Objections. 1.
John 3:5 must not necessarily be understood about baptism with water, because
it also says that baptism must be in the Holy Spirit, and therefore it only intends
to signify a spiritual renascence.
I deny the antecedent and
distinguish the proof. The Holy Spirit is required in such a way that water is not
required, denied; it is required in such a way that without it
regeneration is not given, conceded. To be reborn of water and the Holy
Spirit signifies that water is the remote matter of baptism which is used for
the ablution; however the bodily ablution signifies the spiritual ablution of
the soul, which takes place by the Holy Spirit or by grace.
2. Objector insists: In
this place the water should be understood metaphorically, since John the
Baptist said about the baptism of Christ: he will baptize you with the Holy
Spirit and with fire (Matt. 3:11). But fire is taken metaphorically. Therefore
also water.
I deny the assertion and the proof.
For to baptize with fire, that is, to wash with fire (πυρι) or to wash something with fire,
is certainly a metaphorical expression, as is per se clear; but not to baptize
or wash something with water.
3. The baptism of Christ is only
the baptism of John; for it is not certain that He wished to institute a new
baptism, and He Himself wanted to be baptized with the baptism of John.
I deny the assertion and its proof.
For it has been proved in the previous thesis that Christ instituted a true
baptismal rite, different from the baptism of John. For, the baptism of John
was only for repentance, while Christ’s baptism is for the remission of sins and
entrance into his Church. (Joseph A. de Aldama, Severino Gonzalez, Francis A P.
Sola, and Joseph F. Sagües, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans.
Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2015], 4-A: 138-39)
Objections.
1. John said that he baptized in water, but that Christ would baptize with the
Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt. 3:11). Therefore the matter of Christ’s
baptism is not water.
I distinguish the antecedent.
St. John the Baptist with these words wished to contrast the effect of his baptism
with the effect of Christ’s baptism, conceded; he wished to contrast the
matter of both baptisms, denied. Actually, the words of St. John the
Baptist show that the effect of Christ’s baptism is per se spiritual, since it directly
remits sins; while the baptism conferred by him is a baptism of water, that is,
it does not directly produce a spiritual effect, but only inasmuch as it
disposes the person for contrition or charity. Acts 1;5 and 11:15 are explained
in this way.
2. In order to express the
spiritual effect which baptism produces, it suffices the action of washing be
determined. Therefore it is not necessary that the trinitarian formula be used.
I bypass the antecedent and deny
the consequent. For, we do not argue from the necessity of signifying the
sacramental effect (which we concede is sufficiently signified by the words “I
baptize you”), but from the words of Christ determining the form.
3. The Apostles were baptizing “in
the name of Jesus.” Therefore the trinitarian form does not pertain to the
essence of baptism. . . .
4. St. Bernard says; “Without
prejudice to those full of wisdom, I think he is truly baptized [that is,
someone baptized with the formula: ‘I baptize you in the name of God and of the
holy and true cross’], for we read in the Acts of the Apostles that some were
baptized not only in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, but also in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Epist. 403)
Therefore the trinitarian form is not required.
I concede the antecedent and deny
the consequent. That is, we admit that they are the words of St. Bernard
(although some wish to doubt that), but we deny that his authority in this
singular matter can lead to a true conclusion. (Ibid., 146)
