Review and Herald, Vol. 41, No. 24. (5/27/1873)

Review and Herald

May 27, 1873

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 27, 1873

OPEN AND CLOSE COMMUNION.

By George Ide Butler

BY ELD. GEO. I. BUTLER.

This question has agitated the religious world greatly in the past, and possibly some of the readers of the Review may have been exercised upon it. I wish to present a few thoughts concerning it, claiming only to speak my own individual sentiments.

If I understand their position, those who believe in open communion take the ground that, in the act of partaking of the emblems of the broken body and spilled blood of our Lord, they have nothing to do with others, but are simply to “examine themselves,” quoting the verse, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup,” virtually taking the position that we have nothing to do with examining anybody else.

Therefore, if individuals may not have been baptized by immersion, or may not be keeping the Sabbath, or may be remiss in many religious duties, doing things contrary to the Bible, we do not say we fellowship them by the act of partaking of the emblems with them. In other words, those who believe in open communion do not regard it as an act by which we show fellowship for each other as members of Christ’s body.

But, if we do regard it as an act by which we show fellowship, it becomes a question of some magnitude as to who have a right to partake of the ordinance.

The first question that naturally arises in regard to the Lord’s supper, is the object of its institution. Paul says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” 1 Cor. 11:25, 26. “This do in remembrance of me,” says Christ. The design of it, then, is to bring vividly before the mind the death of our divine Lord. It is a memorial of his broken body and of his blood that was shed for us. It must, therefore, be designed for his true followers, for the true children of God. It is not for worldlings. It is not for those who have abused their high profession, and who are living in sin and disgracing his name before the world, but for true Christians. Who were present when it was instituted, and to whom did our Saviour present these sacred emblems? Only to his own chosen disciples. It was not a promiscuous meal, as that which was served when the five thousand were fed with five loaves and two fishes, but it was instituted on a special occasion, in a private room, apart from the crowd, and given alone to disciples.

But it is often asked, Was not Judas the apostate present to partake in common with the rest? And if he could partake, at the hand of the Saviour himself, could not lesser sinners do the same and not violate the sacred design? We answer that the evidence, when carefully considered, proves that Judas was not present, and did not partake of the Lord’s supper. We know that a casual reading of the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, would seem to show that he was present, and partook. But when compared with John’s account, it seems plain that he was not.

In the first three, we have an account of the room being procured in which the passover supper was to be partaken. When the time arrived, and they were all seated and commenced to partake, the Saviour told them that one of them would betray him. They began to ask, “Lord, is it I?” in great sorrow and amazement. He answered, as Matthew has it, “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.” Or as John has it, “He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.” “And after the sop, Satan entered into him.” “He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and it was night.”

John gives us no account of the institution of the Lord’s supper, but the other three evangelists, in their account, speak of the passover supper, and of the time when the Saviour told the disciples that one of them would betray him, and of his dipping with him in the dish, as taking place previous to the institution of the Lord’s supper. The three do not tell us when Judas did go out, but John plainly tells us he went out “immediately” upon receiving the sop from the hand of Jesus. This being true, then he certainly was not present when the Lord instituted the memorial of his death, for this occurred some time after he received the portion from the hand of Christ, so Judas had no part in this divine memorial. So much for that objection.

We understand that all the gospel memorials were designed for true Christians only. Should we not all insist that a person was not a proper candidate for baptism until he had truly repented of his sins, and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ? We should not think it right to go forward and administer this ordinance until we had satisfactory evidence of an individual being in a proper condition. Baptism is properly regarded as the door into the church. It is a memorial of the burial and resurrection of Christ. Is not an equal degree of evidence requisite before a person can properly partake of the supper? Neither can it be said that a person has a right to partake of it simply because he has been baptized, for many a person falls away and gives no evidence of his being a true disciple after that. We claim that a person should give us satisfactory evidence of his being a true Christian at the time he partakes of the communion, as he would have to give if he was a candidate for baptism at the same moment. Both memorials were designed for precisely the same class. If we would consider it proper to baptize a man who was not keeping the law of God, then we ought to commune with such an one. If not, then we should not commune together. In the one case, we show our faith in the vicarious death of our Saviour; in the other, in his burial and divine resurrection.

