« 上一頁繼續 »
surplice was consecrated by antichrist, and constantly worn by the priests of antichrist in their idolatrous service. o the surplice is a garment of antichrist. B. But this surplice which we use, was never used by idolatrous priests. A. Then you confess that their surplices may not be used by us. Yet in many churches in England, the massing surplices and copes have been used, and are still used; which, by your own confession, are accursed and abominable. But when we speak of the surplice, we do not mean this or that surplice, but surplices in general. Barker. How do you prove that: A. When the king of Judah came to Damascus, and there saw a brazen altar, he sent the pattern of it to Jerusalem, commanding the high priest to make one like unto it, and set it up in the temple of God. This was as great a sin, as if he had set up the very same altar which he saw at Damascus; therefore, though we have not the very same surplice, we have one made like unto it, even as like that at Damascus as it can be made. B. Then we will have it made shorter or longer than theirs, or wider or narrower." A. That is a poor shift. You know, that nearly all the surplices in England are like the papists' surplices. B. I haye a cup like the papists' calice, and is it unlawful for me to use it? A. Your cup is not used in the service of God, nor is it convenient for that purpose. But supposing it were both convenient and useful in the supper of the Lord, it cannot be compared with the surplice, which is neither convenient nor useful. B. We have appointed the surplice for another end, than the papists did. - A. You cannot appoint it to any good end. According to what you now plead, you may bring into the church of God, nearly all the trash of popery, their candles, their torches, their banners, their oil in baptism, and nearly all other things pertaining to antichrist. B. Yes; and why not, if it please the prince, seeing they are things in their own nature indifferent. A. I beseech you in the Lord, mind what you say. Shall we again bring tapers into the church of God, and oil into the sacrament of baptism? - B. Yes; and why not? Is not oil one of the sacrament in the church of God? Why do you speak so contemptuously of oil .." A. It is no contempt to exclude oil, milk, salt, or any such thing, from the sacrament. And why do you call oil a sacrament, seeing it is neither a sacrament, nor any sign of a sacrament 2 B. Though it be no sacrament now, it was in the time of the apostles. A. To speak properly, it never was a sacrament, the nature and use of which is to remember and seal unto u the mercies of God in Christ Jesus. B. This is talk. You do not allege the scriptures. A. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; and ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of devils. Meats, drinks, and apparel, are all. of the same nature; therefore, being consecrated to idolatry, they are condemned. So it is said, “Ye shall also defile the covering of the graven images of silver, and the ornament of the molten image of gold: Thou shalt cast them. away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, get thee hence. And whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” But the surplice, and the wearing of it, is not for the glory of God, therefore not to be worn. B. The surplice is for the glory of God. A. That which promotes the glory of the papists, does not promote the glory of God; but the wearing of the surplice promotes the glory and triumph of the papists, and, therefore, not to be worn. B. I deny your argument. A. It is a syllogism. B. You are full of your syllogisms. A. Our reason is the gift of God, and the right use of it is to find out the truth. B. But a syllogism may be false. Let us proceed to your second argument.
* The profound reasoning of the reverend prelate, reminds us of an anecdote we have met with concerning a pious minister, who, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, was urged by his ordinary to wear the surplice ; but who, in addition to other reasons, alleged, that the surplice offered him to put on, was the very same surplice as the mass-priest had used. The bishop admitted the excuse, and commanded another to be made ; and when it was taken to the church, the minister took it up, and thus addressed the people present:—“Good people,” said he, “the bishop himself confessed, that the former massing surplice was not to be worn by a minister of the gospel; but judge you if this be as like that, as one eye is like another 2. Let this, therefore, go after the other:” and so he cast it away.—Ames Fresh Suit, part ii. p. 435.
