Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

NOTE 1. It was the opinion of many heretics, both ancient and recent, that the baptism of John was the same as the baptism of Christ the Lord. Petilian, bishop of Constantine and a Donatist, was among the first to affirm this. For St. Augustine writes of him in book II of Against the Letters of Petilian, ch. 32: “Although, he said, there is one baptism, it was nevertheless consecrated in three stages. John gave water, without the name of the Trinity, as he himself professed, saying, I baptize you in water, etc. Christ gave the Holy Spirit; the Paraclete, fire itself, blazing with crackling flames, came upon the Apostles:” By these words he distinguishes those three baptisms only in that John gave water, Christ the Lord the Holy Spirit, and the Paraclete fire. But more recent heretics, especially Zwingli, in On True and False Religion, ch. “On Baptism”; the Centuriators, Centuries, century 40, title “On Baptism”; and Calvin, Institutes, bk. IV, ch. 15, no. 7, more boldly declare that there is absolutely no difference between the baptism of John and that of Christ the Lord. Calvin says: It is most certain that the ministry of John was precisely the same as that later entrusted to the Apostles: for different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it different; the same teaching shows it to be one and the same. John and the Apostles agreed in one teaching, and both baptized unto repentance, both unto the remission of sins, and both in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins were to come. A little later he writes most shamelessly: Why, then, should anyone be disturbed that the Fathers strive to distinguish one from the other? Their judgment ought not to count so much with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture. For who would rather listen to Chrysostom, who denies that remission of sins was included in John’s baptism, than to Luke, who asserts the contrary, that John preached a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins? Nor should we accept Augustine’s quibble that sins were remitted in hope through John’s baptism, but are actually remitted in Christ’s baptism, etc. But who should rather be listened to: Calvin, who distorts the true sense of Scripture by perverse interpretations, or all the holy Fathers, whom, as the Eighth Council says, Action 1, Canon 1, God has set before us to follow as lamps that cannot be extinguished and that illumine our steps?

NOTE 2. Just as John was the Forerunner of Christ the Lord, preparing people by word and example to receive the grace to be spread by the Incarnate Word, so his baptism was preparatory and disposed people toward the baptism of Christ, as the holy Fathers teach. Origen especially says in Commentary on John, tome VIII: I came to prepare, as it were, a people made ready, and to prepare a place of repentance through baptism for the one who was to come after me, etc. Athanasius calls John’s baptism “introductory” (Question 134); Basil, in his Exhortation on Baptism, calls it “initiatory”; Cyril of Alexandria, On John, bk. I, ch. 26, calls it “preparatory,” and in bk. II, ch. 57, “introductory”; as does John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith, bk. I, calling it a “rudiment,” etc. Finally, Cyprian, in On the Baptism of Christ and the Manifestation of the Trinity, writes: John prepared the way for the Lord by washing bodies outwardly, so that the outward washing might precede the baptism that was to follow, in which the washing of souls and remission of sins would be conferred, etc. Augustine likewise writes in the Enchiridion, ch. 49: Those who were baptized with John’s baptism were not to be reborn … but by a certain ministry of forerunning preparation they were prepared for that one in whom alone they could be reborn, as he said, “Prepare the way of the Lord.” etc. Hence the Doctor rightly concludes in In IV Sent., d. 2, q. 2, n. 2, that John’s baptism benefited people only by disposing them toward Christ’s baptism: both by stirring them through the outward washing with water to receive Christ’s baptism, and by preaching faith and repentance, through which they would become worthy to receive the grace of the New Law.

