Tertia Pars
83. The Baptism of John: Why John Baptized, Whether It Was from God and Gave Grace (ST III q.38 a.1-4)
Class of 2010-03-04
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/083-the-baptism-of-john-why-john-baptized-whether-it-was-from/

[0:00] Okay. Let's go on to the next question here, huh? Yeah. Then we're not to consider about the baptism by which Christ was baptized, and because Christ was baptized by the baptism of John, first we're not to consider about the baptism of John in general, and secondly about the what. The baptism of Christ. Yes, that's the next question now. So you've got a six articles here on the baptism of John.

[0:33] About the first six things are asked. First, whether it was suitable that John should what baptize. Secondly, whether that baptism was from God. That's interesting. Third, whether it conferred, I guess, grace. Huh.

[0:59] Fourth, whether others besides Christ ought to have been baptized by that baptism, right? Fifth, whether that baptism ought to cease when Christ had been baptized.

[1:16] Six, whether those baptized by the baptism of John were afterwards baptized to be baptized by the baptism of what Christ? Never get you know in the Sunday sermons you have much illumination about this baptism of John.

[1:38] And as you get a little bit of the heresy there, you know, has been to realize his his role, his his his vision. You know, didn't know what his vision was. Me? Oh, now I get it.

[1:52] Oh, me? Don't don't really come up with these things, but to the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that it was not suitable for John to baptize.

[2:13] For every sacramental rite pertains to some law. That sounds like an interesting objection. But John did not introduce a new law, right? Therefore, unsuitable was it that he would introduce a new rate of baptism.

[2:38] Anyway? but let Thomas answer that. Guess what I have to think. Moreover, John was sent by God in what testimony? Witness as a what prophet? According to that of Luke one, you boy will be called the prophet of the most high.

[3:01] But the prophets who were before Christ did not introduce a new right, huh? But they induce people to the observance of the legal rites, huh? This is clear malachi, huh? Be mindful of the law of Moses, huh? My servants. Therefore, neither did John, ought John to have brought in a new rite of what baptizing?

[3:35] Moreover, where there is some superfluity of some thing, one should not add anything to it, right? But the Jews exceeded or excelled, went to excess in the superfluity. Washings. Baptisms, yeah. As is said in Mark seven, that the Pharisees and all the Jews who on us beforehand or daily washed their hands, they did not eat right, and. From the form, if they were not baptized or washed, they did not eat, and many other things are cleared about them, like the baptisms of cups and the bowls

[4:26] and and brass things. Yeah. And and the lecterns or lectors beds. That's from Latin. And therefore, it was unsuitable that John should baptize huh? Bringing coals to what is it? But against this is the authority of Scripture, where setting forth beforehand the holiness of John, right? It joins that many went out to him that they might be baptized in the what Jordan, huh?

[5:05] Okay, I answer. It should be said that it was suitable for John to baptize, on account of four things. You know, I think you get one hell of a sermon here when you get this get this in your head on that day when that text comes up.

[5:22] First, because it was necessary that Christ be baptized by John, in order that he might what consecrate baptism, as Augustine says upon John, he he more sanctified the water than the water sanctified him, right? In fact, the water didn't sanctify him at all, right? But he sanctified the water and made it the instrument of baptism, right? The day of baptism. That's interesting. Second, that Christ might be made known, right?

[5:59] Huh? Whence John himself says, John the Baptist himself says in John chapter one that he might be made known to wit Christ, right? In Israel, on account of that, I have come baptizing in what water? Ah, for the the crowds coming together, right? He announced what Christ to the crowds coming together, running together, concurrentibus, which more easily was done thus than if he what he ran he discoursed, huh?

[6:38] through all of them, huh? As Chrysostom says, huh? Upon John, huh? They came to him Here he goes again. Now Augustine Chrysostom, and now comes Gregory the next one, huh?

