A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…

Therefore according to Mr. Sprints own ground, the refusing of inconvenient and scandalous Ceremonies, is a greater duty, then the preaching of the Word, which is but a Ceremonial of the first Table, and if the neglect of tending a sick persons body, be a greater sin, then 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 then 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 any thing for proof hereof, except that this duty of preaching can not 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 suffer deprivation for this cause, can not be said to neglect or omit the duty of Preaching: most gladly would they ⟨p. 5⟩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. Sprints 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, doeth cause them neglect the duty of preaching. Which Argument, that I may destroy it with his own weapons, let us note, ^mthat he alloweth a man (though not to suffer deprivation yet) to suffer any civill 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 can not have sufficient worldly means for my self and them of my household; hence I argue thus, (if Mr.

Therefore according to Mr. Sprints owne ground, the refusing of inconvenient and scandalous Ceremonies, is a greater duty, then the preaching of the Word, which is but a Ceremoniall of the first Table, and if the neglect of tending a sicke persons body, be a greater sinne, then to omit the hearing of many Sermons, much more to murther the soules of men by practising inconvenient and scandalous Ceremonies, is a greater sinne then to omit the preaching of many Sermons, which is all the omission (if there be any) of those who suffer deprivation for refuising to conforme unto inconvenient Ceremonies. But, 2. We denie, that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conforme unto inconvenient Ceremonies, causeth men to neglect, or omit the duty of preaching. Neither hath Mr. Sprint alledged any thing for proofe hereof, except that this duty of preaching can not be done with us ordinarily, as things doe stand, if Ministers doe not conforme: for by order they are to be deprived of their Ministry. Now what of all this? for though by the oppressing power of proud Prelats many are hindered from continuing in preaching, because of their refusing inconvenient Ceremonies, yet they themselves, who suffer deprivation for this cause, can not be said to neglect or omit the duty of Preaching: most gladly would they