THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
at first affected only the clergy, though it soon became extended to cover laymen as well. In agreement with this are the decretals of the later popes and the synodical rulings.
The leading idea in all cases is that in both the Old Testament and the New the taking of interest is generally forbidden, as being ‘‘ avarice and
wickedness.’ Thus Alexander III. de- 2. Comple- clares at the Third Lateran Council, tion and 1179, in canon 25: ‘‘ Wherefore none
Basis of may be dispensed in favor of drawing
Ecclesias- interest.” He had previously ruled tical Theory. that the profits derived from the
pledged article must be deducted from the loaned capital itself; only the actual object in pawn must be returned to the owner, excepting the case of a church benefice, which might then be acquired from the hands of a layman and so recovered to the Church. As a general thing it was provided that when interest accrued, it should be assigned to the debtors or to their he'rs; but if no such claimants existed, it should go to the poor, and that this should be done alike by the creditor himself and by his heirs. The oath rendered by a debtor, pledging him not to reclaim interest, by no means annulled the obligation about refunding the same; and this held where the payment of interest was voluntary, and not expressly stipulated. The church penalties threatened against receivers of interest are suspension for the clergy and excommunication for laymen, together with the usual consequences of refusal of church burial and exclusion from judicial hearings. Procedure against usurers was to be instituted not only on grounds of a formal accusation, but also as a direct official duty. Against Jews who had taken interest of Christians every means of procedure was to be set afoot. Antecedent rulings were augmented by Gregory X. at the Council of Lyons, 1274, canons 26, 27. He forbade the harboring of foreign usurers, even the leasing to them of habitations. Usurers were to be expelled from the land within three months, under pain of suspension in case of prelates, excommunication in the case of other persons, interdict for colleges and corporate bodies, and in the event of resistance at large, interdict upon the given country. Notorious usurers, besides incurring the penalties earlier stated, were also to be debarred as testamentary witnesses, and their own wills were to be invalid. At the Council of Vienne, 13811, Clement V. decreed in addition that those municipal statutes which allowed the taking of interest and embodied regulations accordingly were to be null and void; whereas authorities who should draw up such measures or give sentence in accordance with them were to be liable to the ban. For the purpose of providing proof against usurers, these were to be held answerable for submitting their account books. Finally the pope declared, ‘‘ If any lapse into the error of obstinately and presumptuously affirming that it is no sin to practise usury, we decree that he be punished quite as a heretic.”
This ruling essentially terminates the canonical construction of the matter, and even stamps the same with a certain dogmatic sanction. This attitude is supported not only by the medieval doctrine
of the unfruitfulness of money (an economic theory treating money simply as medium of exchange or measure of value), but also by the interpretation which the schoolmen gave to the related passages of Holy Scripture (Alexander of Hales, pars III., quest. 86, art. 2; Thomas Aquinas, II., 2, quest. 87, art. 1 ad 2, quest. 105, art. 3 ad 3). The objection borrowed from the context in Matt. xxv. and Luke xix. is met from the said standpoint. The matter of lending under direct promise of interest has in all times been reproved from the point of view of canon law. Benedict XIV. simply repeated as much in consonance with the earlier law, in his brief Vix pervenit of Nov. 1, 1745, while the Curia still maintains that position.
The high rate of interest prevalent in the Middle Ages rendered life exceedingly burdensome to the poor, if they needed a loan; so that the canonical
regulations against taking interest at 3. General all were highly acceptable to the com- Results. mon people. It is assumed that no usury exists where the object at issue is an ecclesiastical benefice or tenure, such as is not supposed to rest in lay hands, in the nature of the case. The same is true in respect to the purchase of a fixed annuity or ground-rent, something essentially distinct from an interest-bearing loan in that the buyer (and creditor) could not lay claim to the principal, whereas the rate of interest itself was moderate. The same applies in the case of deferred interest charges, in so far as the “‘ interest ’’ here in question represented proper compensation. Finally, there was no usury involved in moderate interest paid to loan-houses (Montes pietatis, q.v.), to the benefit of the poor (Lateran Council of 1517, sess. X.; Tridentine Council, sess. XXII., c. 8 de reform.). Moreover, practical requirements were met by other exceptions, and the canon law was either evaded or else modified with manifold qualifications. In the same direction, even the popes allowed usury in the case of the Jews. But, on the other hand, the notion of usury became extended to every line of trade in which a positive profit was the object in view; particularly was this true of exchange business. The canonical prohibition of usury continued to be supported, in the main, by subsequent civil legislation.
The Reformers, in turn, in agreement with the primitive Church, rejected the taking of interest. Luther pronounced against it in his sermons on usury, 1519 and 1524, and in 1540 issued an admonition to pastors to preach against that practise. To his mind, the notion of usury and of interest are one and the same. But Luther extends the notion
of usury to the purchase of ground-
4. Views rents, though on this point he was not
of the always consistent. For instance, when Reformers. Jacob Strauss, Evangelical pastor at Hisenach (1523), denounced all inter-
est as void of obligation, Luther and Melanchthon declared, in a formal opinion requested of them, that usury was a great evil and contradictory to love; but that yet not every one should be allowed to withdraw at will from an assumed obligation, or to refuse payment save under forcible compulsion —a course upheld by Strauss. Whether they would