St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 38  [<< | >>]


Deinde considerandum est de Baptismo quo Christus baptizatus est. Et quia Christus baptizatus est Baptismo Ioannis, primo considerandum est de Baptismo Ioannis in communi; secundo, de baptizatione Christi.    We now proceed to consider the baptism wherewith Christ was baptized. And since Christ was baptized with the baptism of John, we shall consider (1) the baptism of John in general; (2) the baptizing of Christ.
Circa primum quaeruntur sex.   In regard to the former there are six points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum conveniens fuerit quod Ioannes baptizaret.     (1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?
Secundo, utrum ille Baptismus fuerit a Deo.     (2) Whether that baptism was from God?
Tertio, utrum contulerit gratiam.     (3) Whether it conferred grace?
Quarto, utrum alii praeter Christum illo Baptismo debuerint baptizari.     (4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism?
Quinto, utrum Baptismus ille cessare debuerit, Christo baptizato.     (5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized?
Sexto, utrum baptizati Baptismo Ioannis essent postea baptizandi Baptismo Christi.     (6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to receive Christ's baptism?


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 38  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Ioannem baptizare. Omnis enim ritus sacramentalis ad aliquam pertinet legem. Sed Ioannes non introduxit novam legem. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod novum ritum baptizandi introduceret.   Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that John should baptize. For every sacramental rite belongs to some law. But John did not introduce a new law. Therefore it was not fitting that he should introduce the new rite of baptism.
Praeterea, Ioannes fuit missus a Deo in testimonium tanquam propheta, secundum illud Luc. I, tu, puer, propheta altissimi vocaberis. Sed prophetae qui fuerunt ante Christum, non introduxerunt novum ritum, sed ad observantiam legalium rituum inducebant, ut patet Malach. ult., mementote legis Moysi, servi mei. Ergo nec Ioannes novum ritum baptizandi inducere debuit.   Objection 2: Further, John "was sent by God . . . for a witness" (Jn. 1:6,7) as a prophet; according to Lk. 1:76: "Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest." But the prophets who lived before Christ did not introduce any new rite, but persuaded men to observe the rites of the Law. as is clearly stated Malachi 4:4: "Remember the law of Moses My servant." Therefore neither should John have introduced a new rite of baptism.
Praeterea, ubi est alicuius rei superfluitas, non est ad illud aliquid addendum. Sed Iudaei excedebant in superfluitate Baptismatum, dicitur enim Marci VII, quod Pharisaei, et omnes Iudaei, nisi crebro lavent manus, non manducant; et a foro, nisi baptizentur, non comedunt; et alia multa quae tradita sunt illis servare, Baptismata calicum et urceorum et aeramentorum et lectorum. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod Ioannes baptizaret.   Objection 3: Further, when there is too much of anything, nothing should be added to it. But the Jews observed a superfluity of baptisms; for it is written (Mk. 7:3,4) that "the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands . . . and when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not; and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds." Therefore it was unfitting that John should baptize.
Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturae, Matth. III, ubi, praemissa sanctitate Ioannis, subditur quod exibant ad eum multi, et baptizabantur in Iordane.    On the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Mt. 3:5,6), which, after stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, "and were baptized in the Jordan."
Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit Ioannem baptizare, propter quatuor. Primo quidem, quia oportebat Christum a Ioanne baptizari, ut Baptismum consecraret, ut dicit Augustinus, super Ioan.   I answer that, It was fitting for John to baptize, for four reasons: first, it was necessary for Christ to be baptized by John, in order that He might sanctify baptism; as Augustine observes, super Joan. (Tract. xiii in Joan.).
Secundo, ut Christus manifestaretur. Unde ipse Ioannes Baptista dicit, Ioan. I, ut manifestetur, scilicet Christus, in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans. Concurrentibus enim turbis annuntiabat Christum, quod quidem facilius sic factum est quam si per singulos discurrisset, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Ioan.    Secondly, that Christ might be manifested. Whence John himself says (Jn. 1:31): "That He," i.e. Christ, "may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." For he announced Christ to the crowds that gathered around him; which was thus done much more easily than if he had gone in search of each individual, as Chrysostom observes, commenting on St. John (Hom. x in Matth.).
Tertio, ut suo Baptismo assuefaceret homines ad Baptismum Christi. Unde Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, quod ideo baptizavit Ioannes ut, praecursionis suae ordinem servans, qui nasciturum dominum nascendo praevenerat, baptizando quoque baptizaturum praeveniret.    Thirdly, that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of Christ; wherefore Gregory says in a homily (Hom. vii in Evang.) that therefore did John baptize, "that, being consistent with his office of precursor, as he had preceded our Lord in birth, so he might also by baptizing precede Him who was about to baptize."
