D. 2 - Sacraments of the New Law

After having defined the sacraments in general, here the Master moves to the sacraments of the New Law, about which he is mainly concerned. And his treatment is divided into two parts: in the first, he examines certain prerequisites for the sacraments of the New Law; in the second, he pursues these, at: after these matters, we must see what Baptism is (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 3.1 (17), 1.) (Dist. 3). The first is divided in two: in the first, he defines certain things that are prerequisites in the order of teaching the sacraments of the New Law; in the second, he examines the baptism of John, which was needed to dispose or prepare for them: Now let us examine the sacrament of baptism. (Sent. IV, 2.2 (12), 1.) Concerning the first he does two things: first, he gives the distinction of the sacraments of the New Law both as to their number and as to their effect; second, he defines their institution, at: If it is asked, etc. (Sent. IV, 2.1 (11), 2.) There, he first sets down the general institution of the sacraments of the New Law; second, he excepts matrimony in a certain respect, at: Marriage, however, was instituted before sin. (Sent. IV, 2.1 (11), 3.)

But now let us examine the sacrament of baptism. (Sent. IV, 2.2 (12), 1.) Here he examines the baptism of John; and about this he does two things: first, he considers that baptism in itself; second, in regard to those who received it, at: Here it is to be considered, etc. (Sent. IV, 2.6 (16), 1.) Concerning the first he does two things: first, he shows the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ; second, he shows certain conditions of the baptism of John; and first, its benefit, at: And so what was useful about John’s baptism? (Sent. IV, 2.4 (14), 1.) Second, its name, at: But it is asked why it is called John’s baptism; (Sent. IV, 2.4 (14), 2.) third, its genus, at: But if it is asked whether it was a sacrament, it may well be granted that it was, etc. (Sent. IV, 2.5 (15), 1.) Here there are two questions. First, concerning the sacraments of the New Law in general. Second, concerning the baptism of John.

Question 1

Sacraments of the New Law

About the first, four questions arise:

first, the distinction of the sacraments as to effect;

• second, their distinction as to number;
• third, their order;
• fourth, their institution.
• Article 1

The distinction of the sacraments as to effect

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 65, a. 1, corp. and ad 3.) It seems that not all sacraments were instituted as a remedy against some defect of the soul. For a sacrament is named from sanctity. But sanctity does not always convey a remedy against a defect, but also confirmation in good. Therefore, not every sacrament was instituted as a remedy.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, every remedy against a certain defect pertains to purgation. But Dionysius distinguishes sacraments that pertain to perfection, namely confirmation and Eucharist, from those that pertain to purgation, such as baptism. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1, pt. 1, n. 3 (PG 3:503).) Therefore, not every sacrament is a remedy.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, this is seen in the definition that the Master gives in the text. For he attributes to certain sacraments, like baptism, the conferral of a remedy as well as grace; to others, like confirmation and holy orders, only the conferral of grace; while to marriage, only the conferral of a remedy. Therefore, not every sacrament was instituted as a remedy.

On the contrary (1), is what Hugh of St. Victor says, that sacraments are vessels of medicine. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 3 (PL 176:319).) But every medicine is a remedy for some sickness. Therefore, every sacrament, too, is a remedy for some spiritual defect.

Furthermore (2), as was said in Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 4, Subquestion 1, sacraments have efficacy from the Passion of Christ. But the Passion of Christ is ordered directly to taking away our defects. Therefore, the sacraments are also ordered to being a remedy.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that one sacrament is a remedy only, namely, marriage. (Parallels: below, d. 26, q. 2, a. 3, corp. and ad 4.) For mutual consent alone makes a marriage. But consent cannot be a cause of grace, for grace is not from our acts. Therefore, in marriage grace is not conferred, and so it is only a remedy.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Hugh, sacraments, by their sanctification, contain invisible grace. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) But the sanctification done by the ministers of the Church is not of the essence of marriage as necessary for the sacrament, but belongs only to its solemnity. (The sanctificatio referred to here is the nuptial blessing given by the priest during the ceremony.) Therefore, no grace is conferred there, and so the same as above.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the Master expressly says this in the text.

On the contrary, the definition of the genus must apply to all species. But in the definition of sacrament of the New Law is included that it exists as a cause of grace. Therefore, it belongs to marriage; and so it is not a remedy only.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that sacraments are not a remedy against punishment, but only against the fault itself. For sacraments have efficacy from the fact that they contain grace. But grace is not opposed to punishment, but to fault. Therefore, sacraments are not ordained as a remedy against punishment.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the effect of a wise physician is to cure something through its cause. But the cause of punishment is fault. Therefore, since Christ is the wisest physician, he did not institute certain sacraments to cure punishment, except those that also cure the fault.

On the contrary, extreme unction seems to be ordained against illness, as is clear from the end of the letter of James. (See James 5:14.) But illness is a punishment. Therefore, since extreme unction is a sacrament, there is a sacrament that is ordained against a punishment, and not only against fault.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that there is a sacrament ordained against venial sin. (Parallels: below, d. 16, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 3, ad 1; d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, qa. 3, ad 2; ST III, q. 65, a. 1, ad 8; De Malo, q. 7, a. 11, ad 14.) For certain sacraments are harmful unless they are received by someone free from mortal sin, as is evident in the Eucharist and holy orders. But these are given to remedy some fault. Therefore, they are given against venial sin.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, spiritual medicine should be applied against fault rather than against punishment. But venial sin is a certain fault. Since, then, certain sacraments are ordered against punishment, it seems that much more should some sacrament be ordered against venial sin.

On the contrary, penance is ordered against mortal and venial sin, which is clear from what the Master says below (Dist. 6), where he discusses the confession of venial sins, and from Augustine in the book On Penance. (Augustine, Sermon 352, ch. 2 (PL 39:1556).) But penance suffices against mortal sin, nor is there any other sacrament ordained against mortal sin. Therefore, much more does it suffice against venial sin; nor is it necessary for any special sacrament to be ordained against venial sin.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that whenever the perfection of some thing necessitates applying something beyond what the order of its nature requires, considered in itself, this happens to supply some defect of the thing; as when, for the sustenance of the body, it is insufficient to administer food unless some kind of digestives are added, this is a sign of a defect in the power of digestion. But by the order of human nature nothing else is required for its spiritual perfection, except God flowing in, and grace, and the infused virtues. Hence when certain corporeal things are applied for man’s sanctification on which, according to the order of nature, man’s sanctification does not depend, it is a sign that this is for the repairing of some defect in him; and thus, since this is found in all the sacraments, all the sacraments were instituted as a remedy for some spiritual defect.

Reply Obj. 1: The very fact that man is led to sanctity by things that the order of nature considered in itself does not require is a sign that a remedy is applied for some defect. Hence although sacraments are not considered remedies under the account of sanctification, they are nevertheless considered such ex officio, or in their mode of sanctifying.

Reply Obj. 2: A spiritual defect happens in two ways, just as a physical one does. One way is by the intrusion of a contrary, as when a body is sick, and when there is sin in the soul. The other way is by the removal of something that was necessary for the perfection of either the body or the soul; as when a body is weak in carrying out physical work, and likewise when the spirit is weak in accomplishing spiritual things. Therefore, the remedies that are given against the first kind of defect remove something in reality; and thus they have the account of purgation. But the remedies that are against the second defect do not remove anything according to reality, but only contribute something toward perfection; and so remedies like this are not said to purge but to perfect. And these are the same that the Master says bolster us in grace and virtue, as they are perfective; but they are a remedy for some defect nevertheless.

