Chapter VI — On ceasing gain, and its conditions

I. There is among all the Fathers a deep silence concerning this title, as Dominic Soto also observes, Book 6, question 1, article 1. St. Thomas expressly disapproves this title, whatever some may cavil. Durandus, Scotus, Innocent upon the chapter Naviganti, the most learned Fr. Ignatius de Camargo, and others rightly reject this title. The first who maintained the title of ceasing gain, with fear and trembling, was Conrad Summenhart, hedged about with many conditions. After him Sylvester, Cajetan, and Adrian, who confess that this doctrine is a novelty.

II. QUESTION I. What does St. Thomas hold concerning this ceasing gain? ANSWER. He openly denies that anything can be exacted above the principal by reason of ceasing gain, absolutely speaking. For thus, question 78, article 2, reply 1: It must be said that he who gives a loan can without sin bring into an agreement with him who receives the loan a recompense of the loss by which is withdrawn from him something which he ought to have. For this is not to sell the use of money, but to avoid loss. And it can be that he who receives the loan avoids a greater loss than he who gives incurs. Whence he who receives the loan makes good another's loss with his own advantage. But a recompense of the loss which is considered in this, that he does not gain from the money, he cannot bring into an agreement: because he ought not to sell that which he does not yet have, and which can be hindered in many ways from being had.

III. Sylvius, after other Thomists, objects from 2-2, question 62, article 4, this text of St. Thomas: It must be said that whosoever damnifies another seems to take from him that in which he damnifies him. For loss is so called from this, that a man has less than he ought to have … and therefore a man is bound to restitution in that in which he damnified another. But a man is damnified in two ways. In one way, because there is taken from him that which he had in act: such a loss is always to be restored according to an equal recompense: as if a man damnify another by pulling down his house, he is bound to as much as the house is worth. In another way, if a man damnify another by hindering him from obtaining that which he was in the way of having: such a loss need not be recompensed on an equal footing: because to have something virtually is less than to have it in act; but he who is in the way of obtaining something has it only according to virtue or power, and therefore, if it be made that he should not have it, restitution is made in this in a lesser degree … which is not of necessity of restitution. He is nevertheless bound to make some compensation according to the condition of persons and of affairs.

IV. It is familiar to all those who strive to entangle and obscure the doctrine of the saints to catch at something said altogether outside the controversy, that they may cast a mist over the clearest testimonies. In the place cited by me St. Thomas expressly and of set purpose speaks of ceasing gain; and so openly and plainly does he deny that anything can be perceived above the principal from it, that they can bring forward nothing solid against it. Therefore for another question they appeal to a cause altogether foreign. But so far is it from favouring them, that there also he overthrows their doctrine. For it is manifest that there the holy Doctor speaks of a true loss which a creditor unwillingly suffers, inflicted by a tardy debtor. And this is the more evidently established from the second argument which he there objects to himself, saying: He who holds a creditor's money beyond the fixed time seems to damnify him in this, that he hinders him from gaining what he could have gained; and yet he himself takes nothing from him. Therefore it seems that a man is not bound to restore what he did not take away. To which objection he thus answers: He who has money does not yet have gain in act, but only in virtue; and it can be hindered in many ways. A tardy debtor therefore, of whom he here certainly speaks, is not bound to compensate the whole loss which the creditor suffers from the want of money, because the gain of money can be hindered in many ways. A lender is to be distinguished, says the Angelic, who spontaneously deprives himself of the gain of his money, from a tardy debtor who does violence to the lender when at the predetermined time he does not restore the money. In the first case the title of ceasing gain cannot be alleged, since the lender spontaneously and freely renounces this title when he freely gives a loan. Otherwise let him abstain from the loan, if he wishes to gain from his money. In the second case gain is lawful, because the lender unwillingly sustains the violence done him by the debtor. He ought nevertheless, says the Angelic, not to recompense the whole loss, because the gain of money can be hindered in many ways. That this is the mind of St. Thomas Cajetan himself confesses, who in the pursuing of the Angelic's mind far excels Sylvius and the other interpreters. There is added an extrinsic reason. In the time of St. Thomas no one of the theologians maintained the title of ceasing gain. Further, St. Thomas never departed from the common doctrine of the theologians of his time. Futile and inept is what is wont to be obtruded, that the Angelic contradicts himself unless it be admitted that a voluntary lender can exact gain by reason of ceasing gain. For in the place alleged by us he speaks of a voluntary lender, but in the place objected by our adversaries he speaks of a tardy debtor. Where then is even a shadow of contradiction? And moreover sound doctrine stands.

