It will become clear that in some respects the practices of the godly ministry in the 1630s exhibit a large degree of continuity with former times. In the course of answering the question of how true ministers should behave in such dangerous times, many of the proposals among Dury's papers were for a renewed commitment to the patterns of sociability and religiosity already discussed. Many of these patterns were not susceptible to ecclesiastical censure and could not be legislated out of existence. Bishop Juxon made some attempts to limit the activities of silenced ministers, mainly to ensure that they could not preach, which was a public act and so possible for the ecclesiastical courts, if sufficiently well informed, to prevent. He also aimed to stop silenced ministers from holding conventicles, a more difficult area of activity to regulate, particularly on the household level, with all the ambiguities inherent in such meetings.

This becomes plain if we examine the experience of a silenced minister such as Daniel Rogers. Rogers remained under suspension from 1631 until the 1640s, but in some respects his ministry continued. At the lowest level, he could continue the private devotional practices of fasting, prayer and meditation, the daily discipline he had learnt from his father and passed on to his children. Time seems to have been set aside in the early evening for each member of the household to perform their private devotions, although when Samuel Rogers returned to the household he found there was too little room to accommodate everyone in sufficient privacy.