Fifth Distinction

Division of the Text and Overview of the Questions

1. “After this one needs to know that the sacrament of baptism...” [Master Lombard, Sent. IV d.5 ch.1 n.1].

2. After the Master has dealt with baptism in itself and in its recipient, here he deals with the conditions of the minister.

3. First, then, he deals with the conditions of the minister, second with the rite or manner of ministering (there: “This also needs to be known”).

4. The first is divided into two parts: first about the power of the minister, second about his status and rank (the second at the beginning of d.6, there: “Now those who are permitted to baptize”).

5. The first is divided into two: first he shows that this power cannot be impeded by the malice of the minister, second to what the power extends itself (there: “Here it is asked”).

6. The first is divided into two: first he shows that the power is so [sc. not impedable], second he shows why it is so (the second there: “Because the ministry”).

7. About this fifth distinction one must ask in what way the malice of the minister relates to impediment or non-impediment of baptism. And about this I ask two question: first whether the malice of the minister prevent baptism being conferred, second whether one who knowingly receives baptism from a bad minister sin mortally.

Question One. Whether the Malice of the Minister Prevent Baptism being Conferred

8. Proceeding thus to the first question [n.7], and argument is made that it does [prevent baptism being conferred]:

Ambrose On the Mysteries (or On Initiating the Uneducated) ch.4 n.23: “The baptism of the perfidious does not cleanse but pollutes.” Which he proves by the authority of Psalm 31.6, “In the flood of many waters they will not approach God,” and it is said of the wicked. He proves it too from Romans 14.23, “Whatever is not of faith is sin” [Gratian, Decretum p.2 cause 1 q.1 ch.50; the proofs are actually from Alger von Luttichs, On the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of the Lord, III ch. 1]

9. Again Gratian, Decretum p.2 causa 1 q.1 ch.49, and it is from Augustine On Baptism, sermo 71 ch.19 n.32, “Those who are separated [sc. from the Catholic Church] can have the form; the virtue cannot be in them, just as sense does not follow the bodily member when it is amputated from the body.”

10. Again, by reason:

A dried-up member [of the body] cannot be cause of pouring life into another member; a bad minister is a dried-up member of the Church, because he is without grace, which is the life of the Church;     therefore etc     .Argument taken from Richard of Middleton and Peter of Tarentaise. ²⁸

11. Again, in order for water to be the suitable material of sanctification it is necessary that there be in it some supernatural virtue, and the proof is from Ambrose [On Sacraments I ch.4 n.12; Gratian, Decretum p.3 ‘On Consecration’ d.4 ch.9: “He who passes through this font (for this passage is from sin to life, from guilt to grace, from filth to sanctification) does not die but rises up;” ch.5 n.15, “Not every water heals, but what has the grace of Christ.”].     Therefore , much more is some sanctity or supernatural virtue required in the minister in order that he may baptize; for baptism depends more on the disposition of the minister than on any virtue of the water; therefore etc     .

12. Again, Augustine On the Sole Baptism ch.13 n.22, “The glorious martyr Cyprian, who refused to recognize baptism given among heretics or schismatics etc.” From this the argument is as follows [Lombard Sent. IV d.6 ch.2 n.5, who takes it from Ps.-Hugh of St. Victor]: he who errs about some article of faith is, if he die in that error, damned, because “without faith it is impossible to please God,” Hebrews 11.6. Cyprian [Epistle 70.1 nn.1-3; Gratian, Decretum p.2 causa 1 q.1 ch.70] said that true baptism could not be conferred by a bad minister, at least a heretic or schismatic, and he persisted to the end in this opinion, and yet has not been condemned but is a glorious martyr; therefore, this opinion is not erroneous nor against any article of faith. But the truth of the sacraments belongs to the article “holy Catholic Church;” and Decretals V tit.7 ch.9, Gregory IX, ‘About heretics and schismatics’, “All those who do not fear to teach and judge differently from the sacrosanct Roman Church we bind with the chain of perpetual anathema;”     therefore this opinion ‘that a heretic baptizes’ is not a truth belonging to any sacrament. But nothing is to be asserted as certain and necessary for the sacrament which is not something true belonging necessarily to the sacrament; therefore etc     .

13. On the contrary:

The Master in the text [Sent. IV d.5 ch.1 n.1], and he adduces many authorities.

14. And several are taken from Augustine:

Homily on John tr.5 n.6, “Baptism is such as he is in whose power it is given, and not such as the minister is by whom it is given.”

