This is a post I've had in my back pocket for a while now, but I have another post in the works on a related topic, so I thought now is the best time for this. So there's a practice that is really only done in the Eastern church as well as some sparse corners of Presbyterianism which is known as Paedocommunion, Communion of the Baptized, or simply Infant Communion. The practice is fairly self-explanatory, but basically it involves the communing of an infant not long after they are baptized and the continuity of such communing unless they are excommunicated. This practice, to my knowlege, was fairly universal, at least everywhere that infants were baptized, until the 12th century, when the Western church forbade the laity from receiving the cup in the eucharist. I'll give a brief summary of the historical testimony regarding the practice, but if you wish, you can skip to scripture if you aren't interested.
History
To begin, I'd like to go through some of what the fathers say about the practice, just to show its universality. The earliest bit of testimony I would give is from the Didache, a very early (late first century) text of Christian practice which was traditionally attributed to the Apostles but was almost definitely not from them. In it, the author writes: "But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving [Eucharist], but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs." (9.1) Admittedly, this text doesn't say much about the actual status of infants as communicants or non-communicants. However, that's actually what much of the testimony involves on both sides; except for a handful of figures, there really isn't much written explicitly either way. However, this is the setup for a larger trend in church history: those who are baptized can commune. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), a rough figure who had a bad habit of mixing paganism in with the faith, did seem to give a similar testimony, though his actual practice of paedocommunion is inconclusive. However, I would consider his testimony on the matter irrelevant anyway, since he had a very poor view of the supper.
The next testimony is from Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235), who wrote in his treatise On the Apostolic Tradition, "You are to baptize the little ones first. All those who are able to speak for themselves should speak. With regard to those who cannot speak for themselves, their parents or somebody who belongs to their family should speak. (21.4) Later on, in the same chapter on the rite of baptism, he writes, "And then let the oblation be brought at once by the deacons to the bishop, and let him give thanks over the bread as the antitype of the body of Christ; and the cup mixed with wine on account of the likeness of the blood which was shed for all who have put their faith in him..." (21.27), after which he describes the consecration and distribution of the Eucharist. Again, there is nothing explicit, however, here he seems to more strongly imply that the infant who was baptized would then be immediately communed, a practice which we keep in the case of adults but neglect for that of infants.
Now for a more explicit testimony: Cyprian of Carthage (c.210-258). In his work On the Lapsed, he describes the situation of a mother allowing her infant to be communed. "But to many their own destruction was not sufficient. With mutual exhortations, people were urged to their ruin; death was pledged by turns in the deadly cup. 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 faithlessness of others has ruined us. We have found our parents our murderers; they have denied to us the Church as a Mother; they have denied God as a Father: so that, while we were little, and unforeseeing, and unconscious of such a crime, we were associated by others to the partnership of wickedness, and we were snared by the deceit of others?'" (9, cf. 26-27) This passage is the earliest explicit reference that I know of to the practice, and it's a pretty good one. He describes the communing of infants as standard fare, with infants of wicked parents testifying that they communed rightly but were made participants in the works of demons.
The next relevant passage is from the Apostolic Constitutions, a poorly named text written around 400: "And after that, let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, andsub-deacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult. And let the bishop give the oblation, saying, The body of Christ; and let him that receives say, Amen. And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, 'The blood of Christ, the cup of life;' and let him that drinks say, 'Amen.'" (8.2.13) There isn't much more to say here, just that the text says the young children communed. From around the same period, the most fervent defender of the practice was the great St. Augustine: "They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves." (Homily 174.7) He speaks similarly in many other places, but he also testifies to the bishop of Rome holding to the doctrine! "Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, says that infants have not life without Christ’s baptism, and without partaking of Christ’s body and blood." (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 4)
Scripture
Now, that was a lot of quotations, and I know many of you may not be super interested in, but I know many of you probably have a very specific scripture passage in mind, stepping past my historical argumentation. My point in bringing up these fathers first is that the practice didn't come from nowhere, but it is a very ancient one in both east and west. Now to the point many of you want me to get to:
'Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.' 1 Cor. 11:27-29
Though many take this to be a smoking gun, we Lutherans have an interesting relationship with this passage, because Luther actually comments on it in his table talks:
"When in 1 Corinthians 11(:28) Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn't here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children."
It's important to note that Luther was no advocate for paedocommunion, he had no real skin in the game, but he nonetheless argues that 1 Cor. 11 says nothing regarding the question of communing infants but rather forbids impious adults from communing without examination. He doesn't elaborate much here, but I would give two supporting arguments. The first is that Greek doesn't have a word for adults as opposed to children, but rather words referring to men, women, or humanity in general (like ἄνθρωπος, the word in the passage) were generally assumed to be adults. In this way, I would argue that St. Paul's words refer to adult communicants but say nothing of baptized children.
