Are those who practise the baptism of children, without regard to personal faith.

Pedobaptists, in common with all others, claim for their practice an apostolical origin; and, although they differ much in theological opinions, in forms of church government, and modes of worship, yet they all adopt substantially the same mode of reasoning in their defence of pedobaptism. They say that the church, under both the old and new dispensations, has ever been the same, although under a different form; that infants, as well as parents, were admitted into the church under the earlier dispensations, the rite of circumcision being the sign of their introduction, into it; and that the Christian dispensation (as the Savior came not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law and the prophets) did not annul or abridge any of the privileges of the church that were possessed under the dispensations of former times. But as the right of children, who are bound to their parents by the strongest natural tie, to be solemnly and visibly dedicated to God, and to come within the pale and under the watch of the church, is a blessing and a privilege, we are entitled to ask for the passages in the New Testament which require its abandonment. We take it for granted, that children are to be publicly dedicated to God, now, as in former times, unless some positive directions can be shown to the contrary. It appearing, therefore, that children may be dedicated to God, by their parents, in some public and visible way, and there remaining no outward ceremony, under the Christian dispensation, suitable to that purpose, but baptism, we infer that baptism is designed to take the place of circumcision, and that children may be baptized. And these views are thought to be encouraged by the affectionate saying of Christ, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:14.)

A second argument in favor of infant baptism is derived from the repeated accounts, in the Acts, of the baptism of whole families. The families referred to are those of Lydia, a seller of purple in the city of Thyatira, of the jailer, in the same city, and of Cornelius, the centurion, of Caesarea. Instances of this kind are not to be considered as conclusively proving the Scripture authority of infant baptism of themselves; but they form a presumptive argument, in its favor, of great weight.

And, further, it may be shown, from ecclesiastical history, that the baptism of infants was practised in the time of the primitive Christians. This being the fact, the conclusion seems to follow irresistibly, that they received the practice from the apostles, and that it was, therefore, known and recognized by the Savior himself; and, if it were known and recognized by him, or even introduced, subsequently and solely, by those he commissioned, it must be received, in either case, as the will of Christ, and as a law of the Christian dispensation.

Again, they say that the particular mode of baptism can not be determined from the meaning of the word baptizo, which may mean either to immerse or to lave, according to the particular connection in which it is found. (See Mark 7:4. Heb.9:10.)

None of the accounts of baptism, which are given in the New Testament, necessarily imply that it was performed by immersion. It is true the Savior and the eunuch, when they were baptized, went up out of, or rather from, the water, but the inference that they went under the water, which is sometimes drawn from these expressions, does not appear to be sufficiently warranted.

The circumstances attending the baptism of the jailer and his family are of such a nature as to render the opinion of its being performed by immersion improbable. The baptism was evidently performed at midnight, and within the limits of the prison, -- a time and a situation evidently implying some other mode than plunging. Similar views will hold in respect to the baptism of the three thousand at the season of Pentecost.

As, therefore, there are no passages of Scripture which positively require immersion, but various scriptural considerations against it, besides its being always inconvenient, and not unfrequently impracticable, the Pedobaptists have ever thought it fit and requisite, as a general rule, to practise baptism by sprinkling or laving.

The Greek church, in all its branches, -- whether in the frozen regions of Siberia, or in the torrid zone, -- practise trine immersion. All Pedobaptists require of adults, who seek for baptism, a personal profession of their faith, and so far agree with the Baptists. They also, with the Baptists, allow immersion to be valid baptism; but, in opposition to them, the Baptists deny that any other mode of administering this rite is valid. (See Exod.14:22. Isa.44:3. Matt.3:11; 19:13. Mark 7:4. Acts 2:39; 19:2, 5. Rom.4:11; 11:17.1 Cor.7:14; 10:2. Eph. chap.2. Heb.9:10, 13, 14.)

The term Pedobaptist is derived from two Greek words -- pais, a child, and baptismos, baptism. This mode of baptism is practised by nearly the whole Christian world, except the Baptists and Friends.