LBCF 29.3: “The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

There are three elements to this Article:

  1. The outward element of water.
  2. The naming of the act as “Baptism”.
  3. The invocation of the Triune Name (in the singular).

The conversion into a formula is the standard “I baptize you in the Name …” whilst physically using ordinary water.

I have not seen discussion of the baptismal formula in Particular Baptist writings since the common formula was universally received. This Article is itself largely pinched directly from Westminster which prescribed the standard English formula in the Directory, and it is highly unlikely anyone ventured to veer from this straight and sure path, though it is equally certain that many (with some exceptions) of the Particular Baptists were such precisely because they had a lower sacramental and scholastic style of theologizing.

I. The Outward Element

If water is not used, Baptism is not realized. Discussions of baptism in sand, mud, spittle, and all such nonsense are wholly without warrant. Ordinary water, blessed if you wish, is the outward matter of the Sacrament.

II. The Naming of the Act

The naming of the act as Baptism is necessary to distinguish the act of washing from any other washing. Baptism is a ritual, and thus it must be announced that the ritual is taking place by means of words of common signification.

It is difficult to ask the first generation Baptists their opinion, but to me it seems necessary that the words used to signify Baptism as taking place presently must be linguistically coherent in order for the act itself to be signified. Deviations from the formula may retain validity, but not all deviations may.

  • “I cleanse you” may be OK.
  • “I christen you” was popular in early modern English and is readily understood, but is probably to be avoided.
  • “I wash you” is probably OK, but kind of weird.

However, one which has seen increasing occurrence over the past few decades should be avoided: “We baptize you”.

The reasons are based on the consideration that Baptism can only be performed by one person, or is actually only performed by one person.

  • Baptism is a sacramental act, and the one baptizing the body perfects the act alone.
    • It cannot be half-completed by one and half-completed by another, but this is the only way two can co-operate in a physical cause.
    • Thus “we” referring to multiple dippers signifies the intention not to perform a full Baptism.
    • But the intention not to give a full Baptism contradicts Christ’s intention to give a full Baptism by means of the physical Baptism given.
    • Thus a failure to give a full physical Baptism frustrates a full spiritual Baptism and renders the act void.
  • If “we” referes to the minister and Christ, then Baptism has not been signified.
    • This is because Baptism as signified by the minister must refer to the physical Baptism with water.
    • The minister in no wise participates in Christ’s Baptism of the soul.
    • Thus to express intention to join Christ in one act of Baptism literally rather than sacramentally (which is done by the ordinary signification, by speaking in persona Christi) renders the attempt at Baptism null.
  • If one person baptizes but intends to signify multiple persons, then either:
    • He speaks nonsense, because there is only one person ostensibly baptizing, and thus he has not signified his act of baptizing, and thus Baptism has not been signified.
    • He speaks truth, but intends to signify something other than his present physical act of baptizing, opting for something else, such as “‘we’ are in moral unity as to your Baptism”, or “‘we’ authorize your Baptism”.
      • This statement fails expressly to identify his physical action as being this desired or authorized Baptism: it only expresses that Baptism is desired or authorized.
      • Accordingly, his physical act of washing the baptizand has not been distinguished from any other non-holy washing and is therefore not Christian Baptism.

The sole exception to this is where “we” is understood to refer to the baptizer alone in a sort of elevated manner of expression. Again, though, this is weird and we think it should be avoided.

III. The Invocation of the Triune Name

The invocation of the Triune Name is necessary on account of its presence in Christ’s institution. If it be objected that Baptism in Jesus’s Name only is recorded in Acts, (i) it is denied; (ii) that we are in any case authorized for it is denied. Thus, it is irrelevant, and Baptism for us must be in the Triune Name.

It is necessary to use “Name” singular, to signify both the unity and trinity of God, the efficient cause of the Sacrament.

Conclusion

Adherence to these points guarantees the acceptance of a Baptist Church’s Baptism by the rest of the Christian community. Contrariwise, deviation, even if felt personally to be acceptable, may place the baptized into a perilous state with respect to intercommunion with other Churches. For instance, most historic churches expressly reject the “we baptize” formula. Thus its use for no good reason in Baptisms is uncharitable to the baptized party, and is unneccessarily aggressive towards other Churches’ settled practice, resting on undeniably good foundation, when evangelical peace ought to be our goal.