1. First Opinion: Neither by Natural Reason nor from Things Believed can it be Proved that a Character is Present in the Soul

203. It is said here that there is not [a character in the soul].

204. And the mode of stating it is this: just as nothing real is impressed on other consecrated things that do not receive formal sanctity in their consecration, so since, in the issue at hand, the recipient of the sacrament does not receive formal sanctity, no real form necessarily is impressed on him. The proof of the likeness is that other sanctified things that do not receive formal sanctity are not distinguished from the man as to the act, when from this act he does not receive sanctity. Now the assumption about these other things is plain in the case of a sanctified chalice, because it receives no real form, as well as a dedicated church and blessed water and priestly garments and the like.

a. First Reason

205. Argument for this conclusion:

First as follows: just as, following natural reason, more things are not to be posited whose necessity is not clear from things known by natural reason [supra d.1 nn. 294, 300], so about what is believed or the sacraments more things are not to be posited whose necessity does not appear necessary, or needing to be posited, according to the faith. But such a necessity for an impressed form does not appear even according to things that are believed about baptism.

206. The proof of the minor is that neither does Sacred Scripture express that this is necessary in baptism, nor do the saints explicitly express it, nor does it follow evidently from the truth believed about baptism, because the whole truth of baptism consists in the visible sacrament and the invisible effect; and when Augustine specifies the invisible effect, he commonly calls it grace [e.g. Sermon 994, ‘On the day of the Pasch,’ I ch.1 n.1, et al.]

α. Objection

207. Here the response is made that the Saints do sufficiently hand on a tradition about the character in the way we speak of it, as is adduced from Dionysius and Damascene [nn.190-191].

β. Response to the Objection

208. But these authorities seem to be only verbal, and not to the intention of the saints -

209. [Proof that the authorities are only verbal] - for as is evident from looking at the translation and exposition of the Abbot of Vercelli,Abbot Thomas Gallus, who wrote a paraphrase/exposition of this work of Dionysius; the translation is not by him but was mistakenly attributed to him. ⁴⁷ Dionysius Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch.2, on the words cited [n.190], where the Abbot says according to that translation: “The divine beatitude receives him [the one baptized], thus drawn upward, to participation in himself, and hands over of his own light to him, as by a certain sign, making him divine and in communion with those who remain in God.” And there follows there, “A holy sign from the hierarch, a seal given to the one who comes forward,” where some add from another translation words of this sort, “To him who comes to baptism is given by the supreme priest a sacred seal.”

210. Likewise he [the one who holds this view, n.190] adduces this from Damascene IV ch.1 as follows, that “through baptism is given to us regeneration and a seal;” by seal, according to them, is understood character. In the same place Damascene says of the three [qualities of the sign of the cross]Damascene, Orthodox Faith, ch.84, “This cross is given to us as a sign on the forehead, in the way circumcision was given to Israel. This is the helmet and shield and trophy against the devil; these are the seal.” ⁴⁸, “as circumcision was for Israel,” and after it, “and a seal.”

211. [Proof that they are not adduced to the intention of the authors] - These authorities [of Dionysius and Damascene] are not adduced to the intention of the authors:

About the first [n.190] it is clear, because as the plain ground of the text has it, and as Vercelli expounds that part of ch.2, para. 6, Dionysius is making determination about a certain preamble to baptism, namely how, according to the rite of the Greeks in the primitive Church, the one to be baptized was first brought into the Church, and on his head the hierarch put his hand and put a sign on him, commanding the priests to register both him and his reception. That would happen long before the baptizing, as is plain from the procedure of the text there, because determination is made about the act of baptizing in para.17 there, under the letter R.

212. Whence too that text of Dionysius in the translation of Vercelli is adduced in truncated form [n.190]. For after premising “and hands over of his own light to him, as by a certain sign...and in communion with those who remain in God etc.” [n.209], he adds about them, “Whose is the holy sign, a seal given by the hierarch to the one who comes forward, and the saving registration by the priests.” ‘Whose’ - I say render singulars for singulars,That is, each singly of ‘those who remain in God’ received singly the same ‘holy sign’ or ‘seal’, and this they received long before baptism. Scotus’ point seems to be that the omission of ‘whose’ in the initial citation [n.209] gives the misleading impression that someone baptized receives an additional holy sign or seal. In fact, however, the true meaning is that everyone, those who were in communion before and he who has become so now, received the same sign or seal, and that this sign or seal, in context, was the laying of hands on the head and registration by the priests, and that it all preceded baptism. Hence it can have nothing to do with any sign or seal or ‘character’ impressed at baptism, and only the omission of ‘whose’ could insinuate otherwise. ⁴⁹ that is, ‘the holy sign’ of the light handed on, ‘a seal given by the hierarch’, namely the imposition of hands on his head; and that he be in communion with those who are divine the sign is ‘the saving registration of the priests’, namely those who register him and his reception, as received into the communion of Christians. - Now this imposition of hands and registration happened long before baptizing; therefore, in no way can these things said here be understood of any sign impressed in baptism.

