Chapter XVII. Unjust Methods of Amassing Money

§ 1. Everything that has thus far been said about gathering wealth tends to this end: that equitable methods should be approved and inequitable ones rejected; for to grow rich through injustice is the greatest evil. Indeed, nothing is so sacred that wickedness does not violate it. Every industry which is occupied in so slippery a business easily totters and is made unjust from just. For, as I have shown, there are many exceedingly inequitable things among taxes, as in the chrysargyron, in the tax upon lions, and in Caligula’s brothels. Nor is it sufficient to have abolished former taxes unless you refrain from imposing new ones. Anastasius indeed abolished the chrysargyron, but introduced the χρυσοτέλειαν, a tribute much heavier than the former one, Nicephorus, book 16, chapters 40 and 41.

And so we shall now recount other methods by which the poor and the rich are oppressed in the state.

§ 2. The first method, in addition to those already stated, consists in diminishing and increasing the public coinage—not by that ancient fraud, which was evident, but by a new and subtler one. For who imitates Hippias, or Leucon, concerning whom Polyaenus relates in book 6 of the Stratagems that he ordered everyone to bring coins to be struck with another design? When they had brought them, he restruck them and ordered the new coinage to be worth twice as much, and thus retained half for himself. But he inflicted loss upon the citizens, because among foreigners the coins were accepted only at their customary value; nor could an ordinance so far removed from the common valuation endure for long.

Necessity compelled the Roman state sometimes to deprive its citizens of almost half, and sometimes of precisely half, Pliny, book 33, chapter 3.

No one now attempts such things, and the attempt would be vain; for among so many minters account is taken not merely of the stamp but also of the weight and fineness. There is therefore need of an artful fraud in mingling metals in various ways.

They also gather pure silver, even through the agency of Jews, and mingle it in such a way that they sometimes make the value greater by half. Hence there are so many adulterated coins and petty coins, which are everywhere prohibited and forced upon people. Yet our Mariana, in chapter 22 of his book On Weights and Measures, says that the kings of Castile imitated the Romans. And indeed I found that want of money in the treasury was the cause of so great a variety; for, in order to replenish it, kings often diminished the weight and fineness of the coin while retaining its old value. This is inequitable and should not be employed except in the harshest times of the state, especially since trade is impeded by adulterated coinage, and there is no lasting respite but only the briefest one from the value of the new money, since its weight or fineness is soon diminished as well. We observe that this has happened in every age and among every nation.

But, to speak about the coinages of our own people, many laws enacted against continual frauds do not so much prevent them as reveal that they are evil. Nor perhaps do they accomplish anything else than that one may very freely censure certain magnates’ ἀδόκιμα τέχνα (disapproved devices). Concerning these matters there were laws of the diets at Frankfurt in the year 1442; at Augsburg in 1512; at the same place in 1500; at Cologne in 1512; at Worms in 1511; at Nuremberg in 1521; at Speyer in 1526; at the same place in 1529; at Augsburg in 1530; at Regensburg in 1532; at the same place in 1555, and in 1559 and 1566 and 1582; at Speyer in 1570, and in 1570. The following are approximately the points worthy of notice:

1. In the Golden Bull, the right of striking coinage is granted to the king of Bohemia and the electors.

2. In the year 1442, Frederick III at Frankfurt ordered only gold coin of one weight to be struck. He ordered silver coin to be struck correctly, and imposed penalties upon those who acted otherwise or received such coins.

3. In the year 1500 it was decreed that a fixed and constant system of coinage should be instituted at Nuremberg, and that meanwhile all mints should cease working.

4. In the year 1512 it was decreed that neighboring peoples should strike coinage of the same kind.

5. Since great frauds were committed in striking Batzen, and bad coins were mingled with good, it was decreed at Nuremberg in the year 1524 that no new ones should be struck before a system of coinage had been established.

6. In the year 1551 many things were rightly established at Augsburg, and the values of the coins were defined.

7. Those who possess the right of coinage are not to entrust the mints to others.

8. The adulteration of coinage is prohibited under penalty of being burned alive.

9. After various delays, a system of coinage was at last established by Ferdinand in the year 1559, by which precautions are taken against all frauds. Yet they remain in practice even today, so that there is now need only of penalties to restrain subtle thefts.

§ 3. Allied to this is the fraud and wickedness of usurers. This has been an ancient evil of the state, and is now a very great one; it rages most freely under the name of profit ceasing, loss arising, and the cloak of money-changing.

It must, however, be established that all usury, when

Coin begets coin through interest,

is illicit. Yet the purchase of an annuity is not usury; for the ownership of the money is transferred to another, and the right to an annual return is received. A loan for consumption, however, exists when the right of demanding repayment of the sum remains with the lender; whatever is exacted on account of it is theft. Something may nevertheless be exacted when a loss arises from a benevolent concession made to another—a true loss which cannot be met in another way. Or it may be exacted if a true and legitimate profit, which the person was about to make, ceases. For no one is bound to care for another’s advantages to his own detriment; and here there remains that equality and justice which does not wish what is profitable to another to be injurious to me.

§ 4. Usury is altogether forbidden in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 25, Leviticus 25:3, Psalm 15:5, and Ezekiel 18:17. In canon law, 14, question 3, and question 4, If Any Cleric, usury does not consist in money alone but in every kind of thing, 14, question 3, They Think; even in commerce itself, 14, question 3, Of the Canons. Whether one lends at interest through oneself or through another, let those who practice usury through Jews not think themselves less disgraceful. Finally, it is forbidden to everyone. A clerical usurer is not to be admitted to orders, distinction 33, A Husband, and distinction 46, Seditious Men, and throughout distinction 47. If he possesses orders, he is to be deposed, distinction 47, A Bishop, and what follows. Indeed, to accept a loan at usury is not free from crime except in a time of necessity, distinction 83, He Errs; 24, question 3, Not to Be Inflicted; 26, question 1, He Who. Finally, one who has received usuries does not truly repent unless he restores the usuries. One who denies this is judged a heretic, chapter It Has Determined, chapter Upon.

§ 5. They are also prohibited by the civil laws, concerning which the very learned Gregory Tolosanus should be consulted in his Syntagma of Universal Law, as should others—a matter which I do not think I must debate. For not many now defend usuries, but more practice them.

Thus, among so many thousands of thieves and embezzlers, you would scarcely find one who approves the deed:

But they approve the better and follow the worse.

I must therefore admonish the prince to abolish them. The first reason is his office; for he ought to prevent brigandage, robbery, theft, calumnies, and the wrongs of tribunals, and therefore also the thefts of usury. The Romans punished a moneylender more severely than a thief, for they condemned the latter to twice the amount, but the former to four times the amount. From this cause, therefore, the prince will justly collect money; for if he condemns Jews and Judaizers to fourfold restitution, money cannot fail him. The vices of the times will make him rich.

