Albertus Magnus, Commentarii in I Sententiarum, d. XVII, art. 1; Opera omnia ed. Borgnet, vol. 25 (Paris, 1893), pp. 401–403
There falls in here, before the Letter, a question commonly asked: whether the charity by which we love God is the Holy Spirit.
It seems that it is, both from authorities and from arguments. But since the Master brings forward a great many authorities, which appear quite explicit, let us press the arguments instead, thus:
1. Nothing less worthy than the inferior can join the superior to the inferior. But no non-rational creature is worthier than a rational creature; therefore it cannot join it to a higher nature. Now charity is created, as you say, and is not rational, since it is neither a man nor an angel; therefore it cannot join a man to a higher nature. But it does join him. Therefore, by the destruction of the consequent, it is not a creature.
Since, then, almost all the better men commonly agree, the Master is to be contradicted on this point, and it is to be said that the charity by which we habitually love God and neighbour is not the Holy Spirit — but the Holy Spirit by appropriation […] And this one solution fits all the authorities brought forward in the Letter.
To the arguments, then, a reply in order. To the first: that "less worthy" is said in two ways, namely less worthy in its genus, and less worthy in respect of the account of the good. Charity, by the fact that it is an accident and in the genus of accident, is something less worthy in its genus than a substance. But if the account of the good is what is considered, then charity is worthier than every created good, because the account of the good is in it — that it is the effect most like the goodness of God, so that God himself is never separated from this effect, but is always given along with it to the one to whom charity is given. And so, inasmuch as it is a likeness of God's goodness, and has God within it otherwise than other creatures do, charity can join a nature that is lower in the account of goodness to a higher nature.
Draft English (Claude), awaiting Wilson · cc-by · published at bonaventure.wrootpress.com. This page quotes it; that is its home.
Albertus Magnus, Commentarii in I Sententiarum, d. XVII, art. 1; Opera omnia ed. Borgnet, vol. 25 (Paris, 1893), pp. 401–403 · pd
⭐ The oldest voice on this page, and the one that changes what the page shows. Albert is writing at Paris in the 1240s, before Bonaventure and before Thomas, and he does not argue the question open: he reports it as already decided. Sicut ergo communiter fere omnes meliores concordant, contradicendum est Magistro in ista parte. Almost all the better men commonly agree, and so the Master is to be contradicted. That is a claim about the state of the question in about 1246, made by the man best placed to know it, and it is the earliest dated evidence this edition has for anything. ⭐ He also keeps what he denies: the Spirit is not the charity by which we habitually love, but is charity properly, and the created charity is the effect most like God's goodness — effectus simillimus bonitati Dei — from which God is never separated, so that he is always given along with it to whoever receives it. The created habit does not push God back a step; it is the thing he comes with. ⛔ One elision, and it is the passage a reader will most want: the column on Borgnet p. 403 where Albert says positively in what sense the Spirit IS charity by appropriation is OCR-wrecked past reading, and per the project's rule it is elided rather than conjectured. Nothing on this page rests on it. See raw/albert/PROVENANCE.md trap 2 — one page, and it is the best candidate in the project for a single-page vision read.