Reformed Theologians on the Frequency of Communion: Past & Present
John Owen
Puritan pastor and theologian, in a treatise in catechism format entitled “A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God and Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament” published in 1667 (The Works of John Owen Vol. XV, p. 512):
Q. 39. Where and to whom is the ordinance of the Lord’s supper to be administered?
A. In the church, or assembly of the congregation, to all the members of it, rightly prepared and duly assembled, or to such of them as are so assembled. (1 Cor. xi 20-22, 28, 29, 33; Acts ii. 46.)
Q. 40. How often is that ordinance to be administered?
A. Every first day of the week, or at least as often as opportunity and convenience may be obtained. (I Cor. xi 26; Acts xx 7.)
Richard Baxter
Puritan pastor and theologian, in a treatise on practical theology entitled A Christian Directory, published in 1673 (Vol. I. p. 495):
Question II: How often should the sacrament [of the Lord’s Supper] be now administered, that it neither grow into contempt nor strangeness?
Answer. Ordinarily in well disciplined churches it should be still every Lord’s day: for, 1. We have no reason to prove, that the apostles’ example and appointment in this case, was proper to those times, any more than that praise and thanksgiving daily is proper to them; and we may as well deny the obligation of other institutions, or apostolical orders, as that. 2. It is a part of the settled order for the Lord’s-day worship; and omitting it, maimeth and altereth the worship of the day; and occasioneth the omission of the thanksgiving and praise, and lively commemorations of Christ, which should be then most performed; and so Christians by use, grow habitutated to sadness, and a mourning, melancholy religion, and grow unacquainted with much of the worship and spirit of the gospel. 3. Hereby the papists’ lamentable corruptions of this ordinance have grown up, even by an excess of reverence and fear, which seldom receiving doth increase, till they are come to worship bread as their God. 4. By seldom communicating, men are seduced to think all proper communion of churches lieth in that sacrament, and to be more profanely bold in abusing many other parts of worship. 5. There are better means (by teaching and discipline) to keep the sacrament from contempt, than the omitting or displacing of it. 6. Every Lord’s day is no oftener than Christians need it. 7. The frequency will teach them to live prepared, and not only to make much ado once a month or quarter, when the same work is neglected all the year besides: even as one that liveth in continual expectation of death, will live in continual preparation; when he that expecteth it but in some grievous sickness, will then be frightened into some seeming preparations, which are not the habit of his soul, but laid by again when the disease is over.
But yet I must add, that in some undisciplined churches, and upon some occasions, it may be long omitted or seldomer used: no duty is a duty at all times; and therefore extraordinary cases may raise such impediments, as may hinder us a long time from this, and may other privileges. But the ordinary faultiness of our imperfect hearts, that are apt to gr9ow customary and dull, is no good reason why it should be seldom; and more than why other special duties of worship and church communion should be seldom. Read well the epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, and you will find that they were then as bad as the true Christians are now, and that even in this sacrament they were very culpable; and yet Paul seeketh not to cure them by their seldomer communicating.
Thomas Doolittle
Puritan pastor in London from 1653 to his death in 1707, in a work entitled A Treatise Concerning The Lord’s Supper, and a chapter entitled “Showing that believers must often receive the Lord’s Supper” (pp. 30-33):
It is the duty of the disciples of Christ often to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
Baptism is but once to be administered, but the Lord’s Supper is often to be received. The frequency of it is not determined; often it must be, but how often is not expressed. If you had the opportunity every Lord’s Day, and you redeemed and improved it, your soul would thrive and grow the more in grace and holiness. Meals which are for nourishment must be often. You eat often, and you drink often for the nourishment of nature, and yet you are not told how often you must eat, or how often you must drink; but the sense and feeling of the want of your food will direct you unto this. So if you have but a sense and feeling of the want of this ordinance, and the things that are there to be conferred upon believers, that would guide you to a frequent application of this ordinance. Consider therefore:
1. Do you not often stand in need of being washed in the blood of Christ? Do you not often defile yourself and gather filth upon your soul? And should you not often apply yourself to the fountain of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ?
2. Do you not often blot your evidences and disturb your peace? And have you not need of the frequent use of that ordinance wherein God might renew your evidence and speak peace unto your conscience? Do you often contract guilt, and should you not often come to have your pardon sealed and confirmed to your soul in the blood of Christ?
