HAving perused the Book, entituled, New Lords, New Laws, subscribed by Richard Haines, and observing the many reproaches, false accusations, and abusive expressions therein contained, and more especially those his malicious insinuations, whereby he (as one much out of the fear of God, and greatly in the Spirit of Envy) en­deavours to suggest amongst the Sons of Men that we are, but especially my self, (in and about our proceedings against him in way of Excommunication) Enemies to his Majesties Laws, and Royal Prerogative (the contrary whereof, I doubt not but through grace, will appear:) having (I say) observed these things, was made to remember SimeoNs discription of envy (as may be read in the Book of the twelve Patriarks) after this manner. Envy (saith he) maketh a mans Soul to grow Savage, breedeth War in his thoughts, setteth his Blood on fire, driveth him out of his wits, and suffereth no reason to bear sway or rule, maketh his body ghastly, pineth away at the prosperity of the person envied, and is always egging him to slay the same. For (as saith the Apostle) the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Now the many bitter, and dreadful streams that flow from this fountain of malice and envy, you, in the ensuing discourse, are desired [Page 2]to observe; And first touching his too common Language, how bitter, how unsavory, how unbecoming any professor, but more especially such as excel in knowledg of the Fathers will, even, that every idle word must be accounted for at last, who yet shall not only so do, but as it were out-strip therein the deeds of the wicked! as this following Catalogue of his ex­pressions, gathered out of his Book, do plainly demonstrate. To wit, Vsurper, Tyrant, Idol, new Lord, Bell, infallible Apostle, Idol-God, Seducer, Deceiver, Ʋpstart Lord Ecclesiastick, narrow Throated tender-Conscience of his Lordships grace, Pope-ship, that, had he the priviledge of a torturing Inquisition, would severely deal with all that should dare oppose him, a second Popish infallibility, Tyrannical cruelty, Deotriphes. As touching the Congregation (whom but a while ago, with my self, was highly esteemed by him) he now saith, that they are such whose zeal hath been much more fervent for the adoration of their Idol, than for God, whose prin­ciples and practices (meaning I suppose, with respect to their dealing with him) are Popish and Antichristian, Confederats with a usurping Tyrant, whose actions he supposeth are like the hair-brained Proclamations of John of Leyden, or the extravigances of a Popish Bull, and in one of his Letters sent to (C.G.) saith, That they are the seat of the Beast.

Now that such Language should proceed out of the mouths of men always accustomed thereunto, is no marvel; (though every where to be lamented) but that it should proceed out of the mouth of a professor, and not only so but against his Friends, but awhile ago by him esteemed most beloved bre­thren, is more than a little to be admired, yet not so much as when his reproachful words shall be considered in conjunction with his malicious designs, no less threatning than ruin and destruction, and that to his late-esteemed (and to use his own words. Page 2.) Most worthy and most faithful Brother: whereby just occasion is given for considerate persons to determin, that something more than ordinary, gave being to this height of envy, at which root, (as the undoubted cause thereof, and preceding the controversie about his Patent too) our friends at London struck at, when by mutual consent on his, and my part, the matter was to be revealed (without which, to inter­meddle with other matters, is questionless no more in order to communion than the plucking of branches, while the bitter [Page 3]root, I mean his envy against me, and others, as some think, for my sake remains) but how this then was prevented by his means (contrary to earnest expectations) friends may well re­member, though the making that private case from being in some kind a publick case was not prevented; for which he may complain of no mans folly more than his own, for hereby and other such like unwary proceedings of his elsewhere, the case by me only hinted at, when thoughts of presenting it to the Churches consideration was entertained, (the only Judg of such cases as many believe) though from a holy design the bet­ter to regain him, afterwards to the contrary resolved, there being for other causes sufficient ground to withdraw from him: the case, (I say, to that degree private) is now become, and by some called; The private publick case.

But since he pretends, and still would lay the cause of his so great displeasure upon injustice, supposedly, acted on our parts towards him in the case of his Excommunication; though that was no preventing cause of his expected gain by his Patent, thereby to enrage him; nor could (in likely-hood) the appre­hension of his, supposed, illegal Excommunication, (especially when good reason according to the common belief of Chri­stians) so plainly testifieth our design therein to be good) provoke to such a height of malice, for that we have no presi­dent (I suppose) of like malice, in the whole Nation, amongst the many excommunicated persons that are there, who doubt­less are as strongly perswaded as he can be (at leastwise many) that their Excommunication was unreasonable and unwarrant­able: but since (I say) he otherwise pretends, the matter of his Book is now to be considered.

And first that pressing necessity that (he saith) engaged him to this publication, is worthy observation, namely, that our proceedings against him did appear to him no less than usurped Authority; to which I say, that had our proceedings against him been ac­cording to his representation thereof in all points, some reason he had to manifest (at leastwise) some dislike, but forasmuch as the ensuing account will hereunto be a resolution, I shall not here insist thereon.

As to his second reason for publication, to wit, his care to preserve the truth, and the professors thereof from reproachful abuses and censures. I answer, that to us 'tis unknown that any reproach [Page 4]was upon the account, of the method and manner of our pro­ceedings, neither indeed could it be, for that persons not in Communion with us, were ignorant thereof, if he have repre­sented it after that abusive manner (as he hath in his Book) to some, and thereby some reproachful words have been raised, that lieth at his door, and not at ours; and as to the ground and cause of our proceedings with respect to his coveting the Patent, nothing is more apparent than that we are (amongst men) very generally justified, and rendred is doing well and wisely therein; but, alas, how may the Reader be convinced that his plea to preserve the truth from reproach, is a candid and real plea? since he hath not ceased to do, and justifie that which is so great an occasion of reproach, and so generally too, as the like in our time scarce have been, so many persons, in so many places being concerned therein.

As to his third Reason for publication, to wit, because all ad­monition and advice had been disregarded, and that from a full meeting, and (as he saith) of the most eminent in London, to hear and deter­min that case. I answer, that all this splendid shew of rejecting Counsel when stated in plainness, was no more than that some few friends at London, (willing to make an Assay for Peace, for some good reasons expressed in their Letter to me, wherein only I was by a Friend or two desired to come up) did appoint to meet at a Coffey-House, and this without the least advice or consent from us, which surely must have been as one thing necessary in order, to the meetings Authority to determin as he would suggest, the which was so far from their intention, as that plainly and publickly they declared the contrary, as may very well be remembred; yet (by this) my meaning is not that therefore the counsel and advice of any men fearing God may be rejected, but rather (as a truth nothing to be doubted of) to follow the Souls conviction of truth, by what means so­ever convicted; now this appointment, by those few Friends, being known, several others came, who, I suppose, had a mind thereunto; at which place, Mr. G. by his desire was (and some others of the same differing perswasion from us) who most principally spake, and advised in the case, as being (with others) not satisfied that he deserved such blame as we thought him worthy of, though they readily believed (with us) that his undertakings were of an ill report, and of a gospel-disho­nouring [Page 5]Nature. And whereas he saith, that some have declared that they do not owne our London-Friends, nor regard their Counsel; for the rectifying those mistakes, that, very possibly, may from thence arise, all may know (if any there be that know not) that there is the same concord between them and us, and agree­ment in Communion, and that not only with some, but with all the Elders and Congregations in London, as was before this difference happened, too evident to be denyed. As for Mr. G. and those Friends of the same perswasion with him, 'tis indeed true that we, and as true that others in City and Country as well as we, have for some well known cause, forborn com­municating together at the Table of the LORD with them.

