Welcoming Children to the Lord's Supper

A consideration of biblical, historical, theological, pastoral, and pragmatic categories

I gaze across to my daughters’ bookcase standing next to my desk. One book catches my eye: My Illustrated Prayer Book.¹ The cover says it is for young readers, aged 4–6 years. As I leaf through the pages, I quickly realised why these words were familiar to me: this book was an illustrated edition of The Holy Communion Second Order liturgy from A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA).²

Anglican Church of Australia, My Illustrated Prayer Book: Holy Communion (Mulgrave: Broughton, 2011).

In a sense, this children’s book represents a perplexing paradox: on the one hand, that the eucharistic liturgy was chosen for a children’s book communicates that for a 4–6 year old child, their fullest experience of worship is centred around the word and the table. Yet on the other hand, the same tradition holds that participation in the Lord’s Supper is only for those ‘who have been baptised and confirmed’, a status typically occurring when they are much older.³ The Lord’s Supper appears to be simultaneously for and not for children.

How are we to navigate this ecclesiastical dilemma? The appropriate recipients of the Lord’s Supper has been a well-known point of disagreement amongst sincere Christians and denominations over centuries, with many assuming ‘a minimum age’ of admittance.⁴ This essay seeks to navigate the issue of how we ought to determine eligibility for the Lord’s Supper. To what degree is participation in the Supper determined by someone’s theological understanding of the sacrament? The focus for this essay is how that question applies to children.

The structure of this paper follows the five sequential categories helpfully laid out by Wood, who recommends that discussions around children and the Lord’s Supper must consider: ‘biblical, historical, theological, pastoral and pragmatic’ categories.⁵ Within each category, several considerations and challenges are addressed, with the aim of providing a multifaceted, cumulative response to ascertain what degree a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper determines their involvement in the sacrament vis-à-vis other factors.

As will become evident throughout this essay, on balance of all these categories, I will argue that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament.⁶ Rather, I hold that a child’s eligibility rests upon three central principles:

1. Their ability to meet the scriptural requirements for participation in the Lord’s Supper;

2. Their genuine faith and maturity, appropriate to their age and development; and

3. Their communicant membership granted in their baptism.

Therefore, for children who meet these prerequisites, participation in the Lord’s Supper is not only permissible, but advantageous. Such admission to the Lord’s Supper will not only serve to benefit the individual and wider corporate body, it also provides the optimal setting for a child’s theological understanding of the sacrament to be bolstered. I will conclude our discussion by proposing a practical way in which this position could manifest itself within my own ecclesiastical context of an Anglican church service.⁷

As this is a long essay, here is an outline of the discussion, and main headings can be skipped to:

A. BIBLICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

i. Old Testament Considerations

Children and old covenant membership

Children and the Passover

ii. New Testament Considerations

Meals in the Gospels and Acts

The Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11

B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

i. Patristic Period

ii. Reformation Developments

C. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

i. Children and the Church

The great paradox

Children, maturity, and theological understanding

ii. Children and the Lord’s Supper

Eligibility for the Lord’s Supper: baptism or confirmation?

The manifold benefits of the Lord’s Supper

D. PASTORAL IMPLICATIONS

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX: PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Applied through Anglican context

Before we commence, a few preliminary notes on terminology and assumptions are necessary. First, please note that my own terminology will favour the Lord’s Supper, and for terseness, I will also adopt the terminology of ‘paedocommunion’ when referring to the view that children are to be welcomed to the Lord’s Supper. Second, this discussion assumes the theological legitimacy of paedobaptism and will be argued from this perspective.⁸ Here’s an essay I have written which explores paedobaptism.

A. BIBLICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

We must first observe how biblical passages and themes contribute to our view of eligibility of children to the Lord’s Supper. While this section is not exhaustive—additional passages are considered in other sections—there are several passages and themes crucial to our discussion. We will first consider from the Old Testament: Eligibility for old covenant membership; and the ways the Passover feast informs our discussion. Second, we will study biblical contributions from the New Testament: The Gospels and Acts; and a detailed study of 1 Corinthians 11.

While it must be acknowledged from the outset that Scripture doesn’t provide a precise situation which addresses paedocommunion, Keidel is confident (as am I) that a positive argument can be mounted on the basis of biblical truths.⁹ Consequently, from these passages and themes, I believe we can conclude: children were objectively admitted to the people of God as full members through circumcision; their participation in the Passover preceded cognitive understanding of it; the eucharistic ‘breaking of bread’ celebrated in Acts appears to follow the pattern of inclusiveness characterised by Jesus’ table fellowship; and finally, that Paul’s prerequisites for worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 are not tantamount to theological understanding of the sacrament. Therefore, we can conclude from the biblical evidence, that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament.

i. Old Testament Considerations

Children and old covenant membership

It is advantageous to commence our discussion by studying the eligibility of children into the old covenant, since ‘the new covenant is the eschatological fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant’ (cf. Acts 13:32–33).¹⁰ What was the status of children in the old covenant? And did theological understanding determine their inclusion within covenant family?

Genesis 17:1–21 provides a valuable insight, since God’s promise and covenant with Abraham clearly included both adults and their infant offspring (17:9). On this pericope, Murray helpfully summarises that ‘the church under the Old Testament included not only all who were of sufficient age and intelligence to confess the true religion but also their infant seed’.¹¹ Circumcision was commanded as the objective sign of covenant membership (17:11).¹² Keidel is quick to note that whilst eligibility for circumcision for Adults and foreigners required a certain level of ‘self-examination and spiritual discernment’ (cf. Genesis 34:15; Exodus 12:48–49; Deuteronomy 10:16), ‘[i]nfants and children, nevertheless, who were incapable of such spiritual understanding and commitment, were circumcised as members of God's covenant.’¹³

To reconcile this apparent double-standard, Keidel argues that God evidently held a high view of the ‘solidarity of the family’, in which the sincere faith of believing parents provided the eligibility for infant membership in the covenant.¹⁴ And since ‘the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham’, it is no surprise that this corporate principle continues in the new covenant, with Paul making the claim that children benefit from their parent’s conversion and faith and are to be embraced as full members of the faith community (1 Corinthians 7:14).¹⁵

Children in the old covenant—apart from their own subjective theological understanding—were fully incorporated in the covenant family. Unless we are willing to accept that the new covenant is somehow less generous and less effective than the old, we must approach our deliberation of children’s eligibility to the Lord’s Supper as members of the church from this backdrop.¹⁶ Further, since most Christians hold that what was true of circumcision under the old covenant is analogous to the rite of baptism in the new (Colossians 2:11–12), then we are led to conclude that children baptised as infants are to be afforded at least the same status within the church community as circumcised children were in Israel.¹⁷

Children and the Passover

Our second area of consideration is how we are to understand children’s participation in the Passover feast, regarded as Israel’s most theologically central meal.¹⁸ Our conclusions reached here are germane to the larger discussion, since virtually all scholars hold that there is some relationship or analogy between the Passover, the Last Supper, and the Lord’s Supper.¹⁹

By way of summary, the mandate of Exodus 12:43–49 presents circumcision as the sole determination of eligibility: ‘It is circumcision that constitutes the external demonstration of acceptance into the covenant community and therefore circumcision that qualifies one and one’s family to partake of the Passover meal’, as Stuart concludes.²⁰ In other words, all circumcised infants and children were theoretically ‘communicant members’ by virtue of their circumcision alone, apart from their theological understanding of the meal.²¹

