# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 06 01_S108
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

what is that for a kindness? Even wicked sinners lend to one another, that they may receive back the same amount. You, however, are to lend and expect nothing in return for it. — Lending, by its very nature, is nothing other than to advance something to another for nothing, on the condition that the same, or its equivalent, and no more, be taken back again after a time." p. 996. — "Luke 6:35: 'Lend, hoping for nothing again' — that is, you shall lend to those who cannot or will not lend to you in return. If we look Christ's word rightly in the face, it does not merely teach lending without surcharge; for that would not need to be taught, since there is no other kind of lending than without surcharge — for if it is done with a surcharge, it is not lending at all. — So whoever lends and adds a surcharge is not lending; nor is he selling either; therefore it must be usury. — From this it follows that all those are usurers who lend their neighbor wine, grain, money, or the like in such a way that, over the course of a year or an appointed time, they bind them to interest, or otherwise burden and overload them so that they must give back more, or something else, that is better than what they borrowed. And so that these people may themselves grasp how wrong what they do is — however common it has, alas, become — we set before their eyes a threefold law. First, this present Gospel text, which commands that we should lend. Now, lending is not lending unless it happens without any surcharge or advantage whatsoever, as has been said. And although crafty greed sometimes paints itself a color, as though it took the surplus as a gift, this does not help matters, if the gift is in fact the cause of the loan, or if the borrower would rather not give a gift where he might borrow freely; and the gift is especially suspect when the borrower gives to the lender, or the needy person gives to the one who has. For it is not naturally to be supposed that the needy person gives to the one who has out of free will, but rather that need compels him. Secondly, this is contrary to the natural law, which the Lord also cites, Luke 6:31, Matthew 7:12: 'Whatsoever ye would' etc. Now, without any doubt, there is no one who would wish to have rye lent to him in place of wheat, bad coin in place of good, bad merchandise in place of good; indeed, everyone would much rather wish that good merchandise be lent him in place of bad, or at least the same quality without surcharge. Therefore it is clear that such lenders act against nature, sin mortally, are usurers, and seek their neighbor's harm for their own gain — something they would themselves not wish to have done to them by others in return — and so deal unjustly with their neighbor. Thirdly, it is also contrary to the old and new Law, which commands that you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But such lenders love only themselves, seek only their own, and neither love nor seek their neighbor with the same faithfulness as themselves.

Here some raise two objections. The first is: if lending were done in this way, then the interesse — that is, the profit which they might otherwise make in the meantime with the goods lent out — would be lost. The other is the great example, namely, that it has everywhere become customary in the world to lend for profit, especially since scholars, priests, clergy, and churches do likewise, on the ground that the improvement of the churches, of ecclesiastical property, and of divine worship is thereby sought; otherwise there would now be very few Christians in the world, and it would be hard for anyone to lend at all. Answer: All this is nothing said to the point. First, you must in any case forfeit the interesse and the use of your goods, if they are taken from you, or if you give to someone for nothing; why then would you want to seek and keep that in lending? For whoever considers giving and lending must first reckon with the loss of the interesse, or he will be called neither a giver nor a lender. Secondly, whether it be custom or not, it is neither Christian, nor godly, nor natural, and no example avails against this. For it is written, Exodus 23:2: 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil,' but shalt honor God and his commandments above all things. And that the clergy and the churches do this makes it so much the worse — divine worship is not thereby improved, but corrupted. So if anyone, because of all this, is reluctant to lend to his neighbor, it is a sign of his great unbelief, that he despises the comforting promise of Christ, where he says, Luke 6:35: 'If we lend and give, we are children of the Most High, and our reward is great.' And whoever does not believe this comforting promise, and does not govern himself accordingly by his works, is not worthy of it." p. 996–1001.

"In the 'Zinskauf' (the purchase of an annual rent-charge) there is a fine appearance and gloss, suggesting how one might burden other people without sin, and become rich without care or labor. For in other dealings, it is plain to everyone when he overcharges, or gives or possesses false goods, false inheritance, false property; but this cunning and newly invented business very often makes such people a pious and trustworthy patron of condemned greed and usury. Although this same Zinskauf is now sanctioned as a proper purchase and permitted trade, it is nevertheless odious and objectionable for many reasons. First, that it is a new, cunningly invented thing, especially in this last, perilous time, when nothing good is invented anymore, and the minds and thoughts of all men, unbridled, aim only at wealth, honor, and pleasure, and we read of no example of this kind of purchase among the ancients. Second, that, as they themselves must confess — however fair it may be — it nevertheless has an evil appearance and an offensive form, and St. Paul commands that one should avoid every evil, offensive form, even if it were otherwise in itself fair and proper. 1 Thess. 5:22, 'Abstain from all appearance of evil.' Third, that it can hardly be that this same purchase, even if it were done without usury, does not run contrary to the natural law and the law of Christian love. Fourth, everyone must confess that this purchase, whether it be usury or not, nevertheless does the very same work that usury does — that is, it burdens, drains, and ruins every land, city, lord, and people. Now the Lord has taught, Matt. 7:16, 20, that we are to know not the fruits from the trees, but the trees from their fruits." p. 1002–4.

"Therefore it is not enough that this purchase be rescued from the charge of usury by canon law. Money won at gambling is likewise not usury, and yet it is not won without self-interested love of self, and not without sin; and a common woman's wages are likewise not usury, but are earned through sin; and property acquired through cursing, swearing, or breaking holy days is likewise not usury, but is acquired through sin. Therefore I cannot conclude that those who make such interest-purchases without needing to do so are acting rightly and fairly. Indeed, I say freely, and give warning, that the rich, who use this kind of purchase for no other reason than to increase their rents and goods (without regard to the fact that others are thereby burdened), stand in great danger; nor do I regard it as any excuse that it is permitted to them, as some greedy windbags do, who collect interest on appointed days and immediately put the very same sum out again at interest, so that one interest payment continually drives the next, like water driving mill-wheels. This is so open and shameless a greed that no one, however coarse he may be, can deny it — and yet all this is held to be fair. — Whatever is of God restrains sin and all evil; but this practice gives free rein to greed's own will; therefore it cannot be of God, as it is now practiced." p. 1004–5.

"Now let us look at the ground on which this delicate trade is justified. There is a little word which in Latin is called interesse. This noble, precious, delicate little word means, in German, as much as this: if I have a hundred guilders, with which, through my own labor and care, I might earn five, six, or more guilders in a year through trade, and I instead pass them on to another, onto some productive property, so that not I but he may do business with them — then I take from him the five guilders which I myself might have earned, and thus he sells me the interest, five guilders for a hundred, and I am the buyer and he the seller. Here it is now said: the Zinskauf is fair, since I might perhaps have earned more annually with those same guilders, and the interesse is right and sufficient. All this has so fine an appearance that no one, on any ground, could find fault with it. But it is also true that such an interesse is not possible to have on this earth, because there is another interesse standing against it, which works as follows: if I have 100 guilders and am to do business with them, a hundred kinds of danger might befall me, so that I earn nothing — indeed, that I lose four times as much on account of that very money; or I may be unable to trade because of illness, or have no goods or property on hand; and there are countless such cases, as we see, so that there is more ruin, loss, and damage than there is gain. Thus the interesse of losing is just as great, or greater, than the interesse of gaining. Now if interest were to be purchased solely on the basis of the first interesse, so that...