the lord’s supper, called also the “eucharist,” and the “communion,” is the most sacred act of christian worship, and the highest expression of the mysteries of our holy religion. it is a service in which bread and wine—the loaf and the cup—are used to represent the body and the blood of christ, the lamb of god, slain for us. the bread is broken, distributed, and eaten; the wine is poured, distributed, and drunk by the members of the assembled church, to show the sacrifice of christ, his body broken, and his blood shed for their redemption; and that by his death they have life. being begotten of god through the operation of the spirit, their new life is sustained and nourished by mystically feeding on him who is the bread of god, which came down from heaven to give life to the world. he said: “this do in remembrance of me.” “as oft as ye eat this bread [p. 109] and drink this cup, ye proclaim the lord’s death, till he come.” “except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” “whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” “he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and i in him.” it is a divine reality, though a sublime mystery.
open and close communion
the controversy between baptists and other denominations, so far as the lord’s supper is concerned, has no reference to its nature, the purpose for which it was instituted, the manner of its administration, or the effect of the elements on the participants. it has reference simply to the proper subjects for participation in the privilege. who may, and who may not properly and of right come to the lord’s table? on the question of what are the scriptural qualifications of participants, baptist and pedobaptists differ—differ not as to the general rule to be applied, but as to its particular application. and this particular application leads to the controversy on what is called “close communion,” as practiced [p. 110] by baptists, and to what is called “open communion,” as practiced by pedobaptists.
what is open communion? open, free or mixed communion is, strictly speaking, that which allows any one who desires, and believes himself qualified, to come to the lord’s table, without any questions being asked, or conditions imposed by the church in which the ordinance is observed. but ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of the greater part of the pedobaptist churches, which hold that sprinkling is lawful baptism, and invite, not all persons, but members of all evangelical churches, whatever be their view of church order and ordinances; holding them all as being baptized because they have been sprinkled.
what is close communion? close, strict, or restricted communion is, properly speaking, that which does not invite all indiscriminately to the lord’s table, but restricts the privilege to a particular class. but ordinarily the term is applied to the practice of baptist churches, which invite only baptized believers, walking in orderly fellowship in their own churches. and by baptized believers, they mean, of course, [p. 111] immersed believers; not admitting sprinkling to be baptism at all.
one and the same rule
observe further: that baptists and pedobaptists have one and the same rule in theory as to the proper qualification for participants, namely, they all hold that baptism is a prerequisite. that unbaptized persons have no legal right to the lord’s supper, and cannot consistently be invited to it. pedobaptists would not invite unbaptized persons to the lord’s table, however good christians, since such could not become church-members, and the supper is for those within the church, not for the outside world. for though there are a few churches and a few pastors, who in their extreme liberality might be disposed to invite everybody to the sacred ordinance yet such a course would be contrary to their denominational standards, and opposed to the usages of their churches generally.
further observe: they all practice a restriction since they restrict the privilege to a particular class: namely, baptized believers, walking in orderly church fellowship. but baptists and pedobaptists differ [p. 112] as to what constitutes baptism, the one rejecting, and the other accepting the validity of sprinkling. thus baptists’ custom is more “close,” and pedobaptists’ is more “open,” by the difference between their views of baptism; and by that difference only. therefore, it is manifest that the question so called of “close” and “open” communion is really not a question of “communion” at all, but of what constitutes scriptural baptism. let that be settled, and the controversy as to the restriction of the lord’s supper will cease.
the baptist position
baptists hold that there are three imperative conditions precedent to the privileges of the lord’s supper: 1. regeneration. no unconverted person can with propriety, or of right, eat and drink at that sacred feast, in commemoration of christ’s death. they must be persons dead to sin, and alive to god; born again, through the operation of the spirit. 2. baptism. buried with christ in baptism on a profession of faith in him. no person, however good, and however manifestly regenerate, is prepared without baptism, according to the [p. 113] divine order, to receive the supper. without baptism he cannot enter the fellowship of the church, where the supper alone is to be enjoyed. 3. an orderly walk is necessary. an upright and consistent christian walk, and godly conversation among the saints, and before the world. for though one may be truly regenerate, and properly baptized, yet if he be a disorderly walker, violating his covenant obligations, living in sin, and bringing reproach on the christian profession, he has no right to sit at the lord’s table.
