Wolfgang Musculus

Although this is not a common household name like Martin Luther or John Calivn, Wolfgang Musculus was, as Richad Muller says, one of the “important second-generation codifiers of the reformed faith”[1] alongside Calvin, Vermigli, and Hyperius. Musculus was a leading reformer in Berne, Switzerland, which exists between Zurich, home of Ulrich Zwingli, and Geneva, home of John Calvin, of whom Musculus was a contemporary. In Berne, Musculus was theology professor as well as an advisor of ecclesiology for the church, and his bible commentaries were spread all over Europe due to their great appeal and popularity. In the debate over paedocommunion, its veracity, and its place in the church, Musculus cannot be overlooked. As a reformational theologian, he understood and defended Paedocommunion from a reformed and covenantal perspective, making him a trusty advocate for a common advance of such a practice among reformed churches even today.

Musculus also authored what is essentially a systematic theology titled Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae[2], The Common Places of The Christian Religion. It is in this systematic theology where Musculus makes a cogent argument for the practice of Paedocommunion from a reformed and covenantal perspective. At the time of his writing, Paedocommunion was already out of favor among the majority of the reformers including Calvin, a point Musculus makes abundantly clear, when he explains that those who still believe in Paedocommunion are considered to be among the rankest of heretics in his day. Musculus does, however, temper his advocacy for the practice to become mainstream. He does this because of his agreement with other reformers, that the sacraments were not necessary to the salvation of the children of believers. This agreement notwithstanding, he is adamant that Paedocommunion is biblical, proper and that we err by censuring or discrediting the church Fathers due to their endorsement of this position.

Musculus’ Argumentation

Musculus rests his support of Paedocommunion upon three pillars of argumentation. First, he expresses that the “sign seemeth not to be denied unto him, which is partaker of the things that is signified[3].” In the second place, Musculus says that “Christ is the Saviour of the whole body, that is to say of the church, and that the infants also do belong unto the integrity and wholeness of the ecclesiastical body.[4]” Lastly, Musculus says, “Christ said himself: Let the little ones come unto me, and forbid them not: for to such doth belong the kingdom of heaven.[5]”

In the first place, Musculus uses the identification of the children of believer’s as proof positive that the table of the Lord ought to be open to them. In other words, the fact that children of believers are baptized into Christ, and assume their identity in Christ, it is simply the logic of scripture that they would be brought to the meal that represents the very body that this child was just engrafted into. What do the waters of Baptims signify? Simply, the signify the blood of Christ. Heidelberg Catechism 69 says, “Christ instituted [baptism] and with it promised that, as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly his blood and his Spirit wash away my soul’s impurity, that is, all my sins.”[6] In other words, in the same way the blood of Christ washes away all my sins (1 John 1:7), the waters of baptism have been given as a visible signification of that very blood and salvation (1 Peter 3:21). Additionally, the waters of Baptism are also called “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5) which washes away all our sins (Acts 22:16). This is all possible because these waters represent the blood of the Savior, which saves to the uttermost. Musculus, therefore, is seeing an obvious continuity between baptism and the Supper. If anyone is baptized into the death of Christ (Romans 6:4), that is to say, the redemption purchased by his blood, then why would they be denied being perpetual partakers in that same blood that has already washed them?

The second argument Musculus makes, centers around the unity of the body of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 Paul instructs us toward unity by asking, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not participation in the blood of Christ? The bread we break, is it not participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” In other words, if the church calls itself a unified body, and yet prohibits some from participating who are not guilty of sin, then is this unification a farce? Regarding our subject matter, the logical question that must follow is: are the baptized children of believers’ part of the body of Christ or are they not? The Westminster Divines, answer that by saying, “The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel…consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary means of salvation.”[7] The Divines articulate the church to be 1) the Kingdom of the Lord, 2) the house of God, and 3) the family of God. The Divines also recognize that the children of those who profess the true religion are part of that same family.

Then we must ask, “what is the church?” In the bible the term “Church” is the Greek, “Ekklesia" which literally translates to "the called-out ones" as it is derived from the Greek words "ek" (out of) and "kaleo" (to call). So, naturally, all those who are of the family of God (the visible church) are those who are called-out from the world, sin, and darkness and are called to serve Christ, live in light, pursue holiness, and obey the law of God. These are who we would commonly refer to as Christians or saints (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:1, 1 Corinthians 1:2, Romans 1:7). It is, therefore, safe to conclude that all those in the church, including the children of believers, are the saints of God, because by their baptism they become part of the church, the body of Chirst. The question then must be asked, if our children are part of the church, called-out from the darkness of the world, to live in the refulgent light of Christ, and are the saints of God, why are they so often segregated from the rest of the body, and prevented from participating in the meal of their Lord? How does this display the unity the Lord requires?

Lastly, Musculus argues – quite simply – that the little children were commanded by Christ, to not be prevented to come to him. From this command Musculus concludes three things. First, that if Christ himself commanded the children not be hindered from coming to him, it should go without question that the Lord would expect the little children to be brought to the table which represents his very self: his body and blood. This is because, while the table represents the body and blood of Christ, it does not take special mental capabilities to see that the Italian loaf, and the Bully Hill sweet red are not transformed into actual flesh and blood. Therefore, if Christ permitted the children to come to himself (the genuine flesh and blood), who would esteem the supper above the actual God-man and keep the children from it? Second, it is Christ himself who desires these littlest of children to come to him, receive baptism and be incorporated into his body. However, Christ does this without requiring a confession of faith, belief, or even the ability to repent despite the fact that the scripture make this a clear requirement (Acts 2:38). Therefore, if they are worthy of the grace of Baptism by Christ, what makes them unworthy of the grace of the Eucharist? Lastly, Musculus recognizes that the sole argument made by opponents of Paedocommunion is the supposed requirement to examine oneself before partaking (1 Corinthians 11:28). (There are of course other arguments, but they all fail quickly, and all opponents eventually come back to the supposed requirement to examine oneself). However, why do we assume this self-examination makes us worthy to come to the Lord’s table? Do we not sin immediately after self-examination? Are we not guilty of sin up to the moment the bread touches our tongue? Of course we are, for we have hidden faults that we have failed to examine (Psalm 19:12-14) and forsake, and yet we assume that being of mature mind, we are superior to our little ones, and we forbid them – in direct contradiction to our Lord’s command. This makes our mental assent, intellectual capabilities, and doctrinal understanding the litmus test of our union to Christ rather than the Lord’s sovereign selection.

[1] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, P. 31

[2] Musculus, Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae, The Common Places of The Christian Religion

[3] ibid

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] Heidelberg Catechism 69

[7] Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2