A Defense of Paedocommunion

The practice of paedocommunion is supported by history and scripture. Here is a brief overview of some of the key points in the debate and a few additional thoughts toward the end.

Historical Quotations

“And that nothing might be wanting to aggravate the crime, infants also, in the arms of their parents, either carried or conducted, lost, while yet little ones, what in the very first beginning of their nativity they had gained. Will not they, when the day of judgment comes, say, ‘We have done nothing; nor have we forsaken the Lord’s bread and cup to hasten freely to a profane contact: the perfidy of others has caused our ruin; we have found our parents our murderers; they have denied to us the Church as a mother, and God as a father’?” St. Cyprian, De Lapsis

In this quotation, Cyprian is aggrieved that parents who have denied the Lord under persecution have also brought their infants to these profane acts. The noteworthiness of this quotation is the assumption that infants were receiving the Lord's Supper.

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that it is anything but an ordinance delivered to us by the apostles. And so, too, with regard to the sacraments which belong to the faithful; for it is not without reason that the Church has retained the practice of administering them to infants.” St. Augustine, Letter 98 (to Boniface)

“He that eats not this bread does not live the spiritual life; for this is the body of Christ… Even infants, when they are baptized, are admitted to this table, so far as their capacity allows.” St. Augustine, Sermon 174

“For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in the Church is not invited to partake of the Lord’s Supper.” St. Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants (Book 1, Chapter 24)

Taking these Augustine quotations as a whole, we clearly see that to his understanding, the practice of infant communion is apostolic; an ordinance delivered to the church by the apostles. He uses the phrase, "so far as their capacity allows" indicating that this is not magical thinking and there is no need to force feed the child bread and wine when he is a few days old, but rather, as the child is able to eat and drink, he is allowed, just as we bring our infants to our dinner tables. 

Calvin acknowledges the above church fathers and concedes that this is what they taught. Calvin's denial of the doctrine rests on a brief mention of I Corinthians 11 which addresses none of the points of those who hold paedocommunion. Rather, despite my love and respect I have for Calvin, he merely asserts his position and does not argue for or prove it from the text.

From my reading of history, there is a strong possibility that the emergence of transubstantiation is what brought about children being barred from the table in the 12th century. If the bread and wine are transubstantiated, then crumbs and drops cannot fall to the ground without dishonoring Christ. Therefore, the cup was removed because spilling is likely. This is one example of changes to the Eucharist that resulted from doctrinal errors surrounding the elements. The emphasis on carefulness with regard to the elements caused the cup to be removed from the congregation and most Christians refused to take the Lord's Supper at all for fear that they would somehow dishonor Christ in the process--unconfessed sin, not handling the bread properly, etc.--and, therefore, if mothers and fathers could not be certain they were partaking properly, how could their infants? 

Notice, however, that this is a departure from the apostolic practice mentioned by St. Augustine, which included infant communion. There is strong evidence that the Catholic Church practiced paedocommunion at least until after St. Augustine (the only question is when they stopped) and the Orthodox Church continues to practice paedocommunion to this day. In other words, the vast majority of Christians have practiced paedocommunion in the history of the church. 

Scriptural

In terms of exegesis, I Corinthians 11 is the key passage in this debate and is far and away the most cited passage to rebut infant communion. While that will take up the majority of this section on scriptural arguments, there are other relevant texts that must be mentioned first.

Exodus 10:9

“We will go with our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters… for we must hold a feast to the Lord.”

For Moses, the fact that God's people were going to hold a feast required that the young be present. If the feasts only included adults, why is the presence of infants a requirement?

Mark 10:13-16 

"And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

Of course, this passage is not about the sacraments, per se. However, Jesus' overall point is that children should be given free access to Him and, more explicitly, the kingdom of God is not for adults as some might think, but for the childlike. And who is childlike, but a child? It is often taught that adults must become as children, having faith in God their Father, and this is true, but this analogy should not obscure the obvious. Namely, that children are well-suited to the kingdom.

Unfortunately, Christians often invert the teaching and build a barrier around the sacraments--baptism for baptists and communion for presbyterians--and argue that children must be able to know and think in an adult manner before being welcomed to Christ. This is an overturning of Christ's words here in Mark 10.

It is often argued that the Lord's Supper is only for those who actively believe and therefore infants cannot partake. But does this hold up to scripture? Can children believe?