Let us now consider another important testimony: “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” 1 Cor. 10:15–21. Here the apostle in giving instruction concerning idolatry brings in the Lord’s supper, and gives us some very forcible remarks concerning it. He addresses this instruction to wise men, as being very important. He next calls the supper the communion of the body and blood of Christ. The meaning of that term in the English is union, fellowship. In the Greek, the original word is generally rendered fellowship. For instances of the occurrence of the original word, I give the following, where it is italicized: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayers.” Acts 2:42. “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1 Cor. 1:9. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness?” 2 Cor. 6:14. From these instances of the occurrence of the word, and others might be given, it will be readily seen that it has the meaning of fellowship, i. e., that union which should exist between the members of Christ’s body. Fellowship is defined by Webster to mean, “Mutual association of persons on equal and friendly terms.” The terms of association would be manifestly unequal if part of those who partook of this supper were true Christians and part were not so regarded. It would then be no fellowship or communion, and could not be so named. The fact that inspiration has so called it, plainly signifies that those who partake have mutual union with each other and confidence in each other. This is still further shown by the fact that he calls it the “communion of the body and blood of Christ.” “For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” What could be a higher evidence of union than for each person, in each other’s presence, to put forth his hand and partake of the mystical flesh and blood of the Son of God? The apostle holds forth this very act of the communicants as the most striking evidence of unionness. Has the apostle assigned a false reason? He has, unless we admit that it is a sign of fellowship. If there is no real fellowship existing, the act tells a practical falsehood. We do that which signifies union when it does not really exist. And I submit that a falsehood perpetrated under such solemn circumstances, in the presence of such solemn mementos, could not be of minor consequence.

The apostle next speaks of ancient Israel eating of the sacrifices of the altar, as being partakers of the same, that is, it was an act by which they were recognized as belonging to God, and sharing the blessings derived from his worship. He then says, “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” Why not, if the views of our friends who hold to open communion be correct? Why not, if they chose to sit at both tables and no one had a right to examine any, but his own case? Why not, unless sitting at the Lord’s table was a mark of Christian fellowship and union? I certainly conclude from the apostle’s words, that those who went to idol feasts, and partook at their orgies, would not be allowed to come to the table of the Lord. There certainly was one case, then, where individuals, who walked contrary to sound doctrine, could not be permitted to commune. I think another is referred to in 1 Cor. 5:11: “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.” The eating spoken of seems most likely to me to refer to the communion. It would seem rather strange to suppose that the common civilities of life could not be shown to one who had committed one of these sins, when such an act had nothing to do with any thought of fellowship, as we know the eating of a common meal has not. But should any one say you have no evidence that the eating spoken of is the Lord’s supper, and no business to draw the conclusion from it that such individuals should be excluded from partaking of it, then I would inquire if such suppose we should be less particular in our associates, when we eat the Lord’s supper, than when we eat a common meal? Does the apostle forbid us eating a common meal with a brother who does these things, and yet permit us to freely come around the table of the Lord Jesus with extortioners, drunkards, fornicators, idolaters, and covetous persons, and partake of those sacred mementos of his death and sufferings? The very thought would be monstrous. Then the apostle does plainly teach that we must draw some line of division when it comes to participating in the Lord’s supper. If, at the present day, every church of Christians will keep all the “extortioners” and “covetous” persons out, and all the idolaters, a good many, who now partake freely, will have to be “examined” by others, as well as themselves; and I fear some communion seasons would not be as well attended as heretofore. So it seems that there is a line of division to be drawn somewhere between those who may partake, and those who may not. The question of course will be, Where?

We now notice one more very important testimony, 1 Cor. 11:17–34, “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.” “When ye come together, therefore, into one place, . . . ye cannot eat [margin] the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken” (or satisfied, as the Diaglott has it). Here we learn that divisions and parties in the church make it improper or impossible to celebrate the communion under such circumstances, and the reason appears very manifest when we consider that it is a token of fellowship between members of Christ’s body. As long as no such fellowship existed, one important idea to be expressed by it would be lacking. This should ever be remembered where churches are divided into parties and schisms. Undertaking to celebrate the Lord’s supper under such circumstances is little better than mockery. The Spirit of the Lord will stay away. The apostle next gives the account of the institution and the design of this memorial, telling us it is to “show forth the Lord’s death till he come,” and that we are to eat and drink in remembrance of Christ. “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” It seems very evident from the whole tenor of this passage that great disorder had crept into the Corinthian church, so much so that the whole design of this institution was lost sight of. Not only were they unfit to partake of the supper because of parties and dissensions, but they had gone so far as to make this most solemn

memorial into an occasion of feasting and jollity, till God was displeased with them, and many died in consequence of his judgments.

