A RAGING WAVE Foaming out his own Shame.  
OR, An ANSWER to a Book Lately Published by Richard Hains (a Person withdrawn from) Entitled, A Protestation against Usurpation.  
Wherein appears such a measure of Envies bitterness heaped up, pressed down, and running over, as the like in some Ages hath not appeared by his many false accusations, and malicious insinuations, thereby to provoke (if possible) both the chief Magistrate, and all men of what degree soever, to have suspicious thoughts of the innocent, easily proved to have no other foundation but his own evil Imaginations.  
Wherein also the Church of Southwater by him contemptuously rendered Papistical in their act of withdrawment from him, is vindicated and cleared, First, by Apostolical Authority, Secondly, by Rich. Haynes his own pen.  
Written by Matthew Caffyn of Horsham in Sussex.  
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him, Prov. 8.17.  
Neither can they prove the things whereof they accuse me, Act. 24.13.  
London, Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle, near the Royal Exchange, in Cornhill. 1675.   

A Raging Wave foaming out his own shame.  
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 perils without amongst men, but also perils within among false brothers. 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 days (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, highminded, from whom the Apostle adviseth Timothy to withdraw) perilous times should be. 2. Tim. 3.  
Now to what degree these Scriptures are fulfilled in this my adversaries heaping up so many slanders, and abusive suggestions, against the innocent; with an outcry 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 than 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 tenderness to perform his duty in the acknowledgement of his sin against God, thereby to justify cruelty against him: we the congregation of Southwater being assembled, and in the consideration of this matter, do hereby declare our readiness 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 ourselves that 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 ware of that spirit of excessive bitterness, and maliciousness 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 bitterness thus continuing and abounding against him, gives us just occasion (at leastwise) to question that unfaignednesse of his repentance for the same, which here willingly he would possess 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) than we do, who nevertheless for good causes (as was then at leastwise conceived) did not publish the same at the time of R. H. his withdrawment, in order to the trial 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 containing the grounds of our proceed: the which surely had he intended honestly and uprightly, he would have acquainted the reader with it, and so endeavoured to show (if he could) the unsoundness 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 me excommunicate, merely for this thing, purely civil, alleging 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 merely, 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 carriage 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 myself, judged and also recorded his practice 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 judgement was made against his practice, 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 proceed.  
Thirdly, in that while the congregation with myself in the said account signified their being troubled and offended with this his injurious proceed, so much savouring of his preferring the gain of this world before the honour of the gospel, thus liable to reproach, while he a professor thereof was both publicly 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 gratify the weak brethren, consented to his excommunication; and the more intolerable 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 which also (as himself confesseth in this very page) is denied by us.  
Fourthly, in that while he knows that the congregation with myself 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 endeavours were used by me and others (and more might have been, had he not obstinately refused to reason the case with me) to convince him from God's word of the unlawfulness of his proceeding, and as himself confesseth, that God's word was produced, pa. 22. yet slanderously doth he here declare, that without regard to the lawfulness 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 proceed: only observe, that while here he slanderously saith, that there was no regard to God's word in the judgement given against him, he elsewhere in pa. 29. (speaking of what the congregation had regard unto) in like manner slanderously 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 malicious and inconsistent 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 proceed, is with respect to the matter, we having (saith he p. 4.) not 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 evil 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 bitterness (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 numbered with the Church of Rome, etc. whose extravigant thoughts, and pernicious expressions (wherein he seems to outstrip the deeds of many men merely moral:) we wish God may never lay it to his charge hereafter.  
But secondly, whereas God's word declareth, that to condemn, or falsely accuse the just, is abomination to the Lord. Pro. 17.15. 2. Tim. 3.3. we judge our proceed 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 justify the same or his humility to justify 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 than 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 expressly 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 God's law) whereas (I say) 'tis thus recorded, we judge our proceed against R. H. just and warrantable, for that he thus coveting and grasping after the wedge of gold, did not only thereby grieve and offend Christians here, and elsewhere that heard thereof, but also, and more especially thereby deliver up the cause of the gospel as liable 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 itself, and so no just cause for professors to be grieved 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 covetousness, 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) 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 liable to be hindered of this their lawful privilege, but also declared by him to have no right thereunto. But if otherwise R. H. his Patent shall be deemed lawful in itself (as by several it is) yet is it no more than what might be pleaded concerning those meats, which the Apostle pronounced clean, and lawful to be eaten both by the law of God and men, who nevertheless strictly charged the Christians of those times (as they tendered charity on the one hand, and their avoiding evil on the other hand) not to eat the same when any thereby was grieved or offended: and surely much more reason have Christians (in all humility) to yield 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, etc. 1 Cor. 10.31.32.  
