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…

The Answer to the 14. Section examined, concerning my falsely supposed consenting to the writing of the five ministers, upon an order made in the Consistory.

The Answer to the 14. Section examined, concerning my falsely supposed consenting to the wrighting of the five ministers, upon an order made in the Consistory.

The pretended order abovesaid being found insufficient, and, eo nomine, excepted against by me, and the Elders having assured me, that, either that should be mended, to my Content, or else a better and more sufficient one should be made, it now remaineth that we examine his report of my consent to the writing of the five Ministers, wherein also many things are misreported.

THe pretended order abovesaid being found insufficient, and, eo nomine, excepted against by me, and the Elders having assured me, that, either that should be mended, to my Content, or else a better and more sufficient one should be made, it now remaineth that we examine his report of my consent to the wrighting of the five Ministers, wherein also many things are misreported.

1. Here again we must differ about his report of the time. He saith, that the day, wherein this discourse was between us, was Jan. 22. 1634. and yet, that it was after I had received the writing from the five Ministers, which writing, in his translation, is dated Jan. 28. 1634. When the 22. day, shall come to be after the 28. day, in the same month, this report will be true, not before. 2. As untrue is his report, that then I signified my consent. To make that appear, I will briefly relate the story of that matter. On saturday, towards the evening, one of the Elders brought me that writing subscribed by the five Ministers, which when I had read, I told him what I thought, & that I durst not yield to it. Both he, at that time, & the next day, after the fore noon Sermon (it being the Lords day) the other Elders prayed me not to show my dislike of that writing to the Answerer, fearing that he would make ill use of it, assuring me that all should be made well, to my content. The same day, after the second Sermon, the Answerer asked me, if I had received a writing from the five Ministers? whereunto when I answered affirmatively, he demanded of me, whether I did rest therein? Being loath to give offence, I did rather evade, then answer the question, by saying (not only, as he reporteth, that the Dutch ministers had done what they could, but also) that the writers them selves did seem not to require me to rest in it (seeing themselves say, in their writing; that it is but their privatum judicium, private judgement) but rather that they would be well content that some order might be made in the Consistory, as appeareth in the close of their writing, and accordingly I did thereunto refer my self. When the Elders, fearing the Answerers drift, in this discourse, hastened him into the Consistory, one of them saying he knew my mind, he answered,