PER CONTRA; CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS.
Every argument favoring the continuance of the practice of usury can
be met from the propositions established in the preceding chapters.
Indeed, there are no true arguments to be presented in its favor.
Truth is consistent with truth. We are not placed in a dilemma and
compelled to decide which are the strongest of the arguments arrayed
against each other. We are not deciding which is the greater of two
blessings nor which the less of two evils, but this is a question of
evil or good, of sin or righteousness. If usury is wrong then every
argument brought forward to support it is a falsehood, though it may
be covered with a very beautiful and attractive and plausible form in
its presentation.
1. The old Wilson Catechism published in Dundee in 1737 is perhaps the
most familiar defense.
"Q. Is the gaining of money by usury unlawful?
"A. Yes, Prov. 28:8. Psalm 15:5.
"Q. What is usury?
"A. The taking unlawful profit for money that is lent out.
"Q. Is it lawful to take any interest or gain for money lent?
"A. Yes, when it is taken according to the laws of the land, and
from these who make gain by it, by trading or purchasing of
lands; seeing it is equally just for the owner of money to ask a
share of the profit which others make by it, as for the owner
of the land to demand farm from the tenant of it, money being
improvable by art and labor as well as land.
"Q. What is the unlawful profit for money, which may be called
usury?
"A. The taking profit for money from the poor who borrow for
mere necessity, or taking needful things from them in pawn for
it; or the taking more profit for any than law allows, as these
who take ten, fifteen, or twenty in the hundred. Exod. 22:25,
26. Deut. 24:12, 17. Ezek. 18:7, 8.
"Q. But were not the people of Israel discharged to take any
usury or profit for lent money from their brethren? Deut. 23:19.
"A. This law seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state,
and that in regard of their estates being so divided, settled,
and secured to their families by the year jubilee, and their not
being employed in trading or making purchases like other
nations, so that they had no occasion to borrow money but for
the present subsistence of their families. But for strangers,
who had another way of living, the Israelites were allowed to
lend upon usury, and to share with them in their profits, Deut.
23:20, which shows that the taking of interest is not oppressive
in itself; for they are frequently prohibited to oppress a
stranger, and yet allowed to take usury from him. Exod. 22:21,
and 23:9."
The reader will notice that the definition of usury is defective. The
reader will also notice that there are no Scripture references given
to prove that any interest can be taken. This is singular, since
throughout the Catechism Scripture references are profuse in
confirmation of the answers. If a single passage had been found that
could be twisted into an approval the reference would have been given.
He rests the permission to take usury wholly on human reason, though
in direct opposition to the Scripture references he had first given
to prove that the gaining of wealth by usury was unlawful. He does not
claim to get this answer from the Bible. He rests this answer on the
law of the land and the purposes of the borrower, and says it is not
worse than taking a rental for land anyway.
The questions with regard to the customs of the people of Israel are
completely met in the Second and Third Chapters of this book.
Fisher, also, we find from his catechism published in 1753, thought it
necessary to make some excuse for the custom in his time. High
interest he finds condemned, but moderate interest he tries to defend.
"Q. 32. What is it to take usury, according to the proper
signification of the word?
"A. It is to take gain, profit, or interest, for the loan of
money.
"Q. 33. What kind of usury or interest is lawful?
"A. That which is moderate, easy, and no way oppressive. Deut.
23:20, compared with Ex. 22:21.
"Q. 34. How do you prove that moderate usury is lawful?
"A. From the very light of nature, which teaches, that since the
borrower proposes to gain by the loan, the lender should have a
reasonable share of his profit, as a recompense for the use of
his money, which he might otherwise have disposed of to his own
advantage. 1 Cor. 8:13.
"Q. 35. What is the usury condemned in scripture and by what
reason?
"A. It is the exacting of more interest or gain for the loan of
money, than is settled by universal consent, and the laws of the
land. Prov. 28:8. 'He that by usury, and unjust gain,
increaseth his substance, shall gather it for him that will pity
the poor.'
