The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia

The Consecration |
As far as the situation is concerned, it is based entirely on the fact, as
the Concordia tells you in unmistakable words, that it is not the word
or work of any man but alone the word and ordination of Christ the
Lord, that His body and blood are present and distributed in the Lord’s
Supper. For the words of Christ were efficacious not only during the
original institution but continued to be so; wherever the Lord’s Supper
is celebrated according to Christ’s institution, and His words are used,
His body and blood are present and distributed on the strength and the
authority of the same words that He spoke at the original institution.
For wherever a person holds to Christ’s institution and speaks His
words over the bread and the wine and thus blesses the bread and wine,
as Paul expresses it, and distributes the blessed bread and cup, Christ
himself by virtue of the original institution is efficacious through the
spoken word.
But now they say that Christ has nowhere promised that when the
words of institution were repeated, He would be present with His body
and distribute it in and with the bread.
We counter with the question: Has not Christ instructed us to do
what He did in the original Lord’s Supper? Now then, He assuredly
spoke the words, and we must by all means do the same. For the element
does not become a sacramentum without the Word, As Augustine says,
accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, When the Word comes
to the element, it becomes a sacrament. The Concordia also does not
say that Christ’s body and blood is brought about by the speaking of
the words which emanate from the officiant but rather because of the
original institution and word of Christ which is to be repeated, according
to Christ’s command, as often as the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.
Paul, you see, speaks of the blessed cup which not only Christ blessed
in the original institution, but which we also bless. With which words
shall we bless the cup so that it may be a participation or communion
of the blood of Christ if we do not employ for that purpose the words
with which Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper: Eat; Drink; This is
my body; This is my blood? Add to that the fact that in the Christian
Concordia the beautiful quotation of Chrysostom from the sermon on
the Betrayal of Judas is cited which settles the whole controversy, if only
our adversaries had ears to hear and a heart that could concur with the
truth. The words are as follows: “Christ himself prepares this table and
blesses it; the words are spoken by the mouth of the priest but by God’s
power and grace they are efficacious,” Is this not true, or is such teaching
papist, as our opponents allege? Irenaeus expresses himself in the same
way in Book 5:“When the mixed chalice and the bread receive the Word
of God, there is a Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ.” And
in Book 4, Chapter 34, “Just as that which is bread from the earth,
when it receives the call of God, is no longer common bread, but the
Eucharist consisting of two parts, etc.” But perhaps our opponents also
want to make Irenaeus to be a papist, or they will in the end arrive at
the point where they will observe the Lord’s Supper entirely without
the repetition of the words of Christ’s institution, thereby to avoid