Doubt I: On the mode of proceeding by denunciation

A criminal DENUNCIATION is the manifestation and revelation of a crime, without any action, or accusation, by which the Denunciator denounces the crime of his neighbor to the superior Judge, or Prelate, as to a Judge, so that he may do ex officio what seems right to him according to law.

ACCUSATION, however, is the bringing of a charge with an action, in which it is asked of the Judge, and he is himself compelled to punish the guilty party. But denunciation differs from accusation in many ways.

FIRST, because a judicial Denunciator does not intend chiefly public vengeance and the punishment of the offense, but only his own interest, in which he was injured by the wrong: whereas the Accuser intends, first and per se, the public punishment of the offense for the public good.

It DIFFERS secondly, because the Denunciator is not bound to prove the crime by witnesses, whereas the Accuser is bound to prove it, according to Arret. §. fin. quaest. 7. et alios; but I think even the denunciant is bound to prove it by one witness, as others teach, excepting the cases of the Holy Inquisition.

It DIFFERS thirdly, in that on account of a denunciation the whole penalty of the law is not to be inflicted: on account of an accusation, however, the whole penalty is to be inflicted, if the crime be proved. So the Doctors commonly teach, in Fagundez lib. 8. cap. 45. et Saytum lib. 12. cap. 10. and this last difference is gathered from the cap. Inquisitionis, de accusat. see on these tom. 4. disp. 27. de conscient. quaest. 10. sect. 5.

THEREFORE, once the denunciation is presented, the Judge proceeds ex officio against the denounced, and so it is commonly observed in practice, as Pract. Papien. Boss. testifies tit. de denunc. Clato §. fin. quaest. 7. Philip of Bictis of Camerino in Praxi crimin. tract. 2. All of which (says Clarus,) must be understood both of the denunciation made by necessity of office, and of that made by anyone else whatsoever who can lawfully denounce.

But I PREMISE that some crimes are private, which tend to private harm: others public, which rush into public harm. Of the former kind are sins of gluttony, pride, private theft, and the like; of the latter kind are those that are against God, such as heresy, blasphemy, the overthrow of temples, or their burnings; or against the Church, such as violation of immunity, the injury of the majesty of a Prince, rebellions, treasons, public banditry, and the like.

Among Religious there are some things which can tend to scandal and contagion, such as notorious fornication, and the like. And these are counted among public crimes, which are also called "excepted", as Rodriguez numbers in ordine iudic. cap. 13. num. 6. Valerius de differ. utriusque fori, 2. inquisitio, diff. ultim. Miranda in ordin. iudic. quaest. 11. art. 2. Ximenez in declar. reg. cap. 10. quaest. 2. concl. 3. num. 17. Camerinensis num. 5. loco citato.

To these give their assent Suarez de Fide, Spe, et Charitate disp. 8. sect. 6. Sanchez Tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 56. num. 50. Bonet. ibi, cap. 12.

In general, however, all crimes which the law declares are held as public, according to Bictus, such as homicide, are homicide, adultery, the crime of falsity, as appears in Lib. I. ff. de publ. iud. It is the common opinion of many Doctors, especially the Gloss on Rubr. 6. quaest. 1. Farinac. quaest. 49. Sotus on concealing a secret, memb. 2. quaest. 4. Rodriguez tom. 2. quaest. 5. art. 2. Miranda in ord. iud. quaest. 1. art. 2. The holy Doctor recalls many crimes of this kind in confessionali, cap. 9. and brings forward Canons imposing public penalties, plainly when they have been proclaimed.

Some assert that crimes of this kind can be denounced without previous fraternal correction.

D. Thom. 1. 2. quaest. 33. art. 7. is brought forward, and others whom Bouer. in Direct. part. 1. cap. 13. cites; Bisctus quaest. 15. The reason is, because the common good ought to be preferred to the particular good of the delinquent, and a public sin is not to be left without public punishment, as Rodriguez notes part. 2. quaest. 6. art. 4. after D. Bonavent. loco cit. Among these place Fornication, at least if it be not secret. See Diana part. 2. tract. 2. resol. 69.

