# Musculus: A Pro-Paedocommunion Puritan?



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

Wolfgang Musculus on Paedocommunion


NOTE: This thread is not intended to start a debate on paedocommunion itself. Rather, it is a look into history at one puritan who had surprising views on the subject. 

It would be interesting to consider whether he would be welcome in one of our churches today, or whether we would cast him out because of his views on this one issue.

This is an interesting piece of puritan history . . . a reformed puritan who did not consider paedocommunion a sin. He lived in the 16th century, so he certainly was not a FV/AA advocate. And he was well respected by his peers, being favorably quoted by Witsius on various topics, for instance. 

Would Wolfgang Musculus be welcome on the Puritanboard, even with his differing view on paedocommunion? On one hand, there is a case to be made from 1 Corinthians 11:28 and the last several centuries of Church history. But on the other hand, it would seem strange indeed to ban a puritan from the Puritanboard.


Wolfgang Musculus was a puritan who lived from 1497 to 1563. Richard A. Muller describes him as one of the "important second-generation codifiers of the Reformed faith," alongside Calvin, Vermigli, and Hyperius (Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, p. 31). He is described by Farmer as a leading Reformer in the cities of Augsburg and Berne. In Berne, he was theology professor, as well as an influential ecclesiastical advisor. His commentaries were very popular in their own day, seeing widespread use throughout Reformed Europe, and going through numerous printings (see Craig S. Farmer, "Wolfgang Musculus's Commentary on John," in Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, eds., Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, pp. 216ff.). 

In 1560, Musculus wrote Common Places of the Christian Religion, which is basically a systematic theology. From this puritan work, here is what Musculus had to say about paedocommunion. He is cautious about censuring the Fathers of the Early Church for their practice. He disagrees with the common view of 1 Corinthians 11:28.

Musculus firmly believes that children were admitted to Passover. Musculus does not assume that believers' children who are not yet of capacity to examine themselves can thereby subject themselves to judgment. Musculus denies that self-examination has some sort of constitutive role to play with regard to the Supper. For Musculus, self-examination is preventative medicine, not a means whereby one becomes qualified for participation. Underlying all of this is Musculus's stress upon the Supper being "public and common unto the whole church." 

Without further ado, here are some direct quotes from Musculus:


(The following material is found under the heading: "To Whom the Lord's Supper is to be Ministered and to whom not.")

p. 757

The administration of the Supper standeth not in a private usage, as belonging to some chosen and appointed persons, but it is public and common unto the whole church, so that as many as be reckoned among the members of the church, for whom Christ's body was given, and his blood shed upon the cross, are to be admitted thereunto. And the very tradition of the Apostle, and the custom of the primitive church doth sufficiently declare, that the use thereof is common unto all faithful, in so much that the fathers did admit the infants of the faithful also, as we may see in Cyprian and Augustine.

pp. 761-764 

It is known that the sacrament was given to the children of the faithful also in the time of Pope Innocent, Cyprian, and of Augustine, as well in Europe as in Africa. Neither do I read that the custom was contrary in any place of Asia. There is a story read in the Sermon of Cyprian, De Lapsis, of a young wench that was brought by her nurse in the time of persecution to the sacrifices of the Gentiles, which was afterwards, when all was quiet, brought by the mother to the sacrament of thanksgiving of the faithful. There is mention made in many places of Augustine of the sacrament of thanksgiving, given to little children. 

But after the time of those fathers, that universal custom began to decay by little and little, until that the contrary prevailed so much, that he is to be taken for a most rank heretic, that doth hold that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is to be given to infants. 

In Lorraine there is left until this day some piece of that custom. For there when the infant is baptized, the minister or priest which did baptize him, fetcheth out of the vestry to the altar the pire where in certain parcels of the sacramental bread, as they call them there be kept, and he holdeth one of the pieces up to the people: afterwards he layeth it up again in the pire, and putteth forth his two fingers wherein he had it, to the Deacon to wash with wine, and of that wine he doth drop into the mouth of the infant, saying: The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ profit thee to life everlasting. These leavings of the old custom remained not only in the Churches of Lorraine, but in many others also, as I suppose. 

And that saying of Christ also did move the fathers to give the sacrament of the Supper unto infants: Unless you do eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Whereupon they thought it necessary to admit the infants also unto the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that they might be made partakers of the grace of Christ, and of life everlasting. For they did turn the same to the ceremony of the Sacrament, which Christ spake of the spiritual eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, and of the fruit of his death, and their aftercomers were moved by the saying of the Apostle, to withdraw the use of this sacrament from the infants: Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the cup. For they gathered upon that, Infants can not prove themselves, ergo it is not lawful for them to eat of this bread, and to drink of the Lord's cup.

Let them see here which do screech against [lit. crake upon] the fathers, that they do not in sundry wise, but agreeably expound the Scriptures. Cyprian, Augustine, and Pope Innocent knew well enough that the Apostle said: Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the cup. Neither were they such donkeys [lit. so very Asses], but that they knew that infants were not able to prove themselves. Again, they also which followed them, knew that the Lord had said: Unless you do eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 

Then how did the one sort so take the saying of the Apostle, that they judged it did not let, and the other judged that it doth let, that the infants may not be partakers of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Again, how did they understand the saying of Christ to gather upon it [i.e. derive from it], that the infants of Christian men could not be saved, unless they were partakers of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper: and yet these men have thought, that no such matter ought to be gathered upon it, insomuch that their opinion is, that the infants of the faithful may be saved without the sacramental communion? 

This diversity of exposition is such, that the one doth reprove the other of error, and that in a matter of greater weight: that is, to wit, concerning the salvation of our Children, which we do care most for next after ourselves. 

