Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum liceat, negotiando, aliquid carius vendere quam emere Whether, in trading, it is lawful to sell a thing at a higher price than what was paid for it? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat, negotiando, aliquid carius vendere quam emere. Dicit enim Chrysostomus, super Matth. XXI, quicumque rem comparat ut, integram et immutatam vendendo, lucretur, ille est mercator qui de templo Dei eiicitur. Et idem dicit Cassiodorus, super illud Psalm., quoniam non cognovi litteraturam, vel negotiationem secundum aliam litteram, quid, inquit, est aliud negotiatio nisi vilius comparare et carius velle distrahere? Et subdit, negotiatores tales dominus eiecit de templo. Sed nullus eiicitur de templo nisi propter aliquod peccatum. Ergo talis negotiatio est peccatum. Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful, in trading, to sell a thing for a higher price than we paid for it. For Chrysostom says on Matt. 21:12: He that buys a thing in order that he may sell it, entire and unchanged, at a profit, is the trader who is cast out of God’s temple. Cassiodorus speaks in the same sense in his commentary on Ps. 70:15, Because I have not known learning, or trading according to another version: What is trade, says he, but buying at a cheap price with the purpose of retailing at a higher price? and he adds: Such were the tradesmen whom Our Lord cast out of the temple. Now no man is cast out of the temple except for a sin. Therefore such like trading is sinful. Praeterea, contra iustitiam est quod aliquis rem carius vendat quam valeat, vel vilius emat, ut ex dictis apparet. Sed ille qui, negotiando, rem carius vendit quam emerit, necesse est quod vel vilius emerit quam valeat, vel carius vendat. Ergo hoc sine peccato fieri non potest. Obj. 2: Further, it is contrary to justice to sell goods at a higher price than their worth, or to buy them for less than their value, as shown above (A. 1). Now if you sell a thing for a higher price than you paid for it, you must either have bought it for less than its value, or sell it for more than its value. Therefore this cannot be done without sin. Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit, negotiatorem clericum, ex inope divitem, ex ignobili gloriosum, quasi quandam pestem fuge. Non autem negotiatio clericis interdicenda esse videtur nisi propter peccatum. Ergo negotiando aliquid vilius emere et carius vendere est peccatum. Obj. 3: Further, Jerome says (Ep. ad Nepot. lii): Shun, as you would the plague, a cleric who from being poor has become wealthy, or who, from being a nobody has become a celebrity. Now trading would not seem to be forbidden to clerics except on account of its sinfulness. Therefore it is a sin in trading, to buy at a low price and to sell at a higher price. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super illud Psalm., quoniam non cognovi litteraturam, negotiator avidus acquirendi pro damno blasphemat, pro pretiis rerum mentitur et peierat. Sed haec vitia hominis sunt, non artis, quae sine his vitiis agi potest. Ergo negotiari secundum se non est illicitum. On the contrary, Augustine commenting on Ps. 70:15, Because I have not known learning, says: The greedy tradesman blasphemes over his losses; he lies and perjures himself over the price of his wares. But these are vices of the man, not of the craft, which can be exercised without these vices. Therefore trading is not in itself unlawful. Respondeo dicendum quod ad negotiatores pertinet commutationibus rerum insistere. Ut autem philosophus dicit, in I Polit., duplex est rerum commutatio. Una quidem quasi naturalis et necessaria, per quam scilicet fit commutatio rei ad rem, vel rerum et denariorum, propter necessitatem vitae. Et talis commutatio non proprie pertinet ad negotiatores, sed magis ad oeconomicos vel politicos, qui habent providere vel domui vel civitati de rebus necessariis ad vitam. Alia vero commutationis species est vel denariorum ad denarios, vel quarumcumque rerum ad denarios, non propter res necessarias vitae, sed propter lucrum quaerendum. Et haec quidem negotiatio proprie videtur ad negotiatores pertinere. Secundum philosophum autem, prima commutatio laudabilis est, quia deservit naturali necessitati. Secunda autem iuste vituperatur, quia, quantum est de se, deservit cupiditati lucri, quae terminum nescit sed in infinitum tendit. Et ideo negotiatio, secundum se considerata, quandam turpitudinem habet, inquantum non importat de sui ratione finem honestum vel necessarium. Lucrum tamen, quod est negotiationis finis, etsi in sui ratione non importet aliquid honestum vel necessarium, nihil tamen importat in sui ratione vitiosum vel virtuti contrarium. Unde nihil prohibet lucrum