A LETTER OF Sr. HUMPHREY LINED, To a Lady of great Worth, much afflicted for Sir Humfreys sake, hearing him ill spoken of, for not answering the Whetstone, and the Spectacles, that were written against his Via tuta.  
AND Also for that he is greatly taxed for lying, and corrupting of many Authors.  
In which Letter he doth clear himself.  
Printed Anno M.DC.XXXIIII.   

MADAM,  
The affliction you endure for my sake is a sharp Arrow, shot even to my hart, and is not thence to be removed, until your grief be removed, by this my Letter, which I know, to you (who are so zealous a lover of the Word, and hater of the Pope) will give abundant satisfaction. As for the Church-going Papists therefore, and some other that are not of the purer sort of the reformed Church, who as you say, do dash you in the teeth with my lies, 150. and odd, in my first Book called Via tuta, and the Lord knows how many in my second, called Via devia; so that when you would sound forth my everlasting praises, they stop your pure Mouth, with my infinite numbers of corruptions, shifts, Foxian, jewellian, and Mortonian falsifications; crying out, that I have had too printed Books sent me, one called the Spectacles to see my way, the other the Whetstone, the just reward of my desert, for lying so egregiously, with many other papers of like nature displaying my untruths: Know dear Lady, that a Brother, or Sister that spring, from the pure bowels of the reformed Church (as your Honour and I do) must suffer much more than this, by that vile, deformed, and Antichristian Crew, the Wicked. But now to the matter.  
This only I request at your Honour's hands, that if you know any should be desirous (before my printed Books come forth) to receive any further satisfaction than this my Letter to your Ladyship will give them, they may be sent on the Lord's name either to my own House, or to the Wine-Office, where I and many of our learned and zealous brethren meet often, about a further reformation of Religion: desiring, that not so much as a rag of Popery, may remain in the House of the Lord; neither Bells nor Organs, Rochets or Mitres, square Caps, or Surplisses, Cross or Image: for I am assured, a true Brother, or Sister had rather see Antichrist himself then any of these; nay we trust in the Lord to put the Word Catholic, out of the Creed, as well as out of Tombe-stones, and in place thereof, to say, I believe in the Reformed Church.  
And though our enemies show, that Lying is one of the Marks of our Church, and that I for the glory of it, have told over again all the lies of M. Bell, Fox, jewel, White, Morton, and others in a new fashion: yet, all this notwithstanding, I hope to give any reasonable man full satisfaction.  
For put case, there hath been now and then a slip or two, and that out of the abundance of my zeal I have sometimes overlashed, or stretched a point for the love of the Gospel; I hope this will be no such Capital Crime, amongst the pure little Flock, who know right well, what latitude may be used for the splendour of the Gospel: & what our Elders and Forefathers in this kind have done, no learned knight can be ignorant. What therefore I have done, was not without authority: yea herein I have tracked the very footsteps of the most famous D. Luther, and the pure preacher of the word D. Caluin. These were the lights sent from heaven itself to drive away the dark clouds of papistry. These were they who made their doctrine odious to the world. And wots you how? why thus: Those reverend Fathers of our Church affirmed, how Papists bragged of being able to keep God's Commandments without God's grace; how they put their trust in their own Merits, and not in Christ's; how they adored Bread, Statues, Images, and Idols.  
Now the Papists ashamed, denied it stoutly; Again, those Reverend Fathers affirmed it boldly, & so convinced them. What, is not our affirmation a sufficient refutation of their denial? Sure I am this manner of arguing hath been allowed of, this fourscore years in our Churches, and pulpits. When D. Luther (tom. de matrim. f. 119.) began to teach (from above no doubt) that this in Genesis Multiply, and increase, was not a Precept only, but more than a Precept, and that it was not within the power of a man to be without a woman: And again, that if the wife would not yield she should be sent packing; marry Hesther & put away Vasthi: & that if the husband were impotent the wife might marry another, or with his consent lie secretly with his brother, or some other man: What did the Papists? Oh it vexed them to hear of reformation, they urged Scripture too, Matt. 5. where it is said; that Whosoever dismisseth his wife, unless for fornication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.  
