A DISCVSSION OF THE ANSWERE OF M. WILLIAM BARLOW , D. of Diuinity , to the Booke intituled : The Iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his Religion &c. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance .

WRITTEN By the R. Father , F. Robert Persons of the Society of IESVS . WHERVNTO since the said Fathers death , is annexed a generall Preface , laying open the Insufficiency , Rayling , Lying , and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing ,

IOHN MORRIS .

Permissu Superiorum . M. DC . XII .

8. Besides these mistakings , for more euident demonstration of his rare talents in construction , I will set downe two examples , but very briefly , for that he shall againe heare of them both ; of the one in this Treatise , and of the other by the Authour of the Supplement . The first is touching certayne wordes of Saint Gregory in his Epistle to Theodore the Emperour Mauritius his Phisitian , Gregor. lib. 2. Ep. ep. 65. where Saint Gregory yielding the reason why he sent not his Letters for the Emperour to his owne Legate , but to the said Theodore , saith : Nolo eam à Responsali meo publicè dari , quia Vos qui ei familiariùs seruitis , loqui ei liberiùs & ap●rtiùs potestis &c. That is , I will not that this Letter I send ( to the Emperour ) be deliuered publikely by my Legate , for that You , who are more neere about him , can speake more freely & plainly vnto him . So S. Gregory .

9. But what sense or construction , thinke you doth M. Barlow make of these words ? Truly such , as if he were a Grammer boy , vnder some Orbilius , he would be made to feele the smart of his folly . S. Gregory ( saith he ) writes to Theodore the ●m●●rours Phisitian , Barl. pag. 174. and intreates him to deale with his Lord and Soueraigne about it : the reasons wherof he had not , yea he would not ( saith he ) à Responsali suo publicè dare , A very gros●e Grammaticall errour . publikely yield as fr●m his Ch●yre , or Oracle ( much lesse by his Br●ue int●rdict ) but hauing suggested it priuately , he left it to God , and the ●●p●r●urs le●sure and wisdome . So he . And was there euer sentence so interpreted as this ? what chopping , what changing what mistaking is there heere ? A letter is turned into reasons , the verbe passiue into the actiue , a Legate into a Chayre or Oracle . And is not this man more fit to be set agayne to Inspeach , and Grammar rules , then to be imployed in writing for defence of his Maiesty ? I would fayne know where M. Barlow euer reade Responsalis , to signify a Chaire or Oracle , more then it doth a Pulpit , or Sermon , Lincolne Church , or Paules steeple .

10. And to omit other incongruities , by this pittiful construction M. Barlow his Petrus de Vin●is should be more miraculous , then elsewhere he hath made him , and yet he makes him to write Fredericke the second his death a yeare after his eyes and braynes were out of his head . And then further , of one & the selfe same man , he maketh two : but by this new Grammaticall interpretation he shal neyther write nor reade , be one man , or two , but be metamorphosed into a Chaire or Oracle . Fragmentum histori●um in anno 1238. ●omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum . For if he list to read Fragmentum historicum printed in the first tome of the German History , he shall find what that Author writeth of Petrus de Vineis his going to the Councell of Lyons : for speaking of the Emperour he saith : Q●i non comparuit , s●d R●sponsales prose transmisit minùs sufficientes : Fredericke appeared not in the Councell , but sent in his behalfe vnsufficient Embassadours , to wit , Petr●s de Vineis , and Thaddaeus Sinuessanus . Will M. Barlow say , that he sent two Chayres , or Oracles ? That truely had bene a strange Embassage . Or will he tell vs , that when our King Richard the first his Embassadors went to Rome , to withstand the Bishop of Roane , complayning against him , ●s Nubrigensis writeth ( Responsales quoque Regis è vestigio secuti , in conspectu summi Pontificis in faciem illi restitere . The Embassadours also of the King presently following , resisted him to his face before the Pope ) that he sent Chaires or Oracles to Rome ? Or were these Chayrs or Oracles so earnest before the Pope in his defence ? I know not whether this thing deserue rather laughter or compassion : Laughter , for that it is so foolish and ridiculous in it selfe : Compassion to see one to beare himself for Bishop of Lincolne so ignorant , as to translate Responsalis , for a Chaire or Oracle , with this insulting adiection to the same , ( much lesse by his Breue interdict . ) But let vs come to the second .