But oh that R. Haines would consider from his own pen (if not from the Apostles) the justness and legality of our proceed against him! lest otherwise he give further cause and ground to men thereby to believe that 'tis a spirit of envy, for some other cause, and not conscience of his duty towards God, as he would insinuate, that provokes him to this kind of undertaking: however thus he declareth (pag. 22.) that if the sense 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 practice had been somewhat authentic: 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 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 profane 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, than 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 intent only, that Christians should give no offence to those Jews and Gentiles that were more sober, serious, and honest, than those publicans and sinners amongst them were, since even such men in this case as well as others (if we may not say more than others, they being so much concerned therein) were in like manner offended with him, and condemned his practice; or will he think it becomes him to publish those that have showed their dislike to his proceed 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 tendered 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 practice 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 authenticness of your practice.  
My answer is, that so far their principles did admit (as their practice declares) as to endeavour that Christians should forbore their right to, and privilidge of eating, those meats, which by the civil 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 lawfulness of eating those meats, when the eating thereof apparently tended to the grieving and stumbling others (though they deemed it their weakness to be grieved 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 privilege of the law, and his Majesty's prerogative, when his design so apparently tended to the grieving the brethren, and stumbling others (though he had deemed it their weakness 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 man's 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 privilege grantable by his Majesty's 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 persuading from it, those pious ends aforesaid being the ground of such their endeavours, so that still the reader may observe that our proceed against R. H. is not only justified by God's 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 swine's flesh, and therefore will have no communion with those that he knows to eat thereof, because the law forbids it, shall I therefore eat swine's flesh whereby to offend this weak brother? God forbidden (saith R. Haines) I with the Apostle will say, that I will eat no meat while the world stands, rather than he for whom Christ died should perish, for who ever (saith he) doth otherwise, becomes an offender, (and as elsewhere he saith) if obstinate, deserves publicly to be blamed, and if not then publicly to be excommunicated, if still obstinate, let him assign a reason whereof such an offender should be publicly blamed: now as from hence our public rendering him as an offender, seems to be declared authentic; so also that his principles (and that since this controversy too) about the not offending or not grieving one the other, are of far greater severity & much more strictness, then can possibly appear in our practice against him; so far as to public blame. First, because his principle is, that whoever doth not in charity avoid the offending and grieving 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 practice in blaming him was for his want of charity manifested by his offending and grieving 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 evil 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 practice 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 evil of the ways of the Gospel, and injuriously to stumble thereat, for that they very generally did not believe the lawfulness of his Patent-proceeding.  
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 aught to bear the infirmities of the weak, but in things merely civil, and never by any law forbidden, as there can be no real ground for any such offence, so doth there not lie 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, Room. 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 real ground for any offence from such cases as are merely civil, and never by any law forbidden, so likewise must he conclude that in the cases of swines-flesh, and things offered to Idols, there is no real 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 grieved at, and offended with, the civil undertake of men, wherein the ill savour of covetousness doth appear, for that covetousness was always 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 plead 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 sinful; so in like manner by the undertake 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 ways of God and so likewise such civil undertake (as are only lawful, and so not sinful in the neglect thereof) may become sinful.  
The premises then considered, amounting to no less than plain evidence from the word of truth, justifying our practice, 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 justify our practice to be somewhat authentic, yea and his own principles (so far as to public blame) declared to be such as outstrips our practice in relation to such as grieve their brethren, together with his reason-less, religion-less, president-less, as also civil lawless suggestions against me, as if I were one disobedient to authority barely for dissuading from that which was never commanded by authority: these things together considered, may it not rationally be conceived, that this (not to be paralled) publication wherein such an outcry 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 years he hath not known any thing committed by them worthy of public blame; my answer is, that had it not been for the many transgressions, (sometime before this controversy 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 falsely hath suggested, but through care and diligence discovered, with occasion given of continued dissatisfaction; I am much persuaded 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 God's people that reproved in the gate, Isa. 29.21.  
