On the contrary is the authority of
Scripture
(Mat.
Summa Theologica
].
Wherefore He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the
prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3). Sixthly, "that He who had come in
the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful
flesh was wont to be healed. " Seventhly, that by taking on Himself the
burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to
Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law, that He might
redeem them who were under the Law. "
Reply to Objection 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin
in the member of generation, signified "the passing away of the old
generation" [*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis. ]: from the decrepitude
of which we are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently this figure was
not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Passion, until
which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore
it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His
Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet
of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in
fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time.
Because "there is a time and opportunity for every business" (Eccl
8:6).
Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc. ), "as we died when He
died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we
circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal
circumcision. " And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "In
whom," [i. e. Christ] "you are circumcised with circumcision not made by
hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision
of" our Lord Jesus "Christ. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our
death, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in
order to deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto
sin, so also He took upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy
against original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order
to deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual
circumcision in us---in order, that is to say, that, by taking upon
Himself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether His name was suitably given to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ.
For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling.
But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written
(Is. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His
name shall be called Emmanuel"; and (Is. 8:3): "Call His name, Hasten
to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and (Is.
9:6): "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty,
the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and (Zech.
6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name. " Thus it was unsuitable
that His name should be called Jesus.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Is. 62:2): "Thou shalt be called
by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg. : 'shall
name']. " But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several
in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Lk.
3:29), "Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be
called Jesus. "
Objection 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear
from Mat. 1:21: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His
name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins. " But
salvation through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision,
but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rom.
4:11,12). Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at His
circumcision.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written
(Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should
be circumcised, His name was called Jesus. "
I answer that, A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is
clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: "Since
a name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a
thing's proper nature.
Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of
the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are
named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of
some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other
relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him
"by his father's name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there"
was "none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this name," as related
Lk. 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the
name of" the "first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget
all my labors" (Gn. 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person
who receives the name; thus it is written (Gn. 25:25) that "he that
came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called
Esau," which is interpreted "red. "
But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift
bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gn. 17:5): "Thou
shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many
nations": and it was said to Peter (Mat. 16:18): "Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My Church. " Since, therefore, this
prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him
all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i. e.
Saviour: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother,
but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster-father.
Reply to Objection 1: All these names in some way mean the same as
Jesus, which means "salvation. " For the name "Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is 'God with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which
is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son
of God, the result of which union was that "God is with us. "
When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc. , these
words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils
He took away, according to Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the principalities
and powers, He hath exposed them confidently. "
When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc. , the way
and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as "by the
wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the
inheritance of the life to come," in which the children of God will
enjoy "perfect peace" under "God their Prince. "
When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is
made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the
Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up
in darkness" (Ps. 111:4).
Reply to Objection 2: The name Jesus could be suitable for some other
reason to those who lived before Christ---for instance, because they
were saviours in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of
spiritual and universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and
thus it is called a "new" name.
Reply to Objection 3: As is related Gn. 17, Abraham received from God
and at the same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision.
For this reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the
very day of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had
not as yet perfect existence: just as now also children receive their
names in Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, "I was my father's son,
tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother," the gloss says:
"Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother,
when Scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the same
mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth? "
Therefore it was that Christ received His name at the time of His
circumcision.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was becomingly presented in the temple?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in
the Temple. For it is written (Ex. 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every
first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel. " But
Christ came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; and thus He did
not open His Mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this law
to be presented in the Temple.
Objection 2: Further, that which is always in one's presence cannot be
presented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in God's presence in
the highest degree, as being always united to Him in unity of person.
Therefore there was no need for Him to be presented to the Lord.
Objection 3: Further, Christ is the principal victim, to whom all the
victims of the old Law are referred, as the figure to the reality. But
a victim should not be offered up for a victim. Therefore it was not
fitting that another victim should be offered up for Christ.
Objection 4: Further, among the legal victims the principal was the
lamb, which was a "continual sacrifice" [Vulg. : 'holocaust'], as is
stated Num. 28:6: for which reason Christ is also called "the
Lamb---Behold the Lamb of God" (Jn. 1: 29). It was therefore more
fitting that a lamb should be offered for Christ than "a pair of turtle
doves or two young pigeons. "
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as
having taken place (Lk. 2:22).
I answer that, As stated above [4193](A[1]), Christ wished to be "made
under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law" (Gal.
