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
Dubitatio III: Whether one who has promised three or four times to restore, and has not restored, is to be absolved before restitution
Quaestio IV: To whom RESTITUTION is to be made
Quaestio V: What ought to be restored
Dubitatio I: Whether the goods of fortune are to be restored in the same way
Dubitatio II: In what manner RESTITUTION is to be made for goods of the body
Dubitatio III: Whether, and how, RESTITUTION of Fame, and Honor, is to be made
Dubitatio IV: On the restitution of goods of the soul
Dubitatio V: When a thing acquired by contract is to be restored
Dubitatio VI: When things acquired by donation ought to be restored
Dubitatio VII: When things acquired by prescription are to be restored
Dubitatio VIII: When a thing acquired as wages for the function of an office is to be restored
Dubitatio IX: Whether the wages of harlotry are to be restored
Dubitatio X: When things acquired by fowling, fishing, and hunting are to be restored
Dubitatio XI: When things acquired by the use of common things are to be restored
Dubitatio XII: Whether things acquired in illicit games are to be restored
Dubitatio XIII: Which things are to be restored on account of finding
Dubitatio XIV: On the restitution of goods impeded by violence, fraud, or evil intention
Dubitatio XV: Whether anyone is bound to restore defrauded customs duties
Dubitatio XVI: What form is to be observed in a just tribute
Quaestio VI: How much is to be Restored
Quaestio VII: When restitution is to be made, and the causes excusing from it
Dubitatio I: Whether entrance into Religion excuses from Restitution
Dubitatio II: Whether cession of goods excuses from restitution
Dubitatio III: On the causes excusing from Restitution on the part of the creditor
Dubitatio IV: On the causes excusing from restitution on the part of the debtor
Dubitatio V: On the causes excusing from Restitution on the part of the public authority
Quaestio VIII: Where restitution is to be made
Quaestio IX: How restitution is to be made
Quaestio X: In what order restitution is to be made
Quaestio XI: What Acceptance of Persons is, and what kind of sin
Quaestio XII: Whether, and how, it is a sin of acceptance of persons to choose the unworthy, or less deserving, for benefices
Quaestio XIII: Whether Acceptance of persons has place in the showing of honor, and reverence
Quaestio XIV: Whether acceptance of persons finds a place in the sentences of Judges
Dubitatio I: Whether a JUDGE can, without the note of acceptance of persons, adhere to the Favor of friends, when the law is doubtful among the Doctors
Disputatio XXV: On Homicide
Quaestio I: What Homicide is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: On homicide from deliberately, insidiously, and treacherously intending it
On homicide from deliberate, treacherous, and traitorous design.
A MAN is killed in a threefold way: by Accident, by Necessity, and by Will, as the holy Doctor notices, sermon 6. on the ten precepts: But in the first part of the Centil. sect. 31. he adds the Homicides of Justice; and since we treat of the sin of homicide, we must first treat of that which is more voluntary, such as those placed in the title, which are called qualified Homicides, each of which always has the punishment of death enjoined: l. 3. C. de Episcopali audientia, l. si servus, C. de his, qui ad Ecclesiam confugiunt, l. 3. §. of the Law Cornelia. And l. Qua caedem, ff. de sicariis, l. Poena, ff. on Parricide, §. Likewise the Law Cornelia, t. of the Instit. on public judgments.
HOMICIDE from design (which we call, deliberated case) is that which is proved to have been premeditated for a long time. And although we cannot penetrate thoughts, yet we deduce it from the acts, for example, if he has elsewhere laid snares for him, if he has waited armed with assembled cutthroats in some place; if he has kept watch many days in some house,1 etc.; if the slain man has been cruelly stabbed, cut down, mutilated in some members, for example the nose, ears, etc. It is said to be from design if, after 24 hours from the injury received, he kills, he being proved to have laid snares or plotted death, by calling together companions, sending out scouts, etc. All which things are entrusted to prudent judgment, as Julius Clarus warns, l. 5. sent. §. Homicidium, num. 8. Therefore one guilty of such must be punished with the ordinary punishment, which is death. So Salicet. l. 15. Qui cum telo, C. de sicariis. And l. 1. ff. extraord. Couar. on the Clementine, si furiosus, at the beginning of the second part; Ioan. Igneus l. 1. §. occisorum, num. 41. ff. ad Syll. Iul. Clar. §. Finali, 9. quaest. 1.
