Ch.4.3. of the 6;i e of Beleevers. 377 His fecond exception is, Thole are very uncertain, For no reafon is given, Why they may not make a new worJhip, who may by their Ana. logy extend it beyond the inflitution in the Ne* Te f1ament . This ve- ry well anfwers Matter Tombes his ingenuity, to which I may re- ply by way of retortion, why may not °Matter Tombes as well de -' ny an inftitution and deftroy it, as well as curtail that which is in_ ftituted ? W e fhall be able to make it good that he curtails Chrifts i inftitution in the New Teftament, cutting off many Church-mem- bers in Covenant ; He fhall be never able to prove that we extend it by Analogy or otherwife beyond the inftitution. The fecond rule-(he fairs) overthrower all, for if we may not refi fold), on the Analogy, why at all ? How then is that colleaion from Earl, q.}. 8. good after other arguments againft non- refidence ? neither do t fay, that it,may not go alone,but it will hardly go alone;but other ;arguments will be found to fecond it , in which I alto gave inftan- 1 ces. He addes, This is enough tojhew that Analogy bath no flrength, that indeed it loth only illuf¢rate, cannot prove What is an argument by Analogy, but an argument a fimili; I had thought there had beene much difference betweene thefe two kinder of arguments; pari, and à frmili; `Paria d famlibtu omnino di fferunt, faith Schei- bler in his Topicks : I may fend him to his Dic`Iionary to fee whe- ther one be not englifhed equall or even, and the other like or fem- blable: I may fend him to the predicaments,to learne whether one be not in quantity, the other in quality, and demand of him whe- ther there be magts & minùs, par & aquale,as there is maozs corn i- nús facile? And to confult with the Topicks, whether that be not one head from which they draw arguments, which in their judge- ments are valid : Hath Matter Tombes never read de paribus idem esç judicium ? uod valet in re' pari valet etiam in compari, I think he never read de fimilibus idem eft judicium: cQod valet in fimili valet etiam in re affimilata. If Matter Tombes be agreed, we will referre it to the Common Law, whether this way of reafon - ing will hold or no ; If it faile, we fhali need no other Levellers > to take down that Art, it will fall of it felfe, they have fcarce any other way of arguing; But if thefe only illuftrate, (which I think no Logician will fay) yet it is here fofficient, There was an irftitu- tion of Circumcilion, and there is of Baptifine ; neitlier of thefe needs proof, being not in controverfie betweene us and our ad ver- faries. The right fubjc t of Baptifme only is enquired after ; The C c c inititu-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=