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

NOTE 1. Catholics and heretics alike agree without controversy that baptism is a true sacrament of the New Law; for those who acknowledge any sacraments of the Gospel Law count baptism as the first of them. Hence the Subtle Doctor considers this truth something to be assumed rather than proved. For he writes in In IV Sent., d. 3, q. 4, n. 2: “The question assumes that baptism was instituted in the New Law, which is true and reasonable. This is evident from many authorities of the New Testament, both of Christ and of the Apostles, in which the necessity of baptism is proved; that would not be so unless it had been duly instituted in that Law.” And below, n. 3: “This assumption is also reasonable: for the principal sacrament of the Gospel Law, by which one enters into its observance, ought to be new and proper to that Law.… This sacrament also ought to be evident in its signification, because this is the Law of truth that does away with the shadow. And it ought to be abundant in the conferral of grace, because this is the Law of grace.” John 1: “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” “It also ought to be easy, because Christ’s yoke is sweet and his burden light,” Matthew 11. “Likewise, it ought to be common, because God chose only one people for the Law of Moses, but the whole world for the New Law: ‘Their sound has gone out into all the earth,’ etc. These four qualities are found in one thing, namely, a washing with words: for this clearly signifies the cleansing of the soul, which is its chief effect, and it gives grace abundantly; hence in the Psalm it is said, ‘He led me beside refreshing water.’ It is easy, because it is in no way dangerous, as circumcision was; and it is common to every sex and age.” Catholics likewise agree that baptism is first of all the sacraments by reason of its institution, as the Council of Florence teaches in the decree of Eugenius, in these words: “Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments.” To show what kind of priority he means, he adds: “For it is the gateway to spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and part of the body of the Church.” The Doctor speaks in the same way: “by which one enters into its [the Church’s] observance.” The Roman Ritual likewise says at the beginning of the title On the Sacrament of Baptism: “Holy baptism, the gateway of the Christian religion and of eternal life, holds the first place among the other sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ,” etc. Reason also supports this: the first thing in anything is the thing’s very being; but being faithful and Christian is given through baptism, for it is “the sacrament of regeneration,” Titus 3, and, according to St. Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2, “the most ineffable formation of our divine state,” or a kind of divine birth. For just as we must exist in nature before we act or receive what belongs to nature—motion and the like—so, before we suffer or do what is divine, we must possess a certain divine being. This comes about through baptism. For, as the illustrious teacher Hierotheus says, the first movement of the mind toward divine things is love of God; the first progress of sacred love in the holy observance of the divine commandments is the most ineffable formation of our divine state. This formation comes about through baptism: for, according to Pachymeres’ paraphrase, baptism is a commandment, an introduction, a way to intimacy with God and to the heavenly inheritance. Hence a person is formed toward a better and salutary disposition and toward the ordering of God’s words and works. It reshapes our natural dispositions and effects, impressing a kind of formative power upon our nature: to desire, but heavenly goods; to move, but toward every good; to reason or think, but about what eye has not seen nor ear heard; to covet, but better things; to be angered, but against the enemies of our salvation. For the formation of us that comes from seed, although it is from God the Creator, is natural; but the formation that comes through baptism, by which we take on a divine state, is divine. John 1: “Those who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

NOTE 2. All Catholic Doctors agree that the Lord Christ did not institute his baptism before he himself was baptized by John in the Jordan, since he did not begin to preach the Gospel and promulgate the Law of grace before then. They likewise agree that this institution took place before he was received into heaven through his triumphant Ascension. But they disagree about when, in the interval between Christ’s baptism and his Ascension, it was instituted. On this point there are three principal opinions. The first maintains that baptism was instituted after Christ’s Passion, at the time when, about to ascend into heaven, he said to his disciples: “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc. Such seems to have been the teaching of our Alexander of Hales, pt. 1, q. 8, memb. 2, art. 3, and Albert the Great, In IV Sent., d. 3. Many of the holy Fathers support them, especially St. Chrysostom, hom. 28 on John, who writes: “Both baptisms, that of John and that of Christ’s disciples, were alike without the Spirit and had one and the same purpose in baptizing: namely, to win the baptized for Christ,” etc. St. Leo likewise, ep. 4 to the Bishops of Sicily, ch. 3, writes: “After he had risen from the dead, Christ gave his disciples—in whom all the prelates of the Churches were being instructed—both the form and the power of baptizing, saying, Matthew 2¹: ‘Go, teach all nations,’ etc. He could indeed have instructed them in this before the Passion, unless he had wished it to be understood specifically that the grace of the Resurrection began from his Resurrection.” Tertullian teaches the same, bk. On Baptism, ch. 11: “Thus his disciples were then baptizing as ministers, just as John had earlier been a forerunner with the same baptism of John, lest anyone think it was another baptism, since there is no other than Christ’s, which could not then be given by his disciples, because the Lord’s glory had not yet been fulfilled nor the efficacy of the washing established through his Passion and Resurrection. For neither could our death be dissolved except through the Lord’s Passion, nor life restored without his Resurrection.” The second opinion belongs to those who assert that Christ’s baptism was instituted when he was baptized by John in the Jordan: thus the Master of the Sentences, d. 3, St. Thomas, q. 66, art. 2, and all their disciples. The third, and true, opinion is that of the Subtle Doctor, q. 4, n. 2. Rejecting the two earlier views, he argues that “the time of the institution of baptism was before the time when Christ’s disciples were baptizing, although the precise hour of its institution is not read in the Gospel.”

