A Full Answer to Dr. Tenisons Conferences, concerning the EUCHARIST.  
I Can not but wonder, whilst I perused the Drs. Conferences, why he was pleased to term himself, rather the Publisher, than Author of the Book. Some assured me the Dr. was too wise, to think his Reader so foolish, as not to perceive he had borrowed matter from his Brethren, to swell his Pamphlet into fifteen sheets; and indeed I myself was soon convinced, that if any thing appeared new, it (pag. 26.) arose from a certain Air of Novelty, which might be in the manner of proposing it; but then, why the Dr. should engage himself in a new Conference, seeing that of Michaelmas proved so unsuccessful; I understood not. But a friend very lucky in guessing told me, that the Dr. being in the last meeting, too weak to grapple with Five Jesuits, Armed with Yellow Peruques, and little Bands, he was resolved to venture the second cast, with N. alone, a Papist of his own Coining; yet some are of opinion, that the Dr. turned Dialoger, to show the World he could Compliment a Papist, tho' the loss of his Father's Benefice gave him no Heart to use such Ceremonies with a Jesuit: now whether these Men have hit the Nail on the head, I know not, so that I will Appeal to the Dr. if he says, no, let him be assured, I shall not call him to the Bar.  
I come to his Conclusions and Proofs. First, than he affirms, (pag. 5.) that Transubstantiation absolutely destroys the certainty of our Senses, which is the Foundation of the strongest proofs of Christianity.  
After some Compliments with N. he comes to some Postulatas, of which some are false, others doubtful, and then proceeds to three grand Conclusions as he terms them: The first is, that if (pag. 19) Transubstantiation were one of the Doctrines of Christianity, Christian Religion would be opposed with greater strength, than Mr. Huet (or any one else) 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, which are Physical Evidences, whereas the Evidences for Christian Religion are only Moral ones.  
I Confess poor N. is at a Nonplus, and therefore I think myself obliged to help him. For my part, I am of opinion, the Drs. Argument even in his principles wounds as deep Christianity, as in ours: I suppose he believes Abraham saw an Angel, and I am sure the Dr. must grant his Senses were all deceived, for had any person then present bid him: Ask your Eyes, ask your Nose, ask your Hands, ask them Ten Thousand times, the same question; they will ever Answer you, what they have ever Answered those, who have consulted them in this matter, 'tis a Man you see: Now I argue thus, if the belief of the Holy Scriptures (pag. 19) be one of the Doctrines of Christianity, Christian Religion would be opposed with greater strength, than the Dr. (or any one else) (ibid.) could bring forth to maintain it, because did the belief of Holy Scriptures make a part of Christian Religion, one might oppose against it, whatever is offered against the belief of the Holy Scriptures; but more can be brought against the belief of Holy Scriptures, than the Dr. can bring to maintain Christianity: Ergo. The Dr. cannot deny the Major without undermining his own Foundation: I prove therefore the Minor. No Insidel can give assent to the Scripture, without believing all Abraham's Senses were deceived; this he cannot do, unless he believes his own may be mistaken; this in the Drs. Language is impossible: For the Arguments the Dr. can propose to an Insidel to convince him of the truths of Christianity (pag. 19) are only grounded on a Moral Evidence, which is never half so great as that of Sense: The Evidence which assures an Insidel Abraham's Senses (and by consequence his own) could not be deceived, is grounded on Sense, and he is (pag. 17.) more assured of what he does not know but by the Revelation of his Senses, than of that which has the highest degree of Moral Evidence: (pag. 19) Therefore if two be more than one 'tis clear, that granting the belief of Scripture, to be one of the Christian Doctrines, Christianity is attacked with greater strength, than the Dr. can defend it with: Hence it is clear the Dart shot at Papists has rebounded on St. Martin's Church, and hit the Minister. If he please to Answer my Reply, he will see his first Objection fall to the ground as well as his other two, which therefore I shall not mention.  
The Subject of the second Conference is, that, (pa. 27.) Transubstantiation discrediting the Testimony of our Senses, does absolutely overthrow the principal Reasons, which confirm the truth of Christian Religion.  
