The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz · 2018. 5. 7. · The Lord’s supper in the...

ii

Links in the eLectionic version

Table of Contents Allchaptersarelinked.ToreturntotheTableofContents,click

ontheChaptertitle.Forwardpagenumbers(i–xiv) arealsolinkedtotheTableofContents.

Notes Allnotereferencenumbersarelinkedtotheirnotes.Toreturnto

thetextpage,clickthe“back”button.

Index Allindexentriesarelinkedtotheircorrespondingparagraphsor

notes.Toreturntoindex,clickthe“back”button.

iii

The Lord’s Supperin the Theology

of Martin Chemnitz

Bjarne Wollan teigen

TrinityLutheranPressBoxZ

Brewster,Mass.02631

1986

iv

PublishedbyTrinityLutheranPressBoxZ,Brewster,MA02631

Originallydistributedby

ConfessionalLutheranResearchBookCenter409S.E.Wi1mersDesMoines,IA50315

QuotationsfromtheEnglishtranslationsoftheworksofMartinChemnitz,copyrightbyConcordiaPublishingHouse.Usedbypermission.

QuotationsfromThe Book of Concord,copyrightbyFortressPress.Usedbypermission.

QuotationsfromLuther’s Works, copyrightedbyConcordiaPublishingHouseandFortressPress.Usedbypermission.

©1986byBjarneWollanTeigen924PlumMankato.MN56001

LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNo.86-50117

ISBN0-9616252-0-1

PrintedbyGraphicPublishingCo.,Inc.,LakeMills,Iowa

ElectronicversionpublishedbyErlingTeigenandPatriciaLudwig

For Elna

v

vi

ContentsForewordstoElectronicEdition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

TheLord’sSupperintheTheologyofMartinChemnitzbyDr.NomanNagel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x

Author’sForeword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. SacramentandSacramentalAction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

III. TheBiblicalFoundationfortheLord’sSupperandPrinciplesofInterpretationNecessaryforitsCorrectUnderstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

IV. TheSacramentalUnionanditsChristologicalBasis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

V. TheConsecrationanditsEffects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

VI. TheEffectsoftheSacramentalEating andDrinking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

VII. SummaryandConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

vii

viii

Foreword to the electronic edition

ForsometimemysiblingsandI,alongwithCousinErling,hadtalkedwithDadaboutreprintinghisbook.Hethoughtitwasagoodideaandwantedtomakeitavailabletoasmanypeopleaspossible,atalowprice.

Shortlybeforehisdeathwesuggestedrepublishingitontheinternet;hewasabletoconceptualizetheprocessandunderstoodthatbythismeanshisbookmightreachscholarsworldwideatlowcost.WhenhegavehisconsentwebegantheprocessofhavingThe Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz republished,electronically.

ThecostoftheprojectcouldbekeptlowonlybecauseofLogia’sgenerousoffertoplacethebookonitswebsite(www.logia.org)whereitmaybedown-loadedatnocost.

Scanning the book, arranging the proper electronic format and puttingiton-lineprovedtobeacomplicatedandtime-consumingprocess,aprocesswhichhadtobeperformedbyahumanhandandbrain.Thatbringsmetothepurposeofthisforewordtothankoneofthosebehind-the-scenespeople.

Manypeoplemadedirectandindirectcontributionstothereprint;werec-ognizethat,butfeeloneperson,someonewhocontributedbothtothefirstprintingandreprint,needstobethankedpublicly.

Atfirstpublicationagroupofpeopleprovidedfunds,andTrinityLutheranChurchofBrewster,Massechusetts,servedaspublisher.Afterpublication,mybrotherNormanTeigenandhiswifeJudysetupadistributioncenterattheirhomeinDesMoines,Iowa,shippingcopiestobookstores,librariesandhundredsofindividuals.

WhenitcametimeforthereprintNormanaccomplishedthedauntingtaskofproofreadingtheelectronically-scanneddocumentinitsentirety,comparingthescannedtextletterbyletterandwordforwordtotheoriginaldocument.Electromechanical devices such as a scanner make many mistakes; withoutNorman’sdiligencethereprintcouldnothavebeenaccomplished.

THANKYOU,NORMANToGodalonetheGlory

September,2005 ColonelDavidH.TeigenLowerHayLake,Minnesota

ix

The Lord’s supper in the Theology of Martin chemnitz

Dr. Norman Nagel

“Lutherantheologyissacramentaltheology.”Withthisprofoundobser-vationBjarneTeigenpointstowhatisattheheartofChemnitz’stheology,andatthesametimeindicatesalamentableatrophyinagooddealofcon-temporaryLutherantheology.BjarneTeigenwouldgiveusagainthevital-izingresourcesthereforusinChemnitz’stheology,andthereinmostvividlyinTheLord’sSupperintheTheologyofMartinChemnitz.

One has to always say specifically Bjarne Teigen because there are anumberofTeigenstowhomweareindebtedfortheirweightyandrobustcontributionsintheserviceoftheologyandtheproclamationoftheGos-pel.Theyareeachofthemmorebythefaithconfessedandlivedbackandforthbetweenthemasafamily.MartinandMathildaTeigenrearedthisremarkablefamily:Erling,Bjarne,Torald,Gudrun,Ingolf.Rolf,andLeif.TotellofthemallwemightnevergettoChemnitz.TherewasanErlingSecundus,sonofTorald,whosefaithfulandfruitfulyearsasapastorandaprofessorcametofurtherharvestintheastonishinglysuccessfulLogiawhichhecametoedit, thus fosteringa furthergenerationofpastorsea-gertoshareandserveintheconfessionoftheologyaliveintheLutheranConfessionaltradition.Norman,nephewofErlingPrimus,andalsosonofBjarne(thisfamilydoeshavesomethingofaNorsesagaaboutit,bothhe-roicandtragic),hasundertakenthetaskofmakinghisfather’sbookagainavailablenowinacontemporaryformat.

The Lord’s Supper in the TheologyofMartinChemnitzwaspublishedin 1986. Its Foreword speaks of having for years “been immersed in thewritingsof a theologianwith such loveof theGospelof justificationbyfaithalonewithoutthedeedsoftheLaw.”ThosewritingswererecedingfromchurchandseminaryfruitfulnessascompetenceinLatinandGer-mandeclined.Fromthelastgenerationinwhichseminariansstillhadthiscompetencecamethetranslations:The Two Natures of Christ, The Lord’s Supper,andmostoftheLocibyPreusSecundus;Examination of the Coun-cil of TrentbyKramer;Ministry, Word and SacramentsbyPoellot.HelpwasneededtodigestallthiswealthofChemnitznowavailableinEnglish.IntheDoctrineoftheLord’sSupperthathelpwasgivenbyBjarneTeigen,ascholareminentlyequippedforthetaskwithhisdeeplearningandexactscholarship.

x

WhytheDoctrineoftheLord’sSupperandnotsomeotherdoctrine?Firstofallbecauseitwasthere,deepintheconfessionandlifeofthefam-ily, and that family active in the tradition of Norwegian Lutherans thatgrew into the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Living through that historydrewthemtothecentralityoftheLord’sSupper.TheretheLord’sgivinghisbodytobeeatenandhisbloodtobedrunkfortheforgivenessoftheirsinswastheplacefromwhichtoconfessourLord’scommunion.WhatisconfessedattheLord’saltaristhenconfessedintoitsfellowship.Asfromthefirst,altarfellowshipischurchfellowship.NottheotherwayroundasifsomechurcharrangementscouldgivewarrantforconfidenceintheLord’sgivingintoourmouthshisbodytobeeatenandhisbloodtobedrunkfortheforgivenessofsinsathisaltar.

TheEvangelicalLutheranSynodwasconfrontedwithcriticalquestionsofchurchfellowshipinitsownhistory,andwasalsofacedwiththeminthechallengeofwhatisthefaithfulwaytobeecumenicalwhen“ecumenical”ispromotedwithsomuchambiguity.

TheNorwegianLutherantraditionbothinthehomelandandinAmer-ica offered some differing and alternative responses. In the homeland ofthe Reformation the formation of the Evangelical Church in Germany(EKiD) brought all Protestants together in culmination of the PrussianUnion.TheLutheranconfessionoftheLord’sSupperbecameoneoptionalongwithothersinthisChurch.WeakeneddoctrineoftheLord’sSuppergaveweakenedchurchfellowship.Whatistheworthofchurchfellowshipifitisnotthegiftofaltarfellowship?TheologicalcoverwasfurnishedbytheArnoldshainThesesin1957andtheLeuenbergThesesin1973.SimilardevelopmentsfollowedintheUnitedStates.

Meanwhile in Mankato, in the backwoods of Minnesota, there wereLutheranscholarswhorecognizedthatresourcesforperplexedLutheranswerealreadyavailablethereunusedintheirheritage.Torald,sonofMartin,wasassignedtheLarge Confession ofMartinusPrimus.Bjarne,sonofMar-tin,inheritedthistask.SasseweighedinwithhisThis Is My Body.AreweagainatMarburg?IsthattheLuthertoheed,andnottheearlyAugustinianLuthersopromotedintheHollianLutherrenaissance?ForhisfaithfulnesstoLuther,MartinChemnitzwasdubbedMartinusSecundus.WhatbetterwayoftestingoutyourLutherthanbywayofChemnitz?Andwhatbetterwayoftestingthatapproachthanbydoingittheotherwayround?BjarneTeigensays,“OnemustreadChemnitztogetherwithLuther.”

Inthesixteenthcenturytherewerealreadysuchproblems,problemsofslippage,andalreadysuchanswersasmightbeachievedbyaseeminglylittleadjustmentandspinning.TheFormulaofConcordgaveclearandresound-ingaffirmationtotheEcumenicalCreeds,totheAugsburgConfession,its

xi

Apology,theSmallandLargeCatechisms,theSmalcaldArticlesandtheTractate,andwithafloodofpatristicevidencetoshowthatherewasnonewdoctrine,buta“webelieve,teachandconfess”tothefaithoncedeliveredtothe one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, which the Lord creates andsustainsbythegiftshegivesthroughhisMeansofGrace.

TheBookofConcord’sconfessionoftheLord’sLawandGospel issodestructiveoftheworld’sreligionsthatitiseverunderattackbothblatantandsubtle,withthelattereverthemoresinister.Doesithavetobesoclearandblunt?IsthatwhattheLordreallysaid?Nochanceforanysynergism?

BluntnessasproofoffaithfulnesswasnotthewayofChemnitz.BjarneTeigen remarks “his faculty for presenting with objectivity not only thecontentofSacredScripturesbutalsotheviewsoftheologians,friendlyandotherwise”andeagertorecognize“anumberofthingsnotincontroversy.TheseIwillinglyconcede”(ix).

TheFormulafirstconfessestheLord’sSupper,andthentheLordwhomtheLord’sSupperconfesses,Articles7and8:asacramentalChristology.Ofwhatuseisasalvationachievedforus,ifitisnotdeliveredtous?Thesalvation,achievedbythevicariousatoningsacrificeofhisbodyandblood,isgivenusastheLordgivesintoourmouthshisbodyandbloodtoeatandtodrink,ashesays.ThereisnootherSavior.“Lutherantheologyissacra-mentaltheology.”

OnthentoChemnitz:“Thereandbackagain.”

Note concerning electronic publication:ThiselectroniceditionofThe Lord’s Supperin the Theology of Martin Chemnitzisnotaphotographicreproduc-tionoftheprintedition.Thetexthasbeenscanned,manipulatedandre-formatted.Whilethepaginationdiffersfromthatintheprintedition,theparagraphnumberingisidenticaltotheoriginal.Theentriesintheindexarelinkedtotheirparagraphs.Theprinteditionhadallendnotesattheendofthelastchapter.Thiseditionhasmovedthenotesforeachchaptertotheendof thatchapter.The index is reproduced fromtheprintedition.Wehaveretainedthemethodoftheoriginalindexofmakingreferencestothetextbyparagraphnumber.Sincetheparagraphnumbersintheeditionareidenticaltheoriginalindexisaccurate.Citationsbasedontheoriginaltextwillbeidenticaltocitationstothistext.

Thiselectronicreproductionismadeavailablefortheuseofindividualsandmaybereproducedforprivateuse.Anyre-publicationofthetext,forprofitorotherwiseisprohibited.

Erling T. Teigen

xii

Author’s Foreword InsubmittingtothepublicastudyofMartinChemnitz’sdoctrineofthe

Lord’sSupper,IamkeenlyawarethatIhavebeenimmersedinthewritingsofatheologianwithsuchloveoftheGospelofjustificationbyfaithalonewithoutthedeedsoftheLaw,thathehasrightlybeencalledthe“SecondMartin”oftheLutheranReformation.HeisatruediscipleofMartinLu-ther.BesideshishumbleobediencetotheWordoftheLord,whatismoststrikingtoastudentofhisworksisanawarenessofthebrilliantmindwithwhichtheLordhadendowedhim.Coupledwiththisishisfacultyforpre-sentingwithobjectivitynotonlythecontentoftheSacredScripturesbutalsotheviewsoftheologians,friendlyandotherwise.ItisnotoftenthatonecanfindascholarwhoissoadamantlyopposedtothefundamentalcoreofRomanCatholicdoctrine,butwhocanatthesametime,forexample,calmlywriteonsuchanexplosiveissueastheadorationoftheSacramentthiseven-tenoredjudgmentthathere“anumberofthingsarenotincontro-versy.TheseIwillinglyconcede”(Ex.2,227).AsanexpositoroftheWordofGod,asystematictheologianandpolemicist,hecanwellserveasanidealmodelforsucceedinggenerations.Ontheeveofthe400thanniversaryofhisdeath(1586),itismyhopethatthismonographwillencourageotherstotaketheopportunitytoexplorethetheologyofMartinChemnitz.

Inbringingthisworktothepointofpublication,Imustconfessthatmydebtsaremanyandbeyondmyabilitytorecallallofthem.EveryEnglishstudentofReformationtheologyisdeeplyindebtedtoDr.J.A.O.Preus,Prof.FredKramer,andPastorLutherPoellotforexcellenttranslationsoffivesignificantworksofChemnitz;andtoConcordiaPublishingHouse,St.Louis,Missouri,forpublishingthesevolumes.English-speakingstudentsarealsogratefulforthecombinedeffortsofConcordiaPublishingHouseandFortressPress,Philadelphia,forprovidingfifty-fivevolumesofLutherinEnglish,inwhichareincludedhischiefwritingsontheSacraments.OnemustreadChemnitztogetherwithLuther.

Ihavereceivedmanyconstructivesuggestionsfromthosewhoreadthepreliminarydraftsofthesechapters.Theirreactionshaveledmetoreviewmysummariesandconclusions.ItgoeswithoutsayingthatItakethere-sponsibilityforalltheviewshereexpressed,andthepublishersareinno

xiii

way responsible for thetheologicalcontentof thiswork.Ido,however,confessmyselfsubjecttotheHolyScripturesandtheirexpositionasgivenintheLutheranBook of Concord.

Sincetheologicalworksfromthenatureofthecasedonotattractawide-readingaudienceandthepublishingofbooksisacostlyproject,Iacknowl-edgewithdeepgratitudethegenerousgiftsofallthosewhomadepossiblethepublicationofthebook.

ForthisworkwhichIhavejustcompleted,andforallmypubliclifeaspastor,college instructor,andpresident, Iowemuchto thepatienceandunderstandingofmywifeandfamily.Theirpersonalinterestinthevariedworkwhichhasoccupiedmymindformanyyears,hasbeenmostsupport-ivetome.Fortheirassistance,encouragement,andpatienceonlymydebtexceedsmygratitude.

Forthetediousworkofreadingmyhandscribblednotes,listeningtomydictation,andtypingandretypingthismaterialsothatitwouldbepresent-abletoothers,mythankstoMrs.OrlaPetersenforhelppainstakinglyandexcellentlyaccomplished.

Andlastly,IwouldberemissinnotpubliclyacknowledgingmygratitudetothepublisherforventuringtoundertakepublishingaworkonMartinChemnitz,asixteenthcenturyReformer:TrinityLutheranPress,Brews-ter,Mass.

Ontheeveofthe400thanniversaryofthedeathofMartinChemnitz,myprayeristhatthepublicationofthisvolumewillleadtoarenewedap-preciationofthegloriousgiftofgraceourSaviorbequeathedtousinHislastwillandtestament,Hisbodyandblood.ThereisalsogratitudetoourLord for the work of the Lutheran Reformers in restoring this doctrineto its pristine worth. We can do well to remember Martin Luther’s suc-cinctsummary,“ThisSacramentistheGospel”(LW36,289),andMartinChemnitz’smovingtestimony,“Themoreweloveit,themorediligentlywewilldefenditandthemoretenaciouslywewillretaintheproper,simple,andnaturalmeaningofthewordsofChrist’slastwillandtestamentsothatthesesweetconsolationsarenotsnatchedawayfromus”(LS194).

SOLIDEOGLORIA

ReformationDay,1985 BjarneWollanTeigenMankato,Minnesota

xiv

Introduction | �

Chapter I

Introduction

1 Present-daytheologyamongLutheransdemonstratesagreatcon-cernwithrespecttoLuther’stheologyoftheLord’sSupper.Admit-tedly,therehavebeendifferentevaluationsofwhathisdoctrineactu-allywas,resultingindifferencesastowhatistheLutherandoctrine.1CloselyrelatedtoLuther’spositionontheSacramentoftheAltaristhequestionofwhatisthedoctrineenunciatedintheBook of Concord. UltimatelythiscomesdowntothedoctrineconfessedintheFormu-laofConcord,ArticleVII.Thequestionarisesas towhether thereisan internalconsistency to thedoctrineconfessed,beginningwithLuther’sCatechismsthroughtheAugsburgConfession,theApology,theSmalcaldArticles, and theFormulaofConcord,both theEpit-ome and the Solid Declaration. For a Lutheran who confesses thatthenorma normans ofalldoctrineisthesacredScripturesinspiredbyGod,andthattheConfessionsarenorma normata, heisfacedwiththeoverwhelmingquestionwhether,aftercomparingtheoriginalsourceandthederivedsource,hewillhonestlygiveaquia oraquatenus sub-scriptiontotheBookofConcord.

2 ItmaywellbethatmodernLutheranshavenotagonizedoverthisproblemasmuchastheirallegiancetotheLutheranConfessionsandthepresentstateofChristiandoctrineoftheLord’sSupperwarrant.Itwouldnotbetoodifficulttodemonstratethattodayincurrentlit-eratureandordersofworshipLutheransarequitefarapartintheirunderstandingandapplicationoftheLutherandoctrineoftheSacra-mentoftheAltar.

3 TheFormulaofConcordhadseveralantecedentsbeforeitresultedinitsfinalform.Furthermore,asanystandardcommentarywillre-veal,severalauthorswereinvolvedinitsformulation.Onefactemerg-es,however,thatallconfessthattheywantedtoreproduceLuther’s

� | The Lord’s Supper

doctrine, especially with regard to this sacrament, since they wereconvincedthathehadtaughtwhatthedivinerevelationhadgiventothechurchandcommandedthatitobservetotheendoftime.

4 AnotherfactonwhichthereseemstobegeneralagreementisthatMartin Chemnitz (1522–1586) is the chief author of the Formula.E.F.Klugisnotfarwronginrepresentingthegeneralconsensusofscholars regarding the chief precursor of the Formula, namely theSaxon-SwabianConfession,bystatingthat“muchofitbythispointwasChemnitz’scontribution.”2

5 Inviewofthis,itshouldbeofsomebenefittoexaminemorecloselythewritingsofChemnitzinordertoascertainindetailhisdoctrineoftheLord’sSupper.SincethereseemstobenosuchstudyavailabletoEnglishreaders,thepurposeofthismonographistomakeatleastabeginninginsuchasystematicreview,withthehopethatotherswillbeinducedtoproceedfurtherinthestudyoftheworksofthisgreatLutheran theologian. All Lutherans will be grateful to PresidentEmeritusJ.A. O.Preus,ProfessorFredKramer,andPastorLutherPoellot formaking severalhundredpagesofChemnitz available intheEnglishlanguage(seetheprecedingbibliographyfordetails).

6 But Chemnitz also collaborated with several other theologianstoshedlightonthegiganticstrugglethattookplaceafterLuther’sdeath to preserve the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacrament of theAltarandtokeeptheLutheranChurchofthe1570sfrombecomingReformedorSacramentarianinthisrespect.ItwouldbedifficulttodeterminepreciselytheroleplayedbyChemnitzinthesecollabora-tivewritings.Butit issafetosaythatitwasanimportantone.IntheseworksoneseesmanyparallelstowhatChemnitzhimselfhaswrittenasanindividual.

7 ItisimpossibletograspthewiderangeanddepthofstudywhichChemnitzdevotedtotheLord’sSupperbyconsultingonlyhisLoci. ThisissimplybecausethisworkdoesnotcarrythedetailedanalysiswhichtheLord’s Supper andtheExamination II do.In fact,Chem-nitz states after the introductory paragraphs of this Locus, that hewillnotat thisplacerepeat theentiredoctrineof theSuppersinceotherexplicationsareavailable,includingantithesesagainsttheRo-manists (LT165). He seems to be referring to his massive work of1570.The Lord’s Supper andtohisExamination of Trent (1565–1573).AfterhehasbrieflysummarizedthemainpointsintheLoci hede-

Introduction | �

votesthelargestpartofthepresentationtoalengthyletterhewrotetoTimotheusKirchner(1532–1587)refutingthelastdefenseofBezafor the Sacramentarian position (LT 168–198). This letter treatsmainlyofChristology,refutingtheobjectionsoftheReformedtotheLutheranpositionthatinthepersonalunionChrist’sdivineattributesarecommunicatedtoHishumannature.SinceBezamusthavecon-sideredActs3:21ashistrumpcardwhichwoulddefeattheLutherandoctrineoftheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodinthesacrament,Chemnitzanalyzesthepassageinconsiderabledetail.

8 In The Lord’s Supper (Fundamenta, etc.) Chemnitz makes an ex-haustiveanalysisof theWordsofInstitutionandtheargumentsofthe adversaries, chiefly the Sacramentarians, against accepting theVerbaassimpleandclear.HenotesinthededicatoryepistletotheprincesofBrunswickandLuneburg,thatthisbookisamoredetaileddevelopmentofabookhehadpublishedeightyearsprevious (Rep-etitio Sanae Doctrinae, etc.).In1561hegatheredthemainpointsun-derdispute inthecontroversyand“explainedtheminasimpleandunaffectedway,irenicallyandwithoutacrimony,onthebasisofthetrue,sure,andclearfoundationofScripture”(LS20).SincethisworkhadbeenwellreceivedChemnitzishopefulthatthisnewexpandedversion will also contribute to the acceptance of the Verba in their“simple,proper,andnaturalmeaning.”Hehasnodesiretobringinanything new but is “simply trying to retain the old fundamentalandsimpleteachingandtorepeatitoutofLuther’swritings”(LS21).Aperusalofits269pageswilldemonstrateChemnitztobeanobjec-tiveandirenictheologian,andalsoamostastuteanalyst.

9 TheExamination of the Council of Trent, Part II examinesalmostexclusively the fundamental differences between the sacramentalsystemsoftheRomanCatholicsandtheLutherans.HereChemnitzdoesnottreatatanylengththefactthatthebreadandwinearethetruebodyandbloodofChristashewasforcedtodowiththeSac-ramentarians.Asamatteroffact,hetwicerefersthereadertohisThe Lord’s Supper for more details. He has found no evidence, heasserts,thatthe“simple,proper,usual,andgenuinemeaningofthewords,‘Thisismybody,’shouldbeabandoned.”Hehasshownthismore“fully ... inaspecialbooklet” (Ex2,223).He iscertainthat“thatwhichisofferedtousintheLord’sSupper,whichourmouthreceives,theSonofGoddeclares,‘Thisismybody,thisismyblood.’”


Hedoesnotdiscussthispointin anygreaterdetailwiththePapal-istsbecause,ashesays,“Ihaveinasmallbookexplainedthegroundsforthisconvictionmorefully,Ishalladdnothinghere”(Ex2,327).

10 WhatissignificantabouttheanalysisofChemnitzoftheSacra-mentoftheEucharistintheExamination isthepreciselinehedrawsbetweentheLutheransandtheRomanists.Hedoesnotthinkitisnecessary that in debating with them the “whole treatment of thecontroversy [i.e., the Real Presence] should be repeated here.... IamoneinconfessionwiththosechurcheswhichdifferfromtheSac-ramentarians”(Ex2,223).Yethedevotesabouttwentypagestotherejection of transubstantiation. Both he and the Romanists agreethat thebreadandcupbecomesacramentalbyacertainconsecra-tion(Ex2,225),buthedisagreeswiththemwhenthey“patchhumantraditionsintotheWordofGod”asintheCanonoftheMass(Ex2,230).Andwhenhecomestoexamine“thecultandvenerationtobeshownthismostholysacrament,“heiswillingtosaythat”anum-berofthingsarenotincontroversy;theseIwillinglyconcede”(Ex2,277).Andyetthereareseveralpointsonwhichhemustdisagreewiththem(Ex2,279).Thecommon-senseclearwritingofChemnitzisahealthyantidoteagainsttheexcessesofsomesimplistichigh-churchliturgicallymindedaswellasagainsttheexcessesoftheanti-liturgi-callyminded.

11 The Two Natures in Christ was first published in 1578, after theFormula of Concord had been completed and while the “PrefacetotheBookofConcord”forthe1580publicationoftheentireBookof Concord was in the making. Since Two Natures was expandedfromamuchsmallerbookwiththesametitlepublishedin1570,themassive research material which Chemnitz had gathered and di-gestedwasavailablefortheLutherantheologianstouse.ThisworkmakesanimportantcontributiontotheproperunderstandingoftheSacramentoftheAltar.ButfromtheoutsetitmustbeunderstoodthatneitherLuthernorChemnitzsuggeststhatthedebateovertheLord’sSuppercanberesolvedbymeansoftheChristologicaltruths.LutherwritesintheGreat Confession(1528 ) thathehadinthepre-viousyear(That These Words Still Stand Fast )demonstratedthatitwasnotcontrarytoScripturenortotheArticlesofFaithforChrist’sbodytobeatthesametimeinheavenandintheSupper(LW37,55,64),buthehaddonethisonly“toshowat leastonewayhowGod

Introduction | �

could bring it about that Christ is in heaven and His body in theSupperatthesametime,andthatHereservedtoHisdivinewisdomandpowermanymorewaystoaccomplishthesameresult,becausewedonotknowthe limitormeasureofHispower”(LW37,207).Luther’sdoctrineoftheRealPresenceistakenfrom“theclear,dis-tinctScripturewhichreads,‘Take,eat;thisismybody,’andwearenotunderobligationnorwillwebepressedtociteScripturebeyondthistext—thoughwecoulddosoabundantly”(LW37,33).

12 Similarly, when Chemnitz comes to discuss Christ’s presence inthechurchaccordingtobothnatures,heassertsthat“wearenotar-guingfromtheabsoluteomnipotenceoftheSonofGod,butatthisdiscussionaboutChristwemustalwaysaddthefactthatHewills,isable,does,oris”(TNC426).So,withregardtotheRealPresence,Chemnitz confesses, “We have ... an express word and a specificpromiseinstitutedinaparticularanddefiniteway,ordainedaspartofHiswillandtestamentbytheSonofGodHimselfonthenightinwhichHewasbetrayed,apromisewhichChristratifiedalsoafterHisascensionbysittingattherighthandoftheMajestyinHisgloryinheaven,apromisewhichwasrepeatedtoPaul,apromisethatHewillstobepresentwithHisbodyandbloodintheobservanceofHisSupperasitiscelebratedinthegatheringofthechurchhereonearthinaccordwithHisinstitution”(TNC432).

13 With respect to Chemnitz’s Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, an Enchiridion,thenoteworthythingaboutthisisthattheauthororigi-nally composed it as “an examination for the use of the less well-trainedpastors”atthebeginningoftheReformationofthechurchesintheDuchyofBrunswick(MWS13).Theworkwastobeusedinperiodicexaminationsofpastorsbythesuperintendents.Itissetupintheformofquestionsandanswers.OfthefourpartsofthebookPartI,containingtenpages,treatsofthecalloftheministersoftheWordandSacraments.PartII,byfarthemostextensivesection(117pages),containsdetailedquestionsontheWordandtheSacraments.Undertherubricof“TheWordofGod”onefindsashortdogmaticstreatingScripture,theLaw,Sin,Contrition,FreeWill,theGospel,Justification,Faith,Predestination,andtheNewObedience.Underthe“Sacraments”therearequestionsandanswersonBaptism,Abso-lution,andtheLord’sSupper,withthelatterreceivingthemostcon-sideration(12pages).Chemnitzgivesallthetopicsasoliddogmatic


base,butheorientsthematerialtowardsitsproperapplicationbytheparishpastortohisflock.

14 OftheworkswhichChemnitzco-authoredthree,besidestheFor-mulaofConcord,needspecialconsiderationwhenoneundertakestoinvestigateChemnitz’sdoctrineoftheLord’sSupper.“TheCatalogofTestimonies,”composedbyAndreaeandChemnitz,wasaddedasan“Appendix”totheFormulaofConcordandisfoundinthe1580edi-tionoftheBookof Concord. IttreatschieflyofChristology,butitalsorevealsthethoughtoftheauthorswithrespecttoimplicationsofthesacramentalunion.

15 WhentheFormulaappearedintheBookof Concord in1580,itwasseverelyattackedbytheReformedtheologiansin1581inabookwiththetitle,Neostadiensium Admonitio, etc.ItsauthorswereaReformedgroupatNeustadt,andtheirpurposewastoattempttorefutetheFor-mulaofConcord,theAugsburgConfession,andMartinLuther,espe-ciallywithrespecttoChristology,theLord’sSupper,andPredestina-tion.In1583theElectorAugustcommissionedChemnitz,Kirchner,andSelneccer(1528–1592) towriteadefenseof the Bookof Concord. ItistodaygenerallyknownastheApology to the Formula of Concord andalsoas the “ErfurtBook.”Because it is thefirst formaldefenseandexplicationofthedoctrinesoftheFormulaitsimportancewillbereadilyacknowledged.IncontrasttosomeofChemnitz’sworks,whicharequiteirenicalintone,theApologytotheFormulaisratheracerbicinitscomments.

16 Approximately at the same time these three theologians felt itnecessaryandhelpfultocompileasourcebookonthehistoryofthesacramentalcontroversy.The736pagesofHistori des Sacramentstreit constitutearemarkablecollectionculledfromoriginalsources,giv-ingvirtuallyablow-by-blowaccountofhowamongtheEvangelicalsthecontroversyovertheLord’sSupperbeganintheearly1520sandcontinued through the years until finally settled in the Formula ofConcord.Thesethreescholarswenttotheoriginalsourcestoexplainhowthecontroversydevelopedfromyeartoyear,beginningwith1521.Theyendedtheirhistoricalaccountwiththeyear1561.Itisobviousthat their chief aim is to demonstrate that Sacramentarians of allstripeshavetwistedthewordsofLutherandmisrepresentedhisdoc-trineeventothepointofassertingthatattheendofhislifehehadretractedhisformerteaching.Earlyinthebook(HS15)theauthors

Introduction | �

dopointout thatLutheracknowledged that someof the thingshewrotebefore 1521 andwhichhehadexpounded in thepapacy werewrong.Butaftera thoroughstudyof theScripturesrelating to theLord’sSupper,Lutherneverchangedhisconclusionswithregardtothis sacrament. Judging from the copiousquotations fromLuther’sworksof1527and1528,andalsoofBugenhagen’softhoseyears,oneisdrawn to theconclusion thatChemnitz,KirchnerandSelneccerregardtheseyearsaspivotalforestablishingtheLutherandoctrine.ThisiscorroboratedbythefrequentLutherreferencesthatwerein-sertedintheFormulaofConcord(EpVII,10,17,18;SDVII,5,28,33,34,40,41,77,78,87,91,93–103;SDVIII,17,38,44,81–86).

17 TheHistori endswithadetailedessaywrittenbyJoachimMorlin(1514–1571).Theessay,writtenin1565,demonstrateshowthetrueLu-theranshadalwaysunderstoodtheAugsburgConfessioninthetermsofLuther’sexpositionandnotthatoftheSacramentarians.HeendshisessaywithatouchingdescriptionofhowLutherinhislastdayswasdeterminedtoremainfirminthedoctrineoftheSacramentoftheAltaranddoallthathecouldtoseetoitthatthisdoctrinewasper-petuatedattheUniversityofWittenberg.ThefinalwordsoftheessayarethoseofLutherinhislastbriefconfessionconcerningtheHolySacrament(1544),“Sincemydeathisnowimminent,IwanttotakethistestimonyandthishonoralongwithmebeforemydearLordandSaviorJesusChrist’sjudgmentseat,thatIhaveearnestlycondemnedandrejectedthefanaticsandenemiesofthesacrament—Carlstadt,Zwingli,Oecolampadius,Stenckefeld,andtheirdisciplesatZurichandwherevertheyareaccordingtoHiscommand,Titus3[:10–11]:‘Asforamanwhoisfactious,afteradmonishinghimonceortwice,havenothingmoretodowithhim,knowingthatsuchapersonispervertedandsinful;heisself-condemned.’Theyhavebeenadmonishedoftenenoughandalsoearnestlyenoughbymeandothers; thebooksareextant.Inadditionwecontinuetopreachagainsttheirblasphemousanddeceitfulheresydaily,astheyknowfullwell.”(LW38,287f.).


notes 1–2, chapter i

1. SomerecentbookswhichhaveexaminedLuther’stheologyoftheLord’sSupper:Sasse, Hermann, ed. Vom Sakrament des Altars, Lutherische Beitriige zur Frage des Heilegen

Abendmahls, Leipzig: 1941.Vajta, Vilmos, Luther on Worship, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958. Sasse, Hermann, This is My Body, Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of

the Altar, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1959. A revised Australian edition was published by the Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide, S.A., Australia, 1977.

Empie, Paul E and James McCord, editors, Marburg Revisited, A re-examination of Lutheran and Reformed Traditions, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966.

Schone, Jobst, Um Christi Sakramentale Gegenwart, Der Saligersche Abendmahlsstreit 1568–1569, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1966.

Hardt, Tom G. A., Venerabilis et Adorabilis Eucharistia, En Studie i den Lutherska Nattvards-Iaran under 1500 Talet, Upsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia, #9, 1971.

2. Klug,E.F.,Th.D.,From Luther to Chemnitz, GrandRapids:Eerdman’s,1971,p.135.

Chapter II

sacrament and sacramental Action

18 Lutherantheologyissacramentaltheology.Hereitistobesharplydistinguished from Reformed theology. Roman Catholic theologycanalsobecalled“sacramental.”Butdespiteasuperficialresemblancein this respect, the gulf between Lutheran and Roman theology ishereunbridgeable.

19 InviewofthisandthefactthatbothRoman,Reformed,andLu-theranwritingsmakeusenotonlyoftheterm“sacrament”butalsoa related term “sacramental action,” it would seem most profitabletobeginwithaninvestigationofChemnitz’sunderstandingoftheseterms.

20 Withrespecttotheterm“sacrament,”ChemnitzfromtheoutsetacknowledgesthattheLutherantheologianshavepubliclyprofessedintheApology[APXII,12]thattheydonot“greatlywrangleabouttheterm”(Ex2,21),orthenumberofsacramentssinceitisnotfoundintheScriptures.IngeneralheseemstobesatisfiedwithemployingthedefinitionofMelanchthon,“Itisadivinelyinstitutedriteaddedto the promise given in the Gospel, so that it becomes a testimo-nyandpledgeofthepromiseofgracethatissetforthandapplied”(MWS109).

21 Butit isquiteevidentthatChemnitzwouldnotwantthisdefini-tiontobesomekindofProcrusteanbeddesignedtostretchorcutdowntheBiblicalmaterialtosecure,atanycost,uniformitywithaninadequate definition. He quickly adds that while absolution doesnot have an outward element, it nevertheless could be called a sac-ramentbecause“theuniversalpromiseoftheGospel isappliedandsealedindividuallytoeachbeliever”(MWS110).Hencewhatinreal-

Sacrament | �

�0 | The Lord’s Supper

itymustbepreserved“arethoseriteswhichhaveanexplicitcommandofGod inScripture,andaddedto themtheclearpromiseofgracewhich ispeculiar totheNewTestament.”Theyaretobe“carefullydistinguishedfromothermatterswhichindeedhavethecommandofGodbutdonothavespecificandsuredivinelyinstitutedrites.”Alsotobedistinguishedfromtheconceptofasacramentarethosethingswhichmayhaveapromise,“butnotthepromisethatthroughthemthegratuitousreconciliationisbestowedandsealed”(Ex2,22).

22 Withtheserestrictionsseveralthingsareeliminatedforconsider-ationassacraments.Thereisnodivinecommandtofollowtheex-ampleoftheApostlestolayhandsonthesicktohealthem(Mark16:18),nortoconfertheHolySpiritonbelievers“undertheoutwardandvisibleformofsuchgiftsastonguesandprophecy”(Acts19:6)(MWS110).

23 Further,ChemnitzwillnotcountthesevensacramentswithinthePapisticChurch,becausemostofthemlacktheessentialpartsthatproperlybelongtotheessenceofasacrament.HerejectedCanonIofArticleIofSessionVIIofTrent,becausethePapalistscannotprovefromScriptureor“theentiretrueandpureantiquity”thattherearenot“moreorfewerthansevensacraments.”Besides,“thetruepecu-liarityofasacramentaccordingtoScripturecaninnowayfairlyfitalltheseseven”(Ex2,23).

24 AfteracarefulexaminationoftheRomanclaimsandalsoofthetermssacramentum andmysterion (Ex2,23–38),Chemnitzagreesthatwerejecttheirdefinitions,andthey“withthesamefreedomalsodonot accept our recent narrower definitions.” Having arrived at thisimpasse,heasks thequestion, “How andonwhatgrounds willwedemonstrate which are truly and properly sacraments of the NewTestament?” Both agree that Baptism and the Eucharist “are trulyandproperly...sacramentsoftheNewTestament”(Ex2,38).

25 Chemnitz then proceeds to delineate eight points with regard toBaptismandtheLord’sSupperwhichdemonstratethattheyaretru-lysacramentsoftheNewTestament.Heinsiststhattheseeightare“true,manifest,certain,andimmovable”:

1. “Thatithavesomeexternal,materialorcorporealandvisibleelementorsign,whichishandled,offered,andemployedinanexternalrite;

2. “That this element or sign and its fixed rite have an explicit divinecommandordivineinstitution;

3. “ThatitbeinstitutedorcommandedintheNewTestament;4. “Thatitbeinstituted,notforatimeonly,buttotheendoftheworldasit

iswrittenofBaptism,anduntiltheSonofGodreturnstojudgment,asSt.PaulsaysoftheEucharist.ThesethingsarerequiredfortheelementorsignoftheNewTestament;

5. “There is required for a sacrament a divine promise concerning thegrace,effect,orfruitofthesacrament;

6. “Thispromisemustnotsimply,nakedly,andinitselfhaveatestimonyintheWordofGod,butitisnecessarythatitbejoinedtothesignofthesacramentbydivineordination,andsobeclothedwithit;

7. “ThispromisemustnotpertaintoanyandallgiftsofGod,spiritualortemporal,butitmustbethepromiseofgrace,orofjustification,thatis,ofthegratuitousreconciliation,oftheremissionofsins,and,insum,oftheentirebenefitofredemption;

8. “And this promise in the sacraments is not merely either signified orannouncedingeneral,butbythepowerofGoditisoffered,displayed,applied,andsealedalsototheindividualswhousetheSacramentsinfaith.”(Ex2,38f.)

26 It is quite apparent that Chemnitz has compressed an enormousamount of material into these eight theses so that they will elimi-natefromboththeRomanandtheReformedsystemsmuchthatiswronglytaughtandpracticedwithrespecttothesacraments.ButoneshouldinnosenseconcludefromtheseeightpointsthatChemnitzproceedsasthoughBaptismandtheLord’sSupperareasidenticalinvirtuallyeveryrespectasareTweedledumandTweedledee.Forheas-sertsthat“eachindividualsacramenthasitsownproperandpeculiarwordofdefinition,whichinasenseisitsform.TherethesacramentormysteryoftheLord’sSupperissafely,rightly,andinfactunderstoodandevaluatedonnootherbasisthanthatwordordefinitionandac-cordingtothatwordwhichisitsownproperandpeculiarform....The Son of God has put His Word by which He has given us thesacramentsintooppositiontoourthoughtsandhaswilledtodosoinsuchawaysothatwemustlearnfromHisWordwhateverweneedtoknowaboutthesemysteriesandmustopposealltheabsurditiesthatcanberaisedinobjectiontoHisWord,becauseHewhoistrue,wise,andpowerfulhasspokenit”(LS87f.).

27 AsChemnitzhasnoted, theRomansacramental systemwith itsseven sacraments has fallen far short of the Scriptural standardswhichhedistilledforjudgingthesacraments.ButtheSacramentar-ians,too,misusedBiblicalmaterial,especiallytodestroytheSacra-mentoftheAltarastheSaviorhadinstitutedit.Theydidnotwantto

Sacrament | ��

�� | The Lord’s Supper

takethewordsoftheSupperintheirnatural,literalmeaning,trying,rather,tosupporttheirpointbyspeakingingeneraltermsofsimilari-tiesamongthesacraments,using,asChemnitzsays,“ill-definedandsweepingassertions,”butwhenpressed,they“adduceonlyindividualandparticularexamples,”suchastheLambofthePassover(LS257).

28 Inanswer,Chemnitzfirstpointsoutthatonecannotdrawauni-versalfromparticularexamples.Hegrantsthattherearesomesimi-laritiesbut“whatthesimilarityandwhatthedifferenceishastobeconsideredanddeterminednotonthebasisofpassageswhichindi-catesimilaritiesorrelationshipsbutonthebasisoftheclearWordofGodandthe institution of the individual sacraments” (LS257;emphasisadded).Chemnitzrecognizes thatarguments fromanalogycanbe-comepitfallswhichkeepone fromfollowing thepathof truth.Hewellunderstandsthetruthoftheoldproverb,omne simile claudicat.

29 SincetheReformedhadraisedtheoldfamiliarchargesagainsttheFormulaofConcordwithrespect to thedoctrineof theRealPres-ence,Chemnitz,SelneccerandKirchnernotethattheWordsofIn-stitutionmustdeterminewhatoneistoholdandbelievewithregardtoeachSacrament.ThesacramentofcircumcisionandthePaschalLambhavenothingtodowiththetruepresenceanddistributionofthebodyandbloodofChrist.3

Precising the terms “Action” and “Use”

30 OneneednotreadfarintoChemnitzwithoutnotingthefrequentoccurrenceoftheterms“action”(LS42,78;Ex2,29)and“use”(LS37;Ex2,243)withregardtotheSupper.Besidestheseterms,onemayalsofind“ceremony”(LS78)and“rites”(Ex2,34,etc.).Theseare words broad in their usage, extremely common in the secularworldbutalsousedinreligiouslanguage,especiallyinconnectionwith the sacraments. Luther apparently employed the terms “ac-tion”and“use”quiterarelywhenspeakingoftheLord’sSupper.Butthe termshavebeenusedby theCatholics,Sacramentarians, andtheGnesio-Lutherans.ForChemnitz, incontrast toLuther’suse,thetermshavebecomenormalinthediscussionoftheSacramentoftheAltar,asacursoryreviewofhisExamination andThe Lord’s Supper willquicklyreveal.AndthetermshavefoundtheirplaceinacriticalaxiomsetforthintheFormulaofConcordtodetermine“the true Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Supper, ‘Nihil

habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum oderextraactionem divinitusinstitutam”(SDVII,85;emphasisadded).ThesignificanceofthisaxiomforChemnitzwillbeexaminedmorecloselyinthechapteronwhattheconsecrationmeanstohim,butasapreliminary,oneshouldrecognizeinwhatwaysChemnitzem-ploystheterms.NottodosoistomissmuchofthesignificanceinChemnitz’sexplicationofwhatheregardsastheScripturaldoctrineoftheSacramentoftheAltar.

31 Asonemakessuchaninvestigation,aratherstartlingobservationemerges,onewhichmayhavesomebearingonwhatLuther,Chem-nitzandtheFormulaofConcordreallyhadinmindintheirpresen-tationsofthisdoctrine.TheindexesforThe Examination, theLord’s Supper and theFormula of Concord (bothTappertand theTriglot)havenoentriesforthewords“action”and“use.”Thismaybepartlyduetothefactthatthesewordshavesuchawide,commonusagethatitwasconsideredsuperfluoustocollecttheentries,anditmayalsobepartlyduetothefactthatinourstudyoftheReformationfatherswehavenotalwaysheededwhatChemnitzcallsthe“veryexcellentruleof Hilary: “He reads best who looks for the meaning of the wordsonthebasisofwhatissaidratherthanimposinghisownideas;whodrawsfromthematerialratherthanaddingtoit;whodoesnotforcethematerialtocontainwhatseemsbesttohimbecausehehas,evenbeforereading it,hadapreconceivednotionas tohow it shouldbeunderstood”(LS33).

32 Chemnitzcan,withreferencetotheLord’sSupper,usetheterms“action”and“use”inageneralsensetorefertowhattheRomanCath-olicChurchtaughtontheLord’sSupper.Butinbothcaseshemakesitclearthatintheir“use”or“action”theyareguiltyofchangingtheinstitutionofChrist.ItiswrongforthePapaliststoteachthatthereisan“absoluteandunchangingpresenceintheelementsoutsideoftheiruse,” e.g.,aswiththereservation(LS37).IntheExamination similarchargesaremadeagainstTrent,wheretheopinionisdefended“thatthe Eucharist is a sacrament...[which] contains Christ also apartfrom the use for which it was divinely instituted.” Here ChemnitzcitestheSacrificeoftheMass,thenon-distributionoftheconsecrat-edelementstothepeoplegatheredthere,andtheteachingthatthesacramentcontainsthebodyandbloodofChrist“permanentlyapartfromitsuse”(Ex2,242f.;emphasisadded).

Sacrament | ��


33 Similarly,theCalvinistsaltertheSupperanditsobservance(actio)byassertingthatthesubstantialbodyofChristwhichisintheSupperis“inthefieryheavenoutsidethisworld”(LS42;emphasisadded).

34 Chemnitz recognized that the meaning of these terms had to beclarifiedbecauseofthedoctrinalissuesinvolved.Therewasagenu-inedisagreementregardingwhattheSacramentoftheAltarwas,andthesedivergencesledtoseriousconsequences,sincetheyrancounterto theBiblical revelation. Insuchavitalmatter itwasnecessary togo beyond lexical definitions and give what logicians call a “precis-ing definition” of the key words “action” and “use” in this context.Thereare caseswhere“ordinaryusagemustbetranscended....Thedefiniendumisnotanewtermbutonewithanestablished,althoughvagueusage.”4Justasprecisingdefinitionsareofextremeimportanceinthe definingof lawsandlegalterms,sotheyarealso imperativewhentheologicaltermsareused.TheymusthavepreciseScripturalcontent.Chemnitzassertsthat“Christhascommandedustodointheaction ofthesacramentwhathehimselfdid.Hedidnot,however,performamuteactionbutspoke”(Ex2,226;emphasisadded).Speak-ingoftheconsecration,hesays,“ThereforetheWordsofInstitutionarespokeninourLord’sSupper,notmerelyforthesakeofhistorybuttoshowtothechurchthatChristHimself,throughHisWord,accordingtoHiscommandandpromise, ispresent inthe action oftheSupperandbythepowerofthisWordoffersHisbodyandbloodtothosewhoeat it” (Ex2,229;emphasisadded).Afewpages laterChemnitzprecisesthedefinitionof“action”evenmore,“Theinstitu-tionoftheSupperprescribestheaction thus:Totakebreadandwine,bless,divide,offer,receive,eat,andaddthisWordofChrist:‘Thisismybody;thisismyblood,’anddoallthisinremembranceofHim”(Ex2,249;emphasisadded).Withinthelimitsofthisprecisedefini-tionChemnitzregards the terms“action”and“use”assynonymous(Ex2,245;Ex2,494).

35 ChemnitzelaboratesfurtherbystatingthattheinstitutionoftheLord’s Supper has not only been handed down as a dogma, “butthereareusedinitanumberofwordswhichexpresslysignifyapre-cept and a command of Christ: ‘Take; eat; drink of it, all of you;dothis’”(Ex2,341).Chemnitzalsomakesclearthatthewords“dothis”areintendedforthechurchtotheendoftime,“Thewordsofcommandarenotmeantforonlythetimeandaction ofthatfirst

Supper,buttherewasaddedtheperpetualanduniversalcommandthat itshouldbedonetotheendoftheworld.FortheSaviorsays:‘This(namelywhathasnowbeendoneinthefirstLord’sSupper)doinremembranceofme’”(Ex2,341;emphasisadded).

36 The Examination of the Council of Trentappearedduringtheyears1565—1573,yearsduringwhichthetrueLutheranswereforcedtocon-tendnotonlyagainsttheRomanCatholicsbutalsoagainsttheSac-ramentarianswhohadevenpenetratedtheirownranks(SDVII,73).Oneofthefundamentaldifferenceshadtodowiththemeaningofthetwoterms“action”and“use.”TheprecisingbyChemnitzofthedefini-tionofthesetwotermswastakenoverintotheFormula.SDVII,38,indefiningthesacramentalunion,explicitlystatesthatitobtainsonlyinthe“orderedaction”ofthesacrament.Andtosettlethecontroversyon the consecration that arose among the Lutherans (SD VII, 73),Chemnitzandhisfellowformulatorsinsistedthat“use”and“action”aresynonymous(SDVII,86),andthatthecommandofChrist,“Dothis,”includesthreeconstituents:consecration oftheelements;thedis-tribution oftheconsecratedelements;andtheoral manducationoftheconsecratedelements(SDVII,75,76,83–87).

37 OnreadingChemnitz, it is importantforonetounderstandthatwhenhe refers to thedoctrineof theLord’sSupperemploying thewords“use”or“action,”heincludesthesethreeelements,theconse-cration by which the presence is effected, and the distribution andreceptionoftheconsecratedelements.ThepresenceofthebodyandbloodofourLordisnotlimitedtothereception,norisittherebe-foretheconsecration.When,forexample,Chemnitzsays,“Intheuse oftheLord’sSupperHegivesusHisbodyandbloodinorderthat,whenweapproachthethroneofgrace,wemayobtainmercyandfindgraceintimelyhelp,maylayholdofandinfaithsetbeforeGodthemeritsoftheoneofferingofChrist”(Ex2,499f.;emphasisadded),hehasinmindallthreeconstituents.

38 It is unfortunate that some historians and theologians have per-petuatedthevaguenessoftheterms“actio”and“usus”inthecontextoftheLutherandoctrineoftheLord’sSupperdespitethefactthatChemnitz’sprecisingdefinitionhasbeentakenintotheSolidDecla-ration.Thishasbeenacauseforconsiderableconfusionandmisun-derstandingoftheSacramentamongsomepresent-dayLutherans.5

Sacrament | ��


notes 3–5, chapter ii

3. Ap. F.C. 154B,“Da Sakrament der Beschneidung und Osterlamb sagen oder haben garnichts uberall von der waren Gegenwertigkeit und Austeilung des Leibes und ElutesChristi/alsdiedazumalauchnochnichtgewesen/ sintemalChristuszuderZeitnochnichtwarerMenschempfangenundgeborengewest:WiesolltedannausdenReden/inwelchendieselbenSacramenta beschrieben/mitGrundtundWarheitkonnengeschlossenwerden/wasinH.AbendmalvonChristoex speciali quadam ordinatione iseingesetztundgestiftetworden.”

4. Copi,IrvinM.,Introduction to Logic, 3rded.,89–103.5. For example, Bente (Hist. Int. Trig., 179), writing of Saliger (Beatus), says that Saliger

taughtthat“invirtueof theconsecrationbeforetheuse(ante usum) breadandwinearethebodyandbloodofChrist,denouncingallwhodeniedthisasSacramentarians.”FromthesewordsitappearsthatBentehasomittedtheconsecrationfromthedivinelyinstitutedactionandrestrictedittothedistributionandconsumption,aconceptforeignnotonlytoChemnitz,butalsotoLutherandtheFormula.

Chapter III

The Biblical Foundation for the Lord’s supper

and Principles of interpretation

necessary for its correct Understanding

39 ThischapterwillnotreviewthefullscopeofChemnitz’stheologyoftheWord,sinceDr.EugeneF.KlughasrecentlyaccomplishedthatinhisFrom Luther to Chemnitz on Scripture and the Word.6 Rather,theintentionistozeroinonhowChemnitzdrawshisdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperfromtheScripturesaloneandwhatprinciplesofinter-pretationguidehiminunderstandingtherevealedwillofGodwithrespecttothissacrament.

40 FromtheveryoutsetChemnitzisdeterminedtoexaminethede-creesof theCouncilofTrent“accordingtothenormofScripture,”andheisconfidentthathavingdonethatonsuchabasis,thepublica-tionofhisresultswillbeof“somebenefittothereader”(Ex1,30).Heiscommittedtotherulewhichheconfessedwiththeotherauthorsof theFormula of Concord, “Webelieve, teach,andconfess that thepropheticandapostolicwritingsoftheOldandNewTestamentsaretheonlyruleandnormaccordingtowhichalldoctrinesandteachersalikemustbeappraisedandjudged,asitiswritteninPsalm119:105,‘Thywordisalamptomyfeetandalighttomypath,’andPaulsays

The Biblical Foundation | ��


inGalatians1:8,‘Evenifanangelfromheavenshouldpreachtoyouagospelcontrarytothatwhichwepreachtoyou,lethimbeaccursed’”(Ep.,RuleandNorm,1).

41 ChemnitzwasdeterminedtoteachnomoreandnolessthanwhatthesacredScripturestaught.Hetreadsaveryprecisebutfirmline.Hedoesnotwanttobedrawnintoargumentsconcerningclassifica-tionsandterminologyifthesecannotbedrawnfromtheScriptures.Forexample,intheEnchiridion heinstructshisBrunswickianpas-torsnottobedrawnintofruitlessdebatesastowhetherornotabso-lutionistoberegardedasasacrament.OnecanconfessthetruthofScriptureindifferentways.Hiscarefullychosenwordsregardingab-solutioncanwellserveasamodelforshowingthattheologiansneedtobeprecise,buttheycanbethatwithoutbeingpedantic.Hewrites,“Absolutionindeedhasonemarkedcharacteristicofthesacraments,namely,thattheuniversalpromiseofthegospelisappliedandsealedindividuallytoeachbelieverthroughabsolution.Andinviewofthismark,somearenotwronginthattheynumberabsolutionamongthesacramentsoftheNewTestamentbutsincenooutwardsignorele-mentwasordainedandinstitutedbyChristforitsadministration,itcannotproperlybecalledasacramentinthewayinwhichBaptismandtheLord’sSupperarecalledsacraments.Yet logomachiai [warsaboutwords]arenotthereforetobestirredup,providedthethingitself,taughtinScripture,iskeptpure,astheApologyoftheAugs-burgConfessionteaches”(MWS110).

42 InhiscontroversywiththeCatholics,ChemnitzcontinuallydriveshomethepointthatScripture,andnotpapalauthority,isthesourcefordeterminingtheessentialnatureofthesacramentsandtheirdi-vinelyinstituteduse.TheRomanistspracticethewithholdingofthecupfromthelaitychieflybecause“thePopehasarrogatedtohimselfandhistheauthorityandpowerofimposingwhateverhepleasesonconsciences,evenifitcannotbeshownandprovedfromScripture,andagainofchanging,mutilating,andabrogatingeventhosethingswhichhavetheinstitutionandtestimonyofScripture”(Ex2,358f.).AfterhavingcarefullyweighedeverywordintheTridentinechapteroncommunionunderbothkinds,Chemnitzrecordsthat“IhavenotbeenabletodiscoverthattheygivesomuchasthetiniestreasonfromtheWordofGodbywhichtheymightattempttoinstructandquiettheconsciencesofthelaypeoplesothattheycouldstatewith

certaintythat,althoughtherearewordsofcommandinbothparts,alsothe laypeopleareobligatedbythose inthefirstpartbut thatthepreceptsinthesecondpart[i.e.,“drinkfromitallofyou”]donotpertaintothelaityatall”(Ex2,397).Inshort,hekeepsurgingtheCatholicswith respect to the sacraments ingeneral thatweare toretain“thoseriteswhichhaveanexplicitcommandofGodinScrip-ture,andaddedtothemtheclearpromiseofgracewhichispeculiartotheNewTestament”(Ex2,22).SuchapositionquicklyeliminatedPopeUrbanIV’sinventionofaCorpusChristiFestivalin1260A.D.,and his “strict command that it should everywhere be celebrated.”ThePope’sbasisforthiswasthatacertainnun,arecluse,wassaid“tohavereceivedthisrevelation”(Ex2,285).

43 WhentheChristiancomestoascertainjustwhatourSavior’sin-tentionwasininstitutingtheLord’sSupper,Chemnitzadmitsthatthe controversy has reached such immense dimensions that “thevarious questions are so completely intermingled that the mindsof thereadersareconfusedbyarguments, somerelevantandoth-ersirrelevant;thustheyarekeptfromatrueunderstandingoftherealissuesunderdispute”(LS37).Inordertodiscardtheirrelevant,ChemnitzinaseriesofchaptersinThe Lord’s Supper setsforthgen-eralprinciplesofinterpretationthatshouldguidethereaderinthestudyofallScripture(LS25–89),andhethenonthebasisoftheseprinciplesminutelyexaminesthefourScripturepassageswhichgivetheinstitutionoftheLord’sSupper(LS91–126).HefinallylooksattheotherScripturepassages(1Cor.10and11)which,whilenotcon-tainingtheVerba,makeexpressmentionofthedogmaoftheLord’sSupper(LS127–148).

44 Since Chemnitz is well aware of how the Sacramentarians haveever since the time of Carlstadt tried to reduce to absurdity whatLuthertaughtbymeansofextremeinterpretationsofhisdoctrine,hepurposes toapproachhis task “withgreat reverence...becausetheyarethewordsofthelastwillandtestamentoftheSonofGod”(LS 25). The Father had called from heaven “Hear Him.” So forChemnitzthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperisamatteroffaith,andthereforehehasthehighresolvetofollowthedictumofAugustine,“Whatdecides inmattersof faith isnot: ‘ThisI say; thatyousay;thathesays,’but;‘ThussaystheLord’”(Ex2,312).ChemnitzagreeswithCyprianwhoin“speakingoftheSuppersays:‘Weoughtnotto



giveheedtowhatsomeonebeforeusthoughtshouldbedone,buttowhatHe,whoisbeforeall,did’“(Ex2,312).

45 ForChemnitzthismeansthatsinceeverydogmaofthechurchhasitsownfoundationincertaintextsofScripturewhereeachisclear-lyexplained,we,tofindthetruemeaningofeachdoctrine,shoulddiligentlymakeanaccuratestudyofthesetexts(LS31).ThismeansthatScriptureinterpretsScripture.Itistruethatinsomepassagesthedogmasarenotclearlysetforthoronlytouchedoninpassing.“Therefore,ifwearetointerpretpassagesofthiskindcorrectly,wemustseekananalogyfromotherpassagesinwhichthedogmashavetheirownproperfoundationanddealwiththemaccordingtothisexplanation”(LS32).Inpassageswhere“dogmasaresetforthunderakindofcoverofratherobscurewordsorarepresentedinthepol-ishedformoffiguresofspeech,”Chemnitzholdsthat“ininterpret-ingsuchpassagesitissufficienttoholdtothemeaningwhichisinkeepingwiththeotherclearandappropriatepassagesofScripture”(LS32).Ifwedonotfollowthisrule,“alldogmascanbeoverturnedanddestroyed”(LS32).

46 Thisdistortingofthecleartextsandthengoingtoobscuretextsforanentirelydifferentdoctrinehasbeenthehistoricmethodoftheheterodox. Pelagius departed from the natural meanings of Rom.5:12,wherethedogmaoforiginalsinistreatedinitsownproperset-ting.ThePapalists,tojustifytheirdoctrineofjustification,turntotextswhichseemtospeakofworks,but“trytoevadetheperfectlyclearpassagesinregardtojustificationintheEpistlestotheRomansandtheGalatians,wherethedoctrineofjustificationhasitsfounda-tion”(LS33).AndatleastoneSacramentarian,Victorinus,confessesthatwithregardtothedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperheis“withhisrighteyelookingatthereligionofalltimesandwithhisleftatthewordsoftheSupper”(LS32).

47 The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is to be sought in the Wordsof Institution, for “it is beyond controversy that the correct beliefconcerningtheLord’sSupperhasitsownparticularfoundationanditsownbasis intheWordsofInstitution”(LS31).Thismustbesobecause“thesearethewordsofthelastwillandtestamentnotofameremanbutoftheverySonofGod”(LS26).Thequestionintheentirecontroversythatsurroundsthesacrament“concernsthewordsofthelastwillandtestamentoftheSonofGod”(LS43).Weshould

neverforgetthat“thedogmaoftheLord’sSupperdidnotexistinthechurchbeforeitsinstitution,andonlyonthenightinwhichChristwasbetrayedwastheLord’sSupperdealtwithforthefirsttimewithadefiniteformofinstitution,withdefinitewordsintheactuallastwillandtestamentoftheSonofGod”(LS34).

48 TodaythereareeffortstotrytoconnecttheLord’sSupperwiththePassoverFeastsoastoshowitchieflyasbeingareligiousfellow-ship meal. Attempts have been made to reconstruct some kind ofEucharisticprayerformodernliturgicalformsfromprayersusedatthePassovermealsatthetimeofChrist.Chemnitz, however,drawsasharplinebetweentheLord’sSupperandanyothermeal.Inexam-iningLuke22heconcludesthatChrist“throughLukewantstohaveit[i.e.,theorderofeventsoftheLastSupper]sopreciselydescribedthatHisdominicalSupperoftheNewTestamentisbytheveryor-deroftheeventsdistinguishedfromallothersuppers,whethersecu-larones,observedbythenecessityofnature,orsacred,typical,andsymbolicones,suchastheeatingofthePassoverLambasprescribedintheOldTestament”(LS110).

the verba constitute christ’s Last Will and testament

49 ThatthewordsofChristarehislastwillandtestamentareofex-tremeimportancetoChemnitz,becausethispointstothefactthatwemustinterpretthesewordsliterally.Thisisahermeneuticalprin-ciplerecognizedeveninthesecularworld,“Whenthelastwillandtestamentofamanhasbeen,executed wearerequiredunderthelawtoobservethewordswithspecialcaresothatnothingbedonewhichiseitherbesideorcontrarytothefinalwillofthetestator.Eventhecivil lawsregardsuchawillassosacredthattheyhavedeterminedthatthosewhohavemadeanyprofitatallfromthewillforthemselvesshallbedeprivedofit,andtheirinheritancethroughtheprovisionsof the lawsthemselvesshallbetakenawayfromthemasbeingun-worthy,onthegroundsthattheyhavedepartedfromthewillofthetestatorasitisstipulatedinthewordsofthetestament”(LS27).

50 Ifthis isthecaseinthereadingofhumanwills,howmuchmoreimportantisitthat“weshouldgiveverycarefulthoughtthatwedonotthrustanythinguponthesewordsofthelastwillandtestamentoftheSonofGod,lestwedepriveourselvesofthebenefitsofeternal



happinessconveyedtousbyHiswillorourowninheritanceitselfbetakenfromusasbeingunworthybecausewehavedepartedfromthewilloftheTestatorasithasbeengiventousinthewordsofHislasttestament”(LS27).

51 ForChemnitzonehasherecome to theheartof thecontroversyespecially with the Sacramentarians, and the arguments come to-getheratthispoint.ThelasttestamentandwilloftheSonofGodmustbereverentlyacceptedsincethere“arenotsufficientlyserious,weighty,definite,andfirmreasonstocompelapersontorejectthatsense which the words of the testament of the Son of God conveyanddemonstratebytheirproperandnaturalmeaning”(LS40).TherhetoricianQuintilian’sprinciplecanwellbeappliedhere,“Whatisthedifferencebetweenno lawsanduncertainones?”Chemnitzap-pliesittothepresentcontroversy,“WhatisthedifferencebetweennotestamentoftheSonofGodoranuncertainone?”(LS86).Chemnitzhere fallsbackonLuther’s criteriaasextremelyuseful forbringingoutthetruequestionsatissue:

1. ArethewordsofthelastwillandtestamentoftheSonofGodtobeunderstoodintheirproperandnaturalsenseastheyread?

2. WhatispresentintheLord’sSupperwhichiscelebratedamongushereonearth;whatisdistributedandreceivedorally?

3. IsthebodyofChristonlyinheaven,sothatitcannotalsoatthesametimebepresentwhenHisSupperiscelebratedhereonearthaccordingtoHisinstitution?

4. WhatdotheunworthyreceivewhentothemtheSonofGodalsosays:“Takeeat;thisismybody?”(LS43).

52 ChemnitzinhisThe Lord’s Supper hasbeencontendingagainsttheSacramentarianswhorefusedtotaketheVerbaliterally.HetakesthesamepositionoveragainsttheRomanChurchwhenitarguesthatthebodyofChristispresentapartfromthedivinelyinstituteduse.Heinsiststhatthe“institutionoftheLord’sSupperistobedeterminedbyacomparisonofthedescriptionswhicharefoundinthefourplacesofScripture”(Ex2,248).

53 Tocarryoutthisprincipleofinterpretationthatonedoesnotdepartfromtheclearwordsofthelastwillandtestament,itisimperativethatonetakehisreasoncaptive.WecanlearnthisfromtheBiblicalexam-pleofAbraham.Humanlyspeaking,theprobabilityofAbrahamandSarahhavingachildintheiroldagewassoremotethatonewouldbetemptednottounderstandthewordsofpromiseintheirliteralsense.

Asamatteroffact,Chemnitzremarksthat“Sarahtriesbysomespe-cialkindofinterpretationtoescapetheliteralmeaningofthewords,Gen.16:2”(LS71).ButAbraham“ joinedtogetherthecertaintyoftheoft-repeatedpromisewiththepowerofGodandthuscameatlasttothefullassuranceoffaith(Rom.4:21)”(LS74).

54 PossiblyevenmorestrikinginthelifeofAbrahamishisconductwhencommandedtosacrificehisson(Gen.22:2).Chemnitzobservesthat“thenaturalmeaningofthestatementisperfectlyclear.”Howev-er,theyseemtobeincontradictiontoGenesis9:6andGenesis21:12,“sothattheproperandnaturalmeaningofthispreceptseemstobeindiametricoppositiontoboththeLawandtheGospel,thatis,con-trarytotheanalogyoftheentireWordofGod.”ButAbrahamdidnotstumbleinfaith:“Thoughvariousconflictingandcontradictoryinterpretationsseemtostandintheway,hedidnotdaretodepartfromtheproperandnaturalmeaning.”Chemnitzthendrawsthecon-clusionthat“ifAbrahaminthefaceofthismostpowerfuloppositiondidnotdaretodepartfromtheproperandnaturalmeaningofthispreceptwhichhehadheardonlyonetime,...withwhatkindofcon-sciencewillwedareinthispresentcontroversy, inthefaceofmuchmoreinsignificantobjections, todepartfromtheproperandnaturalmeaningofthisdogmawhichhasbeenrepeatedinseveralplacesinScripturewithconsentientandequivalentwords?”(LS74–76).

55 TheSolidDeclaration,aftersummarizingthehistoricalbackgroundofthesacramentalcontroversy,ingivingtheLutherandoctrinetakesasitsstartingpointthepositionheredevelopedbyChemnitz(SDVII,43–60).ThissectioncontainssomanyverbalparallelstowhatChem-nitzhaswrittenthatonecanalmostseetheauthorsoftheFormulahavingattheirsidetheworksofChemnitzwhichtheyarecompressingintoashorterparaphrase.Hereisanotherexampleofwherewecaneasily see the significance of carefully studying not only Luther butalsoChemnitzforabetterunderstandingoftheFormulaofConcord.

Aristotle and chemnitz

56 IngivingChemnitz’s stancewithregardto theScripturesandhishermeneuticalprinciples,itisnecessarytoconsiderhisviewofreasonandtheuseofAristoteliantermsandconceptualusages.Chemnitzisasharpthinkerwhorecognizesthenecessityofprecisedefinitionsandnicedistinctions.Hewilldrawvalidconclusionsfromclearproposi-



tionsofScripture.ButhefollowsLutherinholdingthatthereisnoplace in theology for reason corrupted by natural man. In spiritualmattersreasonmusttakeitspremisesfromtheWord.WhileattimesitmaybeharmlesstoborrowAristotelianterminology(suchascausaefficiens, causa instrumentalis, causa finalis, rem sacramenti, etc.),itcanbecomedangerousandlimittheWordofGodbecausethesetermsofAristotlearedesignedforthesecularworld.Thereisavastdifferencebetweentheearthlykingdomandthespiritualorheavenlykingdom,wherewedealwiththingswhicheyehasnotseennorearheardnorenteredintothemindofman.

57 On several occasions Chemnitz warns us against these pitfalls.WhenhediscussestheRomandoctrineoforiginalsin,heremarks,“But my opponent Andrada, when he is about to explain his view,whathethinksoforiginalsin,brilliantlyfollowsthemannerofthephilosophicalmethod,asifhewereintheschoolofAristotleorGalen.ButnotevenoncedoesheattempttoestablishandprovewithasingletestimonyofScripturethethingswhichhestatesaboutoriginalsin”(Ex1,322).Moredirectly,ChemnitzusestheforceofthisargumentagainsttheCatholicswithregardtocommunionunderbothkinds.Whilehegrantsthatthedisciples“werereceivingthenotbloodlessbutlivingandwholebodyofChristalreadyinthebread,butastheywerecommanded:‘Drinkofitallofyou,’sotheycompliedinsimpleobediencewiththiscommand,withoutinquiringintothereasonandwithoutthepretextthatitwouldbedangerous....ButtheApostleshaveinstructedusbytheirexample,thatinthemysteryoftheSupperweshouldadherewithsimpleobediencetotheinstitutionandcom-mandoftheSonofGodandthatnoreasonsorargumentsshouldbeadmittedagainsttheexpressWordsofInstitution”(Ex2,343).

58 AgainsttheSacramentarianargumentthatthebodyandbloodofChristcouldnotbeintheconsecratedelements,becausethiswouldnotagreewithJohn13:1(“leavetheworld”),ChemnitzwillnotgrantthevalidityoftheentryofAristotelianmodesofthought.Heanswersthatwhatthismeans“mustnotbelearnedfromAristotlebutfromthoseScripturepassageswhichspeakofChrist’sdeparturefromthisworldandHisgoingtotheFather”(LS225f).

59 ItissignificanttonotethatChemnitzinexplicatingthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperinhisownwritings,doesnotusetheAristotelianterminology,justasLutherbeforehimhadnot.TheSwabian-Saxon

Concord, however, which was the product of several re-writings byother theologiansbesidesChemnitz,didcontainaratherelaborateexpositionoftheSacramentwhichemployedtheAristoteliantermi-nologysuchasthatalreadymentioned(par.56).Whentheformula-torsoftheFormulametinMay1576atTorgau,theydidnotacceptthissectionofoverfourhundredwordsintotheTorgauBook.7ThiselaborationontheAristotelianmodelwasfoundintheSwabian-Sax-onConcordimmediatelyafterwhatisnowSDVII,90.Thisexplana-tioncanbecorrectlyunderstood,althoughonemightinferthattheconsecrationisconditionalsothattheRealPresenceisnotthereuntiltheoralsumptioncompletesthe“action”oftheSacrament,thecausa formalis (seep.91andnote#65).

60 JohnWarwickMontgomery,on theauthorityof J.Fritschel, rec-ognizedChytraeusasoneofthechiefauthorsofArticleVIIoftheSwabian-Saxon Concord. Chytraeus, acting as the secretary of theRostockfaculty,“preferredtorewritetwoarticles,thesecondandtheseventh[i.e.,ofthedocumentthatwasfinallypresentedastheSwa-bian-SaxonConcord].”8

61 OnMarch1,1577,attheElector’srequest,Andreae,ChemnitzandSelneccer cloistered themselves at the Bergen Abbey to revise theTorgauBook,takingintoconsiderationthereactionsthattheElec-torhadreceivedtoitscirculationintheprecedingyear.ByMarch14,theyhadcompletedtheirworkandwerereadytoreporttotheElec-tor.9 Not only did the Aristotelian elaboration remain excised, butforgoodmeasurethecommitteeeliminatedabout1500morewordsfollowingtheAristotelianparadigm.10ThislattersectionwasdevotedtorefutingthestandardSacramentarianobjectionstotheLutherandoctrine of the Lord’s Supper, all of which had their origin in thedenialofthecommunicationofattributesresultingfromthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesinChrist.TheBergicBook(thepresentFor-mulaofConcord)substitutesforallthiswhatisnowSDVII,91:

All the imaginary reasons and futile counter-arguments of theSacramentarians concerning the essential and natural properties ofthe human body, concerning the ascension of Christ, concerning Hiswithdrawalfromthisworld,andthelike,havebeenthoroughly,extensively,anddefinitivelyrefutedonthebasisofGod’sWordbyDr.Lutherinhispolemicalwritings,Against the Heavenly Prophets, That These Words “This isMy Body” Still Stand Firm, hisGreat and Small Confessions Concerning the Holy Supper, andotherwritingsofhis.TheSpiritualistshaveadvanced



no new arguments since his death.We shall, therefore, for the sake ofdesirablebrevity,merelyrefertheChristianreadertothesewritingsanddesiretohavethemconsideredasappealedtoherewith.

IntheenumeratedwritingsofLutheronefindsnoneoftheAristo-telianparaphernalia.It isalmostasthoughthefinalrevisionoftheFormulaisnotonlywarningusagainsttheuseofAristoteliantermi-nology,butemphatically tellingus tostickclosely toLuther’smoreBiblically-basedexpositionsoftheSacramentoftheAltar.

62 Planck describes how after the March meeting, the Elector, nodoubtontheadviceofAndreaeandChemnitz,calledinChytraeusfrom Rostock and Musculus and Koerner from Frankfurt-on-the-Oder to be along for the final revision of the document. This tookplaceattheBergenAbbey,May19–28.Planckalsoreports,withap-propriatedocumentation,thatChytraeuswasquiteunhappywiththerevisionsthathadbeenmade.11MontgomerytakesnoteofChytraeus’offendedfeelingsatthefactthatsomuchofhismaterialwascutout.ButheagreeswithFritschelthatChytraeus“wasexaggerating.”12

63 ButifChytraeuswastheauthorofthe2,000wordshereexcised,andhisheartwassetontheAristotelianmethodofmakingthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperseeminternallyconsistent,onecaneasilyseewhyhewassodisaffected.Atanyrate,theFormulaofConcordhereavoid-edtheAristotelianmethodwhichseemstomaketheactualpresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristcontingentontheoralreception.ItwouldseemthatitisimpermissibleforlatergenerationstointroducethistypeofreasoninginreadingtheFormulaofConcordontheLord’sSupper.Chemnitzhasrevealedhispositioninthesewords:

Thesacramentsaremysteriesthatareunknowntohumanreasonandhiddenfromoursenseperceptions.TheyaremademanifestandrevealedbytheWordalone.Thereforewemustcometoaproperunderstandingandcorrectjudgmentonthebasisofthewordsbywhichthesacramentsarerevealedandgiventous.Moreover,eachindividualsacramenthasitsownproperandpeculiarwordanddefinition,whichinasenseisitsform(LS87f.).

notes 6–12, chapter iii

6. PartIII,“ChemnitzontheWord,”143–224;seenote#2.7. “DenndasswirdiegewohnlichenSchulworterbrauchen,soistdiewirklicheUrsacheoder

causa efficiens derwahrenGegenwartigkeitdesLeibesundElutesChristi imAbendmahl

nicht unser Glaube, sondern allein des wahrhaftigen und allmachtigen Sohnes Gottes,unseresHerrnundHeilandesJesuChristiwortoderEinsetzung,WilleundOrdnung,dasserwillsein,womanseineEinsetzunghaltundseinwortsagtkraftdererstenEinsetzung,gleichwieerwillWaizengebenkraftdererstenSchopfung,womanwaizensaet.

