Ergo he hath no authoritie from God d If any place of Scripture had warranted the Pope to depose Princes it is likely D. Allen would haue alledged it but he alledgeth none e Exod. 22. 28. Ecclesiastes 10. 20. f God forbiddeth all men to speake euil of Princes so much as in thought Ergo much more to hurt them in deed and to depriue them of their kingdomes and liues too which the Pope seeketh to doe and D Allen mainteineth may lawfully be done What God commandeth in one place of Scripture he doth not countermand in another neither are the Scriptures coÌ„trarie one to another Luke 1. Dan. 2. 20. cap. 4. 14. 22. God not the Pope putteth downe and setteth vp Kings The ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church confirme the supreme authoritie of Princes next immediatly vnder God Tertul. ad Scapulam Idem in Apologetico Optat. contra Parmenian lib. 3. Chrysostom ad populum Antioch hom 2. Greg. epist lib. 3. cap. 100. cap. 103. The Pope must necessarily presume himselfe to be God els can he not be aboue Princes The Pope must either acknowledge himselfe to be no man and not to bee at all or els must he necessarily be inferior to Princes * The Pope whatsoeuer he be Ecclesiasticall or temporall person must needes be subiect to the power of Princes The power to set vp and put downe Princes peculiar to God alone D. Allen more deuoted to the Pope then to God A notable impiety added to sacrilege What D. Allen cannot proue directly by sentence of Scripture he endeuoureth indirectly to induce by example Athalia Ahab Iesabell An argumeÌ„t sauouring more of malice then of substance D. Allens cankred mind D. Allens argument drawne from the example of Athalia The consequent denyed The reason why The Demonstration shewing the difference betweene both the persons and cases The Queenes Maiestie knowne to be a lawfull prince no vsurper D. Allens Antecedent also false 2. Kings 11. Ioash was restored not by Ioiada alone but by the whole Nobility and State Athalia deposed and slaine by the Nobles and State not by Ioiada alone nor by his authority Ahab and Iesabell Ahab himself was neuer deposed 1. King 22. Neither priest nor prophet but Iehu king of Israell deposed and smote the whole house of Ahab 2. Kings 9. 2. Kings 9. 6. The house of Ahab and Iesabell deposed and slaine by the authority and expresse commandement of God not of a priest or prophet D. Allens example of k. Saul deposed Saul not deposed by Samuel 1. Sam. 16. Saule deposed by God himselfe to the great griefe of Samuel D. Allens argumeÌ„t ouerthrowne vnlesse he will conclude that the Popes authority is equall to Gods This example further prosecuted against D. Allen. 1 Though Saul were deposed by God himselfe yet neither did Samuell encourage the people to reuolte from him neither did Dauid the annnointed king secke to put him out of the kingdome neither did the people disobey him so long as he liued which was many yeares after 2 Dauid when he might haue slaine Saule would not nay he thought it sinne to haue done it and calleth him the Lords annointed after his deposition a 1. Sam. 26. Aug. contradit Petihan lib. 2. cap. 48. 3 Dauid caused him that brought newes of Saules death to be forthwith slaine 2. Sam. 1. Marke how direct this example is against D. Allen a Howsoeuer D. Allen inteÌ„deth Saul to haue been deposed by Samuel yet the learneder Diuines take the sentence of God pronouÌ„ced by Samuel touching his reiecting of Saul not to extend to the present deposing of Saul himselfe No example in the whole scripture more directly against D. Allens doctrine and purpose then this The Conclusion As much conscience in D. Allens holie thiefe whom hee mentioneth in his Pamphlet as in himselfe Matth. 22. D. Allen prefixeth before his Pamphlet the sentence of Christ which notwithstanding in the same Pamphlet he doth wholy courtermand in his doctrine The Pope and his followers will be both parties iudges and executioners of their owne doome in their owne cause Princes whether they be Heretikes Turkes or Heathens yet is there subiection due vnto them Rom. 13. The Pope claimeth his authoritie from Christ as his Vicar The greatest Prince liuing subiect to the admonition and reproofe of the meanest Minister but not to his correction Matth. 10. The punishment for disobedience of Gods word and contempt of the Minister is reserued vnto God Peter from whom the Pope claimeth authoritie as his successor was commaÌ„ded by Christ to feede his sheepe but expresly forbidden to vse the sword a Ioh. 21. b Matth. 