V. QUESTION II. Whether a voluntary lender can exact something by reason of ceasing gain? ANSWER. Those very theologians who defend the title of ceasing gain demand, among other things, two conditions: first, that the money to be delivered on loan be truly and in fact destined to trade; second, that the lender should prefer to gain from trade rather than from a loan. Therefore they must necessarily confess that a voluntary lender cannot bargain concerning ceasing gain. Wherefore false is the doctrine of Bonacina, who On Contracts, disputation 3, question 3, point 4, no. 11, says: And this holds good even if the lender offer himself to lend, as many of the Doctors say against Conrad, question 30, in Emmanuel Sa.

VI. QUESTION III. What conditions do the defenders of ceasing gain assign, that it may be brought into an agreement? ANSWER. Conrad Summenhart, who according to Soto was the first who reputed ceasing gain a title sufficient for exacting something above the principal, requires eight conditions. First, that this gain truly and not feignedly cease. Second, the accession exacted above the principal ought not to exceed that gain. Third, it is necessary that the lender prefer gain from trade to gain from the loan. Fourth, the gain ought to cease precisely by reason of the loan. Fifth, when the loan falls under the precept of charity, no gain can be exacted, but only when it is of mere counsel. Sixth, scandal both active and passive ought to be absent. Seventh, the exaction of gain cannot be made before, but only after the time at which the lender would have obtained the gain. Eighth, the whole gain cannot be exacted, but is to be diminished according to the expenses, dangers, labours, and other things which were necessary for the obtaining of the gain.

VII. Later authors have reduced these conditions to four. First, that the loan be truly an impediment to the ceasing gain. Second, that the lender have no other idle money. Third, that the gain from trade be probably future. Fourth, that the lender warn the borrower before the contract, and bargain with him.

VIII. As soon as some opinion favouring cupidity has been brought in, it becomes laxer with the passage of time. Summenhart requires that the gain truly and in fact cease; the most recent of the younger authors require only that the gain be probably future. But that gain ought to be morally certainly future at least in general, and doubtful only as to the greater or lesser quantity. For that which is only probably future is at the same time probably not future, that is, it is indifferent to being future and not being future. But this indifference cannot be sold.

IX. With a full pen in Vol. VII, Book 3, dissertation 3, chapter 15, I explained these conditions in several sections, and combated the lax opinions of many, especially of Bonacina, Lessius, Tamburini, and others. To that place, that I be not long, I refer the reader. Here in few words I will touch upon my opinion, which I explained there from the foundations.

I. First consideration. I entreat you, reader, that, casuistical comments being for a little while dismissed, you recall to mind the evangelical law. Meditate seriously, I pray, upon that: It is easier for a camel, and so forth. And again that other: Woe to you that are rich, and so forth. And again that: They that will become rich fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and so forth. According to this law, not according to the opinings of the casuists, will you be judged. Of emerging loss the ancient Fathers speak; concerning ceasing gain there is among them a profound silence. Avaricious men today have found nothing for the disguising of usuries which was not opposed by the ancient avaricious to Basil, Gregory, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. They saw the necessity of commerce and of trade; nor did they boil less than the younger theologians with a desire for the eternal salvation of men. But they did not therefore soften the severity of the evangelical law, nor did they approve the title of ceasing gain; but the more acute men were in devising cloaks and masks for usury, the more vehemently did they themselves inveigh against interest. To what end would they have condemned usuries so ardently, if by one word or another, a colour being added, usuries would fall to nothing?