Quarto ut, ad poenitentiam homines inducens, homines praepararet ad digne suscipiendum Baptismum Christi. Unde Beda dicit quod, quantum catechumenis nondum baptizatis prodest doctrina fidei, tantum profuit Baptisma Ioannis ante Baptisma Christi. Quia sicut ille praedicabat poenitentiam, et Baptismum Christi praenuntiabat, et in cognitionem veritatis quae mundo apparuit attrahebat; sic ministri Ecclesiae, qui primo erudiunt, postea peccata eorum redarguunt, deinde in Baptismo Christi remissionem promittunt.    Fourthly, that by persuading men to do penance, he might prepare men to receive worthily the baptism of Christ. Wherefore Bede [*Cf. Scot. Erig. in Joan. iii, 24] says that "the baptism of John was as profitable before the baptism of Christ, as instruction in the faith profits the catechumens not yet baptized. For just as he preached penance, and foretold the baptism of Christ, and drew men to the knowledge of the Truth that hath appeared to the world, so do the ministers of the Church, after instructing men, chide them for their sins, and lastly promise them forgiveness in the baptism of Christ."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Baptismus Ioannis non erat per se sacramentum, sed quasi quoddam sacramentale, disponens ad Baptismum Christi. Et ideo aliqualiter pertinebat ad legem Christi, non autem ad legem Moysi.   Reply to Objection 1: The baptism of John was not a sacrament properly so called [per se], but a kind of sacramental, preparatory to the baptism of Christ. Consequently, in a way, it belonged to the law of Christ, but not to the law of Moses.
Ad secundum dicendum quod Ioannes non fuit solum propheta, sed plus quam propheta, ut dicitur Matth. XI, fuit enim terminus legis et initium Evangelii. Et ideo magis pertinebat ad eum verbo et opere inducere homines ad legem Christi quam ad observantiam veteris legis.   Reply to Objection 2: John was not only a prophet, but "more than a prophet," as stated Mt. 11:9: for he was the term of the Law and the beginning of the Gospel. Therefore it was in his province to lead men, both by word and deed, to the law of Christ rather than to the observance of the Old Law.
Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismata illa Pharisaeorum erant inania, utpote ad solam munditiam carnis ordinata. Sed Baptismus Ioannis ordinabatur ad munditiam spiritualem, inducebat enim homines ad poenitentiam, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 3: Those baptisms of the Pharisees were vain, being ordered merely unto carnal cleanliness. But the baptism of John was ordered unto spiritual cleanliness, since it led men to do penance, as stated above.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 38  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]

Whether the baptism of John was from God?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismus Ioannis non fuit a Deo. Nihil enim sacramentale quod est a Deo, denominatur ab homine puro, sicut Baptismus novae legis non dicitur Petri vel Pauli, sed Christi. Sed ille Baptismus denominatur a Ioanne, secundum illud Matth. XXI, Baptismus Ioannis e caelo erat? An ex hominibus? Ergo Baptismus Ioannis non fuit a Deo.   Objection 1: It would seem that the baptism of John was not from God. For nothing sacramental that is from God is named after a mere man: thus the baptism of the New Law is not named after Peter or Paul, but after Christ. But that baptism is named after John, according to Mt. 21:25: "The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from men?" Therefore the baptism of John was not from God.
Praeterea, omnis doctrina de novo a Deo procedens aliquibus signis confirmatur, unde et dominus, Exod. IV, dedit Moysi potestatem signa faciendi, et Heb. II dicitur quod cum fides nostra principium accepisset enuntiari a domino, per eos qui audierunt in nos confirmata est, contestante Deo signis et prodigiis. Sed de Ioanne Baptista dicitur, Ioan. X, Ioannes signum fecit nullum. Ergo videtur quod Baptismus quo baptizavit, non esset a Deo.   Objection 2: Further, every doctrine that proceeds from God anew is confirmed by some signs: thus the Lord (Ex. 4) gave Moses the power of working signs; and it is written (Heb. 2:3,4) that our faith "having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him, God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders." But it is written of John the Baptist (Jn. 10:41) that "John did no sign." Therefore it seems that the baptism wherewith he baptized was not from God.
Praeterea, sacramenta quae sunt divinitus instituta, aliquibus sacrae Scripturae praeceptis continentur. Sed Baptismus Ioannis non praecipitur aliquo praecepto sacrae Scripturae. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit a Deo.   Objection 3: Further, those sacraments which are instituted by God are contained in certain precepts of Holy Scripture. But there is no precept of Holy Writ commanding the baptism of John. Therefore it seems that it was not from God.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. I, qui me misit baptizare in aqua, ille mihi dixit, super quem videris spiritum, et cetera.   On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:33): "He who sent me to baptize with water said to me: 'He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit,'" etc.
