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.