A. I will allege one reason more. We ought to be without offence to the Jew, to the Gentile, and to the church of God. But our wearing the surplice is an offence to the Jew, and the Gentile, (meaning the papists) and the church of God. Therefore we ought not to wear the surplice. B. How will you be an offence to the papists by wearing the surplice A. By offence, the apostle does not mean to grieve, but to be an occasion to another to sin. But if I wear the surplice, I shall be an occasion or encouragement to the papists to sin. Therefore I may not wear it. B. How will you be an offence to the church of God? You perhaps may be to three or four; but you must regard the greater part. A. I should be an offence to the greater part, and the lesser part, and all the church of God. B. How do you prove that? A. I should be an offence to the lesser part, being those who are effectually called, because their souls are exceedingly grieved with those who do wear it...And to the greater part, being such as are beginning to dislike popery, and follow true religion; who, by wearing it, would be ready to give up their zeal, and return to popery. B. You must teach them to hate popery, though you wear the surplice. A. If I teach them one thing, and I myself do the contrary, how will they believe me? You know most people look moreat our doings, than ourdoctrine.—Hitherto I have given my reasons against wearing the surplice; if you have any reasons to shew why I should wear it, let me hear a few of the best. Barker. That which doth not offend in its institution, matter, form, or use, is not to be refused. But the surplice doth not offend in its institution, matter, form, or use. Therefore it may not be refused. A. Your reasoning is not good. You must first prove that the surplice has not been abused, and is not offensive, then will you conclude better. Walton. If nothing may be used in the church, that has been abused to idolatry, then the pulpits, and even the churches, of the papists, may not be used. A. This, in effect, hath been already answered. Prove that the surplice is as useful as the pulpit and the church, and you will do something.
Chancellor. Then you deny that the prince hath any authority to command things indifferent. A. You have said more than I have done all day. Your unjust charge is contrary to what I have said. I wonder you can charge me so falsely to my face. B. You run to your former distinction. A. It is not my distinction, but Tertullian's; and it is that distinction which you will never be able to condemn. ‘I trust I have now confirmed the truth, and skewed sufficient reason why I may not wear the surplice, there being no reason why I should. B. No, indeed! your reasons are no reasons. A. They are such as have not yet been answered, and I am persuaded, will not be answered. I am not afraid that all these things should be made known, that the learned may judge. - C. Yes, you would have them in print, would you not ? A. I thought of no such thing. But, as a witness for the truth, I am not ashamed that these things should undergo the examination of the learned and the godly." The second conference was about the use and signification of the cross in baptism. Upon Mr. Axton's appearance before the bishop and others, being required to deliver his opinion, he spoke as follows: A. Nothing may be added to the institution of Christ: as, I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered wnto you. But the cross in baptism is an addition to the institution of Christ. Therefore the cross in baptism is unlawful. B. The necessary parts of the sacrament are to be retained; but whether the water be poured upon the child's forehead, or it be marked with a cross, being ceremonial, is left to the determination of the church. A. If you produce as good warrant from the word, for the crossing of the child, as I can for the washing of it, then I will grant that the church has authority so to determine. But such warrant cannot be produced. Besides, we have just reason to leave out the cross, because papists abuse it to superstition and idolatry, and in itself it is entirely useless. C. Do you then say it is a sin to make any cross?. A. It is no sin in the carpenter, the mason, or the mathematician, making crosses, any more than it is in his making lines and angles. B. You would take away the liberty of the church, to establish or alter these things. A. The church is the spouse, and hath no authority to introduce any thing that will dishonour Jesus Christ, her true husband. . B. Hath not the church liberty to use the font, or the bason, or both 2 A. The church may use that which is necessary, to hold the water for baptism, as becometh the institution of Christ. B. But I can shew you that matters of greater importance were altered by the apostles themselves. A. What are they B. That they might not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. A. Do you mean that the apostles did not always baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 2 B. Yes; and I can shew you that they did not always use that form of words.-4 For,” it is said, “as yet the Holy Ghost was come upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” A. Because they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, does that prove they were not baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 2 How can you from this, charge the apostles with altering the institution of their Master; they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; therefore, you say, they did not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Because one part of the action is mentioned, does that prove they did not attend to the other parts : C. You may not take such advantage of my lord. B. I did not say, that the apostles did not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; but that it was probable they did not. A. Yes, you said you could shew this; and you have not shewn it to be certain, or even probable. B. The cross, you say, is no part of baptism: only an addition to the sacrament. What say you then of the sighification of the cross 2 A. To use such signs, tokens, or instructions in the service of God, which are only the inventions of men, is the fancy of papists. And they draw us not unto the spiritual service of God, but from it."
* MS. Register, p. 26–37.