# C Hodge On Fencing The Table



## KMK (Oct 30, 2008)

From "Systematic Theology, Vol III", pg. 625



> It cannot be doubted that it was required of the Jews in coming to the paschal supper that they should believe the fact of their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt that they should be duly grateful to God for that great mercy and that they should have faith in the promise of that still greater redemption through Him of whom their paschal lamb was the divinely appointed type. All this was implied in an intelligent and sincere attendance on the Jewish Passover. *The priests, however, were not authorized to sit in judgment on the sincerity of the worshippers, and to exclude all whom they deemed insincere.* So while faith, love, and the purpose of new obedience are clearly required of all who come to the table of the Lord, all that the Church can demand is a credible profession; that is, a profession against which no tangible evidence can be adduced. Even to acceptable prayer, faith and love and the purpose of obedience are demanded, and *yet we cannot exclude from access to God all whom we do not deem true believers. Confounding the Church and the world is a great evil, but the Church cannot be kept pure by any human devices. Men must be so instructed that they will be kept back from making profession of a faith they do not possess, by their own consciences; and those who act unworthily of their Christian profession should be subjected to the discipline of the Church. Further than this the Bible does not authorize us to go, and all attempts to improve upon the Bible must be productive of evil. According to our Directory for Worship, the minister “is to warn the profane, the ignorant, and scandalous, and those that secretly indulge themselves in any known sin, not to approach the holy table.” To these classes his power of exclusion is confined.* “On the other hand, he shall invite to this holy table, such as, sensible of their lost and helpless state of sin, depend upon the atonement of Christ for pardon and acceptance with God; such as, being instructed in the Gospel doctrine, have a competent knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, and such as desire to renounce their sins, and are determined to lead a holy and godly life.”



Is Hodge advocating 'close' or 'closed' communion? (Or neither?)


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 30, 2008)

He is advocating that the ministers may indeed hold back those that are willingly and sinning with no repentance, or those who make no profession or are ignorant of Christian doctrine. But he is saying that beyond this, a minister is not to hold one back from the table because he believes their faith to be insincere, or because they find themselves in sin but earnestly desire to escape therefrom. If a person makes a profession *against which no tangible evidence can be adduced*, that is, not engaged in unrepentant sin, involved in great scandal or too ignorant to make such a credible profession, the minister cannot withhold from them the supper.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Oct 30, 2008)

It would seem that "fencing the table", in Hodge's mind is limited to warning "the profane, the ignorant, and scandalous, and those that secretly indulge themselves in any known sin, not to approach the holy table." and the subjection of those who " act unworthily of their Christian profession should" to the discipline of the Church. Beyond this, Hodge is actually arguing against close/closed communion when he says that "we cannot exclude from access to God all whom we do not deem true believers...the Church cannot be kept pure by any human devices."


----------



## KMK (Oct 30, 2008)

pilgrim3970 said:


> It would seem that "fencing the table", in Hodge's mind is limited to warning "the profane, the ignorant, and scandalous, and those that secretly indulge themselves in any known sin, not to approach the holy table." and the subjection of those who " act unworthily of their Christian profession should" to the discipline of the Church. Beyond this, Hodge is actually arguing against close/closed communion when he says that "we cannot exclude from access to God all whom we do not deem true believers...the Church cannot be kept pure by any human devices."



I doubt any advocate of close, closed, or restricted communion would argue that they were attempting to keep the church pure 'by human devices'. Hodge does say that those who are under church discipline should not be allowed to partake. 

I always understood 'open' communion to be without a fence at all, which doesn't seem to be Hodge's view since he says that those under church discipline should not be allowed to partake.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Oct 30, 2008)

KMK said:


> pilgrim3970 said:
> 
> 
> > It would seem that "fencing the table", in Hodge's mind is limited to warning "the profane, the ignorant, and scandalous, and those that secretly indulge themselves in any known sin, not to approach the holy table." and the subjection of those who " act unworthily of their Christian profession should" to the discipline of the Church. Beyond this, Hodge is actually arguing against close/closed communion when he says that "we cannot exclude from access to God all whom we do not deem true believers...the Church cannot be kept pure by any human devices."
> ...



I've understood "closed" communion to be limiting to a particular congregation, denomination, or those in fellowship with the church in question and "open" to be more or less what Hodge is putting forth. I may be mistaken in my understanding.

I have been in some where no apparent restrictions are in place, others require that you are at least baptized, others require that one holds to the same doctrinal views, and others that you belong to their denomination.

