our Senses which is the Foundation of the strongest Proofs of Christianity IT 's not many days since I came to Mr. N. and found him in his Study having his Eyes fix'd on a Book with the reading of which he seem'd to be so taken up as made me think I should do him wrong to interrupt him Intending therefore to withdraw without his seeing me I could not do it without some small disturbance which made him turn his Head towards the place where I was and hastily arise towards me You shall not be gone said he for I prize your Company at another rate than thus to lose it The loss repli'd I would rather be mine and I am afraid lest I should deprive you of the pleasure of some delightful reading as knowing by experience how vexatious it is to be disturb'd at such a time What you say answered he after he had made me sit down is very true I am not a little pleas'd with reading good Books and I doubt not but this which lies before me is of that number But you have wherewith to make me amends for this Interruption for I doubt not but before we part you will increase the Pleasure which this reading afforded me and approving this Book as I dare say you will you 'l not a little confirm me in the good Opinion I have of it and make me read it henceforward with greater earnestness Your esteem of the Book repli'd I is enough to gain my approbation I am not wont to make Appeals from your Judgment having been always so pleas'd in following it that 't is now become a kind of Law which I never violate But perhaps I never saw this Book That can't be answer'd he this Book has been too famous for you not to see it especially considering it's some Years since 't was publish'd In a word 't is the Book which the Ingenious Mr. Huet has written to establish the Truth of Christian Religion (a) P. Dan. Huetii demonstratio Evangelica I do not repent said I of my engagement to approve of it for I have read it with great delight not to mention the Style which is delicate and want's no Ornaments I sind it replenish'd with judicious Observations and such as lie out of the common Road full of great sense and plainness In short 't is a Work worthy its Author who hold's a considerable Place amongst Learned Men. I have only one thing to say against the Book and that with regret because I know you will not herein agree with me Let 's hear it however said he It is repli'd I That this Book was made by one of your Party If that be all the fault answer'd he I am much mistaken if Mr. Huet ever corrects it You may judg what you please of it replied I my Opinion is That this is a capital Fault and spoil's the whole Work. For whereas this would have been an excellent Piece had it been wrote by a Protestant coming from a Person of your Communion it loses all its Force and Conviction and overthrows its own Arguments and should it fall into the hands of a knowing Infidel he could with one word answer it This is very surprising says Mr. N. and you must be a very great Bigot in your Religion to offer such a strange and incredible Paradox Has your Belief the priviledg of making bad Arguments good Ones and is ours so unhappy as to corrupt the best Things and change Demonstrations into Sophisms as oft as they pass through our hands There may be repli'd I some Truth in what you now say and I give an Instance of this from one of your Authors (b) Education of a Prince who shews That the greatest part of Seneca's Maxims are false and ridiculous in the Writings of That Philosopher whereas they would be very proper and excellent in the Writings of a Christian The same may I say of Mr. Huet and the rest of your Authors who undertake this Subject The best Proofs become Paralogisms in their Writings and 't is by passing over into ours that they resume their strength and due efficacy And this is one of the Effects which your Transubstantiation operates destroying the most convincing Arguments you can offer the Infidels and giving them an infallible means to defend themselves and right to maintain That if these Proofs be good Transubstantiation is not a part of the Christian Religion or if Transubstantiation be a part of the Christian Religion these Proofs he of no validity It 's certian if they be Men endued with sense they will lay hold of the first of these Propositions In effect it 's apparent That Mr. Huet's Proof are valid and good in themselves whereas 't is not certain That Transubstantiation is one of the Doctrines which Christianity teaches not to say that it ought to be taken for granted that it is not one of them It is so strange and offensive and so little agrees with the whole Body of reveal'd Truths either in general or particular that a Man needs only the use of his Senses free from all prejudices to perceive That this comes not from the same Spring and that the Author of Christianity is a very different Person from the Author of Transubstantiation Such Infidels then that are discerning Men will separate what 's offered to them jointly They will embrace Christianity and reject Transubstantiation They will receive this Holy Religion as coming from the Spirit of God and put from them your Doctrine as a humane Invention However 't is not long of you That they cast not themselves into the other aforementioned extremity I mean the persuading themselves that the Proofs of the Christian Religion be invalid Yet you are for persuading them not only That Transubstantiation is one of the Doctrines which the Gospel teaches but moreover one of its principal ones one of the most essential Points of Christian Religion and that which can be least spared And consequently if these Infidels be simple enough to believe this and after such an Error have any reason left they will only make use of it to perswade themselves That that Religion which teaches such an incredible Doctrine could not have been revealed by the Spirit of Truth and that the Proofs which were made use of to establish the Divinity of it are of no validity I am so strongly possessed with the belief of Transubstantiation said Mr. N. That I believe no Objections in the World are capable to make me doubt one minute of the truth of it Yet I must acknowledg 't would be a terrible Temptation to me could you convince me of what you say It does so highly concern us That the Proofs of Christianity be valid That there are few Things but what ought to be sacrific'd to so great an Interest and I know no greater prejudice against a Doctrine than to shew that it weakens these Proofs and gives advantage to such dangerous Adversaries as those are against whom we