From this it is evident that those princes and cities which thus protect Jews or Christian usurers, and permit subjects to be oppressed so that Jews have easy access to them and are managers of their financial affairs, bind themselves by a grave crime. Indeed, they are liable for the losses contracted through their neglect. This obligation of office therefore arises from the nature of princely rule, but much more in Germany. For all magistrates have been commanded not to permit moneylenders. In the year 1500 at the Diet of Augsburg, Maximilian issued the following decree with the consent of all the Estates, in the section Concerning Usurious Contracts:

Since, moreover, through usurious and other dangerous and unbecoming contracts which, as we have learned, Christians and Jews have hitherto practiced, great losses have been inflicted upon provinces and peoples, we establish, ordain, and will, seriously commanding all Estates of the Empire, that they prohibit contracts of this kind—usurious and dangerous—within their duchies, provinces, dominions, territories, and everywhere else, under an appropriate penalty, and that they also punish violators seriously. By these presents we likewise command ecclesiastical and secular judges, arbiters, and benches of judges that, if usurious, unsuitable, and dangerous contracts of this kind are brought before them, they adjudge and declare them invalid, void, and in no way binding, and permit or assist no execution of them.

Nor can an excuse be advanced: in the year 1530 everything is repeated in the same words, the enormity of the crime is demonstrated, and this is added:

Since we have learned that manifold usurious contracts, not only immoderate but also contrary to the Christian religion, have been conducted and are still being conducted in the Holy Empire against divine and civil laws—as when eight hundred florins are lent, a sum of one thousand florins is entered in the instruments of annuity, and thus they pay more than five per hundred; while others, for the delay of a short time, receive immoderate interest, increase the sum, and change the contract.

These provisions, then established and renewed in the years 1532 and 1548, did not have sufficient strength to remove so great a wrong; for in the year 1576 the same complaint remains:

The laws have not been observed; the common people have for a long time, by inequitable contracts and dealings in usury, contrary to divine and imperial laws, and especially in contempt of the political order, been reduced, distressed, and driven in many ways to extreme poverty.

The same things were again inculcated in the year 1577, so that no magistrate can excuse himself.

The second evil is sedition born of poverty and the weakness of princes. For although bodies are firm and full of nourishment, if the feet are weakened by gout or for another reason, we cannot stand. In the same way the state is weak when the people lie oppressed by usuries. When the people withdrew to the Sacred Mount, the state was weak; if it had had even a trifling enemy, its dominion would have been finished. But the cause of the secession was that the people were exhausted by the robberies of usurers and one part of the citizen body oppressed another. Many examples are readily available, nor do we lack examples from our own day. I shall touch upon the matter briefly; let the magistrate weigh it according to its own importance.

In the Roman Empire there are free cities and princes. The free cities are not only afflicted by the wrongs of usurers, but have citizens so disposed that, if they did not fear the emperor, they would either cast out the Jews, the Christian usurers, and those magnates whom they regard as their patrons, or even deprive them of life if there were an instigator. And although the people would do this neither in orderly fashion nor by any right, the magistrate would nevertheless be judged to have given the occasion by not restraining usuries—indeed, by urging their execution against divine and human laws and against so many laws of the imperial diets. Nor are those princes safe whom they know to receive money from Jews in return for protection, and especially those whose treasurers are seen to be intimate with those usurers.

§ 6. When usuries are approved, this occurs by reason of some legitimate contract, but not by reason of a loan for consumption; when they are permitted, this occurs in order to avoid greater evils. Thus Tolosanus, book 22, chapter 3, §20:

Moreover, throughout all law we find that usuries have sometimes been permitted in certain matters, causes, persons, and methods of doing business. Yet for that reason it is not proper to say that they have been approved, just as God permitted divorce to the Jews because of their stiff neck, but did not approve it. For the wickedness of men is so great that it cannot be so thoroughly amended or purged by the lawgiver that some dross does not perpetually remain; or, if he wishes to remove it altogether, he cannot do so without its degenerating into a worse vice. In this danger the worse evil must be avoided and shunned.

In this way, in the matter of usuries, if they are altogether forbidden, the worst avarice and cruelty, or mercilessness, of the rich causes them to prefer to consign their coins in a chest to rust rather than to aid the needy without charge; or, if they lend without charge, they demand repayment so savagely that they harass their debtors with every kind of unrest. Consequently, a certain manner of lending at interest has been permitted because of the obstinacy of creditors and in order to assist the poverty of debtors. We therefore consider, in the permission of usuries, the things, the persons, and the assessment. The things in which usuries are said to be permitted are comprised in these verses:

Fiefs, a surety, for a dowry, stipends of the clergy;

The sale of fruits, one whom you would wish to suffer loss by law;

A seller under uncertainty, one paying the price after a time;

A penalty, and not in fraud, a forfeiture clause, one giving without charge;

Partners, pomp: in these ways more than the principal is given.

All these things are explained and proved at length by the gloss and by Henry Bohic, on chapter A Complaint, On Usuries; John Faber; Angelus de Clavasio; Baldus; Fulgosius; Jason; Hostiensis; and Chassanaeus. Nevertheless, these cases do not properly pertain to a loan for consumption, and therefore neither to that illicit usury of money from such a loan, but either to just commerce and the reckoning of that which is of interest, or to a penalty, that is, to punishing the delay of debtors in a way other than by a loan for consumption.

§ 7. Remedies for so great, ancient, common, and pernicious an evil were sought long ago and established by laws; but the power of the usurers, the conflicts of others, the wars and dissensions of princes, and the poverty of certain nobles and leading men prevailed against the laws. Yet laws and penalties must nevertheless be opposed to it. First, usurers must be driven from the fatherland. This is the most efficacious method. Provision was made in the laws of the Twelve Tables that no interest should be paid except the unciaria, that is, the hundredth part, as Tacitus says; afterward the rate returned to the two-hundredth, the half-unciaria.

Afterward it was entirely forbidden, and it was resisted by many decrees of the Senate. The hundredth was regarded as the highest rate, because on each Kalends a hundredth part of the principal sum was given—that is, the whole in one hundred months. But if ἀνατοκισμός occurred, so that unpaid usuries were reckoned into the principal, the principal sum would be recovered much more quickly. But this is a matter which scarcely admits moderation: the evil must be cut out. And so I judge that the Jews must either be expelled or occupied in other matters, and that they must not be permitted to receive even the smallest interest. But I myself think that the Jews must be expelled; nor am I moved by the fact that many princes retain them, because many have most justly expelled them. I therefore do no injury to those who retain them, because those who judge that they should be retained do not offend those who have dismissed them.

The reasons are many and grave.

1. Those whose one and only pursuit is to live from thefts, robberies, frauds, and impostures, and who have no manner of living honestly—or can have none while that condition of the state remains—must be cast and driven out from the entrails of the state as poison and plagues. But the Jews are such persons; therefore they must be removed from the state. The major premise is most true and is denied by no one, except when a greater danger arises from their exile, as if they should be so strong in multitude and power that they could stir up sedition or war. But here that danger is so far from existing that the prince, whoever should expel the Jews, would attain the greatest glory, and the people would carry him in their eyes and hands. Experience teaches the minor premise. For, first, they persecute Christians with so bitter a hatred that, in whatever matter they can, they are detrimental to them. Next, they judge it lawful for themselves to circumvent Christians with every kind of fraud; and although they sometimes benefit them, they nevertheless do this so that they may harm them more grievously, just as condemned spirits also offer certain apparent advantages to most wretched men so that they may cast them headlong into true destruction. Third, the ability to live honestly or to make a profit from lawful work is denied them in Germany. They cultivate neither fields nor vineyards; they practice no crafts; they do not trade. What, then, remains except frauds? Hence they are intent upon every opportunity for defrauding; and, as Johannes Pfefferkorn says, “They examine everything and, like dogs, smell out profit from anything whatsoever.” Johannes Pfefferkorn, who had dealings with them, sets forth their methods and practices; he not only saw them but also practiced them.

