Redemptive-History and the Administration of the Sacraments: An Examination of Paedocommunion William R. Edwards I.

Introduction The question of paedocommunion constitutes a minor but lively and popular debate in the church today. Over the last twenty-five years, a number of arguments either for or against paedocommunion have been published, always receiving a timely reply from the opposing camp.1 Within the last ten years, several Reformed denominations in the United States have debated the issue at their highest court, issuing position papers in opposition to the practice.2 The current interest in paedocommunion stems partly from the continuing debate over Theonomy, with its hermeneutic (over)emphasizing the continuity between Israel and the NT church in Gods unified covenant purpose. More generally, with a growing focus on the importance of the family coupled with the concept of the covenant, questions concerning inclusion within the covenant and membership within the church are raised, and with the proper conclusion that the children of believers are born into a covenant relation and are members of the visible church, the question is raised as to why children cannot then participate in both of those covenant signs that visibly mark one as such.

During the 1970s, Christian L. Keidel wrote Is The Lords Supper For Children? WTJ 37 (1975): 301-341 arguing for paedocommunion, with the next edition containing a counter argument by Roger T. Beckwith, The Age of Admission to the Lords Supper, WTJ 38 (1976): 123-151. Later the debate was taken up by Leonard J. Coppes, Daddy May I Take Communion? Paedocommunion vs. The Bible (Thornton: by the author, 1988), leaving no doubt as to his stance, with a response coming from Peter J. Leithart, Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated? (Niceville: Transfiguration Press, 1992), the title revealing the caustic tone these arguments often take. 2 Agenda for Synod 1988, pp. 260-316, Report #26, Acts of Synod 1988, p. 560, Christian Reformed Church, 1988; Minutes of the 55th General Assembly of the OPC, Report of the Committee to Study Paedo Communion, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1988, 374-421; and Report of the Ad-Interim Committee to Study the Question of Paedocommunion, in PCA Digest: Position Papers (Atlanta: Presbyterian Church in America, 1993), 498-515.
1

Coupled with an historical argument, the case for paedocommunion is generally made along two lines. First is the analogy between Passover and the Lords Supper based on the continuity of the Old and New Testaments. Here the paedobaptist is charged with an inconsistent hermeneutic if he does not also hold to paedocommunion. If the qualification for receiving the sacrament of baptism is grounded in the OT practice of circumcision, it is then argued that eligibility for partaking the Lords Supper must also be grounded in the OT with the practice of Passover. Thus if children participated in the Passover feast, they should also be permitted to partake in the Lords Supper. The second line of argument is based on a parallel between the NT sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper. If both are holy signs and seals of the covenant of graceto represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put visible differences between those that belong to the visible church and the rest of the world,3 it is then argued that paedocommunion is as much a necessary consequenceas paedobaptism.4 If children have a right to one, due to the nature of the sacraments, it is a good and necessary consequence that children have a right to the other. Both sacraments require faith and repentance, but as with baptism where this stipulation applies only to those with such ability, so should it be with the Lords Supper. After dealing with the inconclusive historical evidence, the case against paedocommunion must be made against these two primary lines of argument. First, while upholding the continuity between the OT and NT in regards to Gods covenant purpose, the discontinuity due to the progression of redemptive history must be fully grasped together with its implications for a proper understanding of the sacraments. The argument for paedocommunion

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 27:1. Robert S. Rayburn, Report of the Ad-Interim Committee to Study the Question of Paedocommunion: Minority Report, in PCA Digest: Position Papers (Atlanta: Presbyterian Church in America, 1993), 510.
4

based on the analogy between the Lords Supper and Passover tends to flatten the redemptivehistorical distinctions in an attempt to find a one-to-one correspondence between them.5 Secondly, while upholding the unity of the sacraments as holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, a distinction between the two sacraments must be made as to how they operate as such within the church. The argument for paedocommunion based on the parallel between the sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper tends to flatten the distinctions between these sacraments found in their institution and administration in the NT. II. An Historical Overview Keidel begins his essay by asking, Why not let baptized infants and children back into the Lords Supper?6 arguing that the Reformation should have restored this ancient practice on the basis that it was only the corruption of the sacraments in the medieval period that led to its demise. It appears to be well established that the practice of infant communion was common in the early church, viewed as a rite of Christian initiation so that when infants were baptized they also immediately partook of their first communion, normally only in the form of wine.7 Calvin, who is opposed to paedocommunion, also acknowledges its early practice, saying, This permission was indeed commonly given in the ancient church, as is clear from Cyprian and Augustine.8 The strength of the historical argument for paedocommunion is found in the incidental nature of this early evidence, with the practice of infant communion only mentioned in

