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
Quaestio XXXIII: Whether the eternal salvation of the neighbor is to be loved more than our own life
Quaestio XXXIV: Whether one neighbor is to be loved more than another
Quaestio XXXV: Whether a Son is to be loved more than a Father
Quaestio XXXVI: Whether a man ought out of CHARITY to love his Mother more than his Father
Quaestio XXXVII: Whether a man ought to love his spouse more than his parents, and Children
Quaestio XXXVIII: Whether the order of CHARITY is considered in the affection, and in the effect
Quaestio XXXIX: Whether the order of CHARITY remains in heaven
Whether the order of CHARITY remains in the fatherland.
The Seraphic Doctor reports twofold opinions on this matter. The first is, that the same order of Charity will remain entirely in the fatherland as is on the way.
The first reason is taken from the dictate of nature, which dictates that one ought first to love oneself, then one's neighbor, and among neighbors more those who are more closely joined. But glory will be the highest perfection of nature, not its destruction.
The second reason is taken from the perfection of glory, which regards more him in whom it is, than other like and near persons; otherwise, if all things were common, there would be no reason why we should labor to attain a greater glory by our works.
The third reason is consequently taken from the order of divine justice, which orders that a man rejoice more in his own merits than in those of another, since one's own merits ought to be rewarded in the one who merits, not another's. This opinion, the Holy Doctor says, is that of very many.
The second opinion is, that charity can be considered either as regards the good, which is its object, and this is the order of Charity in itself and according to its intrinsic nature: then by reason of the subject, in which it is. As to the order of Charity in itself, it remains in the fatherland; for that is essential to Charity. Hence in the fatherland one will love above all the greatest good, and consequently in due order those things that are better.
But that order which befits Charity by reason of the underlying nature will not remain in the fatherland, because it does not befit that state: For in the state of beatitude there will be perfect obedience of nature with respect to glory, perfect conformity of our will to the Divine will, and perfect also the overflow of common joy. Because there will be perfect obedience of nature with respect to glory, nature will then be perfectly conformed to glory itself, so that just as the body will become spiritual, inasmuch as it will obey the spirit in all things, although on the way the spirit is forced to condescend to the body; so nature will be conformed in all things to the order of glory and grace, which is considered according to the differences of good, although now grace condescends to the natural affection.
Again, because there will be perfect conformity of our will to the divine will, we shall not love more that which is nearer to us; but that which is more pleasing and acceptable to God, and is better; for thus also God loves.
Moreover, because there will be a perfect overflow of common joy, he will rejoice as much in the good of his neighbor as in his own; yet not with prejudice to merit; for this will be an accidental joy from the overflow of perfect Charity.
This is what St. Anselm says in Prosol. cap. 25. In that perfect Charity of innumerable Angels and blessed men, where no one loves another less than himself, each will rejoice for the others singly no otherwise than for himself. And this opinion is confirmed, because there the offices that look to [particular ties] will cease, the necessary provision will cease, and the succor owed to those more closely joined, especially those who are the principles of our being, and all things will be united in God, the Supreme Good of all.
This opinion, the Holy Doctor says, is also that of St. August. lib. de vera religione, and of Dionysius de Divinis nominibus, of St. Bernard de diligendo Deo, cap. 7. and it is evident from what has been said. St. Thomas follows it here, and his disciples, and Tanner. Tom. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 4. dub. 1. et tom. 3. disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 87.
You will object first. As grace is the perfection of nature, so also glory: Therefore as the natural order of love is preserved on the way with charity, so it will be in the fatherland.
The Holy Doctor answers: that the order of nature is preserved with the imperfections of the way removed, as I said, which, although they are compatible with the imperfect charity of the way, are not compatible with the consummated charity of the fatherland.
You will object secondly. Order is intrinsic to Charity, otherwise there will be no Charity: Therefore, the order of Charity being removed, charity will be taken away; just as, the mode of knowing in an enigma being removed, faith is evacuated.
The Holy Doctor answers: by denying the parity: For the mode by which faith knows befits it essentially; but this order of charity, as to many things, arises from the imperfection of the way and of the subject for this state.
You will object thirdly. If joy is common, and the non-Martyr there rejoices as much in the glory of the Martyr as the Martyr himself, to what end is the Martyr crowned for his martyrdom.
The Holy Doctor answers: that the matter of glory is indeed communicated to all; nevertheless he who is crowned has a more intense Charity, and will rejoice more, and in the Martyr has from martyrdom an increase of Charity, whereby he rejoices more.
You will object fourthly. If joy is common: Therefore you will rejoice in the salvation of all, even of those not converted by us; to what end then the Laurel of the Doctor for those converted by us?
It is answered, that this joy will be singular, by reason of a certain comeliness, which is a special matter of joy, which will be in the Doctor, even if it overflow unto the rejoicing-with of others, yet without prejudice to the intensity and comeliness in him who labored.
But if you wish to follow the former opinion, the Holy Doctor teaches you to answer that these things are to be understood, other things being equal.
To the first; that we ought to love greater goods, say that, on the side of the object, this is true; but by reason of the unity, which is regarded by Charity, and by reason of union, the manner is altered.
To that about conformity with the will of God, say that God does not love with a greater affection, though with a greater effect, as providence befits.
To the reason from the perfection of glory, say that it does not prejudice the merits of each, which ought to be rewarded in his mind.