[6:55] Third, that he might accustom men to what by his baptism, yeah, to the baptism of Christ, huh? That's interesting, huh? Whence Gregory says in a certain homily, huh? That therefore John baptized. That observing the order of his what running before right,

[7:24] who came before Christ in being born right, might also come before in baptizing right. And fourth, that leading men to penance, he prepared men to receiving worthily the baptism of what Christ. Whence Bede, now he's got Bede in there. got 4 guys Um Whence Bede says that uh as Regards the catechumens not yet what baptized the what as much as the the teaching of the faith is profitable to them right so likewise was profitable the baptism of John before the baptism of Christ John was preparing them by this because the one who thus what preached penance and announced it before the baptism of Christ and in the knowledge of truth which

[8:40] attracted them to the knowledge of truth which has appeared in the world thus the ministers of the church who first instruct afterwards correct the sins of them then in the baptism of Christ they promise remission

[9:03] a beautiful thing in the way Thomas takes it from four different guys huh and brings it together right now you know when you go and read the Greek I got the Greek commentators you know bunch of them at home and uh which I got from Blackwell's in London used edition for a thousand dollars years ago Greek professor thought I was amazed to see these you know with all these ones but anyway the great respect that Porphyry's Isagoge is held right in the tradition right it's kind of remarkable thing right you know the and as they say Albert has a commentary on it Cardinal Cajetan has got a commentary on the Isagoge but you have you know Ammonius Hermias and the later Greek commentators are you

[9:57] know commenting on Isagoge and of course great Platonists and things like Boethius dealing with that so I mean it it it it is in the tradition tremendous book right but what has he done all he's done is brought together things that Aristotle said about genus and difference and property and so on but it's kind of scattered Aristotle's not brought together like that he brings it all together right and he's made a real contribution right and I was mentioning how you know I was struck by Thomas is using that and even showing that nothing is said univocally of God and creatures right he regards as a complete division of names said univocally of many things right and well I was mentioning you know a little while

[10:44] ago it's very difficult teaching about relations of reason right and Thomas you know will distinguish the relations of reason that you have in logic right but then the relations of reason that are said of things in the real world right he distinguishes four kinds right but two of them he explicitly refers to Aristotle as touching upon them, and then two from Avicenna, right? He brings it together, right?

[11:10] Huh? And uh, or like my teacher Monsignor Dionne, you know, I told you the time when he comes in, and the last professor said you got two modes, you know, two possides, you know, and then Monsignor Dionne came in to give his course, and he's two modes, two possides. Well, there's no text where where Aristotle or or Thomas explicitly said that, right? Huh? But

[11:40] you can bring these things together and see them in a more complete way, right? Um. But here you have the same sort of thing, right? Where Thomas gives you a a teaching, right? That is

[11:57] scattered in a partial way among the among these great writers, right? And Thomas brings it all together, right? Huh? You know. So he does that even so, I say, with relations of reason, these difficult things, right? But that's the kind of thing that we can do, you know, if we really know Thomas and Aristotle, we can bring things together in a way that illuminates something, right? Even though, I mean, the seeds are all there.

[12:21] So look what he says about the American conception. There are things in his work that, that brought together, you can place it correctly. He says to the first, it should be said that's objection that you know this is not a new what right he's introducing right new law. He says the baptism of John was not per se a sacrament, right? But as it were, sacramental is the word we still use today, right?

[13:05] So if you bless yourself going to church, you know, that's not a sacrament, I don't think. But it could maybe sacramental, right? Um. It was something sacramental, disposing for the baptism of what Christ. Christ, huh? And therefore, in some way, it pertained to the law of Christ, as I was saying, huh? Thomas, agree with me here. But not, however, to the law of Moses, right? Huh? Okay.

[13:38] So he doesn't say it's a it's a separate law between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. He puts it the law of Christ, but not as a sacrament of the new law, but as a sacramental. But disposing for the the first and fundamental sacrament there, baptism, huh? Okay, that's good, Thomas. Yeah, good, good. You know, teacher Kasurik said you got to read Thomas with a grain of salt, didn't?

[14:10] Even Thomas, you got to read with a grain of salt. He said. Used to say, you know, finding people at these conferences, you know, who oh yeah, they would hear something I agree with them, you know. Doesn't make sense. I really read it. He said you would agree. I got you to read it carefully, you know. They just lost. To a

[14:41] second, it should be said that John was not only a prophet, but more than a prophet, as is said in Matthew 11. For he was both the what, the end of the law and beginning of the what? So it's like a continuous thing there, right? Like the continuum. And therefore, it more pertain to him by word and work, right, to induce men to the law of Christ than to the observance of the what old law, right?

[15:15] Janus huh That's why January, just Janus had to look both ways, you know. But oh yeah, yeah, but he's looking more to the future, I mean, than the past.

[15:34] Now those baptisms of the Pharisees were in aid, huh? As ordered only, huh? The cleansing of the of the flesh, right? Huh. But the baptism of John was ordered to a spiritual cleansing, right? Huh. For it induced men to sin, so he said, "Repent, huh? The kingdom of heaven is at hand, right? So baptism was connected with that. Okay, you want to take a break? Yeah. Okay.

