Annual communion sources?

[proregno]

With reference to this previous thread:

Frequency of the Lord’s Supper and the Regulative Principle

I have been studying and contemplating the topic of how the “Regulative Principle” applies to the frequency of the Lord’s Supper for many years. I have also long been fascinated by the concept of “time” - the first thing our infinite God did was create this finite concept: “In the beginning.” My...

www.puritanboard.com

And specifically Northern Crofter's summary of the different views (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and anually), can someone recommend specifically reformed/presbyterian proponents and their works that believed and practiced ANNUAL communion?

There is a lot of sources on weekly and monthly/quarterly communion, but I cannot find many sources on daily and annually views from a reformed/presbyterian view?

Please refer me to any theologains and sources that can help me understand the exegetical-theological case for annual communion , thank you very much.

ps. For those interested, I have done a historical collection and study on the topic for a Reformed Afrikaans church, dealing mostly with weekly and monthly/quarterly views, here are the link and content description ... my own summaries explanations are in the heavenly language Afrikaans ... but most of the sources are quoted in English:

"DOEN DIT, SO DIKWELS: Hoe gereeld moet nagmaalviering plaasvind? deur S. Le Cornu" (English: FOR AS OFTEN: How often should we celebrate communion?)

https://proregno.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/nagmaalviering-studie-f-pdf.pdf

Contents:

1. Vraagstuk, oorsig en bevinding (Question and summary conclusion)

2. Belydenis, kerkorde en liturgiese formuliere (Confessions, church order and liturgical sources)
2.1) First Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland (1560)
2.2) Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis, artikel 35 (1561)
2.3) Heidelbergse Kategismus, vraag en antwoord 77 (1563)
2.4) Heidelbergse Kategismus, vraag en antwoord 103 (1563)
2.4) Die Dordtse Kerkorde, artikels 62, 63, 64 (1618/19)
2.5) The Westminster Directory of Public Worship (1645)

3. Verklarings deur die kerkgeskiedenis tot vandag toe (Question in church history until today)
3.1) Die vroeë kerk en die Reformasie
3.2) Gibson & Earney, Reformed Worship
3.3) J. Calvyn, Institusies
3.4) J. Knox
3.5) Puriteine by Westminter vergadering
3.6) T. Doolittle, Treatise concerning the Lord’s supper
3.7) J. Daille and the Huguenot tradition
3.8) W. a’Brakel
3.9) J. van Lodenstein
3.10) R. Baillie
3.11) JD Du Toit (Totius)
3.12) H. Bavinck
3.13) H. Klaassens
3.14) D.C.S. van der Merwe
3.15) J. Willison
3.16) I.H. Marshall
3.17) A.C. Barnard, Die Erediens
3.18) Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
3.19) F.N. Lee, Kwartaallikse nagmaalviering
3.20) R.A. Phillips
3.21) B.R. Schwertley
3.22) K.A. Mathison
3.23) K.J. Stewart
3.24) R. Van Neste
3.25) E. Bancroft
3.26) M.S. Horton
3.27) R.C. Barcellos
3.28) A. Kuehner
3.29) S.C. Matthis

4. Kommentare by Hand. 2:42,46; 20:7 en 1 Kor. 11:25, 26 (Commentary sources on important frequency texts)
4.1) Puritan Board
4.2) J. Calvyn
4.3) H. Witsius
4.4) C. Hodge
4.5) J.A. Bengel
4.6) F. Godet
4.7) S.J. Greijdanus
4.8) F.W. Grosheide
4.9) E.P. Groenewald
4.10) F.F. Bruce
4.11) I.L. De Villiers
4.12) F.B. Meyer
4.13) S. Kistemaker
4.14) A.C. Thiselton
4.15) S.C. Mathis

5. Samevatting en konkluderende opmerkings (Final conclusion and recommendations)

6. Bronnelys (Sources for the study)

 

[Northern Crofter]

I don't think you will find any reformed/presbyterian proponents of annual communion in the First or Second Reformation on either the Continent or in the British Isles. Calvin was quite adamant in refuting what he saw to be an error that had become entrenched in the Romanist tradition: "...it was not instituted to be received once a-year and that perfunctorily (as is now commonly the custom)" (Institutes IV, xvii, 44.) "Most assuredly, the custom which prescribes communion once a-year is an invention of the devil, by what instrumentality soever it may have been introduced.....The ordinance of Zephyrinus, which was otherwise good, posterity perverted, when they made a fixed law of one communion in the year. The consequence is, that almost all, when they have once communicated, as if they were discharged as to all the rest of the year, sleep on secure.... It was not without cause, therefore, I complained, at the outset, that this practice had been introduced by the wile of the devil; a practice which, in prescribing one day in the year, makes the whole year one of sloth. We see, indeed, that this perverse abuse had already crept in in the time of Chrysostom; but we, also, at the same time, see how much it displeased him. For he complains in bitter terms, in the passage which I lately quoted, that there is so great an inequality in this matter, that they did not approach often, at other times of the year, even when prepared, but only at Easter...." (Ibid. 46). I don't know of any contemporary that opposed Calvin on this. In areas influenced by the Dutch and Scottish orders (or even further back to Zwingli) the frequency was generally 2-6 times a year, or once a month at the most. For example:

• 1556 The Genevan Book of Order: The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, etc. Used in the English Congregation at Geneva, "The Manner of the Lord's Supper": "The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient..."
• 1562 First Book of Discipline (Church of Scotland), "The ninth head concerning the policie of the kirk": "Four times in the year we think sufficient to the administration of the Lords Table, which we desire to be distinct, that the superstition of times may be avoided so far as may be. For your Honours are not ignorant how superstitiously the people run to that action at Pasche, even as if the time gave virtue to the Sacrament; and how the rest of the whole year, they are careless and negligent, as if it appertained not unto them, but at that time only [this is very similar to the wording and reasoning of Calvin above - not surprising as Knox had only recently returned to Scotland from Calvin and Geneva in 1559]. We do not deny but any several Kirk for reasonable causes may change the time, and may minister oftener...."
• 1576 Ecclesiastical Ordinances Drafted for the States of Holland, "Concerning the Lord's Supper," 27: "The Lord's Supper shall be held four times a year...."
• 1578 Synod of Dordrecht, Chapter 4.73: "...in the best ordered churches [the Lord's Supper] should be administered, as far as possible, every two months. But the churches shall be free to hold it as frequently as they deem fit...."