15. Again, Against Crescontius III ch.6, “If the baptism that is given through a better is not better, in no way is the baptism that is given through a bad [minister] bad, because the same thing is given.”

16. And if these authorities be expounded of someone bad in morals but not of a heretic or schismatic - Augustine says expressly to Orosius [Ps.-Augustine Dialogue of 65 Questions, q.59], “Although the baptism of heretics who baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Catholic Church are one, yet those who are baptized outside the Church do not take it up for their salvation but for their ruin;” and there follows, “The Church does not rebaptize those who are baptized in the name of the Trinity.”

I. To the Question

17. The truth of the question is plain from many authorities [n.13], because whatever malice the minister is bad with (whether the malice of heresy or schism or morals), provided the unity of the Church be kept, if he intend to do what the Church does and keeps the manner of the Church, he does truly confer baptism; and such baptism truly has its effect in the one baptized, notwithstanding the malice of the minister, unless the malice of the receiver be an obstacle in respect of what he receives from such a minister (which will be discussed in the next question [nn.52-55]).

18. But the truth of this solution has only one demonstrative reason giving the why, namely that thus did it please Christ to institute it, so that the malice of the minister would not impede the sacrament or its effect,

19. But that he did so institute it Augustine gathers from the authority of John the Baptist, John 1.33, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.”

20. But that baptism did have to be thus instituted there are many congruous reasons.

First, because it is reasonable for God to assist with his own practical sign, to cause what is signified, by a determination of his will that precedes every condition of the minister, so that, just as that determination (whereby he bestowed on the sign its being a sure sign) is from him altogether immediately and first, so too his assisting presence, consequent to that determination, to cooperate with the sign is immediately from him.

21. The second congruence is taken from the end, because if baptism could be conferred only by the good, it would not be much of a remedy for the wayfarer, but almost commonly to his loss; for since almost no one can be certain about his own goodness, much more can he not be certain either about the goodness of another; therefore if baptism were to depend on the goodness of the minister, never could anyone be certain that he had truly received baptism - which is unacceptable.

22. And if you object that neither now can he be certain, because he does not know his own disposition - this is not an obstacle, because he can know with as sufficient certitude as certitude requires, namely that he intends to receive baptism, and this on his part suffices.

23. If you say he cannot be certain of the intention of the minister - this is not an obstacle, because it can be assumed with probability that the minister performing such an act intend to do that to which the act is in itself ordered, but certitude could not be thus had about the goodness or sanctity of the minister.

24. Again, there is congruence on the part of the receiver, because it is altogether unjust that another be punished for the iniquity of someone else when that other is communicating in the iniquity of the latter in no way such that it could be imputed to him; but the one who is to be baptized is disposing himself for grace as much as he can; if therefore the malice of the minister were to get in the way, the one to be baptized would be punished for the guilt of another that should in no way be imputed to him.

II. To the Initial Arguments

25. To the first [n.8] I say that either the heretic baptizes a child in the form and intention of the Church, and in this there is no obstacle for the child either as concerns the sacrament or as concerns its effect; or the heretic baptizes an adult, and still he confers the sacrament and effect on him, provided there is no evil movement in the adult (as his consent to the heresy of the baptizer or intention to become his disciple). And about such an adult [sc. one who does consent to the heresy] the authority of Ambrose [n.8] is to be understood, and likewise the authority of Augustine that follows [n.9], because the virtue of the sacrament is life, therefore life does not remain in a cut-off member; for it does not follow that life through his sacrament could be in the receiver, as is plain from the response immediately following [n.26].

26. Hence to the reason [n.10] it must be at once replied that in the whole human body there is one life for all the parts, and it is participated by them in a certain order, because it is first in the heart and second in the other parts according as these are more closely related to the principle of life. And so life cannot there be derived from one part to another unless the part from which it derives is alive with the same life in its own perfect way first. Things are not so in the mystical body that is the Church, because there is not in them [sc. members of the mystical body] numerically one life, nor is it necessary that the member who gives life, as minister, to another be closer to the principle of life in participating life but only in rank of ministering. An example would be if the veins in the body were not formally alive, yet they would be the means of ministering life to the other parts.

27. To the next argument [n.11], the point about sanctification in water was denied above in Ord. d.1 nn.309-326; nor does it seem very probable that the supernatural virtue is generated and corrupted so many times, nor even that after generation in baptismal water it remain while the water remains.

