I say therfore that this abuse was auncient, and rose vpon these causes. First of all in the pri∣mitiue Churche, the discipline of the Churche was so seuere, and so extreme, that if any whiche professed the truthe, and were of the body of the Churche, dyd through infyrmitie denic the truthe, and ioyned hymselfe vnto the Idolatrous seruice, althoughe he repenting came agayne vnto the Church, yet was he not receyued to the cōmunion of the Lords supper any more. And yet lying in extremitie of sicknesse, and ready to depart this lyfe, if they dyd require the Communion in token that the Church had forgiuen the fault, and was reconciled altogither vnto that person that had so fallen, they graunted that he might be partaker of it, as may appeare by the(*) 1.1 story of Serapton.
All this is true, for sometime they had thrée, sixe, or ten yeres space of repentance before they were admitted to the sacrament, and after that tyme was expired, they came as other dyd to the Communion, if they liued to it: if not, they receyued it on their death bedde. This is for my purpose, for it manifestly declareth, that then the Communion was ministred vnto the sicke, whiche is our question, it can by no meanes be drawne agaynst me.