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
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
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
the same Church That the Faith being a thing not humane but Divine there is but one God alone who can produce it or who can preserve it in the hearts of men And this is also what he infallibly does in the hearts of his Elect by his Spirit and by the outward means of the Ministry which he himself has established for Paul plants and Apollo waters but God only gives the Increase Then he proceeded to the Deputies which the Synod of Sainte Foy nominated to go to the Lutherans and said that he very agreeably received the Confession which M. de Condom had newly made That they meant not to give them the power of putting the Cellar in the Garret and the Garret in the Cellar as he had expressed himself after a very ingenious manner and that a Return was required to the Authorizers and a Ratification That he thanked him very heartily for this downright Confession which in this respect decided the Question so as he could no longer make use of that Act for the blind obedience which he pretended That as to the rest his accusation against that Synod for having undertook to change the Confession of the Faith was null in the sense which M. de Condom understood it For that we ought to distinguish in the Confession what is Essential from what is not so That the Essential consists in those very things which are called Articles or Points of Faith and what is not so consists in the terms and in the manners of expression That the Synod might well have consented to a change of the expressions of the Confession nay and to the inserting therein of illustrations or explications if it was found useful for the bringing back Spirits that were gone astray but that it never pretended that any thing should be changed in the essential of that confession which in this regard remains immutable for as much as it is Conformable to the Word of God M. Claude having made an end M. de Condom replyed first of all that what M. Claude had newly said touching the order set down by the Discipline did hot hinder but that the Discipline did order that those who should not acquiesce in the National Synod should be retrenched that they did in effect retrench the Arminians in the Synod of Dordrect and he asked M. Claude if he did not think that retrenchment just and legitimate M. Claude having made answer that he thought that what the Synod of Dordrect had done was very just M. de Condom said that the Church of Rome demanded nothing more that it acknowledged it self obliged to judge according to the Word of God and that was not in question but the point in issue was only the sense and explication of that Word and that it belonged to the Church to give that explication to particular persons to acquiesce therein and when in case they did not do it the Church did justly excommunicate And thus it was that the Protestants had been excommunicated in the Council of Trent Upon the Letter-missive to National Synods is it not said he a manifest illusion to swear that they will submit themselves thereunto supposed or upon condition that what shall be decided therein shall be conformable to the Word of God there 's nothing serious in that What say you Sir to this M. Claude said there was no illusion therein and how he saw nothing but what was regular If I comprehend your Doctrine aright replyed M. de Condom you believe a private person may doubt of the judgment of the Church even when it pronounces in its highest Tribunal We beleive said M. Claude that there 's no certainty of faith that an Ecclesiastical Assembly shall judge rightly and in that respect one may doubt thereof But that nevertheless one ought ever to presume well of an Assembly and in that respect a body ought not to say he doubts it but must say he hopes nay and beleives it wilâ— judge well For Jesus Christ has promis'd that all those who seek shall find Mat. 7. and that it is to be presumed they will do their duty in seeking well untill the Contrary appears Wherefore this is an assurance of Charity and of Equity which excludes doubt in some sense But when people see Cabals Factions and humane interests to swarm and reign in Assemblies then the truth is they may with reason doubt for we see persons who stray from their Duty and by consequence are not in a state of hoping any thing from the blessing of God I beseech you Sir said then M. de Condom let us lay aside what is only good to cast dust into the eyes What you have newly started of Cabals Factions and Interests is impertinent and serves only to puzzle I ask you suppose there appears in an assembly neither Factions Cabals nor Interests and that all its proceedings were just and regular ought their decisions to be received without examination No Sir said M. Claude I had then reason said he to say that all you have urg'd of Factions and Cabals is impertinent Your conclusion's not just reply'd M. Claude for tho' there 's nothing which staggers the presumption which people have that this assembly will do its Duty and according to all appearances things will be orderly therein this is however but a humane presumption which offers no certainty of Faith and by consequence does not hinder examination But when disorder and corruption are seen to reign therein the presumption is still no longer in favour of such an Assembly and instead of entertaining good hopes of it all is to be feared Thus it is not without reason that I have spoke of Cabals and of Faction There M. de Condom taking again in hand the thread of his discourse said it was not true that the Independants did absolutely reject all sorts of Ecclesiastical Assemblies for they held one said he at London in the Year 1653. so as the Synod of Charenton could not condemn them for that but only because they would not acknowledge there was owing a Dependance and an absolute submission to the Synods As for the Synod of Sainte Foy added he if the question had been only to make illustrations and explications as M. Claude call'd it what necessity was there of inserting them in the Confession of the Faith might it not have been done by an Act of Synod without chewing the confession Wherefore its certain their design was to express the Article of Faith touching the Lords Supper in ambiguous terms whereof both partyes had agreed and which each might wrrest to his advantage a thing which had been attempted several times but had not succeeded Now this had been in effect not meerly giving illustrations and explications nor even establishing a Mutual Toleration but changing the Confession of the Faith After that added he every one may guess what he ought to beleive of a Confession of Faith which a whole National Synod was willing to change That as for the
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
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