Vain Customs by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Dec 3, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 46.

Vain Customs.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

IN an editorial on "Infant Baptism," in a recent number of the California Christian Advocate, we find, among others equally sound, the following "argument" for that practice:—

"Is it not an assumption almost amounting to impudence, to be told that infant baptism has no foundation whatever, when its history is so prominent and its practice so general through all the ages? Can it be possible that a small portion of the church has all the truth, and the rest of us, constituting a vast majority in every century, has [sic] none at all?"

Before answering this question, let us have a few figures. The population of the earth is not far from fourteen hundred millions of people. Of this number about 480,000,000 are Buddhists and followers of Confucius; about 230,000,000 are barbarous tribes that practice fetichism,—the very lowest form of heathenism; something over 120,000,000 are Mohammedans, and about the same number are Brahminical Hindoos. Less than 400,000,000 are nominally Christian, and of this number nearly 300,000,000 are members of the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, leaving only a little over one hundred millions of so-called Protestants of all denominations, including infidels, etc. That is, over seven hundred million people, one-half the population of the earth, are heathen, and less than one-third of the inhabitants of the earth have even a knowledge of the religion which teaches that there is one true God, and of Jesus Christ whom he sent.

Now we might answer the Advocate's question by the Yankee method of asking another: "Is it not an assumption almost amounting to impudence, to be told that" the worship of images "has no [Biblical] foundation whatever, when its history is so prominent and its practice so general throughout all the ages?" Can it be possible that a small portion of mankind has all the truth, and that the rest, constituting a vast majority in every century, has none at all?

We have stated that of the so-called Christians, only one-fourth are Protestants. The rest believe in purgatory, prayers to and for the dead, and various other things which the Advocate considers pernicious. Is it not "an assumption almost amounting to impudence," for a few Protestants to oppose the doctrines held by so large a body of "Christians," many of whom are skilled in all the learning of the schools? Hear what the Catholic Dr. Eck said, over three hundred years ago, to Luther, who was opposing the presumptuous claims of the pope:—

"I am astonished at the humility and diffidence with which the reverend doctor undertakes to stand alone against so many illustrious Fathers, thus affirming that he knows more of these things than the sovereign pontiff, the councils, divines, and universities! . . . It would no doubt be very wonderful if God had hidden the truth from so many saints and martyrs, till the advent of the reverend father."

Just compare this paragraph with the first one quoted. We might almost accuse the Advocate of plagiarizing from the learned chancellor of Ingolstadt. If the Advocate's argument for infant baptism be sound, then Dr. Eck's sarcastic remarks proved the fallacy of Luther's position; and the same argument proves that paganism is the only true religion! We have no sympathy nor respect for that sort of argument.

Let us turn the tables. The Bible says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Infants are not capable of belief; but since they have committed no sin, they are saved by virtue of Christ's atoning blood, without belief. If they die in infancy, they never have any personal knowledge of sin. No one who does not or cannot believe is a subject for baptism, according to the Saviour's testimony. Now we ask, Is it not an assumption which is even worse than impudence, for men to say that infant "baptism" is a Christian ordinance, when in the whole Bible there is not a syllable in favor of it? We claim that the presumption is all on the side of the seeming majority; for one man with the Bible to sustain him, may without presumption withstand the world.

If numbers and custom prove the correctness of any theory or practice, then all error must be correct. A few hundred years ago everybody believed that the earth was flat. According to the Advocate's reasoning, the earth at that time was flat; but since the time of Galileo it has gradually been assuming a spherical shape, until, now that nearly everybody believes it to be round, it is quite round, being only a little flattened at the poles! And this is no more absurd than the most common argument for infant "baptism" and Sunday-keeping.

So true is it that the majority of people are, and always have been, in the wrong, that whenever we hear a person quote custom in favor of any practice, we at once decide, (1) That he has nothing better to offer, and (2) That the practice is, without doubt, wrong. We so decide because many hundred years ago, the prophet of God declared that "the customs of the people are vain" (Jer. 10:3), and inspired statements are true in all ages of the world's history.

E. J. W.