Respondeo dicendum quod in Baptismo Ioannis duo possunt considerari, scilicet ipse ritus baptizandi, et effectus Baptismi. Ritus quidem baptizandi non fuit ab hominibus, sed a Deo, qui familiari spiritus sancti revelatione Ioannem ad baptizandum misit. Effectus autem illius Baptismi fuit ab homine, quia nihil in illo Baptismo efficiebatur quod homo facere non posset. Unde non fuit a solo Deo, nisi inquantum Deus in homine operatur.   I answer that, Two things may be considered in the baptism of John---namely, the rite of baptism and the effect of baptism. The rite of baptism was not from men, but from God, who by an interior revelation of the Holy Ghost sent John to baptize. But the effect of that baptism was from man, because it effected nothing that man could not accomplish. Wherefore it was not from God alone, except in as far as God works in man.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per Baptismum novae legis homines interius per spiritum sanctum baptizantur, quod facit solus Deus. Per Baptismum autem Ioannis solum corpus mundabatur aqua. Unde dicitur Matth. III, ego baptizo vos in aqua, ille vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto. Et ideo Baptismus Ioannis denominatur ab ipso, quia scilicet nihil in eo agebatur quod ipse non ageret. Baptismus autem novae legis non denominatur a ministro, qui principalem Baptismi effectum non agit, scilicet interiorem emundationem.   Reply to Objection 1: By the baptism of the New Law men are baptized inwardly by the Holy Ghost, and this is accomplished by God alone. But by the baptism of John the body alone was cleansed by the water. Wherefore it is written (Mt. 3:11): "I baptize you in water; but . . . He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost." For this reason the baptism of John was named after him, because it effected nothing that he did not accomplish. But the baptism of the New Law is not named after the minister thereof, because he does not accomplish its principal effect, which is the inward cleansing.
Ad secundum dicendum quod tota doctrina et operatio Ioannis ordinabatur ad Christum, qui multitudine signorum et suam doctrinam et Ioannis confirmavit. Si autem Ioannes signa fecisset, homines ex aequo Ioanni et Christo attendissent. Et ideo, ut homines principaliter Christo attenderent, non est datum Ioanni ut faceret signum. Iudaeis tamen quaerentibus quare baptizaret, confirmavit suum officium auctoritate Scripturae, dicens, ego vox clamantis in deserto, etc., ut dicitur Ioan. I. Ipsa etiam austeritas vitae eius officium eius commendabat, quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth. mirabile erat in humano corpore tantam patientiam videre.   Reply to Objection 2: The whole teaching and work of John was ordered unto Christ, who, by many miracles confirmed both His own teaching and that of John. But if John had worked signs, men would have paid equal attention to John and to Christ. Wherefore, in order that men might pay greater attention to Christ, it was not given to John to work a sign. Yet when the Jews asked him why he baptized, he confirmed his office by the authority of Scripture, saying: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness," etc. as related, Jn. 1:23 (cf. Is. 40:3). Moreover, the very austerity of his life was a commendation of his office, because, as Chrysostom says, commenting on Matthew (Hom. x in Matth.), "it was wonderful to witness such endurance in a human body."
Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus Ioannis non fuit ordinatus a Deo nisi ut modico tempore duraret, propter causas praedictas. Et ideo non fuit commendatus aliquo praecepto communiter tradito in sacra Scriptura, sed familiari quadam revelatione spiritus sancti, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to last only for a short time, for the reasons given above (Article [1]). Therefore it was not the subject of a general commandment set down in Sacred Writ, but of a certain interior revelation of the Holy Ghost, as stated above.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 38  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]

Whether grace was given in the baptism of John?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Baptismo Ioannis gratia daretur. Dicitur enim Marci I, fuit Ioannes in deserto baptizans, et praedicans Baptismum poenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum. Poenitentia autem et remissio peccatorum est per gratiam. Ergo Baptismus Ioannis gratiam conferebat.   Objection 1: It would seem that grace was given in the baptism of John. For it is written (Mk. 1:4): "John was in the desert baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance unto remission of sins." But penance and remission of sins are the effect of grace. Therefore the baptism of John conferred grace.
Praeterea, baptizandi a Ioanne confitebantur peccata sua, ut habetur Matth. III et Marci I. Sed confessio peccatorum ordinatur ad remissionem, quae fit per gratiam. Ergo in Baptismo Ioannis gratia conferebatur.   Objection 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John "confessed their sins," as related Mt. 3:6 and Mk. 1:5. But the confession of sins is ordered to their remission, which is effected by grace. Therefore grace was conferred in the baptism of John.
Praeterea, Baptismus Ioannis propinquior erat Baptismo Christi quam circumcisio. Per circumcisionem autem remittebatur peccatum originale, quia, ut Beda dicit, idem salutiferae curationis auxilium circumcisio in lege contra originalis peccati vulnus agebat, quod nunc Baptismus agere revelatae gratiae tempore consuevit. Ergo multo magis Baptismus Ioannis remissionem peccatorum operabatur. Quod sine gratia fieri non potest.   Objection 3: Further, the baptism of John was more akin than circumcision to the baptism of Christ. But original sin was remitted through circumcision: because, as Bede says (Hom. x in Circumcis.), "under the Law, circumcision brought the same saving aid to heal the wound of original sin as baptism is wont to bring now that grace is revealed." Much more, therefore, did the baptism of John effect the remission of sins, which cannot be accomplished without grace.
