The Communion Question Again.
By Geo. I. Butler
“Having noticed an article in the REVIEW AND HERALD from the pen of Geo. I. Butler on ‘Open and Close Communion,’ I would like the privilege of saying a word in regard to it. His object was to show that Judas was not present at the institution of the Lord’s supper on the night of the betrayal. Now it does appear to me that the question that should concern us as Sabbath-keepers should not be as to whether Judas was present. But the vital and all-important question for us should be, Did Christ or his apostles drive him away, and not ‘let him examine himself, and so let him eat’? &c.; or has any man or set of men the power or right to say to this and that one, You are not worthy, and so drive them away from the Lord’s table? If so, please explain 1 Cor. 11:38, &c. Please give this a place in your paper, and oblige many Sabbath-keepers. Milfordton, Ohio, Sept. 26, 1873. My article on the subject of the Communion, written last spring, has seemed to bring out some criticism. First, an article calling in question the position taken that Judas was not present at the institution of the Lord’s supper, appeared. And now another point is raised, viz, whether those who do partake have any right to keep others from eating with them. I should feel that enough has been written heretofore on this subject, and so notice it no further were it not that I know questions are being raised quite often in the minds of many. It seems proper therefore to consider these points candidly, that we, as individuals, may come to right conclusions. The question of Judas’ presence or absence at the supper is not of course decisive one way or the other, so far as open or close communion is concerned, though it has a bearing upon it. If it be granted, however, that he was absent, as I think I have proved, of course there was no necessity of “driving him away.” What Christ and his apostles would have done had he insisted on being present, we have no means of knowing. Does our friend who asks these questions think that a body of Christians assembled to partake of the broken emblems of our Lord’s body, would be compelled to do so with a thief, a libertine, or an open apostate, if they chose to press their presence upon them, because the apostle says, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat”? Do these words of the apostle authorize any abandoned character to force himself upon a body of Christians against their wish? and have they no right to a voice in the premises, as to whom their associates shall be? Then it gives far greater power to the wicked than to the righteous. It would seem strange indeed if the Bible gave one man, or set of men, the right to force himself upon others entirely against their wishes, while the other class had no right at all to a voice in the premises. We have no idea that Paul is to be so understood. In chapter 5 of the same epistle, verse 11, he says, “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.” Now I believe the eating here referred to means the Lord’s supper. It would be strange indeed if the apostle should teach that we might eat that sacred memorial of his broken body which is declared to be an emblem of union by its very name, “communion,” with all classes of reprobates, but when we come to eat a common meal, we must be very particular about our associates. I do not so understand him. If he here refers to the sacred supper, then most certainly we, as Christians, are authorized to “examine” our fellow-communicants, as well as they to examine themselves; for we are commanded in so many words not to eat with certain classes. The moment it be granted that we cannot “commune” with everybody, the question most pertinent is, Where should the line be drawn? We believe it should be between those who give evidence of being Christians, and those who do not. We cannot fellowship with such as those who trample God’s holy law under their feet. We know of no more reasonable line of division than this. What then does the apostle mean when he says, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat”? We see nothing in this that forbids others “examining” also if the Scripture elsewhere teaches it, as we see it does. And we claim to be as desirous that persons who are about to commune should examine themselves as anybody. We advise all to be very thorough in it, lest they bring sin upon themselves. When it is remembered that in this very connection the apostle complains of that church for being disorderly, and for turning this sacred and solemn memorial into a riotous feast, so that he says, according to the marginal reading, that they could not partake of that supper, because as I understand, they had entirely perverted its design, and when we learn that God’s judgments had followed them, so that many were sick, and many slept in death, because of this, we shall have no occasion of surprise that the apostle advises them to “examine themselves.” This was plainly a duty. But it does not forbid others making inquiry as to the character of their associates, upon such an occasion, nor of refusing to eat with them if they were wicked or unworthy. Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, Oct. 23, 1873.