SUch is the nature of this my necessary opposition against the protestation of my cause-less adversary, as that it may seem useful for Christians to remember how the saints and servants of God formerly did not only meet with perills without a­mongst men, but also perils within among false bretheren. 2. Cor. 11.16. and particularly how Alexander the coper-smith (he very likely that Paul had excommunicated that he might learn not to blasphme. 1 Tim. 1.20.) did Paul much evil, and greatly withstood his words. 2 Tim. 4.14.15. as also how the Apostle prophesied that in the latter dayes (by reason of some professors, having the form of godliness, becom­ing such as nevertheless were incontinent, lovers of themselves, cove­tous, blasphemers, false accusers, fierce, despisers of those that are good, heady, high-minded, from whom the Apostle adviseth Timothy to withdraw) perillous times should be. 2. Tim. 3.

Now to what degree these Scriptures are fulfilled in this my ad­versaries heaping up so many slaunders, and abusive suggestions, a­gainst the innocent; with an out-cry made of usurpation and con­tempt of authority against them that both feareth God, and honoureth the king, (and so all, through grace, easily proved to be no other then his own evil imagination) the reader is desired to make judge­ment by his following treatise.

Whereas Richard Haynes in his first page declares his hopes that the Congregation will not take occasion from his tendernesse to per­form his duty in the acknowledgment of his sin against God, thereby to justifie cruelty against him: we the congregation of Southwater being assembled, and in the consideration of this matter, do hereby de­clare our readynesse to comply with his hopes concerning us therein, being well assured, that although it appear most true (as himself here, and elsewhere suggesteth) that before the controversy about his patent, R. H. had been conquered by sin committed against the most high, yet may we not, nor are we conscious to our selves that [Page 2]at any time we did, act or maintain any action of cruelty towards him upon that or any other account; but as R. H. hath published his hopes concerning us in the case aforesaid: we likewise are wil­ling here to publish our hopes, or desires concerning him, namely, that he would (in the fear of him, into whose hands to fall is a dread­ful thing) be aware of that spirit of excessive bitternesse, and mali­tiousnesse against M. Caffyn the person reproving him (in private) for that his sin committed against the most high, and that laboured for some time considerable to restore him: whose bitternesse thus continuing and abounding against him, gives us just occasion (at least-wise) to question that unfaignednesse of his repentance for the same, which here willingly he would possesse the reader with the be­lief of, pa. 6. and very probably may to a greater degree be questi­oned by him that knows more (it seems) then we do, who neverthe­less for good causes (as was then at least-wise conceived) did not publish the same at the time of R. H. his withdrawment, in order to the tryal and examination thereof; there being in his understanding (as also in ours) ground sufficient for other causes to withdraw from him: and the rather do we here publish these our hopes or de­sires of him, for that he may be well assured, while here he thus lif­teth up voice, with so much pretended discontent against both us, and M. C. for our excommunicating him about the Patent, 'twill be evidenced that himself elsewhere hath readily confessed that his dis­pleasure against M. C. was not so much upon that account, as for the case in difference before.

Now as touching our withdrawment from R. H. as one unworthy of communion, the reader is to observe, that we (upon his earnest request) did give him in writing a paper contayning the grounds of our proceedings: the which surely had he intended honestly and up­rightly, he would have acquainted the reader with it, and so endea­voured to shew (if he could) the unsoundnesse and imperfection thereof: but oh what may be justly suspected, when he shall not only be silent therein, but shall also in the mean time frame to him­self, and publish to the world an abusive account, with such altera­tions, additions, and omissions, as might best suit with his envious disposition, and then fight against the image thus of his own fram­ing, and setting up, as an odious and detestable thing? for (saith he, pa. 5.) this new Lord (contemptuusly speaking of me) by his own arbitrary, new laws, without one word of God for it, pronounced [Page 3]me excommunicate, meerly for this thing, purely civil, alledging that whether lawful or unlawful it was all one: first, because that it was of an evil report amongst the common sort of the world, secondly, that it was an offence to the weak brethren. Now that this account of R. H. is false and abusive in five respects may appear.

First, by his saying, that he was excommunicated meerly, and in page the 4th. saith, only, for this thing purely civil, meaning the patent; whenas he may well know, and as the congregation (in their paper sent unto him) declares, that for his unworthy carrage in censuring his brethren after an unchristian manner, together with his resolutions to stand in the defence of his Patent, notwithstanding all that was objected to the contrary, they proceeded against him.

Secondly, in that while the congregation with my self, judged and also recorded his practise to be such as was an occasion of scandal and reproach to the truth, he (the better to render us odious, and himself innocent as one may think) saith, that judgment was made against his practise, because it was of an ill report amongst the com­mon sort of the world, (as if, among men sober, serious, and reli­gious, we had no cause to judge it of an evil report) the which, as it was never in our hearts to think, so was it never declared by us, nor is there one word of that nature in the account which the Church gave him in writing of their proceedings.

Thirdly, in that while the congregation with my self in the said account signified their being troubled and offended with this his in­jurious proceedings, so much savouring of his preferring the gain of this world before the honour of the gospel, thus lyable to reproach, while he a professor thereof was both publickly in the market, and elsewhere reproachfully spoken of, to the great shame of some that heard it, and the trouble and offence of all, when they understood it; while (I say) we thus signified our trouble and offence, he abu­sively declares his withdrawment to be upon the account that his patent design was an offence to the weak brethren, whom (he saith) he enquired after that he might know who they were, as if there had been another party more strong that were not offended with him, who yet, to gratifie the weak brethren, consented to his ex­communication; and the more intollerable is this abuse, when it shall be considered with the account we first gave him, wherein weak brethren is not so much as once named, or signified; together with our protestation since against it, as a conceit of his own framing, and [Page 4]which also (as himself confesseth in this very page) is denyed by us.

Fourthly, in that while he knows that the congregation with my self did excommunicate him, as himself confesseth, pa. 4. he renders it here as if I singly (after a Lordly manner) did it.

Fifthsy, in that while endevours were used by me and others (and more might have been, had he not obstinatly refused to reason the case with me) to convince him from Gods word of the unlawful­nesse of his proceeding, and as himself confesseth, that Gods word was produced, pa. 22. yet slanderously doth he here declare, that without regard to the lawfulnes or unlawfulness thereof, he was de­clared excommunicate, without one word of God for it: whose a­buse herein may further appear in our answers to his exceptions a­gainst our proceedings: only observe, that while here he slaunde­rously saith, that there was no regard to Gods word in the judgment given against him, he elsewhere in pa. 29. (speaking of what the congregation had regard unto) in like manner slaunderously decla­reth, that they did it only (Mark) to please their Idol, forgetting surely what he had said in the 25. page, namely, that the congrega­tion did it only (Mark) to please the cursing and reviling sons of Belial: to which two only's of his, I may well here add a third, only, and say, that these malitious and inconsistant suggestions of his serves only to represent him a man making little conscience of what he saith, and so his words deserving little credit.

