a. Exposition

110. I say therefore that the intention with respect to the ultimate end is in no way required in the one baptizing, because a pagan in no way intends to order to eternal life him whom he baptizes. However, intention with respect to the proximate end is required, and this either in universal or in particular: in particular, namely if he distinctly intend that the one baptized enter into keeping the Christian law; but in general, if he intend to do as regard him what Christians intend or are accustomed to do as regard their own.

111. Now the reason why this intention is required (and not the one in agreement with the ultimate end) is as follows, namely that God wanted this act exercised by the minister to be in him a human act, and not only so that it would be such in nature (because in this it would not be distinguished from any other bathing using other words). But insofar as it is such a human act, it belongs to him as minister carrying out a sign of God. Now he who has a human act intends the end of the act as it is for him a human act; therefore, the minister intends the proximate end of the act the way the act is imposed on him. But the other end, namely to order the one baptized to eternal life, is not the end of this act, as it is a human act, to which end he should be ordering the act in order for it to be for him a human act.

112. Now this is reasonable universally in the use of a practical sign. For if some legislator were to institute in his polity the touching of hands as a practical sign of friendship [cf. d.1 n.237], he would not intend that users of this sign would have a human act precisely about it insofar as it is of the sort it is naturally, but about it insofar as it is such an instituted sign. And if he had made disposition to bring together and make to be observed every such sign, he would not be making this to be kept unless a man carried this act out as it is instituted toward such end.