Corpus of Electronic Texts Edition
A Seasonable Caveat Against Popery (Author: William Penn)

Chapter 5

Of Communion in one Kind

PAP. We humbly confess, that from the beginning of Christianity the holy Communion was administered frequently in both, and sometimes in each Kind, according to several Circumstances.

Answ. We may know him to be a Papist by his frequent Confessions; and methinks it should not only prevent People of being seduced by them, but reduce those of their own way, to an utter abhorrence of so much allowed Apostacy.

How many times has he confessed this, that, and the other thing, not to be of Primitive Practice and Institution. If the antient Christians did Commune in both kinds, upon what better reasons or motives, was it so severely prohibited by Romanists? Is the Blood of less vertue then the Body? Even that which the Scripture frequently commemorates, after this manner, the Blood of cleansing, and saved by Faith in his Blood. But they proceed further, and say.

Pap. Hence the holy Church following the Piety of Christians, who insensibly became accustomed to receive it almost universally in one Kind, upon great Motives did afterwards ordain to have it in one, as now administered, though the receiving of it so is not matter of Faith.

Answ. Three things, are very observable from this part of their Confession.

1. That because it was sometimes received in one Kind, according to Circumstances, it insensibly became received by holy Church, but in one Kind: More Nonsence and Falshood, could not well be in so many words. (Nonsence) For what consequence can the latter words be to the former; if in each kind, then not any one more then the other, or why not Blood, and not Bread, as well as Bread, and


p.16

{original page number 17} not Blood: But among the Papists, the People only pertake of the Wafer, (Falshood) for they neither have, nor can they give one Instance of that slippery or heedless way of receiving it, as in each kind; but when ever it was taken, for Three Hundred Years together, it was in both kinds.

And what were those Circumstances, that we can hear of none of them? Horrible Cheats and Idle Imposters! To delude the Unlearned and Unstable: Nor is it less Impudence for them to say, That the Church received it in but one Kind upon any such score: the Conclusion can never be right, where the Premisses are false.

2d That upon great Motives, it was afterwards ordained to be received but in one kind, which great Motives they keep to themselves; either they must think us such Fools as to credit them, hand over head, and so needed not to mention them, or else, they doubting their great Motives, to be down-right Disswasives with all sober and intelligent People, chose rather to be silent, then more particular.

3d That the so reverencing of it is no matter of Faith, which is so notorious an Untruth, as their own Annals expresly tell us, that Boniface the 8th, and John 22th (if I mistake not; for I was, when I met the Pamphet (sic), destitute of such Books) highly contradicted one another, One threatning the Priests to turn them out, if they did not administer it in both Kinds; and the Other, to Excommunicate them, if not Burn them, in case they did; which as it shews the Eagerness of the Popes, so there is a choice piece of Infallabillity to be observed: Two infallable Popes accusing each other of gross Fallabillity.

Pap. Neither do we believe, religious Communicants are hereby bereaved of any benefit in obeying the Church's Order, since our Belief instructs us, that our blessed Lord is equally present in one kind, as in both.

Answ. To say that religious Communicants are not bereaved of any benefit by receiving it in one kind, would imply, that of irreligious Communicants, the Receivers of both Kinds, have the advantage; is so, methinks it is natural to believe, that


p.17

{original page number 18} religious Communicants, in both Kinds, have the most benefit: But what Church is it that gives those Orders? A free general Council of Christians, where men may speak without being in danger of their lives? No, but a Cabal of Persons, pickt, with a Probatum est stampt upon them, out of the Popes Closset, or conclave of Cardinals, before they be admitted into the Assembly of Judges; as most of the Council of Trent notoriously were (often cited by the Author of this Pamphlet) so that in plain terms, the Church is what the Pope and his Cardinals will have it; to whose Interest most Councils have sacrificed their Priviledges, and thereby brought universal Bondage upon whole Kingdoms, and States.

That belief whish instructs them, that Christ is equally present, and therefore no need of receiving in both kinds, must needs be built upon the Sandy Foundation of Papal Tradition; not that of Scripture, Reason, or Antiquity; for if that very specifical and numerical Vertue, which is in the Bread, be in the Wine, then Christ is implicitly charg'd by the Romanists, of an innecessary matter: But if there be some Vertue signified by the Wine, more then by the Bread, it is horrid sacriledge to rob the Sign, much more the thing signified: It is a Supper, and at Supper there should be to Drink, as well as to Eat. There can be no Body without Blood, and the drinking of his Blood, shews a shedding of his Blood for the World, and a participation of it.

Besides, the Sign is incompleat, and the end of that Sacrament or Sign not fully answered, but plainly maimed, and what God hath put together, they have put asunder; so that the falsness and Unscriptural Practice of these men; are very manifest.

The Sense of Antiquity, and their own Authors.

Of their dismembring the Sign or Rigure, their own Council of Constance is very plain, That whereas some presume to affirm, that Christian People ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, under both kinds, of Bread and Wine &c.


p.18

{original page number 19} (Hence the Council decrees against this Error) And that though Christ did so administer it, and although in the primitive Church it was so received (Confessions very large of the Author, and Example) we command under Excommunication, that no Priest communicate to the People under both kings of Bread and Wine, C. C. Sess. 13. So says Aquin. Com. In 6 John Lect. 7.

And said Pope Gelasius, Let them receive in both kinds, or neither: Thus Popes against Councils, and Doctor against Doctor; yet will be foolish Romanists (to say no more) vaunt of the unity and infallibility of both.