nothing to be seen of it neither in the letters of Gregory the eleveinth Tom. XI Conc. nor in the two Councils held at London by William of Courtenay and by Thomas Arundel Archbishops of Cantorbury nor in the Councill at Oxford celebrated by the same Thomas under Gregory the XII nor in the Councill at Rome under John the XXIII Tom. XII Conc. nor in the third Councill of London under the same Pope nor in the Councill of Constance nor finally in all the Councils and all the Decrees where the condemnation of that Arch-Heritick and the Catalogus of his errors are registred by which it appears that either he did not insist upon that point or that there was no great stir made about it Calixtus agrees with Aeneas Sylvius an Author neere those times N. 24.25 an author about those times who writ this History that the first who mooved that Question was one named Peter Dresde School-Master of Prague and he made use against us of the authority of that Passage in S. John If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man and drink not his Bloud you shall have no life in you This Passage missed Jacobel de Misne who caused the whole Church of Bohemia towards the end of the XIV age to revolt He was followed by John Hus in the begining of the XV. age so that the contest between us about the two species has no higher an originall Moreover it must be remorked that John Hus did not presume at first to say that Communion under both species was necessary Ibid. It suffised him that they should grant it was permitted and expedient to give it but he ditermined not the necessity of it so certaine and established a thing it was there was no such necessity When any change of essentiall customes is made the spirit of Tradition always living in the Church is never wanting to make an opposition The Ministers withall there great reasonings find yet very great difficulty to accustome their people to see their children dye without Baptisme and in despite of the opinion they have infused into them that Baptisme is not necessary to salvation they are not able to divert the trouble so funest an event produces in them nor scarce restraine the Fathers who absolutely require their children should be Baptised in that necessity according to ancient custome I my self have observed it by experience and the same may be seen by what I have cited out of their Synodes so true it is that a custome which an immemoriall and universall tradition hath imprinted in their mindes as necessary hath an irrissistable power and so fare are men from being able to extinguish such a sentiment in the wholl Church that it is very dificult even to extinguish it amongst those who with a deliberate resolution contradict it If there fore the Communion under one sole species hath passed without contradiction and without noyse it is as we have said that all Christians from the infancie of Christianity were nourished in that faith that the same vertue was diffused in either of the two species and that nothing of the substance was lost when but one of them only was received It was not needfull to use any extraordinary effort to make the faithfull enter into this sentiment The Communion of infants the Communion of the sick domestick Communion the custome to communicate under one or both species indiferently in the Church it selfe and in holy assemblies and in fine those other things we have seen had naturally inspired all the faithfull with this sentiment from the first ages of the Church So when John of Pick ham Archbishop of Cantorbury in the XIII Conc. Lameth C. I. T. XI Conc. age with so much care caused his people to be taught that under that one sole species they had distributed to them they received JESUS-CHRIST whole and intire it past without the lest difficulty and not one persone in the least contradicted it It would be cavilling to say that this great care makes it appear they mett with some opposition in it because we have already seen that William Archbishop of Chalons and Hugo de Sainto Victore not to ascend any higher at present had constantly taught above a hundred yeares before him the same doctrine not one finding in it any thing either new or strange so much naturally dos it take an impression in the minde We see in all times and in all places the Pastorall charity carefull to prevent even the least thoughts which ignorance might chance to let fall into the minds of men And in fine it is de facto certain that there was neither complaint nor contradiction upon this article during many ages I doe also positively averre that not one of those who beleived the reall presence ever ingenuously called in doubt this integrity that I may so say of the person of JESUS-CHRIST under each species seing it would have been to give a dead body to give a body without blood and without soul the very thoughts of which strikes a horrour From whence it comes that in beleiving the reall presence one is carried to beleive the full sufficiency of communion under one species We see also that Luther was naturally induced to this opinion and a good while after he had made a publick revolte from the Church it is certain that he had the matter still as indifferent or at least of small importance highly censuring Carlostadius who had contrary to his advice established Communion under both kinds and who seemed Ep. Luth. ad Casp Guttol Tom. II. Ep. 56. said he to place the whole reforme in these things of nothing He also uttered these insolent words in the Treatise which he published in 1523. upon the formula of the