ANSVVER.

One errour begets another. It was formerly said, that Com∣munion in both kinds was vsed by the Fathers, as a matter of custome onely, and not because of precept: now it is added, [ E] that this was done only because of the errour of the Manichees. I answere, First, before euer the Manichees appeared in any number a, Communion in both kinds was in practise, as ap∣peareth by the Apostles, and by Ignatius, Dionysius, Iustin Page  499 Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, 〈◊◊〉, and Saint Cy∣prian a. [ A]

Secondly, although Pope 〈◊〉 b in his Sermon speaketh of the Manichees, yet Vasques c the Iesuit saith, That he com∣manded not the vse of the Cup; because of them, but requi∣red that these Heretickes which feigned themselues Ca∣tholickes, and came to the holy Communion, receiuing the Bread, and taking the Cup into their hands, pretending that they drunke the Wine, and yet did not, should carefully be obserued.

Thirdly, touching the place of Pope Gelasius d, the same Au∣thor saith e, That whereas some of his part applie the same to the Manichees, yet this exposition agreeth not with the last branch of the Canon; for therein Gelasius teacheth that the [ C] mysterie of the Eucharist is of that nature in regard of it selfe, that without grieuous sacriledge it cannot be diuided and se∣uered the one part from the other, to wit, because of the insti∣tution and signification. Thus our Aduersarie is confuted, touching Pope Leo and Gelasius, by a most intelligent and lear∣ned Doctour of his owne societie.