But alas, they have not the spirit of interpreting Scriptures, & their old Fathers, & Grandsires were blinded, and therefore according to his Tenet well saith D. Luther: Be it that the Church, Augustine, & other Doctors, Peter, Apollo, yea an Angel from heaven teach otherwise, yet is my doctrine such as setteth forth God's only glory. Nay he had authority from heaven to reprehend the Apostles themselves, and to put in and out what he pleased of the holy Word of the Lord: for so he himself affirmeth in his book against King Henry the 8. I am certain (saith he) I have my doctrine from heaven; and yet mark the humility of the man) it is not mine (saith he) but Christ's. And therefore you see, how afterwards King Henry obeyed him, and his doctrine, which he would never have done, had it not been from God, or had it not been most pure and holy doctrine: and therefore you may read how zealous King Henry became, how purely and chastely he lived, being converted from Popery.  
Again, D. Luther added to the Text, Rom. 3. this word alone: Man is justified by faith alone. And this not without both authority from God, (as before you have heard out of his own mouth, and no doubt do firmly believe) but also with great reason, to wit, to vex the old Papists. O this doth silence them, this makes them chafe and sweat. Let them cry, we falsify the Scripture: I will study no further answer for them, than this of D. Luther's which is never to be answered: A Papist, and an Ass, are all one thing: So I will have it, so I command it, my will must stand for a reason. And good reason, for thy Will was the Lords will, and the Lords will was thy Will. So in the 2. of Peter he hath thrust out good Works, as not beseeming these holy times, when a lively faith excludeth all good Works; all counsels of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience. Give me faith, and let the Papists go with their good Works, and Restitutions whither they will. I'll none.  
This doctrine we exactly follow, and protest never to do good work so long as we breath. Hear you see my grounds for it out of this prophet, sent from heaven to reform the world; and you see also that we may justly alter the text, and use our wits in clearing of the Scripture, purifying our doctrine, and deluding the Papists.  
I cannot omit another Prophet D. Caluin, so named by himself: I am a Propheth (saith he) I have the spirit of God etc. thus, full of zeal in his 4. book of Institutions cap. 12. and else where. Now mark the spirit & zeal of this man. In the preface of his Institutions, he tells us that the Council of Basill, was a lawful Council, and persisted in full authority and dignity to the end. Now then, he proveth most learnedly, that the Papist Church hath failed: for that Council deposed Eugenius and chose Felix; yet the Council being ended, Eugenius stole again into the chair without any Canonical election; and so from him (a false Pope) all the succeeding Popes have sprunge, making ever since a false Church.  
Thus that rare & eminent star john Caluin, whose wisdom thought it not convenient in those times to be so foolishly scrupulous, as to speak truth, and to lay open, that indeed it was first a true Council, but after when it deposed Eugenius, and chose Felix, it was a diabolical & seditious Council, so called by the Lateran Council, Sessione 11.  
Now in verity tell me, what zealous man is there of ours that doth not follow this example of M. Caluin? And who will not, to defend an article of our Faith (to wit, That the Church may err) dissemble, or equivocate, I will not say lie? though the Scripture say, Omnis homo mendax, Every man is a liar, which must be fulfilled sometimes especially in necessity: and when is there more necessity then for the Gospel, to vex the Papists that cry for truth and plain dealing forsooth? Yes, with them, who hate us, and would destroy the Gospel.  
Now for M. Caluin, who can once doubt but that he had a revelation to deal thus with the Pope. In his third book of Institutions cap. 20. he saith, The Papists in their hymns and Litanies never make mention of Christ, but pray always to dead men. This doctrine our men teach also in their Pulpits, taken, as you see, from M. Caluin. This mads the Papists, calling us falsifiers, untrue dealers etc. and that this is one of our ordinary lies, because they say in their Litanies, Lord have mercy on us: Christ have mercy on us: God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us etc. Alas this is only a poor shift, put only for a show: but let them talk in the mean time what they will; so long as the contrary is preached in our pulpits, this makes the papists odious amongst the people. Again in the same place he saith: They invocate Saints as Gods. They deny it. Caluin and all our Brethren affirm it. One Caluin, one Melancthon, one Minister of the Lord is to be believed before a thousand Papists, though it be in a point of their own Religion.  
I must let pass for brevity sake infinite other of our Ancients, that have given us good example how to deal with the Pope; and for my part I have not been backward like a towardly disciple to follow their example, neither will as long as I live.  
But now let us look upon our own learned Countrymen, in this business of so great importance. God be praised, there are so many I know not where to begin: Pity it is I must leave most of them out, or else I should make a volume as big as john Foxes Acts and Monuments, that grave, simple, and upright man, who is so falsely accused by that crafty jesuite Parsons, for telling in his Acts a thousand lies, and in three leaves 120. Believe him who please, for i'll be hanged first, unless some of our own Congregation will take the pains to show me them.  