"Q. 36. How do you prove from scripture, that moderate usury, or
common interest, is not oppression in itself?
"A. From the express command laid upon the Israelites not to
oppress a stranger, Ex. 23:9; and yet their being allowed to
take usury from him, Deut. 23:20; which they would not have been
permitted to do, if there had been an intrinsic evil in the
thing itself.
"Q. 37. Is it warrantable to take interest from the poor?
"A. By no means; for, if such as are honest, and in needy
circumstances, borrow a small sum towards a livelihood, and
repay it in due time, it is all that can be expected of them;
and therefore the demanding of any profit or interest, or even
taking any of their necessaries of life in pledge, for the sum,
seems to be plainly contrary to the law of charity. Ex.
22:25-28. Ps. 15:5.
"Q. 38. Were not the Israelites forbidden to take usury from
their brethren, whether poor or rich? Deut. 23:19: 'Thou shalt
not lend upon usury to thy brother.'
"A. This text is to be restricted to their poor brethren, as it
is explained, Ex. 22:25, and Lev. 25:35, 36; or, if it respects
the Israelites indifferently, then it is one of the judicial
laws peculiar to that people, and of no binding force now."
In the answer to the 34th question he appeals to the light of nature.
That light, as he interprets it, may be applied as follows. We follow
his language closely and his argument perfectly.
From the very light of nature which teaches, that since the borrower
of the hoe purposes to dig his own garden with it, the lender should
have a reasonable amount of his garden dug, as a recompense for the
use of the hoe, which he might otherwise have used himself to dig his
own garden.
Fisher confirms his conclusion with a Scripture reference but it is so
irrelevant that it would seem Wilson was wiser in omitting Scripture
reference altogether. 1 Cor. 8:13, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother
to offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth, lest I make my
brother to offend."
The only explanation the writer ever saw or heard of, that was
seriously made was this: "If using my brother's money without interest
offends him, then I will never while the world standeth accept his
money without interest lest I make my brother to offend." If this is
the intended application then it may be further applied. If using a
brother's money at six per cent. offends him then I will surely give
him ten per cent. lest I cause my brother offence. Could there be a
more absurd application of a Scripture passage?
The later theologians have seldom mentioned usury and none have
discussed it at any length, and no divine to our knowledge has
undertaken a defence. The "Systematic Theology" of Dr. Charles Hodge
is perhaps the most elaborate and exhaustive. He does not more than
refer to usury; he does not even mention it by name. But in his
discussion of the violation of the eighth commandment, he ridicules
the idea that "a thing is worth what it is worth to the man who
demands it." He says: "If this be so, then if a man perishing from
thirst is willing to give his whole estate for a glass of water it is
right to exact that price; or if a man in danger of drowning should
offer a thousand dollars for a rope, we might refuse to throw it to
him for a less reward. Such conduct every man feels is worthy of
execration."
He closes the discussion of the eighth commandment with this
significant and emphatic sentence: "Many who have stood well in
society and even in the church will be astonished at the last day to
find the word 'Thieves' written after their names in the great book of
judgment."
2. "To prohibit usury is revolutionary."
Revolutions are not necessarily evil. They have been justified in all
the ages to overthrow tyranny and oppression and to secure freedom and
establish justice. Oppressors and evil-doers in power have ever been
anxious to maintain the "statu quo": that is, to be let alone. The
"Man of Galilee" is the prince of revolutionists. He has overthrown
and turned down the civilizations of the world and has brought in his
own, called by his name, Christian civilization. His followers were
revolutionists. The idolatrous craftsmen of Ephesus, not wishing to be
disturbed in their profitable business, in order to defeat the work of
Paul and his associates, raised the cry of revolution. "These that
have turned the world upside down have come hither also."
The things that are wrong side up must be revolved. When material
things are found superior to true manhood and womanhood, they must be
reversed. When the works of men's hands are given a place above the
hands that formed them, when the results of labor are given a place
above the vital energy of the laborer, there is call for revolution.
But this revolution should be the most peaceful the world ever saw.