It is true that Exodus 12:26–27 does imply a certain age at which children should inquire as to discern the theological meaning of the rite. And Calvin’s logic is that this command provides clear impetus for this age to be the criterion for admittance into the observance. By extrapolation: only children who are intellectually able to exercise similar ‘discernment’ of the body should be allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper.²² Keidel, however believes this is a false step in reasoning, since the ability for some to inquire ought not necessitate that all must.²³

In summary, it is challenging to know the extent we should apply these findings onto admitting children to the Lord’s Supper, since we are working by analogy. We can, however, affirm that circumcised persons were ipso facto eligible participants, which stands apart from theological understanding.

ii. New Testament Considerations

Meals in the Gospels and Acts

The Gospels routinely present Christ’s table fellowship as being profoundly inclusive—an approach inviting vehement protest on several occasions (Matthew 9:10–13; Luke 15:1–2).²⁴ From this backdrop, Peterson rightly argues that we should then understand the Last Supper as Jesus’ climax to a series of meals, characterised by their inclusiveness.²⁵

Flowing from the Last Supper, Luke-Acts presents multiple instances where the ‘breaking of bread’ (τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου) occurred (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7); the phrase carrying clear ‘eucharistic undertones’, though there is debate in this area.²⁶ Regardless, we cannot deny that the first reference to this practice in the early church (2:42) was immediately preceded by Peter’s proclamation of the kingdom promise being for both adults and children (2:39, cf. Joel 2:28–29), itself suggesting a motif of fulfilment of the inclusive Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 17:9–10).²⁷

In summary, from the Gospels and Acts, since we have no evidence telling us otherwise, I believe we can reasonably claim that the eucharistic ‘breaking of bread’ celebrated in Acts appears to adhere to the pattern of inclusiveness characterised by Jesus’ table fellowship. Children, therefore, were in principle to be welcomed at the Lord’s Supper, not on the basis of theological understanding, but upon their legitimate covenant membership within the body of Christ.

The Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11

We now arrive at what is arguably the most direct and challenging pericope for the paedocommunion position, since Paul’s teaching appears to exclude all those from the table who cannot reasonably examine themselves and discern the meaning of it. As we will see, I believe a strong argument can be made that Paul’s prerequisites for worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper are not tantamount to theological understanding of the sacrament, and further, that young children can meet these requirements.

We have already established in principle that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper is not the criterion determining their involvement in the sacrament. However, this position needs to adequately address Paul’s three directives (1 Corinthians 11:28–29, 33) which are seen as mandatory for believers to perform before they qualify to eat and drink in a worthy manner:

(1) 11:28: ‘A person must examine themself’ (δοκιμαζέτω ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν);

(2) 11:29: ensure they do not eat or drink ‘without carefully discerning the body’ (μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα); and,

(3) 11:33: in ‘coming together in order to eat, you must all eat together’ (συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε).²⁸

These verses have been typically regarded as providing ‘scriptural warrant for the need for a profession of faith before admission to communion in the church today.’²⁹ Keidel observes that since it is assumed that ‘infants and children are not able either to examine themselves or to discern the Lord's body, they should not, therefore, be allowed to eat the Lord's Supper.’³⁰ Winzer’s interpretation affirms this: ‘The communicant was to have a cognitive understanding of what the elements represented.’³¹ John Chrysostom is an early witness which upholds this position of intellectual discernment.³² Murray contends that ‘the very things signified by the Lord's supper involve intelligent understanding on the part of the participant’, as do Langdon, Beckwith and Daunton-Fear.³³ The Anglican Prayer Book similarly makes a direct connection between Paul’s exhortations here and cognitive confession of sin.³⁴ If this general position is correct, then the argument for paedocommunion is severely undermined.³⁵

We must, therefore, determine what is meant by Paul’s directives in their original context. And as we will see, these verses ‘cannot bear the weight of this line of thinking’ that a certain theological understanding of the sacrament is required for participation.³⁶ Rather, what is in view for Paul is far more horizontal and relates to the unity of believers. I will argue this both textually and contextually.

First, from a textual perspective, a clarification regarding 11:29 is crucial. Some translations (NIV, KJV) unhelpfully add a possessive genitive to the end of ‘discerning the body… of Christ/the Lord’, which was not present in the Greek texts.³⁷ Conceivably, Paul could be avoiding a pedantic tautology from 11:27, however it is probable that Paul’s usage of σῶμα in 11:29 is distinct from σώματος… τοῦ κυρίου in 11:27.³⁸ Fortunately, there is strong evidence within the epistle which proves Paul’s usage of σῶμα is invested with different meaning depending on the immediate context (cf. 10:16, 17).³⁹ Given that Paul develops the concept of the Corinthian believers being ‘the body’ both before our passage (10:17) and following it (12:12–27), bolsters the interpretation that σῶμα in 11:29 relates to the community of believers.⁴⁰

Second, from a contextual perspective, there is a growing consensus that ‘the whole discourse in 1 Corinthians speaks of the body not only as the sacramental body of Christ, but also as the corporate body of Christ: the church.’⁴¹ Philip’s extensive study into the wider Greco-Roman meal traditions supports this view, holding that we should understand Paul’s exhortations in chapter 11, not in terms of recalling a sacramental theology of the elements, but that all participants ‘should partake as one body of Christ… [and] simply examine their behaviour and respect their fellow believers who are their equals in Christ’.⁴²

Given the issues covered throughout the epistle, Paul’s directives here combat the Corinthian problem of ‘divisions and sins in the church, which is Christ's body’.⁴³ The context makes clear that ‘discerning the body’ must mean a recognition of fellow brothers and sisters as the united body, providing impetus to treat them as such. Similarly, the exhortation to ‘examine yourself’ ought not only relate to an individualistic confession of personal sins, but rather a sincere examination of how well/poorly a member of the body has related to the other members as people ‘for whom Christ chose to give up his life and to shed his blood.’⁴⁴ Thus, as Jordan helpfully concludes: ‘the problem is moral, not intellectual… there is nothing in this passage to justify the notion that children must not be admitted to the Lord’s Table until they are “old enough to understand.”’⁴⁵ Therefore, after a detailed study of this passage, we can confidently maintain that theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper itself does not determine involvement.

Regardless, given this passage does set out clear requirements for participation in the sacrament, our crucial question now becomes: Is this form of examination and discernment within the capacity of a child to perform? Wood certainly believes it is, as do I, stating that if ‘‘discerning the body’ refers to being in proper fellowship with other Christians, many children would seem to qualify.’⁴⁶ 1 Corinthians 11 essentially states eligibility for participation in the Lord’s Supper requires the recognition of a person’s own harmony with the remainder of the body—how lovingly they have related to their fellow Christians. Surely children, even more than many adults, are able to perform this level of discernment and peace-making!⁴⁷ If we are prepared to view children as part of the united body of Christ through their baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13), ‘why should they not also receive that which signifies nourishment in Christ?’⁴⁸

Having studied passages and themes in both the Old and New Testament, I believe we can conclude this section by affirming that from the biblical evidence, a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament. Additionally, as circumcision granted covenant membership, we can state that a child’s full inclusion within the covenant family is objective, granted by their baptism. Membership of the of the body of Christ necessarily means in-principle communicant status at the Lord’s Supper, as it did the Passover. And finally, Paul’s further conditions for participation in the Lord’s Supper do not relate to a cognitive understanding of the sacrament, instead, calling for a level of unity and harmony that is within the capacity of most children to perform.

