Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus
Gaudenzio da Brescia (1612–1672)
Reuerendi patris Gaudentij Bontempi, ... Palladium theologicum, seu Tota theologia scholastica in septem tomos distributa. Ad intimam mentem d. Bonauenturae seraphici doctoris ... Tomus quintus, De virtutibus
First published 1676
Bontempi's Palladium theologicum (Lyon 1676) is a complete scholastic theology composed ad mentem D. Bonaventurae, arranged in seven tractatus on the order of the Secunda secundae. This fifth volume, De virtutibus, treats the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity, with their gifts, beatitudes and fruits), the cardinal virtues and their opposite vices, and the states and offices of men (religious and prelates, bishops, princes), including the extensive disputations on contracts, religion, vows, fortitude, temperance and the judicial process. It is a significant example of the Bonaventurian scholastic school and a counterpart to the Thomist manuals of the period.
Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS
Proemium I: Prooemium
Disputatio I: ON FAITH
Quaestio I: What FAITH signifies, and what it is
Quaestio II: What the object of FAITH is
Quaestio III: Whether the object of FAITH is something complex
Quaestio IV: Whether the object of FAITH can be false
Quaestio V: Whether the object of FAITH can be evident scientifically
Quaestio VI: Whether FAITH is concerned with those things which are seen by vision on the way
Quaestio VII: Whether the articles of FAITH are evidently credible
Quaestio VIII: Whether the things to be believed are rightly arranged according to the articles
Quaestio IX: Whether the articles of FAITH have grown over the course of time
Quaestio X: Whether FAITH has grown as regards light
Quaestio XI: Whether Faith has grown in certitude
Quaestio XII: Whether the articles of Faith are to be expounded by some authority which is an infallible teacher, and what it is
Quaestio XIII: What are the marks of the true Church, in which the authority of expounding FAITH resides
Quaestio XIV: What must be believed by the necessity of means
Quaestio XV: What things are to be believed by the necessity of precept
Quaestio XVI: Whether we are bound to confess FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVIII: Whether Faith resides in the Intellect
Quaestio XIX: Whether Faith is perfected by Charity, as by its form
Quaestio XX: Whether it is certain that FAITH remains without CHARITY
Quaestio XXI: Whether, and how, FAITH is a VIRTUE
Quaestio XXII: Whether FAITH is ONE VIRTUE
Quaestio XXIII: Whether FAITH is the first of the Virtues
Quaestio XXIV: Whether FAITH is more certain than any science, or than any intellectual habit
Quaestio XXV: Whether one can know with certainty that he has FAITH
Quaestio XXVI: In whom FAITH is found
Quaestio XXVII: Whether FAITH is a substantial Gift of GOD
Quaestio XXVIII: Whether the difference between FAITH and other acts, natural as opposed to supernatural moral acts, always arises from the object
Quaestio XXIX: On the effects of FAITH
Quaestio XXX: On the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio I: Whether UNDERSTANDING is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING can coexist with FAITH
Dubitatio III: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING consists in the contemplation of the Creator and of Creation
Dubitatio IV: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING is found in all who have grace, and whether in these alone
Dubitatio V: What is the necessity and utility of the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio VI: Whether* **the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.
Dubitatio VII: Whether* **to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith
Quaestio XXXI: On the Gift of Knowledge
Dubitatio I: Whether* **KNOWLEDGE** *is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether knowledge is concerned with Divine things
Dubitatio III: Whether the gift of knowledge is speculative
Dubitatio IV: Whether the third Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Knowledge: Blessed are they that mourn, etc.