Whereas our Publication of his Excommunication to the World within three days after 'twas done, and that to them that hated him most, is pretended by him to be the original cause of this publication. My answer is, that neither within three days, nor any day since did I to those persons open my mouth thereabouts, what others have done, certainly I know not, but this I know, that since our with-drawment from him was (partly) to preserve the truth, and the professors thereof from reproach, the divulging thereof was not so improper as he may conceive.

And whereas he further adds, that when he was at the Ge­neral meeting at London, in order to make his appeal there, I hindered the determination thereof, when as (he saith) I promised to do what I could to have it determined there. I answer, first you may observe that (as himself confesseth in his Book) I seeing him there, did move his request to the assembly, whereupon, after some little debate about the matter, a very fair and unanimous result was given, that they, by reason of an agreement formerly made, could not then hear his case; but if he would first make his appeal to the Country association, or quarterly meet­ing whereunto he belonged, and they, by reason of the dif­ficulty of the case, or difference thereabouts, could not decide the matter; that then they would readily hear it: nor could he reasonably mistrust this result as proceeding from his sup­posed Enemies, because they were generally silent in the case; and when his motion was thus stopped, by vertue of that afore­said agreement, I then offered my willingness to condescend (beyond what is common) namely, that, if he would accept [Page 6]of the assemblies advice by making application to the quar­terly meeting, I should be willing that the present Assembly should choose out six men or more, who 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: all which he very obstinatly refused; whereupon some motion was made by some one or more about choosing some certain persons out of the Assembly, to whom the case might be referred, to which was replied by some of the meeting, that the matter concerned the Congregation, and they were not present; and that I said any such thing, I am not certain; if I did, 'twas true; and be­sides he may not think that the Assembly would have imposed any such thing upon them, if they had been present; what may be done by mutual consent, is another case; nor may it be thought strange that I did not engage them to be there, be­cause of our former agreement, whereby I well knew that many cases upon that account had been refused; nor may he think that Churches are obliged to follow the motions of excom­municated persons whither they please; but rather (as some think) that the Church appealed unto, should (if they see cause to stir) by their representatives come to the Church, concer­ning whose actions the appeal is made, but by this my account aforesaid, I do not thereby mean that in pursuance of such a promise as he speaketh of, I did what I did in and about his case, for no such promise can I remember, nor do I in the least incline to believe that I did so speak, and have forgot it, (though in many cases that is probable) because I certainly know (and in the same page himself confesseth) that I told him, as I, with another Friend, (J. S.) Who is ready to witness the truth thereof) sat with him in his own Parlour by the Fire; I say, that I told him of this our agreement, whereby (to use his own words) he was made by me, and others, to doubt that his cause could not be heard; probably if the whole Assembly had pressed for the hearing thereof (as they wholly declined it) I should not have endeavoured to have hindered it, both parties being there. The case then being thus, why he should further charge me (as he doth) for wanting civil honesty in not telling him before to prevent trouble and unnecessary charges, I verily know not.

And whereas he rejected the general Assemblies Advice, first to Appeal to some Country and Quarterly Meeting, he would very willingly justifie the same, by saying, ( pag. 4. Epist.) That in some respects they were inferior to me, and that I was adered, and esteemed by many of them. To which I answer, that were I such a person as he now represents me to be, 'twere not likely I should be thus esteemed, or doth he think that they are all in the dark, and he only in the excellent discovering light, while a Reviler, a Reproacher, and false accuser of his Brethren, but how ob­servable is it that while he in his fourth Page of his Epistle repre­sents me to be thus esteemed and adored by the Country Congregations, in the sixth Page of this Epistle, he in answer to some (I know not who) that strange why he doth not withdraw from the Baptized Congregations, saith, That he knows not any other Congregation of that perswasion, corrupted with those Errors, but that their actions and conversations are according to their Profession, If so, why then would he not (I pray) make his Appeal to some of them according to the Assemblies advice? but 'tis happened to him according to what is written, where envying is, there is confusion, as well as every evil work.

Now, whereas the Countries motion and stiring against his coveted Patent, and that with more then a little pains and charge, while from Town to Town, and from one Gentlemans house to another, persons did Ride up and down, in obtaining their Hands subscribed against him, by which, as also the plead­ings of Counsel eminent in Law, the Patent before the Lord Keeper was threw out, whereas (I say) the Countries Motion thus against him, but especially their Prevailing, seems to bare hard against him, not only as an Infallible Testimony that his designe proved scandalous, and of an ill report, but that also it seems to render the reasonableness pretended by him for his Pa­tent, questionable; he thereupon (I fear) have desperately lan­ched out into false accusations, in order to the helping his cause, namely, in publishing ( pag. 3.) That I and my Confederates did re­port (whereby the Country was provoked to Conspire against him) that his design by his Patent was to hinder Persons from cleansing Clover as well as Non-such, and that other persons had made discovery thereof before him, then which nothing is more evidently false.

But whereas the falseness of this charge cannot appear to the Reader, but upon his prefering my Testimony in conjunction with the Congregations Testimony, before his bare and single Testimony, in a state of apparent Envy, and Excommunication, (though that be a case of much clearness and plainness) I there­fore am made willing here to present an accusation of his, for nature and kind such, as that many persons, in many places, upon their own knowledge, may determine the slanderousness thereof, these lines of his, I suppose, not likely to be read in many Con­gregations, either in City or Country, but where either my words sometimes there, or my practise there, or agreements made by me, and others to the contrary there, or however some that well knew my judgment to the contrary there, may testifie against him as a false accuser therein; his accusation is, ( pag. 12.) That by my Law I maintaine that when a Widdow or Maid shall Marry with one not in fellowship, she shall be accused as an Offendor, and no humility to be accepted of, but Excommunicated she must be, and she not to be forgiven to the hour of Death, except they part, or he be converted to them, but in the mean time she is to be adjudged to live in fornication, and so their Children are Bastards. Now, what shew in Reason he had thus to speak, I can by no means conceive, there having been at no time, either while he was with us, or since he was separa­ted from us, any person so Excommunicated here, or by me, as an instrument elsewhere; nor did I ever believe any such thing, that persons so Married, might be seperated (as he insinuates) nor that they were to be adjudged such as lived in Fornication, so as that no humility might be accepted of, nor that their chil­dren were Bastards, the contrary being most evident from the actual receiving and embracing several, in several places, upon [Page 9]their professed humility for their so doing; and whereas he ex­cuseth them at London, as men of other Principles; they of Lon­don can tell him that I was one of the Assembly at London, where these things were treated of, and well do I remember that I then wrote the agreement, in contradiction to the thoughts of some few that way inclined, as by him is mentioned: If from some reports these things have been suggested to him, (though not likely) why did he not at some time speak of it? and not thus to have as it were sold us into the hands of Scorners: and be­sides, if it were true, (as nothing is more false) what is it so great an evil now, and thought worthy thus to be published, and no evil at all when he was in fellowship with us? for he never shewed the least dislike as (I know) to our Principles in this case. Oh! what will not Envy do? well said the wise Man, Prov. 12.18. There is that speaketh like the piercings of a Sword, but the Tongue of the wise is health.