B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

We have established that Scripture supports the view that children are eligible participants of the Lord’s Supper, apart from theological understanding of the sacrament. While I concede that there is certainly value in seeing how the theme of paedocommunion was broached across church history, from the outset, we must state that the contribution of history to our understanding of children and the Lord’s Supper is rather tenuous.

The reason for this conclusion is due to all presentations of the historical data being inevitably compiled by commentators who, compelled by their own bias, will interpret the data to confirm their own default position towards paedocommunion. And so, Keidel can confidently claim on one hand, that, based on the evidence, ‘infant observance of the Lord's Supper was widespread in the early church’.⁴⁹ With Winzer on the other, claiming that that is ‘not one piece of evidence, amidst the voluminous writings of the fathers, to suggest that infants participated in the church’s celebration of the Lord’s supper.’⁵⁰ It therefore remains difficult to speak with certainty around what was the normative practice when the bun fight between scholars has them arguing over somewhat circumstantial historical evidence.

i. Patristic Period

As just stated, scholars who argue in favour of paedocommunion will generally claim that the practice was normative in the early church until the late-medieval period. Keidel, Jordan, Lee, Sutton, Buchanan and Gallant each survey select sources from the early church to bolster their claim.⁵¹ Perhaps the two most significant sources to note are Cyprian and Augustine.⁵²

Cyprian’s treatise On the Lapsed contains the ‘first indubitable witness to infant communion’, where he recalls a rather harrowing experience where a deacon forces eucharistic wine into an infant girl.⁵³ Augustine’s homily on 1 Timothy 1:15 is also routinely cited, where he makes the case that Christ is saviour for all who believe, including infants.⁵⁴ While it’s hard to deny Augustine’s posture of openness to paedocommunion, Winzer is critical of how much can be gleaned from this writing.⁵⁵

So was paedocommunion normative in the early church? It remains hard to know for sure. At the very least, we must acknowledge that the notion of admitting young children to the Lord’s Supper is not a ‘novel’ concept, arising in recent history.⁵⁶

ii. Reformation Developments

Developments over the Reformation period purportedly led to the deprivation of the Lord’s Supper to children. Keidel notes that as the doctrine of transubstantiation emerged in the medieval church, a ‘fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance.’⁵⁷ It is then suggested that since the Reformation entailed a re-forming of understanding the faith, the logical conclusion meant that participation in the Lord’s Supper required catechism and understanding, lest sacramental superstition persist.⁵⁸ Consequently, ‘when the cup actually was restored to the laity, the Lord's Supper continued to be kept from infants and children.’⁵⁹

Luther’s view on paedocommunion proves to be elusive, though the practice was arguably consistent with his theology.⁶⁰ Calvin’s position was much clearer and his disapproval centred around a child’s ability to theologically discern the body and blood of the Lord—a common mis-interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.⁶¹

The Church of England consequently developed these ideals into a formal process of catechesis and confirmation (BCP1559), holding that a certain theological understanding determines participation in the Lord’s Supper.⁶² Over time this strictness loosened, with the BCP1662 revision provided some more nuance to the question of eligibility.⁶³ Further, in 1985, the Anglican Church issued a canon permitting baptised children admission to Holy Communion prior to confirmation.⁶⁴

In summary, we can see that history certainly provides some benefit to our discussion. However, the relative silence of patristic evidence means we are forced into the realm of conjecture to argue from silence, where we either assume paedocommunion was the norm, or we assume it was inconceivable.

C. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

In this section we will consider our issue more systematically, attempting to draw together what was affirmed from our biblical studies as it applies to larger discussions around children, the church and sacraments. Given the ongoing validity of the claim that theological understanding does not determine involvement in the Lord’s Supper, in this third section we must further establish in what sense children may be incorporated into the faith of the church and on what grounds communicant membership is theologically able to be granted to children. We will also conclude that the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper itself provides manifold benefits to children and adults alike, leading us to the stance that children ought to be admitted to the sacrament.

i. Children and the Church

We have already considered the objective inclusion of children within the Old Testament people of God, a motif which theologically carries into the new covenant. However, we must draw together a more complete systematic understanding of children, and how we are to see them in relation to the kingdom, the visible church, and consequently, the Lord’s Supper.

The great paradox

One of the great theological paradoxes exists around the theological view of the children of Christian parents. Depending on one’s biblical principles and emphases, children should either be regarded: (1) objectively and collectively as covenant members growing up within the people of God; or (2) subjectively and individually as fallen sinners individually called to repent and believe. The paradox exists, of course, because the Bible teaches both. Arriving at a satisfactory response to this dilemma is crucial to our wider discussion around paedocommunion, since there are problems that arise when children are understood in either of these extremes. An exceedingly objective position opens the floodgates for children couch-surfing on the waves of ‘folk Christianity’.⁶⁵ Conversely, an purely subjective approach creates undue pressure on a child’s single ‘conversion moment’ of personal repentance and faith, which rarely describes the experience of someone growing up in a Christian home.⁶⁶

First, we must uphold the significant place children hold in God’s mind: He calls and speaks to children (1 Samuel 3; Jeremiah 1:4–8); his name is established through the praise of children and infants (Psalm 8:2); he is pleased to reveal divine secrets to infants and not the wise (Matthew 11:25–26); and Christ’s teaching holds that ‘children are the measure’ of his kingdom and are not to be hindered from coming to him (Matthew 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).⁶⁷ Calvin’s logic excellently shows the inevitable conclusion of Christ’s teaching:

If the kingdom of heaven is theirs… [h]ow unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits.⁶⁸

Second, we must additionally take into account the debilitating effects of the fall, rendering everyone under the power of sin inherited from Adam (Romans 3:9–18, 23; 5:12, 18–19; cf. Psalm 51:5).⁶⁹ The implication is that everyone, including children, tragically begin life outside the kingdom, requiring personal repentance and faith in Christ before that status is changed (John 3:36; Acts 2:28; 17:30). Notwithstanding this, I can’t imagine sincere Christian parents would generally relate to their young children with this level of wrath-deserving scepticism: ‘Children are pagans at worst and potential Christians at best’—as Bird aptly quips.⁷⁰

Can this paradox be reconciled? How do we account for both ‘belongingness’ and ‘sinfulness’? Buckland promotes a remarkable model for conceiving how both the objective and subjective aspects of children’s soteriology may be brought together—though we do not space to expound the full model here.⁷¹ The view essentially holds that within the influence of others, a child’s faith grows as they make movements towards Christ. At some moment or period—often known only to God—a person commences a completely new and irreversible status and relationship with Christ.⁷² I believe this model excels in explaining the experience of many believers who grew up in Christian homes, who (like me) may not recall a precise moment of ‘conversion’, but can recall many formative steps and decisions towards Christ.⁷³ Buckland masterfully expresses the immense pastoral benefit of this approach:

People don't just drift into a saving relationship with God in Christ. It involves decision, but it may, probably does, involve a number of decisions. And we want to affirm every one of them.⁷⁴

Children, maturity, and theological understanding

We have already established that Paul’s conditions for participation in the Lord’s Supper do not require an intellectual understanding of the sacrament, instead, calling for a solemn pursuit of unity and harmony within the body (1 Corinthians 11:28–33). And I believe that young children can meet these requirements, provided our expectations are proportional to their development and maturity.⁷⁵