[16:14] The baptism of John was from God. To the second one goes forward. Thus, it seemed that the baptism of John was not from what God.

[16:29] For nothing sacramental that is from God is denominated by a pure man, or from a pure man rather. Just as the baptism of the New Law is not said to be of Peter or Paul, right? But of Christ, Paul is very definite about that. But that baptism was denominated, named from John, according to that of Matthew twenty-one. The baptism of John was it from heaven or was it from men?

[17:03] Therefore, the baptism of John was not from God. Moreover, every teaching, new teaching, proceeding from God is confirmed by some what signs. Whence the Lord said Exodus 4, He gave to Moses the power of making what signs. And in Hebrews chapter 2 it is said that our faith took its beginning from the Lord announcing things, and to them who heard it in us was confirmed, God witnessing might say by signs and prodigious signs.

[17:49] But about the baptism of John is said, John made no sign, did no sign. He didn't make any miracles apparently. Why you going to believe that guy? Okay. But that would kind of be a fear of Christ, right? Confuse people, I suppose. Therefore, it seems that the baptism by which he baptized was not from God. It's kind of beautiful to go from this thing and go back maybe the Gospels and go from one to the other, right?

[18:17] And like the other thirteen said, you know, the the scholastics give great contributions to the study of Scripture, both in their scriptural commentaries and then in their what theological works. Yeah. But it's beautiful to to go through this. Um.

[18:41] Moreover, the sacraments which are divine instituted are contained in some precepts of sacred Scripture. But the baptism of John was not commanded by any precept of sacred Scripture. Therefore, it seems it was not from what God. He's doing his own thing. In other words. Okay. Let's see if Thomas can defend John the Baptist.

[19:07] But against this is what is said in John chapter 1. Who sent me to baptize in water? Who was that? He said to me, "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and so on." It says in the prologue there was a man sent from God. Yeah, yeah. He. Used to quote that talk about John, thirty-third. Remember that? Oh no, I wasn't around then. I think people who admired John especially, there was a man sent from God who quoted that.

[19:37] You know, his name was John. I answer. It should be said that two things can be considered in the baptism of John, to wit, the rite of baptizing, right, and secondly, the effect of the baptism, right. Now, the rite of baptizing was not from men, but from what God,

[20:06] who by a what familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit sent John to what Baptizing. So the one who sent him was what Holy Spirit, God. You could say, perhaps the Holy Spirit. But the effect of that baptism was from man, because there was nothing affected in that baptism that man was not able to what do do. It's interesting, huh? Whence it was not from God alone, except insofar as, of course, God operates in man.

[20:48] Curious distinction. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that through the baptism of the new law, men are baptized inwardly through the Holy Spirit, which God alone does. But through the baptism of John, only the what body was cleansed by the water; the soul was not cleansed. Huh?

[21:30] Whence it is said in Matthew chapter three, verse eleven, "I baptize you in water; he, however, will baptize you in the Holy what Spirit, huh? " And that's why he says the baptism of John is named from him, right? Huh? Because it did nothing. There was nothing done in it that he himself what not do, huh? Pardon. What? What does that mean? What does that mean? What does that mean?

[22:06] We go to that sentence again. And therefore, I mean, it means that the. Everything that was from John made sense to the effect that yeah, it was just cleansing the body, right? Wasn't? Didn't have a spiritual power derived from God, right? To cleanse the soul, and that's why he says the baptism of the new law is not denominated or named from the minister, right? Who does not do the principal effect of baptism, to which the interior what cleansing, right?

[22:46] So it is John's sacrament, yeah. It says so. It's kind of interesting. Didn't know how he's going to answer that. Yeah So then they'd have to be the disciples of John who were baptizing too or you're wondering.

[23:10] Now, what about not confirming this by signs? To the second, it should be said that the whole teaching and the operations of John was ordered to what Christ, huh? Who, by the multitude of his signs, right, and his teaching, excuse me, confirmed what his own teaching and that of what John, right? If, however, John had done signs, huh? Men would have equally paid attention to John and what Christ would have inferred to this sense, right?

[23:49] Uniqueness of Christ, and therefore that men might chiefly pay attention to Christ, huh? It was not given to John that he would make any what signs, huh?

