Reply Obj. 3: The baptism of John was intended by G.o.d to last only for a short time, for the reasons given above (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.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 3]
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.
Obj. 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John "confessed their sins," as related Matt. 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.
Obj. 3: Further, the baptism of John was more akin than circ.u.mcision to the baptism of Christ. But original sin was remitted through circ.u.mcision: because, as Bede says (Hom. x in Circ.u.mcis.), "under the Law, circ.u.mcision 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 (Matt. 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 John 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 3: Circ.u.mcision was inst.i.tuted as a remedy for original sin. Whereas the baptism of John was not inst.i.tuted 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 inst.i.tution.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 4]
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 (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.
Obj. 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 (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.
Obj. 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 (Luke 3:21): "It came to pa.s.s, 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 Obj. 1: The baptism of John was inst.i.tuted not only that Christ might be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above (A.
1). And yet, even if it were inst.i.tuted 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Gen.
49:10. Indeed, Christ forbade the apostles to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles before His Pa.s.sion and Resurrection. Much less fitting, therefore, was it for the Gentiles to be baptized by John.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 5]
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 (John 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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 a.s.serts (Mag. Sent. iv, 3). Therefore it seems that John"s baptism ceased when Christ had been baptized.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 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 Obj. 1: When Christ was baptized, He was not as yet fully manifested: consequently there was still need for John to continue baptizing.
Reply Obj. 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 mult.i.tude was transferred to Christ, and there was no further motive for the divergence of opinions concerning both of them."
Reply Obj. 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.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 6]
Whether Those Who Had Been Baptized with John"s Baptism Had to Be Baptized with the Baptism of Christ?
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 (Matt. 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.
Obj. 2: Further, the apostles were baptized with John"s baptism, since some of them were his disciples, as is clear from John 1:37.
But the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ: for it is written (John 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 5: Further, on Rom. 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.