213. The authorities from Damascene [nn.191, 210] are very ineptly adduced.

Because a part of one passage is conjoined to a part of another, with a sentence passed over that needs to be continued with the preceding part. For the text of Damascene runs thus: “Through baptism we take up the first fruits of the Holy Spirit,” and it is a verse there; and another verse follows, “and the beginning of a second life becomes regeneration for us,” and then follows at once, “sign and protection and illumination.”     Therefore , in no way does he mean to say that through baptism a seal is made for us, but that by baptism we take up ‘the first fruits of the Holy Spirit’ in the first verse, and in another clause that ‘regeneration is the beginning of life and a sign etc     .’ Therefore from this authority can be got only that baptism, or regeneration, is a sign, and not that through baptism a sign is made for us.

214. And the other authority from Damascene [n.210] is of no validity, for he is expressly speaking there of the cross when he says “It is given to us as a sign on the forehead, as circumcision was for Israel; for by it the faithful are distinguished from infidels;” and about the same cross there follows, “This is the helmet and shield and trophy against the devil, and a sign that the ravager not come near us.” He does not mean to say more than that the cross is impressed on us as a sign against the enemy - which is not relevant to the matter in hand.

215. And there is a confirmation of this, because Augustine, who only treated of what baptism was intended for (namely in On Baptism against the Donatists VI and On Baptism of Children III and On the Single Baptism and much in his commentary On John and On the Faith to Peter [actually by Fulgentius]), would not have kept silent about ‘character’ if it had been an immediate and necessary effect of baptism.

216. And if you say ‘he does not deny it’, I reply: for the matter in hand it is sufficient that he not affirm it, because it is supposed to be a matter for so great investigation that, if character had been a thing proper to baptism, he would have been express about it elsewhere. But as it is, he only distinguishes in baptism the ‘sacrament’, that is, something externally visible, and ‘the thing of the sacrament’, namely grace; nor does he ever say that someone pretending receives any ‘thing of the sacrament’ but only the ‘sacrament’; nor does he ever show that baptism is unrepeatable through such an impressed character.

217. Likewise too in Gratian, Decretum p.3 d.4: the authorities of the saints about baptism are collected, and it does not seem likely that none of them would have spoken about character if it had been so necessary an effect of baptism.

218. And what seems much to be of weight, the Master of the Sentences never spoke about the character according to that understanding,Lombard speaks of character in Sent. V d.6 ch.2 n.3 and d.24 ch.13 n.1, but not in the sense of its being a necessary effect of the sacrament. ⁵⁰ although however he diligently compiled the authorities of the saints about the matters he deals with.

b. Second Reason

219. Second, argument is given principally in the way following, and it returns to the same truth [n.205; d.1 n.300], namely that a plurality is not to be posited without necessity. And the argument is as follows: nothing in vain is to be posited in the works of God, because “God and nature do nothing in vain” [On the Heavens 1.4.271a33]; but a character according to this understanding [nn.198-199], if it be posited, is posited in vain.

220. Proof of the minor: first by comparison with the main effect of baptism, which is grace [n.198]; second by comparison with those effects that are attributed to character, namely to assimilate, to distinguish, etc. [n.199].

221. As to the first [n.220] the argument is as follows:

If [a character] is required as a disposition for grace, either then on the part of what receives or on the part of the agent. Not on the part of what receives, because a soul that does not have sin actually [sc. those just now baptized] is supremely disposed to receive grace; nor on the part of the agent, because the agent [sc. God] is of infinite virtue.

222. And if you say it is required as a permanent disposition for inducing, at some point later in time, an effect that is not induced at once (as for this purpose, that he who has, in pretense, been baptized may afterwards receive the effect of baptism) - against this as before [n.221]: a character is required for that later time (when he receives the ultimate effect of baptism) as a disposition either on the part of what receives or on the part of the agent, and the reasoning stands as before.

223. There is argument specifically for this, that God could, without such a sign, be present to the one baptized to cause the effect of baptism (after the pretense is removed), just as he would have been present in the baptism itself if the one baptized had not before been in pretense. And there is a confirmation, that the effect of baptism is not given to him who is supposed to have the character unless he truly repent; but by true penance, grace would, without such a form, be given.

224. As to the other effects [nn.220, 199] the proof of the point is that the one baptized could, without an inherent form, be assimilated to the baptized and distinguished from the non-baptized through receiving baptism, as is plain in many other cases (because someone professed in religion is assimilated to another who is professed, and distinguished from another who is not professed, not by some other form inherent in him after profession, but because he had such act [of profession] in the past).

