the important secret. He desired him to make the circumstance known to his majesty; and, at the same time, opened to him his whole mind. His majesty,' he said to Bossuet, has, more than once, intimated to me his intention of conferring on me the dignity of high constable of France, when I should abjure the Huguenot religion. Say from me to him that I abjure the Huguenot and embrace the Roman catholic religion from conviction. But I rely on his majesty's kindness to me, that he will never mention to me the dignity of high constable.' "TH CONFERENCE of Bossuet wITH M, CLAUde. HE account which Bossuet has given of this conference is extremely interesting. It turned on some points of the most important of all the articles in dispute between Roman catholics and Protestants, the authority by which Jesus Christ directed christians to be governed in the disputes which he foresaw would arise on his doctrine. All Roman catholics, and all the protestants of the old school assert, that these disputes should be decided by the church. But, when churches themselves are divided, the question must be, which of them is to be obeyed. The Roman catholic says, it is that church which existed before all other churches, and from which all churches, not in union with her, have separated. This description, they assert, applies to the Roman catholic church, and to no other. She therefore, in their opinion, is the mistress and judge of controversies. Her authority, the separatists from her deny; and the dispute on this point is the most important of all their differences, as the decision of it involves the decision of every other article in dispute between them. "M. Claude, the antagonist of Bossuet in this conference, enjoyed the highest reputation in his party. Bossuet speaks of his learning, polite manners, and mildness, in high terms of praise. He mentions, that, throughout the conference, M. Claude listened with patience, expressed himself with clearness and force, pressed his own objections with precision; and never eluded an objection made to him, which admitted of an answer. "The conference was held at the request of Mademoiselle de Duras, a niece of the great Turenne. Several Huguenots of distinction assisted at it; the countess de Lorges, a sister of Mademoiselle de Duras, was the only Roman catholic present. "On the day preceding the conference, Bossuet, by the desire of Mademoiselle de Duras, waited on her, and explained to her what he understood by the words, Catholic church,' which he foresaw would frequently occur in the conference. He explained to her that, in his controversy with M. Claude, he should not appropriate these words to the Roman catholic church, but use them to denote generally what both M. Claude and he admitted, an external and visible society, which professed to believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to govern itself by his word. That, to found this society, the Son of God issued from his eternal Father; that, while he was on earth, he gathered round him certain men, who acknowledged him for their master; that, in subsequent times, the faithful aggregated themselves to that society, and formed, what is called in the apostes' creed, the catholic or universal church:-that, sometimes surrounded by infidels, sometimes torn into pieces by heretics, there had not, from the first moment of her divine origination, been one instant of time in which she had not possessed the faith, the doctrine, and the sacraments of Christ; or in which she had not been protected by him, or had not been visible, as the meridian sun, to all on earth: had there been but a single instant in which she ceased to profess the faith or possess the sacraments of Christ, it would necessarily follow that the promises of Christ, to teach her all truth, to be with her to the end of the world, and to prevent the powers of hell from prevailing against her, would have failed. That there is such a church M. Claude admits. But it cannot, says Bossuet, be the church of M. Claude. The reformed church, to justify her separation from the Roman catholic church, must either charge the Son of God with a breach of his promise; or shew the other great and visible church, in which the true faith has been uninterruptedly preserved.To assert the former would be blasphemy; to assert the latter would be to deny historical evidence. When the church of the reformers first separated from the one, the holy, the Roman catholic church, their church, by their own confession, did not enter into communion with a single christian church in the whole world.' "On the day after this conversation took place, Mademoiselle de Duras called on Bossuet, in company with M. de Coton, a Huguenot minister of distinction, personally known to Bossuet, and esteemed by him. By her desire Bossuet repeated to him what he had mentioned to her on the preceding day. M. Coton objected to Bossuet the promises of God to the Jews, and the frequent revolts of the general body both of the people of Israel, and the people of Judah, from the true worship; and concluded from it, that there might be a temporary interruption of the church of God, without a breach of the divine promise. To this Bossuet replied, that it was evident from Scripture that, though a great, or even the greater part of the chosen people had apostatized, still the true worship of God never was extinguished, never ceased to be gloriously discernible either in Israel or Judah;-that, in the times of their greatest apostasies, the true worship was retained by a great portion of the people of each king dom; and that each of them had a regular succession of prophets; so that the inspired writers (Paral. xxxvi. 