Answer to De Meauxs Book, Account

Answer to De Meauxs Book · Account

p. 1AN ANSWER TO M. de MEAƲX's BOOK. ENTITULED, A Conference with Mr. CLAUDE.

A Relation of what paſt in the Conference held by the Biſhop of Condom, Preceptor to the Dauphin; and Monſieur Claude, the firſt of March, 1678. At the Counteſs of Roye's Houſe, the Counteſſes of Lorge, and Roye, Mademoiſelle de Duras, the Marqueſs of Miremont, Mademoiſelle de Roucy, and Mr. Cotton, being there preſent.

SOME Days before this Conference, Mademoiſelle de Duras going to viſit Mr. Claude, let him know▪ that ſhe was under ſome ſcruples upon the account of her Religion, and took out of her pocket a Paper lately put into her hands, in which were contained ſome Paſſages out of St. Auguſtine concerning the Euchariſt: To which Mr. Claude replyed, and then by other Paſſages of the ſame Father, demonſtrated to her, that his opinion as to this particular, was directly the ſame that is taught at Charenton: And thereupon ſhe ſeemed to be well ſatisfied.

The next Day after Mr. Claude ſeeing her at the Counteſs of Roye's, ſhe after a long Diſcourſe told him, that ſhe was mighty deſirous he would admit of a Conference with ſome Doctor of the Romiſh Perſwaſion p. 2at a time when ſhe might be by. Mr. Claude returned, that this was not uſual; that ſuch Conferences might be of very ill conſequence, and that ſhe could not but be ſenſible that the preſent Circumſtances of the Reformed in France, and eſpecially at Paris, required they ſhould behave themſelves with much prudence and caution. But (ſays ſhe) how would you behave your ſelf if you ſhould light upon one of theſe Gentlemen accidentally, and be put upon matters of Religion? You would not deſert your Cauſe? I would in ſuch a caſe, ſays Mr. Claude, decline entering into Diſputes as much as I could; but if I were conſtrained to it, I would give an account of my Faith; and upon ſuch ſudden occaſions we are not uſed to run away. But Madam (proceeded he) what reaſon is there for asking me this? We are not going about any ſuch thing.

Two Days after the Counteſs of Roye told Mr. Claude, ſhe underſtood there were ſome pains taken to procure a meeting that ſhould ſeem accidental between him and M. de Condom, and ſhe thought it convenient to give him this notice. Were I deſirous to meet any man (ſaid he) I had rather it ſhould be M. de Condom than another, becauſe he is a Perſon of Wiſdom, Honour, and Judgment, and one for whom I have a particular Reſpect and Eſteem; but in regard of the Publick Capacity I am in, methinks this buſineſs deſerves ſome Conſideration. A little while after he imparted it to two of his Friends, and all three together paying a Viſit to a Perſon of Quality of extraordinary Merit and great Prudence, it was generally agreed, that Mr. Claude's beſt way was to decline this meeting with M. de Condom. The Reaſons alledged were theſe, That it was already known Mademoiſelle de Duras was perfectly diſpoſed to alter her Religion; that in all probability ſhe deſired a Conference only for the greater Pomp and formality of the thing, and to make uſe of this as a pretence; that let the iſſue be what it would, ſhe would moſt certainly go over, and pretend it had not given her ſatisfaction, and that this would certainly be a piece of the next publick News.

The Perſon of Quality whoſe advice was asked, undertook to Viſit the Counteſs of Roye, and make her ſenſible of theſe Reaſons. She indeed ſhewed her ſelf apprehenſive of them, and eaſily ſaw their ſtrength and drift. But all that could be done was too weak to bring Mademoiſelle de Duras off from her firſt Deſign. The Lady complained extremely of her being deſerted, and that this was the very thing ſhe had often been upbraided with, that the Reformed Miniſters durſt not ſhew their heads before the Catholick Doctors. By this, and the addition of Tears too, ſhe endeavoured all manner of ways to move p. 3her Siſter, ſolemnly proteſting, that, did but People know what a world of good this would do her, they could not certainly deny her ſo great an act of Charity.

This engaged the Counteſs of Roye to concern her ſelf for the bringing about a meeting between Monſieur de Condom and Mr. Claude, and ſhe did it ſo very well, that Mr. Claude found himſelf under a neceſſity of conſenting to it, that ſo he might not expoſe himſelf to the inſolence of thoſe of a different perſwaſion. She aſſured him M. de Condom deſired this meeting ſhould ſeem merely by chance, that the World ſhould not be acquainted with it, and that they ſhould not make it their buſineſs to talk of it on one ſide nor other.

On Tueſday the firſt day of March, about two in the Afternoon, Mr. Claude went all alone to the Counteſs of Roye's, and a little after came in the Mareſchall de Lorge, Mademoiſelle de Duras, the Marqueſs of Miremont, and Mr. Cotton. About a quarter of an hour after, came in M. de Condom by himſelf.

When the firſt Complements were paid, and the Company had taken their Seats, M. de Condom directed himſelf to Mr. Claude, and told him, That he had for ſome time longed to ſee him to offer ſome things which were practiſed by men of his Religion, but ſuch as he apprehended to be directly contrary to their Principles. That theſe conſiſted, firſt in an Article of their Diſcipline, which injoyns, that in caſe any difference ariſe in points of Doctrine, the Queſtion ſhall be decided in the Conſiſtory, and by the Word of God: If they do not aquieſce in the Judgment of this Court, it ſhall be referred to a Provincial Synod, and from thence to a National Synod, where a full and final reſolution of the caſe ſhall be given by the Word of God; and ſuch as refuſe to ſubmit to this, ſhall be excommunicated. Secondly, he produced a formulary of a Letter Miſſive to the National Synods, framed in the Synod of Vitre, and which was to be a pattern for all the Provinces to follow for the future, by which they promiſe ſubmiſſion to all the reſolutions of that holy Aſſembly, to obey and execute every particular of them, as being perſwaded (ſays the Formulary) that God will preſide there, and lead you into all truth and equity by his Holy Spirit, and by the Rule of his Word, Beſides that, he produced an Act of the National Synod held at Charenton in the Year 1644. where the Independents opinion is condemned, who will not allow that particular Congregations ſhould depend upon the Authority of Colloquies and Synods, but that every one ſhould be governed by Laws within it ſelf. Now this Act expreſly declares, that that Sect opens a door to all manner of irregularities and extravagances, that it deprives men of all means of remedying diſorders, p. 4and would, if admitted, make as many ſeveral Religions, as Pariſhes. Laſtly, he produced an Act of the National Synod at Sainte-foy, by which, upon occaſion of ſome overtures for a re-union with thoſe of the Ausburg Confeſſion, the Synod aſſigns Deputies to go and confer with them; to whom full power is granted, to agree upon, and determine whatever points ſhould be debated, whether in matters of Doctrine, or any other thing that might concern the Good and Peace of all the Churches, even ſo far as to conſent, that their Deciſions ſhould be inſerted in their Confeſſions of Faith. From all which he inferred, That even thoſe of Mr. Claude's Religion, did acknowledg a neceſſity, that in order to the preſervation of Unity in the Church, men ſhould ſubmit their Judgments, and pay an entire and abſolute obedience to Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, without leaving themſelves at liberty to examine their determinations, or judg whether they were agreeable to the Word of God or no; and that upon refuſal of this Obedience, it was juſt to proceed to Excommunication. That this was exactly what the Church of Rome would have, and that ſhe deſired no more; But that we nevertheleſs in our diſputes with her, advance a quite contrary Principle. He therefore entreated from Mr. Claude a diſtinct anſwer to this Point, and would quietly hear what he could ſay to it. Adding moreover, that Mr. Claude ought to be the more ready to reply upon this ſubject, becauſe no new thing was propoſed to him, the ſame Acts, and the ſame conſequences that he now deduced from them, being to be found in his Expoſition of the Catholick Doctrine.

Mr. Claude firſt of all replied, That although his coming thither was not with intentions to hold a Conference ſtrictly, and by rule, yet he was extreamly glad that he had now an opportunity given him, of teſtifying to M. de Condom how much he eſteemed his perſon; and that having no particular worth of his own, he thought it a great honour, that a Prelate of M. de Condom's Character ſhould ſingle him out, to engage in Controverſy with him. That he would endeavour to give him ſatisfaction in each of the points now propounded to him; and that, if in the following part of the Diſcourſe any expreſſion ſhould eſcape from him which might be offenſive to M. de Condom, he proteſted before-hand, that it ſhould be much againſt his will and deſign.

