Anglicanism and the Lord's Day

The following is an extract from the Anglican Catechism as found in the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer (e.g. 1662, C of I 2004):

Question.You said, that your Godfathers and Godmothers did promise for you, that you should keep God's commandments. Tell me how many there be?
Answer. Ten.

Question. Which be they?
Answer.
...
IV. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates.For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.
...

The more Evangelical Articles of Religion of the Church of Ireland (a.k.a. the Irish Articles of 1615) written principally by the greatest Irish Anglican, Archbishop Ussher of Armagh, which were replaced with the more ambiguous and less godly 39 Articles of the Church of England by the High-Church Laudians in 1635, and under which English and Scottish Presbyterians served in the Anglican Church of Ireland without Episcopal ordination, state the following:

56. The first day of the week, which is the Lord's day, is wholly to be dedicated unto the service of God: and therefore we are bound therein to rest from our common and daily business, and to bestow that leisure upon holy exercises, both public and private.

Sing a New Song! Shouldn’t We Compose New Hymns, Instead of Singing Old Psalms?

Given that there are several exhortations in the Bible to “sing a new song”, shouldn’t Psalms-only advocates ‘take a leaf out of their Psalter’ and obey the exhortation to compose new songs and hymns for congregational worship?

‘Sing to Him a new song! Play skilfully with a shout of joy!’ (Psalm 33:3)

‘He has put a new song in my mouth — praise to our God! Many will see it and fear, and will trust in the LORD.’ (Psalm 40:3)

‘Oh, sing to the LORD a new song! Sing to the LORD, all the earth.’ (Psalm 96:1)

‘Oh, sing to the LORD a new song! For he has done marvellous things; his right hand and his holy arm have gained him the victory.’ (Psalm 98:1)

‘I will sing a new song to you, O God! On a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to you!’ (Psalm 144:9)

‘Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, and his praise in the assembly of saints.’ (Psalm 149:1)

‘Sing to the LORD a new song, and his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you coastlands and you inhabitants of them!’ (Isaiah 42:10)

This is a fair question and one that I asked when I was a teenager examining the practice of the Church in which I was raised. Let me answer it in my imperfect way.

Did Those Contemporary to Scripture Compose New Songs?

Just like the appeal to Paul’s exhortations to sing “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”, the superficial interpretation that “sing a new song” calls for new man-made composures should be carefully examined in the light of the history of the Old and New Testament Churches, and the early, post-Apostolic Church.

This is not to invoke “tradition” as authoritative, but to aid us in the normal task of interpretation. We usually interpret words and phrases as contemporaries understood them. We should have lots of examples of hymn-composition, if this is how they understood these words, but we don't. We don't even have a little! This doesn’t seem right, if the exhortation to “sing a new song” is a call for new compositions.

More importantly than extra-Biblical sources, Scripture itself gives no indication that we are called to add to, or take from, the God-given Hymnal.

If those contemporary to Scripture didn’t practice the composition of new hymns, except for prophets like David called to this task, then it seems unlikely that “sing a new song” could refer to such a practice. Is there an interpretation that makes more sense in the light of the rest of Scripture and known Church practice?

What Does “New” Mean?

“A new commandment I give to you: that you love one another.” (John 13:34)

‘And now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning: that we love one another.’ (2 John 1:5)

‘He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.

‘Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining… He who loves his brother abides in the light…’ (1 John 2:6-8,10)

When we hear the word “new”, we usually think of something freshly made that didn’t exist before, but Scripture doesn’t always use the term this way.

Christ calls the exhortation to love one another “a new commandment”. Did this commandment not always exist? Yes, it did. Christ Himself says that the Law could be summed-up in our love for God and for our neighbour. Indeed, the Second Table of the Law is devoted to loving our neighbour, for love is the fulfilment of the Law. As John said, it was not a new commandment, but an old commandment they had from the beginning. So clearly Jesus didn’t mean that it had not previously existed.

John also says that there is a sense in which the command to love one another is new because a radical change has happened when the light of Christ shines in the heart of true believers.

Even the Psalms which are the “new songs” in question are not particularly new, in the sense of not having previously existed. The content in each case was sung many times before, and indeed several of them repeat what the other “new songs” already stated. Interestingly, Psalm 96 would appear not to be a new composition. It was extracted from a longer song that is found in 1 Chron. 16:8-36 and only encompasses vv. 23-33 of that chapter. (Or was this latter song an expansion of the former?)

Newness as Freshness

“New” in the Scriptures can mean that it is so unusual, fresh and different, that it is as if it had never existed previously. In my opinion, this definition fits what Christ was saying in John 13:34. This commandment had fallen into such disuse by the selfishness of men that it was something new to them, even though it was as old as God himself.

John Calvin agrees with this idea of “newness” in commenting on the various verses that speak of a new song. He describes this newness as “rare and choice”, “exquisite and not ordinary”, “singular and worthy of remembrance”, “not one which was common”, “unusual and extraordinary”, “singular or uncommon”, “rare and unusual” and “distinguish[ed] from those with which the saints commonly and daily praised God”.

Matthew Poole similarly talks of this newness as “renewed”, “fresh”, “new matter or occasion for a song”, “new and great occasion” and “new mercies”. How many new occasions does God give us for renewed praise to our God?

But maybe these are just Psalm-singing Presbyterians from centuries ago? The modern Anglican Derek Kidner also describes this “newness” as “freshness” in his comments on these various Psalms.

In commenting on Psalm 96:1, he says, “The new song (cf. on 33:3) is not simply a piece newly composed, though it naturally includes such, but a response that will match the freshness of His mercies, which are ‘new every morning’.” Here he does not draw away from the fact that David’s song was one newly composed for the occasion in question (nor does Poole or I), but he emphasises “the freshness of His mercies, which are ‘new every morning’.”

