Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	ancient_a	church_n	council_n	2,300	5	6.8190	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28848	A relation of the famous conference held about religion at Paris between M. Bossuet, Bishop of London, late tutor to the Dauphin, and Monsieur Claude, minister of the reformed church at Charenton at the Countess of Royes house in the presence of several persons of the first quality at the request of Mademoiselle de Duras, daughter to the famous Marshal de Turenne, she being then upon changing her religion / translated from the French copy, as it was lately published by Monsieur Claude.; Conference avec M. Claude minstre de charenton, sur la matier̀e de l'eǵlise. English	Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne, 1627-1704.; Claude, Jean, 1619-1687.	1684 (1684)	Wing B3790; ESTC R15735	27,560	22

of its communion M. de Condom said there was this difference that the Ethiopian withdrawing from out his Church would joyn himself to the Catholick whereas the pretended reformed have not joyned themselves to any communion you sought strongly after that said he of Jeremy the Patriarch of Constantinople but he would have nothing to do with you We did not separate of our selves said M. Claude and this is sufficient to say that we did not separate our selves from the true Church If Jeremy the Patriarch of Constantinople would not accept of us as you say it is to his own he did not what he ought Upon this the Company got up and the Conversation which continued still some time became much more confused There was spoken therein of diverse things M. de Condom compared with a great deal of exaggeration the separation of the Protestants to that of the ancient Hereticks to that of the Arrians and to that of the Macedonians who had made new Churches M. Claude compared the conduct of the Protestants to that of the Apostles of I. C. when they were separated from the Jews and said that as the Apostles supported themselves upon the Scripture against the Jews who supported themselves upon the authority of Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes the Protestants did the like against the Church of Rome He said the Arrians maintained that the consubstantiality of the Son of God decided by the Council of Nice was a novelty and indeed several persons before the Arrians had spoken imprudently enough of the Divinity of the Son and amongst others he named Origen Justin Martyr and the Council of Antioch as for Origen M. de Condom said he was a suspected author As to the Council of Antioch 't was said he a Council of Arrians To which M. Claude reparty'd that he was mistaken that 't was a Council held before the Arrians and that it had rejected the term of consubstantial As for Justin Martyr ha said M. de Condom that a Martyr e're spoke ill of the Divinity of the Son of God I will nee'r beleive it You may believe My Lord what you please but the thing is however so said M Claude M. de Condom fell afterwards upon the Invocation of Saints and upon the prayer for the dead of the first said he M. Daille granted it thirteen hundred years antiquity and as to the Second M. Blondel owned it very ancient M. Claude replyed it was not to be thought strange that the Church of Rome which had scraped up and canonized the errors and superstitions of former ages should find some that were of a sufficient old date That he ought to have added how M. Daille had prov'd that for the space of three hundred years there had not been the least trace seen of the Invocation of Saints but especially that it had not the least foundation in Scripture that he own'd that the prayer was one of the most ancient superstitions but how that of the ancients was very different from that of the Church of Rome at this day and how after all 't was an error contrary to the principles of the Scripture M. de Condom returned again to his comparison of the Protestants with the ancient Hereticks concluding their novelty and that of their Church M. Claude made appear this prepossession was full of injustice and of a dangerous consequence unjust because on the one side it gave the cause to the strongest and to those who have the multitude on their side contrary to what Scripture teaches us that We ●ought not to follow the multitude to do ill Exod 2.3 for the strongest party never fails to accuse the other of making a new body a new Church Unjust also because one may take a false Antiquity for a real Antiquity an Antiquity of some ages which in effect will be a novelty for an Antiquity of all ages which in matter of Religion is the highest injustice he added how this prepossession was besides of a dangerous consequence for by these means from the time errors and superstitions shall insensibly be introduced into Religion and that Custom or the School shall have authorized them 't will be no longer possible to oppose them or root them out Those who maintain will be perpetually saying that they make a new Church and Religion Thus the Pharisees accused I. C. of being an innovator under pretence that the Disciples did not observe the tradition of the ancients which themselves were but innovations thus the Jews accused St. Paul of stirring up sedition among them through all the World and being the head of the Nazarites which they look'd upon as a new Sect. Thus all the Apostles were accused by the Pagans of being Disturbers of the publick repose and innovators under pretence that they would root out of the hearts of men their ancient errors and reduce them to the adoration of one sole true God Creator of Heaven and of Earth M. de Condom replied that I. C. was not new that the Messias was expected by the Jews that John Baptist Anna the Prophetess Simeon and the Wise Men had own'd him True he was not new to consider the thing in it self said M. Claude for he is yesterday and to day and eternally But he was new