A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare

Now I refer me to the judgement of the Reader, of what opinion so ever he be,¹ whether for proof of the Communion under one Kind, we have any word, sentence, or clause at all, or no: and whether these words of M. Ivel in his Sermon be true, or no, where he saith thus: It was used throughout the whole Catholic Church six hundred years after Christs ascension under Both Kinds without exception. That it was so used, yea six hundred years, and long after, we deny not: but that it was so always, and in every place used, and without exception, that we deny: and upon what grounds we do it, let M. Ivel him self be judge. If some of our allegations may be with violence wrested from our purpose, verily a great number of them cannot, the authority of the ancient Fathers, who wrote them, remaining inviolated. Whereof it followeth, that after the judgement of these Fathers, where as Christ instituted this Blessed Sacrament, and commanded it to be celebrated, and received in remembrance of his Death, 62² he gave no necessary commandment either for the one, or for both kinds (beside, and without the celebration of the sacrifice) but left that to the determination of the Church▪ Now that the Church for th•••idinge of unreverence, perils, offences, and other weighty and important causes, hath decreed it^* in two general Councils, to be received of the lay people in one Kind only, we think it good with all humbleness to submit our selves to the Church herein: which Church, Christ commandeth to be heard and obeyed, saying: He that heareth not the Church,