Accordingly, on the sort of reasoning Wesley followed, the one indispensable prerequisite for receiving communion is a desire to accept whatever blessing God is pleased to give through it. Such a desire may be only the first faint beginning of conversion. Nevertheless, the church has no business withholding an appointed means of forming and focusing it. On the contrary, the communion table ought to be open to all who find themselves drawn to it

One often hears John Wesley’s words quoted in this context. The classic article on their meaning is: “John C. Bowmer, “Catchwords of ‘The Conversation’ - I. ‘A Converting Ordinance and the Open Table’,” Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 34.5 (March 1964): 109-113”, pdf available here.

In brief:

Wesley…was not dealing with the admission of
“outsiders” to the Lord’s Supper (which is generally the point of
contention today) but with “insiders” refusing to attend - two very
different things! Wesley’s premise (to put it in logical terms)
certainly was “The Lord’s Supper is a converting ordinance”, but
his conclusion was not “Therefore anyone may come”, but “Therefore
members ought not to stay away, even if they had not received
the full assurance of faith”.

Rather lovely conclusion:

We would therefore conclude that the “Open Table”, in the sense in which it is defined above, is a peculiar development of late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century Methodism. In essence, it is neither Anglican fish, nor Presbyterian fowl, nor good old Methodist red herring. We suspect that it belongs to a Methodism which had become unsure of itself and its doctrines, in which former disciplines were breaking down, and where there was developing an anxiety to get people in “with no strings attached”.

There are, of course, those who will still maintain that, whatever happened in the past, Methodism today should practise the “Open Table”, and they will defend their position in their own way. All we would point out is that, according to our judgement, Wesley’s Sermon XII and his belief in the “converting ordinance” should not be quoted (as so often it is) as part of their supporting evidence.