A discussion of the ansvvere of M. VVilliam Barlovv, 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. VVritten by the R. Father, F. Robert Persons of the Society of Iesus. VVhervnto 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.

OTHER POINTS concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities, or Infelicities. §. II.

VVE haue seene by that which hath hitherto bene sayd how vayne and feeble the argument hath bene to proue that Queene Elizabeth was happy in this life in regard of her temporall felicities, which the Lord Cooke reciteth in these words among many other as before we haue noted.

She was so miraculously prot••cted by God (saith he) so strengthned, and ••ortifyed, as she did beat her most potent enemy, did set vp a King in his Kingdome, defended nations, harboured distr••ssed people, and the like.

Vnto which argument besides the other reasons and proofes which I before opposed, I did sh••w out of Ieremy the Prophet the vanitie of this argument, by a notable ex∣ample of King Nabuchodonosor, much more power••ull then Queene Elizabeth was, which Nabuchodonosor receiued euen from God himselfe, greater worldly prosperity and conso∣lations then these, and was called by God, Seruus meu•• Na∣buchodonosor, my seruant Nabuchodonosor, & greatly aduanced, protected, and made powerful ouer his enemies for a time, and to punish, afflict and chas••i••e the people of God him∣selfe, and yet was he not happy but miserable therby: and so might be Queene Elizabeth, though she preuailed against

Catholicke Princes, and people abroad, and was permit∣ted to afflict her Catholicke people at home, wherby was cōuinced that this argumet of worldly prosperity •• though it were manifest that it came directly from God himselfe, yet doth it not infer any true happines at all. And hath the Chāpion M. Barlow any thing to reply for his Lord in this? no truly but granting my proofe to be substantiall, as ta∣ken from the Scripture it selfe, he runneth to othe•• imper∣tinent matter of dissimilitude, betweene Q. Elizabeth, & Nabuchodonosor,* 1.1 as that he had no successour, but the Queene hath &c. which is not the question in hand, nor was the comparison made in this, and moreouer in it selfe is false. For that Nabuchodonoso••s sonne called Euilmero••••th succeeded him, and after him againe Baltazar, which seemeth to haue bene fortold by the Prophet Ieremy c. 27. saying: Seruient ci o∣nes gentes•• & filio eius, & filio f••l•• eius. All nations shall serue Na∣buchodonosor, and his sonne, and his sonnes sonne. In which respect Nabuchodonosor was much more happy thē Q. Elizabeth who left no such issue to succeed her, and therefore the place alleadged by M. Barlow o••t of Isay, Ex quo dormisti &c. since thou wert dead none came in thy place to cut vs vp, by graue Authors is vnderstood of Baltazar the last King of that race, for to the former it cannot wel be applyed, whose sonne and nephew after his death kept them wellnigh for∣ty yeares in captiuity, and they were not deliuered till af∣ter the death of Baltazar, by Cyrus, who with Darius ouer∣threw him and succeded him: by which you may see how well M. Barlow pleadeth for Queene Elizabeths•• happines••

And all this was spoken against the infe••ence of true felicity, supposing that Queene Elizabeths dayes had beene so aboundant and affluent in all kinde of temporall pros∣perities, as the flattery of these Orators would haue it seme, & that her selfe had such copia of consolations, and inopia of tribulations, as the Lord Cooke describeth. But for proofe that this was not so, the••e were many par••iculer poynts touched, which did shew that her temporall consolations were mingled also with desolations, her prosperity with aduersities, her ioyes many tymes with griefe, as for ex∣ample

the circum••tances of her natiuity, the declaration made against her by her owne Father, as well in the put∣ting to death her Mother with note of incontinency, to∣geather with so many adulterers punished with her, as also a••terward the same declaratiō made more authentically in publike Parlament,* 1.2 her disgraces passed a••terward againe in the time of King Edward, & her contemptible reiection by the setters vp of Queene Iane, her pe••ills in Queene Ma∣ries time by the cutting off of her best friendes, whereby she was forced to a deepe dissimulation in religion, that could not be but afflictiue vnto her, her feares and doub••s in the beginning of her owne raigne, what would follow by change of religion, the pretence of the King of Fr•••••••• known to be in hand, for his wiues succession immediatly after Queene Mary, her frights by the Duke of Norfolke, & Earles rising i•• the North, & a great Counsell of the chi••∣fest Nobility held at London against her, and in fauour of the Queene of Scotland, which then ••he was not able to re∣sist, if it had gone forward: her publike excommunication, and depriuation by two or three Popes, which could no•• but bring sollicitude with it, her doubtfu••nes about ma••i∣ing, being pre••sed on the one side by the sollicitatiō of her Kingdome for hope of succession, and held backe on the o∣ther side by certayne desirs of designements of her owne & her fauorites, her intricate reckonings with her sayd fa∣uorits from time to time, as Pickering, Dudley, Hatton, Packi••g∣ton, Rawley, and Essex, among whome the two Earles be∣came in the end to be dredfull vnto her, her ielousy and feares conce••ned not only of forraine Princes, whome she had deepely offended with raising their subiects and maintayning them against them, but of domesticall inha∣bitants likewise, especially of Priestes, Iesuits and Se••in••∣ry••men, who were painted out to her to be such dangerous people, togeather with the Catholickes, that vsed their helpes in matters for their soules, as she neuer ceased to add lawes vnto lawes against them all, and against all vse of Catholicke religion, wherunto her selfe had sworne, and voluntarily protested in Queene Maries dayes.