[24:02] But to the Jews seeking wherefore he baptized, he confirmed his office by the authority of what Scripture. Scripture. I am the voice of one crying out in the desert, and so on. as is said in John chapter one, and the austerity of his life, right?

[24:26] Commended his office or his occupation right? Because, as Chrysostom says upon Matthew, it was marvellous, wonderful in a human body to see such what patience, huh?

[24:47] I think the main reason there, though, is to not distract from what the Christ, yeah, get too wonderworkers, so to speak. I think that makes sense. I've seen that in the commentary of the Bibles too.

[25:05] Okay, now what about the command, there? It's not commanded in the Gospels or in the Scriptures. To the third, it should be said that the baptism of John was not ordered by God to endure except for a little time, right, on account of the foresaid what causes. Previous article, and therefore it was not commended by some precept commonly treated in Sacred Scripture, but by a what familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit.

[25:45] It has been said. He's not emphasizing the idea of private; it's different. It he's very much preparing the way for Christ. huh There's a great, authority. right Sense of like a personal revelation. Hmm It's the sense of personal revelation Yeah, but it's not what we call right. Yeah.

[26:41] If wither in the baptism of John grace was given, Thomas Aquinas is going to say no because it seems to the third one proceeds thus. It seems that in the baptism of John grace was what given, right?

[26:59] For he said in Mark one verse four, John was in the desert baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins. But penance and the remission of sins is by grace. Therefore, the baptism of John conferred what grace.

[27:23] Moreover, those baptized by John confessed their sins, as is had in Matthew three and Mark chapter one. But the confession of sins is ordered to what the remission of those sins, which comes about through grace. Therefore, in the baptism of John, grace was what conferred.

[27:49] Moreover, the baptism of John was nearer, closer to the baptism of Christ than what circumcision. But the circumcision was remitted original sin, because as Bede says,

[28:08] the same what circumcision in the law right against the wound of original sin right did the same thing. Yeah. The baptism now right is a custom in the time of real grace. Therefore, much more did the baptism of John undo the remission of sins,

[28:38] which cannot come about without grace. But against this is what Matthew three is said. I baptize you in water in penance, which Gregory expounding in his certain homily says, John not in the spirit but in water baptized, because he was not what to free from the sins. But grace is from the Holy Spirit, and to Him sins are taken away. Therefore, the baptism of John did not confer what grace.

[29:28] Answer: It should be said that as has been said, the whole teaching and the operation or doing of John, right, was preparatory for Christ. For just as the minister and the lower artist is to prepare the matter for the form, which the chief artist will what induce?

[29:54] Common thing. We started talking about that. But the grace was to be conferred to men through Christ, according to that of John chapter one verse seventeen: grace and truth through Jesus Christ was made. That's the way Thomas Damascene divides the New Testament, right? The Gospels are about the origin of grace, Christ, and then the epistles of St. Paul in the what are about the grace itself, and then the Acts of the Apostles and the canonical epistles and the Apocalypse is about the chief effect of the grace, which is the Church, right?

[30:32] Its origin, progress, and final state. It's interesting that in Vatican II there in the thing on Verbum Dei, it follows the order Thomas, which I'd

[30:51] point out because that's my top, but it's in there, right? Instead of going in from the Gospels to the Acts of the Apostles, which are placed right after, right, it goes from the Gospels then to the epistles of St. Paul, and then talks about the you know Church, kind of according to Thomas's way of dividing it, division into three.

[31:22] Okay. And therefore, the baptism of John did not confer grace because grace came through Jesus Christ. But only did it prepare for grace. Now, how did it prepare for grace? Well, in three ways. In one way, through the teaching of John, right,

[31:44] inducing men to faith in what Christ. In another way, by accustoming men to the right of what baptism, right, to the right of the baptism of Christ. And third, through penance, right, preparing men to receiving the effect of the baptism of Christ. We do that today. Adult baptisms—they prepare them. Usually, I don't know if they require them to make a confession of sin, but usually they try.

[32:17] I think they try to instruct them. That's the physical effect, and you should think about. I say that the church wants people to realize that repentance is necessary.

[32:30] Just not just magic and a just portal. Receive confession before baptism. No, I know, but I mean, but I mean, they move them to want. I might say to recall their sins, examine their consciences, because they should repent of their sins. I mean, John required them to repent before they baptized in water, so all the more then.