To this M. de Condom replied in very civil and obliging terms; and Mr. Claude then reſuming the diſcourſe, told him; That in general, whatever he had alledged juſt before, did by no means infer ſuch a blind and entire ſubmiſſion to the determinations of Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, as the Church of Rome pretends to impoſe; That we muſt diſtinguiſh between two ſorts of Authorities, the one ſupream and unlimited; p. 5the other limited and depending; to the former we owe a full and perfect obedience; to the other a conditional one only. The former M. de Condom was ſenſible, is by the Proteſtants attributed to God alone, ſpeaking to us in the Holy Scriptures; and that the ſecond was it they allowed the Paſtors of the Church, conſidered either ſingle and by themſelves, or met together in a Synod or Council. That their Authority, being only Miniſterial, is reſtrained two ways; one is, That they muſt frame their deciſions, not of their own heads, nor after their own fancies, but according to the Word of God; the other, That they muſt always allow the perſons under their Juriſdiction the priviledg of examining thoſe deciſions, that ſo they may know, whether they be really agreeable to God's Word: Whence it follows, that the obedience due to them ever goes upon this condition, that they have not ſwerved from the Word of God; That the Authority of Paſtors, and Aſſemblies compoſed of ſuch, cannot extend further, than that of our Parliaments in the State of France, who are not empowered to alter old Laws, and enact new ones; and whom we are priviledged, nay, obliged to diſobey, ſo oft as their Injunctions are prejudicial to the King's Service, and the Allegiance we owe him: That the Authority of Church-Aſſembles can at moſt be, but as that of Fathers over Children, becauſe both God and Nature have inveſted Fathers with it; The Fathers have a right to Act in their Childrens names, becauſe they have a right of Educating and Commanding them; and the Scripture frequently enjoyns to Children, a readineſs to learn, and obedience to their Fathers; yet does it not follow from hence, that Children are not priviledged and obliged to examine their Fathers Inſtructions and Commands, whether they be true or falſe, juſt or unjuſt, and what ſhall appear to be falſe and unjuſt, that to reject. That nevertheleſs the Authority of Paſtors and their Aſſemblies, is really very great, as is likewiſe that of Parliaments and Fathers, notwithſtanding their Authorities are under ſome limitations. That the Paſtors are as publick Truſtees for the keeping God's Word, appointed to ſtudy, and meditate upon it continually, thence to deduce neceſſary truths for the peoples improvement, and to ſave private men a labour, which they cannot always attend to, becauſe diverted and perplexed by the buſineſs of the World. That ſo long as the Paſtors diſcharged this Duty well, the people were obliged to obey and ſubmit to their words; but when they deviated from it, they were to be looked upon as falſe and treacherous perſons.

Afterwards he came particularly to thoſe Acts M. de Condom had urged, and told him; That the Clauſe of Submiſſion contain'd in the p. 6Letters Miſſive to National Synods, muſt be underſtood according to this Principle, and under theſe Limitations, becauſe grounded upon this Suppoſal, That all things would be managed there according to God's Word. For thoſe expreſſions, Being perſwaded, that God will preſide among you, and lead you into all Truth by his Holy Spirit, and by the rule of his Word, do imply a perſwaſion of Charity and Equity; for we ought always to preſume the beſt of ſuch Aſſemblies, and hope that God will preſide over them, and that they will acquit themſelves of their duty, till experience ſhews the contrary: But all this does not imply ſo entire a ſubmiſſion, as for a Man to deprive himſelf of all right to examine their Reſolutions. As to that Act which condemns the Independents, it is (ſaid he) extreamly Juſt. For tho Aſſemblies do not arrive at an Infallibility, yet are not they preſently to be utterly aboliſhed. 'Tis a human Order indeed, but yet ſuch an Order as God himſelf hath ſettled for the preſervation of his Church, and to deſert it therefore is criminal. And yet we do not think it follows from hence, that the determinations of the Aſſemblies exact a blind and implicit Obedience; nor that the Synod of Charenton intended any ſuch thing. And then for the Synod at Saintefoy's deputing four perſons to confer with thoſe of the Ausburg Confeſſion, and the full power given them, you can make no advantage of it. For thoſe Deputies were in the nature of Ambaſſadors, who are ſent by the King with full Commiſſion to offer Propoſals, hold Treaties, and agree upon Concluſions; or as Plenipotentiaries ſent to negotiate a Peace. Let their power be never ſo full, or call them Plenipotentiaries as long as you pleaſe, ſtill this condition is conſtantly and naturally underſtood, that they do nothing againſt the intereſt of the perſons that commiſſioned them, and to theſe their Acts muſt of neceſſity return, for the obtaining their approbation and ratification, without which their Treatings would ſignify nothing at all. And this was the meaning of that full power conferr'd by the Synod upon their Deputies, to hear thoſe of the Confeſſion of Ausburg, to hearken to their Propoſals, their Complaints, their Offers, and in return to make others to them; to receive from them Explications of difficulties in Controverſy, and to give them back theirs; nay, to come to an agreement with them if they could, yet not ſo, as either to become abſolute Maſters of their Faith, or blindly receive whatever they ſhould agree upon. For in all affairs of this kind, there is naturally implied, a Clauſe of recurring to the Judgment of the perſons Commiſſioning, and a neceſſity of their ratifying them. Mr. Claude added beſides, this Conſideration. Suppoſe the true ſenſe of an Act of the Church of Rome were called in Queſtion, (a Canon of the Council p. 7of Trent for inſtance) M. de Condom would think it more reaſonable, that the ſence ſhould be taken from him than Mr. Claude, becauſe the Queſtion is put concerning the ſenſe of a Church that M. de Condom is a Member of, and therefore in all probability he muſt underſtand it better than one of another Church. Therefore, Sir, ſaid he, I expect the ſame Juſtice from you, in taking the ſenſe of theſe Acts now in Diſpute from me, provided the ſenſe I put upon them do not diſagree with the Doctors of my Communion, or be not manifeſtly falſe, and contradictory to the reſt of our Principles. Now if the ſenſe I put upon theſe Acts be not any of theſe, you have not, in my opinion, any right to refuſe it, or to frame to your ſelf any other different from it.

M. de Condom replied, ſaying, that he would begin where Mr. Claude left off, becauſe that what he had urged juſt before, carried ſome appearance of Truth, and made a quick impreſſion upon the mind, but had not really any thing of ſolid Argument in it. That, were the matter in hand any Explication of their particular Rites and Ceremonies, in Preaching the Word, and Adminiſtring the Sacraments, what Mr. Claude ſaid might be allowed for Truth, and in that point he would believe him, as a perſon better acquainted with the matter; Nay, that he did not go about to debar him the liberty of explaining the ſenſe of thoſe that compiled the Diſcipline and the forementioned Acts after his own way; That he was ſenſible they denied an entire ſubmiſſion to the Church, and ſuch as precludes all Examination; But this he would ſay, that the very men who denied this abſolute ſubmiſſion in Speculation, were forced to own and eſtabliſh it in their practice. That ſo they contradicted themſelves, and that this was the thing he pretended to prove, and in which he was by no means bound to believe Mr. Claude. For if the matter in hand now, were to demonſtrate any Contradictions in the opinions of the Catholick Church, he would not deſire that His Explications might be thought of Authority ſufficient, nor deny Mr. Claude the freedom of making what inferences he thought fit from the Council's own words.

M. de Condom ſtopping there, Mr. Claude replied, That, ſince it was evident, that the perſons who made thoſe Acts, denied any ſubmiſſion was due to the determinations of Church-Aſſemblies, without any Examination at all, the advantage was thus far at leaſt on his ſide, that M. de Condom himſelf had acknowledged, His Explanation of thoſe Acts was agreeable with the Principles of the Proteſtants which made them, ſo that there was more reaſon for his accepting that ſenſe, than for the framing to himſelf another, and ſuch a one as contradicted theſe Principles; That, ſuppoſing the buſineſs in Controverſy to be an Act of the p. 8Romiſh Church, he ſhould not ſcruple to admit M. de Condom's explanation, provided the words of the Act did not oppoſe it, and in that caſe he might be allowed to infer a Contradiction. That if M. de Condom would proceed thus, as to the Acts before urged, he ſhould be glad to ſee what grounds he had for this pretended Contradiction.

M. de Condom ſaid, this would eaſily be made appear. That he would ſhow this Contradiction with relation to their Diſcipline, which on one ſide ordains, That differences in Doctrine ſhould be decided in the Conſiſtory by the Word of God; that it was alſo her meaning, that this deciſion was made by the Word of God in the Provincial Synod, as well as the National; and yet on the other ſide, if men do not acquieſce in the determination of a Conſiſtory, or a Provincial Synod, it orders, things ſhould continue as they were till a National one be convened; in which it ſays, a full and final reſolution ſhall be given by the Word of God, and if they ſubmit not to this, they ſhall be cut off from the Church. Whence it is evident, that the ſubmiſſion required to a National Synod, was not founded on the Word of God, conſidered abſtractedly as ſuch, becauſe both Conſiſtory and Provincial Synod were ſuppoſed to determine by the Word of God, and yet an Appeal from them was allow'd; But that it was founded on the Word of God, ſo far forth, as That was explained and interpreted by the laſt judgment of the Church; that is, becauſe this is the laſt and final reſolution; and conſequently upon the Authority of the Aſſembly, conſidered by it ſelf. Now this, ſaid he, evidently contradicts that Principle, which denies there is an abſolute ſubmiſſion due to the ſentence of the Church. Of this the Diſcipline it ſelf was a confirmation, in that it appointed no Excommunication for ſuch as ſtood out againſt the determinations of a Conſiſtory and Provincial Synod, and yet did, for ſuch as refuſed to ſubmit to the decrees of a National one.