2. Those who by their own wickedness are the objects of the greatest hatred among everyone, and who also make their princely protectors hated if they furnish protection to their contracts, must be cast out. The experience of every age has taught that the Jews are such. Nor are the present examples different: the most renowned cities have risen against the Jews. Nor was the magistrate safe except through fear of Caesar. When that fear is removed through civil wars and other occasions, the Jews are in the most immediate danger not only of their fortunes but also of their lives. Indeed, a hard necessity falls upon the magistrate either to abandon them contrary to the agreements made, or to defend them against every hatred. If therefore he is wise, he will promptly drive out public usurers; he will restore to their true owners those of their goods which consist of usuries, and will retain the rest for himself as belonging to the fisc. For theft is punished by restoration and confiscation.

3. Further, the reason why that plague is retained to so great a detriment of the state can be threefold: (1) the advantage of princes and of the treasury, because the Jews are burdened with taxes; (2) the advantage of subjects, because they have need of borrowed money; (3) the advantage of the Jews themselves, so that they may be converted to the true religion.

But princes are deceived in every reason. For, first, if the Jews and moneylenders were absent, the citizens could contribute more assistance; for even that which the Jews contribute now comes from the injury of citizens whom they exhaust by deceit and fraud, and the citizens are compelled in addition to support and enrich the Jews themselves. For what city is there which would not willingly furnish twice the amount that the Jews pay to the fisc, if the magistrate were to expel the Jews? It therefore does not pertain to the public advantage to nourish those cunning thieves so that, when they have contributed ten gold pieces, they may steal a thousand—and in a thousand ways. This, therefore, is an enormous error of government: to connive at the robberies of public moneylenders, that is, at weekly, monthly, and annual returns, and by this method to extort their fortunes from subjects so that they pass into the possession of the moneylenders and the treasury is sprinkled with some portion. Let all things pass away, I say, as formerly at Rome. And what Gregory Tolosanus warns is most true: “Thus the mercilessness of the rich rages, interest is piled upon interest and profit upon profit, so that, if the matter were conducted at the discretion of the moneylenders, it would soon come about that all resources and inheritances, and the persons themselves, would pass into their ownership.” Hence prudent men, not estimating their own advantages but judging truly concerning these men, were severe toward moneylenders. Agis, an Athenian leader, burned their account-books, Alexander ab Alexandro, book 1 of Genial Days. Oh, would that we now had many men like him! Gaul was more severe: it formerly expelled the Jews from the boundaries of the kingdom and cut off the thieving right hands of monstrous moneylenders. Cato expelled all usurers from Sardinia, Livy, book 32. I certainly cannot in any way disapprove the opinion of those jurists who judge that usurers should be punished criminally; thus Molinaeus, On Usuries, number 156, and others. I would not wish their condition to be better than that of a manifest thief. The injury is the same, except that this one assumes the appearance of law. A poisoner is punished more severely than a robber; why, then, are artful thieves retained? Nor is it sufficient that all usurers and their assistants are infamous, for they think that infamy is well compensated by riches. Now

Very great honor comes from gold.

Through the people and reputation they gather coins, and they applaud themselves when they contemplate them in the chest.

Therefore not even those who receive money at a lower rate of return and then place it with the Jews at a higher rate provide for their treasury. For there are said to be Christians whose brokers and retailers of usuries are Jews. They receive money from Christians under a lawful rate and security, five per hundred each year; then they place the same money with Jews and receive eight or ten, while the Jews also claim their own small profit for themselves, so that fifteen or twenty per hundred are often given. Yet they do not thus escape infamy, for the Jews openly and clearly confess that the monies belong to Christians and that they themselves are only administrators of the usuries. Those men do not provide for their own treasury, because they oppress cities and gather hatreds, although they could make more profit through honorable commerce. Nor is their method dissimilar to that which belonged to the emperor Tiberius. He appointed needy, cunning, avaricious, and rapacious governors, whom he afterward slaughtered when they had grown rich with the spoils of provincials, and he brought the spoils into the fisc. In this affair he long remained concealed at first as a just and severe emperor; but when the fraud had been perceived and people saw that everything returned to Tiberius, they said that he used governors like sponges: he sent them dry into the resources of the provinces and squeezed them when full. In the same way, certain men of our Germany freely permit Laverna’s men and rapacious raiders—the Jews—to range about, and afterward squeeze those same men in order to furnish the treasury with unjust wealth.

The second reason, that they provide for the necessities of the poor, is not merely false but plainly contrary to the truth. For the poor are overthrown together with all the goods which remain to them. Nor do I hesitate to affirm that every year in Germany several thousand citizens are exhausted by interest, and that this evil is greater than if some notable city were destroyed each year. For now they are gradually consumed, as if by a fever. Lucullus removed usury from Asia because he saw that a most fertile province was about to be reduced to the possession of a few. How, therefore, is that useful to subjects by which there is introduced

Poverty prone to crime?

More than one hundred thousand Jews in Germany harass Christians with every kind of fraud. Among them there is scarcely anyone who does not reduce someone to extremity; and though a particular person may not do so, many nevertheless afflict several persons. Therefore one hundred thousand are circumvented by them. How, then, are the poor provided for through the Jews?

How was the payment of interest useful to Otto, when he publicly confessed that he could not stand unless he were prince, and that it made no difference whether he fell in battle under the enemy or in the forum under his creditors?

But the savagery of the ancients did not equal the monstrousness with which the marrow of Christians is sucked out today. Hence those complaints of many: the Jews therefore lend at interest because no one offers gifts to princes so that they may prohibit this crime. Julius Clarus, Received Opinions, book 5, § Usury, number 7. Covarruvias, book 3, chapter 1, number 8, should also be consulted. This too is the opinion of the canons: the resources of Christians are exhausted through the usuries of the Jews.

The third cause was that they might be converted to the faith. But by this method they are rendered most obstinate. There are three causes of this.

The first is hatred, which separates the human race and excites wars and quarrels. This endures perpetually between Christians and Jews because its cause is not removed. The cause of hatred among the Jews is that they hate Christ above all things and curse him each day; next, because they see that they are hated by Christians. But it is natural to hate one’s enemies. And every day that fire is kindled by new torches, since they are received and harassed by Christians with scoffs, jeers, and abuse. Nor do the hatreds of Christians cease. For when every day they see before their eyes men exulting, grown sleek from the spoils of the poor, and gaping after their own possessions, they can no more love them than a lamb loves a wolf or a dove a hawk. And so Christians do not speak of their conversion, nor do the Jews endure hearing of it. If they are exercised by other labors, both they themselves will return to a sound mind and Christians will attend them with mercy.

