A02990:45
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…
A friendly trial of the grounds tending to separation in a plain and modest dispute touching the lawfulness of a stinted liturgy and set form of prayer, Communion in mixed assemblies, and the primitive subject and first receptacle of the power of the Keys: tending to satisfy the doubtful, recall the wandering, and to strengthen the weak: by John Ball.A friendly triall of the grounds tending to separation in a plain and modest dispute touching the lawfulnesse of a stinted liturgie and set form of prayer, Communion in mixed assemblies, and the primitive subject and first receptacle of the power of the Keyes: tending to satisfie the doubtfull, recall the wandering, and to strengthen the weak: by John Ball.
Cambridge: printed by Roger Daniel printer to the University of Cambridge for Edward Brewster, 1640Cambridge: printed by Roger Daniel printer to the Universitie of Cambridge for Edward Brewster, 1640
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But some stinted forms of prayer are lawful which are not in special warranted by the Law-giver; viz. such as we have liberty to use, but are not tied to use by any necessity of precept. If a public stinted form of prayer be a breach of the second commandment, then all public stinted forms whereof there is the same ⟨p. 25⟩formal reason and consideration,1 both for persons and things, are breaches of the second commandment at all times and in all men: (for it cannot be, that a perpetual commandment should be interpreted to forbid an act to one man, when, if the formal reason and consideration be the same in all, it doth not forbid the same to every man.) But every public stinted form of prayer whereof there is the same formal reason and consideration, is not a breach of the second commandment in all men and at all times. For there is the same formal reason and consideration of a public stinted form of prayers to Christians now that there was formerly to the Jews: The same formal reason and consideration, I say, not of this or that particular rite or ordinance which did peculiarly agree to them in respect of the special manner of dispensation proper to those times; but of a stinted form in general, which was proper to them in no consideration, but common to us with them. As for example, If the priests might bless in a stinted form of words, the ministers of the Gospel may do so likewise; If the Levites might praise God in a stinted form of thanksgiving, the ministers of the Gospel may use the Lords prayer as a prayer without addition or variation. But all use of a stinted form of prayer and thanksgiving was not a breach of the second commandment in the priests and Levites. If a stinted arbitrary prayer be the breach of the second commandment, then is conceived prayer, when uttered, a sin likewise: For they both agree in the matter, as of God; in external ⟨p. 26⟩phrase of speech and words, bo•h are of men: in that which maketh stinted prayer a breach of the second commandment, if it be a breach, there is no difference. Therefore we conclude, That a stinted form of prayer is not a breach of the second commandment.
But some stinted forms of prayer are lawfull which are not in speciall warranted by the Law-giver; viz. such as we have liberty to use, but are not tyed to use by any necessity of precept. If a publick stinted form of prayer be a breach of the second commandment, then all publick stinted forms whereof there is the same