The Westminster Assembly and the Distribution of the Elements

Recently, there was a discussion at the PCA General Assembly about who should distribute the elements at the Lord’s Supper. I argued that distribution belongs to all participants to the Supper, and I argued that point from Luke 22:17 (you can see that argument here). Since the Assembly, I’ve had a chance to spend more time looking into the history of the practice. I was honestly a little surprised at how clear the evidence is that both the Westminster Assembly and the Church of Scotland (who ultimately adopted the Westminster Standards) permitted the distribution of the elements by the whole congregation.

The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God brings up the distribution of the elements in its description of how the Supper is to be administered:

After this exhortation, warning, and invitation, the table being before decently covered, and so conveniently placed, that the communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, the minister is to begin the action with sanctifying and blessing the elements of bread and wine set before him, (the bread in comely and convenient vessels, so prepared, that, being broken by him, and given, it may be distributed amongst the communicants; the wine also in large cups,) having first, in a few words, shewed that those elements, otherwise common, are now set apart and sanctified to this holy use, by the word of institution and prayer.

The verb is in the passive voice here, without designation of an agent, leaving it ambiguous who does the distribution. This passive voice was inherited by the 1839 PCUSA directory, and from there inherited into our directory. Thus the controversy!

But was this simply an oversight by the Westminster Assembly? Or is the vagueness intentional? It turns out that John Lightfoot, a member of the committee that produced the directory, recorded details of their debate on just this issue. Lightfoot begins with the draft language which was subject to debate:

“The bread in comely and convenient vessels, so prepared, that it may be broken and distributed.” Here fell in the debate, “Whether the communicants might distribute the bread one to another.”

Mr. Rutherford pleaded for it, from the phrase, Luke xxii. διαμερίζετε, and he would prove, that there are not two cups meant there by Luke, but that it is an hysterosis, and that there is no mention of a cup in the institution of the Passover, and that there is no news of that but in the rabbins. I answered, that in all the evangelists there is hardly an hysterosis in one evangelist in so small a compass, and that it is hard to find any hysterosis in Luke at all, unless it be in one place: or, 2. secondly, that it is true that wine was not mentioned in the institution of the Passover, for Israel was not in the land of wine; but when they came into the land of wine, why might they not take wine to the Passover, as well as lay down some things that are circumstantial in the institution? And there are divers things in the New Testament which we must be beholden to the rabbins for the understanding of, or else we know not what to make of them.

But the distibuting of the bread and cup from party to party, was granted easily; but the question was, “Whether every communicant might break for himself after the minister broke the loaf?”Lightfoot, Journal of the Assembly of Divines, June 21st, 1644

Not only was the matter discussed, but no less worthy a theologian than Samuel Rutherford argued from Luke 22:17 that all participants distribute. Luke has two cups which are distributed, and Rutherford argues that this is “hysterosis” or anachronism; in other words, there was only one cup, but Luke records it out of chronological order. This is a recognized phenomenon in the gospels (John has Jesus’ cleansing of the temple right at the beginning of his ministry, whereas the other gospels have it at the end). Lightfoot is a little skeptical if it can apply here (and I agree with him!). The use of several cups of wine, up to four in fact, is reported in the Mishnah (as I discussed in my other post), and this is probably what is reflected in Luke’s account. Lightfoot and Rutherford seem to have had a little debate about how to evaluate the use of this rabbinic evidence for understanding this text.

The details of Rutherford’s exegesis besides, Lightfoot reports that the committee granted the appropriateness of mutual distribution by every congregant, indeed, he says they granted it easily. Debate moved on to the question of breaking the loaf, and this was referred to a subcommittee. The proposed language was indeed amended to restrict the breaking of bread to the minister. This was understood to be a sacramental act which belonged to the administration of the table (Jesus is the one who breaks the bread in the gospel accounts), and so it was to be done by the minister. (If you would like to read more from Lightfoot's journal, here is the link).

This all establishes the intent of the Westminster Assembly pretty clearly. The original language for the bread was “that it may be broken and distributed.” This passive voice left it open as to who was doing the breaking and distributing. This issue was raised for both actions, and the text was amended to make it clear that only the minister should break the bread. But the passive voice without specified agent was left for the distribution. The reason for this is that the committee “granted easily” the appropriateness of every congregant distributing the bread. Of course, this is not to say that the committee required this practice. The text leaves open the direct distribution of bread by the minister to each congregant, for example. The Assembly left room for liberty of practice in who distributes the elements. It is clear from this evidence that they did this intentionally. They might have restricted it, and deliberately chose not to do so.

