The husband and father certainly may intrust it to their children or their servants.

I conceive this to be the common opinion in the present day. Many even affirm that fathers and husbands may not only intrust such kinds of homicide with impunity to their children and their servants, but also to any strangers.—(Tom. IV. Lib. xxxii. Sect. 2. de Præcept. V. Probl. 35. n. 169, 170, 171.)

GEORGE GOBAT.

Operum Moralium, Tomus II. Duaci, 1700.

Father Fagundez (In Decal. Lib. ix.) thus expresses himself: "It is lawful for a son to rejoice at the murder of his parent committed by himself in a state of drunkenness, on account of the great riches thence acquired by inheritance."29

He deduces this doctrine from a principle which is true, and of which many are persuaded, namely, that when any benefit results to us from an action which is in itself forbidden, but rendered blameless through a deficiency of deliberation, we may lawfully rejoice at it, not only for the benefit, which is in itself clear, but also for the forbidden

29 "Pater Fagundez (In Decal. Lib. ix.) sic loquitur: Licitum est filio gaudere de parricidio parentis à se in ebrietate perpetrato, propter ingentes divitias indè ex hæreditate consecutas."Op. Mor. Tom. II. Pars II. Tr. 5. c. 9. Sect. 8. n. 54.

action; not indeed because it is forbidden, but inasmuch as it is the cause or occasion of a happy event. Vasquez, Tanner, &c.--(Tom. II. Pars II. Tr. 5. c. 9. Sect. 8. n. 54.)

Since, then, it is supposed on the one hand that the parricide was blameless, as well from deficiency of deliberation caused by drunkenness, as through the absence of premeditation; and, on the other, that very great riches would result from this parricide, an effect which is either good, or certainly not bad; it follows that the doctrine of Father Fagundez, which may seem a paradox, is true in theory, although it may be dangerous in practice.30

...

He would be mistaken who should infer from what has been said, that for the sake of such results it would be lawful to desire voluntary drunkenness, or to rejoice in it. He would more rightly infer, that it is sometimes lawful to desire a blameless drunkenness, by which the great benefit would be produced. See Caramuel, in Theologiâ Regulari.31

30" Cùm igitur, ex una parte supponatur, illud parricidium fuisse inculpabile, ob defectum tam deliberationis impeditæ per ebrietatem, quàm prævisionis non antegressæ; ex alterâ autem parte, amplæ opes sint hujus parricidii, effectus vel bonus, vel certè non malus; fit ut illa P. Fagundez doctrina, quæ paradoxa videri possit, veritatem habeat speculativam, etsi practicè periculosam."-Tom. II. Pars II. Tr. 5. c. 9. n. 55.

31... Erraret is, qui ex dictis inferret, fas esse ob istos eventus, optare ebrietatem voluntariam, vel de illâ gaudere.

CHARLES ANTHONY CASNEDI.

Crisis Theologica. Tom. V. ... 1719.

I may desire my father's death, either as an evil to my father, which is not lawful... or as an advantage to myself; and that in two ways: 1. By rejoicing in the good which I derive from my father's death, or in the death of my father which is, as it were, the cause of so much good. 2. By rejoicing simply in the good which I derive from my father's death, and not in his death by which I procure the good. In the former manner it is not permitted ... in the latter it is: for then I abstract his death, and do not rejoice in it; but I only rejoice in the good which I derive from it. (Tom. V. Disp. 13. Sect. 3. Paragr. 4.

n. 169.)

This doctrine should be made familiar, since it is continually occurring to all those who desire a good which they can only obtain by the death of another; as it commonly happens in every station in peace or in war, in every secular or ecclesiastical dignity-(Ibid. n. 170.)

Rectius inferret, licere optare quandoque inculpatam ebrietatem, ex quá orietur grande bonum. Vide Caramuelem, in Theologia Regulari."... (Ibid. n. 57.)

SECT. XVI.

SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE.

PAUL LAYMANN.

Theologia Moralis. Wirceburgi, 1748. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1627. (Ed. Coll. Sion.)

Although the doctrine of St. Augustine may be true, that it is not in any case lawful for a man to kill himself, unless God so command it; yet still it is not so plainly evident, that learned men may not fail to perceive it ... For the Stoics have maintained, that self-destruction in our country's cause is honourable. It is for this reason that the action of Cato has been often commended, who killed himself at Utica lest he should be compelled to look upon Cæsar the tyrant and conqueror.--(Lib. iii. Sect. 5. Tr. 3. Pars III. c. 1. n. 3.)

BUSEMBAUM & LACROIX.

Theologia Moralis, nunc pluribus partibus aucta à R. P. Claudio Lacroix, Societatis Jesu. Coloniæ, 1757. (Coloniæ Agr. Tom. II. 1733. Tom. III. 1724. Ed. Mus. Brit.)

It is probable that it is never lawful for a private person directly to intend the death of another. Thus St. Thomas, &c. Yet the opposite opinion of many persons, who are quoted and

followed by Lessius, Diana and de Lugo, is more common, and sufficiently probable for the reasons already adduced ... (Tom. II. Lib. iii. Pars I. Tr. 4. c. 1. Dub. 3. Quæst. 181. § 9. n. 821.)

If Caius has impregnated wine with poison, and has placed it before Sempronius with a view to cause his death; but Titius, who is ignorant of the design, takes it, and Caius suffers him to do so lest his crime should be detected; Caius is not really a homicide, neither is he bound to make compensation for the injuries which have been occasioned by the death of Titius; because the death of Titius was not voluntary on the part Caius, who could not foresee the accident, neither was he bound to prevent it by exposing himself to such great danger.--(Tom. III. Lib.iii. Pars II. Tr. 5. c. 2. Dub. 6. Quæst. 46. § 3. n. 202.)

SECT. XVII.

HIGH TREASON AND REGICIDE.

EMMANUEL SA.

of

Aphorismi Confessariorum. Coloniæ, 1590. (Coloniæ, 1615. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

The rebellion of an ecclesiastic against a king is not a crime of high treason, because he is not subject to the king.32

32" Clerici rebellio in regem, non est crimen læsæ-majestatis, quia non est subditus regi.”—Aphorismi, verbo Clericus. (Ed. Coloniæ, 1590.)