Calvin also connects the Papist "sacrifice of the mass" with the Apostle's discussion of the sacrifices being repeated every year in Hebrews 10.3, so there may be additional arguments against an annual observance coming from the early Reformers, perhaps also motivated by a desire to avoid a Judaizing link from the Lord's Supper to the Day of Atonement in the "Christian calendar" while maintaining the theological connection. But I have no evidence that immediately comes to mind - I'll keep looking but I suspect what I will find is simply more reasons/statements against annual observance.

 

[RamistThomist]

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

 

[Alexander Suarez]

With reference to this previous thread:

Frequency of the Lord’s Supper and the Regulative Principle

I have been studying and contemplating the topic of how the “Regulative Principle” applies to the frequency of the Lord’s Supper for many years. I have also long been fascinated by the concept of “time” - the first thing our infinite God did was create this finite concept: “In the beginning.” My...

www.puritanboard.com

And specifically Northern Crofter's summary of the different views (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and anually), can someone recommend specifically reformed/presbyterian proponents and their works that believed and practiced ANNUAL communion?

There is a lot of sources on weekly and monthly/quarterly communion, but I cannot find many sources on daily and annually views from a reformed/presbyterian view?

Please refer me to any theologains and sources that can help me understand the exegetical-theological case for annual communion , thank you very much.

ps. For those interested, I have done a historical collection and study on the topic for a Reformed Afrikaans church, dealing mostly with weekly and monthly/quarterly views, here are the link and content description ... my own summaries explanations are in the heavenly language Afrikaans ... but most of the sources are quoted in English:

"DOEN DIT, SO DIKWELS: Hoe gereeld moet nagmaalviering plaasvind? deur S. Le Cornu" (English: FOR AS OFTEN: How often should we celebrate communion?)

https://proregno.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/nagmaalviering-studie-f-pdf.pdf

Contents:

1. Vraagstuk, oorsig en bevinding (Question and summary conclusion)

2. Belydenis, kerkorde en liturgiese formuliere (Confessions, church order and liturgical sources)
2.1) First Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland (1560)
2.2) Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis, artikel 35 (1561)
2.3) Heidelbergse Kategismus, vraag en antwoord 77 (1563)
2.4) Heidelbergse Kategismus, vraag en antwoord 103 (1563)
2.4) Die Dordtse Kerkorde, artikels 62, 63, 64 (1618/19)
2.5) The Westminster Directory of Public Worship (1645)

3. Verklarings deur die kerkgeskiedenis tot vandag toe (Question in church history until today)
3.1) Die vroeë kerk en die Reformasie
3.2) Gibson & Earney, Reformed Worship
3.3) J. Calvyn, Institusies
3.4) J. Knox
3.5) Puriteine by Westminter vergadering
3.6) T. Doolittle, Treatise concerning the Lord’s supper
3.7) J. Daille and the Huguenot tradition
3.8) W. a’Brakel
3.9) J. van Lodenstein
3.10) R. Baillie
3.11) JD Du Toit (Totius)
3.12) H. Bavinck
3.13) H. Klaassens
3.14) D.C.S. van der Merwe
3.15) J. Willison
3.16) I.H. Marshall
3.17) A.C. Barnard, Die Erediens
3.18) Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
3.19) F.N. Lee, Kwartaallikse nagmaalviering
3.20) R.A. Phillips
3.21) B.R. Schwertley
3.22) K.A. Mathison
3.23) K.J. Stewart
3.24) R. Van Neste
3.25) E. Bancroft
3.26) M.S. Horton
3.27) R.C. Barcellos
3.28) A. Kuehner
3.29) S.C. Matthis

4. Kommentare by Hand. 2:42,46; 20:7 en 1 Kor. 11:25, 26 (Commentary sources on important frequency texts)
4.1) Puritan Board
4.2) J. Calvyn
4.3) H. Witsius
4.4) C. Hodge
4.5) J.A. Bengel
4.6) F. Godet
4.7) S.J. Greijdanus
4.8) F.W. Grosheide
4.9) E.P. Groenewald
4.10) F.F. Bruce
4.11) I.L. De Villiers
4.12) F.B. Meyer
4.13) S. Kistemaker
4.14) A.C. Thiselton
4.15) S.C. Mathis

5. Samevatting en konkluderende opmerkings (Final conclusion and recommendations)

6. Bronnelys (Sources for the study)

I wonder if this resource may have some material that would be of interest to you: https://www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com/detail/index/sArticle/57557

 

[JP Wallace]

I've never read a justification of the practice - but it was a widespread practice duing the 1700s in Scotland, among the main body of the Church of Scotland and in the Seceders. Indeed one of the first to argue against it was John Brown of Haddington. I'll dig out my little biography of his and see if there any references to where he wrote about it - there may be some back-references to pro arguments contained there-in.

Another approach to researching the subject would be to search for "Highland Communion/s" - as that is what they became know as after their popularity waned - the practice was retained only in the highlands and islands.

One mistake people make when thinking about this subject was that folk were only taking communion once a year - but that is not actually the case. Members of a given parish would have travelled and taken communion in neighbouring parishes throughout the year - and so while the frequency in a given parish/congregation was annual, frequency of participation was much higher, at least among the pious.

With reference to Jacob's comment about this becoming a thing during the Killing Times - I'm not sure that that's where it finds its genesis (I'm not ruling it out mind you) - his observation is true in that communion was rare during the Killing Times, but it is unlikely that annual communion was created for that reason - both in Scotland and in Ireland right up until the late 1700s communion was a lot rarer than annual because of the lack of ministers among the Covenanters. I think the major areas for research are indeed where, when and why did this practice begin, and was there a theological rationale or was it the outgrowth of necessity?

