# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_August 1864_S232
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

232 Martin Chemnitz on Usury.

the duty of lending is commanded chiefly for the sake of the poor and
needy, and this is why mention is made of them in the testimonies of
Scripture. Moreover, it belongs to the definition and the very essence of
lending, that it be a service rendered free of charge, and that the
recipient be bound only to restore the same thing according to kind or
quantity. If, therefore, the lender stipulates by agreement something
over and above the principal, this is done against the very nature of the
loan contract, and is therefore not valid. Whatever name one may give
the thing, however: if the right to demand back the principal remains
with the creditor, then it is a true loan, and whatever is demanded, in
lending, over and above the principal, is usury. And Scripture forbids
usury in general precisely because it does not want everything, in the
exchange of civil society, to be for sale; rather, it wants certain services
to be rendered free of charge — services that would, without doubt, be
disfigured and corrupted if they were either sold as merchandise or let
out as objects of rent. And if Scripture permitted the practice of usury in
lending to the rich, then the duty of lending free of charge would quickly
and easily be abolished altogether. So that generosity might not,
therefore, cease, Scripture condemns usury frequently, without
qualification and in general.

Does the gospel, then, command that in such a case as is here in
question, the other party — who has not become poor — should use my
money in such a way as to enrich himself at my expense? Certainly it
does not command this, according to the plain statement of 2 Corinthians
8:13. Two things, then, are now established: 1. that in this case the
people of the third estate are not owed a gratuitous exchange to
another's disadvantage; 2. that it is not permitted to demand a profit
over and above the principal, from either the poor or the rich, for the
sake of the service rendered by lending. For usury is condemned in
general, so that it can in no case be practiced with a good conscience.
What, then, is a man to do who cannot do without the use of his money
for paying public burdens and bearing the costs of his household? The
answer is clear from the grounds set out above. For there are many other
lawful contracts which are approved in Scripture; let him therefore avail
himself of these. But, he says, I cannot engage in the business of
buying, leasing, or exchange, etc. I answer: whoever shuns those lawful
contracts because he does not want to undertake any labors or risks, but
instead seeks another, easier way, one bound up with less labor and no
risk at all, sins against the doctrine of the exchange of goods in civil
society. For the rule is that, in those civil services, love is to be
practiced; but