This need not require the destruction of any property nor the shedding
of one drop of blood. It need interfere with no man's rights nor
enforce upon any man a burden he should not be willing to bear. A man
is not interfering with the rights of another when he is paying his
debts, and a man should not feel that there is placed upon him a
burden he is unwilling to carry, when his own property is returned to
him. Yet that is the ultimate, the extreme goal, to be reached by the
abolition of usury; every man free from debt and every man caring for
his own property.
3. "If usury is not permitted, the great modern enterprises are
impossible."
A great modern enterprise that is not for the general good has no
right to be. Splendid enterprises are often made possible by the
sacrifice of the welfare of the many for the interests of the few. The
splendid plantations of the southern states flourished in time of
slavery, when the labor of many was subordinate to the welfare of one.
They are not now possible; yet the present and future general good is
better secured by the sacrifice of the splendid past. A splendid
military campaign is only possible by the complete subordination of
the many to the will and order of the commanding head. One hundred
thousand in an army is now receiving the attention of the world. One
hundred thousand in happy homes are commonplace. The pyramids are
splendid monuments, but they were not a blessing to the slaves, who
built them.
Splendid enterprises in which the few command the many may be an
unmitigated curse.
"Ye friends to truth, ye statesmen who survey
The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay;
'Tis yours to judge, how wide the limits stand,
Between a splendid and a happy land."
No enterprise, however brilliant, can be in the model state, that
blesses the few by the losses of the many.
Great and benign enterprises are possible without usury. There is no
greater enterprise than the postal system in this land and extending
to all the nations in the postal union. You owe it nothing; like poor
Richard, "you pay as you go." It owes nothing, pays no interest and
renders a great service for the small amount you pay. It is a standing
illustration of the success of a strictly cash business.
The great benevolent missionary enterprises, that send their
messengers to all lands, over the whole earth, receive and disburse
the gifts of the benevolent. Their work is not interrupted, but
continues from age to age.
The commerce of the world can be carried on just as effectively
without usury. A mortgage does not make a farm more productive nor
does a bonded debt make a railroad or a navigation company more
efficient. The railroads and express and telegraph and telephone and
other enterprises are greatly hindered in the service of the public by
the tribute they are returning to the usurers. Had this farmer not
this mortgage he could improve his farm and bring from his land better
results. Were it not for the unceasing drain upon the income of great
enterprises to meet the interest on bonds, the properties could be
improved and the public better served at greatly reduced rates. Indeed
the most successful enterprises are now operated by the owners.
4. "It will be hard to borrow, if you will not pay interest."
It would be a happy condition if no one should want to borrow except
in urgent need from an accidental strait; if that old independent,
self-reliant spirit that refused to be indebted to any man could be
universal, that preferred frank and honest poverty in a cabin, to a
sham affluence in a mortgaged palace.
It should be hard to borrow, but easy to pay. Usury makes it easy to
borrow, but hard to repay. Usurers even make it attractive and entice
the victim into the trap of debt and then it is all but impossible to
find a way out. An honest, industrious man of good habits must be ever
on the alert or he will be entangled, sooner or later, with debts.
It will not be harder for an honest man, who is in need, to borrow.
He will not be able to borrow more than his need requires. The debt
will not increase during the period of disability, and it will be
easier to repay without increase. The usurer requires more than
honesty for the security of his loan. The loan to him is precious
seed, that must be planted where it will grow. To merely have the loan
returned without increase does not meet his claim. To remit the
increase, to make it easier for the poor debtor to pay, he would
regard as a positive loss to himself and a gift to his victim. The
usurer prefers rich debtors, who have abundant property to secure the
loan and its increase.
There is a despised class of pawn usurers who prey upon the poor. They
are regarded as robbers of the poor in their distresses, but their
business would be impossible, were it not that all avenues of relief
are closed by usury; "interest must be paid anywhere; why not borrow
of them though the rates are high?" The moral quality of the act is
the same; the difference is wholly in the degree of turpitude.