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

The Consecration |
Prof. Becker believes that there is a more marked similarity between SD VII, 85
and the Einsiedelletters than between the Wolferinus letters and the SD (159–161). But
when one recognizes that the consecration is under discussion in SD VII, 73–90, one
will easily see the similarity of the contents of both the SD and the Wolferinus letters.
When Prof. Becker quotes in Latin SD VII, 85 for the purposes of comparison, he omits
the words” extra actionem divinitus institutam” (159). Here in the last phrase there is a
striking similarity in the use of the word” actio” both in SD VII, 85 and the Wolferinus
correspondence (see p. 136), while there is no wording in the Einsiedelletters that has
such close resemblance to the SD.
Further, Prof. Becker is quite insistent that the SD declares that the rule was“formulated
and proclaimed by Dr. Luther himself,” and hence the Wolferinus letters cannot be meant,
since the rule there mentioned is ascribed to Melanchthon (160). There seems to be no
question that research scholars are correct in ascribing the origin of the rule to Bucer and
Melanchthon and its popularization especially to the latter. But despite Prof. Becker’s
insistence that the SD declares that the rule was formulated by Dr. Luther, the SD does not
say that Luther formulated it. The reference to Luther is only in connection with the word
“explain.” Both the Triglot and the first complete American Book of Concord translations are
much closer to the original than the Tappert translation which Prof. Becker in part here
follows. In contrast to Tappert these two translations read:“For against such papistic abuses
this rule has been set up at the beginning [of the reviving Gospel], and has been explained
by Dr. Luther himself, Tom IV Jena”;“For, in opposition to such papistical abuses, this rule
was originally established, and it is explained by Dr. Luther, Tom 4, Jen. fol. 597” (see note
#79).
In this connection it should also be noted that the rule came into common usage not
only against the Roman Catholics but also against the Sacramentarians, as SD VII, 88
specifically states.
Prof. Becker’s opinion that the expression added to the Latin text of SD VII, 87, “The
beginning of the reviving Gospel” would tend to point to 1528 rather than 1543 is not very
relevant. Writing 40 or 50 years later, one would use such terms in such generalized ways
as to mean the time of our great forefather, Martin Luther, so that it could refer to any
time between 1517–1546. Or it could even refer to a later time since it was not unusual for
the later Reformers to refer to the Reformation as restoring to the church the light of the
Gospel. Chemnitz frequently employs these terms which speak of the light of the Gospel
shining so brightly (Ex. 2, 256, 396, 430, etc.).
It is also of no significance that the SD is written in German, as are the Einsiedel letters,
while the Wolferinus letters are in Latin. At that time the theologians were so accustomed
to bilingualism that they moved very easily from German to Latin and Latin to German.
This easy movement from one to the other in the Apology to the Formula and the Historie
des Sacramentsstreit is ample testimony to this fact.
78. In 1563, for example, Erhard Sperber appeals to the Luther-Wolferinus correspondence as a
further explanation of the meaning of the rule eventually posited in SD VII, 85,“Er spricht
aber der frome Lutherus in 4 Lateinischer Tomo/zu Jena gedruckt/in einer epistle/so er im
43. Jar an magistrum Wolfferinum geschrieben” (Christliche und notwerdige verantwortung
Erhardi Sperbers wider die grewliche bezichtigung und beschwerliche aufflag der Sacramentirer
und Rottengeister zu Dantzig,” Erfured, 1563, fol. 14b.).
On July 18, 1619, the theological faculty of Wittenberg rendered a decision with regard
to the question as to whether it is right for a pastor to take the remaining consecrated
wine home for common use, since with the cessation of the action the sacrament ceases.