NOTE 3. According to the same Doctor in the same place, it is certain that the matter of John’s baptism was water and washing; this is explicitly stated in Matthew 3, Luke 3, Mark 1, and John 1 and 3. The form, however, is not so certain. Some Doctors maintain that John baptized with a determinate form, namely, in the name of the Christ who was to come. So say Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, bk. II, part 6, ch. 6, and the Master of the Sentences, d. 2; they are followed by the more celebrated leaders of the Church, especially Alexander of Hales, Summa, part IV, q. 6, member 3, a. 11, and St. Thomas, Summa, III, q. 58, a. 6, ad 6. The Doctor therefore adopts this opinion in the earlier place as the more commonly received one. Many of the holy Fathers also support it, especially St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, bk. I, ch. 7, where he says: John baptized in the name of Jesus who was to come, not in his own name. St. Augustine says the same in Questions on the New Testament, q. 29: John’s baptism was not without mention of Christ. St. Jerome teaches the same on the words of Joel: I will pour out my Spirit, etc. The passage in Acts 19 also supports it: John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling them to believe in the one who was to come after him. It also seems to follow from Matthew 3, where St. John addresses the Pharisees and Sadducees: I indeed baptize you in water, unto repentance; but the one who is to come after me … he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire. Nevertheless, Durandus, in the same place, q. 3, Gabriel, q. 2, and some others object, holding that John baptized without any verbal form, or at least not with the one just mentioned. First, they say that this form would be false: Christ had already come when John baptized, and John knew this; consequently, Christ was not “to come.” Second, John administered the same baptism to Christ as to others, and it would not have been fitting for him to use this form when baptizing Christ. Nevertheless, I think the former opinion should be preferred, because the grounds for the opposing opinion can easily be answered. To the first argument, one may readily reply that the word to come is understood with reference to Christ’s manifestation through the preaching of the Gospel and the ministry of baptizing: for by baptizing, John was disposing people to receive Christ’s baptism. The second argument is likewise easily refuted: when John learned by revelation that Christ was coming to him to be baptized, either he used no form when baptizing him, as Paludanus teaches, or he used another form, as Maiorinus holds.

With these points established, it remains to determine whether John’s baptism was the same as Christ’s baptism, and, second, whether it had the power to remit sins and confer sanctifying grace.

First conclusion. — THE BAPTISM OF JOHN WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST. This is a matter of faith, defined by the Council of Trent, sess. VII, can. 1: If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same power as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema. The Fathers of the Council of Nicaea held the same opinion. For in its Acts, bk. I, near the end, the Fathers, answering the Philosopher through Macarius of Jerusalem, speak thus of Christ: Then he came to baptism while John, son of Zechariah, was preaching to the people a baptism of penance, but not conferring a baptism for sins or for adoption as sons of God; for it was not John’s to give this, but belonged only to the incarnate Word of God himself.

The holy Fathers defend the same truth. Tertullian preceded them in bk. On Baptism, ch. 10, where, after saying that John’s baptism was divine by reason of its command, but human by reason of its condition, he adds: For it provided nothing heavenly, but served beforehand for heavenly things; namely, it was set over repentance, which is within human power. And further: Thereafter we find in the Acts of the Apostles that those who had John’s baptism had not received the Holy Spirit, whom they had not even heard of: therefore what did not bestow heavenly things was not heavenly. He concludes: Thus a baptism of penance was administered, as a candidate for the remission and sanctification in Christ that would follow. For when he preached a baptism of penance unto the remission of sins, it was announced to God as a remission yet to come: repentance precedes, remission follows, and this is what it means to prepare the way. But one who prepares does not accomplish the same thing; he makes ready for another to accomplish it. In these words Tertullian explains the difficulty at hand most clearly. St. Chrysostom teaches the same in Homily 10 on Matthew, as Calvin himself acknowledges, and St. Augustine in many places, especially Homily 5 on John, where he says: If John baptized some, they must be baptized again—certainly again, but not with baptism repeated. For those whom Judas baptized and Christ baptized, and those whom John baptized, did not, etc. Also, in bk. V of On Baptism, ch. 9: Christ cleanses the Church with such a baptism that, once received, another was not necessary. John, however, brought people to a baptism after receiving which the Lord’s baptism was necessary.

