Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Miller FormulaBaptismEarly 1925
Miller FormulaBaptismEarly 1925
Miller FormulaBaptismEarly 1925
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Catholic University of America Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Catholic Historical Review
neither, pour water three times on the head in the name of the
Father and Son and Holy Ghost.,, This passage evidently
quotes Matthew 28, 19, and the exegesis of his words both in the
gospel and in the Didache must, therefore, be the same. The
phrase "in the name" has been variously understood: 1) Suarez
says its meaning is that baptism must be administered "nomi?
nando et voce ipsa invocando Patrem et Filium et Spiritum
Sanctum."8 2) Others interpret it as meaning "by authority
of."9 3) Others again say that it signifies the unity of the di?
vine nature.10 4) Still others, more recently and correctly, assert
that it signifies the establishment of a state of juridical depend?
ence from the person mentioned and consecration to this person.1*
For according to Semitic usage the name of a person revealed
the nature of the bearer, as the change and interpretation of
personal names in the Scriptures show. Whichever interpreta?
tion be adopted, if the phrase "in the name" is considered in
Matthew 29, 19, apart from the practical and doctrinal implica?
tions which the Church enlightened by the Holy Ghost finds in
it, or if it is considered in the light of the Didache quoting it, in
neither case does it imply the use of a formula for the adminis?
tration of baptism. This is now commonly admitted by Catholic
theologians for Matthew 28, 19.12 From this it follows that the
same interpretation must apply to the Didache, for there is noth?
ing in the immediate context nor in the general historical set?
ting which allows the inference that these words must be spoken
when the sacrament is administered.
De Baptismo, chapter 2, contains another allusion to the
words spoken during the act of baptism, where Tertulian says
that pagans consider it incredible that one can obtain eternal
8 In /// partent S. Th. q. 66, a. 6, Disp. 21, sec. 3, %o. 4; ?d. Vives, Pc^is,
1877, vol. 20, p. 355.
9 Authors quoted by S?. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, ed. Gaume, Rome.
1907, Vol. Ill, p. 95, No. 112.
10SUAREZ, In /// Partem S. Th., q. 66, d. 21, sect. 3, No. 8; Vol. 20, p.
357.
11 Knabenbauer, Commentarius in Ev. sec. Matth. vol. 2. p. 563, Paris
1893; Buchberger in Kirchliches Handlexikon II, 2307, Munich 1912;
Prat, La Theologie de S. Paul, 3 ed. vol. II, p. 401, Paris 1913; Deissmann,
Licht vom Osten, 3 ed. p. 86, Tuebingen 1909; Preuschen, Handwoert
erbuch z. d. Schriften d. NT. 1 ed. p. 907 Giessen 1910.
12 Knabenbauer, l. c. and authorities cited there ; Sasse, De Sacramen
tis I, 207; Scheeben-Atzberger IV, 1, 520; Tanqueray, Synopsis Theol.
Dogm. III, 276.
Elsewhere he says that "those who are cleansed are made clean,
not through the first, nor the second invocation, but except the
third invocation be pronounced, one cannot be made clean."31
In the foregoing statements the sacramental efficacy of baptism
is ascribed to the invocation of the three divine Persons. In
other writings of Origen the invocations are singled out more
distinctly than above as a separate unit. Thus in the commen?
tary on the gospel according to St. John we learn that baptism
"by its nature is the principle and source of divine gifts to him
who puts himself into the hands of the Deity, because of the
power of the invocations of the adorable Trinity."32 Origen is
more distinct still, though guarding the sacred words with a
tantalizing vagueness, when he says, "When, therefore, anyone
takes this oil with which a sanctified one is anointed, that is, the
Holy Scripture teaching the administration of baptism in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,
changes a few things, performs the anointing, and speaks in a
certain way, thou art no longer a catechumen, for thou hast re?
ceived the washing of regeneration."33 The scriptural instruc?
tion on baptism can hardly be other than Matthew 28, 19. The
use of this oil is the application of the teaching of the Scripture
on baptism. The few changes and the speaking in a certain
way are that use of the instruction which together with the
washing of water is baptism. If we view this statement in con?
junction with those which declare that the invocations of the
Trinity are the essential words of baptism, we have the elements
of the formula : the invocations as a distinct, brief unit.
Firmilian writes to St. Cyprian that in receiving heretics
into the Church it would be absurd to believe that the inquiry
into the orthodoxy of the person who had baptised the convert is
to be omitted on the ground that baptism had been conferred
through the invocation of the three divine Persons, for in addi?
tion to this the true faith is required in the baptiser for the
validity of the sacrament. The invocation of the three divine
Persons confers the grace of baptism when the baptiser has the
and consequently in the mind of the author the use of the for?
mula, is enjoined in Matthew 28, 19.42
The formula of baptism is not quoted again until nearly a
century later in the so-called Canons of Hippolytus: "Ego te
baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti."43
Finally many heretical sects of this early time possessed a
ceremony of baptism which was borrowed from the Christian
rite. If it can be shown that they used a formula patterned
after the Christian formula, then the existence of the latter is
proven for a time preceding the heresy. There is some evidence
to establish this line of argument. The Clementines often men?
tion baptism "in the thrice blessed invocation9' and "in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."44 This is a direct parallel
to the orthodox Christian testimony listed above. St. Irenaeus
has preserved the Marcosian formula of baptism, which is
hardly more than an imitation of the orthodox formula : "in the
name of the unknown father of the universe, in the truth, the
mother of all, in him who came down upon Christ : unto unity,
redemption, and the community of forces."45 Here we have a
trinity of father, truth, and spirit ; the second member probably
being equivalent to Christ. In the same chapter Irenaeus quotes
another formula which has the trinity of light, spirit, and life.
