Tertia Pars
Lecture 92: John's Baptism and the Cessation of His Ministry

Transcript
================================================================================

Okay, we're still back in Christ, getting into the world, right? And none of this is being considered the baptism and so on. So up to Article 5 here. To the fifth one goes forward thus. It seems that the baptism of John ought to have what? Come to an end, seized, after Christ was baptized. For it is said in John, Chapter 1, Verse 31, that he might be made known to Israel, on account of this I have come baptizing in the water. But Christ being baptized was sufficiently made known, both through the testimony of John himself, and by the descent of the, what, dove, and also by the testimony of the eternal, what, voice. Therefore, it seems that afterwards, the baptism of John should not, what, endure, yeah. You've got the Trinity there, right? You've got Christ and you've got the dove and you've got the eternal voice. And Thomas, like, he's going to just say to this, well, it's not sufficiently manifested. Not everybody was there, etc. Moreover, Augustine himself says upon John that Christ was baptized and the baptism of John, what, ceased. Not right away, though. Therefore, it seems that John, after Christ is baptized, ought not to baptize. Moreover, the baptism of John was preparatory for the baptism of Christ. But the baptism of Christ began at once after Christ was, what, baptized. Because by the touch of his most clean and most pure flesh, he, what, gave a eugenicative power to the waters, huh? That's the great, what, Bede says, huh? I think it's Bede no invested, didn't he? He'd be much better than him. And it's amazing the books got around in those days with the holiday name. Yeah. Bring presents out in these computers. I guess they had a lot of months to copy. Yeah. And some of them were beautiful, too, you know, with that beautiful handwrite. Therefore, it seems that the baptism of John would have ceased when Christ was baptized. But again, this is what is said in John chapter 3, that Christ came into the land of Judea and baptized, and John was also, what, baptizing. Therefore, Christ, but Christ did not baptize before he himself was baptized, right? Therefore, it seems that after Christ was baptized, still John was, what, baptizing, huh? Well, he says, I answer. It should be said that the baptism of John ought not to seize Christ, what, being baptized. And he's going to point out it on right away, right? Okay. First, because, as Chrysostom says, if John ceased to, what, baptize, right when Christ was, what, baptized, it would be thought that by zeal or by anger he did this, huh? Yeah. You can see very much human weakness, you know, and how this is necessary to overcome some of the bad effects of human weakness, and especially in the disciples of John. You know when John sends disciples to Christ, you know, and then you're the one. And some people thought, you know, John himself was in doubt. I don't think John was in doubt. And I think the reasonable tradition you get of Thomas and the church fathers is that he wanted his disciples, right, to, you know, to, you know, go to, yeah. And, uh, I say a little bit of that, you know, in the academic world, you know, right then, right, you know? And where you get attached to your professor, you know, and you kind of hold on to him, you know, even though somebody else is really, what, better or, what, greater, you know, that's kind of a danger, right? And you see that in the disciples of John, he certainly was a good teacher, right? He certainly had a good influence upon them, but... Yeah, that was the passage where they approached John and said, hey, the one you baptized, he's baptizing over here then. Like, what do you think about that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Try to get him going, yeah. Should we, what are we supposed to do? We'll fight them or something? So, like, what Tom, or what Paul talks about, you know, I'm baptized by Apollo and you're baptized by Apollo. But you kind of see something about, about, uh, falling human nature, let's put it that way, huh? We are, uh, and this is not good, you know? Disorder. Yeah, yeah. Secondly, if he had ceased from baptism, right, huh? Christ's baptizing, he would put his disciples into greater zeal for him, right? Okay. So he would give the impression, that Thomas, or Aristotelius, but, uh, that the good man avoids not only evil action, but even the appearance of evil action, right? And so, um, that's kind of like the first argument there, isn't it? You see, that, uh, if John the Baptist stopped, it would have seemed to others, right, that he was enough, you know? And, uh, and out of anger, in a sense, right, to get done this, huh? Because, uh, because he would be, uh, shown up by Christ or something? