f Aquinas, but adds that the
confusion is chiefly the fault of the latter;[2] but the fact that Mr.
Lecky failed to grasp the meaning of the argument should not lead one
to conclude that the argument itself was either confused or illogical.
The fact that it for centuries remained the basis of the Catholic
teaching on the subject is a sufficient proof that its inherent
absurdity did not appear apparent to many students at least as gifted
as Mr. Lecky. We shall quote the article of Aquinas at some length,
because it was universally accepted by all the theologians of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with whose opinions we are
concerned in this essay. To quote later writings is simply to repeat
in different words the conclusions at which Aquinas arrived.[3]

[Footnote 1: Jourdain, _op. cit._, p. 15.]

[Footnote 2: _Rise and Influence, of Rationalism in Europe_, vol. ii.
p. 261.]

[Footnote 3: Endemann, _Studien_, vol. i. p. 17.]

In answer to the question 'whether it is a sin to take usury for money
lent,' Aquinas replies: '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.

'On the other hand, there are other 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 m