Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	authority_n	church_n	interpretation_n	4,397	5	10.0901	5	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

answer you shall make me I shall make you you may take what course you please but I 'le be sure to answer you directly to your reasoning now the child must be distinguish'd in three times before his father has shew'd him the Bible and told him that this Book is Divine after his Father has told him so without his having yet read it himself after he has read it himself At the first time which is that wherein you consider him in your argument there 's no saying he doubts or does not doubt for neither the one nor the other is true in the sense you understand it Not to doubt of a thing signifies to be assured of it Now before a body can say either that one doubts or is assured of the Quality of a thing one must know the thing it self I do not doubt nor am I assured that such a person is the King of Spain until first I have had some knowledg of the Person Wherefore your argument is not just either the child doubts or does not doubt of the divinity of the Scripture there 's a Medium namely which is called an ignorance of pure negation He knows not yet what Scripture is never having heard talk of it To doubt or not to doubt of the divinity of the Scripture a man must have some knowledg of it and frame to himself some idea at least of it But the child does not frame to it any idea of a Book whereof he never heard any mention in the second time when his Father has shewed him the Bible and told him this Book is is the word of God yet without his having yet read it himself He beleives it the Word of God He beleives it the Word of God not of Divine Faith but of Humane Faith because his Father told him so which is a state of Catechumene In the third time when he has read himself this Book and perceives the Efficaciousness of it he believes it the Word of God no longer by Humane Faith because his Father has told him so but by Divine Faith because he himself has immediately perceived the Divinity of it and it is the state of the faithful M. de Condom fastned upon this word Catechumene and said that the child was a Christian was baptized and was in the Allyance of God M. Claude made answer that by the word Catechumene he meant only the child baptized in the state he received the first instructions M. de Condom repeated again much the same things he had said still affirming 't was by the authority of the Church that the child received the Scriptures as Divine and after having received them from the Church as Divine he received also from the Church their sense and interpretation Tell me I beseech your Lordship said then M. Claude When a Child learns the first time there is a Catholick Church is it simply a general Idea which only consists in knowing there is a Catholick Church without knowing where it is or what it is Or does it determine that Church whose Assemblies it sees For if it be the first it is a principle of Faith very insignificant very useless which you establish I know there is a Catholick Church to whose authority People ought to submit themselves but I know not where it is or what it is this would be a strange principle of Faith True said M. de Condom the Child determines this Idea to that Church particularly whose Assemblies it sees or assists at it self and beleives it to be the Catholick Church and not simply there is one Let us then suppose said M. Claude a child born in a Heretick or Schismatick Church in the Ethiopian Church for example the first principle of Faith this child will entertain will be that of the Ethiopian Church as being the Catholick It will be from it and according to its authority that he will receive the Scripture as Divine from it 't will be he 'll receive the sence explication of that Scripture and he can never believe he has a right to examine the Decisions of his Ethiopian Church for fear of falling into the inconvenience of imagining he may better understand the sense of the Scripture he a meer particular person than the whole Body of the Church Tell me My Lord Whether by this principle the child will not always remain in that Heretical and Schismatical Church Tell me by what way you pretend to free him out of it Certain then it is your Principle is equally proper to maintain the Jew in Judaisme the Pagan in Paganism the Hereticke in Heresy as the Orthodox in the true Church M. de Condom replied to this that one was to distinguish in the persuasion of the Ethiopian child what came from the Holy Ghost from what came by humane prepossession that 't was the Holy Ghost which dictated to him in general there was a Catholick Church in what place soever it was but that this Catholick Church was that where he was born this came from humane prepossession That in truth he received the Scripture from the hand of that Church and did not believe it divine but by its authority but afterwards by reading the Scripture the Holy Spirit produced in him doubts against the Church of his Birth and from that means freed him from the Heresy and the Schism wherein he was engaged M. Claude made answer that either M. de Condom must renounce his principle or own the impossibility of what he urg'd For since this Ethiopian in dispute cannot nor ought not to understand the Scripture but in the sense of the Church by the authority of which he beleives it divine and from whose hand he receives it's interpretation it is impossible that by reading the Scripture there should arise any doubts in his mind contrary to the truth of his Church for he only explains that Scripture conformably to the sense of that Church But if on the contrary you mean this man should explain of himself the Scripture and takes it ●n an other sense than his Church does you make him said he renounce your princiciple for which you have hitherto combated and you not only make him renounce it but you establish that it is the Holy Spirit himself which makes him renounce it and all the inconveniences which you have so exaggerated vanish into smoak he added that what M. de Condom had just said justified the proceedings of the Protestants in respect of the Roman Church for tho' it were it which we ought to have beleived from our birth to have been the Catholick Church tho' it were by it and its authority that we should have received the Scripture as divine we cannot be blamed for having distinguish'd in that Beleif what was of the Holy Spirit from what proceeded from humane prepossession We cannot be blamed for having in reading the Scripture received doubts contrary to the truth of that Church and for having freed our selves by that means from out

