Considering Paedocommunion in Church History

While I was in seminary the topic of paedocommunion (infants receiving communion) was largely unaddressed. I may have overheard a conversation or two, but it was very much under the radar. During my time in the ARP, the subject was not even on the map. While candidating for a position in a PCA church in New Jersey, the retired minister who was their stated supply encouraged me to study this subject (and I thought “why?!”).

Now that I am in the PCA it is time. There are pastors who hold to this view, though they are not permitted to practice it. One of my elders read Children at the Lord’s Table? by Cornelius Venema so I decided to read it for myself.

“Though it is true that the church’s practice ought to be formed by the teaching of the Scriptures, which are the supreme standard for faith and practice, the Reformed churches read the Scriptures in the company of the whole church and may not ignore the lessons of history.”

The first argument for paedocommunion that Venema examines is the argument from church history. As noted above, sola scriptura is about our final authority regarding practice. Properly applied we also examine church history and historical theology to see how the church has thought and acted in the past. We recognize that the Spirit has been instructing the church in the meaning of the Scriptures for 2,000 years. We don’t start from scratch. But not all the church has thought or done has been in accord with the Scriptures.

Those arguing for infant communion assert an early and widespread practice of infant communion. They claim that the western church has departed from this practice and should return to the practice. Venema examines this claim first. He notes the ample early evidence for infant baptism (he depends upon Jeremias’ work). The evidence for infant communion is note nearly as strong or as early. The first clear statement affirming the practice of infant communion is from Cyprian in the middle of the 3rd century. Prior to this we find statements indicating the church did not practice infant communion. For instance, Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) says that “no one is allowed to partake but the man (person) who believes that the things which we teach are true…” (First Apology). So the practice he was familiar with was communion after a period of instruction in the faith. Clement of Alexandria (150-219) also teaches that those who receive it have been instructed and receive it “by faith” in Instructor and The Stromata. In the east, Origen, also says that children were not given communion in his Homilies on the Book of Judges.

The first evidence of the practice of infant communion is Cyprian’s treatise On the Lapsed in 250. The issue was the children of Christians during the Decian persecutions. The church was unsure how to treat them after the persecutions when many families stopped practicing their faith to avoid persecution. The question he posed was do they remember having received communion? Their absence from the table was due to their parents’ lack of faith, not their own. This implies that the practice in his part of the world, at least those under his care as bishop, was to practice infant communion.

However, his contemporary in Syria who wrote Didascalia confirms the practice of admitting only those properly instructed to the Table in Palestine.  This indicates that the practice was unknown in the land from which Christ came. This region probably preserved the earliest practice of the church. While it was practiced in Cyprian’s region, it was not universally practiced at that time.

“[t]hey are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves.” Augustine

There is a big shift in the time of Augustine. There was much that Augustine wrote that was great. The Reformers pointed to him to show that their doctrines were not novel interpretations of the Scriptures. But his sacramental theology was not one of his finest contributions to the church. Augustine viewed baptism as a regenerating ordinance: the erroneous view of baptismal regeneration that would be rejected by the Reformers. The view of ex opere operato (“by the work performed”) was being developed and applied. This put the power of the sacrament in the sacrament itself, and not dependent upon faith at all. Because baptized children were considered regenerate, they were considered proper recipients of the Table to nourish their spiritual life.

Augustine appeals to John 6 to make his point. We must eat of His flesh and blood to have life. What Augustine does not mention, but John Piper does, is that the main issue is faith. This is about believing in the Christ, and eating and drinking is a metaphor for faith- utter dependence upon Christ! Instead, this text is distorted to develop sacerdotalism- the view that salvation is thru the sacraments which is the view of both Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day. The practice of infant communion which became dominant in both branches of the church and is still practiced in the East is founded upon the error of sacerdotalism (the practice of infant baptism, on the other hand, predates sacerdotalism). It is important for advocates of infant communion to keep this in mind when trying to base their views on church history.

The Roman Church began to discourage infant communion (indeed to withhold the cup even from adults) as the doctrine of transubstantiation (the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the body of and blood of Jesus) became popular and then was made dogma at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. They feared the contamination of the body and blood of Jesus by spilling or dropping it. The Eastern Church, which did not embrace transubstantiation, continued the practice of infant communion and does to to this day. The Roman church began to instruct children prior to admitting them to the Table.

During the Reformation, the only groups practicing infant communion in the west were the Armenian church and the Hussites in Bohemia. While the Reformers had disagreements about the nature of the table (consubstantiation <-> real, spiritual presence <-> memorial), they were in agreement on the issue of who many be admitted (though terminology differed). Those instructed, making a profession of faith, were admitted to the Table.

“… to awaken, arouse, stimulate, and exercise the feeling of faith and love, indeed, to correct the defect of both.” John Calvin

Calvin addresses the issue in The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Oddly enough, he defends the practice of the Reformed Church from the charges of inconsistency made by the Anabaptists which continue to be made by Calvinistic Baptists and Reformed Paedocommunionists. There is nothing new under the sun. Whereas baptism is something done to us, communion is something we participate in by faith- we eat and drink believing something about it. He argues it requires faith in response to the Word. Faith makes the sacraments effective, not the performance of them. Apart from faith their is no benefit from them (credo baptists can look at my arguments for infant baptism to see why we still baptism them). The sacraments do differ in this: baptism is the sign of inclusion while the Table is a sign of nourishment. This difference explains the difference in practice. One (for infants) calls to faith, the other is practiced in faith.

“Any assessment, for example, may not ignore the close connection between a growing sacramentalism, which viewed baptism as a means of granting new birth to its recipients, and the admission of children to the Lord’s Table.”

Church history shows that infant communion was practiced. Its practice was not as common as infant baptism in the early church. It was not widespread until the time of Augustine, and its practice in both east and west is connected to sacerdotalism. Church history, perhaps, shows more than the advocates of paedocommunion want it to show. It shows the practice, but one grounded on a faulty view of salvation. This however is not the only argument made for, or against, infant communion.