The contentious apostate and his blow refelled [sic] in a brief narrative of the unchristian deportment, opposition, and disturbance made by Francis Bugg, backslider, Isaac Archer, priest or vicar, Samuel Knowles, late curate, at a publick meeting of the people called Quakers held at Milden-Hall in Suffolk the 30th day of the 2d month commonly called April 1691, and in a short answer to F.B. his defaming pamphlet falsely stiled One blow more at new Rome / by G.W.

The first, against the Quakers late Doctrin, viz.

In the beginning they taught that all Men were Inlightned according to John 1. 9. And that this Light wherewith Christ had Enlightned them, was sufficient, if obeyed, to lead to Salvation without the help of outward Rules, Laws and Directories of Mens Prescribing; but now they teach the contrary (saith he) and wherein contrary? They have De∣clared such out of Vnity who discountenance Womens Meetings, &c. Wherein we have but his own say so, or proofless Affirmation

that this is a contrary Teaching to the former. In the beginning we Taught that all Men are Enlightned by Christ, and so do we still; and that this Light of Christ is sufficient to lead unto Sal∣vation, if obeyed without outward Rules, Laws, &c. of Men's∣prescribing or making, or without Human Prescriptions; and so we say still, this Light is sufficient; and yet by this Light re∣prove dark and envious Opposers of Women's Godly Meetings (ga∣thered in the Name and Light of Christ Jesus by his Power) which have been among us many years, before F. B. left us, even in such times, wherein he has granted us to be in our Anci∣ent Splendor, a Glorious Church, &c. yet now in contradiction to himself, is both an Opposer of our Women's Meetings, and an Adversary to our Christian Discipline and good Order; else why does he oppose the Doctrin of the Light within thereunto? And that such Opposers are both Disobedient unto (and out of) the Light and Unity of Christ's Church, and consequently in Dark∣ness, is as certain, as he that saith he is in the Light, and hates his Brother, is in Darkness, as F. B. is, in his dark Opposition with∣out Proof or Reason; he might as well have argued thus, viz. That if the Light of Christ within, be sufficient to lead unto Sal∣vation, if obeyed without Human Laws; then it is a contrary Doctrin, to testifie against the Spirit of Envy, Division and Darkness; but the Light of Christ is sufficient, Ergo. Let him bring a better Argument upon his own Article and Opposition if he can, and his Fallacy will easily appear as it doth.