England, 1485-1547_, Appx.\nii: the low price paid by peers is particularly striking. The best study is that\nof S. B. Liljegren, _The Fall of the Monasteries and the Social Changes in\nEngland leading up to the Great Revolution_ (1924), which shows in detail (pp.\n118-25) the activities of speculators.\n\n[III-7] _Star Chamber Proc._, Hen. VIII, vol. vi, no. 181, printed in Tawney and\nPower, _Tudor Economic Documents_, vol. i, pp. 19-29.\n\n[III-8] Selden Society, _Select Cases in the Court of Requests_, pp. lviii-lxix,\n198-200.\n\n[III-9] Quoted by F. A. Gasquet, _Henry the Eighth and the English Monasteries_,\n1920, pp. 227-8.\n\n[III-10] See, _e.g._, _The Obedience of a Christian Man_ (in Tyndale\u2019s\n_Doctrinal Treatises_, Parker Society, 1848), p. 231, where the treatment of the\npoor by the early Church is cited as an example; and _Policies to reduce this\nRealme of Englande unto a Prosperus Wealthe and Estate_, 1549 (printed in Tawney\nand Power, _Tudor Economic Documents_, vol. iii, pp. 311-45): \u201cLike as we\nsuffered our selfes to be ignorant of the trewe worshipping of God, even so God\nkepte from us the right knowledge how to reforme those inconveniences which we\ndid see before our eyes to tende unto the utter Desolation of the Realme. But\nnow that the trew worshepping of Gode is ... so purely and sincerely sett\nforthe, it is likewise to be trusted that God ... will use the kinges maiestie\nand your grace to be also his ministres in plucking up by the roots all the\ncawses and occasions of this foresaid Decaye and Desolation.\u201d\n\n[III-11] Bucer, _De Regno Christi_.\n\n[III-12] A. F. Leach, _The Schools of Medi\u00e6val England_, 1915, p. 331. He goes\non: \u201cThe contrasts between one grammar school to every 5,625 people, and that\npresented by the Schools Inquiry Report in 1864 of one to every 23,750 people\n... is not to the disadvantage of our pre-Reformation ancestors.\u201d For details of\nthe Edwardian spoliation, see the same author\u2019s _English Schools at the\nReformation, 1546-8_ (1896).\n\n[III-13] See _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. ii, pp. 193-5 (1548); in response\nto protests from the members for Lynn and Coventry, the gild lands of those\ncities are regranted to them.\n\n[III-14] Crowley, _The Way to Wealth, in Select Works of Robert Crowley_, ed. J.\nM. Cowper (Early English Text Society, 1872, pp. 129-150).\n\n[III-15] Crowley, _op. cit._, and _Epigrams_ (in _ibid._, pp. 1-51).\n\n[III-16] Becon, _The Jewel of Joy_, 1553: \u201cThey abhore the names of Monkes,\nFriers, Chanons, Nonnes, etc., but their goodes they gredely gripe. And yet\nwhere the cloysters kept hospitality, let out their fermes at a resonable price,\nnorished scholes, brought up youth in good letters, they do none of all these\nthynges.\u201d\n\n[III-17] Thomas Lever, _Sermons_, 1550 (_English Reprints_, ed. E. Arber, 1895),\np. 32. The same charge is repeated in subsequent sermons.\n\n[III-18] F. W. Russell, _Kett\u2019s Rebellion in Norfolk_, 1859, p. 202. For\nSomerset\u2019s policy and the revolt of the gentry against it, see Tawney, _The\nAgrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century_, pp. 365-70.\n\n[III-19] Latimer, _Seven Sermons before Edward VI_ (_English Reprints_, ed. E.\nArber, 1895), pp. 84-6.\n\n[III-20] _Pleasure and Pain_, in _Select Works of Robert Crowley_, ed. J. M.\nCowper, p. 116.\n\n[III-21] _The Way to Wealth_, in _ibid._, p. 132.\n\n[III-22] Lever, _op. cit._, p. 130.\n\n[III-23] _A Prayer for Landlords_, from _A Book of Private Prayer set forth by\nOrder of King Edward VI._\n\n[III-24] Bacon, _Of the True Greatness of the Kingdom of Britain_.\n\n[III-25] For a discussion of the problem of credit as it affected the peasant\nand small master, see my introduction to Wilson\u2019s _Discourse upon Usury_, 1925,\npp. 17-30.\n\n[III-26] See note 71 on Chapter I.\n\n[III-27] D\u2019Ewes, _Journals_, 1682, p. 173.\n\n[III-28] _Calendar S.P.D. Eliz._, vol. cclxxxvi, nos. 19, 20.\n\n[III-29] For examples see S. O. Addy, _Church and Manor_, 1913, chap. xv. The\nbest account of parish business and organization is given by S. L. Ware, _The\nElizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects_, 1908.\n\n[III-30] Lever, _op. cit._, p. 130. See also Harrison, _The Description of\nBritaine_, 1587 ed., bk. ii, chap. xviii.\n\n[III-31] _A Godlie Treatise concerning the Lawful Use of Riches_, a translation\nby Thos. Rogers from the Latin of Nicholas Heming, 1578, p. 8.\n\n[III-32] Sandys, 2nd, 10th, 11th, and 12th of _Sermons_ (Parker Society, 1841);\nJewel, _Works_, pt. iv, pp. 1293-8 (Parker Society, 1850); Thos. Wilson, _A\nDiscourse upon Usury_, 1572; Miles Mosse, _The Arraignment and Conviction of\nUsurie_, 1595; John Blaxton, _The English Usurer, or Usury Condemned by the Most\nLearned and Famous Divines of the Church of England_, 1634.\n\n[III-33] Heming, _op. cit._, pp. 16-17.\n\n[III-34] Roger Fenton, _A Treatise of Usurie_, 1612, p. 59.\n\n[III-35] Wilson, _op. cit._, 1925 ed., p. 281.\n\n[III-36] Miles Mosse, _op. cit._\n\n[III-37] _S.P.D. Eliz._, vol. lxxv, no. 54. (Printed in Tawney and Power, _Tudor\nEconomic Documents_, vol. iii, pp. 359-70).\n\n[III-38] Heming, _op. cit._, p. 11.\n\n[III-39] Maitland, _English Law and the Renaissance_, 1901.\n\n[III-40] Quoted by Maitland, _op. cit._, pp. 49-50.\n\n[III-41] Wilson, _op. cit._\n\n[III-42] Jeremy Taylor, _Ductor Dubitantium_, 1660, bk. iii, ch. iii, par. 30.\n\n[III-43] Mosse, _op. cit._, Dedication, p. 6.\n\n[III-44] E. Cardwell, _Synodalia_, 1842, p. 436.\n\n[III-45] Cardwell, _The Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws_, 1850, pp. 206,\n323.\n\n[III-46] _The Remains of Archbishop Grindal_, ed. Wm. Nicholson (Parker Soc.,\n1843), p. 143.\n\n[III-47] See, _e.g._, W. P. M. Kennedy, _Elizabethan Episcopal Administration_,\n1924, vol. iii, p. 180 (Archdeacon Mullins\u2019 Articles for the Archdeaconry of\nLondon (1585): \u201cItem, whether you do know that within your parish there is (or\nare) any person or persons notoriously known or suspected by probable tokens or\ncommon fame to be an usurer; or doth offend by any colour or means directly or\nindirectly in the same\u201d), and pp. 184, 233; Wilkins, _Concilia_, vol. iv, pp.\n319, 337, 416.\n\n[III-48] Cardwell, _Synodalia_, vol. i, pp. 144, 308; Wilkins, _Concilia_, vol.\niv, p. 509.\n\n[III-49] Ware, _op. cit._ (see note 29 above), quotes several examples. See also\n_Arch\u00e6ologia Cantiana_, vol. xxv, 1902, pp. 27, 48 (Visitations of the\nArchdeacon of Canterbury).\n\n[III-50] _Hist. MSS. Com., 13th Report_, 1892, Appx., pt. iv, pp. 333-4 (_MSS.\nof the Borough of Hereford_).\n\n[III-51] W. H. Hale, _A Series of Precedents and Proceedings in Criminal\nCauses_, 1847, p. 166.\n\n[III-52] _Yorkshire Arch. Journal_, vol. xviii, 1895, p. 331.\n\n[III-53] _Commissary of London Correction Books, 1618-1625_ (H. 184, pp. 164,\n192). I am indebted to Mr. Fincham of Somerset House (where the books are kept)\nfor kindly calling my attention to these cases. The shorter of them (p. 192)\nruns as follows:\n\nSancti Botolphi extra Aldersgate Thomas Witham at the signe of the Unicorne\n{ Detected for an usurer that taketh above the rate of x^{_li_} in the\n{ 100^{_li_} and above the rate of 2_s._ in the pound for money by him lent\n{ for a yeare, or more than after that rate for a lesse tyme ex fama prout in\n{ rotula. Quo die comparuit, etc.\n\n9_mo_ Maii 1620 coram domino officiali principali etc. et in eius camera etc.\ncomparuit dictus Witham et ei objecto ut supra allegavit that he is seldom at\nhome himselfe but leaves his man to deale in the business of his shop, and yf\nany fault be committed he saith the fault is in his man and not in himselfe, and\nhe sayeth he will give charge and take care that no oppression shall be made nor\noffence committed this way hereafter, humbly praying the judge for favour to be\ndismissed, unde dominus monuit eum that thereafter neither by himselfe nor his\nservant he offende in the lyke nor suffer any such oppression to be committed,\net cum hac monitione eum dimisit.\n\n[III-54] _S.P.D. Eliz._, vol. lxxv, no. 54.\n\n[III-55] For an account of these expedients see my introduction to Wilson\u2019s\n_Discourse upon Usury_, 1925, pp. 123-8.\n\n[III-56] Richard Hooker, _The Laws of Ecclesiastical Policy_, bk. viii, chap. i,\npar. 5.\n\n[III-57] _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. xxvii, 1597, p. 129.\n\n[III-58] _The Stiffkey Papers_ (ed. H. W. Saunders, Royal Historical Society,\nCamden Third Series, vol. xxvi, 1915), p. 140.\n\n[III-59] Quoted by E. M. Leonard, _The Early History of English Poor Relief_,\n1900, p. 148.\n\n[III-60] For an account of the treatment of exchange business under Elizabeth,\nsee Wilson, _op. cit._, Introduction, pp. 146-54.\n\n[III-61] For references see _ibid._, pp. 164-5; and _Les Reportes del Cases in\nCamera Stellata, 1593-1609_, ed. W. P. Baildon, 1894, pp. 235-7. The latter book\ncontains several instances of intervention by the Star Chamber in cases of\nengrossing of corn (pp. 71, 76-7, 78-9, 91) and of enclosure and depopulation\n(pp. 49-52, 164-5, 192-3, 247, 346-7).\n\n[III-62] _A Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England_, ed. E.\nLamond, 1893, p. 14.\n\n[III-63] _The Works of William Laud, D.D._, ed. Wm. Scott, vol. i, 1847, p. 6.\n\n[III-64] _Ibid._, p. 64.\n\n[III-65] _Ibid._, pp. 89, 138.\n\n[III-66] _Ibid._, p. 167.\n\n[III-67] _Ibid._, pp. 28-9.\n\n[III-68] Gonner, _Common Land and Enclosure_, 1912, pp. 166-7. For the activity\nof the Government from 1629 to 1640, see Tawney, _The Agrarian Problem in the\nSixteenth Century_, pp. 376, 391, and E. M. Leonard, _The Inclosure of Common\nFields in the Seventeenth Century_, in _Trans. Royal Hist. Soc._, N.S., vol.\nxix, pp. 101 _seqq._\n\n[III-69] Letter to Dr. Gilbert Sheldon, Warden of All Souls (in Laud\u2019s _Works_,\nvol. vi, pt. ii, p. 520): \u201cOne thing more I must tell you, that, though I did\nyou this favour, to make stay of the hearing till your return, yet for the\nbusiness itself, I can show you none; partly because I am a great hater of\ndepopulations in any kind, as being one of the greatest mischiefs in this\nkingdom, and of very ill example from a college, or college tenant\u201d; Clarendon,\n_History of the Rebellion_, bk. i, par. 204.