3. Do you not often need the means of spiritual warmth and quickenings? Are you not often dull, often dead, and often lukewarm? And do not those who are sick often need their medicine to purge and make them well? If you are sometimes warmed in an ordinance, do not your affections abate again, so that you have not the liveliness of affections or that reviving joy which in the actual performance of the duty you found? And is it needful to exhort you who have found the benefit of this ordinance to go often to it? Let the experience of what you have found in it, and the want you lie under by seldom approaching unto it, quicken your desires after a frequent attendance upon God in it.
4. Do you not often need so great a help to break and soften your heart, renew your repentance for sin and strengthen and confirm your resolutions against it? Is not your heart too apt to fall in love with sin and to renew its league with sin? Do you not often need to be put in remembrance of God’s displeasure against it, the hatred that He bears unto it, and the dreadful effects and results thereof; and is not this done more powerfully in the Lord’s Supper? God’s displeasure against sin is more discovered in the death of Christ than in turning the angels out of heaven or Adam out of paradise; it is seen more in the Lord’s Supper than in the destruction of the old world, the burning of Sodom, or the damnation of innumerable unbelieving and impenitent persons.
5. Do you not often need so great a help to increase your love for God and Christ? Do you often complain that you love God no more, and will you not more often use this great means to increase your love?
6. Do you not often need so great a help to strengthen your faith and hope, so that you may be more able to make a particular application of Christ and His benefits to your soul, and to have a more lively hope of the kingdom of heaven?
7. Do you not often need so great a help to put you in remembrance of your Lord Jesus? And are you not too apt to forget Him and His love in dying for you? Is He as much in your thoughts as He deserves to be? Is it enough to have some occasional thoughts of Christ, or should you not more solemnly dwell in your meditations upon Him? And do not the nature and the end of this ordinance lead and help you to fix your thoughts more permanently upon Him when you see how He was crucified and died for you?
8. Do you not often need so great a help to make you more thankful for the matchless love wherewith He has loved you, and the unparalleled blessings He has purchased for you and conferred upon you? Is it not a shame and sin that you are no more engaged in praising God, and in rejoicing in Him for such privileges that were procured by the blood of His only Son and your dearest Lord? And can you sit at the Table and not have your souls raised to the highest admiration of His love and mercy toward you?
9. Do you not often need so great a help to get and maintain more intimate communion with God and fellowship with Jesus Christ? Is it not here that God abundantly lets forth Himself into His people’s hearts? Is it not here that believers feel the going forth of their hearts in love for Him, desire after Him, and delight and joy in Him? Do you complain that you have so little of God, and will you not more often go where you may receive more influences from Him?
10. Do you not more often need so great a help to knit your heart more closely unto the people of God in greater affection and love for them? Do you love them as you should? Or is there not too great an alienation of your heart and affection from them? Or does not this ordinance, which shows you the love of Christ for all His people, incite those who attend upon it to imitate the Lord Jesus in loving them? Does the Supper not show you that we should love one another as He has loved us, when we see we are one body, redeemed by one Lord and fed at one Table; that we are washed in the same blood, enjoy the same privileges, and are here assured of the same inheritance and glory? Does it not engage us to be of one heart, and to be kindly affectioned to one another, as Christ was to us all? It is to be bewailed with tears of blood that this ordinance, which should have cemented us in love and soldered our hearts together, through our corruption has been the occasion, though not the cause, of great breaches and divisions in the Church of God.
Thus, if you seriously consider your own frequent wants, and often reflect upon your frequent need of this ordinance, you will see sufficient reason for your frequent participation in so frequently needful an ordinance.
Robert G. Rayburn
A founding faculty member of Covenant Theological Seminary (the seminary of the PCA), in his book O Come, Let Us Worship (pp. 256-259):
Perhaps nothing is needed in the evangelical churches of our country more today than a theology of the sacraments. A detailed study of this subject is not, however, within the purview of this book. Nevertheless, we could not consider the conduct of the worship services in which the Lord’s Supper is observed without mentioning some of the erroneous ideas held by Christians which have contributed to various abuses in the administration of the sacrament.
