A26911:304
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.
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.
§ 2. Your third saith, The Book must rather (if either) be a part of the Act, because it is subjoined. Would you by this rate of Argument convince us? Is the Book part of the Preface, or Contents, or Index, if these go first? Is the House part of the Porch, or the Porch part of the House? ⟨p. 87⟩Is the Body part of the Head? or the Kingdom part of the King? or the Family part of the Porter?
But you say, It is absurd to say that the thing to which the Appendix is annexed, is part of the Appendix. It is so; therefore say not so your self. But is not the Appendix part of the Book? And doth the Acts, being placed first, make it no Appendix? And were it put in the end, were it not the same thing?