At the next Quarterly Meeting which was holden at Reading on the 4th of the 3d Month, 1691. John May and James Mathew gave an Account, that according to the deſire of the laſt Meeting, they had ſpoken with A. Bonifield, and that he did fignifie to them, That he was troubled that it had ſo come to paſs, that the Friends appointed before, had made a Journey in vain through his occaſion. And A. B. himſelf, being then preſent, did ſignifie the ſame to the Meeting; adding, That if Friends would accept of it, he would be content to bear the Charge of their Journey, or to that effect. And after ſome Diſcourſe about the Differences, A. Bonifield did offer it up again to the Meeting, to be ended by the ſame Friends before appointed, who being all preſent, except one, and Benjamin Antrobus of London happening to be there, A. Bonifield deſired that he might be put in the room or ſtead of that other Friend that was abſent: To which the Meeting, with A. B's conſent, did agree. And thereupon, after the Quarterly Meeting was ended, we ſeven who were appointed for that Service, did meet the ſame day about it, and had a full hearing of the matters in difference, A. B. reading ſeveral large Writings containing Charges againſt W. L. and J. B. all which being attentively heard, duly weighed, and well conſidered of, in the Fear and Counſel of the Lord, we gave our Senſe and Judgment upon the whole matter, according to the Underſtanding we had received from God therein. Which Judgment being drawn up in Writing, and Subſcribed with all our Names, we ſent a Copy thereof to A. Bonifield, which is as followeth.

Againſt this Judgment A.B. and R.S. exclaimed extreamly, calling it an Unrighteous Judgment. And when at the next Quarterly Meeting (which was at Newberry the 6th of the 10th Month, 1691.) it was read, A.B. being preſent, was ſo Clamorous and Troubleſome, that the Meeting could not well proceed in their buſineſs. For which reaſon partly, and partly becauſe ſome Friends were willing to try what might be done, to bring him to a ſenſe of his evil doing, and to repent thereof; that ſo the Recording of it might have been ſpared, it was not Recorded in the Book at that Meeting. (Which tenderneſs towards him, he hath ſince made an evil uſe of, falſly ſuggeſting, as if the Meeting was not ſatisfied therewith, and could not agree about Recording of it;) but at the next Quarterly Meeting following, it was Recorded by Order of the Meeting in the Meeting-Book: A.B. (who was preſent) behaving himſelf more like a Man bereaved of his Sences, than like a Sober Man, threatning a ſad Judgment that ſhould fall on Friends, if they did Record that Unrighteous Judgment (as he called it) for he by his great ſwelling words, would have frighted Friends (if he could) from doing it. But Friends ſaw his Spirit to be wrong, and Recorded the Judgment, which hath ſtood, and will ſtand over him, and let him twiſt or twine which way he can, he will never get from under it, unleſs he Repent.

Thus Reader, I have given thee, as briefly as I could, a plain and true Account of this Matter, ſo far as the Quarterly Meeting was concerned in it; by which thou mayeſt ſee a pretty deal of A. Bonifield's Shifting Tricks, the uncertainty of his Temper, and the unrulineſs of his Spirit, which cannot reſt nor be quiet. He hath repreſented things in his Book far otherwiſe than in truth they were. But he is ſo hobled in the doing it, that from his own Book his Falſhood appears. He makes the ground of his refuſing to ſtand Tryal before thoſe Friends whom the Quarterly Meeting, upon his Complaint had (with his own conſent) referred it to; becauſe his Complaint was not openly read in the Quarterly Meeting. In this he diſcovers a great want both of Judgment and Sincerity. Had he not wanted Judgment, he might have ſeen, that as it was properly in the Power, and at the Diſpoſe of the Quarterly Meeting, whether a Complaint, not coming from a Monthly Meeting, but in a private manner, ſhould be read openly in the Meeting or no: So it was not reaſonable, that a Complaint againſt any Member or Members of the Meeting, ſhould be read openly in the Meeting, unleſs that Meeting had intended to have had the whole matter contained in ſuch Complaint Examined, Heard, Try'd and Determined in the open Meeting; which that Meeting did not think fit. Had he not wanted Sincerity, he would not have ſtarted back, and refuſed to ſtand to what the Meeting had Ordered, and himſelf had agreed to; much leſs would he have alledged this as a Pretence or Excuſe for his ſo doing, when-as he had conſented to ſubmit his Cauſe to be Heard and Determined by thoſe Seven Friends whom the Meeting had appointed thereunto, and the time was ſet for the hearing thereof, after he knew the Meeting had refuſed to have his Complaint openly read. And he himſelf afterwards, at the Quarterly Meeting at Reading, in the 3d Month, 1691. without having his Complaint openly read, did offer to leave his Cauſe to the ſame Seven Friends, that had been before appointed by the Meeting, for them to hear and end it, which ſhews his Exception againſt them both before and ſince, was but a Shifting Cavil, and that he was void of Integrity in urging it.

Beſides, the Reaſons (as he calls them) which he gives why he would have had his Complaint read openly; and why upon the not reading thereof, he refuſed to ſtand to the Meetings Order, and his own Agreement, doth ſufficiently manifeſt his own unreaſonableneſs; they are in p. 4, 5, 6. of his Book, where alſo he changes the Title of his Paper from a Complaint to a Petition, which word he repeats over and over, near half a ſcore times (I gueſs) and in his Confuſion, calls it ſometimes (and moſt often) a Petition ſimply; ſometimes a Petition, or Complaint; and anon a Petition and Complaint; not knowing himſelf what he would be at: Or as if he knew not the difference between a Petition and a Complaint, Charge or Impeachment. The fore part of that Paper which he calls, Something offered as the Reaſons of deſiring the publick Hearing or Reading of a Petition, &c. (which begins in his 4th page) hath nothing in it of Reaſon, or that looks like Reaſon; let him aſſign any Sentence out of it if he can. After that in p. 5. he ſets a new Title thus; Here followeth ſomething upon a Second and more Deliberate Conſideration, what I now find my ſelf concerned and beſt ſatisfied to do; and ſo far is he from offering Reaſons in this, that it rather ſhews his reſolute Will, than Reaſon: To this, in his 6. p. he adds a Poſtſcript, in which he ſays are Two weighty Reaſons for a Publick Hearing of the Petition; firſt, becauſe the Grievances therein contained, relate to the Monthly Meeting, ſo not a Private nor a Perſonal Concern. If this be true, it makes againſt him: For it is evident, the Monthly Meeting did not Imploy, nor Impower him to make Complaint, of any Grievances relating to them. He cannot, dares not, ſay they did; what then had he to do to exhibit a Complaint of Grievances relating to the Monthly Meeting, without the Order, Direction, or Appointment of the Monthly Meeting? Nay, without the Conſent or Privity of the Monthly Meeting? If he had not been a very Buſie Body, he might (one would think) have given the Monthly Meeting leave to have made their own Complaint of Grievances relating to them, if they had any. So that this is ſo far from being a Reaſon for him, that it is a Reaſon againſt him, weighty enough of it ſelf, to have juſtified the Quarterly Meeting, for not reading his Complaint openly in the Meeting. A.B's ſecond Reaſon is, Becauſe every Member is equally concerned to exerciſe the Senſe and Ʋnderſtanding that God has given them. This I grant, but when a Controverſie is brought to a Meeting, and that Meeting agree to commit the Hearing and Determining thereof to a Select Number, ſurely then, no Member of that ſaid Meeting ought further to concern himſelf in that matter, without the Concurrence of the whole Meeting.