Perhaps the greatest mistake which believers have made regarding the Lord’s Supper is to consider it merely or mainly as a commemoration. This is Zwinglianism. Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531), one of the leaders of the Reformation, wrote two liturgical treatises setting forth his position with respect to the sacraments. Concerning the Lord’s Supper he wrote “The Eucharist or Communion or Lord’s Supper is nothing else than a commemoration whereby those who firmly believe they have been reconciled to the Father by the death and blood of Christ announce this life-giving death, that is, praise it and glory in it and proclaim it.” To Zwingli the Lord’s Supper added nothing to the word which had been preached. It is not surprising that in the churches which hold this view there is little concern for the sacrament. But it is surprising that within the Reformed churches which trace their historical origins to John Calvin, who opposed Zwingli strongly on the sacraments, there are many who hold the Zwinglian position. It is true that our Lord said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). However, it must be clearly understood that for the Hebrew of Jesus’ day, to “remember” did not mean just to recall to memory a fact, to remember meant to bring into actuality a past event or a previous situation. We establish memorials today, but they are only for those who have died. How could we have a memorial for one who is still alive? Yes, how could we have memorial for the One who not only lives Himself but is our very life? The Lord’s Supper has never been a solemn wake held in sorrowful remembrance of a dead person. From its beginning in the early church it has been a joyful time of fellowship, dominated by thanksgiving. Its very name through the centuries has been the Eucharist, meaning thanksgiving. We thank God because Christ died for our sins, but at the same time we adore Him because he broke the bonds of death and came forth from the tomb to give us eternal life. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an absolutely incontrovertible fact. Our hope of salvation and eternal life is solidly based upon our faith in His having risen from the dead and being alive forevermore. He is present in this world today. He is especially present in His church when that body gathers in His name. The Lord’s Supper itself is His own established means of feeding His children on the rich spiritual resources of His own being. The whole Christ is really ministered in the sacrament.
That there is mystery involved in the communion which believers enjoy in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper we cannot deny. The method by which the risen Lord holds spiritual communion with His own and imparts to them the grace of spiritual nurture with the symbols of the supper we cannot fully know. But Adam Hunter has well said, “It is not in the Sacraments that confidence should be placed, but only in the God who gives grace to them. Grace comes with the Sacraments, not from them.”
Another serious error which has kept many from knowing the rich blessing of the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper is the idea that there is some kind of magic about the sacrament which gives it an empowering influence or an unusual effectiveness for a limited amount of time. This has led to severe restrictions on the number of times that the sacrament is observed by many churches. In fact, the church in which I was reared provided the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper only four times a year. I have known many evangelical churches where it was observed once a month. This could hardly fail to suggest that there is something in the sacrament itself, perhaps some supernatural virtue, which is good for one month, or for three months, and will sustain the believer that long, but might be harmful if received more often.
Not long ago a young minister who had come to a deeper understanding of the sacraments was suggesting to his congregation a more frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper. The response of one of his members was, “Well, just be careful not to have it too often!” Such an attitude indicates a belief that there is something in the act itself which produces certain consequences which might be lost with frequent performance. Yet I have never heard any Christian say, “Let’s be careful not to have our pastor preach the Word too often.” All Christians recognize that it is through the Word that our Savior speaks to us today, but many seem not to understand that He speaks by the sacraments also. It is the very same message. Through the sacraments Christ ministers to His children, feeding them spiritually. It is difficult indeed, in light of the spiritual benefits which are imparted with (not in) the Lord’s Supper, not to agree with John Calvin, who insisted that the Lord’s people should have the privilege of partaking of the sacrament every Lord’s Day as the climactic part of their worship services.
Terry Johnson
Senior minister of the Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Georgia, and author of The Family Worship Book, When Grace Comes Home, and When Grace Transforms, in his guide to Reformed worship entitled Leading in Worship (p. 6):
The Reformers claimed to be doing nothing more or less than reviving the worship instituted by the Apostles. Calvin’s liturgy claims to provide a “Form of Church Prayers…According to the Custom of the Ancient Church.” As Hughes O. Old has demonstrated in his important (but neglected) study, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship, the Reformers based their reformation of worship primarily upon the exegesis of Scripture. Theirs, however, was not a naïve Biblicism. They also valued the Church Fathers as witnesses to how Scripture was understood by those closest to the Apostles. For them, as Old argues, “the writings of the Fathers were read as witnesses to the purer forms of worship of the ancient church.” The Fathers were valued because they “could confirm a usage which had been established by Scripture.” Consequently, when they argued from Scripture for a given reform, they were able to demonstrate through extensive citations of ancient sources both the early church was the model upon which their work was based, and that the medieval liturgy had departed from this earlier tradition. The following elements, many of which have become common to the regular worship of both Roman Catholics and Protestants, were restored on the basis of the Reformers careful study:
invocation and/or call to worship;
Scripture reading and preaching by lectio selecta;
prayer of illumination;
reading of the law of God, and confession of sin;
prayer of intercession;
congregational hymnody and Psalmody;
recitation of the creed;
benediction.
