A26911:300
The defence of the nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of the matter…
The defence of the nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of the matter of their nonconformity against Mr. J. Cheney's answer called The conforming nonconformist, and The nonconforming conformist : to which is added the second part in answer to Mr. Cheney's Five undertakings / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Benjamin Alsop, 1680
A DEFENCE OF THE NON-CONFORMIST'S Plea for Peace, AGAINST Mr. J. CH… › Chapter 26
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
CHAP. XXVI.
§ 1. You next undertake to prove, that the Act of Uniformity is no part of the Book to be Consented to. The Contents say it is: You say it is not. Are these Contents part of the Book? If so, Then they are false: If not, How shall we know what is or is not part of the Book? Your Proofs are no Proofs.
§ 1. YOu next undertake to prove, that the Act of Uniformity is no part of the Book to be Consented to. The Contents say it is: You say it is not. Are these Contents part of the Book? If so, Then they are false: If not, How shall we know what is or is not part of the Book? Your Proofs are no Proofs.
1. You say, The Act it self nameth the Book as distinct from the Law. Ans. And what then? No more followeth but that the word [Book] is sometime taken in the full sense, and sometime more narrowly. So the Body is oft distinguished from the Head, and the Kingdom from the King: Will you therefore infer that the Head is no part of the Body, nor the King of the Kingdom, fully taken? The Preface is usually distinguished from the Book, and so is the Index, or Contents, Margin, Title, &c. And yet Preface, Index, Contents, Title, Margin of the Book, are all parts of the Book. Your second Proof is of the same sort.