There is biblical precedent to say that infants can, indeed, have faith. Three clear examples are David, John the Baptizer, and Timothy. David and Timothy each believed from the nursing breast. Some say--surely, based on a priori rejection of the premise--that these examples are hyperbole. Surely, they say, David and Timothy believed from a young age, but to assert that they had faith as a nursing child is absurd. This is begging the question, however. It proves nothing, but that the exegete approaches the text with presuppositions. In other words, it proves only that the exegete is an eisegete. Psalm 8:2 confirms this interpretation and Jesus quotes from this Psalm, affirming its meaning. "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger."

The mouths of babies and infants are used to silence the enemy. But how can this be, if their utterances are faithless? Surely, this proves that the voices of the children of the saints complete the congregational voice--this is Jesus' implication--which indicates that it is a voice of faith. For whatever is not of faith is sin. 

This covers the possibility of nursing infants being regenerate, but an even more astounding example is that of John the Baptizer. While he was yet in the womb, he leapt for joy when he met the Lord who was also in His mother's womb. If the text merely said that he leapt, it could be explained away. However, it says that he was joyful at meeting the Lord. Now, what many say is that this is exceptional and not normative. Yet, how many examples do we need before it seems to be the opposite? We have three explicit examples of infantile faith, and so if that is not enough, then how many would it take? Would five suffice? Ten? The problem is not a lack of evidence, but the presence of insurmountable presuppositions that dismiss the possibility as absurd despite the biblical data.

Do we know which little ones are regenerated from the womb like John the Baptizer or not? No, but it would be better to let them come so that we might not cause one who believes to sin. We are presbyterians, so we say with our lips that the children are a part of God's family as well, but I believe that we are inconsistent on this point. We say that they belong to God, but we tell them that they cannot eat with us unless they show evidence of it. I do not see this approach/attitude in scripture. In fact, Jesus seems to oppose that attitude by saying that children do not need to mature before coming to him, but rather we ought to become more childlike to approach him.

In God’s economy of justice, it is better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent man. God does not err on any side, but he leans in the direction of inclusion, particularly when it comes to his own people. This is, in principle, what we ought to practice. Jesus warned against causing to sin those little ones who believe in Him. We do not know who they are, but we do know that they exist. 

I Corinthians 11:17-34

“17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1) The text never advises Christians to not take the supper. In other words, whatever our application may be, it cannot be that certain people stop taking the Lord's Supper. The call is to proper partaking, not barring people from the Table. Even for those who are guilty of partaking unworthily, the application is not to stop partaking, but to repent.

2) The emphasis is on repentance in the case that you are degrading the Lord’s supper because you have not understood what you are doing, as was the case in Corinth. Paul is effectively saying, “Look at what you’re doing. You’re dividing the body up using a meal signifying unity. You need to repent of this sin and treat this meal properly by first understanding what it is.”

3) The wrath of God does not fall on true Christians and we presume that our children are true Christians. Many assume that we are protecting people from judgment by barring people from the Table (despite point 1), but the fact is that we are actually keeping many young believers from Christ and the spiritual nourishment for the saints that is found in the Lord's Supper. Christians, being raised in church, who later apostatize and are cut off from Christ will receive a greater judgment, but why would we assume that every child is in this category when we could assume the opposite? This is the same inclination that led to the elements being taken from the laity and wine being excluded, but for the priests. It is illogical and does harm to many of the faithful. 

4) The emphasis on introspection, in the context, would be from left field and would not solve the issue at hand. Again, Paul is talking to particular people doing a particular divisive act and telling them to discern the body--take a look at its unity and purpose--and knock it off. Credocommunion works in precisely the opposite direction from the text and rather argues for division in the body over the Supper. I am arguing that we should not divide up the body, but rather should do what Paul says and give everyone the opportunity, unless under church discipline.

a) An illustration may help. If Paul wrote about how hospitality is a key mark of a Christian and he is challenging people who refuse to let their brothers and sisters come into their homes and he caps off his argument by saying, “You’re not acting like a Christian who understands what the church is. Examine yourselves.” He is clearly not talking about the children being inhospitable and being at risk of being cut off in judgment. He is specifically talking to the people who are not living up to the standard and telling them that they are themselves at risk.

b) In other words, when Paul is addressing a particular sin and tells the people to examine themselves regarding that sin, the application is to examine themselves regarding that sin. We have taken this command and expanded it to include any and all sin, forcing it to work against Paul's application.

