Arguments are not fully solv'd by them many of their Learn'd Men must see this as I was told of a Minister in France when I was among the French who when his Wife startl'd by what he uttered in a Discourse said to him after if that be true why do we live as we live He answered Her Que Diable veut tu que je fasse avec toy mes Enfans that is What the Devil wilt thou have me do with Thee and my Children To wit if he Liv'd according to what he thought Thus they seeing the R. Catholick Truth and Teaching Protestancy are formal Protestants who as long as they remain so cannot be Sav'd Many of the material Protestants are it may be much held in their way by the Physical Arguments they frame to themselves against Transubstantiation And this depends much of the notion of a Body which hath been given them in Philosophy For if they have been taught for example that the nature of a Body consists in an actual extension of its parts and that accidents are not distinct from the substances it presently appears to them impossible that the whole Body of CHRIST can be in every the least particle of the Host and there under the sole Accidents of Bread But we Catholicks when we see such notions cannot stand with what the Holy Scripture saies the Holy Fathers unanimously teach and the whole Church hath believed from the Apostles time down to us we condemn them knowing that Reason must captivate it self to Obey Faith not Faith submit her self to Reason Don't think for what I have said that I acknowledge a material Protestant who has no doubt in his Faith secure as to his Salvation no I do not indeed deny but that he may be Sav'd but I do not absolutely say that he will be Sav'd for he seing so great changes in the Protestant Religion since its rise the R. Catholicks alone remaining alwayes the same seeing Preachers who were thought Learn'd and Good-men and who had stood stiff to the Covenant as conform to the Word of God now solemnly renounce it acknowledging they have got a new Light he can't I say well but doubt whether he ought to follow them in this Light or in the Light for which they said before as much as for this And since they changed from the former it may be hereafter they will change from this to a third there being no more infallibility in this then in the former And if he doubt he is bound to enquire and hearing that the R. Catholick Church believes Her self to be infallible in what She delivers of Faith Infallibility if it were true being as confess'd by all a certain means to settle Men in Conscience and secure them from all doubts in matters of Religion he is bound to enquire and try if Romanists have any solid ground to bring for this their Tenet and if he find it good in Charity to himself he 's bound to embrace it Next tho' a material Protestant have no doubt he is not in an equal condition in order to Salvation because if he fall into grievous Sin he has no other Remedy then an Act of Contrition or of Sorrow for it purely for the Love of God he has offended which is not so easily had Whereas the Catholick has frequent Sacramental Confession and by it pardon from God which is clearly intimated to us in Io. 20. chap. v. 23. The Sins which you remit are remitted to them A Protestant may say I believe from that passage it not ill but Lawful to Confess to a Minister of the Church but not that we are bound But weigh then say I the following Words Whose Sins you retain or do not pardon are retained are not pardon'd this can't be understood of Protestants Excommunication for if you don 't or can't pardon with what Authority do you or can you retain Both parts belonging to the Function of the same Ministers of God Also the Excommunication is not a formal retaining of Sin but a thing destinct and a sign of your retaining it posterior to the retaining of it Moreover how can the Priest know which Sin he may remit and which he must retain if you do not Confess them to him And St. Augustin in Confirmation of this Confession sayes in his 49. Hom. of the 50. Hom. Tom. 10. Do Penance as it is practised in the Church and let no Man say occulte ago apud Deum ago I do it secretly in the â—ottom of my Heart Ergo saies he Sine causa dictum est quaecunque Solveritis c. Matth. 16.19 Frusâ—ramus Evangelium frustramus verba Christi did Christ then say that in vain sayes He to the Ministers of the Church Whose Sins ye remit are remitted to them We frustrate the Gospel and make void the Words of Christ Besides many as some Apostats come to have no doubt in the Protestant Religion by a punishment from God Eo quod charitatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent ideò mittes iâ—lis Deus operat onem Erroris ut credant mendacio saies St. Paul ad Thess 2. cap. 2. v. 10. Because they have not cherish'd oâ— embrac'd the Truth which God out of Love manifested to them that by it they might be Sav'd therefore â—od will send them the Operation of Error to believe â—â—ing He will send i. e. saies St. Augustin L. 2. de Civit. Dei cap. 19. Will permit the Devil to do those things viz. to bring them to believe lying These People conscious to themselves of their tepid or vicious Life in the Religion they were in ought not to ground themselves upon their want of doubt in the way they have taken but to use much humble Prayer to God to enlighten them Here I add something our Adversary saies to justifie himself in a Letter to a Friend Sure I am saies He that a knowing Man as one may have Reason to think me to be in such matters can never resist a known Truth So if I be in an Error 't is not an Error of Will but Iudgement for which God damns no Man provided this Error be invincible as undoubtedly mine is allowing what your prepossession inclines you to believe that I am really mistaken There being an invincible Error but less reflected on that comes from knowledge as well as an other more talked of in the Schools that proceeds from want of knowledge Answer Did not Origen and Tertullian resist a known Truth If not why were they condemned If they did resist it may not you also Were they less knowing than you Or less Vertuous in their Moral Life then you One fault was found in them to wit that they would not submit their Judgement to the Church And this is found in you Tho' God damns no Man for an Error of Judgement He may damm a Man for the Sin to punish which he withdrew his Grace and for want of which Grace this Man sell into that Error
