EXCURSUS ON USURY.

The famous canonist Van Espen defines usury thus: "Usura definitur 

lucrum ex mutuo exactum aut speratum;"() and then goes on to 

defend the proposition that, "Usury is forbidden by natural, by divine, 

and by human law. The first is proved thus. Natural law, as far as its 

first principles are concerned, is contained in the decalogue; but usury 

is prohibited in the decalogue, inasmuch as theft is prohibited; and this 

is the opinion of the Master of the Sentences, of St. Bonaventura, of 

St. Thomas and of a host of others: for by the name of theft in the Law 

all unlawful taking of another's goods is prohibited; but usury is an 

unlawful, etc." For a proof of usury's being contrary to divine law he 

cites Ex. xxii. , and Deut. xxiii. ; and from the New Testament 

Luke vi. . "The third assertion is proved thus. Usury is forbidden by 

human law: The First Council of Nice in Canon VII. deposed from the 

clergy and from all ecclesiastical rank, clerics who took usury; and the 

same thing is the case with an infinite number of councils, in fact with 

nearly all e.g. Elvira, ij, Arles j, Carthage iij, Tours iij, etc. Nay, even 

the pagans themselves formerly forbid it by their laws." He then quotes 

Tacitus(Annal. lib. v.), and adds, "with what severe laws the French 

Kings coerced usurers is evident from the edicts of St. Louis, Philip 

IV., Charles IX., Henry III., etc."

There can be no doubt that Van Espen in the foregoing has accurately 

represented and without any exaggeration the universal opinion of all 

teachers of morals, theologians, doctors, Popes, and Councils of the 

Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years. All interest 

exacted upon loans of money was looked upon as usury, and its 

reception was esteemed a form of theft and dishonesty. Those who 

wish to read the history of the matter in all its details are referred to 

Bossuet's work on the subject, Traite de l'Usure,() where they will 

find

the old, traditional view of the Christian religion defended by one 

thoroughly acquainted with all that could be said on the other side.

The glory of inventing the new moral code on the subject, by which 

that which before was looked upon as mortal sin has been transfigured 

into innocence, if not virtue, belongs to John Calvin! He made the 

modern distinction between "interest" and "usury," and was the first to 

write in defence of this then new-fangled refinement of casuistry.() 

Luther violently opposed him, and Melancthon also kept to the old 

doctrine, though less violently(as was to be expected); today the whole 

Christian West, Protestant and Catholic alike, stake their salvation 

upon the truth of Calvin's distinction! Among Roman Catholics the 

new doctrine began to be defended about the beginning of the 

eighteenth century, the work of Scipio Maffei, Dell' impiego dell 

danaro, written on the laxer side, having attracted a widespread 

attention. The Ballerini affirm that the learned pope Benedict XIV. 

allowed books defending the new morals to be dedicated to him, and 

in  the Congregation of the Holy Office with the approval of the 

reigning Pontiff, Plus VIII., decided that those who considered the 

taking of interest allowed by the state law justifiable, were "not to be 

disturbed." It is entirely disingenuous to attempt to reconcile the 

modern with the ancient doctrine; the Fathers expressly deny that the 

State has any power to make the receiving of interest just or to fix its 

rate, there is but one ground for those to take who accept the new 

teaching, viz. that all the ancients, while true on the moral principle 

that one must not defraud his neighbour nor take unjust advantage of 

his necessity, were in error concerning the facts, in that they supposed 

that money was barren, an opinion which the Schoolmen also held, 

following Aristotle. This we have found in modern times, and amid 

modern circumstances, to be an entire error, as Gury, the famous 

modern casuist, well says, "fructum producit et multiplicatur per 

se."()

That the student may have it in his power to read the Patristic view of 

the matter, I give a list of the passages most commonly cited, together 

with a review of the conciliar action, for all which I am indebted to a 

masterly article by Wharton B. Marriott in Smith and Cheetham's 

Dictionary of Christian Antiquities(s. v. Usury).

Although the conditions of the mercantile community in the East and 

the West differed materially in some respects, the fathers of the two 

churches are equally explicit and systematic in their condemnation of 

the practice of usury. Among those belonging to the Greek church we 

find Athanasius(Expos. in Ps. xiv); Basil the Great(Hom. in Ps. xiv). 

