After what has been hitherto discours’d, it may be seasonable to consider, what kind of Probation, or what degree of Evidence may reasonably be thought sufficient to make the Christian Religion thought fit to be embrac’d.
Perhaps I shall not need to tell you, that, besides the Demonstrations wont to be treated of in vulgar Logick, there are among Philosophers three distinct, whether kinds or degrees, of Demonstration. For there is a Metaphysical Demonstration, as we may call that, where the Conclusion is manifestly built on those general Metaphysical Axioms that can never be other than true; such as Nihil potest simul esse & non esse; Non Entis nullae sunt Proprietates Reales, &c. There are also Physical Demonstrations, where the Conclusion is evidently deduc’d from Physical Principles; such as are, Ex nihilo nihil fit. Null a substantia in nihilum redigitur, &c. which are not so absolutely certain as the former, because, if there be a God, He may (at least for ought we know) be able to create and annihilate Substances; and yet are held unquestionable by the ancient Naturalists, who still suppose them in their Theories. And lastly, there are Moral Demonstrations, such as those where the Conclusion is built either upon some one such proof cogent in its kind; or some concurrence of Probabilities that it cannot be but allowed, supposing the truth of the most receiv’d Rules of Prudence and Principles of Practical Philosophy.
And this third kind of Probation, though it come behind the two others in certainty, yet it is the surest guide, which the Actions of Men, though not their Contemplations, have regularly allow’d them to follow. And the Conclusions of a Moral Demonstration are the surest that Men aspire to, not only in the conduct of private Mens affairs, but in the Government of States, and ev’n of the greatest Monarchies and Empires. And this is considerable in Moral Demonstrations, that such may consist, and be as it were made up of particulars, that are each of them but probable; of which the Laws establisht by God himself among his own People, as well as the practice of our Courts of Justice here in England, afford us a manifest instance in the case of Murder, and some other Criminal Causes. For, though the Testimony of a single Witness shall not suffice to prove the accus’d party guilty of Murder; yet the Testimony of two Witnesses, though but of equal Credit, that is, a second Testimony added to the first, though of it self never a whit more credible than the former, shall ordinarily suffice to prove a Man guilty; because it is thought reasonable to suppose, that, though each Testimony single be but probable, yet a concurrence of such Probabilities (which ought in Reason to be attributed to the Truth of what they jointly tend to prove) may well amount to a Moral certainty, i. e. such a certainty as may warrant the Judge to proceed to the sentence of death against the Indicted party.
To apply these things now to the Christian Religion: If you consider, with how much approbation from discerning Men that judicious Observation of Aristotle has been entertain’d, where he says, that ‘tis as unskilful and improper a thing to require Mathematical Demonstrations in Moral Affairs, as to take up with Moral Arguments in matters Mathematical; you will not deny, but that those Articles of the Christian Religion that can be prov’d by a Moral, though not by a Metaphysical or Physical, Demonstration, may without any blemish to a Man’s Reason be assented to; and that consequently (by vertue of the foregoing Considerations) those other Articles of the Christian Faith, that are clearly and legitimately deducible from the so demonstrated Truths, may likewise without disparagement be assented to.
We may also here consider further, That the choosing or refusing to embrace the Christian Religion, which is not propos’d to us only as a System of Speculative Doctrines, but also as a Body of Laws, according to which it teaches us, that God commands us to worship Him, and regulate our Lives; the embracing, I say, or not embracing this Religion, is an act of humane choice, and therefore ought to be determin’d according to the dictates of Prudence. Now, though in matters that very much import us, we may wish for and endeavor after such Reasons, whereby to determine our Resolves, as may amount to Moral Demonstrations; yet Prudence will not always require, that we should refuse to act upon Arguments of a less Cogency than Moral Demonstrations. For oftentimes in humane Affairs it so falls out, that divers hazards or other inconveniences will attend whatever resolution we take; and in that case, all that Prudence requires, or can enable us to do, is, to take that resolution which upon the whole matter seems to be preferable to any other; though that which is thus prefer’d, may perhaps be liable to some Objection that cannot be directly answer’d, but only obliquely, by the preponderancy of the Arguments that persuade the choice against which the Objection is made.