Lawyer alone is duely qualified for it.

L. And how do you know that? What have you but your own Reafon to tell you fo? And if you cannot trust your Reason, you cannot trust your Lawyer.

Is not this fine Stuff? Is it not Arguing like a profound Divine? I anfwer therefore, that as your own Reafon may be trufted, when it directs you to an able Lawyer, and as the fame Reafon tells you, that when you have chofen one, you must be govern'd by him, fo I can fafely truft my own Reason, when it directs me to the Church to be my Guide to Salvation. Because nothing is more confonant to Reafon, than to depend upon a Guide appointed by God himself.

Thus far therefore Reason is to be follow'd. But when we have once found the true Church of Chrift, which the strongest Motives of Credibility mark out to our Reason affifted by God's Grace, then we have nothing else to do but to submit to her, and be govern'd by her in every Thing she teaches. So that if this be your Meaning, when you conclude, that all bottoms upon Reajon, I subscribe to it without Hefitation. Nor shall I ever ftrive to escape from my Rea fon, when it demands fo juft and reasonable a Thing of me, as an Entire Submiffion and Obedience to the Judgment and Authority of the Church. Nay the Scriptures themselves command me to hear the Church. He who will not hear the Church, let him be reputed as a Heathen and a Publican. Math. 18. v. 17. » G. This is Running into the Circle again to be lieve the Church for the Scriptures, and the Scrip tures for the Church, pag. 35.36.

L. What, Sr! Would you neither have me be lieve the Church upon the Testimony of Scriptures, nor the Scriptures upon the Teftimony of the Church? I should not wonder, if a Deift preach'd this Doc rine to me. However I must obferve to you, that

if the Word believe be strictly taken, that is, for an Act of Divine Faith grounded upon it's proper MoI neither believe the Scriptures, because the Church bids me, nor the Church, because the Scrip tures bid me. And fo my Faith is in no Danger of running round in a Circle.

tive,

G. Upon what Motives then do you believe the Revelation of Scriptures, or the Infallibility of the Church? L. Precifely, becaufed has reveal'd thofe Truths. And this is the whole and fole effential Motive, into which all Faith ftrictly taken is refolved.

6. But how do you know that God has reveal'd thofe Truths?

L. Because the Church of Christ, which is a Society of the greatest Wisdom and Authority upon Earth tells me fo. And, if St Austin may be credited, 'tis nothing less than the most infolent Madneß, not to be lieve her.

G. But what inducement have you to convince you that the Church, whereof you are a Member is the Church of Christ rather than any other separate Society?

L. I am convinced of it by the fame outward vifible Marks, or Motives of Credibility, which held St Austin within the Pales of the Church, whereof he was a Member, and which she would have had, altho the Scriptures had never been written. As, the continual Succeffion of her Bishops, and Paftors from the Apoftles. Her having had innumerable Martyrs and Mi racles in her Communion. The Agreement of People and Nations, &c. reckon'd up by St Austin. cont. Epist. fund. C. 4.

G. But do you not prove the Canon and Revelation of Scriptures from the Authority of the Church? And then again the infallible Authority of the Church from Scriptures?

T

L. We do so. - G. And is not this running round in a Circle?

L. It is fo, but not in a vicious one, as Logicians call it. On the contrary, thefe circular Proofs are allow'd of by all Logicians and Divines. Nay they are abfolutely neceffary, both when Causes and Effects prove one another reciprocally, and when two Perfons of unquestionable Veracity give Testimony for each other. I shall only give an Inftance of the lat

ter.

St John the Baptift is proved to have been a Prophet from the Teftimony of Chrift: And Chrift is proved to be the Meffias from the Teftimony of St John. No Christian can reject these Proofs as illegal. And why then may not the Scriptures be proved from the Teftimony of the Church, and the Church reciprocally from the Teftimony of Scriptures? Both Proofs indeed are circular: and therefore as the former must be unquestionably admitted, the latter cannot be reasonably excepted against.

G. Such, My Lord, as knew Chrift before they knew St John, might upon Christ's Word believe St John. And fuch as first knew St John to be a Prophet before they knew Chrift, might upon St John's Word believe Chrift.

L. I thank you, Sr, for this good Hint. 'Tis the best Thing you have faid this long Time: But it opens the Old Circle for me, and puts me out of all Danger of being hemm'd in. First then I know the Church of Chrift by her outward vifible Marks, or Mo tives of Credibility, which are fo ftrong and convincing, that according to St Austin, I must be a Madman not to believe her. This Church tells me, for Example, that the whole New Testament is divinely in fpired. I therefore believe upon her Teftimony, that the New Teftament contain's nothing but reveal'd

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 these and such 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 Use of to infer one another without having any other Proof to fupport them. But if they be proved from other strong 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 Authority of Scriptures. The Church of Chrift as fuch is firft 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 Evidence even for those Truths, which Reafon 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

5.26 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 Adverfary, who by his own Principles is bound to admit of either of the Propofitions, which prove each other reciprocally. And therefore when I difpute 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 against 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 agreed upon betwixt us and no Man is bound to prove a Principle of his Adverfary's own Conceffion. Nay, tho I myself believed not a Word of the New Testament, I might legally take the Advantage of it against a Proteftant, who believes it. For this is what we properly call Ar gumentum ad hominem: a certain cut-throat W 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.

G. But fuppofe I should deny the New Teftament to be the Word of God, would not your Lordship then 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