\n\n[III-70] _S.P.D. Chas. I_, vol. ccccxcix, no. 10 (printed in Tawney, _The\nAgrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century_, pp. 420-1); and _Lords\u2019 Journals_,\nvol. vi, p. 468_b_ (March 13, 1643-4), Articles against Laud: \u201cThen Mr. Talbot\nupon oath deposed how the Archbishop did oppose the law in the business of\ninclosures and depopulations; how, when the law was desired to be pleaded for\nthe right of land, he bid them \u2018Go plead law in inferior Courts, they should not\nplead it before him\u2019; and that the Archbishop did fine him for that business two\nhundred pounds for using the property of his freehold, and would not suffer the\nlaw to be pleaded.\u201d\n\n[III-71] Leonard, _The Early History of English Poor Relief_, pp. 150-64; Unwin,\n_Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, 1904, pp.\n142-7.\n\n[III-72] R. R. Reid, _The King\u2019s Council in the North_, 1921, pp. 412, 413 n.\n\n[III-73] Camden Soc., N.S., vol. xxxix, 1886, _Cases in the Courts of Star\nChamber and High Commission_, ed. S. R. Gardiner, p. 46. For another case of\nengrossing of corn, see _ibid._, pp. 82-9.\n\n[III-74] Tawney, _The Assessment of Wages in England by the Justices of the\nPeace_, in _Vierteljahrschrift f\u00fcr Sozial- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte_, Bd. xi,\n1913, pp. 551-4; Leonard, _op. cit._, p. 157.\n\n[III-75] _The Works of William Laud_, ed. Wm. Scott, vol. vi, 1857, pt. i, p.\n191. (Answer to Lord Saye and Sele\u2019s speech upon the Bill about Bishops\u2019 Powers\nin Civil Affairs and Courts of Judicature.)\n\n[III-76] _Ibid._, vol. i, pp. 5-6.\n\n[III-77] Harrington, _Works_, 1700 ed., pp. 69 (_Oceana_) and 388-9 (_The Art of\nLaw-giving_).\n\n[III-78] G. Malynes, _Lex Mercatoria_, 1622. The same simile had been used much\nearlier in _A Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England_, ed. E.\nLamond, p. 98.\n\n[III-79] D\u2019Ewes, _Journals_, p. 674; and 39 Eliz., c. 2.\n\n[III-80] For criticisms of price control see Tawney and Power, _Tudor Economic\nDocuments_, vol. iii, pp. 339-41, and vol. ii, p. 188, and _Stiffkey Papers_\n(see note 58 above), pp. 130-40.\n\n[III-81] H. Ellis, _Original Letters_, 2nd series, vol. ii, 1827, letter\nclxxxii, and J. W. Burgon, _The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham_, 1839,\nvol. ii, p. 343.\n\n[III-82] Wilson, _op. cit._ (see note 55 above), p. 249.\n\n[III-83] _Commons\u2019 Journals_, May 21, 1604, vol. i, p. 218.\n\n[III-84] 13 Eliz., c. 8, repealing 5 and 6 Ed. VI, c. 20; D\u2019Ewes, _Journals_,\npp. 171-4.\n\n[III-85] Owen and Blakeway, _History of Shrewsbury_, 1825, vol. ii, pp. 364 n.,\n412.\n\n[III-86] _Hist. MSS. Com., Report on MSS. in various Collections_, vol. i, 1901,\np. 46 (_MSS. of Corporation of Burford_).\n\n[III-87] Wilson, _op. cit._ (see note 55 above), p. 233.\n\n[III-88] Coke, _Institutes_, pt. ii, 1797, pp. 601 _seqq._ (_Certain articles of\nabuses which are desired to be reformed in granting of prohibitions, exhibited\nby Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury._)\n\n[III-89] Thomas Ridley, _A View of the Civile and Ecclesiastical Law, and\nwherein the Practice of them is streitened and may be relieved within this\nLand_, 1607, Dedication, p. 3.\n\n[III-90] W. Huntley, _A Breviate of the Prelates\u2019 intolerable Usurpation_, 1637,\npp. 183-4. The case referred to is that of Hinde, alleged to have been heard\nMich. 18 and 19 Eliz. For the controversy over prohibitions, see R. G. Usher,\n_The Rise and Fall of the High Commission_, 1913, pp. 180 _seqq._\n\n[III-91] D\u2019Ewes, _Journals_, pp. 171, 173.\n\n[III-92] See, _e.g._, Surtees Society, vol. xxxiv, 1858, _The Acts of the High\nCommission Court within the Diocese of Durham_, Preface, which shows that\nbetween 1626 and 1639 cases of contempt of the ordinary ecclesiastical\njurisdiction ran into hundreds.\n\n[III-93] Penn, _No Cross, No Crown_, pt. i, ch. xii, par. 8.\n\n[III-94] Sanderson, _De Obligatione Conscienti\u00e6_, 1666; Taylor, _The Rule and\nExercises of Holy Living_, 1650, chap. iii, sect. iii (_Of Negotiation or Civil\nContracts, Rules and Measures of Justice in Bargaining_).\n\n[III-95] Mandeville, _The Fable of the Bees_, ed. F. B. Kaye, 1924, pp. 193,\n194. Similar sentiments with regard to the necessity of poverty were expressed\nlater by the Rev. J. Townsend, in his _Dissertation on the Poor Laws_ (1785),\nand by Patrick Colquhoun in his _Treatise on the Wealth and Resources of the\nBritish Empire_ (1814). Like Mandeville, both these writers argue that poverty\nis essential to the prosperity, and, indeed, to the very existence, of\ncivilization. For a full collection of citations to the same effect from\neighteenth-century writers, see E. S. Furniss, _The Position of the Laborer in a\nSystem of Nationalism_, 1920, chaps. iv-vi.\n\n[III-96] _The Whole Duty of Man, laid down in a plain and familiar Way for the\nUse of All_, 1658.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n[IV-1] Tucker, _A Brief Essay on the Advantages and Disadvantages which\nrespectively attend France and Great Britain with regard to Trade_, 1750, p. 33.\nThe best account of Tucker, most of whose works are scarce, is given by W. E.\nClark, _Josiah Tucker, Economist_ (_Studies in History, Economics and Public\nLaw_, Columbia University, vol. xix, 1903-5).\n\n[IV-2] _Reliqui\u00e6 Baxterian\u00e6: or Mr. Richard Baxter\u2019s Narrative of the most\nmemorable Passages of his Life and Times_, 1696, p. 5.\n\n[IV-3] Bunyan, _The Pilgrim\u2019s Progress_.\n\n[IV-4] _The Life of the Duke of Newcastle_, by Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle\n(Everyman ed., 1915, p. 153).\n\n[IV-5] Baxter, _op. cit._, p. 31.\n\n[IV-6] Bunyan, _Pilgrim\u2019s Progress_.\n\n[IV-7] Baxter, _op. cit._, p. 89.\n\n[IV-8] Thomas Fuller, _The Holy and Profane States_, 1884 ed., p. 122.\n\n[IV-9] Quoted S. Seyer, _Memoirs of Bristol_, vol. ii, 1823, p. 314.\n\n[IV-10] R. G. Usher, _The Reconstruction of the English Church_, vol. i, 1910,\npp. 249-50.\n\n[IV-11] Baxter, _op. cit._, p. 30.\n\n[IV-12] _An orderly and plaine Narration of the Beginnings and Causes of this\nWarre_, 1644, p. 4 (Brit. Mus., Thomason Tracts, E. 54 [3]). I owe this\nreference to the kindness of Father Paschal Larkin.\n\n[IV-13] Clarendon, _History of the Rebellion_, bk. vi, par. 271.\n\n[IV-14] Parker, _Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie_, 1670, Preface, p. xxxix.\n\n[IV-15] _The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon, written by himself_, 1827 ed.,\nvol. iii, p. 101.\n\n[IV-16] D. C. A. Agnew, _Protestant Exiles from France_, 1886, vol. i, pp. 20-1.\nIn 1640 the Root and Branch Petition included, among the evils due to the\nBishops, \u201cthe discouragement and destruction of all good subjects, of whom are\nmultitudes, both clothiers, merchants and others, who, being deprived of their\nministers, and overburthened with these pressures, have departed the kingdom to\nHolland and other parts, and have drawn with them a great manufacture of cloth\nand trading out of the land into other places where they reside, whereby wool,\nthe great staple of the kingdom, is become of small value, and vends not,\ntrading is decayed, many poor people want work, seamen lose employment, and the\nwhole land is much impoverished\u201d (S. R. Gardiner, _Constitutional Documents of\nthe Puritan Revolution, 1628-60_ [1889], p. 73). For instances of the\ncomparatively liberal treatment of alien immigrants under Elizabeth, see Tawney\nand Power, _Tudor Economic Documents_, vol. i, section vi, nos. 3, 4, 11 (2),\n15, and Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times_,\n1921, pt. i, pp. 79-84.\n\n[IV-17] _Toryism and Trade can never agree_, 1713, p. 12. The tract is wrongly\nascribed to Davenant by H. Levy, _Economic Liberalism_, 1913, p. 12.\n\n[IV-18] See, _e.g._, G. Martin, _La Grande Industrie sous le r\u00e8gne de Louis\nXIV_, 1899, chap. xvii, where the reports of several intendants are quoted; and\nLevasseur, _Histoire du commerce de la France_, 1911, vol. i, p. 421.\n\n[IV-19] _A Letter from a Gentleman in the City to a Gentleman in the Country\nabout the Odiousness of Persecution_, 1677, p. 29.\n\n[IV-20] Sir Wm. Temple, _Observations upon the United Provinces of the\nNetherlands_, chap. v, vi.\n\n[IV-21] _The True Interest and Political Maxims of the Republick of Holland and\nWest-Friesland_, 1702, pt. i, chap. xiv.\n\n[IV-22] Petty, _Political Arithmetic_, 1690, pp. 25-6.\n\n[IV-23] _The Present Interest of England stated, by a Lover of his King and\nCountry_, 1671. I am indebted to Mr. A. P. Wadsworth for calling my attention to\nthe passage quoted in the text. The same point is put more specifically by\nLawrence Braddon: \u201cThe superstition of their religion obligeth France to keep\n(at least) fifty Holy days more than we are obliged to keep; and every such day\nwherein no work is done is one hundred and twenty thousand pounds loss to the\ndeluded people\u201d (_Abstract of the Draft of a Bill for relieving, reforming and\nemploying the Poor_, 1717). See also Defoe, in his _Enquiry into Occasional\nConformity_, 1702, pp. 18-19: \u201cWe wonder, gentlemen, you will accept our money\non your deficient funds, our stocks to help carry on your wars, our loans and\ncredits to your victualling office and navy office. If you would go on to\ndistinguish us, get a law made we shall buy no lands, that we may not be\nfreeholders; and see if you could find money to buy us out. Transplant us into\ntowns and bodies, and let us trade by our selves; let us card, spin, knit, weave\nand work with and for one another, and see how you\u2019ll maintain your own poor\nwithout us. Let us fraight our ships apart, keep our money out of your Bank,\naccept none of our bills, and separate your selves as absolutely from us in\ncivil matters, as we do from you in religious, and see how you can go on without\nus.\u201d\n\n[IV-24] Swift, _Examiner_.\n\n[IV-25] Bolingbroke, _Letter to Sir Wm. Windham_, 1753, p. 21.\n\n[IV-26] _Reliqui\u00e6 Baxterian\u00e6_ (see note 2), p. 94. He goes on: \u201cThe generality\nof the Master Workmen [i.e., employers] lived but a little better than their\njourneymen (from hand to mouth), but only that they laboured not altogether so\nhard.\u201d\n\n[IV-27] Voltaire, _Lettres Philosophiques_, no. x, and Montesquieu, _Esprit des\nLois_, xix, 27, and xx, 22. See also the remarks to the same effect in\nD\u2019Argenson, _Consid\u00e9rations sur le Gouvernement de la France_, 1765.\n\n[IV-28] _Brief Survey of the Growth of Usury in England_, 1673.\n\n[IV-29] Marston, _Eastward Ho!_, act I, sc. i.\n\n[IV-30] Clarendon, _History of the Rebellion_, bk. i, par. 163.\n\n[IV-31] Petty, _Political Arithmetic_, 1690, p. 23.