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

And why is this provision thought so necessary? Or why is it counted so cruel an injury, if the sick man pass without it? Shall no man be saved that so departeth? In deed that were a cruel injury. Infinite numbers of Children, and others depart this life in God's mercy, without that victual. In the Primitive Church this order was thought expedient, not for the sick, for they in their ⟨p. 32⟩health received^a daily, and in their sickness had the Sacrament ordinarily sent ^bhome unto them: but for persons excommunicate, and enjoined to penaun••: who upon great and notorious crimes could not be suffered to communicate with the rest of the faithful, sometimes during their whole life, but only when they should depart the world. This extremity was used for terror of others, and such reconciliation was thought necessary at the end for solace of the party, that he should not utterly be swallowed up in despair, but might perceive he was received again amongst the faithful, & so depart comfortably, as the member of Christ.³ And therefore it was decreed by the Council of Carthage, That if any man after such Reconciliation, had recovered his health again, he should never thelesse not be received to the Communion of the Church, but only be admitted to the common Prayers. Thus far forth, and in this case this provision was counted necessary in the end.

And why is this prouision thought so necessarie? Or why is it counted so cruel an iniurie, if the sicke man passe without it? Shal noman be saued that so departeth? In déede that were a cruel iniurie. Infinite numbers of Children, and others departe this life in Goddes mercie, without that vitaile. In the Primitiue Churche this order was thought expedient, not for the sicke, for they in their ⟨p. 32⟩health receiued^a dayly, and in their sickenesse had the Sacrament ordinarily sent