Dist. 6, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 6
Quaestio II. Ad quid sit character.
Secundo quaeritur de charactere quantum ad utilitatem, ad quid videlicet character sit utilis. Et cum sit signum sacramentale, dicitur, quod est ad signandum, nec tantum ad hoc, sed etiam ad disponendum; est etiam ad assimilandum et distinguendum.
Quaeritur ergo primo de signatione.
1. Et cum signum sit « quod se offert sensibus1 », videtur, quod character non sit signum, cum sensibus se non offerat.
2. Item, si est signum, aut ergo est naturale, aut voluntarium2. Si voluntarium: ergo diversificatur apud diversos; quod stultum est. Si naturale: ergo habet esse a natura; quod est stultum similiter dicere.
Item, si est signum, quaeritur: quid significat? Si gratiam; contra: multi habent characterem, qui nec habent nec habuerunt nec habebunt gratiam.
De secundo actu, qui est disponere, quaeritur similiter; et quod non sit ad disponendum, videtur:
3. Quia, cum Deus sit agens potentiae infinitae, non indiget dispositione praevia ad imprimendam formam: ergo non est necesse, quod character, vel aliquid aliud disponat ad gratiam.
4. Item, si est ad disponendum, quaeritur ergo: ad quid disponit? Si ad gratiam; contra: gratia habetur in baptismo flaminis sine charactere3: ergo non indigemus dispositione media.
5. Item, gratia unitur gloriae sine dispositione media4: ergo videtur similiter, quod natura uniatur gratiae: ergo non est necessaria alia dispositio.
De tertio actu, qui est assimilare, quaeritur: cui character assimilat? et constat, quod si alicui, quod ei, a quo imprimitur: ergo assimilat Deo.
6. Sed contra: « Similitudo est rerum differentium eadem qualitas5 »; sed Creatori et creaturae nihil est commune: ergo etc.
7. Item, character stat cum culpa, quae omnino est Deo dissimilis; sed similitudo expellitur per dissimilitudinem: ergo culpa expelleret sive deleret characterem; quod falsum est: ergo etc.
Item, cum assimilet toti Trinitati — quia quidquid assimilat uni personae, et omnibus — quaeritur: cui per appropriationem? Et quod Patri, videtur: quia est Sacramentum regenerationis6; sed eius est regenerare, cuius est generare: cum ergo generare sit proprium Patris, patet etc. — Et quod Filio, videtur: quia Filius dicitur esse character aeternus7. — Sed quod Spiritui sancto, videtur: quia character signum est praeparans ad gratiam et donum gratuitum gratis datum; sed gratia appropriatur Spiritui sancto: ergo etc.
De quarto etiam actu, scilicet de distinctione, quaeritur: quos distinguit? Et dicit Damascenus8, quod character baptismalis distinguit fidelem ab infideli.
8. Sed contra: Multi sunt fideles, qui non habent characterem, et multi infideles, qui habent: ergo etc.
9. Item, si distinguit, quaeritur: cui? aut enim Deo, aut nobis: Deo non, quia ipse non indiget; nobis non, quia non videmus, utrum aliquis habeat characterem; quodsi Angelis vel Beatis, superfluit, quia bene sine hoc cognoscunt.
Conclusio
Character est ad signandum, disponendum, configurandum et distinguendum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod character est signaculum sacramentale a Deo impressum. Quia signaculum sacramentale, ideo gratiam significat et non tantum significat, immo aliquo modo praeparat; quia usus Sacramentorum non tantum est in significando9. Et quia gratiam significat et ad gratiam disponit: ideo habet aliquam similitudinem cum gratia, quae est similitudo Dei; ideo aliquo modo configurat Deo. Et quia omnes configurat uni, assimilat etiam gregem Domini inter se; et per hoc distinguit ab his qui non sunt de grege, vel etiam distinctionem facit in eodem grege secundum aliam et aliam rationem assimilandi10.
Ad argumenta:
Ad 1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod character non est visibile: dicendum, quod character cum exteriori signo facit unum Sacramentum; unde non est in eo ratio significandi per se tantum, sed per coniunctionem cum exteriori elemento; et ratione illius est visibile et unum, sicut elementum unum. Et ratione eius est voluntarium, sicut elementum significat ex institutione; nec est tamen diversum apud diversos, quia instituitur auctoritate magistri universalis11.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, quid significet: dicendum, quod gratiam; et quod ibi non sit, ut supra12 habitum est, hoc est ex defectu suscipientis tantum.
