 Question 37 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour, by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 37 of Christ's Circumcision and of the other legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ, in four articles. We must now consider Christ's Circumcision, and since the Circumcision is a kind of profession of observing the law, according to Galatians 5.3, I testify to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole law. We shall have, at the same time, to inquire about other legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ. Therefore, there are four points of inquiry. First, his Circumcision. Second, the imposition of his name. Third, his presentation. Fourth, his mother's purification. First article, whether Christ should have been circumcised. Objection 1. It seems that Christ should not have been circumcised. For on the advent of the reality the figure ceases. But Circumcision was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity as may be seen from Genesis 17. Now this covenant was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore, Circumcision should have ceased at once. Objection 2 further. Every action of Christ is a lesson to us, as Pope Innocent said in a homily, Therefore, it is written in John 3.15, I have given you an example that as I have done to you, so you do also. But we ought not to be circumcised according to Galatians 5.2. If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Therefore, it seems that neither should Christ have been circumcised. Objection 3 further. Circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above in Question 14 Article 3 and in Question 15 Article 1. Therefore, Christ should not have been circumcised. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 2.21, after eight days were accomplished that the child should be circumcised. I answer that, for several reasons, Christ ought to have been circumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of a human nature, in contradiction to the Manichaeans who said that he had an imaginary body, and in contradiction to Apollonarius who said that Christ's body was consubstantial with his Godhead, and in contradiction to Valentine who said that Christ brought his body from heaven. Secondly, in order to show his approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old. Thirdly, in order to prove that he was descended from Abraham, who had received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in him. Fourthly, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving him if he were uncircumcised. Fifthly, in order by his example to exhort us to be obedient, as Bede says in a homily on the Gospel. Wherefore, he was circumcised on the eighth day according to the prescription of the law. Confer Leviticus 12.3. Sixthly, that he who had come into the world in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was want to be healed. Seventhly, that by taking on himself the burden of the law, he might set others free therefrom according to Galatians 4 verses 4 and 5. God sent his son made under the law that he might redeem them who were under the law. Reply to Objection 1. Circumcision, by the removal of the piece of skin in the member of generation, signified the passing away of the old generation according to Athanasius, from the decrepitude of which we are freed by Christ's passion. Consequently, this figure was not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in his passion, and to which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore, it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before his passion. Reply to Objection 2. Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of obligation, and thus his action and this should be imitated by us in fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time. Because there is a time and opportunity for every business, according to Ecclesiasticus 8.6. Moreover, according to Origen in one of his homilies on the Gospel of Luke, as we died when he died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we circumcised spiritually through Christ, wherefore we need no carnal circumcision. And this is what the apostle says in Colossians 2.11. In whom, that is Christ, you are circumcised and with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ. Reply to Objection 3. As Christ voluntarily took upon himself our death, which is the effect of sin, whereas he had no sin in himself in order to deliver us from death, and to make us die spiritually unto sin. So also he took upon himself circumcision, which was a remedy against original sin, whereas he contracted no original sin. In order to deliver us from the yoke of the law, and to accomplish a spiritual circumcision in us, in order, that is to say, that by taking upon himself the shadow, he might accomplish the reality. Second Article Whether his name was suitably given to Christ Objection 1. It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ, for the gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. But the prophets foretold another name for Christ, for it is written in Isaiah 7.14 Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. And in Isaiah 8.3 Call his name, hasten to take away the spoils, make haste to take away the prey. And in Isaiah 9.6 His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. And in Zechariah 6.12 Behold a man, the Orient is his name. Thus it was unsuitable that his name should be called Jesus. Objection 2 further It is written in Isaiah 62 verse 2 Thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord hath named. But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several in the Old Testament, as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ, confer Luke 3.29. Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for his name to be called Jesus. Objection 3 further The name Jesus signifies salvation, as is clear from Matthew 1.21. She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. But salvation through Christ was accomplished, not only in the circumcision, but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the apostle in Romans 4, verses 11 and 12. Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at his circumcision. On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written in Luke 2.21. After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised. His name was called Jesus. I answer that a name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is clear in the names of genera and species, as stated in metaphysics 4. Since a name is but an expression of the definition, which designates a thing's proper nature. Now the names of individual men are always taken from some property of the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time, thus men are named after the saints on whose feast days they are born, or in respect of some blood relation. Thus a son is named after his father or some other relation. And thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wish to call him by his father's name Zachary, not by the name of John, because there was none of his kindred that was called by this name, as is related in Luke 1, verses 59 through 61. Or again from some occurrence. Thus Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manassas, saying, God hath made me to forget all my labours. Confer Genesis 41, 51. Or again from some quality of the person who receives the name. Thus it is written in Genesis 25, 25 that he that came forth first was red and hairy like a skin, and his name was called Esau, which is interpreted red. But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift bestowed on them by him. Thus it was said to Abraham in Genesis 17, 5, Thou shalt be called Abraham, because I have made thee a father of many nations. And it was said