o to break one of
the most substantial duties of the second table. Therefore, according to
Mr Sprint's own ground, the refusing of inconvenient and scandalous
ceremonies is a greater duty than the preaching of the word, which is but
a ceremonial of the first table, and if the neglect of tending a sick
person's body be a greater sin than to omit the hearing of many sermons,
much more to murder the souls of men, by practising inconvenient and
scandalous ceremonies, is a greater sin than to omit the preaching of many
sermons, which is all the omission (if there be any) of those who suffer
deprivation for refusing to conform unto inconvenient ceremonies. But, 2.
We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform unto
inconvenient ceremonies, causeth men to neglect or omit the duty of
preaching. Neither hath Mr Sprint alleged anything for proof hereof,
except that this duty of preaching cannot be done with us ordinarily, as
things do stand, if ministers do not conform, for, by order, they are to
be deprived of their ministry. Now, what of all this? For though, by the
oppressing power of proud prelates, many are hindered from continuing in
preaching, because of their refusing inconvenient ceremonies, yet they
themselves who suffered deprivation for this cause cannot be said to
neglect or omit the duty of preaching: most gladly would they preach, but
are not permitted. And how can a man be said to omit or neglect that which
he would fain do but it lieth not in his power to get it done? All the
strength of Mr Sprint's argument lieth in this: That forasmuch as
ministers are hindered from preaching, if they do not conform, therefore,
their suffering of deprivation for refusing conformity, doth cause them
neglect the duty of preaching. Which argument, that I may destroy it with
his own weapons, let us note,(246) that he alloweth a man (though not to
suffer deprivation, yet) to suffer any civil penalty or external loss, for
refusing of inconvenient ceremonies commanded and enjoined by the
magistrate. Now, put the case, that for refusing inconvenient ceremonies,
I be so fined, spoiled, and oppressed, that I cannot have sufficient
worldly means for myself and them of my household, hence I argue thus (if
Mr Sprint's argument hold good): That forasmuch as I am, by strong
violence, hindered from providing for myself and them of my household, if
I do not conform, therefore, my suffering of those losses for refusing of
confor