CLOSE COMMUNION
BY REV. A. S PETTIE, D. D.
I will read from the Word of God: "For I have
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you; that the Lord
Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
"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.
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye
drink it, in remembrance of me.
"For as often as ye eat this
bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." I.
Cor. 11:23-26.
I speak tonight, by request, on the subject of
communion. The subject is large and important. On it much has been
spoken and written. On it much more may be said. But in the time at my
2 CLOSE COMMUNION
command, I cannot discuss it broadly. I cannot discuss it in its
relations to, and its bearings upon, other subjects.
Of late
years nothing has engendered more cordial dislike of, or more bitter
resentment against, Baptists than their practice in the observance of
the Lord's Supper. Their practice is called "Close Communion." The word
"close" is spoken with a hissing emphasis. Issuing from hostile lips,
it has an unpleasant sound. Pulpits denounce Baptists as bigoted,
illiberal and selfish. The pews take up the cry, and around the world
the unfriendly clamor goes. Have not you been told that Baptist are
bigoted, illiberal and selfish? Those who assume that they are models of
liberality and unselfishness seem to think that such abuse is in perfect
harmony with the broadest charity. But if Baptists speak in defense of
their own theory and practice, the cry of "persecution" is raised.
"These selfish Baptists are persecuting us." Ahem! ahem!
Some
of those who are loudest in their clamor, and most bitter in their
denunciations, are sentimentally the descendants of those who in
former times fined, whipped and imprisoned Bap-
CLOSE COMMUNION 3
tists because they would not practice infant baptism. In those days
of persecution nobody desired to commune with the poor and suffering
Baptists. Where were the advocates of open communion then? But times
have changed. Now Baptists are numerous, intelligent, wealthy, highly
respectable and very influential. Therefore, many whose sentimental
ancestors fined, whipped and imprisoned Baptists are now frantically
seeking for Baptist recognition. Times change and men change with them.
Some people used to fine, whip, imprison, and burn Baptists. But now
they go to the Baptist house a-courting. But I don't like their style of
wooing. "Bigoted," "illiberal," and "selfish" are not the words to
strike the right spot in the Baptist heart.
There are others who
are more kind. They sometimes say: "We like the Baptists, and would be
Baptists if that close communion were out of the way. But that is
abominable." Such words would seem to indicate that the speakers accept
all other Baptist doctrines. If they do, they do not believe in
sprinkling or pouring for baptism. They do not believe in infant
baptism. They do not believe in the total apostasy of God's children.
There are many other doctrines
2 CLOSE COMMUNION
they do not believe. Is it not strange and very inconsistent for them
to have membership in an organization, which holds all of these
objectionable doctrines, when only one objectionable doctrine is
enough to frighten them away from a Baptist church?
But such
people appeal to my sympathy. Their prejudice may be great. It cannot be
greater than that which dominated my own heart and life in the long ago.
I was not born in a Baptist home. I did not grow up under the influence
of Baptist teaching. I heard "close communion" denounced. "With the
impetuous haste of youth, I decided that Baptists were very bad people,
and that "close communion" was a sin, stupendous in its enormity, the
greatest crime in the catalogue of iniquity. But when I began an earnest
investigation of the Scriptures, I quickly discovered that there was no
point in the Baptist line of teaching and practice, at which they were
more strongly entrenched. My present conviction is that the Baptist
position is impregnable. Most gladly would I assist in emancipating
others from the bondage of an unholy prejudice.
There are two
kinds of communion. They
CLOSE COMMUNION 5
are "open communion" and "close communion. '' Open Communion is
where people differing in creed and practice meet to eat bread and
drink of the fruit of the vine—to observe the Lord's Supper.
Close Communion is where people holding the same doctrines and the same
practices meet to observe the Lord's Supper.
Between these there
is no room for a third theory, a middle practice. It cannot be that both
are right. In the very nature of things, one of these practices must be
right and the other wrong. "Which is Scriptural and right?