Masse If a Councill ordained or permited the two species wee would in contempt of that Councill receive but one of them or we would neither take the one or the other and curse those whoreceive bothin vertue of that Ordinance words which shew clearly that when both he and those of his party are of late so obstinately zealous for the two species it is rather out of a spirit of contradiction then any sollid reason In effect he approoved the same year the common places of Melancton where he putts amongst things indifferent Communion under one or both species In 1528. Visit Sax. T. VI. Ihen in his visitation of Saxony he left them expressy the liberty to receive but one only and persisted still in that opinion in 1533. fiveteen years after he had erected himselfe as a Reformer The whole Lutheran party supposes that nothing either essentiall or necessary to salvation is lost when one doth not communicate under both species seeing that in the Apologie of the Confession of Ausbourge a treatise as authentique with that party as the Confession of Ausbourge it self and equally subscribed to by all those who embraced it it is expresly set downe Apol.
of this Body and this Blood coming from his death he would conserve the image of this death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keepe us alwayes in minde to the cause of our salvation that is to say the sacrifise of the Crosse According to this doctrine wee ought to have our living victime under an image of death otherwise wee should not be enlivened JESUS-CHRIST tells us also at his holy table I am living but I have beene dead Apoc. 1.11 and living in effect I beare only upon wee the image of that death which I have endured It is also thereby that I enliven because by the figure of my death once suffered I introduce those who beleeve to that life which I possesse eternally Thus the Lambe who is before the Throne as dead Apoc. 5.6 or rather as slaine do's not cease to be living for he is slanding and he sends throughout the world the seaven Spirits of God and he takes the booke and opens it and he fils heaven and earth with joy and with grace Our Reformers will not or it may be cannot yet understand so high a mystery for it enters not into the hearts but of those who are prepared by a purifyed Faith But if they cannot understand it they may at least understand very well that wee cannot beleeve a reall presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST without admitting all the other things wee have even now explicated and these things thus explicated is what wee call concomitancy But as soone as concomitancy is supposed and that wee have acknowledged JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire under each species it is verry easy to understand in what the vertue of this Sacrament consists John VI. 64. Cvr. lib. IV. in Joh. c. 34. Ia. Anath XI Conc. Eph. p. I. T. III. Conc. The flesh profiteth nothing and if wee understand it as Saint Cyrille whose sence was followed by the whole Council of Ephesus it profiteth nothing to beleeve it alone to believe it the flesh of a pure man but to believe it the flesh of God a flesh full of divinity and by consequence of spirit and of life it profiteth very much without doubt because in this state it is full of an infinite vertue and in it wee receive togeather with the entire humanity of JESUS-CHRIST his divinity also whole and entire and the very source or fountaine of graces For this reason it is the Son of God who knew what he would place in his mystery knew also very well how to make us understand in what he would place the vertue of it What he has said in Saint John must therefore be no more objected John 6.54 If you eate not the Flesh of the Son of man and drinke not his Blood you shall not have life in you The manifest meaning of these words is there is no life for those who seperate themselves from the one and the other for indeede it is not the eating and drinking but the receiving of JESUS-CHRIST that gives life JESUS-CHRIST sayes himselfe and as it is excellently remarked by the Councill of Trent Sess XXI c. 1. too injustly calumniated by our adversaryes He who said John 6.54 IF YOU EATE NOT THE FLESCH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINKE NOT HIS BLOOD YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU has also said Ibid. 52. IF ANY ONE EAT OF THIS BREAD HE SHALL HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING And he who said Ibid. 55. HE WHO EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD HAS ETERNALL LIFE Ibid. 52. has said also THE BREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD And lastly he who said Ibid. 57. HE THAT EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD REMAINES IN ME AND I IN HIM has also said HE WHO EATES THIS BREAD Ibid. 59. SHALL HAVE ETERNALL LIFE and againe Ibid. 58. HE THAT EATES ME LIVES FOR ME AND SHALL LIVE BY ME. By which he obliges us not to the eating and drinking at his holy Table or to the species which containe his Body and his Blood but to his propper substance which is there communicated to us and togeather with it grace and life So that this passage of Saint John from whence as wee have said Jacobel tooke occasion to revolt and all Bohemia to rise in rebellion becomes a proofe for us The Pretended Reformers themselves would undertake to defend us if wee would against this passage so much boasted of by Jacobel seeing they owne with a common consent this passage is not to be understood of the Eucharist Calvin has said it Cal. Inst