OppositiononscripturalgroundstothetakingofinterestwasnotconfinedtotheolderChurch。ProtestantismwasledbyLutherandseveralofhisassociatesintothesamelineofthoughtandpractice。SaidLuther。”Toexchangeanythingwithanyoneandgainbytheexchangeisnottodoacharity；buttosteal。Everyusurerisathiefworthyofthegibbet。Icallthoseusurerswholendmoneyatfiveorsixpercent。”ButitisonlyjusttosaythatatalaterperiodLuthertookamuchmoremoderateview。Melanchthon，definingusuryasanyinterestwhatever，condemneditagainandagain；andtheGoldbergCatechismof1558，forwhichhewroteaprefaceandrecommendation，declareseverypersontakinginterestformoneyathief。FromgenerationtogenerationthisdoctrinewasupheldbythemoreeminentdivinesoftheLutheranChurchinallpartsofGermany。TheEnglishreformersshowedthesamehostilitytointerest-bearingloans。UnderHenryVIIIthelawofHenryVII
　　againsttakinginteresthadbeenmodifiedforthebetter；buttherevivalofreligiousfeelingunderEdwardVIcausedin1552
　　thepassageofthe“BillofUsury。”Inthisitissaid。”ForasmuchasusuryisbythewordofGodutterlyprohibited，asavicemostodiousanddetestable，asindiversplacesoftheHolyScripturesitisevidenttobeseen，whichthingbynogodlyteachingsandpersuasionscansinkintotheheartsofdiversgreedy，uncharitable，andcovetouspersonsofthisrealm，noryet，byanyterriblethreateningsofGod’swrathandvengeance。”
　　etc。，itisenactedthatwhosoevershallthereafterlendmoney“foranymannerofusury，increase，lucre，gain，orinterest，tobehad，received，orhopedfor。”shallforfeitprincipalandinterest，andsufferimprisonmentandfineattheking’spleasure。[453]
　　[453]ForLuther’sviews，seehissermon，VondemWucher，Wittenberg，1519；alsotheTableTalk，citedinCoquelinandGuillaumin，articleInteret。Forthelater，moremoderateviewsofLuther，Melanchthon，andZwingli，makingacompromisewiththeneedsofsociety，seeBohm-Bawerk，p。27，citingWiskemann。ForMelanchthonandalonglineofthemosteminentLutherandivineswhohavedenouncedthetakingofinterest，seeDieWucherfrage，St。Louis，1869，pp。94etseq。ForthelawagainstusuryunderEdwardVI，seeCobbett’sParliamentaryHistory，vol。i，p。596；
　　seealsoCraik，HistoryofBritishCommerce，chap。vi。
　　But，mostfortunately，ithappenedthatCalvin，thoughattimesstumblingovertheusualtextsagainstthetakingofinterestformoney，turnedfinallyintherightdirection。HecutthroughthemetaphysicalargumentsofAristotle，andcharacterizedthesubtletiesdevisedtoevadetheScripturesas“achildishgamewithGod。”InplaceofthesesubtletiestherewasdevelopedamongProtestantsaserviceablefiction——thestatementthatusurymeansILLEGALOROPPRESSIVEINTEREST。Undertheactionofthisfiction，commerceandtraderevivedrapidlyinProtestantcountries，thoughwithoccasionalchecksfromexactinterpretersofScripture。AtthesameperiodinFrance，thegreatProtestantjuristDumoulinbroughtallhislegallearningandskillincasuistrytobearonthesameside。Acertainferretlikeacutenessandlithenessseemtohaveenabledhimtohuntdowntheopponentsofinterest-takingthroughthemosttortuousargumentsofscholasticism。
　　InEnglandthestrugglewentonwithvaryingfortune；statesmenononeside，andtheologiansontheother。Wehaveseenhow，underHenryVIII，interestwasallowedatafixedrate，andhow，thedevelopmentofEnglishProtestantismhavingatfirststrengthenedtheoldtheologicalview，therewas，underEdwardVI，atemporarilysuccessfulattempttoforbidthetakingofinterestbylaw。
　　ThePuritans，dwellingonOldTestamenttexts，continuedforaconsiderabletimeespeciallyhostiletothetakingofanyinterest。HenrySmith，anotedpreacher，thunderedfromthepulpitofSt。ClementDanesinLondonagainst“theevasionsofScripture“whichpermittedmentolendmoneyoninterestatall。
　　Inanswertothecontentionthatonly“biting“usurywasoppressive，Wilson，anotedupholderofthestricttheologicalviewinpoliticaleconomy，declared：“Thereisdifferenceindeedbetweenthebiteofadoggeandthebiteofaflea，andyet，thoughthefleadothlesseharm，yetthefleadothbiteafterhirkinde，yea，anddrawethblood，too。Butwhataworldthisis，thatmenwillmakesintobebutafleabite，whentheyseeGod’sworddirectlyagainstthem！”
