into the Body of Christ the worship of the Host is gross Idolatry But we are past all Iss and And 's and have Demonstrated that there can be no such Change of the Bread into Christ's Body And consequently we have Demonstrated that the Papists in worshipping of the Host are guilty of gross Idolatry and the Best Friends they have in the world cannot free them from it So likewise it can be no longer a Moot-point or a disputable matter whether it be Criminal to call the Host their Lord God their Maker their Former and their Creator when we have Demonstrated that it cannot be so and that it is only a bit of Bread and to affirm Bread to be a God if it be not Blasphemy it wants a name in our Language In short That can never be a Divine Mystery which is not in a Possibility of being a Divine Truth And consequently the Mystery and Miraculousness of Transubstantiation which has been the old and dark stronghold of Popery is utterly demolished And the Papists having lost that shelter not only all the Absurdities of their Belief concerning it will fall upon them with their whole weight but also all their absurd Practices in reference to it to which I shall now proceed 2. The second General Head is of Practical Absurdities by which I mean such unreasonable and unworthy Actions as are done by the Papists in pursuance of their Doctrine of Transubstantiation And here I can by no means charge them with eating their Maker or eating Man's flesh and drinking Man's blood in the Sacrament For I have shewn it to be impossible for them to do either of these But yet because they intend and profess to do both perhaps the guilt is no less than if they really did them And the Absurdity of their Practice in this behalf is very equally matched with the Absurdity and Contradictiousness of their Belief For as they hold the Sacrament to be the Natural Body of Christ and yet say it is in several Places at once and is made at several times and is in the Form of Bread whereby it appears to be not the Natural Body of Christ but a piece of Bread wherein they say and unsay at once So likewise they worship and serve and pray to that which I have Demonstrated to be a bit of Bread as if it were a God and immediately they undo all that they have done and treat him not at all like a God but eat him up as if he were a bit of Bread. So also they say expresly That the common Nature of Mankind abhors the eating of Man's flesh and drinking of Man's blood and yet they eat and drink that of which they say they have greater Assurance that it is Man's flesh and Man's blood than the Testimony of all their Senses can give them But omitting these things and the great Indignity which is offered to our Blessed Saviour by such like Practices I shall I st take notice of their Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bread as if it were God himself And this Practice is unavoidable Idolatry if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should chance to be false And if it be not false then a Thousand Millions of Contradictions must be all of them true So that if the Apostles rent their Clothes when the Lycaonians said that the Gods were come down in the likeness of Men and were going to give them Divine Honour surely they would hardly spare their flesh but rend that too if they should be shewn more than an Hundred God Almighties together in the Form of Bread and should see Divine Worship paid to them Especially since the Apostles Evangelized men to turn away from Idolatry to the Living God who made Heaven and Earth if moreover the Papists should plead Gospel for their Idolatry and say that they were Evangelized into it I have often thought what St. Paul and Barnabas would have said and done in that Case But what they then cried out and said to the Lycaonians Sirs why do ye these things For we are men of like Passions with you methinks the Host it self says as loud every day to the Papists Sirs why do ye these things For I am no Object of Worship but like another piece of Bread. I have all the Properties and am subject to all the Casualties of any other bit of Bread For either I am presently eaten and swallowed down as any other Bread is or else if I be kept I grow Stale and Mouldy I am put into a Box for fear of Mischances for if the Mouse gets me I am gone Alas I am Bread I am no God. Thus to my Apprehension the Host it self continually cries out and reasons with them And Oh would to God that they would consider to as good purpose as the Lycaonians did I should be content to endure great hardships to see that Happy Day 2. The Reproach which is done to our Saviour in the worshipping of the Host is intolerable For would it not be an unsufferable affront to the Majesty of Earthly Princes to take a Bundle of Rags and place it in the Throne and serve it upon the Knee and cry God save the King and treat it in every respect like a Crown'd head and to destroy every good Subject that would not join in this contumelious Pageantry And is it nothing for the Great God of Heaven to be used in a more reproachful manner For I appeal to all Mankind considering the Infinite Distance there is betwixt the Persons whether it be not a less Scorn and Indignity to set up a King of Clouts than a Breaden God A Contemptible Crumb of Dough which is Kneaded and Baked and Crossed and Muttered into the most High God God over all Blessed for evermore I might descend to many more Particulars and enlarge upon them but