To manifeſt yet farther the Ʋnfairneſs of this Man, obſerve that in p. 3. he ſays, I never left my Caſe wholly unto them, viz. the Seven, &c. or ſatisfied at all, nor any further nor otherwiſe neither, than as conſtrained and forced to what I did. When as all the Friends then preſent, know that he agreed with the Meeting in it. And his excepting againſt one (for the Meeting named eight at firſt) is an ARgument that he conſented to the Meetings Choice in the other Seven. But that which puts it out of all doubt is, that about half a year after, at the Quarterly Meteting at Reading, he offered to the Meeting to refer and leave his Cauſe to the Hearing and Determination of theſe ſame Seven Friends, whom the Meeting had choſen before, and that no delay might be occaſioned, by the abſence of one of them, he himſelf named another Friend, and deſired he might be added to the Six, in the room of him that was abſent; which plainly ſhews, he approwed the Choice, and accordingly he went on to exhibit, and make out his Charges before them.

Yet he hath another ſetch, which looks with rather a worſe face than the former; for when he ſaid, I never left my Caſe wholly unto them, viz. the Seven, &c. he adds, To ſubject or ſtand to their Award, any otherwiſe than only conditional, and with this proviſo, if managed impartially and to ſatisfaction, p. 3. and p. 5. He ſays, Seeing a Publick Hearing of it could not be obtained, I condeſcended to the aſo eſaid; provided it was done impartially and to ſatifaction. And in p. 6. ſpeaking of his having condeſcended to refer the matter unto the aforeſaid for an Hearing, Ending, &c. he adds, yet not without a conditional Reſerve. Now doth not this manifeſt great want of Sinoerity in him, to pretend and make a ſhew of giving up his Cauſe, and leaving it to Friends to hear and end; and yet at the ſame time have a conditional reſerve in his Mind, a ſecret Proviſo, to let himſelf looſe by? Doth this agree with his writing himſelf Thine in the Truth that is plain, Innocent, and void of the beguiling Crafts of men? Surely one would think he writ that Craftily, that he might the more eaſily beguile thoſe that are indeed Plain and Innocent. Now pray mark what this private Condition, this Mental Reſervation, this ſecret Proviſo was; he gives it in theſe words, viz. If managed impartially and to ſatisfaction, p. 3. Provided it was done impartially and to ſatisfaction, p. 5. Who was to judge whether it was done impartially, but himſelf? And for whoſe ſatisfaction did he provide, but his own? Was not this an abominable Juggle and Abuſe, for him to pretend to give up his Caſe to Friends, and leave it to them to Hear and Determine, and yet keep a ſecret Reſerve in his Mind, that if he was not ſatisfied with the end they made, he would not ſtand to their Determination? This among Men of the loweſt Pretences, either to Religion or Common Honeſty, is not counted Honeſt. He had better have told the Meeting at firſt, he would leave it to them, or ſuch as they ſhould chooſe, to end it, if they ended it to his ſatisfaction; otherwiſe he would Appeal from them, for ſo it ſeems he did intend from the firſt, as he intimates p. 5. I condeſended to the aforeſaid, provided it was done impartially and to ſatisfaction, elſe did intend (ſays he) to refer it, by Appeal, to the Yearly Meeting. And as he intended not to ſtand to our Determination, unleſs it were to (his) ſatisfaction, ſo it ſeems as if he had intended alſo, before we medled with it, not to be ſatisfied with what we ſhould do in it. For in the Paper he had drawn up before we came to enquire into it, (and which, when we came, he read to us as his Reaſons for refuſing to let us meddle with it) he ſays, Seeing there was ſuch an irregular ſtep made in the very beginning (by which he means the Meeting's not letting him read his Complaint in the open Meeting) we cannot reaſonably expect theſe few can either go on well, or end it, ſo as it ought to be to ſatisfaction. And ſo much had he poſſeſſed his Mind with that (or at leaſt pretended ſo) that when we came firſt to Reading about it, he would not open the matter to us, nor yield that we ſhould at all meddle with it. Now I deſire the Reader to obſerve and conſider the Nature, Temper and Spirit of this Man; how prone he is to Contention and Quarreling, and what contrivances he has, and what Proviſion he makes, to continue and perpetuate Diſcord and Strife; by excepting againſt the proper ways and means for ending it. For Experience ſhews it too ſeldom happens, when Differences fall out between Perſon and Perſon, that ſuch an end can be made thereof, by the moſt Judicious and Indifferent Perſons that can be choſen, as will prove to the ſatisfaction of both ſides. Now if the Perſons differing (after they have left, or referred their Difference to others to end) ſhall be at liberty on either ſide to fly off, and refuſe the Determination made, becauſe they don't like it, or it is not to their ſatisfaction, what end can be made of Differences? Surely this contrivance of his doth not proceed from the Peaceable Spirit of Chriſt: but from that Spirit which loves Diſſention and Diſcord, and would not willingly ever be without it, and therefore ſeeks, by all the ways it can, to encreaſe it and keep it up.

A. Bonifield hath another Exception againſt us, and that I think ſnews his Folly, as much as the former doth his Falſeneſs: He is angry that we gave any Judgment at all, alledging, that we were appointed for Reconcilers (not Judges) but to hear and end all Differences betwixt them, ſo he has it in his Title Page. And p. 6. he ſays, It was not for a Sentence or Judgment, but for Juſtice and Equity, Hearing and Ending of all Differences, that it was committed unto them. And p. 3. he ſays, Neither yet would any Rational. Man think, the aforeſaid at their Meeting Reading (unleſs I were beſides my ſelf, or wholly infatuated) a Meeting inter ••• d for Judgment, Sentence, &c. but Reconciliation, Hearing and Ending all Differences betwixt us; would any Rational Man, that reads theſe Paſſages, think otherwiſe of him, but he was beſides himſelf, and wholly infatuated when he writ this? Did ever any Man before this, blame Referrees, or thoſe to whom the Hearing and Ending of Differences was committed, for giving Judgment or Sentence between the Parties differing? Would he have had the Difference heard and ended without Judgment? 'Tis a ſign he is a Man of ſmall Judgment himſelf. If any have a mind to have buſineſs done without Judgment, they may ſend for him. We were (he confeſſes) to hear and end all Differences betwixt them; but he thinks we were not appointed to judge between them. To what purpoſe do Perſons hear Differences, but to end them? How is it likely they ſhould end them, if they may not declare where the ground of the Difference lies? Which Party is in the right, which is in the wrong? Who is to be blamed, and for what? If they declare this, that Declaration is Judgment or Sentence. When Perſons differ, each comonly thinks himſelf in the right, and his Adverſary in the wrong; if neither can convince the other, then (becauſe none is fit to be Judge in his own Cauſe) recourſe is had to others, who are Authorized to Hear and Determine. That Determination is commonly made, by declaring which of the differing Parties is in the wrong, or does the wrong, and wherein. And that is called giving of Judgment. But it is a folly next to madneſs, to ſay, as he does, they were appointed to hear and end all Differences, but not for Judges, or to give Judgment. I have heard ſay, that the Commiſſion by which the Judges ſit to try Cauſes at the Aſſizes, is called a Commiſſion of Oyer and Terminer, and that thoſe words ſignifie to Hear and Determine. Now would it not be a wiſe buſineſs for ſuch an one as Abraham Bonifield (if there be any ſuch one) to tell the Judge, when he is to try a cauſe, That he is appointed not to Judge, but to hear and end the Cauſe in difference? But what makes A. B. ſo averſe to Judgment? Surely it is no Credit to his Cauſe, nor ſign of Innocency in him. He might have remembred David's ſaying, The Mouth of the Righteous ſpeaketh Wiſdom, and his Tongue talketh of Judgment, Pſal. 36.30.

