United States or Liberia ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
As for the prohibition of diverse mixtures, Paybody saith, the Jews were taught thereby to make no mixture of true and false worship. Ans. 1. According to his tenets, it followeth upon this answer, that no mixture is to be made betwixt holy and idolatrous ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling a bodily worship, and a worship gesture, more than once or twice.
So doth Dr Mortoune tell us, that the reason wherefore the church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due estimation of such holy rites. Paybody makes one of the respects of kneeling to be the reverent handling and using of the sacrament.
Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the ceremonies have no necessary use in God’s worship, I need no other proof than the common by-word of Formalists, which saith they are things indifferent. Yet the Bishop of Edinburgh and Paybody have turned their tongues bravely, and chosen rather to say anything against us than nothing.
To the same purpose saith Paybody, that the Lord did not forbid his people to mar and abuse their heads and beards for the dead, because the heathen did so, but because the practice doth not agree to the faith and hope of a Christian, if the heathen had never used it. Ans. 1.
I showed before, that Paybody defendeth Dr Mortoune’s adoration, which he calleth relative from the sign to Chris; yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to the sign; will this save their kneeling from idolatry?
Paybody groundeth the lawfulness of kneeling at the sacrament on nature, part 2, cap. 4, sect. 1, on the act of Parliament, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 31; on an ecclesiastical canon, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 33, on the king’s sovereign authority, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 36. Yet again he saith, that this kneeling is grounded upon the commandment of God, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 11.
How comes it then, that that which the Apostle writeth against the scandal of meats, and the reasons which he giveth, are found to hold over good, whether there be a constitution or not? As for his remedy against the scandal of particular men, which is to instruct them better, it hath been answered before. Sect. 16. Now, if I reckon Paybody to be no body, perhaps some body will not take it well.
Again, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ had no other supper that night before the evangelical except the paschal only, yet still the answer to Paybody shall be easy; for whereas he would prove from those words of Luke and Paul, “Likewise also the cup after supper,” that when Matthew and Mark say, “As they did eat, Jesus took bread,” their meaning is only this, “After supper Jesus took bread,” he reasoneth very inconsiderately, forasmuch as Luke and Paul say not of the bread, but of the cup only, that Jesus took it after supper.
Upon this string they harp over and over again, in books, in sermons, in private discourses. Paybody, in his Apology for kneeling at the communion, standeth much upon the indifferency of this gesture, both in every worship of God, and in that sacrament namely. The Archbishop of St.
Paybody saw that he had done with the argument if he should grant that they were sitting when Christ took bread, therefore he calleth that in question. Vulcan’s own gimmers could not make his answer and the Bishop’s to stick together. But let us examine the ground which Paybody takes for his opinion.
Word Of The Day