Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus
Gaudenzio da Brescia (1612–1672)
Reuerendi patris Gaudentij Bontempi, ... Palladium theologicum, seu Tota theologia scholastica in septem tomos distributa. Ad intimam mentem d. Bonauenturae seraphici doctoris ... Tomus quintus, De virtutibus
First published 1676
Bontempi's Palladium theologicum (Lyon 1676) is a complete scholastic theology composed ad mentem D. Bonaventurae, arranged in seven tractatus on the order of the Secunda secundae. This fifth volume, De virtutibus, treats the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity, with their gifts, beatitudes and fruits), the cardinal virtues and their opposite vices, and the states and offices of men (religious and prelates, bishops, princes), including the extensive disputations on contracts, religion, vows, fortitude, temperance and the judicial process. It is a significant example of the Bonaventurian scholastic school and a counterpart to the Thomist manuals of the period.
Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS
Proemium I: Prooemium
Disputatio I: ON FAITH
Quaestio I: What FAITH signifies, and what it is
Quaestio II: What the object of FAITH is
Quaestio III: Whether the object of FAITH is something complex
Quaestio IV: Whether the object of FAITH can be false
Quaestio V: Whether the object of FAITH can be evident scientifically
Quaestio VI: Whether FAITH is concerned with those things which are seen by vision on the way
Quaestio VII: Whether the articles of FAITH are evidently credible
Quaestio VIII: Whether the things to be believed are rightly arranged according to the articles
Quaestio IX: Whether the articles of FAITH have grown over the course of time
Quaestio X: Whether FAITH has grown as regards light
Quaestio XI: Whether Faith has grown in certitude
Quaestio XII: Whether the articles of Faith are to be expounded by some authority which is an infallible teacher, and what it is
Quaestio XIII: What are the marks of the true Church, in which the authority of expounding FAITH resides
Quaestio XIV: What must be believed by the necessity of means
Quaestio XV: What things are to be believed by the necessity of precept
Quaestio XVI: Whether we are bound to confess FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVIII: Whether Faith resides in the Intellect
Quaestio XIX: Whether Faith is perfected by Charity, as by its form
Quaestio XX: Whether it is certain that FAITH remains without CHARITY
Quaestio XXI: Whether, and how, FAITH is a VIRTUE
Quaestio XXII: Whether FAITH is ONE VIRTUE
Quaestio XXIII: Whether FAITH is the first of the Virtues
Quaestio XXIV: Whether FAITH is more certain than any science, or than any intellectual habit
Quaestio XXV: Whether one can know with certainty that he has FAITH
Quaestio XXVI: In whom FAITH is found
Quaestio XXVII: Whether FAITH is a substantial Gift of GOD
Quaestio XXVIII: Whether the difference between FAITH and other acts, natural as opposed to supernatural moral acts, always arises from the object
Quaestio XXIX: On the effects of FAITH
Quaestio XXX: On the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio I: Whether UNDERSTANDING is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING can coexist with FAITH
Dubitatio III: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING consists in the contemplation of the Creator and of Creation
Dubitatio IV: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING is found in all who have grace, and whether in these alone
Dubitatio V: What is the necessity and utility of the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio VI: Whether* **the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.
Dubitatio VII: Whether* **to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith
Quaestio XXXI: On the Gift of Knowledge
Dubitatio I: Whether* **KNOWLEDGE** *is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether knowledge is concerned with Divine things
Dubitatio III: Whether the gift of knowledge is speculative
Dubitatio IV: Whether the third Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Knowledge: Blessed are they that mourn, etc.
Disputatio II: On Unbelief
Quaestio I: What UNBELIEF is, and what kind of sin it is
Quaestio II: Whether all the works of unbelievers are sins
Quaestio III: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to hear FAITH
Quaestio IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when it has been sufficiently set forth
Quaestio V: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can be compelled to abandon errors or rites contrary to natural reason
Whether unbaptized Infidels may be compelled to relinquish errors or rites contrary to natural reason.
The first opinion is affirmative. So Maior, and Sepúlveda, as in Suarez disput. 18. sect. 4. They are cited by Coninck disput. 18. num. 184.; St. Antoninus 3. p. tit. 22. cap. 1. §. 6. et 8., but there he speaks according to the mind of Augustinus Anconitanus. Sylvester is also adduced, under the word Papa, quaestione 7., who speaks in the same way. Panormitanus is also cited, cap. Quod super his, de voto; and after Panormitanus, Hostiensis, and Innocent on cap. Quod super his, extra de voto.