Nye cautions adults against expecting children to respond in adult categories, particularly since children ‘can be very sensitive to the social demands of communication—what they think we want them to say.’⁷⁶ Because of this, candid conversations ‘in the car, the bath, at bedtime or just when you are least prepared for them, are often much more important’ than a Q&A kid’s talk at church.⁷⁷

Developmental psychology reveals the remarkable way in which children imitate and reflect their parents’ faith and practices.⁷⁸ Children follow the pattern set by their parents. ‘Let us tell our children that Christ comes to them every week in the Eucharist, and they are to receive him. No small child has any trouble with this. They naturally keep their parent’s faith.’⁷⁹

As children grow and mature, ‘they will gradually exercise more and more discerning faith’, and the way this will be expressed will need to mature with the child.⁸⁰ Andersen et al. helpfully identify that God’s instructions to children are remarkably consistent: Honour and obey your parents (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Ephesians 6:1–3; Colossians 3:20): ‘the effect of this commandment is that personal growth of the child towards loving God and neighbour is growth achieved predominantly through relationship with parents or caregivers.’⁸¹ And so, Jordan helpfully applies this logic for us: ‘“Discerning the body” for the child may be translated as “obey your parents.”’⁸² As a child becomes more capable of forming and reflecting on inter-personal relationships with other adults and children in their congregation, the imperative to ‘discern the body’ gradually becomes much more in line with an adult’s expectation.

It is also reasonable to expect that a child’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper will grow as the child matures.⁸³ Therefore, how we communicate the meaning of the Supper will invariably evolve proportionate to a child’s realistic comprehension of it. Langdon, a firm critic of paedocommunion, is indignant toward any inclination to liturgically condescend to children in explaining the Supper:

A child is quite capable of responding to the idea that Jesus invites us to a party, that we can share a meal with him, and that he shows us his love by giving us special food to eat. But our liturgy, and our theology, require more than this.⁸⁴

In response, we must affirm: ‘While indeed the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is infinitely profound, yet on a fundamental level it is as simple as “dinner with Jesus.”’⁸⁵ An incomplete understanding is not necessarily an incorrect one. Furthermore, it is impossible to conceive that all adults in any given congregation hold an expansive sacramental theology of the Lord’s Supper, and yet remain communicant.

On this point, Webber makes a substantial claim that for Christian formation, the early church ‘waited to explain the Eucharist until after baptism [and participation in the Eucharist] because they were committed to the principle that experience precedes understanding.’⁸⁶ This principle and practice provides further support for our claim that participation in the Lord’s Supper is not determined by theological understanding. Nevertheless, pertaining to our discussion at this point, Webber’s example provides scope for holding that a child’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper is best grown from the perspective of participant, not observant. In other words, being a communicant member of the body of Christ provides the optimal environment for any believer (whether adult or child) to grow in their understanding of the sacrament. Note that my position is not suggesting that theological understanding should not be sought, nor that it is irrelevant; rather that its growth is most nurtured and facilitated when the individual does so as a participant. Bieritz makes the same claim: ‘The starting point for eucharistic instruction must be the celebration of the Lord's supper itself, indeed such instruction begins to be a reality in this direct participation in the celebration itself.’⁸⁷

ii. Children and the Lord’s Supper

Having established that children may be viewed as full members within the body of Christ, what remains in this section is to briefly consider on what grounds communicant membership is theologically able to be granted to children. We will then quickly note the ways in which the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper itself provides impetus to admit children and adults alike.

Eligibility for the Lord’s Supper: baptism or confirmation?

Some paedobaptist ecclesiologies will promote confirmation as the rite which confers an objective criterion of ‘readiness’ for communicant membership.⁸⁸ The assumption is that since Scripture ties baptism to repentance, faith, and the Holy Spirit, ‘[i]nfants lacked this and their initiation was therefore incomplete.’⁸⁹ In one sense, such a desire is warranted since paedobaptism is always administered with the expectation that the candidate will make their own personal response to God in the future, thereby permitting them to the Lord’s Supper.⁹⁰

However, as already discussed, the assumption that young children are not able to profess any genuine repentance and faith, cannot stand.⁹¹ Nevertheless, there is no biblical evidence demanding an additional profession of faith to elicit eligibility to the table anyway.⁹² Further, there is an increasing consensus that such a discontinuity between the two sacraments is a systematic error. Sutton rightly holds that ‘it is biblically inconsistent to give a child sacramental union with Jesus, while withdrawing the perpetuation of that union through eating Jesus' meal… Denial of the table to children and infants violates one of those essential elements’ of continuity.⁹³

One sacrament therefore necessitates access to the other. Baptism has always been recognised as the sign of membership in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). Members of the body of Christ are invariably communicant members. ‘How can one accept [children] into the household of faith through baptism and then exclude them from the Eucharist as you would a pagan or an apostate?’⁹⁴ I appreciate Malloy’s pithy summary: ‘In baptism, the members are initiated into an equality that transcends age... If our prayer is to be truly common, it must fully integrate children.’⁹⁵

The manifold benefits of the Lord’s Supper

In addition to the benefits mentioned prior, the manifold benefits of the Lord’s Supper itself provides impetus to admit children and adults alike to receive its bounty. The Lord’s Supper ‘is primarily a meal in which the self-gift of God in Christ is remembered, celebrated, and proclaimed until Christ comes in glory.’⁹⁶ Williams affirms the spiritually enriching quality of experiencing the Lord’s Supper as a child: ‘Just as with adults, the spiritual life of baptised children is enriched by the receiving of Holy Communion and their sense of belonging is affirmed and encouraged.’⁹⁷ How does the Lord’s Supper enrich our spiritual lives? It does so by engaging the whole person.⁹⁸ There is much we could cover at this point, however a brief summary will suffice:

First, the gospel is experienced anew and responded to (looking back and upwards). In the Lord’s Supper, the promises of the gospel are experienced, ‘as if painted in a picture’.⁹⁹ We are not given merely theological information, we receive ‘a theological experience’ of the gospel, and by the physical act of receiving it, we are given ‘visible, tangible ways of expressing our faith’ (1 Corinthians 11:26).¹⁰⁰ The Lord’s Supper is a means by which the Holy Spirit ministers to our souls: ‘In the Supper of the Lord… the Holy Spirit, not by external organs of the body, but by his secret virtue, feeds the souls of the faithful, both truly and efficaciously, with the body and the blood of the Lord unto eternal life, as truly as they know themselves to be nourished for this mortal life by bread and wine.’¹⁰¹

Second, corporate identity is built as the people of God (looking around). Rosner helpfully notes that in the Lord’s Supper, ‘we acknowledge our identity as part of the reconciled family of God.’¹⁰² A proper corporate sharing of the meal resists ‘corrosive individualism’, and promotes ‘generosity and humility.’¹⁰³ This is because the Supper is not only my personal communion with the Lord, it’s a context to ‘minister to one another as we express our common participation in Christ as our Saviour and Lord’ (1 Corinthians 10:17).¹⁰⁴

Third, humility and Godly dependence is fostered (looking down). As we eat and drink, we are humbly confronted with our ‘creatureliness’ before the one on whom we depend for life and salvation.¹⁰⁵ In the Lord’s Supper, the reality of Deuteronomy 8:3 and the prayer of Matthew 6:11 resonate with our souls.¹⁰⁶

Fourth, the Supper carries receive morally formative power (looking within). Greenman usefully observes that the Lord’s Supper ‘carries morally formative power as it is the main way that Christians, week by week, encounter the self-giving, others-focused, love of Jesus. We are called to model our lives, through the Spirit's power, upon his example.’¹⁰⁷

Fifth, the kingdom is joyfully anticipated (looking forward). The Lord’s Supper equally contains an eschatological dimension (Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16). ‘The past is present to us. And so is the future’, as Greenman remarks.¹⁰⁸ In the meal, we joyfully anticipate the heavenly wedding banquet (Revelation 19:9), and ‘though the feast the church celebrates is perhaps only a crumb or two from the table, it is a real anticipation of that future feast.’¹⁰⁹

When celebrated properly, the Lord’s Supper excels in all these things. Christ graciously gives to us the manifold benefits of the gospel through audible words, visuals, touch, taste, and smell.¹¹⁰ And since we have established that children are full members of the body of Christ, who are capable of meeting the prerequisites of the meal, who are we to hinder them from reaping its benefits and joys?