First therefore, I will begin with Bishop jewel, a man of famous memory for deluding the Papists arguments. In his book called The defence pag. 7. he joineth the Manichees and Papists together, both forbidding Marriage, and allowing of Fornication. The Papists are mad, deny it, and esteem it blasphemy against the Church, condemn his proofs as false, which he brings out of Panormitan, and others, who only affirm, that Fornication was not punished now so rigorously as in the primitive times; & from thence they infer, that the Bishop hath injured, & belied their doctrine, & falsified Panormitan: and this they say, in him is plain. But what saith the jewel? Alas, he counts this answer as ridiculous.  
Again D. Harding, a notable old Papist, affirms, he hath convinced him of hundreds of lies: But were there time, I could show you how bravely he comes off, of all. Tush let the Papists say what they please, we will say with Paul. 2. Cor. 3. We are called deceavers, and yet we say truth. The Reverend Doctor & Bishop v in another place objects against them their private, or sole Communion. The Papists answer diverse ways, out of the ancient Fathers, Basill, and the monks of Egypt, and I know not where. But after all their labour, mark, I beseech you, how wittily the jewel answereth, and confuteth them, pitying their poor proofs: If saith he, M. Harding could find any thing in the Church, he would not thus hunt after the mountains, and fly for aid into Egypt, if he could find it nearer home. Was not this a wise answer, for so fare fetch a proof?  
Again, the Papists, forsooth, will not have their Church to err, God must take heed of breaking his promise with them, and they hold him to it. Matth. 26. and john 14. The gates of hell shall never prevail against it. I will be with you, till the consummation of the world. The holy Ghost shall remain with you for ever, with like authorities out of Scriptures, and multitudes of Fathers, and they think to kill it dead. But mark the jewel in this point how he answereth Harding. You papists (saith he) say it stands not with God's promise to forsake his Church a thousand years together (now he plies them;) It is not much for you openly the break God's commandments, to defile his holy sanctuary, to turn light into darkness, and yet nevertheless you will not stick to bind him to his promise. Here you see the Consciences of the Papists; they may break their promises, transgress the Law, offend their God, but God must not break with them. See how divinely this learned Bishow quelleth the arguments of his importune adversaries. An answer it is, certainly inspired by the Lord of truth, and that of our Truth, and not by the Devil, as the Romanists say.  
Well, I am sorry I must leave out infinite places of this reverend Bishop, by which he hath taught me, and many others, to deal with the papists as they deserve, but he is dead & gone, & no doubt rewarded for his labours: we will no more of the dead, but of the living, & those no small fools I can tell you, both in their own & our eyes. Appear then in thy likeness grave D. White, as thy picture showeth thee in thy last work. But now that is changed together with thy titles, for thou art a Bishop, and that well deserving it, & that not for thy Lying, as the Papists pretend, but for thy witty writings against those thy inveterate Enemies, as I shall make appear most manifestly.  
Observe therefore, O honourable Lady, how wittily he brings their own authors, their Cardinals, and Fathers against themselves. And first Cardinal Hosius, in his expresso verbo Dei, Express word of God, who (as the Bishop relateth in his reply to the jesuite Fisher page 15. in the end, and page 152. in the beginning) hath this doctrine: A man ought not to be learned in the Scriptures, but taught of God: it is labour lost to spend time in Scripture, for it is but a creature, yea an empty element: it becomes not a Christian to be conversant in Scripture. Madam is not here Blasphemy? doth not the Doctor justly insult here over the Pope and the jesuits his Bandogs, that bark continually against the pure lovers of the Word, who had rather see the devil than a jesuite or a Seminary Priest, which I thank the Lord for, I ever thought to be monsters, I was so purely educated in the house of the Lord, ever harkening diligently how eloquently our Ministers continually reviled them; so that I have been bred up with a holy hatred to them, and with pure eyes lifted up to heaven, I praise the Lord for it, I still hate them as zealously, as the good Recorder of Salisbury did the Image of God the Father, which he valiantly broke in pieces, although his leg, & almost his neck was broken for it, out of malice infallibly of the devil for his doing so good a deed.  
