of the persons of Ministers to the Magistrate He Answers That the Act of Indulgence did not onely mention Ministers repairing to such or such places but spoke likewise of the exercise of their Ministry which it allowed them I Reply This is an ill Argument the Act of Indulgence spoke of the exercise of the Ministry and allowed the exercise of it and therefore the acceptance of the Indulgence was a subjecting of the Ministry to mens arbitrary disposal If the Magistrates allowing of the exercise of the Ministry doth subject the Ministry to the will and arbitrary disposal of men then the Magistrates allowing of the exercise of the Ministry must be an ill thing no way desirable and so the Magistrate would be obliged not to allow of the exercise of the Ministry these are pitiful absurdities What he adds concerning the prescribing of several Rules is impertinent for the Act of Instructions was not the Act of Indulgence and it was not accepted by the Indulged Ministers But he will prove that their Ministry was subject to the arbitrary disposal of men because they were made liable to punishment for not observing the Rules and Injunctions prescribed If this Argument were good it would prove all the Non Conformists in Scotland to be Conformists and subject to Prelacy because they are all liable to punishment by the Law for not observing the Laws requiring Conformity to Prelacy But these things are not worthy to be repeated In his 2. he says These Sufferings indeed declared a subjection of their Persons but their silence shall be found I fear to have done more and their former sin can be no ground to justifie their present practice in accepting of this Indulgence which instead of being a relaxation is a further wreathing of the yoke about our necks I Answer He had done better to have expressed his fears concerning his own silence than to have expressed his fears of the silence of the outed Ministers of the Church of Scotland they might preach as they had access though he did not know of it it became him to be very sparing in censuring others for silence who by his own subscription obliged himself not to be and so not to preach in Britain or Ireland I have seen this deed of his loaded with a great many Absurdities and aggravated from this that he was in no hazard of his life or of any great suffering But having heard from one intimately acquainted with him that the man was naturally timorous though he were alive I would pity him but being dead I shall not so much as repeat the Absurdities with which this deed of his is loaded Onely it needs not seem very strange if he who was so far transported with the passion of fear when there was no great hazard as to quit the exercise of his Ministry in these three Nations hath been so far transported by other passions as to inveigh against the Lawful exercise of the Ministry of these who could not in Conscience neglect the opportunity of the peaceable exercise of their Ministry when the Lord in his good Providence inclined the heart of the Magistrate to grant it That which they accepted was no yoke of bondage but a very desirable Liberty the Liberty of the peaceable exercise of their Ministry under the Protection of Lawful Authority Having answered the Authors Reasons against the Indulgence as it was accepted and refuted his Answers to the Objections which in his conceit contained all that could be said in defence of that acceptance I refer the refutation of the falshoods which are in the Historical part of this History to those who are better acquainted with the matters of Fact than I am It were fit that the Brethren who find themselves wronged by this Historian should truly represent matters of Fact relating to them which are misrepresented by this Historian that both the unreasonableness of his Reasons and the falshood of his stories might be known to all I shall onely say somewhat for the Vindication of these of the Indulged Ministers who appeared before the Council in July 1673. that the Honesty and Faithfulness of those Ministers and the unreasonableness of the slanders of this Historian may appear I shall the rather take some notice of this part of his story because as it takes up a great part of his Book from Page 58 to 85 so the Author hath here done all he could to render those Ministers contemptible And I have now before me not onely the Narrative a part whereof this Author hath insert in his Book which was written by one as I am informed who was not present but also a Narrative written by one who was present who hath written a full answer to this History of the Indulgence which if it come to the hands of the Author of the Epistle prefixed to this History it will I hope convince him that he was far out in his Prognosticks when he said that the Reason of this History would never be answered but by clamour for in it he may see his own and the Historians unreasonable clamours solidly refuted by sound Reason In this Answer the Reverend Author who was one of those Ministers who were cited before the Council for not keeping the 29th of May hath set down the matter of Fact and refuted the quibblings of the Author of the History I refer the Reader for full satisfaction to the Authors Answer and shall onely make use of so much of his paper as may sufficiently clear those Ministers and Evidence that they refused Obedience to those Instructions and gave a sufficient testimony against them Those Ministers were interrogate by the Council whether or not they had Preached upon the 29th of May Two or three of them who had Preached that day upon the account that it was their ordinary Lecture-day replyed that they had Preached