28. To the authority of Ambrose [n.11] - look for it.Scotus, Rep. IV A d.5 qq.1-2, n.4, “To the next I say that in the water there is no sanctity nor anything supernatural, because it is not a subject capable of such a form; but this whole of ‘water along with word’ is one sign of sanctity and grace whereby the soul becomes holy, to which sign God is immediately present and gives the grace that it designates.” ²⁹, a

a.a [Interpolated text] above. It can be said, as was said in d.1 qq.4-5, nn.300, 315, that there is in the water no virtue that is active according to any absolute form, but there is only the virtue that is the ultimate of power, namely to signify grace efficaciously.

29. To the next about Cyprian [n.12] I say that there are some things there that are simply thus of the substance of the faith, because perhaps all recipients of baptism (some little time after the use of reason) are held explicitly to believe them, as are now the articles about the incarnation (as ‘Christ was born and died’), for which there are special solemnities in the Church, and which the people are able to conceive, because they are about Christ as man. Other things are explicitly requirements of the substance of the faith, to be observed by seniors in the Church (as that God is triune, and things belonging to these sort of spiritual and imaginable things). And this distinction is plain from Augustine On the Trinity 14 ch.1 n.3. Other things there are which are not explicitly to be believed by either the former or the latter, because they have not yet been declared by the Church, of which sort are the many conclusions necessarily included in articles that are believed; but before they have been declared by the Church it is not necessary that one believe them, but one ought to think soberly about them, namely so that a man be ready, for the time when the truth will have been declared, to hold them.

30. I say that in this way the statement ‘baptism is a sacrament of the New Law necessary for salvation’ was immediately of the truth of the Christian faith because it is express in the Gospels. But that it could be conferred by a heretic was not immediately express, indeed was not declared even in the time of Cyprian. For this reason, Augustine labored much on declaring that truth in his books, as is plain in his book On the Sole Baptism ch.5-15, and On Baptism Against the Donatists I [also Against Cresconius I ch.25-34].

31. Hence if Cyprian [n.12] so thought, namely that there is no baptism among heretics, yet because he was ready in his mind to think about it what the Church declared, he erred in nothing - save perhaps by sinning venially, because he too much asserted that for which he had neither authority nor compelling reason. For his reasoning is not valid, namely that what one does not have one cannot give, because he who baptizes does not give grace but gives the sacrament, and he has that in his power because he has [clerical] order. And in this way perhaps Augustine indicated that Cyprian had sinned venially when he adds in the before cited passage [n.12], “While he detested them too much,” he says, “if there was anything that needed purging [in him], it would be taken away by the scythe of his passion.”

32. And in this way can Abbot Joachim be excused, because although he held an erroneous opinion, as is plain in Decretals I tit.1 ch.2 ‘About the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith’ [the Fourth Lateran Council], namely that ‘the Three Persons are not some one thing that neither generates nor is generated, neither spirates nor is spirated’ [cf. Ord. I d.5 n. 1230] - because it is not said that he stubbornly defended it, but that he left all his books to be corrected according to the judgment of the Church.Fourth Lateran Council: “But we, with the approval of the sacred Council, believe and confess with Peter [Lombard], namely that one supreme thing is essence or divine nature, which neither generates nor is generated; yet it does not follow that there is a quaternity, because those three things - Father and Son and Holy Spirit - are that one thing.” ³⁰,Fourth Lateran Council: “In nothing, however, do we for this reason wish to derogate from the Monastery in Florence, of which Joachim himself is founder, because there is both institution according to rule there and salutary observance, especially since Joachim himself bade that all his writings be assigned to us [sc. Pope Innocent III], to be approved or even corrected by the judgment of the Apostolic See, dictating a letter which he undersigned in his own hand, wherein he firmly confesses he holds the faith that the Roman Church holds, which, by the disposition of the Lord, is mother and mistress of all the faithful.” ³¹

Question Two. Whether he who Receives Baptism Knowingly from a Bad Minister Sins Mortally

33. Proceeding thus to the second question [n.7], and the argument is made that he who receives baptism knowingly from a bad minister sins mortally because, according to Ambrose On Initiating the Uneducated [in fact Alger von Luttichs, On the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of the Lord, III ch.13] “What they do and for whom they do it profits nothing, but is for judgment;” he is speaking of bad baptizers and those who receive baptism from them.

34. Again, he who cooperates with someone in committing mortal sin sins mortally, because this is against brotherly charity; but he who receives baptism from someone bad cooperates with him in the act of baptizing, wherein he sins mortally;     therefore etc     .

