One of the distinguishing features of the American and Canadian Reformed churches is their practice of admission to the Lord’s Supper. Unlike some other Protestant denominations, these churches instruct their consistories to “admit to the Lord’s Supper only those who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and lead a godly life” (CO Art 61). Members in good standing in a local congregation are invited to participate; members of sister-churches whose doctrine and conduct are commended by a formal attestation may be admitted also. These provisions, intended to preserve both the sanctity of the sacrament and the spiritual wellbeing of all concerned, have characterized the celebration in Reformed churches of Dutch background for centuries, and maybe traced to their formative years. Already before the Synod of Dordt in 1618, several conventions of the Dutch Reformed churches determined to maintain a biblical and apostolic practice regarding the Lord’s Supper.

A Rash Approach⤒🔗

In fact, well before the Dutch churches dealt formally with admission to the table, the Reformers considered the question, “who may attend the supper of the Lord?” For Romanist practices were evoking overzealous reactions in some reforming congregations, and the requirement of confessing one’s sins to the priest before attending mass was being replaced by indiscriminate admission in some cities. In Strasbourg, for example, John Calvin observed that “many individuals were in the habit of making a rash approach to the sacrament,” while in Geneva “everyone wanted to partake by their own choice, even though the faith and conviction of most of them was unknown to us.”¹ The Dutch refugee congregations in London were subject to this tendency too, for Marten Micronius, one of the ministers there, notes “how few people examine themselves properly before coming to the table of the Lord,” and he worries that it may be turned into a “pig-trough.” ²

The Reformers had good reason to be concerned about such carefree participation, and they took seriously the warning of 1 Corinthians 11:28-9:

Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment unto himself.

Given this text, Martin Bucer asks, “how would it be permissible for ministers of salvation of God’s elect to offer these most holy mysteries of salvation to those whose faith and piety they did not know?” ³ Micronius refers to the following verse of Scripture, where we read that the Corinthians suffered illness and even death because some profaned the body and blood of the Lord. Just imagine, Calvin writes, “how wretched would be the state and condition of the church if she could be compelled to receive to the partaking in so great a mystery, those of whom she is altogether ignorant” (Letters, 1.185).

A Gift of God’s Mercy←⤒🔗

On the other hand, the Reformers also knew that the sacrament is a gift of God’s mercy to strengthen the faith of believers and therefore may not be avoided lightly. The Lord Jesus Christ instituted the supper with the command to “do this in remembrance” of Him and thereby to proclaim his death (1 Corinthians 11:23-6). No one may seek to hinder God’s grace by means of extra biblical restrictions. Such hindrances occurred in the Roman Catholic mass, which required a formal absolution of sins. What is more, laypersons were prohibited altogether from the communion of the cup. There were also Anabaptist radicals whose perfectionist view of worthy participation led them to bar eligible people from the sacrament. Other believers abstained from the table out of an extreme sense of unworthiness. Calvin reminded such people that the table is for all of us who, despite the infirmities of our faith, “feel in our heart that, without hypocrisy and deceit, we hope for salvation in Christ, and desire to live according to the rule of the gospel.”⁴ In other words, all who have true faith and repentance are worthy partakers in Christ.

It was clear to the Reformers that restoring a proper practice of admission to the table would have to be based upon the entire counsel of God, his revealed Word. In the sixteenth century, several doctrines of the Romanist church were causing the Supper to be misunderstood and misused. False teaching about justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the authority and duties of the ordained offices – to mention only three – were affecting the sacrament wrongly. Thus not only was the institution of the Supper, as recorded in Matthew 26:26-29 and further explained in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32, studied afresh, but so too the roles of the individual and the church regarding the sacraments. Mutual Christian reproof (Matthew 18:15-18), proper self-examination, ecclesiastical oversight (Acts 20:28), and other matters relevant to the privilege of attending the Supper of the Lord were re-examined. Consequently, the Reformers’ writings on admission to the sacrament are littered with references to the Bible and the church fathers.

The Duty of the Elders←⤒🔗

The decisions of the early Dutch synods were based on these biblical teachings as put into practice especially by Calvin and Bucer. For example, Calvin relates the biblical warning that no one eat and drink judgment unto himself to the teaching that elders heed the flock that is their charge (1 Peter 5:2-4). While each believer must examine himself, the elders also must see to it that the sacraments are not defiled.

