|
Objection 1: It would seem that the baptism of John was not from
God. For nothing sacramental that is from God 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 Mt. 21:25: "The baptism of John . . . was it
from heaven or from men?" Therefore the baptism of John was not from
God.
Objection 2: Further, every doctrine that proceeds from God 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, God also bearing them witness by
signs and wonders." But it is written of John the Baptist (Jn.
10:41) that "John did no sign." Therefore it seems that the
baptism wherewith he baptized was not from God.
Objection 3: Further, those sacraments which are instituted by God
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 God.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 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 God, 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 God alone, except in
as far as God works in man.
Reply to Objection 1: By the baptism of the New Law men are
baptized inwardly by the Holy Ghost, and this is accomplished by God
alone. But by the baptism of John the body alone was cleansed by the
water. Wherefore it is written (Mt. 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 principal effect, which is the inward cleansing.
Reply to Objection 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, Jn. 1:23 (cf. Is. 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."
Reply to Objection 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to
last only for a short time, for the reasons given above (Article
1). Therefore it was not the subject of a general commandment set
down in Sacred Writ, but of a certain interior revelation of the
Holy Ghost, as stated above.
|
|