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

Sacrament |
Supper, but there was added the perpetual and universal command
that it should be done to the end of the world. For the Savior says:
‘This (namely what has now been done in the first Lord’s Supper) do
in remembrance of me’” (Ex 2, 341; emphasis added).
36 The Examination of the Council of Trent appeared during the years
1565—1573, years during which the true Lutherans were forced to contend
not only against the Roman Catholics but also against the Sacramentarians
who had even penetrated their own ranks (SD VII, 73).
One of the fundamental differences had to do with the meaning of the
two terms “action” and “use.” The precising by Chemnitz of the definition
of these two terms was taken over into the Formula. SD VII, 38,
in defining the sacramental union, explicitly states that it obtains only
in the “ordered action” of the sacrament. And to settle the controversy
on the consecration that arose among the Lutherans (SD VII, 73),
Chemnitz and his fellow formulators insisted that “use” and “action”
are synonymous (SD VII, 86), and that the command of Christ, “Do
this,” includes three constituents: consecration of the elements; the distribution
of the consecrated elements; and the oral manducation of the
consecrated elements (SD VII, 75, 76, 83–87).
37 On reading Chemnitz, it is important for one to understand that
when he refers to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper employing the
words “use” or “action,” he includes these three elements, the consecration
by which the presence is effected, and the distribution and
reception of the consecrated elements. The presence of the body and
blood of our Lord is not limited to the reception, nor is it there before
the consecration. When, for example, Chemnitz says, “In the use
of the Lord’s Supper He gives us His body and blood in order that,
when we approach the throne of grace, we may obtain mercy and find
grace in timely help, may lay hold of and in faith set before God the
merits of the one offering of Christ” (Ex 2, 499 f.; emphasis added), he
has in mind all three constituents.
38 It is unfortunate that some historians and theologians have perpetuated
the vagueness of the terms “actio” and “usus” in the context
of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper despite the fact that
Chemnitz’s precising definition has been taken into the Solid Declaration.
This has been a cause for considerable confusion and misunderstanding
of the Sacrament among some present-day Lutherans. 5