On Paedocommunion Pt 2 - The History of Paedocommunion

History of Paedocommunion

In our modern day, nearly two thousand years since Christ’s death, paedocommunion is not a doctrine that generally makes it to the top of a parishioner’s study list. There are several reasons for this, but one glaring reason is the fact that for the vast majority of churches, the Lord’s supper is not an integral part of worship. For most congregations, the Eucharist is celebrated monthly or even more infrequently making it less significant than preaching, singing, or praying. There are many churches where communion is even celebrated outside the main worship service, like an evening service or a separate session after newcomers vacate the area. Because practice often shapes conviction – even in ways we may not be conscience of – the logical effect of this rareness is that the Supper has become a nonessential or even superfluous part of their Christian Walk, supplying no real and indispensable grace, but becoming only a memorial, thus impeding any serious inquiry as to its practice. This, of course, is not the fault of the laity, they are merely doing what their teachers have led them to do and believe. But this does raise the question as to why are things this way? Why is communion not celebrated at least weekly in most (preferably all) churches, and why has the Eucharist lost its place of prominence in reformed churches and worship?

Biblical Evidence

Well, this move is, frankly, a radical departure from the practice of the early church. Calvin was correct in his assertion that the evidence of the bible lays forth a pattern of weekly observance[1]. In Acts 2:42, for instance, we read that the newly converted Christians had day by day “devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” They were having their love feasts (breaking of bread), otherwise known as communion, on a very regular basis - daily. Furthermore, there is a pattern present in this passage. In the previous verses, Peter had just finished preaching his sermon announcing the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the gathered Jews, and that Jesus is the Messiah they had been looking for. In v39 we see recapitulation of the Abrahamic promise (Genesis 17:7) and the promise of free salvation to all who believe in Christ. Following this, 3000 souls were added to the church via baptism into Christ. What immediately followed their baptism was nourishment at the Lord’s Table as they devoted themselves to the apostles and their teachings. Far from the Supper being something that occurs with the saints on a monthly, or bi-monthly schedule, the church that God planted nourished themselves on Christ day after day.

In 1 Corinthians 11:20, Paul makes a passing comment that is quite useful for clarification. Paul writes, “when you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” This could be easy misconstrued to be saying that Paul was complaining that they were not attempting to celebrate or observe the Lord’s supper. This, however, is not what Paul is communicating. Instead, he is saying that whenever the Corinthians gathered, they were attempting to observe communion in a shameful way. Paul was concerned about their abuse of the supper, not their frequency. He acknowledges that every time they gather, they are celebrating communion (contextually they were meeting for worship v17), but, regrettably, they are celebrating it in a shameful way.   

Lastly, it is recorded that Paul would gather with the saints on the first day of the week to worship the risen Christ, and there they broke bread together (Acts 20:7). Very clearly then, from Christ’s instruction to “do this [communion] in remembrance of me” Paul took this to indicate that the church is to break bread together at least weekly, evidenced by his own practice. Therefore, when Paul exhorts the Corinthians that “as often as you eat this bread and drunk this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26) his “as often” is at least every week, on the first day of the week. This is also evinced by the context of his discourse with the Corinthains, which is entirely about Lord’s Day worship (1 Corinthians 11:17,20).  

Early Church

Looking outside the bible, the earliest indication of the churches practice after the time of the Apostles is recorded in the Didache. In 9:1 the weekly practice of the church is recorded, and among their common practices “the Eucharist” stands out as a practice that took place every time the Christians gathered. As a matter of fact, it was not until the 13th century that communion began to cease being celebrated weekly. It was at The Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, that the requirements changed, and the faithful were permitted to partake of the sacrament only once a year. This, however, was not in its fullest swing until the Middle Ages when the practice of weekly communion all-but discontinued.

All of this to say, Paedocommunion is not the only thing that has fallen out of favor – the Eucharist itself has become disfavored among many evangelical and protestant churches, too, evidenced by the infrequency with which they partake. This point, however, is but a momentary stop on to our ultimate destination. Why did Paedocommunion cease?

The Discontinuation of Paedocommunion

It is unquestionable that infants and young children were allowed at the Lord’s table in the early church. Calvin and Musculus admit as much. Musculus in his systematic theology, and Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion[1] both recognize that Cyprian (200-258) and Augustine (354-430) were proponents of paedocommunion and allowed the children of the faithful to supp with the Lord at his table. But these are not the only two to testify to the practice. Although Cyprian was the first known shepherd of God to promote the practice in 251, it was also supported by men like Innocent I, Gelasius of Rome, and Gennadius of Marseilles. The practice, however, continued unabated for roughly another thousand years. Ray Sutton, American Anglican Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal church, comments saying, “paedocommunion was practiced the first twelve centuries in the Western and Eastern churches.”[2] James Jordan, former pastor at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tyler Texas, likewise, says, “Infants and small children participated in the Lord’s supper in the Western Church until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.”[3] But even these claims are early according to some scholars. Cornelis Venema, for instance, has the impression that Paedocommunion continued through to the 16th century when it ceased at the time of the Reformation.[4]

Even up to our modern day, Paedocommunion is not looked upon with favor, unfortunately. It is seen by some are an error, others as a deviation from orthodoxy putting people at great risk, and seen still by others as full-blown heresy. It must be noted that most of the ire in this debate comes from the Reformed and Presbyterian wing of the church (NAPARC), while most others are unconcerned by it. Baptists, for instance, already believe that the practice of Paedobaptism is unorthodox, so for some Presbyterians to give communion to their children is no worse than applying the waters of regeneration to one they believe should not receive them. Oddly enough, many Baptists see this doctrinal dispute with more sobriety than do many Presbyterians. Paul K Jewett, for instance, has very likely written the most comprehensive book against infant baptism, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. He is nothing if not a Baptist to his bones. Consequently, in this book, he makes a startling observation. He says, “[T]he initial evidence for infant baptism and infant communion shows a proximity in time (A.D. 205-250) and place (North Africa) which makes it difficult to see why the former usage should be accepted while the latter is rejected.”[5] Jewett is arguing against Paedobaptism by using the same logic Presbyterians use against Paedocommunion. Jewett is saying, that from the historical record, both doctrines seemingly pop into existence at the same time and in the same place. Additionally, both sacraments seemingly require repentance as a prerequisite to partake of the sacrament. In other words, if one is rejected for children then they both must be to remain intellectually and logically consistent. It could also be said, that these sacraments either stand or fall together. Therefore, if one is prohibited, then under what rationale could the other not also be prohibited? If one is permitted, what rationale could be used to not permit the other? This is a good question. To flip it around, it is evident to both Baptists and Paedocommunists, that the sacraments go together. Baptism, in other words, as Geerhardus Vos would say, is the doorway to the Eucharist. 

[1] Institutes of the Christian Religion. 4.16.46

[2]Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.16.30

[3] Ray R. Sutton, “Presuppositions on Paedocommunion,” in The Geneva Papers (Tyler, Texas. Geneva Divinity School)

[4] James B. Jordan, “Theses on Paedocommunion,” The Geneva Papers (Tyler, Texas. Geneva Divinity School)

[5] Cornelis Venema, “Is Paedocommunion Biblical?” Ligonier Ministries

[6] Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, pg. 42