Tertia Pars
Lecture 91: John the Baptist's Baptism: Divine Institution and Preparatory Grace

Transcript
================================================================================

Okay, the baptism of John was from God, to the second one goes forward thus. It seemed that the baptism of John was not from what? God. For nothing sacramental, that is from God, is denominated by a pure man, or from a pure man rather. Just as the baptism of the new law is not said to be of Peter or Paul, right, but of Christ. Paul's very definite about that. But that baptism was denominated, named from John, according to that of Matthew 21. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or was it from men? Therefore, the baptism of John was not from God. Moreover, every teaching, new teaching, proceeding from God, is confirmed by some, what, signs. Whence the Lord said, Exodus 4, he gave to Moses the power of making, what, signs. And in Hebrews chapter 2, it said that our faith took its beginning from the Lord, did not see, seeing things. And to them who heard it, and as it was confirmed, God witnessing, might say, by signs, and prodigious signs. But about the baptism of John, he said, John made no sign, did no sign. He didn't make any miracles, apparently, huh? Why aren't you going to believe that guy? Okay. But, that would kind of be an affair to Christ, right, huh? A few people, I suppose. Therefore, it seems that the baptism by which he baptized was not from God. It's kind of beautiful to go from this thing, and you go back and read the Gospels, and go from one to the other, right? And like the other 13 said, you know, the scholastics give great contributions to the study of Scripture, both in their scriptural commentaries, and then in their theological works. But it's beautiful to go through this. Moreover, the sacraments which are divine instituted are contained in some precepts of sacred Scripture. But the baptism of John was not commanded by any precept of sacred Scripture. Therefore, it seems it was not from, what? God. He was doing his own thing, in other words. Okay, let's see if Thomas can defend John the Baptist. But against this is what is said in John chapter 1. John, who sent me to baptize in water? Now, who was that? He said to me, upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and so on. It says in the prologue, there was a man sent from God. Yeah, yeah. He used to quote that, talking about John 23. You remember that? Wow. No, I wasn't around then. Yeah. I think people have admired John, especially. There was a man sent from God. You quote that, you know. His name was John. I answered, it should be said that two things can be considered in the baptism of John. To wit, the rite of baptizing, right? And secondly, the effect of the baptism, right? Now, the rite of baptizing was not from men, but from what? God. Who, by a what? Familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit, sent John to what? Baptizing. So the one who sent him was what? Holy Spirit, huh? God, you could say, but it was the Holy Spirit. But the effect of that baptism was from man, because there was nothing affected in that baptism that man was not able to what? To, huh? It's interesting, huh? Whence it was not from God alone, except in so far as, of course, God operates in man. Very interesting, sure. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that through the baptism of the new law, men are baptized inwardly through the Holy Spirit, which God alone does, huh? But through the baptism of John, only the, what? Body was cleansed by the water. The soul was not cleansed, huh? Whence it is said in Matthew chapter 3, verse 11, I baptize you in water, he, however, will baptize you in the Holy, what? Spirit, huh? And that's why, he says, the baptism of John is named from him, right, huh? Because it did nothing, there was nothing done in it, that he himself, what? Not to. Not to, huh? Pardon? What? How does that mean? What's that again? What does that mean? Can we go into that sentence again? And therefore, well, it means that the... Everything in it was from God, it makes sense to be effective. Yeah, it was just cleansing the body, right? It wasn't, it didn't have a spiritual power derived from God, right, to cleanse the soul. Okay. And that's why he says, the baptism of the new law is not denominated or named from the minister, right? Who does not do the principal effect of baptism, to which the interior, what? Cleansing, right? So it is John's sacrament. Yeah. In a sense, huh? It's kind of interesting. Didn't know how he was going to answer that. Now, what about not confirming this by science, huh? The second should be said that the whole teaching and the operations of John was ordered to, what? Christ, huh? Who, by the multitude of his signs, right, and his teaching, excuse me, confirmed, what? His own teaching and that of, what? John, right? If, however, John had done science, huh? Men would have equally paid attention to John and, what? Christ would have interfered to his sense, right? Uniqueness of Christ. And therefore that men might chiefly pay attention to Christ, huh? It was not given to John that he would make any, what? Science, huh? But to the Jews, seeking wherefore he baptized, he confirmed his office by the authority of, what? Scripture. Scripture. I am the voice of one crying out in the desert, or so on. As it said in John chapter 1, huh? And the austerity of his life, right? Commended his office, or his occupation, right? Because, as Christendom says upon Matthew, it was marvelous, huh? Wonderful in a human body to see such, what? Patience, huh? I think the main reason there, though, is to not