Now it is to be obſerved, that after we had heard A.B's Complaints and Charges againſt W. L. and J. B. and had given our Senſe thereupon, and the Quarterly Meeting approving the ſame, had cauſed it to be Recorded in the Meeting's Book, A. B. raged extreamly, and troubled Friends, both in City and Country with his Letters and Papers, as his Book ſhews, where he has Publiſhed the Copies of diverſe of them, to his own ſhame. In his 11th p. he hath Printed a Letter directed to the Friends of the Second Days Morning Meeting at London, filled with Complaints againſt particular Perſons, becauſe they would not own and joyn with him, when he took upon him to Preach and Pray in Publick Meetings, after he was gone into Enmity and Prejudice, and had rejected the Quarterly Meeting's Order, and broken his own Agreement. In his 12. and 13. pages he ſets a Copy of a Letter which he ſent to me, in which he very much abuſes me, as he doth often in his Book, endeavouring to faſten upon me, that at the Quarterly Meeting at Newberry, in the 5th Month, 1691. after we had heard his Complaints, and given our Judgment on them, when he Appealed to the Yearly Meeting, I ſhould propoſe a Medium, that the Buſineſs ſhould be referred anew to ſome Ancient Friends at London. This he repeats many times over in his Book, with as much confidence as if it were true; whereas I never made any ſuch Propoſal, nor was it likely I ſhould, ſeeing I was one of the Seven, who had heard and given Judgment on the Difference before. But ſeeing, after his many Repetitions of this Story, and Cavils about it, he refers to the Quarterly Meeting's Book for proof, ſaying, p. 49. But yet if any may be doubtful of the Truth of what is here alledged, and ſo often cited by me concerning him and it, &c. pray let ſuch have recourſe to their Quarterly Book, and the minute made upon it at the aforeſaid Meeting. Now though I was not doubtful, but certain that no ſuch Propoſition was made by me, I have ſearched the Quarterly Meeting's Book, that I might be the better able to ſatisfie others, and do find and declare, that there is no minute nor mention in the Meeting's Book, of any Propoſition made by me, or by any other Member of the Meeting, for A. B. to Appeal or Refer his Cauſe to either the Yearly Meeting, or any particular Friends. And all that is entered in the Meeting's Book, at the Quarterly Meeting, with reſpect to the Buſineſs of A. B. is this, viz. That the Friends appointed by the Quarterly Meeting, to hear the Complaints and Charges of A. B. againſt W. L. and J. B. and to put an end to all Differences between them, did give account that accordingly the ſame ſame day, they had a full Hearing of the whole matter, both of A. B's Papers and Charges, and W. L. and J. B's Anſwers. And when they had conſidered of the matters in the Counſel of the Lord (according to that meaſure of his Spirit and Wiſdom given to them) they drew up a Paper containing their Judgment upon the whole matter as before-mentioned, which Paper was now read. Now judge, Reader, whether this be not a very wicked Man, to forge ſuch a falſe thing, and to endeavour to faſten it upon me, and to revile and abuſe me thereupon, ſo ſhamefully as he hath done through his Book, when he had no ground for it: And to refer to the Quarterly Meeting's Book for proof of it, when there is no mention of it there. And indeed, all that I can remember that was ſaid at the Quarterly Meeting about it, was but this, when he threatned the Meeting that he would carry it by Appeal to the Yearly Meeting, or would lay it before ſome Ancient Friends, and named G. W. and S. C. I made anſwer to this effect, That whitherſoever he carried it, I did not doubt but all honeſt Friends that ſhould have the hearing of it, would have Ʋnity with us in what we had done in the mateer. And this evil minded man, hath the confidence to affirm over and over, that at the Meeting I propoſed his laying of it before ſome Ancient Friends at London, and that I named G. W. and S. C. on his part. But his own Confuſion, and ſelf-contradiction, ſufficiently ſhews the falſeneſs of his Story. For whereas at that Quarterly Meeting at Newberry in the 5th month, 1691. he threatned to Appeal to the Yearly Meeting, and ſays, p. 14. That I thereupon propoſed, as a medium, a Referrence to ſome Ancient Friends at London; he ſays in his 12. p. that the Letter he ſent to me, at the time of the Yearly Meeting at London, was in order for me be aſſiſtant with him in the Proſecution of the Appeal, propoſed by my ſelf at the Quarterly Meeting at Newberry: Here he makes as if I had propoſed his Appealing to the Yearly Meeting. But in his Letter to the Monthly Meeting at Reading, (dated near nine months before this, though placed after in his Book) he makes as if I had propoſed a Referrence to ſome ancient Friends, as a medium to prevent his threatned Appeal to the Yearly Meeting. And yet in his ſaid Letter afterwards to me at London, having mentioned his being (as he ſaid) neceſſitated to Appeal, he propoſes this Referrence as a new thing, thus, But to prevent nevertheleſs, the more Publick notice and knowledge thereof, if thou pleaſe, we may the rather endeavour to have it referred to a certain number of ancient Friends, &c. Thus he is in and out, ſtaggering and inconſiſtent with himſelf. Yet upon this falſe ſuggeſtion, that I propoſed this Referrence; he abuſes me at his pleaſure. In his 13th p. he ſays, when he ſpake with me after the ſame manner (at Gracious-ſtreet) as he had written, I ſeemed as a man ſurprized, and one amazed, as not knowing what to anſwer or ſay for my ſelf, but ſpeedily ſought for ſome Houſe or Place to get away and hide my ſelf from him. I did not know before, that he counted himſelf ſuch a terrible Body, that the ſight of him ſhould fright me; nor do I yet know any thing I have done, for which I need to hide my ſelf from him, or any one elſe, (though the company of ſuch a quarrelſome man is not deſirable to any one that loves Peace.) But this which he hath ſaid of me here, is modeſt in compariſon with what he ſays in p. 42. where he repeats this matter (for he loves to repeat things often over, that he may make the more noiſe) there he ſays thus, No ſooner had I ſpoken to him of it, but he immediately haſted and ruſhed away from me as a man affrighted and ſurprized, looking one way and another for his flight and ſpeedieſt getting away, and much like (ſays he) to the Thief (if I may uſe ſo pertinent a Simile) that deſires the dark and ſhadow of the Evening to cover and hide himſelf from the light and diſcovery of the day. How well this Language and Simile becomes him, I leave to the Reader to judge. But for all his repreſenting me ſo ſurprized and amazed at his Preſence, one might think he was in ſome great maze himſelf when he writ that Letter to me. For beſides it is nonſenſical throughout, he gives this for his Reaſon, why he would have the Difference then heard at London, viz. To prevent thoſe ſad and evil effects it hath already brought forth. I thought thoſe effects that are already brought forth, had been paſt preventing, But this is like him.