[32:53] What is there? Just I was trying to figure out the order of these three. Is there an order? Well, faith comes first, right? Okay. I suppose the first thing. I bet I'm especially about the second one. Well, the sacrament, the sacrament itself, and then and then the effect of it, right there. Oh, okay.

[33:14] And it's like in the Acts of Apostles, that's what they say to Saint Peter. What should we do? He says, "We'll believe and be baptized." Yeah, we call the sacraments the sacraments of faith, don't they? Yeah, the faith is one of those exercises of gratitude is right to regain the baptismal innocence, right? Yeah, just don't Claire. This Claire Maria will be the most innocent of all of us.

[33:55] That's right. Yeah. When she's baptized. That's right Yeah. Now, to the first, it should be said, huh? That in those words, as Bede says, huh, can be understood a twofold baptism of what penance, huh? One which John in baptizing conferred, huh? Which is called a baptism of what penance and so on, because that baptism was something inducing men to what penance, penance, huh? I was talking to that to my logicians last night.

[34:43] There, we're talking about the word induction, right? Huh? And how induction is not a syllogism, right, where the conclusion follows necessarily, but it does what induce the mind to accept the conclusion, right? But then I was comparing it to what we call an inducement to the will, right? And does an inducement to the will force you to what

[35:12] to choose this? No, no. But it's inducement to choose it, right? You know, the guy's offering this interview. You know, he's trying to sell you something. Get a little inducement there. Don't wear your shirt. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like on TV; they're always offering you something, you know, to get, you know. And then if you, you know, do it, you know, then you get another one with with this, you know.

[35:37] And if you act now, okay. And a certain what professing right that men were going to do it, do their penance, right? Yeah, they're gonna. I wish they'd confess or profess Yeah. Going to do. But other is the baptism of Christ through which sins are remitted, right? Which John was not able to give, right? Huh? But that he only preached saying, "He, however, will baptize you in the Holy Spirit," right?

[36:26] So John himself is making the distinction between the two baptisms, right? Or it can be said that he preached a baptism of penance, that is, one inducing men to penance, right? Huh? Which penance leads men towards the remission of what? Sins, huh?

[36:48] So the difference between the two is one pointing to that the first one is pointing to Christ's baptism, and the other one is the idea that it leads to penance, which of itself can lead to the remission. Yeah, even like you know, even today, like when a priest gives a sermon, he might move the audience to penance, right? But they're not being forgiven right there in the sacrament?

[37:17] But they're being induced, right? to penance, huh? You know, these old sermons, right? In the hands of an angry God. It was used to be. It must be dead now. But when I first came to Worcester, there was a down at the cathedral downtown. There was Monsignor Daly, you know, he was the kind of thing. And some of you are going to have a very unhappy, you know, eternity.

[37:48] I haven't heard that sermon, kind of sermon, for a long time. All I hear about is this unconditional love of God. But my not so inclusive Jesus. that's the one. Yeah.

[38:06] Or it can be said that through the baptism of Christ, as Jerome says, huh, grace is given, right? By which sins are gratis, huh? Freely dismissed, huh? Which

[38:22] before it is what completed through the through the spouse, the spouse, right? It is initiated by the what? Bridegroom. Bridegroom, right? To it, through John, huh? Whence it is said that he what baptized and preached the baptism of penance for the remission of sins. Not, however, because he perfected this, but because he began it by preparing them.

[38:57] Now, what about that confession of sins that they made? Well, that confession of sins was not made for the remission of sins at once through the baptism of John to be shown, right? But to be achieved through the penance, following, and the baptism of Christ. For which that penance was prepared, huh?

[39:22] It was like you're saying with the present adult, right? Now, what about circumcision? Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin, but the baptism of John was not instituted for this, but solely was preparatory for the baptism of Christ, as has been said. But the sacraments, from the strength of their institution, have this what effect?

[39:56] Do you have a sense of what Bede was saying here? It gives you a sense that me might have the question: Well, if circumcision took care of original sin. What do you need baptism for? Right. Yeah. exactly. Apparently, he's not saying it. or I don't know It could be more clear than that. I think. I think there was a.

[40:23] There's some who, in the figures of the Old Testament, right? Okay. Had faith in what was to come, right? Yeah. And therefore, there. That was by virtue of that, I guess. Yeah. He doesn't go to that right here, but he might also talk about circumcision. Circumcision is a type of baptism. It's a prefiguring of baptism, sort of in that way. Yes, actually, more like their faith. Their faith in the baptism to come, and then the fulfillment that's what it was.

