3. To the Arguments for the First Opinion

a. To the Argument about the Way of Positing a Character

255. To the arguments for the other opinion.

As to what is touched on first in the way of positing character [n.204], I say that other consecrated things do not receive a form inherent in them because they are not capable of it. But man is capable of grace and of some disposition or other for grace, and so when, because of his own impediment, he does not receive grace, he does yet receive the disposition - and that is a character.

256. And if it is objected: ‘in that respect in which a man does not receive sanctity formally he is not distinguished from those sanctified things that cannot receive sanctity formally (of which sort are a consecrated chalice and the like)’ - I reply: in the negation ‘not receive sanctity formally’ he is not distinguished from them, but he is distinguished from them in that he is capable not only of sanctity formally but of the disposition for it, and those others are not. And if he not reach the ultimate stage [sanctity formally] because of an impediment on his part, yet he does receive the preceding disposition.

b. To the First Reason

257. To the first reason, about the necessity of positing several things [nn.205-206], I say that although this cannot be proved with evident necessity from things believed, yet there is a necessity to posit what the Church posits. And there are the congruences of the sort before adduced [nn.247-249]. Nor is the negative argument valid, ‘if not Augustine nor Dionysius nor Damascene, therefore no one’ [nn.208-218]; for the authority of the Church is sufficient, because Augustine On the Morals of Manichaeans [actually Against the Letter of Manichaeus they call Fundamental ch.5 n.6] says, “I would not believe the Gospel unless I believed the Church” [more correctly: “But I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me”].

c. To the Second Reason

258. To the next reason [nn.219-229], which proceeds from the same middle term, namely that nothing is to be posited in vain, I say that although God could, of his absolute power, cause the grace that is the principle effect of baptism, and could also cause the other proper effects assigned to character, namely to assimilate etc. [nn.220, 199], without the sort of absolute form that is set down as ‘character’, yet he is bound, of his ordained power, to cause those effects congruently to the mediating form, for the reasons already stated [n.247-249].

259. And then in response to the argument: when it is said ‘either it is a disposition on the part of what undergoes or of what acts’ [n.221], I say not on the part of what acts, as if it were a certain agent in the middle between what acts first and what undergoes; for I do not posit the character to have some active virtue with respect to causing grace, but only that God is present to it as to an invisible sign for the causing of the grace that it signifies (on the departure of impediment or inhering obstacle). Character as disposition, then, is on the part of the receiver, because it is a prior form without which the later form is not received; not indeed because it is the idea of what receives in respect of the later form, but because it is present first before the later is - not simply necessarily, but necessarily when compared to the power of the agent that causes both forms.

260. And when it is said further that the effect of baptism could be had through true penance [n.223], I say that, according to that opinion [sc. the opinion that posits character], perfect innocence cannot, of ordained penance, be had without such intrinsic form, to which God is present to cause such innocence.

261. As to what is objected about other effects, namely about distinction and assimilation [n.224], the answer is plain: although absolutely distinction and assimilation could exist through an act that crosses over into the past, yet they exist more perfectly and are more congruent through some form left behind after the act that passes.

262. Likewise to the point about obligating and configuring [n.225], because if a man who receives the homage of another, or a prelate who receives another into profession, could impress some form on the one obligated, he would do this rather than that the other were absolutely obligated to him through a past act. Now God can impress on the soul such a configuring form, that is, a form showing obligation.

263. Now as to what is added about the commemorative sign [n.226], I say that it is commemorative not only because of those in respect of whom it has the idea of a sign that leads to the idea of the one signed (as is argued by the disjunction [n.226]), but it has the idea of commemorative sign because of him who receives it. And yet if it is posited because of others, it would not only be something commemorative in itself of the sacrament, but it would also be a sign leading to it, as another sign is said to be that makes something come to knowledge; it can also be conceded that [it would be a sign making something come to knowledge] in comparison to God and neighbors, whether in beatitude for glory or in damnation for confusion.

264. And as to what is objected, that God could recognize a lamb without a sign [n.228], it is not a problem, because he can also know the lamb with a sign as well. The blessed also and the damned can know the lamb signed which they would not know unsigned, because in beatitude it is for greater glory and in damnation for greater confusion [cf. Revelation 7.4, Ezechiel 9, 4-6].

265. And when objection is raised about faith and charity or about merits [nn.227-228], it will be spoken of in response to the second main argument [n.277].

266. But as to the objections made there [n.229] about Christ and his Mother, that the character is of no advantage to the blessed for glory, they can be solved, because, just as in created nature there are some perfections that are not simply so but are in such a nature, because they are perfections that supply for imperfection, so can it be said about this [character], that it is a perfection supplying for an imperfection, and so does not belong to one [sc. Christ] who is altogether perfect; nor too does it belong to the person [sc. Mary and the Patriarchs] in whom is another perfection supplying for the imperfection, which is greater than this one is [sc. than character].

d. To the Third Reason

267. To the third reason [n.230] it can be said that God does confer some gift of his on someone sinning mortally, and in the act in which he sins mortally, because he does not want his sacrament, which is truly received by the one sinning, to be vain; and so he wills to cause some effect there, but not the ultimate effect, because the one sinning is not disposed for it.

268. And when you prove that God cures perfectly [n.231], I concede it, when he cures; but he does not then cure, rather he only disposes or prepares for curing, and I concede that he prepares perfectly.

269. And this is reasonable, because although perhaps, in actions of his good pleasure as to private persons, he not confer his gifts pertaining to the salvation of that person save by perfectly healing that person, however in his universal acts, which are concomitant with his universal remedies (of which sort are the sacraments), it is reasonable that he has ordained the causing of some universal effects along with such remedies, but not the ultimate ones, because not all who receive those remedies are suited for this.

e. To the Fourth Reason

270. By this is plain the answer to the fourth reason [n.232]: I concede that [character] is a gift pertaining to the good of the receiver, and not of the Church.

271. And when you say that such gift is not conferred without the other gifts that perfect such a person [n.232] - this can be conceded in the case of special actions about special persons and in a special way; but not about general actions concomitant with general remedies constituted for the whole human race; for he causes them regularly along with the remedies, lest they be vain.

f. To the Fifth Reason

272. As to the fifth [n.233]; although many things are said about the indelibility of character, and although it is not very useful to recite them, I say in brief that there can be no form different from the soul in the soul that God could not, of his absolute power, destroy (as a posterior from a prior), because in this no contradiction can be found. But a character, if it be posited, is indelible in this way, nor can it be destroyed in this way; because neither can it be destroyed by virtue of some creature (as is plain, because the form is supernatural), nor by divine virtue of its ordained power, because God has ordained to destroy no supernatural form save because of some demerit in him who has it; but, with respect to destroying a character, there can be no demeriting cause; for when it is impressed in an act of sinning mortally, nothing can deserve by demerit that the form [of the character] be taken away.

273. Here note, against Thomas [Aquinas, supra d.1 n.281, ST III q.63 a.5], that one should not posit any supernatural virtue in the sacrament, because that virtue could not be corrupted in the same way he posits the character cannot be destroyed.