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
Quaestio XL: Whether it is more proper to Charity to love than to be loved
Quaestio XLI: Whether Love is the same as Benevolence
Quaestio XLII: Whether, and whether he can, GOD must be loved in the way with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind, and all one's strength
Quaestio XLIII: Whether some measure is to be kept in Divine love
Quaestio XLIV: Whether Charity ought to be enlarged in heaven
Quaestio XLV: Whether it is more meritorious to love an enemy than a friend
Quaestio XLVI: Whether a man, constituted in however small CHARITY, is bound to undergo death for CHRIST
Quaestio XLVII: Whether those having perfect CHARITY are bound to fulfill the things that are of perfection
Quaestio XLVIII: How, and when, the precept of the love of GOD binds
Quaestio XLIX: Whether a man is bound at the first instant of the use of reason to be converted to GOD
Quaestio L: How, and when, the precept of the love of the neighbor binds
Disputatio IX: On the internal effects of Charity, JOY, PEACE, and MERCY
§ I: On Joy
Quaestio I: Whether JOY is an Effect of Charity, and of what kind
Quaestio II: Whether JOY is a virtue
§ II: On Peace
Quaestio I: UNICA. What PEACE is
§ III: On Mercy
Quaestio I: What MERCY is
Quaestio II: Which, and what kind of Virtue, MERCY is
Disputatio X: On the external effects of Charity
§ I: De Beneficentia
Quaestio I: UNICA. What BENEFICENCE is
§ II: On Almsgiving
Quaestio I: Whether to give ALMS is an act of Charity
Quaestio II: Whether the kinds of ALMS are fittingly distinguished
Quaestio III: Whether ALMS is a matter of precept
Quaestio IV: Whether it is a precept, in common necessities, to give superfluities to the poor
Quaestio V: Whether anyone is bound at some time to give alms from things necessary to his state, apart from the extreme necessity of the neighbor
Quaestio VI: Whether alms is owed out of justice to one in extreme need
Whether alms are owed to one in extreme indigence out of justice.
The FIRST opinion is that in such a case alms are given out of mercy alone. So Lorca 2. 2. sect. 3. disp. 39. membr. 4. num. 45; Sanchius in opusc. tomo 1. lib. 1. cap. 5. dub. 5. num. 61; Salo 2. 2. quaest. 62. art. 7. controv. 2; Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6; Maldonatus 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. dub. 3; Azor tom. 2. lib. 12. cap. 9. quaesito 3; Turrianus tom. 1. in 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 3; Soto de Iustitia lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1. ad 4. et lib. 5. quaest. 3. art. 4; Bellarmine lib. de eleemos. cap. 6; Louis of Saint Juan in Summa, quaest. de eleemos. art. 3. dub. 3. diff. 3; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 7. num. 104; Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 20. num. 264; Gordonus tom. 2. lib. 6. quaest. 14. cap. 3. §. 2; Molina Tom. 1. tract. 2. disp. 144; Vasquez opusc. de eleemos. cap. 1. num. 37; Suarez de Charitate, disp. 7. sect. 6; Villalobos in summa, tom. 1. tract. 22. diffic. 2. num. 9; Diana p. 5. tract. 8. resol. 2; Caspensis disp. 5. sect. 2.
The SECOND opinion is that in such a case it is a debt out of justice. So D. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 15. p. 2. dub. 5; D. Thomas quaest. 118. art. 4. ad 2; Cajetan ibi art. 3; Aragon 1. 2. quaest. 32. art. 5; Spino in spec. testament. gloss. 6. num. 8; Navarrus.
The same is the opinion of the Holy Fathers, whom I recited in quaest. 4, and they are cited in Gratian dist. 42.
I ASSERT, with this opinion, that alms are owed to one in extreme indigence out of justice.
It is proved, because all goods, common by the law of nature, were made private property with this condition, as I said in quaest. 4. Hence Hurtado reconciles the authors thus: one is held out of justice when the neighbor is in extreme need of money, clothing, and other goods, the division of which was made by the law of nations; not when the neighbor has need of our industry, for he never had a right to that.
The adversaries answer that this is not to be taken so strictly that, in extreme necessity, the rich owner loses ownership because of another's necessity; but only that he is bound out of mercy.
Yet it is not necessary that ownership be lost; but it suffices that, for the time of the necessity, the needy man be able to use them.
From these, other quaestiones are solved.