Did
you ever hear a sermon delivered in advocacy of open communion? If you
did, I suspect you were surprised by the absence of all citations from
the Scriptures, or by the paucity of such citations. Those who advocate
open communion do not find a basis for argument in the Scriptures. Their
alleged arguments are little more than frantic appeals to ignorance,
prejudice and blind sentimentality. That this is true will appear from a
brief review of the so-called arguments commonly used in this service.
Several years ago, by invitation of the Baptist church at Hickory
Grove, Graves County,
6 CLOSE COMMUNION
Ky., I met Rev. J. T. Pender in a public oral discussion of the
communion question. Mr. Pender was the affirmant. He was an experienced
and able polemic. His first argument for open communion was about as
follows: "A man was sick unto death. During his sickness he was
converted. He was too sick to be immersed and received into the Baptist
church of which his wife was a member. But he desired to commune with
his Christian wife before he died. He sent for a Baptist preacher. When
the preacher arrived he declined to officiate. His theory would not
permit him to officiate. Then a preacher of another denomination, an
open communionist, came and gave the bread and wine to the dying man and
his wife. How broad and liberal, how beautiful is open communion."
In reply I said: " 'The Scriptures teach,' are the opening words of the
proposition my friend affirms. The very form of his thesis calls for
proof from the Scriptures. That was a pathetic story he told. It was
recited well. It almost made me cry. But I don't believe he can give us
chapter and verse for it. I don't believe it is in the Bible. "Why
didn't he read or recite a text from the Scriptures? I suspect his col-
CLOSE COMMUNION 7
lection of death-bed stories is large. I know he cannot present a
passage from the word of God, which sustains his affirmation. I suppose
he should not be censured for using that which he has, or for failing to
do that which cannot be done.
"My brother reveals another fact.
He is not entirely free from the meshes of Romanism. A Roman Catholic
priest will celebrate mass for a dying man to prepare him for death. But
where is the authority for it? Where is the text, which authorizes the
carrying the Lord's Supper to a dying man? You have read the story of
the dying thief. He was converted the last day of his life. The Saviour
was near. The Lord did not become excited and command the disciples to
carry the bread and the wine to the dying thief. There is no intimation
that the disciples thought of such a thing. There is no record that such
a thing was done or thought of at any time during the life of Christ,
or in the apostolic age. It takes a Papist or an Apist to think such a
thought or perform such an act. I admire that Baptist preacher. He did
right. He did not presume to be so broad and liberal as to do that for
which he could find no warrant in the Bi-
8 CLOSE COMMUNION
ble. What text did the open communionist preacher use to justify his
procedure? Brother Ponder, what text would you give in justification of
his act?”
Another plea for open communion is like this: "It is
so beautiful for people of different creeds and practices to meet and
observe the Lord's Supper to show their love one for the other."
The answer is easy. Are there not other ways to show their love 1 But it
is said this way is "so beautiful.'' "Well, what of it? I have seen
people who were beautiful, and as depraved as beautiful. To say that a
thing is beautiful is not a conclusive argument for its morality. Many
may, and many do, deem practices beautiful which are unscriptural. I
have not read in the Scriptures that the design of the Lord's Supper is
to show our love one for the other. He said: "This do in remembrance of
me." He repeated it. "In remembrance of me." He also said: "As often as
ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till
he come." The supper is a memorial institution. Its design is to direct
our thoughts to the Christ whose body was broken and whose blood was
shed for us. In it we are to remember him and "show"
CLOSE COMMUNION 9
his death. "Who said, "show our love one for another"?
That
reminds me. A man is preparing to leave home for a time. He presents his
picture to his wife and says: "Wife, here is my picture. While I am
absent, look at it, and as often as you look at it, think of me." She
answers: '' All right, my dear husband, I will do that. I will look at
it often, and as often I will remember my beloved." The husband
departs. He is happy, confident that he shall be fondly remembered by
his tender wife. But no sooner has he gone over the hill and out of
sight of home, than the broad-minded, liberal, greathearted wife looks
upon his picture and thinks of every other man in the neighborhood. That
is open communion. Such a wife is too broad and liberal for a sensible
husband. The Saviour says: "This do in remembrance of me." Open
communionists do this to show their love to neighbors and friends. Their
broadness and liberality is a insult to the Saviour. Open communion is a
perversion of a Christ-given institution. It is licentious in principle
and wicked in practice.
