Congratulations, brave reader! You’ve clicked on an article that is sure to make the eyeballs in some in reformed circles twitch with distain. Here, I will commence discussing a topic that has been controversial since the days of the reformation, yet, I for one am immensely thankful that you have embarked on this journey with me!

In an effort to catch the reader up to speed, let me give a little background on how I came to this topic.

A few years ago I was asked by a good friend if I had read Doug Wilson’s book To A Thousand Generations. I said that I hadn’t, because, well, I’m already a Presbyterian. At any rate - in the course of our conversation he asked if I had ever looked into Paedocommunion. I said that I had not, but that I know it is wrong, and a distortion of what communion is. He rebutted, asking if I had studied the issue, or if my perspective was merely from my experience in my church. I responded that I had not studied it on my own, but that perhaps I ought to. His concluding remark was, “What’s the harm? If its wrong, it’ll still be wrong after you’ve looked into it.”

His comment was probing, and true. What’s the harm in studying something? If it’s wrong it’ll stay wrong, and if it’s correct, don’t I want to follow the truth, no matter where it leads? Thus began my inquiry into the matter. Although I was studying Paedocommunion, I chose not to listen to or read the typical Paedocommunion guys, mostly because the people in my circles had serious problems them. Men like, Leithart, Wilson, Jordan, Sproul Jr. et al. were on the no no list, and I didn’t want my results to get the “well, yano, you read the wrong people” critique. Instead I chose to look into men that the leaders in my circles would approve of. Men like Vos, Williamson, Lillback, Rayburn, Turretin, Augustine et al. The fascinating thing about my study, however, was that both the OPC and the PCA each had significant arguments for the practice of Paedocommunion. Paedocommunion was shown to be the practice of the early church till the 16th century, and this of course culminated in the conclusion that the logical biblical witness is that little children belong at the Lord’s table.

In my theological studies for church history, I was instructed to write a paper on a reformational theological figure and a particular doctrine that he held. For this assignment I chose Wolfgang Musculus and his doctrine of paedocommunion. What follows is that paper, along with added notes appropriate only for a blog article and not an academic paper.

Introduction

The Lord’s Supper, Communion, the Eucharist, Holy Mass, the Breaking of the Bread, the Eucharistic Celebration, and the Memorial of the passion. The church’s celebration of the remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ death goes by many names, but no matter what it’s called, all Christians regard this celebration as one of the most important, most significant, and most vital elements of the church’s life. No matter the tradition, the name, the country, or time period, all Christians since the time of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, have participated in Communion and have done so out of reverence and obedience to their Lord and for the proclamation of his glorious death and resurrection.

If Christians of all times and places hold the Supper to such high esteem, the question that naturally surfaces, is, why is there such a glaring fissure that divides that church? Why are there such divergent beliefs concerning this most glorious of celebrations? There are, of course, varying beliefs as to what is happening when one partakes of the supper, whether it’s a bare memorial of Christ’s death, or whether God is actually bestowing grace to the individual. But that isn’t the fissure I’m speaking of here, because, with these, one could joyfully celebrate others who are not likeminded on this issue. One can believe God is giving him special grace, immediately next to someone who believes he is merely remembering Christ’s death and nothing more. Unity and fellowship have not necessarily been lost – these people can exist together in peace, both worshiping Christ according to conscience, believing they have been faithful to Christ. Since this is the case, it is clear then that we are concerned with a different kind of fissure, an even deeper fault line that divides the church rather than unites her.

We’re concerned with the more pressing question regarding the participants in the Supper. Here, our interests are focused on “who may partake?” rather than “what does it mean to partake?” This question is indeed more pressing, because if we aren’t granting admittance to all those for whom Christ has given his body and blood, it will avail little to the church because only a scant bunch will be benefiting, rather than the entire body, which inevitably results in a corporately weak and emaciated frame. Unity of the body, after all, was the chief concern for Paul when he said, “the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 emphasis mine). Therefore, when the church divides that one loaf and segments the body because she has decided some belong and others do not, we actually destroy the very thing for which Christ died: unity.

What is Paedocommunion?

Simply, paedocommunion is the practice of giving the Lord’s Supper to those children within the church who are baptized into Christ. Unlike most churches which have a ceremony such as a coming-of-age ritual in the Episcopal church, first holy communion in the Catholic church, a credible profession of faith in the Presbyterian church, and even the requirement for a credible profession of faith in the Baptist church, those who practice paedocommunion do not have any of these rituals or requirements, but only require the child be baptized into covenant with God, as required by God. Paedocommunists regard infant baptism just as Geerhardus Vos did, as the profession of the child’s faith, by virtue of the father bringing the child to the Lord.[1]

Those who support and believe in Paedocommunion reject what is commonly called an “age of discretion.” Generally speaking, most churches will begin to permit the young ones in their midst to partake of the Lord’s supper around the age of 14, after a credible profession of faith. This standard, however, does not find its roots in God’s word. It is common to hear advocates of an age of discretion say that it is important to know that the children understand what they’re saying before they come to the table, or that when they’re younger they are incapable of articulating their faith properly or to the satisfaction of the elders. Again, however, the thought of the children of believers being required to make a "“profession of faith” akin to what adult converts do, finds no home in scripture. This is therefore a tradition without a biblical argument. The children of believers are no where required to profess faith before receiving the blessings of the covenant, and there is nowhere in scripture that rejects the idea that infants cannot have legitimate faith and be in union with Christ to receive those covenantal blessings and gifts.

Paedocommunion rests upon the belief that when a child is baptized into Christ – as is vigorously defended by Presbyterians – he is actually baptized into Christ. In Presbyterian circles there seems to be somewhat of a speaking out of both sides of the mouth. The status of covenant children is often disputed: Are they believers? Nonbelievers? Are they only “outwardly” in the covenant? Are they “in the church,” but not yet “in Christ?” These questions are rarely explicitly asked, but they exist in the background in reformed churches. What theses questions create is a two-tiered view of membership within the church where some people are full-fledged members and receive all the covenantal blessings based upon their own ability to articulate doctrine to the satisfaction of leadership, and another tier of membership that gets to be a part of the covenant body but in a far more secluded, tangential, and minor sense. On the one hand Presbyterians agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith when it says that baptism is for the admission of the party baptized into the visible church, and they will read the confession in its entirety, but on the other hand they will tacitly disagree with the same statement when it comes time to apply it to real life. What the Westminster Confession says in full is,

“Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.[2] (emphasis mine)

So, whenever a person is baptized, all of these realities are signified in that baptism, which represents – as recorded in the Directory of Publik Worship – the very blood of Christ.[3]

Part two will follow on December 9th, 2024

[1] Reformed Dogmatics

[2] Westminster Confession of Fatih 28.1

[3] Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing,
“That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ (emphasis mine)