And they say the same must be asserted of crimes which are to another's harm pending in the future, according to almost all the Doctors, in Bouerius ibidem, cap. 14.

Similarly they say the same of crimes public, or notorious, in another sense, in a city, college, etc. of which D. Bonavent. 4. dist. 13. quaest. 4. For secrets of this kind do not need correction. So teach Sotus de teg. secret. mem. 2. quaest. 5. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 8. dub. 6. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 3. quaest. 10. puncto 5. Miranda in ordine iud. quaest. 11. art 1. and others commonly, to whom Camerinus subscribes.

He extends these even to private crimes, that although hidden they can be denounced judicially, without previous correction, and he cites Sayrus lib. 12. cap. 10. Navar. in manu. cap. 18. num. 30. Adrianus in 4. de correp. fraterna, col. 17. Tranc. Aretinus in praxi, part. 2. cap. 9. art. 2.

Their reason is, because in such a denunciation, as also in an accusation, the amendment of the delinquent alone is not intended, but that the penalty due be imposed upon him, or the satisfaction due be shown to the injured party, as Reginaldus also notes tract. 2. lib. 25. cap. 32. Bonacina Tract. de Legibus, disp. 10. quaest. 2. puncto 5. and he refers to Diana p. p. tract. 4. resol. 2. where he cites many: Sanctarellus Tract. de haeres. cap. 9. Sanatius in select. disp. 11. num. 56. Bonac. tract. variar. disp. 6. part. 3. num. 9. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 7. concl. 2. Villalob. sum. part. 2. tract. 4. diffic. 11. Suarez tract. de fide, disp. 20. sect. 4. num. 11. Azor. part. 1. l. 6. cap. 19. quaesito 9. Turtrianus 2. 2. tract. 1. disp. 58. dub. 3. Henriquez lib. 2. cap. 24. num. 10. in Glossa littera C. Simanca in Cathol. instit. titulo 19. numero 11.

Therefore they infer that no sin has fraternal correction to be premised to it, since they say all sins are public.

Yet the opposite opinion is true, which the holy Doctor defends in the places I cited, in the disputation on Charity, sect. 3. on Fraternal Correction. D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 35. art. 7. with all his disciples.

Sotus de Iust. lib. 5. quaest. 5. art. 1. Canus de locis Theol. lib. 12. cap. 9. Sylvester V. correptio, quaest. 5. Lopez Instruct. part. 4. cap. 54. Ledesma sum. tom. 1. tract. 4. cap. 4. concl. 24. diffic. 2. fol. mihi 134. Ioan. de Cruz in direct. part. 1. prac. 5. quaest. 2. dub. 5. concl. 2. who speaks of the one solicited in confession, which orders the solicitor to be denounced to the Lords Inquisitors. Zanardus in direct. confess. part. 2. prac. 1. c. 23. quaest. 13. and others. So taught Castrus de haeret punic. lib. 2. cap. 25. Tolet. Lib. 5. cap. 57. Lazarus Tract. de blasphemia, quaest. 12. num. 31. Homobon. tract. de cas. reser. part. 2. cap. 1. and de exam. Ecclesiae part. 2. tract. 9. cap. 13. quaest. 39. Angelus V. denunc. quaest. 2. Rosella V. Inquisitio, num 1.

Indeed Portel. in dubiis regul. v. correclio fraterna, num. 1. extends it even to the crime of heresy. Likewise Reginaldus in prax. tract. 2. lib. 24. cap. 3. sect. 6. numero 51. provided, however, it be firmly judged that he ought to be amended.

