Dionysius Cartusianus, Commentaria in I Sententiarum, d. XVII q. 1; Opera omnia, t. 20 (Tournai, 1902), from the Doctoris ecstatici edition
Albert, further, writes nothing on these matters other than the doctors already cited, but argues at length on both sides, and recites the opinions of certain men who follow the Master, which he rejects; and at length he concludes that the Master is to be contradicted on this point: "Almost all the better doctors," he says, "grant that the Master is to be contradicted here." In his solutions of the arguments he writes certain things worth noting, which I shall touch on.
Giles, on the other hand, writes at length on this question. And although he concludes in the end that charity is a created inhering virtue, he nevertheless attempts to prove that the arguments St Thomas brings forward to prove it are not adequate […]
Wherefore it is to be said that the doctors already cited effectively refute the Master's opinion on this point. Further, in the blessed there are the Spirit's gifts of wisdom and knowledge, so that even the beatific vision in the fatherland is held to be an act of that most complete wisdom which is there, and is said to be elicited by its mediation. Further still: since the act of charity in wayfarers — especially of beginners, and indeed of those making progress — has imperfection attached to it, then if the acts of faith and hope are not elicited in the soul or by it except through habits, on the ground that they have imperfection attached, neither will the act of love in wayfarers, at least in beginners and in those making progress who are not yet perfect, be elicited by the will except through the habit of charity.
Moreover, as Albert and Bonaventure both touch on, it is reckoned frivolous to say that a supernatural infused habit must be put in the soul in order to elicit the act of charity, and yet not to grant that this habit is charity. But whether sanctifying grace and charity are really distinguished from one another is another question, and a difficult problem, having great defenders and strong arguments on both sides.
That a habitual charity must be put in the soul is shown from this too: that charity is itself the wedding garment without which no one is saved, as the holy Fathers unanimously declare. But infants who depart this life before adulthood are saved; therefore they die in charity. Yet they neither have nor ever had an act of love before their departure, but carry with them habitual charity alone.
Draft English (Claude), awaiting Wilson · cc-by · published at bonaventure.wrootpress.com. This page quotes it; that is its home.
Dionysius Cartusianus, Commentaria in I Sententiarum, d. XVII q. 1; Opera omnia, t. 20 (Tournai, 1902), from the Doctoris ecstatici edition · pd
⭐ Denys writes about 1460, and he does not argue the question so much as report that it is over. He takes the doctors in order, decides that they have refuted the Master between them, and adds his own reasons at the end. What he adds is worth having: the act of charity in beginners is imperfect, and if imperfection is why faith and hope need habits then love needs one too; and the infants, who are saved without ever having made an act of love and so must carry habitual charity and nothing else. ⭐ He also declines to settle the question this edition keeps meeting sideways — whether sanctifying grace and charity are really distinct — calling it alia quaestio with great defenders on both sides. ⛔ He is this edition's sharpest via-rule hazard, and the rule is applied strictly here: Giles of Rome's argument is elided at […] because Giles is not on this edition and this is not the way to add him. Albert's sentence is kept only because Albert IS here from his own print, so a reader can check the quotation against the man.