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.