# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1864_S171
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Martin Chemnitz on Usury. 171

(systema locc. theoll. I, 574): "The Holy Spirit, as the supreme author of Holy Scripture, was bound to no writer's style, but as the most unrestricted master of languages could avail himself, through each one of them, of that particular peculiarity, that particular style, and that particular manner of speech which pleased him at the time, and could therefore proclaim his divine prophecies through Jeremiah with a special adornment of speech, just as well as through Isaiah in a simple style. His regard, however, was directed not so much to the rhetorical skill of the writers as to the nature of the subjects to be treated, and he therefore employed his free power, which stood at his disposal in every respect, in a manner suited to his infinite wisdom. It is therefore not to be wondered at that this same Holy Spirit made use of a varied manner of speech. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit permits each one to speak as he will."*)

In this way our forefathers satisfied all the demands of true scholarship, in that they did not deny the actual differences of style but explained them in a satisfying manner; but they also satisfied their faith and the Church, and proved themselves, precisely through these two elements and their harmonious combination (in the relation of scholarship's subordinate service), to be true theologians, model theologians.

But such an examination of modern theories, preached with confident cries of triumph, furnishes each time a new proof of what is to be thought of the so-called theology of progress, and a new evidence that those who decisively give the old theology preference over the modern one have good reason and good right to do so — not only from the standpoint of theology in particular, but also from that of scholarship and of sound human understanding.

Martin Chemnitz on Usury.

(Translated and communicated by resolution of the St. Louis District Pastoral Conference, from the Loci theologici of Dr. M. Chemnitius, edited by the labor and study of Polycarp Leyser, D., Frankfurt and Wittenberg. New edition, 1653, folio, Tom. P. II, fol. 158–170.)

Much and various things have been disputed concerning usury. For some have maintained that civil society, as now the human

quae ex eo esse videtur, quia sp. s. accommodavit se ordinario dicendi modo, unicuique suum sermonis genus relinquens; propterea tamen non negandum, sp. s. ipsa verba in individuo ipsis inspirasse.

*) Spir. s., scripturae s. suminus autor, non adstrictus fuit ad ullius stylum, sed ceu liberrimus linguarum doctor, charactere, stylo ac sermonis genere uti potuit per unumquemque, quo libuerit, ac tam facile per Jeremiam ornatu sermonis singulari, quam per Esaiam stylo simplici oracula divina proponere. Qui vero non tam autorum dicendi facultatem, quam materiarum, de quibus dicere voluit, indolem spectavit suaque per omnia αὐτεξουσία usus est pro immensa sapientia sua. Ideoque non mirum, eundem spiritum varium sermonis characterem adhibuisse. Causa diversi sermonis est, quia dat sp. s. unicuique eloqui, prout vult.