The Repertorium Inquisitorum adds, V. denunciator, Gundissalvus de haeret. quaest. 10. num. 10. Decianus tract. 1. lib. 5. cap. 30. And on the case of solicitation in confession Fagundez teaches it, de praec. Eccl. tract. 2. lib. 4. cap. 2. num. 31. where he says: Before the denunciation is made by the woman solicited in confession, fraternal correction must be premised, if there be hope of amendment, because the precept of correction is of natural and divine law; but the precept of this denunciation is human; hence it cannot prevail against the precept of natural law. But for fraternal correction to be judged profitable, it is not enough that it be done once and not profit; but it must be applied again and again, so long as amendment is hoped for on the judgment of a prudent man. So Fagundez, and recently Peirinus in Privil. Minim. tract. 2. constit. 4. of Gregory XV. §. 9. num. 26. and the constitut. of Paul V. §. 2. num. 26. Fagundez requires the same in 6. praec. Lib. 6. cap. 12. from D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 3.

I add others who grant indeed that in the crime of formal heresy correction need not be premised; but in others, in those savoring of heresy, it must be premised. So Fagundez Tract. 2. lib. 6. cap. 4. num. 11. Mollesius in sum. tom. 1. tract. 7. cap. 24. num. 25. Ortiz. sum. cap. 21. num. 17. Homobon. de exam. Eccl. part. 1. tract. 7. cap. 6. quaest. 19. and from the Doctors cited in the second opinion.

On this matter, besides those cited, treat Aldreta de relig. discip. tuenda, lib. 1. cap. 5. §. 4. numero 28. Onuphrius opusc. de sigillo, serm. 2. quaest. 2. dubio 4. P. Eliz. tract. 1. quaest. 14.

Finally some, in Delrio tract. 3. disq. lib. 5. sect. 4. num. 6. say correction must be premised even if it be doubtful whether it would profit; which opinion he judges very equitable, though he himself, and deservedly, thinks the contrary.

You have very many authors in me loco citato de corrept. and in Bouerius in direct. part. 1. cap. 14.

Philip Biscetus num. 5. says these are to be understood thus: that the Gospel requires correction to be made prior to evangelical denunciation, but not to judicial.

Or if anyone intends him to speak even of the judicial, it is not to be followed, he says; and he wants what was said to proceed, attention being given to Canon law, according to which all crimes are public, as the Gloss delivers in cap. infames, verse Fures, 6. quaest. 1. and so he says the Canonists teach, as Baldus testifies, and of the common opinion Hostiensis is witness, whom Ananias follows cap. statuimus, after number 19. de maledict. and Julius Clarus subscribes to all these lib. 5. §. 1. v. hac tamen. But since correction is not to be premised to public crimes, it follows that it is now to be premised to none.

But Camer. num. 6. adds that correction is not required by justice, but can be made, so that it be required by Charity, if the delinquent be hidden and of good fame, and amendment be hoped for, and he cites Aretinus after D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 68. art. 1.

He observes also that although he be amended by correction, yet he could lawfully be denounced, or accused according to Gregory of Valencia disput. 5. quaest. 12. puncto 1. verse dico tertio, and he says this to be the mind of D. Thomas. For, the good of the corrected man being had, the denunciator or accuser can still lawfully propose to himself the aim of punitive justice, that is, the common good, that others may abstain from crimes through fear of the penalty; and therefore denounce, or accuse, the man already amended. But these things are false even with regard to Religious, as they commonly teach with Diana part. 2. tract. 2. resol. 57.

AS TO solicitors indeed in confession, he teaches absolutely quaest. 122. quaest. 42. that correction is by no means to be premised, and he cites Henriquez, Paramus, Rodericus, Acugna, and Navar. in the places related, by Rodericus in compend. quaest. resol. resol. 13. and recalls very many others in Diana p. p. tract. 4. resol. 21. and part. 4. tract. 5. resol. 24.

