Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, Christus voluit sub lege fieri, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, et ut iustificatio legis in suis membris spiritualiter impleretur. De prole autem nata duplex praeceptum in lege traditur. Unum quidem generale quantum ad omnes, ut scilicet, completis diebus purificationis matris, offerretur sacrificium pro filio sive pro filia, ut habetur Levit. XII. Et hoc quidem sacrificium erat et ad expiationem peccati, in quo proles erat concepta et nata, et etiam ad consecrationem quandam ipsius, quia tunc primo praesentabatur in templo. Et ideo aliquid offerebatur in holocaustum, et aliquid pro peccato. I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), Christ wished to be made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law (Gal 4:4, 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 Lev. 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. Wherefore one offering was made as a holocaust and another for sin. Aliud autem praeceptum erat speciale in lege de primogenitis tam in hominibus quam in iumentis, sibi enim dominus deputaverat omne primogenitum in Israel, pro eo quod, ad liberationem populi Israel, percusserat primogenita Aegypti ab homine usque ad pecus, primogenitis filiorum Israel reservatis. Et hoc mandatum ponitur Exod. XIII. In quo etiam praefigurabatur Christus, qui est primogenitus in multis fratribus, ut dicitur Rom. VIII. The other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of both man and beast: for the Lord claimed for Himself all the first-born in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle (Exod 12:12, 13, 29), the first-born of Israel being saved; which law is set down Ex. 13. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is the First-born amongst many brethren (Rom 8:29). Quia igitur Christus, ex muliere natus, erat primogenitus; et voluit fieri sub lege, haec duo Evangelista Lucas circa eum fuisse observata ostendit. Primo quidem, id quod pertinet ad primogenitos, cum dicit, tulerunt illum in Ierusalem, ut sisterent eum domino, sicut scriptum est in lege domini, quia omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam sanctum domino vocabitur. Secundo, id quod pertinet communiter ad omnes, cum dicit, et ut darent hostiam, secundum quod dictum erat in lege domini, par turturum aut duos pullos columbarum. Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born, 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 first-born, when he says (Luke 2:22, 23): 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.’ Second, as to the general precept which concerned all, when he says (Luke 2:24): And to offer a sacrifice according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius Nyssenus dicit, illud legis praeceptum in solo incarnato Deo singulariter et ab aliis differenter impleri videtur. Ipse namque solus, ineffabiliter conceptus ac incomprehensibiliter editus, virginalem uterum aperuit, non antea connubio reseratum, servans et post partum inviolabiliter signaculum castitatis. Unde quod dicit, aperiens vulvam, designat quod nihil antea inde intraverat vel exiverat. Et per hoc etiam specialiter dicitur masculinus, quia nihil de femineitate culpae portavit. Singulariter etiam sanctus, qui terrenae contagia corruptelae, immaculati partus novitate, non sensit. Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom.): 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 inviolate. Consequently the words opening the womb imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for a special reason is it written ‘a male,’ because He contracted nothing of the woman’s sin: and in a singular way is He called ‘holy,’ because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate (Ambrose, on Luke 2:23). Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut filius Dei non propter seipsum factus est homo et circumcisus in carne, sed ut nos per gratiam faceret deos, et ut spiritualiter circumcidamur; sic propter nos sistitur domino, ut discamus Deo praesentare nosipsos. Et hoc post circumcisionem eius factum est, ut ostendat neminem nisi circumcisum vitiis, dignum esse divinis conspectibus. Reply Obj. 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 God’s 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. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod propter hoc ipsum voluit hostias legales pro se offerri, qui erat vera hostia, ut figura veritati coniungeretur, et per veritatem figura approbaretur, contra illos qui Deum legis negant a Christo fuisse in Evangelio praedicatum. Non enim putandum est, ut Origenes dicit, quod filium suum bonus Deus sub lege inimici fecerit, quam ipse non dederat. Reply Obj. 3: For this very reason He wished the legal victims to be offered for Him who was 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 (Hom. xiv in Luc.) that the good God subjected His Son to the enemy’s law, which He Himself had not given. Ad quartum dicendum quod Levit. XII praecipitur ut qui possent, agnum pro filio aut filia, simul et turturem sive columbam offerrent, qui vero non sufficerent ad offerendum agnum, duos turtures aut duos columbae pullos offerrent. Dominus ergo, qui, cum dives esset, propter nos egenus factus est, ut illius inopia divites essemus, ut dicitur II Cor. VIII, pro se pauperum hostiam voluit offerri, sicut et in ipsa nativitate pannis involvitur et reclinatur in praesepio. Nihilominus tamen huiusmodi aves figurae