“Causa instrumentalis istpronuntiatio verborum (diegesprochenenwortederEinsetzung),dadurchChristusselbstwirktandkraftigist.Causa materia/is sinddieElemente,natiirlichBrotundWein,unddiewahre,wesentlicheLeibundBlutChristi.Causa formal is isdieganzeHandlung,dieConsecration,AusteilungundEmpfahungdesBrotesundLeibes,desWeinsundBlutesChristi,vonwelcherwesentlichenFormdiesesSacramentsdiegemeineRegelgilt:Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra institutam actionem seu usum.

“Causa Finales et effectus sind die Applicationem und Zueignung oder Niessung derKrafte und Gutthaten, die uns Christus und seinem Leibe und Elute erworben hat,nemlichVergebungderSiindenundewigeSeligkeit,welchedurchdiesesMittelgleichwiedurchsWortdenGlaubenzugeeignet,applizirtundversiegeltwird;itemErweckungundStarkungdesGlaubens,gnadigeVerbiiundnisundVereinigungmitChristo,dadurchwirihm eingeleibet und seine Gliedmassen werden, und von ihm erhalten, regiert, gestarkt,undnachdemTodewiederzumewigenLeben,auferwecktworden,dieweitunsreLeibermit dem unsterblichen Leibe Christi gespeist worden sind, wie denn diese und andremehrFriichteundNutzbarkeitendiesesAbendmalsindenGlaubigenanderswoerzalet/werden.

“Diese Frucht und Werkung, namlich Vergebung der Siinden, Gerechtigkeit, LebenundSeligkeitnennendieVater rem sacramenti, welcherdieUnglaubigennicht teilhaftigwerden,obsieschondasSacrament,d.i.denLeibunddasBlutChristiempfahen.Nunbleibet das wesen, oder materia et forma der Sacra mente ganz und gar vollkommen,obschondieEndursachenundWirkungenwegenunseresUnglaubensnichtallezeitfolgen.Denndassvorgegebenwird,demderdanichtglaubt,seidieVerheissungnichtig;nunseiim Abendmahl der Leib Christi verheissen, darum werden die Unglaubigen sein nichtteilhaftig,daantwortetAugustinusauf,Lib 3de bapt. contra Donat cap14:‘Esliegetnichtsdaran,wennmanvondesSacramentsVollkommenheitundHeiligkeithandelt,wasder,derdasSacramentempfahet,glaube,undwasfiireinenGlaubenerhabe.Esistwol,wasseineSeligkeitbelanget, vieldarangelegen; aberdesSacramentshalben istnichtsdarangelegen.DenneskannEinerdasganzeSacramentempfahenundgleichwohlkeinenrechtenGlaubenhaben.’“SeeHeinrichHeppe,Der Text der Bergischen Concordienformel verglichen mit dem Text der Schwiibischen Concordie, der Schwiibische-Siichsischen Concordie und des Torgauer Buches, Marburg,1857,p.140.SeealsoHeinrichHeppe,Geschichte des Deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555–1581,Marburg,1857,Vol.3,Beilagen,p.273f.

8. John Warwick Montgomery, Chytraeus On Sacrifice, St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse,1962,p.21.

9. G.J.Planck,Geschichte der Protestantischen Theologie von Luthers Tode bis zu der EinfUhrung der Kondordienformal, Leipzig,1800,Vol.3,p.535.

10. SeeHeppe,Der Text, etc.,pp.140–144;andHeppe,Geschichte, etc.,Vol.3,pp.274–279.TheGottingenBekenntnisschriften (1976),pp.1002–1004,notesandcarriestheexcisionofthelast1500words,butnotthefirst400,sinceitcomparesonlytheTorgauversionwiththeBergicBook.

11. Planck,Vol.3,p.546.12. Montgomery,p.22f.



Chapter Iv

The sacramental Union and its christological Basis

64 WhenChemnitzcametoanalyzetheRomanCatholicdoctrineoftheLord’sSupper,hetreatedsimultaneouslytheRealPresenceandtheconsecration,ashisheadingforthechaptershows,“ConcerningtheRealPresenceofourLordJesusChristintheSacramentoftheEucharist and Concerning the Consecration” (Ex 2, 221). This wasprobablydue to the fact thathere thePapalists and theLutheranshadsomecommonground.TheybothbelievedintheRealPresenceandtheybothbelievedthatitwasachievedbytheconsecration.Therewere,ofcourse,somegreatdifferencesherealsoonthesetwopoints,asChemnitzdemonstratesinthenext115pagesoftheExamination. ButhedoesacknowledgethedifferencesbetweentheSacramentar-iansandthetrueLutheranstowhichTrent inSession13(October11, 1551), Chapter I, alludes. Here the Tridentine Fathers call it an“intolerabledisgrace”thatthewordsofChristaretwisted“toartifi-cialandimaginaryfiguresofspeechbywhichtherealityofthefleshandbloodisdenied”(Ex2,221).Thischapteralsodeclares“thatourRedeemerinstitutedthissowonderfulasacramentattheLastSup-per,when,afterHehadblessedthebreadandthewineHewitnessedandexpressedinclearwordsthatHewasgivingthemHisbodyandblood”(Ex2,221).

65 In answer, Chemnitz can only say, “I for my part confess that Idisagreewiththeseopinions[i.e.,oftheSacramentarians].IsimplyconfesstrulyandopenlythatIembraceandapprovethejudgmentof those churcheswhichacknowledgeand teach the trueand sub-stantialpresenceofthebodyandbloodintheSupperinthatsensewhichthewordsoftheSuppergiveintheirsimple,properandgenu-

inemeaning.Igivemyassenttothisunderstandingafterdiligentlyconsideringtheargumentsofbothsides”(Ex.2,222).

66 ButtheSacramentarians,inrejectingtheRomanaberrationswithregardtotheconsecration(Ex2,224),hadfallenintotheerrorofde-potentiating(removingtheefficacyof)theVerbabychangingtheirmeaninganddisregardingthefactthatChrist’s“Thisdo”isincludedintheWordsofInstitutionasgiventoHischurch.Withregardtothese,Chemnitznotes thatsome“rejectedthePapisticalconsecra-tion in suchaway that they imagined theLord’sSuppercouldbecelebratedwithouttheWordsofInstitution”(Ex2,225).Chemnitzmakes his position clear with the curt answer, “This is manifestlyfalse” (Ex2,225).Hesummarizes fromtheScriptureandalsotheChurchFatherswhatisthedoctrineofthetruechurchwithregardtotheconsecration.Thiswillbeexaminedindetailinthenextchapter,since inviewof thewidespreadSacramentarianerror, evenwithinthechurchoftheAugsburgConfession,itwasnecessaryforChem-nitztotreatexhaustivelythequestionofwhatistheRealPresenceaccordingtotheWordsofChrist.Hefollowsthisprocedureinhiswork specifically directed against the Sacramentarians, The Lord’s Supper. WithregardtotheRomanChurchandthisproblemhe iscontentmerelytomakeageneralreferencetothisworkagainsttheSacramentarians(Ex2,223;327).

67 IftherehadbeennocontroversyinthechurchregardingtheRealPresence,ChemnitzwouldhavebeencontenttostopwithLuther’sdefinition of the Lord’s Supper in the Small Catechism. In hisEnchiridion writtenfortheperiodicexaminationbythesuperinten-dentsofthepastorsinBrunswick,13 hebeginstheexaminationoftheSacramentwithjustthatdefinition,“WhatistheLord’sSupperortheSacramentoftheAltar?”“ItisthetruebodvandtruebloodofourLordJesusChristunderthebreadandthewineforusChristianstoeatandtodrink”(MWS,120).ButafterstatingthattheessentialpartsoftheSacramentare“Wordandelement,”heinapracticalveinaddsthat“thesemustberightlyexplained”(MWS,120).

68 Therealheartofthequestionatissueinthecontroversyis,“WhatispresentintheLord’sSupper,distributedandreceivedorallybythecommunicants?” (LS 38). There is, of course, also the second pointwhichmustbe treated later, “ForwhatpurposeandusedidChristinHisSupperdistributethoseelementstobereceivedbythecom-

The Sacramental Union | ��


municantsandwhatisthesalutaryuseorwhatisthespiritualbenefitofthosethingswereceiveintheSupperfromChristwhodistributesthem?”(LS38).

69 Thosearethe“relevant”pointsfromwhichweshouldseparatethe“irrelevant.”Thequestiondoesnothavetodowithtransubstantia-tion,orthelocalenclosingofthebodyofChristinthebread,orwithacrass“Capernaiticchewing,swallowingandguzzlingofthebodyandbloodofChrist,”bothofwhichwereject.NorisitacontroversyaboutthespiritualindwellingofChristinusthroughHisWordandfaith,norisitanargumentaboutthespiritualeatingofChrist’sbodyandbloodthroughfaith,asitisdescribedinJohn6.“Webothbe-lieveandteach[that]”(LS37).

the Body and Blood of christ Given in the sacrament Are not separated from the

Personal Union of the two natures

70 After emphasizing in several ways that this is the key question,ChemnitzdirectsustotheVerba.Itisclearthatsomethingispres-ent intheLord’sSupper, “thatbyanexternaldistribution isgivenoroffered,andthattheSonofGodhascommandedthatwereceiveit....He isprescribingthemodeofreception,namely, thatwere-ceive[it]orally”(LS39).Further,“inregardtowhatispresentintheLord’sSupper,whatisdistributed,whatthosewhoeatreceiveorally,Hehaspronouncedandaffirmed:‘Thisismybodywhichisgivenforyou.Thisismybloodwhichisshedforyoufortheremissionofsins.’”(LS39).

71 ExaminingthedescriptionoftheinstitutionoftheLord’sSupperasrecordedbyPaulin1Cor.11,Chemnitzdrawsthefollowingconclu-sion,“ItisnotonebodywhichwassacrificedforusonthecrossandanotherwhichisdistributedandreceivedintheSupper;butthesamesubstanceofthebodyofChristwhichwasgivenforusonthecrossisbrokenintheSupperwiththebreadforthosewhoeat,thatis,itisofferedanddistributed”(LS123f.).

72 ItisthebodyandbloodoftheresurrectedChristthatisgivenintheSacrament.ThereisnoquestionthatChemnitzagreeswiththeApologywhich,indefendingthedoctrinethatintheLord’sSupperthebodyandbloodofChristaretrulyandsubstantiallypresentandoffered,declaredthat“wearetalkingaboutthepresenceof theliv-

ingChrist,knowingthat‘deathnolongerhasdominionoverhim’”(ApX,4).ChemnitzknewthatthebodyofChristwasnotlifeless,thatis,withouttheblood.ThebodyremainsinthepersonalunionaspartoftheGod-Man.Equally,itremainsinitsrisenstateinfullpos-sessionoftheblood.Chemnitzisquitespecific,“ChristmentionsHisbodyandblood,notbecauseHisbodyisseparatedfromHisbloodorbecausebothareseparatedfromHissoulandoutsidethepersonalunionwiththedeity,apartandseparate, as if He wished us to believe He is present in the Supper only in the abstract” (TNC432;emphasisadded).ChemnitzseemstorecognizethattheremaybeatemptationtoseparatethepersonalunionbecauseofreferencesintheScripture(e.g.,theVerba)tothenaturalpropertiesofthehumannature.Hencehesaysthat“wealsomustbeonguardthatthepersonalunionisnotdissolved,destroyed,orseparatedbecauseofthenaturalproperties,andthisrequiresthefullestandmostintimateunionandpresenceofthenaturesinandwithoneanother”(TNC443).

73 ThepositionofChemnitzbecomesapparentinhislengthyexami-nationofTrentonthewithholdingofthecupfromthelaityandtheclergywhentheyarenotcelebrants.HefirstadvancesevidencefromScriptureforcommunionunderbothkinds.HerehischiefargumentisthecommandofChrist,“Drinkofit,allofyou.”“Luke(asitshouldbediligentlynoted)showsthatChristwilledthatbothpartsshouldbeequalinthewaytheyaredistributedandused”(Ex2,340).

74 Another reason for not changing the command of Christ for allcommunicants to drink of the cup is the example of the Apostles.TheyknewatthefirstSupperthattheywerereceivingthelivingandwholebodyofChristalreadyinthebread,andyettheycompliedwithChrist’swords,“Drinkofit,allofyou.”Chemnitzexplains:

The fourth reason is taken fromtheexampleof theApostles.Foralthough the Apostles saw that, when he offered them the cup, theblood had not yet been separated from the body of Christ nor shed,theyneverthelessdidnotjudgethatforthisreasontheuseofthecupdependedon theirwillor that itmight simplybeomitted since theywere receiving thenotbloodlessbut livingandwholebodyofChristalreadyinthebread;butastheywerecommanded:“Drinkofit,allofyou,”sotheycompliedinsimpleobediencewiththiscommandwithoutinquiringintothereasonandwithoutthepretextthatitwasdangerous.For Mark says: “And they all drank of it.” Thus the Apostles haveinstructed us by their example that in the mystery of the Supper weshouldadherewithsimpleobediencetotheinstitutionandcommand



oftheSonofGodandthatnoreasonsorargumentsshouldbeadmittedagainsttheexpresswordsofinstitution.(Ex2,343).

75 Later,inpursuingtheRomanteachingofConcomitanceasade-fensefordistributingonlythebodyofChristtothecommunicantsin the service, Chemnitz demonstrates the late date at which thiscustomwasintroducedbycallingattentiontothefactthat“itwasknowntotheancientsthat,whereverChristispresent,Heispresentwholeandentire, thatHisbody isnotpresentwithoutHisblood,norHisbloodapartfromHisbody.Nevertheless,nooneintheAn-cientChurchsomuchasevenarguedthatforthisreasonthetesta-mentaryinstitutionofChristaboutthedispensationandreceptionofbothkindscouldbechangedandmutilated”(Ex2,429).

76 ChemnitzissocommittedtolettingtheclearwordsofScripturestandalonewithoutanykindofhumanrationalization(p. 17,21f.),thathewillnotpermittheSacramentarianstoemploytheConcomi-tanceargumentinreverseagainsttheBiblicaldoctrine;thatis,sinceholdingthatthebodyofChristisinthebreadandthebloodinthewinewouldbetodisruptthebodyofChrist,andhencewemustrejectthenaturalmeaningoftheVerba.AttheveryendofThe Lord’s Sup-perChemnitzfirmlyassertsthat

wearecorrectinrefusingtoadmitthefollowingargumentagainsttheWordsofInstitutiontakenfromthePopishdoctrineofConcomitance:ItisimpossibletounderstandhowthebodyofChristinthebreadandthe blood in the wine can be substantially present, distributed, andreceived without any physical pulling asunder or tearing apart of thebodyandbloodofChrist.Therefore[theysay]theproperandnaturalmeaningofChrist’slastwillandtestamentmustratherberepudiated.

Butif,becauseofunexplainableabsurditiesweareforcedtodepartfromtheclearWordofGod,nothingwillremainsafeamongthechiefarticlesoffaith.(LS268).

77 IninstructingtheBrunswickianclergy,Chemnitzinhisques-tion to them recognizes that the body of the living Christ is notwithoutblood.IntheanswerhesharplyrejectsanyuseofreasontotrytoexplainorcircumventthemysteryandmiracleoftheLord’sSupper:

But the body of Christ, as being alive, is not without blood. Therefore,when thebodyofChrist is receivedunder thebread, isn’tHisbloodalsoreceived,eveniftheuseoftheotherkindisomitted?

We should not, on the basis of the judgment of our smart-aleckreason,whichScripturedeclaresisnotonlyblind,butblindnessitself,indivinethings,takethetestamentoftheSonofGodtoourselvestoreformandchange[it],asthoughinthenightinwhichHewasbetrayedand instituted His Supper, He was not rational enough to know thata livingbodydoesnotexistwithoutblood;butweshouldrather takeourfoolishreasoncaptivetotheobedienceofHisinfinitewisdom,andin simple obedient faith we should believe HisWord and obey [His]command.HedoesnotsayandcommandthatweshouldeatHisblood,butthatweshouldeatHisbody,butdrinkHisbloodfromthecupofblessing;ifweverysimplyobeythatcommand,thereisnodangerofanyerrortofear.(MWS122f.).

the entire Person of christ According to Both natures is Present in the sacrament

78 DespitetheclearandsimplewordsoftheSavior, therearesome,Chemnitzasserts,who“teachthatonlythedivinenatureinChristispresentandcommunicatedintheSupper”(LS40).Calvin,inpartic-ular,“spokeemphaticallytohisfollowersandsaidthatheunderstoodthe Words of Institution to refer to the very substance of Christ’sbody”(LS41).Chemnitz,however,knowingCalvin’sChristology,isskeptical.Hewarns, “Butbewareof traps.Youhear the termsandyou hear the agreements that there is a substantialpresence of thebodyofChrist intheLord’sSupper.Butthenthedeception is im-mediately added, namely, that the body of Christ is present in theSupper,thatis,inthefieryheavenoutsidethisworld.InthiswaytheyaltertheSupperanditsobservance(actio).”(LS41f.).

79 ThisnecessitatesacarefulscrutinyofthePersonofChristasScrip-turehasrevealedit.Butbeforedoingthat,oneshould,firstofall,notethatLutherdidnotbuildhisdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperonChristo-logicalarguments,asissometimessuggested.HetookitfromtheclearWordsofInstitution.By1525herealizesthatCarlstadt“objectsthatChristwouldhavetoleavetheplacewhereHesatinordertocreepintothebread,andwouldhavetoleaveheaven,wereHetocomeintothebread”(LW40,216).Lutherrightlyprognosticatesthat“alltheridiculethatCarlstadtheapsontheSacrament,hehastodirectalsotothede-ityofChristintheflesh,ashewillalsosurelydointime”(LW40,216).Andsureenough,ZwinglipickedupthisargumentfromCarlstadt,sothatby1527Lutherwasforcedtoreckonwithit.ThisiswhyLutherstudiedtheBiblicalChristologyinconnectionwiththeSacramentar-



iancontroversy.Hehadpresentedhis fundamentalapproachto thedoctrineoftheSacramentinthewords,“WearenotbiddentosearchouthowitcanbethatourbreadbecomesthebodyofChrist.ItistheWordofGodthatsaysso.Weholdtothatandbelieveit.Chewonit,youpoordevil,andsearchforaslongatimeasyouneedtodiscoverhowitoccurs”(LW40,216).

80 In1527inhisThat These Words, etc.,LutherintroducesthesubjectofChrist’somnipresence.Allhedoeswiththisdoctrine is toshowthat it ispossible forChrist tobeat the righthandofGodandatotherplaces,andalsointheSacrament,“even if Christhadneverspo-kenorsetforththesewordsattheSupper,‘Thisismybody,’stillthewords ‘ChristsitsattherighthandofGod’wouldrequirethatHisbodyandbloodmay be there aswellasatallotherplaces”(LW37,64;emphasisadded).14

81 In 1528, in the Great Confession, Luther repeats his position ofthepreviousyear,“WhenIprovedthatChrist’sbodyiseverywherebecause the righthandofGod is everywhere, Idid so—as Iquiteopenlyexplainedatthetime—inorderto show at least in one way how God could bring it about that Christ is in heaven and His body in the Sup-per at the same time, andthatHereservedtoHisdivinewisdomandpowermanymorewaystoaccomplishthesameresult,becausewedonotknowthelimitormeasureofHispower”(LW37,207;emphasisadded).ItisevidentthatLuther,asheoftendeclared,tookhisstandfortheRealPresenceontheVerba.TheChristologicaldoctrineonlyshowedthattheSacramentalpresencewaspossible.15

82 ChemnitztakesthesamepositionasLutherdid.OnecanbeginbyexamininghismassiveThe Two Natures in Christ.InThe Lord’s SupperhedoesmakeacoupleofreferencestotheresearchhehaddoneonthepersonofChrist(LS188and202;seebibliographyfornoteonthetwoeditions.InThe Two Natures in Christ, Chemnitzquicklysetsforthhisfundamentalthesis,“InthefirstplaceChristhimself clearly establishes that He consists of both a human andadivinenatureandthatHehasexistedandsubsistedasapersonbeforeHewasconceivedandbornofMaryaccordingtothehumannature,forHesaysinJohn8:58:‘BeforeAbrahamwasIam’”(TNC38f.). The first chapter of John is the principal starting place forChemnitz,“John[theEvangelist]clearlystatesthatHehadexistedfrometernity,evenbeforethehumanraceandbeforeeverycreature,

forinChapter1:1theWord,whichafterwards‘becameflesh’(1:14),‘wasinthebeginning’”(TNC39).

83 ButtheproblemwiththeSacramentarianswasnotArianismbuttheirNestorianviewofthepersonofChrist.Sincetherewasnoessen-tialunionbetweentheLogosandthemanJesus,Christ’sbodycouldnotbeatoneandthesametimeinheavenandonearthintheHolySupper. Chemnitz agrees with the Athanasian Creed’s statement,“thatforsalvationthecorrectfaithisnecessarynotonlyregardingthedivinenatureinChristbutalsoregardingthehuman”(TNC49).Hesummarizesthedoctrineinthestatementthat“thetrueteachingofScriptureisthattheSonofGodhasassumedatrue,complete,andtotalhumannaturewhichisofthesamesubstancewithusandpos-sessesalltheconditions,powers,anddesiresofournatureasitsownnormalproperties,yetisnotwicked,butiswithoutsin,uncorrupted,andholy,butinwhicharetheinfirmitiesthathaveenteredintoournatureasthepenaltiesofsin”(TNC49).

84 ButScripturerevealstousevenmoreaboutthisgreatmysterythatGodwasmademanifestintheflesh.OnemustacceptwhatthedivineRevelationteachesaboutthehypostaticorpersonalunionofthetwonatures,“ItisnotsufficienttoknowandbelievethatinsomewayorothertherearetwonaturesinChrist,thedivineandthehuman.Wemustaddthattheyhavebeenjoinedtogethersointimatelyinaper-sonalunionthatthereisoneandthesamepersonconsistingofandsubsistinginthesetwonatures....Thechurch,inorderthatitmayapproachascloselyaspossibletothelanguageoftheWordofGod,onthebasisoftheScripturalterm‘unity’or‘union,’hasspokenoftheunionofthetwonaturesintotheunityofoneperson”(TNC67).

85 ChemnitzthendevotesthefifthchapterofThe Two Natures (73–85)toarrangingandanalyzingthewealthofScripturalevidencesupport-inghisthesisofthehypostaticunion.Itisnotnecessaryforustogointoallthisevidencehere.InhisdedicatorylettertoChristian,DukeofSaxony,ChemnitzmodestlyremarksthatattheTorgauCastle(May28–June30,1576)wherethefirstdraftoftheFormulaofConcordwashammeredout,hisstudyonthetwonaturesinChrist“receivedratherfavorablemention”andthat“acarefulanddiligentstudyofthestate-mentsdealingwiththissubjectwasundertaken”(TNC21).ItmaybecorrectlysaidthattheresultsofChemnitz’sChristologicalstudiesareembodiedinArticleVIIIoftheSolidDeclaration(1577)andinthat



partofArticleVIIwhichemploysLuther’sGreatConfession (LW37,214–224)thatJesusChrististrueGodandManinoneperson(SDVII,93–103).TheChristologyofChemnitzandLutherisidentical,aswillbecomeapparentinthefollowingparagraphs.16

86 Asaresultofthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesintheoneper-son,JesusChrist,theretookplaceacommunicationofattributes,thatis,acommunionofproperties(SDVIII,31).TheFormulaofConcordfollowsthearrangementofChemnitzindiscussingthesethreekindsofcommunicationofattributeswhichresultfromthepersonalunion,genus idiomaticum (SD VIII, 36); genus apotelesmaticum (SD VIII,46–47);andthegenus majestaticum (SDVIII,48–75).

87 ThenubofthecontroversywiththeSacramentariansonthedoc-trineoftheLord’sSuppercenteredontheexchangeofpropertiesac-cordingtothegenus majestaticum. ItissocentraltounderstandingtheanswertothequestionChemnitzposedastowhatispresent,distrib-utedandreceivedorallyintheSacrament(seep.26)thatitishelpfultopresentChemnitz’spositionatsomelength.Hewrites:

Uptothispointwehavespokenaboutthetwonatures inChrist;about the hypostatic union of these two natures; about the personof Christ; about the difference of the natures and of their natural oressential attributes, a difference which remains intact in the union;abouthowtheattributesoftheindividualnaturesarecommunicatedtothewholeperson;andhoweachnatureperformsincommunionwiththe other that which is proper to it. But some people compress andconfinethisentiredoctrinewithintheboundsoftheessentialattributesornaturalproperties,andtheywillpermitnothingmoreforthemselvesnorwilltheyallowittoothers.ButbecauseitisrightandcorrecttosaythatthehypostaticunionofthedivineandthehumannatureinChristhastakenplacewhilethedifferenceofthenaturesandoftheessentialattributesofpropertiesremainsintact,somemenhaveunderstoodthispointinsoerroneousamannerandhaveurgedtheircaseinsowickedawaythattheyarewillingtorecognizeonlytheessentialandnaturalattributes in Christ’s human nature. Despite the clear teachings andaffirmationsofScripturetheyutterlyopposebelievingthatthehumannature,whenitisconsideredaccordingtoitsnaturalprinciplesinitself,of itself, either outside or inside the union, possess qualities above,beyond,orcontrarytothenaturalconditionsofnature.

OnthebasisofScripturetheevidenceforthisteachingissogreatthatthosewho,asIhavejustmentioned,havelongandacrimoniouslydebated the point are now compelled to acknowledge and confessthatwemustattributetoChrist’shumannaturenotonlyitsessentialattributes and natural conditions, but also, especially because of the

hypostaticunionwiththedeity,innumerablesupernaturalqualitiesandcharacteristicswhicharecontrarytonature.Yettheystillrestrictthemtocreatedgifts,asweshallpointoutshortly.(TNC242f.)

88 ChemnitzproceedstopileuptheScripturalevidencewhichdem-onstratesthatwhileonemustholdtothe integrityofthetwona-turesandnotallowforanyblendingofthetwonaturesandoftheiressentialproperties,oneatthesametimemustbelievethat“Christhas received this majesty in time, moreover, not according to thedivinityorthedivinenature,butaccordingtoHisassumednature,oraccordingtothefleshasman,orastheSonofMan”(“CatalogofTestimonies,”Trig.1115).IncludedinthechainofScripturetextswhichChemnitzadducestoprovethepointare:John5:21,27;6:39,40;Matt.28:18;Dan.7:14;John3:31,35;13:3;Matt.11:27;Eph.1:21,22;Heb.2:8;1Cor.15:27;John1:3,10,etc.(TNC242–265;SDVIII,55;Trig.1113f.).

89 BecausethedivinenatureofChrist“powerfullymanifestsandac-tuallyexertsitsmajesty,powerandefficacy...in,with,andthroughthe human nature personally united to it” (Trig. 1139), ChemnitzandAndreaedrawtwoconclusionssolidlybasedonrevelatoryevi-dence:

1) “that thiscommunicationof thedivinemajestyoccursalso inglory,withoutmingling,annihilation,ordenialofthehumannature”(Trig.1141);and

2)“also,thataccordingtothenatureandbecauseofthepersonalunion,thehumannatureisparticipantandcapableofthedivinemaj-estywhichbelongstoGod”(Trig.1143).

As further support for these theses they quote Matt. 16:27; 28:18;Col.2:3,9.

90 Chemnitzfreelygrantsthatthemysteryofthisunionfarsurpass-esthecomprehensionandlanguageofallmen;yet“concerningthismysterytheHolySpiritintheScripturehasrevealedtousasmuchasisnecessaryforustoknowandbelieveinthislifeinordertobesaved”(TNC68).But“withthesimplicityofthepartialknowledgewhichisgiven”wemustadheretothe“sureandcleartestimoniesofScripture,albeitinpart,throughamirror,and,asitwere,inariddle”(TNC69).

91 Chemnitz,inaccordancewithhisprinciplesofinterpretation(seep.17),willnotbedrawnintomakinganypropositionsthatarenot



foundedontheScriptures.Henoteswhichattributesbelongingtothe deity have been communicated to Christ in time according tohisassumedhumannature.Christhasbeengivenlifeandauthor-ity to judge, because He is the Son of Man (John 5:27). ScriptureexpresslymentionsthehumannaturebynameinHisbloodpurifiesourconsciences(Heb.9:14;1John1:7)(TNC287).Further,Christisomnipresent(Matt.28:20),thatis,“Hecanbepresentwithit[i.e.,“theassumedhumannature”]beyondevery localizationwhereHewillstobepresent”(TNC448).Thisistruebecauseinadvanceofthat promise of omnipresence He has asserted His omnipotence,“Allpowerhasbeengiventomeinheavenandonearth(Matt.28:18)”(TNC 450). The Solid Declaration (VIII, 57–62) also enumeratesthesedivineattributes,asdoChemnitzandAndreaeinthe“CatalogofTestimonies”(Trig.1139–1145).

92 TheReformedtheologiansofNeostadium,inattemptingtorefutethe Formula of Concord, argued that the divine attributes are in-divisibleandhenceallmustbeascribedtoChristaccordingtoHishumannature,includingeternity.TheanswerofChemnitz,Selnec-cer, and Kirchner in the Apology to the Formula was simply: Weanswertothisinafewwords,thatinthecommunicationofdivinemajestyorattributeswedonotgoorteachbeyondwhattheWordofGodclearlytellsus.SinceGod’sWorddoesmentionthecommu-nicationofotherattributesbutsaysnothingofeternity,itisproperforus,too,nottosayanythingabout it.Norneedwefearforthisreasonthatwearedividingthedivineattributes;fortheSonofGodwhohasrevealedthedoctrineofthecommunicationofdivineom-nipotence,quickeningpower,andotherattributes,undoubtedlywellknows how this communication can occur without any separationoftheattributes.ToHimweshouldcommendthismysteryandnotspeculateorrationalizeonitbeyondHisWord(Ap.,FC,81a).17

93 TheseChristologicalfactsrevealedintheWordmeanforChem-nitzthatwecannotabandonthesimple,usualmeaningoftheVerba,“thisismybody,”because“thismeaningdoesnotclashwithasinglearticleoffaith”(Ex2,223).Sotheanswertothequestionwhichisattheheartofthecontroversy(“WhatispresentintheLord’sSupper,distributedandreceivedorallybythecommunicant?”—seep.26f.),isthat“itiscertainthatbecausethewholefullnessoftheGodheaddwellsbodilyinthehumannatureofChrist,andthehumannature

ofChristhasbeenexaltedthroughHisascensionaboveeverynamewhich is named, whether in this or in a future age, that thereforeChristcanbepresentwithHisbodywhereverHewillsanddowhat-everHewills.Therefore thepresenceof thebodyofChrist in theSacramentdoesnotconflictwiththearticlesoffaith,eitherofthetruehumannatureoroftheascensionofChrist.Thisunderstand-ingalsohastheconstantconsensusoftheancient,true,andpurerchurch; moreover, it is full of the sweetest consolations. If the ab-senceofthebodyandbloodofChristisestablished,consciencesarerobbedofallthesethings.”(Ex2,223).

the Modes of christ’s Presence

94 It now becomes necessary to penetrate more deeply into Chem-nitz’sviewofthemodesofChrist’spresence.ThisisofconsiderableimportancebecauseitissometimesassertedthatChemnitzdidnotagree with Luther on this point. It has been a conventionally-heldviewthatChemnitz,indistinctiontoBrenz,“taughtonlyarelativeubiquitydependingonChrist’swill.”18 Thishasbeencalledhisdoc-trineof“multivolipresence”(or“multipresence”),thatis,thatthehu-mannatureoftheexaltedChristispresentonlywhenandwhereHewills.Inotherwords, it isheldthatChemnitzrejectedthegeneralomnipresenceofChrist’shumannature,whileBrenzespousedcom-pletelyLuther’sview.

95 TheFormulaofConcordtakesasitsownthepresentationofLu-theron themanner (mode)of thepresenceof thebodyandbloodofChristintheSupper(SDVII,91–106).Bymeansofseveralquo-tationsandparaphrasesitcompressesasignificantpartofLuther’sGreat Confession into a couple of pages (LW 37, 214–224). Luthercontends that the one body of Christ has at least “three differentmodes,orallthreemodes,of being at any given place” (SDVII,98;emphasisadded).AtthisjunctureitshouldbenotedthatLutherisreadytograntthatChristhaspossiblymoremodes,“IdonotwishtohaveitdeniedbytheforegoingthatGodmayhaveandknowstillothermodeswherebyChrist’sbodycanbeinagivenplace”(LW37,223).

96 ThesemodesofpresencearepossibleforChristbecause“thehu-manityofChristfromHismother’swombwasmoreprofoundlyanddeeply inGodand inGod’spresence thananyangel,”and“Christ



wasinheavenevenwhileHewasstillwalkingonearth,asJohn3[:13]says”(LW37,232).

97 AttimesJesusChrist,trueGodandManinoneperson,employedthe circumscriptive mode, “the comprehensible, corporeal mode,” aswhenHewalkedbodilyonearthandasHewilldoontheLastDay(SDVII,99;LW37,222).

98 Thesecond,ordefinitive mode (SDVII, 100), isdescribedbyLu-ther(LW37,215and222f.).Thespaceisreallymaterialandcircum-scribed,withitsowndimensions(LW37,215),butChrist’smodeisan“uncircumscribed,spiritualmodeofpresenceaccordingtowhichHeneitheroccupiesnoryieldsspacebutpassesthrougheverythingcreated as He wills” (LW 37,222). “The space is really material andcircumscribed, andhas its own dimensionsof length,breadth, anddepth;butthatwhichoccupiesithasnotthesamelength,breadth,ordepthasthespacewhichitoccupies, indeed, ithasnolengthorbreadthatall”(LW37,215).SomeexamplesofthisarerepresentedbyChrist’semergingfromthegrave,goingthroughlockeddoors,andbeinginthebreadandwine.

99 Withrespecttothissecondmodeofpresence,theauthorsoftheFormulawereafraidthatsomeSacramentariansmightreadawrongideaintoLuther’suseoftheterm“spiritualmode.”Thisfearresultedinaclarifyingadditioninthefinalrevision(theBergicBook,1577).HeretheauthorsaddedSDVII,104and105,whereitisspelledoutthattheyhadinmindaspiritual,heavenlymodebywhichHisbodyandbloodarepresentintheSupperforbelieversandunbelieversalike.Ofcourse,Heisnotpresentaccordingtothefirst,circumscriptivemode,anditistotallywrongfortheSacramentariansheretoascribetotheLutherans“theCapernaiticconceptionofagross,carnalpresence.”

100 Thethirdmodeiscalled“repletive”(Eph.4:10).SinceChristisonepersonwithGod,Healsohasthedivineheavenlymode(SDVII,101).Thisisfarbeyondthingscreated,for“youmustplacethisexistenceofChristwhichconstitutesHimonepersonwithGod,far,farbeyondthingscreated,”etc.(LW37,223).Heissimultaneouslypresentinallplaces,wholeandentire, andfillsallplaces,yetwithoutbeingmea-suredorcircumscribedbyanyplace;seeJer.23:23(LW37,216).19

101 Before entering into Chemnitz’s presentation of this doctrine, itwouldbewell to summarize thepointswhichLutherand theFor-mulahavemade:

1.Thesecondmode is tobe sharplydifferentiated from thefirst.Christ’sbodyandbloodcanbesubstantiallypresentwithoutbeingcircumscribed,buttheplaceiscircumscribed.

2.Thesecondmodeisalsotobedifferentiatedfromthethirdmode,whereChristispresentinallplaces,wholeandentire,becauseHeisonepersonwithGod.

3.Thesecondmodeisalsotobedifferentiatedfrom“thespiritualmode,”wherebywereceiveChristbyfaith.

102 LutherhadallowedforseveralmodeswherebyChrist’sbodycouldbeinagivenplace(p.36).ButinhisanalysisoftheScripturalmate-rial,heformulatedthreedistinctmodes.TheapproachofChemnitzis somewhat different when he comes to discuss the matter in thechapter,“ChristPresentintheChurchAccordingtoBothNatures”(TNC423–465).Hepositsfivekindsofpresence,“Ithereforedistin-guishalso thesekindsofpresence: In thefirstplaceHewalkedonearth,inthesecondHeappearsinheaveninglory,inthethirdHeispresentintheSupperwiththebreadandthewine,inthefourthHeispresentinthewholechurch,andinthefifthHehasallcreaturespresentwithHiminasense(enlogoo)”(TNC448f.).20

103 Is thereadivergencehere fromLutherand theFormulaofCon-cord?Itisnotdifficulttofindrun-of-the-millassertionstothateffect.Forexample,withregardtoSDVIII,84f,whereLuther’sstatementfromtheGreat Confession isincorporated,SchlinkassertsthatinthesystematicdevelopmentofChristologyherethereisa“lackofclaritywhich is indicatedby thedifferencebetweenBrenzandChemnitz,betweenWuertembergandLowerSaxonChristology.”ItisevidentthatSchlinkbelievesthatChemnitz’sfrequentuseoftheterm“wher-everHewills”“hasnotbeenthoughtthroughastoitsChristologicalsignificance”and thatChemnitz isatoddswithLuther’s “whereveryouputGoddownformeyoumustalsoputthehumanitydownforme.”21Buttheevidencedoesnotsustainthis judgment.Inthefirstpoint, Chemnitz certainly teaches the circumscriptive, comprehen-sible,corporealmodeofpresence,alsogivingadetailedexplanation(TNC426f).Inthesecondmode,hehasreferenceonlytoChristinheaveninHisglory.Thisisdifferentfromthenatural,circumscrip-tivemode.ThismodewillberevealedtousonlywhenHe“willappearat last ingloryfor judgment”(TNC431).But itcanberegardedas



beingsubsumedunderthedefinitivemode,sinceHe“canmanifestHisbodilypresenceonearthwhenever,wherever,andhoweverHewishesinvisibleform”(TNC431).ExamplesofthisaretobefoundinthecaseofPaulwho“actuallysawChrist,notintheMilkyWayofheavenbutonanearthlyroadwhichledfromJerusalemtoDamas-cus,notinsomekindofvisionbutinHisowntruebody,soPaulfromthisevenproves theresurrectionof theflesh” (TNC431).AnothercaseinpointisChriststanding“besidePaulintheprisonwithHisowntruebody”(TNC431).

104 The third and fourth modes are equivalent to the second modenamedintheFormula(SDVII,100).IndescribingandacceptingthemodesofChrist’spresence,ChemnitzagainfallsbackontheScrip-turalprinciple,“AsfaraswehaveScripturewefollowitinsimplicityandsafety,asaguidewhichleadsusandasa lampwhichbrightlyshines”(TNC463;seealsop.17f.,whereChemnitzacceptstheprin-ciple of Augustine). Following “the Scripture with simplicity andfirmness,”wemustallagreethat“sinceallpowerhasbeengiventoHim[theSonofGodinandwithHisassumedhumanity]inheavenandonearth,andallcreatureshavebeenmadesubjecttoHim,thisSoncandothosethingsofwhichHegivestousadefiniteandex-pressword,institution,ordination,orpromiseintheScripture,evenifwearenotabletounderstandorexplainthewayinwhichittakesplace”(TNC426).

105 ThechurchcanbecertainthatChristispresentwithHisbodyandbloodintheconsecratedelementsinthedefinitivemode because“wehave...anexpresswordanda specificpromise instituted inapar-ticularanddefiniteway,ordainedaspartofHiswillandtestamentbytheSonofGodhimselfonthenightinwhichHewasbetrayed,apromisewhichChristratifiedalsoafterHisascensionbysittingattherighthandoftheMajestyinHisgloryinheaven,apromisewhichwasrepeatedtoPaul,apromisethatHewillstobepresentwithHisbodyandbloodintheobservanceofHisSupperasitiscelebratedinthegatheringofthechurchhereonearthinaccordwithHisinstitu-tion”(TNC432).

106 Having given this precise definition of how Christ is present inthe Supper in the definitive mode because of His specific Word ofpromise,Chemnitzisquicktodistinguishthismodefromthefirst,orcircumscriptivemode,“WegrantthatthebodyofChrist,whichis

delimitedbytheattributesofHisnature,isnotpresentintheSupperinallplacesbyalocalcircumscriptionorbysomemodeorconditionof human life which is visible, perceptible, or natural, or accordingto thenaturalpropertiesof the truebodyor throughanyessentialattributesof itsown.Forwehavealreadyshownthat in thismodeofpresenceChristhasbeen removed fromtheearth, at least asanordinaryarrangement”(TNC433).ChemnitzwantstodemonstratethattheLutherandoctrineisfreefromanyCapernaiticchargesmadebytheReformed,“Wedonotestablishaphysicalorgeometric,crassandcarnalmannerofpresence.Wedonotdisputeabout inclusioninacertainplace,noraboutdescentorascentofthebodyofChrist.Briefly,wedonotholdthatthebodyofChristispresentintheSupperinanymannerthatisnaturaltothisworld”(Ex2,224).

107 Subsumedunderthedefinitivemodebutatthesametimenottheidentical presence as Christ’s body and blood in the Supper, is thefourthmode,“presentinthewholechurch”(TNC449).OnthebasisofMatt.28:20,Chemnitzassertsthat“thispromiseiscorrectlyunder-stoodofthewholeChrist,GodandManinbothnatures.ForHewhowaspresenttherebeforethempromisesHispresencetothechurchalways”(TNC449;seealsopages318and319).Thatthismodeofpres-enceisforChemnitzdifferentfromChrist’spresenceintheSupperisclearfromthefactthatheunswervinglyholdstoPaul’sstatementthattheunworthypartakeofthebodyofChristbutnottotheirsalvation,“Itiscertain,”Chemnitzremarks,“thattheyarenotspirituallyeatingthebodyandbloodofChrist”(LS171).AndCalviniscertainlywrongwhenheinfersthatinthe“sacramentalreception...whatthosewhoeatunworthilyintheLord’sSupperreceiveintheirmouthsisnotthebodyandbloodofChristbutonlybreadandwine”(LS172).WhilewecannotfullyunderstandthemysteryofthemodesofthepresenceofChristinHischurchorintheSupper(Ex2,224),itisevidentforChemnitz that there is a difference. The definitive presence of thebodyandbloodofChristintheSupperdoesnotcoincidewithChrist’sgeneralomnipresence,norwithHispresence inthechurch,butthesacramentalpresenceisrestrictedtoadefiniteplaceandtime.ThisisevidentfromhisdiscussionoftheVenerationoftheSacrament,whichwillbeanalyzedinasucceedingchapter.Here,however,itissufficienttoshowthatthedefinitivepresenceofChristintheSupperisaspecialpresence,“IfwebelievethatChrist,GodandMan,ispresentwith a



peculiar mode of presence and grace intheaction ofHisSupper,sothatHetrulyandsubstantiallyimpartsHisbodyandbloodtothosewhoeat,...if,Isay,wetrulyandfromtheheartbelievethesethings,itnei-thercannorshouldhappenthatfaithwouldfailtovenerateandwor-shipChristwhoispresentinthisaction” (Ex2,277;emphasisadded).HereitisoftheutmostimportancetorememberChemnitz’s“precis-ingdefinition”oftheterm“action”withrespecttohisuseofitintheLord’sSupper(seep.13f.).

108 ItisnownecessarytoexaminethefifthkindofpresencetowhichChemnitzmakes reference, “Hehasall creaturespresentwithhimen logoo” (TNC449;seeendnote#20).Thiswouldbeidenticalwiththerepletivemode,“accordingtowhichallcreaturesareindeedmuchmorepenetrableandpresent tohimthantheyareaccordingtothesecond mode.” This must be so because Christ is “one person withGod”(SDVII,101).TheFormulaanchorsthisconvictionevenmorefirmly inArticleVIII,employingpartofLuther’sGreat Confession, “SinceHeisamanlikethis—andapartfromthismanthereisnoGod—itmustfollowthataccordingtothethirdsupernaturalman-ner,HeisandcanbeeverywherethatGodisandthateverythingisfull of Christ through and through, also according to the humani-ty—not,ofcourse,accordingtothefirst,corporeal,comprehensiblemanner,butaccordingtothesupernatural,divinemanner.Hereyoumust take your stand and say that wherever Christ is according tothedeity,Heisthereasanatural,divinepersonandalsonaturallyandpersonallythereasHisconceptioninHismother’swombprovesconclusively”(SDVIII,81f.;LW37,218).

109 ThisispreciselythedoctrineofChemnitz.Indevotingaprelimi-narychaptertothedefinitionofthePersonalUnion,hesaysthat

this intimateunitingof theassumingand theassumednaturesbringsaboutthefactthatalthoughasaresultofthisunionnothinginitselfisaddedtoorsubtractedfromthedivinenature,yetinthehumannatureof Christ, because of the union, there are not only natural attributeswhichresultfromtheconstitutionofhumannature,norarethereonlyparticularandfinitewhichinhereformallyinthehumanityandaremorenumerous and more excellent in degree than those which come fromtheindwellingoftheHolySpiritinthesaints,butalsobecauseofthisunionthehumannatureinChristnotonlyhasthefulnessofthedeitydwellinginitpersonally,butatthesametime,accordingtotheScripture,itreceivesthedivinemajestywhichhasbeengivenandcommunicatedtoitalongwiththedivinepower,wisdom,lifeandotherdivinequalities.

Andthistakesplacenotbyaphysicalcommunicationofcommingling,effusion,orequating,butbythecommunicationofthepersonalunioninthewaythatasoulcommunicatesitsanimateandvitalpowerstoalivingbodyandasfirecommunicatesthepowerofgivinglightandheattotheheatediron.(TNC83f.).

110 Since,aswilllaterbeseen,thisisacrucialpointforunderstandingnotonlyChemnitz’sChristologybuthisunderstandingoftheLord’sSupper,itisnecessarytoaddmoretestimonyfromhisworks.Uponex-aminingEph.1:22andMatt.28:18,heconcludes,“Hereyouwillclearlyhear...thatallthispower[thatis,thatallthingsareplacedunderthefeetofChrist]whichhasbeengiventoChristpertainsparticularlytothechurchortotheworkofChrist’skingdomandHispriesthood;butitisnotsocircumscribedbytheseboundariesandlimitsthatatthesametimeHedoesnothaveallthingsunderHisfeetinsubjectiontoHim,asthepassageteaches....GodgivesgreatpowertotheangelsinRev.18:1,whoarethuscalledpowersofstrength(Ps.103:20).ButtoChristintime,accordingtoHishumannatureisgivennotonlygreat,notonlyfar-reachingpowers,butallpowerboth inheavenandearth” (TNC319).Chemnitzflatlyconcludesthat“ScriptureteachesthatChristrulesoverallthings,notonlyasGodaccordingtothedivinenaturebutalsoasmanaccordingtoHisexaltedhumannature”(TNC321).

111 SinceChemnitzisquiteawareofthefactthattheSacramentarianshavetriedtoreducetoabsurditytheLutherandoctrineoftheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheconsecratedelements,hefeelsthathemustinallhonestytakeuptheirobjections,thoughtheybordernotonlyontheridiculousbutalsotheblasphemous.ItisfromthispassagethatsomehaveconcludedthatChemnitzrejectsthegeneralomnipresenceofChrist’shumannatureandeventhatthehu-mannaturewasnotcapableofthedivinity.ThepassagefromChem-nitzreadsasfollows:

Uptothispoint,onthebasisofScripture,andthetestimoniesoftheancientchurch,wehavespokenofthepresenceofthecompletepersonofChristaccordingtoeachnatureintheLord’sSupperandinthechurch;andwehaveshownhowmuchcomfortthisteachingaffords.

But if we ask further concerning other creatures which are outsidethechurchandsubjecttothegeneralruleofGod,Scripture isclear initsgeneralaffirmationthatallthingshavebeenmadesubjecttoChristastotheLord,alsoaccordingtohishumanityastheFatherssay,notonlyinthechurchbutinallways.NothingisexceptedbyHimwhosubjects



allthingstoHimself.Clearlyandexpresslytherearementionedinthissubjectionthebeastsofthefield,thefowlsoftheair,thefishofthesea,andwhateverotherworksarefromthehandsofGod,whetherinheavenoronearthorundertheearth,eventheenemiesofChrist,andthuseventhedevilanddeathitself(Psalm8:6–8;Phil.2:9;Gal.4:11;1Cor.15:57),whereasacorrelativetothissubjectionPaulplacesadominionwhichinPsalm8:6isdescribedbythewordMosel, whichsignifiestohavepower,dominion,andruleoversomeoneandtoworkinapowerfulway.Christ’shumannature,therefore,cannotandoughtnotberemovedorexcludedfrom the general dominion which he possesses and exercises over allthingsorfromtheadministrationoftheworld,sinceScriptureexpresslyaffirmsthatall things,even those thingswhichareoutside thechurch,havebeenputunderChrist’sfeet.

Wehaveshowninmanyprecedingstatementsthatthesepassagesmust be understood, not only of Christ’s divine nature but properlyalsoofthesubjectionofallthingswhichthehumannatureinChristhasreceivedintimethroughtheexaltation.Notthatthehumannaturerulesby itself,butthepersonin,with,andthrougheachnaturerulespowerfullyoverallthingswitharulewhichthedivineLogospossessesfrometernitybutwhichthehumanityhasreceivedintimebecauseofthepersonalunion.(TNC462f.)

112 ThismuchofthetextshouldjustifytheconclusionthatChemnitztaught the general omnipresence and omnipotence of Christ’s hu-mannature.Ifnot,theverynextsentenceclinchestheargument,asentencewhichPieperobserves that thenotedcommentatorof theFormulaofConcord,F.H.R.Franck,omitted,eventhoughitisofcentralimportancetotheissue,22“ButthehumanityinandwiththeLogosrulesallthings,notinthesenseofbeingabsent,faraway,orremovedbyanimmenseintervalofspace,orthroughsomevicariouswork and administration, such as kings are accustomed to exercisewhentheirpowerisextendedwidelythroughmanydistantprovinces”(TNC463;emphasisadded).

113 Since the omnipresence of Christ, also according to His humannature,notonlyincludesthechurchbutallthings,Chemnitztakesnoteofthefactthat“theargumentsandquestionscenterinwhetherthebodyofChrist isalso inwoodandstones, infruit, inthebirdsoftheair,thebeastsofthefield,andthefishofthesea,orwhetherHewishestobesoughtandfoundthere.Furthermore,someques-tions are asked which are foul to hear and abominable to imagine,whichcannotbeconsideredorevenaskedwithoutblasphemy,suchaswhetherthedivinenature,whichiseverywhere,isfoundinexcretaandsewage”(TNC463;emphasisadded).

114 Theanswertothefirstpartofthequestionis,ofcourse,anaffirma-tive,giveninSDVII,101,whereLuther’sGreat Confessionisquoted,“Youmustposit thisessenceofChristsinceHe isonepersonwithGod,veryfarbeyondcreatures,asfarasGodtranscendsthem,andyoumustposititagainasdeepandasnearinallcreaturesasGodisimmanentinthem.ForHeisoneindivisiblePersonwithGod,andwhereverGodis,Hemustbealso,otherwiseourfaithisfalse”(seealsoLW37,223).

115 WhenLutherwrotethisin1528,hewasalreadyawareoftheSacra-mentarians’effortstoridiculetheBiblicaldoctrineoftheRealPres-enceintheLord’sSupperbytheirdrawingtheconclusionthatonecouldthenpartakeofthissacramentanytimeandanyplacewithoutanyregardtotheinstitution.23ChemnitzmaywellhavehadLuther’sanswerinmindwhenheagainfeltcompelledtodealwiththisobjec-tionfiftyyearslater,afterLutherhadwritten:

Bythiskindoftalk[thatis,onthebasisofJohn3:13Luther’sstatementthatChrist’s“bodyisatthesametimeinheavenandonearth,yesevenattheendsoftheearth”]perhapsIshallnowattractotherfanaticswhowould like to tripmeup, arguing: IfChrist’sbody is everywhere, ah,thenIshalleatanddrinkhiminallthetaverns,fromallkindsofbowls,glasses,andtankards!ThenthereisnodifferencebetweenmytableandtheLord’stable.(LW37,67).

116 LutherattacksthisnaiveviewwhichidentifiestherepletivepresencewiththedefinitivepresenceofChrist’sbodyandbloodintheconse-cratedelements,“Listennow,youpig,dog,orfanatic,whateverkindofunreasonableassyouare.EvenifChrist’sbodyiseverywhere,youdonotthereforeimmediatelyeatordrinkortouchHim!NordoItalkwithyouaboutsuchthingsinthismanner,either;gobacktoyourpig-penandyourfilth....ThereisadifferencebetweenHisbeingpres-entandyourtouching.Heis freeandunboundwhereverHeis....AlthoughHe[Christ]iseverywhere,Hedoesnotpermithimselftobesocaughtandgrasped;Hecaneasilyshellhimself,sothatyougettheshellbutnotthekernel.Why?BecauseitisonethingifGodispres-ent,anotherifHeispresentforyou.HeisthereforyouwhenHeaddsHisWordandbindshimself,saying,‘Hereyouaretofindme.’NowwhenyouhavetheWord,youcangraspandhaveHimwithcertaintyandsay,‘HereIhaveThee,accordingtoThyWord’”(LW37,38).TheordinanceandpromiseoftheWordaredecisiveforLuther.



117 ChemnitztakesthesamepositionasLutherdid.HeacknowledgestherepletivepresenceofChristbecauseHeistrueGodandManinoneperson(seep.16.f).Butitissimplistictodisregardtheequallyim-portantquestion,“...orwhether He wishes to be sought and found there [thatis,inwood,stone,animals,etc.]”(TNC463;emphasisadded).Inextremelyirenicwords(atleastcomparedwithLuther’s)Chemnitzturnsasidetheridiculewithasoftanswer,“SincewedonothaveanexpressanddefinitepromisethatHewillstobesoughtandfoundinsuchplaces,andsincethesethingsaddnothingtotheedificationandcomfortofthechurchandareplainoffenseswhichdisturbtheweakandgivetheadversariesoccasionforendlesscontroversy,itissafestandsimplesttodropallsuchquestionsfromourdiscussionandtolimitourselvestotheboundariesofdivinerevelationsothatwemayseekChristandlayholdonHimintheplaceswhereHehasclearlypromisedthatHehimselfwishestobe”(TNC463).WhileLutherand Chemnitz both teach the omnipresence of Christ’s human na-ture,theydonotresttheRealPresenceonHisgeneralomnipresencebutonthecommandandthepromiseoftheVerba.24 TheApologytotheFC,afternotingthedistinctionbetweenthecircumscriptiveanddefinitivemodesofpresence,makesthepointthattheSacramentar-iansdifferfundamentallyfromtheFormulabydenyingthedefinitivepresencein(APFC149b).

the sacramental Union

118 Since Christ is present in the bread, or, more precisely, the breadisthebodyofChrist,whatistherelationshipbetweentheelementsinthesacrament?Verysimply,butinclear,definitewordsChemnitzinstructshisless-informedpastorsinBrunswickthatthereisnotran-substantiationbutthat“twodistinctthingsorsubstances,whichjoinedbythesacramentalunion,makeonecompletesacrament,evenas intheonepersonofChristtherearetwocompleteanddistinctnatures”(MWS120).ThiscallsforaverycarefulexaminationoftheWordsofInstitutionasfoundinMatthew,Mark,LukeandSt.Paul.

119 Thewordfromthefirstinstitution,“this”(touto, hoc), mustnotbedisregarded,asthoughthewholecontroversygeneratedaroundtheLord’sSuppercentersonlyintheword“is.”Chemnitzdemonstratesthat“overandabovethefactthattransubstantiationcannotbeclearlyandsurelyprovedandshownfromtheWordofGod,wealsohavea

simpleandclearstatementconcerningthisquestion....”(Ex2,262).Considering the bread which Jesus blessed, broke, and gave to HisdisciplesHesaid,“Take,eat,thisismybody.”Therecanbenodoubtabout the meaning of the demonstrative pronoun, Chemnitz avers,because“LukeandPaul,indescribingthesecondpartstatethisex-presslybytheclearaddition,‘Hetookthecup,blessedit,andgaveittothem,’andadd:Touto to poteerion, ‘Thiscup.’“(Ex2,262).

120 Additionalproofthatthe touto referstotheearthlyelementcanbeseenfromPaul’swordsin1Corinthians,“AsSt.Paulsayscon-cerning the secondpart (1Cor. 10:16): ‘Thiscupwhichwebless istheimpartingofthebloodofChrist,’soalsohesaysconcerningthefirstpart:‘ThebreadwhichwebreakistheimpartingofthebodyofChrist.’Thereforehedeclaresandexpressesclearlywhatthe littleword‘this’denotesineachofthetwoparts,namely,breadandthecup”(Ex2,262).25

121 Furthermore, even after the consecration, which in the theologyofChemnitzachievesthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChrist,Scripturestillspeaksofthebreadasoneofthedistinctthingsinthesacrament.Thisoughttoeliminateanykindofphilosophicalexplana-tionforthemysteryoftheSupper,suchastransubstantiation,“More-over,aftertheblessingorconsecration,intheveryuse[ofthesacra-ment],Paulcalls itbread,and thatnotonce, lestyoushould thinkthat the expression had slipped out inadvertently, but four or fivetimes.1Cor.10:16,17:‘Thebreadwhichwebreak’;‘Weallpartakeofonebread’;1Cor.11:26,27:‘Asoftenasyoueatthisbread’;‘Whoevereatsthebread...inanunworthymanner’;V28:‘Letamanexaminehimselfandsoeatofthebread’”(Ex2,262f.).Inviewofthismas-siveBiblicalevidence,Chemnitzconcludesthat“sincewehavetheseexplanationsofScripture,whydowenotadheretothesimpletruth?Whyshouldwetakepleasureindisturbingitwiththelabyrinthineargumentsabouttransubstantiation?”

122 In his sparring with the Sacramentarians, Chemnitz first callsattentiontothefactthatbyhistimeeveryone(includingtheSac-ramentarians)hadrejectedCarlstadt’snotionthatthe“demonstra-tivearticle‘this’couldnotrefertothebreadbecausethegenderofthedemonstrativepronoundidnotagreewiththeprecedingword‘bread.’”Allnowagreedthat“itiscommonforademonstrativear-ticletoagreeingenderwiththesubstantivethatfollowsbutitis



impossibletodemonstratethatthereisalwaysthisreferencetothepreceding.”(LS95).

123 With this superficial argument out of the way, Chemnitz thenshowsthatthetouto inMatt.26:26–28,mustrefertothebreadandthewine,for“Lukesays:‘Thiscup’[Luke22:20].AndPaulspeaksof‘Thebreadwhichwebreak[1Cor.10:16]’”(LS95).

124 ThenextwordsoftheVerbatocomeunderscrutinyarethecopula-tive“is”andthenoun“body.”EmployingthedescriptionofMatthew,Chemnitzsimplysaysthat“theword‘is’(est) explainswhatitiswhichisdistributedandreceived.Andtheword‘body’isclearlyexplained,forChristaffirmsthatitisHisbody,andbytheuseofthearticle‘the’(to) he strongly confirms the proper meaning of the word which isdealtwithsoclearly,bothinLukeandPaul”(LS95f.).

125 ButherethewordsofChristcomeintoconflictwithhumanrea-son,aswasthecaseintheArianControversy.Inbothinstanceswearedealing“withmysterieswhichdonotpertaintoournaturalrea-sonbuttoheavenlyanddivinewisdomandpower.Thesearethere-forenottobejudgedaccordingtothecommonrulesofnaturebutaccordingtotheWordandordinanceofdivinewisdomandpower”(LS 45). When the orthodox made statements that “God is Man”and“theSonofManistheSonofGod”the“hereticscontendedthatweabsolutelymustintroduceafigureofspeechintothesewords”(LS45).Varioussuggestionsweremadethatthefigurewasin“Man”orin“God”orin“is.”Butthechurch“onthebasisoftheWordofGod”assertedthatthewordsmustretaintheirproperandnaturalmean-ingsothat“Man”referstoanentitymadeupofthetruesubstanceofthehumannature,andtheterm“God”mustmean“thehypostasisoftheSonofGodtrulysubsistingintheveryessenceofthedeity”(LS45f.).Chemnitzalsoconcludesthatthe“copulativeverb‘is’(est) explainswhatactuallyobtains,namely,thatthepersonisnotonlyamanasheappearedtobebutalsotrueGod”(LS46).

126 Similarly,

WhenwepredicateconcerningthebreadoftheLord’sSupperthatitisthebodyofChrist,theword“bread”hasandretainsitsownpropermeaning.Andweshouldaddthenoteregardingtheword“body”thatbecauseitwasgivenforusweareabsolutelycompelledtounderstanditinnootherwaythaninitsproperandnaturalsense—asthesubstanceofthehumannature,conceivedbytheHolyGhost,bornoftheVirgin

Mary,andnailedtothecross.Thecopulativeverb“is”(est) denoteswhatobtains,whatispresent,whatisdistributed,andreceived,namely,thatthisbreadherepresent,afterreceivingitsnamefromGod,isnotonlybreadbutatthesametimealsothebodyofChrist.(LS46).

BecauseoftheWordsofInstitutionfaith“believesthatwiththevis-ibleelementsa communion(koinoonia) of thepresenceof thebodyandbloodofChristisalsodistributedtothosewhoeat”(LS64).

127 Sincethis isanunusualunion it iscalledthesacramentalunion(SDVII,38),andithasbeencomparedtothepersonalunionofthetwonaturesinChrist(SDVII,36–38).Asamatteroffact,itappearsthatheretheSolidDeclarationhassimplytakenoverpartofChem-nitz’sexplicationfoundinhisThe Lord’s Supper (LS153).TheEarlyChurchusedtheanalogyofthepersonalunionofChrist’stwona-turesandoftheearthlyelementsandthebodyandbloodofChrist,“For they [Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gelasius, andTheodoret]assertedthatthepersonofChristconsistsoftwonatureswhichareneitherdisunitednorconfusedbutarejoinedtogetherandunited,justastheEucharistconsistsoftwothings,namely,theex-ternalappearanceoftheelementsandtheinvisiblebodyandbloodofChrist”(LS153).BymeansofthisanalogytheyrefutedthehereticswhorecognizedinthepersonofChristonlyonenatureorseparatedthetwonaturesor“elseimaginedthatthedivinenaturewasnotinChristsubstantiallybutonlythroughsomepowerandefficacy”(LS153).Theancients,however,alsoconsideredtheobversesideof thecomparison “and taught that the Eucharist consists of two things,namely,thebreadandthebodyofChrist,thewineandthebloodofChrist,justasthepersonofChristconsistsoftwonatureswhicharedistinct,tobesure,butnotseparatedordivided”(LS154).ThismustbetruesincethewordsofChristare“Thisismybody,”etc.Scriptureusesthesamelanguagetoexpressthepersonalunionofthetwona-turesinChrist,John1:14;Col.2:9;Acts10:38(seeSDVII,35).

128 But these are only analogies, and analogies are never perfect ineveryrespect.Sothere isadifference; inthepersonofChrist“theunion of the two natures is inseparable and hypostatic or person-al,which isnotthecase intheEucharist”(LS154).ChemnitzandhisfellowLutheransdemonstratethisdifferencebystatingthatattimestheyhaveused,besidestheBiblical“thebreadisthebodyofChristintheSupper,”otherphrasessuchas“underthebread,with



thebread,inthebread,thebodyofChristispresentandoffered,”torejectthepapisticideaoftransubstantiation(SDVII,35;theLatintext).Thesacramentalunionisnotan“enduringunion”(Ex2,249),ChemnitzassertsagainstthePapists.ButtheunionobtainsonlyinChrist’s prescribed action, “To take bread and wine, bless, divide,offer,receive,eat,andaddthiswordofChrist:‘Thisismybody;thisismyblood,’anddoallthisinremembranceofHim”(Ex2,249).Inshort,GodisnotinseparablyintheelementsbecauseaccordingtothecovenantandtheWord“theyarenotsacramentsapartfromtheiruse” (TNC109;emphasisadded;seep.13f.fortheidenticalmeaningof“action”and“use”).

129 After theappearanceof theFormulaofConcord in 1580 theRe-formed theologians of Neustadt launched a severe counterattackagainst the Lutherans. One of the Reformed contentions was thateventheLutheransdidnotacceptthenaturalmeaningoftheVerbathatthebreadisthebodyofChrist,becausetheuseofsuchexpres-sionsas“inthebread,underthebread,”etc.,whicharenottheWordsofInstitution(Ap.FC152).26

130 TheauthorsoftheFormulamaypossiblyseemtohavelaidthem-selvesopentothechargeofaninconsistencywhentheyacknowledgedthatbesidesusingtheliteralformulafortheWordsofInstitutiontheyhadattimesusedsomeotherformulas,suchas“underthebread,”or“withthebread,”or“inthebread”(SDVII,35).Itdoesappearobvi-ous,however,fromtheexpression“attimes”thatthesetermsarenotthoughtofasprimarybutsecondaryintheiruse.

131 ButChemnitz,Kirchner,andSelnecceranswerthatbecauseofthesacramentaluniontheyretainbothwaysofspeaking,namely,thatthebreadisthebodyofChrist,andinthebreadthebodyofChristis present and distributed. They refer to Luther’s Great Confession where he called this mode of speaking “synecdoche.” In the sacra-mentthesetwothings,breadandthebodyofChrist,areunitedwitheachotherinasupernaturalwayandarepresentwithoneanotherintheSupperandaredistributed.27Luther,incriticizing“WycliffeandtheSophists,”declaredthattheyshouldtakeintoaccount“therulesofgrammarorthescienceofwords.”Grammar“laysdownaruleofexpressionapplicabletoall languages:Whentwodiversebeingsbecomeonebeing,grammarembracesthesetwobeings inasingleexpressionandasitviewstheunionofthetwobeingsitreferstothe

twoinoneterm....Thismodeofspeakingaboutdiversebeingsisonethegrammarianscall‘synecdoche.’Itisquitecommon,notonlyinScripturebutalsoinalllanguages.”(LW37,301f.).

132 TheApologytotheFormulawarnsthatwemustnotheremisun-derstandLuther’suseoftheterm“synecdoche”asmeaningcontinens pro absente contento, but rather as the union of two things, one ofwhichisearthly,asthebread,buttheotherheavenly,asthetruebodyofChrist,“which,asweoftenhaverepeated,issacramentallyunitedwitheachotherintheSupper.”28

133 HencetheNeustadttheologiansobviouslydoaninjusticetotheFormula of Concord when they raise the accusation that the For-mulaitselfhasdepartedfromthenaturalmeaningofthewordsoftheTestamentofChrist.29Further,theLutheransinspeakingofthisunionhavenotonlyusedtheterm”sacramental”butalsosingularis (solitary,aloneof itskind)and inusitate (unusual,uncommon)(ApFC152b).Butwhatevertermmaybeused,itistheWordsofInstitu-tionwhichmustdeterminewhatistobetaughtwithregardtothesacrament(ApFC154b).

134 Itshouldalsobenotedthat,giventhebasicBiblicalunderstandingthatintheSupperthebreadisthebodyofChristbecauseofthesac-ramentalunion,ChemnitzandtheauthorsoftheSolidDeclarationhaveattimesusedtheterms“inthebread,”etc.,to“rejectthepapistictransubstantiation”(SDVII,35f.)30ChemnitzalsorecognizesthattermsemployedbyLutheranscanbemisusedbytheSacramentar-ians,aswhenLutheransspeakoftwothingsintheSupper.Thead-versaries,unabletodenythattheEucharistconsistsoftwothings,“contendthatthesethingsarecompletelyseparatefromoneanother,namely,thebreadisonearthbutthebodyofChristisonlyinheavenandthereforecalledaheavenlything”(LS153).MorepreciseistheformulatakenfromtheVerba,thebreadisthebodyofChrist.Lu-therdemonstratesthislackofprecisionintheotherformulasintheGreat Confession, “Ifthetextread,‘Takeeat,inthebreadismybody,’or ‘with the bread is my body,’ or ‘under the bread is my body,’ itwouldimmediatelybegintorain,hail,andsnowastormoffanaticscrying‘Yousee!Doyouhearthat?’Christdoesnotsay‘Thisbreadismybody,’but‘Inthebread,orwiththebread,orunderthebreadismybody!’Andtheycry,‘Oh,howgladlywouldwebelieveitifHehadsaid,‘Thisismybody’;thiswouldhavebeendistinctandclear”



(LW37,306).Inviewofthelackofprecisionoftheseotherformulas,oneishardputtounderstandwhytodayconservativeLutheranswhoprofesstheirallegiancetoLutherinsistonusingalmostexclusivelytheterm“in,with,andunder.”ThisisallthemorepuzzlingwhenoneconsidershowmodernLutheransandtheReformedhavebeenabletoagreeonthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupper,asforexample,inthe“LeuenbergTheses.”

135 ThisisperhapsthebestplacetoanalyzeChemnitz’suseoftheword“change”inconnectionwiththeRomandoctrineoftransubstantia-tionandtheLutherandoctrineoftheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristinthesacrament.Itisofsomeimportancetounder-standthistodaysincesomanyLutherans,uponhearingandseeingthe word “change” in connection with the Sacrament of the Altar,assumethat thewritermusthave inmindtheofficialRomandoc-trineoftransubstantiation.Itisstrangethatthisassumptionshouldbeheld,sincetheBook of Concorddoesnothesitatetousethewordapprovinglywhen it selectsmaterial fromtheEarlyChurchwhichcorroboratesthefactthattheLutherandoctrineofthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheLord’sSupperisnotonlyBiblicalbutalsoinharmonywiththeEarlyChurch.EvidencethattheGreekChurchheldthesamepositionistakenfromitscanonoftheMass,“inwhichthepriestclearlypraysthatthebreadmaybechangedandbecomethebodyofChrist.”(ApX,2).Andthetestimonyofapre-LateranCounciltheologianisinvoked,“andVulgarius,whoseemstoustobeasensiblewriter,saysdistinctlythatthe‘breadisnotmerelyafigurebutistrulychangedintoflesh’”(ApX,2).31

136 ChemnitzunderstandsexactlywhattheRomandoctrineoftran-substantiationiswhichhasbeenenshrinedintheDecreesandCan-onsofTrent.Herecognizesthatitsessentialfeatureisthat“thesub-stanceofthebreadisannihilated”(LS49).HechidesthePapalistsfor their need to keep changing their definition of a sacrament asthenumberofsacramentsgrewandastheymutilatedtheScripturaldoctrine.Forexample,Chemnitzcites the fact thatHugo’sdefini-tion of a sacrament was no longer satisfactory because when theynowteach “that in theEucharist, after the substance isdestroyed,onlytheappearanceofbreadandwineremains,theysawthatHugo’sdefinitiondoesnotfitsufficiently,namely,thatasacramentisamate-rialandcorporealelementsetforthexternallybeforethesenses,by

likenessrepresenting,byinstitutionsignifying,andbysanctificationcontainingsomevisibleandspiritualgrace”(Ex2,37).Itiseasytoseethatthisdefinitionwouldnotallowfortheannihilationofthebreadandthewine.

137 InviewofthisshiftintheunderstandingoftheEucharist,Chem-nitzsummarizesthehistoricaldevelopmentofthetheoryoftransub-stantiation.Originally,“theAncientsmakementionsimplyofmuta-tionandconversionoftheelementsoftheLord’sSupper”(Ex2,254).ButtheyhaveacorrectunderstandingoftheBiblicaldoctrinebecausethey“explaininthiswaythatafterconsecrationitisnolongercommonbreadandordinarywinebutistheEucharist,whichismadeupoftwothings,anearthlyandaheavenly,avisibleandaninvisible,asIrenaeusandAugustinespeak”(Ex2,254;emphasisadded).Itisevidentthatwhentheterm“change”wasusedasatechnicalterm,itwasmeanttoconfessthatwhentheVerbahadbeenspokenoverthebreadandthewine,thebodyandthebloodofChristarepresent.

138 Chemnitz,however,asanintellectuallyethicalhistorian,doesac-knowledgethatsome(JohnofDamascusandTheophylact,andoth-ers)afterwards“begantopreachinmoreexaggeratedlanguageaboutthetransformationoftheelementsintheSupper”(Ex2,254).Butitwasnotuntilthetwelfthcentury,inthetimeofPeterLombard,“with theadventof scholastic theology, that theybegantodisputeinFranceconcerningthemannerofconversion,whetheritpertainstotheformortothesubstanceorisofanotherkind....Lombardclearlyindicatesthatatthattimenothinghadbeendefinedandde-terminedinthechurchaboutthisquestion,whenhesays,‘Iamnotsufficienttodefineit’”(Ex2,254).FromthisevidenceitisclearthatwhiletheEarlyChurchrecognizedthatbecauseJesuscommandedthattheWordsofInstitutionberepeated, thebreadandthewinebecomeChrist’sbodyandbloodonthebasisofthatrepeatedword,thechurchdidnotattempttoexplainphilosophicallywhathadoc-curredbutonlyconfesseda“mutationandconversionoftheelementsintheLord’sSupper”(Ex2,254).

139 So, the word “change” was acceptable in the church without thedenotationoftransubstantiationbeingattachedtoit.Lutherhimselfusedtheterminthissenselongafterhisattackontransubstantiationinthe“BabylonianCaptivity”(1520),forexample,in1533(“ThePri-vateMassandConsecrationofthePriests”),heusestermsas“effect



conversion”(LW38, 151, 152); “effectconversionandconstitute [thesacrament]”(LW38,154,155,166,169,192);“producethesacramentoreffectconversion”(LW38,197,198);“accordingtoHiscommandwejoinbreadandwinetotheWordofChrist;however,notthisactionofours,butChrist’sWordandordinanceeffect the change” (LW38,202;emphasisadded).Melanchthonquitenaturallyhasnoscruplesaboutusingtheterm“change”approvinglyintheApology(ApX,2),sincehewellunderstandsthatthepublicLutherandoctrinein1530isthatwhentheelementsinalegitimateobservanceoftheSupperhavebeenconsecrated,theyareChrist’sbodyandbloodwithoutceasingtobebreadandwine.

140 ChemnitzunderstandsthathistoricallyPopeInnocentIIIattheFourthLateranCouncil(1215)“firstdeterminedthemodeofconver-sion,whichhadnotbeendefinedinthechurchbefore,”andthatherewas used for the first time the new word “transubstantiate” (Ex 2,254).ButChemnitzcannotrefrainfromcallingattentiontothefactthat the Tridentine Fathers in Canon II went beyond the LateranCouncilin“hurl[ing]anathemasatthosewhothinkotherwise”(Ex2,255).

