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.