to a whole Nation that expected a Temporal Messias and perceived not in him any mark of what they expected he was new in their opinion in that he condemned the ancient traditions His Church was new to them in that it separated it self from the body of the Jews and made a Body apart which they had not yet seen And as to John Baptist Anna the Prophetess Simeon and the Wise men who owned him what were those but meer partiuclar persons in comparison of the whole Body of Sacrificers Pharisees Doctors of the Law and the whole body of the Jews in general who did not acknowledg him and expected a Terrestrial Messias wherefore certain it is prepossession of novelty which will not allow a body to examine things to the bottom which does not distinguish between a false and true antiquity which holds for ancient all that was found out yesterday and for new all that is contrary to what was found out yesterday is a bad and dangerous prepossession which furnishes arms both to Jews and Pagans against the Christian Religion and in effect Calsus and the other enemies of the Christians have not failed to make use of them I o●● said M. de Condom that the Pagans have repro●ched the Christians with their novelty but the Christians have shown them that they always beleived the same God whom they ad●red and expected the same Messias What you said said M. Claude confirms my sentiment which is that one ought not to conclude out of prepossession infavour of an apparent novelty but that you must pry into the bottom of things to see if what 〈…〉 is really so That reproach of the Pagans proceeded from prejudice and prepossession and the 〈◊〉 of the Christians followed my maxime For 't was by the discussion of the bottom that the Chritians made appear that tho' they seemed new yet that they were not so and that what they combated in Paganisms tho' it seemed ancient was nevertheless new As the Conversation had lasted a long while near upon five hours with a great Applicacation on each side and with a great Attention of the By standers the Company began to intermeddle in the Discourse and the Dispute ended After which M. Claude addressed himself to M. de Condom to whom he rendred a great deal of honour and beseeched him that the diversity of Religions and of sentiments might not hinder him from granting him his good will That f●r his part he would ever preserve a perfect respect and esteem for the merit of his Person M. de Condom answer'd him very civilly that he knew him before by his writings but that he was over joyned to know him also by this Coversation wherein he had done all that was possible for the maintainence of his cause and that there should be no occasion offered of serving him but he would do it with a willing heart Presently after M. de Condom withdrew and M. Claude having thanked the Company and particularly Madam La Marechalle de Lorge for the attention it had offer●d him took Leave of Mademoieselle de Duras to whom he said that he had defended the truth 〈…〉 and that he had nothing more to do than to pray to God for her and to exhort her to make a good use of what she had heard for the Confirming her in the Religion wherein God had called her without suffering her to be staggered by any temptation and this he should make his request to God for her Mademoiselle de Duras thanked him very affectionately for the trouble he had taken and desired him with some emotion of heart to pray to God for her which M. Claude having promised her to do he went his way The End ERRATA Page 13 line 25. read pertinent ibid line 36 read reject

it self by its own laws Now that Act does expresly mention that this Sect opens a door to all manner of Irregularities and Extravagancies that it takes away all manner of applying a Remedy and that if it were suffered there might arise as many Religions as Parishes In short he produced an Act of the National Synod of Sainte Foy by which upon some overtures of Re-union with those of the Confession of Augsbourg the Synod names Deputies to go and Confer with them to whom was given full power of granting and concluding all the points that should be brought into deliberation whether concerning Doctrine or any other thing concerning the good and repose of all the Churches proceeding so far as to insert their results in the Confession of the Faith The Conclusion he drew from all this was That those of the Religion of M. Claude did themselves acknowledge that to preserve the Unity of the Church it was Necessary to submit ones Judgment and to render an Entire and absolute Obedience to Ecclesiastical Assemblies without taking the freedom to Examine their decisions or Judge whether they were squared according to the Word of God or not and that in case of disobedience Excommunication was Just That it was precisely what the Church of Rome pretended that it required nothing more But that nevertheless when we have to do with her we establish a quite contrary Principle That he desired M. Claude to answer him distinctly to all this and how he would listen peacably to all he should say to him That as to the rest M. Claude ought to be so much the more ready to answer him in that there was nothing new in all this and that the same Act and the same consequences which he drew were found in the Exposition of the Catholick Doctrine M. Claude immediatly made answer that tho he came not thither with any design to have a Regular Conference yet nevertheless he was glad that this Occasion furnish'd him with the means of Testifying to M. de Condom the Esteem he had for his Person that not having any particular merit of his own it was a great honour to him to have such a Prelate as M. de Condom to pick him out to measure himself with him That he would endeavour to satisfy him upon all the points he had newly proposed to him and that if in the sequel of the Discourse any Expression should start from him which might personally