Annual communion sources?

[Alexander Suarez]

Other than the clarification of communicants sitting about the table during the administration of the Lord’s Supper, what differences are you referring to? Yes, there were different conceptions in the Assembly of what was required corporately to ordinarily prepare for the Lord's Supper (see Baillie quote I provided above), but not between the Scots commissioners themselves. I think it is fair to summarize the Scots' position thus: The Lord's Supper should fittingly (which I suggest is the meaning of "convenient"/"convenience" in what you quoted above) be observed as often as the congregants can be prepared.

I am a bit confused as to why you brought up "sitting about the table." My original post was limited to the question of frequency.

You then brought up the matter of preparation, and I stated that it seems to me there were different conceptions of what was required corporately to prepare for the Lord's Supper (as the quotation from Baillie illustrates).

I did not claim that there were differences among the Scottish commissioners nor the CoS. That is a distinct issue. My claim was and is that there were different conceptions on frequency and corporate preparation in the Westminster Assembly.

Does that help clarify?

 

[Northern Crofter]

I am a bit confused as to why you brought up "sitting about the table." My original post was limited to the question of frequency.

You then brought up the matter of preparation, and I stated that it seems to me there were different conceptions of what was required corporately to prepare for the Lord's Supper (as the quotation from Baillie illustrates).

I did not claim that there were differences among the Scottish commissioners nor the CoS. That is a distinct issue. My claim was and is that there were different conceptions on frequency and corporate preparation in the Westminster Assembly.

Does that help clarify?

You've made statements like "receive the Directory as the Church of Scotland would in those days" and "the Directory (not as received by the CoS but on its own)" which sounds like you are saying the CoS adopted a different Directory. I was wondering if you were referring to the minimal changes the CoS made to the Directory when adopting it (like the clarification they made at adoption regarding communicants sitting about the table during the administration of the Lord’s Supper).

 

[Northern Crofter]

Annual communion in some Scottish circles became a thing during the Killing Times. There weren't enough ministers to give communion.

I've heard this a few times over the years but have never really seen any evidence. Do you have a source or is this just generally accepted conjecture? The conventicles were irregular but not as infrequent as annual and almost always included the ordinances being dispensed.

 

[TylerRay]

I also think that in the FCC, the "mini" version hits a good balance, and while its a busy weekend it is an enjoyable weekend. Isn't there a Friday service, Saturday and then the two on Sabbath? Often with supper and fellowship frequently included?

It varies from congregation to congregation. In the US, some observe quarterly, with Saturday being the only additional service (Wednesday prayer meeting is sometimes co-opted, too). Others have Thursday - Monday seasons twice a year. I have no idea what the norm is in Scotland.

 

[RamistThomist]

I've heard this a few times over the years but have never really seen any evidence. Do you have a source or is this just generally accepted conjecture? The conventicles were irregular but not as infrequent as annual and almost always included the ordinances being dispensed.

I did not mean to imply that the conventicles only ate with Jesus annually. My point is that any such celebration of the Supper would have been irregular by the nature of the case (ministers being hunted down by Claverhouse and the like).

 

[RamistThomist]

If I need to prepare accordingly, and most of the criteria are relatively person-specific, how will I know if I prepared hard enough?

 

[MChase]

If I need to prepare accordingly, and most of the criteria are relatively person-specific, how will I know if I prepared hard enough?

LC 172.

Would you ask a minister if he prepared enough for the sermon? It’s honestly baffling to me how much modern reformed people downplay self examination and preparation. It makes sense how paedocommunion has become so popular. 8 year olds coloring during the service and then being served elements signifying the Christ they have not discerned.

 

[RamistThomist]

LC 172.

Would you ask a minister if he prepared enough for the sermon? It’s honestly baffling to me how much modern reformed people downplay self examination and preparation. It makes sense how paedocommunion has become so popular. 8 year olds coloring during the service and then being served elements signifying the Christ they have not discerned.

172 is actually an encouragement for coming

 

[TylerRay]

This is a good summary of the Scottish practice leading up to the Westminster Assembly. As you can see, annual communion long preceded the killing times, but was not established by principle.

"Knox's Liturgy of 1556, reflecting the practice of the congregation of the English exiles in Geneva, includes a rubric, 'The Lord's Supper is commonly administered once a month, or as oft as the congregation shall think expedient.' However, the First Book of Discipline of 1560 ... added more specific instruction: 'Four times a year we think sufficient for the administration of the Lord's table ...' In 1562 the General Assembly ordained that the communion be celebrated four times in the year within towns, and twice in the year in the country. Even so, with the shortage of ministers, frequency was often far less, even once a year, sometimes spread over several Sundays if the population was large. The usage of the Independents in the 1640s of a weekly communion was one that did not impact in Scotland, and frequency in Scotland was commonly annual for a considerable period."
-Rowland Ward, Scripture and Worship, p.130ff

 

[MChase]

172 is actually an encouragement for coming

Exactly. Which is why your questioning makes no sense. 172 is an encouragement to those who sought to prepare yet feel themselves coming up short; which is how all Christians are to one degree or another. I fail to see how your posing of the question advances the conversation in any way. It more or less mocks any and all preparation.