whereupon they were commanded forth All the rest answered that they had not Preached and being interrogate wherefore they did not Preach They Replyed as they had before agreed that they were not free to observe any Anniversary day of Humane institution for Religious Worship and that because they saw no ground for it in the Word of God besides which they could not act in the matters of Gods solemn Worship Whereupon they were fined by the Council in the half of a years stipend which Act was intimated to them the Tuesday following 1. Hence it appears that there was no ground to alledge that those two or three who Preached did observe the 29th of May And it had been a reasonless and ridiculous thing to have forborn to preach upon their ordinary lecture-Lecture-day because it was the 29th of May. 2. Nor any ground for quarrelling at the Indulged Ministers for not speaking against the Narrative of an Act of Parliament that was neither in their Summons nor yet in their Sentence and which was really made void by that Act made in the foregoing August which was put in the place of
of the Act of Supremacy which is so terribly vast that even Mr. Burnet in his last Dialogues insinuates that it cannot bear a strict examen and that some expressions in it must carry with them a tacite exception yet it is manifestly false that the Act of Induâ—gence did any way oppose the exercise of Christs Royal Government for the Act of Indulgence allowed Christs Ministers to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to keep kirk-Kirk-Sessions which is one of Christs Courts As for the Question I wonder how he dare call the simplicity and godly sincerity of these Ministers in question or how he durst doubt of their Loyalty to Christ and of their love to the coming of his Kingdom I am bound to think that it was the desire which they had of the coming of his Kingdom which moved them to desire the peaceable exercise of their Ministry that they might make full proof of it in Preaching Baptising celebrating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Catechising Visiting exercising Discipline without disturbance which they could not have attained in an unsetled ambulatory Preaching As these Ministers think themselves bound to praise the Lord and to be thankful to the Magistrate for the peaceable exercâ—se of their Ministry so they could not according to these thoughts that they then had and still have with peace in their Consciences refuse to take this opportunity of the peaceable setled exercise of their Ministry I would enquire of him how he knows that this acceptance of freedom from that restraint which had been upon the publick exercise of their Ministry will be a test before the Tribunal of Christ by which their love to the coming of his Kingdom and their Loyalty to Christ will be tried Acceptance of a freedom of this nature if considered simply in it's own nature is no test of love to Christ or Loyalty to him because this is a favour that a Minister void of Grace may be desirous of and take as any man who is restrained from the exercise of his calling whereby he hath his livelihood will willingly accept of freedom from that restraint And so a Minister who hath no love to Christ who hath been restrained from the exercise of the Ministry will willingly accept of a relaxation from that restraint and therefore this acceptance simply considered being a thing common and not a thing accompanying Salvation is not capable of being a mark or test of Love or Loyalty to Christ It were an impertinent and foolish Question if one should come to a poor man come out of Prison with this Question Are ye content to be carried before the Tribunal of Christ with your acceptance of freedom from your Prison in your hand as a test of your love to Christ If the man had any knowledge he would answer that acceptance of freedom from Imprisonment is common both to good and bad and therefore he behoveth to seek for other marks and tests of his love to Christ if he would further urge and say If your coming out of Prison be not a test of your love to Christ and your Loyalty to him then it was not lawful for you to come out of Prison The man might answer that there are many things lawful and commendable which are not marks and tests of Love and Loyalty to Christ Now it seems this is the thing that he would be at that if this acceptance of freedom c. be not a test or mark of Love or Loyalty to Christ that then it was sinful I think it a strange thing to see a rational man professing and as I suppose designing plainness making such captious confused Questions I shall not say that the Author's Questions are the Questions of a blunt man but all the point I can perceive in his plain Questions is in the captious confusedness of them His third Question is If they believe that Christ who purchased his Church c. In this Question if the Indulged Ministers believe that Christ who purchased his Church c. lives to make Intercession c. And there are some things which he supposes the Indulged Brethren will not nor cannot deny which are not so clear as to be beyond the possibility of denyal as for example That Christ procures by vertue of the price he hath paid the execution of the written vengeance upon all who strive with him for state and supremacy c. And afterward That the Mediator who is set down at the right hand of God intercedes and pleads by his blood by his wounds and passion for the execution of the purchased and promised vengeance I do not remember that I have read this before that the price Christ hath paid doth procure vengeance the purchasing and promising of vengeance are expressions new to