5) In context, “an unworthy manner” refers to rampant divisive and unloving behavior. It is not ambiguous, but is rather stated in the text itself. The point is that it would be hypocritical to partake of the Lord's Supper, the meal representing our unity in Christ, while effectively banning Christians from the Table. In Corinth, those barred were the poor, but for us, those barred are the young. The problem is the same: we have created a tiered church in which you must prove yourself to be welcomed at the Table. As mentioned above, biblical justice goes in the other direction; innocent until proven guilty. A similar contradiction is found in Romans 7 where Paul says that the Law is good, but sin takes it and uses it to kill men. The sinful flesh can take something good and use it to bring about death by misapplying it. This is the same thing happening in the early church in Corinth and, unfortunately, it is occurring today. We have taken the Lord's Supper which signifies our unity with God and man--wheat grains and grapes ground up together and made into one, unified finished product--and we have used this gift of unification to force divisions via a tiered body. 

6) The concluding argument confirms this intention: “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment”. So the application is that when they come together they should do so in love and unity. The emphasis is manifestly not on introspection, but on the unity of the body of Christ.

7) Just before this chapter Paul says that the people of Israel drank from the rock and ate manna from heaven which is, by (Paul's) analogy, the Lord’s Supper. The infants did not die of starvation or thirst, but in many of our churches they do, in fact, die of neglect in the very same way.

8) If children are baptized into the body of Christ, they ought to be treated as members of the family of God rather than immediately placed in probation or in the same category as those under church discipline.

Further Comments

Baptism is an anointing or a setting apart of the priesthood. That is why we are a nation of priests. Priests eat the sacrifices. Babies are baptized. Babies are sanctified into the priesthood. Babies should eat and drink. I am not arguing that babies ought to be pastors, obviously. I am leaning on the idea of the priesthood of all believers. They are called saints (I Cor. 7:14), so I believe that we should treat them as such. To argue that children are a part of the priestly nation--or the family of God--yet that they should not be allowed to eat the meal given to them, is absurd. 

Taking communion from certain covenant members leaves us with an anemic view of baptism. What is it even for? What does it even do? If it brings one into the family, then that means something. What exactly does that mean? Are children part of the church or not? If someone has been adopted into God’s family, it seems to me that they ought to be eating the family meal.

I have asked Presbyterian ministers what baptism does and have received very little. One man told me that he baptizes infants because he believes the Bible tells him to, but it is hard to really say anything in terms of what baptism is actually for. This might sound silly, but the problem is that if he begins to say much more than that, he will be forced either to contradict himself or welcome children to the Table.

We ought to be able to say with full confidence that baptism grafts one into Christ; into the family of God.

Jesus himself said that a father gives food to his children (Mt. 7:9-11). Are my children His children? And if my children are God's children, then should He not give them the food they need?

The unity of the church is directly related to the Lord’s Supper. Just prior to the key text (I Cor. 11) Paul emphasizes the unity of the church in terms of taking communion together (I Cor. 10:16-17). So, are the children a part of the church or not? If my children are sanctified by the blood of the covenant (I Cor. 7:14, Heb. 10:29), then they are not under the wrath of God and this warning of drinking judgment upon them is not applicable unless they are later cut off. However, we do not place our children in a position of presumptive church discipline. Instead, it is far more plausible to view the warnings as being directed at people who have committed the sin being outlined in the text. For these people who are showing bad fruit, it behooves them to examine themselves. With that being said, it bears repeating that even for those people, the application is to repent, not to cease from partaking. Nowhere in the text is anyone barred.

The faith of infants is infantile, just as we would expect. The way they communicate is infantile. The way they trust their parents is infantile. However, we all know from experience that children trust their parents. Children communicate. The question is not whether they do, but what it looks like. The problem that we often run into is that we define faith in rationalistic terms rather than biblical terms. If Timothy believed (had faith) from the breast, then we simply cannot define it in terms of one's ability to lay out the gospel in good order. Rather, faith means trust. Babies trust. The duty of parents is to nurture that infantile, immature faith into something with strong roots as the child grows. 

All children trust their parents inherently and will not begin questioning them until they approach adolescence. When we train our children to confess their sins and believe that Christ forgives the penitent, then we are nurturing faith. 

But they cannot understand, right? We speak English to our babies as soon as they are born--and even in the womb--because, despite the fact that they have no understanding, they are shaped and formed into native speakers. They will learn grammar one day, but we speak to them in English because we are presuming that it will shape them in the long term. And it does. Studies have shown that infants begin to be shaped by language patterns before they are even born. Non-native languages are more distressing to newborns because they are already familiar with the patterns of their native tongue. It is the same in God’s family. We are nurtured and trained prior to understanding and we would be well-suited to, as it were, speak to our children before they can understand and to feed them before they understand how digestion works. 

My guess is that the vast majority of people who do partake of the Lord's Supper each week would not have a thorough understanding of 1) the gospel and 2) the Lord's Supper. I do not suggest that we bar them from the Table, but that we train them up in true faith. God welcomes the little children. May we welcome them as well.