THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
While the Westminster divines were agreed on the theology of the Lord's Supper, the seemingly innocuous statement that 'communicants may orderly sit about' or 'at' the table hides the fact that violent disagreement occurred over the question of 'posture'. Baillie complained that 'The Independents and others keeped us long three weeks upon one point alone, the communicating at a table'.44 Heated discussion of a merely circumstantial aspect of the sacrament of unity, as Dr. Robert Paul writes, 'almost tore the Assembly apart and occupied all the time until a compromise was reached'.45 Three kinds of practice were argued for. The ex-Anglican Puritans had been used to kneeling at the Lord's Table (in the spirit of the 'black rubric', i.e. no adoration of the elements was intended); the Scots believed that communicants should come up to the table in separate groups if numbers demanded it and sit about it; whereas the Independents insisted that communicants should receive the elements sitting in their pews!
Extremist misrepresentation of one another's position produced a loss of perspective. It was surely sufficient to stress, negatively, that the place of remembrance was not an altar of sacrifice, and positively, that the act of receiving the elements was the significantly symbolic act. As for kneeling or sitting, either at the table or in one's pew, the first disciples received the elements in a reclining posture. Such a circumstance could hardly be repeated in a large congregation, even assuming that the procedure was either necessary or desirable. While Charles Herle argued that the Scots practice tended to fragment the congregation into groups, and Edmund Calamy replied that the unity of the congregation is in the unity of consecration,46 it arguably maximizes the sense of unity if all receive the elements sitting in their pews. Goodwin was surely right in this, that 'Christ doth not put the honour in that sitting at table, but that he serves them'.47 Once it was realized that the regulative principle could be taken a little too far, the result was a rather Anglican kind of agreed statement permitting all three procedures!
The radical simplicity of the Directory's Lord's Supper is in stark contrast to the Prayer Book. Gone are the rehearsing of the Ten Commandments (with responses), the Nicene Creed and the comfortable words. One notes with interest that in Calvin's Geneva (where 'coming forward with reverence and in order' to kneel at the Lord's Table was not viewed with suspicion)48 the administration of the Lord's Supper included the Lord's Prayer (in paraphrase form) and the Apostle's Creed.
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
PART 7
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
This brings us to the subject of the Lord's Supper. The Directory states that it is 'frequently to be celebrated', without determining just how frequently. In terms familiar to most of us, the Assembly decided that it should be celebrated 'after the morning sermon' or, as is suggested elsewhere, after the final psalm. This practice has been criticized for treating the Lord's Supper as a mere appendage, a thought reinforced by the relative infrequency of celebration in the Scottish tradition. This practice reflects the view of Zwingli rather than Calvin, who actually desired a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper,41 incorporated into the Lord's Day morning service rather than merely tacked on the end. In this respect, the Independents were closer to Calvin's wishes than the Scots were.
This brings us to the subject of the Lord's Supper. The Directory states that it is 'frequently to be celebrated', without determining just how frequently. In terms familiar to most of us, the Assembly decided that it should be celebrated 'after the morning sermon' or, as is suggested elsewhere, after the final psalm. This practice has been criticized for treating the Lord's Supper as a mere appendage, a thought reinforced by the relative infrequency of celebration in the Scottish tradition. This practice reflects the view of Zwingli rather than Calvin, who actually desired a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper,41 incorporated into the Lord's Day morning service rather than merely tacked on the end. In this respect, the Independents were closer to Calvin's wishes than the Scots were.
Unlike the Prayer Book with its ceremony of episcopal confirmation, the Directory says
nothing about the admission of catechized young people to the Lord's Table. In this respect also, Anglo-Scottish Presbyterianism went beyond the Continental Reformed churches. While admittance to the Lord's Table before the congregation by the minister and kirk session with the right hand of fellowship became the norm,42 even Calvin argued for a simple form of confirmation with laying on of hands by the pastor.43 However, a general exhortation is to be made at every celebration. The minister fences the table by warning 'all such as are ignorant, scandalous, profane, or that live in any sin or offense against their knowledge or conscience, that they presume not to come to that holy table'.
nothing about the admission of catechized young people to the Lord's Table. In this respect also, Anglo-Scottish Presbyterianism went beyond the Continental Reformed churches. While admittance to the Lord's Table before the congregation by the minister and kirk session with the right hand of fellowship became the norm,42 even Calvin argued for a simple form of confirmation with laying on of hands by the pastor.43 However, a general exhortation is to be made at every celebration. The minister fences the table by warning 'all such as are ignorant, scandalous, profane, or that live in any sin or offense against their knowledge or conscience, that they presume not to come to that holy table'.
While the Westminster divines were agreed on the theology of the Lord's Supper, the seemingly innocuous statement that 'communicants may orderly sit about' or 'at' the table hides the fact that violent disagreement occurred over the question of 'posture'. Baillie complained that 'The Independents and others keeped us long three weeks upon one point alone, the communicating at a table'.44 Heated discussion of a merely circumstantial aspect of the sacrament of unity, as Dr. Robert Paul writes, 'almost tore the Assembly apart and occupied all the time until a compromise was reached'.45 Three kinds of practice were argued for. The ex-Anglican Puritans had been used to kneeling at the Lord's Table (in the spirit of the 'black rubric', i.e. no adoration of the elements was intended); the Scots believed that communicants should come up to the table in separate groups if numbers demanded it and sit about it; whereas the Independents insisted that communicants should receive the elements sitting in their pews!
Extremist misrepresentation of one another's position produced a loss of perspective. It was surely sufficient to stress, negatively, that the place of remembrance was not an altar of sacrifice, and positively, that the act of receiving the elements was the significantly symbolic act. As for kneeling or sitting, either at the table or in one's pew, the first disciples received the elements in a reclining posture. Such a circumstance could hardly be repeated in a large congregation, even assuming that the procedure was either necessary or desirable. While Charles Herle argued that the Scots practice tended to fragment the congregation into groups, and Edmund Calamy replied that the unity of the congregation is in the unity of consecration,46 it arguably maximizes the sense of unity if all receive the elements sitting in their pews. Goodwin was surely right in this, that 'Christ doth not put the honour in that sitting at table, but that he serves them'.47 Once it was realized that the regulative principle could be taken a little too far, the result was a rather Anglican kind of agreed statement permitting all three procedures!
The radical simplicity of the Directory's Lord's Supper is in stark contrast to the Prayer Book. Gone are the rehearsing of the Ten Commandments (with responses), the Nicene Creed and the comfortable words. One notes with interest that in Calvin's Geneva (where 'coming forward with reverence and in order' to kneel at the Lord's Table was not viewed with suspicion)48 the administration of the Lord's Supper included the Lord's Prayer (in paraphrase form) and the Apostle's Creed.
No comments:
Post a Comment