II. Second consideration. If the opinions which the younger moralists have devised were established — of which I have indicated some, and recounted very many in Vol. VII, in the place cited — almost all usury would go into exile from the world. Only those usurers would stand who were ignorant of such opinions. Calvin, Molinaeus, Salmasius, Budé, and the rest of the younger heretics, departing in this from Luther himself, maintain moderate trading usuries exacted from the rich, but not from the poor and needy. Certain moralists, otherwise honest and learned Catholics, who condemn all usuries, hold as heretics those who defend them, whether biting or moderate or small; and yet they have devised so many titles for making honourable the gain from a loan, that as regards practice they have taken almost all interest out of the midst; and to the Lutherans themselves the doctrine of certain of our moralists concerning usury to be exacted from anyone by reason of some title, feigned by themselves, seems laxer than their own opinion concerning moderate trading usury to be demanded from the rich alone. Wherefore Franciscus Budaeus the Lutheran in his Institutions of Moral Theology, part 1, chapter 5, section 3, § 17, barking against the Catholics, thus rages: But here the moralists of the papists basely traduce themselves, who, while they keenly contend that all usuries are unlawful, so that it be a heresy if interest be said to be able to lack sin, nevertheless by most witty comments and by other things, names being imposed, in the highest degree grant room to the most iniquitous usury. The Lutheran does an injury when he traduces the papist moralists indiscriminately, because some of them went astray and, deceived by a pious intention, disguised usuries. Their opinions the Catholic Church has for the most part condemned; others she tolerates but does not approve. Nay, the graver theologians of the Catholic Church refute and overthrow their lax opinions. But these things being dismissed, I come to the point.

III. My counsel I set forth in few words. Recompense of emerging loss, according to the rules handed down above, I approve with the ancient Fathers and theologians. The title of ceasing gain on account of the culpable delay of a debtor I admit. As regards mere ceasing gain, which namely ceases to a free lender, I shall scarcely be an author to anyone that he should gain anything by this title. Whether a case can sometimes occur in which that gain is lawful, I know not. One thing I know: that in practice scarcely all those conditions occur which even our adversaries themselves require for a just gain. And yet if even one be lacking, the rest remaining, the gain is usurious. Let lenders be questioned who continually deliver loans, whether they hold these conditions in memory. They will receive the question with a laugh. Men gape after gain, and are carried away by cupidity for money. Concupiscence of the flesh and cupidity of riches are the two rocks upon which men commonly strike and suffer eternal shipwreck. With the paint of piety and beneficence they encrust usuries. What of it? If the precept of charity urges, the loan is to be delivered gratis. When counsel persuades, you can without crime abstain from the loan. Why then do you deliver a loan? That you may succour a friend asking a loan? But you neglect to help a friend, and you are free from sin and from the danger of sinning. Therefore you are manifestly foolish, who for the danger of perishing eternally are willing to put away your money, when without sin you can keep your money in your chest. But in truth you are not foolish, but a manifest usurer: because not with a mind of succouring a friend, but with a cupidity of gaining from the loan, do you deliver money on loan. Wherefore, as regards practice, according to the patrons themselves of ceasing gain, lenders are commonly usurious: because scarcely one out of a hundred observes the conditions which those same men prescribe. Commonly they keep many moneys to be delivered on loan, because they gain more safely and with less trouble from a loan than from other contracts; and therefore, these contracts being dismissed, they lend and take interest. They say indeed that they can enter upon other contracts, but in fact they will not, because by this way they more easily indulge their avarice.

IV. For the rest, if anyone, kindled with a true zeal of charity toward the needy, with a Christian mind of succouring them, every cupidity of gaining from the loan being excluded, should omit to buy estates and wares ready and at hand, that by means of a loan he might succour the needy, and should exact a compensation proportioned to the gain which he spontaneously omits, that he may exercise the office of beneficence toward the needy — neither would I myself dare to disapprove it. But because in practice this scarcely happens, and it is hidden from me whether lenders do this from a zeal of helping the needy or from a cupidity of gaining from the loan, therefore I would counsel no one to exact by reason of ceasing gain an accession above the principal delivered on loan. The opinion of others in this cause I neither approve nor disapprove. But I counsel the doctrine which in the time of Innocent III was common, and which frees from sin and from the danger of sinning. If you desire more, read Vol. VII, Book 3, dissertation 3, chapter 15.