D. PASTORAL IMPLICATIONS

Every church needs to discern whether ministries ‘are being carried out in ways that disadvantage or show insensitivity to any of its members’, particularly those communicating ‘a message of exclusiveness which is inconsistent with the reality of the oneness of Christ’s body.¹¹¹ When contemplating the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper, I believe that pastoral implications lend more support for the practice, rather than dissuade us. Though there are many implications we could note, we will discuss only a few here.

Reiss summarises the crux of the pastoral complexity: ‘It is difficult to explain to a child who is regular in attendance why they may not receive communion’.¹¹² Yet, most children find themselves in this situation of being denied what is rightfully theirs as members of the family of believers.¹¹³ What message does such a decision communicate to children? It certainly sends a message of exclusiveness and disunity condemned by Paul (1 Corinthians 11:17–18); it de facto makes infants and children second-class citizens of Christ’s body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12–27); and most troublingly, an automatic barring from the Lord’s Supper also applies a status of excommunication upon a child—a most serious form of church discipline.¹¹⁴

Calvin claims that when God ‘sees meet to withdraw our assurance of the things which he had promised in the sacraments, takes away the sacraments themselves.’¹¹⁵ Surely we would pray for an overflow of assurance for our youngest members, not the opposite! And so, as Sutton rightly states, ‘it becomes important for one who has been baptized to proceed to communion. If one does not, then he has effectively been excommunicated. Children must be included, therefore, who have been baptized.’¹¹⁶

If we do admit children to the Lord’s Supper, the pastoral value for children is immense. After interviewing several communicant children, Reiss states that ‘the receiving of the bread and wine was a tangible expression of God's acceptance of them and their worth. Grace was not just signed but given through the sacrament. Theologically I was already comfortable that it was right, but the practice confirmed the rightness.’¹¹⁷ Not only this, but he observed a by-product of allowing paedocommunion for enquiring baptismal families: ‘By explaining that the baptized would be communicant it made the parents think more about what baptism was about’, given it granted the child a right to be nurtured within the body of believers.¹¹⁸

A final pastoral implication relates to our overall discussion of whether theological knowledge determines participation in the sacrament. Sutton caricatures that while ‘the Baptists are guilty of irrationalism, requiring a conversion experience, Reformed churches have tended to teach that intellectual understanding is the way to God.’¹¹⁹ I believe there is a grave danger in adopting an ‘intellectualistic interpretation’, since the logic ‘forces us to unhappy conclusions’,¹²⁰ as Sutcliffe states below:

To require “understanding” is to fence the Lord's table; it implies that a particular kind of “adult” mode of thinking is required. By such a standard the elderly who have become confused or the mentally handicapped, as well as children, would be excluded.¹²¹

As we can see, the pastoral implications that arise from paedocommunion lead us toward the conclusion that such a conclusion is the correct one. Now, we don’t have space here to consider how we would address the practical challenges that arise from paedocommunion, but it is enough for now to acknowledge here that they exist, and further discussion is required. First, paedocommunion calls into question the place of catechesis and confirmation. However, seeing these as a deterrent to paedocommunion is surely pulling the cart before-the-horse.¹²² Second, there are complexities around the giving of wine to children in churches where non-alcoholic alternatives are absent.¹²³ Third, a pastorally sensitive response is required when accommodating parents who in good conscience have not had their children baptised (and therefore should or would be non-communicant) or parents who may equally choose to withhold the Lord’s Supper from their children for their own reasons. And sensitivity is similarly required for the children themselves, for there are issues that may arise when children compare themselves to one another.¹²⁴

At the end of this essay, I’ve included a brief appendix where I draft a practical application in the Anglican context.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have determined the degree a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper determines their involvement in the sacrament. Using biblical, historical, theological and pastoral categories, we have shown that a child’s theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper does not determine their involvement in the sacrament. Rather, we determined that a child’s eligibility to the sacrament rests upon three central principles:

1. Their ability to meet the scriptural requirements for participation in the Lord’s Supper;

2. Their genuine faith and maturity, appropriate to their age and development; and

3. Their communicant membership granted in their baptism.

Therefore, for children who meet these prerequisites, we saw that participation in the Lord’s Supper is not only permissible, but advantageous. Such admission to the Lord’s Supper will not only serve to benefit the individual and wider corporate body, it also provides the optimal setting for a child’s theological understanding of the sacrament to be bolstered.

---

APPENDIX: PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Space precludes us from suggesting a liturgical overhaul, however I believe there is value in setting some principles for how an inclusive Anglican communion service could function.¹²⁵ Such a proposal undoubtedly requires further detail, however I also want to hold that not much need change in the liturgy to make it suitable for multi-generation participation.

Applied through Anglican context

The liturgy use in this example is the ‘Holy Communion Third Order’ (APBA1995), though the principles from this proposal are flexible enough to be applied to others.¹²⁶

§§1–12 (as written)

§13 Scriptural Exhortation

The minister reads Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 11:26–28 as printed.

A further description is required here which frames what self-examination Paul requires of us before partaking in the Supper. It needs to emphasise both personal sin against God and poor treatment of the church body.

Alternatively, a paraphrase of Matthew 5:23–24 could be read:

Christ himself warns us that if we approach God and can recall our conflict with a fellow brother or sister, we must first go and be reconciled to them, and only then come forward.

§14 Confession

A deliberate silence must be held to allow each member, (including children) to recall their breakdowns in pursuing unity in the body, alongside their private sins.

The corporate confession prayer can then be recited as printed.

§15 Absolution

§16 The Greeting of Peace

The minister reads:

We are the body of Christ. (this affirmation needs to signal this ‘discernment’)
His Spirit is with us.

The peace of the Lord be always with you.
And also with you.

This time of greeting must be long enough for parishioners to approach their brothers and sisters, and pursue reconciliation with them if necessary. There is certainly scope for enjoying being part of the corporate body, however this is the most natural setting within the service for solemn reconciliatory peacemaking actions to take place, if we are to take seriously Paul’s exhortation. In other words, this shouldn’t be merely a ‘greet the people around you,’ but is intrinsic to the valid participation in the Supper.

§§17–18 (as written)

§19 The Breaking of Bread

For me, reading 1 Corinthians 10:17 here is really exciting, because…

We who are many are one body,
for we all share in the one bread

By including children in our celebration, finally this response is no longer a corporate lie!

§§20–25 (as written, except without the children being excommunicated)

1. Anglican Church of Australia, My Illustrated Prayer Book: Holy Communion (Mulgrave: Broughton, 2011).

2. Anglican Church of Australia, A Prayer Book for Australia: for use together with The Book of Common Prayer (1662) and An Australian Prayer Book (1978) (Mulgrave: Broughton, 1995), 118–165.