IV. c. Aub. lib. I. de Sacr. Euch. c. 30. c. Aubertin has said it every one says it and M. du Bourdieu says it also in his Treatise so often cited Repl. ch VI. p. 201. But without taking any advantage from their acknowledgements wee on the contrary with all antiquity maintaine that a passage where the Flesh and Blood as well as eating and drinking are so often and so clearly distinguished cannot be understood meerely of a communion where eating and drinking is the same thing such as is a spirituall Communion and by faith It belongs therefore to them and not to us to defend themselves from the authority of this passage where the businesse being to explicate the vertue and the fruict of the Eucharist it appeares that the Son of God places them not in eating and drinking nor in the manner of receiving his Body and his Blood but in the foundation and in the substance of both the one and the other Whereupon the antient Fathers for example Saint Cyprian he who most certainly gave nothing but the Blood alone to little infants as wee have seene so precisely in his Treatise De lapsis Test. ad Quir. III. 25.20 dos not omit to say in the same Treatise that the parents who led their children to the sacrifises of Idols deprived them of the Body and Blood of our Lord and teaches also in another place that they actually fulfill and accomplish in those who have life and by consequence in infants by giving them nothing but the Blood all that which is intended by these words If you eate not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you shall not have life in you Aug. Ep. 23. Saint Augustin sayes often the same thing though he had seene and examined in one of his Epistles that passage of Saint Cyprian where he speakes of the Communion of infants by Blood alone without finding any thing extraordinary in this manner of communion and that it is not to be doubted but the African Church where Saint Augustin was Bishop had retained the Tradition which Saint Cyprian so great a Martyr Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa had left behind him The foundation of this is that the Body and Blood inseperably accompany each other for although the species which
containe particularly the one or the other in vertue of the institution are taken seperately their substance can be no more seperated then their vertue and their grace in so much that infants in drinking only the Blood do not only receive the essentiall fruit of the Eucharist but also the whole substance of this Sacrament and in a word an actuall and perfect Communion All these things shew sufficiently the reason wee have to believe that Communion under one or both species containes togeather with the substance of this Sacrament the whole effect essentiall to it The practise of all ages which have explained it in this manner has its reason grounded both in the foundation of the mystery and in the words themselves of JESUS-CHRIST and never was any custome established upon more sollid foundations nor upon a more constant practise § X. Some objections solved by the precedent Doctrine I Do not wonder that our Reformers who acknowlege nothing but bare signes in the bread and wine of their Supper endeavour by all meanes to have them both but I am astonished that they will not understand that in placing as wee do JESUS-CHRIST entirely under each of these sacred Symboles wee can content our selves with one of the two M. Exam. Tr. VI. Sect. 6. p. 480. 481. Jurieux objects against us that the reall presence being supposed the Body and the Blood would in reality be received under the Bread alone but that yet this would not suffise because t is true this would be to receive the Blood but not the Sacrament of the Blood this would be to receive JESUS-CHRIST wholy entirely really but not sacramentally as they call it Is it possible that a man should believe it is not enough for a Christian to receive entire JESUS-CHRIST Is it not a Sacrament where JESUS-CHRIST is pleased to be in person thereby to bring with himselfe all his graces to place the vertue of this Sacrament in the signes with which he is vailed rather then in his proper person which he gives us wholy and entirely Is not this I say contrary to what he himselfe has said with his own mouth John 6.57.58 he who eates of this Bread shall have eternall life and he who eates me shall live for me and by me as I my selfe live for my Father and by my Father But if M. Jurieux maintaine in despite of these words that it dos not suffise to have JESUS-CHRIST if wee have not in the Sacrament of his Body and his Blood the perfect image of his death as he do's nothing in that but repete an objection alread cleared so I send him to the answers I have given to this argument and to the undeniable examples I have set down to shew that by the avouched confession of his Churches when the substance of the Sacrament is received the ultimate perfection of its signification is no more necessary But if this principle be true even in those very Sacraments were JESUS-CHRIST is not really and substantially contained as in that of Baptisme how much the rather is it certain in the Eucharist where JESUS-CHRIST is present in his person and what is it he can desire more who possesses him entirely But in fine will some say there must not be such arguing upon expresse words Seing it is your sentiment that the VI. chapter of Saint John ought to be understood of the Eucharist you cannot dispence with your selves in the practise of it as to the letter and to give the Blood to drinke as