Page:Luther's correspondence and other contemporary letters 1521-1530.djvu/240

 tkm, much debated in the i6th century, whether the taking of interest was permissible. It had been forbidden by the Canon Law, but the prohibition was rapidly becoming a dead letter. For a full discussion of Luther's views vide Eck's introduction to the above-mentioned tract in Berlin, vii, 494fF. De Wette, followed by Erlangen (liii, 244), dates the letter May 21, and assumes that it was addressed to the Elector; for date and address as here given, tnde Enders, iv, 353, a. i ; 354, a. i.

... To the question whether a prince can allow the taking of usurious interest, I reply : It would be a fine thing if tithes of all property were paid to the government every year, as was the custom in the ancient world. That would be the kind of interest most in accordance with God's will, for that would lay not hardship on those who had to pay; if God gave much or little the tithe would be reckoned accordingly. Indeed it would be both tolerable and desirable that all other payments should be abolished, and a fifth or a sixth were collected from the people, as was done by Joseph in Egypt, but since there is no such orderly arrangement in the world, I must despair of this remedy and say that it is highly neces- sary that the taking of interest should be regulated every- where, but to abolish it entirely would not be right either, for it can be made just. I do not advise your Grace, however, to protect people in their refusal to pay interest or to pre- vent them from paying it, for it is not a burden laid upon people by a prince in his law, but it is a common plague that all have taken upon themselves. We must put up with it, therefore, and hold debtors to it and not let them spare them- selves or seek a remedy of their own, but put them on a level with everybody else, as love requires, even though it be at loss to themselves, until God puts it into the hearts of the princes to agree to some change. In the meanwhile, let the burden rest on the consciences of those who take un- just interest. In saying this I am speaking only of the in- terest which does not exceed four or five per cent. This is usurious not because of the amount, but because it is a fixed income and is invested without risk, as it ought not to be. But if the rate exceeds five per cent, every prince should take measures to reduce it to four or five per cent and to secure some reduction of the capital proportioned to

�� �