VIEWS ON OPEN COMMUNION

From Signs of the Times Oct. 11, 1871

by Elder Isaac Vanmeter

ELDER BEEBE - DEAR BROTHER: - At the Des Moines River Association in August, near Fairfield, Iowa, sister Katharine Smith, wife of brother William Smith, at whose hospitable board nearly all the company from a distance found an ample supply of food, requested me to give my views, through the "Signs," on the subject of Open Communion, or, I presume, to explain the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and give the reasons why we, as a denomination, do not hold what is termed open, or free communion.

I told the sister at the time, and now repeat, that I do not presume I know any thing new on the subject, or can say any thing that will shed any new light on the communion, as an ordinance of Jesus Christ; but as her request was made partly on the account of others, who appear not to understand the nature of the ordinance as we do, I shall endeavor to give my own individual views in the premises, hoping that they may be in accordance with the scriptures, and with the views of the Regular Baptists generally.

In the first place, I remark that there is but one organization on earth, but one kind of religious body, or community, entitled to the name of the church of Christ, or that can scripturally administer her ordinances, or enjoy her privileges. This organization called the church of Christ, was so constituted and founded by Christ himself, during his ministry on earth, he being solely and absolutely the Head, the King, the Lawgiver, and Judge over her in all things. Immediately after the ascension of Christ, this official and executive body of Christ began to exercise the authority vested in her by her Head and Husband, (Acts i. 15) and soon after this there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts ii. 41. This first church, and model of all other gospel churches, in her first accessions to her community, and the first example she gives of her order and ordinances, leaves but little room for any disputation about her mode of doing business. She received and baptized none but those who 'gladly received' the word of truth spoken by Peter, who had previously been "pricked in their heart," by the quickening power of the Spirit; had repented of their sins, and brought forth fruits satisfactory to the disciples present. Here, then, as well as every where else in the New Testament, examples are given of the qualifications of a candidate for baptism. He must give evidence of repentance toward God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. He could not be admitted to the holy ordinance of baptism unless he believed with all his heart, (Acts viii. 37), or had received the Holy Ghost Acts x. 17. And when they believed, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts viii. 12. I make the above quotations, dear sister, and emphasize some of them., not for your sake, or for the sake of any established Baptist, but for the benefit of those who do not seem to understand our order.

We now have a gospel church, founded by Christ, exercising her prerogatives granted her by her King and Lawgiver; she receives members, who are baptized believers, and she requires them to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded. Among the all things commanded is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. "Do this in remembrance of me," is the solemn injunction, the endearing words of our adorable Lord and Master. These baptized believers at Jerusalem "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts ii. 42. Here we have a sample of an apostolic church in her further order and ordinances. It was not only necessary that a man should be a baptized believer, and added to the church, to entitle him to the privilege of the communion, but he must also continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and a departure from the doctrine, or the loss of the fellowship of the apostles, would have, and should have debarred any one from the privilege of communion with the church. If a man then is not a member of the church, and recognized as such, being sound in the faith, and orderly in practice, he cannot come to the communion and feast with the saints consistently with good order. Let us look at one of the patterns, at least, of these heavenly things. The Passover feast had a retrospective, and also a prospective bearing and signification. An Israelite was reminded, while eating of the roasted flesh of the slain lamb, and drinking of its shed blood, of the awful yet glorious night when the destroying angel passed over his house, and destroyed the first born of his Egyptian neighbor; and if he had faith to discern its spiritual import, he beheld, in type, Christ, the true Passover, sacrificed for him. Now let us examine the qualifications of a man who was entitled to participate of this feast. "This is the ordinance of the Passover: there shall no stranger eat thereof." "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is home born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Exodus 12: 43-49. If then no one could come near the Passover under the law of Moses unless he were qualified according to the law of Moses, so also no one can come to the feast of Christ, the true Passover, without the prerogatives in the law of Christ - the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and obedience to the ordinance of baptism. And as there was but one law, and it the same to a Jew and to a stranger, so with the church of Christ, the anti-typical Israel, she has but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism for all, whether barbarian, Scythian, bond or free.

But I am aware that the difficulties in the minds of those who profess to love our Lord Jesus Christ are not removed by such illustrations and such figurative examples as those given above. They want the subject brought down to the every day circumstances, and the familiar relations of life. Well, I shall try to present the subject in the most simple and familiar manner of which I am able. "Why do you restrict your communion of the Lord's Supper to the members of your own denomination?" is frequently propounded by members of other denominations. I answer, Because we are not in fellowship with them as denominations. Why? Because of either their doctrine or practice, or both, being contrary to the word of God. But who is to be the judge? I answer, Every church must judge of this, and all other matters of faith and practice, by the only rule given for that purpose - the BIBLE. And without boasting, but in humility before God, we, as a denomination, challenge the religious world for a comparison before that unerring standard. We believe that immersion alone is baptism, and many of the sects ridicule immersion, and have substituted sprinkling in its stead; and even if such should, now and then, immerse rather than lose a member, it is not done in faith upon the part of the administrator, and is but a burlesque upon the sacred ordinance. The candidate may be honest, and otherwise a proper subject; the mode may be right, and yet, on account of the disqualified and presumptuous administrator, the performance is no better than a religious farce, and, so far as the administrator is concerned, an act of presumption. We may have fellowship for the person thus immersed, as a regenerate child of God, and yet repudiate and reject their baptism, so called. But another one comes to join us, or to commune at the Lord's table, who has been baptized by a Campbellite, or some of the new orders of the Baptists, who believe in and invariably practice immersion, and he asks, What objection have you against me, either to commune with you, or to join you upon my baptism? To which every consistent and orderly church of our faith answers at once, Friend, while we do not pretend to call in question the purity of your motives, nor whether you are a regenerate child of God, and love him and his people, yet the people to whom you belong are not in fellowship, and we have so declared unequivocally in our records, from time to time He may contend that the preacher who baptized him was more orthodox than the most of his order, and a good honest meaning man and this may all be so, and he may, besides, be a gentleman of refinement and respectability in the community; but this does not alter his official standing and connection, as being identified with a people whom we do not hold in fellowship. But the person who wishes to commune with us may be an affectionate brother or sister in the flesh, or a parent, or a husband or wife whom we love; the case indeed may be a trying one to the natural affections and fleshly feelings; yet the church of Christ and his laws make no distinctions, and we are to know no man after the flesh in a church relation. The new order of Baptists, who are responsible for the innovations and religious inventions of the present century, founded and conducted by men upon the false basis of education, and money, and human means, these, we say, are also responsible for the heartrending divisions and strifes that have rent the Baptists asunder in our country during the present century, and the responsibility is a fearful one! The Lord's table and the sacred emblems of his mangled body and shed blood are not ours to dispose of as we may be prompted by our fleshly feelings; but the metes and bounds are fixed by the Lord of the feast, and he has confined it to those who love and obey him. We hold the communion open and free to all, without exception, who come in at the door opened by authority of our King, and who continue steadfastly in his doctrine; beyond this we cannot go, and here we feel safe.

I submit the subject, though but fairly opened, to Sister S., and to you, Brother Beebe, and to your readers, in love.

Please direct your comments to Mike Krall.

BACK TO MAIN MENU