The first exception which R. H. makes against our proceedings, is with respect to the matter, we having (saith he p. 4.) no just cause or warrant for the same.

In answer, we first say, that if it were deemed by him (or should be so thought by any other) that in our zeal and care to preserve the truth (which we believe and profess) blameless, and that none should have occasion of stumbling, or to speak evill of the good ways of God, if (I say) upon this account we should be thought by him inregularly to have proceeded (which yet we believe not) sure­ly were there not the spirit of malice and bitternesse (for some other foregoing cause) ruling in him, he would not thus revile and re­proachfully speak of us, nor use those swelling words of usurpati­on, tyranny, Popish infallibility, accompanied with abusive com­parisons, as if herein we might be numbred with the Church of Rome, &c. whose extravigant thoughts, and pernitious expressions (where­in he seems to out-strip the deeds of many men meerly moral:) we [Page 5]wish God may never lay it to his charge hereafter.

But secondly, whereas Gods word declareth, that to condemn, or falsly accuse the just, is abomination to the Lord. Pro. 17.15. 2. Tim. 3.3. we judge our proceedings against R. H. is warrantable, for that he (as one too much governed by that spirit that is the accuser of the brethren) thus did in his fury censure and condemn some of his brethren (in the midst of the congregation) and this without either offering proof to justifie the same or his humility to justifie him there­in: and whereas 'tis written 1. Cor. 10.32.33. that Christians (in order to their seeking the profit of others that they might be sa­ved, more then their own profit, as also in order to their doing all things to the glory of God) should give none offence, neither to the Jew nor the gentile, nor the Church of God, but rather be thinking of, and pressing after, whatsoever things are of good report, Phil. 4.8. it being (saith the Apostle Rom. 14.15.) contrary to charity, yea and expresly evil, to eat flesh, or drink wine, or any thing (Mark) where­by the brethren stumble or are offended or made weak, Rom. 14.20.21. (that is, when the forbearance of eating, or whatever else is offen­sive or scandalous, is no transgression of Gods law) whereas (I say) 'tis thus recorded, we judge our proceedings against R. H. just and warrantable, for that he thus coveting and grasping after the wedge of gold, did not only thereby greive and offend Christians here, and elsewhere that heard thereof, but also, and more especi­ally thereby deliver up the cause of the gospel as lyable to be con­demned and crucified by the tongues of men, while he a professor thereof, thus to their great offence proceeded: although his so much affected gain thereby (as some think) hath been put into such a bag of holes, as that there will scarce remain thirty pence to be thrown up in the day of his recantation, if God in mercy shall offer him such a blessing.

But whereas it possibly may be pleaded, that the case of R. H. is not any thing that is sinful in it self, and so no just cause for profes­sors to be greived or offended, nor others to stumble thereat, or speak evil thereof. My answer is, that he may well know that pro­fessors generally never so esteemed his case, but rather that his Pa­tent-design savoured much of covetousnesse, for that some parsons cleansing the same seed of non-such to his knowledge, before his co­veting the Patent, and after another manner too, and without any information from him, whereby as good seed as his (if not better) [Page 6]was procured; and whom R. H. confessed (before witnesses ready to attest it if need be) that by the law of God and man they might do it: that some such persons (I say) are notwithstanding by this his Patent not only lyable to be hindred of this their lawful privi­ledge, but also declared by him to have no right thereunto. But if otherwise R. H. his Patent shall be deemed lawful in it self (as by several it is) yet is it no more then what might be pleaded concerning those meats, which the Apostle pronounced clean, and lawfull to be eaten both by the law of God and men, who never­theless strictly charged the Christians of those times (as they ten­dred charity on the one hand, and their avoiding evill on the other hand) not to eat the same when any thereby was greived or offen­ded: and surely much more reason have Christians (in all humili­ty) to yeild their necks to this Apostolical yoke, when not only the offences of their brethren within, but also manifest danger of stum­bling those that are without, shall be inviting and obliging them thereunto; nor may this be restrained to such meats only, because the Apostles words doth not only imply, but plainly express any thing else besides that, might, as well as meats, occasion stumbling or offence, ver. 21. to which agrees the Apostles advice elsewhere; saying, whether ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever (mark) ye do, do all to the glory of God, which that they might effectually do, in the next words, he adviseth them, to give none offence to any, &c. 1 Cor. 10.31.32.

But oh that R. Haines would consider from his own pen (if not from the Apostles) the justnesse and legalitie of our proceedings a­gainst him! lest otherwise he give further cause and ground to men thereby to believe that 'tis a spirit of envie, for some other cause, and not conscience of his duty towards God, as he would insinuate, that provokes him to this kinde of undertaking: however thus he declareth (pag. 22.) that if the sence of the Apostles words had been, That Christians should give no offence to the cursing and reviling sons of Belial, or to the Church of Antichrist, as for laws and prerogatives what have we to do with them? that then (Mark) our practise had been somewhat authentick: that is to say, undeniable, and approved of all men.

Now that the unbelieving Jews and gentiles, whom Christians on the one hand were obliged to give no offence unto, as on the other hand not to offend the Church of God, were very many of them [Page 7]such, that is, men greatly polluted with sin, is against all contra­diction true, for that not only the publicans and sinners of the Jews, but also the professing scribes and phraisees were found defaming and reviling both Christ and Christianity; nor surely can R.H. (as clouded as he is) think otherwise of the prophane and Idolatrous Gentiles; and so were they truly the Church of Antichrist, that is (as surely he intends) such as were against Christ; and so doubtless no more deserving (nor yet so much) Christians carefulness not to of­fend them, then the many persons that profess Christ in our times: nor may he think himself innocent nor free from transgression, if he should (or any others with him) conceive the Apostles charge, to intend only, that Christians should give no offence to those Jews and Gentiles that were more sober, serious, and honest, then those pub­licans and sinners amongst them were, since even such men in this case as well as others (if we may not say more then others, they being so much concerned therein) were in like manner offended with him, and condemned his practise; or will he think it becomes him to publish those that have shewed their dislike to his proceed­ings to be such only as are the cursing & reviling sons of Belial? if so, and that such his publication were upon just grounds, yet should he not (if he had learned of Christ, who so much tendred the good of publicans and sinners) be regard-less of, or by any means despise, their low estate; but alas! it seems he has rather of late learned of that pervese and froward generation of the Pharisees, and so is found walking in their steps, upbraiding Christians now (as they did Christ then) for being such friends to publicans and sinners (the revi­ling and defaming sons of men) while they only now (as their ma­ster Christ did then) tender the good of their souls, and therefore at all times unwilling that any occasion of stumbling, should be given them.

But if R. H. shall still object and say, that although the Apostles charge in relation to the not giving offence to sinful men should be as a­foresaid, and so your practise thus far justified, yet it may not be thought that the principles of the Apostles could admit them to say also, as for laws and prerogatives what have we to do with them? upon which also I concluded the authentickness of your practice.