And thus the solution to the third objection is clear.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that concerning this there are two opinions. One is that in marriage no grace is conferred, but it is merely a remedy against concupiscence.

But this does not seem to be fittingly said: for it is understood to be a remedy against concupiscence either by repressing it, which cannot happen without grace; or by satisfying concupiscence in part, which the act does indeed by its very nature, even when not understood under the account of sacrament (and furthermore, concupiscence is not repressed by satisfying it, but rather it is increased, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics 3 (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 3, ch. 15, 1119b8–10.)); or else it excuses the act of concupiscence, which would be deformed without marriage; and this it does indeed through the goods of marriage which belong to it even as it is an office of nature, as well as under the account of its signification, which it shares with the sacraments of the Old Law. And in this way it would not have anything above those sacraments so that it should be counted among the sacraments of the New Law.

And because of this, others say that marriage is considered in three states. The first was before sin, and at that time it was only an office. The second was under the law, when by its own sanctification it rendered the marriage act excusable, which would have been disgraceful otherwise. The third is under the state of grace, where, moreover, it confers the grace to repress concupiscence so that each one may possess his own vessel in honor, not in reproach, like the gentiles who do not know God (cf. 1 Thess 4); and it is said (cf. Tob 6:17) that among those who, in the fear of God, take wives from the desire for children to raise to the worship of God rather than the love of sexual pleasure, the devil does not have power.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as the physical things that are in the other sacraments do not have the power to confer grace by their own strength, but by divine institution, so it is also with those that cause marriage, which have from that very divine institution the ability to distribute grace instrumentally, unless there is a defect on our part.

Reply Obj. 2: There are certain sacraments whose efficacy requires a prior sanctification of the matter, as is evident in confirmation and extreme unction; but certain ones do not require such a sanctification, as is evident in baptism. Hence the blessing of the matter done by the minister is not of necessity for the sacrament, but is rather for the sacrament’s solemnity; and it is the same way with marriage.

Reply Obj. 3: Each thing is named from what it is for. But the grace that is conferred in marriage, according as it is a sacrament of the Church celebrated in the faith of Christ, is ordered directly to repressing concupiscence, which coincides with the marital act; and this is why the Master says that marriage is a remedy only, but this through the grace that is conferred in it.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that suffering for sin is twofold. Some is imposed for sin, such as the suffering of hell and the scourges by which we are temporally punished by God; some following immediately upon the sin itself, and ordering to sin as a result, such as the weakening of nature in resisting sin, and things like that. Therefore, a sacrament is not given as a remedy against the first kind directly, but by way of consequence—namely, so that by having cured the cause, which is sin, the effect would cease, which is suffering. But against the second kind of suffering a certain sacrament is given directly, namely those that are remedies against defects occurring when something necessary is taken away, not those that introduce a contrary.

Reply Obj. 1: The sufferings against which a sacrament was said to be ordained are also contrary to grace: for they occur by taking something away and they are ordered to the contrary of grace.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as in bodily medicine, where once a disease is cured certain vestiges of the disease caused by it remain, against which special medicaments must be given, so also is it in spiritual medicine; and because of this there must be certain sacraments against the sufferings mentioned.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that concerning this there are two opinions. For some people say that certain sacraments are given as a remedy for venial sin, like the Eucharist, and extreme unction.

But this does not seem to be fittingly said: for penance is purgative of all actual sin, mortal and venial; hence for this end [viz., to purge venial sin], it was not necessary that a sacrament be instituted. And furthermore, even were there no venial sins, still those sacraments would be necessary for consummation in good, according to the doctrine of Dionysius. (See Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3.)

And thus it should be said otherwise that against venial sin there is not ordained any sacrament instituted chiefly for its cure, although many sacraments avail against venial sins by way of result. For venial sin is both a fault and a disposition to fault—though having an incomplete account of fault, so that it does not exclude grace. And thus, to the extent that it is a fault, it can be taken away by all the sacraments that are ordered to the removal of fault; but to the extent that it is a disposition to fault remaining from the mortal fault that has been taken away, it can be removed also by those sacraments that are ordered against the punishment left behind by fault and inclining one to fault.

Reply Obj. 1: Those sacraments that require grace to exist in the recipient are not ordered directly against fault; for they are not for removing a contrary, but for supplying a lack.

Reply Obj. 2: The sacrament that takes away mortal fault suffices also for removing venial sin; and thus no sacrament needed to be given against venial sin in the way that one needed to be given against the vestiges of fault, for whose removal penance does not entirely suffice without other sacraments.

Article 2

The distinction of the sacraments as to number

Obj. 1: It seems that there should not be seven sacraments. (Parallels: ST III, q. 65, a. 1; SCG IV, ch. 58; De eccles. sacram.) For as was said above, all sacraments have efficacy from the Passion of Christ. But there is one sacrament which is directly representative of the Passion of Christ, and which contains the whole Christ, namely, the Eucharist. Therefore, that sacrament would suffice.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, what can be done by one thing should not be done by many. But by baptism all sins are taken away. Therefore, it was not necessary that any other sacrament be ordered against fault.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, sacraments are ordered as a remedy against a defect. But there are two kinds of defect, namely fault, which is a sort of contrary, and punishment, which happens from a defect of grace, as has been said. Therefore, two sacraments would suffice.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, in the New Law, where truth is more manifest, there should be a minimum of figures. But in the law of nature, according to Hugh of St. Victor, (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 11, ch. 3 (PL 176:343).) there were only three sacraments, namely offerings, tithes, and sacrifices. Therefore, there should not be more than three sacraments in the New Law.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, sacraments of the law were figures of our sacraments. But they did not have any sacraments corresponding to confirmation and extreme unction. Therefore, neither should we have those sacraments.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, Dionysius, when he treats the sacraments in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, omits marriage and penance. (This is evident simply by looking at what the chapters of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy cover: 1. church hierarchy; 2. baptism; 3. the Eucharist; 4. anointing; 5. holy orders; 6. the orders of those being initiated; 7. the rite for the dead.) Therefore, it seems that there are only five sacraments.

On the contrary (7), it seems that there are more than seven. For everything that is given in remedy for sin seems to be a sacrament. But holy water is this kind of thing, since venial sins are taken away by it. Therefore, it is a sacrament.

Furthermore (8), just as from concupiscence in sexual matters the sin of intemperance arises, so also from concupiscence in food and drink. But against the first concupiscence we have one sacrament. Therefore, we should also have one against the second.

Furthermore (9), Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 6, p. 3 (PG 3:534).) names among the sacraments monastic consummation or consecration. But that is not counted among the seven sacraments enumerated here. Therefore, there are more than seven.

Furthermore (10), offerings and tithes were sacraments under the law of nature, according to Hugh. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 11, ch. 3 (PL 176:343).) Therefore, since there are offerings and tithes today, it seems that these are sacraments; and so, the same conclusion as above.

Furthermore (11), sacraments contain invisible grace by their sanctification, according to Hugh. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) But there are many sanctifications done by the ministers of the Church that are not numbered here, like the consecration of a temple and an altar and of sacred vestments, and the like. Therefore, there are more sacraments.

