^ Lewis. ^ Mill. Hist. Jews, Vol. iii., p. 407. ' " Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury ; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury." — (JDeut. xxiii., 26.)
The "strangers" here spoken of, were the Canaanites and neighboring tribes.
*■ Pal. Mor. and Polit. Phil., Vol. 2., book 3., c. 10. 2 18 HISTORY OF USUET.
informs us, a loan upon interest could lawfully be made from one Jew to another ; and that the offence contemplated by the law, was the oppression of the already needy borrower : so that where there was no oppression, there was no sin of usury, even under the law of Moses.' This view is certainly sustained by passnges occuring in the New Testament, '^ which distinctly inform us that there were bankers or brokers in Jerusalem, who carried on a trade in money, and borrowed or took in money at interest ; and it was of them our Saviour spoke in the parable of the ten pieces of money.' Now it is not likely that the divine law- giver would make a sinful practice the medium of instructions in his heavenly precepts ; and we may therefore safely conclude, that there were lawful ' The Mosaic law contains three statutes on the subject of interest. In the first, interest is forbidden to be taken of poor Israelites only : " If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shall not lay usury upon him."* In the second, the reference is still to the poor and needy : " And if thy brother be waxen poor and fallen into decay thou shalt relieve him, but take thou no usury of him or increase." f And hence Michaelis argues that interest was permitted to be taken of an opulent Jew, but that in consequence of the laws being evaded, interest was totally prohibited in the fortieth year after the Exodus,| by the third statute § of Moses.