\n\n[IV-32] Max Weber, _Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus_,\nfirst published in the _Archiv f\u00fcr Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik\nStatistik_, vols. xx, xxi, and since reprinted in vol. i of his _Gesammelte\nAufs\u00e4tze zur Religionssoziologie_, 1920; Troeltsch, _Die Soziallehren der\nChristlichen Kirchen and Protestantism and Progress_, 1912; Schulze-Gaevernitz,\n_Britischer Imperialismus und Englischer Freihandel_, 1906; Cunningham,\n_Christianity and Economic Science_, 1914, chap. v.\n\nWeber\u2019s essay gave rise to much discussion in Germany. Its main thesis--that\nCalvinism, and in particular English Puritanism, from which nearly all his\nillustrations are drawn, played a part of preponderant importance in creating\nmoral and political conditions favorable to the growth of capitalist\nenterprise--appears to be accepted by Troeltsch, _Die Soziallehren der\nChristlichen Kirchen_, pp. 704 _seqq._ It is submitted to a critical analysis by\nBrentano (_Die Anf\u00e4nge des modernen Kapitalismus_, 1916, pp. 117-57), who\ndissents from many of Weber\u2019s conclusions. Weber\u2019s essay is certainly one of the\nmost fruitful examinations of the relations between religion and social theory\nwhich has appeared, and I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness to it, in\nparticular with reference to its discussion of the economic application given by\nsome Puritan writers to the idea expressed by the word \u201ccalling.\u201d At the same\ntime, there are several points on which Weber\u2019s arguments appear to me to be\none-sided and overstrained, and on which Brentano\u2019s criticisms of it seem to me\nto be sound.\n\nThus (i), as was perhaps inevitable in an essay dealing with economic and social\nthought, as distinct from changes in economic and social organization, Weber\nseems to me to explain by reference to moral and intellectual influences\ndevelopments which have their principal explanation in another region\naltogether. There was plenty of the \u201ccapitalist spirit\u201d in fifteenth-century\nVenice and Florence, or in south Germany and Flanders, for the simple reason\nthat these areas were the greatest commercial and financial centers of the age,\nthough all were, at least nominally, Catholic. The development of capitalism in\nHolland and England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was due, not to\nthe fact that they were Protestant powers, but to large economic movements, in\nparticular the Discoveries and the results which flowed from them. Of course\nmaterial and psychological changes went together, and of course the second\nreacted on the first. But it seems a little artificial to talk as though\ncapitalist enterprise could not appear till religious changes had produced a\ncapitalist spirit. It would be equally true, and equally one-sided, to say that\nthe religious changes were purely the result of economic movements.\n\n(ii) Weber ignores, or at least touches too lightly on, intellectual movements,\nwhich were favorable to the growth of business enterprise and to an\nindividualist attitude towards economic relations, but which had little to do\nwith religion. The political thought of the Renaissance was one; as Brentano\npoints out, Machiavelli was at least as powerful a solvent of traditional\nethical restraints as Calvin. The speculations of business men and economists on\nmoney, prices and the foreign exchanges were a second. Both contributed to the\ntemper of single-minded concentration on pecuniary gain, which Weber understands\nby the capitalist spirit.\n\n(iii) He appears greatly to over-simplify Calvinism itself. In the first place,\nhe apparently ascribes to the English Puritans of the seventeenth century the\nconception of social ethics held by Calvin and his immediate followers. In the\nsecond place, he speaks as though all English Puritans in the seventeenth\ncentury held much the same view of social duties and expediency. Both\nsuggestions are misleading. On the one hand, the Calvinists of the sixteenth\ncentury (including English Puritans) were believers in a rigorous discipline,\nand the individualism ascribed not unjustly to the Puritan movement in its later\nphases would have horrified them. The really significant question is that of the\ncauses of the change from the one standpoint to the other, a question which\nWeber appears to ignore. On the other hand, there were within\nseventeenth-century Puritanism a variety of elements, which held widely\ndifferent views as to social policy. As Cromwell discovered, there was no\nformula which would gather Puritan aristocrats and Levellers, landowners and\nDiggers, merchants and artisans, buff-coat and his general, into the fold of a\nsingle social theory. The issue between divergent doctrines was fought out\nwithin the Puritan movement itself. Some won; others lost.\n\nBoth \u201cthe capitalist spirit\u201d and \u201cProtestant ethics,\u201d therefore, were a good\ndeal more complex than Weber seems to imply. What is true and valuable in his\nessay is his insistence that the commercial classes in seventeenth-century\nEngland were the standard-bearers of a particular conception of social\nexpediency, which was markedly different from that of the more conservative\nelements in society--the peasants, the craftsmen, and many landed gentry--and\nthat that conception found expression in religion, in politics, and, not least,\nin social and economic conduct and policy.\n\n[IV-33] Cunningham, _The Moral Witness of the Church on the Investment of Money\nand the Use of Wealth_, 1909, p. 25.\n\n[IV-34] Knox, _The Buke of Discipline_, in _Works_, ed. D. Laing, vol. ii, 1848,\npp. 183 _seqq._; Thos. Cartwright, _A Directory of Church Government_ (printed\nin D. Neal, _History of the Puritans_, 1822, vol. v, Appx. iv); W. Travers, _A\nFull and Plain Declaration of Ecclesiastical Discipline_, 1574; J. Udall, _A\nDemonstration of the Trueth of that Discipline which Christe hath prescribed in\nhis Worde for the Government of his Church_, 1589; Bancroft, _Dangerous\nPositions and Proceedings published and practised within this Iland of Brytaine\nunder Pretence of Reformation and for the Presbyteriall Discipline_, 1593 (part\nreprinted in R. G. Usher, _The Presbyterian Movement in the Reign of Queen\nElizabeth, as illustrated by the Minute Book of the Dedham Classis_, 1905).\n\n[IV-35] Cartwright, _op. cit._\n\n[IV-36] Usher, _op. cit._, p. 1.\n\n[IV-37] _Ibid._, pp. 14-15, for Bancroft\u2019s account of the procedure.\n\n[IV-38] Quoted from Baillie\u2019s _Letters_ by W. A. Shaw, _A History of the English\nChurch during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth_, 1900, vol. i, p. 128.\n\n[IV-39] Shaw, _op. cit._, vol. ii, chap. iii (_The Presbyterian System,\n1646-60_). For the practical working of Presbyterian discipline, see Chetham\nSociety, vols. xx, xxii, xxiv, _Minutes of the Manchester Classis_, and vols.\nxxxvi, xli, _Minutes of the Bury Classis_.\n\n[IV-40] See Chap. III, p. 142.\n\n[IV-41] _Puritan Manifestoes_, p. 120, quoted by H. G. Wood, _The Influence of\nthe Reformation on Ideas concerning Wealth and Property_, in _Property, its\nRights and Duties_, 1913, p. 142. Mr. Wood\u2019s essay contains an excellent\ndiscussion of the whole subject, and I should like here to acknowledge my\nobligations to it. For the views of Knewstub, Smith, and Baro, see the\nquotations from them printed by Haweis, _Sketches of the Reformation_, 1844, pp.\n237-40, 243-6. It should be noted that Baro, while condemning those who,\n\u201csitting idle at home, make merchandise only of their money, by giving it out in\nthis sort to needy persons ... without having any regard of his commodity to\nwhome they give it, but only of their own gain,\u201d nevertheless admitted that\ninterest was not always to be condemned. See also Thos. Fuller, _History of the\nUniversity of Cambridge_, ed. M. Prickett and T. Wright, 1840, pp. 275-6, 288-9,\nand Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times_, 1921\ned., pt. i, pp. 157-8.\n\n[IV-42] New Shakespeare Society, Series vi, no. 6, 1877-9, Phillip Stubbes\u2019s\n_Anatomy of the Abuses in England_, ed. F. J. Furnivall, pp. 115-16.\n\n[IV-43] W. Ames, _De Conscientia et eius iure vel casibus libri quinque_, bk. v,\nchaps. xliii, xliv. Ames (1576-1633) was educated at Christ\u2019s College,\nCambridge, tried to settle at Colchester, but was forbidden to preach by the\nBishop of London, went to Leyden about 1610, was appointed to the theological\nchair at Franeker in 1622, where he remained for ten years, and died at\nRotterdam.\n\n[IV-44] _E.g._, Stubbes, _op. cit._; Richard Capel, _Temptations, their Nature,\nDanger, Cure_, 1633; John Moore, _The Crying Sin of England of not caring for\nthe Poor; wherein Inclosure, viz. such as doth unpeople Townes, and uncorn\nFields, is arraigned, convicted and condemned_, 1653.\n\n[IV-45] J. O. Halliwell, _The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds\nD\u2019Ewes_, 1845, vol. i, pp. 206-10, 322, 354; vol. ii, pp. 96, 153-4.\n\n[IV-46] Usher, _op. cit._ (see note 34 above), pp. 32, 53, 70, 99-100.\n\n[IV-47] Sept. 26, 1645, it is resolved \u201cthat it shall be in the power of the\neldership to suspend from the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper any person that\nshall be legally attainted of Barratry, Forgery, Extortion, Perjury, or Bribery\u201d\n(_Commons\u2019 Journals_, vol. iv, p. 290).\n\n[IV-48] Chetham Society, _Minutes of the Bury Presbyterian Classis, 1647-57_,\npt. i, pp. 32-3. The Cambridge _classis_ (_ibid._, pt. ii, pp. 196-7) decided in\n1657 that the ordinance of Parliament of August 29, 1648 should be taken as the\nrule of the _classis_ in the matter of scandal. The various scandals mentioned\nin the ordinance included extortion, and the _classis_ decided that \u201cno person\nlawfully convict of any of the foresaid scandalls bee admitted to the Lord\u2019s\nsupper without signification of sincere repentance,\u201d but it appears (p. 198) to\nhave been mainly interested in witches, wizards, and fortune-tellers.\n\n[IV-49] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Report on MSS. in various Collections_, vol. i, 1901,\np. 132.\n\n[IV-50] Quoted by F. J. Powicke, _A Life of the Reverend Richard Baxter_, 1924,\np. 92.\n\n[IV-51] Selections from those parts of _The Christian Directory_ which bear on\nsocial ethics are printed by Jeannette Tawney, _Chapters from Richard Baxter\u2019s\nChristian Directory_, 1925, in which most of the passages quoted in the text\nwill be found.\n\n[IV-52] _Reliqui\u00e6 Baxterian\u00e6_ (see note 2), p. 1.