I answer that, sacraments, considered as sacraments, can be a remedy against a certain defect; but considered as sacraments of the Church, they can be dispensed by the ministers of the Church, and passed on to the members of the Church. And thus the number of the sacraments can be taken properly in two ways.

First, from the defects against which the sacraments are ordered. But the sacraments are ordered, as is clear from what has been said, to the removal of a contrary and to the supplying of a lack. Now the contrary to holiness is fault, which is taken away in two ways. In one way, by preventing it from happening; and in this way matrimony is ordered to the remedy of fault. In another way, by taking away what already exists, and so baptism is ordered against original sin while penance is ordered against actual sin.

They provide the second kind of remedy by supplying what is lacking, and those things that are effective of perfection. But there are two kinds of perfection. One is the perfection of form to act, and holy orders causes this kind of perfection with respect to the execution of goods, for it renders a man suited to dispensing the sacraments; but as to withstanding difficulties, confirmation causes this perfection, for it makes a man strong, so that he may not shirk from confessing the name of Christ because of the pressures of the world. But the other perfection is in the order to the end, at which one arrives by acts; and extreme unction, which is a certain anointing preparing one for the glory of resurrection, works this perfection toward the end within; but the Eucharist, which joins members to the head, does this with respect to the external end. And because this is the last end of our sanctification, for this reason Dionysius says that all other sanctification finds its end in the Eucharist—for both ordained ministers and the baptized consume the Eucharist. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chs. 2 and 3 (PG 3:391ff.).)

But if the sacraments are considered as sacraments of the Church—namely, to be dispensed by ministers of the Church—then this is how their number can be taken according to the teaching of Dionysius. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, n. 3 (PG 3:503).) For in any hierarchy there must be hierarchical action, both those doing it and those receiving it. But those receiving are perfected through the very actions of those higher up; and thus on their part there need be no special sacrament by which they become receptive of the sacraments. Now hierarchical action is threefold, namely, to purify, to illuminate, and to perfect. But because no sacrament of the New Law purifies without the infusion of grace, which is called illumination, for this reason Dionysius joins purification to illumination in the sacraments. But purification in the sacraments can either be from fault, and thus baptism has purgative and illuminative force against original sin, while penance has it against actual sin; or it can be from the vestiges of fault, and extreme unction can purify from this; or it can be from the cause of fault, which is concupiscence, and then marriage, which represses and orders it, has purgative force. But there are two kinds of perfection, namely perfection of form, and for this there is confirmation, which makes a man stand fast in himself, so that he is not easily undone by adversaries; and perfection of end, and for this there is the Eucharist, which joins us to our end. But on the part of those performing hierarchical actions, one sacrament is taken, namely, holy orders, by which the ministers of the Church are placed in a state to perform hierarchical actions.

The number of the sacraments can also be taken according to the condition of those who are helped by the sacraments. For there are sacraments given as remedies—either a remedy for one person, or for the whole Church. If the first, then either for entering, and this is baptism, or for departing, and this is extreme unction, or for progressing, and this is twofold. One way, for the execution of virtue, or so that we are not overcome by evils, and for this there is confirmation; or that we adhere to good things, and for this there is the Eucharist. Another way, to repair virtue, if it happens to be injured somehow in the spiritual fight, and so there is penance. If as a remedy for the whole Church, either it is for its direction and spiritual multiplication, and so there is holy orders, for rulership is the good of the multitude, according to the Philosopher in the Ethics 5; (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 5, ch. 3, 1130a2.) or it is for the material multiplication of the faithful, and so there is marriage.

But some take the number of the sacraments according to their correspondence to the virtues, so that baptism corresponds to faith, since it is called the sacrament of faith; extreme unction to hope, since through it man is prepared in a certain sense for future glory; the Eucharist to charity; holy orders to prudence; penance to justice; marriage to temperance; and confirmation to fortitude.

Still others relate the sacraments to different kinds of fault and punishment, so that baptism is against original sin, penance against actual mortal sin, extreme unction against venial sin, holy orders against ignorance, marriage against concupiscence, confirmation against weakness, Eucharist against malice (for it is the sacrament of charity, which is opposed per se to malice). For Bede says that these four things follow upon sin. (Bede, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, ch. 10.)

Reply Obj. 1: Although the Eucharist is the memorial of the very Passion of the Lord, containing Christ himself, nevertheless this is not as regards all of its effects. Or it could be said that, because of the reason given, the Eucharist is ordered to the ultimate effect of the Passion of Christ, as something having efficacy completely from it; and therefore considered in itself it is effective against all spiritual defects. Hence it is also employed with individual sacraments, as something that crowns the effect of each one; but nevertheless, it presupposes other sacraments so that someone may be rendered worthy of receiving so great a mystery, just as also in natural things the final form is not given without all the prerequisite dispositions.

Reply Obj. 2: Baptism is the sacrament of those entering, since it makes man a participant in the redemption of Christ for the first time by burying him in the likeness of the death of Christ; and thus it cannot be repeated, just as neither could the Passion of Christ. And since actual sins are repeated, a certain remedy had to be applied against actual fault, namely, penance—although baptism also expunges it.

Reply Obj. 3: Those are defects in general, and they do not have the same account in each instance; and so, different remedies had to be applied against different instances.

Reply Obj. 4: In the law of nature many signs of grace preceded, like the flood, the killing of Abel, and such, which nevertheless should not be called sacraments, but those that presented some kind of remedy alone deserve to be called such. For they signified a sacred thing as they caused something sacred in act, which is the definition of a sacrament, as was said above; and therefore in the law of nature Hugh includes only three sacraments, namely, sacrifices, offerings, and tithes, because through these things, as Gregory says, there was a remedy against original sin before circumcision. And although back then was more a time of figures than nowadays, they did not have to be signs determined to determinate effects of grace, as they are now. And therefore, those sacraments signified, with a certain generality, our sacraments and their cause, namely the Passion of Christ, so that by sacrifices the Passion was represented, by offerings the disposition of the one suffering to his Passion, for he willingly offered himself to his Passion (cf. Isa 53); while by tithes, a comparison of the one suffering to those for whom he suffered, who were imperfect and awaiting from him all perfection, as nine are completed by the tenth. Now two of these are referred to the Eucharist—namely, sacrifice in what was signified, and offering in the matter and the use—while tithes prefigured baptism inasmuch as something was taken away. Marriage and penance and holy orders, however, existed at that time, yet nevertheless they were not counted among the sacraments of that time, for they did not happen with any certain consecration. For whoever was first-born was priest, according to Jerome: (Jerome, Epistle 73 (CSEL 55), n. 6.) nor was there any particular mode for the sacraments of that period, except according to the instinct of nature, as reason dictated to each person what was to be done by inborn faith.

Reply Obj. 5: In the time of the written law, many things were already being celebrated with a certain consecration, which correspond to our sacraments as figures: for our baptism is prefigured by circumcision; the Eucharist by offerings and sacrifices; penance by the diverse rites of expiation; our holy orders by the consecrations of Aaron and his sons; and our marriage in marriage then determined to certain persons and constituted under the law. But there did not need to be any pre-existing figure of extreme unction, for extreme unction is directive and preparatory for glory, which they could not attain right after death back then, as we can now. Nor likewise for confirmation, in which the completeness of the Holy Spirit is given; for at that time it was not the time of fullness, like this time.

