A SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICE.
By Editor
THE religious journals and teachers of the day have much to say about slavish obedience to forms, urging that the observance of forms is utterly opposed to the spirit of the gospel. Such language is heard especially whenever anything is said about keeping the Sabbath "according to the commandment," being "buried with Christ by baptism into death," and sometimes even in regard to the Lord's Supper. The keeping of the seventh day of the week, as the Lord enjoins, is said to be a Judaistic regard for mere form; and whenever it is shown that nothing but immersion is baptism, they will say that to put so much stress upon mere form savors of superstition. We notice, however, that those who thus deprecate form in connection with Sabbath observance and baptism, are very zealous sticklers for Sunday observance, and for sprinkling in place of baptism. The natural conclusion is that they have no objection to forms, so long as those forms are of their own choosing. Not only is this conclusion just, but it may also be shown that those who thus insist that the form is of no consequence, are indeed most superstitious in their observance of certain forms that are not commanded, and that they regard a mere ceremony much as the heathen regards a charm or an amulet. That this is true of the entire Catholic world, needs no proof. It is only necessary to remind the reader of the "relics" which it is claimed are possessed of such wonderful healing properties, and of the sign of the cross and the Ave Marias which alone are said to ward off evil spirits. An instance of this superstitious trust in a mere form recently came to our notice in Oakland. A laborer was caught in the shaft of a mill, and was fatally injured. He was carried to the hospital in an unconscious condition, from which he never recovered. A priest was summoned, who administered the "sacrament" of extreme unction to the unconscious man, who died soon after. If that "sacrament" had not been administered, all Catholics would have entertained at least a doubt as to that man's future; but having received it, the priest can assure them that he is sure of Heaven! Now no intelligent, candid person would dare affirm that "extreme unction" or anything else performed over a man who is already dead so far as consciousness is concerned, could have the least effect on his spiritual condition. Even Catholics themselves, when pressed, will admit that the performance of rites and ceremonies, or the repetition of prayers, is of no avail if unaccompanied by faith. And yet thousands of professed Protestants, who talk so glibly about slavish obedience to mere form, show themselves to be as superstitious as their Catholic brethren from whom they have borrowed those forms. In proof of this, we will cite only the so-called baptism of infants. As a matter of fact, infants are never baptized except in the Greek Church; they are only sprinkled; but if we did not know how easy it is to be inconsistent, we should wonder that people who argue against immersion, on the ground that the form is of no consequence, and that valid baptism is simply "the answer of a good conscience," should be so scrupulous in regard to a mere form where it is impossible that there should be any conscience at all. Two instances will suffice to show that infant baptism is simply the result of gross superstition that is not exceeded among Roman Catholics. In a recent note on "Children's Day," the editor of the Congregationalist said:— "The rite of infant baptism can be made most impressive. Last year a young man of more than twenty, witnessed this ordinance for the first time on Children's Day. As he watched the pastor take one dear little one after another in his arms to bless them, he said, with deep emotion, 'If my father and mother had done that when I was a baby, I might have been a different boy.'" If the intelligence indicated by that remark was a fair sample of the product of the brain of that "young man of more than twenty," we should say that he was even then a proper subject for the administration of "infant baptism." But we must remember that he simply echoed the sentiments of the church people about him, and that his remark is indorsed by the editor of the Congregationalist. Now we ask, What would have been the difference if that young man had been "baptized" when he was a baby? If that ceremony had been performed, and he had been a model youth, to what would the Congregationalist attribute his goodness? It could not be to any volition on his part, but simply to the magic charm of the few drops of water sprinkled upon him, or to the words uttered by the pastor. But we have another case in which the element of superstition is so prominent as to be laughable. In the Advance of September 22, A. L. Frisbie, D. D., has an account of a "Sunday with the Stonies," a tribe of Indians on a reservation near the line of the Canadian Pacific, who have been civilized by missionary effort. He tells of the crowds that flocked to church, of the good order, of the reverence during prayer, and of the enthusiasm with which they sang "Old Hundred," and continues: "A baby was presented for baptism after the benediction. Fortunately he was asleep, so that he could not express any disapprobation of the proceeding." And then in all seriousness he goes on to say that mothers and nurses might learn a lesson from the way in which this baby was "put up," because he was placed in a casket shaped to the tiny form, the whole wrapped and bound, and his limbs, body, and head were so snugly cased and held, that he "could not kick if he wanted to." If he had been awake, he could not have objected to the proceeding except by yelling. "Fortunately he was asleep," and so the beautiful ceremony was not marred. Will anybody tell us how much more solemnity or efficacy there was in that ceremony than in the incantations of the heathen Indian "Medicine Man"? If it is said that this was done in the name of Christ, then we reply that it was simply taking the name of Christ as a charm, and differed not a particle from the act of the seven sons