Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de baptizatione Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. | We have now to consider the baptizing of Christ, concerning which there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum Christus debuerit baptizari. | (1) Whether Christ should have been baptized? |
| Secundo, utrum debuerit baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. | (2) Whether He should have been baptized with the baptism of John? |
| Tertio, de tempore Baptismi. | (3) Of the time when He was baptized; |
| Quarto, de loco. | (4) Of the place; |
| Quinto, de hoc quod sunt ei caeli aperti. | (5) Of the heavens being opened unto Him; |
| Sexto, de spiritu sancto apparente in specie columbae. | (6) Of the apparition of the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove; |
| Septimo, utrum illa columba fuerit verum animal. | (7) Whether that dove was a real animal? |
| Octavo, de voce paterni testimonii. | (8) Of the voice of the Father witnessing unto Him. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Christum baptizari. Baptizari enim est ablui. Sed Christo non convenit ablui, in quo nulla fuit impuritas. Ergo videtur quod Christum non decuerit baptizari. | Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized. For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting for Christ to be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him. Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to be baptized. |
| Praeterea, Christus circumcisionem suscepit ut impleret legem. Sed Baptismus non pertinebat ad legem. Ergo non debebat baptizari. | Objection 2: Further, Christ was circumcised in order to fulfil the law. But baptism was not prescribed by the law. Therefore He should not have been baptized. |
| Praeterea, primum movens in quolibet genere est immobile secundum illum motum, sicut caelum, quod est primum alterans, non est alterabile. Sed Christus est primum baptizans, secundum illud, super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem, hic est qui baptizat. Ergo Christum non decuit baptizari. | Objection 3: Further, the first mover in every genus is unmoved in regard to that movement; thus the heaven, which is the first cause of alteration, is unalterable. But Christ is the first principle of baptism, according to Jn. 1:33: "He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." Therefore it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. III, quod venit Iesus a Galilaea in Iordanem ad Ioannem, ut baptizaretur ab eo. |
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit Christum baptizari. Primo quidem quia, ut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., baptizatus est dominus, non mundari volens, sed mundare aquas, ut, ablutae per carnem Christi, quae peccatum non cognovit, Baptismatis vim haberent, et ut sanctificatas relinqueret postmodum baptizandis, sicut Chrysostomus dicit. Secundo, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quamvis Christus non esset peccator, tamen naturam suscepit peccatricem, et similitudinem carnis peccati. Propterea, etsi pro se Baptismate non indigebat, tamen in aliis carnalis natura opus habebat. Et, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, baptizatus est Christus ut totum veteranum Adam immergat aquae. Tertio, baptizari voluit, sicut Augustinus dicit, in sermone de Epiphania, quia voluit facere quod faciendum omnibus imperavit. Et hoc est quod ipse dicit, sic decet nos adimplere omnem iustitiam. Ut enim Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., haec est iustitia, ut quod alterum facere velis, prius ipse incipias, et tuo alios horteris exemplo. |
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 3:21: "Our Lord was baptized because He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism"; and, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "that He might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized afterwards." Secondly, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "although Christ was not a sinner, yet did He take a sinful nature and 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' Wherefore, though He needed not baptism for His own sake, yet carnal nature in others had need thereof." And, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix) "Christ was baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water." Thirdly, He wished to be baptized, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxvi), "because He wished to do what He had commanded all to do." And this is what He means by saying: "So it becometh us to fulfil all justice" (Mt. 3:15). For, as Ambrose says (on Lk. 3:21), "this is justice, to do first thyself that which thou wishest another to do, and so encourage others by thy example." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non fuit baptizatus ut ablueretur, sed ut ablueret, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: Christ was baptized, not that He might be cleansed, but that He might cleanse, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus non solum debebat implere ea quae sunt legis veteris, sed etiam inchoare ea quae sunt novae. Et ideo non solum voluit circumcidi, sed etiam baptizari. | Reply to Objection 2: It was fitting that Christ should not only fulfil what was prescribed by the Old Law, but also begin what appertained to the New Law. Therefore He wished not only to be circumcised, but also to be baptized. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus est primum baptizans spiritualiter. Et sic non est baptizatus, sed solum in aqua. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual effect. Unto this He was not baptized, but only in water. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christum non decuerit baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. Baptismus enim Ioannis fuit Baptismus poenitentiae. Sed poenitentia Christo non convenit, quia nullum habuit peccatum. Ergo videtur quod non debuit baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. | Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism. For John's baptism was the "baptism of penance." But penance is unbecoming to Christ, since He had no sin. Therefore it seems that He should not have been baptized with John's baptism. |
| Praeterea, Baptismus Ioannis, sicut dicit Chrysostomus, medium fuit inter Baptismum Iudaeorum et Baptismum Christi. Sed medium sapit naturam extremorum. Cum ergo Christus non fuerit baptizatus Baptismate Iudaico, nec etiam Baptismate suo, videtur quod, pari ratione, Baptismate Ioannis baptizari non debuerit. | Objection 2: Further, John's baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. de Bapt. Christi), "was a mean between the baptism of the Jews and that of Christ." But "the mean savors of the nature of the extremes" (Aristotle, De Partib. Animal.). Since, therefore, Christ was not baptized with the Jewish baptism, nor yet with His own, on the same grounds He should not have been baptized with the baptism of John. |
| Praeterea, omne quod in rebus humanis est optimum, debet attribui Christo. Sed Baptismus Ioannis non tenet supremum locum inter Baptismata. Ergo non convenit Christum baptizari Baptismo Ioannis. | Objection 3: Further, whatever is best in human things should be ascribed to Christ. But John's baptism does not hold the first place among baptisms. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. III, quod venit Iesus in Iordanem ut baptizaretur a Ioanne. |
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., baptizatus dominus baptizabat non Baptismate quo baptizatus est. Unde, cum ipse baptizaret Baptismo proprio, consequens est quod non fuerit baptizatus suo Baptismate, sed Baptismate Ioannis. Et hoc fuit conveniens, primo quidem, propter conditionem Baptismi Ioannis, qui non baptizavit in spiritu, sed solum in aqua. Christus autem spirituali Baptismate non indigebat, qui a principio suae conceptionis gratia spiritus sancti repletus fuit, ut patet ex dictis. Et haec est ratio Chrysostomi. Secundo, ut Beda dicit, baptizatus est Baptismo Ioannis, ut Baptismo suo Baptismum Ioannis comprobaret. Tertio, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, accedit Iesus ad Baptismum Ioannis sanctificaturus Baptismum. |
