Ondersoek en antwoord [...] op 't request door de gedeputeerden der Noordhollandsche synode tot Edam

Examination and Answer

but he was rejected by his own brothers from the Oratory, their college in Paris, of which he was a member. And why? Had he belittled the Scripture? No, but he had attempted here and there to improve the Greek and Latin translations, which are considered authentic in the Pausdom Papacy. He suffered then for the same reason I must also suffer. However, nothing more followed from the Consistory then. Later, the book was printed again and more extensively in Rotterdam with the name of the author and bookseller, as was the second part, which was about the New Testament. Yet no cock has crowed about it since meaning no one has complained or raised an alarm since then. Those of Utrecht, who are otherwise very meticulous Censores librorum prohibitorum censors of prohibited books, did not alarm us about it. They did, however, alarm us about another writing published here in Amsterdam against that of Simon, named Sentiments of some Dutch theologians on the Critical History of R. Simon original: "Sentimens de quelques Theologiens d'Hollande sur l'Histoire Critique de R. Simon". This was delivered through their correspondent in the North Holland Synode, held at that time in Alkmaar (where I was the Scriba Secretary and thus handled it myself), containing some extracts of the same value as those aforementioned from Simon.

It is true that the Deputies of the Synod of South Holland obtained a decree from the Lords of the States against the book of G. Deusing, a legal scholar in Groningen. But those of North Holland, neither Jacobi nor Costerus (who were both deputies then), would agree to it. Mr. Jacobi spoke in the Synodus at Enkhuizen, saying that upon inspection the book was not so bad and contained many useful things. No one ever made the Devil so great as Mr. Deusing does in that book, and that the Deputies can tolerate. But that I make him so small, that they cannot suffer. Notwithstanding that his view is so contrary to mine, I myself, along with one of my colleagues, spoke for that book and the author here and helped publish his short defense against the most malicious misinterpretations. My judgment was that everyone should be allowed his opinion, or at least that he should be allowed to defend himself.

But why should I say so much about others? It is incomparably easier to forbid someone's books than to refute them. We already learned that from each other twenty years ago in Friesland. I hope to show the reader evidence of this before this current year ends with my book on the Catechismus Catechism, which is now being printed again, along with what will be added to it. That book, accused even before it was printed, was condemned by the Synode without them seeing the book or even hearing me. It is true. I offered to improve everything that was not good, but they did not know what was wrong. I had nothing to retract, but by guessing (just as people here have now done four times with articles of satisfaction), having changed something here and there in words but not in substance, I gave it to them to oversee the following year. Then it was good. Afterward, other Deputies of the Synode arrived in