11. The other example of his Grammaticall construction is concerning a place of Bellarmine about the authority of Kinges , where the Cardinal refelling an obiection that the exemption of Clergy-men from tributes , and appearing at secular tribunalls , is de iure humano , and so may be repealed by Princes , answereth , that it doth not follow , Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. both for that not only Kings , but Popes and Councels haue giuen this exemption to Clergy-men : as also for that the whole world hath consented to the same , which hath bestowed vpon Kinges that power which they haue . So he . Now let vs heare M. Barlow conster these words : thus then he Englisheth them : Barlow pag. 342. Orbis terrae , t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe , from whence is giuen to Kinges that power which they haue . So he . And let him turne ouer againe his Grammaticon or Māmatrecton Cooper , or Calepine , and he shall neuer fynde these two wordes which himself setteth downe in latin , to wit , orbis terrae , to signify , t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe : A strange construction of Orbis terrae . and therefore perhaps his wits were without that compasse when he wrote it , and likewise his honesty was scant at home , when within 3 leaues after , out of this selfe same Chapter he cyteth in different letters , and many of them capitalls , this passage , as the expresse wordes of Bellarmine● The Clergy is not bound to obey Kings , longer then Kings are THEIR SVPERIOVRS : and that is , Bellar. l●● citato . so long as THE POPE WILL : for whome HE EXEMPTES , they are all FRE : and citeth in the margent de Cler. lib. 1. Cap. 28. ● . Respondeo negando . But let him read the place that list , and he shal find no such thing . And what then will yow say to such forgery & falsity ? But for these two pointes I referre him to the Author of the Supplement , where they are more largely discussed . And were not M. Barlow of a seared conscience , and his cause desperate , he would neuer vse such legier-de-main , and discredit himself in this base manner . If his Spartans ready for the combat , can fight no better , it were more for his Maiestys honour , and their owne honesty , that they kept themselues out of the field , & staid at home to tend gooslinges , then thus to betray their cause , and shame all . From Grammar let vs come to Philosophy .

12. It seemeth that in this science M. Barlow is very meanly seene , M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy . and not to haue read , or ( which I rather thinke ) not to haue vnderstood Porphyries Introduction to the same . For what puny-Sophister is there in Oxford , or Cambridge , who knoweth not that , species producatur de pluribus differentibus numero ? But quite contrary M. Barlow tells vs , that the powder-plot was not singular from all examples , there hauing bene the like done by Protestants ( though not in specie , yet in indiuiduo ) as at Antwerp &c. which is asmuch , as if one should say : Although so grosse ignorance as we see in M. Barlow of Lincolne , cannot be found in any other man , yet is it to be found in many M. Barlowes : whereas M. Barlow , of whome we speake , is but one and the selfe same man , and ignorance may be found in other men as well as in him , especially if they be Ministers as he is : but of this also he shall see more in the ensuing Discussion . And doth not he deserue to be brought againe ad inferiora subs●llia , and to sit amongst the Sophisters in Cambridge , till he hath learned to speake more like a Philosopher ?

13. Againe what more sollemne foolery can there be , then so ignorantly to insult vpon his ad●ersary , for saying , that S. Leo in a certayne place spake of vnity of names , as M. Barlow doth , for thus he sayth : Leo ep. 89. What learning will iustifie that phrase of speach , An vnity of names & c ? And againe , that one name imparted to seuerall persons , should be called an vnity , let all the Onomasticks , and Nomenclators , or Mathematicians , or Schoolemen be searched , and t' will not be found . So he . Doe you not thinke that this man hath searched far into the matter , read all bookes , and seene what all say , that so resolutly and generally pronounceth this sentence ? & yet Aristotle could tell him , that all aequiuoca , vniuoca , analoga , agree in one name : and none but one , as ignorant as M. Barlow , will deny that the name Father agreeth to men and God , but in different manner ; so that it is true to say , that the name of Father is all one in God and man , though in nature it differ . And what can be required more to the vnity of names ? Or can M. Barlow conceaue that they haue one name without all vnity ? Truly as well , as conceaue , that a man may be a foole , without foolery , or as simple as himselfe , without simplicity .

14. And if this thing in no Schoole man can be found , then must S. Thomas be blotted out of that ranke , whose wordes are : D. Th● . lec. 12. in Periber . lit . F. Ostenait Aristoteles quòd s●li vnitas nominis non sufficit ad vnitatem enuntiationis . Aristotle sheweth , that vnity of name sufficeth not for the vnity of a proposition . And in his Quodlibets he expresly proueth this vnity of names , which he calleth vnitatem vocis , the vnity of appellation , for that els there were no vniuoca . But of this also he will heare more then he would , or euer will be able to refell by the Author of the Supplement . It sufficeth me to detect only his ignorance , which as it is here , both grosse and palpable , so also combyned with singular arrogancy and pride , in so resolutly affirming , that no learning will iustifie this speach ; when as Aristotle , and S. Thomas the great Philosopher , and most learned of all Deuines , do both teach and demonstrate the same .

