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

The Sacramental Union |
“bread,” “is,” and “body” in their natural meaning (see LS 45 and
p. 47 f.), reveal that there is a fundamental similarity between the
Reformed and the Roman positions. Both deny that the finite is capable
of the infinite. Hence, as Chemnitz says, it is necessary to deal
with the question of “ the mode or form of predication because this
bread is described as being the body of Christ” (LS 46).
143 The Papalists in the Tridentine Decrees had confessed that a “conversion
is made of the whole substance of the bread into the body of
our Lord” (Chapter IV, Third Session, Oct. 11, 1551). In the accompanying
Canon II they declared, “If anyone says that in the most holy
sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remain
with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies the
wonderful and unique conversion of the total substance of the bread
into the body and the total substance of the wine into the blood, so
that only appearances of bread and wine remain, which conversion
the Catholic Church very fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him
be anathema” (Ex 2, 253).
144 Chemnitz notes that the Papists advance three chief arguments for
their doctrine. The first one he disposes of very quickly. His Jesuit opponent,
Andrada, had argued that “Scripture affirms that with God
nothing is impossible. Therefore transubstantiation is to be believed
even though it far transcends the powers and manner of nature and
human comprehension” (Ex 2,257). Chemnitz’s answer is curt, “We
ought not, just because God is almighty, attribute to Him whatever
seems good to us, without the testimony of His Word . . . . Scripture
teaches this rule: ‘He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 115:3).’ In matters
of faith, however, the will of God must be learned and judged from His
Word. And when there is certainty about the will of God from His
Word, then the argument from His omnipotence is valid” (Ex 2, 257).
145 The second argument, which Chemnitz agrees” gets closer to the
matter itself ” (Ex 2, 257), begins with the assertion that Christ took
ordinary bread and wine, but” after the blessing,” “He says of that
bread and wine: ‘This is my body; this is my blood’ “ (Ex 2, 257). One
cannot say nor believe that about common bread and wine. Hence,
“some change must have come about through the blessing, and that
change is such that one can say of that bread that it is Christ’s body
and of the wine that it is His blood. Therefore it is necessary to assert
transubstantiation” (Ex 2, 257).