This is evidently what he means by their “eating and drinking unworthily;” for he adds, they did not discern the Lord’s body. They had entirely perverted the institution. They should have “examined themselves” closely when they approached the Lord’s table. They should have made it a solemn occasion. But because he says they should examine themselves, this certainly does not forbid what other scriptures make a plain duty. It does not provide for a promiscuous gathering of Christians, and “covetous men, and extortioners,” around the Lord’s table to partake of the “one bread” and calling that a communion, in which the very essential idea of fellowship is all lost sight of. If it did, it would certainly nullify the idea of its being a memorial designed for Christians alone. It does not forbid the protection of this memorial from being turned into a common thing expressive of no nearness to each other in the members of Christ’s body. Let us always do what the apostle says, “examine ourselves,” previous to partaking of these emblems. But do not let us draw inferences from this declaration not warranted by the language, especially when it will lead us contrary to other plain scriptures.

Some conscientious souls have been so troubled in reference to the expressions, “examine yourselves,” and, “eating and drinking unworthily,” and, “drinking damnation to themselves,” that they dare not partake of the Lord’s supper at all. They felt that they were unworthy when they did examine themselves, and feared they should bring the frown of God upon themselves. To such I would say, You misapprehend entirely the design of this scripture. The apostle is speaking of those who had perverted the design of the ordinance, turning it into a feasting occasion, gathering in a disorderly manner, when there were parties and divisions among them, which rendered it impossible to properly partake of the “one bread and one cup.” And above all, they did not “discern the Lord’s body.” The real object of the memorial was lost sight of. That which was designed to keep Christ’s death in memory “till he comes,” was forgotten. Had they “examined themselves,” they would not have been left to such disorder. They were thoughtless, and careless of sacred things. This does not refer at all to such as feel a sense of the great sacredness of this memorial and that they are unworthy to partake of it. On the contrary, I claim that such are the only ones who are fit to partake of the Lord’s supper. A man who feels whole and self-complacent when partaking of the emblems given to commemorate our dying Lord, and feels that he is worthy, is surely an object of pity. What sense can such a person have of the nature of sin, which caused that Saviour to die for him a cruel death? Our sins caused the death of the Son of God. If there ever is a time in a man’s life when he ought to feel unworthy, it is when taking part in the celebration of the Saviour’s passion. Let no humble, conscientious soul then stand back in fear of such expressions as, “eating and drinking damnation to himself,” &c.; for they apply to an entirely different class.

In conclusion, then, we claim to have proven that the institution under consideration was designed for true Christians alone. The Saviour, when he instituted it, communicated it to no others. Its being called the communion, plainly implies that it was a mark of Christian fellowship. The fact that those who partake of the “one bread” are denominated by the apostle “one body,” is strong evidence of this. And further, when the apostle says that those who partook of the table of devils could not eat the Lord’s supper, and that “covetous” persons and extortioners were not proper subjects with whom to eat, he plainly teaches there is a line of division to be drawn somewhere. Where, then, should this line be drawn, and with whom shall we commune? We answer: Those who have been truly baptized by gospel baptism, and who take God’s holy law as their rule of morality, and take upon themselves the obligations of the church covenant when practicable, and live consistent Christian lives, are the proper ones to partake of the emblems of Christ’s broken body. And we do not see how one of these conditions can be properly left out. What is there hard or unreasonable in either of them? What good reason could be assigned by any person for refusing to act upon either? Should not every true Christian do each one of these duties? Could he be a true follower of Christ and refuse to live up to either? We think not. It is no more exclusive to require these prerequisites to communion than for baptism, and we certainly do in the latter, with the exception of baptism itself. Let us be consistent and reasonable, and not call laxity charity.

To offer the emblems to a person whom we would not at the same moment receive as a member of the church in full fellowship, seems to me a most manifest inconsistency. It cannot be justified by any principle of reasoning with which I am acquainted. Neither would it be likely to gain the respect of any sensible person whose favor was worth obtaining. But, on the contrary, it would cause them to despise us as inconsistent with our own profession, and as practically saying that our views were of no importance; for it is generally understood that when parties commune together, they acknowledge each other as standing on the same platform, as brethren, and justly too.

It seems perfectly reasonable for us to say to all that we commune with such, and such alone, as take upon themselves the same obligations, so far as great essentials are concerned, as we do ourselves. It is no hardship for others, for us to refuse to go further than this. Why should they ask us to commune with them when they are unwilling to take such obligations upon them as we take? Why not be content to commune with those who stand on their own platform? When they ask us to come to their level, they ask us virtually to say we do not think those things that separate us in practice and theory of any real, practical account. And that is really the meaning of open communion. All who feel that can consistently practice it, and no others. For one, I beg to be excused.

Whitewater, Wis., April 30, 1873.

ISRAEL'S MARCH-WORD.

[From “Hymns to our King,” by Rev. John M. Leavitt, published by T. Whittaker.]