Disputatio II: On Unbelief
Quaestio I: What UNBELIEF is, and what kind of sin it is
Quaestio II: Whether all the works of unbelievers are sins
Quaestio III: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to hear FAITH
Quaestio IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when it has been sufficiently set forth
Quaestio V: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can be compelled to abandon errors or rites contrary to natural reason
Quaestio VI: Whether the rites of unbelievers are to be permitted
Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about the toleration of their rites
Quaestio VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the Faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it
Disputatio III: On Heresy
Quaestio I: What HERESY is
Quaestio II: Whether one who doubts about the articles of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio III: Whether one who gives merely opinionative assent to an article of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio IV: Whether, and what, Ignorance excuses from Heresy
Quaestio V: What pertinacity is required for HERESY
Quaestio VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer
Quaestio VII: Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the Catholic FAITH
Quaestio VIII: On the other means the Church uses against heretics, by forbidding their Books
Quaestio IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics
Quaestio X: What excommunication is inflicted upon heretics
Quaestio XI: On the other spiritual punishments of heretics
Quaestio XII: On the temporal punishments of Heretics
Disputatio IV: On Hope
Quaestio I: What HOPE is
Quaestio II: What the material object of HOPE is
Question III
Quaestio IV: Whether a certain object is set forth for HOPE, and is hoped for
Quaestio V: Whether Hope is a Virtue
Quaestio VI: Whether HOPE is a Theological Virtue
Quaestio VII: Whether HOPE is at times formless
Quaestio VIII: Whether HOPE arises from merits
Quaestio IX: Whether Hope precedes Charity
Quaestio X: What the proximate subject of HOPE is
Quaestio XI: Whether HOPE remains in the Blessed
Quaestio XII: Whether there is a precept of hoping in GOD
Dubitatio I: UNICA. Would this precept bind one to whom certain damnation had been revealed
Disputatio V: On the Gift of Fear
Quaestio I: Whether FEAR is a Habit distinct from HOPE
Quaestio II: What the object of FEAR is
Quaestio III: Whether worldly Fear is always evil
Quaestio IV: Whether servile Fear is honorable, and a Gift of God
Quaestio V: Whether servile Fear is cast out when grace comes
Quaestio VI: Whether Initial and Filial Fear differ specifically
Quaestio VII: Whether, as Charity grows, Fear diminishes
Quaestio VIII: Whether gratuitous Fear remains in the fatherland
Quaestio IX: Whether Poverty of Spirit corresponds to the GIFT OF FEAR
Quaestio X: On the Effects, and the precept, of the FEAR OF GOD
Disputatio VI: On Despair
Quaestio I: UNICA. Of what power DESPAIR is an act, and what sin it is
Disputatio VII: On Presumption
Quaestio I: What PRESUMPTION is, and what kind of sin
Disputatio VIII: On Charity
Quaestio I: What CHARITY is
Quaestio II: What the object of Charity is
Quaestio III: Whether Charity is properly the friendship of God
Quaestio IV: Whether Charity is a created Habit
Quaestio V: Whether Charity is one special Virtue
Quaestio VI: Whether Charity is of a most special species
Quaestio VII: Whether Charity is the most excellent of the virtues
Quaestio VIII: Whether Charity is the Form of the Virtues
Quaestio IX: Whether besides infused Charity there is another charity, acquired by our own acts
Quaestio X: Whether Charity can be formless
Quaestio XI: Whether CHARITY increases, and how
Quaestio XII: Whether, and how, CHARITY in this life is perfect
Quaestio XIII: Whether Charity can be lost, and how
Quaestio XIV: What is the proximate subject of Charity
Quaestio XV: Whether God alone is to be loved out of Charity, or the neighbor also
Quaestio XVI: Whether Charity is to be loved out of Charity
Quaestio XVII: Whether all gratuitous gifts are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XVIII: Whether irrational creatures are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XIX: Whether a man ought to love himself out of CHARITY
Quaestio XX: Whether a man ought to love his own body out of Charity
Quaestio XXI: Whether sinners are to be loved out of Charity