Beſides this Letter to me, he has Printed another which he writ to the Friends of the Monthly Meeting at Reading, and would read it to them, though it was after the Judgment given againſt him. After that, he Printed another which he brought to the Quarterly Meeting in the 8th month, 1692. and had the confidence to preſs to have liberty to read it in the Meeting, though he had abuſed and vilified the Quarterly Meeting before, and Appealed (as he ſays) from them to the Yearly meeting. Theſe ſerve to diſcover his own Folly and froward Diſpoſition. But that which is moſt ſtrange, is, that after he had ſo often declared how much he was in Conſcience concerned to ſtand up againſt W. L. and J. B. for Uſurping Authority, Rule and Lordſhip over Friends and Meetings, and had ſet forth his Charges in the moſt aggravating terms; He now tells us of an Offer he made to W. L. and J. B. of a free and voluntary forgiving and paſſing by of all Offences, &c. without either mentioning or bringing up of any of the Cauſes or Grounds of the Difference. Nay, he doth not ſo much as mention any ſhew of Sorrow, or token of Repentance, as a condition for this free forgiving and paſſing by of all Offences. By this it may be gueſſed what a ſort of Concern it was that he had, and how little there was of Conſcience in it. Yet he ſays, he was hearty and in good earneſt, and ſays, A. H. R. and M. S. can witneſs that he was ſo, who were Eye and Ear-witneſſes of it. But though they might be Eye and Earwitneſſes of his Propoſals, methinks they ſhould hardly undertake to be Witneſſes of his being hearty and in good earneſt. However he ſeems to impute the unſucceſsfulneſs of this, to W. L's asking him impertinent Queſtions, (as he calls them) about the frame and temper of his Spirit, and whether he was in a fit condition ſo to propoſe. One would think a Man that were in a good frame, and of a right Temper of Spirit, would not have counted that an impertinent queſtion.

Upon this I perceive he began to bend his Mind towards Printing. For the next thing in his Book, p. 16, 17. is, The Copy, (he ſays) of a Letter he ſent to G. W. and S. C. in order for their help and aſſiſtance, and to ſtop and prevent Printing. A long ſcribble he troubled them with, and to make them amends for it, ſuggeſts, (p. 18.) as if they had loſt, or pretended to have loſt, his Papers of Charges, Complaints, Grievances, &c.

It would be tedious, as well as needleſs, to take notice of all the impertinent Letters and Papers he has Printed in his Book. Therefore paſſing by ſome, I take notice that in a Paper without date, called, Some offers of Peace once more propoſed to W.L. J.B. &c. p. 19, 20. he returns to his pretence of Conſcience; and nothing leſs will ſerve his turn then, in order to Reconciliation with W. L. and J. B. than their confeſſing themſelves guilty of thoſe high Charges he had before exhibited againſt them, which he elſewhere tells us, are Crimes of an High and Criminal Nature. Yet in p. 22. he ſays, at a Meeting which he had with ſome Friends at London, he did ſign a Paper, containing a free and voluntary forgiving of W. L. and J. B. But immediately adds, In which I was neither clear, nor at all ſatisfied, becauſe neither Repentance manifeſted, nor any Satisfaction given to me, the Perſon aggrieved and offended. How ill doth this agree, with his fore-cited offer to freely and voluntarily paſs by all Offences, &c. without either mentioning or bringing up any of the Cauſes or Grounds of the Differences, which he brought A. H. R. and M. S. to witneſs, that he was hearty, and in good earneſt for? No mention in that Paper of their Repenting, Confeſſing, or giving him Satiſfaction. But in this other which he ſigned at London, he was neither clear, nor at all ſatisfied, becauſe neither Repentance manifeſted, nor any Satisfaction given to him.

But in this, as in moſt things, he is not without a reſerve: For though he did ſign that Paper at London, yet he intended not in the leaſt to hurt or give away his Cauſe, wound or boggle his Conſcience thereby; and why? Foraſmuch as the Crimes wherewith they are charged are of an High and Criminal Nature; viz. Spiritual Pride, over ruling of Meetings, and Lording it over Friends. Yet as High and Criminal as he calls theſe, he could but a little before, without wounding or boggling his Conſcience, make an offer of freely forgiving them, without any Terms of Repentance or Satisfaction. One would think when he was ſo ready and eaſie at propoſing Forgiveneſs, if he was hearty and in earneſt in it, he did not in earneſt believe, they were guilty of ſuch high and criminal Matters as he now repreſents them His next words open him a little further; It is to be noted (ſays he) that this my ſo large (if not too large) condeſcention to ſuch their deſire, was only complied unto by me, upon the apprehenſion or (as I thought) aſſurance of Friends being engaged to ſee that W.L. and J.B. ſhould do the like: And a little lower he ſays, I do declare, and that in the preſence of God, that I had never ſigned that Paper of theirs, had I not thought that they looked upon themſelves as ingaged, and would not have been concerned to have written down to W.L. and J.B. for them to do and perform their part (as I had done mine) &c. This is indeed to be noted, but not for his Credit. This ſhews how void of ſincerity he was in what he did, and that he did not act Conſcienciouſly, but politickly (with the beguiling Crafts of Men) thinking that by his ſigning that Paper, he ſhould have engaged the Friends that met with him to have brought W.L. and J.B. (who were innocent) under the ſame Circumſtances with him who was guilty. But here, it ſeems, his Policy failed him, and that has made him Rage the more.