ordinari ad aliquem finem necessarium, vel etiam honestum. Et sic negotiatio licita reddetur. Sicut cum aliquis lucrum moderatum, quod negotiando quaerit, ordinat ad domus suae sustentationem, vel etiam ad subveniendum indigentibus, vel etiam cum aliquis negotiationi intendit propter publicam utilitatem, ne scilicet res necessariae ad vitam patriae desint, et lucrum expetit non quasi finem, sed quasi stipendium laboris. I answer that, A tradesman is one whose business consists in the exchange of things. According to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 3), exchange of things is twofold; one, natural as it were, and necessary, whereby one commodity is exchanged for another, or money taken in exchange for a commodity, in order to satisfy the needs of life. Such like trading, properly speaking, does not belong to tradesmen, but rather to housekeepers or civil servants who have to provide the household or the state with the necessaries of life. The other kind of exchange is either that of money for money, or of any commodity for money, not on account of the necessities of life, but for profit, and this kind of exchange, properly speaking, regards tradesmen, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 3). The former kind of exchange is commendable because it supplies a natural need: but the latter is justly deserving of blame, because, considered in itself, it satisfies the greed for gain, which knows no limit and tends to infinity. Hence trading, considered in itself, has a certain debasement attaching thereto, insofar as, by its very nature, it does not imply a virtuous or necessary end. Nevertheless gain which is the end of trading, though not implying, by its nature, anything virtuous or necessary, does not, in itself, connote anything sinful or contrary to virtue: wherefore nothing prevents gain from being directed to some necessary or even virtuous end, and thus trading becomes lawful. Thus, for instance, a man may intend the moderate gain which he seeks to acquire by trading for the upkeep of his household, or for the assistance of the needy: or again, a man may take to trade for some public advantage, for instance, lest his country lack the necessaries of life, and seek gain, not as an end, but as payment for his labor. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum Chrysostomi est intelligendum de negotiatione secundum quod ultimum finem in lucro constituit, quod praecipue videtur quando aliquis rem non immutatam carius vendit. Si enim rem immutatam carius vendat, videtur praemium sui laboris accipere. Quamvis et ipsum lucrum possit licite intendi, non sicut ultimus finis, sed propter alium finem necessarium vel honestum, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: The saying of Chrysostom refers to the trading which seeks gain as a last end. This is especially the case where a man sells something at a higher price without its undergoing any change. For if he sells at a higher price something that has changed for the better, he would seem to receive the reward of his labor. Nevertheless the gain itself may be lawfully intended, not as a last end, but for the sake of some other end which is necessary or virtuous, as stated above. Ad secundum dicendum quod non quicumque carius vendit aliquid quam emerit, negotiatur, sed solum qui ad hoc emit ut carius vendat. Si autem emit rem non ut vendat, sed ut teneat, et postmodum propter aliquam causam eam vendere velit, non est negotiatio, quamvis carius vendat. Potest enim hoc licite facere, vel quia in aliquo rem melioravit; vel quia pretium rei est mutatum, secundum diversitatem loci vel temporis; vel propter periculum cui se exponit transferendo rem de loco ad locum, vel eam ferri faciendo. Et secundum hoc, nec emptio nec venditio est iniusta. Reply Obj. 2: Not everyone that sells at a higher price than he bought is a tradesman, but only he who buys that he may sell at a profit. If, on the contrary, he buys not for sale but for possession, and afterwards, for some reason wishes to sell, it is not a trade transaction even if he sell at a profit. For he may lawfully do this, either because he has bettered the thing, or because the value of the thing has changed with the change of place or time, or on account of the danger he incurs in transferring the thing from one place to another, or again in having it carried by another. In this sense neither buying nor selling is unjust. Ad tertium dicendum quod clerici non solum debent abstinere ab his quae sunt secundum se mala, sed etiam ab his quae habent speciem mali. Quod quidem in negotiatione contingit, tum propter hoc quod est ordinata ad lucrum terrenum, cuius clerici debent esse contemptores; tum etiam propter frequentia negotiatorum