distract from what Christ, you know? You're two wonder workers, so to speak. I think that makes sense. I've seen that in the commentary in the Gospels, too. Okay, now what about the command there? It's not commanded in the Gospels, or in the Scriptures. To the third it should be said that the baptism of John was not ordered by God to endure except for a little time, right? An account of the foresaid, what? Causes, previous article. And therefore, it was not commended by some precept commonly tweeted in Second Scripture, but by a, what? Familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit, it has been said. It's not emphasizing the idea of private. It's different, huh? It is very much preparing the way for Christ, huh? Great authority, right? It's a very personal revelation. It's in the sense of personal revelation. Yeah, but it's not like what we call... Right. Yeah. Whether in the baptism of John grace was given, huh? Thomas the Prime is going to say no, because it seems to the third one proceeds thus. It seems that in the baptism of John grace was what? Given, right? For he said in Mark 1, verse 4, John was in the desert baptizing, huh? In preaching the baptism of penance for the omission of sins. But penance and the omission of sins is by grace. Therefore, the baptism of John conferred what? Grace, huh? Moreover, those baptized by John confessed their sins, as is had in Matthew 3 and Mark chapter 1. But the confession of sins is ordered to, what? The omission of those sins, which comes about the grace. Therefore, in the baptism of John, grace was what? Conferred, huh? Moreover, the baptism of John was nearer, closer to the baptism of Christ than, what? Circumcision. But through circumcision was remitted original sin. Because, as Bede says, the same, what? Circumcision in the law, right, huh? Against the wound of original sin, right? Did the same thing. And the cure. Yeah. The baptism now, right, huh? Is a custom in the time of your grace. Therefore, much more did the baptism of John and do the omission of sins, huh? Which cannot come about without grace, huh? But against this is what Matthew 3 is said, huh? I baptize you in water, in penance, huh? Which Gregory, expounding, in his hidden homily says, John, not in the spirit, but in water baptized, huh? Because he was not, what? Due to, yeah, to recess in the sins. But grace is from the Holy Spirit. And to him, sins are taken away. Therefore, the baptism of John did not confer, what? Grace, huh? Answer, it should be said that this has been said. The whole teaching and the operation or doing of John, right, was preparatory for Christ. For just as the minister and the lower artist, huh? Is to prepare the matter for the form, which the chief artist will, what? Induce, huh? Common thing you understand. I'll talk about that, huh? But the grace was to be conferred to men through Christ, huh? According to that of John, chapter 1, verse 17. Grace and truth through Jesus Christ was made. That's the way Thomas some days divides the New Testament, right? The Gospels are about the origin of grace, huh? Christ. And then the Epistles of St. Paul, in the, what? Are about the grace itself. And then the Acts of the Apostles and the Canonical Epistles and the Apocalypse is about the chief effect of the grace, which is the Church, right? Like its origin and progress and final state, huh? It's interesting that in Vatican II there, in the thing on Virum Dei, huh, it follows the order of Thomas, huh? Which I had to point out, but it doesn't make up, but it's in there, right? Instead of going in from the Gospels to the Acts of the Apostles, which are the place right after, right, it goes from the Gospels then to the Epistles of St. Paul. And then it talks about the, you know, church, yeah? The kind of accordance with Thomas' way of dividing it. Division into three, yeah. And therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace, because grace came through Jesus Christ, huh? But only did it prepare for grace, huh? And how did it prepare for grace? Well, in three ways, huh? In one way, through the teaching of John, right, yeah? Inducing men to faith in, what, Christ, huh? In another way, by accustoming men to the right of, what, baptism, right? To the right of the baptism of Christ. And third, through penance, right? Preparing men to receiving the effect of the baptism of Christ, huh? We do that today, I think. Adult baptisms, they prepare them. Usually, I don't know if they require them to make a confession of sin, but usually they try, I think they try to instruct them that this is the effect that you should think about, I might say, that the church wants people to realize that repentance is necessary. It's not just magic that it's poured out in their hand. You can't receive confession before you have this. I know, but I mean, but I mean, they move them to, I might say, to recall their sins, examine their conscience of it, because they should repent of their sins. I mean, John required them to repent before they baptize in water, so all the more. Well, is there, just trying to figure out the order of these three, is there an order? Well, faith comes first, right? Okay. That's what's the first thing. I was wondering, especially about the second one. Well, the second one itself, and then the effect of it, right? Oh, okay. And it's like, in the Acts, they say to St. Peter, what should we do? He says, well, believe, and be baptized. They often call it a second, it's a second, it's a faith, don't they? Yeah, it's a faith. One of those exercises of gratitude is, right, to regain the baptismal innocence, right? Yeah. There's no, Claire, this little Claire Maria will be the