authority. After this manner were Christians instructed in the primitive times, in which heretics were told that they were not to be admitted to dispute about the Scripture, because without Scripture, they could be shewn that Scripture is not for them,* that there is nothing common between them and Scripture.

"And pray remark, that all Christian societies, except the newly Reformed Churches,' have retained this manner of instructing. M. Claude and I said that the Greek Church, the Ethiopian, the Armenian, and others, were mistaken, indeed, in believing themselves the true Church; but all at least believe that there is nothing to examine after the true Church. There is no other manner of teaching the faithful. If we tell them that they may understand the Holy Scripture better than all the rest of the Church put together, we nourish pride, we take away docility; none says it, but the Churches which call themselves Reformed.' Everywhere else they say, as we do, that there is a true Church, which must be believed without examining after her: this is believed not only in the true Church, but also in those which imitate the true Church. The so-called 'Reformed' is the only Church which says it not. If the true Church, whichsoever she may be, says it, the pretended 'Reformed' is not then the true Church, because she says it not.

"Let them not tell us, 'The Ethiopian says it, the Greek says it, the Armenian says it, the Roman says it; which shall I believe?'

"If your doubt consisted in choosing between the Roman and the Greek, it would be necessary to enter into this examination. But now it is agreed in your religion, that the Greek Church, the Ethiopian, and the rest, are in the wrong against the Roman; and if they were true Churches, you ought (in leaving the Roman, which, as you say, was not such) to have sought communion with them. They are then not the true Church. No more are you: for the true Church believes that we must believe, without examining, what the true Church teaches. You teach the contrary. You call yourselves the true Church, and you say at the same time, that one must examine after you; which is to say, that one may incur damnation by believing you. You renounce then thenceforth the advantage of the true Church. You are not the true Church; it is a duty to quit you: it is here the beginning is to be made. Should any one, upon leaving you, be tempted to unite himself to the Greek Church, he will have his answer."

* Tertull. Præscrip. sec. 18, 37.

62

SCRUPLES OF MLLE. DE DURAS.

After Mademoiselle de Duras had heard these reasons, it seemed to me that nothing else could give her concern save the habit contracted from her infancy and the fear of afflicting her mother, for whom I knew she had all the tenderness and all the respect that such a mother deserves: I also saw she was concerned for the reproaches that were made her of having human designs, and especially of having delayed the doubting of her religion, until after a donation made her by her mother. "Your own conscience," said I to her, "best knows in what condition you were when this donation was made you; whether you had any doubt, and suppressed it in prospect of procuring yourself this advantage." "I did not so much as think of it," answered she. "You know then well," said I to her, "that this motive has not any part in what you do. Continue, therefore, in peace; provide for your salvation, and let men talk; for this apprehension, of being charged with human respects, is itself a sort of human respect, and that of the most refined and most to be feared."

She requested me to repeat in M. Coton's presence what had been said, through a desire that he should be instructed with her. He was sent for; we agreed on the facts. M. Coton, in an exceedingly mild manner, proposed some objections about the doctrine I had unfolded. I answered them; he told me he was not practised in discussion, nor versed in these matters. He said true; he reposed on M. Claude. I prayed God to enlighten him, and departed to return to my duty.

After another conversation which Mademoiselle de Duras and I had at St. Germain, in the Duchess of Richelieu's apartment, she told me that she believed herself in a condition to take her resolution within a little while, and that it only remained to pray God to conduct her well. The success was such as we wished. On the 22d of March, I returned to Paris to receive her abjuration; she made it in the Church of the Rev. Fathers of Christian Doctrine. The exhortation I made her had for its object, to represent to her that she was returning into the Church which her fathers had forsaken; that she would not henceforth believe herself more capable than the Church, more enlightened than the Church, and fuller of the Holy Ghost than the Church; that she would receive from the Church, without examining, the true sense of the Scripture as she received from the Church the Scripture itself; that she was henceforth going to build on the rock, and that her faith must fructify in good works. She felt the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and the congregation was edified by her good example.

REFLECTIONS

ON A

TREATISE BY M. CLAUDE.

I STATED, in my Preface to this book, that after M. Claude had read my recital, he drew up an answer to the INSTRUCTION I had given Mademoiselle De Duras, joining to it a Relation of our Conference, which he had drawn up, as he affirms in that writing, "on the day following our interview."

I have received from several places, and even from the remotest provinces, this Treatise of M. Claude's, with his Relation; but the most complete and most correct copy I have seen was communicated to me by the Duke of Chevreuse, who had it from a lady of quality of the Reformed religion. I have seen also, in the same Duke's hands, a declaration signed by M. Claude, in which he avows the whole writing; so that it cannot be doubted but it is his.