Equally significant and influential, they restored the “fencing of the table,” weekly communion, and communion in both kinds, to the eucharistic practices of the church. Because they reasoned on the basis of Scripture and the practice of the early church as described in the ancient histories, theological writings, and sermons of the Church Fathers, their arguments largely prevailed. Reformed worship was no passing fad. With deep biblical and historical roots, its normative claims should not be dismissed lightly.
Keith A. Mathison
Director of curriculum development for Ligonier Ministries and assistant editor of “Tabletalk” magazine, in a recent book entitled Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (pp. 291-297):
Among Reformed churches, there is no agreement on how frequently the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated. Most Presbyterian and Reformed churches observe the Supper on a monthly or quarterly basis, but there are others that observe it more or less frequently. There are some, for example, that observe the Supper on an annual basis. But there are also a growing number of Reformed churches that observe the Supper on a weekly basis. The decision has generally been left to the determination of the elders of each local church. The real questions, however, is not what our churches are doing, but what they should be doing. Calvin’s desire was that the Supper be celebrated at least weekly. Are there any grounds for such a practice? In the following pages, we shall attempt to answer the question.
The Practice of the Church
Scripture indicates that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was one of the regular parts of early Christian worship (Acts 2: 42; 20:7). The practice of regular, weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper continued into the period immediately following the death of the apostles. The earliest testimony we have concerning the practice of the church points to a weekly observance of the Eucharist. The Didache (ca. 50-150), for example, provides the following instructions about the observance of the Lord’s Supper. “On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.” In the writings of Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165), we see the same witness to weekly observance.
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather togethe to one place and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and , as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
The evidence from Scripture and the writings of the early church fathers point to the regular, weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
Infrequent communion became the normal practice of the Roman Catholic Church later in the Middle Ages. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) required that the faithful partake of the sacrament only once a year. In other words, frequent communion was the practice of the early church, and infrequent communion was the later Roman Catholic innovation. It was against this background that such men as John Calvin and Martin Bucer called for a return to the apostolic Christian practice of weekly communion. Calvin devotes several sections of his Institutes to the argument for weekly communion (4.17.44-46). He explains, “The Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually.”
Nature Determines Frequency
It is not difficult to understand why Calvin desired weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Even if the Scriptures and the writings of the early church did not indicate that this was the established practice of the apostolic church, his understanding of the nature of the sacrament naturally entailed frequent communion. As Michael Horton explains, “One’s view of the nature of the Supper plays no small part in determining frequency.” It should come as no surprise that those who view the Lord’s Supper primarily as a matter of subjective mental recollection would see no need to celebrate it frequently. On the other hand those like Calvin, who see the Lord’s Supper as a real and effectual means of grace, understandably desire to celebrate it as often as possible.
When we understand what the Lord’s Supper actually is and why God instituted it for us, then we do not view it as some kind of tedious add-on to the regular worship service of the church. Instead, we begin to see it with joy as an integral and necessary part of the worship of the new covenant communion. When we begin to understand the true nature and purpose of the Lord’s Supper, we wonder why any Christian wouldn’t want to receive all that God offers in it every time the church gathers for worship.
The Lord’s Supper is said by the apostle Paul to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ (I Cor. 10:16). Here we encounter the central mystery of the Lord’s Supper and probably the main reason why Calvin desired communion to be celebrated at least weekly. In the Lord’s Supper, we truly commune with Jesus Christ. Our union and communion with him is strengthened and nourished as we partake of his body and blood in the sacrament. In a singularly unique way, the life of the true Vine is communicated to the branches in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Why would any Christian not want this communion with Christ to be a part of every worship service?
Objections Answered
The primary Reformed objection to weekly communion is that it is not specifically commanded anywhere in the New Testament. It is argued that the lack of any explicit commandment means that local churches are free to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as frequently as each church sees fit. There are several problems with this line of reasoning. In the first place, the same argument could be used against virtually everything that is done on a weekly basis in Reformed worship services. It is true that there is no explicit New Testament command to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a weekly basis. But there is also no explicit command anywhere in the New Testament to preach, teach, pray, or sing on a weekly basis. There is simply no New Testament version of the book of Leviticus that prescribes each element of new covenant worship. Instead, what we find in the New Testament are descriptive texts telling us what the early church actually did, and in these descriptive texts the Lord’s Supper is considered to be as much a part of regular worship as preaching, teaching, or praying. Secondly, the New Testament does provide explicit teaching on the natural extension of the church’s understanding of the nature of this sacrament.
