Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	church_n	scripture_n	7,828	5	6.5314	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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

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

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 wil● 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