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And here, that the disciples would be, what, you know, behind him, you know, even more, huh? Third, because persisting in baptizing, he sent his hearers to Christ, huh? And fourth, because, as Bede says, the shadow of the old law, right, huh? Still remained, huh? Nor at the, what? So the precursor ceases actively altogether until the truth is manifested, right, huh? Doesn't Augustine say somewhere, you know, that the old law could still be for a certain period of time, followed, you know, even the new law would come in? You find things like that in the church, sometimes, either the day, you don't get certain changes, and they allow the old to continue for a while. That's like, uh, with Joshua, the manna didn't cease for a little while. Mm-hmm. He continued for a little while, even though he promised that he wasn't in the desert, and he didn't need it. Yeah. Or he continued. It was hard for men to adjust to change. I always remember, you know, when the Mass went into the vernacular, you know, from the Latin, and I remember looking at kind of a popular Catholic magazine there, and, uh, around my aunt's house, and someone was writing in, and she'd been arguing with her neighbors all the time about Latins, they were Protestant neighbors, and now her whole thing was cut out from under her, you know? As if the Mass had not been said in some other language, maybe they need Latin, before it was said in Latin, you know, but, but that was kind of, you know, but you're accustomed to having Mass in Latin all the time, so it seemed like this is what belongs to, it belongs to the very nature, I mean, the very essence of the Mass, right? It must be said in Latin. And that's not to be true, is it? That's to be the joke, you know, the French people down in New England, they would send their kids up to Quebec to be educated, because they lose their faith unless they're educated in French. Ah! You couldn't, you know, quite be educated in the faith except in French, right? And I just wonder about myself sometimes, you know. Certain prayers I learned in Latin, I have to see them in Latin, I can't see them in English. To the second it should be, okay, the first one he says, to the first therefore it should be said that although Christ was manifested by his, what, baptism, right? He was not yet, what? Fully. Fully manifested by his baptism. baptism, and therefore it was still necessary that John was baptized, huh? The second should be said that the baptism, Christ being baptized, the baptism of John did cease, as Augustine says, right? Not however, right away, it stopped him, but when he was in jail. When's Chrysostom, right? And notice in that body of the text there, the first three were taken, Chrysostom, I guess, and the fourth one from Bede. There's Chrysostom showing up again, huh? So Thomas was, as you know, was trading the city of Paris for Chrysostom's thing on, I don't know, it was on John or Matthew, one of the two. I estimate that an account of this was allowed the death of John, right? That he being taken out from the middle, Christ most of all began to what? Preach. That all affection, multitude might be transferred to Christ, and not further would, what? There would be people divided by, what? Theoretically, yeah. But again, you see there that humanity, I mean, just hopeless, hopeless that way, you know? I see that in the academic world, people, you know, came and studied, and there's some person of some fame or not, what it was, you know, they got attached to that person and his teaching, you know, and they never got out of that, right? And they're, as some people say, you know, that's why it doesn't do much good for a professor to get together, because they already, you know, committed themselves to some school or something, you know? So we've got to influence, so we've got to have a young student or something, you know, who's coming in, hasn't been exposed to any of these charlatans, you know? But once you've been formed by some charlatan, then you're, you're a charlatan for the rest of your life, you know? There's no way out. I mean, that's very strong what Christian was saying, right? Permit the death of John and get him out of the way. We've got to get him out of the way, the Trinity is saying, I mean, that's kind of strange, isn't it? At least I sent him into exile or something. He came out of the way some way, but, but, uh, strange. To the third, it should be said that the baptism of John was preparatory, not only for this, that Christ himself would be baptized, but that others would, what, exceed to the baptism of Christ, huh? Which was not yet fulfilled, Christ being, what, baptized, huh? Now, next article here. To the sixth one proceeds thus. It seems that those baptized by the baptism of John ought not to be what? Baptized by the baptism of what? Christ. First, because John was not less than the apostles. Because about him it's written that among those born of woman there is not a rose greater than John the Baptist. So, he's pretty high up, that's John the Baptist. But those who were baptized by the apostles are not what? Baptized again. But only is there added to them the imposition of hands. That some were what? Only baptized by Philip in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then the apostles, to which Peter and John, placed the hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it seems that those baptized by John ought not to be baptized by the baptism of Christ. Moreover, the apostles were baptized by the baptism of John. But there were some, but some of them were disciples of John. That is clear in John chapter 1. But the apostles did not seem