141 InexaminingtheRomanreasonsforacceptingtransubstantiation,ChemnitzisnotafraidtorecognizethattheconsecrationeffectstheRealPresenceandthatbecauseofthis,amiraculouschangehastak-enplace,

We grant, with Irenaeus, that after the blessing in the EucharistthebreadisnolongercommonbreadbuttheEucharistofthebodyofChrist,whichnowconsistsoftwothings—theearthly, that is,breadandwine,andtheheavenly,thatis,thebodyandbloodofChrist.Thisiscertainlya great, miraculous, and trulydivine change, sincebeforeitwassimplyandonlyordinarybreadandcommonwine.Whatnow,aftertheblessing,istrulyandsubstantiallypresent,offered,andreceivedistrulyandsubstantiallythebodyandbloodofChrist.Thereforewegrantthat a certain change takes place, that itcanbe trulysaidof thebreadthatitisthebodyofChrist.ButwedenythatitfollowsfromthisthatwemustthereforeassertthekindoftransubstantiationwhichthePapaliststeach”(Ex2,257f.;emphasisadded).32

Modes of Predication

142 Chemnitz’sanalysisofthereasonsthattheCouncilofTrentsote-naciouslyclungtothedoctrineoftransubstantiation,togetherwithhisexaminationofwhytheReformedrefusedtoaccept thewords

“bread,” “is,” and “body” in their natural meaning (see LS 45 andp.47f.), reveal that there is a fundamental similarity between theReformedandtheRomanpositions.Bothdenythatthefiniteisca-pableoftheinfinite.Hence,asChemnitzsays,itisnecessarytodealwiththequestionof“themodeorformofpredicationbecausethisbreadisdescribedasbeingthebodyofChrist”(LS46).

143 ThePapalistsintheTridentineDecreeshadconfessedthata“con-versionismadeofthewholesubstanceofthebreadintothebodyofourLord”(ChapterIV,ThirdSession,Oct.11,1551).Intheaccompa-nyingCanonIItheydeclared,“IfanyonesaysthatinthemostholysacramentoftheEucharistthesubstanceofbreadandwineremainwith thebodyandbloodofourLord JesusChrist, anddenies thewonderfulanduniqueconversionofthetotalsubstanceofthebreadintothebodyandthetotalsubstanceofthewineintotheblood,sothatonlyappearancesofbreadandwineremain,whichconversiontheCatholicChurchveryfittinglycallstransubstantiation, lethimbeanathema”(Ex2,253).

144 ChemnitznotesthatthePapistsadvancethreechiefargumentsfortheirdoctrine.Thefirstonehedisposesofveryquickly.HisJesuitop-ponent,Andrada,hadarguedthat“ScriptureaffirmsthatwithGodnothing is impossible.Thereforetransubstantiation is tobebelievedeventhoughit fartranscendsthepowersandmannerofnatureandhuman comprehension” (Ex 2,257). Chemnitz’s answer is curt, “Weoughtnot, justbecauseGodisalmighty,attributetoHimwhateverseemsgoodtous,withoutthetestimonyofHisWord....Scriptureteachesthisrule:‘HedoeswhateverHepleases(Ps.115:3).’Inmattersoffaith,however,thewillofGodmustbelearnedandjudgedfromHisWord.AndwhenthereiscertaintyaboutthewillofGodfromHisWord,thentheargumentfromHisomnipotenceisvalid”(Ex2,257).

145 Thesecondargument,whichChemnitzagrees”getscloser to thematteritself ”(Ex2,257),beginswiththeassertionthatChristtookordinary bread and wine, but” after the blessing,” “He says of thatbreadandwine:‘Thisismybody;thisismyblood’“(Ex2,257).Onecannotsaynorbelievethataboutcommonbreadandwine.Hence,“somechangemusthavecomeaboutthroughtheblessing,andthatchangeissuchthatonecansayofthatbreadthatitisChrist’sbodyandofthewinethatitisHisblood.Thereforeitisnecessarytoasserttransubstantiation”(Ex2,257).



146 Chemnitzanswers inthetermsofIrenaeus, “Ianswer:WegrantwithIrenaeusthataftertheblessingintheEucharistthebreadisnolongercommonbreadbuttheEucharistofthebodyofChristwhichnowconsistsoftwothings—theearthly,thatis,thebreadandthewine,andtheheavenly,thatis,thebodyandbloodofChrist.”Chem-nitzagreesthatthis isa“divinechange,”buthewillnotgrantthat“thereforetransubstantiationtakesplace”(Ex2,258).This“change”canoccursothatitistrueasIrenaeusheld,thattheEucharistcon-sistsoftwothings—anearthlyandaheavenlyone.“Thepresence,offeringandreceivingofHisbodyandbloodcanbetaught,believed,andheldevenifthemonstrosityoftransubstantiationisnotfoisteduponthechurcheswithoutthetestimonyofScriptureandwithouttheconsensusofantiquity”(Ex2,258).

147 All this leads to the third argument which, as Chemnitz says,isthecrowningone,namely,that“theythemselvesconfessthatiftransubstantiation is not proved certainly and clearly by this, itcannotbeprovedfromScripture”(Ex2,258).Theargument“runsasfollows”:

1. IfintheEucharistthesubstanceofbreadandwineremaintogetherwiththebodyandbloodofChrist,Hewouldhavesaid,“Thisisbread;thisiswine;andwiththem,inthem,orunderthemmybodyandblood.”

2. ButwhatHedoessayis,“Thisismybody;thisismyblood.”3. If“this”(touto) denotesthesubstanceofthebreadandthewine(because

bread and the body of Christ and wine and blood, are two differentthings),thentheonecannotbepredicatedoftheother.

4. “Therefore, inorder that thedeclaration,‘This ismybody; this ismyblood’maybe true, theremustbeposited in thesewordsan identical proposition, whichisthetermoneuseswhenthesubjectandpredicatespeakaboutoneandthesamethingsothatthedemonstrativepronoun[“this”] denotes not the substance of bread but the substance of thebody of Christ only. But such a positing cannot stand unless thesubstanceofthebreadwhichChristtookintoHishandshasceasedtoexist,havingbeenannihilated through thebenediction, andhasbeentransubstantiated,sothatnothingelseismeantandindicatedtherebythelittleword‘this’thanthesubstanceofthebodyofChristonly”(Ex2,259;emphasisadded).

148 Inotherwords,Christsaid,“This[body]ismybody.”ButChem-nitzhasdemonstratedexegetically that touto refers to theearthlyelements (see p. 45ff.). Paralleling this, he has also demonstratedagainsttheSacramentarians,that“is”explainswhatispresentand

distributed,andthat“body”mustrefertothetruebodyofChristwhichHewasabouttoofferonthecross(par.124f.).Ineffect,forphilosophicalreasonstheRomanistswouldnottakethetouto liter-allyandtheReformedwouldnotaccept“body”literally,butmustassertametonymicfigureofspeech.Thesituationis,asLuthersaidinThe Great Confession, “TheSophistshaveretainedthebodyandletthebreadgo,sayingthatthebreaddisappearsandshedsitssub-stancewhentheWordsofInstitutionarespoken,andtheword‘this’indicatesnotthebread,butthebodyofChrist,sincethetextsays,‘This is my body.’ Wycliffe, on the contrary, opposes this and re-tainsthebread,rejectingthebody,andsaystheword‘this’indicatesthe bread and not the body” (LW 37, 295). Chemnitz agrees withLuther’s judgment,“InthewordsoftheSupper,sincethebodyofChristcanbepredicatedofthebread,thePapalistsinthesubjectde-viseatransubstantiationofthebread;theSacramentariansinplaceof the substance of the body of Christ substitute in the predicateeitherasymboloftheabsentbodyorsomethingefficaciouswhichisseparatefromthesubstance,whichisnotpresentwherethebreadis”(LS54).Forbothgroupsthefiniteisincapableoftheinfinite.Inviewofthesedivergences,onemustlookmorecloselyattheirescapehatches.

149 TheRomanistsfellbackontheschoolmen’scategoryof“identicalpredication”(seep.55).Ashebeginshisexaminationofthistopic,ChemnitzisthoughtfulanddoesnotimmediatelycondemnoutofhandAristotleineveryrespect,butspeaksrespectfullyofthe“rulesofpraise-worthymen”(Ex2,259).Hedoes,however,insistthattheanswertothequestionofwhatispresentandreceived“shouldnotbehandedovertotheschoolsinsuchawaythattheanswerisgivenanddefinedonlyaccording to the rules,precepts,orpreconceptionsofgrammarians,dialecticians,rhetoricians,orsomeprofessionofthistypeastowhatkindofpredicationthisisandwhoshouldjudgeit”(LS46).Rather,Chemnitzisguidedbythehermeneuticalprinciplethat“divinemysteriescan[not]bemadesubjecttotherulesofhu-mansciences”(LS46;seealsop.21f.).Writingspecificallyagainstthe Tridentine decrees, he declares that “because the sacrament issomething supernatural, heavenly, and divine, therefore it is notrightthatfaithinitismeasuredbythePapalistsinthisdebateac-cordingtotheruleofAristotle,Metaphysics VI, concerningtheplace



in the sentence of the last member of the affirmative propositionwhichtheyinterpretofanidenticalproposition”(Ex2,259).Instead,for Chemnitz “the simplest, safest, and surest way is this that theansweranddefinitionofthisquestionbesoughtinandjudgedbytheclearteachingoftheWordofGodregardingthismysteryandbytheexampleswhichareinagreementwiththisclearteaching”(LS46f.).InThe Babylonian Captivity (1520)Lutherhadputitsomewhatmoresharply,“Whatdoesitmatterifphilosophycannotfathomthis?TheHolySpiritisgreaterthanAristotle”(LW36,34).

150 ApparentlythemedievalschoolmenhadtaughtthatAristotleheldthatthesubjectandpredicatemustbeidenticalandthat“is”meanstobeequalinmeaning.ThisisthewaythePapistsunderstoodtheproposition, and also Zwingli, who had written, “The expression‘thisisbread,andmoreoveritismybody,’hasabsolutelynosupporteitherinGod’sWordorinphilosophy,fortwosubstancescannotbeone thing.”33 There can hardly be any question that Aristotle heldthatthesubjectandpredicatecanbeidentical,that“TullyisCicero,”toemploythecommonschoolbookexample.AndcertainlyhewouldnothavedisagreedwithLutherwhenhesaidthat“itisundeniablytruethattwodiversesubstancescannotbeonesubstance.Forexam-ple,anasscannotbeanox”(LW37,295).Butitcertainlyisnottruethatall subject-predicatestatementsarereallyidentitystatements.34ThemodernGeneralSemanticistsoffortyyearsagostoutlymain-tainedthatAristotledid,andhenceinoppositiontheycalledtheirownsystem“non-Aristotelian.”35

151 Chemnitz inThe Lord’s Supper, saysthat“Dialecticianshavede-scriptive termswhich theycall the regularorproper type—thosethatareinagreementwithoneofthefivemodesofpredication.”ItisdifficultforonenotreallyqualifiedtodealwithAristotleortheme-dievalinterpretationsofAristotletostateexactlywhatChemnitzisherereferringto.Whatevertheyare,Chemnitz,atanyrateacknowl-edgesthat“Scriptureisrepletewithexamplesofthese”(LS47).36

152 ButChemnitzdisagreeswiththosewho“arguewithgreatsubtletythatwehaveinstancesofregularandproperpredicationwhenwesayofChrist:‘ThismanisGod’or‘ThedoveJohntheBaptistsawistheHolySpirit’”(LS47).Thosewhoargueinthiswayuseasanexample“That it canregularlyandproperlybepredicatedof theminotaur:‘Thismanisabull’”(LS47).

153 The reason that these expressions do not conform to the regularmodesofpredication(seep.57)isthat theyrefertotheunionoftwoentities.Thesestatementsmustbeunder-

stoodinthissense:“ThismanisnotonlyamanbutalsoatthesametimeGod,” forthedeityandthehumanityhavebeenunitedintoonehypotasis. Likewise:“That dove was not only a dove but at the sametime the Holy Spirit was also present” united to the dove by a veryspecialmodeofpresence.Thereforethesecannotbecalledinstancesofregularorordinarypredication.Thuswecorrectlystateandadmitthattheregulartypeofpredicationdoesnotagreewiththemodesusedofexaltedthings,whenwesayregardingthebreadoftheSupper:“ThisisthebodyofChrist.”Foraccordingtotheordinaryrulesofpredicationanentirelyfalsemeaningwouldfollow,namely,thatitwasnotthetruesubstanceofthehumannaturewhichwasgivenforusbutonlyamassofdoughbreadbakedintheoven.(LS47).

154 ToestablishthepointthatScriptureemploys“itsownspecialkindofpredication”(LS51),Chemnitzmustadducetheevidence.AndhedoesfindmanyexamplesinScripture.Histhesisisthat inScripture,whentwothingsorsubstancesarebydivinedecreejoined

together in a particular manner, and especially when a heavenly andinvisible substance is present and offered together with one that isearthlyandvisible,then,Isay,itiscustomaryinScripturethattheoneispredicatedoftheother.Andforthetruthofsuchapredicationnoannihilationor transubstantiationof theother substance isnecessarybut only the union and presence of both of these things which aredenotedbythesubjectandpredicateissignified.(Ex2,259).37

157 Chemnitz, following Luther (LW 37, 297f.), demonstrates thetruthofhisthesiswiththeexampleofthePersonalUnion,“WhenScripturewishestounfoldtheunionofthedivineandhumanna-tureinthepersonofChrist,itdoesnotsay,‘thismanisGod,’but‘Godisman’and‘theSonofmanistheSonofthelivingGod’”(Ex2,260).Chemnitznotesthatgenerallytheperceptiblethingisputin the subject position and the other entity in the predicate posi-tion,andthat“Scripturejoinsthesetwodifferententitiestogetherthroughtheuseofthecopulativeverb‘is’(est), whichmeansnothingelsethanthatthereisaunion orcommunion ofthesetwoentities”(LS51;emphasisadded).

156 While Chemnitz has noticed that among the “Latins and themorepolishedauthors” thismodeofpredication isnot frequentlyused,yet“thismodeofpredicationisverycommoninpopularlan-guage,aswhenwesayofavesselwhichisondisplay,‘This iswine,’



orofabag,‘Look,youhavemoney’”(LS51).Andheisverymodernandprecisewhenhenotesthatthe“dialecticiansdoteachthatwhentwodifferentthingsaremutuallypredicatedofoneanother,outofnecessity fromtheproperandnaturalmeaningof thewords, onemustbemadeintothesubjectandtheotherintotheattributiveorpredicate”(LS51).Heissensitivetothefactthatthecontrastbe-tweensubjectandpredicateisacontrastbetweenthatpartofasen-tencewhichservestoidentifywhatisbeingdiscussedandthatpartwhichseemstodescribeorcharacterizethethingsoidentifiedandthatonecannotputthesubject-predicaterelationsintoanykindofepistemological straitjacket. This fact may also be why, accordingto theEncyclopedia of Philosophy, some linguists have proposed assubstitutes for the traditional terms “subject” and “predicate” themore general terms of “topic” and “comment.”38 The bread in thesacramentisthetopic, andChrist, theverySonofGodinHislastwillandtestament, hassaidthatthisbreadisHisbody.Whatthepredicate (comment)of theSavior sayswith regard to the subject(thetopic)issufficientforChemnitztoestablishthedoctrinewhichhewantstobelieve.NotonlyChemnitzbutalsoLutherarrivedatthesameconvictionasmodernlinguisticscholarsdo.LutherwouldnotaccepttheSacramentariancontentionthat“breadmustbebreadandcannotbebody”(LW37, 297).Heanswers,“Youshouldreply:ItisnotcontrarytoScripture,indeeditisnotevencontrarytoreasonortruelogic.TheyonlyimagineitiscontrarytoScripture,reason,andlogic, fortheydonotseetheseintheirproperrelationtooneanother”(LW37,297).

157 ChemnitzhasanenormousamountofScripturalmaterialinhisarsenaltoprovehispointthatScriptureemploysaspecialmodeofpredicationbecauseitisspeakingoftheinfiniteGod,revealingandpresentingHimself in thefiniteworld.Heprettymuchcovers thesamegroundofmaterial,bothinThe Examination andinThe Lord’s Supper (Ex.2, 260f.;LS50f.).Anexaminationofsomeoftheseex-amplesshowshowChemnitzregardsintheLord’sSupper.Hetakesa striking example from the Old Testament, “When the Ark waslifted up in Num. 10:35–36, Moses said: ‘Rise up O Lord, and letyourenemiesbescattered,andwhenitwassetdown hesaid‘Return,OLord,tothemultitudeofIsrael.’Thatistosay,Godhadpromisedhis presence with the Ark by the means of a special kind of grace

(cf.Ex.25:22; 1Kings8:1–11)” (LS52). InThe Examination, Chem-nitzaddsafurtherexplanatorynotetothisincident.“There wasnoneedforatransubstantiationofthewoodorgoldintheArk.Rather,Scripturespeaksthusbecausethesemenwerecertainofaparticular mode of the divine presence fromHisWordandpromise”(Ex2, 260;emphasisadded).

153 Other striking examples of this kind of predication include thedove descending at the baptism of Jesus. John the Baptist “assertsthatthroughthedovehesawtheHolySpiritdescending(John1:32;Luke3:22)”(LS52).Chemnitzgivesanothercase“ChristwithHisexternalbreathbreathedonthefacesoftheApostles(John20:22).Asaresultofthisbreathing,which was perceptible to the senses andwhichtheApostlesreceived,Christthenproclaimed: ‘ReceivetheHoly Spirit’” (LS 52; emphasis added). And of course, ChemnitzcitesexamplesofthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesinonepersonChrist, “TheChild iscalled ‘the everlastingFather’ inIs.9:6. ‘TheSonofManistheSonofthelivingGod’(Matt.16:16). ‘TheWordwasmadeflesh’(John1:14), thatis,bytakingontheseedofAbraham(d.Heb.2:16)”(LS52f.).

159 InthisframeofreferenceChemnitzassertstheparticulardoctrineoftheLutheransthattheSacramentalWordhasinitthecompletepowerofGodHimself:

Similar to predications of this kind are also these:“The washingofwater intheWord”(Eph.5:26) isthewashingofregenerationandthe renewing of the Holy Spirit, in the sense that the Holy Spirit ispresentinthisact[baptism],andthroughthismeansHeisgiventous,worksamongus,andgivesthesealofregeneration.TheGospelwhichisproclaimedwithourmouthsisthepowerofGoduntosalvation,inthesensethatChrist,whoisthepowerofGod(1Cor.1:24),ispresentinthismeansandinstrument(Matt.28:18,20),andthroughthismeansHeshowsandexercisesHispower(LS53).

160 Chemnitz then reiterates that in speaking, for example, of theunionoftheSpiritandthedove,hedoesnotmeana“hypostaticorinseparableunion,oralocalinclusion,oramixtureofsubstances,orsomephysicalorcrassunion.”Rather,“inaninvisible,heavenlymanner,which is impossible forustounderstand,webelievethatthedoveandtheHolySpiritaretrulyandsubstantiallyjoinedto-gether for this occasion” (LS54; emphasis added).Thisexample is“exactlyparalleltothepredicationbywhichintheWordsofInsti-



tutionthebodyofChristispredicatedofthebreadintheSupperandthebloodofChristispredicatedinthewine”(LS54).

161 ChemnitzconcurswithLutherwho“callsthismethodofpredica-tionsynecdocheinhisContra Carlstadium,p.49,39 andinhisMaior Confessio, p.222.”40He,however, recognizesthathereLuther’suseofthetermisnotthecustomaryuseoftherhetoricians.WhatLuthercalls“synecdocheistheunionoftwothingswhichareunderstoodasbeingpresentanddistributedatthesametime, oneofwhichispredicatedoftheother, eitheraspartofthepart,aswhenthedoveis the Spirit, or as part of the whole, as when Adam says of Eve:‘Thisismyfleshandbone’(Gen.2:23)”(LS55).Healsorecognizesthatothertermshavebeenused suchas“sacramentalpredication,”becauseofthesacramentalunion,oran“irregularpredication”be-cause itdoesnotfittheusualrulesofpredication.Chemnitzcutsthroughthismazeof terminologybyconcludingthat “itdoesnotmatterbywhatnameitiscalledaslongaswecorrectlyunderstandthemethodofpredicationandaslongastheheartofthematterasitistaughtinScriptureremainsunimpaired”(LS55).

162 AlthoughtheSacramentariansagreewiththeRomaniststhatthefiniteisincapableoftheinfinite,theydodisagreethatintheSup-perthebreadhasbeenannihilatedsothatthesubject-term“bread”isequivalent to “body.”Tomaintain “identicalpredication” in theVerbatheymustfindthepredicate-termtomean“bread.”Inviewof this it is necessary for Chemnitz to examine the dialecticians’descriptiveterms,“figuresofspeechortropes”(LS47).

163 Theterm“trope”islessfrequentlyemployedinmodernliterarydis-cussionsthanitwasyearsagowhenthefinedistinctionsoftherheto-ricianswerestillobserved.Todaytheexpression“figureofspeech”ismorecurrentlyusedtorefer to languagewhichdeparts fromitsliteral meaning. “Trope,” however is a useful word to designate anintentionaldeparturefromthenormalmeaningofwords,sincethetermliterallymeans“aturn”;thatis, whatisinvolvedisachangeofsense.Contemporaryliterarycriticismalsoemploystheterm“imag-ery”inabroadsensetodesignatetropesorfiguresofspeech.Boththeancientsandthemoderns are aware of the tremendous in-nerresourcesoflanguagetoexpressawiderangeofideas,complexthoughtsandfeelingsthataresubtleorpreciseandwhichcannotbeexpressedinanyotherwaythanthroughtheuseoftropes.

164 SincetheLordmadeknownHiswilltomeninhumanlanguage,onewouldnaturallyexpectScripturetomakeuseofalltheresourc-es that are inherent in language. And it does. Therefore the per-ceptive, criticalreaderoftheBibleisawarenotonlyofdenotationsandconnotations,butalsooffigurativelanguageinwhichthereisanintentionaldeparturefromnormalconstructionsandmeaningsofwords.Onefinds inScripture theusual tropes:metaphor,me-tonymy,simile,personification,evenallegory.Chemnitz isacutelyawareofthis,forhereadilyagreesthat“thereisnodoubtthatmanyofthese[i.e.,figuresofspeechor“tropes”]arefoundinScripture”(LS47).Asanexample,hequotesthetraditionalone,theSavior’suseofmetaphor,“Herodisafox”[Luke13:31–32](LS47).

165 Chemnitzalsoknowsthattheuseofanalogycanbelesspreciseandmaypossiblyevenleadtoamisunderstandingofwhatiswritten.HecitesacasewheresuchamisunderstandingarosewhenCicerousedwordsmetonymicallybothinthesubjectandpredicateterms.CicerohadwrittentoPiso,“Armsshallsurrendertothetoga.”PisohadunderstoodCicerotosaythat“imperialpowerisgoingtoyieldtoyour toga.”ToclearupthismisapprehensionCiceroreplied, “IdidnotsaythistogathatIamwearing,northearms, shield, andswordofthisemperor, butthetogaisasymbolofpeaceandquietandontheotherhand, followingtheexampleofthepoets, weusetheword‘arms’ asasymboloftumultandwar.Iwantedthistobeunderstoodthatwarandtumultwouldgivewaytopeaceandrest”(LS48f).Sincesymboliclanguagecanbemisunderstoodsothatanentirelydifferentmeaningcanbederivedfromit, Chemnitzknowsthat one does not depart from the normal meaning unless therearecogentreasonsforit.Seekingtounderstandthewrittenword, and especially the revealed Scripture, is serious business. HenceChemnitzis amazedthatthereareCalvinists “whowanttoappearlearned...[who]boldlyassert(asiftheyweredealingwithaveryminormatter)thatintheWordsofInstitutionwhenwepredicateconcerningthebreadoftheSupperthatisthebodyofChrist,weareusingthecommonfigureofspeechcalledmetonymy,inwhichby theuseofa symbolicwordaname isgiven to the thingdesig-nated”(LS48).

166 OnprincipleChemnitzrejectsthediscardingofthespecificexactmeaningoftheindividualwordsinChrist’sWordsofInstitutionof



theSupper.TheyareHislastwillandtestament, whereitisaher-meneuticalprinciplethatapplieseveninthereadingofhumanwillsthat“weshouldgivecarefulthoughtthatwedonotthrustanythinguponthesewords”(LS27;seep.19f.).Inlanguageofthiskind,thedenotationofthewordsiseverything.ToclingtothisruleisevenmoreimportantwhentheeternalSonofGodinasolemnmomentbestowsHistestamentuponHischurch.

167 Itisfurtherevidentthatineverycaseonemustlookatthecon-texttodeterminetheexactsenseofthespeaker’swords.BesidestheimmediatecontextthereisthewidercontextofGod’sentirerevela-tion,whichconfirmsthefactthatwemusttaketheVerbaliterally“EveningloryHe[theSonofGod]repeatedthesewordstoPaulthereby showing it was His will that this be the giving of a newandspecialdogmathatshouldremaininthechurchtotheendoftime”(LS26f.).Inaddition,Paul’s inspiredwordswhichserveasacommentaryontheVerba(1Cor. 10and11)demonstrate that thewords of Christ are to be taken in their simple, literal sense. Todepart from this sense would not be an “innocent lapse,” becausethatwouldinvolveoneineatingtohisownjudgmentandbecomingguiltyofthebodyofChrist(LS28).

168 BesidesthesefundamentalobjectionstofindingtropesintheVer-baChemnitzpointsoutthattherearesomecommon-sensereasonsthatmilitateagainstsuchaninterpretation.Forexample,metony-my“isnotusedforanykindofcompletestatement”butonlyin“thecaseofachangeofoneofthewordsandthereisnometonymyinthecopulaorverbofthestatement,butitisonlyineitherthesubjectorpredicateorinbothatthesametime”(LS48).Cicerocouldhavewritten,“Armsshallsurrendertopeace,”or “Warshallsurrendertothetoga,”orwhatheactuallywrote, “Armsshallsurrendertothetoga,”buttherecan’tbeametaphoricalmeaningin“surrender.”Itisimpossibletomakeeverypartofthesentencemetonymical.

169 At times some, to attempt to prove that Christ’s words “bodyandblood”aretobetakenmetaphorically,havetakenrecoursetoexplanations from parables (“the field is the world” [Matt.13:38]), visions(“thesebonesarethewholehouseofIsrael”[Ezek.37:11]),andthe“interpretationofdreams”(“thesevencowsarethesevenyears”[Gen.41:26])(LS49).Chemnitzissensitivetothefactthataparableisdifferentfromanhistoricalfactorananecdote.Parables

areinawayallegories, andassuchtheyrepresentaself-containedworld. They have their own structure within a larger structure.Theydepictobjects,persons,andactionsinanarrative.Theycarryasecondmeaningalongwiththesurfacestory,ameaningofreli-giousormoralsignificance.Forthisreasonthewordswithwhichtheyexpressthecontentofthenarrativecannotbetransferreddi-rectlyintohistoricalsituations.Chemnitzrejectstheseinterpreta-tionsoftheadversariesbecause“inthewordsoftheSupperthereisneitherastory,aparable, oravision,theexplanationofwhichliesinthewords:‘This ismybody.’...CertainlythethingswhichChristperformedinHisSupperwerenotdoneinadream,asifwecaninterpretthewords:‘Thisismybody’assomekindofdream”(LS49).

170 The papalists, having devised a transubstantiation of the bread, tookaslightlydifferenttacktofindsupportfortheirtheory.TheywenttoExodus4and7,wherethestaffwaschangedintoaserpent, andtoJohn2,wherethewaterwasturnedtowine.Butthisisun-acceptabletoChemnitzbecauseinExodus“itiswrittenthatarodchangedintoorbecameaserpent;thatwaterismadewine(cf.John4:46:‘Hemadethewaterwine.’). ButthewordsoftheSupperdonotspeakofthebreadandthewineinthisway”(LS50).InThe Ex-amination heismoreexplicit, ‘Scriptureopenlytestifiesinexpresswordsthatthesethings[rod,earth,bone,water]havebeenchangedandturned intosomethingelse, sothatneither thesubstancenorthepriorformremain, butthattheybeartheappearanceofthosethings into which Scripture says they were changed” (Ex. 2, 263).Such examples are ruled out by 1 Cor. 10:16. Chemnitz says that“Paulveryclearlyanddefinitelyshowsthatheisspeakingaboutthatcommunionof thebodyandbloodofChristwhichtakesplace intheLord’sSupper”(LS138).

171 ForChemnitz, ScripturemustinterpretScripture.AlldogmasofthechurchhavetheirownfoundationincertainpassagesofScrip-ture,andthemeaningofthesedoctrinesistobedevelopedonthebasisofthesepassages(LS31;seep.18).Ifsomeone, onthebasisofaspecifictext, presentsadifferentdoctrinefromwhatChemnitzconsidersScripturehasclearlypresented,heiswillingtoexaminetheargumentoftheopponent.Acase inpoint ishisexaminationofActs3:21,“Whomtheheavenmustreceive”(KJV;hon dei oura-



non dexasthai).Hedeclaresthattheadversaries“donothesitatetochangethestatementofPeter...byamanifestcorruptionintrans-lationtomeanthathehadtobekeptinheaven,contained,laidholdof,closedinuntilthedayofjudgment”(LS216f.).41ThiswouldthenmeanthatthebodyofChristcouldnotbeintheSupper“althoughithasHisexpresswordsconcerningthepresenceofHisbodyandblood”(LS217).

172 Inanswer,ChemnitzfirstquotesCalvinhimselfthat“it[Acts3:21]isanambiguouspassagebecausewecanunderstandboththatChristwas takenbyheavenand thathe tookheaven.Therefore letusnoturgeawordofdubiousmeaning” (LS217).Since forChemnitz theclearBibletextsaretheanalogyofScripture,Chemnitzcarefullyex-aminestheimmediatecontextofActs3:21.Heanswers:

Thesequenceandcontextof theentire speechdemonstratewhat themeaningof thispassage inActs 3:21 actually is.Peter isheremakingthe point of his entire oration, namely, that the heavenly Father hasadorned that Jesus who was crucified out of weakness 2 Cor. 13:41with the highest and most incomprehensible glory and power, whichHehasdemonstratedtosomedegreeinthemiracleoftherestorationof the lameman.Andbythisargumenthe isencouragingthosewhodeniedandkilledChristthattheyshouldrepentofthatsin, lesttheyexperienceHisvengeance.ButatthesametimeHeisshowingbythisveryargumentwhatthosewhobelievecanexpectfromthatgloryandpower of Christ. However, because the objection can be raised thatChristdidnotexercisethatgloryandpowerofHisinperson,eitherinthefaceofHisenemiesorforthesakeofthosewhobelievedinHim,Peter replies that Christ has received heaven itself. Moreover, thereis a common Scriptural expression that God Himself is described asinhabitingtheheavens,notinthesensethatHeislockeduptheresothatHecannotbeonearthalso,but inthesensethat intheheavensHe manifests Himself and His majesty and power more clearly andgloriously.ForHeshowsthatinheavenHeisnottobeknownthroughmeans,butHerevealsthequalityofHismajesty,glory,andpowerfacetofaceforustolookat,andthereHecommunicatesHisbenefitswithoutmeans,butHeHimselffillsallthingswithHisblessing,sothatthereisnomisery,noweakness,no confusion,no cause for sin there....Itis absolutely certain that this is what Scripture wants to say when itattributestoGodthatHedwellsandhasHishabitationinheaven.AndPeterisusingthislanguagewhenhedescribesthereignofChrist.(LS217f.)

Chemnitz understands this text to demonstrate also the repletivepresenceofChrist’shumannaturebecauseofthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesintheoneperson,JesusChrist.42

173 Chemnitzthengoesbeyondtheimmediatecontextofthepassagetothemoredistant, Scriptureasawhole.SinceChristhasnowbeenexaltedbeyondall limitations,“ThereforewhatPetersays,thatitisnecessary forChrist to receiveheavenuntil the timeof the restitu-tion, is exactly the same as what David says: ‘Sit at my right handuntilImakeyourenemiesyourfootstool’[Psalm110:1],andwhatSt.Paulsays in 1Cor. 15:25,26: ‘Hemustreignuntil...the lastenemynamelydeath isdestroyed’”(LS218).Onceagain, it iscertainthatthedoctrineoftheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheSacramentdoesnotconflictwithanypartofScriptureorarticleoffaith.Theglorified“ChristcanbepresentwithHisbodywhereverHewillsanddowhateverHewills”(Ex2,223).

174 Noneof thetextsspeakingofChrist’sdeparture fromtheworldcandestroythedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperasChristgaveitintheWordsofInstitution.SuchpassagesasMatt.26:11(“Thepooryouhavealwayswithyou,butmeyoudonothavealways”) andJohn113:33, spokenaftertheinstitution(“Littlechildren,Iamstillwithyouforalittlewhile”),cannotnegatethewordsofthefirstinstitution,becauseChristwasstillwiththeminHiscircumscribedpresencewhenHeinstitutedtheSupper.Chemnitzthereforeputsadirectquestiontotheadversaries,“NowIaskofouradversarieswhethertheyconcedethattheWordsofInstitutioninthatfirstSupper hadandretainedtheirproperandnaturalmeaning?”(LS225;emphasisadded).

175 Chemnitz supplies the answer which they must give in view oftheirrejectionofthesacramentalunionand,moreparticularly, oftheirrejectionofthecommunicatio majestatis, “Iknowtheywillan-swerno.ForitwouldbeabsolutelyabsurdtoimaginethatthereisnowadifferentmeaningandinterpretationforthewordsofChrist’slast will and testament, as far as its substance is concerned thantherewasforthefirstobservanceofit.Forthereisnothingdiffer-entwhichisofferedandreceivedintheLord’sSuppernowthantheApostlesreceivedatthatfirstcelebration”(LS225).43

176 Chemnitz has now demonstrated exegetically that the sacra-mentalunionofthebodyandbloodofChristwiththebreadandthewineobtainsintheLord’sSupperasChristinstituteditintheUpper Room. The question however remains whether the church(morespecifically, theLutheranChurch)todaycanbecertainthatithasthesame Supper whichtheLordinstituted.Thisisanepiste-



mologicalquestionthatwillriseforeveryseriousmindeddiscipleofChrist.How doesoneknowthathehasthesameSuppertodaythatChristinstitutedinthenightonwhichHewasbetrayed?Theanswer to that question separated the Lutherans from the Sacra-mentarians450yearsago, aswillbecomeevidentinthenextchapterontheconsecration.

notes 13–43, chapter iv

13. Theseperiodicexaminationsofthepastorsmusthavebeenratherstringent,forthereare333questionsforthemtoanswer.Inaddition,asthetranslator,PastorLutherPoellotnotes,theexaminationswererequired“twiceayear(bis quotannis)” (MWS,insidefrontispiece).

14. For a more detailed analysis compare Chapter III (“Possibile-Necessarium”) of Hardt’sVenerabilis and Adorabilis Eucharistia (see endnote #1), pp. 75–115. Here he carefullyinvestigates the positions of Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz,Andreae, and Chemnitz. ThisaspectoftherelationofChristologytothedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperhasbeengenerallyneglectedamongmodernLutherans,includingconservativeLutherans,withtheresultthatthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheSuppertendstoevaporateintoageneralomnipresence.

15. Pres.J.A.O.Preushaspossiblybeensomewhatmisledbysomesecondarysourceswhenhewritesthat“Chemnitzwasnotamanwhowentaboutdelving into impenetrableandlabyrinthian arguments. This is probably best shown in his handling of the ubiquityquestion. Luther had strongly contended for the doctrine of ubiquity, that the doctrineof the Real Presence is proven by the fact that Christ, also according to His humannature, is everywhere present. Chemnitz rather takes the position that we are to acceptHispresence intheLord’sSupperbecause intheWordsofInstitutionHesaidthatHewaspresent”(“MartinChemnitzandtheLord’sSupper,”– Evangelium– Gospel, publishedby theGermanLutheranHour,PostOfficeBox 103546,2800Bremen l/WestGermany,#6,December 1979,p. 146). It shouldbenotedthatnotonlyChemnitzbutLuther, too,refusedtodelveintoimpenetrablesecretsnotrevealedtousintheScripturalRevelation.In additiontothematerialinp.30,oneshouldnotethatitwasnotmeresloganismwhenin1529atMarburgLutherwroteonthetablebeforehimthewords,“ThisismyBody”beforecoveringthetablewithavelvetcloth(LW38,66).HewantedaconstantreminderbeforehimnottomovefromtheclearScripturetext.Luther’ssacramentaltheologyaswellashisChristologyisdrawnfromthecleartextsofScripture.AlsoatMarburgheenunciatedthetruththateveryarticleoffaithisaprinciple initselfanddoesnotneedtobeprovedbyanotherarticle(LW38,51f.;thistranslationisSasse’smoreexacttranslationinThis is My Body, rev.ed.,Adelaide,S.A.,LutheranPublishingHouse,1977,p.210).

16. ForadetailedexaminationoftheFormula’sArticleVIIIonthePersonofChrist,seemyarticleinA Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord,editedbyRobertD.PreusandWilbertH.Rosin,St.Louis:CPH,1978,pp.232–252.

17. Weil aber diese Obiection droben/Cap. 3. notdurfftig widerlegt/Wollen wir hie mitwenig Worten antworten: Das wir von Mittheilung der Gottlichen Eygenschaff ten zubefiirchten: Dann der Sohn Gottes/der solche Lehre von Mittheilung der GottlichenGewalt/lebendigmachenden Krafft/und was dergleiche mehr sind/geoffenbaret/und inseinem unfehlbaren Wort ausgesprochen hat/der wird duch die Weise wol wissen wie

solche Mittheilung/ohne Zertrennung der Eygenschrafften/geschehen konne/Dem wirsauchbefehlen/undinsolchemGeheimniissausserhalbseinesWorts/mitunserVernunfftnichtsdichtenodergriibelnsollen(ApFC,81a).

18. SchaffinThe New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge III, 57.SchlinktakesthepositionthatintheFormulaofConcord,withrespecttoBrenz’sabsoluteomnipresenceofChristastheonlymodeofHispresencebesidesthecircumscriptive,acompromisewasnecessary, sinceChemnitz taughtonlyamultivolipresence (oramultipresence),“WearefacedwithacompromiseinwhichneitherChemnitznorBrenzhashisway”(Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, Philadelphia:Muehlenberg,1961,note25,p.189).

19. SeealsoLW37,65f.,whereinThat These Words, etc.(1527),Lutheranalyzesthesemodesofpresence.

20. ItwillbenotedthatPresidentPreushastranslateden logoo withtheexpression“inasense.”Iamnotentirelysurewhyhehas(possiblybecauseofthelackofthearticletoo?). Butitseems to me that the phrase would be more accurately translated,“He has all creaturespresent with Him in the Word. “ Throughout the entireTNC Chemnitz sets forth thethesisthataftertheIncarnationthePersonoftheLogosisneveroutsidethehumannature,andtheassumedhumannatureisneveroutsidetheLogos.Further,afewpageslater(463)PresidentPreushastranslatedlogos (withoutthearticle)inthisway,“Butjustasthehumannaturesubsistsin the Logos” (emphasisadded).Thepointisworthyofinvestigation,sincesomehaveheld thatChemnitzdidnot teachageneralomnipresenceofChrist’shumannature(seenote18).

21. Schlink,189(seenote18).Pieper(Christian Dogmatics, St.Louis:CPH,1951,II,195–205)and Hardt (Venerabilis, etc., 111–115) have dealt most thoroughly with this charge, ablyrefutingitwithsolidevidence.HardttracesthepopularizationofthisviewpointtoSeeberg,Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichten, andRitschl,Dogmengeschichte des Protestantism us, Hardt111,note72.

22. SeePieper,II,199.23. IntheHistori des Sacramentstreit, Chemnitz,Kirchner,andSelneccerquoteandsummarize

fromLuther’s1527polemicagainstZwingli,That These Words of Christ, “This is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (LW37,3–150).TheyexplainthatLutherattachedsuchalongtitletothewritingjustbecausethewordoftheSonofGodclearlysaysthattheconsecratedbreadandwineintheSupperareHisbodyandblood(HS113).

24. VilmosVajta (Luther on Worship; seenote#1) says that“Lutherdefines thepresenceofGodinatwofoldsense.First,hespeaksofGod’somnipresenceandsecondofHispresenceintheincarnateChrist,inthechurch,andtheservice.ThesetwomodesofHispresencemustbekept carefully apart” (85).Suchaparadigm imposedon theScripturalmaterialwillnotdojusticetoalltheScripturalevidencewhichLutherandChemnitzhavepulledtogether for their systematicpresentationof theRealPresence.Vajtamakes thegeneralomnipresenceofChrist(“God’somnipresenceissharedbyChrist”–p.86)thebasisforthesacramentalpresenceofChristintheLord’sSupper,“Christisintheelementslongbeforetheyareplacedonthealtar” (95),“TheRealPresencerestsonGod’spresence inallHisworks”(96).

Luther and Chemnitz sharply distinguish between the repletive presence and thedefinitivepresenceofChrist’sbodyandbloodintheconsecratedelements(seep.44f.).

Forathorough-goinganalysisofVajta’sviewpointtogetherwithhismisrepresentationofLuther’sunderstandingofthelimitsofthenaturalknowledgeofGod,seeHardt(note#1),pp.81–89.

25. LutherunderstandstheKoinonia of1Cor. 10:16as“thecommonpossessioninwhichall



share,”“thebodyofChristasacommonpossessiondistributedamongmanyforthemtopartake”(LW37,353).Similarly,Chemnitzunderstandsthetermtomeanaclose,intimateunion,“OnaccountofthecommunionofthebreadandthebodyofChrist,PaulalsospokeofthedistributionandreceptionofthisbreadasthedistributionandparticipationinthebodyofChrist”(LS56).Chemnitzestablishesthemeaningof“communion”in1Cor.10:16fromtheVerba,whichcallthebreadthebodyofChrist,“Thereforethepassagein1Cor.10mustbeinterpreted,understoodandjudgedonthebasisoftheWordsofInstitutionandnotviceversa”(LS139).

26. SiewerffenauchdemChristlichenConcordibuchfür/esbleibeselbstnichtbeydenWortenderEinsetzung/darauffesdochsohartdringet/danneslehrejadasChristiLeibimBrotodermitdemBrotausgetheiletwerde/welchesindenWortenderEinsetzungnichtalsostehet(ApFC152).

27. AberdasConcordiBuchbeheltbeydeArtzuredenNemlich:DasBrotseyderLeibChristi/und im Brot oder mit dem Brot sey Christi Leib gegenwertig/und werde ausgetheilet/darumbdassdasBrotumbderSacramentlichenEinigkeitWillenChristiLeibgenennetwird/oderderLeibChristimitDemBrotlindemBrot/oderdurchdasBrotgegenwertigundwarhafftigausgeteiletwird.UmbwelcherEinigkeitWillenD.Lutherusauchinseinemgrossen Bekenntnis diese Art zu reden Synecdochen genennet hat/dieweil nemlich imSacramentdiesezweyDing/BrotundderLeibChristimiteinanderauffubernatiirlicheWeisvereiniget/undmiteinanderimAbendmalgegenwertigundausgetheiletwerden(ApFC152).

28. Wann man aber von der gantzen Proposition/Das Brot is der Leib Christi fraget oderhandelt/weil keine Verwandlung da geschicht/sondern ein jedes in seinem Wesenunverrucktbleibet/BrotundderLeibChristi/unddochSacramentlich/wiemansnennet/odernachdenWortenderEinsatzungmiteinanderubernatiirlecherWeisevereinigetsind/sowirdrechtgeantwortet/dasdieseArtzuredenkonnesacramenta lis, singularis, inusitata, oder wie Lutherus redet synecdochia geheissen werden. Nicht das Continens pro absente contento da gebraucht: sondern umb derVereinigung der Zweyen DingWillen/welchereines irrdisch ist/als das Brot/das ander aber Himlisch/als der ware gegenwertige LeibChristi/welche/wie offt repetieret/sacramentaliter im Abendmal mit einander vereinigetsind(ApFC152b).

29. ThunderwegendemConcordiBuchoffentlichunrecht/dasieesbeschaldigen/alssoltesselbstvondemnaturlichenVerstandderWortdesTestamentsChristiabtreten(ApFC152).

30. TheSolidDeclarationhasheretakenoverfromChemnitz’sThe Lord’s Supper (p.153)thematerialinSDVII,35f.,includingthenamesofthe“ancientteachers”whichChemnitzhasmintedfromhisresearch.

31. Aperhapstypicalfeelingofapprehensionovertheword“change”andeffortstoescapeitssignificanceisthatofPres.ArminSchuetze(Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, January1981,71f.). He first suggests that Melanchthon“ignores the reference to the body and bloodbeing present ‘after the consecration lawfully made,’” by which the Confutators of theAugsburgConfessionstatedingeneralthattheyapprovedofArticleXoftheAugsburgConfession.Prof.SchuetzetakesthepositionthatLutherandhisfellowtheologianswouldnot accept the position that the body and blood of Christ are present before the actualdistribution.Pres.SchuetzethenassumesthatMelanchthon,ingivingevidencefromtheGreekChurchandtheMedievalChurch,seekstoshowwiththeexpressions“changed”and“trulychanges”thatthedoctrineoftheLutheransisnotdifferentfromtheAncientChurch,butthatMelanchthonandhisfellowconfessorschosenottotakeissuewiththeconcept

of transubstantiation at that point. The problem with that interpretation ofAp X, 2, isthatitwaswellknownthatLutherandothershadyearsbeforerejectedthephilosophicalexplanationoftransubstantiation,buttooknooffenseattheword“change”whenusedinthecontextquotedbyMelanchthon.Aswillbeseen,Chemnitztakesamoreprecise,scholarlyviewofthesituation,andhencedoesnotgiveuptheuseofthe“change”whenemployedinthesenseoftheEarlyChurch.

32. Prof. Lowell Green, examining early Lutheran liturgies (1533–1559), noted that “theconsecratedhostandchalicearealwayscalled theBody andBlood in thedistributionormanducation”(A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, editedbyRobertD.Preusand Wilbert Rosin, St. Louis: CPH, 1978,304). From the Chemnitz references alreadyhereadduced,itisobviousthatChemnitzwouldagreeperfectlywiththeliturgies.Greenproceeds to show that“in the liturgical forms for Holy Communion used by LutheranChurchesinAmericaitisgenerallystatedthatthepastorshalldistributebread andwine.” Prof.Greencalls this”aReformedpractice...alsoretained in therubricsof thevariousordersproposedbytheInter-LutheranCommissiononWorship”(p.304).Aswillbeseenfromthematerialinthischapterandthesucceedingoneonconsecration,Chemnitzwouldagree with Prof. Green’s judgment. Unfortunately, Prof. John C. Jeske of theWisconsinLutheran Seminary, in reviewing the volume and zeroing in on Prof. Green’s essay onArticleVII,takesexceptiontothehistoricalevidencethatProf.Greenproduced.Hewrites,“Thewriterofthatchapter[i.e.,Prof.Green]alsoshowsapreoccupationwithsettingtheexactmomentinthecelebrationoftheLord’sSupperwhenthebodyofChristispresent.Hespeaksof‘Luther’sposition...withitsemphasisthatthebreadis thebodyofChristfromtheconsecrationonward...’(205).Luther,however,showednosuchpreoccupation”(Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, April 1979, 169). But Prof. Jeske produces no historicalevidencetonegatetheevidencesetforthbyProf.Green.

33. LW37,295,note#223,wherethestatementistranslatedfromZwingli’sFriendly Rejoinder, foundinCR92,779,andinLuther’sWorks,St.Louisedition,20,1111.

34. SeeAlfredKorzybski,Science and Sanity (1933);StuartChase,The Tyranny of Words (1938),andThe Power of Words (1953);S.I.Hayakawa,Language in Action (1939),anditsrevision,Language in Thought and Action (1949and1964).Theuseoftheword“is”wastheirgreatbugabooagainstwhichtheyinveighed.Hayakawarecommendedthatwritersuse“is”only“asanauxiliaryverb(‘heiscoming’)”(Language in Thought and Action, 315).IfShakespearehad been aware of that advice, one wonders what would have happened to his greatsoliloquy,“Tobe,ornottobe.”OnealsowonderswhetherHayakawa(formerlyasenatorfromCalifornia)reallyeverseriouslyfollowedhisownadvice.Justrecentlyhetwiceused“is”(“are”)inthegeneralsenseofcharacterizingathingwhichhehadidentifiedinthesubject.ConservativeReagansupporterswereunhappyoverthevaguelanguageoftheWashington-Peking jointcommunique (Shanghai II)onourTaiwanpolicy. Itwas sovague thatonecouldreaditastheChinesedothatwehaveshiftedourpolicy,orasPresidentialCounselorEdwinMeesecontended,wehadmadenorealconcessionstoPeking.Time remarked,“asthenotedsemanticistandconservativeRepublicanSenatorS. I.Hayakawapointedout,moreinadmirationthanfrustration:‘Thewonderfulthingaboutlanguageis itsabilitytomeanwhateveryouwantittomean.Thereare enoughambiguitiesintheagreementsothatnooneshouldbeseriouslyoffended’“(Time, 8/30/82,p.21;emphasisadded).

35. ApparentlytheonlyprofessionalphilosopherwhohasdeignedtoanalyzethesegeneralsemanticistsisProfessorMaxBlack.IndismissingthisclaimthatAristotletaughtthatallsubject-predicatestatementsareidentitystatements,heusessuchwordsas“absurd”and”stupid”:



WhatAristotleisallegedtohavebelievedandtaughtisthatsuchstatementsas“Wateriswet”and“Dewey isaphilosopher”meanthatwater is identicalwithwetness,andDeweyisidenticalwiththecharacteristicofbeingaphilosopher....

ItisworthnotingthatKorzybskigivesnoquotationfromAristotletosupportthischarge.Anditshouldbesaid,asamatterofhistoricaljustice,thatthereisnoevidencethatAristotle or his followers believed anything so absurd. One sufficient reason isthat theviewwithwhich theyarechargedwouldbe inconsistentwith thestandardsyllogisticdoctrineoftheimpossibilityofconvertinguniversalpropositions.Ifthe“is”in“Wateriswet”werethe“is”ofidentity,asalleged,thetruthofthatpropositionwouldautomaticallyentailthetruthoftheconversepropositionthatallwetnessiswater.Nowitis,ofcourse,acentralpartofthedoctrineofAristotelianlogicthatthepropositionAllAisBcannotbeautomaticallyreplacedbytheconverse,All B is A. Again,ifAristotlebelievedtheabsurddoctrinewhichisascribedtohim,hewouldhavetobelievethatPlatoandSocratesandAristotlehimselfwereallthesameperson.For,ifallofthemwereidenticalwithbeingaphilosopher,allofthemmustbeidenticalwithoneanother.Evenastupidmanwouldhardlybelieveintheseabsurdconsequences;andAristotlewasveryfarfrombeingstupid.(QuotedbyWilliamH.Youngren,“GeneralSemanticsandScienceofMeaning,” College English,Jan.1968,p.263).TheMaxBlackquotationisfromhis“Korzybski’sGeneralSemantics”inLanguage and Philosophy (Ithaca,1949,p.230).

36. PossiblythekeytoamorepreciseunderstandingofthisChemnitzreferencecanbefoundinJ.R.Weinberg,A Short History of Medieval Philosophy, Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1968,p.54,Note#1: Inaddition to thedoctrineofCategories, i.e., theclassificationofdifferentkindsof

beingorof“thingssaidinanuncombinedway”—namely,substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, andpassion—Aristotlehasadoctrineaboutthewaysinwhichtermsoccurinthepredicatesofstatements.Aristotle’sownclassificationofthesewaysofpredicationwas:definition, genus, property, andaccident.Thismeansthatthepredicateofastatementcanstandtoitssubjectasbeingeitherthedefinitionofthesubject(e.g.,a triangle is a plane figure bounded by three straight lines),oritsgenus(e.g.,atriangleisaplane figure),orapropertyofthesubject(e.g.,atrianglehastwo right angles as sum of its interior angles),oranaccidentofthesubject(e.g.,sometriangleis five inches on one side).

ItwouldseemthatmanyBiblicalstatementscouldbeclassifiedaccordingtothisparadigm,even if one has made only a cursory examination; Chemnitz is right that Scripture hasmanyexamplesofthesekindsofpredicatestatements.

37. ChemnitzusesvirtuallythesamelanguageinLS51.38. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, PaulEdwards,editor-in-chief,N.Y.:TheMacmillanandthe

FreePress,1967,8,33.39. SeeLW40,197,Against the Heavenly Prophets.40. SeeLW37,301f.,Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper.41. The New International Version, which has become so popular among us, translates this

passageexactlyas theadversariesofChemnitzdid,“He must remain in heaven until thetimecomesforGodtorestoreeverything”(emphasisadded).The Living New Testament, manycopiesofwhicharefoundamongourpeoplebecauseofBillyGraham’sadvocacyofit,perpetuatesthesameReformederror,“Forhe must remain in heaven untilthefinalrecoveryof all things” (emphasis added). The New King James Version and the New American Standard followtheoriginalKingJames,“Whomheavenmustreceive.”

42. Grammatically,“heaven”or“Christ”canbethesubjectofthesentence.ChemnitzandtheFormulaofConcordtakethelatterview;“Christmusttakepossessionofheaven”(SDVII,119);“Christhasreceivedheavenitself ”(LS217).AsPieperhaspointedout,theReformed“falsifiedthewords”(SDVII,119)bytakingtheDexasthai asapassiveinsteadofamiddlevoice; expressed in Christ was enclosed and circumscribed in heaven. For a detaileddiscussionofthistext,seePieperII,326–328.

43. Two Swedish theologians have recently arrived at an entirely different conclusion fromthatofChemnitz.Dr.IngemarFurberg,connectedwiththeBiblicumInstituteofUppsala,Sweden,presentedthethesisthat“ZwinglihadmaintainedthatChristinthefirstSupperhadgivenHisbodyandbloodtoHisdisciples”(Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, January1977,p.81).SomemonthslateranothertheologianoftheBiblicumInstitute,Dr.SethErlandsson,promulgatedvirtuallythesamethesisinanarticle,“TheDangerofPresumptuousQuestionsAbouttheLord’sSupper.”Hewrotethat“LutheriscarryingonapolemicagainstZwingliandhisfollowerswhothoughtthatwhatwastrueofthefirstSupperwasnottrueofourSupper”(publishedinBiblicum,4–5/1977,p.93f.;tr.fromtheSwedishbyS.W.Becker,mimeo;n.d.,p.9).

Itisdifficulttofindaplausibleexplanationforsuchanegregioushistoricalerror.AcluemaypossiblybeindicatedinDr.Furberg’sreferencetoLuther’sGreat Confession (WA26,283–285;inEnglish,LW37,180f.).LutherheretrapsZwingliwithhisownwords.Zwinglihadsaidthatthereareaction-ordeed-words(Thettelwort) whichdescibesomethingwhichactuallyhappened;andtherearecommand-words(Heisselwort) inwhichGodcommandssomething.SinceZwingli regards theVerbaasdeed-words,Lutherdraws the inevitableconclusionfromthispremise,“HeadmitsthatChristdidgiveHisbodytothedisciplesinthefirstSupper,forheacknowledgesthatthesewords,‘Thisismybody,’areaction-words,whichdidtakeplaceatthattime.Wethankthemkindlythattheyhave leftusthefirst,originalSupper”(LW37,181).

SinceLutherverywellknewthatZwinglihadadoptednotonlyCarlstadt’s idea thatChrist’s body is in heaven and cannot then at the same time be in the bread but alsoCorneliusHoen’s theorythat thebreadsignifies thebodyofChrist,he indulges insomeheavy irony of statement. Apparently Doctors Furberg and Erlandsson either were notawareofZwingli’srealposition,orelseofLuther’suseofatrope,verbalirony,inwhichtheactualintentofthewriterisexpressedinwordswhichcarrytheoppositemeaning.PossiblyH.G.HaileinthenewbiographyofLutherhasthemostsatisfactoryexplanationforthisastoundingthesiswhenhespeaksofthe“sardonicLutherwhoescapedhisbiographers,”and“thequips,puns,andallusionswhichcontinuetopuzzleearnestinterpreters”(Luther: An Experiment in Biography, NewYork:Doubleday,1980,pp.36and41).



Chapter v

The consecration and its effects

177 Theyears1527and1528werecrucialonesforLutherinhisexplica-tionanddefenseoftheSacramentoftheAltaras institutedbytheSavior.Hefeltthathistwoworksoftheseyears(That These Words, etc.,andThe Great Confession) weresufficienttomakehisdoctrinalpositioncleartoall.Sincehisopponents“leapoverthepointswherean answer is needed,” Luther concludes that “for this reason I amthroughwiththem.Ishallwritenomoretothem,lestSatanbecomesstill more frantic and spew out still more lies and follies” (LW 37,161f.).Andhereallywrotenootherexpositionof thisdoctrineun-tilin1544whenhisBrief Confession on the HolySacrament appeared(LW38,287–319).

178 The authors of the Formula of Concord, recognizing the funda-mentalcharacterofhistreatisesoftheseyears,quoteLuther’s Great Confession morethananyofhisotherwritingsontheSacramentoftheAltarandthePersonofChrist.Chemnitz,Kirchner,andSelnec-cer,reviewingintheirHistori des Sacramentstreit in itsyear-to-yeardevelopmentofthecontroversyfrom1521,givethesamerecognitiontotheGreat Confession and That These Words. Insummarizingtheircontents theyquotethemextensively,but theyurgethat “everyoneshouldreadthemwithgreatzeal”(HS116).Whatisofspecialinter-estistonotewhattheyconsidertheessentialthingstobeacknowl-edgedifoneistohavethetruedoctrineoftheLord’sSupper.Theseare two which are necessary if Lutheran orthodoxy is to be main-tained(HS116).44

179 Thefirstthingistoaccept,asLutherdid(LW37,213,223;SDVII,103),alltheimplicationsofthedoctrineofthepersonalunionofthe

twonaturesintheGod-ManChristJesus.BecauseofthispersonalunionJesusChrist, trueGodandManinoneperson, ispresent inmanyplaces.Hispresencecannotbe limitedtothecircumscriptive(localiter oder, circumscriptive—HS 119), and one must distinguishChrist’sgeneralomnipresencefromHisdefinitivepresence(HS116–121;seeparagraphs88–117,esp.94–100).45

180 ThesecondpointwhichisnecessaryforacorrectunderstandingofthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperistoacceptChrist’swords,“Thisismybody”intheirsimple,naturalsense.Onemustunderstandthemodeofpredication.Christisheredescribingthesacramentalunion,amodewhichLuthercalls“synecdoche,”andofwhichhegavemanyexamplesfromScriptureandwhichhefurtherexplainedbymeansofcommonusageineverydaylanguage(LW37,296–303;seep.53–64).Thereisa“unionofeffect.”Thebreadisnotdeifiednorannihilatedandthebodyhasnotbeeneliminatedthroughsomefigureofspeech.Luther’sexampleoftheHolySpiritappearingintheformofadoveisanalogous.TheHolySpiritdidnotstandtherevisiblypresentbutintheformofadove(LW37,299,337).Eventhoughbodyandbreadaretwodistinctsubstances,neverthelesstheyareunitedanddesignatedasonesubstance.Bothbreadandbodyremain,andbyvirtueofthesacramentalunionitiscorrecttosay,“Thisismybody,”designatingthe bread with “this.” It is, as Luther says, now “flesh-bread,” andnot ordinary wine out of the cellar but “blood-wine” (LW 37,303).ThusLuther,throughtheexplicationofthesetwopoints,helpstheChristianreadertoabetterunderstandingoftheLord’sSupper(HS121–124).

181 Inadditiontothesetwovitalfactors,thereisathirdthatisnecessaryforanunderstandingoftheLord’sSupper,andthatisthedoctrineoftheconsecration.InWittenbergCarlstadthadattemptedtodestroythetruedoctrineofthesacramentbyteachingthatthetouto referredto Christ’s body as He sat at the Supper, and also by insisting thatChrist’sbodyisnowrestrictedtoheaven.46Histhirdthrustagainstthe Scriptural doctrine was to ridicule the consecration as merelybeing some kind of external manipulation on the level of magic. Inhisrejectionoftheconsecrationasaneffectivecauseforthepresentchurch’scertaintythatithasthesameSuppertheLordinstitutedforHischurchinHislasttestament,Carlstadtridiculeditbyagrossdis-tortionofwhatLuthertaught.ItwasasorespotwithLutherandthe

The Consecration | ��


Wittenbergtheologians.In1525LutherwroteinexasperationagainstCarlstadt’scontemptfortheconsecration:

He [Carlstadt] reviles us with many scornful and jeering words,askinghowwegetChrist intothebreadandwine,whetherHemuststrike up the tune we demand, and many similar words of shamefulblasphemy.Wecanplainlyseethattheyarethewordsofathoughtlessspiritordevil,whichservetoexcitetheprofligatemobandcharmthosewhoarenotmuchworriedaboutfaithandconscience(LW40,176).

Tellmewhenwewhisperorbreatheuponthebread?Ah,showme!Andwherehaveweevertaughtthatourwhisperingandbreathinghaveimprovedthebread?Ah.Now,whydon’tyouanswer?Allright,Iwilltakeanoath....MyreasonforitisthatDr.Carlstadtknowsthatwedonotbreatheorwhisperoverthebreadbutdospeakthedivine,almighty,heavenly, and holy words which Christ Himself spoke at the SupperwithHisholylipsandcommanded us to speak (LW40,211f;emphasisadded).

182 Chemnitz,Kirchner, andSelneccer, confessingwithLuther thatthesacramentalpresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristisachievedthroughthespeakingofthepowerfulwordsofconsecration,recordthatinthesameyearthattheGreat Confessionappeared,Bugenha-gen(Dr.Pomeranus)publishedhisConfession of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood and Its Institution (HS125).Theywritethat inthePrefaceBugenhagensaidthathewantedtoannouncewhatheheldwithrespecttotheconsecration,asitiscalled,thatis,howitcomesaboutandhappensthatthebreadoftheLordisHisbodyandthecupHisblood(HS125f.).SincetheauthorsoftheHistori areconvincedthatBugenhageninthisbookhascorrectlyandclearlyexplainedthechurch’sdoctrineoftheconsecration,theysimplywanttopresentinBugenhagen’sownwordstheessenceofthisdoctrineforthebenefitofyoungstudents(HS126).47

183 InBugenhagen’swords:

Christsays:Dothis.Becauseofthisword,weconfidentlydowhatChristhas instituted.Wedonot trust inourownconsecrationsandbreathing as they [the Sacramentarians] insultingly hurl at us, butbecauseofthewordofChrist,Dothis,thatis,weputourtrustintheinstitutionandcommandofChrist.

Christdidnotsay,“Takeandeatbread,Takeanddrinkwine,but,Dothis,thatis,takeandeatmybody;thusIinstituteit;thusIwishit;thusIcommand.Idonotsayorcommandthatyoumakebreadmybody,butthatyoueatthatwhichisnowmybody.Iinstituteanddesirethatinremembranceofmydeathyoueatmybody,etc.”(HS126).48

184 ItisfurtherevidentthatBugenhagen,justasLutherdoesinThe Great Confession, interpretsthe“Thisdo”(1Cor.11:24,25)asacom-mand-word which embraces the deed-words of the institution sothat the Christians are bound by the command of Christ to saythesewordsinthenameandpersonoftheSavior,andthusarecer-tainthattheyhavetheverybodyandbloodofChrist(LW37,181f.).Bugenhagenwrites:

ExaminetheinstitutionofChristwhichsays,Thismybreadismybody;thismycupismyblood,etc.Howdowehaveallthis?Throughthe institution of Christ. He Himself thus instituted, ordained, anddesiredit.Christiansembracethisinstitutionandgivethanks[toHim].Thereforeitwouldbefollytoomitthesewordsofinstitution,andasinnottotrustinthem.Forwithoutthese[words],Iask,whatwouldwelookforinthebreadandthecup?

Theministerofourchurchpubliclyrecitesthesewordsofthesacredinstitution over the bread and the cup which have been placed uponthealtar,withoutanybreathing(astheymockinglychargeus),sinceheknowsthatherenothingcantakeplacethroughhisownpowerbutthatalltakesplacebythepowerandtheinstitutionofChrist.Andherecites[theWords of Institution] so that those who are to commune knowhowtoconductthemselveswithregardtothissacramentandwhattobelieve.Against the Sacramentarians this institution replies that it isperpetualforusandthattheordinanceofChrist,whichiseffective,willenduretotheendoftheworld;thatthereisforuswhoeatanddrinkthebodyandbloodofChrist.HedoesnotdemandorcommandthatwemakethebodyandbloodofChrist.Thatisgiventous;withgratefulheartandwithrejoicinginthisactweacceptit.Wedonotpresumetomake[thebodyandblood]becauseChristdoesnotcommandit,andweareunabletodoit.ForHesays,Thisismybody,thisismyblood.Hedoesnotsay,Makemybody,makemyblood.HedoesnotdesiremakersofHisbodyandbloodbutcommunicants,thatis,thatweeatthebodyoftheLordanddrinkthebloodinHisremembrance,whichbodyandbloodHehasgiventhroughHisinstitution;thesewedonotmakeforourselves(HS127f.).49

185 Several points emerge from Bugenhagen’s somewhat emotionalexplanation:

1. Christ’scommand,“Dothis,”includestheconsecration,thedistributionandthereceptionofthebodyandbloodofChrist.

2. ThecommandofChristisspecificthattheministerspeaktheWordsof Institution over the elements on the altar prepared for the Lord’sSupper.

3. Theofficiantacts in thesteadandonbehalfof theSaviorwhenHeconsecrates the elements, because the Savior has so instituted andcommandedit.



4. Theofficiantdoesnotactinhisownpower,butbecauseChrist’swordis,“Dothis.”

5. The minister consecrates the elements for the purpose that the com-municantseatanddrinkthatwhichisChrist’sbodyandblood.

6. The Lutheran Church rejects any idea that the consecration is somekind of magic whereby, without the will of Christ, the elements aremade intothebodyandbloodofChristbyblowing,whispering,andotherexternalactions.

7. Bugenhagen rejects the Sacramentarian charge that the consecrationwouldmakeorcreateanewbodyofChristateachconsecrationandwouldthusaddsomethingtoChristateachconsecration.Lutherhadin the Great Confession also rejected this monstrous charge,“We donot make Christ’s body out of the bread as this spirit falsely chargesus with teaching. Nor do we say that this body comes into existenceoutofthebread.WesaythatHisbody,whichlongagowasmadeandcameintoexistence,ispresentwhenwesay“Thisismybody.”ForChristcommandsustosaynot,“Letthisbecomemybody,”or“Makemybodythere,”but“Thisismybody”(LW37,187).

186 ThroughoutallhiswritingsChemnitzassumesthattheconsecra-tionasdescribedbyLutherandBugenhageneffectsthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheelementsandthattheconsecrat-edelementsaretobedistributedandreceived.InconnectionwiththeLord’sSupper,healways limitstheterms“use”and“action”toconsecratingtheelements,andthendistributing,eatinganddrink-ingthem(SDVII,83–87;seep.13f.).IntheLord’s Supper Chemn-nitzassumesthatthecontroversywiththeSacramentariansdoesnothavetodowithanabsoluteandunchangingpresence“outsidetheiruse,” since “bothpartiesdisapproveof thesepracticeson thebasisofScripture”(LS37).Henotesthat“afterthe blessingPaul, justashehadreceiveditfromtheLord,stillmentionsthebread andsaysofthatbreadthat it is thebodyof Christ (LS50;emphasisadded).Similarly,hespeaksof“thisbreadafter receiving its name from God isnotonlybreadbutatthesametimealsothebodyofChrist”(LS46;emphasisadded).Numerousotherexamplescanbecited inwhichheholdsthattheconsecrationeffectsthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheSacrament.

187 It is particularly in the Examination that Chemnitz deals mostsystematically with the consecration and its implications. He firsttakesnoteofoneofthefundamentaldifferencesinthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperbetweentheLutheransandtheSacramentarians,whenheobservesthattheSacramentarians“rejectedthepapistical

consecration in such a way that they imagined the Lord’s SuppercouldalsobecelebratedwithouttheWordsofInstitution.”Chem-nitzanswersthat“thisismanifestlyfalse.ForitismostcertainthatthereisnosacramentwithouttheWord,asPaulcallsbaptism‘thewashingofwaterwiththeWord’(Eph.5:26).ThesayingofAugus-tinehasitcorrectly:‘LettheWordcometotheelement,anditbe-comesasacrament’”(Ex.2,225).

188 ItisofthehighestimportancethatonedeterminespreciselywhatChemnitzmeanswiththeterm“consecration.”Theusualpresent–daydiscussionsofthesacramentlightlypassovertheanalysisofwhatitmeanttothesixteenthcenturyLutherantheologians.50ToclearupanyconfusionthatmayriseinunderstandingChemnitz’sdoctrineoftheconsecration,oneshouldnotethesynonymswhichheemploysfortheterm“consecration”inthecontextoftheSacramentoftheAl-tar.First,heusestheterm“consecration”;quotingAugustinehesays,“Ourbreadandcupbecomesacramental byacertainconsecration; itdoesnotgrowthatway”(Ex.2,225;emphasisadded).Heobservesthatthe“ancients”calledit“sanctification”and“thecommonpeoplecalledit‘consecration’”(Ex.2,225).Henotes,further,that“Paul,fol-lowingthedescriptionofMark,callsit‘blessing’whenhesays:‘Thecupofblessingwhichwebless’(1Cor.10:16)”(Ex.2,225).ThislatterobservationofChemnitzisextremelyimportantforunderstandingtheLord’sSupperinthetheologyofChemnitz,forheunderstandsthistomeanthenecessityofthe“veryrepetitionoftheWordsofIn-stitutionoftheSupper”(LS104).InanalyzingMark’saccountoftheinstitutionoftheSupper,Chemnitznotesthatwhere“Matthewhasthewords‘Afterhehadgiventhanks’(eucharisteesas), Markusestheterm’Afterhehadblessed’(eulogeesas), anexpressionwhichfoundsuch favor with Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 that he followed Mark at thispoint.Hewastryingtoindicatethatthiswasnotthekindofthanks-giving(eucharistia) thatpeoplegivewhentheyareblessingordinaryfood, as in 1Tim. 4:3, or as in Luke 22:17, where Christ Himself,whenhehadcompletedtheobservanceofthePassover,tookthecupand gave thanks” (LS 104). This excludes the possibility of under-standingChemnitz’sdoctrineoftheconsecrationasakindofprepa-ratoryprayerthatsetstheelementsapartandblessesthemforaholypurpose,assay,aBibleorabaptismalfontisdedicatedforholyuseinachurch.51



189 Also in the Lord’s Supper, one finds “blessing” for the consecra-tion,“Aftertheblessing Paul,justashehadreceiveditfromtheLord,stillmentionsthebreadandsaysofthatbreadthatitisthebodyofChrist”(LS50;emphasisadded).Stillanothertermforconsecrationwhichheemploystoshowthattheofficiantspeaksastherepresen-tativeofChristtoeffectthepresenceofthebodyandbloodintheSacramentis“receivingitsnamefromGod,”“Thisbreadherepres-ent,afterreceivingit’snamefromGod, isnotonlybreadbutatthesametimealsothebodyofChrist”(LS46;emphasisadded).Chem-nitznodoubthashereinmindoneofthefavoritequotationsfromIrenaeuswhichheoftenusesinwholeorinpartinexplicatingthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupper,“Justasthatwhichisbreadfromtheearthwhenitreceives the call of God isnolongercommonbreadbuttheEucharistconsistingoftwoparts,theearthlyandtheheavenly”(LS169;emphasisadded).Lutheruses thesamequotationagainstOecolampadius to demonstrate that Irenaeus is not “on their [i.e.,theSacramentarians]side”:

I should like to hear and see the man who could interpret thisquotation to the effect that nothing but bread and wine are in theSupper. There stands Irenaeus, saying that the bread is not ordinary,commonbread,inasmuchasithasbeennamedorcalledbyGod,but“Eucharist,”astheancientsspokeoftheSacrament.Butwhatcanthis“naming”be,withwhichGodnamesthebread?ItcanbenothingelsethantheWordwhichHespeaks,“Thisismybody.”There,indeed,Henames it andgives it anewnamewhich itdidnothavebeforewhenitwasordinarybread;andHesays,“Let thisbreadafter thisnamingorword,consistof twothings, theoneearthly—i.e.,bread,which isproducedfromtheearth,asIrenaeussayshere—theotherheavenly,”whichmustcertainlybeChrist’sbodywhichisinheaven.WhatothersortofheavenlythingcanbeintheSacramentalongwiththeearthlything,whichbyGod’snamingorWordispresent?(LW37,116).

190 Itisalreadyquiteevidentfromtheforegoingthattheconsecrationis the repetition of the words of Christ over the elements. Chem-nitzisawarethattheTridentinetheologiansspokeinquitegeneraltermswithrespecttotheconsecration.Theymerelysaid“thatafterthebreadandthewinehadbeenconsecrated,ourLordJesusChrist,trueGodandMan,istruly,really,andsubstantiallycontainedundertheoutwardappearanceof these thingswhichcanbeperceivedbythesenses”(Chap.I,ThirdSection,Oct.11,1551;Ex.2,221).Chem-nitz knows that many Catholics at that time begged the “fathers

of the Council that, in view of such varied disputes and opinions,theyshouldprescribeafixedformofconsecration”(Ex.2,224).ButChemnitzalsoknowsthattheydid“notexplainwhatandwhatkinditis”becausetheCatholicscouldnotagreeamongthemselveswhatits essence was. Some thought it consisted in the soft murmuringofthefourwords,“Thisismybody,“overthebread”sothatneitherthethingswhichprecedeintheinstitutionnorthosewhichfolloweitherbelongtoorarenecessaryfortheconsecration.”Somethoughtthat the consecration came about through both the Words of In-stitutionand thewordsof theCanon.Someof thePapalistswerewriting“publiclythatthosechurcheswhichusedtheWordsofInsti-tutionofChristintheSupperwithoutaddingthepapisticalCanondo not have the true body and blood of Christ, as Undanus says,onlyabread-sacrament”(Ex.2,224f.).Chemnitz,however,iscertainwhatthewordofblessingiswhichcomingtothebreadandthewinemakesitthesacramentofthebodyandbloodofChrist,“Surelythisisbeyondcontroversy,thateachsacramenthassomecertainwordofGodthatbelongsproperlyandspecificallytoit,soalsotheEucharisthas a certain specific word which belongs to it, namely, the divineinstitution” (Ex. 2, 225f.). The church had always recognized thisfromthebeginning,asChemnitzpointsout, “Theancientchurch,thoughitusedalsootherexhortationsandprayersintheadministra-tionoftheEucharist,neverthelesssimplyandcorrectlyjudgedthattheblessingorconsecrationoftheEucharistisperformedwiththespeechofChrist,thatis,withtheWordsofInstitution”(Ex.2,226).InanalyzingtheTridentineargumentsfortheSacrificeoftheMass,Chemnitz strikes a telling blow against this perversion of the sac-ramentbydemonstratingthateventhepapalistwritersthemselvesmustacknowledgethattheverysubstanceofthepapalistMass“didnotexistatthetimeoftheApostles,fortheysaythattheApostlesconsecrated simply with the words of the Lord, towhichtheyaddedonlytheLord’sPrayer”(Ex.2,480;emphasisadded).

