The Refutation.
Neither of these answeres will beare scale, both of them are to light by many graines: the first of these is liable to these exceptions.
First, it is impertinent: for we bring the te∣stimony to prooue the practise of the Primi∣tiue Church concerning the Laieties partici∣pating the Cup: But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt, and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate. Admit that, which is most falfe, that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup, yet they had it, and vsed it; their practise therefore maketh for vs.
Secondly, it is inconsequent: for first, when a'man is Excommunicated, and hath lost his right to the Lords Table, a Bishop vpon the parties submission, and sorrow for his sin, and humble intreatie, may restore him to his right againe, and set him where he was: yet this prooueth not, that the Laietie had their o∣riginall right of Communicating from them; as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man, or Cleargie from the Communion, so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word, and publike prayer; yet no man will hence conclude, that the Laietie, or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church, and to pray, and to heare Gods word, but from the Bishop. Albeit Cyprian in his owne Page 58 Church, and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit, or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion: yet it will not from hence follow, that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup, or the Bread from Gods people in all Chur∣ches.
Thirdly, it is no good inference, that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes, viz. for a great crime, or high misdemeanor, that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without a∣ny fault at all, as the Romanists doe the Laie∣tie in generall.
Fourthly, a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures, or reuoke them; but he can∣not dispence with Gods law. To suspend a man from the whole Communion, if the de∣linquent deserue it, is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline; but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament, and not to the other, is a manifest violation of Christs ordi∣nance, who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds, and said to the same, Drinke yee all of this, to whom before he said, Take, eate, this is my body.
Fifthly, and lastly, if it were sufficient rea∣son to redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laietie, who haue been deseruedly depri∣ued of it, namely to arme them against emi∣nent persecution, why should not the faithfull people of God, especially those, who neuer Page 59 incurred the censure of Excommunication, or suspension, be much rather admitted to drinke of the Cup, to arme them against as great, or greater conflicts of temptations? The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word milita∣turis: Those that are to fight the Lords bat∣tels, are to be strengthened thereunto, by ta∣king the Cup of Saluation, or drinking the Lords Blood. But I assume, all Christians in all ages were, are, and shall be militantes, or mi∣litaturi, such as haue fought, doe fight, or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies; therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline, they are to be strengthened, and ar∣med thereunto, by participating of the Lords Cup.
The answere of Bellarmine to the second te∣stimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle, com∣meth not home to the marke by many bowes: for albeit the maine scope of that Epistle be, to prooue the necessitie of administring the Sacrament in Wine, against the corrupt cu∣stome of the Aquarij, (certaine heretikes that administred it in meere water) yet on the by, he discouereth the practise of the Church in his time, to Communicate in both kinds; and in the words alleaged, be expresly faith, that the Cup was ministred, or deliuered to the people, which is all we produce this passage for.