My answer is, that so far their principles did admit (as their pra­ctise declares) as to endeavour that Christians should forbare their right to, and privilidge of eating, those meats, which by the civil [Page 8]laws, and prerogative of the chief magistrate, they might partake of: and so practically they declared that they had nothing to do with the laws and prerogatives of their rulers, as from thence to plead the lawfulnes of eating those meats, when the eating thereof apparently tended to the greiving and stumbling others (though they deemed it their weaknes to be greived at it) and so that great and mortal duty of charity thereby neglected towards them: and al­though the Apostles had many bitter and cruel adversaries, yet was there none (at least wise as we read of) so vile and base as thereup­on to publish them as such that contemned the laws and prerogative of the civil Magistrates; and yet alas R. H. ceaseth not thus unwor­thily to deal with me for no other cause save only that I (with o­thers) endeavoured to stop him in his Patent-designe, and not to have pleaded the priviledge of the law, and his Majesties prerogative, when his design so apparently tended to the grieving the brethren, and stumbling others (though he had deemed it their weaknes to be grieved at it) and so that great and moral duty of charity thereby neglected towards them.

But oh how great is the obscurity of the (much to be lamented) fruit of this mans enmity! that he doth not consider (while he so much speaks of contempt of authority) that there is no law com­manding or requiring men that they must have (or else rebels by law) but rather that persons (whose ingenuity justly requires it) may have Patents (marked as a priviledge grantable by his Maje­sties prerogative (whose prerogative therein what Christian ever questioned) therefore (as himself pleads) there being no law requi­ring it, there can be no such transgression (as the contempt of autho­rity) in the perswading from it, those pious ends aforesaid being the ground of such their endevours, so that still the reader may ob­serve that our proceedings against R. H. is not only justified by Gods word, but by his own pen also.

If yet this be not sufficient, the reader may here also read his own words, which elsewhere we have under his hand, as thus, if (saith he) my brother being a Jew, newly converted to the faith, and whilst he is young and weak, dares not eat swines flesh, and therefore will have no communion with those that he knows to eat thereof, because the law forbids it, shall I therefore eat swines flesh whereby to offend this weak brother? God forbid (saith R. Haines) I with the Apostle will say, that I will eat no meat while the world stands, rather then he for whom Christ died [Page 9]should perish, for who ever (saith he) doth otherwise, becomes an offen­der, (and as elsewhere he saith) if obstinate, deserves publickly to be blamed, and if not then publickly to be excommunicated, if still ob­stinate, let him assigne a reason whereof such an offender should be publikly blamed: now as from hence our publick rendring him as an offender, seems to be declared authentick; so also that his prin­ciples (and that since this controversie too) about the not offending or not greiving one the other, are of far greater severity & much more strictnesse, then can possibly appear in our practise against him; so far as to publike blame. First, because his principle is, that whoever doth not in charity avoid the offending and greiving one only weak brother (and when he is grieved too, for that which is neither the transgres­sion of the law of God nor man, as must be allowed concerning swins flesh, yet such a one saith he) is an offender: where our practise in blaming him was for his want of charity manifested by his offen­ding and greiving many, to wit, the congregation, as also many o­ther brethren related to other congregations.

Secondly, because his principle is, that whoever doth not in charity avoid the offending one only weak brother; without any ma­nifest occasion thereby offered for others, either to speak evill of the ways of the Gospel, or injuriously to stumble thereat, for that they very generally believe the lawfulness of eating swines-flesh, is not­withstanding an offender; when as our practise in blaming him was, his want of charity manifested by his offending and grieving many, to wit, the congregation, as also many others, with manifest occa­sion thereby offered for others both to speak evill of the wayes of the Gospel, and injuriously to stumble thereat, for that they very generally did not believe the lawfulness of his Patent-proceedings.

And whereas his only plea to evade self-condemnation, and our justification is (as he hath declared) that in all cases as it hath relati­on to matters of religion and worship, the strong ought to bear the infir­mities of the weak, but in things meerly civil, and never by any law forbidden, as there can be no reall ground for any such offence, so doth there not lye any such obligation, whereas (I say) this is his only plea, the reader is,

First, to observe that while he (not the Scriptures) makes this curious distinction, the Apostle saith, R [...]om. 14.21. that 'tis not good to eat flesh, or drink wine, or any thing (mark) whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended.

Secondly, as he saith there can be no reall ground for any offence from such cases as are meerly civil, and never by any law forbidden, so likewise must he conclude that in the cases of swines-flesh, and things offered to Idolls, there is no reall ground for offence, be­cause they lawfully may be eaten; but then,

Thirdly, as he concludes the weak brother (that dares not eat swines-flesh) to be conscionably offended, because it was once for­bidden; in like manner might he conclude (however we do) that persons may as conscionably be greived at, and offended with, the civil undertakings of men, wherein the ill savour of covetousness doth appear, for that covetousnes was alwayes forbidden; and surely a conversation unspotted from the world, hath as much rela­tion to pure religion, as ever the not eating of swines-flesh had: but perhaps he will pleade that persons apprehensions of covetousness in such cases may proceed from some mistake through weakness; and what then, if certainly so it be? the like must R. H. confess concerning his weak brother, whose apprehension of sin in the eat­ing swines-flesh, proceeded from mistake through weakness; and yet would he not offend him (if we may believe him) by no means.

Fourthly, as by the eating meats offered to Idols, some were made liable thereby to offend, and so the eating thereof became sin­full; so in like manner by the undertakings of men in civil cases, as sometimes they are circumstances (and as R.H. his case was) per­sons may be made liable thereby to offend, that is, by speaking reproachfully of, and hardening themselves against, the good wayes of God and so likewise such civil undertakings (as are only lawfull, and so not sinful in the neglect thereof) may become sinful.

The premises then considered, amounting to no less then plain e­vidence from the word of truth, justifying our practise, which (it seems was so firmly received by, and grounded in R. H. heretofore; as that even yet while breathing out his envy against me, his own pen is made use of to justifie our practise to be somewhat authen­tick, yea and his own principles (so far as to publick blame) de­clared to be such as out-strips our practise in relation to such as greive their brethren, together with his reason-less, religion-less, president-less, as also civil law-less suggestions against me, as if I were one disobedient to authority barely for disswading from that which was never commanded by authority: these things together [Page 11]considered, may it not rationally be conceived, that this (not to be paralled) publication wherein such an out-cry of usurpation, ty­ranny, contempt of authority is made, proceeds from some other foundation than our excommunicating him for the causes aforesaid.

Whereupon as to his seeming willingness that the reader should make observation of the good disposition and frame of his spirit in his performance of family-dutys, and the government of his family, so as that (he saith pa. 18.) in many yeers he hath not known any thing com­mitted by them worthy of publike blame; my answer is, that had it not been for the many transgressions, (sometime before this contro­versie about his Patent, since which he never had communion with us at the table of the Lord) committed somewhere in the family, and not voluntarily confessed, as since he most falsly hath suggested, but through care and diligence discovered, with occasion given of con­tinued dissatisfaction; I am much perswaded that these extravagant thoughts and pernicious actions of his envy against me had never appeared: but I comfortably remember that snares were laid here­tofore for Gods people that reproved in the gate, Isa. 29.21.

