A discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation wherein the same is declared, by…A discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation vvherein the same is declared, by…

And here let me entreat the Reader (since that these men so much press us with Gods omnipotency) to cast his eye back with me to those manifold ^aimpossibilities before mentioned, and by themselves acknowledged, even in this very business concerning the Sacrament. Whereby it may appear, that they make use of it only to serve their own turns, urging it then when it may stead them, and denying it then when it doth not. To recite again some one or two of them only, adding one or two more to them ^bLuther's opinion (saith Bellarmine) cannot be true: because ^cit is no way possible that one thing should not be changed, and yet should become another. And ^dIt is impossible (saith Lanfranc) that one thing should be turned into another, and not cease to be, so far forth as it is converted. ^eIt is impossible (saith this Defendant, that cannot endure here to hear of any impossibility) That a man should be a Rock, or a Vine. And ^fIt is impossible (saith Bellarmine) that bread should be Christs body. ^gIt is not ⟨p. 172⟩possible (saith Maironis) that one should be in two times at once. (And is it not as impossible then, for one to be in two places at once?) And ^hit is impossible that one single effect should have diverse total causes: and ⁱimpossible therefore that one and the same accident should be in diverse subjects. (And why not as impossible for one subject to have diverse accidents, as diverse seats, sites, qualities, and quantities at once? which Christ's body must needs have, i it be with us in the Eucharist.)