Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question II: Whether restitution is necessary for salvation
IT IS A COMMONPLACE, that saying of D. Augustine epist. 44: The sin is not forgiven unless what was taken away is restored. And cap. ult. de Iniustitiis: If damage has been given by your fault, you are bound in justice to make satisfaction. From which you have that to restore is a precept, as the Holy Doctor teaches in 4. dist. 15. quaest. ultima. But it is not necessary as a means, for we are often excused from restitution on account of incapacity, and yet we can still be saved, as I shall show from D. Augustine; but means, even when omitted without fault, impede salvation.
An sit necessaria RESTITUTIO ad salutem.
VULGATUM est illud D. Augustini epist. 44. Non remittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum. Et cap. ult. de Iniustitiis: Si tua culpa damnum datum est, iure satisfacere teneris. Ex quo habes, esse praeceptum restituere, ut docet S. Doctor in 4. dist. 15. quaest. ultima. Non est autem necessaria ut medium, nam saepe excusamur a restitutione ob impotentiam, et tamen adhuc possumus salvari, ut ostendam ex D. Augustino; media autem, etiam sine culpa omissa, impediunt salutem.
THERE IS, however, a difficulty: Whether this precept is negative.
Est autem difficultas: An hoc praeceptum sit negativum.
OBSERVE, for distinguishing, that to recognize whether a Precept is affirmative or negative, one must attend to the matter which is commanded, not to the manner in which it is enunciated; for if the matter, or object, is something forbidden, it will be negative; but if something commanded, it will be positive.
OBSERVA, ad dignoscendum; An Praeceptum sit affirmativum, vel negativum, oportere attendere materiam, quae praecipitur, non modum quo enunciatur; nam si materia, seu obiectum sit aliquid vetitum, erit negativum; si vero aliquid iussum, erit positivum.
I ASSERT it is negative in substance, although in the form of words it is affirmative: Restore what is not thine, that is, do not retain what is another's: So the Doctors who seem contrary are reconciled, in Tanner disp. 4. quaest. 6. num. 8; Bassaeus num. 4.
ASSERO, esse negativum in substantia, licet in forma verborum sit affirmativum: Restitue non tuum, idest, non retineas alienum: Ita conciliantur Doctores, qui videntur contrarii apud Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 6. num. 8. Bassaeus num. 4.
FOR IT IS PROVED that this grave precept is expressed positively by Matthew 22: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. And Romans 13: Render to all men their dues: tribute, to whom tribute; custom, to whom custom. Which the Holy Doctor pursues in Confessionali, cap. 4. partic. 2.
PROBATUR enim exprimi positive praeceptum hoc grave, illo Matth. 22. Reddite, quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari. Et Rom. 13. Reddite omnibus debita: cui tributum, tributum, cui vectigal, vectigal. Quae prosequitur S. Doctor in Confessionali, cap. 4. partic. 2.
IT IS PROVED, secondly, by the Holy Doctor loc. cit. and in Speculo, cap. 2, toward the end, with a splendid testimony of St. Augustine, epist. 54. ad Macedonium, which is cited in Regula Peccatum, de regulis Iuris, in 6, and in cap. cum tua, extra de usuris, and in Decretis 14. quaest. 6. can. 1. For when Macedonius had written in the letter, the preceding 53rd, which is to Augustine, that some even desired the penalty of their crime to be relaxed for them, while they possessed that for which the crime had been committed. St. Augustine answering says: You mention that worst kind of men, upon whom every medicine of penance is of no profit. For if the thing of another, on account of which the sin was committed, is not restored when it can be restored, penance is not done, but feigned: but if it is done truthfully, the sin will not be forgiven unless what was taken away is restored — but, as I said, when it can be restored. For often he who takes away loses, either by suffering evil men, or by living badly himself; and he has nothing else from which he may restore. To such a one, certainly, we cannot say: Restore what you took away, except when we believe him to have it, and he denies it. From this testimony of St. Augustine, D. Thom. loc. cit. and the Disciple collect, especially Tanner disp. 4. quaest. 6. num. 7, that restitution is not necessary by a necessity of means, because the condition is added: if he can.
PROBATUR deinde a S. Doctore loco cit. et in Speculo, cap. 2. ad finem, luculento S. Augustini testimonio epist. 54. ad macedonium, quod refertur in Regula Peccatum, de regulis Iuris, in 6. et in cap. cum tua, extra de usuris, et in Decretis 14. quaest. 6. can. 1. Cum enim Macedonius epistola, praecedenti 53. quae est ad Augustinum scripsisset, quosdam etiam sceleris poenam cupere sibi relaxari, et id, propter quod admissum est scelus, possidere. Respondens S. Augustinus, ait: Pessimum hominum genus commemoras, cui poenitendi medicina omnis non prodest. Si enim res aliena, propter quam peccatum est, cum reddi possit, non redditur, non agitur poenitentia, sed fingitur: Si autem veraciter agitur, non remittetur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum, sed ut dixi, cum restitui potest. Plerumque enim, qui aufert, amittit, siue alios patiendo malos, siue ipsi male viuendo; neque aliud habet, unde restituat. Huic certe non possumus dicere: Redde quod abstulisti, nisi cum habere credimus, et negare. Ex hoc testimonio S. Augustini colligunt D. Thom. loco cit. et Discipuli, praecipue Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 6. num. 7. restitutionem non esse necessariam necessitate medii, quia apponitur conditio; si potest.
BUT THAT the Precept is negative is proved by Valencia with the argument of St. Bonaventure in the place cited, because it obliges forever not to retain the thing of another to the injury of its Owner, and the unjust detainer is always in unjust delay, sinning actually, as the Holy Doctor says in the place cited, and as I showed in the first part of the Summa.
QUOD vero dicat Praeceptum negativum, probatur a Valentia argumento S. Bonavent. loco citato, quia obligat pro semper ad non retinendum rem alienam in iniuriam Domini, et iniustus detentor semper est in mora iniqua, peccans actu, ut ait S. Doctor loco cit. et ostendi prima secundae.
BASSAEUS ANSWERS that it does not oblige forever, e.g. in necessity. But then things are common; therefore he is not an unjust detainer, and so is not subject to restitution.
RESPONDET Bassaeus, non obligare ad semper, v. g. in necessitate. At tunc res sunt communes; ideo non est iniquus detentor, atque adeo non est subiectum restitutionis.
YOU WILL OBJECT. If the debtor sins by not restoring, the creditor ought to give way, lest the debtor be damned; for the salvation of the soul is to be preferred to riches.
OBIICIES. Si debitor peccat non restituendo, debet creditor cedere, ne debitor damnetur; est enim praeferenda salus animae divitiis.
ADRIANUS de restit., Sotus Lib. 4. de Iustitia, quaest. 6. art. 2, and Valencia disp. 5. quaest. 6. puncto 2, struggle with this. But I answer easily from D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 29. quaest. ultima, that the Order of Charity between my goods and my neighbor's requires necessity in the neighbor — a necessity, surely, which is not found in him who can, and wills not, to restore. But I am not bound to give support to his evil will; for Charity does not act perversely.
LABORANT Adrianus de restit. Sotus Lib. 4. de Iustitia, quaest. 6. art. 2 et Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 6. puncto 2. Sed facile respondeo ex D. Bonavent. in 3. dist. 29. quaest. ultima, Ordinem charitatis inter mea bona, et proximi, exigere in proximo necessitatem, quae sane non repetitur in eo, qui potest, et non vult restituere. Non teneor autem eius malae voluntati suffragari; non enim Charitas agit perperam.