8 109. LAST ATTACK ON THE SACRAMENTARIANS. 655
view, because he had abolished the elevation and adoration of the host.! Moreover he learned that Dévay, his former student, and inmate of his house, smuggled the sacramentarian doctrine under Luther’s name into Hungary.? He was also displeased with the reformation program of Bucer and Melanchthon for the diocese of Cologne (15438), because it stated the doctrine of the eucharist without the specific Lutheran features, so that he feared it would give aid and comfort to the Sacramentarians.2 These provocations and vexations, in connection with sickness and old age, combined to increase his irritability, and to sour his temper. They must be taken into account for an understanding of his last document on the eucharist. It is the severest of all, and forms a parallel to his last work against the papacy, of the same year, which surpasses in violence all he ever wrote against the Romish Antichrist.‘
The “Short Confession” contains no argument, but the strongest possible re-affirmation of his faith in the real presence, and a declaration of his total and final separation from the Sacramentarians and their doctrine, with some concluding remarks on the elevation of the sacrament. Standing on the brink of the grave, and in view of the judgment-seat, he solemnly condemns all enemies of the sacraments wherever
1 See above, p. 606, note.
2 Dévay is the founder of the Reformed (Calvinistic) church in Hungary. See Revecz in Herzog?, III. 572 sqq.
8. “ Suma,” he wrote to Chancellor Briick, who sent him the program, and Amsdorf’s censure, ‘‘das Buch ist den Schwarmern nicht allein leidlich, gondern auch tréstlich, vielnehr fiir ihre Lehre als fiir unsere; ... und ist alles zu lang und gross Gewdsche, dass ich das Klappermaul, den Butzer, hier wohl sptre.’””’ De Wette, V. 709; ‘‘Corp. Reform.’’ V. 118, 461.
4 Comp. above, p. 251. Melanchthon called the ‘Short Confession” “the most atrocious book of Luther” (atrocissimwn Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum περὶ δειπνου κυριακοῦ instaurat). Letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in “‘ Corp. Ref.”’ v. 475. He agreed with the judgment of Calvin, who wrote to him, June 28, 1545: “1 confess that we all owe the greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheerfully concede to him the highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good God! what jubilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set to posterity! ”’
656 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 15380.
they are.! ‘“*Much rather,” he says, “ would I be torn to pieces, and burnt a hundred times, than be of one mind and will with Stenkefeld [Schwenkfeld], Zwingel, Carlstadt, (Ecolampad, and all the rest of the Schwdrmer, or tolerate their doctrine.” He overwhelms them with terms of opprobrium, and coins new ones which cannot be translated into decent English. He calls them heretics, hypocrites, liars, blasphemers, soul-murderers, sinners unto death, bedeviled all over.2- He ceased to pray for them, and left them to their fate. At one time he had expressed some regard for GEcolampadius,’ and even for Zwingli, and sincere grief at his tragic death. But in this last book he repeatedly refers to his death as a terrible judgment of God, and doubts whether he was saved.® He was horrified at Zwingli’s belief in the salvation of the pious heathen, which he learned from his last
1 ἐς Denn ich,” he says after a few contemptuous words about Schwenkfeld, ‘‘als der ich nu auf der Gruben gehe, will diess Zeugniss und diesen Ruhm mit mir fiir meins lieben Herrn und Heilands Jesu Christi Richtstuhl bringen, dass ich die Schwadrmer und Sacramentsfeinde, Carlstadt, Zwingel, (£colampad, Stenkefeld und ihre Jiinger zu Ztireh [Ziirich], und wo sie sind, mit ganzem Ernst verdampt und gemieden habe, nach seinem Befehl Tit. 3: 10, Einen Ketzer sollt du meiden.”’
2 He ascribes to them indiscriminately “ein eingeteufelt, durchteufelt, tberteufelt, lésterlich Herz und Liigenmaul”’ (1. ¢€., p. 404).
3 He wrote in 1527: ‘* Dem Gicolampad hat Gott viel Gaben geschenkt fiir [vor] vielen andern, und mir ja herzlich fiir den Mann leid ist.’’ Erl. ed. XXX. 34,
4 In an answer to Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor, dated May 14, 1538 (De Wette, V. 112): ‘‘ Libere enim dicam: Zwinglium, postguam Marpurgi mihi visus et auditus est, virum optimum esse judicavi, sicut el Gicolampadium, ita ut eorum casus me pene exanimaverit... non quod invideam honorit Zwinglii, de cuius morte tantum dolorem concepi,”’ ete.
5. He had expressed the same doubt twelve years before, but in a milder tone, in a letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532 (De Wette, IV. 352 sq.): ** Sind sie’? [Zwingli and his followers who fell on the battle-field at Cappel] “ selig worden, wie dasselb Gott nicht unméglich ist, einen Menschen in seinem letzten Ende, in einem Augenblick, zu bekehren, das gonnen und wiinschen wir ihnen von Grund unsers Herzens: aber Martyrer zu machen, da gehort mehr zu, denn schlecht selig werden.’’ In the Short Confession {p. 411) he seems to count Zwingli and Gicolampadius among “ the Devil’s martyrs.”’
τ νὰν ee πέξυ