HE EXTENDS IT, even if he be amended, and refers to Suarez de Fide disp. 40. sect. 6. num. 13. Sancius in select. disp. 11. num. 52. and others in Diana tract. 4. resol. 3. Indeed, even if the Priest repent immediately after the solicitation, he is to be denounced. He asserts Bonacina tract. var. disp. 6. punct. 3. num. 4. Sanctarellus de haeresi, cap. 9. and 44. dubio unico.

I CONFESS that I mingle tears, while I put forward my opinion.

FIRST indeed I do not refuse that sins looking to public ruin be warded off as contagious, most of all heresy, which is the worst pest, like a creeping cancer. Therefore very recently the decree of the most holy Lord Alexander VII rightly came forth, gravely enjoining the denunciation of those suspected of heresy, with no previous correction. And this is to be observed; as we saw tom. 4. disp. 17. de conscientia, quaest. 10. sect. 5. ad propositionem 5.

AS TO the sin of solicitation, I see it to be dangerous, as showing a cauterized conscience, while it abuses the holy Sacrament of salvation, to the damnation of himself, and of others, even penitents; and therefore I do not dare to defend those saying that correction is to be premised absolutely, or that amendment is easily to be believed.

IF, however, the solicitor be truly amended, I do not condemn the opinion of those saying he is not to be denounced, which Sotus lib. 3. quaest. 5. art. 5. teaches, Molfesius in summa, tom. 1. tract. 7. cap. 24. num. 21. Genuensis in praxi, cap. 18. num. 6. Naldus in summa, verbo Accusator. Victorellus in notis ad manuale, Navar. cap. 25. num. 33. Filliucius de casib. reservat. casu 2. num. 8. Zanardus in Direct. confess. part. 3. cap. 31. Rodericus Acugna Tract. de confessoribus sollicitantibus, quaest. 3. num. 15. and there Freitas num. 34. Megala p. p. lib. 1. cap. 5. num. 26. Portell. in his additions to the dub. regular. sollicitare fam. num. 18. Peirinus in Privil. Minimorum, tract. 2. constitut. 4. of Gregory XV. § 6. num. 31. But the decree of the Holy Inquisition is to be set before the opinion of these men.

There is certainly DIFFICULTY in knowing: Whether he be amended. Felinus in cap. testimonium de testibus asserts that sacramental Confession proves someone to be amended. Genuensis in praxi, cap. 18. num. 6. thinks amendment can be presumed, if such a one has obtained the Jubilee. Homobonus de exam. Eccl. part. 1. tract. 7. cap. 7. quaest. 33. Freitas in addit. ad tract. de confessor. sollicitantibus, quaest. 8. num. 32. Riccius part. 2. decis. 159. mem. 14. and others say that he who has lived well for three years is presumed amended.

But SOME teach that this is left to the judgment of a good man, who, the quality of the persons having been considered, will judge the whole matter with prudence and maturity, because it is arduous to know the correction of such persons; and so speaking, Freitas noted it even of heretics quaest. 18. num. 139.

Yet Fagundez tract. 2. lib. 6. cap. 4. num. 17. LIMITS this opinion, and others, with regard to the formal heretic, about whom we can always doubt whether he is truly amended. For heretics are very crafty, and like a contagion they spread their virus. Therefore suitably provision was made against these by Alexand. VII.

FOR THE REST I could never perceive those little subtleties of Camerinus, and Caspensis, keenly devised with Cydonian zeal, while they decree all sins to be public and free them from correction.

ASSUREDLY the Gospel ought to be of greater weight to any Christian than the little reasonings of these men: If thy brother sin against thee, etc. which is the order from Christ the Lord, precepted by divine law, as D. Bonaventure notes, D. Thomas, and innumerable others in Diana part. 3. Tractat. 2. resolut. 37. But among them the Gospel of correction is wholly banished.

ADD also the natural law of preserving the good name of another. I do not refuse that the satisfactions due for the injury can be exacted from the insolent one, and restitution of goods from the thief; but that zeal of justice is not Christian, to exact vengeance.

