A19884:687
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.
For a Conclusion of this Section, to satisfy the Reader that this was to be called rather a proposition or motion about an order to be deliberated upon, then an order perfected by mature deliberation, these Considerations may be added to what hath been said.
For a Conclusion of this Section, to satisfye the Reader that this was to be called rather a proposition or motion about an order to be deliberated upon, then an order perfected by mature deliberation, these Considerations may be added to what hath bene said.
1. That with this pretended order a question was joined, ⟨p. 180⟩and my answer to both was required. This showeth that the order was not absolute, but to be assented to by the Answerer, if my answer to his question should please him.
1. That with this pretended order a question was joyned, ⟨p. 180⟩and my answer to boath was required. This sheweth that the order was not absolute, but to be assented to by the Answerer, if my answer to his question should please him.
2. That, in that order it is expressly said, [yea if Mr. D. can be entreated &c.] which again showeth, that it was no absolute order but to stand, if I could be entreated &c. So that this could not be called an order, till the Answerer had been satisfied about mine answer to his question, and till I had yielded to what, by this order, should be propounded to me.