I answer that, As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): "After being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He was baptized." Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own baptism, it follows that He was not baptized with His own, but with John's baptism. And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism was peculiar in this, that he baptized, not in the Spirit, but only "in water"; while Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since He was filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His conception, as we have made clear above (Question [34], Article [1]). And this is the reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi). Secondly, as Bede says on Mk. 1:9, He was baptized with the baptism of John, that, "by being thus baptized, He might show His approval of John's baptism." Thirdly, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), "by going to John to be baptized by him, He sanctified baptism." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus baptizari voluit ut nos suo exemplo induceret ad Baptismum. Et ideo, ad hoc quod esset efficacior eius inductio, voluit baptizari Baptismo quo manifeste non indigebat, ut homines ad Baptismum accederent quo indigebant. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., nemo refugiat lavacrum gratiae, quando Christus lavacrum poenitentiae non refugit. |
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article [1]), Christ wished to be baptized in order by His example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that He might lead us thereto more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized with a baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it might approach unto it. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 3:21: "Let none decline the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the laver of penance." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Baptismus Iudaeorum in lege praeceptus, erat solum figuralis; Baptismus autem Ioannis aliqualiter erat realis, inquantum inducebat homines ad abstinendum a peccatis; Baptismus autem Christi habet efficaciam mundandi a peccato et gratiam conferendi. Christus autem neque indigebat percipere remissionem peccatorum, quae in eo non erant; neque recipere gratiam, qua plenus erat. Similiter etiam, cum ipse sit veritas, non competebat ei id quod in sola figura gerebatur. Et ideo magis congruum fuit quod baptizaretur Baptismo medio quam aliquo extremorum. | Reply to Objection 2: The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely figurative, whereas John's baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch as it induced men to refrain from sin; but Christ's baptism is efficacious unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace. Now Christ needed neither the remission of sin, which was not in Him, nor the bestowal of grace, with which He was filled. Moreover, since He is "the Truth," it was not fitting that He should receive that which was no more than a figure. Consequently it was more fitting that He should receive the intermediate baptism than one of the extremes. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus est quoddam spirituale remedium. Quanto autem est aliquid magis perfectum, tanto minori remedio indiget. Unde ex hoc ipso quod Christus est maxime perfectus, conveniens fuit quod non baptizaretur perfectissimo Baptismo, sicut ille qui est sanus, non indiget efficaci medicina. | Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is a spiritual remedy. Now, the more perfect a thing is, the less remedy does it need. Consequently, from the very fact that Christ is most perfect, it follows that it was fitting that He should not receive the most perfect baptism: just as one who is healthy does not need a strong medicine. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non convenienti tempore Christus fuerit baptizatus. Ad hoc enim Christus baptizatus est ut suo exemplo alios ad Baptismum provocaret. Sed fideles Christi laudabiliter baptizantur, non solum ante trigesimum annum, sed etiam in infantili aetate. Ergo videtur quod Christus non debuit baptizari in aetate triginta annorum. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was baptized at an unfitting time. For Christ was baptized in order that He might lead others to baptism by His example. But it is commendable that the faithful of Christ should be baptized, not merely before their thirtieth year, but even in infancy. Therefore it seems that Christ should not have been baptized at the age of thirty. |
| Praeterea, Christus non legitur docuisse, vel miracula fecisse, ante Baptismum. Sed utilius fuisset mundo si pluri tempore docuisset, incipiens a vigesimo anno, vel etiam prius. Ergo videtur quod Christus, qui pro utilitate hominum venerat, ante trigesimum annum debuerat baptizari. | Objection 2: Further, we do not read that Christ taught or worked miracles before being baptized. But it would have been more profitable to the world if He had taught for a longer time, beginning at the age of twenty, or even before. Therefore it seems that Christ, who came for man's profit, should have been baptized before His thirtieth year. |
| Praeterea, indicium sapientiae divinitus infusae maxime debuit manifestari in Christo. Est autem manifestatum in Daniele tempore suae pueritiae, secundum illud Dan. XIII, suscitavit dominus spiritum sanctum pueri iunioris, cui nomen Daniel. Ergo multo magis Christus in sua pueritia debuit baptizari vel docere. | Objection 3: Further, the sign of wisdom infused by God should have been especially manifest in Christ. But in the case of Daniel this was manifested at the time of his boyhood; according to Dan. 13:45: "The Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy, whose name was Daniel." Much more, therefore, should Christ have been baptized or have taught in His boyhood. |
| Praeterea, Baptismus Ioannis ordinatur ad Baptismum Christi sicut ad finem. Sed finis est prior in intentione, et postremum in executione. Ergo vel debuit primus baptizari a Ioanne, vel ultimus. | Objection 4: Further, John's baptism was ordered to that of Christ as to its end. But "the end is first in intention and last in execution." Therefore He should have been baptized by John either before all the others, or after them. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. III, factum est, cum baptizaretur omnis populus, et Iesu baptizato et orante, et infra, et ipse Iesus erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta. |
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "It came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying;" and further on (Lk. 3:23): "And Jesus Himself was beginning about the age of thirty years." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Christus convenienter fuit in trigesimo anno baptizatus. Primo quidem, quia Christus baptizabatur quasi ex tunc incipiens docere et praedicare, ad quod requiritur perfecta aetas, qualis est triginta annorum. Unde et Gen. XLI legitur quod triginta annorum erat Ioseph quando suscepit regimen Aegypti. Similiter etiam II Reg. V legitur de David quod triginta annorum erat cum regnare coepisset. Ezechiel etiam in anno trigesimo coepit prophetare, ut habetur Ezech. I. |
I answer that, Christ was fittingly baptized in His thirtieth year. First, because Christ was baptized as though for the reason that He was about forthwith to begin to teach and preach: for which purpose perfect age is required, such as is the age of thirty. Thus we read (Gn. 41:46) that "Joseph was thirty" years old when he undertook the government of Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kgs. 5:4) that "David was thirty years old when he began to reign." Again, Ezechiel began to prophesy in "his thirtieth year," as we read Ezech. 1:1. |
| Secundo quia, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., futurum erat ut post Baptismum Christi lex cessare inciperet. Et ideo hac aetate Christus ad Baptismum venit quae potest omnia peccata suscipere, ut, lege servata, nullus dicat quod ideo eam solvit quod implere non potuit. | Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. x in Matth.), "the law was about to pass away after Christ's baptism: wherefore Christ came to be baptized at this age which admits of all sins; in order that by His observing the law, no one might say that because He Himself could not fulfil it, He did away with it." |
