Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-05-16

| there II no difference IN principle. Lutte
est may be required with as much propri-
ely IN the first case as in the last /; nor is
there 4 single exception allowed by the
scholiasts TO the general prohibition,
which does not shew the absurdi.y of the
! prohibition itself. (3)
| Now, Sir, mark the Inference. II IL be
morally lawful 10 take interest for the loan
ot money, il is morally lawful to take any
interest fairly agreed ON. This Inference
I Is justdied by a proposition universally
| true, that all contracts between persons
competent Ia contract are binding, unless
/ there he fraud ormistake. Sir, the iDie-
renee Is irresistible: and contracts for
interest must be admitted TO stand OH the
same ground with all other bargains. If
II be alledged, that they form an except
| on TO tue general rule, the burthen of
| proof lies on the exceptor. Ii is his bust
ness TO shew, that altho' all contracts
fairly made are morally bindings stpu-
| ldlion to pay interest, no matter what,
fairly made, is not in like manner obliga-
| tory.
| But 1t has been suggested, (not here
| that the price ofmoney has been regua-
TED by law from motives of policy only.
ishould nave been glad to learn what
! those motives were. have never seen
them stated. have never heard them
mentioned. In truth, Sir, they never had
existence: will prove 10 you LIST, that
| the restriction ON tile rate of interest
| throughout the Christian world was not
| founded on considerations of policy
IDLY, that If it was SO founded, il was nu-
| satory and absurd.
SIR. permit me TO remind you, that the
Mosaic law had forbidden any interest
whatever, In contracts between jews
Alter The establishment of the christian
| reiiSion, the clergy both of the Greek
ana Roman churches, differing as they
oiien did or points frequently unintellI-
SiDie and always unimpOrtant, cOncurred
III denouncinss uSury, or what was then
understood to be the same thing, the TAX
inS OF interest tor money, as an offence
not only against The principles of religion.
but of morality. How il came to pass
that these ecclesiastical legislators. laid
their plous hands on subject so entirely
unconnected with religion, | shall not
stop, mlnutely to enquire. The misera-
Die and abject condition to which the
people OF Europe, were reduced, By the
increasing power and wealth of tie Papal
clergy, from very early period, until the
10th Century, viii AT once slew that they
had extended their dominion, 10 almost
every transaction of human life, and 10
every condition of human existence.
Now, II Is apparent, thai these tlleo.Ogi-
cal lawSiyers were mistaken, both as TO
the law of the old, and the doctrine, of
the new testament. II las been long CON
coded even by churchnen themselves,
that the Mosaic law was a political pre-
cept confined TO Jews bargaining with
Jews only. The people Of thai nation SO
understood it, and have always so nm
derstood it. For centur.t they were tie
principal incney-lcnders of Europe.
1t is equally clear, that the taking of
interest, and of very high interest too, is
not incompatible with the principles or
precepts OF The Christian religion. Extor-
lion, IT Is admitted, is always condemn
ed. 1t is condemned by the laws of all
civilized countries, whetheri it manifest IL
seiy IN contract for money, or goods,
OF land: but that the receipt of interest
was not deemed crime, by the author
OF tie christian system, is demonstrated
by the comparison drawn by himself, be-
tween the christian religion, and the man
who travelled into distant country, and
on his return, commended the servant
who brought him ten talents for five, md
punished him who had buried The money
confIded TO him, and would not put il out
even TO interest.
Of all this, however, the people of Eu-
rope were entirely ignorant. The scrip.
lures had never been translated at least
for their use; and ii translated, could not
have been read by the unIettered laify.
They believed therefore what thev were
required TO believe land their humble pi-
ETY., i 1t deserved the name, poured out
It's illusions, III a language of which thew
knew nothing. The councils ftlic clergy
therefore met with no opposition, when
they issued their canons and DEGREES. de-
nounclng interest as a crime, and i'm the
language of Tufgot, the legislation of Eu
rope, was regulated by tile preiudccs.
which they so solemnly incuIcatrd.
Even in Great Britain, interest was pro-
hibited until the 37ih year Of Henry Slb
who had defended the Pope against Luz
Their, and then quarrelled with Tie for
mer, Tor opposing on the ground olthe vail
dity OF his first marriage, his entrance III
TO second. To the resentment of this
(s) SAINT Thomas, CThomas Acquinas } who
was called the angelic doctor, and wrote against
interest, lin the 18th century, was vet of OBI
Mon, that interest might be taken on money
lent TO one, who wanted IL Only for parade
" ad ostentiOnem'! The plain people of this
country, who arena Saints, differ from ST. Tho.
mas, aud think il wrong even TO rive money
which they know is to be squandered.-
one, l76.
Another SAINT (St. Beuvc) who lived i'm the
Nth century, tho lic agreed with st. Thomas
was vet inclined to think that moneyiniaslu be
borrowed on interest, for a purpose of " si,r-
nal utility" or by amerctaut in q case of - re.
al necessity" He would not advise such
thing to bc done, but he could not condemuit
lDid.-{ihis man was expelled from the Sor-
bonne. II Is not improbable. that his scepti.
cism OF this subject, may have contributed 10
produce that event,
Another exception admitted by St. Thomas,