are That every one may see clearly whither or no what I hold as a Tenet of Religion is not found among them but is a meer superstruction Will you refuse to a considerable Person who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book a Law which justifies the Action for which he is condemn'd to Die Will you I say refuse him a publick sight of that Book to justifie your Sentence against him but notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspecting him Innocent savagely cast him If not do not condemn us who hold for certainty Transubstantiation to be so Fundamental that no Christian of the first three Ages would have deny'd it A Subsect Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages I Ask our Adversary did those Christians living then believe as a Fundamental point that they were the true Church planted by CHRIST and continued from the Apostles or not If not then they could not say in their Creed I believe in the Holy Catholick Church If they did believe it I ask again upon what ground was truth warranted to them for three hundred Years and not to the Church till the end of the World Was not Gods promise of Infallibility to his Church made to it as well to the end of the World as for the first three hundred Years Isaiah 59. v. 21. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee to wit the Church and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart out of thy Mouth nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed saith the Lord from henceforth and forever And to the Ephes 4. cap. v. 11 12 13 14. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. That we henceforth be no more Children tost too and fro and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine by the slight of Men. If he avow the Church fail'd not in Fundamental Truths I wonder how he can allow Luther and Calvin's Reforming the Church with so much Fire Sword and Confusion for a matter that did not impede Salvation If they Reform'd Her in Fundamentals then She perish'd which is against the Infallible promise of CHRIST If you say they did not Reform it as it lay pure in the Souls of some chosen tho' unknown to others but in the publick Pastors and Teachers who were reprehensible for their grievous Deviations then say I where was the visible Church to which Men should have recourse for the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments Isaiah cap. 2. v. 3. A second Proof and Reason is drawn from that it seems morally impossible that in the begining of the fourth Age if he will have the fall of Religion then the Pastors should propose a number of new Tenets to be believ'd and perswade the People that they had heard them from their Fathers of the third Age not one individual Person in the mean time remembring that he heard them from his Is it credible that not only one Parish or Nation but all Countries who liv'd afore in the Union of the Catholick Church should of a sudden have permitted themselves to be cheated into this perswasion or rather bewitch'd since not one was found for many Ages to have gainsaid it or reclaimed against it Since this then is Morally impossible conclude that these Tenets of R. Catholicks which our adversary calls novelties were the old tenets of the three first Centuries A third reason 't is remark'd that God never permitted any notable Error to rise up in his Church but alwayes stirred up at the same time some man or men to speak and write against it and mov'd the whole Church to joyn with them to destroy it So Athanasius rose up against Arius Cyrillus Alexandrinus against Nestorius Augustin against Pelagius All back'd by the whole Church for the total overthrowing of those Errors Now if the Mass be an Error it is a most damnable one an Idolatry insupportable to give Divine Worship to the Host if it be only a piece of Bread Yet after this Error was broach'd in Gregory the Great 's time in the sixth or seventh Age as Protestants imagin what University or private Man spoke against it then or three hundred Years after It s true about four hundred Years after Berengarius inveighed against it but being better inform'd and by a torrent of Arguments for its Truth overwhelm'd he Recanted and Dyed Penitent Consult then Reason and not Passion and you will see that R. Catholicks have made no superstructurs on the Faith of the first three Ages SECT II. Formal Protestants are Hereticks I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms that we cannot say without Ignorance Calumny and Injustice that a Protestant is an Heretick First I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes viz. pertinaciously an Article of Faith or a revealed Verity Next I ask him by what principle he proves that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth I suppose he will Answer because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture I ask him further if a Preacher now of their Congregation should vent a Doctrine not Orthodox and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth according to his best Judgment reveal'd in Scripture By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick He 'l tell you he believes the three Creeds and the whole Scripture and therefore he believes this his dogme because the thinks he finds it in Scripture Is he an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren He is known to be as Learn'd as they and of as good a Life as they If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick that is against the Scripture Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an Heretick and consequently he may be proven to be one If you say he is an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars but neither to the whole Congregation or the Church of which he was a Member and therefore is justly condemn'd by Her according to Isai 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn this is the Inheritance of the Lords Servants I conclude without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice that the Protestant Luther the Protestant Calvin c. were Hereticks because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excommunicated for their self Opinions Again this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith or Science or Opinion If you say it is an Act of Faith 〈◊〉 then say I 't is false
