Reformed View of "Children at the Table" (a.k.a. paedocommunion)
from various theologians
from various theologians
"Institutes of the Christian Religion", Book 4, Chapter 16, Section 30, page 1352
30. At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord’s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church indeed, the Lord’s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup”? (1 Cor. 11:28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord’s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord’s injunction? “Do this in remembrance of me.” And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them “to show forth the Lord’s death,” of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?
"Systematic Theology", page 563
2. THOSE WHO MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LORD’S SUPPER.
Since the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament of and for the Church, it follows that they who are outside of the Church cannot partake of it. But it is necessary to make still further limitations. Not even every one that has a place in the Church can be admitted to the table of the Lord. The following exceptions should be noted:
a. Children, though they were allowed to eat the passover in the days of the Old Testament, cannot be permitted to partake of the table of the Lord, since they cannot meet the requirements for worthy participation. Paul insists on the necessity of self-examination previous to the celebration, when he says: “But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup”, I Cor. 11:28, and children are not able to examine themselves. Moreover, he points out that, in order to partake of the Supper in a worthy manner, it is necessary to discern the body, I Cor. 11:29, that is, to distinguish properly between the elements used in the Lord’s Supper and ordinary bread and wine, by recognizing those elements as symbols of the body and blood of Christ. And this, too, is beyond the capacity of children. It is only after they have come to years of discretion, that they can be permitted to join in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
b. Such unbelievers as may possibly be within the confines of the visible Church have no right to partake of the table of the Lord. The Church must require of all those who desire to celebrate the Lord’s Supper a credible profession of faith. Naturally, she cannot look into the heart and can only base her judgment respecting an applicant for admission on his confession of faith in Jesus Christ. It is possible that she occasionally admits hypocrites to the privileges of full communion, but such persons in partaking of the Lord’s Supper will only eat and drink judgment to themselves. And if their unbelief and ungodliness becomes evident, the Church will have to exclude them by the proper administration of Church discipline. The holiness of the Church and of the sacrament must be safeguarded.
"The Christian's Reasonable Service", vol 2, page 566
(3) It must also not be administered to children, since they are not able to examine themselves and to make a believing application by means of the sacrament.
(4) Neither may it be administered to the unbaptized, for no one can eat unless they first be born. Also, no one can partake of a meal together with the church unless he first be in the church, has been received as a member of her, and has been sealed as such.
(5) It must also not be administered to those who are ignorant of true doctrine, to unbelievers, and to those outside of the church—be it that they have never belonged to the church or that they have been excommunicated. This must be enforced as long as they are in this condition, since they are not partakers of the promises, of Christ, nor of the communion of saints.
Rather, it must be administered to true believers. Only true believers have a right for themselves to the promises, Christ, and the communion of saints, and thus also to the signs of the covenant. The church, however, does not judge concerning man's internal state; the knowledge of someone‟s regeneration is not the basis upon which she admits persons to the holy table, but she admits all who have made a conscious confession of the true doctrine of the gospel, and who lead a life which is in harmony with their confession.
Reformed Dogmatics, vol 4, page 583
For Believers Only
“[547] Like baptism, the Lord’s Supper was instituted only for believers. Jesus observed it only with his disciples. Whether Judas was still present at that time or whether he left the room before the institution of the Lord’s Supper cannot be said with certainty. Matthew 26:21–25; Mark 14:18–21; and John 13:21–35 all give the impression that Judas left before that time, but Luke 22:21–23 relates the discovery of Judas as the betrayer after the institution of the Supper in verses 19 and 20. It is possible, however, that in this connection Luke did not adhere to the chronological order. However this may be, the question has no dogmatic significance. If Judas participated in the Supper, he did so as a disciple of Jesus. That is what he was and that is what he pretended to be. What he inwardly considered doing against Jesus was his responsibility. Later the Lord’s Supper was exclusively celebrated by believers in the circle of the congregation (Acts 2:42; 20:7). Unbelievers did have access to the gathering of the congregation where the Word was administered (1 Cor. 14:22–24) but were excluded from gatherings in which “the love feasts were held and the communion celebrated (11:18, 20, 33). This is how it remained also when in the second century the Lord’s Supper was gradually separated from the love feasts and took place in the morning in the same gathering where the administration of the Word occurred. The first part of the service was accessible to all, but the second only started after unbelievers, catechumens, excommunicates, and so forth had been dismissed. In this second part of the service, the sacraments were administered, and it was an ancient and general custom that those who upon completion of their catechumenate were baptized received the Lord’s Supper immediately thereafter. When infant baptism became a regular practice, this custom was also followed in the case of children and further insisted on by the prevailing exegesis of John 6:53, according to which this verse applied to the Lord’s Supper and this sacrament therefore became as necessary to salvation as baptism.” In “the West, however, this custom eroded especially after the beginning of the twelfth century, and was little by little declared unnecessary by a succession of synods. But in the Greek and other Orthodox churches, the custom has been retained, and even today the Lord’s Supper is administered to newborn infants in the form of a tiny piece of bread dipped in wine.”
