—Communion—The difference between Christian and Church Fellowship, and between Communion and its Symbols; embracing a Review of the arguments of the Rev. Robert Hall, and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, in favour of Mixed Communion. By G. F. Curtis, A. M. [pp. 557-574]

COlose ommunion.
Lord's table; which is an institution intended for all Chris
tians. Let us suppose a case. A pious Pedobaptist resides
in the midst of a Baptist population, but remote from any
church agreeing with him on the subject of baptism. He is
well known to his Baptist brethren, and they cannot doubt his
piety, because his whole life and conversation are such as become the gospel. When the Lord's Supper is about to be
partaken of, he applies to the Baptist Church for the privilege
of sitting down with them at the table of their common Lord;
but he is refused, and informed, that unless he will agree to
be immersed he cannot be admitted. He may expostulate and
plead that they admit him to be a brother, a disciple of Christ,
and join with him in other acts of worship, and why not in
this, which seems to have been appointed as a communion of
saints. But the refusal is peremptory. T'his church of pro
fessing Christians takes upon them the responsibility of preventing an acknowledged disciple of Christ from obeying his
dying command. They take upon them to prevent a real
servant of God from receiving edification and comfort, by an
attendance on an ordinance instituted by Christ for this very
purpose, and greatly beloved of God for the promotion of these
very ends. Christ has renewed this man, and has given him
his Spirit to dwell in him, of which he exhibits all the evidence
which can be demanded by any church; him whom Christ
receives and acknowledges as his disciple, his professed disciples refuse to admit to Christ's table! Can any reasoning
about symbols of communion, and the necessity of preserving
,he primitive doctrine of baptism, prove this to be right?
Impossible.
But we shall be met here with the argumentum ad horntinem,
that the Baptists act in this matter on precisely the same
principles as the Pedobaptists; for these will not admit any
person to the communion of the Lord's Supper who has not
been baptized. This argument, at best, proves nothing; for
if Pedobaptists in similar circumstances, act on the same principles as the Baptists, it only proves that they are illiberal
too; and debar from the Supper persons whom they acknowledge to be his disciples. But let us look at the argument.
Pedobaptists have no occasion to act on the principle adopted
1850.]
569