The Passover was instituted to commemorate God’s passing over the dwellings of the Jews, when he slew the first born of the Egyptians.  The Lord’s last judgment upon the Egyptians was the slaying of their first born.  The blood on the lintels of the doors and the door posts of the Hebrews secured them from this curse, and while the whole nation of the Egyptians were in mourning they left the land of their captivity. 

In Exodus 12, we have a detailed account of this whole affair; Exodus 12:24 reads, “And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance forever.”  It was to be kept up to refresh their memory of their great deliverance from the destroying angel.  The observance of this annually called their minds to God’s wonderful mercy to them, and no doubt it was intended to set forth in type the Lord Jesus, who, as our Passover, was sacrificed for us, I Corinthians 5:7.  By whose death, as a lamb without spot, a far greater deliverance was obtained. 

God, no doubt, saw that it would be good for his people to have a service among them that would regularly call their minds to their great delivery, and keep fresh in their memory their former captivity.  Besides, this, to them, was a telescope through which they saw our great Redeemer as our Passover crucified for us.  It was to them what the Lord’s Supper is to us.  Its great object was to point to Christ Jesus. 

Christ, on the night in which he was betrayed, ate the last Passover with his disciples.  Matthew 26:17-25, And as they were eating the Passover, he took bread and wine and introduced the gospel service of the Lord’s Supper; and after this they went out into the Mount of Olives, where he was betrayed, and on the succeeding day was crucified.  We will consider this subject under different heads:

1^st.  The elements used, bread and wine, were employed by Christ.  “He took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.”  Some have urged that the bread really became the flesh of Christ, but the plain meaning is that this broken bread is intended to represent his body which was broken for sin.  It is but natural bread, but it signifies that you must spiritually eat of him.  Bread is the staff of life naturally, but it is no more necessary to our natural being than Christ is to our spiritual being. 

We take bread to supply the wants of our body each day, and still our nature craves continued supplies; and so we have been feasting on the spiritual comforts of Christ for years, and still we can say, “I need thee precious Jesus.”  Bread, in order to be adapted to our wants, must be crushed and broken.  The heavy pressure of the millstone is necessary to prepare the grain for our use, naturally; and so the thorns, the buffeting, scourging, spitting, and the awful agonies of the cross, are but necessary to prepare food for our souls.  Our Savior must be a crucified Savior; his body must be broken, and in the wisdom of God broken bread is best adapted to represent the body of our Savior. 

He also gave them wine, saying, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”  Christ made choice of wine; why he did he has not revealed.  We know that wine is obtained by crushing the grape and pressing the juice out of it, and so the blood of Christ must run from his body to be capable of washing away sins. 

By considering how these two elements are prepared, we may be called to review the whole scene of Christ’s suffering.  When wine is old, it retains its strength, and the blood of Christ is today as capable of washing away sin as when it ran fresh and warm from his side and hands and feet.

       “Dear dying lamb, thy precious blood

       Shall never lose its power

       Till all the ransomed church of God

       Be saved to sin no more.”

Though it were many centuries since that blood was shed, and many thousand miles from here, yet it cleanses us from all sin; it assuages our griefs, and wipes the tears from our lamenting eyes; untold millions have felt its power to comfort the comfortless.

2nd.  It was the same night in which he was betrayed that he took bread and wine and administered the Lord’s Supper,  I Corinthians 11:23.  From this it would appear that it was first introduced in the night.  Also Matthew 26:20, and Mark 14:17.  Also the fact that it was eaten in connection with the Passover, which was eaten in the night, shows that our Savior introduced this service after night.  I have known brethren who thought it should be attended to after night in imitation of the first example.

I remember once to have participated with the brethren at a night meeting, but I do not conclude that the time of day or night is a matter of so much importance as some other things connected with it.  Acts 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, and continued his speech until midnight.”  From this we would infer that they took the Lord’s Supper after night.  But if we were to take it every night and every day, we would not sin in that particular; we might sin in our manner or design, but the sin would not lie in the hour of taking it. 

It was first introduced in a large upper room—Luke 22:12.  There may be instruction to us in the fact that an upper room was selected.  Some have thought that it was intended to teach us that we should leave all earthly matters behind and rise in our thoughts above all worldly things.  No doubt, we should regard the service of God as infinitely above all earthly pursuits, but still we would not infer that we should go into an upper room for that purpose, nor do we think that the time of day is a matter of great importance.  We have sometimes taken it in the grove, in private houses, and at the church house.  The matter of greatest importance is the manner of taking it.

3rd.   It has been thought by some that the real object of the Lord’s Supper was to express our love and Christian confidence one for another.  In I Corinthians 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.”  It appears from this passage that a church is not in a suitable condition to commune while a member of known bad character is in her body.  In this case she should not go into this solemn service.  But I would not infer from this that each member should have the utmost confidence in every other member, for if that be true, we would seldom find a church in condition to attend to this service.