The second cause is that now, by the permission or connivance of princes, they have the crimes of lending at interest, deceiving, and plundering unpunished. Indeed, the greater the hatred and the opinion of wickedness in which they are held among Christians, the more they glory among their own people. Just as that soldier is most pleasing to the emperor and his fellow-soldiers who harms the enemy most, from this comes that most atrocious deed which histories relate concerning the capture of Jerusalem: that Jews bought Christian slaves from the victors, not for use and service, but so that they might delight themselves with the most cruel pleasure in torturing them and killing them by a lingering death. Hence their monstrous cruelty toward Christian boys, when in the year 1236 at Fulda, in 1380 at Hall in Swabia, in 1429 at Ravensburg, in 1475 at Trent, and at other times elsewhere, they cut innocent boys with many small wounds, so that they might show that their hatred was not directed against our vices, which are surpassed by their crimes, but against our race and religion. Although Christian princes do not tolerate these things, other acts are nevertheless not punished when, by lingering hunger and shameful wasting, they kill not only the poor but even noble families. Reputation, disgrace, separation, and excommunication at least recall a Christian from a public crime; all these things incite the Jews to daring, and they even rejoice that the crimes of lending at interest are in public view, because they see that the crimes bring them glory among wicked men.

The third cause is the gravest of all. If it were removed, a great multitude of them would receive the Christian rites: namely, the restitution of ill-gotten goods. Neither baptism nor religion permits the retention of things belonging to others. “If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore fourfold,” says the converted Zacchaeus. It therefore seems a hard condition to the Jews to surrender the treasures which they have amassed either in great part or altogether through injustice. If they gained everything by lawful works, after receiving the religion they would retain their own possessions, and only unbelief would have to be put off; but now the wealth on account of which many fall away from faith and piety must be cast aside. Here, therefore, is the hindrance which holds back a great part of them. Those who permit this consequently bind them with more chains of unbelief and obstinacy. For the Church cannot concede that they need not restore what was taken away, because this is God’s commandment.

Alexander III truly says to the bishop of Palermo, in the appendix to the Third Lateran Council, part 16, § On Usuries, chapter 1:

Concerning what your discretion has asked of us—whether a dispensation can be made in receiving money at usury, so that the poor who are held in Saracen captivity may be freed by means of that same money—we have judged that you should be answered by the present letter that, since the page of each Testament detests the crime of usuries, we have not seen that any dispensation should be admitted in this matter. For, since Holy Scripture prohibits even lying for the life of another, much more must it be prohibited that anyone should become involved in the crime of usuries in redeeming the life of a captive.

In the same way, the Council of Basel, session 19, nevertheless permits a Jew in favor of conversion to retain goods whose owner is uncertain, when in good faith he does not know to whom they are to be restored:

If any of them wishes to be converted to the Catholic faith, let whatever movable and immovable goods he possesses remain intact and undisturbed for him. But if goods of this kind were acquired from usury or illicit gain, and the persons to whom restitution ought by law to be made are known—because the sin is not forgiven unless what was taken is restored—they must altogether be restored to those persons. But if those persons do not exist, because such goods would have to be converted to pious uses through the hands of the Church, this holy synod, acting in the place of the universal Church, grants in favor of the baptism received that they ought to remain with those persons as for a pious use. Under penalty of divine anathema, it forbids both ecclesiastical and secular persons to inflict any disturbance upon them in these matters under any pretext sought, or to permit it to be inflicted; rather, let them judge that they have made a great gain when such persons have been gained for Christ. And since it is written, “Whoever has the substance of this world and sees his brother have need, and closes his bowels to him, how does the love of God remain in him?” if at the time of their conversion they are poor or needy, through the bowels of the mercy of our God this holy synod exhorts everyone, both ecclesiastical and secular, to extend helping hands to the converts.

Let the diocesan bishops themselves also not only exhort Christians to assist them, but, as they are able, let them not neglect to support neophytes of this kind both from the revenues of churches and from those things which devolve upon them to be converted to the uses of the poor; and let them defend the converts with paternal affection from disparagements and insults. And since through the grace of baptism they are made fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God, and it is far more worthy to be regenerated by the spirit than to be born by the flesh, by this edictal law we establish that they enjoy the privileges, liberties, and immunities of the cities and places in which they are regenerated by sacred baptism which others obtain solely by reason of birth and origin. Furthermore, let the priests who baptize them, and those who receive them from the sacred font, diligently instruct them both before and after baptism in the articles of the faith, the precepts of the new law, and the rites of the Catholic Church.

§ 8. I shall add what the holy canons further establish in this practice, for the sake of magnates and those who serve them as counselors.

1. No one can without crime compel anyone to pay usuries. The reason is natural: because, when no legitimate cause has been given, I am not bound to deliver to another what is mine. The ecclesiastical law is as follows, in the appendix to the Third Lateran Council, part 16, chapter 4. Alexander III says:

Debtors ought not to be compelled to pay the usuries by which they had bound themselves, unless they are bound by an oath to pay them. But if they have made an oath concerning their payment, they must be compelled to fulfill their oath to the Lord, so that they may be released by their creditors; and when the usuries have been paid, the creditors, if necessary, must be compelled by ecclesiastical severity to restore them.

And chapter 15:

Since, as you assert, you have ordered manifest usurers—that is, those who died in that sin—to be deprived of communion at the altar and ecclesiastical burial, in accordance with our decree recently promulgated in the Council, until they restore what they wickedly received, some of them say that their own resources are insufficient to pay the usuries received. Others promise that they will restore the portions of the usuries which they have at hand, but declare that they cannot restore other usuries which they extorted, since possessions were acquired from them and delivered to their sons or parents. Others, in order to make excuses for excuses in sins, imprudently affirm that only those usuries which were received after our prohibition must be restored, and that no one should be compelled to pay the usuries which he received before the prohibition. Concerning these matters we answer your discretion that, whether they received usuries before or after our prohibition, they must be compelled, under the penalty which we established in the Council, to restore them to those from whom they extorted them or to their heirs; or, if these do not survive, to distribute them to the poor, provided that they possess the resources from which they can restore them, since, according to the word of blessed Augustine, the sin is not forgiven unless what was taken away is restored. But those who do not possess resources from which they can restore the usuries ought not to be punished with that penalty, since their known poverty excuses them. Possessions which were acquired from usuries must, however, be sold, and the prices themselves restored to those from whom the usuries were extorted, so that they may thus be freed not only from that penalty but also from the sin which they incurred through the extortion of usuries.

And chapter 6, to the bishop of Winchester:

Concerning the matter upon which you wished to consult us—whether a cleric should be compelled to pay usuries to a creditor—we answer your prudence in this manner: since it is dangerous for all the faithful of God to receive usuries, no Christian is to be compelled to pay them unless he is bound by oath or pledged faith to pay them; rather, creditors ought to be restrained from exacting usuries by an ecclesiastical sentence.