4:4,5), and that the "justification of the Law might be" spiritually
"fulfilled" in His members. Now, the Law contained a twofold precept
touching the children born. one was a general precept which affected
all---namely, that "when the days of the mother's purification were
expired," a sacrifice was to be offered either "for a son or for a
daughter," as laid down Lev. 12:6. And this sacrifice was for the
expiation of the sin in which the child was conceived and born; and
also for a certain consecration of the child, because it was then
presented in the Temple for the first time. Wherefore one offering was
made as a holocaust and another for sin.
The other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of
"both man and beast": for the Lord claimed for Himself all the
first-born in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He
"slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle" (Ex.
12:12, 13, 29), the first-born of Israel being saved; which law is set
down Ex. 13. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is "the First-born
amongst many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).
Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born, and
since He wished to be "made under the Law," the Evangelist Luke shows
that both these precepts were fulfilled in His regard. First, as to
that which concerns the first-born, when he says (Lk. 2:22,23): "They
carried Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord: as it is written
in the law of the Lord, 'Every male opening the womb shall be called
holy to the Lord. '" Secondly, as to the general precept which concerned
all, when he says (Lk. 2:24): "And to offer a sacrifice according as it
is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young
pigeons. "
Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom. ): "It
seems that this precept of the Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone
in a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose
conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened
the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way
that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate. " Consequently
the words "opening the womb" imply that nothing hitherto had entered or
gone forth therefrom. Again, for a special reason is it written "'a
male,' because He contracted nothing of the woman's sin": and in a
singular way "is He called 'holy,' because He felt no contagion of
earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate" (Ambrose, on
Lk. 2:23).
Reply to Objection 2: As the Son of God "became man, and was
circumcised in the flesh, not for His own sake, but that He might make
us to be God's through grace, and that we might be circumcised in the
spirit; so, again, for our sake He was presented to the Lord, that we
may learn to offer ourselves to God" [*Athanasius, on Lk. 2:23]. And
this was done after His circumcision, in order to show that "no one who
is not circumcised from vice is worthy of Divine regard" [*Bede, on Lk.
2:23].
Reply to Objection 3: For this very reason He wished the legal victims
to be offered for Him who was the true Victim, in order that the figure
might be united to and confirmed by the reality, against those who
denied that in the Gospel Christ preached the God of the Law. "For we
must not think," says Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc. ) "that the good God
subjected His Son to the enemy's law, which He Himself had not given. "
Reply to Objection 4: The law ofLev. 12:6, 8 "commanded those who
could, to offer, for a son or a daughter, a lamb and also a turtle dove
or a pigeon: but those who were unable to offer a lamb were commanded
to offer two turtle doves or two young pigeons" [*Bede, Hom. xv in
Purif. ]. "And so the Lord, who, 'being rich, became poor for our
[Vulg. : 'your'] sakes, that through His poverty we [you] might be
rich," as is written 2 Cor. 8:9, "wished the poor man's victim to be
offered for Him" just as in His birth He was "wrapped in swaddling
clothes and laid in a manger" [*Bede on Lk. 1]. Nevertheless, these
birds have a figurative sense. For the turtle dove, being a loquacious
bird, represents the preaching and confession of faith; and because it
is a chaste animal, it signifies chastity; and being a solitary animal,
it signifies contemplation. The pigeon is a gentle and simple animal,
and therefore signifies gentleness and simplicity. It is also a
gregarious animal; wherefore it signifies the active life. Consequently
this sacrifice signified the perfection of Christ and His members.
Again, "both these animals, by the plaintiveness of their song,
represented the mourning of the saints in this life: but the turtle
dove, being solitary, signifies the tears of prayer; whereas the
pigeon, being gregarious, signifies the public prayers of the Church"
[*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif. ]. Lastly, two of each of these animals are
offered, to show that holiness should be not only in the soul, but also
in the body.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that the Mother of God should go to the temple to be
purified?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of God
to go to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes
uncleanness. But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as
stated above (QQ[27],28). Therefore she should not have gone to the
Temple to be purified.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 12:2-4): "If a woman, having
received seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven
days"; and consequently she is forbidden "to enter into the sanctuary
until the days of her purification be fulfilled. " But the Blessed
Virgin brought forth a male child without receiving the seed of man.
Therefore she had no need to come to the Temple to be purified.
