CHAPTER IV.

ROBERT HALL'S FOURTH ARGUMENT CONSIDERED.

1. 'The exclusion of Pedobaptists a punishment,' considered. 2. The Lord's Supper a family feast. 3. The Evangelical Alliance excommunicate, on Robert Hall's principle 4. The charge of excommunicating considered. 5. Mr Hall would excommunicate all Churches whose invitation to Communion he declined. 6. That our views make the approach of Pedobaptists to the Lord's Supper criminal,' considered. 7. The difficulty of Mr. Hall's system on this point considered.

1. "The exclusion of Pedobaptists from the Lord's Table, considered as a punishment."

SUCH is the title of this argument in favor of Mixed Communion, and it is supported by the following opening assertion. "The refusal of the Eucharist to a professor of Christianity, can be justified only on the ground of his supposed criminality, of his embracing heretical sentiments, or living a vicious life." If by refusing the Eucharist to a professor of Christianity, is meant simply our not inviting him to partake with us in that ordinance, (which is all that we do,) we might reply by simply asking how much truth there would be in the assertion, if it had been applied to the Passover instead? Or would our Author have ventured to say, that, for a Jew not to invite any other member of the Jewish nation to celebrate the Passover with him, could be justified only on the ground of the supposed criminality of the party, that he must be

esteemed such a heretic, or a man of so vicious a life, as to have forfeited all title to be considered a member of the Israelitish nation, or entitled to any of its privileges? If a Jew had been thus charged, might he not appropriately reply, that his not inviting his fellow-Israelite, did not in the least exclude him from the Passover, or pronounce him to be no child of Abraham; that it was not necessarily any punishment, and not so intended, but that as strictly only members of the same family, or, at most, neighbors, by special invitation and agreement, were commanded to celebrate that institution together, so not to extend the invitation, indicated simply that he was not regarded as one of the parties included in the terms of that regulation?

2. We regard the Lord's Supper in the light of a family feast, i. e., a Church ordinance, to be celebrated together by members of the same Visible Church, or at most, in company with persons whom they could consistently receive as such by special invitation. There is no more idea of punishment, in not inviting others or partaking with them in the case of the Lord's Supper, than of the Passover.

3. It is well known, that of late years a society has been formed of various denominations, both in England and America, termed the Evangelical Alliance, formed of the members of various denominations. We believe, it has never yet at any of its meetings celebrated the Lord's Supper. This has probably arisen, more than anything else, from the feeling, that it would seem to unite them more in Church relations than all parties could agree to, however willing to unite with each other as Christians. But we see not why an advocate for Mixed Communion, would not be bound in all consistency, to rise in such

NOT A PUNISHMENT.

185

bodies and proclaim, that unless they were prepared to assert, that some at least of the parties uniting held to errors of such a nature, as would "necessarily exclude them from being of the number that Christ has received to the glory of the Father," it would be contrary to "the express command of Scripture," for the Alliance to omit to celebrate the Eucharist together; that “such a refusal could only be justified on the ground of the supposed criminality of a portion, at least, of the Alliance, that is of their embracing heretical sentiments, or living a vicious life." That the exclusion of the Lord's Supper from such a body of men could be "considered in no other light than as a punishment," as an "excommunication," and therefore as a declaration, that those with whom they had refused to commune had "forfeited their right to spiritual privileges, and were henceforth consigned to the kingdom of Satan."*

4. No more erroneous statement can be made as to our course in regard to the Lord's Supper, than that which declares, that "it is unquestionably of the nature of a punishment" inflicted upon all others, unless it be that contained in the next paragraph, where it is supposed to be identical with "Excommunication." On the faith of this, we are charged, in regard to Pedobaptists, with "proceeding with a high hand and attempting to terminate the dispute by authority," after which we are earnestly reminded, that "the solemn decision of a Christian assembly, that an individual has forfeited his right to spiritual privileges, and is henceforth consigned to the kingdom of Satan, is an awful proceeding, inferior only in terror to the sentence of the last day."

* Works, vol. 1, p. 341.

This is all very true, but where is its application to the case in hand? It should be remarked, that although less in degree, yet of the same nature with the error of unwarrantably excommunicating, is that of unjustly implying such a charge as this upon a fellow Christian. How can it be pretended that we excommunicate? This would in the mildest terms be, to separate from Church relations those who had once sustained them. But the individuals in question are those with whom we never have sustained Church relations, who have not sought them, who would not be willing to comply with our terms of membership, and who have agreed upon terms of their own, with which they know we cannot comply. As we hold to the strict independence of all Churches, this does not imply anything like excommunication, or even unchurching, on the one part or the other. If it did, however, it would equally imply it on the part of Pedobaptist Churches, as of our own. Yea, on the part of Mixed Communion Churches also; since they profess that their terms of Church Membership are so "expressly commanded," that they will not dispense with them, they are as much the means of excluding us, as our requiring Baptism is of excluding Pedobaptists. But in truth, no Church can excommunicate another Church, nor indeed any members of another Church, nor any person, not of its own body.* Nor is it the duty of

* This, we are surprised to observe, Robert Hall, in his reply to Mr. Kinghorn, attemps to deny; perseveringly charging us with excommunicating, and stating that he "will not descend to a tedious logomachy, further than to remark that" Mr. K. "has fallen into an error" in saying "how excommunication can take place in [regard to] one who never was in a Society, we have yet to learn." definition of excommunicate, in such dictionaries as Richardson, Johnson, Walker, and Webster, contains the words to "eject," to "expel ;" yet who would think it possible to expel a young man from College who had never entered. (See Reply to Kinghorn, ch. 9, p. 475.)

Suffice it to say that the

RASH JUDGMENTS AVOIDED.

187

a Church, presumptuously to sit in judgment upon all others, and pronounce whether they are or are not true Christian Churches.

5. What is essential to a visible Christian Church, and, when a Church so far apostatizes as to forfeit all claims to the title, are questions, in their application to such bodies as the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, and many others, known only to Him who searches the hearts; but upon which no earthly tribunal is competent to sit in judgment, and from which we are entirely saved the unpleasant necessity of making a decision only by our position. It must certainly be as great a violation of Christian Charity to refuse to commune with other Christian Churches upon their invitation, as not to invite their members to commune with us. Hence it has always been the custom of Mixed Communion Baptists, to participate in the Eucharist freely in Congregational Churches. If then these same persons refuse to participate with Episcopalians or Roman Catholics, it must be because they do not esteem them true Christian Churches; and we see not why they must not in every case decide that the Church inviting them to its communion holds errors of such a nature, as "necessarily exclude them from being of the number of those whom Christ has received," or else we are "expressly commanded," for aught we see, on Mr. Hall's principles, to accept their invitation. The Presbyterians, we believe, have undertaken to decide for themselves that the Roman Catholic was a true Church, all through the dark ages, and up to the time of the Reformation, but that, since then, the candlestick has been removed out of its place. Unless we believe that our Churches are not only entitled, but bound, thus to assume the prerogative of Deity, and sit in judgment upon each body