The Church Fathers

A Catena of Quotations on Paedocommunion

ASSEMBLED AND COMMENTED BY TIM GALLANT
The earliest support for paedocommunion can be found in the unity presupposed between baptism
and the Lords Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
After describing baptism as regeneration, Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-210) writes,
As soon as we are regenerated, we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest. . .
receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food.
The Instructor, ch. VI
CYPRIAN
Direct statements concerning paedocommunion come a few decades later, from the pen of Cyprian,
bishop of Carthage. We have two passages (written c. A.D. 250) which demonstrate that children
were communed at the Lords table. Both of these references come in the context of the terrible
Decian persecution, when Christians were ordered to engage in pagan rites honouring the emperor,
or face fatal consequences. In On the Lapsed, chapter 9, Cyprian writes,
But to many their own destruction was not sufcient. With mutual exhortations, people were urged
to their ruin; death was pledged by turns in the deadly cup. And that nothing might be wanting to
aggravate the crime, infants also, in the arms of their parents, either carried or conducted, lost, while
yet little ones, what in the very rst beginning of their nativity they had gained. Will not they, when
the day of judgment comes, say, We have done nothing; nor have we forsaken the Lords bread and
cup to hasten freely to a profane contact; the faithlessness of others has ruined us. We have found
our parents our murderers; they have denied to us the Church as a Mother; they have denied God as
a Father: so that, while we were little, and unforeseeing, and unconscious of such a crime, we were
associated by others to the partnership of wickedness, and we were snared by the deceit of others?
The claim of not forsaking the Lords bread and cup which Cyprian places upon the lips of little
ones whose parents have apostatized apparently presupposes the fact that they were indeed
participants at the Lords table by right.
Even clearer is the passage later in the same work:
Learn what occurred when I myself was present and a witness. Some parents who by chance were
escaping, being little careful on account of their terror, left a little daughter under the care of a wet-
nurse. The nurse gave up the forsaken child to the magistrates. They gave it, in the presence of an
idol whither the people ocked (because it was not yet able to eat esh on account of its years),
bread mingled with wine, which however itself was the remainder of what had been used in the
immolation of those that had perished. Subsequently the mother recovered her child. But the girl
was no more able to speak, or to indicate the crime that had been committed, than she had before
been able to understand or to prevent it. Therefore it happened unawares in their ignorance, that
when we were sacricing, the mother brought it in with her. Moreover, the girl mingled with the
saints, became impatient of our prayer and supplications, and was at one moment shaken with
weeping, and at another tossed about like a wave of the sea by the violent excitement of her mind;
as if by the compulsion of a torturer the soul of that still tender child confessed a consciousness of
the fact with such signs as it could. When, however, the solemnities were nished, and the deacon
began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the
little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with
resisting lips, and refused the cup. Still the deacon persisted, and, although against her efforts,
forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup. Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a
profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctied in the blood of the
Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lords power, so great is His majesty.
The secrets of darkness were disclosed under His light, and not even hidden crimes deceived Gods
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.
On the Lapsed, ch. 2526
Here a small child, too young to even communicate what she had experienced while in captivity,
has its turn to partake of the eucharistic cup. Cyprian gives no hint of anything abnormal in the
fact that the sacrament was offered to one so young. His interest lies, not in arguing for the practice,
which he presupposes, but in showing the danger of partaking if one has engaged in idolatrous
practices - even involuntarily, as here.
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS
The liturgical instructions of the Apostolic Constitutions (late fourth century) also attest to
paedocommunion. Here are a couple of passages:
Let none of the catechumens, let none of the hearers, let none of the unbelievers, let none of the
heterodox, stay here. You who have prayed the foregoing prayer, depart. Let the mothers receive [or,
take] their children; let no one have anything against any one; let no one come in hypocrisy; let us
stand upright before the Lord with fear and trembling, to offer.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.12
. . . . let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub-deacons, and the readers, and
the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the
widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without
tumult.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.13
It is important to notice that, as was common in the early centuries, the visitors and even
catechumens were dismissed from the service when the Supper was to be celebrated. But not only
did the children remain, they are called upon specically to partake. Thus, catechumens refers to
converts awaiting baptism, not to covenant children.
AUGUSTINE
Around the same time frame, Augustine (354-430) also mentions paedocommunion repeatedlyHere
are a few examples. Discussing original sin, Augustine comments,
They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in
order to have life in themselves.
Works, Vol. 5, Sermon 174:7
Why is the blood, which of the likeness of sinful esh was shed for the remission of sins, ministered
that the little one may drink, that he may have life, unless he hath come to death by a beginning of
sin on the part of some one?
In On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, Augustine argues that the reference in
John 6 to eating Christs esh and drinking His blood refers to the sacrament of His own holy
table. He insists that the requirement of John 6:53 is universal (Except you eat of my esh and
drink my blood, you shall have no life in you), stressing the universality of Christs statement,
including with reference to infants. This is in support of his argument, which is meant to
demonstrate the reality of original sin. He concludes, From all this it follows, that even for the life
of infants was His esh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that even they will not
have life if they eat not the esh of the Son of man. (Book I, ch. 26-27)
A few chapters later, Augustine adds,
And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lords Supper life, than that which is
written: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; and The bread that I shall give is
my esh, for the life of the world; and Except ye eat the esh of the Son of man, and drink His
blood, ye shall have no life in you? If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree,
neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lords body
and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins
that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these
sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin. . .
On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, Bk. I, ch. 33
Regardless of what we think of Augustines notions of the absolute necessity of the sacrament, it is
beyond question that his argument here is based on the fact of paedocommunion being widespread
(and probably, universal) practice. Augustine had been to Milan and Rome, and so knew the
practice of the broader Church. Furthermore, his primary opponent, Pelagius, was from Britain, and
Pelagiuss disciples had travelled extensively in the East. Consequently, Augustine could never have
argued on the basis of a practice which was unique to his own locale in North Africa.
Leo the Great (Bishop of Rome A.D. 440-461) will serve as our nal early witness to
paedocommunion. When asked what should be done in the case of believers who were unsure if
they had been baptized, he responds:
Those who can remember that they used to go to church with their parents can remember whether
they received what used to be given to their parents.
Letter CLXVII, Q. 17
He then further concedes that they may not be able to remember even that, which shows that he is
clearly thinking of very young children indeed!