The late 19^th Century, hymn-singing Baptist, Charles Spurgeon similarly states the following:

“We ought to make every hymn of praise a new song. To keep up the freshness of worship is a great thing, and in private it is indispensable. Let us not present old worn-out praise, but put new life, and soul, and heart, into every song, since we have new mercies every day, and see new beauties in the work and word of our LORD.”

Spurgeon goes on to quote Augustine and others who take the same interpretation. It is worth noting Diodati’s comment that Spurgeon quotes: “sung with such fervency of affections as novelties usually bring with them.”

New Songs for New Creatures

In commenting on the new song of the nations (Psalm 96), Spurgeon further comments:

“Men are made new creatures and their song is new also. The names of Baalim are no more on their lips, the wanton music of Ashtaroth ceases; the foolish ditty and the cruel war song are alike forgotten; the song is holy, heavenly, pure, and pleasant.”

The Exultation of Victory

Derek Kidner, in commenting on Psalm 144:9, also emphasises the hope of victory that the “new song” expresses. The New Geneva (or Reformation) Study Bible similarly states, “Often such ‘new’ psalms are found in contexts of victorious war and can be seen as shouts of victory.”

Singing a New Song, not Composing One

It is a fact that the Psalms were new songs when they were composed, but this is not an exhortation for us to compose a new song. The Psalmist calls us to sing his new songs, but he does not command us to compose new ones ourselves. This is an important distinction.

Nor is he calling us to only sing songs that are new; clearly this would be absurd and irrational, and is contrary to the commandments to sing the Psalms.

For us, the purpose should be that we are filled with the joy and freshness of God’s mercies, and I believe that it is really this newness that the Psalmist is pointing us to, and what he is calling us to join with him in. Let us join him in singing his new songs, the old Psalms, “with such fervency of affections as novelties usually bring with them.”

A New World of Fresh Mercies

Matthew Henry comments that the Psalmist entered a “new world” of “fresh mercies”. Often when God mightily delivers us from the old, long-endured burden of affliction, it is as if we entered a new world. The song of deliverance, although used many times before (like the Psalmist), becomes for us a new song because of the freshness of God’s mercies toward us.

When we sing of a “new song” in these Psalms, we should not think, “What new song should I compose today?” or “What newly-composed song should I sing?” but “How new and fresh are God’s mercies to me! What a place of freedom and joy I find myself in through my Saviour Jesus! Let me sing this old Psalm with the fresh joy of salvation!”

Let us constantly remember:

‘Through the LORD’s mercies we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not; they are new every morning! Great is your faithfulness! “The LORD is my portion,” says my soul, “Therefore I hope in Him!”’ (Lam. 3:22-24)

Continued...

Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs: Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16

Psalms, Psalms and Psalms?

Historical Presbyterians, Baptists and Congregationalists know that we must only worship God in the way that He commands, but how can one justify singing man-made hymns in worship? Where does God ask us to compose our own songs and sing them to Him?

Often an appeal is made to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16:

“Paul tells us to sing ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’. It doesn’t just say ‘psalms’, it also says ‘hymns and spiritual songs’, so we can sing other songs than the Book of Psalms.”

“You Psalms-only guys make Paul say that ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ are ‘psalms, psalms and psalms’? That’s ridiculous!”

These statements are due to a lack of familiarity with how the Bible uses these terms. This brief study is an attempt to shed some light on what Paul actually meant.

It may surprise some people to know that Psalms-only adherents (e.g. historic Presbyterians, Baptists and Congregationalists, and the Early Church) don’t believe that “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” are “psalms, psalms and psalms”. So what are they?

What Do the Greek Terms Mean?

Firstly, let’s remember that Paul was writing in Greek, not English. In today’s world, when we talk about ‘hymns’, we mean songs other than the Psalms, but it is illogical to apply our modern English usage to the Greek of Paul’s day. What did Greeks mean by these words?

Psalms

The word “psalm” is not exclusive to the Bible. Today, we talk about ‘psalms’ as the Book of Psalms in the Bible, but to the Greek-speaking peoples ‘psalmos’ could be applied to any song that was accompanied by string-instruments by derivation from the Greek word for plucking. This term came to have a more generalised meaning over time.

Hymns

A ‘hymn’, or ‘hymnos’, was a song of praise, usually to deities or heroes. In English, we refer to Christians songs outside of the Book of Psalms by this term, but the Greeks, and even the Greek-speaking Jews and Christians, didn’t make such a distinction by this term.

Spiritual Songs

‘Songs’ is a general term, but it is specifically defined in this context as “spiritual”, although the Greek grammar allows for the adjective “spiritual” to apply to all three nouns.

These three terms in and of themselves say nothing about what Paul was referring to. Indeed, if it wasn’t in the Bible, it could apply to the entire repertoire of songs that one could come across in life. However, it is in the Bible, so how do the Scriptures use these terms?

The Greek Version of the Book of Psalms

The Greek version on the Old Testament was known as the Septuagint, referring to the 70 scholars who were supposed to have translated the original Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. How the Septuagint uses the terms “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” is important because this was the Bible used by the NT Christians, and many of the Apostles’ quotations of the OT in the NT show their extensive use of this version.

It was the title that these scholars gave to the Hebrew Sepher Tehillim, “Psalmoi”, which gives us the title of the “Book of Psalms” in our English Bibles. However, in this “Psalmoi”, the individual songs are categorised using the three terms, “psalms, hymns and songs”. The Book of Psalms isn’t just Psalms!