One of the reasons I'm not sure that the genesis lies in the times of persecution and scarcity of ministers alone is, that as well as infrequency the practice was marked by elaboration - i.e. it became a multi-service, multi-day event which is hardly likely to be connected to the Killing Times. That's not to say that the elaboration was not a later addition by design to a practice that was originally a necessity.

There's room for a Phd in there somewhere for someone!

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

This is slightly tangential, but if you think that at one stage in the early 1900s there were at least 5 Free Church congregations in Glasgow alone, and they were all closed for each other's communions, then you might have 10 communions each year just in Glasgow itself. Then if you take into account all the congregations in the surrounding area, especially smaller and more rural congregations, and the fact that people would often visit neighbouring communions where at least 2 ministers from other congregations would be assisting and taking the services, it makes sense that each congregation wouldn't have their own communion more than once or twice a year.

 

[Northern Crofter]

This is slightly tangential, but if you think that at one stage in the early 1900s there were at least 5 Free Church congregations in Glasgow alone, and they were all closed for each other's communions, then you might have 10 communions each year just in Glasgow itself. Then if you take into account all the congregations in the surrounding area, especially smaller and more rural congregations, and the fact that people would often visit neighbouring communions where at least 2 ministers from other congregations would be assisting and taking the services, it makes sense that each congregation wouldn't have their own communion more than once or twice a year.

I think it's worth noting the very real possibility that we miss much of the contemporary social aspect of communion seasons in the post-Reformation period. The Scottish reformation of the Lord's Supper initially and specifically replaced the so-called holy-days with proscribed times to celebrate the Lord's Supper:

"the superstitious observation of fasting days, difference of meat for conscience sake, prayer for the dead, and keeping of holy days of certain Saints commanded by man, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the feasts (as they term them) of the Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmass, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, and other fond [foolish] feasts of our Lady: which things because in Gods Scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this Realm" (1562 First Book of Discipline (Church of Scotland), "The explication of the first head"). "Four times in the year we think sufficient to the administration of the Lords Table, which we desire to be distinct, that the superstition of times may be avoided so far as may be. For your Honours are not ignorant how superstitiously the people run to that action at Pasche, even as if the time gave virtue to the Sacrament; and how the rest of the whole year, they are careless and negligent, as if it appertained not unto them, but at that time only. We think therefore most expedient, that the first Sunday of March be appointed for one time, the first Sunday of June for another; the first Sunday of September for the third; the first Sunday of December for the fourth." (Ibid. "The ninth head concerning the policy of the kirk").

In the Dutch Church, the so-called holy-days were largely maintained (despite the sentiment that "all churches shall work to the end that the ordinary use of all holidays except Christmas (since Easter and Pentecost are on Sunday) be abolished as much and as early as possible"): "since some other festive days are observed by authority of the government, such as Christmas with the day following, the second Easter day and the second Pentecost day and in some places New Year's Day and Ascension day, the ministers shall show diligence to have sermons in which they shall especially teach the congregation concerning the birth and resurrection of Christ, the sending of the Holy Spirit and other articles of faith and how to change the occasion to some profitable exercise. The same shall be done by the ministers in the cities where more holidays are observed by authority of the government." (1578 Acta of the National Synod of Dordrecht, IV.75).

In the Scottish Church, observance of these "festive days" was abolished, an influence seen in the Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God: "Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued." ("Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship.") But many of the social elements of "holy-days" were transferred to "Communion seasons"- visiting family and friends, having off school and work (businesses and schools were often closed in the Highlands and Islands Thursday-Monday during Communion seasons to allow for attendance of preparatory and thanksgiving services). Some may cry "Syncretism!" but I think that would be an unfair and overly simplistic conclusion. I also think this argues against any idea that people were only observing the Lord's Supper once a year - a congregation may have only "hosted" one a year, but people, free from work and school and desiring fellowship, often travelled to other congregations for these times. These Communion seasons were celebrations of more than just the Lord's Supper when one takes into account the fellowship, evangelization, new members, etc. that were a part of these times. They were/are festive and holy days in the truest sense.

Back to the OP, I am finding a few references to annual seasons, but nothing about where this practice originally came from. Some of the references are responses to criticisms of the practice and so contain some exegetical-theological reasoning so I will try to put them together later today.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Links to some exegetical-theological material I dug up for the OP:

• John Anderson (a minister in the Associate Presbytery in Pennsylvania c.1800) Of Humiliation Days Before & Thanksgiving Days After the Administration of the Lord’s Supper provides some exegesis from Scripture: https://archive.org/details/vcantusd00ande/page/300/mode/2up?view=theater pp.315-321
• John Thompson (a Scottish Seceder also c.1800) defends against accusations that 1-2 times a year in a congregation is not infrequent - among other things, he covers the relationship to Passover with regard to preparation days in Communion seasons, and the fact that 1-2 times a year in a congregation does not mean only 1-2 times for a congregant. Some excerpts:

"Letters Addressed to the Rev. John Mason of New York, in an Answer to his Letters on Frequent Communion" https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-...5/Thomson-Letters-addressed-to-John-Mason.pdf (second letter starts on p.14)

• John Kennedy (a Free Church of Scotland minister in the Highlands) also mentions annual communion seasons in the early 1800s https://archive.org/details/thedaysofthefath00kennuoft/page/n245/mode/2up?view=theater (starting at the bottom of p.223-227)
• This from the US in an early 1800s report on the Pine Creek, Union and Deer Creek RP congregations: "The ministry of Mr. Williams was remarkably successful in the gathering of a large congregation, and they were bound together by the closest ties. Often as many as three hundred gathered around the communion table and those were the seasons of festive joy." (Rev. W. Melancthon Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, https://archive.org/details/historyofrefor00glas/page/288/mode/2up?view=theater pp.288-289).
• Alexander Duncan in 1807 argued against an annual "anniversary feast" on the basis of differences between Passover and the Lord's Supper in Scripture, surveys some of the patrician literature, and discusses Calvin's views in A Disquisition on the Observance of the Lord’s Supper, with a View to the Defence of the Presbyterian Plan of Administering that Ordinance, with an Appendix, a Short Review of Mr. Mason’s Letters on Communion, (the "Contents" on pages 3-4 are pretty detailed - there are 3 volumes, here is Vol.1: https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-...n-Disquisition-on-the-Lords-Supper-Part-1.pdf )
• I have by no means exhuasted the search options at https://reformedbooksonline.com/ ...

