Dist. 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 2
Articulus II. De baptismo Ioannis.
Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de baptismo Ioannis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, a quo fuerit Ioannis baptismus institutus.
Secundo quaeritur, ad quid fuerit institutus.
Tertio quaeritur de usu ipsius sive efficacia.
Quaestio I. Utrum baptismus Ioannis a Deo fuerit institutus.
Et quod fuerit a Deo institutus, videtur:
1. Quia ille est institutor rei, qui iubet rem fieri, et cuius auctoritate fit; sed Ioannes auctoritate Domini et mandato baptizabat; unde Ioannis primo1: Qui misit me baptizare, ille mihi dixit: ergo Ioannes a Domino missus erat ad baptizandum; et sic etc.
2. Item, baptizator sive baptista nomen est officii et officii honorabilis; sed nemo assumit sibi honorem, sicut dicitur ad Hebraeos quinto2, alioquin non est assumtio, sed usurpatio: ergo Ioannes fuit factus a Domino baptista; et si hoc, ergo et baptismus eius est a Domino institutus.
3. Item, fiat deductio Domini Iesu3: Baptismus Ioannis de caelo erat, an ex hominibus? Si ex hominibus: ergo non erat ei credendum. Si de caelo: ergo institutus fuit ab ipso Deo.
Contra: 1. Si baptismus Ioannis fuit a Domino institutus; cum ergo debeat a quo instituitur denominari, non deberet dici baptismus Ioannis, sed Dei. Media patet, quia baptismus Christi dabatur a Petro et a Paulo, et ab eis non denominabatur, sed tantum a Christo, qui erat institutor. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum Evangelium non tantum denominetur ab auctore principali, sed etiam a scriptore, ut Evangelium Ioannis, quare non similiter baptismus4?
2. Item, quod sit institutus a Ioanne, videtur: quia, si a Deo, staret utique, Ioanne cessante; sed baptismus Ioannis cessavit statim, quando Ioannes missus est in carcerem, sicut dicit Chrysostomus super Ioannem5: ergo baptismus eius fuit ab eo tantum institutus, non a Deo.
Conclusio. Baptismi a Ioanne denominati principalis institutor fuit Deus, sed Ioannes fuit administrator plenarius et praecipuus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod baptismi Ioannis Deus fuit principalis institutor, sicut probant rationes primae; sed Ioannes fuit administrator plenarius et praecipuus: plenarius, quia Deus nihil ibi faciebat, quod per ipsum non fieret — totum enim administrabat, quia tantum exterius lavabat6 — praecipuus vero, quia Deus per ipsum instituit et ei officium baptizandi commisit, ut nullus baptizaret illo baptismo, nisi ipse, vel aliquis eius auctoritate. Et inde est, quod denominabatur a Ioanne et cessavit, Ioanne cessante7. Sed in baptismo Christi nullus erat administrator plenarius, quia ibi est interior regeneratio, quae solum fit a Deo, non ministerio humano; nullus etiam praecipuus, quia Christus instituit baptisma suum non per aliquem hominem, sed per se ipsum; nulli etiam sic commisit suum officium, ut alii eius auctoritate baptizarent8. Ideo non denominatur ab eis baptismus Christi nec cessat, eis cessantibus.
Ad argumenta: Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Evangelio, dicendum, quod Evangelista fuit administrator plenarius, quia quantum ad verba et intellectum: verba enim ex se dicebant, non omnino eadem, quae Christus in praedicando dixerat; rursus, sensum servabant; sed illi9 primo illuminati fuerunt et postmodum aliis exprimebant. In Sacramentis non sic, quia Apostoli signa ex se non habebant, sed a Domino instituta; rursus, per gratiam, qua erant purgati, alios non purgabant. Ideo non sic dicitur baptismus Matthaei, sicut Evangelium Matthaei dicitur.
Ad 2. Ad aliud patet responsio, quod non ideo cessavit baptismus Ioannis, quia esset principalis institutor, sed quia erat praecipuus administrator.