Objection 3: Further, purification from uncleanness is accomplished by
grace alone. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace;
rather, indeed, did she have the very Author of grace with her.
Therefore it was not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should come to the
Temple to be purified.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated (Lk.
2:22) that "the days of" Mary's "purification were accomplished
according to the law of Moses. "
I answer that, As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to His
Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in
humility: for "God giveth grace to the humble," as is written James
4:6. And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law,
wished, nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens
of the Law, in order to give an example of humility and obedience; and
in order to show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to take
away from the Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons
He wished His Mother also to fulfil the prescriptions of the Law, to
which, nevertheless, she was not subject.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness,
yet she wished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because
she needed it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the
Evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification "according
to the Law" were accomplished; for she needed no purification in
herself.
Reply to Objection 2: Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to
exclude uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was with child "without
receiving seed. " It is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfil
that precept, but fulfilled the observance of purification of her own
accord, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacraments of the Law did not cleanse from
the uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they
foreshadowed this purification: for they cleansed by a kind of carnal
purification, from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as stated
in the [4194]FS, Q[102], A[5]; [4195]FS, Q[103], A[2]. But the Blessed
Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did not need to
be purified.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN (SIX ARTICLES)
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. In regard to the former there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?
(2) Whether that baptism was from God?
(3) Whether it conferred grace?
(4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism?
(5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized?
(6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to receive
Christ's baptism?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?
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.
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.
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.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Mat. 3:5,6), which,
after stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, "and
were baptized in the Jordan. "
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. ).
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. ).
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. "
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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 2: John was not only a prophet, but "more than a
prophet," as stated Mat. 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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the baptism of John was from God?
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 Mat.
21:25: "The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from men? "
Therefore the baptism of John was not from God.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (Mat. 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.
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. "
Reply to Objection 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to last
only for a short time, for the reasons given above [4196](A[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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether grace was given in the baptism of John?
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.
Objection 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John
"confessed their sins," as related Mat. 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.
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.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 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.
I answer that, As stated above (A[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.
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. "
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. "
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ alone should have been baptized
with the baptism of John. For, as stated above [4197](A[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.
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 [4198](A[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.
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.
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. "
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. "
Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared
by John's baptism for the baptism of Christ.
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
[4199](A[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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
Wherefore He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the
prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3). Sixthly, "that He who had come in
the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful
flesh was wont to be healed. " Seventhly, that by taking on Himself the
burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to
Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law, that He might
redeem them who were under the Law. "
Reply to Objection 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin
in the member of generation, signified "the passing away of the old
generation" [*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis. ]: from the decrepitude
of which we are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently this figure was
not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Passion, until
which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore
it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His
Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet
of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in
fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time.
Because "there is a time and opportunity for every business" (Eccl
8:6).
Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc. ), "as we died when He
died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we
circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal
circumcision. " And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "In
whom," [i. e. Christ] "you are circumcised with circumcision not made by
hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision
of" our Lord Jesus "Christ. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our
death, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in
order to deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto
sin, so also He took upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy
against original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order
to deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual
circumcision in us---in order, that is to say, that, by taking upon
Himself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether His name was suitably given to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ.
For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling.
But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written
(Is. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His
name shall be called Emmanuel"; and (Is. 8:3): "Call His name, Hasten
to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and (Is.
9:6): "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty,
the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and (Zech.
6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name. " Thus it was unsuitable
that His name should be called Jesus.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Is. 62:2): "Thou shalt be called
by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg. : 'shall
name']. " But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several
in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Lk.
3:29), "Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be
called Jesus. "
Objection 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear
from Mat. 1:21: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His
name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins. " But
salvation through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision,
but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rom.
4:11,12). Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at His
circumcision.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written
(Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should
be circumcised, His name was called Jesus. "
I answer that, A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is
clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: "Since
a name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a
thing's proper nature.
Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of
the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are
named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of
some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other
relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him
"by his father's name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there"
was "none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this name," as related
Lk. 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the
name of" the "first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget
all my labors" (Gn. 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person
who receives the name; thus it is written (Gn. 25:25) that "he that
came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called
Esau," which is interpreted "red. "
But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift
bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gn. 17:5): "Thou
shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many
nations": and it was said to Peter (Mat. 16:18): "Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My Church. " Since, therefore, this
prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him
all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i. e.
Saviour: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother,
but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster-father.