Psalms, Hymns and Songs as Titles

In our English Bibles, we will see titles to many of the Psalms: only 34 don’t have any. However, in the Septuagint there were even more titles with only 2 lacking a title. In this Greek version (not necessarily our English Bibles), 67 titles include the word ‘psalm’, 6 include the word ‘hymn’ (Psalms 6, 54, 55, 61, 67 and 76) and 35 the word ‘song’. Even some of those that were entitled “hymnos” in the Greek should more accurately have been translated as “psalmos”, but the fact the Greek translators used the word “hymnos” shows the interchangeableness of these two terms to Greek Jews and Christians.

Frequently, these terms are used in groups, such as “a psalm of a song”, “a song of a psalm”, “a psalm, a song”, “in psalms a song”, “in hymns a psalm” and “in hymns, a psalm, a song”. Note that the Seventy referred to some of the Psalms as “a psalm in the hymns” or “a psalm and a song in the hymns”. They referred to the collection of Psalms as “the hymns”.

Here I refer to the titles, but all three terms are also used in the body of the Psalms themselves.

Psalms, Hymns and Songs in the Psalms

In the text of the Psalms themselves, the terms “hymn” and “song” (together with their cognate verbs and substantives) are used throughout as descriptive of the Psalms, e.g. “He put into my mouth a new song, a HYMN to our God” (Psalm 40:3).

At the end of Psalm 72, the Septuagint says, “The HYMNS of David, the son of Jesse, are ended”, presumably referring to all the Psalms up to that point, or something similar.

One of the most interesting texts in the Septuagint Psalms is Psalm 137:3, which reads, “There they who took us captive demanded of us words of SONGS, and they led us away said, ‘Chant us a HYMN out of the SONGS of Zion.’” Clearly the Songs of Zion were the Book of Psalms, but they were also hymns. The Psalmist goes on to call these "the LORD's song".

The Hebrew “Book of Hymns”

Although the Seventy entitled the Greek version of the Psalms as “Psalmoi”, they would have been more accurate to have translated it as “The Book of Hymns” because the Hebrew title was Sepher Tehillim, and the equivalent of Tehillim in Greek was ‘hymnoi”.

It is only traditionalism from the Greek usage that means that we call the book “Psalms” and not more accurately from the Hebrew “Hymns”.

Psalms, Hymns and Songs in the Rest of the OT and Apocrypha

In 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah (and elsewhere) the Psalms are referred to as hymns or songs, and the singing of the Psalms is referred to as “hymning”.

In the Septuagint Apocrypha, the same terminology is used in Ecclestiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Clearly, the Greek Christians would have been familiar with the Psalms being “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”. Everyone was calling them hymns and songs (apart from modern English-speakers!).

Psalms Spoken of as Hymns by Jews and Christians

The Songs and Hymns of the Greek-speaking Jews

The fact that the Hebrew title for the Psalms should really have been translated “The Book of Hymns” is interesting when one considers the use of “in hymns, a psalm”, and also the way that the Greek-speaking Jews referred to the Book of Psalms. Two of the best-known unbelieving Jews who spoke Greek are Philo and Josephus.

Philo never used the term “psalmos” in reference to the Psalms, but “hymnos”. This amazing absence of the term “psalmos” in his writings has caused some scholars to speculate that some Greek versions of the Psalms were actually (and more appropriately) entitled “Hymnoi”, rather than “Psalmoi”.

The Early Church Hymns

As McNaughter says, not only the Greek-speaking Jews, but the Early Greek Church also referred to the Psalms as hymns, citing the Apostolic Constitutions, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and Cassian.

When Emperor Domitian burned huge quantities of Bibles and Psalters during his persecution of the Christians, where were the man-made hymnals? When the Early Church authors wrote their multitude of letters and books, where are the hymns? They do not exist. How can this be, if man-made hymnody was the early Christian practice?

The Middle Age and Beyond

McNaughter states, “Testimonies from the Middle Ages could be multiplied at great length, but Bede, ‘the Venerable,’ gives their gist when he speaks of the whole Psalter as called ‘Liber Hymnorum” by universal consent. Thereafter, through the Reformation period and down to modern times, the Psalms are spoken of incessantly as hymns.” This is no surprise as hymns are songs of praise, especially directed to deity. Is the Book of Psalms a collection of hymns? Yes.

The New Testament Use of Psalms and Hymns

The Hallel (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26)

When Jesus and His disciples finished the Last Supper, they “hymned.” It is generally accepted that they followed the Jewish practice at the Passover in singing Psalms 113 – 118, which is known as the Hallel. It seems that the singing of these Psalms is referred to here as singing hymns.

Singing in Prison (Acts 16:25)

Paul and Silas prayed and “hymned” to God while imprisoned at Philippi. As they sang from memory, it seems more than likely that they sang the Psalms that they would have learnt in their youth.

Each of You has a Psalm (1 Corinthians 14:26)

It is interesting to note that at the Corinthian worship services, they sang Psalms. There is no mention of man-made hymns, let alone the composition of man-made hymns. Now, admittedly, these “psalms” could have been man-made, but the natural use of the term is that they were the Canonical Psalms. There is certainly no evidence of man-made hymnody either here or anywhere else in the NT.

Hymning in the Psalms (Hebrews 2:12)

In quoting Psalm 22:22, the writer to the Hebrews says, “…I will hymn to you.” So, again, to the distinction between psalms and hymns is blurred.

One could look at further instances of the use of psalms and hymns in the NT, but these examples give an idea that our modern use of the word “hymn” as songs to God distinct from the Book of Psalms is foreign to the NT.

Jewish Parallelism

We may say that Paul should have said “psalms” and left at like that, but we impose our own meaning of “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” on him. The same goes for the titles of the Psalms”: in 12 of them psalms and songs are put together. Isn’t this all a bit superfluous? Isn’t a psalm a song? Again, this shows the distinction between modern English-speakers and Jews. We should remember this distinction and take it into our interpretations.

