waye. And other rule then thys ys there not: that the true are done / to prouoke men to come and herken vnto gods worde / and the false to confirme doctrine that ys not gods worde. Now yt ys not Gods worde if thou reade all the scripture thorowe out / but contrary therto / that we shuld put soch trust and confidence in our blissed lady as we doo / and cleane agenst the testament that is in christes bloude. Wherfore a man nede not to feare / to pronounce that the deuell dyd yt to mocke vs with all.

Neuer the later let vs compare the mayde of Ipswich and the maide of kent to gether. First they saye that the maide of Ipswich was possessed with a deuell & the maide of kent with the holy goste. And yet the tragedies are so lyke the one to the other in all poyntes / that thou cowdest not know the holy gost to be in the one and the deuell in the other by any dyfference of workes. But that thou mightest with as good reason saye that the deuell was in both / or the holy gost in both / or the deuell in the mayde of kent and the holy gost in the mayde of Ipswich. For they were both in like traunses / both raueshed from them selues / both tormented a lyke / both disfigured / lyke terreble ougly and grysely in sight / and theyr mouthes drawen a syde / euen vnto the very eares of them / both enspyred / both preach / both tell of wonders / wilbe both caryed vnto our lady / and are both certified by reuelacyon that our lady in those places and before those images shuld deliuer them.

Now as for the mayde of Ipswych was possessed off the deuell by theyr awne con