DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM - Rev. John Kennedy - Preface

Sep 28, 2026

Upload by James

“Doctrine of Baptism” by Rev. John Kennedy (Greenock, 1870) presents arguments supporting paedobaptism (infant baptism) against anabaptists and antipaedobaptists. The Preface states the tract’s aim: to defend baptism for children of parents professing the true faith and to administer the ordinance by pouring or sprinkling water. The opening doctrine section argues that children should be regarded as members of Christ’s church and kingdom, citing biblical teaching such as Christ’s acceptance of children and connecting church membership across Old and New Testament dispensations.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryReligion & Spirituality

FormatPDF

Pages38

Reading Time1 h 36 min

AccessFree to download

THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM

Preface

The doctrine of baptism: parties entitled to the ordinance

Baptists’ view of children and church membership

XBV12○KENNEDY,Rev.John octrine of Babtism | Class.
× | Location. | Accession.
B27100 | | --- | --- | --- | | BV | SCOTTISB | | | 12Q | | | 2. EDINBURGHPU BLIC LIBRARIES Reference Department THIS BOOK MUST NOT BE REMOVED UNDERANY PRETEXT FROM THE REFERENCE DEPART-MENT.INFRINGEMENT OF THIS RULE RENDERSTHE OFFENDER LIABLE TO PROSECUTION. Before leaving the Library readers mustreturn the books to one of the attendantsat the issue desk,or they will be heldresponsible for them. Readers are required to take care of thebooks. Writing or drawing with pen or你下pencil on any pPnt of a book,or turningdown the leaves,3Dutting or mutilatingdrawnthem,will be treated ablsorious damage.CoNVERSATION IN THE REFERENCE DEPARTMENT IS ANNOYING TO STUDENTS,AND IS NOTPERMITTED. XM.104 A125 # DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM PAEDOBA PTISTS AS OPPOSED TO THE VIEWS OF ANABAPTISTS &ANTIPAEDOBAPTISTS. BY THE REV.JOHN KENNEDY, GREENOCK. GREENOCK:JAMES M‘KELVIE. 1870. PREFA CE. THE object of this Tractate is to vindieate,in a concise form,the views of those who regard that the children of parents whoprofess the true faith ought to be baptized,and who also regardthe ordinance to be properly dispensed by pouring out andsprinkling water;and this in opposition to the views of thosewho oppose both these matters,usually known as Baptists.We might observe,however,that the two points are notnecessarily connected;for some Paedobaptists don't disapproveof immersion,and some Antipaedobaptists (as in Holland andelsewhere)strongly oppose it. # THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM. WE might observe at the outset that we do notreckon Baptists to be the most correct designationfor the parties with whom we have to deal in thisargument.They are more correctly designatedas Anabaptists,or those who baptize a secondtime,for they rebaptize those whom other Chris-tian churches had formerly baptized;or betterstill as Antipcedobaptists,or those who are opposedto infant baptism,for they refuse to administerthe ordinance to children. Other Christianchurches use the ordinance of Baptism as well asthey,so that the term Baptists does not bring outthe proper distinction between them and us,forwe all baptize.Still,out of courtesy,we give thetitle which they have themselves assumed.Inconducting the argument on the question of Bap-tism with our opponents,we may consider,whoare entitled to be baptized,and also the mode ofadministering the ordincnce—the former beingthe more important of the two. # I.AS REGARDS THE PARTIES ENTITLED TO THEORDINANCE. 1.Baptists maintain that children are not tobe acknowledged as members of the church ofChrist.This appears strange when we take intoaccount the fact that children were members ofthe church of God for such a length of timeunder the Old Testament dispensation,and weremembers of the church when Christ himself cameinto the world.One would have thought that aprivilege which,by the gracious permission ofGod,children had enjoyed so long,they would notbe deprived of when,so far from limiting,Godwas making a fuller manifestation of the richesof his grace.In fact that there would need tobe some very clear and positive declaration tothe effect that though children had enjoyed theprivilege of church-membership so long,theywere now to be deprived of it,ere we could shutthem out;for a privilege continues in forceuntil it is recalled.So then,unless we wereenjoined to the contrary,wemust have continuedtheir membership in the church,even though noexpress additional command had been given au-thorising theirreception.But how does the matterstand?Christ did not exclude children frommembership in his church;but,on the contrary,He expressly stated that such were to be mem-bers of his church,the kingdom of God whichhe was setting up in the world.He says,Lu. 5 xviii.16,“Suffer little children to come unto me,and forbid them not,for of such is the kingdomof God."Here He receives the children of be-lieving parents who had fai

FAQs

What is the purpose of the tract “Doctrine of Baptism”?

It aims to vindicate the views that children of professing believers should be baptized and that the ordinance should be dispensed by pouring or sprinkling water, in opposition to those who reject these points.

How does the tract describe Baptists in the debate?

It argues that the term “Baptists” is not the most accurate designation for its opponents, suggesting they are more correctly called Anabaptists (rebaptizers) or Antipaedobaptists (opposed to infant baptism).

What does the tract claim about the inclusion of children in Christ’s church?

It asserts that Christ did not exclude children but explicitly received them as members of his church and the kingdom of God, and it treats church membership as consistent with biblical teaching across the Old and New Testament.

Sep 28, 2026

Upload by James