“Doesn’t it seem a bit of a mouthful?” one may say, but the Jews weren’t British or American, they like using long parallelisms in their speech. In 1 Kings 2:2, David charged Solomon before he died:

“to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgements, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses”.

Again, in Deuteronomy 30:16 (and elsewhere), Moses says something similar:

“to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgements”

“Why doesn’t they just say obey God’s commandments?” says the modern Evangelical. David and Moses were a bit more poetic than that. These are all commandments, but there are different categories in God’s commandments, just as there are three categories for the Canonical Psalms. One is further reminded of the various categories that David applies in Psalm 119.

Similarly, in Acts 2:22, Peter (a Jew) speaks as follows:

“Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs…”

Peter could have said “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles” and left it at that, but he didn’t. He was more Jewish than us (funny that!).

Paul was a Jew and spoke like a Jew, and wrote “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” because he was Jewish, not because he was distinguishing the Spirit-inspired Psalms from man-made products.

Songs from the Spirit, not Songs from the Pub

As stated previously, the word “spiritual” could apply to all three terms, but I am inclined to think that it refers to “songs” only. In Ephesians 5:18, Paul was exhorting his readers to be different from the unbelievers who wasted their lives in drinking and singing drunken songs to Bacchus:

“And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord”

The heathen sang songs when they were filled with wine, but we sing songs too when we are filled with the Holy Spirit: these songs are spiritual.

What does the word “spiritual” or “pneumatikais” mean? We think of “spiritual” as being religious, but the word has a far stronger meaning than this. As Dr. B. B. Warfield of Princeton said (The Presbyterian Review, July 1880):

‘Of the twenty-five instances in which the word ["spiritual"] occurs in the New Testament, in no single case does it sink even as low in its reference as the human spirit; and in twenty-four of them it is derived from "spirit" (pneuma), the Holy Ghost. In this sense of belonging to, or determined by, the Holy Spirit, the New Testament usage is uniform.’ ‘The appropriate translation for it in each case is “Spirit-given,” or “Spirit-led”, or “Spirit-determined”.’

These songs are given by the Holy Spirit, they are not merely religious. Some would argue that the hymns of Charles Wesley, for example, are given by the Spirit, but is this really what Spirit-given means in this context? I think that “pneumatikais” is too strong a term for mere man-made hymnody.

What about the psalms, hymns and songs of Scripture, including those which weren’t included by the Spirit in the Book of Psalms? Were they merely man-made products – “spiritual”, but not inspired? None of them were like modern hymns: they were either personal utterances of praise (some of which may not properly be termed songs, but are nonetheless praise) and not meant for public worship (e.g. the ‘Songs’ of Hannah, Jonah and Hezekiah), or they were given for public worship in the Temple or Synagogue, but only produced by prophets and prophetesses (e.g. Moses, David and Habakkuk).

It is also noteworthy that many of them were produced by a specially-inspired class within the Levites who were devoted to God’s praise (1 Chron. 16:4-7), e.g. Asaph and the Sons of Korah. It is also noteworthy that just as some prophecies ended-up in the Canon of Scripture and many did not; so also some inspired songs made it into the Canon-within-the-Canon, i.e. the Book of Psalms, and some did not.

Does God command us to compose our own “spiritual” songs for public worship, or are there examples of it in the Scriptures? The silence is deafening. The Spirit-given songs are all inspired. We have no reason to believe that “spiritual” refers to anything else.

The Word of Christ

Not only are these songs given by the Spirit, but they are the Word of Christ:

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

How does the Word of Christ dwell richly within us? By teaching and admonishing one another through singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs together. These “psalms, hymns and songs given by the Spirit” must be “the Word of Christ”. This makes sense if these terms refer to the Canonical Psalms, but can even Charles Wesley’s hymns be spoken of in this way?

Psalms, Hymns and Hymns?

If “psalms” refer to the Book of Psalms, and “hymns” refer to man-made productions, then what are “spirituals songs”? Is Paul saying “psalms, hymns and hymns”? What sense does that make? Those who ridicule us with the absurd interpretation that we say that these are “psalms, psalms and psalms” should consider the implication of their own interpretation when they hold that “psalms” is the only term that refers to songs from the Book of Psalms.

The only interpretation of these terms that make sense are that they collectively are an expansive term for the Book of Psalms, with the various categories of song within it.

Are the Scriptures Anything Else but Scripture?

It may be argued by some that although psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are different categories of song, and that these categories are found in the Book of Psalms, yet why should we think that they are restricted to this Book; maybe even the songs of the Wesleys could be referred to as “psalms”?

As we have seen previously there are real difficulties with this: are they Spirit-given in the Scriptural sense? Are they the Word of Christ? Should we sing songs to teach each other that are any less inspired than what we use in reading from the pulpit?

Another fundamental issue with this interpretation is: how do the Scriptures use these terms? We should not ask merely how they are used outside of Scripture. For example, when we read that the Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so”, do we think that these were writings in general, even though the term could be understood in that sense? Why is that? It is because we know from the use of this term in the Bible what is meant by it.

Even so, we know from the use of the terms “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” that the Bible refers to the Book of Psalms when referring to the congregational worship of God’s people. We have no reason to understand it any other way.

No Warrant for Singing Man-made Hymnody

All the Scriptural evidence points to the “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” being the various categories of song found in the Canonical Psalms. There is no evidence that hymns are man-made as distinct from the Book of Psalms, nor is there evidence any where is Scripture of the composition or singing of man-made productions in when Christians meet together for worship. Neither is there evidence in history from the period covered by the Scriptures, nor the period immediately after it.

Those who claim to hold to Biblical worship and seek to worship God as He asks, have no warrant to compose or sing man-made songs. The only logical conclusion is to restrict ourselves to what God has provided in His grace as sufficient for us: the Book of Psalms.

