A26911:480
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 32
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.
§ 2. I have not wit enough to find out sense in your Quibble, that [If the later words (the Form) do import more than the former (for the Use) then there is something added and altered, which possibly may inconsist and be contradiction.]
Ans. Is not all prescript of Means an addition to the Precept De fine? Doth the prescript of the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance, impose no more than to be Loyal? Yes: It requireth a particular test of Loyalty. Doth the Command of subscribing the thirty nine Articles contain no more, but to be Orthodox? Yes: It enjoineth us by this means to profess those particulars, in which our Orthodoxness consisteth.
§ 3. Assent when thus distinguished purposely from Consent, signifieth Assenting to some Truth, and Consent respecteth the Good. So that when you make Assent to be but the same as [Consent to Use] you feign them to speak Nonsense, or to Tautologize. You say, [You Assent to all,] but not that All is true: Which is a Contradiction, or Equivocation.
§ 4. [Prove (say you) that there is any one thing in the Book, which may not in the course of Conformity be godly used?]