Twelve Things to Think Upon

I exhort you in the mercies of Christ, set to work for your soul, and let these things bear weight with you, and ponder them seriously:—

1. Weeping and gnashing of teeth in utter darkness, or heaven’s joy.
2. Think what you would give for an hour, when you shall lie like dead, cold, blackened clay.
3. There is a sand in your glass yet, and your sun is not yet gone down.
4. Consider what joy and peace are in Christ’s service.
5. Think what advantage it will be to have angels, the world, life and death, crosses, yea, and devils, all for you as the king’s servants, to do your business.
6. Think to have mercy on your seed and a blessing on your house.
7. To have true honour, and a name on earth that casteth a sweet smell.
8. How will you rejoice when Christ drieth your face, and welcometh you to glory and happiness.
9. Imagine what pain and torture a guilty conscience is; what slavery to carry the devil’s load.
10. Sin’s joys are but night dreams, thoughts, fancies, imaginations and shadows.
11. What dignity it is to be a son of God.
12. To have dominion and mastery over temptations, over the world and sin.

— Rutherford

Romish Trends in the Church of Scotland — Children at Communion

by Rev. D. M. Boyd

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is expected to discuss proposals this month for introducing children to the Communion table along with adults. This proposal has been put forth in four slim discussion booklets issued by a Working Party which is to report to the General Assembly. Book 1 (12pp) is named “A General Statement”; Book 2 (12pp) is named “Some Considerations for Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions”; Book 3 (10pp) is named “Some Considerations for Parents”; and Book 4 (12pp) is named “Some Considerations for Leaders and Teachers of the Young”. The blurb on the back cover of these booklets states: “These studies arise out of the conviction that it is the right of every baptised person, regardless of age, background or condition, to receive Holy Communion as a primary means of grace.”

On this slender information, the result of over a decade of study, the Church of Scotland is expected to overturn more than 300 years’ of Presbyterian practice and swing over to a practice which will fit easily into Roman theology and practice when the time is ripe for Roman take-over.

We are not aware of pressure from eight-year-old, or younger, children to go to the Lord’s Table neither, if it is so, do these booklets say so. We are told that there is a growing tendency for children to be present at the celebration of Holy Communion, especially when Communion is celebrated frequently. However, we are told that this new step arises from a new understanding about baptism; this retrograde move is therefore theologically inspired and we are entitled to ask what theology is behind it. But this theology is not clearly stated and one must search through brief superficial statements in order to try to understand the basis of this new understanding.

Underlying theology

Booklet 2 gives a brief summary of the basis of the thinking at the heart of the Report to the General Assembly of 1982, on the same subject, and states:

“… admission of children to communion was seen as a logical extension of the Church’s theology of Infant Baptism, which affirms that baptism is the one essential rite for entry into the Church. Consistent with this belief, it is the assertion that all those baptised are entitled — at an appropriate stage of their development — to be admitted to the fellowship of Holy Communion.”

Paedocommunion is therefore due to development in the understanding of baptism. This shows that the two sacraments are linked in this new departure from biblical practice. We are told that baptised children belong to the Church and therefore are entitled to Communion. However, there is a complete failure, or an unwillingness, to understand or state the distinction between the Visible and the Invisible Church (see the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 25). The above paragraph mentions “entry into the Church,” whereas “entry into the Visible Church” is more accurate and reminds us that such children who are baptised with water still need to be baptised with the Holy Spirit, that is, that they need to be born again. However, the booklets give the impression that the children are already born again, so that we are assured: “Children do have faith.”; “(The baptismal service) marks the beginning of the process by which the child’s growth in the faith is nurtured.”; “It is by belonging to the community of faith, sharing in its worship and fellowship and thus experiencing God’s love for themselves that the faith of the children will be encouraged and nurtured.” (Bk 1, p7, p5). Is this thinking undergirded by the theology of baptismal regeneration, such as the Roman Catholics and some Anglicans believe, or by presumptive regeneration, such as some Dutch Reformed and some Church of Scotland ministers believe, or by what theology? The distinction between the Visible and the Invisible Church is blurred by speaking of baptised children as belonging to the community of faith, which sits well with the Roman theology of the Church.

