This has been termed erroneously "close communion" by our friends the Protestants and Pedo-Baptists. They call us "selfish, and uncharitable" in refusing to commune with them. They tell us we shall commune together in Heaven and ought to on earth; forgetting that whatever the regulations of the heavenly state, the Word of God alone is our guide during our earthly pilgrimage. There are too many erroneous views concerning communion at the Lord’s table. In some places it seems almost as a manifestation of Christian love, rather than a commemoration of the Savior’s death. They look upon it as a practical illustration of the union of different religious denominations, instead of a solemn celebration of the sufferings of the Crucified One. There is among Baptists alone a Scriptural observance of the Lord’s Supper.

Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are changed into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. To believe this the Savior then took His body and made the disciples eat of it, and literally poured out His blood and told them to "drink ye all of it." If you can believe that you should be a Catholic. Bread cannot be His real body; neither can wine be His real blood, but bread can represent His body and wine can represent His blood.

The Lutherans differ least from the Romans in regard to communion, for they maintain that "the body and the blood of Christ are materially present in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, though in an incomprehensible manner. They call it CON-SUBSTANTIATION. The Catholics call it TRANS-SUBSTANTIATION. Both are incredible.

Episcopalians and Methodists would perhaps think it unkind, to infer that their "sacramental services" indicate their ecclesiastic descent from Rome. But it is even so. The communicant in receiving the bread is addressed thus: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." And in receiving the cup, "The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." These are from the book of "Common Prayer." The same language is found in the Methodist "Discipline."

The terms soul and body however are made to change places. No charge that the Episcopalians and Methodist believe in Trans-Substantiation or Con-Substantiation. But if not, they should modify the language. Do they know why they kneel at the communion? What is the origin? Here it is: When the Roman sentiment of Trans-substantiation began to prevail, the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper being considered the real body and blood of Christ, were regarded as suitable objects of adoration. Hence the superstitious kneeling of Romanists at the "holy communion."

Episcopalians, abandoning "Mother Rome" in the reign of Henry VIII, retained the practice of kneeling, while Methodists have inherited it from the Episcopalians. All Protestants ought to repudiate it on account of its idolatrous origin. Worshiping bread and wine makes one guilty of idolatry.

Presbyterians celebrate it by speaking of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as "sealing ordinances." This conveys an unscriptural idea. Christians are as we read in Ephesians 1:13, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."

Baptists hold that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed as a memorial of the death of Christ. The bread represents His crucified body—wine His blood shed on Calvary. Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me." Paul tells the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:24, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

So the death of Christ will be commemorated until He comes the second time. We do not show the death, burial or resurrection or ascension or glorification of our Lord, BUT HIS DEATH.

Baptism is a pre-requisite to the Lord’s Table. We reason thus: It is an ordinance, to be observed exclusively by the members of a visible church of Christ. None can be members of a visible church of Christ without baptism.

Now let us read Luke 22:19, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." This is in simple language the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

Isn’t it strange how the two ordinances of the church have been the cause of so much contention, so many broken homes and so many isms? Not strange either because if the devil could destroy these pictures he would eventually blot out the Christian religion. Jesus Christ instituted the church and gave to it two ordinances. Baptism, a picture of His death, burial and resurrection, and the Lord’s Supper, picture of what He has done for us—to think of Him and remember Him until He comes. Both will be done away at His return.

Let us now open our minds and be frank and discuss the question and see if we cannot find the meaning. There are several bed rock principles.

1. The ordinance was entrusted to the church.

2. It has been restricted by Jesus Christ.

3. Certain pre-requisites.

4. Those pre-requisites were laid down by Jesus Christ.

5. The church possesses only executive power.

6. No church has a right to establish any terms other than found in the New Testament.

1. Primitive rules are not applicable now.

2. Pedo-Baptists think themselves baptized, hence they should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Individuals do not decide.

3. Restricted communion is a hindrance to union among Christians.

4. It is urged that restricted communion is inconsistent since we reject the better and receive the worse.

All denominations agree with us that God has placed certain restrictions around the Lord’s table.