\n\n[IV-53] _Life and Death of Mr. Badman_ (Cambridge English Classics, 1905), pp.\n116-25, where Bunyan discusses at length the ethics of prices.\n\n[IV-54] Carlyle, _Cromwell\u2019s Letters and Speeches_, Letter ii.\n\n[IV-55] See on these points Weber, _op. cit._ (note 32 above), p. 94, whose main\nconclusions I paraphrase.\n\n[IV-56] Milton, _A Defence of the People of England_ (1692 ed.), p. xvii.\n\n[IV-57] See, _e.g._, Thos. Wilson, _A Discourse upon Usury_, Preface, 1925 ed.,\np. 178: \u201cThere bee two sortes of men that are alwayes to bee looked upon very\nnarrowly, the one is the dissemblinge gospeller, and the other is the wilfull\nand indurate papiste. The first under colour of religion overthroweth all\nreligion, and bearing good men in hande that he loveth playnesse, useth\ncovertelie all deceypte that maye bee, and for pryvate gayne undoeth the common\nwelfare of man. And touching thys sinne of usurie, none doe more openly offende\nin thys behalfe than do these counterfeite professours of thys pure religion.\u201d\n\n[IV-58] Fenton, _A Treatise of Usurie_, 1612, pp. 60-1.\n\n[IV-59] _Brief Survey of the Growth of Usury in England_, 1673.\n\n[IV-60] S. Richardson, _The Cause of the Poor Pleaded_, 1653, Thomason Tracts,\nE. 703 (9), p. 14. For other references, see note 72 below. For extortionate\nprices, see Thomason Tracts, E. 399 (6), _The Worth of a Penny, or a Caution to\nkeep Money_, 1647. I am indebted for this and subsequent references to the\nThomason Tracts to Miss P. James.\n\n[IV-61] Hooker, Preface to _The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_, Everyman ed.,\n1907, vol. i, p. 128.\n\n[IV-62] Wilson, _op. cit._, p. 250.\n\n[IV-63] _Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, written by his Widow Lucy_,\nEveryman ed., 1908, pp. 64-5.\n\n[IV-64] See the references given in note 66.\n\n[IV-65] _The Earl of Strafforde\u2019s Letters and Despatches_, by William Knowler,\nD.D., 1739, vol. ii, p. 138.\n\n[IV-66] No attempt has been made in the text to do more than refer to the points\non which the economic interests and outlook of the commercial and propertied\nclasses brought them into collision with the monarchy, and only the most obvious\nsources of information are mentioned here. For patents and monopolies, including\nthe hated soap monopoly, see G. Unwin, _The Gilds and Companies of London_,\n1908, chap. xvii, and W. Hyde Price, _The English Patents of Monopoly_, 1906,\nchap. xi, and _passim_. For the control of exchange business, _Cambium Regis, or\nthe Office of his Majesties Exchange Royall, declaring and justifying his\nMajesties Right and the Convenience thereof_, 1628, and Ruding, _Annals of the\nCoinage_, 1819, vol. iv, pp. 201-10. For the punishment of speculation by the\nStar Chamber, and for projects of public granaries, Camden Society, N.S., vol.\nxxxix, 1886, _Reports of Cases in the Courts of Star Chamber and High\nCommission_, ed. S. R. Gardiner, pp. 43 _seqq._, 82 _seqq._, and N. S. B. Gras,\n_The Evolution of the English Corn Market_, 1915, pp. 246-50. For the control of\nthe textile industry and the reaction against it, H. Heaton, _The Yorkshire\nWoollen and Worsted Industries_, 1920, chaps. iv, vii; Kate E. Barford, _The\nWest of England Cloth Industry: A seventeenth-century Experiment in State\nControl_, in the _Wiltshire Arch\u00e6ological and Natural History Magazine_, Dec.,\n1924, pp. 531-42; R. R. Reid, _The King\u2019s Council in the North_, 1921, pt. iv,\nchap. ii; _Victoria County History, Suffolk_, vol. ii, pp. 263-8. For the\nintervention of the Privy Council to raise the wages of textile workers and to\nprotect craftsmen, Tawney, _The Assessment of Wages in England by the Justices\nof the Peace_, in the _Vierteljahrschrift f\u00fcr Sozial- und\nWirthschaftsgeschichte_, Bd. xi, 1913, pp. 307-37, 533-64; Leonard, _The Early\nHistory of English Poor Relief_, pp. 160-3; _Victoria County History, Suffolk_,\nvol. ii, pp. 268-9; and Unwin, _Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and\nSeventeenth Centuries_, 1904, pp. 142-7. For the Depopulation Commissions,\nTawney, _The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century_, pp. 376, 391. For the\nsqueezing of money from the East India Company and the infringement of its\nCharter, Shafa\u2019at Ahmad Khan, _The East India Trade in the XVIIth Century_,\n1923, pp. 69-73. For the colonial interests of Puritan members, A. P. Newton,\n_The Colonising Activities of the English Puritans_, 1914, and C. E. Wade, _John\nPym_, 1912.\n\n[IV-67] E. Laspeyres, _Geschichte der Volkswirthschaftlichen Anschauungen der\nNiederl\u00e4nder und ihrer Litteratur zur Zeit der Republik_, 1863, pp. 256-70. An\nidea of the points at issue can be gathered from the exhaustive (and unreadable)\nwork of Salmasius, _De Modo Usurarum_, 1639.\n\n[IV-68] John Quick, _Synodicon in Gallia Reformata_, 1692, vol. i, p. 99.\n\n[IV-69] For the change of sentiment in America, see Troeltsch, _Protestantism\nand Progress_, pp. 117-27; for Franklin, _Memoirs of the Life and Writings of\nBenjamin Franklin_, and Sombart, _The Quintessence of Capitalism_, 1915, pp.\n116-21.\n\n[IV-70] Rev. Robert Woodrow (quoted by Sombart, _op. cit._, p. 149).\n\n[IV-71] John Cooke, _Unum Necessarium or the Poore Man\u2019s Case_ (1648), which\ncontains a plea for the regulation of prices and the establishment of _Monts de\nPi\u00e9t\u00e9_.\n\n[IV-72] For the scandal caused to the Protestant religion by its alleged\ncondonation of covetousness, see T. Watson, _A Plea for Alms_, 1658 (Thomason\nTracts, E. 2125), pp. 21, 33-4: \u201cThe Church of Rome layes upon us this aspersion\nthat we are against good workes.... I am sorry that any who go for honest men\nshould be brought into the indightment; I mean that any professors should be\nimpeached as guilty of this sinne of covetousnesse and unmercifulnesse.... I\ntell you these devout misers are the reproach of Christianity.... I may say of\npenurious votaries, they have the wings of profession by which they seem to fly\nto heaven, but the feet of beasts, walking on the earth and even licking the\ndust.... Oh, take heed, that, seeing your religion will not destroy your\ncovetousnesse, at last your covetousnesse does not destroy your religion.\u201d See\nalso Sir Balthazar Gerbier, _A New Year\u2019s Result in favour of the Poore_, 1651\n(Thomason Tracts, E. 651 [14]), p. 4: \u201cIf the Papists did rely as much on\nfaith as the reformed professors of the Gospel (according to our English tenets)\ndoe, or that the reformed professors did so much practice charity as the Papists\ndoe?\u201d\n\n[IV-73] S. Richardson, _op. cit._ (see note 60 above), pp. 7-8, 10.\n\n[IV-74] The first person to emphasize the way in which the idea of a \u201ccalling\u201d\nwas used as an argument for the economic virtues was Weber (see note 32 above),\nto whose conclusions I am largely indebted for the following paragraphs.\n\n[IV-75] Bunyan, _The Pilgrim\u2019s Progress_.\n\n[IV-76] Richard Steele, _The Tradesman\u2019s Calling, being a Discourse concerning\nthe Nature, Necessity, Choice, etc., of a Calling in general_, 1684, pp. 1, 4.\n\n[IV-77] _Ibid._, pp. 21-2.\n\n[IV-78] _Ibid._, p. 35.\n\n[IV-79] Baxter, _Christian Directory_, 1678 ed., vol. i, p. 336_b_.\n\n[IV-80] Thomas Adams (quoted Weber, _op. cit._, p. 96 n.).\n\n[IV-81] Matthew Henry, _The Worth of the Soul_ (quoted _ibid._, p. 168 n.).\n\n[IV-82] Baxter, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 111_a_.\n\n[IV-83] Steele, _op. cit._, p. 20.\n\n[IV-84] Baxter, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 378_b_, 108_b_; vol. iv, p. 253_a_.\n\n[IV-85] _Navigation Spiritualized: or a New Compass for Seamen, consisting of\nxxxii Points_:\n\n      _{ Pleasant Observations\n  of   { Profitable Applications and\n       { Serious Reflections._\n\n_All concluded with so many spiritual poems. Whereunto is now added_,\n\n   i. _A sober conversation of the sin of drunkenness._ ii. _The Harlot\u2019s face\n   in the scripture-glass, etc._\n\n_Being an essay towards their much desired Reformation from the horrible and\ndetestable sins of Drunkenness, Swearing, Uncleanness, Forgetfulness of Mercies,\nViolation of Promises, and Atheistical Contempt of Death._ 1682.\n\nThe author of this cheerful work was a Devonshire minister, John Flavell, who\nalso wrote _Husbandry Spiritualized, or the Heavenly Use of Earthly Things_,\n1669. In him, as in Steele, the Chadband touch is unmistakable. _The Religious\nWeaver_, apparently by one Fawcett, I have not been able to trace.\n\n[IV-86] Steele, _op. cit._ (see note 76 above).\n\n[IV-87] Bunyan, _The Pilgrim\u2019s Progress_.\n\n[IV-88] David Jones, _A Farewell Sermon at St. Mary Woolnoth\u2019s_, 1692.\n\n[IV-89] Nicholas Barbon, _A Discourse of Trade_, 1690, ed. by Professor John H.\nHollander (_A Reprint of Economic Tracts_, Series ii, no. 1).\n\n[IV-90] The words of a member of the Long Parliament, quoted by C. H. Firth,\n_Oliver Cromwell_, 1902, p. 313.\n\n[IV-91] _The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon_, 1827 ed., vol. ii, p. 235: \u201cThe\nmerchants took much delight to enlarge themselves upon this argument [i.e., the\nadvantages of war], and shortly after to discourse \u2018of the infinite benefit that\nwould accrue from a barefaced war against the Dutch, how easily they might be\nsubdued and the trade carried by the English.\u2019\u201d According to Clarendon, who\ndespised the merchants and hated the whole business, it was almost a classical\nexample of a commercial war, carefully stage-managed in all its details, from\nthe directorship which the Royal African Company gave to the Duke of York down\nto the inevitable \u201cincident\u201d with which hostilities began.\n\n[IV-92] _Ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 7-9.\n\n[IV-93] Sir Dudley North, _Discourses upon Trade_, 1691, Preface.\n\n[IV-94] Petty, _Political Arithmetic_, Preface.\n\n[IV-95] Chamberlayne, _Angli\u00e6 Notitia_ (quoted P. E. Dove, _Account of Andrew\nYarranton_, 1854, p. 82 n.).\n\n[IV-96] Roger North, _The Lives of the Norths_ (1826 ed.), vol. iii, p. 103; T.\nWatson, _A Plea for Alms_ (Thomason Tracts, E. 2125); p. 33; Dryden, _Absalom\nand Achitophel_, 2nd part, 1682, p. 9, where Sir Robert Clayton, Lord Mayor\n1679-80, and Member of Parliament for the City 1679-81 and again from 1689,\nappears as \u201cextorting Ishban.\u201d He was a scrivener who had made his money by\nusury.\n\n[IV-97] John Fawke, Sir William Thompson, William Love, and John Jones.