The ſame (proceeded he) is plain from that Letter Miſſive to the National Synod. For how can men promiſe and ſwear ſubmiſſion to whatever ſhould be agreed upon, and yet not ſuppoſe a full and perfect Submiſſion owing to the Church? To urge, this Submiſſion proceeds from a perſwaſion, that God will preſide in it by his Spirit, and his Word; and to ſwear upon this account, is to urge, that this perſwaſion is grounded upon God's expreſs Promiſe, to direct his Church in her laſt determination, by his Holy Spirit, and after an Infallible manner. This very thing, ſaid he, is plain from the National Synod of Charenton's Act againſt the Independents. The Reaſon they make uſe of, that ſuffering their Principle to take place, might produce as many ſeveral Religions as Pariſhes, concludes for an abſolute Obedience p. 9to the deciſions of Synods; ſince allowing private perſons to examine the laſt determinations, there might ſpring not only as many ſeveral Religions as Pariſhes, but as many as there are perſons, and conſequently no means would be left for preſerving the unity either of the Faith, or of the Church.

For what relates to the Deputies nominated by the Synod of Saintefoy, to go and confer with thoſe of the Ausburg Confeſſion; he ſaid, he did ſincerely acknowledg, that the Synod, tho it gave them never ſo large a commiſſion, did not however intend it ſhould ever be in their power to ſubvert all, and if I may ſo ſay, to turn things topſy turvy; That he believed the Synods meaning was really, that whatever was done by the Deputies ſhould be referred to them, and that there is a neceſſity all things of this nature ſhould be ratified. But ſtill it was very amazing, and a thing which Mr. Claude had not anſwered to, that they ſhould proffer to inſert their Deputies concluſions with the Lutherans, in their publick Confeſſions of Faith. For this argued them doubting as to their Confeſſion of Faith, which yet, they tell us, contains nothing but the pure Word of God, and in that there can be nothing that requires a change, &c. Do you think Sir ſaid he, that the Articles of your Confeſſion of Faith may be changed?

When M. de Condom had left off ſpeaking, Mr. Claude ſaid, he would anſwer to each particular of his diſcourſe, and intreated he would pleaſe to hear him quietly. And firſt of all he ſaid, That M. de Condom put a wrong conſtruction upon that Article of the Diſcipline, which declares, that if men do not acquieſce in the deciſions of a Conſiſtory, nor thoſe of a Provincial Synod, Things ſhall continue in the ſame poſture, till a National one be convened, in which a full and final reſolution ſhall be given by the Word of God; and they who refuſe to acquieſce in This, ſhall be cut off from the Church. For the reaſon of This, ſaid he, is not, either that there ought not to be the ſame care taken, that the Conſiſtories, or Provincial Synods determinations ſhould be made by the word of God, as well as thoſe of the National; nor that this Word hath not as much Authority at one time as another, whether declared in a conſiſtory, or Provincial Synod, or a National one; nor that a full and perfect obedience is not due to this only, preciſely conſidered as ſuch: But this method of proceeding (added he) was conſtituted for two reaſons, very different from what you pretend. Firſt, becauſe it is highly probable, that the ſearch made into Gods Word concerning the matter in controverſy, may be leſs exact and ſagacious in a Conſiſtory, than it would in a Synod compoſed of all the Miniſters in a whole Province; and ſo again by the ſame reaſon, leſs exact and ſagacious in a p. 10Provincial Synod, than in a National, which is uſually made up of all the moſt ingenious and learned men in the Kingdom. The other Reaſon is, That men may poſſibly be prepoſſeſt againſt a Conſiſtory, ſo as not to hearken to it ſo readily and impartially as they ſhould; which is not ſo likely in reſpect of a Provincial Synod, which will be thought leſs apt to be ſway'd by intereſt, paſſions or perſonal prejudices, and conſequently they will be more quietly heard; Laſtly, theſe kind of paſſions and private Intereſts being ſtill leſs likely to happen in a National Synod, conſiſting of perſons living remote from one another, and coming from all quarters of the Kingdom, 'tis very probable men will not be prepoſſeſt againſt them, and conſequently, that they will receive the Word of God at their mouths, that they will be more ready to learn, and better diſpoſed to obey them. He ſaid therefore, that this method was taken for the avoiding as much as was poſſible two inconveniences; one was to prevent the laſt determinations being given lightly, inconſiderately, or with any mixture of humane paſſion and Intereſt▪ The other, that the parties concerned might not be hindred by any perſonal prejudices, from hearing and receiving the Word of God, with that obedience and faithful ſubmiſſion which is owing to it. But it could by no means be infer'd from hence, that, according to the meaning and intention of the Diſcipline, it was not always God's Word, as ſuch, but the Authority of the Aſſembly, to which that Obedience muſt be paid. And moreover, that the deciſion of a National Synod, was for this reaſon called, the laſt and final deciſion, becauſe according to humane methods, and the preſent courſe of things, there is nothing beyond it, to which we can have recourſe.

As for the Letter of Miſſion to the National Synods, he replied, that did not infer an abſolute ſubmiſſion, any more than the Act of their Diſcipline did, becauſe there was in it the expreſs condition of Judging according to the Word of God, in theſe words, Being perſwaded, as we are, that God will pr…ſide over you, by his Holy Spirit, and his Word.

As to the Reaſon which the Synod of Charenton urged againſt the Independents, this, he ſaid, did not at all imply a blind and implicit obedience. That the dependence which particular Churches have upon Colloquies and Synods was an external Order, which, tho it had not any ſure and infallible means of preſerving the Church in the unity of the Faith, was however of mighty convenience and uſe towards the doing it: And we ought always to take it for granted, that God's Bleſſing will go along with it, as being an order conſtituted by himſelf. That the Independents by throwing off this Order, do deprive themſelves of theſe means, and wilfully expoſe themſelves to the great inconvenience p. 11of having as many ſeveral Religions as Pariſhes; ſo that the Synod had good grounds for upbraiding them with it, as they did. That the Proteſtants principles were not liable to the ſame objection, who though they diſown a blind obedience, and entire ſubmiſſion, do yet retain ſuch external means as are moſt proper and expedient, for preſerving the unity of the Faith. And whereas M. de Condom pretended, that without entire obedience, it was poſſible, that as many ſeveral Religions might ſtart up as there are Pariſhes; 'tis confeſt, this may come to paſs, if we ſpeak with reſpect to men only, notwithſtanding the Order and Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies be kept up, becauſe the mind of man is of its ſelf ſubject to infinite Errors. But in reſpect of God, this cannot fall out ſo, for he, by his bleſſing on this external Order, and the Communication of one and the ſame ſpirit to his true Believers and Elect, does by this ſure and infallible means preſerve them in the unity of the ſame Faith, and conſequently of the ſame Church. That Faith being not an humane, but a Divine thing, none but God alone can either produce, or preſerve it in mens hearts. And this he infallibly does in the hearts of his Elect, by his Spirit, and ſuch external means of the Miniſtry, as himſelf hath appointed;1 Cor. 36. For Paul planteth, and Apollo watereth, but God giveth the increaſe.

Next he came to ſpeak of the Deputies nominated by the Synod of Sainte-foy, to confer with the Lutherans; and ſaid, That he was extreamly pleaſed, with what M. de Condom had confeſt even now, That they never intended to give them a power of turning all things topſy turvey, as he had ingeniouſly expreſt it; but that recourſe muſt be had to the perſons commiſſioning, and their ratification obtained. That he very humbly thankt him for this ſincere acknowledgment, which, as to this particular, reſolved the whole Queſtion, ſo that this Act could not now be alledged any more, for the blind obedience pretended to be infer'd from it. That beſides this, his accuſation againſt the Synod, for conſenting to change their Confeſſion of Faith, if taken in M. de Condom's ſenſe, vaniſhed into nothing: For there ought a diſtinction to be made, between what is eſſential in it, and what is not. The eſſential part of the Confeſſion conſiſts in the things themſelves▪ called Articles, or points of Faith; and that which is not eſſential conſiſts in the terms and modes of expreſſion. That the Synod had Authority to conſent, that the expreſſions in the Confeſſion ſhould be altered, that other things might be inſerted which might illuſtrate and explain it, if this appeared to be uſeful, for the reducing men that had deviated from it: But the Synod never took upon them to alter any eſſential part of the Confeſſion, for it continues in this reſpect unalterable, ſo far forth as it is agreable to the Word of God.

p. 12Mr. Claude concluding his diſcourſe, M. de Condom replied in the firſt place, that, notwithſtanding what Mr. Claude ſaid a little before, concerning the Order obſerved by the Diſcipline, it did however enjoyn, that ſuch as refuſed to acquieſce in the deciſions of a National Synod, ſhould be cut off from the Church; and that the Synod of Dort had actually cut off the Arminians; he deſired therefore to know of Mr Claude whether they were juſtly and lawfully cut off. Mr. Claude anſwered, that in his opinion the Synod of Dorts proceedings were very juſt. M. de Condom told him. This was all the Church of Rome deſired; that ſhe alſo acknowledged her ſelf under an Obligation to judg according to the word of God, but this was not the matter in diſpute. The main buſineſs was about the Senſe and Explanation of that word, and that it was the Churches Province to give this Explanation, and private men's to reſt ſatified with it; and if they did not, the Church dealt juſtly in excommunicating them. That it was thus the Proteſtants had been excommunicated in the Council of Trent.

