A. About an Adult with the Use of Reason or without It

63. About the first: either an adult is not using reason and has never used it (as the empty headed and mad from birth); or he is not using reason now, yet has sometimes had the use of it; or, third, he is actually using reason now.

1. About an Adult who never Uses Reason

64. Judgment about the first must, in brief, be made as about a child [n.16], save that there is a difference in this, that if there be hope of his sometime needing to be cured and coming to have the use of reason, that time must be waited for, so that he may receive the sacrament with greater reverence. But if there be no hope of his ever attaining the use of reason, the sacrament is to be conferred on him at once, because God removes the remedy for salvation from no one.

2. About an Adult not Now Using Reason

65. About the second, namely someone not now using reason [n.63] yet who did at some time use reason, I say that the supposition is that he is now in habit consenting or not consenting according to the way he was actually disposed when, immediately before impediment to his use of reason, he was healthy; namely, if he actually consented then, he is judged to be consenting in habit now; if he actually dissented then he is judged to be dissenting in habit now. And I said ‘immediately’ in the sense that between the act and the impediment no opposite motion of will intervene. And thus I say universally that the one who is habitually disposed can receive the sacrament the way he could before when he was actually this way or that way disposed. But how he who is disposed actually could be baptized will be stated at once in the third part [nn.68-69].

66. But is it expedient to baptize such a one? For many things are lawful which are not expedient, I Corinthians 6.12.

67. I reply that if there be hope he will return to the use of reason, it is more expedient to await the time when he does have the use of reason; for example, it is expedient as regard one asleep to wait the time of his being awake, and as regard one who is deranged the time of a lucid interval. But if there be no hope of him, as of one who falls into some permanent blockage to his use of reason, it is expedient to baptize him (provided however he has the capacity for baptism), because otherwise he would be exposed to the danger of damnation. But how he may be capable will be stated immediately in the discussion of him who has the use of reason [n.69].

3. About an Adult with the Use of Reason

68. About the third case, namely an adult using reason [n.63], I make a distinction about the ‘not consenting’ [n.56] that is put in the question, which can be understood as the negative or the contrary: the negative denies only actual consent, while the contrary posits actual dissent.

69. And the distinction is plain, because ‘not willing’ is not the same as ‘willing against’. If ‘contrary’ is taken as ‘dissenting in act’, then the adult dissents either simply or in a certain respect. And I mean ‘simply’ in the way it was expounded in Ord. III d.15 nn.58-59, 119, that when someone, who wills something simply so as to escape some disadvantage, wills that something (as throwing merchandise overboard into the sea to escape sinking) he wills simply to throw the merchandise overboard, for his will by commanding moves his power to throw overboard, and his will moves itself freely because it cannot be compelled. He is willing simply, then, when he throws the merchandise overboard, but he wills against it in a certain respect, that is he wills against it under a certain condition, because he would will against it if he could save his life in another way.