But now to the answer of the Papists against the Doctor. Forsooth they say, this doctrine is not theirs, and that Hosius hath not these words of his own, but relates them as the blasphemous words of the Swinckfeldian Sect, called the Heavenly Prophets, Swinckfeldius a Hater of Friars and Monks being their captain, and reprehends and censures them. Yea Hosius himself being taxed therewith by some learned men of ours in his life time, answers indeed the same, and saith that if he for his own part should have taught any such doctrine, he had been worthy to have been hanged up in the marketplace.  
But alas, this will not help them, for what reason had our learned Doctor to take the pains to search whether they were Hosius his words or no, it was sufficient I hope for him to find them there, and so finding them, to take them, and stop the Papists throats with them in what sense soever Hosius spoke them. I assure you this was done most eloquently, or rather spiritually, to make the Papists know, they deal with men of Authority, and such as know how to vex a Papist, and delude their arguments, & bring their own best Authors against themselves. This I assure you, Madam, is now all in all amogst our learned Writers, & I hope I have played my part herein (as shallbe seen anon) as well as the best of them.  
But this Bishop hath not left them so, I trow. No: he hath yet laid another of their Red caps doctrine open, & consequently of theirs, to wit Bellarmine's. Although (saith Bellarmine) the Books of the Apostles and Prophets be divine, yet should I not certainly believe them, except I have before hand believed the Scripture: for also in sundry places of Mahomet's Koran we read that the same was of God from Heaven, and yet we do not believe it. Thus M. Bellarmine. But now behold M Doctor how wittily he catcheth this grave Cardinal in his own trap. Orthodox. pag. 136. he makes the Cardinal say thus: A man is not bound to believe the Scripture to be divine, because the Scripture itself saith so, more than one is bound to believe the Koran to be of God, because in many places thereof, we read that it was sent from heaven of God. Behold the excellency of this Doctor's wit, how cunningly he reprehends the Cardinal of blasphemy against the Word of God.  
O Madam, this is a thing that nips the jesuits to the hart, & makes them scratch their heads to defend their Cardinal, & behold when all is done what a poor shift they are forced to fly unto. They are fain to say forsooth, that this Reverend Doctor is a most egregious liar, and falsifier of Bellarmine. Yes, forsooth, if we would follow their Counsel, D. White should be forced to do Penance, and make restitution to Bellarmine, for his injurious defamation, & leaving out those words, except I have before hand believed the Scripture.  
But I warrant you, the Doctor is wise enough, and we too. we'll have nothing to do with their Pennances and Restitutions; they are things as hateful unto us, as the Mass itself. Let them count us falsifiers, liars, deceavers and the like, they shall find we are no such men, but true zealous professors of the Word, & such as know how to beat down Popery, as well as the best. And as for the Bishop himself, howsoever they allege he had his Bishopric for lying, let them know that had he not sold (as they say he hath) his library to raise his family, and provide for his children, never to be stained with the least spot of Popery, he had answered the Nine-Reasons long before this.  
Now Madam, craving your patience (for I know your Goodness will never think that time to long which is spent in revewing the witty proceed of our learned Doctors) enter D. Morton Bishop of Durham, for nimbleness of wit in this kind inferior to none. None more taxed by the Wicked than he for corruption, lying, shifting, and falsifying, in one Book 600. But let them talk, he is rare in interpreting learned Authors, according to his own sense; he can make them speak as pleases himself; and for paying the Papists home with scoffs, taunts, & jests none more excellent than he: and thus he is able to put the best of them to silence, with all their Scriptures, Fathers, and Authorities.  
One way of arguing I have learned of him, and it is a rare one indeed, to wit, to bring the Papists own objections for their solutions, as you may see in the 4. page of his Discovery, where he citeth a text of Gratiam, causa 15 cap. 99 gloss. 4. If I have sworn to pay any money to one excommunicated after my oath, I am not bound to pay it him; the reason is, because we ought to vex evil men by what means soever, to the end they may cease from doing ill. Where, if you mark, in these last words we have authority by their own Authors to vex them all we can, being a wicked people.  