 

[RamistThomist]

Exactly. Which is why your questioning makes no sense. 172 is an encouragement to those who sought to prepare yet feel themselves coming up short; which is how all Christians are to one degree or another. I fail to see how your posing of the question advances the conversation in any way. It more or less mocks any and all preparation.

Relax. I'm not mocking preparation. My question was in response to an earlier issue that suggested once or twice a year communion because that would give them ample time to prepare. Hence, my question was how will I know I have prepared enough?

Introspection is good. I never said it wasn't.

WLC 172 seems to mitigate against extreme introspection.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I did not mean to imply that the conventicles only ate with Jesus annually.

Right - you did more than imply when you stated "Annual communion in some Scottish circles became a thing during the Killing Times." I'm not trying to put on the spot - I'm just wondering where this oft-alluded to assertion originates from. I have not found any connection historically to annual communion and the Killing Times but it is often brought up as if it is a fact.

 

[RamistThomist]

Right - you did more than imply when you stated "Annual communion in some Scottish circles became a thing during the Killing Times." I'm not trying to put on the spot - I'm just wondering where this oft-alluded to assertion originates from. I have not found any connection historically to annual communion and the Killing Times but it is often brought up as if it is a fact.

I don't mind being put on the spot. That's how truth emerges. I could be wrong about why it moved from Knox's monthly to a later annual thing. That's fair. I revise my statement to mean that communion services in the Killing Times would have been irregular because services in general would have been irregular (because illegal). That seems fairly uncontroversial.

What I suppose I'm pushing back against--and it might not have been said on this thread, but it has been said on others--is we should do it like they did during the 1660s in Scotland.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

LC 172.

Would you ask a minister if he prepared enough for the sermon? It’s honestly baffling to me how much modern reformed people downplay self examination and preparation. It makes sense how paedocommunion has become so popular. 8 year olds coloring during the service and then being served elements signifying the Christ they have not discerned.

I call this PCA practice Paedocommunion lite and it is certainly a fair criticism of church's practicing weekly communion if this is happening.

 

[MChase]

I call this PCA practice Paedocommunion lite and it is certainly a fair criticism of church's practicing weekly communion if this is happening.

And I’m not as against weekly communion as some; I just don’t think the arguments are often very strong. I think weekly communion’s strongest (and only good) argument is that the elders see it most fitting. I disagree, but at least it doesn’t necessarily presume some sort of Lutheranesque objectivity that so many seem to argue for. Arguing against examination or preparation is certainly not the way to convince the Scots (and Dutch for that matter) or those sympathetic with their practice.

 

[RamistThomist]

And I’m not as against weekly communion as some; I just don’t think the arguments are often very strong. I think weekly communion’s strongest (and only good) argument is that the elders see it most fitting. I disagree, but at least it doesn’t necessarily presume some sort of Lutheranesque objectivity that so many seem to argue for. Arguing against examination or preparation is certainly not the way to convince the Scots (and Dutch for that matter) or those sympathetic with their practice.

And to be clear, I don't advocate weekly communion. My church does it monthly.

WLC 172 spoke to those of a tender conscience. That wasn't exactly the issue that Northern Crofter and I were discussing. It appeared to me, and I could be mistaken, on how much should one prepare. I inferred that from the claim that annual celebration gave one ample time to prepare. That was a different claim that whether one should come because of a tender conscience.

 

[JP Wallace]

In relation to the Killing Times, as I noted above there can be no doubt that that period was, and is the time when we might think we will find the explanation of why there was only annual communion. However while it is the case that during the Killing Times, communion was infrequent, and while it is the case that that was due a) to a lack of ministers, and b) the extreme persecutuons - none of that explains where annual communions came from.

The facts of the matter are that the annual seasons were most popular for the longest period in the highlands and it appears were popular both prior to and after the Killing Times. And one should also remember that the worst of the Killing Times events were not in the highlands and the lowlands. So in answer to a previous question why are the Killing Times proposed as the explanation of annual communuons? Because that is probably the best known, most obvious and easily comprehended time and situatuon that explains it. However it really doesn't expain it at all.

The original question was if there was anyone who knew of a theological defence of the annual communion. I think it will be very hard to find a theological defence of annual communion, because I don't think there was one. It was at times a practical necessity for a variety of reasons.