I. Contra antiquos nonnullos et contra novatores saeculi XVI. omnino tenendum est, quod baptismus Ioannis, de quo agitur in 3 qq. huius articuli, non fuit Sacramentum nisi improprie, quatenus ut sacrae rei signum aliquatenus initiavit ipsum baptismum Christi. Ad rem Concil. Trident. (Sess. VII. can. I.): « Si quis dixerit, baptismum Ioannis habuisse eandem vim cum baptismo Christi, a. s. ». Conveniunt autem posteriores doctores in hac tota doctrina, et quoad 3. quaestionem communiter reprobant doctrinam Magistri ibi explicatam (cfr. II. Sent. d. 41. dub. 3.). Iam Guliel. Antissiod. (Sum. p. IV. tr. 3. c. 1. q. 3.) dicit, magistros in hoc non consentire Petro Lombardo. — Quod Ioannes in baptizando usus sit forma: in nomine venturi, ex loco Act. 19, 4. Magister (hic c. 6.) vult concludere, quem sequuntur cum aliis antiquis S. Bonav. (hic dub. 5.) et S. Thomas. Sed Durand. (hic q. 3.) cum Estio aliisque recentioribus probabile esse vult, Ioannem nullam formam aquae ut materiae adiunxisse. — Quoad quaestionem incidentem cfr. hic dub. 4.
De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 6. m. 2. 6. S. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 38. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 5.
II. De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.
III. De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.
---
Article II. On the baptism of John.
Next, with respect to the second part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning the baptism of John. And concerning this three things are asked.
First it is asked, by whom John's baptism was instituted.
Second it is asked, for what it was instituted.
Third inquiry is made concerning its use or efficacy.
Question I. Whether John's baptism was instituted by God.
That it was instituted by God seems [to be the case]:
1. Because he is the institutor of a thing who commands the thing to be done, and by whose authority it is done; but John baptized by the authority and mandate of the Lord; whence John 11: He who sent me to baptize, he said to me: therefore John had been sent by the Lord to baptize; and thus, etc.
2. Likewise, "baptizer" or "baptist" is the name of an office, and of an honorable office; but no one takes the honor to himself, as is said to the Hebrews 52, otherwise it is not an assuming [of the office] but a usurpation: therefore John was made a baptist by the Lord; and if this, then also his baptism is instituted by the Lord.
3. Likewise, let the Lord Jesus' inference be made3: Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? If from men: then it was not to be believed in. If from heaven: then it was instituted by God himself.
Contra: 1. If John's baptism was instituted by the Lord; since, then, it ought to be named from him by whom it is instituted, it ought not to be called the baptism of John, but of God. The middle [term] is clear, because the baptism of Christ was given by Peter and by Paul, and was not named from them, but only from Christ, who was the institutor. — Bound up with this it is asked: since the Gospel is named not only from the principal author, but also from the writer, as the Gospel of John, why not similarly the baptism4?
2. Likewise, that it was instituted by John seems [to be the case]: because, if [it were] from God, it would surely stand even after John ceased; but John's baptism ceased at once, when John was sent into prison, as Chrysostom says on John5: therefore his baptism was instituted by him alone, not by God.
Conclusion. The principal institutor of the baptism named from John was God, but John was its full and chief administrator.
I respond: It must be said that God was the principal institutor of John's baptism, as the first arguments prove; but John was its full and chief administrator: full, because God did nothing there that was not done through him — for he administered the whole, since he only washed outwardly6 — but chief, because God instituted it through him and committed to him the office of baptizing, so that no one should baptize with that baptism except himself, or someone by his authority. And hence it is that it was named from John and ceased when John ceased7. But in the baptism of Christ there was no full administrator, because there is the interior regeneration which is brought about by God alone, not by human ministry; nor was there any chief administrator, because Christ instituted his baptism not through any man, but through himself; nor did he so commit his office to anyone that others should baptize by his authority8. Therefore Christ's baptism is not named from them, nor does it cease when they cease.