　　ThesameviewfoundstrongupholdersamongcontemporaryEnglishCatholics。Oneofthemosteminentofthese，NicholasSanders，revivedveryvigorouslytheuseofanoldscholasticargument。
　　Heinsistedthat“mancannotselltime。”thattimeisnotahumanpossession，butsomethingwhichisgivenbyGodalone：hedeclared，“Timewasnotofyourgifttoyourneighbour，butofGod’sgifttoyouboth。”
　　IntheParliamentoftheperiod，wefindstrongassertionsoftheoldidea，withconstantreferencetoScriptureandthefathers。
　　Inonedebate，WilsoncitedfromEzekielandotherprophetsandattributedtoSt。Augustinethedoctrinethat“totakebutacupofwineisusuryanddamnable。”FleetwoodrecalledthelawofKingEdwardtheConfessor，whichsubmittedusurerstotheordeal。
　　ButargumentsofthissorthadlittleinfluenceuponElizabethandherstatesmen。Threatsofdamnationinthenextworldtroubledthemlittleiftheycouldhavetheirwayinthis。Theyre-establishedthepracticeoftakinginterestunderrestrictions，andthis，invariousforms，hasremainedinEnglandeversince。MostnotableinthisphaseoftheevolutionofscientificdoctrineinpoliticaleconomyatthatperiodistheemergenceofarecogniseddifferencebetweenUSURYandINTEREST。Betweenthesetwowords，whichhadsolongbeensynonymous，adistinctionnowappears：theformerbeingconstruedtoindicateOPPRESSIVEINTEREST，andthelatterJUST
　　RATESfortheuseofmoney。ThisideagraduallysankintothepopularmindofProtestantcountries，andthescripturaltextsnolongerpresentedanydifficultytothepeopleatlarge，sincetheregrewupageneralbeliefthattheword“usury。”asemployedinScripture，hadALWAYSmeantexorbitantinterest；andthisinspiteoftheparableoftheTalents。Still，thattheoldAristotelianquibblehadnotbeenentirelyforgotten，isclearlyseenbyvariouspassagesinShakespeare’sMerchantofVenice。
　　ButthislineofreasoningseemstohavereceiveditsquietusfromLordBacon。Hedidnot，indeed，developastrongandconnectedargumentonthesubject；butheburstthebondsofAristotle，andbasedinterestformoneyuponnaturallaws。Howpowerfulthenewcurrentofthoughtwas，isseenfromthefactthatJamesI，ofallmonarchsthemostfetteredbyscholasticismandtheology，sanctionedastatutedealingwithinterestformoneyasabsolutelynecessary。Yet，evenafterthis，theoldideaasserteditself；forthebishopsutterlyrefusedtoagreetothelawallowinginterestuntilaprovisowasinsertedthat“nothinginthislawcontainedshallbeconstruedorexpoundedtoallowthepracticeofusuryinpointofreligionorconscience。”
　　Theoldviewcroppedoutfromtimetotimeinvariouspublicdeclarations。FamousamongtheseweretheTreatiseofUsury，publishedin1612byDr。Fenton，whorestatedtheoldargumentswithmuchforce，andtheUsuryCondemnedofJohnBlaxton，publishedin1634。Blaxton，whoalsowasaclergyman，definedusuryasthetakingofanyinterestwhateverformoney，citinginsupportofthisviewsixarchbishopsandbishopsandoverthirtydoctorsofdivinityintheAnglicanChurch，someoftheirutterancesbeingveryviolentandallofthemrunningtheirrootsdownintotextsofScripture。TypicalamongtheseisasermonofBishopSands，inwhichhedeclares，regardingthetakingofinterest：“ThiscankerhathcorruptedallEngland；weshalldoeGodandourcountrytrueservicebytakingawaythisevill；
　　represseitbylaw，elsetheheavyhandofGodhangethoverusandwillstrikeus。”
　　II。RETREATOFTHECHURCH，PROTESTANTANDCATHOLIC。
　　ButaboutthemiddleoftheseventeenthcenturySirRobertFilmergavethisdoctrinetheheaviestblowiteverreceivedinEngland。
　　TakingupDr。Fenton’streatise，heansweredit，andallworkslikeit，inawaywhich，howeverunsuitabletothiscentury，wasadmirablyadaptedtothat。HecitesScriptureandchopslogicafteramasterlymanner。Characteristicisthisdeclaration：
　　“St。Pauldoth，withonebreath，reckonupseventeensins，andyetusuryisnoneofthem；butmanypreacherscannotreckonupsevendeadlysins，excepttheymakeusuryoneofthem。”FilmerfollowedFentonnotonlythroughhistheology，butthroughhispoliticaleconomy，withsuchrelentlesskeennessthattheolddoctrineseemstohavebeenthenandtherepracticallyworriedoutofexistence，sofarasEnglandwasconcerned。
　　DeparturesfromthestrictscripturaldoctrinesregardinginterestsoonbecamefrequentinProtestantcountries，andtheywerefollowedupwithespecialvigourinHolland。VarioustheologiansintheDutchChurchattemptedtoassertthescripturalviewbyexcludingbankersfromtheholycommunion；