15. Another example in this kind I might here produce , touching his doctrine of contradictions , and his grosse mistaking of the same , but that will come after in due place to be discussed , where I examine his dispu●ation , about the first contradiction obiected to Bel●armine . Now let vs see his ignorance in historyes . M. Barlows ignorance in histories . In historyes what greater ignorance can there be committed then to relate fictions for truth , which haue no coherence eyther in place , tyme , or persons ? And yet M. Barlow doth this so confidently , as he did the former of vnity of names . Barlow pag. 298. Let one example suffice for this matter , by which alone the Reader may of himselfe coniecture of the rest . Alexander the third is charged to haue sent Fredericke the first his picture to the Turke , that he might by the same know him , & kill him also , if he came into his hands , and that euen whiles he was fighting the Lords battailes : which obiection M. Barlow saith , pincheth the Pope to the quick . And I must confesse , that had the matter bene as he doth relate it● none can deny , but it had bene very barbarous indeed . But in the last chapter of F. Parsons ensuing Discussion , it is shewed , and conuinced most euidently , that Alexander was dead at least 7. yeares before that Frederick euer thought of going against the Turke , and eight before he came into Armenia . What ignorance then is there in this Minister , so to write and triumph vpon lyes ? How shall his Auditory belieue what he teacheth them out of the pulpit , that blusheth not to vtter such false and iniurious slanders in a printed booke ?

16. I might heere most of all insist vpon his dealing with Pope Innocentius the fourth , whom he relateth to haue done many things against Frederick the second , Barlow pag. 292. & deinceps . vpon the credit of Vrspergensis ; and yet that very Author saith , that they fell out betweene Gregory the 9. and Fred●rick , many years before Innocentius was Pope . And yet such a writer is M. Barlow , as that he will not only ascribe all vnto Innocentius , but also from that supposall , draw this most malicious inference● That he went about to poyson the said Emperour . What more blind ignorance , and malicious dealing can be imagined then this ? But for that this is afterwards very largely handled in the last Chapter of the ensuing Discussion , I will here no further treat therof : nor yet of his telling the Reader out of Binnius & Cicarella , that Pope Sixtus statua of brasse was , for that he was extremely hated , after his death cast downe &c. which all Rome , Barlow pag. 245. and the statua it selfe yet standing conuince to be a lye , & Binnius hath no such word in this Popes life ; neyther doth Cicarella say at all , that it was cast downe . But it delighteth M. Barlow like a blynd horse in the battaile , boldly to aduenture vpon any thing , be it neuer so false , fond , or improbable . pag. 288. The like ● kill he sheweth in making Conradus à Lichetenau to be a different writer from Vrspergensis , pag. 295. and Petrus à Vin●is to differ from Petrus à Vinea , with other infinite like ouersights in this kind , which cleerly shew that to be true of himselfe , wherwith he charged his aduersary F. Parsons , but could exemplify in no particular , In storyes he is a great florisher , but a false relator of them .

17. Neyther is he a more false relator of historyes then an vnkillfull interpreter of the holy Scriptures ; M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures . in which it is strange to see , how he tosseth the text , what sense he yieldeth , and what Commentaryes he maketh thereon , and that either by mistaking the meaning of the words , or by ridiculous application , or by forcing arguments from the same , which haue no dependance , no coherence , or agreement with the place he cyteth , yea not sticking ●ometymes to corrupt the very text it selfe with ●ome addition of his owne thereunto , to make it conclude more forcibly against vs : so saucy he is ●n so sacred a matter . I will giue briefly one example ●n ech kind , where the Spouse in the Canticles is commended for all manner of vertues● vnder the allegoricall types of Myrh , Frankencense , Barl. pag. 53. and all A●othecaryes dust : what thinke you , doth Barlow●ake ●ake of this dust ? Doth he interpret it to signifie any particuler vertue ? Nothing lesse . For he saith , Cant. 3. it is worldly delights of honour and wealth : for that 's p●luis pigmentarius , saith he , the Merchants ( he should say Apothecaryes ) wisest● and quoteth in the margent the Canticles , and place where it is to be found . And is not this , trow you , a great commendation of the Spouse , that she ascendeth through the desert of this earth with al worldly delights of honor & wealth , which tickle the eyes , and blindes the sight of the wisest ? What may not be proued by Scriptures , where such application is allowed ? And here to make the best Commentary in M. Barlowes excuse , there is at least great mistaking of the true sense of the word dust , which I thinke in no other Author besides himself , is taken for worldly delights of honour , and wealth ; as neyther in any Dictionary that euer I saw , is pigmentarius taken for a Merchant . But M. Barlow hath absolute authority to gayne-say both Grammar , Scriptures , and all manner of learning .