R. E. Knodel identifies this as a fundamentalistic approach to the Scriptures which suffers from an oversimplification of covenant theology, in Reasons To Be Wary Of Paedocommunion, Journey 3 (November-December, 1988): 13. 6 Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 301. Emphasis added. 7 Charles Crawford, Infant Communion: Past Tradition and Present Practice, Theological Studies 31 (1970): 526, 528. 8 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4:16:30.
3

passing, revealing it as a non-controversial matter and thus the norm in the early church.9 Cyprian is the earliest witness to paedocommunion,10 with evidence for its practice found in his work, The Lapsed, written in 251 dealing with the apostasy of those who had renounced their faith in the persecution of Decius. He speaks of those who even carried their babies and led their youngsters to be robbed of what they had received in earliest infancy, saying that these children in the day of judgment will stand and declare, It was not we who did anything, nor of ourselves that we left Our Lords food and drink.11 Later in this same work, Cyprian tells a fanciful account he claims to have witnessed where a baby girl, whose parents had fled the persecution and left her behind, was made to partake in a pagan feast, and when her parents returned and acquired their child, while later celebrating the Eucharist, Cyprian says when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice.12 Cyprian goes on to describe how the child responded with choking and vomiting. Why? Because, according to Cyprian, the Eucharist could not remain in a body or a mouth that was defiled of course!13 Nowhere is Cyprian compelled to argue for the practice of paedocommunion, but it is simply assumed as he discusses the seriousness of apostasy. Augustine also makes such incidental references to paedocommunion. In a sermon against the Pelagians, he claims that infants need Jesus as Savior too, arguing that Christ is

Tommy Lee, The History of Paedocommunion: From the Early Church until 1500, [database online]; available from http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/tl_paedo.hmtl.; Internet; accessed 25 September 1998. 10 Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 301. 11 Cyprian, The Lapsed. The Unity of the Catholic Church, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 25, trans. Maurice Bevenot (Westminster: Newman Press, 1957), 9. 12 Ibid., 25. 13 Ibid.
4

Jesus for all believing infants...infants that is who have been baptized in Christ.14 Augustine goes on to argue that Theyre infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.15 Again, evidence such as this seems to point to the normalcy of infant communion in the early church. Modern proponents of paedocommunion point out that it was only with the debates that came to a head in the twelfth century, concluding with the doctrines of transubstantiation and concomitance, that the practice of infant communion was abandoned.16 As the practice of communion under two kinds began to dwindle, Pope Paschalis the Second in the twelfth century argued for its continuation, claiming that As Christ communicated bread and wine, each by itself, and it ever had been so observed in the church, it ever should be so done in the future, save in the case of infants and of the sick, who as a general thing, could not eat bread,17 providing once again circumstantial evidence for the practice of infant communion throughout the period of the early church. Nevertheless, the doctrines of transubstantiation and then concomitance, leading to the communing of the laity in only one kind, also led to the abandonment of infant communion since they were accustomed to partake only of the cup.18 The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 made this the official dogma of the church and addressed the issue of infant participation, determining that infants received all that was necessary for salvation in baptism, and that little children, therefore, were not in danger of losing their salvation if they waited.19 At the Council it was determined that children would not receive communion until they reached
Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine, trans. Edmund Hill, ed. John E. Rotelle, 11 vols. Part III-Sermons (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1992), 5:261, quoted in Lee, History of Paedocommunion, 9. 15 Augustine, Works, 5:261, quoted in Lee, History of Paedocommunion, 9. 16 Crawford, Infant Communion, 529. 17 Harduin, com. cil., t. vi, p. ii, f. 1796, quoted in Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 302. 18 Crawford, Infant Communion, 531.
14

what was termed the age of discretion.20 In light of this, proponents of paedocommunion argue that child participation was denied due to a corruption of the sacraments in the medieval period with the doctrines of transubstantiation and concomitance, and argue that the earlier practice was more faithful to the apostolic tradition. However, this conclusion is not without question. The incidental nature of the evidence is impressive as it implies the commonplace practice of infant communion. Yet it must be pointed out that this evidence does not exist before the middle of the third century. Until then there is no mention of infant communion, in distinction from the practice of infant baptism, which can be traced back a century earlier to Irenaeus.21 While this is in no way proof that infant communion did not exist as early as infant baptism, it is interesting to note that in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen, those Fathers who preceded Cyprian, there is no mention of this practice.22 More importantly, however, it needs to be observed that the practice of infant communion in the early church is different from what present-day advocates of paedocommunion would like to practice. As seen above, newborn infants, often immediately after they were baptized, were made to partake of the Eucharist, and this in one kind, the wine alone. This is not the practice to which modern proponents of paedocommunion would like to return, so it is questionable whether this history supports their position. The theology of the Eucharist standing behind such a practice in the early church must be questioned before the practice itself can be used to endorse its institution today. While Calvin gives general approval of the early Fathers theology of the Eucharist, he

