A friendly trial of the grounds tending to separation in a plain and modest…A friendly triall of the grounds tending to separation in a plain and modest…

The controversy is not of this or that prescript form in particular, much less of one faulty or erroneous, but of a prescript form in general; Whether it be lawful, especially in the public assembly, to appoint any prescript or set form of prayer, though for matter never so sound and allowable. For if the exception be against this or that form in respect of the matter or manner of ⟨p. 4⟩imposing, then the question should be, Whether this prayer for matter or manner of imposing be erroneous; not, Whether a stinted form of prayer or Liturgy be lawful. It is not questioned, whether a man may ask things unlawful or impertinent in prayer: for the matter of our prayer must be agreeable to the word of God and our present occasions. A prayer for matter and external form holy and fit, may by accident be sinful in the user; viz. when it is repeated without understanding or intention of the heart. Of this there is no doubt. It is granted also, that no one prescript and stinted form of prayer or Liturgy is simply necessary, either in public or private: for then our Saviour Christ, who would not be wanting to his church in things necessary, would by his Apostles expressly have set down one to be an exact and unchangeable rule to all Christians and churches to the worlds end, both for matter and form, words and method, whereunto they should have been tied, and that always. But seeing our Saviour hath commanded no such unchangeable form, it is not the Necessity, but the Lawfulness of a stinted Liturgy or set form of prayer that is pleaded for; and that as a matter of order, not of religion or substantial means of worship. For in this sense, there is no means of worship expedient which is not necessary by commandment. It was never held, that a man should so tie himself or be tied always to a set form without variation, that he should never ⟨p. 5⟩offer up any prayer unto God, as occasion is offered, and necessity requireth, but what he findeth in his book. Such use of a set and stinted form of prayer we do not acknowledge nor seek to persuade: But to read prayer as a prayer upon a book, or to make known unto God the desires of our heart in a set form of words devised by others or our selves, when the things we beg are allowable, fit and necessary, and when it is done with right affection, is contrary to no precept or commandment directly or by lawful consequence.

The controversie is not of this or that prescript form in particular, much lesse of one faulty or erroneous, but of a prescript form in generall; Whether it be lawfull, especially in the publick assembly, to appoint any prescript or set form of prayer, though for matter never so sound and allowable. For if the exception be against this or that form in respect of the matter or maner of