191 ThebasisfortherecitationoftheWordsofInstitutionisforChem-nitzthecommandofChristhimself,“Inshort,Christhascommand-edustodointheactionoftheSacramentwhatHehimselfdid.Hedid not, however, perform a mute action but spoke. And what hesaidisreportedtousinScripture,asmuchastheHolySpiritjudgedtobenecessaryforus”(Ex.2,226).Hefindsthewordofcommand



in 1 Cor. 11:23–25, “Paul when he made mention of the blessing intheEucharist(1Cor.10:16),soonafterwardintheeleventhchapter(1Cor.11:23–25),whenheisabouttoshowhowonemaycelebratenotacommonorprivatebuttheLord’sSupper,recitesanddescribesthewholeinstitutionoftheSupper”(Ex.2,246).

192 TheVerbaarethepowerful,creativewordsofChristwhichachievethepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheSacrament.Inalegitimateobservanceofthissacramenttheyaremorethanamerere-portofwhatChristdidintheUpperRoom,“TheWordsofInstitutionarespokeninourLord’sSupper,notmerelyforthesakeofhistory,buttoshowtothechurchthatChristhimself,throughHisWord,accord-ingtoHiscommand andpromise ispresentintheaction oftheSupperandbythepowerofthisWordoffersthebodyandbloodtothosewhoeat.ForitisHewhodistributes,thoughitbethroughtheminister;itisHewhosays;‘Thisismybody.’ItisHewhoisefficaciousthroughHis Word, so that the bread is His body and the wine His blood”(Ex.2,229).InthisimmediatecontextChemnitz,byquotingapprov-inglythestatementofanearlychurchfather,Dionysius,thatChrist’swordsasgiveninLuke22:19and1Cor.11:24,25,provethatChristgavetheconsecrationtothechurchsothatitcanbecertainthatithasthesameSupperwhichChrist institutedonthenight inwhichHewasbetrayed.ThusDionysius,“ashebegantheadministrationoftheEu-charist,bywayofprerogative,prefaceditwiththesewords:‘Youhavesaid,Dothisinremembranceofme’”(Ex.2,230).52

193 ChemnitzisherecloselyfollowingLutherintheGreat Confession (1528)andthePrivate Mass (1533).TherecordofwhatChristdidandspokeinthefirstInstitutionconsistsindeedofaction-words(Thettel-wort), butwithChrist’s“Thisdo,”“theyarepurelyandsimplycom-mand-words(Heisselwort), becausetheyareembracedandembodiedincommandwords”(LW37,182).WearetorecitetheWordsofIn-stitution (the consecration) at the command of God which effectsthepresenceofthebodyandbloodintheSacramentthataretobedistributed and received. But Luther says, “Of course, it does notreside in our speaking but in God’s command, who connects Hiscommandwithourspeaking”(LW37,184).Lutherelaboratesbysay-ing,“ItiscertainlytruethatChristnowheredeliveredthesewordstousletterbyletter,‘Youshallmakemybodyoutofthebread.’WhyshouldHeneedto?ButwhenHesaid ‘Dothis,’byHisowncom-

mandandbiddingHedirectsustospeakthesewordsinHispersonandname:‘Thisismybody’”(LW37,187).InthePrivate Mass Lutherisquiteexpliciton1Cor.11:22f.,“ForChristcommanded(asSt.Paulsaysin1Cor.11)[:22ff.]thatwhenwemeettogetherandspeakHiswordswithreferencetobreadandwine,thenitistobeHisbodyandblood”(LW38,199).

194 Thisexegesisof1Cor.11:23,24andLuke22:19,hasbecomeaninte-gralpartoftheFormulaofConcord,notonlythroughquotationsandparaphrasesfromLuther(SDVII,77–78)butalsobyexpresswords,“Butatthesametimewebelieve,teach,andconfesswithoneaccordthatinthecelebrationoftheHolySupperthewordsofChrist’sin-stitutionshouldundernocircumstancesbeomitted,butshouldbespokenpublicly,asitiswritten,‘Thecupofblessingwhichwebless’(1Cor.10:16;11:23–25).ThisblessingoccursthroughtherecitationofwordsofChrist’” (Ep. VII, 9).TheSolidDeclarationsaysthat“intheadministrationofcommunionthewordsofinstitutionaretobespo-kenorsungdistinctlyandclearlybeforethecongregationandundernocircumstancestobeomitted.TherebywerenderobediencetothecommandofChrist‘Thisdo’”(SDVII,79).

195 DogmaticallyitisabasicpointinthetheologyofChemnitz thatthere have been given to the church commands which express thewillofGodandarethereforebindinguponthechurch.Inarguingforcommunionunderbothkinds,Chemnitzassertsthatthereasonfor it “is takenfromthecommandofChrist.Fornotonlyhas theinstitutionoftheLord’sSupperbeenhandeddownasadogmabutthereareusedinitanumberofwordswhichexpresslysignifyapre-ceptandacommandofChrist”(Ex.2,341).Evenmorespecificallywithregardtotherecitationofthewordsofinstitution,Chemnitzdeclares,“ThereforethewordsofinstitutionarespokenintheLord’sSuppernotmerelyforthesakeofhistory,buttoshowto the church thatChristhimself throughHisWordaccordingtoHiscommand and promise ispresentintheactionoftheSupperandbythepowerofthiswordoffersHisbodyandbloodtothosewhoeat”(Ex.2,229;emphasisadded).Furthermore,heestablishesitasagiventhatthismustbetaughttothewholechurch,learnedandunlearned:

There is no doubt that Christ willed both this ceremony and thisdogmabecorrectlyunderstood,notonlybytheeruditewhobyreasonof the gift of interpretation are able to penetrate into the depths of



obscurepointswhicharehiddeninScripture,butbythewholechurch,the greater part of which are those who need to be fed on the milkof the Word. Therefore He is undoubtedly speaking about this newdogma,notpreviouslyknown,sothat itcanbeunderstoodbyall; forHefullyrealizedthatattachedtoitistheguiltofjudgmentiftheproperdiscernmentdoesnottakeplace.(LS79).

196 ThecommandswhichtheLordhasgivenwithrespecttotheGos-pel and the sacraments canbe said tobegracious commands, sincethey are so closely connected with the preaching of the Gospel ofGod’sgraceandtheadministrationofthesacraments. Yettheyare commandsexpressingthewillofGod,andassuchtheChristianswillwant to follow all of them. Speaking of the sacraments in general,Chemnitzsetsdownthepremise:

When therefore the question is asked whether the administrationofthesacramentsoughttobemadewithoutanycertainandparticularexternal rites, theanswer is clearandobvious,For theverynameanddefinition of a sacrament embraces the presence of some visible andexternalelementtowhichtheWordmustcomeandincludesthis,thatthewholeaction isperformedandadministered inacertainwaywithaspecificdivinely-institutedceremony,HowthisoughttobedonehasbeenstatedintheScriptureandtracedbeforehandforthechurchinasureandclearWordofGod,namely,that those signs and wordsshouldbeusedwhichGodhimself institutedandprescribedatthe institutionofeachsacramentandthattheyshouldbeperformedandusedastheinstitutionordains and directs. Theseritesareessential and necessary intheadministrationofthesacraments,fortheycarryouttheinstitution.(Ex,2,109f.;emphasisadded).

197 Atvarioustimeseffortshavebeenmadetoalterthemeaningoftheconsecration. For example, it is sometimes said that the form usedbythechurchforthedistributionistheconsecratoryword,namely,“Takeeat:thisisthetruebodyofourLordandSaviorJesusChrist,givenintodeathforyoursins,”etc.ButthesearenotreallythewordsofChristininstitutingtheSupper.TheyareonlyapublicconfessiononthepartofthechurchoftheRealPresence.TheRomanChurchhadnotonlyarbitrarilychangedChrist’sinstitutingwordsbyomit-tingthedistributionofthecup,buthadalsoinsertedcertainthingsinto the institution itself, such as “with eyes raised to heaven,” and“themysteryoffaith,”etc.Besides,saysChemnitz,theydroppedfromthewordsofinstitution“givenforyou”(Ex.2,111).Theyjustifythesechanges in the position taken by Bonaventura that the “evangelistsandPaulmerelyrelatedthehistorybutthattheformoftheconsecra-

tionmustbetakenfromtheRomanChurchandthereforethewordsoftheCanonshouldbefollowedandusedratherthanthoseoftheEvangelistsorSt.Paul”(Ex.2,111).

198 ChemnitzstronglyprotestsagainstanyprocedurethatwouldchangewhattheLordhascommanded,“Theytrulystrainoutagnatandswal-lowacamel(Matt,23:24).Forthey‘leavethecommandmentofGodandholdfastthetraditionofmen’(Mark7:8).Indeed,forthesakeoftheir traditions theyarenotafraid to transgress thecommandmentofGod(Matt.15:3)”(Ex.2,111).ThepositionoftheLutheransisclear,“Butwhatthepositionofourchurchesiscaneasilybeshownfromthethingswehavenoteddown.For in theadministrationof the sacra-mentswedistinguishamongtheceremonies,andteachthatadistinc-tion must be made. For there are first of all certain rites which arecommandedintheinstitutionandthusarenecessaryandessentialintheadministrationofthesacraments.Weaffirmthatinthesethingsnothingistobeomitted,changed,orabrogated”(Ex.2,116).

199 On Eucharistic prayers that incorporate Christ’s Word into theprayerandareusedasanalternativetotheVerba,Chemnitzassertsthat “he acts wickedly who takes away the consecration of the Eu-charist from the words of divine institution and transfers it to theprayersoftheCanonwhichhavebeenpatchedtogetherbymenoutofunsoundandsound,orrather,mostlyoutofunsoundmaterials”(Ex.2,226).Inshort,Chemnitzfeelsthathehasshown“twothings,”“ThattheEucharistissanctifiedorconsecrated,notbytheprayerofman,butbythewordof institution;andthat the institution isnottobemutilatedbutistobeusedinitsentiretyfortheblessingoftheEucharistandforitsadministration”(Ex.2,228).

200 QuitenaturallythequestionarisesastowhyChemnitzputssuchgreatemphasisonthemandatum dei withregardtotheLord’sSup-per.ItisimportantforChemnitzbecauseGodhimselfispresentandactivethroughtheWordandtheelementstowhichtheWordcomes.ThedoctrineofthesacramentsisgroundedinEph.5:26(Ex.2,244).Further,thechurchisthecreationofGodtheHolySpiritthroughthe Word and sacrament, and its only function is to provide theseMeansofGracetomensothattheymightbeaddedtothechurchandkept intheonetrue faith.Moreprecisely, justas theLordhascommittedthepreachingoftheGospeltothechurchsoalsoHehasgiven the consecration to the churchwith His command, “Thisdo



inremembranceofme”(Ex.2,110).Theaccounts inLukeandPaulmakeitclearthatthisisauniversalcommandtothechurchandnot“apersonalonepertainingonlytotheApostlesatthattime,asthecommandtoPeterbywhichhewasordered towalkon thewaves”(LS107).53Chemnitzconcludesthatitisauniversalcommandtothechurchbecause“Paulexplainsthesewords[“Thisdoinremembranceofme”]thus:‘AsoftenasyoueatthisbreadyoushowforththeLord’sdeathtillHecomes,’1Cor.11:26”(LS108).

201 Chemnitz’sopponent,Andrada,arguedthatitisnotnecessarytogivethecuptothelaitybecauseChristwasaddressingonlythetwelveapostlesatthetable,whenHesaid,“Drinkofitallofyou.”Thisisso,Andradareasoned,because“itstilldoesnotfollowthatallbelieversinChristareincludedunderthissignofuniversalityandareobligatedbythisprecept”(Ex.2,402).Chemnitzrebutswiththisanswer:

ButIaskwhetherChristwantedwhatHeorderedatthattimetobedoneonceonly,namely,atthefirstSupper,ThisAndradawilldeny,ForChristaddsthecommand:“Dothis”;thatis,whathadbeendoneatthefirstSuppershouldbedoneafterwardorinfutureuntiltheendoftheworld(asPaulexplains).IfthiscommandhadnotbeenhandeddownbyChrist,nomanwouldhavedaredoroughttohaveimitatedwhatwasdoneatthefirstSupper.(Ex,2,403).

202 To be sure, the power to effect the miracle of the Real Presencedoesnotresideintheofficiant.Speakingofthesacramentsingeneral,Chemnitz posits the general principle, “Scripture certainly teachesthat inorder that theadministrationof the sacramentsmaybeac-cordingtothedivineinstitution,ithasbeencommittedtoministersas the instrumental cause; but the power and the working whichmakesthesacramenttrueandefficaciousistheactionandthegiftofGodalone,fortheFathersavesthroughthewashingofregeneration(Titus3:5)”(Ex.2,105).And,further,Chemnitzisincompleteagree-mentwithastatementofAugustine,“FortheministryChristgavetoHisservants,butthepowerheretainedforhimself ”(Ex.2,107).HealsoagreeswithChrysostomwhosays,“WhenyouseethehandofthepriestholdingouttousthebodyoftheLord,wemustrememberthatitisnotthehandoftheprieststretchingtousbutthehandofChristwhosays,‘Takeandeat;thisismybody’”(LS159).

203 AllthistheLutheranshadalreadyconfessedintheApologytotheAugsburg Confession. Our speaking and doing do not create any-

thingintheGospelorthesacrament,buttheWordsofInstitution,whicharespokenthroughmen,arewordsofpowerbecauseChristhimselfspeaksthroughHisservants,“MinistersactinChrist’ssteadanddonotrepresenttheirownpersonsaccordingtotheword(Luke10:16)‘Hewhohearsyouhearsme’”(Ap.VII,47;seealsoAp.VII,28;XII,40;XXVIII,18).

204 TheonlygroundonwhichwecanknowthatwearereceivingthegiftofChrist’sbodyandbloodgivenandshedforusfortheforgive-nessofsinsistheconsecrationdoneonlywiththewordsoftheLord.That is theepistemologicalbasis for thecertainty thatwehave thesameSuppertheLordinstitutedintheUpperRoom.Thissacramentstands or falls with the consecration. Chemnitz spells this out soclearlythathismeaningcannotbemisunderstood:

ThereforethewordsofinstitutionarespokeninourLord’sSupper,notmerelyforthesakeofhistorybuttoshowtothechurchthatChristhimself,throughHisWord,accordingtoHiscommandandpromise,ispresentintheactionoftheSupperandbythepowerofthiswordoffersHis body and blood to those who eat, For it is He who distributes,thoughitbethroughtheminister;itisHewhosays:“Thisismybody,”ItisHewhoisefficaciousthroughHisWord,sothatthebreadisHisbodyandthewineHisblood,Inthisway,andbecauseofthis,wearesureandbelievethat intheLord’sSupperweeat,notordinarybreadandwine,butthebodyandbloodofChrist.(Ex,2,229).

205 TheprinciplethatministersactinChrist’ssteadasHisambassa-dors here enunciated is so fundamental to the theology of the Lu-theranConfessionsthatChemnitz inhisdialoguewiththePapistsonPenancewantstomakeitclearthathistheologyinnowayholdstoaconditionalabsolutionsothatnothingisofferedandimpartedinabsolutionbutonlycallsattentiontosomethingtheyalreadyhad.Hedisavowssuchaviewpoint:

For among the Sacramentarians some contend that sins are notremitted throughabsolution, sincemenarenotable to remit sins—athingwhichbelongsonlytoGod,Thereforetheycontendthatbelieversreceivenothinginabsolution,butthatitisonlyanoutwarddeclarationofsomethingtheyalreadyhadbefore,However,God,whoaloneremitssins,doesnotdo thiswithoutmeansbut through theministryof theWordand sacraments.Nowprivateabsolutionproclaims themessageof the Gospel through which God is without doubt efficacious andremitssinstothosewhobyfaithlayholdofthemessageoftheGospelinabsolution.ThereforeinabsolutionGodhimselfremitssinsthrough



theministryoftheGospelto individualbelievers,and inthiswaytheabsolution of the minister is a testimony of divine absolution, fromwhichtheconsciencehasthetestimonythatone’ssinsaretrulyforgivenhimbyGod.(Ex.2,623),

Similarly, the consecration in the precisely defined “action” of theLord’sSupperisnotcontingentontheworthinessoftheofficiantorthefaithoftheonewhoreceivesthesacramentnoronthedistribution,asthoughthesepartsoftheactioncompletetheconsecration,whichisconditionaluntilthedistributionandreceptionhavebeenaccom-plished.Chemnitzwritesthat“whatisnotconsecrated,thoughitbebreadandcup,isfoodforrefreshment,notareligioussacrament”(Ex.2,225).Butatthesametimeheisunequivocalaboutthefactthat“afterreceivingitsnamefromGod,[it]isnotonlybreadbutatthesametimealso the body of Christ” (LS 46). Chemnitz makes this fact doublysurewhenhewrites,“Themeaningisnotthattheblessedbreadwhichisdivided,whichisoffered,andwhichtheApostlesreceivedfromthehandofChristwasnotthebodyofChristbutbecomesthebodyofChristwhentheeatingofitisbegun”(Ex.2,248).54

206 AfurtherconsequenceoftheBiblicalprinciplethatabsolutionandthe consecration are the efficacious Word of Christ spoken at HiscommandandconnectedwithHispromise,isthat“therecitationofthese words [of institution] is not to be used in the way magiciansrecitetheirincantationsinsetformulas,forinstancetobringdownJupiterEliciusorthemoonfromheaven,namely,bythestrengthandpowerofthelettersandsyllablesiftheyarerecitedandpronouncedinacertainway”(Ex.2,228f.).Chemnitzcarefullyexplainsthathereisnotacaseof“magic,”asthoughmanisattemptingtocompeltheDeitytodosomething.Rather,itis asPaulasserts,thatinthepreachingoftheGospelChristhimselfspeaks

throughthemouthoftheministers(Rom,15:18–19;IICor.13:3)andthatGodis“makingHisappealthroughus”(IICor.5:20).SointheactionoftheEucharisttheministeractsasanambassadorintheplaceofChristwho is himself there present, and through the ministers pronouncesthese words:“This is my body; this do,” etc., and for this reason HisWordisefficacious.Thereforeitisnotaman,theminister,whobyhisconsecrationandblessingmakesbreadandwineintothebodyandbloodofChrist,butChristhimself,bymeansofHisWord,ispresentinthisactionandbymeansof theWordofHis institution,which is spokenthroughthemouthoftheminister,HebringsitaboutthatthebreadisHisbodyandthecupHisblood,clearlyinthesamemannerasitisHe

himselfwhobaptizes, though itbe throughtheminister,andthroughHisWordbringsitaboutthatthebaptismisawashingofregenerationandrenewal.Thereforeweusethewordsofinstitutionasanordinance,command,promise,andprerogativefromourMediatorJesusChrist,inorderthatwemayberemindedandmadesurewithrespecttowhatisdoneandbelievedintheLord’sSupper.(Ex,2,229),

207 Evenasearlyas1528MelanchthonprivatelyexpresseddoubtsthattheconsecrationeffectedthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChrist.HewritestoBalthasarThuringinJanuary1528thatOecolampadiushad been pressing him strongly with the questions as to whether itwaspossiblethatChristcouldbecalleddownfromheaven:Doesthisoccurthroughthemeritsandprayersofthepriestorthepeople,or,astheysay,bythepowerofthewords?MelanchthonanswersintheletterthathehimselfhasfinallycometotheopinionthatChristgivesusHisbodyandbloodnotthroughthemeritsandprayersofthepriestorthepeople,norbythepowerofthewords,forthat,asitissaid,ismagic.55

208 SubsequentlyitbecamethepositionofthePhilippiststhatthereci-tationoftheVerbadonoteffectthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristinthesacrament,butrather,theyaremerelyageneralproc-lamationoftheGospel.In1563ErhardSperberrecordsanincidentwhereaPhilippistinsiststhatitis“magic”toteachthatthroughtheWordsofInstitutionwhichtheofficiantspeaksthebreadandwineareconsecratedtobethetruebodyandbloodofChrist,andthattheWordsofInstitutionarenotapartoraqualityofthesacramentbutonly public proclamation to the people concerning the use and thefruitofthesacrament.56

209 TheansweroftheGnesio-LutherantothisdoctrinalstanceofthePhilippistispreciselythatwhichChemnitzasserts(seep.79),namely,thatitisnotmagia becausewhatisdoneisdoneatthecommandandthroughthewordofGod,andwhattakesplaceispreciselywhatGodsays,becauseitisapowerfulword.ItwouldbedifferentifevilpeoplesaidsomethingwithoutthecommandofGod.Thatmightbetermedthedevil’smagic.Butthere isnosimilarityofsuchactivitiestotheinstitutionoftheLord’sSupper.57

210 ItshouldalsobenotedthattheanswerwhichtheGnesio-Luther-an gave to the Philippist is identical with Luther’s answer to thefanatics.Theconsecrationwasnotsuperstitionor“magic.”Luthersays:



Nowbecause the fanaticsdonot see this [that through theWordChrist binds His body and blood so that they are also receivedcorporeally in the bread and the wine], they come with their man-madeopiniontotheeffectthatGodistherebyperformingsomekindofhocus-pocus,Well,letthemjustgoonmakingfoolsofthemselves;youclingtothethoughtthatChrist,asIhavesaid,doesallthesethingsthrough theWord, just as the wonders which He daily performs arecountless. Should He not through the same power know how to dothese thingsalsohere in the sacrament?Hehasputhimself into theWord,andthroughtheWordHeputshimselfintothebreadalso.(LW36,343).58

211 TherecanbenodoubtthattheVerbaaretheGospelandassuchthechurchistoproclaimtheirmessage.TheFormulaofConcordrec-ognizesthis(SDVII,79–82),whenitsaysthattheWordsofInstitu-tionarenottobeomittedforseveralimportantreasons.Theyaretobespokenorchantedclearlybeforethecongregation(coram ecclesia). Threereasonsareadduced:

1. In the recitation of the words we are obedient to the command ofChrist’s“Thisdo”(SDVII,80),59

2. Throughtheclearspeakingofthewordsthefaithofthehearers[notonlythecommunicants]isstrengthenedintheessenceandthebenefitofthesacrament(SDVII,81).There istheaspectofspiritualeating,thatis,faith(SDVII,61).

3. Therecitationof theVerbamustalsotakeplacesothat throughthisspeaking(damit)theelementsofbreadandwineareconsecratedtothisholyuse,ThearticlehereappealstothedoctrineofPaulin1Cor.10:16,“Thecupofblessingwhichwebless,”ThishappenspreciselythroughtherepetitionandtherecitationoftheVerba.

212 Itisevidentthatthefirstandthirdreasonsareherethedecisiveones.ThesecondonewhichcallsfortheloudspeakingoftheVerbasothatallthosepresentandnotmerelythecommunicantscanhearthem,isofapastoralnature,namely,sothatallwillhearandcontemplatetheGospel truth that God forgives sins and strengthens faith throughtheMeansofGrace.ItisclearthatthefirstreasongivesthebasisfortherecitationoftheWordsofInstitution,namely,thecommandofChrist;while the third reason sets forth the fundamental fact thatbecause of this mandatum Christ is still active through the spokenwordsoftheofficianttoachievethepresenceofHisbodyandbloodsothat iswhatisdistributedtothecommunicants.IntheEpitome(Ep.VII,9)onlythethirdreasonisgiven,namely,thatthebreadandthecupareblessedonlythroughtherecitationofthewordsofChrist

sothatthecommunicantseatanddrinkthebodyandbloodofChristfortheforgivenessofsins.ThisisalsothepositionofChemnitz(seep.72,74ff.,esp.76).

213 ItmaybehelpfulheretosummarizewhatChemnitzteacheswithrespect to theconsecration.Hisdoctrine is thatbreadandwine intheprescribed“use”ofthesacramentareaftertheconsecrationthebodyandbloodofChrist.Thismustbetrue,fortheSaviorhimselfsays that it isHis truebodyandblood.Thechurchtodayhas thatassurancebecauseChrist“bythisrepetitiontoPaul[1Cor,11:23–25]wantedtoexplainwhatevermightseemtohavebeenstatedtoobrief-ly,obscurely,orambiguouslyinthewordsHehadusedintheUpperRoom”(LS107).ChemnitzgrantsthatfromthewordsofMatthewandMark“onemightnotbeabletodetermineclearlyandwithcer-taintywhetherthiscommandconcerningtheLord’sSupperwasonlya personal one pertaining only to the Apostles at that time, as thecommandtoPeterbywhichhewasorderedtowalkonthewaves.”Chemnitzconcludes,however,thatit“wasauniversalcommandper-tainingtothewholechurchandtothewholeperiodoftheNewTes-tament,“because”ChristinthisrepetitiontoPauladdsthesewords:‘Thisdoinremembranceofme’”(LS107f,),

214 Chemnitz,aftercarefullyexamining“thetestimonyoftwowitness-es,PaulandLuke,”declares that ifone “departs fromtheserepeti-tionsandseeksanotherpointofview,[he]issurelybothungratefulandcontemptuousinthefaceofsuchexactingcareandfatherlycon-cernonthepartoftheonly-begottenSonofGod,ourTeacher,whoalonecanopentheclosedbookandreadit[Rev.5:5]”(LS107).ForChemnitztheunderstandingof1Cor.11:23–25andLuke22:19isnotamereprivateopiniononwhichonecoulddiffer.SpeakingofPaul’stestimonyin1Corinthians,heconfessesthat“thereisnodoubtthatinthisrepetitionafterHisascensionHeisgivingusthesure,genu-ine, and proper meaning of those words which are now called intosuchsharpcontroversy”(LS108).

215 That even among the Lutherans after Luther’s death there wascontroversyabout the significanceof the consecrationas effectingtheRealPresence,isevidentfromtheFormula.Itadmitsthattherehad“arisenamisunderstandinganddissensionamongtheteachersof the Augsburg Confession concerning the consecration and thecommonrulethatthereisnosacramentapartfromtheinstituted



use” (SDVII,73).Thepoints thatChemnitzand theGnesio-Lu-theranshadbeenmakingoveragainstthePhilippistsareallincor-poratedintotheFormula.Withspecificreferencetotheinterpreta-tionof 1Cor. 11:23–25andLuke22:19asamandatum dei given tothewholechurchintheNewTestamentera,theSolidDeclarationconfessesthatChrist“wants”thesewords“toberepeated”(SDVII,75b), and that theyareundernocircumstances tobeomittedbe-causebyrepeatingthem“werenderobediencetothecommandofChrist,‘Thisdo’”(SDVII,79,80).

216 Chemnitz’s doctrine that the consecration has been given to thechurchsothattheminister,notonhisownauthoritybutontheau-thorityofChrist,effectstheRealPresencethroughtherepetitionofChrist’swordsovertheelements,isconfessedintheFormulathroughthequotationsfromChrysostomandLuther(SDVII,76–78).

217 Chemnitz was certainly correct in stating inThe Lord’s Supper thatmanyweredisputingthe“pure,genuine,andpropermeaning”ofLuke22:19and1Cor.11:23–25(LS108).WhentheFormulaofConcordappeareditwassoseverelyandpubliclyattackedthattheElectorcommissionedChemnitz,SelneccerandKirchnertowriteindefenseofthedocument.ThisistheApologia writtenin1583andpublishedwiththeElector’sblessingin1584.Asthefirst,andasanofficial commentary which explains the meaning of the Formula,itsimportancecannotbeoverestimatedforabetterunderstandingofwhattheauthorshadinmind.InasystematicmannertheApo-logia takesuptheobjectionsmadetothedoctrineconfessedintheFormula.

218 SincetheApologia isnotreadilyaccessible,thepertinentpassageswillbequotedwithsomecompleteness:60

15th—They [i.e., the critics of the Formula] want to make theChristianConcordiaBookasabsolutelypapistbecauseitteachesthatthe elements, bread and wine, must be blessed by means of Christ’swords,asSt.Paulwritesin1Cor.10.Theyscreamthatwearebecomingregular papists because there is no difference between the papistconsecrationandthatofourchurch,

Theymight,however,havesparedthemselvessuchanoutcrybecausetheChristianConcordiadealswiththeconsecrationinadifferentway,TheyshouldhavebeendeeplyashamedtostartdefamingtheChristianConcordiabyattributingtoitpapisterror.Butwhatwillnotcalumnydo?Itisthedevil’sveryownartificeforwhichhehasearnedthenameSlanderer.

Asfarasthesituationisconcerned,itisbasedentirelyonthefact,astheConcordiatellsyouinunmistakablewords,thatitisnotthewordorworkofanymanbutalonethewordandordinationofChristtheLord,thatHisbodyandbloodarepresentanddistributedintheLord’sSupper.For thewordsofChristwereefficaciousnotonlyduring theoriginalinstitutionbutcontinuedtobeso;wherevertheLord’sSupperiscelebratedaccordingtoChrist’sinstitution,andHiswordsareused,HisbodyandbloodarepresentanddistributedonthestrengthandtheauthorityofthesamewordsthatHespokeattheoriginalinstitution.

ForwhereverapersonholdstoChrist’sinstitutionandspeaksHiswordsoverthebreadandthewineandthusblessesthebreadandwine,asPaulexpressesit,anddistributestheblessedbreadandcup,Christhimselfbyvirtueof theoriginal institution isefficacious throughthespokenword.

ButnowtheysaythatChristhasnowherepromisedthatwhenthewordsofinstitutionwererepeated,HewouldbepresentwithHisbodyanddistributeitinandwiththebread.

Wecounterwiththequestion:HasnotChristinstructedustodowhat He did in the original Lord’s Supper? Now then, He assuredlyspokethewords,andwemustbyallmeansdothesame.Fortheelementdoesnotbecomeasacramentum withouttheWord,AsAugustinesays,accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, WhentheWordcomestotheelement, itbecomesasacrament.TheConcordiaalsodoesnotsaythatChrist’sbodyandblood isbroughtaboutbythespeakingofthewordswhichemanatefromtheofficiantbutratherbecauseoftheoriginalinstitutionandwordofChristwhichistoberepeated,accordingtoChrist’scommand,asoftenastheLord’sSupperiscelebrated.

Paul,yousee,speaksoftheblessedcupwhichnotonlyChristblessedintheoriginalinstitution,butwhichwealsobless.WithwhichwordsshallweblessthecupsothatitmaybeaparticipationorcommunionofthebloodofChristifwedonotemployforthatpurposethewordswith which Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper: Eat; Drink; This ismybody;Thisismyblood?AddtothatthefactthatintheChristianConcordiathebeautifulquotationofChrysostomfromthesermonontheBetrayalofJudasiscitedwhichsettlesthewholecontroversy,ifonlyouradversarieshadearstohearandaheartthatcouldconcurwiththetruth.Thewordsareasfollows:“Christhimselfpreparesthistableandblessesit;thewordsarespokenbythemouthofthepriestbutbyGod’spowerandgracetheyareefficacious,”Isthisnottrue,orissuchteachingpapist,asouropponentsallege?IrenaeusexpresseshimselfinthesamewayinBook5:“WhenthemixedchaliceandthebreadreceivetheWordofGod,thereisaEucharistofthebloodandthebodyofChrist.”Andin Book 4, Chapter 34,“Just as that which is bread from the earth,when itreceivesthecallofGod, isno longercommonbread,buttheEucharistconsistingoftwoparts,etc.”ButperhapsouropponentsalsowanttomakeIrenaeustobeapapist,ortheywillintheendarriveatthepointwhere theywillobserve theLord’sSupperentirelywithoutthe repetition of the words of Christ’s institution, thereby to avoid



eventheappearanceofbeingpapist....Concerningtheforegoingtheyallege that if the repetition of theWords of Institution brings aboutthe body of Christ in the Supper, then it must be a sacrament apartfromthecorrectuseasChristhasinstitutedit;andthis,theysay,simplyconstitutespapistidolatry,

Come, come now, Gentlemen! The Christian Concordia goes nofarther thanthecorrectuse institutedbyChrist,And itdoesnotsayanywhere either that it is to be placed in a pyx and locked up in theeucharistic tabernacle and, as previously stated, it speaks only aboutthe use instituted by Christ himself.To sum up, the doctrine of ouradversaries is tantamount to the Epicurean contempt for the wholeLord’sSupper,sinceitconsidersitasnothingbutpurebreadandwine.(ApFC157f.)

219 EverythingChemnitz,Selneccer,andKirchnerheresayinanswertotheSacramentarianobjectionstotheconsecrationisstatedintheFormula.Theopponents’problemwasthattheycouldnotacceptthedefinitivepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristinthoseelements(andonlythose)ofwhichChristhimselfsaysthattheyareHisbodyandblood.TheyalsodifferedwiththeauthorsoftheFormulaonthemeaningoftheVerba,andespeciallywithrespecttotheconsecrationasitisexpressedinLuke22:19and1Cor.11:24,25.Itisofextremesig-nificancethatindiscussingSDVII,73–90,theseformulatorsoftheFormulazeroinonSDVII,74–76,asmostpointedlyexpressingtheessenceoftheirconfession.Moreparticularly,theyquotethewordsofChrysostom(76a)asthat“whichsettlesthewholecontroversy.”TounderlinetheirdoctrinethattheconsecrationeffectstheRealPres-encetheyaddthetestimonyofIrenaeus.

220 One must become aware of the fact that many Lutheran theolo-gians,indiscussingthispartoftheFormula,omitthesewords(76a)or pass over them so lightly that their significance goes unnoticed.ThequestiononemustseriouslyconsideriswhetherbytheomissionofthispartoftheFormulaandthefailuretoaccepttheprecisedefini-tionof“action”and“use”(SDVII,85,86),onehasnotimposedontheFormulaadifferentpatternofthinking(aparadigm,ifyouwill)whichnullifiestheprecisemeaningwhichtheFormulaconveys.61Thisisapracticalandimportantquestionforthosewhoprofesstomakeaquia subscriptiontotheBookofConcord.OnecanunderstandthatamongmanyLutheranstodayareluctancetoacceptthefullimplicationsoftheFormula’sdoctrineherepostulatedisthefearthattheymightbecalled Papists, or more commonly, have “Romanizing tendencies.”

Thisisachargewhichpresent-dayconfessionalLutheranswillhavetobear,justastheauthorsoftheFormulahadto400yearsagowhentheyrestoredLuther’sdoctrine fromthedestructiveassaultsof thePhilippists.Theyshruggedoffthechargewith“Butwhatwillnotcal-umnydo?” IntheirdoctrinetheyknewfromtheWordofChristthatintheprescribedobservanceoftheLord’sSuppertheycouldfixwhentheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristbegins.SinceonlyChristcaneffectthemiracleoftheRealPresence,itwastherewhenChristsaid“Thisismybody,”etc.ThewordsarenotlesseffectiveonourlipsthantheywereonChrist’s,forHehassaidthathewhohearsyouhearsme.Theunconditionalcommandandpromiseoftheconse-crationistheonly basisforthecertaintythatwetodayhavethesameSupperwhichtheLordinstitutedandgaveasagifttoHischurch.Ifwecannotbecertainofthatwhentheelementsareconsecrated,wecertainlyare lesscertainof itwhenweeatanddrink theelements.Then,attheverybest,weareinapredicamentwhichLutherholdsuptoWolferinus,whodeniedthattheconsecrationeffectedthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChrist.Lutherwrote,“Finallytimeandmo-mentwillbethecausesofthesacramentsandmanyotherabsurditieswillfollow.”62MorespecificallytothepointofWolferinus’contentionthat since there isnodifferencebetweenconsecratedandunconse-cratedelementsandhencehecouldmixthem,Luthersaysthat“withthisargumentyouareabolishingthewholesacrament.”Lutheralsoaskshimthispointedquestion,“PerhapsyouwanttobeconsideredaZwinglian,andamItobelievethatyouareafflictedwiththeinsanityofZwingli,whenyouaresoproudlyandcontemptuouslyirritating,withthispeculiarandmagnificentwisdomofyours?”

221 Itwasnot,however,onlytheextremeSacramentariansconnectedwiththeNeustadtbookofobjectionstotheFormula thatrefusedtoaccept the doctrine of Luther and the Formula of the consecrationas the effective means by which the sacramental union is achieved.Moreseriousforsucceedinggenerationsof Lutheranswasitsrejec-tionby someLutheran theologianswho in the next century wereregardedasorthodox.OneofthefirsttorejectthedoctrineoftheFormula andyetretainsomerespectabilitywasAegidiusHunnius(1550–1603). In 1590, only six years after the Apology to the For-mulaappeared(seep.86f.),hepublishedabookonthesacramentsoftheOldandtheNewTestaments.63HerehepromulgatesaMel-



anchthonianpositionon theconsecration (seep.83f.)directly inconflictwiththeFormula,Luther,andChemnitz.Sincethisbookisnotreadilyavailable,weshallquoteatsomelengthfromhispositionontheconsecration.64

222 Hunnius has arranged his material in the form of questions andanswers.AfterdisposingoftheRomanCatholicviewthatthroughtheconsecrationatransubstantiationiseffected,Hunniusproceeds:

I leave aside transubstantiation. Concerning the sacramental union which is conceded by us I ask whether that does not take place in that very recitation of the words even before the bread is eaten?

First,Iwouldlikeyoutoknowthatit isnotbythepowerofthatrecitationwhichismadebytheminister,butbythepowerofChrist’sinstitution,towhichthemindsofthefaithfularecalledthroughthatrecitation,thatChristwillstobepresentwithHisbodyandblood.ForthisreasonitisestablishedthatnounionofthebreadandthebodyofChrist takesplaceduring the recitationof thewords,before theveryact of the bread being eaten, But just as the bread is the koinonia ofChrist’sbodyexclusivelyinthattheveryactofeatingandnotbefore,solikewisethebreadisunitedsacramentallytothebodyexclusivelywherethatkoinonia andtheactofeatingtakesplace;indeed,thesacramentalunionisnothingelsethanthatthebodyofChrist isnotwithoutthebreadnoristhebreadwithoutthebody,but,withthebreadcominginatthesametime,thebodyofChristiseatentogetherwithit,joinedtoitandwithoutseparation.

These things which we say can be illustrated by a hypotheticalcase. For if it should happen when the Words of Institution havebeen recitedby theministerand theconsecration, as theycall it,hasbeenmade, thatafire shouldbreakoutor someother tumultbeforeanyone had approached the Lord’s table, and thus in such a case thesacredactionwouldbeprevented,itisaskedwhetherbythepowerofthe recitation which has been completed there is in some secret waya union between the body of Christ and the bread, even outside theordaineduseofthebreadintheeating,whichhasbeenpreventedbytheunforeseencircumstance?Herecertainlyanyonewhoisnotstupidpreferstorespondinthenegativeratherthantheaffirmative.Fromthisajudgmentisreadilymadeastowhatoughttobeheldconcerningtheconsecration; obviously no magical power should be attributed to it,either towards transubstantiating thebread into thebodyor towardssacramentallyunitingthebreadtothebodyandthewinetotheblood.

Why is that recitation called a consecration if you deprive it of all power? And why does the Apostle call it a blessing, saying “the cup which we bless, etc,”?

Indeed,bynomeansdoIdepriveitofitspower,Forthatentirerecitationhasabearingonthesubsequentactionofeatinganddrinking.Throughtherecitationthebreadandthewinearesetapartfromthecommonmassoftheotherthingsofitskind,forthespecialsacreduse,throughwhichdistribution

theyserveahigherhonor, indeedthatof thebodyandbloodof theLord.Inaddition,bythewordofblessinginPaul’swords,orconsecration,asitiscommonlycalled,notonlythehistoricalrecitationoftheSupper’sinstitutionismeant;butalsoaprayerisunderstoodas joinedtoit,bywhichwepraytheLordthatHeprepareusforHimselfasworthyandacceptableguestsof thisholy feast, so thatwemaybemadeparticipantsofHisbodyandbloodinthemysteryoftheSuppertoourconsolationandthestrengtheningofourfaith.Thisisindeed,justasintheconsecrationofcommonbread,inwhichitissaidtobesanctifiedthroughtheWordofGodandprayer,itissanctifiedbytheprayerandallthethingsconnectedtoitsothatthatfood,whenitistakenandeatenbyus,maybeusefultousforthislife,nourishingandpreservingourtemporalwellbeing.SoalsothewordofblessinginPaul’swritings—1Cor.10,orthewordofconsecration,inthecommonwayofspeaking,reflectsthesameusagethat the body and blood of Christ which are taken at the same timetogetherwiththesigns,maybeforusintheuseofthissacramentfoodanddrinkwhichissalutaryforthenourishingofspirituallifeinus.

223 It ishardly necessary to show that theposition ofHunnius is atcompletevariancewiththedoctrinalpositionofLuther,Chemnitz,and the Book of Concord. He appears to rationalize the Words ofInstitutionintoasortofAristotelianformviathefourcausespara-digm:Material,formal,efficient,andfinal,quiteafterthefashionofthefamiliarillustrationofthestatue:themarbleblock=themate-rialcause;thesculpting=theefficientcause;theshapeofthestatue=theformalcause;andthefinalcause=thepurposeforwhichthestatueisintended.Henceitisnotreallyastatueuntilitisadmiredorworshiped.SimilarlyforHunnius,thebodyandbloodofChristarenotpresentuntiltheyareeatenanddrunk,sincethisisthepurposewhichisintended.RecentscholarshavedemonstratedthatAristotleneverintendedtosetupsucharigid,mechanicalformforexplainingphenomena.OnecannotfindinAristotle’sexpositionshisapplyingthefourcausestooneexample.Hegenerallyvariesthem,usingoneortwoofthecausesinoneanalysisandothersinadifferentarrangementasthematerialwhichheisexaminingmightsuggest.Hissystem,ithas been noted, went into a dogmatic degeneration in the MiddleAges. The scholars also generally agree that this four-fold analysismightworkfairlywellwithrespecttoman-madeobjects(statues,li-braries,etc.),buttheanalysisimpartsaspuriousequalitytothefourcauses.Asystemmayseemtobepertinentwhenappliedtoartifacts,butthescholarsagreethatitgoesawrywhenappliedeventonaturalobjects,“naturalteleology.”65



224 If thismechanicalsystemofanalysiswreakshavoc inthenaturalfield,whatdoesitdointhespiritual,wherethesupernaturalmeetsthenatural?ChemnitztakesthepositionthatAristotelianmodesofthoughtareunacceptable inspiritualmatters toexplainawayBibletextsthatseemtobecontrarytoreason(LS226;seep.22).HunniushasinactualitymadethewordsofChrist,“Thisismybody,”condi-tionalsinceheholdsthatthesewordscannotbetrueuntilthesumptio hastakenplace.ForhimtheobjectivepresencedoesnotdependonthebarewordoftheLord.ChemnitzconfessesthattheVerbaarespo-ken“toshowtothechurchthatChristHimselfthroughHisWordaccordingtoHiscommandandpromiseispresentintheactionoftheSupperandbythepowerofthisWordoffersthebodyandbloodtothosewhoeat.ForitisHewhodistributes,thoughitbethroughtheminister;itisHewhosays:‘Thisismybody.’ItisHewhoiseffica-ciousthroughHisWordsothatthebreadisHisbodyandthewineHisblood”(Ex,2,229;seep.75f.).

225 ChemnitzandLutherfullyagree,forLuthersaysintheGreat Con-fession thatthepowerthatcausesChrist’sbodytobeintheSupper“doesnot reside inour speakingbut inGod’s command,whocon-nectsHiscommandwithourspeaking”(LW37,184).RegardingthiscommandLuthersays,“ButwhenHesaid,‘Dothis,’byHisowncom-mandandbidding,HedirectedustospeakthesewordsinHispersonandname:‘Thisismybody’”(LW37,187).TheFormulaofConcordmadethesameconfessioninSDVII,73–90.Whatisnecessary,how-ever,istoreadthissectionasitstandsandnotimposeonthesewordsthe interpretationofHunniusand subsequent seventeenthcenturytheologians.ThequotationintroducedfromChrysostomissounmis-takablyclearthatitshouldhave“settledthewholecontroversy”(seep.86),“ChristHimselfpreparesthistableandblessesit.Nohumanbeing,butonlyChristHimselfwhowascrucifiedforus,canmakethebreadandthewinesetbeforeusthebodyandbloodofChrist.Thewordsarespokenbythemouthofthepriest,butbyGod’spowerandgracethroughthewordsHespeaks, ‘Thisismybody,’theelementssetbeforeusintheSupperareblessed”(SDVII,76a).

Lutheran and Papal consecration

226 Since the charge has continued to be raised that confessing thatthe consecration effects the presence of the body and blood in the

Sacrament isRomanizing(seep.86), it is importanttoobservethedistinctionChemnitzmakesbetween the “Lutheran”and “Roman”consecration.

227 Forabetterunderstandingofwhathereisincontroversy,itisfirstnecessary to outline the Lutheran doctrine of the ministry as ex-pounded by Chemnitz. In his Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, hegivesadetailedexpositionfromtheScriptureofwhattheNewTesta-mentministryis(MWS26–38).InhisbriefsummaryofthisdoctrineintheExamination, heinsiststhatthefunctionsofthisoffice“mustnotbeestablishedbyabad imitationof theceremoniesof theOldTestament,butmustbelearnedfromthedescriptionofChristandtheApostlesoftheNewTestament”(Ex.2,681).

228 Theministryofthechurchisnotapoliticalfunctiondealingwiththemattersoftheworld,butratheraspiritualorecclesiasticofficein-stitutedandordainedbyGodHimselffordischargingthenecessaryfunctionsofthechurch:“ThroughalegitimatecallGodcommitsandentruststoministerstheworkoffeedingtheChurchofGodwiththetrue,pure,andsalutarydoctrineofthedivineWord,toadministerthe sacraments according to Christ’s institution, and to administerrightlytheuseoftheKeysoftheChurchorthekingdomofheaven,byeitherremittingorretainingsins,fulfillingallthesethingsonthebasisoftheprescribedcommandwhichtheChiefShepherdHimselfhasgivenHisministersinHisWordforinstruction.”Nooneshouldbeadmittedtotheministryofthechurchwithout“priorappropriateandsolemnexamination”todeterminewhetherhe“rightlyholdsthefundamentalsofsalutarydoctrineandrejectsfanaticopinion;wheth-ertheyareendowedwiththegiftstoteachotherssounddoctrine;andwhethertheycanprovetheirlivestobehonorable”(MWS26f.).

229 Chemnitz,of course, is fullyaware thatallbelieversare spiritualpriests who offer spiritual sacrifices and have a general call to pro-claimtheGospelofGodandtospeaktheWordofGodamongthem-selves,admonishing,reproving,andcomfortingoneanother(MWS28f.).Butontheotherhand,Chemnitzisspecificindeclaringthat“thepublicministryoftheWordandSacramentsinthechurchisnotentrustedtoallChristiansingeneral...,foraspecialorparticularcallisrequiredforthis”(MWS29).

230 Further,onemustnotthinkthatthelegitimatecalloftheministerisdonebyhumanarrangementoronlyforthesakeoforder,

The Consecration | �0�

�0� | The Lord’s Supper

I. BecauseGodHimselfdealswithus in thechurchthroughtheordinarymeans and instruments For it is he Himself that speaks, exhorts, absolves, baptizes, etc. in the ministry, Luke 1:70; Heb. 1:1; John 1:23 (God cryingthroughtheBaptist);2Cor.2:10,17;5:20;13:3.Itisthereforeabsolutelynecessary that the minister as well as the church have sure proofthat God wants to use this very person for His ordinary means andinstrument,namely,theministry.

II. Very many and necessary gifts are required for the ministry, 2 Cor.2:16....

III. Thechiefthingoftheministry isthatGodwantstobepresent in itwithHisSpirit,graceandgiftsand to work effectively through it . . . .

IV. TheassuranceofadivinecallstirsupministersoftheWord,sothateachone,inhisstation,inthefearofGod,performshisfunctionswithgreaterdiligence,faith,andeagerness,withoutweariness....

V. Finally, on this basis the hearers are stirred up to true reverence andobediencetowardtheministry,namely,since they are taught from Word of God that God, present through these means, wants to deal with us in the church and work effectively among us. (MWS29f.;emphasisadded.)

231 Speakingmorepreciselyofthesacraments,Chemnitzisconcernedthat theseBiblical truthsbeset forthbecausetheytreat “ofagreatmatter-ofthecomfortwhichisnecessaryforconsciences”(Ex.2,105).Henceheunequivocallyassertsthat“Scripturecertainlyteachesthatin order that the administration of the sacraments may be accord-ing todivine institution, ithasbeencommittedtoministersas theinstrumentalcause,butthatthepowerandworkingwhichmakesthesacrament true andefficacious is theaction andgiftofGodalone”(Ex.2,105).HereChemnitzendsthesummaryofhispointbyquotinganAugustinianproverb,“TheministryChristgavetoHisservants,butthepowerHeretainedforHimself ”(Ex.2,107).

232 Andforthosewhodoubtthattheofficiant’sspeakingoftheWordsofInstitutioninalegitimatelyorderedservice,effectthepresenceofthe body of Christ, Chemnitz approvingly quotes Chrysostom onMatt. 26:26–28: “These are not works of human power which HeperformedatthattimeinthatSupper.Heworksalsonow;Hedoesit.Wehavetheorderofministers,butitisHewhoconsecratesthesethings; it isHewhotransmutes them”(Ex.2,248). In thiscontextChemnitzisrejectingtheviewpointthattheconsecratedelementsarenotthebodyandbloodofChristbutbecomethat“whentheeatingofitisbegun”(Ex.2,248;seep.81).

233 Against this background it is evident that there is a fundamentaldifferencebetweentheRomandoctrineofthepublicministryandthe

Lutheran.TheSacramentarianshadobjectedthattheLutherandoc-trineoftheconsecrationasenunciatedintheFormulaofConcordwaspapistic.ButinviewoftheforegoingexpositionoftheLutheranposi-tion,Chemnitz,Selneccer,andKirchnerarejustifiedinexclaimingintheApologia, “Come,comenow,gentlemen.TheChristianConcordiagoesnofartherthanthecorrectuseinstitutedbyChrist”(seep.86).

234 The difference between the Roman and Lutheran positions im-mediatelybecomesclearwhenoneconsidersChemnitz’sanalysisoftheTridentinestatementsconcerningHolyOrdersat the23rdses-sion (July 15, 1563). After stating positively that there was “given totheApostlesandtheirsuccessorsinthepriesthoodforconsecrating,offering, and administering the body and blood, also for remittingandretainingsins,”TrentinCanon1declaresthat“ifanyonesaysthatthereisnotintheNewTestamentavisibleandexternalpriesthood,orthereisnopowerofconsecrating[non esse potestatem aliquam conse-crandi] andofferingthebodyandbloodoftheLord,andofremittingandretainingsins,butonlyanofficeandbareministryofpreachingtheGospel,orthatthosewhodonotpreacharenotpriestsatall,lethimbeanathema”(Ex.2,677).

235 TothisChemnitzanswersthatthe“AnabaptistsandEnthusiastsarerightlyreproved”whoregardtheexternalministryoftheWordas useless and unnecessary (Ex. 2, 677). But this is not to say thatGoddidnotinstitutetheofficeofthePublicMinistry;rather“GodarrangedbyacertaincounselofHisthatHewillstodispensethesethings...through the outward ministry of the Word. This minis-tryHedidnotcommittoangels,sothattheirappearancesaretobesoughtandexpected,butHeputtheWordofreconciliationintomen,andHewillsthattheproclamationoftheGospel,divinelyrevealed,shouldsoundforththroughthem”(Ex.2,678).

236 Chemnitz then puts together his chief objection to Trent in onebriefparagraphso thathere thedifferencebetween the “Lutheran”and“Roman”consecrationcanbeeasilydiscerned:

Butthereisnoobscurityaboutwhattheywantandseek,ForinthisfirstCanontheysayexpresslythatbythatpriesthoodforwhichtheyarecontendingtheydonotunderstandtheofficeandministryofpreachingtheGospel,butdeclareinthefirstchapterthattheyarefightinginbehalfofthesacrificeoftheMass,abouttheirexternalandvisiblepriesthood,whichtheydefineasbeingchieflythepowerofsacrificingChristintheMass.Andtheythinkthatsuchapriesthoodisnecessaryinorderthatthe



churchmayhavemediatorswhocanpleadtheircausebeforeChrist,thesupremeJudge,andbythisactofsacrificeplacatethewrathoftheFatherandobtainforthechurchpropitiationandothergifts,bothsuchasarespiritualandnecessaryforsalvationandalsobodilygiftsthatpertaintothislife,yes,theliberationofsoulsfrompurgatory,(Ex.2,679),

237 TheRomanchurchholdsthat“throughsacredordination(whichisperformedthroughwordsandoutwardsigns)graceisconferred”(Session 23, Chapter III; Ex. 2, 691). This gives the priest and himalone the power of consecrating (potestas consecrandi) and offeringthebodyandbloodoftheLord,andofremittingandretainingsins(Session23,ChapterI;Ex.2,677).It is,asChemnitzobserves,“Totheseexternalsignsandritesabout which there isneither a command nor promise, theytiethegraceofGodinsuchawaythattheyimaginethatanyonetowhomnotalltheritesofpapalistordinationhavebeenappliedhavenotthegracenecessarytoforgivesins,nortoconsecratethesacramentofthebodyandbloodofChrist”(Ex.2,696;empha-sisadded).Thisobviouslymakestheconsecrationandtheabsolutionpartly the work of God and of man (the ordained priest). There iscooperationherebetweenmanandGod,withtheresultthatthecon-secrationandtheabsolutionareanintegralpartofthewholeRomansynergistic system. The consecratory power does not lie in Christ’swordsthemselvesbutratherinthepowergiventothepriestathisor-dination.Chemnitziswellawareofthis,forhewrites,“ThePapalistsascribetheconsecrationorhallowinginpartalsototheworkofthepriest,indeednotonlytotheoutwardrecitationofthewordsbutalsotootheractionsof thepriests, as thespreading, folding, liftingup,andgesticulationsofthehands,thebendingoftheneck,theturningofthebody,etc.”(Ex.2,231).

238 Itshouldfurtherbenotedthattheconsecrationisatthesametimethe sacrificeof theMass, and this,Chemnitzdeclares, “isnotonlyfabricatedbut injurioustoandblasphemousagainstChrist” (Ex.2,679).ThisdestroystheSacramentoftheAltarasGod’sfreegiftoftheforgivenessofsinscertifiedbytheverypurchasepricewhichwonthisforman,namely,Christ’sbodyandblood.

239 From this papistic perversion there follows “two not unimportantpillarsofthePapalistkingdom,namely,thatwhentheWordsofIn-stitutionhavebeenspokenoverthebread,thenalsoapart from the use divinely ordained and commanded in the institution, Christ,GodandMan,

byanenduringunion is and remains in thebread innootherwaythanHeispresentinthetrueuse,andthat,overandaboveandapartfromthisuse,whichhasthetestimonyandcommandmentofthein-stitution,itispermissibletohandletheeucharistinanotherwayandforadifferentuse,namely,throughsacrifice,reservation,carryingitabout,displayingit,andallthatisconnectedwiththesethings”(Ex.2,250;emphasisadded).

240 To get the significance of Chemnitz’s indictment of the RomanChurch, one must keep in mind his precise definition of “use” and“action”inspeakingoftheLord’sSupper(seep.11f.).Itmeanstocon-secrate theelements,distributethem,andeatanddrinkthem(SDVII,84–86;seep.13f.).HereTrent’serroristoteachthattheRomanconsecrationeffects“anenduringunion”(Ex.2,249).

241 Further,ChemnitzchargestheRomanChurchwithinventinganddefendingtheopinionthat“blessingwiththeWordsofChristisnoteffectiveandthatitisnotatruesacramenteventhoughtheWordofChristcomestotheelementsofbreadandwine,unlesstheconsecra-tiontakesplaceinachurchoratanaltarwhichhasbeenpontificallyconsecrated,ThusthegenuinenessoftheEucharistisjudgedtodependnotsomuchontheWordsofChristasontheplace”(Ex.2,310f.).

242 After marshaling the evidence for both positions, the Lutheranand the Roman, Chemnitz exclaims, “Therefore let a comparisonbemade!”(Ex.2,680),HehasshownthatthePapists“establishastheessenceoftheirpriesthoodthesacrificeofthebodyandbloodofChristintheMass,whichwasbroughtintothechurchwithout,yes,contrarytoScripture”(Ex.2,680).

243 The Lutheran position is that the Lord committed the “outwardministryuntomen.”ButtomaketheLutheranpositiononthepublicministryclear,Chemnitzcontinues:

Nevertheless not everyone ought to take and arrogate to himselfthe public ministry of Word and Sacrament....Paul prescribes alegitimate manner of calling which is made through the voice of thechurch....There is addedalso thepromise thatGodwill trulyworkeffectivelythroughtheministryofthosewhoteachtheGospelwhichtheSonofGodwillstopreserveinthechurchthroughperpetualcalling,asSt.PaulsaysinEphesians4:8ff....Throughthisministrythereareofferedtouseternalblessings,andindeed...Godinthiswayreceivesus, rescues us from sin and the power of the devil and from eternaldeath,andrestorestousrighteousnessandeternallife,(Ex,2,678).



244 ChemnitzwantsitclearlyunderstoodthatthisministryoftheGos-pelhaspowerdivinelybestowed:

Thisministrydoesindeedhavepower,divinelybestowed(2Cor.10:4–6;13:2–4),butcircumscribedwithcertaindutiesandlimitations,namely,topreachtheWordofGod,toteachtheerring,toreprovethosewhosin,admonishthedilatory,comfortthetroubled,strengthentheweak,resistthosewhospeakagainstthetruth,reproachandcondemnfalseteaching,censureevilcustoms,dispense the divinely instituted sacraments, remit and retain sins, beanexampletotheflock,prayforthechurchprivatelyandleadthechurchinpublicprayers,beinchargeofcareforthepoor,publiclyexcommunicate the stubborn and again receive those who repent andreconcilethemwiththechurch,appointpastorstothechurchaccordingtotheinstructionofPaul,withtheconsentofthechurchinstituteritesthatservetheministryanddonotmilitateagainsttheWordofgodnorburdenconsciencesbutservegoodorder,dignity,decorum,tranquility,edification,etc.Forthesearethethingswhichbelongtothesetwochiefpoints,namely,tothepoweroforderandthepowerofjurisdiction.(Ex2,678f.).

245 Hence for Chemnitz it is totally false to connect in any way theLutherandoctrineoftheconsecrationandtheRomandoctrine.

the results of the consecration

246 Chemnitzdoesnothesitatetodrawtheinevitableconclusionthatafter theconsecrationtheelementsareno longermerelybreadandwine,butmuchmore.ThroughthewordsofChrist,spokenbytheof-ficiant,thesacramentalunionhasbeenachievedsothatthebodyandbloodofChristarepresentonthealtarbeforethedistributionandconsumption.ThepresenceofChrist,GodandMan,inthedefinitivemode,isextendedintimeandlimitedtothatofwhichChristintheconsecrationhasdeclaredtobehisbodyandblood.SomeLutheransevenoftheconservativestripehaveherebrokenwithLuther,Chem-nitz,andtheBookofConcord.66

247 ThisdoctrineoftheconsecrationissointimatelyapartofChem-nitz’stheologicalpositionthatitsurfacesacountlessnumberoftimes.Forexample,inThe Two Natures,inordertoshowthattheexaltedChrist has various modes of presence, Chemnitz quotes Chrysos-tom,“Christ ispresent invisiblyonthetableoftheLord’sSupper”(TNC462).InThe Lord’s Supper,inanalyzing1Cor.10,Chemnitzobservesthat“after the blessingPaul,justashehadreceiveditfromtheLord,mentionsbreadandsaysofthatbreadthatitisthebodyofChrist”(LS50;emphasisadded).

248 InChapterXofThe Lord’s SupperChemnitzisdefiniteinmaintain-ingthathisdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperisinharmonywith“thetrue,learnedandpurerancientchurch”(LS149).HedoesthisbymeansofquotationsfromtheEarlyFathers.Aperusalofthematerialunderthetitle“TheSubstanceofChrist’sBodyisPresentWherevertheLord’sSupperiscelebratedonEarth,”revealsthatforChemnitztheconsecra-tionhaseffectedthepresenceofChristsothatthispresenceisextendedintime.FromtheworksofChrysostom,Chemnitzquotes,“WhenyouseethebodyofChristsetforth(prokeimenon),tellyourself,‘Ihopetoreceiveheavenandtheblessingswhicharetherebecauseofthisbody’”(LS155);againfromChrysostom,“ThetableoftheLordtakestheplaceofthemanger,forinitliesthebodyoftheLord,notindeedwrappedinswaddlingclothesbutclothedwiththeHolySpirit”(155).

249 WithinthisframeofreferenceChemnitzalsoadducesseveralquo-tationsfromtheNiceneCanon,“Onthisdivinetableletusnothum-blyfixourgazeonthebreadandthecupwhichareplacedthere,butraisingourmindsorourthoughtsinfaith,letusmeditateorthinkofthefactthatthere is also placed on that sacred table the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word”(LS155);emphasisadded).Lestonemighthavemissedthesignificanceofthepreviousquotations,Chem-nitzcommentsonanotherNiceneCanon, andthisCanonexpresslystates:OntheholytableoftheLordtherelie

(prokeimena) two thingswhicharepresentandsetbeforeus,namely,thebreadandthecupandthenalso theLambofGodHimselfwithHispreciousbodyandblood.Andonthatsacredtablenotonlythosethingswhichareperceptibletotheoutwardsensesmustbenotedandobserved,butthemindmustalsobeelevated,sothatfaithmaythinkalsoofthosethingswhicharenotapparenttothesenses,namely,thepresenceoftheverybodyandbloodofChrist.(LS155).

250 OveragainsttheSacramentarianswhodenythepowerofconsecra-tion,Chemnitzadds:

Buttowhatplaceisthemindtobeelevated?IsittobeturnedawayfromthepresentexternalcelebrationoftheSupperandspreaditswingsabovetheheavenofheavens?OrwhereoughtfaithseekthepresenceofChrist?DoIlayholdonhimonlyinheaven?TheCanonsurelydoesnotsaythis,butexpresslyanddistinctlyaffirmsthatthemindshouldbesoelevatedandfaithshouldsomeditatethat it recognizes that on this sacred table has been placed the Lamb of God with His body and blood. Onthistableweseethebreadandthecupplacedanddealtwithbytheexternalactionofthepriests.Andwhenwereceivealittlefromtheexternalbread



andthecupintheSupper,thenatthesametimefaith,onthebasisoftheWord,recognizesthatwealsotrulyreceivethebodyandbloodofChristwhicharepresentonthetable.”(LS155f;emphasisadded).

251 TherecanbenodoubtthatChemnitziscertainthathecanrepeatasBiblicaltruthwhattheEarlyFathershadheresaidbecausehebe-lieves,teaches,andconfessesthataftertheconsecrationthebodyandbloodofChristarepresentinsacramentalunionwiththebreadandthewine.SincethereunfortunatelywerethosegoingunderthenameofLutheransatChemnitz’stimewhodidnotacceptthedoctrineofconsecration,ChemnitzwantstomakethematterveryclearthatonthebasisofChrist’sownwordsonecanandmustfixthepointwithinthesacramentalusus whenthepresenceofChrist’sbodyandbloodbegins.ThereforeChemnitzwrites:

Thus the other Fathers hold that before the consecration there isonly one substance there, namely, the bread and the wine. But when the Word and institution of Christ comes to these elementsthennotonlyonesubstanceispresentasbefore,butatthesametimealsotheverybodyandbloodofChrist,asAmbrosesays,De Sacramentiis, Bk.4,chs.4and5:“ThisbreadisbreadbeforethewordsoftheSacrament.ButwhenthewordsofChristcometoit,itisthebodyofChrist.”Again:“BeforethewordsofChristitisacupfullofwineandwater.WhenthewordsofChristbecomeoperative,thebloodwhichhasredeemedthepeopleiscausedtobethere”(LS156;emphasisadded).

252 InhisfinalchapterofThe Lord’s Supper (“ConcerningtheArgu-mentsoftheAdversaries”),ChemnitzgivesseveralquotationsfromtheancientstoconfesswiththemthedoctrinethattheconsecrationachievesthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofJesusChristandthatweknowthis fromScriptureandshouldnotconfessanydoubtastowhateffectstheRealPresenceintheSupperandwhenitbegins.Hereissomeofhisevidence,thecumulativeeffectofwhichisquiteoverwhelming:

LikewisetheancientsassertthatnotonlythebreadandthewinebutalsotheverybodyandbloodofChristarepresentonthatsacredtableandarereceivedorallybythosewhopartake....TheNiceneCanonsaysthatonthealtartheLambofGodispresent....Augustine,“FromthetableistakenthebodyoftheLord.”...Chrysostom,“Onthealtarthatbodyispresentwhichthewisemenworshipedinthemanger.”...Cyril,“Weshouldnottrembleatthefleshandbloodwhichhavebeenplacedontheholyaltar,whenGodcondescendstoourweaknessesandfillsuswithpowerwhichisgivenuntolife.”(LS250f.).

253 ThisdoctrinefoundexpressionnotonlyinthewritingsoftheRef-ormationtheologiansbutalsointherubricsoftheearlyLutheranlit-urgies(seenote32).AndithascontinuedtobetaughtandproclaimedinsongbysomelaterLutherans.67Manyothers,however,infollow-ingMelanchthon,havedeniedthefactthatinalegitimateobservanceoftheLord’sSupperoneknowswhenthesacramentalpresencebe-gins. This is virtually to deny the words of Christ and make themconditionalonsomethingotherthanHisownwords,therebysettingupamonstrum incertudinis withrespecttotheRealPresenceandthebenefitsofthesacrament.

chemnitz and the veneration of the sacrament

254 BeforeoneconsidershowChemnitztreatsthecontroversialsubjectoftheadorationofthesacrament,itisnecessarythatonehasanexactunderstandingofChemnitz’sconceptembodiedintheterms“action”or “use” when applied to the Lord’s Supper. Since these terms havealready been examined (see pp. 11–14) the main points will only bebrieflysummarizedhere.TheVerbashowthatthesacramentalactionencompasses theconsecrationofparticular elements, theirdistribu-tionandconsumption(Ex.2,249;SDVII,84–87).TheconsecrationisthatpartoftheactionthateffectsthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChrist.ThismeansthatJesusChrist,trueGodandManinoneper-sonhasbeensacramentallyunitedwiththeseparticularelementsjustastheApologyhadsaidyearsbefore,“Wearetalkingaboutthepres-enceofthelivingChrist,knowingthatdeathnolongerhasdominionoverhim”(Ap.X,4).Thebodyremainsinthepersonalunionaspartof theGod-Man, so thatChemnitzwarnsus to “beonguard” thatthepersonalunionisnotdissolvedbecauseofmentioningthenatu-ralproperties(TNC443).Beforetheconsecration,however,Christisnotpresentinthedefinitivemode(LS156).Butaftertheconsecrationthe body and blood of Christ are present in this special mode. The“action”oftheLord’sSupperisnotmerelyanactioninourmodernsenseof“thedoingofsomething.”Itincludesthe“thing”andthedoingofsomethingwiththat“thing.”Chemnitzstatesthat“theverynameanddefinitionofasacramentembracesthepresence ofsomevisibleandexternal element towhichtheWordmustcomeandincludesthis,thatthewholeactionisperformedandadministeredinacertainwaywithaspecificdivinelyinstitutedceremony”(Ex.2,109f.;emphasisadded).


��0 | The Lord’s Supper

255 The divinely commanded consecration effects the sacramentalunion, but the “divinely instituted ceremony” specifies that that whichhasbeenconsecratedistobedistributedandeatenanddrunk.ButthisisnottobeunderstoodasthoughChrist’swordsofinstitu-tionspokenbytheofficiantisconditional,dependingontheeatinganddrinkingbythecommunicants.Chemnitzisherequitespecific,“Themeaningisnotthattheblessedbreadwhichisdivided,whichisoffered,andwhichtheapostlesreceivedfromthehandofChristwasnotthebodyofChristbutbecomesthebodyofChristwhentheeatingofitisbegun”(Ex.2,248).Whenthemeaningofthewordsarechanged,eveniftheyarespoken,thenthedivinelycommandedactionhasbeendisregarded,andonedoesnothavetheSupperwhichtheLordinstitutedintheUpperRoom.Inotherwords,therecanbenogeneralfalseinterpretationofChrist’swords.TheSacramentar-ians“proscribedthebodyandbloodofChristfromtheLord’sSup-perwhichiscelebratedhereonearth”(LS251).InthePrivateMassthePapistsdidnotdistributetheconsecratedelementstothecom-municants;thecelebranttookthemalone.Theyhavedisregardedthedivinely institutedactionbecause it is “entirely certainandcrystalclear against all sophistical quibbling that Christ did not institutethecelebrationoftheSupperinsuchawaythathewhoconsecratestakesitalonewhiletherestonlylookon”(Ex.2,530).

256 Further, the Romanists consecrated bread for the purpose of re-serving it, locking itup,offering it,or carrying it aboutonCorpusChristi festivals.This isoutside theprescribedaction,a factwhichChemnitzemphasizes,“ThereisnowordofGodaboutthebreadoftheEucharistbeingreservedorcarriedaboutinprocession;infact,itconflicts with the Words of Institution when the bread which has been blessed is not distributed, not received, not eaten” (Ex.2,281;emphasisadded).Inshort,thereisnosacramentapartfrom“thatuse andaction which is prescribed and commanded by the institution.... Surely,withoutanycontroversy,thesewordssignifyanaction,andindeedHe[Christ]expresslyusesawordthatsignifiesdoing,forHesays,‘Thisdo,’namely,whatwasdoneinthisMyfirstSupper”(Ex.2,245).

257 This is precisely what the Solid Declaration confessed, “But thecommandofChrist,‘Dothis,’whichcomprehendsthewholeactionoradministrationofthissacrament(namely,thatinaChristianas-semblywetakebreadandwine,consecrateit,distributeit,receiveit,

eatanddrinkit,andtherewithproclaimtheLord’sdeath),mustbekeptintegrallyandinviolately,justasSt.Paulsetsthewholeactionofthebreakingofbread,orofthedistributionandreception,beforeoureyesin1Cor.10:16”(SDVII,84).BothChemnitzandtheFormulabelievethatJesusChristispresentaccordingtobothnatureswithHisbodyandbloodintheconsecratedelementsbecause,asChemnitzonmanyoccasionshassaid,wehaveanexpresspromise“thatHewillstobepresentwithHisbodyandbloodintheobservanceofHisSupperasitiscelebratedinthegatheringofthechurchhereonearthinac-cordwithHisinstitution”(TNC432;seep.36–45).

258 KeepinginmindthispreciselydefinedconceptoftheprescribedactionoftheLord’sSupper,onecanbetterunderstandChemnitz’sexaminationofChapterVandCanonVIoftheTridentineDecreeConcerningtheSacramentoftheEucharist(ThirdSession,Oct.11,1551). They deal with the cult and the veneration of the sacrament(Ex.2,276f.).Thestriking thing foramodernLutheran is thatattheveryoutsetChemnitzinsiststhatwemustknowwhathasbeenplacedincontroversy,forheacknowledgesthat“anumberofthingsarenotincontroversy;theseIwillinglyconcede”(Ex.2,277).

259 In a brilliantly conceived presentation that sets Chemnitz apartfromtheSacramentariansandthePhilippistswhodeniedthepos-sibility of the veneration of the sacrament, Chemnitz makes threepoints:

1. ThatChrist,GodandMan, is tobeworshiped,noonebutanAriandenies(Ex.2,277).

2. ThatalsoHishumannature,becauseofitsunionwiththedivinity,istobeworshiped,noonebutaNestoriancallsintoquestion(Ex.2,277).

3. That no one therefore denies that Christ, God and Man, truly andsubstantiallypresent inHisdivineandhumannature in the action of the Lord’s Supper, should be worshiped in spirit and in truth, exceptsomeone who, with the Sacramentarians, either denies or harborsdoubtconcerningthepresenceofChristintheSupper.Neithercantheanamneesis andproclamationofthedeathofChrist intheSupperberightlydonewithoutthatworshipwhichisdoneinspiritandintruth(Ex.2,279;emphasisadded).

260 ChemnitzconcedesthatitisapermissiblepracticetoworshipJe-sus Christ who is present in the definitive mode in the prescribedactionof theSupper.Ofcourse,Chemnitzalsoconfesses that thefinalpurposeofthissacramentistheoralreceptionofthebodyand



bloodofChristinwhich“thewholetreasuryofallthebenefitswhichChristtheMediatorprocuredbytheofferingupofHisbody...[are]certainlycommunicatedtohim[thebeliever]andfirmlygivenandpledgedtohim”(Ex.2,232).Further,itshouldbenotedthatChem-nitzattheoutsetconfessesthesethreepoints“lestsomeoneshouldsuspect that we called into doubt whether Christ, God and Man,who is present in the action of the Supper should be worshiped”(Ex.2,279;emphasisadded).

261 Therecanbenoquestion thatChemnitzbelieves that theconse-crationinavalidobservanceoftheLord’sSupperachievestheRealPresence,andhecouldnotfortheologicalreasonsacceptastatementthatwecannotfixfromScripturethepointwithinthesacramentalusus when the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood begins. IftheconsecrationdidnoteffecttheRealPresenceofChrist,Chemnitzandallthosewhoagreedwithhimwouldbeguiltyofgrossidolatry.InviewofhisstatureasaLutherantheologian,heshouldbegivenafairhearingonthecontrovertedarticle.

262 He begins by asserting that it is “certain...that the worship ofGodisnotrestrictedtoeithertimeorplace(John4:21;1Tim.2:8).”Fromthispremise,heconcludes“ThereforeChrististobeworshipedalwaysandeverywhere”(Ex.2,277).

263 ThisleadstoafurtherconclusiondrawnfromthefactthatScrip-tureteachesthatChristhasseveralmodesofpresence(seep.36–45).Chemnitzsummarizes:

ThereforeifwebelievethatChrist,GodandMan,is present with a peculiar mode of presence and grace intheactionofHisSupper,sothatthere HetrulyandsubstantiallyimpartsHisbodyandbloodtothosewhoeat,bywhichHewantstouniteHimselfwithusinsuchawaythatwiththismostpreciouspledgeHeappliesandsealsthegiftsoftheNewTestamenttoeveryonewhoeatsinfaith,giftsHegainedfortheChurchbytheofferingofHisbodyandthesheddingofHisblood,ifIsay,wetrulyfromtheheartbelievethesethings,it neither can nor should happen that faith would fail to venerate and worship Christ who is present in this action(Ex.2,277;emphasisadded).

264 As further evidence from Scripture Chemnitz cites the exampleofJacob(Gen.28;16–22),Moses(Ex.34:8–9),andElijah(1Kings19:4f.).Heobserves that these “doubtlessdidnothavea specialcom-mandmentthattheyshouldworshipGodintheseplaces;butbecausetheyhadthegeneralcommandmentthattheyshouldworshipGod

everywhere,andwere sure thatGodistrulypresentundertheseex-ternalandvisiblesigns,andthatHethererevealsHimselfbyape-culiarmodeofgrace,theycertainlyworshipedthatGodwhomtheybelievedpresentthere (Ex.2,277;emphasisadded).

