Prefaces
In no country is Protestantism more active than in the United States, in endeavoring to uphold its discordant principles, and consequently no where does the evil call for a more powerfully counteracting influence. The ablest controversial works for undeceiving our dissenting brethren, are those which point out the fallacies of the Protestant system, and expose its utter inconsistency with the plainest maxims of Christian morality. Among the works of this class, the 44 Conference between Bossuet and Claude” has always been considered of the highest merit and of surpassing interest ; and it is now offered to the public, under the conviction that it will be found a most valuable accession to the polemical literature that is in circulation amongst us.
The seventeenth century is remarkable for the many conferences, polemical or conciliatory, held between divines of the Catholic and Protestant communions. Without attempting to furnish a complete list, we may mention that of Ratisbon in 1601, that of Neuburg in 1615, that of Thorn in 1645, which, from the benevolent object of its promoter, King Uladislas IV., who had at heart the reunion of the Lutherans and Calvinists with his own Church, obtained the name of the “ Charitable” conference ; and finally, another held some time after at Rheinfelt, by order of the Landgrave of Hesse, between Valerianus Magnus, a Capuchin, and Peter Habercorn, a Calvinist minister.
These controversial discussions, like those which had taken place in the preceding century, — at Leipsic (1519), between Eckius, chancellor of Ingolstadt, and Luther, with his associate Carlostadius ; at Poissy (1561), between Beza and Peter Martyr, on the part of the Huguenots, and D’Espence, De Sainctes, and Lainez, on the Catholic side, — were conducted in public. Others were carried on in private or before a small company. The long continued consultation between the Lutheran Gerard Walther (more generally known under the name of Molanus), and Spinola bishop of Neustadt,1 deserves notice, on account of the overtures for conciliation to which it was the prelude, and the negotiations which were opened to that effect at the close of the seventeenth century.
Our own country had its conferences also, although these were chiefly polemical. Amongst the number may be mentioned those of Fisher with Dean White and Archbishop Laud, iv in the time of Charles I., and that between Andrew Pulton, a Scotch Jesuit, and Dr. Tenison, in the year 1687.
In none of these controversial encounters will the combatants appear to have been more equally matched, or the respective cause of the parties more keenly and skilfully maintained, than in that to which the reader is presently to be introduced. The ability of Bossuet, as a controvertist, is allowed on all hands ; and although the celebrity of his adversary is not of the same extent, his works being read but little at the present day, no one can refuse him the praise of consummate address and energy. If ever the cause of the “ Reformation’’ and its principles were brought to a fair test, it was at this celebrated conference.
John Claude, the son of a Calvinist minister, was born in 1619, at Sauvetat, near Agen, in the south of France. After holding the theological chair at Nismes for eight years, he removed to the capital, and in 1666 was chosen minister of Charenton, a small town in its vicinity. He soon distinguished himself by elaborate controversial writings; and in 1679 held the conference with Bossuet. Upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685, he withdrew to Holland, and died there in 1687.
Claude is described as a man of unimpeachable character and great sweetness of temper. His writings partake, it is true, of the acrimony which is an ordinary ingredient of controversy. But from this few works of that time were exempt. It is a happy but rare distinction which belongs to Bossuet, that he is earnest without being intemperate, and that his vehemence is without invective.
The following preface will acquaint the reader with the occasion of Bossuet’s publishing his account of the conference. It may be proper to add some particulars not there mentioned, which serve to explain the history of the publication of the subjoined Reflections.
It will be seen that Bossuet declares in his preface — “ Wherever M. Claude shall say that he did not acknowledge what I make him acknowledge in the recital of the Conference, I engage myself in a second conference to draw again from him the same acknowledgment ; and wherever he shall say that he was not without an answer, I will, without any other argument than such as he has heard already, force him to answers so manifestly absurd, that every man of good sense shall acknowledge that to have been silent would have been better than to have made use of them. And lest it should be said (for in an affair that concerns the salvation of souls we must, as much as may be, obviate every objection), lest then, once more, it should be said that M. Claude became involved in these embarrassments by some untoward lapse, I, on the contrary, affirm that this advantage is so inherent to our cause, that there is no minister, no doctor, no man living, but must in the same manner sink under the like arguments. Whosoever will make trial of it, will see that this is no idle promise.”