| Tertio, quia per hoc quod Christus in aetate perfecta baptizatur, datur intelligi quod Baptismus parit viros perfectos, secundum illud Ephes. IV, donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionis filii Dei, in virum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi. Unde et ipsa proprietas numeri ad hoc pertinere videtur. Consurgit enim tricenarius numerus ex ductu ternarii in denarium; per ternarium autem intelligitur fides Trinitatis, per denarium autem impletio mandatorum legis; et in his duobus perfectio vitae Christianae consistit. | Thirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we are given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men, according to Eph. 4:13: "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ." Hence the very property of the number seems to point to this. For thirty is product of three and ten: and by the number three is implied faith in the Trinity, while ten signifies the fulfilment of the commandments of the Law: in which two things the perfection of Christian life consists. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, Christus non est baptizatus quasi indigeret purgatione, nec aliquod illi immineret periculum differendo Baptismum. Sed cuivis alii non in parvum redundat periculum, si exeat ex hac vita non indutus veste incorruptionis, scilicet gratia. Et licet bonum sit post Baptismum munditiam custodire, potius tamen est, ut ipse dicit, interdum paulisper maculari, quam gratia omnino carere. | Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xl), Christ was baptized, not "as though He needed to be cleansed, or as though some peril threatened Him if He delayed to be baptized. But no small danger besets any other man who departs from this life without being clothed with the garment of incorruptibility"---namely, grace. And though it be a good thing to remain clean after baptism, "yet is it still better," as he says, "to be slightly sullied now and then than to be altogether deprived of grace." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod utilitas quae a Christo provenit hominibus praecipue est per fidem et humilitatem, ad quorum utrumque valet quod Christus non in pueritia vel in adolescentia coepit docere, sed in perfecta aetate. Ad fidem quidem, quia per hoc ostenditur in eo vera humanitas, quod per temporum incrementa corporaliter profecit, et ne huiusmodi profectus putaretur esse phantasticus, noluit suam sapientiam et virtutem manifestare ante perfectam corporis aetatem. Ad humilitatem vero, ne ante perfectam aetatem aliquis praesumptuose praelationis gradum et docendi officium assumat. | Reply to Objection 2: The profit which accrues to men from Christ is chiefly through faith and humility: to both of which He conduced by beginning to teach not in His boyhood or youth, but at the perfect age. To faith, because in this manner His human nature is shown to be real, by its making bodily progress with the advance of time; and lest this progress should be deemed imaginary, He did not wish to show His wisdom and power before His body had reached the perfect age: to humility, lest anyone should presume to govern or teach others before attaining to perfect age. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus proponebatur hominibus in exemplum omnium. Et ideo oportuit in eo ostendi id quod competit omnibus secundum legem communem, ut scilicet in aetate perfecta doceret. Sed, sicut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, non est lex Ecclesiae quod raro contingit, sicut nec una hirundo ver facit. Aliquibus enim, ex quadam speciali dispensatione, secundum divinae sapientiae rationem, concessum est, praeter legem communem, ut ante perfectam aetatem officium vel praesidendi vel docendi haberent, sicut Salomon, Daniel et Ieremias. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ was set before men as an example to all. Wherefore it behooved that to be shown forth in Him, which is becoming to all according to the common law---namely, that He should teach after reaching the perfect age. But, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), that which seldom occurs is not the law of the Church; as "neither does one swallow make the spring." For by special dispensation, in accordance with the ruling of Divine wisdom, it has been granted to some, contrary to the common law, to exercise the functions of governing or teaching. such as Solomon, Daniel, and Jeremias. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod Christus nec primus nec ultimus debuit a Ioanne baptizari. Quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., Christus ad hoc baptizatur ut confirmaret praedicationem et Baptismum Ioannis; et ut testimonium acciperet a Ioanne. Non autem creditum fuisset testimonio Ioannis nisi postquam multi fuerunt baptizati ab ipso. Et ideo non debuit primus a Ioanne baptizari. Similiter etiam nec ultimus. Quia, sicut ipse ibidem subdit, sicut lux solis non expectat occasum Luciferi, sed eo procedente egreditur, et suo lumine obscurat illius candorem; sic et Christus non expectavit ut cursum suum Ioannes impleret, sed, adhuc eo docente et baptizante, apparuit. | Reply to Objection 4: It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by John either before or after all others. Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]), for this was Christ baptized, "that He might confirm the preaching and the baptism of John, and that John might bear witness to Him." Now, men would not have had faith in John's testimony except after many had been baptized by him. Consequently it was not fitting that John should baptize Him before baptizing anyone else. In like manner, neither was it fitting that he should baptize Him last. For as he (Chrysostom) says in the same passage: "As the light of the sun does not wait for the setting of the morning star, but comes forth while the latter is still above the horizon, and by its brilliance dims its shining: so Christ did not wait till John had run his course, but appeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing." |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non debuerit baptizari in Iordane. Veritas enim debet respondere figurae. Sed figura Baptismi praecessit in transitu maris rubri, ubi Aegyptii sunt submersi, sicut peccata delentur in Baptismo. Ergo videtur quod Christus magis debuerit baptizari in mari quam in flumine Iordanis. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized in the Jordan. For the reality should correspond to the figure. But baptism was prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptians were drowned, just as our sins are blotted out in baptism. Therefore it seems that Christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river Jordan. |
| Praeterea, Iordanis interpretatur descensus. Sed per Baptismum aliquis plus ascendit quam descendit, unde et Matth. III dicitur quod baptizatus Iesus confestim ascendit de aqua. Ergo videtur inconveniens fuisse quod Christus in Iordane baptizaretur. |
Objection 2: Further, "Jordan" is interpreted a "going down." But by baptism a man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written (Mt. 3:16) that "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay: 'out'] from the water." Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. |
| Praeterea, transeuntibus filiis Israel, aquae Iordanis conversae sunt retrorsum, ut legitur Iosue IV, et sicut in Psalmo dicitur. Sed illi qui baptizantur, non retrorsum, sed in antea progrediuntur. Non ergo fuit conveniens ut Christus in Iordane baptizaretur. | Objection 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the waters of the Jordan "were turned back," as it is related Jos. 4, and as it is written Ps. 113:3,5. But those who are baptized go forward, not back. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Marci I, quod baptizatus est Iesus a Ioanne in Iordane. | On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 1:9) that "Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod fluvius Iordanis fuit per quem filii Israel in terram promissionis intraverunt. Hoc autem habet Baptismus Christi speciale prae omnibus Baptismatibus, quod introducit in regnum Dei, quod per terram promissionis significatur, unde dicitur Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Ad quod etiam pertinet quod Elias divisit aquas Iordanis, qui erat in curru igneo rapiendus in caelum, ut dicitur IV Reg. II, quia scilicet transeuntibus per aquam Baptismi, per ignem spiritus sancti patet aditus in caelum. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut Christus in Iordane baptizaretur. |