this has already been done by Learneder Hands And now O ye Papists I have discharged my Conscience for it has troubled me that I had not long since laid these things plain and open before you And if I knew how to incline you to consider them I would not think much to kneel down at your Feet But if you will not consider them with that evenness of mind which is always necessary to Conviction but rather will consider them with that prejudice and indignation which shall put you upon Contradicting and Objecting and using all your Subtilties and Evasions then I beg of you to do this throughly and spare me not For I have written this Discourse only for the Honour of God and out of love to Truth which never loses any thing by being Tried and Examined but still comes the Brighter out of the Fire It is the Cause of God my Saviour who died for me and I am willing to spend the remainder of my days in it or lay down my life for it even which of the two He shall please And as for you O ye Protestants you have great reason to Bless God that
the substance of the bread you must acknowledg That my Body is in the Sacrament plainly after the same manner as the substance of the bread was before the Consecration But to say whether the substance of the bread was under a greater bulk or under a less was nothing at all to the thing Now this Exposition of these words This is my Body is an Authentick and Infallible Exposition for it is the very Interpretation of them which the Romish Church delivers to all her Parish Priests in the Trent-Catechism which was written on purpose for their instruction so that I have taken it from the Fountain head and have it at the first hand This they say is the meaning of those words of our Saviour This is my Body and therefore they make our Saviour to say all this which is such a sense of his words as any considerate Christian would sooner die than put it upon them Is this the Literal Sense and proper Meaning of na Organized Human Body That it has no Magnitude and is neither Little nor Big That it is a Solid Massy Bulk consisting of Flesh and Blood Bones and Sinews and yet can be perceived by no Sense can neither be seen felt nor understood but only Believed That it has a Head Trunk and Four large Limbs which may all be contained in the compass of a Pins-head which according to the Letter will not hold the Fourth part of a Little finger Nail Methinks these are all strange Figures and the most harsh Abuses of Speech imaginable At this rate the Literal Sense of East is West and the Literal Sense of Noon-day is Midnight The Private Spirit never made such Expositions as these neither would any man alive receive them if he were not first Practis'd upon and his Belief widened for that Purpose We have an Instance of these Preparatory Arts in the 42d Section where the Pastors are charged if they cannot otherwise avoid discoursing of these Matters To remember in the first place that they fore-arm the minds of the Faithful with that saying Luke 1. 37. For with God nothing shall be Impossible This is neither better nor worse than one of their Pious Frauds for I am sure they know that this Scripture is very deceitfully applied to the Case of Transubstantiation The Virgin Mary scrupled the Possibility of her being a Mother when she knew not a Man and asked How this thing could be Upon this the Angel told her That the most High would employ his Power in it and bring it to pass in an extraordinary way to whom nothing was Impossible And the Omnipotence of God was a just ground of her Belief upon this occasion who very well knew That as God had made the First Adam so if he pleased he could make the Second without the Concurrence of either Man or Woman and as he had formed Eve of her Husband's Rib so he could make the Messiah of the Substance of his Mother So that tho this was beside the common Course of Nature yet God was not tyed to that for what he had done he might do again But what Argument is this to induce the belief of Transubstantiation which involves manifold Contradictions which the Papists themselves acknowledg do not fall under the Divine Power They themselves know full well that the Scripture says It is Impossible for God to Lye to whom nothing is Impossible and he who can do all things cannot deny himself because these are Contradictions to his own Being And for the like reason they know that he cannot make a Contradiction in any kind because a Contradiction destroys it self it has within it self an utter Repugnance to Being To make a Thing to be and not to be at the same time is such an Inconsistency that one part of it overthrows the other and therefore it is no Act of Possibility but is an utter Impossibility which is the Contradiction of all Power even of that which is Infinite Methinks St. Austin very well lays open the Reason why an Almighty Power cannot make a Contradiction Contra Faustum l. 26. c. 5. Quisquis dicit si Omnipotens est Deus faciat ut quae facta sunt facta non fuerint non videt hoc se dicere si Omnipotens est faciat ut ea quae ver a sunt eo ipso quo vera sunt falsa sint Whosoever says If God be Almighty let him make those things which have been Done never to have been done does not see that he says this in other words If he be Almighty let him make the things which are True to be False even wherein they are True. So that the Angel does not tell us in this Text That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation shall not be Impossible with God he does not tell us that God can make a Heap of Contradictions No for if all the Angels of Heaven according to St. Austin's Expression should say That a Thing may be False even wherein it is True so may what they say be and consequently there is no believing of them nor indeed of any Being in the World upon those Terms We are able therefore to bring their Expositions of Scripture upon this occasion to this Infallible Test. If they contain in them things Contradictious and Impossible then they are not the True Sense and Meaning of that Revelation which came from God for if he cannot Do an Impossibility neither can he Say it And just such as their Divinity Expositions are so deceitful are their Philosophical Illustrations As particularly when they shew how the whole Body of Christ may be in the least Particle or Crumbling of the Bread by the Two Instances of Air and Water Their words are these The Substance of Bread is turned into the Substance of Christ not into his Magnitude or Quantity Now no body doubts but a Substance may be contained in a little room as well as in a great For both the Substance of Air and its whole Nature must be alike in a small portion of Air as in a greater as also the whole Nature of Water no less in a small Pitcherful than in a River In these words there are no less than two Egregious Fallacies For 1. Their Instances are of Homogeneous or Similar Bodies that is such Bodies whose Parts are all Alike and which have the same Name and Nature so every Part of Air is Air and every drop of Water is Water and has the whole Nature of Water in it as well as that Aggregate Body of it which is in the Ocean But these Instances are very deceitfully applied to an Heterogeneous Dissimilar Organized Body as a Human Body is which consists of Parts altogether Unlike and of Different Names and Natures For Bone is not Flesh nor either of them Blood nor any of them Brain The Thumb-nail has not the whole Nature of the Eye nor the Skull of the Cawl The Hand is not the Heart nor the Head the Foot. And as these Parts
likewise it is but one Foot Diameter and at the same time it is four times one Foot Diameter which is two Foot Diameter And by the vast number of Places in which the Papists have bestowed it it will be but five Foot and a half long and one Foot Diameter and at the same time it will be as big as Mount Atlas or Pen Men Maur or the Pic of Tenariff 4. The fourth Head of Contradictions are those which relate to Number in spight of which the Papists make Ten thousand several bodies to be but one and the same body Now as we have already proved it to be impossible for one and the same body to be in several distant Places so we shall here demonstrate that it is equally impossible for what is in several distant Places to be one and the same body The Unity of a body consists in this That it be undivided from it self and divided from all other Bodies so that if a body be an Individual body that is to say one and the same it must be undivided from it self Now if Christ's body in the Pix at Limestreet be the same Individual body which is in the Pix at St. James's or at Posnanie in the Higher Poland then the self-same Individual body is both undivided from it self and divided from it self For in the former case the same Individual body is divided from it self not only by two Wonderful Coverlets of the Accidents of bread and by the less wonderful Covers of two Pixes but also by the greatest part of two great Cities London and Westminster And in the latter case of Posnanie in Poland it is divided from it self by vast Tracts of Land and a very wide Sea so that the self-same individual body is undivided from it self and yet at the same time is divided from it self which is impossible Q. E. D. On the other hand There is not any thing which more Infallibly proves a real distinction betwixt Substances and shews that they are divers and that the one is not the other than this That the one can be without the other and that they can exist separately and apart Now Christ's body at Limestreet in London and Christ's body at Rosnanie in Poland do exist separately and apart for it is a long and weary Pilgrimage to go from one to the other And the one can be without the other for that body at Posnanie was many years without the other and had raised thirty six Persons from the Dead long before the body at Limestreet was made And therefore these are distinct and divers Bodies that is to say they are not the same Body And yet they are the same Body which is impossible Which was to be Demonstrated Corollary It is to be supposed that when Anti-Christ comes with Lying Wonders no body will be so Unmannerly as to call them Lying Wonders and therefore we shall not Question the Truth of any one of those Miracles which are in the School of the Eucharist Only thus much we gather from the former Demonstration That the good Example of the Birds Beasts and Vermin which worshipped Gods Body in other Ages and Countries is wholly Useless to us For the Gods Body which is at Limestreet and St. James's or any where hereabouts to be had is not the same Gods Body which those Devout Creatures meekly Worshipped and which the Stubborn Black Horse was forced to Worship with one Knee and therefore we are not in a capacity of Worshipping the same Gods Body if we would 5. The next Head of Contradictions is of those that arise from the consideration of that