To Commune or Not Commune: A Few Thoughts on Paedocommunion

In the last couple of decades certain people have introduced and reintroduced the topic of paedocommunion — the practice of infant or child communion. For me, this is largely an unwanted controversy that interrupts the peace to which Christ has consecrated his church. It’s unfortunate that entire households have been misled by obscuring the Bible and plain teaching of Reformed theology, neither of which welcome infants to the Lord’s Supper. Unwanted as the controversy is, at its heart is the question: Who may come to the Lord’s Table?

To be clear, paedocommunion is not about the appropriate age in which someone can, by a profession of faith, participate in the Lord’s Supper. Rather, it’s the teaching that covenant children have the right to be baptized and by their baptism are entitled to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Peter Leithart defined it in this way: “Nothing more than the rite of water baptism is required for a person to have access to the Lord’s table.” For paedocommunionists that’s the criteria, and those who are baptized, infants as they are, are welcomed to the supper.

This matter is not insignificant. In the Ten Commandments, God declared: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7). We often think of this command in relation to using God’s name as an expletive — and, certainly, it’s blasphemy to do so. But this command doesn’t only moderate our vocabulary it also directs our approach to the sacrament. Why? Because the supper bears the name of the Lord — it’s the Lord’s supper (see 1 Cor. 11:20). Great care needs to be shown that his name is not profaned as we observe the ordinance. The Corinthians learned this lesson in a severe way, as the Apostle said some of them were sick and even died because of an unworthy participation (1 Cor. 11:30). God still does not hold them guiltless who profanes his name and ordinances.

Reformed theology, especially as it’s expressed in its confessional statements, stands against the practice of paedocommunion — insisting that worthy participation requires faith, confession, and examination. The clearest refutation of the practice is found in the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q&A 177): “The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves” (see also Belgic Confession Article 35, Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 81, and Westminster Confession of Faith 29.7). Here, the participation of infants and the youngest children is explicitly denied, it's not even an open issue.

The greatest representatives of the Reformed tradition have also strongly opposed paedocommunion. They have done so for two reasons. Spiritually, infants are incapable of meeting the requirements necessary for a worthy participation. For example, John Calvin was not ignorant that “permission was indeed commonly given in the ancient church” for the practice, but said: “The custom has deservedly fallen into disuse” and that the supper was “given to older persons who, having passed tender infancy, can now take solid food.” In defense, Calvin wrote: “For with respect to baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age. But he does not similarly hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but only those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience and proclaiming the Lord’s death” (Institutes 4.16.30).

Another reason infants are excluded from the sacrament is their physical inabilities. Quite literally, an infant is incapable of receiving bread and the cup in the manner Jesus has instituted in the Lord’s Supper. The Dutch theologian Herman Witsius believed the arguments for infant communion were "very easily refuted," and wrote: "But the supper is the sacrament of nutrition by means of solid food; to the partaking whereof, the communicants are required to perform certain actions both by the body and the soul, of which infants are incapable." Rightly, he concluded: “All the words of our Lord’s command, [with respect to this sacrament] are so expressed, that they cannot belong to infants, who can neither receive the bread, nor eat it, unless it be chewed for them or soaked […] Infants cannot examine themselves, nor discern the Lord’s body, nor shew his death, all which we have just heard, the apostle requires of communicants” (Economy of the Covenants 4.17.31-32).

In fact, the only Reformed advocate for paedocommunion I have encountered was Wolfgang Musculus (d. 1563). With great respect to the ancient Fathers, Musculus approved of infants participating in the supper even though he did not accept the ancient reasoning, and briefly gave his own rationale for their inclusion. However, Musculus did not favor reintroducing the practice in the church, writing: “Nor will I strive, if it be said that for some incommodities, it is better that they should not be brought to the communion of the Church: but as for that whether it be lawful or no, that they may be admitted unto it, my opinion is, that it may be talked upon by wise men and discretely learned in Christ, so that it be done with a convenient temperance, and without all contentious reasoning” (Common Places of the Christian Religion, p. 764).

For a confessional theology this isn’t a minor point. The practice of paedocommunion rewrites a significant portion of the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments — it conflates distinctions between baptism and the supper, it redefines worthy recipients, it reimagines the benefits received, and it decreases the responsibilities of communicants. Yank this thread and you begin to unravel the whole confessional doctrine. It’s hard to think that proponents of paedocommunion could have a confessional view of the Lord’s Supper in any meaningful way.

Of course, the value of Reformed confessionalism depends on its agreement with the Scriptures. Are the above mentioned conclusions of the confessions, catechisms, and representative theologians warranted, or are they in need of being reformed by the Bible?

It’s important to recognize that the Lord’s Supper does not have a single counterpart in the Old Testament. Often the analogy is made between Passover and the Lord’s Supper. That’s appropriate since Jesus instituted the supper at the time of the Passover Feast, but Passover alone is not the precursor to the sacrament of the new covenant. Rather, the Lord’s Supper draws significance and meaning from all of the Old Testament feasts and covenant meals.

For example, when Jesus declared: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28, see also Heb. 9:19-22), he’s clearly connecting the supper to the events of Exodus 24 when Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of the covenant, and he together with the seventy elders ate and drank in the presence of God (verse 11). This covenant meal prefigures, in an important way, the Lord’s Supper and it’s worth noticing that not every member of Israel participated in it.

The same could be said of other Old Testament covenant meals and feasts. Many of these restricted participation in particular ways. Membership in the covenant did not guarantee access or inclusion in every ordinance. That is to say, at times rules of participation were determined for individual ordinances (see e.g. Lev. 2:3, 10, 5:13, 6:16-18, Numb. 18:9, 11-19, Deut. 16:1-17, etc). One could not apply the regulations of one to the other, but needed to look for the specific requirements of a particular rite.

This is true of the Lord’s Supper which is not simply the counterpart to a single meal — like Passover — but of all covenant meals, and, in fact, the whole sacrificial system. As Cornelis Venema wrote: “The Lord’s Supper is a new covenant observance that commemorates Christ’s sacrificial death, which is the fulfillment of all the types and ceremonies of the law, especially the sin and guilt offerings of the old covenant” (Children at the Lord’s Table? p. 87). Therefore, no single Old Testament meal can determine who may participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Where do we go to find the Bible’s instructions concerning participation in the Lord’s Supper? Most obviously, the Apostle’s instructions to the Corinthians. In that place, Paul prescribes: “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11: 27). Paul’s use of “whoever” does not limit this instruction, but universalizes it — any and all who partake of the Lord’s Supper must do so in a worthy manner. That worthy manner includes personal reception of both elements (verse 26), an active remembrance of Jesus (verses 25-26), self-examination (verse 28), and the ability to discern the Lord’s body (verse 29). Simply, it requires both physical and spiritual capabilities that are not present and cannot be accomplished by infants.

The table of the Lord has a cherished place in the church because it bears his name — it’s the Lord’s Table. As King and Head of the Church he determines who may come and in what manner they may come. In a way that is fitting to the nature and received benefits of the sacrament, Jesus has instituted the supper to be received by worthy participants meeting the requirements of Scripture — and this means only those as are of years and ability to examine themselves. To do otherwise, puts any unworthy participant in danger because God will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.