The Baptism of John: Why John Baptized, Whether It Was from God and Gave Grace (ST III q.38 a.1-4)

Orientation #

He opens by announcing the new question: since Christ was baptized by John’s baptism, we treat first John’s baptism in general, then Christ’s baptism. He reads out the six article titles of the question, but the class only reaches article 4. The neighbouring class continues in the same material on John’s baptism (aa. 5–6 territory).

The class, in order #

1. The six articles announced (“first, whether it was suitable that John should baptize”) #

He lists Thomas’s six questions: (1) was it suitable for John to baptize; (2) was that baptism from God; (3) did it confer grace; (4) ought others besides Christ to be baptized by it; (5) ought it to cease once Christ was baptized; (6) were those baptized by John afterwards baptized by Christ’s baptism. Aside: you never get much illumination on John’s baptism in Sunday sermons, and there is “a little bit of the heresy there” about his role.

2. Article 1, objections (“every sacramental rite pertains to some law”) #

1. Every sacramental rite belongs to some law; John introduced no new law; so he ought not to have introduced a new rite of baptism.
2. John was sent as a prophet (“you, boy, will be called the prophet of the Most High,” Luke 1); prophets before Christ introduced no new rite but led men back to the legal rites (Malachi: “be mindful of the law of Moses my servant”); so neither should John.
3. Where there is already superfluity nothing should be added; the Jews already went to excess in washings (Mark 7: Pharisees washing hands before eating, baptisms of cups, bowls, brass vessels, beds); so John’s baptizing was unsuitable — “bringing coals to” [Newcastle]. Sed contra: Scripture, setting forth John’s holiness, adds that many went out to be baptized by him in the Jordan.

3. Article 1, body: four reasons it was suitable (“it was suitable for John to baptize, on account of four things”) #

He remarks that this passage would make “one hell of a sermon” when the text comes up.

1. It was necessary that Christ be baptized by John so as to consecrate baptism — Augustine on John: “he more sanctified the water than the water sanctified him.” Berquist: in fact the water did not sanctify him at all; he made it the instrument of baptism.
2. That Christ might be made known — John 1: “that he might be made known in Israel, on account of that I have come baptizing in water”; Chrysostom on John: announcing Christ to the crowds running together was easier than going about discoursing to each.
3. That men might be accustomed to Christ’s baptism — Gregory in a homily: John, observing the order of his running before, who came before Christ in being born, came before him also in baptizing.
4. That leading men to penance he might prepare them to receive Christ’s baptism worthily — Bede: as teaching the faith profits catechumens not yet baptized, so John’s baptism profited before Christ’s; likewise the ministers of the Church first instruct, then correct sins, then in Christ’s baptism promise remission.

Aside on bringing things together (a long digression he clearly values): the beauty here is that Thomas takes four different authors and unites them. Compare Porphyry’s Isagoge — held in enormous respect (commentaries by Albert, Cajetan, Ammonius Hermeiou and the later Greek commentators, Boethius); all Porphyry did was gather what Aristotle said scattered about genus, difference and property — and that was a real contribution. Likewise Thomas uses that division to show nothing is said univocally of God and creatures; and on relations of reason he distinguishes those in logic from those said of real things, four kinds, two referred to Aristotle and two from Avicenna. His teacher Msgr. Dionne on “two modes, two possides” — no text where Aristotle or Thomas says it explicitly, but the things can be brought together and seen more completely. This, he says, is what we can do if we really know Thomas and Aristotle: the seeds are all there. (He bought the Greek commentators from Blackwell’s in London, used, for a thousand dollars.)

