A preamble vnto an incounter with P.R. the author of the deceitfull treatise of mitigation concerning the Romish doctrine both in question of rebellion and aequiuocation: by Thomas Morton. Published by authoritie.

IIII. His blasphemie.

148 If any man (saith he) would discredit both Christ and Chri∣stian Religion, and say our Euangelists did recount foule things a∣gainst him (as heere this Minister saith our Historiographer doth of Pope Gregorie) and namely that he was accused of the Scribes and Phariseis for casting out Diuels by the power of Belzebub, for deceiuing the people, for moouing sedition, &c. and the like crimes, which our Euangelists doe recount indeed, but doe con∣demne them also as false and calumnious: were not this as good a maner of reasoning as this of Tho. Mortons out of Lambertus

against Pope Hildebrand, who is by them so highly commended, as you haue heard, and his aduersaries condemned? Thus P. R. Thomas Morton will tell you that your maner of reasoning is not so good. For suppose that T. M. in his reasoning had beene guiltie of some errour, yet this your comparison cannot be free from blasphemie; the consequence whereof is this: It is like impietie in T. M. in citing the witnesse of Lambert, concerning the opposition of the Bishops of Italie, which Lambert condemned; and to giue more credit vnto them condemning the Pope, than vnto Lambert condemning those Bishops: As it is for a man reading the Gospell, where it is recorded that the Scribes and Phariseis opposed themselues a∣gainst Christ, to beleeue rather those Scribes and Phariseis, condemning Christ, than to giue credit vnto the Euangelists, condemning the Phariseis. Whosoeuer shall exactly exa∣mine the Analogie of this comparison, must needs acknow∣ledge it to be in a maner blasphemous. For either must Christ the sonne of God be compared with Pope Gregorie, a sinfull man, and (as some iudge) the man of sinne, as though it were a like impudencie to say that Gregorie, a sinner, might no more iustly be condemned of the Italian Bishops, than Christ, who was righteousnesse it selfe, of the Scribes and Phariseis, which in the schoole of Christianitie must necessarily be iud∣ged a blasphemie. Or else the likenesse consisteth in the com∣parison of the reporters, matching the holy Euangelists and their Monks Frisingensis and Lambertus together, to thinke it no lesse impietie not to beleeue rather these two Monks con∣demning the Italian Bishops (who they say were aduersaries to the Pope) than those Bishops, though condemned by the Monks; then it is not to beleeue rather the Euangelists con∣demning the Scribes and Phariseis (who were enemies vnto Christ) than the same Scribes and Phariseis, though condem∣ned by the Euangelists. But to compare in like beleefe the holy Euangelists who were Calami Spiritus sancti (as S. Hie∣rome calleth them) that is, The pens of the holy Ghost, and could not erre, and the reports of superstitious Monks, who, almost, could not but erre, is an inference altogether impious.

146 But if P. R. (as I hope hee will) wish his consequent to be rather prooued ridiculous than so sacrilegious, then let him vnderstand the dissimilitude and vnlikenesse of his compari∣son. For first the iudgement of those Historiographers, Frisin∣gensis and Lambertus, two Monks, in condemning those Itali∣an Bishops is different from the iudgment of Sigebert a Monke, of Vrspergensis an Abbat, of Benno a Cardinall: but the Euan∣gelicall Historiographers doe all of them fully consent toge∣ther; therefore hee not acknowledging the Euangelists con∣demnation of the Scribes and Pharisies, and that Lambertus his condemnation of the Italian Bishops, are nothing alike.

Secondly the Pharisies were of different profession vnto the Euangelists, the Italian Bishops were of the same religion with the obiected Historians: therefore to credit the Pharisies against the Euangelists, and to credit Bishops against Monks, cannot bee proportionable, But why doe I trouble my selfe with these my Aduersaries madling conceits? I hasten, for con∣clusion to