NOTE 3. There is also considerable controversy among theologians about the time when baptism came under a precept and began to oblige people to receive and practice it. Some, mentioned by St. Bernard, ep. 77, once asserted that the precept of baptism began to bind from the time the Lord Christ said to Nicodemus: “Unless someone is born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” Others think the obligation of baptism was in force immediately after the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord Christ. St. Thomas, Suarez, Vasquez, and others defend this opinion above all. The rest, with the Subtle Doctor, hold that baptism was not under a precept until the Gospel had been sufficiently and solemnly promulgated, which took place on the day of Pentecost. “For,” says the Doctor, q. 1, n. 5, “this sacrament may be distinguished as having been promulgated in two ways: in the manner of a counsel, and in the manner of a precept. The former took place before the death of the Lord Christ. For it was fitting that baptism first be proposed as a counsel”—first, because, as the Doctor says, the Gospel Law, which is most perfect, ought not to have been imposed precipitately; rather, the New Law, which is most perfect, had to be introduced in due time. Second, because the Old Law, since it was not evil like idolatry but had been excellent in its own time, ought not to have been abrogated precipitately either, but gradually and after proper instruction, along with its authority and observance. Hence the Synagogue had to be buried with honor, to show that it had been good for its time. We can add a third reason: the passage from the Mosaic Law to the Gospel, and from circumcision to baptism, was not so easy, especially for the Jews, who clung more tenaciously to the traditions of their fathers and could be torn away from them only with great difficulty. It was therefore fitting that baptism first be proposed as a counsel, so that later it could be imposed as a precept on those already practiced in it.

First conclusion. — BAPTISM IS RIGHTLY DEFINED BY THE DOCTOR, IN IV SENT., D. 3, Q. 1, N. 3, IN EITHER OF THESE TWO WAYS. First: Baptism is the washing of a person who consents in some manner, performed by another in water while that person utters certain words together with the proper intention, and effectively signifying by divine institution the removal of sin from the soul. In a second way it can be defined differently: Baptism is the sacrament of the washing of the soul from sin, consisting in the washing of a person who consents in some manner, performed in water by the one washing, and in certain words uttered together by that same minister with the proper intention. The Doctor observes in the same place, n. 1, that either definition can be defended as legitimate. “For there is no difference between these accounts such that the things required for baptism are not necessarily the same according to both; rather, one places in the definition only the washing itself in the direct sense, while the other places both the removal and the words on an equal footing as belonging to that account. This difference arises from the differing opinions about the foundation of this relation: whether it is only the washing as qualified by circumstances, or the washing and the words together.” For the rest, I would judge the second definition more fitting: both because it is given through a genus and a difference—the sacrament has the character of a genus, while the remaining terms indicate how baptism differs from other sacraments in its matter, form, and effect—and because it most closely accords with the definition given by the Roman Catechism under the title On Baptism: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word,” that is, through the washing of water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity.

The parts of this definition will become clear from what is said in this Disputation, and are readily understood in themselves. First, it is called “the sacrament of washing”: for although baptism, according to its original institution, meant the same as a washing, nevertheless ecclesiastical writers have now established the usage by which it signifies something beyond the washing, namely, the invocation of the Holy Trinity. Second, it is called “the washing of the soul from sin,” to distinguish it from any washing of bodily things and to indicate its chief effect, namely, the soul’s cleansing from absolutely every sin. Third, it is called “the washing of a person who consents in some manner”—that is, either through an act of that person’s own will, as an adult to be baptized must consent, or through an act of another’s will, as infants are considered to consent through the will of those under whose direction and authority they are governed, such as their parents or rulers. The remaining terms indicate the minister of that sacrament, who must be distinct from the person being baptized, utter the sacramental words, administer the washing, and do so with the proper intention.

From this it follows that the definition of baptism given by the Apostle in Ephesians 5, when he calls it “the washing of water in the word of life,” and the definition given by the Master of the Sentences, d. 3, in these words, “the outward washing of the body performed under a prescribed form of words,” are descriptions by something like physical parts rather than metaphysical definitions: namely, the washing of water and the word of life. It is as though someone defined a human being through the parts that physically constitute him, saying: “A human being is a body and a soul united together.”

It likewise follows that the definition given by Hugh of St. Victor, bk. 2, On the Sacraments, pt. 6, ch. 2, in these words—“Baptism is water sanctified by the word of God for washing away crimes”—is not precise either. For a sacrament is a sensible sign of sanctifying grace insofar as it sanctifies; but water, however much it may be sanctified, is not such a sign. Therefore that definition does not fit it, unless it is taken perhaps in a causal sense: namely, insofar as water contributes to the external washing, which is a sign of the soul’s interior cleansing.

