[1830] Ib., p. 894.
[1831] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 224; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143.
[1832] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 223. Cp. on Zwingli, vol. iii., p. 379 ff., and below, p. 465, n. 1.
[1833] Of the doctrine of Impanation, Loofs (“Leitfaden,” p. 905) says, that the famous formulary on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ: sub pane, in pane, cum pane, cannot be traced to Luther, but was only gathered after his day from the Larger and Smaller Catechism (Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 223, 315; Erl. ed., 21, p. 143, 19).
[1834] “Dogmengesch.,” 34, p. 894.
[1835] Ib., p. 875. Loofs speaks (p. 920) of the “christological enormities inseparable from Luther’s doctrine of the sacrament.”
[1836] Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 811.
[1837] Cp. Luther’s letter to Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 26, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 295, where he expresses himself opposed to such private communions, though tolerating them for the time being. Communion in the church three or four times a year would suffice in order to be able to die “fortified by the Word.” In a time of public sickness, such as the plague, the communion of the sick would become an insupportable burden, and further the Church must not be enslaved (“facere servilem”) to the sacraments, particularly in the case of those who had previously despised them.
[1838] In the work “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts” (1523) Luther says that “each one should be left free to adore or not, and that those who do not adore the sacrament are not to be termed heretics, for it is not commanded, Christ not being there in His glory as He is in heaven.” Those do best who forget “their duty towards the sacrament” and therefore do not adore, because there is “danger” in adoration. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 448 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 410 f.—Still, in 1544, writing to the Princes Johann, George and Joachim of Anhalt, he says: “Cum Christus vere adest in pane, cur non ibi summa reverentia tractaretur et adoraretur etiam?” Prince Joachim declared that he “had seen Luther kneel down and reverently adore the sacrament at the elevation.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 341 (Notes by Besold, 1544).
[1839] He told the three princes just referred to not to abolish the elevation. “Nam alia res circumferri, alia elevari.” The dignity of the sacrament might suffer were it carried about. He was even thinking of reviving the elevation (see vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4, and above, p. 146) which had been abolished by Bugenhagen.