The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia
The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia
The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>The</strong> Consecration |<br />
Aga<strong>in</strong>: We must judge <strong>in</strong> this, not accord<strong>in</strong>g to what <strong>the</strong> eyes<br />
and outward senses grasp and <strong>in</strong>dicate, but accord<strong>in</strong>g to what faith,<br />
grounded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Word <strong>of</strong> God, teaches us. <strong>The</strong> eyes see bread and w<strong>in</strong>e;<br />
all outward senses witness noth<strong>in</strong>g else. Faith, however, perceives <strong>the</strong><br />
Lord Christ truly present, who presents His own body and blood <strong>in</strong> this<br />
most holy mystery. <strong>The</strong> same Lord Christ, present but unseen under <strong>the</strong><br />
sacrament, hidden and concealed, is worshiped here by believers, and<br />
not <strong>the</strong> element <strong>of</strong> bread or <strong>the</strong> outward appearance. (HS 540–543). 70<br />
280 After quot<strong>in</strong>g at great length also from Pr<strong>in</strong>ce George’s first sermon,<br />
<strong>Chemnitz</strong> and his co-authors testify, “We have not here mutilated<br />
<strong>the</strong>se words <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> precious choice preacher (as K<strong>in</strong>g Solomon calls<br />
himself), Pr<strong>in</strong>ce George <strong>of</strong> Anhalt, but we want to set <strong>the</strong>m down<br />
fully for <strong>the</strong> year 1553 as an eternal witness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>the</strong><br />
sacrament [held] <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> churches <strong>of</strong> this land, which has also been<br />
[held] after <strong>the</strong> death <strong>of</strong> Dr. Lu<strong>the</strong>r” (HS 545). <strong>The</strong>y also <strong>the</strong>n add <strong>the</strong><br />
testimony that “<strong>the</strong> pious Pr<strong>in</strong>ce Wolfgang <strong>of</strong> Anhalt [stood] <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
same faith and confession about <strong>the</strong> <strong>Supper</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lord” and that he<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> this faith until his death on March 23rd <strong>of</strong> 1566. He was<br />
a signer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Augsburg Confession (1530) and <strong>the</strong> last one, with <strong>the</strong><br />
exception <strong>of</strong> Philip <strong>of</strong> Hesse, to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al signers.<br />
281 In <strong>the</strong> Exam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>Chemnitz</strong> closes his confession that <strong>the</strong> veneration<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sacrament is permissible with<strong>in</strong> its prescribed action<br />
by br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g quotations from Lu<strong>the</strong>r’s works. It is somewhat surpris<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that he does not appeal to Lu<strong>the</strong>r’s 1523 detailed discussion found<br />
<strong>in</strong> “<strong>The</strong> Adoration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sacrament” (LW 36, 275–305), nor to his<br />
“Brief Confession Concern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Holy Sacrament” (1544). Here, at<br />
<strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> his life Lu<strong>the</strong>r recalls Carlstadt’s fulm<strong>in</strong>ations aga<strong>in</strong>st it<br />
twenty years previous. Some had drawn <strong>the</strong> conclusion that s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong><br />
elevation was not universally practiced among <strong>the</strong> Lu<strong>the</strong>rans, this was<br />
an acknowledgement that “Christ’s body and blood was not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
sacrament, and that <strong>the</strong>y are not orally received” (LW 38, 313). Lu<strong>the</strong>r<br />
disabuses his critics <strong>of</strong> that notion, and observes that “if you come to<br />
a place where <strong>the</strong>y still observe <strong>the</strong> elevation you should not be <strong>of</strong>fended<br />
nor should you condemn <strong>the</strong>m, but accept it because it is tak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
place without s<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g and without endanger<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> conscience”<br />
(LW 38, 319).<br />
282 <strong>Chemnitz</strong> first refers to one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> last articles that Lu<strong>the</strong>r wrote,<br />
“Aga<strong>in</strong>st Thirty-Two Articles <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Louva<strong>in</strong> <strong>The</strong>ologists” (1545).<br />
<strong>Chemnitz</strong> says, “Lu<strong>the</strong>r also, writ<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ologians <strong>of</strong> Lou-