MAULBRONN
904
MAULMONT
Vannius, abbot of Maulbronn, Johannes Brenz, provost of Stuttgard, Jacob Aiubreii, provost and chancellor of the University of Tubingen, Dietrich Schnejjf, professor at Tubingen, and the court preacher Balthasar Bidem- bacli ; also as notary, Lucas Osiandcr, then preacher at Stuttg;ird, and as civil counsellors chancellor John Fess- ler and vice-chanccUor Jerome Gerhard. The colloquy lasted from April 10th to April 1 5th. Chancellor Eheim, in his opening speech, invited the theologians, since the object of the conference was to heal their dissensions, to avoid all merely human views and arguments, and to confine themselves to the positive testimony of Scrip- ture on the points of controversy. Yet, instead of treat- ing of the doctrine of the Eucharist, which was their chief point of difference, the theologians at once launch- ed into arguments concerning the ubiquity, or, as An- dreii termed it, the majesfas nuUo loco circumscripta, of the body of Christ. Thus all possibility of harmony was at once destroyed. During eight sessions this same question was discussed without either party coming any nearer to the views of the other. The theologians of the Palatinate, and in particular Boquin, Olevian, and Ursin, partly denied the importance of the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ, and partly refuted their opponents by the Scriptures, the articles of faith, and by an expose of tlie errors into which these princi- ples must lead. Those of Wiirtemberg tried especially to defend the idea of the ubiquity of Christ's body from misapprehension and misrepresentation, and treated it as a necessary consequence of unio personalis and the cominunicatio idiomaium ; they rejected the accusation of mixing up the two natures, and accused their oppo- nents of making a mere man of Christ. As the others asked whether, in this view, the body of Christ was considered as omnipresent even iii the womb, Andrea, who was spokesman of the Wiirtemberg party, drew a distinction between the possession and the use of the attribute, and asserted that Christ could not have been omnipresent in the womb, but only became so actually after his ascension — a view which the Heidelberg the- ologians rejected as contrary to reason and unsupported by Scripture.
At the last two sittings, finally, the question of the Eucharist was discussed, as the princes wished that the two parties should seek to arrive at some understanding concerning this important point, leaving aside all Chrls- tological questions. Yet, after a verj' few speeches, the question of ubiquity was again started, this time by the Keformed theologians, and the discussion receded to its original ground. The coUoquy now came to a close. The protocols were compared and signed, and the two parties separated, each holding as firmly to its own views as previous to the meeting, and considering itself as having obtained the advantage. In spite of the promise of secrecj^ the Heidelberg theologians boasted of having silenced their opponents, claiming even that duke Christopher himself was now more inclined to their doctrines. The Wiirtemberg party would not brook tliis, and Brenz wrote an account of the colloquy, denying the statements of the Heidelbergians, wliich was at first circulated privately, and was finally print- ed in the same j'ear luidcr the title Epiiome colloquii ^[aidhruuneiisis inter theologos Jhiddberrjenses et Wur- temheryenses de Ccena Domini et Majestafe Christi, and also a Wahrhaftifjer u. grilndlicher Bericht v. d. Ge- sprdch, etc., (jestellt durch d. Wiirltemher()ischen Theolo- (jen (Frankfort, 156-1, 4to) ; in these works he accused his adversaries of having had recoiu"se to soi)histry, and, when tliey fuund it impossible longer to defend their views, to have caused tlie collocjuy to be brought to a close. Heidelberg answered by the Epitome colloq. Maidbr. cum 7'esponsione Palatinorum ad epit: Wiir- temb. (Heidelberg, 1565, 4to), and published a^t the same time the protocol of the conference, which was followed up by the opposite party with a new edition of the pro- tocols, ''without changes or additions" (Tubing. 1565, 4to). Both parties now accused each other of interpo-
lating the protocols. The theologians of Wittenberg were also drawn into the quarrel, as duke Christopher submitted to tliem the protocols of IMaulbronn and the De Majestate Christi of Andreii and Brenz, both of which they severely condemned. The dispute lasted for sev- eral years. It was finally set at rest by the wise and Christian efforts of elector Frederick at the Diet of Augs- burg in 1566. See Osiander, Jlistor. eccl. cent, xvi, c. 59, p. 791; Struve, P/dlz. K. Hist, p. 149 sq.; Hos- pinian, Hist. sacr. t. ii. ; Arnold, Unpart. K. Hist. cent, xvi, § 17, p. 14; Sattler, Gesch. d. Herzogth. Wib-tem- berg, iv, 207 sq. ; Planck, Geschichte d. Prot. Lehrbegr, vol. V, pt. ii, p. 487 sq.; Heppe, Gesch. des deutsch. Pro- test, ii, 71 sq.; Klmizinger, I). Peligio7isgesprach zu M. {Zeitschr. f. histor. Theolog. 1849, i, 166 sq.) ; Leben u. ausqeicdhlte Schrift. d. Voter, etc., d. rejo'rm. Kirche (El'berfeld, 1857, p. 260).
(2.) Another conference, held tw^lvi. years later at Maulbronn, between theologians from Tt'iirtemberg, Ba- den, and Henneberg, secured a better vesult. The theo- logians were L. Osiander, Balthasar, Bidembach, pro- vost of Stuttgard, Abel Scherdinger, court preacher of Henneberg, Peter Strecker, pastor at Suhl, and some others. The object of the conference was to discuss a formula of union drawn up by Osiander and Bidembach. Tlie meeting took place Jan. 19, 1576, and the formula itself, which may be considered as a forerunner of the Eor inula Concordiee, received the name of Forriula Maulbrunnensis. In the early part of Februaiy it was sent, together with an address by count George Ernest of Henneberg, to the elector August of Saxony, who re- ceived also about the same time the so-called Suabian and Saxon formula of duke Julius of Brunswick. The elector submitted them both to Andrea, who declared that, in his opinion, the formula of Maidbronn was the most serviceable for the purpose of uniting the different parties. Yet in the conference held at Torgau, May 28, Andrea consented to use nominal!}' the other formula as a basis, but took good care to include all the principal points of the Maulbronn formula into the so-called Book of Torgau. See Hutter, Concoixl. cone. p. 305 sq. ; Osi- ander, Hist. Eccl. cent, xvi, lib. iv, pt. iii, p. 866 ; Planck, Gesch. d. protest. Lehrbegr. vi, 428;. Heppe, Gesch. d. luth. Concordienformel, 1858, p. 73 sq.