I answer that, It was through the river Jordan that the children of Israel entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative of Christ's baptism over all other baptisms: that it is the entrance to the kingdom of God, which is signified by the land of promise; wherefore it is said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To this also is to be referred the dividing of the water of the Jordan by Elias, who was to be snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as it is related 4 Kgs. 2: because, to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the Holy Ghost, to those who pass through the waters of baptism. Therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod transitus maris rubri praefiguravit Baptismum quantum ad hoc quod Baptismus delet peccata. Sed transitus Iordanis quantum ad hoc quod aperit ianuam regni caelestis, qui est principalior effectus Baptismi, et per solum Christum impletus. Et ideo convenientius fuit quod Christus in Iordane quam in mari baptizaretur. | Reply to Objection 1: The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in this---that baptism washes away sin: whereas the crossing of the Jordan foreshadows it in this---that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom: and this is the principal effect of baptism, and accomplished through Christ alone. And therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan rather than in the sea. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in Baptismo est ascensus per profectum gratiae, qui requirit humilitatis descensum, secundum illud Iac. IV, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Et ad talem descensum referendum est nomen Iordanis. | Reply to Objection 2: In baptism we "go up" by advancing in grace: for which we need to "go down" by humility, according to James 4:6: "He giveth grace to the humble." And to this "going down" must the name of the Jordan be referred. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in sermone de Epiphania, sicut antea aquae Iordanis retrorsum conversae fuerant, ita modo, Christo baptizato, peccata retrorsum conversa sunt. Vel etiam per hoc significatur quod, contra descensum aquarum, benedictionum fluvius sursum ferebatur. | Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany (x): "As of yore the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ was baptized, the torrent of sin was held back." Or else this may signify that against the downward flow of the waters the river of blessings flowed upwards. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christo baptizato non debuerunt caeli aperiri. Illi enim aperiendi sunt caeli qui indiget intrare in caelum, quasi extra caelum existens. Sed Christus semper erat in caelo, secundum illud Ioan. III, filius hominis qui est in caelo. Ergo videtur quod non debuerint ei caeli aperiri. | Objection 1: It would seem that the heavens should not have been opened unto Christ at His baptism. For the heavens should be opened unto one who needs to enter heaven, by reason of his being out of heaven. But Christ was always in heaven, according to Jn. 3:13: "The Son of Man who is in heaven." Therefore it seems that the heavens should not have been opened unto Him. |
| Praeterea, apertio caelorum aut intelligitur corporaliter, aut spiritualiter. Sed non potest intelligi corporaliter, quia corpora caelestia sunt impassibilia et infrangibilia, secundum illud Iob XXXVII, tu forsitan fabricatus es caelos, qui solidissimi quasi aere fusi sunt? Similiter etiam nec potest intelligi spiritualiter, quia ante oculos filii Dei caeli antea clausi non fuerant. Ergo inconvenienter videtur dici quod baptizato Christo aperti fuerunt caeli. | Objection 2: Further, the opening of the heavens is understood either in a corporal or in a spiritual sense. But it cannot be understood in a corporal sense: because the heavenly bodies are impassible and indissoluble, according to Job 37:18: "Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with Him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass." In like manner neither can it be understood in a spiritual sense, because the heavens were not previously closed to the eyes of the Son of God. Therefore it seems unbecoming to say that when Christ was baptized "the heavens were opened." |
| Praeterea, fidelibus caelum apertum est per Christi passionem, secundum illud Heb. X, habemus fiduciam in introitum sanctorum in sanguine Christi. Unde etiam nec baptizati Baptismo Christi, si qui ante eius passionem decesserunt, caelos intrare potuerunt. Ergo magis debuerunt aperiri caeli Christo patiente, quam eo baptizato. | Objection 3: Further, heaven was opened to the faithful through Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:19: "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ." Wherefore not even those who were baptized with Christ's baptism, and died before His Passion, could enter heaven. Therefore the heavens should have been opened when Christ was suffering rather than when He was baptized. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. III, Iesu baptizato et orante, apertum est caelum. |
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, Christus baptizari voluit ut suo Baptismo consecraret Baptismum quo nos baptizaremur et ideo in Baptismo Christi ea demonstrari debuerunt quae pertinent ad efficaciam nostri Baptismi. Circa quam tria sunt consideranda. Primo quidem, principalis virtus ex qua Baptismus efficaciam habet, quae quidem est virtus caelestis. Et ideo baptizato Christo apertum est caelum, ut ostenderetur quod de cetero caelestis virtus Baptismum sanctificaret. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]; Question [38], Article [1]), Christ wished to be baptized in order to consecrate the baptism wherewith we were to be baptized. And therefore it behooved those things to be shown forth which belong to the efficacy of our baptism: concerning which efficacy three points are to be considered. First, the principal power from which it is derived; and this, indeed, is a heavenly power. For which reason, when Christ was baptized, heaven was opened, to show that in future the heavenly power would sanctify baptism. |
| Secundo, operatur ad efficaciam Baptismi fides Ecclesiae et eius qui baptizatur, unde et baptizati fidem profitentur, et Baptismus dicitur fidei sacramentum. Per fidem autem inspicimus caelestia, quae sensum et rationem humanam excedunt. Et ad hoc significandum, Christo baptizato aperti sunt caeli. | Secondly, the faith of the Church and of the person baptized conduces to the efficacy of baptism: wherefore those who are baptized make a profession of faith, and baptism is called the "sacrament of faith." Now by faith we gaze on heavenly things, which surpass the senses and human reason. And in order to signify this, the heavens were opened when Christ was baptized. |
| Tertio, quia per Baptismum Christi specialiter aperitur nobis introitus regni caelestis, qui primo homini praeclusus fuerat per peccatum. Unde baptizato Christo aperti sunt caeli, ut ostenderetur quod baptizatis patet via in caelum. | Thirdly, because the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to us by the baptism of Christ in a special manner, which entrance had been closed to the first man through sin. Hence, when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened, to show that the way to heaven is open to the baptized. |
| Post Baptismum autem necessaria est homini iugis oratio, ad hoc quod caelum introeat, licet enim per Baptismum remittantur peccata, remanet tamen fomes peccati nos impugnans interius, et mundus et Daemones qui impugnant exterius. Et ideo signanter dicitur Luc. III quod, Iesu baptizato et orante, apertum est caelum, quia scilicet fidelibus necessaria est oratio post Baptismum. Vel ut detur intelligi quod hoc ipsum quod per Baptismum caelum aperitur credentibus, est ex virtute orationis Christi. Unde signanter dicitur, Matth. III, quod apertum est ei caelum, idest, omnibus propter eum, sicut si imperator alicui pro alio petenti dicat, ecce, hoc beneficium non illi do, sed tibi, idest, propter te illi; ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth. |
Now after baptism man needs to pray continually, in order to enter heaven: for though sins are remitted through baptism, there still remain the fomes of sin assailing us from within, and the world and the devils assailing us from without. And therefore it is said pointedly (Lk. 3:21) that "Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened": because, to wit, the faithful after baptism stand in need of prayer. Or else, that we may be led to understand that the very fact that through baptism heaven is opened to believers is in virtue of the prayer of Christ. Hence it is said pointedly (Mt. 3:16) that "heaven was opened to Him"---that is, "to all for His sake." Thus, for example, the Emperor might say to one asking a favor for another: "Behold, I grant this favor, not to him, but to thee"---that is, "to him for thy sake," as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., sicut Christus secundum dispensationem humanam baptizatus est, quamvis propter se Baptismo non indigeret; sic secundum humanam dispensationem aperti sunt ei caeli, secundum autem naturam divinam semper erat in caelis. | Reply to Objection 1: According to Chrysostom (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum), as Christ was baptized for man's sake, though He needed no baptism for His own sake, so the heavens were opened unto Him as man, whereas in respect of His Divine Nature He was ever in heaven. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., caeli aperti sunt Christo baptizato, non reseratione elementorum, sed spiritualibus oculis, sicut et Ezechiel in principio voluminis sui caelos apertos esse commemorat. Et hoc probat Chrysostomus, super Matth., dicens quod, si ipsa creatura, scilicet caelorum, rupta fuisset, non dixisset, aperti sunt ei, quia quod corporaliter aperitur, omnibus est apertum. Unde et Marci I expresse dicitur quod Iesus statim ascendens de aqua, vidit caelos apertos, quasi ipsa apertio caelorum ad visionem Christi referatur. Quod quidem aliqui referunt ad visionem corporalem, dicentes quod circa Christum baptizatum tantus splendor fulsit in Baptismo ut viderentur caeli aperti. Potest etiam referri ad imaginariam visionem, per quem modum Ezechiel vidit caelos apertos, formabatur enim ex virtute divina et voluntate rationis talis visio in imaginatione Christi, ad significandum quod per Baptismum caeli aditus hominibus aperitur. Potest etiam ad visionem intellectualem referri, prout Christus vidit, Baptismo iam sanctificato, apertum esse caelum hominibus; quod tamen etiam ante viderat fiendum. | Reply to Objection 2: As Jerome says on Mt. 3:16,17, the heavens were opened to Christ when He was baptized, not by an unfolding of the elements, but by a spiritual vision: thus does Ezechiel relate the opening of the heavens at the beginning of his book. And Chrysostom proves this (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum) by saying that "if the creature"---namely, heaven---"had been sundered he would not have said, 'were opened to Him,' since what is opened in a corporeal sense is open to all." Hence it is said expressly (Mk. 1:10) that Jesus "forthwith coming up out of the water, saw the heavens opened"; as though the opening of the heavens were to be considered as seen by Christ. Some, indeed, refer this to the corporeal vision, and say that such a brilliant light shone round about Christ when He was baptized, that the heavens seemed to be opened. It can also be referred to the imaginary vision, in which manner Ezechiel saw the heavens opened: since such a vision was formed in Christ's imagination by the Divine power and by His rational will, so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is opened to men through baptism. Lastly, it can be referred to intellectual vision: forasmuch as Christ, when He had sanctified baptism, saw that heaven was opened to men: nevertheless He had seen before that this would be accomplished. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod per passionem Christi aperitur caelum hominibus sicut per causam communem apertionis caelorum. Oportet tamen hanc causam singulis applicari, ad hoc quod caelum introeant. Quod quidem fit per Baptismum, secundum illud Rom. VI, quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Et ideo potius fit mentio de apertione caelorum in Baptismo quam in passione. Vel, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., baptizato Christo caeli tantum sunt aperti, postquam vero tyrannum vicit per crucem, quia non erant portae necessariae caelo nunquam claudendo, non dicunt Angeli, aperite portas, sed, tollite portas. Per quod dat intelligere Chrysostomus quod obstacula quibus prius obsistentibus animae defunctorum introire non poterant caelos, sunt totaliter per passionem ablata, sed in Baptismo Christi sunt aperta, quasi manifestata iam via per quam homines in caelum erant intraturi. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Passion is the common cause of the opening of heaven to men. But it behooves this cause to be applied to each one, in order that he enter heaven. And this is effected by baptism, according to Rm. 6:3: "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His death." Wherefore mention is made of the opening of the heavens at His baptism rather than at His Passion. |
| Or, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum): "When Christ was baptized, the heavens were merely opened: but after He had vanquished the tyrant by the cross; since gates were no longer needed for a heaven which thenceforth would be never closed, the angels said, not 'open the gates,' but 'Take them away.'" Thus Chrysostom gives us to understand that the obstacles which had hitherto hindered the souls of the departed from entering into heaven were entirely removed by the Passion: but at Christ's baptism they were opened, as though the way had been shown by which men were to enter into heaven. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter spiritus sanctus super Christum baptizatum dicatur in specie columbae descendisse. Spiritus enim sanctus habitat in homine per gratiam. Sed in homine Christo fuit plenitudo gratiae a principio suae conceptionis, quo fuit unigenitus a patre, ut ex supra dictis patet ergo non debuit spiritus sanctus ad eum mitti in Baptismo. |
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not fitting to say that when Christ was baptized the Holy Ghost came down on Him in the form of a dove. For the Holy Ghost dwells in man by grace. But the fulness of grace was in the Man-Christ from the beginning of His conception, because He was the "Only-begotten of the Father," as is clear from what has been said above (Question [7], Article [12]; Question [34], Article [1]). Therefore the Holy Ghost should not have been sent to Him at His baptism. |
| Praeterea, Christus dicitur in mundum descendisse per mysterium incarnationis, quando exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens. Sed spiritus sanctus non est incarnatus. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur quod spiritus sanctus descenderit super eum. |
Objection 2: Further, Christ is said to have "descended" into the world in the mystery of the Incarnation, when "He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7). But the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate. Therefore it is unbecoming to say that the Holy Ghost "descended upon Him." |
| Praeterea, in Baptismo Christi ostendi debuit, sicut in quodam exemplari, id quod fit in nostro Baptismo. Sed in nostro Baptismo non fit aliqua missio visibilis spiritus sancti. Ergo nec in Baptismo Christi debuit fieri visibilis missio spiritus sancti. | Objection 3: Further, that which is accomplished in our baptism should have been shown in Christ's baptism, as in an exemplar. But in our baptism no visible mission of the Holy Ghost takes place. Therefore neither should a visible mission of the Holy Ghost have taken place in Christ's baptism. |
| Praeterea, spiritus sanctus a Christo in omnes alios derivatur, secundum illud Ioan. I, de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Sed super apostolos spiritus sanctus descendit, non in specie columbae, sed in specie ignis. Ergo nec super Christum in specie columbae descendere debuit, sed in specie ignis. | Objection 4: Further, the Holy Ghost is poured forth on others through Christ, according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." But the Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the form, not of a dove, but of fire. Therefore neither should He have come down on Christ in the form of a dove, but in the form of fire. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. III, descendit spiritus sanctus corporali specie sicut columba in ipsum. |
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:22): "The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod hoc quod circa Christum factum est in eius Baptismo, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., pertinet ad mysterium omnium qui postmodum fuerant baptizandi. Omnes autem qui Baptismo Christi baptizantur, spiritum sanctum recipiunt, nisi ficti accedant, secundum illud Matth. III, ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut super baptizatum dominum spiritus sanctus descenderet. | I answer that, What took place with respect to Christ in His baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]), "is connected with the mystery accomplished in all who were to be baptized afterwards." Now, all those who are baptized with the baptism of Christ receive the Holy Ghost, unless they approach unworthily; according to Mt. 3:11: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost." Therefore it was fitting that when our Lord was baptized the Holy Ghost should descend upon Him. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XV de Trin., absurdissimum est dicere quod Christus, cum esset iam triginta annorum, accepisset spiritum sanctum, sed venit ad Baptismum, sicut sine peccato, ita non sine spiritu sancto. Si enim de Ioanne scriptum est quod replebitur spiritu sancto ab utero matris suae, quid de homine Christo dicendum est, cuius carnis ipsa conceptio non carnalis, sed spiritualis fuit? Nunc ergo, idest in Baptismo, corpus suum, idest Ecclesiam, praefigurare dignatus est, in qua baptizati praecipue accipiunt spiritum sanctum. | Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Trin. xv): "It is most absurd to say that Christ received the Holy Ghost, when He was already thirty years old: for when He came to be baptized, since He was without sin, therefore was He not without the Holy Ghost. For if it is written of John that 'he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb,' what must we say of the Man-Christ, whose conception in the flesh was not carnal, but spiritual? Therefore now," i.e. at His baptism, "He deigned to foreshadow His body," i.e. the Church, "in which those who are baptized receive the Holy Ghost in a special manner." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in II de Trin., spiritus sanctus descendisse dicitur super Christum specie corporali sicut columba, non quia ipsa substantia spiritus sancti videretur, quae est invisibilis. Neque ita quod illa visibilis creatura in unitatem personae divinae assumeretur, neque enim dicitur quod spiritus sanctus sit columba, sicut dicitur quod filius Dei est homo, ratione unionis. Neque etiam hoc modo spiritus sanctus visus est in specie columbae sicut Ioannes vidit agnum occisum in Apocalypsi, ut habetur Apoc. V, illa enim visio facta fuit in spiritu per spirituales imagines corporum; de illa vero columba nullus unquam dubitavit quin oculis visa sit. Nec etiam hoc modo in specie columbae spiritus sanctus apparuit sicut dicitur, I Cor. X, petra autem erat Christus, illa enim iam erat in creatura, et per actionis modum nuncupata est nomine Christi, quem significabat illa autem columba ad hoc tantum significandum repente extitit et postea cessavit, sicut flamma quae in rubo apparuit Moysi. |