We the Congregation, do hereby testifie and declare, that neither we with our Brother Caffyn, did after the aforesaid manner Excommunicate any person at any time, nor did we ever hear him, either publickly or privately, teach any such Doctrine.

Now if R. Haines, (too regardless of Gods honour, and the Gospels credit) shall thus, even to the knowledge of most of you, publish falshoods, what credit and esteem his bare sayings, and naked suggestions may justly require, when they shall lie in the ballance together with our Testimonies to the contrary, let the judicious judge.

The next thing in the way considerable is, our proceedings at the Quarterly Meeting, where we thought it expedient to offer to our Brethren, the Strangers, the case of (R. H.) his co­veting the Patent, that in the mutual consideration thereof we might the better be confirmed what to do, whom we found in like manner dissatisfied, they not knowing how his case might be justified, so as that the truth might be justified, and quitted from reproach: also as touching my calling the laws of men un­just (as he saith there I did) and saying, what have we to do with the Laws of men? whereby (as one much beneath not only Christianity, but even moral civility) he would have the reader to suppose that I am a man (as his Title Page declareth) Acting grand Ʋsurpation in contempt of the good Laws, and Royal Prerogative of his Majestie. In answer thereunto, first let it be observed, that [Page 10]this so confident a Publisher of a matter so criminal, if true in his Sence, was not (as himself saith) at this meeting himself to heare it; he being about thirty or forty miles of; and so this his publication (as to this particuler) is only from information, and with no small probability from one then present, who bares much of his envious image, and also out of communion for want of a good conversation.

How much therefore beneath the actings of men (qualified with but common honesty) he in this case appears, is not hard to conceive; for that he neither considered how probable it was that the informer might be mistaken in his relation (a case very common among men, where nothing of prejudice rules, but much more where 'tis manifest) nor yet considered the great unliklyhood of the truth thereof that might very easily to him appeare from the expressions themselves; which supposeth no less then my passing judgment against the Laws of men in general as unjust, which cannot rationally be thought to pro­ceed out of the mouth of the greatest Fifth-Monarch in the world, (much less from him that is a Writur, a Preacher, and a disputer against them; for tis not the injustice of the civil Laws of Nations that by them is so much opposed (however not in such a general sence as envy here represents me) as the unwor­thinesse by them supposed in some persons that have to do in the execution of those Laws; however right well do we know, and accordingly have we always declared, that by the justice & equity of the civill Laws, our common Rights, Privilegdes, and properties are preserved from such as are unreasonable; as also our lives secured from the hands of blood-thirsty men: nor since reason will not permit the entertainment of such thoughts may any one think that the Laws of men, in relation to Patents, were generally by me condemned as unjust, for that frequently I have said, and do now again say, that for Persons to have Pa­tents in several cases, as they may be circumstanced, is both legal and reasonable, as many can testifie; his frequent there­fore representing me an Enemy to Patents (generally) and the Kings Prerogative thereabouts, is altogether groundless and unjust.

Nor is there so much in that Question, what have we to do with the Laws of men? (though that it was ever so spoken I know not) if righteously considered, the outmost thereof being no [Page 11]more then that we, apprehending the Laws of the Gospel, to forbid this his Gospel dishonouring Patent, did not think our selves concerned in our Congregational affairs with the Laws of Men, if they did allow it: No more surely did Paul judge the Corinthians concerned with the civil Laws of the Country where they lived, and therefore (knowing the Gospel rules would not allow them in the apprehension of wrong and trespasses received in civil things, to do what the civil Laws would allow them to do) said, Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to Law, (that is, with their Brethren) as if it had been said, you may by no means so do, for that you have another Rule from Christ to act by, as you are Members of the Church of Christ: what have you to do with the Laws of Men, thereby to trouble and vex your Brethren withal? yet might not any therefore think (though R. H. think so of me) that Paul was an Enemy to the civil Laws of the Country, nor to the Prerogative of the King, or Governour that made them: but such have been my Doctrine where ever I came, with respect to Christian obligations, To be subjest to the higher Powers, and to obey every ordinance of Man for the Lords sake; such also have been my publick Reasonings, and pri­vate Conferences in divers places, in opposition to that spirit that despiseth Dominion, such hath 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 have 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.

At this our Meeting, 'tis true, that in answer to a question proposed, some discourse we had touching such as should make opposition against, and condemn the Church, in abeting, and justifying a person that should by such means be the occasion of so much dishonour to the Truth, but that I, by any Ʋsurped Authority or Threats, conjured them to do my will (as he abusively speaks) by me is denied.

Neither do we the Congeregation know any such thing, nor do we sup­pose that our Brethren the strangers, if they shall be enquired of can testi­fie any things of that Nature, no nor any thing tending to the contempt [Page 12]of his Majesties Laws, or Royal Prerogative as by him is suggested.

Nor is it true that Patents was at this meeting rendred odious (as he would suggest) nor that I could as freely have fellowship with an Idolator, or an unclean person, as with a man that should obtain a Patent, the truth being only, that his Patent in that particuler case, thus circumstanced, neither I nor others could bare with, no more then other publick transgressions.

Nor had he reason to say, That I with the advice of my adherents, did all this Meeting enact by Ʋsurped Authority, that none might buy or sell for him: since no more is true of that Nature, save only that (in answer to one enquiring, whether it might be safe for him to be concerned, if desired in some one particular place, to Trade in Buying and Selling that particular Seed for him, who was thus defamed, censored, and evilly spoken of upon that ac­count) some, very few, did declare their present thoughts that it was not; but that there was an agreement of the Assembly, neither I nor others do know, and that he that reported this mat­ter unto R.H. was (in the best sence imaginable) mistaken, is evi­dent by our peaceable communion with his Servants that we well know Trades in Buying, Selling, cleansing, if not also Buying the same Seeds for him; and yet may this be published as a sign that his Brethren (but a while ago, Beloved, and most faithful Bre­thren) are now like unto the Antichristian Beast: Ah poor peice of Envy!

The next thing considerable, is that R. H. being formerly by several Friends perswaded to desist his design, and he not be­ing perswaded, was afterwards desired to come to a Church Meeting to treat with our Friends thereabouts, before he did endeavour the accomplishment of his design, the which also being obstinately refused by him, saying, that we had nothing to do to meddle in such matters, and so he prosecuting effectually his design, at a Meeting some time after, we desired him to ap­pear, he accordingly did appear, where, saith he, we excom­municated him as a Sinner, before we had proved him to have Trans­gressed any known Law. In answer to which, I say, that sure I am, there was some endeavours to convict him of his Sin, and to prove his proceedings unwarrantable, but that what we said ap­peared to him as good evidence or proof, that he was a person so offending; I cannot say, I rather think that the love of Gain, (supposedly great) in conjunction with his malice manifestly [Page 13]great, might blind his eyes: but what is his complaint against us herein, more then the complaints of persons excommunica­ted very generally elsewhere.