3. Quotation from the Confirmation liturgy §26, see Anglican Church of Australia, APBA1995, 93.

4. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1040.

5. H. D’Arcy Wood, ‘Some Theological Considerations’, in Children and Holy Communion, ed. John Grundy, Span Series (Melbourne: Joint Board of Christian Education, 1978), 20.

6. This is quite different to holding that theological understanding of the sacrament is itself unimportant or undesirable. This will be addressed later in the essay.

7. See ‘Appendix’ at end of essay.

8. For adherents of credobaptism, the logic is undoubtedly simpler since personal eligibility for one sacrament (repentance and faith) would ipso facto grant eligibility to the other.

9. Christian L. Keidel, ‘Is the Lord’s Supper for Children?’, WTJ.37 no 3 (1975): 306.

10. Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, Logos Edition. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 762.

11. John Murray, ‘Christian Baptism: Second Article’, WTJ.14 no 1 Nov (1951): 1.

12. Peter T. Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch: An Exegetical Handbook, ed. David M. Howard, Jr, Logos Edition., Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009), 117.

13. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 327.

14. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 331.

15. Quotation from Murray, ‘Christian Baptism’, 1; For Paul’s view, see Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 301–302.

16. Murray, ‘Christian Baptism’, 5, emphasis original.

17. Bird, Evangelical Theology, 761–762; Jeffrey Peterson, ‘‘The Circumcision of the Christ’: The Significance of Baptism in Colossians and the Churches of the Restoration’, Restoration Quarterly.43 no 2 (2001): 72–73; Jerry Sumney, ‘The Meanings of Baptism in Colossians’, Lexington Theological Quarterly.45 no 1 Spr-Sum (2013): 39–40; For views against, see J. P. T. Hunt, ‘Colossians 2:11–12, the Circumcision/Baptism Analogy, and Infant Baptism’, Tyndale Bulletin.41 no 2 Nov (1990): 227–244; Martin Salter, ‘Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12’, Themelios.35 no 1 (2010): 15–29.

18. L. McFall, ‘Sacred Meals’, NDBT, 751.

19. McFall, ‘Sacred Meals’, 751; Douglas Mangum, ‘Passover’, The Lexham Bible Dictionary; Nicholas Perrin, ‘Last Supper’, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels 493; Peter Shirokov, ‘Meal Customs’, The Lexham Bible Dictionary.

20. Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 307.

21. Despite this affirmation, there is considerable debate around whether infants and young children actually did partake in the Passover feast. Murray holds that there is ‘no evidence that this was the case. It would be unreasonable to think that they did; the diet was hardly suitable for infants.’ See Murray, ‘Christian Baptism’, 30.

22. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, eBook. (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1845), 4.16.30.

23. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 311.

24. Richard A. Burridge, ‘4. The Bearer of Burdens - Luke’s Jesus’, in Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 120–121; David Peterson, Encountering God Together: Biblical Patterns for Ministry and Worship (Nottingham: IVP, 2013), 168–169.

25. Peterson, Encountering God Together, 168–169; See also Dan Nässelqvist, ‘Last Supper’, The Lexham Bible Dictionary.

26. Quote from Brian Gamel, ‘Lord’s Supper’, The Lexham Bible Dictionary; See also Burridge, ‘Bearer of Burdens’, 130; Brad Harper, ‘Food as a Symbol of Grace, or Why the Eucharist Isn’t Kit Kat Bars and Diet Pepsi’, Cultural Encounters.11 no 2 (2016): 77; John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 119; David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 161.

27. Peterson, Acts, 156.

28. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, Logos Edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 27.45 δοκιμάζω, 331; 30.109 διακρίνω, page 363.; For a defence of translating ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε as ‘all eat together’, see Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 558–559.

29. Norman Pritchard, ‘Profession of Faith and Admission to Communion in the Light of I Corinthians II and Other Passages’, Scottish Journal of Theology.33 no 1 (1980): 59–60.

30. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 321.

31. Matthew Winzer, ‘The True History of Paedo-Communion’, The Confessional Presbyterian.3 (2007): 35.

32. Regarding this passage, he writes: ‘“Not discerning the Lord’s body:” i.e., not searching, not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him; not estimating the weight of the gift.’ See Saint Chrysostom, ‘Homily XXVIII: 1 Cor. xi. 28’, in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, ed. Philip Schaff, eBook., NPNF 1.12 (Massachusetts: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1889), 164.

33. Murray, ‘Christian Baptism’, 31 no 41; A. A. Langdon, Communion for Children? The Current Debate, Latimer Studies 28 (Oxford: Latimer House, 1988), 19–21; Beckwith and Daunton-Fear find it implausible that Paul would mix his metaphors of ‘the body’, therefore this must still relate to a contemplation of the theology of Christ’s body in the sacrament: ‘We may surely conclude then that, as infants and small children can neither rigorously examine themselves nor discern the significance of the sacramental bread and wine, it is better that they should not communicate but rather wait until the ‘years of discretion’ (at least 12) for this privilege.’ See Roger Beckwith and Andrew Daunton-Fear, The Water and the Wine: A Contribution to the Debate on Children and Holy Communion, Latimer Studies 61 (London: Latimer Trust, 2005), 37–38.

34. See Holy Communion Third Order liturgy §§13–14, Anglican Church of Australia, APBA1995, 174.

35. Erickson holds that ‘while no age qualification can be spelled out in hard and fast fashion, the communicant should be mature enough to be able to discern the meaning (1 Cor. 11:29).’ See Erickson, Christian Theology, 1049.

36. Pritchard, ‘Faith and Admission to Communion’, 59–60.

37. ‘The oldest and best texts say simply “without discerning the body” (𝔓46, א*, A, B, C*, 6, 33, 1739, 1881*, pc, vg, co, Pel)’, see Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 555 no 179; Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.), Second Edition. (London: United Bible Societies, 1994), 496; James B. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, The Geneva Papers.Special Edition no 1 Jan (1982): 2–3.

38. Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, erroneously assuming the unattested longer reading of 11:29 (‘the body of the Lord’), find it doubtful that Paul would so flippantly change his lexical understanding of σῶμα from verse to verse to mean something like ‘the church’ in 11:29. That their mis-interpretation is based on the Bible’s mis-translation is clear: ‘Paul refers here to 'the body of the Lord' as in v. 27, whereas in 10:17 where 'body' is indubitably used of the church this phrase is absent.’ See Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, Water and the Wine, 37, quote from footnote 65, emphasis original; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 496.

39. There are 46 occurrences of σῶμα in 1 Corinthians. Many times it relates to a person’s physical body (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6); other times it relates to Christ’s physical body (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:16); there are many times when the body relates to the believers in the church (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12).

40. Ciampa and Rosner note how 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, in which Paul applies the ‘body’ language fluidly between Christ and the community of believers, ‘complements and fills out the material in chapter 11 by explaining that the Supper entails participation in the blood and body of Christ, that the single loaf speaks to the heart of the unity that must mark the life of the church.’ See Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 469.

41. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 3; Wright and Bird state: 'Dishonouring the Messiah’s body, whether in the form of the meal or the form of the church, is courting disaster’, in N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 491.

42. George Philip, ‘The Corinthian Lord’s Supper: Paul’s Critique of the Greco-Roman Meal Tradition’, Journal of Biblical Theology.2 no 2 Apr-Jun (2019): 80.

43. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 3.

44. Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 555; Sutton is quick to qualify that ‘this interpretation of the passage in no way removes the places of confession of sin’, but rather the focus of confession ought to include the corporate entity too, see Ray R. Sutton, ‘Presuppositions of Paedocommunion’, The Geneva Papers.Special Edition no 2 (1982): 4.

45. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 3.

46. Wood, ‘Theological Considerations’, 19; Bieritz makes the same application to children, see Karl Heinrich Bieritz, ‘The Lord’s Supper as Sacrament of Fellowship: Implications for Preparatory Instruction and Admission to the Lord’s Supper’, in ... And Do Not Hinder Them: An Ecumenical Plea for the Admission of Children to the Eucharist, ed. Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz, Faith and Order Paper 109 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982), 45, https://archive.org/details/wccfops2.116.

47. Colin Buchanan, Children in Communion (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1990), 11.

48. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 338.

49. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 301.

50. Winzer, ‘History of Paedo-Communion’, 36.

51. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 301; Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 1; Tommy Lee, ‘The History of Paedocommunion: From the Early Church until 1500’ (Reformed.org, October 2020), 1–21, https://reformed.org/sacramentology/tl_paedo.html; Sutton, ‘Presuppositions of Paedocommunion’, 4; Buchanan, Children in Communion, 6–8; Tim Gallant, ‘The Church Fathers: A Catena of Quotations on Paedocommunion’, Paedocommunion.com: Calling for the feeding of Christ’s lambs since 2002, https://paedocommunion.com/articles/fathers_quotations.php.

52. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 301.

53. The infant, unable to stomach the liquid proceeded to violently vomit up the wine, which ‘burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lord's power, so great is His majesty. The secrets of darkness were disclosed under His light, and not even hidden crimes deceived God's priest. This much about an infant, which was not yet of an age to speak of the crime committed by others in respect of herself.’ See Cyprian of Carthage, ‘Treatise 3: On the Lapsed’, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, trans. Robert E. Wallis, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, Digital Replication of Text. (Buffalo: Christian Publishing Co., 1886), 25–26, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050703.htm; See also Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, Water and the Wine, 52; Winzer, ‘History of Paedo-Communion’, 31.

54. He writes: ‘Jesus for all believing infants… Yes, they're infants, but they are his members. They're infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.’ See Augustine of Hippo, ‘Sermon 174: On the Words of the Apostle, 1 Timothy 1:15’, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, trans. Edmund Hill, ed. John E. Rotelle, Vol. III/5, Sermons 148-183 on the New Testament (New York: New City Press, 1992), 174.7.261.

55. He writes: ‘These statements only demonstrate that Augustine thought it was necessary for infants to partake of the sacramental body and blood of Christ; they nowhere state when or how they participated… Augustine does not answer these questions.’ See Winzer, ‘History of Paedo-Communion’, 33, emphasis original.

56. Sutton, ‘Presuppositions of Paedocommunion’, 4; Compare with Beckwith and Daunton-Fear’s opinion, which holds that the push for paedocommunion is ‘guided mainly by the spirit of the age’, see Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, Water and the Wine, 77.

57. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 302; Buchanan, Children in Communion, 8.

58. Buchanan, Children in Communion, 8.

59. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 303.

60. Scott James Meyer, ‘Martin Luther, Lutheran Theology, and Paedocommunion: History, Compatibility, and Appraisal’, Currents in Theology and Mission.45 no 1 Jan (2018): 37; Martin Luther, ‘III. On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church’, in First Principles of The Reformation or The Ninety-Five Theses and the Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther, Translated Into English, ed. Henry Wace and C. A. Buchheim, Digitised Facsimile. (London: John Murray, 1883), 197–198, https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/luther-first-principles-of-the-reformation-1883; Martin Luther, The Table Talk of Martin Luther, ed. William Hazzlitt, Digitised Facsimile. (London: H. G. Bohn, 1857), CCCXLVII.162; For a view against, see David Jay Webber, ‘Infant Communion in the Lutheran Church?’ (Angel Fire, 2017), 11, http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/InfantCommunionLutheranChurch.pdf.

61. Calvin writes: ‘[A]s 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… Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants.’ See Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.30; The Church of Scotland mirrors Calvin’s logic, see Pritchard, ‘Faith and Admission to Communion’, 56–57.

62. ‘And there ſhall none be admitted to the holy Communion; vntil ſuch time as he can ſay the Catechiſme, and be confirmed.’ See final rubric in the ‘Confirmation, or laying on of hands’ service, Church of England, The Boke of common prayer, and administration of the Sacramentes, and other rites and Ceremonies in the Churche of England: Anno. 1559, reprinted 1634 (London: Robert Barker, 1559), 75, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/BCP1559.pdf; See also Peter Reiss, Infants and Children: Baptism and Communion (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2015), 7–8.

63. The revised rubric states: ‘And there ſhall none be admitted to the holy Communion, until ſuch time as he be confirmed, or be ready and deſirous to be confirmed.’ See Church of England, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, According to the Use of The Church of England: Together with the Psalter or Psalms of David: 1662, reprinted 1844(London: William Pickering, 1662), 379, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/Baskerville.pdf.

64. Anglican Church of Australia and General Synod, ‘Canon for the Admission of Children to Holy Communion, Canon 6, 1985’ (Anglican Church of Australia, 1985), https://anglican.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Canon_for_the_Admission_of_Children_to_Holy_Communion_1981.pdf.

65. Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1998), 37–38.

66. Ron Buckland, Perspectives on Children and the Gospel: Excellence in Ministry with Children and Families (West Gosford: Scripture Union, 2001), 77–78.

67. Quotation from Judith M. Gundry-Volf, ‘‘To Such as These Belongs the Reign of God’: Jesus and the Children’, Theology Today.56 no 4 Jan (2000): 480; See also William Andersen et al., ‘Theology of Childhood: A Theological Resource Framed to Guide the Practice of Evangelising and Nurturing Children: A Summary’, Journal of Christian Education.47 no 1 May (2004): 6; Lelonnie Hibberd, Raising a Forerunner Generation: Children with a Passion for Jesus (Columbia, MO: Kingsgate, 2003), 29–30.

68. Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.7.

69. Andersen et al., ‘Theology of Childhood: A Summary’, 6–7.

70. Bird, Evangelical Theology, 765; See also Buckland, Children and the Gospel, 53–56.

71. Buckland states: ‘All children begin with [a belongingness to] God, but will drift from that position unless an effective nurturing or evangelistic influence operates in their lives. It is a belongingness that may become rebellion. The desire to nurture that belonging, and to avoid that rebellion, propels us into urgent teaching and evangelism.’ See Buckland, Children and the Gospel, 63; ‘This view does not deny a corporate factor, but it nevertheless makes an individual emphasis.’ See Andersen et al., ‘Theology of Childhood: A Summary’, 11.

72. According to Buckland’s model, after someone is within the kingdom of God (bold line), the spiral then represents a journey of sanctification, obedience, discipleship and maturity (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:12–14). See Buckland, Children and the Gospel, 77.

73. For an example of the diverse experience of many Christians, see Andersen et al., ‘Theology of Childhood: A Summary’, 13; This general pattern is not dissimilar to the ‘Law of Gradualness’ taught in Roman Catholic tradition. See Pope John Paul II, ‘Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II, to the Clergy and to the Faithful of the Whole Catholic Church: On the Role of the Christians Family in the Modern World’ (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1981), 9.7, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.pdf; Pope Francis, ‘Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia of the Holy Father Francis, to Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Consecrated Persons, Christian Married Couples and all the Lay Faithful: On Love in the Family’ (Vatican Press, 2016), 264.200, 273.205, http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf.

