# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_August 1864_S230
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

230 Martin Chemnitz on Usury.

He who has money and can carry on lawful contracts, by which he could
provide for his own livelihood, but who would rather make a profit
through lending, because he sees that this is an easier matter, and one
attended with less labor as well as less risk, sins against the doctrine of
the exchange of things, in which God wills that love be practiced — not
that one alone should enjoy the advantage while the others bear the labor
and the risks.

More difficult, however, seems the question regarding widows,
orphans, the infirm elderly, and others who have money whose use
they cannot do without for their own necessary support and that of their
dependents, but who cannot themselves carry on any business. Certainly
Scripture does not require of these that they give away all that is theirs
as alms and themselves suffer want of the necessities of life. Nor does it
command them to lend to others so freely, without charge, that they are
themselves entirely drained, and bring their own dependents to the
beggar's staff as well. For Paul says, 2 Corinthians 8:12: If the
willingness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not
according to what one does not have. Further, verses 13 and 14: not that
others should have relief and you affliction, but that there should be
equality; let your abundance supply their want. Now if to such persons
another should offer himself, one who had means, or who could carry on
business in such a way that he would be able, by the use of borrowed
money, to draw his own profit, then the question is whether Scripture
requires, for example, that a widow leave the use of her money to him
free of charge, so that he alone makes the profit, while the widow at last
robs both herself and her dependents of that capital, since she is obliged
to use it to bear the public burdens and to meet the expenses of her
household. But the answer follows of itself from the grounds laid down
above. For because almsgiving and the duty of lending without charge
concern the first and second estates of mankind, one owes no gratuitous
exchange to those who possess landed property, other goods, a business,
etc., and who wish to make a profit with someone else's money — least of
all to those who cannot themselves do without the use of their own
money for their own necessary livelihood. And thus far everything is
clear.

But on this question there is dispute in various ways: if such a person
as we have described should lend to a rich man who is able to make a
profit by the use of the borrowed money, and should stipulate by
agreement something over and above the principal — since, namely, the
one could give this without hardship or loss, and the other would thereby
have his livelihood — whether this could be done with a good conscience,
or whether it would be usury, which God so earnestly condemns in
Scripture.

Some say that it is not condemned usury, and make use of the
following grounds: that in this case there occurs no biting and no
oppression of the poor man, such as Scripture speaks of concerning
usury. And as the use