TREACHEROUS homicide, which almost always carries with it guile and fraud, is when someone awaits a man in a hidden place and kills him as he comes, or treacherously, feignedly, and by simulation, having summoned him, kills him in the house in which he is. But it can be treacherous and yet not from design, if he be killed in the heat of anger within the day. He is punished with the punishment of death, as the alleged laws and the expositors of the law decree, with St. Bonav. in the Dieta, tit. 3. cap. 4.
TRAITOROUS homicide is that which is committed traitorously, no other injury intervening, no hatred, no quarrel preceding; as he who kills a companion of his journey, or, feigning himself a friend, kills. So St. Bonav. in the mirror of the soul, cap. 1. about the middle; Barthol. l. to be regarded, §. Delinquant, num. 1. ff. de poenis. Igneus on the Law, si certus, §. si unus ex dominis, ff. ad Syll. after number 44. Iul. Clar. l. 5. sent. §. Homicidium, num. 10. These are condemned to the punishment of death, as the Laws above alleged decree; and they are excluded from the immunity of the Church, just as those who killed treacherously were also excluded; and those who killed from design were excluded by the old law.
The holy Doctor shows all this most beautifully in the Biblioth. loc. 19, cited from Scripture; for Joab the General, united to King David by blood and faithful, yet because he had killed Abner, 2 Reg. 3. from design and with guile, and Amasa, 2 Reg. c. 20. traitorously, kissing him, the dying holy King condemned him, and commanded Solomon his son: 3 Reg. 2: Thou also knowest what Joab the son of Saruiae did to me, what he did to the two generals of the army of Israel, Abner the son of Ner, and Amasa the son of Iether: whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace. Do thou therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his grey head go down to the grave in peace.
STRAIGHTWAY Solomon the King, most wise and most just, commanded Banaiae to kill him. And because he fled to the Temple and laid hold of the horn of the Altar, and would not go out, Solomon commanded that he be killed in the Temple: whence he killed him.
From this it is deduced, with the holy Doctor, that such traitorous homicides are excluded from ecclesiastical immunity.
And indeed Doctors taught commonly that homicides also from design are excluded: Suarez t. 1. l. 3. de relig. cap. 11. Nauar. summa cap. 25. Couar. l. 2. var. cap. 20. Julius Clar. l. 5. sent. §. finali, quaest. 30. Guido Papa decis. 121. Bouërius decis. 109. Alex. consil. 145. num. 46. Corrad. in pract. fol. 268. Blancus in pract. fol. 4. num. 26. Ordinatio Lusitana in nouis lib. 2. tit. 5. Gambacurt. l. 5. cap. 4. num. 19. Fagundez on the 5th Precept, l. 5. cap. 1.
Of homicides also from snares they assert that they are excluded: Julius Clarus, Suarez, Nauartus cited, Remigius on the immunity of the Church, fallentia 13. Fagundez loc. cit. num. 19.
NOW, however, Gregory XIV. by his Constitution excludes from these only those who kill traitorously, correcting the common law, cap. 1. on Homicide. And thus Clement VIII. declared in a certain Brief to the Archbishop of Palermo, in the year 1597, on the 6th of February; which is found in Marcus Antonius Genuensis in praxi, cap. 76., as Diana relates, p. 1. Tract. on the immunity of the Church, resol. 1., where he shows that by that Bull Gregory revokes all the former privileges and all the customs, and he cites very many Doctors. See Riccius p. 5. collect. 1791. Peregrin. on Immunity, cap. 7. Bonacina Tract. on the Laws, disp. 3. quaest. 7. §. 6.
MOREOVER, that the one who kills traitorously is excluded was taught also by Iul. Clar. l. 5. sent. §. Homicidium, num. 10. Couar. l. 2. variarum, cap. 20. num. 7. Gomez cap. 10. on crimes; Remig. on the immunity of the Church fol. 225. Placa lib. 1. delict. cap. 21. Igneus on l. 1. si Dominus, num. 7. ff. ad Syll. Milleus in pract. crim. fol. 32. Fagundez num. 21.; and Covarruvias testifies that this is the custom of the whole world.
