CALVIN'S LETTER ON USURY.
A mere hint of encouragement to the usurer came from Calvin. In a
letter, to a friend, he hesitatingly expressed opinions that have ever
since been quoted in defense of the practice. He alone of all the
reformers took a doubtful stand. He has often been referred to and
given great credit for his opinion, even by those who utterly reject
all the doctrines he most earnestly advocated. The fear that he
expressed near the opening, that some word might be seized to take
more license than he would allow had reason, for this letter has been
the basis for all the apologies for usury that have ever been
attempted. In these last days all who have tried to present fully the
moral law as comprehended in the ten commandments have felt called
upon to make some apology for the prevailing practice of usury in
connection with the eighth command. They all refer to this letter.
Sometimes there is a brief quotation, given in Latin and left
untranslated, to convince the ignorant, for Calvin wrote in Latin.
Letter of Calvin: _De Usuris Responsum_.
"I have not yet essayed what could fitly be answered to the question
put to me; but I have learned by the example of others with how great
danger this matter is attended. For if all usury is condemned tighter
fetters are imposed on the conscience than the Lord himself would
wish. Or if you yield in the least, with that pretext, very many will
at once seize upon unlicensed freedom, which can then be restrained by
no moderation or restriction. Were I writing to you alone I would fear
this the less; for I know your good sense and moderation, but as you
ask counsel in the name of another, I fear, lest he may allow himself
far more than I wish by seizing upon some word, yet confident that you
will look closely into his character and from the matter that is here
treated judge what is expedient, and to what extent, I shall open my
thoughts to you.
"And first, I am certain that by no testimony of Scripture is usury
wholly condemned. For the sense of that saying of Christ, 'Lend,
hoping for nothing again' (Luke 6:35), has up to this time been
perverted; the same as another passage when speaking of splendid
feasts and the desire of the rich to be received in turn, he commands
them rather to summon to these feasts, the blind, the lame, and other
needy men, who lie at the cross-roads and have not the power to make a
like return. Christ wished to restrain men's abuse of lending,
commands them to lend to those from whom there is no hope of receiving
or regaining anything; and his words ought to be interpreted, that
while he would command loans to the poor without expectation of
repayment or the receipt of interest, he did not mean at the same
time to forbid loans to the rich with interest, any more than the
injunction to invite the poor to our feasts did not imply that the
mutual invitation of friends to feasts is in consequence prohibited.
Again the law of Moses was political and should not influence us
beyond what justice and philanthropy will bear.
"It could be wished that all usury and the name itself were first
banished from the earth. But as this cannot be accomplished it should
be seen what can be done for the public good. Certain passages of
Scripture remain in the Prophets and Psalms in which the Holy Spirit
inveighs against usury. Thus a city is described as wicked because
usury is practiced in the forum and streets, but as the Hebrew word
means frauds in general, this cannot be interpreted so strictly. But
if we concede that the prophet there mentions usury by name, it is not
a matter of wonder that among the great evils which existed, he should
attack usury. For wherever gains are farmed out, there are generally
added, as inseparable, cruelty, and numberless other frauds and
deceits.
"On the other hand it is said in praise of a pious and holy man 'that
he putteth not out his money to usury.' Indeed it is very rare for a
man to be honest and yet a usurer.
"Ezekiel goes even further (Ezek. 22:12). Enumerating the crimes which
inflamed the wrath of the Lord against the Jews, he uses two words,
one of which means usury, and is derived from a root meaning to
consume; the other word means increase or addition, doubtless because
one devoted to his private gain takes or rather extorts it from the
loss of his neighbor. It is clear that the prophets spake even more
harshly of usury because it was forbidden by name among the Jews, and
when therefore it was practiced against the express command of God, it
merited even heavier censure.
"But when it is said, that as the cause of our state is the same, the
same prohibition of usury should be retained, I answer that there is
some difference in what pertains to the civil state. Because the
surroundings of the place in which the Lord placed the Jews, as well
as other circumstances, tended to this, that it might be easy for them
to deal among themselves without usury, while our state today is very
different in many respects. Therefore usury is not wholly forbidden
among us unless it be repugnant both to Justice and to Charity.
"It is said, 'Money does not beget money.' What does the sea beget?
What does a house from the letting of which I receive a rent? Is money
born from roofs and walls? But on the other hand both the earth
produces and something is brought from the sea which afterward
produces money, and the convenience of a house can be bought and sold
for money. If therefore more profit can be derived from trading
through the employment of money than from the produce of a farm, the
purpose of which is subsistence, should one who lets some barren farm
to a farmer, receiving in return a price or part of the produce, be
approved, and one who loans money to be used for profit be condemned?
And when one buys a farm for money does not that farm produce other
money yearly? And whence is derived the profit of the merchant? You
will say from his diligence and his industry. Who doubts that idle
money is wholly useless? Who asks a loan of me does not intend to keep
what he receives idle by him. Therefore the profit does not arise from
the money, but from the product that results from its use or
employment. I therefore conclude that usury must be judged, not by a
particular passage of Scripture, but simply by the rules of equity.
This will be made clearer by an example. Let us imagine a rich man
with large possessions in farms and rents, but with little money.
Another man not so rich, nor with such large possessions as the first,
but has more ready money. The latter being about to buy a farm with
his own money, is asked by the wealthier for a loan. He who makes the
loan may stipulate for a rent or interest for his money and further
that the farm may be mortgaged to him until the principal is paid, but
until it is paid, he will be content with the interest or usury on the
loan. Why then shall this contract with a mortgage, but only for the
profit of the money, be condemned, when a much harsher, it may be, of
leasing or renting a farm at large annual rent, is approved?
"And what else is it than to treat God like a child, when we judge of
objects by mere words and not from their nature, as if virtue can be
distinguished from vice by a form of words.
"It is not my intention to fully examine the matter here. I wished
only to show what you should consider more carefully. You should
remember this, that the importance of the question lies not in the
words but in the thing itself."
Those acquainted with Calvin's "Institutes" will not fail to notice
the timid manner in which he treats the subject, as if uncertain of
his ground and endeavoring to excuse usury to please his friend. This
letter is wanting in that positive air of assured certainty that
breathes inspired authority and lends a charm to his "Institutes." He
is nearest himself when he bursts out, "It could be wished that all
usury and the name itself were banished from the earth."
The letter is here given in full because often more force is carried
by the reference to a great name than by the study of his argument. A
careful reading of this letter does not reveal a positive approval of
usury. He merely excuses it by suggesting other evils that he thinks
worse; for instance, that land rentals may be worse than the usury of
money. He does not mention the necessary oppression of the poor
tenants by the loan upon a mortgage.
It is proof of the weakness of the case when this letter is the most
favorable that can be presented from any ecclesiastic.