1. Regeneration. John insisted that "meets for repentance," come before baptism, so belief must precede it. Yet today baptism so-called is given to helpless babes without any authority in the world from the Bible.

Notice the order of Pentecost, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41). "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12). Again in Acts 10:47, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

Take the great commission. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

2. They were baptized believers. There was no open membership in these New Testament churches. The only way you could get into one of them was by baptism. Immersion was the only mode. The Lord’s Supper was and is in the church.

3. Since it is a church ordinance it must be celebrated by baptized believers in church capacity.

(1) Lord’s Supper not spoken of in connection with individuals. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42).

(2) The individual administration of it has no Bible warranty.

(3) It is a church ordinance and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this falls for want of Scripture example or command.

4. Orderly Walk. "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper" (1 Cor. 11:17-20). "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11:28). "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat" (1 Cor. 5:11). "But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings of your faith and charity, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you" (1 Thess. 3:6).

Frankly NO! This comes from two facts.

1. Every church is the guardian of the purity of the ordinances of Jesus Christ.

2. Every church is an independent body—a democratic sovereignty under Christ. Every church is under sacred obligations to preserve the purity and integrity of the ordinances. "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

How are they to be preserved? By each church. How are they to preserve it unless each local body feels its local responsibility? We preserve the ordinance of baptism by demanding that the subject be saved. We preserve the Lord’s Supper by demanding that the subject be worthy. This brings up the question of discipline. We can only discipline those within our church. So what right would we have to invite those of other churches over whom we have no power of discipline?

Remember every church is an independent body. If a church is independent how can the members of another church interfere with its action? How can they claim anything of it on the ground of right to be invited? It would be a peculiar independence if those members who do not belong to it could demand a seat at the Lord’s Table among them. Baptists can restrict because they are independent. Pedo-Baptists such as Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists extend over state and provinces. Local congregations are in a great measure exempt from such responsibilities as rest on those with whom is the sovereign power under Christ. The Episcopalian looks to his General Convention, the Presbyterian to his General Assembly, and the Methodist to his General Conference as the highest authority as the supreme judicatory.

Every Baptist feels that he is a sovereign citizen of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Every Baptist church is a sovereign democracy on which devolves the duty of executing laws of Christ and of preserving in their primitive purity and integrity the ordinances of the Gospel. This does not make our members love less the members of another Baptist church. Christian love is not created nor preserved by the acts of Synods nor the edicts of Conferences, Conventions, Associations or Fellowships. It is originated by the influence of the Holy Spirit and perpetuated by the same agency.

The reasoning generally resorted to in its defense is illogical, often involving its advocates in the most glaring inconsistency. "Don’t you believe them Christians?" "Shouldn’t you love all Christians?" "Won’t you commune with your wife or mother?" "Don’t you expect to commune in Heaven?"

1. Where positive laws which from the very nature must be observed according to the expressed will of the law giver are the subject of discussion all appeal to the emotional nature is out of place.

2. Family or social relationship has nothing whatever to do with qualifying a person for communion at the Lord’s Table.

3. The logical and the inevitable sequence of open communion is open membership.

4. It is false claim that open communion tends to brotherly love and Christian union.

5. Open communion put into practice would compel a church to commune with those who had been excluded because of unworthy fellowship.

6. The practice of open communion is a flagrant violation of principles common to nearly all the creeds of Christendom contravening and nullifying what is admitted almost universally to be the expressed will of Christ.

7. Open communion is a plain violation of the New Testament.

(1) We are to keep the ordinances as delivered.

(2) We must do whatsoever God has commanded us, if we would prove ourselves His friends. "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John 15:14).

(3) If there be a cross it must be taken up and borne. "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matthew 16:24).

(4) If we permit earthly ties (even those of father, mother, wife, children, brother or sister) to come between us and our duty, the Savior says we cannot be His disciples. "And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:36-38).