Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question VIII: Whether charity is the form of the virtues
The Sectarians laugh foolishly, hearing this title asserted by the Catholics.
An Charitas sit Forma Virtutum.
Rident Sectarii stulte, audientes hunc titulum, a Catholicis assertum.
Nevertheless it must be observed with caution, with D. Bonaventure, in what sense Charity can be called the form of the Virtues, as I said also in disp. 1. quaest. 19. where I treated this question more fully.
Oportet tamen eum D. Bonav. caute observare, quo sensu Charitas dici queat forma Virtutum, ut dixi etiam disp. 1. quaest. 19. ubi hanc quaestionem latius tractavi.
¶ For the Virtues can be considered in three ways. First in order to the object, and in this sense, since they are specified or known by it, they must be formed by it, not by another extrinsic habit. Secondly they can be compared in order to the subject in which they are. Thus, although they are informing forms, they can nevertheless be perfected and actualized in order to God, inasmuch as, with Grace and Charity supervening, they are living and efficacious for meritorious works. Thirdly they are compared to the end; thus they are disposing forms, yet they are perfected and directed by charity, which is the directing weight. For the end, as end, is a good, which is the object of charity; and so, as regards this tendency, the remaining virtues are directed and completed in order to the end.
¶ Tripliciter enim possunt Virtutes considerari. Primo in ordine ad obiectum, et hoc sensu cum ab eo specificentur, vel cognoscantur, oportet ab eo formari, non ab alio habitu extrinseco. Secundo comparari possunt in ordine ad subiectum, in quo sunt. Sic, licet sint formae informantes, tamen perfici, et actuari valent in ordine ad Deum, quatenus Gratia adveniente, et Charitate, vividae, et efficaces sunt ad meritoria opera. Tertio comparantur ad finem, ita sunt formae disponentes, tamen perficiuntur, et diriguntur charitate, quae est pondus dirigens. Finis enim, ut finis, est bonum, quod est obiectum charitatis; et ita quoad hanc tendentiam, reliquae virtutes diriguntur, et complentur in ordine ad finem.
I assert therefore, in the last two senses, that Charity is the form of the Virtues.
Assero igitur, in ultimis duobus sensibus, Charitatem esse formam Virtutum.
It is proved by D. Bonaventure first, from that text to the Galatians 5. where the first fruit of the Holy Spirit is said to be Charity, as the life, according to 1 John 3. He that loveth not, abideth in death. And chapter 4. He that abideth in charity, abideth in God. And James 2. As the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. Where the Apostle speaks of the works of Charity, according to that text Galat. 5. Faith, which worketh by charity. Hence D. Augustine, in the book on the knowledge of the true life, cap. 28. says: Faith is animated by love, as the body is vivified by the soul. And Dionysius, cap. 2. de Eccl. Hierarch. says: Charity most fittingly gives form to the habits of our soul. And D. Bernard, serm. 2. de resurrect.: Faith (he says) is animated by love, and charity is the life of faith.
Probatur a D. Bonav. primo, ex illo ad Galat. 5. ubi primus fructus Spiritus Sancti dicitur Charitas, tanquam vita, iuxta Id prima Ioan. 3. Qui non diligit, manet in morte. Et cap. 4. Qui manet in charitate, in Deo manet. Et Iacobi 2. Sicut corpus sine anima mortuum est, ita fides sine operibus mortua est. Ubi Apostolus loquitur de operibus Charitatis, iuxta id Galat. 5. Fides, quae per dilectionem operatur. Unde D. August. lib. de cognitione verae vitae, cap. 28. ait: Fides dilectione animatur, sicut corpus anima vivificatur. Et Dion. cap. 2. de Eccl. Hierarch. ait: Charitatem aptissime formare habitus animae nostrae. Et D. Bernardus, serm. 2. de resurrect. Fidem (ait) dilectione animari, et charitatem esse vitam fidei.
It is proved thirdly by D. Bonaventure. That which rectifies the principle of works also actualizes and perfects the works; but charity rectifies the affection, which is the principle of the works of the other virtues, which depend on it: Therefore it also perfects and informs.
Probatur tertio a D. Bonavent. Id, quod rectificat principium operum, actuat, et perficit etiam opera, sed charitas rectificat affectum, qui est principium operum aliarum virtutum, quae ab eo dependent: Ergo et perficit, et informat.