to have been baptized by the baptism of Christ. For it is said in John 4.2 that Christ, that Jesus did not baptize by his, what? His disciples. Therefore, it seems that those baptized by the baptism of John were not to be baptized by the baptism of, what? Christ. Moreover, less is the one who is baptized than the one who baptizes. But John himself has not written about him, not read about John, and that he was baptized, what? By the baptism of Christ. Therefore, much less those who were, what? Baptized by John. That's kind of a basic argument. Much less would they need him to be, what, baptized by the baptism of Christ. Moreover, Acts 19, it is said that Paul found some of the disciples and said to them, yeah, did you see the Holy Spirit believing? But they said, neither the Holy Spirit, not even if the Holy Spirit is, have we heard, right? He said, therefore, in whom were you baptized? And they said, in the baptism of John. Whence they were baptized again in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It seems, therefore, that because they did not know the Holy Spirit, it was necessary for them to, what? Be baptized again, as Jerome says upon the book of Joel, an epistle about the man of one's wife, and Ambrose in the book about the Holy Spirit. But some were baptized by the baptism of John who had the full knowledge of the Trinity. Therefore, they were not to be baptized again by the baptism of Christ. Glad I've got Thomas around here because I hate to be having my students give me these objections and expecting me to answer them. I told you at the time, we were trying to make out a text of Albert, he's got kind of crazy Latin, you know, it didn't make too much sense. So it's funny, by the historic, you know, and he looked at the text for a while, you know, finding it up, you know, and my brother put his hat and coat on, go in and say something, and he says, I can see why you have difficulty with that, he said. And he walked out! That was it. Well, at least you can see. Moreover, Romans 10 upon that, this is the word of faith that we preach. The gloss of Augustine says, Whence is this power of water that it touches the body and washes the heart? Except the word, what? Making this. Not because it is said, but because it is, what? Believed. So even the baptism now is still a grandchild. The parents have got to have the faith, right? Those who propose a little one for baptism, right? From which it is clear that the power of baptism depends upon faith. But the form of the baptism of John signifies the faith in which we are baptized. For it says, for Paul says in Acts chapter 19, that John baptized by the baptism of penance the people, saying in the one who was to come after him that they might believe, right? This is in Jesus. Therefore, it seems not necessary that those who are baptized by the baptism of John should be again baptized by the baptism of what? Christ. But against all this is what Augustine says upon John. That those who are baptized by the baptism of John, it's necessary that they be baptized by the baptism of the Lord. I answer it should be said now that according to the opinion of the Magister, right? Your Lombard. In the fourth book of the sentences, those who are baptized by John, not knowing the Holy Spirit to be, right? And placing their hope in his baptism, afterwards, they were baptized by the baptism of Christ. Those who did not however place their hope in the baptism of John and believed the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, they were not afterwards baptized, but only was there imposition of the, or placing upon the hands by the apostles made upon them. Today we see then in the Holy Spirit. There's a tradition here now. This book, the sentences here, which was, you know, kind of standard text there for several centuries. And this, he says, is true as regards the, what? The first part, which is confirmed by many, what? Authorities, huh? But as regards the second part, that's penny to us the Ratsinagude, huh? It's holy, I guess, huh? Unweasable, what is said, huh? First, because the baptism of John neither, what, conferred grace, nor did it impress a character, right? But it was only in water, as he himself says in Matthew 3, right? Whence the faith or the hope of the one baptized, which one had in Christ, is not able to, what, supply this defect, huh? Secondly, because when in a sacrament is omitted, what is of the necessity of the sacrament? Not only is it, what, necessary to supply what was omitting, but is necessary for the whole to be renewed, right? It is over of the necessity of the baptism of Christ that it come about not only in water, but also in the, what, the Holy Spirit. According to that of John chapter 3, unless you are reborn from water in the Holy Spirit, you are not able to come into the kingdom of God. Whence those who were baptized only in water by the baptism of John not only was, what, to be supplied what was lacking and that there be given to them the Holy Spirit to be a position of hands. of the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit but also that they, again, be totally baptized in water and the Holy Spirit. I suppose you mentioned the Holy Spirit, that's kind of an appropriation, I think, because you