Sed contra est quod Matth. III dicitur, ego quidem baptizo vos in aqua in poenitentiam. Quod exponens Gregorius, in quadam homilia, dicit, Ioannes non in spiritu, sed in aqua baptizat, quia peccata solvere non valebat. Sed gratia est a spiritu sancto, et per eam peccata tolluntur. Ergo Baptismus Ioannis gratiam non conferebat.   On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:11): "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance." Which words Gregory thus expounds in a certain homily (Hom. vii in Evang.): "John baptized, not in the Spirit, but in water: because he could not forgive sins." But grace is given by the Holy Ghost, and by means thereof sins are taken away. Therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, tota doctrina et operatio Ioannis praeparatoria erat ad Christum, sicut ministri et inferioris artificis est praeparare materiam ad formam, quam inducit principalis artifex. Gratia autem conferenda erat hominibus per Christum, secundum illud Ioan. I, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Et ideo Baptismus Ioannis gratiam non conferebat, sed solum ad gratiam praeparabat, tripliciter. Uno quidem modo, per doctrinam Ioannis, inducentem homines ad fidem Christi. Alio modo, assuefaciendo homines ad ritum Baptismi Christi. Tertio modo, per poenitentiam, praeparando homines ad suscipiendum effectum Baptismi Christi.   I answer that, As stated above (Article [2], ad 2), the whole teaching and work of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of the servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now grace was to be conferred on men through Christ, according to Jn. 1:17: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace, but only prepared the way for grace; and this in three ways: first, by John's teaching, which led men to faith in Christ; secondly, by accustoming men to the rite of Christ's baptism; thirdly, by penance, preparing men to receive the effect of Christ's baptism.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in illis verbis, ut Beda dicit, potest intelligi duplex Baptismus poenitentiae. Unus quidem, quem Ioannes baptizando conferebat, qui scilicet Baptismus dicitur poenitentiae, etc., quia scilicet ille Baptismus erat quoddam inductivum ad poenitentiam, et quasi quaedam protestatio qua profitebantur homines se poenitentiam acturos. Alius autem est Baptismus Christi, per quem peccata remittuntur, quem Ioannes dare non poterat, sed solum praedicabat, dicens, ille vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto.   Reply to Objection 1: In these words, as Bede says (on Mk. 1:4), a twofold baptism of penance may be understood. one is that which John conferred by baptizing, which is called "a baptism of penance," etc., by reason of its inducing men to do penance, and of its being a kind of protestation by which men avowed their purpose of doing penance. The other is the baptism of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and which John could not give, but only preach, saying: "He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost."
Vel potest dici quod praedicabat Baptismum poenitentiae, idest, inducentem ad poenitentiam, quae quidem poenitentia ducit homines in remissionem peccatorum.    Or it may be said that he preached the "baptism of penance," i.e. which induced men to do penance, which penance leads men on to "the remission of sins."
Vel potest dici quod per Baptismum Christi, ut Hieronymus dicit, gratia datur, qua peccata gratis dimittuntur, quod autem consummatur per sponsum, initiatur per paranymphum, scilicet per Ioannem. Unde dicitur quod baptizabat et praedicabat Baptismum poenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum, non ideo quia hoc ipse perficeret, sed quia hoc inchoabat praeparando.    Or again, it may be said with Jerome [*Another author on Mk. 1 (inter op. Hier.)] that "by the baptism of Christ grace is given, by which sins are remitted gratis; and that what is accomplished by the bridegroom is begun by the bridesman," i.e. by John. Consequently it is said that "he baptized and preached the baptism of penance unto remission of sins," not as though he accomplished this himself, but because he began it by preparing the way for it.
Ad secundum dicendum quod illa confessio peccatorum non fiebat ad remissionem peccatorum statim per Baptismum Ioannis exhibendam, sed consequendam per poenitentiam consequentem, et Baptismum Christi, ad quem poenitentia illa praeparabat.   Reply to Objection 2: That confession of sins was not made unto the remission of sins, to be realized immediately through the baptism of John, but to be obtained through subsequent penance and through the baptism of Christ, for which that penance was a preparation.
Ad tertium dicendum quod circumcisio instituta erat in remedium originalis peccati. Sed Baptismus Ioannis ad hoc non erat institutus, sed solum erat praeparatorius ad Baptismum Christi, ut dictum est. Sacramenta autem ex vi institutionis suum habent effectum.   Reply to Objection 3: Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin. Whereas the baptism of John was not instituted for this purpose, but was merely in preparation for the baptism of Christ, as stated above; whereas the sacraments attain their effect through the force of their institution.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 38  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]

Whether Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismo Ioannis solus Christus debebat baptizari. Quia, sicut dictum est, ad hoc Ioannes baptizavit ut Christus baptizaretur, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan. Sed quod est proprium Christo, non debet aliis convenire. Ergo nulli alii debuerunt illo Baptismo baptizari.   Objection 1: It would seem that Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John. For, as stated above (Article [1]), "the reason why John baptized was that Christ might receive baptism," as Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii). But what is proper to Christ should not be applicable to others. Therefore no others should have received that baptism.
