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
Quaestio VI: Whether the rites of unbelievers are to be permitted
Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about the toleration of their rites
Quaestio VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the Faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it
Disputatio III: On Heresy
Quaestio I: What HERESY is
Quaestio II: Whether one who doubts about the articles of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio III: Whether one who gives merely opinionative assent to an article of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio IV: Whether, and what, Ignorance excuses from Heresy
Quaestio V: What pertinacity is required for HERESY
Quaestio VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer
Quaestio VII: Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the Catholic FAITH
Quaestio VIII: On the other means the Church uses against heretics, by forbidding their Books
Quaestio IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics
Quaestio X: What excommunication is inflicted upon heretics
Quaestio XI: On the other spiritual punishments of heretics
Quaestio XII: On the temporal punishments of Heretics
Disputatio IV: On Hope
Quaestio I: What HOPE is
What HOPE is.
I do not treat of Hope as it is a passion, which is defined in lib. 2, Rhet. cap. 5 by Aristotle thus: Hope is a surmise of the supreme good, as the holy Doctor reports, 3. p. Coemil., sect. 39, and in 3. dist 26, dub. 2, but as it is a Theological virtue.
It is defined first by the Master, dist. 26, as cited by the Seraphic Doctor, in that dist., dub. 2: It is the virtue by which spiritual and eternal goods are hoped for, that is, awaited with confidence.
The holy Doctor observes, however, that Hope is here defined in order to the object, which is eternal and glorious good; but this is twofold: uncreated, which is God; and created, which is beatitude, to which grace, forgiveness, perseverance, and the other things leading to glory are also reduced. Therefore when spiritual goods are said, the generic object is touched; but when eternal is said, the specific object is touched.
It is defined secondly by the Master from Haymo, as the holy Doctor reports at the places cited: Hope is a certain expectation of future beatitude, coming from the grace of God and from preceding merits. This definition is broad in order to the object and to the principle, as the holy Doctor notes there.
It is defined thirdly by D. Augustine, Lib. de civitate Dei, passim: Hope is the virtue by which one presumes that he will arrive at that which he believes. This definition is broad in order to the object and the habit.
¶ The holy Doctor distinguishes these definitions in ANOTHER way. The first is broad by genus and difference; and it is Formal. The second is Causal, broad by act and cause. The third is partly causal, partly formal, because it is given by the object of Hope and by the preamble virtue of faith.
Then in dub. 3 the holy Doctor considers that both Hope and faith are of invisible things, as the Master says; but faith is of invisible things inasmuch as they are not seen, whereas Hope is of invisible things as they are not possessed.
He observes also in dub. 4 that Hope, even as a passion and as a virtue, differs from joy and sorrow, because these are of a present object; but Hope is of the future, and by this Hope differs also from beatitude, while it agrees with love, which is also of the future.
But it differs from Fear, because fear is with respect to evil, whereas Hope is with respect to good. Wherefore if hope is sometimes said with respect to evil, it is said improperly, as when Cicero, Lib. 1, ad Atticum, speaks of the hope of evils, and Virgil, AEneid. 4:
Hunc ego si potui tantum sperare dolorem.
The holy Doctor notes this with D. Augustine, cap. 8, Enchiridii.
Our Hope, however, can thus be defined: *It is the Theological Virtue by which the will is borne toward God as our beatitude, arduous to attain, which nevertheless can be obtained by the help of God. It is called a Virtue, because it makes morally good the one having it; for this is the notable mark of virtue, from Aristotle, 2 Eth., cap. 6.
It is called Theological; for it is exercised about God, exceeding our natural capacity, as is said, 1 Corinth. 2: The eye has not seen, etc. That Hope is a gift of God is had in Rom. 15: Now the God of hope fill you with all joy, etc. that you may abound in hope, and in 1 Peter, first: Who has regenerated us unto a living hope. Therefore the Council of Trent, sess. 6, can. 7, defines that it is infused; and can. 3 says it is a gift of grace.
The remaining parts of the definition will be explained in the questions, when we shall examine the Object of Hope and discuss its subject. I gather this definition from D. Bonavent., at the places adduced, and in the little work Declaratio terminorum Theologiae, and in the Diaeta, tit. 5, cap. 4, where he most beautifully likens Hope to precious things, and in Lib. 5, Compend. Theologiae, cap. 2.