use them And therefore I must ingenuously confess to you That you cannot touch me in a more tender place But I must affirm at the same time you have undertaken what you will never be able to prove That Transubstantiation overthrows the Arguments of Mr. Huet even those which seem most likely to convert Unbelievers I do not doubt replied I but to make it plain to you and I am willing you should make no account of my Arguments if you your self do not find they carry along with them the clearest Evidence But if you please let me hear first which are the Arguments Mr. Huet has made use of for those are they which be in question between us The Proofs said he are certain undeniable historical Matters of Fact and which are moreover of such a nature That they cannot be true if Christian Religion be not of God and the Matters of Fact be these That long before our Saviour's Time the Jews had certain Books which they esteem'd Sacred and which they believed were written by Men inspired of God. That these Books have come down to us without alteration and that we have them such as they were before our Lord's Incarnation That they contain divers Prophecies which promise a Deliverer to the Jewish Nation whom they mention under the name of Messias distinctly denoting his Birth his actions his Death and Resurrection and in general the most remarkable Passages of his Life That under the Empire of Tiberius there appeared in Judea a Man called Jesus who said he was this Messias That there was seen in his Person whatever the Writings of the Prophets had foretold should be observable in the Messias That he moreover wrought several Miracles to prove his Mission That having been crucified by the Jews he after three days rose again and was carried up into Heaven To which we may add that after his Ascension his Apostles proclaimed his Resurrection throughout all the World and confirmed it by various and infinite Miracles That this Testimony which they gave drew on them a thousand cruel Persecutions and engaged them into the necessity of undergoing Poverty Contempt Imprisonments and the most cruel Punishments the World could inflict on them yet all this was not able to make them alter their course That their Preaching perswaded an infinite number of People of all Nations and especially great numbers of the Jews That the Church which they founded by this means suffered an uninterrupted Persecution for the space of 300 Years and yet daily encreased and spread it self over the whole World. 'T is true that Mr. Huet has not insisted on the last of these Facts but besides that they be of the same Order as the preceding I believe 't is fit they should be added as being of great use for the establishing of the Truth of Christian Religion In a word if both one and the other be true 't is not possible but the Christian Faith must come from God and he that denies so necessary a Consequence may deny the clearest Truths which have hap'ned in the World. These Facts being true the Birth of Jesus Christ his Actions his Death his Resurrection his Ascension and in general all the particulars of his Life have been foretold several Ages before they have happened and what is most considerable they have been foretold not by one or two particular Persons but by a long Train as I may say of Prophets who have succeeded one another in several Ages and who seem to have been chiefly rais'd up for this purpose by Prophets I say in whom were to be seen all the Marks which denote Persons inspired of God. If these Matters of Fact be true our Saviour himself has justified his Mission by a great number of Miracles all infinitely above the force of Nature and circumstanced in the likeliest manner in the World to persuade us they were the immediate Effects of an Almighty Power If these things be true the Eternal God has raised up his Son from the Grave took him up into Heaven and thereby declared in an unquestionable manner That he owned him not only for his great Prophet but for his only Son it not being to be supposed he would do all these things in favour of one that had falsly usurp'd that Title If these Facts be true Christianity has establish'd it self in the World in a manner wholly Divine and which shews with the greatest evidence That Heaven has concern'd it self in it the Powers thereof alone being able to triumph over the Resistances and Oppositions of the Earth So that I do not comprehend how a Man can acknowledg all these things and deny Christian Religion to be of God. You are in the right repli'd I but the difficulty if there be any consists in establishing the Truth of these things How will you prove them For you know the Infidels are not agreed in them The Infidels said he do not dony all of them They acknowledg several of them and which consequently there 's no need of justifying As to the rest in which they will not agree with us it 's no hard matter to establish the Truth of them But what Proofs said I must one use for this Such as are wont to be offered to prove these king of things answered he I know all sorts of Proofs are not proper to establish all kind of Truths Abstracted Verities such as are those which Metaphysicks teach us are not proved by the Senses nor by Authority but by Domonstrations Whereas on the contrary Matters of Fact do not shew themselves at least in this manner but if they be present we make People see or touch them whom we would convince of the truth of them and if they are past and at a distance we use the Testimony of those who have seen them or certainly known them Thus the Truths which serve for a Foundation to the Proofs of the Christian Religion consisting in Facts and those past and ancient enough you plainly see hence we must not expect to establish them by Metaphysical or Mathematical Demonstrations nor by the Depositions of Sense We must content our selves with the Testimony of those who have seen them with their own Eyes and who could not be deceived themselves nor have any design of deceiving others Is this sufficient repli'd I. A bare Testimony of Men can it produce any thing else than a Humane Faith And is Humane Faith a sufficient Foundation for Divine Faith Is not Humane Faith a kind of Opinion and can an Opinion uphold what the Scripture calls (e) Heb. xi i. the Substance of things hoped for and a demonstration of such as are not seen I am surpriz'd said he that so small a thing should stop you When we consider in the Testimony received only the bare Authority of him that speaketh when we attend to that alone and the Faith which is grounded thereon has no other Foundation than the esteem we have for the Probity and Sincerity of