Another objection that is raised against weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is that it is a Roman Catholic practice. Unfortunately, this objection is based on several misunderstandings. First, weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper was the practice of the early Christian church, but his was before the rise of what could properly b e called “Roman Catholicism.” In fact, with the rise of Roman Catholicism, infrequent communion became the normal practice. Reformers such as Calvin and Bucer called for a return to the early practice of the church. If weekly communion was the goal of the Protestant Reformers, how can it be considered “Roman Catholic”? In the second place, what the Roman Catholic Church does or does not do is not the final standard of faith and practice. It is true that the Mass is celebrated at every Roman Catholic service of worship, but the same is true of the reading of Scripture, the praying of the Lord’s Prayer, and the preaching of sermons. Are all of these practices to be discarded or observed less frequently because they are observed in Roman Catholic churches each week?
Some object that the frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper would obscure the centrality of the preaching of the work. This objection seems plausible only if both the written word and the visible word are misunderstood. Calvin referred to the Lord’s Supper as a seal of the promise contained in the gospel concerning our being made partakers of Christ’s body and blood. If the Lord’s Supper is a seal of the promises of the gospel, it cannot possible detract from that gospel. The observance of the Lord’s Supper cannot detract from the preached word if that word is preached accurately and if the Lord’s Supper is explained and observed carefully. This is why men like John Calvin, who were undeniably strong advocates of the centrality of the preached word, could also advocate weekly observance of the Supper. The preached word and the visible word are complementary, not contradictory.
One of the least reasonable, but most frequently heard objections to weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is the claim that such frequent observance would make the Lord’s Supper meaningless and boring. But this objection would apply just as easily to everything else that is done in a Christian worship service. Everything we do weekly in worship, from preaching to prayer, from singing to giving offerings, can become a meaningless routine. In fact, the entire service can become a matter of going through the motions and mouthing words that we do not sincerely mean. We do not stop meeting regularly or preaching regularly or praying regularly just because these things have become mere routines for many people, and we should not hesitate top observe the Lord’s Supper on a weekly basis simply because it too may become routine for some.
The practice of the church, as described in the New Testament, was regular, weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This practice continued for the first several centuries of the church’s existence. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church gradually moved away from a weekly celebration in which everyone participated. During the sixteenth century, many of the Reformers called for a return to the practice of the apostolic church. For a variety of reasons, they often had to settle for less than the ideal, and unfortunately what they settled for, rather than what they preferred, often became part of the received tradition in Reformed churches. In fact, this ingrained tradition is the only thing preventing the Reformed churches from finally achieving the goal of such early Reformers as Calvin by returning to the ancient Christian practice of weekly communion.
Michael Horton
Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary in California, editor of “Modern Reformation” magazine, and author of Beyond Culture Wars, and Putting Amazing Back into Grace, in a book entitled A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship (pg. 157-159):
A regular feature of the assembly (Acts 2:46), “the breaking of the bread,” was Jesus’ first act at the resurrection day service with his disciples when they recognized their risen Lord (Luke 24:30-31). Frequent Communion fell into disfavor in some circles of the ancient church, however, when the emphasis on suitable preparation, introspection, and penance tended to obscure the evangelical character of the sacrament. As Orthodox theologian V. Palachovsky explains:
It is indeed possible that the monks [of early Eastern orthodoxy], through the greater severity of their conception of preparation for the sacrament of the Eucharist, were in large part responsible for the sacrament’s being received less and less frequently. The rarity with which communion was received was occasioned more by a spirit of rigorism than by indifference on the part of the faithful.
Just as many believers delayed their baptism until their deathbed in order to clean the slate, a faulty understanding of sin and grace may have contributed to the decline in regular communion for fear of unworthy reception. (Protestant parallels, unfortunately, abound.)
