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.]