what I do not know but by the relation of my Senses than of that which has the highest degree of moral Evidence But this is not all for I say but one half of what may be alledg'd The Example which you have made use of gives me occasion to add something stronger You ask me if it be more evident there 's a City called Rome than 't is evident that it 's now Day You do not consider That I do not only know by myown Senses it is Day but by those of others For were I in fine blind yet I might know this with certainty I need only to be led to the Exchange to Church to Dinner c. for this purpose And therefore I take it for granted That the blind Men about our Streets are as certain 't is Day as that there is such a place as Rome I believe then That the Evidence which arises from the relations of Sense considered alone is not greater than the moral Evidence being impossible to be less as I now proved I affirm That in this Supposition to demand whether 't is more evident it is Day than whether there be such a City as Rome is just as if you should ask whether two be more than one The Existence of Rome as to us has but one only Evidence and that a moral one Whereas it is now Day has two the Moral Evidence and the Evidence of Sense Each of these two is at least equal to that of the Existence of Rome It is at least then as much again evident it is Day as that there 's a City called Rome Yet is it true said I it 's more evident the Eucharist is Bread and Wine than that it is Day Only the Senses of those who live and are awake at present attest the latter whereas the Senses of all Men who live or have lived since the planting of the Gospel have affirm'd the former All our Senses do not attest it 's now Day only our Sight tells us so whereas all our Senses tell us That the Eucharist is Bread and Wine In effect take a consecrated Host take consesecrated Wine Ask your Eyes what they are Ask your Nose your Palat and your Hands Ask them ten thousand times the same Question they will ever answer you what they have always answer'd those who have consulted them on this Matter They will tell you 't is Bread and Wine In a word the Senses never attested any thing in a more clear expressive and authentic manner than what they depose on the Subject of the Eucharist And if they deceive us herein they are not to be believed in any thing whatever Grant we then the Proofs of Christianity do use the highest degree of Moral Evidence seeing the Testimony of our Senses circumstanc'd in the manner as that is which shew's us the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine hath at least twice as much evidence as that which has the highest degree of moral Evidence it 's beyond all question that this Testimony is twice again as evident as the Proofs of Christianity This is clear and I doe not believe you either will or can deny it Here then are three grand Conclusions which I draw from this Principle The first That if Transubstantiation were one of the Doctrins of Christianity as you pretend Christian Religion would be opposed with greater strength than Mr. Huet could bring forth to maintain it In effect did Transubstantiation make a part of Christian Religion one might oppose against it whatever is offered against Transubstantiation I have now shew'd you one may oppose against Transubstantiation all the evidence of Sense One might offer all this same Evidence against Christianity were it true that Christianity comprehended Transubstantiation This is that which opposes Christianity in your Principles Let 's see now what Mr. Huet do's to maintain it He brings Arguments which as we have already observ'd are only grounded on moral Evidence which is never half so great as that of sense If then two be more than one it 's clear That granting Transubstantiation to be one of the Christian Doctrins Christianity is attack'd with greater strength than Mr. Huet can defend it with It is clear according to this Supposition an Infidel will more strongly prove That Christian Religion is false than Mr. Huet can prove it is true All which would never be were Transubstantiation put out of the number of Christian Doctrins By which means the Proofs of this Holy Religion would conserve all their strength and the Infidels would have nothing that 's rational to oppose against them These Proofs are most solid in themselves and capable of convincing every reasonable Body who searches the Truth and is disposed to follow it through all parts where he finds it There 's nothing but Transubstantiation which weakens them Granting Transubstantiation these Proofs will be of no validity Take away this Doctrine our Proofs subsist and have their effect It do's not belong then to your Doctors who hold Transubstantiation to defend Christianity The best Arguments will never be good ones in their Mouths Only we can propose them without weakning them So that I told you nothing but what you find true when I affirmed a while ago That Mr. Huet's Book which would be an excellent Work were it writ by a Protestant is without conviction coming from a Man of your Party And this is Sir my first Conclusion The second follows which is That whereas an Infidel to whom was offered Mr. Huet's Arguments without any mention of Transubstantiation or who should suppose that Christianity do's not oblige us to believe it would be irrational should he not embrace a Religion so well grounded so in like manner he would fall in to as great a fault and act as much against Reason if supposing the contrary and letting himself be perswaded one cannot be a Christian without believing Transubstantiation he should receive both Transubstantiation and Christian Religion What I have now been saying to you does necessarily draw along with it this Consequence But to remark more clearly the necessity of it be pleased to observe That what makes an Infidel a Christian are the Reasons which perswade him That the Christian Religion was revealed by God. In effect that which induces us to believe Things are the Reasons good or bad which seem to us to uphold the Opinion which we embrace So that should one Persuade ones self of any thing without Ground or Reason that Man will act foolishly and sottishly though the thing it self should be true So the Infidel who shall make himself a Christian without Reason would apparently offend against good Sense And this is the general Notion of your Divines which I need not alledg to you for having read them you must needs remember them A Man then never believes without Reason if he believes wisely and judiciously But it seldom hapning that the Reasons are all on one side there being commonly some for and some against