4. Article 1, replies (“not per se a sacrament, but as it were sacramental”) #

• To 1: John’s baptism was not per se a sacrament but sacramentale — “sacramental,” a word we still use (blessing yourself on entering church is not a sacrament but perhaps a sacramental). Being disposed toward Christ’s baptism, it pertained in some way to the law of Christ, not to the law of Moses. Berquist stresses Thomas does not make it a third law between Moses and Christ.
• To 2: John was not only a prophet but more than a prophet (Matt 11): he was the end of the law and the beginning of the Gospel — a continuum. Hence it belonged more to him to lead men to Christ’s law. Aside: like Janus looking both ways (hence January) — but John looks more to the future than the past.
• To 3: the Pharisees’ washings were ordered only to cleansing the flesh; John’s baptism to a spiritual cleansing, inducing men to penance: “Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
• Aside: his teacher Kasurik — “you’ve got to read Thomas with a grain of salt,” i.e. carefully; people at conferences agree with what they have not really read.

5. Article 2, objections (“the baptism of John — from heaven or from men?”) #

1. Nothing sacramental from God is named from a mere man (the baptism of the new law is not called Peter’s or Paul’s — Paul is very definite about that); but this is called John’s baptism (Matt 21: “the baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men?”).
2. New teaching from God is confirmed by signs (Exod 4, power of signs given to Moses; Heb 2, faith confirmed by signs and wonders); but “John did no sign.” Berquist: why believe that guy?
3. Divinely instituted sacraments are contained in some precept of Scripture; John’s baptism was commanded by no precept — “he’s doing his own thing.” Sed contra: John 1, “He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, Upon whom you see the Spirit descending…”; and the prologue: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” (Aside: admirers of John XXIII used to quote that line.)

6. Article 2, body and replies (“the rite of baptizing… and the effect of the baptism”) #

Distinction: in John’s baptism consider (a) the rite of baptizing — this was not from men but from God, who by a familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit sent John to baptize; (b) the effect — this was from man, since nothing was effected in it that a man could not do. So it was not from God alone, except as God operates in man. He calls this a “curious distinction.”

• To 1: in the new law men are baptized inwardly by the Holy Spirit, which God alone does; in John’s baptism only the body was washed, not the soul (Matt 3:11, “I baptize you in water; he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit”). Hence it is named from John, because nothing was done in it that he himself did not do; the baptism of the new law is not named from the minister, who does not do its principal effect, the interior cleansing. (A student asks him to repeat and explain the sentence; he re-reads and glosses it.) A student raises whether John’s disciples also baptized — left open.
• To 2: John’s whole teaching and work was ordered to Christ, who by his many signs confirmed both his own teaching and John’s. Had John worked signs, men would have attended equally to John and Christ; so that men might attend chiefly to Christ, signs were not given him. To Jews asking why he baptized he confirmed his office by the authority of Scripture (“I am the voice of one crying in the desert,” John 1) and by the austerity of his life — Chrysostom on Matthew: it was marvellous to see such patience in a human body. Berquist thinks the main reason is not to distract from Christ — “too many wonderworkers.”
• To 3: John’s baptism was ordered by God to last only a little time, so it was not commanded by a precept commonly delivered in Scripture, but by that familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit. Discussion: this is like a personal revelation, but not what we would call “private” — there is great authority in it.

7. Article 3, objections and sed contra (“whether in the baptism of John grace was given”) #

He predicts the answer: no.

1. Mark 1:4, John preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins; penance and remission are by grace.
2. Those baptized by John confessed their sins (Matt 3, Mark 1); confession is ordered to remission, which comes by grace.
3. John’s baptism was nearer Christ’s than circumcision was; circumcision remitted original sin (Bede: circumcision in the law did against the wound of original sin what baptism does in the time of revealed grace); so much more John’s. Sed contra: Matt 3, “I baptize you in water unto penance,” which Gregory expounds: John baptized not in the Spirit but in water, because he was not able to free from sins; grace is from the Holy Spirit, by whom sins are taken away.

8. Article 3, body: preparation, not grace (“the minister and the lower artist prepares the matter”) #

Argument: John’s whole teaching and doing was preparatory to Christ, as the minister and lower artist prepares the matter for the form which the chief artist induces; but grace was to be conferred through Christ (John 1:17, “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”); therefore John’s baptism did not confer grace but only prepared for it — in three ways: (1) by John’s teaching, inducing men to faith in Christ; (2) by accustoming them to the rite of Christ’s baptism; (3) by penance, preparing them to receive the effect of Christ’s baptism.

