Doubt III: What form is to be kept in a just tax

HOWEVER GREAT may be the formal cause, drawn from pressing needs, for imposing taxes; nevertheless distributive justice requires that the resources of the peoples and the proportions of individuals be weighed, so that from this proportionate taxes be imposed upon rich and poor alike; nor should peoples be burdened so much that they are not merely plundered but flayed, as Salonius discusses de Iustitia in 2. 2. tom. 1. quaest. 77. art. 3. controv. 6. Villalobos summae, tom. 2. tract. 8. diffic. 13. Rodriguez in summa, p. 2. cap. 74. Ortiz in summa, cap. 22. num. 15. Turrianus 2. 2. tom. 2. disp. 45. dub. 1. Ioan. de Madcuaga lib. de Senatu, cap. 40. fol. 474.¹ Molfesius in summa, tom. 2. tract. 12. cap. 22. num. 36. Ioan. Franciscus a Ponte in Tract. de potestate Praerogativis, tit. 4. de regalibus impositis, num. 45. Vega in summa, tom. 1. cap. 15. casu. 3. Petrus Nauar. de restit. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 237. Ledesma in summa, Tom. 2. tract. 7. cap. 2. Capiblancus l. de off. Baronum, Pragm. 10. Consultor Matutae in resp. cons. Messan. fol. 4. Diana p. 1. Tract. de Parlamento, resol. 5. where he admonishes Theologians who know of excesses in burdens to freely admonish Princes and their exacting ministers that the most severe judgment of God hangs over them and that they are bound to restitution; but all that these men discuss, the Seraphic Doctor sets forth more divinely. ¹ Editor's note: the print reads 'Ioan. de Madcuaga lib. de Senatu, cap. 40'; the surname cannot be resolved with confidence from the scan or OCR (perhaps 'Madriga' or similar); kept as printed.

THEREFORE the holy Doctor, in Speculum Animae, cap. 2, says: To establish new tallages, or laws, or customs for extorting money without just cause has the character of robbery. Likewise exaction is when someone demands a debt inordinately. Hence those who exact tallages from subjects in this manner, and do not show compassion for their need, however poor they may be, are rightly called robbers.

And in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, p. 2. cap. 3. on the Potestates, whom he likens to Princes and Kings, he says on our subject: The secular power therefore will be well ordered, and disposed according to the likeness of the celestial Potestates, if those placed in authority be wise, that is, proceeding in all things not by the impulse of the will but by the helm of reason. Therefore Solomon at the beginning of his reign asked for wisdom, 3 Reg. 3. For just as in spiritual jurisdiction, so also in temporal matters, one must not act without wisdom and discretion. Hence it is commanded in Deuter. cap. 17: When the King sits upon the throne of his kingdom he shall write out for himself the words of the Deuteronomy, and receive a copy from the Priests of the Levitical tribe, etc., and he shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, that he and his sons may reign for a long time over Israel, etc. On this account Roboam lost his kingdom, 3 Regum 12, because, being young, he abandoned the counsel of the Elders and gave heed to the counsel of the Young Men, saying to Ieroboam and all the people: My father laid a heavy yoke upon you: but I will add to your yoke, etc. These and other most deserving things, which are read concerning Kings, he set down so that infallible doctrines may be drawn from them for preserving a kingdom flourishing most peacefully; hence he says: Those are true powers who rule their subjects not with tyrannical cruelty but rather with human, indeed angelic kindness, and guard the innocent. Hence it is said in Esther 13 by King Assuerus: Though I commanded many nations and subdued the whole world to my dominion, I did not wish to abuse the greatness of my power, but to govern my subjects with clemency and mildness, that passing their lives in quietness without terror they might enjoy the peace desired by all mortals.

ABOUT this we read how he moderated exactions, cap. 2: And he gave rest to all the provinces, and bestowed gifts according to the magnificence of his princely station.

THE SAME holy Doctor, in 2 dist. 44. art. 3. quaest. 1, says that by divine dispensation among Christians there are Kings and Princes, Lords and servants; and according to a distinction of power they are subjected to him and held bound in greater and lesser degrees. And the Lord himself says this, Matth. 22: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. The Apostle also teaches this in 1 Timothy at the end, and condemns those preaching the contrary. And likewise Rom. 13: Render to all their debts: tribute to whom tribute: custom to whom custom. Therefore it must be conceded that Christians are bound to earthly Lords; yet not in all things, but only in those which are not against God; nor even in all of these, but in those which have been reasonably established according to right custom, such as taxes and customs dues.