About Three Months after this, I obſerve (from p. 23.) that G. W. coming to Reading, A. B. gave him ſome now trouble about his old Buſineſs, and through importunity got him to hear ſome of his Complaints; whereupon G. W. wrote a few Lines, as tenderly and favourably for him as could be: Yet that did not pleaſe him. He rejects that, as not being impartial, nor yet ſuch as with which his Conſcience could be ſatisfied. However he drew up a Paper the next Day, and delivered it to G. W. inſtead of his, of which he ſeems ſo highly conceited, that he not only ſays, it might, if truly made uſe of, and put in due practice among Friends, really tend to a true, juſt and laſting Peace and Amity between both them and him; but propoſes it likewiſe as a true and Chriſtian Method to be made uſe of, by and among all Friends every where, &c. This one would think ſhould be ſome notable thing; or elſe that he is notably conceited of his own doings. It conſiſts of ſeveral Heads, of which the firſt is this; viz. The beſt way to lay a Foundation of true and laſting Peace among us, is to fix Judgment upon that which is wrong, where-ever it is. What a Childiſh Man is this, that breaks his own Head by contradicting himſelf, in almoſt every thing he undertakes! When we by appointment of the Quarterly Meeting (and with his own conſent) had heard his Complaints and Charges againſt W. L. and J. B. and their Defence, and thereupon gave Judgment for putting an end to their Differences; he, becauſe we fixed Judgment upon him, who was wrong, not only exclaimed againſt that Judgment, (unjuſtly calling it wicked and unjuſt) but cried out moſt vehemently againſt us alſo, for giving any Judgment at all; ſaying, We were appointed for Reconcilers, not Judges; and that it was not for a Judgment or Sentence, but for Juſtice and Equity, Hearing and Ending of all Differences, that it was committed unto us. Now, all on a ſudden, he is for fixing Judgment, as the beſt way to lay a Foundation for a true and laſting Peace. But then this Judgment muſt be of his fixing, and that not upon what is wrong, but upon what he will call wrong. For in the following Heads of his Paper, he makes himſelf Judge, between himſelf and thoſe he differs with, peremptorily determining, that they have been the unpeaceable and unquiet Men; and directs, that they ſhould he as far diſowned as he has been. And as for the Judgment of the Seven, (which is indeed the Judgment of the Quarterly Meeting, both as the Seven were appointed by that Meeting, and as that Meeting hath Ratified that Judgment, by Recording it in their Book among the Acts of the Meeting) he declares it to be Ʋnjuſt, Ʋnrighteous, Partial, and Arbitrary in it ſelf, and would have it to be revers'd, and utterly exterminated; ſee his Paper in p. 24. So that for ought I ſee, that which he calls the beſt way to lay a Foundation of true and laſting Peace among us, is, to let one of the differing Parties be Judge over the reſt, and let him determine what is wrong, and fix Judgment upon that. But how far this would be from being a Foundation of true and laſting Peace, there is none, I hope, (beſides himſelf) of ſo little Judgment, as not to ſee.

That which follows next in A. B's Book, is, Obſervations both General and Particular upon that Paper, which we Seven, who were appointed by the Quarterly Meeting drew up, as our Senſe or Judgment upon the Differences; which Obſervations take up ſome eight Pages, or more, of his Book, and are filled with Railing, Reviling, Bitter Expreſſions, Unchriſtian Language, and ſuch Envious Reflections, without any ſolid Matter, or fair Reaſoning, but a continual Juſtifying himſelf by meerly ſaying ſo, without Proof or Demonſtration, that I do not think any Sober Man can Read them without great diſlike; therefore I do not hold it worth my while, to refute each particular which he hath written in thoſe Obſervations of his; his own Work therein ſufficiently refuting it ſelf. Yet that the Reader may ſee, that I have cauſe to ſpeak of them as I do, I will give him one Inſtance, by which he may judge of the reſt. It is in p. 28. and in his ſecond Obſervation, where having ſet down theſe words in our Paper, relating to himſelf; viz. Therefore our tender Advice is again renewed, to beſeech him in Bowels of Love to wait in humility and quietneſs upon the Lord, that in his me • k and lowly Spirit he may come to be Reconciled to his Brethren, &c. On this ſoft and gentle Advice, he makes this harſh and rugged Obſervation. The greateſt piece of Folly, (ſays he) Weakneſs, and ridiculous Nonſenſe, I think, that ever any Man was injoined. Would one not think this Man Mad, not only to call beſeeching, injoining; but to call it the greateſt piece of Folly, Weakneſs, and ridiculous Nonſenſe, to beſeech a Man in Bowels of Love to wait in humility and quietneſs •• on the Lord, that in his meek and lowly Spirit he may come to be reconciled this Brethren? Yet he ſticks not at this, nor ſtops here, but adds, and (it is) ſo diculous, the Caſe conſidered, that it rather beſpeaks the ſcorn and deteſtation of all than any notice to be taken of it, by all that cannot be thus beſeeched and bowelled out their Wits and right Senſes, the Matter in charge conſidered, which is True, and no 〈◊〉 What a paſſionate Spirit is this? What, to ſay it beſpeaks the ſcorn and ••• eſtation of all, to but beſeech one in Bowels of Love to wait in humility and q •••• neſs upon the Lord, that in his meek and lowly Spirit he may come to be rec •• iled to his Brethren; and to reckon them out of their Wits, and right Senſes, 〈◊〉 will take any notice of it? Then he goes on; Was ever the like falſe, corrupt, 〈◊〉 injurious Judgment, Injunctions, &c. given forth againſt, or injoined any Man 〈◊〉 ? Here he ſtops, and ſays, And this I think ſufficient at preſent, becauſe I ſh •• •• ve occaſion to infer further upon the ſame under the ſeveral other Heads; 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 yet according to his uſual inſtability and uncertainty, he runs on again, adding to the ſame Obſervation, thus, And would not the Papiſts themſelves as much tender, bowel, and beſeech, to make a Man turn Hypocrite, Lie, and Betray the Truth, &c. And may it not as truly be ſaid of you as formerly, viz. That your tender Mercies, Bovels, and Beſeechings, is Hardheartedneſs, Severity, and Cruelty? Judge now, Reader, whether the words he cited out of our Paper, as our tender Advice to him, deſerved ſuch an Obſervation, as this he hath made upon them. And by this thou may'ſt alſo gueſs at the reſt, for they are much-what after the ſame ſtrain.

In his 7th Obſervation, p. 29. he Cavils at our delivering our Senſe, that until he be reconciled to his Brethren, he ought not to offer his Gift upon God's Altar. Here he carps at the words [God's Altar] and ſays, If I muſt not offer it upon God's Altar, and Chriſt Jeſus be that Altar, then I pray you upon what other Altar ought I to offer it? Anſwer, Upon none; while in ſuch an unreconciled ſtate, but ſeek Reconciliation firſt. I hope, ſays he, you cannot barr up Heaven, &c. Anſwer, 'Tis his own Quarrelſome Spirit, that hath barred up Heaven to him and his Offerings, while he remains in that unreconciled State. He adds, I am ready to believe, it is the firſt time, that ever any Man was forbidden the Offering his Gift upon God's Altar. Hath he never read, or had he forgot, what Chriſt ſaid on that ſubject, in his Sermon on the Mount? Mat. 5.23, 24. Therefore if thou bring thy Gift to the Altar, and there remembereſt that thy Brother hath ought againſt thee; leave there thy Gift before the Altar, and go thy way, firſt be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy Gift. Was not this God's Altar, that they were then to offer upon? And were they not here poſitively forbidden to offer their Gifts upon God's Altar, unleſs they were firſt reconciled to their Brother? How came he then ſo readily to believe, that it is the firſt time that ever any Man was forbidden the offering his Gift upon God's Altar? Surely what Chriſt ſaid to ſome other Cavillers, might not unjuſtly be applied to him. Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God, Mat. 22.29. Had he known and conſidered this aright, he would not have taunted us, as he doth, ſaying, I pray you from whence derived you, or any Man on Earth any ſuch Authority, except from Rome, to ſo limit and enjoin me to ſilence, whoſe Mouth the Lord-hath opened, eſpecially under theſe, or ſuch Circumſtances; or to thus endeavour to limit or quench the Spirit of God in me? &c. For he might have ſeen that this Authority (if he will needs have it ſo, though we exerciſed no Authority over him, but beſought him in Love) was derived higher than from Rome, or any Earthly Man, even from the Heavenly Man Chriſt Jeſus. Nor is it the Mouth which the Lord hath opened, that we would have ſhut or ſilenced; but that Mouth of his which the Enemy hath opened to reproach, revile, and ſpeak evil of the Faithful Servants of the Lord; neither did we endeavour to limit or quench the Spirit of God in him: But we deſired he would endeavour to limit and quench that Spirit which luſted in him to Envy, Jam. 4.5. by joining with which he had before grieved, and in a great meaſure quenched, the Spirit of God in himſelf. But to ſet this more home upon him, ſince he ſays, he is ready to believe it is the firſt time, that ever any Man was forbidden the offering his Gift upon God's Altar, I will remind him, that in a Letter of his own to W. L. and J. B. dated the 23d of the 6th Month, 1690. he puts the ſame thing upon them thus, viz. I deſire of you in the mean time, that according to the good Advice of our Lord Jeſus, and Order of the Holy Truth profeſſed by us, that ye forbear the further offering of your Gifts, until you have made Satisfaction to your Brother; Was he for barring up Heaven then?

