sonably be doubted whether in such an assembly there will not be mixed something human and doubtful."

"Pray, sir," said I, "let us leave aside what is good for nothing but to throw dust into one's eyes. All you say of cabals, factions, interests, is absolutely foreign to the purpose, and consequently serves only to perplex."

"There is nothing," said M. Claude, "less foreign to the purpose."

And I maintain," said I, "that yourself will shortly concede that there is nothing more foreign to the purpose. For I ask you, sir, supposing there should appear in the council neither factions nor cabals; supposing also one were assured that there were none, and that all proceeded in an orderly manner; must one receive the decision without examining it?" He was fain to answer "No." Whence I immediately concluded: "I was right, then, in saying that all you alleged as very considerable, about factions and cabals, is in reality but a diversion; and, in fine, that a private person, a woman, an ignorant man, any one, may believe and ought to believe that possibly he may understand the word of God better than a whole council, though assembled from the four quarters of the world, and than all the rest of the Church."

"Yes," said he, "it is so."

I repeated twice or thrice the proposition he had granted, adding still some stranger circumstance, but evidently contained in what was accorded. "What!" said I, "better than all the rest of the Church together, and than all her assemblies, though composed of the holiest and most enlightened persons in the universe! for all these are still but men, subsequently to whose decision every one, according to your doctrine, ought still to examine. A private person shall believe he may have more grace, more light-in fine, more of the Holy Spirit than all the rest of the Church!" All this was to be allowed: and I might have added more than all the fathers, more than all past ages, reckoning immediately from the apostles' times. "But," proceeded I, "if it be so, how do you escape the difficulties of the Independents? and what means has the Church left to hinder there being as many religions, I do not say as there are parishes, but as there are heads?" He replied: “We have synods, which are means to hinder so great evils; means, although not infallible, yet profitable, as I have said. For, although a pastor that preaches is not infallible, his ministry ceases not to be profitable, because he declares the truth. Now a great assembly, composed of more persons, and those of greater learning, will yet better declare it." "Methinks, sir,"

replied I," that you make every thing to consist in instruction: but this is not precisely either the intention or institution of synods, for oftentimes one learned individual will give more instruction than a whole synod together. What we are, therefore, to look for from a synod is not so much instruction as a decision by authority, which must be submitted to; for this it is which is needful both to the ignorant who doubt, and to the proud who contradict. An ignorant private person, if you leave him to himself, will confess to you that he knows not how to determine and far from abating pride in a synod, you mount it to its highest pitch, since you oblige a private person to believe that he can understand the Scripture better than the synod and all the rest of the Church; and the synod itself, though assembled from the whole Church, upon being asked by him whose faith it is examining, whether it be not still his duty to examine after the synod, and whether it may not so fall out that he, though a private person, may understand the Scripture better than all the pastors assembled? the synod, though universal, must, according to your doctrine, declare that without doubt he may. Sir, presumption cannot go farther. And observe, pray, that these assemblies, which you propose as profitable means, are no longer so, when every one may believe that he has a better and the only one that can secure him, to wit: that of examining by himself and believing only his own judg ment. This, sir, is perfect Independency; for the Independents neither refuse to hold synods for their mutual instruction, nor to receive those synods when they are satisfied with what these synods have laid down. They have held some, as you are aware." He acknowledged they had held one to frame their confession of faith. "Whether one or more," said I, "it matters not they do not, then, absolutely reject them, and they reject in them precisely no more than you do, which is, the obligation of submitting to them without examining." And hereupon, to sum up in few words, this was my argument:"The Independents approve of ecclesiastical assemblies for instruction; all they disallow is, the authoritative decision, which you will no more admit than they; you are then wholly conformable, and you ought not to have condemned them." "You see not, then, sir," said M. Claude, "that we deny not that there is an authority in synods-such a one as the paternal authority, such a one as the authority of magistrates, such a one as a master has over his scholars and a pastor over his flock; all these authorities have their use, and are not to be rejected under pretence that fathers, magistrates, and masters may be deceived just so then with the authority of the Church."

"But, sir," answered I, "the Independents do not deny the authority of magistrates, nor the authority of masters over their scholars, nor of pastors over their flocks; they have pastors, in whose behalf they claim, as you do, a certain deference; and much more will they not deny that it ought to be paid to a whole synod. If, then, you accuse them of denying the authority of synods, you must add something to what they believe in respect of them, and there is nothing to be added but what we believe-which is, that we must submit to them without examining."

After this we did nothing for a little time on both sides but repeat the same things. Having called M. Claude's attention to this, I said: "In fine, sir, it would be an interminable dispute. A man has only to examine conscientiously and before God, whether he think himself capable of understanding the Scripture better than all councils and all the rest of the Church, and how such an opinion can agree with the docility and humility of God's children." I inculcated in few words what a pride it was for one to believe he could understand the word of God better than all the rest of the Church, and how, after this, every check was removed to there being as many religions as there are heads.

