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
Quaestio VI: Whether Initial and Filial Fear differ specifically
Quaestio VII: Whether, as Charity grows, Fear diminishes
Quaestio VIII: Whether gratuitous Fear remains in the fatherland
Quaestio IX: Whether Poverty of Spirit corresponds to the GIFT OF FEAR
Quaestio X: On the Effects, and the precept, of the FEAR OF GOD
Disputatio VI: On Despair
Quaestio I: UNICA. Of what power DESPAIR is an act, and what sin it is
Disputatio VII: On Presumption
Quaestio I: What PRESUMPTION is, and what kind of sin
Disputatio VIII: On Charity
Quaestio I: What CHARITY is
Quaestio II: What the object of Charity is
Quaestio III: Whether Charity is properly the friendship of God
Quaestio IV: Whether Charity is a created Habit
Quaestio V: Whether Charity is one special Virtue
Quaestio VI: Whether Charity is of a most special species
Quaestio VII: Whether Charity is the most excellent of the virtues
Quaestio VIII: Whether Charity is the Form of the Virtues
Quaestio IX: Whether besides infused Charity there is another charity, acquired by our own acts
Quaestio X: Whether Charity can be formless
Quaestio XI: Whether CHARITY increases, and how
Quaestio XII: Whether, and how, CHARITY in this life is perfect
Quaestio XIII: Whether Charity can be lost, and how
Quaestio XIV: What is the proximate subject of Charity
Quaestio XV: Whether God alone is to be loved out of Charity, or the neighbor also
Whether God alone is to be loved out of Charity; or whether our neighbor also.
There are two precepts of Charity: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, etc. And thy neighbor as thyself, Deut. 6. Matth. 22. Therefore the love of neighbor is included in the object of Charity. Hence John 1, cap. 4: This commandment we have from God: that he who loves God should love also his brother.
He distinguishes the ways in which the acts regard the neighbor together with God: either as distinct objects terminating, or as the one, namely God, being the object and the ultimate end; while the neighbor is the object as a means loved for the sake of the end.
If God is loved as the object and the other as the ultimate end, then one and the same motion and act can tend to both, because by the same motion we will the end and the means as such ordered to it. And thus we love the neighbor by willing to God this good, namely the neighbor; and therefore what is given to the neighbor is said to be given to God, Matth. 25. Therefore, since we love the neighbor in order to God, that he may be in God; under one aspect we love God and the neighbor, and so with one act, as St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure say in the arguments in the first place.
But if God and the neighbor are considered precisely as two objects terminating love, he distinguishes further: for to love is to will a good; but the good can be a twofold object of Charity: that which is willed, and the one to whom it is willed. If therefore God is compared with the neighbor uniformly, as the one to whom we will a good; then by one motion he is borne toward God, by another toward the neighbor, because they are loved as distinct termini, and one is more intense, the other more remiss; and thus two precepts require this. But if they are compared non-uniformly, so that the neighbor is the good that is desired, and God is the one to whom the good is desired, then with one act he loves the neighbor, and with that very act loves God.
The Saintly Doctor asserts, therefore, first that God and the neighbor are loved by two acts, as material termini.
This is proved by the Saintly Doctor first: Motions are numbered by subject, time, and terminus or object; but the terminus or object of the love of God is one thing, and that of the love of the neighbor another: Therefore. The major is Aristotle's 5 Phys. text 38. The minor is clear from what has been said.
It is proved second by the Saintly Doctor: What presupposes diverse considerations is also sought by diverse acts; but we cannot with one act foreknow God and the neighbor as precise termini: nor love them. The major is proved from 2 Top. cap. 4, in the declaration of locus 33.
It is PROVED third by the Saintly Doctor. The same motion cannot at once be more intense and more remiss; but the motion of love toward God is more intense than toward the neighbor: Therefore it is one and another.
It is PROVED fourth by the Saintly Doctor: Peter and Paul are more conformed in the reason of a lovable object than Paul and God; but one motion of love cannot be toward Peter and Paul: Therefore.
It is PROVED fifth by the Saintly Doctor. The precept regards the use and act of the virtue, but there are two precepts of Charity: Therefore.
He ASSERTS second, that there is one act toward God and the neighbor in the first way, as toward the means and the end, and as toward the good, Q. d. est Bonum, Cui.
It is PROVED by the Saintly Doctor first. The motion toward the end and toward the medium as such ordered to it is the same, because a motion is not numbered according to the difference of the medium but of the extremity; but the motion of Charity is toward God as toward the end, and toward the neighbor as the medium: Therefore.
It is PROVED second by the Saintly Doct. Where there is one beloved, there is one act of love; for a motion is specified by its object, at least as regards us; but in the neighbor nothing is loved except God, by the act of Charity: Therefore.
BUT if you should say that to love the neighbor in himself on account of a rational nature like ours, or on account of his virtues, is not an act of Charity, as St. Bonaventure notes, this dist. 27. art. 2. quest. 2, and dist. 9. art. 2. quest. 4; St. Thomas 2. 2. quest. 109. art. 3. ad 2; Vasquez Lib. 1. de adorat. diff. 6. cap. 2, and Lib. 3. disp. 1. cap. 6; Caspensis de Charitate, disp. 3. sect. 1. The same hold Turrianus, Coninchius, and Arriaga, apud Mastrium disp. 6. quest. 22, of whom I shall treat in quest. 29.
It is PROVED third: As the image of St. Peter is venerated in order to St. Peter with one act, as Damascene says Lib. 4. de Fide, cap. 17, because the honor of the image passes to the prototype; so too the love of the neighbor is referred to God; and hence there is one act by which God and the neighbor are loved, as referred to God the prototype.
In this, however, there is a disparity, because honor is not terminated in any way upon the image, but passes wholly to St. Peter; whereas the neighbor in some way terminates the act of love, and in this sense he is commanded to be loved by a distinct precept; even though in the said way, as end and medium, etc., they are loved by one act.
It is PROVED fourth: Where one thing is for the sake of another, there is only one; but the neighbor is loved for the sake of God: Therefore by one love. This, however, is true in such a way that they can also be the object of love as two termini.
It is PROVED fifth, because although there are several Divine persons, nevertheless they are loved by one love, because there is one objective reason of goodness: Similarly there is one reason of the highest goodness, on account of which God and the neighbor are loved.
He NOTES, however, that the reason in this case is diverse, because the terminating goodness of the neighbor and of God is not altogether the same, in the way in which the goodness of the three persons is, communicating in one essence; whence it stands in a different manner; and because from the diversity of comparisons arises the diversity of acts, while from the unity of the principal motivating reason arises the unity of the habit. Hence it is that the act by which God and the neighbor are loved is one, although the motions are one and another.