And not only this, but breaking also into bloud, for these imagined terrors, shee put to death publickly aboue an hundred and thirty anointed Priests, only for hatred of their order and profession, togeather with many other afflicted in pri••ons, others sent into banishment, by for∣ty, fifty, yea seauenty, at a time. She put to death al∣so both the nearest in kinred, and dearest in affection, that she had on earth, as was her Maiestie of Scotlnd, and the Earle of Essex, the guilt of which proceeding lying v∣pon her conscience, did so trouble her for diuets yeares be∣fore her death, as was pittifull, but her death it selfe more pittifull, in dying without sense, feeling, or mention of God, as diuers do report, that do pretend to know the same most certainly. I should be glad with like or grea∣ter certainty to know th•• contrary, for I take compassion of her state with all my hart.

And this is in effect the summe and substance of that which was spoken before, concerning the interruptions and interpellations of Queene Elizabeths temporall ioyes and comfort, which Syr Edward Cooke, & M. Barlow do make to be so singular, and absolute. And what reply is now made (thinke you) to all this? Truly nothing at all to the purpose in hand: for that one of these two poynts should be shewed, eyther that these things are not so, or that they do nothing at all impeach Queene Elizabeth•• tē∣porall felicity, and store of con••olations; but neither of these is proued, what then? You shall heare: first he run∣neth againe into an extreme rage of rayling and reuiling, and scolding as it were a tip-toe, inforcing his whole an∣swere with the most contumelio••s speach that he can de∣uise: but to this is extant his own answere in print,* 1.3 out of Seneca, which he alleageth in the Preface of his Sermon at Paul•• Crosse, against his Maister the Earle of Essex, Vt quisque est ••••ntemptissimus, ita soluti••••ima lingua ••••t. As each man is more contemptible then others, so is he more lewd & loose in his tongue. Then he chafeth intemperatly, that any thing should be sayd or writtē against Queene Elizabeth after her death, and her•• he dilateth himselfe very largely for lacke

of better matter vpon that common place, that the rulers of the people are not to be spoken euill of, specially after their death: for which he citeth both Scriptures, and pro∣phane authors (I follow not his order in this, but the con∣••exion rather of the matter) and will proue them to be both hoggs aud doggs out of Aristophanes, Pliny, Sophocles and other Authors, that do reuile the dead. But to this obiecti∣on also I will put his owne answere, in his foresaid Sermō against the E••rle of Essex, where hauing made the same ob∣iectiō again••t himselfe, for speaking euill of the said Earle after his death, as he doth now against me for calling to memory some of Queene Eli••abeths affaires,* 1.4 his answere in his owne words is this.

But dearely beloued, there is a dif∣ference in faults of men as in diseases, some onely are hurt∣full to the parties themselues, some loathsome and infecti∣ous to others; the first are to be buried with their bodies, & forgotten, but the other will annoy, and therfore must be remembred after death. In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious, had their faultes touched euer after their buriall, but no more, yet some are neuer named in Scrip∣ture, but their sinne is branded vpon their name, as often you may see of ••eroboam neuer mentioned, but presently ad∣deth the sonne of Nebat, which made Israell to sinne.

This was the mans answer at that time, for that it ser∣ued for his purpose, & the same may serue me now against him: for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne, might be applied to the Earle of ••ssex, that was of their owne religion, and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne, and was but a priuate person: how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth, that in∣deed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome, which she found quiet & vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Ca∣tholicke fayth of Christs Church?

