The adversaries in the _Confutation_ do not endeavor to [comfort the
consciences or] excuse the Church, to which one part of the Sacrament
has been denied. This would have been becoming to good and religious
men. For a strong reason for excusing the Church, and instructing
consciences to whom only a part of the Sacrament could be granted,
should have been sought. Now these very men maintain that it is
right to prohibit the other part, and forbid that the use of both
parts be allowed. First, they imagine that, in the beginning of the
Church, it was the custom at some places that only one part was
administered. Nevertheless they are not able to produce any ancient
example of this matter. But they cite the passages in which mention
is made of bread, as in Luke 24, 35 where it is written that the
disciples recognized Christ in the breaking of bread. They quote
also other passages, Acts 2, 42. 46; 20, 7, concerning the breaking
of bread. But although we do not greatly oppose if some receive
these passages as referring to the Sacrament, yet it does not follow
that one part only was given, because, according to the ordinary
usage of language, by the naming of one part the other is also
signified. They refer also to Lay Communion which was not the use of
only one kind, but of both; and whenever priests are commanded to use
Lay Communion [for a punishment are not to consecrate themselves, but
to receive Communion, however, of both kinds from another], it is
meant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration.
Neither are the adversaries ignorant of this, but they abuse the
ignorance of the unlearned, who, when they hear of Lay Communion,
immediately dream of the custom of our time, by which only a part of
the Sacrament is given to the laymen.

And consider their impudence. Gabriel recounts among other reasons
why both parts are not given that a distinction should be made