The definitions offered by heretics are much less acceptable, especially Melanchthon’s in Theological Commonplaces of 1559, where he defines baptism as “a sign by which God deals with us and receives us into grace.” For this definition fits all the sacraments, and even the word of God, which is not a sacrament. The definition given by Calvin, bk. 4, Institutes, ch. 15, must likewise be rejected, where he says: “Baptism is the sign of initiation by which we are enrolled in the fellowship of the Church, so that, grafted into Christ, we may be counted among the children of God.” For this definition is given only through a secondary effect, namely, being marked among the children of God. This takes place only through sanctifying grace, which is the primary and more excellent effect of baptism itself, by which we are justified and reborn in Christ.

Second conclusion. — IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT BAPTISM WAS INSTITUTED BEFORE THE PASSION OF CHRIST. This is the more common opinion among the Doctors, and the Doctor teaches it in In IV Sent., d. 3, q. 4, n. 2, where he says: “It is uncertain when baptism was first instituted. Certainly not when Christ was baptized by John, for that was not Christ’s baptism—that is, in Christ’s form—but John’s. Nevertheless, Christ then dedicated water as suitable matter for his baptism through contact with his most pure flesh; for in the Lawgiver its use was confirmed, that is, as a ministry. Nor was it in the word spoken to Nicodemus in John 3, ‘Unless someone,’ etc., because it is not likely that a sacrament so necessary was instituted in a private room and before a private person, who ought not to have been the herald of its institution. Nor was its institution delayed until the time of the Ascension, Matthew, last chapter; for Christ’s disciples baptized with Christ’s baptism before the Passion. In John 3 John’s disciples say to him: ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, behold, he is baptizing, and everyone is coming to him.’ The time of its institution, then, must have been before the time when Christ’s disciples were baptizing, although the precise hour of its institution is not read in the Gospel.” So the Doctor.

The conclusion is therefore proved by the argument given by the Doctor: the Lord Christ baptized together with his disciples before his Passion; but he did not baptize with the baptism of John; therefore he baptized with a baptism instituted by himself. The major premise is established from Sacred Scripture, for we read in John 3: “After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and there he stayed with them and was baptizing.” A little later, when John’s disciples noticed Christ baptizing together with his disciples, “they came to John and said to him: ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, behold, he is baptizing, and everyone is coming to him.’” And in ch. 4: “When Jesus therefore knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John”—although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were—“he left Judea.” The minor premise is proved, first, as follows: if Christ had baptized with the baptism of John, John’s disciples would not have been jealous or complained that Jesus was baptizing. For a baptism conferred by the Lord Christ would rather have been an occasion of joy and congratulation for them than of jealousy and envy, when they saw that he whom John had declared greater than himself, and whose sandal strap he was not worthy to untie, nevertheless enrolled himself among John’s disciples, as it were, by performing his baptism and ministry. Second, Christ is said there to have baptized through his disciples. But if Christ’s disciples had baptized with John’s baptism, or with another baptism not instituted by Christ, Christ would not be said to baptize through his disciples; rather, John or that other author of the baptism they administered would be so described. Therefore, etc. Finally, John’s baptism did not confer the Holy Spirit or remission of sins; it prescribed only penance for obtaining that remission. But the baptism with which Christ baptized conferred both benefits, as St. John the Baptist teaches in John 1: “I baptize in water, but one stands among you whom you do not know.… This is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.” There he speaks not only of Christ’s future baptism, but also of the baptism then present, that is, to be instituted and conferred by the Lord Christ a short time later. Hence in Luke 3 John answered everyone, saying: “I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” St. Augustine confirms and presses this argument, Tractate on John 5: “It is said of the Lord before he suffered: ‘He was baptizing more than John,’ although he himself was not baptizing but his disciples. Judas was still there among the disciples. Those whom Judas baptized were not baptized again; those whom John baptized were baptized again, because the baptism given by Judas was Christ’s, while that given by John was John’s.” And in Tractate 15: “Was Jesus baptizing more than John, although Jesus himself was not baptizing but his disciples? Are both statements true, that he baptized and did not baptize? He baptized because he himself cleansed; he did not baptize because he did not himself immerse. The disciples supplied the ministry of the body; he supplied the aid of his majesty.” But this aid is sanctifying grace, which John’s baptism did not confer. Therefore, etc. Second, the conclusion is proved as follows: according to the law prescribed by the Lord Christ, baptism is a prerequisite to the other sacraments, for it is the gateway of the Church and the entrance to participation in the sacraments and all the benefits conferred in the Church. But before Christ’s Passion the Apostles were incorporated as members of the Church and received some sacraments: for at the Last Supper Christ gave the Eucharist to his Apostles and initiated them into the priestly Order, as defined by the Council of Trent, sess. XXII, ch. 1. Therefore, etc. St. Augustine approves this argument, ep. 163: “How could the Apostles receive the Eucharist when they had not yet been baptized? How, when Peter did not want Christ to wash him entirely, did Christ answer him: ‘One who has bathed does not need to wash again, but is entirely clean’?” Yet a complete cleansing was not found in John’s baptism, but in the baptism of the Lord Christ. Therefore, etc.

