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

The Consecration |
actione accipimus, non praesumus facere, quod quia non iubeter a Christo, facere non
possumus. Dicit enim, Hoc est Corpus meum, Hic est Sanguis meus. Non dicit, Facite
meum corpus, Facite meum sanguinem. Non factores sui corporis et sanguinis voluit, sed
communicatores, id est, ut ederemus Dominicum Corpus et sanguinem biberemus, in eius
commemorationem, quod corpus, et quem sanguinem, nobis ipse per suam institutionem
daret, non nobis ipsi faceremus.
50. The index to the English translation, The Lord’s Supper carries no reference to“consecration,”
although it is used at least once in a significant way which reflects Chemnitz’s understanding
of it as effecting the Real Presence, p. 156. Nor is there any reference to the synonyms of
the term, e.g., p. 46, “this bread here present after receiving its name from God, is not only
bread but at the same time also the body of Christ.” The index to the second volume of The
Examination, it is true, has several references to the consecration, but they are vague by the
omission of direct references to what Chemnitz himself says, and in general limiting the
references to the papalists and the Latin Fathers.
51. J. H. C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology (St. Louis: CPH, 1932) is here obviously at odds with the
Chemnitz understanding of the consecration when he says,“The minister therefore should
repeat the Words of Institution at the time when the sacrament is to be administered in
order thereby to consecrate the elements, that is, to set them apart and bless them in their
holy use in the sacrament even as Christ has commanded, and at the same time thereby to
invite the communicants to receive not only bread and wine but also orally, Christ’s body
and blood (1 Cor. 10:16),” p. 143.
Pieper, too, here differs from Chemnitz, “Consecration is correctly defined as the act
whereby bread and wine are detached from their ordinary use and appointed to the use of
the Lord’s Supper, that is, they are set apart to this end, that with the bread, according to
Christ’s promise, the body of Christ and with the wine according to Christ’s promise, the
blood of Christ is received” (Dogmatics III, 366).
52. Prof. Siegbert Becker adopted an entirely different interpretation of these texts. He asserted
that “Christ did not say, ‘Say, This is my body,’ but ‘Take and eat, this is my body’ “ (Nya
Vdktaren, 8/1973, p. 104). He thereby limited the force of Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor. 11:23–25 by
holding that these texts do not command us to do what Christ Himself did.
53. Chemnitz is here in agreement with Luther that we preach the Gospel to the world and
administer the sacraments only because Christ has given this command to His Church,
“We have the Gospel. Christ says,‘Go and preach the Gospel’ not only to the Jews, as Moses
did, but to‘all nations,’ to‘all creatures’ [Mark 16:15]. To me it is said,‘He who believes and is
baptized will be saved’ [Mark 16:16] . . . . These words strike me too, for I am one of the ‘all
creatures,’ If Christ had not added’ preach to all creatures,’ then I would not listen, would
not be baptized, just as I now will not listen to Moses because he is given not to me but only
to the Jews” (How Christians Should Regard Moses, 1525; LW 35, 171).
54. Prof. Seth Erlandsson has entirely misunderstood Chemnitz in his attempt to defend his
own thesis that Chemnitz“makes no doctrine of‘any moment of consecration’“ (“The Biblical
and Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” WLQ, April 1977, 95–112; see especially p.
103 f.). While he quotes at length from the Chemnitz Examination, he carefully skips
over what Chemnitz has to say specifically about the consecration (Ex. 2, 222–230; since
Prof. Erlandsson quotes from the Latin, the corresponding pages in the Ed. Preuss Latin
edition — 1861 — will also be given, 299–303). Besides, Prof. Erlandsson makes no reference
to Chemnitz’s discussion of the adoration of the sacrament (Ex. 2, 276–284; Latin 320–323).
As will be recognized later, an analysis of this part of the Examination will reveal that if
Chemnitz did not know when the Real Presence began, he would be guilty of gross idolatry.