19 20

Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 303. Crawford, Infant Communion, 531. 21 Roger T. Beckwith, The Age of Admission to the Lords Supper, WTJ 38 (1976): 125. 22 Ibid., 125.
6

does observe that the ancient writers also misinterpreted this memorial in a way not consonant with the Lords institution, because their supper displayed some appearance of repeated or at least renewed sacrifice.23 Even Keidel, while arguing for paedocommunion concludes, It is true that the rationale usually given in the early church for infant inclusion in the Supper was that eternal life was thereby secured on the basis of John 6:53.24 This can be seen in Cyprian where he writes, [Jesus] says that whoever will eat of his bread will live forever. So it is clear that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of Communion are living. For He himself warns and says, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you.25 This is not the theological context in which modern advocates of paedocommunion are arguing for its practice. In fact, supporters of paedocommunion today would not defend this understanding of the sacrament that places some efficacy in the elements themselves, and so their appeal to church history does not support their position. The eventual rejection of infant communion in the twelfth century for the wrong reasons of transubstantiation and concomitance does not in and of itself justify the earlier practice. Preceding the Reformation, there were various attempts to bring reform to the church in different ways. The Hussites were one such group who sought reform in the area of the Eucharist. Although Huss was burned at the stake in 1415 as a condemned heretic, his followers beginning in 1417 attempted to restore frequent communion, communion in both kinds, as well as infant communion.26 These practices were debated at the Council of Basel in the 1430s, but

23 24

Calvin, Institutes, 4:18:11. Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 305. 25 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David W. Bercot, s.v. Eucharist, 253. 26 Lee, History of Paedocommunion, 18.
7

were ultimately rejected.27 With the Reformation in the sixteenth century, both Zwingli in his Refutation of the Baptist Tricks and Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion discuss the issue of paedocommunion and reject it as unbiblical. Some who argue for paedocommunion claim that this rejection is due primarily to the absence of serious criticism of a custom which predated the reformation, and, consequently, to a relatively superficial examination of the question.28 However, while it is true that Calvin does not deal with the issue in the lengthy manner in which some are attempting to deal with it today, he does discuss the issue both directly and indirectly in various places, as found in his treatment of the institution of the Lords Supper in his discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.29 As already noted, Calvin acknowledges the practice of paedocommunion in the early church, but goes on to argue, the custom has deservedly fallen into disuse.30 In discussing the differences between participation in baptism and the Lords Supper, Calvin writes: This distinction is very clearly shown in Scripture. For with respect to baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age. But he does not similarly hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but only those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience, of proclaiming the Lords death, and of considering its power.... None of these things is prescribed in baptism. Accordingly, there is a very great difference between these two signs.31 Calvin concludes concerning those who would argue for paedocommunion by saying, If these men had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious?32 The discussion of this issue in Reformed circles has traditionally followed in Calvins line of

Ibid., 19. Rayburn, Minority Report, 503. 29 John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 242-254. 30 Calvin, Institutes, 4:16:30. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.
28

27

thinking. The Westminster Standards exhibit this approach, particularly evident in questions 176 and 177 of The Larger Catechism. Question 176 concerns the extent of the parallel between baptism and the Lords Supper concluding that the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant.33 Yet question 177 is occupied with the differences between the two sacraments, answering: The sacraments of baptism and the Lords supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lords supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.34 These differences between baptism and the Lords Supper as understood by Calvin and exhibited in The Larger Catechism are founded in the distinctions between their institution and application in the NT. Reformed theologians have continued to make similar distinctions between the sacraments, as can be seen with Witsius and Bavinck, both of whom describe baptism as the sacrament of new birth and ingrafting into the church where the recipient is passive, while describing the Lords Supper as supposing conscious, active participation as the recipient is required to fulfill certain demands.35 Rayburn complains that many theologians do not even broach the subject of paedocommunion in their treatment of the Lords Supper.36 However, this is an unfair accusation. Although many may not speak directly to paedocommunion, it is addressed

The Larger Catechism, A. 176. Ibid., A. 177. 35 Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, vol. 2, trans. William Crookshank (London, 1822; reprint, Escondido: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990), 32; Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. 4 (Kampen, 1918), 641-642, as quoted in Rayburn, Minority Report, 505-506. 36 Rayburn, Minority Report, 503.
34