YOU WILL OBJECT 1. The institution and efficacy of the sacraments of the New Law derive from Christ’s ordinance and command; but Christ commanded and ordered the Apostles to administer baptism only after his Resurrection, when he said in Matthew 28: “Go, teach all nations,” etc. Therefore, etc. — I DENY the minor premise: for that command does not contain the first institution of baptism, but its extension to the Gentiles, so that the Apostles, who previously had authority to confer Christ’s baptism only upon Jews, were then to administer it to all the nations to whom they were going to preach the Gospel.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2. The Holy Spirit is conferred through the baptism of Christ, but he was not given before Christ’s Ascension, as is clear from these words of John 7: “The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” And in Acts 1 the Lord Christ said to the disciples after his Resurrection: “You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” — I DISTINGUISH the minor premise: the Holy Spirit had not been given absolutely and invisibly, I deny; for it is certain that before Christ’s Passion the Apostles, and all those to whom Christ said that their sins were forgiven, had been justified and consequently received the Holy Spirit, that is, sanctifying grace. He had not yet been given visibly, as happened on the day of Pentecost, I grant. For on that day the disciples were again baptized with the baptism of desire and filled, of course, with gifts of every charism. For, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “Just as one who is submerged and baptized in water is surrounded on every side by water, so they were perfected by the Holy Spirit.” For, as St. Gregory says, hom. 30 on the Gospels: “The Holy Spirit came upon the disciples with a sudden sound, changed the minds of carnal people into love of himself, and, while tongues of fire appeared outwardly, made their hearts inwardly aflame; for when they received God in the vision of fire, they burned sweetly with love.”

YOU WILL OBJECT 3. If Christ had instituted his baptism before the Passion, he would have commanded the Apostles to administer it, especially when in Luke 9 “he gave them power and authority over all demons, to cure diseases, and sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.” But there is no mention there of conferring baptism; therefore this is a sign that it had not then been instituted. — I answer the minor premise: it should not seem surprising that Christ made no mention there of conferring baptism, since that authority was not new for the Apostles, but they had exercised it already.

YOU WILL OBJECT 4. The holy Fathers praised in the second note, especially St. Leo, seem to teach that the sacrament of baptism was instituted by Christ only after his Resurrection. — I answer that those holy Fathers said this only in passing, while engaged in another matter; therefore it is no surprise if their opinion is not proved on a point of lesser importance, especially when other holy Fathers are found defending the contrary opinion, as many support our assertion together with St. Augustine. As for St. Leo, I say that he defined nothing in that letter, but only treated the matter doctrinally with the Bishops of Sicily, to whom he intended to prove that baptism ought not to be conferred on the feast of Epiphany, but deferred until the Resurrection and Pentecost.

YOU WILL OBJECT 5. A cause precedes its effect; but the Passion of Christ is the cause of all the sacraments of the New Law, for it operates in them and especially in baptism, since Romans 6 says: “All of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death.” Therefore the Passion had to precede baptism. — I DISTINGUISH the minor premise: the Passion of the Lord Christ as accomplished, only, I deny; as foreseen and accepted by God for that purpose, I grant. Therefore the conclusion must be denied. For even before Christ’s Passion baptism had efficacy from the Passion, because it prefigured it, unlike the Mosaic sacraments, which were only ineffective figures. Baptism was efficacious because it had the power to justify from Christ, through whose power the Passion itself was in fact salutary as well. The Doctor explains how the merit of Christ’s Passion could pour forth its power upon those who lived before that Passion, in In III Sent., d. 19, q. 1, n. 10, where he writes that Christ’s merit was foreseen from eternity, and as so foreseen was accepted as conferring some good upon the elect on its account before it was offered; that is, original sin would be remitted and grace conferred upon those who lived before the offering of his Passion. He proves this by an example from St. Anselm, bk. 2, Why God Became Man, ch. 16: “Suppose,” he says, “that many have offended one king and are exiled for the offense. One innocent man of their lineage comes and promises to perform for the king a service pleasing to him on a certain appointed day, so that the king may pardon their offense and be reconciled to them. By accepting the promised service, the king pardons the offense; and if any of them should sin, if he wishes to make satisfaction and repent, the king promises to pardon that offense again. Yet he declares that none of those who were enemies shall enter his palace until the innocent man’s service has been performed. So here: the Passion of the innocent man Christ, foreseen from eternity as to be offered at a certain time, was greatly accepted by the Trinity; on its account he remitted for all who believed it would be offered in time the offense they had contracted from Adam and later committed, if they repented. Yet he did not accept it to such a degree that anyone would enter his eternal palace before the Passion was actually offered. In this way he remitted the offense to the Fathers through circumcision, as he does to us through baptism; but no one entered the palace before the Passion was offered.”

Third conclusion. — BAPTISM WAS NOT INSTITUTED WHEN CHRIST WAS BAPTIZED IN THE JORDAN, NOR DURING HIS CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS IN JOHN 3, BUT A LITTLE AFTER THE ELECTION OF THE APOSTLES. So the Doctor, as is clear from the preceding conclusion; Gabriel, d. 3, q. unica, a. 3, and Richard, a. 5, q. 1, agreed with him, saying that Christ indicated the matter of baptism when he was baptized in the Jordan and designated its form in his conversation with Nicodemus, but instituted it only after the election and appointment of the Apostles.