Reply Obj. 6: In that passage Dionysius did not intend to define the sacraments, but the actions of the hierarchy, which consist in the consecration done by the ministers of the Church. And since marriage and penance can have their own effect without such a consecration, for this reason he did not include them.

Reply Obj. 7: Holy water is not directly ordered to providing a remedy but to removing a hindrance; hence it is given against the wickedness and misdemeanors of demons, and everything that could impede the effect of the sacraments. Because of this it is not a sacrament, since something that removes a hindrance is an agent per accidens; but it is a sacramental—a certain disposition, as it were, to the sacraments.

Reply Obj. 8: The concupiscence that is in the generative act has a special ugliness by comparison with other concupiscences, for besides the fact that it is infective of the person, which it shares in common with the others and for which it has the same remedy (namely, penance), there is also the infection of the nature; and therefore it should have a special remedy, according to which it is ordered to the purification of the nature.

Reply Obj. 9: A certain sanctification is given for any eminence of status, since the special help of grace is necessary there, as in the consecration of kings and monks and nuns. And therefore these are actions of the hierarchy, and for this reason Dionysius discusses them. But they do not have the account of sacrament; only that eminence by which a man is made dispenser of sacred things.

Reply Obj. 10: Offerings and tithes existed at that time inasmuch as they were figural, but in this capacity they no longer remain. Rather, they remain only according as they are moral, assigned for the use of ministers of the Church and of the poor; and therefore nowadays they are not sacraments.

Reply Obj. 11: All those sanctifications are ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist; and therefore they are not sacraments, but certain sacramentals.

Article 3

The order of the sacraments

Obj. 1: To the third we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 65, a. 3.) It seems that the order of sacraments is unfittingly assigned by the Master. For what is animal is prior to what is spiritual (cf. 1 Cor 15:46). But marriage pertains to animal life, while all the other sacraments pertain to spiritual life. Therefore, marriage is before all the others.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, an agent is naturally prior to his action; hence in law, determination is made concerning offices first, and then actions. But dispensers of the other sacraments are constituted by the sacrament of orders. Therefore, holy orders should be placed first among the others.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the common good is more divine than the good of a person, as it says in the Ethics 1. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 1, ch. 1, 1094b9–10.) But marriage and holy orders are appointed for a common remedy, the others as a remedy for one person, as was said. Therefore, those two sacraments should be placed before the others.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the Eucharist perfects us by joining us to our end, as was said. But the end is last in attainment. Therefore, the Eucharist should be placed after the others.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, purification precedes illumination and perfection. But according to Dionysius, the Eucharist pertains to perfection just as Confirmation does. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1, p. 1, n. 3 (PG 3:503).) Therefore, it seems that penance, which most of all pertains to purification, should be placed first.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, Dionysius places the Eucharist before confirmation. (In the same place as the preceding citation.) Therefore, since the Master does the opposite, it seems that he orders them unfittingly.

I answer that, before and after are said in many ways. But in those things that pertain to actions, prior in relation to us is what is prior in the process of generation; and therefore the Master orders the sacraments, which are some kind of sanctification, according to this process. For in the process of generation, the private good comes before the common good, which arises from individual goods, just as a man is prior to a household, and a household to a city. And therefore the sacraments that are ordered to the good of one person are placed first, and among them first is what pertains to those entering, namely, baptism; last is what pertains to those departing, namely, extreme unction; in the middle are what pertain to those progressing, which are ordered in this way. For since being perfected in the good is more essential to virtue, and common to individuals progressing toward virtue; but to rise again from sin happens in this particular progress on the part of the subject who fell (hence it is not common to everyone); and as to the perfecting in the good, in the process of generation perfection in form precedes perfection in attaining the end; hence among the sacraments that pertain to advancement in good, first is placed confirmation, which stands towards perfection as perfection of form; second, the Eucharist, which is for perfection in the end; third, penance, which is for the reparation of lost virtue. But among the sacraments that are allotted to the remedy of the whole Church, holy orders is placed first; for marriage, as marriage, is dispensed by holy orders, according as it is a sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: Marriage according as it pertains to animal life is not a sacrament, but an office of nature; but according as it has something spiritual in its sign and effect, to that extent it is a sacrament; and since it has the least of spirituality, for this reason it is placed last among the sacraments.

Reply Obj. 2: In the actions of the sacraments, holy orders does not establish a principal agent, but a minister and a certain instrument of divine operation. In judicial matters, however, a judge acts according to the form of knowledge and justice, not only as an instrument; and therefore in the courts those things that pertain to the office are brought forth first, but in sacraments this is not necessary.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the common good is more divine, nevertheless an individual good is prior in the order of generation; and thus even the Philosopher premised ethics to politics, as is evident in the Ethics 10. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 10, ch. 9, 1181b13ff. Thomas refers to the science of ethics as monastica, “monastics,” because it deals with the individual, as “economics” deals with the family and “politics” with the state.)

Reply Obj. 4: There are two kinds of union with the end. One is according to full participation in it; and this kind of union is not brought about by any sacrament, but the sacraments dispose to it, and among all of them extreme unction is the closest; and therefore it is placed last among things ordered to the remedy of one person. The other is according to an imperfect participation in it, of which sort is the enjoyment on the way; (Fruitio viae means the possession of the end that is possible to a Christian in this life, when he is a pilgrim or viator, ‘on the way’ (in via).) and the Eucharist is ordered to this. Therefore, it does not need to be placed last simply, but last in progress towards the good.

Reply Obj. 5: Penance does not bespeak purification absolutely with respect to any spiritual impurity whatsoever (for this belongs to baptism), but purification in certain cases—namely, when someone has fallen from the state of virtue, so that he might again return to the good; and this is the second plank after a shipwreck, according to Jerome. (This phrase occurs in many of Jerome’s writings; see, for one example, Epistle 130, n. 9 (CSEL 56:189).) And therefore penance is placed after those sacraments that are ordered to consummation in the good.

Reply Obj. 6: Dionysius considered their order more as to their dispensation than as to their effect; for the Eucharist is given to the baptized immediately, if they are adults, but confirmation is not; he therefore placed the Eucharist immediately after baptism.

Article 4

The institution of the sacraments

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. (Parallels: above, d. 1, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 5; ST III, q. 61, a. 4; SCG IV, ch. 57.) It seems that in the New Law, no sacraments needed to be instituted anew. For nature works by the shortest way it can, and this belongs to nature’s order. But grace is more ordered than nature. Since therefore it would be a shorter way if the sacraments already existing in the Old Law were perfected rather than new ones being instituted, it seems that no new ones should have been instituted.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as sacraments are necessary to salvation, so also are precepts. But Christ did not institute any other moral precepts, but perfected the pre-existing ones with counsels. Therefore, neither did new sacraments have to be instituted.

