The second reply of Thomas CartwrightThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright

To the first reason / I have showed what might lead Erasmus ⟨p. CCCCLXXXI⟩/ to call Titus archbishop over Crete / and not Timothy over Ephesus. To the second / I am content that my reason off framing titles according to times, be nothing worth: if Erasmus in a matter off divinity / and having the veil off corrupt times to hinder his sight / could not be deceived: which erred in many things, and in those he saw was oft more ^*Cretan / than Christian. The third (Erasmus did not give Titus a title according to the custom off that age wherein him self lived, for that there was then no bishop of Crete, •s there was of Rome when Vincentius lived) is senseless. Considering that my answer is apparent / that in speaking of Titus / he applied him self to the custom which had prevailed in all places / off calling the bishops off the metropolitan cities / archbishops: which this answer toucheth not. Let him show one approved author for the name of archbishop / or patriarch once only used in Eusebius time / or before / to note the superiority off one bishop over all his fellows / and we will all clap our hands unto him: if he can not / then it is shame to say / those names were usual in Eusebius time. That Nicephorus spake no otherwise off Victor then you have set down / it is all one to me: which purposed to show that he spake otherwise / then ether Eusebius / or the truth would suffer / having regard unto the times wherein he lived So that my untrue reports off authors, are such as they are no more beneficial to my cause / then if I had used their very words. For my answer made unto Volusianus / and Erasmus / that men use to speak / and to think for the most part of things past / by the measure off things present: if it had no examples to warrant it with / yet it is so manifest / and sensible / that I durst barely leave it to the conscience off all. and if the D. would give the rule of his tongue / but a little into the hand of his conscience: I doubt not but he would also confess it? Howbeit we have a manifest example in the Centuries / which confessing there was no Metropolitan ²in Cyprian's time / call him Metropolitan Another in Cornelius / whom M. Philpot calleth patriarch of Rome: when all know that there was no patriarch many years after him.