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

| The Lord’s Supper
doctrine, especially with regard to this sacrament, since they were
convinced that he had taught what the divine revelation had given to
the church and commanded that it observe to the end of time.
4 Another fact on which there seems to be general agreement is that
Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) is the chief author of the Formula.
E. F. Klug is not far wrong in representing the general consensus of
scholars regarding the chief precursor of the Formula, namely the
Saxon-Swabian Confession, by stating that “much of it by this point
was Chemnitz’s contribution.” 2
5 In view of this, it should be of some benefit to examine more closely
the writings of Chemnitz in order to ascertain in detail his doctrine
of the Lord’s Supper. Since there seems to be no such study available
to English readers, the purpose of this monograph is to make at least
a beginning in such a systematic review, with the hope that others will
be induced to proceed further in the study of the works of this great
Lutheran theologian. All Lutherans will be grateful to President
Emeritus J. A. O. Preus, Professor Fred Kramer, and Pastor Luther
Poellot for making several hundred pages of Chemnitz available in
the English language (see the preceding bibliography for details).
6 But Chemnitz also collaborated with several other theologians
to shed light on the gigantic struggle that took place after Luther’s
death to preserve the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacrament of the
Altar and to keep the Lutheran Church of the 1570s from becoming
Reformed or Sacramentarian in this respect. It would be difficult to
determine precisely the role played by Chemnitz in these collaborative
writings. But it is safe to say that it was an important one. In
these works one sees many parallels to what Chemnitz himself has
written as an individual.
7 It is impossible to grasp the wide range and depth of study which
Chemnitz devoted to the Lord’s Supper by consulting only his Loci.
This is simply because this work does not carry the detailed analysis
which the Lord’s Supper and the Examination II do. In fact, Chemnitz
states after the introductory paragraphs of this Locus, that he
will not at this place repeat the entire doctrine of the Supper since
other explications are available, including antitheses against the Romanists
(LT 165). He seems to be referring to his massive work of
1570. The Lord’s Supper and to his Examination of Trent (1565–1573).
After he has briefly summarized the main points in the Loci he de-