Letters403 Letter CDIII

I have used stand instead of a seal, for mine is not at hand, nor is your friend Geoffrey. 1 2 To the Archdeacon Henry. "

Bernard discusses whether Baptism would be valid if administered in the form:

‘Baptizo te, in Nomine Dei, et sanctae et verae Crucis!’

To his friend Henry, the Archdeacon, Brother Bernard, called Abbot of Qairvaux, health and the assurance of his prayers.

1. I reply briefly to the question you proposed to me; yet with all respect to the opinions of persons wiser than I. A child just born, and in danger of death, was, you tell me, baptized by a certain layman, who did not employ the ordinary formula, but instead of it the words: Baptizo te, in Nomine Dei, et sanclce et verae Crucis and you inquire whether the child is really baptized, or if it lives, should be baptized again. 3 I think the child has been truly baptized; and I do not think those words (which were wrong or superfluous) had the power to nullify the truth of the faith, and the piety of the intention (of him who used them). For not to speak of the fact that in the name of God is implicitly expressed the one Substance of the Holy Trinity, those which follow manifestly refer to the Passion of Our Lord.

1 The secretary of S. Bernard at this time, who had therefore the custody of his seal (E.)

2 Henry, brother of King Louis the younger, was at that time Archdeacon of Orleans. (Chartulary of S. Martin des Champs.)

3 p. 98.

Unless we suppose that the Apostle contradicted himself when having said in one place, He who glories, let him glory in the Lord (1 Cor. i. 31 and 2 Cor. x. 17), he says in another, God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. vi. 14) as if he referred to the wood of the Cross, and not rather to the grace of Him who was crucified.

Similarly, when, pronouncing that ordinary Baptismal formula of the Church, we say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is it to be any otherwise understood, than as a making confession of faith in the Holy Trinity. Further, a confession of faith in the Holy Cross, is only a confession of faith in Him who died upon the Cross. We read in fact in the Acts of the Apostles that Baptisms were performed not only In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, but also that some were baptized In_ the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts. x. 48).

3. You go on to inquire whether the person who performed that baptism did wrong, or whether (if he did not) his formula of Baptism may be imitated by others. But it does not follow that though the extreme simplicity and absence of wrong intent in the act of any individual, shields it from all blame, or at least from severe blame, those persons are to be excused who should have the temerity to introduce into the Church a new formula of Baptism. And if it shall be urged that the Baptism in question was after all wrong; yet I hold it for certain that the baptizer was not so far wrong as to endanger either his own salvation or that of the child baptized. For it does not seem to have been through contempt of the Church’s formula, that he broke forth into the words in question, but through the precipitation of a faith which was living and full of piety.

This question had been put to Bernard: if the letter before us is really his, which many editors deny, and which I should not venture positively to affirm (Note of Horst).

But Mabillon observes:

This Ep. appears doubtful to some. Yet it is found in the. most ancient editions: in that of Lyons in 1520 and all following ones: also in the MS. Codex in the Sorbonne: nor does the style differ from that of S. Bernard. He was asked, I say, whether Baptism administered under the form “I baptize thee in the Name of God and of the holy and true Cross” would be valid; he replies that it is; and supports his opinion by a reason not wanting in force. But at the present day that reason is not accepted by divines; it is opposed to the tradition of the Apostles, of other Fathers, and to the authority of S. Augustine himself: and these all teach with one voice, that the express invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, made with distinct mention of the name of Each of the Three Persons, is of the essence of the formula; and that Baptism administered without this is invalid. So also Canon. Apostol. No. 49, which interpreting S. Matt, xxviii. 19 of the Baptismal formula, rejects a Baptism administered ‘in the name of the Lord’, and continues thus: ‘For the Lord does not say to us, Baptize in my death; but Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’’ The statement of S. Augustine is clear, that the words of the Gospel are precise, and that without these Baptism cannot be validly administered (Contra Donatist. B. vi. C. 25) Similarly Ep. 23 adBonifacium and contra Faustum (B. xix. C. 16). What he understands by the words of the Gospel, he explains Contra Donat. B. iii. C. 15. “If Marcion administered Baptism with the words of the Gospel, In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, the Sacrament was complete and valid.” See also contra Maximin. C. 17; Ep. 20; and Enarrat; in Ps. lxxxvi. Hence also the opinion of Cajetan, that Baptism administered in the name of Christ is sufficient, is shown to be erroneous. (Thus far Mabillon).

The argument of S. Bernard, from the ‘truth of the faith and piety of the intention’ of the person using the erroneous formula for Baptism, is virtually an appeal to ‘the uncovenanted