which they have dreamt. Jesus teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is merely negation.27 Jesus was no social reformer. His teachings had no moral application to life on earth, and his instructions to the disciples only have a meaning in the light of their immediate aim—to await the Lord with girded loins and burning lamps, “that when he cometh and knocketh, they may straightaway open unto him.”28 It is just this that has enabled Christianity to make its triumphant progress through the world. Being neutral to any social system, it was able to traverse the centuries without being destroyed by the tremendous social revolutions which took place. Only for this reason could it become the religion of Roman Emperors and Anglo-Saxon entrepreneurs, of African negroes and European Teutons, medieval feudal lords and modern industrial labourers. Each epoch and every party has been able to take from it what they wanted, because it contains nothing which binds it to a definite social order. [270] 4: The Canon Law Prohibition of Interest?

Each epoch has found in theGospels what it sought to find there, and has overlooked what it wished tooverlook. This is best proved by reference to the preponderant importance which ecclesiastical social ethics for many centuries attached to the doctrine of usury.29 The demand made upon Christ’s disciples in the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament is something very different from the renunciation of interest on capital lent out. The canonic prohibition of interest is a product of the medieval doctrine of society and trade, and had originally nothing to do with Christianity and its teachings. Moral condemnation of usury and the prohibition of interest preceded Christianity. They were taken over from the writers and the legislators of antiquity and enlarged as the struggle between agriculturists and the rising merchants and tradesmen developed. Only then did the people try to supportthem with quotations from Holy Writ. The taking of interest was not opposed becauseChristianity required it, but rather, because the public condemned it, people tried to read into the Christian writings a condemnation of usury. For this purpose the New Testament seemed at first to be useless, and accordingly the Old Testament was drawn on. for centuries no one thought of quoting any phiage from the New Testament in support of the prohibition. It was some time before the scholastic art of interpretation succeeded in reading what it sought into that much quoted phiage from luke, and so finding support in thegospels from thesuppression of usury.30 This was not until the beginning of the twelfth century. only after thedecree of urban iii is that phiage quoted as proof of the prohibition.31 The constructionthen put on Luke’s words was, however, quite untenable. the phiage is certainly not concerned with the taking of interest. it is possible that in the context of that phiage ??d?? ?pe?p????te? may mean “do not count on the restitution of what is lent.” Or more probably: “you shall lend not only to the well-to-do, who can also lend to

you at some time, but also to him from whom there is no prospect of this, to the poor.”32 the great importance people attached to this phiage contrasts sharply with their disregard of other Gospel commands and prohibitions. The medieval Church was intent on carrying the order against usury to its logical conclusion, but it wilfully omitted to enforce many clear and unambiguous commands of the Gospels with a fraction of the energy devoted to stamping .