Dist. 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 2
Quaestio III. De usu sive efficacia baptismi Ioannis.
Tertio quaeritur de usu baptismi Ioannis sive de efficacia, utrum scilicet baptismus Ioannis cum impositione manuum aequipollens esset baptismo Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Ratione: quia ista duo completum faciunt baptisma, scilicet baptizari in aqua et Spiritu1; sed per Ioannem baptizati sunt aqua, per manuum impositionem Spiritu: ergo aequipollent ista duo baptismo Christi.
2. Item, hoc videtur ratione alia: quia ad hoc, quod baptismus sit Sacramentum completum, non est necesse, aliquem simul lavari interius et exterius, sed successive, ut patet in accedente ficte2: ergo videtur, quod ubi impositio manuum lavit interius per Spiritum, cum ablutione praecedenti exteriori fuit integrum Sacramentum.
3. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Hieronymi et Magistri3. Dicit enim Hieronymus super Ioelem: « Baptizati a Ioanne in nomine venturi, quia dixerunt: Neque si Spiritus sanctus est, audivimus, iterum baptizati sunt »: ergo haec est ratio, quia non cognoscebant Spiritum sanctum: ergo si haec est causa recta, oppositum est causa oppositi: ergo si baptizati erant et fidem Trinitatis habebant, non erant rebaptizandi.
4. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Scripturae. Actuum octavo4 dicitur de Samaritanis, quod baptizati erant in nomine Domini Iesu, et tunc imponebant manus super eos; et Apostoli non faciebant aliud nisi imponere manus in nomine Domini Iesu; sed tunc quaero: aut baptismus ille fuit Christi, aut Ioannis, quo baptizati erant? Non Christi, ut patet per textum: Nondum enim in quemquam illorum venerat etc.; sed baptismus Christi dabat Spiritum sanctum, et Glossa dicit ibi: « Baptizati, tantum aqua tincti, non Spiritu »: ergo fuit baptismus Ioannis: ergo non oportebat nisi manus imponi.
Contra: 1. Legitur Actuum decimo nono5, quod Paulus rebaptizavit baptizatos baptismate Ioannis: ergo rebaptizandi sunt. Si dicas, quod ideo rebaptizavit, quia non habebant fidem Trinitatis; tunc ergo, suppleta fide Trinitatis, non oportuit rebaptizari; sed constat, quod ante instruxit in fide, quam baptizaret: ergo nullo modo debuit baptizare.
2. Item, Augustinus6 assignat generalem differentiam inter baptismum Ioannis et baptismum Christi, dicens: « Baptizavit Iudas, et rebaptizatum non est; baptizavit Ioannes, et rebaptizatum est »: ergo generaliter omnes erant rebaptizandi.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia, sicut dictum est7, baptismus Ioannis assuefaciebat et dirigebat ad baptismum Christi; unde ipse Ioannes dicebat: Ego baptizo vos aqua, ille baptizabit vos Spiritu sancto: ergo si frustra assuescit aliquis ad faciendum aliquid, quod non facit; frustra baptizati sunt baptismo Ioannis, nisi baptizarentur etiam baptismo Christi.
4. Item, impositio manuum habebat locum Sacramenti confirmationis; sed confirmationis Sacramentum praesupponit Sacramentum baptismi et alias non valet8: ergo si nondum habebant plenum Sacramentum baptismi, nihil faciebat confirmatio sive impositio manuum eis.
5. Item, in baptismo imprimitur character, qui est fundamentum ordinis et aliorum Sacramentorum9; sed character non imprimebatur in baptismo Ioannis nec in impositione manuum, quia non habebant cum illo aliquam similitudinem: ergo tales semper carerent charactere: ergo nunquam eis valerent alia Sacramenta.