265 ItseemsevidentthatbothintheExamination oftheTridentineDe-creesontheAdorationoftheSacramentaswellasinhisotherworks,ChemnitzhasinmindsomeofthewritingsofLutherinadditiontothetwoquotationsthathewillofferasevidencethatLutherregardedtheadorationofthesacramentasanormalresultofone’sbeliefthattheconsecrationeffectsthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheelements.HeseemstobethinkingparticularlyofLuther’s“TheAdorationoftheSacrament.”Lutherwrotethisworkin1523,whenitbegantodawnonhimthatthedenialoftheRealPresencewasbe-comingwidespread.Hediscovered.especiallyinsomeofthewritingsof theBohemianBrethren thedenialof theRealPresenceand theresultingrejectionoftheadoration,somethingtowhichhehadbeenaccustomedduringhiswholelife.68

266 In defending the adoration Luther makes the fundamental pointthatinwardadorationmustprecedeanyoutwardadoration.Outwardadorationmayormaynotfollow.Theimportantthingtorememberisthat“trueworshipcanbenothingelsethanfaith;it[worship]isfaith’ssublimestactivitywithrespecttoGod....Inaword,wherethereisnoneofthisheartfelttrustandconfidencethatcomesfromatrueandlivingfaith...,therecanbenotrueworshipbecausethereGodisnotrecognizedwiththeheartfeltconfidenceoffaith”(LW36,293).

267 AlwayscoupledwiththisconvictionLutherdeclaresthatonemustbelieveandconfessthatChristispresentwhenHisbodyandbloodarepresentbecauseHiswordsdonotlieandHeisnotseparatedfromHisbodyandblood:

NowtocomebacktotheSacrament:HewhodoesnotbelievethatChrist’s body and blood are present does well not to worship eitherwithhisspiritorwithhisbody.Buthewhodoesbelieve,assufficientdemonstrationisshownitoughttobebelieved,cansurelynotwithholdhisadorationofthebodyandbloodofChristwithoutsinning.ForImustalwaysconfessthatChristispresentwhenHisbodyandbloodarepresent.HiswordsdonotlietomeandHeisnotseparatedfromHisbodyandblood.AndwhenHelaydeadinthegrave,HewasstillChristandworthyofHishonor,evenwhentherewasnolongeranybloodinHim.(LW36,293f.).



268 Chemnitz’s exposition similarly centers around these two points:faithandone’soutwardconfessionofthatfaiththatJesusChrist,trueGodandMan,ispresent,gotogether.WhenJacob,Moses,andElijah“weresurethatGodwastrulypresentundertheseexternalandvis-iblesigns,”andthatHethererevealed“Himselfbyapeculiarmodeofgrace,theycertainlyworshipedthatGodwhomtheybelievedpresentthere”(Ex.2,277).Asaresultof faith“invocationandworshipfol-lowed.”Asamatteroffact,ifithadnot,itwouldnot“havebeentruefaith”(Ex.2,277).

269 InThe Two Natures of Christ, Chemnitzhasachapteron“TheWor-shipoftheTwoNatures”(TNC411–422).Throughoutthischapterhe,justasLuther,links“faithandworship”(TNC412).Morespecifi-callyChemnitznotesthatsomeoftheSophistsintheMiddleAgeshad argued that worship (latria) could be applied to the divine na-tureofChristbutonlybondservice(hyperdulia) tothehumannature.ChemnitzisdeterminednottopermitthiserrortoexistinthechurchoftheReformation.Othershadsaidthattheycouldgiveworship(la-tria) toChrist,justastheywouldhonorakingandhiscrown,butthelatteronlyincidentally,astheyhonorthecrownasarepresentativeoftheroyalprerogatives.InanswerChemnitzexclaims,“Surelytheearsofpiousmenrecoilwhensomeonesaysthatfaithandworshipapplytothehumannatureonlybyassociation”(TNC412).Andfurther,“ThomascertainlywouldnotsubscribetothisnewwisdomwhenhesaysofthewoundwhichChristhadreceived,‘MyLordandmyGod’[John20:28]”(TNC413).

270 InviewofthepositionofsomeoftheSophistsandtheSacramen-tarians’insistencethatChrist’sbodymustbekeptinheaven,itisnowonder thatChemnitzmakeshispointsagainst theArian,Nesto-rian,andSacramentarianpositions (seep. 103), anddeclares that “.thesethingsneededtobesaidlestsomeoneshouldsuspectthatwecalledintodoubtwhetherChrist,GodandMan,whoispresentintheactionoftheSuppershouldbeworshiped” (Ex.2,279).

271 ThroughoutallhiswritingsChemnitzasserts that theorthodoxantiquityacceptedthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesofChrist,thespecialmodesofChrist’spresence,andthecreativepoweroftheWordsofInstitutionwhenspokenatthecommandofChrist.Therecouldbenoquestionforhimthatifoneacceptsthesetruths,anex-ternaladorationofthesacramentcouldfollowbecausethesetruths

calledfortruefaithintheheart.HebringsmanywitnessesfromtheEarlyChurch.

272 To begin, Chemnitz quotes from the Nicene Canon. This greatchurchcouncilof325notonlydealtwiththedeityofChristbutalsowithothertheologicalconcerns.Chemnitz,takinghiscuefromthewordprokeimenon, writes:“Likewisethewordprokeimenon isusedintheNiceneCanon:”

Onthisdivinetableletusnothumblyfixourgazeonthebreadandthecupwhichareplacedthere,butraisingourmindsorourthoughtsinfaith,letusmeditateonorthinkofthefactthatthereisalsoplacedonthat sacred table theLambofGodwhotakesaway thesinof theworld.... On the holy table of the Lord there lie (prokeimena) twothingswhicharepresentandsetbeforeus,namely,thebreadandthecup,andthenalsotheLambofGodHimselfwithHispreciousbodyandblood.Andon that sacred tablenotonly those thingswhichareperceptibletotheoutwardsensesmustbenotedandobserved,butthemindmustalsobeelevatedsothatfaithmaythinkalsoofthosethingswhicharenotapparenttothesense,namely, thepresenceof theverybodyandbloodofChrist.(LS155).

273 ChemnitzthenaddshisowncommenttothisNiceneCanon:

WhereoughtfaithtoseekthepresenceofChrist?DoIlayholdonHimonlyinheaven?TheCanonsurelydoesnotsaythis,butexpresslyand distinctly affirms that the mind should be so elevated and faithshouldsomeditatethatitrecognizesthatonthissacredtablehasbeenplacedtheLambofGodwithHisbodyandblood.Onthistableweseethebreadandthecupplacedanddealtwithbytheexternalactionofthepriests.WhenwereceivealittlefromtheexternalbreadandcupintheSupper,thenatthesametimefaith, on the basis of the Word, recognizesthatwealsotrulyreceivethebodyandbloodofChristwhicharepresentonthetable.Howthesearesymbolsofourresurrectionweshallexplainlater.(LS156;emphasisadded).

274 IntheExamination ChemnitzappealstothefollowingcommentofAugustineonPsalm99:5todemonstratethatithasbeentheteach-ingoftheAncientChurch(withwhichheagrees)thattheworshipofChristwithintheprescribedlimitsofthesacramentalactionisper-missible.Hewrites,“ThereforeAugustinerightlysays:

SincetheearthistheLord’sfootstool,asthePsalmsays:WorshipHisfootstool,foritisholy,IturntoChrist,becausehereIseekHimandfindHim.Howcantheearth,thefootstooloftheLordbeworshipedwithoutimpiety?HetookuntoHimselfearthfromearth,becausefleshisfromtheearth;andfromthefleshofMaryHetookonflesh.AndbecauseHe



walkedhereinthisfleshandgavethistoustoeatforsalvation,nooneeatsthisfleshunlesshehasfirstworshiped.TherehasbeenfoundawayinwhichsuchafootstooloftheLordmaybeworshiped;andnotonlydowenotsininworshiping,butwesinwhenwedonotworship.(Ex.2,278).

ThefactthatheemployedthesamequotationinThe Two Natures of Christ (p.420)andthathetogetherwithAndreaealsouseditinthe“CatalogofTestimonies,”addedasanAppendixtotheoriginal1580BookofConcord(Triglot1127),indicatesthatreferencessuchasthesehadbeendeeplyrootedinhistheology.

275 ThewordsofAmbroseonthesametext(Psalm99:5)arealsoad-vancedassupportingthethesisthatonthealtarisplacedtheLambofGodwithHisbodyandbloodandthatHeisworthyofveneration,“ByHisfootstoollettheearthbeunderstood;bytheearth,however,the flesh of Christ, which today also we worship in the mysteries,which also the Apostles worshiped in the Lord Jesus” (Ex. 2, 278).ThisquotationisalsofoundinThe Two Natures of Christ (p.420)andalsointhe“CatalogofTestimonies”(Trig.1127),theretoprovethatthe“AncientPureChurch”taughtthatinthepersonalunionthehu-mannaturetrulyreceivedandusesdivinemajesty.

276 ChemnitzmusthavebeenacutelyawarethattheMelanchthoniansweredeterminedtonegatethecreativepoweroftheVerbaaseffect-ingtheRealPresence(seep.83f.),forwithsuchrejectiontheywoulddenythepermissibilityoftheadorationofthesacrament.IntheEx-amination heproducesanenormousamountofevidencetoshowthathe did not disagree with the Early Church nor with Luther, bothof which held to the personal union of the two natures in Christandalso toaneffectiveconsecration.Thecumulativeeffectof thisevidenceisquiteimpressive.HequotesthetestimonyofEusebiusofEmesa(aratherobscurebishopofSyria),“Whenyougouptotheawe-inspiringaltardesiringtobesatedwithspiritualfood, lookinfaithontheholybodyandbloodofyourGod,honorthem,marvelatthem,touchthemwithyourmind,takethemwiththehandoftheheart,andmostofalltakethemwiththedeepdraughtoftheinnerman”(Ex.2,278).

277 In the same paragraph he quotes the epitaph which Gregory ofNazianzus wrote for his sister Gorgonia, “She called upon Christ,whowashonoreduponthealtar,namelywhenthesacramentoftheSupperiscelebrated”(Ex.2,278).IntheLord’s Supper, whichChem-

nitzdirectschieflyagainsttheSacramentarians,hechallengesthemtoconsider“thosestatementsof theAncientChurch”as“pertinentwhich teach that the ancients venerated and worshiped Christ theGod-Man,indeedtheveryfleshofChrist,notonlyintheSupperbutalsoonthealtarwherethemysterytookplace.”AndhethenreferstotheepitaphcomposedbyGregoryforhissisteraswellasthestate-mentsalreadyquotedfromAugustineandAmbrose(LS159f.).

278 InthejointworkwithSelneccerandKirchner(Historie, etc.;pub-lishedbefore1585)theyespeciallyemphasizetheirpositionontheal-lowabilityoftheadoration.GeorgeofAnhalt,oneofthreebrotherswhowereclosepersonal friendsofLuther,died in1553.Todemon-stratethatafterLuther’sdeathhispuredoctrineoftheLord’sSup-percontinuedtobepreachedanddefended,theHistorie directsthereadertoaseriesofsermonsthatGeorgeofAnhalthadpreachedontheLord’sSupper.69Theauthorsquotecopiouslyfromthefirstandthefourthsermons,thelatterofwhichcomesintoconsiderationhere.Sincetheoriginalisnoteasilyavailable,copiousquotationsareheregivensothatonecanbettergraspthedoctrinalstanceofChemnitzandhisassociatesandthequalityoftheirprofoundaweandrespectforthesacrament.

279 The Historie introduces George of Anhalt’s sermon with thesewords,“Inthefourthsermonhe[GeorgeofAnhalt]alsospeaksthereabouttheoutwardadorationofthesacrament:

WhereonecertainlybelievesthatourLordJesusChrist,trueGodandMan,sittingattherighthandoftheheavenlyFather,HimselfourChief Shepherd and high Bishop of our souls, is bodily present andthathegivesusinthismostholy,highestandmostwonderfulmysteryHisownnaturalbody,whichHegaveforus,andHispreciousbloodwhich He poured out for the forgiveness of our sins, to eat and todrinkthroughHisservants’hands,asHisclearandirrefutableWordbearswitness,somusttheheartalsotrulybreakoutanddeclareitselfoutwardly.Whereit,however,doesnothappenorwheresuchoutwardreverence is neglected knowingly and sacrilegiously out of contempt,thenthisisacertainsign,thatitisnotsointheheart,etc.

And again: We want to have nothing to do with those whopresumptuously and sacrilegiously deny the true presence of thebody and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the excellent sacrament,contrarytotheclearandirrefutableWordofourLordJesusChrist,orotherwiseknoweverythingbetterthanourdearLord’sWord,andbowtotheirownpleasure,andglossover,andshortentherighthandofthedivinemajestyandtie itdowntoaparticularplace,andthereforeon



thatgroundconclude, thatChrist couldnotbe in the sacramentandtherefore consider it as idolatry, to worship the excellent sacrament,indeed,Christinthesacrament,etc.

Thesesamepersons,indeed,couldnotandcannothandleanduseitinagoodconscience,becausetheyunderstandChrist’sWorddifferentlyfrom how it actually reads, and do not believe that Christ is actuallypresentthere.ThusSt.Paulshows,thatwhateverisnotfromfaithissin.Andifsomeoneshouldworship[thesacrament]insuchdoubt,therewould be double sin. First, because they do not believe the words ofChrist;andsecond,becausetheyaredoingitoutsideofandcontrarytotheirfaith.Wewant,however,towishforthemtruerepentancefromthe heart, and, at the same time, oppose their twisted meaning anderror,asweareable,andmanfullyandfaithfullywarnagainstit.AndwemightalsosaytothemthatwhichourdearLordsaidtotheSadducees(Mark12):“Isnotthiswhyyouarewrong,thatyouknowneithertheScripturesnorthepowerofGod?”ForwebelievethatChrist’sbodyandbloodaretrulyinthesacramentbecausetheScripturesaysso.ForitisindeedthroughthedivinepowerthatChristispresentinthesacramentbecauseHesitsattherighthandofGod,theAlmightyFather,althoughHe is omnipresent according to His divine omnipotence. Should Henot then also be [in the sacrament], since He has bound Himselfaccording to His institution bodily to the holy sacrament, and evenfor this reason, that our dear Lord Christ sits at the right hand oftheAlmighty Father? Thus we also honor Him, call upon Him, andworship Him, as the Scriptures say, that we should worship Him inallplacesandasSt.Paulwarns,liftinguptoHimholyhands,withoutangeranddoubt.WhyshouldwenotalsothendothatinthehandlingofHiswordandsacrament,towhichHehasboundHimself,andevenisbodilypresentthere?Thereforeitisnotonlyemptyblasphemy,thatsuch people maintain themselves against the Lord’s word, and whichcomefromthatmasterwhoalsosaidtoourfirstparents inParadise,“Youwillnotdie,butwillbelikegods.”This,evenwhentheLordhassaid,“Whenyoueat fromthe forbiddentree,youwilldie theeternaldeath,”etc.

Again:AlthoughourdearLordJesusChristdidnot instituteHisholySupperforthepurposeofadoringitandworshipingit,noryetisitforbiddennortobeaccountedasanexcessorasidolatry,butmuchrather just and right, that this holy Supper might be administeredaccordingtoitsinstitutionbyourLordJesusChrist,oneattendedwithcompletedevotionandadoration,andworshipourLordJesusChristHimself,trueGodandMan,whoispresentinthisexcellentsacrament,notonlyaccordingtothenatureofHisdivineomnipotenceandspiritualnature,butalsobodily,trulyandessentially,yetneverthelessunseen,astheonewhositsattherighthandofthedivinemajesty,andwhohasbeenexaltedbyGodandgivenanamethatisaboveeveryname,thatatthenameofJesuseverykneeshouldbow,thoseinheavenandonearthandundertheearth,andeverytongueconfessthatJesusChristisLordtothegloryofGodtheFather.

Again: We must judge in this, not according to what the eyesand outward senses grasp and indicate, but according to what faith,groundedintheWordofGod,teachesus.Theeyesseebreadandwine;all outward senses witness nothing else. Faith, however, perceives theLordChristtrulypresent,whopresentsHisownbodyandbloodinthismostholymystery.ThesameLordChrist,presentbutunseenunderthesacrament,hiddenandconcealed, isworshipedherebybelievers,andnottheelementofbreadortheoutwardappearance.(HS540–543).70

280 After quoting at great length also from Prince George’s first ser-mon,Chemnitzandhisco-authorstestify,“Wehavenotheremutilat-edthesewordsofthepreciouschoicepreacher(asKingSolomoncallshimself), Prince George of Anhalt, but we want to set them downfullyfortheyear1553asaneternalwitnessoftheteachingaboutthesacrament [held] in the churches of this land, which has also been[held]afterthedeathofDr.Luther”(HS545).Theyalsothenaddthetestimonythat“thepiousPrinceWolfgangofAnhalt[stood]inthesamefaithandconfessionabouttheSupperoftheLord”andthatheremainedinthisfaithuntilhisdeathonMarch23rdof1566.HewasasigneroftheAugsburgConfession(1530)andthelastone,withtheexceptionofPhilipofHesse,toremainoftheoriginalsigners.

281 In the Examination Chemnitz closes his confession that the ven-erationof the sacrament ispermissiblewithin itsprescribedactionbybringingquotationsfromLuther’sworks.Itissomewhatsurpris-ingthathedoesnotappealtoLuther’s1523detaileddiscussionfoundin “The Adoration of the Sacrament” (LW 36, 275–305), nor to his“BriefConfessionConcerningtheHolySacrament”(1544).Here,attheendofhis lifeLuther recallsCarlstadt’s fulminationsagainst ittwentyyearsprevious.SomehaddrawntheconclusionthatsincetheelevationwasnotuniversallypracticedamongtheLutherans,thiswasan acknowledgement that “Christ’s body and blood was not in thesacrament,andthattheyarenotorallyreceived”(LW38,313).Lutherdisabuseshiscriticsofthatnotion,andobservesthat“ifyoucometoaplacewhere theystillobserve theelevationyoushouldnotbeof-fendednorshouldyoucondemnthem,butacceptitbecauseitistak-ingplacewithoutsinningandwithoutendangering theconscience”(LW38,319).

282 ChemnitzfirstreferstooneofthelastarticlesthatLutherwrote,“Against Thirty-Two Articles of the Louvain Theologists” (1545).Chemnitzsays,“Lutheralso,writingagainstthetheologiansofLou-



vain, inArt. 16calls theEucharistavenerableandadorable sacra-ment”(Ex.2,278).71

283 Chemnitz’sfinalquotationisdrawnfromLuther’sCommentaryonGenesis(1535).LutherobservesonGenesis47:31(“AndIsraelbowedhimselfuponthebed’shead.”):

Notonlywhenwepray,butalsowhenwebaptize,absolve,andreceiveabsolution,andwhenweapproachtheholySupper,yes,alsowhenthepromiseorthetextoftheGospelisrecited,weoughttobowourkneesoratleaststandasasignofadorationorofreverenceandthankfulness.AndevenifintheLord’sSuppernothingelsewereofferedexceptbreadandwine,astheSacramentariansblaspheme,neverthelessintheSupperthepromiseisthere,andthedivinevoice,andtheHolySpiritthroughtheWord.Thereforeitisfittingthatweshouldapproachitreverently,buthowmuchmorefittingitisthatthisbedonewhenwebelievethatthetruebodyandbloodistherewiththeWord.(Ex.2,278;seeLW8,144).

284 Chemnitz,togetherwithhisfellowconfessorsoftheBookofCon-cord,hasputhimselfsquarelyinthedoctrineandpracticeoftheGne-sio-Lutherans,MartinLuther, and theEarlyChurch.HehasdonesobecauseheacceptsalltheimplicationsoftheScripturesregardingthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesintheonepersonJesusChrist.This means that also the human nature is worthy of divine adora-tion,asthechurchsingsintheTeDeum(“ThineAdorableTrueandOnlySon”).He,further,acceptstheScripturalevidencethattheres-urrectedChristhasandemploysseveralmodesofpresence, includ-ingthedefinitivemode(SDVII,100).ThisforChemnitzmeansthatChrist’s presence “in the Supper with the bread and wine” is to bedistinguishedfromHispresence“inthewholechurch”(TNC448f.),whereChristdwellsintheheartbyfaith.And,finally,Chemnitzac-ceptsthedoctrinethatChristeffectsthemiracleofthepresencewhenHespeaksthroughthemouthoftheofficiant(Ex.2,229).

the Difference Between the Lutherans and the romanists on the veneration

285 ButtherearedifferencesbetweentheLutheransandthePapists.Chemnitzclassifiesthemunderthreeheads.

286 First,theRomanChurchhadinthelast300yearsinventedtran-substantiation and hence demanded, as Chemnitz says, that “thewholeofthatwhichwasinstitutedbyChristthatitmightbereceived,shouldbeadoredwiththecultofLatria” (Ex.2,279).ButChemnitz

hasconfessedthatheinterpretstheScripturesothatheagreeswiththe “dictumof Irenaeus” that theEucharist consistsof two things,theearthlyandtheheavenly(onthesacramentalunionseepar.126f.).Aftertheconsecrationthebreadhasnotceasedtobebread(Ex.2,257).Theelementshavenotbeenannihilated.ButaccordingtotheTridentineDecrees,Chemnitznotesthat“alsotheearthlyelementsofbreadandwineintheEucharistwouldhavetobeadoredwiththecultofLatria” (Ex.2,279).Thiscaninnowaybedefendedbecause“Paulassertsthatitisbreadalsoaftertheblessing”(Ex.2,279).

287 However,“itdoesnotfollow,”assertsChemnitz,“thatifChrististobeworshiped,alsothosecreaturesinwhichHeispresentshouldat thesametimebeworshiped.”Onemust takecarefulnoteof theprescribed“action.”Christ,trueGodandMan,“inthis action decreedandpromisedHispresenceinaparticularlygraciousmanner”(Ex.2,280;emphasisadded).Inviewofallthis,Chemnitzissuesawarning,“Tobewareofidolatry,acleardistinctionmustbemade;Christ,GodandMan,presentinHisdivineandhumannatureinthe action of the Supper, shouldbeworshiped;however,thesubstanceorformoftheelementsofbreadandwineshouldnotbeworshipedlest,besidestheCreator,weworshipalsothecreature(Rom.1:25)”(Ex.2,279f.;em-phasisadded).

288 Second,theLutheranshaveanotherpointofdisagreementwiththeRomanists,whoworshiptheEucharistapartfromitsdivinelyinsti-tuteduse.They“strive,asCanonVIclearlyshows,toestablishandconfirmtheworshipofthebreadapart from its use,orapart from that action which Christ ordained andcommanded whenHe instituted it;namely,whenthebreadiscarriedaboutinprocessionsorreservedinarepository,thatthenitshouldbesetbeforethepeopletobeadored”Ex.2,280f.;emphasisadded).

289 ItisevidentthattounderstandChemnitzandhisfellowLutherans,it is extremely important to keep in mind the precise definition oftheterms“action”and“use.”The“divineinstitution,commandandpromise[are]boundtotheactionwhichisprescribedintheWordsofInstitution;thatis,whenthebreadistaken,blessed,distributed,received and eaten” (Ex. 2, 280). Even if one speaks the Verba, butthemeaningoftheentireinstitutionascommandedbyChrist(1Cor.11:24,25)hasbeenarbitrarilychanged,thenonedoes“nothavethepromiseofthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristthereasitis



presentinHisSupper”(Ex.2,280).Chemnitzconcludesthat“thereisnowordofGodabout thebreadof theEucharistbeingreservedorcarriedaboutinprocessions;infactitconflictswiththeWordsofInstitutionwhenthebreadwhichhasbeenblessedisnotdistributed,notreceived,noteaten”(Ex.2,281).Asamatteroffact,suchproce-dureofthePapistsis“breadworship”(Ex.2,281).

290 Third, Chemnitz mentions the fact that there was a controversyamongthePapalistsastothequestionofwhatessentiallyconstitutesthevenerationinthesacrament.ItisobvioustoChemnitzfromCan-onVIthattheTridentineFathersarechieflyconcernedabouttheex-ternalworship,“splendidhousing,extravagantprocessions,bowing,genuflection, prostration of the bodies, smiting the breast, candles,etc.,etc.”(Ex.2,281).WithrespecttoalltheseceremoniesChemnitzremarks,“AndtothisexternalculttheyascribeIknownotwhatmer-its,withouttruerepentanceandfaith”(Ex.2,281).

291 InordernottosayanythingtoosevereaboutthethingsdoneintheEucharist“outsideofthedivinelyinstituteduse,”hesetsforthtwoScripturalruleswhichwillaidoneindecidingabout“thedefinitionofworshiporcult”(Ex.2,281).Thefirstis“thattheassumedoutwardappearance of worship, without the inner spiritual impulses, doesnotpleaseGod,” justasChrist toldthescribesandPhariseeswhocametoHimbecausetheywereconcernedaboutthedisciplestrans-gressingthetraditionsoftheelders,Matt.15:8,9.Secondly,waysofworshipinstitutedorchosenbymenarenotpleasingtoGod,Matt.15:9;Col.2,23(imposedorself-madereligion).(Ex.2,281).

292 Chemnitz now summarizes the points that Luther had made in“The Adoration of the Sacrament” (LW 36, 290–298). First, theremustbe“true,innerspiritualworship.”Afterthat“thetrueexternalindicationsofinwardreverencefinallyandrightlyfollow”(Ex.2,281).The“true,innerandspiritualvenerationandworshipiscomprehend-ed in these words: ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ Likewise, ‘YouproclaimtheLord’sdeath’”(Ex.2,282).Thismeansthat“theheartbelievesandthinksrightly,piously,andreverentlyabouttheessenceanduseofthissacramentaccordingtotheWord;...thatitfaithfullyponderandconsider,andwiththeheartandmouthconsidertheim-measurablebenefitsoftheSonofGod,theMediator;...andthatHe[Christ]communicatesthisHisbodytousthatitmaybeeaten,andthisbloodthatitmaybedrunkinHisSupper,inorderthatinthis

wayHemightapplyandsealthebenefitsoftheNewTestamenttothebelieverswithamostsurepledge;...that,whenhavingconsid-eredouruncleannessandwretchedness,wecallinardentprayeruponChrist,GodandMan,whomwebelievetobetrulyandsubstantiallypresentinthataction,thatHewouldbeourMediator,Propitiator,Advocate,Intercessor,Justifier,andSavior....”(Ex.2,282).

293 “This,”Chemnitzdeclares,“isthetrueinnerandspiritualvenerationandworshipofChristintheuseoftheLord’sSupper”(Ex.2,283).

294 ChemnitzfinallysumsupbycitingexamplesfromJustin,Irenaeus,Chrysostom,Basil,etc.,that“thiskindofworshipiscertainlyobservedintheliturgiesoftheAncients,inprayingandgivingofthanks”(Ex.2, 283). And he concludes that “when this true, inner and spiritualworshiphasbeenexcitedandispresentintheheart,thentheoutwardmanifestations of reverence and veneration towards this sacramentfollowoftheirownaccord,andrightly”(Ex.2,283).Itisapartofour“genuineconfessionthatwealsobearwitnesspublicly,bothwiththevoiceandwithoutwardsignstothefaith,devotion,andpraisewhichwehavejustspoken”(Ex.2,283).

295 Among other things, this outward veneration is a confession of“whatfoodwebelievewereceivethere”(Ex.2,283).ItisevidentthatChemnitz here has specific reference to the Sacramentarians andthosewhodenythattheconsecrationeffectsthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChrist(seep.86,wheretheApologia repeatsthechargesoftheSacramentarians).Thisisevidentbecauseimmediatelyfollow-ing, Chemnitz writes, “With such external confession we separateourselvesfromtheSacramentariansandfromtheEpicureandespis-ersofthesemysteries”(Ex.2,283f.).72

the Formula of concord and the veneration

296 TheFormulaofConcord treadsaveryprecise line in itsdiscus-sion of the adoration of the sacrament, following very closely thelimitswhichChemnitzhasclearlysetforthintheExamination. IntheSolidDeclarationtherearethreeantithesesdirectedagainsttheRomanists:Transubstantiationanditsimplications;theSacrificeoftheMass;andtheadministrationofonlyonespeciestothelaity(SDVII,108–110).

297 Thefirstcondemnatoryclause(SDVII,108)notonlyrejectstran-substantiationbutalsotheconcomitantteachingthatafterthecon-



secrationthereresultsthecontinuedpresenceofthebodyandbloodofChrist“apart from the useofthesacrament”(SDVII,108;empha-sis added). Note that this antithesis rejects only what the Triden-tineCanonVI says inanathematizing anyonewhodenies that thesacrament could be venerated in special festivals and carried aboutinprocessions(Ex.2,276).It isoftenoverlookedthatthiscarefullyconstructedantithesisspeaks only abouttheadorationoutsideoftheprescribeduse,whichprescribeduseisdefinedinSDVII,84:conse-crate,distribute,andeatanddrink.

298 One cannot help seeing how closely the Solid Declaration herefollows Chemnitz’s exposition. He always carefully defined the ac-tiontowhichthecommandandpromisearebound,“whenthebreadis taken,blessed,distributed, receivedandeaten” (Ex. 2, 280).But“inthefearofGod,”Chemnitzsays,weshouldponderthefactthat“wehavenoWordofGodconcerningitthatitisthebodyofChrist[whenitisset]apartfromitsproperuse”(Ex.2,280).ThisisallthatChemnitzandtherestoftheformulatorshavesaidinSDVII,108.IntheExamination thedifferencebetweentheRomanandLutheranpositionsismadeclear,“ItdoesnotfollowthatifinthetrueuseoftheLord’sSupperChristisrightlyworshiped,thenaparticularcultorworshipshouldbeinstitutedapartfromthisuse,aswhenitiscar-riedaboutorreserved”(Ex.2,280f.).Asamatteroffact,ChemnitzisveryspecificaboutwhatiscommandedintheVerba,“AndthereisnowordofGodaboutthebreadoftheEucharistbeingreservedorcarriedaboutinprocessions,infact,itconflictswiththeWordsofInstitutionwhenthebreadwhichhasbeenblessedisnotdistributed,notreceived,noteaten”(Ex.2,281).

299 There is another antithesis, No. 15, against the Sacramentarians,that needs investigation, “Likewise, the teaching that the elements(thevisibleformsoftheblessedbreadandwine)aretobeadored.Ofcourse,nooneexceptanArianhereticcanorwilldenythatChristHimself,trueGodandMan,whoistrulyandessentiallypresentintheSupper,whenit isrightlyused,shouldbeadoredinSpiritand in truth in all places but especially where his community isassembled”(SDVII,126).Atfirstblushthisseemstobedirectedonly against theRomanCatholics, and ithaspuzzled some thatit should appear here among the antitheses “against the Sacra-mentarians,someofwhomhavehadtheeffronterytopenetrateour

churchesasadherentsoftheAugsburgConfession”(SDVII, 111).73Why doesn’t this antithesis, so obviously intended against the Pa-pists,appearsomewhereinSDVII,108–110, insteadof inSDVII,126?Could itbepossible thatChemnitzandhis fellowtheologianswhoalmostinvariablypresenttheirthoughtsinalogicalandcoherentmanner,herehadalapsus, aslipofthepen?

300 Thisodditypromptsonetotakeacloserlookatwhatthestatementactuallysaysandtoseewhyitisplacedwhereitis.Itisobviousthatitrejectstheteachingthatthe“visibleformsoftheblessedbread”aretobeadored.Chemnitz,aswellastheothertrueLutherans,taughtthataftertheconsecrationthebodyandbloodofChristarepresentbutthebreadandthewinealsoremain.Thereisasacramentalunionbe-tweentheearthlyandtheheavenlyelements(seep.45f.).And,ashasalreadybeennoted (seep. 113),Chemnitzmakes the trueLutheranpositionclear,namely,thatthe“substanceorformoftheelementofbreadandwineshouldnotbeworshiped,lestbesidetheCreator,weworshipalsothecreature”(Ex.2,280).

301 ScrutinizingagainthesecondpartofSDVII,126,oneimmediate-lynoticesthatthefollowingwordshaveafamiliarring,“Ofcourse,nooneexceptanArianhereticcanorwilldeny thatChristHim-self,trueGodandMan,whoistrulyandessentiallypresentintheSupperwhenitisrightlyused,shouldbeadoredinspiritandtruthinallplacesbutespeciallywherehiscommunityisassembled”(SDVII,126b).ThismaterialistakenfromChemnitz’sExamination II, (pp.277–281),andithasbeentelescopedintothisonesentence(seep.103f.).ItisalmostidenticalwithChemnitz’sclosingwordsonwhatis “not incontroversy,” “noone, therefore,denies thatChrist,GodandMan,trulyandsubstantiallypresentinHisdivineandhumannature in the action of the Lord’s Supper, should be worshiped inspiritandintruth,exceptsomeonewho,withtheSacramentarians,eitherdeniesorharborsdoubtconcerningthepresenceofChristintheSupper”(Ex.2,279).

302 Whattheantithesis(SDVII,126),placedasitisamongtheSac-ramentarian antitheses, does do is to reject the Sacramentarianchargethat thetrueLutheranswereguiltyofartolatry.Ifonede-nied,astheMelanchthoniansdid(seep.83),thattheconsecrationeffectedtheRealPresenceandstillveneratedthesacrament, thensuchaonewouldindeedbeguiltyofartolatry.Thisisachargethat



Melanchthonquiteoftenmadeagainsthisopponents.Oneshouldnote that the last two antitheses (SD VII 126, 127) of the sixteenare of a different nature from those preceding, in that they rejectfalseaccusationsmadeagainstthetrueLutherandoctrine.TheyaredisavowalsthattheLutheransevercountenancedtheadorationofthevisibleelements,andthattheypermittedanykindofthinkingwhichattemptedtoexplainthesupernaturalmysteryofthesacra-mentalunionasconsistingofthecircumscriptive“comprehensible,corporealmodeofpresence”(SDVII,99;seealsoEp.VII,42,LW37,222,andTNC448f.).

303 From the evidence previously set forth, it cannot be denied thatLuther,Chemnitz,andtheirfellow-confessionalistsdidallowfortheadorationandeventheelevationwithinthecarefullyprescribedlim-itsofthe“action”or“use.”IntheLord’s Supper Chemnitzhaspreciselyexplainedwhatisconfessedinthefifteenthantithesis(SDVII,126).Heagreedwiththeancientswho“recognizedandconfessedthatitisastupendousmiraclethatoneandthesamebodyofChristwhichisinheavenisatthesametime,althoughinadifferentmode,presentalsoonearthinallthoseplaceswheretheLord’sSupperiscelebratedac-cordingtoHisinstitution,becauseChristsays:‘Thisismybody’”(LS157).Chemnitzfurtheragreeswiththeancientswho“didnotadoretheexternalelementsofbreadandwineonthealtar;thereforetheyheldthatChristispresentwithHisverybodyandbloodnotonlyinheavenbutalsotherewheretheLord’sSupperiscelebratedaccordingtoHisinstitution.Forthisreasontheycallitafearfulandawesomemystery” (LS 160).Since theSacramentarians couldnotaccept thefewclearwordsofChrist,theyresortedtocallingtheLutheransar-tolators,eventhoughthesevehementlydeniedthattheyadoredtheexternal elements. But the Lutherans did at the same time confessthatJesusChrist,trueGodandManinoneperson,wassacramen-tallyunitedwiththeelementsthroughtheWordsofInstitution,andthatwhentheSupperwasrightlyused,Hewastobeadoredthere“inspiritandintruth”(SDVII,126).

304 ThreehundredyearslaterConfessionalLutheranswereconfront-edwiththesameproblemthatplaguedChemnitzandhisfellowLu-therans.DuringthecontroversiesprecedingtheFormulaofConcordthephrase“Crypto-Calvinism”wascoinedtodesignatethosewithintheLutheranChurchwhosecretlyheldtotheCalvinisticdoctrineas

formulated,forexample,intheExegesis Perspicua(1573).In the1880’sintheUnitedStatestheterm“Crypto-Calvinism”wasrevivedwiththe charge against the Synodical Conference Lutherans that theywere secretly introducing Calvin’s absolute decree of election andreprobation.WhilethesesynodspubliclyrepudiatedthattheyevertaughtanykindofCalvinism,andinsistedthattheyconfessedthegratia universalis withallseriousness,thechargeofCrypto-Calvin-ismpersistedintothetwentiethcentury.In1932whentheLutheranChurchMissouriSynodadoptedits“BriefStatement,”theypubliclyandunambiguouslyrepudiatedthechargeofCalvinism:

On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures werejecteverykindofSynergism, that is, thedoctrine thatconversion iswrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part alsoby thecooperationofmanhimself....Ontheotherhand,werejectalsotheCalvinistic perversion ofthedoctrineofconversion,thatis,thedoctrinethatGoddoesnotdesiretoconvertandsaveallhearersoftheWord,butonlyaportionofthem....Ourrefusaltogobeyondwhatis revealed in these two Scriptural truths is not“masked Calvinism”(“Crypto-Calvinism”) but precisely the Scriptural teaching of theLutheranChurchasitispresentedindetailintheFormulaofConcord.(BriefStatement,par.12,13,15).

305 ThesituationoftheSynodicalConferenceLutheranswasnotun-likethatofChemnitzandotherswhorejectedthevenerationofthesacramentoutsideitsprescribedusebutdidholdtothepermissibil-ity of the adoration within the prescribed action. They were bothboundtoScripture,eventhoughwhattheyreadandfromwhichtheydrewvalidimplicationsseemedcontrarytoreasonandevenagainsttheprevailingwindsofthoughtfoundamongtheirassociates.Theirconviction that there was a permissible external veneration of thesacrament came from their innermost faith that the words of ourSaviorarenotconditionedonanythingmandoesorleavesundoneorontimeandplaceorontheexternalriteitself.WhentheWordsofInstitutionsoundfromthealtarbytheofficiant,theybelievethemto be almighty creative words that achieve what they say, “This ismybody,” “This ismybloodof theCovenantwhich ispouredoutformany.”AndsinceitwastheSavior’slastwillandtestament,thewords, “Dothis inremembranceofme”meanthat it isan institu-tionforalltimes.BecauseofthistheywerecertainthatwhentheyfollowedthemandatetodowhatChristdidthatevening,theyhad



thesameSupperastheonetheLordinstitutedintheUpperRoom.Hence their innermost conviction and confession that when thewords,“Thisismybody”soundforthfromJesus’lips,that takesplacewhichthewordssay.LutherisrightwhenheinthiscontextquotesthePsalmist,“SoHiswordsurelyisnotmerelyawordofimitation,butawordofpowerwhichaccomplisheswhatitexpresses,Psalm33[:9],‘Hespake,anditcametobe’”(LW37,181).

the reliquiae

306 AsChemnitzunfoldshisdoctrineoftheLord’sSupper,itisevi-dentthathehaspouredtheresultsofhisstudyoftheWordsofIn-stitution into the axiom: “Nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ, or apart from the divinely insti-tuted action” (SDVII,85).But,ashasalreadybeenemphasized,theterms“use”and“action”inthecontextoftheLord’sSupperarenotonlysynonymous,butoveragainsttheirgeneralizedvaguemeaning,theyhaveanextremelyprecisemeaning(seep.13f.).Withinthepre-scribed“action”oftheSavior,thebreadandthewinehavebecomethebodyandbloodofChrist,whicharethentobeeatenanddrunk.Chemnitz isquiteexplicit, “ItconflictswiththeWordsofInstitu-tionwhenthebreadwhichhasbeenblessedisnotdistributed,notreceived,noteaten”(Ex.2,281).

307 The promise given in the Sacrament is that we receive “the mostcertainandmostexcellentpledgeofourreconciliationwithGod,oftheforgivenessofsins,ofimmortalityandfutureglorification”(Ex.2,233).ButtheimpartationofthesegiftsdependsupontheordinanceandcommandofGodinHislastwillandtestament.TheSonofGodhas“prescribed”a“particularaction...intheinstitution”(Ex.2,304;seealsoEx.2,245).Withthemandata intheVerba,theSaviorhasprescribedathree-foldaction,“bless,break,anddistribute.”Chem-nitz’sdoctrinalstanceinthisrespectcanbebetterunderstoodfromanapprovingquotationbyHumbert,bishopofSylvaCandida,

We read that the Lord did not teach His disciples an imperfectbutaperfectcommemoration,blessingthebreadand at once breaking and distributing it.ForHedidnotjustblessitand then reserve it to be broken thenext day, neitherdidHeonlybreakitandthenlayitaway;buthavingbrokenit,Heimmediatelydistributedit....Forwhateverof these three [i.e., bless, break, distribute] is done without the rest,namely,eitherblessingwithoutbreakinganddistribution,orbreaking

withoutblessinganddistribution,doesnotdisplayaperfectmemoryofChrist,evenasdistributionwithoutblessingandbreaking.(Ex.2,298;emphasisadded).

308 InhispreliminarystatementbeforeexaminingindetailtheTriden-tineConfessionon these controvertedpoints,Chemnitz setsdownthebasicmeaningoftheVerba,

ThereforetheWordsofInstitutionarespokeninourLord’sSupper,notmerelyforthesakeofhistorybuttoshowtothechurchthatChristHimselfthroughHisWordaccordingtoHiscommandandpromise,ispresentintheactionoftheSupperandbythepowerofthisWordoffersHis body and blood to those who eat. For it is He who distributes,thoughitbethroughtheminister;itisHewhosays:“Thisismybody.”ItisHewhoisefficaciousthroughHisWord,sothatthebreadisHisbodyandthewineHisblood.Inthisway,and because of this, we are sure and believe that in the Lord’s Supper we eat, not ordinary bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ (Ex.2,229;emphasisadded).

Andasthesucceedingtextsdemonstrate,ChemnitzhasdrawnthesefactsfromthewordsthatChristhassaid,“Dothisinremembranceofme”(Ex.2,230).The“basicprinciple”isthat“theinstitutionisthenormandrulefromwhichandaccordingtowhichallsuchquestionsanddisputes[i.e.,whethertheconsecratedbreadshouldbedistrib-utedorreserved]aretobedecided”(Ex.2,249).

the Mandata Dei

309 TherearecommandsandordinancesforthechurchofGod,andsincetheyexpressthewillofGod,thechurchofGodwillcarefullyfollowthem.Henceobeyingthesemandata dei isnotaformoflegal-ismsincetheyactuallyprotecttheChristiansfromlegalisticpracticeswhichhavenofoundationintherevealedwillofGod.Thereisalwaysthedangerthat“intheadministrationoftheSacramentsmoreim-portanceisattachedtotheceremoniesinventedandreceivedbymanthantotheceremonies instituted and commanded by the voice of the Son of God” (Ex.2,109;emphasisadded).Asasafeguardagainstallthecapricesandextravagantnotionsofmenforbeautifyingandmakingmore meaningful the administration of the sacraments, Chemnitzinsiststhat

thewholeaction isperformedandadministered inacertainwayandwithaspecificdivinelyinstitutedceremony.HowthisoughttobedonehasbeenstatedinScriptureandtracedbeforehandforthechurchina



sureandclearWordofGod,namely,thatthosesignsandthosewordsshould be used which God Himself instituted and prescribed at theinstitutionofeachsacramentandthattheyshouldbeperformedandusedastheinstitutionordainsanddirects.Theseritesareessentialandnecessaryintheadministrationofthesacraments,fortheycarryouttheinstitution.(Ex.2,110).

Thesewordsare reminiscentof theAugsburgConfession in reject-ingthecustomofwithholdingthecupfromthelaitywhichsaysthat“suchacustom,introducedcontrary to God’s command andalsocon-trarytotheancientcanons,isunjust”(ACXXII,10;emphasisadded).TheTreatiseonthePowerandPrimacyofthePopedeclaresthatitiswrongforthePopetoarrogate“tohimselftheauthoritytomakelawsconcerningworship,concerningchangesinthesacrament,andconcerningdoctrine”(Tr.6).

310 SuchcommandsofChrist,Chemnitzfurthernotesbywayofex-planation,mustbefortheuniversalchurchandnotonlyforaspecifictimenorforspecificallynamedpersons.Herecognizesthepossibil-itythatifoneusedonlytheaccountsofMatthewandMarkoftheinstitutionoftheSupper,he“mightnotbeabletodetermineclearlyand with certainty whether this command concerning the Lord’sSupper was only a personal one pertaining only to the apostles atthattime,asthecommandtoPeterbywhichhewasorderedtowalkonthewaves,orwhetheritwasauniversalcommandpertainingtothewholechurchandto thewholeperiodof theNewTestament”(LS 107). Christ, however, in His “repetition to Paul adds thesewords:‘Thisdoinremembranceofme’”(LS107f.).AndPaulisevenmorespecific,“Paulexplainsthesewordsthus; ‘Asoftenasyoueatthis bread you show forth the Lord’s death till He comes’ (1 Cor.11:26)” (LS108).Closelyrelatedto thisneed for theuniversalityofthecommandforthechurch,Chemnitzrecognizesthatintheearlychurchforatimethereweremiraclesofhealing,speakingintongues,etc.,whichaccompaniedthepreachingoftheGospel.Thequestionnaturallyarisesanddisturbsusastowhywedon’tusethosemeansnow as a sort of additional fortification of the genuineness of theGospel.Chemnitzanswersthatthefactthattheapostlesandothersintheprimitivechurchwereequippedwiththegiftofhealingbynomeanssaysthatwewillhaveit,becauseGodhasnotcommandedthechurchuniversaltoperformthosethings.Chemnitzaddresseshim-selftotheRomanCatholicpracticeofextremeunctionbypointing

outthat“welackbothcommandandpromiseregardingthatextremeunctionon thebasisof theWordofGod” (MWS, 111).This is animportanttheologicalpointforustoremembertoday.TheReforma-tiontheologiansunderstooditmuchbetterthanwedotodaysinceweareafraidthatthemandatadei mightbe“legalistic.”Lutherinhiswork,“HowChristiansShouldRegardMoses,”saysthatheiscom-mandedtopreachtheGospelandifChristhadnotsocommanded,“thenIwouldnotlisten,wouldnotbebaptized,justasInowwillnotlistentoMosesbecauseheisgivennottomebutonlytotheJews”(LW35,171).Thusthemandata dei doservetoprotectus,andatthepresent time theyarea strongreminder tous toavoidanyandalltypesofPentecostalism.

311 ChemnitzdealsmostspecificallywithwhatshouldbedonewiththeconsecratedelementswhenhediscussestheRomanCorpusChristiFestival(Ex.2,285–292),andtheReservingoftheSacramentoftheEucharistandCarryingittotheSick(Ex.2,293–313).CanonVIIofthe Tridentine Decree concerning the Eucharist states, “If anyonesaysthatitisnotpermittedtoreservetheHolyEucharistinasacredplace,butthatitmustofnecessitybedistributedimmediatelyaftertheconsecrationtothosewhoarepresent,orthatitisnotpermittedthatitbecarriedtothesickinanhonorablemanner,lethimbeanath-ema”(Ex.2,293).

312 Chemnitz immediately pinpoints the difference between the Ro-manandLutheranpositionswhenhewrites:

TheprincipalquestionhereiswhetherthebreadoftheEucharist,whenithasbeenblessed,hallowed,orconsecratedbytherecitationoftheWordsofInstitutionshouldbeatoncedistributed,taken,andeatenincommemorationofChrist,orwhetherafterithasbeenblessed,thedistribution,takingandeatingmaybeomittedandthebreadputaway,inclosed, reserved, carriedabout,displayed, andput tootheruses, sothatfinally,afteranumberofdays,weeks,months,oryearsthetakingandeatingmayfollow.

The Tridentine Decree which sanctions and establishes suchreservationconfessesthatitwasbroughtintothechurch,thoughitisprescribedneitherbytheWordofGodnorbythetraditionorexampleof the apostles. Instead, it says that it is an old custom and a mostancientpractice.(Ex.2,293).

313 Since in this case Trent appeals to ancient custom for withhold-ingtheconsecratedbread,ChemnitzrepliesthatthecustommustbetestedbythedivineWord,



Thematterisveryclearintheaccountoftheinstitution.ForJesustook bread and gave thanks or blessed it. He did not, however, afterblessing put it away to be reserved but broke it and gave it to Hisdisciples. Neither did He command that they should put away thisbread,reserveit,carryitabout,ordisplayittoothers,butsaid:“Takeeat.”Norwasthereinterposedadelayorintervalofsomehours,days,weeks, months, or years between blessing, distribution, taking andeating.ButwhenHehadblessed,Heatoncedistributed.Andthatthedisciplesatoncetookwhathadbeendistributed,andthattheydidnotputtosomeotherusewhattheyhadtaken,butateanddrankastheyhad been commanded—this Mark shows in the description of thesecondpart,wheninthemidstofthedescriptionheinterposesthesewords:“Andalldrankofit”(Ex.2,294).

Chemnitz canfindnoevidence in theaccountof the institutionoftheLord’sSupperwhichwouldallowforadelayintheconsumptionoftheconsecratedelements,“apartfromitsuse.”Theentireaccountalsodemonstratesthis;“for,”heobserves,“ChristatethePassover...according to the Law...between sunset and nightfall.” After thecommonSupperhadbeenfinished “thenonlydidHe institute theEucharist.”Andthenaftertheinstitution,“Heheldthelengthydis-coursewrittendown in Johnand fromthereHewentout into theGarden....”(Ex.2,294).Chemnitzconcludesfromthesefactsthat“thiscomputationshowsplainlythattherewasnolongdelayintheactionofthefirstLord’sSupper”(Ex.2,294).

314 Butinthefinalanalysis,Christ’s“Dothis”makeseverythingclear,“WeshouldfollowanddowhatwasdoneatthefirstLord’sSupper”(Ex. 2, 294). There is no trace in the history of the apostles whichmight indicatethattheytore“apart thedistributionandtherecep-tion from the blessing” (Ex. 2, 295). Hence we ought to follow thejudgmentofCyprianbynotgiving“heed[to]whatothersbeforeusthoughtoughttobedone,butwhatHewhoisbeforealldidfirstandcommanded to be done untilHecomestojudgment”(Ex.2,295;em-phasisadded;Ex.2,312).

315 SinceChemnitz isconvincedthatthisrule issolidlygroundedinthefinalauthority,namely,Scripture(seep.16f.),hemakestheun-ambiguousconfessionthat

we will not put away the bread and the wine which have been blessed with the words of the Supper, shut themin,reservethem,carrythemabout,and use them for display, but will distribute, receive, eat, and drinkthem,andproclaimthedeathoftheLord.Thustheobedience of faith

willdowhatChristdidbeforeandcommanded to be done. (Ex.2,295;emphasisadded).

316 ItisadogmaticdemandforChemnitzthatinaccordwiththewillof theSaviorall theelements thathavebeenconsecrated tobe thebodyandbloodoftheSavioraretobedistributed,received,eatenanddrunkinthatsacramentalservice.IndisputingwithhisJesuitoppo-nentAndrada,concerningcommunionunderbothkinds,Chemnitzrevealshisaweinthepresenceofaclearmandatum dei, andhisdesiretodothewilloftheLordsoclearlyexpressed,

ButIaskwhetherChristwantedwhatHehadorderedatthattimeto be done once only, namely, at the first Supper. This Andrada willdeny.ForChristaddsthecommand:“Dothis”;thatis,whathadbeendone at the first Supper should be done afterward or in future untiltheendoftheworld(asPaulexplains).Ifthiscommandhadnotbeenhanded down by Christ, no man would have dared or ought to haveimitatedwhatwasdoneatthefirstSupper(Ex.2,403).74

the reservation in tradition

317 SincetheTridentineFathersadmittedthatthereisnoScripturalbasis for either the Corpus Christi Festival (Ex. 2, 285) or for theReservationoftheSacramentinCarryingittotheSick(Ex.2,293),theyhadtofallbackoncustomandtraditiontojustifytheirpractice.Chemnitz,inacoolandscholarlyapproach,agreesto“considerandmentallyweighwhetherthetestimoniesofantiquitywhichtheyad-vanceconcerningthatoldcustomandancientpractice[i.e.,Reserv-ingtheEucharist]provethatthecustomofreservingthesacramentof theEucharist isnecessary, as theTridentineDecreemaintains”(Ex.2,296).

318 He makes short shrift of the Corpus Christi Festival. Pope Ur-banIV“firstinventedthisfestivalaboutA.D.1260”(Ex.2,285).BeforeUrbanbecamepope,acertainwoman,arecluse,revealedtohimthatsuchafestivalshouldbeinstitutedand“generallycelebrated.”AssoonashebecamepopeUrbanatonceinstitutedthisnewfestivalonthebasisoftherevelationofthewomanand“orderedbyastrictcommandthatitshouldeverywherebecelebrated”(Ex.2,285).Althoughthere-cordshowsthatUrban’sorderwasnotreceivedbyall,andcertainlynotbytheGreeks,itneverthelessbecameapermanentritein1311attheCouncilofVienna,whenClementVcommandedthatthisorder



shouldbeobservedbyall.Afterbrieflyexaminingsomeof thishis-toricalmaterialwhichismorecloselyrelatedtocarryingittothesickandlookingagainattheoriginalinstitutionoftheSupper,Chemnitzbelievesthat

thereaderwillseethatthisfestivalisintruthnothingelsethanapublicand solemn protestation against the institution of the Son of God.Thisfestivalwasinstitutedonceuponatimetoobscure,pushintothebackground,andburythethingswhichareprescribedandcommandedintheinstitution,andinorderthatotheranddifferentuses,concerningwhich nothing is either prescribed or commanded in the institution,might be put in their place and that the people might be persuadedthat this is a more excellent worship. For this purpose this feast wasinstitutedonceupona timeand for this it is retainedandcelebratedtoday,asisclearfromthethingswehavenoted.(Ex.2,292).

319 Withrespecttothereservationforthepurposeofcarryingthesac-ramenttothesick,Chemnitztakesgreaterpainstoexaminethema-terialpresentedinitsdefense.Here,asperhapsinnootherplace,hedemonstratesthathehasdevotedyearstoresearchofchurchdogmaandhistory,thathehasanencyclopedicmindandwithittheabilitytodissectthemostintricatematerialandlaybaretheheartofthematter.SincetheRomanistsstate that theyare thinkingof theusage“afterthetimeoftheApostles,”Chemnitzbeginshisexaminationbygoingdirectly toearlyCanonLaw,andhefinds that thepresentCatholicpracticeisinconflictwithit.HereproducesfromtheCanonLaw

copiesofthestatementfromClement, aRomanpontiff,prescribing howapresbyter,deacon,andministeroughttocarefortheleft-overfragmentsofthebodyoftheLord.Hedoesnotbythiscareunderstandreservation,butaddsaclearexplanationinthewords:“Letasmanywafersbeofferedonthealtarasoughttosufficeforthepeople.Butifanyareleftoverletthemnotbereserveduntilthenextday,butletthembeeatenwithfearand trembling by the attentive clergy.” Lest this be understood of theofferingofthepeople,headdsatonce:“TheseclericseattheremnantsofthebodyofChristwhichareleftinthesacristy.”Aglossattemptstoevadethis,asthoughonlyreservationfortheworkofthosewhoperformtheconsecrationwereprohibitedthere.Butthetextsspeaksexpresslyofthecommunionofthepeople.(Ex.2,297).

320 Thencomesanarrayofearlyauthoritieswhoingeneralcalledfortheconsumptionof thereliquiae by theclergyor scholars fromtheschool;forexample,“Whenafterthecommunionasomewhatlargeramountof thepartsof the immaculateanddivinebodywas left, it

wasnotreserved,butcertainboysweresentforfromtheelementaryschool whoweretoeattheseremnants” (Ex. 2,298).Clementclarifiesthiscustombyexplainingthat“theremnantsshouldbeeatenbytheclergyonthesameday,”exceptwhentheamountoftheremnantswasextremelylarge,scholarsweresummonedtopartakewiththem.

321 Chemnitz notes that the Greeks (“not among the most ancient”)introducedaliturgycalledproeegiasmenon, “thatis,ofpreviouslycon-secratedelements.”DuringLenttheywouldconsecrateelementsonlyonSaturdayandSunday,andnotonanyofthefiveotherdays.In thisnewliturgytheywoulddistributeonlypreconsecratedelements.ButHumbert,BishopofSylvaCandida,stronglycriticizedthisriteoftheGreeks,saying,“amongotherthings,

weread that theLorddidnot teachHisdisciplesan imperfectbutaperfect commemoration,blessing thebreadandatoncebreakinganddistributing it. For He did not just bless it and then reserve it to bebrokenthenextday,neitherdidHeonlybreakitandthenlayitaway;buthavingbrokenit,Heimmediatelydistributedit”(Ex.2,298).

322 Chemnitzconcludeshislistingofwitnesseswithaveryrecentone,GabrielBiel(1420–95),thegreatnominalisttheologian,oneofwhosestudentshadbeenateacherofLutheratErfurt.Biel’sreferencesumsupquite succinctly theBiblicalobjections to consecratingelementsbutnotdistributing them. In hisLecture26on theCanonhe “ad-ducesastatementfromPaschasiusandsays,

Christ, desiring that His disciples might become partakers of thefruitofthissacrament,didnot,afterHehadconsecratedHisbody,stopwiththeconsecration;neitherdidHegive it tothedisciples inorderthattheymightpreserveitinanhonorablemanner,butgaveitforitsuse,saying:“Takeeat”;andbecauseinthecourseofusewhatiseatenisspentandconsumed,Hegavethemthepowertoconsecrateasoftenastheywould,whenHeadds:“Thisdoinmemoryofme”(Ex.2,299).

323 FromthefactsoftheBiblicalevidenceandthehistoryoftheprac-ticeoftheearlychurchChemnitzdrawsthefinalconclusion,“There-forereservationoftheconsecratedEucharistwithoutdistributionandreceptionhasnotbeenreceived,approved,andobserved,eitheralways,oreverywhere,orbyallasaCatholicdogmaandnecessarycustom.Rather,therewerethosewhonotonlydidnotobservethiscustombutstronglycondemneditonthebasisoftheWordsofIn-stitution”(Ex.2,299).



324 Chemnitz,however,grantsthat“thePapalistsalsohavecertainex-amplesofareservedEucharist”(Ex.2,299).Sothesealsoneedtobeexamined.The“Tridentinelawgivers”claimthattheyhavetestimonyfromtheNiceneSynodtoprovereservation,namely,theallegedCanonwhichsaysthatthedeaconswhodidnothavetheauthoritytoconse-crate,weretodistributeandeattheelementsifthebishoporpresbyterwas not present. Hence the Eucharist must have “been consecratedbeforehand”(Ex.2,300).ButChemnitzshowsfromhistoricalrecordsthatitisamatterofuncertaintyastohowmanycanonstheCouncilofNiceahadactuallydecreed,andinparticular,“thecanonfromwhichtheyattempttoprovereservationisnotonlydoubtfulbutaltogethersuspect.”Itseemstohavebeen”patchedon”inthesecondeditionofthecanons.AttheSixthSynodofCarthage,asamatteroffact,“theRomanswereconvictedofhavingfalsifiedtheNiceneCanons.”So,atbestitisadoubtfulbitofevidence.(Ex.2,301).

325 SincethePapalistsseemtohave“surertestimoniesfromtheEarlyChurch,” it iswelltonotethattheLutherans’disputewiththemisthattheyreservethe“consecratedbreadforworshipandadoration,apart from the distribution and reception” (Ex.2,301;emphasisadded).Chemnitz,itwillberemembered,hasnoobjectiontothevenerationwithin thedivinely instituteduse (seep. 104).ButasoneexaminessomewhatmorecloselytheevidencegainedfromJustin, itbecomesevident that “there is preserved the total divinely instituted action,namely,blessing,distribution,andreception”(Ex.2,301).Whatthedeaconsdidwastocarrytheconsecratedelementsfromtheassemblyofthechurchsothatthosewhowereabsentmightcommune.

326 TheRomanists,indefenseoftheirpracticeasbeingofancientori-gin,bringforwardareportofIrenaeus’actionsasgivenbyEusebius.But“tobeabletotwistthisexampletotheirreservationandcarryingabout,theymisusetheversionofRufinus”(Ex.2,302).IrenaeushadreportedthatwhentheEasternprelatescametoRome,theRomanbishops“wouldsendtheEucharisttothemasawitnessofharmonyandpeace,thoughtheydisagreedontheobservationofEaster”(Ex.2,302).Andrada,Chemnitzbelieves,indulgedinabitof“trickery”whenhe“feignedonthebasisof thishistorythat formerly theEucharistwascarriedtoplacesovergreatdistances,namely,allthewayfromRometoAsia”(Ex.2,302).ForChemnitzdemonstratesthatthewordsofIrenaeusrefertoalocalsituationwhenheusestheword

“epempon—they sent,” because Irenaeus is explicit in stating that“theseguestshadcometoRomefromAsia”Ex.2,302).

327 InasimilardetailedmannerChemnitzanalyzesthevariousexam-plesadducedfromantiquity(Ex.2,302–305),andhefindsthat“thereisstillobservedtheuseoractioninstitutedbyChrist.”Afterthecon-secrationtheelementsweredistributedandreceived(Ex.2,303).HedoesdiscussinsomedetailtheexampleoftheconsecratedelementsbeingcarriedtoSerapion,asreportedbyEusebius(Ex.2,305).Therewerecasesofreservationforprivateuse,but,saysChemnitz,thistypeofreservationwasnot“universalnorperpetual”(Ex.2,305).Whiletheremayoncehavebeensomereasonsforit(e.g.,timesofpersecu-tion,protectingthesickfromreceivinganhereticalcommunion,etc.),neverthelesssuchacustomcould“spawnmanyabusesandvarioussu-perstitions”(Ex.2,306).ItisnotsurprisingthereforethatintheEarlyChurchthecustom“waschanged,abrogated,andseverelyforbidden”(Ex.2,306).TheFirstCouncilofToledo(400A.D.)decreedthat“ifanyone does not eat the Eucharist which he has received from thepriest,lethimbecastoutasasacrilegiousperson.”AndacertainCae-sarAugustanusreportsthat“withrespecttotheEucharist,ifanyoneisprovednottohaveconsumeditinthechurch,lethimbeanathemaforever”(Ex.2,306).

328 Chemnitz does not overlook the extenuating circumstances thatpermittedthecarryingoftheconsecratedelementstothesick,“Wedo not condemn those ancientmenwho observed this custom, be-causetheyhaveweightyreasonsonaccountofthenatureofthetimes”(Ex.2,308).Buthealsoaddsthisjudgment,“Letthereaderobservethat,whentherewerenosickpersonstobecommuned,nothing was reserved or put back” (Ex.2,309;emphasisadded).

329 Inthe“trueantiquity”Chemnitzreallyfindsonlyoneexampleofsuchareservationforthesick,namely,thatofSerapion.AsEusebiusdescribesit,“Thepresbyter,lyingsickinhishouse,gavetheEucharisttoayoungmantotaketoSerapion”(Ex.2,307).Butasamatteroffact“thereisalsoanotherwaytosatisfytheinstitutionofChristandcometotheaidofthedying”(Ex.2,309).TheLutherans“inthecom-munionofthesickrecitethewordsoftheSupperwhichareinfacttheconsecrationinthepresenceofthesickperson”(Ex.2,312).ChemnitzsummarizesthereasonforthispracticeasderivingdirectlyfromtheWordsofInstitution,



Thematterisnotobscureifwesetbeforeourselvesasnormandrulethedescriptionoftheinstitution.ForChristfirstofallusedHiswords,whichHewantedtohavecometotheelement inorderthat itmightbecomeasacrament;HeusedthemintheplaceandatthetimewhereandwhenHewasabouttodistributecommunion,andinthepresenceof those to whom He wanted to communicate His body and blood.ThereforeitagreesbetterwiththedescriptionoftheinstitutionandtheexampleofChristtorecitetheWordsofInstitutionandbymeansofthemtoblesstheEucharistattheplaceandtimeofcommunion,inthepresenceofthosewhoaretobecommuned,ratherthanatanotherplaceandtimeintheabsenceofthosetowhomitisoffered.

Second: The words of the Supper:“He said, Take, eat; do this,”etc.,aredirectednottotheelementsbuttothosewhowereabouttocommune. Therefore it is not in accord with the institution to directthesewordsonlytothebreadandwineandthatintheabsenceofthosewhoaretobecommuned.

Third:Christdidnotwantcommunion tobea silentaction, asaphysiciangives andapplies amedicinepreparedat anotherplaceandtime,butwhenHegavethebreadHehadbrokenandthecupHehadblessedtoHisdisciples,Hespoke.AndindeedHeaddedthecommand:“Dothisinremembranceofme.”PaulinterpretsthisasproclaimingtheLord’sdeath.Indeed,hesaysthatthisproclamationoughttobemadenotonly inblessing theelements, as thoughwhen theyareeaten theactionshouldbesilent,but“AsoftenasyoueatthisbreadanddrinkofthiscupyouproclaimtheLord’sdeath.”AndHedidnotwantthisdoneonlyatthetimeoftheApostles,butuntiltheLordcomestojudgment.Thesethingsarecertainlyveryclear.

Fourth:ComfortconcerningtheuseandbenefitoftheEucharistisnecessarymostofallforthesick.ThereisnodoubtthatthisisincludedandtaughtinthewordsofChristbymeansofwhichthissacramentiseffected.FaithalsoseeksandapprehendsitintheWord,asPaulsaysofbaptism:“CleansingthechurchbythewashingofwaterwiththeWord”(Eph. 5:26).Therefore it is right andbeneficial that thewordsof theSupper,withwhichthebreadandwineoftheEucharistareblessed,arerecitedinthepresenceandinthehearingofthesickperson.

Fifth:Inthiswaymanyquestionsandargumentsabouttheparticlesoftheelementsreservedapartfromuse,whichdisturbedthesimplicityofthedoctrineandfaithconcerningtheEucharist,areobviatedandcutoff.(Ex.2,311f.).

330 AcarefulexaminationoftheevidencebothfortheCorpusChristiFestivalandtheconsecratingoftheelementsatacertaindesignatedplaceandthenbringingthemtothesick,againsttheclearWordsofInstitution,makesitcertaintoChemnitzthattheLord’scommandtoHischurchistoconsecrate,distribute,andreceivewhatisconse-crated.Hisunderstandingof1Cor.11:24–25isclear,“Forthewholeof what was done in the institution of the Supper and not merely

some small part of it is included in the command, ‘This do’” (Ex.2,404f.).Chemnitzissospecificaboutthisthathecannotbemis-understood,“It conflicts with the Words of Institution when the bread which has been blessed is not distributed, not received, not eaten” (Ex.2,281;emphasisadded).

331 An examination of all the aspects of Chemnitz’s doctrine of theconsecration,includingthevenerationandtheconsumptionoftherel-iquiae, revealsthathe,inharmonywiththeSola Gratia, excludesevery-thingonthepartofmaninthereceptionofthegraceofthesacrament.Faith,theeatinganddrinking,thecarryingoutoftheriteorservicebytheassembledchurch—theyallareexcludedaseffectingthepres-enceofthebodyandbloodofChristinthesacrament.Man’sresponseisnotaconditionforGod’sunilaterallastwillandtestament.Man’sresponseiscontainedinthegiftoftheGospelwhicheffectsfaithintheheartofmanforhissalvation.ThecauseoftheRealPresenceandoffaithdependaloneonthepowerfulcreativewordofChrist.Nocon-tingenciesoftimeandplaceortheresponseonthepartofmanshoulddepotentiate thewordof theGospel.AegidiusHunnius reallydoesdepotentiate (privas) theVerbawhenheholds thatwecan’tbe sureofChrist’swords, “This ismybody,”until thefinalactof thesump-tio (seep.89f.).Hisexampleoftheburningchurch,whichdoessmellratherdamplyoftheacademiccloister,toescapetheclearwordoftheLordisrationalistic.HeisapplyingtowhataccordingtoScriptureisadivinemiracle,amutilatedformofanAristotelianargumentwhichAristotlehimselfprobablydidnotapplyconsistently.WhathappenstoconsecratedelementsbecauseofanaccidentwillhavetobelefttotheLordwhoknowsall things.Wecannotunderstand thewaysofGod’sprovidencewhichrulesandcontrolsallthings.ButitwillnotdoforpunymantodenyChrist’salmightyrevealedWord,“Thisismybody,etc.,”whenHehasspokenit.ThePsalmistwarnsusagainstsuchfatuousdelusionsasthesupposedAristotelianmodelinculcateswhenheexclaims,“Godhasspokenonce;twicehaveIheardthis;thatpowerbelongethuntoGod”(Psalm62:11).

332 JusthowconcernedChemnitzistoupholdanordinanceandcom-mandofChristcanbeseenfromhis“ArgumentsFromScriptureforCommunionUnderBothKinds.”Hewrites:

Because one must judge concerning the sacraments on the basisoftheirinstitution,nogodlypersonwillbeabletodoubt,norshould



doubt, that the one and only way of administering, dispensing, andusing the sacraments—so far as their essence is concerned, the best,mostcorrectandsafestway—istheonewhichwastaughtbytheSonof God Himself in the institution. For sacraments are not created by nature or formed by human ingenuity, buttheinstitutionoftheSonofGod, coming to the elements ordained by Him, makes sacraments.If,however,theinstitutionoftheSonofGodiseithertakenawayoradulteratedormutilatedandchanged,thenwecaninnowaymakeorhavetruesacraments.Thisaxiomcannotbeshakenevenbythegatesofhell.(Ex.2,340;emphasisadded).

333 ThereisnodoubtthatwhatChemnitzheredemandsisnotbeingfollowedbymanyLutheranswhotodaywanttobe followersofLu-ther in the strictest senseandwhomakeaquia pledge to theBookofConcord.TheMelanchthonianblighthasbecomewell-entrenchedovertheyears.WhatcanbesaidaboutthepastandpresentLutheranswhosedoctrineandpracticehavenotbeenasprofoundandconsistentasthatofLutherandChemnitz?Chemnitzdoeshaveawordtosayinthis regard.Herecognizes thatwhenhe “reproaches”CanonVIIoftheTridentineDecreewhichanathematizes thosewhoconfess thattheEucharist“mustofnecessitybedistributedimmediatelyaftertheconsecrationtothosewhoarepresent,”etc.,hemayseemtobeatoncecondemning “all ancient churches”whohad followed thepapal cus-tom.Butthatisreallynotthecase.Cyprianspokeawordofwisdomherewhenhesaid,“IfsomeoneofthosewhowerebeforeuseitherfromignoranceorinhissimplicitydidnotobservewhattheLordtaughtusbyHisexampleandinstitutiontodo,forgivenessmaybegrantedtohissimplicity fromthegentlenessof theLord”(Ex.2,295).Theau-thorsoftheFormulaofConcordintheir“PrefacetotheBookofCon-cord”takeasimilarapproachindiscussingthedamnatoryclausesinthearticleontheLord’sSupper.Theywrite,“Itisnotourpurposeandintentiontomeanthereby[i.e.,withtherejectionsoffalseandadulter-ateddoctrine]thosepersonswhoerringenuously”(Tappert,p.11).

334 Buthavingsaidthat,Cyprianproceeds,“Inourcase,however,thiscannotbepardoned,whohavenowbeenadmonishedandinstructedbytheLord,inorderthattheevangelicallawandtraditionoftheLordmaybeeverywhereobservedandthattheremaybenodepartingfromwhatChristbothtaughtanddid”(Ex.2,295).ChemnitznotesthatCyprianhadafurtherwordofexplanation,“Hewhoerrsinsimplicitymaybeforgiven;butafterinspirationandrevelationofthetruthhas

takenplace,whoeverconsciouslyorknowinglyperseveresinhispre-viouserrornolongersinsunderthepardonofignorance,forhereliesonpresumptionandonacertainobstinacy,althoughheisvanquishedbyreason”(Ex.2,296).TheBookofConcordissimilarlywordedinitsclarificationofitscensuresoffalsedoctrinewithrespecttotheLord’sSupper,“Wemeanspecificallytocondemnonlyfalseandseductivedoctrinesandtheirstiff-neckedproponentsandblasphemers.Thesewedonotbyanymeansintendtotolerateinourlands,churches,andschools,inasmuchassuchteachingsarecontrarytotheexpressWordofGodandcannotcoexistwithit”(Tappert,p.11).

the Formula of concord and chemnitz’s threefold Action “Blessing the Bread and at

once Breaking and Distributing it” (ex. 2, 298)

335 TheFormulaofConcordisinagreementwithwhatChemnitzhasconfessed inhiswritingsontheLord’sSupper.Chemnitzdoesnothaveaprivatedoctrinewhichisinconflictwithhisofficiallyconfesseddoctrine.TheSolidDeclaration,VII,73–90,notonlyhasmanyver-balparallelswithChemnitz’sstatementsbutsetsforthhisdoctrinein summary form. SD VII, 74, eliminates all synergism from thedoctrineoftheconsecration,ascribingthesacramentaluniontothealmightypowerofGod.

336 Sentences seventy-five and six (see also Ep. VII, 35) assert thatthefirst institutionconfers itspower to theconsecratorywordsofthe church. The officiant is the ambassador of Christ, speaking inHisnameandpower.Throughhiswords,spokenovertheelements,Christ isstillactive,makingthebreadandthewinesetbeforethechurchthebodyandbloodofChrist.ThequotationfromChrysos-tommakesthispointclearbeyondashadowofdoubt.Sentences77and78fortifywhathassofarbeensaidwithrespecttotheconsecra-tion.ItdoesthisbymeansoftwoquotationsfromLuther’swritingsontheLord’sSupper.LutherascribesthepoweroftheconsecratingwordstoeffectthesacramentaluniontoChrist’sdivinecommand.InthiswayChristconnectsHisowncommandandwordwiththeofficiant’sspeaking.

337 Sentences79through84developfurtherthethoughtthatspeakingthewordsofconsecrationovertheelementssetbeforethechurchis



doneinobediencetoChrist’scommand,recordedin1Cor.11:23–25(seeEp.VII,9).BymeansofthisconsecrationtheelementshavebeensacramentallyunitedwiththebodyandbloodofChrist,andaredis-tributedtobeeatenanddrunk.Paulin1Cor.10:16makesthisclearwhenhespeaksofthecupofblessingwhichwe bless.TheWordsofInstitutionaretobespokenorchantedloudlybecausetheyhaveref-erencenotonlytotheelementssetbeforetheassembly,butarealsoaproclamationoftheGospelforallthehearers(notonlythecommu-nicants),sothattheirfaithmaybestrengthenedthatChristgivesinthesacramentallthebenefitsHehaswonformankind.

338 Sentenceseighty-fivethrougheighty-sevenclarifythecommonruleNihil, etc., already mentioned in 73. “Use” and “action” are synony-mouswhenusedinexpoundingthedoctrineoftheSacramentoftheAltar,justasChemnitzhasclarifiedthemwithhisprecisedefinition(seep.11f.).Thetermsarenotrestrictedtothesumptio (seenote#51).The Philippists, regarding an effective divinely mandated consecra-tionasmagic,limitedthe“action”tothesumptio. SinceChemnitzhasseenthat“action”and“use”weresovaguelyappliedinvariouswaysbyboththePhilippistsandtheGenesio-Lutherans,hecutsthroughthecloudsofconfusionsurroundingthembygivingaprecisingdefinitionwhichhasbeentakenintotheFormula.Withthisunderstandingofthetermstoberetainedinthechurch,itisimportanttorememberthatSDVII,9,11,14,establishedthefactthattheRealPresenceisnotlimitedtothesumptio.

339 In order to eliminate any lingering misunderstanding that mayarise,86and87addspecificity to83–85sothatthereshouldbenodoubtastotheintendedmeaning.“Use”and“action”donotrefertothesumptio alone,nordotheyprimarilymeanfaith.ButthechurchistodopreciselythatwhichChristordained:consecrate,distribute,eatanddrinktheconsecratedbreadandwinewhicharethebodyandbloodofChrist.Ifthisordinanceisinanywaychanged,itisnolongerthesacramentChristinstituted.WhentheRomanistsconsecrateinthePrivateMassbutdonotdistribute,theyhavealteredtheinstitu-tion.Andwhentheydonotdistributewhathasbeenconsecrated,butofferitintheMass,lockitup,carryitaroundforadoration,takingitoutoftheframeworkoftheordainedaction,itisnotasacrament.ThedivinelyinstituteduserequiresthatweintheChristianserviceconsecratebreadandwine,distribute,receive,eatanddrinkwhathas

beenconsecrated,therebyproclaimingtheLord’sdeath(SDVII,84).AnyotherusemadeofasacramentthanthedivinelymandatedoneisaperversionoftheNihil rulederivedfromtheScripture.BesidesthemisuseoftheLord’sSupperintheCorpusChristifestivals,theCatholicshavemisusedwhattheycallbaptismbybaptizingbells,us-ingitforcuringleprosy,etc.ItisclearthattheordinanceofChristprescribesthatpersonsbebaptizedfortheforgivenessofsins,lifeandsalvation.

