THE SUBJECTS FOR BAPTISM.
Having shown from all worthy sources of information that baptism is
for the remission of sins, and that necessarily repentance and faith
precede it, and, moreover, are pre-requisites thereto; it follows as
a logical sequence of these facts, that baptism can only be properly
administered to those capable of exercising faith in God, and
repentance of sin. Therefore the baptism of infants, or of children of
such tender years that they are unable to comply with these conditions
--is not in accordance with the requirements of the Gospel, and is
solemn mockery before God.
The consideration of just two facts, it seems to me, is sufficient to
destroy the doctrine of infant baptism; first, the fact that baptism
is for the remission of sins; and, second, that infants are incapable
of committing sin, cannot repent, and therefore have nothing to be
baptized for.
To avoid the irresistible force and right conclusion of this logic,
however, those who stand for infant baptism tell us that the baptism
of the infant is not for the remission of any actual sins committed by
the child, but for original sin. The Roman Catholics teach: "In baptism
all infants, without any disposition on their part being required, are
cleansed from the stain of original sin, taken into God's favor, made
members of Christ's mystical Body, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven.
They are thus regenerated, that is, in our Savior's own words, 'born
again of water and the Holy Ghost.' As they have contracted the stain
of original sin without their knowledge and personal co-operation, so
they are freed from sin without their knowledge; and the disposition
necessary for grown up persons is not required of them; for infants are
incapable of any reasoning act."[A]
[Footnote A: Catholic Belief [Bruno] p. 58.]
But this position does not help the matter any. The fact remains, that
whatever "stain" "original sin" fixes upon the individual, it is done
without the exercise of his agency; and, as said above, "without his
knowledge." Then how, I ask, can he be held responsible for it, or any
requirement, in justice, be made of him to remove the "stain" when
it was fixed upon him without the exercise of his will, "without his
knowledge," and was a thing which he was powerless to prevent? The
system of theology which teaches that God would condemn the child that
failed to receive baptism, because of this "stain" fixed upon him by
"original sin"--is not only unreasonable, it is damnable. It represents
God as a cruel monster, and drives both justice and mercy from the
economy of heaven.
It is true that from the fathers the children may inherit
concupiscence; by that I mean a blind inclination to do evil, in one
or more directions. Certain passions or mischievous appetites tending
to sinfulness is not unfrequently stamped upon the offspring by the
parents, or, as figuratively expressed by one of old, the parents eat
sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.[B] But the
children are not responsible for that; and, as the Catholic church
teaches this blind, involuntary inclination to evil of our lower
nature, is not of itself sinful unless it be consented to by the human
will, or rendered strong by bad and not retracted habit.[C] It is not
until the will assents to that which knowledge and experience tell the
individual is sinful, that responsibility begins to attach to him. When
knowledge instructs the understanding as to that which is good and that
which is evil, and the will becomes conscious of its power to assent
to the evil or withhold its approval, then the individual becomes
accountable before God, and may reasonably be expected to be held
answerable for his acts. But it is a noted principle, both in moral
philosophy and theology, "that there is no sin where there is no will;"
and I would add, there can be no will where there is no knowledge.
[Footnote B: Jeremiah xxxi: 29.]
[Footnote C: Catholic Belief (Bruno), ch. iii. 8]
I know of no sect or party, however, or individual even, who maintains
that infants should be baptized for this concupiscence. Indeed it is
most apparent that baptism does not affect this natural tendency to
evil, since it is as marked in children who have been baptized in
their infancy as those who have not. As before stated, in substance,
the admission that baptism is for the remission of sin is fatal to the
doctrine of infant baptism, as they are incapable of actual sin; and,
"original sin" and concupiscence being fastened upon them without their
knowledge, and by circumstances they were powerless to prevent, they
cannot be held accountable for them, and should not be required to be
baptized for them.
