We are first, then, to inquire who are the proper subjects of baptism. Some hold that certain adults only, adults who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, are to be baptised; and others maintain that such adults, and also the infant children of baptised parents, who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, are to be baptised. These latter are called paedobaptists, paedo denoting child or infant, because they hold and practice infant baptism; and the former antipaedobaptists, because they reject the baptism of infants; or anabaptists, because they baptise again, ana means again, persons who were baptised in infancy; but more commonly, however, baptists, a name which cannot be conceded to them, if it is meant to imply that they alone baptise and are baptised with a legitimate and valid baptism. In this sense, it must be classed and repudiated with such designations as catholic, unitarian, churchman. Paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists, it will be seen from the statement just given of the positions they respectively maintain, hold in common that certain adults are to be baptised. On this point they are at one. Paedobaptists, however, hold further, and antipaedobaptists deny, that certain infants also are to be baptised. Thus the point at issue, the only point at issue, in the controversy between them with respect to the subjects of baptism is, whether the infant children of baptised parents, who make a credible profession of religion, are to be baptised.

Read the rest of this section

We now proceed to the second of the topics we proposed to consider, the mode of baptism; and let us first determine the state of the question. Some, then, maintain that immersion is the only legitimate mode of baptism; in opposition to these, we hold that baptism is scripturally and validly administered not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or affusion. We do not deny that immersion is a legitimate mode of baptism; our opponents hold that it is, and we agree with them. But we hold that sprinkling or affusion is also a legitimate mode of administering the ordinance, and this our opponents deny. The question, then, is, is sprinkling or affusion a legitimate and valid mode of baptism; this question presents for determination the only point at issue. It may be remarked here that, though it so happens among us that those, who hold that infants are not to be baptised, hold also that sprinkling or affusion is not a legitimate mode of baptism, still there is no connection between the two positions; and, accordingly, there have been persons who held the former but rejected the latter of them. The antipaedobaptist dogma, therefore, and the dogma that baptism is not legitimately administered by sprinkling or affusion are not to be regarded as so connected, as parts of one system, that what affords support to the one affords also support to the other. On the contrary, they are so entirely detached from each other, logically, that the establishment or refutation of either would leave the claims of the other to belief wholly unaffected.

Read the rest of this section

Nature and Design of Baptism

The nature and design of baptism have been already incidentally indicated to a considerable extent. But partly to meet a rationalistic objection brought by our opponents against infant baptism, and partly to exhibit the practical bearing of the paedobaptist doctrine and to enforce the obligations that attach to the corresponding practice, we shall now add a few remarks under this head.

The objection which we seek to repel is conveyed in such questions as these, what good does baptism do to infants? What are they the better for it? Do not baptised infants grow up in sin the same as unbaptised infants? We have heard similar questions asked with respect to other ordinances, as, for example, what are those who partake of the Lord’s Supper better than we who do not partake of it? What are many of those who go to church better than we do who do not go to it? Are they more upright in their dealings or more humane, more just or more generous? Such questions are an appeal from revelation to reason. Revelation prescribes the observances against which they are directed, and this prescription, they imply, is very well, but, still, are the prescribed observances sufficiently recommended to reason? Thus, we are fully justified in describing the objection conveyed in such questions as rationalistic; and our opponents in urging it act the part of rationalists.

Read the rest of this section

Appendix