[1271] We are confronted with the following dilemma: “Either the strict literal sense or the purely figurative; either the Catholic sense or the Reformed.” Thus J. J. Herzog, “RE. f. prot. Theol. u. K.,” 1², p. 39. Previously he had declared: “As a matter of fact the literal interpretation involves the whole Catholic theory [of Transubstantiation] and practice concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, not only the change in the elements, the adoration of the Host, and the withholding of the Chalice [?], but also the sacrificial character of the Mass.”—The complete change of substance and the presence of Christ without any remaining of the bread, as is well known, is vouched for by the oldest liturgies. It is supported by the Fathers of the Church, who compare the change here with that of the water made into wine at Cana and by reference to the marvels of the Creation and of the Incarnation. Moreover, in 1543, Luther did not regard a belief in Transubstantiation as any obstacle to joining his party (“nihil morati si quis eam alibi credat vel non”). To the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 568.
[1272] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 1.
[1273] Ibid., p. 130.
[1274] Ibid., p. 108.
[1275] “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 139.
[1276] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 59.
[1277] “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2, p. 445.
[1278] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 136.
[1279] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 56.
[1280] See vol. ii., p. 97 ff.