\n\n[IV-98] Charles King (_The British Merchant_, 1721, vol. i, p. 181) gives the\nfollowing persons as signatories of an analysis of the trade between England and\nFrance in 1674: Patience Ward, Thomas Papillon, James Houblon, William Bellamy,\nMichael Godfrey, George Toriano, John Houblon, John Houghe, John Mervin, Peter\nParavicine, John Dubois, Benj. Godfrey, Edm. Harrison, Benj. Delaune. The number\nof foreign names is remarkable.\n\n[IV-99] For Dutch capital in London, see _Hist. MSS. Comm., 8th Report_, 1881,\np. 134 (proceedings of the Committee on the decay of trade, 1669); with regard\nto investment of foreign capital in England, it was stated that \u201cAlderman\nBucknell had above \u00a3100,000 in his hands, Mr. Meynell above \u00a330,000, Mr.\nVandeput at one time \u00a360,000, Mr. Dericost always near \u00a3200,000 of Dutch money,\nlent to merchants at 7, 6, and 5 per cent.\u201d\n\n[IV-100] _The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon_, vol. ii, pp. 289-93, and vol.\niii, pp. 4-7; and John Beresford, _The Godfather of Downing Street_, 1925.\n\n[IV-101] S. Bannister, _William Paterson, the Merchant-Statesman, and Founder of\nthe Bank of England: His Life and Trials_, 1858.\n\n[IV-102] A. Yarranton, _England\u2019s Improvement_, 1677.\n\n[IV-103] _The Complete English Tradesman_ (1726) belongs to the same genus as\nthe book of Steele (see above, pp. 244-6), but it has reduced Christianity to\neven more innocuous proportions: see _Letter xvii_ (_Of Honesty in Dealing_).\n\n[IV-104] T. S. Ashton, _Iron and Steel in the Industrial Revolution_, 1924, pp.\n211-26. Mr. A. P. Wadsworth has shown that the leading Lancashire clothiers were\noften Nonconformists (_History of the Rochdale Woollen Trade_, in _Trans.\nRochdale Lit. and Sci. Soc._, vol. xv, 1925).\n\n[IV-105] Quoted F. J. Powicke, _Life of Baxter_, 1924, p. 158.\n\n[IV-106] Dicey, _Law and Public Opinion in England_, 1905, pp. 400-1.\n\n[IV-107] _The Humble Petition of Thousands of well-affected Persons inhabiting\nthe City of London, Westminster, the Borough of Southwark, Hamlets, and Places\nadjacent_ (Bodleian Pamphlets, The Levellers\u2019 Petitions, c. 15, 3 Linc.). See\nalso G. P. Gooch, _English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_, 1898.\n\n[IV-108] Camden Society, _The Clarke Papers_, ed. C. H. Firth, 1891-4, vol. ii,\npp. 217-21 (letter from Winstanley to Fairfax and the Council of War, Dec. 8,\n1649).\n\n[IV-109] _Records of the Borough of Leicester, 1603-88_, ed. Helen Stocks, 1923,\npp. 370, 414, 428-30.\n\n[IV-110] John Moore, _op. cit._ (see note 44, above), p. 13. See also E. C. K.\nGonner, _Common Land and Enclosure_, 1912, pp. 53-5.\n\n[IV-111] Camden Society, _The Clarke Papers_, vol. i, pp. 299 _seqq._, lxvii\n_seqq._\n\n[IV-112] _The Diary of Thomas Burton_, ed. J. T. Rutt, 1828, vol. i, pp. 175-6.\nA letter from Whalley, referring to agitations against enclosure in\nWarwickshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, will be found in\nThurloe, _State Papers_, vol. iv, p. 686.\n\n[IV-113] Joseph Lee, _A Vindication of a Regulated Enclosure_, 1656, p. 9.\n\n[IV-114] Aquinas, _Summa Theol._, 2^a 2^\u00e6, Q. xxxii, art. v.\n\n[IV-115] _Dives et Pauper_, 1493, Prol., chap. vii; cf. Pecock, _The Repressor\nof over-much Blaming of the Clergy_, pt. iii, chap. iv, pp. 296-7. For an\nexcellent account of the medieval attitude towards the poor, see B. L. Manning,\n_The People\u2019s Faith in the Time of Wyclif_, 1919, chap. x.\n\n[IV-116] _A Lyke-wake Dirge_, printed by W. Allingham, _The Ballad Book_, 1907,\nno. xxxi.\n\n[IV-117] Latimer, _The fifth Sermon on the Lord\u2019s Prayer_ (in _Sermons_,\nEveryman ed., p. 336). Cf. Tyndale, _The Parable of the Wicked Mammon_ (in\n_Doctrinal Treatises of William Tyndale_, Parker Society, 1848, p. 97): \u201cIf thy\nbrother or neighbour therefore need, and thou have to help him, and yet showest\nnot mercy, but withdrawest thy hands from him, then robbest thou him of his own,\nand art a thief.\u201d\n\n[IV-118] Christopher Harvey, _The Overseer of the Poor_ (in G. Gilfillan, _The\nPoetical Works of George Herbert_, 1853, pp. 241-3).\n\n[IV-119] J. E. B. Mayor, _Two Lives of N. Ferrar, by his brother John and Dr.\nJebb_, p. 261 (quoted by B. Kirkman Gray, _A History of English Philanthropy_,\n1905, p. 54).\n\n[IV-120] _A True Report of the Great Cost and Charges of the foure Hospitals in\nthe City of London_, 1644 (quoted, _ibid._, p. 66).\n\n[IV-121] See, _e.g._, _Hist. MSS. Comm., Reports on MSS. in various\nCollections_, vol. i, 1901, pp. 109-24; Leonard, _Early History of English Poor\nRelief_, pp. 268-9.\n\n[IV-122] Sir Matthew Hale, _A Discourse touching Provision for the Poor_, 1683.\n\n[IV-123] _Stanley\u2019s Remedy, or the Way how to reform wandering Beggars, Thieves,\nHighway Robbers and Pick-pockets_, 1646 (Thomason Tracts, E. 317 (6)), p. 4.\n\n[IV-124] _Commons\u2019 Journals_, March 19, 1648/9, vol. vi, p. 167.\n\n[IV-125] _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 201, 374, 416, 481; vol. vii, p. 127.\n\n[IV-126] Samuel Hartlib, _London\u2019s Charity Inlarged_, 1650, p. i.\n\n[IV-127] Hartlib, _op. cit._\n\n[IV-128] Firth and Rait, _Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum_, 1911, vol.\nii, pp. 104-10. An ordinance creating a corporation had been passed Dec. 17,\n1647 (_ibid._, vol. i, pp. 1042-5).\n\n[IV-129] _Ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 1098-9.\n\n[IV-130] Stockwood, at Paul\u2019s Cross, 1578 (quoted by Haweis, _Sketches of the\nReformation_, p. 277).\n\n[IV-131] Steele, _op. cit._ (note 76 above), p. 22.\n\n[IV-132] R. Younge, _The Poores\u2019 Advocate_, 1654 (Thomason Tracts, E. 1452 [3]),\np. 6.\n\n[IV-133] For these and other passages from Restoration economists to the same\neffect, see a striking article by Dr. T. E. Gregory on _The Economics of\nEmployment in England (1660-1713)_ in _Economica_, no. i, Jan., 1921, pp. 37\n_seqq._, and E. S. Furniss, _The Position of the Labourer in a System of\nNationalism_, 1920, chaps. v, vi.\n\n[IV-134] _Das Kommunistische Manifest_, 1918 ed., pp. 27-8: \u201cDie Bourgeoisie, wo\nsie zur Herrschaft gekommen, hat alle feudalen, patriarchalischen, idyllischen\nverh\u00e4ltnisse zerst\u00f6rt. Sie hat die buntscheckigen Feudalbande, die den Menschen\nan seinen nat\u00fcrlichen Vorgesetzten kn\u00fcpften, unbarmherzig zerrissen, und kein\nanderes Band zwischen Mensch und Mensch \u00fcbrig gelassen, als das nackte\nInteresse, als die gef\u00fchllose bare Zahlung.\u201d\n\n[IV-135] Defoe, _Giving Alms no Charity_, 1704, pp. 25-7.\n\n[IV-136] Petty, _Political Arithmetic_, p. 45.\n\n[IV-137] Sir Henry Pollexfen, _Discourse of Trade_, 1697, p. 49; Walter Harris,\n_Remarks on the Affairs and Trade of England and Ireland_, 1691, pp. 43-4; _The\nQuerist_, 1737 (in _The Works of George Berkeley, D.D._, ed. A. C. Fraser, 1871,\np. 387); Thomas Alcock, _Observations on the Defects of the Poor Laws_, 1752,\npp. 45 _seqq._ (quoted Furniss, _op. cit._, p. 153).\n\n[IV-138] Arthur Young, _Eastern Tour_, 1771, vol. iv, p. 361.\n\n[IV-139] Harrison, _The Description of Britaine_, 1587 ed., bk. ii, chap. x, _Of\nProvision made for the Poor_.\n\n[IV-140] H. Hunter, _Problems of Poverty: Selections from the ... Writings of\nThomas Chalmers, D.D._, 1912, p. 202.\n\n[IV-141] For the influence of Chalmers\u2019 idea on Senior, and, through him, on the\nnew Poor Law of 1834, see T. Mackay, _History of the English Poor Law_, vol.\niii, 1899, pp. 32-4. Chalmers held that _any_ Poor Law was in itself\nobjectionable. Senior, who described Chalmers\u2019 evidence before the Committee on\nthe State of the Poor in Ireland as \u201cthe most instructive, perhaps, that ever\nwas given before a Committee of the House of Commons,\u201d appears to have begun by\nagreeing with him, but later to have adopted the principle of deterrence, backed\nby the test workhouse, as a second best. The Commissioners of 1832-4 were right\nin thinking the existing methods of relief administration extremely bad; they\nwere wrong in supposing distress to be due mainly to lax administration, instead\nof realizing, as was the fact, that lax administration had arisen as an attempt\nto meet the increase of distress. Their discussion of the causes of pauperism\nis, therefore, extremely superficial, and requires to be supplemented by the\nevidence contained in the various contemporary reports (such, _e.g._, as those\non the hand-loom weavers) dealing with the industrial aspects of the problem.\n\n[IV-142] W. C. Braithwaite, _The Second Period of Quakerism_, 1919, pp. 560-2.\nDefoe comments on the strict business standards of the Quakers in _Letter xvii_\n(_Of Honesty in Dealing_) in _The Complete English Tradesman_. Mr. Ashton (_Iron\nand Steel in the Industrial Revolution_, p. 219) remarks, \u201cThe eighteenth\ncentury Friend no less than the medieval Catholic held firmly to some doctrine\nof Just Price,\u201d and quotes examples from the conduct of Quaker iron-masters.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Abbot\u2019s Ripton, 140, 308\n\n  Acton, Lord, 65\n\n  Acts of Parliament:\n    15 Ed. III, st. 1, c. 5 (1341), 52 37 Hen. VIII, c. 9 (1545), 159 5 and 6\n    Ed. VI, c. 20 (1552), 159, 180 13 Eliz., c. 8 (1571), 159, 180, 181, 187 39\n    Eliz., c. 2 (1597), 178\n\n  Aegidius Lessinus, 295, 296\n\n  Aeneas Silvius, 110\n\n  Agriculture, 136-50, 231.\n    See also _Enclosures_, _Land_, _Pasture farming_, _Peasants_\n\n  Alcock, Thomas, 270\n\n  Alien immigrants, 205, 314\n\n  Almsgiving, condemnation of, 111, 114, 265, 305;\n    a duty, 260-1\n\n  America, silver of, 68, 74, 135;\n    Calvinism in, 127-32, 227, 238, 320\n\n  Ames, 216-7, 318\n\n  Amsterdam, 104\n\n  Anglicans. See _Clergy_ and _Church of England_\n\n  Annuities, 42, 217\n\n  Antwerp, 72, 73-5, 79, 80, 86, 87, 104, 168, 178, 303;\n    fall of, 77, 176\n\n  Apparel, excess in, 115, 127\n\n  Aquinas. See _St. Thomas_\n\n  Archdeacons, visitations of, 48, 52, 162, 296-7, 310\n\n  Aristotle, 44\n\n  Asceticism, 17, 18, 19\n\n  Ashton, T. S., 252, 325\n\n  Aske, 141\n\n  Augsburg, 79, 85\n\n\n  Bacon, 148, 151, 185\n\n  Baillie, 214\n\n  Bancroft, Archbishop, 186, 213, 214\n\n  Bank, at Geneva, 120\n\n  -- of England, 252\n\n  Banking, deposit, beginnings of, 176\n\n  Barbon, Dr. Nicholas, 247\n\n  Barebones, Praise-God, 247\n\n  Bargaining, equity in, 152, 159, 181, 183, 188, 221-3, 224, 244, 272.