HE ADMONISHES, moreover, in answer to the 1st of the Ecclesiastics, especially Religious, that they are not subject to the tribute payments of Kings, and he proves this by that passage of Matth. 22 cited above, where Christ addresses Peter: Do the kings of the earth receive toll from their own sons, or from strangers? And when Peter answered: from strangers, Christ took up again: Then are the sons free. Matth. 17.

ABOUT these matters Diana treats in his Tract. de immunitate Ecclesiae.

There he first defines, in resol. 35, together with many others, that Clerics of first tonsure are not held to the tributes of Princes. Next, that Clerics are not held to pay tributes to a Prince even if they do not wear the clerical habit and tonsure.

Then, that a Prince cannot impose Gabellas upon the goods of Novices; and he says this is the view of all Theologians and learned Jurists.

LIKEWISE, that a Prince cannot impose gabellas upon the goods of Ecclesiastics for the repair of bridges and walls; and he says this is common among Theologians.

SIMILARLY, by the common sense of the Theologians, that he cannot do so even upon the patrimonial goods of Clerics.

IN LIKE MANNER, that Ecclesiastics cannot be brought by the Prince to contribute to public expenses along with the people in this way; nor even when they concern equally and principally, and concern also the Ecclesiastics; but that in this case he ought to come to an agreement with them. Similarly, that a lay Prince cannot compel Clerics to pay the Gabellas which they are bound to pay, but must have recourse to Ecclesiastical Judges.

NOR is it lawful for a Prince to impose gabellas upon goods donated to or bought by Clerics. Indeed not even upon the goods of Clerics who assumed the habit without an intention of becoming clerics, but only in fraud of the Collects; and the Bulla Coenae excommunicates those imposing them. These and other matters Diana defines there, and in the following Tractate. But I shall treat of the Immunity of the Church in the third part of the Tract. de Sacramento Ordinis, where I shall disclose what the Seraphic Doctor thought on these matters.

THIS MUCH I would note here: that it is lawful in sum to demand such tributes from Ecclesiastics with respect to those things which they carry for the sake of trade, as Sylvester notes V. Gabella, 3. num. 10. Medina quaest. 13. et 15. de Restit. Navar. cap. 17. num. 203. Valentia quaest. 6. puncto 5.

YET whether a trading Cleric is bound to pay the gabellas on these goods after a threefold warning is disputed.

IT IS COMMONLY ASSERTED that he is. So Malderus 1. 2. Tract. 5. cap. 6. dub. 9. Portel. in dub. regul. V. Tributum, num. 5. Ioan. de Neviam tract. de commerc. lib. 1. cap. 14. num. 10. Prosper de Augustino in addit. ad summam Quaranta, V. vectig. Turtianus Tom. 2. in 1. 2. disp. 44. dub. 4. num. 12. and others.

YET Doctors are not lacking who deny that they are bound to pay after the threefold warning until they desist from trade. So teach Lopez Instruct. part. 2. cap. 41. Sousa in Bulla Coenae, cap. 19. disput. 92. Rodriguez summa tom. 2. cap. 75. Petrus Ledesma Tom. 2. tract. 17. cap. 2. concl. 17. Molfesius Tom. 2. tract. 12. cap. 22. num. 173. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 33. dub. 3. num. 23. Ioan. de la Cruz in direct. consc. part. 1. praecepto septimo, quaest. 7. art. 3. dub. 1. Reginaldus Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap. 25. num. 379.

SOME, however, reconcile both opinions: the Cleric loses the privilege of exemption at once on account of trade, yet he is not deprived of this immunity except after a threefold warning. For with respect to the very goods which he carries on occasion of trade, he is thereby exempt without any warning whatsoever, and on account of them, if gabella and toll are demanded, no excommunication is incurred; and thus the first opinion proceeds. But with respect to all his other goods and his person, he does not lose the privilege of immunity simply, unless after a threefold warning, should he be unwilling to desist; and thus the second Opinion proceeds. So teach Alterius de cens. tract. 1. disp. 19. lib. 5. cap. 6. quaest. 3. Molina tract. 1. disp. 147. Durandus in Bulla Coenae, lib. 2. cap. 18. quaest. 8. See also on this matter Ceballos tract. de cognit. per viam violentiae, part. 2. quaest. 64. Gutierrez de Gabellis, lib. 7. quaest. 94. Mariham de Iurisdict. part. 4. cent. 1. casu 3. Diana p. p. Tract. de Immunitate Eccles. resol. 46.

From these one may gather that sometimes the subject is bound to restore what was defrauded in gabellas; and conversely, sometimes Princes are bound to repay what was extorted.

THIS one thing, dreadful for trading Clerics, I shall add from D. Hieronymo epist. 2. ad Nepotianum in D. Bonavent. 3. part. Pharetrae, cap. 22: Flee like a plague the trading cleric, and the one made rich out of poverty, glorious out of obscurity.