Reply to Objection 1: All these names in some way mean the same as
Jesus, which means "salvation. " For the name "Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is 'God with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which
is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son
of God, the result of which union was that "God is with us. "
When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc. , these
words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils
He took away, according to Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the principalities
and powers, He hath exposed them confidently. "
When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc. , the way
and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as "by the
wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the
inheritance of the life to come," in which the children of God will
enjoy "perfect peace" under "God their Prince. "
When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is
made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the
Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up
in darkness" (Ps. 111:4).
Reply to Objection 2: The name Jesus could be suitable for some other
reason to those who lived before Christ---for instance, because they
were saviours in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of
spiritual and universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and
thus it is called a "new" name.
Reply to Objection 3: As is related Gn. 17, Abraham received from God
and at the same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision.
For this reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the
very day of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had
not as yet perfect existence: just as now also children receive their
names in Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, "I was my father's son,
tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother," the gloss says:
"Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother,
when Scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the same
mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth? "
Therefore it was that Christ received His name at the time of His
circumcision.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was becomingly presented in the temple?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in
the Temple. For it is written (Ex. 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every
first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel. " But
Christ came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; and thus He did
not open His Mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this law
to be presented in the Temple.
Objection 2: Further, that which is always in one's presence cannot be
presented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in God's presence in
the highest degree, as being always united to Him in unity of person.
Therefore there was no need for Him to be presented to the Lord.
Objection 3: Further, Christ is the principal victim, to whom all the
victims of the old Law are referred, as the figure to the reality. But
a victim should not be offered up for a victim. Therefore it was not
fitting that another victim should be offered up for Christ.
Objection 4: Further, among the legal victims the principal was the
lamb, which was a "continual sacrifice" [Vulg. : 'holocaust'], as is
stated Num. 28:6: for which reason Christ is also called "the
Lamb---Behold the Lamb of God" (Jn. 1: 29). It was therefore more
fitting that a lamb should be offered for Christ than "a pair of turtle
doves or two young pigeons. "
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as
having taken place (Lk. 2:22).
I answer that, As stated above [4193](A[1]), Christ wished to be "made
under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law" (Gal.
4:4,5), and that the "justification of the Law might be" spiritually
"fulfilled" in His members. Now, the Law contained a twofold precept
touching the children born. one was a general precept which affected
all---namely, that "when the days of the mother's purification were
expired," a sacrifice was to be offered either "for a son or for a
daughter," as laid down Lev. 12:6. And this sacrifice was for the
expiation of the sin in which the child was conceived and born; and
also for a certain consecration of the child, because it was then
presented in the Temple for the first time. Wherefore one offering was
made as a holocaust and another for sin.
The other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of
"both man and beast": for the Lord claimed for Himself all the
first-born in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He
"slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle" (Ex.
12:12, 13, 29), the first-born of Israel being saved; which law is set
down Ex. 13. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is "the First-born
amongst many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).
Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born, and
since He wished to be "made under the Law," the Evangelist Luke shows
that both these precepts were fulfilled in His regard. First, as to
that which concerns the first-born, when he says (Lk. 2:22,23): "They
carried Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord: as it is written
in the law of the Lord, 'Every male opening the womb shall be called
holy to the Lord. '" Secondly, as to the general precept which concerned
all, when he says (Lk. 2:24): "And to offer a sacrifice according as it
is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young
pigeons. "
Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom. ): "It
seems that this precept of the Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone
in a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose
conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened
the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way
that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate. " Consequently
the words "opening the womb" imply that nothing hitherto had entered or
gone forth therefrom. Again, for a special reason is it written "'a
male,' because He contracted nothing of the woman's sin": and in a
singular way "is He called 'holy,' because He felt no contagion of
earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate" (Ambrose, on
Lk. 2:23).
Reply to Objection 2: As the Son of God "became man, and was
circumcised in the flesh, not for His own sake, but that He might make
us to be God's through grace, and that we might be circumcised in the
spirit; so, again, for our sake He was presented to the Lord, that we
may learn to offer ourselves to God" [*Athanasius, on Lk. 2:23]. And
this was done after His circumcision, in order to show that "no one who
is not circumcised from vice is worthy of Divine regard" [*Bede, on Lk.
2:23].