Quaestio XXII: Whether it is necessary to love enemies out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXIII: Whether we are bound to show the effects of CHARITY toward enemies, and which
Quaestio XXIV: Whether Angels are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXV: Whether Demons, and the Damned, are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXVI: Whether it is fitting that four things to be loved out of CHARITY are enumerated
Quaestio XXVII: Whether God, and the neighbor, are loved with the same habit of CHARITY
Quaestio XXVIII: Whether there is order in CHARITY
Quaestio XXIX: Whether GOD is to be loved more than the neighbor
Quaestio XXX: Whether a man ought out of CHARITY to love God more than himself
Quaestio XXXI: Whether Nature inclines more to loving GOD than to loving ourselves
Quaestio XXXII: Whether a man ought to love himself more than his neighbor
Quaestio XXXIII: Whether the eternal salvation of the neighbor is to be loved more than our own life
Quaestio XXXIV: Whether one neighbor is to be loved more than another
Quaestio XXXV: Whether a Son is to be loved more than a Father
Quaestio XXXVI: Whether a man ought out of CHARITY to love his Mother more than his Father
Quaestio XXXVII: Whether a man ought to love his spouse more than his parents, and Children
Quaestio XXXVIII: Whether the order of CHARITY is considered in the affection, and in the effect
Quaestio XXXIX: Whether the order of CHARITY remains in heaven
Quaestio XL: Whether it is more proper to Charity to love than to be loved
Quaestio XLI: Whether Love is the same as Benevolence
Quaestio XLII: Whether, and whether he can, GOD must be loved in the way with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind, and all one's strength
Quaestio XLIII: Whether some measure is to be kept in Divine love
Quaestio XLIV: Whether Charity ought to be enlarged in heaven
Quaestio XLV: Whether it is more meritorious to love an enemy than a friend
Quaestio XLVI: Whether a man, constituted in however small CHARITY, is bound to undergo death for CHRIST
Quaestio XLVII: Whether those having perfect CHARITY are bound to fulfill the things that are of perfection
Quaestio XLVIII: How, and when, the precept of the love of GOD binds
Quaestio XLIX: Whether a man is bound at the first instant of the use of reason to be converted to GOD
Quaestio L: How, and when, the precept of the love of the neighbor binds
Disputatio IX: On the internal effects of Charity, JOY, PEACE, and MERCY
§ I: On Joy
Quaestio I: Whether JOY is an Effect of Charity, and of what kind
Quaestio II: Whether JOY is a virtue
§ II: On Peace
Quaestio I: UNICA. What PEACE is
§ III: On Mercy
Quaestio I: What MERCY is
Quaestio II: Which, and what kind of Virtue, MERCY is
Disputatio X: On the external effects of Charity
§ I: De Beneficentia
Quaestio I: UNICA. What BENEFICENCE is
§ II: On Almsgiving
Quaestio I: Whether to give ALMS is an act of Charity
Quaestio II: Whether the kinds of ALMS are fittingly distinguished
Quaestio III: Whether ALMS is a matter of precept
Quaestio IV: Whether it is a precept, in common necessities, to give superfluities to the poor
Quaestio V: Whether anyone is bound at some time to give alms from things necessary to his state, apart from the extreme necessity of the neighbor
Quaestio VI: Whether alms is owed out of justice to one in extreme need
Quaestio VII: Whether Alms ought to be given from justly possessed goods
§ III: On Fraternal Correction
Quaestio I: Whether FRATERNAL CORRECTION is a matter of precept
Quaestio II: Whether the order of fraternal correction, even in Religious Orders, is a matter of precept, so that the correction first be made in secret
Disputatio XI: On Hatred
Quaestio I: What the object of HATRED is, and what it is
Quaestio II: What, and what kind of sin, hatred is
Disputatio XII: On Sloth
Quaestio I: What ACEDIA is, and what its object is
Disputatio XIII: On Envy
Quaestio I: What ENVY is, and what its object is
Quaestio II: How perverse ENVY is
Disputatio XIV: On Discord, and Contention
Quaestio I: What DISCORD is, and what kind of sin
Quaestio II: What kind, and how great, a sin Contention is
Disputatio XV: On Schism
Quaestio I: What kind of sin SCHISM is
Quaestio II: How great a sin SCHISM is
Quaestio III: What punishments are owed to SCHISMATICS
Disputatio XVI: DE BELLO
Quaestio I: Whether any war can be just
Quaestio II: What conditions are required for a just war
Quaestio III: By whom BELLUM (war) may be waged
Disputatio XVII: On Quarreling, and Sedition
Quaestio I: What RIXA (quarreling) is, and what kind of sin