Ad illud quod quaeritur de secundo actu, dicendum, quod disponit sicut quoddam lumen et calor datus13. Dispositio autem illa non est necessitatis, quod agens non possit aliter agere, vel suscipiens capere, sed tantum congruitatis. Quia enim natura corrupta est per peccatum et indisposita ad gratiam, congruum fuit, quod intercidat dispositio media; non sic gratia ad gloriam.
Ad 3. 4. 5. Et sic patet responsio ad tria obiecta: ad primum, quia non est dispositio propter agentis indigentiam; ad secundum, quia non est dispositio necessaria; ad tertium, quia non est similis dispositio in natura peccatrice ad gratiam, sicut gratiae ad gloriam.
Ad illud quod quaeritur de assimilatione, dicendum, quod est assimilatio per unius qualitatis participationem, vel imitationem, vel omnimodam indivisionem14. Prima est creaturae ad creaturam; secunda est creaturae ad Deum; tertia est Dei ad Deum sive unius personae ad alteram. Assimilatio autem creaturae ad Deum vel est perfecta, vel sufficiens, vel ad sufficientem disponens. Prima est in gloria, et haec non compatitur dissimilitudinem aliquam nec culpae nec miseriae; secunda in gratia, et haec compatitur dissimilitudinem miseriae, sed non culpae; tertia in charactere, et haec compatitur utramque, quia solum est gratiae gratis datae, et multum longinqua.
Ad 6. 7. Et sic patet responsio ad duo de assimilatione.
Ad illud quod quaeritur: cui principaliter assimilat? dicendum, quod appropriate ipsi Filio, qui character dicitur; vel etiam, quia baptizati dicuntur induere Christum15, quia ipse est caput et dux exercitus; et quia, sicut patebit, character per appropriationem respicit fidem.
8. De distinctione solvunt quidam, quod character distinguit eos qui sunt de Ecclesia16, numero ab his qui non sunt numero quantum ad meritum. — Sed hoc nihil est, quia haereticus praecisus habet characterem, nec tamen est de Ecclesia.
Alii dicunt, quod character distinguit percipientes Sacramenta ab his qui perceperunt tantum signum comparticipationis Sacramentorum, et per consequens distinctionis quantum ad non participantes17. — Sed tunc videtur, quod idem esset signum sui ipsius.
Et propterea dicendum, quod ratio distinguendi in charactere venit ex ratione significandi; character autem significat gratiam fidei secundum
aliquem statum, unde distinguit vel fidelem ab infideli, vel fidelem a fideli; et quod permiscentur, hoc non est ex vitio signi, sed signatorum.
9. Et per hoc patet sequens, quia signum est nobis non per se, sed ratione coniunctionis cum elemento. — Et est exemplum, si aliquis assumeret arma regis, signum esset, quod esset de exercitu regis; potest tamen nihilominus esse ex parte contraria, et arma semper significarent, quod sit ex parte alia18; et non est falsitas in signo, sed in accipiente. Sic in proposito intelligendum: quoniam, sicut arma fiunt ad distinguendum exercitus, et tamen ut plurimum confunduntur, quando sunt in bello; sic etiam est in nobis, quamdiu sumus in conflictu huius vitae praesentis miseriae. — Exemplum est de habitu religionis, qui est signum bonitatis; tamen communicant etiam19 boni cum malis, et carnales cum spiritualibus, et amantes mundum cum contemnentibus20.
II. De seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — Scot., hic q. 10. n. 12. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. 8. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit.
---
Question II. To what end the character is.
Secondly it is asked concerning the character with respect to its utility, namely to what end the character is useful. And since it is a sacramental sign, it is said to be for signifying, and not only for this, but also for disposing; it is also for assimilating and distinguishing.
It is asked, therefore, first concerning signification.
1. And since a sign is « that which offers itself to the senses1 », it seems that the character is not a sign, since it does not offer itself to the senses.
2. Likewise, if it is a sign, then it is either natural or voluntary2. If voluntary: then it is diversified among different people; which is foolish. If natural: then it has being from nature; which is foolish to say likewise.
Likewise, if it is a sign, it is asked: what does it signify? If grace; on the contrary: many have a character who neither have nor have had nor will have grace.