The greateſt part of the remainder of his Book, (after theſe Obſervations of his) is levelled more particularly againſt me, though he has not been ſparing to caſt his Envious Darts at me throughout the whole; yet becauſe in many places of his Book, and particularly in theſe Obſervations, he ſpeaks ſo much, and ſo often of his Charges againſt W. L. and J. B. aggravating them with high Terms, and laying much weight upon them, I think fit (before I enter upon my own particular Defence) to ſpeak briefly to them, that the Reader may ſee how cauſleſs his ſo great Complaints and Clamours are.

He hath divided them into Ten Articles; of which the firſt is, Their Arbitrary-like Over-ruling of Monthly Meetings. His Proof for this, is, That they poſitively affirmed, that a Matter under Debate (at a Monthly Meeting in the firſt Month, 1690.) ſhould not be the act of the Meeting. And although when ſo made, and recorded, that afterwards they ſtill as apparently denied it to be the act of the Meeting. This was, it ſeems, about treating with I. C. about opening the Meeting-houſe Doors (which T. C. and the reſt of the Separates, had wrongfully ſhut up) and A. B. in a forward buſie mind (having got a few others to join with him therein) would needs be tampering (as I underſtand) with T. C. about opening them, and would have done it in the Name of the Monthly Meeting, which W. L. (not Jo. Buy, for Jo. Buy was not preſent at that Meeting, as appears by the Monthly Meeting's Book) objected againſt, deſiring, that if they would needs be medling in that Matter, it might not be done as the Act of the Meeting, but as their own Act, many of the Meeting being diſſatisfied with it, and objecting againſt it. And ſurely in a Caſe of that Importance (for it was, A. B. ſays, to deſire them to open the Doors freely, or upon refuſal, to offer them all their Money) wherein the whole Meeting muſt have been concerned, it had been but reaſonable to have had the Conſent and Agreement of the Meeting before it had been undertaken, at leaſt before it had been made or declared to be the Act of the Meeting. I obſerve he ſays here, that when it was ſo made (viz. in his Senſe the Act of the Meeting) and ſo Recorded (though no ſuch Record appears) in the ſaid Book, they ſtill denied it to be the Act of the Meeting. And well they might, for there is no ſuch Record thereof in the Book.

The Second Article of his Charge againſt W. L. and J. B. is, Their paſſing a raſh and unchriſtian Sentence (ſo he calls it) upon him, as being a Man of a wrong Spirit, and that they ſaw and diſcerned him to be ſo: As alſo their comparing him to thoſe they counted open Apoſtates, one run out from Truth, Brother to Bugg, and like to Rogers and Story, &c. If they judged him a Man of a wrong Spirit he hath ſaved them the labour of proving it, having too evidently proved it himſelf ſince, by the wring Work he hath imployed himſelf in, and the wrong Fruits he hath brought forth, of Envy, Strife, Hatred, Contention, Railing, Backbiting, Slandering, Lying, and the like, which ſhews their Judgment in the Caſe was neither raſh, nor unchriſtian, but ſound and chriſtian; and their ſight and diſcerning therein was true and right. And if they compared him to open Apoſtates, ſuch as Bugg or Rogers, he hath made the Compariſon good, (by appearing as he hath now done) an open Enemy in Print, as thoſe before-named had done before, whom he once counted and called open Apoſtates, as well as W. L. and A. B. And what they accounted him then, may well be gueſſed, by what one of them (viz. T. Curtis) called him, who meeting him on the way, did (as A. B. himſelf related it) thus accoſt him, viz. Canker, go thy way Canker. But now he hath altered his Tone, and doth not call them open Apoſtates, but thoſe that others counted as open Apoſtates. And it was time for him indeed to change his Note, now that he is not only fallen in with that Party who have owned thoſe Apoſtates, and ſpread their Books, but is alſo fallen into the ſame ſort of Work, which thoſe open Apoſtates were in long ago. But by comparing the time when he ſays W. L. and J. B. called him a Man of a wrong Spirit, (which he ſays was on the 22d and 24th of the 4th Month, 1690.) with the time of his Exnibiting theſe Charges againſt them (which was on the 26th of the 6th Month, 1690.) it ſeems as if he drew up thoſe Charges againſt them meerly to be Revenged on them, for calling him a Man of a wrong Spirit.

His third Article is againſt W. L. only, and that for refuſing him the ſight of the Monthly Meeting Book. This may eaſily be Anſwered, becauſe W. L. had no Order from the Meeting ſo to do. Nor is it proper for any Member of a Meeting, to whoſe keeping the Book is intruſted, to let any other Member, eſpecially one known to be Contentious, to have it without the Meeting's Conſent; neither can any other Member ſay, as A.B. doth, that he hath as much Right and Property to have it, as the Perſon to whom by the Meeting it is committed. And whereas he ſaith the ſaid Book was at no time denied him by the Meeting, he might as well have ſaid at no time granted him by the Meeting: But when he adds, Or through any Diſſatisfaction of other Friends belonging to it, he ſtretches too far, as it is well known to moſt of the Meeting.

His fourth Article is againſt W. L. and J. B. jointly, falſly Charging them with Endeavouring to Diſmember him, Tying up his Tongue, &c. This is an Ambiguous way of ſpeaking, which he wickedly uſes to beguile his Reader into a belief, as if ſome act of Violence had been offered or threatened to him. But this I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak to hereafter, where he inſiſts more largely on it, therefore paſs it by here.