me mens sins procure or deserve vengeance and God threatens vengeance Purchases and Promises are of things that are good I shall only move this Question By what evidence was he assured that none of the Indulged Ministers would or could deny that Christ intercedes and pleads by his blood by his wounds and passion for the execution of vengeance I do not remember that ever I heard or read this assertion that Christ intercedes by his blood for vengeance before I read it in this Epistle and I have had occasion to speak with others who were surprised with it as an uncouth and strange assertion which they had never heard before and therefore there was great rashness to alledge that none of the Indulged Ministers would or could deny such an uncouth assertion which is neither clear by it's own innate light nor commonly received among Divines yea it is so far from being an opinion commonly received that I know not if the Author of the Epistle will find any who have used such expressions as these which he uses in this matter I find several Divines restricting Christs Priestly Intercession unto the Elect and they look upon his Priestly Office as an Office of Grace and herein they distinguish Christs Kingly and Priestly Office which the Socinians would confound that the Priestly Office and that part of it the Priestly Intercession is for the Elect and is not for punishing of enemies as the Kingly Office is Essenius in his Triumphus Crucis pag. 279. shews the distinction of the Kingly and Priestly Office of Christ by ascribing to the Priestly Office the Sacrifice and Intercession and the punishing of enemies to the Kingly Office and after in the same page he shews That the Intercession differs much from the Kingly Acts among which Kingly Acts he reckoneth the compescing or quashing of enemies and he sheweth That even Crellius though he labour to confound the Kingly and Priestly Office of Christ yet he assigns some differences and this is one That it belongs to Christ as a King to punish but to him as a Priest it belongs only to expiate the sins of the people And Maresius in his Systems of Theology in his 10. Common-place Thes
that Act which was in Sess 2. of Parliament 1. 1662. The Brethren being removed some of them were called in together upon particular Summons for Baptizing of Children in other Congregations and that defence which the Informer speaks of that the instructions had not been intimate did as the answerer of the History of the Indulgence informeth drop unwarily from the mouth of one He says further that there were other Indulged Ministers there who had never seen a double of the Instructions and hence very rationally infers that they could not be the condition upon which they received the Liberty to exercise their Ministry without molestation If the Council had designed them for Conditions they would have sent them as soon as the Indulgence and would have made surer work in their intimation And whatever was their Design in giving these Instructions they cannot be with any Reason or Sense supposed to be the Condition upon which the Ministers accepted the Indulgence seeing it was accepted by them ere they saw the Instructions and many of them had not seen the Instructions for some years after they had exercised their Ministry in these Parishes to which they were Indulged He shews also that the inferences which the Historian draws from that defence viz. That it contained a tacite acknowledgment that they would not have done what they did if the Act had been intimate to them and that in time coming they would willingly obey them and consequently that the injunctions were just and righteous and such as neither they nor any other should disobey whether because of the matter or because of the power enjoyning them are without all Reason and will not follow from that Antecedent by thrice nineteen Seeing this onely follows that therefore they ought to be free of all damage intended because of that Fact And further he shews that the Answer which the Historian suggests viz. That they might not be answerable to their Master to refuse to Baptize any Child within the Covenant brought to them for that end is a lax tale for 1. says he it will be hard for him to make out such an Obligation 2. The Order of the Church determines the contrary 3. They must have it testified that they are within the Covenant 4. That the Parents at least the presenters are not scandalous 5. And that they are not grosly ignorant or if the testimony be not from one who takes inspection of their knowledge they must examine them in the grounds of Religion He adds after all this there was a Macer sent to the utter Council House who summoned the whole number of these Ministers to compear before the Council on Tuesday next He adds that in the interval betwixt that Thursday and the Tuesday in the ensuing week they met frequently every week-day and twice upon the Tuesday And partly from memory and partly from draughts of papers which he had by him he shews that at their very first meeting one of their number told them that he heard a whisper that subscribed doubles of the Instructions would be delivered to them at their next compearance Whereupon they thought fit that there should be a draught of a paper bearing in it a Testimony not onely against the matter of the injunctions but also and mainly against the undue power of Ecclesiastick Supremacy assumed by the Magistrate from upon some of them at least as was generally apprehended had both their formation and injunction and not only against it as productive of these but also of all other things of that Nature since the year 1660. Afterwards there was a draught produced containing in its Narrative a thankful acknowledgment of the taking off Restraints and for granting the safe outward Liberty of the exercise of the Ministry as also a sad complaint of what was grievous in the three Acts of Council Sep. 3. 