 

[JP Wallace]

I just remembered a book I had, and read years ago that has two chapters on the subject of Scot's Presbyterian Communuion practices - "The LOrd's Supper" by Malcolm Maclean (Mentor/Christian Focus). I'll have a scan through the relevant chapters the next couple of days and post anything of interest.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I've never read a justification of the practice - but it was a widespread practice duing the 1700s in Scotland, among the main body of the Church of Scotland and in the Seceders. Indeed one of the first to argue against it was John Brown of Haddington. I'll dig out my little biography of his and see if there any references to where he wrote about it - there may be some back-references to pro arguments contained there-in.

Another approach to researching the subject would be to search for "Highland Communion/s" - as that is what they became know as after their popularity waned - the practice was retained only in the highlands and islands.

One mistake people make when thinking about this subject was that folk were only taking communion once a year - but that is not actually the case. Members of a given parish would have travelled and taken communion in neighbouring parishes throughout the year - and so while the frequency in a given parish/congregation was annual, frequency of participation was much higher, at least among the pious.

With reference to Jacob's comment about this becoming a thing during the Killing Times - I'm not sure that that's where it finds its genesis (I'm not ruling it out mind you) - his observation is true in that communion was rare during the Killing Times, but it is unlikely that annual communion was created for that reason - both in Scotland and in Ireland right up until the late 1700s communion was a lot rarer than annual because of the lack of ministers among the Covenanters. I think the major areas for research are indeed where, when and why did this practice begin, and was there a theological rationale or was it the outgrowth of necessity?

One of the reasons I'm not sure that the genesis lies in the times of persecution and scarcity of ministers alone is, that as well as infrequency the practice was marked by elaboration - i.e. it became a multi-service, multi-day event which is hardly likely to be connected to the Killing Times. That's not to say that the elaboration was not a later addition by design to a practice that was originally a necessity.

There's room for a Phd in there somewhere for someone!

Here is Brown of Haddington's treatment on frequency, if looking for references:

pp. 224, 263 and 312. https://tinyurl.com/3km8nuf8

(Thank you again to @NaphtaliPress for sharing this with me)

 

[Northern Crofter]

Here is Brown of Haddington's treatment on frequency, if looking for references:

pp. 224, 263 and 312. https://tinyurl.com/3km8nuf8

(Thank you again to @NaphtaliPress for sharing this with me)

He offers further testimony that 1-2 times a year in a congregation =/= 1-2 times for a congregant (p.227):

 

[proregno]

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

Thanks for the feedback, appreciate.

 

[JP Wallace]

So I've had time to skim a few sections in Maclean that I referenced above.

Some notes (in no particular order):

• There is a difference in how the lowlands and highlands administered the sacrament. The lowlands, it seems, held more firmly when possible to the quarterly administration as legislated in the General Assumbly of 1562 and Books of Order. The Highlands seem not to have done so, or not so stringently.
• However both regions elablorated on the simplicty it seems was envisioned in the above documents. A lowland service by the beginning of the 18th century included a Fast Day on Thursdays, Preparation Service on Saturday, Action and Communion on Sabbath, and Thanksgiving on the Monday. It does seem that this developed by the 1630's onward.
• Maclean notes that there was careful examination of those who were coming to the sacrament which could take up to a month. They were examined in relation to their biblical knowledge, daily conduct, and whether or not reconciliation was required between them and others. This would of course somewhat preclude monthly celebration! And probably was a largely governing factor in the favoured quarterly celebration.
• Highland communion seasons were organised according to the agricultural year. This is a factor that we moderns almost certainly do not factor into our thinking of the subject, that together with the sparse population centres of the highlands (and lowlands at this time) and the poor roads network, probably was as far as I can tell one of the main factors influencing annual celebration. Communion seasons were generally summer, i.e. between Spring agricultural ground work and the Autumn harvest - this is when people were a) able to travel and b) most confortably could congregate in large numbers for external administation of the sacrament. I think we should also factor in just how big the crowds were coming to communion, that they were celebrate externally, necessarily, as one reason why for example they didn't hold them in say November or January with the dark nights precluding meeting and travel. We must not forget they did not have Hilton Hotels to stay overnight in, nor cars to travel with, nor electrictity to heat with or light with.
• In the Highlands there was the idea of public and private communions. The former were large as above, the idea of the latter was that it was restricted to the local congregation. The latter were held to give a second opportunity for communion in the Spring it seems.
• In answer to the OP......I have come across no theological justification for the practice on annual communions. Though of course Brown in the links above argues well against their retention and we can get some idea of some of the arguments that were at least used for their retention from him.

On balance I think it likely that the annual celebration of communion was grounded on practical issues and not on theologicial issues. I think Jacob's point about persecution and lack of ministers (and the two were not always co-terminus), was certainly true at times in some places, but is most likel y not the main factors for the widespread practice as it was most popular in the highlands and not the lowlands where the bulk of the persecution was.

 

[Northern Crofter]

So I've had time to skim a few sections in Maclean that I referenced above.