congruunt. Turtur enim, quia est avis loquax, praedicationem et confessionem fidei significat; quia vero est animal castum, significat castitatem; quia vero est animal solitarium, significat contemplationem. Columba vero est animal mansuetum et simplex, mansuetudinem et simplicitatem significans. Est autem animal gregale, unde significat vitam activam. Et ideo huiusmodi hostia significabat perfectionem Christi et membrorum eius. Utrumque autem animal, propter consuetudinem gemendi, praesentes sanctorum luctus designat, sed turtur, quae est solitaria, significat orationum lacrimas; columba vero, quae est gregalis, significat publicas orationes Ecclesiae. Utrumque tamen animal duplicatum offertur, ut sanctitas sit non solum in anima, sed etiam in corpore. Reply Obj. 4: The law of Lev. 12:6, 8 commanded those who could, to offer, for a son or a daughter, a lamb and also a turtle dove or a pigeon: but those who were unable to offer a lamb were commanded to offer two turtle doves or two young pigeons. And so the Lord, who, ‘being rich, became poor for our sakes, that through His poverty we might be rich’, as is written 2 Cor. 8:9, wished the poor man’s victim to be offered for Him just as in His birth He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. 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 active 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. 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. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum convenienter mater Dei purganda ad templum accesserit Whether it was fitting that the Mother of God should go to the Temple to be purified? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter mater Dei purganda ad templum accesserit. Purgatio enim non videtur esse nisi ab immunditia. Sed in beata virgine nulla fuit immunditia, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo non debuit ut purganda ad templum accedere. Objection 1: 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 in the Blessed Virgin, as stated above (QQ. 27, 28). Therefore she should not have gone to the Temple to be purified. Praeterea, Levit. XII dicitur, mulier quae, suscepto semine, peperit masculum, immunda erit septem diebus, et ideo ei praecipitur quod non ingrediatur sanctuarium, donec impleantur dies purgationis eius. Sed beata virgo peperit masculum sine virili semine. Non ergo debuit venire ad templum purganda. Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Lev 12:2–4): If a woman, having received 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. Praeterea, purgatio ab immunditia non fit nisi per gratiam. Sed sacramenta veteris legis gratiam non conferebant, sed ipsa potius secum gratiae auctorem habebat. Non ergo conveniens fuit ut beata virgo ad templum purganda veniret. Obj. 3: 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 with her. Therefore it was not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should come to the Temple to be purified. Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturae, qua dicitur, Luc. II, quod impleti sunt dies purgationis Mariae secundum legem Moysi. On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated (Luke 2:22) that the days of Mary’s purification were accomplished according to the law of Moses. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut plenitudo gratiae a Christo derivatur in matrem, ita decuit ut mater humilitati filii conformaretur, humilibus enim Deus dat gratiam, ut dicitur Iac. IV. Et ideo, sicut Christus, licet legi non esset obnoxius, voluit tamen circumcisionem et alia legis onera subire, ad demonstrandum humilitatis et obedientiae exemplum, et ut approbaret legem, et ut calumniae occasionem Iudaeis tolleret; propter easdem rationes voluit et matrem suam implere legis observantias, quibus tamen non erat obnoxia. I answer that, As the fullness of grace flowed from Christ on to 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 James 4:6. 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 calumniating Him: for the same reasons He wished His Mother also to fulfill the prescriptions of the Law, to which, nevertheless, she was not subject. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet beata virgo nullam haberet immunditiam, voluit tamen purgationis observantiam implere, non propter indigentiam, sed propter legis praeceptum. Et ideo signanter Evangelista dicit quod completi sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem, ipsa enim secundum se purgatione non indigebat. Reply Obj. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod signanter Moyses videtur fuisse locutus, ad excipiendam ab immunditia matrem Dei, quae non peperit suscepto semine. Et ideo patet quod non obligatur ad impletionem illius praecepti, sed voluntarie purgationis observantiam implevit, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 2: Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to exclude uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod legalia sacramenta non purgabant ab immunditia culpae, quod fit per gratiam, sed hanc purgationem praefigurabant, purgabant enim purgatione quadam carnali ab immunditia irregularitatis cuiusdam; sicut in secunda parte dictum est. Neutram tamen immunditiam beata virgo contraxerat. Et ideo non indigebat purgari. Reply Obj. 