Baptism.

Originally a message preached in St. Louis by Dr. Schaeffer, on 30 March 1947, and subsequently published in tract form. Known editions include
1973 - Wilmington, DE: Cross Publishing. Pb, 25 p.; 18 cm.
1976 - Wilmington, DE: TriMark Publishing Co., Inc. Pb, 25 p.; 18 cm.
1986 - Le baptême. Aix-en-Provence: Editions Kerygma, ©1986. 30 p.; 18 cm. Series title: Synapse Vie de l'Eglise, no. 1.
Current - Lawrenceville, GA: Committee on Discipleship Ministries.

The outline of Dr. Schaeffer’s argument for infant baptism is as follows:

INTRODUCTION
IMMERSION
• Baptistic Arguments
INFANT BAPTISM
• Salvation by Faith Alone
• Covenant Is Immutable
• Covenant Is Primarily Spiritual
• The Outward Sign
• Sign Applied to Infants
• New Testament Practice
• Church History
• Baptistic Arguments
CONCLUSION
Questions Asked Publicly of Parents Before Infant Is Baptized

While this message was not included in the five volume Works of Dr. Schaeffer, still this title has remained in print and is currently available in a nicely reformatted edition from the PCA’s Committee on Discipleship Ministries. The content has remained the same in the various editions, but for the deletion of an opening statement by Dr. Schaeffer, and that statement provides the historical context of the sermon as originally delivered, in which he says, "In the almost three and a half years that I have been your Pastor, I have not preached on the subject of Baptism, but now we come to this subject in our series of sermons on “What We Believe.”

Some interesting background on the original 1947 publication of the sermon can be found in the Francis A. Schaeffer Manuscript Collection at the PCA Historical Center (Box 134, file 59, at the PCA Historical Center, St. Louis, Missouri.)

Robert G. Rayburn [RGR] to Francis A. Schaeffer [FAS], 17 May 1947.
I am herewith returning your paper on Baptism, and want to say how very much I appreciate your sending it to me. I think you will do a very fine work to have it printed cheaply enough so that it can have a very wide circulation. I shall certainly be glad to have some copies of it myself when they are ready for sales and distribution. There are some minor points on which I should like to have a discussion with you some time when we have an opportunity to be together for a time, but it would not be well to bring them up here, and I make no adverse criticism whatsoever of your paper. Your logic is good. It gave me some things to think about which I had not considered before along exactly the same line. My wife and I have discussed your points very carefully, and she feels as I do that you certainly have presented the matter clearly. I might say that I find it a little difficult to see exactly the same relationship between circumcision and baptism as I do between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, inasmuch as circumcision and baptism existed side by side for a time. However, as I say, these things can be discussed when we get together. I think this paper when published ought to be of great help to some of our brethren who are really upset over the infant baptism question. As you know it has never really bothered me personally, although I’ve never been one to push it strongly. Your sending this sermon on to me was certainly much appreciated, Francis, and by all means let me know when the printed copies are available.

FAS to RGR, 21 May 1947
I am happy that the sermon appealed to you. I have put a good deal of thought and prayer into it that the Lord may use it in many ways.
In writing this paper, I realized that the question might arise which you asked. I do not think that the basic question is comparison of the Passover and the Lord’s Supper against circumcision and baptism, but rather the general question as to why circumcision and baptism existed side-by-side for a time. Enclosed you will find a copy of my answer. I feel that this question is important and so hope to add it. I am sure some Baptists will raise it unless the explanation is given. You will remember under the baptistic arguments against infant baptism, (a) was “believe and be baptized”, (b) why we baptize boys and girls. Enclosed, as I said above, is what I think I will add for (c) to answer this question, as I realize that it is an important one. (d) will then be the fact that there is no definite command to baptize infants.
I would appreciate it if you would give me your reaction to this. As soon as I hear from you, I expect to take the manuscript to the printer.

RGR to FAS, 30 May 1947
Your answer to the question which I mentioned is probably as much as should be said about the problem in a short pamphlet such as you expect to have printed. I certainly would not presume to improve upon it in any way. Some time I hope we will have a chance to discuss this particular problem more at length. You and I can always get into a discussion and get profit out of it, and not heat, and that is something which I appreciate. There are certain angles to it which I’d like to get your slant on. However, for the present purposes, I feel this statement you have made to be quite all right.