Bossuet did not intend this to pass as an idle flourish, but offered a serious challenge, and was very earnest that it should be accepted. He repeatedly pressed Claude to consent to a second meeting. This, however, Claude declined, alleging that it would be acting in defiance of the king’s prohibition against such conferences. This alleged hindrance Bossuet undertook to remove, and obtained every necessary authorization for the purpose, in order to set Claude’s mind at rest. He communicated the intelligence to him immediately through the Marquis De Ruvigny, a zealous Protestant nobleman. Claude, however, persisted in declining the meeting.
Disappointed in his endeavor to bring about a second conference, Bossuet gave more publicity to his narrative of that which had already taken place, and availed himself of the opportunity furnished by the Reflections he was called upon to make, in reference to Claude’s account and manuscript answer, to re-
VI sume questions that had been treated at the conference, and to elucidate and confirm what he had there advanced.
The Conference and the Reflections were published at Paris in the spring of 1682 .
An English version was printed in London five years after, the only one that has hitherto appeared. Generally uncouth in its wording, often obscure, and sometimes incorrect, it required emendation of some sort in almost every line before it could be republished by the Catholic Institute. That emendation it has now received, and the wdrk as at present issued will, upon comparison with its predecessor, be found to be almost a new translation. Most of the passages from the fathers cited or alluded to in the text have been given in the original language from the best editions, for the convenience of some readers; and for the benefit of others, to whom some elucidations might appear wanting, a few historical illustrations have been subjoined in an appendix.
Michaelmas day, 1841.
*** The reader will bear in mind that, in the following pages, the designation “ Reformed” is synonymous with " French Calvinists.” The name was assumed by those religionists to distinguish then^selves not only from Catholics, but from the rest of Protestants.
I had no intention to publish either this Conference or the instructions it was accompanied with. They both had for their object the conversion of a particular person ; and as they had their effect, there was no need of making mote ado about them. But as I was not ambitious to publish the recital of it, so neither did I affectedly strive to keep it concealed. I gave a copy to Mademoiselle De Duras, who requested it : as was but just. 1 consented without difficulty to its being communicated to some gentlemen of the so-called reformed religion that desired to see it, because it was thought it might be serviceable to their instruction. The same motive induced me to communicate it to some more of those gentlemen, either by myself or by the intervention of friends. Thus it passed into several hands. Copies were taken without my being aware; they were circulated, they were altered : some abridged the relation I had made, or turned it according to their own humor : in fine, it was printed at Toulouse from an incorrect copy, and I can no longer forbear giving it as I myself set it down, with great fidelity and scrupulous care.
Upon quitting the conference I related it entirely to the Duke and Duchess of Richelieu, in the presence of the Abbe Testu. The particular zeal they had for the conversion of Mademoiselle De Duras made them desire me so to do. I had before rehearsed to them the conversations which preceded it. Next day I made the same recital to some of my particular friends, amongst whom was the bishop of Mirepoix. I was full of the matter, and related it naturally. All these gentlemen exhorted me to commit it to writing whilst it was fresh in my memory, alleging several reasons to persuade me that this labor would not be lost. I believed them. I was seen to write with the expedition which is usual when one sets down facts that are before the mind, without troubling oneself about style ; and these
Vlll gentlemen observed in the written narrative the same simplicity they had discerned in my account of it by word of mouth. Mademoiselle De Duras acknowledged my report to be exactly true, and I hope those that shall read it without prejudice will have the same opinion of it.
