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

| The Lord’s Supper
part of Article VII which employs Luther’s Great Confession (LW 37,
214–224) that Jesus Christ is true God and Man in one person (SD
VII, 93–103). The Christology of Chemnitz and Luther is identical, as
will become apparent in the following paragraphs. 16
86 As a result of the personal union of the two natures in the one person,
Jesus Christ, there took place a communication of attributes, that
is, a communion of properties (SD VIII, 31). The Formula of Concord
follows the arrangement of Chemnitz in discussing these three kinds
of communication of attributes which result from the personal union,
genus idiomaticum (SD VIII, 36); genus apotelesmaticum (SD VIII,
46–47); and the genus majestaticum (SD VIII, 48–75).
87 The nub of the controversy with the Sacramentarians on the doctrine
of the Lord’s Supper centered on the exchange of properties according
to the genus majestaticum. It is so central to understanding the
answer to the question Chemnitz posed as to what is present, distributed
and received orally in the Sacrament (see p. 26) that it is helpful
to present Chemnitz’s position at some length. He writes:
Up to this point we have spoken about the two natures in Christ;
about the hypostatic union of these two natures; about the person
of Christ; about the difference of the natures and of their natural or
essential attributes, a difference which remains intact in the union;
about how the attributes of the individual natures are communicated to
the whole person; and how each nature performs in communion with
the other that which is proper to it. But some people compress and
confine this entire doctrine within the bounds of the essential attributes
or natural properties, and they will permit nothing more for themselves
nor will they allow it to others. But because it is right and correct to say
that the hypostatic union of the divine and the human nature in Christ
has taken place while the difference of the natures and of the essential
attributes of properties remains intact, some men have understood this
point in so erroneous a manner and have urged their case in so wicked
a way that they are willing to recognize only the essential and natural
attributes in Christ’s human nature. Despite the clear teachings and
affirmations of Scripture they utterly oppose believing that the human
nature, when it is considered according to its natural principles in itself,
of itself, either outside or inside the union, possess qualities above,
beyond, or contrary to the natural conditions of nature.
On the basis of Scripture the evidence for this teaching is so great
that those who, as I have just mentioned, have long and acrimoniously
debated the point are now compelled to acknowledge and confess
that we must attribute to Christ’s human nature not only its essential
attributes and natural conditions, but also, especially because of the