Now it is true, that the words of of the Gloss contain only an objection upon that clause of the Canon concerning paying of money to an excommunicated person, & the objection is made by the Author of the Gloss in these words: What will you say, if I swear to pay one money & afterwards he is excommunicated, am I bound to pay it, or no? Afterwards he argues the question on both sides, and then concludes, that the Debtor ought to pay the money, though the other cannot demand it. Now, the ingenious Bishop to make the Papists doctrine odious, leaveth out both the first words, that show it is an objection, and the last, to wit, that such a one is bound to pay it, which is the solution, and very wittily, he makes the sentence go thus: If I have sworn to pay any one money that is excommunicated, I am not bound to pay it. This was artificially done. Again he relateth that D. Boucher holdeth, that a King may be killed by a private man, when D. Boucher holdeth absolutely the contrary. This is to make the world believe the Truth, and make them say that which they do not; which is an honest, good, and profitable policy.  
In his Preamble pag. 90. he hath so zealous a hatred against the Pope, that he affirmeth with great joy, that Adrian the English Pope was choked with a fly, & citeth Nauclerus for it, who only doth mention it, as a fable, and refutes it.  
Though Parsons have proved Equivocation in some cases to be lawful, both out of Scripture, even by Christ himself, Io. 2. Chap. 5. and S. Paul to the Hebrews saying: Melchisedech had neither Father nor Mother; Toby the 5. that the Angel that appeared, calling himself the son of great Ananias, his name was Azarias: These they say, were no lies etc. So School Divines out of Augustine in Psal. 5. that albeit a lie be unlawful, yet to conceal a truth it may be lawful. So, many are brought by Parsons in his Mitigation, as to save the life of a Priest. But what of all this? the simple people never come to read this Book of Parsons, or others of that side; and for the learned it stands then upon to concur together, by all means to beat down Papistry, and therefore the Bishop cried out: not one jot of Scripture, no one example of antiquity, no one reason in the natural wit of man, no one Author Greek or Latin do make for Equivocation, as the Papists teach it.  
So he allegeth Azor a jesuit in his Preamble pag. 84. and 85. to condemn all use of Equivocation, and that by five rules, but he leaveth out four of the said five rules, as directly against him, allowing in some cases Equivocation. In the same manner he bringeth another jesuit Emanuel Sà. Now to bring their own Authors against them is both witty & learned. Bellarmine hath not escaped him: and you may see, even by Parsons own works, the Mitigation & the Sober Reckoning, how rare a man Bishop Morton is.  
But I will end here with this, that you may see how the Papists are vexed with this right worthy and true dealing Bishop. For after great labour to show hundreds of lies and corruptions, as they say; then forsooth, they dare presume to condemn him of ignorance, even in Logic, showing that his Syllogism is neither true in matter or form, but hath six terms, and concludes no more than he which proveth the learned Bishop to be an Ass, if you will believe the Papists: 
Every Man is a living creature,  
Every Ox is a fourfooted beast,  
Ergo, every Ass hath two long ears.   
Now, if this worthy and learned Doctor be thus abused by the wicked Crew, what must I expect? If he that styleth himself, A Minister of simple Truth, in his Preamble, & yet presently after (as they would show) corrupteth Polidor Virgil; if this man be taxed, what will they do to me his scholar, who have imitated him & others, as M. Perkins, Fulke, Bel, Sutcliffe, jewel; & others of my own rank, as Sir Edward Cook, Hoby, Hastings, Plessis Mornay, who all, with them, are notorious liars. But for all this, it behoveth a Knight to take courage, & not to be daunted, and never to yield that there is the least corruption in any of our Writings; for to confess a fault, is rather Vility, than Humility in our Religion.  
And therefore with the greatest magnanimity of spirit will I begin to defend myself (relying upon these a foresaid Authors) that ever did noble knight. They tax me with many lies; but will you know the cause? The truth is they are galled to see my works, & myself so highly esteemed for them, as I am indeed, & I do glorify myself, and the Lord for it.  
Now therefore, with sword and shield to defend my honour; they are much troubled with my 7. Section, because in it I show their pedigree from old Heretics; and therefore I have told 9 or 10. lies (say they.) Now what is the first I pray you? Against their Mass forsooth. And who would not labour to beat it down, seeing the very Devil himself hateth it so much, that he taught D. Luther to write against it. But now to my Charges.  

First Charge.  
I said, Vitalian the Pope that lived in the year 666. brought in the Latin service. They not enduring this, tell me to my face, that Gregory the great (who lived in the year 590. there being 11. Popes between him & Vitalian) sent the Latin service hither by Augustine the Monk: & to make the matter more clear, they bring Cyprian in his Sermon upon the Lord's Prayer, to affirm the same preface of the Mass to be said in Latin, that is now said. And Augustine in his second book of Christian Doctrine ca 13. in his book de bono perseverantiae cap. 3. affirmeth, that in the Mass, after Habemus ad Dominum, presently the Priest answereth, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro; and then follows, Dignum & iustumest. Thus they bring their old Mass Priests against me for their own Mass. Would any man have made so simple an answer?  