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. ii), the Holy Ghost is said to have descended on Christ in a bodily shape, as a dove, not because the very substance of the Holy Ghost was seen, for He is invisible: nor as though that visible creature were assumed into the unity of the Divine Person; since it is not said that the Holy Ghost was the dove, as it is said that the Son of God is man by reason of the union. Nor, again, was the Holy Ghost seen under the form of a dove, after the manner in which John saw the slain Lamb in the Apocalypse (5:6): "For the latter vision took place in the spirit through spiritual images of bodies; whereas no one ever doubted that this dove was seen by the eyes of the body." Nor, again, did the Holy Ghost appear under the form of a dove in the sense in which it is said (1 Cor. 10:4): "'Now, the rock was Christ': for the latter had already a created existence, and through the manner of its action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified: whereas this dove came suddenly into existence, to fulfil the purpose of its signification, and afterwards ceased to exist, like the flame which appeared in the bush to Moses." |
| Dicitur ergo spiritus sanctus descendisse super Christum, non ratione unionis ad columbam, sed vel ratione ipsius columbae significantis spiritum sanctum, quae descendendo super Christum venit; vel etiam ratione spiritualis gratiae, quae a Deo per modum cuiusdam descensus in creaturam derivatur, secundum illud Iac. I, omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum, desursum est, descendens a patre luminum. | Hence the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon Christ, not by reason of His being united to the dove: but either because the dove itself signified the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it "descended" when it came upon Him; or, again, by reason of the spiritual grace, which is poured out by God, so as to descend, as it were, on the creature, according to James 1:17: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., in principiis spiritualium rerum semper sensibiles apparent visiones, propter eos qui nullam intelligentiam incorporalis naturae suscipere possunt, ut, si postea non fiant, ex his quae semel facta sunt, recipiant fidem. Et ideo circa Christum baptizatum corporali specie spiritus sanctus visibiliter descendit, ut super omnes baptizatos postea invisibiliter credatur descendere. | Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): "At the beginning of all spiritual transactions sensible visions appear, for the sake of them who cannot conceive at all an incorporeal nature... so that, though afterwards no such thing occur, they may shape their faith according to that which has occurred once for all." And therefore the Holy Ghost descended visibly, under a bodily shape, on Christ at His baptism, in order that we may believe Him to descend invisibly on all those who are baptized. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod spiritus sanctus in specie columbae apparuit super Christum baptizatum, propter quatuor. Primo quidem, propter dispositionem quae requiritur in baptizato, ut scilicet non fictus accedat, quia, sicut dicitur Sap. I, spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum. Columba enim est animal simplex, astutia et dolo carens, unde dicitur Matth. X, estote simplices sicut columbae. | Reply to Objection 4: The Holy Ghost appeared over Christ at His baptism, under the form of a dove, for four reasons. First, on account of the disposition required in the one baptized---namely, that he approach in good faith: since! as it is written (Wis. 1:5): "The holy spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful." For the dove is an animal of a simple character, void of cunning and deceit: whence it is said (Mt. 10:16): "Be ye simple as doves." |
| Secundo, ad designandum septem dona spiritus sancti, quae columba suis proprietatibus significat. Columba enim secus fluenta habitat, ut, viso accipitre, mergat se et evadat. Quod pertinet ad donum sapientiae, per quam sancti secus Scripturae divinae fluenta resident, ut incursum Diaboli evadant. Item columba meliora grana eligit. Quod pertinet ad donum scientiae, qua sancti sententias sanas, quibus pascantur, eligunt. Item columba alienos pullos nutrit. Quod pertinet ad donum consilii, quo sancti homines, qui fuerunt pulli, idest imitatores, Diaboli, doctrina nutriunt et exemplo. Item columba non lacerat rostro. Quod pertinet ad donum intellectus, quo sancti bonas sententias lacerando non pervertunt, haereticorum more. Item columba felle caret. Quod pertinet ad donum pietatis, per quam sancti ira irrationabili carent. Item columba in cavernis petrae nidificat. Quod pertinet ad donum fortitudinis, qua sancti in plagis mortis Christi, qui est petra firma, nidum ponunt, idest, suum refugium et spem. Item columba gemitum pro cantu habet. Quod pertinet ad donum timoris, quo sancti delectantur in gemitu pro peccatis. | Secondly, in order to designate the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are signified by the properties of the dove. For the dove dwells beside the running stream, in order that, on perceiving the hawk, it may plunge in and escape. This refers to the gift of wisdom, whereby the saints dwell beside the running waters of Holy Scripture, in order to escape the assaults of the devil. Again, the dove prefers the more choice seeds. This refers to the gift of knowledge, whereby the saints make choice of sound doctrines, with which they nourish themselves. Further, the dove feeds the brood of other birds. This refers to the gift of counsel, with which the saints, by teaching and example, feed men who have been the brood, i.e. imitators, of the devil. Again, the dove tears not with its beak. This refers to the gift of understanding, wherewith the saints do not rend sound doctrines, as heretics do. Again, the dove has no gall. This refers to the gift of piety, by reason of which the saints are free from unreasonable anger. Again, the dove builds its nest in the cleft of a rock. This refers to the gift of fortitude, wherewith the saints build their nest, i.e. take refuge and hope, in the death wounds of Christ, who is the Rock of strength. Lastly, the dove has a plaintive song. This refers to the gift of fear, wherewith the saints delight in bewailing sins. |
| Tertio, apparuit spiritus sanctus in specie columbae propter effectum proprium Baptismi, qui est remissio peccatorum et reconciliatio ad Deum, columba enim est animal mansuetum. Et ideo, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., in diluvio apparuit hoc animal, ramum ferens olivae et communem orbis terrarum tranquillitatem annuntians, et nunc etiam columba apparet in Baptismo, liberationem nobis demonstrans. | Thirdly, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove on account of the proper effect of baptism, which is the remission of sins and reconciliation with God: for the dove is a gentle creature. Wherefore, as Chrysostom says, (Hom. xii in Matth.), "at the Deluge this creature appeared bearing an olive branch, and publishing the tidings of the universal peace of the whole world: and now again the dove appears at the baptism, pointing to our Deliverer." |
| Quarto, apparuit spiritus sanctus in specie columbae super dominum baptizatum, ad designandum communem effectum Baptismi, qui est constructio ecclesiasticae unitatis. Unde dicitur Ephes. V, quod Christus tradidit semetipsum ut exhiberet sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam, non habentem maculam aut rugam aut aliquid huiusmodi, lavans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. Et ideo convenienter spiritus sanctus in Baptismo demonstratus est in specie columbae, quae est animal amicabile et gregale. Unde et Cantic. VI dicitur de Ecclesia, una est columba mea. |