Conclusio. Communis opinio contra Magistrum docet, baptizatos baptismo Ioannis omnes rebaptizandos fuisse.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplex fuit super hoc opinio, una videlicet, quod baptizati baptismo Ioannis, si non habebant fidem Trinitatis, rebaptizandi erant; si autem habebant fidem Trinitatis, non oportebat eos rebaptizari, sed sufficiebat, manus imponi. — Et ratio huius positionis fuit, quod quia tales habebant ablutionem exteriorem et habebant fidem Trinitatis, qua interius insigniebantur tanquam charactere, et habebant Spiritum sanctum per impositionem manuum; et ideo tales non erant rebaptizandi. — Haec autem opinio roboratur per auctoritatem: quia, Actuum octavo10, non sunt rebaptizati, et decimo nono, sunt rebaptizati; et ideo nec generaliter asserunt nec negant, sed distinguunt ad sustinendum hanc opinionem. Et dicunt, quod pro tempore illo impositio manuum plus valebat, quam nunc confirmatio; dabat enim baptismum flaminis. — Huius opinionis fuit Magister11 et alii, qui eum sustinent.
Alia opinio est, quod omnes sunt rebaptizandi, et quia ille baptismus Ioannis solum assuefaciebat, non regenerabat; impositio manuum non characteristicabat animam. Et ista est communis opinio modernorum magistrorum.
Quod ergo obiicitur, quod erat ablutio 1. 2. exterior et interior; dicendum, quod non quaecumque ablutio exterior est Sacramentum, sed in qua imprimitur character12; et talis non fuit in baptismo Ioannis. Ideo patet illud.
3. Ad illud Hieronymi dicendum, quod non vult ibi tangere causam rebaptizationis, sed insufficientiam fidei in alteram personarum13; et hoc patet, si inspiciantur antecedentia et consequentia.
4. Ad aliud dicendum, quod Samaritani baptizati erant a Philippo baptismo Christi, sicut innuit Glossa14. Et quod dicitur, quod non receperant Spiritum sanctum, intelligitur visibiliter, quia ille non erat Philippus Apostolus, sed discipulus; et ideo baptizare potuit et praedicare, sed non manus imponere ad dandum Spiritum sanctum visibiliter. Unde Glossa, Actuum octavo15, super illud Miserunt ad illos Petrum et Ioannem: « Philippus, qui Samariae evangelizabat, unus de septem erat. Si enim Apostolus esset, manus imponere posset, quod solis episcopis convenit ».
Et ita patet, quod haec opinio, quae dicit, quod non erant omnes rebaptizandi, non habet fulcimentum ex Scriptura nec ex auctoritate evidenti, nec etiam habet rationem cogentem. — Alia vero opinio auctoritatem habet, scilicet quod omnes sunt rebaptizandi, sicut patet Actuum decimo nono16. Et non est ratio, quia defectum haberent fidei; quantumcumque enim aliquis est infidelis, non est rebaptizandus, sed erudiendus: ergo haec erat ratio, scilicet quia ille baptismus non computabatur pro Sacramento. Et habet auctoritatem a Sanctis. Augustinus enim super Ioannem homilia quinta17 dicit: « Qui baptizati sunt baptismate Ioannis, non eis suffecit; baptizati enim sunt baptismate Christi ». Item Beda: « Ad hoc Ioannes baptizabat, ut ad baptismum Christi dirigeret ». Ad hoc facit Glossa super illud Ioannis tertio18: « Quantum catechumenis », et haec supra habita est. — Rationem etiam habet propter characterem, qui imprimitur; et quia baptismus Christi erat ianua Sacramentorum; postremo, quia assuefactorius erat, frustra erat, quia vana est assuefactio, ubi non consequitur illud, ad quod est. Huic igitur opinioni tanquam securiori et rectiori consentiendum credo19.
---
Question III. On the use or efficacy of the baptism of John.
Third, the question is asked concerning the use of John's baptism, or its efficacy: namely, whether the baptism of John, together with the laying-on of hands, was equivalent to the baptism of Christ. And that it was so seems [to be the case]:
1. By reason: because these two things make baptism complete, namely to be baptized in water and the Spirit1; but by John they were baptized with water, [and] by the laying-on of hands with the Spirit: therefore these two are equivalent to the baptism of Christ.
2. Likewise, this seems [so] by another reason: because for baptism to be a complete Sacrament it is not necessary that someone be washed inwardly and outwardly at the same time, but [it may be done] successively, as is evident in one who approaches feignedly2: therefore it seems that where the laying-on of hands washed inwardly through the Spirit, together with the preceding outward washing, there was an entire Sacrament.
3. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Jerome and of the Master3. For Jerome says, on Joel: « Those baptized by John in the name of the one to come, because they said: Neither have we so much as heard whether there be a Holy Spirit, were baptized again »: therefore this is the reason, that they did not know the Holy Spirit: therefore if this is the right cause, the opposite is the cause of the opposite: therefore if they were baptized and had faith in the Trinity, they were not to be rebaptized.
4. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Scripture. In Acts the eighth4 it is said of the Samaritans that they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then they laid hands upon them; and the Apostles did nothing else but lay hands [on them] in the name of the Lord Jesus; but then I ask: was that baptism Christ's, or John's, by which they had been baptized? Not Christ's, as is evident from the text: For as yet he had come upon none of them, etc.; but the baptism of Christ gave the Holy Spirit, and the Gloss says there: « Baptized, only dipped in water, not in the Spirit »: therefore it was the baptism of John: therefore nothing was required except that hands be laid [on them].
On the contrary: 1. It is read in Acts the nineteenth5 that Paul rebaptized those baptized with the baptism of John: therefore they are to be rebaptized. If you say that he rebaptized for this reason, that they did not have faith in the Trinity; then therefore, once faith in the Trinity was supplied, it was not necessary to be rebaptized; but it is established that he first instructed [them] in faith before he baptized: therefore in no way ought he to have baptized.
2. Likewise, Augustine6 assigns a general difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ, saying: « Judas baptized, and it was not rebaptized; John baptized, and it was rebaptized »: therefore generally all were to be rebaptized.
3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because, as has been said7, the baptism of John accustomed [people] to and directed [them] toward the baptism of Christ; whence John himself said: I baptize you with water, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit: therefore if someone is accustomed in vain to doing something which he does not do; [then] they were baptized in vain with the baptism of John, unless they were also baptized with the baptism of Christ.
4. Likewise, the laying-on of hands held the place of the Sacrament of confirmation; but the Sacrament of confirmation presupposes the Sacrament of baptism and otherwise is not valid8: therefore if they did not yet have the full Sacrament of baptism, confirmation, or the laying-on of hands, did nothing for them.
5. Likewise, in baptism a character is imprinted, which is the foundation of order and of the other Sacraments9; but a character was not imprinted in the baptism of John nor in the laying-on of hands, because they had no likeness with [the baptism of Christ]: therefore such persons would always lack the character: therefore the other Sacraments would never avail them.
Conclusion. The common opinion, against the Master, teaches that all those baptized with the baptism of John had to be rebaptized.
I respond: It must be said that there was a twofold opinion on this matter: one, namely, that those baptized with the baptism of John, if they did not have faith in the Trinity, were to be rebaptized; but if they had faith in the Trinity, it was not necessary that they be rebaptized, but it sufficed that hands be laid [on them]. — And the reason of this position was that, because such persons had the outward washing and had faith in the Trinity, by which they were inwardly marked as if with a character, and had the Holy Spirit through the laying-on of hands; and therefore such persons were not to be rebaptized. — But this opinion is strengthened by authority: because, in Acts the eighth10, they are not rebaptized, and in the nineteenth, they are rebaptized; and therefore [its holders] neither assert nor deny generally, but distinguish in order to maintain this opinion. And they say that for that time the laying-on of hands availed more than confirmation does now; for it gave the baptism of the spirit. — Of this opinion was the Master11 and others who uphold him.
The other opinion is that all are to be rebaptized, and because that baptism of John only accustomed, [but] did not regenerate; the laying-on of hands did not stamp a character on the soul. And this is the common opinion of the modern masters.
As to what is therefore objected, [objections] 1 and 2, that there was a washing outward and inward; it must be said that not just any outward washing is a Sacrament, but [only] one in which a character is imprinted12; and such was not [present] in the baptism of John. Therefore that [objection] is clear.
3. To that [argument] of Jerome it must be said that he does not there intend to touch upon the cause of rebaptization, but [upon] the insufficiency of faith in one of the Persons13; and this is evident if the antecedents and consequents are examined.