Another plea for open communion: " It is
the Lord's table. Therefore all of the Lord's chil
10 CLOSE COMMUNION
dren, by virtue of the fact that they are his children, have the
right to eat and drink at his table."
Well, that has a plausible
sound. But the merest tyro in logic knows that it has no standing as a
valid argument. There is a premise lacking. Perhaps it has gone with the
lost tail of Halley's comet. It may be that it never existed.
"It is the Lord's table." Very good, Baptists believe that. But is the
new birth the only Scriptural qualification for coming to the Lord's
Table? Who affirms? Baptists deny.
That reminds me. I have a
table. I have a son. He thinks he has some rights there. I have some
rights there. I have the right to prescribe the terms of approach to it.
One of the terms is that my son shall wash his face and comb his hair;
anything wrong in that? One cold morning he leaps out of his bed and
into his clothes. He walks into the room where other members of the
family are eating and begins to climb into a chair. I interpose. "Son,
you can not eat. You are not ready for 'breakfast yet." He is an open
communiomst, and therefore quite prepared to ignore my rights. How
rapidly he dis-
CLOSE COMMUNION 11
charges questions at me. "Am I your child? Is this your table? Have I
a right to eat at my father's table?" Can any open communionist plead
his cause more adroitly? My answer delays riot. "You are my child, this
is my table, and my child may eat at my table, but he must first wash
his face and comb his hair. You must comply with the terms prescribed by
your father. You must respect the law of your father's house, in which
your father's table is set.'' Is there anything wrong about that?
If I have the right to prescribe the terms of approach to my table,
surely the Lord has the right to prescribe the terms on which his
children may come to his table. Who will deny it? In the denial of it is
the spirit of rebellion. Has the Lord prescribed the terms of admission
to his table? If so, is more than the new birth included?'' We shall see
as we proceed with the discussion.
Another plea for open
communion: "We will commune together in heaven, why not now?" Well, let
us see. "We will commune together in heaven." Is that true? Where in the
Scriptures is it written? Shall the Lord's table be set in heaven? What
text in the Bible teaches
12 CLOSE COMMUNION
it? The Saviour said: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." "Till he come." The
supper is to he observed during the Lord's absence, while we are
separated from him. When we shall be with him in heaven, there will be
no need of it. Then we shall have the original and will not need the
picture.
But for the sake of the argument, I will grant that the
Lord's Table shall be set, and the Lord's children shall eat at it in
heaven. "What then? Will it be open communion? Certainly not, listen to
me. If all people believed the same things and practiced the same things
and observed the Lord's Supper together, would not that be close
communion? It could not be open communion. Open communion is communion
at the Lord's Table by people holding conflicting doctrines and
practices. Do the saints in heaven hold conflicting doctrines and
practices? No sane man believes it. Therefore, there can be no open
communion in heaven. Nothing can be plainer. If there is any communion
in heaven, it must be close communion. This popular plea for open
communion turns against those who make it.
CLOSE COMMUNION 13
Such are the unscriptural pleas for open communion. Unscriptural? Certainly. Listen to me. For about fifteen years, I was pastor in Mayfield, Ky. While there, I made a very broad and liberal proposition. I repeated it, many times. It was made publicly from my pulpit. I said: "I am like other preachers. I have no money to burn, or to throw at birds. But I desire information. I am willing to pay for it. Open communion is popular. I desire to be popular. If open communion is Scriptural I desire to practice it. I do not ask for forty passages from the Word of God. I do not ask for two. One will suffice. Therefore for one passage from the Scriptures—one command for, or example of, open communion, I will pay twenty-five dollars. This offer is made to every man in Mayfield, in Graves county, in Kentucky, in the United States, in America, in the world. I will do more. I will practice open communion in this church, if the church will consent. If the church will not consent, I will leave it and go where I can follow the teachings of the Word of God. In my youth, I left those I loved most to become a Baptist. Now I am ready to leave the Baptists, if it be necessary, to obey the
14 CLOSE COMMUNION
Scriptures. But I must have a text, at least one text, to justify my
procedure. Who will find it for me?"
