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
Quaestio XVI: Whether Charity is to be loved out of Charity
Quaestio XVII: Whether all gratuitous gifts are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XVIII: Whether irrational creatures are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XIX: Whether a man ought to love himself out of CHARITY
Quaestio XX: Whether a man ought to love his own body out of Charity
Quaestio XXI: Whether sinners are to be loved out of Charity
Quaestio XXII: Whether it is necessary to love enemies out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXIII: Whether we are bound to show the effects of CHARITY toward enemies, and which
Quaestio XXIV: Whether Angels are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXV: Whether Demons, and the Damned, are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXVI: Whether it is fitting that four things to be loved out of CHARITY are enumerated
Quaestio XXVII: Whether God, and the neighbor, are loved with the same habit of CHARITY
Quaestio XXVIII: Whether there is order in CHARITY
Quaestio XXIX: Whether GOD is to be loved more than the neighbor
Quaestio XXX: Whether a man ought out of CHARITY to love God more than himself
Quaestio XXXI: Whether Nature inclines more to loving GOD than to loving ourselves
Quaestio XXXII: Whether a man ought to love himself more than his neighbor
It must be asserted. This is proved by the Holy Doctor first from the Saints, Augustine and Ambrose, who immediately after the love of God place the love of self, as we saw in quaest. 28.
Secondly, from Ecclus. 14: He who is evil to himself, to whom will he be good? Therefore one cannot orderly love one's neighbor unless one first loves oneself: for this reason in Matth. 22 and Deuter. 6 it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore the love of self is the exemplar of the love of neighbor: but the exemplar is superior to the exemplated.
Thirdly, from St. Augustine in the Enchir. cap. 76. See also Valencia disp. 3 quaest. 4 p. 3, Tanner disp. 2 q. 5 dub. 3.
Fourthly. The order of charity is first toward the first principle and last end, which is the Highest Good; then toward the participants: Man therefore loves himself as a participant in that good; others indeed as Companions in the participation; and, the participants being equal, unity is preferable to union. St. Thomas uses the same middle.
It is confirmed first by the Holy Doctor in the body, because a weight draws more the thing in which it is than that which is attached to it: but charity is a weight, as I showed in quaest. 30.
It is confirmed secondly. Each thing appetizes perfection in itself more than in its like: Therefore we reasonably appetize that God be united to us more than to others like to us.
It is confirmed thirdly by the Holy Doctor and Valencia, because those are reproved and called fools who neglect their own salvation to procure that of another: Matth. 16: What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the detrimment of his soul?
Finally, if he ought to love each individual neighbor as himself: Therefore also another neighbor conjoined simultaneously double more, and four, quadruple, and so on to infinity. From this affection it follows that one cannot give one's life for the life of a friend to be saved; so Durand. 4 dist. 17 quaest. 6, Richard dist. 15 art. 3 quaest. 5, Gabriel dist. 16 quaest. 3 art. 1, Paludanus dist. 15 q. 3 art. 2, Bellarm. on good works lib. 3 cap. 8 tom. 3. Hence St. Augustine in lib. de mendacio cap. 6 says: If anyone lose his bodily life for the bodily life of a friend, he does not love his neighbor as himself, but more than himself; which exceeds the rule of doctrine.
The reason is the one the Holy Doctor brings in the body and at ad 2, because love toward self is the measure of love toward neighbor; for it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; but the measure is more perfect than the measured, as Scotus also says. Hence Hurtado defends this opinion tooth and nail in t. 2 disp. 114 sect. 4 § 42, where he lays down that it is a sin to die for the life of a neighbor.
Others however say that this is licit: Azorius tom. 2 lib. 2 cap. 3 quaestio 2, Soto on Justice lib. 5 quaest. 1 art. 6, Victoria relect. on homicide num. 25, Corduba lib. 1 quaest. 83 at ad 4, Tanner disp. 2 quaest. 5 dub. 4 num. 73, citing St. Thomas 3 dist. 29 quaest. 1 art. 5 at ad 3 and lib. 1 de regimine Principum, and here quaest. 26 art. 4 at ad 2, Bannes, Aragon, Valencia quaest. 4 p. 3. See below quaest. 35.
Diana p. 5 tract. 4 resol. 28, with Faber on Restitution in 4 disp. 52 num. 41, Valencia tom. 3 disp. 3 quaest. IV p. III, Lorca II II quaest. XXVI art. V sect. III disp. XXVIII member III num. 55, say that it is sometimes licit to do this on account of some added cause; for instance if the friend is more useful, or if he is unjustly oppressed; and thus justice also is saved; and in this way it is a heroic work, says Lorca.
The Holy Doctor asserts it entirely in III dist. XXIX dub. I litt. With equality indeed given, the Holy Doctor wills that alms be given first to oneself. But he calls perfect heroic charity in dub. V, from St. Augustine tract. V on John, when one is ready to die for love of the brethren — a death not undergone precisely for them, but in order to God. Wherefore the act will be heroic by Charity. Hence in John XV it is said: Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. So also Bass. v. Charity, num. 19, where he brings forward many.
Against this assent you will object first: Charity seeketh not her own, I. Cor. XIII.
It is replied that seeking one's own good is forbidden as excluding the common; for that is lust. But to seek one's own good as such is not evil; for he himself in Philip. the first desired to be dissolved and to be with Christ. So also St. Thomas replies from St. Augustine, the third rule.
You will object secondly from Matth. XXII, where we have: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: Therefore equally.
The Holy Doctor replies particularly that as, is not a mark of perfect equality, but of expressed likeness, which is attended to in this, that man love his neighbor toward that good toward which he loves himself, and that after his own salvation he ought to wish nothing more than that of another.
You will object thirdly from St. Gregory, homil. XVII on the Gospels: No one is said to have Charity toward himself, but toward another.
The Holy Doctor replies that the sense is not to terminate Charity in oneself, but that it ought to be extended toward one's neighbor, for he who does not love remains in death. It is also replied that Charity is toward another insofar as it is friendship.
You will object fourthly. Liberality is attended to toward another. But charity is a liberal love: Therefore.
He replies that liberality is extended toward another, but nevertheless begins from oneself.
You will object fifthly. Charity, coming upon nature, inverts the order; and he who before loved himself more than God begins to love God more: Therefore it inverts also the love in order to neighbor, so that the latter be loved more.
The Holy Doctor replies that there is no variation of nature, that I should love myself before my neighbor; therefore it is not to be taken away by Charity, as vitious self-love is taken away.
You will object sixthly. Our charity ought to be conformed to the Charity of God, who loves our neighbors more, if they are better, than us. The assumption is proved: for he wills his honor; but the salvation of a hundred souls is more toward God's honor than my salvation: Therefore. For thus the Apostle in Rom. IX desired to be an anathema for the brethren.
The Holy Doctor replies, with St. Thomas, that the order of Charity is not attended to only by the magnitude of the good wished; but also on the part of the lover; just as the quantity of an action depends on the subject itself. Therefore, although the neighbor be better, nevertheless he does not preponderate, because Charity was given to me first for acting in its own subject, and this is the honor of God and his will expressed in the Scriptures. But what the Apostle desired, to be an anathema, understand for a time, or under a condition, should it be desirable, as St. Bonav. says at the end; or he desired separation from the fellowship of the members of Christ, as Chrysostom explains; or he desired death for the salvation of his neighbor, as Valencia notes disp. III quaest. IV punct. 3. Say the same of that saying of Moses, Deuter. XXXII: Either forgive them, etc. or blot me out of thy book; which Fusesius explains in lib. III cap. 9 as a filial exaggeration.