The same holy Doctor proves this truth by various arguments drawn from Sacred Scripture. First, because in Matthew 21 John’s baptism is called the baptism of a man: for Christ asks, The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men? Yet Christ’s baptism is nowhere called the baptism of a man. “We read,” says St. Augustine in bk. Against the Letters of Petilian, ch. 56, that in some places the Apostle said “my Gospel,” but he never said “my baptism,” nor did anyone say this of another through whom it is administered. For that baptism alone which John gave was called John’s baptism. — Proof, second, from John 1: John bore witness, saying: I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained upon him, and I did not know him, etc. St. Augustine explains these words in bk. V of On Baptism, ch. 3: “He knew him in one respect, but in another he did not yet know. He knew the Bridegroom, the Son of God, from whose fullness all would receive; but because he had himself received from his fullness the power to baptize, so that it was called John’s baptism, he did not know whether he would give it to others in the same way.” But if John’s baptism were the same as Christ’s, it could not be said that John did not know him. Therefore, etc. — Proof, third: although the law and the prophets lasted until John, John was not the end of the law; for, as the Apostle says, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. But if John’s baptism were the same as Christ’s, John could in some way be called the end of the law, since one would have to remain with his baptism. Hence St. Augustine says in bk. V of On Baptism, ch. 9: If the end were in John, Christ’s baptism would not be needed. But because Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes, John showed the one to whom we should go; when we have reached him, we should remain with him.

Finally, the same truth is proved by this argument: a baptism whose form and effects are different is a different baptism; but the form and effects of Christ’s baptism were different from those of John’s baptism; therefore, etc. The major premise is established. It is proved that the minor premise is true as to the first part: Christ’s baptism is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. John’s baptism was not performed in this way, as is clearly gathered from Acts 19, where Paul came to Ephesus and found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They said to him, “We have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” He said, “Into what, then, were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized the people with a baptism of repentance, telling them to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. From these words two things may be inferred: first, John did not baptize in the name of the three persons, since those baptized by him had not even heard whether there was a Holy Spirit; second, he baptized them only in the name of the Christ who was to come. The same minor premise is proved as to the difference in efficacy: first, from Matthew 3, where John himself speaks thus to the Jews: I indeed baptize you in water, unto repentance, but the one who is to come after me is mightier than I; he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire. Then from John 3, where we read that John’s disciples complained that Christ was baptizing: Look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him. For if Christ’s baptism had been the same as John’s, John could easily have answered their complaint by saying that Christ’s baptism was the same as his in efficacy, and therefore they should be glad rather than complain, since Christ would then have learned it from John as a disciple. But John does the opposite and implies how great the difference is between his baptism and Christ’s, by pointing to Christ’s superior dignity: John answered and said: A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness that I said, “I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.” He who has the bride is the bridegroom, etc. Finally, those baptized with John’s baptism were baptized again by the Apostles with Christ’s baptism; therefore the two baptisms were not one and the same.

HERETICS OBJECT: Where there is the same sign, the same signification, and the same ministry, there is the same sacrament. But all these are the same in both baptisms. First, there is the washing with water, as is clear from Matthew 3 and Mark 1; the ministry is the same, because both wash outwardly; and the signification is likewise the same, namely, remission of sins. For it is said of St. John’s baptism in Mark 1: John was in the desert, baptizing and preaching a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. Similarly, Matthew 3 says: Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan went out to him, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. — I grant the major premise and the first two parts of the minor premise, but I distinguish the latter: that in both baptisms the same remission of sins occurs in the same manner and by the power of the outward sign applied, I deny; that it occurs in a different manner, and in one by the work performed, in the other by the work of the one acting, I grant. For John’s baptism remitted sins only by the power of repentance, stirred up by that sign and the prior preaching. Hence it is not simply called “a baptism unto the remission of sins,” but “a baptism of repentance unto the remission,” etc. Christ’s baptism, however, is called absolutely by Peter in Acts 2: Let each of you be baptized unto the remission of sins. And in the Constantinopolitan Creed: I confess one baptism unto the remission of sins. Hence Tertullian, in On Baptism, ch. 10, said that St. John’s baptism was a candidate for the remission and sanctification to follow in Christ. Nor does it matter that Peter says in the passage just cited in Acts, Repent, and let each of you be baptized, etc. For there remission of sins is not joined with “repent,” as it is in the case of John’s baptism, but with “be baptized.” Peter says that they must repent because he is addressing adults, who, in order to receive baptism worthily, had to form some sorrow for their sins.