Finally, more extensively, to the archbishop of Canterbury:

You should know that it has come to our hearing that, when Peter of Ursiton, during the war which occurred between our dearest son Henry, the illustrious king of the English, and his sons, had lent a fixed sum of money to certain men for the protection of the kingdom of the Franks, he received from them certain possessions and revenues as a pledge. He also bound them to himself by the sanctity of an oath that they would inflict no disturbance or burden upon him concerning those possessions and revenues until they paid him the money lent. Although the aforesaid Peter, as he asserts, has not yet received his principal from those possessions and revenues after expenses have been deducted, nevertheless, brother archbishop, because you bound him with the bond of excommunication on this account, we are consequently compelled to direct our letters to you, especially since he himself, as he asserts, perhaps wishes to be content. Hence it is that, in answer to your consultation, etc., after receiving sufficient security from the aforesaid P. that he ought thereafter to obey your command, you are, by our authority, to absolve him completely from the sentence under which he is held, all contradiction and appeal ceasing. Then, if it is so, you are by ecclesiastical censure to compel the debtors, who are said to have taken the aforesaid possessions and revenues from him contrary to their oath, to restore those possessions and revenues to the said Peter, all appeal ceasing; and they are thereafter to inflict no disturbance upon him contrary to their oath until the money is paid to him. For it is not safe for anyone, but rather dangerous, to violate the sanctity of an oath. But when they have paid the aforesaid P. his money, as they swore, you are to take care diligently to admonish and induce him to restore whatever it is established that, after expenses have been deducted, he received beyond the principal. If, when admonished, he does not do this, you are to return him to the same sentence of excommunication, the obstacle of appeal being removed; for just as it is dangerous for debtors to violate their oath, so it is no less dangerous for creditors to retain what they have received as usuries, since the crime of usuries is most detestable and horrible and condemned by the page of each Testament.

It is most certain that these penalties apply to magistrates and states which compel usuries to be paid. Indeed, the magistrates themselves are bound to restitution. For whoever, contrary to my law, gives what is mine to another, or by his power defends another from being compelled to restore it, is liable to compensate the loss. But princes have been commanded not to permit Christians to be burdened, by the civil laws and by the command of the entire Church. The Lateran Council under Innocent III, chapter 67:

The more the Christian religion is restrained from the exaction of usuries, the more grievously the perfidy of the Jews grows strong in these matters, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore in this respect to provide for Christians, lest they be monstrously burdened by Jews, we establish by synodal decree that, if henceforth under any pretext Jews extort grave and immoderate usuries from Christians, Christian participation is to be withdrawn from them until they have made suitable satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Christians also, if necessary, are to be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, all appeal set aside, to abstain from commerce with them.

But we enjoin princes not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to endeavor to restrain Jews from so great a burden.

And we decree that by the same penalty Jews are to be compelled to make satisfaction to churches for the tithes and offerings due which the churches were accustomed to receive from Christians from houses and other possessions before they passed to Jews under any title, so that the churches may thus be preserved unharmed.

This command is also repeated in the Council of Vienne under Clement IV:

Adding that, if henceforth under any pretext Jews extort grave or immoderate usuries from Christians, Christian participation is to be withdrawn from them until they have made suitable satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Hence Christians, if necessary, are to be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from commerce with them. But we enjoin princes not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to endeavor to restrain Jews from so great a burden. If, however, the Sacrament of the altar happens to be carried before their houses, upon hearing the preceding sound the Jews themselves are to withdraw within their houses and close their windows and doors; they are also to be compelled by the prelates of the Church to do this on every day of the Parasceve. They are not to presume to dispute concerning the Catholic faith with simple persons; nor are they to dare to detain against their will the sons and wives of Jews coming to the Christian faith. They are not to entice Christians to Judaism or circumcise them by any rash attempt; nor are they to visit sick Christians or practice the works of medicine upon them. They are not to erect a new synagogue; and if they have erected any, they are to remove or take them down. If necessary, they may repair an old one, but are not to make it larger, more costly, or higher. During Lent, when Christians abstain from meat and fast, they are not openly or publicly to carry meat. We command the bishops to compel the Jews, by withdrawal of the communion of Christians, to observe every article of all these provisions. We also admonish their princes and judges more strictly not to extend the favor of any protection or defense to Jews unwilling to observe our statutes, but faithfully to execute whatever may be enjoined upon them by ecclesiastical prelates; otherwise, let them know that entry into the church and participation in divine offices are forbidden them. We also will and command under penalty of excommunication that the lord-elect of Salzburg and his suffragans, and also the bishop of Prague, possess these our constitutions sealed with our seal; that they cause them to be recited each year in episcopal synods and in the provincial council, and to be observed more diligently; and that they cause those provisions which concern the laity to be published through the parish churches of their dioceses.

But John XXII pursued all these matters even point by point in the Fourth Council of Ravenna, rubric 15:

Wishing to restrain in our province the abyss of usuries, condemned by the page of each Testament, we announce or declare, with the approval of this holy council, that all manifest usurers, until they have made full satisfaction for usuries as their resources permit, or have furnished suitable security for making satisfaction according to the strength of their resources, shall be deprived of communion at the altar and ecclesiastical burial; that their offerings ought not to be received, nor can they themselves be absolved; and that their testaments are not valid but void by the law itself. We also decree or declare that all who deliver communion at the altar and the body of Christ to usurers of this kind, or admit them to ecclesiastical burial before they have made satisfaction according to the judgment of the ordinary of the place, are suspended from the execution of their office. We add that all who absolve such usurers, admit them to communion at the altar, or participate in their testaments or burial are subject to penalties of this kind. Notaries also who knowingly compose or receive instruments concerning loans and usurious contracts, or contracts entered into in fraud of usuries, are by that very fact subject to the penalties imposed upon usurers.

Moreover, in receiving from penitent usurers the aforesaid security concerning the restoration of usuries, we will the following precaution to be employed and observed. First of all, through the confession of the usurer, his book or books of accounts, witnesses, an instrument, or some other method, let the quantity of usuries received be made certain and manifest, if it can be—not only those which were extorted from unknown persons but also those from fixed communities and persons. If this is not possible, let the person who by force of the present constitution is to receive security of this kind assess and moderate the amount of it according to a right conscience, to be informed by report, the testimony of neighbors, or other probable conjectures.

Where, however, it does not appear through entries in the usurer’s book that usuries were paid by the person seeking their restoration, if the petitioner possesses original instruments, or copies taken from the originals of the community of the city or of the place in which the debt of a loan received from the usurer was contracted, or of another obligation contracted with him or with another on his behalf, and an instrument of payment, release, or acknowledgment, payment of usuries is to be presumed and adjudged. From the loan itself or obligation, from the day on which the debt or obligation was contracted until the day on which the instrument of payment was drawn up, the usurer is to be adjudged to have extorted from him as usuries for each month as many denarii per pound as the diocesan bishop, his vicar, or penitentiary may wish to declare, if the usurer himself did not declare in the said security and state how many denarii per pound he received each month. But when no instrument or writing of payment appears, the usurer is then to be adjudged to have extorted usuries from him for six months from that loan or obligation, according to the aforesaid reckoning and assessment for each month, provided that it appears through entries in the book or by another lawful method that the loan or obligation was contracted.

