A19884:868
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.
Unto all which I will add, that those things were but secret, in his own mind, till the Answerer, to get matter against him, drew them out by these questions which he wrote to him, and required his answer to them, and they should have so remained for ever (such is the peaceableness of his disposition) if the Answerer had desired him to conceal his judgment therein, for prevention of offence.
Vnto all which I will add, that those things were but secret, in his owne mind, till the Answerer, to get matter against him, drew them out by these questions which he wrote to him, and required his answer to them, and they should have so remayned for ever (such is the peaceablenes of his disposition) if the Answerer had desired him to conceale his judgment therein, for prevention of offence.
Secondly. As for me; he layeth the same accusation upon me also, and bringeth three pretences for it.
11. My preaching at set times in a private house.] For the answer of this I refer the Reader to my examination of his 20 Section. Whereunto I add a few words, to prove it to be no schism, which I will declare from Dr. Field his definition of Schism, who describeth it to be a breach of the Unity of the Church. The Unity of the Church, saith he, consisteth in three ⟨p. 249⟩things. 1. The subjection of the people to their lawful Pastors. 2. The connection and communion which many particular Churches & Pastors of them have among themselves. 3. In holding the same rule of faith. Which of these ways did this action make me guilty of Schism? 1. Not in the first. For, did I attempt to draw the people, from their Pastoral relation, to a popular Anarchy, as Corah would have done, in his conspiracy,