HERETICS OBJECT, SECOND: If John’s baptism were not the same as Christ’s, those baptized with John’s baptism ought to have been baptized again. But this was not done, as Zwingli proves in On True and False Religion, ch. “On Baptism,” by three arguments. First, St. Andrew was a disciple of John and consequently was washed with his baptism, yet we read nowhere that he was baptized after becoming a disciple of Christ. Second, John’s disciples reported to him that Christ was baptizing; if Christ had baptized with a different baptism, they would have reported that too. Third, John 4 says that Christ’s disciples were baptizing, and therefore they had been baptized with the baptism they conferred. Yet it cannot be said that they had been baptized by Christ, since the same passage explicitly says that Christ himself did not baptize. Therefore they had been baptized with John’s baptism, which they themselves conferred. Consequently, since Christ is said to have baptized through his disciples, it follows that Christ’s baptism was the same as John’s. Fourth, the same may be proved by the authority of the holy Fathers. For St. Ambrose, bk. I of On the Holy Spirit, ch. 3, teaches that those baptized with John’s baptism fell into two groups: some were baptized in the name of Christ, as John was accustomed to baptize, while others were baptized by John’s own disciples, neither in the name of Christ nor in faith in the Holy Spirit. He says that the former were not baptized again, but the latter received baptism a second time: “Those who said that they did not know the Holy Spirit, Acts 14¹, when they declared that they had been baptized in John’s baptism, were baptized afterward, because John baptized unto the remission of sins in the name of Jesus who was to come, not in his own name. They did not know the Spirit because they had not received baptism in Christ’s name, as John was accustomed to baptize. For although John did not baptize in the Spirit, he nevertheless preached both Christ and the Spirit.… Therefore these people, because they had been baptized neither in Christ’s name nor in faith in the Holy Spirit, could not receive the sacrament of baptism; so they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Their baptism was not repeated but renewed, for there is one baptism.” Eulogius also embraces and defends this opinion in part II of Against the Novatians, in Photius’s Library, where he proves two things: first, that one baptized with John’s baptism did not need another baptism; second, that such a baptism cleansed those who approached it. “Nowhere is it recorded,” he says, that those baptized by John before Christ’s Resurrection were baptized again, etc. — I answer that it can be gathered that those already baptized with John’s baptism were inaugurated again with Christ’s baptism. First, from Scripture: in Acts 2 we read that three thousand people were baptized by the Apostles, at Peter’s command, in the name of Jesus Christ. It is evident from Matthew 3—Jerusalem and all the region around the Jordan went out to him, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins—that many of them had already been washed with John’s baptism. Moreover, in Acts 19, when Paul learned that some disciples had been baptized only with John’s baptism, he ordered them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The holy Fathers likewise affirm this: Jerome, Epistle 83 to Oceanus and Dialogue Against the Luciferians, says: John’s baptism was so imperfect that it is clear that those baptized by him were afterward baptized with Christ’s baptism. St. Augustine says the same in Tractate 4 on John, near the middle: Lest what Christ himself received from John be put forward as Christ’s baptism, others were also permitted to baptize. But those baptized by John were not satisfied with it: they were baptized with Christ’s baptism, because John’s baptism was not Christ’s baptism. Those who receive Christ’s baptism do not seek John’s baptism; those who received John’s baptism sought Christ’s baptism. Hence the arguments by which the heretics seem to support and prove the minor premise, which we deny, are easily answered. First, the heretics infer that Andrew was baptized with John’s baptism because he was his disciple. By the same reasoning, it must be inferred that he was baptized with Christ’s baptism because he followed Christ the Lord and became his disciple. To the second, I say that the contrary rather follows: John’s disciples would not have announced to him as something new that Christ the Lord was baptizing, unless they had seen him baptizing with a baptism different from John’s. To the third, I likewise say that the contrary of the heretics’ assertion follows. By the argument with which they try to prove that the Apostles were washed with John’s baptism—because they conferred John’s baptism—we can conversely prove that they were baptized with Christ’s baptism, since, as St. Augustine teaches in bk. III of Against Petilian, ch. 55, the Apostles administered not John’s baptism but Christ’s. The aforementioned testimonies of the Fathers do not favor the heretics either. For St. Ambrose does not seem to rely on any evidence for the distinction he proposes between two baptisms of John, one duly and validly conferred in Christ’s name with faith in the Holy Spirit, the other conferred otherwise and therefore needing to be repeated. No trace of this distinction appears in Sacred Scripture or in the holy Fathers who preceded him. Hence the Master of the Sentences, who uses the same distinction in In IV Sent., d. 2, is rejected by all theologians on this point. Nor does Eulogius support them: to show John’s baptism to be perfect, contrary to the common opinion of the holy Fathers, he attributes more to it than is warranted. After the words quoted above, he adds that many Fathers show John’s baptism to have been wholly imperfect.