Let us sing "the LORD's song" (Psalm 137:4).

Continued...

G.I. Williamson on Exclusive Psalmody

As mentioned in my discussions with Tim, G.I. Williamson wrote a book on Exclusive Psalmody. I'm glad to say that this excellent, succinct study is available on-line here.

I'm may still extract the bit on Ephesians 5:18,19 and Colossians 3:16 and post it on the blog for convenience. (Use "find" on your browser to find the relevant section in the web page linked above.)

Exclusive Psalmody and Singing about Christ

Just to inform my readers that there is a short discussion on this topic on the comments section of a completely unrelated post here.

What's Wrong with the 39 Articles?

Well, the answer is: not a lot. I agree with almost everything in it verbatim. It is a good, Calvinistic, Evangelical creed, but I thought it would be useful to mention the few areas where I disagree with it:

3. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

I disagree with the mistaken interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 that believes that Christ went down into Hell.

6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
...And the other Books [the Apocrypha] (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following...

This statement could be understood in the same sense as the better statement in the WCF (which came out of a revision of the 39 Articles), but the implication and the danger is that this statement means that the Apocrypha can be read in Church like Scripture, even though it is seen as inferior to "Canonical" Scripture. This is what has happened in practice and is a logical outworking of Anglicanism's semi-reformed view of sola Scriptura.

Moreover, the 39 Articles don't claim that the Holy Scriptures are the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

7. Of the Old Testament.
...the Law given from God by Moses... nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth...

This is a more imbalanced (in my opinion) statement concerning the position of the Civil Law of Moses, compared to WCF 19:4: "To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

There is a general equity in the Civil Law that does make necessary requirements, and that equity is more than moral precepts, it is also equitable penology, for equity is about civil justice, not merely morality. Interestingly, the English Reformers Bishops Hooper and Latimer agree.

20. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies... yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written... it ought not to decree any thing against the same...

Here is the great difference between historical Presbyterianism/ Independancy (a.k.a. Puritanism/ Reformed) and Anglicanism: the Regulative Principle. We say you may only rule the Church as Scripture ordains, they say that you may create offices, etc., as you please. We say that you may only worship God as He has asked, they say that you may have any rites that you like as long as they are not forbidden. (Of course, most modern Presbyterian and Baptists are really Anglicans/Lutherans and they don't even know it!)

21. Of the Authority of General Councils.
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes...

This is Erastianism. In opposition to this, the Puritans stated in WCF 31:2, "...the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies."

34. Of the Traditions of the Church.
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word...

This repeats the error of Article 20 contra the Regulative Principle. Of course, this can be given a Reformed interpretation because it is against God's Word to add to or take from what He has ordained. However, this is not how it is interpreted, so we must understand it with the intent of the framers.

36. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.
The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons... whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book... we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

Bishops, priests and deacons, as conceived by the Anglican Church are unbiblical offices. Bishops/ overseers are the same as elders/ presbyters and there is parity between all elders, and deacons have a temporal caring and administrative role, not a ruling and teaching ministry.

37. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.
The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil...

The 1801 CoE amendment rightly removes the power of the Civil Magistrate over the Church, but the CoI still has the original 1571 rendering as above. Again, this is Erastian.


By the way, what every Irish Anglican should read is the far better Irish Articles of 1615, which were the confession of Irish Anglicanism, before the English Church imposed its will, and which had a profound influence on the WCF. (Good ol' Ussher! Pity he allowed his Erastianism to get in the way!)

Continued...

English Archbishops Respond to GAFCON/ FoCA

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, responds here to GAFCON/ FoCA, and John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, responds here. (I suppose the Archbishop of Armagh's statement about gay union may be part of his response.)

I guess Jesus' and John's response to the Pharisees ("brood of vipers"), and Paul's response to the Judaizers in Galatians ("anathema") and elsewhere, must seem a little "ungracious" to Sentamu. I suppose he should get Williams to counsel them in "appreciative conversation" and "interpretative charity" in such grey areas as justification. After all, why should such things divide us?

We may allow Gay Unions says Irish Anglican Head

It is sad to think how the Church of my maternal ancestors has declined so markedly. See here. The article shows the Archbishop's heretical hermeneutic.

I recently got a copy of the 2004 CoI Book of Common Prayer. When the CoI was separated from the CoE in 1878 it removed readings from the Apocrypha from the Lectionary. It is sad to see that in 2004 they have been added back in, along with an alternative lectionary from the Romanists (just to show that we're "all one"). Also, in the new marriage service, the vows by both parties seem to be the same, and the promise to obey and serve by the wife has been removed.

Original Baptists were Exclusive Psalmists

We worshipped with Emmanuel Church (Evangelical and Reformed) in Salisbury, a Calvinistic Baptist Church (1689 SLBCF) on our holidays, who are one of a few English churches that are Exclusive Psalmist (unaccompanied). We spent a pleasant Sabbath afternoon with Malcolm Watts, the pastor, and his wife, who graciously granted us hospitality.

In conversation with Mr Watts, he told me that many Baptists consider Salisbury to be almost semi-Presbyterian, but he pointed out that they were ignorant of original Baptist belief. The original Baptists were Exclusive Psalmist and the first Baptist to introduce man-made hymns was Benjamin Keach (in 1685, I think). (By the way, when he tried to introduce hymns, his congregation first of all overruled him and then later split.)

He also pointed out that consistent adherents of the 1689 SLBCF must be Exclusive Psalmists, just like consistent adherents of the WCF, as they were all Exclusive Psalmists at the time (apart from benjamin Keach, clearly). Note, however, that the 1689 uses the phrase "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord", where the WCF says, "singing of psalms with grace in the heart". Note that the 1689 has chosen to use a more Scriptural phrase. As Mr Watts pointed out, the argument wasn't over psalms-only versus man-made hymns, but whether the Psalms should be sung at all because metrical versions have to deviate slightly from the best prose translation.