In the West, the medieval church withdrew the cup from the laity. Since most laypeople received Communion only once or twice a year (Christmas and/or Easter), and then only the bread, this sacred feast had lost much of its practical significance by the time of the Reformation. At the heart of the Reformation was a practical renewal of preaching and sacrament as the divinely ordained means of grace and methods of drawing together the divine drama. Once again, the people received the Supper – both the bread and the wine – and did so weekly. At least that was the plan.
In Geneva, for instance, Calvin tried unsuccessfully throughout his entire ministry to implement weekly Communion, but the conservative city council thought it would be too jarring for a community that was used to infrequent Communion (Christmas, Maundy Thursday or Good Friday, Ascension Day, Pentecost). Just the same, Calvin’s liturgy in Geneva was a service of Word and sacrament, and he always left the Communion part of the liturgy in the service each week, just to make the point, “This is what we’re missing!” John Knox wanted such frequency in Scotland, but the burden of training and sending out new ministers was so overwhelming that it was often practically impossible. Few churches had the luxury of having their own pastor, and most had to make do with infrequent Communion. All of this was supposed to be provisional as they waited for better times. However, churches in the Reformed tradition have tended to call for frequent Communion in principle while going along with the practice of infrequency. Only now does a more frequent Communion in practice appear to be growing in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles, and it represents a convergence of practice with theory.
Typically, the ministry of Holy Communion in most Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist bodies includes a number of common elements derived from the ancient church. First, there is the dismissal. “Ite misse,” literally, “Go, it’s over!” was declared by the minister when the unbelievers were dismissed after the sermon in the period immediately following the apostles. (The term “Mass” was derived from this expression.) This carried over into the Reformed tradition by including Paul’s exhortation, warning the unbelieving and unrepentant to stay away from the Supper. Everyone else, thus instructed, was to come to the Supper as believing and repentant sinners who sought strength for their weak faith by feeding on Christ and all his benefits. In many churches in Africa and other parts of the world, the service of the Word actually ends, the people take a break and they return for the service of Communion without non-members.
While there is (and should be) diversity, many Christian bodies insert, before the reception of the bread and wine, the public profession of the Apostles’ Creed, said or sung, as well as words of humble access and the words of institution that our Lord spoke and the apostle Paul repeated as a familiar part of the service: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” (I Cor. 11:23). Emphasizing the belief in the true presence of Christ with his people in heaven, where he is physically present at God’s right hand, the Reformed emphasize that ancient part of the liturgy called the sursum corda: “Lift up your hearts,” the minister invites, to which the people respond, “We lift them up to the Lord.”
It is my purpose here not to prescribe the entire liturgy of Communion but to argue that this sacrament is an element – a necessary act in the ordinary worship service. Calvin’s advocacy for Communion, “every time the Word is preached, or at least weekly,” is well supported by New Testament and ancient church practice. Some worry that such frequency would harm the Supper, that it would no longer be special. However, if it is, alongside the preached Word, a means of grace and a mark of the church – if, in other words, “The Holy Spirit creates faith by the preaching of the holy gospel and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments (Heidelberg 61), our “spiritual food and drink” and a “participation in the blood of Christ” (I Cor. 10: 3-4, 6) – why would we need regular preaching but not regular Communion? We could also say that we should have a sermon only monthly – or even quarterly! – because we are worried that it will no longer be special. It is already special because God has promised to accompany its lawful administration with the reality that is promised – Christ and all his benefits, by the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. Like the Passover, a type of Christ’s sacrifice once and for all and of our ongoing participation in and feeding on Christ, this is our covenant meal. Here Christ is both the priest and the food that he offers. And if unbelievers are present, will they not see the gospel that has been proclaimed in the sermon now visually enacted before their eyes as believers come forward to receive it? Will it not strengthen the sinews of fellowship that knit Christ’s body together?
This issue of frequency is not a matter on which Christians should cause division or strife, but it does demand attention. While we think through the implications of withholding the Word, and (hopefully) conclude that this would be disastrous, perhaps we should think through the importance of the Lord’s Supper for nourishment in the wilderness of our pilgrimage. As with preaching, if this encounter with the Good Shepherd is lacking, the sheep will look for other means of nourishment.
