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 thâ— 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
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 â—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
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
shunning pride and presumption make men blind themselves for if there be not an absolute obedience owing to particular Doctors as M. de Condom did aver it there is then neither pride nor presumption in believing it may so happen that one may understand the sense of the Scripture better than them tho' people are obliged to presume Charitably probably that this will not happen That it was the same thing in regard of the Assemblies which not being of themselves infallible ought not to pretend to have an absolute obedience paid them being a thing which is only owing to God that St. Paul himself had said there was no dominion over the Faith of the Corinthians M. de Condom said this passage was ill alledged and ask'd M. Claude if he did not think an absolute Obedience was owing to Saint Paul M. Claude made answer that an absolute Obedience was owing to things divine which Saint Paul taught and not to his person neither is it said M. de Condom to the persons who compose the Councils we pretend that Obedience to be paid but to the Holy Spirit which conducts 'em according to what the Council of Jerusalem said it has pleas'd the Holy Spirit and us When the Holy Spirit said M. Claude appears in the Decisions of the Councils as it appeared in the Doctrine of Saint Paul and in that of the Council of Jerusalem we ought to render them that Obedience and not otherwise Now it appears therein when their decisions are framed according to the Word of God M. de Condom insisted there was no question about the Word of God but about the true sense thereof M. Claude said tâ—is distinction was of no use for the true sense of the Word of God and the Word of God are but one and the same thing There M. de Condom return'd to the Independants and said that upon the principle of M. Claude there was no way to avoid Independantisme nor prevent the being as many Religions as Parishes as many Religions as heads That the Independants did not reject the Assemblies for instructions but that they would not allow the Assemblies should decide by authority and that the pretended reformed were conformable to them He repeated over and over the same thing a pretty while to which M. Claude reparteed what he had already answered that in truth there was no humane means certain and infallible to hinder the errors of the with of man but that there was one divine and infallible which was the Holy Spirit which God communicated to his true Beleivers and that the Synods and other Assemblies were useful means and proper for that purpose and that the Independants had only been condemned because they rejected these last and not because they would not allow the Assemblies should decide with an entire and absolute authority that tho' the Protestants did not allow Assemblies a soveraign and illimited authority they allowed them however all the authority that Ministers and the Dispensers of the Word of God can have This would be disputing everlastingly said then M. de Condom I ask you once again Sir if you believe meer particular Persons can understand the sense of the Word of God better than the whole Church Assembled in a Council M. Claude said he had already answered him to that viz. that it did not commonly so happen nay and that People were obliged to hope better from the Ecclesiastical Assembly but that it might nevertheless happen that humane passions and worldly interests prevailing in an Assembly the Decisions would not be squared therein according to the truth There 's no having recourse said M. de Condom to humane passions nor to worldly interests you must answer in a word to the question and say yes or no. Humane passions and worldly interests said M. Claude are very reasonably urg'd upon this subject for those are the principal causes of erroneous Decisions but since you will not allow 'em to be spoken off to you I le answer you by distinguishing and saying that God does not allow that this ordinarily happens but that in absolutely speaking it may happen M. de Condom said he demanded but that and how 't was the greatest of all absurdities to beleive it may come to pass a meer particular person may better understand the sense of the Scripture better than a whole Church Assembled in Council M. Claude made answer how he wondered he should tax us of so great an absurdity what was but an effect of the freedom of God in the dispensation of his Grace That if the point was concerning humane Lights there would be absurdity in saying that a meer particular person had more understanding than a whole Assembly and that this would be a principle of pride and presumption But tho the thing in issue was the Lights of the Holy Spirit which breathes where it pleases and which God may possibly not give to a whole Assembly when he shall give it to meer particular persons that this same thing had effectually hapned in the time of Jesus Christ according to what he himself had said in Matt. I give thee thanks O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth for that thou hast concealed those things from the Wise and Vnderstanding and hast revealed them to the little That the whole Judaick Church had determined in its Assemblies that Jesus Christ was an impostour That it was nevertheless not only a Church out the only Church in the world invested with all the authority of God who had founded nourished and brought it up untill that time that God had instructed it by his Apostles had made in the depositary of his Oracles That with a just Title it gloryed in a succession of two thousand years that its Assemblies were in the former and Jesus Christ Himself own'd it they are seated said he in the Chair of Moses all the things they shall bid you keep keep them and do them That nevertheless this Church had determined the most Capital and most Criminal of all Errours which was to reject Jesus Christ as a wretched person and an impostour that then it must necessarily have been said that meer particular persons might better understand the sense of the Scripture than the whole Body of the Church Assembled and that if the principle of M. de Condom was true namely that one must have an absolute submission for the Decisions of Ecclesiastical Assemblies without attributing to ones self the right examining 'em it would be to condemn Jesus Christ and all those who should beleive in him For according to this Principle Jesus Christ ought not to address himself to the People after the Decisions of the Church which were contrary to him neither ought the People to have given ear to him since they were no longer allow'd to examine what had been decided nevertheless added he I. C. did not forbare preaching to the People and converting several the People also listened to his motion notwithstanding the Decisions that were
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 â—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 pâ—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 beâ—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 â—e received and that of I. C. was not so yet since the Dâ—â—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
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 â—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 oâ—â— said M. de Condom that the Pagans have reproâ—ched the Christians with their novelty but the Christians have shown them that they always beleived the same God whom they adâ—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 fâ—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 offerâ—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