33

implicitly in the typical discussion of what it means to partake worthily while discerning the Lords body. An example of this may be found with Hodge, where although he does not address the issue of paedocommunion specifically, it is certainly covered as he discusses the competent knowledge of Christ and his gospel required to partake in the Lords Supper, claiming that such profession...is involved in the very nature of the sacrament.37 The main line of Reformed theology has consistently opposed the practice of paedocommunion, and has done so conscientiously, criticizing its practice in the early church as evidencing a misunderstanding of Scriptures teaching concerning the Lords Supper and fencing the table for those who are unable to fulfill the requirements found in its institution. III. Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity in Redemptive History Apart from attraction to the practice of the early church, the strength of the paedocommunion position is its appeal to the unity of Gods covenant purpose throughout the OT and NT. The essential nature of Gods covenant does not change, the substance remains the same.38 Thus the signification of the covenant signs must remain the same, as should the particulars of their application, it is argued, especially in light of the explicit connections between the NT sacraments and those of the OT. Appeal is made to The Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.39 However, the substance referred to as equivalent in the sacraments of the OT and NT does not concern the particulars either in form or application, but the signification as they all pertain to

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 623. Rayburn, Minority Report, 512. 39 The Westminster Confession of Faith, 27:5; Vance Lemasters, A Position Paper on Paedocommunion, Journey 3 (November-December, 1988): 15.
38

37

10

Christ.40 It is Christ who is the same substance of the OT and NT sacraments, although the way in which he is signified may be different. As stated above, an attempt to root the NT sacraments principally in those of the OT rather than in Christ flattens the redemptive-historical distinctions signified in the covenant signs and seals as they are instituted not abstractly, but particularly within a specific epoch of Gods progressive fulfillment of his covenant purpose realized in Christ. Due to the weight placed on the continuity between the sacraments of the OT and NT, an essential element of the paedocommunion position is child participation in the Passover meal. In fact, if this point is not correct, the whole argument is severely weakened if not made untenable. However, the participation of children in the Passover, especially once it is centralized in Jerusalem, is not without question.41 In discussing the Egyptian Passover both sides often take an eisegetical approach, attempting to make a verse say more than is actually said. This is especially evident in Keidels argument, where he appeals to Ex 12:4, If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are, and claims that this provides clear and unambiguous evidence...for infant participation.42 Keidel makes reference to the Hebrew, ( each according to his eating) claiming that since it does not say according to his faith but according to his eating, the only requirement for partaking is the ability to eat.43 However, the context makes clear that the passage is not speaking of the ability to eat per se, but of the amount

That this is the meaning that The Westminster Confession of Faith 27:5 intends may be seen with the Scripture proof provided, 1 Cor 10:1-4 where those in the wilderness are said to have drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 41 John Murray simply states, There is no evidence that this was the case, in Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980), 74; see also Calvin, Institutes, 4:16:30; and Samuel Miller, Infant Baptism, Scriptural and Reasonable (Philadelphia, 1876), 45-46. 42 Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 308. Emphasis added. 43 Ibid., 307.
11

40

which will be eaten by those who will participate, neither including nor excluding children. The verse is not speaking of the qualification for participation, as Keidel argues, but instead refers only to a specification for preparation. The inclusion or exclusion of children is simply not within the purview of the verse. On the other side of the argument, those opposed to paedocommunion often appeal to Ex 12:26, 27, And when your children ask you, what does this ceremony mean to you? then tell them, It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians. Calvin sees in this a qualification for participation, that only those who are old enough to be conscious of its meaning are allowed to partake.44 Others attempt to ground this more specifically in the prepositional phrase, what does this mean to you? arguing that since it does not say, what does it mean to us? it indicates that the uncatechized did not participate in the meal.45 Once again, however, this pushes the text too far. The concern of these verses is not with participation but with education, which in itself does not preclude children from partaking in the meal. On the basis of Ex 12 alone, it is impossible to definitely determine whether children participated in the Passover or not. However, the broader context seems to indicate the likelihood of child participation due to the community, family, and household language that is prevalent. Yet while allowing for this, a distinction must be made between the Egyptian Passover and its subsequent instituted celebration as Scripture itself distinguishes between the two. The Egyptian Passover is actually salvific, in that when the blood of the paschal lamb marking the doorposts is seen by God, he passes over not striking Israel with the plague. As all of Israel is included in the salvific event of the Exodus, it seems natural to assume all partook of
44

Calvin, Institutes, 4:16:30.