To the arguments: To 1. As for what is objected concerning the Gospel, it must be said that the Evangelist was a full administrator, because [he was so] as to the words and the meaning: for the words they spoke of themselves were not altogether the same as those Christ had spoken in preaching; again, they preserved the meaning; but they9 were first illumined and afterwards expressed [it] to others. In the Sacraments it is not so, because the Apostles did not have the signs of themselves, but [these were] instituted by the Lord; again, by the grace by which they had been purged, they did not purge others. Therefore baptism is not called "of Matthew" the way the Gospel is called "of Matthew."
To 2. The reply is clear to the other [objection], that John's baptism did not cease because he was the principal institutor, but because he was the chief administrator.
I. Against certain ancients and against the innovators of the sixteenth century it must be held without qualification that the baptism of John, which is treated in the 3 questions of this article, was not a Sacrament except improperly, inasmuch as, being a sign of a sacred thing, it in some way initiated the baptism of Christ itself. To the point is the Council of Trent (Sess. VII. can. I.): "If anyone shall say that the baptism of John had the same power as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema." The later doctors agree in this whole doctrine, and as to the 3rd question they commonly reject the doctrine of the Master expounded there (cf. II Sent. d. 41 dub. 3). Already William of Auxerre (Summa p. IV tr. 3 c. 1 q. 3) says that the masters do not agree with Peter Lombard on this. — That John in baptizing used the form in the name of the one to come, the Master (here c. 6) wishes to conclude from the passage Acts 19:4, and S. Bonaventure (here dub. 5) and S. Thomas follow him along with the other ancients. But Durandus (here q. 3), with Estius and other more recent writers, holds it probable that John added no form of water as matter. — As to the incidental question cf. here dub. 4.
On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV q. 6 m. 2, 6. S. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following questions, in both Scripta, here q. 2. — S. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 1; Summa III q. 38 a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 5, 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2 a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. 1, 2. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 5.
II. On the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. — S. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 2; Summa loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2 a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. 3.
III. On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7. — S. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 1; Summa loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. 1.
---
- 1Vers. 33, ubi Vulgata post baptizare addit in aqua. Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 6. — In fine arg. pro et sic edd. ergo.Verse 33 [John 1:33], where the Vulgate adds in water after to baptize. Cf. Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tract. 5, n. 6. — At the end of the argument, for and thus the editions read therefore.
- 2Vers. 4: Nec quisquam sumit etc.Verse 4 [Hebrews 5:4]: Neither does anyone take [the honor to himself], etc.
- 3Marc. 11, 30. seqq.; Luc. 20, 4. seqq.; Matth. 21, 23. seqq.Mark 11:30 ff.; Luke 20:4 ff.; Matthew 21:23 ff.
- 4Cod. F subiungit a ministro.Codex F adds from the minister.
- 5Homil. 29. (alias 28.), n. 1, ubi solvit quaestionem: Quare, discipulis Iesu baptizantibus, Ioannes baptizare non destitit, donec in carcerem traderetur? Cfr. infra dub. 5.Homily 29 (elsewhere 28), n. 1, where he resolves the question: Why, while the disciples of Jesus were baptizing, did John not cease to baptize until he was handed over into prison? Cf. below, dub. 5.
- 6Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4, et infra dub. 4. — Pro quia Deus nihil ibi faciebat Vat. quia nihil ibi fiebat.See here the text of the Master, c. 4, and below, dub. 4. — For because God did nothing there the Vatican edition [reads] because nothing was done there.
- 7Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 4. seqq., et V. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 9. n. 10. seq.Cf. Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tract. 5, n. 4 ff., and book V On Baptism, against the Donatists, c. 9, n. 10 f.
- 8Cfr. infra d. 5. a. 3. q. 1.Cf. below, d. 5, a. 3, q. 1.
- 9Plurimi codd. sed illo, cod. 1 a secunda manu sed ab illo, codd. F H secundum quod illo.Most codices [read] sed illo; codex 1, by a second hand, sed ab illo; codices F H secundum quod illo.