And whereas he multiplieth many words of Lordly Ʋsurpation and Acts of Tyranny, it may be observed that at this meeting there was also charged against him, his unrighteous dealing with a man about a bargin of Clover, the which then I did and still do believe deserved blame, and in like manner 'twas judged by the friends, two persons only excepted, whom I perceived not without some doubts, in the case, whereupon I condescended, and so that case was omitted; and one of those two persons was he, of whom he abusively speaking in his Book, saith, that he would have a man damned for displeasing his Lord Caffyn, rather then for displeasing the most High: which if it had been true that I was thus Idolized by this friend, then surely he would have pleased me in giving consent with me and others in the case; or if it were true that I were such a Lordly Usurper (as he would suggest) surely then I should some way or other have constrained them (or as he speaks) threatned them into a consent; but while he is thus speaking reproachfully of others, worthy consideration it is, whether himself did not act somewhat like an Usurper, in that he (called there as an offender) would (and it seems is yet greatly of­fended because he could not) stop my mouth, (who, as tis well known, was concerned with the Congregation in the Congregations affairs) so as that I might not speak in the dis­course of the matter, till he had first disputed with the bre­thren; a ready way for seducing Spirits to corrupt assemblies, while their Elders silently stand by, without doing what is their duties to do, even, to defend the flock, if such Usurping motions of transgressors might be gratified; and whereas he, saith, (pag. 5.) that he was not suffered to treat with any of the Congregation, nor they with him by reason of my perpetual interruption, as they if they be honest will testifie.

VVe the Congregation in the honesty and uprightness of our hearts, do testifie that R. H. did at that meeting reason with several of us, and the only thing denyed by our brother Caffyn, and yet no more by him then by our selves, was only that unreasonable Ʋsurping request of him to stop our brother Caffyns mouth as aforsaid, he being willing in himself, and we seeing no cause to the contrary, did many times, as [Page 14]well as the rest of the assemblies, offer something to the matter in hand, which he not willing to allow (though it no wayes savoured of Lord­liness in him desiring it, but rather of Lordliness in him denying it) by that means a deal of obstruction we meet withal.

As touching our proceedings against him, he (the better to render it odious) would have persons believe that I as a New Lord had made new Laws, called by him also a new cheat, namely, that no person may offend the weak brethren in any case, or oppose his Lordships design upon pain of Excommunication, and further, that when a man shall have a lawful right to do any thing in civil matters, if any weak brethren should say they were offended with it, it may not be suffered. Pag. 20.21. But as one not content thus far to abuse us he further insinuateth, that if the weak brethren should be offended with his Majesties Crown, &c. It being made of Gold (they being already, saith he, offended with such professors as wear Gold) according to our principle he must submit or be dealt with. Pag. 22. And as if this were not enough to represent him weak indeed, while he thus reproachfully speaks of the weak, he further suggesteth that if a weak brother should cry unto him in a fair for a Ballard, as a fairing, and he should offend him by not answering his request, by our Law, (though in truth it be his own evil imaginations) he saith, thereby he may incur an Excommu­nication, Pag. 28. Oh how is Wisdom turned into folly, and strength into weakness! and yet thus (I suppose) he thinks the matter of his Book will agree with the Title thereof, New Lords, New Laws, and so having imagined and framed this image by the art of malice, falls on furiously in several Pages fighting against it, as a most odious thing, thereby in­tending that the Reader should understand that we excom­municated him for offending the weak brethren.

Further, in answer, the Reader is to observe, that after his Excommunication there was (according to his desire) a paper sent him, containing the grounds of our proceedings against him, the which (had he dealt uprightly) he should have truly stated in his Book, and so have endeavoured an answer there­unto, but to pass it over in silence, without the least making mention of any such Written account from the Church, and yet pretend to give an account of the Churches proceedings against him and not only so, but in the mean season to frame a false account of the Churches proceedings, with endeavours to father that upon the Church, and so with many swelling words from a vain mind, exclaim against it, is such a practise that is seldom heard of, and surely never found among any but such as want either wisdom or sincerity, or both, what did he think that he being first in his own cause, should meet with none coming after him to search him out?

Now that the account given by him is a false account, our paper (yet visible, and that since have been read by many) will evidence, (though his silence about this paper may sufficiently Minister suspition to the Reader of the trueness of his ac­count) in all which paper of ours (considerably Large) those expressions (to wit, weak brethren) so often named by him, is not once named; nor that a party of weak brethren, being offended with his proceedings, was by others not so offended, gratified and humored by casting him out of the Church, once signified; but rather his resolutions (against all Counsel to the con­trary) to persist in his Patent design (in conjunction with his unworthy carriage) as a practise savouring of his preferring the gain of this World, before the honor of the Gospel, for that thereby Reproach and [Page 16]Scandal was brought upon the same, whereby the brethren, (that is, the Congregation, being sensible thereof, and not a party only) was offended, and yet are that he should so seek himself, his own profit, as no more to regard the obligations of the Gospel, to avoid such occasions for the profit of others, that they might be saved.

Though it be also true that we were not satisfied that his coveting this Patent was upon just and lawful grounds, for that nothing (Worthy consideration) can be pleaded (either as great charge, long study, or more then common ingenuity) as might with a good conscience enright him thereunto; and it seems the like judgment was made thereof by Counsel (Learned in the Law) Sir E. T. and Sir H. P. Before the Lord Keeper when the Country appeared at London, in their great dislike and discontent about it, with a paper subscribed by the hands of many, as well persons of quality, as others; where one of the Counsel to evade the cause of this desired Patent, Pleaded (if I mistake not the information) what (saith he) if a man shall devise a new way to thrash his Corn, shall he therefore have a Patent? surely no. However they soon made judgment against it. Nor did we think it a consideration void of Reason, that he a seperate, a professor, should seek a Patent in this case of Nonsuch, there being Clover (as a president) cleansed after the same manner long before; when as no per­son out of the profession sought after a Patent, in the case of cleansing Clover upon the account of being the first inventor thereof, though without a president; Nor did we think it a vain consideration that he, having an estate considerable, and having besides no small advantage by cleansing this seed, while others cleansed it as well as he, that he should now, as one not content there with endeavour to grasp all into his own hands, thereby opening the mouths of men to judg him and revile him as a covetous person; to the dishonor of Religion; and indeed how he may be cleered (I cannot tell) from censures of that kind, since, for the sake of this wedge of Gold, (cir­cumstanced as aforesaid) he could part with his brethren (greatly beloved) at once, and not only so, but all his Chri­stian privil does respecting communion; and as he parted with, and lost these on the one hand (with who, upon the like account, besides a Worldly-minded man would do?) so on [Page 17]the other hand he purchased infamy to himself, and reproach to the Gospel, and also rendred himself an occasion of stum­bling to the Sons of Men, while sometimes upon the road, sometimes in the Markets, and sometimes elsewhere, persons were heard revileing, defaming, and cursing him upon this ac­count: and what, may such a man that shall loose freely so much good, and purchase unavoidably so much evil, and all for that which is but momentary, yet think himself innocent herein? Oh how is it to be lamented!