340 InclosingoffthispartoftheexplanationoftheNihil rule,theSolidDeclaration informs us that to avoid abuses this rule had been setup at the beginning, and it has been explained by Luther in mate-rial found in Jena IV75 (SDVII, 87).Thereferencemustbe to theWolferinuscorrespondence,whichconsistsoftwoletterswrittenbyLuthertoSimonWolferinus,pastoratEisleben,onJuly4andJuly20,1543.76HereisanexampleofLutheremployingtheaxiomwhichisbeingclarified,namely,thatnothinghasthecharacterofasacramentoutsidethesacramentalaction.

341 The original Dresden edition of the Book of Concord, after thereferencetoLuther,hasinthetext,“TomIV,Jena,”butthepageorfolionumberismissing.ThenewTappertversionhas,unfortunately,droppedfromthetextitselfthereferencetoVolumeIVoftheJenaEdition.Tappert,however,hasaddedasafootnote(#4)thefollowingreferencetoSD87,“WA30II:254,255;cf. SmalcaldArticles,ptIII,art15,4.”Thisnotecomesverbatimfromthefootnote4oftheGoet-tingen Edition of the Book of Concord,Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche, 5thed.,1963,p.1001.TheLutherref-erencetheregivenistoLuther’s“ExhortationtoallClergyAssembledatAugsburg,1530”(LW34,9–61).Butthereareproblemswiththisidentificationthatmakeitimpossibletoacceptit.Luther’s“Exhorta-tion”isnotfoundineithertheGermanorLatinVolumeIVoftheJenaEditionbut rather inVolumeVof theGerman JenaEdition.Theexplicitpagenumbers in theBekenntnis andTappert editionsrefertoLuther’scondemnationoftheRomanabuseoftheordinanceofbaptism,suchasbaptizingbells,altars,pictures,etc.,anditsintro-duction of superstitious regulations, as for example, that only men(no women) could wash the corporals used in connection with theEucharist,etc.TheSmalcaldreferenceistoLuther’safterthoughtattheendofthearticles,statingthathedoesnotwishtohaveanything



todowith “thepope’sbagofmagic trickswhichcontains silly andchildisharticles.”Butthereisnoreferenceineitheroftheseworkstotheterms“action”or“use”withregardtotheLord’sSupper.77Ashasalreadybeenindicated,bothLutherandChemnitzwouldnotsanc-tionthemisuseofthedivinelyinstitutedsacraments.

342 TheWolferinuscorrespondencewaswellknownintheSacramen-tariancontroversythatprecededandalsofollowedthewritingoftheFormulaofConcord.78ItissignificantthatthefirstcompleteAmeri-cantranslationoftheBookofConcordcarriesanobviousreferencetotheWolferinuscorrespondencerightinthetext.Thiseditiontrans-lates SD VII, 87, as follows, “For, in opposition to such papisticalabuses,thisrulewasoriginallyestablished,anditisexplainedbyDr.Luther,Tom4,Jen.fol.597.”79Evenaslateasahundredandtwenty-fiveyearsagotheSDVII,87referencetoLutherwasacceptedasbe-ingtheWolferinuscorrespondence.

343 Thiscorrespondenceusestheterm“action,”discusseswhateffectsthe Real Presence, when the Real Presence begins, and what themandatum“Thisdo”includes,mattersdiscussedinSDVII,73–90.AcomparisonofapartofLuther’ssecondletter(July20,1543)withtheLatinoftheFormulawillshowahighdegreeofsimilarityintheformationofanaxiomtoexcludebothRomanandSacramentarianaberrations:

344 ThesetwolettersofLuthertoWolferinuswereoccasionedbythefactthatinLuther’shomecityofEislebenin1543acontroversyhadarisenbetweentwopastors,FrederickRauberandSimonWolferinus.Wolf-erinus,onthebasisofMelanchthon’steachinghadbeenmixingconse-cratedandunconsecratedelements.AppealshadbeenmadetoJonasatHalle(thesuperintendent)andLutheratWittenberg.Itisevident

Luther’s Letter

Sacramentum nullum esse extra actionem sacramentalem.

Thereisnosacramentoutside of the sacramental action.

SDVII, 85

Nihil habet rationem sacramentiextra usum a Christo institutum oder extra actionem divinitus institutum.

Nothing has the character ofa sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ or apart from the use instituted by Christ or apart from the divinely instituted action.

fromthefirstletter(July4,1543)thatthispracticehascausedLuthergreatgrief.Hewritesthatitisa“scandal”thatWolferinuswasmixingtheremainsoftheconsecratedwineandbreadwiththeunconsecratedbreadandwine(nempe quod religium vini vel pan is misces priori pani et vino). Becauseofthispracticeofnothavingtheconsecratedelementsconsumed,LutheraskedhimifhewantstobeconsideredaZwinglianandthatheisperhapsafflictedwiththeinsanityofZwingli.Toavoidtheoffenseofthisevilappearanceofmixingconsecratedandunconse-cratedelements,Wolferinuscouldeasilyfollowtheusageintheotherchurches,namely,eatanddrinktheremainsofthesacramentwiththecommunicants.BynotmakingadistinctionbetweenconsecratedandunconsecratedelementsLutherinsiststhatheis“abolishingthewholesacrament.”Suchapointofviewatbestwouldleadtothe“absurdity”that“timeandmomentwillbethecausesofthesacrament.”Lutherde-claresthatherehewillopposeWolferinus’“scandalousandoffensivepeculiaritywithallhisstrength”;andthat“theLordwhomyouopposewillopposeyouinturn.”

345 ItisevidentthatLutherbelievedthattheconsecrationeffectstheRealPresenceandthatthe“Thisdo”meansnotonlytoconsecratetheelementstobethebodyandbloodofChristbutalsotodistributethem,receivethem,eatanddrinkthem(SDVII,84).ForChemnitz,too,thismandatum meansthateverythingthathasbeenconsecratedintheserviceistobeconsumed,sincehehasconfessedthat“itcon-flictswiththeWordsofInstitutionwhenthebreadwhichhasbeenblessedisnotdistributed,notreceived,noteaten”(Ex.2,281).ThefactthattheotherformulatorsoftheFormulaagreedtoinsertthereference to the Wolferinus correspondence in SD VII, 87, showsthattheyagreedwithChemnitzthatSDVII,83,84,aretobeun-derstoodasconsumingallthatcameundertheconsecrationinthatChristianassembly.

346 Apparently the controversy between the two pastors continued,with Wolferinus defending his position with some theses. This re-sultedinLutherwritingasecondletter(July20,1543).Heretheword“action”comesintoconsiderationanditisevidentthatthetermhasnotbeenclearlydefinedsothattheparticipantsareattimestalkingpasteachother.LutheracknowledgesthatMelanchthonwrotecor-rectlywhenhestatedthatthereis“nosacramentoutsideofthesacra-mentalaction.”LutheristhinkingofthetruththatChrist’scommand



is to consecrate, thus effecting the sacramental union, and then toconsumethatwhichhasbecomethebodyandbloodofChrist.IfonechangesthemeaningofthewordsanddoesnotdowhatChristhascommanded,then,ofcourse,thereisnosacrament.Buthe,asatrust-ingcolleagueofMelanchthon,isunawarethatMelanchthondoesnotbelievetheconsecrationeffectstheRealPresence(seep.83),butthatforMelanchthontheSacramentoftheAltaris“action”inthevaguesenseofsomethingbeingdonewhichresultsinGod’spromiseofgrace.AcontemporaryscholarhaswrittenthatMelanchthon’sdoctrineisa“functionaldoctrinesinceitspeaksnotsomuchofthings(bread,wine,body,blood)orwhatthey‘are’(‘est’)butofprocesses(ritus,orusus)and theireffects.”80Luther in theWolferinuscorrespondenceassumesthatMelanchthonwithhisformulaisonlywarningagainstwhatisoutsidethe“sacramentalaction,”thatis,“againstreservationofandprocessionswiththesacrament.”

347 Wolferinus believed that the presence of the body and blood ofChristwasdependentontheritualactionasthecause,justasMel-anchthondid.AsaMelanchthonianWolferinushadnarroweddownthepresencetothereceptionandeliminatedtheconsecrationasthemeansthroughwhichChristeffectstheRealPresence.Luther,how-ever,seesthatthesacramentalaction’smostimportantandpowerfulpartisthe“speakingofthewords.”HencehetellsWolferinus,“Ifyoudoitinthisway,youwillappeartohaveabsolutelynosacrament.Forifsuchaquickbreakingoffoftheactionreallyexists, itwill followafter thespeakingof theWords [of Institution],which is themostpowerfulandprincipalactioninthesacrament,noonewouldreceivethebodyandbloodofChristbecausetheactionwouldhaveceased.”Thesacramentalactionincludesmorethantheconsecration,buttheconsecration(speakingoftheVerba)isthemostpowerfulandchief“action”inthewholesacramentalaction.Theyarethis,asLutherandChemnitzhavesooftenreiterated,becausetheyeffectthemiracleofthe Real Presence. And the communicants are directed to eat anddrinktheconsecratedelementsbecausetheyarethebodyandbloodoftheSavior.Theydonotbecome thebodyandbloodoftheSaviorwhentheconditionofthesumptio isfulfilled,asHunniuserroneouslyheld(seep.90f.).TheFormulaconfessestheverysametruthwithChem-nitzandLutherandnailsitdownwiththereferencetotheWolferi-nuscorrespondence.

348 LuthernextwritesthatthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristin the consecrated elements must be extended in time, “Thereforeone must look not only upon this movement of instant or presentaction, but also on the time, not in terms of mathematical but ofphysicalbreadth,thatis,onemustgivethisactionacertainperiodoftimeandaperiodofappropriatebreadthoftime,astheysay‘inbreadth.’”

349 AndnowLuthergivesadefinitionofthe“sacramentalaction”whichisthedoctrinalpointunderdiscussioninSDVII,73–90,“Thereforeweshalldefinethetimeorthesacramentalactioninthisway:thatisstartswiththebeginningoftheWordoftheLord[ab initio oratio-nis dominicae],81 andlastsuntilallhavecommunicated,haveemptiedthechalice,haveconsumedtheHosts,untilthepeoplehavebeendis-missed, and [the priest] has left the altar.” Luther understands the“Thisdo”oftheWordsofInstitutiontomeanthatweshoulddoallthatChristHimselfdidattheFirstSupper,namely,consecratetheel-ementswithHiswords,whicheffecttheRealPresence,distributeallthatofwhichChristhassaid“Thisismybody;thisismyblood,”andconsume all that which has been consecrated at that service. ThentheassemblyhasdonethewilloftheLordandcanberightfullydis-missedbytheofficiant.

350 Lutherrecognizesthatapracticalproblemmayariseinwhichmorehasbeenconsecratedthanwouldhavebeennecessary.Hissolutionisapracticalone,thattheministerandthelastcommunicantsshouldconsumethereliquiae attheservice,“Thereforeseetoitthatifany-thingisleftoverofthesacrament,eithersomecommunicantsorthepriesthimselfandhisassistantsreceiveit,sothatitisnotonlyacu-rateorsomeoneelsewhodrinkswhatisleftoverinthechalice,buthegives it to theotherswhowerealsoparticipants in thebody[ofChrist].”ChemnitzhasunderstoodtheVerba in thesameway,be-causehesays that “it conflictswith theWordsof Institutionwhenthebreadwhichhasbeenblessedisnotdistributed,notreceived,noteaten”(Ex.2,281).

351 ThatthisisthepositionoftheFormulaofConcordcanbeseenfromSDVII,84,whichstatesthat“wetakebreadandwine,consecrateit,dis-tributeit,receiveit,eatitanddrinkit.”Butlesttherebeanymisreadingofthis,SDVII,87referstotheWolferinuscorrespondenceofLu-ther.Asamatterofhindsightwecanacknowledgethatitwouldhave



beenwellifthefolionumberhadbeengivenintheoriginalDresdeneditionoftheBookofConcordinadditiontothevolumenumberofLuther’sworks.But inthecontroversyoverthemeaningofthe“ac-tion”commandedby theLord, thiscorrespondenceofLutherwithWolferinus was used so much that it did not need a more specificreferencethan“von D. Luthero selbst, Tom. 4.Jen., erkläret ist.”

352 Fromthisevidenceit isapparentthatLuther,Chemnitz,andtheFormulahavethesameunderstandingof1Cor.11:23–25alsowithref-erencetothematterofthereliquiae.

notes 44–81, chapter v

44. Essindaberunderandernvielen/zweenPunctdaraussmitfleisszumercken/wölchesunszudiesenzeitennützlichundnötigsind(HS116).

45. Itisimportanttonotethatthesetheologiansinthiscontextregardthetermslocaliter andcircumscriptive assynonymousandthusreferringtothatmodeofpresenceaswhenChristwalked bodily on earth,“in a circumscribed and local manner according to the definitionofthislife,...asisthecasewithothermen”(TNC426;emphasisadded).Theydidnotwant localiter tobeunderstoodinsuchawayastodenythedefinitivemodeofChrist’spresence,wherethespaceismaterialandcircumscribedbutChrist’smodeofpresenceisasupernaturalone,accordingtowhichHeneitheroccupiesnoryieldsspace.HispresenceintheSupperisdifferentfromHisgeneralomnipresenceandfromHisearthlypresence1950yearsago(seep.37–39).

46. SeeSasse,This is My Body (seenote#1),p.150.47. TheHistori firstquotesfromBugenhagen’sLatintext(126–130)andthengivesaGerman

translation(130–134).48. Christus dicit, Hoc facite. In quo verbo fidenter facimus, quae Christus instituit. Non

fidimus in nostris consecrationibus et anhelitu, ut stulte obijicitur nobis, sed hoc verboChristi.Hocfacite,hocest,fidimusinChristiinstitutioneetiusione.

Christusnondixit,Accipiteetcomeditepanem,accipiteetbibitevinum,sed,hocfacite,idest,accipite,etcomeditemeumcorpus,sicinstituo,sicvolo,siciubeo,etc.Nondicoautiubeo,utvosfaciatispanemcorpusmeum.Instituoetvolo,utincommemorationemmortismeaeedatiscorpusmeum,etc.(HS126).

49. InterrogaChristi institutionem,quaedicit,Panis istemeusestCorpusmeum,Poculumistudmeumestsanguismeus,etc.Undenobishaecomnia?ExChristi institutione.Ipsesicinstituit,voluit.Christianihancinstitutionemamplectuntur,etgratiasagunt.StultumigiturfuerithaecverbainstitutionisChristiomittere,impiumhisnonconfidere.Namsinehis,quidquaesoinpaneetpoculoquaeremus?

HaecverbasacraeChristi institutionespublicerecitatministernostreEcclesiaesuperpaneetpoculum,supermensam,superaltareposita,nulloeisadhibitoflatu(utirridemur)quandoagnoscit,nihilhic suavirtutefieri, sedomniavirtute instituionisetordinationisChristi. Et recitat, ut agnoscant communicaturi, quid erg a hoc Sacramentu sit nobis etfaciendaetcredendum,ultquecontraSacramentariosperpetuopronobisrespondeathaecinstitutioetusqueadfinemmundiduraturaChristiordinatio,quaeefficit,utsitibinobisadedendumetbibendumcorpusetsanguisChristi,nonpostulatautiubet;utnosCorpuset sanguinem Christi faciamus: quod datur nobis, grato animo et exult ante gratiarum

actione accipimus, non praesumus facere, quod quia non iubeter a Christo, facere nonpossumus. Dicit enim, Hoc est Corpus meum, Hic est Sanguis meus. Non dicit, Facitemeumcorpus,Facitemeumsanguinem.Nonfactoressuicorporisetsanguinisvoluit,sedcommunicatores,idest,utederemusDominicumCorpusetsanguinembiberemus,ineiuscommemorationem,quodcorpus,etquemsanguinem,nobisipsepersuaminstitutionemdaret,nonnobisipsifaceremus.

50. TheindextotheEnglishtranslation,The Lord’s Supper carriesnoreferenceto“consecration,”althoughitisusedatleastonceinasignificantwaywhichreflectsChemnitz’sunderstandingofitaseffectingtheRealPresence,p.156.Noristhereanyreferencetothesynonymsoftheterm,e.g.,p.46,“thisbreadherepresentafter receiving its name from God, isnotonlybreadbutatthesametimealsothebodyofChrist.”TheindextothesecondvolumeofThe Examination, itistrue,hasseveralreferencestotheconsecration,buttheyarevaguebytheomissionofdirectreferencestowhatChemnitzhimselfsays,andingeneral limitingthereferencestothepapalistsandtheLatinFathers.

51. J.H.C.Fritz,Pastoral Theology (St.Louis:CPH,1932)ishereobviouslyatoddswiththeChemnitzunderstandingoftheconsecrationwhenhesays,“TheministerthereforeshouldrepeattheWordsofInstitutionatthetimewhenthesacramentistobeadministeredinordertherebytoconsecratetheelements,thatis,tosetthemapartandblessthemintheirholyuseinthesacramentevenasChristhascommanded,andatthesametimetherebytoinvitethecommunicantstoreceivenotonlybreadandwinebutalsoorally,Christ’sbodyandblood(1Cor.10:16),”p.143.

Pieper, too, here differs from Chemnitz,“Consecration is correctly defined as the actwherebybreadandwinearedetachedfromtheirordinaryuseandappointedtotheuseoftheLord’sSupper,thatis,theyaresetaparttothisend,thatwiththebread,accordingtoChrist’spromise,thebodyofChristandwiththewineaccordingtoChrist’spromise,thebloodofChristisreceived”(Dogmatics III,366).

52. Prof.SiegbertBeckeradoptedanentirelydifferentinterpretationofthesetexts.Heassertedthat“Christdidnotsay,‘Say,Thisismybody,’but‘Takeandeat,this ismybody’“(Nya Vdktaren, 8/1973,p.104).Hetherebylimitedtheforce ofLuke22:19and1Cor.11:23–25byholdingthatthesetextsdonotcommandustodowhatChristHimselfdid.

53. ChemnitzishereinagreementwithLutherthatwepreachtheGospeltotheworldandadminister the sacramentsonlybecauseChristhasgiven this commandtoHisChurch,“WehavetheGospel.Christsays,‘GoandpreachtheGospel’notonlytotheJews,asMosesdid,butto‘allnations,’to‘allcreatures’[Mark16:15].Tomeitissaid,‘Hewhobelievesandisbaptizedwillbesaved’[Mark16:16]....Thesewordsstrikemetoo,forIamoneofthe‘allcreatures,’IfChristhadnotadded’preachtoallcreatures,’thenIwouldnotlisten,wouldnotbebaptized,justasInowwillnotlistentoMosesbecauseheisgivennottomebutonlytotheJews”(How Christians Should Regard Moses, 1525;LW35,171).

54. Prof.SethErlandssonhasentirelymisunderstoodChemnitzinhisattempttodefendhisownthesisthatChemnitz“makesnodoctrineof‘anymomentofconsecration’“(“TheBiblicalandLutheranDoctrineof theLord’sSupper,”WLQ,April 1977,95–112; see especiallyp.103f.). While he quotes at length from the Chemnitz Examination, he carefully skipsoverwhatChemnitzhas to say specifically about the consecration (Ex.2, 222–230; sinceProf.Erlandssonquotes fromtheLatin, thecorrespondingpages intheEd.PreussLatinedition—1861—willalsobegiven,299–303).Besides,Prof.ErlandssonmakesnoreferencetoChemnitz’sdiscussionoftheadorationofthesacrament(Ex.2,276–284;Latin320–323).Aswillbe recognized later, ananalysisof thispartof theExamination will reveal that ifChemnitzdidnotknowwhentheRealPresencebegan,hewouldbeguiltyofgrossidolatry.



Inspiteofallthisevidence,Prof.ErlandssonseekstodefendhisthesisthatChemnitzdidnotknowwhentheRealPresencebeganbyreferringtoChemnitz’sreviewoftheRomantheorythatthepresenceofChristextendsbeyondthemandateduseoftheconsecration,thedistributionandthereception(Ex.2,241–252;Latin306–311).ChemnitzandtheFormulaofConcordoperatewithaprecisedefinitionoftheterms“action”and“use,”whichtheyhavederivedfromtheWordsofInstitution(SDVII,85–87).This“use” includesnomoreandno less than the consecration, the distribution, and the reception. Prof. Erlandsson usesChemnitzhereasifhewererejectingtheteachingthatthebodyandbloodofChristwithinthe precisely defined“action” are not present before the distribution.As a matter of fact,whichcaneasilybeseenfromreadingthisselectionoftheExamination, ChemnitzisonlyattackingtheRomanteachingthattheEucharist“containsthebodyandbloodofChristinalastingmannerandpermanentlyalsoapartfromitsuse” (Ex.2,242;emphasisadded;Latin,307).Thereservationofthesacrament,Chemnitzcontends,“hasnobasisintheWordsofInstitution(Ex.2,243).Asamatteroffact,it“isoverthrownbythisonerule,whichisbothwhollytrueandwhollyfirm,thatsacramentsapartfromtheirdivinelyinstituteduse arenotsacraments”(Ex.2,243;emphasisadded;seepp.11–14ofthismonographforChemnitz’sprecising definition of the terms“action” and“use”). Prof. Erlandsson’s fundamental errorwhichleadshimtothismisuseofChemnitzisthatforhimthe“blessing”isonlyawordofpraiseorthanksgiving,andthatthewordsofChrist,“Thisismybody”onlyhave“connectionwiththedistributionandreception”(WLQ,April1977,p.95).Chemnitzdoesnotadmittothepossibilitythatthe“blessing”orthe“consecration”couldsimplybesomewordofpraiseorthanksgiving,“TheEucharistissanctifiedorconsecrated,notbytheprayerofman,butbytheWordofInstitution”(Ex.2,228).But“whenweascribetheblessingtothewordsofChristintheinstitution,[we]haveasureandfirmfoundation”(Ex.2,231).

55. “In causa Anexeoos me ipsum diu offendit consecratio, ut vocant. Et Oecolampadiusvehementer urget, qui fieri possit, ut vocetur de coelo Christus? fiatne hoc meritis acprecibussacerdotis seupopuli,an,utquidamdixerunt,virtuteverborum?Tandemveniinhancsententiam,necmeritisseuprecibussacerdotisseupopulitribuendumesse,quodChristusdetnobis suumcorpus et sanguinem,nec virtuti verborum;edenim,ut sonat,magicumest”(Corpus Reformatorum 1,948f.).

56. “Habe Vitus diesen Zeugen gefragt/Ob auch die worte der Einsetzung/dadurch desPriester das Brot und We in zum Sacrament benedicirt/ein Sacrament/und der wareLeibdesHerrnwere/Dannerhielts fureineZauberey/vel Magiam . . . .Vitus...unteranderngesagt/Quod verba institutionis Sacramenti non essent pars vel species Sacramenti, sed tantum contio ad populum, de usu et fructum Sacramenti. “ (ErhardSperber,Christliche und notwendige verantwortung Erhardi Sperbers/wider die grewliche bezichtigung und beschwerliche aufflag, der Sacramentirer und Rottengeister zu Dantzig/, Erfurd, 1563, folK21.)(AduplicatedcopyofthisbookisintheRareBookRoomofBethanyLutheranTheologicalSeminary,Mankato,Minn.).

57. “...DaseskeinMagia wer.DannwasausdembefehlunddurchdasWortGottesgeschege/dasdasselbwar/rechtundkrefftig/undwersolchsl(wannmansjaMagiam nennensolte)Magia sancta et iussa. Dasanderaber/sodurchböseLeutageschege/onebefehlGottes/unddesselbigenworts/alleineauseingebungdesTeufels/dasesMagia inconcessa wer/und hettemitdiesemgarkeinevergleichung”(Sperber,fol.K21).

58. Prof.LowellGreenhasrecentlydemonstratedthattheconvictionofLutherandhisfollowersthattheconsecrationisthemostpowerfulandprincipalactionintheSupperreflectsitselfintheearlyLutheranliturgieswhere“theconsecratedhostandchalicearealwayscalledthebody andblood inthedistributionormanducation”(emphasis intheoriginal text).Prof.

Greencallsita“Reformedpractice”tostateintherubrics“thatthepastorshalldistributebread andwine” (emphasisintheoriginaltext).—A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, RobertPreusandWilbertRosin,editors,St.Louis:CPH,1978,p.304.

59. PastorKennethMiller,inarecentarticle(The Christian News, Sept.20,1982;itisreprintedin the Christian News Encyclopedia: Washington, Mo.: Missourian Publishing Co., 1982,p.489)assertedthathedoesnothereaccepttheexegesisoftheFormulaofConcord.Forhimthe“Thisdo”islimitedonlytotheeatinganddrinkingandnottotherecitationoftheVerba,“The promise applies to everyone who outwardly obeys the command,Take, eat,drink,thoughthepromiseofgraceappliesonlytotheworthycommunicants.Solongastheelementsareunderthewords(ofinstitution),namely,beingusedviaeatinganddrinking,Christ’sbodyandbloodaretherepresent.”PastorMillermakeshispositionclearthathehasdepotentiatedtheVerba.Tothestatementthattheconsecrationisdivinecreativeword,heposestherhetoricalquestion,“Wostehtdasgeschrieben?”

Prof.SiegbertBeckerapparentlyheldasimilarviewpoint(seenote#52).He commendedPastorMiller’sexposition“asanexcellentpieceofscholarship,”andthatinthemainit isworthyofreceiving“ahearty‘YeaandAmen.’”TheonlysuggestionthathehadtomaketoPastorMiller isthat“forthesakeofcompletenesssomeofusmighthaveappreciatedit,if,whenhe[i.e.,PastorMiller]addedthat‘theWorddoesnotteachaRealPresenceapartfromtheeatinganddrinking,’hewouldhaveadded,‘neitheristhereaRealPresenceapartfromthewordsofinstitution’”(The Christian News, Oct.11,1982).

60. Apologia oder verantwortung des Christ/ichen ConcordiBuchs/ln welcherdiewareChristlicheLehre/so im ConcordiBuch verfasset/mit gutem Grunde heiliger Göttlicher Schrifftvertheidiget: Die Verkerung aber und Calumnien so von unrühigen Leuhten widergedachtesChristlichBuchimDruckaufgesprengetwiderlegtwerden,Dresden:1584.Prof.Em.ofGerman,MiltonZageloftheUniversityofIowakindlymadethetranslation.

ZumfunffzehendenwollensiedasChristlichiConcordiBuchgarpäpstischmachen/indemeslehret/dasdieElementa, BrotundWein/durchChristiWortmüssen/wiePaulus1Cor.10.schreibet/gesegnetwerden.Daschreiensie:WirwerdengarzuPapisten/undesseykeinUnderscheidZwischendesPapistischen/undzwischenunserKirchenConsecration.

SiehettenabersolchesGeschreysgarnichtbedürfft/danndasChristlicheConcordiBuchdermussenunderschiedlichvonsolcherConsecrationhandelt:dassiesichbilliginjrHertzhieneinhettenschemensollen/ehesieangefangendissfalsdasChristlichConcordiBuchzudiffamiren/unddemselbigenPapistischeIrrthümbzuzumessen.

AberwasthatCalumnia nicht/welchedesTeuffelsselbsteigeneKunstist/dahererauchseinenNamenhat/daserDiabolusheisset.

So viel dann die Sach an jr selbst antrifft/beruhet es allzumal darauff/wil auch dasConcordiBuchmitausdrücklichenwortenvermeldet:DasnichteinigesMenschenWortoderWerck/sondernalleindesHerrenChristiWortundOrdungsey/dasseinLeibundBlut imAbendmalgegenwertig ist/undausgetheiltwerde.DanndieWortChristinichtallein in der ersten Einsetzung krefftig gewest/sonder wehren/gelte/wircken/und sindnochkrefftig/dasanallenOrten/dadasAbendmalnachChristiEinsetzunggehalten:undseinewortgebrauchtwerden/ausKraftundVermögenderselhenWort/dieer imerstenAbendmal gesprochen/sein Leib und Blut warhafftig genwertig sind/und ausgetheiltwerden.

DennChristusselbst/womanseineEinsetzunghelt/undseineWortüberdemBrotundKelchspricht/undalsodasBrotunddenKelchsegnet/wiePaulusredet/unddasgesegneteBrotundKelchaustheilet/durchdiegesprocheneWort/ausKraftdererstenEinsetzungkrefftigist.



Da sprechen sie aber: Christus habe nirgendt verheissen/dass/wann die Wort derEinsetzung repetiertwürden/dasermit seinemLeibedagegenwertig/unddenselben inund mit dem Brot austheilen wölle.Wir sagen aber ihnen herwider/Ob dann Christusnichtbefohlenhabedaszuthun/das erimerstenAbendmahlgethanhat?NunhateraberdieWortgesprochen/dassollenwirauchthun:DanndasElementwirdnichtSacramentum ohnedasWort/wieAugustinussaget:Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, DasWortkommezumElemente/sowirdtseinSacrament.

SosagetauchdasChristlichConcordiBuchnicht/dasumbderErtzehlungderWortwillen/welchevomKirchendienergeschicht/ChristiLeibundBlutdasey:sondernumbder ersten Eynsetzung und Wort Christi willen/welche/so offt das Abendmal gehandeltwirdlnachChristiBefehlsollenwiderholetwerden.

Paulus redet ja von dem gesegneten Kelch/den nicht alleine Christus in der erstenEinsetzung gesegnet/sondern den auch wir segenen. Mit wasWorten aber werden undwollenwirdenKelchsegenen/daserseyeineAusstheilungoderGemeinschafftdesBlutesChristi/wann wir nicht dazu brauchen die Wort/mit welchem Christus das Abendmaleingesetzthat:Esset/Trinket/DasistmeinLeib/DasistmeinBlut.ZudemistauchimChristlichenConcordiBuch/ex Chrysostomi Homilia de proditione Jude, derschöneSpruchangezogen/welcherdiesegantzecontroversiam determineret/wannnurunsereGegentheilOhren hette zu hören/und ein hertz/das eter warheit heppslichen köondte. Die Wortlautenalso:Et nunc ille praesto est Christus, qui illam ornavit mensam, ipse quoque Consecrat: Sacerdotis ore verba proferunter, et Dei virtute operantur et gratia. Und nun is Christusgegenwertig/derdiesenTischZubereitet/derheiligetihnauch:DurchdasDienersMundtwerdendieWortgesprochen/aberdurchGottesKrafftundGnadesindsiekrefftig.Isdenndasnichtswar/oderistdennsolchesPapistisch/wieunserGegentheilfürgiebet?

Und also redet auch Irenaeus lib 5. Quando ergo mixtus calix, et fractus panis percipit Verbum Dei, sit Eucharistia sanguinis et Corporis Christi. DerhalbenwannzudemKelchundgebrochenenBrotdasWortGotteskömpt/sowirdsEucharistia desBlutsundLeibsChristi.Eclib 4,cap 34.Qui est Iiterra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia duabus rebus constans, etc. WanndasBrot/soyonderErdenist/denGöttlichenBeruffuberkompt/so istesnichtmehreingemeinBrot/sondernEucharistia, soauszweyenDingenbestehet/ac.AbervielleichtwirdunserGegentheilIrenaeum auchzumPapistenmachen/oderwirdendtlichdahienauskommen/dassiedasAbendmalgantzundgar/ohneWiderholungderWortderEinsetzungChristi/handeln/damitesnichtdasansehenhabe/das siePapistensein....

Aberdasvorigegebensiefür/WanndieWiderholungderWortderEinsetzungmache/dasChristiLeibimAbendmaldasey/somüsseesauchausserhalbdasrechtenBrauchs/wie er von Christo eingesetzt/ein Sacrament sein: Das aber sey eben die PapistischeAbgötterey. Gemach liebe Herren/das Christliche ConcordiBuch gehet nicht weiter/alsbissaufdenrechtenBrauch/vonChristoeingesetzt.Sosagtesauchnirgendt/dasmansindie Monstrantzen legen/und ins Sacramentheusslein einsperren solle: sondern verwirfftdasselbige aussdrücklich/und wie gemeldt/redet es nur von dem Brauch/den Christusselbst eingesetzt. Summa des Gegenteils lehr leufft auff die Epicurische verachtung desgantzeAbendmalshinaus/dieesnurfürlauterBrotundWeinhelt(ApFC157f.).

61. Pieper’sanalysisofSDVII,73–90isacaseinpoint(Christian Dogmatics III,365f.,“WhatConstitutes the Lord’s Supper”). While he in this section quotes nearly all of this partof the Formula, his omissions are significant. 76b is quoted but 76a is omitted (p. 365).This is theChrysostomquotationwhichmeant somuch to theauthorsot theFormulabecause it“settles the whole controversy.” It is a key quotation in Chemnitz’s discussion

oftheconsecrationintheExamination, asistheIrenaeusquotation(Ex2,227).Further,74and75aarequoted,but75bisomitted(p.366).75bnailsdownthefactthatChristisstillactivebymeansofthespokenwordswespeakovertheelementsbyvirtueofthefirstinstitution.WhilePieperquotes83and84,hedoesnotquote85and86(p.372f.).Theselattertwosectionsdefinepreciselythetwoimportantwordsusus andactio, assertingthattheyaresynonymouswhenusedinconnectionwiththeLord’sSupper.ThisisimportantbecausethemeaningofthesetwotermswasatstakeinthesacramentalcontroversyamongtheLutheransinthe1550s–60s.Pieperblursthemeaningof“use”inthiscontextwhenhesaysthatSaligerheldthatthesacramentalunionobtainedalreadybeforethe“use”(p.372).InaccordwiththeprecisedefinitiongiveninSDVII,85,86,Saligerdidnot,becauseheheldthatthepresencewaseffectedbytheconsecration,whileatthesametimeteachingthattheconsecratedelements,thatis,thebodyandbloodaretobedistributedandconsumed.Pieper, it isapparent,restrictsthemeaningofusus tothesumptio, therebyconfiningtheRealPresenceonlytotheeatinganddrinking.Thesesignificantomissionscanveryeasily(andpossiblyunwittingly)sidetrackChemnitz’sdoctrinethat“ourbreadandcupbecomessacramentalbyacertainconsecration;itdoesnotgrowthatway”(Ex2,225).TherecanbenodoubtaboutChemnitz’sunderstandingof this sentence, forhehasalsowritten,“themeaning isnot that theblessedbreadwhich isdivided,which isoffered, andwhich theApostles received fromthehandofChristwasnot thebodyofChristbutbecomes thebodyofChristwhentheeatingofitisbegun”(Ex2,248).Besides,bynotconsideringtheseomittedpartsoftheFormula,onealsocansidetrackLuther’sdoctrinewhichtheauthorssoassiduouslystrovetorestore.Lutherconfessedthisdoctrineinmanyplaces,asforexample,inthewordsthatjustprecedewhatisquotedinSD77,“ForChristcommanded(asSt.Paulsaysin1Cor11[:22f.])thatwhenwemeettogetherandspeakHiswordswithreferencetobreadandwine,thenitistobeHisbodyandblood”(LW38,199).

Schmid(The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, tr.CharlesH.Hay,1875;reprintin1966byAPH,Minneapolis)isalsoextremelycarefulnottoquotethereallypertinentpartsofSDVII,73–90.Hequotesonly83 and84 (p. 572) and77b (p. 574).Buthedoesquoteprofuselyfromtheseventeenthcenturydogmaticianstotheeffectthatthe consecration is only the separation of the external elements from common use andsettingthemapartforasacreduse,sothat“theconsecratedbreadbecomesthecommunionof thebodyandtheconsecratedwinebecomesthecommunionof thebloodofChrist”(Quenstedt,p.572).Hutterusisthenquotedtoclarifythemeaning,namely,thatitisa“falsepremise”toassumethat“thesacramentaluniondependsupontheforceandefficacyoftherecitationofthewordsofinstitution”(p.573).

E.W.A.Koehler,(A Summary of Christian Doctrine, 1939,1952,p.220f.)quoteswithoutcomment SDVII, 74–76, but by means of omission marks (...) specifically omits theChrysostomquotation(76a)whichforChemnitz,etaI.,“settlesthewholecontroversy.”

62. W A Br X, 340, 341; in the text of the Formula, SD VII, 87 refers to the WolferinusCorrespondenceasfoundintheJenaLatineditionofLuther,volume4.

63. Hunnius,Aegidius,Articulus sive Locus De Sacra mantis Veteris et Novi Testamenti,praecipue de Baptismo et Coena Domini, FrankfortiadMoenam,1590.RareBook#302intheBethanyLutheranTheologicalSeminaryLibrary.

64. Pp.712–714,Prof.DanielMetzger,BethanyLutheranCollege,hasmadethetranslation. Omitto Transubstantiationem, De unione sacramentali quae a nostris conceditur, quaero, an

non ilia fiat in ipsa recitatione verborum, etiam priusquam manducetur panis? Primosciasvelim,nonvihuiusrecitationis,quaefitaMinistro,sedviinstitutionisChristi,

adquammentesfideliumperillamrecitationemrevocantur,velleChristumsacramentaliter



adesse corpore et sanguine sua. Quare nec inter recitationem verborum statuitur aliquafieri unio panis et Corporis Christi, ante quam in ipsa actione manducetur panis: sedquemadmodumpanisestKoinonia CorporisChristiinipsodemummanducationisactu,et non prius: sic idem panis tum demum sacramentalitur unitur corpori, quando fit illaKoinonia atquesumptio;imovinosacramentalisnihilestaliud,quamquodChristiCorpusnonsinepane,utnecpanissinecorpore,sedpaneintevenienteCorpusChristimanducaturunacumilloiunctimacsinedistractione.Haec,quaedicimus,illustraripropositoquodamcasupossunt.Etenimsiaccideret,utrecitatis iamAMinistroverbis institutionis, factatque,utvocant,consecratione,exorireturincendiumautaliusquispiamtumultuspriusquamadmensamDominiaccessisset;atquesiccasuistoimpediretursacraactio:quaeritur,annevi facta recitationis unitum quodam Arcano modo sit Christi Corpus pani, etiam extrapanisusuminmanducationepositum,etimprovisocasuimpeditum?Hiccertequisquenonstupidusnegative responderemallet,quamaffirmative.Unde iudicium facerepromptumest,quiddeConsecrationehabendum,videlicetnontribuendameiquandamvimmagicamsive transsubstantiandi panem in Corpus, sive uniendi sacramentalitur panem corpori,vinumsanguini.

Cur ista recitatio vocatur consecratio, si eam omni virtute privas? et cur Apostolus vocat benedictionem, inquiene: Poculum, cui benedicimus, etc.?

Nequaquamverosuasua illamprivoautspoliovirtute.Namutrecitatio istareferturtotaadactionemsubsecuturammanducationisetbibitionis:sicpereamsegregaturpanisetvinumecommunivulgoaliarumeiusdemgeneriscreaturarum,adsingularemhuncusumsacrum, quo Dispensationi potiarum bonorum, nempe corporis et sanguinis Dominicisubserviunt.PraetereabenedictionisvoceapudPaulum,etconsecrationis,utvulgoappellat,nonsolainstitutaecoenaerecitatiohistoricanotatur;sedetiamadiunctaintelligturpraecatio,quaprecamurDominum,utnossibiparetdignosetacceptoshospiteshuiussacrosancticonvivium,utipsiuscorporisetsanguinisincoenaemysterioadnostramconsolationemfideique confirmationem participes efficiamur. Quemadmodum vero in Consecrationecibivulgaris,qua is sanctificari scribiturper sermonemDeiacprecationem, sanctificatioillapraecatioque totahunc tendit,utcibus ille,quandoanobis sumituretmanducatur,nobis sit utilis ad hanc vita et valetudinem temporalem alendam et conservandam: SicquoquebenedictionisvoxapudApostolum1Cor.10.utqueconsecrationisvox,inconsuetaratione loquendi ipsummet usum, ut nobis corpus et sanguis Christi, quae una cumsymbolissumuntur,sintinusuSacramentihuiuscibusetpotussalutarisadalendamvitamspiritualeminnobis.

65. RosamondKentSpragueinheressay,“TheFourCauses:Aristotle’sExpositionandOurs”(The Monist, 1968, 52: 298–300) categorically states“that the time honored method ofexpoundingAristotle’sdoctrineofthefourcauses...isnon-Aristotelian.”Andshesuggeststhat“the method should be dropped.” Examining in detail an exposition of Aristotle’sPhysics II,3andII,7, shenotes that”Aristotlechangeshisexampleeachtime.”“whereasthe traditionalmethod involveschoosingasingleexample,almostalwaysanartifactandfollowingthisexamplethroughallfourcauses.”Shefindsthatthepricetobepaidforthisinorderthatthe“dimmeststudentintheclass”cangraspthestatueanalysis,isextremelyhigh,becauseitproducesfour“resultingmisconceptions.“

Later,RobertB.Toddpickedupheranalysisforfurtherstudyinhis"TheFourCauses:Aristotle'sExpositionandtheAncients"(TheJournaloftheHistoryofIdeas,1976,37:319–322).AfterexaminingAristotleevenmoreclosely,heconcludedthat"theonlyproblemwiththisillustration[thesculptoratworkonthestatuetoshowthefourcauses]isthatitdoesnotappearinanyAristoteliantext;infact,Aristotlevarieshisillustrationsofeachofthefour

causesandusesthecaseofthesculptortodemonstrateonlytherelationbetweentheefficientandthematerialcauses."Hetracesthehistoryoftheuseofthefour-cause illustrationasdevelopedafterAristotlethroughtheMiddleAgesdowntothepresent.Hethenagreesthatthis"over-extendedsculptor"shouldberetired"onthephilosophicalgroundspresentedbyProf.Sprague."

Prof. W. T. Jones in A History of Western Philosophy (NewYork: Harcourt Brace)concludesthat“theanalysis[TheFourfoldCause]requiresconsiderablemodificationwhenitisappliedtonaturalobjects”(Vol.I,p.188).And,finally,RoyBashkarhasrecentlystatedthat“thesystemlackedaclearcriterionforintellectualintuition,whichfacilitateditsdogmaticdegenerationintheMiddleAges”(DictionaryoftheHistoryofScience,W.F.Bynum,E.J.Browne,R.Porter,eds.,Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981,p.27).

66. OneofthemostrecentisthestatementofPastorKennethMillerintheChristian News Encyclopedia, Washington, MO: 1982, p. 489: “Since Holy Writ nowhere teaches thattheRealPresencebeginsatthemomentoftheblessing,theLutheranChurchhasnevertaughtiteither....IfyouwillsaythatLuthertaughttheRealPresenceexistedpriortothedistribution,thenyoumustalsoacknowledgethathehadnoBiblicalbasisforit.”

67. InacommunionhymnwrittenbytheDanishtheologianandhymnwriter,ThomasKingo,lateintheseventeenthcentury,onefindsthesewordsinstanza13:“OJesus,ladmigaldriggaaFradettebord,hvoduestpaa.”Thishymnwithitsstanza13wastakenintotheNorwegianSynod’sSalmebok (revisededition,1903)ashymn#25.ThishymnbookischieflytheworkofPastorsUlrikVilhelmKorenandMarkusFredrikWiese.Prof.JuulMadsonhastranslateditintoEnglish.Stanza13readsasfollows:

OJesus,letmene’erdepartThistablewhereonrealThouart.Indeed,IcasttheworldasideAndpraythatonlyThouabide.(Lutheran Sentinel, June23,1977)

68. SeeSasse,This is My Body (Note#1),pp.83–85forasummaryofthecontentsofLuther’sessay.Sassegivesthetitleas“OftheAdorationoftheSacramentoftheBlessedBodyofChrist.”

69. Historie, etc.,pp.539–546.PastorKennethMiller(seenote#59)hasarguedthatGeorgeofAnhaltcouldnothavewrittenthathehadseenLutherfalldownandreverentlyadoreChrist when the Sacrament was elevated. He bases his argument on the fact that theWeimareditionofLuther’sWorkshasa“non”(not)insteadofa“nos”(we)inastatementofthePrince,namely,“Wehavenot(non)seenLuther,”etc.PastorMillerrefusestoacceptthepossibilitythattherecouldhavebeenamisprintperpetuatedintheWeimaredition,sincetheWeimareditorsdonot”evenmakeanoteofit”[i.e.,thatitcouldbe“nos”insteadof“non”](The Christian News Encyclopedia, p.489).CertainlyifPastorMillerwouldhavehadtheopportunityofstudyingGeorgeofAnhalt’sFourthSermonontheSacrament,hewould nothave beensosurethatPrinceGeorgedidnot write,“We haveseenLuther,”etc.Besidesthis,PastorMillercouldhavereadLuther’slettertoPrinceGeorge( June26,1542)whohadinquiredabouttheproprietyofdroppingtheelevationfromtheservice.Luther,aftertellinghimthatitispermissiblebutnotanecessarypartoftheservice,isquiteexplicitinstatingthatifinthefuturetheremightbereasonsforrestoringtheelevation,thenitisfreesothatonecanagainpracticetheelevationwithoutdanger(St.L.XIX,1340f.).ThislettertogetherwithPrinceGeorge’sFourthSermonrendersitimpossibletoacceptPastorMiller’s thesis thatPrinceGeorgewrote,“Wehavenot seenLuther,”etc., insteadof“WehaveseenLuther,”etc.



70. Historie, 540–543. The translation is by Prof. Richard Lammert of Bethany LutheranCollege.

IndervierdtenPredigtredeterauchvoneusserlicheEhrerbietungdessSacramentsalso:Womangewisslichglaubet/dassunserHerrJesusChristus/warerGottundMensch/zurRechtendessHimmelischenVatterssitzend/seiberunserErtzhirtunndhoherBischoff/unser Seelen Leibhafftig/gegenwertig/und in diesem allerheiligsten/hochsten undwünderlichstenGeheimnis/selbst seinennatürlichenLeib/dener fürunsgegeben/unndseintheuwresBlut/soerzurvergebungunserSündevergossen/durchdessDienersHändeuns zu essen/unnd zu trincken darreichet/wil das seine klare und unwidersprechlichewortbezeugen.SomusswarlichdasHertzauchheraussbrechen/unndsicheusserlichzuerkennengeben.Woesabernichtgeschicht/odersolcheeusserlicheReverenzwissentlichund freuentlichauss verachtung/unterlassenwirdt/ists eingewissesWarzeichen/das esinnhertzennichtist,etc.

Undabermal:Wirwollennichtszuthunmitdenen/welchediewaregegenwertigkeitdessLeibsundBlutsunsersHerrenJesuChristiimhochwirdigenSacrament/vermesslichund freuentlich/wider unsers Herren Jesu Christi klare und unwidersprechliche Wortverleugnen/oder sonst unsers lieben Herren Wort uberklügeln/und ihres gefallensbeugen/undglossiren/unddierechteHandGöttlicherMayestetverkürzen/unndaneinensonderlichenortbindenwollen/undalsdennAussdemgrundeSchliessendasChristusimSacramentnichtseinköndt/unndderhalbendashochwirdigeSacrament/jaChristumimSacramentanzubeten/fureinAbgöttereihalten,etc.

Dieselben zwar sollen und konnen es mit gutem Gewissen nicht handeln unndgebrauchen/dieweilsiedieWortChristiauffandernverstandtziehen/dennsielauten/und nicht glauben/dass allda Christus gegenwertig sey. So Zeiget S. Paulus/was nitaussdemglaubengehet/dassesSündeist.UndwereinsolchemZweiffeldieanbettungdobbeltSünde.Erstlich/darumbdasssie denWortenChristinichtgläuben.Zumandernauch/dasssueausserundwiderjrenGläubengeschehe.Wirwollenjnenaberwarhafftigebekehrungvonhertzenwünschen/undgleichwoljremverkehrtenSinneunndIrrthumb/wiewirkönnenwidersprechen/undmänniglichtrewlichdarfürverwarnen.Undmögenzujhnenwoldassagen/welchesauchunserlieberHerrChristuszudenSaduccernsagte/Marc12.Istsnichtalso/jhr jrrthumb/dasjhrnichtwissetvonderSchrifft/nochvonderKrafftGottes?Dennebendarumbgläubenwir/dasChristi leibundblutwarhafftig imSacramentist/dasssolchesdieSchriftsaget.EbenaussderGöttlichenKrafftistChristusimSacramentgegenwertig/darumb/dasserzurRechteGottesdessalmächtigenVatterssitzet/welcher so er allenthalben nach seiner Göttlichen Allmächtigkeit ist/solte erdennauchnichtseyn/daersichnachseinereinsetzungleibhofftiganseinH.Sacramentgebundenhat/undebenderursachhalben/dassunserlieberHerrChristuszurRechtendessAllmächtigenVatters sitzet/so ihren/anruffenunndanbettenwir jhnauch/alsdieSchrifftgebeut/dasswirsollenanallenortenanbetten/undwieSanctPaulusvermanet/zujhmheiligeHände/ohnezornundzweiffel/affheben/warumbsoltenwirdenndasnichtthunbeyderHandelungseinesWortsundSacraments/daranersichselbsgebunden/undallda leibhafftiggegenwertig ist?Darumbseindsnureitelblasphemiae, dassolcheLeutefürgeben/widerdessHerrnWort/undkommenvondemMeisterher/derauchzuunsernerstenElternimParadeisssagte:Irwerdetnichtsterben/sondernsoltseinwieGötter.DadochderHerrsagt/WennsieessenwürdenvomverbottenenBaum/dasssiedessewigentodessterbensolte,etc.?

Item/ob wol unser Herr Jesus Christus sein H.Abendmahl/nit dess anschawens oderanbettenshalbeneingesetzt/dennochzuuerbieten/nochzuuil/oderfürAbgöttischzuschetze/

sondernvielmehrbillichundrecht/dadissH.Abendmahl/nacheynsetzungunsersliebenHerrenJesuChristi/gehaltenwird/dassmandarbeyseymitallerandachtundehrerbietung/unndunsernHerren JesusmChristum/warenGottundMenschen/daselbstanbetten/derindiesemHochwirdigenSacrament/nitalleinnachseinerGöttlichenAllmächtigkeit/unndGeistlicherweise/sondernauchleibhafftig/warhafftigundwesentlich/dochunsichtbarlichgegenwertigist/alsderzurRechtenGöttlicherMaiestatsitzet/undvonGotterhohetunddenNamenerlanget/deruberallenamenist/dassindemnamenJesusichbeuginsollenallerderknie/dieimHimmelundauffErden/undunterderErdenseind/undallezungenbekennensollen/dassJhesusChristusderrHerrseyzuderehrerGottesdesVatters.

Item: Wir mussen hierinn richten/nicht nach dem/das dit Augen und eusserlicheSinne greiffen und anzeygen/sondern was der Glaube auff GottesWort gegründet/unslehret.DieAugensehenBrodtundWein/alleeusserlichesinnezeugennichtsanders/derGlaubabererkennetwarhafftiggegenwertigdenHerrenChristum/der seinenLeibundBlut selbs in diesem allerheyligsten geheimniss darreicht. Derselbe Herr Christus unterdem Sacrament gegenwertig/doch unsichtbar/verdeckt und verborgen/wirdt allhie vonGläubigenangebetet/nichtdasElementdessBrodis/odereusserlichegestalt.

71. IntheEnglishtranslationofthisworkofLutheritisrecordedasthesis15,andnot16,asChemnitznumbersit(LW34,355).

72. It iswellknownthatLuther’s liturgiesallowforthevenerationoftheSacrament,asdidmanyotherearlyReformationliturgies.ReginPrenterinhisrecentbookontheAugsburgConfession(Kirkens Lutherske Bekendelse, Fredericia,1978)hascalledattentiontothefactthattheDanish-Norwegianritualof1685knowsthevenerationofthebodyandbloodofChristundertheconsecratedelements.Onerubriccallsforthebendingofthekneesafterthecommunicantshaverisenfromtheirkneelingpositioninreceivingthesacrament.Thisbendingoftheknees,Prenterpointsout,isthevenerationoftheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristuponthealtar.AsfurtherevidenceforthisPrenterreferstoKingo’shymnontheSacrament(seenote#67).Prenteralsonotesthatthis1685liturgycallsforthere-consecrationoftheelementsifasufficientamounthadnotbeenconsecratedunderthefirstconsecration(p.210).ThisritualwastheonerecommendedforuseintheNorwegianSynod.

73. TheGoettingeneditionoftheLutheranConfessions(Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherische Kirche, 1979), as a footnote to SD VII, 126, not only gives the appropriatereference to the Decrees and Canons of Trent, but also adds what it calls examples of“Artolatrie”ontheProtestantside,byreferringthereadertoChristianSalig’sVollständige Historie der Augspurgischen Confession, Halle, 1735, III, 528. (Bek. 1016, note #2). But anexaminationofthereferencedoesnotrevealanyvenerationoftheSacrament”apartfromtheaction”whichhasbeensocarefullydefinedbyChemnitzandtheFormula(seep.101f.).SaligevidentlyfollowsMelanchthonindenyingthepoweroftheconsecrationtoachievethe Real Presence (see p. 83), for he maintains that it is not correct when the Gnesio-LutheransaccusedMelanchthonofattributing“Artolatry”toLuther’sdoctrine.SaligclaimsthatMelanchthonwasnotopposedtothecorrectLutherandoctrinebutonlyagainstthepoperyofsomeLutheranignoramuses.AsanexamplehesinglesoutMoerlin(Chemnitz’smentor)asshamefullymisusingLuther’slettertotheFrankfortChristians(1533),inwhichhewarnsthemagainstpastorswhodonotwanttoconfessclearlytheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheSacrament(St.L.XVII,2007f.).Apparently,accordingtoSalig,MoerlinhadquotedfromtheletterLuther’swordsthatonecannotletthepastorgetbywithagarbledconfession,asthoughhismouthwassofullofporridgethatallhecouldsaywas“Mum,Mum.”Rather,oneshouldasktheofficiantwhathehadinhishand



(“sondernwasderPriesterinderHandhat”—asquotedbySalig).SaligrhetoricallyaskswhoeverdirectedDr.MoerlintostatethatsuchdoctrinewasLutheranthatthepriesthasthebodyandbloodofChristinhishand.SaligcountersbyclaimingthatLuthersays:ThebodyandbloodofChristisintheSacrament,andoutsidetheuse(Geniessung) thereisnosacrament.SaligcontinuesbyassertingthatthisiswhatMelanchthonalsotaughtandalltrueLutheransstilldo,and,onthecontrary,itisnotLutherandoctrinethatapartfromtheuse(Geniessung) thereisnosacrament.AndheaskswhetherthisisnotpapisticArtolatry[i.e.,whenMoerlinholdsthatLuthertaughtthatwhatthepriesthadinhishandwasthebodyandbloodofChristbeforethesumptio.]Whatelsearethepapistsdoingwhentheyliftup(aufstecken) theHostfromthealtarorcarryitaroundinprocession?Andnow,Saliglaments,MelanchthonmustbeconsideredCalvinistbecausehedeclaimedagainstthis.

This is an important reference for several reasons. It shows that by 1735 the positionofAegidiusHunnius(seep.89f.)hassocompletelywonoutoverthatofChemnitzandLutherthattheirrealposition ismisrepresented.Theconsecrationhasbeendeprivedofitspowerandreducedtoageneralprayerinwhich,remindedofthefirstinstitution,thecommunicantprepareshimselfforaworthyreception.

Ashasbeenalreadydemonstrated,LutherandChemnitzdid teach thattheconsecrationachieves theRealPresence.Therefore it isa fairquestion toask theofficiantwhathe isholdinginhishand;asamatteroffact,itisagoodtestquestiontoseewhetheroneacceptsLuther’sdoctrine,justasMoerlinevidentlyhadusedLuther’sletter(SassetranslatespartofthisletteranddiscussesitinThis is My Body, p.229f.).

Further,onerealizeshowimportantitisthatChemnitz,recognizingtheconfusioncausedbytheuseofsuchvaguetermsas“actio,”“usus,”“Geniessung,”inconnectionwiththeLord’sSupper,precisesthedefinitionofthetermssothattheprecisedefinitionis incorporatedinto theFormula(SDVII,85f.).Saliguses the termGeniessung, referring itonly to thesumptio. InhisviewtheconsecrationlapsesintoanunimportantpartoftheSacrament.Ofcourse,iftheRealPresenceexistsonlyinthesumptio, thennotonlyistheconsecrationaconditionalelementdependingonthesumptio bythecommunicantforitseffectivepower,but it also would beArtolatry to practice veneration of the Host after the consecrationbut before the distribution, a custom which Luther and Chemnitz deemed permissible.ItneedhardlybeaddedthatbothLutherandChemnitzcondemnedtheCorpusChristiprocessionsbecausethisisoutsidetheuse commandedbytheSavior.

This footnote #2 (together with note #4 on p. 1016) indicates that the editor of theBekenntnisschrift (Dr. E. Wolf ) is sympathetic to a Melanchthonian view of the Lord’sSupper. The Salig reference shows that the Melanchthonian view has been consistentlyimposedontheFormulaofConcordfornearly400years.

Salig,inthiscontext,alsomentionsthatMelanchthonwasopposedtoHeshusius,who,whileatHeidelberg,desiredthattheleftoverwinenotbeputbackintothecanister.Salig’sotherexamplesthatbroughtdisapprovalfromMelanchthonincludedthedemandatErfurtforthevenerationoftheHost,andalsothepracticeinSchleswig,Frankfort-on-the-Oder,andotherplaces that insistedsostrongly for theretentionof theelevation.SaligassertsthatMelanchthonshouldnotbeconsideredaCalvinistwhenheobjected towhatSaligcalls papistic fragments, because they were examples of Artolatry. Neither Luther, norChemnitz,norSDVII,108and126condemntheseGnesio-Lutheransinthispractice.

74. See note #59, where Pastor Kenneth Miller rejects the interpretation that the“This do”includestheconsecration,andthushelimitsthesacramentaluniononlytothetimewhensome of the elements are received. The sacramental union would not be effected in anyothersacramentalelements thatmayhavebeenuponthealtarandhadcomeunder the

Verba.Chemnitz,however,observesthatperhaps“someonesaysthatapersoneatsbread unworthily. The answer is: Paul does not refer simply to bread, but he says ‘this bread.’Butwhatbreadisthis?It is the bread which according to the Word of Institution is the body of the Lord given for us” (LS131,emphasisadded).AfewparagraphslaterChemnitzagainemphasizesthepointbyaskingwhatbreadisitthatoneeatsthatincursguilt,“Butwhatbread?ThebreadwhichChristaffirmsisHisbody”(LS132).AlltheelementsthatcameunderthewordsofChristattheconsecrationareHisbodyandblood.AndhenceitisbypartakingofthoseparticularelementsthatonemayeatunworthilyandbecomeguiltyofthebodyandbloodofChrist.

75. ThetranslationintheTapperteditionoftheBook of Concord ismisleading,“ItwasagainstsuchpapisticabusesthatthisrulewasfirstformulatedandexplainedbyDr.Luther.”ThetranslationseemstosaythatLuthernotonlyexplainedtherulebutfirstformulatedit.TheGermanandLatinversionsonlysaythattherulewasoriginallyestablished,andthatthereferencetoLuther isonly inconnectionwiththeword”explain.”TheTriglot translates,“Foragainstsuchpapisticabusesthisrulehasbeensetupatthebeginning[oftherevivingGospel]andhasbeenexplainedbyDr.Lutherhimself,TomIV,Jena.“

76. WA Br. X, 348f. The English translation of both of these letters is from E. F. Peters,Extra Usum Nullum Sacramentum: The Origin and Meaning of the Axiom: Nothing Has the Character, etc.; aTh.D.dissertationatConcordiaSeminary,St.Louis,1968,p.198f.

77. Another attempt has recently been made to identify the Jena edition reference as beingsomethingotherthantheWolferinuscorrespondence.Prof.SiegbertBeckerintheessay,“AnUnidentifiedLutherReference”(inLuther Lives, Essays in Commemoration of the 500th Anniversary of Martin Luther’s Birth, Milwaukee,NPH,1983,pp.157–168),maintainsthatthereferenceistosomeofLuther’scorrespondencewiththeEinsiedelfamilyin1528.HeevidentlyintendsthispapertobeananswertoProf.BjarneW.Teigen’s“TheCaseoftheLostLutherReference”(CTQ,Ft.Wayne,Oct.1979,pp.295–309)(P.159).OngoingthroughvolumeIVoftheGermanJenaeditionandexaminingthesetwoletters(1566Jenaed.,fol.316b;St.L.XXla,1092f.),heconcludesthat“itseemsevidentthatthereference...inFCSD87isareferencetotheGermanedition.TheWolferinuscorrespondencedoesnotfitthefactsofthecase”(p.162).

Prof. Becker bases his conclusion on the following reasons: There is a more markedsimilaritybetweenSDVII,85andtheEinsiedellettersthanbetweentheWolferinuslettersandtheSD;therulewas“formulatedandproclaimedby‘Dr.Lutherhimself,’”andnotoneformulated by Melanchthon, as in the case of theWolferinus correspondence (162); therulewas formulatedat thebeginning“of the revivingGospel” (theaddition in theLatinversionofSDVII,87),whichpointsmoreto1528than1543(162);thisruleofLuther[i.e.,intheEinsiedelletters]wassetupinoppositiontothepapisticabusesofthemass(162);thewordsofSDVII,85–87(“extrausumaChristoinstitutum...extraactionemdivinitusinstitutum”)areapparentlyanechooftheremarkLuthermakesinthesecondopinion[i.e.,thesecondlettertotheEinsiedels](159).

ButthoughtfulconsiderationofProf.Becker’sreasons for identifyingtheSDVII,87referencewiththeEinsiedelcorrespondencerenderssuchanidentificationquiteimplausibleandunacceptable.

Prof.Beckerdoesnotinformusastothepersonwhoreceivedtheletters;asamatteroffact,onemightquitenaturallygaintheimpressionthatthesetwoletterswereanswerstodifferent requests for“opinions.”There isnodoubt thatLutherwrotemany letters todifferentpersonsonthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupper(e.g.,seenote#73forLuther’sletterto the Frankfurt Christians), but in this case the two letters are directed to one person



representinga family.Thefirstopinion isdated Jan.31, 1528,andtheeditorsofLuther’swritingsgivethesecondonethesamedate(St.L.XXla,1092).TheselettersaredirectedtoHeinrichHildebrandtvonEinsiedel(1497–1557).Hewasthefirstofthefamilytoidentifywith the Reformation, and he together with the family remained loyal to it to the end.Luthercarriedonaconsiderableinformalcorrespondencewiththefamilyoveralongperiodoftime.HildebrandtunfortunatelywasnotwithinthejurisdictionoftheSaxonElector,but,asonecansee fromthe letters,his rulerwasGeorge theBearded,DukeofSaxony(1471–1539),abitterenemyofLutherandoftheReformation.ThelettersalsorevealthatLutherinanironicalcommentiskeenlyawareoftheenmity,buthealsoacknowledgesthatinsomemattersheandtheDukeagreed(e.g.,intheiroppositiontotheSacramentariansonthesacramentsandonthenecessityofobeyingcivilgovernment).Theywere,however,completelyatoddsoverthePrivateMassandtheretentionofthecupfromthelaity.TheDukehadsystematicallysoughttocrushthepoweroftheEinsiedelswhoweretheownersofseveralvillages.HedidthisbyreleasingtheirsubordinatesfromresponsibilitiestotheirlandlordsandevenrequisitioningpartoftheEinsiedelpossessions(KarlMeusel,Kirchliches Handlexikon, Leipzig,1889,2,331).

The particular problem facing the Einsiedels in 1528 was to try to find in a Catholicterritoryapriestwhowasevangelicalenoughtostopcelebrationoftheprivatemassandwhowouldgivethesacramentinbothkinds.Luther,Bugenhagen,andSpalatinaretryingtohelp,butrecognizingthedifficultiesofdealingwithaCatholicruler,theyarequitesurethatthenextstepwillleadtosomekindofadjudication.InthemeantimetheyremindtheEinsiedelsthatitisimproperforaclergymantosaymassalone.ButLutherinthesecondopinion(apparentlyaveryhastilyandinformallywrittendocument)doesseemtothinkitpossiblethataclergymancouldbefoundwhodoesnotsayprivatemasses,administersthe Lord’s Supper in both kinds, and who will not harass those who are accepting theEvangelicalfaith.

Prof.Becker,inurgingthatthesequiteinformallettersrepresenttheLutherreferenceinSDVII,87,simplyoverlooksthefactthatinSDVII,73–90theauthorsoftheFormulaare not discussing the Private Mass, but the fact that there had occurred” a dissensionamong some teachers of the Augsburg Confession concerning the consecration and thecommonrulethatthereisnosacramentapartfromtheinstituteduse”(SDVII,73).Fromthe very beginning the authors acknowledge that some who profess adherence to theAugsburgConfessionhave“perverted”thisConfessionsoastomakeitappeartobeinfullagreementwiththeSacramentarians(SDVII,1).Now,neithertheGnesioLutheransnortheSacramentarianswereadvocatingprivatemasses,butMelanchthonandhisadherentswere denying that the consecration achieves the presence of the body and blood in theSupper(seep.83f.),andhencetheneedfortheconfessionmadeinSDVII,73–90.

It is not giving the theologians of the Concordia much credit for logical and precisethinkingtosuggestthatinthediscussionofthedoctrineoftheconsecrationtheyintroducean informally and hurriedly written document which states the impermissibility ofcelebrating private masses. Even if these theologians here inArticleVII had wanted tointroduceaLutherreferencetoprivatemasses, theywouldhardlyhavereferredtotheseinformal letters,whentheycouldhavepickedanynumberofpertinentquotations fromLuther’s“BabylonianCaptivity”of1520tohis“ThePrivateMassandtheConsecrationofthePriests”of1533,bothofwhicharecarefullyworkedoutpresentationsofthedoctrinalproblemsinvolved.ItsimplywillnotdotoquotefromtheEinsiedelcorrespondenceandthendismissthepossibleobjectionstothisbysaying,“Withthatquotationbeforeusthereisnothinglefttoexplainaway”(161).

Prof. Becker believes that there is a more marked similarity between SD VII, 85andtheEinsiedellettersthanbetweentheWolferinuslettersandtheSD(159–161).Butwhenonerecognizes that theconsecration isunderdiscussion inSDVII,73–90,onewilleasilyseethesimilarityofthecontentsofboththeSDandtheWolferinusletters.WhenProf.BeckerquotesinLatinSDVII,85forthepurposesofcomparison,heomitsthewords”extraactionemdivinitusinstitutam”(159).Hereinthelastphrasethereisastrikingsimilarityintheuseoftheword”actio”bothinSDVII,85andtheWolferinuscorrespondence (see p. 136), while there is no wording in the Einsiedelletters that hassuchcloseresemblancetotheSD.

Further,Prof.BeckerisquiteinsistentthattheSDdeclaresthattherulewas“formulatedandproclaimedbyDr.Lutherhimself,”andhencetheWolferinusletterscannotbemeant,since the rule there mentioned is ascribed to Melanchthon (160). There seems to be noquestionthatresearchscholarsarecorrectinascribingtheoriginoftheruletoBucerandMelanchthon and its popularization especially to the latter. But despite Prof. Becker’sinsistencethattheSDdeclaresthattherulewasformulatedbyDr.Luther,theSDdoesnotsaythatLutherformulatedit.ThereferencetoLutherisonlyinconnectionwiththeword“explain.”BoththeTriglot andthefirstcompleteAmerican Book of Concord translationsaremuchclosertotheoriginalthantheTapperttranslationwhichProf.Beckerinpartherefollows.IncontrasttoTappertthesetwotranslationsread:“Foragainstsuchpapisticabusesthisrulehasbeensetupatthebeginning[oftherevivingGospel],andhasbeenexplainedbyDr.Lutherhimself,TomIVJena”;“For,inoppositiontosuchpapisticalabuses,thisrulewasoriginallyestablished,anditisexplainedbyDr.Luther,Tom4,Jen.fol.597”(seenote#79).

Inthisconnectionitshouldalsobenotedthattherulecameintocommonusagenotonly against the Roman Catholics but also against the Sacramentarians, as SDVII, 88specificallystates.

Prof.Becker’sopinionthattheexpressionaddedtotheLatintextofSDVII,87,“ThebeginningoftherevivingGospel”wouldtendtopointto1528ratherthan1543isnotveryrelevant.Writing40or50yearslater,onewouldusesuchtermsinsuchgeneralizedwaysas tomean the timeofourgreat forefather,MartinLuther, so that it couldrefer toanytimebetween1517–1546.OritcouldevenrefertoalatertimesinceitwasnotunusualforthelaterReformerstorefertotheReformationasrestoringtothechurchthelightoftheGospel.ChemnitzfrequentlyemploysthesetermswhichspeakofthelightoftheGospelshiningsobrightly(Ex.2,256,396,430,etc.).

ItisalsoofnosignificancethattheSDiswritteninGerman,asaretheEinsiedelletters,whiletheWolferinuslettersareinLatin.AtthattimethetheologiansweresoaccustomedtobilingualismthattheymovedveryeasilyfromGermantoLatinandLatintoGerman.ThiseasymovementfromonetotheotherintheApology to the Formula andtheHistorie des Sacramentsstreit isampletestimonytothisfact.

78. In1563,forexample,ErhardSperberappealstotheLuther-WolferinuscorrespondenceasafurtherexplanationofthemeaningoftheruleeventuallypositedinSDVII,85,“ErsprichtaberderfromeLutherusin4LateinischerTomo/zuJenagedruckt/ineinerepistle/soerim43.JaranmagistrumWolfferinumgeschrieben”(Christliche und notwerdige verantwortung Erhardi Sperbers wider die grewliche bezichtigung und beschwerliche aufflag der Sacramentirer und Rottengeister zu Dantzig,” Erfured,1563,fol.14b.).

OnJuly18,1619,thetheologicalfacultyofWittenbergrenderedadecisionwithregardto the question as to whether it is right for a pastor to take the remaining consecratedwinehomeforcommonuse,sincewiththecessationoftheactionthesacramentceases.



The faculty gave a negative answer, although granting that“quod cessante actione cessetsacramentum”(“whentheactionceases,thesacramentceases”).Butthefacultytheninsiststhatthesacramentalactionmustbecorrectlydefined.Theyinsistthatthethreepartsoftheactionmustbedoneentirelytogetherin“ipsoususacramenti”;otherwisethesacramentalactionisnotcarriedout.Fromthisitfollowsthatsuchactiondoesnotenduntilallthathasbeenconsecratedhasbeenconsumed.Forthisreasonitisnotpropertotakeconsecratedwinehomeforcommontableuse.ThenexcerptsfromLuther’stwoletterstoWolferinusarequotedtosupportthisdecision,andthereferenceispreciselygiven,“Tom4,JenensiLat.,fol.585b”(Redekin: Thesauri Conciliorum, I,Hamburg,1671,p.139).

79. ThistranslationwaspublishedbytheHenkelbrothersatNewMarket,Virginia,thefirsteditionin1851,andthesecondin1854.Thefolionumberonp.677ofthesecondeditionis597.ItshouldbenotedthattherewerethreeJenaeditions,1558,1570(reprintedwithoutchangein1583),anda1611edition(seeKurtAland’sHilfsbuch zum Luther Studium, 3rded.,1970,p.587).TheHenkelfolioreferenceistothe1558Jenaedition.TheothereditionshavedifferentfolionumbersfortheWolferinuscorrespondence.

80. PeterFraenkel,“TenQuestionsconcerningMelanchthon,TheFathersandtheEucharist,”inLuther and Melanchthon, editedbyVilmosVajta,Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1961,p.147.

Quere states that“Melanchthon’s characteristic language is that with the bread andwineChristispresentintheritualactiontoforgive”(RalphWalterQuere,Melanchthon’s Christum Cognoscere — Christ’s Efficacious Presence in the Eucharistic Theology of Melanchthon, Nieuwkoop: B. DeGraaf, 1977, p. 9). It is quite remarkable to read in aconservativetwentiethcenturytheologianthatthelogicalessence (genus)oftheSacramentisaction, not sign or thing, iswithrespecttotheLord’sSupperespeciallyimportantinthepolemicagainst thepapists(Ad.Hoenecke,Dogmatik IV,125;seenote#91).ThistrendofthoughtonwhattheSacramentiscannotbereconciledwiththedoctrinalpositionofChemnitz(seep.98f.and101).

81. Peters has translated the Latin phrase,“Ab initio orationis dominicae” with the words,“with the beginning of our Father” (see note #76). Considering the context and theconsistentlystateddoctrineofLuther,itshouldbetranslated,“fromthebeginningoftheword(ordiscourse,etc.)oftheLord.”Prof.Beckerholdsthatitmustbetranslated,“fromthebeginningoftheLord’sPrayer,”andbecauseofthishebelievesthatonecannolongermaintainthatLutherteachesthatthebodyandbloodofChristarepresentfromthetimeoftheconsecrationwhenthosewordsareusedbythepastorinavalidcelebrationoftheLord’sSupper(seeLuther Lives, etc.,p.164f.;seenote#77).Further,heassertsthatsincethephrasemustbetranslatedasthe“Lord’sPrayer,”thentheRealPresence,accordingtoLuther,beginssometimebeforetheWordsofInstitutionarespoken.Prof.Becker’sbasisforthenecessityofacceptinghistranslationisthateversincethetimeofCyprianthephraseoratio dominica hasbecomeweddedtotheLord’sPrayer(p.164).

Butthereareseveralcogentreasonsforheretranslatingoratio as“words”or“speech,”etc.TohaveLuthersayinginthisoneplacethattheLord’sPrayerachievestheRealPresencecontradictseverythinghehassaidabouttheconsecration,aseventhecontentsofChapterVofthistreatisedemonstrate.ItevencontradictstheWolferinuscorrespondenceitself,forinithesaysthatthe“speakingoftheWords[ofInstitution]...isthemostpowerfulandprincipalactionintheSacrament.”

ThereisnodoubtthatLuthermayhaveusedtheexpressionoratio dominica forwhatinEnglishiscalled“TheLord’sPrayer,”inmoreformalandsolemncontexts.Butheusuallyemployed the term“das Vater Unser” or the Latin Pater Noster, which had become the

traditionaltermalsoinGermanandDanish.Asamatteroffact,afewdaysafterhewrotetoWolferinus(Aug.5,1543),LutherinalettertoHermannBonn,rectorinLubeck,usesPater Noster fortheLord’sPrayer(DeWette5,580).ItisanexaggerationtostatethatsinceCyprian,thephraseoratio dominica hasbeenweddedtotheprayerwhichJesustaughtHisdisciples.

The word dominica obviously refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. The term oratio candesignate not only prayers of the Lord, but also words, speeches, etc. dominica simplyidentifiesthepersonbehindtheoratio. AnyordinaryLatindictionarygivestheinformationthatthemostcommonmeaningoforatio is“speaking,speech,discourse,language.”ItisalsoevidentthatthismeaningcarriedoverintomedievalLatin.HardtquotesfromDeFerrari-Berry,A Lexicon of Thomas Aquinas, “Oratio:(1)speech...(2)Speechofsentence...(3)Prayer”(p.230;seenote#1).HardtalsoshowsfromtheBekenntnisschriften (p.471,note#1)thatMelanchthonusedthetermoratio initscommonmeaningofdiscourse,Oratio de Pontificum Romanorum Ambitione Tyrannide, 1556.

