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
Quaestio VII: Whether HOPE is at times formless
Quaestio VIII: Whether HOPE arises from merits
Quaestio IX: Whether Hope precedes Charity
Quaestio X: What the proximate subject of HOPE is
Quaestio XI: Whether HOPE remains in the Blessed
Quaestio XII: Whether there is a precept of hoping in GOD
Dubitatio I: UNICA. Would this precept bind one to whom certain damnation had been revealed
Disputatio V: On the Gift of Fear
Quaestio I: Whether FEAR is a Habit distinct from HOPE
Quaestio II: What the object of FEAR is
Quaestio III: Whether worldly Fear is always evil
Quaestio IV: Whether servile Fear is honorable, and a Gift of God
Quaestio V: Whether servile Fear is cast out when grace comes
The FIRST opinion is, that it is expelled as to the deformity attached to the subject of the man who is justified, not by reason of the gift itself.
The SECOND opinion is, that it is expelled formally, because it has an essential imperfection attached, which conflicts with Charity, namely, to act from the motive of punishment more than of some good; and this seems to be the sense of D. Augustine's words brought in in the preceding question, where he says that servile fear is related to charity as the awl-thread (seta) of the shoemaker to the thread, which introduces the thread, but is itself driven out by it.
The THIRD opinion, the third opinion is the middle one, distinguishes three things in servile fear. The first is material, namely, to fear eternal punishment. The second formal, which is to be moved principally by punishment. The third is attached, namely, to have a deformed will.
I assert first, That Fear is taken away as to the formal, upon the coming of grace.
It is proved by D. Bonaventure first from D. Augustine in the place cited, on those words of the first epistle of John, chapter 5: Perfect charity casts out fear.
Secondly, the Spirit of adoption and of slavery conflict, from chapter 8 of Romans. But grace is the Spirit of adoption; servile fear comes from the Spirit of slavery: Therefore.
Thirdly, because one who has charity is moved by love, not principally by fear of punishment: Therefore Fear is taken away as to this, upon the coming of Charity.
Fourthly. As love, which is before sanctifying grace, is related to infused charity, so also is servile Fear related to initial. But the love of charity is other than the love preceding justification: Therefore also fear: And since servile fear cannot become initial, or be changed into it: Therefore it is expelled.
Yet the SAINTLY DOCTOR answers by denying the parity, because Charity cannot be made formless and be transmuted, as is plain when someone falls from charity, and yet after the fall the fear of hell remains. And if you object, that love is the root of fear? Therefore it ought to run pari passu. It is answered that it does not avail, because it is likewise the root of Hope, and yet Hope can be formless and formed; and so it does not conclude that fear is altogether expelled, because it has something which can be together with Charity and without it; but Charity is wholly taken away.
I assert secondly, that fear is not taken away as to the material, that is, operating from fear of hell. This the arguments to be brought forward prove; which he nevertheless solves, because the material does not make a thing to be said to remain.
It is proved first; because as faith is related to grace, so also is the gift of fear; but faith is not taken away, but formed: Therefore.
Yet the SAINTLY DOCTOR answers, that it is not alike, because faith remains as to its essence, namely, assenting to truths from revelation: But servile fear, upon the coming of grace, does not flee evil principally from the motive of punishments.
It is proved secondly. Nature stands further from sanctifying grace than sanctifying grace from grace freely given; but upon the coming of sanctifying grace, nature is not taken away: Therefore neither the gift of grace: Therefore neither holy fear.
Yet the SAINTLY DOCTOR answers, that it is not alike, because nature is given as permanent, that it may be perfected by grace; but there are some graces which are given for a time, and therefore are taken away upon the coming of grace, as befitting an imperfect state.
It is proved thirdly: That which contains another, by adding something, does not destroy what is contained, but perfects it: Initial fear contains servile; for both operate from the motive of punishment: Therefore.
The SAINTLY DOCTOR answers, that that which adds an opposite difference does not perfect, but take away: thus filial fear adds a difference opposed to servile fear, which is to act not principally from the motive of punishment; Therefore it takes it away.
It is proved fourthly. Grace in itself conflicts only with sin. But servile fear is not a sin: Therefore it is not expelled by grace.
The SAINTLY DOCTOR answers; that servile fear regards punishment, which is from sin. Therefore grace, which is the dower of the sons of God, does not allow one to act principally from punishment, even though it allows punishments also to be regarded, because sons act in a different manner than servants not yet reconciled, but only tending toward reconciliation.