But to return, having shewed, that his exceptions against the matter of our proceedings, is groundlesse, and that his protestati­ons against us elsewhere, as not proving him a transgressor of Gods law, before the fentence of excommunication, is truth-less, that which remains in the next place worthy the readers consideration, is his exceptions against the manner of our proceedings, wherein he declareth there was diverse irregularities, but there mentions none, only I find in his protestations (pa. 6.) two things whereat he seems to remain dissatisfied.

The first is, that he was not suffered to know who his accusers were, either as they were weak brethren, or as they were no brethren.

Reply. What can R. H. be ignorant who were his accusers, while he so well knows, and so often confesseth, that the congregation did excommunicate him for crimes (in their account) thus publick? or would he have the reader believe that the congregation did excom­municate him for those things which they never accused him of? as for his saying, that he knows not his accuser, as they were weak bre­thren, (thereby suggesting another party more strong, not offended with him, and so not accusing him upon the aforesaid account:) my answer is, that there was no such distinguished party for him to know, as the Churches account of their proceeding (greatly desi­red [Page 12]by him, and accordingly sent unto him) sufficiently sheweth: as touching others (not under the notion of brethren) that did ac­cuse him, whose names (he saith) he was not suffered to know, if thereby he intends to insinuate into the Readers understanding, that we either knew of none, or very few that spoke disdainfully of his proceedings, I do not suppose that he can possibly in these parts (at least wise) proselite many, if any one, into that belief; nor hath he (whatever his intent may be) any occasion to our remembrance thus to speak, save only the person having given an instance in the meeting how R.H. his name was blasted in the market, upon the aforesaid ac­count, with such reflections upon the congregation, as was greatly to the shame of some that heard it, did forbear to mention the said per­sons name so speaking, to prevent some evill that supposedly might follow the publication of his name.

His second Objection is, that he was not suffered to treat with the Congregation, in order to the satisfying the offended, by reason of my continuall interruptions.

Reply, when R.H. appeared at our Church-meeting (after some words in order to the right stating of the case) he was desired to speak what he could in vindication of his practise, if still he deemed it lawful, it being upon our parts fairly to treat with him therea­bouts, he, contrary to our expectations, and contrary to what himself for many years had allowed, when offenders have been treated with, yea and (as I am much perswaded) contrary to the allowed and reasonable practise of all Churches under what name soever, he (I say) did not only require my silence in the debate of the matter, but also did, notwithstanding the Congregations de­clared dislike to his usurping requirement, continue his resolution to stop my mouth, not allowing me the priviledge of other mem­bers: yet nevertheless it being upon our hearts at that time to en­deavour his conviction, did permit him to reason with several per­sons, but when at any time I perceived occasion and opportunity to offer, and accordingly did something to the matter in hand as well as others, being also desired by the congregation so to do, he (while groundlesly suggesting usurpation and Lordliness in others) did re­ally after a Lordly manner usurp a power (the proper right of no member, much less of one called to the assembly as an offender) and withstood me, pressing still for my silence; whereby the liberty of reasoning intended him, he partly deprived himself of: so that in [Page 13]substance my endeavours, (with the rest of the members) and this too by consent of the Congregation at that time, is deemed by him, and now published as sinful interruptions on my part; the truth of this above-said account, we the Congregation do hereby testifie, and may it not be thought fit, that for any Church to sacrifice up that power and those priviledges that God hath given them, and their elders for their preservation, to the envious wills and selfish ends of offenders, would be not only a reason-less scripture-less, but also a very injuri­ous (if it may not be said also ridiculous) practise, and president; for that thereby a wide door would be opened to all deceivers and Apostats, when at any time they shall (and surely were such a thing granted, at all times they would be ready and bold to) make at­tempts in Congregations of what profession soever; there to divide and to devour, if when so they do, it may be declared lawful for them to command the elders and ministers silence, (and if them, consequently any other that they shall think are able to discover the error of their principles) and that the several Congregations are bound in duty to gratifie such deceivers or Apostates, by their suf­fering it.

But if R. H. should (for I know not that he doth) intend inter­ruptions of another kinde, through too much earnestness, or quick­ness of spirit (though occasioned through his haughtiness and per­versness) yet to what degree soever any thing of that nature shall be evidenced, he may be assured that none of us shall be ashamed to confess the same,

As touching his exceptions in the third place, wherein he decla­reth our proceedings to be both sinful as to our selves, and injurious to him, we answer, that the intent of Christ in giving forth, and the designe of Christians in their prosecuting the ordinance of excom­munication, was, that transgressors might again be restored, when the Churches counsel and advice did not effect it; therefore if R.H. be injured by it, 'tis through his abuse of Christ his ordinance, and his condition is the more to be lamented: as to its being sinful to our selves, we know no such thing, but rather the performance of our duty towards God and him: as for letting in all kinde of usur­pation, and subverting the Churches priviledges (suggested also by him we conceive it only his vain immaginations, for how it should so do, he declares not: as for our practise being sean­dalous to the better and the more sober and judicious sort (as he [Page 14]also insinuateth) the contrary to us is most evident; and we doubt not but that many from their own experience will be able (with us) to testifie his mistake herein; though they may (by their so doing) be excluded, by this spirit of envie, from the number of sober and judicious persons, and counted amongst the baser sort of men: yet is it not to us a matter incredible, that such (if there be any to be found) that have so large a faith to believe all that he suggesteth against us to be true, that such persons (we say) should render such manner of proceedings with offenders to be scandalous, for our selves do thereby declare them to be so; as touching his ma­licious suggestion, that our practise tends to the infringing the lawfull power of the supreme Magistrate, easily appears both illegall and ir­rational, upon the aforesaid account, that there being no positive law requiring R.H. that he must have his patent, there could be no such transgression in us perswading him from it; and more especial­ly may our innocency herein, and his insolency appear, in the con­sideration that so great a number of other persons bearing their testi­mony (not only as well, but much more then we) against his Pa­tent) are notwithstanding by R. H. justified from any such contempt of authority; our meaning is, those many persons from several Towns and Parishes, as well persons of quality as others, that by their hands subscribed to a paper did appear against him, as also o­thers with the assistance of Council learned in the law, as Sir Ed. Thurlow of Rigate, Sir Hen. Peckham of Chichester before the Lord Keeper of the Broad seal, where, after some debate of the case, he having also able Council on his side, his expectation was then frustrated, and his design rejected as unreasonable, and illegall; for said the Council, what if a man shall devise a new way to thresh his corn, shall he therefore have a Patent, surely no: and what then may these be deemed innocent, (as doubtless he conceives them so to be) in their opposition, for the sake of mens outward advantages, and this too after his Majesties grant of the same? and may we be pub­lished to the world, as contemners of his Majesties prerogative in our opposition, for the sake of mens foul-advantages, without evi­dent demonstration of his malice against us?