Some notes (in no particular order):

• There is a difference in how the lowlands and highlands administered the sacrament. The lowlands, it seems, held more firmly when possible to the quarterly administration as legislated in the General Assumbly of 1562 and Books of Order. The Highlands seem not to have done so, or not so stringently.
• However both regions elablorated on the simplicty it seems was envisioned in the above documents. A lowland service by the beginning of the 18th century included a Fast Day on Thursdays, Preparation Service on Saturday, Action and Communion on Sabbath, and Thanksgiving on the Monday. It does seem that this developed by the 1630's onward.
• Maclean notes that there was careful examination of those who were coming to the sacrament which could take up to a month. They were examined in relation to their biblical knowledge, daily conduct, and whether or not reconciliation was required between them and others. This would of course somewhat preclude monthly celebration! And probably was a largely governing factor in the favoured quarterly celebration.
• Highland communion seasons were organised according to the agricultural year. This is a factor that we moderns almost certainly do not factor into our thinking of the subject, that together with the sparse population centres of the highlands (and lowlands at this time) and the poor roads network, probably was as far as I can tell one of the main factors influencing annual celebration. Communion seasons were generally summer, i.e. between Spring agricultural ground work and the Autumn harvest - this is when people were a) able to travel and b) most confortably could congregate in large numbers for external administation of the sacrament. I think we should also factor in just how big the crowds were coming to communion, that they were celebrate externally, necessarily, as one reason why for example they didn't hold them in say November or January with the dark nights precluding meeting and travel. We must not forget they did not have Hilton Hotels to stay overnight in, nor cars to travel with, nor electrictity to heat with or light with.
• In the Highlands there was the idea of public and private communions. The former were large as above, the idea of the latter was that it was restricted to the local congregation. The latter were held to give a second opportunity for communion in the Spring it seems.
• In answer to the OP......I have come across no theological justification for the practice on annual communions. Though of course Brown in the links above argues well against their retention and we can get some idea of some of the arguments that were at least used for their retention from him.

On balance I think it likely that the annual celebration of communion was grounded on practical issues and not on theologicial issues. I think Jacob's point about persecution and lack of ministers (and the two were not always co-terminus), was certainly true at times in some places, but is most likel y not the main factors for the widespread practice as it was most popular in the highlands and not the lowlands where the bulk of the persecution was.

Thanks for sharing - this survey brings up some important clarifications. Two thoughts:
(1) There are many references to "private communions" in the 18th and 19th century and as the above points out, this does not mean having a minister come to your home;
(2) The elders visiting each home/congregant in their residences to examine them prior to a communion season is something that has been largely lost - it is also what I personally miss the most from the years I lived in Scotland (this application of a parish structure with elders assigned to specific families/individuals within a congregation is not unique to that land, but Chalmers did much to reform and revive it: https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/thomas-chalmers-and-‘-st-john’s-experiment’ for a quick survey). Rather than top-down grillings, these were the most pastoral interactions I have ever experienced in the Church, with the elders inquiring not only about my spiritual state, but also about the needs of my whole person (my health, financial needs, studies, etc.). Perhaps this is why the early Church practice of weekly observance of the Lord's Supper (while living in intimate communal contact) did not remain the norm - again, as alluded to above, as we drift further away from such close community, perhaps it is also why we might need to separate further (from weekly) our observances to allow for such reconnection and preparation through visitation.

 

[Jake]

I've heard Jay Adams (ARP minister and counselor) took this view (annual communion) but I'm not sure if he's written on it.

 

[KMK]

One might come to an annual communion conviction based upon the WLC. It stresses a great deal of preparation, administration, and improvement that might require more than four months to do properly?

Q. 171. How are they that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?
A. They that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ; of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance, love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.

Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s Supper?
A. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this Sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s Supper, that he may be further strengthened.

Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the time of the administration of it?
A. It is required of them that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fulness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.

Q. 175. What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?
A. The duty of Christians, after they have received the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, is seriously to consider how they have behaved themselves therein, and with what success; if they find quickening and comfort, to bless God for it, beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses, fulfill their vows, and encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance: but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation to, and carriage at, the Sacrament; in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time: but, if they see that they have failed in either, they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it afterward with more care and diligence.

 

[JP Wallace]

One might come to an annual communion conviction based upon the WLC. It stresses a great deal of preparation, administration, and improvement that might require more than four months to do properly?

Q. 171. How are they that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?
A. They that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ; of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance, love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.

Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s Supper?
A. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this Sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s Supper, that he may be further strengthened.

Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the time of the administration of it?
A. It is required of them that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fulness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.

Q. 175. What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?
A. The duty of Christians, after they have received the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, is seriously to consider how they have behaved themselves therein, and with what success; if they find quickening and comfort, to bless God for it, beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses, fulfill their vows, and encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance: but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation to, and carriage at, the Sacrament; in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time: but, if they see that they have failed in either, they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it afterward with more care and diligence.

Ken

I think WLC could provide justification for annual participation, but it doesn't necessitate it, e.g. Q174 is to be carried out during the Communion Service. Q175 may of course be fulfilled for weeks and months after the administration. Now Q171 is the one that fits best with a more extended time prior to participation.

However, I think it's also legitimate to say we can be fairly sure that these questions were not designed or understood to support annual celebration as the Scots authorities who adopted them in fact also legislated for quarterly seasons.

 

[CathH]

One might come to an annual communion conviction based upon the WLC. It stresses a great deal of preparation, administration, and improvement that might require more than four months to do properly?

If the standard is "doing it properly" then four months is far too short: it takes more than a lifetime. There's no reason embedded in Q171-175 as to why these activities shouldn't be practiced every week.

Someone might turn to sources like the WLC to justify infrequent communion post hoc, but Rev Wallace is correct (from all I've ever heard/read) that the reasons have historically been practical rather than theological.

 

[Northern Crofter]

If the standard is "doing it properly" then four months is far too short: it takes more than a lifetime. There's no reason embedded in Q171-175 as to why these activities shouldn't be practiced every week.

Someone might turn to sources like the WLC to justify infrequent communion post hoc, but Rev Wallace is correct (from all I've ever heard/read) that the reasons have historically been practical rather than theological.

I think there are many reasons not everyone in the congregation can be prepared on a weekly basis (serious meditation and fervent prayer in Q.171, for example). It would take a very mature congregation to find all ready every week. I often see the push for weekly observance to be lacking in charity towards those who are not as mature in their faith. I admit there needs to be a balance. There are times I did not feel properly prepared but still partook because of the encouragement of Q.172. But I am slow to abandon the ideals of 171 for the frequent/infrequent reality of 172 - as slow as I am to abandon calling for pastoral visitations before communion seasons.

