A19884:334
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.
1To t•e seventh. that those, which were refused, were not put back by his authority, &c.]
- 17. Ans. P. 25. Reply.
The question is not, whether they were put back by his authority, or not? (for no such authority is due to him, and if he do it, it is not by any lawful authority, but by usurpation, and tyranny) but whether he have not so far prevailed, though by other mens authority, whom he hath irritated, by false accusations, intimations, or entreaties, as that these men have been thus put back? If not: he should have denied it, that the accusation might have appeared to be false. If yea: the complaint is just, and he is the cause of their being deprived of their liberty and power, in the free choice of their Pastor, by whose authority soever it was done. As Jezebel was guilty of depriving Naboth of his life, though it was done by the authority of Ahab. So that this answer is like the former, a mere diversion of the Reader from the true question. And thus we have finished our reply to his pretended answer to that which is objected concerning these instances jointly considered, and in general. we proceed to the next.
The question is not, whether they were put back by his authority, or not? (for no such authority is due to him, and if he doe it, it is not by any lawfull authority, but by usurpation, and tyranny) but whether he haue not so farr prevayled, though by other mens authority, whom he hath irritated, by false accusations, intimations, or intreatyes, as that these men haue bene thus put back? If not: he should have denyed it, that the accusation might haue appeard to be false. If yea: the complaint is just, and he is the cause of theyre being deprived of theyr liberty and power, in the free choyse of their Pastor, by whose authoty soever it was done. As Iezabell was guilty of depriving Naboth of his life, though it was done by the authority of Achab. So that this answer is like the former, a mere diversion of the Reader from the true question. And thus we have finished our reply to his pretended answer to that which is objected concerning these instances joyntly considered, and in generall. we proceed to the next.