Fencing the Table of the Lord’s Supper at Grace Chapel

Fencing the Lord’s Table: A Biblical and Historic Practice of the Christian Church

SHORT SUMMARY OF THIS PAGE: 

This article outlines the Christian practice of fencing the Lord’s Supper. It is not about exclusion, but about preserving holiness and integrity. Drawing from 1 Corinthians 11, the early church’s abuses of communion—marked by divisions, selfishness, and drunkenness—provoked apostolic rebuke. Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:28–29 call for solemn self-examination and warn that unworthy participation brings “judgment… weakness… death.” Historically, the practice was unambiguous: lawfully ordained ministers and elders were tasked with fencing the table through pastoral visitation, home interviews, and verifying the sincerity of communicants. Church membership and pastoral oversight were essential—communion is a covenant meal, not a general invitation.

Reformers like Calvin codified this standard. In Geneva, strangers (those outside “the company of the faithful”) were barred from the Table. Calvin declared that admitting the unworthy was sacrilege, even when pressured by civil authorities. This practice has resonated through Christian history, beginning with the New Testament church: preaching, recordkeeping, and confessional standards all reinforced that those admitted to the Supper must be baptized, members of the local church, and subject to pastoral examination.

The article affirms that fencing the table is not a relic—it is biblical, confessional, and pastoral. It safeguards the covenant meal, honors Christ, and protects the congregation. Communion is not a casual entitlement, but a sacred privilege, approached with sobriety, faith, and accountability.

The historic Christian position is affirmed in the Church Order of the Synod of Dort (1619):

Article 61 – Only those shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who, according to the usage of the churches which they join, have made confession of the Reformed religion, together with having testimony of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other churches shall not be admitted.

__________________________________________

FULL ARTICLE HERE:

I. Introduction

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 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.” (1 Cor. 11:26-29).

The term “Fencing the Table” refers to the historic Christian practice of regulating admission to the Lord’s Supper. It is not a modern innovation, nor a sectarian peculiarity, but a theological necessity rooted in the doctrine of the church, the sacraments, and the Word of God. The Table of the Lord is holy because it belongs to Christ. It is not a public commodity, nor an act of individual expression. It is a covenant ordinance of Christ, administered by His appointed officers, to His gathered and visible people.

The Supper is not a general invitation to whoever feels inclined. Rather, it is a sacramental means of grace for those who have been called into covenant with Christ, baptized into His body, and examined by His church. To “fence” the Table is to protect the congregation from sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27), to guard the name of Christ from profanation, and to uphold the sacredness of this ordinance as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. To permit the unworthy, unrepentant, or unbaptized to partake—knowingly and without examination—is a dereliction of duty and a complete betrayal of the Table’s design (think of the practices of the modern church today that require nothing to participate in this covenant renewal).

This act of fencing is not a denial of grace; it is a defense of it. Grace is never opposed to order. God has never administered His covenant blessings outside the bounds of the visible covenant community. Just as the Passover was not for the uncircumcised (Exodus 12:43–49), so the Lord’s Supper is not for those outside the church. Paul does not describe the Supper as an expression of individual piety, but as a participation in the body of Christ—corporate, covenantal, and solemn (1 Corinthians 10:16–17). As such, it is never left to personal discretion alone but must be guarded by those entrusted with spiritual oversight.[1]

The objection often arises: “Isn’t the Lord’s Table for sinners?” Yes—but repentant sinners who rest on Christ alone and have submitted themselves to His body, the church (and there is the rub).[2] The Table is not fenced to keep out the contrite, but to prevent presumption. Elders do not judge the heart, but they are charged to judge the outward credibility of profession and manner of life. Only Christ sees perfectly, but He has appointed and commissioned stewards—ministers and elders—to administer His sacraments with fidelity.

Historically, both the Continental Reformed and the Presbyterian churches practiced a guarded Supper. Visitors were expected to speak with the elders before being admitted. Churches issued communion tokens or letters of attestation. No one presumed to partake without submission to Christ’s visible kingdom.[3] This practice was not harsh, but pastoral; not narrow, but necessary. It guarded the gospel, protected the flock, and exalted Christ as Head (King) of His church.

Thus, fencing the Table is not a sectarian habit but a biblical and confessional necessity. It arises from a right understanding of the church, the sacraments, and the fear of the Lord. The church that fails to fence the Table fails to honor the Supper as holy.

II. Biblical Foundation

The fencing of the Lord’s Table is not a man-made tradition but arises directly from the teaching of Holy Scripture (we will consider the OT momentarily, but first…). The apostolic witness, particularly in the epistles of Paul, establishes that the Supper is a holy ordinance requiring discernment, spiritual integrity, and ecclesiastical order. The modern notion that each individual determines for himself whether or not he should partake, without any reference to the church or its officers, is foreign to Scripture (it is against Scripture). The Lord’s Table belongs to Christ, and He has instituted it to be administered under the oversight of His ordained ministers and elders (1 Corinthians 4:1).

In 1 Corinthians 11:27–30, the Apostle Paul writes with solemnity: “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.” This passage emphasizes not only personal self-examination but the real possibility of divine judgment for those who partake unworthily. The warning is not directed merely at inner thoughts, but at the visible conduct and sacramental approach of the communicant. The church, as steward of Christ’s mysteries (1 Corinthians 4:1), must therefore act with diligence to prevent the profanation of the Table.

The Table is not only a personal act, but a covenantal and communal ordinance. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17: “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.” The Lord’s Supper is a sign and seal of union—not just with Christ, but with His visible body, the church. To come to the Table without union to a true church is to contradict the very meaning of the Supper, which is a covenantal ordinance administered in and to the visible body of Christ. “We being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Communion signifies union with Christ and with His body—the church. To partake while refusing submission to the visible church is to deny the very sign one claims to receive.

A true church, as defined by the Belgic Confession, Article 29, is marked by: 1) the pure preaching of the gospel, 2) the pure administration of the sacraments, and 3) the exercise of church discipline. Without these, there is no visible expression of the covenant, and thus no warrant for sacramental fellowship. The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2 agrees: “The visible Church… consists of all those… that profess the true religion, and of their children.” It further declares (25.4) that “particular churches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine… sacraments, and discipline… are more or less pure.”

The Lord’s Supper is not offered to spiritual freelancers. It is given to the covenanted body of believers who submit to Christ’s government. To reject that government yet presume to eat at His Table is to partake unworthily and invite judgment (1 Corinthians 11:29).

