of it, such as a monk or a minor- nisi mulier accepisset ab eo qui alienare non potest, ut a religioso et filio familias.In this case she must give back the money.' And so says Escobar.""May it please your reverence," said I, "the monks, I see, are more highly favoured in this way than other people.""By no means," he replied; "have they not done as much generally for all minors, in which class monks may be viewed as continuing all their lives? It is barely an act of justice to make them an exception;but with regard to all other people, there is no obligation whatever to refund to them the money received from them for a criminal action.For, as has been amply shown by Lessius, 'a wicked action may have its price fixed in money, by calculating the advantage received by the person who orders it to be done and the trouble taken by him who carries it into execution; on which account the latter is not bound to restore the money he got for the deed, whatever that may have been- homicide, injustice, or a foul act' (for such are the illustrations which he uniformly employs in this question);'unless he obtained the money from those having no right to dispose of their property.You may object, perhaps, that he who has obtained money for a piece of wickedness is sinning and, therefore, ought neither to receive nor retain it.But I reply that, after the thing is done, there can be no sin either in giving or in receiving payment for it.' The great Filiutius enters still more minutely into details, remarking 'that a man is bound in conscience to vary his payments for actions of this sort, according to the different conditions of the individuals who commit them, and some may bring a higher price than others.' This he confirms by very solid arguments."He then pointed out to me, in his authors, some things of this nature so indelicate that I should be ashamed to repeat them; and indeed the monk himself, who is a good man, would have been horrified at them himself, were it not for the profound respect which he entertains for his fathers, and which makes him receive with veneration everything that proceeds from them.Meanwhile, Iheld my tongue, not so much with the view of allowing him to enlarge on this matter as from pure astonishment at finding the books of men in holy orders stuffed with sentiments at once so horrible, so iniquitous, and so silly.He went on, therefore, without interruption in his discourse, concluding as follows:
"From these premisses, our illustrious Molina decides the following question (and after this, I think you will have got enough):
'If one has received money to perpetrate a wicked action, is he obliged to restore it? We must distinguish here,' says this great man;'if he has not done the deed, he must give back the cash; if he has, he is under no such obligation!' Such are some of our principles touching restitution.You have got a great deal of instruction to-day;and I should like, now, to see what proficiency you have made.Come, then, answer me this question: 'Is a judge, who has received a sum of money from one of the parties before him, in order to pronounce a judgement in his favour, obliged to make restitution?'""You were just telling me a little ago, father, that he was not.""I told you no such thing," replied the father; "did I express myself so generally? I told you he was not bound to make restitution, provided he succeeded in gaining the cause for the party who had the wrong side of the question.But if a man has justice on his side, would you have him to purchase the success of his cause, which is his legitimate right? You are very unconscionable.
Justice, look you, is a debt which the judge owes, and therefore he cannot sell it; but he cannot be said to owe injustice, and therefore he may lawfully receive money for it.All our leading authors, accordingly, agree in teaching 'that though a judge is bound to restore the money he had received for doing an act of justice, unless it was given him out of mere generosity, he is not obliged to restore what he has received from a man in whose favour he has pronounced an unjust decision.'"This preposterous decision fairly dumbfounded me, and, while I was musing on its pernicious tendencies, the monk had prepared another question for me."Answer me again," said he, "with a little more circumspection.Tell me now, 'if a man who deals in divination is obliged to make restitution of the money he has acquired in the exercise of his art?'""Just as you please, your reverence," said I.
"Eh! what!- just as I please! Indeed, but you are a pretty scholar! It would seem, according to your way of talking, that the truth depended on our will and pleasure.I see that, in the present case, you would never find it out yourself: so I must send you to Sanchez for a solution of the problem- no less a man than Sanchez.
In the first place, he makes a distinction between 'the case of the diviner who has recourse to astrology and other natural means, and that of another who employs the diabolical art.In the one case, he says, the diviner is bound to make restitution; in the other he is not.' Now, guess which of them is the party bound?""It is not difficult to find out that," said I.
"I see what you mean to say," he replied."You think that he ought to make restitution in the case of his having employed the agency of demons.But you know nothing about it; it is just the reverse.'If,'
says Sanchez, 'the sorcerer has not taken care and pains to discover, by means of the devil, what he could not have known otherwise, he must make restitution- si nullam operam apposuit ut arte diaboli id sciret, but if he has been at that trouble, he is not obliged.'""And why so, father?"