I asked about John Bunyan. It turns out that he, like some 19th Century Presbyterians, produced Christian songs as poetry and never used them in worship as such.

By the way, as I understand it, 1820 was the year that a Baptist church first used musical instruments in worship. (See posts here and here.)

Continued...

Conservative Anglican GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration

As some of you may know the latest episode in the long-overdue use of discipline in the Anglican Church has been the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem. The Church Council (which it effectively is) has issued its final statement in which they not only declare an Evangelical Anglican statement of faith, but declare the following, amongst others:

1. A form of independence from the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (which they say has always existed, although theory and practice are different): "While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

2. The formation of a new ecclesiastical organisation, "Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans" (now being referred to as "FoCA"), with a new Primates' Council (seemingly as an alternative to the current Primates' Meeting at Lambeth, etc.) within the Anglican communion.

3. Rejection of Liberal teaching as "heterodox" and a "false gospel".

4. Rejection of "the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed."

4. Encouragement of the ongoing excommuication of Liberals, including the formation of a new Anglican province in North America by the GAFCON Primates' Council.

5. Belief that the Anglican Church will continue to be "reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations."

6. Continued rejection of homosexuality.


We rejoice that Evangelical Anglicans are at last beginning to seek reformation in their church through starting to use discipline and uniting around godly confessions such as this. May God bless this attempt by our dear brethren to glorify His name!

One hopes that this a purely Evangelical movement, but questions arise such as :

a) What is an Evangelical?

b) What will GAFCON adherents mean by the Evangelical-sounding phrases in the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration?

c) Why is there a lack of statements excluding salvation by works or sacramentalism? (Although how an Anglo-Catholic could adhere to the Jerusalem Declaration is hard to see, but anyone familiar with Anglo-Catholics and "Evangelical" Romanists have seen this done before.) They may argue that the 1662 BCP excludes Sacramentalism, but does it really? The 1662 BCP is an ambiguous document at several points, and is in serious need of revision even to align it with Evangelical Anglicanism.

d) Are Evangelical Anglicans also separating from Anglo-Catholic Traditionalists/ Conservatives, who also preach another gospel? (E.g. Jensen's statement about "the sleeping giant that is evangelical Anglicanism and orthodox Anglicanism", i.e. not Evangelical Anglicanism, or Evangelical and Orthodox Anglicanism, but "evangelical Anglicanism" and "orthodox Anglicanism" as if one can be Orthodox but not Evangelical. Also, Stephen Noll's definition of Anglican Orthodoxy in which he states that it consists of both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.)

The sad fact is that Anglicanism as a Traditionalist system that does not adhere to the Regulative Priniciple is disobedient to God and has the seeds of its own destruction within it. (Just as when so-called Presbyterians slide from Biblical Presbyterianism into Committeeism, etc.)

God grant that He may enlighten us all as to our defects and sins, and in particular that He might be merciful to our Anglican brethren so this might be a Third Reformation for the Anglican Church leading them back to the attainments of the Second Puritan) Reformation (esp. the Westminster Confession of Faith) and beyond, so that they may adopt a Biblical Church government, doctrine, worship, evangelism, etc.

God grant that our Anglican brethren may see that their previous tolerance of and communion with heretics, and lack of discipline has led to the whole homosexual fracas, and that they may repent completely of it by rejecting Anglo-Catholics, etc., as heretics also.

God grant that 'Evangelical' Anglicans may see that the ordination of women and Ecumenism, etc., are as much departures from Holy Scripture as homosexuality. God grant that they may also reject Arminianism and Charismaticism.

God grant reformation to the Reformed Churches throughout the World as well, so that we might be more Biblical (holy) in all aspects of our living and ecclesiastical organisation.

God grant that Evangelicals within unorthodox, so-called Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptist denominations may also separate themselves from Liberals and heretics, and commit themselves to true, Biblical communion.

For full details see here and here.

Continued...

What was Banned from Discussion in the PCI for 5 Years?

For 18 years from 1868 to 1886, every General Assembly of the mainstream Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) was exercised by the lawfulness of using musical instruments in worship. It caused such a controversy that it was banned for 5 years. You can read about this in Thomas Hamilton's History of Presbyterianism in Ireland (pp. 186, 187). What happened next, I don't know, but clearly they eventually adopted the practice. However, at this point they followed the historical practice of the Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptist churches in excluding them as they were part of the temple worship and not NT practice.

It is interesting to consider how many conservative Presbyterians are troubled by the increase in the use of orchestras in worship. In many ways this is a more consistent application of the Temple practice of musical instruments where a Levitical orchestra (as well as choir) served. Consider the multitude of instruments in Psalm 150, for instance.

Baptists may be interested to note that Charles Spurgeon rejected the introduction of an organ into his church: "The great congregation which is blessed with the privilege of listening to His instruction has no organ ‘to assist' them in singing their praises to their God and Saviour. They find their vocal organs sufficient. Their tongues and voices express the gratitude of their hearts... I would just as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery."

Although the Methodist Church was a break-away from the Anglican (or Episcopalian) church, John Wesley was also surprisingly opposed to the use of organs in worship. This despite the fact that this church was responsible for the production of many of the great hymns and for leading American Presbyterianism into the use of man-made hymns earlier than other branches of the P&R churches. In fact even in 1808 the British Methodist Conference continued to ban the use of organs. It should be noted that some instruments had begun to be used prior to this.

See these quotes from prominent figures in Church history against the use of instruments in worship. Various articles, including some written by the great Southern Presbyterians Robert Dabney and John Giradeau, may be found here.

