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
Quaestio II: What the material object of HOPE is
Question III
Quaestio IV: Whether a certain object is set forth for HOPE, and is hoped for
Quaestio V: Whether Hope is a Virtue
Quaestio VI: Whether HOPE is a Theological Virtue
By the calculations of all Theologians it is established that Hope is a Theological virtue.
It is PROVED first by St. Bonaventure, because the Apostle places it in order with Faith and Charity, 1. Corinth. 13.
It is PROVED second by the Holy Doctor, because that virtue which is the end of the Cardinal virtues is Theological: Such is Hope; Therefore. The minor is proved, because it tends to God as the beatific object, to which the objects of the other virtues serve as means.
It is PROVED third by St. Bonaventure cap. 6. ad Hebr. where it is said, to have Hope entering even within the veil, that is, even to the hidden things of God, as Valencia also notes disp. 2. quaest. 1. puncto primo.
It is PROVED fourth by the Holy Doctor: it is of the same reason a mean between the extremes: But Hope is a mean between faith, which begins the spiritual building; and Charity, which completes it; for Hope raises one up to God: Therefore.
It is PROVED fifth by the Holy Doctor: The image of creation is reformed through re-creation; but the image of creation requires three powers: Therefore also the image of re-creation requires three virtues. Since therefore the image is reformed through the Theological virtues: therefore they are three, but none other than faith, Hope, and Charity: Therefore.
Finally it is proved in the body from the object; because it regards God immediately, as the object to be acquired in beatitude. Therefore, just as faith is Theological because it leans on God revealing the truth; so Hope, because it leans on God promising great things.
It is proved also on the part of the subject; because the higher portion of the soul is reformed in order to God by the Theological virtues: But Hope is one of the reforming virtues; for just as the rational is reformed by faith, the concupiscible by charity, so the irascible is reformed by Hope. This is also shown, because the dowries of the soul in the fatherland correspond to the reformation. Thus to faith will correspond the vision, reforming the Rational; to charity the consummated Charity of the way, reforming the Concupiscible. Thus also to the third, corresponding to Hope, will correspond that which will reform the Irascible.
You will object first. No virtue, around whose act excess can be found, is Theological; for God is never believed too much, nor loved too much; but in Hope there can be excess, for some hope for more than their merits require: Therefore.
The Holy Doctor answers that that virtue, in whose acts there is excessive intensity, is truly not Theological; but in the acts of Hope there is no excessive intensity; for no one hopes in the Lord too much; but the excess is not in the genus of hope, but of presumption, on the part of the subject, from a defect of the condition of hope, which requires that one hope in God in the manner revealed by God. Therefore excess of intensity cannot be in the acts of the Theological virtues, which have an infinite object; but in the object of the Cardinal virtues, which is finite and determinate, whence if the act, transgressing the limits, exceeds, declining to the extremes, it deviates into vices.
You will object second. A virtue which is a mean between two malices is Cardinal, not Theological: But Hope is a mean between despair and presumption: Therefore.
The Holy Doctor answers that a virtue which is a mean between two malices, by participating in the extremes with respect to those things which are good, is Cardinal, or of the Cardinal species: Thus Liberality is a mean between avarice, participating in its material subject, keeping what is to be kept, and between prodigality, participating in its material subject, inasmuch as it gives what is to be given. But truly, if it is a mean only in an eliminative way with respect to each extreme, it can be Theological. Such is Hope, a mean between despair and presumption; for it frees from that twofold evil; just as faith concerning the Trinity and unity frees from the extremes, the error of Arius and the error of Sabellius.
You will object third. A virtue which is concerned with means to the ultimate end is Cardinal. Hope is concerned with grace, perseverance, and the other means of salvation: Therefore.
The Holy Doctor answers that the genus or species of virtue is not determined by any object whatever, but by that object which has the character of motive; and although Hope is concerned also with means to salvation, nevertheless its motive object is God; as the ultimate end, beatitude, to which grace and the other means, which it hopes from him, are ordered.
If you say that also Latria and the whole virtue of Religion regard God; nevertheless it is not a Theological virtue, because it regards also a created thing as object, namely such worship.
The Holy Doctor answers that it is not similar, because Latria regards that created act as object; and thus does not regard God immediately, as Hope does.
You will object fourth. Habits are distinguished by acts: But the acts of hope and the acts of longanimity are the same, namely, to await good things: Therefore Hope and Longanimity are of the same genus; But Longanimity is Cardinal: Therefore also Hope.
The Holy Doctor answers that Hope awaits eternal goods, and those promised by God: But Longanimity, which is a part of Fortitude, awaits by constancy and strength of soul to triumph over afflictors; and therefore its object is of an inferior order.
You will object fifth. It belongs to Fortitude to strengthen against afflictors: But this also pertains to Hope, because it makes a man rejoice in adversities: Therefore.
The Holy Doctor answers that an act can be of some virtue, either as eliciting, or as commanding, or as assisting. To endure terrible things is of fortitude, as eliciting; but of faith as commanding and dictating, as is said Hebr. 11. The Saints by faith conquered kingdoms, etc. They were made strong in battle, but of Hope and Charity, as assisting. For the love of God and the hope of beatitude greatly assist the virtue of Fortitude, that it may be able to bear all evils, according to that saying of B. Gregory: The hope of reward diminishes the force of the scourge.