A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.

His Answer to the Argument from Mathema∣ticks in the sixth Paragraph

This Argument is meer Cob-web stuff, half an eye may look through it; For these words of the Doctor, (That a part of the Division is equal to the whole) either refer to the species (and then it is false that a part of the Division is equal to the whole) or they point at the Body of Christ (and then the words are de subjecto non supponente) for there is no division of any part of Christs Body from the whole.

The Reply.

I will not say, That my Adversary looks through too thick a Cob-web to discern the force and scope of my Argument. But this I will say, that he has plainly missed it. For the very absurdity that I drive at is, that in dividing suppose an entire consecra∣ted Host into two parts, (in which one entire consecrated Host there is but one continued Body

of Christ, veiled as he says, but co-extended with the species) that in the dividing this Host or species of the Host if you will, that one continued Body of Christ there before, is discontinued and separated into two as sure as it is in two places at once. And what, I pray you, is this but to be divided into two? And being Division here is in∣to two intirely the same with the divided, what is it but to be divided into parts of a Division which singly are equal to the whole, contrary to that common Notion in Euclid? Or if you think this less absurd, to be divided into two wholes? For they may be called either, in such an Hypothesis, as brings in the con••usion of all things.