35. Again, let it be that a minister wants to commit the malice of simony in conferring baptism (that is, he refuses to baptize save for money), someone could not receive baptism from him unless he committed simony, because if the seller is a simonist so is the buyer; therefore at least in this case the one who receives baptism from a bad minister sins mortally

36. To the opposite:

Gratian, Decretum p.3, On Consecration, d.4 ch.23 [in Lombard’s text], “The Roman Pontiff does not give heed to the man who baptizes but to God, even if it is a pagan who is baptizing.”

37. Again, Augustine On John tr.5 n.11 (and Gratian, Decretum p. 2 cause 1 q.1), “Let not the dove shrink from the ministry of evil men; let the Lord have regard to the power. What does a bad minister do to you where the Lord is good? How does a malicious court announcer impede you if the judge is kind? John the Baptist taught this through the dove” [e.g. John 1.32].

I. To the Question

38. Here a distinction is made [Richard of Middleton, Peter of Tarentaise] about a bad minister: either he is in schism from the Church totally or for a time, or he is not in schism but is permitted.

39. But let us see about the members of this distinction in order.

A. About Reception of Baptism from a Minister in Schism from the Church

40. About the first there are two opposite ways of speaking.

1. First Way: about the Obligation to Receive Baptism

41. One way is that one is bound to receive baptism from such a minister if another minister cannot be had, because baptism is a sacrament of necessity.

2. Second Way: about Refusal to Receive Baptism from Such a Minister

42. Another way is that one is bound not to receive from him, and that by receiving one sins mortally.

43. And the clarification of this is that the one needing to be baptized is either an adult or a child.

If an adult, the baptism of desire is sufficient for him when he cannot have the baptism of water; in the matter at hand, he does not have a minister because he is prohibited from communicating with one who is in schism, and especially in sacramental acts; therefore, he will be saved by baptism of desire in not receiving baptism from him, because he is in a situation where he cannot have a minister; and if he were to receive baptism from him he would be communicating with him contrary to the prohibition of the Church in acts that have been prohibited most of all.

44. But if the one to be baptized is a child, he who has the child may baptize him if he cannot get another more suitable who is not in schism [Gratian, Decretum p.2 cause 30 ch.7]; because, as before [n.43], it is not licit for him on behalf of the child to communicate with someone in schism. And if it be posited that he who has the child is infirm and does not have anyone in the region who is not in schism, one should consequently say that in no way must there be communication in such an act with someone in schism, because not even in that case should he offer his child for being baptized to someone in schism.

3. The Second Way is Rejected

45. Against this [nn.42-44]:

The precept of a superior obligates more than the percept of an inferior (from the authority of Augustine, cited before [n.37]). But God commands baptism to be received, the Church forbids communicating with him whom she cuts off; therefore, the precept of God is more to be obeyed in this case than the precept of the Church.

46. Again, someone excommunicated is more bound to avoid others than others are to avoid him, because this precept about avoidance is not imposed on anyone save for his own sake; but someone in schism or excommunicated is not bound in this case to avoid others, indeed he is bound not to avoid them; for if someone thus in schism knew that some non-baptized child was presently going to die, he would necessarily be bound to baptize him, and so bound not to avoid others in a case of baptizing. My proof of this is that if he were to find the child exposed to danger of bodily life because of famine, he would necessarily be bound to feed him to save his bodily life; but he is more bound to love his spiritual life; therefore when a child is exposed to danger of spiritual life, he is bound to confer on him the remedy necessary for spiritual life; therefore much more are others not bound to avoid him as to communicating with him in such act.

47. And hereby appears the answer to the reason for the second way of speaking [n.43], which proceeds from the precept of the Church: for the prohibition is universally understood to be when a greater precept does not oblige to the contrary; but the precept of a law of nature and a Gospel precept is greater than a percept of the Church only. When therefore a precept of the law of nature thus obliges one to save the bodily life of one’s neighbor, and much more to save his spiritual life, and there is a divine precept about conferring and receiving baptism, the precept of the superior is more to be obeyed than is someone to be avoided in these acts because of a precept of the Church shunning him; for no judge or legislator in the Church would understand that her precept needed to be kept in a case where it would go against a precept of the law of nature and of God.

4. An Intermediate Opinion

48. So it is possible, as to this article, to hold an intermediate opinion as concerns an adult, that it is licit for an adult to receive baptism from someone in schism if another minister cannot be had.