I leave you with this quote from the Presbyterian Board of Publications (Philadelphia) in 1842:

Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation?

Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation.

Click here for the answer...

American Evangelicals Consolidate Their Request for Separation from the Apostate Majority of the ECUSA

A single request for alternate primatial oversight consolidating the requests of the dioceses of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Central Florida, South Carolina, Dallas, Pittsburgh and Springfield has been forwarded to the Archbishop of Canterbury. They wish for the Archbishop’s assistance in “disassociation from an ‘innovating’ ECUSA” and for “spiritual cover” for the seven dioceses “through re-assignment of the tasks” to Archbishop Williams that under canon law and custom fall to the Presiding Bishop.

On another front in the trouble in the ECUSA, a case has been proffered by the bishops of California, San Diego, Los Angeles and Northern California against the evangelical Bishop of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield.

Click on here for more.

Church of Nigeria Stands Fast Against Williams' Compromise

Our brethren in the Church of Nigeria have responded to Rowan Williams' typical appeal for compromise over the heresy of the majority of the ECUSA by stating that his "two-tier membership of ‘Constituent Churches’ and ‘Churches in Association’ is brilliant as the heartbeat of a leader who wants to preserve the unity of the Church by accommodating every shred of opinion no matter how unbiblical, all because we want to make everyone feel at home."

They go on to say, "A cancerous lump in the body should be excised if it has defied every known cure. To attempt to condition the whole body to accommodate it will lead to the avoidable death of the patient." This must be taken in the light of the Nigerians attempt to encourage a new American Anglican church for the Evangelical remnant. See the article on the BBC website here, which includes a link to the official statement by the Nigerian Anglican Church.

Amen and amen, brethren.

The Command to Separate from Professed Unbelievers and the Immoral in the Church

Spot the Difference: Balaam Williams and Jezebel Schori - Peas in a Pod

"I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." (Psalm 26:4,5)

The current furore over the appointment of a woman who is supportive of homosexuality and calls Jesus "our mother" to be Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA has led to many within the Episcopalian churches questioning their communion with, and subordination to, such heretics. Amazingly, the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, South Carolina and San Joaquin, CA, have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who holds similar opinions to Schori, to assign them an alternative leader. (See here.) Why do they have a problem with being under Schori's authority, when they don't mind being under Rowan William's authority? What is the difference?

For many generations, evangelical believers and pastors have remained in communion with professed unbelievers who are heretics and/or supportive of, or engaged in, grossly immoral conduct. Is this in obedience to the will of God? What does the Bible teach? It is my opinion that Evangelical Anglicans and others are in clear disobedience of God's commands in this regard. But will they listen and be subject to Christ's sole headship of the Church, or continue to stop up their ears?

If We are Not to Have Company with Disobedient Believers, How Much More Professed Heretics?

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us… And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (2 Thess. 3:6,14-15)

Some may say that these heretics are professed "brethren", but even if they were, we should cut-off communion with them until they repent, if we are obedient to these Scriptures.

We are not to Keep Company with Sexually Immoral "Brethren"

"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner - —not even to eat with such a person… Therefore '‘put away from yourselves the evil person.'’"
(1 Cor. 5:9-12)

We are to Reject Schismatic Heretics after They Reject Admonition

"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11)

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek "αιρεσις", which refers to choosing, i.e. choosing to go another way from the orthodox faith. These are those who divide from the true faith. Let us admonish them once and twice, but if they remain impenitent, we are commanded to reject them. Did Paul mean that we could remain in communion with them, although we "reject" them? In the context of other passages, it is clear that he did not mean this: by rejection he meant excommunicating them.

Christ'’s Words to the Seven Churches of Revelation on Communion with Heretics

The Church of Pergamos was condemned for allowing sexually immoral heretics in their midst and told by Christ to repent (Rev. 2:14-16). "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam'” and 'you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans'”. How different is the Anglican Church and the PCUSA to this?

Also the Church of Thyatira was condemned because they "allow[ed] that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and beguile my servants to commit sexual immorality…" (Rev. 2:20-24) They should not allow a false teacher or one who committed sexual immorality, and encouraged others to do so, to continue to be in their church.

In contrast, despite its own defects, the Ephesian Church was praised because they "hate[d] the deeds of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:6).

Some may argue that as long as they oppose such people within their communion in some way, then they have fulfilled Christ'’s command, but is this enough? They were not to "have them there" in their midst and they were not to "allow" them to continue their practices and teach their heresy in their churches (or be in communion with them?). They were responsible to eject them. If they could not eject them, should they remain in communion with them? Should they not separate themselves? We sin if we allow such in our midst.

The Heretical Church is a Synagogue of Satan and No Church of Christ (Rev. 2:9; 3:9)

Also in the Letters to the Seven Churches, Christ calls assemblies of the OT church "synagogues of Satan", when they denied God'’s truth in Christ. Although they were born into the olive tree, they were now cut-off as being unbelievers, and the same would happen to any Gentiles who professed to be Christians, but who apostasised (Rom. 11:11-29). How can we remain in communion with a "synagogue of Satan"?

We are not to Show Hospitality to Heretics

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." (2 John 9-11)

If we are condemned for receiving heretics into our houses and greeting them, how much worse is it to remain in communion with them and how worse it is not to seek to get them disciplined? Do we not "share in [their] evil deeds"? These were not those who were involved in immoral conduct, but those who "[did] not abide in the doctrine of Christ".

We are to Avoid Heretics and Schismatics

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:17,18)

If we are to avoid those who cause divisions and offences, then how can we remain in communion with them?