The real object of the communion was to show forth his death till he come—I Corinthians 11:26; also I Corinthians 11:25.  “This do ye as oft as ye do it in remembrance of me.” Also I Corinthians 11:24, “This do in remembrance of me.”   Brethren sometimes think they cannot take the communion with the church, if there is any brother or sister who has gone astray in some particular, or done them an injury.  Sometimes they will get up and vacate their seats till it is over, or stay away from meeting on that account, and yet refuse to obey the gospel rule in Matthew 18, and thus commit a greater sin against God than their brother has against them. 

Reader, if you have been guilty of this, don’t do so any more.  It is this service in which you recall to your own mind and others the price of redemption; by this you review the whole scene of Christ’s suffering in the garden, through his trial, and on the cross.  You are not in this showing your Christian love or confidence in any one, else you must needs invite all Christians to your table, whether they be in the kingdom or not; but you recall the history of Christ. 

It is an emblem of his suffering, and it is good for us often to think of him.  We sometimes look at the garments worn by our departed friends, and it brings fresh to our memory many events of their lives.  It tenders our hearts, and we drink in the spirit of loved ones who are gone from us.  So this is intended to call us back to Christ, his examples of humility, love and patience; it prepares us to bear with patience the trials of life.  It causes us to loathe  sin, since it cost the life and blood of Christ, and we are caused to shun every appearance of evil. 

We see in his death God’s awful abhorrence of sin, and we should feel a great desire to shun it.  It is a way of preaching to others.  This bread and wine represents Christ crucified as our only hope.  We are great and vile sinners, but the blood of Christ is our plea.  We own to our neighbors and to the world that we are wretched sinners, but Jesus died for us. 

Oh! see in this wine an emblem of his flowing blood; it has quenched the flames of hell; it has washed me as white as snow; it has silenced Sinai’s awful roar; it has brought life and immortality to light; and though we are so vile, yet we have redemption through his blood.  His blood has sealed the covenant in which eternal life is secured to every heir of God.  This is to be kept up in Zion till he comes again.  It is to be perpetual.

4th.   Hypocrisy is to avoided on all occasions; but in this service how desirable that we should in heart be impressed with the real importance of the matter.  If it is to “show forth his death,” how desirable that we should be duly impressed with that event!  It is a fearful thought that we should engage in that service without “discerning the Lord’s body,” I Corinthians 11:29. 

In contemplating the scene of Calvary, we are but reviewing the cost of our pardon.  When our friend is dying we feel that it is no place for vain, light thoughts, no place to entertain unkind feelings for any.  We are possessed with a spirit of forbearance and a forgiving temper; and, if the witnessing of a friend’s death so humbles us, and banishes our evil tempers, what effect should a visit to Calvary have upon us? 

In this bread I see the body of Jesus which was beaten and mangled for me.  My sins helped to make up his ponderous load that crushed him in the garden and on the cross.  Oh! for grace to live without sin, to live faithfully to him, to own him aright. 

We should seek the same patient temper that he exhibited on the cross, and all through his life.  We are often so petulant that if our brother does a wrong we forsake the church, with all its service, on that account.  This was not the temper of Christ.  Though Peter denied him, he still loved him; and though the wicked ones nailed him to the cross, he prayed for them.  And so we should earnestly seek that same temper and faithfulness that he had.  

Often, in taking these elements, we feel such a sense of our own vileness that we tremble to break the bread or eat it after it is broken.  I have seen brethren refuse on account of their own unworthiness, but it is encouraging to such persons to know that this service is suited to their condition.  We have no merit of our own, but these emblems point us to the fountain of all true goodness among men.  Our sins are great, but this flesh and blood have been given as a ransom for me. 

If I were not unworthy, I would not need them; but I am, and therefore I venture on him; I freely own to all the world that I am evil; but here is my hope set forth in type in this bread and wine.  I would urge on our brethren and sisters that they do not refuse this service, or shun it, and that you seek for the true spirit of service in engaging in it.  Lay aside all your malice one for another, and all envy, and every feeling of revenge.  Your conduct should not be vain and light.  How gently we handle the bodies of the dead, and how lightly we walk about them.  So we should be deeply impressed with solemnity on this occasion.

5th.   We are not told in the Bible just how often we should engage in this service, but we are told that as “often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come,”—Acts 20:7.  Some denominations take it every Sabbath.  Most of our churches take it twice a year, and some three times per year.  I would not object to it every Sabbath, if it could be done in “spirit and in truth.”

6th.   This sacrament was first given to the twelve, or rather to the eleven, who had been previously baptized.  Baptism, in the order of time, precedes the privilege of the Lord’s Supper.  This, I believe, is the opinion of all denominations.  From John 3:23, we learn that the apostles were baptized prior to the Lord’s Supper.  Also, Acts 2:41-42.  The people appear to have been baptized prior to “breaking of bread.” 

The first step in gospel service by Paul was to be baptized.  Acts 9:18, and Romans 6:3-4, goes to show that baptism is the first step in the “walk in newness of life.”  I do not know that any deny that baptism should precede all other church privileges.  If this be true, then baptized believers are alone required to engage in this service.  Sometimes persons have applied to our church for membership, and before they were baptized the church has taken the sacrament.  It is thought prudent and scriptural that he should not participate in this service until he be baptized.