FIRST, Villalobos Tom. 1. tract. 22. difficult. 2. num. 10 infers, with Cajetan, Sarmiento, and Aragon, that one in extreme indigence can have recourse to a judge against the rich.
SECONDLY you have, that if the neighbor has need not only of the use, but of the thing itself, it is not enough to lend. So Villalobos Tract. 2. difficult. 2; Ariaga quaest. 118. art. 5; Bannes dub. 3; Granado 22. controv. 3. tract. 11. disp. 7; Valencia Tom. 3. disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Turrianus v. 2. Tom. 1. disp. 82. dub. 6; Suarez de Charitate, disp. 7. sect. 5; Becanus 2. 2. tom. 1. cap. 21; Lorca 2. 2. disp. 39. num. 54; Soto de Iustitia, lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 9. num. 153; Reginaldus tom 1. lib. 4. cap. 20. num. 260; Diana loc. cit. resol. 5, against Tanner num. 20 and others collected by him. So also Foliensis lib. 3. cap. 10.
THIRDLY they gather that one is obliged, from goods necessary for one's state, to relieve one in extreme indigence. So Suarez de Charit. disp. 7. sect. 4; Turrianus 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 4; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Vasquez de eleemos. cap. 1. num. 10. et 25; Filliuccius tom. 2. tract. 28. cap. 3. num. 64; Gordonus tom. 2. lib. 6. quaest. 14. cap. 4. n. 7; Villalobos Tom. 1. tract. 22. diffic. 20, citing Bannes, Cajetan, and Sylvester against Foliensis loc. citat.
They DEDUCE, fourthly, Diana resol. 8; Peter Navarrus lib. 4. cap. 4. num. 24; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 10. num. 166; Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. p. 10; Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 159. sect. 3. §. 63, that he who stole before extreme necessity, and completed the theft in extreme necessity, is not held to restitution; and much less, if he stole in extreme necessity, is he afterwards held, even if he could restore — as Soto teaches de Iustitia, lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1; Aragon 2. 2. quaest. 31. art. 6; Sylvester; Angelus; Rosella; Tabiena — whom he cites and follows, and Azor does not dissent Tom. 2. lib. 12. cap. 8. quaestio 7, nor does Diana resol. 9.
From which I draw an argument ad hominem for our principal assertion: Therefore he is not held to restore, because the consumption of another's goods in extreme necessity is just — for indeed in that necessity it is licit to take goods from the rich, and this is done justly: Therefore alms are owed out of justice to one in extreme indigence.
Indeed, they deduce that if a creditor is in extreme necessity, and the debtor has father and mother also in extreme necessity, he is bound first to help father and mother, and indeed also sons and brothers. So Diana resol. 12; Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 31. art. 3; Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 159. sect. 3. §. 69; Lessius lib. 2. cap. 16. dub. 1. num. 14; Toletus lib. 5. cap. 24; Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. pag. 11.
Indeed, many say, in Diana resol. 23, that a poor man, even in a grave but not extreme necessity, may steal from the rich, when they themselves are bound to give alms. So Diana; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 10. num. 161; John Wiggers 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. num. 33; Vasquez opusc. de eleemos. cap. 1. dub. 7. num. 60; Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 92. iuncto §. 19; Angelus v. furtum, num. 37; Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. p. 10; Andreas Duallius in 2. 2. D. Thom. tract. de charit. quaest. 8. art. 3. Nor do we say that owners of goods, in the extreme necessity of others, lose ownership of them — with which Caspensis num. 10 brandishes at us — but that in extreme necessity the needy man acquires the use, as far as the extreme necessity requires; and hence he does not acquire ownership simply, but only as regards that which the use carries with it in consumable goods.
CONCLUDE, finally, that Ecclesiastics are held more by this precept: both by reason of their state, and by reason of the goods of the Church, which are the patrimony of the poor. Hence, by the common opinion, they are held to expend in alms, or other pious works, whatever remains from the revenues of a benefice over and above their suitable sustentation. For so those goods were left by the testators; as Peter a Sancto Joseph Foliensis observes lib. 3. cap. 10. de Charit. I beseech that they engrave the holy decree of the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 1. de Reform. with golden characters in wax, to be infigged in the heart of cedar, and meditate on it assiduously and read it through with piety. There they will measure out a mediocrity; they will discern excesses, and moderate them. Read D. Bernard epistol. ad Fulc.