 

[CathH]

I think there are many reasons not everyone in the congregation can be prepared on a weekly basis (serious meditation and fervent prayer in Q.171, for example). It would take a very mature congregation to find all ready every week. I often see the push for weekly observance to be lacking in charity towards those who are not as mature in their faith. I admit there needs to be a balance. There are times I did not feel properly prepared but still partook because of the encouragement of Q.172. But I am slow to abandon the ideals of 171 for the frequent/infrequent reality of 172 - as slow as I am to abandon calling for pastoral visitations before communion seasons.

In the Scottish communion season, there is one day devoted to the kind of self-examination suggested in Q171. That day is the Friday. So if you're doing it properly, in the spirit of the communion season and LC171, that would give you 2 days to be ready for the sacrament on the Lord's Day. Is that not enough?

The reality is that the activities of Q171 should characterise our spiritual life constantly, not just in the run-up to the communion. However long or short the time we spend on it, we're never going to have done it properly. If I've done it to my own satisfaction, it still won't be to the righteous Lord's satisfaction. If I haven't done it to my own satisfaction, that puts me in a better frame for a partaking which includes 'judging myself and sorrowing for sin, earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace.'

I'm not sure where the idea of maturity has come from. It is a pity that people sometimes seem to think that the Lord's Supper is not for you until you are mature enough. A better way to think is that you won't mature until you are participating in the Lord's Supper.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

For those who adhere to Westminster's Directory for Public Worship, it ought to be remembered that the Directory only advises the following:

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.

The question on frequency (even weekly observance) was intentionally left open for accommodation to each congregational eldership's discretion as can be seen in Gillespie's notes of the Westminster's Assembly's proceedings:

 

[Northern Crofter]

I understand your sentiment but think at times it overlooks or oversimplifies the struggles some have in preparing/examining themselves:

In the Scottish communion season, there is one day devoted to the kind of self-examination suggested in Q171. That day is the Friday. So if you're doing it properly, in the spirit of the communion season and LC171, that would give you 2 days to be ready for the sacrament on the Lord's Day. Is that not enough?

I believe Scottish communion seasons originally developed to where there were 3 days of preparation, starting with Thursday (or the "Fast Day"). Many have documented these seasons in great detail and with great admiration (see Hugh Cheape's "The Communion Season" for example). These days were not only for individual preparation, but for corporate activities such as evangelizing, examining adherents who desired to come to the Lord's Table for the first time, formal theological discussion, and public testimonies. Even that is "not enough" for some as I witnessed friends attend such seasons for years before coming to the Lord's Table.

...if you're doing it properly....the activities of Q171 should characterise our spiritual life constantly

Agreed. But not all are. If the majority of a congregation are not, they are not a mature congregation, and the minister and elders owe it to their flock to slow down and address the issues.

However long or short the time we spend on it, we're never going to have done it properly. If I've done it to my own satisfaction, it still won't be to the righteous Lord's satisfaction.

I disagree. There are times I felt/feel properly prepared. I disagree that there is a Divine expectation of perfectionism in preparation. Rather, it is our acknowledgement of our imperfection that keeps bringing us back to the Lord's Table.

If I haven't done it to my own satisfaction, that puts me in a better frame for a partaking which includes 'judging myself and sorrowing for sin, earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace.'

I disagree that not preparing to my own satisfaction puts me in a better frame for partaking. I also don't believe "judging myself and sorrowing for sin, earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace" is what is required in the time of examination/preparation prior to coming to the Lord's Table. I believe the focus should be on evaluating your failure to love God and your neighbor, repenting of any deficiencies, and renewing your mind in meditating upon and hearing the preaching of God's Word. Again, I do not believe perfection is something to be sought after in preparation - it should be about acknowledging our imperfections and repenting and approaching the Lord's Supper seeking the grace offered in it for help.

I'm not sure where the idea of maturity has come from. It is a pity that people sometimes seem to think that the Lord's Supper is not for you until you are mature enough.

I think you are misinterpreting my statement ("It would take a very mature congregation to find all ready every week") by applying it to individuals. The Lord's Supper as a time of both corporate and individual worship - it must both or it is neither. You cannot have the Lord's Supper by yourself. The preparation, administration, and thanksgiving is done by individuals who are part of a local body. I do believe the Lord's Supper was administered weekly during the time of the Apostles, but that was a time when the Church was living communally (end of Acts 2), and on a week-to-week basis the people's sins and wants were immediately examined and dealt with (beginning of Acts 5), as were issues of charity to all men and forgiving those that have done them wrong (beginning of Acts 6). Not all congregations today are at that same place of intimate fellowship and immediate correction. This "idea of maturity" comes from and is attested to in many sources. As you have focused on the Scottish communion season, consider how reforming minsters in that land would sometimes withdraw the sacrament for years in order to allow for the correction of abuses and maturity to grow and manifest. Consider, for example, the Rev. Andrew Cant in Aberdeen in the 1640s (below from Edgar's Old Church Life in Scotland, p.122, see also p.129):



and Rev. Alexander Macleod in the early 1800s (see below from Disruption Worthies of the Highlands, pp.226-227):




Yes, some in the congregation were mature enough to prepare themselves sufficiently, but since most were not, the sacrament was not offered for a time. Were we to apply the same consideration to congregations today, I wonder if observance would also become less frequent for a time. It should also be noted that Communion seasons were often the start of many revivals - which if sustained, should in turn lead to more frequent observance as people amended their lives and matured in their faith and ability to prepare/examine themselves and live in peace in their community of faith.

A better way to think is that you won't mature until you are participating in the Lord's Supper.

This way of thinking sounds too close to sacramentalism for me to agree.