Praeterea, quicumque baptizatur, aut accipit aliquid a Baptismo, aut Baptismo aliquid confert. Sed a Baptismo Ioannis nullus aliquid accipere poterat, quia in eo gratia non conferebatur, ut dictum est nec aliquis Baptismo aliquid conferre poterat nisi Christus, qui tactu mundissimae suae carnis aquas sanctificavit. Ergo videtur quod solus Christus Baptismo Ioannis debuerit baptizari.   Objection 2: Further, whoever is baptized either receives something from the baptism or confers something on the baptism. But no one could receive anything from the baptism of John, because thereby grace was not conferred, as stated above (Article [3]). On the other hand, no one could confer anything on baptism save Christ, who "sanctified the waters by the touch of His most pure flesh" [*Mag. Sent. iv, 3]. Therefore it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John.
Praeterea, si alii illo Baptismo baptizabantur, hoc non erat nisi ut praepararentur ad Baptismum Christi, et sic conveniens videbatur quod, sicut Baptismus Christi omnibus confertur, et magnis et parvis, et gentilibus et Iudaeis, ita etiam et Baptismus Ioannis conferretur. Sed non legitur quod ab eo pueri baptizarentur, nec etiam gentiles, dicitur enim Marci I, quod egrediebantur ad eum Ierosolymitae universi, et baptizabantur ab illo. Ergo videtur quod solus Christus a Ioanne debuit baptizari.   Objection 3: Further, if others were baptized with that baptism, this was only in order that they might be prepared for the baptism of Christ: and thus it would seem fitting that the baptism of John should be conferred on all, old and young, Gentile and Jew, just as the baptism of Christ. But we do not read that either children or Gentiles were baptized by the latter; for it is written (Mk. 1:5) that "there went out to him . . . all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him." Therefore it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized by John.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. III, factum est, cum baptizaretur omnis populus, et Iesu baptizato et orante, aperti sunt caeli.   On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "It came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened."
Respondeo dicendum quod duplici de causa oportuit alios a Christo baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. Primo quidem, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quia, si solus Christus Baptismo Ioannis baptizatus esset, non defuissent qui dicerent Baptismum Ioannis, quo Christus est baptizatus, digniorem esse Baptismo Christi, quo alii baptizantur.   I answer that, For two reasons it behooved others besides Christ to be baptized with the baptism of John. First, as Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. iv, v), "if Christ alone had been baptized with the baptism of John, some would have said that John's baptism, with which Christ was baptized, was more excellent than that of Christ, with which others are baptized."
Secundo, quia oportebat per Baptismum Ioannis alios ad Baptismum Christi praeparari, sicut dictum est.    Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared by John's baptism for the baptism of Christ.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non propter hoc solum fuit Ioannis Baptismus institutus ut Christus baptizaretur, sed etiam propter alias causas, ut dictum est. Et tamen, si ad hoc solum esset institutus ut Christus eo baptizaretur, oportebat praedictum inconveniens vitari, aliis hoc Baptismo baptizatis.   Reply to Objection 1: The baptism of John was instituted not only that Christ might be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above (Article [1]). And yet, even if it were instituted merely in order that Christ might be baptized therewith, it was still necessary for others to receive this baptism, in order to avoid the objection mentioned above.
Ad secundum dicendum quod alii qui ad Baptismum Ioannis accedebant, non poterant quidem Baptismo aliquid conferre, nec tamen a Baptismo gratiam accipiebant, sed solum poenitentiae signum.   Reply to Objection 2: Others who approached to be baptized by John could not, indeed, confer anything on his baptism: yet neither did they receive anything therefrom, save only the sign of penance.
Ad tertium dicendum quod ille Baptismus erat poenitentiae, quae pueris non convenit, ideo pueri illo Baptismo non baptizabantur. Conferre autem gentibus viam salutis soli Christo reservabatur, qui est expectatio gentium, ut dicitur Gen. penult. Sed et ipse Christus apostolis inhibuit gentibus Evangelium praedicare, ante passionem et resurrectionem. Unde multo minus conveniebat per Ioannem gentiles ad Baptismum admitti.   Reply to Objection 3: This was the baptism of "penance," for which children were not suited; wherefore they were not baptized therewith. But to bring the nations into the way of salvation was reserved to Christ alone, who is the "expectation of the nations," as we read Gn. 49:10. Indeed, Christ forbade the apostles to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles before His Passion and Resurrection. Much less fitting, therefore, was it for the Gentiles to be baptized by John.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 38  [<< | >>]
Article: 5  [<< | >>]

Whether John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized?