12

the meal, men, women, and children included. However, the subsequent celebration of the Passover is a memorial of that event and as such has unique requirements outlined in Deut 16. Passover is no longer to be celebrated in the household setting, but as Deut 16:2 says, at the place the Lord will choose as a dwelling for his Name. Deut 16: 5, 6 reiterates this, decreeing, You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the Lord your God gives you except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name. Therefore, regardless of the practice at the Egyptian Passover, institutional changes are made which take the memorial celebration out of the household and family environment. This becomes even more explicit with the command of Deut 16:16 which says, Three times a year all your men must appear before the Lord your God at the place he will choose.46 The memorial celebration of the Passover cannot be equated with the Passover itself. The Egyptian Passover is an event in redemptive history, whereas the celebration of the Passover is instituted as a memorial of that redemptive-historical event, and as such has institutional differences, limiting the when, where, how, and who of participation. Keidel, however, argues that the original command for the whole congregation to observe the Passover...should be obeyed since the special conditions of Deuteronomy 12 and 16:16 no longer prevail due to the fact that Christ has fulfilled these particular ceremonial laws regarding worship at the temple.47 Yet the fact that Christ fulfills these ceremonial laws should not point us back to the original Passover and the particulars of its celebration, as Keidel suggests, but should point us forward to Christs fulfillment as he consummates the entire Passover complex, both the Egyptian Passover and its instituted celebration in Israel, and establishes the sacrament of the Lords Supper with its own unique requirements. Keidel in

Richard Bacon, What Mean Ye By This Service? Paedocommunion in Light of the Passover (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1989), 10. Emphasis added. 46 See Ex 23:17; 34:23. Emphasis added. 47 Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 316.
13

45

effect attempts to take a redemptive-historical u-turn, making his approach questionable. Additionally, advocates of paedocommunion are quick to point out that Jesus not only fulfills the Passover but the entire sacrificial system of the OT, including some meals at which children were explicitly allowed to participate.48 The argument goes that since circumcised infants and children were allowed the privilege of eating sacrificial meals of the old covenant, and since the Lords Supper has now replaced these...baptized infants and children should continue to enjoy the privilege of eating these sacrificial meals now replaced by the Lords Supper.49 It is true that in different sacrificial meals different people were allowed to participate. Surrounding the requirements for the Passover in Deut 16 are the requirements for the offering of the firstborn, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles, all of which contain specific reference to family participation.50 Other sacrificial meals are to be eaten by the priests alone, such as the grain offering and the sin offering.51 However, this simply shows that there can be distinctions as to who can participate in the various rites of the covenant community, and that restriction from participating in a specific rite does not necessarily exclude someone from the covenant, an observation which supports the position against paedocommunion. The fact that Christ fulfills all of the sacrificial signs of the OT does not necessarily mean that there are no longer such distinctions as to who is qualified to participate in the signs and seals given in the NT. The hermeneutic principle essential for a correct understanding of the sacraments is that the various rites, signs, and seals found in Scripture cannot be abstracted from their redemptivehistorical context. The signs of the covenant are not simply cast down from heaven, but

48 49

Rayburn, Minority Report, 506. Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 335. 50 Deut 15:20; 16:11, 14. 51 Lev 2:3, 10; 5:13.
14

correspond to Gods progressive redemptive work in history. The covenant sign given to Abraham is circumcision, corresponding to the promise concerning his seed.52 It is a sign that applies to males alone, appropriate at that time as the concern is with an heir to propagate the covenant line. On the other hand, the Passover is instituted much later and at a different stage in Gods redemptive work, in the midst of Israels slavery in Egypt, and points to Gods judgment, appropriate as the concern is to distinguish his people from the nations.53 Both of these signs and seals look to Gods one covenant promise, I will be their God, and they will be my people,54 but they do so in different ways corresponding to the particular events in the specific stage of redemptive history in which they are instituted. Thus it should not be surprising to find them applied in different ways where the qualification for participation in a particular sign may be somewhat more exclusive than the covenant itself. Covenant signs are never covenant signs in general, but are always specifically rooted in redemptive-history. Therefore, a one-to-one correspondence of the OT covenant signs and seals of circumcision and the Passover must not be expected with the NT sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper. Jesus did not simply give new meaning to the Passover. Jesus instituted a new sacrament,55 relating to the Passover only so far as Christ fulfills all that is substantial in the Passover.56 Thus the Lords Suppers primary reference is not to the Passover, but to Christ who is our Passover, as 1 Cor 5:7 makes clear. The argument for paedocommunion based on the analogy between the Passover and the Lords Supper flattens this redemptive-historical
Gen 17:3-14. Ex 12:13, 24-27. 54 Jer 31:33. 55 Report of the Ad-Interim Committee to Study the Question of Paedocommunion, in PCA Digest: Position Papers (Atlanta: Presbyterian Church in America, 1993), 501. 56 As mentioned previously, The Westminster Confession of Faith 27:5 states regarding the sacraments, the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those
53 52

