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

0 | The Lord’s Supper
In spite of all this evidence, Prof. Erlandsson seeks to defend his thesis that Chemnitz did
not know when the Real Presence began by referring to Chemnitz’s review of the Roman
theory that the presence of Christ extends beyond the mandated use of the consecration, the
distribution and the reception (Ex. 2, 241–252; Latin 306–311). Chemnitz and the Formula
of Concord operate with a precise definition of the terms “action” and “use,” which they have
derived from the Words of Institution (SD VII, 85–87). This “use” includes no more and
no less than the consecration, the distribution, and the reception. Prof. Erlandsson uses
Chemnitz here as if he were rejecting the teaching that the body and blood of Christ within
the precisely defined “action” are not present before the distribution. As a matter of fact,
which can easily be seen from reading this selection of the Examination, Chemnitz is only
attacking the Roman teaching that the Eucharist“contains the body and blood of Christ in a
lasting manner and permanently also apart from its use” (Ex. 2, 242; emphasis added; Latin,
307). The reservation of the sacrament, Chemnitz contends, “has no basis in the Words of
Institution (Ex. 2, 243). As a matter of fact, it “is overthrown by this one rule, which is both
wholly true and wholly firm, that sacraments apart from their divinely instituted use are not
sacraments” (Ex. 2, 243; emphasis added; see pp. 11–14 of this monograph for Chemnitz’s
precising definition of the terms “action” and “use”). Prof. Erlandsson’s fundamental error
which leads him to this misuse of Chemnitz is that for him the “blessing” is only a word of
praise or thanksgiving, and that the words of Christ,“This is my body” only have“connection
with the distribution and reception” (WLQ, April 1977, p. 95). Chemnitz does not admit to
the possibility that the “blessing” or the “consecration” could simply be some word of praise
or thanksgiving, “The Eucharist is sanctified or consecrated, not by the prayer of man, but
by the Word of Institution” (Ex. 2, 228). But “when we ascribe the blessing to the words of
Christ in the institution, [we] have a sure and firm foundation” (Ex. 2, 231).
55. “In causa Anexeoos me ipsum diu offendit consecratio, ut vocant. Et Oecolampadius
vehementer urget, qui fieri possit, ut vocetur de coelo Christus? fiatne hoc meritis ac
precibus sacerdotis seu populi, an, ut quid am dixerunt, virtute verborum? Tandem veni
in hanc sententiam, nec meritis seu precibus sacer dotis seu populi tribuendum esse, quod
Christus det nobis suum corpus et sanguinem, nec virtuti verborum; ed enim, ut sonat,
magicum est” (Corpus Reformatorum 1, 948 f.).
56. “Habe Vitus diesen Zeugen gefragt/Ob auch die worte der Einsetzung/dadurch des
Priester das Brot und We in zum Sacrament benedicirt/ein Sacrament/und der ware
Leib des Herrn were/Dann er hielts fur eine Zauberey/vel Magiam . . . . Vitus . . . unter
andern gesagt/ Quod verba institutionis Sacramenti non essent pars vel species Sacramenti,
sed tantum contio ad populum, de usu et fructum Sacramenti. “ (Erhard Sperber, Christliche
und notwendige verantwortung Erhardi Sperbers/wider die grewliche bezichtigung und
beschwerliche aufflag, der Sacramentirer und Rottengeister zu Dantzig/, Erfurd, 1563, fol
K 21.) (A duplicated copy of this book is in the Rare Book Room of Bethany Lutheran
Theological Seminary, Mankato, Minn.).
57. “ . . . Das es kein Magia wer. Dann was aus dem befehl und durch das Wort Gottes geschege/
das dasselb war/recht und krefftig/und wer solchsl(wann mans ja Magiam nennen solte)
Magia sancta et iussa. Das ander aber/so durch böse Leuta geschege/one befehl Gottes/und
desselbigen worts/alleine aus eingebung des Teufels/das es Magia inconcessa wer/und hette
mit diesem gar keine vergleichung” (Sperber, fol. K21).
58. Prof.Lowell Green has recently demonstrated that the conviction of Luther and his followers
that the consecration is the most powerful and principal action in the Supper reflects itself
in the early Lutheran liturgies where “the consecrated host and chalice are always called the
body and blood in the distribution or manducation” (emphasis in the original text). Prof.