the ordinances are a sacred trust which christ has committed to the churches as custodians, and which they are to watch and guard from all profane intrusion, and improper use, with the most sedulous fidelity. baptists believe that in order to maintain the purity and spirituality of the churches, it is necessary to maintain the ordinances pure; and especially necessary to restrict the supper to regenerate and godly persons, baptized on a profession of their faith, into the fellowship of the saints. to adopt any other rule, or to allow any larger liberty, would break down the distinction between the church and the world; would bring in a carnal and unconverted [p. 114] membership, and transfer the sacred mysteries of the body and the blood of christ from the temple of god to the temple of belial. this would be disloyalty to christ.
the apostolic plan was as follows: those who believed and gladly received the word, were baptized. then they were added to the church. then they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer.
notice, they were not baptized till they had received the word and believed. they were not added to the church till they had believed and been baptized. they did not engage in the breaking of bread (that is, the supper,) till they had believed, been baptized, and were added to the church. this is the divine order; and this is the order which baptists maintain and defend.
pedobaptist close communion
it has already been shown that pedobaptists themselves practice a restricted or close communion, limiting the privilege to baptized (as they call them) members of evangelical churches, and that their communion is more liberal than that of the baptists [p. 115] only, and only by so much as their baptism (so-called) is more liberal than that of baptists.
but in some respects pedobaptists practice a “close communion,” restrictive in its conditions, far beyond anything known to baptists whose illiberality they are accustomed to magnify. they exclude a large class of their own members from the lord’s table—namely, baptized children! baptists do not deny the lord’s supper to their own members in good standing. if children are suitable subjects for baptism, it seems most unreasonable and unjust to deny them the supper. if they can be benefited by one ordinance, can they not be equally benefited by the other? if they can receive the one on the faith of sponsors, can they not receive the other in the same way? who has authorized parents or ministers to give baptism to unconverted and unconscious children, and refuse them the lord’s supper? by denying the supper to baptized children, pedobaptists act contrary to the traditions of the ancient churches, which they are accustomed to cite with so much assurance, in defense of infant baptism. do they not know that those ancient churches (not the primitive churches) gave the lord’s supper to infants [p. 116] for many centuries? and the greek church, through all its branches, continues still the same practice.
doctor coleman says: “after the general introduction of infant baptism, in the second and third centuries, the sacrament continued to be administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults. the reason alleged by cyprian and others for this practice was, that age was no impediment. augustine strongly advocates the practice. the custom continued for several centuries. it is mentioned in the third council of tours, a. d. 813; and even the council of trent, a. d. 1545, only decreed that it should not be considered essential to salvation. it is still scrupulously observed by the greek church.” anc. christ. exemp., ch. 22, sec. 8; bing., orig., b. 15, ch. 4, sec. 7. many other writers bear the same testimony.
the power of sympathy
there is a small class of baptists who are at times inclined to desire, and it may be, to seek a wider liberty at the lord’s table than they find accorded in their own churches. the one prevailing argument with them is sympathy. to them it seems [p. 117] kindly and fraternal to invite all who say they love our common lord and saviour to unite in commemorating his death in the supper. even if they have not been baptized, they themselves believe they have, and they are good christian people. “why stand upon a technicality?” they say. to such the service is merely a sentimental service; a kind of love feast to show christian fellowship, rather than an instituted commemoration of their dying lord. they have neither scripture, logic, expediency, the scholarship, nor the concurrent practice of christendom, either past or present, to sustain their position. but sympathy influences them; yet sympathy should not control conduct in matters of faith, or in acts of conscience. it is a grave perversion when affection for his disciples sways us more than fidelity to our lord. we should not be so kind to them as to be untrue to him. sincere christians will honor those who are loyal to christ, even though they differ in opinion.
three facts explained
baptists give the following reasons in justification of their course in the following cases:
[p. 118] 1. they do not invite pedobaptists to the lord’s supper with them, because such persons are not baptized, as has been shown, they being simply sprinkled. they may be true converts, and have the spiritual qualifications, but they are destitute of the ceremonial qualification—baptism. the “buried in baptism” comes before the “breaking of bread.”