FURTHER, that distinction of Charity, and Justice is empty; for what is against Charity cannot be an act of justice, lest we should wish to stir up among the virtues an unjust offensive war; see what I related above de correptione fraterna.

But what Bictus says, that the authors of our opinion speak of evangelical denunciation, which correction precedes: Be it so. But if it is unjust to bring a charge, as to a Father, before correction; it is more unjust as to a Judge. Therefore Christ also speaks gradually: If he hear thee not, tell the Church, and if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen, etc.

FURTHER we saw the authors speak of judicial denunciation, pertaining even to the Holy Office of the Inquisition, also in the gravest cases.

But what he miserably cites, that all sins are public, from cap. infamis, 6. quaest. 1. to compel all faults to the tribunals, is empty. For there the Gloss only says: There is also a certain canonical infamy, which is inflicted from any mortal sin, as here, and 32. quaest. 5. Indeed canonical Infamy is not to the point here; for even bigamists, and those defiled in body, are infamous according to the Canons. Therefore that is rather called a certain indecency which Bictus brings in beyond his purpose, to assert every sin to be public.

For truly 35. quaest. 5. cap. 21. where one leaving his wife, fornication excepted, is said to lose the testimony of generous dignity, or of fame, while he so remains separated, as the Gloss there says, or to bring in testimony among the other generous; is not to the point for inducing every sin to be public. For what did Christ wish to teach, saying: If he sin against thee?

HERE the author brings forward his own confrater Caspensis quaest. 16. and those related by Diana part. 7. tract. 3. resol. 44. Trullench. in Decal. Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 5. dub. 16. and others saying it is not necessary to premise previous correction to paternal denunciation, and he alleges S. Bonaventure, and S. Thomas in Caspensis, but undeservedly, as I showed in the Disputation on Charity, sect. 3. on fraternal correction, question 1. and 2. And Diana concludes thus: I judge both opinions probable, although I held the necessity of previous correction p. 3. tract. 2. resol. 37. and now I hold it. Truly I have already shown sufficiently that S. Bonaventure (whom Turrianus also opposes 2. 1. disput. 89. dub. 4.) stands for us.

¶ To the argument they press from Valentia, I say, Christ knew very well that sin is against someone. Therefore he says: If he sin against thee, that he might express that secret correction is a precept, even in the greatest offenses that can be inflicted against us, and much more in the others which are committed by a neighbor before our eyes.

But I do not see how they wish to change the divine law itself, and violate the right which a neighbor has from birth, by bringing to the public tribunal a secret lapse, which otherwise does not tend to public ruin. For that others be deterred from sin by this is not enough, for the order of the Gospel to be changed, or the law of nature to be overthrown, by making known the secrets of each one; so that no place at all remain for the order instituted by Christ, or rather declared by natural law.

Let Valentia teach that; let Suarez also teach it in his Religione, in which right is renounced. And if this can be done legitimately without difficulty, why do they press this so much, that they have their novices renounce their right of nature?

Why have Pontifical diplomas emanated, that this order may be sustained? Why so many volumes, that this rite, the renunciation being in place, may be defended against many?

¶ I add that if to bring a charge to the Prelate, as to a father, these things were instituted by Christ as necessary preludes; much more strictly before they be brought to public judgment — which bringing the adversaries did not see, saying that correction must be premised before evangelical denunciation; but not before judicial. Certainly greater harm is inflicted on fame, while the sin is brought to a tribunal. But if the bringing to the Prelate, as to a Father, were greater, one could use that denunciation, so that he might proceed to judgment, which the adversaries themselves shrink from, as Bictus confesses cap. 16. num. 6. citing Sotus, Suarez above, and Cardinal de Lugo de iust. tom. 2. disp. 37. sect. 7. num. 81. Dianam resol. 46. et 47. and others among these.