1672. complexly taken Next there was a full and clear Assertion and Declaration of what was due to the Magistrate about Ecclesiastick Affairs and what was not due to him in Ecclesiastick matters in a strict consonancy unto the Judgment and Expressions of the greatest of the Anti-erastian Divines Then there was a representation of Grievances in seven full Paragraphs more particularly of all contained in the foresaid three Acts and most particularly of those contained in the Act of Injunctions all which carry in their bosom a testimony against the sinfulness and Usurpation manifested in these matters of Grievance And lastly There was a full Petition for Redress This Paper was lookt upon as too large and therefore a shorter draught was fallen upon not differing as to Method nor yet as to Matter and Substance but onely contracted in fewer words a double whereof saith the Answerer of this History I have in my hand and I remember it was much debated as to the alteration detracting and adding of words and clauses but what those particular Debates were I cannot so distinctly remember onely one thing I do distinctly remember that the principal Debate was about the adding of a Clause unto the close of a Paragraph about the Injunctions or Instructions for the further clearing of it the Clause was conceived in these words That we cannot receive from the Magistrate any Instructions in Regulating us in the exercise of our Ministry How this Debate came to a close the Informer does truly relate for it being overtured that instead of the former Clause this should be insert viz. We cannot receive from the Magistrate Instructions formally and intrinsecally Ecclesiastical for regulating us in the exercise of our Ministry All did acquiesce This Paper being compleat upon Tuesday before twelve hours it was appointed to be drawn in fair writ that after Dinner it might be Subscribed before their Appearance before the Council But at that time on a sudden the turning of it into a Directory as the Informer says and the appointing of one in their name to declare the substance of it before the Council was generally consented unto by Indulged and not Indulged In voting who should be their mouth the whole votes ran upon Mr. George Hutcheson and Mr. Alexander Blair and each of them voted to other and Mr. H. had the greater number by very few Upon their compearance before the Council the Clerk of the Council did read in their hearing an Act wherein each of them were fined in the half of a years stipend after the reading whereof Mr. Hutcheson addressing his Speech to my Lord Chancellour after he had spoken somewhat relative to the Act of Fining added That their Lordships would be pleased not to burden them with Impositions in the matter of their Ministry wherein they were the Servants of Christ and they being men who demeaned themselves as became Loyal Subjects The Ministers thinking themselves dismissed turned towards the door my L. Chancellour required them to stay and did appoint the Clerk to deliver to each of them a subscribed Copy of that Act of Injunctions of Sep. 3. 1672. A
cases he will have mercy and not sacrifice Obj. May not the Magistrate make a general Muster through all his Dominions in one day of the week and discharge Publick Sermon upon that day Answ That is no imposition prejudging the Service of Christ for Ministers may Preach as conveniently and readily more conveniently upon any other day of the week It pertains to the Magistrate to make Laws and Constitutions for the advancement of the Kirk and Policy thereof without Usurping any thing that pertains not to the Civil Sword c. 2. Book of Discip Chap. 10. cited if I remember before the Magistrate should make Laws for advancement of Church-Policy but not for its detriment his Power about Church matters is cumulative not destructive And if he should not make Civil Laws prejudicial to the Policy of the Church far less should he make Ecclesiastick Canons and Canons that would be hurtful though they were formed by a Church Judicatory for here there are two faults 1. Taking on him to do what belongs to Ecclesiastick Courts 2. Making Rules which upon the matter hinders Ministers from making full proof of their Ministry In his 2. he quarrels at the terms intrinsically and formally as general and not obviously intelligible nor understood by every one Answ These are terms ordinarily made use of by Orthodox Divines in matters of this nature They are special and specifick terms and distinguish Ecclesiastick Rules from these Civil Laws and Constitutions which are intrinsically and formally Civil but are extrinsically and objectively conversant about Ecclesiastick matters Now we heard from the 10 Chap. of the 2d Book of Discipline that it pertains to the Magistrate to make Laws and Constitutions according to the Word of God for advancement of the Kirk and Policy thereof What he says in the end of pag. 74. about the Imprisonment and Confinement of a Ministers Person that it is wholly Political and no more Ecclesiastical than any other thing which concerns a Ministers Person as his Hat Books and Clothes and the like This shews that the Ministers who simply refused to receive Rules and Instructions formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical and distinguished these from such Political Acts as the Confinement in refusing of which they were not so