That he truly did not institute his baptism when he himself was baptized is clear, because the institution of sacraments is an act of a lawgiver. But when Christ was baptized, he was not acting in the person of a lawgiver, but rather of a penitent. Hence the Church sings on the feast of Epiphany: “Today Christ willed to be baptized by John in the Jordan, to save us”—that is, to fulfill the office of one doing penance and making satisfaction for us; for, taking up and sustaining the cause of human nature, he willed to receive the baptism of penance. Also, the sacraments of the New Law ought not to have been instituted before the New Law itself had been inaugurated. But the New Law began above all through the preaching of the Gospel, for a law had to be promulgated before it could bind and exercise any force. Therefore, since when the Lord Christ was baptized he had not yet promulgated the Gospel, nor consequently begun the New Law, he should not be considered to have instituted baptism. Finally, the Lord Christ should be considered to have instituted his baptism in the manner in which he wished it to be applied and administered. But he commanded the Apostles, before administering baptism to anyone, first to instruct and teach them the mysteries of faith. By the same reasoning, then, it seems that he himself first taught before he instituted and administered baptism.

The second and third parts are also evident: namely, that he did not institute baptism during his conversation with Nicodemus. For, as the Doctor teaches most soundly, it is not likely that a sacrament so necessary and ordained for absolutely all people was instituted and commanded in a private room and with a private individual. It was more fitting for that institution to take place publicly, especially before those who were to be the propagators and ministers of such a sacrament. The institution of a sacrament ought to be public and directed to the Church. Therefore it appears more probable that this sacrament was instituted only a little after John had baptized Christ and the Apostles had been called.

YOU WILL SAY: Many of the holy Fathers consistently assert that the waters of baptism received the power of sanctifying when Christ was baptized by John in the Jordan. So especially St. Ambrose, bk. 2, On Luke: “The Lord,” he says, “was baptized not wishing to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, so that, washed by the flesh of Christ, which knew no sin, they might have the right of baptism.” Nazianzen, Oration 59: “John baptizes; Jesus approaches, perhaps to impart holiness even to the one by whom he is baptized, but certainly to bury the whole old Adam in water.” Hilary, On Matthew, canon 2: “Christ, by the authority of his example, brings the sacraments of human salvation to completion, sanctifying humankind both by his assumption of it and by the washing.” Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians: “Jesus was not so much cleansed in the washing as he cleansed all waters by his washing.” Augustine, serm. 36, his first on the baptism of Christ, after saying that God arranged Christ’s affairs so that at the same season of the year there would be something like a continuous feast, adds: “So that just as we then marvel at him born of an inviolate Mother, so now we may receive him plunged beneath pure water and glory in both events: that a Mother bore the Son and is chaste, and that water washed Christ and is holy. The purification of the water after baptism was not established as Mary’s chastity was glorified after childbirth; except that the wave was enriched with an almost greater gift than Mary. She merited chastity for herself alone; it bestowed sanctification upon us. She merited not to sin; it, to purge sins. She repudiates her own offenses; it, by God’s grace, forgives the offenses of others in itself. Virginity was granted to her; fruitfulness was given to it. She bore one and is pure; it has borne many and is a virgin. She knows no son besides Christ; it is, with Christ, the mother of peoples.” And later: “From the time the Savior plunged himself into water, through the ministry of baptism he consecrated the courses of all streams and the veins of every spring.” In serm. 37, On the Time, believed to be by St. Maximus, not Augustine: “When Jesus is baptized in the streams of the Jordan, they are consecrated for our baptism.” And later: “Jesus is baptized, not for himself but for us; he is baptized not to be purified by the waters, but to sanctify the waters himself. Now a man is baptized so that he may institute the sacrament of the new baptism.” — I answer that by all these statements the holy Fathers mean only that when the Lord Christ received baptism he did not impart to the waters of the Jordan a sanctifying power by which they would become capable of producing grace and remission of sins, as happens through baptism—for otherwise baptism would have to be conferred only in the water of the Jordan, since only that water would retain the power to sanctify—but only that at that time the water was designated in the baptism of the Lord Christ to serve in sanctifying people through baptism. For the common manner of speaking among the holy Fathers is that water appointed through the priest’s blessing for the sacrament of baptism is sanctified and imbibes the power to sanctify. So St. Clement speaks, bk. 2, Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 24, and Tertullian, bk. On Baptism, ch. 1, where he says: “All waters, by the privilege of their original source, receive the sacrament of sanctification when God is invoked; for the Spirit at once comes down from heaven and rests upon the waters, sanctifying them from himself, and thus, once sanctified, they imbibe the power of sanctifying,” etc. Cyprian, ep. 70: “The water must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, so that through its baptism it may wash away the sins of the person being baptized.” These words are not to be understood as if water so blessed had, through its contact, a power to sanctify; rather, it is ordered and appointed as suitable matter for the making of the sacrament. The same must be said, with the proper proportion, of the water of the Jordan. Thus the sacrament of baptism was mystically prefigured in the baptism received by the Lord Christ from John in the Jordan, both as to form and as to matter; both were in fact designated. The form was designated by the manifestation of the three divine persons: the Father manifested himself by a voice, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the Son in the humanity he had assumed. The matter was likewise designated, because through contact with Christ’s flesh the water was sanctified and appointed to become the matter of the sacrament. This sanctification of the water is rightly said to have given it the right to cleanse from sins—not because the sacrament was then instituted, but because it was outlined and designated.