well as the Body to eat seing JESUS-CHRIST has equally prononced both of the one and of the other If you eat not my Body and drinke not my Blood you shall have no life in you Let us once stop the mouths of these obstinate and contentious spirits who will not understand these words of JESUS-CHRIST by their whole connexion I demande of them whence it comes they do not by these words believe Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of all men yea even of little infants newly baptised If nothing must be explicated let us give to them the Communion as well as to others and if it must be explicated let us explicate all by the same rule I say by the same rule because the same principle and the same authoritè from which wee learne that Communion in generall is not necessary to the salvation of those who have received Baptisme teach us that the particular Communion of the Blood is not necessary to those who have been already partakers of the Body The principle which shews us that the Communion is not necessary to the salvation of little infants baptized is that they have already received the remission of sins and a new life in Baptisme because they have beene thereby regenerated and sanctifyed in so much that if they should perish for want of being communicated they would perish in the state of innocence and grace The same principle shews also that he who has received the Bread of life has no neede of receiving the sacred Blood seing as wee have frequently demonstrated he has received togeather with the Bread of life the whole substance of the Sacrament and togeather with that fubstance the whole essentiall vertue of the Eucharist The substance of the Eucharist is JESUS-CHRIST himselfe The vertue of the Eucharist is to nourish the soule to conserve therein that new life it has received in Baptisme to confirme the union with JESUS-CHRIST and to replenish even our bodyes with sanctity and life I aske whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received all these effect be not likewise received and whether the Blood can add thereunto any thing essentiall Behold what regards the principle let us come now to what regards the authority The authority which persuades us that Communion is not so necessary to the salvation of little infants as Baptisme is the authority of the Church It is in effect this authority which carryes with it in the Tradition of all ages the true meaning of the Scripture and as this authority has taught us that he who is baptised wants not any thing necessary to salvation so dos it also teach us that he who receives one sole species wants none of those effects which the Eucharist ought to produce in us From hence in the very primitive times they communicated either under one or under both species without believing they hazarded any thing of that grace which they ought to receive in the Sacrament Wherefore though it be writt If you do not eate my Body and drinke my Blood John 6.54 you shall have no life in you it is also writt after the same manner John 3.8 If a man be not regenerated of water and the Holy Ghost he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God The Church hath not understoud an equall necessity in these two Sentences on the contrary she alwayes understood that Baptisme which gives life is more necessary then the Eucharist
keeping of the Eucharist under the sole species of bread in particular houses confirmes what ought to be beleeved of the keeping of it in the Church or the Bishops houses for the use of the sick and such practises which sustaine one another so well put the doctrine of the Church out of all dispute All that the Ministers answer hereto serves only to discover their incumbrance They all accuse with one accord this custome of profanation and abuse even after they had established it as universall for many ages Hist Euch. I. P. ch 11. pag. 159. ch 14. p. 175. Bourd rep ch 19. and what is yet more strange during the purest times of Christianity This answer refutes it selfe and it will be an easy matter to grant it seeing the whole consists in this to know whether all the Martyrs were profane persons or whether the Ministers who accuse them be not temerarious Calixtus and M. Calixt n. 11. Bourd rép ch 19. Conc. Caesaraug C. III. Conc. Tol. I. C. XIV T. II. Conc. du Bourdieu who exactely followes him mention two Canons of the Church of Spain one of the Council of Saragoza and the other of the first Council of Toledo where those who do not swallow the Eucharist received from the hands of the Bishop are expelled as sacrilegious and excommunicated persons M. Hist Euch. I. P. ch 14. p. 174. de la Roque answers them that he dos not beleeve this Canon of Saragoza was made to abolish the custome of carrying away the Eucharist and keeping of it And he sayes the same afterwards of the first Council of Toledo which he proves from the eleaventh Canon of the eleventh Council held at the same place Conc. Tol. XI C. XI T. VI. Conc. And though the opinions of M. de la Roque were not to be relyed upon it is sufficiently cleare that these two Councils held in the IV. age or there about could not have detested as a sacrilege a custom which all the Fathers shew us to have been common in those times as wee have proved by the acknowledgement even of the Ministers themselves In fine these Councils speake not of those who receiving in the Church a part of the consecrated bread reserve another part for domestick communion but of those who receiving the communion from the hands of the Bishop swallow none