to Peter in Matthew 16, 18, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Since therefore this prerogative of grace was bestowed on the man Christ that through him all men might be saved, therefore he was becomingly named Jesus, that is, Savior. The angel having foretold this name, not only to his mother, but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster father. Reply to Objection 1. All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means salvation. For the name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us, designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the divine and human natures in the person of the Son of God, the result of which union was that God is with us. When it was said, call his name, hasten to take away, etc. These words indicate from what he saved us, notably from the devil, who spoils he took away according to Colossians 2.15. Despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently. When it was said, his name shall be called wonderful, etc. The way and term of our salvation are pointed out. In as much as, by the wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead, we are brought to the inheritance of the life to come, in which the children of God will enjoy perfect peace under God their prince. When it was said, behold a man the orient is his name. Reference is made to the same, as in the first, notably to the mystery of the incarnation, by reason of which to the righteous a light is risen up in darkness, as is stated in Psalm 111, verse 4. Reply to Objection 2. The name Jesus could be suitable for some other reason to those who lived before Christ, for instance, because they were saviours in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of spiritual and universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and thus it is called a new name. Reply to Objection 3. As is related in Genesis 17, Abraham received from God, and at the same time, both his name and the commandment of circumcision. For this reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the very day of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had not as yet perfect existence. Just as now also, children receive their names in baptism. Wherefore, on Proverbs 4-3, I was my father's son, tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother. The gloss says, Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother, when Scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth? Therefore it was that Christ received his name at the time of his circumcision. 3. Whether Christ was becomingly presented in the temple Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in the temple, for it is written in Exodus 13-2, Sanctify unto me every firstborn that openness the womb among the children of Israel. But Christ came forth from the closed womb of the virgin, and thus he did not open his mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this law to be presented in the temple. Objection 2 further, that which is always and once present cannot be presented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in God's presence in the highest degree, as being always united to him in unity of person. Therefore there is no need for him to be presented to the Lord. Objection 3 further, Christ is the principal victim, to whom all the victims of the old law are referred as the figure to the reality. But a victim should not be offered up for a victim? Therefore it was not fitting that another victim should be offered up for Christ. Objection 4 further, among the legal victims the principal was the lamb, which was a continual sacrifice, as is stated in Numbers 28-6, for which reason Christ is also called the Lamb, behold the Lamb of God, as is stated in John 1.29. It was therefore more fitting that a lamb should be offered for Christ than a pair of turtledubs or two young pigeons. On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as having taken place in Luke 22, verse 22. I answer that as stated above in Article 1. Christ wished to be made under the law that he might redeem them who are under the law, as stated in Galatians 4, verses 4 and 5, and that the justification of the law might be spiritually fulfilled in his members. Now the law contained a twofold precept touching the children born. One was a general precept which affected all, namely that when the days of the mother's purification were expired, a sacrifice was to be offered either for a son or for a daughter, as laid down in Leviticus 12-6. And this sacrifice was for the expiation of the sin in which the child was conceived and born, and also for a certain consecration of the child because it was then presented in the temple for the first time, wherefor one offering was made as a holocaust and another for sin. The other was a special precept in the law concerning the firstborn of both man and beast. For the Lord claimed for himself all the firstborn in Israel because in order to deliver the Israelites he slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle, as is related in Exodus 12, verses 12 and 13. The firstborn of Israel being saved, which law is set down in Exodus 13. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is the firstborn amongst many brethren, as stated in Romans 8, verse 29. Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her firstborn, and since he wished to be made under the law, the evangelist Luke shows that both these precepts were fulfilled in his regard. First, as to that which concerns the firstborn, when he says, they carried him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. Luke 2, verses 22 and 23. Secondly, as to the general precept which concerned all, when he says in Luke 2, verse 24. And to offer a sacrifice according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons. Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory of Nisa says, It seems that this precept of the law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone, in a special manner exclusively proper to him. For he alone whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained in violet. Consequently, the words opening the womb imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for a special reason it is written a male, because he contracted nothing of the woman's sin, and in a singular way he is called holy, because he felt no contagion of earthly corruption whose birth was wondrously immaculate. Confer Ambrose, commenting on Luke 223. Reply to Objection 2. As the Son of God became man, and was circumcised in the flesh, not for his own sake, but that he might make us to be gods through grace, and that we might be circumcised in the spirit. So again, for our sake he was presented to the Lord that we may learn to offer ourselves to God, as Athanasius commented on Luke 223. And this was done after his circumcision in order to show that, no one who is not circumcised from vice is worthy of divine regard, as Bede says, commenting on the same verse. Reply to Objection 3. For this very reason he wished the legal victims to be offered for him who is the true victim, in order that the figure might be united to and confirmed by the reality, against those who denied that in the gospel Christ preached the God of the law. For we must not think, says Origen, that the good God subjected his Son to the enemy's law, which he himself had not given. Reply to Objection 4. The law of Leviticus 12, verses 6 and 8. And so the Lord, who being rich, became poor for our sakes, that through his poverty we might be rich, as is written in 2 Corinthians 8, verse 9. Nevertheless, these birds have a figurative sense. For the turtle dove, being a loquacious bird, represents the preaching and confession of faith, and because it is a chaste animal, it signifies chastity. And being a solitary