Fourth conclusion. — BAPTISM WAS USEFUL AND SUFFICIENT FOR EXPIATING ORIGINAL SIN BEFORE THE PASSION OF THE LORD CHRIST. This is the Doctor’s opinion, contrary to St. Thomas, who, q. 66, art. 2, distinguishes two periods of baptism: the first, when it was only under counsel, namely from its institution until Christ’s death; and the second, when baptism was under a precept, namely immediately after Christ’s death. He likewise establishes three periods of circumcision. The first lasted until Christ’s death, when circumcision was not only under counsel but also under precept, because the Mosaic Law had not yet been abrogated. The second period was from Christ’s death until the solemn promulgation of the Gospel Law, which took place on Pentecost; during that intervening period, he says, circumcision was lawful but useless, since all its power, like that of the other sacraments of the Old Law, had ceased to be in force at the death of the Lord Christ. Finally, he establishes the third period from the solemn preaching of the Gospel itself, after which circumcision was not only useless but altogether unlawful and deadly.

The Doctor therefore teaches first that baptism was a sufficient remedy for the salvation of infants from the very time it was instituted. “For if,” he says, “one imposed precept entirely revokes another, a counsel or admonition concerning one act makes the other unnecessary. For the command to perform one act is a prohibition of the other, while a counsel to perform one act is permission not to observe the other. Therefore, if the precept of baptism prohibited circumcision with respect to its fruit, then a counsel concerning baptism also made circumcision unnecessary.” That is, the precept imposed to receive baptism nullifies circumcision with respect to its fruit and obligation; therefore a counsel concerning baptism also removes the obligation of circumcision. Everyone admits the antecedent. The Doctor proves the consequence by a moral argument drawn from the nature of a law and a precept: whenever one law abrogates another law concerning something, even a counsel to do something other than what the law commands removes the obligation of that law. Consequently, the counsel to receive baptism, which acquired force from its institution, nullified the obligation of the Law of Circumcision. Hence the Doctor rightly concludes, n. 8, “that if before the Passion a Jew had baptized his infant in response to the preaching of Christ or Peter and had not circumcised him, the infant would have been saved had he died, because he would have received grace in baptism: for from its first institution baptism conferred grace.”

THE ADVERSARIES REPLY that the Doctor’s argument applies only when two acts—one of which must be performed by precept, on account of the law that orders it, while the other may be performed by counsel, on account of a ruler who recommends it—are of such a nature that they cannot coexist. Thus a counsel to preserve virginity removes the precept to enter marriage, because virginity and consummated marriage cannot coexist. But circumcision and baptism are different, since both can coexist. For the Doctor admits that before Christ’s death both circumcision and baptism were beneficial. Therefore their acts were not incompatible, and consequently a counsel to receive baptism did not remove the obligation of circumcision. — Against this: a precept to receive baptism does not introduce any more incompatibility between the acts than does a counsel to receive it. Yet everyone admits that the precept to receive baptism removed every obligation of circumcision, which ceased to be in force from the time baptism was commanded. Therefore the same must be said of a counsel. The major premise is proved: a precept to receive baptism does not of itself entail any incompatibility with the precept of circumcision, for it does not formally or virtually contain the latter’s revocation. Both precepts could have remained in force together, if God had decreed that Christians were still bound by precept to receive circumcision after baptism. Therefore the precept of baptism has no power to remove the obligation of circumcision from any source other than the will of Christ the Lord and Lawgiver, by which he decreed that baptism should succeed circumcision, insofar as baptism is a profession of the New Law and the gateway of the Church, in which, as truth dawned, the shadows of the figures of the Old Law had to vanish. But the same follows from the will of Christ, who instituted baptism, administered it, and counseled its reception as an entrance and passage for beginning the New Law. Therefore, by the same reasoning that the precept of baptism removes the obligation of circumcision, a counsel to receive baptism likewise revoked that obligation.

This is confirmed: someone who has vowed to enter a less strict religious order satisfies his vow and obligation by entering a stricter and more perfect order. In like manner, therefore, Jews who were bound by precept to observe the divine Law satisfied it by professing faith in the Gospel and receiving the means of salvation ordained by Christ. The consequence is evident: both because the Gospel Law contains explicitly and perfectly whatever was foreshadowed in the Old Law, and is far more perfect; and because the Jews were bound to receive the promised Christ, follow his teaching, and observe his law. For, as John 15 says: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin,” etc. Therefore they did sin by not receiving Christ and following his teaching. Finally, what the Lord Christ taught and instituted was the completion of the Old Law, and baptism was therefore the fulfillment of circumcision. Accordingly, just as one who attains an end no longer needs the means leading to its attainment, so one who had received baptism no longer needed circumcision.