• Student asks whether the three have an order. Answer: faith comes first; then the sacrament itself; then its effect. Confirmed from Acts — to “what should we do?” Peter says believe and be baptized; and we call the sacraments sacraments of faith.
• Applied today: adult baptisms involve instruction and moving candidates to recall their sins and examine conscience, since repentance is necessary — “not just magic.” (A student notes confession is not required before baptism; he agrees, but insists they are moved to repent, since John required repentance before baptizing in water, so all the more now.) Aside: little Claire Maria will be the most innocent of all of us when she is baptized.
• Aside on dividing the New Testament (Thomas’s way, he says): the Gospels treat the origin of grace, Christ; Paul’s epistles the grace itself; Acts, the canonical epistles and the Apocalypse the chief effect of grace, the Church — its origin, progress and final state. He notes Vatican II’s Dei Verbum follows this order, going from the Gospels to Paul’s epistles rather than straight to Acts.

9. Article 3, replies (“a twofold baptism of penance”) #

• To 1: Bede — a twofold baptism of penance can be understood: one John conferred, called of penance because it induced men to penance and professed that they would do penance; the other Christ’s, through which sins are remitted, which John could not give but only preached (“he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit”) — so John himself distinguishes the two. Or: he preached a baptism of penance, i.e. inducing to penance, which penance leads toward remission. Or, as Jerome says: through Christ’s baptism grace is given by which sins are freely dismissed; what is completed by the Bridegroom is initiated by the friend of the bridegroom [as he reads it: “the spouse… the bridegroom”] through John — hence he “baptized and preached the baptism of penance for the remission of sins,” not perfecting but beginning it.
  • Digression on induce: he told his logicians last night that induction is not a syllogism where the conclusion follows necessarily, but it induces the mind to accept the conclusion; compare an inducement to the will, which does not force choice but draws it — the salesman’s little inducement, TV offers, “if you act now.” So too a priest’s sermon may move the congregation to penance without forgiving them there.
  • Aside: old sermons — “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”; Msgr. Daly at the Worcester cathedral, “some of you are going to have a very unhappy eternity.” Now all one hears is God’s unconditional love.
• To 2: that confession of sins was not made to show remission at once through John’s baptism, but remission to be achieved through the following penance and Christ’s baptism — as with adult candidates today.
• To 3: circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin; John’s baptism was not, but was solely preparatory to Christ’s baptism; and sacraments have their effect from the strength of their institution.
  • Student discussion: if circumcision took care of original sin, why baptism? Thomas does not take it up here. They suggest: the figures of the Old Testament worked by faith in what was to come; circumcision is a type, a prefiguring of baptism — faith in the baptism to come, then the fulfilment. Compare the Apocalypse, Christ the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world — slain in figure. Left as their own conjecture, not Thomas’s text here.

10. Article 4: ought only Christ to have been baptized by John? (“whether by the baptism of John only Christ ought to have been baptized”) #

He notes it is unusual to find such an article. Objections: (1) John baptized in order that Christ might be baptized (Augustine on John); what is proper to Christ should not belong to others. (2) Whoever is baptized either receives something from the baptism or confers something by it; from John’s baptism no one could receive anything, since no grace was conferred; and no one could confer anything by baptism except Christ, who by the touch of his most pure flesh sanctified the waters (a reference to the Master of the Sentences). (3) If others were baptized only to be prepared for Christ’s baptism, it would seem fitting that, as Christ’s baptism is given to all — great and little, Gentiles and Jews — so should John’s; but we do not read that he baptized babies or Gentiles, only that all went out to him from Jerusalem (Mark). Aside: “you could start a heresy here by resurrecting John’s baptism — another form of Judaizing. Be Johnizing.” Sed contra: Luke 3, “when all the people had been baptized, and Jesus being baptized and praying, the heavens were opened.” Body — two reasons why others besides Christ had to be baptized by John: (1) Augustine on John: if Christ alone had been baptized by John’s baptism, there would not be lacking those who would say John’s baptism, by which Christ was baptized, was worthier than Christ’s baptism, by which others are baptized; (2) others had to be prepared by John’s baptism for Christ’s. Replies: To 1 — John’s baptism was not instituted for that alone but for the other causes said; and even if it had been, others would still have had to be baptized to avoid the said inconvenience. To 2 — the others conferred nothing by that baptism and took no grace from it, but it was only a sign of their penance (like sackcloth and ashes; though we are told to wash our face — except on Ash Wednesday). To 3 — that baptism was of penance, which does not befit little boys, so children ought not to receive it; and conferring the way of salvation on the Gentiles was reserved to Christ alone, the expectation of the Gentiles, who himself forbade preaching to the Gentiles before the Passion and Resurrection; still less then would it befit John to admit Gentiles to his baptism. Aside: an Orthodox study Bible whose front matter mocks Catholics for parading penance on Ash Wednesday — “we just publish books about how bad the Catholics are.”

