A19884:746
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.
Repl: The phrase is but a true expression of the thing, let the odious thing be mended, and the odious phrase shall not be used. In the mean space the expression must be suitable to the action. For is it not [actus imperij] an imperious act, to deny a man convenient time for satisfaction about a matter of such consequence, and to bind a man to observe customs and orders, without showing the equity thereof? Some would have called such an act tyranny and so shall I, upon further provocation. 2. As the use of the phrase is condemned, so the omitting of it once in the translation is reproved. Forgive me that wrong. I thought he would see how unwilling I was to fasten their imperious dealing with me, upon the Readers apprehension, by repeating the word imperiously again. But let it stand, in this second place also, seeing the Answerer will have it so, and he shall find me, with Gods assistance, prove it to be a fit expression. 3. Is my translation untrue, because this word is once omitted? Let the learned Reader judge, whether it be necessary to the truth of a translation, that every latin word be rendered into English, especially when the sense giveth it sufficiently in the sentence. If this be not to seek a knot in a bulrush, I know not what is.
Repl: The phrase is but a true expression of the thing, let the odious thing be mended, and the odious phrase shall not be used. In the meane space the expression must be suitable to the action. For is it not [actus imperij] an imperious act, to deny a man convenient time for satisfaction about a matter of such consequence, and to bind a man to observe customs and orders, without shewing the aequity thereof? Some would have called such an act tyranny and so shall I, upon further provocation. 2. As the use of the phrase is condemned, so the omitting of it once in the translation is reproved. Forgive me that wrong. I thought he would see how unwilling I was to fasten their imperious dealing with me, upon the Readers apprehension, by repeating the word imperiously againe. But let it stand, in this second place also, seing the Answerer will have it so, and he shall find me, with Gods assistance, prove it to be a fit expression. 3. Is my translation untrue, because this word is once omitted? Let the learned Reader judge, whether it be necessary to the truth of a translation, that every latine word be rendred into English, especially when the sense giveth it sufficiently in the sentence. If this be not to seeke a knott in a bulrush, I know not what is.