appropriate, you know, the giving of grace to the Holy Spirit. Like we're saying in the Apostles' Creed, you know, where you divide it into three according to the Trinity, right? Then Holy Catholic Church, communion of saints, because the sins are attributed to the, what, Holy Spirit, it's put under the Holy Spirit there. So the fact is not being graced, being given by this baptism of John, right? Fits together with the Holy Spirit not being there, right? Now what about this text here in Acts 8, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that as Augustine says upon John, therefore, after what? Because he did not give the baptism of Christ, right? But his own, huh? But what is given by Peter, and something is given by, what, Jude? Is that the other apostle? It is of Christ, huh? And therefore, if those whom Jude baptized, should not be, what? Again, for the baptism is such as it is in the one in whose power it is given, not such as the one, Mr. E. E. is given. And therefore, it is that those who were baptized by Philip the deacon, who gave the baptism of Christ, should not again be baptized, huh? But they receive the, what, the position of hands through the apostles, just as those baptized by, what, priests are confirmed by, what? Yeah. But if I understand that it would imply that he's saying that they were already really baptized, right? But there's kind of a confirmation, right? Because there was a certain defect in understanding of the sacrament or something, I don't know. A little obscure the answer to that. Do you have a chance they're talking about the sacrament of confirmation? Because in the Eastern churches, that goes along with baptism. It's just that in the West, they... I mean, it's still a second sacrament, but it's performed at the same time. Yeah. Maybe this is the sense he's saying there's actually two sacraments going on. Well, we'll use the term conferment here, per episcopus, you know? It doesn't seem to be talking about a different sacrament there, you know, but it's just the first sacrament is being in some way, what, registered, right? And confirmed. What was the defect in the first one? Again, they didn't have the right to believe. Well, they didn't know about the Holy Spirit, right? Yeah, they were baptized. That's a question that comes up in a lot of scholastics, because in the Antiochic Apostles, it talks a lot, a number of times, about that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Well, I thought it was really baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So what's this all about? But he's saying that it would have been it would have found its origin from Christ in a certain way, that's the baptism of Christ that he received. So whatever might not have been clear in either understanding the sacrament, that's why he would have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Yeah. Because Thomas does say somewhere else, you know, he's talking about these, that by kind of special dispensation of the Holy Spirit, they could baptize in the name of Christ rather than in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. It was starting to be straight, you know? Yeah, yeah. But apparently that was done at the same time. That's an old joke. It looks like that. Like in the Eucharist, you know, we received the body and blood of our Lord, but also his soul and even his divinity then, right? Yeah. But by, so you might not realize that, you know, I'm receiving the body and blood of our Lord. I didn't know I was receiving his divinity. Well, yes, you were. But, you know, my understanding of what I'm receiving here is not imperfect, huh? I've had a discussion with somebody about that that they were insisting that, no, if the priest says it's the body of Christ, that's all you get. You're not getting the blood. It's when you receive from the chalice, that's when you receive from the blood of our Lord. But you get the body of our Lord, you get the blood of our Lord. I said, well, if that's the case, then he's dead. That's why he's the body of our Lord, separated. So someone might not know that, right? He has an imperfect understanding of the sacrament, but it doesn't make the sacrament invalid. The priest forgave you my sins. Was it the priest or was it Christ? I think it was the priest. I don't think Christ was a bit... He said, I absolved you. That's it. So I wouldn't say the person, his sins are not forgiven, but it's still a perfect defect in your understanding. So think about matrimony, you know. Did the priest marry you, or did you marry yourself? What does the church do if a couple of Catholics get married before a Justice of the Peace, you know? You say it's a lack of canonical form which invalidates what they've done. So I think that's... Yeah, I wouldn't... Well, they haven't received the sacrament, obviously, but are they married? Yeah. So what did the church say, you know? Yeah, that's something I have to look at. Yeah, I know they can be rectified without too much trouble. Yeah, I know. Would they, you know, go and make their promises and so on before a priest, or would there be something to... They'd have to be saying to confirm it, right? Yeah. And make it, you know? Yeah. I guess they call it validation or something. Yeah. And how they do that, if