not included by the Council of Jerusalem amongst the ‘necessary things’ imposed upon converts from the Gentiles.[1] This would seem to show that the taking of usury was not regarded as unlawful by the Apostles, who were at pains expressly to forbid the commission of offences, the evil of which must have appeared plainly from the natural law—­for instance, fornication.  The Didache, which was used as a book of catechetical instruction for catechumens, does not specifically mention usury; the forcing of the repayment of loans from the poor who are unable to pay is strongly reprobated; but this is not so in the case of the rich.[2] Clement of Alexandria expressly limits his disapprobation of usury to the case of loans between brothers, whom he defines as ’participators in the same word,’ i.e. fellow-Christians; and in any event it is clear that he regards it as sin against charity, but not against justice.[3]

[Footnote 1:  Acts xv. 29.]

[Footnote 2:  Didache, ch. i.; Cleary, op. cit., p. 39.]

[Footnote 3:  Stromata, ii. 18.]

Tertullian is one of the first of the Fathers to lay down positively that the taking of usury is sinful.  He regards it as obviously wrong for Christians to exact usury on their loans, and interprets the passage of St. Luke, to which we have referred, as a precept against looking for even the repayment of the principal.[1] On the other hand, Cyprian, writing in the same century, although he declaims eloquently and vigorously against the usurious practices of the clergy, does not specifically express the opinion that the taking of usury is wrong in itself.[2]

[Footnote 1:  Ad Marcion, iv. 17.]

[Footnote 2:  Le Lapsis, ch. 5-6; Cleary, op. cit., pp. 42-3.]

Thus, during the first three centuries of Christianity, there does not seem to have been, as far as we can now ascertain, any definite and general doctrine laid down on the subject of usury.  In the year 305 or 306 a very important step forward was taken, when the Council of Elvira passed a decree against usury.  This decree, as given by Ivo and Gratian, seems only to have applied to usury on the part of the clergy, but as given by Mansi it affected the clergy and laity alike.  ‘Should any cleric be found to have taken usury,’ the latter version runs, ’let him be degraded and excommunicated.  Moreover, if any layman shall be proved a usurer, and shall have promised, when corrected, to abstain from the practice, let him be pardoned.  If, on the contrary, he perseveres in his evil-doing, he is to be excommunicated.’[1] Although the Council of Elvira was but a provincial Council, its decrees are important, as they provided a model for later legislation.  Dr. Cleary thinks that Mansi’s version of this decree is probably incorrect, and that, therefore, the Council only forbade usury on the part of the clergy.  In any event, with this one possible and extremely doubtful exception, there was no conciliar legislation affecting the practice of usury on the part of the laity until the eighth century.  Certain individual popes censured the taking of usury by laymen, and the Council of Nice expressed the opinion that such a practice was contrary to Christ’s teaching, but there is nowhere to be found an imperative and definite prohibition of the taking of usury except by the clergy.[2]