\n    See also _Prices_ and _Profits_\n\n  Baro, 215, 318\n\n  Basle, 120;\n    Council of, 103\n\n  Baxter, Richard, 9, 19, 200, 203, 207, 219-24, 226, 242 (quoted), 243\n          (quoted), 253, 260, 268, 291\n\n  Becon, 82, 141, 144\n\n  Beggars. See _Almsgiving_ and _Vagrancy_\n\n  Bellarmin, 80, 303\n\n  Bellers, 19, 272\n\n  Belloc, H., 92\n\n  Bennet, Dr., 153\n\n  Benvenuto da Imola, quoted, 11\n\n  Berkeley, Bishop, 270, 284\n\n  Berne, 120\n\n  Berthold, Brother, 225\n\n  Beza, 119, 121, 122, 123, 215\n\n  Birmingham, 204\n\n  Bishops, articles of visitation of, 161;\n    were normally justices, 165; Bill _re_ powers of, 174-5, 312; abolition of,\n    188, 214. See also _Commissary_, _Court of High Commission_ and _Courts,\n          ecclesiastical_\n\n  Blaxton, John, cited, 156\n\n  Bodin, 81\n\n  B\u00f6heim, Hans, 81\n\n  Bolingbroke, 207\n\n  Bologna, University of, 81\n\n  Boniface VIII, 19; bull of, 21\n\n  Bossuet, 83\n\n  Boston, 128-31\n\n  Bourges, 50\n\n  Braddon, Lawrence, 315\n\n  Bradford, 204\n\n  --, Governor, 127 (quoted), 128\n\n  Brentano, 316\n\n  Bristol, 202\n\n  Brittany, Count of, 299\n\n  Bruges, 73\n\n  Bucer, 19, 63, 81, 83, 105, 116, 142, 215\n\n  Bullinger, 19, 81, 114, 181\n\n  Bunyan, 9, 19, 199, 225, 268, 307\n\n  Burford, 181\n\n  Buridanus, Johannes, 295\n\n  Bury, 218\n\n\n  Cahorsines, 29, 294, 297\n\n  \u201cCalling,\u201d 240-6, 316, 321\n\n  Calvin, 10, 19, 94, 102-32;\n    teaching of, on usury, 81, 83, 126, 181, 215, 216, 233, 239; letter of, to\n    Somerset, 116; _Institutes_ of, 116, 117; scheme of municipal government\n    drafted by, 117; death of, 119. See also _Calvinism_\n\n  Calvinism, 102-32, 233-5;\n    sanctification of economic enterprise by, 34, 104-5, 108, 109, 110,\n            111, 116, 233, 239;\n    connection of individualism with, 112-3, 227, 316-7; discipline of, 112,\n    113, 115-32, 215, 219, 227, 234, 238, 316-7; in France, 125-6; in Scotland,\n    126-7; development of, in England, 198; in Holland, 211. See also _Calvin_\n    and _Puritanism_\n\n  Cambridge, 318\n\n  Canon law. See _Law, canon_\n\n  Canonists, chicanery and casuistry of, 37, 51, 54, 60, 100.\n    See also _Law, canon_\n\n  Canterbury, 205;\n    archbishop of, 47, 156; Canons of, 161\n\n  Capitalism, early appearance of, 16, 26, 84, 226;\n    connection of, with Puritanism, 212, 315-8\n\n  Carpenters, parliament of, 292\n\n  Cartwright, Thomas, 213, 215\n\n  Catholicism, and capitalism, 84, 316\n\n  Cattle, loaning of, 54, 154, 181-2\n\n  Cecil, William, 145, 165\n\n  Chalmers, Dr., 271, 324\n\n  Charles I, social policy of, 169-74, 211, 235-8, 319-20\n\n  Charles V, 71, 79\n\n  Chaucer, 23 (quoted), 302\n\n  Chauvet, 123\n\n  Chesterton, G. K., 92\n\n  Chevage, 147\n\n  Chevisance, 51\n\n  Choisy, 306\n\n  Church, medieval, pomp and avarice of, 59, 60, 62;\n    attitude of, to established social order, 56-9; strength and weakness of,\n    59-60; ideals of, 60-2\n\n  -- of England, 135-93;\n    conservatism and ineffectiveness of social theory of, 85, 155-7,\n          184-93, 282;\n    Puritanism represented in, 198\n\n  -- of Ireland, 161\n     See also _Clergy_, _Councils (Church)_, _Courts (ecclesiastical)_,\n          _Law (canon)_, _Papacy_, _Reformation_, _Religion_, and under _State_\n\n  Churches, Nonconformist, attitude of, to social problems in 18th\n          century, 281.\n    See also _Presbyterianism_, _Puritanism_, _Tolerance_\n\n  Civil Law. See _Law, civil_\n\n  Clarendon Code, 205\n\n  --, Constitutions of, 51\n\n  --, Earl of, 173, 204, 249, 252, 321\n\n  Class hatred, 18, 123, 145\n\n  _Classes_, Puritan, 213, 217, 317, 318\n\n  Clayton, Sir Robert, 322\n\n  Clergy, taking of usury by, 30, 46, 53, 292-3, 300;\n    subservience of, 159, 281; return of, to City churches, 204; popular\n    sympathies of, in France, 281. See also _Church of England_\n\n  Cloth industry, 105, 136, 142, 147;\n    capitalism in, 70, 176, 268-9; distress in, 168, 205, 314; wages in, 174,\n    293, 320; regulation of, 174, 236, 237, 319; Puritanism in centers of, 202,\n    203, 204, 322; proposed nationalization of, 236. See also _Textile workers_\n\n  Coke, 186\n\n  Colbert, 77, 236\n\n  Cologne, 37\n\n  Colonization, 71, 238, 320\n\n  Colquhoun, Patrick, 313\n\n  Columbus, 67, 69, 89\n\n  Combinations, 55, 87-8, 95-6, 293.\n    See also _Gilds_\n\n  Commissary, Court of, 53, 162, 300, 310\n\n  Commissions, Depopulation, 138, 145, 173, 237, 320\n\n  Commons, enclosure of, 140, 167, 174, 256, 259, 260.\n    See also _Enclosures_\n\n  \u201cCommonwealth men,\u201d 145\n\n  Communal movement, 56\n\n  Communism, 32, 256\n\n  Companies, infringement of charters of, 237.\n    See also _East India Co._ and _Royal African Co._\n\n  Confessors, instructions to, 48-9\n\n  Congregationalism, 198\n\n  Consistory, at Geneva, 116, 117, 119-24\n\n  Constance, Council of, 103\n\n  Consumption, 34, 231, 248, 251\n\n  Copper, 73, 75, 79\n\n  Copyholders, 139, 147, 167, 308\n\n  Corn, engrossing of, 123, 168, 174, 311.\n    See also _Granaries_\n\n  Coulton, G. G., 11, 30\n\n  Councils, Church, 46-7, 51, 54, 296\n\n  Court, De la, 206\n\n  Court of Arches, 186\n\n  -- Chancery, 51, 53, 295, 300\n\n  -- Delegates, 186\n\n  -- High Commission, 162, 186-7, 237, 313;\n       abolition of, 188, 213, 214\n\n  -- Requests, 139, 308\n\n  -- Star Chamber, 139, 174, 308, 311, 312, 319;\n       abolition of, 213\n\n  Courts, jurisdiction of, with regard to usury, 37-9, 50-4, 160-2;\n    ecclesiastical, 50-4, 160-2, 186-8, 213, 214, 300, 301; royal, encroachments\n    of, on feudal system, 57-8, 87. See also the several Courts above-mentioned\n\n  Coventry, 37, 309\n\n  Craftsmen, deceits practiced by, 24, 126, 298;\n    relations between merchants and, 26, 136, 137, 173-4, 236, 320; labor of,\n    honorable, 92, 240. See also _Gilds_ and _Wage-earners_\n\n  Cranmer, 83, 160\n\n  Cromwell, Oliver, 199, 219, 227 (quoted), 249, 258, 317\n\n  Crowley, Robert, 82, 141, 144, 146 (quoted), 148 (quoted)\n\n  Cunningham, William, 212, 213 (quoted)\n\n  _Curia_, papal, 47-8\n\n  Currency, depreciation of, 77, 78, 137, 177\n\n\n  Dantzig, 100\n\n  Debtor, defaulting, punishment of, 127\n\n  Dedham, _classis_ of, 217-8\n\n  Defoe, 205, 252, 315, 324, 325\n\n  Depopulation. See _Commissions_ and _Enclosures_\n\n  D\u2019Ewes, 217\n\n  Dicey, Prof., 254\n\n  Diet, Imperial, 88\n\n  Diggers, 256, 317\n\n  Discipline, versus the Religion of Trade, 211-27.\n    See also _Calvinism_, _Presbyterianism_, _Puritanism_\n\n  Discoveries, 67, 69, 73, 86, 87, 135, 316\n\n  _Dives et Pauper_, 9, 216, 261, 323\n\n  Downing, Sir George, 252\n\n  Duns Scotus, 33\n\n  Dutch, virtues of, 211, 252, 269;\n    capital supplied to England by, 249, 252, 322; imitation of methods of, 252.\n    See also _Holland_\n\n\n  East Anglia, 174;\n    Puritanism in, 202, 203\n\n  -- India Co., 320\n\n  Eck, 81\n\n  Economic science, development of, 7-10, 80, 158, 180, 185, 189, 204,\n          249-50.\n    See also _Economists_\n\n  Economists, 249;\n    attitude of, towards religious tolerance, 10, 204-5, 206-7; attitude of,\n    towards poor relief, 267-72, 323-4. See also _Economic Science_\n\n  Edict of Nantes, revocation of, 205\n\n  Education, diffusion of, 141, 142, 143;\n    parochial, 154. See also _Schools_\n\n  Enclosures, 137-50;\n    popular agitations against, 137-8, 140, 143-5, 256-7, 323; first account of,\n    138; steps taken by Government to check, 138, 145, 147, 172-3, 178, 236,\n            255, 309, 311, 312;\n    attitude of Puritans to, 217, 224, 236, 255-60. See also under _Gentry_\n\n  England, comparison of, with the Continent, 8, 16, 54, 70, 135, 231\n\n  Engrossers, 36, 38, 40, 55, 119, 122, 123, 164, 168, 174, 191, 236,\n          239, 244, 311, 312\n\n  Erasmus, 72, 76\n\n  Erastians, 214\n\n  Essex, 162, 203\n\n  Evangelicals, 193, 254\n\n  Exchanger, Royal, 237\n\n  Exchanges, foreign, discussions on, 43, 158, 177, 316;\n    control of, 74, 168, 236, 237, 311, 319; lawfulness of transactions on, 80-1\n\n  Exchequer, stop of, 224\n\n  Exclusion Bill, 203\n\n  Excommunication, 29, 45, 46, 47, 52, 117, 121, 142, 161, 214, 299;\n    disregarding of, 159, 187\n\n  Exeter, 204;\n    bishop of, 169\n\n\n  Fairs, 45\n\n  Fenton, Roger, quoted, 106, 157, 305\n\n  Ferrar, Nicholas, 263\n\n  Feudalism, 22, 57-9, 231;\n    decline of, 57-8, 147, 149, 174. See also _Peasants_\n\n  Figgis, Dr., 6\n\n  Financiers, medieval attitude to, 23, 33, 104-5;\n    international, rise of, 72, 75-6, 78-9; Catholicism of, 84; attitude of\n    Swiss reformers to, 104, 108. See also _Usury_\n\n  Firmin, 272\n\n  Flanders. See _Low Countries_\n\n  Flavell, John, 321\n\n  Fletcher of Saltoun, 265\n\n  Florence, 16, 37, 50, 292, 295, 316\n\n  Foley, Thomas, 253\n\n  Fondaco Tedesco, 68\n\n  Food supplies, control of, 173-4, 235, 236, 262.\n    See also _Corn_\n\n  Fox, 199, 200\n\n  Foxe, 160\n\n  France, 54, 77, 236, 250, 268, 281, 293, 302, 315;\n    peasantry in, 58, 59, 136, 151; Calvinism in, 125-6, 203, 238. See also\n    _Lyons_ and _Paris_\n\n  Franciscans, 18, 54;\n    Spiritual, 57\n\n  Franeker, University of, 216\n\n  Frankfurt, 26, 75, 85, 110\n\n  Franklin, Benjamin, 238, 320\n\n  Free Cities, 56\n\n  Freeholders, 202, 203, 258\n\n  Freiburg, 86\n\n  Friars, 18\n\n  Friends. See _Quakers_\n\n  Friesland, West, 238\n\n  Froissart, 18\n\n  Froude, 5\n\n  Fruiterers, of London, 55\n\n  Fuggers, the, 79, 81, 82, 87, 88, 90, 191, 303\n\n\n  Gay, Prof., 146\n\n  Geiler von Kaiserberg, 88, 304\n\n  Geneva, 103, 104, 113, 115-25, 215, 226, 227, 234, 235, 306\n\n  Genoa, 48\n\n  Gentry, opposition of, to prevention of enclosures, 145, 147, 178,\n          235, 237, 255-7, 258, 309;\n    attitude of, to commercial classes, 207-10\n\n  George, Lloyd, quoted, 4, 291\n\n  Germany, 54, 68, 77, 250; schemes of social reconstruction in, 27, 88, 302;\n    peasantry in, 58, 59, 81, 82, 86-7, 88, 91, 93, 136, 139, 151, 302; trade\n    and banking business of, 69, 70, 74, 75, 78-9, 86-8, 89-90,\n            316;\n    Reformation in, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85-102, 110, 141; wage-earning class in, in\n    Middle Ages, 86, 292\n\n  Gilds, membership of, 26;\n    policy and ideals of, 26-8; enforcement of rules of, 52, 300; loans by, 54,\n    301; capture of, by capitalist members, 69, 86, 136; control of, at Antwerp,\n    75; malpractices of, 137, 293; confiscation of lands of, 139, 309\n\n  Glasgow, 238\n\n  Gloucester, 204\n\n  Godfrey, Michael, 252\n\n  Goldsmiths, 249\n\n  Granaries, public, 236, 319\n\n  Gratian, 32, 35\n\n  Gregory VII, 19\n\n  Gresham, Sir Richard, 140\n\n  --, Sir Thomas, 9, 143, 178, 179\n\n  Grindal, Archbishop, 160\n\n  Grosst\u00eate, Bishop, 29, 293\n\n\n  Hague, The, 252\n\n  Hale, Sir Matthew, 263\n\n  Hales, John, 145\n\n  Halifax, 204\n\n  Hamilton, John. See _St. Andrews, Archbishop of_\n\n  Hammond, Mr. and