When this has been done, let the usurer solemnly promise and swear to the person who, as is permitted, has received this security for the court of the ordinary of the place where the usurer resides, in the name of all whose interest it is or will be, that he himself, personally if he can, or through another or others, and in the presence of the aforesaid ordinary’s vicar, his penitentiary, or another person with the court’s permission, without any difficulty, will make satisfaction, up to the assessed amount—and even a greater amount if a greater is established—for the usuries received by himself, by his party, and by other persons whose inheritance has passed to him, and for other things wrongly taken and illicitly acquired through usurious wickedness, to those from whom he or they received them, or to their heirs, if they can be found. The remainder, concerning which it is not established to whom it ought to be restored, he will freely assign to the ordinary, the vicar, or the ordinary’s penitentiary, to be distributed to the poor according to the ordinary’s judgment, without the noise and formality of a trial.

He shall say, allege, or do nothing, personally or through another, by which the proceedings, sentences, or commands of that court may be impeded or in any way delayed concerning the restoration, in the aforesaid manner, of the usuries and things illicitly acquired; binding himself, his heirs, and his goods to the aforesaid provisions by a special compact, and expressly renouncing, specifically and generally, all exceptions, rights, and defenses according to the will and expression of the person receiving security of this kind. But for attending to these matters and making the restitution and assignment, as set forth above, let him bind all his goods, constituting himself as possessing them at sufferance in the name of the said court; granting every license and free power to that court and to the recipient of the aforesaid security on its behalf, by their own authority and notwithstanding anyone’s opposition, freely and without penalty to seize, sell, and alienate from his goods whatever, how much, and wherever the court wills, until full restitution and satisfaction of the aforesaid matters.

On their account, let him also renounce usuries, remit those promised to him, and release, return, or at least promise to return the oaths made to him for paying them, or for not recovering or demanding them back. Let him swear that, without deceit or fraud, diminution or removal, he will personally or through others give and consign to the ordinary, his vicar, or a specified messenger the books and registers of his accounts and the usurious instruments which he possesses or can possess for the same matter. Let him also assign the money which he possesses, or make a deposit, if he can, according to the judgment of the ordinary, his vicar, or his penitentiary; and we judge that this provision is to be included in the security itself.

Let him also bind his future heirs, under penalty of forfeiting the inheritance, to do the same things. If those heirs are present, let them promise and swear under penalty and under the sanctity of an oath that they will do the same. Furthermore, if he can, let him give pledges, or at least suitable sureties, who in the same manner and under the same penalties and terms shall bind themselves and their goods principally to the aforesaid matters, constituting themselves principal debtors in them, renouncing the epistle of the Divine Hadrian, the benefit of the new constitutions concerning sureties, and every other defense and right, according to the judgment of the recipient of that security, by a special compact, and furnishing a similar oath. We command these things to be done before the parish priest, trustworthy witnesses, and a public notary, by command of the ordinary, his vicar, or his penitentiary. The notary is to receive the aforesaid promise, obligation, renunciation, security, and the other things stated above, and draw up an instrument concerning them.

Finally, throughout the individual dioceses of the ordinaries, where the ordinary or vicar is not present, let the rector of the parish church in which the usurer lived receive the security itself, or, in the absence of a priest, a public notary, who shall be bound to report these matters within a month to the ordinary of the place or his vicar. But in a city let no one at all, without special permission of the ordinary, his vicar, or his penitentiary—except perhaps the parish priest when, upon the sudden occurrence of a case of death, the ordinary’s attention cannot be sought for these matters—presume to involve himself in receiving that security; otherwise he shall incur the penalty of ten Ravenna pounds, not to be remitted without due satisfaction. For with respect to the aforesaid matters we declare those persons manifest usurers concerning whom there is a report throughout the parish in which they lived or where they died that they extorted usuries, or for whom this appears through their own confession, suitable proofs, or another lawful means. Let all rectors of parish churches, even if they are collegiate, possess, read, and understand the present constitution, publishing more frequently in their churches the aforesaid penalties of usurers and more cautiously avoiding their own penalties, if they desire to escape divine vengeance and ours.

Many things concerning these matters were also established in Germany. The Council of Salzburg under Bishop Eberhard in the time of Martin V established the same things and renewed the notable statute of Lord Bishop Pilgrim. Usurers, after they have been admonished by name three times by their rectors, incur by that very fact the sentence of excommunication if they do not desist within a month. Rectors and prelates of churches are bound to admonish and induce their subjects who are manifest usurers to desist from wickedness of this kind within a month and to make effective satisfaction for what they received. If they do not do so, the rectors are to announce them as excommunicated, nevertheless informing them that, if they die in this sin, they will lack ecclesiastical burial. If the rectors knowingly bury them, they likewise are by that very fact bound by the sentence of excommunication. Those are called manifest usurers concerning whom there is public voice and report, and certain indications and proofs, that they lend money at usury and receive the usuries, or by agreement or otherwise put into their own purse the fruits of the pledged property and do not reckon them toward the principal of the money lent.

It also relates and condemns a new method of lending at interest:

We know sufficiently that usurious acts are reproved by divine and human law, and the most recent constitution of the Council of Lyon established carefully devised penalties against those who practice usuries; we do not see that anything must be added to them. But because, under a newly devised appearance of lending at interest, some persons practice usuries under the title of sale, buying a pledge for the quantity sought as a loan and selling it at the same time of redemption for a quantity increased by the amount of the usuries, we have provided that this fraud be met in the following manner. Let the constitution of Pope Gregory X of holy memory, issued against usurers in the Council of Lyon, together with these present constitutions of ours, be published in every cathedral and collegiate church, once each year in Lent, publicly before the people immediately after the Gospel has been read. Then let moneylenders of this kind, and others who practice usuries contrary to the tenor of the said Council of Lyon, and those who retain them in their own houses, be publicly announced by name as excommunicated. If the prelates of churches are negligent or remiss in this publication, which they ought to make personally and through others, and the publication itself is not made at the appointed time, we consign them to the vengeance of the eternal Judge. If a usurer who secretly practiced usuries closes his final day, and it is established by the testimony of three or two trustworthy witnesses that he practiced usuries, let no one receive him for ecclesiastical burial unless satisfaction has been made on his behalf for the usuries received. Otherwise, if the contrary is done, in addition to the penalty enacted against such persons in the Council of Lyon, we will that the place or church in whose cemetery the bodies of such persons were buried by the will of the prelate or chapter shall by that very fact lie under ecclesiastical interdict for as long as those bodies have not been exhumed by them.

§ 9. These laws also seem to me to aim at this result: that the Jews should be expelled altogether. For, first, those who foster their unbelief are excommunicated by the Fourth Council of Toledo and the Council of Meaux, chapter 58:

So great is the cupidity of certain men that some, pursuing it, according to what the Apostle says, have even wandered from the faith. For until now many priests and laymen, receiving gifts from the Jews, fostered their unbelief by their protection. These men are known, not without cause, to belong to the body of Antichrist, because they act against Christ. Therefore, henceforth, whatever bishop, cleric, or secular person gives them support by gift or favor against the Christian faith, let him, as profane and sacrilegious, be struck with anathema and made a stranger to the Catholic Church and the kingdom of God; for it is fitting that one who becomes a patron of the enemies of Christ should be separated from the body of Christ.