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 (I-II, Q. 102, A. 5; Q. 103, A. 2). But the Blessed Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did not need to be purified. Quaestio 38 Question 38 De Baptismo Ioannis The Baptism of John Deinde considerandum est de Baptismo quo Christus baptizatus est. Et quia Christus baptizatus est Baptismo Ioannis, primo considerandum est de Baptismo Ioannis in communi; secundo, de baptizatione Christi. Circa primum quaeruntur sex. 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: Primo, utrum conveniens fuerit quod Ioannes baptizaret. (1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize? Secundo, utrum ille Baptismus fuerit a Deo. (2) Whether that baptism was from God? Tertio, utrum contulerit gratiam (3) Whether it conferred grace? quarto, utrum alii praeter Christum illo Baptismo debuerint baptizari. (4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism? Quinto, utrum Baptismus ille cessare debuerit, Christo baptizato. (5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized? Sexto, utrum baptizati Baptismo Ioannis essent postea baptizandi Baptismo Christi. (6) Whether those who received John’s baptism had afterwards to receive Christ’s baptism? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum fuerit conveniens Ioannem baptizare Whether it was fitting that John should baptize? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Ioannem baptizare. Omnis enim ritus sacramentalis ad aliquam pertinet legem. Sed Ioannes non introduxit novam legem. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod novum ritum baptizandi introduceret. Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that John should baptize. For every sacramental rite belongs to some law. But John did not introduce a new law. Therefore it was not fitting that he should introduce the new rite of baptism. Praeterea, Ioannes fuit missus a Deo in testimonium tanquam propheta, secundum illud Luc. I, tu, puer, propheta altissimi vocaberis. Sed prophetae qui fuerunt ante Christum, non introduxerunt novum ritum, sed ad observantiam legalium rituum inducebant, ut patet Malach. ult., mementote legis Moysi, servi mei. Ergo nec Ioannes novum ritum baptizandi inducere debuit. Obj. 2: Further, John was sent by God . . . for a witness (John 1:6, 7) as a prophet; according to Luke 1:76: Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest. But the prophets who lived before Christ did not introduce any new rite, but persuaded men to observe the rites of the Law, as is clearly stated Malachi 4:4: Remember the law of Moses My servant. Therefore neither should John have introduced a new rite of baptism. Praeterea, ubi est alicuius rei superfluitas, non est ad illud aliquid addendum. Sed Iudaei excedebant in superfluitate Baptismatum, dicitur enim Marci VII, quod Pharisaei, et omnes Iudaei, nisi crebro lavent manus, non manducant; et a foro, nisi baptizentur, non comedunt; et alia multa quae tradita sunt illis servare, Baptismata calicum et urceorum et aeramentorum et lectorum. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod Ioannes baptizaret. Obj. 3: Further, when there is too much of anything, nothing should be added to it. But the Jews observed a superfluity of baptisms; for it is written (Mark 7:3, 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. Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturae, Matth. III, ubi, praemissa sanctitate Ioannis, subditur quod exibant ad eum multi, et baptizabantur in Iordane. On the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Matt 3:5, 6), which, after stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, and were baptized in the Jordan. Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit Ioannem baptizare, propter quatuor. Primo quidem, quia oportebat Christum a Ioanne baptizari, ut Baptismum consecraret, ut dicit Augustinus, super Ioan. 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, super Joan. (Tract. xiii in Joan.). Secundo, ut Christus manifestaretur. Unde ipse Ioannes Baptista dicit, Ioan. I, ut manifestetur, scilicet Christus, in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans. Concurrentibus enim turbis annuntiabat Christum, quod quidem facilius sic factum est quam si per singulos discurrisset, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Ioan. Second, that Christ might be manifested. Whence John himself says (John 1:31): That He, i.e., 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 (Hom. x in Matth.). Tertio, ut suo Baptismo assuefaceret homines ad Baptismum Christi. Unde Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, quod ideo baptizavit Ioannes ut, praecursionis suae ordinem servans, qui nasciturum dominum nascendo praevenerat, baptizando quoque baptizaturum praeveniret. Third, that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of Christ; wherefore Gregory says in a homily (Hom. vii in Evang.) 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. Quarto ut, ad poenitentiam homines inducens, homines praepararet ad digne suscipiendum Baptismum Christi. Unde Beda dicit quod, quantum catechumenis nondum baptizatis prodest doctrina fidei, tantum profuit Baptisma Ioannis ante Baptisma Christi. Quia sicut ille praedicabat poenitentiam, et Baptismum Christi praenuntiabat, et in cognitionem veritatis quae mundo apparuit attrahebat; sic ministri Ecclesiae, qui primo erudiunt, postea peccata eorum redarguunt, deinde in Baptismo Christi remissionem promittunt. Fourth, that by persuading men to do penance, he might prepare men to receive worthily the baptism of Christ. Wherefore 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.