What you will find are articles and letters that defend the acceptablilty in such circumstances of annual communion. What you will likewise find at times are articles and writings arguing that such annual celebrations are not sufficient and should be augmented where possible. I don't think any of those writing on the subject believed there was a divinely revealed and grounded basis for their preferred frequency - the argument was really about whether or not we should be content with annual or strive for more frequency. Further research and archive digging would need to be done to establish whether even those who appear to be content with annual celebration were content because it was better than nothing, or content because they felt it was sufficient.

We live in a radically different world, much of which has a large bearing on this matter such as the existence of electricity, less rurally driven economics, much wider prosperity, plenty of minister, no conflict, and easy transport connections. All of those factors I believe will be seen to have had an impact on frequency of communion.

I suspect that all would be arguing for a greater frequency of communion rather than annual if they were living in our world and cultures.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I greatly appreciate Rev. Wallace's summary above, and it is very close to my understanding of the historical record. I have been long considering this topic for various reasons, the least not being changes to the frequency in a congregation where I was attending wanting to change it without much explanation other than "the elders think it best." My current view is that:

1. The Westminster Assembly, perhaps without knowing/trying it (as I believe their work contains the fruits of compromise in the spirit of the Jerusalem Council), struck the right balance by essentially saying in the Directory for Public Worship that it is up to the ordained leadership of every congregation to decide the frequency with the understanding in the Catechisms that proper preparation and examination (corporately and individually) must be done.
2. There is danger in separating frequency and preparation and getting them out of balance.
3. I understand the pushback against "we should do it like they did during the 1660s in Scotland" while also appreciating that there are times when and places where such a model is fitting.
4. Each time and place requires its own evaluation - what made sense in the early narrative (i.e.. not didactic) chapters of Acts (which I believe shows weekly observance in an intimate Christian community) does not seem to make sense in 16th and 17th Scotland where there is large-scale ignorance amongst ongoing reformation (which seems to be fittingly accommodated by less frequent observance).
5. I would suggest that even by the end of Acts it was perhaps less frequent: Paul seemingly celebrating it in Acts 20 around Passover at Troas ("...where we abode seven days. And the first day of the week, the disciples being come together to break bread...") but not at Tyre in Acts 20: "And when we had found disciples, we tarried there seven days" (but no mention of "breaking bread" is mentioned). The communal arraignment described at the end of Acts 2 ("And all that believed, were in one place, and had all things common. And they sold their possessions, and goods, and parted them to all men, as everyone had need") broke down (starting in Acts 5 with Ananias and Sapphira and in 6 with strife between Greeks and Hebrews over dividing resources) to the point where Paul has to tell the Thessalonians that any who would not work should not eat (II.3.10-12).
6. I agree with those who hold that a weekly observance every Lord's Day is the ideal while also suggesting that the current state of things in most of our congregations in the West would argue for a less frequent celebration unless/until our congregations look like Acts 2.
7. Though not in this thread, the modern push for weekly or more frequent Communion is often (as it has been presented in my experience) tied to the idea that since the Lord's Supper is a means of grace, having it more will help the ignorant, scandalous, and less mature be less so. To me that is sacramentalism and misses the point that it is not simply the receiving but also the preparation and post-celebration contemplation that is the means of grace (which is clearly and wonderfully laid out in the LC).

 

[JP Wallace]

Though not in this thread, the modern push for weekly or more frequent Communion is often (as it has been presented in my experience) tied to the idea that since the Lord's Supper is a means of grace, having it more will help the ignorant, scandalous, and less mature be less so. To me that is sacramentalism and misses the point that it is not simply the receiving but also the preparation and post-celebration contemplation that is the means of grace (which is clearly and wonderfully laid out in the LC).

This is quite important - I come from a background where the breaking of bread was essential to the morning worship service every week. Indeed some would have called the service the Breaking of Bread. Yet, and this dawned on me only when I studied and came to appreciate the whole concept of what a means of grace is, and that the LS is a means of grace, that at the same time as emphasizing the importance of the LS in fact making it essentially the be all and end all of the worship service, they denied the very concept of the LS as a means of grace.

Where then did this emphasis on the necessiry of the LS come from? If the supper did not spiriitually sustain and bring grace to the participants why were they so keen to have it and have it so regularly? There can as far as see be only three possible answers: 1) bare obedience out of habit, custom, practice, peer acceptance (i.e. no theological basis) 2) a works ethic that understood the bare act of obedience being itself a way of receiving blessing from Christ or 3) sacramentalism (in spite of theology) where they essentially has an ex opera operato understanding that they would be blessed by the action of communion.

