[Footnote 1:  Cleary, op. cit., p. 43.]

[Footnote 2:  Cleary, op. cit., pp. 44-8.]

The inconclusive result of the Christian teaching up to the middle of the fourth century is well summarised by Dr. Cleary:  ’Hitherto we have encountered mere prohibitions of usury with little or no attempt to assign a reason for them other than that of positive legislation.  Most of the statements of these early patristic writers, as well as possibly all of the early Christian legislative enactments, deal solely with the practice of usury by the clergy; still, there is sufficient evidence to show that in those days it was reprobated even for the Christian laity, for the Didache and Tertullian clearly teach or presuppose its prohibition, while the oecumenical Council of Nice certainly presupposed its illegality for the laity, though it failed to sustain its doctrinal presuppositions with corresponding ecclesiastical penalties.  With the exception of some very vague statements by Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria, we find no attempt to state the nature of the resulting obligation—­that is to say, we are not told whether there is an obligation of obedience, of justice, or of charity.  The prohibition indeed seems to be regarded as universal; and it may very well be contended that for the cases the Fathers consider it was in fact universal—­for the loans with which they are concerned, being necessitous, should be, in accordance with Christian charity, gratuitous—­even if speculatively usurious loans in general were not unjust.’[1]

[Footnote 1:  Op. cit., pp. 48-9.]

The middle of the fourth century marked the opening of a new period—­’a period when oratorical denunciations are profuse, and when consequently philosophical speculation, though fairly active, is of too imaginative a character to be sufficiently definite.’[1] St. Basil’s Homilies on the Fourteenth Psalm contain a violent denunciation of usury, the reasoning of which was repeated by St. Gregory of Nyssa[2] and St. Ambrose.[3] These three Fathers draw a terrible picture of the state of the poor debtor, who, harassed by his creditors, falls deeper and deeper into despair, until he finally commits suicide, or has to sell his children into slavery.  Usury was therefore condemned by these Fathers as a sin against charity; the passage from St. Luke was looked on merely as a counsel in so far as it related to the repayment of the principal, but as a precept so far as it related to usury; but the notion that usury was in its very essence a sin against justice does not appear to have arisen.  The natural sterility of money is referred to, but not developed; and it is suggested, though not categorically stated, that usury may be taken from wealthy debtors.[4]

[Footnote 1:  Cleary, op. cit., p. 49.]

[Footnote 2:  Contra Usurarios.]

[Footnote 3:  De Tobia.]

[Footnote 4:  Cleary, op. cit., p. 52.]