animal, it signifies contemplation. The pigeon is a gentle and simple animal, and therefore signifies gentleness and simplicity. It is also a gregarious animal, wherefore it signifies the act of life. Consequently, this sacrifice signified the perfection of Christ and his members. Again, both these animals, by the plaintiveness of their song, represented the mourning of the saints in this life. But the turtle dove, being solitary, signifies the tears of prayer, whereas the pigeon, being gregarious, signifies the public prayers of the church. As Bede states again in his homily on the purification. Lastly, two of each of these animals are offered to show that holiness should be not only in the soul, but also in the body. Fourth article. Whether it was fitting that the mother of God should go to the temple to be purified? Objection one. It would seem that it was unfitting for the mother of God to go to the temple to be purified. For purification presupposes uncleanness. But there was no uncleanness, and the Blessed Virgin is stated above in questions 27 and 28. Therefore, she should not have gone to the temple to be purified. Objection two further. It is written in Leviticus 12. If a woman, having received a seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven days. And consequently she is forbidden to enter into the sanctuary until the days of her purification be fulfilled. But the Blessed Virgin brought forth a male child without receiving the seed of man? Therefore she had no need to come to the temple to be purified. Objection three further. Purification from uncleanness is accomplished by grace alone. But the sacraments of the old law did not confer grace. Rather, indeed, did she have the very author of grace within her? Therefore it was not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should come to the temple to be purified. On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated in Luke 2 verse 22 that the days of Mary's purification were accomplished according to the law of Moses. I answer that, as the fullness of grace flowed from Christ onto his mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her son in humility. For God giveth grace to the humble, as is written in James 4 verse 6. And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the law wished, nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens of the law, in order to give an example of humility and obedience, and in order to show his approval of the law, and again in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for colluminating him. For the same reasons he wished his mother also to fulfill the prescriptions of the law, to which nevertheless she was not subject. Reply to Objection 1. Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she wished to fulfill the observance of purification, not because she needed it, but on account of the precept of the law. Thus the evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification, according to the law, were accomplished, for she needed no purification in herself. Reply to Objection 2. Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to exclude uncleanness from the mother of God, who is with child, without receiving seed. It is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfill that precept, but fulfilled the observance of purification of her own accord, as stated above. Reply to Objection 3. The sacraments of the law did not cleanse from the uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they foreshadowed this purification, for they cleansed by a kind of carnal purification from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as stated in the second part, in the parts Prima Secunde, Question 102, Article 5, as well as in Question 1, Article 2. But the Blessed Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did not need to be purified. End of Question 37. Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC. Question 38 of Summa Theologica Terziapars. Treaties on the Saviour. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars. Treaties on the Saviour. By St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 38 of the Baptism of John in six articles. We now proceed to consider the Baptism wherewith Christ was baptized. And since Christ was baptized with the Baptism of John, we shall consider. 1. The Baptism of John in general. 2. The Baptizing of Christ. In regard to the former, there are six points of inquiry. First, whether it was fitting that John should baptize. Second, whether that baptism was from God. Third, whether it conferred grace. Fourth, whether others besides Christ should have received the Baptism. Fifth, whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized. Sixth, whether those who received John's Baptism had afterwards to receive Christ's Baptism. First article. Whether it was fitting that John should baptize. Objection one. It would seem that it was not fitting that John should baptize. For every sacramental right belongs to some law. But John did not introduce a new law. Therefore it was not fitting that he should introduce the new right of Baptism. Objection two further. John was sent by God for a witness, according to John 1 verses 6 and 7, as a prophet. According to Luke 1.76, Thou child shall be called the prophet of the highest. But the prophets who lived before Christ did not introduce any new right, but persuaded men to observe the rights of the law. As is clearly stated in Malachi 4.4. Remember the law of Moses, my servant. Therefore neither should John have introduced a new right of Baptism. Objection three. Further, when there is too much of anything nothing should be added to it. But Jews observed a superfluity of Baptisms, for it is written in Mark 7 verses 3 and 4 that the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, and when they come from the market, unless they be washed they eat not, and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe the washings of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds. Therefore it was unfitting that John should baptize. On the contrary, is the authority of Scripture in Matthew 3 verses 5 and 6, which after stating the holiness of John adds many went out to him, and were baptized in the Jordan. I answer that it was fitting for John to baptize for four reasons. First, it was necessary for Christ to be baptized by John in order that he might sanctify Baptism, as Augustine observes in his commentary on John. Secondly, that Christ might be manifested, whence John himself says in John 1 verse 31, that he, that is Christ, may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water, for he announced Christ to the crowds that gathered around him, which was thus done much more easily than if he had gone in search of each individual, as Chrysostom observes, commenting on St. John in his homily 10 on the Gospel of Matthew. Thirdly, that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of Christ, wherefor Gregory says in a homily, his homily seven on the Gospel, that therefore did John baptize, that being consistent with his office of precursor, as he had preceded our Lord in birth, so he might also by baptizing precede him who was about to baptize. Fourthly, that by persuading men to do penance, he might prepare men to receive worthily the baptism of Christ. Wherefor Bede says that, the baptism of John was as profitable before the baptism of Christ, as instruction in the faith profits the catechumens not yet baptized, for just as he preached penance, and foretold the baptism of Christ, and drew men to the knowledge of the truth that hath appeared to the world, so do the ministers of the church, after instructing men, chide them for their sins, and lastly promise them forgiveness in the baptism of Christ. Reply to Objection 1. The baptism of John was not a sacrament properly so called, per se, but a kind of sacramental preparatory to the baptism of Christ. Consequently, in a way, it belonged to the Law of Christ, but not to the Law of Moses. Reply to Objection 2. John was not only a prophet, but more than a prophet, as stated in Matthew 11, verse 9, for he was the term of the Law and the beginning of the Gospel. Therefore it was in his province to lead men, both by word and deed, to the Law of Christ, rather than to the observance of the Old Law. Reply to Objection 3. Those baptisms of the Pharisees were vain, being ordered merely unto carnal cleanliness. But the baptism of John was ordered unto spiritual cleanliness, since it led men to do penance, as stated above. Second article. Whether the baptism of John was from God? 