4. To the other it must be said that the Samaritans had been baptized by Philip with the baptism of Christ, as the Gloss intimates14. And as to what is said, that they had not received the Holy Spirit, it is understood visibly, because that Philip was not the Apostle, but the disciple; and therefore he could baptize and preach, but not lay on hands to give the Holy Spirit visibly. Whence the Gloss, in Acts the eighth15, on the text They sent unto them Peter and John: « Philip, who was evangelizing in Samaria, was one of the seven. For if he had been an Apostle, he could have laid on hands, which belongs to bishops alone ».
And thus it is evident that this opinion, which says that not all were to be rebaptized, has no support from Scripture nor from evident authority, nor does it even have a compelling reason. — But the other opinion has authority, namely that all are to be rebaptized, as is evident in Acts the nineteenth16. And the reason is not that they would have had a defect of faith; for however much someone is an unbeliever, he is not to be rebaptized, but to be instructed: therefore this was the reason, namely that that baptism was not reckoned as a Sacrament. And it has authority from the Saints. For Augustine, on John, in the fifth homily17, says: « To those who were baptized with the baptism of John, it did not suffice; for they were baptized with the baptism of Christ ». Likewise Bede: « To this end John baptized, that he might direct [them] to the baptism of Christ ». To this purpose serves the Gloss on the text of John the third18: « As [it avails] for catechumens », and this has been treated above. — It also has a reason on account of the character which is imprinted; and because the baptism of Christ was the gate of the Sacraments; finally, because it was [merely] preparatory, it was in vain, since the accustoming is empty where that for which it exists is not obtained. To this opinion, therefore, as the safer and more correct, I believe one should assent19.
---
- 1Ioan. 3, 5: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu etc.John 3:5: Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, etc.
- 2Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 2, et ibid. Comment. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Inferius pro lavit edd. falso non lavit.Cf. below, the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 2, and there the Commentary, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, following. — Further down, for lavit the editions wrongly [read] non lavit.
- 3Hic c. 6, ubi etiam verba Hieron. super Ioel 2, 29. afferuntur, in quibus allegatur Act. 19, 2. — Inferius respicitur dictum Aristot., IV. Topic. c. 4: Si oppositum in opposito, et propositum in proposito erit.Here, c. 6, where the words of Jerome on Joel 2:29 are also adduced, in which Acts 19:2 is cited. — Further down reference is made to the saying of Aristotle, Topics IV, c. 4: If the opposite [is] in the opposite, then the proposed [will be] in the proposed.
- 4Vers. 16. seq. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 16. — De Glossa, quam exhibet Lyranus ut interlinearem, cfr. Beda, Retract. in Act. Apost. I, 5.Verse 16 and following. — The following text is in the same place, v. 16. — On the Gloss, which Lyra presents as interlinear, cf. Bede, Retractations on the Acts of the Apostles I, 5.
- 5Vers. 3. — De obiectione, quae mox infertur, vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.Verse 3. — On the objection which is brought in shortly, see here the text of the Master, c. 6.
- 6In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 18.On the Gospel of John, tractate 5, n. 18.
- 7Quaest. praeced. — Textus Scripturae est Marc. 1, 6: Ego baptizavi vos etc. Cfr. Matth. 3, 11; Luc. 3, 16.The preceding question. — The text of Scripture is Mark 1:6 [recte 1:8]: I have baptized you etc. Cf. Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16.
- 8Ut ostenditur infra d. 7. a. 3. q. 3. — Edd. et aliis non valet, nisi baptizatis, multi codd. incomplete et aliis non valet. In fine arg. pro eis cod. M in eis.As is shown below, d. 7, a. 3, q. 3. — The editions [read] and otherwise is not valid, except for the baptized; many codices, incompletely, and otherwise is not valid. At the end of the argument, for eis codex M [reads] in eis.
- 9Cfr. infra d. 6. p. I. q. 1. seqq.Cf. below, d. 6, p. I, q. 1, and following.