The principle of church discipline and ecclesiastical judgment is established throughout Scripture. In Matthew 7:6, our Lord declares: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” The Lord’s Supper is among the holiest things entrusted to the church. It is not to be offered indiscriminately to the unconverted, rebellious, or heretical. Paul likewise commands in 1 Corinthians 5:6–7, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump.” Those openly walking in sin or disorder are not to be received to the Table, lest they defile the body.

Paul again commands in 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly.” And again in verse 14–15: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him… Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” These texts plainly teach that the church must withhold visible signs of communion from those who walk disorderly and do not obey apostolic instruction. (This also includes nominal churches and denomination, or lack thereof, that reject historic orthodox ecclesiology.)

The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith affirms the minister’s authority to admit to or withhold the sacraments. In Chapter 27.4 it says: “There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained” (cf. Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 4:1; 11:20, 23; Ephesians 4:11–12). The act of dispensing is not a neutral or passive event—it includes regulating access to the ordinance (Which is also part of the Regulative Principle of Worship).

Likewise, the Church Order of Dort (1619), Article 61, establishes the historic and biblical requirement: “Only those shall be admitted to the Lord’s supper who, according to the usage of the churches which they join, have made confession of the Reformed religion, together with having testimony of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other churches shall not be admitted.”

Thus, both Scripture and the Reformed confessions stand united: the Supper is not a public festival but a guarded ordinance, administered under biblical authority, to the visible people of Christ, by His appointed stewards.

Short Excursus on the Passover:

The Lord’s Supper is the New Covenant continuation and fulfillment of the Old Covenant Passover which Jesus Christ fulfilled in its entirety. Both are covenantal meals pointing to Christ instituted by divine command, given to the visible people of God, and restricted to those who bear the outward marks of covenant membership.

In Exodus 12, the Lord institutes the Passover as a commemorative and covenantal meal to be observed by the people of Israel. This ordinance was not open to all. It was fenced by specific divine commands. Exodus 12:43 says: “And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof.” The “stranger” here is one who is outside the covenant community. Access to the meal was not left to personal profession or private piety. Participation was regulated by covenant identity.

Further in Exodus 12:48–49, God establishes how a sojourner could be admitted: “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 that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” The Passover was fenced by the sign of the covenant—circumcision. Without it, no one, however sincere, was permitted to eat. Admission was regulated by visible covenant markers and ecclesiastical authority (in that case, the covenant elders of Israel).

This pattern of fencing carried deep theological meaning: the meal was for those who belonged, who were under the authority and promise of the covenant. It was not for outsiders, nor for rebels within. The Old Covenant community did not tolerate presumptive access to sacred things. In fact, in Numbers 9:13, God warned: “But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people.” To treat the meal lightly, or to approach presumptuously or neglectfully, brought covenantal judgment. The Old Testament Passover was fenced with divine warnings: no uncircumcised person could eat (Exodus 12:48), and any neglect invited being “cut off” (Numbers 9:13). In the New Testament, Paul draws a direct counterpart in 1 Corinthians 11:29–30: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself… For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” The word sleep refers to death—God struck some in the Corinthian church for profaning the Supper. This is not symbolic. Covenant meals are holy. To approach them presumptuously is to provoke divine judgment.

Also, this Old Testament principle carries forward into the New Covenant Lord’s Supper. Christ, on the night He was betrayed, instituted the Supper at the Passover table (Luke 22:14–20). He did not invite the crowds, nor the curious, nor even all disciples. Only the twelve were present, and even Judas, though present, departed before the Supper’s full significance was given (cf. John 13:27–30). The meal was given to those in covenant with Christ, soon to be entrusted with the stewardship of His gospel.

Paul draws the connection directly in 1 Corinthians 5:7–8: “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven… but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The church is to “keep the feast” not in form only, but in purity and sincerity. The visible body must be purged of “leaven”—open sin, heresy, rebellion—before the Supper is administered. This is fencing. The meal is not open to anyone who walks in off the street, nor to those under discipline or outside the covenant. It is for the marked, the baptized, the repentant, and those under lawful church oversight.

Thus, the Lord’s Supper, like the Passover, is fenced by covenant membership, a visible sign (baptism), submission to the church, and ecclesiastical judgment.[4] This is not exclusion by arrogance—it is obedience to Christ’s covenantal order. To neglect fencing the Table is to defy the pattern of the Passover, which Christ Himself fulfilled and transformed into the sacred Supper of the New Covenant. “It became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving. That this was the established order among the Corinthians also, we can safely infer from Paul [cf. 1 Corinthians 11:20]. And it remained in use for many centuries after.”[5]

III. Confessional and Catechetical Witness

The historic Reformed confessions and catechisms speak with clarity and unanimity on the nature of the Lord’s Supper and the duty of the church to fence the Table. These documents do not treat the Supper as a private devotional exercise, but as a holy sacrament of the visible church, to be administered by Christ’s ordained ministers and received only by those who make a credible profession of faith and live a godly life. The administration of this sacrament is not left to personal discretion, nor is it offered indiscriminately. It is, as the Belgic Confession says, a sign and seal of “the communion and unity which the members have with each other,” and must be regulated accordingly.

The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 27.4, establishes the ministerial authority in administering the sacraments: “There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained” (proof texts include 1 Corinthians 4:1 and 11:23). The sacraments are not common religious exercises; they are divine ordinances entrusted to the stewards of Christ’s mysteries.

The 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism directly addresses the question of who may and may not come to the Lord’s Table. Question 173 asks: “May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, be kept from it?” The answer is decisive:

“Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.”

This plainly asserts that elders have not only the right but the duty to withhold the sacrament from those who lack understanding or whose conduct contradicts the gospel. It also affirms that the authority to do so is given by Christ Himself.

Question 174 in the 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism explains who ought to come: “It is required of them that would partake of the sacrament… that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience.” These are not optional ideals, but necessary qualifications. These cannot be judged infallibly, but the church must seek evidence of them in those who would be admitted.

Question 175 in the 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism reinforces the point: “What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament…?” Among other duties, it speaks of renewing their thankfulness and watching against relapses. The Supper, then, is for regenerate and responsible believers, not for nominal or disorderly persons.

The Heidelberg Catechism, which forms the doctrinal standard of many Continental Reformed churches, also makes the connection between the Supper and true covenantal faith. Question 75 says:

“How is it signified and sealed unto thee in the Holy Supper, that thou dost partake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all His benefits?”

The answer includes this statement: “…with His crucified body and shed blood He Himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, as assuredly as I receive from the hand of the minister, and taste with the mouth, the bread and cup of the Lord.” The Supper is more than remembrance—it is spiritual nourishment. But the condition for this nourishment is faith and belonging.

