t 'to another,' but to the very man who employed it, namely,
the borrower.]

It is interesting to notice how closely the rules applying in the case
of sales were applied to usury. The raising of the price of a loan
on account of some special benefit derived from it by the borrower is
precisely analogous to raising the sale price of an object because it
is of some special individual utility to the buyer. On the other
hand, as we shall see further down, any special damage suffered by the
lender was a sufficient reason for exacting something over and above
the amount lent; this was precisely the rule that applied in the case
of sales, when the seller suffered any special damage from parting
with the object sold. Thus the analogy between sales and loans was
complete at every point. In both, equality of sacrifice was the test
of justice.

Nor could it be suggested that the delay in the repayment of the loan
was a reason for increasing the amount to be repaid, because this
really amounted to a sale of time, which, of its nature, could not be
owned.[1]

[Footnote 1: Rambaud, _op. cit._, p. 63; Aquinas(?), _De Usuris_, i.
4.]

The scholastic teaching, then, on the subject was quite plain and
unambiguous. Usury, or the payment of a price for the use of a sum
lent in addition to the repayment of the sum itself, was in all
cases prohibited. The fact that the payment demanded was moderate was
irrelevant; there could be no question of the reasonableness of the
amount of an essentially unjust payment.[1] Nor was the payment of
usury rendered just because the loan was for a productive purpose--in
other words, a commercial loan. Certain writers have maintained that
in this case usury was tolerated;[2] but they can easily be refuted.
As we have seen above, _mutuum_ was essentially a sale, and,
therefore, no additional price could be charged because of some
special individual advantage enjoyed by the buyer (or borrower).
It was quite impossible to distinguish, according to the scholastic
teaching, between taking an additional payment because the lender made
a profit by using the loan wisely, and taking it because the borrower
was in great distress, and therefore derived a greater advantage from
the loan than a person in easier circumstances. The erroneous notion
that loans for productive purposes were entitled to any special
treatment was finally dispelled in 1745 by an encyclical of Benedict
XIV.[3]

[Footnote 1: Jourdain, _op.