A19884:980
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.
Reply 1. If he would have answered to the purpose, he should have produced some other place, wherein the Apostle did so: but that he did not, because he could not. 2. That Paul did not impose any such injunction upon the Pastors of Ephesus, at this time, being to leave them, nor afterwards in the Epistle which he wrote to them from Rome, nor at any other time (which the Scripture mentioneth, and it would have been recorded, if it had been done, being a matter of such moment, & no where else in Scripture propounded) wherefore was it, but because he received no such command from the Lord? Which if he had done, it stood not with his faithfulness,1 who professeth to keep back nothing that was profitable, and to declare all the Counsel of God, to conceal. 3. That, neither Paul, nor any of the Apostles could impose any such injunctions upon Pastors,2 I prove thus. Because it had been to confound the Apostolical and Pastoral office, & to bind men to break the limits of their office, which had been a violation of Gods order, as D. Field and Mr. Cartwright show, whom it concerneth the Answerer to answer in this point.
Reply 1. If he would have answered to the purpose, he should have produced some other place, wherein the Apostle did so: but that he did not, because he could not. 2. That Paul did not impose any such injunction upon the Pastors of Ephesus, at this time, being to leave them, nor afterwards in the Epistle which he wrote to them from Rome, nor at any other time (which the Scripture mentioneth, and it would have bene recorded, if it had bene done, being a matter of such moment, & no where else in Scripture propounded) wherefore was it, but because he received no such command from the Lord? Which if he had done, it stood not with his faithfullnes,1 who professeth to keepe back nothing that was proffitable, and to declare all the Counsell of God, to conceale. 3. That, neither Paul, nor any of the Apostles could impose any such injunctions upon Pastors,2 I prove thus. Because it had bene to confound the Apostolicall and Pastorall office, & to bind men to breake the limits of their office, which had bene a violation of Gods order, as D. Feild and Mr. Cartwright shew, whom it concerneth the Answerer to answer in this point.