Question 81 in the Heidelberg Catechism asks pointedly: “For whom is the Lord’s Supper instituted?” The answer is clear:

“For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ, and that their remaining infirmities are covered by His passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy. But hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.”

The Belgic Confession, Article 35, emphasizes that believers do not come to the Supper by right or self-determination, but as those who belong to Christ’s body and live in covenantal unity: “We believe and confess that our Saviour Jesus Christ did ordain and institute the sacrament of the Holy Supper… that He might nourish and support those whom He hath already regenerated and incorporated into His family, which is His Church.”

Thus, the Reformed standards are not silent or ambiguous. They echo Scripture in teaching that the Supper is for those united to Christ by faith, in submission to the visible church, and walking uprightly before God. It is to be fenced—not to keep out true believers, but to honor the holiness of Christ and guard the purity of His visible people. The Table is no common meal, and its administration is no indifferent act. It is a sacred trust, to be governed by the Word and preserved by faithful officers until Christ returns.

Excursus on ministers: The Lawful Minister: Christ’s Ordained Servant and the Scandal of Modern Evangelical Disorder

The ministry of the Word is not a hobby. It is not a volunteer post. It is not a matter of inner ambition or gifted charisma. It is an office—lawfully instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ, governed by divine command, and maintained in His visible church through ordinary means. Scripture does not present a freelance model of ministry, nor does it grant authority to self-commissioned men (think of all those “non-denominational churches). Rather, Christ calls, qualifies, ordains, and sends ministers through His church by the laying on of hands, examination, and lawful appointment by the presbytery. Anything else is schism, rebellion, or worse.

The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 10:15, “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” The rhetorical force of the question condemns the very idea of self-sent preachers. Christ’s apostles did not rise up from private Bible study groups and declare themselves ministers of the Word. Nor did the early church receive men on the basis of inward feelings or popular support. They were examined, approved, ordained, and set apart. “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). The pastoral office is not taken; it is given by Christ through the order of His church.

The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 27.4, asserts this clearly: “Neither of [the sacraments] may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.” The same is echoed in the Church Order of Dort (1619), Article 3: “No one, though he be a professor, elder or deacon shall be permitted to enter the ministry of the Word and sacraments without having been lawfully called thereto.” These are not formalities. These are divine ordinances. A man who stands in a pulpit without lawful ordination is an intruder. He is a thief climbing over the wall rather than entering by the door (John 10:1).

And yet, today the landscape of the so-called church is overrun with these thieves. American evangelicalism, with its love of celebrity, independence, and emotional enthusiasm, has produced a generation of spiritual squatters—men with no ordination, no ecclesiastical oversight, no examination, and no right to be in the pulpit. They are YouTube preachers, podcast pastors, the non-denominal starters and social media apostles. They gather a crowd, declare themselves shepherds, and form “churches” out of the refuse of rebellion. They are unaccountable to any lawful consistory or presbytery. They speak great swelling words, but they answer to no one. Their ministries are not built on submission to Christ’s order but on personal ambition and market strategy. This is not a revival. It is spiritual anarchy.

These self-appointed ministers mimic the structure of the true church without possessing its essence. They do not exercise lawful authority; they simulate it. They hold Bible studies that morph into “gatherings,” then “communities,” and finally “churches”—all without any call, ordination, or oversight. They dispense sacraments they have no authority to administer (having no idea what they are actually doing in the Supper). They preach without having been examined, except by those they bring into their groups and deem elders or deacons). They assume the keys of the kingdom without having been entrusted with them. And the people rejoice in this disorder, calling it “spirit-led” and “authentic.”

In truth, it is schism and spiritual fornication.

Jude condemns such men as “sensual, having not the Spirit” (Jude 19). They separate themselves from the body, exalt themselves over the church, and defile the ordinances of Christ. The Apostle warns that in the last days men will heap to themselves teachers, “having itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3). We are watching this unfold in real time: people forsake the visible church, despise lawful authority, and gather around charismatic personalities who tickle their preferences.

This is not a failure of organization—it is a rejection of Christ’s rule as King.

The office of minister is not a matter of private inclination. It is governed by public process, churchly judgment, and lawful appointment. Paul charges Titus: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). The church is not self-made; it is rightly ordered. A man may be gifted, but if he is not examined, called, and ordained, he has no more right to a pulpit than a squatter has to the king’s throne.

Those who start “churches” without ordination are rebels. Those who gather people to themselves without ecclesiastical authority are wolves. Those who reject Christ’s order in the name of Christ are antichrists in miniature. They wear sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves. They speak of the Spirit, but reject the very ordinances the Spirit has established. They claim to be apostolic, yet despise the apostolic pattern. They call it revival; Scripture calls it confusion.

Moreover, heretics and schismatics flourish in these environments. Without accountability, they preach whatever doctrine pleases the crowd or their own conscience. They twist the gospel, reject the sacraments, and revile the church. They form independent outposts where no one may correct them. No presbytery restrains them. No elder rebukes them. They are lone rangers for Christ—an image unknown in all church history prior to the last 150 years. This is not only shameful—it is demonic.

It is satanic to suggest that Christ’s visible church is irrelevant, or that biblical ordination is optional. Satan delights in disorder. He thrives where the shepherd is absent and where the flock is scattered. He uses pious language to destroy the fabric of Christ’s church. The language of liberty becomes the cloak of licentiousness. The banner of grace becomes the excuse for rebellion. And weak Christians, unfamiliar with sound doctrine and weary of discipline, are easy prey.

Biblical Christian churches must draw a clear line. We confess, without apology, that the office of minister is sacred, regulated, and divine. No man may preach unless he is sent. No man may administer sacraments unless he is lawfully ordained. No church is rightly called such unless it is governed by a lawful ministry, according to the Word of God.

Calvin was exiled for this conviction. His conviction was to prevent the profanation of the Lord’s Supper by the participation of unfit persons is basic to his emphasis on discipline. He said, “We must preserve the order of the Lord’s Supper, that it may not be profaned by being administered indiscriminately. For it is very true that he to whom its distribution has been committed, if he knowingly and willingly admits an unworthy person whom he could rightfully turn away, is sacrilege.”[6] The Genevan Consistory suffered attack after attack because it refused to yield the Supper to profane and rebellious men. Calvin declared, “These hands you may crush… but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane.” He understood what too many modern evangelicals forget: the church is not ours to reinvent. It is Christ’s, and we are under orders.