Mrs., 18\n\n  Hanse League, 68, 73\n\n  Harrington, 176\n\n  Harris, Walter, 270\n\n  Harrison, 270\n\n  Hartlib, Samuel, 264\n\n  Hatfield Chase, 174\n\n  Haugs, the, 79\n\n  Heming, Nicholas, 156, 158 (quoted)\n\n  Henry of Ghent, quoted, 34\n\n  -- of Langenstein, quoted, 36, 42\n\n  Herberts, the, 140, 146\n\n  Hinde, 312\n\n  Hipler, 88, 304\n\n  Hobbes, 18\n\n  Hochstetters, the, 79, 88, 303\n\n  Holland, 8;\n    wars and commercial rivalry of England with, 7, 249, 252, 268, 321;\n    religious developments in, 10, 211, 227; economic progress of, 10, 204, 211,\n    216, 231, 316; controversy in, about usury, 126, 238; middle classes in,\n    208, 211; emigration of Dissenters to, 314. See also _Dutch_ and _Low\n    Countries_\n\n  Holland, Lord, 237\n\n  Hooker, Richard, 166, 170, 234\n\n  Hospitals, 144, 263;\n    loans by, 54, 301\n\n  Hostiensis, 158, 304\n\n  Houblon, James and John, 252\n\n  House of Commons, 143, 178, 179, 187, 264\n\n  -- of Convocation, 160\n\n  Huguenots, 252\n\n  Humanists, 79, 110, 114, 262\n\n  Hungary, 75, 79\n\n  Hutten, 88, 304\n\n\n  Imhofs, the, 79\n\n  Independents, 112, 212, 214, 219, 252\n\n  Indians, American, 130, 185\n\n  Indifferentism, 17, 18, 19, 188, 280\n\n  Individualism, rise of, 10, 13, 22, 65, 74, 81, 141, 163, 166, 172,\n          175-93, 227, 235, 250, 253, 254, 262, 316-7;\n    deduction of, from teaching of reformers, 82-4, 90, 112-3, 226-7. See also\n    under _Puritanism_\n\n  Industrial Revolution, 18, 193\n\n  Innocent IV, 29, 44, 293\n\n  _Interesse_, 42, 43, 95\n\n  Interest, rate of, 120, 124, 128, 153, 162, 180, 322;\n    \u201cpure,\u201d 42; true and unfeigned, not usury, 304. See also _Interesse_ and\n    _Usury_\n\n  Ireland, 231, 270, 324;\n    Church of, 161\n\n  Ireton, 258\n\n  Iron industry, 202, 220, 252-3, 325\n\n  Italy, 9, 54, 72;\n    medieval capitalism in, 26, 84, 86, 316; wage-earners in, 26, 38, 292;\n    financiers of, 29, 45, 73, 136; canonists of, 54; economic position of, 67,\n    69, 70, 231. See also _Florence_ and _Venice_\n\n\n  _Jacquerie_, 58\n\n  Jewel, Bishop, 82, 156\n\n  Jews, 37, 249\n\n  John XXII, bull of, 57\n\n  John of Salisbury, quoted, 22, 24, 292\n\n  Joint-stock enterprise, outburst of, 176\n\n  Jones, Rev. David, 246\n\n  Journeymen. See _Wage-earners_\n\n  Justices in Eyre, 51\n\n  -- of Assize, 173\n\n  -- of the Peace, usurers dealt with by, 164, 168;\n       regulation of markets and of wages by, 173; closing of public-houses by,\n       218; administration of poor laws by, 236, 263; administration of orders\n       against enclosures by, 173, 255\n\n\n  Keane, Robert, 128-31\n\n  Ket, 144, 302\n\n  Keynes, J. M., 251, 286\n\n  Kidderminster, 207, 220\n\n  King\u2019s Lynn, 301, 309\n\n  Knewstub, 215, 318\n\n  Knox, John, 10, 19, 115, 118 (quoted), 127, 213\n\n\n  Lancashire, Puritanism in, 203, 204, 214, 322.\n    See also _Bury_\n\n  Land, 9, 137-50;\n    purchase of, by _nouveaux riches_, and speculation in, 87, 139-41,\n            143-4, 176, 208, 257;\n    mortgaging of, 103, 168. See also _Enclosures_, _Landlords_, _Pasture\n    farming_, _Property_,\n          _Rent-charge_, _Rents_\n\n  Landlords, oppressions of, 50, 140, 155, 164, 167, 172, 223, 236, 238,\n           298;\n    ecclesiastical, management of estates by, 58-9, 139, 144. See also\n    _Peasants_ and _Rents_\n\n  Lanfranc, 18\n\n  Langland, 18, 261\n\n  Lateran Councils, 46, 54\n\n  Latimer, 10, 19, 82, 141, 145, 255, 256, 262, 275, 287\n\n  Laud, 10, 19, 113, 133, 170-5, 188, 205, 210, 213, 236, 237, 255, 311\n\n  Laurentius de Rudolfis, 9, 291\n\n  Law, canon, 9, 165;\n    rules of, as to usury, 10, 36-55, 94, 95; serfdom recognized by, 58;\n    discredit of, 62, 65, 143, 159, 187; continued appeal to, 81, 85, 152-63,\n    305-6; compatibility of exchange business with, 80. See also _Canonists_\n\n  --, civil, 159-60\n\n  --, common, 159, 161, 186\n\n  --, natural, 39, 62, 179-80, 192, 259, 278\n\n  Law, John, 253\n\n  --, William, 190\n\n  Layton, Dr., 159\n\n  Leach, A. F., 143\n\n  Leadam, 146\n\n  Lease-mongers, 144\n\n  Lee, Joseph, quoted, 259\n\n  Leeds, 204\n\n  Leicester, 204, 256, 258\n\n  Leonard, Miss, 173\n\n  Levellers, 19, 212, 255, 317\n\n  Lever, 82, 141, 144, 156\n\n  Linen industry, 142\n\n  Lisbon, 79, 86, 87\n\n  Loans, charitable, 54, 154, 164, 263, 301;\n    public, indemnification of subscribers to, 179. See also _Interest_ and\n    _Usury_\n\n  Locke, 7 (quoted), 179, 189, 250, 258\n\n  Lollards, 50\n\n  Lombard bankers, 29, 51\n\n  London, 26, 51, 52, 55, 140, 263;\n    growth of money-market in, 75, 136, 177; Nonconformity in, 104, 203, 204,\n    214, 243, 252; fire of, 204, 221; bishop of, 29, 53, 162, 294\n\n  Lotteries, 126, 306\n\n  Low Countries, 70, 71, 72-3, 77, 231;\n    early capitalism in, 16, 25, 84, 292, 316; wage-earners in, 25-6, 38, 292;\n    _Monts de Pi\u00e9t\u00e9_ in, 54, 301; religious tolerance in, 206. See also\n    _Antwerp_ and _Holland_\n\n  Luchaire, A., 30\n\n  Luther, 10, 19, 36, 79-102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 116, 241, 265, 298\n\n  Lyndwood, 54\n\n  Lyons, 75, 77, 120;\n    Poor Men of, 18; Council of, 46\n\n\n  Machiavelli, 7, 80, 184, 316\n\n  Maidstone, 205\n\n  Maitland, 159\n\n  Major, 107\n\n  Malynes, G., 177\n\n  Mandeville, 190 (quoted), 313\n\n  Manning, B. L., 19\n\n  Marx, Karl, 36, 112, 269\n\n  Massachusetts, 127-31, 238\n\n  Melanchthon, 81, 92, 107, 158\n\n  Mendicant orders, 92, 240\n\n  Mercantilism, 31, 80, 237, 251\n\n  Merchant Adventurers, 68, 73\n\n  Merchants. See _Traders_\n\n  Merchet, 147\n\n  Meutings, the, 79, 303\n\n  Middle classes, rise of, 8, 86, 87, 94, 111, 176, 177, 208, 234, 268,\n            269;\n    Calvinism and Puritanism among, 111, 113, 187, 202-10, 211-2, 231,\n            266, 317;\n    qualities of, 111, 208, 211, 230-1; humbler, attitude of, to rising\n    commercialism, 163-4; economic position of, 207-8, 244, 315\n\n  Middlemen. See _Traders_\n\n  Mill, James, 243\n\n  Milton, 199, 231\n\n  Mines, of New World, 68;\n    of Europe, 68, 75, 79; capitalism in working of, 70, 176\n\n  Monarchy, paternal, 211, 232, 235, 236-8, 253, 319.\n    See also _Charles I_ and _Tudors_\n\n  Monasteries, loans by, 54, 301;\n    relief of beggars by, 92, 114, 266; dissolution of, 138-41, 144, 308, 309\n\n  Moneylenders. See _Interest_, _Loans_ (_public_), _Usury_\n\n  Money-market. See _Exchanges_, _Financiers_, and under _London_\n\n  Monopolies. See _Patents_\n\n  Monopolists, denunciations of, 38, 81, 88, 93, 96, 119, 221\n\n  Montagu, 253\n\n  Montesquieu, 208\n\n  _Monts de Pi\u00e9t\u00e9_, 43, 54, 301, 320\n\n  Moore, John, 257, 259\n\n  More, Sir Thomas, 73, 138, 139\n\n  Mosse, Miles, 156, 158, 160 (quoted)\n\n  Mullins, Archdeacon, 310\n\n\n  Nationalism, 68, 77\n\n  Netherlands. See _Low Countries_\n\n  New England, Calvinism in, 127-32, 227, 238\n\n  New Model Army, 219\n\n  Nicholas III, 29\n\n  Nonconformists. See _Churches (Nonconformist)_, _Independents_,\n          _Presbyterianism_, _Puritanism_, _Quakers_, _Tolerance_\n\n  Norfolk, 168, 203\n\n  North, Sir Dudley, quoted, 250\n\n  Notre-Dame, Cathedral of, 30, 294\n\n  N\u00fcrnberg, 85, 110\n\n\n  O\u2019Brien, G., 43 (cited)\n\n  \u0152colampadius, 82, 106, 114\n\n  Oresme, Nicholas, 9, 291\n\n  Owen, Robert, 272\n\n  Oziander, 83\n\n\n  Paget, 145\n\n  Paley, 287\n\n  Pallavicino, 178\n\n  Papacy, avarice and corruption of, 29, 85, 89-90, 92, 110, 111;\n    financial relations of, 29, 30, 44, 296-7\n\n  Papillon, Thomas, 252\n\n  Papists, unaptness of, for business, 206;\n    charity of, 233, 265, 320\n\n  Paris, 26, 75, 80, 120, 125, 293;\n    bishop of, 30, 294\n\n  Parish, loans by, 54, 154, 301;\n    organization of, 154-5, 312\n\n  Parker, Bishop, 204\n\n  Parliament, Levellers\u2019 demands for reform of, 255\n\n  Parliament, Barebones, 219, 247\n\n  --, Long, 175, 187, 237, 255, 257\n\n  \u201cParliaments,\u201d of wage-earners, 26, 292\n\n  Partnership, profits of, lawful, 42, 295;\n    fictitious, 48, 297\n\n  Pasture farming, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 145, 173, 178.\n    See also _Enclosures_\n\n  Patents, 236, 237, 319\n\n  Paterson, William, 253\n\n  Pawnshops, public, 164\n\n  Peasants, associations among, 27;\n    harshness of lot of, 57-8; revolts of, 58, 59, 70, 140, 143-5, 256, 302;\n    revolts of, in Germany, 58, 59, 81, 82, 88, 91, 93, 139, 145, 302;\n    emancipation of, from serfdom, 58, 59, 69, 87, 136, 147; comparison of, with\n    peasantry of France and Germany, 59, 86-7, 136,\n            151;\n    calling of, praised, 92. See also _Jacquerie_ and _Landlords_\n\n  Peckham, Archbishop, 29\n\n  Pecock, Bishop, 50, 55, 100, 297-8, 301\n\n  Penn, William, 188\n\n  Pennsylvania, 238\n\n  Pepper, 75\n\n  Pepys, 204\n\n  Petty, Sir William, 206, 250, 251 (quoted)\n\n  Piccarda, 17\n\n  Pilgrimage of Grace, 141\n\n  Pirenne, Prof., 74, 292\n\n  Political Arithmetic, 10, 185, 189, 204, 250.\n    See also _Economic Science_\n\n  Pollexfen, Sir Henry, 269\n\n  Ponet, 82, 141\n\n  Poor, relief of, 82, 92, 114, 141, 144, 155, 161, 193, 239;\n    investment of money for benefit of, 126, 182, 306; legislation _re_ relief\n    of, 127, 262, 264-6, 271, 323, 324; administration of laws for relief of,\n    168, 173-4, 236, 263; right of, to relief, 264-5, 271; relief to, to be\n    deterrent, 271, 324; able-bodied, employment of, 168, 262, 264, 265, 271,\n    323-4. See also _Almsgiving_, _Poverty_, _Vagrancy_\n\n  -- Law Commissioners, 271, 324\n\n  -- Men of Lyons, 18\n\n  Portugal, 67, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 84\n\n  Poverty, attitude of Swiss reformers to, 105, 114-5, 132;\n    attitude to, in eighteenth century, 189-90; attitude of Puritans to, 231,\n    233, 253-5, 260-73; medieval attitude to, 260-1, 323; attitude of Quakers\n    to, 272; causes of, 262, 264-5, 265-7, 270, 324. See also _Poor_\n\n  Predestination, 108, 112\n\n  Presbyterianism, 198, 213-5, 217-8, 234, 317, 318.