The common opinion of Theologians grants this of subject infidels only. So Caietan. Victoria, Soto, Valentia, Aragon, and others, whom Suarez disp. 18. sect. 4. cites and follows; Turtianus disp. 52. dub. 2.; Coninck disp. 18. dub. 12. num. 187.; Hurtad. disp. 75. §. 23.; Lugo disp. 19. sect. 2.; Bassaeus v. Fides 2. 8., who cite others. Others hold the same with Tanneto disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 2., who also say it is lawful if they are burdensome and a scandal to Christians. The Saintly Doctor, de Eccl. Hierarch. p. 2. cap. 3. proves it from the deed of Iudae Machabaei lib. 1. cap. 3.
It is proved by Suarez from the example of God, who, when He wished to destroy or punish the nations dwelling in the land of promise, nevertheless willed them not to be warred down by the Israelites for the crime of Idolatry, but for the denial of peaceful passage through their lands; and it is gathered from 20. Numer., and St. August. signifies this, cited in cap. 3. d. 23. quaest. 2.
But Coninck num. 193. says this deed was done by a special concession of God, the supreme Lord.
Lugo num. 97. adds that the mere denial of passage did not bring those evils upon the Chanaanites, nor sufficiently justify all the wars of the Jews. Hence when they crossed the Jordan, they killed them, yet not on account of the denied passage. Moreover even little ones were killed, who were ignorant of that barbarity. You will find the better course with St. Bonaventure, ad 12. Sap., for the universal cause of the just war of the Israelites: because certainly those Pagans, corrupted, were unwilling to cease from works against the law of nature; and thus he speaks: O quam bonus, et suavis est Domine spiritus tuus in omnibus! Ideoque eos, qui exerrant, partibus corripis: et de quibus peccant, admones, et alloqueris: ut relicta malitia, credant in te Domine. Illos enim antiquos inhabitatores terrae sanctae tuae, quos exhorruisti, quoniam odibilia opera tibi faciebant per medicamina, et sacrificia iniusta; et filiorum suorum necatores sine misericordia, et comestores viscerum hominum, et devoratores sanguinis a medio Sacramento tuo, et auctores parentes animarum inauxiliatarum perdere voluisti per manus parentum nostrorum, ut dignam perciperent peregrinationem puerorum Dei, quae sibi omnium charior est terra — O how good and sweet is thy spirit, O Lord, in all things! And therefore thou correctest those that err by little and little: and admonishest and speakest to them of the things wherein they sin: that leaving wickedness they may believe in thee, O Lord. For those ancient inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou didst abhor, because they did odious works to thee by potions and unjust sacrifices; and murderers of their own children without mercy, and eaters of the bowels of men, and devourers of blood from the midst of thy Sacrament, and authors and parents of souls without help, thou didst will to destroy by the hands of our parents, that they might receive a pilgrimage worthy of the children of God, the land most dear to them of all.
These are the causes, as the Saintly Doctor says there, for which He willed those peoples not to dwell with the faithful people, nor to make a covenant with them; nay rather to be expelled and killed, because incorrigible they accomplished enormous works against nature, to the ruin, scandal, and damnation of the faithful. But the little ones were killed in punishment of the scandals of the adults.
Pope NICOLAUS, answering the questions of the Bulgarians, speaking of Idolaters as such, says: De his, qui idolis immolant, nihil aliud dicere possumus, nisi quod ratione potius, quam vi, convincendi sunt — Of those who sacrifice to idols we can say nothing else, but that they are to be convinced rather by reason than by force.
And Paul III, as in Lugo n. 102. et Coninch. 160., declared that the Indians, as infidels, are the true lords of their goods, nor can they be despoiled of them;
But Bannes quaest. 10. art. 10. dub. 2.; Suarez, above, num. 8.; Coninck num. 188.; Lugo n. 116. note that the Prince must first enact a law, prohibiting; and afterwards punish the delinquents.
Lugo adds that they ought to be punished in the mildest way possible; nevertheless, the same says, the more atrocious crimes related above are to be punished most severely. It is a wonder, however, that in the Laws of Solon and Romulus no penalty for parricides is prescribed. Certainly I think with Tullius, oratione pro Rossio Amerino, and Plutarch in vita Romuli, that the cause was that they did not believe so great a crime would ever happen. But when the case should occur, the parricide ought to be chastised with the most atrocious death, as was Francis Ravaillac of Angoulême, who stabbed Henry IV, the Great, the legitimate King of the Gauls, as Lugo Hispanus observes. For this Monarch was great, not inferior to Alexander or Caesar, as his deeds show in Matthaeus and Davila. He had been made most sincerely Catholic, but he wished first to acquire the Kingdom by the sword, lest anyone should ever induce in his mind the hope of capturing the kingdom by the flood of the Sacraments of the reconciled Church; nor indeed had he relapsed by his own judgment, because as an adolescent, with the terror of death struck into him by Charles IX, he had received the Catholic faith. Truly, however, if he had abjured before a Judge, he was not excused, as P. Cyprianus fol. 748. P. Bonagratia v. Absolutio says, even though this doctrine was declared by the Most Eminent only in the year 1068.1