shock M. de Condom he protested from that moment it should be contrary to his intention M. de Condom Replyed to this very handsome and very obliging things and M. Claude renewing the Discourse told him That in general all he had newly alledged concluded nothing less than blind and absolute submission which the Church of Rome pretended was owing to the decisions of Ecclesiastical Assemblies That a Distinction ought to be made of two sorts of Authorities the one Sovereign and Unlimited to which one ought to pay a full and Entire Obedience the other depending and Limited which ought not to be obey'd but under certain Conditions That M. de Condom knew very well the Protestants did not attribute this first but to God alone speaking in his holy Scriptures and that for the other they gave it to the Pastors of the Church Whether that they are considered each a part or were assembled in Synod or in Council That their Authority which is only Ministerial is Limited in two manners whereof the one is That they ought to make their decisions not of themselves as they think fitting but according to the Word of God The other that they leave still to Persons which are submited to them the Right of Examining the Decisions to know if they are indeed Conformable to the Word of God From whence it follows That the Obedience which is owing them is Ever suspendedly on this condition That they have not deviated from the Word of God That the Authority of the Pastors of their Assemblies cannot be greater than that of the Parliaments in France which have not the Power to change the ancient Laws nor of making new and to whom if it should happen that they should order or exact things contrary to the Kings Service and the fidelity that is owing him People would both have a Right and be under an Obligation of disobeying That the Authority of Ecclesiastical Assemblies could not be greater than that of Fathers over Children since both God and nature have invested Parents therewith that Parents have a right of acting in the name of their Children since they have the right of their education the right of commanding them and the Scripture in a thousand places recommends to Children Docility and Obedience towards their Parents but this does not hinder Children from having a right or from being under an obligation of examining if what their Parents teach 'em and what they command 'em be true or false just or unjust How that nevertheless it did not follow from thence but that the Authority of Pastors and their assemblies was very great as it did not follow but that of Parliaments and that of parents was likewise so tho' they were limited authorities that the Pastors were as publick keepers of the Word of God established for the studying it and meditating it incessantly in order to the drawing from thence truths necessary for the instruction of the People and for the abridging private persons of a trouble to which they cannot entirely apply themselves by reason of the distractions of Civil Affairs that when the Pastors acquited themselves well of this duty the people were obliged to receive their word with submission and obedience but when they deviated from it they were to look upon them as prevaricatours Then descending particularly to the acts alledged by M. de Condom he said that 't was upon this principle and with these limitations that we ought to understand the Clause of submission contained in the letter-missives to national synods since it was only founded upon this supposition that all will pass therein according to the Word of God for these terms Being as we are perswaded that God will preside therein and conduct you by his Holy Spirit in all truth by the rule of his Word signify a perswasion of Charity and Equity because it is ever to be well presumed of assemblies and hope that God will preside therein and that they will doe their duty untill the contrary appears But that this did not carry so absolute a submission as to deprive people of the right of examining what shall be resolved therein As concerning the Act which condemneth the Independants it is said he the highest justice For tho the assemblies are not infallible nevertheless they ought not to be abolished 'T is in truth an humane order but however an order which God himself has established for the conservation of his Church and from which one cannot depart without a crime Nevertheless it does not follow from thence

that a blind obedience is to be paid to the decissions of the assemblies nor that it was the sense of the Synod of Charenton As for the deputation which the synod of Sainte Foy made of four persons to go confer with those of the confession of Augsbourg and to whom it gave a full power you cannot draw from thence said he any advantage For it was with those Deputies as with Ambassadours which the King sends with full power to propose treat and conclude as Plenipotentiaries which are sent to negotiate the Peace How full soever their power be and tho' they are called Plenipotentiaries the condition is always naturally understood that they shall do nothing contrary to the true interest of their Authorizers to whom what they do must necessarily revert for to be approv'd and ratifyed without which nothing would de done that they ought to be understood that full power given by the Synod to its Deputies for the hearing of those of the confession of Augsbourg for the receiving their propositions their complaints their overtures to make the like to them reciprocally to receive from them illustrations and return the like nay and to agree with them if possible but not to be the absolute Masters of the Faith nor to receive blindly all they should have concluded For in such sort of things the cause of recourse to the Authorizers and the necessity of ratification is naturally understood To which M. Claude added this consideration that if the point in question was the