Reply to Objection 3: For this very reason He wished the legal victims
to be offered for Him who was the true Victim, in order that the figure
might be united to and confirmed by the reality, against those who
denied that in the Gospel Christ preached the God of the Law. "For we
must not think," says Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc. ) "that the good God
subjected His Son to the enemy's law, which He Himself had not given. "
Reply to Objection 4: The law ofLev. 12:6, 8 "commanded those who
could, to offer, for a son or a daughter, a lamb and also a turtle dove
or a pigeon: but those who were unable to offer a lamb were commanded
to offer two turtle doves or two young pigeons" [*Bede, Hom. xv in
Purif. ]. "And so the Lord, who, 'being rich, became poor for our
[Vulg. : 'your'] sakes, that through His poverty we [you] might be
rich," as is written 2 Cor. 8:9, "wished the poor man's victim to be
offered for Him" just as in His birth He was "wrapped in swaddling
clothes and laid in a manger" [*Bede on Lk. 1]. Nevertheless, these
birds have a figurative sense. For the turtle dove, being a loquacious
bird, represents the preaching and confession of faith; and because it
is a chaste animal, it signifies chastity; and being a solitary animal,
it signifies contemplation. The pigeon is a gentle and simple animal,
and therefore signifies gentleness and simplicity. It is also a
gregarious animal; wherefore it signifies the active life. Consequently
this sacrifice signified the perfection of Christ and His members.
Again, "both these animals, by the plaintiveness of their song,
represented the mourning of the saints in this life: but the turtle
dove, being solitary, signifies the tears of prayer; whereas the
pigeon, being gregarious, signifies the public prayers of the Church"
[*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif. ]. Lastly, two of each of these animals are
offered, to show that holiness should be not only in the soul, but also
in the body.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that the Mother of God should go to the temple to be
purified?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of God
to go to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes
uncleanness. But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as
stated above (QQ[27],28). Therefore she should not have gone to the
Temple to be purified.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 12:2-4): "If a woman, having
received seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven
days"; and consequently she is forbidden "to enter into the sanctuary
until the days of her purification be fulfilled. " But the Blessed
Virgin brought forth a male child without receiving the seed of man.
Therefore she had no need to come to the Temple to be purified.
Objection 3: Further, purification from uncleanness is accomplished by
grace alone. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace;
rather, indeed, did she have the very Author of grace with her.
Therefore it was not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should come to the
Temple to be purified.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated (Lk.
2:22) that "the days of" Mary's "purification were accomplished
according to the law of Moses. "
I answer that, As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to His
Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in
humility: for "God giveth grace to the humble," as is written James
4:6. And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law,
wished, nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens
of the Law, in order to give an example of humility and obedience; and
in order to show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to take
away from the Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons
He wished His Mother also to fulfil the prescriptions of the Law, to
which, nevertheless, she was not subject.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness,
yet she wished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because
she needed it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the
Evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification "according
to the Law" were accomplished; for she needed no purification in
herself.
Reply to Objection 2: Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to
exclude uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was with child "without
receiving seed. " It is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfil
that precept, but fulfilled the observance of purification of her own
accord, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacraments of the Law did not cleanse from
the uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they
foreshadowed this purification: for they cleansed by a kind of carnal
purification, from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as stated
in the [4194]FS, Q[102], A[5]; [4195]FS, Q[103], A[2]. But the Blessed
Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did not need to
be purified.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN (SIX ARTICLES)
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. In regard to the former there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?
(2) Whether that baptism was from God?
(3) Whether it conferred grace?
(4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism?
(5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized?
(6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to receive
Christ's baptism?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?
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.
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.
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.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Mat. 3:5,6), which,
after stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, "and
were baptized in the Jordan. "
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. ).
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. ).
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. "
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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 2: John was not only a prophet, but "more than a
prophet," as stated Mat. 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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the baptism of John was from God?
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 Mat.
21:25: "The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from men? "
Therefore the baptism of John was not from God.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (Mat. 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.
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. "
Reply to Objection 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to last
only for a short time, for the reasons given above [4196](A[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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether grace was given in the baptism of John?
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.
Objection 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John
"confessed their sins," as related Mat. 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.
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.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 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.
I answer that, As stated above (A[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.
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. "
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. "
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ alone should have been baptized
with the baptism of John. For, as stated above [4197](A[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.
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 [4198](A[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.
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.
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. "
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. "
Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared
by John's baptism for the baptism of Christ.
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
[4199](A[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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