As concerning the Letter of Miſſion to the National Synods, is it not (ſaid he) a plain trick to ſwear Submiſſion to them upon ſuppoſal or condition, that their Determinations ſhall be agreeable to Gods word? This is all mere trifling. What ſay you to it, Sir? Mr. Claude ſaid, there was no trick at all, and he could diſcover nothing that was irregular in it. If I have a right notion of your Doctrine, replied M. de Condom, you hold, that a private Perſons may doubt of the Judgment of the Church, even when given in its laſt and higheſt Court of Juriſdiction. We do hold, ſaid Mr. Claude, that no man can have an abſolute certainty of Faith, that an Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly ſhall give right Determinations, and upon this account that men may be allow'd to doubt. But withal, that men ſhould notwithſtanding, preſume in favour of ſuch an Aſſembly, and in this reſpect we cannot properly call it doubting, as hoping, and believing that it will judg a right. For Jeſus Chriſt hath promiſed, all that ſeek ſhall find,Mat. 7.Matt 7 and we ought to take it for granted, that they will diſcharge their duty in ſeeking aright, till Experience ſhews the contrary. There is therefore, an aſſurance of Charity and Equity, that in ſome Senſe excludes doubt. But when we ſee Aſſemblies governed by Factions, Cabals, and temporal Intereſts, then ſure we have a great deal of reaſon to doubt; as ſeeing men that have forſaken their Duty, and conſequently are ſuch, as cannot hope for any advantage from the bleſſing of God upon them. Let me beg of you Sir, ſaid M. de Condom then, That we may let alone what is good for nothing, but to caſt duſt in our Eyes. What you ſaid juſt now of Cabals and Factions, and private Intereſts, is of no uſe in the World, and only p. 13ſerves to perplex the matter. I would know of you, put the caſe there appeared nothing at all of Factions, Cabals, nor Intereſt in an Aſſembly; but that all their proceedings were orderly, and regular; whether its Deciſions ought to be received without examining them? No Sir, ſaid Mr. Claude. Why then Sir, ſaid he, I was in the right, to tell you that all your talk of Factions and Cabals ſignifies nothing. That does not follow neither (repli'd Mr. Claude) for notwithſtanding there appear not any thing to weaken a mans Preſumptions, that the Aſſembly will diſcharge their duty faithfully; and that for ought we can diſcover to the contrary, all things are carried regularly; yet, ſtill this is no more than a humane Preſumption, not able to give any certainty of belief, and conſequently not precluding our Examination. But when we ſee Diſorder and Corruption manifeſtly prevail in an Aſſembly, we can no longer preſume in favour of ſuch a one, and inſtead of hoping the beſt, we muſt fear the worſt that can come from it. So that it is not without ground, that I ſpoke of Cabals and Factions. Here M. de Condom reſuming the former method of his Diſcourſe, ſaid, It was falſe that the Independents did abſolutely throw off all Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies; for they themſelves held one, he ſaid, at London in the year 1653. ſo that the Synod of Charenton could not condemn them upon that account; but merely for refuſing to acknowledg that an entire Dependence and Submiſſion was owing to Synods.

As for the Synod of Sainte-foy, proceeded he, if all the buſineſs had been no more than illuſtrating and explaining their Articles, as Mr. Claude would have it, what need theſe have been inſerted in the Confeſſion of Faith? Could not this be done by an Act of a Synod without altering the Confeſſion? It is ſure their deſign was to expreſs that Article concerning the Lord's Supper in ſuch ambiguous terms as both ſides had agreed upon, and each might interpret to his own advantage, which hath been an expedient often attempted, but to no purpoſe. Now this is in reality, not barely to explain and illuſtrate the Confeſſion of Faith, and by that means ſettle a mutual Toleration, but down right to alter it. And now (added he) all that men have to do is but to conſider with themſelves what opinion they ought to entertain of a Confeſſion of Faith, which a whole National Synod conſented to alter. That the matter between Mr. Claude and him, was at laſt come to ſuch a paſs, that the truth muſt preſently appear on one ſide or other. That the Principle aſſerted by Mr. Claude was a Principle of Pride and intolerable Preſumption. For is not this the very extremity of Pride, that mere ſingle private Perſons ſhould fancy p. 14themſelves wiſer and better able to underſtand the Scripture than a whole Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly, a whole Council put together? And yet this was the unavoidable conſequence of his opinion, which allowed private Perſons a Priviledge and Freedom to examine the deciſions of Councils. That an entire ſubmiſſion to the Church's judgment, and a full and implicite Obedience to that, was much more reaſonable, and argued more of Chriſtian Humility, than mens taking upon them to amend its Deciſions.

It being now Mr. Claude's turn to ſpeak, he told them, That their Diſcipline did indeed order ſuch as refuſed ſubmiſſion, to be Excommunicated, after the laſt and final reſolution had been given according to the Word of God in a National Synod Aſſembled: But it was no part of the Diſcipline's meaning that this ſubmiſſion was due to the Authority of that Aſſembly abſtractedly and as ſuch; but, as he had before obſerved, to the Authority of Gods Word, according to which the Aſſemblies deciſion was to be formed, and this ever implies an Examination. The Excommunication therefore was juſt only upon ſuppoſal, that the Word of God had been followed, and never elſe. That the Excommunications pronounced by Councils had not really any thing of Juſtice or Efficacy, except when their determinations were founded on God's Word; and when they were not ſo, their ſentences of Excommunication were unjuſt, and returned directly upon the head of thoſe that thundered them out, according to St. Paul's Maxime, If we, Gal. 1. 2.Gal 1:2or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Goſpel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accurſed. That, if the Church of Rome pretended to no more than this, our diſpute with her would be at an end; becauſe then every man would ſtill be priviledged, nay, obliged to examine whether the Deciſions be agreeable to God's Word or no; and conſequently whether the Excommunications upon them be juſt or unjuſt. That it was with this temper of mind that the Synod of Dort had condemned, not the men whoſe Perſons they never anathematiz'd at all, but their Errors, by demonſtrating they were contrary to expreſs Texts of Scripture. That for his own part, he lookt upon that as a very juſt Excommunication, but the reaſon why he did ſo, was, that he ſaw it was founded upon Scripture, and not upon the Authority of the Aſſembly themſelves.

That it was true the Independents had once an extraordinary Aſſembly in the Year 1653. for the adjuſting their Confeſſion of Faith; but however they did commonly diſavow the uſe of Colloquies and Synods; and for this very reaſon the Synod of Charenton condemned them, and not for refuſing a blind and abſolute Obedience to what p. 15the Aſſemblies ſhould decree in matters of Faith, as by the Act it ſelf is abundantly evident.

For the Synod of Sainte-Foy, I cannot imagine (ſaid he) why you will needs have it to intend an alteration in the Confeſſion of Faith, I mean as to any eſſential part of it; for National Synods are not at all impowered to do this, and if that at Sainte-Foy had ever attempted it, all the Proteſtants in the Kingdom would have diſclaimed the thing. I own they had power to put illuſtrations and explanations into an Act, and you muſt own too, that they had the ſame power to put them into the Confeſſion; and when the ſame thing is capable of being done different ways, men are free to make choice of that which they eſteem the moſt fitting and convenient. Here M. de Condom interrupting Mr. Claude, told him, it was certain that Synod had thoughts of couching the Article of the Lord's Supper in ambiguous expreſſions, and this was the deſign of the Mediators. That there was mentioned a power to decide all points of Doctrine, which had a manifeſt relation to the Real Preſence, as held by the Lutherans. Mr. Claude replyed, that to tax the Synod with a deſign of agreeing upon ambiguous expreſſions, was a mere conjecture of M. de Condom, for which he offered not the leaſt proof; and that he for his part gueſſed the quite contrary; that he did not at all queſtion but the Synod intended to do all that could be done for reducing the Lutherans to a full knowledge of the truth; and this was the meaning of that power given them to decide all Doctrinal Points with them, that is, to do it by the Word of God.

Then reſuming the method of his Diſcourſe, he made anſwer to what M. de Condom alledged, that it was intolerable Pride for mere ſingle private Perſons to fancy themſelves wiſer and better able to underſtand Scripture than a whole Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly together. He told him then, that ſingle and private Perſons ought by no means to think ſo highly of themſelves, as to fancy they were wiſer and better able to underſtand Scripture than a whole Aſſembly together. That on the contrary, they ſhould preſume favourably of an Aſſembly, and retain a diſpoſition to be taught by it. But ſtill this was no Argument, that they ſhould not continually have their Eyes open to diſcern whether an Aſſembly had really diſcharged their duty: imitating herein thoſe …eraeans, of whom it is ſaid, that they compared what St.Acts 17. 11.Acts 17:11 Paul Preached with the Scriptures, ſearching whether thoſe things were ſo. That we muſt diſtinguiſh between a Judgment of humility and charity, which concludes … probably, and a perſwaſion of Infallibility, which concludes neceſſarily and certainly. Th… according to the Judgment of Charity and Humility, we muſt think p. 16the beſt of an Aſſembly, nay even of a private Doctor; but in as much as both Aſſemblies, and private perſons, are liable to miſtakes, a man muſt not carry on this Judgment of Charity and Humility ſo far as that he ſhould ſuffer himſelf to be blinded by it; and when an Aſſembly or Doctor have really erred, not to ſee it; for this would be to ſtretch things beyond their due bounds. For inſtance, ſaid he, in the capacity I am in over my Flock, it is mens duty to preſume favourably of me, that I underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than plain private Perſons; but for all that, they are by no means bound to think me infallible, nor fancy it impoſſible I ſhould ever be miſtaken in a point of Doctrine; and in ſuch a caſe a plain private Perſon is priviledged to think he could underſtand the Scripture better than I. Private Doctors, ſays Al de Condom, are not at all concerned in our Diſpute, all the World knows private Doctors may err, and conſequently they can have no title to an abſolute obedience. The Controverſie is concerning the whole Body of an Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly, and I expect from you a clear diſtinct anſwer to this particular; whether you believe ſingle private men can underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole Body of the Church convened in a Council.