space or Distance which is betwixt one body and another which is always measured by a straight Line drawn from a point of the one body to a point of the other body which is the shortest Line that can be drawn betwixt them and consequently there can be but one straight line drawn betwixt the same Terms which measures and describes the just distance of them Now we are allowed to draw a straight Line from any one Point to another Corollary From the same Demonstration it follows that St. Peter's in Rome Corpus Christi Church at Posnanie in Poland and other the remotest places in the world where God's Body is are as near Neighbours to the Monument in Fishstreet as the very Mass-house in Limestreet is And there is likewise an infinite variety of other Contradictions which would result from drawing but half a score right Lines from God's Body which is in so many several Quarters which should all meet together in the Point C. For this as the meanest Mathematician easily understands would not only confound all Distances but also overthrow all the Everlasting Principles of Geometry 6. The Sixth Head of Contradictions is in reference to Quality whereby a Thing is rendred Like or Unlike to another Now the self-same Body of Christ by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has quite contrary Qualities and is Like and Unlike to it self at the same time For in Heaven it is in Form of an Human Body and in Earth it is in Form of Bread. And so again upon Earth it has a Light about it like a Pillar of Fire which reaches up to Heaven and it has not such a Light about it at the same time It is stabbed by a Jew and is Red with Blood and at the same time the same Body has no Redness nor Mark of Blood upon it It is marked with a Crucifix and at the same time it is not marked with a Crucifix but with I H S and a Glory Now these are manifest Contradictions for the self-same thing is affirmed and denied of the self-same Body at the self-same time But before I proceed to Demonstrate the Contradictions and Impossibilities which fall under this Head lest I should lose all my pains in so doing it will be fit to consider a shuffling Answer which the Papists have invented to rid their hands of all Contradictions of this kind It is in these words A Body in two Places is Equivalent to Two Bodies and therefore one may say of it the most Opposite things without Contradiction It seems this is no new Answer but I confess it was New to me for I first met with it in the late Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist p. 89. where that very Learned and Judicious Author has answered it and sent it home again with such Arguments ad Hominem as would close the Mouths of any body but Papists But because it now also lies just cross my way I ought likewise to say something to it 1st Therefore I say That the Supposition of One Body in Two Places at once is an utter Impossibility which I have already Demonstrated over and over again both under the 1st Head of Place and also under the 4th Head of Number 2ly One Body Equivalent to Two that is One Body which to all Intents and Purposes is Two is a Contradiction in
Terms for at this rate One and One is Three and Three and One is Five and in short there is a full end of all Arithmetick 3ly It is not One Body in Two Places which will serve their turn but it must be One Body in Ten Thousand Places For it must be One Body in form of Flesh and the same Body in form of New Bread and the same Body in form of Old Bread and the same Body in form of Sweet Wine and the same Body in form of Sowre Wine and the same Body at Limestreet at Rome at Avignion and in a word in all Places where a bit of Bread a Mass Priest and a Slate are to be found together And this as I have already shewn draws after it Millions of Millions of Contradictions 4thly I say That even the Impossible Supposition of One Body in several Places does plainly deny all Difference and Dissimilitude in that Body it allows indeed a Multiplication of the same Body but it perfectly excludes any Alteration of it For if it be Altered it is not the Body which was supposed to be Multiplied For instance I will suppose the same Pint of Milk to be in several Places but then it must be a Pint of Milk in all those Places For I cannot say without Contradiction That the same Pint of Milk in another Place is neither Pint Half-pint nor Spoonful but perhaps an unperceivable Drop for then it is a Pint and not a Pint. And so likewise I cannot say That it is a Pint of Milk in this Place in the form of Milk and in another Place it is a Pint of Milk in form of Aqua vitae having the Smell Taste Colour and Virtues of Aqua vitae In another Place it is a Pint of Milk in the form of a Pen-full of Ink And in another Place it is a Pint of Milk in the form of a Bandelier full of Gunpowder For in these cases it is so Altered that it is not Milk it is not the Thing we spoke of and which we supposed to be Multiplied And at the same time though it be neither Milk nor Measure yet in the way of Transubstantiation it is still a very good Pint of Milk. These Men had better let their Contradictions alone than offer to assoil them for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is perfectly of the nature of Birdlime the more they stir and flutter in it the faster they are caught So that this sorry Evasion being of the same piece with Transubstantiation it self or rather an aggravation of Contradiction