2. they do not accept the invitation of pedobaptist churches to eat at the lord’s table with them, for the same reason; they are not baptized christians. and while the appreciate their christian fellowship, they could not accept their church fellowship, and sit at the lord’s table with them, without accepting their sprinkling and indorsing their baptismal errors.
3. they do not invite immersed members of pedobaptist churches to the lord’s supper with them, because such persons, though they may be truly regenerate and properly baptized, are walking disorderly by remaining in and giving countenance to churches which hold and practice serious errors as to both the ordinances. these churches use sprinkling for baptism and administer the ordinance to infants, both of which are unscriptural. and yet such persons, by remaining [p. 119] in them, encourage and support these errors, instead of protesting against them by leaving them. they insist on immersion for themselves, and yet by a strange inconsistency give their fellowship and influence to perpetuate and sanction sprinkling for others. this is inconsistent and disorderly christian walking; and, therefore, very properly, baptists decline to invite them to the lord’s supper.
pedobaptist witnesses
in further proof that the position of baptists as to the lord’s supper is correct and scriptural; that the difficulty lies with baptism, and not with the supper; and that they must still continue to restrict the ordinance to baptized believers, or else admit that sprinkling is baptism, we cite the concessions of distinguished pedobaptist scholars and divines in evidence on our side.
justin martyr, one of the early christian fathers, says of the supper: “this food is called by us the eucharist, of which it is not lawful for any one to partake but such as believe the things taught by us to be true, and have been baptized.” apol. [p. 120] i, c. 65. 66. see schaff’s church hist., ch. 2. p. 516.
mosheim, in his church history, says: “neither those doing penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance.” eccl. hist., cent. 3, part 2, ch. 4, sec. 3.
neander, the great church historian, says: “at this celebration, as may be easily concluded, no one could be present who was not a member of the christian church, and incorporated into it by the rite of baptism.” ch. hist., vol. 1., 327. boston, 1849.
cave, one of the ablest writers on christian antiquities, says the participants in the primitive church were those “that had embraced the doctrine of the gospel, and had been baptized into the faith of christ. for, looking upon the lord’s supper as the highest and most solemn act of religion, they thought they could never take care enough in the dispensing of it.” prim. christ., part i., ch. 11, p. 333.
bingham, in his able work on the antiquities of the christian church, says of the early christians: “as soon as a man was [p. 121] baptized he was communicated”—that is, admitted to the communion. baptism, therefore, essentially preceded the supper.—christ. antiq., b. 12, ch. 4, sec. 9, b. 15, ch. 3.
doctor wall, who searched the records of antiquity for facts illustrating the history of the ordinances, says: “no church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were baptized. among all the absurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized.” hist. inf. bap., part ii., ch. 9.
doctor coleman says of the early churches: “none indeed but believers in full communion with the church were permitted to be present.” “but agreeably to all the laws and customs of the church, baptism constituted membership with the church. all baptized persons were legitimately numbered among the communicants as members of the church.” anc. christ. exemp., ch. 21, sec. 8.
doctor schaff says: “the communion was a regular part, and, in fact, the most important and solemn part of the sunday worship, . . . in which none but full members [p. 122] of the church could engage.” ch. hist., vol. i., p. 392. new work, 1871.
doctor doddridge says: “it is certain that so far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the lord’s supper.” lectures, pp. 511, 512.
doctor dick says: “an uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the passover; and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of the eucharist.” theol., vol. ii., p. 220.
doctor baxter says: “what man dares go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of both? yet they that will admit members into the visible church without baptism do so.” plain scripture proof, p. 24.
doctor dwight, president of yale college, and author of “systematic theology,” says: “it is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church in full standing. by this, i intend that he should be a man of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion, and that he should have been baptized.” syst. theol., ser. 160, b. 8, ch. 4. sec. 7.
[p. 123]doctor griffin, one of the fathers of new england congregationalism, says: “i agree with the advocates of close communion on two points: 1. that baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces us into the visible church; of course, where there is no baptism, there are no visible churches. 2. that we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course not church-members, even if we regard them as christians.” letter on baptism, 1829, cited by curtis on com., p. 125.
doctor hibbard, a leading methodist scholar and divine, says: “in one principle baptist and pedobaptist churches agree. they both agree in rejecting from communion at the table of the lord, and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all who have not been baptized.” and with admirable frankness, he adds: “the charge of close communion is no more applicable to the baptist than to us [pedobaptists]; insomuch as the question of church fellowship with them is determined by as liberal principles as it is with any other protestant churches, so far, i mean, as the present subject is concerned—i.e., it is determined by valid baptism.” hibbard on christ. bap., p. ii., p. 174.
