[Footnote 5: _Ibid._] Before concluding the subject of partnership, we must make reference to the _trinus contractus_, which caused much discussion and great difficulty. As we have seen, a contract of partnership was good so long as the person contributing money did not contract that he should receive his original money back in all circumstances. A contract of insurance was equally justifiable. There was no doubt that A might enter into partnership with B; he could further insure himself with C against the loss of his capital, and with D against damage caused by fluctuations in the rate of profits. Why, then, should he not simultaneously enter into all three contracts with B? If he did so, he was still B's partner, but at the same time he was protected against the loss of his principal and a fair return upon it--in other words, he was a partner, protected against the risks of the enterprise. The legitimacy of such a contract--the _trinus contractus_, as it was called--was maintained by Carletus in the _Summa Angelica_, which was published about 1476, and by Biel.[1] Early in the sixteenth century Eck, a young professor at Ingolstadt, brought the question of the legitimacy of this contract before the University of Bologna, but no formal decision was pronounced, and, had it not been for the reaction following the Reformation, the _trinus contractus_ would probably have gained general acceptance. As it was, it was condemned by a provincial synod at Milan in 1565, and by Sixtus V. in 1585.[2] [Footnote 1: _Op. cit._, IV. xv. 11. Lecky attributed the invention of the _trinus contractus_ to the Jesuits--who were only founded in 1534 (_History of Rationalism_, vol. ii. p. 267).] [Footnote 2: Ashley, _op. cit._, vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 439 _et seqq._; Cleary, _op. cit._, pp. 126 _et seqq._] We should also refer to the contract of bottomry, which consisted of a loan made to the owner--or in some cases the master--of a ship, on the security of the ship, to be repaid with interest upon the safe conclusion of a voyage. This contract could not be considered a partnership, inasmuch as the property in the money passed to the borrower; but it probably escaped condemnation as usurious on the ground that the lender shared in the risk of the enterprise. The payment of some additional sum over and above the money lent might thus be justified on the ground of _periculum sortis_. The contract, moreover, was really one of insurance for the shipowner, and contracts of insurance were clearly legitimate. In any event the legitimacy of loans on bottomry was not questioned before the sixteenth century.[1] [Footnote 1: Ashley, _op. cit._, vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 421-3; Palgrave, _Dictionary of Political Economy_, art. 'Bottomry'; Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, vol i. p. 257.] § 10. _Concluding Remarks on Usury_.