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 conformity, doth cause me to neglect the duty of providing for myself and for them of my family, which neglect should make me worse than an infidel.