The repeated mention of a trinity of one kind or another in these
formulas points to a Christian model when the members parallel
the Christian Trinity in the names of these members and cer?
tainly allude to them. The Clementine homilies and Kecogni
tions, as already stated, imply the use of the Trinitarian for?
mula. The Elkesaites conferred baptism by means of the for?
mula "In the name of the Father and of the Son."46 Now we
know that heretics were in the habit of copying the Christian
rite of baptism, for St. Augustine writes, De Haeresibus, 44,
that many heretics took the "regula baptismi" with them when
they left the Church, and preserved it. Firmilian narrates the
case, already quoted above, of a heretic who copied the entire
rite of baptism. We are justified, therefore, in inferring that
4TCf. Innocent I, ep. Esti Tibi, Feb. 15, 404: CJC Fontes I, 16; ep.
Magna me gratulatio, Dec. 13, 414: CJC Fontes I. 18.
schoolmen also were familiar with this use of the terms : Peter
Lombard uses "invocatio trinitatis" and "forma baptismi" in
the identical sense,48 and the MS 208 (saec. 12) of Monte Cas
sino identifies the "verba sacramenti" with the "invocatio Trini?
tatis."49 These documents extending over a period of six cen?
turies show that baptism "in the Trinity" and "through the in?
vocation of the Trinity" was baptism administered by means of
the Trinitarian formula.
If these documents appear of doubtful value to prove early
patristic usage because of the long span of time which separates
them from the evidence which they are intended to corroborate
and clarify, there is to be set over against this doubt the con?
servative character of theological terms in ecclesiastical usage,
which change very slowly and only when imperative grounds
commend a change, and the historical continuity of the language
of the Church, which in later times resets the non-technical ex?
pressions of the Fathers in the formulas of science without any
change of meaning. Now the period from which these docu?
ments are quoted was eminently a conservative age, in which the
struggle to preserve the faith and the civilization of the fore?
fathers absorbed all the energies of the Christian mind. There
was no time to formulate new problems, nor did such present
themselves to peoples who were strained to the utmost in the at?
tempt to save the spiritual and intellectual values of the past. A
new theological terminology was not evolved in this period.
The Trinitarian formula is the only one which has ever been
sanctioned by the Church. It is found in all rituals and official
documents which mention a formula. The Responsio ad Con?
sulta Bulgarorum of Pope Nicholas I is only an apparent excep?
tion. The case put before the pope was the question as to the
validity of baptism administered by a Jew of whom it was not
known whether he was a Christian or a pagan. The pope's re?
ply that the baptism was valid if conferred in the name of the
Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, has been construed as
the words "Ego te baptizo," and using only the invocation of the
Trinity is invalid.54 Alexander VIII condemns the opinion that
baptism conferred in this way was formerly valid.55 In the de?
cree for the Armenians (1439) Eugene IV states that the for?
mula of baptism is "Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritus Sancti," but he acknowledges also the validity of the
following forms: "Baptizatur talis servus dei in nomine, etc.,"
and "Baptizatur manibus meis talis in nomine, etc." He pro?
ceeds to prove the validity of these forms as follows : "Cum prin
cipalis causa, ex qua baptismus virtut?m habet, sit Sancta Trini
tas, instrumental autem sit minister, qui tradit exterius sacra
mentum: si exprimitur actus, qui per ipsum exercetur minis
trum, cum Sanctae Trinitatis invocatione, perficitur sacramen
tum."56 It will be noted that Pope Eugene requires the verbal
expression of the act of baptism, as did his predecessors Alex?
ander III and VIII. The teaching of Pope Eugene was con?
firmed by Leo X in 1521 and by Clement VII in 1526.
The omission of the formula of baptism in liturgical books
and in the writings of the Fathers and expressions such as "sym
bolo baptizare"57 constitute another chain of evidence on which
the hypothesis of the administration of baptism through the
creed or the interrogations of faith is based. If this series of
proofs were to hold, there could be no doubt that on the one
hand baptism was administered by means of the formula in
many parts of Christendom, and on the other hand that the for?
mula was not in use elsewhere, not even by St. Augustine. For
it is plain that all those who testify to the administration of bap?
tism through the invocation of the Trinity consider the formula
essential to the validity of the sacrament. The invocation of the
Trinity cannot be interpreted of the creed nor of the interroga?
tions of faith.
The argument constructed on the omission of the formula
and on such phrases as "symbolo baptizare" is an argument of
silence, which is valid only when it is equivalent to the assertion
that the formula did not exist. Errors regarding the formula