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.]