eyes have seen, that which our hands have handled, is bread"; we feel it, taste it, see it to be bread, and we hear it called bread, that very substance, which is called the body of our Lord. Shall we now say, our eyes are deceived, our ears hear a false sound, our taste is abused, our hands are mistaken? It is answered, Nay; our senses are not mistaken : "For our senses, in health and due circumstances, cannot be abused in their proper object; but they may be deceived about that, which is under the object of their senses; they are not deceived in colour, and shape, and taste, and magnitude, which are the proper objects of our senses; but they may be deceived in substances which are covered by these accidents; and so it is not the outward sense so much as the inward sense that is abused. For so Abraham, when he saw an angel in the shape of a human body, was not deceived in the shape of a man, for there was such a shape; but yet it was not a man, and, therefore, if he thought it was, he was abused f;" this is their answer: and if this will not serve the turn, nothing will: this, therefore, must be examined.

3. Now this, instead of taking away the insuperable difficulty, does much increase it, and confesses the things, which it ought to have avoided. For, 1. The accidents, proper to á substance, are for the manifestation, a notice of the substance, not of themselves; for as the man feels, but the means by which he feels, is the sensitive faculty, so that which is felt, is the substance, and the means by which it is felt, is the accidents: as the shape, the colour, the bigness, the motion of a man, are manifestative and declarative of a human substance: and if they represent a wrong substance, then the sense is deceived by a false sign of a true substance, or a true sign of a false substance: as if an alchymist should show me brass coloured like gold, and made ponderous, and so adulterated, that it would endure the touchstone for a long while, the deception is, because there is a pretence of improper accidents; true accidents indeed, but not belonging to that substance. But, 2. It is true that is pretended, that it is not so much the outward sense that is abused as the inward; that is, not so much the eye as the man; not the

* In Serm. apud Bed. in 1 Cor. x. Sed hæc verba citantur ab Algero, lib. i. de Sacram. c. 5, ex Serm. de verbis Domini.

Bellarm. lib. i. Euch. e. 14. Sect. Jam ad Petrum Martyrem.

sight, but the judgment: and this is it we complain of. For indeed, in proper speaking, the eye or the hand is not capable of being deceived; but the man, by the eye, or by the ear, or by his hand. The eye sees a colour, or a figure, and the inward sense apprehends it to be the figure of such a substance, and the understanding judges it to be the thing which is properly represented by the accident: it is so, or it is not so if it be, there is no deception; if it be not so, then there is a cozenage, there is no lie till it comes to a proposition, either explicit or implicit; a lie is not in the senses; but when a man, by the ministry of the senses, is led into the apprehension of a wrong object, or the belief of a false proposition, then he is made to believe a lie: and this is our case, when accidents, proper to one substance, are made the cover of another, to which they are not naturally communicable. And in the case of the holy sacrament, the matter, if it were as is pretended, were intolerable. For in the cases, wherein a man is commonly deceived, it is his own fault by passing judgment too soon; and if he should judge glass to be crystal, because it looks like it; this is not any deception in the senses, nor any injury to the man; because he ought to consider more things than the colour, to make his judgment whether it be glass, or crystal, or diamond, or ice; the hardness, the weight, and other things, are to be ingredients in the sentence. And if any two things had all the same accidents, then, although the senses were not deceived, yet the man would, certainly and inculpably, mistake. If therefore, in the eucharist, as is pretended, all the accidents of bread remain, then all men must necessarily be deceived; if only one or two did remain, one sense would help the other, and all together would rightly inform the understanding. But when all the accidents remain, they cannot but represent that substance, to which those accidents are proper; and, then the holy sacrament would be a constant, irresistible deception of all the world, in that in which all men's notices are most evident and most relied upon,- ·I mean their senses. And then the question will not be, whether our senses can be deceived or no? but whether or no it can stand with the justice and goodness of God, to be angry with us for believing our senses, since himself hath so ordered it, that we cannot avoid being deceived? there being, in this case, as much

reason to believe a lie as to believe a truth,-if things were so as they pretend. The result of which is this: That as no one sense can be deceived about his proper object, but that a man may about the substance lying under those accidents, which are the object proper to that sense, because he gives sentence according to that representment otherwise than he ought, and he ought to have considered other accidents: proper to other senses, in making the judgment; as the birds. that took the picture of grapes for very grapes, and he that took the picture of a curtain for a very curtain, and desired the painter to draw it aside; they made judgment of the grapes and the curtain only by colour and figure, but ought to have considered the weight, the taste, the touch, and the smell: so on the other side, if all the senses concur, then not only is it true, that the senses cannot be deceived about that object, which is their own, but neither ought the man to be deceived about that substance, which lies under those accidents; because their ministry is all that natural instrument of conveying notice to a man's understanding, which God hath appointed. 4. Just upon this account it is, that St. John's argument had been just nothing in behalf of the whole religion: for that God was incarnate, that Jesus Christ did such miracles, that he was crucified, that he arose again, and ascended into heaven, that he preached these sermons, that he gave such commandments, he was made to believe by sounds, by shapes, by figures, by motions, by likenesses, and appearances, of all the proper accidents: and his senses could not be deceived about the accidents, which were the proper objects of the senses; but if they might be deceived about the substance under these accidents, of what truth or substance could he be ascertained by their ministry? for he indeed saw the shape of a human body; but it might so be, that not the body of a man, but an angelical substance, might lie under it; and so the article of the assumption of human nature is made uncertain. And upon the same account, so are all the other articles of our faith, which relied upon the verity of his body and nature: all which, if they are not sufficiently signified by their proper accidents, could not be ever the more believed for being seen with the eyes, and heard with the ears, and handled with our hands; but if they were sufficiently declared by their proper accidents, then the