This proposition has been
made in other cities and in other States. It has been made in written
and in public oral discussion. No man has demanded the reward, or
claimed to have discovered the text. On the contrary, more than one
learned opponent has frankly admitted that there is no such text. Here
and now in Shepherdsville, I repeat the offer. Let him find the text,
who thinks he can.
Let me recite a little history. In 1901, I
was pastor in Columbia, Tenn. The evening of July 7th, I preached in my
pulpit a sermon on '' Close Communion". I made my oft-repeated offer of
twenty-five dollars for one text teaching open communion. Rev. P. J.
Tyler, an able and affable Cumberland Presbyterian pastor in the city,
made reply to my sermon. His reply was published in the local paper
called the Daily Herald. In his reply, Bro. Tyler said: "Our dear
brother Pettie has offered twenty-five dollars as a reward for a verse
in the Bible in favor of open communion. I do not wish the twenty-five
dollars, but I do wish that the public should
CLOSE COMMUNION 15
know something concerning the other side of the question. . . . Let
me say furthermore, that it is not so much a question of open or close
communion, as it is of exclusive immersion. They stand or fall together.
Close communion is the logical sequence of exclusive immersion. Remove
the one, and the other goes necessarily." Bro. Tyler then gives a long
quotation from a Baptist author in an effort to show that Baptists did
not always practice exclusive immersion. He did not pretend to present
the verse for which a reward had been offered.
In my reply
published in the Herald of the following day, I said: " 'Close
Communion.' Under this caption, in yesterday's Herald, my good brother,
Rev. F. J. Tyler, has an article. It professes to be a reply to a sermon
preached in the Baptist church in this city Sunday evening. I have known
Bro. Tyler for several years.
. . . He is my friend. . . . But he
is unfortunate. He replies to a sermon he did not hear and therefore
scarcely touches the sermon delivered in the Baptist pulpit. My theme
was 'Close Communion' I did not mention baptism, except in quoting a
passage of Scripture. That passage was quoted, not because it mentioned
baptism.
16 CLOSE COMMUNION
but because it contained a reference to communion, the subject under
discussion. But Bro. Tyler devotes his space almost entirely to baptism.
... I suppose the reader has observed that Bro. Tyler does not produce
the one verse. If such verse can be given, would not the presentation of
it be a very effective way to make the public know something concerning
the other side of this question. Until that verse is produced, I shall
continue to believe that open communion is something discovered out of
the Bible —not in it."
In his reply in the Herald of July 12,
Bro. Tyler makes this noble confession: "In regard to the verse demanded
by Brother Pettie, I am frank to confess that I can not give a verse in
favor of open communion."
I closed this discussion in the Herald
of July 20. with these words: "As a parting shot, Bro. Tyler fires two
questions at me.
1. "Will you deny that there are saved people
in the various denominations who do not believe in exclusive immersion,
and what you call, close communion?
2. "Was not your own father
a Methodist . . . and would you have communed with him should
CLOSE COMMUNION 17
you have had an opportunity to do so? If not, why not?
"To
the first question I answer, No. But why does my brother ask it?
Certainly not for information. He knows what I and all Baptists believe
on that point. There are many saved people in the other denominations.
Is Brother Tyler pleading for sympathy? I don't quite understand his
purpose in this question.
"In answer to the second question I
will say: My father and my mother were Methodists and godly people. My
father died when I was three years old. Of course, I had no opportunity
to meet him at the Lord's Table. But I did not commune with my mother.
But why this question? ... Is my Brother Tyler again begging for
sympathy? He ought to be able to answer his own question. But I will
assist him. Now, Bro. Tyler, if I had communed with my mother, she a
Methodist and I a Baptist, that would have been open communion. "Well,
you being judge, there is no Scripture—not even one verse—for open
communion. Then why should I practice it—even with my mother? Bro.
Tyler, why will you appeal to a blind prejudice, to unreasoning
sentimentality, in favor of a
18 CLOSE COMMUNION
practice which, you admit is not in the Bible? If open communion is
not in the Bible, why will you practice it? Why will you censure others
for not practicing it?"
I would be pleased to hear an answer to
these questions from any man who believes in and practices open
communion.