M. Claude here told me he wondered this proposition should appear so strange to me, that a private person might believe it possible for him to understand the Holy Scripture better than the whole Church assembled; that the case had occurred, and he could produce me several instances. The first in the Council of Rimini,* where the term "consubstantial" was rejected and Arianism set up. I interrupted him, saying, "Whither are you starting, sir? From the Council of Rimini you will bring us to the false Council of Ephesus, to the Council of Constance, to that of Basle, to that of Trent: when shall we have done, if we must here review all these councils? I declare to you that I will not engage in this discussion, since our question may be determined by something more precise. But, as you have mentioned the Council of Rimini, tell me, sir, whether the fathers of that council continued long in this erroneoust decision?" "Well, I believe, sir," said he, "they quickly retraced their steps." "Say, sir," answered I," that as soon as the emperor Constantius, the declared protector of the Arians and persecutor of the faithful, had permitted them to retire, these bishops protested aloud against the violence and surprise that had been put upon them; oblige me not, sir, to

* A. D. 359. See Note A. ↑ I should rather have said equivocal or imperfect.

relate this story, which you know as well as I, and acknowledge that it is unjust to compare a council manifestly coerced with assemblies held canonically and according to order." "Why, sir," replied M. Claude, "do not we say that the Council of Trent was neither free nor canonical ?" "You say so, sir, and we deny it; and we have nothing to do with that dispute at present. The present question is, to know whether you can avoid Independency, and whether there be in your doctrine any remedy against this insupportable presumption of a private person, who must, according to your principles, believe that he can understand the Scripture better than the best assembled and best held œcumenical councils, and than all the rest of the Church together."

"We will then pass over the Council of Rimini, if you will," said M. Claude; "I will produce another indisputable example: it is the judgment of the synagogue when it condemned Jesus Christ, and consequently declared that he was not the Messiah promised by the prophets. Tell me, sir, would not a private person, who should then have believed our Lord to be the true Christ, have judged better than all the rest of the synagogue together. Here, then, is an unquestionable case for doing without presumption what you think so presumptuous. In fact," proceeded he, "it is no presumption not to give to the Church what belongs to God alone. We cannot give him any thing greater than to believe him implicitly, as you would have us believe the Church. But you know that St. Paul, at least as much inspired as the Church, forbears not to declare to the Corinthians that he will not have dominion over their faith.* The Church ought still less to do it than he. We must not then believe her simply on her word: we must examine after her, and make use of our reason, as those of Beroa did, who daily searched the Scriptures, to see whether the things were so't as St. Paul had preached to them."

When M. Claude had done, "Here," said I, "are many things: but we must first consider this indisputable example you have proposed to us." Upon this I observed to him that the Christian Church had great privileges above the synagogue, even considering the synagogue in the time of its greatest splendor: but, not to mention this, that it was a strange thing to compare the synagogue (falling at the very moment, when its obduracy and reprobation were clearly marked by the prophets) with the Christian Church, which is never to fall. "But after all, sir," replied he, "one might have then addressed to this

private person the same argument that you address to us. To allege the prophecies availed nothing for it was on the application of these prophecies to Jesus Christ that the synagogue was in doubt. So a private individual could not even believe in Jesus Christ without at the same time believing that he had a more correct understanding of the Scripture than the whole synagogue: and this is the argument that you address to us." There were but few persons at the conference, and they were all Huguenots, except the lady of Marshall De Lorges. I saw two of these gentlemen look on one another with complacence. I regretted that a reasoning so manifestly vicious should make such an impression on their minds; and I besought God to give me grace to overturn, by something that should be clear, the odious comparison which was instituted between his ever-beloved Church and the faithless synagogue at that very moment he had determined to repudiate the latter.

"You say then, sir," I said to M. Claude, "that the argument I propose may authorize the error of those private persons who condemned Jesus Christ on the faith of the synagogue, and on the contrary condemn those of presumption who believed Jesus Christ alone, preferably to the whole synagogue." "Yes, sir," said he, "just so;" and he went over his reasoning again. I replied: "Let us examine whether my argument involve this pernicious consequence. It consists, sir, in saying that, upon denying the Church's authority, there remain no external means which God can make use of to clear the doubts of the ignorant, and inspire the faithful with necessary humility. To warrant the application of such an argument to the time when Jesus Christ was condemned, it must be contended that there then existed no external means, no certain authority to which men were necessarily to submit. Now, sir, who can say this since Jesus Christ was upon earth-that is, the Truth itself visibly manifested in the midst of men; the eternal Son of God, to whom a voice from on high bore witness before all the people, This is my beloved Son, hear ye him ;** who, to confirm his mission, raised the dead, healed those that were born blind, and wrought so many miracles that the Jews themselves confessed never any man had done the like. There was then, sir, an external means, a visible authority. But it was contested, it is true; but it was infallible. I do not pretend, sir, the Church's authority is never contested; I hear you, sir, contest it; but I say it ought not to be contested by Christians. I say that she is infallible; I say that there never was a

* Matt. iii. 17.