Is this expounding of Scriptures after an agreeable sense, I do not inveigh against the Fathers, God forbid: but I do blame their perverseness [lit. overthwartness] which do condemn the gifts of God for heresy, in them which do in this our age expound the Holy Scriptures, because that they do in many points differ from another. If the disagreeing exposition of Scriptures be heresy, let them charge the fathers also withal, or else hearken to that saying of the Lord: Judge not according to the outward appearance, but judge right judgment. 

As for me, I am so far from condemning the labours of learned men, whether they be old or new, because that they do in some places sundry ways expound the Holy Scriptures, every one after his own understanding, that I do for that cause read them the rather, than if they were all so servilely restrained to some one Doctor's judgment, that no man might freely declare his own judgment. The diversity of opinions and expositions doth profit the wise man, so that no body do unadvisedly condemn him, which doth dissent from him, and so break the bond of peace in the Church.

As concerning this matter wherein we talk, I suppose we shall not unfitly consider it, if the doing of the Elders, which did admit infants unto the sacraments of thanksgiving, be discretely weighed apart from the reason of it, whereby they were moved unto it, and that we may judge thereof according unto other godly and probable reasons also, of which I will set forth some to be considered by the reader. 

The first is, that the sign seemeth not to be denied unto him, which is partaker of the thing that is signified. 

The second is, 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.

The third is, that Christ said himself: Let the little ones come unto me, and forbid them not: for to such doth belong the kingdom of heaven. 

For upon these reasons me thinketh we may gather in this wise. 

First, if he which is partaker of the thing that is signified, may be made partaker of the sign, and the children of them that do believe, be partakers of Christ's death, that is to say, of the redemption purchased by him: ergo they may be partakers also of the Lord's Supper. 

Secondly, if our little children be parcel of the Church, which is the body of Christ: it followeth that they do pertain also to the communion, whereby according unto the saying of the Apostle, we be one body, which do participate of one bread, and of one cup. Christ is the feeding of his whole body, ergo of our children also. Wherefore like as the little children of the Jews did appertain to the Passover, the Sacrament of their redemption, as well as their parents: So our children also do as well belong unto the sacrament of our new Passover, as we. 

Thirdly, if Christ did vouchsafe to have children come unto him to embrace them, to lay hands upon them, and bless them, how shall we judge them unworthy to be admitted unto the Sacrament of his body and blood, seeing that there is no man, I suppose, that will esteem it to be preferred above Christ himself?

And it seemeth that an answer may be shaped to the place of Paul: Let a man prove himself, and so eat of that bread, and drink of the cup: that it is to be understood of them only, in whom it is dangerous, lest they should unworthily eat of the Lord's bread, and drink of the cup, and so becoming guilty of the Lord's body and blood, should eat and drink their own judgment: as the text itself doth evidently enough declare. 

But there is none of this to be feared in the little children of them that do believe: which I see not why we should say, that they be unworthy of the Lord's table, seeing that they be worthy by the grace of Christ, to be incorporate[d] unto him by Baptism, although that they can not yet (because of their tender age) believe, much less confess their faith, and try themselves, which things be required of them that be of perfect years of understanding. 

And whereas the Apostle doth warn us to try our selves before that we do participate of this bread and cup of the Lord's, it doth not serve to make us able to come to the Lord's table by this endeavour of proving our self: but that we should not rashly, lightly, and otherwise disposed than it becometh us, unworthily use, yea abuse the Sacrament of grace, and offend against the body and blood of the Lord. This reason doth not hinder, but that the little children of such as do believe, may be partakers of this bread and cup of the Lord's.




Interesting. Does anyone on here know if there were any of the puritans who directly interacted with Musculus on his paedocommunion stance?




[Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2005)

> Wolfgang Musculus was a puritan ...


How are you defining puritan?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

It would also be interesting to know if anyone interacted with Jeremy Taylor's 17th century comments regarding paedocommunion.

Jeremy Taylor was an English divine. Around the year 1660, he wrote a treatise called The Worthy Communicant, in which he entertains the question of paedocommunion.

Among other statements in this work, Taylor said:
"It is certain that in Scripture there is nothing which directly forbids the giving the holy communion to infants."

He also comes to the conclusion that the early church certainly communicated infants.

Nevertheless, he also argued that the communication of infants was not commanded. So he concluded that the church itself has the authority to either give or withold communion from children, as it will. Perhaps it is this stance that kept him from coming under fire from his peers.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> > Wolfgang Musculus was a puritan ...
> ...



I'm not exactly sure what "box" to put him in. Some have called him a second-generation reformer. I have heard him called a puritan by others. 

In any case, he was a well-respected published protestant author in the 16th century, and was favorably quoted by some puritans. But if I have erred in saying that Musculus was a puritan, then I defer.



Here's what I am particularly curious about, regarding both Musculus and Taylor: 

Did anyone _back then_ interact with either of them regarding the doctrine of paedocommunion? Or did all the puritans just ignore their statements on this topic?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2005)

If it wasn't a pratical issue, ie. no large clamoring for the practice, then I suppose it is not surprising to see little interaction. Taylor's work comes just a couple of years before the ejection of 1662 and of course you had the killing times in Scotland, so there were more important issues afoot. It is certainly possible that there are some stray lines dealing with Paedocommunion out in the body of Puritan works but it would take much hunting and would only demonstrate what we already know, that it was not a practice then and not a view widely held. Make sense? If one wanted to look, check later Puritan and Reformed works, reprints with indices, and look under Taylor. But of course many works are not reprinted and lack indices.


----------