at all of it Behold what these Councils forbid and it is not difficult to guesse at the motives of this their prohibition seeing the I. Council of Toledo which in the XIII Canon so severely blames those who affected in assisting at the Church never to communicate there when it condemnes in the following Canon as sacrilegious persons those who swallow not the communion after they have received it from the hand of the Priest makes it known sufficiently by this connection that its intention was to condemne another manner of avoiding the communion so much the worse because it shewed either a sacrilegious hipocricy or too visible an aversion to this holy mystery These unfortunate people who so obstinately avoided the communion were the Priscillianistes hereticks of those times and places who mixed themselves ordinarily with the faithfull But if they will not grant this to have been the motive of that Canon they cannot at least deny but there are other evill motives not to swallow the Eucharist which might be condemned in these Councils A man may refraine from the Eucharist out of superstition he may reserve it to abuse it he may reject it out of infidelity and the XI Council of Toledo informes us that it was such a sacrilege which the first condemned These or the like abuses taken notice on in certain places might have given occasion to local prohibitions which brought no prejudice to the customes of other countryes and it is certain moreover that what is practised in one place as well as in one time with reverence may be so badly practised in another time and place that it shall be rejected as sacrilegious Therefore in what manner soever a man will take these Canons they do not in any sort authorise the errour of them who would make the practises of the holy Martyrs and of the whole antient Church passe for an abuse and who can finde no other answer to an invincible argument but in condemning their proceedings M. du Bourdieu endeavours to come of by an other evasion no lesse impertinent He would have it be beleeved that the faithfull communicated under both species in these domestick communions and reserved them both Rep. ch 18. for which he brings after Calixtus four testimonyes Just apol 2. that of Saint Justinus who sayes that after consecration in the Church the Deacons carryed the two species to them that were absent That of S. Gregory the great Greg. Dial. III. c. 136. who relates that in a voyage from Rome to Constantinople and in a great tempest the faithfull received the Body and the Blood that of Amphilochius who tells us in the life of S. I. vit Basile that a Jew jayning himselfe to the faithfull in their assembly carryed away to is house some of the remainders of the Body and Blood and lastly that of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen who relates of his sister Saint Gorgonia that she mixed with her teares what she had gathered of the species or symboles of the Body and Blood Naz. he ought to have translated it of the Body or the Blood as it is in the text and not of the Body and the Blood as he has done thereby to insinuate that both the one and the other were reserved togeather Of these four examples the two first are manifestly nothing to our subject Wee have already remarked with M. de la Roque that in the example of Saint Justinus the two species t is true were carryed but presently after they had been consecrated by which it dos not appeare that they kept them which is precisely our question To shew that in the passage mentioned by Saint Gregory the faithfull had kept the two species in their vesselle from Rome to Constantinople it ought before to have been certain that there was no Priest in this vesselle who could celebrate or that Maximian of whom Saint Gregory speakes in this place was none though he was the Superieur of a Monastery This great Pope sayes nothing of these circumstances and leaves us the liberty to supply them by other reasons of which the principall is drawn from that impossibility already so often remarked of keeping so little quantity of consecrated wine so long a time What M. du Bourdieu sayes here that they durst not have celebrated in a ship showes that he searches only to cavil without so much as considering that even at present wee celebrate in all sort of places when there is a reason for it So that of these four examples behold two of them already uselesse The two others with the passages of Baronius and the
other It is true the moderne Greeks explane thēselves other wayes and appeare not for the most part very favourable to communion under one species but it is in this the force of truth appeares the greater since that in despite of them their own customes their own Liturgies their own Traditions pronounce sentence against them But is it not true will some say that they put some drops of the pretious Blood in forme of a Crosse upon the parcells of the sacred Body which they reserve for the following dayes and for the Office of Presanctified It is true they do it for the most part but it is true at the same time that this custome is new amongst them and that in the substance to examin it entirely it concludes nothing against us It concludes nothing against us because besides that two or three drops of consecrated wine cannot be preserved any long time the Greekes take care immediately after they have dropped them upon the consecrated bread to dry it upon a chafendish and to reduce it to powder for it is in that manner they keep it as well for the sick as for the Office of the