most innocent of all of us. That's right. She thinks he's baptized. Now, to the first, it should be said, huh, that in those words, as Bede says, can be understood a two-fold baptism of what? Penance, huh? One which John, in baptizing, conferred, huh? Which is called a baptism of what? Penance and so on. Because that baptism was something inducing men to what? Penance. Penance, huh? I was talking to that to my logicians last night there. They're talking about the word induction, right? And how induction is not a syllogism, right, where the conclusion is not necessarily, but it does, what, induce the mind to accept the conclusion, right? But now it's comparing it to what we call an inducement to the will, right? And does an inducement to the will force you to, what, to choose this? No, no, but it's an inducement to choose it, right? You know, the guy said, well, I'll afford this interview. You know, he tried to sell you something. Get a little inducement there until... No extra charge. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wait, thanks more. It's like on TV, they're always offering you something, you know, to get, you know. And then if you, you know, do it, you know, then you've got another one with this, you know. And a certain, what, professing right that men were going to, what, do their penance, right? Yeah. But other is the baptism of Christ, through which sins are remitted, right? Which John was not able to give, right? But that he only preached, saying, He all will baptize you in the Holy Spirit, right? So John himself is making the distinction between the two baptisms, right? Or it can be said that he preached a baptism of penance, that is, one inducing men to penance, right? Which penance leads men towards the remission of what? So the difference between the two is one pointing to, the first one is pointing to Christ's baptism, and the other one is the idea that it leads to penance, which of itself can lead to the remission of sin. Yeah, even today, when a priest gives a sermon, he might move the audience to penance, right? But they're not being forgiven right there in the sacrament, right? But they're being induced, right, to penance, huh? You know, there's the old sermons, right? You know, in the hands of the angry God. It used to be, it must be dead now, but when I first came to Worcester there, there was a, about the cathedral downtown, there was Monsignor Daly, you know, he was the kind of thing. And some of you are going to have a very unhappy, you know, or it can be said that through the baptism of Christ, as Jerome says, huh? Grace is given, right? By which sins are gratis, huh? Freely dismissed, huh? Which, before it is, what, completed to the spouse, right? It is initiated by the, what? Bridegroom. Bridegroom, right? To John, huh? Once it is said that he, what, baptized and preached the baptism of penance for the remission of sins. Not, however, because he perfected this, but because he began it by preparing them. Now, what about that confession of sins that they made, huh? Well, that confession of sins was not made for the remission of sins at once through the baptism of John to be shown, right? But to be achieved through the penance of following and the baptism of Christ for which that penance went. Prepared, huh? It was like you were saying, with the present adult, right? Now, what about circumcision, huh? Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin. But the baptism of John was not instituted for this, but solely was preparatory for the baptism of Christ, as has been said, huh? But the sacraments from the strength of their institution have this, what, effect, huh? Now, do you have a sense of what Bede was saying here? It gives you the sense that, I mean, you might have the question, well, circumcision took care of original sin, what do you need baptism for? Right. Yeah, exactly. Apparently, he's not saying it, right? I don't know. It's been more clear, isn't it? I think there was a, there's some who in the figures of the Old Testament, right? Okay. Had faith in what was to come, right? Yeah. And therefore there... Yes, it was by virtue of that, I guess. Yeah, he didn't move that right here, but he might also talk about circumcision. Circumcision is a type of baptism, it's a free figment of baptism, so in that way. Yeah. It's actually more like their faith. Their faith in the baptism to come, and then the fulfillment, that's what it was to me. That's what, in the Apocalypse, it says about Christ, is the lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world. He was slain from the beginning of the world. He wasn't slain from the beginning of the world. I figure so if they believed the figure. He was slain from the beginning of the world. He was slain from the beginning of the world. He was slain from the beginning of the world. He was slain from the beginning of the world. He was slain from the beginning of the world. Now, whether by the baptism of John only Christ ought to have been baptized. Why does this come up? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that only Christ ought to be baptized by the baptism of John. That's kind of, I need this to be in there. To the fourth one goes forward thus. Because, as has been said, for this reason John, what? Baptized, that Christ might be baptized. As Augustine says upon John, the Paschal John. But what is private to Christ ought not to what? Others. Therefore to none others, none others ought to be what? Baptized by baptism. Article one, or article four. Moreover, whoever is baptized or takes something from baptism, either takes something from baptism or by baptism. Yeah. But from the baptism of John, no one could take something because in it, grace was not conferred, as has been said. Nor could someone by baptism confer anything except what? Christ, huh? Who, by the touch of his most pure, clean flesh, sanctified the waters, right, huh? That's kind of a reference to the magister senses there. Therefore, it seems that Christ alone ought to have been baptized by the, what? Second one of John, huh? Christ, if he was baptized, he sanctified the waters, and then you could have a really efficacious baptism, right? And no one else could do that, right? More of others by that baptism were baptized, this would not be except that they would be prepared for the baptism of Christ. And thus, it would seem suitable that just as the baptism of Christ was conferred upon all, both, what, the great and the little, and Gentiles and Jews, so also the baptism of John should be conferred, huh? Now, you could start on a heresy here by resurrecting John's baptism, huh? Yeah, another form of Judaizing. Yeah, yeah. It would be Jannaizing. But it is not read that by him boys or babies were baptized nor the Gentiles that they went forth, what is said in Mark, that they went forth to them all, everybody from Jerusalem, and were baptized by him. Therefore, it seems that Christ by John alone should, that Christ alone by John ought to have been baptized, huh? But against this is what is said in Luke 3. It was done when all the people had been baptized, right? And Jesus baptized and praying that the heavens were quite open. I answer it should be said that for a two-fold reason or cause, it was necessary for others besides Christ, or besides Christ, to be baptized by the baptism of John, huh? First, as Augustine says upon John, if Christ alone was baptized by the baptism of John, right, there would not be lacking those who would say that the baptism of John by which Christ was baptized was more worthy than the baptism of Christ, which others were baptized. That's interesting, huh? And secondly, because it was necessary for the baptism of John for others to be prepared for the baptism of Christ, as has been said, huh? Now, the first one said that he was coming baptizing, so Christ would be baptized. Well, it's one reason, but it doesn't exclude other reasons, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that not on account of this alone was the baptism of John instituted that Christ might be baptized, but also on account of the other causes that have been said, huh? But nevertheless, if for this alone was instituted it, that Christ would be baptized by it, it would be necessary to avoid the, what, foresaid inconvenience that's in the body of the article, right? It would seem to be greater than the baptism of Christ. Okay? In order to, what? Avoid that. That inconvenience. That others be baptized by this baptism, right? Secondly, it should be said that the others who went to the baptism of Christ were not able, by baptism, to confer something nor do they take something from grace, nor do they get grace from, by the baptism, right? But only as a sign of their penance. Because you do, you cook yourself with ashes there and sat in the pile or something. Sack off of ashes? Yeah, yeah. But that's just a sign of your penance, right? Because now you're supposed to wash your face, you can't tell you're fasting. except on Ash Wednesday. You get it dirty one day. The thing in the, in the Orthodox study Bible there, this thing in the front. Anyway, this typical Orthodox, they're going to rail about Catholic faith. So it's like, you're going through the, no, Ash, Wednesday, we wash our faces. Don't show our penance to the whole world. We just publish books about the bad decathletism. To the third, it should be said that that baptism was of penance, right? Which is not, what, fitting to little boys, huh? Therefore, boys ought not to be, what, baptized by that baptism, right? But to confer to the Gentiles the way of salvation was reserved to Christ alone, right? It was the expectation of the Gentiles, right? And therefore, Christ himself, yeah, to preach to the Gentiles, right, huh? Before the Passion and the Resurrection, right? Whence, even less so, would it be suitable to John for the Gentiles to be admitted to, what, baptism, huh? I'll have to stop here now, or what? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Okay. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment, Guardian Angels, the spirit of the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and allows us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand what you have written. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. It's kind of funny to come back to the distinction here of the articles of faith in the creed, but that they have according to the divinity of Christ and humanity of Christ. As I mentioned, there, Thomas gives two ones that they had, one was into two sevens, right? And then another one into two sixes, right? Of course, seven is the symbol of wisdom, right? And six, of course, is the first perfect number. Right? So you divide into two, which is fine, but now you've got six, you can't divide into six. Okay? Now, the six articles on the divinity of Christ, I would myself divide them into three, right? You have one article about the divinity, right? The divine nature. Then two articles on the, what? Trinity. And then three articles on the, what? On the activities, you know? Creation, sanctification, glorification. I rather like that one, two, three, because those are the parts of six that add up to six, right? That's a pretty number. But now, in the six ones here on the humanity of Christ, would you divide these into two or three? Two, two, two, and