Mr. Claude replied, That he only mentioned private Doctors as an Argument that Chriſtian Humility ſhould not be abuſed, nor made a pretence for men to deny themſelves the benefit of their own Eyes, that ſo they might avoid Pride and Preſumption. For, if by M. de Condom's own Confeſſion, private Doctors have no right to an abſolute Obedience, it is neither a proud, nor preſumptuous Imagination, that it may poſſibly happen, we ſhould underſtand Scripture ſometimes better than they; tho for the main we are bound to preſume in favour of them, and that in probability it will be otherwiſe. The caſe is the ſame with Aſſemblies; for even theſe, being not Infallible, ought not to challenge an abſolute Submiſſion, and ſuch as God alone hath a juſt right to. That no leſs a Perſon than St.Paul hath declared,2 Cor. 1. 24.2 Cor 1:24 That he had no Dominion over the Corinthians Faith.

M. de Condom ſaid, that quotation was impertinent, and deſired to know of Mr Claude, whether he was not of opinion, that an abſolute obedience was due to St. Paul. The abſolute obedience (replied Mr. Claude) which was due to St. Paul, was ſo to his Divine Doctrines, and not his perſon. No more, ſaid M de Condom, do we pretend, that men ought to pay this obedience to the perſons of men whereof the Councils conſiſt, but to the Holy Ghoſt, by which they are guided, according to that profeſſion of the Council at Jeruſalem, It ſeemed good unto the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 15.Acts 15and to us. When the Holy Ghoſt appears in the determinations p. 17of Councils, as he did in St. Paul's Doctrine, and that of the Jeruſalem Council, then ſaid Mr. Claude, this Obedience muſt be paid, never elſe. And this appearance of the Holy Ghoſt conſiſteth in the Councils deciſions, being framed according to the Word of God. Still M. de Condom urged. that the diſpute was not concerning the Word of God, but the true meaning of that Word. That diſtinction, ſays Mr. Claude, ſignifies nothing at all, becauſe the true meaning of the Word of God, and the Word it ſelf, are but one and the ſame thing.

Then M. de Condom returned to the buſineſs of the Independents, and urged, that according to Mr. Claude's principle, there was no remedy for the avoiding Independency, nor any prevention, that there ſhould not be as many different Religions as Pariſhes, nay, as many as there be ſingle perſons. That the Independents did not caſt off Aſſemblies, ſo far as concerned inſtruction, only they did not allow them in any Authoritative deciſions, and that in this the Pretended Reformed agreed with them. He beat upon this over and over again for a long time together, to all which Mr. Claude return'd the ſame anſwer he had done before, viz. That there was not indeed any humane means of Certainty and Infallibility, which could prevent the exorbitant errors of mens minds; but there was a certain and infallible Divine one, even the Holy Spirit of God, imparted to his True Believers; That Synods and other Aſſemblies, were means of mighty uſe, and very proper for this purpoſe, and the Independents condemnation was for rejecting theſe laſt, and not for refuſing to Aſſemblies a full and Abſoute Power of determining matters in Controverſy. That although the Proteſtants did not allow ſuch Aſſemblies a ſupreme and unbounded Authority, yet they did allow them as much, as the Miniſters and Diſpenſers of God's Word are capable of.

At this rate, ſaid M. de Condom then, we ſhall never have done diſputing. I ask you therefore once more, Sir, whether you believe that ſingle and private perſons can underſtand the meaning of God's Word, better than the whole Church convened in Council? Mr Claude told him, he had anſwered that Queſtion already, to wit, that it does not uſually fall out ſo; and that further, 'tis our duty to hope the beſt of an Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly; but ſtill it might come to paſs, that through the prevalency of mens paſſions, and worldly Intereſts, the deciſions of ſuch Aſſemblies might be contrary to Truth. You muſt not run back thus to Intereſts and Paſſions, ſaid M. de Condom, but anſwer my queſtion in one word, by ſaying either Yes, or No. Mens Paſſions, and worldly Intereſts, ſaid Mr. Claude, are premiſed here with a great p. 18deal of Reaſon, becauſe theſe are the main things that occaſion erroneous determinations; but ſince you are not willing to hear of them, my anſwer muſt be with this diſtinction, That God does not ſuffer it commonly ſo to be, but abſolutely ſpeaking, it is poſſible it ſhould be ſo, M. de Condom ſaid, that was as much as he deſired, and that it was the moſt abſurd thing in the World, to believe it ſo much as poſſible, for a ſingle Man, and a private perſon, to underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole Church met together in Council.

Mr. Claude replied, that he was amazed to hear M. de Condom cry out upon That as ſuch a mighty abſurdity, which reſulted merely from the freedom uſed by God in diſpenſing his Grace. That ſuppoſing the Controverſy to concern ſuch means of knowledg as are purely humane. it would indeed be abſurd to ſay, that a ſingle and private perſon ſhould be wiſer than a whole Aſſembly, and that this would be then a principle of pride and preſumption. But the matter now treated of is,Joh. 3. 8.John 3:8 the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which bloweth where it liſteth, and God can give it to a private ſingle perſon, and yet not give it to a whole Aſſembly. That of this there was an eminent inſtance in our Saviours time,Matt. 11. 215.Matt 11 as he himſelf ſaid, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, for that thou haſt bid theſe things from the wiſe and prudent, and haſt revealed them unto babes. That the whole Jewiſh Church had in their Aſſemblies declared Jeſus Chriſt a Deceiver. That nevertheleſs this was not only a Church, but the one ſole Church in the World at that time, inveſted with the Authority of God, who had founded, nouriſht, and brought it up till that time. That God had taught it by his Prophets, and depeſited his Holy Oracles there. That this Church laid a juſt claim to a ſucceſſion of Two thouſand years continuance, and valued her ſelf upon it. That ſhe held formal ſolemn Aſſemblies, and ſuch as Jeſus Chriſt himſelf acknowledged. They ſit, Matt. 23. 2, 3.Matt 23:2Matt 23:3ſays he, in Meſes ſeat, All therefore whatſoever they bid you obſerve, that obſerve and do. And yet this very Church determin'd the greateſt and moſt heinous Error that ever could be in the World, even that Jeſus Chriſt was to be rejected as a wicked man and a Deceiver. That we cannot avoid affirming that at that time ſi…gle and private perſons might underſtand the Scripture better than the whole Body of the Church met together; and that in allowing M. de Condom's Principle to be true, viz. That men ought to yield an abſolute obedience to the deciſions of Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, without taking upon them a right to examine what is ſo decided; we do condemn Jeſus Chriſt, and as many as then believed in him. For according to this principle, Jeſus p. 19Chriſt ought not any more to have taught the people publickly, after the Church had paſt ſuch deciſions againſt him, nor ought the people to have given him their attention any more, becauſe they were not ſuffered to examine thoſe deciſions. And yet, proceeded he, Jeſus Chriſt did not forbear Preaching to the people, and converting many of them; nor did they withdraw their attention, not withſtanding all the deciſions given againſt him. This principle then of a blind and implicit obedience, is conſequently falſe, and contrary to the conduct of Jeſus Chriſt and his Diſciples.

To preclude this Argument, by urging that Jeſus Chriſt wrought ſuch miracles as did evidence his Authority to be Divine, is here of no ſignificancy at all.2 Theſſ. 22 Thess 2 For there are two ſorts of Miracles, the one true, the other falſe; the one, that men may believe a lye, the other to convince them of the truth. This diſtinction was made by God himſelf in the 13th Chapter of Deuteronomy, where he tells the Iſraelites, That if a Prophet give them a ſign or a wonder, and would perſwade them to go after other Gods. They muſt not hearken unto him, for the Lord their God proveth them. Jeſus Chriſt alſo hath himſelf owned the truth of this diſtinction. Now, ſaid he, if M. de Condom's principle had taken place, the people had nothing to do to make this diſtinction, after once the Church had determined that Jeſus Chriſt wrought his Miracles by the help of Beelzebub, and not by the Power of God. They muſt not any more, according to M. de Condom, ſo much as open their eyes to ſee theſe Miracles, or ſuffer the leaſt impreſſion to be made upon themſelves by them. And by conſequence this principle is falſe, and deſtructive of the Chriſtian Religion.