My take on Hodge's reference to "human devices" (which from the quote, he doesn't seem to be using it in a negative sense) is that he was refering to the mere policy of closed communion will not itself guarantee purity in the church but that such purity will only be accomplished through sound instruction in the faith.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 30, 2008)

I think this is easier to understand in light of the paragraph before the one you quoted: Hodge is answering whether a man must be absolutely sure of his belief, that he truly is saved, before partaking of the supper: i.e., does doubt concerning our state remove us from a right to the table; he answers, No, it does not: rather, such believers as these (so long as they are not in unrepentant sin) stand in even greater need of the supper, to assure their hearts and build their faith.

Hodge is thus stating that man is not in a position to judge whether or not a man's belief is absolutely sincere. He _is_ allowed to evaluate the signs: does he make a credible profession? does he desire to escape from sin? is he involved in unrepentant sin? If these are all answered properly, then man is not able to judge further than this whether another's faith is true and sincere or not; thus, ministers cannot keep believers from the table by saying they doubt their faith, so long as all the previous criteria have been met. We cannot try any more than that to keep the table pure. That's all the Hodge is saying here.


----------



## KMK (Nov 1, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> I think this is easier to understand in light of the paragraph before the one you quoted: Hodge is answering whether a man must be absolutely sure of his belief, that he truly is saved, before partaking of the supper: i.e., does doubt concerning our state remove us from a right to the table; he answers, No, it does not: rather, such believers as these (so long as they are not in unrepentant sin) stand in even greater need of the supper, to assure their hearts and build their faith.
> 
> Hodge is thus stating that man is not in a position to judge whether or not a man's belief is absolutely sincere. *He is allowed to evaluate the signs: does he make a credible profession? does he desire to escape from sin? is he involved in unrepentant sin? * If these are all answered properly, then man is not able to judge further than this whether another's faith is true and sincere or not; thus, ministers cannot keep believers from the table by saying they doubt their faith, so long as all the previous criteria have been met. We cannot try any more than that to keep the table pure. That's all the Hodge is saying here.



Where does Hodge say this? I must have missed it. Hodge does say:



> Men must be so instructed that they will be kept back from making profession of a faith they do not possess, by their own consciences;



Obviously a man who is known to a church to be unrepentant should be under discipline and denied the Supper, but how would this be known in the case of a visitor? Hodge seems to believe that fencing through instruction is adequate in the case of visitors.

Would this be 'open' communion?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 1, 2008)

Kevin,


> It is, however, not to be inferred from this that a man must be assured that he is a true believer before he can properly approach the Lord’s table.


Then he goes on:


> It is no valid objection to the doctrine that faith, love, and new obedience are the qualifications for an acceptable approach to the Lord’s table, that under the Old Testament all the people were allowed to partake of the Passover. This only shows the difference between what God demands, and what fallible men are authorized to enforce. It cannot be doubted that it was required of the Jews in coming to the paschal supper that they should believe the fact of their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt that they should be duly grateful to God for that great mercy and that they should have faith in the promise of that still greater redemption through Him of whom their paschal lamb was the divinely appointed type. All this was implied in an intelligent and sincere attendance on the Jewish Passover. The priests, however, were not authorized to sit in judgment on the sincerity of the worshippers, and to exclude all whom they deemed insincere. *So while faith, love, and the purpose of new obedience are clearly required of all who come to the table of the Lord, all that the Church can demand is a credible profession; that is, a profession against which no tangible evidence can be adduced.*



And finally:


> Men must be so instructed that they will be kept back from making profession of a faith they do not possess, by their own consciences; *and those who act unworthily of their Christian profession should be subjected to the discipline of the Church. Further than this* the Bible does not authorize us to go, and all attempts to improve upon the Bible must be productive of evil. According to our Directory for Worship, the minister “is to warn the profane, the ignorant, and scandalous, and those that secretly indulge themselves in any known sin, not to approach the holy table.” *To these classes* his power of exclusion is confined.



As you have said, such as these are to be brought under discipline, and ministers may indeed withhold from them the supper. Again, however, the context of this whole passage seems to be restricting the minister from barring men from the table simply because he does not believe their faith to be sincere even though he does make a profession and there is no great, unrepentant sin.

Regarding the question of visitors and open/closed communion--I think that is foreign to this passage. It is simply not what Hodge is talking about, and it is not possible from this passage the draw any sorts of conclusions. It is not his design to answer that question here. I can't think of any place he discusses it to direct you to, either.


----------