Concerning the second act, which is to dispose, it is asked likewise; and that it is not for disposing, it seems:
3. Because, since God is an agent of infinite power, He has no need of a prior disposition for impressing a form: therefore it is not necessary that the character, or anything else, dispose to grace.
4. Likewise, if it is for disposing, it is then asked: to what does it dispose? If to grace; on the contrary: grace is had in the baptism of the Spirit without a character3: therefore we have no need of an intermediate disposition.
5. Likewise, grace is united to glory without an intermediate disposition4: therefore it seems likewise that nature is united to grace: therefore no other disposition is necessary.
Concerning the third act, which is to assimilate, it is asked: to whom does the character assimilate? And it is agreed that, if to anyone, then to Him by whom it is impressed: therefore it assimilates to God.
6. On the contrary: « A likeness is the same quality of differing things5 »; but between the Creator and the creature there is nothing common: therefore etc.
7. Likewise, the character stands together with fault, which is wholly unlike God; but a likeness is driven out through unlikeness: therefore fault would drive out or delete the character; which is false: therefore etc.
Likewise, since it assimilates to the whole Trinity — because whatever assimilates to one person, [assimilates] also to all — it is asked: to whom by appropriation? And that it is to the Father, it seems: because it is the Sacrament of regeneration6; but to him belongs to regenerate, to whom belongs to generate: since therefore to generate is proper to the Father, it is clear etc. — And that it is to the Son, it seems: because the Son is called the eternal character7. — But that it is to the Holy Spirit, it seems: because the character is a sign preparing for grace and a freely-given gratuitous gift; but grace is appropriated to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.
Concerning the fourth act also, namely concerning distinction, it is asked: whom does it distinguish? And Damascene8 says that the baptismal character distinguishes the faithful one from the unfaithful.
8. On the contrary: Many are faithful who do not have a character, and many unfaithful who have one: therefore etc.
9. Likewise, if it distinguishes, it is asked: for whom? for either for God or for us: not for God, because He has no need; not for us, because we do not see whether anyone has a character; but if for the Angels or the Blessed, it is superfluous, because they know well enough without this.
Conclusio
The character is for signifying, disposing, configuring, and distinguishing.
I respond: It must be said that the character is a sacramental seal impressed by God. Because it is a sacramental seal, therefore it signifies grace, and not only signifies but in some way prepares [for it]; because the use of the Sacraments does not consist in signifying alone9. And because it signifies grace and disposes to grace, therefore it has some likeness to grace, which is a likeness of God; therefore it in some way configures to God. And because it configures all to one, it also assimilates the flock of the Lord among themselves; and through this it distinguishes [them] from those who are not of the flock, or even makes a distinction within the same flock according to one and another ground of assimilating10.
To the arguments:
To 1 and 2. To that which is objected first, that the character is not visible: it must be said that the character together with the exterior sign makes one Sacrament; whence there is not in it the ground of signifying through itself alone, but through its conjunction with the exterior element; and by reason of that it is visible and one, just as the element is one. And by reason of it it is voluntary, just as the element signifies from institution; nor is it diverse among different people, because it is instituted by the authority of the universal master11.
To that which is asked, what it signifies: it must be said that [it signifies] grace; and that it is not there, as was held above12, this is from the defect of the recipient alone.
To that which is asked concerning the second act, it must be said that it disposes like a certain light and given heat13. But that disposition is not one of necessity, as though the agent could not act otherwise, or the recipient receive [otherwise], but only one of fittingness. For since nature is corrupted through sin and indisposed to grace, it was fitting that an intermediate disposition intervene; not so grace to glory.
To 3, 4, 5. And thus the response to the three objections is clear: to the first, because the disposition is not on account of the agent's need; to the second, because it is not a necessary disposition; to the third, because there is not a like disposition in sinful nature to grace, as of grace to glory.
To that which is asked concerning assimilation, it must be said that there is assimilation through the participation of one quality, or through imitation, or through total indivision14. The first is of creature to creature; the second is of creature to God; the third is of God to God, that is, of one person to another. But the assimilation of creature to God is either perfect, or sufficient, or disposing toward the sufficient. The first is in glory, and this admits no dissimilarity either of fault or of misery; the second [is] in grace, and this admits the dissimilarity of misery but not of fault; the third [is] in the character, and this admits both, because it is only of freely-given grace, and far distant.
