I. That the lending upon usury cannot be in itself a sin, or God (c)
could not have allowed it in any case whatsoever, any more than He
could have allowed theft or lying (d).
II. That the lending to the stranger was not incompatible with the
command, "Love ye the stranger," or else God, in the laws and writings
given by Moses, at one and the same time, stultifies and contradicts
Himself (e).
III. That the laws forbidding usury, like the laws for preserving
estates to their families by the year of Jubilee, and like the laws
which bound Israelitish servants until the "year of release," were
peculiar and exclusive, and concerned only that people living in a
peculiar and exclusive way. Outside that little patch of territory, but
the size of our two largest English counties, the Jews were expressly
told they might lend upon usury; and this at the same time that they
were enjoined to love the stranger, and not to "oppress the stranger
(f)."
Says old 'Cruden's Concordance:'--"It seems as lawful for me to
receive interest for money, which another takes pain with, improves,
but runs the hazard of in trade, as it is to receive rent for my land,
which another takes pain with, improves, but runs the hazard of in
husbandry." What should we think of discovering in the holy books of
some recently found people, a God so eccentric that he allowed you to
invest money in tea, or sugar, or iron, or cotton, and get fifteen or
even twenty per cent. out of it, and this from poor and rich alike,
with whom you traded; but threatened you with his condemnation and
everlasting displeasure if, at the same time, you helped a deserving
man to commence business by lending him money at four per cent.; or
lent money to your country until such time as it could pay its debts,
for a moderate compensation, which would prevent you and yours from
being ruined? (g) Love of self is as lawful as love of neighbour--"Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." My neighbour is as much bound
to give me some portion of the interest or gain he has earned with
my money, as he would be chargeable with selfishness and grasping if
he kept it wholly for himself. Trading much more whets the appetite
for gain than the taking moderate interest for money. Would our Lord
have held up that which was wicked in itself for our imitation, as He
has done in Matt. xxv. 27, if lending upon interest were sinful? (h)
Nothing but this sight of the taking portion of the Bible without the
other, and then summing up and pronouncing judgment upon a portion
of the evidence only, thus arriving at an unsound judgment, would
have led me to trouble you with these lines.
I remain, Sir,
Yours faithfully.
(a), (b), and (c). My correspondent uses "God" and "the margin" as
synonymous terms. May I be allowed to submit to him that they are not
the same, and that my statement involved no reference to either? My
assertion is respecting the Bible; and has no reference either to its
margin, or to God:--and my assertion is simply that "usury," in the
language of the Bible, means any percentage, however small, on lent
money. I have made no assertion myself as to the characters assigned
to it, for I have not examined them. I know that usury is sinful,
as I know that theft is, and have no need of inquiring whether the
Bible says so or not, but Ezekiel 18th is sufficiently explicit.
(d). Why does not my correspondent say "theft, lying, or murder"? The
occupation of the land of Canaan was one colossal theft; the
prophetess-Judge of Israel gave enthusiastic benediction, in one
and the same person, to the firmness of the hand of the murderess,
and fineness of the art of the liar; and the first monarch of Israel
forfeited his throne, because after having faithfully slain the men,
women, children, sucklings, and domestic animals of a hostile tribe,
he faithlessly spared their king, and serviceablest cattle.
(e). The writings commonly assumed to be given by Moses very certainly
contradict themselves in many places. It is my correspondent's
conclusion, not mine, that therefore God does so.
(f). The Jews have accordingly carried out their love to the stranger,
(though I beg my correspondent to observe that stranger is not the
same word as Gentile) by making as much money out of him as they can,
in all places and on all occasions. But it does not follow, either
that they have been blessed in doing so, or that Christians are
therefore justified in treating each other either as strangers or Jews.
(g). A singular instance of the looseness of thought possible
respecting matters to which we are accustomed. A man is not ruined,
because he can get no gain by lending his money. No one objects to
his keeping it in his pocket.
(h). Presumably, the unjust steward's modification of his master's
accounts was also virtuous?
I have not time to ask Mr. Sillar's permission, but hope his pardon
for assuming it, to print the following portion of a letter I have
had very great pleasure in receiving from him:--
"You wrong me in saying I have entirely given myself up to
this question. I am occupied in saving our lovely streams from
pollution, and endeavouring (no easy task, I assure you,) to put
in daily practice, the principles you teach. I wish you could
see our works at Crossness.
"The reason why I exclusively attack this vice is because it is
the only one which is not attacked from the pulpit. Men do not know
even that it is a vice. I have such confidence in the integrity of
Englishmen that I believe they would at once discountenance it if
they had the least idea of its character and mischievous nature."