But, is Bro. Tyler's confession justified by the
facts in the case? Is it true that the Scriptares contain no text for
open communion? A little honest, unprejudiced thinking will convince you
that it is so.
There could be no open communion so long as
Christ's people were one in doctrine and practice. Open communion is
communion between people of different denominations. Therefore open
communion could not be until the people of God were divided—until
denominations were formed. But, in the days of Christ and the apostles,
in the age when the New Testament was written, there were no
denominations. Therefore open communion was impossible in the first
century. It could not be practiced in New Testament times.
Now,
let me read a passage from the word of God, which is so plain that it
ought to put an
CLOSE COMMUNION 19
end to all controversy on this subject. "For first of all, when ye
come together in the church, I hear that there are 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." I. Cor. 11:18-20.
Instead of "This is not to eat the
Lord's Supper," the marginal reading is, "Ye can not eat." The Revised
Version reads: "It is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper." These
Corinthians could eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine. They
could go through with the motions. They could perform. But they could
not eat the Lord's Supper. Why? Because there were divisions among them.
Listen to me. They were members of one and the same church—the church in
the city of Corinth. They did not form several denominations. But they
were divided. One said: "I am of Paul"; another, "I am of Cephas," and
another, "I am of Apollos." Paul says that with these divisions among
them, it was "not possible" for them to eat the Lord's Supper.
20 CLOSE COMMUNION
Does Paul speak the truth? If so, when one says, "I am of Luther,"
another, "I am of Calvin," another, "I am of "Wesley," etc., how is it
possible for them to eat the Lord's Supper? They can meet and eat bread
and drink wine. They can meet and perform. But they "can not eat the
Lord's Supper." "It is not possible." More. It is wicked to try to do
that which the Holy Spirit says, "can not" be done. The case is plain.
Where there are no divisions, open communion is not possible. Where
there are divisions, "it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper."
Nothing can be clearer. According to the Scriptures, there is no place
for open communion.
But let us, if only for a moment, look at
another text. In the seventeenth chapter of John we have Christ's great
intercessory prayer. In it is a petition for the oneness of his people.
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe
on me through their word, that they all may be one, as thou Father art
in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world
may believe that thou hast sent me, and the glory which thou gavest me,
I have given them, that they may be one
CLOSE COMMUNION 21
even as we are one." John 17:20-22.
He prays that his
disciples may be one. He prays not only for those then with him, but for
all disciples of all ages. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them
also which shall believe on. me through their word." His words are
marvelous in their strength, "Even as we are one." There is no confusion
in the Godhead. There are no antagonisms between the persons of the
Trinity. The Father and the Son are one in doctrine and practice.
Therefore the Saviour prays that his disciples may be one in doctrine
and practice. "That they may be one even as we are one.''
Divisions among the people of God, warring sects with conflicting creeds
and practices, are out of harmony with the spirit of this prayer. They
are sinful. But if you destroy these sinful divisions you destroy open
communion with them. Open communion is not only related to these wicked
divisions, but it is sympathetically related to them. It fosters them.
It is accessory after the fact. It is wicked.
Those who advocate
open communion and profess to practice it are always demanding of
Baptists Scripture for the Baptist theory and
22 CLOSE COMMUNION
practice. The demand is reasonable. But they seem never to think that
they are under any obligation to give Scripture for their practice. You
may, in your moderation, ask them for only one text. They will not
produce it; you can not drive, coax or bribe them to make the attempt.
It does seem to me that if Baptists need chapter and verse to justify
their practice, open communionists also need a "Thus saith the Lord" to
justify their practice. Don't you think so? They should not take
offense, if we make demands of them equal to those they make of us.
But are there Scriptures which teach close communion? Certainly. There
are only two kinds of communion. One is open, and the other is close
communion. It is admitted that there is no Scripture for open communion.
Therefore it inevitably follows that all Scriptures which teach
communion, teach close communion. It must be so.
"We will begin
at the beginning. "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed
it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat,
this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to
them,
CLOSE COMMUNION 23
saying: drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new testament
which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:26-28.