Second conclusion. — THE BAPTISM OF JOHN DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REMIT SINS OR CONFER GRACE. This is the more common opinion among Catholics and follows from the preceding conclusion. The Doctor proves it in the passage cited above, where he shows that those baptized by John had to be baptized again with Christ’s baptism: “For, he says, after receiving preparatory medicine, it is fitting to receive curative medicine; once a disposition has been introduced, it is fitting that the principal form should still be introduced. John’s baptism was like a merely preparatory disposition toward Christ’s baptism, so that through that washing people would be more readily inclined to receive the washing that brought them salvation, and would not find it burdensome, having already become accustomed to something similar. John the Baptist indicates this reason when he says in John 1: “I baptize you with water”—that is, with water only—“but one stands among you whom you do not know”; he is the one who “baptizes you not in water only, but in Spirit and truth.”” Thus the Doctor.

YOU WILL OBJECT: Many holy Fathers affirm that John’s baptism had the power to remit sins. Thus Basil, in Homily 2, On Baptism, before the middle, says: By the grace of God and of Christ himself, as soon as anyone approached and confessed his sins, whatever their number or kind, he was baptized in the river Jordan and immediately received remission of sins. Similarly, St. Augustine says in bk. V of On Baptism, ch. 10: Nevertheless, lest anyone contend that sins were also remitted in John’s baptism, but that some greater sanctification was conferred upon those whom the Apostle Paul ordered to be baptized again with Christ’s baptism, I will not argue stubbornly. St. Peter Chrysologus, too, says in Sermon 137 that John’s baptism removed guilt but did not confer grace. — I answer that St. Basil may be understood as speaking of remission of sins which the baptized person would obtain by the work of the one acting, through the efficacy and merit of repentance. To St. Augustine, I say that although he does not wish to argue stubbornly with someone who would contend that sins were actually remitted in John’s baptism, it does not follow that he thought they were remitted by the work performed, but only by the work of the one acting. Since, however, through Christ’s baptism they obtained remission of sins by the work performed, they received far greater sanctification. Finally, concerning St. Peter Chrysologus, I say that he does not mean that sins were remitted through John’s baptism without the infusion of grace; for this does not occur under the ordinary law. Rather, perhaps through that bodily washing the Jews were cleansed from those legal impurities. For, explaining Luke 3, He came into all the region around the Jordan, etc., he says: He came to the Jordan, because the hydra could no longer wash away Jewish stains, but the river could. Then, explaining the following words, preaching a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins, he adds: John had forgiveness, but not without repentance; remission, but joined with grief; a healing of the wound with pain; a baptism that removed guilt but did not cleanse the conscience. And why say more? Through John’s baptism a person was purified unto repentance, not advanced unto grace, etc.