The Eucharist in New Testament Christianity Part VIII

                                                            

                                                                 I. Introduction

Today, the topic of paedocommunion is controversial. Many advocates of infant baptism, see it as a notable error-practice. It has been especially controversial in Reformed and Presbyterian Churches, with some on both sides of the aisle having strong views both ways. 

Some argue that if one infant bpatizes, then in order to be consistent, one must also give Holy Communion to infants. However, 

New Testament scholar N. T. Wright said, ''Once a child has been baptized, I see no major theological objection to that child receiving the Eucharist. As I said before, some of those little people may be a lot more ''full'' by the grace of God than many of the older ones. I'm happy to go with that, with proper, appropriate discipline*1.'' 

Wright admits, however, that the traditional practice of the Anglican Church in withholding infants from the Eucharist is a medieval invention, not rooted in Early Christian practice: ''When I was growing up, confirmation was the point at which children or adults were admitted to the Lord’s table. This was a medieval invention. The medieval bishop was required to oversee one’s confirmation and after that individuals could be admitted to communion.''

Although many Western denominations do not currently allow infants to partake in the Eucharist, many Western theologians and pastors from Peter Leitheart and Doug Wilson to N. T. Wright and many others, now realize that historically, Christians, both East and West, gave communion to infants. Infant communion, though, generally fell out of favor as the Western Church (1) wanted the barbarians to understand the faith before taking the Eucharist (2) and later, denied the cup of the Eucharist to the laypeople. Since many infants were not given the bread, by not receiving from the chalice, very young children gradually came to not receive it at all. 

There aren't a lot of sources on infant communion. In general, it's not a topic that most Evangelicals and Catholics discuss. After all, it is extremely rare in Western Christianity, though it has gained more acceptance among Reformed and conservative Evangelical churches in recent years.

                                                        II. Church History

Many historians believe that around the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, that it became increasingly common for the laypeople to not receive communion at all. This has also been noted by the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance*1. A a number of patristic church fathers supported paedocommunion, including Augustine of Hippo*3. Thus, the early church practiced giving the chalice to the people. 

Indeed, the Western Church of Augustine's day took a very different approach to the Eucharist than did the Roman Catholic Church in Luther's time. In a thousand years, a lot of things have changed, including the practice of infant communion. More recently, though, many conservative Protestants have began to return to the practice. 

Of the Protestants to supported paedo-communion at the time of the Reformation, the Hussites were in the minority to endorse this practice. Most other Protestants simply followed the late Medieval Roman Catholic practice of withholding infants from the table. 

Many have also pointed out the inconstancy of infant baptizing, but not providing infant communion. To advocates of paedocumminion, this means that infants are invited into church membership, bt not all the privileges of church membership. Of course, it could also be argued, however, that unlike marriage and ordination, baptism and the eucharist are intended for all believers; therefore, it would be inconsistent to invite infants into church membership through baptism, but not also, to the table. 

I'm not strong that this is a strong argument, however, as even infants who are baptized, are not yet able to marry or be ordained. Utliasmtely, the strongest argument for infant communion seems to be that it was the common practice of many in the church throughout the church's ancient history. 

Infant communion, thus, was the practice of the ancient church. As the chalice was taken away from the laypeople in the High and Late Middle Ages of Western Europe, it was essentially never again restored by either Roman Catholics or Protestants for many centuries following. TRgically, this led to infant communion being uncommon. 

The Roman Catholic Church began to argue that if the laypeople partook in the chalice then they would potentially spill the Blood of Christ (as if a priest can't also do this?). Despite the practice of all partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ in the ancient church (except those who refrained because of sin), by the late Middle Ages, the laypeople could generally no longer receive Communion. This caused an uproar and was one of the main issues of theological differences between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics during the Reformation era. 