The proposition he proves thus. (pa. 29.) 1. If Transubstantiation takes place, our Senses are deceived in taking for Bread and Wine, what is not so. 2. If our Senses may be mistaken in the Eucharist, they may be as well mistaken in any thing else. 3. If our Senses may be mistaken in the discovery of their Objects, (be they what they will,) the proofs of Christian Religion are of no value: I Answer as before. If the deceptio visus of Abraham takes place, his Senses were deceived in taking for a Man, him who was not so; if his Senses might be mistaken in the Angel, they might be as well mistaken in every thing else; if his Senses might be mistaken in the discovery of their Objects (be they what they will) the proofs of Christianity are of no value, because as I told you before, an Infidel in the Drs. principles cannot believe Abraham's Senses were deceived, without granting his own may be mistaken; the Drs. Argument then proves too much, and therefore, according to good Philosophy, nothing. The third Conference being but a repetition of the former, I pass it by; but because the second proposition is the chief ground of the fourth and fifth Conference (and indeed of all the Book) in which the Dr. pretends to prove, that Transubstantiation (pa. 60.) opens a gate to scepticism, in its full perfection, and especially destroys the certainty of demonstration; I will give it a full Answer, and then shall suppose I have performed my promise: The proposition runs thus, (pa. 45.) if our Senses deceive us in the report which they make of the Eucharist, they may as well deceive us in every thing else. By the Drs. leave he is grossly mistaken in the first Rudiments of Logic, and therefore I will take the pains to teach him, how he should have framed his Argument, if he intended to conclude any thing: If our Senses deceive us in the report, which they make of the Eucharist, they may as well deceive us in every thing else, in the same circumstances: This without doubt his adversary N. would have granted, and not thought, he had either banished the proofs of Christianity out of the World, on brought Scepticism into it: but for a Dr. to argue from a particular to an universal, is to declare his own ignorance in Print. We Papists then say; when ever our Senses represent us an Object as such, unless there intervene a proof more prevalent, we may believe them; as also whensoever our reason sticks to a principle, as true, and is drawn away by a no more forcible Argument, we ought to conclude, it is so: but because we have Divine Revelation, which is of a far greater force than either Sense, or Reason, tho' my Sense tells me, when I see a Consecrated Host, 'tis Bread; I must say, 'tis the Body of Christ: altho' my Reason assures me this principle is evident, that those things which are the same with a mean, are the same with themselves; I must Answer 'tis not so, because God has told me there is a Trinity, which contradicts it. But now I conceive 'tis my duty to show, that the Divine Revelation we have for Transubstantiation is more prevalent, than the Evidence of Sense, which opposes it. Let us come to our Infidel, before I persuade him to embrace Christianity, we must agree there is one God; that this God is Infinite in every perfection, therefore that he sees truths which we cannot understand; otherwise he would not be Infinite in Knowledge; that he can reveal those truths; otherwise his Power would be limited; that he can oblige his Creatures to believe them; otherwise his Authority would not be Infinite: This a Heathen must grant because 'tis as evident as that there is a God: then I would ask him, what evidence he required, to rest convinced, that God revealed him the Mystery of Transubstantiation; he would without doubt require such a one, as no Man could prudently call in Question, such as is all Moral Evidence, which added to the forementioned principles, is stronger than that of our Senses, or Reason, which we know may be deceived: Now that this does not bring in Scepticism, nor destroy all demonstration, is evident, because I am to follow the deposition of my Senses, the light of my Reason, where no Divine Revelation, which is a more prevalent Argument does oppose them: So that in other cases I am as sure I am not deceived, as that I have no Divine Revelation; we therefore first prove Divine Revelation, and then the possibility of the thing revealed, as for example, whatever God reveals is true; but God hath revealed Transubstantiation; Ergo 'tis true: The Dr. goes on otherwise, Whatever (says he) is not true, God has not revealed; but the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not true, Ergo God has not revealed it: according to this method, he must first convince his Infidel Converts of all the strange truths in the Scripture, for example that the World was Created of nothing, that God is one in Nature, three in persons; that all the Sodomites Senses were deceived, when they took the Angels for Young Men, etc. believe me, the Philosophers would not so easily assent to these truths, nor would they ever Anathematise their Books upon the Drs. Authority or Reason.  
I must desire those who assist at the Drs. Pulpit heats against Popery, and Transubstantiation, to examine whether his passion against both be not greater than his Reasons, and whether they may in Conscience tie their belief to the Authority of a Man, who undermines his own Religion, so Popery may be involved in the ruin; but God be thanked our Church is too strong to waver at the blasts which flow from his mouth, and will Triumph, when perchance the Dr. may smart for having attempted its destruction.   

London: Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for His Household and Chapel; And are to be sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Blackfriars. 1687.