Edwards, in correcting Stoddard’s watwayrd new manner of coming to the Supper, said, “That none ought to be admitted to the Communion and Privileges of Members of the visible Church of Christ in compleat Standing, but such as are in Profession and in the eye of the Church’s Christian Judgment godly or gracious Persons.”[7]

No true minister of Christ is self-made. No real church is built apart from lawful ordination. No sacraments are valid unless administered by those sent by Christ through His visible church. The rampant disorder of modern evangelicalism is not revival but revolt. And the path back is not innovation but submission—to the Word, to the order Christ has established, and to the ordinary means He has given for the calling and sending of His servants. Otherwise, no matter how much touchy-feely inclusion one may have in these kinds of heretical and rebellious wrecks, God is in none of it.

Let the church once again say: How shall they preach, except they be sent? (Romans 10:15).

IV. Historical Reformed Practice

The historic Reformed churches did not leave the administration of the Lord’s Supper to personal impulse or the shifting moods of the age. They fenced the Table with precision and pastoral sobriety, not to erect arbitrary barriers, but to honor Christ’s holiness, protect the purity of the church, and preserve the sanctity of the sacraments. Their approach was governed by Scripture, confirmed by confession, and codified in church order. The Lord’s Table was treated as holy ground. Access to it required a credible profession of faith, a life not marked by scandal, and formal accountability to a true church. Anything less was profanation.

Nowhere is this more clearly stated than in the Church Order of Dort (1619), Article 61:

“Only those shall be admitted to the Lord’s supper who, according to the usage of the churches which they join, have made confession of the Reformed religion, together with having testimony of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other churches shall not be admitted.”

This article codifies the longstanding practice of the Dutch Reformed churches. A person must not only profess the Reformed faith, but also be known by a godly walk—confirmed either by local membership or a formal attestation from a sister congregation. This was not optional. It was a matter of fidelity to the apostolic rule, and of careful stewardship of Christ’s ordinance. In other words, for our church, Grace Chapel, at the very least, one must have the Scriptures and Confessions in tandem. Then they have a right to sit with the pastor and discuss participation after that oversight is given and allowed.

The Synod of Middelburg (1581), decades before Dort, required the same: “No one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except one who… has made confession of the Reformed religion, who has testimony of godly behavior…”[8] These standards were reaffirmed in The Hague (1586)[9] and reiterated in Utrecht (1612).[10] What emerges across these decades is consistency: guarding the Table was not legalism—it was love for Christ, His church, and His Word.

The Reformed churches also historically used letters of attestation or communion tokens to enforce this. A communicant traveling to another congregation was expected to present a token or a signed attestation from his home consistory. No one presumed access. The burden of admission rested with the session. The Lord’s Table was not self-serve. The Belgic Confession, Article 29, clearly states that one of the marks of the true church is “the proper administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them.” To administer the Supper rightly is not to make it universally available to all who claim Christianity—it is to give it only to those who are properly examined, baptized, and governed within Christ’s visible body.

This principle was not unique to the Dutch churches. The Scottish Presbyterians (those the English Westminstserian Puritans desired to come to the Westminster Assembly), especially those aligned with the Free Church of Scotland, used tokens as well. Before the annual celebration of communion, elders would visit each member of the congregation to examine their profession and life. If found credible, they were given a small token of lead or pewter. On the day of communion, the communicant would present the token at the table—no token, no admission. This was not ritualism. It was pastoral discipline. It upheld the apostolic admonition: “Let a man examine himself… for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28–29, KJV).

In Geneva, John Calvin and the Company of Pastors fiercely upheld the necessity of fencing the Table.[11] The case of Philibert Berthelier is instructive. Though a citizen of Geneva, Berthelier was suspended from the Supper by the Consistory for open rebellion and contempt of ecclesiastical authority. When the civil magistrate attempted to override this decision and compel Calvin to serve him, Calvin refused. He declared from the pulpit of St. Pierre: “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours—you may shed it—but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.” The Supper was not subject to civil convenience or populist outrage. It belonged to Christ, and His ministers were bound to administer it according to His Word.

Even amid political pressure, Calvin and the Genevan elders stood firm. The Small Council eventually ruled in their favor. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Geneva (1541) gave the church exclusive right to administer the Supper and to bar unworthy communicants. Those who were suspended were not permitted to partake until they gave evidence of repentance. This was not merely about individual morality; it was about guarding the visible communion of Christ’s body.

(Side Note: The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) followed the same pattern. Until the late twentieth century, the denomination practiced close communion—only communicant members in good standing were permitted to come. After 1977, they adopted session-controlled communion, where visitors had to be examined and approved by the elders before being admitted. Even in the Presbyterian Church of Australia and among many Dutch and Canadian Reformed congregations, the rule remains: no one is to be admitted to the Supper unless they are a member of a true church, have made profession of faith, and are not under discipline. The burden of judgment is not laid on the individual alone but shared by the session.)[12]

This is the biblical pattern. The church guards the Table because the church is the steward of Christ’s mysteries. She does not control grace, but she must administer the means of grace according to the order Christ has given. The Supper is not for those who profess Christ in word only but deny Him in conduct. Nor is it for the unaffiliated, the undisciplined, or the self-appointed (professing believers should think heartily about this today, and yet, only Chrit’s sheep will hear his voice (John 10)).

The historic practice is clear: communion is for those within the covenant, under discipline, and walking uprightly in the faith once delivered to the saints. It is not for visitors who walk in unannounced, nor for those who belong to sects or congregations that lack the marks of a true church. It is the Lord’s Table—but He has entrusted it to His church, and He has given her the keys of the kingdom to open and shut as He commands. To ignore this is not hospitality; it is unfaithfulness. To uphold it is not elitism; it is obedience. And to recover it today is to return to biblical order, confessional integrity, and ecclesiastical health.

V. Confessional Clarity: Westminster and Heidelberg on Fencing the Table

The Reformed confessions do not treat the fencing of the Lord’s Table as a marginal matter, but as an essential element of right sacramental practice. The 1647 Westminster Standards, in particular, underscore that the Supper must not be administered loosely, nor received by those unqualified, lest it bring judgment rather than blessing. The Heidelberg Catechism, likewise, speaks with sober clarity about who should come, and who must be kept back. The confessions provide a framework for understanding not only who may come, but who must be kept away—for their own spiritual good, and the health of the church.

The 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 172 asks: “May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?” The answer begins: “One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof…” Yet even such a doubting believer is only encouraged to come after self-examination, and with the help of pastoral counsel. The key point is this: preparation is necessary. The Table is not open to all indiscriminately. There are qualifications and prerequisites.