Nevertheless, why would infants receive communion? Some may feel that they don't need it on the grounds of belief in their being without sin. Others, though, don't want infants to be taken from the Eucharist as they see infants as rotten little creatures who are not yet ready to exam themselves for their sins? 

                                                  III. Infants, innocence, and sin

The topic of infants and their relationship to sin has always been a controversial one. Scripture, for example, does not detail for us the fate of what happens to infants when they die. 

To Augustine of Hippo, baptism is necessary for salvation. He believed that we all born with the stain of Adam's guilt upon us. To him, we partook in Adam's sin and are thus, born damned. Baptism, however, he believed, could remit us of original sin and make us members of Christ's Church. He concluded then, that infants should be baptized, or they will perish in hell. His thought was largely followed by many Western theologians for centuries after him. 

The Eastern Church, however, tended to have a different concept of original sin. To them, sin is now in the world because of Adams's choice. While we have all contributed to sin, they do not believe that we are responsible for the first sin itself. To many Eastern Christians, infants do not receive the stain of Adam and are thus, innocent of personal sin. 

The Eastern Church's reasons for baptizing infants were generally very different from those of Augustine. While many of them did not believe infants needed baptism to go to Heaven (many of them believed that infants die with innocence), they did believe that baptism should be given to infants, to give them the grace of God in this noble sacrament. 

Are infants innocent of sin? If they sin, what sins are they guilty of? Are they held as responsible as an adult? It's an interesting discussion that goes much deeper than is intended in this post. 

The on;y cases we have in Scripture of infants knowing God are the children of believers. In Luke 1: 41-44, John the Baptist, still a babe, is joyful towards Christ. Likewise, in 2 Samuel 12: 23, we learn that David's child goes to heaven. 

The purpose of this post, however, is not to demonstrate whether or not all infants go to Heaven. Rather, I am connecting an understanding of infants as pertains to sin and salvation to both baptism and the Eucharist. 

Many of the same Baptists who use 2 Samuel 12: 23 for the belief that all infants go to Heaven based on the fate of one infant (David's son), ignore that one infant in Scripture, John the Baptist, actually believed in Christ before he could make a profession of faith (Luke 1: 41-44). To be consistent, one cannot say that all infants go to heaven based on 2 Samuel 12: 23, but then say that babies can't be baptized and assume that John the Baptist was the only baby to have ever believed in Christ. If we assume that 2 Samuel 12: 23 is about the fate of all infants, then we must also assume that Luke 1: 41-44 is about every baby believing in Christ, in which case, we must baptize them all. 

Now, let us assume for the sake of argument, that Augustine was right. If he was right that all share in the stain of Adams's sin and are thus born damned, but baptism remits our sin (1 Peer 3: 21), then it makes sense to baptize infants, lest those same infants remain unbaptized, and possibly perish. 

On the other hand, let us now assume for the sake of argument, that the Eastern Church got it right. Let us assume that we are all born innocent and with no personal yet and if we die before we sin, then we all go to Heaven. Even with this view, Greek Orthodox baptize infants because they believe it does the child good, by giving the child entrance into the church through water baptism and a grave of God concerning salvation (1 Peter 3: 21).

Thus, my point here, is that whether we have a Western or an Eastern view of original sin, on both accounts, it is consistent with Scripture to infant baptize as baptism is God's grace to us. 

But is infant communion different? What if the child is a sinner, as Augustine says? Would that not mean that the child is now taking judgment upon themself by taking from the table? 

If the Eastern Christian view is right about infants being innocent, then their taking Communion is not an issue. On the other hand, to Augustine, if an infant is baptized, then it is now a member of Christ's Church, and capable of recognizing Holy Communion. 

Just like infant baptism, infant communion is reconcilable with both an Eastern and a Western understanding of Christianity. Indeed, infants shared in the Jewish Passover as did their adult contemporaries. 