Robert Letham
Senior minister of Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Wilmington, Delaware and visiting professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, in his recently published book The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, (pp. 57-60):
The New Testament does not give us a binding statement as to how often the Lord’s Supper should be held. To that extent, the church is at liberty to arrange it as frequently as it sees fit. One thing we do know, and that is the extent to which it was held in the primitive church as recorded in Acts. In Acts 2 it was a regular feature of church life. The disciples devoted themselves to “the breaking of bread.” We saw earlier that this phrase is in an ecclesiastical context, linked with the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, prayer, and the temple. The church at Troas met each week for the express purpose “to break bread” (Acts 20:7). Again, at Corinth the regular purpose of church gatherings was to observe the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:18ff). However, while the example of the early church is a guide, it cannot bind us, any more than their disposal of personal property requires us to do likewise. However, in general the church has recognized that the Lord’s Supper is to be a regular and frequent part of its life.
This recognition was certainly true at the time of the Reformation. Scottish Presbyterianism prior to the Westminster Assembly had a different hue than after the persecutions launched under Charles II. Its shape originated in Geneva and was brought to Scotland by Knox, who spent much of the Marian exile there. The service was led by a lay leader, the ancient creeds and the Lord’s Prayer were used at every service, and the deacons were actively involved, as they were in French and Dutch Reformed churches of the day. Moreover, the Lord’s Supper was to be held frequently, “commonly…once a month or so oft as the Congregation shall think it expedient.”
During the Reformation, in 1561, when John Knox was ministering to his congregation in Edinburgh, he once held communion services daily for a week.
As for Calvin, in his Short Treatise (1540) he states,
If we have careful regard for the end for which our Lord intended it, we should realize that the use of it ought to be more frequent than many make it…Therefore the custom ought to be well established, in all churches, of celebrating the Lord’s Supper as frequently as the capacity of the people will allow…Though we have no express command defining the time and the day, it should be enough for us to know that the intention of our Lord is that we use it often; otherwise, we shall not know well the benefits it offers.
In his Articles Concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship in Geneva (1541), proposed to the Council of Ministers of Geneva, Calvin argues that “it would be well to require that the Communion of the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be held every Sunday as a rule.” Calvin was overruled by both the Little Council and the Council of Two Hundred.
In England, Thomas Cramner, the great reforming Archbishop of Canterbury who Diarmaid MacCullough in his magisterial biography demonstrates had the goal of making the Church of England a thoroughly Reformed church, produced a liturgy that held the allegiance of many Puritans. Cramner insisted on frequent, at least weekly, communion. In the reform of ecclesiastical law he introduced in 1552, he clearly specified this. These sections, among many others, were editorialized in Cramner’s own handwriting. For instance, in the section “Concerning the Celebration of Divine Officers,” chapter 3, fol. 70v, on the administration of Holy Communion on Sundays and Feast Days, he wrote, “On Sundays and the feasts of the churches which are called cathedrals we command that there be this order in the divine services…after the completion of morning prayers…let the communion follow.” Again, in chapter 7, fol. 72r, v, on the taking of the Lord’s Supper it is stated, “It will be common to all churches that, unless grave cause demands otherwise, the Lord’s Supper will be taken only on Sundays (my italics, indicating a section in Cramner’s own handwriting.) The previous day it was required that communicants gather with the minister to examine their consciences and explore their faith.
While Presbyterianism became known for infrequent communion, the Westminster Assembly took a very different line. The Directory for the Public Worship of God specified that the Lord’s Supper be held often.
The communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church- governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge.
Scottish Presbyterians moved to infrequent communion by historical accident rather than design. After the Restoration in 1660, Charles II attempted to enforce the Royal Supremacy over the Scottish kirk. Many dissented. The Covenanters took to arms. Many ministers were forced to meet in secret. Ministers were in short supply. As a matter of necessity, communion could be held only every so often, when a minister happened to be in the area. By the time religious liberty was granted, with the accession of William of Orange and Mary in 1688, infrequent communion had become part of the tradition. However, in the beginning it was not so.
The bottom line on frequency is that the church is free to hold the Lord’s Supper as often as it deems appropriate. There is no binding requirement. However, the degree to which the church desires it is a reliable gauge of how eagerly it wants Christ. An old argument against frequent communion (familiarity breeds contempt) deserves short shrift. Does that apply to prayer, Scripture reading, preaching, or your relationship with your spouse? Does it even apply to Christ? While it remains a matter of Christian liberty, the key word if “often.” The question to ask ourselves is simply this: How much do we hunger and thirst for righteousness? How far do we desire communion with Christ? As Robert Bruce put it so vividly, “If Christ is not both eaten and digested, He can do us no good, but this digestion cannot exist where there is not a greedy appetite to receive Him.”