In the Apostles times matters of wrong were punishable (as now they are) by the civill laws of the Kings and rulers then in being, yet saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 6.1. dare any of you having a matter a­gainst another, go to law, &c. what, would R. H. if he had lived in [Page 15]those times have published the Apostles as one that contemned the Kings prerogative? if not, then what besides a bitter root of envy (for some other cause) is the ground of this reason-less, and also law-less publication?

Besides, if what is reported to us be true, that the statute, upon which Patents are grantable, is to gratifie the ingenuity of such as by considerable charge, or long study shall invent something for publike good (as we incline to believe, because the Lord Bridgman with Councill learned in the law put a stop to his designe, and also because R. H. would as yet never produce the statute in such cases provided) if this, we say, be true, then it remains yet a Question to some whether this Patent was not fraudulently procured; that is to say, by suggesting something of ingenuity, study, or charge be­yond what in uprightness he could do: for since the common custome of men long before was to dry the seed of Clover, and then to thresh it (for which no man meerly mortall coveted a Patent) we know not how reasonably to think that to dry the seed of Non­such, and then to thresh it (which R. H. counts a worthy invention) especially considering such a president before, should be numbred among the deserving arts and inventions of ingenious men.

As to the inhuman and unchristian suggestions of R. H. against me, in relation to contempt of authority, so often repeated by him (wherein he hath out-done the deeds of the worst of men to me, for what end other then (persecutor-like) to provoke (if possible) the chief Magistrate against me, I know not; I only shall adde this more, that such has been my doctrine whereever I came, with respect to Christian obligations, to be subject to the higher Power, and to obey every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, such also has been my publick reasonings, and private conferences in divers places, in opposition to that spirit that despiseth dominion, such has been my forwardness, not only that Festus his civill laws should be observed, but that his person also should be honoured, as Most noble Festus, though as to matters of religion he be found telling Paul, that he is besides himself, yea, and such has been in that case my principles many years ago published in print (which is yet visible) subscribed by me, and many others, as that I do not suppose the unworthy in­sinuations of a man thus over-mastered with the spirit of envy, will gain credit among many, if any,

But I may not omit here to let the Reader understand how R. H. [Page 16]having endeavoured (as aforesaid) to render me an object of hate to the chief Majestrate, descends (pa. 28.) to provoke (as may be thought) the Judges of Assize and Sessions against me, saying; that I have complained against them as acting rigidly and illegally: but in what, when, or where he assigns not, nor surely will he say, that for several years we have had any communion about such persons, nor that he did give me the least Item of such a thing before, this publication being my first information; which surely may be a suf­ficient demonstration of the unworthinesse of his spirit: but while I know nothing of this nature, which he abusively suggesteth against me, this I well know, that my principles have been (as my practise have declared when I have been called before persons of such quali­ties) not only to submit to the King as supream, but also unto governours (as Judges) sent by him; and if it any time there should be required, that, which should be thought by any to savour of rigidness, or o­therwise seem to them unlawfull, or illegall, and so in conscience to God they cannot actually obey, that there remains no other law­full way for such to take, save only patiently to suffer, or humbly to intreat favour: nor is this all, for in pa. 18. he descends to persons of an inferior quality, saying, that I rebuked him for being conver­sant with great persons, to raise in them also (as may be thought) a prejudiciall opinion against me: and from thence he descends in the same page, saying, that I also forbid him to be a peace-maker amongst his neighbours; (he being extreamly unwilling, as may hereby be thought, that any from the highest to the lowest, should have a good opinion of me) to all which I answer, that there is no more true, then that from some fears, and godly jealosie, that he might, among some persons of quality, take that liberty, which would neither be honourable to the truth, nor conduceable to their good; as also from some fears, that while his understanding was deeply exercised about civil controversies, he might (as some have) forget his Christian obligations, and so misbehave himself, no more (I say) true, then that upon this account I did cautionally speak something to him about it; the truth of which, our approbation then, as well as now, of persons that occasionally are conversant with persons of note, and also that are concerned in matters of con­troversies, sufficiently demonstrate: nor yet is this all, for (in pag. 18.) he also declareth, that for what he can understand familie-du­ties is spoken against, rather then encouraged, thereby to beget (as one [Page 17]at least wise may think) an ill opinion among the several sorts of pro­fessors of our times concerning me, whenas there is (to my know­ledge) no other foundation for these unworthy reflections (as my doctrine and practice to many may declare) save only that some­times I have dropped some words, importing some dislike to such proceedings of men therein, as seem to be meerly customary, and more especially, when they thereby pretending religious dispositi­ons, shall in the mean time live in religious actions, & paradventure in their families too, (as R.H. may well know some have done) & for that end has been my so speaking that Christians should (both in their families and in their closets) not only be frequent, but more fervent, more sensible and serious in the performance of their duties therein: as touching the discouraging his servants (whereof also he speaketh) none surely can reasonably think that we (who have conscionably refused to communicate with him) can in conscience encourage any to joyn in communion with him, who hath thus heaped up sin up­on sin to so great a degree.

Again, what besides R. H. his continued wrath against me (which faith the Apostle worketh not the righteousness of God) could move him elsewhere (pag. 6.) to declare, that I condemned Patents in ge­neral, whereas he hath lying by him these words of mine under my hand, namely, that for persons to have Patents in several cases as they may be circumstanced, is both legal and reasonable, let the Reader judge.

In the next place, the reader may understand, that as to the mat­ter for which, and the manner in which he was proceeded against, he hath abused us; so also, that he (no less extravagantly) proceeds to abuse us, but more especially my self, (pag. 3.) as a person that will not come to the light, lest my deeds should be reproved, as if I were conscious to my self of irregularity in our proceedings, and so have withstood his appeal to others.

Concerning which, all may understand, that he had (according to the custome of our Churches) free liberty to make his appeal to any of the many Churches in the Counties adjacent (though com­monly some neighbour-Church has been the persons appealed unto) but (to use his own words elsewhere) he utterly refused so to do, and why? because faith he (further to use his own words) most of them were inferiour, and that I was adored (as he is pleased to term it) and esteemed by many of them: so that it seems such as have esteem for me, are not judged by R. H. suitable persons to hear and deter­mine [Page 18]this controversie, and yet doth he (and oh that he would con­sider how envy hath confounded him!) talk much of impartial justice.

