DH said:
"It is clear that one cannot deal with infants through the bare preaching of repentance and remission of sins, for that requires hearing (Rom. 10:17), deliberation and meditation (Ps. 119), understanding (Matt. 13:51), which are not found in infants. With regard to the Lords Supper Paul says: Let a man examine himself [1 Cor. 11:28]. Likewise: Let him discern the Lords body [1 Cor. 11:29], a thing which cannot be ascribed to infants. Moreover, Christ instituted His Supper for such as had already become His disciples. In the Old Testament infants were circumcised on the eighth day, but they were admitted to the eating of the Passover lamb when they were able to ask: What do you mean by this service? (Ex. 12:26). There remains therefore [for infants] of the means of grace in the New Testament only the sacrament of Baptism."
- Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, pp. 165-66
For those who are suspect of anything Philippist, we also have Chemnitz, the second Martin. In interpreting I Cor. 11:29 in his
The Lords Supper Chemnitz writes:
"He [Paul] has already explained in the preceding verses what it means to eat unworthily. But why and how can it be that men are not afraid to approach this holy table of the Lord with such security, ignorance, frivolity, temerity, and impurity as to eat this Supper unworthily?"
Chemnitz points out that the unworthy eating is defined by the verses previous to I Corinthians 11:27, the verses in which their unrepentant behavior is detailed. He does not yet point us ahead to the statement regarding the discerning of the body. The essence of unworthy eating is unrepentant eating. But how is it that the Corinthians have come to such unrepentant eating? Chemnitz responds:
"Paul answers that it happens because they do not distinguish or discern the Lords body. . . . He requires this kind of discrimination, so that we might discern the bread of this Supper, distinguish it from other bread, acknowledge His true honor, and in accordance with His Word attribute to Him by our discernment the preeminence which is due Him."
There is a temptation at this point to use Chemnitz as support for the need for intellectual discernment. But the force of Chemnitzs argument is not intellectual, but penitential. Those who do not discern the body are guilty because they do not honor the Lord. By treating Him as common, even though they have been taught better, they insult Him and reveal their unrepentance. That Chemnitz is speaking to impenitent disregard for the real presence and not to the Christian whose knowledge is simply deficient is brought out when he says:
"Surely on the basis of this statement the frivolity, brashness, security, and impudence of the human mind, which plays and cogitates on the various interpretations of these words, ought to be struck down as by a thunderbolt. For it is horrible to fall under the guilt of divine judgment because of not discerning the Lords body."
Read entirely within their logical context, Chemnitzs words reinforce the Scriptural and Confessional doctrine that repentant faith, sealed in Baptism is the only prerequisite for the Supper.
This concern for repentance is echoed by Chemnitz in his
Enchiridion. There we have,
"What, then, is the true and salutary use of the Lords Supper? When the ordinance and command of Christ are observed, namely that we eat His body and drink His blood, and do that in remembrance of Him, that is,
with a penitent heart and in true faith [emphasis added].
In listing the benefits of the Supper Chemnitz writes:
"Since nothing good, but only sin, dwells in our flesh, whence extremely many evil fruits continually sprout and come forth, therefore Christ, in His Supper
, offers us His most holy body and blood, so that, engrafted by this communion as branches in Him who is the true vine, we might draw thence new, good, and spiritual sap. Thus we are also joined most closely by this communion with other Christians as members of the one body of Christ (I Co 10:17), so that mutual love toward the neighbor is enkindled, increased and preserved in us."
The need for the Supper is just as great for the infant, and his engrafting to the true vine and to his fellow Christians is just as real.
But most convincingly from this work of Chemnitz is where he writes on worthiness and unworthiness:
"Who, then, are they that eat and drink unworthily in the Lords Supper, so that we might learn to guard the more carefully against that unworthiness?
