2. Second Opinion: That there is a Character in the Soul can be Proved by the Authority of the Church and Various Elements of Congruence

238. One can say to the question in a second way that although ‘there is a character in the soul’ cannot be proved by natural reason, either universally (namely because it is necessary to grant that such a form is in the soul even because of the end), or in particular (by experience of some act or condition of an act manifesting that there is such a form in the agent who perceives his act - just as neither can this be proved of grace or charity, on which see Ord. III d.26 n.132, d.27 n.66; Ord. I d.17 n.126-129) -although, too, it cannot be proved from manifest things believed (whether those that are explicitly of the substance of the faith, or are contained in Scripture, or are manifestly deduced by the saints from things believed), because there appears no necessary relation of it to such believed things - yet a character can be posited, because neither is it repugnant to the soul itself to have such a form as character is described to be, nor consequently is it repugnant to God to be able to impress such a form on the soul.

239. But in order that it not be posited altogether in vain and without necessity, it is necessary to have some authority on which he may rest who does posit it, and then it will be easy to solve what is objected against it.

240. Now among the authorities of the saints in accord with this signification of ‘character’ that we are speaking about, there do not appear many express authorities, yet some are alleged:

241. Augustine On Baptism Against the Donatists VI ch.1 n.1, “It is sufficiently clear that a lamb, which had outside received the lord’s character, is when coming to safety corrected from going astray; however, let one acknowledge the lord’s character on it, since many wolves, who are seen within, impress a character on wolves.”A passage also quoted by Thomas Aquinas ST III q.63 a.1, and Richard of Middleton, Sent. IV d.5 princ.2 q.3. It reads more in full: “To have...and give and receive the sacrament of baptism is sufficiently clear to the pastors of the Catholic Church diffused through the whole world, by whom afterwards, with the authority of a plenary council at Carthage, the original custom was confirmed: that even a lamb that was going astray outside and had received the lord’s character outside from the deceiving plunderers of it, when coming to the safety of Christian unity, is corrected from going astray, freed from captivity, cured from the wound; yet the lord’s character on it is recognized rather than rejected, since that character is impressed by many, both wolves and on wolves, who are indeed seen inside; however, that they do not belong to the lamb, which is also one from many, is proved by the fruits of their morals.” ⁵¹

242. Ibid. I ch.1 n.2, “Just as someone baptized, if he have departed from unity, does not lose the sacrament of baptism, so someone ordained, if he have departed, does not lose the sacrament of giving baptism; for injury must not be done to any sacrament.”

243. In this authority [n.241] Augustine use the name ‘character’ several times, but it appears that nothing is to the purpose according to the signification of ‘character’ we are speaking about, because he says that ‘wolves impress a character on wolves’, which is more applicable to the sacrament of baptism than to any effect in the soul. Hence everywhere in this authority the term ‘character’, as to his intention, can be well taken for the effect of baptism, just as was said before [n.162] that the Master took ‘character’, in that definition there, for the form of baptism.

244. In brief, as is contained in Gregory IX, Decretals V tit.7 ch.9, ‘About Heretics’, “one must think about the sacraments of the Church the way the Roman Church thinks.”

245. Now the Roman Church seems to think that a character is impressed on the soul in baptism, as Innocent III says [ibid. III tit.42 ch.3], ‘About baptism and its effect’, “He who comes in pretense to baptism receives impressed the character of Christianity.” And in the same place near the end, “The sacramental operation does then impress a character, when it does not find the obstacle of a contrary will standing against it.” And if his first authority could be expounded by saying that the ‘character of Christianity’ is baptism itself, yet the second, which says ‘the sacramental operation also impresses a character’ seems to speak expressly of a character as of something impressed on the soul itself, the way we are speaking of it in the issue at hand.

246. On account, therefore, of the sole authority of the Church, as much as it helps for the present, one must posit that a character is impressed.

247. For this three congruences are possible.

The first is of this sort: it is congruous that for a perfect form some disposition is posited; grace is a perfect supernatural form; therefore it is congruous that there is for it some preceding supernatural form; such a form is character.

248. Second congruence is that it is congruous that God did not institute empty sacraments, at least for the New Law, which is perfect; therefore, it is congruous that his sacraments be received by no one without truly having some effect; but they do not always have grace, as is plain of someone in pretense; therefore some other effect.

249. The third congruence is that it is congruous that someone received into the family of Christ is distinguished from someone not received by something intrinsic to him; because although Christ could make distinction without such intrinsic thing, yet his distinction would be more perfect, both in itself and in comparison to the whole Church (namely the Church militant and triumphant), if it be done by some abiding intrinsic form than if it not be done so. Now, in the case of one who receives the sacrament, whereby entrance is made into the family of Christ, the distinguishing mark from him who does not receive it, and the mark that remains in him who does receive it, is posited to be a character.

250. Of these three congruences, the third is more reasonable because it is also specific to baptism.

251. The two others have this sort of probability, that if a character is posited, let it be posited in a way of such a sort as those congruences touch on.

252. Namely: according to the first [n.247] a disposition for grace is posited; for it is rational that, when two ordered forms are caused by the same agent in the same subject, this is not on an equality as to causation nor are they equally perfect, because let one be a disposition to the other, and this is not a more perfect to a more imperfect but the converse. Now character and grace are caused by God in baptism, and not on an equality in each way; therefore, since character is more imperfect, it is congruous that it is a disposition to grace, which is more perfect. - But yet this congruence does not prove that one must posit the sort of form as a disposition is, otherwise since in any sacrament whatever grace is conferred, a preceding disposition would be required in any sacrament whatever. However, by applying this reason [the first, n.247] specifically to baptism it gets a greater evidence, because the first sacrament conferring grace is baptism, and consequently in it should more be conferred a disposition to grace than in any other sacrament, because a disposition naturally precedes the form for which it is the disposition; and therefore there is no need that it be impressed thus in later sacraments.

253. But the second reason [n.248] is too universal, or more universal, because it is equally probative about any sacrament, because any sacrament is instituted so as not to be empty. But to posit that in the other sacraments there is some adornment corresponding to a character is altogether superfluous, as was touched on above in d.1 [n.329]. - And a reason can be formed about the other sacraments for the opposite, because the reason is not probative. For if someone who is equally in pretense can receive another sacrament the way someone in pretense receives baptism (which appears probable, because there seems no greater need of a determinate disposition for someone to receive the sacrament of baptism absolutely than for him to receive the sacrament of penance absolutely, and a recipient of the sacrament of penance absolutely in this respect, that a penitent in pretense receives altogether no invisible effect), then it is not necessary, for the truth of the sacrament, that someone baptized receive any invisible effect.

254. Thus briefly then, let the conclusion be held on account of the authority of the Church previously adduced [n.245]; and the two congruences, one about reception into the family of Christ [n.249] and the other about a disposition needing first to be conferred [n.247], are probable.