YOU WILL SAY: The Mosaic Law remained in force at least until the Passion of the Lord Christ, as is clear from various passages of Scripture. For while the Lord Christ was alive he said in Matthew 5: “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” Hence in Matthew 23 he said: “The scribes and Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses.… Whatever they tell you, do.” The Apostle therefore says in Hebrews 8 and 9 that the Old Testament was brought to completion at Christ’s death. Thus all the precepts of the Old Law, and consequently the precept of circumcision too, remained in force until the Passion of Christ; and consequently baptism at that time was not a sufficient means of salvation. Moreover, the Subtle Doctor says in Reportata, d. 3, q. 1, 5, n. 2: “The promulgation of baptism took place in two ways: first, as a counsel, when Christ came in the flesh, but not as a precept; second, as a precept. In the first way it was not necessary to receive baptism, because circumcision was then necessarily imposed upon the Jews until Christ’s Passion, together with the observance of the Mosaic Law. Some prove this because Christ ate the Paschal Lamb before his Passion, which he would not have done unless the Jews still had to observe the Mosaic Law. It is therefore clear that this is so.” — I DISTINGUISH the antecedent: the Mosaic Law remained in force until the Passion of Christ with respect to those matters whose contrary was not counseled, I grant; otherwise, I deny. For it is not necessary that a law remain in force with respect to each and every one of its precepts for it to be said to remain in force and endure. Some of its precepts can be derogated from when the Ruler counsels the contrary, as Christ counseled the reception of baptism before his Passion. Hence the Old Law was not brought to completion in every respect at Christ’s death; rather, it remained in force until the New Law was publicly promulgated, as we shall say shortly. Therefore at Christ’s death it must be said to have ceased only with respect to the prophecies of the Prophets that foretold that Passion, and also with respect to the sacrifices and sacraments whose entire power was nullified through Christ’s death. As for the Doctor, I say that by those words he means only that circumcision remained necessary for Jews until the Passion of Christ by necessity of precept, because the precept to receive it still remained in force for Jews who had not received baptism. He does not judge it necessary by necessity of means, such that someone who had been baptized was still bound to be circumcised; for, as he said above, baptism was then a sufficient means of salvation. There is therefore no contradiction between saying that circumcision was nullified as a necessary means from the time baptism was instituted and saying that at the same time it continued to be necessary by precept for adults and infants as a sign of profession of the Mosaic Law, which had not yet entirely ceased to be in force. That this was all the Doctor meant is clear from what he adds, n. 1, In I Sent., d. 3. After the words we cited above, n. 7, he immediately raises the objection that one could indeed say that baptism had been sufficient for an infant, but that the father sinned by not circumcising him. He answers: “On the contrary, since he could baptize the infant before the eighth day, and since the child already had a remedy against original sin, and the father believed this—for he believed baptism effective for this purpose—it then seems that he was not bound to provide the child necessarily with another remedy, namely, against original sin.” There he does not excuse the father from sin if on the eighth day he failed to apply the circumcision commanded by the Law as a sign of the covenant; rather, he excuses him either from every fault if the infant died before the eighth day, or only from the sin against filial piety, which obliges a father to provide his children with a remedy against original sin, whatever that remedy may be. He explains and insists on the same point in nearly the same words in Reportata, the passage already cited, n. 7: “If a Jew had been baptized, and afterward had baptized his son born later, and that child had died before the Passion of Christ, it is certain that he would have been saved, because baptism then had the same efficacy as it has now. Therefore it was not necessary to circumcise that child”—understand: in order that he be saved and exempted from transgressing the Law, which commanded circumcision on the eighth day.

Final conclusion. — BAPTISM WAS NOT NECESSARY BY PRECEPT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEATH OF THE LORD CHRIST, BUT ONLY AFTER THE GOSPEL HAD BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PREACHED, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES. So the Doctor in the passage cited above, n. 11, where he says: “I say that in the case of baptism we must distinguish only two periods: the time when it was under counsel and the time when it was under precept. The first lasted from the beginning, from the time when the Gospel or baptism was preached by Christ or by the Apostles, until its solemn and authoritative preaching after Christ’s Ascension. Thus the first period has no distinction based on Christ’s death or the time after it, merely because baptism proceeded differently afterward than before. The second period, I believe, begins on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, because until that day the Apostles had not preached publicly, in accordance with Christ’s words in Luke 24: ‘But you, remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.’ On the day of Pentecost, however, after the Holy Spirit had been sent, they preached solemnly, and about three thousand were added that day and were baptized, Acts 2. From then on, in other cities and according to the order of each place or people, the second period began when the Gospel Law was preached publicly and solemnly there; thus the period did not begin at the same time for everyone: ‘From Zion the law would go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,’ according to Isaiah’s prophecy. For some the period began a month after Pentecost, for others a year later, for others ten years later, and so on, as the Gospel was preached to them.”

