d. To the Fourth Reason

315. The fourth reason [n.289] destroys the first. For if in the other sacraments there were caused universally a new relation to the action or undergoing of the sacrament and not a character, then there is a new relation there without a new absolute, unless you imagine [Aquinas, Sent. IV d.1 q.1 a4; cf. supra d.1 n.279] that in any other one there is posited some absolute corresponding to character, as for instance some ornament. But if that ornament is a supernatural form it will be indelible in the way that the character is indelible, because it will not be able to have a demeritorious cause. And then it seems to be a fiction: why could it not be said to be a character, since it is a form prior to the principal effect of the sacrament, and an indelible form? Why also will that ornament not be able to have an effect (when pretense ceases) on the other sacraments, as is posited of character in the sacraments that imprint a character?

316. I respond, therefore, that the reason proves nothing save that character is not a relation to the action or undergoing of the sacrament any more than if it were an absolute form. The proof that it is not any absolute form is that in the other sacraments, according to them [Aquinas, Sent. IV d.1 q.1 a.1, ST IIIa q.63 a.2], some absolute form is impressed but a character is not. And thereby can it be said that in any other sacrament there is not impressed any relation that remains after the act; but a character, if it is a relation, remains after the act of baptism received; indeed it remains always.