"A. By no means; for, if such as are honest, and in needy circumstances, borrow a small sum towards a livelihood, and repay it in due time, it is all that can be expected of them; and therefore the demanding of any profit or interest, or even taking any of their necessaries of life in pledge, for the sum, seems to be plainly contrary to the law of charity. Ex. 22:25-28. Ps. 15:5. "Q. 38. Were not the Israelites forbidden to take usury from their brethren, whether poor or rich? Deut. 23:19: 'Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother.' "A. This text is to be restricted to their poor brethren, as it is explained, Ex. 22:25, and Lev. 25:35, 36; or, if it respects the Israelites indifferently, then it is one of the judicial laws peculiar to that people, and of no binding force now." In the answer to the 34th question he appeals to the light of nature. That light, as he interprets it, may be applied as follows. We follow his language closely and his argument perfectly. From the very light of nature which teaches, that since the borrower of the hoe purposes to dig his own garden with it, the lender should have a reasonable amount of his garden dug, as a recompense for the use of the hoe, which he might otherwise have used himself to dig his own garden. Fisher confirms his conclusion with a Scripture reference but it is so irrelevant that it would seem Wilson was wiser in omitting Scripture reference altogether. 1 Cor. 8:13, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." The only explanation the writer ever saw or heard of, that was seriously made was this: "If using my brother's money without interest offends him, then I will never while the world standeth accept his money without interest lest I make my brother to offend." If this is the intended application then it may be further applied. If using a brother's money at six per cent. offends him then I will surely give him ten per cent. lest I cause my brother offence. Could there be a more absurd application of a Scripture passage? The later theologians have seldom mentioned usury and none have discussed it at any length, and no divine to our knowledge has undertaken a defence. The "Systematic Theology" of Dr. Charles Hodge is perhaps the most elaborate and exhaustive. He does not more than refer to usury; he does not even mention it by name. But in his discussion of the violation of the eighth commandment, he ridicules the idea that "a thing is worth what it is worth to the man who demands it." He says: "If this be so, then if a man perishing from thirst is willing to give his whole estate for a glass of water it is right to exact that price; or if a man in danger of drowning should offer a thousand dollars for a rope, we might refuse to throw it to him for a less reward. Such conduct every man feels is worthy of execration."