Meet The Puritans » Rowland Ward

Frequency of the Lord’s Supper in 17th Century Britain

Rowland Ward — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:27:34 +0000

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.

Westminster Assembly Picture Review

Rowland Ward — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:41:01 +0000

“Assertion of Liberty of Conscience by the Independents in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1644.”

Painted by John Rogers Herbert, RA, ca. 1844.

This is a well-known picture republished [December 2007] by permission of the Palace of Westminster Collection in a high quality full-colour format measuring 24” x 36” by Rev Andrew Moody of ReformationArt.com. It comes complete with the key identifying the 67 persons pictured. A colour reproduction made in 1993 for the 350th anniversary of the commencement of the Assembly is of lesser quality.

The story of the picture is little known and is as follows. A Congregational minister, Rev Dr James W. Massie (1799–1869), who had been a missionary in India 1822–39, and was Secretary to the Home Missionary Society of the Congregational Union, suggested the picture and drew the outline.¹ J.R.Herbert (1810–90) was a well regarded painter who had converted to Roman Catholicism about 1840 through the influence of the up-and-coming architect-designer of Gothic revival, A.W.N.Pugin (1812–52). Pugin was involved with the design of the new Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament) following the disastrous fire of 1834. From about this time Herbert’s pictures are largely of religious subjects. Perhaps the 200th anniversary of the 1644 event pictured was in Massie’s mind. Certainly the Westminster Assembly picture belongs to about this period, and was exhibited by Massie in connection with his lecture series in various British cities on Liberty of Conscience from at least February 1846. The artist was permitted to view the Jerusalem Chamber by the Dean of Westminster 1842–45, Thomas Turton, and provides a faithful representation² of the main meeting place of the Assembly, as he also does with most of the individuals pictured. The picture was issued as an engraved print by Thomas Agnew, Printseller to the Queen and Prince Albert, Exchange Street, Manchester on 16 December 1648. An interesting review appeared in The Baptist Magazine for August 1849.³

According to The Baptist Magazine,⁴the printed prospectus of 1848 describes the scene in which Philip Nye, one of the five Independents in a largely Presbyterian Assembly, asserts ‘that, by God’s command, the magistrate is discharged to put the least discourtesy on any man, Turk, Papist, Socinian, or whatsoever, for his religion. They were for union in things necessary, for liberty in things unnecessary, and for charity in all.’ In other words, the claim is made that the Independents affirmed full toleration of all religious groups. The looks of surprise/horror on various faces is intended to reflect reaction to this bold affirmation. Accordingly, the original print under the 1848 title gives a reference to Robert Baillie’s Letters (Vol. 2, p. 146)—“We were all highly offended at him – all cried him downe.”

However, if one looks up the Baillie reference, one finds Nye was opposing the Presbyterian desire for uniformity and therefore he urged toleration of all whose errors were not fundamental, as for instance the difference in church government between the Independents and the Presbyterians. But as to the toleration of those not orthodox in fundamentals, Baillie is a witness that the Independents at the Assembly were of the same mind as the Presbyterians, and opposed those—not members of the Assembly—such as John Goodwin, who favoured toleration of the various religions mentioned.⁵

Massie, as the one behind the commissioning of the picture, represented Nye and his fellow Independents as advocates of complete toleration in his lectures,⁶ but cites Baillie in a completely inaccurate fashion. The careful Baptist historian, E.B.Underhill, pointed out Massie’s erroneous claim in The Baptist Magazine for October 1847. His critique, slightly extended, was subsequently published.⁷

The picture is an impressive one. There is a certain artistic licence in that men who were not actual members are included, such as Baxter, Owen, Cromwell and Milton.⁸It might seem strange that this picture of an Assembly dear to Presbyterians should have been conceived by an Independent who claimed too much for his party, be painted by a Roman Catholic convert, and represent that which Presbyterians of the time opposed as inimical to the reformation of the British church. But that’s how it is in God’s providence. But it is a picture capable of providing a useful talking point. I like The Baptist Magazine’s suggested alternative title: “The Westminster Assembly receiving Philip Nye’s development of the tendencies of Presbyterianism.”⁹

[This article first appeared in the February 2008 issue of The Presbyterian Banner.]

1 Extract from the Liverpool Albion 21 February 1846 as cited in J.W.Massie, Liberty of Conscience Illustrated. (London: John Snow, 1847) viii.

2 Liberty of Conscience, 138.

3 The Baptist Magazine for 1849 (London: Houlston & Stoner, 1849) 494-498.

4 Page 495.

5 Baillie, Vol 2, 145-146; note also Vol 2, 122.

6 Liberty of Conscience, 112.

7 The Independents not the first assertors of the principle of full liberty of conscience: with especial reference to the views of the five dissenting brethren in the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1849) 18pp.

8 See the justification for the presence of these spectators in Liberty of Conscience, 98-99.

9 P. 498.