But saith M. Barlow, reproaches are vttered eyther for repr••ose to amend,* 1.5 or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated, both which endes doe cease in death. Whereunto I answere, that if they be reproches, and contumelyes indeed without truth (wher∣of

M. Barlowes tongue and pen are ful••) they serue to ney∣ther of these ends, but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer: but if they be true,* 1.6 as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities, ••hē albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow, eyther to amend, or vex the dead, yet are they recorded to warne & instruct them that are a∣liue, by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne, his prouidence, his power, and his care to feare men by terror of euerla∣sting in••amy from the like offences, & many other such holy ends: for the which in Scripture it is a most common & ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes re∣peated and reiterated after death, M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it.

I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers,* 1.7 as Iustinus Martyr•• Irenaeus, Tertul∣lian, and others, who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes, and to honour more the cause for which they suffered, did put them in mind what manner of p••ople and Princes their first persecutors were, as namely Nero and Domitian, what life they led, what end they made, and that indeed they were ••it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke, which I applying to Queene Eliza∣beth, sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made, she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued, for diuers admirable circumstances before tou∣ched, and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Chri∣stened, or created, that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters &c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere, and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose, doth so childishly trifle, as is most ridiculous, telling vs first, that if the Papists may comfort themselues, for that they haue bene beaten by a woman, then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis, according to our interpretation to breake his head: Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman. But this is trifling•• for I doe not say simply by a woman, but by such a woman as neuer

was the like, in diuers points of enormity against C••th••lic•••• religion, and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enor∣mous manners of Nero and Domitian, and not in the sex, as they were men.

Secondly he sayth, that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian, then Queene Elizabeth:* 1.8 but this is also trifling. For neyther is the matter proued, & if it could be, yet doth it not improue my comparison, as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them: so might English Catho∣lickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England, and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church.

Thirdly he sayth about this matter, that heauen and hell ar•• not more different, then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church,* 1.9 from these later of English Papists: for they, sayth he, acknowledged the Emperors supremacy inde∣pendant vpon any but God, prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying &c. But this now is more then trifling, for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say, that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domi••ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God,* 1.10 which inferreth to my vnderstan∣ding, that they acknowledged them for Supreme Heade•• of the Catholicke Church in those dayes, for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs: and the wordes immediatly following, independant vpon any b•••• God, doe seeme playnely to confirme the same, as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe, which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs, and ours. For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference, or contrariety betweene them. For ••hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall, which infer∣reth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian, must needes meane, that they

held them ••or Heades of their Church, euen in spirituall & Ecclesia••ticall a••fayres, although they were Pagans: and ••oe consequently might, and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion, and were ••ound to follow their direction therein. And if this be not more then trifling, especially for a Prelate to vtter•• I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider.

But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death. First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament, that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious, for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd, the fathers did eat sower grapes, and the childrens ••eeth were sett on edge; but this is folly: for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers, for the sinne was her fathers and mothers, but as some disgrace in temporall felicity.* 1.11 Then he tel∣leth vs, that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed. Item that she shewed well by her courage, and other Princely qualities, that she was King Henries daughter. Item that her selfe did so far cōtemne those slaunders published in print, as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared, but rather scorned them. Item that Queene Mary also was disinabled by Par∣lament in her fathers dayes &c. And are not these strong argumentes to proue his purpose, to wit, that this pro∣ceeding of the Parlament and declaration made against her, was no temporall disgrace? Albeit for so much as belongeth to Queene Mary, all men doe know that her case was far different, for that Queene Mar••es mother was neuer noted for incontinency, and much lesse so ma∣ny adulterers put to death with her, as might be doubted whose daughter she was.

To the difficulties she had in King Edwards daies both in respect of the Admirall Seymer put to death for loue-matters towards her,* 1.12 and the like, he sayth in effect no∣thing, but breaketh forth into a fi••t of rage about the whore of Babylon her Philira, and loue-drugs, whereof this fellow can frame a common place to intertayn•• him selfe

for lacke of other matter. Of the time also of Queene 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he speaketh nothing.

About her lawes, and cruell proceedings towardes Catholickes, he intertayneth himselfe some what longer, but no more to the purpose, then in the rest. For first he sayth that the sorest punishment for the first twelue yeares w••s commitment to Bishops and Deanes houses, and some of them to prisons,* 1.13 where they lay as warme and waxed as fatt as in theyr owne houses. And this now hath no need of answer, but that if M. Barlow be not yet fa••, this were a good way to feed him, by lying in prison as they did, for some yeares, which is thought will neuer be for Reli∣gion, come what Religion there will.

