[41] Puritan Manifestoes, p. 120, quoted by H. G. Wood, The Influence of the Reformation on Ideas concerning Wealth and Property, in Property, its Rights and Duties, 1913, p. 142. Mr. Wood’s essay contains an excellent discussion of the whole subject, and I should like here to acknowledge my obligations to it. For the views of Knewstub, Smith, and Baro, see the quotations from them printed by Haweis, Sketches of the Reformation, 1844, pp. 237-40, 243-6. It should be noted that Baro, while condemning those who, “sitting idle at home, make merchandise only of their money, by giving it out in this sort to needy persons ... without having any regard of his commodity to whome they give it, but only of their own gain,” nevertheless admitted that interest was not always to be condemned. See also Thos. Fuller, History of the University of Cambridge, ed. M. Prickett and T. Wright, 1840, pp. 275-6, 288-9, and Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times, 1921 ed., pt. i, pp. 157-8.
[42] New Shakespeare Society, Series vi, no. 6, 1877-9, Phillip Stubbes’s Anatomy of the Abuses in England, ed. F. J. Furnivall, pp. 115-16.
[43] W. Ames, De Conscientia et eius iure vel casibus libri quinque, bk. v, chaps. xliii, xliv. Ames (1576-1633) was educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, tried to settle at Colchester, but was forbidden to preach by the Bishop of London, went to Leyden about 1610, was appointed to the theological chair at Franeker in 1622, where he remained for ten years, and died at Rotterdam.
[44] E.g., Stubbes, op. cit.; Richard Capel, Temptations, their Nature, Danger, Cure, 1633; John Moore, The Crying Sin of England of not caring for the Poor; wherein Inclosure, viz. such as doth unpeople Townes, and uncorn Fields, is arraigned, convicted and condemned, 1653.
[45] J. O. Halliwell, The Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, 1845, vol. i, pp. 206-10, 322, 354; vol. ii, pp. 96, 153-4.
[46] Usher, op. cit. (see note 34 above), pp. 32, 53, 70, 99-100.
[47] Sept. 26, 1645, it is resolved “that it shall be in the power of the eldership to suspend from the sacrament of the Lord’s supper any person that shall be legally attainted of Barratry, Forgery, Extortion, Perjury, or Bribery” (Commons’ Journals, vol. iv, p. 290).
[48] Chetham Society, Minutes of the Bury Presbyterian Classis, 1647-57, pt. i, pp. 32-3. The Cambridge classis (ibid., pt. ii, pp. 196-7) decided in 1657 that the ordinance of Parliament of August 29, 1648 should be taken as the rule of the classis in the matter of scandal. The various scandals mentioned in the ordinance included extortion, and the classis decided that “no person lawfully convict of any of the foresaid scandalls bee admitted to the Lord’s supper without signification of sincere repentance,” but it appears (p. 198) to have been mainly interested in witches, wizards, and fortune-tellers.
[49] Hist. MSS. Comm., Report on MSS. in various Collections, vol. i, 1901, p. 132.
[50] Quoted by F. J. Powicke, A Life of the Reverend Richard Baxter, 1924, p. 92.