In the Institutes Calvin suggests that “lest this most hallowed mystery be disgraced, discretion is very much needed” in the distribution of the bread and the cup (4.12.5).

For some may come forward rashly and unwittingly profane the sacrament; therefore admitting “all and sundry without discrimination is a contempt which the Lord cannot tolerate,” he writes, and “no-one therefore ought to take it ill, when his Christian faith is tested at least very carefully when he is to be admitted to the sacrament.” ⁵

Bucer concurs, stating that ministers should distribute the elements “only to those whom they know to be holy and blameless according to the Word of the Lord” (Kingdom, 236).

The consistory in Geneva began to request all who wished to partake of the sacrament to declare their faith publicly. “That is to say,” the order for the French country churches explains, everyone “must declare before the minister that he desires to live according to the reformation of the gospel, and that he knows the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, etc.”(79). The Geneva catechism, composed to help one prepare for this declaration, states that pastors may not “admit everyone always and without discrimination,” for if they did the celebration “cannot be done without affront and profanation of the sacrament” (139). Restriction of access is not a trivial matter, however, and cannot be exercised by one person. The catechism teaches that such actions must follow the “legitimate enquiry and decision of the church,” and by means of a “certain order of government” elders should “bar from communion those whom they do not believe to be capable of receiving the Supper or to be able to be admitted without profaning the sacrament” (139). Stated positively, the elders must promote a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper and encourage due self- examination.

This duty of the consistory extended to those who were unknown to the congregation. The Geneva church order of 1541 states that on “the Sunday before the celebration, intimation is to be made ... that all strangers and newcomers may be exhorted first to come and present themselves at the church” (67). Elsewhere Calvin admits that such an announcement may be misinterpreted by some as too restrictive and reminiscent of Romanist custom. Indeed, he advises, “what we have most to guard against is this, lest the common people ... may think themselves brought back under a new servitude” (Letters, 1.184). It must be explained carefully to all that this practice “in no way derogates from our Christian liberty, since I enjoin nothing whatever that Christ himself has not appointed” (185). Extending the privilege of the table to those who have true faith and demonstrate a life of repentance is an act of pastoral love and not tyranny.

Evidence of True Repentance←⤒🔗

Like Calvin, Bucer taught that ministers must “have evidence of true repentance for sins and a solid faith in Christ the Lord” (Kingdom 237) from those to whom they distribute the elements. And to him, too, it was only logical that those who publicly state their subservience to the Lord Jesus Christ should willingly submit to the supervision of the church. Therefore he made the “confirmation” or profession of faith a more formal component in the life of the congregation. This confirmation entailed a pledge of obedience to Christ; it also entailed an explicit submission to ecclesiastical discipline. The importance of discipline for Bucer cannot be overstated, and it was from him as well as from Calvin that the Dutch Reformed churches developed the close relation between sacrament and pastoral oversight. It is due to Bucer’s influence also that they adopted the practice of requiring a public profession of faith as prerequisite to attending the sacrament. In fact, the earliest form for profession of faith in Dutch-speaking Reformed churches, the London Form for Admitting Youth to the Lord’s Supper, includes questions about the chief points of religion, a declaration to renounce the ways of the world and to live for Christ, and a statement of willingness to give and receive Christian admonition according to the discipline of the church.

Admission to the Table←⤒🔗

In the Netherlands, the first significant formal gathering of Reformed churches was the Convent of Wesel, held in November of 1568. It made the following decisions about admission to the table. “No-one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper, except he who has professed the faith in advance, and submitted himself to ecclesiastical discipline. Those desiring to be admitted to the Supper shall submit their names to the minister eight days before the appointed day of the Supper.”⁶ Following the elders’ due investigation into the former life and intentions of the persons involved, it would be determined whether to proceed to examination and profession.

Those who have been examined duly, whether youths or adults, shall take their place in the front of the congregation on the day before the Supper celebration, and when the chief points of the faith and religion have been put to them, they shall be requested to give assent. At the same time they shall submit themselves to the ecclesiastical discipline, and their names shall be recorded in the public registers. And finally, they shall be presented to the people so that, unless there is a good reason against it, they may be admitted to the table on the following day (29).

Simply put, it was at Wesel that the Dutch churches adopted the practice of Geneva, Strasbourg, and London: admission to the Lord’s Supper via public profession of faith.