Quaestio II: What sedition is
Disputatio XVIII: On Scandal
Quaestio I: What, and of how many kinds, SCANDAL is
Quaestio II: Whether SCANDAL is a special sin
Quaestio III: What is to be done, and what omitted, to avoid scandal
Quaestio IV: Whether it is lawful to persuade one resolved upon a great evil into a lesser evil
Disputatio XIX: On the Gift of Wisdom
Quaestio I: What kind of gift WISDOM is
Quaestio II: What is the usefulness, and necessity, of this Gift
Quaestio III: By what means is the GIFT OF WISDOM obtained from God
Quaestio IV: On the illumination that Wisdom brings
Quaestio V: On the spiritual delights of Wisdom
Quaestio VI: How Folly is opposed to Wisdom
Quaestio VII: Whether the seventh Beatitude corresponds to the gift of Wisdom
Disputatio XX: On Prudence
Quaestio I: What PRUDENCE is
Quaestio II: Whether PRUDENCE is a virtue
Quaestio III: Which are the offices of PRUDENCE
Quaestio IV: Who are the participants in PRUDENCE
Quaestio V: How Prudence is acquired, and lost
Quaestio VI: On the parts of the Virtue of PRUDENCE
Quaestio VII: How certain rules of prudence, applicable to the Monastic and Political state, are drawn from the Angelic Hierarchy
§ I: On the Prudence that men bound by solemn vows claim for themselves from the first choir of Angels
§ II: On the Governance of the Prelates of the Church, from the Second Hierarchy of the First Choir, likened to the Dominations
§ III: On the Prudence of Judges, compared with the Virtues, from the second order of the second Hierarchy
§ IV: On the governance of Princes, and similar Powers
§ V: On the Prudence of individuals, from the lowest Hierarchy
Quaestio I: Whether there is one PRUDENCE for all the moral virtues
Disputatio XXI: On the Gift of Counsel
Quaestio I: What the gift of COUNSEL is, and what its office is
Quaestio II: How the GIFT OF COUNSEL orders the mind
Quaestio III: Whether the Gift of COUNSEL remains in heaven
Quaestio IV: Whether the fifth Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Counsel
Disputatio XXII: On the Vices contrary to Prudence
Quaestio I: On PRECIPITATION
Quaestio II: On INCONSIDERATENESS
Quaestio III: On INCONSTANCY
Quaestio IV: On Negligence
Quaestio V: On the prudence of the flesh
Quaestio VI: On ASTUTENESS
Quaestio VII: On CRAFT (dolus)
Quaestio VIII: On FRAUD
Quaestio IX: On solicitude for temporal things
Quaestio X: On solicitude for the Future
Quaestio XI: On the precepts of PRUDENCE
Disputatio XXIII: On Justice
Quaestio I: Whether Ius (right) is the object of JUSTICE
Quaestio II: What JUSTICE is
Quaestio III: Whether JUSTICE is a special virtue
Quaestio IV: In what subject JUSTICE consists
Quaestio V: Whether JUSTICE is the most excellent of the moral Virtues
Quaestio VI: What kind of sin INJUSTICE is, and how it is committed
Quaestio VII: Whether Judgment is an act of JUSTICE
Quaestio VIII: By what means the public Judgment of a Judge is just
Quaestio IX: In what way private judgment about the neighbor is illicit
Quaestio X: Whether Distributive JUSTICE differs in species from Commutative
Disputatio XXIV: On Restitution
Quaestio I: What RESTITUTION is
Quaestio II: Whether RESTITUTION is necessary for salvation
Quaestio III: Who is bound to RESTORE
Dubitatio I: Whether he is a true cause of loss without whom the loss would still have followed
Dubitatio II: On the indirect causes of loss
THERE FOLLOW three others, namely the Silent one. He is called silent who ought to have spoken in order to prevent the damage. He can be bound either by office, as a Prelate, or by contract. I shall treat of these in the doubts below.
The SECOND is the Non-obstructor, when he ought to have obstructed, as Prince, Magistrate, and the like.
The THIRD is the Non-discloser of the one causing damage, when he was bound, as a witness in court, keepers of vineyards, woods, etc. Many doubts are raised about these.
TANNERUS disp. 4. quaest. 6. dub. 2. num. 72. requires three conditions for these persons to be bound to restitution. The first is that he was bound to procure such a good, or ward off such an evil, by a debt of Commutative or Distributive Justice. The second is that he was bound to procure it for that very person who has been damaged, whose cause he ought to have pleaded. The third is that the procuring of such a good was deliberately omitted, or omitted with proportionate fault. From this doctrine innumerable cases are resolved. See also Vasquez prim. 2. disp. 175. Lessius Lib. II. cap. 12. disput. 10. et 18.