His fifth Article is, Their diſorderly breaking up and leaving of Monthly Meetings before the Buſineſs had been near done, and when Matters have been juſt under Debate among us. For which he gives ſeveral inſtances, one of the 26th of the 6th Month, 1690. when he laid theſe Charges againſt them before the Monthly Meeting, for which he refers to his Paper of Complaint. But that Paper of Complaint gives no account of any ſuch diſorderly or indirect breaking up of that Meeting (that I obſerve) but it ſays, ſome Hours were ſpent in Conference about that Matter. Yet I think if Friends ſhould hold and continue their Meetings, as long as ſuch a Make-bait would hold them in Debate, they would find that much more diſorderly, than to break up their Meetings in ſeaſonable time, whether ſuch Cavillers are ſatisfied or no. He gives another inſtance alſo of a pretended diſorderly breaking up of a Meeting in the 5th Month, 1691. which appears no more than the former. But it appears by this that he has varied, altered or added to his Charges, ſince he gave them to the Monthly Meeting, and theſe which he has now publiſhed, are not directly the ſame which he brought to the Monthly Meeting; for how could he inſtance the 5th Month, 1691. in a Charge exhibited in the 6th Month, 1690. Eleven Months before?

His ſixth Article is, Their encouraging and promoting at leaſt, if net firſt projecting, as he conceives, ſeveral Papers drawn up and ſigned againſt him. This is very idle and ſilly. He grounds their projecting (as he calls it) of thoſe Papers but upon his own Conception, but for their incouraging and promoting them, he offers not ſo much as that, as little worth as that is. But if they had incouraged the ſigning of thoſe Papers, yet ſo long as thoſe Papers contain nothing but what is true, what Evil had they done in that?

His ſeventh Article is, Their cauſing of great Diſorders and Diſtractions in our publick Meetings for Worſhip, by breaking up and diſſolving them in the time of his Teſtimony and Prayer. If any Diſorder was occaſioned thereby, he was the Cauſe thereof, by impoſing upon the Meeting his Teſtimony (as he calls it) and Prayer, which Friends had no Unity with, but deſired him to forbear, ſeeing him to be of a wrong Spirit, and of a contentious, quarrelſom Mind; reflecting on, and ſmiting at Faithful Friends in that which he calls his Teſtimony, which was his Teſtimony indeed, not Truth's Teſtimony, and therefore was by Friends in Truth Teſtified againſt. The time he ſets for the thus breaking up of Meetings (when he would have held them beyond the uſual time) being the 16th of the 1ſt Month, 1690. The 26th of the ſame Month, 1691. The 13th of the 7th Month, 1691. ſhews, both that this was after he had run out againſt Friends of the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, and Judgment had been given againſt him; and alſo (as before) that theſe Charges are not the ſame, which he brought to the Monthly Meeting againſt W. L. and J. B. in the 6th Month, 1690. In the cloſe of this Article he Names Three other Friends, viz. William Speakman, and two Women, for no other Cauſe (ſo far as I ſee) but that he might thence take occaſion to throw ſome of his Dirt upon them; which he doth thus,

Though obſerve (ſays he) the firſt of them (viz. W. S.) charged, and that by one of his own Children with Barbarous Severity and Cruelty towards his Wiſe and them. The ſecond, of being with Child before ſhe was Ma • ried. The laſt, permitted as a Preacher among them, and a profeſſed Friend too for nigh Twenty Years, and yet not come ſo far as to ſpeak the plain Language. How true this Charge upon the laſt is, I do not know, nor ſhall go about to excuſe. For if any one after ſo long Profeſſion of Truth, is not come ſo far as to ſpeak the plain Language, ſuch an one is greatly to be blamed. But yet A. B. is more to be blamed, who after a longer time of Profeſſion, is ſo far gone from (if ever he was come to) Plain-dealing, as to deal abuſively, and falſly by others, as his late Book makes appear, In his Charge againſt the ſecond, of being with Child before ſhe was Married, he has manifeſted an unchriſtian, bad Mind, thus to rake up a Miſcarriage done above Twenty Years ago, and for which the Woman hath long ſince given evident Tokens of hearty Sorrow, and unſeigned Repentance, not ſeeking to excuſe her ſelf, or leſſen her fault, but plainly and honeſtly confeſſing her Offence, condemning her ſelf, and readily offering to do whatſoever ſhe could for taking off the Reproach from Truth. And hath ever ſince, (ſo far as I have underſtood) walked honeſtly and blameleſly in her Converſation, being much bowed down in Spirit under the Sence of that Tranſgreſſion. And had not A. Bonifield been an Enemy to Truth, and not only void of Chriſtianity, but of common Humanity and Civility, he would never have revived the remembrance of ſuch a groſs thing (after it had been ſo long forgotten, as well as forgiven) thereby to bring the Reproach thereof afreſh upon the Truth, and to renew the Grief thereof to an already afflicted Woman.

In the other part of this Charge of his, relating to W. Speakman, he is both Envious and Unjuſt; for the Matter he here charges him with, was brought before the Monthly Meeting above Three Years and a half ago, and W. S. upon Examination thereof, was found to be Innocent. The Matter (as I find by the Monthly Meeting Book) was thus, on the 26th of the 5th Month, 1692. one John Veale brought to the Monthly Meeting a Paper, containing a Charge againſt W. Speakman, for giving undue Correction to his Child, and for irregular Carriage in his Family. Whereupon the Meeting ordered Daniel Bulluck, Andrew Hall, John Buy, and John Thorne, to hear and examine the Matter, and make Report thereof to the next Monthly Meeting. Accordingly they did meet about it at Daniel Bulluck's Houſe, and having heard and examined the Matter on both ſides, as fully as they could, they made Report thereof to the next Monthly Meeting, on the 30th of the 6th Month, 1692. as followeth.

Judge now Reader, whether A. Bonifield be not a bad Man, in thus Publickly accuſing a Friend of barbarous Severity and Cruelty towards his Wife and Children, when the matter had been brought before a Monthly Meeting above three weeks before, and upon full enquiry therein, the Friend was found and declared Innocent.

A. B. his Eighth Article againſt W. L. and J. B. is, Their ſetting up an open Standard of Oppoſition and Diviſion in our Publick Meetings, by their ſitting and keeping on their Hats in time of Prayer, which in p. 19. he calls an evil and irreverent Practice. But doth but herein condemn himſelf, and ſtrikes at them through his own Sides: For as evil and irreverent as he thinks it is, it was his own Practice formerly towards thoſe Separates (with whom he now joyns) as a Teſtimony of his not owning their Preaching or Praying then. Therefore he ſhould have Publiſhed his Recantation, for that, before he had fallen ſo foully upon others for the like. But he hath not ſtated his Charges right nor fairly, in taxing them with ſitting and keeping on their Hats in time of Prayer. That is too general; and being ſo, is not true, as himſelf knows; and All, that know their Practice, know, that they do not uſe to ſit or keep their Hats on, when any one is in Prayer, whom they have Unity with. And whenever they do keep on their Hats in time of Prayer, it is becauſe they do not own the Perſon Praying, or pretending to Pray. Which is the ſame Reaſon he himſelf uſed formerly to give, why he kept on his Hat, at the Prayer of thoſe others, which now 'tis like he puts it off to. Now, if Perſons whoſe common Practice is to put off their Hats in Prayer, do keep on their Hats at ſuch times only, when a Perſon thruſts himſelf upon them, taking upon himſelf to be the Mouth of the Meeting to God in Prayer, as well as the Mouth of God to the Meeting in Preaching, and ſo will impoſe his Preaching or Praying upon a Meeting, as if he were in Unity with, and owned by that Meeting, when indeed he is not, the keeping on the Hat at ſuch times, and in ſuch Caſes, is no Evil nor irreverent Practice; but it would look more like an Hypocritical Practice to put it off.

