A19884:325
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.
Will he deny the second proposition, or the Assumption? He cannot. For, did not the Church desire these men? It hath been proved, in Reply to his second answer, in this Section. If he say; not all of them: let him name which of them they did not desire, which I believe he cannot do. But if he could; it will not help him. For, if it be true of 2, or of any one, he is guilty of sin by refusing them, in the case propounded. Will he deny, that he opposed, and hindered the calling of them? Himself acknowledgeth it, in the 3 and 4 answer of this Section, and more at large & expressly in the 6 answer, in the reply whereunto the Reader shall find also that it was done, without just and sufficient cause. But that he may be more fully convinced of sin herein, thus I argue. He that doth an injury, sinneth. But the Answerer, in thus opposing these men, doeth an injury. Therefore the Answerer, in so doing, sinneth,
Will he deny the second proposition, or the Assumption? He cannot. For, did not the Church desire these men? It hath bene proved, in Reply to his second answer, in this Section. If he say; not all of them: let him name which of them they did not desire, which I belieue he cannot doe. But if he could; it will not helpe him. For, if it be true of 2, or of any one, he is guilty of sinne by refusing them, in the case propounded. Will he deny, that he opposed, and hindred the calling of them? Himselfe acknowledgeth it, in the 3 and 4 answer of this Section, and more at large & expressely in the 6 answer, in the reply whereunto the Reader shall find also that it was done, without just and sufficient cause. But that he may be more fully convinced of sinne herein, thus I argue. He that doth an injury, sinneth. But the Answerer, in thus opposing these men, doeth an injury. Therefore the Answerer, in so doing, sinneth,