                                                       IV. The Jewish Passover and Infants

Many who reject infant communion will point out that there are no explicit cases of infants receiving the Eucharist in the New Testament Church. This is typically the same argument as those who say that infant baptism is unbiblical because there is no explicit case of an infant being baptized in the New Testament. How solid is this argument?

First, let me point out a major flaw with the objection to infant baptism. If we are to reject infant baptism because of its lack of explicit examples in Scripture, then we ought also to reject the baptism of women, as the New Testament nowhere teaches explicitly that women were baptized (with the case of Lydia being one notable exception in Acts 16: 14-15. Perhaps, even more obvious, Scripture nowhere speaks of young children being baptized in the New Testament (whether infants or older). 

But, maybe Scripture does not show that women were baptized (except for Lydia in Acts 16: 14-15) but it certainly implies it in passages like Acts 2, which shows that three thousand souls were added to the church through baptism?

Yes, Scripture does imply the baptism of women just as it implies the baptism of infants. It is implied by the former through ''Repent and believe'' and it is implied for the latter by the meaning of households in Jewish societies. While Scripture never speaks of eleven or nine-year-olds being baptized, they too would have fallen under the category of a Jewish household, which in Jewish literature, also included infants. 

Interestingly enough, entire households also partook in the Jewish Passover. As noted in my posts on infant baptism, ''household'' in Jewish texts, is often meant historically to their culture, families including infants. In Exodus 12: 43, we learn that adults who were not curlicued, could not partake in the meal of the Jewish Passover even as circumcised infants could. 

Secondly, just as Scripture never speaks of women specifically taking the Lord's Table, and it nowhere specifically refers to infants taking it. Yet, we know from historical purposes and the teachings of the Old Testament, that both received the meal of the Jewish Passover long before the Eucharist. For those who grew up in Jewish culture, they would have felt liberty to receive the new meal; Paul certainly never commanded for any of them to be withheld from it. 

If we say infants can't take the Eucharist, then we must also say the same of women. Although Renaissance art often portrays Mary Magdalen partaking in the Eucharist, the gospels only record men having partaken in it. 

But we shouldn't assume that no women partook in the Eucharist. It was the practice of the church,h implying that they did take in it (1 Corinthians 11). Likewise, we shouldn't assume that infants were excluded from either baptism or the Eucharist because Scripture does not specify their presence at the table when the sacraments of grace are efficacious with God's grace and entire Jewish households partook in Baptism. 

But was not the Passover different than the Eucharist? After all, judgment comes with those who take the Eucharist unworthily. 

Paul the Apostle was certainly clear that the Eucharist had replaced the Jewish Passover (1 Corinthians 5: 7). Did he believe that infants should now be withheld from the table? 

Perhaps the most common objection against paedocomunion is the idea that if infants receive the Eucharist, then many of them take judgment upon themselves if they don't know Christ. Let's consider that in the next point. 

                                  V: 1 Corinthians 11 and Infants Taking Communion

1 Corinthians 11 is often cited as an objection against infant communion. 

On the other hand, why do many of us assume that the infant children of believers can't examine themselves? The New Testament nowhere teaches that infants can't. Nor does it teach that they don't believe in Christ. In fact, the only example of an infant in the New Testament believing or not believing in Christ (besides Christ Himself) is John the Baptist. In Luke 1: 41-44, we read of him taking joy in Christ even in his mother's womb. 

It would seem, then, if anything, we should accept infants to the table. Still, the important issue of 1 Corinthians 11 arises. This chapter teaches those in the church to examine themselves. Although the passage never says that infants can't examine themselves, let us assume for the sake of argument that this is the case. 

Context means everything. We need to understand the context of the Lord's Table in 11 Corinthians 11 and how it relates to the topic of infant communion. 

Even if we assume that infants can't examine themselves, there are good reasons to believe that 1 Corinthians 11 does not call for infants to be withheld from the table. 

