Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. III, quod venit Iesus a Galilaea in Iordanem ad Ioannem, ut baptizaretur ab eo. On the contrary, It is written (Matt 3:13) that Jesus cometh from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit Christum baptizari. Primo quidem quia, ut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., baptizatus est dominus, non mundari volens, sed mundare aquas, ut, ablutae per carnem Christi, quae peccatum non cognovit, Baptismatis vim haberent, et ut sanctificatas relinqueret postmodum baptizandis, sicut Chrysostomus dicit. Secundo, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quamvis Christus non esset peccator, tamen naturam suscepit peccatricem, et similitudinem carnis peccati. Propterea, etsi pro se Baptismate non indigebat, tamen in aliis carnalis natura opus habebat. Et, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, baptizatus est Christus ut totum veteranum Adam immergat aquae. Tertio, baptizari voluit, sicut Augustinus dicit, in sermone de Epiphania, quia voluit facere quod faciendum omnibus imperavit. Et hoc est quod ipse dicit, sic decet nos adimplere omnem iustitiam. Ut enim Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., haec est iustitia, ut quod alterum facere velis, prius ipse incipias, et tuo alios horteris exemplo. 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 (Hom. iv in Matth.), that He might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized afterwards. Second, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), although Christ was not a sinner, yet did He 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 Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix) Christ was baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water. Third, He wished to be baptized, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxvi), because He wished to do what He had commanded all to do. And this is what He means by saying: So it becometh us to fulfill all justice (Matt 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non fuit baptizatus ut ablueretur, sed ut ablueret, sicut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: Christ was baptized, not that He might be cleansed, but that He might cleanse, as stated above. Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus non solum debebat implere ea quae sunt legis veteris, sed etiam inchoare ea quae sunt novae. Et ideo non solum voluit circumcidi, sed etiam baptizari. Reply Obj. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus est primum baptizans spiritualiter. Et sic non est baptizatus, sed solum in aqua. Reply Obj. 3: Christ is the first principle of baptism’s spiritual effect. Unto this He was not baptized, but only in water. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum Christum decuerit baptizari baptismo Ioannis Whether it was fitting for Christ to be baptized with John’s baptism? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christum non decuerit baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. Baptismus enim Ioannis fuit Baptismus poenitentiae. Sed poenitentia Christo non convenit, quia nullum habuit peccatum. Ergo videtur quod non debuit baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. 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. Praeterea, Baptismus Ioannis, sicut dicit Chrysostomus, medium fuit inter Baptismum Iudaeorum et Baptismum Christi. Sed medium sapit naturam extremorum. Cum ergo Christus non fuerit baptizatus Baptismate Iudaico, nec etiam Baptismate suo, videtur quod, pari ratione, Baptismate Ioannis baptizari non debuerit. Obj. 2: Further, John’s baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. de Bapt. Christi), was a mean between the baptism of the Jews and that of Christ. But the mean savors of the nature of the extremes (Aristotle, De Partib. Animal.). 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. Praeterea, omne quod in rebus humanis est optimum, debet attribui Christo. Sed Baptismus Ioannis non tenet supremum locum inter Baptismata. Ergo non convenit Christum baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. Obj. 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. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. III, quod venit Iesus in Iordanem ut baptizaretur a Ioanne. On the contrary, It is written (Matt 3:13) that Jesus cometh to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., baptizatus dominus baptizabat non Baptismate quo baptizatus est. Unde, cum ipse baptizaret Baptismo proprio, consequens est quod non fuerit baptizatus suo Baptismate, sed Baptismate Ioannis. Et hoc fuit conveniens, primo quidem, propter conditionem Baptismi Ioannis, qui non baptizavit in spiritu, sed solum in aqua. Christus autem spirituali Baptismate non indigebat, qui a principio suae conceptionis gratia spiritus sancti repletus fuit, ut patet ex dictis. Et haec est ratio Chrysostomi. Secundo, ut Beda dicit, baptizatus est Baptismo Ioannis, ut Baptismo suo Baptismum Ioannis comprobaret. Tertio, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, accedit Iesus ad Baptismum Ioannis sanctificaturus Baptismum. I answer that, As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): 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 Spirit from the beginning of His conception, as we have made clear above (Q. 34, A. 1). And this is the reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi). Second, as Bede says on Mk. 1:9, He was baptized with the baptism of John, that, by being thus baptized, He might show His approval of John’s baptism. Third, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), by going to John to be baptized by him, He sanctified baptism. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus baptizari voluit ut nos suo exemplo induceret ad Baptismum. Et ideo, ad hoc quod esset efficacior eius inductio, voluit baptizari Baptismo quo manifeste non indigebat, ut homines ad Baptismum accederent quo indigebant. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., nemo refugiat lavacrum gratiae, quando Christus lavacrum poenitentiae non refugit. Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 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 thereto more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized with a baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it might approach unto it. Wherefore Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: Let none decline the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the laver of penance. Ad secundum dicendum quod Baptismus Iudaeorum in lege praeceptus, erat solum figuralis; Baptismus autem Ioannis aliqualiter erat realis, inquantum inducebat homines ad abstinendum a peccatis; Baptismus autem Christi habet efficaciam mundandi a peccato et gratiam conferendi. Christus autem neque indigebat percipere remissionem peccatorum, quae in eo non erant; neque recipere gratiam, qua plenus erat. Similiter etiam, cum ipse sit veritas, non competebat ei id quod in sola figura gerebatur. Et ideo magis congruum fuit quod baptizaretur Baptismo medio quam aliquo extremorum. Reply Obj. 2: The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely figurative, whereas John’s baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch 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 bestowal 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus est quoddam spirituale remedium. Quanto autem est aliquid magis perfectum, tanto minori remedio indiget. Unde ex hoc ipso quod Christus est maxime perfectus, conveniens fuit quod non baptizaretur perfectissimo Baptismo, sicut ille qui est sanus, non indiget efficaci medicina. Reply Obj. 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. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum convenienti tempore Christus fuerit baptizatus Whether Christ was baptized at a fitting time? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non convenienti tempore Christus fuerit baptizatus. Ad hoc enim Christus baptizatus est ut suo exemplo alios ad Baptismum provocaret. Sed fideles Christi laudabiliter baptizantur, non solum ante trigesimum annum, sed etiam in infantili aetate. Ergo videtur quod Christus non debuit baptizari in aetate triginta annorum. 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 thirty. Praeterea, Christus non legitur docuisse, vel miracula fecisse, ante Baptismum. Sed utilius fuisset mundo si pluri tempore docuisset, incipiens a vigesimo anno, vel etiam prius. Ergo videtur quod Christus, qui pro utilitate hominum venerat, ante trigesimum annum debuerat baptizari. Obj. 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 twenty, or even before. Therefore it seems that Christ, who came for man’s profit, should have been baptized before His thirtieth year. Praeterea, indicium sapientiae divinitus infusae maxime debuit manifestari in Christo. Est autem manifestatum in Daniele tempore suae pueritiae, secundum illud Dan. XIII, suscitavit dominus spiritum sanctum pueri iunioris, cui nomen Daniel. Ergo multo magis Christus in sua pueritia debuit baptizari vel docere. Obj. 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 Dan. 13:45: 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. Praeterea, Baptismus Ioannis ordinatur ad Baptismum Christi sicut ad finem. Sed finis est prior in intentione, et postremum in executione. Ergo vel debuit primus baptizari a Ioanne, vel ultimus. Obj. 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. Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. III, factum est, cum baptizaretur omnis populus, et Iesu baptizato et orante, et infra, et ipse Iesus erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta. On the contrary, It is written (Luke 3:21): It came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying; and further on (Luke 3:23): And Jesus Himself was beginning about the age of thirty years. Respondeo dicendum quod Christus convenienter fuit in trigesimo anno baptizatus. Primo quidem, quia Christus baptizabatur quasi ex tunc incipiens docere et praedicare, ad quod requiritur perfecta aetas, qualis est triginta annorum. Unde et Gen. XLI legitur quod triginta annorum erat Ioseph quando suscepit regimen Aegypti. Similiter etiam II Reg. V legitur de David quod triginta annorum erat cum regnare coepisset. Ezechiel etiam in anno trigesimo coepit prophetare, ut habetur Ezech. I. 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 thirty. Thus we read (Gen 41:46) that Joseph was thirty years old when he undertook the government of Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kgs 5:4) that David was thirty years old when he began to reign. Again, Ezechiel began to prophesy in his thirtieth year, as we read Ezech. 1:1. Secundo quia, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., futurum erat ut post Baptismum Christi lex cessare inciperet. Et ideo hac aetate Christus ad Baptismum venit quae potest omnia peccata suscipere, ut, lege servata, nullus dicat quod ideo eam solvit quod implere non potuit. Second, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. x in Matth.), 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. Tertio, quia per hoc quod Christus in aetate perfecta baptizatur, datur intelligi quod Baptismus parit viros perfectos, secundum illud Ephes. IV, donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionis filii Dei, in virum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi. Unde et ipsa proprietas numeri ad hoc pertinere videtur. Consurgit enim tricenarius numerus ex ductu ternarii in denarium; per ternarium autem intelligitur fides Trinitatis, per denarium autem impletio mandatorum legis; et in his duobus perfectio vitae Christianae consistit. Third, because by Christ’s being baptized at the perfect age, we are given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men, according to Eph. 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 thirty is product of three and ten: and by the number three is implied faith in the Trinity, while ten signifies the fulfilment of the commandments of the Law: in which two things the perfection of Christian life consists. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, Christus non est baptizatus quasi indigeret purgatione, nec aliquod illi immineret periculum differendo Baptismum. Sed cuivis alii non in parvum redundat periculum, si exeat ex hac vita non indutus veste incorruptionis, scilicet gratia. Et licet bonum sit post Baptismum munditiam custodire, potius tamen est, ut ipse dicit, interdum paulisper maculari, quam gratia omnino carere. Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xl), 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 than to be altogether deprived of grace. Ad secundum dicendum quod utilitas quae a Christo provenit hominibus praecipue est per fidem et humilitatem, ad quorum utrumque valet quod Christus non in pueritia vel in adolescentia coepit docere, sed in perfecta aetate. Ad fidem quidem, quia per hoc ostenditur in eo vera humanitas, quod per temporum incrementa corporaliter profecit, et ne huiusmodi profectus putaretur esse phantasticus, noluit suam sapientiam et virtutem manifestare ante perfectam corporis aetatem. Ad humilitatem vero, ne ante perfectam aetatem aliquis praesumptuose praelationis gradum et docendi officium assumat. Reply Obj. 2: The profit 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus proponebatur hominibus in exemplum omnium. Et ideo oportuit in eo ostendi id quod competit omnibus secundum legem communem, ut scilicet in aetate perfecta doceret. Sed, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, non est lex Ecclesiae quod raro contingit, sicut nec una hirundo ver facit. Aliquibus enim, ex quadam speciali dispensatione, secundum divinae sapientiae rationem, concessum est, praeter legem communem, ut ante perfectam aetatem officium vel praesidendi vel docendi haberent, sicut Salomon, Daniel et Ieremias. Reply Obj. 3: Christ was set before men as an example to all. Wherefore it behooved 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 Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), that which seldom occurs is not the law of the Church; as neither does one swallow make the 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 Jeremias. Ad quartum dicendum quod Christus nec primus nec ultimus debuit a Ioanne baptizari. Quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., Christus ad hoc baptizatur ut confirmaret praedicationem et Baptismum Ioannis; et ut testimonium acciperet a Ioanne. Non autem creditum fuisset testimonio Ioannis nisi postquam multi fuerunt baptizati ab ipso. Et ideo non debuit primus a Ioanne baptizari. Similiter etiam nec ultimus. Quia, sicut ipse ibidem subdit, sicut lux solis non expectat occasum Luciferi, sed eo procedente egreditur, et suo lumine obscurat illius candorem; sic et Christus non expectavit ut cursum suum Ioannes impleret, sed, adhuc eo docente et baptizante, apparuit. Reply Obj. 4: It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by John either before or after all others. Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), 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 he (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 latter is still above the horizon, and by its brilliance dims its shining: so Christ did not wait till John had run his course, but appeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum Christus debuerit baptizari in Iordane Whether Christ should have been baptized in the Jordan? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non debuerit baptizari in Iordane. Veritas enim debet respondere figurae. Sed figura Baptismi praecessit in transitu maris rubri, ubi Aegyptii sunt submersi, sicut peccata delentur in Baptismo. Ergo videtur quod Christus magis debuerit baptizari in mari quam in flumine Iordanis. 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. Praeterea, Iordanis interpretatur descensus. Sed per Baptismum aliquis plus ascendit quam descendit, unde et Matth. III dicitur quod baptizatus Iesus confestim ascendit de aqua. Ergo videtur inconveniens fuisse quod Christus in Iordane baptizaretur. Obj. 2: Further, Jordan is interpreted a going down. But by baptism a man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written (Matt 3:16) that Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up from the water. Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. Praeterea, transeuntibus filiis Israel, aquae Iordanis conversae sunt retrorsum, ut legitur Iosue IV, et sicut in Psalmo dicitur. Sed illi qui baptizantur, non retrorsum, sed in antea progrediuntur. Non ergo fuit conveniens ut Christus in Iordane baptizaretur. Obj. 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the waters of the Jordan were turned back, as it is related Jos. 4, and as it is written Ps. 113:3, 5. But those who are baptized go forward, not back. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. Sed contra est quod dicitur Marci I, quod baptizatus est Iesus a Ioanne in Iordane. On the contrary, It is written (Mark 1:9) that Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan. Respondeo dicendum quod fluvius Iordanis fuit per quem filii Israel in terram promissionis intraverunt. Hoc autem habet Baptismus Christi speciale prae omnibus Baptismatibus, quod introducit in regnum Dei, quod per terram promissionis significatur, unde dicitur Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Ad quod etiam pertinet quod Elias divisit aquas Iordanis, qui erat in curru igneo rapiendus in caelum, ut dicitur IV Reg. II, quia scilicet transeuntibus per aquam Baptismi, per ignem spiritus sancti patet aditus in caelum. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut Christus in Iordane baptizaretur. 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; wherefore it is said (John 3:5): Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, 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 was to be snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as it is related 4 Kings 2: because, to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the Holy Spirit, to those who pass through the waters of baptism. Therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.