“But the magical construal of the Lord’s Supper resulted in even more serious abuses. The original simplicity of the Supper was lost as a wide range of solemn ceremonies was added. Communicants had to prepare themselves for the Supper not only by self-examination, but also by fasting, the washing of their hands and clothing, and so forth. The bread was first received with one’s bare hand, then in a piece of linen cloth or golden saucer, and still later, after the beginning of the eleventh century, from the priest with one’s mouth and from a kneeling position near the altar. The consecrated bread was not only “enjoyed by communicants in the church but also administered to the sick in their homes, given to the dying as “food for the journey” (viaticum), and deemed useful for averting disasters of every kind and obtaining a variety of blessings and benefits. The working of the sacrament not only extended to the living but also to the dead. From ancient times already there was the custom of bringing offerings for deceased relatives on the anniversary of their death and of praying for their souls. And when the doctrine of purgatory had been fixed by Gregory the Great, the Lord’s Supper was viewed as an offering up of Christ’s own body and blood, and the participation of the congregation increasingly diminished. It soon became a fixed doctrine that the Mass could bring about a lessening of penances and temporal punishments, not only for the living—whether present or absent—but also for the dead in purgatory.
“All these corruptions made necessary a return to Scripture, according to which the Lord’s Supper is a meal that is inconceivable without guests in attendance and exclusively intended for believers. In order to run a true course and do full justice to Scripture in this matter, the Reformed as a rule posed two questions: (1) Who have a right as well as an obligation to come to the Supper? (2) Who must be admitted to or barred from the Supper by the church? The first question deals with the duty of communicants, and the second with the duty of the church and its ministers. To the latter question the answer given was—and according to Scripture could not be other than—that the church had to bar all those who by their talk and walk presented themselves as unbelieving and ungodly people. The Lord’s Supper is a good of the church given by Christ to his people and is therefore to be enjoyed only by the members of the household of faith. The unbaptized, unbelievers, heretics, schismatics, public sinners, “and excommunicates are automatically excluded by that rule. But the number of those who were entitled to the Supper was even much more restricted. In the first place, by rejecting the Mass and purgatory, the church also had to abolish the administration of the Supper for the dead. Scripture, certainly, does not report a single instance of it. Paul does refer to people who had themselves baptized on behalf of the dead (1 Cor. 15:29). But even if this verse has to be understood as saying (which has definitely not been proved) that at the time there were Christians who had themselves baptized on behalf of unbaptized deceased friends, still the apostle in fact refers to this practice only as proof for the resurrection and simply reports it without approval or disapproval. The church, at the [Third] Council of Carthage (397), firmly condemned baptism for the dead, a custom practiced by a number of sects, and therefore cannot derive “from it an argument for the administration of the Supper on behalf of the dead.
“In the second place, many Reformed leaders and churches objected to the idea of administering the Lord’s Supper to the sick and the dying in their private dwellings, apart from the public gatherings of believers. So, for example, Musculus, Bullinger, Beza, Danaeus Aretius, and so forth, as well as the Reformed churches of France, Scotland, the Netherlands, and so forth. Others, like Calvin, Oecolampadius, Martyr, Zanchius, and the churches of England, Poland, Hungary, and so forth, sometimes permitted it, but even then they usually insisted that a small gathering of believers had to be present so that any occasion of superstition would be prevented or avoided.
“In the third place, also children were excluded from the Lord’s Supper. Trent condemned only the necessity of serving the Supper to children, “not the permissibility of it. And of the Reformed also Musculus, in his Loci Communes, adopted this position. In support of it he advanced the following grounds: (1) Those who possess the thing signified also have a right to the sign. (2) Children who can receive the grace of regeneration (as is evident from baptism) can also be nurtured in their spiritual lives without their knowledge. (3) Christ is the Savior of the whole church, including the children, and feeds and refreshes all of its members with his body and blood. (4) The demand for self-examination (1 Cor. 11:26–29) is not intended by the apostle as a universal requirement.