But one who assists and defends their usuries, takes a portion from them, and compels others to pay, fosters their unbelief—if not another form of it, certainly this one by which they persuade themselves that lending at interest is lawful. For why should they regard as unlawful for themselves what they have observed to be conceded so liberally by the highest authority?

Next, the laws forbid a Christian to serve Jews, as Gregory, book 7, letters 13 and 111, and the Council of Meaux, chapter 56. Pope Gregory to Theuderic and Theudebert, kings of the Franks, and Queen Brunhilda:

We have wondered that in your kingdom you permit Jews to possess Christian slaves. For what are all Christians except members of Christ?

And a little later:

In this especially we ask that you show yourselves worshipers of God: that you release his faithful from his enemies.

Likewise the same Gregory to Bishop Fortunatus:

Christian slaves who are brought in or possessed by Jews are either to be delivered to agents, or certainly sold to Christian purchasers within forty days; and when this number of days has elapsed, let them not remain among the Jews in any manner. But if any of those slaves should perhaps incur such sickness that they cannot be sold within the appointed days, care must be employed so that, when they have been restored to their former health, they are likewise sold by every means, and thus every occasion of fraud is removed, lest Christian slaves be permitted to dwell in the house of a Jew.

Christian slaves bought by Jews are therefore to become free. Thus Constantine Flavius, Emperor Augustus:

If any Jew buys and circumcises a Christian slave, or one of any other sect, let the slave be removed from the power of that Jew and remain in freedom.

Theodosius and Valentinian, Augusti:

We deny Jews or pagans permission to litigate or serve in public office, since we do not wish persons of the Christian law to serve them, lest through the occasion of a master they change the sect of the venerable religion. We therefore command that all persons of that unhappy error be excluded, unless timely amendment assists them.

Likewise the same Emperors Augustus:

By this law, which shall endure for all time, we decree that no Jew may attain honors and dignities, that the administration of civil service shall be open to none, and that none may discharge even the office of defender. For we do not believe it right that enemies of the supreme Majesty and of Roman laws should dare, under the appearance of any office, to harass Christians or even priests with injuries under any pretext, or presume either to condemn or adjudicate anyone under our law. Nor are they to preside over the custody of prisons, lest Christians who are sometimes shut away, as commonly happens, suffer a second prison through the hatreds of their guards. Let them not dare again to build any synagogue; for if they do, let them know that it will profit the building of the Catholic Church and that the authors of the building are to be fined fifty pounds of gold, permission being granted them only to repair the ruins of their synagogues. Any Jew who turns a slave or free person, against his will or by punishable persuasion, from the worship of the Christian religion to an impious sect or rite shall, after losing his resources, be punished capitally and consigned to the most just penalty of blood, since by perverse doctrine he attacked the faith of another. Whoever of these has crept into honors is to be regarded, as before, as belonging to the lowest condition, lest we seem to have furnished to execrable men the insulting benefit of immunity.

Childebert, king of the Franks:

From the Lord’s Supper until the first Easter, Jews are to be denied permission to walk through the streets or forum as if for the sake of insult.

These provisions too are renewed in the same Council of Meaux. Priscus, bishop of the Church of Lyon; Artemius of Sens; Remigius of Bourges; and Saint Syagrius, bishop of Autun, with many others, renewing ecclesiastical statutes, determined as follows:

Jews are not to be appointed judges over Christian peoples or permitted to be tax collectors, through which Christians might seem—may God avert it—to be subject to them. From the Lord’s Supper until the first Easter, according to the pronouncement of the lord King Childebert of good memory, Jews are to be denied permission to walk through the streets or forum as if for the sake of insult. They are to show reverence to all priests and clerics of the Lord, and they are not to presume to have a seat before priests unless ordered to do so. If they should perhaps presume to do this, let them be constrained by the judges of the places according to the person’s condition. No Christian is to presume to participate in the banquets of Jews. If any cleric or secular person should presume to do this—which it is impious even to say—let whoever has been polluted by their impieties know that he is to be restrained from the fellowship of all Christians.

And although it was long ago established, not only by canonical provisions but also by the benefits of the laws, what rule ought to be observed concerning Christians who, either by an incursion of captivity or by any frauds, become entangled in service to Jews, nevertheless, because the complaint of certain men has now arisen that some Jews dwelling throughout cities or towns have broken out into such insolence and wantonness that Christians, even when protesting, cannot be released from their service even at a price, therefore, by the authority of God, we decree in the present Council that henceforth no Christian ought to serve Jews. Upon payment of twelve solidi for any slave, any Christian shall have permission to redeem that slave either into free status or into service. For it is impious that those whom Christ the Lord redeemed by the shedding of his blood should remain entangled in the chains of persecutors. If any Jew is unwilling to acquiesce in what we have established, for as long as he delays accepting the established money, the slave himself shall be permitted to live with Christians wherever he wishes. We also specially decree that, if any Jew is convicted of having persuaded a Christian slave to adopt the Jewish rite, he shall both lose that slave and be punished by legal condemnation.

Third, familiarity and banquets with Jews are forbidden. Thus in the same Council the pronouncements of the ancients are recounted. Saint Alcimus Avitus, bishop of the Church of Vienne; Saint Apollinaris of the Church of Valence; Saint Gregory, bishop of the Church of Langres; and Saint Viventiolus, bishop of the Church of Lyon, assembled in the name of the Lord with twenty other bishops, enacted as follows:

If a cleric of superior rank participates in the banquet of any heretic, he shall not possess the peace of the Church for the space of a year. If junior clerics presume to do this, they shall be beaten. Our constitution has also prohibited laymen from the banquets of Jews; and whoever has been polluted by a Jewish banquet is not to eat bread with any of our clerics.

The same precaution is taken by the Council of Basel, session 19:

Further renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit by every means Jews or other unbelievers from possessing Christian men or women as household members or servants, or as nurses of their children; and to prohibit Christians from associating with them at their festivals, weddings, banquets, or baths, or through excessive intercourse. They are not to appoint them as physicians, public matchmakers for marriages, or mediators of other contracts; nor are they to place them over other public offices or admit them to any scholastic degrees. Estates or other ecclesiastical revenues are not to be leased to them. They are also to be prohibited, under penalty of loss of the object, from buying ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses, and other ornaments of churches, or, under penalty of loss of the money lent, from receiving them as pledges. Under grave penalties they are also to be compelled to wear some manner of dress by which they can be plainly distinguished from Christians. In order that their excessive concentration may be avoided, they are to be compelled in some places in cities and towns to live separately from Christians, and as far as possible at a greater distance from churches. On Sundays and other solemn feast days they are not to presume to keep their shops open or to work in public.

The same provisions are established in the Council of Vienne under Clement IV.