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

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

against him for whence it follows that his prinple Blind Obedience is bad and contrary to the conduct of I. C. and that of his discipline That 't would be to no purpose to urge that I. C. made use of miracles by which he prov'd his Authority Divine for there are two sorts of micracles the one true the other false the one for lying the other for truth God Himself has made this distinction in the third Chap. of Deut. Where he sayes to the Israelites that if a Prophet does miracles and turns them afterwards to other Gods they ought not to listen to him because it is God who tryes them I. C. himself and acknowledged the truth of this distinction If then said he the Principle of M. de Condom had held good it could not have been in the People to have made that judgment after the Church had decided Jesus Christ performed his miracles not by the vertue of God but by that of Belezbub they might not after that according to M. de Condom opened their eyes to see those miracles or receive the least impression of them from whence it follows that this principle is false and destructive to the Christian Religion M. de Condom interrupted M. Claude upon this and said that there was no doing of this example of the Judaish Church for said he the Synagogue was to fall the Prophets hand so foretold it and the people ought not by consequence pay it such an obedience as ought to be paid to the Church of Jesus Christ which is never to fall To which M. Claude reparteed that since the Synagogue was to fall it might so happen that meer particular persons understood better the sense of the Scripture than a whole Body of the Church in its Assemblies which was the point in issue and how from thence it plainly followed 't was neither pride nor presumption in particular persons to be believed it might so befall 'em as to understand the Scripture better than a whole Body of Assembly or to examine its decisions upon this Principle That he required nothing more Besides this Reason said he could not have any effect upon the Jewish People because that not only the Synagogue were not agreed upon the point but on the contrary maintaining that it was never to fall and produced in favour of its self promises which at first push seemed extreamly strong To alledge upon this the prophets who foretold its fall would be nothing to the purpose for the business in Dispute is the sense of those Prophesies and the Synagogue explaining them in a sense which was favourable to it 't was the People's duty according to the principle of M. de Condom to stick to that explication without examining it in short said he this fall of the Synagogue makes not any difference between it's Assemblies and those of the Christian Church for the Question in dispute for what promises soever of Perpetual subsistence the Church of Jesus Christ has there is nothing in Scripture which assures us the Assemblies of Councils shall not fall There M. de Condom taking up the Discourse said how what M. Claude started of the time of the fall of the ●ynagogue was of all thing in the world the most unseasonable for then there would not be said that there was no visible authority upon Earth wherein people ought necessarily to acquiesce since I. C. himself was there that is to say the truth it self appeared visibly among men to who God had rendred Testimony from Heaven and who performed miracles D' you added he but bring us back I. C. teaching preaching working of miracles and we shall have no more nee of the Authority of the Church What I have urg'd said M. Claude is not only the thing in the world the most part but the p●ainest and most concluding and I hope you your self will agree to 'em when I shall have desired you to consider how this visible Authority of the Son of God was then the point in question be●een the Synagogue and I. C. how it was this point which the Synagogue had decided in the negative that the business was to know if I C. was an Impostour or not if his miracles were from God or from Belzebub that the visible Authority of I. C. could not decide the question in the Spirit of the People for an Authority does decide nothing untill first of all it ●e received and that of I. C. was not so yet since the D●●pute was about receiving or rejecting it thus there only remain'd the authority of the Church which had decided against him from whence it follows that according to the principle of M. de Condom partiticular persons ought to have stuck to that and recieve Jesus Christ. M. de Condom called this argument of M. Claudes a Jewish argument M. Claude replyed that it was not his argument he ought to call Jewish argument since it concluded in favour of Christianity but that it was the contrary principle which he ought to call by that name since it favored the cause of the Jews After this M. Claude said that if he would have recourse to History it would be no difficult matter for him to show how several Councils fell and have decided the errors as amongst others the Council of Arimini which condemned the Consubstantiation of the Son that is to say His Eternal Divinity M. de Condom cryed out whither d' you hurry us to the Council of Arimini when shall we have done if we must discuss all those histories D' you not know that the Council of Arimini was an Assembly of robbers that my Lord said M. Claude is just what I would say that a General Council may become an Assemby of robbers now here 's one composed of four hundred Bishops what is become of it M. de Condom said that the Bishops had been forced by the Authority of the Emperor who had sent Souldiers thither but that afterwards being return'd every one to his home they had disown'd what they had done and had shewn repentance for it M. Claude replyed that in truth several of them had acknowledged their fault but that this very Act of their acknowledging it and repenting it as M. de Condom does affirm confirms this truth that they had committed it and there 's no need of knowing out of what principle they had committed it since they had committed it in reality that their Recantation also shewed that each of them in particular thought not himself obliged to acquiesce in what they had determined all together in Council M de Condom cryed out 't was not necessary to enter into all those points of history which would lead 'em too far The thing said he may more easily be decided the Dispute is concerning the first principle of the faith of particular persons which you beleive to be the Holy writ and we the authority of the Church I suppose a Child that has been baptized and has not yet read the