49. And this seems to be held by Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists VI ch.5 n.7 (fairly quickly after the beginning): “However someone separated [from the Church] can bestow baptism, just as he can have baptism, but ruinously bestow it; but he to whom he bestows it can receive it in a sound way, if he who receives it is not separated; just as to many it has happened that, with a Catholic mind and heart not alien to the unity of peace, they have, by some necessity of approaching death, come to some heretic and have received the baptism of Christ from him, without his perversity; and, whether deceased or set free, they would never remain with them [sc. heretics] to whom they had never in their heart passed over.”

50. An adult is also able perhaps not to receive [baptism from a heretic], because the baptism of desire would suffice for him if, because of reverence for the Church, he were to avoid such a heretic. However, all things considered, it seems better that he receive from such a person than that he depart from life without baptism.

51. But as to a child, if no one but someone in schism can be had to baptize him, and danger threatens, because it would not be possible to wait to get a suitable minister, he who has the child [n.44] is necessarily bound to offer his child to someone in schism. For it would be too hard to say that he would be bound to permit his child to be perpetually damned although he could have someone to baptize him, and although the child would be saved whoever was the baptizer, even it be a pagan doing the baptizing, according to Gratian, Decretum p.3 [n.36].

B. About Receiving Baptism from a Bad Minister not in Schism from the Church

52. As to the second member of the distinction [n.38], namely about a bad minister not in schism from the Church:

If he is secretly bad, so that his life is not scandalous to the people, it is conceded that someone could receive baptism from such a minister, indeed should do so - provided otherwise he should, because one should not avoid a neighbor in acts that are well known on account of a sin that is not well known.

53. But if the minister is publicly or notoriously bad, as a public fornicator or the like, then either it is incumbent on him by his office to dispense the sacrament of baptism (as that he is a parish priest or curate), or it is not incumbent on him but would fit him by reason of his office, as that he is a priest called to assist a parish curate.

54. If in the first way, he who receives baptism for himself or for his child does not sin, because he who seeks and receives from someone bad what is owed does not sin; and the curate is debtor to his parish in administering the sacraments.

55. If in the second way - if it be possible to get another on whom it is incumbent by his office to baptize, either he gets someone equally bad or someone better. If can get a better, then he sins who receives baptism from the other, on whom it is not incumbent to administer the sacraments to him; also if [the one he gets] is someone equally bad, he ought to receive baptism from his own minister. But if no other curate or priest can be got save someone equally bad as his own minister, but some good layman can be got, it is doubtful who should be preferred to whom in this act, whether a good layman to a publicly bad priest, or a priest thus bad to a good layman. And in brief, because the office of ministering sacraments in the Church does in this way belong to priests, it seems one should say that, as to this act, a bad priest is rather to be chosen.

II. To the Initial Arguments

56. As to the first argument [n.33], the authority from Ambrose needs expounding, the way it was expounded in the other preceding question [n.25], for he means to speak about one who receives [baptism] outside the Church so as to become a disciple of the baptizer.

57. As to the second [n.34] I say that he who seeks baptism from a bad priest is not cooperating with him directly in mortal sin, for he seeks from him a due act; and in this he is not at fault, because no one’s malice excuses him from paying a debt by which he is bound to another. The requested act could also be paid for without sin, if the baptizer were to confess. Hence as to what comes fro the act of the requester, the requester necessitates the priest to do penance rather than to an act of sin. But if the priest do not repent, nothing is to be imputed to the one who requests the act, because he does not request it insofar as it is a sin but insofar as it is due.

58. To the third [n.35] I say that if he in no way wish to baptize unless he receive payment for the act of baptizing, and if thus he were to become a perfect simonist (because selling the sacrament), in no way is baptism to be received from him: not for an adult, because an adult would sin mortally and he is not obliged to receive the sacrament when he cannot receive it without mortal sin; and not for his child, even though it be that there were no one in the province who would want to baptize him.

59. And if you argue that then the adult exposes his child to the danger of damnation, I reply: let him do the baptizing himself if he be able, namely if he is not infirm or mute or hoarse; or if in the baptizing of his child he cannot get anyone save by buying baptism, he must let his child die without baptism, because “evils” are not to be done “so that good may come,” Romans 3.8, and everyone ought to love himself more than his neighbor [cf. Ord. III d.29 nn.5-6], and consequently ought to avoid mortal sin in himself than damnation in another.