Fourth, a distinctive dress and residence are prescribed for them, so that it may be evident that they do not belong to the state. The Council of Salzburg:

It is not a matter of doubtful law that the Hebrew nation ought to be separated from the faithful people of the Crucified by some outward mark of distinction. Hence Guido of holy memory, cardinal priest with the title of Saint Lawrence in Lucina and legate of the most holy Apostolic See to this our province, prudently decreed and established that Jews appearing in public ought to wear a horned hat. We command those who do not wear it to be punished with a monetary fine. But we, wishing so far as lies in us to bring the good intention of the aforesaid legate into effect, command and strictly enjoin, under sentence of excommunication, all secular powers, of whatever condition and preeminence they may be and by whatever name they may be called—whether they are communities or individual presidents of a state—that, personally or through their own servants, they immediately punish with a monetary penalty, to be assessed according to their judgment, every Jew who does not wear such a hat in public, notwithstanding any condition, appeal, or frivolous excuse.

This cannot be a matter of doubtful law, because it had already been decreed in the Lateran Council under Innocent III, chapter 68:

In some provinces a diversity of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians, but in certain places such confusion has grown up that they are distinguished by no difference. Hence it sometimes happens that through error Christians have intercourse with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women.

And the Council of Vienne under Clement IV:

Likewise, since the Jews have grown to so great an insolence that the purity of Catholic holiness is already said to be defiled through them among very many Christians, we strictly command—not so much coining new provisions as renewing the ancient statutes of the Supreme Pontiff—that Jews, who ought to be distinguished in dress from Christians, resume the horned hat which some in these regions were accustomed to wear and which they have presumed to set aside through their own obstinacy, so that they may be plainly distinguished from Christians, as was formerly determined in a general Council.

The Council of Vienne prescribed a horned hat; Ravenna, according to rubric 23, prescribed that men wear a wheel of yellow color upon their outer garments and that women wear the same sign upon the head. Paul IV confined the Jews to one part of the city and forbade them to practice usury. He willed that they wear a hat of yellow color by which they could be distinguished from the rest. Thus in his life.

I can by no means omit setting forth the most salutary statutes concerning Jews of the First Council of Milan under the most holy man Charles Borromeo:

In order that, as far as we can, we may take from Jews the opportunity to corrupt the morals of Christians and to take their goods from them by fraud, and endeavor to lead the Jews themselves to the way of salvation, we decree, also from the ordinances of the sacred canons:

That Jews, always and wherever they make a journey, shall wear—the men a hat or cap of yellow color; the women a cloth of the same color placed upon the rest of the covering of the head.

That Christians are not to attend the banquets, weddings, feast days, or synagogues of Jews; nor are they to play with them or, what is more detestable, dance with Jews.

That Christians cannot be in the service of Jews.

That if Christians hire their labor to Jews for a day or an hour, they are not to take food among them.

That Christian women cannot under any agreement be nurses of Jews in their houses; nor outside their houses unless necessity, to be approved by the ordinary, demands it.

That Christians are not to summon Jews to themselves for the sake of medical treatment.

That they are not to employ their services in joining marriages among themselves.

That Christian women are not to employ Jews for the sake of cosmetics, pigments, or arranging their appearance.

That fields or ecclesiastical estates may not be leased to Jews, nor vestments, vessels, or other sacred objects or things destined for the use of the Church be sold or given to them as pledges.

That Jews are not to dwell in houses situated near a church; and if any now dwell in them, they are to be compelled to move altogether within a fixed time.

That Christians are not to dare to contract with Jews on feast days, whether in the name of purchase, sale, or anything else.

That during the three days before Easter Jews are not to go out in public or dare to do anything openly or secretly in contempt of the Christian religion.

That Jews are not to possess any dignity or public office which can in any way concern Christians.

Let bishops, princes, and magistrates, each according to the function of his authority and after establishing more severe penalties against Christians and Jews, take care that these and the remaining provisions which are established by the sacred canons concerning the intercourse of Christians with Jews are preserved inviolate.

We also earnestly ask princes to establish in each city a fixed place where Jews may assemble to dwell separately from Christians. If Jews possess any houses of their own in the city, let them order that within six months they be sold to Christians by a true and not a pretended contract.

In addition, princes, in accordance with their piety, will have to establish that Jews, in recording in their books any contracts and transactions which they have with Christians, use the letters and vernacular language of our people, and not Hebrew language or characters. If they act otherwise, let them be severely punished, and let no right of action or defense arise for them from it.

Finally, it will be equitable for them to exert every diligence to repress and restrain the fraudulent and treacherous manner in which Jews contract with Christians, and the avarice which gapes after their resources.

But we admonish bishops to take care that the Christian faith and doctrine be preached to Jews by pious men skilled in the Hebrew language and Jewish rites, or, if such men cannot be found, by other learned and good men.

Let all Jews be ordered to assemble for those sermons; but let the boys and girls hear the preacher separately from their parents and from those who are older. Let him instruct them familiarly and respond kindly to those who ask questions.

Let anyone in whom some sign of conversion is recognized be separated from the others and led into a house of catechumens prepared for this purpose, where he may be taught more diligently everything which a Christian ought to know.

Let catechumens not be baptized unless they have first been diligently instructed and examined, especially if they are older.

After they have been baptized, let them be entrusted for at least a year to the care of some upright man, who may rule and regulate their life by these provisions:

That on feast days they attend Mass, sermons, and Vespers.

That on other days they employ some craft by which they can seek sustenance.

That they have no association whatever with Jews.

Nor with Christians whose life is disgraceful.

Let the bishop take care that a Jew who converts to the faith possesses all his goods; and, if he is a son under paternal power, that the legitimate and every other part of the goods due to him by law be given to him even while his father lives.

Or, if the convert is a woman, let her dowry be restored to her by her husband or established by her father, from which she can be supported according to the prescription of the constitution of Pope Paul III, especially in those matters which he established concerning resources acquired by usuries.

Fifth, public offices also are forbidden to them. This is a sign that they are altogether foreign to the state. Thus the Lateran Council under Innocent III, chapter 69:

Since it is exceedingly absurd that a blasphemer of Christ should exercise the force of power over Christians—a matter concerning which the Council of Toledo made prudent provision—we renew it in this chapter because of the boldness of transgressors, prohibiting Jews from being preferred to public offices, since under such a pretext they are exceedingly hostile to Christians.

But if anyone commits such an office to them, after an admonition has first been made, let him be restrained by the provincial council—which we command to be celebrated every year—with the constraint which is fitting. But let communion with Christians, in commerce and other things, be denied to an official of this kind until whatever he acquired from Christians through the occasion of the office thus assumed is converted to the use of poor Christians according to the providence of the diocesan bishop; and let him relinquish with shame the office which he irreverently assumed. We extend this same provision to pagans.

Since, therefore, their clothing, habitation, and all the other things collected here tend to this end, that Christians should have no dealings with Jews; and since all judge that this concerns the state and the Church, this cannot be obtained better than if they are entirely expelled. Poisonous beasts are never in a house without danger, even if they do not always bring forth their poison; for they do not do so either because they fear or because they are torpid. I do not believe that one can be indebted to Jews, associate familiarly with them, banquet with them, or have them move about in the courts of princes, consuls, and senators without great detriment to public safety, honor, justice, and morals.