peremptory but would observe or not observe them as they judged of them in their Conscience upon their peril did in this Act very rationally That Hats Clothes and Books do immediately concern a Ministers Person are terms not obviously intelligible every one doth not understand how these do immediately concern a Ministers Person he who would have others speak as every one may understand should have spoken more plainly to make Ministers Clothes wholly Political without any distinction was a little kittle but it 's like he hath not had mind of Surplices c. when he wrote this He adds Or will Rules made concerning the length of time which a Minister is to spend in the exercise of this or that Act of his Ministry or the like be accounted Rules extrinsically and materially Ecclesiastick as to such Rules he says pag. 75. It is a Question if Magistrates may either solely or in prima instantia prescribe such Rules to Ministers however this being at best but dubious and it being to me at least very uncertain what Rules these are which may be called externally and materially Ecclesiastical I could have wished that some instances hereof had been given c. Answ 1. If he would have dealt fairly he should have used the ordinary terms and not made terms of his own for Rules formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical are distinguished from Civil Laws and Constitutions objectively and extrinsically Ecclesiastical And iâ— his calling them Rules externally and materially Ecclesiastical is a miscalling of them that he may make a knot in a Rush where he finds none 2. If an Indulged Minister had made a Question if the Magistrate might limit the length of time which a Minister is to spend in the exercise of this or that Act of his Ministry and had but doubted of it as a thing dubious it 's very probable that the Historian would have made this no less than a betraying of the Cause He makes hideous outcries against them upon as little ground But seeing he himself grants that some of the Instructions given by the Magistrate were formally and intrinsically Ecclesiastical pag. 65. He is as much obliged as the Indulged Ministers to shew what are the Rules which are contra-distinguished from these they might be clear with him that some of these Rules were such and why might it not be Lawful for them as well as for him to doubt concerning others of them The Brother who hath answered this History shews that the paper in which these Ministers agreed would have informed him and if he had been so desirous to know he might have sent for it for his Instruction But not to go further than the instance which he brings If the Magistrate make an Act if there be Sermon in a City upon a market-Market-day that the Congregation shall be dismissed against such an hour here is an Act extrinsically regulating or limiting the exercise of the Publick Worship and if the time preceding that hour be a time of the day at which it is convenient for the People to meet I see no cause of complaining or clashing with the Magistrate in that matter But if the Magistrate should take upon him to prescribe to the Minister how he should explain his Text and in what method he should prosecute his Doctrines that would be an intrenching upon the Calling of the Ministry there are some things which are intrinsical to every Calling and Art and Rules for ordering these are to be drawn from the Principles of that Art and Calling and the forming of these Rules is the formal and intrinsick exercise of that Calling and Art And there are some Circumstantials that are so extrinsick that they make no moral alteration upon an Action but it may be every way as well done and to as good purpose with one of these Circumstances as another As for example whether the Sermon in a City shall begin upon the week-day at eight hours or half nine and if there be two Kirks alike convenient for the Congregation to meet in it 's all one as to the morality of the meeting whether it be here or there And in such circumstantials as these if the Magistrates Acts do not prejudge impede or marr the exercise of the Ministry Ministers have no Reason to complain that such Acts intrenches and incroaches upon the exercise of their Ministry or marrs them in the managing of these matters in which they are the Servants of Christ Seeing the Historian was so desirous to have this matter cleared and thinks it is not cleared by what these Ministers said why would he not endeavour to Resolve this Question And seeing he looked upon these Ministers at least some of the ablest of them as pedants after he
made an Act against such as withdraw themselves from the publick Worship in their own Congregations and this Act was made as appears in the Act it self for preserving Order Unity and Peace in the Kirk for maintaining that Respect which is due to the Ordinances and Ministers of Jesus Christ for preventing Schism noisom Errors and all unlawful Practises which may follow on the Peoples withdrawing themselves from their own Congregations And any may see that if People ought to go to these Ministers who are most eminent for gifts grace utterance success then all the Congregations of Ministers who are less eminent for gifts and graces and have less success in their Ministry would be quite dissolved And oft-times weak Ministers have more success in their Ministry than those who are every way more eminent as to gifts and graces Is not the great Pastor of all Pastors brought in by the Prophet regretting he had laboured in vain Had ever Christ in the days of his flesh such success as Peter had in one Sermon Acts 2. Mr. Rutherfurd in his Due right of Presbytery