NOTE, however, that in St. Bonaventure Abner also was the traitor killed by Joab; for, although he had formerly been an enemy and had killed Asaëlem the brother of Joab, yet he had been reconciled, and he killed him under the appearance of friendship, or of reconciliation; which very many also think. Hence much more are kinsmen excluded.
NOTE also, with Diana resol. 5., that long after the Bull had been published, some, interpreting it otherwise, asserted the opposite of that sentence: but others wrote against it for this reason, as Fagundez and Portellus, because they dwell in Spain, where the Bull of Gregory was not received.
AS FOR the intermediary of assassination, they teach that he enjoys ecclesiastical immunity: Antonius Novatius in summa Bullarum, tit. on the Immunity of the Church, num. 72., who cites the other Novarius Ronius and Gambacurtus, with whom Diana subscribes, p. 4. tract. on the immunity of the Church, resol. 109. and resol. 33., where he also relates that Antonius de Marinis in resol. quotidian. cap. 171., Gambacurtus on the immunity of the Church l. 5. cap. 34. num. 14., Masculus in his addition to Capyc. decis. 112. The reason is, because the Doctors, in C. pro humana, on homicide, in 6., state that the intermediary does not fall under the name of assassin; and that this was decided in the Sacred Consistory in the year 1615, Rovitus relates in pragm. 1. on assassination, num. 49. But in the Bull of Gregory XIV. only the assassins are excluded from immunity: therefore not the intermediaries.
WHETHER, however, one who kills an infidel traitorously enjoys immunity: Ambrosius on immunity, cap. 7. Bonacina on the decal. disp. 3. quaest. 7. p. 6. §. 3. num. 6. bring forward that he does, because the infidel does not seem to be our neighbor: But Gregory excludes only the one who kills his neighbor traitorously. Ambrosinus argues, moreover, because if an assassin [killing an infidel] enjoys it, much more the traitor, since assassination is graver than treachery.
BUT assassins and those who command them are excluded from immunity, as Doctors commonly teach, cited by Fagundez on the 5th Precept of the decal. l. 5. cap. 1. n. 22. Now the assassins are a certain kind of men in Syria, subject to Christian lords, believing that they will be saved if they kill men at the command of their lords. So Suarez judges, T. 5. in 3. p. disp. 23. sect. 5. Couar. l. 2. var. cap. 20. num. 9. and others, cited by Fagundez num. 25.
BUT others say that the assassins are those who, lying in wait on the roads, kill men. But Julius Clarus, l. 5. sent. §. Assassini, and Bossius in the Counsel, on the command to homicide, num. 16., and others say less severely that these do not incur the punishments of assassins established in cap. 1. on homicide, in 6.
INDEED those who, lying in wait on the roads, kill men are truly assassins, and therefore are to be mulcted with their punishment, as St. Bonav. also seems to assert in the little work on the ten precepts, cap. 6., where he calls them robbers; for so they are called also in Italy. For these have their own Chiefs, whom they obey, after the manner of the Syrians. The authors of this opinion are Imola, and Geminianus on cap. 1. on homicide, in 6. Barthol. on l. Non solum, §. si mandatu, ff. de iniuriis. Salicetos on l. ea quidem, C. de accusat. and others, cited by Julius Clar. l. 5. sent. §. Assassini.
YOU WILL SAY that in cap. 1. on homicide, in 6., the punishment of death is established only for those who command the assassins, because the assassins are infidels, outside the law of the Church.
Fagundez ANSWERS, num. 25., that it was enough for the Pontiff to impose the punishment on those who command; for if these did not command, neither would the assassins go out to homicides.
I SAY therefore that excommunication is imposed only on those who command, inasmuch as they are Christians; not on the Syrian assassins, infidels; but the punishment of death is understood, from all the laws, to be common to these and to those.
BUT that those who travel on the roads, whom we call assassins, are robbers, the holy Doctor shows on those words of Luke, 10: And he fell among robbers, which he proves also by Jeremiah 3: On the ways you sat, waiting for them, like a robber in the wilderness.
Of these it is said, Proverbs 1: Their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. He intimates the same on cap. 19 of Luke, on those words: You have made it a den of robbers.