A reply to an answer made of M. Doctor Whitgifte Against the admonition to…A replye to an ansvvere made of M. Doctor VVhitgifte Against the admonition to…

Which I therefore by the way do admonish the reader of / that the antiquity of this abuse of private communion / be not prejudicial to the truth / no more then the mingling of water / with that opinion of necessity / that those fathers had of it / is or ought to be prejudicial to that that we use in ministering the cup with pure wine according to the institution. I say therefore that this abuse was ancient / and rose upon these causes. First of all in the primitive church the discipline of the church was so severe and so extreme / that if any which professed the truth / and were of the body of the church / did through infirmity deny the truth / & joined him self unto the idolatrous service / although he repenting came again unto the church / yet was he not received to the communion of the Lords supper any more. And yet lying in extremity of sickness / and ready to depart this life / if he did require the communion in token that the church had forgiven the fault / and was reconciled altogether unto that person that had so fallen / they granted that he might be partaker of it / as may appear by the story of Serapion. Another cause was ¹that which was before alleged / which is the false opinion which they had conceived ⟨p. 147⟩/ that all those were condemned / that received not the supper of the Lord / & therefore when as those that were (as they called them cathecumeni) which is young novices in religion never admitted to the supper / or young children fell sick dangerously / they ministered the supper of the Lord unto them / least they should want their voyage victual (as they termed it) which abuse notwithstanding was neither so ancient as the other / nor so general. And there wanted not good men which declared their misliking / and did decree against both the abuses / & against all manner communicating in private houses. As in the council of * Laodicea it ²was ordained that neither bishop nor elder should make any oblation / that was / minister any communion in houses.

Which I therefore by the way doe admonish the reader of / that the antiquity of thys abuse of pryuate communion / bee not preiudiciall to the truthe / no more then the mingling of water / with that opynion of necessitie / that those fathers had of it / is or oughte to bee preiudiciall to that that wee vse in mynistring the cuppe with pure wine according to the instytution. I say therefore that thys abuse was auncient / and rose vpon these causes. First of all in the prymitiue church the dyscipline of the churche was so seuere and so extreame / that if any which professed the truth / and were of the body of the church / did through infirmitie deny the truth / & ioyned hym self vnto the idolatrous seruice / although he repenting came againe vnto the church / yet was he not receiued to the communion of the Lords supper any more. And yet lying in extremitie of sickenes / and redy to depart thys lyfe / if hee dyd require the communion in token that the church had forgeuen the faulte / and was reconcyled altogether vnto that person that had so fallen / they graunted that he might be partaker of it / as may appeare by the story of Serapion. Another cause was