225. In the same way about the third effect [in fact the fourth, n.199], namely that the sign is posited as configuring or obligating [the baptized] to Christ; for someone can be obligated to someone, and so be configured to him as to the obligation of configuring, without any inherent form; just as he who does homage to some lord is, after the homage, obliged to him to keep faith and so to a certain configuration, and someone professed is bound by his profession to be conformed or configured to his superior; and yet he who does not do homage or is not professed receives some absolute form to be a sign of configuration.

226. About the fourth effect [the third in n.199], namely that a sign commemorating the sacrament itself is posited, the argument is as follows: either because such a commemorative sign is posited in respect of the sacrament on account of the excellence of the sacrament in itself, or it is posited on account of some relation to others who may recognize from the sign the one signed.

227. Not in the first way, because faith and charity are more excellent than having received baptism, and yet they do not possess any commemorative sign after they have become present within.

228. Not in the second way, because either in comparison to God or to one’s neighbor; not as to God, because God would recognize, without any existent sign, him who has received the sacrament; not as to one’s neighbor, because either to the blessed in glory (for his greater glory in having the sign), or to the damned in hell (for his greater confusion who does not have such a sign). It is necessary to grant neither, because it is a greater glory for the blessed to have had an act of charity than to have received baptism, and it is a greater confusion for the damned to have fallen from charity than from the reception of baptism; and yet no commemorative sign for charity or a meritorious act is posited in the blessed or in the damned.

229. Now specifically about beatitude the argument is that, if the sign were in the haver of it for special excellence in glory, it would follow that only a priest among all Christians could have such an excellence in glory, because only a priest has all the characters. It would also follow that Christ would lack that excellence of glory, because he is not baptized thus with the baptism of Christ, because the baptism of John did not impress a character; nor was he a priest with the priesthood as it is conferred in priestly ordination, because he was not ordained by anyone; for equal reason neither was he confirmed with sacramental confirmation. It also follows that the holy Patriarchs and the Blessed Mother did not have that excellence in glory.

c. Third Reason

230. Again third, argument is made on the part of the gift in itself:

It does not seem probable that God would confer his gift on anyone who is not only in mortal sin but is mortally sinning in the very act.

231. And the proof of this is: “The works of God are perfect,” Deuteronomy 32.4, and therefore he cures no one whom he does not cure perfectly; for it is an impious thing to hope for pardon imperfectly from God; therefore, he gives no gift of his to anyone who is then actually sinning mortally. But someone who is pretending while receiving baptism is sinning mortally, because he is doing irreverence to the sacrament; therefore God does not, by virtue of this act in which he is sinning mortally, give him any special gift.

d. Fourth Reason

232. Again, every gift of God given to man either makes him graced or is freely given - understanding the ‘making him graced’ in this way: either actually or dispositively. Or more briefly it can be said that God gives no gift to anyone save either for that person’s good or for the Church’s good. This gift [sc. character] is not a gift freely given or a gift for the Church’s good (of which sort is the gift of tongues or other gifts the Apostle speaks of in II Corinthians 9.8-14 [also I Corinthians 12.4-11]); because it would be of no value save to him only who has it; it is also plain that no effect follows that is useful to the Church. But neither is it a gift that makes to be graced, because by this gift a person is not constituted in any degree of acceptation in respect of God. Nor too is such a gift conferred without grace and charity, because God heals perfectly.

e. Fifth Reason

233. Finally argument is made thus from the mode of being that is posited for character, because it is posited as indelible [n.201] - and this as follows: no form is present in the soul which God cannot destroy, because it is a lesser thing to destroy than to create, or at any rate there is no contradiction involved in saying that ‘a form created in the soul is destroyed from the soul’; therefore, if character is indelible, no such form is in the soul of the baptized.

f. Response to the Initial Arguments for the Opposite

234. According to this opinion [nn.203-204], the response to the two authorities [nn.190-191] adduced for the other side of the question is plain, because they are adduced badly and altogether not according to the intention of the authors, as is plain in the first reason for the opinion [nn.205-206, 208-218].

235. As to the reason for the first part introduced [n.192], about indelibility, I reply: the sacrament is not unrepeatable for the reason that it impress an indelible effect, but from divine ordination, as is said in the preceding question [n.163].

The reason can also be taken to the opposite: for a sacrament is more unrepeatable if it impress no form, because whatever form it impress, it could be deleted.

236. But if it is posited to be unrepeatable because it crosses over into the past, then the ‘indelible’ is preserved simply, because God could not, of his absolute power, make what is past not to have been past.

237. And if you take flight to the impressed form - since any form whatever can be destroyed, unrepeatability is simply not obtained. But if it be said that a past act is sign, since the past cannot be destroyed, that is, cannot not have been, it follows that the reason is simply one of impossibility.