26. 53. Ioh. 18. 11. Matth. 20. * Christ from whom the Pope deriueth his authoritie neuer tooke vpon him the authothoritie to depose Princes But the Pope doeth 1 Christ not only commanded others to obey but did himselfe also obey Princes The Pope not only refuseth himselfe but also forbiddeth others to obey Princes 2 Christ professed himselfe not to be a king of this world but a subiect to kings and a seruant a Ioh. 18. 36. Matth. 20. â—â— The Pope presâ—â—neth himselfe not to be a subiect to Kings but a superiour and Lord ouer all Kings of this world 3 The Scholler aboue his Maister 4 The Vicars authoritie greater then his from whom he taketh all his authoritie 5 Phe Pope in all points opposite to Christ 6 What is this but Antichrist a D. Allen a wrester peruerter belier of the Scriptures b M. Bilson Warden of Winchester in a booke published Anno. 1586. whereof it seemes D. Allen will take no knowledge All this hath bene directly proued both by expresse authority of Scripture and by arguments drawn from D. AlleÌ„s owne examples D. Allen respecteth the cunning conueiance of his purpose not the sound teaching of the truth An entrance into th'examination of D. Allens perswasions The end of his perswasions already declared To what persons his perswasions are intended Not to Protestants Nor likely by any great reason to Newters or men indifferent He slaunderously reporteth our whole countrey to be fallen into Atheisme Why should men indifferent be lead rather by D. Allens lurking perswasions to a blind and supersticious religion then by our publike and continuall preaching to a cleare and perspicuous religion It resteth that D. Allens persuasions must needes be chiefly or wholly intended to the papists The papists in England not so many as D. Allen presumeth There are none so blind but will see when a man giueth them counsell against themselues The D. of G. and those of the holy league in France though they pretend the patronage of the popish Religion they spare no papist more theÌ„ protestant from the spoile and sword The very quarrell and intent of the D. of G. Some of the greatest and best affected papists hane abandoned that party What danger the English papists runne into if they should but offer to stirre against
bereauing of her both of kingdome and of life with a iustification of the action drawne from the authority of their holy Father the Pope which their ignorant and superstitious deuotion hath by all likelyhood perswaded them that it were damnable for them to disobey and published by a principal piller of their Church the credit of whose Cardinalship is likely inough to preuaile with thē euen against their owne knowledge nature and spirite when her Maiestie I say shall in so perillous a time and expectation of inuasion see so great a danger imminent ouer her by her Romish Catholike subiects and as it were a plaine denuntiation and threatening of the vtter ruine ouerthrow both of her selfe and her whole state to be doubted or rather certainly expected at their hands will it not make her looke better to her selfe and streighter to those Catholikes Nay being thus warned as she may well be by this perswasion of D. Allens what can she do lesse if she wil do but that which in reason in all good policie she may and is by this pamphlet admonished and whetted on to do for the preseruation of her selfe and her kingdome then prouide speedily to cut such Catholiks cleane of and to roote them out of her countrey and not to nourish any longer so manye and so venimous serpents yea such pestilent hydraes in her bosome by whom such assured daunger and mischiefe is portended and threatened towards her At the least if her princely nature and clemencie which hath euer hitherto but too much preuailed with her in the like cases will not suffer her to vse that meanes which in reason were most fitte and necessarie for her best assuraunce yet the naturall and due care of her owne safety and the weale publike must of necessity inforce her at the least to disarme and vtterly disable them from doing harme By which meanes D. Allen I trust shall at the least be disappointed of his purpose for any assistance his Catholike brethren here shall be able to yeelde vnto his Catholike king against their liege Souereigne euen by occasion of his Religious perswasions which if her Maiesties mercie were not greater then his wisedome and foresight in this point might bee a meane of more displeasure and harme vnto the English Romanists then either D. Allens