It is proved fourthly. In moral matters the complement and the species are considered in order to the end; but the love of the highest good is that which makes the others tend toward their due end: Therefore the love of the highest good gives form and complement to all the gratuitous habits and to their works; but that love is Charity: Therefore. The same holds in Fulgentius, lib. 3. cap. 8. Basil, see Charitas, num. 3.
Probatur quarto. In moralibus complementum, et species attenditur in ordine ad finem; sed amor summi boni est illud, quod facit caetera in finem debitum tendere: Ergo amor summi boni dat omnibus habitibus gratuitis, et eorum operibus formam, et complementum; sed ille amor est Charitas: Ergo. Id viget Fulgent. lib. 3. cap. 8. Basilius v. Charitas, num. 3.
Hence it remains explicit by what reason Charity is the form of the Virtues; for it does not accomplish this by informing intrinsically, but by producing its own acts and commanding the others with the due ordination to the supernatural end, to which the studious life is ordered; the acts of the other virtues are rendered in the genus of completed operation when they are rightly ordered to the end of eternal life. So D. Thomas also holds, 2. 2. quaest. 4. art. 3. ad 2. and quaest. 23. art. 8. ad 2.
Hinc manet explicitum, qua ratione Charitas sit forma Virtutum; non enim id praestat intrinsece informando, sed efficiendo suos actus, et alios imperando cum debita ordinatione ad finem supernaturalem, ad quem vita studiosa ordinata est; Redduntur actus aliarum virtutum in genere operationis completi, cum ad finem vitae aeternae recte ordinati sint. Ita sentit etiam D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 4. art. 3. ad 2. et quaest. 23. art. 8. ad 2.
¶ But it does not inform intrinsically, because it is not joined intrinsically to the other virtues or to their acts, as a part; as Capreolus notes, disp. 1. sect. 5. num. 35. with D. Bonaventure in corpore, where he explains it outstandingly.
¶ Non autem informat intrinsece, quia non unitur aliis virtutibus, aut actibus earum intrinsece, ut pars; ut advertit Capensis disp. 1. sect. 5. num. 35. cum D. Bonav. in corpore, ubi egregie id explicat.
Therefore charity is called the form of the remaining virtues, either because it gives to their acts a certain moral dignity and meritorious being; or inasmuch as it refers them to the highest end they can have, that is, to God, inasmuch as he is good in himself. Thus S. Thomas explains it, also with respect to the arguments which are solved by this distinction: that Charity is not the intrinsic form constituting the Virtues in essential being; but only in right operation toward merit, as the end of eternal life; and accordingly they are not informed intrinsically, since all have their form in order to the objects, but only in order to the operations. From which it follows that faith and the other virtues without charity are still virtues, as I showed concerning faith in disp. 1. quaest. 21.
Igitur charitas dicitur forma reliquarum virtutum, vel quia earum actibus tribuit quandam moralem dignitatem, et esse meritorium; vel quatenus illas ad altissimum finem, quem habere possunt, hoc est ad Deum, quatenus est bonus in se, eas refert. Sic explicat S. Doct. etiam ad argumenta, quae solvuntur hac distinctione, Charitatem non esse formam intrinsecam constituentem Virtutes in esse essentiali; sed solum in recta operatione ad meritum, ut finem vitae aeternae; Atque adeo non informantur intrinsece, cum suam formam omnes habeant in ordine ad obiecta, sed solum in ordine ad operationes. Ex quo fit, ut fides, et aliae virtutes sine charitate, sint adhuc virtutes, ut ostendi de fide disp. 1. quaest. 21.
Here the Doctors dispute: Whether Charity is distinct from the grace of God. This I have sufficiently done in the prima secundae, Tract. de Gratia, disp. 2. quaest. 3. But S. Thomas inquires into it under a certain Title, dist. 27. quaest. 3. Whether the Habit of Charity is merely gratuitous. Here indeed an opening is given to another controversial question, which is treated under another title, namely:
Hic disputant Doctores: An Charitas sit distincta a gratia Dei. Hoc satis egi prima secundae, Tract. de Gratia, disp. 2. quaest. 3. Id vero quaerit S. Doct. sub quodam Titulo dist. 27. quaest. 3. An Habitus Charitatis sit mere gratuitus. Hic vero ansam aperit alteri quaestioni controversae, quae sub alio titulo fertur, nempe.