Forward! God’s majestic cloud Flames grandly in the sea. Forward! Egypt, fierce and proud, Clanks chains behind the free.

Forward! waves, like mountain-walls, Stand towering by the way. Forward! when Jehovah calls, ’Tis madness to delay.

Forward! where yon guiding glow Moves through the parted deep, Pharaoh shall lie buried low— In death his minions sleep!

Forward! in that mystic fire Jehovah makes his shrine; Forward! neither stop nor tire, And what is best is thine.

Forward! over rocks and foes Where smiles thy promised rest! Milk there with the honey flows, And there the grape is press’d.

Forward! Heaven’s own fire shall die, And Heaven’s own manna cease; But Jehovah, thy supply, Thy bread, and light, and peace!

THEORIES OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.

With the facts of history before us concerning sacred time for nearly three centuries after the resurrection of Christ—facts drawn from the inspired writers of the New Testament and their immediate successors, we are prepared to consider the different theories of the Christian Sabbath. These theories may be summed up in three. Of one or another of these, all the remaining theories are simply modifications.

The first of these three leading theories is as follows:—

“The Sabbath was a Jewish institution, and expired with the Jewish dispensation. The Lord's day is not in any proper sense a Sabbath. It has an origin, a reason, and an obligation, not drawn from the fourth commandment, but peculiarly its own, as an institution belonging specially to the New-Testament dispensation.”

The second theory, in the order in which we notice these different views, maintains that the observance of the Sabbath, as required under the Old-Testament dispensation, knows no change in any particular. The observance of the seventh day of the week is essential to the proper observance of the Sabbath under the gospel dispensation. The observance of the first day of the week is without divine warrant—a departure from the law of God through the corruptions which crept into the church.

The third theory agrees with the second in maintaining that the Sabbath existed from the beginning, and that it has never been abolished or superseded. It disagrees with the second theory in maintaining that the essential idea of the law of the Sabbath is not the holiness of a portion of time, but the consecration of a specified proportion of time, one day in seven; that, in accordance with this, a change of day was admissible; that a change was actually made by divine warrant from the resurrection of Christ; and that the first day of the week, the Lord's day, is the true Christian Sabbath, having its moral sanction in the fourth commandment.

By many of those who hold the first of these theories, the Lord's day is made a purely ecclesiastical institution, without any other warrant for its observance than the action of the church, by whose authority and in whose wisdom the day is set apart for divine service. By others who accept the same general theory, apostolic authority in the early church is admitted to afford a divine warrant for the observance of the day. In a complete treatise on the Lord's day, a careful discussion of this theory would be required. Its want of any sufficient foundation could be satisfactorily shown by a presentation of the following points: (1.) The declaration of the Lord of the Sabbath is explicit—“The Sabbath was made for man.” It was not made for any portion of the human family, but for the race of mankind. (2.) Thus, from the design of its Lord, and the very nature of the institution, the Sabbath cannot be limited to any locality or dispensation. (3.) Accordingly, it was given to man at his creation. (Gen. 3: 3.) (4.) For the same reason, the law of the Sabbath has its proper place, not among ceremonial, local, or positive enactments, but among the immutable moral precepts of the decalogue. (5.) This law is, therefore, of universal and perpetual obligation upon our race. These points would give room for many articles. But inasmuch as on all of them there is entire agreement between our seventh-day Sabbatarian friends and ourselves, we pass to a consideration of the second theory, which they accept as correct.

To make good their case, the advocates of the second theory must show that the seventh day continued to be the Sabbath observed by the church after the resurrection of Christ, just as before; and that, in the observance of the first day, a great departure took place from the original practice of the Christian church. They must not make bare statements, but they must furnish proof. Instead of appealing to the letter of the law, and insisting that fact must conform to their interpretation of it, they must accept the facts of history, and put their interpretations to the test. It is more reasonable to conclude that an interpretation of law is wrong, than to reject the attested facts of history, when the interpretation and the facts do not harmonize.