“But all these grounds lose their weight as a result of the following considerations: (1) In the Old Testament there was a great difference between circumcision and the Passover. Circumcision was prescribed for all children of the male sex, but the Passover feast was celebrated, not immediately at its institution but later in “Palestine, near the temple at Jerusalem. Very young children were therefore automatically excluded. (2) Similarly there is a great difference between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, a sacrament in which a human is passive; the Lord’s Supper is the sacrament of maturation in communion with Christ, the formation of the spiritual life, and presupposes conscious and active conduct on the part of those who receive it. (3) Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper in the midst of his disciples, saying to them all, “Take, eat and drink.” It presupposes that they took the bread and wine from his hand. And Paul writes that the church of Corinth came together to eat, and he leaves no other impression than that only self-conscious adult persons took part in the Supper. (4) In 1 Cor. 11:26–29 Paul specifically insists that people should examine themselves before celebrating the Lord’s Supper in order to be able to discern the body of the Lord and not eat and drink unworthily. This demand is very general, addressed to all participants in the Lord’s Supper, and therefore automatically excludes the children. (5) Withholding the Lord’s Supper from the children “does not deprive them of any benefit of the covenant of grace. This would be the case if they were excluded from baptism. For no one can do this except those who believe that children are outside the covenant of grace. But things are different with the Lord’s Supper. Those who administer baptism to children but not the Lord’s Supper acknowledge that they are in the covenant and share in all its benefits. They merely withhold from them a particular manner in which the same benefits are signed and sealed, since this manner is not suited to their age. The Lord’s Supper, after all, does not confer a single benefit that is not by faith granted through the Word and through baptism.
“Already at an early stage this distinction between baptism and the Lord’s Supper made preparation for a worthy reception of the second sacrament necessary. In the apostolic period, when as a rule only adults were baptized, there was as yet no such preparation. Those who heard and accepted the word of the gospel were immediately baptized and admitted to the Lord’s Supper. In the next century, however, when conversions to Christianity became more numerous and less reliable, the catechumenate gradually made its appearance. This was initially designed to prepare converts for baptism, and later, when infant baptism had become a general practice, for the Lord’s Supper. In the Roman Catholic Church this preparation gradually found exhaustive expression in the sacrament of confirmation, which developed from the laying on of hands originally linked with baptism and was bound up with an anointing. The Reformation rejected this “sacrament,” since it had no foundation in Scripture, and replaced it with catechesis and public profession of faith. By this “process the transition was made from baptism to the Lord’s Supper, at the same time preserving the church from corruption. It was Calvin’s wish that, after a child had been sufficiently instructed in the catechism, the child would make public profession of one’s own faith. John à Lasco’s desire was that children who had reached the age of fourteen would make public profession of their faith before the congregation and partake of the Lord’s Supper the following Sunday. But those who lived a bad life were admonished and finally, upon proved obduracy, cut off from the church at the age of eighteen or twenty.
“The orders of the Dutch Reformed churches similarly prescribed a profession before the church council or in the midst of the congregation and sometimes still speak of a preceding examination before the church council. This theory is sound enough: the children of believers are baptized as believers, then instructed in the truth; upon sufficient instruction and after public “profession of faith, they are admitted to the Lord’s Supper, or, in case of unchristian views or irregular conduct, they are, after repeated admonition, removed from the church. Our church life should still be conducted along these doctrinal lines even though at every moment it runs into the problems of practice. For Pietism and rationalism are ever prone to separate what God has joined together and either with disdain for the sacrament stress personal conversion or emphasize the practice of ecclesiastical confirmation. But the rule of the covenant is that the church must nurture its youthful members, who were born as children of the covenant and incorporated as members by baptism, to where they can make an independent personal profession of faith and on that basis admit them to the Lord’s Supper. It does not and cannot judge the heart. Accordingly, while on the one hand it bars from the Lord’s Supper all those who by their talk or walk manifest themselves as unbelieving and “ungodly people, it never, on the other hand, desists from seriously preaching that the Lord’s Supper is instituted only for those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins but who nevertheless trust that their sins have been forgiven for Christ’s sake and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and lead a better life.”
Excerpt From: Herman Bavinck. “Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation.”