I find many things in this piece which manifestly confirm all that the reader has found in mine. It is not my intention here to notice all these things, nor to answer passages wherein M. Claude appears to me, through the weakness of his cause, as little in agreement with himself as with us. To make such remarks, the work must be in the hands of all people, so that every one may see whether the passages be truly related, and the sense and consecution well apprehended; in a word, it must be public. Its publication depends on M. Claude. In the meantime I will make some reflections on things about which I think he cannot disagree, and which may very much assist the "Reformed" to take a good resolution on the matter we have treated.

My first reflection is upon the answer made by M. Claude to the acts extracted out of the "Discipline" of his Churches. I made use of these acts to show, that it was so necessary for all private persons to submit, in questions on faith, to the

Church's infallible authority, that the Reformed, who rejected it in speculation, were at the same time forced to acknowledge it in practice. What is most stringent in these acts is, that to the National Synod alone to the exclusion of Consistories, Colloquies, and Provincial Synods-is attributed "the ultimate and final resolution, by God's word." But, because this is "the ultimate and final resolution," the Churches and provinces sending deputies to this synod swear solemnly "to submit to whatever shall be concluded in that assembly, being persuaded that God will preside in it by his Holy Spirit and by his word." Thus, because they believe an entire submission due to this supreme sentence when it shall be pronounced, they swear to it before it is given: this is acting consistently. But if, after a promise confirmed by so solemn an oath, they still claim a liberty to examine, I confess I know not what words signify, and there never was any mental evasion so deceptive and equivocating.

It will readily be believed, without my saying it, that the ministers find themselves pressed by so clear an argument. On such occasions, where the truth manifests itself with so much evidence, the difficulty becomes, in proportion to each one's intelligence, the more perceptible, the more each one finds himself embarrassed. And thus there is nothing more discernible than the perplexity evinced in M. Claude's answer,-even that answer he himself sets down in his Relation.

He is reduced to say, that they make this oath, because one ought to presume well of such an assembly; and moreover, that these words, "We swear to submit to your assembly, being persuaded that God will preside in it," include a condition, without which the promise thus sworn has not its effect. This is all that can be answered. The anonymous, who dedicated his book to M. Conrart, first made me this answer. Another anonymous writer, whose book is entitled "Disguise Unmasked," made it after him. M. Noguier, and M. De Brueis, another author that has answered the EXPOSITION, had no more to say. M. Jurieu kept to this answer in his "Preservative;" save that he explains more simply than the rest, that all this persuasion, which serves for a ground to the oath, is "a clause of civility, the terms whereof must not be abused." M. Claude had no other reply, and this is the only one which still appears in his Relation.

*Discip. chap. v., art. xxxi.

Ibid. chap. ix., art. iii. M. de la Bastide.-See the Introduction to the new edition of the Exposition.

ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION REQUIRED BY NATIONAL SYNODS. 65

Thus, this serious and solemn oath of all our Reformed, and their Churches in a body, to their National Synod, is reduced to this proposition, which would be at bottom but a sorry compliment: "We swear before God to submit to all that you shall decide, if you decide by his word, as we presume and hope you will."

But then, for what reason is not this notable oath pronounced in these terms, if not for this, that they well saw that adopting such terms would be saying nothing, and they would say or seem to say, something?

For my part, the more I consider what is said in the "Discipline" of the Reformed concerning this oath of the Churches, the farther I find it from the sense they would give it.

I find, first, as I observed in the Conference, that this oath is made only for the National Synod-that is, for the synod "in which the ultimate and final resolution is to be made by God's word." And the National Synod of Castres has declared," that there should not be used, in the letters of mission brought by the deputies of particular Churches to the Colloquies and Provincial Synods, such absolute clauses of submission as are inserted in the letters of the provinces to the National Synod." Why, if not to show the difference there is between the ultimate decision and all the rest? Indeed, upon examining in what this difference consisted, I found another sort of submission for the Colloquies and Provincial Synods. It is, that those who are accused of altering the sound doctrine are antecedently obliged "to make an express promise, not to disseminate any of their opinions before the meeting of the Colloquy or the Provincial Synod." It is a rule of discipline and policy; but when they come to the synod in which this last and final resolution is to be made, the parties reiterate indeed the same promise, but they do not stop there; the Churches in a body add this solemn oath of submitting entirely to the decision, being persuaded that God himself will be the author of it. A "bare human presumption," as M. Claude calls it-a "clause of civility," as M. Jurieu styles it, cannot be the matter and foundation of an oath. Accordingly, we find that not only private persons, but also consistories and whole provinces perceived in this oath something stronger than they will at present let us understand; insomuch that they made a great resistance against it, which it required a considerable time and the reiterated decrees of National Synods to

overcome.

* Discipl. c. v. art. 31.