More specifically to the point, the word oratio is frequently used for the Words ofInstitution.Lutherhimselfuseditinthissenseinthe1528lettertoCarlstadt(WABr4,367).GabrielBielusesoratio in this sense inhisExposition of the Canon of the Mass (editedbyHeikoOberman,Wiesbaden,1969,p.239f.).InatleastnineplacesintwopageshereferstotheVerbawithsomeformoforatio. LutherwastrainedattheUniversityofErfurt, where one of the faculty members, Bartholomaeus von Usingen, was a“discipleofBiel, teacherofLuther”(Oberman,The Harvest of Medieval Theology, p. 118).LutherwaswellacquaintedwithBiel’sExposition of the Canon of the Mass. Thereare,asamatteroffact,parallelsintheWolferinuscorrespondenceandBiel’sExposition. MoststrikingisLuther’suseofthetermprolatio. Bielwrote,Post prolationem huius oration is, referringtotheVerba;Lutheremploystheexpressionpost prolationem verborum (“afterthespeakingofthewords”),referringtotheVerba.

J.A.O.PreusinhistranslationofChemnitz’sThe Lord’s Supper twicetranslatesthewordoratio withtheword“language,”wherethematterunderdiscussionis“theinterpretationoftheWordsofInstitution”(LS137).

AllthisisoverpoweringevidencefortranslatingthephraseintheWolferinusletterwiththewords,“fromthebeginningoftheWordoftheLord.”Itneednotrefertoanyparticularsyllableorword,asLutherhaswrittentoCarlstadtin1528,butitcanverywellrefertothefirstpartof the consecration, sinceLutherbelieves that this achieves theRealPresence.TheSacramentisarealityalreadyfromthefirstpartoftheconsecration.In“TheGermanMass”hesuggeststhataftertheconsecrationofthebread,itbedistributedbeforethecupisconsecrated(LW53,81).



Chapter vI

The effects of the sacramental eating

and Drinking

353 WhenMartinChemnitzin1569hadcompletedrewritinghisorigi-naltreatiseontheSacramentoftheAltar,82hededicatedthebooktothetwodukesofBrunswickandLuneburg.Inthededicatoryepistlehe reiterates that he simply wants to follow in the steps of LutherinproclaimingthedoctrineoftheSacramentoftheAltar,“Ihadnodesiretobringinanythingnewbutsimplywastryingtoretaintheold,fundamental,andsimpleteachingandtorepeatitoutofLuther’swritings,namely, that thedogmaof theLord’sSupperhas itsownproperandpeculiarsetting(sedes doctrinae), intheWordsofInstitu-tion,andthatinthesewordsitstruemeaningmustbesought”(LS21).Thisalsomeans forChemnitz thatwhateverheconfesseswithrespecttothissacramentisinharmonywiththeAugsburgConfes-sionandtheApology(LS21).

354 As can be quite readily seen from the previous chapters, Chem-nitzfollowsingreatdetailwhatLutherconfessedandtaughtontheLord’sSupper.IfoneaskswhytheLutheransappeartobesatisfiedtoputtheemphasischieflyonthefactthatintheSupperthetruebodyandbloodofChrist ispresent,distributed,andreceived, theansweristhatwiththeretentionoftheRealPresencetheyhavere-tainedeverythingGodhadpromised.TheSacramentoftheAltarisaMeansofGrace,justasLuthersaid,“ThissacramentistheGospel”(LW36,289).Theforgivenessofsins is thegreatgift.Luthercon-nectstheforgivenessofsinswiththebodyandtheblood.HedoesnotregardtheRealPresenceonlyasasealandasignattachedtothe

The Effects of Sacramental Eating | ��

Word,buthespecificallyconfesses,“Therefore,hewhodrinksthiscupreallydrinksthetruebloodofChristandtheforgivenessofsinsor theSpiritofChrist, for theseare received inandwith thecup”(LW37,325).

355 TheWordandthebodyhavebecomeoneforLuther,“Thistreasureisconveyedandcommunicatedtous innootherwaythanthroughthewords,‘givenandpouredoutforyou’”(LCV,29).Followingthispointofview,ChemnitzinstructsthepastorsofBrunswickwiththesewords:

Thecupofblessingwhichwebless,namely through thewordsofChristwhich we repeat in the administration of the Lord’s Supper and thus connect the bread and the wine with the Words of Institution, sothat inthatSacramentwehaveneithertheelementalone,northesimpleWordbut,asLuthersays,theWordisclothedintheelement,andtheelementconnectedwiththeWord.(MWS120;emphasisadded).

356 JustaswithLuther,thecomfortoftheSacramentoftheAltarforChemnitzresidesinthefactthatwereceiveorallythetruebodyandbloodofChrist,“IthasbeenfirmlyestablishedthattheSonofGodHimself in this distribution and reception of His body and bloodisalsogivingandapplyingandsealingtoyouallthosebenefitsHegained for us by the giving of His body and the shedding of Hisblood”(LS64).EverythingdependsonretainingthebodyandthebloodintheSacrament.Chemnitzrequeststhat“everyoneconsiderhowmuchofthesemostbeautifulandsweetcomfortswouldbelostand destroyed if we move the very substance of the body and thebloodoftheLordimmeasurablyfarawayfromtheSupper,sothatwewouldconcludethatwithourmouthwereceiveonlybreadandwine”(LS190).

357 ThequestionariseswhetheroneneedstheSacramentoftheAltarsincetheWord,nottomentionBaptism,offersandconveysthesamefruitsoftheSavior’spassion.Inanswer,Chemnitzisadamantinin-sistingwiththeLutheranConfessionsthattheforgivenessofsinsisof-feredandappliedonlythroughtheministryoftheGospel,“ThereforetheAugsburgConfessionearnestlyreprovesthosewhoeitherseekorteachtoseekreconciliationwithGodandtheremissionofsinsout-sideofandwithouttheministryoftheWordandsacraments”(Ex.2,554).ButthenChemnitz grantsthatthe“applicationofthebenefitsof Christ is made in believers also apart from the use of the Lord’s


Supper”(Ex.2,347).Andfurther,heagreesthat“rightly...doestheApologyandtheAugsburgConfessionsaythatboththeWordandtheSacramentshavethesameeffect,theverysamepowerorefficacy”(Ex.2,73).

358 Chemnitz, in dealing with this question, directs one to the indi-vidualsinner’ssenseofguiltandhisneedfortheassurancethatGodisreconciledtohim.Henotesthat

itisaverysweetpromisewhichisjoinedtothecommunionofthecupbythevoiceoftheSonofGod:“Drinkofthisallofyou;thiscupistheNewTestamentinmyblood,whichisshedforyoufortheremissionofsins.”TheNewTestamentincludesthegraceofGod,reconciliation,forgivenessofsins,adoption,etc.,accordingtothestatementofJeremiah,ch.31:31–34.(Ex.2,347).

359 As an evangelical pastor called into the public ministry to feedtheflockofChristandtheChurchofGod(1Peter5:2;Acts20:28),Chemnitzwassensitivetothefactthat

apiousmindisgreatlytroubledaboutthequestion:“DoesthecovenantofthegraceofGodinChristpertainalsotomeinparticular?”IwishandsighthatImaytrulyandcertainlybereceivedintothiscovenantoftheNewTestament,thatImaybefound,andeverremaininthiscovenant,thatitmaybeformeforeverfirmandunalterable.NowtheSonofGodaddedtothecommunionofthecupthemostdelightfulwords,bywhichHetestifiedthatHeinstitutedthecupofHisSupperthatitmaybeameansorinstrumentbywhichHewantstoapply,seal,andconfirmthisNewTestamentpersonallyandeffectivelytoeveryonewhoreceivesitinfaith.Inorderthatourfaithmaybecertainthatwetrulyandcertainlyarereceived,arefound,andareconfirmedinthiscovenant,thatitmaybeunalterableandfirmtous,HeassertsthatHeoffersandimpartstousinthiscupthatverybloodofHisbythesheddingofwhichtheNewTestamenthasbeenearned,established,andconfirmed.(Ex.2,347f.).

360 IfoneaskswhyChemnitzspeakssoglowinglyoftheLord’sSup-per, it isbecause,asLutherhadsaid, that it is theGospel.AndhefullysubscribestoLuther’sconfessionintheSmalcaldArticlesthattheGospel “offerscounselandhelp inmorethanoneway, forGodis surpassingly rich in His grace” (SA III, IV). Chemnitz, parallel-ingthethoughtofLutherintheSmalcaldArticles,demonstrateswhyGodhasgivenmankindtheGospelinvariousforms.Hewritesthat

thisMediatortheFathersetsbeforeusintheGospelasapropitiationby faith inHisbloodthroughtheremissionof sins (Rom3:25).“Forthis is the will of the Father, that everyone who believes in the Son

shouldnotperishbuthaveeternallife”( John6:40).ThustheGospelproclaims,offers,andsetsbeforecontriteandterrifiedconsciencesthegraceofGod,reconciliationandremissionofsinsfreelyonaccountofthe merit of Christ; and it is His will that everyone should lay holdofandapply thisbenefitof theMediator tohimself.Theministryofprivate absolution applies this general promise of the Gospel to thepenitentindividuallyinorderthatfaithmaybeabletostateallthemorefirmlythatthebenefitsofthepassionofChristarecertainlygivenandappliedtoit.Moreover, intheuseoftheLord’sSupperChristoffers,applies,andsealstoallwhoreceiveitinfaiththeNewTestamentwiththepreciouspledgesofHisbodyandblood,namely,thatGodwantstobegraciouswithrespecttooursinsandtorememberouriniquitiesnomore.Thenitisrightlysaid:“Takeheart,myson:yoursinsareforgiven.”ForalltheprophetsgivewitnessthatthroughChristallwhobelieveinhisnamereceiveremissionofsins.ThisisthemannerofreconciliationwithGod.(Ex.2,556f.).

361 It is quite evident that in speaking of the benefits of the Lord’sSupper,Chemnitzhasbeenemphaticinexpressingthedoctrinethatthesearereceivedinfaith(Ex.2,347;556;etc.).Thetrueuseofthissacrament is profitable for strengthening of faith. It requires faithanditisusedrightlywhenitisreceivedinfaith(ACXIII).Hereitisnecessarythatone“teachthewholedogmaoftheLord’sSupper”onthebasisoftheWordsofInstitution(LS36).Otherwisepeoplecanbe“disturbed”bythecontentionofsomeoftheadversaries,andmiss the fact that in the sacramental words Christ is speaking ofthephysicaleatingofthebreadandthetwofoldeatingofthebodyof Christ in the Supper, namely, the sacramental and spiritual. IntheLord’s Supper Chemnitzdevotesashortchapter(LS57–64)toclarifythisaspectofthedoctrinesothatonedoesnotfallintoaSac-ramentarianwayof thinkingabout thesacramentand itsbenefits.HecitesasacaseinpointthepresentationofPeterMartyr(1500–62).PeterMartyr,anItalianwhohadbeeninfluencedbyreadingtheworksofZwingliandBucer,wasforcedtofleetoEnglandin1547,wherehebecameRegiusProfessorofDivinityatOxford,andservedasaconsultanttoCranmerintheformationoftheEnglishBookofCommonPrayerof1552.AccordingtoChemnitz,PeterMartyrcon-tended“thatthebodyofChristintheSupperiseatenonlybyfaithandinaspiritualway,thatis,faithturnsitselffromthecelebrationof the Supper which takes places in our midst here on earth andbymeditationascendsintoheavenandthereinmindandspiritem-bracesChristinHismajesty”(LS57).



362 Apresentationsuchas this isadmittedlyattractive, sinceLutherandtheReformersalsotaughtaspiritualeatingwhichistobelieveintheWordandpromiseofGod.Sucheating,theFormulaofCon-cordhasdogmaticallyconfessed,is“intrinsicallyuseful,salutary,andnecessarytosalvationforallChristiansatalltimes”(SDVII,61).ButwhatisgivenupinthePeterMartyrviewpointisthattheconsecratedbreadandwineare thebodyandbloodofChristandarereceivedoral-ly.IfonedemursfromsuchapresentationwhichtheLutheransmake,namely, that inadditiontothespiritualeatingthere isalsoanoraleating,ChemnitzaversthattheproponentsofthePeterMartyrposi-tionwould“immediately let loosewithsomeblasphemousslandersaboutCapernaiticeatingofthebodyofChrist,orabouttheCyclopswhoatehumanflesh,ortheScythianslurpingofthebloodofChrist”(LS 57). Chemnitz is well aware that the Sacramentarians want tocentereverythingon“action”inthesacrament,andnotonthepres-enceofthebodyandbloodofChrist(seep.83,137f.,andnote#80).ThereistheconstanttendencytospiritualizeawaywhatChristhasdeclaredinHislastwillandtestament,justasSassehasremarked,“WhenLuther’ssacramentalrealismmetwithZwingli’sspiritualiz-ing humanistic idealism, it was the realism of the Bible which metwithaspiritualizingandrationalisticChristianitywhichhadbeenalatentdangertotheoldChristianfaithforcenturies.”83

the three kinds of eating in the sacrament

363 Thepointofdifference,ChemnitzdemonstratesliesinthefactthatthePeterMartyrspeculationis“unwillingtograntanythirdkindofeatingbetweenthephysicalandthespiritual”(LS57).Itrepresentsapointofviewpermeatedwithrationalism,“forhumanreasonneitherknowsnorunderstandsanyotherkindofeatingexceptthephysicalandgrosseatingbywhichthefleshofcattleiseatenoracoweatshay”(LS57).InviewofthisChemnitzcarefullyexplainsthedifferencebetweenthe“three-foldeating”thatoccursintheSacramentoftheAltar:

First,thereistheeatingofthebreadwhichisrightlyandproperlycalledaphysicaleating.

Second,thereistheeatingofthebodyofChrist,whichalthoughitdoesnottakeplaceinaphysicalorgrossway,yet(accordingtothewordsofChrist)takesplaceorally,forHesays:“Take,eat;thisismybody.”Thisiscalledasacramentaleatingintheoldmethodofdesignation.

Third,thereisthespiritualeatingofthebodyofChrist.(LS58).

364 Lesttherebeanymisunderstanding,Chemnitzaddsthisexplana-torysentencetothethreepoints,“ThethingswhichIsayregardingtheword ‘eating’andregardingthebodyofChristIwanttoapplywithequalforcetotheword‘drinking’andtothebloodofChrist”(LS 58). He also gives these further explanations with respect tospiritualeating.It“isnotdescribedinthesewords:‘Take,eat,’butintheotherwordsoftheSupperthatfollow.Thatistosay,thesacra-mentaleatingisdoneinmemoryofChristbecauseHisbodyisgivenforus,whichbybeingdistributedtousintheSuppersanctifiesthenewcovenanttous.Inthesewords,Isay,spiritualeatingisalsode-scribed,andthisabsolutelymusthappeninorderthattheeatingoftheSacramentmaybecomesalutaryforusthatwemaynotdoittoourjudgment”(LS58).

365 Further, spiritualeatingof thefleshandbloodofChrist can takeplaceeitheroutsideorwithintheobservanceof theSupper.That isbecause“faithembracesandlaysholdofChrist,whoisbothGodandman,whoisbroughttousintheWord—whenfaithdoesthisinsuchawaythatitappliestoitselfHisbenefitswhichHemeritedforusbythegivingofHisbodyandthesheddingofHisblood—thenwecansaythatweareeatingthebodyofChristspiritually(John6)”(LS63).

366 Butspiritualeatingmeansthat“therebepenitenceandfearofGod,whichisterrifiedbythecontemplationofsinandthewrathofGodagainstsinandputsoffthepurposetodoevil.Faithalsoisnecessary,thatwecanaccepttheremissionofsininthepromise”(Ex.2,238).

367 Havingsaidthiswithrespecttothespiritualeating,Chemnitzis-suesanimportantcaveat,“ButintheLord’sSupperthespiritualeat-ingmustnotsoturnourmindandfaithawayfromthiscelebrationoftheSupperwhichistakingplaceinthegatheringofthecongregationthatinourownmeditationswearecarriedbeyondtheheavenofheav-ens,asouradversariesimagine”(LS63f.).SincethereisthisstrongtendencypromotedbyourownnaturalreasonnottoconsiderthatweareactuallyreceivingthetruebodyandbloodofChristorally,itishighlyimportanttoanalyzetheimplicationsoftheoralmanduca-tion. Here the heartof thecontroversy lieswiththeSacramentar-ians.Chemnitzfacesthematterofthephysicaleatingbyanalyzinginmoredetailtheobjectionstoit.

368 Thebread,ofcourse,isconsumedanddigestedinthenaturalwayasall food is.Theancientchurchaswellas thepresentchurchhas



alwaysrecognizedthat;forexample,Origenwrotethat“thesanctifiedbreadaccordingtoitsmaterialaspectsgoesoutwiththewasteandisejectedbythedigestiveprocess”(LS59).And,furthermore,LutherdarenotbechargedwithCapernaiticeating,“LikewiseLutheralwaysandeverywhere,andparticularlyinthebookontheWord,declaredthatwhenhetaughtthatthebodyofChristwaseatenintheSupperhedidnotunderstandthistomeanthatittookplaceinavisibleorperceptible way, so that the actual substance of the body of Christwouldbetornwiththeteeth,cheweduporbutchered,masticatedinthemouth,swallowedordigested,andchangedintothesubstanceofourfleshandblood,inthewayotherfoodis.Fordeathhasnomoredominionoverus(Rom.6:9).”(LS59).84

369 Chemnitz,compelledbytheNewTestamentWordsofInstitutionandPaul’sinspiredexplanationofthem(1Cor.10and11),insiststhatthereisanothereatingintheLord’sSupperbesidestheeatingofthebread and the spiritual eating, namely, a sacramental eating, “Butbecauseoftheunion,thebodyofChristispredicatedofthatbreadwhich is eaten physically, so that according to the words of ChristthosewhoeatitarerightlyandproperlysaidtobeeatingnotonlythebreadbutalsothebodyofChrist.ForHesays;‘Take,eat;thisismybody’”(LS59).TheseclearwordsoftheSaviorsimplycannotbeex-plainedawaybyanykindof“secularreasoning.”Rather,“thesewordsofthelastwillandtestamentoftheSonofGod”renderitimperativethat we “acknowledge and believe that in the Supper there is morethanaspiritualeating;thereisalsoasacramentaleatingofthebodyofChrist,astheancientssocorrectlycalledit”(LS60).85

370 Further,thissacramentaleatingis“notsomethingmerelyfigurativeorimaginarybuttrueandsubstantial,eventhoughitoccursthrougha supernatural, heavenly and unsearchable mystery.. . , [(for)] theSonofGodHimselfaffirmed...thatthosewhoeatintheSupperreceiveandeatwiththeirphysicalmouthsnotonlythebreadbutatthesametimealso thatbodywhichwasgiven forus,eventhoughthisdoesnottakeplaceinaphysicalwayaswhenweeatordinarybread”(LS60f.).

This,however,istoomuchfortheZwinglians,who“cryout,

IfyouagreethattheeatingofthebodyofChristwhichtakesplaceintheSupperisnotphysicalanddoesnottakeplaceinthewayofothernaturalfoods,wherebytheyarefoodinourstomach,thenitwillbeonly

aspiritualeatingwhichtakesplaceonlybyfaith,that is,ourphysicalmouthreceivesnothingbutthebread,andmeanwhileoursoulbyfaithappliestoitselfthebenefitsofChristwhichHemeritedforusbythegivingofHisbody.Meanwhilefaithextendsitsthoughtsintothefieryheavenand there inmindand spirit embracesChrist inHismajesty.(LS59f.).

371 ButforChemnitzthewordsoftheSaviorinHislastwillandtesta-mentaretoocompelling,“Thisismybody.”Itsimplyisnot“true,ascertainpeopleimagine,thatourphysicalmouthsdonotreceivetheactualsubstanceofthebodyofChristbutonlyakindofsacramentalbodytowhich,becauseofasymbolicdesignation,weattributethename‘thebodyofChrist.’”Onthecontrary,“It[thesacramentaleat-ingof thebodyofChrist] [is] trueandsubstantial, even though itoccursthroughasupernatural,heavenlyandunsearchablemystery”(LS60).

372 TheSavior“who is theAuthorof this tremendousmystery,” “ac-complishesthisinamannerwhichisknowntoHimalone,butitisincomprehensibleandineffabletous”(LS61).Butbywayofanalo-giesdrawnfromtheBible“somelightcanbeshedonthesematters”(LS61).ChemnitzhasalreadyreferredtoLuther’sexplanationinhisGreat Confession (LW37,302)andinAgainst the Heavenly Prophets (LW 40, 197) (LS 55). Luther called it a “synecdoche” where thereis “theunionof twothingswhichareunderstoodasbeingpresentanddistributedatthesametime,oneofwhichispredicatedoftheother”(LS55).LutherheremadeuseofthedistinctionmadeinthedoctrineofthepersonofChrist,namely,thattherearetwonaturesandyettheyareunitedinsuchawaythattherearenottwoChrists(see p. 47ff.). Chemnitz here picks up from Luther the analogy ofthedescentoftheHolySpiritintheformofadoveatthebaptismofChristanddwellsonitatconsiderablelengthtodemonstratethatwecangetsomeunderstandingofthesacramentalunionandtheeatingofthebodyofChrist,

Forby reasonof thisunion thedovewhich John theBaptist sawis called the Holy Spirit, and when the dove descended it is correcttosay that theHolySpiritalsodescended.Moreover, thedescentofthedoveisphysicalandconsistentwiththenormalmannerofnature,thatis,byamovementfromahigherplacetoalowerone,wherethedovehadnotbeenbefore.Butthedescentof theSpiritdidnottakeplace in thisphysicalway,because theSpiritfillsall thingswithHissubstanceandthereforeinthepropersenseoftheWorddoesnotmove



fromoneplacetoanother.YetnotonlythedovebutatthesametimealsotheSpiritHimselfisdescribedastrulyhavingdescended,andwebelieveitisso...ButbecausetheactualsubstanceoftheHolySpiritwilledto join itself to thedovewithapeculiarkindofpresenceandtoshowitselftotheBaptistinthiswaythereforewherethedovewas,therealsoitcanrightlyandtrulybesaidthattheverysubstanceoftheSpiritwasalsopresentatthesametimeandwiththatpeculiarkindofpresence.Forthisreason,whenthedovedescendeditisequallycorrecttosaythat theverysubstanceof theSpiritalsodescended,althoughthisdescentas it applies to theSpiritdidnot takeplacebyphysicalmovement.(LS61f.).

373 Fromexamplessuchasthis(seepp.53–64foradetailedanalysisofthismodeofpredicationaslegitimate),Chemnitzdrawshisfinalconclusion, Onthebasisofwhatwehavejustsaiduptothispointwecandraw

thesure,firm,andcorrectconclusionthat inaddition to thephysicaleatingandspiritualeating,there isathirdkindofeating,namely,thesacramentaleatingofthebodyofChristwhichofnecessitymusttakeplaceintheSupperifwedonotwanttorejecttheproperandnaturalmeaningofthewordsofthetestamentofChrist.(LS63).

Faith Accepts What is Promised and offered in the supper

374 Just in connection with spiritual eating in the Supper togetherwith the sacramental eating, Luther had repeatedly said that heagreed that faith was necessary for a salutary reception: “I quiteagree. Indeed, I have said further that a bodily eating of Christ’sbodywithoutspiritandfaithispoisonanddeath”(LW37,191;see also LW 37, 86 and 238). It is fundamental for Lutherans to con-fess,“Forthisreasonthey[thesacraments]requirefaith,andtheyarerightlyusedwhentheyarereceivedinfaithforthepurposeofstrengtheningfaith”(ACXIII,2).

375 Chemnitz’spresentationisnodifferent.Herecordssimplyandof-tenthat

toworthyorsalutaryeatingfaithisaboveallthingsnecessary....Notmerelythatyousay inageneralwaythatthesethingsaretruewhichGod promises about His grace on account of the Mediator, but thatin the Supper the Son of God by a special action testifies that Hewants to receive into the fellowship of His body and blood everyonewhoeats,thatbytheimpartationofHisbodyandbloodHewantsto

communicate,give,apply,andsealtoeachonethebenefitsoftheNewTestament(Ex.2,318).

376 InhispastoraladmonitiontotheBrunswickianpastorsunderhisjurisdiction,Chemnitzexplainsthatoutwardreverenceandvenera-tionofthebodyandbloodofChristispermissible,buttheall-impor-tantthingistruefaithoftheheart.Inanswertothequestion,“Withwhatoutwardreverenceisthissacramenttobeobservedin[its]use?”Chemnitzanswers,

Since bread per se is and remains bread and likewise wine, surelydivinehonorisnottobeconferredontheelements.ButifthehearttrulybelievesaccordingtotheWordsofInstitutionthatChristispresentinthatactionandoffersanddistributestousHisbodyandblood,[then]outwardritesjoinedwithallreverenceandhonor,asisproperandasitbecomesChristians,willfollowofthemselves.ButletthechiefconcernbewithwhatkindofheartwecometothistableoftheLord.ForotherwiseitisPharisaichypocrisyifwesimulatereverencewithoutwardrites,buttheheartisfaraway(Matt.15:8)(MWS132).

377 Butagain,thisisnottosaythatfaithorspiritualeatingistheonlythingthatoccursintheuseofthissacrament.BecauseofthepersistentrefusaloftheopponentstoaccepttheVerbaintheirnaturalmeaning,Chemnitzmustrepeathimself.NeartheendofThe Lord’s Supper, heoncemorespellsoutthetwofoldeatingofthebody ofChrist,

BecausewehavetheWordconcerningthetwofoldeatingofthebodyofChrist,boththespiritualandsacramental,aswehavedemonstratedpreviously, it surely does not follow that the one kind of eating rulesoutandnullifiestheother,insuchawaythatforthisreasonwehavetogiveupthenaturalmeaningofthetestamentofChrist;butratherbothcan stand and indeed in such a way that the one supports the other.ForinorderthatthesacramentaleatingofthebodyofChristmaybesalutarywemustaddthespiritual.Andthespiritualeatingissealedandconfirmedthroughthesacramentaleating(LS234f.).

378 TheLordissoconcernedthattheindividualsinnerbeassuredthathissinsareforgivenandthatheisjustifiedbyfaithaloneintheaton-ingsacrificeoftheSonofGod,thatHemakesuseofvariousmeansandcomestousthroughothersensesbesideshearingandseeingtoassureusthatourGodisagraciousGod.Chemnitzemphasizesinclearwordsthegiftoforaleating:

TheverySonofGodbythisdistributionandreception,whichHewilled with His own counsel and wisdom, determined to employ theserviceandworkofourmouths.HedidthisnotonlybyHisSpiritorby



theefficacyofHishumanity,butratherwiththeverysubstanceofHisbodyandbloodHejoinsusascloselyaspossibletoHimself,notonlythesoulbutalsotheverybodiesofthosewhoeat.Andheaccomplishesthisnotbysomephysicalandoutwardmixingofthesubstancesorbyjoiningsomethingtothefoodinourstomach,butinawaywherebyitbecomes a heavenly and spiritual nourishment for both the body andsoulofthebelieversuntoeternallife(LS61).

Bodily eating Without Faith379 Butwhatoftheunbelieverwhopartakesofthetruebodyandblood

ofChrist?Therecanbenodoubtthattherearethosewhoareguiltyof thebodyandbloodof theLord.Chemnitz remarkson this fre-quentlyanddiscussesitinsomedetail.InhisdedicatoryepistleinThe Lord’s Supper heispainedbythe“irreverentandsuperficialattitude,soprevalentinthediscussionconcerningtheholywordsofthelastwillandtestamentoftheSonofGod”(LS19).Andheurgesthat“weshouldweighcarefullythesternwordsofPaulconcerningthejudg-mentwhichhedeclareshasbeenlaiduponthosewhoviolatethewillandTestamentofChrist”(LS20).

380 WhenhecomestoexaminetheTridentineDecreesandCanonson“ThePreparationwhichistobeexercisedinorderthatonemayre-ceivetheHolyEucharistworthily,”hisfirsttaskistoexplain“inafewwordswhatistheteachingandunderstandingofourchurchescon-cerningthispreparationonthebasisoftheWordofGod”(Ex2,314).AndheacknowledgesthatinviewofPaul’sWords[1Cor.11:27–30]agraveresponsibilityislaidontheministerstoexpoundtotheirpeoplealsothispartofGod’swill.Hewrites,

There is alsonodoubt that it is incumbentonallministersof thechurch that theydiligently andearnestly admonish theirparishioners,and indeed set before them the very grave threat of guilt and divinejudgment,lesttheyapproachtheLord’sSupperwithoutmakingthepriorexaminationorpreparationofwhichPaulspeaks.Andifthosewhosinfromignoranceorthoughtlessnesseatunworthily,thesinofthosewillbemuchmoregrievouswho,althoughtheyoweitfromthenatureoftheiroffice,yetdonot instruct themby reproving, admonishing, exhorting,andteachingthatinthatwaytheyshouldexaminethemselves,orwhatpreparation they should make, lest they eat and drink unworthily totheirjudgmentbutmayworthilyreceivetheEucharisttogetherwithitsfruitsandeffects.These thingsarediligentlyandearnestly taughtandtransmittedamongthem(Ex2,315).

381 1 Cor. 11:27–29, Chemnitz notes, is not written in “isolation, butthrough the use of the subordinate particle [Hooste — therefore] he

[Paul]joinsittotheaccountoftheinstitution”(LS127).Paulspecifi-callysays“Thisbread,”“orthebreadofwhichtheSonofGodsays:‘Thisismybody.’InthesamewayhespeaksofthecupofwhichtheLordHimselfstates:‘ThisismybloodwhichisthebloodoftheNewCovenant.’” Hence “Paul understands the eating and drinking in aliteralsense”(LS128).

382 Chemnitzexplains,“ToeatunworthilymeansnottoeatinsuchawayasisfittingforthisSupperorasisworthyofthefoodwhichisdistributed and received in this Supper” (LS 128). He then gathersfromthewidercontextthatPaulischargingtheCorinthianswiththefactthat“theywerenotcomingtotheLord’sSupperwithanyotherspiritor inanygreater reverence than in theirprivatehomeswhentheysatdowntotheirownordinarymeals”(LS128).ItisevidentthattheywerecomingtothetableoftheLord“withouttruerepentanceandfaith”fortheywere“nourishinghatredintheirhearts;theyweredespisingthechurch,wereshamingthepoorandwerenotabstainingfromidolatrouspractices;theywereevencomingtothecelebrationoftheSupperdrunk”(LS128).

383 With their use of the Lord’s Supper in such frivolous securityandworldlyindifferencetheywereeatinganddrinkingjudgmenttothemselves,“Therefore,becauseintheLord’sSupperheeatsunwor-thily,heeatsjudgmenttohimself.Thisisthepunishment”(LS129).“But,”asksChemnitz,“whatthinghasheviolatedtobringthispen-altyuponhimself?”Hehasusedthesacramentwithoutconsideringwhatitreallyis:thesacramentoftheverybodyandbloodofChrist.“AsaresultthosewhoeatunworthilyintheSuppereattotheirjudg-mentbecausebytheirmisuseandprofanationtheyinflictinjuryandinsultnotonlyontheexternalsymbolsbutupontheverybodyandbloodofChrist”(LS129).

384 Thissituationisparadoxical,“Paulisdescribingaparticularandpeculiarmodeofprofanationandviolationof thebodyofChrist,”becausethejudgmentcomesbyeatingandnotbyrejectingthesacra-ment,“ThereforeintheSupperjudgmentisincurrednotbyrejectingbutbyeating,forhe[Paul]says:‘heeatsjudgmenttohimself ’”(LS130).Hence“theunworthypartakeofthebodyofChristbutnottotheirsalvation”(LS171).Thismustbesobecause“thegenuinenessand integrityof thesacramentdoesnotdependontheworthinessorunworthinessofeitherthosewhodistributeorthosewhoreceive,



butrestssolelyonthedivineinstitution”(LS172).ThejudgmentofAugustine is correct when he “distinguishes between the spiritualeatingof John6,which is alwaysunto salvation, and the eatingofthebodyofChristwhichtakesplaceintheSupper,whichisgiventobelieversuntosalvationbutinthecaseoftheimpenitentgivesplacetojudgment”(LS173).

repentance and Faith

385 Repentance and faith are necessary for a salutary eating of theLord’sSupper,becausetheLordhasgraciouslypromisedgreatben-efitswhichHewantsustoreceive.Chemnitzthereforesaysthat“thispromisecallsforfaith;notmerelythatyousayinageneralwaythatthesethingsaretruewhichGodpromisesaboutHisgraceonaccountofthemeritofthemediator,butthatintheSuppertheSonofGodbyaspecialactiontestifiesthatHewantstoreceiveintofellowshipofHisbodyandbloodeveryonewhoeats,thatbytheimpartationofHisbodyandbloodHewantstocommunicate,give,apply,andsealtoeachonethebenefitsoftheNewTestament....Yes,itisforthisreason that we come to the Lord’s Supper, that this faith may bekindledandstrengthenedinus.ForthisisthetrueremembranceofChrist”(Ex.2,318).

386 InhisMinistry, Word and Sacraments writtentoassisttheclergyofBrunswick,ChemnitzshowsthatforemostinhiszealtoexpoundanddefendthecorrectdoctrineoftheWordofGodisthatofedifyingtheChurchofChrist.Hisconcernsarealwaysgenuinelypastoral.Hepos-esthequestion,“ButsincelifeitselfdwellsinthebodyofChrist,whatkindofcauseofdeathcanthenexistforthosethateatunworthily?”(MWS131).Heanswershisownquestionwiththewords,“Thatdoesnotresultfromthis,thattheLord’sbodyper se isadeadlypoison,butthattheywhoeatunworthilysinagainstthebodyofChristbyEpicu-reansecurityandimpenitence.”Andhethenaddsbywayoffurtherexplanationthat“lifeisindeedinthefleshofChrist,butitdoesnotworklifeinunbelieversbutonlyinbelievers,justasalsotheGospelisanodoruntolifeforbelieversbutforunbelievers[anodor]untodeath(2Cor.2:15–16).AndpowerisgivenuntoChristnotonlytoquickenbelieversbutalsotojudgeunbelievers(John5:21–22)”(MWS131).

387 Since Chemnitz recognizes that the solemn words of Paul maycausemisapprehensionsforsometroubledChristians,hemakesclear

that“thisworthyeatingdoesnotconsistinaman’spurity,holiness,orperfection.Fortheywhoarehealthydonotneedadoctorbuttheywhoarenothealthy(Matt.9–12)”(MWS131).Onthecontrary,theexamination of oneself should lead one to the acknowledgement ofhissinsanderrors,thewrathofGod,sothat“withardentdesire[hewill]thirstforandlongforthegraceofGodsothatbytruefaithintheobedience,passion,anddeathofChrist,thatis,intheofferingof[His]bodyandsheddingofHisblood,[he]seeks,begs,laysholdon,andappliestohimselfthegraceofGod,forgivenessofsinsandsalva-tion”(MWS132).

Life in the Flesh of christ

388 Luther,ashasbeennoted,connectstheforgivenessofsinswiththebodyandbloodofChristsothathedoesnotregardthesemerelyassealsandsignsattachedtotheWord(seep.141f.).Chemnitzdoesthesame(seep.142).Lutheraddsthefamiliarwordsthat“wherethereisforgivenessofsins,therearealsolifeandsalvation”(SCVI,6).Someof the aspects of this last statement are overlooked, even thoughLutherexpandsconsiderablyonitssignificanceinaswellknownadocumentastheLargeCatechism.Luthernotesthatthissacrament“is appropriately called the foodof the soul since itnourishes andstrengthensthenewman....TheLord’sSupperisgivenasadailyfood and sustenance so that our faith may refresh and strengthenitselfandnotweakeninthestrugglebutgrowcontinuallystronger”(LCV,23f.).

389 Chemnitzdevotesaspecialchaptertothetopic,“HowUsefulandComfortingThisDoctrineIs”(LS185–194).Hispointofdepartureis toshowthatChristHimself, trueGodandManinoneperson,impartsHisbodyandbloodtous.Andtherefore“ourfaithoughttolayholdonChristasGodandManin that nature bywhichHehasbeenmadeourneighbor,kinsman,andbrother.Forthe lifewhichbelongstothedeityresidesinandhasinasensebeenplacedintheassumedhumanity”(LS187;emphasisadded).Whenconsideredinall its implications,this fact isastronginducementtogrowthinasanctifiedlife.ForChemnitzremindsusthat

thehumannatureofChrist, its limitationshavingbeensetaside,hasbeen removed from all miseries and injuries of this world and nowresidesinthegloryoftheFather.Butournature,althoughaccordingto



thepromisewehaveinthehopeofglorification,isstillbefouledwithuncleanness, oppressed with misery, and exposed to all the darts ofSatan,theworld,andtheflesh.AsaresultourfaithisundertheCrossandstillterriblytossedaboutbytemptations.ThereforeintheSupperChristoffersusHisownbodyandbloodwhichhavebeenexaltedaboveallmiseriesintothegloryoftheFather.HedoesthisinsuchawaythatthroughthemHejoinsHimselftothismiserablenatureofours,sothatwiththismostpresentandsureguaranteeandsealHemaygiveusthecertaintythatHedoesnotwishustoremaininthesemiseriesforeverbutthatsomedayweshallbeconformedtoHisgloriousbodywhichHeofferstousintheSupperasthesealofourowncomingglorification.(LS191).

TheChristologyoftheScripturesisneverfarremovedfromwhatever partofScriptureChemnitzisexpounding.

390 IntheuseoftheSacramentallpartakeofthesamebodyandthesamebloodofChrist. InhisBrief Confession (1544)Lutherhadex-plainedthisoveragainsttheSacramentarians,“Whenyoureceivethebreadfromthealtar...,youarereceivingthesameentirebodyoftheLord;thepersonwhocomesafteryoualsoreceivesthesameentirebody,asdoesthethird,andthethousandthafterthethousandthoneforeverandever”(LW38,292).ThesamefactappliestothebloodofChrist,“YouaredrinkingHisentireblood;so,too,doestheonewhofollowsyoueven to the thousandtimes the thousandthone,as thewordsofChristclearlysay:“Takeeat,thisismybody’[Matt.26:26]”(LW 38, 292). Luther sums it all up by quoting from the hymn ofThomasAquinas(Lauda,Sion, Salvatorem), “Onetakesit,athousandtakeit;thispersonreceivingasmuchasthatperson;norhavingtakenit,isitconsumed”(LW38,293).

391 Chemnitz’s entire presentation of the sacrament and its benefitsproceedsfromthisbasicconcept,“ForintheSupperIdonotreceiveaparticularbodyandyouadifferentone,butweallreceivetheoneandthesamebodyofChrist....”(LS143).TheresultisthatthroughthebreadweareunitedwithChrist,“ForthroughthebreadweareunitedwiththebodyofChrist,andthroughthebodywithChristHimself,andthroughChristwiththeFather.Thuswearemadepartakers(koi-nonoi) withtheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit.Thesethingsaretheresultsofthesalutarycommunion(koinonia) ofthebodyandthebloodoftheLordintheSupper”(LS143).

392 ThetremendousimportanceofthedoctrineofthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesofChristandallthatitimpliesfortherevelation

oftheGospelasaMeansofGracecanbeseenfromthesewordsofChemnitz, ThusthehumanityofChrististhepointofconnectionbetweenus

andGodHimself,asCyrilsays....Therefore,inorderthatwemightbeabletolayholdonChristmoreintimatelyandretainhimmorefirmly,notonlydidHeHimselfassumeournaturebutHealsorestoreditagainbydistributingHisbodyandbloodtousintheSupper,sothatbythisconnectionwithHishumanity,whichhasbeenassumedfromusandisagaincommunicatedbacktous,Hemightdrawusintocommunionandunionwiththedeity.(LS188).

393 ThereferenceinthepreviousparagraphtoCyrilofAlexandria(d.444A.D.),bringstomindthatChemnitz(andLuther, too, forthatmatter),foundCyriltobeapreciseexpounderoftheScripturaldoc-trineofthepersonofChrist.86Hewasthemostbrilliantrepresenta-tive of the Alexandrian School of Theology in refuting Nestorian-ism,andhisdoctrinehasbeentakenintotheLutheranConfessions.ScripturedoesteachthatthehumannatureofChristinthepersonalunion experienced the glorification which still has a practical andpersonal meaning for the church.Through thehypostatic union ofthetwonaturesinChristthehumannaturehasbecomeomnipotentandquickening.Itisnotthecase,astheSacramentariansheld,that“thedeityaloneispresentwiththechurchwithoutthecommunionorcooperationofthehumannature”(TNC473).ChemnitzwithhisreferencetoCyril(p.156)probablyhasinmindtheconfessionmadeattheCouncilofEphesus(431A.D.),

ThefathersofEphesusdefineit[thatthefleshofChristgiveslife]thiswayonthebasisofScripture:ThefleshofChristonaccountoftheunionwiththedivinenaturewhichislifeitself,ismadelife-givingoralife-giver(zoopoion), and it thus has the authority or power to give life, and thisauthorityitexercisesintheactionoftheLord’sSupperinthebelievers.Anditgiveslifetothosewhoeat,justasheatedironhaspowerofgivingheat,anddoesgiveheataswehaveexplainedintheforegoing,(TNC474).

394 The Formula of Concord repeats what Chemnitz has previouslywrittenandgivesitconfessionalstatusinthesewords,

Becauseof thispersonalunionandtheresultantcommunionthatthedivineandhumannatureshavewitheachotherindeedandtruthin the person of Christ, things are attributed to Christ according tothefleshthattheflesh,accordingto itsnatureandessenceoutsideofthisunion,cannotintrinsicallybeorhave,forexample,thatHisflesh



istrulyalife-givingfoodandHisbloodtrulyaquickeningbeverage,asthe 200 fathers of the Council of Ephesus attested when they statedthat Christ’s flesh is a life-giving flesh, whence only this man and nootherhumanbeinginheavenandonearthcansaytruthfully,“Wheretwoorthreearegatheredinmyname,thereamIinthemidstofthem,”likewise,“Iamwithyoualways,eventothecloseoftheage.”WedonotunderstandthesetestimoniestomeanthatonlythedeityofChristispresentwithusintheChristianchurchandcommunityandthatthispresenceofChristinnowayinvolvesHishumanity.(SDVIII,76,77).

395 ThepowerofthebodyofChristisnotlimitedtothesoulsofthebelievers.TheLargeCatechismurges“thatwemustneverregardthesacramentasaharmfulthingfromwhichweshouldflee,butasapure,wholesome, soothingmedicinewhichaidsandquickensus inbothsouland body. Forwhere the soul ishealed, thebodyhasbenefitedalso”(LCV,68;emphasisadded).ChemnitzandAndreaeunderlinedthistruthinthe“CatalogofTestimonies,”whentheyquoteCanon11oftheCouncilofEphesus,“IfanyonedoesnotconfessthatthefleshoftheLordisquickening,becauseitwasmadetheWord’sown,whoquickenedallthings,lethimbeanathema”(Trig.1129).

396 ThethemethattheLord’sSupperisalsothe“medicineofimmor-tality”constantlyrunsthroughChemnitz’sexpositionofthebenefitsofthesacrament.HerehefirstofallistreadinginthestepsofLutherwhoconfessed:

lrenaeusandtheancientfatherspointedoutthebenefitthatourbodyisfedwiththebodyofChrist,inorderthatourfaithandhopemayabideandthatourbodyalsomayliveeternallyfromthesameeternalfoodofthebodyofChristwhichiteatsphysically.Thisisabodilybenefit,neverthelessanextraordinarilygreatone,anditfollowsfromthespiritualbenefit.ForChristsurelywillmakeevenourbodyeternal,alive,blessed,andglorious,whichisamuchgreaterthingthangivingusHisbodytoeatforashorttimeonearth.ThereforeHewillstobe“inusbynature,”saysHilary,inbothoursoulandbody,accordingtotheWordinJohn6[:56],“HewhoeatsmeabidesinmeandIinhim.”IfweeatHimspirituallythroughtheWordHeabidesinusspirituallyinoursouls;ifoneeatsHimphysicallyHeabidesinusphysicallyandweinHim.AsweeatHim,HeabidesinusandweinHim.ForHeisnotdigestedortransformedbutceaselesslyHetransformsus,oursoulintorighteousness,ourbodyintoimmortality.Sotheancientfathersspokeofthephysicaleating.(LW37,132).

397 ChemnitzfollowsLuther.TheSavior’swordsclearlyteachusthat“thephysicalmouthsofthosewhoeatintheLord’sSupperarenoteatingcommonorplainbreadwhentheyreceivethebread,butthe

breadwhichnowhasbeengivenitsnamebyGod,thatis,thebodyofChrist.. . .AndHeaccomplishesthisnotbysomephysicalandoutwardmixingofthesubstancesorbyjoiningsomethingtothefoodinourstomachsbutinawaywherebyitbecomesaheavenlyandspiri-tual nourishment for both the body and the soul of the believers unto eternal life” (LS61;emphasisadded).

398 Similarly,Chemnitznotesthat

TheancientswithlongdiscussionsassertedandconfirmedthefactthatChristisjoinedorunitedtousnotonlyintheSpiritoronlywithHisdeitybyfaith,butthatintheLord’sSupperHeoffersHisverybodyandbloodtousinsuchawaythatbodily,bynature,andbynaturalparticipation,thatis,withtheverynatureorsubstanceofHisbody,Heisjoinedorunitedtous....WenotedthosestatementsfromHilary,Chrysostom,andCyril,andwewarnedagainstallcorruptions.Cyrilsays:“ItwassurelynecessarythatnotonlythesoulthroughtheHolySpiritascendintoablissfullifebuteventhatthisrudeandearthlybody,relatedtoHimbytasteandtouchandfood,bereturnedtoimmortality.Thelife-givingnatureoftheWord,joinedtothefleshinthatineffablemannerofunion,makesthefleshlife-giving,andthusthefleshgiveslifetothosewhoparticipateinit.Whenweeatit,thenwehavelifeinus,whenwearejoinedtoHimwhohascreatedlife.ButifbyameretouchofthefleshofChristthosewhoweresickwererestored,howcanitbethatwewillnotlivewhobothtasteandeatthatflesh.”Andwehavenotedabove,severalotherpassagesofCyrilwhichillustratethesepoints.(LS250).

399 OfcourseallthebenefitsgivenintheSupperhavetheirsourceinthevicariousatonementofChristonthecross.Chemnitzmakesnoteofthefactthat“theFatherspreachedmuchabouttheuseandthebenefitofcommuningat theLord’sSupper,because there thesacrificewhich is thesatisfaction foroursinsandthepriceofourredemptionisdispensedtothosewhotakeit”(Ex.2,513).Andhegives innumerable examples of this kind of presentation from theAncients. In summary form, he says that the “body and blood oftheLordwhichareintheSupper...[are]ourransom,thepurchasepriceofourredemption,theransomforthesinsoftheworld,apro-pitiatorysacrificeandapropitiation”(Ex.2,491).Itisforthisreasonthat“CypriansaysoftheLord’sSupper:‘Thislife-givingbreadandthecupofblessing,hallowedbythesolemnbenediction,benefitsthelifeofthetotalman,beingatthesametimeamedicineandoffering,tohealourinfirmitiesandtopurgeouriniquities’”(Ex.2,491).

400 Chemnitz,asatrueshepherdoftheChurchofGodandonewhoiscommittedtofeedtheflockofGod,isalsonecessarilyconcerned



aboutthegrowthofsanctificationwithinthelivesofthebelievers.HecounselsthepastorsofBrunswicktopreachfromtheGospelthatthefruitofthetrueuseofthesacramentisnotonlyforstrengthen-ingoffaithbutalsofordrawingfromthesacramentstrengthforagodlylife,

Christ,inHisSupper,offersusHismostholybodyandblood,sothatengraftedbythiscommunionasbranchesinHimwhoisthetruevine,wemightdrawthence,new,good,andspiritualsap.ThuswearealsojoinedmostcloselybythiscommunionwithotherChristiansasmembersoftheonebodyofChrist(1Cor.10:17),sothatmutuallovetowardtheneighboriskindled,increased,andpreservedinus.(MWS129)

401 Thesewonderfulgiftsshouldinducethebelievertopartakeofthesacramentoften.Paul,Chemnitzobserves, incontrasttotheEvan-gelists,twiceemphasizestheterm“asoftenas”(1Cor.11:25,26).PauldoesthisnotonlytoeliminatethethoughtthattheSuppershouldbeobservedonlyonceayear,aswasthecasewiththePassover,butes-pecially“inorderthatwemayeatofthatbreadanddrinkofthatcupasoftenaswerecognizeandfeelthatmedicineandremedywhichourGoodSamaritanpoursintoourwoundsisusefulandnecessarytous,solongasweonlyexamineourselveslestwereceiveittojudgment”(Ex.2,330).Chemnitzconcludesthat“becauseChristsays:‘asoftenasyedothis,’ it iswhollyHiswillthatthosewhoareHisdisciplesshoulddothisfrequent1y”(Ex.2,331).And,further,that“thosearenottrueandfaithfulministersofChristwhoinanymannerwhateverleadorfrightenpeopleawayfrommorefrequentuseandreceptionoftheEucharist(Ex.2,331).

the eucharist: A testimony of Unity and Faith

402 OnemorefacetofChemnitz’sdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperneedsexamination,namely,theconfessionalaspectofcommuningtogeth-er.ChemnitzderivedthisdoctrinefromthefactthatbypartakingofthebodyandbloodofChristthecommunicantisonebodyandonebloodwithChrist.Heassertsthat“throughsuch[salutary]com-munionthefaithfularemademembersofthatbodywhoseHeadisChrist,asPaulsays: ‘Thereisonebread,andwewhoaremanyareonebody,forweareallpartakersofthatonebread[1Cor.10;17]’”(LS143).OneofthefruitsofpartakingofthebodyandbloodofChrististhe“fellowshipofthebodyofthechurch”(LS145).Heexplains

furtherbysayingthat“intheexternalcelebrationoftheSupperisthemediumormeansthroughwhichthisspiritualassociationbothwithChristandwiththemembersofthechurchisbroughtabout”(LS146).

403 ParticipationintheLord’sSupperwithothersisaseriousact.Itis

not only a figurative admonition regarding our mutual, fraternalfellowshipandloveforoneanother,inthewaythatbreadisproducedfrommanygrainsandwinefrommanygrapes,asAugustinesays... .ButbecauseChristintheSupperjoinsHimselfmostintimatelytousbytheverynaturewithwhichHeisourHead,namely,byHisbodyandblood,atthesametimethroughthisassumednatureofHis,whichisakintoours,Hewillworkpowerfullyandefficaciouslyinthebelievers,sothat,becauseourHeadHimselfisaboveus,wealsomaybemembersofoneanother.ForwebeingmanyareonebodybecauseweallpartakeofthatonebreadwhichisthebodyofChrist(1Cor.10:17),andwealldrinkintotheoneSpirit(1Cor.12:13).(LS193).

404 Chemnitz is cognizant of the fact that the Early Church on thebasisof1Cor.10:16,17,recognizedandconfessedchurchfellowshipthroughparticipationinthesacraments.HereticswerenotadmittedtotheSupperoftheLord.87Andheisobviouslyinagreementwiththetenetthattheunityofthechurchisthepresuppositionofchurchfellowship.AlthoughheanalyzesanexamplefromtheEarlyChurchtoshowthatthereservationofthesacramentwasnotacustomintheEarlyChurch,nevertheless,hiscommentsclearlyshowthatheheldthatparticipationintheEucharistisatestimonyofunity,

Irenaeus,... in the Epistle to Victor relates that all the Romanbishops before Victor, although they disagreed with the Asiatics inthe observance of Easter, nevertheless cultivated peace with them.AndbecausefellowshipattheLord’stable istestimonyofconsensus,harmony,andunityindoctrineandfaith,asSt.Paulsays:“Wewhoaremanyareonebody,forweallpartakeoftheonebread”(1Cor.10:17),thereforeIrenaeussays that itwas thecustomthatwhenthebishopsor presbyters either of Asiatic or of other churches came to RometheRomanbishopswouldsendtheEucharisttothemasawitnessofharmonyandpeace.(Ex.2,301f ).

405 AsonesurveyswhatChemnitzhashadtosayaboutthebenefitsoftheLord’sSupper,onecannotbutnotethatthereisarichnessandwarmthinhisexposition.TheLord’sSupper isnotforhimamereabstractdoctrinebutavitalMeansofGracethroughwhichtheSav-iorimpartstobelieversallthatHehaswonforthembyHisincarna-



tion,life,death,andresurrection.HeclosesoneofhischaptersinThe Lord’s Supper withthesewords,

The more we love it [the sacrament], the more diligently we willdefend it and the more tenaciously we will retain the proper, simple,andnaturalmeaningofthewordsofChrist’slastwillandtestament,sothatthesesweetconsolationsarenotsnatchedawayfromus.(LS194).

notes 82–87, chapter vi

82. ThefirsteditionwaspublishedatLeipzigin1561,withthetitle,Repetitio Sanae Doctrinae de Vera Praesentia Corporis et Sanguinis Domini in Coena.

83. Sasse(seenote#1),This is My Body, p.348.84. SeeLuther’sBrief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament (1544),wherehedisclaimsany

teachingsuchasthat,“ForIcanwellremember,anditisalsorecordedintheirbooks,howaltogether scandalously they blasphemed us along with our dear Lord and Savior; theycalledHimabakedGod,aGodmadeofbread,aGodmadeofwine,aroastedGod,etc.[see theMarburgColloquy,LW38,72].Theycalledus cannibals,blood-drinkers,man-eaters,Capernaites,Thyesteans,etc.YettheyknewthattheyweredoinganinjusticetotheLordandtousintentionallyandinanexceedinglyblasphemousway,andthattheywereinventingscandalousliesaboutus”(LW38,291f.).Lutheraddstheobservationthat“even

thepapistshavenevertaughtsuchthings,astheyclearlyknew,butyetthey—theseholy,

spiritualpeople—wantedtohurtuswiththename‘papists’”(LW38,292).85. ItisherenecessarytorememberwhatChemnitzhasconfessedconcerningthemodesof

Christ’s presence, especially the definitive mode (see p. 39f.), and also what he has saidaboutthesacramentalunion(seep.45–53).

86. TheindextoChemnitz’sThe Two Natures in Christ carriesoveracolumnofreferencestoCyril.

87. Werner Elert has described the doctrine and practice of the Early Church with respectto altar fellowship. See his Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, translatedfromtheGermanbyN.E.Nagel,St.Louis:CPH,1966.

Chapter vII

summary and conclusions

406 Ashasbeennoted(p.88;note#61),veryfewreferencestoChem-nitz’sdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperaremadeinpresentdaystandardtextsondogmatics.Inquitestrikingcontrast,referencestothesev-enteenth century Lutheran dogmaticians are rather full and quitedetailed.88Thisomissionisall themorestrikingsinceChemnitz iscalled the prince of theologians, the second Martin, who after Lu-theristhemostimportanttheologianinthehistoryoftheLutheranChurchandisregardedastheleadingspiritinthewritingoftheFor-mulaofConcord.DespitetwobooksthatdealparticularlywiththeLord’sSupper(Examen II andThe Lord’s Supper), heistheforgottentheologianwiththeselatertheologiansasfarasthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupper isconcerned.Itappears,however, thatthissituationwill be remedied in the near future since he will soon be the moststudiedoftheLutherantheologians,atleastwheretheEnglishlan-guageisemployed.Atthepresenttimethereareabout2500pagesofChemnitzrenderedintoEnglish,andPresidentJ.A.O.PreusiswellintothemonumentaltaskoftranslatingtheLoci Theologici.

407 Chemnitzisasixteenthcenturytheologianandnotaseventeenthcentury.HewasmuchclosertotheoriginalrootsoftheReformationthanwerethelaterdogmaticians.HeisalsothechiefauthoroftheFormulaofConcord.HencethestudyofChemnitzmaywellserveasahealthycorrectiveagainstsomeofthetheologicalweaknessesfoundintheseventeenthcenturydogmaticians.Walther,inmorewaysthanone,madeitclearthathewasnotirrevocablyboundtowhatthesev-enteenthcenturytheologiansformulated.In1875hewrote,

Theydonotknowuswholabelourtheologythatoftheseventeenthcentury.AshighlyaswetreasuretheimmenseaccomplishmentsofthegreatLutherandogmaticiansofthatperiod,itisneverthelessnotreally

Summary and Conclusions | ��


to themthatwe return,but ratheraboveall toourpreciousBookofConcord and to Luther, in whom we recognize the man whom Godchoseas theMosesofHischurchof theNewCovenant, to leadHischurch which had fallen into slavery to the Anti-Christ, out of thatslavery.HeisthecolumnofsmokeandfireoftheWordofGod,clearandpureasgoldasitis.89

ConservativetheologiansingeneralwillprobablyechopointsofviewsimilartoWalther’s,butitisaquestionwhetherinrealitythisposi-tionhasn’tbeenobservedmoreinthebreachthaninthekeeping.ThestanceofChemnitzontheLord’sSupper,naturally,willcorrespondtomuchofwhattheseventeenthcenturytheologianshadtosay,buttherewillbesignificantdifferencesnotonlyinemphasesbutalsoincritical doctrinal positions. A final summary of the chief points ofChemnitz’sdoctrinewillrevealthesedifferences.

408 ForChemnitzthedoctrineoftheSacramentoftheAltarmustbetakendirectlyfromtheWordsofInstitution,fortheyaretheinfal-liblewordsoftheSonofGod,giveninHislastwillandtestament.Thismeansthatwemustinterpretthesewordsliterally(p.18–20).

409 To accomplish this task it is imperative that one take his reasoncaptive.Thetemptationtoescapetheliteralmeaningisalmostover-whelming.Butthereisnoplaceintheologyforreasoncorruptedbynaturalman.Aristotle’scategoriesaredesignedforthesecularworld,whereobservationandexperimentareparamount.Buttheyhavenoplaceindealingwiththespiritualkingdomwhereonetreatsofthingseyehasnotseennorearheardorenteredintothemindofman.ThismaywellbethereasonwhytheTorgauBook(1576)eliminatedfromtheSwabian-SaxonConcordtheAristotelian“FourCauses”paradigmasexplaininga teachinggivenbydivinerevelation. Indistinctiontothe seventeenth century theologians and their followers, Chemnitzevidentlysenseditsweaknesses,especiallyinitstendencytowarpthespiritualtruthsintoanuncomfortableformwhichcanputthedoctrineofGodcompletelyaskew.Itdoesthisbygivingaspuriousequalityto“thecauses,”whichinactualitynegatesthecreativepoweroftheVerbainalegitimateconsecration.Chemnitz’sverdictisthat“thesacramentsaremysteriesthatareunknowntohumanreasonandhiddenfromoursenseperceptions.TheyaremademanifestandrevealedbytheWordalone”(LS87)(p.20–24,91f.;notes#7and#65).

410 In beginning with the Status Controversiae which confrontedChemnitz in the middle of the sixteenthth century, he recognizes

that it is necessary for him to examine and define two terms thatwere being extensively used by all sides: “sacrament” and “action.”WhileheingeneralissatisfiedwithMelanchthon’sdefinitionofthesacrament as a rite which has the command of God and to whichthepromiseofgracehasbeenadded(Ap.XIII,3),hedoesunder-standthatinviewofitspresentuse,moreneedstobesaidtoreducethevaguenessoftheterm.FromtheScripturesheenumerateseightpointsthatwillclarifytheword“sacrament”:anexternal,visibleele-mentisemployedwhichhasanexplicit,divinecommandintheNewTestament;itisauniversalcommandforalltime;includedisadivinepromiseofgracegivenwiththecommand;thisisjoinedtothesignbydivinecommands;thispromisehastodoonlywiththepromiseofgrace,orjustification,andnottoanyandallgiftsofGod;finally,thispromiseinthesacramentisnotmerelyannouncedingeneralbutbythepowerofGoditisofferedandappliedtotheindividualswhousethesacramentinfaith.Oneshouldnot,however,inferfromthisthatBaptismandtheLord’sSupperareidenticalineveryrespect,since“eachindividualsacramenthasitsownproperandpeculiarwordofdefinition”(LS87)(p.8–10).

411 SincethereisgenuinedisagreementwithrespecttowhattheSacra-mentoftheAltaris,Chemnitzrealizesthatitisofthehighestimpor-tancethattherebeagreementastotheprecisemeaningofthetermscustomarilyusedinspeakingofit.Hesinglesouttwotermswhichwerewidelyusedbutwhichbecloudedsomefundamentaldifferencesbecauseoftheirvaguereferents,“action”and“use.”CloselyanalyzingtheWordsofInstitution,Chemnitzseesthatwhatisinstitutedisnotmerelysomeoutwardactionsoranoutwardritewhichoneperforms.Butthereisa“thing”andan“action”combined.Itincludesthe“thing”andthedoingofsomethingwiththat“thing.”ThisissobecausebydefinitionthesacramentembracessomevisibleelementtowhichtheWordcomes.Further,Christhascommandedustodointhesacra-mentalactionwhatHeHimselfdid.Heprescribesthefollowing,allofwhichbelongtothe“action”:Totakebreadandwine,bless,divide,offer,receive,eat,andaddthisWordofChrist,“Thisismybody,”etc.(Ex.2,249).Within the limitsof thisprecisedefinition,Chemnitzregardstheterms“action”and“use”assynonymous(Ex.2,245;Ex.2,494).Chemnitz’sprecisingofthesetermshasbeentakenintotheFormulaofConcord(SDVII,85–87).It iswrongandseverelydis-



tortsthemeaningoftheVerbatolimitthetermsonlytothedistri-butionandreception,ortoextendthesenseoftheVerbabeyondthemandatum toconsecratecertainelements,distributeandreceivethatwhichhasbeenconsecrated,astheRomanCatholicsdoinreservingtheHost.ForChemnitz the “action” is to consecrate theelements,whicheffects thesacramentalunion,andtoeatandtodrink thoseconsecratedelementsbecause theyarethebodyandbloodofChrist(p.11–14;141–143;notes#5,61,73–5).

412 AstowhatispresentandgivenintheSacrament,Chemnitzcon-cludesonthebasisofthefouraccountsthatitisthebodyandbloodoftheresurrectedChrist.Itisthesamebodywhichwassacrificedonthecross,butthebodyandbloodarenotoutsidethepersonalunionwiththedeity(p.27f.).Thisfact,however,doesnotjustifytheRo-manChurchtowithholdthecupfromthelaity.Rather,wemustad-herewithsimpleobediencetothecommandofChristtoeatHisbodyanddrinkHisblood.NordareoneallowthereverseargumentoftheSacramentariansagainst theRealPresencewhourged that toholdthatthetruebodyofChristisinthebreadandthebloodinthewinewouldbetodisruptthebodyofChrist;allofwhichwouldnecessitatethe rejection of the natural meaning of the Verba. The entire per-sonofChristaccordingtobothnaturesispresentinthesacrament.Christ,whofrometernityasapersonintheGodhead,assumedatrueandcompletehumannatureinhisconceptionandbirthfromtheVir-ginMary.Thedivineandhumannatureshavebeenjoinedtogethersointimatelyinapersonalunionthatthereisoneandthesamepersonsubsistinginthesetwonatures.Asaresultofthispersonalunionofthetwonaturesintheoneperson,theretookplaceacommunionofproperties(SDVIII,31–75).NeitherLuthernorChemnitzbuilttheirdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperonthedoctrineofthepersonalunioninsteadoftheWordsofInstitution.ButtheinsistenceoftheSacra-mentariansthatonlythedivinenatureinChristiscommunicatedintheSuppernecessitatedanexplicationoftheBiblicaldoctrineofthepersonofChrist.(p.22–31)

413 SincetheSacramentariansdeniedthecommunicationofattributesaccordingtothegenus majestaticum, Chemnitzconfessesthatwhileonemustholdtotheintegrityofthetwonaturesandnotallowforanyblendingofthem,onemustbelievethatbecauseofthepersonalunionChrist’shumannaturehasreceivedinnumerablesupernatural

qualitieswhicharecontrarytonature.Thiscommunicationofdivinemajesty continues in glory so that the human nature is capable ofthedivinemajestywhichbelongstoGod.Althoughthemysteryofthisunionsurpassesourcomprehension,wemustwiththesimplic-ityofthepartialknowledgegivenusintheScriptureadheretowhatisclearlyconfessedinScripture.HolyWritteachesthatthefleshofChristmakesalive,thatHisbloodcleansesfromallsin,thatHehasbeengivenauthoritytojudgebecauseHeistheSonofMan,thatHeisomnipotentandomnipresent(SDVIII,57–62).Inviewofthis,onemustrejectthefalsedoctrineoftheReformedwhodepriveChristofHismajestyaccordingtoHishumannature.Further, thepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChrist intheSacramentdoesnotconflictwithanyarticlesoffaith,andinparticularwithwhatScripturesaysofChrist’shumannatureandHisascension(p.32–35).

414 Thepersonalunionofthetwonatures intheoneperson,Christ,makespossiblethevariousmodesofChrist’spresence.TheFormulaofConcordfollowsLutherindistinguishingthreemodesofChrist’spresence, although allowing for the possibility of more: the circum-scriptive mode,thedefinitive mode,andtherepletive mode(SDVII,92–105). Luther and the Formula sharply distinguish the secondmodefromthefirst;thatis,Christ’sbodyandbloodcanbesubstan-tiallypresentwithoutbeingcircumscribed,buttheplace iscircum-scribed.Thesecondmodeisalsotobedifferentiatedfromthethirdmode,whereChristispresentinallplaceswholeandentire,becauseHeisonepersonwithGod.Thesecondmodeisalsotobedifferenti-atedfromthe“spiritualmode”wherebywereceiveChristbyfaith(SDVII,104–106).Chemnitzconfessesthesametruths,eventhoughinhisexpositionhepositsfivekindsofpresence.ThereisnoessentialdifferencebetweenhisandLuther’spresentation.HedoesdistinguishmorepreciselythedefinitivemodewhereChristcanbepresentwithHis body wherever He wills and do whatever He wills. ChemnitzmakesthepointthatthereisadistinctionbetweenChrist’spresencein the Supper where His body and blood are received by boththeworthyandunworthy,andHispresenceinthewholechurchwhereHedwellsinthebelieverbyfaith.In viewofthesemodesofpresence,wecanbecertainthatChristispresentwithHisbodyandbloodintheconsecratedelementsinthedefinitive modebecausewehaveHisexpressWordandpromise(p.36–45).



415 SinceChristispresentinthebread,ormoreprecisely,thebreadisthebodyofChrist,Chemnitzexplainsthatthereisnotransubstanti-ation,butthat“twodistinctthingsorsubstances,whichjoinedbythesacramentalunionmakeonecompletesacrament,evenasintheonepersonofChristtherearetwocompleteanddistinctnatures”(MWS120).There isnotransubstantiationbecausethe“this” intheVerbarefertothebreadandthewine.Evenaftertheconsecration(1Cor.10:16)Paulcallsitbread,andhedoesthisseveraltimes(p.45ff.).

416 Next,itiscertainthattheword“is”mustretainitspropermean-ingeventhoughthewordsofChristcomeintoconflictwithhumanreason.JustasinChristology,weareheredealingwithmysteriesbe-yondourhumanreasonbutwhichexpressdivinewisdomandpower.We must refuse to introduce figures of speech into the Words ofInstitution,justastheorthodoxrefusedtopermitthisintheArianControversywith suchstatements that “SonofMan is theSonofGod.” The word “is” denotes what obtains, is present, distributedandreceived.Similarly,thewords“body”and“blood”aretobere-tainedintheirnaturalsense,becauseitisthebodygivenforusandthebloodshedforusfortheforgivenessofsins.Inaddition,itisahermeneuticalprinciple recognizedeven in the secularworld, thatinaperson’slastwillandtestamentitisimperativethatthetextbeconstruedinitsproperandnaturalsense.InthesacramentthebreadandthewinearethebodyandbloodofChristwithoutceasingtobebreadandwine(p.19–21;47f.).

417 Since it is an unusual union it is called a sacramental union(SDVII, 38). The Early Church used the personal union of thetwo natures of Christ as an analogy of the sacramental union oftheearthlyelementsandthebodyandbloodofChrist.Christsays,“This is my body.” Scripture uses similar language to express thepersonal union of the two natures in Christ (John 1:14, Col. 2:9;(Acts10:38).Butthis isonlyananalogywhichhelpstoshedsomelighton themystery.Andananalogy isneverperfect in every re-spect.Thereisadifference.InthepersonofChristtheunionofthetwo natures is inseparable, personal and enduring. God, however,isnotinseparablyintheelementsbecausetheyarenotsacramentalapartfromtheiruse.Theunionobtainsonlyintheprescribedactionofconsecrating,distributing,andreceivingwhatisconsecrated.Inviewofthisdifference,ChemnitzandhisfellowLutheranshave“at

times”usedotherphrasessuchas“underthebread,withthebread,in the bread, the body of Christ is present and offered” (SD VII,35).Theyemployedthesesecondarytermstorejectthepapisticideaoftransubstantiationandthatthesacramentalunionobtains“apartfromtheactionwhichChristordainedandcommandedwhenHeinstitutedit.”Chemnitzdoes,however,recognizethatsomeoftheterminology theLutheranshaveemployedmaybemisusedby theSacramentarians,aswhentheyspeakoftwothingsintheSupper.TheadversariescounterthattheEucharistconsistoftwothingsbuttheyare separate.Thebread isonearthbut thebodyofChrist isonly inheaven,andhencecalledaheavenlything.FormulasotherthanChrist’s“Thisismybody,”lackprecisionandwereusedonly“attimes.”TheLutherans,itshouldbenoted,togetherwiththeEarlyChurch,usetheword“change”tosignifywhattheconsecrationhasachieved,buttheydonotmeanthattheannihilationoftheelementshasoccurred,butonly thatafter theVerbawerespokenthebodyandbloodofChristarepresent(p.48–53).

418 ThereisafundamentalsimilaritybetweentheReformedandtheRomanpositioninthattheybothdenythatthefiniteiscapableoftheinfinite.Theybothdenythesacramentalunion.TheRomanChurchstates that the “this” (touto) refers to the body of Christ, i.e., “Thisbodyismybody.”TheSacramentarians,ontheotherhand,insistthat“body”isametonymicfigureofspeechsothat“body”istheequivalentof“bread”alone,i.e.,“Thisbreadismybread”(p.53–55).

419 Somemedieval schoolmen,purportingtohaveborrowed it fromAristotle,propoundedwhatiscalled“identicalpredication,”thatis,thatthesubjectandpredicatemustbeidentical,andthat“is”meanstobeequal inmeaning.Besides theRomanists,Zwingli, too,heldthatthereisnosupporteitherinGod’sWordorphilosophyforsucha concept as “This is bread and moreover it is my body.” The rea-sonforthis,itwasheld,isthattwosubstancescannotbeonething.Chemnitz,inharmonywithLuther,demonstratesthatthesubject-predicaterelationshipsneednotbeanidenticalrelationship.Scrip-turejoinstwodifferententitieswiththecopulativeverb“is”whichmeansnothingelsethanthatthereisaunionorcommunionofthesetwo entities. A case in point are the Biblical statements regardingJesusChrist,whoisGodandManinoneperson,“The SonofManistheSonofthelivingGod.”Similarly,onecantruthfullysaythatthe



doveJohntheBaptistsawwastheHolySpirit.Thisisacommonlin-guisticfactoflife;forexample,onedoessayofthemoneybag,“Look,youhavemoney.”Inotherwords,thesubject-predicaterelationshipneednotbeonlyoneof identity,but it canexpressother relation-ships.Thebreadinthesacramentisthetopic,andChrist,theverySonofGod,inHislastwillandtestamenthassaidthatthisbreadisHisbody.WhatthepredicateorcommentoftheSaviorsaysaboutthesubject(topic)issufficientforChemnitztoestablishthedoctrinewhichhebelieves.PaulhasaddedaninspiredcommentarythatafterwehaveconsecratedtheelementstheyareacommunionofthebodyandbloodofChrist.Luthercalledthisformofspeech“synecdoche,”buthewasusingtheterminabroadsense.Othertermsas“sacra-mentalpredication,”or“irregularpredication,”havebeenemployed.Actually,however,Aristotledidnotconfinethesubject-predicatere-lationshiptoidenticalpredicationbutclassifiedthewaysofpredica-tionasdefinition orgenus orproperty oraccident (note#36).Chemnitzcuts through the maze of terminology with the statement that “itdoes not matter by what name it is called as long as we correctlyunderstand the method of predication and as long as the heart ofthematterasitistaughtinScriptureremainsunimpaired”(LS55).(p.35–61;notes#34–38)

420 ChemnitzrecognizesthattheBiblemakesuseofalltheresourcesthatareinherentinhumanlanguage,andheacknowledgesthatthiswill includefigurative language inwhichthere isan intentionalde-parturefromnormalconstructionsandmeaningsofwords.Butsinceanalogiescanbelesspreciseandpossiblyevenleadtomisunderstand-ing,Chemnitzknowsthatitisfundamentalnottodepartfromthenormalmeaningunlesstherearecogentreasonsfordoingthis.OnprincipleChemnitzrejectsthediscardingofthespecific,exactmean-ingoftheindividualwordsinChrist’sWordsofInstitutionbecausetheyareHis lastwill and testamentwhichdemanda literalmean-ing.Thisleavesnoroomforametonymicunderstandingof“body.”Notonlytheimmediatecontext,butthewidercontextofGod ’srevelation eliminates a symbolic understanding of this text. AfterHisresurrection,inHisstateofexaltation,theSaviorrepeatedthesewordstoPaul.Inaddition,Paul’sinspiredcommentary(1Cor.10and11)demonstratesthatthesewordsmustbetakenliterally.ScripturemustinterpretScripture(p.61–65).

421 Notexts,suchasActs3:21,Matt.26:11,John13:33,forceustotaketheVerbasymbolically.NotonlyhavetheadversariesmistranslatedActs3:21soastomakeitsaythatChristmustbekeptinheaven,buttheyhaveingeneralmisinterpretedallthesepassageswhichsaythatthediscipleswillnotalwayshaveChristwiththemandhencenotintheSupper.TheirinterpretationfoundersonthefactthatthecleartextsofScriptureteachthepersonalunionofthetwonaturesintheoneChristwhonowinHisglorifiedstatemakesfulluseofthedivinepowercommunicatedalsotothehumannature.Christisrepletively present,andHecanandwillstobedefinitively presentwhereHehasgivenHisWordofpromise.ThesacramentalunionofthebodyandthebloodofChristwiththebreadandthewineobtainintheLord’sSupperasChristinstituteditintheUpperRoom.Thequestionre-mains,however,whetherthechurchtodaycanbecertainthatithasthe same Supper whichtheLordinstituted.How doesoneknowthis?TheanswertothatquestionseparatedtheLutheransfromtheSac-ramentarians450yearsago,anditisstillafundamentalpointofcon-troversy(p.61–67;notes#41–43).

422 FromitsveryinceptiontheLutheranChurchtaughtthatthespeak-ingoftheWordsofInstitutionovertheelementsatalegitimatecele-brationoftheLord’sSupperachievesthemiracleoftheRealPresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristintheelements.Thishasbeencalledthe“consecration.”ThiscanbeeasilyseenfromtheworksofLutherandBugenhagenwrittenatthetimewhenCarlstadtpubliclyrepudi-atedthisdoctrine(p.68–72).