they can just... I think so. They sprang up during... At some point in Mass and the priest called them up and they said, we were just sitting there, man. The couple just jumped up, went over there and they got their marriage blessed and they came back and said, I don't know. I was like, what just happened? We can hear it. Okay. I don't mind. Fall under Townsend. No one will notice. No one will notice. No one will notice. Okay. What about these ones, huh? Christ didn't baptize, it says, right? These guys, then we're not. The second should be said that as Augustine says to Saluciano, huh? We understand the disciples of Christ to have been, what? Baptized, huh? Whether by baptism of John as something or what is more believable, right? By the baptism of Christ, huh? Maybe not all Christ, what, the apostles were all baptized by John. Maybe not. Some of them were religious disciples, right? Nor was the ministry of baptizing lacking that they would have, what? Baptized servants to whom others would be, what? Baptized, huh? Who was not lacking in the... Yeah. The Syrian father's does stuff. It's kind of interesting, but he sees that the Washington feed on only Thursday. Yeah, he doesn't mean to be saying good. Yeah, he doesn't mean to be saying good. that Christ would not be below the dignity of Christ or unheard of him for him to engage in baptizing the apostles. If he did that, yeah. That's more humble to wash the feet than to baptize. So, I mean, is that meant, you know, to say that Christ didn't baptize anybody or he didn't baptize those who were... Yeah, that he was not going on baptizing the multitudes, he was giving that to the apostles, right? You know, it's a little different thing. You appoint these deacons, you know, to feed the thing, and he says, you know, we've got more important things to do. And that doesn't mean that they didn't feed them before. They decided they had to divide the task and appoint some people to do that, and then they could give their time to preaching and so on full time. Yeah, prayer and ministry and prayer. I was seeing this bishop there. He got the Gaelan Award there from Human Life International. But, I mean, you know, he was, you know, seeing a person in each of these women who wanted to confess their sins about abortion and so on. Yeah, really, really a very impressive bishop, you know. He was here in the States? No, in Malaysia. He's in Malaysia. Oh, really? Yeah. He said he did what? Well, I mean, he personally will talk to each of them when they want to, you know. As you see, you know, abortionists who have converted and so on. But, no, as a bishop, I eventually, you know, if he has too many people coming to him, he might give that up and appoint other people to hear the confessions and so on. So, he doesn't do it, but they do it, you know. So, I mean, he didn't do it at all in the beginning, right? I feel like Moses was judging all those cases that were brought to him. Yeah. He actually appointed judges. Yeah, 70, yeah, yeah. Okay. Third objection here now. John's not, it's not read that John was baptized by the baptism of Christ, huh? Then you get to heaven, I guess, huh? Didn't make it. To the theory, it should be said, that as Christendom says upon Matthew, huh? Through this, that Christ, when John said, I, what, ought to be baptized by you, huh? Answered, sinemodo, let it be. Yeah. He showed, because afterwards, Christ, what, baptized John. And this, he says that this is, what, in some of the apocryphal books, huh? Okay. But it is certain, as Jerome says upon Matthew, that just as Christ was baptized in water by John, so John was baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure I think that John would have been baptized by Christ, huh? But maybe he didn't let his disciples know. Given the human weakness, right? Yeah. Now, four here is, again, about those who haven't heard of the Holy Spirit, huh? But some of those who were baptized by John did, he says. He didn't let some. To the fourth, it should be said, that that is not the whole reason, wherefore those who are, what, baptized, after the baptism of John, because they didn't know, what, the Holy Spirit, but because they were, what, the baptism of Christ. Simple enough. You must see that, says Thomas. You must see that. There's a story told in Thomas' life, you know, where he came someplace, and some young student there, you know, was given all these objections, you know, and he was kind of scandalized that the student should be so. But Thomas is very calm. He talks to the guy, you know, and eventually saw all of his mistakes, you know, and so on. Now, the fifth rejection, huh? Again, the text there, right, that John baptized those who, what, in the one who was going to come, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. To the fifth, it should be said, as Augustine says against Faust, huh? Our sacraments are signs of a, what, present grace. The sacraments, however, of the old law were signs of a future grace. That's a nice little distinction, huh? Whence from this that John baptized in the name of the one to come, right, it is given to be understood that he did not give the baptism of Christ, which is a sacrament of the, what, new law, right? It's like a sacrament of the old law, in a sense.