I don't think that's where most reformed advocates of weekly communion are coming from, but I think there is a danger there for the unwitting. In addition the blessing of the sacrament will be tied to some extent to the application we make by faith to it. So merely having it weekly will not necessarily increase benefit if we are not carefully, faithfully participating in it each week.

My position is that given the dire warning issued by Paul about casual participation, and given that there is no clear evidence that weekly communion is required that at the very least sessions/elders should be free to make a prayerful consideration of what frequency is most likely to get the balance of preparation and participation benefit. In my opinion weekly is not optimum, but certainly permitted.

Another thing that borderline annoys me, not in this thread by the way, is that Calvin is often bandied about..."Calvin preferred weekly", yes I understand he did, but he never convinced his fellow ministers or elders! The question, on this and any other point of theology is not "whether Calvin held it or not, but whether Calvin made a strong enough exegetical argument that we should follow him in this. It would appear that the bulk of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches have not believed that he did.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't care what frequency it is but if we have raise it to the level of necessity, it has become an idol for all the reasons George Gillespie gives in his English Popish Ceremonies, say whether a church deems weekly so necessary that one must run to the store for wine or bread instead of omitting it that week, or not suspend it if there was scandal in the church; or on the other hand, if we raise a system of practices to well nigh Scottish Presbyterianism's version of pretended holy days that one would never partake of communion without going through a certain set of ceremonies over a number of days.

 

[Solparvus]

I don't care what frequency it is but if we have raise it to the level of necessity, it has become an idol for all the reasons George Gillespie gives in his English Popish Ceremonies, say whether a church deems weekly so necessary that one must run to the store for wine or bread instead of omitting it that week, or not suspend it if there was scandal in the church; or on the other hand, if we raise a system of practices to well nigh Scottish Presbyterianism's version of pretended holy days that one would never partake of communion without going through a certain set of ceremonies over a number of days.

You mention George Gillespie. Does he actually apply the issue of extra-biblical ceremonies/holy days to a certain rigidity in communion preparation?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

You mention George Gillespie. Does he actually apply the issue of extra-biblical ceremonies/holy days to a certain rigidity in communion preparation?

He addresses some practices of the time but not that. But the principles he pursues are the same as far as things arguably circumstantial, raised to the level of necessity. So I think we can apply his arguments to situations beyond the five illicit practices imposed at Perth Assembly in 1618.

 

[RamistThomist]

the modern push for weekly or more frequent Communion is often (as it has been presented in my experience) tied to the idea that since the Lord's Supper is a means of grace, having it more will help the ignorant, scandalous, and less mature be less so.

I agree with most of your points above, but this does not describe anyone on this board. We believe because the Supper is a means of grace, doing it frequently (however we gloss that term) means getting the means of grace frequently. That's all. I can't imagine anyone here telling an ignorant or immature believer to go ahead and take it and it might work.

 

[Joshua]

Imagine the wisdom/genius/care of the framers of the Westminster Standards to leave it to the local session of a church -who doubtless has the charge over the people, knowing them intimately- with regard to the frequency of the supper administered in their little local chapter of Zion, whether weekly, monthly, etc. Imagine not universally "pushing" for any particular frequency to all congregations without exception, since the Scriptures themselves do not. Now, imagine with me not casting shade on the practice of a particular congregation who observes it -by direction of the session- more or less frequently than yours does. Seems pretty wise and biblical. Now, if a particular congregation -as Chris said above- makes an idol out of something (whether it be preparation or looseness)- or implies something about the Lord's Supper itself (some kind of mystical power such that a worship service is not a worship service without the Supper, etc.), let us talk.

 

[RamistThomist]

Communion frequency is like varying forms of government. There are dangers in all forms.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Communion frequency is like varying forms of government. There are dangers in all forms.

Analogy breaks down in a sense because Presbyterian church government is jure divino.

 

[Northern Crofter]

this does not describe anyone on this board.

Agreed. I was not referring to my experiences engaging with people on PB.

 

[Northern Crofter]

He addresses some practices of the time but not that. But the principles he pursues are the same as far as things arguably circumstantial, raised to the level of necessity. So I think we can apply his arguments to situations beyond the five illicit practices imposed at Perth Assembly in 1618.

Does a Session that has the authority to decide how often to offer the Lord's Supper not also have the authority to determine what outward preparation is required?

 

[RamistThomist]

Analogy breaks down in a sense because Presbyterian church government is jure divino.

I meant civil government.

 

[RamistThomist]

Does a Session that has the authority to decide how often to offer the Lord's Supper not also have the authority to determine what outward preparation is required?

They might, but that goes back to my earlier concern: how will the session know if I have inwardly prepared enough?