of Sceva. See Acts 19:13, 14. We may add, also, that the mere calling of the name of the Lord Jesus over a person, will have no more effect if done by a Christian minister than if done by a Jewish exorcist. In the instance quoted from the Advance the climax of absurdity was reached. There was an infant without power to discern between its right hand and its left; added to this it was bound hand and foot, and then while it was asleep the minister surreptitiously sprinkled a few drops of water upon it, and, behold, it was a Christian baby! This fairly surpasses the method by which the Jesuit missionaries in California converted the Indians a century ago. It is said that the Jesuits would mount their horses, lasso an Indian, force him into the mission building, and "baptize" him, and thenceforth he was a child of the church. If sprinkling an unconscious infant is productive of any good, we cannot see what argument can be brought against the forcible "baptism"615of adults. No one can fail to see that the element of faith is entirely excluded. But it is urged when the child is thus baptized, the parents pledge themselves to train it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and to bring it up in the full fellowship of the church. This is not true. The parents may indeed make the pledge, but it is not the so-called baptism that seals the pledge. If it had anything whatever to do with the pledge, then the parents themselves should receive the ceremony in token thereof. Would not the pledge be just as valid if the ceremony of sprinkling were not performed? Certainly; the sprinkling of the infant can by no means affect the parents; so we see still that the act is one of conformity to a superstition. To make this still more emphatic, we have only to cite the numerous cases that are related, where the child sought the company of the vicious as soon as it arrived at years of understanding, and at an early age left home and parents for a wild career, yet after many years he was converted, because he had been sprinkled in infancy. In such a case the same virtue is attributed to the so-called baptism that the savage attributes to the spell of the sorcerer. But again, it will be said that in such a case the prayers of the parents avail to bring the erring one into the fold, even though he be absent from them. Very good; we know that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and we are willing to accept that explanation of the cause of the young man's conversion; but that explanation nullifies the theory that the sprinkling in infancy was of any virtue. Would not the prayers of the parents be just as effectual without the mockery of "baptizing" an unconscious babe? The assumption on the part of the Pedobaptists who relate such cases, is that they would not be; and so again we see that some mysterious magic charm is attributed to the ceremony performed in infancy. We have before us an article from the Advance of July 7, which tells of a very godless man whose wife had died, leaving two very young babes, twins. Two neighboring children became interested in the twins, and desired to have them "baptized," but the father refused his consent. Finally, as he was about to go to the far West, he gave a grudging consent to have the ceremony performed, but said that it should not be done in a church, and that no clergyman should come into his house. The writer relates the brother's delight at the consent gained, and says:— "Hurrying home, the young churchman told his sister of his success, adding, 'And you and I must be sponsors.' The sister, though sharing his delight in the prospect of bringing the little ones into the fold, shrank from the responsibility of a god-parent where there seemed so little opportunity to fulfill the duties of the office. We can pray for them, was the brother's answer." Accordingly the ceremony was performed at the home of the brother and sister, and a few days later the babies were taken away, and were not heard of again until twenty years later, when the brother and sister learned that they were active church workers. The writer closes his narrative with the following moral:— "We who are god-parents may not always be able to use personal influence, or make direct appeal to those for whom we are to take care. But these means failing our honest effort, there remains one mighty resource: We can pray for them." Of course you can; and you could pray for them just as well if they had not been sprinkled. To say that this is not so is to say that the sprinkling acts as a charm. We have said that this anxiety for the "baptism" of infants, so that they may be sure to be saved, is superstition. To show that this is the correct term for it, we quote Webster's definition of superstition: "Extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded." Some may claim that their scruples for infant "baptism" are not extreme or unnecessary; but we hold that the observance, to any extent, of rites not commanded, is unnecessary, and that if stress is laid on them, as though they were necessary to salvation, then it is superstition. We believe that baptism is necessary, for the Lord has commanded it. We would not dare tell any individual that he could be saved without it; indeed, we should tell him that he could not, if, knowing the commands and having the opportunity, he should refuse. But while it becomes us to be baptized, thus to fulfill all righteousness, we remember that "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;" that there can be no righteousness without belief, and that only "he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." We do not decry the observance of forms, if those forms have been commanded. There is no element of superstition in humble obedience to a divine command, no matter how trivial the required act may seem. But when there is no obedience, because there is no command; when, even if there is a command, the act is done by proxy; and when there cannot by any possibility be either belief or obedience, then we say that devotion to a form is gross superstition, and can result only in evil, for no superstition is harmless. W.