baptism of infants require the express mention of baptism and infants, then an express command for the institution of a church must at least mention the words institution and church. He sets about his answer with the bravery of Napoleon, when entering Moscow. He refers us to the passage where our Saviour commands his disciples to teach or disciple all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things. (e) This is, like Mr. Walker's authority for infant baptism, very good proof, but, like that, it is utterly destitute of those words which his Opponent considered necessary to constitute it an express command. Mr. Walker might, therefore, have answered, "Is it possible that my Op66 ponent has no better support for his system? Is he ડેટ "obliged to prove the institution of a church from the "28th chapter of Matthew? from portions of scripture " in which neither institution nor church is ever men❝tioned ?" But he quotes another passage which has the word church, though it does not speak of its original institution, nor propound a command, but states a historical fact, that "The Lord added to the church daily such 66 as should be saved."(f) This he triumphantly closes with declaring, "Here there is a positive institution of a church, with the authority for it." We are not so much disposed to quarrel with this declaration as he is himself. Let us now compare his question with his answer, and with the rules which he has dictated in relation to such subjects. His question requires ❝ a positive & 66 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. in the Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 51. G "command for the institution of a church." His answer states a historical fact, in which members were added to a church, without any express mention either of its charter or of its original institution. It seems peculiarly inconsistent for him to call this historical fact, (without a precept,)" a positive institution of a church," in the close of a paragraph, which commences by defining a positive institution to be a particular precept. His own words are these, viz. "In positive institutions, all "that we have to inquire after, is the meaning of the "words of one particular precept, which, to an iota, we "are bound to perform, in the manner in which it is "commanded." Now, I would ask, has Mr. Walker's Opponent ever yet given us his "one particular precept, which, to an iota," expressly gives "a positive command for the institution of a church," in so many words, according to his own requisitions, and according to his own promise? If, then, he has not answered his own question, which he intended to make as easy as possible, it is no wonder that he has never answered Mr. Walker's question, "Have we a positive command for all the acknowledged institutions of the church ?" Let it be remembered that this question of Mr. Walker's was connected with one or two of his Opponent's, which asked, "Was there ever a positive ordi"nance or institution founded solely upon inference or "reason? Or can there be a positive institution, without a positive precept or precedent authorizing it."(g) These questions are framed with an unfairness, which 66 (g) Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 68. says little in favour of their author's candour or of his cause. Have we ever professed that infant-baptism was "founded solely upon inference or reason?" Have we not always appealed to positive precepts and precedents of revelation for our authority? Neither do I see the danger of admitting, in the established meaning of the words, his favourite principle that "a limited commission implies a prohibition of such things as are not contained in it."(h) We say that infant-baptism is contained in the commission, and therefore not prohibited by it: and we prove this in the same reasonable and scriptural way in which our Opponents prove the duty of femalecommunion. They do not find a passage of scripture which says expressly, "Females must commune ;" yet they find evidence that Christ's believing disciples should commune; they therefore admit to that privilege such females as answer that description. This is a legitimate inference from authority which contains no express mention of females. Suppose a person inquiring whether the scriptures forbid him to demand from his brother a hundred per centum, per annum, interest on lent money. He is referred to Nehemiah v. 11, which forbids him to receive the centesima, which is one per cent. a month, or twelve per cent. a year. This does not expressly mention the ratio in question: yet it as really forbids that exorbitant usury, as it could do by mentioning the identical words. This is according to my Opponent's declaration, "that a man is not to reason "whether he is to be just or honest; but he may reason (h) Spurious Debate with Walker, p. 209. with M.Calla, p. 114. "to know in what justice and honesty consist."(i) Thus he does not consider himself at liberty to reason whether believing disciples should commune or not, for this is settled by revelation; but he may reason to know in what faith and discipleship consist. This course my Opponent pursues, but he knows the consequences of it, as is evident from the declamatory vituperation with which his argument is bloated. In his spurious debate with Mr. Walker, (j) he uses the following words, viz. "As to his second query concerning female communion, "I have to observe that although sundry Pedobaptists ❝have made a salvo to soothe their minds, of this appa"rent difficulty, it is a poor and a pitiful come off; it is "the most puerile and childish retort that I ever heard "used by adults that had any knowledge of words and "things. Was the Lord's supper instituted to men or "women as such? Was it not appointed to the disci"ples of Christ? He gave it to his disciples, saying, "partake ye all of it.' Here then is an express war❝rant for all disciples to participate of the Lord's sup"per. Now it puts Mr. Walker, and all Pedobaptists "that humble themselves to such means to support their 66 cause, to prove or to show, that a woman is not a dis"ciple of Christ. But should they attempt this, I have 66 express authority to shew that they oppose the oracles "of heaven, for a woman is expressly called a disciple, "Acts ix. 36. For there was a certain disciple there named Tabitha ;' so that these obstacles thrown in my way, are but means to afford a clearer and fuller illus 6 (1) Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 50, (j) p. 69. "tration and confirmation of the truth of my reasoning "on positive institutions." "My reasoning on positive institutions"!!! So it seems that Pedobaptists are not the only ones who reason on positive institutions. You have just now heard a specimen of my Opponent's reasoning on these subjects. It would be well if all his reasonings were as correct as that which supports female communion, for which he is not able to find what he calls an express command. His pretending that Mr. Walker is opposed to this argument is pretence only. He knows that we admit his inference as legitimate; but he knows also, that the same argument about discipleship will establish infant-baptism. In our Saviour's commission, "teach all nations, baptizing them," critics generally interpret the word rendered teach, as meaning disciple, or make disciples of. My Opponent says, "This is unquestionably the proper rendering of the term."(k) Pedobaptists have often proved, and, in due time, I hope to prove, in this debate, that the scriptures recognize the discipleship not only of Tabitha, or of Lydia, but of their households, and of the infants of all believers. And here it will not do to object that if infants are disciples, they must partake of the supper also, on account of a supposed universality in our Saviour's command to his disciples, "Partake ye all of it." So far is this command from requiring us to administer the supper to d s ples of all ages, that it does not bind us to administer it to adult believing disciples universally, since the discipline of Christ's (k) Spurious Debate with me, p. 113. |