As for circumcision, however, I distinguish four periods. In the first it was necessary; in the second useful but not necessary; in the third neither useful nor necessary, yet lawful; in the fourth altogether unlawful and deadly. — The first period of circumcision preceded both periods of baptism. — The second period of circumcision coincided with the first period of baptism. For, as was argued earlier, from the time baptism was first counseled, circumcision was not necessary for anyone who wished to be baptized; instead, both rites were then available alternatively, so that a Jew could choose whichever he wished. For if he wished, it was lawful and beneficial for him to be circumcised; circumcision had not yet been revoked with respect to its usefulness or its lawfulness. It was also lawful, and even praiseworthy, for him to be baptized. It was fitting too that during the intervening period between two laws—when the first is not removed all at once and the second is not imposed—the two should operate together as alternatives. — The third period of circumcision coincided with the second period of baptism, with respect to the Jews, until the time of Paul discussed earlier; indeed, it is likely that it continued well beyond then, because at the time of Paul’s purification the brothers in Jerusalem seemed to approve observance of the Law and to consult Paul about it.

As for the Gentiles converted to the faith, the second period of baptism and the fourth period of circumcision coincided, at least some fourteen years after Christ’s Passion, or thereabouts, when Paul went up to Jerusalem to the elders to consult about the question recorded in Acts 15. Peter first recounts the events of the council described in Acts 10. Then James, as Bishop in Jerusalem, gives his judgment, according to the Master of the Sentences, saying: “I judge that those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles should not be troubled, but that we should write to them to abstain from pollutions,” etc. Of those four requirements, two—abstaining from food sacrificed to idols and from fornication—are necessary. So the Doctor. Note that he wrote these final words only in accordance with the historian’s account: for St. Peter presided over the council itself, as the Doctor also holds, since below, n. 15, he says that the messengers sent by James were subject to Peter.

THE ADVERSARIES REPLY 1. The divine Law does not require its own promulgation in order to have binding force. — But we have clearly taught the contrary in the treatise On Laws, and proved with very strong arguments that every law, even divine law, must necessarily be promulgated. For divine law cannot impose an obligation to do what is impossible; it would do so if it imposed the necessity of observing things that are unknown and have not been sufficiently disclosed. Therefore, etc.

THE ADVERSARIES REPLY 2. The Old Law expired at Christ’s death, as we too have taught in the treatise On Laws when discussing the Mosaic Law; therefore the New Law had to impose an obligation, especially with respect to baptism, which is the entrance to the Gospel Law. — But I answer by denying the consequence: for no one is bound to observe a Law now in a different way than before except because the Law has been promulgated differently. But baptism was not promulgated as a precept any differently after Christ’s death and before Pentecost than it had been before the Passion. Therefore at that time it was only under counsel, just as it had been before Christ’s death. This is confirmed: the obligation to receive baptism and embrace the New Law ought not to have come into force earlier, especially for the Jews, before it was clear to them that the Mosaic Law, which they were bound to observe, had been revoked. But that revocation took place only through the solemn promulgation of the New Law on the day of Pentecost. Therefore the obligation of the New Law was not yet in force before that time. The minor premise is established: promulgation of a Law stands in relation to a community in the same way as revocation of the prior Law through the subsequent one. Therefore, just as the promulgation of the Mosaic Law was public, so its revocation had to be solemn and public. The Doctor proves the major premise, n. 9: the Jews were bound to observe the Law of Circumcision until it became known to them that it was altogether useless and vain, and no longer necessary for their salvation. This had to become clear through a public revocation of that obligation, by which it would be clear to the Jews that the Law of Circumcision was no longer in force. Therefore, etc.

YOU WILL SAY: When dying, the Lord Christ said, “It is finished,” John 19, by which he meant that the whole Old Law had been brought to completion and entirely abrogated. This is confirmed by the Apostle in Romans 7, where he says: “My brothers, you too have been put to death to the Law through the body of Christ.” There he must be understood to mean the crucified body of Christ. — In reply to the first objection, n. 18, the Doctor says that by those words the Lord Christ meant only either that what had been foretold about his Passion had been accomplished, as he had predicted in Luke 18: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything written by the Prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished”; or, he says, if the words refer to the Old Law, they should be understood to mean that the Mosaic Law was brought to completion and abrogated in its cause. For the death of the Lord Christ was the cause of the confirmation of the Gospel Law; but that Law was not confirmed as necessary to observe before its public preaching, which did not begin with the Passion but at Pentecost. During the intervening period the disciples sat in the upper room, preaching solemnly or publicly to no one. As for the Apostle, I say that his words must be understood in this way: we have been put to death to the Law through the body of Christ because the Law was extinguished in its cause through the crucifixion of the Lord Christ. For the death of the Lord Christ was the confirmation of the Gospel Law and, consequently, the extinction and revocation of the Mosaic Law. Nor is it an obstacle that the Apostle there uses the example of a woman who is released from her husband’s law through his death. For the Apostle does not there compare Christ’s death to a husband’s death. Thus he did not say, “You have been put to death to the Law in death,” or “in the body of Christ,” but “through the body of Christ”—that is, through the death and crucifixion that caused the Mosaic Law to cease binding.