true sense of an act of the Roman Church of a Canon for example of the Council of Trent M. de Condom would doubtless find it more just to receive it from him than from M. Claude because the thing in dispute was the sense of a Church whereof M. de Condom is a member and that in all probability he ought to understand it better than a man that is not so I expect then from you My Lord Bishop said he the same equity which if you 'd receive from me the sense of the Acts in dispute at least unless the sense I give 'em be contrary to that of the Doctours of my communion or evidently illusory or contrary to our other principles but if the sense I give of those acts has nothing of that methinks you have no right to reflect it nor to fancy to your self any other M. de Condom renewing the Discourse said that he would begin where M. Claude had ended because that he had said in the last place seem'd to have some justice and truth at first tho' it had nothing at all of solidity That what M. Claude said would be true if the point in issue was no more than explaining their rights and the manner or administring the Word and the Sacraments in that he should think him better informed and that he did not at all intend to hinder him from explaning it as he pleas'd the sense of those who had set up their discipline and made the acts he urg'd That he knew they denyed that they ought to submit themselves without examination to the judgment of the Church But that he pretended this absolute submission was so necessary that those very people who denyed it in speculation could not forbare establishing it in practice that thus they were fallen into a contradiction and that 't was what he pretended to prove and wherein he was not obliged to beleive M. Claude For if the thing in dispute was to show any contradiction in the sentiments of the Catholick Church he would not urge for authority it's explication nor hinder M. Claude from drawing from the terms of the Councils such conclusions as be thought fitting M. de Condom making then pawse M. Claude reply'd that since 't was certain that those who had made the acts in dispute deny'd that people should submit themselves without examination to the judgment of Ecclesiastical assemblies he had at least this advantage that by M. de Condoms own confession the explication he gave to those acts was conformable to the principles of the Protestants who had made them and that it was much more reasonable to receive it than to fancy to one's self a sense which entangled 'em in a contradiction that if the thing in dispute was any act of the Church of Rome he would make no difficulty to receive the sense which M. de Condom should give thereof conformable to the principles of that Church unless the very words of the act should oppose it in which case he might induce the contradiction and if M. de Condom was upon those terms in regard of the acts alledged it would be easy to see upon what terms he established that pretended contradiction M. de Condom said how that was no difficult matter to make out That he made it consist in regard of the discipline in that on the one side it required that the decision of the Doctrine should he made in the consistory by the Word of God that it also understood that it was performed in the provincial Synod by the Word of God as well as in the national and that on the other it requir'd that if they did not acquiesce to the decision of the consistory or to that of the provincial Synod things should remain in the same state until the national Synod where it sayes shall be performed the entire and ultimate Resolution by the Word of God to which if they do not acquiesce they shall be retrenched from the Church Which clearly show'd that the acquiescing which was required for the decision of the national was founded not upon the Word of God precisely as such for the decision of the Consistory and that of the synod of the province had been also made by the Word of God precisely as such and nevertheless the appeal was allowed of But that it was founded upon the Word of God in as much as explained and interpreted by the last judgment of the Church that is to say upon its being the last and final resolution and by consequence upon the authority of the assembly considered in it self Now this is said he a manifest contradiction to the principle which denyes the absolute submission to the judgment of the Church that this was confirmed by the discipline which did not order any Excommunication against those who do not acquiese in the decisions of the consistory and of the provincial Synod and yet ordained against those who refuse to obey those of the National The same thing said he appears by that letter-missive to the national Synod For how can we promise and sware we will submit to all that shall be resolved therein without supposing we ow to the Church an entire and absolute submission Say that we submit thereunto upon the perswasion we have that God will preside therein by his Spirit and his Word and upon this sware that is to say that upon this perswasion is founded on an express promise that God will conduct the last judgment

