Question II: Whether it is usury to lend so that, when I have need, you lend back to me, or buy from me at a just price

The QUESTION is: whether a lender can lawfully insert into the agreement that obligation of the natural law by which, from honesty, we are bound to do good to our benefactors, and indeed without any inconvenience to the borrower.

NOTE that four conditions of usury are commonly assigned. The first is a loan that is commonly of things consumable by use. The second is profit beyond the principal, or the capital sum given. The third is that the profit be a thing estimable by price. The fourth, that this profit arise precisely from the force of the loan itself, not from elsewhere, for instance from lucrum cessans. So Bassaeus num. 1. Molina disp. 303. tom. 2. Sylvester V. usura 1. quaestio 2.

The FIRST opinion holds that such loans are licit even with a civilly binding agreement. So D. Ant. part. 2. tit. 1. cap. 7. §. 15. Adrianus in 4. de restit. quaest. de usura, and others cited by Bassaeus.

The SECOND opinion is that it is licit if only an obligation of a grateful mind is introduced into the agreement. Thus Azor part. 3. lib. 5. cap. 7. Rodriquez tract. 2. cap. 197. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 20. dub. 8. Filliucius tract. 34. 2. part. num. 38. Sà V. mutuum, num. 3. Salas de usur. dub. 9. 10. 11. 16. et 21. saying that such obligations are fulfilled without inconvenience, from Vega tract. 2. cap. 131. casu 76. Diana p. 1. Tract. de contr. resol. 59. et 60. Bassaeus, V. usura 2. num. 5. Malder. 2. 2. tract. 5. cap. 3. disp. 4.

The BEST opinion, however, is that of D. Bonavent. in his commentary on Luke 6, where he indeed grants lending for the hope of a like service, for instance a return loan, etc.; yet he rejects every agreement, both civil, and even that of a grateful mind.

This is the common opinion. So D. Thom. q. 78. art. 2. ad 2. et 4. and there Caietanus, Salonius, Aragonius, Bannes and Petrus a Navarra lib. 3. de restit. cap. 2. disp. 4. num. 249. Molina tract. 2. disp. 308. et 309. Covar. lib. 3. var. cap. 1. Sylvester V. usura 1. quaestio 2. Medina in sum. lib. 1. cap. 14. §. 23. num. 43. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 20. dub. 8. num. 58. Megala 2. 2. lib. 2. cap. 15. quaest. 2. num. 29. Molfesius part. 2. tract. 12. cap. 23. num. 45. and Caspensis tract. 19. sect. 3. et 4.

I ASSERT, with this opinion, that every such agreement is illicit, as being usurious.

It is PROVED by this argument of D. Bonavent., which Diana proclaims most valid; for the civil obligation, or that arising from the insistence upon such acts, is estimable by price, and consequently money, as is evident from Aristotle lib. 4. Eth. cap. 1. and D. Bonavent. ad cap. 4. Regulae nostrae, but to exact money for a loan beyond the principal is usurious: Therefore.

NOR do the adversaries solve it sufficiently; for one cannot submit without inconvenience to being compelled to lend back in return, always having to visit that man's workshop, frequent that mill, etc.

NOR let them say that there is no price for the loan, because the borrower has in that mill what he would have elsewhere; for he is compelled, and deprived of liberty.

But OBSERVE that Diana and Bassaeus do not rightly assert that the authors of our opinion exclude only the civil obligation, but not an agreement under the title of gratitude; for S. Thom. ad 2. excludes the civil obligation, and ad 4. excludes any agreement whatsoever, even if he should admit that an obligation exists on the side of the recipient of the loan, under the title of a grateful mind; but it differs greatly to add an agreement, and in this way other authors also think, as is evident, and Valencia notes punct. 2. §. 7. rtio quaero, and I shall say quaest. 4. where I shall also report the words of S. Bonaventure.

HENCE also you will deduce what Diana asks subsequently, resol. 50. Whether the lender may insert into the agreement that the borrower immediately sell, buy, lend back, and perform similar services.

Indeed Diana ASSERTS, with Reginaldo tract. 2. lib. 25. cap. 11. num. 198. that it is licit; so also Bannes quaest 78. art. 2. asserts it probable, and Pet. Nauar. lib. 3. de restit. cap. 2. num. 235. et 242. Layman lib. 3. sect. 5. tract. 4. cap. 16. teach it absolutely.

Yet Lopez, Sotus, Aragon. and Graffius teach that this is a usurious contract, cited by Sala de usuris, dub. 10. Rebell. part. 2. lib. 8. quaest. 4. num. 10. and it is the opinion of D. Bonavent. locis allegatis, for he himself detests every obligation entered into by agreement.