As Reformed theologian, Jeffrey G. Meyers has noted, an important theme throughout 1 Corinthians is some in the church being divisive against one another. When read in close context, 1 Corinthians 10-1 seems to warn believers of not separating from one another and making their own tables outside of their fellowship. Meyers argues that the meaning of ''proving himself'' is a phrase in 1 Corinthians 11, not concerning the amount in which one understands the Eucharist, but about having the right heart towards those in the Body of Christ. His theory seems to be proven as 1 Corinthians 11: 20-22, 33-34, demonstrate that many in the church were setting up their own tables as they broke fellowship from one another. Later, Paul questions the Corinthians if they hate the Church of God (1 Corinthians 12: 22). Meyers, additionally believes, that the phrase ''Discern the Body'' means one living uprightly to the unity of the church in 1 Corinthians 11. 

Much more could be written here about the meaning of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11. However, I will add a complimenting argument in favor of why I think Meyers is probably right. 

Many say the infants cannot partake in the table because they cannot understand what they are receiving. However, if we take this argument to consistency, ought to give communion to many of the handicapped, some of whom, could not mentally understand the purpose of the Eucharist in the same meaning that we do? Should down syndrome, for example, be denied communion if they can't discern the Body of Christ---in an understanding that others can. It seems plausible to me then, that Paul was not speaking of us all having a theologian knowledge of the Eucharist, but that in 1 Corinthians 11, he was warning about us being divisive against one another and branching out to each have our own tables rather than that of the church. 

And again, there is simply no scriptural evidence that a child can't examine themself. This is a total assumption on the part of those who reject infant communion. 

Infants historically received the Eucharist. That is a fact. I have presented reasons in this post why I do not believe Scripture condemns their reception of the Lord's Table. If anything, because the Eucharist gives grace, it seems reasonable then, to conclude, that it should also be given to infants (John 6, 1 Corinthians 11). 

All laypeople were welcomed to the chalice of Christ's Blood until the High and Late Middle Ages. During this time, infants became excluded from the Table. The Reformation rightly pointed out that it was wrong to withhold the chalice for the people when it was always given to the faithful beforehand (1 Corinthians 11). However, the Reformation, while turning to distributing both elements to the laypeople, did not return to giving communion to infants. 

As implied in previous posts, there is no disconnection between the Old and New Testaments. Understanding their relationship to one another is one of the most complicated areas in all of theology. We should never assume that Old Testament practices have ceased except where the New Testament teaches us that they have. 

                                                            VI. Conclusion

Even if all the theories of infant baptism being drawn from infant circumcision, and all the theories of infant communion being drawn from the Jewish Passover, were disproven, we would still have good reason to both baptize infants and give them Holy Communion as baptism saves (1 Peter 3: 21) and the Eucharist is spiritual food for our life (1 Corinthians 11, John 6). Thus, the strongest Biblical argument for parents baptizing their infants and giving them Holy Communion is because these are sacraments of grace, and we receive sacraments so that we may grow in grace and fellowship with our Lord and His holy church. 

Finally, Paul never called for infants to be withheld from the table. Since they partook at the meal of the Jewish Passover in the Old Testament, since the New Testament nowhere rescinded this practice except in that the Eucharist replaced it, and since infant communion was practiced by many in the early centuries of the church, it seems most orthodox to give Holy Communion to infants. This argument is further solidified when we understand that partaking in the Eucharist is itself grace for the baptized Christian (1 Corinthians 11, John 6). 

The same Roman Catholic Church which ended the availability of the chalice to laypeople in the late Middle Ages, was the same church which was ending infant communion simultaneously. Protestants need to reconsider their roots in the ancient church and how infants received communion for many centuries in church history. 

Notes:

*1-https://www.reformedworship.org/article/march-2009/nt-wright-word-and-sacraments-eucharist#:~:text=Once%20a%20child%20has%20been,many%20of%20the%20older%20ones.

*2-https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

*3-https://www.paedocommunion.com/articles/fathers_quotations.php