Let us briefly sum up the facts already fully brought to view. Christ himself, after his resurrection, passed by the seventh day, and repeatedly put special honor on the first day of the week. This same day was honored by the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit. Christian congregations met for regular weekly service, not on the seventh day, but on the first day of the week. The inspired apostle Paul pointedly condemned the Judaizing teachers who insisted on the observance by Christians of the seventh-day Sabbath. The early writers, companions of the apostles, and others of the succeeding generations, bear the clearest and most explicit testimony to the same facts—the non-observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and the stated meetings of Christians for divine service on the first day of the week, the Lord's day. Now, if their theory is correct, how will the seventh-day Sabbatarians explain the fact that Christ himself, the Holy Spirit, inspired apostles, and Christian congregations all through the early church, ignored the seventh day and honored the first? A general and vague statement to the effect that an unwarranted change was made from the original practice of the Christian church will not do here. Was not the practice of the apostles and first organized congregations of Christians the original practice of the Christian church? That practice was, as we have seen, to observe the first day of the week. We repeat what we have already proved at length, viz., that there is not an instance in the Scriptures of the observance of the seventh day by any Christian church, nor of any regard to that day, after Christ's resurrection, by apostles or their fellow-laborers, except as they availed themselves, in their missionary work, of the meetings of Jewish assemblies in Jewish places of worship. “An unwarranted change!” Let those who take such language upon their lips consider that their charge lies at the door of Christ and his Spirit, and the inspired apostles.

But now, for the sake of the argument, let us leave all the testimony of the inspired writers of the New Testament to the first-day Sabbath out of view. Again, we have the vague charge of unwarranted change. Perhaps the most definite form of this charge is that which makes the change the work of the little horn in Daniel's prophecy, chap. 7. But will the expounder of Daniel be a little more explicit, and tell us who the historical personage is, and give us the dates and names of history? Does the little horn represent Antiochus Epiphanes? If so, then, of course, his change of the law of the Sabbath must have been before the Christian era. Will our expositor give us some facts just here? If the little horn means the papacy, then, according to the prophecy itself, it did not arise until the Roman Empire, represented by the fourth beast, was broken into ten fragments, represented by the ten horns. The little horn sprang up after these, and its change of the law of the Sabbath must date after the fall of the old empire of Rome. But for centuries before this event, we have the testimony of numerous writers that the Christian churches everywhere observed, not the seventh, but the first, day of the week, the Lord's day. Again, we ask for facts, not mere statements and theories.

Leaving this vague attempt to connect the assumed unwarranted change with Daniel's prophecy, we come to what is, if possible, still more vague and indefinite. A change, it is asserted, was made by some particular officer or council of the church, as it became corrupt and began to depart from the practice of the original church of Christ. Who was this officer, or where did this council meet? But we will not make unreasonable demands for historical testimony. Let us grant that such an officer or such a council there was at some time or other. The question then arises, When did the change take place? In the days of Cyprian, A. D. 250? The answer is clear. The change must have been made before his day. Origen and Tertullian, fifty years earlier, knew only the first day of the week, the Lord's day, as the Christian Sabbath. Was the change then made in their day? We might assume that it was, only for the clear testimony of Irenæus and Justin Martyr carrying us back another half century, and the equally explicit testimony of still earlier writers carrying us back to the apostles themselves.

Notwithstanding all this dearth of historical testimony as to the existence of the supposed ruler or council, let it be further granted that, by some such corrupting authority, at some time, a decree changing the day for Sabbath observance was issued. How did the supposed legislators establish their decree? How did they make it effectual over all the different parts of the church? Must we suppose that a change like this was effected in the church, and not a scrap of a record left concerning it? The attempt made by the church to establish a common day for the anniversary of Christ's resurrection gave rise to long and bitter controversy, and led to division. And yet, as Prof. F. D. Maurice has well said, “it is supposed that this far more important change, affecting all the daily relations and circumstances of life, took effect by the decree of some apostle or some ecclesiastical synod, of which no record, no legend, even, is preserved! Or, perhaps, a half heathen, more than half heathen, statute of Constantine, about the Dies Solis, accomplished what the legislators of the church could not accomplish—succeeded not only in securing its adoption by Athanasians, Arians, Semi-Arians, whose controversies Constantine could never heal, but in securing the allegiance of all the barbarous tribes which accepted the gospel under such various conditions in later times. Can any suppositions make greater demands on our credulity than these?” A Procrustean bed, indeed, must be that interpretation of the law of the Sabbath, which, to conform them to itself, must thus deal with the facts of history and the probabilities of historical evidence.

Just here is the difficulty in the theory of seventh-day Sabbatarians. They have somehow got lodged in their mind the idea that the last one of the seven days of the week is the sacred day, the observance of which is absolutely essential to the proper keeping of the Sabbath. What has already been proved from history, inspired and uninspired, is sufficient to show that this theory is unworthy of men, who, like Christ and his apostles, would grasp the true significance of the law of the Sabbath. But as so much stress is laid upon the question of time, we shall devote our next article to this crucial and very practical point.—The Christian Statesman, Feb. 1, 1873.

Continue reading: "Theories of the Christian Sabbath." — A Rejoinder