But to return, having showed, that his exceptions against the matter of our proceed, is groundless, and that his protestations against us elsewhere, as not proving him a transgressor of God's law, before the fentence of excommunication, is truth-less, that which remains in the next place worthy the reader's consideration, is his exceptions against the manner of our proceed, wherein he declareth there was divers 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 public? 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 Church's account of their proceeding (greatly desired by him, and accordingly sent unto him) sufficiently showeth: 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 proceed, I do not suppose that he can possibly in these parts (at least wise) proselyte 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 evil 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 continual 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 practice, 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 persuaded) contrary to the allowed and reasonable practice 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 privilege 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 groundlessly 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 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 abovesaid account, we the Congregation do hereby testify, and may it not be thought fit, that for any Church to sacrifice up that power and those privileges 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 precedent; 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 gratify such deceivers or Apostates, by their suffering it.  
But if R. H. should (for I know not that he doth) intent interruptions of another kind, through too much earnestness, or quickness of spirit (though occasioned through his haughtiness and perverseness) 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 proceed to be both sinful as to ourselves, and injurious to him, we answer, that the intent of Christ in giving forth, and the design of Christians in their prosecuting the ordinance of excommunication, was, that transgressors might again be restored, when the Church's 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 ourselves, we know no such thing, but rather the performance of our duty towards God and him: as for letting in all kind of usurpation, and subverting the Church's privileges (suggested also by him we conceive it only his vain imaginations, for how it should so do, he declares not: as for our practice being seandalous to the better and the more sober and judicious sort (as he 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 testify his mistake herein; though they may (by their so doing) be excluded, by this spirit of envy, from the number of sober and judicious persons, and counted amongst the base 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 proceed with offenders to be scandalous, for ourselves do thereby declare them to be so; as touching his malicious suggestion, that our practice tends to the infringing the lawful power of the supreme Magistrate, easily appears both illegal 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 persuading 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 than 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 illegal; for said the Council, what if a man shall devise a new way to thresh his corn, shall he therefore have a Patent, surely not: and what then may these be deemed innocent, (as doubtless he conceives them so to be) in their opposition, for the sake of men's outward advantages, and this too after his Majesties grant of the same? and may we be published to the world, as contemners of his Majesty's prerogative in our opposition, for the sake of men's 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 civil 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, etc. what, would R. H. if he had lived in those times have published the Apostles as one that contemned the King's prerogative? if not, than what besides a bitter root of envy (for some other cause) is the ground of this reason-less, and also lawless publication?  
Besides, if what is reported to us be true, that the statute, upon which Patents are grantable, is to gratify the ingenuity of such as by considerable charge, or long study shall invent something for public good (as we incline to believe, because the Lord Bridgman with Council learned in the law put a stop to his design, and also because R. H. would as yet never produce the statute in such cases provided) if this, we say, be true, than 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 custom of men long before was to dry the seed of Clover, and then to thresh it (for which no man merely mortal 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 precedent before, should be numbered 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 outdone 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 add this more, that such has been my doctrine wherever 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 public 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 civil 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 overmastered 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. having endeavoured (as aforesaid) to render me an object of hate to the chief Magistrate, 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 unworthiness 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 practice have declared when I have been called before persons of such qualities) not only to submit to the King as supreme, but also unto governor's (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 unlawful, or illegal, and so in conscience to God they cannot actually obey, that there remains no other lawful way for such to take, save only patiently to suffer, or humbly to entreat 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 prejudicial opinion against me: and from thence he descends in the same page, saying, that I also forbidden him to be a peacemaker amongst his neighbours; (he being extremely 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 jealousy, that he might, among some persons of quality, take that liberty, which would neither be honourable to the truth, nor conducible 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 than encouraged, thereby to beget (as one 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 proceed of men therein, as seem to be merely 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 closerts) 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 join 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 myself, (pag. 3.) as a person that will not come to the light, lest my deeds should be reproved, as if I were conscious to myself of irregularity in our proceed, and so have withstood his appeal to others.  