18. As for ridiculous application , what more fond conceipt could he make , then to compare Gods diuine prouidence vnto Rammes-hornes : for thus speaking thereof , he saith : The prouidence of God in gouerning of his Church , Barlow pag. 43. is like the ruinating of the walls of Hierico by Rammes-hornes : it is powerfull , not violent ; spirituall , but not visible ; by meanes weake in shew , mighty in ●ffect . Iosue 6. So he . And to omit the ridiculous interpretation , or rather inuersion of trumpets into Rammes-hornes , whereas they were of mettall , as S. Hierome , Origen , and others affirme , or made of horne , as some later writers , and so to be called rather Cornets , then Rammes-hornes , with which I thinke no man can sound any blast : to omit this foolish error ( I say ) me thinkes M. Barlow in this Commentary is very forgetfull of himself ; for in another place he maketh these powerfull , spirituall , and mighty Rammes-hornes to be very weake , poore , and feeble ; for thus he speaketh of his Maiestyes Apology with contempt to F. Persons : As if ( saith he ) the Apologers Answer like Hiericoes walls , Pag. 201. should presently fall with the blast of a Ramms-horne , and a few turnes about it : Iosue . 6. and citeth the same place as before . So as now the force of the Ramms-hornes is very feeble : for the ruinating of the walls , by this reason is more to be ascribed to their owne weakenes , then to any power of the Rammes-hornes . For in case they were so powerfull , spirituall , and mighty , the resemblance which here Syr William makes , should be very simple : for I thinke he will not say that the Apologers Answere is more powerfull then Gods prouidence , which before he compared to the Rammes-hornes . Or if he doe , I can say no more , but that for his labour he well deserueth to be put to the horne at Edenburrough .

19. In another place going about to proue , that the Right which the Church hath against heretikes , eyther for their conuersion or chastisement , is Ius innatum , bred within it , & inseparable from it ; how ( thinke yow ) doth he proue the same against F. P●rsons , who sayd , that is was Ius acquisitum ? Very pithily yow may imagine : for thus he writeth . Pag. 60. Gen. 3. No sooner was there a Church designed , but this right was annexed , Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis , as the enmity for contradiction , so the right for suppression is natiue . Thus M. Barlow , & no more . And is not this well proued , thinke yow ? The seed of the woman shall bruze the serpents head ; that is , Christ the Sonne of the Virgin shall ouercome the diue● , ergo , it is Ius innatum , to punish heretikes . Me thinkes this argument proues M. Barlow more to be a Naturall , then any natiue right to be in the Church . For what is there here to signify the Church , to signify heretikes , to signify this in-bred right ? Truly I see no more coherence betweene the Scripture and the foresaid argument , then I see in this which followes ; Matth. 9. Our Sauiour cured a man of the palsy : ergo , M. Barlow is troubled with the gout . But let vs go on .

20. Last of all , for adding to the holy text ; what more euident example can be desired then that which he bringeth out of Deuteronomy , Barlow pag. 334. to proue that bloudy artycle of the Kinges Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes ? Bloudy I say , for that more effusion of bloud of Ecclesiasticall men hath bene made for that one point enacted by Parlament , then by all the lawes of former tymes , for the space of a thousand yeares togeather , which yet is not only by all Catholikes denyed , reiected by Caluin , and the Puritans ; but vtterly condemned also by the Lutherans , and all learned Protestants . Against all which M. Barlow will needes proue by Scripture this vsurped authority , saying : God in his Word hath appointed Kinges to be Guardians of b●th the Tables , to commaund & prohibite , not in ciuill affaires only , but in matters also concerning religion saith S. Augustine : and citeth Deuteron. 17. & 18 , verse . But in our bookes eyther Hebrew , Greeke , or Latin we fynd no such commission giuen to Kinges , nor any one syllable of their being Guardians of both Tables , or of any commaund in matters of Religion in this place , as elsewhere by the Author of the Supplement he is more fully and roundly tould . And so yow see , to what desperate attempts this Minister is driuen to defend a falsity .