¶ I know some have said, while the crime is not wholly hidden, but can be proved in judgment, then charity, by which the cause has been begun, commands justice, that it begin the judicial process, if in such a way there were hope that the delinquent would be corrected. So Filliuc. tom. 2. tract. 28. cap. 8. num. 164. Sanchez l. 2. l. 6. dub. 11. num. 11. Trullench in decal. l. 1. cap. 5. dub. 16. num. 8. whom Bictus arrayed at his side, that he might show the firmness of his opinion.

But these men speak, when the amendment of the sinner could not be had with less harm to the sinner; for if there be hope of amendment through secret correction, they understand according to the Gospel that one is not to run to the tribunals; for then charity cannot command justice the defamation of a penitent sinner, unless his private penitence would leave the wounds open to the ruin of the Republic; because then charity, being ordered, is bound to provide for the common good.

¶ Therefore, if the sinner should spurn the correction, or you knew that from correction he would rather draw poison, you could omit fraternal correction, as D. Bonavent. also teaches ad 17. Lucae, where this is treated.

But if the crime were to the grave harm of the Republic, the Judge could use the knowledge which he has as a Father, and obligate one who knows, and paternally denounces, to denounce judicially, while no other way is at hand for warding off that public harm, or even the private harm of an innocent.

But if he will not denounce, the Judge will be able to create a fiscal, who will denounce, while he hopes that he will have proofs. So Bictus, citing Caspensis tom. 2. tract. 17. disp. 6. sect. 3. num. 35. Suarez de Relig. lib. 10. cap. 1. 2. et 12. Dianam resol. 46. et 47. who however adds that one cannot proceed to judgment in this case, except so far as is necessary for obtaining amendment.

But Sayrus admonishes l. 12. cap. 10. num. 7. that it rarely happens before a secular Judge that a transition is made from evangelical denunciation to judicial, for the reason that crimes are not brought before secular judges, except by accusation, or judicial denunciation. Likewise a secular Judge never receives crimes, except that he punish publicly, and in writing before a Notary; among Ecclesiastical Judges, however, this happens.

But all can denounce, certain conditions being posited.

The first is, that the denunciant not be infamous, as Baiard. ad Clarum §. fin. quaest. 7. num. 13. Iodocus in practic. crim. cap. 7. note.

Secondly, that he not be an enemy. So the Doctors cited. Therefore a judge sins lethally by not refusing the denunciation of an enemy. So Innocentius, and Hostiensis C. dudum, v. electionis de electione. Archid. in C. quaerendum, 2. quaest. 7. Felin. in cap. quae in Ecclesiarum num. 13. de constit. Menoch. de arbitr. iud. sem. 5. casu 481. where, from the Doctors cited here, he says the denunciant is to be recognized as bringing the charge from zeal of vengeance, from the quality of the person, fierceness of countenance, manner of denouncing, etc. Megala praxi crim. canonica, cap. 10. follows.

Thirdly, conspirators, and vile persons are repelled. So Barratd. Iodoc. above, and Bictus quaest. 17. num. 5.

Fourthly, one excommunicated by name is not admitted to denounce. So Caiet. 2. 2. quaest. 68. art. 2. Rodriquez tom. 2. qq. Regul. quaest. 6. art. 3.

Fifthly, a Religious is excluded from denouncing in a case of blood, unless a protestation be added. So Couar. in Clem. si furiosus, p. 2. §. 5. Rodriquez above, and it is the common teaching. But in other cases he is admitted, since he is admitted to the greater, namely to accuse. Nor does Clem. exiit §. proinde stand in the way, where accusation concerning the ownership of things, which are forbidden to them by force of profession, is interdicted. So Elizeus tract. 1. quaest. 13. num. 8.

Sixthly, a Layman is not admitted to denounce an Ecclesiastic, unless he pursue his own injury. It is the common opinion, Gloss. in summa 1. quaest. 7. and all admit it, as Foller. in pract. Crim. can. fol. 48. num. 45. says. Clar. §. fin. quaest. 14. verse propter reverentiam subscribes. He gives the reason, because Laymen are wont to be ill-disposed toward Ecclesiastics, whence they are presumed to be moved rather by hatred than by Zeal. And it is a common saying: Laymen are almost always hostile to clerics. C. Laïcos 2. quaest. 7. Which aversion is often also that of Clerics against Religious, as the holy Doctor relates quaest. 27. Super Regulam.