He stops here, at the end of article 4.

His words #

• “sacramental” [ed.: sacramentale] — not a sacrament per se but something disposing for one; e.g. blessing oneself entering church.
• “familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit” — the private-seeming but authoritative mission by which God sent John to baptize; not “private revelation” in our sense.
• “rite of baptizing” vs. “effect of baptism” — the first from God, the second only what a man can do.
• “the minister and the lower artist… prepares the matter for the form” — John’s relation to Christ.
• “induce / inducement” — induction does not necessitate the mind as a syllogism does, but draws it; parallel to an inducement to the will.
• “end of the law and beginning of the Gospel” — John, more than a prophet; “like the continuum.”
• “Johnizing” — his joke for a would-be revival of John’s baptism, on the model of Judaizing.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 38, aa. 1–4 (objections, bodies, replies), with the six article titles of the question.
• Quoted inside those articles: Luke 1; Malachi (“be mindful of the law of Moses”); Mark 7; Matt 11; Matt 3:11; Matt 21; Exodus 4; Hebrews 2; John 1 (prologue and “that he might be made known in Israel”); Mark 1:4; Luke 3; John 1:17; Augustine on John; Chrysostom on John and on Matthew; Gregory, homilies; Bede; Jerome.

Mentioned

• Porphyry, Isagoge, with commentaries of Albert, Cajetan, Ammonius Hermeiou, Boethius.
• Avicenna and Aristotle, on relations of reason (no locus given).
• Acts of the Apostles (“believe and be baptized”); Apocalypse (the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world).
• Peter Lombard, the Sentences (“the Master”), on Christ sanctifying the waters by the touch of his flesh.
• Vatican II, Dei Verbum.
• Jonathan Edwards (inferred), “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

His questions #

• Was it suitable that John should baptize? Yes, for four reasons: to consecrate baptism in Christ, to make Christ known, to accustom men to Christ’s baptism, to prepare them by penance.
• Is John’s baptism a new law? No — not a sacrament of the new law but a sacramental pertaining in some way to the law of Christ, not to the law of Moses.
• Was the baptism of John from God? Its rite was, by a familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit; its effect was from man, since nothing was done in it beyond man’s power.
• Why is it called “John’s” baptism, when Christ’s is not called Peter’s or Paul’s? Because nothing was done in it that John himself did not do; the interior cleansing, which God alone does, does not name a minister.
• Why did John work no signs? So that men would attend chiefly to Christ; he confirmed his office by Scripture and by the austerity of his life.
• Was grace given in John’s baptism? No; it only prepared for grace — by teaching faith in Christ, by accustoming to the rite, and by penance.
• Is there an order among those three preparations? Yes: faith first, then the sacrament, then its effect.
• If circumcision remitted original sin, why baptism? Left open here; the class conjectures the figures worked through faith in what was to come.
• Ought only Christ to have been baptized by John? No — otherwise some would say John’s baptism worthier than Christ’s; and others needed the preparation. But not children (the baptism was of penance) and not Gentiles (reserved to Christ).