Gregory of Nazianzum(Orat. xiv. in Patrem tacentem). Gregory of 

Nyssa(Orat. cont. Usurarios); Cyril of Jerusalem(Catech. iv. c. ), 

Epiphanius(adv. Haeres. Epilog. c. ), Chrysostom(Hom. xli. in 

Genes), and Theodoret(Interpr. in Ps. xiv. , and liv. ). Among those 

belonging to the Latin church, Hilary of Poitiers(in Ps. xiv); 

Ambrose(de Tobia liber unus). Jerome(in Ezech. vi. ); Augustine de 

Baptismo contr. Donatistas, iv. ); Leo the Great(Epist. iii. ), and 

Cassiodorus {in Ps. xiv. ).

The canons of later councils differ materially in relation to this subject, 

and indicate a distinct tendency to mitigate the rigour of the Nicaean 

interdict. That of the council of Carthage of the year  enforces the 

original prohibition, but without the penalty, and grounds the veto on 

both Old and New Testament authority, "nemo contra prophetas, nemo 

contra evangelia facit sine periculo"(Mansi, iii. ). The language, 

however, when compared with that of the council of Carthage of the 

year , serves to suggest that, in the interval, the lower clergy had 

occasionally been found having recourse to the forbidden practice, for 

the general terms of the earlier canon, "ut non liceat clericis fenerari," 

are enforced with

greater particularity in the latter, "Nec omnino cuiquam clericorum 

liceat de qualibet re foenus accipere"(Mansi, iv. ). This supposition 

is supported by the language of the council of Orleans(A.D. ), 

which appears to imply that deacons were not prohibited from lending 

money at interest, "Et clericus a diaconatu, et supra, pecuniam non 

commodet ad usuras"(ib. ix. ). Similarly, at the second council of 

Trullanum(A.D. ) a like liberty would appear to have been 

recognised among the lower clergy(Hardouin, iii. ). While, again, 

the Nicaean canon requires the immediate deposition of the 

ecclesiastic found guilty of the practice, the Apostolical canon enjoins 

that such deposition is to take place only after he has been admonished 

and has disregarded the admonition.

Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that the 

Church imposed no penalty on the layman. St. Basil(Epist. clxxxviii. 

can. ), says that a usurer may even be admitted to orders, provided 

he gives his acquired wealth to the poor and abstains for the future 

from the pursuit of gain(Migne, Patrol. Groec. xxxii. ). Gregory of 

Nyssa says that usury, unlike theft, the desecration of tombs, and 

sacrilege  ierosulia  , is allowed to pass unpunished, 

although among the things forbidden by Scripture, nor is a candidate 

at ordination ever asked whether or no he has been guilty of the 

practice(Migne, ib. xlv. ). A letter of Sidonius Apollinaris(Epist. 

vi. ) relating an experience of his friend Maximus, appears to imply 

that no blame attached to lending money at the legal rate of interest, 

and that even a bishop might be a creditor on those terms. We find 

also Desideratus, bishop of Verdun, when applying for a loan to king 

Theodebert, for the relief of his impoverished diocese, promising 

repayment, "cure usuris legitimis," an expression which would seem to 

imply that in the Gallican church usury was recognised as lawful 

under certain conditions(Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iii. ). So again a 

letter(Epist. ix. ) of Gregory the Great seems to shew that he did not 

regard the payment of interest for money advanced by one layman to 

another as unlawful. But on the other hand, we find in what is known 

as archbishop Theodore's "Penitential"(circ. A.D. ) what appears to 

be a general law on the subject, enjoining "Sie quis usuras undecunque 

exegerit . . . tres annos in pane et aqua"(c. xxv. ); a penance again 

enjoined in the Penitential of Egbert of York(c. ii. ). In like manner, 

the legates, George and Theophylact, in reporting their proceedings in 

England to pope Adrian I.(A.D. ), state that they have prohibited 

"usurers," and cite the authority of the Psalmist and St. 

Augustine(Haddan and Stubbs, Conc. iii. ). The councils of 

Mayence, Rheims, and Chalons, in the year , and that of Aix in the 

year , seem to have laid down the same prohibition as binding both 

on the clergy and the laity(Hardouin, Conc. iv. , , , 

).

Muratori, in his dissertation on the subject(Antichita, vol. i.), observes 

that "we do not know exactly how commerce was transacted in the five 

preceding centuries," and consequently are ignorant as to the terms on 

which loans of money were effected.