423 Chemnitzthroughoutallhiswritingsassumesthat theconsecra-tion effects the Real Presence and that these consecrated elementsaretobedistributedandreceived.Asalreadynoted,allthis(andonlythis)isincludedinthedefinitionofthe“sacramentalaction.”Healsorecognizesthatothertermshavebeenusedinthechurchforthecon-secration,“blessing,”“sanctification,”“receivingitsnamefromGod,”“receivingthecallofGod.”ToexplainhisdoctrineheoftenquotesIrenaeus,“Justasthatwhichisbreadfromtheearth,whenitre-ceivesthecallofGodisnolongercommonbreadbuttheEucharistconsistingoftwoparts,theearthlyandtheheavenly”(LS169).Theconsecration,as thechurchhadrecognizedfromthebeginning, “isperformedwiththespeechofChrist,thatis,withtheWordsofInsti-tution”(Ex.2,226).(p.72–75).



424 ThebasisfortherecitationoftheVerbaisforChemnitzthecom-mandofChrist,“Thisdoinremembranceofme”(1Cor.11:23–25).TheVerbaarethepowerful,creativewordsofChristbecauseofChrist’scommandandpromise.HeisefficaciousthroughHisWordsothatthebreadisHisbodyandthewineHisblood.Chemnitz,togetherwiththeFormulaofConcord,confessesthattheministerrepresentsChristwhenhe speaks theWords of Institution over the elementsbecauseofthecommandin1Cor.11:23–25andLuke22:19(p.72–77;notes#51–53).

425 It isa fundamentalpoint inthetheologyofChemnitzthattherehavebeengiventothechurchcommandswhichexpress thewillofGod. One of these is the command to speak the Verba in Christ’sstead.OneisnottotaketheconsecrationoftheEucharistfromthewordsofdivineinstitutionandtransferittotheprayersoftheCanon(Ex. 2, 226). Because of the mandatum dei God Himself is presentandactive throughtheWordandtheelements towhichtheWordcomes. To be sure, however, the power to effect the miracle of theRealPresencedoesnotresideintheofficiant.ChrysostomiscorrectwhenheobservesthatwhenoneseesthehandofthepriestholdingoutthebodyoftheLord,itisnotthehandofthepriest,butthehandofChristwhosays“Takeandeat,thisismybody”(LS159).TheFor-mulaofConcordincorporatesasimilarquotationfromChrysostom(SDVII,76)toconfessthatitisbyGod’spowerandgracethroughtheVerbawhichthepriestspeaksthatthesacramentaluniontakesplace.TheApology to the Formula assertsthatthesewordsofChryso-stom“settle thewhole controversy”as towhat theBook of Concord confessesrespectingtheScriptural teachingabouttheconsecration(p.75–82,218;notes#52–54).

426 ThisspeakingoftheVerbaisnotacaseof“magic”assomeSacra-mentarianshaveasserted.ManisnotattemptingtocompeltheDeitytodosomething.Rather,theministerusestheWordsofInstitutionasanordinance,promiseandprerogativeoftheSavior.Theministeracts as an ambassador in the place of Christ, who is Himselfpresentandthroughtheministerpronouncesthesewords.TheVerba,ofcourse,areaproclamationofGod’sreconciliation,butbe-causeofthemandatum dei, theyaremore.IntheservicetheyaretheverywordsofChristwhicheffectthepresenceof thebodyandthebloodintheelements.

427 ItisclearthatwhenChemnitzprecisestheterm“action”tomeanthe consecration, distribution and reception, he in no way intendstoconveythethoughtthat,similartotheAristotelianmodeloftheFourCauses,thebodyandbloodarenotpresentuntilthesumptio. Thisisevidentfromhisconstantuseofphrasessuchas“underthebreadandthewinethebodyandbloodofChristaretrulypresent, dis-tributed, received.” Hiswordsareherequitespecificthat“themeaningisnotthattheblessedbreadwhichisdivided,whichisoffered,andwhich the Apostles received from the hand of Christ, was not thebodyofChristbutbecomesthebodyofChristwhentheeatingofitisbegun”(Ex.2,248).OnthebasisofMatt.26:28,itisclearthattheeatinganddrinkinginnowaycausethesacramentalunion.Christcommandsthedisciplestodrinkbecause thisismyblood”(LS99).TheprinciplethatministersactinChrist’ssteadasHisambassadorsissofundamentaltoChemnitzthathedisavowstheReformedviewthatnotonlytheconsecrationbutalsotheabsolutionarecontingentonotherfactorsthatfollowChrist’spronouncementgiventhroughHisministry(Ex.2,623).

428 Thequestionthechurchwantstoknowandneedstoknowis:How canitbecertainthattheelementsitreceivesaretheverybodyandbloodgivenandshedformanybytheSavior?Thequestionwhetheroneisa“consecrationist”ora“receptionist,”orthediscussionaboutthemomentofthepresencearereallysecondarytothisfundamentalepistemologicalquestion.Uncertaintyabouttheselatterquestions,of course, stem fromthe fact that thefirstquestionhasnot reallybeenanswered,orthattheanswerhasbeenpositedinsomethingelsebesidesChrist’sWord.ForChemnitzthesacramentstandsorfallswiththeconsecration.OnlybecauseChristhaseffectedthemiraclethroughtheminister’sspeakingofChrist’sWordsofInstitutionovercertainelements,doesthechurchhavetheunconditionalcertaintythat it has the same Supper instituted in the Upper Room. OnlywhentheVerbaarespokeninourLord’sSupper“arewesureandbe-lievethatintheLord’sSupperweeat,notordinarybreadandwine,butthebodyandbloodofChrist”(Ex.2,229).SinceonlyChristcaneffectthemiracleoftheRealPresence,thebodyandbloodareonlyinthoseelementsofwhichHehassaid“Thisismybody,”etc.ThewordsarenotlesseffectiveonourlipsthantheywereonChrist’s,forHehassaidthathewhohearsyouhearsme.Ifonecannotbecer-



tainofthiswhentheelementsareconsecrated,oneiscertainlylesscertainofitwhenheeatsanddrinkstheconsecratedelements.Forthosewhodoubtthattheofficiant’sspeakingoftheVerbaeffectsthepresenceofthebodyofChrist,ChemnitzanswerswithChrysostom’swordsonMatt.26:26–28,“He[Christ]worksalsonow;Hedoesit.Wehavetheorderofministers,butitisHewhoconsecratesthesethings;itisHewhotransmutesthem”(Ex.2,248).InthiscontextChemnitz is rejecting theviewpoint that theconsecratedelementsarenotthebodyandbloodofChristbutbecomethat“whentheeat-ingofitisbegun.”

429 ForChemnitz theunconditional certainty that thechurchhas theoriginalSupperusedinitsmidstistheobservanceofthedivineman-datum ofChrist,whobecauseofthisisspeakingtheVerbathroughtheservantsofJesusChrist(p.82–88,121).

430 AfterLuther’sdeaththecontroversyoverthemeaningoftheconse-crationcontinuedamong“someteachersoftheAugsburgConfession”(SDVII,73).ToclarifytheBiblicaldoctrine,theFormulaofConcord(SDVII,73–90)confessedwhathadbeenenunciatedbyLutherandChemnitzandtheirfollowers.In1584theApology to the Formula re-iteratedthisdoctrine,referringspecificallytotheChrysostomquota-tion(SDVII,76a)assettling“thewholecontroversy”(p.85–88).

431 Incontrast,Melanchthon’sdoctrinethatthesacramentalunionisnotachievedthroughtheconsecrationbutonlywhentheactofeat-ing takes place, was expounded by Aegidius Hunnius in 1590, andsubsequently perpetuated by the seventeenth century theologians.Accordingtothismodel, theconsecrationmerelysets theelementsapartandservesasasortofprayerforworthyreception(p.89–92;notes#61–65).

432 Inanswertothechargethat thedoctrineofLutherandChem-nitzisRomanizing,ChemnitzanalyzesthedifferencebetweentheLutheranandCatholicdoctrinesoftheministry.SinceChristhasinstitutedtheofficeofthePublicMinistryitisHewhospeaks,ex-horts,absolves,baptizes,etc.,inthisministry.TheRomanChurchholds thatonly thesuccessors to theApostles in theirpriesthoodreceivethepowerforconsecrating,offeringandadministeringthebodyandblood,aswellasremittingandretainingsins.Onlythroughsacredordination(whichisperformedthroughwordsandoutwardssigns)isthepriestgiventhepower.But,objectsChemnitz,thereis

nothinginScripturethattiesthegraceofGodtopapalordination.Theirdoctrineobviouslymakesconsecrationandabsolutionpartlythe work of God and partly that of the ordained priest. Accord-ingtotheirteachingtheconsecratorypowerdoesnotlieinChrist’swordsthemselvesbutratherinthepowergiventothepriestathisordination.ThisisanintegralpartofthewholeRomansynergisticsystem.Incontrast,theLutheranpositionisthattheLordcommitsthe “outward ministry unto men,” but it is the Lord alone who iseffectivethroughthisministry.Hence,itistotallyfalseinanywaytoconnecttheLutherandoctrineofconsecrationwiththatoftheRomanChurch(p.92–98).

433 TherecanbenodoubtthatChemnitzbelievesthatafterthecon-secration, thesacramentalunionhas takenplace.ThepresenceofChrist, God and Man, in the definitive mode is extended in timeand limited to that which has been consecrated. This can be eas-ilyseenfromhismanyreferencestoChrist’spresenceonthealtarbefore the distribution and reception, for example, “There is alsoplacedon that sacred table theLambofGodwhotakesaway thesinoftheworld”(LS155).ThatChemnitzhasinmindChrist’sde-finitivemodeofpresence,andnottherepletive,isevidentfromhisstatementsthatbeforetheconsecrationthereisonlyonesubstance,namely, bread and wine. But when the Word comes to these ele-ments,thereisalsopresenttheverybodyandbloodofChrist(LS156)(p.98–101;notes#66,67).

434 This means, then, that the veneration of the sacrament is permis-siblewithin theprescribeduse.Chemnitzdoesnotquarrelwith theRomanistsoverthefactthatChristispresentwithHisbodyandbloodintheconsecratedelements,andthatHeisworthyofworshiphere.HeagreeswiththeAncientChurchandLutherwhodefendedthepractice.AftertheattackoftheNeustadttheologiansontheFormulaofCon-cord(1581),Chemnitz,SelneccerandKirchnercompletedtheirHistorie (HS714).InthisworktheyincludeagenerousportionofGeorgeofAnhalt’ssermonontheoutwardadorationofthesacrament(p.109ff.).They approvingly quote a specific part of the sermon which demon-stratesthattheconsecrationeffectstheRealPresence,andthatto denythattruthbydenyingthepossibilityoftheadorationisextremelyseri-ous,“Wewanttohavenothingtodowiththosewhopresumptuouslyandsacrilegiouslydenythetruepresenceofthebodyandbloodofour



LordJesusChristintheexcellentsacrament,contrarytotheclearandirrefutableWordofourLordJesusChrist,.. .andthereforeonthatgroundconcludethatChristcouldnotbeinthesacramentandthere-foreconsideritasidolatry,toworshiptheexcellentsacrament,indeed,Christinthesacrament,etc”(p.109ff.).

435 Thereisadifference,however,betweentheLutheransandtheRo-manistsonthispoint.Throughtheadoptionofthetheoryoftran-substantiationtheelementsofbreadandwinehavebeenannihilated.But,arguesChemnitz,itdoesnotfollowifChrististobeworshiped,thatalsothosecreaturesinwhichHeispresentshouldalsobewor-shiped.Intheaction oftheSupperacleardistinctionmustbemadebetween Christ, God and Man, present in His divine and humannaturewhoshouldbeworshiped,andthesubstanceoftheelementsofbreadandwinewhichshouldnotbeworshiped(Ex.2,279f.).Thisdistinction isalsomade in theFormulaofConcord(SDVII, 126)(p.112f.,115–120).

436 Further, the Romanists teach that the sacramental union is anenduringunion,with theresult that theyestablish theworshipofbreadapartfromtheactionwhichChristordainedandcommanded.TolockuptheconsecratedbreadorcarryitaroundasintheCorpusChristiFestival foradorationconflictswith theWordsof Institu-tionthattheconsecratedbreadshouldbedistributedandconsumed(p.112–115).

437 ChemnitzhasdistilledthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupperintotheaxiom,“NothinghasthecharacterofasacramentapartfromtheuseinstitutedbyChrist,orapartfromthedivinelyinstitutedaction”(SDVII,85).Butonewillmissthesignificanceoftheaxiomifonedoesnotsubjectittocloseanalysistoseehowitisapplied.Chemnitz,andofcourseLutheralso,teachesthatwithintheprescribed action thebreadandthewinebymeansoftheconsecrationhavebecomethebodyandbloodofChrist,whicharethentobeeatenanddrunk.Chemnitzde-claresthat“itconflictswiththeWordsofInstitutionwhenthebreadwhichhasbeenblessedisnotdistributed,notreceived,noteaten”(Ex.2,281)(par.306–308).

438 Themandata dei forthechurchofGodshowusthewillofGodandsafeguardusagainstlegalisticpracticesandthenotionsofwhatmenthinkmightbepleasingtoGod.Scripturehasstated,andthechurchfromthebeginninghasrecognized,thatthesacramentalac-

tionistobe“performedandadministeredinacertainwayandwithaspecificdivinelyinstitutedceremony”(Ex.2,110).WithrespecttotheReliquiae Chemnitzcanfindnoevidenceintheaccountoftheinsti-tutionoftheSupperwhichwouldallowforadelayintheconsump-tionoftheconsecratedelements“apartfromitsuse.”BecauseoftheSavior’s “Dothis,” “weshould followanddowhatwasdoneat thefirstSupper”(Ex.2,294).Thismeansthat“inthefuture”thechurchis“totakebreadandthecup,toblessthemwiththanksgiving,andtodistributewhathasbeenconsecrated.”Thispartofthemandatum “properlypertainstotheministers”(Ex.2,404).SDVII83–85co-incidespreciselywithChemnitz’srejectionofthereservationoftheSacrament.Chemnitzsays:

We will not put away the bread and the wine which have beenblessedwiththewordsoftheSupper,shutthemin,reservethem,carrythemabout,andusethemfordisplay,butwilldistribute,receive,eatanddrinkthem,andproclaimthedeathoftheLord.ThustheobedienceoffaithwilldowhatChristdidbeforeandcommandedtobedone.(Ex.2,295)(p.121–125,134f.).

439 Tosumup,besidestheBiblicalevidence,ChemnitzexaminesthedoctrineandpracticeoftheEarlyChurch.FromallthisheisforcedtoconcludethatthereservationoftheconsecratedEucharistwithoutdistribution and reception was not approved, and only rarely prac-ticed,andthenitwasstronglycondemnedonthebasisoftheWordsofInstitution(p.125–131).

440 Anexaminationof all theaspectsofChemnitz’sdoctrineof theconsecration, includingthevenerationandtheconsumptionoftheReliquiae, showsthathe,inharmonywiththeSola Gratia, excludeseverythingon thepartofman in thereceptionof thegraceof theSacrament.Faith, theeatinganddrinking, thecarryingoutof therite or service by the assembled church, are all excluded as havinganypartineffectingthepresenceofthebodyandbloodofChristinthesacrament.Man’sresponseisnotaconditionforGod’sunilaterallast will and testament. Man’s response is contained in the gift oftheGospel,whicheffectsfaithintheheartofmanforhissalvation.Further,thecauseoftheRealPresenceandoffaithdependsaloneon thepowerful creativeWordofChrist.Thechurch is invited toeatanddrink because it is thebodyandbloodofthecrucifiedandrisenLordJesusChrist(LS99).Nocontingenciesoftimeandplace,



nor the response on the part of man in a legitimate observance ofChrist’sinstitution,ratifyChrist’stestamentofthegiftofHisbodyandblood;nordotheynullifyHistestament,“Forthegenuinenessandintegrityofthesacramentsdoesnotdependontheworthinessorunworthinessofeitherthosewhodistributeorthosewhoreceive,butitrestssolelyonthedivineinstitution”(LS127)(p.131f.).

441 MelanchthonwithhisdenialthatthepoweroftheWordsofInsti-tutioneffecttheRealPresence(p.83),andHunniuswithhissimilardoctrinethatnotbeforetheveryactofeatingdoesthesacramentalunion take place (p. 90f.), are rationalistic attempts to escape theWord of the Lord. They remove the unconditional certainty thatChrist’sWordgivesbymakingthegiftdependonsomethingotherthanthesureWordofGod.ThemedievalAristotelian“Four-Cause”paradigmwaseliminated fromtheTorgauBook(p.22f.;note#7).There-introductionof itby the seventeenthcenturydogmaticiansmutilatedLuther’sandtheBook of Concord’s doctrineoftheLord’sSupperbygivingtheresultingmisconceptionthatinsomewaythesumptio is the missing key which achieves the Real Presence. ThisobscuresthefactthatitisChristHimselfwhospeaksthroughthemouthoftheministerbutbyGod’spowerandgracethewordsareefficacious (SD VII, 76). Any other approach than that of LutherandChemnitzdistortsthedoctrinerevealedinScripture,opensthedoortoasynergisticviewofman’scooperationwithGod,makesoftheSacramentsomekindofactionorprocesswhichonecarriesout,andthusremindingoneofthebenefitsofChrist.

442 What has been happening as a result of this unfortunate use ofthe“Four-Cause”paradigmcanbeillustratedbycomparingthefor-mulationofwhattheLord’sSupperisbyanearlytwentiethcenturytheologian90withthatofChemnitz.Theformulationsaysthattheessence( forma) oftheSupperisthetotalaction,whichChristHim-self,viewingtheearthlyandheavenlyelements, thendesignedandinstituted for all time, so that only there the Supper is really cel-ebratedwherethethreeconstitutingessentialjointactions(actus for-males) takeplace:Theconsecration,thedistribution,andtherecep-tion.Itisevidentthathereaspuriousequalityhasbeengiventothedifferentcausesoractions.ThereceptionisequallydeterminativeinachievingtheRealPresence,when,asamatteroffact,thealmightyWordofChristeffectsthemiracleoftheRealPresence.Itisjustas

LutherwrotetoWolferinus(SDVII,87;p.138),thatthespeakingoftheVerba“isthemostpowerfulandprincipalactionintheSacra-ment.”Thismoderntheologiandrawstheconclusionfromwhathehas previously stated, that the logical essence (genus) of the sacra-mentisaction,notsign(signum) orthing(res),andthisisespeciallyimportantinthepolemicagainstthePapists.91Becauseheisafraidthatsomeonemightholdthatthesacramentalunionisanenduringunion,thistheologianhassacrificedthetruththatthesacramentisa“thing”whichChristcommandedustoreceiveasagiftofgrace.

443 Instarkcontrast,Chemnitzsaysthatthe“substanceoftheSup-per...[is]thatthebreadisthecommunion(Koinonia)ofthebodyofChristandthecupofthebloodofChrist”(LS144).Ofcourse,thebodyandbloodistobedistributedandreceivedbecauseofitssavingbenefit.Buttheconsecration,“whenitisblessedwiththegivingofthanksbythewordsofChrist,asMarkandPaulpointout”(LS96),makesitwhatitreallyis,thebodyandbloodofChristwhichistobeexternallyofferedandreceived.Chemnitzaddsthat“ifthequestionisaskedwhatitis,theSonofGodhasaffirmedwithacleardeclara-tionthatitisHisbody”(LS96).TheReformedtheologian,JosephMcLelland,hassaidthatatMarburgtheReformed“insistedonac-tionratherthanpresenceintheSupper.”McLellandalsonotesthat“Melanchthon’sformulaearesimilar,forhis‘functionaldoctrine,’asPeterFraenkelcallsit,preferstotalkofprocesses(ritus, usus)ratherthanthings(corpus, panis),ofeffectsratherthanbeing”92(p.131–140;notes#77–81).

444 JustaswithLuther,soalsoforChemnitz,thecomfortoftheSacra-mentoftheAltarresidesinthefactthatthecommunicantsreceiveorallythetruebodyandbloodofChrist.Bymeansoftheconsecra-tionthebreadandwinehavebeenconnectedwiththeVerba,sothattheWordisclothedintheelementandtheelementconnectedwiththeWord.Thecomfortof theSacramentwouldbe lost if thesub-stanceofthebodyandbloodweretoberemovedfromtheSupper.ThissacramentistheGospel,andaswiththeotherMeansofGrace,theforgivenessofsinsisofferedandappliedintheSupper.Thissac-ramentassuresthetroubledsinnerthatGod’scovenantofgraceap-pliestohiminparticular.InthissacramentChristoffersandsealstoallwhoreceiveitinfaithHisbodyandblood,whichisthepreciouspledgethatGodisreconciledandnolongerremembersthesinner’s

Summary and Conclusions | �0�


iniquities(p.141–144).445 Sincethebenefitsarereceivedthroughfaith,itisessentialtonote

thedifferenceherebetweentheSacramentarianandLuther’sviewoftheLord’sSupper.ThereisaconstanttendencytospiritualizeawaywhatChristreallyoffersintheSacramentandtoturnone’sthoughtsfromtheSupperobservedinourmidsttoameditationofChristinheaven.HereChemnitzisofgreathelp.Inactuality,heremindsus,therearethreekindsofeatinginthesacrament.TheSacramentar-ians say that there is an eating and drinking of the elements—towhichtheLutheransagree.Further,theyassertthatthereisaspiri-tualeatingofthebodyofChrist;thatistosaythatfaithlaysholdoftheglorifiedChristwhoreignsinheaven.TheLutheransagreethatspiritualeating,whichistobelieveintheWordandpromiseofGod,“isintrinsicallyuseful,salutaryandnecessaryforsalvation”(SDVII,61).This,however,cantakeplaceeitheroutsideorwithintheobser-vanceoftheSupper.Butwithrespecttothespiritualeating,itmustnotturnthemindandfaithawayfromthethirdkindofeatingwhichtakesplacewithintheSupper.ThethirdkindofeatingistheeatingofthebodyofChristwhichtakesplaceorally,asChristHimselfde-clares,“Take,eat;thisismybody.”Thisdoesnot,however,takeplaceinagrossorCapernaiticway.Fromofoldithasbeendesignatedassacramentaleating.It takesplace inatrue,substantialway,occur-ring through a “supernatural, heavenly and unsearchable mystery”(LS60).TheSonofGodaffirmedthatthosewhoeatintheSupperreceiveandeatwiththeirphysicalmouths,notonlybreadbutatthesametimealsothatbodywhichwasgivenforus,eventhoughthisdoesnottakeplaceinawayaswhenweeatordinarybread(LS60f.).Christispresentintheelementsinthedefinitive mode (SDVII,100)(p.144–148).

446 Thisisatremendousmysterywhichisincomprehensibletous,butit isaccomplishedbytheSavior inamannerknowntoHimalone.Analogies from the Bible help shed some light on the sacramentalunion,asforexample,thedescentoftheHolySpiritintheformofadoveatChrist’sbaptism.Thedescentofthedoveisphysicalandap-parenttothesenses,butthedescentoftheSpiritisofadifferentna-turebecausetheSpiritfillsallthingswithHissubstance.Yetnotonlythedove,butatthesametimealsotheSpiritHimselfisdescribedashavingtrulydescended.ThereforeChemnitzbelievesit,althoughhe

doesnotunderstandit.Similarly,inadditiontothephysicalandspir-itualeatingthereisthesacramentaleatingwhichtakesplaceintheSupper.TheacceptanceofthisisnecessaryunlessonewantstorejecttheproperandnaturalmeaningofChrist’s lastwillandtestament.Itsurelydoesnot followthat theonekindofeatingof thebodyofChrist[thatis,thespiritualeating]rulesouttheother,sothatwegiveupthenaturalmeaningofthetestamentofChrist.Bothcanstand.Thespiritualeatingissealedandconfirmedthroughthesacramentaleating(p.144–151).

447 There can be no doubt that the unbeliever partakes of the truebodyandbloodoftheLord’sSupper.1Cor.11:27–29isnotwritteninisolation,butthroughtheuseofthesubordinateparticle[Hooste]it is joinedtotheVerba.Chemnitzgathers fromthewidercontextthatsomeoftheCorinthianswerecomingtotheTableoftheLordwithouttruerepentanceandfaith,nourishinghatredintheirhearts,despising the church, shaming the poor, etc. The resulting effect isthatsucheatjudgmenttothemselves.Theydonotconsiderwhatthesacrament really is: the sacrament of thevery body ofChrist. Thissituation isparadoxical,becausethe judgmentcomesbyeatingandnotbyrejectingthesacrament(p.151f.).

448 Butthisshouldnotdetertherepentantandbelievingsinnerfromcomingtothesacrament.Thepromisecallsforfaithanditstrength-ensfaith,becausetheSonofGodtestifiesthatbytheimpartationofHisbodyandbloodHewantstogiveandsealtoeachonethebenefitsoftheNewTestament.Sinceourfaithisalwaysunderthecross,sub-jecttoextremetemptationsfromthedevil,theworld,andtheflesh,itshouldlayholdofChristasGodandManinthat nature bywhichHe has been made our brother. The Christian knows that the lifewhichbelongstotheDeityresidesalsointheassumedhumanity.IntheSupperChristoffersusHisownbodyandblood,“HedoesthisinsuchawaythatthroughthemHejoinsHimselftothismiserablecreatureofourssothatwiththis...sureguaranteeandsealHemaygiveusthecertaintythatHedoesnotwishustoremaininthesemis-eriesforever,butthatsomedayweshallbeconformedtoHisglori-ousbodywhichHeofferstousintheSupperasthesealofourownglorification”(LS191)(p.151–154).

449 IntheSupperweallreceiveoneandthesamebodyofChrist.ThehumanityofChrististhepointofconnectionbetweenusandGod



Himself.ThroughthebreadweareunitedwiththebodyofChristandthroughthebodywithChristHimself,andthroughChristwiththeFather.It isnotthecase,astheSacramentarianshold,thattheDeity alone is present with the church without the communion ofthehumannature.ChemnitzfullyagreeswithSDVIII,76,77,thatbecause of the personal union and the resultant communion of at-tributes,Christ’sfleshistrulyalife-givingfoodandHisbloodtrulyaquickeningbeverage.ChemnitzcloselyfollowsLutherinconfessingthatnotonlyBaptismbutalsotheLord’sSupperlooktotheresurrec-tionofthebody.Itis“aheavenlyandspiritualnourishmentforboththebodyandthesoulofthebelieversuntoeternallife”(LS61).Heexplains further, “The life-givingnatureof theWord, joinedto theflesh in that ineffable mannerofunion,makes theflesh life-giving,andthusthefleshgiveslifetothosewhoparticipateinit.Whenweeatit,thenwehavelifeinus,whenwearejoinedtoHimwhocreatedlife”(LS250)(p.155–159).

450 Chemnitzderivesfrom1Cor.10:17thetruththatthroughthere-ceptionoftheLord’sSupperthefaithfularemademembersofthatbodywhoseheadisChrist.Henceoneofthefruitsofthisparticipa-tionis“thefellowshipofthebodyofthechurch”(LS145).Healsorecognizesthatthissametextdemonstratesthatparticipationinthesacramentisaconfessionofunityofdoctrineandchurchfellowship.It isa “testimonyof theconsensus,harmony,andunity indoctrineandfaith”(Ex.2,301)(p.159–161).

451 Themainbodyofmaterialherepresenteddemonstrateshowclose-lyLutherandChemnitzexpoundthedoctrineoftheLord’sSupper.Theirapproachissimilarandtheydifferinnosignificantdetail.Al-thoughChemnitzhadbeenastudentofMelanchthonandhadonlyincidentallyheardLutherlectureandpreachduringthelastyearofLuther’slife,heneverthelessdepartssignificantlyfrom Melanchthon’sdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperandfollowsLutherpoint-for-point.Hein no way, as has been suggested, represents a mediating positionbetween Luther and Melanchthon.93 There are three decisive areaswhereChemnitz’sdoctrinecorrespondspreciselytoLutherandnotto Melanchthon. These three are of crucial significance for under-

standingthecriticaltheologicalpointsofdoctrinecurrentlyatstake.452 First,Chemnitzclarifiedandprecisedthemeaningoftheterm“ac-

tion”withrespecttotheLord’sSupper(p.11–14,101–103).Melanch-thontaughtthatthe“action”bywhichGodmakesHimselfpresentcoincideswiththe“action”ofthedistributionandreception.LutherheldthatthebodyandbloodofChristareeffectedthroughthecon-secration which is the most powerful and principal “action” in thesacrament,andthatthispresencecontinuesuntiltheconsecratedele-mentshavebeenconsumedandthecongregationdismissed.Chem-nitzenunciatesthesameteaching(Ex.2,249),whichhasbeenincor-poratedintotheFormulaofConcord(SDVII,84–87).Thereisnopresenceoutsideofthis“action”andthepresenceistherethroughoutthis“action.”ThatnotonlydrasticallydiffersfromthebasicconceptofMelanchthonbutalso fromlatter-dayconservativedogmaticians(notes#5,51).

453 Todaytheterm“action”asemployedinmoderntheologicalandli-turgicaldiscussionsoftheSacramentoftheAltarhasthebroadestofmeanings,asforexampleintheGregoryDix“FourAction”shapeoftheliturgy.Worshipisprimarilyinthesacramentalservice,theanam-nesis, amemorialserviceofrecollection,wherethechurchperformsthefouractsofChristsothattheactionofChristcoincideswiththeactionoftheassembly,andthusthereisasharingintheredeemingworkofChrist.94

454 Secondly, Chemnitz follows Luther very closely in recognizingthatScripturespeaksofthedivine-humanChristashavingseveralmodesofpresence(p.36).Becauseofthepersonalunionofthetwonatures,Christisomnipresentalsoaccordingtothehumannature,“WhereveryouputGoddownformeyoumustalsoputthehuman-itydownforme”(SDVIII,84).Tobesure,ChristattimesrevealedHimself inacircumscriptive,corporealmodeofpresence,aswhenHewalkedonearthandwillreturnonthelastday.Heisalsopres-ent in His church; there He dwells in the heart by faith. But thisisnot tobeconfusedwithHisgeneralomnipresencewhereas theLogosHehasallcreaturespresentwithHim.AndthenbecauseofHisordinanceandpromiseHeispresentwithHisbodyandbloodinthoseelementsofwhichhesaysthattheyareHisbodyandblood.ThisissobecausehereHisbodyandbloodarereceivednotonlybytheworthybutalsobytheunworthy.Inaccordancewiththephrase-



ologyofLuther,thishasbeencalledthedefinitive mode.BothLutherandChemnitzsharplydistinguishbetweenthedefinitivemodeandthecircumscriptivemode,andalsobetweenthedefinitivemodeandtherepletivemode.

455 Today these Biblical distinctions are overlooked, with the resultthatthepresenceofChrist’sbodyandbloodintheconsecratedele-mentsisdissolvedintoageneralomnipresenceoftheexaltedChrist.Ithasbeensaidthat“Christ ispresentintheelementslongbeforetheyareplacedonthealtar.Theeyesofsinfulmancannotseethemthere.ButfaithacceptstheWordwhichrevealsHispresencefortheforgivenessofsins....Thesewords[ofInstitution],readintheser-vice,revealthepresenceofChristnotbyofferinginformationonapurelyintellectuallevel,butbyproclaimingtheredemptiveactivityofChrist.”95ThisisthepositiontakenbyMelanchthonwhichdiffer-entiateshimfromLuther,Chemnitz,andtheFormulaofConcord.He identifies the general omnipresence and the sacramental pres-ence.ThepresenceofChrist’sbodyandbloodintheSupperoccursin“thatmodebywhichthepersonofChristorthewholeChristispresentinallcreatures.”ChristispresentinthesacramentthroughHisgeneralpromisethatHeisinthemidstofusandiswithusal-waysuntiltheendoftheworld.HeispresentinthesacramentwhenwebelieveHispromises.96

456 Thirdly,Chemnitzdiffersfundamentallyfromalargepartofpres-ent-dayLutheransoverthemeaningoftheterm“consecration.”Forhimtheconsecration,bywhatevernameonewantstocall it(Ex.2,225),hasreferencetothesamething,namely,theacttowhichPaulgivesexpressionin1Cor.10:16,“Thecupofblessingwhichwebless”(Ex.2,225).Aftertheblessingorconsecration,thatbreadwhichhasreceived its name from God is “at the same time also the body ofChrist”(LS46).Theconsecrationconsistsofthe“veryrepetitionoftheWordsofInstitutionoftheSupper”(LS104).

457 HerehasoccurredadecisivebreakfromLuther,ChemnitzandtheBook of Concord. Someholdthatthe“Thisdo”refersonlytotheeat-inganddrinking(note#59).Others,however,agreethatthe“Thisdo”includesthefactthattheministershouldrepeattheWordsofInstitu-tion.Butthatmeansonlythat“expressedpositively,theconsecrationoftheelementssetthebreadandthewineapartforthepurposeoftheSacramentinorderthatat the time of distributionChristinaccord

withHispromisemaygivetothemouthofeachcommunicantHisbodyandbloodtoeatandtodrink,1Cor.10:16”(emphasisadded).97

458 The fatal influence of the Aristotelian “Four Causes” paradigm isclearlyevident,whichineffectdeniesthewordsofChrist,“Thisismybody,”makingtheir truthdependentonotherconditionsoractionswhich are accomplished by men. To deprive the Verba of their al-mightycreativepoweristofollowMelanchthonandHunniusonthisdoctrinalpointandnotLuther,Chemnitz,andtheBook of Concord. Slippingintothismodeofthinking,onecaneasilyacceptastheBibli-caldoctrineoftheLord’sSupperthe“Four-Actionshape”oftheSup-per,ashasbeendonebymanyLutheranstoday.ItisquiteremarkablethatapparentlywithoutanystrongobjectiontheLCMSintroduceditinitsWorship Supplement in1969.ButtheSynodwasprobablyripeforthisinnovationbecauseofitsneglectofLuther’s,Chemnitz’s,andtheFormula’sunderstandingofthedecisivemeaningoftheconsecrationasprovidingthebasisforthecertaintythatonehasthetruebodyandbloodofChrist.Anotherpossiblecontributingfactorwasthedisre-gardoftheprecisemeaningofthewords“action”and“use”asgivenintheFormulaofConcord.

459 Thebreakbetweenthesixteenthcenturyandtheseventeenthcen-turyonthedoctrineoftheconsecrationisdecisive.ThatMelanchthonhasherewonthedayoverLutherisclearfromaquotationofQuen-stedtwhichisrepresentativeoftheseventeenthcentury,“Thissacra-mentalunionitselfdoesnottakeplaceexceptinthedistribution.”98

460 A survey of the present standard conservative books of Lutherandogmatics (Baier-Walther, Schmid, Hoenecke, Pieper) demonstrateshowcompletethistriumphis.Forexample,whenthedoctrineoftheconsecrationispresented,theregenerallyareprofusequotationsfromHunniusthroughQuenstedt,Gerhard,Hollaz,etc.,butnotasinglequotationfromtheworksofChemnitz.Infact,thesefourworksrefertoChemnitzonlyrarelyandthenthereferencesareofaquitegeneralnature,suchasthatthecorrectdoctrineoftheLord’sSupperhasitsfoundationintheVerba,thatthewords“bread,”“body,”and“eat”aretobetakenintheirnaturalsense,andthatChrist’spresenceinthesacra-mentdoesnotconflictwithanyarticlesoffaithbecausetherighthandofGodreferstothemajestyandpowerofGodwhichfillsallthings.

461 Ifoneshouldaskthequestionwhyitseemssodifficultforsomeconfessionally-mindedLutheranstoreturntotheoriginalposition



presentedbyLutherandembodiedintheBook of Concord, thean-swercouldbethatwetendtoreadgreatworksofthepastinthelightofourownpreoccupations.DuringthelastcenturytherehasbeenanextraordinaryefforttodemonstratethattheLutherandoctrineoftheRealPresenceisnottheRomandoctrineofTransubstantia-tion,andthatapartfromthemandatedusethereisnosacrament.Thishasledtoadreadoftheword“change”evenasusedbyLuther,Chemnitz,andtheAncientswhentheyharborednothoughtthattheelementswereannihilatedbutonlywantedtoemphasize thatthrough the consecratory words the sacramental union has takenplace (p.51–53). The result has been, for example, that one dog-maticianhaswrittenthatitisespeciallyimportantinthepolemicagainst the Papists to maintain that the logical essence (genus) oftheSacramentisaction,notsignorthing,withrespecttotheLord’sSupper.99

462 LutherandChemnitzusehumanlanguageinexpressingtheirthe-ology derived from Scripture. While one may recognize that lan-guageisextremelycomplexandisusedtoexpressthefinestshadesofmeaning,someofwhichadmittedlymaybemissedbysomereaders,yetthisisnottosaythatlanguagecannotanddoesnotexpressob-jectivetruth.Otherwise,therecouldbenotransmissionofanyfacts,andnospecialdisciplinecouldexisttorecordanddevelopthesefacts.LutherandChemnitzintheirtheologicalworksdidwritecarefullyandprecisely.TheCatholicsandtheReformedhadnoproblemun-derstandingwheretheydifferedfromthem,andscholarsdevotedtohistoricalresearchtodayareremarkablygoodatreproducingwhatprevious minds had expounded. But there is the problem that wecomewithpreconceivedopinionsand try tofit thematerialunderconsideration into previously constructed paradigms. This meansthatthereisatemptationtodismisssomedatathatdonotfitintoourparadigm.Ourpresentorientationissodifferentfromwhatpre-viousscholarsformerlyheldthatwediscountordistortwhatwesee.Totakeacaseinpoint,LutherandChemnitzclearlyandrepeatedlyassertthatapartfromtheuseortheactioncommandedbyChristitisindefensibletopracticethevenerationofthesacrament,astheRomanCatholicsdo.Butatthesametimetheystatethatthevenera-tionandalsotheelevationareapermissibleformofworshipaftertheconsecrationandbeforethedistribution,becauseJesusChrist,true

GodandManinoneperson,isunitedwiththeconsecratedelementsandispresentinthedefinitivemode(Ex.2,277f.).

463 Thesefactsseemtobementallydismissedwithoutanythoughtfulconsideration,becauseonehasbeensoimbuedwiththe“Four-Cause”paradigmwhichassertsthatthebodyandbloodarenotpresentun-tiltheactofeatinganddrinkinghastakenplace;justaswecannotcallablockofmarbleastatueof,say,Dianauntilitisactuallybeingadmiredasagreatworkofart.ThisparadigmhasrenderedtheclearwordsofChrist,“Thisismybody,”conditional,sothatonemustsaythatonecannotfixthepointwithinthesacramentalactionwhentheRealPresenceof thebodyandbloodbegins.Thismakesuncertainwhat is clearly expressed inScripture, confessedbyLuther,Chem-nitz,andtheBook of Concord. ThelogicalresultoughttobeforthosewhotodayoperatewiththisparadigmtostateoutrightthatLuther,Chemnitz, and the Book of Concord are here, unfortunately, deadwrong,andthatonereally shouldgo thewayofMelanchthonthatthewordsofChristspokenbytheofficiantinalegitimateservicedonoteffectthepresencebecausethatwouldbe“magic”(p.83f.).

464 Ifonehassetupinhismindaparadigmforclassifyingevidence,itisbafflingwhentheresultsofone’sinvestigationsdonotfitthepar-adigm. This is particularly true where disciplines have been highlysystematized as was the case with the seventeenth century theolo-gians,andasthescientificdisciplinesdowiththeirlawsandcharts.100Facedwithsuchasituationonemayunconsciouslybegintotwistthefactstosuittheparadigms,insteadoftheparadigmstothefacts.Butwhenthefactsabsolutelydemandit,onewillhavetochangehispara-digm.Tociteafamouscase,Lutherhadtoreversehisfield(touseafootballphrase)theologically,becausethefactshewasgleaningfromtheScripturesandfromhisstudyofchurchhistorywouldnotfittheparadigmshehadlearnedandusedinhisuniversitydays.In1545,ashemusesoverhisrecognitionofwhatwashappeningtohimatthetimeoftheLeipzigDebate(1519),heobserves,

Here,inmycase,youmayalsoseehowharditistostruggleoutofandemergefromerrorswhichhavebeenconfirmedbytheexampleofthewholeworldandhavebylonghabitbecomeapartofnature,asitwere.Howtrueistheproverb,“It ishardtogiveuptheaccustomed,”and,“Customissecondnature.”HowtrulyAugustinesays,“Ifonedoesnotresistcustom,itbecomesanecessity”(LW34,333f.).



465 For the Lutheran who today wants to accept the doctrine of the Book of Concord ontheLord’sSupper,itisnecessarythatheescapefromthepseudo-Aristotelian“Four-Cause”paradigmasgivingasat-isfactorypresentationofthisdoctrine.Ashegoesaboutthis,Chem-nitzcangivehimsomeaidwhichhehaskeptinmindashewasabouttoinvestigatetheScripturaldataontheLord’sSupper:

ButthisveryexcellentruleofHilary isofvalueatthispoint:“Hereadsbestwholooksforthemeaningofthewordsonthebasisofwhatissaidratherthanimposinghisownideas;whodrawsfromthematerialrather than adding to it; who does not force the material to containwhatseemsbest tohimbecausehehas,evenbeforereading it,hadapreconceivednotionastohowitshouldbeunderstood”(LS33).

466 TorestoreLuther’sdoctrineof theSacramentof theAltar, thereis also a need for self-examination to determine whether one has,throughanimpreciseunderstandingoftheFormula’suseoftheterms“action”and “use,”unconsciously imbibed thecurrent thought run-ningthroughthetheologicalcogitationsthatthereisnothingthatisstatic but everything is functional, a process, “dynamic functional-ism.”Thecryisraisedthattherearenoobective“things.”Onecan’treallysaythattheconsecratedelementsarethetruebodyandbloodofChristandpresentinthedefinitivemode.

467 ButtheBiblepresentsboththenaturalandthesupernaturalashav-ingobjectivereality.RecentlyDr.RobertPreusremindedusthatLu-therisarealist.ThemightyactsofGodarehistorical,actual,real.101Theincarnationandthepersonalunionare“real,”asareallthedoc-trinesofScripture.Sassehasobservedthatwhen“Luther’ssacramen-talrealismmetwithZwingli’sspiritualizing,humanisticidealism,itwastherealismoftheBiblewhichmetwithaspiritualizingandratio-nalizingChristianitywhichhadbeenlatentdangertotheoldChris-tianfaithforcenturies.”102TheLord’sSupperisbothathingandanactioninthesenseofdoingsomethingatthecommandofGod.Weshouldnotturnitmerelyintoaprocessbecausesomecurrentthoughtsuggests thatwemustgetaway from“substantialist static thinking”to “dynamiccategories”only. Inaccordancewiththis typeof think-ingtherecentagreementsontheSacramentoftheAltarwhichhavebeenarrivedatbetweenLutheransandReformed(Arnoldshain Theses, Marburg Revisited, Leuenberg Theses, etc.),theconsecratorycommandgiventothechurchdoesnotevencomeintoconsideration.103

468 ManyconservativeLutheransstillinsistthattheyaccepttheRealPresence, even though they have given up Luther’s doctrine of theconsecration. They may discuss thequestion of themomentof thepresence,anddividepeopleinto“receptionists”or“consecrationists”butgenerallywiththeimplicationthatthereisnofundamentaldiffer-enceintheviewpoint.Lurking,however,underthesediscussionsliesthefundamentalepistemologicaldifference:How doesoneknowthatChrist’sbodyandbloodarepresentinthebreadandthewine?Onedoes not have that certainty by simply asserting that it is there, ormerelysayingthatbecauseChristsaiditwasthereatthefirstSupperitistherenowwhenweblesstheelementsinHisnamebycommend-ingthebreadandthewinetoHisblessingandgoingthroughcertainactionsoracertainprocess.Thehead-waitertestifiedthattheSaviorhad turnedwater intowineatCana,butnohead-waiter todaycanassuretheweddinggueststhatbycommendingthewatertoChrist’sblessingitwillbecomewineforthemwithwhichtocelebratethejoy-fuleventofthewedding.

469 Luther,Chemnitz,andtheConfessionstestifythatthedecisivedif-ferenceliesinthefactthattheSaviorhasbycommandandpromisegiventothechurchthepowertospeakinHisname,andasHisam-bassadortospeakauthoritativelytheconsecratorywords,“Thisismybody,” etc.,whicheffect thepresence (p. 69–80). WhenChristhasspokenthesewordsofcertainelements, thentheyare true,andonthisbasis thechurchknowsthatthisbreadandwineareHisbodyandblood.ThatistheonlybasisonehasonwhichtoasserttheRealPresence.This,ofcourse,settlesthematterof“themoment,”andatthesametimeitrenderspermissibletheoutwardadorationofthesac-ramentasanotherwayofproclaimingtheatoningdeathoftheLord,asthenon-MelanchthonianLutheransconfessed.

470 TodenytheeffectivenessofabsolutionandtheconsecratorypoweroftheWordgiventothechurchissoseriousamatterthatLutherinhisSmallCatechism,demandsofthesimplecatechumenaresound-ingaffirmationtothequestion,“DostthoubelievethatmyforgivenessisGod’sforgiveness?”Similarly,Chemnitznotonlyexplicitlyrejects“receptionism”(Ex.2,248)butbaseshiscertaintyofGod’sgiftofthetruebodyandbloodoftheSavioronChrist’sownwordsspokenbytheofficiantatChrist’sdirection,“Inthisway[throughtheconsecra-tion]andbecauseofthis,wearesureandbelievethatintheLord’s



Supperweeat,notordinarybreadandwine,butthebodyandbloodofChrist”(Ex.2,229).

471 The Formula insists that the intention of the Lord in institutingtheLord’sSuppermustbefulfilled.Whileitispossiblethatanad-ministrant may privately deny the Real Presence, or the power oftheconsecratoryWordtoeffectthesacramentalunion,orthatsomecommunicantmaymisuse the sacrament, thiswouldnotdestroy itbecauseit“doesnotrestonman’sfaithorunbeliefbutontheWordandordinanceofGod”(SDVII,32;LW37,367).Theintention,how-ever,ofthosewhoarepubliclyadministeringthesacramentmustbedirectedtowards fulfillingChrist’scommandand institutionasHegaveit.Ifthey“changeGod’sWordandordinanceandmisinterpretthem”(SDVII,32),thenthesacramentas institutedbyChristhasbeenlost.Prof.MartinAlbrechthascorrectlystatedthisprincipleinevaluatingthejointEpiscopalian-Lutherancommunionservices:

The actions used and the words spoken may be the same in theEpiscopal Church as in the Lutheran, but when the confessionalwritings do not agree on the meaning of the words spoken in thetwo denominations, then there must be disagreement in doctrine.In other words, if the interpretation of the Words of Institution isdifferent from what Jesus spoke and intended, then the celebrationof Holy Communion is not a sacrament, since there must be a falseinterpretationofChrist’swords.104

472 AccordingtoChemnitz,onechangestheintentionandthemeaningoftheLordwhenonerejectstheconsecratorypoweroftheWordsofInstitution,asdoesoccurinsomeLutherancircles(note#59).Heas-sertsthatAmbroseisrightwhenheholdsthatthroughtheconsecra-tionthebreadisthebodyofChristandtheconsecratorywordsare“thespeechofJesus”(Ex.2,226).Further,ChemnitzjudgesthatitisfalsewhatLindanusascribestoBasilthat“theconsecrationoftheEucharistisperformedwithwordsthatarenotwritten”(Ex.2,226).ChemnitztherebyeliminatestheideathatthewordsofChristhaveconnectiononlywiththedistributionandreception(note#54).TheMelanchtho-niansandtheReformedrejectedtheconsecratorypoweroftheVerbatoeffect the sacramentalunion(p.83f.;86f.).Chemnitz is inaccordwiththejudgmentoftheFormula(SDVII,32),forheisquiteexplicit:

For as when the purity of Gospel preaching itself is vitiated andcorrupteditisnolongertheGospelnorthepowerofGodforsalvationto him who believes, so when in the action or administration of the

sacramentstheinstitutionitselfischanged,mutilated,orcorrupted,itiscertainthatthenitisnotatruesacrament.ForitistheWordofInstitution,comingtotheelement,whichmakesasacrament(Ex.2,106).

InhisdiscussionofcommunionunderbothkindsChemnitzrepeatsthe truth, “If, however, the institution of the Son of God is eithertakenawayoradulteratedormutilatedandchanged,thenwecaninnowaymakeorhavetruesacraments.Thisaxiomcannotbeshakenevenbythegatesofhell”(Ex.2,340).

473 ForChemnitz it isamost seriouserror todeny theconsecrato-rypowerof theVerba,which is socommonlydonetoday.HerehespeakswiththesamevoiceofLutherandtheConfessions.Thisisrea-sonenoughforallconfessionalLutheranstodevotethemostintensestudytothisdoctrineoftheLord’sSuppertodeterminewhethertheyhaveneglectedtoconfess it in its fulness.Ifso, it isonlythrougha“happyinconsistency”thattheyhavehadthesacramentofthetruebodyandbloodofChrist.But it shouldbe remembered, asPieperhassooftenstated,thatahappyinconsistencydoesnotextenuatenorlegitimizeerror105(p.132f.).

notes 88–105, chapter vii

88. SeeBaier-Walther,Compendium Theologiae Positivae, St.Louis:CPH,1879,III,489–531;Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3rd ed.,translatedbyCharlesA.HayandHenryE.Jacobs,1899(reprintbyAPH,1961),555–582;AdolfHoenecke,Ev. Luth. Dogmatic, Milwaukee:NPH,1909,IV,99–146;FrancisPieper,Christian Dogmatics, St.Louis:CPH,1950,III,290–393.

89. Lehre und Wehre, 21(1875)67;translatedbyRobertKolbintheConcordia Historical Institute Quarterly, 56,3(Fall1983),99.

90. Hoenecke(seenote#88),DasWesen(forma) desAbendmahlsistdiegesamteHandlung,welcheChristusselbstinAnsehungderirdischenundhimmlischenMaterienvorgenommenunddannfüralleZeiteneingesetzthat,sodassnurdadasAbendmahlwirklichgefeiertwird,wodiedreiGesamthandlungbildendenwesentlichenHandlungen(actus formales): Konsekration,Austeilung,Empfangenstatthaben,IV,126.

91. Hoenecke,IV,126f.,DassdaslogischeGenusderSakramenteactio sei,nichtsignum oderres, ist in bezug auf das Abendmahl ganz besonders wichtig in der Polemik gegen diePapisten.

92. Marburg Revisited (seenote#1),49.93. Prof.LowellGreenonArticleVIIoftheFormula,RobertPreusandWilbertRosin,editors,

A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, St.Louis:CPH,1978,227.94. TheLCMSWorship Supplement of 1969notonlyincludedaEucharisticprayerinstead

oftheconsecration(p.66),butalsotheDix“Four-ActionShapeoftheEucharist”(pp.60–62).



95. Vajta(seenote#1),pp.96and103.96. “...sedillomodoquoChristipersonaseutotusChristuspraesensestomnibuscreaturis”

CR2, 224;“Christus enim exaltatus est super omnes creaturas, et adest ubique. Inquitenim:inmediovestrumsum,”CRl,949;“EgodeChristovideoexstarepromissiones:Erovobiscumusqueadconsummationemseculi....Quodcumitasint,sentio,inilIaCoenapraesentiscorporisKoinoniaesse”CRl,1049.

97. J.H.C.Fritz,Pastoral Theology, St.Louis:CPH,1932,p.143.98. QuenstedtquotedinSchmid(seenote#88),p.573.99. Hoenecke(seenote#88),p.126.100. T.S.Kuhninhisperceptivevolume,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:U.of

ChicagoPress,1963),hasshownthatnewunderstandingsofthenatureoftheuniversehavebeenhamperedbytheimpulseofscientificresearchtosolvepuzzlesbytryingtofitfindingsintosomecurrentlyacceptedparadigm.AclassicexampleisthereplacementofPtolemaicastronomywithCopernican.

101. Robert David Preus,“How is the Lutheran Church to Interpret and Use the Old andNewTestaments?”the1973annualReformationLectures,BethanyLutheranTheologicalSeminary,Mankato,Minn.,The Lutheran Synod Quarterly, XIV,No.1(Fall1973),pp.31–33.

102. This is My Body (seenote#1),p.348.103. AtypicalexampleofthismodernviewpointhasbeenpresentedbyProf.RobertJensonin

his“LiturgyoftheSpirit,”“Letmepersuadeyou:wecannotat all consecratebreadandwineto be thebodyandbloodoftheLord—notwiththeepiclesisand notwiththeverba,andnotwiththewholethanksgiving.Wecannotdoit,notbecauseitistoomuchforus,butbecausethereisjustnothingalongthislinethatneedsdoing.Wecanonly receivebreadandwineas thebodyandbloodoftheLord....Thewholenotionofaliturgicalconsecrationoftheelementstobethebodyandbloodmissestheeschatologicaltime-structureoftheevent.Itisnotthataconsecrationoccursafter whichthebodyandbloodarethere.Thisisaprotological,mythictime-pattern;ifweassumeit,wecannotavoidconceivingtheeucharisticpresence as somehow like the presence of a thing, as some sort of ‘substantiation’—forwhatathingis,isthetemporalafter shadowofanevent.Wewillnotbeabletomaintainconsistentlythedoctrinethat‘outsidetheusethereisnosacrament.’Rather, it isthataneatinganddrinkingoccur,before whichthebodyandthebloodarepresent.”The Lutheran Quarterly, 26,2(May1974),p.195f.(emphasisintheoriginaltext).

104. The Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Spring1983,p.140.105. Pieper(seenote#88),I,89.

Abraham,tookhisreasoncaptive53,54Absolution,defined41

maybecalledasacrament21thepromiseoftheGospelto theindividual360

Action,sacramental30–38;seealsoUseFormulaofConcorddefinition36needforprecisedefinition30–33notlimitedtoreception37preciselydefined34–36synonymouswithuseinSupper36vaguenessinpresentuse38,#5

AdministrationoftheSupperinonekindcontrarytotheVerba73rejectedbytheFormula296

AdorationoftheSacrament,seeVeneration

Albrecht,Martin471Ambrose,confessesthevenerationof

ChristintheSupper275ApologyoftheAugsburgConfession

confessesministersactinChrist’s stead203onthepresenceofthelivingChristin theSupper254

ApologytotheFormula15,218confessesaneffectiveconsecration 217,218,430,#3,#26,#27,#28,#29deniesthatthecommunicationof divineattributesentailseternity 92deniestheFormulagoesbeyond correctuseinstitutedbyChrist233ontheSacramentarians’denialofthe definitivepresence117

Aristotle56–63,#65onclassificationofmodesof predication#36“FourCauses”paradigmimparts spuriousequalitytothecauses 223,224,#65“FourCauses”adoptedbyHunnius 223

“FourCauses”excisedfromFormula 63,409onidenticalpredication150

Augustine,Christgivesministrytoservantsbutretainspowerfor Himself231confessesthepermissibilityofthe veneration274

Bashkar,Roy#65Basil,confessestheworshipofChristin

intheSacrament294Becker,Siegbert#52,#59,#77,#81Bekenntnisschriften#73BenefitsoftheSacrament353–405 havetheirsourceinthevicarious

atonement358,360,399forgivenessofsinsreceivedthrough eatinganddrinkingofthebody andbloodofChrist354finaldeliveranceofbodyandsoul guaranteed389faithstrengthened361innerlifestrengthened388believerunitedwiththebodyof ChristandthuswithChrist Himself391quickensbothbodyandsoul395

unitesbelieverwiththeChurchof Christ402

Bente,F.#5Beza,regardsActs3:21asrefuting

LutherandoctrineoftheSupper7,171–175

Bible,biblical,etc.;seeScriptureBiel,Gabriel,theVerbacommand

distributionafterconsecration322,#81Black,Max,#35Bodilyeatingwithoutfaith379–384

withoutrepentancebringsjudgment 383,384

BodyandbloodinSuppernotseparatedfrompersonalunion70–77

index(Thereferencesaretoparagraphandendnotenumbers.Thenumberalonereferstotheparagraph;thenumberprecededbythisfigure,#,referstoanendnote.)

Index | ��


Book of Concord, doesnothesitatetousetheword“change”135thequiapledge333

Brenz,John94“BriefStatement,”rejectsthefalse

chargeofdoublepredestination304, 305

Bugenhagen,John,ontheconsecration181–185

Calvin,deniestheRealPresence78iswrongindenyingtheunworthy receivethebodyofChrist107

Capernaiticeatinganddrinkingdisavowed69

Carlstadt,Andrew,deniesthecommunicatio majestatis79ridiculesaneffectiveconsecration181

CatalogofTestimonies395CertaintyofChrist’spresenceinthe

Supper105;seealsoEpistemological basis

“Change,”itsmeaningwhenusedbytheAncients,Luther,Chemnitz,Book of Concord 135–140nottransubstantiationbuta miraculousdivinechangesothat thebodyofChristispresent undertheconsecratedbread141

Chase,Stuart,#34Chemnitz,Martin,theforgotten

theologianontheLord’sSupper406asixteenthcenturytheologianincontrasttoseventeenthcentury407neverquotedontheconsecrationby standarddogmaticians460

Chrysostom,confessesthetruevenerationoftheSacrament294quotation(SOVII,76a)settlesthe wholecontroversy218–220quotationoftendisregardedbylater Lutherans220

Chytraeus,dissatisfiedwiththefinalversionoftheFormula60–63ChurchFellowship,confessed throughcommonparticipationin theSupper404

Concomitance,cannotbeadefenseforwithholdingthecup75cannotbeusedasanargumentfor asymbolicunderstandingofthe Verba76,77

Consecrationanditseffects117–352achievesthesacramentalunion121, 186,213,214,246,248ccommandedbyChrist191confessedbyApologia218,219confessedbyBugenhagen183–185confessedbyEarlyChurch248–252confessedbytheFormula194,219confessedbyLuther181,189,193defendedbytheApologia217,218deniedbyCarlstadt181deniedbyHunnius222–224deniedbyMelanchthon207deniedbyPhilippists208–210defined190giventothechurchthroughChrist’s commandandpromise200indisputeafterLuther’sdeath217not“magic”206–210,338not“Romanizing”218,220notsimilartoblessingordinary food188synonymsof188,189Chemnitz’sdoctrineinharmonywith sola gratia331aseffectivetaughtbyLutheran Churchfromitsinception422itsresults246–253

“Consecrationist”vs“Receptionist,”reallyasecondaryquestionto certainty428,468

Copi,I.N.#4Cyprian,heedwhatChristsaid44

onerringinsimplicity333,334CyrilofAlexandria392–394,#86

DifferencebetweenLutheransandRomanistsontheveneration285–295

Distributionformulasarenotconsecratory197

Doctrine,every,hasitsownfoundationincertaintexts45

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on“SubjectandPredicate”156,#38

Effectsofthesacramentaleatinganddrinking353–402

EinsiedelLettersofLuther#77Elert,Werner#87EntireChristpresentintheSacrament

78–93

Index | ��

Epistemologicalquestion,howdoesoneknowthathehasthesameSupper todayasinstitutedbyChrist176basisforcertaintyoftheReal

PresenceistheunconditionalcommandandpromiseofChrist204, 220,429,468

Erlandsson,Seth#43,#54Eucharist,seealsoLord’s Supper

atestimonyofunityandfaith 402–405

ExaminationII,drawsapreciselinebetweenLutheranandRoman doctrine10

FaithacceptsthegiftoftheSupper375–387

asonekindofeatingdoesnotnegatesacramentaleating377necessaryforworthyeating 376,385,387

ForgivenessofsinsofferedthroughtheministryoftheGospel357givenintheSupper357,378

FormulaofConcordontheconsecration(SOVII,73–90)335–352admitsdissensionamongsome Lutheransontheconsecration215analogyofPersonalUniontoshow SacramentalUnion127avoidsusing“Four-Cause”paradigm 63Christoneindivisiblepersonwith God114definestheactionoftheSupper257doctrineofconsecrationrejected byHunnius221–225doesnotcondemnthosewhoerr ingenuously333,334enumeratesthedivineattributes communicatedtothehuman nature91givesconfessionalstatustoCyril’s words394intentionoftheLord’sWordmustbe fulfilled471onmodesofChrist’spresence95–103present-dayreluctancetoaccept Formulaonconsecration220referstoLuther-Wolferinus correspondence340–352ontheruleNihilhabet30,338–352

spiritualeatingusefulandnecessary 362takesoverLuther’sexegesisof1Cor. 11:23–25194refutationoftheFormulaattempted bySacramentarians92ontheveneration296–305theVerbanottobeomitted211,212

Fraenkel,Peter,onMelanchthon’sviewoftheLord’sSupper#80

Franck,F.H.R.,misrepresentsChemnitzontherepletivemode112

Fritz,J.H.C.#51,#97Furberg,Ingemar#43

GenusMajestaticum,deniedbytheSacramentarians413

GeorgeofAnhaltontheRealPresenceandthe Adoration278–280onhiscorrespondencewithLuther #69ontheoutwardadoration434

Green,Lowell#32,#58,#93GregoryofNazianzus,honoredChrist

onthealtarintheSacrament277

Haile,H.G.#43Hardt,TomG.A.#14,#21,#24,#81Hayakawa,F.I.#34Heppe,Heinrich#7,#10HereticsnotadmittedtotheSupper404

Hilary,warnsagainstimposingone’s ownideasonthetext31

HistoridesSacramentstreit,sourcebooktosupplementtheApologia16confessesthevenerationofthe Sacramentasproofofaneffective consecration278–280,434,#23

Hoenecke,Adolf#88,#90,#91,#99Hunnius,Aegidius

ontheconsecration221–225depotentiatestheVerba331 perpetuatesthedoctrineof Melanchthon431teachesthatthereisnopresenceuntil thesumptio#63,#73

IdenticalPredication.SeeModes of predication

Intention,directedtowardsfulfillingChrist’scommand471–473


IrenaeusconsecrationeffectstheEucharist 218–220confessesthevenerationofChrist intheSacrament294

Jena,editionsofLuther’sWorks#79Jenson,Robert#103Jeske,J.#32JesusChrist

alwayspresent,wholeandentire75assumedatrue,totalhumannature83existedasapersonintheGodhead beforetheincarnation82thepersonalunionofthetwonatures intheunityofoneperson84–86hasreceiveddivineattributes accordingtotheassumedhuman nature87–91incarnationdoesnotnecessitatea symbolicreadingoftheVerba93modesofpresence,atleastthree:

circumscriptive,definitive, repletive94–102necessityofdistinguishingthese modesofpresence116–118,179omnipresenceisrepletive113,172–174laidholdofonlywhereHepromises Himself114,117personalunionnottobeseparated becauseofreferencestonatural humanproperties72faithandworshipofChristinclude bothnatures269personalunionnotdissolvedbythe mentionofnaturalproperties254

Jones,W.T.#65Justin,confessesthevenerationofChrist

intheSupper294

Kingo,Thomas#67Klug,E.F.,judgmentonChemnitzand

theFormula4,#2Koehler,E.W.A.#61Koren,UlrikVilhelm#67Korzybski,A.#34Kramer,Fred,moderntranslatorof

Chemnitz5Kuhn,T.S.#100

LargeCatechism388,395LifeinthefleshofChrist388–401;see

alsoBenefits of the SacramentLiving New TestamentonActs3:21#41Loci theologici ofChemnitz,does

nothavedetailedexpositionoftheSupper6

Lord’sSupper,Thetheheartofthecontroversy:whatispresentand distributedandreceivedandwhy wasitinstituted?68didnotexistbeforeChrist’s institution47doctrinetobetakendirectlyfromthe Verba42–45,408finalpurposeistheoralreception260ameansofgrace254comfortoftheSupper356sealstotheindividualbelieverthe forgivenessofsins360requiresfaith361standsorfallswiththeconsecration 204,428

Luther,Martinacceptstheimplicationsofthe personalunion85,179criteriaforestablishingthetrue questionsatissue51ontheword“change”139onthedifferencebetweenthe SophistsandWycliffe148doctrineoftheSuppernotbuilton Christologicalarguments79–81,#15

Wordandbodyhavebecomeone355 onChristasindivisiblepersonwith

God114onlackofprecisionofthephrase,“in, with,andunder”134doctrineofconsecrationinthe Formula216onkeepingseparatetherepletiveand definitivepresence115,116consecrationisnot“magic”210

Christcommandsthechurchto speaktheVerbainHisperson andname225on“identicalpredication”156onmodesofChrist’spresence95–103onthevenerationoftheSacrament 265–292

Index | ��

on“synecdoche”130,131,161onthereliquiae350

letterstoWolferinus340–352 andChemnitzagreeonalldetailsof

doctrineoftheSupper448references#19,#25,#39,#40,#61,#69,#71,#72,#73,#77,#80

LutheranandPapalconsecration226–245

LutheranChurch—MissouriSynod BriefStatement304 WorshipSupplement(1969)#94

Madson,Juul#67MandataDei309–316

donotincludetheuseofcharismatic gifts310notaformoflegalism309giventotheuniversalchurchas binding195,196,213,310toconsecrate200todistributetheconsecrated elements315,316

Man’sresponsenotaconditionforGod’sgiftintheSacrament331

MassseeSacrifice of the Mass McLelland,Joseph443,#92Melanchthon,Philip

differsfromChemnitzonthe sacrament452–458deniesthattherecitationoftheVerba achievestheRealPresence 207,276deniesthepermissibilityofthe Veneration276,#73positionadoptedbyHunnius221,441positionadoptedbyWolferinus346, 347wonthedayoverLutherinthe seventeenthcentury459

Miller,Kenneth#59,#66,#69,#74MinistryoftheChurch227–245

givenbyChristtoHisservantsbut thepowerretainedforHimself 231,243,244notgiventoallChristiansingeneral 229ministersareChrist’sambassadors205

ModesofPredication142–176PapistsandSacramentariansboth teachidenticalpredicationinthe Verba143,150

identicalpredicationasusedby Romanists147–149asusedbyZwinglians150AristotleandtheSchoolmen onmodesofpredication150–156 #34,#35,#36Scripturalexamplesofaspecialmode ofpredicationsimilartothe Verba157–158Sacramentariansassertidentical predicationbypositinga metonymyinthepredicate 162–170

ModesofChrist’sPresencecircumscriptivemode97definitivemode98repletivemode100modestobedifferentiated101definitivemodeofChrist’sbodyin

thebreadmadecertainby Christ’sWord105

Moerlin,Joachim,showsthatLutherneverchangedhisdoctrineofthe Lord’sSupperinhislaterlife17,#73

Monstrumincertudinis253Montgomery,John#8,#12

NeostadiensiumAdmonitio(1584),abookintendedtorefutetheFormula 15,217–219

NewKJVonActs3,21#41NewInternationalVersiononActs3,

21#41NiceneCanon,confessesthatthe

consecrationachievestheReal Presence249confessesthepresenceofChristafter theconsecration273

NorwegianSynodPsalmebok(1903)#67“Nothinghasthecharacter,etc.”306,

338–341

PapistsevadeclearpassagesonJustification46

Paradigms,theirinfluence462–465Passover,hasnothingtodowiththe

RealPresenceofthebodyandblood ofChrist29,48

PersonalUnion.SeeJesus ChristPeterMartyr361Peters,E.F.#76,#81


Pieper,F.happyinconsistencydoesnot legitimizeerror473notesthatF.H.R.Franck misrepresentsChemnitz112endnotes#21,#22,#42,#51,#61Planck,G.J.#9,#11

Poellot,Luther,moderntranslatorofChemnitz5

Precisingtheterms“action”and“use”30–38

Prenter,Regin#72Preus,J.A.O.

moderntranslatorofChemnitz5, 406,#15,#20,#81

Preus,Robert,LutheraRealist467,#101PrinciplesofInterpretation43–48ScriptureinterpretsScripture45 wordsofaLastWilland Testamenttobeinterpreted literally49,50

Quenstedt,John459,#98Quere,RalphW.,onMelanchthon’s

viewoftheLord’sSupper#80Quintilian51

RealPresenceachievedbythespeakingoftheVerba 182,183,186–192,202,211,218–220notlimitedtothesumptio338itsretentiongiveseverythingGodhas promised354Reason,human,tobetakencaptive 53,54corruptedbynaturalmanhasnoplaceintheology409

“Receptionist”468.SeealsoConsecrationist

Reliquiae306–352consumptionofdemandedbythe Verba307,308,350theEarlyChurchdemandedit 320–323

RepentanceandFaith385–387ReservationoftheHost

sanctionedbyTrent311notpermittedbytheVerba306, 312,313inTradition317–330forCorpusChristiFestivaloflate origin318

forthesick,inconflictwithearly CanonLaw319Romanexamplesforitfromhistory inconclusive324–330

Resultsoftheconsecration246,253RomanCatholicDoctrineof

consecration226–245andabsolution,partlytheworkof Godandoftheordainedpriest237isatthesametimetheSacrificeof theMass238

Sacrament,consistsofa“thing”andan“action”combinedbydivine command411dealswithmysteriesunknownto humanreason409eachhasitsownproperandpeculiar wordofdefinition26eightcriticalpointsindefiningit25Lutheransdonotwrangleaboutthe term20SacramentariansdestroytheBiblical concept27

SacramentalAction18–38SacramentalEating,seeThree Kinds of

EatingSacramentalUnion64–176

twodistinctthingsarejoinedtomake onecompletesacrament118notequivalenttotransubstantiation 118demonstratedbythefactthat“this” referstothebreadandwine 119–123demonstratedbythefactthat“body” isclearlyexplainedbyChrist124anunusual,one-of-its-kindunion 127,133comparedtothepersonalunion127notalastingunionapartfromitsuse 128othertermsused133theunionoftheSpiritanddoveasan analogy373“underthebread”andsimilarterms usedtodescribeit128

SacramentariansDepotentiatetheVerba66on“identicalpredication”162–169misinterpretationofActs3:21171–173, #41,#42

Index | ��

SacrificeoftheMassdestroysthegiftoftheforgiveness intheSupper238rejectedbytheFormula296

Scripture39–63ScriptureinterpretsScripture45,171, 172,174itstruthscanbeconfessedin differentways41

Salig,Christian#73Saliger#5,#61Sasse,Hermann

onthetendencytospiritualizeaway therealismoftheBible362,467, #15,#68,#73,#83,#102

Schaff,P.#18Schlink,E.

believesChemnitzdiffersfrom LutheronthemodesofChrist’s presence103,#18,#21

Schmid,Heinrich#61Schuetze,A.#31SeventeenthCenturyBreakwiththe

Sixteenth459Sola Gratia

Chemnitz’sdoctrineoftheSupperin harmonywith220,331,440,441

SolidDeclaration,see Formula of Concord

Sperber,Erhard#56,#57,#78SpiritualEating363

mustnotturnusawayfromoral eating367

Sprague,RosamondKent#65SubstanceoftheSupperisthe

SacramentalUnion443SymbolicLanguage

analogiesareusedinScripture164–165thenormalmeaninggenerallynot

tobediscardedforsymbolic meanings166,167symboliclanguageoftheVerbanot demonstratedbyothertexts421theuseofanalogycanbelessprecise andleadtoamisunderstanding165

SynergisticViewpointsRejected331,332,441Romanviewofconsecrationis synergistic237

Tapperted.ofBook of Concord translationofSDVII,87is misleading#75

Teigen,BjarneW.#16,#77ThreeKindsofEatingintheSacrament

363–374eatingofthebreadacknowledgedby Sacramentarians363spiritualeatingacceptedby Sacramentarians361,371sacramentaleatingofthebody ofChristdeniedby Sacramentarians363sacramental(oral)receptiondoes notmeanthattheactualbodyis masticated368sacramentaleatingisnotimaginary butsupernatural370sacramentaleatingmeanseatingwith themouththebodyofChristina supernaturalway373sacramentaleatingisaccomplishedin awayknownonlytoChrist373sacramentaleatingmusttakeplacein theSuppertoavoidrejectionof theVerba374sacramentaleatingsealsandconfirms thespiritualeating377sacramentaleatinggivesassurance oftheforgivenessofsinsthrough physicalsensesotherthan hearingandseeing378spiritualeatingcantakeplaceoutside theSupper365spiritualeatingincludespenitence andfaith366spiritualeatingmustnotturnaway fromoralreception367spiritualeatingnecessaryforsalutary use376

Todd,RobertB.#65Touto(this)referstotheearthly

elements119–123Transubstantiation,Trent’sdefinition

143annihilationofearthlyelements notnecessaryforunderstanding thepredicatestatementsinthe Verba154Chemnitz’srejectionofRoman argumentsfor144–148


rejectedbytheFormulaofConcord 296,297

The Two Natures in Christmakesanimportantcontributiontotheunder standingoftheLord’sSupper11

Use,seeAction30–38

Vajta,Vilmos#24,#95VenerationoftheSacrament254–305

noonewhoacceptstheSacramental UniondeniesthatChristshould beveneratedinthe“actionofthe Supper”259,260venerationnotrestrictedtotimeor place262–264asexpoundedandconfessedby Luther265–267,281–284invenerationfaithistheall- importantthing269,376differencesbetweentheRoman ChurchandLutheranChurchon theveneration285–295venerationofthevisibleformsof theonsecratedelementsnot allowable286,287,303needstheinnerdemandoftruefaith 291,292venerationobservedintheliterature oftheEarlyChurch294isapartofthegenuineconfessionof faithintheRealPresence295venerationandtheFormulaof Concord296–305theFormularejectsonlythe venerationoutsidethe“prescribed use”297,298venerationrightlyuseddoesnot justifyvenerationapartfromits use298venerationoftheSacramentinits rightusewillbedeniedonlybyan Arianheretic299Chemnitz’sformulationtakeninto theFormulaofConcord301

Verba.TheVerbaarethesedes doctrinae fortheLord’sSupper44–63,353constitutethelastwillandtestament ofChrist44tobeinterpretedliterally49–52declarethatthesamebodysacrificed onthecrossisdistributed70,71

theVerba’sreferencetonatural propertiesarenottobe understoodasdisruptingthe personalunionofChrist’stwo natures72theVerbausedintheFirstSupper retaintheirproperandnatural meaning174,175theVerbaachievetheRealPresence 192,331tobespokenatthecommandof Christ193tobespokenorchantedloudlyforthe

entirecongregation337Verbanottobechangedor misinterpretedlestthesacrament belost471,472

VicariousAtonement,isthesourceofallthebenefitsoftheSacrament399

Victorinus,aSacramentarian,looksonlypartlyattheVerba,butmore generallyatthereligionofall times46

Walther,C.F.W.,histheologyisnotboundtotheseventeenthcenturybuttothe BookofConcordandLuther407;#88,#89

Weinberg,J.R.#36Wiese,MarkusFredrick#6WithholdingoftheCupcontrarytothe

commandofScripture42,201 notjustifiedonthebasisofthe personalunionoftheTwo

Natures412WittenbergFaculty#78Wolferinus,deniedaneffective

consecration220,340–352;#81WordsofInstitution,seeVerbaWorship,seeVenerationWorthyEating,

seeBodily eating without faithand Faith accepts … gift … Supper

worthyeatingdoesnot consistinman’spurity387worthyeatinglongsforthegraceof God387

Wycliffe131,148

Zwingli,U.,deniesthecommunicatio majestatis 79holdsthatthereisnosupportforthe sacramentalunion150

Date post:	13-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz · 2018. 5. 7. · The Lord’s supper in the...

Documents