to find a Pastor for instruction or the receiving of a Sacrament in necessity And did not the chief Pastors expose themselves and so became Martyrs the first thirty three all one after another 2. If it be an Errable Church Visible or Invisible 't is as good as no Church to Christians for what I have said and shall say hereafter If a particular Church or Parish Pastor and People should be all the Week dispers'd here and there about their business would they be said to be an Invisible Church all the Week and onely Visible when they meet on Sunday Is it not enough that they can find one another on Week dayes in a necessity But truly 't is not enough to make a true Church Visible or Invisible if they have not among them true Doctrine as might full out in Protestants supposition of the Churches fallibility To show we can't prove the Infallibility of the Church from St. Pauls saying the Church is the Pilla rand Ground of Truth 1 Timot. 3. v. 15. He explains that passage thus The Church is the Pillar of Truth saies he because the providence of God will not permit all her Children to fall and Err but will always stirr up some to oppose Superstition Idolatry and Error Answer Either those who will always oppose Error and Superstition will be Members of the R. Church or not If they be Members of Her She will always oppose Error as when my Hand Writes I am said to Write and since we know our Saviour has foretold Iohn 14. v. 16. and c. 16. v. 13. That he will always direct Her by his Spirit of Truth 't will be impossible for Her by a consequential Impotency to Err. Likewise 't is impossible to compose a perpetual direction of the Spirit of God with Error If these Opposers of Error are a Church a part I ask whether that Church as distinct from the Roman be Fallible or Infallible If Infallible we have what we demand viz. That the teaching Church of God is Infallible If Fallible then the Church in as much as she opposes Herself to Error may Err which is absurd The Inference is proven thus In as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church she opposes Error and in as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church she is Fallible or may Err. Then in as much as she is distinct from the R. Church she opposing Error may Err. SECT IV 'T is not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a General Council yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical definition TO that he asks us in what General Council is defined the Infallibility of General Councils I Answer Asking him mutually first in what Parliament or Act of Parliament is it found declar'd that a Parliament hath a Power to make Acts oblidging the People If he thinks this Question Impertinent and that it would be Impertinent for a Parliament or an Assembly of Men if they were not otherways impowr'd to Assemble and make an Act by which they will have all to submit and acknowledge that they have a Power to oblige the People I desire him to Reason the same way of the Infallibity of a General Council and know that it has not ' its Infallibility from its saying we are Infallible but from God who has been pleas'd to declare it to us by Apostolical Tradition and in the Holy Scriptures also to those who read them with the Light which they have received from the Church of CHRIST As a Parliament then is fore-impowr'd to make Acts and acknowledg'd as such by the People afore they set themselves to make any so is the General Council acknowledged by all the Faithful to have a promise from God of not Erring in their Declaration of an Article of Faith afore they set themselves to declare it or by their Explication of a Truth to take away the Cloud that hindred us to see it I Ans Secondly that it is defin'd in all General approv'd Councils as much as it was necessary by a practical definition or their excercis'd power issu'd out by them in their oblidging Decrees always submissively receiv'd by the Faithful If you say some have refused to receive them my answer is they ceas'd from that time to be number'd among the Faithful Does not a King sufficiently declare himself to be King when he uses the Authority of a King in raising Armies and disbanding them calling a Parliament adjurning proroging or disolving it at his pleasure At last our Adversary brings a strong piece viz. that the General Councils are so farr from pretending to be Infallible Judges of controversial debates that in a set form of prayer appointed to be said atter every Council they pray that God would spare their Ignorance and pardon their Errors Ans I can't light upon this prayer Shall I come as good speed in seeking it as I did with Maximian the Arian Bishop He quots de ordin Cele Con. I desire him to write the Title of the Book at length or rather tell me at the end of what Council this prayer is found Since it is to be said after every Council would not the Council of Trent have it This Council which hath set down things so exactly would it have omitted this But now these Errors are either in matters given out to the People for Articles of Faith or not If not they make nothing against us If these Errors be in matters of Faith I ask are they invincible Errors or vincible if they are Invincible they are not Sinful and so need no pardon If they are vincible it is either by their diligence in using more means to discover the Truth or by an extraordinary assistance of God For this extraordinary assistance it is not in their power to have it and depends only of God For the other if they find themselves not to have us'd all necessary means let them use those they have omitted afore they publish their Decrees for what a simplicity and Impudence would it be to continue in the Error I can avoid and ask pardon for it and so having done what lay in them they will not stand guilty afore God nor in a need of pardon Rather say if some passage be found which may seem to have that sence that in the fore discussion of questions some fear themselves to have been too much wedded as is Natural to Man to their own Opinion these desire God to spare their Ignorance not having upheld their Opinion out of Malice and pardon their fault in this that they were not it may be so humble and deferent to others as they should have been If you say provincial Councils anatematize those who reject their decisions as well as General Councils and so no Argument can be taken from thence for the General Council's Infallibility I Answer Provincial Councils anathematize c. absolutly as the General Councils do I deny conditionally and with submission to
