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

Now for answer to M. Ivelles place alleged out of Gelasius, which is the chief that he, and all other the adversaries of the Church have to bring for their purpose in this point, this much may be said. First that he allegeth Gelasius untruly, making him to sound in English, otherwise then he doth in Latin. M. Ivels words be the•e. Gelasius an old Father of the Church, and a Bishop of Rome, saith, that to Minister the Communion under one Kind, is open Sacrilege. But where saith Gelasius so? This is no sincere handling of the matter. And because he knew, the words of that Father imported not so much, guilefully he reciteth them in Latin, and doth not English them: which he would not have omitted, if they had so plainly made for his purpose. The words of Gelasius be these: Divisio unius e•usdemque Mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire, The Division of one and the same Mystery, can not come without great sacrilege. Of these words he cannot conclude, Gelasius to say, that to minister the Communion under one kind, is open sacrilege. Gelasius rebuketh, and abhorreth the division of that high Mystery, which under one form, and under both, is unum, idemque, One, and the same: not one under the form of Bread, and another under the form of Wine: not one in respect of the Body, and an other in respect of the Blood: but unum, idemque, one, and the self same. The words afore recited, be taken out of a fragment of a Canon of Gelasius, which is thus, as we find in Gratian. Comperimus autem, ¹quod quidam sumpta tantum Corporis sacri portion, a calais sacrati cruoris abstineant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi) aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: quia divisio unius eiusdemque Mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire. Whiche may thus be Englished: But we have found, that some having received only the portion,