One’s concern is only increased by reading such statements as the following:

“Implicit in this reasoning is an understanding of ‘sacrament’ as an act which both sanctifies and enables entirely, through the free grace of Christ. Thus the efficacy of ‘sacrament’ — whether it be baptism or Holy Communion — is not conditional on human merit, maturity or knowledge.

“However, it was recognised that the exercise of this act of grace seeks a response, which is the work of the Holy Spirit.

“Since, in baptism, infants are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, it is theologically appropriate that children should, at the earliest opportunities, be nurtured by all the means of grace, including the grace of Christ which comes to us in the celebration of Holy Communion. “Very simply, the view expressed was that the sacraments are for the whole Church, which is complete only as it includes all those who are baptised into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.”

Booklet 2, pp5-6

This does nothing to calm one’s fears. Do we detect ex opere operato in these words, “which both sanctifies and enables entirely”? Is this the old Roman spectre arising, that “the grace signified in the sacraments is contained in the very nature of the sacraments themselves, so that it is always conferred, ex opere operato, upon every receiver of them who does not oppose a positive obstacle thereto”?

The picture appears to be as follows: the Holy Spirit is promised to those who are baptised, therefore we should not withhold Holy Communion from any who are baptised. It is neither stated how permanent this participation in the Lord’s Supper is to be nor whether any baptised person will be debarred from participation.

However, the impression is created that it is a permanent right which cannot be removed for Bk 2, p8, says, “It would be necessary for communicant transference from one congregation to another to be mandatory on the receiving kirk session, much as the sacrament of baptism is transferable, without question, from one parish to another.” Strong language — stronger than the following sentence: “Voters’ Roll acceptance would also be strongly encouraged, though admission would remain within the powers of the accepting kirk session as it presently is.” Yet the privilege of paedocommunion is more than a right, it is essential. Booklet 1, p5, asks the question: “May it not be that participation in communion is not only the right of the baptised child but also an essential element in the process of nurture?” The question is answered in Booklet 4, p7: “It is essential that Holy Communion should be part of the environment of grace and faith in which the child is raised.” Discipline seems not to include debarring from the Lord’s Table, contrary to such scriptures as 1 Corinthians 5:11, although it may involve suspension from the Voters’ Roll (a Roll which will include those who make a profession of faith and active commitment; this profession is, significantly, called Confirmation, Bk 1, p10, and Bk 2, p7). Indeed, we are told that this method may improve discipline, and therefore it “might be a far more satisfactory situation than exists at present, where discipline is lax — being dependent only on very infrequent attendance at Holy Communion.”

1. Outlines of Theology, A. A. Hodge, Zondervan, 1973, p591. For the text of the Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 6 and 8, see p600 or Tracts containing Antidote to the Council of Trent, John Calvin (Vol 3 of his Tracts), Edinburgh, 1851, in loco. See also Hodge, p.643, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 27, section 3, concerning the efficacy of the sacraments.

Increased frequency of communion; the participation of children; confirmation; “the host”, though used in an innocuous manner (Bk 3, p8); increasing sacramentarian tone of language; obscuring the difference between the Visible and Invisible Church; playing down the conditions associated with the efficacy of the sacraments (and knocking down straw conditions): all this adds up to something far from Reformed and Presbyterian, and for what purpose?

Worthy receivers

A biblical assessment is supplied by Dr. John Barclay of Glasgow University in a paper on I Corinthians 11: 27-29. Whatever may be said of the exegesis of the passage, the application is poor because no-one, without a case to make out, would think of arguing from this passage to paedocommunion. The relevance of the passage is that, prima facie it is against paedocommunion because of the requirement for self-examination. However, no proper attempt is made to handle this. Dr. Barclay finishes by saying, “. . . I doubt that there is much danger of exposing them (children) to the kind of strictures Paul hands out in I Corinthians 11.” This is probably a reference to verses 29 to 32, but the message of these verses is sufficiently weighty for us to require something more than Dr. Barclay’s doubts before we can ignore it. If adult Corinthians were guilty of eating and drinking unworthily to their own judgment, then why may not children do the same?