Hereupon M. de Condom interrupted Mr. Claude, telling him, that this Inſtance of the Jewiſh Church ought not to have been produced in the preſent caſe. For, ſaid he, the Synagogue was to fall, thus the Prophets had foretold, and therefore the people ought not then to pay ſuch an obedience to their Guides, as is now owing to the Church of Chriſt, which muſt never fail: To which Mr. Claude return'd, That ſeeing the Synagogue was to fall, it might conſequently ſo fall out, that ſingle and private perſons ſhould underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole body of a Church met together in its ſolemn Aſſemblies, which was the very point in debate; and from hence it follows clearly, that it was neither pride, nor preſumption, for private people, either to believe it poſſible for them at ſome time to underſtand Scripture better than the whole Body of an Aſſembly; nor upon this principle to take their deciſions into examination. And that this was all he deſired.

p. 20Beſides, ſaid he, This Reaſon could have no manner of influence upon the Jews, becauſe the Synagogue were not only not agreed upon it, but quite contrary, aſſerting that it ſhould never fail, they produced in their own behalf ſeveral promiſes, which, at firſt bluſh, ſeemed to have a great deal of ſtrength. 'Tis but loſt labour to urge in defence of this, the Prophets who foretold its fall; for the meaning of thoſe Propheſies was the thing then in queſtion, and the Synagogue having explained theſe in a ſenſe that made for them, according to M. de Condom's principle, it was the people's duty to ſtick cloſe to that explanation, without examining it at all. In a word (ſaid he) this fall of the Synagogue, does not make their Aſſemblies differ at all from thoſe of the Chriſtian Church, with relation to the matter now in diſpute between us. For what Promiſes ſoever the Church of Jeſus Chriſt may have, that ſhe ſhall ſubſiſt for ever, there is not any thing in Scripture gives us aſſurance, that the Aſſemblies of Councils ſhall never fail.

Here M. de Condom took up the Diſcourſe, and ſaid, That Mr. Claude's Argument concerning the time of the Synagogues fall, was the moſt impertinent thing in the World. For at that time it could not be ſaid that there was any viſible Authority upon Earth, to which men were neceſſarily obliged to ſubmit; becauſe Jeſus Chriſt himſelf was there, that is, the very Truth appearing viſibly among men, to whom God had given teſtimony from Heaven, and who wrought Miracles. Do but you, proceeded he, bring again Jeſus Chriſt Teaching, Preaching, doing Miracles among us, and we ſhall have no further occaſion for the Churches Authority. My Argument, ſaid Mr. Claude, was not only the moſt pertinent to our preſent purpoſe, but the cleareſt and moſt concluding Argument in the World; and I hope you your ſelf will grant it to be ſo, after I have entreated you to conſider, that the viſible Authority of the Son of God was the very point in diſpute between the Synagogue and Jeſus Chriſt, and that this very point the Synagogue had determined in the negative; That the main buſineſs was to know, whether Jeſus Chriſt were a Deceiver or not, whether his Miracles proceeded from God or Beelzebub. That Jeſus Chriſt's viſible Authority could not decide that queſtion in the peoples minds; for no Authority can decide a doubt till it be firſt received; and Jeſus Chriſt's Authority was not as yet received, for the main controverſy then depending was, whether it ſhould be received, or rejected: So that there remained only the Authority of the Church, and this had determined againſt him. According then to M. de Condom's Principles, private perſons ought conſequently to have ſtuck to that, p. 21and rejected Jeſus Chriſt. M. de Condom called this Argument of Mr. Claude's a Jewiſh Argument. Mr. Claude returned, that this ought not to be called a Jewiſh Argument, becauſe it concluded in favour of Chriſtianity; but the contrary principle rather deſerved this name, becauſe it favoured the Cauſe and proceedings of the Jews.

Afterwards Mr. Claude ſaid, That if he would have recourſe to Hiſtory, it will be no difficult matter to demonſtrate, that many Councils have fallen into Error, and been miſtaken in their Determinations. Particularly among others, the Council of Arimini, which condemned the Conſubſtantiality of the Son, that is, his Eternal Divinity. M. de Condom cried out, Whether are you carrying us now, Sir? To the Council of Arimini? When ſhall we have done, if all thoſe Hiſtories muſt be diſcuſt? Do not you know that the Council of Arimini was a forced, packt Aſſembly? You urge my very argument for me, ſaid Mr. Claude, which is, that a General Council may be packt. Here is an inſtance of one, conſiſting of four hundred B…ſhops that was ſo. M de Condom anſwered, That thoſe Biſhops were compelled by the Emperors Authority, who had ſent Soldiers among them; but afterwards, when they were every one returned home, they diſclaimed what had been done, and expreſt their remorſe for it. Mr. Claude replied, That many of them, it was true, did acknowledg they had done amiſs; but that very acknowledgment of, and repentance for a Fault, which M. de Condom affirms they ſhewed, is a Confirmation of their committing it; and 'tis of no great moment to know, upon what motives they committed it, ſince it is plain, that it was really committed. And further, every particular man's returning from his Error, is a plain Indication, that each of them thought himſelf under no Obligation of acquieſcing in what had been determined, when they were all met together in Council.

M. de Condom cried out, That there was no neceſſity of medling with all theſe Hiſtorical Points, and that it would divert them too much from the main buſineſs. There is, ſays he, an eaſier way of deciding the matter. The Subject of our Controverſy, is the firſt Principle of Faith in particular Perſons. This in your Opinion is the Holy Scripture; in ours, the Churches Authority. Put the caſe in a young Child, who hath been baptized, but hath not yet read the Scripture; I would know by what Principle this Child believes the Scripture to be Divine; Particularly the Book of Canticles for inſtance, which hath not a word of God in it. Now this Child who is a Chriſtian, who p. 22hath received the Holy Ghoſt, and Faith conveyed into him by Baptiſm, and who is a member of the Church, does either doubt of the Scriptures Divine Authority, or he does not; If he does not doubt, then he believes it Divine upon the Churches Authority, which is the firſt Authority he lives under. If he does doubt, then a man may be a Chriſtian, and yet doubt whether the Scripture be true.

Mr. Claude returned, That he could ſay ſomething to that ſuppoſal of M. de Condom, That every baptized Child receives the Holy Ghoſt; but was unwilling to ſtay upon a thing by the by, or deviate from the main matter in diſpute. He would therefore ſatisfie himſelf, with making a few Reflections upon what M. de Condom urged laſt. The firſt ſaid he, is, That the firſt knowledg of the Catholick Church given by the Holy Spirit to this Child, is in all probability given by his Creed, where he finds I believe the Holy Catholick Church. And yet in the Creed, that Article is placed after ſeveral other Articles of Doctrine. For it begins with God the Father Almighty, goes on with the Son Jeſus Chriſt, and the Holy Ghoſt, and after theſe comes in the Catholick Church. Now this is a manifeſt proof, that the belief of Doctrines is not wholly derived from the Churches Authority, for elſe the Creed ought to be put together after another method, and the firſt thing ſaid, ſhould be, I believe the Catholick Church, and by the Catholick Church, I believe in God the Father, and ſo on.

My ſecond Reflection, ſaid he, is, That you ought not to take it for granted, as you do, that the firſt Authority a Child begins to live under, is that of the Catholick Church. It being manifeſt, That the firſt Authority a Child lives under, is his Father or Mother, or if you pleaſe his Nurſes; and that the Churches cannot take place till afterwards, but does in ſome meaſure depend upon the other. The Conſequence whereof is, That the firſt Authority, which is the Paternal, can as well lead the Child to Scripture, as it can to the Church.

Then, Thirdly, ſaid he, It is the eaſieſt thing in the World to retort your own Argument back upon your ſelf, thus; The baptized Child either doubts of the Churches Authority, or he does not; if he does not, then he believes it upon the Authority of Scripture, for there is no other way for him to believe it with a Divine Faith: And conſequently, it is not the Church that induces men to believe Scripture, but Scripture that induces the belief of the Church, which is p. 23the thing we contend for. If he does doubt, then there is a Chriſtian that hath received the Holy Spirit, and Faith conveyed to him by Baptiſm, and is a Member of the Church, and yet is in a ſtate of doubt which is that firſt Authority whereupon all the reſt of his Faith depends. Now that the Child cannot with a Divine Faith believe the Churches Authority any other way, but by the Authority of Scripture, I prove thus. If it be not by Scripture that he believes the Church and its Authority; then 'tis either by way of immediate Inſpiration, and Enthuſiaſm, or by his Fathers, or Mothers, or Nurſes Authority, or by Argument taken from the very nature of the Church. This could not be by Enthuſiaſm, becauſe the Holy Ghoſt does not proceed in ſuch a method. Nor by his Fathers, or Mothers or Nurſes Authority, for you diſcern the inconveniences of advancing ſuch kinds of Authority for the firſt Principle of Faith. Nor can it be by proper Proofs and Arguments taken from the nature of the Church; becauſe as you in your Argument ſuppoſe the Child not yet to have read the Scripture; ſo do I likewiſe in mine, ſuppoſe him not to have conſidered the nature of the Catholick Church, and to know no more of it, than barely the Name. It remains therefore, that the Child either believes the Catholick Church by the Scripture, which you will not grant; or that he does not believe it at all, but doubts of it; and ſo you …all into the ſame inconvenience as to the Church, which you labour to reduce me to, with relation to Scripture.