60. However this case would with difficulty, or never, so happen that it would be impossible to get baptism without simony being committed on the part of the one to be baptized, or on the part of the one offering the child to be baptized. For if the priest were willing to sell his water and would in no other way permit it, the water can be bought, even supposing it be consecrated water, but without in any way having on eye on buying or selling the consecration, because consecrated water is worth as much as unconsecrated water is. For in this way it is licit to sell a consecrated chalice, because in no way does one have an eye on buying or selling the consecration. Also if the priest insist on selling the act of baptizing, the one offering the child can buy it, not by intending the act insofar as it is sacramental, but the labor of the priest in the act -just as now priests are hired to celebrate masses, not in order that they themselves sell and others buy the act of celebration insofar as it is sacramental (which God forbid); but they themselves sell their labor and others buy it, because everyone has to make a living in some way or other from his labor.a

a.a [Interpolated text] Hence a priest can in this way sell consecrated water but not, because it is consecrated, more dearly. But if he altogether wants to sell it more dearly because consecrated, he is to be committed to the devil, and the child is to be restored [to the parent] and, if no one else suitable is available, he is to be baptized by the father with confident trust.

Question Three. Whether One Should Administer the Baptismal Sacrament when there is Presumption that the Baptizing Poses a Danger to the Bodily Life of him who Receives it

61. After this the question is asked, without arguments, whether one should administer the baptismal sacrament when there is a presumption that the baptism poses a danger to the bodily life of him who receives it.

62. I reply: either this presumption is certain and taken from certain signs, as that if someone, who does not have water that he could get hold of save from a bridge, were to throw the child to be baptized into a river or a well, it is something certain because, as concerns the idea of such an act, death naturally follows it because submersion does.

63. And I say that when death is in this way presumed, in no way should anyone propel or throw him in, because then by doing this one will sin mortally; and everyone is more bound to avoid mortal sin in himself than to seek his neighbor’s salvation, because ordered charity is directed toward oneself more [n.59].

64. It is also said that someone so thrown into water would not be baptized, because washing is ordered to the life of the one who is washed; but such submersion is not so ordered.

65. In such a case, therefore, some rags should be lowered into the well or the river (if no vessel were to hand in which water could be drawn up), and out of these rags water should be squeezed whereby such a child might be baptized.

66. But if the presumption of imminent death, or of accelerating death, because of the baptism, is not certain but slight or perhaps irrational (as if the child or adult is set at the point of death), I say that he who has a conscience about accelerating the death of such an infirm person, through baptizing him, has an erroneous conscience, and that makes him perplexed if no one else is present to do the baptizing. For no one is perplexed by the divine law, but there can be a perplexed person in case of an erroneous conscience, for if [the one not baptized] die without baptism he is damned; therefore, the other is bound by necessity of salvation, if no one else be present, to baptize him lest he be damned; for he is bound to love more the eternal life of the other than his temporal life.

67. Therefore, if he were to sin by not saving another’s bodily life in a case of necessity, as by permitting him to be submerged (refusing to extend a hand to draw him out), much more would he sin mortally by permitting the other to be damned because of lack of baptism. Also, if while his erroneous conscience stand that he would accelerate death by baptizing him, then after he baptize him he sins mortally, because according to his conscience he is performing homicide.

68. What then? It is necessary, if no one else be present who could do the baptizing, to dismiss that conscience, because in the case in question there is no other remedy for avoiding mortal sin.

69. It is also sufficiently reasonable that the presumption is fatuous and irrational, because it would not much harm even someone severely infirm for a little of the water to be poured on his head; and if perhaps cold water would harm him, at least lukewarm water would not harm him, because the most tender children are bathed as a remedy in lukewarm water.

70. But is someone who baptizes with this erroneous conscience irregular if death follow afterwards?

71. I reply: he is not irregular, because no ecclesiastical law as to this matter renders him irregular unless he is truly a murderer; but he is not in truth a murderer. However, after the death of such baptized person, while the conscience stands, he is bound to hold himself irregular, because he holds himself a homicide; but when the conscience ceases or is removed he should not seek dispensation, because he was never irregular.

72. And if you ask whether a cleric more than a layman needs to beware of baptizing an infirm person set at the point of death, I reply: neither needs to beware, because neither is transgressing a divine precept about not killing, nor does a cleric incur any punishment expelling him from the clerical state.

73. But if both are equally supposed to have an erroneous conscience, neither could simply baptize, because the divine precept equally binds both, and each is, according to his conscience, acting against this precept; however, a cleric would, according to his false opinion, believe that he is incurring another penalty over and above mortal sin, and therefore he himself has more things for retraction in this case than the layman does.