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

| The Lord’s Supper
take the words of the Supper in their natural, literal meaning, trying,
rather, to support their point by speaking in general terms of similarities
among the sacraments, using, as Chemnitz says, “ill-defined and
sweeping assertions,” but when pressed, they “adduce only individual
and particular examples,” such as the Lamb of the Passover (LS 257).
28 In answer, Chemnitz first points out that one cannot draw a universal
from particular examples. He grants that there are some similarities
but “what the similarity and what the difference is has to be
considered and determined not on the basis of passages which indicate
similarities or relationships but on the basis of the clear Word of
God and the institution of the individual sacraments” (LS 257; emphasis
added). Chemnitz recognizes that arguments from analogy can become
pitfalls which keep one from following the path of truth. He
well understands the truth of the old proverb, omne simile claudicat.
29 Since the Reformed had raised the old familiar charges against the
Formula of Concord with respect to the doctrine of the Real Presence,
Chemnitz, Selneccer and Kirchner note that the Words of Institution
must determine what one is to hold and believe with regard
to each Sacrament. The sacrament of circumcision and the Paschal
Lamb have nothing to do with the true presence and distribution of
the body and blood of Christ. 3
Precising the terms “Action” and “Use”
30 One need not read far into Chemnitz without noting the frequent
occurrence of the terms “action” (LS 42, 78; Ex 2, 29) and “use” (LS
37; Ex 2, 243) with regard to the Supper. Besides these terms, one
may also find “ceremony” (LS 78) and “rites” (Ex 2, 34, etc.). These
are words broad in their usage, extremely common in the secular
world but also used in religious language, especially in connection
with the sacraments. Luther apparently employed the terms “action”
and “use” quite rarely when speaking of the Lord’s Supper. But
the terms have been used by the Catholics, Sacramentarians, and
the Gnesio-Lutherans. For Chemnitz, in contrast to Luther’s use,
the terms have become normal in the discussion of the Sacrament
of the Altar, as a cursory review of his Examination and The Lord’s
Supper will quickly reveal. And the terms have found their place in
a critical axiom set forth in the Formula of Concord to determine
“the true Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Supper, ‘Nihil