It may be ſaid very truly, That upon this Pinch a man might diſcern M. de Condom's Wit was not in the condition it uſed to be, and that his natnral freedom of Argument and Repartee, plainly ſlagg'd. He put himſelf upon maintaining that the firſt Authority the Child lived under, was that of the Church, and not his Fathers or Mothers. Mr. Claude returned, That this was a thing too evident to be denied, that the Fathers and Mothers, and thoſe who take the firſt pains about educating the Child. is the firſt Authority with reſpect to Religion, and that he muſt at firſt of all learn from them, that there is ſuch a thing as a Catholick Church, into which he muſt enter himſelf, or ſuch a thing as the Scripture, which was from God and to which he muſt yield Obedience. That being upon enquiry by what mean the Child can come to believe the Catholick Churches Authority, there is a neceſſity for fixing, either upon Inſpiration, or the Paternal Authority, or the Scriptures, which informed him concerning it. M. de Condom anſwered, That the Childs Faith in the Churches Authority p. 24was a Divine Faith, becauſe it was the Holy Ghoſt that wrought it in him. Mr. Claude replied, That the queſtion was not concerning the efficient Cauſe, which produced this Faith in the Child, but concerning the Motive or Argument, by which it was produced. If M. de Condom's meaning were, that the Holy Ghoſt wrought Faith in this Child, without any Argument or Motive at all, this were a ſort of Enthuſiaſm, and the Holy Ghoſt does not Influence People at that rate. M. de Condom ſaid, there were indeed Motives of Credibility. Mr. Claude returned hereupon, That if he would allow the Child ſo much time, as to examine thoſe Motives of Credibility for the Authority of the Church, and perceive their ſtrength, He himſelf would in like manner allow the ſame Child time to examine the Motives of Credibility for the Authority of Scripture, and perceive the ſtrength of them; but in this caſe he muſt forego his Argument, which proceeds upon a Suppoſition, that the Child never yet read the Scripture.

But, is not this true, ſaid M. de Condom, That in theſe circumſtances the Child either does or does not doubt of the Scriptures being Divine? And is it not as true, ſaid Mr. Claude, That in theſe Circumſtances, the Child either does, or does not doubt of the Churches Authority? For if you take the Child before he have read the Scripture, I will look upon him too, before he knows what Motives of Credebility there are for the Churches Authority. It is your part to anſwer my Argument, and the very ſame anſwer you give, will ſerve me againſt yours. But do you, as you think fit; I however will not ſcruple to give a direct anſwer to your way of reaſoning. The Child then may be lookt upon with Diſtinction, as to three ſeveral times; either, before his Father have ever ſhewed him the Bible, and informed him that this Book came from God, or after his Father have told him thus much, but before he himſelf have read it; or laſtly, after that he hath read the Book himſelf. As to the firſt of theſe times, which is that your Argument looks upon him in, it cannot well be ſaid, that then he either does or does not doubt, for neither the one, nor the other is ſtrictly true, according to your meaning. Not to doubt of any thing, ſignifies to be well aſſured of it. Now, before a man can be ſaid, to doubt, or to be well aſſured that any thing is ſo, or ſo; he muſt firſt have ſome knowledge of the thing it ſelf. I can neither doubt nor be aſſured, that ſuch a Perſon is King of Spain, unleſs I firſt have ſome knowledg of the Perſon. So that your reaſoning is by no p. 25means good, that a Child either does, or does not doubt of the Scripture's being Divine: For there is a medium between theſe two, to wit, ſuch as conſiſts in a ſtate called, An Ignorance of pure negation. He knows not as yet what the Scripture is, nor hath ever heard talk of it. To doubt, or not doubt whether Scripture be Divine, a Man muſt have ſome knowledg, and form ſome Idea of the thing: But the Child can never form any Idea of a Book he never heard once mentioned. At the ſecond point of time, when his Father hath ſhowed him the Bible, and told him, that Book is the Word of God, but the Child hath not yet read it himſelf; he believes it to be the Word of God, but this he does, not by a Divine, but humane Faith, becauſe his Father hath told him ſo: And this is the caſe of a Catechumen. At the third point of time, when he is ſuppoſed to have read the Book himſelf, and felt the virtue and efficacy of it, he believes it to be God's World, but this he does not now by a humane Faith, becauſe his Father told him ſo, but by a Divine Faith, becauſe he hath found the Divinity and Efficacy of it upon himſelf; and this is the condition of a Believer.

M. de Condom laid hold of the word Catechumen, and ſaid, that this was a Chriſtian, one already Baptized, and actually admitted into Covenant with God. Mr. Claude anſwered, that by the word Catechumen he meant nothing elſe but a Child after Baptiſm, at the time of his being inſtructed in the firſt Rudiments of Religion. M. de Condom beat again upon almoſt the ſame things that had been ſaid before, conſtantly affirming it to be the Churches Authority, that the Child received the Scriptures as Divine; and that having received them as ſuch from the Church, he did afterwards receive the meaning and interpretation of them from thence alſo.

Pray, Sir, tell me, ſaid Mr. Claude then, when a Child learns at firſt of all, that there is a Catholick Church, Is it barely a general Idea, which conſiſts in knowing only that there is ſuch a thing as a Catholick Church, without knowing where, or which it is? or does it determine him to that Church whoſe publick Aſſemblies he ſees? For if it be the former of theſe, this, as you would make it, is a mighty wild and inſignificant principle of Faith. I know that there is a Catholick Church to whoſe Authority it is my duty to ſubmit, but I cannot tell where that Church is, nor which is ſhe; this would be but an odd principle of Faith. The Child, ſaid M. de Condom, does certainly determine this Idea to the particular Church, whoſe Aſſemblies he ſees, and in which he himſelf bears a part, and does believe that to be the Catholick Church, and not barely that there is ſuch a Church. Let us imagine then, ſaid Mr. Claude, a Child born within a Church that p. 26is Heretical, or Schiſmatical, the Aethiopian Church ſuppoſe, the firſt principle of Faith in this Child will be from the Aethiopian Church, looking upon that as the Catholick. From this Church then, and from her Authority, according to your Tenet, he will receive the Scripture as Divine; from her likewiſe he will receive the meaning and interpretation of Scripture; and he muſt never afterwards believe himſelf priviledged to examine the determinations of his Aethiopick Church, for fear of falling into the inconvenience and abſurdity of fancying it impoſſible for him, a private ſingle perſon, to underſtand the true meaning of Scripture better than the whole body of the Church. Tell me now, Sir, whether according to this principle, this Child be not obliged always to abide within that Heretical, or Schiſmatical Church? Tell me what means you will contrive for him to get out of it? It is evident then, that your principle would ſerve as well to continue a Jew in his Judaiſm, a Pagan in his Heatheniſm, and a Heretick in his Hereſy, as an Orthodox Chriſtian in the true Church.

To this M. de Condom replied, that in the perſwaſion of that Aethiopian Child, we muſt make a difference between that part which proceeded from the Holy Spirit, and that which is the effect of prejudice and humane prepoſſeſſion. That the Holy Spirit's dictate was in general, that there was a Catholick Church ſomewhere or other; but his ſuppoſal, that the Church in which he was born was that Catholick Church, proceeded from humane prepoſſeſſion. It is true, he did from this Church receive the Scriptures, and belived them to be Divine, for no other reaſon but upon its Authority: But afterwards, as he was reading the Scriptures, the Holy Ghoſt raiſed in him ſome ſcruples about the Church he was born in, and by this means he came off from the Hereſy and Schiſm he found himſelf inſnared in.

Mr. Claude returned, that M. de Condom muſt of neceſſity either retract his principle, or confeſs what he now alledged to be utterly impoſſible. Becauſe this Aethiopian neither can, nor muſt be allowed to underſtand the Scriptures any otherwiſe than in the ſenſe and interpretation of his own Church, by whoſe Authority it is that he believes them to be Divine, and from whoſe hands he receives their meaning; ſo that when he reads Scripture, there can never ſtart up any ſcruples in his mind againſt the truth of his own Church, becauſe he never expounds any Text of Scripture but in agreement with the ſenſe of that Church about it. Now if on the other ſide your meaning be, that this perſon expounds Scripture of his own head, and according to his own judgment, ſo taking it in a ſenſe different from that of the Church, you at the ſame time make him forego the principle that you have all this while been p. 27contending for; and it is not you only that make him forego it, but you do beſides maintain, that the Holy Ghoſt himſelf makes him forego it, and all thoſe mighty inconveniences you exclaimed againſt, vaniſh into nothing. He added moreover, that what M. de Condom ſaid laſt, juſtified the meaſures the Proteſtants had taken in relation to the Church of Rome; for altho that had been believed to be the Catholick Church in the time of our Infancy, tho we had received the Scriptures from her, and believed them to be of Divine Authority; yet muſt we not be blamed for making a difference between that part of this belief which proceeded from the Holy Ghoſt, and that which was the effect of humane Prepoſſeſſion and Prejudice: We cannot be found fault with, for having admitted ſome Scruples againſt the Truth of this Church, as we read the Scriptures, and for having upon this accout withdrawn our ſelves from her Communion.