Those Who Remain Impenitent and Will Not Listen to the Church are to be Treated as Heathens

"[I]f he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." (Matt. 18:15-20)

Those who profess to be believers and are members of the visible Church must not be allowed to continue in sin. They are to be confronted and eventually disciplined by the Church. (If a church cannot discipline, is it a church? It cannot carry-out one of its institutional functions. This is why discipline is one of the traditional marks of a true church.) If they remain impenitent, they are to be treated as heathens. Can we remain in communion with heretics? Can we say they are brethren and say they are part of the Church? No, we must treat them as if they were no Christians at all, as if they were not part of the Church. We sin if we do not treat them as such.

We are to Come Out from Amongst Professed Unbelievers Rather than Commune with Them

"“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: '‘I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God and they shall be my people.'’

"Therefore '’Come out from among them and be separate,' says the Lord. '’Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.' '‘I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters,'’ says the LORD Almighty." (2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Fundamentally, we are of Christ and unbelievers are of Belial, so what fellowship do we have? How therefore can we be in communion with those with whom we have no real fellowship? How can we be unequally yoked and frustrated in our Christian living and witness? The unchurched see these heretics as "the Church". We should publically separate from them to make a clear distinction.

God'’s clear command to us is to separate ourselves from professed unbelievers (i.e. those who we know reject the Truth), false teachers and those who practice ungodliness in the Church. If we do not, we disobey our gracious Father and our loving Saviour.

"He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me." (John 14:21)

Can Women be Deacons?

Yes and no. It depends what you mean by the term. The office of deacon is seen by some as an equivalent to the Biblical office of ruling elder (e.g. many Baptist congregations), and by others as merely someone who offers a temporal service to the Church in an official capacity, e.g. a caring ministry. If it were the latter, then there wouldn't be a problem with women being deacons, but the Biblical office of deacon is something different and something which most modern evangelicals don'’t even think of: a role of oversight over others who carry out temporal ministries, e.g. caring for the old and sick.

1. We are told in Acts 6:1-5 that the office of deacon was an office "over this business" of distributing food to the widows, which later expanded into other temporal ministries. This is an office of oversight exercised by men, and early Church history (which needs to be used to understand some of these vageries and corroborate our interpretations of different words) shows that it was indeed an office of temporal oversight exercised by men, with others (typically widows, hence 1 Tim. 3:11) exercising the caring ministry under them.

2. When the office was instituted in Acts 6:1-5, all seven deacons were men; not one was a woman.

3. The qualifications for the office in 1 Tim. 3:8-12 are addressed to men. Women are seen as distinct from the deacons ("their" is not in the original, by the way), so clearly the deacons are something other than women - presumably men? They are "the husbands of one wife [who rule] their children and their own houses well".

4. What about Phoebe in Romans 16:1? The office of deacon should not be confused with the Greek word 'διακονος' (diakonos). Phoebe is a 'διακονοςs' at the Church in Cenchrae. This word means a servant, typically one who serves at tables. It is used in that sense throughout the NT, often translated as 'minister' or 'ministry'. It refers also to the specific office of deacon.

Given that the office is referred to as a male one, which 'διακονος' is Phoebe? A deacon, or a servant? It must be a servant. The translation 'deacon' is misleading. All the best translations translate it as 'servant'.

On a positive note, women can and should be active in temporal ministries under the oversight of deacons.

(For more information see this article by Brian Schwertley and also an opposing one by Christian Adjemian. Both of these are well worth reading. I guess I fall between these two opinions.)

Frequency of the Lord’s Supper in the Early Irish Presbyterian Church

“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Acts 2:42)

“So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart…” (Acts 2:46)

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..." (Acts 20:7)

"Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper." (1 Cor. 11:20)

In J.S. Reid’s seminal “History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland”, he mentions the frequency of the Lord’s Supper amongst the early Irish Presbyterians (esp. those who were involved in the great Sixmilewater Revival of 1625), which is at variance with the common practice of partaking the Lord’s Supper merely twice a year.

Robert Blair of Bangor describes his arrangement with Robert Cunningham of Holywood: “[W]e also agreed to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper four times in each of our congregations annually, so that those in both parishes who were thriving in religion did communicate together on all these occasions.” (Vol. 1 p. 115) This means that the more godly had the Lord’s Supper 8 times a year.

John Livingston of Killinchy states a similar practice in his area: “[T]he communion… was celebrated twice in the year… We need not to have the communion oftener, for there were nine or ten parishes within the bounds of twenty miles or little more, wherein were godly and able ministers that kept a society together, and every one of these had the communion twice-a-year, at different times, and had two or three of the neighbouring ministers to help thereat, and most part of the religious people used to resort to the communions of the rest of the parishes.” (Vol. 1 p. 117) Let’s say that these people only went to the communions at which their own preachers ministered, that would mean that they had the Lord’s Supper between 6 and 8 times a year. The relation concerning 9 or 10 parishes probably indicates even greater frequency. (Picture is of John Livingston of Killinchy.)

It may be that the frequency of the Lord’s Supper then degenerated into the twice-yearly tradition of today. This tradition is maintained by the belief that we will get more out of it. (The "Communion Season" also makes the observance cumbersome and is not found in the Apostolic Church.) Which shall we benefit from more overall: a twice-yearly remembrance of Christ’s propitiation, or a more frequent celebration? Would we really become so indifferent?

Without being dogmatic about a weekly Lord’s Supper, which is nearer the NT model of Acts 2: the early Presbyterian model or the current tradition?

What a blessing it would be to come together regularly with other congregations to partake of the communion of the Lord’s Supper! Truly, this would be a blessed manifestation of the oneness of Christ’s body and the communion of the saints. No wonder these men experienced revival!

(For further study, see this article and this one on the OPC website, and this further article. See also Calvin's Institutes Book 4 Chapter 17 Sections 44 - 46. Phil has since mentioned the side-menu relating to the Lord's Supper on Eric Svendsen's blog. Regarding daily vs. weekly see this.)