147 Truths. Now amongst other Truths contain'd in it I find Chrift's pofitive Promife, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church. Math. 16. V. 18. Another Promife, that he will be with her even unto the End of the World. Math. 28. v. 19. I likewife find in St Paul, that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. Upon thefe and fuch like Teftimonies of holy Scriptures I believe it to be a reveal'd Truth, that the Church is infallible. And thus the Church first gives Teftimony for Scriptures, and then the Scriptures give Teftimony for the Church. And shew me now a Difference, if you can, between this Circle, and that of proving St John to be a Prophet from the Teftimony of Chrift, and proving reciprocally Chrift to be the Meffias from the Testi mony of St John.

G. But what then is a vicious Circle?

L. A vicious Circle is, when two Propofitions are made Ufe of to infer one another without having any other Proof to fupport them. But if they be proved from other ftrong and convincing Reasons, this opens the Circle, and hinders it from being what we call a vicious one. Now this is the very Cafe in Reference to the Church's Infallibility, and the Autho rity of Scriptures. The Church of Christ as fuch is first proved from all the General Motives of Credibility, which clearly mark this Church out to us, as the moft illuftrious, and therefore the most credible Society upon Earth in Matters of Religion. Her Authority thus eftablish'd is a legal and fufficient Evi dence even for thofe Truths, which Reason cannot fathom. If then amongst other Points she propounds to her Children these two Articles, viz. the Divine Authority of Scriptures, and her own Infallibility in Matters of Religion, these two like Chrift and St John bear Witness to each other. Yet having each a suf

1.26. ficient Evidence from the Motives of Credibility, by which the Church proves her Charter for the Delivery of reveal'd Truths, the Door is open, and there is no Danger of running round in a vicious Circle.

But, Sr, there is another thing, which delivers me from this Danger. For a Circle cannot be call'd vicious with Reference to an Adversary, who by his own Principles is bound to admit of either of the Propofitions, which prove each other reciprocally. And therefore when I dispute against a Member of the Church of England, who by his own Principles is bound to believe the Divine Authority of Scriptures, I may legally maintain the Church's Infallibility againft him from thofe facred Writings. Neither am I any ways bound to prove that they are the Word of God, because it is a Principle agree'd upon betwist us, and no Man is bound to prove a Principle of his Adverfary's own Conceffion. Nay, tho! myself believed not a Word of the New Testament, I might legally take the Advantage of it against a Proteftam, who believes it. For this is what we properly call Ar gumentum ad hominem: a certain cut-throat Way of Confuting a Man from his own Principles. And therefore, Sr, you cannot accufe us of Running round in a vicious Circle by proving the Church's Infallibility against Proteftants from Scripture.

6. But fuppofe I should deny the New Teftament to be the Word of God, would not your Lordship thea be left in the Lurch?

L. No, Sr, but you would have the Credit of Denying your own Principles, and I the Trouble of providing other Arms to fight against you as against a Jew, or Deift. That is to fay, I should be obliged firft to prove the Church's Authority in Matters of Religion from fuch Arguments or Motives, as the

145 ancient Fathers made Ufe of for the Converfion of Jews; and then to prove the Infpiration of Scriptures from that Authority.

§. 27.

be believed upon the Authority

The Being of a God may be believed

G.

.I

of Scriptures, or the Church.

Perceive, My Lord, you are fond of your a Circle, but I will bring you out of it. p. 36. « L. Well then, Sr, let us have a Touch of your

Skill.

G. Pray tell me, why do you believe a God? It « would be Blafphemy to say you believe it upon any Authority. For that would be to place fuch an Au- « thority above God. And it would be Nonfenfe to « fay you believe it either from the Church or the « Scriptures, because you can believe neither with- « out firft Believing that there is a God. What is « it then? We believe a God purely upon our own « Reafon. And we cannot be more fure that there is « a God, than we are perfuaded of the Truth of « thofe Reasons, upon which we do believe it. And « if God has given us no other Guide but our own « Reason with the Affiftance of his holy Grace to « believe in himfelf; if this be all we have or can « have for the firft and main Article of our Creed, « what further do we require for thofe of lefs Con- « fequence? And that we cannot have more than « this we may perceive by this Experiment, viz. « whether we believe moft firmly, and with greater «< Afsurance, what we have only from our own Rea- « fon, or what we receive from the Authority of the « Church? For Example, are you not more undoub- « gedly affured of the Being of a God, which you be a

lieve purely upon your own Reafon, than of Tran» fubftantiation, Purgatory, or whatever you believe » upon the Authority of the Church? pag. 36.

L. Sr, if you have no other Way but this to conjure me out of the Circle, I may go round in it till Doomsday. Here is your Argument in other Words, which shews it's Weaknefs. Reafon can perceive the manifeft Things of God, as his Being, therefore it can, perceive the hidden Things too, as the Mysteries of reveal' d Religion. Is this a folid Way of Arguing, or becoming a Divine? Reason can difcover the Perfections of a Deity which shine out in the Creation, therefore it can likewife difcover it's ·Divine Emanations, which no Way appear; but are as fecret as they are wonderful? Or do's it follow, that it can find out the Son, whom no Man ever knew but the Father; or the Father, whom no Man ever knew but the Son, or they to whom the Son was pleased to reveal kim! Math. 11. v. 27. Finally, do's it follow that our Reason can difcover the Incarnation of the Son of God, which St Paul calls the Wisdom of God hidden in a Mystery? 1. Cor. 2. v. 7. Suppose I believe a God purely upon my own Reafon, is it a Confequence, that the fame natural Light of Reafon without con fulting Authority can discover to me the divine Revelation, which directed the facred Penmen in their Writings, or enable me to Judge what Books are canonical, what not? It is evident that these Discoveries are abfolutely impoffible to natural Reason not directed by Authority. And fo my Believing a God purely upon my own Reafon do's not render Authority lefs neceffary for thofe other reveal'd Truths, nor can it do you any Manner of Service against the Circle.

But are you in good earnest when you tell me, that it is Blasphemy to believe a God upon the Authority

either of the Church or Scriptures? If so, then it follows first, that all young Perfons are bound to be Atheists, till they can understand the natural Demonftration of a God. For if they believe a God upon any Authority, they become guilty of Blafphemy. So that Nurfes, Parents, and Matters must be very careful not to tell Children that there is a God, for Fear they should believe it upon their Authority, and fo become acceffory to their Blafphemy. And yet it is the first Thing Children are taught: because it is the Groundwork on which all Religion is built. But whether they believe it upon Evidence, or the Authority of their Teachers (as Children and ignorant People, who understand not philofophical Demonftrations usually do) the Effect is the same. And when they once believe it, let the Motive of their Belief be what it will, I think they may afterwards y fafely believe it as a reveal'd Truth upon the Authority of the Church and Scriptures.

But if there be any Force in that Argument of yours, by which you will needs prove it to be Blafphemy to believe a God upon any Authority, viz. because that would place fuch an Authority above God, if I fay there be any Force in this Argument, it will follow 2dly, that it is likewife Blafphemy to believe a God purely upon our own Reason, because that would place our Reason above God, if your Ar gument be worth a Rush.

Since therefore according to this Argument it is equally blafphemous to believe a God either upon fon or Authority, and fince all Men are bound ot to be guilty of Blafphemy, it will follow 3dly, either that Men must believe the Being of a God without having any Reafon or Motive for it, or they must all live and die Atheifts for Fear of being Blafpheers, both which are most eminently abfurd. Thus,