TO THE READER, HEALTH.

FORASMUCH as, among the deliberate judgments of our most eminent Divines, the present Document (though altogether without my privacy) has found its way before the public; it will be but right, that the Reader should understand the occasion of this so humble a piece of composition.

John Dury, a man who seems to have been born for the benefit of mankind, and connected with me by bonds of friendship, and kind offices, both of old and of more recent date, had made me acquainted with the whole of his design (a difficult one indeed, but truly devout and useful) for composing the differences of Protestants; and though not unaware beforehand of the extent of his labours, had shewn me, at full length, both by word of mouth and in writing, the success by which either of his expeditions had been attended. Among other things, (and which was, in fact, the chief part of his business,) he had put into my hands a copy of the Leipsic Conference, which had been lately held between the chief Divines of either party.

The case (as the Reader may wish to know) was this: an opportunity having been afforded by a public assembly of the principal Protestants, a meeting was convened (not without the blessing of God) at Leipsic, in the year of our redemption 1631, between Matthias Hoe, Polycarp Leiserus, and Henry Hofner, on the one side; and John Bergius, John Crocius, and Theophilus Newberger, on the other side; men deservedly celebrated among their own countrymen, and most of them well known by their writings to the Christian world. And there, not without the consent and approbation of their most Illustrious Princes, they had held a familiar, friendly, and truly brotherly conference on the subject of religion: in the course of which they ran, with wonderful frankness, harmony, and diligence, through every article, by turn, of the Confession of Augsburg. And having honestly balanced (as was right) the sentiments of either party, to the exclusion of all prejudice and predilection, they found at length, that they all agreed unanimously in one and the same common truth, through all the heads, but three, of that Confession: and that even on those three, they did not differ so entirely, but what there seemed to be room still left for mutual arrangement.

LECTORI, SALUTEM.

QUANDOQUIDEM (me prorsus inscio) evolârit in vulgus, inter gravissimas summorum Theologorum sententias, Schedula hæc; æquum fuerit, ut intelligat Lector tantillæ hujusce scriptiunculæ rationem.

Communicârat mecum D. Johannes Duræus, vir publico bono natus, neque nuperis modò amicitiæ nexibus, piisque officiis, mihi conjunctus, totum incœpti sui (ardui quidem illius, sed perquam sancti utilisque) de componendâ Evangelicorum lite consilium; felicemque itineris sui jam tum utriusque successum mihi, tanti laboris priùs conscio, et ore et calamo haud parcè exposuerat. Inter alia, (quod caput erat negotii,) dederat mihi in manus Colloquii illius Lipsiaci exemplar, quod inter primarios utriusque partis Theologos pridem habitum fuerat.

Scilicet (ne nesciat Lector) convenerant Lipsiæ, (non sine numine,) anno salutis 1631, arreptâ ex communi principum Evangelicorum consessu occasione, ex unâ parte, D. Matthias Hoeus, D. Polycarpus Leiserus, D. Henricus Hofnerus; ex alterâ verò, D. Johannes Bergius, D. Johannes Crocius, D. Theophilus Neubergerus; viri apud suos meritò percelebres, sed et scriptis plærique orbi Christiano notissimi. Et non sine Illustrissimorum Principum consensu et auspiciis, colloquium instituerant inibi de re religionis, familiare, ingenuum, verèque fraternum: in quo, miro sanè candore concordique studio percurrerunt sigillatim Augustanæ Confessionis articulos universos. Libratisque æquâ (ut oportuit) trutinâ utriusque partis sententiis, procul omni præjudicio ac affectu, tandem compertum est, omnes in unâ eâdemque communi veritate per omnia ejusdem Confessionis capita, tribus tantùm exceptis, unanimes conspirâsse: sed neque in tribus illis ita penitus dissensisse, ut nullus adhuc concordiæ locus superesse videretur.

TO THE READER, HEALTH.

FORASMUCH as, among the deliberate judgments of our most eminent Divines, the present Document (though altogether without my privacy) has found its way before the public; it will be but right, that the Reader should understand the occasion of this so humble a piece of composition.

John Dury, a man who seems to have been born for the benefit of mankind, and connected with me by bonds of friendship, and kind offices, both of old and of more recent date, had made me acquainted with the whole of his design (a difficult one indeed, but truly devout and useful) for composing the differences of Protestants; and though not unaware beforehand of the extent of his labours, had shewn me, at full length, both by word of mouth and in writing, the success by which either of his expeditions had been attended. Among other things, (and which was, in fact, the chief part of his business,) he had put into my hands a copy of the Leipsic Conference, which had been lately held between the chief Divines of either party.