Then they will convince me with john Stow, a good, honest, simple fellow that in his Chronicle saith, that the English service began first in K. Edward the sixth his days. Now, why should not I answer with all my learned Ancestors? What is Cyprian? What is Augustine? Were they not men? What have we to do with them when they are against us? When they are for us, we have reason to urge them against the Papists, because they honour them, and rely upon them, but not we; for we protest to rely only upon the Word of God according to our own interpretations. For we be more then assured, that the Lord will not suffer us, the predestinate, to err. Now it pleaseth me, that I may with D. Luther, Caluin, Fulke, D Humphrey, and all other of the reformed Church, reject the Fathers, not caring for a thousand Augustins, Cyprians &c. And thus I answer for the Latin service, desiring them to keep the Fathers to themselues, for we make no account of them. Now comes a greater business about.   

The second Charge.  
I said, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation began in the Lateran Council 400. years ago. The Papists will have it more ancient, saying, that my own Masters will give me the lie; & that only the word (Transubstantiation) began then against Berengarius, who opposed the doctrine before the Council, and therefore it was taught before: & so they tell me that john Fox, a good honest dealing man (that hath told but 1000 lies in his Acts and Monuments, and 120. within the space of three leaves) gives my Worship the Whetstone, he might as well say, the lie. john Fox in the book of his Acts printed 1576. pag. 1121. affirmeth the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted heresy 1060. and in that number was one Berengarius, who lived about the year 1060. Now, saith my Papist, what doth your Knightship say to the Fox? Marry I say, the Fox is a Goose, and deserves to be hanged in chains for not abusing the Papists more in those Primitive times.  
Again they bring D. Humphrey who saith: Gregory the great and Augustine brought Transubstantiation into England: So he in his jesuitisme 2. part. rat. 5. pag. 626. Peter Martyr in his Epistle to Beza, dislikes S. Cyril for this doctrine. M. Whitgift in his defence against Cartwrights' reply. pa. 408. saith Ignatius the disciple of S. john said of the heretics of those times, they do not admit the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus-christ, which flesh suffered for our sins. Hear, he saith, he could bring the ancient Fathers, to change the name of Sir Humphrey Lined, into Sir Humphrey Lies; so omitting, as he saith, the authority of Christ himself in Scripture, the Fathers, Counsels, and Figures of the old Testament, leaves me to consider how true a Knight I am. And by this you may see how graceless a Papist he is, to give a Knight the lie.  
Yet he urgeth me further & saith, judas was the first of my opinion in the denial of Transubstantiation: from him & the Capharnaits Berengarius, and so from him Luther and Caluin, then to Grandsire Fox, Father Morton, and so to his worship Sir Humphrey Lind: so judas was the root, and the Knight cometh directly from his line. I confess, this did put me into choler, in which I swore that if I knew this Papist, he should well know, that I am a Knight-fighter as well as a Knight-writer, which few know of I confess. He promiseth a more ample pedigree, but let him keep it to himself, I desire it not, I say I am wronged, and will revenge it when, and where I can.   

The third Charge.  
Because I said Phocas was the first that granted Supremacy to the Bishop of Constantinople, they make my Author Vrspergensis say, Rome. But let that pass. Again they say, he is corrupted by us, and that Phocas could not give Supremacy, because he never had any such power, neither could he be the first, seeing justinian ratified the Decrees & Canons of the Pope's Supremacy, with an Edict, as all Catholic Princes do now; So Phocas only set forth the Decrees. But my own Masters will vex me worse (he saith.) M. Whitaker, and M. Fulke say, That Pope Victor was the first that exercised jurisdiction over foreign Churches; so M. Whitaker against Duraeus lib 7. M. Fulke in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic pag. 36. And at this time the Church of Rome was in great purity (saith the Bishop of Canterbury) being near to the Apostles, in the year 158. So Bishop Whitgift sets forth Victor, and the Church of Rome in those days. Thus with a brag of convincing me of an untruth, and referring me to Scriptures and Fathers, he ends this Charge.  