"Biblical Theology" vol 5, page 244
21. Who should come to the Lord’s Supper?
Those who are members of Christ’s congregation and examine themselves, who can discern the body and blood of Christ. Thus:
a)Not the children before they have come to years of discernment. The Greek [Orthodox] Church has child communion, which for a long time has also been in use in the Roman Catholic Church. Appeal for that can be made to John 6:53, if one maintains that this eating and drinking of Christ is only to be received in the Lord’s Supper. But Rome does not maintain that the Lord’s Supper is necessary for salvation. Among the Reformed, there is almost no one who has spoken with uncertainty on this point. Musculus argued from baptism, but that argumentation does not hold. In baptism, the person appears in a completely passive way; he receives something. In the Lord’s Supper, in contrast, he comes actively, acting; he does something—takes, eats, drinks, does it in remembrance of Christ. It is required of those who come to the Lord’s Supper that they discern the body of the Lord and examine themselves. Children cannot do that. Children did join in eating the Passover at a very early age. But it cannot be proven that later very young children had to join in traveling to Jerusalem or to the place where the tabernacle stood to eat the Passover. In any case, the Passover and the Lord’s Supper are not on the same line such that what applies to the one also undoubtedly applies to the other. It is reported of Jesus that He went along to Jerusalem at the age of 12 (Luke 2:42).
It may be noted, however, that it is not the (old) Reformed practice and also not warranted by Scripture, when making profession of faith and participating in the Lord’s Supper is postponed to the age of 20. Years of discernment come earlier. In civil life one acts with discretion much earlier; why then in church life should one come to the Lord’s Supper so much later? Postponing participation for a long time has not benefited Lord’s Supper observance, since it has led to the illusion that life in the congregation according to God’s requirement is also possible for those who are completely grown up even when they do not go to the Lord’s Supper. Since profession of faith does not come at the beginning of independent living but in a certain sense in its midst, one begins to regard it as something unusual, as a crisis, as something for which something new must become apparent.
"The Economy of the Covenants", Chapter XVII, #XXX-XXXII
XXX. We may easily gather from what we have quoted from Paul what to think of the communion of infants. It appears to have been a custom in the ancient church to put the symbols of the holy supper into the mouths of infants just after baptism. A practice still observed by the Orientals. I will here subjoin the words of Metrophanes Critopulus Hieromonachus, confess. c. ix: “But even infants themselves are partakers, beginning immediately upon their baptism, and afterwards as often as the parents will. And if any one should blame us for the communion of infants, we can easily stop his mouth. For, if he be an Anabaptist, we use this saying against him: ‘Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me,’ Matt. 19:15. Also that other: ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,’ John 6:53. But the prophetess Anna makes very much for us, who dedicated Samuel from his early infancy to God; who also requires the first-born of the Jews to be given up to him, from their very birth, though not yet endowed with a competent measure of understanding. But if our adversary be no Anabaptist, we will also use the very same arguments against him, which he uses for infants against the Anabaptists; that as they ought to be baptized, so also to be made partakers of the Lord’s Supper. And thus with the help of God we have got the better of our argument.” Thus far Metrophanes.
XXXI. But we are of a quite different opinion. For, 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. For “babes are fed with milk, and not with meat,” 1 Cor. 3:2, Heb. 5:12. Infants cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lord’s body, nor show his death, all which we have just heard the apostle requires of communicants.
XXXII. The arguments of Metrophanes are very easily refuted.
For, 1st. It does not follow because our Lord was willing that young children should come unto him, and declared that theirs was the kingdom of heaven, that they are to partake of the supper. Christ is there speaking of spiritual and mystical communion with himself, which does not imply any sacramental communion whatever; but that only, of which the subjects he is speaking of are capable.
2dly. The nature of baptism and of the supper is different. Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration and ingrafting in the church; in the administration of which, the person to be baptized is merely passive; to the receiving of that the Scripture does not so universally require self-examination and the showing the Lord’s death. And therefore it may be properly applied to young children. But the supper is the sacrament of nutrition by means of a 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, and therefore it belongs to those who are come to the years of discretion, and not to little children.
3dly. Our Lord, John 6:53, is not treating of a sacramental but of a spiritual and mystical eating by faith. For neither was the Eucharist then instituted or known; nor will any one readily urge such an absolute necessity for the eucharist as that without it none can be saved; which yet our Lord asserts of that eating of his flesh.
4thly. The example of the prophetess Anna, who consecrated Samuel a little child to God, is not at all to the purpose. For nothing can be concluded from that, but that it is a part of the duty of parents to give up their children as early as possible to the obedience and service of God.
5thly. And what they pretend concerning the dedication of the first-born of the Jews to God, is still more impertinent. For that dedication of the first-born, previous to the setting apart the tribe of Levi, showed that they were God’s, and to be employed in his service; in them the other children were accounted to be consecrated, and even the whole family; and in a word, they were types of Christ, in whom, as the first-born among many brethren, all the families of the earth are blessed. All which has nothing to do with the participation of the eucharist.