Frequency of the Lord’s Supper in 17th Century Britain
Posted on 13. Sep, 2009 by Rowland Ward in Westminster Assembly
We all know John Calvin (1509–1564) argued for frequent, even weekly communion, but had to settle for less because of his particular situation in Geneva. However, other Reformers did not always share his view. Heinrich Bullinger’s (1504–1575) Decades, which were very influential in England where they were prescribed for preachers, regard frequency as lacking specific direction in Scripture and thus being a matter of the discretion of each church.
John Knox’s (ca. 1505–1572) Liturgy of 1556, reflecting the practice of the congregation of English exiles in Geneva, includes a rubric, ‘The Lord’s Supper is commonly administered once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient.’ However, the First Book of Discipline of 1560, while recognising the sufficiency of the order of Geneva (II.2), added more specific instruction: ‘Four times a year we think sufficient for the administration of the Lord’s table, which we desire to be distincted [distinguished/specified], that the superstitions of times may be avoided as far as may be…’ (XI.5). Anxious to avoid the observance of the Supper at Easter, which many thought gave special virtue to it, the Book of Discipline specified the first Sunday in each of March, June, September and December. [This is what is common in most Australian Presbyterian churches to this day.] It added, ‘We do not deny but any several kirk for reasonable causes may change the time, and may minister more often, but we study to repress superstition.’
In 1562 the Scottish 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 of the 1640s of a weekly or monthly communion was one which did not impact in Scotland, and frequency in Scotland was commonly annual for a considerable period. [There was also the factor of cost. Wine, a good mouthful per person, was expensive for a poor country like Scotland given the congregation might number many hundreds.]
Practice in the Church of England could accommodate a greater frequency. The Prayer Book (1559) and Canons (1603) were for at least three times a year, but in practice few communicated more than once, and then at Easter. William Pemble (1591–1623) wrote: “…Satan hath done much by his malicious policy to corrupt men’s hearts in the observance of it: when the Sacrament was administered often he brought it into contempt by the commonness of it; now that it is administered seldom through ignorance, it is abused and neglected as unnecessary.”
Pemble lamented that if there had been no civil law requiring attendance at least once a year, the Lord’s Table would be left without guests. Communion practice declined with the ejection of non-conformists to the new order of 1662, as they were often the more committed people, and monthly communion was found among them.
In the Directory of the Westminster Assembly the term “frequently” has enough elasticity to allow for the quarterly or half yearly practice of the Scots, and the more frequent practice in (some) English Puritan circles. George Gillespie (1613–1648) records: “But the Committee went through in order; and first, objection was made against that first section, which leaves to the discretion of the pastor and elders of each congregation how oft the communion is to be celebrated. It was desired that they might be tied, at least, to four times a-year, since the Apostle and Christ speak of often celebration. I said, There is no ground from Scripture or otherwise to determine four times a year, for this should resolve in the arbitrement of men. If congregations abuse this liberty, the presbytery at visitation of churches can help it. Mr Newcomen declared that all the new gathered churches have the sacrament every Lord’s day in the afternoon. To avoid this debate of the time, it was added in the beginning, The Lord’s Supper is to be administered frequently.” [Notes of Proceedings of the Assembly, 102.]
In the recent Volume 3 of Ligon Duncan (ed.), Westminster Confession into the 21st Century (2009), Wayne Spear has two interesting articles that suggest the general mind of the Assembly was not quite along Calvin’s line where Cavin seems to suggest a Real Presence of a nature that means we get something extra that we do not have in the ordinary preaching. A more general Reformed view would be that we receive in the Supper what we receive in the ordinary ministry but in a different way that stoops to our weak capacity.
7 Responses to “Frequency of the Lord’s Supper in 17th Century Britain”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Mark Jones
13. Sep, 2009
Thanks for this. Spear’s essay is going to ruffle a few feathers of those who think there is one – or ought to be one – way of understanding the Lord’s Supper, namely, Calvin’s way. I was never convinced by Keith Mathison’s book.
MJ
Danny Hyde
13. Sep, 2009
Brothers,
I’ve always found Brian Gerrish’s threefold distinction of the view of the Lord’s Supper in the Reformed corpus confessionum helpful. He argues that there are three views: symbolic memorialism (Zwingli), symbolic parallelism (Bullinger), and symbolic instrumentalism (Calvin).
B.A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 118–130.
Mark Jones
13. Sep, 2009
Danny, have you read Richard Muller’s review of Gerrish’s book, “Grace and Gratitude”? Yikes. I hope I don’t get reviewed like that – ever! Not that I’m saying the distinctions are unhelpful, but Gerrish’s work isn’t without its shortcomings.
Adam Brink
13. Sep, 2009
Good stuff! Thanks for sharing.
Danny Hyde
14. Sep, 2009
Hi Mark,
Yes, I read Grace and Gratitude while in Sem as well as Muller’s thrashing! Hence my two life purposes: 1. Serve Christ and 2. Never write anything within Muller’s sphere!
Since my reading was quite a while ago, does Muller actually take on the 3 categories? I don’t remember that being addressed in Grace and Gratitude.
Mark Jones
14. Sep, 2009
“Never write anything within Muller’s sphere” – oh dear, that leaves you pretty limited, doesn’t it?
I don’t remember Muller taking on the three categories. But I think the Westminster divines were more in line with Bullinger than Calvin.
That said, I’ve read statements from Zwingli that defy the usual understanding of symbolic memorialism. For example, he writes:
“in the Lord’s Supper that natural and substantial body of Christ, in which he suffered here and in which he now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is not eaten naturally and in its essence, but spiritually only …. To eat the body of Christ sacramentally, when we wish to speak properly, is, when connected with the sacrament, to eat the body of Christ in mind and in spirit”.
Interesting, don’t you think?
Barry Wallace
14. Sep, 2009
Unlike the vast majority of my fellow Baptists, I’m still with Calvin in his view of the Lord’s Supper.