15

distinction. Rayburn, in his argument for paedocommunion, says that the differences between the old and new economies concern the form only and not the substance of the covenant of God in Christ...and that the membership and participation of the children of believers in the covenant community, the church of God, belong not to the form but to the substance of Gods covenant.57 All of this is very true, but Rayburn makes the point to argue that since children share in the covenant and are members of the visible church, they should participate in all of its visible signs. However, as already seen, the sacraments do not belong to the substance of the covenant, but to its redemptive-historical form, so that participation in the signs and seals does not in and of itself determine participation in the covenant. As Bavinck says, Withholding of the Supper from children deprives them of not one benefit of the covenant of grace.58 Thus, while not denying the analogy between the Lords Supper and Passover, the appropriate historical discontinuity must be taken into account with its implications for a correct understanding, and hence application, of the Lords Supper in its own particular redemptive milieu. IV. Diversity in the Institution, Signification, and Application of the NT Sacraments The other primary argument put forth in favor of paedocommunion depends on a parallel between baptism and the Lords Supper. Advocates of paedocommunion argue that inclusion in one sacrament necessitates inclusion in the other as both are signs and seals of the new covenant, similar to the argument against paedobaptism which claims that exclusion from one means exclusion from the other due to the supposedly new spiritual nature of the sacraments in the NT. Here it appears there is a sacramental version of the problem of the one and the many. How can two signs be applied differently if they signify the same thing, namely the benefits of the
of the new, and this substance is Christ, as the reference to 1 Cor 5:4 makes clear. The Lords Supper is not built on the Passover but on Christ, on whom the Passover itself is built. 57 Rayburn, Minority Report, 513.

16

covenant of grace? The answer must be found in the discussion of their signification and application in the NT, evidenced particularly with the institution of the Lords Supper as addressed by Paul. According to Murray, baptism signifies and seals what lies at the basis and inception of the state of salvation, to wit, union with Christ.59 Thus baptism relates to the covenant specifically in regards to the transition from the order of death to the order of life.60 Such can be seen in Rom 6 where Paul speaks of baptism in regards to union with Christs work as our covenant head, directly following his discussion in the preceding chapter of the representational roles of Adam and Christ. The analogy between circumcision and baptism regarding their mutual signification of this transition from the estate of sin to union with Christ is made explicit in Col 2:11, 12. However, the administration of the sign of baptism to infants is not simply dependent on this analogy with circumcision (after all, baptism is not only applied to males), but is found in Peters application as he calls people to repentance and baptism, including their children in this same promise.61 Those opposed to paedocommunion are often charged with destroying the basis of paedobaptism by presumably appropriating the approach of the antipaedobaptist with its emphasis on discontinuity between the OT and NT. However, it is actually the proponents of paedocommunion who have unwittingly accepted the charge of the antipaedobaptist which is based on a faulty hermeneutic, not allowing for the appropriate balance between covenant continuity coupled with redemptive-historical discontinuity. Whereas the anti-paedobaptist opts for emphasizing discontinuity at the expense of continuity, advocates of

Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 641-642, as quoted in Report of the Ad-Interim Committee to Study the Question of Paedocommunion, in PCA Digest: Position Papers, 498. 59 Murray, Christian Baptism, 74. 60 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Religion, trans. John Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 398. 61 Acts 2:38, 39.
17

58

paedocommunion in reaction opt for emphasizing continuity at the expense of discontinuity. Both must be guarded against. On the other hand, as Murray argues, the Lords Supper presupposes that which is sealed by baptism as it signifies what is consequent upon the state of salvation, namely commemoration and communion 62 which by their very nature necessitate a conscious participation, the requirements for which will be developed further below. This is where the passive and active distinction made by Witsius and Bavinck enters into play, baptism being passive as it points not to the individuals faith but to Gods work of salvation, whereas the Lords Supper is active as it indicates commemoration and proclamation.63 This distinction is implied in the administration of the sacraments, as baptism is applied once marking inclusion whereas the Lords Supper is received frequently representing active participation.64 Murray says, What is being pleaded is that the very things signified by the Lords Supper involve intelligent understanding on the part of the participant,65 and concludes that even, The diversity in the elements warrants the discrimination in practice.66 Rayburn asks, Where does Scripture ever suggest that a participant in all the benefits of the covenant of grace is to be denied the sign and seal of those benefits?67 However, as seen in relation to the OT regarding circumcision and the Passover, although the signs and seals of baptism and the Lords Supper both look to the one covenant of grace, they do so in different ways that determine the qualification for participation. Keidel claims that denying children the