Furthermore, all may know, that if R. H. had, notwithstanding his appeal to some one of those many Churches aforesaid, remained dissatisfied, or if otherwise no determination should have been made; he then might have freely made his appeal to our quarterly meetings (consisting of diverse elders and brethren from several congregati­ons) nor is this all the liberty which he might freely have had, but upon his remaining dissatisfaction, might also have freely made this appeal to the general Assembly at London: nor yet is this all, but when at the first general Meeting his appeal (for some cause here­after to be mentioned) could not be then received, I then did free­ly offer (the truth whereof R. H. surely will not oppose) that if the present Assembly would choose out six men or more, I should be willing that they with the Quarterly meeting in the Countrey should be the only Judges of the matter depending betwixt us, and that I and the Congregation would not be concerned, save only to give evidence, but he (as before) utterly refused it: nor yet is this all the liberty or ways of condescention that was allowed R.H. for when at the next general meeting he appeared with urgency not common, for a hearing of the matter (they being such as himself made choice of and had esteem for) 'twas declared to him (after some debate) that they would condescend [...]o his motion, though so to do crossed the method of proceedings that formerly they had (upon good grounds) agreed upon, and which for the sake of some others was not granted: and so the matter was examined, judged, and determined, to the utmost of their present capacity, and their result recorded, as himself confesseth, pag. 10. the which when R.H. had perused, he in the face of the Assembly told them, that he contemned what they had done: the which is confessed by him, p, 10. but in better words he presents it to the Reader, saying, that he sig­nified his dislike of their result, with his reasons for it: now in the con­sideration of such our constant freedom, that he should make his ap­peal (not to this or that Church of our choosing) but to what par­ticular Church himself should make choice of, among the many Churches in several Counties, being by him utterly refused; toge­ther with the consideration of such his insolent contempt of the result drawn up by the general assembly, consisting (as he may well [Page 19]know) of the Messengers, Elders, and brethren (the Representa­tives of the Churches both in the City and Countrey; one would think, that, were there an absolute death of Christianity in him, and but humanity only remaining, he would not have thus abusively published me, or any others, as persons refusing to have the case heard or tried, as frequently he suggesteth.

And whereas he is pleased to say pag. 11. that he doth not perfectly understand the result of the General Assembly, though as far as he did understand it, the effect of it was, that we should reverse the sentence of excommunication; the reader may observe, how extreamly un­willing he is, that it should be understood, that the general assem­blie did at all favour us, to prevent which, he plungeth himself in­to confusion, and self-contradiction, (and so 'tis happened unto him according to what is written, where envying is, there is confusion and every evil work) for in the page, just before, he tells the Reader that he signified his dislike of their result, and his reasons for it; whereby 'tis evident, that he not only understood it, but also well knew, that the effect thereof was not, that we should reverse it, un­less he would have the Reader understand, that he shewed his dislike to the Assemblies result, because they had justified him, and con­demned us.

As touching that conference we had first about it in a Coffee­house, while represented by him, a meeting of some great authority, in truth 'twas only intended (as signified to me by letter) a private conference about the matter with a few persons, not any particular Church, nor any particular persons chosen by the Churches, nor the Church of South-water who excommunicated R. H. so much as sent unto, to be present there; whereupon as in truth they could not, so in truth they did not pretend to any power to determine the matter, but plainly and publickely declared the contrary, nor was R. H. himself willing to refer the matter to them (while he blames me upon that account unless his declared resolutions to stand by, what end thereof others should make according to the unerring rule in his judgment, may properly be called the referring it.

Yet is it true, that this conference intended with a few only, be­ing known, in the city, several others unconcerned, came, and con­trary to rule and expectation R. H. engageth one to be there, that did not belong to any of the baptized congregations in communion with us (whom I suppose) he conceived sufficiently averse to me, [Page 20]who concerned himself (with some others) in favour to his case, more then any of those that did belong to us, and that sent and sig­nified their desires to me of such a conference; and whereas he would possess the Reader that I have given a false account of what was spoken by some at this conference, my answer is, that as I am not conscious to my self of any such thing, so also, that they, whom it concerns, never as yet signified any such thing to me, nor do I suppose that they ever will thus judge of me, as R. H. doth, when their word at that time spoken shall be brought again to their re­membrance: and although it be true that some present at this con­ference do entertain in communion one that hath a Patent, yet is it not true that the same person hath a Patent upon like considerations as R. H. hath his (as he would have the Reader believe) for that the said persons Patent was not (as ever I heard) attended with any reproach or scandal to his profession, to the probable injury of mens souls stumbling thereat, nor yet with the grief and offence of his brethren deeming it insufferable, (all which were the most evident attendances of R. H. his Patent) and besides while R. H. his inven­tion (as he terms it) of threshing non such after the same manner, as for many years men used to thresh Clover, hath been (by men learned in the law) judged undeserving, this mans art, and inven­tions on the other hand hath been judged so far deserving, and to advantage tending, as that his Majesties pleasure is to entertain him as his Hydrographer (if I mistake not the title).

And whereas he further suggesteth to the Reader that I very disho­nestly withstood his appeal afterwards to the general Assemblie at Lon­don, notwithstanding my promise to do what I could to have it there de­termined, and this to his considerable cost by reason of his witnesses that he brought thither, which (saith he) had I been honest and a Christian, might have been prevented, by my telling him before, that there it could not be heard, pa. 8.

My answer is, that in all honesty to him as a Christian, I did tell him (Jam. Smith a living witness thereof being with me in R. H. his parlor) that by reason of an agreement formerly made by the ge­neral Assembly, the case depending between he and us, could not be there heard (unlikely therefore, that I should tell him I would do what I could that it might be there heard and determined) till such time he did first make his appeal to the Countrey Assemblies, and then it might: for which cause I in reason could not ingage the Church, or [Page 21]their messengers to repair thither for a hearing, having also perfect knowledge that several cases presented to the general meeting be­fore, and of great concernment too, had been for the present with­stood upon the same account, even, their not having made their ap­peal elsewhere before: now had he not been already corrected for this abusive charge, that is my not telling him before (for the pre­vention of his expence that his case could not then be heard, I might reasonably have attributed it to his forgetfulness, but when the rea­der shall consider (as justly he may) that he had now lying by him the testimony of my self and Jam. Smith under our hands, with­out the least exception since against it, both that he was, and the very place where he was told of it: what can this his publication now be less then a manifestation of his willingness to abuse me? and more especially when it shall be considered with his own confession (pa. 6.) that they (to wit the general assembly) would not (to use his own words) hear the matter except it were examined by some other Congregation before.

And whereas he would have the Reader believe, that I was the only instrument to hinder the hearing of his case at this meeting, the truth is, that neither I nor any other, but himself only, was the in­strument to hinder it, for that he refused to make his appeal first els­where, according to the method of our proceedings, which upon good causes formerly we had agreed upon; and whereas the con­gregation at Southwater determined not to appear at the general As­semblie at London, because they understood that by reason of their former agreement, the case depending between them and R. H. would not then be tryed; if afterwards I had said (though his bare saying that I did, who hath said so much extravagantly is little) that if the generall Assembly, through his excessive urgencie, should incline to the hearing his case, when by their own former agreement the congregation of Southwater was absent, I could (and very rea­sonably too) put it off for that time, till another opportunity when the congregation might be there, yet doth not this, in the least, sup­pose such a withstanding his appeal, as he would have the Reader understand; for that it was constantly allowed him there to appeal after his appeal, first in the Countrey, is not only declared by us, but also confessed by himself; pa. 6. but what may justly and rea­sonably be concluded from R.H. his so great earnestness to have his case heard at the general Assembly, and when they did undertake [Page 22]it, he not only found disregarding, but also contemning, what they had done; besides that the impartiall justice, which he pretends to be zealous for, to be done by others, is no other then himself to be quitted, and others condemned, according to his own judgment, let the Reader judge.