This issue does not seem to have been particularly contentious, unlike the big issue of debate: whether everyone had to come sit at the table for the Supper, as in Scottish practice, or whether they might receive it in their pews. But both issues would be mentioned again in the history of the directory. The documents approved at Westminster for the English church were also adopted by the Church of Scotland: indeed, it is one of the ironies of the Westminster Assembly that, though produced in England for England, it did not become settled church law in England, but had its legacy in the Church of Scotland and the churches descended from it.

However, the Church of Scotland did not adopt the Westminster Standards without further comment. They generally felt the need to clarify some small points of difference or scruples with the text. Though the Scottish commissioners to the Assembly were influential, clearly they did not always succeed in conforming it to the best light of Scottish divinity. The Directory for the Public Worship of God was adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Adopting Act of 1645 (you can check out the whole text on the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland website). One of the scruples listed reads as follows:

That the clause in the Directory, of the administration of the Lord's Supper, which mentioneth the communicants sitting about the table, or at it, be not interpreted as if, in the judgment of this kirk, it were indifferent, and free for any of the communicants not to come to, and receive at the table; or as if we did approve the distributing of the elements by the minister to each communicant, and not by the communicants among themselves.Adopting Act of 1645, General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

Two issues are addressed here. First, the language of the directory allowed either the practice of the congregation coming to sit at the communion table, or of receiving in the pews. This was not acceptable to the Church of Scotland, who understood sitting at table to be correct, and they did not want to be understood as allowing that the issue was merely a matter of indifference. Secondly, the directory allowed distribution of the elements directly by the minister to each communicant, or by the communicants themselves. But the Church of Scotland was not so sure that distribution by the minister only was acceptable. Distribution by the communicants seems to have been at least the preferred practice at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1645.

So it seems that Rutherford’s opinion about the correctness of distribution by the people was shared by the whole Church of Scotland at that time. It would be interesting to investigate the records of the church more closely to see if there was actually an action forbidding other practices. The language of the Adopting Act may merely mean that the Assembly wanted to leave themselves open for that type of action in the future, and to signal to presbyteries and churches that adoption of the English practices was not encouraged. Nevertheless, this is more strong evidence of the historical pedigree of the view that all the people are to distribute. Those who hold such a view have almost four hundred years of history behind them. More importantly, the decision of the Westminster Assembly to allow liberty of practice on this issue by describing distribution in the passive voice, without specifying the agent, passed over from that directory into our American books. Those who consider liberty of practice on the issue wise also have almost four hundred years of history behind them. Those who suggest restricting distribution to elders or deacons are innovators.

One clarifying note: it is of course easy to find examples from about the time of the Westminster Assembly of elders and deacons being given a special role in serving at the communion table. The fact that all distribute does not rule out such a special role, and the Westminster Assembly intended to do no such thing. Perhaps it could be wise to specify such a role, or it might be wiser to allow liberty of practice here as well (as the Assembly did, by not mentioning the practice at all). What I think is clear from this evidence is that if we call this role “distribution,” we are departing from established tradition about what “distribution” is and who does it, not to mention the language of Scripture in Luke 22:17.

As a final personal note, when I made my argument from Luke 22:17, I had no idea that Rutherford argued the same point from the same text at the Assembly. Even if I wouldn’t agree with him on all the details of the argument, I couldn’t be more delighted to be backed up by such an eminent theologian, who I already greatly respected. As it turns out, Rutherford also argued for the importance of this practice in a letter to his former parishioners at Anwoth, where he had pastored for about a decade (see the whole letter here). He reminds them of the warnings he had given them, including the following:

That ye should in any sort forbear the receiving of the Lord's Supper but after the form that I delivered it to you, according to the example of Christ our Lord, that is, that ye should sit as banqueters, at one table with our King, and eat, and drink, and divide the elements, one to another. (The timber and stones of the church-wall shall bear witness, that my soul was refreshed with the comforts of God in that supper!)Letters of Samuel Rutherford, Letter 269

Rutherford hits both details of the classic Scottish observance of the Supper here: sitting at table, and mutual division (distribution) of the elements. For him, it made the short list of things of which to remind his congregation. And well it might, since it is such a beautiful picture of the fellowship we each and every one share together at the table of our Lord.