Presanctified A certain signe that the authors of this Tradition had not in prospect by this mixture the Communion under both species which they would have given in another manner if they had beleeved them necessary but indeed the expression of some mystery such as might be the Resurrection of our Lord which all Liturgyes both Greeke and Latin figured by the mixture of the Body and the Blood in the Chalice because the death of our Lord arriving by the effusion of his Blood this mixture of his Body and his Blood is very proper to represent how this man-God tooke life again I should be ashamed to mention here all the vaine subtilityes of the modern Greeks and the false arguments they make about the wine and about its more grosse and more substantiall parts which remain after the sollid bodyes with which wine may be mixed bacome dryed from whence they conclude that a like effect is produced in the species of consecrated wine and therefore that the Blood of our Lord may remain in the sacred Bread even after it has been upon the chafendish and is entirely drye By these wise reasonings the Lees and the Tartar orsalt would still be wine and a lawfull matter for the Eucharist Must wee thus argued concerning the mysteryes of JESUS-CHRIST It was wine as properly called so that is a liquid and flowing wine which JESUS-CHRIST instituted for the matter of his Sacrament It is a liquor which he has given us to represent to our eyes his Blood which was shedd and the simplicity of the Gospell will not suffer these subtilityes of the modern Grecians It must also be acknowledged they arrived to this but of very late and moreover that the custome of putting these drops of consecrated Wine upon the Bread of the Eucharist was not established amongst them but since their schisme The Patriarch Michael Cerularius who may be called the true author of this schisme writes notwithstanding in a booke which he composed in defence of the Office of the Presanctified That the sacred Breads Synodic seu Pand. Guill Bevereg Oxon. 1672. Not. in Can. 52. Conc. which are beleeved to be and which are in effect the quickning Body of our Lord must be kept for this sacrifice Trull T. II. p. 156. Leo All. Ep. ad Nihus without sprincling one drop of the pretious Blood upon them And wee finde notes upon the Councils by a famous Canonist who was one of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Constantinople in which he expressely takes notice that according to the doctrine of Blessed John Patriarch of Constantinople The pretious Blood must not be sprincled upon the Presanctified which they would reserve Harmenop Ep. Can. sect 2. Tit. 6. and this said he is the practise of our Church So that let the modern Grecians say what they please their tradition is expressly against this mixture and according to their own authors and their own proper tradition there remains not so much as a pretense to defend the necessity of the two species in the Presanctified mysteries For can any one so much as conceive what Patriarch Michael in the worke by us newly cited sayes That the wine in which they mix the Body reserved is changed into the pretious Blood by this mixing without so much as prononcing upon the wine as appeares by the Euchologes and by Michaels own confession any one of the mystick and sanctifying prayers that is to say without prononcing the words of consecration bee they what they will for it is not to our purpose to dispute here of them A prodigious and unheard of opinion that a Sacrament can be made without words contrary to the authority of the Scripture and the constant tradition of all Churches which neither the Grecians nor any body else ever called in question By how much therefore wee ought to reverence the antient traditions of the Grecians which descend to them from their fathers and from those times whilst they were united to us by so much ought wee to dispise those errours into which they are falne in the following ages weakned and blinded by schisme I need not here relate them because the Protestants themselves do nor deny but that they are great and I should recede too far from my subject But I will only say to do justice to the modern Grecians that they do not all hold this grosse opinion of Michaels and that it is not an universall opinion amongst them that the wine is changed into the Blood by this mixture of the Body notwithstanding that Scripture and Tradition assigne a particular benediction by words as well to it as to the Body Wee are much lesse to beleeve that the Latins who exposed to us but even now the Office of Good Fryday could be fallen into this errour since they explicate themselves quite contrary in expresse words and to the end wee may omit nothing wee must again in few words propose their sentiments It is true then that wee finde in the Ordo Romanus and in this Office of Good Fryday that the unconsecrated wine is sanctifyed by the sanctifyed bread which is mixed with it The same is found in the bookes of Alcuinus and Amalarius upon the Divine Office Alc. de Div. Off. Amal. lib. r. de Div. Off. Bib. PP de Div. Off. But upon the least reflection made of the doctrine they teach in these same bookes it will be granted that this sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord cannot be that true consecration by which the wine is changed into the Blood but a sanctification of another nature and of a much inferiour order such as that is of which Saint Bernard speakes when he sayes that the Wine mixed with the consecrated Hoste Bern. Ep. 69. p. 92.