My narrative having been circulated, as I have stated, one fell into the hands of M. Claude, as himself avers ; and he on his side' circulated, together with an Answer to the Instructions I had particularly given Mademoiselle De Duras, a relation of the conference very different from this of mine. To speak freely what I think, his relation does credit to neither of us. We there interchange discourse that is very languid, very prolix, and very desultory. We often return to the point we started from, without its being apparent what has brought us back. We did not act in that manner, and our dispute was consecutive and close enough. In this sort of contests men naturally warm as in a kind of wrestling, and thus the sequel is more animated than the beginning. Men try one another, so to speak, in the first blows they interchange ; when they have a little explained themselves, when they think they have discovered where each party places the difficulty, and found, as I may say, the weak side, there is more animation and urgency in what ensues. Whether all this be as natural in M. Claude’s discourse as in mine, the reader shall judge ; from the way that his is turned, many will scarce believe but that it has been at least adjusted and modified by the perusal of mine. But I will not dwell upon these reflections. It is with discourses as with pictures ; every one cannot discern what is original, and, so to speak, from the first hand. Nor will 1 here make use of the odious reproach of insincerity. One does not always so exactly remember either the things that were said, or the order in which they were delivered. We often confound in our minds our after thoughts with what we really said in the dispute ; and it comes to pass that, without any intention to deceive, we alter the truth. What I shall say or M. Claude, the same he may say of me. Our conversation was in private, and neither of us can produce indifferent witnesses ; thus every one will judge of the truth of our recitals according to his prepossessions. I pretend not to draw any advantage from the success of the conference, which was followed by the conversion of Mademoiselle De Duras ; it is God’s work, for which we ought to give him thanks ; it is an example for those that are well disposed, but not an argument for the obstinate. Catholics will look on this change in one manner, and the “ Reformed” in another. So that, should M. Claude and ! set ourselves each of
IX us to justify his own account, the result would only be a dispute with which the public has nothing to do. And what great matter is it, the reader will say, which of the two had the better ? The cause resides not2 in these two men, who would ap* pear extremely vain, and so of little credit, if they would have every one, whether friend or adversary, believe them equally on their word. In these altercations the best course the prudent reader can take is to apply himself to the vital point ; and leaving the personal facts out of sight, to consider the doctrine laid down by each party.
The subject treated of throughout this relation is no less clear than important. It is the authority of the Church. Our adversaries make little account of this dispute, being always heard to say that we must come to the main point, and leave aside as an unnecessary formality all the presumptions drawn from the authority of the Church : as if it were not essentially the main point to examine by what authority and what means Jesus Christ would have Christians resolve themselves on the disputes that should spring up in his Church. Catholics hold that this means is to hear the Church itself. They hold that a particular member ought not to resolve but with the whole body, and that he hazards all when be resolves any other way. They hold that, to know in what Church we ought to abide, we need only know which it is that can never be accused of having originated in separation ; that is found existing before any separation; that from which all others have separated. Without leaving our house, our very parents will show us this 'Church. u Ask thy father and he will declare to thee ; thy elders, and they will tell thee.”* According to this rule, whoever can show a whole Church, a whole society of pastors and people, the beginning of its being, and any time during which it was not, has at once convicted it of not being a Church truly Christian. This is our pretension ; and we do not deem that this question regards a mere formality. We maintain that it concerns a fundamental article contained in these words of the creed, u I believe the Holy Catholic Church,” an article, besides, of such importance, that it carries with it the decision of all the rest. But as this point is decisive, so it is clear ; and it cannot be long spoken of but one side or other will show its weakness. To speak more correctly, when the least instructed Catholic engages with a Protestant on this point, the Protestant, how able or subtle soever, will find himself reduced, not always indeed to silence, but what is no less strong than silence to the
X utterance, when he shall attempt to speak, of manifest absurdities.