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 Matthew 21, verse 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 in Exodus 4 gave Moses the power of working signs. And it is written in Hebrews 2, verses 3 and 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 in John 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 in John 1, verse 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 right of baptism and the effect of baptism. The right 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 affected 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 in Matthew 3, verse 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 affected 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. In John 1, 23, making reference to Isaiah 40, verse 3. Moreover, the very austerity of his life was a commendation of his office, because as Chrysostom says, commenting on Matthew, 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 in Article 1. Therefore it was not the subject of a general commandment set down in Sacred Ritt, but of a certain interior revelation of the Holy Ghost, as stated above. Third Article Whether grace was given in the baptism of John. Objection 1. It would seem that grace was given in the baptism of John, for it is written in Mark 1.4. John was in the desert baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance unto remission of sins. But penance and remission of sins are the effect of grace. Therefore the baptism of John conferred grace. Objection 2. Further, those who were about to be baptized by John confessed their sins, as related in Matthew 3.6 and Mark 1.5. But the confession of sins is ordered to their remission, which is affected by grace. Therefore grace was conferred in the baptism of John. Objection 3. Further, the baptism of John was more akin than circumcision to the baptism of Christ. Objection 4. But original sin was remitted through circumcision, because, as Bede says in his homily ten on circumcision, under the law circumcision brought the same saving aid to heal the wound of original sin, as baptism is wanted to bring now that grace is revealed. Much more, therefore, did the baptism of John affect the remission of sins, which cannot be accomplished without grace. On the contrary, it is written in Matthew 3.11. By indeed baptize you in water, unto penance, which words Gregory thus expounds in a certain homily, his homily seven on the Gospel. John baptized, not in the spirit, but in water, because he could not forgive sins. But grace is given by the Holy Ghost, and by means thereof, sins are taken away. Therefore, the baptism of John did not confer grace. I answer that, as stated above in Article II reply. The whole teaching and work of John was in preparation for Christ, just as it is the duty of the servant and of the undercraftsman to prepare the matter for the form which is accomplished by the head craftsman. Now grace was to be conferred on men through Christ, according to John 1.17. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Therefore, the baptism of John did not confer grace, but only prepared the way for grace, and this in three ways. First, by John's teaching, which led men to faith in Christ. Secondly, by a customing men to the right of Christ's baptism. Thirdly, by penance, preparing men to receive the effect of Christ's baptism. Reply to Objection 1. In these words, as Bede says, commenting on Mark 1.4, a twofold baptism of penance may be understood. One is that which John conferred by baptizing, which is called a baptism of penance, etc. By reason of its inducing men to do penance, and of its being a kind of protestation by which men avowed their purpose of doing penance. The other is the baptism of Christ, by which sins are omitted, and which John could not give, but only preach, saying, He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost. Or it may be said that he preached the baptism of penance, that is, which induced men to do penance, which penance leads men onto the remission of sins. Or again, it may be said with Jerome that, by the baptism of Christ grace is given, by which sins are omitted gratis, and that what is accomplished by the bridegroom is begun by the bridesmen, that is, by John. Consequently it is said that he baptized and preached the baptism of penance unto remission of sins, not as though he accomplished this himself, but because he began it by preparing the way for it. Reply to Objection 2. That confession of sins was not made unto the remission of sins, to be realized immediately through the baptism of John, but to be obtained through subsequent penance and through the baptism of Christ, for which that penance was a preparation. Reply to Objection 3. Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin, whereas the baptism of John was not instituted for this purpose, but was merely in preparation for the baptism of Christ, as stated above, whereas the sacraments attained their effect through the force of their institution. Fourth Article. Whether Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John. For as stated above in Article 1, the reason why John baptized was that Christ might receive baptism, as Augustine says, but what is proper to Christ should not be applicable to others. Therefore no others should have received that baptism. Objection 2. Further, whoever is baptized either receives something from the baptism or confers something on the baptism. But no one could receive anything from the baptism of John, because thereby grace was not conferred, as stated above in Article 3. On the other hand, no one could confer anything on baptism save Christ, who sanctified the waters by the touch of his most pure flesh, according to the Master in his sentences for three. Therefore it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John. Objection 3. Further, if others were baptized with that baptism, this was only an order that they might be prepared for the baptism of Christ. And thus it would seem fitting that the baptism of John should be conferred on all, old and young, Gentile and Jew, just as the baptism of Christ. But we do not read that either children or Gentiles were baptized by the latter, for it is written in Mark 1.5 that there went out to him all day of Jerusalem and were baptized by him. Therefore it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized by John. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 3, verse 21. It came to pass when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened. I answer that, for two reasons it behooved others besides Christ to be baptized with the baptism of John. First, as Augustine says in his commentary on John, if Christ alone had been baptized with the baptism of John, some would have said that John's baptism, with which Christ was baptized, was more excellent than that of Christ, with which others are baptized. Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared by John's baptism for the baptism of Christ. Reply to Objection 1. The baptism of John was instituted not only that Christ might be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above in Article 1. And yet, even if it were instituted merely in order that Christ might be baptized therewith, it was still necessary for others to receive this baptism in order to avoid the objection mentioned above. Reply to Objection 2. Others who approached to be baptized by John could not, indeed, confer anything on his baptism. Yet neither did they receive anything therefrom, save only the sign of penance. Reply to Objection 3. This was the baptism of penance for which children were not suited, wherefore they were not baptized therewith. But to bring the nations into the way of salvation was reserved to Christ alone, who is the expectation of the nations, as we read in Genesis 49, verse 10. Indeed, Christ forbade the apostles to preach the gospel to the Gentiles before his passion and resurrection. Much less fitting, therefore, was it for the Gentiles to be baptized by John. Fifth article. Whether John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized? Objection 1. It would seem that John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized. For it is written in John 131, that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore, am I come baptizing in water? But when Christ had been baptized, he was made sufficiently manifest, both by the testimony of John and by the dove coming down upon him, and again by the voice of the Father bearing witness to him. Therefore, it seems that John's baptism should not have endured thereafter. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says in his commentary on John, Christ was baptized, and John's baptism ceased to avail. Therefore, it seems that after Christ's baptism, John should not have continued to baptize. Objection 3. Further, John's baptism prepared the way for Christ's. But Christ's baptism began as soon as he had been baptized, because by the touch of his most pure flesh he endowed the waters with a regenerating virtue, as bead asserts. Therefore, it seems that John's baptism ceased when Christ had been baptized. On the contrary, it is written in John 3, verses 22 and 23. And John also was baptizing. But Christ did not baptize before being baptized. Therefore, it seems that John continued to baptize after Christ had been baptized. I answer that it was not fitting for the baptism of John to cease when Christ had been baptized. First, because as Grisostom says in his homily 29 on the Gospel of John, If John had ceased to baptize when Christ had been baptized, men would think that he was moved by jealousy or anger. Secondly, if he had ceased to baptize when Christ baptized, he would have given his disciples a motive for yet greater envy. Thirdly, because by continuing to baptize, he sent his heroes to Christ, as he states in his homily 29 on the Gospel of John. Fourthly, because as bead says, There still remained a shadow of the old law, nor should the forerunner withdraw until the truth be made manifest. Reply to Objection 1. When Christ was baptized, he was not as yet fully manifested. Consequently, there was still need for John to continue baptizing. Reply to Objection 2. The baptism of John ceased after Christ had been baptized, not immediately, but when the former was cast into prison. Thus, Grisostom says in his homily 29 on the Gospel of John, I consider that John's death was allowed to take place, and that Christ's preaching began in a great measure after John had died, so that the undivided allegiance of the multitude was transferred to Christ, and there was no further motive for the divergence of opinions concerning both of them. Reply to Objection 3. John's baptism prepared the way not only for Christ to be baptized, but also for others to approach to Christ's baptism, and this did not take place as soon as Christ was baptized. 6. Article Whether those who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. Objection 1. It would seem that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. For John was not less than the Apostles, since of him it is written in Matthew 11, 11. There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist. But those who were baptized by the Apostles were not baptized again, but only received the imposition of hands, for it is written in Acts 8, verses 16 and 17 that some were only baptized by Philip in the name of the Lord Jesus. 7. Then the Apostles, namely Peter and John, laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized by John had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. Objection 2. The Apostles were baptized with John's baptism, since some of them were his disciples, as is clear from John 1.37. But the Apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ, for it is written in John 4, too, that Jesus did not baptize but his disciples. Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. Objection 3. Further, he who is baptized is less than he who baptizes. But we are not told that John himself was baptized with the baptism of Christ. Therefore much less did those who had been baptized by John need to receive the baptism of Christ. Objection 4. Further it is written in Acts 19, verses 1 through 5, that Paul found certain disciples, and he said to them, Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him, We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said, In what then were you baptized? Who said? In John's baptism. Wherefore? They were, again, baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence it seems that they needed to be baptized again, because they did not know of the Holy Ghost, as Jerome says on Joel 2, verse 28, and in an epistle, and likewise Ambrose in his On the Holy Spirit. But some were baptized with John's baptism who had full knowledge of the Trinity. Therefore these had no need to be baptized again with Christ's baptism. Objection 5 further, on Romans 10, verse 8, this is the word of faith which we preach. The gloss of Augustine says, Whence this virtue in the water, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart, save by the efficacy of the word, not because it is uttered, but because it is believed. Whence it is clear that the virtue of baptism depends on faith. But the form of John's baptism signified the faith in which we are baptized, for Paul says in Acts 19, verse 4, John baptized the people with the baptism of penance saying, that they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had no need to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ. On the contrary, Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John, Those who were baptized with John's baptism needed to be baptized with the baptism of our Lord. I answer that according to the opinion of the Master in his sentences for D2. Those who had been baptized by John without knowing of the existence of the Holy Ghost, and who based their hopes on his baptism, were afterwards baptized with the baptism of Christ. But those who did not base their hope on John's baptism, and who believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were not baptized afterwards, but received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands made over them by the apostles. And this indeed is true as to the first part, and is confirmed by many authorities. But as to the second part, the assertion is altogether unreasonable. First, because John's baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely in water, as he himself says in Matthew 3.11. Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because when in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament, not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now it belongs of necessity to Christ's baptism, that it be given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3.5. Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Wherefore, in the case of those who had been baptized with John's baptism in water only, not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, but they had to be baptized wholly anew in water and the Holy Ghost. Reply to Objection 1, as Augustine says in his commentary on John. After John, baptism was administered, and the reason why was because he gave not Christ's baptism, but his own, that which Peter gave, and if any were given by Judas, that was Christ's. And therefore, if Judas baptized anyone, yet were they not rebaptized? For the baptism corresponds with him by whose authority it is given, not with him by whose ministry it is given. For the same reason, those who were baptized by the Deacon Philip, who gave the baptism of Christ, were not baptized again, but received the imposition of hands by the apostles, just as those who were baptized by priests are confirmed by bishops. Reply to Objection 2, as Augustine says to Selutianus in his letter 265, We deem that Christ's disciples were baptized either with John's baptism, as some maintain, or with Christ's baptism, which is more probable. For he would not fail to administer baptism, so as to have baptized servants through whom he baptized others, since he did not fail in his humble service to wash their feet. Reply to Objection 3, as Chrysostom says in his homily four on the Gospel of Matthew, Since when John said, I ought to be baptized by thee, Christ answered, suffer it to be so now. It follows that afterwards Christ did baptize John, moreover, he asserts that, This is distinctly set down in some of the apocryphal books. At any rate, it is certain, as Jerome says on Matthew 3.13 that, As Christ was baptized in water by John, so had John to be baptized in the Spirit by Christ. Reply to Objection 4, The reason why these persons were baptized after being baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost, but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ. Reply to Objection 5, as Augustine says in against Faustus 19, Our sacraments are signs of present grace, whereas the sacraments of the old law were signs of future grace. Therefore, the very fact that John baptized in the name of one who was to come shows that he did not give the baptism of Christ, which is a sacrament of the new law. are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Triates on the Saviour, by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 39 of the Baptizing of Christ in 8 Articles, Part 1, Articles 1-5. We have now to consider the baptizing of Christ, concerning which there are 8 points of inquiry. First, whether Christ should have been baptized. Second, whether he should have been baptized with the baptism of John. Third, of the time when he was baptized. Fourth, of the place. Fifth, of the heavens being opened unto him. Sixth, of the apparition of the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove. Seventh, whether the dove was a real animal. Eighth, of the voice of the Father witnessing unto him. First article, whether it was fitting that Christ should be baptized. Objection one, it would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized. For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting for Christ to be washed, since there was no uncleanness in him. Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to be baptized. Objection two, further. Christ was circumcised in order to fulfill the law. But baptism was not prescribed by the law. Therefore he should not have been baptized. Objection three, further. The first mover in every genus is unmoved in regard to that movement. Thus the heaven, which is the first cause of alteration, is unalterable. But Christ is the first principle of baptism according to John 1.33. He upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptiseth. Therefore it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized. On the contrary, it is written in Matthew 3.13 that Jesus cometh from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. I answer that it was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because as Ambrose says on Luke 3.21, Our Lord was baptized because he wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that being purified by the flesh of Christ, that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism. And as Chrysostom says in his fourth homily on the Gospel of Matthew, that he might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized afterwards. Secondly, as Chrysostom says, Although Christ was not a sinner, yet he did take a sinful nature and the likeness of sinful flesh. Wherefore, though he needed not baptism for his own sake, yet carnal nature in others had need thereof. And as Gregory Nanceyanson says, Christ was baptized that he might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water. Thirdly, he wished to be baptized, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany, because he wished to do what he had commanded all to do. And this is what he means by saying, So it be cometh us to fulfill all justice, in Matthew 3.15. For as Ambrose says on Luke 3.21, This is justice, to do first thyself, that which thou wishest another to do, and so encourage others by thy example. Reply to Objection 1, Christ was baptized, not that he might be cleansed, but that he might cleanse, as stated above. Reply to Objection 2, It was fitting that Christ should not only fulfill what was prescribed by the old law, but also begin what appertained to the new law. Therefore he wished not only to be circumcised, but also to be baptized. Reply to Objection 3, Christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual effect. On to this he was not baptized, but only in water. Second article Whether it was fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism, Objection 1, it would seem that it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism. For John's baptism was the baptism of penance. But penance is unbecoming to Christ, since he had no sin. Therefore it seems that he should not have been baptized with John's baptism. Objection 2, further, John's baptism, as Chrysostom says in his homily on the baptism of Christ, was a mean between the baptism of the Jews and that of Christ. But the mean savors of the nature of the extremes, according to Aristotle, in on the parts of animals. Since therefore Christ was not baptized with the Jewish baptism, nor yet with his own, on the same grounds he should not have been baptized with the baptism of John. Objection 3, further, whatever is best in human things should be ascribed to Christ. But John's baptism does not hold the first place among baptisms. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism. On the contrary, it is written in Matthew 3.13 that Jesus cometh to the Jordan unto John to be baptized by him. I answer that, as Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John. After being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith he was baptized. Wherefore, since he himself baptized with his own baptism, it follows that he was not baptized with his own, but with John's baptism. And this was befitting. First, because John's baptism was peculiar in this, that he baptized not in the Spirit, but only in water. While Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since he was filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of his conception, as we have made clear above, in Question 34 Article 1. And this is the reason given by Chrysostom in his homily on the baptism of Christ. Secondly, as Bede says on Mark 1.9, he was baptized with the baptism of John that, by being thus baptized, he might show his approval of John's baptism. Thirdly, as Gregory Nanceanson says, by going to John to be baptized by him, he sanctified baptism. Reply to Objection 1. As stated above in Article 1, Christ wished to be baptized in order by his example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that he might lead us there too more efficaciously, he wished to be baptized with the baptism which he clearly needed not, that men who needed it might approach unto it. Wherefore, Ambrose says on Luke 321, Let none decline the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the laver of penance. Reply to Objection 2. The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely figurative, whereas John's baptism in a measure was real, in as much as it induced men to refrain from sin. But Christ's baptism is efficacious unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace. Now Christ needed neither the remission of sin, which was not in him, nor the bestial of grace, with which he was filled. Moreover, since he is the truth, it was not fitting that he should receive that which was no more than a figure. Consequently, it was more fitting that he should receive the intermediate baptism than one of the extremes. Reply to Objection 3. Baptism is a spiritual remedy. Now, the more perfect a thing is, the less remedy does it need. Consequently, from the very fact that Christ is most perfect, it follows that it was fitting that he should not receive the most perfect baptism, just as one who is healthy does not need a strong medicine. Third article. Whether Christ was baptized at a fitting time. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was baptized at an unfitting time. For Christ was baptized in order that he might lead others to baptism by his example. But it is commendable that the faithful of Christ should be baptized, not merely before their thirtieth year, but even in infancy. Therefore, it seems that Christ should not have been baptized at the age of 30. Objection 2. Further, we do not read that Christ taught or worked miracles before being baptized, but it would have been more profitable to the world if he had taught for a longer time, beginning at the age of 20, or even before. Therefore, it seems that Christ, who came for man's profit, should have been baptized before his thirtieth year. Objection 3. Further, the sign of wisdom infused by God should have been especially manifest in Christ. But in the case of Daniel this was manifested at the time of his boyhood, according to Daniel 1345. The Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young boy whose name was Daniel. Much more, therefore, should Christ have been baptized or have taught in his boyhood. Objection 4. Further, John's baptism was ordered to that of Christ as to its end. But the end is first in intention and last in execution. Therefore, he should have been baptized by John either before all the others or after them. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 321. It came to pass when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying. And further on in Luke 323. And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of 30 years. I answer that Christ was fittingly baptized in his thirtieth year. First, because Christ was baptized as though for the reason that he was about forthwith to begin to teach and preach, for which purpose perfect age is required, such as is the age of 30. Thus we read in Genesis 41 46 that Joseph was 30 years old when he undertook the government of Egypt. In like manner, we read in 2 Kings 5.4 that David was 30 years old when he began to reign. Again, Ezekiel began to prophesy in his thirtieth year, as we read in Ezekiel 1 1. Secondly, because as Chrysostom says in his tenth homily on the Gospel of Matthew. The law was about to pass away after Christ's baptism, wherefore Christ came to be baptized at this age which admits of all sins in order that by his observing the law no one might say that because he himself could not fulfill it, he did away with it. Thirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we are given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men according to Ephesians 4.13. Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ. Hence the very property of the number seems to point to this. For 30 is a product of 3 and 10, and by the number 3 is implied faith in the trinity, while 10 signifies the fulfillment of the commandments of the law, in which two things the perfection of Christian life consists. Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory Nancy-Anson says, Christ was baptized, not as though he needed to be cleansed or as though some peril threatened him if he delayed to be baptized, but no small danger besets any other man who departs from this life without being clothed with the garment of incorruptibility, namely grace. And though it be a good thing to remain clean after baptism, yet is it still better, as he says, to be slightly sullied now and then, then to be altogether deprived of grace? Reply to Objection 2. The prophet which accrues to men from Christ is chiefly through faith and humility, to both of which he conduced by beginning to teach not in his boyhood or youth, but at the perfect age. To faith, because in this manner his human nature is shown to be real, by its making bodily progress with the advance of time. And lest this progress should be deemed imaginary, he did not wish to show his wisdom and power before his body had reached the perfect age. To humility, lest anyone should presume to govern or teach others before attaining to perfect age. Reply to Objection 3. Christ was set before men as an example to all, wherefore it behoved that to be shown forth in him, which is becoming to all according to the common law, namely that he should teach after reaching the perfect age. But as Gregory Netsiansen says, that which seldom occurs is not the law of the Church, as neither does one swallow make spring, for by special dispensation, in accordance with the ruling of divine wisdom, it has been granted to some, contrary to the common law, to exercise the functions of governing or teaching, such as Solomon, Daniel and Jeremiah's. Reply to Objection 4. It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by John either before or after all others, because, as Chrysostom says, for this was Christ baptized, that he might confirm the preaching and the baptism of John, and that John might bear witness to him. Now men would not have had faith in John's testimony, except after many had been baptized by him. Consequently, it was not fitting that John should baptize him before baptizing anyone else. In like manner, neither was it fitting that he should baptize him last, for as Chrysostom says in the same passage, as the light of the sun does not wait for the setting of the morning star, but comes forth while the ladder is still above the horizon, and by its brilliance dims its shining. So did Christ not wait till John had run his course, but appeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing. 4. Whether Christ should have been baptized in the Jordan Objection 1. It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized in the Jordan, for the reality should correspond to the figure. But baptism was prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptians were drowned, just as our sins are blotted out in baptism. Therefore, it seems that Christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river Jordan. Objection 2, further, Jordan is interpreted as going down. But by baptism a man goes up rather than down. Wherefore, it is written in Matthew 3.16 that Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up from the water. Therefore, it seems unfitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. Objection 3, further, while the children of Israel were crossing the waters of the Jordan were turned back, as it is related in Joshua 4, and as it is