To 6 and 7. And thus the response to the two [objections] concerning assimilation is clear.
To that which is asked: to whom does it assimilate principally? it must be said that [it assimilates] by appropriation to the Son Himself, who is called the character; or also, because the baptized are said to put on Christ15, because He is the head and leader of the army; and because, as will be shown, the character by appropriation regards faith.
8. Concerning distinction some resolve it by saying that the character distinguishes those who are of the Church16 in number from those who are not in number with respect to merit. — But this is nothing, because a cut-off heretic has a character, yet is not of the Church.
Others say that the character distinguishes those receiving the Sacraments from those who have received only the sign of participation in the Sacraments, and consequently [the sign] of distinction with respect to those not participating17. — But then it seems that the same would be the sign of itself.
And therefore it must be said that the ground of distinguishing in the character comes from the ground of signifying; but the character signifies the grace of faith according to
aliquem statum, whence it distinguishes either the faithful one from the unfaithful, or the faithful one from the faithful; and that they are mingled, this is not from a defect of the sign, but of the things signified.
9. And through this the following is clear, that it is a sign to us not through itself, but by reason of its conjunction with the element. — And there is an example: if someone took up the arms of the king, it would be a sign that he was of the king's army; yet it can nonetheless be on the contrary side, and the arms would always signify that he was on the other side18; and there is no falsity in the sign, but in the receiver. So is it to be understood in the matter at hand: for, just as arms are made to distinguish armies, and yet for the most part are confused when they are in battle; so also is it with us, as long as we are in the conflict of this present miserable life. — There is an example in the habit of religion, which is a sign of goodness; yet the good also share it19 with the wicked, and the carnal with the spiritual, and those loving the world with those despising it20.
II. On the following (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, § 2. — Scotus, here, q. 10, n. 12. — St. Thomas, in the place cited, a. 1, 2. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 4, 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, quaestiuncula 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, in the place cited.
---
- 1Cfr. supra in lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3, ex August. allata definitio signi.Cf. above in the Master's text, d. I, c. 3, the definition of a sign drawn from Augustine.
- 2Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 4. — Inferius post stultum est in cod. aa additur dicere, et subinde pro habet esse cod. F debet esse.Cf. above the Master's text, d. I, c. 4. — Below, after stultum est, the word dicere is added in codex aa, and thereupon, for habet esse, codex F reads debet esse.
- 3Vide supra d. 4. p. II. a. I. q. 2. in corp.See above, d. 4, p. II, a. I, q. 2, in the body.
- 4Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 3. — Mox post gratiae Vat. supplet sine dispositione praevia.Cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 1, q. 3. — Just after gratiae the Vatican edition supplies sine dispositione praevia ("without a prior disposition").
- 5Secundum Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Quali; V. Metaph. text. 16. et 20. (IV. c. 9. et 15.). Boeth., III. de Differentiis topicis, hanc definitionem iisdem verbis exhibet. Cfr. in II. Topic. Cicer.: Similitudo est unitas qualitatis.According to Aristotle, Categories, the chapter On Quality; Metaphysics V, texts 16 and 20 (IV, c. 9 and 15). Boethius, On Topical Differences III, presents this definition in the same words. Cf. in Cicero's Topics II: A likeness is a unity of quality.
- 6Tit. 3, 5: Salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis etc. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 30, nota 5. — Superius pro uni personae plurimi codd. uni perfecte.Titus 3:5: He saved us through the washing of regeneration, etc. — On the minor [premise] cf. above p. 30, note 5. — Above, for uni personae ("to one person") very many codices [read] uni perfecte ("to one perfectly").
- 7Hebr. I, 3: Qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura [character] substantiae eius etc.Hebrews 1:3: Who, since He is the brightness of glory and the figure [character] of His substance, etc.
