Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	day_n	moral_a	sabbath_n	1,390	5	9.7943	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94733	An apology or plea for the Two treatises, and appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme; published Decemb. 15. 1645. Against the unjust charges, complaints, and censures of Doctor Nathanael Homes, Mr Iohn Geree, Mr Stephen Marshall, Mr John Ley, and Mr William Hussey; together with a postscript by way of reply to Mr Blakes answer to Mr Tombes his letter, and Mr Edmund Calamy, and Mr Richard Vines preface to it. Wherein the principall heads of the dispute concerning infant-baptism are handled, and the insufficiency of the writings opposed to the two treatises manifested. / By Iohn Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1646 (1646)	Wing T1801; Thomason E352_1; ESTC R201072	143,666	170

say the conceit that making Disciples Mat. 28. 19. is to be done by baptizing them is so absurd that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it now it is as absurd to say that the Jewes were discipled when they were circumcised and therefore I conceive Mr Blake and Mr Marshall have not any wit But for this inference it is a farre fetched thing I did not conceive the one so absurd as the other nor doe yet and therefore I might impute defect of wit to the entertainer of the one conceit and yet not impute it to Mr Marshal and Mr Blake for entertaining another conceit like it Mr Blake excepts against me for saying these points had strong hold in his mind that baptisme succeeds into the room place and use of circumcision and that the Covenant of the Gospell is all one with the Covenant made with Abraham 〈…〉 used those words that Baptisme so succeeds circum●● 〈◊〉 therefore how could I know it to bee in his mind I answ●● 〈◊〉 it by words equipollent which hee useth as Birth-priviledge page 14. what is objected against one concludes against both circumcision and baptisme are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken there being the same principall and maine end of both And this is evidence enough for what I said The other Proposition he denies not to be in his mind Sect. 4. ch 11. Mr Blake makes a digression concerning arguments drawn from Analogy And first whereas I had allowed for that which is naturall or morall in worship an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to christians upon this Mr Blake tels me there is the same reason and like liberty in arguing by analogy in positive as in morall precepts To this I reply if the meaning bee that there is like reason of proving morall precepts from the old Testament as positive rites it is most false and contrary to the 7th article of the Church of England but if it be 〈◊〉 ●●tood of the manner of proofe by analogy or resembla●● then I deny that wee have any liberty at all to argue from analogy or resemblance to prove or make a dutie or command in morals or ceremonials though I grant we may use analogy to inforce a duty before proved For an argument to prove a thing to bee a morall dutie from the old Testament must bee by proving the same thing then to have been morall as Master Cawdray and Master Palmer endeavour to prove one day in seven for a Sabbath to bee morall and perpetuall but an argument from analogy is from one thing to another as like for analogy or proportion is betweene not the same but more things as like As for the Apostles arguing 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 18. the Apostle doth not by ●are analogy conclude ministers maintenance but from the Lords ordinance 1 Cor. 9. v. 14. which ordinance I take to be that Matth. 10. 10. which ordinanc the Apostle confirmes from common equity which he proves b● diverse instances from v. 7. to v. 14. so that the Apostle doth no prove a morall duty by analogy between two different things bu● from a generall maxime that the labourer is worthy of his reward proved by sundy instances inferres a particular truth concerning ministers The argument 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. is to prove that they which professe C●●t may not partake of the things of Idols from this generall truth that they which joyn in the seruice of any God they hold communion with that God and are one with those that worship that God this the Apostle proves by instances in the Christian and Jewish services So that this argument is from a generall truth proved by an induction of instances That Matth. 12. 3. 4. is onely an instance to prove that sacrifice must give place to mercy a ceremoniall to a moralll duty not an argument from meer analogy or resemblance of things different But what ever arguing there be in morals certaine it is that no argument is good from bare analogy in ceremonials or meer positives of the Jewes to prove thus it was in such a rite of the Jewes therefore it must be so in such a rite of the Christians there 's no example of such arguing in the Scriptures and therefore I said rightly Examen pag. 29. To me it is a dangerous principle upon which they goe that so argue to wit that in meer positive things such as circumcision and baptisme are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example Master Blake would knowe who they be that do so I answer Mr Marshall in his first argument and five first conclusions and virtuall command from circumcision Master Blake birth-priviledge pag. 15. and generally all that prove Infant-baptisme by Infant-circumcision For circumcision and baptisme are meer positive things baptizing of Infants is confessed not to have expresse institution gathered by expresse precept or example in the new Test and that which is alleaged is either expresse or no precept or example at all and if it were to be gathered by consequence from institution or example Apostolicall in the new Testament without the helpe of the precept of circumcision there would be for as much as it concernes my part an end of the controversie therefore it is clear they that argue from circumcision to baptisme doe frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by them between two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example But saith Master Blake It is not barely the analogy between circumcision and baptisme by which we inforce the baptisme of Infants but the grounds of both circumcision and baptism This is said but when the grounds are required what are they but the analogy between baptisme and circumcision that they are like what 's the reason of the one is the reason of the other and therefore what is done in the one is to be done in the other Now whence is this arguing but barely from the likenesse which makes an argument meerly from analogy If the argument were drawn from some thing proper to baptisme it were another case but being drawne from circumcision to baptisme it is an argument meerly from analogy If they rest not on this let them lay aside this argument and sticke to precept or Apostolicall example in the new Testament To shew the danger of this way of arguing I thus reasoned Examen pag 29. For if we may do it in one thing why not in another where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their rituals do know that this principle hath brought in surplice purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any Learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods word how farre I may go in