M. de Condom ſaid, the Caſes did ſtill differ in this circumſtance, That the Ethiopian, when he left his own, would betake himſelf to the Catholick Church, whereas the Pretended Reformed have not put themſelves into any other Communion at all. You courted indeed Jeremy's the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, but he would have nothing to do with you. The ſeparation was not from our ſelves, ſaid Mr. Claude, and that is enough to ſhew that we have not ſeparated from the true Church. If Jeremy the Patriarch of Conſtantinople would have nothing to do with us, as you ſay, that was to his own loſs, and he did not do as he ſhould have done in it.

Upon this the Company roſe, and the Conference which laſted ſome time longer, grew a great deal more confuſed; ſeveral things were then ſpoken of. M. de Condom exaggerated much, and pretended to draw a parallel between the ſeparation of the Proteſtants, and that of the old Hereticks, particularly the Arrians and Macedonians, that ſet up new Churches by themſelves. Mr. Claude compared the Proteſtants behaviour, to that of Chriſt's Apoſtles, when they ſeparated from the Jews; that, as the Apoſtles relied on Scripture againſt the Jews, who relied upon Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies and their Authority, the Proteſtants did the ſame againſt the Church of Rome. He ſaid, the Arrians maintained, that the Conſubſtantiality of the Son of God determined by the Nicene Council, was a Novel Doctrine, and that many other perſons had in truth expreſt themſelves very unadviſedly concerning the Divinity of the Son; among others he inſtanced in Origea, Juſtin Martyr, and the Council of Antioch. As for Origen, M. de Condom ſaid he was a ſuſpected Author, and the Council of Antioch ſaid he, was an Arrian Council; to which Mr. Claude replied, p. 28that he was much miſtaken; for that Council was held before Arrius his time, and yet rejected the Term Conſubſtantial. As to Juſtin Martyr, How, Sir, ſaid he, a Martyr ſpeak amiſs of the Divinity of the Son of God! I will never believe a word on't. You may believe what you think ſit, Sir, ſaid Mr. Claude; but for all that, the thing is even ſo.

Afterwards M. de Condom put himſelf upon the Invocation of Saints, and Prayers for the Dead: For the firſt of theſe, he told them Mr. Daille had allowed it to be Thirteen hundred years old; and Mr. Blondell acknowledged the ſecond to be of great Antiquity. Mr. Claude replied, it was no great wonder, if the Church of Rome, which had collected, and Cononized the Errors and Superſtitions of former Ages, had picked up ſome that were of a good old ſtanding. But he ought to have ſaid withal, that Mr. Daille had made it appear, that for Three hundred years together there was not to be found the leaſt footſteps of Invocation of Saints, and eſpecially, that there was not any manner of ground for it in Scripture. That he acknowledged Prayer for the Dead to be one of the oldeſt ſuperſtitions; but there was a mighty difference between the practice of the Primitive Chriſtians, and the modern devotions of the Romiſh Church. And after all, it was an Error contrary to the principles of Scripture.

M. de Condom betook himſelf again to the Compariſon between the Proteſtants and Hereticks of old; inferring from thence, that they and their Church was new and upſtart. Mr. Claude ſhewed him, that this prejudice was extremely unjuſt, and of very pernicious conſequence. Unjuſt, becauſe on one hand it placed the advantage on the ſtrongeſt ſide, and thoſe that have moſt of their party; whereas the Scripture teaches us quite contrary,Exod. 23.Exod 23 That we muſt not follow a multitude to do evil: For the ſtrongeſt ſide are continually taxing others with making a new Body, and a new Church. Unjuſt, ſecondly, becauſe a falſe Antiquity may be miſtaken for a true, an Antiquity of ſome Ages ſtanding, which is really no better than a Novelty, for an Antiquity of all Ages of the Church; which in the buſineſs of Religion is the higheſt injuſtice imaginable. He added moreover, that this prejudice was of very pernicious conſequence; becauſe at this rate, when once Errors and Superſtitions had by inſenſible degrees crept into Religion, and Cuſtom, or the Schools had given them countenance, there would no poſſible means be left of expoſing or extirpating them: For the maintainers of them will be continually objecting againſt thoſe that endeavour it, that they ſet up a new Church, and a new Religion. Thus it was,Matt. 15.Matt 15 that the Phariſees accuſed Jeſus Chriſt for an Innovator, upon p. 29pretence that his Diſciples kept not the Traditions of the Elders, which were indeed but Innovations themſelves. Thus the Jews taxed St. Paul for a Mover of Sedition among them through the whole world, Acts 21.Acts 21and being a Ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes, which they lookt upon as a new Sect. Thus all the Apoſtles were charged by the Heathens, for being diſturbers of the publick peace, and bringers up of New things, becauſe they endeavoured to root out the old Errors out of mens hearts, and bring them to the worſhip of the one only true God, maker of Heaven and Earth.

M. de Condom replied, That Jeſus Chriſt was new, that the Jews expected the Meſſias; that John Baptiſt, Anna the Propheteſs, Simeon, and the wiſe men had owned him. True, ſaid Mr. Claude, he was not really new, for he is the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever: Heb. 188.But he was new to that whole Nation which expected a temporal Meſſiah, and did not ſee in him any ſign of what they expected. He was new in their opinion, in that he condemned the old Traditions. His Church was new to them, becauſe it ſeparated from the Body of the Jews, and made a diſtinct body which they had never ſeen before. And as for John Baptiſt, Anna the Propheteſs, Simeon, and the wiſe men, what were theſe ſingle private perſons, if compared to the whole body of Prieſt; Phariſees and Lawyers, and the whole Body of all the Jews in general, which never owned him, but lookt for an earthly Meſſias. It is plain then, that this prejudice of Novelty, forbidding men to examine things to the bottom, and not diſtinguiſhing between a true and a counterfeit Antiquity, accounting that old which was practiſed yeſterday, and every thing new that is contrary to what was in vogue yeſterday, is a very ill and dangerous prejudice. It fortifies Jews and Heathens againſt the Chriſtian Religion, and indeed, was continually made uſe of by Celſus, and the reſt of them that oppoſed Chriſtianity.

I own, ſaid M. de Condom, that the Heathens did upbraid the Chriſtians with their Novelty, but the Chriſtians demonſtrated to them, that the Jews always believed in the ſame God they worſhipped, and did expect the ſame Meſſias they pro…eſt. What you ſay, anſwer'd Mr. Claude, is a further confirmation of my opinion, to wit, that you ought not out of prejudice conclude for what appears to be new, but ſearch things throughly, to know certainly whether what appears to be new, be ſo in truth. The Heathens accuſation proceeded from your prejudice, and the Chriſtians defence of themſelves is according to my principle. For it was by an exact examination of things, that the Chriſtians demonſtrated they were not new, tho the World looked upon them ſo, and that what they oppoſed in the Heathen ſuperſtitions, was really new, tho taken to be old.

p. 30The Conference having laſted a very great while, near upon five hours, and being carried on with abundance of earneſtneſs in the diſputants on both ſides, and of attention from the ſtanders by, the Company now began to interpoſe, and ſo the diſpute broke off. After which Mr. Claude applied himſelf to M. de Condom, with a great deal of civility and reſpect, and intreated him, that the difference between their Religions and Opinions, might not incline him to think leſs kindly of him. That he for his part ſhould ever retain a very high value and eſteem for ſo deſerving a perſon. M. de Condom returned him this very obliging anſwer, That he had ſome knowledg of him before by his Writings, but was exceeding glad to know his perſon now by this Conference, in the management whereof, he had done all that could poſſibly by done for the vindication of his Cauſe; and that whenever any opportunity of ſerving him offered it ſelf, he would very willingly and heartily lay hold on it.

Preſently after M. de Condom went away; and Mr. Claude having firſt returned thanks to the Company, particularly to the Lady Mareſchalleſs de Lorge, for their patience and attention, took his leave of Mademoiſelle de Duras in words to this purpoſe, That he had vindicated the Truth before her; and all that was now left for him to do, was only to beſeech Almighty God in her behalf; and to exhort her, that ſhe would improve what ſhe had now heard, to the ſettling her more firmly in that Religion which God had called her to, and not ſuffer her ſelf to be ſhaken by any temptation: And theſe things he would not fail to requeſt of God for her. Mademoiſelle de Duras thank'd him very kindly for the trouble he had been at, and very paſſionately begged his Prayers: Which Mr. Claude having promiſed, preſently withdrew.

THE END.

ERRATA.

IN the Preface, Pag. xi. for Palmenia, read Palmeria; p. xviii. l. 1. f: were, r. wave. In the Anſwer, p. 2. l. 3. f your, r. our; p. 7. in the Marg. r. Epheſ. 1. 22, 23. p. 8. l. 18. f roſe, r. goes; p. 10. l. 14. f Good, r. Goods; p. 23. l. 17. f. in, r. on, p. 24. l. 10. after ſhe, r is; p. 31. l. 23. f. knows, r. follows; p. 32. l. 1. f. as, r. is; p. 35. l. 13. dele That; p. 42. l. 2. after for, …us; ibid. l 3. for this, r. his; p. 60. l. 20. dele If, p. 67. l. 1. f. frequent, r. freely.

End of the text · Jean Claude, Answer to De Meauxs Book (1687)