These positions being true, we cannot in consistency invite any to the Lord’s table who have been sprinkled or poured on for baptism.  Much complaint has been laid against us on account of our close communion practice, which, I am satisfied, originates in part from a misunderstanding of our position, and from a desire to weaken our influence, and from a spirit of strife.  All admit that baptism precedes this ordinance, and if we are correct in our views of that subject, we must be correct in denying communion with all who have not been immersed. 

How any people who practice immersion alone can invite those who are sprinkled to their table I cannot see.  They may thereby show a great respect for the feelings of their fellow creatures, but very little regard for the Word of God.  We feel sure that it is a glaring inconsistency to claim that immersion alone is baptism, and yet in this solemn way recognize sprinkling our pouring. 

And further, this is a church ordinance.  It was not first given to all the saints, but to the eleven, not simply because they were saints, and that they might express love to each other, but that they, in their organized capacity, might solemnly show forth the Lord’s death till he come.  On this occasion he said to them, Luke 22:29, “I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;” Luke 22:30, “That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.”  Agreeably to this, the table was placed in the organized church, and of course in order to eat at that table, we must go into the church.  We are not at liberty to take these emblems out of the church to give them to those who are unwilling to come in. 

The Savior’s words were, “I appoint unto you a kingdom.”  The word appoint here indicates that I make over to you a kingdom.  I will presently leave the world; while I have been with you I have kept you; I have ordained such as I saw fit to go into my service as ministers, etc.; but now I shall leave you, hence I make over to you the control of the church; henceforth you are to administer its ordinances, ordain its elders and deacons, etc. 

This, I think was the church of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper was administered to it and in it; they were instructed to eat and drink “at his table in his kingdom.”  Upon this ground our practice of close communion rests.  We believe that the church organized by Christ continues to this time, and that her history can be traced back to the apostles without passing through the Catholics.  Some of our brethren have written on this subject, and we think they have shown that our history can be traced back to the apostolic age; that we never have had any connection with the “mother of harlots.” 

I am aware that many ridicule this claim, and urge that every denomination under heaven owe their existence to the Catholics.  In Matthew 16:18, the Savior says, speaking of this church, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  This passage indicates the perpetuity of the church.  The word gates is put for military strength, and indicates that hell’s mighty hosts, who rush out of her gates to the attack shall never vanquish and destroy this church. 

If this prediction is true she has existed in all ages of the world, despite the persecutions through which she has passed.  She is older and a million times stronger than the Catholic Church today.  She has never received her mark, nor been connected with her, save in the relation of a martyr to the persecutor.  She has never received her practices from the Catholic fraternity. 

Some have illustrated the church by what they call the branch system; that all the different churches are so many branches of the same tree, and all together make up the church of Christ visible.  Of course Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., can afford to adopt this sentiment, because it is well known that they all sprang from the Catholics, and that whatever legal authority they have to administer, baptism, etc., they received from the Catholics. 

It is consistent for them to practice open communion, and mix and unite as churches, for they all, as branches, have grown out of the same trunk.  But I appeal to the candid reader, can the Baptists consistently recognize these institutions of men as the church of Christ?  Is it not far more consistent for us to continue, as our fathers have done, to be a separate people?

When A. Campbell was expelled from the Baptist Church he was vehement in denouncing the Catholics, as the “mother of harlots,” and other denominations as her daughters.  But in order to find a good apology for organizing a new institution, he necessarily urged that the true church had been lost and overcome by Catholicism, ignoring the prediction of Christ that it should never be destroyed, thus forming a pretext to set up a new sect of human origin, whose history can be traced, from memory, by men now living, to human authority. 

We want to be kind and social.  We want to manifest a gentle Christian spirit to all, but we do not want, by word or deed, to recognize these institutions of men, as having any claim upon us, or as being of diving authority.  This is the real foundation of our close communion practice.

Many have used this as a club, to beat us with.  Some who believe in immersion alone, have been so inconsistent as to invite persons sprinkled to their table, and then complained of us, because we would not indulge in the same inconsistencies.  Are we not consistent in our practice?  I am sure that any other course would be yielding up the most vital principles of our denomination.  We render ourselves unworthy the name of Baptist when we yield this position.  We will never do it, although it makes us unpopular and contemptible in the eyes of the masses.  We will still maintain our principles.  Our great concern should be to maintain the “ordinances as they were delivered unto us.”  Reasonable men and women will see that we are consistent in this practice, and will admire us for our consistency.

From what has been said, I think it clear that we must be a separate people.  We can consistently believe there are Christians in other denominations, and also some who have never joined any.  We should love them dearly, be kind to them, and allow them the privilege of their own opinions freely.  I hope what I have written on this subject will excite the reader to investigate the same.  (J.H. Oliphant, Principles and Practices of the Regular Baptists 1885)