The question on frequency (even weekly observance) was intentionally left open for accommodation to each congregational eldership's discretion as can be seen in Gillespie's notes of the Westminster's Assembly's proceedings:

I don't think in context Gillespie and the other Scots commissioners would have been okay with weekly observance. Baillie was particularly critical of this being practiced and advocated by the Independents over and against the Scots' administration:

"The Independents way of celebration, seems to be very irreverent : They have the communion every Sabbath, without any preparation before or thanksgiving after ; little examination of people ; their very prayers and doctrine before the sacrament uses not to be directed to the use of the sacrament." (The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, pp.148-149); "We are proceeding in our Assembly. This day before noon we got sundry propositions of our Directory for the sacrament of the Lord's Supper past; but in the afternoon we could not move one inch. The unhappy Independents would mangle that sacrament. No catechizing nor preparation before ; no thanksgiving after ; no sacramental doctrine, or chapters, in the day of celebration ; no coming up to any table ; but a carrying of the element to all in their seats athort the church : yet all this, with God's help, we have carried over their bellies to our practice. But exhortations at tables yet we stick at: they would have no words spoken at all. Nye [?] would be at covering the head at the receiving. We must dispute every inch of our ground ; great need had we of the prayers of all God's people. We rejoiced at the peaceable conclusion of our General Assembly." (Ibid. p.195)

It was not that the Scots Commissioners, in admitting there was no Divine warrant for a particular frequency (like their 4 times a year), were abandoning such, but rather they gave up trying to convince the rest of the Westminster Assembly: "The Independents and others keeped us long three weeks upon one point alone, the communicating at a table....the mutual distribution, the table-exhortations, and a world of such questions, which to the most of them were new and strange things. After we were overtoiled with debate, we were forced to leave all these things, and take us to general expressions, which, by a benign exposition, would infer our church-practices, which the most promised to follow, so much the more as we did not necessitate them by the Assembly's express determinations. We have ended the matter of the Lord's Supper..." (Ibid. p.204). I take the bolded words to refer to cases such as where the Directory for Public Worship states things like "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" (and in places such as WCF 28.4 on Baptism or Ch.33 on the Last Judgment where general expressions allow for variety for the sake of unity, which was the whole point of the Westminster Assembly and its productions).

As much as some roll their eyes at appealing to the practices of the Scottish Kirk, it should be remembered that the Solemn League and Covenant which precipitated the Westminster Assembly called for "the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government" and "the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland" which is why the words of the relatively few Scots commissioners present carried so much weight.

 

[TylerRay]

One mistake people make when thinking about this subject was that folk were only taking communion once a year - but that is not actually the case. Members of a given parish would have travelled and taken communion in neighbouring parishes throughout the year - and so while the frequency in a given parish/congregation was annual, frequency of participation was much higher, at least among the pious.

To add to this, I'll note that in many places services would be cancelled entirely in one parish, and everyone would go to the neighboring church for communion. The ministers of the visiting congregations would assist the local minister in preaching and administering the Supper.

It's still pretty common in some parts of Scotland for these kinds of visitations to take place. A minister on the Isle of Lewis recently told me that he had a few hundred at his recent communion; his congregation has fifty members.

 

[TylerRay]

John Kenny of Dingwall relates the following regarding the annual communion season at his father's parish.

"During the first half of his his ministry in Killearnan, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was dispensed only once a year, and generally on the first Sabbath of August. Great crowds were accustomed to assemble on such occasions. As many as 10,000 people have met on a communion Sabbath, and nearly 2000 communicants have sat at the table of the Lord. These large assembles were , of course, in the open air. The place of meeting was a large quarry not far from the church. In front of the the rock, which, with the strata of earth that covered it, rose to a height of about a hundred feet, and between two mounds of rubbish that had been removed during the process of excavation, the minister's tent was erected. There was level ground in front of it, on which the communion tables placed, and on either side, tier above tier, rose the vast multitude of people. All were able to hear the voice of the preacher, and even its echo from the rock. Sometimes a few adventurous people sat just on the edge of the precipice; but if the preacher was prone to be nervous it was not safe for him to look up to the group on the gallery of the church in the quarry."
-Days of the Fathers in Ross Shire, p.183

Kennedy goes on to defend these "public communions" from objections, to note pros and cons, and then says that his father introduced a second communion during the winter, partially because he was "anxious to be rid of the distractions that necessarily attend the public communion," while also maintaining the public communion in August. This "private communion," as it became known, was a controversial at first, as the norm was to have a communion once a year, and because people resented Kennedy scheduling a communion during winter, when folks couldn't travel to attend. However, "in course of time, the feeling against the private communion wore away, and what was at first a solitary and disliked exception became afterwards the rule" (186).

 

[JP Wallace]

To add to this, I'll note that in many places services would be cancelled entirely in one parish, and everyone would go to the neighboring church for communion.

Correct and Brown actually sees this as problematic. I assume what bothered him was that while many would take the opportunity to go to the neighbouring communion, some or many would not and would thereby miss out on worship.

Whatever the negatives of these extended though annual communion seasons, we must not fail to see the positives, and indeed note that God often brought about great spiritual blessing and church growth at such seasons.

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?

 

[JP Wallace]

As much as some roll their eyes at appealing to the practices of the Scottish Kirk, it should be remembered that the Solemn League and Covenant which precipitated the Westminster Assembly called for "the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government" and "the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland" which is why the words of the relatively few Scots commissioners present carried so much weight.

When you read into a number of subjects debated at the Assembly, from the Scots point of view you will often find a degree of frustration with the English perspectives, and indeed apparent ignorance of things that the Scots church had settled on having received them from Geneva a century before the Assembly.

I've done a bit of work on the whole idea of the ruling elder, and that subject is very poorly dealt with the in Form of Presbyterial Govt etc. the Scottish Commissioners seem shocked that it was basically an entirely new concept and was strongly opposed by the Independents and others.