vitia, quia difficiliter exuitur negotiator a peccatis labiorum, ut dicitur Eccli. XXVI. Est et alia causa, quia negotiatio nimis implicat animum saecularibus curis, et per consequens a spiritualibus retrahit, unde apostolus dicit, II ad Tim. II, nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus. Licet tamen clericis uti prima commutationis specie, quae ordinatur ad necessitatem vitae, emendo vel vendendo. Reply Obj. 3: Clerics should abstain not only from things that are evil in themselves, but even from those that have an appearance of evil. This happens in trading, both because it is directed to worldly gain, which clerics should despise, and because trading is open to so many vices, since a merchant is hardly free from sins of the lips (Sir 26:28). There is also another reason, because trading engages the mind too much with worldly cares, and consequently withdraws it from spiritual cares; wherefore the Apostle says (2 Tim 2:4): No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses. Nevertheless it is lawful for clerics to engage in the first mentioned kind of exchange, which is directed to supply the necessaries of life, either by buying or by selling. Quaestio 78 Question 78 De peccato usurae The Sin of Usury Deinde considerandum est de peccato usurae, quod committitur in mutuis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider the sin of usury, which is committed in loans: and under this head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum sit peccatum accipere pecuniam in pretium pro pecunia mutuata, quod est accipere usuram. (1) Whether it is a sin to take money as a price for money lent, which is to receive usury? Secundo, utrum liceat pro eodem quamcumque utilitatem accipere quasi in recompensationem mutui. (2) Whether it is lawful to lend money for any other kind of consideration, by way of payment for the loan? Tertio, utrum aliquis restituere teneatur id quod de pecunia usuraria iusto lucro lucratus est. (3) Whether a man is bound to restore just gains derived from money taken in usury? Quarto, utrum liceat accipere mutuo pecuniam sub usura. (4) Whether it is lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum accipere usuram pro pecunia mutuata sit peccatum Whether it is a sin to take usury for money lent? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod accipere usuram pro pecunia mutuata non sit peccatum. Nullus enim peccat ex hoc quod sequitur exemplum Christi. Sed dominus de seipso dicit, Luc. XIX, ego veniens cum usuris exegissem illam, scilicet pecuniam mutuatam. Ergo non est peccatum accipere usuram pro mutuo pecuniae. Objection 1: It would seem that it is not a sin to take usury for money lent. For no man sins through following the example of Christ. But Our Lord said of Himself (Luke 19:23): At My coming I might have exacted it, i.e., the money lent, with usury. Therefore it is not a sin to take usury for lending money. Praeterea, sicut dicitur in Psalm., lex domini immaculata, quia scilicet peccatum prohibet. Sed in lege divina conceditur aliqua usura, secundum illud Deut. XXIII, non faenerabis fratri tuo ad usuram pecuniam, nec fruges nec quamlibet aliam rem, sed alieno. Et, quod plus est, etiam in praemium repromittitur pro lege servata, secundum illud Deut. XXVIII, faenerabis gentibus multis; et ipse a nullo faenus accipies. Ergo accipere usuram non est peccatum. Obj. 2: Further, according to Ps. 18:8, The law of the Lord is unspotted, because, to wit, it forbids sin. Now usury of a kind is allowed in the Divine law, according to Deut. 23:19, 20: Thou shalt not fenerate to thy brother money, nor corn, nor any other thing, but to the stranger: nay more, it is even promised as a reward for the observance of the Law, according to Deut. 28:12: Thou shalt fenerate to many nations, and shalt not borrow of any one. Therefore it is not a sin to take usury. Praeterea, in rebus humanis determinatur iustitia per leges civiles. Sed secundum eas conceditur usuras accipere. Ergo videtur non esse illicitum. Obj. 3: Further, in human affairs justice is determined by civil laws. Now civil law allows usury to be taken. Therefore it seems to be lawful. Praeterea, praetermittere consilia non obligat ad peccatum. Sed Luc. VI inter alia consilia ponitur, date mutuum, nihil inde sperantes. Ergo accipere usuram non est peccatum. Obj. 4: Further, the counsels are not binding under sin. But, among other counsels we find (Luke 6:35): Lend, hoping for nothing thereby. Therefore it is not a sin to take usury. Praeterea, pretium accipere quo eo quod quis facere non tenetur, non videtur esse secundum se peccatum. Sed non in quolibet casu tenetur pecuniam habens eam proximo mutuare. Ergo licet ei aliquando pro mutuo accipere pretium. Obj. 5: Further, it does not seem to be in itself sinful to accept a price for doing what one is not bound to do. But one who has money is not bound in every case to lend it to his neighbor. Therefore it is lawful for him sometimes to accept a price for lending it. Praeterea, argentum monetatum, et in vasa formatum, non differt specie. Sed licet accipere pretium pro vasis argenteis accommodatis. Ergo etiam licet accipere pretium pro mutuo argenti monetati. Usura ergo non est secundum se peccatum. Obj. 6: Further, silver made into coins does not differ specifically from silver made into a vessel. But it is lawful to accept a price for the loan of a silver vessel. Therefore it is also lawful to accept a price for the loan of a silver coin. Therefore usury is not in itself a sin. Praeterea, quilibet potest licite accipere rem quam ei dominus rei voluntarie tradit. Sed ille qui accipit mutuum voluntarie tradit usuram. Ergo ille qui mutuat licite potest accipere. Obj. 7: Further, anyone may lawfully accept a thing which its owner freely gives him. Now he who accepts the loan, freely gives the usury. Therefore he who lends may lawfully take the usury. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XXII, si pecuniam mutuam dederis populo meo pauperi qui habitat tecum, non urgebis eum quasi exactor, nec usuris opprimes. On the contrary, It is written (Exod 22:25): If thou lend money to any of thy people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with usuries. Respondeo dicendum quod accipere usuram pro pecunia mutuata est secundum se iniustum, quia venditur id quod non est, per quod manifeste inaequalitas constituitur, quae iustitiae contrariatur. Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod quaedam res sunt quarum usus est ipsarum rerum consumptio, sicut vinum consumimus eo utendo ad potum, et triticum consumimus eo utendo ad cibum. Unde in talibus non debet seorsum computari usus rei a re ipsa, sed cuicumque conceditur usus, ex hoc ipso conceditur res. Et propter hoc in talibus per mutuum transfertur dominium. Si quis ergo seorsum vellet vendere vinum et seorsum vellet vendere usum vini, venderet eandem rem bis, vel venderet id quod non est. Unde manifeste per iniustitiam peccaret. Et simili ratione, iniustitiam committit qui mutuat vinum aut triticum petens sibi duas recompensationes, unam quidem restitutionem aequalis rei, aliam vero pretium usus, quod usura dicitur. I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kind is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. In like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury. Quaedam vero sunt quorum usus non est ipsa rei consumptio, sicut usus domus est inhabitatio, non autem dissipatio. Et ideo in talibus seorsum potest utrumque concedi, puta cum aliquis tradit alteri dominium domus, reservato sibi usu ad aliquod tempus; vel e converso cum quis concedit alicui usum domus, reservato sibi eius dominio. Et propter hoc licite potest homo accipere pretium pro usu domus, et praeter hoc petere domum commodatam, sicut patet in conductione et locatione domus. On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house. Pecunia autem, secundum philosophum, in V Ethic. et in I Polit., principaliter est inventa ad commutationes faciendas, et ita proprius et principalis pecuniae usus est ipsius consumptio sive distractio, secundum quod in commutationes expenditur. Et propter hoc secundum se est illicitum pro usu pecuniae mutuatae accipere pretium, quod dicitur usura. Et sicut alia iniuste acquisita tenetur homo restituere, ita pecuniam quam per usuram accepit. Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod usura ibi metaphorice accipitur pro superexcrescentia bonorum spiritualium, quam exigit Deus volens ut in bonis acceptis ab eo semper proficiamus. Quod est ad utilitatem nostram, non eius. Reply Obj. 1: In this passage usury must be taken figuratively for the increase of spiritual goods which God exacts from us, for He wishes us ever to advance in the goods which we receive from Him: and this is for our own profit not for His. Ad secundum dicendum quod Iudaeis prohibitum fuit accipere usuram a fratribus suis, scilicet Iudaeis, per quod datur intelligi quod accipere usuram a quocumque homine est simpliciter malum; debemus enim omnem hominem habere quasi proximum et fratrem, praecipue in statu Evangelii, ad quod omnes vocantur. Unde in Psalm. absolute dicitur, qui pecuniam suam non dedit ad usuram; et Ezech. XVIII, qui usuram non acceperit. Quod autem ab extraneis usuram acciperent, non fuit eis concessum quasi licitum, sed permissum ad maius malum vitandum, ne scilicet a Iudaeis, Deum colentibus, usuras acciperent, propter avaritiam, cui dediti erant, ut habetur Isaiae LVI. Reply Obj. 2: The