I shall set it aside as if it had never been and proceed to my intended Demonstration We have not in our Minds a clearer and brighter first Principle than this is That nothing can be Present and Absent from the same Subject at the same time Now the Mark of IHS is Present to Christ's Body being imprinted upon it and at the same time it is Absent from the self-same Body having instead of IHS a Crucifix upon it and therefore the Mark of IHS is Present to Christs Body and Absent from the self-same Body at the same time which is Impossible Q. E. D. Again God's Body in Form of Bread is not God's Body in Form of Wine for if it were then the Form of Bread and the Form of Wine would be the same Wine would be Bread and Bread would be Wine that is to say Bread would be Not Bread. But according to the Papists God's Body in Form of Bread is God's Body in Form of Wine that is to say Bread is not Bread which is Impossible Which was to be Demonstrated 7. The last Head of Contradictions arise from this part of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which says That when the Substances of Bread and Wine are abolished and wholly cease to Be still all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are seen to Remain without any Subject at all For the Substances of Bread and Wine are departed and gone and these Accidents cannot cleave and be united to the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore it remains That in a Supernatural way they must subsist of themselves This is their own infallible Doctrine Trid. Catech. de Euch. Sect. 25. 44. In which few words there is plenty of Contradictions For 1st I shall Demonstrate That Accidents subsisting without a Subject are Substances that is to say are not Accidents And because the Papists themselves are sensible how Absurd and Impossible this Doctrine of theirs is therefore they fly to Miracle and Omnipotency which is no Refuge nor Sanctuary for Contradictions and Impossibilities as we have already shewn Now the very Essence of an Accident is to subsist in a Subject and the Essence of a Substance is to subsist of it self without a Subject so that if God by his Omnipotency should make an Accident to subsist of it self without a Subject he would give one and the same single Thing Two contrary Natures Whereby the same thing would be what it is and would not be what it is it would subsist in a Subject and not subsist in a Subject at the same time which is Impossible Q. E. D. I have been beholden to the great Philosopher Des Cartes a Man of their own Communion for this Demonstration and have gathered it out of his Answer to the Fourth and Sixth Objections which were made against his Meditations and out of his Notes upon the Programma of Regius as I suppose And it has been heretofore no small diversion to me to see how the Papists stood on Tiptoe when that great Restorer of Natural Knowledg appeared expecting whether his New Philosophy would favour their Old Transubstantiation But when they found that he was not a Man for Substantial Accidents and such kind of Contradictious Stuff Dr. Arnault of the Sorbonne puts it home to him in the Fourth Objections and tells him That according to his Philosophy the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrament of the Altar could not remain safe and sound because it is of Faith That the Accidents in the Sacrament remain without a Subject whereas Monsieur Cartes seemed to hold for he had not as yet spoke out nor expressed himself fully in that matter That Accidents are Inseparable from a Subject and that a Body and the Affections of that Body could not subsist apart nor be made to Exist separately by an Infinite Power Wherefore Monsieur Arnauld prays him to take great care lest that while he is proving a God and the Immortality of the Soul he should endanger that Faith by which himself hoped to be saved Here Cartes was beset and forced to declare himself and therefore was put upon his Invention which was first to contrive a way of solving the Appearances of Bread and Wine which are in the Sacrament by a new Hypothesis of the Superficies which he told them he should more fully make out in his Physics And when he had thus first entertained them with a new Hypothesis then he shews
Christ's Body having been in Heaven these 1600 Years if in that Space of Time it has been upon Altars here on Earth then it has not been at the same time where it has been but it has broken the Rule of Concomitancy and has strangely straggled from it self which is Impossible Q. E. D. I have studied with all the Application of Mind of which I am capable to forecast in my thoughts what fault the Papists would find with any of the former Reasonings or with this last in particular and cannot foresee nor imagine any For though we should allow Christ's Body to be Independent of Place or to have any other Impossible Prerogatives which they list to Invent yet still this Body must be subject to the Rule of Concomitancy because they themselves are forced to make use of it to prove that the Body of Christ is under the Species of Wine and that the Blood of Christ is under the Species of Bread and it is the only Proof they have Now if of Necessity the Body must be by Concomitancy where the Blood is then by an antecedent Necessity the Blood must be where the Blood is for the Blood 's being there is the cause of the Bodies being there likewise So the Body being under the Form of Bread is the