This is the history of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Here for
the first time it was observed. Who were present? "Who participated in
it? From the twentieth verse we learn that "when the even was come, he
sat down with the twelve." Whether Judas left the company before the
supper was instituted is a matter about which, so far as the present
argument is concerned, I am wholly indifferent. Jesus and eleven or
twelve of his disciples were present. They were the celebrants. Did they
constitute a dozen denominations, representing as many conflicting
creeds? You know they did not. They were not part Lutherans, part
Presbyterians, part Methodists, part Congregationalists, and part
Campbellites. Though I know, I am not now saying what they were. But I
do say this: If one of them was a Presbyterian, all were Presbyterians.
If one was a Methodist, all were Methodists. In short, what one was, all
were. If one believed in immersion, all believed in immersion. If one
believed in infant baptism, all did. If one believed in the doctrine
24 CLOSE COMMUNION
of apostasy, all did. They were one in doctrine. Therefore that was a
plain case of close communion. Nothing can be plainer. And Jesus was
there authorizing it and taking the leading part in. it. Therefore, to
speak against close communion is to speak against Christ.
I will
give you another text: "Then they that gladly received his word were
baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three
thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:41-42.
This is the record of the second observance of the Supper. Who were
engaged in it? Were some of them Lutherans, some Presbyterians, some
Episcopalians, some Methodists, some Adventists, and some Campbellites?
You know they were not thus divided. What one was, all were. The
inspired historian is careful to guard against mistake at this point. He
says: "They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship and in breaking of bread." Those who broke bread at this
communion service "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine." The
apostles were one in doctrine.
CLOSE COMMUNION 25
Those at this communion were one in doctrine with the apostles.
Another plain case of close communion.
The Scriptures put much
and strong emphasis on oneness in doctrine. "Mark them which cause
divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned
and avoid them." Rom. 16:17.
'' If any man obey not our word by
this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may
be ashamed." II Thess. 3:14.
"Have no company with him." "Avoid
them." Surely these words do not teach open communion. They prohibit it.
They teach close communion. Why "have no company with him"? Why "avoid
them"? Because of "divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which
ye have learned." Steadfast continuance is the apostles' doctrine that
is required of everyone who would commune together at the Lord’s Table. But
here are several religion ??? tions. One is Presbyterian, one is ???, one
is Episcopalian, one C??? ventist, and one Congregat ??? in doctrine. If
one of the ??? apostles' doctrine, the ot ???
26 CLOSE COMMUNION
obviously true. Of its truth there can be no honest doubt. Therefore,
they "can not eat the Lord's Supper" together. "When they pretend to do
it, they are disobedient. "Have no company with him." "Avoid them."
The Lord has the right to prescribe the terms of admission to his table.
This right he has exercised. One of these is self-examination. "Let a
man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that
cup." I. Cor. 11:28. But this is only one. No difference how often, or
how rigidly a man may examine himself, there must be unity of doctrine—credal
oneness with those with whom he proposes to commune. One term prescribed
by the Lord is not intended to set aside another term, or other terms
prescribed by the same Lord. Therefore Baptists teach that, to commune
together Scripturally, men must not only examine themselves, but be
of the same faith and order." This is true, no difference ??????????? or
who the subjects of baptism ???????
???????? communion. Some of
you ???????? I have placed before you. ???????? lusive.
I have offered a
CLOSE COMMUNION 27
reward of twenty-five dollars for one text, only one text, which
teaches open communion. The oft-repeated offer has failed to procure the
coveted text. I have freely given texts which plainly teach what is
commonly called close communion. These are easily discovered. For them I
ask no reward.
I have spoken plainly. Bible themes demand such
treatment. But I have spoken the truth in love. I hate false doctrine.
"I hate every false way." But I love people. I love you. I desire that
all shall believe the truth, love the truth, and practice the truth.
Error can not benefit us in this world. It can not benefit us in the
world to come. "Buy the truth and sell it not." " The truth shall make
you free.'' But I must close. God bless you.
Close communion: a sermon delivered by Rev. A. S. Pettie, DD in the First Baptist Church Shepherdsville, KY, May 22, 1910
| Publisher: | Baptist Book Concern Inc., 191? |