　　butthecommercialvigouroftherepublicwastoostrong：
　　Salmasiusledontheforcesofrightreasonbrilliantly，andbythemiddleoftheseventeenthcenturythequestionwassettledrightlyinthatcountry。Thisworkwasaided，indeed，byafargreaterman，HugoGrotius；butherewasshownthepowerofanestablisheddogma。GreatasGrotiuswas——anditmaywellbeheldthathisbookonWarandPeacehaswroughtmorebenefittohumanitythananyotherattributedtohumanauthorship——hewas，inthematterofinterestformoney，toomuchentangledintheologicalreasoningtodojusticetohiscauseortohimself。
　　Hedeclaredtheprohibitionofittobescriptural，butresistedthedoctrineofAristotle，andallowedinterestoncertainnaturalandpracticalgrounds。
　　InGermanythestrugglelastedlonger。Ofsomelittlesignificance，perhaps，isthedemandofAdamContzen，in1629，thatlendersatinterestshouldbepunishedasthieves；butbytheendoftheseventeenthcenturyPuffendorfandLeibnitzhadgainedthevictory。
　　Protestantism，openasitwastothecurrentsofmodernthought，couldnotlongcontinueunderthedominionofideasunfavourabletoeconomicdevelopment，andperhapsthemostremarkableproofofthiswaspresentedearlyintheeighteenthcenturyinAmerica，bynolessstrictatheologianthanCottonMather。InhisMagnaliahearguesagainstthewholetheologicalviewwithaboldness，acuteness，andgoodsensewhichcauseustowonderthatthiscanbethesamemanwhowassoinfatuatedregardingwitchcraft。Afteranargumentsoconclusiveashis，therecouldhavebeenlittleleftoftheoldanti-economicdoctrineinNewEngland。[454]
　　[454]ForCalvin’sviews，seehisletterpublishedintheappendixtoPearson’sTheoriesonUsury。Hispositioniswell-
　　statedinBohm-Bawerk，pp。28etseq。，wherecitationsaregiven。
　　SeealsoEconomicTracts，No。IV，NewYork，1881，pp。34，35；andforsomeserviceableProtestantfictions，seeCunningham，ChristianOpiniononUsury，pp。60，61。ForDumoulinMolinaeus，seeBohm-Bawerk，asabove，pp。29etseq。FordebatesonusuryintheBritishParliamentinElizabeth’stime，seeCobbett，ParliamentaryHistory，vol。i，pp756etseq。A
　　strikingpassageinShakespeareisfoundintheMerchantofVenice，ActI，sceneiii：“Ifthouwiltlendthismoney，lenditnotastothyfriend；forwhendidfriendshiptakeabreedforbarrenmetalofhisfriend？”FortherightdirectiontakenbyLordBacon，seeNeumann，GeschichtedesWuchersinDeutschland，Halle，1864，pp。497，498。ForSalmasius，seehisDeUsuris，Leyden，1638，andforothersmentioned，seeBohm-Bawerk，pp。34
　　etseq。；alsoLecky，vol。ii。p。256。ForthesavingclauseindertedbythebishopsinthestatuteofJamesI，seetheCorpusJurisEccles。Anglic。，p。1071；alsoMurray，HistoryofUsury，Philadelphia，1866，p。49。
　　ForBlaxton，seehisEnglishUsurer，orUsuryCondemned，byJohnBlaxton，PreacherofGod’sWord，London，1634。BlaxtongivessomeofCalvin’searlierutterancesagainstinterest。ForBishopSands；ssermon，seep。11。ForFilmer，seehisQuaestioQuodlibetica，London，1652，reprintedintheHarleianMiscellany，vol。x，pp。105etseq。ForGrotius，seetheDeJureBelliacPacis，lib。ii，cap。xii。ForCottonMather’sargument，seetheMagnalia，London，1702，pp。5，52。
　　ButwhiletheretreatoftheProtestantChurchfromtheolddoctrineregardingthetakingofinterestwashencefortheasy，intheCatholicChurchitwasfarmoredifficult。Infalliblepopesandcouncils，withsaints，fathers，anddoctors，hadsoconstantlydeclaredthetakingofanyinterestatalltobecontrarytoScripture，thatthemoreexactthoughlessfortunateinterpretationofthesacredtextrelatingtointerestcontinuedinCatholiccountries。WhenitwasattemptedinFranceintheseventeenthcenturytoarguethatusury“meansoppressiveinterest。”theTheologicalFacultyoftheSorbonnedeclaredthatusuryisthetakingofanyinterestatall，nomatterhowlittle；
　　andtheeighteenthchapterofEzekielwascitedtoclinchthisargument。
　　Anotherattempttoeasetheburdenofindustryandcommercewasmadebydeclaringthat“usurymeansinterestdemandednotasamatteroffavourbutasamatterofright。”This，too，wassolemnlycondemnedbyPopeinnocentXI。
　　Againanattemptwasmadetofindawayoutofthedifficultybydeclaringthat“usuryisinterestgreaterthanthelawallows。”
　　This，too，wascondemned，andsoalsowasthedeclarationthat“usuryisinterestonloansnotforafixedtime。”