- 10Vers. 16. seq. — Seq. locus est ibid. 19, 5. — Pro rebaptizati multi codd. perperam rebaptizandi. Superius pro roboratur cod. II roborabatur.Verse 16 and following. — The following passage is in the same place, 19:5. — For rebaptizati many codices wrongly [read] rebaptizandi. Above, for roboratur codex II [reads] roborabatur.
- 11Hic c. 6. Magistrum sequitur Petr. Pictaviensis, V. Sent. c. 7. in fine. — Pro qui eum edd. qui eam.Here, c. 6. Peter of Poitiers follows the Master, Sentences V, c. 7, at the end. — For qui eum the editions [read] qui eam.
- 12Edd. subiungunt: qui semper manet, et in fine solut. Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum.The editions add: who always remains, and at the end of the solution: And by this the reply to the second is clear.
- 13Scil. Trinitatis. Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6. locum Hieronymi et Dialog. contra Luciferianos, n. 7, ubi Hieronymus probat, baptizatos baptismate Ioannis rebaptizatos fuisse. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. fi. m. 7: Male [Magister] intellexit Hieronymum. Licet enim dixerit Hieronymus, quod illi qui non habuerunt fidem Spiritus sancti, rebaptizandi erant, non propter hoc consequens est, quod illi qui habuerunt, non erant rebaptizandi. Non enim intendebat dicere illud cum praecisione, sed simpliciter.Namely, of the Trinity. See here in the text of the Master, c. 6, the passage of Jerome and the Dialogue against the Luciferians, n. 7, where Jerome proves that those baptized with the baptism of John were rebaptized. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 6, m. 7: The Master understood Jerome wrongly. For although Jerome said that those who did not have faith in the Holy Spirit were to be rebaptized, it does not follow from this that those who did have [it] were not to be rebaptized. For he did not intend to say that with precision, but simply.
- 14In Act. 8, 12.On Acts 8:12.
- 15Vers. 14. — Glossa sumta est ex Beda (in hunc locum): Philippus... Si enim Apostolus esset, ipse utique manum imponere potuisset, ut acciperent Spiritum sanctum. Hoc enim solis pontificibus debetur. Strabus et Lyranus exhibent hanc Glossam ut ordinariam in v. 17. — Aliquanto inferius pro fulcimentum cod. Z fundamentum, et pro rationem cogentem ed. I cum pluribus codd. perperam auctoritatem cogentem.Verse 14. — The Gloss is taken from Bede (on this passage): Philip... For if he had been an Apostle, he himself could indeed have laid on a hand, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For this is owed to pontiffs alone. Strabo and Lyra present this Gloss as the ordinary one at v. 17. — Somewhat further down, for fulcimentum codex Z [reads] fundamentum, and for rationem cogentem edition I with several codices wrongly [reads] auctoritatem cogentem.
- 16Vers. 5. — Post patet cod. H addit per exemplum.Verse 5. — After patet codex H adds per exemplum.
- 17Sive tract. 5. n. 5. — Sententia Bedae invenitur (aliis quidem verbis) in Expositione Evang. Ioan. I, 31. Cfr. ibid. 3, 27.Or tractate 5, n. 5. — The opinion of Bede is found (though in other words) in the Exposition of the Gospel of John I, 31. Cf. the same place, 3, 27.
- 18Vers. 23: Erat autem et Ioannes baptizans. Vide quaest. praeced. arg. 7. ad oppos. — Inferius respicitur definitio vani (frustra), quam dat Aristot., II. Phys. text. 62. (c. 6.): Vanum est quod non includit finem, ad quem est. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 830, nota 8. — Post postremo, quia codd. FII suppient baptismus Ioannis, cod. B autem ponit: Baptismus Ioannis, qui anterior.Verse 23: And John also was baptizing. See the preceding question, argument 7 against [the affirmative]. — Further down reference is made to the definition of the vain (frustra) which Aristotle gives, Physics II, text 62 (c. 6): That is vain which does not include the end for which it exists. Cf. tome III, p. 830, note 8. — After postremo, quia codices FII supply baptismus Ioannis, but codex B reads: The baptism of John, which [is] prior.
- 19Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion to question I of this same article.