Secondly he sayth, that ••or the subsequent yeares, he yeeldeth, that there was more rigour vsed, death being deser∣uedly drawne on (to vse his words) by the merit of treason, wher∣vnto Religion was made but a stawking-horse, and then citeth S. Augustine in defence of the Christian Emperours lawes a∣gainst heretickes. But first he doth not proue, or euer shall be able, any such demerit of treason to haue drawne on this rigour, but only by calumniation, which indeed is and hath beene the persecutors stawking-horse, to deceiue the simple, pretending one thing for another, thereby to oppresse the innocent: and secondly S. Augustine alloweth indeed and commendeth the Lawes of Catholike Empe∣rours made for the temporall punishment of Heretickes, a••ter they were condemned by the Church. But what Church was that? And what Catholicke Religion, for defence wherof those Catholicke Princes in S. Augustines dayes did make those lawes so commended by him? Was it the Protestant Church? And was the Religion thereof the Protestant religion, or ours? Will M. Barlow ioyne with me in this, which of our two Churches and Religions haue descended visibly from S. Augustins Church and religiō vnto our dayes? Can he deny that S. Augustins Church taught Purgatory,* 1.14 Prayer to Sayntes, Prayer for the dead, Mas••e and Sacrifice for the li••ing & dead, and many other articles now in controuersy betweene vs? Dare he stand to

this triall out of S. Augustines workes themselues? And if he dare not (as I know he dareth not, nor will euer accept thereof) why doth he here prattle out of S. Augustine, as though if he were now aliue agayne, he would allow the lawes of Protestant Princes made against that religion and Church which himselfe defended while he was lyuing? This then is another absurd shift of M. Barlow to delude his Reader. But there followeth another if not more ab∣surd, yet at least lesse shamefast, for that the malice is more apparent.

Father Persons, sayth he, who in the Preface of one of his Legends, commendeth Queene Elizabeth for her mode∣rate gouerment, & that was in the last yeare of herraigne: and yet by the way, for the mans singular honesty, it is worth the nothing, that in one and the same leafe, hauing so commended her in one page (marry then she was aliue) in the very next page (for then he heard she was dead) in a Preface to his Maiesty he compares her to no other, but Di∣••clesian for cruelty.

Thus he, and for that he citeth a booke that is in euery mans hand, to wit the first part of the Three Conuersions of England, and thereby his allegation is easy to be exami∣ned, I did magine that I should finde him very exact and punctuall in his assertion. Wherefore I went to looke vpon the two pages of the selfe same leafe, the one writ∣ten before the Queenes death, the other after: but I could see no such matter so neere togeather, then comming back some foure or fiue pages, I found that which I suppose to haue giuen him the occasion of this fond cauill, for that the Author hauing dedicated that booke to the Catholiks of England, & in the Epistle Dedicatory layd forth at large the great af••lictions and tribulations which they had long suffered for that Religion, he commendeth them for their patience, and loyall behauiour towardes theyr Prince in all worldly affayres: VVhich course, sayth he, though it hath not escaped the calumnious tongues and pens of some carping aduersaries (making all treason) yet is it iustifiable and glorious both before God and man, where reason ruleth, and not passion. And I doubt not, but

that t••e wis••dom•• and moderation both of her Maiestie and ••er S•••• Counsell i•• ••ll rather in this point p••nder y••ur owne facts, then your a••∣uersaries wordes. So there.

Where by is euident that the Authour doth not com∣mend Queene Elizabeth for her moderate gouerment to∣wards Catholickes, as this man sayth (for that within fiue lines after he sayth, they haue passed so many yeares vnder the rod of sharpe afflictions:) but only persuadeth himselfe that the wisedome and moderation both of her Maiestie, and the Counsell will stay them from condem∣ning Catholickes for treason vpon other mens words,* 1.15 rather then vpon theyr owne facts: which being but a particuler case, inferreth not, that Father Persons com∣mendeth her for her moderate gouerment. Nor is the other point true, that in a Preface to his Maiestie, he compareth her to no other, thē to Dioclesian for cruelty. For that my wordes were these: Here generally the applause is no o∣therwise, then it was in old time among the Christians vpon the entrāce o•• Constantine into the Empyre after Dioclesian, and of Ioui∣nian a••ter Iulian. Nor is there any mention, or compari∣son of cruelty in that place: so as here neyther the leafe or page do•• agree to his citation, nor the commendation of her moderate gouerment is found; neyther the compari∣son of cruelty with Dioclesian is extant; nor is he only mentioned, but Iulian also. Doe you note how many defects of truth are discouered in so smal an allegation?