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Baptismus Ioannis cessare debuerit postquam Christus est baptizatus. Dicitur enim Ioan. I, ut manifestetur Israeli, propterea veni in aqua baptizans. Sed, Christo baptizato, sufficienter fuit manifestatus, tum per testimonium Ioannis; tum per descensum columbae; tum etiam testimonio paternae vocis. Ergo non videtur quod postea debuerit Baptismus Ioannis durare.   Objection 1: It would seem that John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized. For it is written (Jn. 1:31): "That He may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water." But when Christ had been baptized, He was made sufficiently manifest, both by the testimony of John and by the dove coming down upon Him, and again by the voice of the Father bearing witness to Him. Therefore it seems that John's baptism should not have endured thereafter.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., baptizatus est Christus, et cessavit Ioannis Baptismus. Ergo videtur quod Ioannes, post Christum baptizatum, non debuerit baptizare.   Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. iv): "Christ was baptized, and John's baptism ceased to avail." Therefore it seems that, after Christ's baptism, John should not have continued to baptize.
Praeterea, Baptismus Ioannis erat praeparatorius ad Baptismum Christi. Sed Baptismus Christi incoepit statim Christo baptizato, quia tactu suae mundissimae carnis vim regenerativam contulit aquis, ut Beda dicit. Ergo videtur quod Baptismus Ioannis cessaverit, Christo baptizato.   Objection 3: Further, John's baptism prepared the way for Christ's. But Christ's baptism began as soon as He had been baptized; because "by the touch of His most pure flesh He endowed the waters with a regenerating virtue," as Bede asserts (Mag. Sent. iv, 3). Therefore it seems that John's baptism ceased when Christ had been baptized.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. III, venit Iesus in Iudaeam terram et baptizabat, erat autem et Ioannes baptizans. Sed Christus non baptizavit priusquam fuit baptizatus. Ergo videtur quod, postquam fuit Christus baptizatus, adhuc Ioannes baptizabat.   On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:22,23): "Jesus . . . came into the land of Judea . . . and baptized: and John also was baptizing." But Christ did not baptize before being baptized. Therefore it seems that John continued to baptize after Christ had been baptized.
Respondeo dicendum quod Baptismus Ioannis cessare non debuit, Christo baptizato. Primo quidem quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit, si cessasset Ioannes baptizare, Christo baptizato, existimaretur quod zelo vel ira faceret. Secundo quia, si cessasset a Baptismo, Christo baptizante, discipulos suos in maiorem zelum misisset. Tertio quia, persistens in baptizando, suos auditores mittebat ad Christum. Quarto quia, ut Beda dicit, adhuc permanebat umbra veteris legis, nec debet praecursor cessare donec veritas manifestetur.   I answer that, It was not fitting for the baptism of John to cease when Christ had been baptized. First, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix in Joan.), "if John had ceased to baptize" when Christ had been baptized, "men would think that he was moved by jealousy or anger." Secondly, if he had ceased to baptize when Christ baptized, "he would have given His disciples a motive for yet greater envy." Thirdly, because, by continuing to baptize, "he sent his hearers to Christ" (Hom. xxix in Joan.). Fourthly, because, as Bede [*Scot. Erig. Comment. in Joan.] says, "there still remained a shadow of the Old Law: nor should the forerunner withdraw until the truth be made manifest."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nondum Christus erat plene manifestatus, eo baptizato. Et ideo adhuc necessarium erat quod Ioannes baptizaret.   Reply to Objection 1: When Christ was baptized, He was not as yet fully manifested: consequently there was still need for John to continue baptizing.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, baptizato Christo, cessavit Baptismus Ioannis, non tamen statim, sed eo incarcerato. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, super Ioan., aestimo propter hoc permissam esse mortem Ioannis, et, eo sublato de medio, Christum maxime praedicare coepisse, ut omnis multitudinis affectio ad Christum transiret, et non ultra his quae de utroque erant sententiis scinderentur.   Reply to Objection 2: The baptism of John ceased after Christ had been baptized, not immediately, but when the former was cast into prison. Thus Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix in Joan.): "I consider that John's death was allowed to take place, and that Christ's preaching began in a great measure after John had died, so that the undivided allegiance of the multitude was transferred to Christ, and there was no further motive for the divergence of opinions concerning both of them."
Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus Ioannis praeparatorius erat, non solum ad hoc quod Christus baptizaretur, sed ad hoc quod alii ad Christi Baptismum accederent. Quod nondum fuit impletum, Christo baptizato.   Reply to Objection 3: John's baptism prepared the way not only for Christ to be baptized, but also for others to approach to Christ's baptism: and this did not take place as soon as Christ was baptized.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 38  [<< | >>]
Article: 6  [<< | >>]

Whether those who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized with the baptism of Christ?