As touching his frequent suggestions that he hath been put to great expences by his having up several witnesses, let him reflect upon his own folly therein, for had he received the information given by me (and also by others) that his case could not be heard there, till he first appealed in the Countrey, he might thereby have pretended both his trouble and charges: nor may he only herein reflect upon his own folly, but also in his having up witnesses the last meeting, when his case was examined, for while he (to the abuse both of me and the Assembly) gives such an account (pa. 10.) as supposethto the Reader, that the examination of his witnesses was refused, in truth they were never called forth by him to testifie any thing for him (as I know of;) but while here he relates so much of his expen­sive troubles, in reference to his witnesses, I doubt he considereth not (as iustly he might) his expences otherwise, and more particu­larly his expences to his transcriber (he being a man learned in the law) who, either that he might the better revenge himself upon the object of his envy, or that he might seem to men eminent, or both, who (I say) to use his own words elsewhere, supplied with amend­ments his matter, where he had not made it true english, or perfect sense.

And whereas R.H. doth further declare, that though it were un­usuall for such cases to come to the general meeting, yet his case might, because (saith he) I gave him liberty to appeal to whom he would in City or Country. My answer is, that I gave him no other liberty to ap­peal (as I know of) but to the City and Country as aforesaid, that is, to any whom he would of the Country-Assemblies, and then to the general assembly in the City: and such liberty himself surely will not deny but that 'twas always granted him: nor indeed could I give him any other liberty, by reason of another agreement made by the general Assembly, whereby the Churches in the City were unconcerned; yet if I had, and the Congregation of Southwater al­so, without which no reasonable plea can be from it to engage them to answer to such his appeal, as yet we are blameless; because he as yet never did make his appeal to any particular Church in the City or Countrey: so that still it appears, 'twas his obstinacy against the [Page 23]regular way of appealing, and not our withstanding his appeal, that in any measure hindred him.

To conclude then, as from the whole, since nothing arbitrary without regard to Gods law, nor any thing of contempt to his Ma­jesties law, nor any thing savouring of Popish infallibility, or u­surpation, but rather ways of condescention, appears in our pro­ceedings first and last, against R. H. (the foundation pieces on which he builds his conceit, that we properly may be called Papisti­call Baptists; whether this monstrous birth, (or new name of con­tempt) may not be rationally concluded to proceed forth from the womb of envy, in the beginning begotten by him, who is the grand accuser of the brethren, let the Reader judge.

Now at last R.H. having obstinatly refused our constant readi­ness to answer to his appeal, if made to any of the Country Church­es, our condescending offers to be judged by a select number of the general Assembly with others in the Countrey, and last of all having signified his dislike to the result and determination of the general as­sembly made, touching the case depending between us, he now pro­ceeds to a new offer, (not now to appeal, but) to refer the matter in controversy, but to such persons, and upon such terms, as that he well knows (as at least-wise may be thought) we cannot reasona­bly submit unto, and thereby creates an occasion to make agreat out­cry in the world against us, as such that will not come to the light, least our deeds should be reproved: oh the subtilty, but alas the sin­fulnes of the device!

The persons nominated by him to whom this matter should be re­ferred, are the Elders and Ministers of the baptized Congregations in and about London, whereby in all likelihood he intended, the Reader should understand, that they were such persons as were in communi­on with us only, whenas the Elders and ministers the representa­tives of the baptized Churches in London that are in communion with us, were part of the general Assembly that have already deter­mined the matter to his dislike: as for the Elders and ministers of some other baptized Congregations in London, that by reason of some difference in principles, are not in communion with us, and so have not usually concerned themselves with us, nor we with them, some of whose names are hinted at by R. H. in his 12. page, name­ly. Mr G. Mr J. with several others, well known to some of us that are of the same different perswasions: as for such (we say) we look [Page 24]not upon our selves in reason obliged to refer the matter unto them, considered with the Congregation they belong to, or others that may be allowed as assistants with them, much less to particular persons pickt out of them by an envious spirit, such as (he paradventure thinks) are most averse to, and disaffected with us; and in the mean time barely to allow us the liberty to choose one Country-messen­ger: but here also by the way the Reader may further make obser­vation of his spirit towards me; for speaking of others that he en­vys not, he calls them messengers, but speaking of me whom he doth envy in the very line before, he saith Apostle, pa 15. (thereby to raise in the Reader thoughts of admiration and disaffection) though he cannot; but know that I never pretended my self to be, nor was thought by any others to be, but in the same capacity with those called by him Messengers, in divers respects beneath, and much inferiour to those sent out heretofore as the Apostles of Christ.

But then as to the terms upon which this reference is proposed to be, to which he would have us foreengage, they are such also as surely becomes not a man that pretends to such ingenuity, as to teach the whole Nation how they should become rich, for,

First, R. H. having chosen all the referees himself (one only per­son out of the Countrey left to our choosing) he now proposeth that those that are parties may not be allowed as witnesses, which is to say in all plainness, that all those that are capable of being witnesses a­gainst him, shall be no witnesses, for the Congregation (with my self) are parties; and who then shall be their witnesses? if as to that one clause in our charge against him in relation to that ill report, and scandal occasioned by his coveting his Patent, he thereby intend that we should engage such persons not under our discipline, to ap­pear at London to give evidence, I would then know by what rule, and by what means such a course may be taken? although when done, they, knowing nothing of what otherwayes he stands char­ged with, nor any thing in relation to the manner of our proceed­ings against him, can possibly give no evidence as to those cases: and therefore I say still who then shall be our witnesses?

Secondly R. H. allows such to be witnesses as are indifferent per­sons, that is to say, truly inrerpreted, we shall have no witnesses; for that no such indifferent persons, not related to us, were amongst us (at the time of our proceedings against him) to take cognisance [Page 25]for what, and after what manner he was proceeded against, but the congregation only.

Thirdly, while thus he would at once stop all our mouths (who only are capable of witnessing any thing against him, he provides a way to open wide the mouths of such as shall witness for him, for whatever they shall say, his proposal is (pa. 15.) that we fore-in­gage they shall be heard and credited, Mark, credited: without the least provision made for any just acception, because he saith they were never proved to be false witnesses.