the inclination stuff. Okay? Now, remember my rule now is two or three or both, right? And I would actually divide them into two, and also divide them into what? Three. Okay? Now, the, kind of the, beginning for me to divide it into two is in the Psalm 8. You know that Psalm? It's kind of a very Psalm. And it's kind of nice, the Psalm, because it begins by, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord, O Lord. And the descent into hell, the ascension. To some extent, the incarnation and the second coming also correspond to each other insofar as he came in a very humble way and he comes back again in a glorious way, right? So this, of course, fits in with the idea that he who humbles himself should be exalted, right? And it fits in with the way that Mary speaks in the... Magnificat, right? He is required with the lowness, right? So because of her humility, he is now going to what? To great things for her. He exalts her. So that's a division then into two, right? The three are equals of ascent and three of what? Descent and three of ascent, right? Okay. Now, there's a way also dividing these into three, right? I'm kind of influenced by the way it's presented in the Te Deum, right? And, of course, like Article 8, the first part of the Te Deum is, what, praising God, right? And with the angels and the apostles and the prophets and the martyrs and the whole church, right? And so on. See, we have divinity in a sense, right? And then the next part of the Te Deum touches upon this, right? But it begins by recalling that he's the son of God, right? So we know what's going on, right? And then it speaks of these things, right? And the first thing it speaks of is the Incarnation, right? He's coming into this world. And then when he suffered and died, he speaks of what? He opened the kingdom of what? Yeah. So that it makes some sense to put these four together, right? He came into this world for the sake of redeeming us, right? And he's going to primarily and most fully redeem us by suffering and death on the cross. And through that, he opened up the kingdom of heaven, right? And so in this second part, which includes four, right, you would divide the suffering and death against these three, right? And when Thomas talks about these three, sometimes he goes back to the famous division in the Greek philosophers, which you find in Socrates or Plato and Aristotle, where they divide all the goods of man into what? Three. The goods of the soul, the goods of the body, and the exterior goods, right? And then by kind of an axiom, right? The descendant to hell, he gave them the, what? The vegetarian vision. So he gave them the good of their soul, not of their body. Resurrection gives us the good of the body, that's not that low, but the person. And then the exterior good, good place to be, huh? To ascend to heaven. So it's kind of beautiful, right? And then the second coming is kind of just quite distinct from these, right? And they were kind of, you know, we've got to react to all of this and face our judgment and so on, right? So you divide into three, huh? The incarnation is suffering and death, and the consequent becomes one of that, and then his second coming. And then this middle part here, you divide one against three. So that way you follow the rule of, what, two or three, right? And the two divisions kind of bring out something different about those six mysteries, right? The first one brings out, you know, that he humbles himself to be exalted, right? And it talks about, you know, it's the Christ himself, right? The effect of the first three, and the connection with the last three, and that principle. But here you have, what, kind of his purpose in coming, right? Being brought out more, what? Clearly, right, yeah? Okay. And so I would divide it both into two and into, what? Three, right? But if you look at the great Te Deum, it mentions this explicitly, and then suffering and death. And then, it doesn't mention these, you know, one by one, but he opened the kingdom of heaven as a result of it, when he had suffered, you know. Right. And then it mentions this explicitly. So it suggests this division, right? So I divide both into two and into what? Three, huh? It's a beautiful thing that Te Deum, because then the last part is like a reenactment of the, what, Our Father. It's a little bit different, but it's basically following the order of the Our Father. And just like the, uh, the scientific, you know? Well, the, uh, I am a Christi. I am a Christi, yeah. That kind of follows the order of the Our Father, right? You know, so you kind of see, like, what Augustine says, that's really, says it all. The Our Father, right? Everything you can reasonably ask for, and the order which is asked for, is there in the Our Father, right? In these great prayers, you know. But it's beautiful, too, because you're going in a sense from the, uh, profession of faith in the divinity of God, and then in the, the humanity of Christ, right? And you follow that by hope, which is tied up with prayer, right? So, I'm very impressed with the Te Deum, right? And, uh, these are attributed to Ambrose and Augustine. I guess that's not regarded as authentic now, but it's certainly got a, certainly got a great deal of prestige in the church, right? And then you say it in the... No, we don't have that. We don't have any. They have, they have a hymn, like, I don't know how ancient it is, but it's something about paraphrasing. Mm-hmm. But I, who's that? They just took the hymn and put it to their name? That's right. Oh, so the words are the same? Well, there's a comparison, it's a, he just wanted to put it to music, however it worked out.