Fourthly, the Holy Ghost appeared over our Lord at His baptism in the form of a dove, in order to designate the common effect of baptism---namely, the building up of the unity of the Church. Hence it is written (Eph. 5:25-27): "Christ delivered Himself up... that He might present... to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing... cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." Therefore it was fitting that the Holy Ghost should appear at the baptism under the form of a dove, which is a creature both loving and gregarious. Wherefore also it is said of the Church (Cant 6:8): "One is my dove." |
| Super apostolos autem in specie ignis spiritus sanctus descendit, propter duo. Primo quidem, ad ostendendum fervorem quo corda eorum erant commovenda, ad hoc quod Christum ubicumque inter pressuras praedicarent. Et ideo etiam in igneis linguis apparuit. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., duobus modis ostendit visibiliter dominus spiritum sanctum, scilicet per columbam, super dominum baptizatum; per ignem, super discipulos congregatos. Ibi simplicitas, hic fervor ostenditur. Ergo, ne per spiritum sanctificati dolum habeant, in columba demonstratus est, et ne simplicitas frigida remaneat, in igne demonstratus est. Nec moveat, quia linguae divisae sunt, unitatem in columba cognosce. | But on the apostles the Holy Ghost descended under the form of fire, for two reasons. First, to show with what fervor their hearts were to be moved, so as to preach Christ everywhere, though surrounded by opposition. And therefore He appeared as a fiery tongue. Hence Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. vi): Our Lord "manifests" the Holy Ghost "visibly in two ways"---namely, "by the dove corning upon the Lord when He was baptized; by fire, coming upon the disciples when they were met together... In the former case simplicity is shown, in the latter fervor... We learn, then, from the dove, that those who are sanctified by the Spirit should be without guile: and from the fire, that their simplicity should not be left to wax cold. Nor let it disturb anyone that the tongues were cloven... in the dove recognize unity." |
| Secundo quia, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, cum oportebat delictis ignoscere, quod fit in Baptismo, mansuetudo necessaria erat, quae demonstratur in columba. Sed ubi adepti sumus gratiam, restat iudicii tempus, quod significatur per ignem. | Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Gregory, Hom. xxx in Ev.): "Since sins had to be forgiven," which is effected in baptism, "meekness was required"; this is shown by the dove: "but when we have obtained grace we must look forward to be judged"; and this is signified by the fire. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod illa columba in qua spiritus sanctus apparuit, non fuerit verum animal. Illud enim videtur specie tenus apparere quod secundum similitudinem apparet sed Luc. III dicitur quod descendit spiritus sanctus corporali specie sicut columba in ipsum. Non ergo fuit vera columba, sed quaedam similitudo columbae. |
Objection 1: It would seem that the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was not real. For that seems to be a mere apparition which appears in its semblance. But it is stated (Lk. 3:22) that the "Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." Therefore it was not a real dove, but a semblance of a dove. |
| Praeterea, sicut natura nihil facit frustra, ita nec Deus, ut dicitur in I de caelo. Sed cum columba illa non advenerit nisi ut aliquid significaret atque praeteriret, ut Augustinus dicit, in II de Trin., frustra fuisset vera columba, quia hoc ipsum fieri poterat per columbae similitudinem. Non ergo illa columba fuit verum animal. | Objection 2: Further, just as "Nature does nothing useless, so neither does God" (De Coelo i). Now since this dove came merely "in order to signify something and pass away," as Augustine says (De Trin. ii), a real dove would have been useless: because the semblance of a dove was sufficient for that purpose. Therefore it was not a real dove. |
| Praeterea, proprietates cuiuslibet rei ducunt in cognitionem naturae illius rei. Si ergo fuisset illa columba verum animal, proprietates columbae significassent naturam veri animalis, non autem effectus spiritus sancti. Non ergo videtur quod illa columba fuerit verum animal. | Objection 3: Further, the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of that thing. If, therefore, this were a real dove, its properties would have signified the nature of the real animal, and not the effect of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that it was not a real dove. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de agone Christiano, neque hoc ita dicimus ut dominum Iesum Christum dicamus solum verum corpus habuisse, spiritum autem sanctum fallaciter apparuisse oculis hominum, sed ambo illa corpora vera esse credimus. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxii): "Nor do we say this as though we asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ alone had a real body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared to men's eyes in a fallacious manner: but we say that both those bodies were real." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, non decebat ut filius Dei, qui est veritas patris, aliqua fictione uteretur, et ideo non phantasticum, sed verum corpus accepit. Et quia spiritus sanctus dicitur spiritus veritatis, ut patet Ioan. XVI, ideo etiam ipse veram columbam formavit in qua appareret, licet non assumeret ipsam in unitatem personae. Unde post praedicta verba Augustinus subdit, sicut non oportebat ut homines falleret filius Dei, sic etiam non oportebat ut falleret spiritus sanctus. Sed omnipotenti Deo, qui universam creaturam ex nihilo fabricavit, non erat difficile verum corpus columbae sine aliarum columbarum ministerio figurare, sicut non fuit ei difficile verum corpus in utero Mariae sine virili semine fabricare, cum creatura corporea et in visceribus feminae ad formandum hominem, et in ipso mundo ad formandum columbam, imperio domini voluntatique serviret. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [5], Article [1]), it was unbecoming that the Son of God, who is the Truth of the Father, should make use of anything unreal; wherefore He took, not an imaginary, but a real body. And since the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Truth, as appears from Jn. 16:13, therefore He too made a real dove in which to appear, though He did not assume it into unity of person. Wherefore, after the words quoted above, Augustine adds: "Just as it behooved the Son of God not to deceive men, so it behooved the Holy Ghost not to deceive. But it was easy for Almighty God, who created all creatures out of nothing, to frame the body of a real dove without the help of other doves, just as it was easy for Him to form a true body in Mary's womb without the seed of a man: since the corporeal creature obeys its Lord's command and will, both in the mother's womb in forming a man, and in the world itself in forming a dove." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod spiritus sanctus dicitur descendisse in specie vel similitudine columbae, non ad excludendam veritatem columbae, sed ad ostendendum quod non apparuit in specie suae substantiae. | Reply to Objection 1: The Holy Ghost is said to have descended in the shape or semblance of a dove, not in the sense that the dove was not real, but in order to show that He did not appear in the form of His substance. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod non fuit superfluum formare veram columbam ut in ea spiritus sanctus appareret, quia per ipsam veritatem columbae significatur veritas spiritus sancti et effectuum eius. | Reply to Objection 2: It was not superfluous to form a real dove, in which the Holy Ghost might appear, because by the very reality of the dove the reality of the Holy Ghost and of His effects is signified. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod proprietates columbae eodem modo ducunt ad significandam naturam columbae, et ad designandos effectus spiritus sancti. Per hoc enim quod columba habet tales proprietates, contingit quod columba significat spiritum sanctum. | Reply to Objection 3: The properties of the dove lead us to understand the dove's nature and the effects of the Holy Ghost in the same way. Because from the very fact that the dove has such properties, it results that it signifies the Holy Ghost. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 39 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter, Christo baptizato, fuit vox patris audita filium protestantis. Filius enim et spiritus sanctus, secundum hoc quod sensibiliter apparuerunt, dicuntur visibiliter esse missi. Sed patri non convenit mitti, ut patet per Augustinum, in II de Trin. Ergo etiam nec apparere. | Objection 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming when Christ was baptized for the Father's voice to be heard bearing witness to the Son. For the Son and the Holy Ghost, according as they have appeared visibly, are said to have been visibly sent. But it does not become the Father to be sent, as Augustine makes it clear (De Trin. ii). Neither, therefore, (does it become Him) to appear. |