So far I have confined my remarks to that class of people believing in
infant baptism who maintain also that baptism is for the remission of
sins. There are others, however, who do not so regard baptism; but who
look upon it merely as an ordinance by which entrance is gained unto
the spiritual kingdom of Christ. But this position does not help out
the doctrine of infant baptism. It is only by actual sin, by willful
violations of God's holy laws that men become aliens and foreigners to
the kingdom of God,[D] and, as infants and children not yet arrived at
the years of accountability are incapable of such violations of law,
they are not aliens to the kingdom of Christ; they are natural heirs
to it, and, in the days of their innocence, form part of it, for Jesus
himself said: "Suffer little children to come unto me: for of such is
the kingdom of heaven." Therefore, being already in the kingdom of
Christ, and forming part of it, they have no need of being initiated
into it by baptism or any other ceremony; it is only those who have
made themselves foreigners and aliens through transgression of the laws
of God that have need to repent of their sins, through baptism obtain a
remission of them, and thus be brought back to the state of children,
without sin, and into the kingdom of Christ.
[Footnote D: Col. i: 21, 22.]
There is nothing in the scriptures which authorizes the doctrine of
infant baptism. It is an invention by man, pure and simple.
It is true that Jesus said, when some of his disciples reproved the
people for bringing their children to the Master to be blessed, "Suffer
little children, and forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is
the kingdom of heaven."[E] But he did not baptize them. He only laid
his hands on them, and blessed them. There is nothing in the passage
which warrants the assumption that he commanded them to come unto him
by baptism.
[Footnote E: Matt. xix.]
Indeed, I believe it is generally conceded that the doctrine of infant
baptism was not introduced in the first century at all. The first
notice we have of its existence is by Tertullian, appearing against
it as a zealous opponent, in the latter years of the second century,
"A proof," says Dr. Neander, "that it was not then usually considered
as an apostolic ordinance; for, in that case, he would hardly have
ventured to speak so strongly against it."[F]
[Footnote F: Church History (Neander), Vol. I, p. 362.]
"As faith and baptism are constantly so closely connected together in
the New Testament, an opinion was likely to arise that where there
could be no faith there could also be no baptism. It is certain that
Christ did not ordain infant baptism. * * * We cannot prove that the
apostles ordained infant baptism; from those places where the baptism
of a whole family is mentioned[G] we can draw no such conclusion,
because the inquiry is still to be made whether there were any children
in those families of such an age that they were not capable of any
intelligent reception of Christianity."[H]
[Footnote G: Acts xvi: 33; I. Cor. i: 16.]
[Footnote H: Church History (Neander), Vol. I, p. 360.]
The strongest contradiction to this erroneous doctrine, however, comes
from the Book of Mormon. It appears that there arose some disputations
among the Nephites about this matter, and Mormon inquired of the
Lord in respect to it, and sent the answer he received, through the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to his son Moroni, and with it I shall
close my remarks on this subject:
"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God.
Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous, but sinners
to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick;
wherefore little children are whole, for they are not capable of
committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me,
that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done
away in me.
"And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto
me; wherefore my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before
God, that ye should baptize little children.
"Behold I say unto you, that this thing shall ye teach, repentance and
baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin;
yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble
themselves as their little children; and they shall all be saved with
their little children.
"And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold,
baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the
remission of sins.
"But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of
the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God,
and a respecter of persons; for how many little children have died
without baptism?
"Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism,
these must have gone to an endless hell.
"Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children
need baptism, is in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of
iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore,
should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
"For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child
because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no
baptism. * * *
"Little children cannot repent; wherefore it is awful wickedness to
deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him
because of his mercy.
"And he that saith, that little children need baptism, denieth the
mercies of Christ, and setteth at nought the atonement of him and the
power of his redemption.
"Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless
torment. I speak it boldly, God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and
give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment seat of Christ.
"For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all
they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on
all they that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he
that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism
availeth nothing.
"But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the
power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
"Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto
them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken
law."[I]
[Footnote I: Moroni, ch. viii.]