now used their utmost eiforts to secure, if not unity, yet at least peace and liarmony between tlie two cluirches. In tlie early part of 1G31, after Gustavus Ailoljdius, the champion of evangelical liberty, had al- ready come to Germany, the landgrave William of Hesse and the elector Christian William of Brandenburg joined the elector George of Saxony at Leipsic, and they resolved to oppose, by main force if necessary, the car- rying out of the Edict of Restitution. The landgrave AVilliam had brought with him the professor of theology Crocius and the court preacher Theophilus Neuberger ; the elector Christian William was accompanied by the court preacher John Bergius. The theologians of Hesse and Brandenburg invited those of Leipsic to a confer- ence in order to attempt a reconciliation between the evangelical churches, or, at least, to promote a better understanding between them. It was intended that this conference should be of a private character, yet with the hope that the other parts of Germany would follow the example. The Reformed party demanded only that the court preacher Matthias Hoe, of Hohenegg, should iu the discussions abstain from the vehemence which distinguished his writings, and the theologians of Leip- sic failed not to grant this request, with the assurance that Hoe was very gentle in convcrsatiuite. The elector George having sanctioned the plan of a private confer- ence, the meetings commenced, March 3, at the resi- dence of the upper court preacher, and under his presi- dency. They were held daily, and continued until IMarch 23. On motion of the Reformed party the Con- fession of Augsburg was taken as a basis, they announ- cing their willingness to sign it, such as it then was in the Saxon form (published by order of the elector George, in 1G28). They also thought that the princes of their different provinces were ready to do the same, without, however, undertaking to vouch for it. They stated furthermore that they would neither reject the altered edition of the Colloquy of ^^'orms (in 1540) nor that of Regensburg (in 1541) ; they referred to the position taken at the convention of Naumburger in 1561, and by the Saxons in the preface to the Book of Concord. The Confession of Augsburg being thus adopted as a whole, every article was taken up separately and exammed. They thus found that both parties fully coincided in the articles v-vii and xii-xxviii, while their differences on tlie articles i and ii were comparatively unimportant. ■\Vitli regard to the iiid article, they all agreed as to the interpretation of the words, but the Saxon theologians maintained that not only the divine, but also the human nature of Christ possessed omniscience, omnipotence, etc., by virtue of the union of the two natures in his personality, and that all the ji;lory which Christ re- ceived was only received by his human nature. The Reformed theologians, on the contrary, denied that Christ, as man, was omnipresent, or that in him the human nature had become omniscient and omnipotent. They agreed also in the ivth article, and tlie Reformed theologians affirmed that they did not believe Christ had come to save all men. Tliey also agreed in the ixth article, to which they made some addition on the necessity of baptism, and on infant baptism. The xth article, concerning the Eucharist, came up on jMarch 7. Here they could not agree, tlie Reformed theologians denying the physical participation in the body and blood of Christ, and asserting a sjiiritual participation through faith ; of unworthy communicants, they assert- ed that these partook only of simple bread and wine. The Reformed theologians, however, maintained that if it; Avas impossible to agree on tins point, it was at least possible for the two parties to bear charitably with each other, and to unite in opposing Romanism. The Sax- ons, wlio did not wish to bind themselves by any prom- ises in a private conference, said that t,his proposition would have to be further considtired in the fear of the Lord. After all the remaining articles had been agreed to, they came to the question of election, although this doctrine is not expressly presented in the Confession of
Augsburg. Both Lutherans and Reformed agreed in the doctrine that only a part of mankind will be saved, the lieformed theologians basing election on the abso- lute will of God, and reprobation on the unbelief of man. The Lutherans, on the other hand, considered election as the result of God's prescience of the faith of the elect. The fact that the theologians of the contend- ing churches had been brought to meet together peace- ably, and to explain to each other their respective doc- trines, was not without a great influence for good, al- though the greater hopes for the future to which it gave rise were not destined to be fulfilled. As the colloquy was a private conference, it was thought best nt)t to give its proceedings an undue publicity, and only four copies of its protocols were published, and delivered one to each of the electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, fine to the landgrave of Hesse, and one to the theological faculty of Leipsic. A full account, however, was subse- quently published in England, France, Switzerland, Hol- land, and Sweden, The suspicions of both parties made any decided advance impossible, and resulted finally in greater estrangement of both, and in renewed attacks by the able Lutheran polemic Hoe (q. v.), of which a new and le;igthy controversy was the result. See C. W. Hering, Gesch. d. Kirchlichen Unionsversuche, etc. (Lpz. 1836), i, 327 sq. ; Alex. Schweizer, B. jirotesfan- tischen Centraldogmen, part ii, p. 525; Kurtzer Discurs von d. z. Leipzic 1631 mense Blartio angestellten Relig- ionsvergleychung, etc. (Berlin, 1635) ; Niemeyer, Cullec- tio confessiomim in ecclesiis reformaiis jmhlicaiurum (Lpz. 1840), p. 653 sq.; Mosheim, Eccles. Hist, book iv, cent, xvii, sect, ii, pt. ii, ch, i, § 4 ; Herzog, Real-Ency- klojmdie, viii, 286.