Brooks - BX9338 .B7 1813 v1

AXTON. lb surplice was consecrated by antichrist, and constantly worn by the priests of antichrist in their idolatrous service. Therefore, 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 abomin- able. 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 Damascusas 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 nearlyall the surplices in England are like the papists' surplices. B. I have a cup like the papists' calice, and is it unlaw- ful 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 foranotheT, 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 4. The profound reasoning of the reverend prelate, reminds us of an anecdote we have metwith 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 verysame surplice as the mass.priest had used. The bishop admitted the excuse, andcommanded 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 flip former massing surplice was not to be worn by a minister of the spelt but judge you if this be as like that, as one eye is like another ? Let this, therefore, go after the other:" and so he cast it away.--dmee Fresh Suit, part ii. p. 435.