Murray, Christian Baptism, 75. Report of the Ad-Interim Committee to Study the Question of Paedocommunion, 498; Ridderbos, Paul, 411. 64 As quoted above from The Larger Catechism, A. 177. 65 Murray, Christian Baptism, 75, note 41. 66 Ibid., 76. 67 Rayburn, Minority Report, 511.
63

62

18

Lords Supper puts them with the rest of the world.68 Yet again, as has been seen with the OT, participation in a particular sign of the covenant may be somewhat more exclusive than the covenant itself, and care must be taken not to flatten these distinctions. As Beckwith says, The baptized, undoubtedly, are proper candidates for admission to communion, but the question is has the proper time for their admission come until they can fulfill the requirements provided in its institution?69 Regarding this question, supporters of paedocommunion claim too much weight is given to Pauls discussion of worthy participation in 1 Cor 11:23-32 as the concern presented there is said to be specifically directed against the inappropriate practices of the Corinthian church.70 Therefore, it is argued, the principles found in this passage cannot be established as the standard criteria for participation in the Lords Supper, which would then be applicable to children as well. However, while it is true that Paul is addressing the Corinthian church in particular, the way in which he does so allows for a much broader application. As Paul introduces his direction for the Lords Supper in 1 Cor 11:23, he says, For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you. The verbs received and passed on, which occur again in conjunction with Pauls discussion of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, are technical terms, common in Judaism at that time, to confer formal doctrine.71 Ridderbos says that such traditional terminology...marks these words as authoritative apostolic tradition.72 In light of this, it must be admitted that Pauls instruction here has broader application than simply to the particular abuse found in Corinth. As Calvin says, The Corinthians had one particular

Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 337. Beckwith, Age of Admission, 130. 70 Rayburn, Minority Report, 508. 71 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 548. 72 Ridderbos, Paul, 415.
69

68

19

fault, and, Paul takes advantage of this to speak of every kind of fault to be found in the administration or receiving of the Supper.73 Thus the teaching of 1 Cor 11 bears the weight placed upon it, providing general principles for appropriate participation in the Lords Supper, and therefore also has implications concerning the validity of paedocommunion. In this passage Paul explicates the words of institution, do this in remembrance of me (v.24, 25), saying whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes (v.26). Ridderbos explains that this command to remember cannot be separated from the nature of the Supper as a redemptive-historical commemorative meal which is not only a commemoration of what has once taken place in the past, but no less of its abiding, actual redemptive significance.74 The receiver is called to actively participate as implied in the indicative, you proclaim, personally maintaining the redemptive significance of Christs work through partaking in the meal.75 The Lords Supper by its very nature, as found in apostolic teaching, requires a certain type of participation that demonstrates worthy proclamation. Paul also speaks of an unworthy manner (v.27) to be understood as any eating not suited to or compatible with the Suppers institution as a commemorative proclamatory meal.76 This unworthy participation leading to judgment specifically relates to not recognizing the body (v. 29). The exegetical difficulty is determining the antecedent of the body to which Paul refers. Fee argues the body refers to the church, pointing to the broader context with its concern for unity amongst the body of believers, with reference to 1 Cor 10:17 which reads, Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.77

John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 251. 74 Ridderbos, Paul, 425. 75 Ibid., 422. 76 Ibid., 425. 77 Fee, Corinthians, 559.
20

73

However, Ridderbos, following Calvin, argues the immediate context determines the antecedent, found in Pauls discussion of the body and blood of the Lord in v. 27.78 This latter approach is more consistent with the specific concern Paul is addressing in regards to the Lords Supper as it relates to the work of Christ. The broader context of the church is not lost, but Paul now focuses on that one loaf, namely Christ, in which true unity is found. Thus discerning the body of the Lord in a manner consonant with the sacrificial meal means comprehending what is entailed in his saving work, and as Ridderbos indicates, also means examining oneself in relation to Christ and his saving work, as found in the exhortation to self-examination and self-judgment before eating and drinking (v.28, 31).79 If this is what is required in the institution of the Lords Supper as explicated by Paul, then the participation of any who cannot meet these requirements is precluded, including children who have not made such a profession. A secondary argument advocates of paedocommunion put forth concerning this passage claims the indefinite pronouns whoever (v.27) and anyone (v.29) used by Paul referring to unworthy partakers do not necessarily have universal application. Therefore, children may not be included in the reach of the passage. Reference is made to Rom 10:13 which reads, for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, with the claim that everyone cannot have unlimited reference literally to everyone because then no infant could be saved since they are not able to call on the name of the Lord.80 Yet such an argument misunderstands the use of indefinite pronouns, which are qualified or limited by their context. In Rom 10:13 the indefinite pronoun everyone is qualified by the relative clause, who calls on the name of the Lord. This is everyone being spoken of in this verse, those who call on the name of the Lord.
Ridderbos, Paul, 426; Calvin, Corinthians, 252. This is also evident in the NIV where the antecedent is made explicit in the translation, recognizing the body of the Lord (v. 27), although it does not appear in the Greek text. 79 Ridderbos, Paul, 427-428.
78