1. 173 gets even more pointed:
   “May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, be kept from it?”
   Answer: “Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, may and ought to be kept from the sacrament by the power which Christ hath left in his church…”

The duty of the church is explicit. Elders are not merely permitted to fence the Table—they are bound by Christ to do so. The church is given power to judge those who are openly ignorant of the faith or living scandalously, even if they profess Christianity. Their profession alone does not grant them access. The church is charged with examining, warning, and excluding as necessary.

This power to withhold the Supper is not clerical tyranny. It is pastoral fidelity. The Catechism grounds it in Christ’s own appointment: “…until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.” The church excludes for the sake of the sinner, and for the purity of Christ’s body. To admit the openly ungodly, the doctrinally ignorant, or the rebellious is to sin against Christ.

The 1647 Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 96 summarizes the purpose of the Supper:
“The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood…”

Not all are “worthy receivers.” The Supper does not work ex opere operato. It is effectual only to those who receive by faith, under Christ’s appointed terms. The church must therefore distinguish between the worthy and the unworthy—not with infallible knowledge, but by visible profession and walk.

The Heidelberg Catechism Q. 81 states plainly:
“For whom is the Lord’s supper instituted?”
Answer: “For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ, and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy…”

And in Q. 82, the Catechism gives this warning:
“Are they also to be admitted to this supper who, by their confession and life, show themselves to be unbelieving and ungodly?”
Answer: “No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned, and his wrath kindled against the whole congregation…”

This is not merely individual risk—it is congregational danger. To allow ungodly persons to the Table is to provoke God’s wrath against the body. This echoes 1 Corinthians 11:30: “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” When the church fails to fence the Table, she brings judgment upon herself.

The language of the confessions is striking: the Supper is not only for the believing, but only for those whose lives do not contradict their confession. A false professor, a scandalous member, or one who will not heed church discipline is to be excluded—lovingly, firmly, and lawfully. The minister and elders act not as judges of hearts, but as stewards of Christ’s ordinance. “and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.”  (1 Cor. 4:1-2).

The Westminster Directory for Public Worship (1645) confirms this practice:
“…that none be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, but such as are found, upon examination, to be persons of knowledge and understanding in the faith, and of unblameable conversation.”
And:
“That they who are to be admitted be not scandalous in their lives; and that such as are found ignorant, or scandalous, be kept back, until they receive instruction, and manifest amendment.”

This matches the practice of the Dutch churches cited earlier: a profession of faith and a godly walk were both required. Anything less was cause for delay or exclusion. The church’s power to fence the Table is not optional; it is commanded. To exercise it is not harshness, but spiritual care. To neglect it is not hospitality (as modern Evangelicalism believes), but betrayal.

The confessions do not merely allow for fencing—they require it. The Lord’s Supper is holy. It is given to the church. It is to be administered by lawful ministers, under the oversight of elders, and received by faithful believers. Those who walk disorderly, those who live in rebellion, those who corrupt doctrine or ignore discipline—such must not be admitted, lest they eat and drink judgment to themselves and bring reproach upon Christ.

Let the church recover its voice. Let ministers preach the necessity of self-examination. Let elders exercise their spiritual office and judge righteous judgment. Let the church speak as Paul spoke: “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” (1 Corinthians 11:27, KJV). And let the confessions stand as they were meant to: not museum pieces, but guardrails of fidelity in the visible church of Jesus Christ.

VI. Biblical and Apostolic Precedent for Fencing the Table

The fencing of the Lord’s Table is no mere ecclesiastical tradition—it is grounded in divine revelation of the OT and NT apostolic mandate. The New Testament establishes clear qualifications for receiving the Supper, alongside grave warnings for partaking unworthily. The Apostles taught the church to guard the ordinances carefully, not simply to preserve form, but to protect souls and uphold the holiness of Christ’s covenant. The Lord’s Supper is not a common meal, and it is not for the careless or the ungodly. It is a holy ordinance of visible communion with Christ and His church, and must be fenced accordingly.

The Apostle Paul addresses this most directly in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29 (KJV):

“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.”

This is not mere warning—it is an apostolic command. Self-examination is required before coming to the Table. Failure to do so brings guilt and judgment. The phrase “not discerning the Lord’s body” refers to a failure to understand the sacredness of the ordinance and the body of believers gathered around it. The Supper is not an opportunity for spiritual experimentation or emotional nostalgia. It is covenantal communion with Christ and His people.

Paul then speaks of the consequences in verse 30:

“For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.”

This is not poetic metaphor. Paul teaches that physical sickness and even death had fallen upon the Corinthian church due to their careless approach to the Supper (and they were a church!). The judgment of God was active in their midst—not upon the world, but upon the visible church. This alone should cause every modern congregation to tremble. When the Supper is open to all without discernment or discipline, the judgment of God does not disappear—it only deepens.

In Matthew 7:6, Christ Himself gives this principle, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine…”

The Supper is holy. The grace of Christ is not to be cast before the unclean. This does not mean that the church must identify the elect infallibly. But it does mean that the church is responsible to guard what is sacred, and to exercise the keys of the kingdom in admitting only those who give credible evidence of saving faith.

The office of elder is given precisely for this purpose. In Hebrews 13:17, the church is commanded:

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account…”

Elders are charged with watching for the souls of the flock. This includes guarding the ordinances. When a session examines visitors, requests attestations, or withholds the Supper from scandalous or self-appointed individuals, it is not being uncharitable. It is doing what Christ commands. It is watching for souls.

Furthermore, Paul teaches in 1 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… with such an one no not to eat.”

This includes table fellowship in the church. Those who are openly unrepentant (those who do not agree with what is being explicitly said here) are not to be welcomed at the Lord’s Table. Paul is not making a suggestion—he is giving a binding apostolic directive. The purity of the church is at stake. And the well-being of the sinner is at stake. To admit such persons is to confirm them in their rebellion and to dishonor Christ.

The example of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:13–23 is also instructive. Though Simon professed faith and was baptized, Peter rebuked him sternly:

“Thy heart is not right in the sight of God… For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:21, 23)

Public profession alone does not warrant communion. The Apostles judged according to fruit and integrity. Simon was not welcome to the spiritual blessings of Christ until repentance was evident. The modern church would do well to recover this biblical posture.

The church in Acts 2:42 is described thus: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

Note the order. Doctrine first. Then fellowship. Then breaking of bread. The Supper belongs to those who have received the doctrine, been added to the church, and walk in visible communion. It is not a starting point for faith. It is a confirmation of it.