understanding can no more be deceived in the substances, lying under the accidents, than the senses can in the ac-, cidents themselves.

h

4. To the same purpose it was, that the apostles were answered concerning the article of the truth of Christ's resurrection. For when the apostles were affrighted at his sudden appearing, and thought it had been a spirit, Christ called, them to feel his hands, and to show that it was he; "For a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as ye see me have¤;" plainly meaning, that the accidents of a body were not communicable to a spirit; but how easily might they have been deceived, if it had pleased God to invest other substances with. new and stranger accidents? For though a spirit hath not flesh and bones, they may represent to the eyes and hands. the accidents of flesh and bones; and if it could, in the matter of faith, stand with the goodness and wisdom of God to suffer it, what certainty could there be of any article of our religion relating to Christ's humanity, or any proposition proved by miracles? To this instance the man that must answer all, I mean Bellarmine, ventures something: saying, it was a good argument of our blessed Saviour," Handle. and see that I am no spirit: that which is handled and seen is no spirit:" but it is no good argument to say, This is not, seen, not handled, therefore it is no body: and, therefore, ; the body of Christ may be naturally in the sacrament, though it is not seen nor handled. To this I reply, 1. That suppose it were true what he said, yet it would also follow by his own words. This is seen bread,' and 'is handled,' so therefore "it is bread.' Hoc enim affirmativè colligitur.' This is the affirmative consequent made by our blessed Lord, and here confessed to be certain. It being the same collection.

༄

6

"It

is I; for, by feeling and seeing, you shall believe it to be so:" and "it is bread; for, by feeling, and seeing, and tasting, and smelling it, you shall perceive it to be so."-To which let this be added: That in Scripture it is as plainly affirmed to be bread, as it is called Christ's body, Now, then, because it cannot be both in the proper and natural

St. Luke, xxiv. 39.

Quod videtur, corpus est: quod palpatur, corpus est. S. Ambros. in S. Luc. 4.

i Lib. i. de Euch. c. 14. Sect. Resp. ad Calvinum.

sense, but one of them must be figurative and tropical; since both of the appellatives are equally affirmed, is it not notorious, that, in this case, we ought to give judgment on that side, which we are prompted to by common sense? If Christ had said only, This is my body, and no apostle had told us also that it is bread,-we had reason to suspect our senses to be deceived, if it were possible they should be: but when it is equally affirmed to be bread, as to be our Lord's body, and but one of them can be naturally true and in the letter, shall the testimony of all our senses be absolutely of no use in casting the balance? The two affirmatives are equal; one must be expounded tropically; which will you choose? Is there in the world any thing more certain and expedite than that what you see, and feel, and taste, natural and proper, should be judged to be that which you see, and feel, and taste, naturally and properly, and therefore, that the other be expounded tropically? Since you must expound one of the words tropically, I think it is not hard to deter mine, whether you ought to do it against your sense, or with it. But it is also remarkable, that our blessed Lord did not, only by feeling and seeing, prove it to be a body; but by proving it was his body,' he proved it was himself;' that is, "by these accidents, representing my person, ye are not led into an error of the person, any more than of the kind and substance; see my hands and my feet,' öri autòs ¿yw eiμí, ὅτι ἐγὼ 'that it is even I myself;"" this I noted, lest a silly escape be made, by pretending these accidents only proved Christ to be no spirit, but a body; and so the accidents of bread declare a latent body, meaning the body of Christ; for as the accidents of a body declare the substance of a body, so the particular accidents of this kind declare this kind, of this person declare this person. For so our blessed Saviour proved it to be himself in particular; and if it were not so, the deceit would pass from one thing to another; and although it had not been a spirit, yet it might be John the Baptist risen from the dead, or Moses, or Elias, and not Jesus their dear Lord. Besides, if this had been all that Jesus had intended, only to prove he was no spectrum,' but a body, he had not done what was intended. For put case it had been a spirit, and had assumed a body, as Bellarmine, in the very next paragraph, forgetting himself, or else being