It would be better that the children were raised as covenant children and the Gospel preached faithfully to them so that they may come to faith in Jesus Christ and manifest repentance toward God through the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. When they lead a life consistent with godliness as described in the Word of God, then, upon profession of faith and due examination by the Kirk Session, they may freely celebrate the Lord’s Supper according to His commandment. The examination by the Kirk Session is not an inquisitorial determination whether the person is born again, but the Kirk Session examines whether the person’s profession of faith is credible by being consistent with the person’s life and knowledge of scripture. Therefore the Session examines their spiritual experience and scriptural knowledge before opening or shutting the way to the Lord’s Table. The problem is not age, intellectual ability or background, as suggested by these discussion booklets, but whether the communicants are “worthy receivers” (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 27, section 3, and chapter 29, section 7), who have an intelligent faith, a credible profession, and the ability to examine themselves. The worthy receiver partakes of the Lord’s Supper, discerning the Lord’s body, in a self-examining manner (outws: in this manner) (I Corinthians 11: 28-29).

The Working Party envisages that paedocommunion would begin prior to profession of faith (Bk 2, p7; Bk 4 p7). However, how can one honestly say to children, in the words of institution, “This is my body which is broken for you”? One has no warrant to say this to them, especially when the subsequent life of too many of them reveals its falsity only too clearly. Once paedocommunion has been introduced, the next stage will be to remove the anomaly created in their theology by assuming baptismal regeneration, or something akin to it, to account for this paedocommunion prior to profession of faith. They will then be brought nearly into line with the Romanists.

The future

It may be thought that we are reading too much into these discussion booklets. But the booklets admit that they are using theology to address this problem (Bk 2, p7; Bk 3, p6). The booklets “offer theological, biblical and practical insight in support of the basic contention” that every baptised person has the right to receive Holy Communion (blurb on back cover). The theology is not clear, the biblical insight is inadequate and the practice is more akin to Roman practice than Reformed practice. Preempting proper discussion on the theology of the subject, the booklets are “focused on the general concerns of church members, the decision-makers in the courts of the Church, parents and Christian educators and youth leaders” (blurb). They are not directed at theologians so that the theology and biblical argument is thin and the underlying principles have to be gleaned from the text.

So what does the future hold? We have a hint in Bk 4, p6, where we are told about the potential of Holy Communion:

“it is potentially a magnificent expression and experience of Christian solidarity with one another and with God, but so often — for young and old alike — a puzzling ritual altogether out of step with the needs, concerns and aspirations of people who seek spiritual encouragement in the sacrament only to leave disappointed and empty. Yet, the potential remains and it is important that we hold before us the vision of what might be.”

1. Although it reflects the 19th century American scene, which we would not wholly endorse, it is worth perusing what Hodge says on qualifications for admission to the Lord’s Supper, Outlines of Theology, A. A. Hodge, Zondervan, 1973, pp644-646.

This goes beyond children. Adults are disappointed and empty with their “out of step ritual”. It must be made more magnificent. Does the writer have the magnificent ritual of the Roman mass before his mind’s eye? We are told in Bk 1, p9, that:

“the most profound truths of the Christian faith would be communicated in more approachable language and style and this would be appreciated by adults as well as children. Visual impact and symbolism could be used along with verbal communication and would enrich worship.”

Did our Reformers not argue against such ideas? Did the priests not defend their images and idols by saying that they were the books of the illiterate? Did our Reformers not reply, “Then, teach them to read!” Now, it appears that the need that children have of visual images in teaching (e.g. progressing from picture books to reading books) is to be used to introduce visual impact and symbolism into Reformed worship and into the Lord’s Supper itself! We are warned against being too upset by this: the whole is to be “celebrated with complete seriousness and integrity (as distinct from over-solemnity)”.

One wonders what has motivated the Church of Scotland to propose this fundamental change. The subject has been discussed “at grass-roots level, not only in the Church of Scotland but in almost every other Church as well” (Bk 1, p3). But so has ecumenism, and while paedocommunion is covered over with specious theology and pastoral concern, one cannot help thinking that it is ecumenically inspired. Another motivation may arise from the declining number of church attenders, i.e. if communion is made not only a right but also essential, and if it is celebrated more frequently, maybe every week, then attendance may increase: but is this not the Roman scenario? It may be an attempt to hold on to children in the manner that Rome does, by getting an early commitment even although it is not an informed commitment. It appears rather to be because the children are NOT “growing in faith” that the Church of Scotland is trying to capture them by this method. The event is proving that the premise of “faith in children” is wrong.