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod baptizati Baptismo Ioannis non fuerint baptizandi Baptismo Christi. Ioannes enim non fuit minor apostolis, cum de eo scriptum sit, Matth. XI, inter natos mulierum non surrexit maior Ioanne Baptista. Sed illi qui baptizabantur ab apostolis, non rebaptizabantur iterum, sed solummodo addebatur eis impositio manuum, dicitur enim Act. VIII, quod aliqui tantum baptizati erant a Philippo in nomine domini Iesu, tunc apostoli, scilicet Petrus et Ioannes, imponebant manus super illos, et accipiebant spiritum sanctum. Ergo videtur quod baptizati a Ioanne non debuerint baptizari Baptismo Christi.   Objection 1: It would seem that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. For John was not less than the apostles, since of him is it written (Mt. 11:11): "There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist." But those who were baptized by the apostles were not baptized again, but only received the imposition of hands; for it is written (Acts 8:16,17) that some were "only baptized" by Philip "in the name of the Lord Jesus": then the apostles---namely, Peter and John---"laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized by John had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ.
Praeterea, apostoli fuerunt baptizati Baptismo Ioannis, fuerunt enim quidam eorum discipuli Ioannis, ut patet Ioan. I. Sed apostoli non videntur baptizati Baptismo Christi, dicitur enim Ioan. IV, quod Iesus non baptizabat, sed discipuli eius. Ergo videtur quod baptizati Baptismo Ioannis non erant baptizandi Baptismo Christi.   Objection 2: Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism, since some of them were his disciples, as is clear from Jn. 1:37. But the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ: for it is written (Jn. 4:2) that "Jesus did not baptize, but His disciples." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ.
Praeterea, minor est qui baptizatur quam qui baptizat. Sed ipse Ioannes non legitur baptizatus Baptismo Christi. Ergo multo minus illi qui a Ioanne baptizabantur, indigebant Baptismo Christi baptizari.   Objection 3: Further, he who is baptized is less than he who baptizes. But we are not told that John himself was baptized with the baptism of Christ. Therefore much less did those who had been baptized by John need to receive the baptism of Christ.
Praeterea, Act. XIX dicitur quod Paulus invenit quosdam de discipulis, dixitque ad eos, si spiritum sanctum accepistis credentes? At illi dixerunt ad eum, sed neque si spiritus sanctus est, audivimus. Ille vero ait, in quo baptizati estis? Qui dixerunt, in Ioannis Baptismate. Unde baptizati sunt iterum in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi. Sic ergo videtur quod, quia spiritum sanctum nesciebant, quod oportuerit eos iterum baptizari, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Ioelem, et in epistola de viro unius uxoris; et Ambrosius, in libro de spiritu sancto. Sed quidam fuerunt baptizati Baptismo Ioannis qui habebant plenam notitiam Trinitatis. Ergo non erant baptizandi iterum Baptismo Christi.   Objection 4: Further, it is written (Acts 19:1-5) that "Paul . . . found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism." Wherefore "they were" again "baptized in the name of our [Vulg.: 'the'] Lord Jesus Christ." Hence it seems that they needed to be baptized again, because they did not know of the Holy Ghost: as Jerome says on Joel 2:28 and in an epistle (lxix De Viro unius uxoris), and likewise Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto). But some were baptized with John's baptism who had full knowledge of the Trinity. Therefore these had no need to be baptized again with Christ's baptism.
Praeterea, Rom. X, super illud, hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus, dicit Glossa Augustini, unde est ista virtus aquae ut corpus tangat et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur? Ex quo patet quod virtus Baptismi dependet ex fide. Sed forma Baptismi Ioannis significavit fidem in qua nos baptizamur, dicit enim Paulus, Act. XIX, Ioannes baptizabat Baptismo poenitentiae populum, dicens in eum qui venturus est post ipsum ut crederent, hoc est, in Iesum. Ergo videtur quod non oportebat baptizatos Baptismo Ioannis iterum baptizari Baptismo Christi.   Objection 5: Further, on Rm. 10:8, "This is the word of faith, which we preach," the gloss of Augustine says: "Whence this virtue in the water, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart, save by the efficacy of the word, not because it is uttered, but because it is believed?" Whence it is clear that the virtue of baptism depends on faith. But the form of John's baptism signified the faith in which we are baptized; for Paul says (Acts 19:4): "John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in Him who was to come after him---that is to say, in Jesus." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had no need to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., qui baptizati sunt Baptismate Ioannis, oportebat ut baptizarentur Baptismate domini.   On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "Those who were baptized with John's baptism needed to be baptized with the baptism of our Lord."
Respondeo dicendum quod secundum opinionem Magistri, in IV Sent., illi qui baptizati sunt a Ioanne nescientes spiritum sanctum esse, ac spem ponentes in illius Baptismo, postea baptizati sunt Baptismo Christi, illi vero qui spem non posuerunt in Baptismo Ioannis, et patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum credebant, non fuerunt postea baptizati, sed, impositione manuum ab apostolis super eos facta, spiritum sanctum receperunt.   I answer that, According to the opinion of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 2), "those who had been baptized by John without knowing of the existence of the Holy Ghost, and who based their hopes on his baptism, were afterwards baptized with the baptism of Christ: but those who did not base their hope on John's baptism, and who believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were not baptized afterwards, but received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands made over them by the apostles."