rest things were already in such a point between M. Claude and him that the truth must quickly appear on the one side or the other That the Principle which M. Claude maintained was a Principle of Insupportable pride and presumption For is it not the highest arrogance for meer particulars to imagine they have more sense for the understanding of the Scriptures than a Whole Ecclesiastical Assembly than a whole Council Which was nevertheless what did necessarily follow from his Opinion which gave particulars the right and freedom of examining what the Councils have decided that there was a great deal more Christian Justice and Humility in submitting ones self absolutely to the judgment of the Church pay them absolute obedience than to pretend to reform its Decisions M. Claude's Turn being to speak said how 't was true that their Discipline did mention that after the last and final resolution which should be made by the Word of God in the assembly of a National Synod those who should refuse to acquiesce should be excommunicated but that the Discipline did in no wise mean that they were to acquiesce to the authority of the Assembly precisely but as he had already observed it to the authority of the Word of God according to which the Assembly was to square the decision which still supposes an examination that thus the excommunication was just upon this supposition that the Word of God had been followed and not otherwise That indeed the excommunications of Councils were neither just nor efficacious but when their decisions were grounded upon this Word and if they were not their excommunications where unjust fell again with full right upon the head of those who had utter'd them according to the Maxime of St. Paul If we ourselves or an Angel from Heaven should preach to you besides what we have preached to you let him be accursed That if the Church of Rome pretended only that they would not dispute with her because any one would still have a right an obligation to examine if the Decisions are conformable or not to the Word of God and by consequence whether the excommunications are just or unjust That in this Spirit it was that the Synod of Dordrecht had condemned not the persons against whom they did not pronounce any Anathema but the errors by shewing them contrary to the express Texts of Scripture That for his own part he held that excommunication very legitimate but 't was because he saw it grounded upon the Scripture and not upon the authority of the Assembly That the Independants had in truth held an extraordinary Assembly in 1653. to draw up their Confession of Faith but this did not hinder but that commonly they rejected the use of Colloquies and Synods and for that reason was it the Synod of Charenton had condemned them and not for their not having rendred to Assemblies a blind and absolute obedience in matter of Faith as appears by the very Act. As to the Synod of Sainte Foy I know not said my Lord why you will needs have it there was a design to change the Confession of the Faith in what it has essential for this is in no wise in the power of National Synods and if that of Sainte Foy had undertaken it it had been disown'd by all the Protestants of the Kingdom I own they might put Illustrations and Explications in an Act but you must also own to me that they could do it in the confession and when a thing may be done by several ways People are at liberty to chuse that which seems the most proper There M. de Condom interrupting M. Claude said how it was certain this Synod was contriving how to couch the Article of the Lords Supper in ambiguous terms and that it was the design of the Mediators that there was mention made of deciding every point of doctrine which did manifestly regard the reality which the Lutherans held M. Claude made answer that to impute to the Synod a design of agreeing upon ambiguous terms was one of the conjectures of M. de Condom whereof he had not any proof and for his part he conjectur'd otherwise that he did not doubt but the design of the Synod was to do what was possible to bring the Lutherans to a full knowledge of the truth and this was that which signified that full power of deciding with them every point of Doctrine namely by the Word of God Then falling again to the thread of his discourse he made answer to that M. de Condom had said that it was an insupportable pride for meer particulars to believe they have more sense for the understanding of the Scripture than a whole Ecclesiastical Assembly whereupon he said that indeed meer particulars ought not to presume so much of themselves as to believe they have more sense for the understanding of the Scriptures than a whole Assembly that on the contrary People ought to presume well of an Assembly and have docility for it But that this did not hinder but that they ought nevertheless to have their eyes open to see if indeed an Assembly had done its Duty after the example of the Bereans of whom it is said that they conferred what St. Paul told there with the Scriptures to know if it was so that we ought to distinguish a judgment of Charity and of Humility which only fram'd a probable conclusion from a perswasion of infallibility which fram'd a necessary conclusion that out of this judgment of Charity and of Humility we ought to presume in favour of an Assembly and even of a particular Doctor but that because as well Assemblies as particular persons are subject to error we ought not to push on this judgment of Charity and Humility even to the blinding ones self when that indeed an Assembly or a Doctor had err'd and that this would be pushing things beyond their just bounds for example said he being what I am in my flock People are obliged to prejudge in my favour that I understand better the sense of the Scripture than meer private persons but they ought not nevertheless to think me infallible nor imagine it can never happen to me to be deceived in point of Doctrine in which case certain it is that a meer private person would have a right to believe he might understand the sense of the Scripture better than me The business in dispute said then M. de Condom is not about particular Doctors we know particular Doctors may err and by consequence we ought not to have for them an absolute obedience but we talk of a whole body of Ecclesiastical Assemblies and I require of you a clear answer upon this point whether you believe meer particular persons may understand the sense of the Scripture better than a whole Body of the Church assembled in Council M. Claude made answer that he had spoke of particular Doctors only to shew that humility ought not to be abused nor under a pretence of