Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 63 (2/2)

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.

Obj. 2: Further, John ”was sent by G.o.d ... for a witness” (John 1:6, 7) as a prophet; according to Luke 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.

Obj. 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 was.h.i.+ng 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 was.h.i.+ngs 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 (Matt. 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 (John 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 2: John was not only a prophet, but ”more than a prophet,”

as stated Matt. 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 Obj. 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.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 2]

Whether the Baptism of John Was from G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that the baptism of John was not from G.o.d.

For nothing sacramental that is from G.o.d 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 Matt. 21:25: ”The baptism of John ... was it from heaven or from men?” Therefore the baptism of John was not from G.o.d.

Obj. 2: Further, every doctrine that proceeds from G.o.d 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, G.o.d also bearing them witness by signs and wonders.” But it is written of John the Baptist (John 10:41) that ”John did no sign.” Therefore it seems that the baptism wherewith he baptized was not from G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, those sacraments which are inst.i.tuted by G.o.d 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 G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d alone, except in as far as G.o.d works in man.

Reply Obj. 1: By the baptism of the New Law men are baptized inwardly by the Holy Ghost, and this is accomplished by G.o.d alone. But by the baptism of John the body alone was cleansed by the water. Wherefore it is written (Matt. 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 princ.i.p.al effect, which is the inward cleansing.

Reply Obj. 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, John 1:23 (cf. Isa.

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.”

<script>