| Praeterea, vox est significativa verbi in corde concepti. Sed pater non est verbum. Ergo inconvenienter manifestatur in voce. | Objection 2: Further, the voice gives expression to the word conceived in the heart. But the Father is not the Word. Therefore He is unfittingly manifested by a voice. |
| Praeterea, homo Christus non incoepit esse filius Dei in Baptismo, sicut quidam haeretici putaverunt, sed a principio suae conceptionis fuit filius Dei. Magis ergo in nativitate debuit vox patris protestari Christi divinitatem, quam in eius Baptismo. | Objection 3: Further, the Man-Christ did not begin to be Son of God at His baptism, as some heretics have stated: but He was the Son of God from the beginning of His conception. Therefore the Father's voice should have proclaimed Christ's Godhead at His nativity rather than at His baptism. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. III, ecce, vox de caelis dicens, hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui. |
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:17): "Behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in Baptismo Christi, qui fuit exemplar nostri Baptismi, demonstrari debuit quod in nostro Baptismo perficitur. Baptismus autem quo baptizantur fideles, consecratur in invocatione et virtute Trinitatis, secundum illud Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Et ideo in Baptismo Christi, ut Hieronymus dicit, mysterium Trinitatis demonstratur, dominus ipse in natura humana baptizatur; spiritus sanctus descendit in habitu columbae; patris vox testimonium filio perhibentis auditur. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut in illo Baptismo pater declararetur in voce. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [5]), that which is accomplished in our baptism should be manifested in Christ's baptism, which was the exemplar of ours. Now the baptism which the faithful receive is hallowed by the invocation and the power of the Trinity; according to Mt. 28:19: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Wherefore, as Jerome says on Mt. 3:16,17: "The mystery of the Trinity is shown forth in Christ's baptism. our Lord Himself is baptized in His human nature; the Holy Ghost descended in the shape of a dove: the Father's voice is heard bearing witness to the Son." Therefore it was becoming that in that baptism the Father should be manifested by a voice. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod missio visibilis addit aliquid super apparitionem, scilicet auctoritatem mittentis. Et ideo filius et spiritus sanctus, qui sunt ab alio, dicuntur non solum apparere, sed etiam visibiliter mitti. Pater autem, qui non est ab alio, apparere quidem potest, visibiliter autem mitti non potest. | Reply to Objection 1: The visible mission adds something to the apparition, to wit, the authority of the sender. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost who are from another, are said not only to appear, but also to be sent visibly. But the Father, who is not from another, can appear indeed, but cannot be sent visibly. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod pater non demonstratur in voce nisi sicut auctor vocis, vel loquens per vocem. Et quia proprium est patri producere verbum, quod est dicere vel loqui, ideo convenientissime pater per vocem manifestatus est, quae significat verbum. Unde et ipsa vox a patre emissa filiationem verbi protestatur. Et sicut species columbae, in qua demonstratus est spiritus sanctus, non est natura spiritus sancti; nec species hominis, in qua demonstratus est ipse filius, est ipsa natura filii Dei, ita etiam ipsa vox non pertinet ad naturam verbi vel patris loquentis. Unde Ioan. V dominus dicit, neque vocem eius, idest patris, unquam audistis, neque speciem eius vidistis. Per quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Ioan., paulatim eos in philosophicum dogma inducens, ostendit quoniam neque vox circa Deum est neque species, sed superior et figuris est et loquelis talibus. Et sicut columbam, et etiam humanam naturam a Christo assumptam, tota Trinitas operata est, ita etiam formationem vocis, sed tamen in voce declaratur solus pater ut loquens, sicut naturam humanam solus filius assumpsit, et sicut in columba solus spiritus sanctus demonstratus est; ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de fide ad Petrum. |
Reply to Objection 2: The Father is manifested by the voice, only as producing the voice or speaking by it. And since it is proper to the Father to produce the Word---that is, to utter or to speak---therefore was it most becoming that the Father should be manifested by a voice, because the voice designates the word. Wherefore the very voice to which the Father gave utterance bore witness to the Sonship of the Word. And just as the form of the dove, in which the Holy Ghost was made manifest, is not the Nature of the Holy Ghost, nor is the form of man in which the Son Himself was manifested, the very Nature of the Son of God, so neither does the voice belong to the Nature of the Word or of the Father who spoke. Hence (Jn. 5:37) our Lord says: "Neither have you heard His," i.e. the Father's, "voice at any time, nor seen His shape." By which words, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xl in Joan.), "He gradually leads them to the knowledge of the philosophical truth, and shows them that God has neither voice nor shape, but is above all such forms and utterances." And just as the whole Trinity made both the dove and the human nature assumed by Christ, so also they formed the voice: yet the Father alone as speaking is manifested by the voice, just as the Son alone assumed human nature, and the Holy Ghost alone is manifested in the dove, as Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum] makes evident. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod divinitas Christi non debuit omnibus in eius nativitate manifestari, sed magis occultari in defectibus infantilis aetatis. Sed quando iam pervenit ad perfectam aetatem, in qua oportebat eum docere et miracula facere et homines ad se convertere, tunc testimonio patris erat eius divinitas indicanda, ut eius doctrina credibilior fieret. Unde et ipse dicit, Ioan. V, qui misit me pater, ipse testimonium perhibet de me. Et hoc praecipue in Baptismo, per quem homines renascuntur in filios Dei adoptivos, filii enim Dei adoptivi instituuntur ad similitudinem filii naturalis, secundum illud Rom. VIII, quos praescivit, hos et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui. Unde Hilarius dicit, super Matth., quod super Iesum baptizatum descendit spiritus sanctus, et vox patris audita est dicentis, hic est filius meus dilectus, ut ex his quae consummabantur in Christo, cognosceremus, post aquae lavacrum, et de caelestibus partibus sanctum in nos spiritum avolare, et paternae vocis adoptione Dei filios fieri. | Reply to Objection 3: It was becoming that Christ's Godhead should not be proclaimed to all in His nativity, but rather that It should be hidden while He was subject to the defects of infancy. But when He attained to the perfect age, when the time came for Him to teach, to work miracles, and to draw men to Himself then did it behoove His Godhead to be attested from on high by the Father's testimony, so that His teaching might become the more credible. Hence He says (Jn. 5:37): "The Father Himself who sent Me, hath given testimony of Me." And specially at the time of baptism, by which men are born again into adopted sons of God; since God's sons by adoption are made to be like unto His natural Son, according to Rm. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." Hence Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that when Jesus was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended on Him, and the Father's voice was heard saying: "'This is My beloved Son,' that we might know, from what was accomplished in Christ, that after being washed in the waters of baptism the Holy Ghost comes down upon us from on high, and that the Father's voice declares us to have become the adopted sons of God." |