NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE.

The subjoined letter is from a clergyman of the Church of England; I publish it with his permission, advising him at the same time to withhold his name, as the arguments he has brought forward are those which would generally occur to a mind ecclesiastically trained:—

10th September, 1872.

Sir,—At page 15 of the 21st letter of your ‘Fors Clavigera’ you tell the working men and labourers of this country that “lending for gain is sinful;” and you intimate, as I gather, that this is the teaching of the Bible. May I, therefore, be allowed to submit that this unqualified assertion, with its world-wide consequences, is not true?

In Deut. xxiii. 20, you will find these words: “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury.” And the margin (a), for the scope and meaning of this word “stranger,” refers you to Deut. x. 19, which says, “Love ye therefore the stranger.” And the margin (b) refers us also to Lev. xix. 35, which enjoins us to “love the stranger” as ourselves.

So that we are thus plainly taught—

I. That the lending upon usury cannot be in itself a sin, or God (c) could not have allowed it in any case whatsoever, any more than He could have allowed theft or lying (d).

II. That the lending to the stranger was not incompatible with the command, “Love ye the stranger,” or else God, in the laws and writings given by Moses, at one and the same time, stultifies and contradicts Himself (e).

III. That the laws forbidding usury, like the laws for preserving estates to their families by the year of Jubilee, and like the laws which bound Israelitish servants until the “year of release,” were peculiar and exclusive, and concerned only that people living in a peculiar and exclusive way. Outside that little patch of territory, but the size of our two largest English counties, the Jews were expressly told they might lend upon usury; and this at the same time that they were enjoined to love the stranger, and not to “oppress the stranger (f).”

Says old ‘Cruden’s Concordance:’—“It seems as lawful for me to receive interest for money, which another takes pain with, improves, but runs the hazard of in trade, as it is to receive rent for my land, which another takes pain with, improves, but runs the hazard of in husbandry.” What should we think of discovering in the holy books of some recently found people, a God so eccentric that he allowed you to invest money in tea, or sugar, or iron, or cotton, and get fifteen or even twenty per cent. out of it, and this from poor and rich alike, with whom you traded; but threatened you with his condemnation and everlasting displeasure if, at the same time, you helped a deserving man to commence business by lending him money at four per cent.; or lent money to your country until such time as it could pay its debts, for a moderate compensation, which would prevent you and yours from being ruined? (g) Love of self is as lawful as love of neighbour—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” My neighbour is as much bound to give me some portion of the interest or gain he has earned with my money, as he would be chargeable with selfishness and grasping if he kept it wholly for himself. Trading much more whets the appetite for gain than the taking moderate interest for money. Would our Lord have held up that which was wicked in itself for our imitation, as He has done in Matt. xxv. 27, if lending upon interest were sinful? (h) Nothing but this sight of the taking portion of the Bible without the other, and then summing up and pronouncing judgment upon a portion of the evidence only, thus arriving at an unsound judgment, would have led me to trouble you with these lines.

I remain, Sir,
Yours faithfully.

(a), (b), and (c). My correspondent uses “God” and “the margin” as synonymous terms. May I be allowed to submit to him that they are not the same, and that my statement involved no reference to either? My assertion is respecting the Bible; and has no reference either to its margin, or to God:—and my assertion is simply that “usury,” in the language of the Bible, means any percentage, however small, on lent money. I have made no assertion myself as to the characters assigned to it, for I have not examined them. I know that usury is sinful, as I know that theft is, and have no need of inquiring whether the Bible says so or not, but Ezekiel 18th is sufficiently explicit.

(d). Why does not my correspondent say “theft, lying, or murder”? The occupation of the land of Canaan was one colossal theft; the prophetess-Judge of Israel gave enthusiastic benediction, in one and the same person, to the firmness of the hand of the murderess, and fineness of the art of the liar; and the first monarch of Israel forfeited his throne, because after having faithfully slain the men, women, children, sucklings, and domestic animals of a hostile tribe, he faithlessly spared their king, and serviceablest cattle.

(e). The writings commonly assumed to be given by Moses very certainly contradict themselves in many places. It is my correspondent’s conclusion, not mine, that therefore God does so.

(f). The Jews have accordingly carried out their love to the stranger, (though I beg my correspondent to observe that stranger is not the same word as Gentile) by making as much money out of him as they can, in all places and on all occasions. But it does not follow, either that they have been blessed in doing so, or that Christians are therefore justified in treating each other either as strangers or Jews.

(g). A singular instance of the looseness of thought possible respecting matters to which we are accustomed. A man is not ruined, because he can get no gain by lending his money. No one objects to his keeping it in his pocket.

(h). Presumably, the unjust steward’s modification of his master’s accounts was also virtuous?

I have not time to ask Mr. Sillar’s permission, but hope his pardon for assuming it, to print the following portion of a letter I have had very great pleasure in receiving from him:—

“You wrong me in saying I have entirely given myself up to this question. I am occupied in saving our lovely streams from pollution, and endeavouring (no easy task, I assure you,) to put in daily practice, the principles you teach. I wish you could see our works at Crossness.

“The reason why I exclusively attack this vice is because it is the only one which is not attacked from the pulpit. Men do not know even that it is a vice. I have such confidence in the integrity of Englishmen that I believe they would at once discountenance it if they had the least idea of its character and mischievous nature.”

THESEUS.

THESEUS.

With the Symbol of his Life-problem.

Thus drawn by a Master of the Mint in Crete.

1 Or of their native towns or villages,—these being recognized as masters, also. ↑

2 Or the use of it, Mr. Emerson should have added. ↑

3 ‘English Traits,’ (Routledge, 1856), p. 95. ↑

4 Provost, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. ↑

5 The ‘Telegraph’ has always seemed to me to play fairer than the rest. The words “daily newspaper press” are, of course, too general. ↑

6 Compare ‘Munera Pulveris,’ § 140. ↑

7 Compare also Mr. Maurice’s sermon for the fourth Sunday after Trinity in Vol. II. of third series. (Smith, Elder & Co., no date.) ↑

8 In calling a man pre-eminently unfortunate, I do not mean that, as compared with others, he is absolutely less prosperous; but that he is one who has met with the least help or the greatest hostility, from the Third Fors, in proportion to the wisdom of his purposes, and virtue of his character. ↑

9 Italian ‘fregata,’ I believe ‘polished-sided’ ship, for swiftness, ‘fricata;’ but the derivation is uncertain. ↑

FORS CLAVIGERA.