A63200:101
A trial of the new-church way in New-England and in old ... by that…A tryall of the nevv-church vvay in New-England and in old ... by that…
A trial of the new-church way in New-England and in old ... by that learned and godly minister of Christ, John Ball of Whitmore ; penned a little before his death and sent over to the New England ministers, anno 1637, as a reply to an answer of theirs in justification of the said positions ... ; now published ... by William Rathband and Simeon Ash.A tryall of the nevv-church vvay in New-England and in old ... by that learned and godly minister of Christ, John Ball of Whitmore ; penned a little before his death and sent over to the New England ministers, anno 1637, as a reply to an answer of theirs in justification of the said positions ... ; now published ... by William Rathband and Simeon Ash.
London: printed by T. Paine and M. Simmons for Thomas Underhill, 1644
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.
The reasons whereby the ancient Churches condemned the Donatists and Catharists for their voluntary and seditious separation,1 and the modern Churches condemn the Anabaptists for their unwarrantable departure from, and so renting of the body of Christ, will hold against separation from the prayers of the congregation, because they are read by an ungodly minister.
The reasons whereby the ancient Churches condemned the Donatists and Catharists for their voluntary and seditious separation,1 and the moderne Churches condemne the Anabaptists for their unwarrantable departure from, and so renting of the body of Christ, will hold against separation from the prayers of the congregation, because they are read by an ungodly minister.
- 1Beza de Presbyt. et excommunicat. p. 25 26. Ista vero, quia nonnulli à sacris caetib. & sacrament. usu propter aliorum vitia ultro abstinent i. e. seipsos excommunicant magnam reprehensionem merentur.Beza de Presbyt. et excōmunicat. p. 25 26. Ista vero, quia nonnulli à sacris caetib. & sacrament. usu propter aliorum vitia ultro abstinent i. e. seipsos excommunicant magnam reprehensionem merentur.
The second proposition. Where the whole Liturgy is used, though by an able and godly Minister, it is not lawful to join in prayer in that case. Herein we cannot be of your judgement; for in the times of the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ, as great abuses, no question, were found in the Church of the Jews in the administration of holy things of God as can be imagined in our Liturgy or form of prayer: but the Prophets and our Saviour who taught the people to keep themselves pure and undefiled, never taught them to separate from the administration of the holy things of God. And if the presence at our forms of prayer be not lawful by reason of the corruptions alleged, there can be no visible society named throughout the world since 200. years after Christ or thereabouts, wherein a Christian might lawfully join in Prayer, reading the Scripture, hearing the word or participation of the Sacraments. For compare the doctrines, prayers, rites at those times in use in the Churches with ours, and in all these, (blessed be the name of the Lord) we are more pure then they. But no man will be so bold (we hope) as to affirm the state of the Churches within 200. years after Christ, to be so miserably decayed that the faithful could not without sin hold communion with them in the aforesaid ordinances. The prayers of the Minister, whether conceived or stinted in a set form, be not his private prayers, but the public prayers of the whole assembly, whose mouth he is to God both in the one and the other. But you will not say, the people ought not to join with their Pastor in the public assembly, if ought be amiss in his prayer for matter, or manner, or both. It is all one to the people in this case, whether the fault be personal (as some distinguish) or otherwise known beforehand or not known: For if simple presence defile, whether it was known beforehand or not, all presence is faulty. And if simple presence defile not, our presence is not condemned, by reason of the corruptions known, whereof we stand not guilty, whether the corruption, be through humane frailty or not, it is not in us to enquire, but rather whether we be called to come, and the faults such as one Christian