Concerning which, all may understand, that he had (according to the custom 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 inferior, 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 this controversy, 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 divers 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 Country 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 condescension 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 proceed 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 know) of the Messengers, Elders, and brethren (the Representatives of the Churches both in the City and Country; 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 extremely unwilling he is, that it should be understood, that the general assembly 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 shown 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 Coffee-house, 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 publicly 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 judgement, 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 baptised congregations in communion with us (whom I suppose) he conceived sufficiently averse to me, who concerned himself (with some others) in favour to his case, more than 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 myself 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 men's 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 none 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 man's art, and inventions on the other hand hath been judged so far deserving, and to advantage tending, as that his Majesty's 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 Assembly 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 parlour) 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 Country Assemblies, and then it might: for which cause I in reason could not engage the Church, or 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 expense 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 myself 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 than 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 elsewhere, according to the method of our proceed, which upon good causes formerly we had agreed upon; and whereas the congregation at Southwater determined not to appear at the general Assembly at London, because they understood that by reason of their former agreement, the case depending between them and R. H. would not then be tried; if afterwards I had said (though his bare saying that I did, who hath said so much extravagantly is little) that if the general Assembly, through his excessive urgency, 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 Country, 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 it, he not only found disregarding, but also contemning, what they had done; besides that the impartial justice, which he pretends to be zealous for, to be done by others, is no other than himself to be quitted, and others condemned, according to his own judgement, let the Reader judge.  
As touching his frequent suggestions that he hath been put to great expenses 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 Country, 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 witnesss 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 testify 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 justly he might) his expenses otherwise, and more particularly his expenses 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 unusual 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 Country: so that still it appears, 'twas his obstinacy against the regular way of appealing, and not our withstanding his appeal, that in any measure hindered him.  
To conclude then, as from the whole, since nothing arbitrary without regard to God's law, nor any thing of contempt to his Majesty's law, nor any thing savouring of Popish infallibility, or usurpation, but rather ways of condescension, appears in our proceed first and last, against R. H. (the foundation pieces on which he builds his conceit, that we properly may be called Papistical 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 obstinately 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 Country, 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 leastwise 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, lest our deeds should be reproved: oh the subtlety, but alas the sinfulness of the device!  
The persons nominated by him to whom this matter should be referred, are the Elders and Ministers of the baptised 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 baptised 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 baptised 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. M J. with several others, well known to some of us that are of the same different persuasions: as for such (we say) we look not upon ourselves 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 picked 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 myself 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 inferior 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 Country 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 myself) 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 intent 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 otherways he stands charged with, nor any thing in relation to the manner of our proceed 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 proceed against him) to take cognisance 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 afraid to make solemn protestation in heaven, before God the searcher of hearts, that his design is only (Mark) to obtain impartial justice: what credit may be justly given to such a man's words, let the reader judge.  
Besides, such are, and so great a number, his transgressions heaped up since his excommunication, namely, false accusations, reviling and reproachful expressions, as also his malicious suggestions, as if we were Papistical Baptists, for no other case but our conscionable testimony against his coveting the Patent (whereby those of differing persuasions from us that have signified their dislike to his proceed 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 design 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 unworthiness that he still abounds in (justly requiring his recantation to be as public as his slanderous protestation, as that it justly leaves, not only ourselves, but others also, under discouragements to trouble ourselves 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, etc. R. H. himself (notwithstanding all his pretences) is not willing to refer the matter indeed (as some well know that have treated with him thereabout) his proffers 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 judgement given shall not be according to the unerring rule in his judgement, 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 design against me, was in humility made to confess the same, and declare as followeth.  
These may certify, whom it may concern that I being under the visiting hand of God, am made freely, and hearty to declare, that whereas I have formerly been a coactor with Rich. Haynes in the publication of some things, wherein Mat. Caffyn is accused as an enemy to the King's 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 hearty 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 confederate) 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 enviousness of my proceed, 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 testify, 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 design of love to me thus insinuateth (which whoever shall, hath surely attained to a larger degree of faith then many others) or whether it be a design 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 molehill: whether (I say) the Reader may believe it a design of love to regain me, or a design 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 evil in me, and so a most abusive suggestion: and how then this his pretended design of love to regain me, (while he thus keeps me ignorant of the evil that he pretends by his words to gain me out of) can reasonably be otherwise then a design 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 doth 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 evil for evil? God forbidden.  
And whereas R.H. is pleased to compare the proceed of us the congregation, to the illegal proceed of one (supposedly) in authority that should become a usurper and Tyrant, etc. and saith (p. 28.) that our consciences must needs testify the truth thereof, etc. we the congregation thereupon do hereby testify (before all men) the falsehood thereof, and protest against the same as a scandalous, and pernicious parable.  
Finally, omitting several other injurious insinuations, as if persons dared not without my consent by lawful means to provide for their families, and such like reasonless clamours, not likely to have entertainment in the hearts of reasonable men: I now conclude, wishing from my heart, that God may not lay these, many slanderous 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 God's glory, and the Gospels' honour, nay prayers have been, is, and shall be to the almighty for him.  
FINIS.