On the contrary, sacraments are spiritual medicines, as was said before. But the same medicine does not suit child and adult. Since, then, the state of the law is compared to childhood, but the state of the time of grace to a perfect age, as is clear from Galatians 4, it seems that other sacraments also had to be instituted in the time of grace.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that these same things should have been instituted at the beginning of the world, after sin. (Parallels: above, d. 1, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 3 & 4; ST III, q. 61, a. 3.) For it is a cruel doctor who does not immediately give the effective medicine to a sick man, but allows him to be in danger for a long time. But all cruelty is excluded from God. Therefore, the sacraments of the New Law, which are the most effective medicine, should have been applied to the human race immediately after sin.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments of the New Law have all their efficacy from the Passion of Christ. But the Passion of Christ was at work even from the beginning of the world for the reparation of sin, according as it was believed in (as was said in Book III, Distinction 19, Question 1, Article 1, Subquestion 2, Reply 2). Therefore, the sacraments should also have been instituted then.

On the contrary, grace perfects nature. But nature proceeds from imperfect things to the more perfect, as is clear in every motion and generation; and art, too, acts in the same way. In the same way, therefore, grace had to be given first imperfectly and afterward abundantly through the efficacy of the sacraments.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the sacraments should have been instituted immediately after the birth of Christ. (Parallels: above, d. 1, a. 2, qa. 5; ST III, q. 61, a. 4; SCG IV, ch. 57.) For it is the sacraments of the New Law that contain grace. But the time of grace began from that moment. Therefore, they should have been instituted at that moment.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments assist us in fulfilling the precepts. But all the moral precepts had been given at the same time in the very beginning of the law. Therefore, the sacraments of grace, too, should have been given all at the same time at the very beginning of grace.

On the contrary, whatever is from God is ordered (cf. Rom 13:1). But this is the due order, that the cause precede the effect and that what is prior is handed on first. Therefore, since the Passion of Christ is the cause supplying efficacy to the sacraments, and one sacrament is prior to another, as was said, it seems that they should not have been instituted immediately upon Christ’s birth.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Christ. (Parallels: below, d. 7, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 1, ad 1; d. 13, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 6, ad 1, 3; d. 17, q. 3, a. 1, qa. 5; ST I-II, q. 108, a. 2; ST III, q. 64, a. 2; Super Ioan. 1, lec. 14.) For we do not read that he said anything about confirmation or extreme unction. But extreme unction and confirmation are sacraments of the New Law. Therefore, not all sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the mystery of priesthood in the New Law is not of less authority than that of the law of nature. But the ones who administered the sacraments under the law of nature, namely, priests, professed their faith as they pleased, by means of visible sacraments. Therefore, much more should this be the case in the New Law, which is of even greater freedom.

On the contrary, sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify. But they get their signification from their institution, according to Hugh of St. Victor. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch.2 (PL 176:317).) Therefore, they have efficacy from their institution. But the efficacy of the sacraments can be from God alone, who alone remits sins. Therefore the institution of the sacraments could not be from a mere man.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that sacraments are signs of the remedy to which they are directed. Now these signs represent spiritual effects by the likeness of the sensible things used in the sacrament. And thus, since sacraments of the New Law needed to be of greater efficacy because of the perfection of this testament, there also had to be other signs beyond the old ones that more expressly figured grace; and thus it was necessary for new sacraments to be instituted.

Reply Obj. 1: Although nature works by the shortest way, nevertheless it omits nothing from the contingent things by which something could be best accomplished; and grace works in the same way. And thus in the sacraments that were to be instituted we should not only look for how something is done quickly, but how it is done fittingly.

Reply Obj. 2: Moral precepts follow human nature, since they come from the dictates of natural reason; and thus the same things remain in every law, and in every state of man whatsoever. And for this reason there is no parallel account for the precepts and the sacraments, which have efficacy from their institution alone.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the sacraments of the New Law, because they contain grace, are not empty, but full. And thus it does not befit them to be instituted in any time but the time of fullness, which is the time of the Incarnation. But the reason that Christ deferred his coming, and did not assume flesh immediately after sin, was stated in Book III, Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 4.

Reply Obj. 1: It is different in spiritual disease than it is in physical ones. For someone cannot be fittingly cured from a spiritual ailment unless he first recognizes the disease and desires the treatment, if he is capable of understanding; and thus it was necessary that man be left to himself, both so that in the first age of the law of nature, he would recognize that he was weak through ignorance, by sliding into idolatry; and then in the time of the written law, which was furnished to him as a help against ignorance, he would recognize that he was weak through concupiscence, by sliding into sin, and in this way he would look for his salvation from another—one who both taught him the way of salvation against ignorance and gave him the sacraments of grace against the weakness of concupiscence, as it says in John 1:17: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. But in physical disease this is not required, for the body is not capable of understanding.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the Passion of Christ did have efficacy at that time too, nevertheless it did not have so much efficacy in human nature, for which it had not yet made satisfaction, as it had after he had made satisfaction and after the Incarnation of Christ, which dignified all of human nature so that it was made more worthy of receiving grace.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that sacraments of the New Law had a twofold institution. The first was for a certain instruction and training; and in this way they could be instituted before the Passion of Christ. The second regarded necessity and obligation, and in this way their institution was not before the Passion, for the prescriptions of the law were not yet dead. Hence, from the time of Christ’s preaching until the Passion, sacraments of the New Law were running at the same time as those of the Old Law, and both were working toward salvation. Accordingly, as to the second manner of institution, all the sacraments were instituted together in the Passion of Christ; but as to the first, it was necessary that there be instituted first those that were of greater necessity. Hence he preached penance right away in the beginning of his preaching, as is read in Matthew 4; and he taught baptism, as is read in John 3. Other sacraments, however, he instituted and taught over the course of time.

Reply Obj. 1: The time of grace is said either as to its beginning or as to its fullness. But its fullness was not before the Passion and resurrection of Christ; hence it is said, the Spirit was not as yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (Jn 7:39). However, the beginning can be thought of in two ways. First, as to the presence of grace in the world; and this was in the Incarnation itself. Second, as to its diffusion in the world, and this was in the preaching and baptism of Christ; and before that it was not fitting for sacraments to be instituted.

Reply Obj. 2: Nature dictates moral precepts to man; and thus they could be proposed to man immediately. But it is not like this with sacraments.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that there are two opinions about this. For some people say that not all of the sacraments were instituted directly by Christ; but he instituted certain ones himself, while he committed certain others to the apostles to be instituted—namely, confirmation, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strengthening, whose institution could not be before the full sending of the Holy Spirit; and extreme unction, which, since it was an immediate and proximate preparation for the glory of the resurrection, could not be instituted before the resurrection. But because the institution of the sacraments seems to belong to the power of fullness that Christ reserved to himself in the sacraments (since the sacraments get their power to signify from their institution), therefore to others it seems more probable that just as it is not for a mere man to change the sacraments, or to absolve from the sacraments, so neither is it for a mere man to institute new sacraments; and thus, all sacraments of the New Law have their institution from Christ himself.

Reply Obj. 1: According to this, the first objection should be answered that he himself instituted the sacrament of confirmation when he imposed his hands on the children presented to him; likewise, he instituted extreme unction when, sending the apostles to preach, he charged them to anoint the sick with oil, so that in this way they might be cured. (See Mark 6:13.)

Reply Obj. 2: Those sacraments of the law of nature did not have any effect by the work performed, but only by faith; and thus their determination could be done by a mere man possessing faith. However, it was not like this with the sacraments of the New Law, which confer grace by the work performed. (That is, since God alone can give grace, and the sacraments of the New Law are instituted in such a way as to give grace, only God can institute them.)