74. Buckland, Children and the Gospel, 77, emphasis mine.

75. Andersen et al. note that a ‘child becomes increasingly capable of understanding right from wrong, and an increasing ability to grasp the saving message of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Hence we reject the errors to be found at two extremes’, expecting too much of children (that they must attain an adult level of understanding), or expecting too little (that they can’t express faith until they are adult enough to do so)’, see Andersen et al., ‘Theology of Childhood: A Summary’, 9.

76. Nye continues: ‘There is, or course, the often quoted story of the Sunday school teacher who asked the children to guess what she was thinking based on clues such as, ‘It has a bushy tail; it likes nuts’, and received the reply, ‘Well it sounds like a squirrel but I know you must mean Jesus.’’ See Rebecca Nye, ‘3. Encountering children’s spirituality’, in Children’s Spirituality: What It Is and Why It Matters (London: Church House Publishing, 2009), 27–28.

77. I recall a recent example where upon removing a band-aid from a minor scratch, my toddler daughter extemporaneously exclaimed: ‘Jesus made my bodies [sic] all better! Yay Jesus!’ Several months of occasional conversations and Bible stories recalling Jesus healing people were contextualised and applied in my daughter’s mind as the logical cause of her own healing. Praise God! For quote, see Nye, ‘Children’s Spirituality’, 28.

78. I friend of mine recalled as a child offering her various plush toys ‘Communion’, after seeing her family partaking in the weekly experience at church! See also Patricia Fosarelli, ‘Children and the Development of Faith: Implications for Pediatric Practice’, Contemporary Pediatrics.85 no 1 Jan (2004), https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/children-and-development-faith-implications-pediatric-practice.

79. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 1.

80. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 3.

81. Andersen et al., ‘Theology of Childhood: A Summary’, 12.

82. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 3.

83. Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, Water and the Wine, 74.

84. Langdon, Communion for Children?, 31; Equally unconvincing is the view that 'It should be explained to [children] … that receiving communion is a privilege worth waiting for until they are a little older, when the matter can be carefully explained and they can be confirmed. Such an approach surely makes them value the sacrament more.’ See Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, Water and the Wine, 74.

85. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 4.

86. Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Evangelism: Making Your Church a Faith-Forming Community (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 111.

87. Bieritz, ‘Sacrament of Fellowship’, 47.

88. Langdon, Communion for Children?, 6.

89. Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, Water and the Wine, 39.

90. Confirmation is typically seen as a formal recognition that a child is mature enough to make such response, see §4 in Anglican Church of Australia, APBA1995, 52; Langdon, Communion for Children?, 7.

91. Particularly if we understand this in terms of ‘decisions made toward Christ’. Buckland also argues that we should expect the Holy Spirit to indwell children. See Buckland, Children and the Gospel, 85–91.

92. Pritchard, ‘Faith and Admission to Communion’, 55; Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 3.

93. Sutton, ‘Presuppositions of Paedocommunion’, 1, emphasis original.

94. Bird, Evangelical Theology, 800.

95. Patrick Malloy, Celebrating the Eucharist: A Practical Ceremonial Guide for Clergy and Other Liturgical Ministers, Kindle eBook. (New York: Church Publishing, 2007), chapter 7, location 2122.

96. Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 291–292; Quoted in Jeffery P. Greenman, The Pedagogy of Praise: How Congregational Worship Shapes Christian Character(Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2016), 70.

97. Williams quoted in this document. Original context unknown, see Diocesan Children’s Work Advisor, ‘Preparing the Way: Admission of Children to Communion before Confirmation’ (St Albans Diocesan Office, 2013), https://www.stalbans.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/preparingtheway2013.pdf

98. Greenman, Pedagogy of Praise, 77.

99. Calvin, Institutes, 4.14.5.

100. David Wenham, ‘How Jesus Understood the Last Supper: A Parable in Action’, Themelios.20 no 2 (1995): 15, emphasis mine; See also Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 1; Greenman, Pedagogy of Praise, 70, 77.

101. John Calvin, ‘Summary of Doctrine concerning the Ministry of the Word and the Sacraments’, in Calvin: Theological Treatises, trans. J. K. S. Reid, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. XXII (London: SCM, 1954), VIII.174.

102. Brian S. Rosner, Known by God: A Biblical Theology of Personal Identity, Biblical Theology for Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 258; See also Greenman, Pedagogy of Praise, 71; Harper, ‘Food as a Symbol of Grace’, 77; Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.1.

103. Peter J. Leithart, ‘The Way Things Really Ought to Be: Eucharist, Eschatology, and Culture’, WTJ.59 no 2 Fall (1997): 176.

104. David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship, ProQuest Ebook. (Leicester: IVP Academic, 1992), 218; Also quoted in Peterson, Encountering God Together, 174.

105. Leithart, ‘Eucharist, Eschatology, and Culture’, 167.

106. Calvin, Institutes, 1.16.7, 3.20.44.

107. Greenman, Pedagogy of Praise, 74.

108. Greenman, Pedagogy of Praise, 79.

109. Leithart, ‘Eucharist, Eschatology, and Culture’, 165; See also Robert W. Canoy, ‘Turning the Table: Luke’s Inclusive Invitation to Communion’, Review & Expositor.116 no 3 Aug (2019): 319; Wenham, ‘How Jesus Understood the Last Supper’, 14; Markus Barth, Rediscovering the Lord’s Supper: Communion with Israel, with Christ, and Among the Guests (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 76.

110. Wenham, ‘How Jesus Understood the Last Supper’, 15.

111. Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 559.

112. Reiss, Infants and Children, 16.

113. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 337.

114. Keidel, ‘Lord’s Supper for Children?’, 341; Bird, Evangelical Theology, 800; Sutton, ‘Presuppositions of Paedocommunion’, 1.

115. Calvin, Institutes, 4.14.12.

116. Sutton, ‘Presuppositions of Paedocommunion’, 1.

117. Reiss, Infants and Children, 19.

118. Reiss, Infants and Children, 19.

119. Sutton, ‘Presuppositions of Paedocommunion’, 1.

120. Jordan, ‘Theses of Paedocommunion’, 3.

121. John M. Sutcliffe, ‘Children and Holy Communion’, in ... And Do Not Hinder Them: An Ecumenical Plea for the Admission of Children to the Eucharist, ed. Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz, Faith and Order Paper 109 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982), 33, https://archive.org/details/wccfops2.116.

122. For debate around confirmation, see Wood, ‘Theological Considerations’, 19; Buchanan, Children in Communion, 14; Beckwith and Daunton-Fear, Water and the Wine, 73; Reiss, Infants and Children, 24; Note also Luther’s critical appraisal of confirmation as a practice: ‘we have ourselves invented [confirmation] in order to regulate the duties of the bishops, that they may not be entirely without work in the Church.’ See Luther, ‘Babylonian Captivity’, 214.

123. Reiss, Infants and Children, 15.

124. Reiss, Infants and Children, 16.

125. I admit that application through Anglican tradition is may be complex since the liturgy requires us to do more than simply ‘remember Christ’ or to relate to others well—we are said to ‘feed on him’. This is a difficult concept for adults, let alone children to grasp. See Langdon, Communion for Children?, 3.

126. Anglican Church of Australia, APBA1995, 169–180.