Jews were forbidden to take usury from their brethren, i.e., from other Jews. By this we are given to understand that to take usury from any man is evil simply, because we ought to treat every man as our neighbor and brother, especially in the state of the Gospel, whereto all are called. Hence it is said without any distinction in Ps. 14:5: He that hath not put out his money to usury, and (Ezek 18:8): Who hath not taken usury. They were permitted, however, to take usury from foreigners, not as though it were lawful, but in order to avoid a greater evil, lest, to wit, through avarice to which they were prone according to Isa. 56:11, they should take usury from the Jews who were worshippers of God. Quod autem in praemium promittitur, faenerabis gentibus multis, etc., faenus ibi large accipitur pro mutuo, sicut et Eccli. XXIX dicitur, multi non causa nequitiae non faenerati sunt, idest non mutuaverunt. Promittitur ergo in praemium Iudaeis abundantia divitiarum, ex qua contingit quod aliis mutuare possint. Where we find it promised to them as a reward, Thou shalt fenerate to many nations, etc., fenerating is to be taken in a broad sense for lending, as in Ecclus. 29:10, where we read: Many have refused to fenerate, not out of wickedness, i.e., they would not lend. Accordingly the Jews are promised in reward an abundance of wealth, so that they would be able to lend to others. Ad tertium dicendum quod leges humanae dimittunt aliqua peccata impunita propter conditiones hominum imperfectorum, in quibus multae utilitates impedirentur si omnia peccata districte prohiberentur poenis adhibitis. Et ideo usuras lex humana concessit, non quasi existimans eas esse secundum iustitiam, sed ne impedirentur utilitates multorum. Unde in ipso iure civili dicitur quod res quae usu consumuntur neque ratione naturali neque civili recipiunt usumfructum, et quod senatus non fecit earum rerum usumfructum, nec enim poterat; sed quasi usumfructum constituit, concedens scilicet usuras. Et philosophus, naturali ratione ductus, dicit, in I Polit., quod usuraria acquisitio pecuniarum est maxime praeter naturam. Reply Obj. 3: Human laws leave certain things unpunished, on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who would be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and punishments appointed for them. Wherefore human law has permitted usury, not that it looks upon usury as harmonizing with justice, but lest the advantage of many should be hindered. Hence it is that in civil law it is stated that those things according to natural reason and civil law which are consumed by being used, do not admit of usufruct, and that the senate did not (nor could it) appoint a usufruct to such things, but established a quasi-usufruct, namely by permitting usury. Moreover the Philosopher, led by natural reason, says (Polit. i, 3) that to make money by usury is exceedingly unnatural. Ad quartum dicendum quod dare mutuum non semper tenetur homo, et ideo quantum ad hoc ponitur inter consilia. Sed quod homo lucrum de mutuo non quaerat, hoc cadit sub ratione praecepti. Potest tamen dici consilium per comparationem ad dicta Pharisaeorum, qui putabant usuram aliquam esse licitam, sicut et dilectio inimicorum est consilium. Vel loquitur ibi non de spe usurarii lucri, sed de spe quae ponitur in homine. Non enim debemus mutuum dare, vel quodcumque bonum facere, propter spem hominis, sed propter spem Dei. Reply Obj. 4: A man is not always bound to lend, and for this reason it is placed among the counsels. Yet it is a matter of precept not to seek profit by lending: although it may be called a matter of counsel in comparison with the maxims of the Pharisees, who deemed some kinds of usury to be lawful, just as love of one’s enemies is a matter of counsel. Or again, He speaks here not of the hope of usurious gain, but of the hope which is put in man. For we ought not to lend or do any good deed through hope in man, but only through hope in God. Ad quintum dicendum quod ille qui mutuare non tenetur recompensationem potest accipere eius quod fecit, sed non amplius debet exigere. Recompensatur autem sibi secundum aequalitatem iustitiae si tantum ei reddatur quantum mutuavit. Unde si amplius exigat pro usufructu rei quae alium usum non habet nisi consumptionem substantiae, exigit pretium eius quod non est. Et ita est iniusta exactio. Reply Obj. 5: He that is not bound to lend, may accept repayment for what he has done, but he must not exact more. Now he is repaid according to equality of justice if he is repaid as much as he lent. Wherefore if he exacts more for the usufruct of a thing which has no other use but the consumption of its substance, he exacts a price of something non-existent: and so his exaction is unjust.