A19884:133
An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of…An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of…
An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of VV.B. Also an answer to Mr. I.D. touching his report of some passages. His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants. His protestation about the publishing of his writings. By John Davenport BD.An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of VV.B. Also an answer to Mr. I.D. touching his report of some passages. His allegation of Scriptures against the baptising of some kind of infants. His protestation about the publishing of his wrightings. By Iohn Davenporte BD.
Rotterdam: printed by Isaac van Waesberghe, 1636Rotterdam: printed by Isaack van Waesberghe, 1636
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.
IN examining the Preface, I may not omit to acquaint the Reader with two subtle insinuations, whereby (if he be not forewarned of them) he may easily and at unawares be causelessly prejudiced.1
IN examining the Praeface, I may not omit to acquaint the Reader with two subtile insinuations, whereby (if he be not forewarned of them) he may easily and at unawares be causelesly praejudiced.1
- 1Two subtle devises.Two subtil devises.
The first is an old trick of Sophistry, called a fallacy of the composition. For, pretending to answer two writings (the one made by me, the other made and subscribed by diverse well affected members of his Church) he so confoundeth them with a book published by W. B. (which in my printed protestation I called an injurious pamphlet) as if those writings, and this printed book, were one and the same. For, having spoken of that pamphlet (in respect of the title, publishers and post script) he telleth the Reader that the first part of that pamphlet was made by Mr. D. and the 2. part subscribed by others. Who, reading these passages, would not conclude ⟨p. 8⟩us to be authors of the pamphlet? For which cause, let the judicious Reader be entreated to understand, that a difference must be made betwixt that pamphlet and those writings. For the printed book (wherein also those writings are contained) I called a pamphlet; not in respect of those 2. writings (considered as written for private use) but in respect, of the joint printing and publishing of them, in form of a book, with such a title and postscript, and, in this respect only,1 it is properly called a pamphlet: because, by this mean, that, which was before private (and intended so to be) at least comparatively, became now, as it were, to fill all places, and to be made common. Whence it is evident that the same thing may be called a pamphlet, when it is printed, which yet is no pamphlet being only written. So then, if he undertake to answer the pamphlet, let him deal with the authors of it: my self have protested against it, in print, and all the Subscribers (except W. B.) disclaim it. But if he will answer the writings; let him deal fairly with us, and not join us with the authors of the pamphlet, nor abuse the Reader by telling him of a first and second part of the pamphlet, but profess to deal with the writing, which he shall find me ready to defend, so far as concerneth my part.