The case (as the Reader may wish to know) was this: an opportunity having been afforded by a public assembly of the principal Protestants, a meeting was convened (not without the blessing of God) at Leipsic, in the year of our redemption 1631, between Matthias Hoe, Polycarp Leiserus, and Henry Hofner, on the one side; and John Bergius, John Crocius, and Theophilus Newberger, on the other side; men deservedly celebrated among their own countrymen, and most of them well known by their writings to the Christian world. And there, not without the consent and approbation of their most Illustrious Princes, they had held a familiar, friendly, and truly brotherly conference on the subject of religion: in the course of which they ran, with wonderful frankness, harmony, and diligence, through every article, by turn, of the Confession of Augsburg. And having honestly balanced (as was right) the sentiments of either party, to the exclusion of all prejudice and predilection, they found at length, that they all agreed unanimously in one and the same common truth, through all the heads, but three, of that Confession: and that even on those three, they did not differ so entirely, but what there seemed to be room still left for mutual arrangement.

Mirum mihi, fateor, neque non faustissimi ominis videbatur, horum aliquos, quos ferventioris ingenii Theologos scripta paulò acriora prodiderant, ita se modò ad publicæ pacis studium mitissime composuisse. Perlecto demum hôc Colloquio, (cujus exemplar apud me studiosè adservo,) rogavit me satis importunè Duræus meus, ut, quid de tribus hisce residuis controversiæ apicibus sentirem, breviter (neque enim ullus erat tunc moræ locus) exponere non gravarer. Non potui non satisfacere amicissimi hominis voto. Arripui calamum, et, horulæ unius spatio, (neque plus temporis supererat,) tantillum hoc exaravi; chartulamque jam illico discessuro in manus tradidi. Hinc fit, quòd, cùm alii amplissimi gravissimique Theologi, quibus fortè parum suppetebat Colloquii illius apographum, de pacis ineundæ studio ac consilio generatim ac fusiùs disseruerint, ipse ad unicum hunc trium controversorum Articulorum scopum animum ita paucis intenderim: prelum certè nihilo magis quàm carcerem meditatus. Vale.

SENTENTIA

ADMODUM REVERENDI D. JOSEPHI HALLI,

EPISCOPI EXONIENSIS.

De Colloquio Lipsiaco, sic mihi sentire liceat :

ILLA Religionis capita, in quibus utriusque partis Theologi plenè consentiunt, abundè sufficiunt, cùm ad salutem hominis Christiani, tum ad perfectam et solidam pacem in Ecclesiis Dei stabiliendam. Quæ restant, nollem equidem inter amaideútovs Apostoli nτnoeis annumerentur; 2 Tim. ii. 23; certè ejusmodi sunt, ut ad Scholas Theologicas fortè non immeritò relegari possint, subtiliùs discutienda: pacem verò, vel pectoris Christiani, vel sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ, violare minimè debeant. Quid nos Christianam charitatem profitemur, si levem hanc in Scho

To me, I confess, it was a matter of wonder, but at the same time a manifest token for good, that some of these Divines, the sharpness of whose writings had betrayed the warmth of their dispositions, should thus have sat themselves down, with the greatest meekness, for the promotion of public peace. No sooner had I read the account of this Conference, (of which I carefully preserve a copy in my possession,) than my friend Dury importunately besought me just to take the trouble to explain in few words (for there was then no time for delay) what I thought concerning these three points that still remained of the controversy. I could not refuse to satisfy the wish of one I so much loved. I snatched up the pen, and, in the space of one short hour, (for this was all the time we had,) I drew the sketch now before you, and, at the very moment of his departure, put the paper into his hands. And this is the reason, why, while other most learned and dignified Divines, who never saw perhaps a copy of that Conference, have discoursed generally, and more at length, of the desire and design for establishing peace, I have confined my remarks, and those so brief, to this one subject of the three controverted Articles: no more expecting, in truth, to go to press, than to go to prison. Farewell.

THE OPINION

OF THE VERY REV. JOSEPH HALL, D. D.

BISHOP OF EXETER.

Concerning the Leipsic Conference, I would beg to think thus :THOSE heads of religion on which the Divines of either party fully agree, are abundantly sufficient, both for the salvation of a Christian man, and for the establishment of complete and permanent peace in the Churches of God. Those which remain, I should be loath to see ranked among the unlearned questions of the Apostle; 2 Tim. ii. 23; certainly they are of that description, that they may not improperly be referred for nicer discussion to the Schools of Theology: but they are such as should by no means be permitted to disturb the tranquillity either of the bosom of a Christian, or of the holy Church of God. Why do we make profession of Christian charity, if we continue pertinaciously to refuse allowing mutual indulgence