5. Jo. -xi. 7. xxv. 1. 4.) scrupled not to say, that every morning and night the Almighty Word arose and warned the chosen seed by the mouths of his prophets, against the surrounding idolatry. These prophets,' continued Bossuet, were themselves a part of the people of God; they kept the people to their duty; and preserved a large part of them from corruption: and thus, though a frightful portion of them, and perhaps even the mass of them, fell into idolatry, there were always among them those who preserved pure, and vis sible 1 6 sible to all, the deposit of the true worship. To them,' Bossuet said, Ezecbiel (xliv, 13.) alluded, when he mentioned the priests and Levites, who, when the children of Israel went astray, always observed the ceremonies of the sanctuary; served the Lord, and appeared before him, to offer him victims.' "Here the conversation with M. Coton finished. While they waited the arrival of M. Claude to open the conference, Bossuet took occasion to mention to Mademoiselle de Duras that, in the course of the proposed conference, he would prove to her satisfaction three things;the first, that the Huguenots acted as if they believed that the authority of their church was infallible; the second, that, though they acted in this manner, it was a maxim among them, that every individual, how ever ignorant, was obliged to believe he understood the scriptures better than all the rest of the church, This seemed to surprize her much: • he proceeded to mention to her the third, which she thought was still more strange-that it was an article of the Huguenot creed, that there was a period of time during which a christian was obliged to doubt whether the scriptures were inspired by God, whether the gospel were a truth or a fable, and whether Jesus Christ were an impostor, or the teacher of salvation. He undertook to force M. Claude to confess all this, or to convince her, that all of it was an evident and direct consequence of his principles. "After this, they were informed that M. Claude was come, and the conference began. We can only pretend to present the reader with a short outline of it: but we can confidently assure him that, if he takes an interest in such polemic discussions, he will be abundantly gratified by perusing the whole of the account given of it by Bossuet. M Claude's account of it has not fallen into the hands of the writer. "Bossuet began the conference, by asking, if it were not amʊrg the articles of the reformed church of France, that disputes on faith should be determined, if possible, by the consistory; that, if they were not determined by the consistory, they should be determined by the provincial synod; that, if they were not determined by the provincial synod, they should be determined by the holy national assembly; and that those, who refused to acquiesce in the determination of the national assembly, were to be declared out of the pale of the church, and excommunicated. He further asked, if the circular letter of the reformed churches, when they sent their deputies to the national assembly, were not expressed in the following words: We promise, before God, to submit to all that shall be resolved in your holy assembly; convinced, as we are, that God will preside over it, and guide you by his Holy Spirit, into all truth and equity, by the rule of his word.' Bossuet concluded by observing, that by this the reformed church appeared to act as if they acknowledged the infallibility of the national assembly. This was the first of the three points which he had undertaken to Mademoiselle de Duras to bring M. Claude to confess. "The facts mentioned by Bossuet were candidly admitted by M. Claude: but he denied the conclusion which Bossuet drew from them; and, in a speech of some length, which Bossuet praises for its neatness and method, explained the nature of the arrangements mentioned by Bossuet. He said, that the different assemblies, mentioned by by Bossuet, had different degrees of jurisdiction; but that, in all of them, it was a jurisdiction of discipline; and that the intrinsic value of the truth of their decisions, and even of the decision of the national assembly, depended solely on their conformity to the word of God: and thus, according to M. Claude, an ultimate power of enforcing discipline, but no infallibility in doctrine, was vested by them in the national assembly. A discussion then took place between Bossuet and M. Claude to bring this to issue, and every word of it is highly interesting. At the end of it Bossuet observed to M. Claude, that if he understood him rightly, both the intermediate submission required to the consistory and provincial synod, and the ultimate submission required to the national assembly, were conditional; or, in other words, that a conscientious submission could only be required, if the party thought their determinations were conform able to the word of God. To this M. Claude assented: Then,' said Bossuet, the profession of submission might be equivalently couched in these words;-I swear to submit to what you shall decide, if I shall think your decision is conformable, to the word of God.What does this really amount to?', A short silence ensued: Bossuet renewed the conference, by saying, You believe that an individual may call in question the sentence of your church, even when your 'church, pronounces in the last resort.' No, sir, answered M. Claude, it should not be said, that an individual can lawfully doubt in such a case, as there is every appearance that the judgment of the church will be right.'To say that there is an appearance,' Bossuet replied, is to say that there is a doubt.' 