and approbation from the Sea of Rome I grant And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible He Answers by setting Reason to Reason and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture Here I ask if that Collation or comparing of Reason with Reason and tryal by the Holy Scripture be fallible or infallible If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speaking for since I must give an assent Infallible super omnia above all my doubt must be taken infallibly away If it be Infallible I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion Not infundamentals for there is no doubt in them they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture If in Integrals then say I since a private man useing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them and consequently infallibly propose them to the People to be believ'd since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture and consequently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick SECT V. We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd general Council is Baptis'd ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly sayes our Adversary since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister And upon the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention Answer First that the Synods and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful the members of them must be of the Elect for if they are not of the Elect Christ did not dye for them according to the Kirk of Scotland and if Christ did not dye for them they are not Christians and if they are not Christians what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith in which you believe are found all the foundamentals of Christianity They composed them they put them into your hands by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them How are you more assured that they are of the Elect then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd Is it written in their faces O but they have a gift of prayer had not Major Wyer in appearance one and a very great one Answer Secundo We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see it approv'd by the Pope because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Council unlawful for some hidden defect to have all the outward form of a lawful Council for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council if as it might fall out such a Council should propose a false Doctrine to be believed Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church Matth. 18.23.17 A Subsect The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity OUr Adversary having prov'd as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions The Church is fallible then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith then who rejects Transubstantiation Purgatory c. are not Hereticks Answer From that antecedent the Church is Fallible he might as well have drawn these conclusions then There is no Faith nor true Religion For if the Church be fallible in her Decisions then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion then it s only probable that Christianity is the true Religion Again if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion theâ— its only probable that CHRIST is God Go further if it be only probable that CHRIST is God then it may be he is not God Is this a pretty Discourse Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent The Church is Fallible thâ— Church nevertheless which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him Where is then Faith Where is true Religion If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle to wit the Holy Scripture by which you prove the Infallibility of Christianity I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demonstrating the Infallibility of Christianity is the Word of God By no other but by your private Light or Spirit but this is Fallible as I shall show anon then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible the former Discourse was Rational it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion if your principle carry with it fallibility and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it Now I prove that your private Light or private Spirit is fallible You are not sure 't is the Spirit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture try the Spirit sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church then you must try it by Scripture Again you cannot read the Scripture in Order to try this Spirit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guided by the Spirit of God for if perchance it be the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light who guids you he 'l make that seem to you true which is false If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you you can't be sure that the spirit which inlightens you is Infallible then it s fallible and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible I pray what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion if we have none we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion Be pleas'd to take notice then that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church According to that Ephes 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity Reflect again how can we but waver in our thoughts and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us is fallible