But after this again he commeth in with a great scorn against me, for saying, that our Catholicke Priests put to death by Q. Elizabeth dyed for religion, and were true Mar∣tyrs: for that hauing life offered thē if they would renoūce the Pope, and con••orme themselues to the present state of of England, they resused the same. And with this he maketh himselfe merry with diuers ies••es about the consequēce of this argument. Wherunto I answere, that I alleadged di∣uers reasons, why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion, & not for treason. First for that no such treason could be proued against them, in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments,

to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentio∣ned. Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories, as Iohn St••w, and others in their Chronicles do•• obiect no other treason to the most of them, but only being Priests, & their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas, which in no sense can be treason, no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania.

Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest v∣pon their consciences, as they should be saued, they neuer meant treason in thought, word, or deed against Queene Elizabeth.

And then ••ourthly for confirmation of this, I alleaged this other reason, so much scorned by M. Barlow, they ha∣uing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope, & conforme themselues to the State, they refused the same: which he saith is a false and faulty inference, and I say it is very good and true, and that if M. Barlow had any mo∣derate skill of the case according to the rules ••yther of Phi∣losophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy, it being a common axiome, that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto & fi••e, euery action is specified, that is to say, taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end. As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods, this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter & theft, the first from the obiect, the second from the end or intention of the doer: which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered, vpon conditiō he will doe some act against his faith, as going to the Protestants Church is e∣steemed by Catholickes, though otherwise he were n••uer so great a delinquent before, is an act of Martyrdome; for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof: the obiect to wit death; the end which is the profession of his faith.

And so if we passe to consider the same by Theology•• which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyr∣dome, the controuersy will be made much more cleare,

for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke word•• and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse (as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or be••∣reth witnesse) euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome, but only such a testimo∣ny as is giuen by dying for God in the defēce of some truth belonging to our faith,* 1.16 either expressely impugned or im∣plyed in the impugnation of some other vertue, that con∣taineth the sayd truth of our faith therin; which last clause is added, for that a man may be a true Martyr, though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof, but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue, as Chastity, Obedience, Iustice and the like, according to the saying of our Sauiour:* 1.17 Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur pro∣pter iustitiam: Blessed are they that suffer persecutiō for righ∣teousnes. And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all De∣uines for a true Martyr, although he died for no article of faith, but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod, with more libertie of speach and spirit, then any such Prince-flatterer & base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case, if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing.

But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand, whether these Priests died for refu••ing the Oath of the Feminine Supre∣macy, or for that they were made Priests beyōd the seas, or ••or that they refused to come to your heretical seruice••; cer∣taine it is,* 1.18 according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity, that they died for de••ence of their faith, or maintenance of vertue which is sufficiēt to iustify their Martyrdomes, ha∣uing so great warrant, and store of all manner of witnesses ••or the truth, and doctrine they suffered for, as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause, and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares & ages both liued and died. And wheras M. Barlow impug∣neth this by two cases or examples, they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance. Let vs speake a word or

two of them both.

The first is of Absolom, putting the case that he was an Idolator, as well as a traitor, and that King Dauid after sen∣tence passed against him ••or his treasons would acquite him frō death conditionally,* 1.19 that he should renounce his Idolatry, and that vpon re••usall he should be executed, Shall we say (sayth M. Barlow) that he died ••or Religion, or for treason? We will say, good M. Barlow, that he died rather for false reli∣gion, that is to say Idolatry, then for treason, and was the Diuels Martyr: and none I thinke can deny the same, vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe, as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example, which in effect is all one with this, to wit, that a yonger sonne should aspire his fa∣thers death with hope to haue his riches, and that being condemned, his father should offer to saue him, if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queane•• &c. Shall ••e say (quoth M. Barlow) that he is executed for his whore-domes, or for this par••icide against his father?

But here I would aske M. Barlow, why he leaueth out going to Church, which was the first part of the condi∣tion, and nameth only whore-domes? no doubt but the honest man, would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks, and whore-domes seeme to be companions. But now I answere to his question, that if he meane by refusing to go to Church, such as is practised by Catho∣likes, for Conscience sake, and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith, which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches, then dyeth he for the truth of his faith, and consequently he is a Martyr. But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life, and whoredome, it is no cause of Martyrdome, and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr, as we said before of the Idolator. But as for Par∣••icide, cleere it is, that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly, as the immediate cause of his death, for that it was remitted vn••o him; and their passed another electi∣on on his mind, to wit, that he would leaue his old life: so as ••or this he died propriè & proximè, properly, and im∣mediately: and for the parricide only remotè & occasi••nali∣ter,

a far of, and as from that which gaue the first occasi∣on of his death. What sayth M. Barlo•• to this? Doth not common sense teach it to be so?

