Dist. 6, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/6/q/bon-sent-IV-d6-p1-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 senses* », 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 *voluntary*. 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 character: therefore we have no need of an intermediate disposition.

5. Likewise, grace is united to glory without an intermediate disposition: 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 things »; 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 regeneration; 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 character. — 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 Damascene 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 alone. 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 assimilating.

**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 master.

*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 above, 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 heat. 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 indivision. 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 Christ, 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 Church 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 participating. — 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 side; 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 it with the wicked, and the carnal with the spiritual, and those loving the world with those despising it.