What? is this the man that tells the Reader of his great zeal af­ter impartial justice, who, having not only slited the result of the ge­neral Assembly (consisting of the Messengers, Elders, and brethren from all parts, but also slited and rejected all the Churches as afore­said) in the several Countys adjacent, because (to use his own I was esteemed by many of them, and having now sound out (being much at London) some that (he probably thinks) hath little or no esteem for me, and that belong not to our Churches, and have not communion with us, that (with some others) he would refer the matter unto, now to propose such unequal and unreasonable terms too; I say again, is this the man that tells the Reader of his zeal for impartial justice? and not only so, but, as that which renders his condition the more to be lamented, also is found (pa. 12.) not af­fraid to make solemn protestation in heaven, before God the searcher of hearts, that his designe is only (Mark) to obtain impartial justice: what credit may be justly given to such a mans words, let the reader judge.

Besides, such are, and so great a number, his trangressions hea­ped up since his excommunication, namely, false accusations, re­viling and reproachful expressions, as also his malitious suggestions, as if we were Papistical Baptists, for no other case but our conscio­nable testimony against his coveting the Patent (whereby those of differing perswasions from us that have signified their dislike to his proceedings therein, are suggested by him likewise to be Papistical as well as me) together with what was chargeable before the Pa­tent, but for some causes then omitted, which favour intended him therein (though upon a designe to do him good) perhaps might be (however, so 'tis thought by some) displeasing to God, he being altogether unworthy thereof, as his deportment since seems to de­clare; I say, such and so great is the unworthinesse that he still a­bounds [Page 26]in (justly requiring his recantation to be as publike as his slanderous protestation, as that it justly leaves, not only our selves, but others also, under discouragements to trouble our selves with him while in such a spirit; being ready to think that the same migh­ty hand of God that hath already begun to rebuke this spirit of envy that was in his abetter, is the only sufficient and likely means to effect his real reformation, and so his reconciliation: and so much the more discouraged are some, while they consider, that, if we had no just cause (as indeed we have) to accept against the referring the controversy, &c. R. H. himself (notwithstanding all his pre­tenses) is not willing to refer the matter indeed (as some well know that have treated with him thereabout) his profers having been no more (what he may do provided he might have the liberty to refer the matter to whom, and after what manner he pleaseth I know not) then that he would with contentment stand by what end others should make of it, according to the unerring rule (Mark) these are his own words, pag. 10. which (as himself to one or more have ex­plained it, and as the words seem to import) is just nothing at all; for if the judgment given shall not be according to the unerring rule in his judgment, he presently proceeds to judge his Judges, and so all the trouble and pains ends with no effect, except thereby further to demonstrate his folly.

And whereas I have said, that God hath already begun to rebuke the spirit of envy, my meaning is, that whereas a certain person formerly abetting, and assisting R. H. in his envious designe against me, was in humility made to confess the same, and declare as fol­loweth.

These may certifie, whom it may concern that I being under the visi­ting hand of God, am made freely, and heartily to declare, that where­as I have formerly been a co-actor with Rich. Haynes in the publication of some things, wherein Mat. Caffyn is accused as an enemie to the Kings laws, and his Prerogative, together with other things relating to parti­ality, and the like, that (I say) therein I have done very evilly, and do judge that it was disorderly, and envyously done by me, and so am heartily sorry for it, and also farther declare, that, having discourse with M. C. am satisfied towards him; and do desire from my heart to be reconciled to the Congregation; declaring also, that I do greatly fear that by my abetting, and standing by R. H. as I have done, that thereby I have done him wrong.

Since which time, the said person is reconciled to the Congregati­on: and whereas this so sudden, and great alteration by the hand of God tended so much to the stripping and laying open the nature of that envious spirit, by which R. H. (and his consederate) was governed; he presently suggested abroad, that the said person, notwithstanding his confession of envy ruling in him, still remained ready to declare, that what he had informed him of, was all true; there­by insinuating that which is most false, as the persons own testimo­ny may evidence, which is thus.

And whereas Rich. Haynes since is pleased to report, that though I acknowledge the irregularity and enviousnesse of my proceedings, yet that I do still declare, that what I informed him of, was all true, as if there­in I had still matters of charge against my brethren: these are thereupon further to testifie, that what things soever of truth formerly declared by me to R. Haynes, which then in the spirit of malice uncharitably and a­busively was wrested, I now in the spirit of charity do judge, that there was no just cause thereby given me to accuse my brethren.

And whereas R. H. once again suggesteth to the Reader, that something he forbears to mention, that is reported concerning me: and wherefore? in kindness (saith he) and in love to regain me: now whether he that observes his writings may believe, that he in a de­signe of love to me thus insinuateth (which whoever shall, hath surely attayned to a larger degree of faith then many others) or whether it be a designe of envy for want of something evident where­by to accuse me, suggesteth hereby a mountain, which if he should have plainly declared (his own conscience told him perhaps) would not have appeared a mole-hill: whether (I say) the Reader may believe it a designe of love to regain me, or a designe of envy to a­buse me is the question to be resolved; and surely not difficult to re­solve, when it shall be considered, 1st, that he neither before this pub­lication, nor at any time since, informed me of any such report, and how then should it be a design of love to regain me? while I know not in the least, what it is that is reported, nor 2ly would he give me any present account of this report (what he may in future do I know not) though provoked by letter (sent by me, by the hands of his neighbour James Smith) to inform me with this provocation, name­ly, lest otherwise his refusing so to do (that is, to discover the report, and the reporters) should be judged, and construed his not knowing any thing mrterirll by others repoeted as evill in me, and so a most abu­sive [Page 28]suggestion: and how then this his pretended designe of love to regain me, (while he thus keeps me ignorant of the evill that he pretends by his words to gain me out of) can reasonably be other­wise then a designe of envy to abuse me, let the reader judge.

And whereas 'tis written that the wicked are like the troubled Sea, that cannot rest, whose waters casteth up mire and dirt: whether R. H. his condition doeth not much correspond thereunto, casting up such foul and dirty insinuations, the like not to be sound (surely) a­mong any sort of men that know us, let the Reader judge by this further saying of R.H. namely, that he cannot imagine what shall hinder you (meaning the congregation) from imprisoning, banishing, and burning of people for not submitting to your government, if power and opportunity were not wanting: what shall we render evill for e­vill? God forbid.

And whereas R.H. is pleased to compare the proceedings of us the congregation, to the illegall proceedings of one (supposedly) in authority that should become a usurper and Tyrant, &c. and saith (p. 28.) that our consciences must needs testify the truth thereof, &c. we the congregation thereupon do hereby testifie (before all men) the falshood thereof, and protest against the same as a scandalous, and pernitious parable.

Finally, omitting several other injurious insinuations, as if per­sons dared not without my consent by lawfull means to provide for their families, and such like reasonless clamors, not likely to have enter­taynment in the hearts of reasonable men: I now conclude, wishing from my heart, that God may not lay these, many slaunderous ac­cusations, and envious insinuations to his charge, so as hereafter to reward him accordingly: for as God desired not, neither may we, the death of a sinner, but rather that he return and live; for the which, that it may seasonably be accomplished in him to Gods glo­ry, and the Gospells honour, nay prayers have been, is, and shall be to the almighty for him.