The matter then before specified, and thus circumstanced, being had in publick consideration, and those wholsome Laws, and Gospel rules, mentioned and given in charge by the Apostle for the prevention of offences, and things of an ill report, being produced, and treated of without offering the least al­teration of his mind, he also after an unworthy manner cen­soring some of his brethren in the face of the Assembly, we thereupon did judg him as one that did transgress the whole­som Laws of the Gospel, and so unfit for, and unworthy of, communion. Even, those wholsom Laws (we mean) that the Saints of old (in order to a Gospel-Honoring conversation) were enjoyned to observe; namely, give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God, and that not only in Eating and Drinking, but whatsoever we did, we should do all to the Glory of God, and not please our selves, nor seek our own profit, but the profit of others that might be Saved. 1 Cor. 10. and that, if their be any vertue, if there be any praise, whatsoever things were lovely and of good report, they ought be the thinking on those things. Phil. 4.8. Which counsel of the Apostle, occasioned by that forgoing discourse of his, where he chargeth them not to eat that which was lawful to be eaten, when by their so doing, others were offended, sheweth that Christians (in order to their doing all things to the Glory of God) should carefully avoid all occasions of ill reports, and not give offence to any, nei­ther the Church nor the World, which (as cases might be cir­cumstanced) they might do by the performance of things, (otherwise) lawful; provided always that it be construed to such things as are only lawful, and so may be done, and not such things as are matter of duty, and so must be done. The which is readily granted by Richard Haynes himself, saying, Pag. 27. That if his brother (formerly a Jew) being week dares not [Page 18]eat swins Flesh, because once forbiden, and so could not have communion with those that he knew did eat it, rather then to offend such a one, he would eat no meat while the World stood, notwithstanding swins Flesh be lawful in its self to be eaten: so that now that which he hath conceived to be our Judgments about the not offending brethren, is no other but that his own opinion and judgment in the same case of not offending, is come within, even, a hairs breadth of the same; the difference being only (as himself defines it) that the strong should bare the infirmities of the weak, in all such cases as have relation to matters of Religion and Worship, and not in such civil cases as his; now so much as the eating swins Flesh is contrary to the true Religion and Worship of God, in the weak brothers account, more then his coveting this Patent, thereby raking, and grasping in all to himself, to the Gospels reproach, and offence of the brethren, is contrary to the pure Religion and Worship of God in our account, (which plainly is that a man keep himself unspoted from the World) so much and no more is the difference betwixt us. Surely, either none at all, or now if any there be, let it be shewn, at leastwise any requiring such a publication, what, may one weak brother (formerly a Jew) who by reason of his weakness cannot have communion in case swins Flesh be eaten, though the eating thereof be lawful in the sight of God, may such a one (I say) find more favour with R.H. then a whole congre­gation, that could not have communion with him in case he did prosecute that Patent design.

Nor is that all which may be wondered at, for as in the case justified by him about the not eating swins Flesh, there is not only a disproportion betwixt a single person offended, and a whole congregation offended; but also that the single persons offence is only injurious unto himself without any such atten­dance as the dishonor of the Gospel and injury to others, when as the Congregations offence is attended with (as a main thing too in our account) dishonour to the Gospel, and so injury to many others, that by that means may stumble at the Truth.

And whereas he supposeth injustice and cruelty in our proceedings against him, for that he conceives he hath not broken neither the Law of God nor man: doth not R. Haines himself (that hath laid so many grevious complaints against us) now plainly justifie us? [Page 19]by saying that he might justly be charged as an offender, and (as in his other initance) publikly to be blamed if obstinate. Pag. 27. (as was his case) and all this for eating swins Flesh, which to do, is neither the transgression of the Law of God nor man; nay, when I enquire whether he doth not now justi­fie us? may I not say that he doth (as it were) more then justifie us? because in our proceedings against him, we were not satisfied that his Patent might as lawfully be prosecuted, as swins Flesh might lawfully be eaten: but if to that satis­faction we had attained, yet that pen which hath so often and so much abused us, is made, even, in such a case now to justifie us. And doth it not then follow that this so great a heat of Spirit flows from something besides and before, the Patent too?

Moreover, since the eating things offered to Idolls, whereby the weak brother is made to transgress in matters of Religion, is in his account a sin, and such a sin too, that deserves publick rebuke (as he confesseth, Pag. 27.) is it not as much, if not more deserving rebuke, this his Patent proceedings (against all Counsel and advice to the contrary) since not only one per­son (as he states the case thus blamable) but many persons of the World, is thereby lyable to disesteem the true Religion and Worship of God, and so to harden themselves in their salfe ways of Religion, and so many may come to perish for whom Christ died? and therefore if he did esteem it his lawful right (though one may think it could not be done without some doubts, being circumstanced as aforesaid) should he not have said (and accordingly done) that, rather then thus to dishonor the Gospel, offend the Congregation (and many others) and loose communion and Christian priviledges, I will not have such a Patent as long as the World stands? consider in the true fear of God.

Whereas also he often affirms, that I should say that Patents were of the Devil. My answer is, that therein (as in many other cases) he chargeth me falsly. Secondly, we the Congregation do testifie that we never heard our brother Caffyn so to speak. Thirdly, I. H. S. desired to come to London by letter from R. Haines, to be a witness for him, in which letter he seems to speak that I did not only hear brother Caffyn say that Patents were of the Devil, but also that he did declare it at the latter end of his sentence of Excommunication: [Page 20]I. H. S. do hereby declare that I neither heard brother Caffyn so to speak in the latter end of his sentence of Excommunication, nor at any other time, save only that he at some time said, that the evil one put him upon his Patent particularly.

And whereas he is pleased to call me great Apostle, and to say (in answer to a supposed question. Pag. 43.) that he was wholly ignorant of my great Office and Authority. All may know (if any yet do not know) that I never pretended to any thing of that kind, save only, as one sent to preach the Gospel, but in divers respects beneath, and inferior to those sent out heretofore, as the Apostles of Christ; and so never thought my self to be, nor was thought of others to be, in any other Office, or place of Authority, then those that he again and again appealed unto at the general meeting at London: so that his pointing at my name particularly, must needs flow from a Spirit of ma­lice against me particularly; but to be as short as I can, the Reader is to observe, That

Whereas he saith, I think my self equal with St. Paul. Pag. 6. that I (with the Congregation) do judg that my displeasure is punishable (without submission) with no less then eternal damnation. Pag. 15. That I do contemn the Authority of all above me. Pag. 18. That tis not necessary in my Government to reprove according to the Scripture Rule, that I have in effect Autherity to do all, to wit, accuse, judg and condemn. Pag. 20. That Whoredom, Fornication, or Idolatry, is rather allowed of then this of the Patent. Pag. 21. That if a certain person did not confess her sin to me, she must (according to my principle) be damned eternally. Pag. 44. That I prophesied he should not prosper neither in body nor estate, Pag. 53. That I question the Kings Royal perogative in secular things. Pag. 41.