That unworthiness does not consist in this, that we miserable sinners are unworthy of that heavenly food. For that food is prepared and intended especially for sinners. But the following are they that eat unworthily, as one can very clearly gather from Paul, I Cor 11:
I. They that do not discern the body of the Lord, that is [they] that do not hold that the very sacred food of this Supper is the body and blood of Christ, but handle and use it with no greater reverence and devotion than other common foods."
I want to quote more from Chemnitz in a moment, but first a need for comment. As we interpret Chemnitz here we must either reject what he says as unconfessional, or we must square it with what the Catechisms and the Formula of Concord say regarding worthiness. If Chemnitz is to be accepted, then these statements must concur with the Confessions which state that unworthiness is nothing more than impenitence, and worthiness is nothing more than repentant faith.
With this in mind, either do not quote Chemnitz against me, or admit that the concern here is with the irreverence and lack of devotion of those who deny the real presence, not with the Christian who has never been taught the truth, or whose understanding is faulty. When Chemnitz says that those who do not discern the body are unworthy to commune, either he is wrong, or by those who do not discern he means the unbeliever, for the Formula of Concord binds us to confess, We believe, teach, and confess that there is only one kind of unworthy guest, namely, those who do not believe. I choose to accept Chemnitz and interpret his words as elaboration on forms of unbelief.
Chemnitz continues to elaborate on who is unworthy:
"II. They that continue in sins without repentance and have and retain not the intent to lead a better life, but rather continue in sin, as Paul rebukes this very thing in some Corinthians. . . .
III. They that come to this Supper without true faith, namely they that either seek the grace of God, forgiveness of sins, and eternal salvation elsewhere than alone in the merit of Christ, or who, steeped in Epicurean security, hunger and thirst, with no true desires, after righteousness, that is, the grace of God in Christ, reconciliation, and salvation. For he that does not believe will be condemned, though he uses the Word and the Sacraments."
Here again Chemnitz interprets I Corinthians 11 in terms of unrepentance, and ties the whole issue to that of repentant faith versus impenitent unbelief. This is further enforced when he writes:
"But since life itself dwells in the body of Christ, what kind of cause of death can then exist for those that eat unworthily?
That does not result from this, that the Lords body per se is a deadly poison, but that they who eat unworthily sin against the body of Christ by Epicurean security and impenitence, and do it wrong by their unworthy eating, and, as it were, tread [it] underfoot."
That Chemnitz considers only the impenitent unworthy is reinforced by whom he considers worthy. This we find in his words on how one should examine himself:
" How, then, should a man examine or look into himself, so that he might eat and drink worthily in the holy Supper?
This worthy eating does not consist in a mans purity, holiness, or perfection. For they who are healthy do not need a doctor, but they who are not healthy (Mt 9:12). But, by way of contrast with the unworthy, one can understand very easily how that examination or exploration is to be undertaken, namely:
" First, let the mind consider of what nature the act of this Supper is, who is present there, [and] what kind of food is offered and taken there, so that one might prepare himself with
due humility and piety for its reception."
Second, let a man about to approach the Lords Table be endowed with
the kind of heart that seriously acknowledges his sins and errors, and shudders at the wrath of God, and does not delight in sin, but is troubled and grieved [by it], and has the earnest purpose to amend [his life].
Third, that the mind sincerely give itself to this concern, that it might not perish in sins under the wrath of God, and therefore with ardent desire thirst for and long for the grace of God, so that
by true faith in the obedience, passion, and death of Christ, that is, in the offering of [His] body and shedding of His blood
it seek, beg, lay hold on and apply to itself the grace of God, forgiveness of sins, and salvation. He that examines and prepares himself in this way, he truly uses this Sacrament worthily, not unto judgment, but unto salvation" [emphasis added]."
What Chemnitz describes here is nothing more than the Catechisms and the Formula of Concord say: That one who knows repentance and faith is worthy to receive the Supper for salvation. For forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are the gifts of God to the baptized, and what God gives in Baptism He will not take away in the Supper. (Rev. Scott Marincic)
Q