His Ninth Article is, Their refuſing to take his Money, which (he ſays) he laid down at a Monthly Meeting towards a Collection. What reaſon had he to expect they ſhould take his Money, when (as in his Second Article he ſays) they had told him, they ſaw him to be a Man of a wrong Spirit?

The Tenth and Laſt Article of his Charge, is againſt J. B. in particular, and is thus worded, For his wicked and moſt Blaſphemouſly affirming, That he did ſee my Inſide; as likewiſe that he diſcerned my Heart and Inward Parts; which Wicked, Proud and Preſumptuous words of his, I do not look upon (ſays he) or can conceive to be at all leſs, or other than plain and abſolute Blaſphemy, and taking to himſelf the Power and Attributes only and alone proper and due to the Immortal God. This he harps upon in other parts of his Book, and makes a great noiſe about. Now, tho' I underſtand he hath ſtretched the words beyond what J. B. ſpoke, yet taking them as he hath laid them down, I think he will be hard put to it to find Blaſphemy in them. It is true, that it is the Lord that ſearcheth the Heart; but it is alſo true, (and methinks he ſhould not deny it) that God who ſearcheth the Heart, both can diſcover, and ſometimes hath diſcovered the ſecret Thoughts and Purpoſes of one Man's Heart to another. When Samuel told Saul, I will tell thee all that is in thine Heart, 1 Sam. 9.19. Was that Blaſphemy? Or did did he ſpeak Wicked, Proud, Preſumptuous Words? When David ſaid of his Enemies, There is no faithfulneſs in their mouths, their inward part is very wickednefs, Pſal. 5.9. Did he ſpeak at randon, or at a venture? Or had the Lord diſcovered their inward part to him, and let him ſee their inſide? When Peter ſaid to Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lye to the the Holy Ghoſt? Acts 5.3. And, why haſt thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Ver. 4. Did he not diſcern the heart of Ananias? And ſee what he had conceived in his Heart? When the ſame Apoſtle told Simon, Thy heart is not right in the ſight of God, Acts 8.21. Did he not diſcern Simon's heart, and ſee his very inſide? Did the Apoſtle take to himſelf the Power and Attributes only and alone proper and due to the Immortal God? Did he ſpeak plain and abſolute Blaſphemy? Or Wicked, Proud and Prefumptuous words? If God hath in former Ages diſcovered to his Servants, the Hearts and ſecret Purpoſes of evil minded men; will A. B. deny that he can and may do ſo ſtill? His Hand is not ſhortened. And A. B. ſays, p. 6. We know for certain, that God is not limited to Parts nor Perſons. So that what he has done of old, he may do again, and that by the meaneſt, as well as by the higheſt Member in his Church. Has A. B. forgotten, that amongſt the excellent Manifeſtations which the Apoſtle Paul reckons up, as wrought in man by the Spirit of God, one is Diſcerning of Spirits, 1 Cor. 12.10. Was that to give ſight of the outſide only, or of the inſide, Heart and inward parts? But there is beſides this, an underſtanding of the inſide, partly by the outſide (or Fruits brought forth) a knowledge of the Tree by its Fruits. And ſo apparently uvil are the Fruits A. B. hath brought forth, that one may ſafely ſay; (and J. B. did not ſay ſo before) he ſees his inſide, and diſcerns his Heart to be corrupt and naught, without danger of uttering Blaſphemy, or ſpeaking Wicked, Proud, or Preſumptuous words.

Thus I have briefly touched the ſeveral Articles of his Charge againſt W. L. and J. B. which he laid ſo much ſtreſs upon, calling them, Crimes of an high and criminal nature. But how light and trivial they are, in reſpect of the noiſe and buſtle he hath made about them, I doubt not but every intelligent Reader will ſoon and eaſily ſee. He adds, that he had alſo ſeveral other Articles in Charge againſt W. L. and which were alſo as material as theſe, and very little varying from the ſame Subject. If they varied but little from the ſame Subject, they might ſoon be as material as theſe, and yet be immaterial enough, or ſufficiently void of ſolid matter or ſubſtance. And therefore he had no cauſe to quarrel with us for declaring in our Judgment, that his many Articles, Complaints and Charges being meaſured by the Line of Truth, and weighed in the right Ballance, there appeared little of Subſtance in them; eſpecially conſidering that (as hath been noted in ſeveral particulars before) he hath added many things to them ſince: Yet he hath ſo little Wit, as thereupon to ſay, p. 26. If ſo (viz. that there appears but little Subſtance in them) then the leſs to be blamed. But I think every Judicious man will think him the more to be blamed, for drawing up a Charge in ſo many Articles, and making ſo great a clutter about them, that had ſo little Subſtance in them.

I come now to that part of his Book which is levelled more directly, and particularly at me, beginning at p, 33. where he ſays, Seeing that O. S. one of the aforeſaid unjuſt Judges, hath taken a freſh occaſion to thus run out againſt me, through ſome offence he has taken at my late Book of Queries, it hath come into my thoughts to further diſcover and manifeſt him, and that in his plain and naked ſhape. And tho' in p. 45. he reproacheth Friends with being like them of old, who ſaid, Report, and we will Report it: Yet now to his ſhame, he doth profeſſedly undertake to make this diſcovery of me, ſaying thus, viz. Not only from the Evidence and Proof from his own Mouth and Pen, but alſo from the Allegations, Reports and Accounts of others concerning him, &c. And accordingly he hath dealt by me, expoſing what he hath picked up by Report (as in p. 37. line laſt) or Hear-ſay (p. 39.40.) againſt me, and where even that hath been wanting, or not full enough to anſwer his Envious Intention, he hath endeavoured to make it out with his own Surmiſes and Suppoſitions, no leſs than three times in one page, p. 40. And this he pretends to do ſaying thus, viz. To the end that all may know that he is not changed from what he was, but is ſtill and remains in the like Spirit of Malice and Bitterneſs, as is common, frequent and inherent (he ſays) to my nature. Now I obſerve how he overſhoots himſelf through his ill will to me, and runs himſelf upon a Rock before he is aware. For if (as he ſays) I am not changed from what I was, but the Spirit of Malice and Bitterneſs is inherent to my nature; then I was always ſo heretofore, and he muſt know it heretofore, and yet who more forward in pretence and ſhew of Love, Friendſhip and Unity with me than he, till of late years, ſince for my gently reproving him for his contentious quarrelling, he hath turned againſt me, and ſet himſelf to abuſe and defame me? Many lines of this nature are in his Book, which containing nothing but meer Clamour, I paſs it over as unworthy of any notice.