- 8Supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I. ad 4 hanc baptismi definitionem ex Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9, sumtam: « Baptismus est vitae spiritualis principium, sigillum » etc., exponens ait S. Bonav.: « Quia distinguit gregem dominicum, sic sigillum ». Damasc. loc. cit. c. 11. de cruce dicit: Haec nobis signi loco in fronte data est, haud secus ac circumcisio Israeli. Per hanc nos fideles ab infidelibus distinguimur atque agnoscimur etc. (ed. Migne). Cfr. Basil., Homil. 13. in s. baptism. n. 2. et 4; August., Enarrat. in Ps. 39. n. 1. et VI. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 1. n. 1.Above, d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. I, ad 4, this definition of baptism, taken from Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith IV, c. 9: « Baptism is the principle of the spiritual life, a seal », etc., St. Bonaventure expounding says: « Because it distinguishes the Lord's flock, thus a seal ». Damascene, in the place cited, c. 11, says of the cross: This is given to us in place of a sign on the forehead, just as circumcision [was given] to Israel. By this we the faithful are distinguished from the unfaithful and recognized, etc. (ed. Migne). Cf. Basil, Homily 13 on Holy Baptism, nn. 2 and 4; Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 39, n. 1, and On Baptism against the Donatists VI, c. 1, n. 1.
- 9Cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. et 4. — Cod. O (X a secunda manu) addit sed etiam ad gratiam disponendo, edd. cum Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 8. a. 1. § 2, sed in efficiendo quodam modo.Cf. above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 2 and 4. — Codex O (X by a second hand) adds sed etiam ad gratiam disponendo ("but also by disposing to grace"); the editions, with Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 8, m. 8, a. 1, § 2, [read] sed in efficiendo quodam modo ("but in effecting in a certain way").
- 10Vide infra q. 4. — Superius verbis configurat uni cod. F praemittit Deo, et post Domini cod. Z addit ad Dominum, assimilat et gregem Domini.See below, q. 4. — Above, to the words configurat uni ("configures to one") codex F prefixes Deo ("to God"), and after Domini codex Z adds ad Dominum, assimilat et gregem Domini ("to the Lord, it assimilates also the flock of the Lord").
- 11Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. 1. ad 4. et infra p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — De seqq. vide supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. — In fine solut. pro instituitur edd. institutum est.Cf. above, d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. 1, ad 4, and below, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — On the following matters see above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 5. — At the end of the solution, for instituitur the editions [read] institutum est.
- 12Dist. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1. Cfr. ibid. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.Distinction 4, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, ad 1. Cf. there, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4.
- 13Ut dictum est quaest. praeced. circa finem corp.As was said in the preceding question, near the end of the body.
- 14Cfr. I. Sent. d. 31. p. I. q. 3. et d. 35. q. 1.Cf. I Sent., d. 31, p. I, q. 3, and d. 35, q. 1.
- 15Gal. 3, 27: Quicumque enim in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Cfr. supra d. 4. p. I. dub. 4. — Quod character respicit fidem, ostenditur paulo inferius et infra q. 4.Galatians 3:27: For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. Cf. above, d. 4, p. I, dub. 4. — That the character regards faith is shown a little below and below, q. 4.
- 16Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. Ecclesiae.The Vatican edition, with one or another codex, [reads] Ecclesiae ("of the Church").
- 17Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 3, et ibid. Comment. p. I. dub. 4. — Vat. percipientes.See above the Master's text, d. IV, c. 3, and there the Commentary, p. I, dub. 4. — The Vatican edition [reads] percipientes ("those receiving").
- 18Edd. quamvis arma significent, quod sit ex parte illa. August., Serm. ad Caesar. Ecclesiae plebem, Emerito praesente (ed. Migne tom. IX. pag. 689 sequ.), n. 2: In errante et deserente milite crimen est desertoris, character autem non est desertoris, sed imperatoris.The editions [read] quamvis arma significent, quod sit ex parte illa ("although the arms signify that he is on that side"). Augustine, Sermon to the people of the Church of Caesarea, in the presence of Emeritus (ed. Migne, tom. IX, p. 689 sqq.), n. 2: In a soldier who errs and deserts, the crime is the deserter's, but the character is not the deserter's, but the commander's.
- 19Edd. addunt in hoc, pro quo secunda manus in cod. I substituit in eo; Alex. Hal., loc. cit., legit: Exemplum etiam est de... tamen illum etiam communicant et boni cum malis. Superius substituimus ex codd. F G I Z in nobis pro nobis; subinde post huius vitae cod. I addit et.The editions add in hoc ("in this"), for which the second hand in codex I substitutes in eo ("in it"); Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, reads: There is also an example of... yet even the good share it with the wicked. Above, we have substituted from codices F G I Z in nobis ("in us") for nobis ("to us"); thereupon, after huius vitae codex I adds et.
- 20Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---