In Titus 3:10, Paul says: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.”

Heretics are not welcome at the Lord’s Table. This does not mean those who struggle with understanding, but those who actively reject the gospel and divide the body. The Table is for the united, not the divisive.

In sum, the biblical evidence is overwhelming. The Supper is not open. It is fenced—by Christ, through His Apostles, and entrusted to His church. The examination is not left to private feelings. It is overseen by ordained elders. The danger is not theoretical. It is real: “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

When modern churches throw open the Table to all comers, they do not show grace—they commit treason. They disobey Christ. They endanger souls. They bring judgment upon their attendees.

But where the Table is rightly fenced—where the sacraments are guarded by scriptural guarding, confession, oversight, and visible repentance—there the church is preserved, the sinner is warned, and the name of Christ is honored.

The Lord’s Supper is not a tool for outreach. It is not a sentimental ritual. It is covenantal communion, to be received with reverence, and only by those whom Christ has received, and whom His church can recognize. Anything else is presumption, and God will not hold the church guiltless. Let the Table be fenced—as Scripture commands, and as the historic church has always practiced.

VII. Conclusion: Christ the Covenant Head and the Fenced Table of Communion

At the center of the Lord’s Supper is not bread and wine. It is Christ. Not a mere memory of Him, but true spiritual communion with Him, by faith (most Evangelicals today think it’s just a memorial). The Supper is not man’s rite—it is Christ’s ordinance, administered in His church, to His people, under His covenant. To fence the Table is not merely to uphold ecclesiastical discipline; it is to guard the honor of the covenant of grace, of which Christ is the Mediator and Head. A rightly fenced Table proclaims Christ, protects His covenant, and nourishes His covenant people.

The covenant of grace is central to all that God does in redemption. From Genesis to Revelation, God gathers His people not by vague spiritual association, but by covenantal bonds, sealed in promise, administered by appointed ordinances, and overseen by visible officers. The Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal. It is not a means of entering the covenant—it is the fruit and confirmation of covenant membership (i.e. covenanting).[13] To partake lawfully is to declare communion with Christ, by faith, as one received into His body, the church.

The 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism captures this in its explanation of the covenant of grace:

“The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed” (WLC Q. 31).

Christ is the Covenant. He is its Surety, its Fulfillment, and its Mediator. It is not enough to speak of spiritual sincerity. One must be united to Christ, by the Spirit, through faith, and brought into the fellowship of His visible body. No communion with Christ exists apart from the covenant. And no communion at the Lord’s Table exists apart from that visible covenant administration.

The Synod of Dort spoke this same truth with solemn clarity. Article 61 of the Church Order (1619) states:

“Only those shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who, according to the usage of the churches which they join, have made confession of the Reformed religion, together with having testimony of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other churches shall not be admitted.”

This is covenantal administration. One confesses Christ. One is catechized in the faith. One submits to the government of the church. One is examined, found credible, and welcomed into the fellowship of the saints. Then—and only then—does one receive the Supper. The Table is not for the seeker, the skeptic, or the self-appointed. It is for the sanctified—those set apart unto Christ by His Word and Spirit.

Scripture makes this pattern plain. In Exodus 24:7–8, the covenant was confirmed with blood:

“And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.”

The people were set apart by blood, and by the word of covenant. That covenant was renewed again and again, through ordinances and sacrifices, culminating in Christ, who declared at the Supper: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).

Christ is not merely present in the ordinance—He is the ordinance’s substance. The Supper declares and confirms union with Him. But it is a union that presupposes faith, repentance, baptism, and submission to Christ’s church. This is why the Apostle warns in 1 Corinthians 10:21:

“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.”

Communion is covenantal fellowship. It is impossible to partake of Christ while remaining outside of His body. The Lord’s Table is not a platform for individual spirituality—it is the covenantal meal of the gathered and governed church of Jesus Christ. If one call’s God Father, they will in turn call the church, mother.

The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith speaks in WCF 29.7:

“Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed… receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present…”

Note the language: “worthy receivers.” Not all receive. Not all are welcome. Not all who eat the bread and drink the cup commune with Christ. Only those who receive Him by faith, as He is offered in the gospel, and who walk in visible submission to His church, truly feed upon Him.

The union with Christ that the Supper signifies must be real, not imaginary. And this union is not merely personal—it is corporate. In 1 Corinthians 10:17, Paul writes:

“For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

The Supper proclaims union with Christ, and with His body. To partake while remaining outside of the visible body—unbaptized, unexamined, undisciplined—is to lie with one’s mouth. It is to bear false witness at the very altar of grace.

Furthermore, the Supper is meant to cultivate fruit. The believer comes in faith and repentance. He leaves in renewed obedience and thanksgiving. The 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism says in Q. 174:

“They that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto… they are to be prepared by examining themselves of their being in Christ… of their knowledge, faith, repentance, love, and new obedience…”

This is the fruit of covenantal union: a life of holiness, nourished and strengthened by the means of grace. The Supper is not merely remembrance—it is participation. But participation presupposes union, and union is not invisible. It is testified by confession, confirmed by baptism, and observed in the visible church.

Therefore, the Table must be fenced—not to restrict grace, but to preserve its meaning. Not to shun sinners, but to protect them from judgment. Not to act as gatekeepers of heaven, but to be faithful stewards of the covenant of Christ. The keys of the kingdom are real, and Christ has not removed them.

To admit the unexamined, the self-appointed, the unrepentant, or the schismatic is to lie on Christ’s behalf. It is to offer covenant blessings to those who despise His covenant bonds. It is to bring wrath upon the body, and hardness upon the soul. To fence the Table is not to turn away the hungry—it is to direct them rightly to the means by which they may be received and nourished.

Let the church recover her fidelity. Let ministers declare Christ crucified, not as a sentimental token, but as the covenant Head who demands union, obedience, and fruit. Let lawfully ordained elders take seriously their call to shepherd souls, and not throw pearls before swine. Let the Supper once again be holy—not because we revere the elements, but because we revere the Lord who gave them.

In every age, the true church has known this: Christ is the Covenant. The Supper is His gift to His people. It must be fenced—not because grace is scarce, but because grace is precious. And the sheep must be led to the Table—not the goats, not the wolves, and not the self-willed wanderers. The Shepherd’s Table is for the flock. And those who truly hunger and thirst for righteousness will seek to be found among them.

The Lord’s Supper is not a general religious observance for whoever may come. It is not a hospitable invitation to strangers in hopes of conversion. It is a holy ordinance—Christ’s ordinance—for the covenant people of God. The biblical, confessional, and historical witness is consistent: the Table must be fenced. And the visible church, governed by Christ’s Word, is duty-bound to exercise that authority with fidelity, sobriety, and pastoral care.

