to induce another state by depriving the present.  So in all causes belonging either to Church or Commonwealth, we are to have regard what mind the complaining part doth bear, whether of amendment or innovation; and accordingly either to suffer or suppress it.  Their objection therefore is frivolous, “Why, may not men speak against abuses?” Yes; but with desire to cure the part affected, not to destroy the whole. 2.  A second fault is in their manner of complaining, not only because it is for the most part in bitter and reproachful terms, but also it is to the common people, who are judges incompetent and insufficient, both to determine any thing amiss, and for want of skill and authority to amend it.  Which also discovereth their intent and purpose to be rather destructive than corrective. 3.  Those very exceptions which they take are frivolous and impertinent.  Some things indeed they accuse as impious; which if they may appear to be such, God forbid they should be maintained.

[Sidenote:  “Doubly Deceived”]

Against the rest it is only alleged, that they are idle ceremonies without use, and that better and more profitable might be devised.  Wherein they are doubly deceived; for neither is it a sufficient plea to say, this must give place, because a better may be devised; because in our judgments of better and worse, we oftentimes conceive amiss, when we compare those things which are in devise with those which are in practice:  for the imperfections of the one are hid, till by time and trial they be discovered:  the others are already manifest and open to all.  But last of all,—­which is a point in my opinion of great regard, and which I am desirous to have enlarged,—­they do not see that for the most part when they strike at the State Ecclesiastical, they secretly wound the Civil State, for personal faults; “What can be said against the Church, which may not also agree to the Commonwealth?” In both, Statesmen have always been, and will be always, men; sometimes blinded with error, most commonly perverted by passions; many unworthy have been and are advanced in both; many worthy not regarded.  And as for abuses, which they pretend to be in the law themselves; when they inveigh against non-residence, do they take it a matter lawful or expedient in the Civil State, for a man to have a great and gainful office in the North, himself continually remaining in the South?  “He that hath an office let him attend his office.”  When they condemn plurality of livings spiritual to the pit of Hell, what think they of the infinity of temporal promotions?  By the great Philosopher, Pol. lib. ii. cap. 9, it is forbidden as a thing most dangerous to Commonwealths, that by the same man many great offices should be exercised.  When they deride our ceremonies as vain and frivolous, were it hard to apply their exceptions even to those civil ceremonies, which at the Coronation, in Parliament, and all Courts of Justice, are used?  Were it hard to argue even against Circumcision, the ordinance of God, as being a cruel ceremony? against the Passover, as being ridiculous—­shod, girt, a staff in their hand, to eat a lamb?