# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1864_S196
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

196

Martin Chemnitz on Usury.
(Translated and communicated by resolution of the St. Louis District Pastoral Conference
from Loci theologici Dr. M. Chemnitii, ed. op. et studio Polycarpi Leyseri, D.
Francof. et Witteberg. Ed. nov. 1653 fol. Tom. P. II, fol. 158—170.)

(Continued.)

III. Now that it has been shown by clear testimonies of Scripture how usury is regarded in the judgment of God, the definition of it must next be established — namely, what that thing is which is so severely condemned under the name of usury — so that one does not give a milder name to a transaction that is truly usurious (such as "damage-watch," or the interest on a loss that would otherwise arise; "standstill," or the interest on gain that is being forgone; grace-money, service-money, advantage-money) and thereby deceive oneself in a dangerous way; or, on the other hand, so that lawful contracts are not condemned under the name of usury in a seditious manner. For Gerson rightly praises the saying of Cameracensis (Massäus, †1546): "In human contracts which, sin being presupposed, are natural and necessary, one ought not lightly proceed to a rejection or reduction of them to usurious wickedness." But an error can easily be made in the definition, because greed is inventive in seeking out pretexts. And errors are very dangerous in this matter. For concerning a usurer the judgment of God says: He shall not dwell in the tent of the LORD, he shall not live, he shall die the death, etc. For a warning, then, we wish to note a few things of this kind.

Some take the meanings that are drawn from the etymology (derivation) of the names as the full definition, and thereby err in the matter itself. For example: because among the Hebrews usury takes its name from biting or gnawing, and further from burdening and oppressing (namely because it arises out of greed and injustice and is bound up with wrong, harm, and loss to one's neighbor), some accordingly maintain that usury is not condemned in Scripture in itself, as being sinful by its very nature, but only insofar and only then as it turns to the neighbor's disadvantage and is oppressive to him; but when it does not "bite" — when, for example, it is demanded of a rich man who is able to gain advantage for himself through the use of the borrowed money — then, they say, it is not condemned in Scripture either. These people invent such a distinction: that the one usury is the biting or neighbor-burdening and oppressive usury, which is forbidden and condemned; the other is that which brings the neighbor advantage, which is not forbidden but rather a duty of love. This they are glad to have said to them, because usurers always want the credit of having done their debtors a great kindness. But because this question must be judged according to God's Word, those etymological meanings cannot supply the conscience with that