Question 2

The baptism of John the Baptist

Next we will consider the baptism of John, about which four questions arise:

first, whether it was a sacrament;

• second, concerning its efficacy;
• third, to whom it applied;
• fourth, whether those who were baptized by John had to be baptized with the baptism of Christ.
• Article 1

Whether the baptism of John the Baptist was a sacrament

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. It seems that the baptism of John was not a sacrament. For commenting on the text, John was also baptizing (Jn 3:23), a Gloss says: as much as the teaching of the faith benefits a catechumen who is not yet baptized, so much did the baptism of John before the baptism of Christ. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 4, n. 13.) But catechism is not a sacrament, but a sacramental. Therefore, the baptism of John was not a sacrament but a sacramental.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, every sacrament is a sacrament of some law. But the baptism of John was not a sacrament of the law of nature, nor of the Old Law; for, as Augustine says, (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 5, n. 4.) it was not given to any of the preceding prophets to baptize, but to John alone, because it did not have to do with the sacraments of the Old Law; likewise, it is not a sacrament of the New Law, for it preceded the preaching of Christ. Therefore, it was not a sacrament.

On the contrary, a sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing. But the baptism of John prefigured the baptism of Christ. Therefore, it was a sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that he did not baptize under this form: I baptize you in the name of the One who is to come. For Christ, in whose name he baptized, had already come. Therefore, that form did not befit the time.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the patriarchs’ faith in Christ to come and our faith in Christ already come is one and the same faith. Therefore, the form of baptism in the name of the One who is to come is the same as in the name of Christ. Therefore the baptism was the same. But the apostles baptized in the name of Christ, as will be said further on. If therefore John baptized in the name of the One to come, the baptism of John was the same as the baptism of the apostles of Christ, which is false.

On the contrary, is what is said: John baptized telling the people that they should believe in the one who was to come after him (Acts 19:4).

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it was not instituted by God. (Parallels: ST III, q. 38, a. 2; Super Matt. 21.) For no sacrament instituted by God is named from its minister; for it is not called the baptism of Peter. But that baptism is called the baptism of John. Therefore, it was not instituted by God.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments of the law of nature which disposed people for the sacraments of Christ did not have their institution from God but were celebrated at will, according to Hugh. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 11, ch. 3 (PL 176:343).) But the baptism of John was preparatory for the sacraments of Christ. Therefore, it did not have its institution from God.

On the contrary, is what is said: the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’ (Jn 1:33).

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the baptism of John should have ceased immediately when Christ was baptized. (Parallels: ST III, q. 38, a. 4; q. 39, a. 3, ad 4; Super Ioan. 3, lec. 4.) For, commenting on the text, John saw Jesus coming to him (Jn 1:29), Augustine says: the Lord was baptized with the baptism of John, and the baptism of John ended. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 4, n. 14.)

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the baptism of John was preparatory for the baptism of Christ. But the baptism of Christ began immediately once Christ was baptized: for by the touch of his most pure flesh he conferred regenerative power on the waters, as Bede says. (Cf. Bede, In Lucae euangelium expositio (CCSL 120), ch. 3.) Therefore, it should have ended immediately.

On the contrary, is what is read in John 3, that after the baptism of Christ, John was baptizing, and his disciples baptized in the same way. Therefore, the baptism of John did not end immediately once Christ was baptized.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

The first question I answer by saying that according to Hugh of St. Victor, (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 11, ch. 6 (PL 176:345).) it was necessary for different sacraments to be instituted at different times according to the passage of time and greater nearness to the time of grace. Hence, since the time of grace began, in a way, in John (for the law and the prophets prophesied until John came, Matt 11:13)—not as if grace were from him, but because he was preparing a way for grace—thus his baptism was a kind of sacrament; because indeed it was a certain initiation of the sacraments of grace, although grace was not conferred in it. Hence, it should be said that the baptism of John was a sacrament in the middle, in a way, between the sacraments of the old and of the New Law, just as the disposition to a form is in the middle, in a way, between privation and form. For in a way it agreed with the sacraments of the Old Law in the fact that it was only a sign, but with the sacraments of the New Law in its matter, and, in a way, in its form.

Reply Obj. 1: The baptism of John has something in common with the sacramentals of baptism, inasmuch as it was a disposition to the baptism of Christ; but inasmuch as it preceded the institution of the baptism of Christ, it differs from those sacramentals and is a sacrament in itself—like the sacraments of the Old Law, which also in their own way, although not so proximately as John’s baptism, disposed people for the sacraments of the New Law.

Reply Obj. 2: A disposition is reduced to the genus of the form to which it disposes; and thus the baptism of John is reduced to the sacraments of the New Law, as something incomplete in that genus; and this is clear from the order of proceeding that the Master preserves.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the usefulness of a thing follows from its form; and thus, the forms of the sacraments display that which gives the sacraments both efficacy and usefulness. And because the usefulness of the baptism of John was entirely to dispose people to Christ, therefore this was its appropriate form, that he baptized in the name of the One to come.

Reply Obj. 1: Although he had already come in the flesh, he had nevertheless not yet come to be baptized, and to perform the other works of our salvation.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith, since it is a certain understanding, looks at the truth of things; and since a difference in the times of the things signified does not change the truth, neither is the faith in this thing changed. But sacraments have to do with an effect; and because what already is and what is expected in the future are not related in the same way to an act (because for what is expected in the future, the acts are directed as things that dispose, but from what already is, something is effectively produced), therefore differentiation of form by future and present designate different sacraments.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that John instituted his baptism by divine command. Hence it is clear that its institution was from God by authority, and from John himself by ministry.

Reply Obj. 1: For three reasons this baptism takes its name from John. First, because he was the institutor of this baptism in a certain way, but Peter in no way instituted the baptism with which he baptized. Second, because nothing was brought about in that baptism that John did not do. Third, because the ministry of this baptism was given to him alone.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith became more determinate in proportion to its nearness to Christ; and thus with sacraments, too, which are certain protestations of faith: the further removed they are from Christ, the less they needed to be determined. And since the baptism of John in its nearness disposed people to the sacraments of Christ, for this reason it had more determination than the sacraments of the law of nature.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that the ceasing of the baptism of John can be taken two ways. In one way, when it ceased entirely; and this was when John was cast into prison, for that ministry had been granted to John alone. In another way, as to the height of its power, and in this way it ended once Christ was baptized; for from that time on his baptism no longer occupied the first place, but there was another, nobler than it, just as the office of a legate ceases when his superior arrives, although he also exercises it in some way. (That is, the legate continues to hold the position or honor of legate even when his superior has come on the scene and no longer needs to be represented by him.)

And by this the solution to the objections is clear.