WHETHER, THEREFORE, he who is the indirect cause of damage by not obstructing it, when he can and ought, is bound to restitution; many assert universally. So Angelus, and Cajetan in the summa, under the word Restitutio, Richard in 4. dist. 15. art. 5. quaest. 4. Valencia also, at the place cited, judges it probable.
OTHERS, however, as reported by Valencia, say he is bound only when he could and ought to have obstructed it out of justice; for instance, because he was Praetor, etc. So it seems D. Bonaventure holds in the Speculum, cap. 1. under the word Damnificatio, Sylvester V. Restitutio 3. Adrian IV, quaest. de Restitut. Soto Lib. 4. de Iustitia, quaest. 7. art. 3. Medina quaest. 9. de rebus restitutis. Alensis 4. part. quaest. 86. num 3. art. 4 §. 7. Altissiodor lib. 4. summae, tract. de poenitent. cap. de Restit. and almost Valencia; Bassaeus num. 15. citing Peter of Navarre lib. 3. cap. 4. numero 130. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 13. dub. 10. Bonacina disput. 1. quaest. 2. punct. 11. Azor 3. part. lib. 4. cap. 17. Fillucius tract. 32. num. 75. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 62. art. 4. quaestio 4. and art. 7.
As to the keeper of the gates of woods who connives at the carrying-off of timber, many, as reported by Diana part. 2. tract. 5. resol. 54, deny that they are bound to make good the losses inflicted.
THERE ARISES another question: Whether a Confessor, and others on whom the office of prohibiting unjust detentions rests, are bound to Restitution if they omit to admonish, etc. As to the Confessor, they affirm it: Summa Rosella, V. Restitutio 2. §. 5. Summa Angel. V. Restitutio, ultim. §. 5. Navarre in the Manuale, cap. 17. num. 22. and others as reported by Valencia disput. 5. quaest. 6. puncto 3. and Bonacina de restitut. disput. 1. quaest. 2. punct. 11. The same view is followed by Nunges in addit. ad 3. part. Tom. 2. quaest. 8. art. 4. dub. 5. Zanchus in the directorium confess. part. 2. praecepto 7. cap. 26. dub. 3. Gabriel in 4. dist. 15. quaest. 2. art. 3. Sylvester V. usura, 7. quaestio 2. and other Neoterics as reported by Diana Tom. 1. Tract. 16. resol. 1. Bassaeus num. 8.
The CONTRARY opinion is that of Bonacina and others as reported by him, Filliucius tom. 1. tract. 7. cap. 12. quaest. 7. num; 37. Lessius Lib. 2. cap. 10. dub. 6. Malderus 2. 2. tract. 5. cap. 3. dub. 24. Bartholomew of Saint Faustus in spec. confess. disp. 4. quaest. 121. num. 7. Aegid. Coninch. de Sacram. disp. 8. dub. 17. num. 144. Rebellius de oblig. iust. part. 2. lib. 17. quaest. ult. num. 12. and part. 1. Lib. 2. quaest. 14. sect. 8. num. 63. Diana limits this, provided the Confessor does not persuade the penitent not to make restitution. But the obligation to join restitution with not dissuading is one and the same. This indeed is taught also by Suarez tom. 4. in 3. part. disput. 32. sect. 6. and Rebellius at the place cited, Caspensis disp. 5. sect. 9. §. 1. num. 86. Sanchez Lib. 7. Decalogi, cap. 6. Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 6. num. 75. referring to others, Bassaeus, V. Restit. 3. §. 7. num. 16. Crousers ad cap. 7. Reg. Min. lib. 31.