'But," answered M. Claude, there is more than an appearance. Jesus Christ has himself promised, that those who truly seek him, shall find him. Now, it should be presumed, in favour of the assemblies, that they seek him truly; and will, therefore, be certain of finding him. To be sure, if it should appear that there are cabals, or any other suspicious circumstance in the national synod, the confidence in it might be lessened, or absolutely withdrawn.' Then, let us leave these factions and cabals,' said Bossuet, 'out of the question. Let us suppose, that there is no faction, no cabal, nothing improper; and that every thing passes in perfect order: must its decision be received without examination?' M. Claude admitted that the right of examination existed. Then,' said Bossuet, you admit that every individual, whoever he be, may believe, and even ought to believe, that it may happen to him to understand the word of God better than the national assembly; and even better than a council assembled from the four quarters of the world.-For, on what can this right or duty of examination be founded, but because the individual, may justly conceive, that he himself understands the word of God better than those whose decision he has a right to examine?' This was the second point which Bossuet had promised Mademoiselle de Duras to make M. Claude admit. "Bossuet now considered that he had set M. Claude between the horns of a perfect dilemma, If M. Claude contended for the duty of submission to, the sentence of the national assembly, under pain of excommunication, Bossuet opposed to him his acknowledgment of the right of individuals to try the pro priety of that sentence by their private judgments;-if M. Claude admitted this right of private judgment in an individual, Bossuet opposed to him the assembly's right to excommunicate him for exercising it. Contending for the former, M. Claude admitted the first,-contending for the latter, M. Claude admitted the second of the positions, which Bossuet had promised Mademoiselle de Duras to make him 'confess. "The conference, however, proceeded. Surely,' said Bossuet, this right of individual examination, which you recognize in each individual, must be accompanied with the highest individual presumption. That by no means follows,' replied M. Claude; When the synagogue declared that Jesus Christ was not the Messiah promised. by the prophets, and condemned him to death, would not an individual, who believed him to be the true Christ, have judged better than the synagogue? Could you accuse such an individual of presumptuously believing that he understood the scriptures better than all the syna gogue?' A more able reply than this of M. Claude cannot be conceived. It produced a great effect on all the persons present. Bossuet informs us, in his relation of the conference, that this effect of it was observed by him that, though he himself was fully aware of the answer which he ought to give to it, he was afraid that he might not express it properly; and that he therefore made a silent prayer to God that he would inspire him to express it in such terms as would remove the impression made by M. Claude on the minds of the audience. After a moment's silence, he addressed M. Claude in these words: You say that my assertion, that the individual, who sets up his own private opinion, in opposition to that of the whole church, must be guilty of intolerable presumption, fixes the charge of equal presumption on those who believed in Jesus Christ, in opposition to the sentence of the synagogue, which had pronounced him guilty of blasphemy. Most certainly, my assertion proves nothing of the kind. When an individual now sets up his own private opinion in opposition to that of the whole church, he sets it up against the highest authority on earth, as the earth contains no authority to which an appeal from that authority can be made. But, when the synagogue condemned Jesus Christ, there was on earth a much higher authority than the synagogue; to that autho rity the individual, who reprobated the proceedings of the synagogue, might appeal. Truth herself then visibly existed among men ; the Messiah, the eternal Son of God,he, to whom a voice from above had rendered testimony, by proclaiming before the whole people that he was the well-beloved Son of God,-he, who restored the dead to life, gave sight to the blind, and did so many miracles, that the Jews themselves confessed no man had done the like before him,-he, the Jesus himself, then existed among men; and was the visible external authority, to whom there was a lawful appeal from the synagogue. His authority was infallible. I hear you say that it was a contested authority. I know that it was contested; but, as a christian, you are bound to say, that no individual could reasonably or conscientiously contest it. It was not therefore presumption, it was duty to disobey the synagogue and to believe in Christ. Bring back to me Jesus |