All which, I do hereby solemnly protest against as false, and most unworthy accusations, which together with those many before named, and yet is to be named, respecting per­ticular cases yet to be spoken to, (passing over other things of like kind) will make up such measure, as if it were heaped up, pressed down, and runing over to the great shame of the accuser, and I could wish that in the issue it might tend to his humiliation, for I do not desire that the Lord may lay it to his charge.

Further, he chargeth against me partiality, and conniving at sin, &c. And I suppose none may think (considering his so [Page 21]great malice against me) that he hath left unmentioned any thing that either near, or afar of, lately or formerly, he could meet with, all which fairly answered as it respecteth me (which to do, through grace, I nothing doubt of) he may reasonably doubt of ever obtaining his end; for these things now con­siderable were, (I suppose) partly more then seven Years ago, and in a nother County, and partly (I suppose) about five and six Years ago, and partly more lately, but all of it (a very lit­tle excepted) while he was in communion with us; nor can he plead (at leastwise to all) that he was ignorant thereof till now, for in the case of the woman dying under blame, him­self tells the Reader, Pag. 44. That 'twas before the difference betwixt us, gathered from a certain discourse between he and I, about which he then signified not the least dislike as I know of, nor at any time since, this publication being my first in­formation; and now with no less aggravation then an infallable mark of Popish infallibility: but as touching the matter, I re­member nothing thereof, save only a few words with him in way of some mistrust of her condition, but that I should, for want of her confession to me, that I might forgive her my self, say, that 'twas all one if she did repent of her sin before she died; and so conclude her one that could not enter into the Kingdom, for want of my pardon: my answer is, that I know no such thing as ever spoken by me, nor at any time believed, but rather that a sinner may truly repent before God, and so enter the Kingdom, who yet for want of either opportunity, or capassity of body, may not con­fess his sin to the offended; neither is it true that the controversie lay between the woman and I, if thereby he mean, the woman and I only, for sever I were acquainted therewith, and her Husband the party that was originally offended, (and in some respects more concerned then ever I was) who is ready to testifie the truth thereof.

And whereas this womans infirmities, reproved by me and others, consisted in her two much bitterness of Spirit (to the preventing her Husbands will) against her Husbands daughter that came home with a great belly (one never in the profession) who charging it upon a certain person, he readily confessed it, and so married her; whereas (I say) the case was so, he having no other cause (for doubtless if he had, he would even gladly [Page 22]have published it, he concluds the matter, with this question, namely, which of the two, the Mother or the Daughter, I had most kindness for.

To which question, and what else seemingly may look that way elswhere; I shall only say, that God Almighty (the alone searcher of hearts) knows both his and mine, and if I should be innocent herein, and in all cases of that kind, (as the Lord knows I am, and ever was, who, should I not be upright herein, would be a swift witness against me) and he should be a man that have been really and foulely guilty in cases of that kind, and now become an Enemy to him that has told him the truth; how dreadfully, presumptuously, and daringly, doth he thereby Treasure up Sin and Wrath, against the day of Wrath, unless timely and greatly he doth repent?

And whereas he endeavours to render me partial in my proceed­ings against a man and his wife, whom he would suppose to be my Fa­vorite, because my kinswoman, of whom he speaking, Pag. 11. saith, that there was a necessity of marrying her to some body, as if she were with Child by some one besides her espoused Husband. The case was thus, to wit, that these persons being engaged one to the other, did, before publike marriage according to Law, accompany together, the which when they had done, being under trouble of conscience (as was declared) did voluntarily tell the same to a certain friend, from whom I had the Relation, and so did immediately take an opportunity to treat with them about their transgression, and finding them in a humble fram, consider­ed with their voluntary acknowledgment, did proceed no fur­ther as to any publike rebuke; yet not so satisfied as to permit either of them to communion, neither have they unto this day: in process of time some imaginations did arise, and at last a discovery of the unlawful fact, as that the Gospel thereby was lyable to be evil spoken of, whereupon we at a publike firstdays-meeting before the Church (and others) bare our testimony against their ungodly proceedings, without the least shew of favour to one more then another.

The truth of which we the Congregation do testifie. And further say, that we never heard before (the fruit of malice discovered it) the least word drop from any of our brother Caffyns favouring his kinswomen in that particuler.

As touching the person that did Beat and (as he saith) Curse his tired Horse, from the relation of which, he further argues partiality in me; the Reader is to observe, that when I under­stood there was such a report of this person, and that he did deny what was reported, I nevertheless did (with another Friend, and two more sober persons, not in fellowship with us) go to the place where 'twas reported that such words of Cursing was spoken, and went from house to house treating with those that were concerned in the report, and finding them partly to differ in their testimony, and partly mistaken, as in the case of his Riding by the Reporters house after such a manner as was described, when as it appeared that he came by the house on Foot, driving his Horse before him, having also the testimony of one that Rod along the Road with him, not very far from him, when the Reporters say he spoke those words, who testifieth that he heard him speak no such thing: so likewise saith some others, who were nigher them then the Reporters, having also a paper subscribed by several of his nei­hgburs, that under the greatest provocations, they never heard him to Curse nor Swear. We (I say) finding the case after this manner, though it were true, that two or more did testi­fie they heard him speak such words, which he did possitively deny, we knew not, neither yet do we understand that 'twas our duty to condemn him as a Transgressor in the case of Cursing, upon their bare testimony, in contradiction to his denyal, and the circumstances aforesaid: though as to beat­ing his Horse too furiously and intemperately, (yet with no­thing but a common flash) we did judge him worthy of blame, which he also readily confessed, neither may R. H. think it strange that we receive not the testimony of these persons, while we blamed him (as yet we do) for not dealing righteously with a poor man about a bargin of Clover, he be­ing accused by one single witness in the same capacity; be­cause our blaming him respects his own account and confes­sion of the matter, and not a contrary account from the party concerned, which must have been true to have rendred his charge against me just and reasonable.

And whereas R. H. further declareth this persons unwor­thiness, (I suppose more then seven years ago) in smiting his [Page 24]Apprentice with his Fist, he being one that was in the Profession, and consequently that I was guilty of partiality, in reproveing the same but gently and sparingly: The Truth is, that at our Meeting, with respect to this persons Transgression, after due blame laid upon him, and his ready acknowledgment of the same, he was required to go to the people, where in his passion, this evil was acted, and there to confess his sin before the people, the which accordingly he did, as may be proved, whether therefore this may evidence my partiality, or his malignity, let the Reader judge.