Article 2

The efficacy of John’s baptism

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 38, a. 3.) It seems that the baptism of John conferred grace: John was baptizing, and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Luke 3:3). But the remission of sins cannot occur without grace. Therefore, that baptism conferred grace.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, Damascene says: John purifies the spirit through water. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. 4, ch. 9 (PG 94:1123).) But spiritual purification does not happen without grace. Therefore, that baptism conferred grace.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says, in his work against the Donatists: I believe that John so baptized in water for the remission of sins, that sins might be forgiven those baptized by him in hope. (See Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas (CSEL 51:273), Bk. 5, ch. 10: “ita credam baptizasse Iohannem in aqua paenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum, ut ab eo baptizatis in spe remitterentur peccata.”) But one cannot have hope for the remission of sins without grace. Therefore, that baptism conferred grace.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the baptism of John was closer to the baptism of Christ than circumcision; but circumcision conferred grace, as has been said (Distinction 1, Question 2, Article 4, Subquestion 3). Therefore, much more did the baptism of John.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, a sacrament is instituted either for the sake of causing grace or for the sake of signifying it. But grace was sufficiently signified by the sacraments of the Old Law. If, then, the baptism of John did not confer grace, it was instituted for nothing.

On the contrary (1), grace is not conferred without the Holy Spirit. But in the baptism of John the Holy Spirit was not conferred, but only water, as is clear from Acts: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). Therefore, in that baptism there was no grace.

Furthermore (2), the effects of disposing and perfecting are not the same. If, therefore, the baptism of John disposed people for the baptism of Christ, which did confer grace (for grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, Jn 1:17), it seems that the baptism of John did not confer grace.

I answer that, this is granted by all, that nothing was accomplished by the baptism of John that would not be the operation of a man. And because grace cannot be given by a man, it is therefore clear that the baptism of John did not confer grace.

Reply Obj. 1: That authority is to be explained so that it is referred to the different baptisms in this way: John was baptizing, namely, with his own baptism, and preaching, namely, the baptism of Christ, which is for the remission of sins. On the other hand, if both statements refer to the baptism of John, this is how it is said to be for the remission of sins: that he required the baptized to pursue the noble fruits of penance, by which they attained the remission of sins. Hence that baptism was something like a protestation and profession of repentance.

Reply Obj. 2: That baptism is said to purify in the way mentioned: either materially, from physical dirt, as a sign of the future spiritual purification by Christ; or from the blindness of ignorance through the teaching of John announcing Christ.

Reply Obj. 3: Hope always proceeds from grace, yet not always from grace possessed, but sometimes from grace awaited; and in this way the baptism of John caused hope for the remission of sins, not conferring grace but promising it in the fact that it prefigured the baptism of Christ, by which grace was given.

Reply Obj. 4: Although the baptism of John, as concerns its matter, had more in common with the baptism of Christ than circumcision did, nevertheless, it did not have more in common as concerns the reason for its institution—for circumcision was instituted on account of necessity, as a remedy against original sin, but the baptism of John so that it might accustom people to the baptism of Christ.

Reply Obj. 5: The baptism of John more expressly represented the baptism of Christ than the sacraments of the Old Law, on account of its greater resemblance to it. And therefore it prepared for it more closely in signification and in a certain protestation of repentance.

Article 3

To whom John’s baptism applied

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 39, aa. 1 & 2; Super Matt. 3.) It seems that it did not befit Christ to be baptized with the baptism of John. For the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance, as is said in Luke 3. (Luke 3:3; some MSS have a reference here to Acts 20:21, which makes little sense.) But no repentance befits Christ, as he had no sin. Therefore, neither did it befit him to be baptized by the baptism of John.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, every action of Christ is for our instruction. But we are not instructed to be baptized by the baptism of John. Therefore, Christ did not need to be baptized with that baptism.

On the contrary, he himself said, when going to the baptism of John, it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15).

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that no others needed to be baptized with that baptism. (Parallel: ST III, q. 38, a. 4.) For Christ is the only one who does not receive sacraments, but rather bestows them. But the baptism of John was a sacrament from which nothing could be received. Therefore, it was fitting only for Christ. (In ST III, q. 38, a. 4, obj. 2, this argument is made much clearer: “Whoever is baptized either receives something from the baptism or confers something on the baptism. But no one could receive anything from the baptism of John, because thereby grace was not conferred, as stated above. On the other hand, no one could confer anything on baptism save Christ, who sanctified the waters by the touch of His most pure flesh. Therefore, it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John.”)

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments are given to everyone for the same reason. But it was not necessary for all to be baptized with the baptism of John. Therefore, no one other than Christ should have been baptized with it.

On the contrary, is what is said, all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and they were baptized by him (Matt 3:5–6).

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that children should have been baptized with that baptism. For that baptism was a sign of the baptism of Christ. But the baptism of Christ is suited to children. Therefore, that one as well.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, circumcision was also given to children, indeed chiefly to them. But the baptism of John is a middle between circumcision and the baptism of Christ, which is given indifferently to great and small. Therefore, the baptism of John should also have been given to little ones.

On the contrary, that baptism was for the sake of familiarizing people with the baptism of Christ. But this could only happen through the reason of those who had discretion. Therefore, that baptism was not suited to children.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

I answer that, Christ wished to be baptized by John for many reasons, three of which are touched upon by the Gloss on Mark 1: (Glossa ordinaria (PL 114:181).) for the sake of fulfilling humility, as Christ himself says in Matthew 3; to give John’s baptism his approval; and to consecrate the waters by his touch and so institute his own baptism. Augustine (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 6, n. 7.) touches on a fourth cause, namely to show that it makes no difference who is baptized by whom. Augustine gives a fifth reason in his book Questions on the Old and New Testaments, (Augustine, Questions on the Old and New Testaments, q. 49 (PL 35:2249).) namely to give an example of baptism to those who in the future would become children of God by faith. Chrysostom offers a sixth, (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12, n. 2 (PG 57:446).) namely to refute the error of those who though John greater than Christ by a display of miracles at his baptism.

Reply Obj. 1: As has been said, Christ received nothing from the sacraments; and thus the baptism of John is not called a baptism of repentance in the case of Christ, but with regard to the others who were being prepared by it for penance; just as also the circumcision of Christ was not a remedy for original sin, from which Christ was immune.

Reply Obj. 2: The action of Christ is our instruction, not so that we might act in the same way as Christ did, but that we might imitate Christ after our own manner; and thus, by his baptism he gave us an example so that we might be baptized by that baptism that befits us, namely, the one resulting in the remission of sins.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that, as Augustine says in his book On Baptism Against the Donatists, (See Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas (CSEL 51), Bk. 5, ch. 9.) if John had baptized Christ alone, he would have seemed the minister of a better baptism, since the one he baptized was so much greater; and if he had baptized everyone, it would have seemed that the baptism of Christ did not suffice for salvation. And thus he baptized only some people, but not all.

Reply Obj. 1: Although some people did not receive grace through the baptism of John, they did receive a certain sign of the grace to be obtained, and the repentance to be observed.

The answer to the second is clear from what has been said.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance; and since repentance does not pertain to children, that baptism did not pertain to them for the same reason. Nor is it the same with the baptism of Christ and circumcision, which are ordained against original sin, which does exist in children.

And by this the solutions to the objections are clear.