Secondly, I would argue that the baptized infant does understand the mysterious nature of the sacrament at least as much as we do. For this argument, I would lean heavily on our Lord's words in Matthew 11:25 and 21:16, passages most often used in paedobaptism circles,
'At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children [lit: infants];'
If the infant understands the works of God more than those wise in this world, a revelation connected to the giving of the Holy Spirit in baptism, then how can we forbid the baptized infant from the work of God which gives us His own flesh and blood?
The third argument, which needs a bit more fleshing out, is about the purpose of such an examination. The need for an examination is heavily related to the faith of the communicant. In the Formula of Concord Soldi Declaration 7.125, our theologians define the prerequisite for right partaking as nothing more than "true, proper, living faith." Thus, to see if infants can commune rightly, we can look to a passage discussed often in paedobaptism circles but less so regarding infant communion:
'Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”' (Luke 18:15-17; cf. Matt 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16)
Based on these words from our Lord, we can see that the infants are often better Christians with purer faith than adults, and if their faith is greater even than ours, on what grounds are we to forbid them? In addition, I would argue that this passage is even more apt for paedocommunion than for baptism! It is true that in baptism we are united to Christ, but we don't say that His bodily presence is united to the water. In the Supper, though, the pious parents are truly bringing their children to the Christ's own flesh and blood so that they may be blessed.
What's more, even assuming the child has no intellectual faith of their own, I would also say this is irrelevant to the question! In Acts 8:37, St. Phillip requires a confession of the Ethiopian eunuch, saying, "'If you believe with all your heart, you may [be baptized].' And [the eunuch] replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'" We actually still do the same thing in our church. In keeping with catholic tradition as put forth by Sts. Hippolytus and Irenaeus, we require anyone who is to be baptized to confess the Apostle's creed beforehand, and this is actually the source for the creed. However, both figures also practiced paedobaptism, and the rationale is given by St. Hippolytus, as quoted above, saying that the confession of one's parents stands in for one's own, which is also what we still practice today. Luther explains, in even greater detail, the same theological point in his work On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church,
"Here I say what everyone says: the faith of others, namely, the faith of those who bring them to baptism aids infants. For the Word of God is powerful, when it is uttered. It can change even a godless heart, which is no less unresponsive and helpless than any infant." 3.33
He goes on to cite the synoptic gospels, in which Christ heals a paralytic not because of the man's faith but because of the faith of those who brought him to Jesus (Matt. 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20). This motif is also seen in the household baptisms of Acts 16:15, 33, where the faith of the head of the family leads to the entire family being baptized.
Now, it's true that we don't see infants being communed in scripture as clearly as we see infants baptized, but I would argue this is entirely irrelevant. For one thing, we see fewer cases of the Eucharist in general than we do of baptisms, and this is obvious from a narrative standpoint. If participation in the eucharist follows baptism, which all agree upon, then of course you'd mention how many people were being baptized, since that is the sacrament of conversion. The number of communicants on a given Sunday is not quite as relevant to the growth of the Church as the number of people baptized, so mentioning it would be pretty far afield from the content of the book of Acts. In addition, the demographics of people being communed in the scriptures is a pretty inconsistent metric, and if we took it to its logical conclusion, would be forced even to forbid women from communing!
There is one final point I would like to make, and it is the mention of another counterargument: the argument from non-necessity. In my view, this is one of the worst arguments around the topic, but it is also one of the most common historically, so I have to mention it. To do so, I will give two quotes from Luther himself:
"Dr. Luther replied: they were undoubtedly wrong [to practice paedocommunion], since young children need not the communion for their salvation; but still the innovation could not be regarded as a sin of the Hussites, since St Cyprian, long ago, set them the example." Table Talks CCXLVII
"But if Christ in this passage enjoined the sacramental eating, then by saying, 'Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you,' [John 6:50] He would condemn all infants, invalids and those absent or in any way hindered from the sacramental eating, however strong their faith might be. Thus Augustine*...proves...that even infants eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, without the sacrament, that is, they partake of them through the faith of the Church." On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church 2.4 *Note: He sorta cited his source, but I was still unable to find what he was talking about
Such an argument is heavily based on the passage from John 6:50 quoted above, but my response is that the necessity of the practice is irrelevant. Even if our opponents are right and it is not necessary, then so what? All you've said is that infants don't have to commune to be saved, but we have a related rite that functions the same way. In John 3:5, the same book, we see our Lord say similar things of baptism: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This is obviously not an absolute statement, as we see from Mark 16:16, so why should we take John 6:50 the same way? It is perfectly reasonable to say that the Supper is necessary but not absolutely necessary in the same way we do about Baptism. We can easily hold that we ought to commune infants without holding that they be damned, in the same way that the martyred catechumens are saved even though they not be able to be baptized.
So yeah, those are my points in favor of the communion of infants as well as my refutation of arguments against the practice. I hope you found this helpful, and if enough of us are convinced of such an ancient practice, perhaps we may see change in the Western Church we find ourselves in, starting with our own Synod.
Comments