Why should I? All you've proven is that the unitarian heirs of puritanism diverged from the congregationalist heirs of puritanism about a half century after the unitarian doctrine showed its ugly head within the remnants of the puritan church. The bottom line is you simply don't like the fact that unitarianism is the lineal heir to your beloved puritans so now you grasp at any and every straw possible to obscure the relationship.
Just as the evangelical heirs of Puritanism diverged. Except that the evangelicals, even Arminian ones, have always been theologically closer to Puritanism. Yet you continue to insist that Unitarians are the "real" heirs and evangelicals aren't. I have now demonstrated that the ONLY reason you can give to exclude evangelicals as "lineal descendants" of Puritans applies equally to Unitarians. Yet you persist.
Your later quotation from the same source demonstrates nothing other than Unitarians' desire to hijack what they themselves rejected (this is obvious). And it certainly doesn't help the fact that the basis of your case has been conclusively shown to be false.
It's now evident that your problem is not ignorance but malice. As of #137, you lost. Anything further from you is just digging deeper in the hole you made for yourself.