shews that even the Independents would not allow of a Separation from a Congregation where all the Ordinances of Christ are though the Ministers were less Powerful and Spiritual to another Congregation where incomparably there is a more Powerful and more Spiritual Ministry pag. 74. the Independents alledged that it was the want of something which Christ commanded which caused them separate To which Mr. Rutherfurd after several other things answers pag. 72. That it is not Christs command Mat. 23.10 to separate from these Churches and to renounce all communion with them because these who sat in Moses Chair did neglect many Ordinances of Christ for when they gave the false meaning of the Law they stole away the Law and so a principal Ordinance of God and yet Christ I believe forbad Separation when he commanded that they should hear them Mat. 23. But the Independents were not so in love with Separation as to allow Separation from a Church where all the Lords Ordinances might be enjoyed in Purity though not in so Powerful a manner as in another Congregation The Historian dare not deny the Indulged to be Ministers of the Gospel he dare not say that the Ordinances are not dispensed by them in Purity according to Christs Institution he dare not say that there are any of Christs Ordinances wanting in the Kirks which are to be had in the Fields he dare not say that any thing sinful is required as a condition of Church-fellowship in the Congregations where Indulged Ministers Preach he dare not say that these Indulged Ministers did intrude themselves upon these Congregations against the will of the People for they were invited to come and the People evidenced their consent to their coming by a chearful attendance upon the Ordinances dispensed by these Ministers and yet he concludes that it 's unlawful for the People to hear them and that it 's their Duty to break off from that Church-communion and fellowship in which they did formerly joyn with them for he presses withdrawing And he makes this withdrawing from the Indulged Ministers which is so easie to every profane Person as he is profane to be the Duty of a necessary Testimony against sinful Usurpations and so these profane Persons who profanely withdraws from the Lords Ordinances in which they never had any delight and are glad of any pretext for absenting themselves are put in conceit that their profanity makes them Martyrs or Witnesses to the Truth and against sinful Usurpations Any may see from his stating of the Question that he hath been miserably confounded and perplexed In one of his Letters he says There is sin wrapt up in hearing the Indulged which would seem to make the hearing of them intrinsecally and so simply sinful here he makes it onely unlawful by reason of some Circumstances and that which he gives as a Circumstance is one of the oddest Circumstances that ye have readily heard of it stands so far off and at so great a distance from hearing that it 's a wonder how it should have any influence to change it in its Morality He says it 's unlawful to hear the Indulged while there are any other Ministers in all Scotland to hear but when there are no other then it 's not onely Lawful but it 's Duty to hear that then not onely they may be heard but they should be heard It 's strange that the Life of a Minister living it may be 40 50 miles from People who live in places where Indulged Ministers are should make their hearing of these Indulged Ministers unlawful and then his death should make it Duty Seeing he was of Opinion that such remote Circumstances which come not near by many miles make this change in hearing it was a very ill wailed expression which he used in his Letter viz. That sin was wrapt up in hearing the Indulged It had been mare consonant to this unlawfulness which arises from Circumstances which are so remote that they cannot be so much as called adjacent they lie so far off and keep at such a distance from the Person who is concerned to know whether his hearing be sin or Duty that though he keep up a most exact Intelligence it will be two or three days ere he can hear of the Circumstance that alters the nature of his hearing the Indulged Ministers I say it had been more consonant to such a circumstantial unlawfulness to have said that sin was wrapped about it or rather that it was wrapped up at a great distance from it than that sin was wrapped up in it For seeing he had a mind that this unlawfulness should be taken off by the change of some very extrinsecal things he did foolishly to put this unlawfulness within for it is not so easie to pick out what is within as to slip off that which is without I heard from a grave and judicious Minister who had occasion to meet with one of the young men who Preached confidently what this Historian wrote that that Youth kept to this expression That sin was wrapt up in hearing Indulged Ministers as if it had been his Text and the poor People drunk in this Schismatick poison and it hath taken with their affection that in all appearance though the Historian were alive and would write a hundred Letters and print twenty Books and declare in them that there is no sin wrapt up in hearing Indulged Ministers these People would not believe him but would adhere to his first Letter It 's an easie thing to drop in the poison of Error and Schism in simple Peoples heads and hearts but it 's not so easie to purge it out again It 's easie to beget prejudices against Gods Ordinances and draw People from the Kirk but it 's not so easie to remove these prejudices and bring them again to the Ordinances The Heart is naturally corrupt and corrupt Doctrines are