The opinion of D. Bonaventure, as I see, is this second one; for in the Confessionale, cap. 4, where he professes to teach confessors what they are bound to do, and what penalties they incur by omitting it, he says: Attendendum igitur, quod cum sint tria genera poenitentium, primis nulla potest iniungi poenitentia utilis ad salutem. Horum autem sunt sex genera. Primi raptores, Secundi usurarii, Tertii incendiarii, Quarti fures, Quinti Simoniaci, Sexti dolosi circumventores, ut sunt perversi Iudices, advocati iniqui, testes falsi, negotiatores fraudulenti, et alii huiusmodi, quibus omnibus non potest alia iniungi poenitentia, nisi illa Evangelica, Matth. 18. Redde quod debes, et illa Apostolica, Rom. 13. Reddite omnibus debita. Et illud Ecclesiastici 4. Redde debitum tuum. Quod si hanc acceptare noluerit confitens, nulla alia iniungi potest, quae valeat ad salutem; quia, ut dicit Augustinus epist. 54. ad Macedonium 14. quaest. 6. Si res aliena, propter quam peccatum est, possit reddi, et non redditur, poenitentia non agitur; non remittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum. He then enumerates the rest shortly after in part. 7. He indeed condemns confessors who omit the debt; but he imposes nothing about Restitution upon them.
IT IS PROVED, because the obligation of restitution arises from the virtue of Justice alone; but the Confessor is bound to admonish not from his own justice, but from religion.
From the conditions adduced above other decisions are had. The first is that a Defendant who unjustly denies the crime in court is not bound to pay the monetary penalty due to the judge before the sentence. So Tanner. num. 76. with Adrian quodlib. 6. Navarre in the manuali, cap. 18. num. 49. Couarv. in Epitome 124. part. 2. cap. 6. §. 8. num. 10. Azor. Lib. 5. cap. 8. quaestio 5. Vasquez prim. 2. disput. 175. cap. 5. against Soto Lib. 4. quaest. 6. art. 6. Molina Tract. primo, tract. 2. disp. 95. The same seems to hold of witnesses, if they testify falsely. So Tanner. with Sà V. Restitutio, and Azor. at the place cited. The reason is that they are not bound out of justice to procure the good of the Judge or of the Treasury; nor has the Treasury acquired any right, under Commutative Justice, to the money before the sentence.
IT IS GATHERED secondly that both the Defendant and the witnesses, unjustly denying the truth, are bound to restore to the damaged party the expenses and other losses inflicted by the denial of the truth. So from the common teaching Carbo quaest. 31. Sà at the place cited, Soto Lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 3. Medina Cod. de restit. quaest. 9. Tanner. num. 77. For they were bound out of justice not to damage the innocent party; yet they can be excused if grave losses to themselves threaten from the confession. So Tanner. with Lessius, and Sà. They judge it probable, indeed, that Molina holds they are never bound, disput. 83. Sylvester V. Testis, Lessius Lib. 2. cap. 30. dub. 8. Vasquez speaking of the Defendant in the chapter above cap. 2. Tanner. num. 79. Because it does not so plainly appear that these are bound to it out of justice.
IT IS GATHERED thirdly that a Judge negligent in delivering sentence is bound to restore the losses to the Republic and to the parties, but also the penalty which he would have paid to the Treasury for the Defendant had he proceeded rightly. The same they assert likewise of the fiscal officer: Sylvester V. Poena, quaest. 28. Salon art. 7. controv. 5. Carbo quaest. 31. who says it is the common opinion, and Vasquez agrees as to the fiscal officer. The reason is that out of justice these are bound to it by their office.
The CONTRARY, however, as to the Judge, regarding the monetary penalty to be paid to the Treasury, is held by Azor. at the place cited, ad 4. Sà V. Restitutio; Vasquez at the place cited. Lessius Lib. 2. cap. 3. dub. 10. as to the fiscal officer, whom others reported by Salonius follow.
IT IS GATHERED fourthly that toll-collectors are bound to restitution for the neglect of a just toll; but say otherwise of the monetary penalty which would come to the Treasury if they neglected to procure it. Say the same with Bassaeus of the keepers of things and fruits, from which something is given to the Prince.
IT IS GATHERED fifthly that Keepers of forests, rivers, etc. are not bound to pay the penalty which would have come to the Treasury had they reported the transgressors to the Magistrate. So Sylvester V. Restit. 3. quaest. 5. §. 7. Bassaeus num. 17. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 13. dub. 10. Tanner. num. 83. against Cato and Salonius. The reason is that their office out of justice regards not the good of the Treasury, but the security and defense of the public good. Except the tributes, as I said, excerpted from these.