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

0 | The Lord’s Supper
doubt, that the one and only way of administering, dispensing, and
using the sacraments — so far as their essence is concerned, the best,
most correct and safest way — is the one which was taught by the Son
of God Himself in the institution. For sacraments are not created by
nature or formed by human ingenuity, but the institution of the Son of
God, coming to the elements ordained by Him, makes sacraments.
If, however, the institution of the Son of God is either taken away or
adulterated or mutilated and changed, then we can in no way make or
have true sacraments. This axiom cannot be shaken even by the gates of
hell. (Ex. 2, 340; emphasis added).
333 There is no doubt that what Chemnitz here demands is not being
followed by many Lutherans who today want to be followers of Luther
in the strictest sense and who make a quia pledge to the Book
of Concord. The Melanchthonian blight has become well-entrenched
over the years. What can be said about the past and present Lutherans
whose doctrine and practice have not been as profound and consistent
as that of Luther and Chemnitz? Chemnitz does have a word to say in
this regard. He recognizes that when he “reproaches” Canon VII of
the Tridentine Decree which anathematizes those who confess that
the Eucharist “must of necessity be distributed immediately after the
consecration to those who are present,” etc., he may seem to be at once
condemning “all ancient churches” who had followed the papal custom.
But that is really not the case. Cyprian spoke a word of wisdom
here when he said, “If someone of those who were before us either from
ignorance or in his simplicity did not observe what the Lord taught us
by His example and institution to do, forgiveness may be granted to
his simplicity from the gentleness of the Lord” (Ex. 2, 295). The authors
of the Formula of Concord in their “Preface to the Book of Concord”
take a similar approach in discussing the damnatory clauses in
the article on the Lord’s Supper. They write, “It is not our purpose and
intention to mean thereby [i.e., with the rejections of false and adulterated
doctrine] those persons who err ingenuously” (Tappert, p. 11).
334 But having said that, Cyprian proceeds, “In our case, however, this
cannot be pardoned, who have now been admonished and instructed
by the Lord, in order that the evangelical law and tradition of the Lord
may be everywhere observed and that there may be no departing from
what Christ both taught and did” (Ex. 2, 295). Chemnitz notes that
Cyprian had a further word of explanation, “He who errs in simplicity
may be forgiven; but after inspiration and revelation of the truth has