But I will not take so much pains, seeing I can have a true Notebook of a true Minister; where every thing is Featly set down; their notes are my Scriptures and Fathers, upon their words and credits I receive them, for I know they will not deceive Me, though they should belie the Papists.   

The fourth Charge.  
Because I said, the worship of Images was decreed by the Council of Nice, almost 800. years since Christ; here the Papists say, If I mean divine worship, as my Rabbins teach out of the pulpit the ignorant people, than it is false, they have no such Doctrine: if I mean relatively, and transitorily with respect to the person it represents, as good subjects do to the Chair of State, with reference to his Majesty, than I fail of the time; for that Isaurus opposed this doctrine before that Council was assembled anno 726. and that the Fathers of that time, as Damascene, Germanus, and others condemn this Heresy of the Iconoclasts, which began by jews, Turks, Saracens, and Heretics, and is still maintained by the learned, and noble Knight Sir Humphrey Lined, against Christ, and all the ancient Fathers: And by most of the English Clergy, as appeared lately in Star-chamber (an. 1633.) there was granted the pious use of them; & the Papists have not any other in them, and so they tell me, the Council condemned the Heresy, not decreed the doctrine.  
But who knoweth not, that we disclaim from their Counsels? For as D. Luther truly said, art. 115. Counsels are but as Parliaments of Princes, and what is defined by them, is subjected to the judgement of every private man. It is a mad thing that what a Council concludeth should be believed, seeing what is to be believed and what not, is left to every spiritual man's judgement, and so farewell all Counsels and Fathers. Give me the pure word, and a pure spirit that knoweth only what books are Canonical. This is the doctrine of D. Luther, & D. Caluin which I follow, and so my Spirit is with theirs; and so I hope I have answered their Counsels and Fathers sufficiently.   

The fifth Charge.  
Because I tell them, Irenaeus in his first book cap. 3. saith, that the Basilidians and Carpocratians worshipped Images, and from them I derive their pedigree: The first of these, say the Papists, as Irenaeus witnesseth, used Images and Enchantments, but maketh no mention of worship. Of the later they say, they had the Image of Christ, but honoured it as the Heathens did their Idols, & placed it together with the Images of Pluto, Pythagoras, Aristotle, and used them as Gentiles do: So that here he saith I have grossly abused them, & belied Irenaeus, and that I agree with the Basilidians & Carpocratians in many points of my Religion. But he will prove this when I have defended myself, and cleared myself of this false dealing, which will never be.   

The sixth Charge.  
Because I say, the Communion in one kind was decreed by the Council of Constance above 1400. years after Christ, the lie was told long since (say they) by my Father Luther, as Card. Bellarm. noteth lib. 4. the Eucharist cap. 26. M. Crashaw and others have it; so that it is a stolen lie, and they find great fault because he citeth Authors that the whole world esteemeth liars, as Mornay Plessis who is convinced of 4000 lies (a goodly company) a man no doubt of great zeal, and of a brave Spirit: for being urged with these untruths before the King of France, his stomach was so full, that he cast it up even in the Papists faces, and in the very presence of the King of France Henry the iv this I say, was a true Roman, a brave Spirit, and the spirit of his Ancestors shined in him.  
Hear my Papist entreats me to read Parson's three Conversions, for that I may learn to lie out of M. Fox, & Mornay Plessis, both whom are painted forth in their own true colours; But I scorn to read Parsons, or to learn to lie of any man, neither Parson nor Minister shall teach me to lie. And here also the wonderful Papist falls into a wonder at me, for wrangling about the Cup, seeing my own Rabbins have deprived me both of Cup & Sacrament, meat and drink too.  
He is angry likewise because I cite not the place in the Council; but for that I have my reasons. He denyeth that there is any such thing in the Council; but only in the 13. Session there are these words: Though Christ did institute the Venerable Sacrament after supper, and administered the same in both kinds to his disciples, yet the laudable authority of sacred Canons, and approved Customs of the Church hath practised, and doth still practise, that the Sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor be received of the faithful but fasting. And so calls to me for a Decree as though I were bound to cite places at his pleasure: and like a malapert jacke he saith, that in this point we may be termed the giddy builders of Babylon, so great is our dissension about the Eucharist.  
And for the Communion in both kinds, or one kind, it was left to the judgement of the Church; and that life eternal is promised for eating one kind, and so Christ himself gave it. He saith he will not stand to cite places of Scripture, seeing that I believe never a word in the Scripture and that he were better deal with an Infidel, then with an obstinate heretic. And that, I with all my Divinity cannot distinguish between a Divine Institution, & a Divine Precept: for though he instituted it in both kinds, yet he commanded it not to be received in both kinds; for many things are instituted, yet not commanded, as Matrimony etc.  