To fence the Table is not unkind. It is an act of spiritual love. It is not exclusionary arrogance, but ecclesiastical obedience. Just as a father does not feed poison to his children, so the elders of Christ’s church must not serve the Supper to the ignorant, the scandalous, the self-deceived, or the disorderly. The apostle Paul’s warnings are not ceremonial formality—they are divine threats. “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself…” (1 Corinthians 11:29). God judged the Corinthian church for failing to guard the Table. He has not changed. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever,” (Heb 13:8).

When the Lord instituted the Supper, He gave it to disciples—not to the crowd. It was a covenant meal. The church that follows Christ must receive it in the same manner: not with looseness, but with discernment. To do otherwise is to deny that Christ is King of His church and that His Table is holy. The Lord Jesus has given His church elders, pastors, and ordinances—not for spiritual performance, but for the order and edification of His body.

[Side note: The Scripture indicates clearly that Judas Iscariot was not present for the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Though he was at the Passover meal, he departed before Christ gave the bread and wine as tokens of the New Covenant. In John 13:21–27, Jesus identifies His betrayer during the meal by giving him a sop: “And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly… He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night” (vv. 27, 30). Judas leaves the gathering at this point.

Luke’s account (Luke 22:19–21) may appear, at first glance, to place Judas at the Table. However, Luke often presents events thematically rather than chronologically. John’s gospel clarifies the order: Judas departs before Christ institutes the Supper with His disciples. Matthew confirms that Jesus gave the cup only to the faithful eleven: “Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:27–28). There is no indication that Judas partook of this covenantal promise.

Moreover, 1 Corinthians 11:25–29 presumes that only those in communion with Christ should receive the Supper. Judas, filled with Satan, departed into darkness. The covenant meal was not given to him. The Lord did not institute the Supper with His betrayer present. The Table is for the faithful. Judas was not merely unworthy—he was excluded.[14]]

The Reformed church has always understood this. The Westminster Standards teach it with precision. The Heidelberg Catechism frames it with pastoral care. The Synod of Dort defended it in the face of Arminian error (that day’s Evangelicalism). The Church Order codified it in ecclesiastical practice. The early Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches guarded it through interviews, attestations, and tokens—not to be oppressive, but to be obedient.

To restore this practice is not to cling to tradition—it is to cling to Scripture. The modern church, in its sentimentalism and fear of man, has stripped the Lord’s Supper of its solemnity and power.[15] Evangelicalism often treats it as a memorial for all, a rite of inclusion, or worse, an evangelistic tool. But Christ never appointed His Table for the conversion of the lost. He appointed it for the communion of the found (the sheep, not the goats). It is not an Arminian altar call. It is covenant confirmation. And it is to be fenced.

Our own churches maintain the historic practice: only communicant members in good standing, and guests who are personally examined and approved by the elders, may partake. Visitors must meet with the session. Attestations may be required. Doctrinal fidelity is expected. Those outside the bounds of a true church, or in rebellion against its oversight, are not admitted. This is not legalism. It is covenantal fidelity.[16]

Let the elders watch the gates. Let the ministers speak the warning. Let the Table be approached with joy, but also trembling. Let the doctrine of Christ be upheld, the glory of God be preserved, and the people of God be protected from profanation. As it was in Exodus, as it was in Corinth, as it was in Geneva, Dordt, and Westminster—so let it be in the church of God today.

For when the Table is fenced, the Shepherd is honored. When the Supper is guarded, the gospel is preserved. And when the church obeys her Lord in this matter, she is kept holy, fed richly, and prepared for His return.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus. And until He comes, let us guard the holy Table He has given us.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “Doing any less meant “eating and drinking judgment unto themselves,” in the words of Paul, which became the governing passage for fencing the table.” James A. De Jong, “Introduction,” in In Remembrance of Him: Profiting from the Lord’s Supper, ed. James A. De Jong, trans. Bartel Elshout, Classics of Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 2.

[2] While some object to the idea of elders examining a person’s life as a condition for admission to the Lord’s Table—claiming there’s no biblical warrant for such scrutiny—the objection fails to grasp the foundational Christian principle that faith is evidenced by its fruit. Scripture and the Reformed confessions consistently teach that genuine faith is not invisible to the church. It manifests in outward conduct. The elders are not prying into the hidden recesses of the heart, nor are they attempting to judge eternal election. Rather, they are called to oversee the visible profession and life of the flock, as those who must give account (Hebrews 13:17).

The supposed dichotomy between examining fruit and examining sincerity is a false one. In Reformed theology, these are not two separate standards but one and the same. The sincerity of faith is revealed by its fruit. “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:17, KJV). The Westminster Confession of Faith 16.2 affirms that “These good works… are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith.” In this way, when elders look for visible, unrepented scandal or public conduct that contradicts a person’s profession, they are not acting beyond Scripture—they are obeying it. Paul explicitly commands the church to separate from divisive men (Romans 16:17), fornicators (1 Corinthians 5:11), and the disorderly (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If such behavior is cause for ecclesiastical separation, it is certainly cause for withholding the Table. This is not inquisitorial rigor; it is pastoral fidelity.

[3] R. Scott Clark, “There may be real wisdom in the old Reformed and Presbyterian practice of a certificate of membership or a token. The old Scottish Presbyterian practice was to require communicants to attend the preparatory service the week prior. There one was given a token that was to be returned the next week when one went to the table. In the case that a congregation administers the supper weekly (Calvin’s desired practice) then every Lord’s Day is a preparatory service and the token becomes less practical.” https://heidelblog.net/2012/12/how-to-fence-the-lords-table-pt1/

[4] Hebrews 13:7 and 13:17 plainly command believers to remember, obey, and submit to those who have spiritual rule over them—those who “watch for your souls” and must “give account.” These verses imply clearly defined pastoral oversight. Such commands cannot apply to all elders everywhere, but only to specific ones tasked with shepherding specific individuals. This relationship presumes an identifiable bond of accountability, which is formally expressed through church membership and membership vows. These vows clarify which elders are responsible for your soul and to whom you owe spiritual submission. Without such structure, the commands of Hebrews 13 become functionally meaningless, as there would be no way to know whom to obey or who must give account for whom. Membership, therefore, is the biblical means by which these duties are made visible and actionable.

[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Battles edition), 4.17.43-44.