Chastity In fine his last passage is from the 1 Cor. 7. v. 2. Let every Man have his own Wife had those who were not defil'd with Women Rev 14. v. 3. every one their own Wife makes nothing to prove that a Church-Man who has made a Vow of Chastity may Marry first because St. Paul sayes 1 Cor. 7. v. 27. Art thou loosen from a Wife seek not a Wife Secondly because there is no Woman who was his or the Church-Man's own Wife To understand the meaning of this passage you must know the Corinthians asked St. Paul whither being converted they were not bound to leave their Wives yet Infidels as some told them they ought to do St. Hieron L. 1. contra Iovin cap. 4. To this St. Paul answers no but bids every one have his own Wife to whom he was Married in his Infidelity He adds let the Husband viz. now converted render his Debt to his Wife tho' an Infidel and the Wife also Converted mutually to the Husband yet an Infidel I would now desire Protestants to reflect that these passages brought by our Adversaries to prove their Tenets have no force for their intent and purpose when they are read in their proper places and in the aim of the Holy Writers in those places and so see how they are cheated and imposed upon by their Teachers when they are perswaded by them that the Word of God is against R. Catholicks CHAP. VIII Of Vows SECT I. Religious Vows are allowable OUr Adversary saies that the Gift of Continency is presupposed afore one make the Vow so that if one find by Experience that he has it not he is obliged not to Vow or if he has Vowed rashly flattering himself he had this Gift he is no more engaged by his former Vow but may in this case nay perhaps is obliged to secure himself from Sin by a Lawful Marriage it being better in this conjuncture to Marry then Burne Answer First I retort the Argument thus The Gift of conjugal Continency is equally presupposed to the promise made in Marriage May then a Man or Woman who find's by Experience in a short absence or Sickness of the other party that they have not that Gift think themselves free from their promise and take another Wife or Husband Secondly I Answer that those Gifts are neither presupposed to the one nor to the other but it is presupposed that God will give those Gifts to those who ask them or Grace to resist Temptations as often as they humbly demand it after they have prudently engaged themselves in either of those States of Life God gives indeed but to whom he pleases but we know from his Word that he refuses to none who ask it as they should do ask and it shall be given you Matth. 7.7 God is Faithful saies St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. v. 13. he will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able 'T is observable saies our Adversary that the most part that enter Religious Orders make their Vows so young that they hardly reflect on what they are doing many are forced by their Parents or enter upon the account of Humane respect or interest Iesuits renew their Vows twice a Year but 't is only with their Lips not from their Heart Answer First I retort the Argument thus Many Marry so Young nay far Younger than 't is allow'd to make Religious Vows that they scarce know what they are doing many are forc'd by their Parents or induc'd by the condition of their Affairs May all those at the first occasion renounce their Marriages and make others Secondly I Answer that none can make the Vows of Religion afore they be full fixteen Years of Age a Woman may Marry at thirteen they have a Year of Ptobation or Tryal the Iesuits have two in this they are questioned in private whether or not they were forc'd which if found they are free to return to their former Condition also after they have made their Vows they have a determinated time allowed to them by the Church in which they may reclaim and return to their freedom But if there be some found who dissemble their Compulsion all the time of their Tryal and neither vent it afore or after their solemn Vows in the time prescribed them by the Church they are to be condemned not the Nature of Vows or Church who behaves Her self so Warily Prudently and Sweetly with Her Children As to that he saies the most of Religious are so forc'd I am confident I can deny it with more ground than he asserts it And if he knew one who among the Iesuits renewed his Vows onely with his Lips and not with his Hart let him content himself with that certain knowledge and not judge rashly that all the rest do the same SECT II. The three Religious Vows of Poverty Chastity and Obedience are Evangelical Counsels OUr Adversary admires why these three Religious Vows are called Evangelical Counsels because he saies he never read in the Evangils that CHRIST perswaded Men to make those Vows he confesses CHRIST Counselled a Young Nan to Sell all be had and give it to the Poor but not to make a Vow to do so Answer That he may then understand the nature of these Evangelical Counsels he must distinguish three things The use of a thing the Dominion of a thing or Mastership of it and the Capacity of Dominion or of being Master of it For there are some who altho' they be Masters of a thing they have not the use of it There are others who altho' they neither have the use of a thing nor are Masters of it yet they may become Masters of it to wit if the said thing be given them or Sold to them This being supposed I prove that the three Vows we speak of are Evangelical Counsels or conditions of Life wished to some Men in the Gospel and not Commanded The Gospel wishes to some Men what is more perfect in a Christian Life rather then what is less perfect This proposition stands alone I need not prove it But 't is more perfect to make those three Vows than not to make them Then the Gospel wishes that some Men make them This inclination in CHRIST that at least some of his followers embrace a perfect Life is to inlightned Souâ—s and generous Hearted Men and Women a â—owerful perswasion and found in the Gospel then 't is a Gospel Perswasion or an Evangelical Counsel Now that it is more perfect to make those three Vows than not to make any Vow I prove first from God's approbation of Vows made by the Nazarites Num. 6. v. 1. Deut. 23. v. 21. Secondly From the common apprehension of Men sinding themselves in an extream great danger of Death as in an extraordinary Storm at Sea who are wont to implore the Divine assistance by making a Vow to do something more than ordinary to Honour him This nature suggests to them as a thing most grateful to God