reason that the Blood is there also but then to be sure the Body must be there From whence as I shewed before it undeniably follows That Christ's Body is only in Heaven or else it is not where it is which overthrows the very Foundation of Concomitancy 2. The Second Argument shall be drawn from their Form of Consecration For this is my Body being the words of our Saviour from whence they have wrested the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now to give them a Samplar of their own and to shew them how they themselves interpret Scripture I say that it appears by the very words of Consecration That the Priest himself is also Transubstantiated for the Body is Christ's and yet the Priest says it is My Body which cannot be True unless the Priest and Christ be the same And that cannot be but by an admirable Change and Conversion which the Holy Catholick Church has conveniently and properly named Transubstantiation No say the Papists in great anger There is no such Change at all for the Priest only stands for Christ and sustains his Person he only Represents him in that Action and is in Christ's stead so that we are not to look upon the Priest in that solemn Action as Friar John but as Christ himself And therefore the Priest may say with Truth this is My Body tho Literally and Properly and in strictness of Speech it is Christ's Body and not His. To which I again reply Why this is the very Exposition of these words of our Saviour for which the Hereticks have all along been Burnt namely This Bread stands for my Body and Represents it in this Action it is instead of my Body and bears the Character of it and you are not so much to consider it as Bread but to look upon it as the Representation of my Body which is given for you And therefore with Truth I can say it is my Body though Literally and Properly and in strictnefs of Speech it is Bread and not my Natural Body Now therefore let the Papists give or take Either the Bread is not Transubstantiated or if it be by virtue of the self-same words the Priest is Transubstantiated too For every word in the Prolation with one Breath except the word Enim Sect. 20. does Operate as well as Signifie and Does what it Says and therefore if the word Corpus be effectual to make it a Body then the word Meum makes it the Priests Body The Wit of Man cannot find an Evasion and I doubt not but I am able to maintain this Argument against all the Popish Priests in the world For all the Advantage lies clearly on the Protestant Side For our Saviour visibly took Bread and gave it the office of Representing him and made it the Figure of his Body as Tertullian's word is He erected it as a standing Memorial to be used in Remembrance or Commemoration of him as S. Luke's word is To shew forth his Death till he come as S. Paul speaks 'T is true he commanded his Disciples to repeat the same Action and to do as he had done But where did he bid the Priest to personate him That he gave us the Bread by the Name of his Body Three of the Four Gospels witness and by the Name of his Broken Body S. Paul witnesses But where did he ever say That He himself would always Sacrifice himself by the Priests Hands and say Hoc est Corpus meum to the end of the world by the Priests Mouth And further There is not one word which the Papists have said in behalf of the Bread being Transubstantiated but holds as strongly for the Priests being Transubstantiated which makes full as much for the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament for the abasing and mortifying of our Deceivable Senses and for the improving and exalting our Faith and making it Meritorious as the other can We have gained such considerable Advantages by the foregoing part of our Discourse that now we are able unalterably to renounce the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For having demonstrated the Impossibility of it We have thereby Demonstrated that though Heaven and Earth should pass away yet that Doctrine can never be True. We have likewise at the same time Demonstrated the Protestant Exposition of those words of our Saviour This is my Body to be the true and necessary Sense of them for either there is a Change of the Bread into the Body of Christ or there is not But because such a Change is an utter Impossibility as we have abundantly proved therefore it remains That the Protestant Doctrine which asserts there is no such Change is Demonstrably True. We have also made it as clear as the Light That neither the Letter of a Divine Revelation nor the pretence of an Infinite Power nor any thing in the World can support one single Contradiction because if one single Contradiction could stand it would destroy the very Being of God himself and deprive the World of the Adorable Object of all Religion For supposing it Impossible for a Being of Necessary Existence to Exist which is but supposing a Contradiction and we have immediately lost the Author of all Divine Revelation And not only so but the whole Universe likewise must presently sink into Nothing or rather indeed it could never have been at all But more particularly we shall find the Benefit of the former Demonstrations in the short remainder of our present Discourse for they will add to what we have further to say against Transubstantiation all the force and strength which Demonstration can give Costerus the Jesuit acknowledges and I suppose all Papists with him that If the Bread be not changed