II. To the Initial Arguments

133. To the initial arguments:

To the first [n.93] I say that he who does not have faith about the ultimate end does not intend to order him [sc. the one he baptizes] to the ultimate end through baptism; yet as he believes that he [the one baptized] can be ascribed to the sect of the Christians, whether he believes the sect has value or not, he can intend to ascribe him to that sect, or he can more generally intend to do through that act what Christians intend to do about them [those baptized].

134. There is an example of this: for I could, believing that Jews are distinguished from others by circumcision, intend to ascribe the child to the sect or the rite of the Jews, and I could intend that I was doing in his regard [sc. by circumcising him] what Jews intend to do in regard to their own when circumcising them, even though I would not be believing that the circumcision availed him for salvation. In this way too, could certain words of invocation, which male or female magi use, be spoken by someone of good faith over the material that others use them over, intending generally to speak them relative to the end for which they speak them.

135. To the second [94] I say that a drunkard is someone accustomed to drunkenness, and he is not always drunk, nor is he always impeded from the use of reason. Therefore, Augustine states the truth, “I do not fear a drunkard,” a drunkard insofar as accustomed generally to drunkenness (for he is, for this reason, not always drunk), because his bad custom does not prevent the baptism conferred by him from being good. However not when he is drunk, and I mean by this perfectly drunk, so that his reason is totally impeded, but otherwise, when he is not impeded, able to use reason.