How Christian Charity Legitimizes Interest (Usury)

This is from Gerhard’s Locorum Theologiacorum. Thank you to William Cloninger for assistance with the Latin translation.

235. 2. From Christian charity. 1. The Apostle, in 2 Corinthians 8:13, prescribes this rule of charity: that we should do good to others, not so that they have relief, ἄνεσις, while we have affliction, θλίψις, but so that there may be equality.

Although this rule is specifically applied there to almsgiving, in itself and by itself it is general, teaching that we should do good to others in such a way that no significant harm arises to us or ours from it. To this, some refer to the saying of Solomon in Proverbs 5:16-17: Let your fountains be dispersed abroad, and let streams of water be yours alone in the streets, yours and not shared with strangers, although from the preceding and following context, some infer a specific meaning pertaining to a wife and children.

Now, if others were to use our money at their pleasure for business, trade, or the purchase of estates, etc., and were to profit greatly from it without any compensation to us, then they would indeed have relief, but we and ours would have affliction, since we could have no less than they used this money of ours to engage in contracts of purchase or other suitable means to advance our affairs and secure our advantages.

Therefore, equity and the corresponding Christian charity require that there be equality, that is, that the abundance of that wealthy merchant who has profited from our money should supply our and our family's want, ἵνα τὸ ἐχείνων περίσσευμα γένηται είς το ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα, as the Apostle similarly speaks in 2 Corinthians 8:14b. There is also this apostolic saying in 1 Timothy 5:8: If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever, with which we connect that saying in 2 Corinthians 12:14: οἱ γονεῖς ὀφείλουσι τοῖς τέχνοις θησαυρίζειν, parents ought to lay up treasures for their children.

Now, no care would be taken for our own, much less would treasures be gathered for them, if a neighbor were to secure only his own advantage with our money and not admit us to any share or κοινωνίαν of it.

Therefore, this is contrary to the duty of Christian charity. Ordered charity begins with oneself [Ordinata caritas incipit a se ipsa] and urges that we have greater regard for those whom God and nature have more closely joined to us.

3. Just as it would be unjust and contrary to Christian charity if those in need, whom we mentioned above in the second class, were to demand a large sum of money from us as alms, never to be repaid, when they need it only temporarily and could later repay the principal without significant harm to themselves; so too, by the same reasoning, it is unjust and contrary to charity if the wealthy, placed in the third class, demand a huge sum of money from us without any compensation beyond the principal, with which they promote their businesses and advantages, when they could and should call us to a share of the profit without harm to themselves.

Just as it is contrary to charity if those of the second order demand that we deal with them through alms, so too it is contrary to charity if those of the third order demand that we deal with them and enter contracts through a gratuitous loan.

4. Finally, in all legitimate contracts, charity ought to be reciprocal [caritatem oportet esse reciprocam], that is, the advantages of both contracting parties should be promoted; therefore, in this special contract, consideration must be given to both the creditor and the debtor. But if a debtor, well-established in wealth, profits from another’s money, buys estates, frees his properties from the burden of debt, and so uses and enjoys them freely with great advantage to himself, while the creditor is forced to forgo his money without any compensation, then charity is not reciprocal, but the advantage redounds to only one of the contracting parties, entirely neglecting and overlooking the other.

Nor is there any ground to object that only he who does business and trades with another’s money bears the risk, and therefore the profit of the business pertains to him alone, because we presuppose in resolving this question that the debtor profits and secures his advantages with the borrowed money.

But if, by some unforeseen and unavoidable chance, he is reduced to poverty, then Christian charity, as the moderator and director of all contracts in a Christian commonwealth, should interpose itself and, considering the circumstances, command that the annual interest [censum], or even the principal itself, be remitted to the debtor. For when those of the third order are reduced to the second class, then a loan to them should be gratuitous; when to the first class, they should be aided by alms, far from having any annual interest [censum] demanded from them.