That said, it is clear that there were a number of strong Presbyterians in and around London who produced Jus Divinium which advocates a very clear knowledge and adherence to the principles valued by the Scots.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I don't think in context Gillespie and the other Scots commissioners would have been okay with weekly observance. Baillie was particularly critical of this being practiced and advocated by the Independents over and against the Scots' administration:

"The Independents way of celebration, seems to be very irreverent : They have the communion every Sabbath, without any preparation before or thanksgiving after ; little examination of people ; their very prayers and doctrine before the sacrament uses not to be directed to the use of the sacrament." (The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, pp.148-149); "We are proceeding in our Assembly. This day before noon we got sundry propositions of our Directory for the sacrament of the Lord's Supper past; but in the afternoon we could not move one inch. The unhappy Independents would mangle that sacrament. No catechizing nor preparation before ; no thanksgiving after ; no sacramental doctrine, or chapters, in the day of celebration ; no coming up to any table ; but a carrying of the element to all in their seats athort the church : yet all this, with God's help, we have carried over their bellies to our practice. But exhortations at tables yet we stick at: they would have no words spoken at all. Nye [?] would be at covering the head at the receiving. We must dispute every inch of our ground ; great need had we of the prayers of all God's people. We rejoiced at the peaceable conclusion of our General Assembly." (Ibid. p.195)

It was not that the Scots Commissioners, in admitting there was no Divine warrant for a particular frequency (like their 4 times a year), were abandoning such, but rather they gave up trying to convince the rest of the Westminster Assembly: "The Independents and others keeped us long three weeks upon one point alone, the communicating at a table....the mutual distribution, the table-exhortations, and a world of such questions, which to the most of them were new and strange things. After we were overtoiled with debate, we were forced to leave all these things, and take us to general expressions, which, by a benign exposition, would infer our church-practices, which the most promised to follow, so much the more as we did not necessitate them by the Assembly's express determinations. We have ended the matter of the Lord's Supper..." (Ibid. p.204). I take the bolded words to refer to cases such as where the Directory for Public Worship states things like "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" (and in places such as WCF 28.4 on Baptism or Ch.33 on the Last Judgment where general expressions allow for variety for the sake of unity, which was the whole point of the Westminster Assembly and its productions).

As much as some roll their eyes at appealing to the practices of the Scottish Kirk, it should be remembered that the Solemn League and Covenant which precipitated the Westminster Assembly called for "the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government" and "the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland" which is why the words of the relatively few Scots commissioners present carried so much weight.

Good day Andrew,

My point wasn't that the Scottish commissioners or church were okay with weekly observance but that the Directory, like all of the Assembly documents in several places allowed for variation in understanding or practice.

To argue today that weekly is not allowed or is wrong is to argue beyond what the Directory explicitly states and allowed for in the places (outside of the church of Scotland) the directory was theoretically to have effect.

The only way I currently see that one can deny this and yet perpetuate their adherence to the Directory is to make explicit that they receive the Directory as the Church of Scotland would in those days.

Kind regards,

 

[Northern Crofter]

My point wasn't that the Scottish commissioners or church were okay with weekly observance but that the Directory, like all of the Assembly documents in several places allowed for variation in understanding or practice.

Agreed.

To argue today that weekly is not allowed or is wrong is to argue beyond what the Directory explicitly states and allowed for in the places (outside of the church of Scotland) the directory was theoretically to have effect.

Agreed.

The only way I currently see that one can deny this and yet perpetuate their adherence to the Directory is to make explicit that they receive the Directory as the Church of Scotland would in those days.

I'm not sure what you mean here - deny what? Perpetual adherence to/reception of the Directory would not lead to denying weekly observance - as you pointed out, the Directory allows for the ministers and elders of each congregation to decide how frequently the Lord's Supper should be celebrated, and the Directory was adopted by an act of the CoS General Assembly on 3 February 1645 and approved and established by an act of the Scots' Parliament on 6 February. As shown in posts above, there was variety within Scotland regarding frequency. Nowhere that I know of did anyone in the Reformation-era CoS argue that the Directory disallowed weekly communion. Even the prior 1560 Scots' Book of Discipline that stated four times a year was "sufficient" at the time also stated that a congregation "may minister [it] oftener." But in both 1560 and 1645, preparation and examination were required before partaking. It's not that the Scots were not okay with weekly observance but that they were not okay with it being dispensed to those who had not prepared and examined themselves before they were come unto it.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Agreed.

Agreed.

I'm not sure what you mean here - deny what? Perpetual adherence to/reception of the Directory would not lead to denying weekly observance - as you pointed out, the Directory allows for the ministers and elders of each congregation to decide how frequently the Lord's Supper should be celebrated, and the Directory was adopted by an act of the CoS General Assembly on 3 February 1645 and approved and established by an act of the Scots' Parliament on 6 February. As shown in posts above, there was variety within Scotland regarding frequency. Nowhere that I know of did anyone in the Reformation-era CoS argue that the Directory disallowed weekly communion. Even the prior 1560 Scots' Book of Discipline that stated four times a year was "sufficient" at the time also stated that a congregation "may minister [it] oftener." But in both 1560 and 1645, preparation and examination were required before partaking. It's not that the Scots were not okay with weekly observance but that they were not okay with it being dispensed to those who had not prepared and examined themselves before they were come unto it.

Good day Andrew,

Reading your last response, it seems as though we are in agreement on the question of the Directory and frequency. That is, that the Directory, on its own, was intentionally left open on the question of frequency, not debarring weekly observation. Agreed?

You brought up the issue of preparation and examination in the CoS, which albeit related, is distinct. My aim was simply to observe that the Directory (not as received by the CoS but on its own) leaves the question of frequency (even weekly) open to each congregational eldership. It seems to me also that there were different conceptions in the Assembly of what was required corporately to ordinarily prepare for the Lord's Supper, except in the case where the sacrament is not frequently administered:

Where this sacrament cannot with convenience be frequently administered, it is requisite that publick warning be given the sabbath-day before the administration thereof: and that either then, or on some day of that week, something concerning that ordinance, and the due preparation thereunto, and participation thereof, be taught; that, by the diligent use of all means sanctified of God to that end, both in publick and private, all may come better prepared to that heavenly feast.

Kind regards,

 

[Northern Crofter]

the Directory (not as received by the CoS but on its own)

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.