The second reply of Thomas CartwrightThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright

But let it be considered / how both corruptly contrary to the mind off Jerome / and unconstantly contrary to that him self hath written off this place / he hath blinded thes together. For if it be true that he hath said / that Jeromes meaning is / that the bishop off Rome differeth from other bishops only in riches: then it is manifest that in authority / he differeth not from the bishop off Eugubium / a small town in the same province. And where he saith / that Jerome in making the bishop off a base city equal with the rest, referreth that to the deacons which in some places were preferred before the elders: who seeth not but that speaking against the truth / he was so amazed / that words coming from him / reason sticketh yet in his pen. For what reason is there / that Jerome should therefore say the bishop off Eugubium was equal unto the Bishop off Rome, notwithstanding the bishop off Rome were his superior, because the deacon was preferred in Rome before the elder? What give is here to join thes together? or what cause was there that Jerome should speak basely off the metropolitans authority over the bishop / because the deacon was preferred before the elder? is there any reason that because the deacon ⟨p. DCII⟩did injury unto the elder: therefore Jerome should speak sparingly of the metropolitan / •nd do him injury also? moreover if this was the occasion why he spake so off a bishop / because certain deacons were preferred before the elders: considering that that custom was only at Rome (as Jerome him self declareth) why should he make the bishop off Tanais / a small town in Egypt / equal with the bishop off Alexandria / the metropolitan city there? and the bishop Rhegium / equal with the bishop off Constantinople? For seeing that mischief off the preferment off Deacons before the elders / was not in other places then in Rome there was no cause why he should speak thus off them / if that had been the cause which Erasmus allegeth?

But let yt be considered / how bothe corruptly contrary to the minde off Ierome / and vnconstantly contrarie to that him selfe hath written off this place / he hath blinded thes together. For if it be trw that he hath said / that Ieromes meaning is / that the bishop off Rome differeth from other bishops onelie in riches: then it is manifeste that in autoritie / he differeth not from the bishop off Eugubium / a small towne in the same prouince. And where he saith / that Ierome in making the bishop off a base citie equall vvith the reste, referreth that to the deacons vvhich in some places vvere preferred before the elders: who seeth not but that speaking against the truthe / he was so amazed / that wordes comminge from him / reason stickethe yet in his penne. For what reason is there / that Ierome shoulde therfore saie the bishop off Eugubium vvas equall vnto the Bishop off Rome, notvvithstanding the bishop off Rome vvere his superior, because the deacon vvas preferred in Rome before the elder? What giue is here to ioyne thes together? or what cawse was there that Ierome shoulde speake basely off the metropolitanes autoritie ouer the bishop / because the deacon was preferred before the elder? ys there anie reason that because the deacon