[p. 124]doctor bullock, another methodist divine, says: “close communion, as it is generally termed, is the only logical and consistent course for baptist churches to pursue. if their premises are right, their conclusion is surely just as it should be.” and he commends the firmness of baptists in not inviting to the communion those whom they regard as unbaptized. he says: “they do not feel willing to countenance such laxity in christian discipline. let us honor them for their steadfastness in maintaining what they believe to be a bible precept, rather than criticize and censure because they differ with us concerning the intent and mode of christian baptism, and believe it to be an irrepealable condition of coming to the lord’s table.” what christians believe.
the independent, one of the most widely circulated, and perhaps the most influential pedobaptist paper in the country, in an editorial, says: “leading writers of all denominations declare that converts must be baptized before they can be invited to the communion table. this is the position generally taken. but baptists regarding sprinkling as a nullity—no baptism at all—look upon presbyterians, methodists, and [p. 125] others, as unbaptized persons.” “the other churches cannot urge the baptists to become open communionists till they themselves take the position that all who love our lord jesus christ, the unbaptized as well as the baptized, may be invited to the communion table.” editorial, july, 1879.
the congregationalist, the organ of the new england congregational churches, in an editorial, says: “congregationalists have uniformly, until here and there an exception has arisen of late years, required baptism and church-membership as the prerequisite of a seat at the table of the lord. it is a part of the false ‘liberality’ which now prevails in certain quarters, to welcome everybody ‘who thinks he loves christ’ to commune in his body and blood. such a course is the first step in breaking down that distinction between the church and the world, which our saviour emphasized; and it seems to us it is an unwise and mistaken act for which no scriptural warrant exists.” editorial, july 9, 1879.
the observer, of new york, the oldest and leading presbyterian journal of this country, said: “it is not a want of charity [p. 126] which compels the baptist to restrict his invitation. he has no hesitation in admitting the personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. presbyterians do not invite the unbaptized, however pious they may be. it is not uncharitable. it is not bigotry on the part of baptists to confine their communion to those whom they consider the baptized.”
the interior, of chicago, the organ of western presbyterians, said: “the difference between our baptist brethren and ourselves is an important difference. we agree with them, however, in saying that unbaptized persons should not partake of the lord’s supper. their view compels them to think that we are not baptized, and shuts them up to close communion. close communion is, in our judgment, a more defensible position than open communion, which is justified on the ground that baptism is not a prerequisite to the lord’s supper. to charge baptists with bigotry because they abide by the logical consequences of their system is absurd.”
the christian advocate, of new york, the leading journal of american methodists, said: “the regular baptist churches in the [p. 127] united states may be considered today as particularly a unit on three points—the non-use of infant baptism, the immersion of believers only upon a profession of faith, and the administration of the holy communion to such only as have been immersed by ministers holding these views. in our opinion the baptist church owes its amazing prosperity largely to its adherence to these views. in doctrine and government, and in other respects, it is the same as congregationalists. in numbers, the regular baptists are more than six times as great as the congregationalists. it is not bigotry to adhere to one’s convictions, provided the spirit of christian love prevails.”
the episcopal recorder said: “the close communion of the baptist churches is but the necessary sequence of the fundamental idea out of which their existence has grown. no christian church would willingly receive to its communion even the humblest and truest believer in christ who had not been baptized. with baptists, immersion only is baptism, and they therefore of necessity exclude from the lord’s table all who have not been immersed. it is an essential part of the system—the legitimate carrying out of the creed.”
[p. 128]bishop coxe, of the episcopal diocese of western new york, says: “the baptists hold that we have never been baptized, and they must exclude us from their communion table, if we were disposed to go there. are we offended? do we call it illiberal? no; we call it principle, and we respect it. to say that we have never become members of christ by baptism seems severe, but it is a conscientious adherence to duty, as they regard it. i should be the bigot, and not they, if i should ask them to violate their discipline in this, or in any other particular.” on christ. unity, in “church union,” july, 1891.
