"Two instances will suffice to show that infant baptism is simply the result of gross superstition that is not exceeded among Roman Catholics.
I.
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 around him, and that his remark is indorsed by the editor of the Congregationalist.
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.
II.
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 their reservation near the line of the Canadian Pacific.
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 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 intent 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 which would mount their horses, lasso an Indian, force him into the mission building, and “baptize” him, and henceforth 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” of adults. No one can fail to see that the element of faith is entirely excluded."
E..J. Waggoner
And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
Acts 19:13-16