written in Psalm 113, verses 3 and 5. But those who were baptized go forward, not back. Therefore, it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. On the contrary, it is written in Mark 1.9 that Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan. I answer that. It was through the river Jordan that the children of Israel entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative of Christ's baptism over all other baptisms, that it is the entrance to the kingdom of God, which is signified by the land of promise. Therefore, it is said in John 3.5, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. To this also is to be referred the dividing of the water of the Jordan by Elias, who is to be snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as is related in 4th Kings 2. Because, to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the Holy Ghost to those who pass through the waters of baptism. Therefore, it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. Reply to Objection 1. The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in this, that baptism washes away sin, whereas the crossing of the Jordan foreshadows it in this, that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom, and this is the principal effect of baptism and accomplished through Christ alone. And therefore, it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan, rather than in the sea. Reply to Objection 2. In baptism we go up by advancing in grace, for which we need to go down by humility according to James 4.6. He giveth grace to the humble, and to this, going down, must the name of the Jordan be referred. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany, As of yore, the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ was baptized, the torrent of sin was held back. Or else this may signify that against the downward flow of the waters, the river of blessings flowed upwards. Fifth article. Whether the heavens should have been opened unto Christ at his baptism? Objection 1. It would seem that the heavens should not have been opened unto Christ at his baptism. For the heavens should be opened unto one who needs to enter heaven by reason of his being out of heaven. But Christ was always in heaven according to John 3.13, the son of man who is in heaven. Therefore, it seems that the heavens should not have been opened unto him. Objection 2. Further, the opening of the heavens is understood either in a corporal or in a spiritual sense. But it cannot be understood in a corporal sense, because the heavenly bodies are impassable and indissoluble according to Job 3.18. Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass. In like manner, neither can it be understood in a spiritual sense, because the heavens were not previously closed to the eyes of the son of God. Therefore, it seems unbecoming to say that when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened. Objection 3. Further, heaven was open to the faithful through Christ's passion according to Hebrews 10.19. We have a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ. Therefore, not even those who were baptized with Christ's baptism and died before his passion could enter heaven. Therefore, the heavens should have been opened when Christ was suffering rather than when he was baptized. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 3.21, Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened. I answer that, as stated above in Article 1, as well as in Question 38 Article 1. First, the principle power from which it is derived, and this indeed is a heavenly power, for which reason, when Christ was baptized, heaven was opened to show that in future, the heavenly power would sanctify baptism. Secondly, the faith of the church and of the person baptized, conduces to the efficacy of baptism, where for those who are baptized make a profession of faith, and baptism is called the sacrament of faith. Now by faith, we gaze on heavenly things which surpass the senses and human reason, and in order to signify this, the heavens were opened when Christ was baptized. Thirdly, because the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to us by the baptism of Christ in a special manner, which entrance had been closed to the first man through sin. Hence, when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened to show that the way to heaven is opened to the baptized. Now after baptism, man needs to pray continually in order to enter heaven, for though sins are omitted through baptism, there still remain the fomez of sin assailing us from within, and the world and the devils assailing us from without. And therefore it is said pointedly in Luke 321 that, Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened, because to it, the faithful after baptism, stand in need of prayer. Or else, that we may be led to understand that the very fact that through baptism heaven is open to believers is in virtue of the prayer of Christ. Hence it is said pointedly in Matthew 316 that, heaven was opened to him, that is, to all for his sake. Thus, for example, the emperor might say to one asking a favor for another, Behold, I grant this favor not to him but to thee, that is, to him for thy sake, as Chrysostom says. Reply to Objection 1, According to Chrysostom, as Christ was baptized for man's sake, though he needed no baptism for his own sake, so the heavens were opened unto him as man, whereas in respect of his divine nature he was ever in heaven. Reply to Objection 2, As Jerome says on Matthew 3, verses 16 and 17, The heavens were opened to Christ when he was baptized, not by an unfolding of the elements, but by a spiritual vision. Thus does Ezekiel relate the opening of the heavens at the beginning of his book. And Chrysostom proves this by saying that, if the creature, namely heaven, had been sundered, he would not have said, were open to him, since what is opened in a corporeal sense is open to all. Hence it is said expressly in Mark 110 that Jesus, forthwith coming up out of the water, saw the heavens opened, as though the opening of the heavens were to be considered as seen by Christ. Some indeed refer this to the corporeal vision, and say that such a brilliant light shone round about Christ when he was baptized, that the heavens seemed to be opened. It can also be referred to the imaginary vision, in which Manor Ezekiel saw the heavens opened, since such a vision was formed in Christ's imagination by the divine power and by his rational will, so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is open to men through baptism. Lastly, it can be referred to intellectual vision, for as much as Christ, when he had sanctified baptism, saw that heaven was opened to men. Nevertheless, he had seen before that this would be accomplished. Reply to Objection 3. Christ's passion is the common cause of the opening of heaven to men, but it behooves this cause to be applied to each one in order that he enter heaven. And this is affected by baptism, according to Romans 6-3. All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death, wherefore mention is made of the opening of the heavens at his baptism, rather than at his passion. Or, as Chrysostom says, When Christ was baptized, the heavens were merely opened, but after he had vanquished the tyrant by the cross, since gates were no longer needed for a heaven which thenceforth would never be closed, the angel said not open the gates, but take them away. Thus Chrysostom gives us to understand that the obstacles which had hitherto hindered the souls of the departed from entering into heaven were entirely removed by the passion. But at Christ's baptism they were opened, as though the way had been shown by which men were to enter into heaven. End of Question 39 Part 1 Read by Michael Shane Greg Lambert, LC