21

Therefore, those who are not able to call on the name of the Lord, including infants, are not in the purview of the text due to the relative clause that determines the reach of the indefinite pronoun. The reason infants are not included in the reach of the passage is not due to some indefinite use of the pronoun, but due to the context that determines its extent. The reference is, however, unlimited within its context. Likewise, the indefinite pronoun anyone in 1 Cor 11:29 is qualified by the relative clause, who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord, and thus the judgment pronounced is upon everyone who eats in this way, including children if they partake in the Lords Supper without meeting its requirements. Simply put, whereas children may be excluded from the purview of Rom 10:13 if they are not able to call on the name of the Lord, children are included in the purview of 1 Cor 11:29 if they partake in the Lords Supper. The reach of the indefinite pronoun depends on its context, and the context of 1 Cor 11:29 includes all who partake without recognizing the body of the Lord.81 In light of the discernment for worthy participation required in 1 Cor 11, Calvin says the nature of such an examination requires faith and repentance, where the participant is called to descend into himself, and ponder with himself whether he rests...upon the salvation purchased by Christ.82 This is the requirement for worthy participation, required of anyone, whether child or adult, who would worthily receive the Lords Supper. Thus in light of Pauls explication of the institution of the Lords Supper, this particular covenant sign and seal is reserved for those

Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 324; Rayburn, Minority Report, 508. In conjunction with this argument, reference is also made to 2 Thes 3:10, If anyone will not work, neither let him eat. It is argued that this indefinite pronoun surely cannot have reference to all who do not work, for infants would then starve! Keidel, Is the Lords Supper for Children? 324; Rayburn, Minority Report, 508. However, the Greek grammar of 2 Thes 3:10 differs from that of 1 Cor 11:27, 29, and 34. 2 Thes 3:10 reads , with the indicative plus the infinitive, translating, if anyone is not willing to work neither let him eat. The indefinite pronoun is limited to those who are not willing, and hence refuse, to work. Thus again, infants and children are not in the purview of the passage due to the limitation provided by the context. 82 Calvin, Institutes, 4:17:40.
81

80

22

who are able to meet its specific conditions. V. Conclusion The title of Leitharts pro-paedocommunion book, Daddy, Why was I Excommunicated?, evidences the assumption that participation in every sign and seal of the covenant of grace must be open to everyone based simply on inclusion within the covenant of grace. However, this is not the case and reveals a misunderstanding of the institution of the sacraments. Firstly, signs and seals of the covenant are redemptive-historically determined and find their appropriate administration in connection with their redemptive-historical signification found in their institution, as evident from the OT distinctions concerning participation in circumcision, the Passover, and other sacrificial meals. Thus the OT connections, when understood in their biblical-theological context, actually support the position against paedocommunion. Secondly, the sacraments of the NT are distinguished from one another as to their signification and application. Both baptism and the Lords Supper are signs and seals of the new covenant, but operate differently as such, and this difference extends to their application. The arguments for paedocommunion tend to flatten both the redemptive-historical distinctions in an attempt to discover a one-to-one correspondence between Passover and the Lords Supper, as well as the distinctions between the NT sacraments themselves in an endeavor to find a parallel between the Lords Supper and baptism that extends to their administration. While arguing against the Roman Catholic sacrament of confirmation, which in many ways parallels modern evangelical notions of an age of discernment, Calvin speaks of True Confirmation, not doing injustice to baptism; but a catechizing, in which children or those near adolescence would give an account of their faith before the church. A childwould present himself to the church to declare his confession of faith. Thus, while the church looks on as a

23

witness, he would profess the one true sincere faith.83 Baptism is the basis of, looking forward to and even expecting, this fuller participation in the visible church, including participation in the Lords Supper. While finding the arguments for paedocommunion lacking, it is important for the church to examine whether it adequately appreciates the administration of baptism as a sign and seal of covenant membership within the visible church, together with the teaching and encouragement due to covenant children, with the anticipation of their full participation in the signs and seals instituted by Christ upon profession of faith.

83

Ibid., 4:19:13.
24