Article 4

Whether those who were baptized by John had to be baptized with the baptism of Christ

Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, in the exposition of the text; ST III, q. 38, a. 6; q. 66, a. 9, ad 2; Super Matt. 3.) It seems that those baptized by John the Baptist did not need to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. For in Acts 8:15–16, it is said that when the apostles went to Samaria, they did not baptize those who had been baptized in the name of Christ, but only imposed their hands upon them. Since baptism in the name of Jesus without invoking the Holy Spirit is the baptism of John, it therefore seems that those baptized by the baptism of John were not baptized with the baptism of Christ.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, on the text, I will pour out my spirit (Acts 2:17), Jerome says that this is the reason why some people baptized by John were again baptized by Paul with the baptism of Christ (cf. Acts 20), because they did not have faith in the Trinity, since they had not heard if the Holy Spirit exists. (See Jerome, Commentary on Joel (CCSL 76), ch. 2, l. 677: “Ergo salutare Dei uideri non potest, nisi Spiritus Sanctus effundatur. Et quicumque credere se dicit in Christum, non credens in Spiritum Sanctum, perfectae fidei oculos non habebit. Unde et in Actibus Apostolorum, qui baptizati erant baptismate Ioannis in eum qui uenturus erat, hoc est in nomine Domini Iesu, quia responderunt Paulo interroganti: Sed ne si sit quidem Spiritus Sanctus, nouimus, iterum baptizantur; immo uerum baptisma accipiunt, quia sine Spiritu Sancto et mysterio Trinitatis, quicquid in unam et alteram personam accipitur, imperfectum est.”) Therefore, if some had been baptized by John who did have faith in the Trinity, it would seem that they did not need to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, everything that was necessary for salvation had to be displayed in the apostles. But after the baptism of John, only the baptism of the Holy Spirit is foretold to the apostles (cf. Acts 1:5). Therefore, it was not necessary that they be baptized again with the baptism of Christ.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, for baptism there is required water and the Holy Spirit. But in the baptism of John there was a pouring of water. Therefore, the only thing needed was to supply what was missing, namely, the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary (1), is what is said: unless a man is reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). But the baptism of John did not regenerate in that way. Therefore, it was necessary that they be baptized again with the baptism of Christ.

Furthermore (2), Augustine says that John was baptizing and had not been baptized. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 5, par. 16.) But it is necessary for salvation in the time of grace that a man be baptized, or at least that he have the intention of being baptized. Therefore, it was necessary for those who had received the baptism of John to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ.

Furthermore (3), the imposition of hands preceding the baptism of John did not imprint a baptismal character. But that kind of character, either actually or in intention, is necessary for salvation. Therefore, it was necessary that those baptized by John be baptized again with the baptism of Christ, and the imposition of hands was not sufficient.

I answer that, concerning this there are two opinions. For certain people say that the baptism of John was preparatory for receiving Christ; and thus, if someone had received the baptism of John as something self-contained, not referring to Christ, baptism in that person would have been thwarted from achieving its end, and so he would have had to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ. But if he did not fix his hope in the baptism of John, but referred it further to Christ, then a single thing was made, so to speak, out of the grace of Christ and the baptism of John already received; and thus, it was not necessary that he be baptized again with water, but only that he receive the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. And this seems to have been the opinion of the Master in the text.

But since the sacraments of the New Law have their efficacy by the very act performed, it seems therefore that the hope and faith of the one who receives baptism does nothing for the sacrament, although it could work toward impeding or fostering the res sacramenti. Hence, however much someone baptized by John referred his own hope to Christ, it did not bring about the baptism of the New Law; and thus, if the baptism of the New Law is necessary for salvation, it is necessary that he be baptized again with that baptism. Furthermore, it is the case in all the sacraments that if anything of the sacrament’s substance is omitted, the sacrament has to be given again. Hence, since there was not the due form in the baptism of John, baptism had to be given again. And the more common opinion holds this, which is also confirmed by the words of Augustine, who says in his Commentary on John, Homily 5: Those who were baptized with the baptism of John, it was not enough for them: for they had to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 5, par. 6.)

Reply Obj. 1: And so, accordingly, it should be replied to the first that this text is treating of those who had been baptized by Philip, who had certainly baptized with the baptism of Christ. But the Holy Spirit was not given there for strengthening, as he is given in confirmation: for that Philip was not Philip the Apostle, but one of the seven deacons, and so he could not perform the imposition of hands, since that belongs to bishops; and for this reason, Peter and John were sent to do it.

Reply Obj. 2: Jerome does not mean to give a reason for rebaptizing, but to point out the insufficiency of those people’s faith for salvation, as is clear from his preceding words. For he says before: whoever says that he believes in Christ and does not believe in the Holy Spirit, does not yet have clear eyes. (The exact text is cited in a note just above.) But insufficiency of faith could not be the reason that certain people were baptized, but rather why they needed to be instructed, as is also done today.

Reply Obj. 3: The apostles are believed to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ, although it is not found written, as is said in the Gloss on John 13: One who has bathed does not need to wash except for the feet (John 13:10). (Glossa ordinaria, PL 114:405.) For by the fact that they were baptizing others, as John 3 relates, it seems that they, too, had been baptized when they came to Christ. But if Christ, who had the power of forgiving sins and who did not bind his own power to the sacraments, wanted to sanctify them without baptism by way of a certain privilege, such a privilege would not have been handed down to the succession. (That is, the bishops who were their successors.) It cannot be derived from the authority cited, however, that the apostles had been baptized only by the baptism of John; it is rather a certain comparison of the baptism of spirit to the baptism of John.

Reply Obj. 4: Baptism requires water with the due form. Now John did not observe the form of Christ’s baptism, nor again was there an efficacy in it like there is in Christ’s baptism; and thus, since things that are necessary to the sacrament were omitted, it was necessary to be baptized again.

Exposition of the Text

Of these some offer a remedy against sin . . . others fortify us with grace and virtue. (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 2.1 (11). 1.) All sacraments of the New Law act as a remedy and confer grace, as has been said. Therefore, that distinction seems to amount to nothing. And it should be said that that distinction between the sacraments is taken according to what they are principally ordered to. Therefore, although all sacraments confer grace in some way, and act as a remedy, nevertheless some are principally directed toward remedying a certain particular disease, as marriage is against concupiscence; while others from their proper intention are directed both toward remedying a disease and toward grace, like baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration through which the old man is destroyed and a new one generated. Some, however, since they presuppose grace, are directed toward the perfecting of grace, like the Eucharist. And this is how the words of the Master [regarding marriage] are to be understood: not at all as a remedy, but as a sacrament; (Giulio Silano’s translation of this passage, interpreting Peter Lombard as Aquinas directs, renders sacramentum as “sign.” Sent IV, 2.1 (11). 3.) and “sacrament” should be taken broadly for any sign of a sacred thing.

John, with his baptism, foretold Christ’s baptism. (Sent IV, 2.2 (12). 2.) Thus the baptism of Christ had a preparation, rather than the other sacraments of the New Law, for baptism is the gateway to the sacraments, and itself opens the way to the others. This is why the other sacraments did not need a preparation.

They are baptized again, or rather, they receive true baptism. (Sent IV, 2.6 (16). 2 citing Jerome, In Ioelem 2, 28.) And from this it is clear that the previous baptism was not considered by some people to be a baptism: for whoever received the baptism of Christ were not baptized again, but they received the true baptism for the first time. (That is, a person who was baptized by John and later received Christian baptism cannot be said to be “rebaptized,” because the baptism of John is not of the same kind as that of Christ; such a person should be said to be baptized, simply speaking, de novo.) And thus, as if correcting what he had said: they are baptized again, he adds, rather, they receive true baptism; and so the Master cannot prove his point by the words of Jerome.