When differences do arise between nations, they urge a just settlement or mutual concessions. Or if one is found to be unreasonable, unjust and oppressive, it is better and more christian-like, they claim, to endure hardness, submitting under protest, than by force, which the Master forbade, attempt to establish righteousness.
Rulers of the greatest nations on the earth have become conscious of the cruel burdens upon their people, in the support of their great armaments. On the invitation of the Czar of Russia, peace commissioners from many nations recently met in The Hague, to devise means by which the burdens of armaments might be diminished and actual warfare avoided. This peace council advised that differences be submitted to arbitration, but while it was yet speaking two Christian powers, began open war, without having so "decent a regard to the opinions of mankind" as to make known to the world the cause of their conflict. Wars continue, and among the most highly civilized and enlightened and christianized, in the face of the arguments and advice and pleadings of non-combatants and peace societies and peace commissions.
Mammon, a sordid greed of gain, is now on the world"s throne and directs the movements of the nations in peace or war.
His purposes may be often accomplished in peace by purchases of territory for which interest bearing bonds are issued. The irritation or hurts between peoples may be molified and healed by indemnities, which also serve his purpose because they necessitate the incurring of a bonded debt, interest bearing. But the history of the world for centuries proves that a condition of war is Mammon"s opportunity to foist a debt upon a free people and to increase the burden of those whose bonds he already holds.
His ears are deaf to advice and reason, when material and commercial advantages are to be secured. He cares not for human suffering and shed blood, if riches can be increased. When concessions can be secured, and mortgages placed, and a people exploited with profit, the cry of suffering, the pleading for pity and the call for justice are all in vain.
To stop these modern wars they must be made unprofitable to Mammon.
When they are made to deplete his treasury and to waste his wealth, instead of increasing it, he will call a halt in strife, and the gentle spirit of peace will be permitted to hover over the nations.
Away with national debts and interest bearing bonds, which are the delight of the usurers. Make present wealth bear the burden of present duty. Try the patriotism of the usurers by making war a real sacrifice of their wealth, while the blood of others is being poured upon the field. Do not permit war to be an advantage to the rich to increase his riches. A patriot"s life is given and it goes out forever, let wealth be no more sacred than life; let it not be borrowed but consumed. Let the rich grow poorer as the war goes on, let there be a facing of utter poverty, as the patriot faces death on the field.
While Mammon is permitted this usury, his chief tool, he will use it for the oppression of the world. He will direct the movements among the nations to further his ends, although it may require a conflict between the most christianized and enlightened of the earth. The nations will be directed in peace or put in motion in war to make wealth increase.
Give wealth its true place as a perishable thing, instead of a productive life, and wars will cease in all the earth. The holders of the wealth of the world will never urge nor encourage war, when the property destroyed is their own and not to be replaced. When wars are no longer the usurer"s opportunity, but the consumption of his wealth, Mammon himself will beg that swords may be beaten into plow-shares and spears into pruning-hooks.
CHAPTER x.x.xIII.
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 p.a.w.n 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 pa.s.sage 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 pa.s.sage?