II. To the Initial Arguments

83. To the first argument [n.57] I say that in baptism there is more properly an adoption to sonship than to marriage, because a child cannot properly be said to contract a marriage since he does not have use of reason, the use of which is required for any contract. But in adoption the consent or act alone of the adopter suffices even if the one adopted has no consent or act.

84. To the second [in fact the third, n.59] I say that malice can exist in the minister or insofar as he is minister (namely in administering badly), either because he does not believe well or because he does not intend to confer the sacrament. And this malice, especially the malice of not intending, prevents the sacrament from being conferred more than does the malice of morals in the recipient (and the reason will be stated in the following distinction [d.5 nn.18, 24]). Now there can be another malice of the minister, not insofar as he is minister, but concomitant (as that he is in mortal sin); and this does not prevent the sacrament from being conferred. It is plain, therefore, that the intention of the minister impedes the sacrament but not any other malice. But it does not follow from this that the non-intention of the recipient impedes it, because in a second agent there is required also what per se belongs to the agent, and this is the ‘to intend’ in an agent acting by reason, but intention does not belong per se to the recipient insofar as he is such.

85. To the third [in fact the second, n.58] one must say that if the adult to be baptized willingly intends to renounce the devil and his pomps, everything that precedes the reception of baptism is not of the necessity of the sacrament, but belongs only to its solemnity.

86. To the next [n.60] I concede that the custom of the Church is good one, because the Church baptizes no adult unless he respond for himself; and it is a praiseworthy and reasonable custom, so that he be ascribed to the family of Christ who is willing. But although he not respond, namely because he does not have use of reason (as someone asleep), the sacrament could be conferred on him, provided however he is consenting in habit. But as was said before [n.67], it is not expedient to do this but to wait for the time when he may actually consent.