This was the case here with M. Claude, purely through the defect of his cause ; for it will appear that he defended it with all possible skill, and with such subtlety, that I feared for those that heard him ; for I know what St. Paul writes concerning such discourses. But, after all, we must boldly say, Truth gained a manifest victory. M. Claude’s admissions ruin his cause. The instances where he remained without an answer are indeed such as allowed of none.
And to the end it may not be said I assert what I please, or that I now desire what I erewhile disclaimed — to be believed on my own word, — two things will show, whatever opinion may be had of me, that on this point I must necessarily be believed.
The first is, that, relying on the force of truth, and the promise of Him who said “ I will give you a mouth and wisdom which your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay,”3 wherever M. Claude shall say that he did not acknowledge what I make him acknowledge in the recital of the conference, I engage myself in a second conference to draw again from him the same acknowledgment ; and wherever he shall say that he was not without an answer, I will, without any other argument than such as he has heard already, force him to answers so manifestly absurd, that every man of good sense shall acknowledge that to have been silent would have been better than to have made use of them. And lest it should be said (for in an affair that concerns the salvation of souls, we must, as much as may be, obviate every objection), lest then, once more, it should be said that M- Claude became involved in these embarrassments by some untoward lapse, 1, on the contrary, affirm that this advantage is so inherent to our cause, that there is no minister, no doctor, no man living, but must in the same manner sink under the like arguments. Whosoever will make trial of it, will see that this is no idle promise. And should it be alleged that 1 presume too much on my strength, now that I examine myself in the presence of God, if such a presumption had made me speak, 1 would disown all I have said. Instead of promising myself any advantage, I should esteem myself already vanquished by trusting only to my own arm and my own weapons, and far from defying the strong, as David did,f 1 should rank myself among those of whom the same David sings, “ that the arrows of children have pierced them, and their own
XI tongues, too weak to defend them, are in fine turned against themselves. 55 *
The instruction which I offer to the “ Reformed 55 generally, I particularly offer to those of the diocess of Meaux, whom, above all the rest, it is my duty to have a care for. To those that shall refuse this Christian instruction, no less peaceable, fraternal and paternal, than conclusive and decisive, I will say, in the words of St. Paul, with sorrow and groaning, there being no comfort for the loss of one’s children and brethren, I am clear from the blood of them all.f
This is the first thing that will show that I impute nothing to M, Claude in order to give myself any advantage. The second is, that M. Claude himself, in the midst of what he alleges against me, and throughout all the turns he gives our dispute, still acknowledges in substance what was at issue between us, or else shifts it off in such a manner as plainly shows that he cannot entirely disown it. But this will be better understood upon reading, after the instructions and the conference, the reflections I make on M. Claude’s treatise.
Some attention is requisite to follow the whole train of these instructions ; for, whatever facility it has pleased God to allow us in a matter in which he discloses to the most ignorant as well as to the most learned the way of salvation, yet he would not discharge any one of the attention he is capable of ; and since the following discourses have their rise from the nineteenth and twentieth articles of my Exposition, the reading of these two articles,! which will but take up half a quarter of an hour, will facilitate the understanding of all this work, though I hope, however, that it is of itself sufficiently intelligible.
Besides, the reading of them will not be unuseful to Catholics, who, ordinarily, give too little attention to books of controversy. Grounded in the faith of the Church, they are not sufficiently careful to study works by which their faith would be confirmed, and in which they would find means of reclaiming those that err. It was not so in the first ages of the Church : the treatises of controversy written by the fathers were sought after by all the faithful. Conversation being one of the means proposed to us by the Holy Ghost of gaining unbelievers and bringing back the erring, every one endeavored to render his profitable and edifying by such reading. The truth insinuated itself by so gentle a means, and conversation won those whom a premeditated dispute would perhaps but have irritated. But xn4 to the end our controversial works may be read as those of the fathers were, let us endeavor to fill them, as the fathers did, not only with exact and sound doctrine, but also with piety and charity ; and let us, as much as we can, correct the dryness, not to say the sourness, which is too often found in such books.
Footnotes
Chapter 1 of 3