Et hoc quidem verum est quantum ad primam partem, quod multis auctoritatibus confirmatur. Sed quantum ad secundam partem, est penitus irrationabile quod dicitur. Primo quidem, quia Baptismus Ioannis neque gratiam conferebat, neque characterem imprimebat, sed erat solum in aqua, ut ipse dicit, Matth. III. Unde baptizati fides vel spes quam habebat in Christum, non poterat hunc defectum supplere. Secundo quia, quando in sacramento omittitur quod est de necessitate sacramenti, non solum oportet suppleri quod fuerat omissum, sed oportet totaliter innovari. Est autem de necessitate Baptismi Christi quod fiat non solum in aqua, sed etiam in spiritu sancto, secundum illud Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Unde illis qui tantum in aqua baptizati erant Baptismo Ioannis, non solum erat supplendum quod deerat, ut scilicet daretur eis spiritus sanctus per impositionem manuum, sed erant iterato totaliter baptizandi in aqua et spiritu sancto.    And this, indeed, is true as to the first part, and is confirmed by many authorities. But as to the second part, the assertion is altogether unreasonable. First, because John's baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely "in water," as he says himself (Mt. 3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament, not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to Christ's baptism that it be given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Wherefore in the case of those who had been baptized with John's baptism in water only, not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, but they had to be baptized wholly anew "in water and the Holy Ghost."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., ideo post Ioannem baptizatum est, quia non dabat Baptisma Christi, sed suum. Quod autem dabatur a Petro, et si quod datum est a Iuda, Christi erat. Et ideo, si quos baptizavit Iudas, non sunt iterum baptizandi, Baptisma enim tale est qualis est ille in cuius potestate datur; non qualis ille cuius ministerio datur. Et inde est etiam quod baptizati a Philippo diacono, qui Baptismum Christi dabat, non sunt iterum baptizati, sed acceperunt manus impositionem per apostolos, sicut baptizati per sacerdotes confirmantur per episcopos.   Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "After John, baptism was administered, and the reason why was because he gave not Christ's baptism, but his own . . . That which Peter gave . . . and if any were given by Judas, that was Christ's. And therefore if Judas baptized anyone, yet were they not rebaptized . . . For the baptism corresponds with him by whose authority it is given, not with him by whose ministry it is given." For the same reason those who were baptized by the deacon Philip, who gave the baptism of Christ, were not baptized again, but received the imposition of hands by the apostles, just as those who are baptized by priests are confirmed by bishops.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, ad Seleucianum, intelligimus discipulos Christi fuisse baptizatos, sive Baptismo Ioannis, sicut nonnulli arbitrantur, sive, quod magis credibile est, Baptismo Christi. Neque enim ministerio baptizandi defuit, ut haberet baptizatos servos per quos ceteros baptizaret, qui non defuit humilitatis ministerio quando eis pedes lavit.   Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says to Seleucianus (Ep. cclxv), "we deem that Christ's disciples were baptized either with John's baptism, as some maintain, or with Christ's baptism, which is more probable. For He would not fail to administer baptism so as to have baptized servants through whom He baptized others, since He did not fail in His humble service to wash their feet."
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., per hoc quod Christus Ioanni dicenti, ego a te debeo baptizari, respondit, sine modo, ostenditur quia postea Christus baptizavit Ioannem. Et hoc dicit in quibusdam libris apocryphis manifeste scriptum esse. Certum tamen est, ut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., quod, sicut Christus baptizatus fuit in aqua a Ioanne, ita Ioannes a Christo erat in spiritu baptizandus.   Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "Since, when John said, 'I ought to be baptized by Thee,' Christ answered, 'Suffer it to be so now': it follows that afterwards Christ did baptize John." Moreover, he asserts that "this is distinctly set down in some of the apocryphal books." At any rate, it is certain, as Jerome says on Mt. 3:13, that, "as Christ was baptized in water by John, so had John to be baptized in the Spirit by Christ."
Ad quartum dicendum quod non est tota causa quare illi fuerunt baptizati post Baptismum Ioannis, quia spiritum sanctum non cognoverant, sed quia non erant Baptismo Christi baptizati.   Reply to Objection 4: The reason why these persons were baptized after being baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost, but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ.
Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, sacramenta nostra sunt signa praesentis gratiae, sacramenta vero veteris legis fuerunt signa gratiae futurae. Unde ex hoc ipso quod Ioannes baptizavit in nomine venturi, datur intelligi quod non dabat Baptismum Christi, qui est sacramentum novae legis.   Reply to Objection 5: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), our sacraments are signs of present grace, whereas the sacraments of the Old Law were signs of future grace. Wherefore the very fact that John baptized in the name of one who was to come, shows that he did not give the baptism of Christ, which is a sacrament of the New Law.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:43 1998.