And thus much for the death of those our Catholike and innocent Priests, whose death was pretiosa in con••••ecta Domini, pretious in our Lords sight, that died only for te∣stimony of his truth; which if M. Barlow did as well see and feele, as Queene Elizabeth doth at this day, he would not so prattle as he doth. Let vs see a little further.

He bringeth in for proofe of the Queenes mildnes an Historiographer of Genua called Bizarrus, or Bizarro, which in English signifieth a Mad-cap, and he is brought in to tell vs certaine points of a Mad-cap indeed, to wit, the great moderation of her mind,* 1.20 her in-bred clemencie, though himselfe be an out-bred: that she gouerned her subiects with exceeding great mildnes, abhorring from bloud, or putting any to death &c. which belike he writing in Genua, knew better then English men liuing in England, who felt the smart in themselues, and others, whiles this man was out of the Gunshot, and, as it is like∣ly, well paid for his paynes: for Syr Horatio Parauicino was able both for his credit, and wealth, to vndertake a grea∣ter matter then this. And for that you M. Barlow, with M. Sutcliffe and others do so often alleadge this Bizarro, as an Author against vs, it shall auaile much, both for your credits, and his, to tell vs where, when, and by what authority he was printed, for here in Italy we can heare of no such worke, although some search hath bene made for him, which doubtles we should do, had he bene set forth in these parts, and therefore we thinke him to be no Catholike writer, but of a bastard brood, and a Mad-cap indeed of your owne making. Besides that, how truly he writeth, not only all England, but all the whole world can testify: and to omit all other most cruell massacring and bloud-shed, the memory of the vnnaturall, and But∣cherly Tyranny, executed vpon his Maiesties Mother, will remaine for a most rufull example to all posterity.

But M. Barlow not content with externe witnesses al∣leadgeth

also domesticall, saying: Your owne Priests shal speake for Queene Elizabeths lawes: and then cyteth out of the book of Quodlibets a certaine pathetical exaggeration in praysing Queene Elizabeth,* 1.21 and her lawes also against Ca∣tholickes, which we esteeming to come from that good suggester Ri. Can. who suggested so notorious a lie vnto M. Mort••n, as himselfe complaineth, & hath byn shewed in the late Reckoning with him, we esteeme it accordingly, & do giue it the credit, that it deserueth; which is nothing at all. And M. Barlow is driuen to a hard exigent, whē he stoopeth so low, as to take vp these base raggs to blazon Q. Elizabeths prayses withall, which a wiser man would haue byn asha∣med to alleage: especially knowing with what sorrow of hart the poore man that fathered that filthy worke, repē∣ted him at his death therof, & asked of God & the Iesuites pardon for the same, as before hath bene signified.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Nabucho∣donosor more happy then Q. Elizabet••
• * 1.2

  Q. Eliza∣beth her infelici∣ties.
• * 1.3

  M. Bar∣low eue•• by his owne cen∣sure and sentence contemp∣tible.
• * 1.4

  M. Bar∣low fol∣loweth not his owne ru∣les
• * 1.5

  ••arlow pag. 96.
• * 1.6

  The vices of wicked Kings recounted after their death in Scripture.
• * 1.7

  Letter pag. 35.
• * 1.8

  A mon∣strous head of the En∣glish Pro∣testant Church.
• * 1.9

  Barlow pag. 99.
• * 1.10

  Nero and Domitian heads of the Church in M. Bar∣lowes opinion.
• * 1.11

  Touching the birth of Queene Elizabeth.
• * 1.12

  M. Barl. Babylon, Phil••ra, & loue-druggs.
• * 1.13

  M. Barl. neuer like to be priso¦ner for re∣ligion.
• * 1.14

  S. Augu∣s•••••••• ••o Prot••stāt.
• * 1.15

  Calumni∣ous citati∣ons.
• * 1.16

  For what cause a mā may be a Martyr.
• * 1.17

  Matth. 5.
• * 1.18

  The Pri∣e••••s that d••e ••••n Q. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 time true Mar¦ty••s.
• * 1.19

  M. Bar∣lows two foolish cases.
• * 1.20

  ••arl. p. 92.
• * 1.21

  Quodlib. pag. 269. 277.