A19884:301
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.
Secondly, Suppose those men are, in some few opinions, opposite each to other. Will that justify his opposing and rejecting them? Let him draw his argument into form of a Syllogism, and it will prove a mere Sophism, and to labour of an equivocation, in the word opposite & oppose, which, in the Antecedent, noteth difference in judgement only (which may stand with personal concord) in the consequent, it signifieth personal opposition, and so there be 4 terms in it.
Secondly, Suppose those men are, in some few opinions, opposite each to other. Will that justify his opposing and rejecting them? Let him draw his argument into forme of a Syllogisme, and it will prove a mere Sophisme, and to labour of an aequivocation, in the word opposite & oppose, which, in the Antecedent, noateth difference in judgement only (which may stand with personall concord) in the consequent, it signifyeth personall opposition, and so there be 4 termes in it.
Thirdly, His whole argument is grounded upon a false supposition. For he supposeth, that opposition against the person must necessarily, or may warrantably follow all difference in judgement. The contrary whereof is most true.1 When the Arminians odiously exaggerated, and objected against the Contra-Remonstrants their different opinions, about the object of Predestination, Dr. Twice learnedly, and judiciously wipeth of this aspersion, and therein answereth the ground of this Argument, by showing the personal agreement and love between those men that so differed, and instanceth in Calvin, Beza, Junius and ⟨p. 58⟩Piscator,2 each of which had his several tenet, differing from the other, and Piscator seemed to differ from them all, and yet his high esteem of them all is manifest, 1, of Junius, in his Scholia upon the old testament, 2, of Beza, in his Scholia upon the New testament, 3, of Calvin, in his aphorisms gathered out of Calvins institutions. 2. in the sweet harmony & consent of the Con tra-Remonstrants, in opposing the errors of the Remonstrants and Pelagians, which appeared in the determination of the Synod at Dort. The same thing is verified in those men mentioned in this Section.