Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	church_n	scripture_n	3,566	5	6.5669	4	true

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

Scripture and I ask you by what principle that Child beleives the Scripture to be Divine that the Book of Canticles for Example where there 's not a Word spoke of God is divine Either that child that 's a Christian who has received the Holy Spirit and the Faith infused by Baptism and is a member of the Church doubts of the Divinity of the Scripture or does not doubt of it if not he beleives it then Divine by the Authority of the Catholick Church which is the first Authority under which he lives if he doubts of it a Christian may then doubt of the truth of the Scripture M. Claude made answer that he might have something to say upon M. de Condoms supposing that every child baptized received the Holy Spirit but that he would not insist upon what is spoken by the by nor deviate from the principal subject in question wherefore he 'd be contented with making some reflections upon what M. de Condom had just urg'd The first said he shall be that probably the first knowledge which the Holy Spirit gives to the Child of the Catholick Church is by his Creed wherein he says Credo Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam Never theless in the Creed this Article is posteriour to the Articles of Doctrine since it begins with God the Father Almighty and continues with Jesus Christ and with the Holy Ghost after which comes the Catholick Church Now it appears clearly from thence that Faith of the Doctrine does not depend on the Authority of the Church for otherwise the symbole must have been compos'd after an other manner and say at first I beleive the Catholick Church and by the Catholick Church I beleive in God the Father c. My second Reflection said he is that you cannot suppose as you do that first authority under which the Child begins to live is that of the Catholick Church for certain it is that the first Authority under which a Child lives is that of his Father or that of his Mother or if you will that of his nurse and how that of the Church can only come afterwards and in some sort by dependance on th● other Now from thence it follows that this first Authority which is the Paterna may as well conduct the Child to the Scripture as to the Church In the third place said he there is nothing more easy then to retort your argument against your self Either the Child Baptized doubts of the Authority of the Church or does not doubt of it if he does not doubt of it he beleives it then by the authority of the Scripture for he cannot by any other way beleive it of Divine Faith and by consequence it is not the Church which makes us beleive Scripture but it is the Scripture which makes beleive the Church which is that we aim at If he doubts of it see here then a Christian who has received the Holy Spirit and Faith infused by Baptisme and who is a member of the Church who can doubt of the first authority on which depends the rest of the Faith That the Child cannot beleive of Divine Faith the Authority of the Church but by that of the Scripture I prove it for if it is not by the Scripture that he beleives the Church and its authority it is then either by way of inspiration and enthusiasm or by the Authority of his Father of his Mother or of his nurse or by argument drawn out of the very Nature of the Church It cannot be out of enthusiasme for the Holy Spirit does not act in that manner Neither can it be by the Authority of the Father or the Mother or Nurse for you see this would be to establish those sorts of authorities for the first principle of Faith neither can it be by proof and arguments drawn out of the very nature of the Church for as in your argument you suppose the Child has not yet read the Scripture I suppose also in mine that he has not yet Meditated upon the Nature of the Catholick Church and knows only its name It then remains that the Child believes the Catholick Church by Scripture which is what you do not allow off or does not beleive it at all and that he doubts it which is the same inconvenience you would have thrown me in in regard of the Scripture Here a body may say with truth that M. de Condoms Wit was not in its usual state and how that freedom which is natural to it was sensibly diminish'd He undertook to maintain that the first Authority under which a Child lived in respect of Religion was that of the Catholick Church and not that of the Father or Mother M. Claude replyed that there was no denying a thing so clear as that that the first Authority in respect of Religion is that of the Father or Mother who took the first care of the Education of the Child or that it was from them that the Child learnt the first time that there was a Catholick Church to which he ought to range himself or that there was a Scripture which was Divine and to which he ought to submit himself Now the point being to know by what means the child might believe the Authority of the Catholick Church he had only to chuse either the way of Enthusiasm or that of the Paternal Authority or that of the Scripture which might instruct him M. de Condom replyed the faith of the child in the Authority of the Church was divine because 't was the Holy Spirit that formed it in him M. Claude reparty'd that the thing in debate was not the cause efficient which produced that Faith in the child but the argument by which it was produced that if M. de Condom understood that the Holy Ghost produced it in the child without proof and without argument it would be a kind of Enthusiasm and yet the Holy Ghost did not act in that manner M. de Condom said that in effect there were Motives of credibility to which M. Claude replyed that if he gave the child time to examine the Motives of credibility by the Authority of the Church and to perceive the force of 'em he also would give the same child the time to examine the Motives of credibility for the Authority of the Scripture and to perceive the force of them and this being so he must renounce his argument which suppos'd the child as not yet having read the Scripture But is it not true said M. de Condom that in this state either the child doubts or does not doubt of the Divinity of the Scriptures But said M. Claude is it not true that in that state either the child doubts or does not doubt of the authority of the Church for if you suppose the child before his having read the Scripture I suppose him also before his having read the Motives of credibility for the authority of the Church You are obliged to answer to my argument and the same

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