[6] See Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, pp. 197 ff. “For this reason, our Savior set up in his church the correction and discipline of excommunication” (CR X. i. 7–9; LCC XXII. 50). See Calvin’s Letter to Somerset, October 22, 1548: “The duty of bishops and curates is to keep watch over that [discipline] to the end that the Supper of our Lord may not be polluted by people of scandalous lives” (CR XIII. 76; tr. Calvin, Letters II. 197). John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).

[7] Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Foxcroft, An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifications Requisite to a Compleat Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Church, (Boston: Printed & sold by S. Kneeland in Queenstreet, 1749), 8. See the following link online to read it in full: https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/jonathan-edwards/theological/an-humble-inquiry-into-the-rules-of-the-word-of-god-concerning-the-qualifications-requisite-to-a-complete-standing-and-full-communion-in-the-visible-christian-church-by-jonathan-edwards/

[8] R. Scott Clark, https://heidelblog.net/2012/12/how-to-fence-the-lords-table-pt1/

[9] Ibid, “This same language of “confession of the Reformed Religion” and “godly conduct” was adopted by the Synod of den Hague/Gravenhage in 1586.”

[10] Ibid, “Those who come from other places and want to be admitted to the table of the Lord shall first present a proper certificate of their earlier way of life to the pastor of the place where they desire to be admitted.”

[11] In Calvin’s Geneva, the Lord’s Supper was not a general religious observance for the undecided or the doctrinally indifferent. It was the covenant meal of a confessing and governed church. In 1536, just as the Reformation took hold in the city, the Genevan Presbytery—under Calvin’s pastoral oversight—sought to excommunicate any who refused to swear an oath to uphold the Reformed doctrine articulated in their Confession of Faith. This was not a political maneuver but a theological necessity. T.H.L. Parker notes that “Since the evangelical faith had only recently been preached in the city, and there were still many Romanists, the ministers also urged excommunication on the grounds of failure to confess the faith.” The ministers understood that tolerating Romanist doctrine among communicants was to profane the Lord’s Table and compromise the purity of the church. To prevent such defilement, the Confession of Faith, presented to the Council on 10 November 1536, required that “all the citizens and inhabitants of Geneva… must promise to keep and to hold” the confession. The elders and ministers demanded that the civil leaders lead the way in subscription so that the rest of the city might follow. The purpose, as Parker cites from their own words, was “to recognize those in harmony with the Gospel and those loving rather to be of the kingdom of the pope than of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.” Those who refused to subscribe were barred from the Supper—not out of cruelty, but as a necessary expression of church discipline. This practice reaffirmed that the Table is for those who publicly confess the truth and submit to Christ’s rule. (T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography, p. 63).

[12] As another side note to the idea of “open” and “closed,” some Presbyterians have historically distinguished between different forms of separation. They have argued that while one might, for reasons of conscience or conviction, stand outside a particular denomination or set of church courts, this does not necessarily sever them from the broader visible catholic church. Within this framework, the Lord’s Supper may still be administered with a view toward catholic unity—recognizing as brethren those who are members in good standing of other faithful Reformed churches. Thus, communion is considered “open” in a limited, ecclesiastically accountable sense: open to those within the visible Reformed church, yet still restricted to those under lawful oversight and discipline. However, this would still warrant, at the very least, that Scripture and the Westminster Standards are common ground to those desiring to participate after pastoral counsel. In this context, the majority of elders conducting the interview must possess clear and credible knowledge of the individual’s doctrine and manner of life before granting them admission to the Lord’s Table, as well as being a member of a “sister” church of like-mindedness.

[13] Our Puritan forefathers frequently appealed to 2 Corinthians 8:5—*“but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God”*—as a foundation for formal covenanting together in church membership. This verse reveals two inseparable commitments: devotion to the Lord and submission to His church. True Christian fellowship does not exist apart from ecclesiastical structure. Without defined order, there is no real spiritual connection. This is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 12. The body of Christ is not a loose association of disconnected limbs; each member is placed by God within a functioning whole. The eye, the hand, the foot—all depend on one another in a vital, coordinated relationship. Sever a member, and not only does it die, but the body itself suffers dysfunction. Just as the twelve tribes of Israel formed one covenant nation with a shared worship and governance, so each local congregation is joined to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. There is divinely ordained symmetry, accountability, and unity from the individual believer up through the structure of the church. This is why the Presbyterian form of government—rooted in Scripture and affirmed in Reformed tradition—is not only biblical but satisfying: it preserves the order, unity, and pastoral care King Jesus designed for His body.

[14] For a larger treatment of this, see George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated, Book 3, Of Excommunication from the Church, and of Suspension from the Lord’s Table, Chapter 8, “Whether Judas Received The Sacrament Of The Lord’s Supper.” (Works, Armoury edition, 1844, pp. 204-216). Originally published, 1646.

[15] William Perkins said, “The right manner of using the Lord’s Supper stands in three things: The first is the observing of the institution without addition, detraction, or change. The second, is that the communicants must bring not only a true faith, and the first initial repentance, but also a renewing of them both in respect of new and daily sins. The Corinthians had both faith and repentance, yet because they failed in this point—of the renovation of their faith and repentance—they are said many of them to be unworthy receivers and to eat judgment to themselves. The third thing is, that the sacrament must be applied to its right end. And therefore, it must be used as a means to lead us to Christ; as a means to confirm our faith in Him; as a sign of thankfulness to God; as a means to increase love among men.” William Perkins, ed. Joel R. Beeke et al., The Works of William Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), 508.

[16] Scripture presents membership in the visible church as a defined, identifiable reality—not an informal association, but a covenantal bond. God has always marked out His people by name and under oversight. From the census of Israel (Numbers 1:2) to the names in genealogies and registers (Exodus 38:26; 1 Chronicles 4:22; Psalm 87:6), God’s people were not anonymous. They were known and counted. In the New Testament, the same principle continues: Jesus named twelve apostles (Luke 6:13), and Paul addresses named believers in specific churches (Romans 16:14–15). The church is not a vague crowd; it is a body with members (Romans 12:5), and elders are accountable for their souls (Hebrews 13:17)—but only if those souls are within their flock. The Lord’s Supper, as a discriminating covenant meal, presupposes such visible membership. Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 11:29–30 that improper partaking brings judgment—even death. Hebrews 13:10 notes that some have no right to eat of this altar. Who decides? The elders must, but not on the basis of private claims. There must be visible evidence of faith, repentance, and submission to Christ’s church. Membership defines who is “in” and obligates us to love, serve, and discipline accordingly (1 Corinthians 5:12). Without it, the Table loses its covenantal meaning.