\n    See also _Puritanism_\n\n  Presbyterians, 203, 207, 252;\n    struggle between Independents and, 112, 212, 214\n\n  Prices, rise in, 9, 70, 75, 81, 137, 147, 177, 180;\n    just, doctrine with\n  regard to, 17, 36, 41, 81, 94-5, 153, 156, 216-7, 222, 225, 244, 268,\n            293, 295, 318, 325;\n    control of, 41, 117, 119, 122, 123, 128-30, 142, 143, 168, 173, 174,\n            262, 320;\n    opposition to control of, 179, 235, 315. See also _Bargaining_\n\n  Privy Council, activities of, 166-9, 173-4, 236-8, 263, 320\n\n  Production, 248, 249, 251\n\n  Profits, medieval doctrine as to, 32, 34-6, 42, 104;\n    attempted limitation of, in New England, 127-31. See also _Traders_\n\n  Property, theories with regard to, 32, 102, 146-50, 189, 258, 261, 262\n\n  Prophesyings, 201\n\n  Public-houses, closing of, 218\n\n  Puritanism, 195-273;\n    quarrel between monarchy and, 6, 212, 232, 235-8, 318-9; medieval, 18;\n    discipline of, 113, 127-31, 187, 213-9, 234-5, 317; theology of, 113,\n    227-30; connection of individualism with, 113, 127, 212, 213, 219, 227,\n            229-39, 253, 254, 266, 271, 272, 316;\n    divergent elements in, 198, 212-3, 316; sanctification of business life by,\n    199, 201, 230, 233, 239-54, 272; geographical distribution of, 202-4;\n    connection of, with capitalism, 212, 316-7. See also _Calvinism_, _Middle\n    classes_, _New England_, _Poverty_,\n            _Presbyterianism_, _Usury_\n\n\n  Quakers, 19, 272, 325\n\n  Quarter Sessions. See _Justices of the Peace_\n\n  Quicksilver, 79\n\n\n  Rabelais, 77\n\n  Rationalism, medieval, 18\n\n  Reformation, relation of, to changes in social theory, 14-5, 19-20,\n          65-6, 81, 82-5, 89-93, 141, 154, 155-60\n\n  Regensburg, 85, 225\n\n  Religion, sphere of, all-embracing, 5, 8-10, 14, 18, 19-36, 60-2, 80,\n          82-5, 90-1, 97-8, 99, 148, 150-75, 182-3, 221, 224-6, 278, 279, 281-2,\n          285 (see also under _Traders_);\n    economic and social activities excluded from province of, 5, 6-13,\n          17, 91, 96-101, 175, 177-93, 221, 226, 238, 254-5, 277, 278-87;\n    wars of, 6-7, 119. See also _Asceticism_, _Calvinism_, _Indifferentism_,\n          _Presbyterianism_, _Puritanism_, _Reformation_, _Tolerance_\n\n  Rent-charge, considered lawful, 42, 43, 95, 182, 216, 217, 295\n\n  Rents, control of, at Geneva, 117;\n    raising of, 119, 140, 146, 153; Baxter\u2019s teaching as to, 224\n\n  Rhode Island, 238\n\n  Riches, medieval attitude to, 32, 34-5, 55, 285, 301-2;\n    attitude of Calvinists and Puritans to, 105, 132, 230, 239, 267; modern\n    attitude to, 282-7. See also _Financiers_ and _Traders_\n\n  Ridley, Thomas, quoted, 186\n\n  Ripon, 53\n\n  Rome, corruption and avarice at, 28-30, 85, 90, 92, 110\n\n  Root and Branch Petition, 314\n\n  Rotenburg, 86\n\n  Rouen, 75\n\n  Rousseau, 293\n\n  Royal African Co., 249, 322\n\n\n  St. Ambrose, 260\n\n  St. Andrews, 127;\n    archbishop of, 50\n\n  St. Antonino, 9, 17, 32, 40-1, 88, 225, 291, 294, 295\n\n  St. Augustine, 48\n\n  St. Bernard, 30\n\n  St. Francis, 18, 57\n\n  St. Johns, the, 140, 308\n\n  St. L\u00e9on, Martin, 28 (quoted), 292, 293\n\n  St. Raymond, 48, 153\n\n  St. Thomas, 17, 20 (quoted), 31, 33, 35 (quoted), 36, 39 (quoted), 40,\n          58, 152, 200, 225, 260, 304\n\n  Salerno, archbishop of, 48\n\n  Salisbury, bishop of, 156;\n    mayor of, 218\n\n  Sanderson, Bishop, 188\n\n  Sandwich, 205\n\n  Sandys, Bishop, 82, 156\n\n  Say, J. B., 1\n\n  Saye and Sele, Lord, 174, 312\n\n  Schoolmen, 9, 16, 19, 30-6, 40-1, 80, 82, 148, 152, 155, 158, 183,\n          225.\n    See also _St. Antonino_ and _St. Thomas_\n\n  Schools, confiscation of endowments of, 143, 309;\n    establishment\n  of, by Church, 193.\n    See also _Education_\n\n  Schulze-Gaevernitz, 212\n\n  Scotland, 113, 126-7, 227;\n    Commissioners from, 214\n\n  Scriveners, 176\n\n  Self-interest, of individual, harmony of needs of society with, 13,\n          24, 179-80, 191, 192, 246, 259-60, 277.\n    See also _Individualism_\n\n  Senior, Nassau, 271, 324\n\n  Serfdom, 57-9;\n    attitude of Church to, 22, 58-9, 302. See also _Peasants_\n\n  Serfs, runaway, 139, 147, 308.\n    See also _Peasants_\n\n  Seville, 75, 135\n\n  Shaftesbury, Earl of, 249\n\n  Shaw, W. A., 215\n\n  Sheep-grazing. See _Pasture farming_\n\n  Sheldon, Dr. Gilbert, 311\n\n  Sidney, Sir Philip, 140\n\n  Sigismund, Emperor, Reformation of, 27, 88, 293\n\n  Silver, of America, 68, 74, 135;\n    of Europe, 79\n\n  Sion, monastery of, 140\n\n  Slave-trade, 185\n\n  Smiles, Samuel, 253\n\n  Smith, Adam, 35, 192, 253, 293\n\n  --, Rev. Henry, 215, 318\n\n  --, Sir Thomas, 160\n\n  Smiths, of London, 52, 292, 300\n\n  Soap, monopoly of, 237, 319\n\n  Social Democratic movement, 219\n\n  Society, functional theory of, 13, 22-5, 93, 97, 149, 169-70, 171,\n          172, 189, 191, 254;\n    modern conception of, 12-3, 22, 189, 191\n\n  Somerset, Duke of, 116, 147, 309\n\n  South Sea Bubble, 191\n\n  Spain, 70, 71, 72, 77, 79, 84;\n    dealers of, on Antwerp Bourse, 80\n\n  Speculation. See _Engrossers_\n\n  Speenhamland, 264\n\n  Spices, trade in, 74, 75, 79, 86\n\n  Spinola, 178\n\n  Spurriers, of London, 52, 300\n\n  Starkey, 22, 138, 292\n\n  State, relation between Church and, 6-10, 18-9, 20, 70, 91, 101-2,\n          124, 159, 165-6, 170-1, 172, 175, 278-9;\n    Locke\u2019s conception of, 7 (quoted), 179, 189; unitary, sovereignty of, 278,\n    293; Distributive, 92, 151\n\n  Steele, Richard, 240, 243 (quoted), 243-5, 251, 266\n\n  Step-lords, 146\n\n  Stockwood, Rev. J., quoted, 266\n\n  Strafford, Earl of, 210, 213, 236\n\n  Strassburg, 75\n\n  Stubbes, Philip, 216\n\n  _Summ\u00e6_, 16, 19, 30, 220.\n    See also _Schoolmen_\n\n  Swift, Dean, 207\n\n  Switzerland, Reformation in, 102-25, 141, 265;\n    _bourgeoisie_ in, 111, 122, 208\n\n  Synods, French, 125-6\n\n\n  Taunton, 204\n\n  Taylor, Jeremy, 160 (quoted), 188\n\n  Temple, Sir William, 206\n\n  Tenures, military, abolition of, 257\n\n  Textile workers, of Flanders and Italy, 26, 292;\n    of Paris, 293. For England see under _Cloth industry_\n\n  Tobacco, 127\n\n  Tolerance, religious, 113, 118, 175, 219;\n    commercially advantageous, 10, 197, 205-7\n\n  Tories, distrust of commercial classes by, 207\n\n  Torrens, R., 3\n\n  Townsend, Rev. J., 313\n\n  Trade, flourishing of, under religious tolerance, 10, 197, 205-7;\n    free exercise of, 179; foreign, increase in, 136, 176; balance of, 247, 250\n\n  Trade unionism, 26, 293\n\n  Traders, medieval attitude to, 17-8, 23, 32, 33-6, 37, 104;\n    relations between craftsmen and, 26, 136, 137, 173, 236, 320; sanctification\n    of occupation of, 34, 104-5, 108, 109, 110, 111, 115,\n            199, 201, 230, 234, 239-53, 254, 273;\n    frauds and extortion of, 50, 105, 119, 126, 142, 153, 155-6, 298-9,\n            307;\n    Luther\u2019s attitude to, 92; growth of power of, 136, 137; purchase of land by,\n    140, 208; breakdown of State control of, 179, 236. See also _Bargaining_,\n    _Prices_, _Profits_\n\n  Travers, W., 213\n\n  Troeltsch, Prof., 91, 212, 316\n\n  Tucker, Dean, 11, 192, 197 (quoted), 314\n\n  Tudors, social policy of, 164-70, 235, 262-3, 266, 270\n\n  Turgot, 293\n\n  Turks, 68, 69\n\n  Tyndale, 308, 323\n\n  Tyrol, 68, 75, 79\n\n\n  Udall, J., 213\n\n  Ulm, 85\n\n  Unwin, Prof., 173\n\n  Usher, R. G., 202\n\n  Usury, controversy on, 9, 81, 82, 151-64, 178, 180-3;\n    teaching of medieval Church on, 17, 36-9, 42-55; practicing of, on a large\n    scale, in Middle Ages, 29, 44-5, 176; restitution of profits of, 30, 46, 47,\n    49; enforcement of prohibition of, 37, 45-53, 100, 119, 121, 123, 127,\n            160-2, 164, 169, 187, 237, 238, 297, 298, 310;\n    prevalence of, 39, 151-2; popular denunciations of, 39, 81, 138, 144, 152;\n    annuities, compensation for loss, profits of partnership and\n            rent-charges not regarded as, 42, 43, 95, 182, 216-7, 295;\n    ecclesiastical legislation as to, 46, 52, 55; devices for concealment of,\n    47, 48, 53, 297; secular legislation as to, 52, 153, 159, 180, 187; attitude\n    of reformers to, in Germany, 81, 83, 94, 95, 100; in Switzerland, 81, 83,\n    103-4, 105-8, 117, 119-24, 181, 215, 216; in France, 126, 306; meaning of\n    term, 152-3, 160-1, 183; disappears from episcopal charges, 191; Puritan\n    attitude to, 209, 213, 215-7, 218, 223, 225, 232-3, 239,\n            246, 252, 269, 318, 319, 320.\n    See also _Clergy_, _Interest_, _Loans_\n\n  Utilitarianism, 243, 271\n\n  Utrecht, University of, 238\n\n\n  Vagrancy, measures for suppression of, 92, 168, 217, 262, 263, 265,\n          269-70, 271;\n    increase of, 263, 265. See also _Almsgiving_ and _Poor_\n\n  Value, theories of, 36, 40\n\n  Venezuela, 79\n\n  Venice, 68, 70, 73, 75, 87, 120, 316\n\n  Vienne, Council of, 46\n\n  Villeinage. See _Serfdom_\n\n  Virtues, economic, applauding of, by Calvinists and Puritans, 105,\n          110, 111, 114-5, 227-54, 271-2, 273\n\n  Vitry, Jacques de, 302\n\n  Vives, 114, 262\n\n  Voltaire, 208\n\n\n  Wadsworth, A. P., 322\n\n  Wage-earners, small number of, 26, 38, 137, 151, 207, 268, 292;\n    organizations of, 26; attitude of economists to, 268-70. See also _Wages_\n\n  Wages, withholding of, 50, 223, 298;\n    regulation of, 128, 173, 174, 235, 236, 293, 320; payment of, in truck, 153,\n    174, 236; economists\u2019 views on the subject of, 268-70, 271. See also\n    _Wage-earners_\n\n  Wallas, Graham, 12\n\n  Wamba, 90\n\n  Warburton, 192\n\n  Ward, Sir Patience, 252\n\n  Warwick, Earl of, 145\n\n  Warwickshire, 138, 323\n\n  Washerne, 140\n\n  Wealth. See _Production_ and _Riches_\n\n  Weber, Max, 212, 316-7, 319, 321\n\n  Welsers, the, 78-9, 88, 303\n\n  Wentworth, 174\n\n  Wesley, 190\n\n  Westminster Assembly, 10, 214, 218\n\n  Whalley, ecclesiastical court of, 53\n\n  Whalley, Major-General, 259, 323\n\n  Whigs, 203, 252\n\n  Whitby, Abbey, 140\n\n  _Whole Duty of Man, The_, 191\n\n  Widows and orphans, usury for benefit of, 182, 233\n\n  Wilcox, Thomas, 161\n\n  Williams, Roger, 128\n\n  Wilson, Thomas, 156, 157, 160, 179, 234, 319\n\n  Wiltshire, 218, 237\n\n  Winstanley, Gerrard, 113 (quoted), 256\n\n  Witt, John de, 206\n\n  Wolsey, 138, 147\n\n  Wood, H. G., 318\n\n  Woodrow, Rev. Robert, quoted, 238\n\n  Woollen industry. See _Cloth industry_\n\n  Worcester, Priory of, 42\n\n  Workhouses, 265, 270, 271, 324\n\n  Works, good, 98, 109, 111, 239, 242, 266, 320\n\n  Wyclif, 18, 25 (quoted), 27, 39 (quoted), 40, 293\n\n\n  Yarranton, A., 253\n\n  Yeomanry, 58, 202\n\n  York, Province of, 161, 169\n\n  Yorke, Sir John, 140\n\n  Yorkshire, 141, 162, 204\n\n  Young, Arthur, 270\n\n  Younge, R., quoted, 267\n\n\n  Z\u00fcrich, 103, 114, 117\n\n  Zwingli, 82, 103, 114-5, 117\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note\n\nInconsistent hyphenation has been standardized throughout, except in\nquotations and publication titles. Minor printing errors have been\ncorrected. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 has been changed to \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. In this text\nversion italics are indicated by an underscore.","title":"Religion and the rise of capitalism : $b A historical study","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110819}