[40:55] That's in the Apocalypse. It says about Christ is the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world. He was slain figure from the beginning of the world. He wasn't slain from the beginning, but I think so if they believe the figures. Now, whether by the baptism of John only Christ ought to have been baptized? Why does this come up? To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that only Christ ought to be baptized by the baptism of John.

[41:31] That's kind of unusual to be in there. To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, okay, because as has been said, for this reason John what baptized that Christ might be baptized, as Augustine says upon John, the gospel of John. But what is private to Christ ought not to what belong to others. Therefore, to none others, none others ought to be what baptized by baptism.

[42:07] Article one question. Article four first objection. Moreover, whoever is baptized or takes something from baptism, either takes something from baptism or by baptism. Yeah, but from the baptism of John, no one could take something, because in it grace was not conferred, as has been said. Nor could someone

[42:39] by baptism confer anything except what Christ, huh? Who by the touch of his most pure, clean flesh sanctified the waters, right? Huh? That's kind of reference to the magister. The sentence is there. Therefore, it seems that Christ alone ought to have been baptized by the what sacrament of John, huh? If Christ, if he was baptized, they sanctified the waters, and then you could have a really efficacious baptism, right?

[43:12] And no one else could do that, right? More of more of others by that baptism were baptized. This would not be except that they would be prepared for the baptism of Christ. And thus it was; it would seem suitable that just as the baptism of Christ was conferred upon all, both what the great and the little, and Gentiles and Jews, so also the baptism of John should be conferred.

[43:46] Now you could start a heresy here by by resurrecting John's baptism, huh? Another form of Judaizing. Yeah, be Johnizing. But it is not read that by him boys or babies were baptized, nor the Gentiles. That they went for what is said in Mark that they went forth. To them, all everybody from Jerusalem, and were baptized by him. Therefore, it seems that Christ by John alone should, the Christ alone by John ought to have been baptized.

[44:35] But against this is what is said in Luke three. It was done when all the people had been baptized, right? And Jesus baptized and praying that the heavens were opened.

[44:53] Answer: It should be said that for a twofold reason or cause, it was necessary for others besides Christ or besides Christ to be baptized by the baptism of John.

[45:08] First, as Augustine says upon John, if Christ alone was baptized by the baptism of John, right, there would not be lacking those who would say that the baptism of John, by which Christ was baptized, was more worthy than the baptism of Christ, which others were baptized. That's interesting, huh?

[45:34] And secondly, because it was necessary through the baptism of John for others to be prepared for the baptism of Christ, as has been said.

[45:49] Now, the first one said that he was coming, baptizing so Christ could be baptized. Well, one reason, but doesn't exclude other reasons, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that not on account of this alone was the baptism of John instituted that Christ might be baptized, but also on account of the other causes that have been said.

[46:13] But nevertheless, if for this alone was instituted it that Christ would be baptized by it, it would be necessary to avoid the what foresaid inconvenience that's in the body of the article, right? That would seem to be greater than the baptism of Christ.

[46:40] In order to what? Avoid that. The death thing. That inconvenience. That others be baptized by this baptism, right? The second, it should be said that the others who went to the baptism of Christ were not able by baptism to confer something.

[47:11] Nor did they take something from grace, nor did they get grace from by the baptism, right? But only as a sign of their penance. Was doing you covered in ashes there, sat in the pile or something? Right? Sackcloth and ashes? Yeah, yeah. Well, that's just sign of penance, right? Because now you're supposed to wash your face again till it's your best.

[47:48] Except on Ash Wednesday. You get it dirty one day. Thing in the in this Orthodox study Bible, man. This thing in the front of it. But anyway, this typical Orthodox thing about Catholic things. So it's like going through like no Ash Wednesday, we wash our faces. We show our

[48:15] penance to the whole world. We just publish books about how bad the Catholics are. To the third should be said that that baptism was of penance, right? Which is not what fitting to little boys, huh? Therefore, boys ought not to be what baptized by that baptism, right?

[48:47] But to confer to the Gentiles, the way of salvation was reserved to Christ alone, right? Who was the expectation of the Gentiles, right? And therefore, Christ Himself,

[49:03] yeah, to preach to the Gentiles, right? Huh? We forbid them before the Passion and the Resurrection, right? Whence even less so would it be suitable to John for the Gentiles to be admitted to what baptism?

[49:23] Well, we have to stop here now, or what? Yes. Okay.