Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question V: Whether so-called re-exchanges are lawful only on account of ceasing profit or emerging loss
THEY ASSERT: Lessius lib. 2. cap. 23. dub. 9. numero 82. Salas de Cambiis disp. 22. Fillicius tomo 2. tract. 35. part. 2. cap 10. num. 471.
An dicta Recambia solum liceat ratione lucri cessantis, vel damni emergentis.
ASSERUNT Lessius lib. 2. cap. 23. dub. 9. numero 82. Salas de Cambiis disp. 22. Fillicius tomo 2. tract. 35. part. 2. cap 10. num. 471.
YET Diana resol. 5. with Scortia in Bulla Pontif. epist. 107. Theor. 189. teaches that these recambes are licit, not only by reason of lucrum cessans, and damnum emergentis, but also licit by the nature of Exchange itself, because they are new exchanges, and repeated purchases, and sales.
ATTAMEN Diana resol. 5. cum Scortia in Bulla Pontif. epist. 107. Theor. 189. docet licita esse haec recambia, non solum ratione lucri cessantis, et damni emergentis, sed etiam ex natura Cambii esse licita, quia sunt nova cambia, et iteratae emptiones, ac venditiones.
IT SEEMS to me that the holy Doctor, ad cap. 2. Ioannis, stands for the first opinion; for, explaining those words: Eiecit nummularios, namely those lending money under caution; for it was forbidden to give at usury, and that for this very reason: because even if they were not certain that so much gain would accrue to them from the delay, yet they exacted those gains under caution; which the second opinion admits, and the first denies; as is seen in Fillucius, and Caspensis.
VIDETUR mihi S. Doctor ad cap. 2. Ioannis, stare pro prima sententia explicans enim ea verba: Eiecit nummularios, scilicet accommodantes pecuniam sub cautione; nam prohibitum erat dare ad usuram, ea sane de causa, quia etiamsi non essent certi, tantumdem lucri sibi cessaturum ex mora, tamen exigebant ad cautionem lucra illa; quod secunda sententia admittit, et prima negat; ut videre est in Fillucio, et Caspensi.