Further as to this person R. H. saith, That in his apprehensions he serveth two Gods, to wit, me as one, and his belly as another God. From which person, (I being not at all concerned in the case) take this acount, namely, whereas such and so great Idola­try is suggested against me, because that I did for some time for­bare eating and drinking with him, and yet nevertheless at a certain time did in his Chamber eat and drink with him, and said that I could do so again, and since have refused to eat and drink with him, from whence I am published to be guilty of so great Idolatry, p. 11. these are to let the Reader understand, that my eating and drinking with him at that certain time, though true in the same Chamber, was no more (at leastwise in my judgment) then what might consist both with my former and latter practises; for as he called for something for himself, I also called for something for my self, and after a distinct manner, eat the same by my self, though at the same Table; which measure of distinction (however others might do in such a case) I thought to agree with my Principles, and therefore said, I could do it again; how then righteously it could be said, that I thereby did Idolize Brother Caffyn, I verily know not; since what I did, was with respect to Religion, as him­self in his own Relation confesseth, I pretended for my so re­fusing to accompany with him, but then how I should, either justly or reasonably be thought by him to serve my Belly as another God, I neither can understand, unless by concluding that in eating with him (as aforesaid) to please and satisfie my Belly, thereby I did what I was perswaded really and Re­ligiously I ought not to do, which if so he thought, then doth he at once destroy the only foundation laid to bare up his o­ther [Page 25]argument to prove that I did Idolize brother Caffyn as another God, to wit, that I did sorbare eating with him to please my Idol Caffyn. Alas, the darkness! Alas, the envy of this poor man! again, how it should be thought that I (or any) should forbare eating and drinking with persons Excommunicated to please brother Caffyn (which supposeth him displeased, if not) I reasonably cannot think, because 'tis manifest (too evidently to be denyed) that several friends are not (nor ever were) convinced that 'twas their duties to abstain from eating with such, who nevertheless are his well-beloved brethren.

As touching another person whom he represents as one covetous and deceitful, for that he, having some-estate, and a good Trade, nevertheless covets another, and to maintain the same, bound himself as an Apprentice to a person at some distance. The true Relation whereof (according to my best information) is thus, namely, that this person having served an Apprenti­ship with a Master that was a Taylor by Trade, and also sold Cloath and other things (very common to persons of that Trade) he in process of time, when Trading for himself as a Taylor, did also sell Cloath with other com­modities, during which time, he came to obey the Gospel, keeping forth his Trade as before, with whom R. H. as well as we had communion several Years, without the least dislike shewed on his part, as ever I heard; and afterwards when he had a Tryal at the Assizes about his selling Cloath, &c.

He was (serving such a Master as aforesaid, who was present to bare his Testimoney thereunto) he was (I say) justified by Law, without the least plea from, or advantage by, his being an Apprentice, which through some fear he submitted unto.

Further, R. H. to prove another of his brethren an Ido­lator, and that he was more ready to do the will of his new Lord, then the will of him in Heaven, he saith, that while he was forward (with others) to Excommunicate him for a pretended sin against his new Lord, he was backward or neglected his duty towards God, in way of reproving him in another case according to what he thought his sin deserved. To which I say, that unless he had first [Page 26]proved that this persons not bareing with him, and so con­curing with the Church, in their proceedings against him, had been because he had sined against me, his New Lord, as he is pleased to speak, Pag. 14. and not in conscience of his duty towards God, not only without good, but also without shew of Reason; and so I return it back to his shame: it being well known that this person was so far from censuring R. H. to please me, as that he was, and yet is, convinced that his coveting this Patent was not only a sin against God, as many believe it, but in some respect a sin wherein others do not so understand it; and as touching this persons presenting R. H. his sin in another case after that manner in the meeting, which for some time before was acted, and had not been publikely reproved, the account from the said person is, that though it be true, sometimes he was made to doubt, by Reason of his smooth words, whether it might deserve such reproof or no, though at some other times again satis­fied that it did, yet that he did readily confess his sin there­in, and not only to him but also at the meeting at London, where R. H. did accuse him for it, before all the friends then present, he did confess his fault therein, as I suppose many do well remember, and as I do well remember: what should be the occasion of its now publication I cannot interpret, unless his continued wrath which worketh not the righteousness of God.

Further R. H. Pag. 15. To prove another of his bre­thren to be an Idolator, tells the Reader that he at a certain time should say, that he could as freely Steal a Horse as to have a Patent. From whence he proceeds thus, saying, I pray Sirs observe how great zeal appears in this deluded person for the obser­vation of the new Laws of this his new Lord, for rather then to sin against his commands, he had rather sin against the commands of the most high God. And thereupon concludingly speaks that I must needs be their Idol, and so calls upon all that are not seduced to judg in this matter. Alas, poor man! will he judg all men are seduced that doth not see the weight of Truth and Rea­son, which (by this general appeale) he supposeth attends him in this his arguing? may it not be thought rather that among even the seduced, in many points, and much more [Page 27]among them that are not seduced, that unless he had first proved that this persons zeal against his Patent had been to please me (called by him, his New Lord) and not out of conscience to God, may it not (I say) rather be thought, that judgment may be given against him, as one Reasoning without Reason?

But while he thus, either for the want of the Use of Reason, or uprightness, pleads, and all this too from the report of another disorderly person, the person concerned saith, that his words were only that he thought he could as freely have fellowship with him that had stolen a Horse, as with him that should have such a Patent, for that in his account 'twas covetousness: and so a transgression of Gods Royal Law as stealing was.

And whereas he Further represents me as an actor of Ʋsur­pation, because sometimes I have signified my fears, that while persons are intent upon, and deeply exercising their un­derstandings about matters of civil controversies, they may (and sometimes do) forget their Christian obligations, and so misbehave themselves, as also because of the reproaches that probably may come by the discontented parties; he might as well have known (however others do) that I have not usurpingly withstood such undertakings, for that seve­ral amongst us have concerned themselves in making peace between their Neighbours. Where then is this New Law of Ʋsurpation which he speaks of? Pag. 8. Doth a mans fears and so his particuler dislike make it a Law? surely no. Much less an Act of Ʋsurpation deserving such a publication. But this only more shall I say to it, that while he so much pleads for making peace between men, himself is become an enemy to the peace of them that very lately he esteemed most faithful and beloved brethren.

But saith he also, I reproved him for keeping company with great Persons. What, would he hereby, while himself insi­nuates into their favour, endevour to cast me out of their favour, that so he might the better accomplish his malitious design? Alas, poor man! I would have him know that in simplicity and humility to stay upon God, is a more surer refuge, and Rock of defence, then by sinful subtilty to [Page 28]comply with, and put confidence in the Arm of Flesh. True it is, that I having some fear that he might among some persons of note, take that liberty which would nei­ther be Honourable to the Truth, nor conducable to the good of those he associated with, did cautionally, but not censuringly, drop a few words of that import, yet is it no other then what occasionally many do without gain-saying: but the better to effect an evil eye in them against me, he (as one little questioning whether their prudence would lead them to comply with his reasonless distracted thoughts of malice) further imagineth, and so declareth that I had some great antipathy against such Men; and, as an agravation of my supposed transgression in those cautionary words, he tells the Reader, that those persons of Quality that he asso­ciated with, were such as I well knew to be sober men of good report, and Favorites to that which is good.