Lastly, if I loathed wine (as he hears I do not) he doth not doubt to get me a dispensation, to wash down the supper of the Lord with a Cup of good March beer, or Ale. For my untruth in this matter I must look upon Vrbanus Regius a learned man of our own, who confesseth that the Sacrament of one kind was ordained in the first Council of Ephesus 1000 years before the Synod of Constance, for the extinguishing the Nestorian heresy, who held the body to be without the blood in one kind, & the blood to be without the body in another kind: but the Knight, saith he, holdeth it in neither kind, and therefore but kindly dealt withal, to have his kind lying showed to the whole Congregation of his learned Brethren, that may give him better counsel.   

The VII. Charge.  
Because I affirm in my 7. Section, that the heretics Angelici were the first founders of praying to Saints, I cite for this Aug. lib. de haeres. who (the Papists say) doth not so much as name Saints in that place by me cited: and that it is a plain juggling trick to bring Augustin against that doctrine which the world knoweth he practised, as it is seen in his Meditations cap. 40. S. Michael, S. Gabriel, S. Raphael supplicate for me. Now, say they, these Angelici, held that Angels were to be adored as Gods, or that they thought Angels made the world, or that they boasted that they lived Angelical lyves, and therefore placed themselves in the Order of Angels: from hence they had their name, & from hence S. Augustine numbers them among Heretics; &, say the Papists, they number the Knight amongst them for his Via tuta; this is because I have laid out their wicked doctrine, but I promise to make them more odious if I can.  
For the Collyridians, S. Aug. reprehends them for honouring the blessed Virgin as a Goddess, & not for honouring her as catholics do; & so out of his authority bids me, learn the difference between Idolatry, and honouring the friends and Saints of God.   

The VIII. Charge.  
Because I derive their doctrine of Merit, & works of supererogation from the Cathari; this (say they) is as true as the rest; for they boasted of their purity, as I & Puritans do; that the Cathari & I agree in 16. Points; they denied Penance as the Knight doth; & although Scripture threaten death eternal to those that do not penance, yet they Knight will none. Novatianus the Captain of the Cathari made his followers take a solemn oath that they would never return to the Pope who then was Cornelius; so hath the Knight sworn to hate the Pope etc. which I deny not, and I love the Cathari the better for their zeal.  
Now, for the Merit, they say, there is no mention of it, but of their hypocrisy: & for their doctrine of good Works, they send me to learn, for that there are many things belonging to make a good work meritorious in the sight of God. I have been often taught (they say) & therefore they will not stand to repeat my lesson to me again, but send me to their learned Authors. Neither will I spend time to learn their doctrine which I hate, & so I do all their good Works, vowing never to do any while I live for their sakes: for in this I am of D. Luther's mind, to be opposite to the Pope in all things.   

The IX. Charge.  
Because I say the restraint of their Priest's marriage was the heresy of Tatian & the Manichees, for which I cite haeres. 46. they Papists say, that Tatians heresy was for denial of marriages, and comparing them with fornication: neither would he receive any into his Sect that was married; & there is not one syllable of the marriage of Priests, & that all the Papists condemn this for heresy, holding marriage a Sacrament. That of the Manichees was another most abominable Heresy: for they using matrimonial acts, yet most sinfully shunned Conception: So Aug. haeres. 46. & so conclude, I am a most true dealing Knight which is more praise than I deserve.  
The Papist in a letter to me, noted also Nine Falsifications of Bellarmine in my Via tuta, and might have done many more but that it was troublesome to him; I desired him not to trouble himself with making these: but it is no matter, for I hope to show that I have cited Bellarmine truly, & to teach the Papists to be wary how they writ books against a Knight; for shortly I will put forth a Book that shall utterly disgrace both Pope and Papists: and this the sooner, if I shall hear that your Lap. is satisfied by this Letter, & thereby also to answer for me to those scoffing Neutralists.  
And so, Right Honourable, desiring ever to be esteemed one of your Servants, and one I hope that shallbe ready in this kind, against all Papists, to do you Knights Service, I rest,  
Your Honour's Servant, ever ready to dye in your quarrel, & for the truth of the pure Word. H. Lined.   
FINIS.