It is limited to excepted crimes, in which a Layman is admitted to denounce an Ecclesiastic, as the Gloss proves in cap. cum P. Manconella, de accusat. provided, however, he be of good fame, as the Gloss says ibi.

You will find more persons repelled from denouncing in the following doubt, where accusation is discussed.

But the Denunciation ought to contain the name of the denunciant, and of the Denounced, of the Judge, of the crime committed, of the place, and of the time. So Elizeus ubi supra num. 7. otherwise it would be invalid. So commonly in Clarus quaest. 10. verse Scias autem §. fin. And it ought to produce a witness, without which the Judge cannot examine in singular, unless in place of a witness indications, or infamy, or something similar occur, as Caiet. quaest. 69. art. 2. Valentia quaest. 13. punct. 2. Deltius l. 5. disq. sect. 1. Sà v. Iudiciales actus. Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 4. num. 73. say, with D. Bonau. 4. dist. 13. quaest. 4. ad arg.

But the denunciation CAN either be presented in writing, as concerning accusation Bartol. and Card. and others hold, in Clarum quaest. 12. Or be merely verbal, and written by a Notary, as Salyc. holds in Leg. poen. Cod. de accusat. num. 2. according to the form of the Leg. Libellorum, ff. de accusat. and it can also be done by letters, as Abbas holds in C. Licet a beato, de accusat. Bettus in praxi tit. 7. cap. 5. Arretin. in praxi, cap. 9. num. 4.

The day of the date OUGHT also to be added, without which the complaint, or denunciation, would be invalid. So commonly in Clarus quaest. 10. cited, who however thinks it not necessary by the Lex Libellorum, ff. de accusat. where it is said: Neither the day, nor the hour, shall he unwillingly comprehend.

But the Judge OUGHT gravely weigh the denunciation, and inquire into the probity of the denunciant, as Innocentius admonishes de C. Nulli, de accusat. Oldrad. cons. 224. Clar. §. fin. quaest. 15.

Let him also WEIGH the person of the denounced, as Innocentius, Oldradus, and Clarus admonish; and if he be of most upright life, and of authority, let him not easily be admitted, lest the fame of a grave man perish, according to cap. si quis sunt, and C. quaerendum, 2. quaest. 7. and D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 68. art. 1. ad 2. Indeed against such men let the Judge receive not a denunciation, but only an accusation, which obliges the accuser to the penalty of talion, as is gathered from C. repellantur, de accusat. and as Speculat. de denunc. §. Hostiensis, titulo de iniquis, §. 2. Glossa in c. Cum contingat de rescript. teach.

As to the law, the Denunciator is bound to prove, as Clar. notes quaest. 7. by the text in Leg. Divus. And in Leg. ab accusatione, §. nunciatores, ff. ad Turpill. yet common practice does not admit this, as they say in Clarum, Mariam. Salic. and Cardin. Alex. but understand that fully. P. Eliz. tract. 1. quaest. 13. num. 25.

Therefore WHEN the denunciation is apt, the Judge ought to admit the denunciation, and meanwhile the denounced is unfit for dignities, C. Omnipotens Deus, de accusat.

ONCE the denunciation is admitted, the Judge is bound to inquire, otherwise he sins by neglecting justice, as the Doctors commonly hold, especially the Gloss in C. Excommunicamus, verse neglexerit, de haeret. Panormitanas in C. cum dilectus de accusat. D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 54. art. fin. D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 2. toward the end, Bossius tit. de offic. corrup. Roder. t. 2. quaest. 39. art. 1. Let him take heed, however, lest he inquire before it be established concerning the body of the delict, as I shall say in doubt 3.