To which I say, that if I conjecture aright, whom he means (of which I do not much doubt) then I must confess that I have no reason to gainsay him therein, nor have I any Reason to think, that he doth not associate with some other persons of whom those things cannot so well be spoken. Yet again have I no Reason to think that among any of them, such a Spirit of malice against professors rules, that leads them to do, not only what he thinks may be done, but what he believes is his duty to do; the which (if I mistake him not) his words do imploy, which are these, Pag. 37.

Now, whether he doth not by all this, intimate a com­pliancy of his Spirit, that I should be prosecuted against, even, unto death temporal, who have (as he suggesteth, if any one would believe him) punished him with eternal torments, (though in truth the end of our punishing him by the censure of the Church is to preserve him from pu­nishment eternal) now whether (I say) by all this he do not intimate such a thing, I leave to be considered; in conjun­ction with his Dream, which (were it Divine) signifieth no less then that he that used to stand at the upper end of the Table, and perform his Devotion (called by him, in way of reproach, unjust Judg or false Apostle) was lost and could no where be found. Pag. 51. To which I shall only say, he that hath a Dream, let him tell his Dream, and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully, what is the chaff to the VVheat saith the Lord?

And whereas he seemeth to render me as one faulty, Pag. 9. For that I did not accept of an Offenders confes­sing of his offence, for that 'twas not from the heart, I preten­ding (as he saith) to know the heart. My answer is, that from what appeared, and doth yet appear, I with the Congre­gation were, and yet are, dissatisfied with that person in respect of communion: nor is that true touching this per­sons committing, [...] in my conceit many Years agoe, the which as 'twas a sin against God I could bare with, but when he had sinned against my self, then I could not: For that 'twas no more in my understanding, save only suspition of sin from report, and that not several Years agoe neither (as he saith) but some late report that lead me, but no Further then into private enquiry; without the least discovery on my part to the infamy of either of the persons concerned. 'Tis true that some endevours on my part have been to make discovery of sinners (for which it may be feared that some hate me,) but none of the Godly and Truly gratious Souls; but I consider that to lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, is no more then what the more worthy Prophets of the Lord have meet with, Isa. 29.21. But yet as to the creeping into a House and standing behind a wall, to hear the discourse of some [Page 30]persons thereby to make discovery of sinners, the Reader may observe that (passing by the mistake of the Relation) what thereof is true concerning me, is no more then what the same disorderly person, now abeting this man, (and the reporter thereof) did (before the discovery of his now transgressions) speak in way of justification thereof, as J. E. doth testifie being an eare witness. And whereas the Re­lation supposeth some fear and mistrust of one of these persons, 'tis to be observed that accordingly in time it did appear, that is, some uncivil behaviour, for which cause the person was kept out of communion some Years: and also observable it is, that the matter concerning which the Reflection is, was about six Years agoe, since which time both Richard Haines and the other disorderly person, and the now reporter thereof, have had long communion with the Congregation; and yet is it far more evident that a malitious Spirit is the now Author of this Relation; for that long agoe the reporter was told in the Congregation (as also before) when there the case was proposed by him, that such a practice as he spoke of then (and as is now printed) was not justified nor allowed of neither by me, nor any other; The truth of which, we the Congregation can testifie.

Moreover, he declareth that he had b [...] [...]med that I did (to evidence that self interest could [...] induce me thus to appear against him, but rather t [...] [...]prehension of my duty towards God) makes mention of his respects considerably large towards me; and thereupon doth (in a way much beneath Christianity, if I may not say common humanity) reflectingly say these words. Pag. 35. To wit, that he did always [...] his contributions to one of the Deacons to be disposed thereof according to [...] discretion; and whether Bell devour'd all, and the poor eate none, and the Idol ignorant (till of late) from whence he had his belly full I know not. To which we the persons (S. L. D. P.) receiving his contributions in in order to the disposing thereof, do hereby testifie that as tis true we received some thing from him, so also tis true that according to his direction, the same was faithfully disposed of, that is to say, partly [Page 31]to the poor, and partly to our brother Caffyn, without the least shew given for this Reflection.

Nor had he cause to Reflect ingratitude upon me for that I could, I suppose, shew him the very place where it was signified, but had there been somewhat really worthy of reproof, the Reader may easily conclude that the time, which his contributions now spoken of respects, was while he was in fellowship with us; which if so, what may be the Reason of these publike reflections now, and not the least suspition then sig­nified, I cannot conceive, unless to gratifie the Spirit of malice, and vain glory that doth as it were here­by, blow a Trumpet of what formerly he hath done.

And whereas he also Further suggesteth to the Rea­der, that I hold an errour concerning the Lord Jesus, and that Mr. M. had VVrot something against it; the Rea­der is to understand that the Title of the Book is but partly represented by Richard Haines, to wit, a cure for the Cankering errour.

Which being [...] presented is, a Cure for the Can­kering errour of the New Eutychians, which errour at no time was, nor yet is by me beleived, nor do I, as con­cerning the Lord Jesus, nor any other point of Faith, or religious Worship, [...] then the very same [...] was believeed [...] [...]fessed when he for many Years [...] And if by his saying, that I deny that Jesus Christ took his Flesh of the Virgin Mary, he means, that the Redemption of Mankind is no more pretious then the Death, and Blood-sheding of a body of Flesh, in the fallen Estate, under Condemnation for Original sin, and that was in the beginning of the Earth, as the first Man Adam was, then do I readily declare my dissent thereunto, and so will (in some respect) the Author of that Book, (Mr. M.) and most others.

But this I consent unto, and verily believe, that the true Messiah, whom the Father hath sealed to be the Blessed Saviour of the World, was conceived in the Virgin Mary, and there took our Nature, and our Form, and so was in all points like unto his Brethren, sin excepted; the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, con­fessed to be, while the first Man was of the Earth, Earthey, the second Man the Lord from Heaven, 1. Cor. 15.47.

Finally, as it is true that there is many more great swelling words of Vanity, proceeding from his trou­bled Spirit, unanswered, as if I were a friend to Popish infallability, and had an unlimited power, and admi­rable greatness, and that knowingly, purposedly, and designedly I told a lye, without making any mention wherein, together with many other things unworthily, and untruly charged, too large here to repeat, nor do I see material cause obliging me thereunto; there be­ing such a cloud of Witnesses [...] his more then ordinary envy, his malitious insinuations, his bitter expressions, his false accusati [...] [...] [...]is manifold re­proaches cast upon me (and [...] [...]ot long since were judged by him (as his [...], Pag. 2.) most faithful most worthy [...] with a dis­covery of [...] regardlesness [...] Honour, the [...] credit [...] good of Souls, by this his pub­lication [...] feared that [...] is as [...] by [...] seems to [...] if [...] you my [...], then let me beg of you the [...] [...],

First, That you all in Gods fear, whose judgments are made manifest, take heed of rejecting or sliting the admonition of Gods people, as this poor man to his great injury hath done.

Secondly, That you do, in the sence of the great danger, and deplorable condition he seems to be in, pray for him, that God may not lay all these things to his charge, so as hereafter to suffer the due desert of the same.