In 1574, at the so-called provincial synod of Dordt, this practice was clarified and refined. Thus it was determined that the Lord’s Supper may not be celebrated in places where no “form of congregation exists.” The reasoning was that the celebration may occur only in the context of the congregation, which includes ordained officebearers responsible for admission to, and administration of, the sacrament. In line with this reasoning the national synod of Dordt (1578) stated that the supper may not be held in places where no church order has been established (250). In fact, the form for the celebration used currently in American and Canadian Reformed churches derives from one that is a section of a church order, the German Palatinate order of 1563. Seen in context, the substance of the form relates to the proclamation of the gospel, baptism, catechism, church discipline, and other matters treated in the church order. In effect, the institution of a new, Reformed congregation was manifested by the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. And one’s membership in a congregation was shown by one’s participation in the sacrament. So, when the national synod of Middelburg (1581) agreed that it would be “profitable for all churches to keep a book in which the names of those who attend the Lord’s Supper are recorded,” ⁷it recognized that full membership is “communicant” membership.

Profession and Life←⤒🔗

In the first decades of the history of the Dutch Reformed churches, then, admission to the Lord’s Supper was granted to those who had been examined by the consistory, publicly professed their faith, and submitted themselves to the oversight of the consistory. It should be noted, however, that the early Dutch churches also adopted the Reformers’ insistence that the profession of faith be supported by a life of repentance. The synod of Middelburg makes this requirement explicit:

No-one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper, except he who according to the custom of the church to which he joins himself has given profession of the Reformed religion, at the same time giving evidence of a pious walk of life (392).

From this text it is easy to see the vintage of the first statement of Article 61 in our Church Order: the consistory admits “to the Lord’s Supper only those who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and lead a godly life.”

Guests and Newcomers←⤒🔗

Regarding guests and newcomers to the Supper there is little evidence from the sixteenth-century synods. Two decisions, however, are worthy of note. The first concerns the acceptance of believers from elsewhere.

The 1578 synod of Dordt established that “those who come from other churches with letters of attestation shall be admitted without making a new profession of faith; but those who have neither written nor oral testimony from trustworthy persons shall not be admitted to the table”(250).

Part of this text may remind readers of the second statement in Article 61 of the modern order: “members of sister- churches shall be admitted on the ground of a good attestation concerning their doctrine and conduct.” The phrase “sister-churches” does not appear in this or any other sixteenth-century decision on admission to the table, for it is a qualification of a later period when the federation of Reformed churches was established more formally.

The second relevant decision is the one of the synod of Middelburg quoted earlier; the full text reads:

No-one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper, except he who according to the custom of the church to which he joins himself has given profession of the Reformed religion, at the same time giving witness of a pious walk of life – without which also those who come from other churches shall not be admitted(392).

The original Dutch text makes it clear that both profession of faith and evidence of a life of repentance are required for granting admission to the table. It should also be noted that the identity of “other churches” is not specified. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the phrase refers to those congregations which were participating in the regional and national synods of the developing union. Yet it may also point to churches with which there was as yet no increasingly formal relationship. One should remember that at this time the state of the growing federation in the lowlands was far from constant. In some regions the churches were being persecuted, in others they were in hiding, while changing political fortunes affected them all. And individual believers were arriving in the lowlands from Germany, France, England, and elsewhere. There is also some reason to believe that the decision may concern Christians coming from non-Reformed churches, as the exact phrase “profession of the Reformed religion” suggests. And lastly, the imprecise wording of “other churches” in this and the previously quoted decision permitted an individual application and avoided the risk of being too restrictive.

North American Application←⤒🔗

Let us conclude this brief survey of the practice of admission to the table in the early Dutch Reformed churches by applying it to the current situation in North America. During the nineteenth century there was a time when too many people stayed away from the table of the Lord from a pious sense of unworthiness. In the twentieth century notions of individual rights, freedom from corporate responsibility, and self-assertion affected the attitudes of many towards the privilege of partaking of the sacrament. According to one observer of the contemporary scene, “the danger today in most Protestant churches is ... to demean the sacrament to a meaningless rite offered indiscriminately to anyone.” ⁸ This may be due to the weakening of church discipline in “a spirit of relativism and indifference, and a false understanding of ‘charity’ and Christian freedom” (163). Fortunately, however, the Reformed churches are able to benefit from the labour and experience of their ancestors in the age of Reformation. As another observer puts it, “we have received a valuable heritage from the sixteenth century and we would do well not to be ashamed of it.”⁹