A19884:455
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.
Are they to prove that I had seen in writing a copy of the differences between the Answerer & Mr. Hooker? J grant it, but withal I affirm three things. 1. That it was long before I left London, and, when I was far from any thoughts of coming into these parts, and leaving mine own land, and so had no cause to fix my mind upon thoughts of those matters. 2. That my coming over was but for 3 or 4 months. He that brought me over, those that wrote for me, the friends I left behind, all know, and can witness it. The Answerer himself knoweth, I told him so, when I first visited him. 3. That in Mr. H. answer to the question, there doeth not appear light sufficient to inform any man what that is, which in the Dutch custom about Baptism, he disliked. And, when he propounded the question to me, about this matter, I did not understand, in what particular, the difference between the Answerer and Mr. H. lay.
Are they to prove that I had seene in wrighting a copy of the differences betweene the Answerer & Mr. Hooker? J grant it, but withall I affirme three things. 1. That it was long before I left London, and, when I was farr from any thoughts of comming into these parts, and leaving mine owne land, and so had no cause to fixe my mind upon thoughts of those matters. 2. That my comming over was but for 3 or 4 moneths. He that brought me over, those that wrote for me, the freinds I left behind, all know, and can witnes it. The Answerer himselfe knoweth, I told him so, when I first visited him. 3. That in Mr. H. answer to the question, there doeth not appeare light sufficient to informe any man what that is, which in the Dutch custom about Baptisme, he disliked. And, when he propounded the question to me, about this matter, I did not understand, in what particular, the difference betweene the Answerer and Mr. H. lay.
Or, secondly, Would he intimate that I sought the place, or went about to intrude my self, for continuance? 1. Himself knoweth, that, when he, with one of the Elders, presented to me a call from the Consistory, I did not suddenly accept it (which I would have done, if I had so desired the place, as he insinuateth) but took time to consider of it, being not satisfied about the lawfulness of the conditions propounded to me. 2, Himself hath reported that I might have had the place, but I refused it: which is true, being understood in that sense, wherein it is said of those worthies,