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

The Consecration |
two natures in the God-Man Christ Jesus. Because of this personal
union Jesus Christ, true God and Man in one person, is present in
many places. His presence cannot be limited to the circumscriptive
(localiter oder, circumscriptive — HS 119), and one must distinguish
Christ’s general omnipresence from His definitive presence (HS 116–
121; see paragraphs 88–117, esp. 94–100). 45
180 The second point which is necessary for a correct understanding of
the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is to accept Christ’s words, “This
is my body” in their simple, natural sense. One must understand the
mode of predication. Christ is here describing the sacramental union,
a mode which Luther calls “synecdoche,” and of which he gave many
examples from Scripture and which he further explained by means of
common usage in everyday language (LW 37, 296–303; see p. 53–64).
There is a “union of effect.” The bread is not deified nor annihilated
and the body has not been eliminated through some figure of speech.
Luther’s example of the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of a dove is
analogous. The Holy Spirit did not stand there visibly present but in
the form of a dove (LW 37, 299, 337). Even though body and bread are
two distinct substances, nevertheless they are united and designated
as one substance. Both bread and body remain, and by virtue of the
sacramental union it is correct to say, “This is my body,” designating
the bread with “this.” It is, as Luther says, now “flesh-bread,” and
not ordinary wine out of the cellar but “blood-wine” (LW 37,303).
Thus Luther, through the explication of these two points, helps the
Christian reader to a better understanding of the Lord’s Supper (HS
121–124).
181 In addition to these two vital factors, there is a third that is necessary
for an understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and that is the doctrine of
the consecration. In Wittenberg Carlstadt had attempted to destroy
the true doctrine of the sacrament by teaching that the touto referred
to Christ’s body as He sat at the Supper, and also by insisting that
Christ’s body is now restricted to heaven. 46 His third thrust against
the Scriptural doctrine was to ridicule the consecration as merely
being some kind of external manipulation on the level of magic. In
his rejection of the consecration as an effective cause for the present
church’s certainty that it has the same Supper the Lord instituted for
His church in His last testament, Carlstadt ridiculed it by a gross distortion
of what Luther taught. It was a sore spot with Luther and the