counsell or the king of Spaines forces or the Popes blessing will euer be able to repaire And for this might they thanke D. Allen whose prophane policies turne to the confusion of his own frends and folowers Now to growe towardes an end and to giue you a briefe remembrance of that which hath bene alreadie spoken you haue herein seene 1 First all D. Allens arguments brought in his pamphlet for the iustification of the deliuering vp of Deuenter particularly answered and confuted the fact of Sir William Stanley and Yorke by his owne position proued plaine treason and all her Maiesties actions in the low Countreys or otherwise towards the k. of Spaine by D. Allens owne arguments assertions and authors proued most lawfull iust and honorable 2 Secondly his most wicked and malicious mind and practise against her most Excellent Maiestie and the whole State and Countrey most plainely and euidently discouered togither with his cunning order methode and meanes he vseth to atteine vnto his trecherous purpose his slanderous defamations of her Maiesties most princely and godly actions and of her ministers and countrey most truely and iustlye refuted and rebanded vpon himselfe and his partie and his holy fathers authoritie to depose Princes togither with his warrant for the subiectes disobedience vtterly disproued ouerthrowne not onely by sundry authorities both of the holy Scriptures and of the ancient fathers and Doctors of the Church but also by those very examples which D. Allen himselfe produceth for his best confirmation thereof Thirdly his seditious and vngodly perswasions vnto her Maiesties naturall borne subiectes shewed to be most deceitfull corrupt malicious and such as ought to haue no force being grounded vpon such examples and arguments as doe rather inforce the contrarie and his policies so prophane absurd and vnaduised as being measured by the line of right consideration they turne wholy to the aduantage of them against whom they are intended and to the great preiudice of himselfe and his associats Wherin that you may the better perceiue by the whole course of his dealings and euery particular point thereof the honest and religious mind and disposition of this Cardinall you are in the first to consider the lawdable and high renowmed fact which he taketh vpon him in this pamphlet to defend and extoll and the worthy and famous persons for whom he offereth himselfe an Aduocate and broacheth his best vessels of Rhetorike with his ruinous and decayed eloquence to solemnise proclaime their veluetheaded vertue and deuotion Touching the fact I neede not by bitternes of wordes to augment the infamie thereof being not onely most apparant of it selfe but by D. Allens owne assertions also proued most traiterous dishonorable and infamous For the persons I rather remember them with pitie then pursue them with malice that the one of them being of an ancient noble house a man well frended and greatly fauored and then euen in the ready way of aduauncement should of a meere discontented mind deceiue the expectation and good opinion of his gratious Souereigne and honorable frendes and preuent his owne good happes the other hauing in former times lead a loose and dissolute life and played some slippery partes to the touch of the best ioynt in his bodie and yet hauing afterwardes found extraordinary frendship for the sauing of his life and saluing of his former trespasses and being now receiued into some fauour and credit aboue his demerits should of a vagrant humour and vitious disposition returne with the dogge to his vomit and with the swine to his former filth and wickednes and lastly and especially that both of them should vnto the foule attaint of Treason adde the most odious and shamefull guilt of Ingratitude the one of them in betraying his L. and Maister by whom and through whom he had receiued all his honour and preferment and greater was to receiue if his disloyalty had not preuented it the other in betraying his most honorable benefactor of whom he had receiued sundry fauours and great benefits and by whose speciall meanes he had receiued his life both of them in betraying their Generall which had trusted them both aboue their desert both of them in preferring the present gaine of some few crownes before the respect of their own consciences and reputation their duety allegeance vnto their most gracious Souereigne and the honor of their countrey But it were but a small glorie to insult vpon the miserable and lesse pleasure it is to me to oppresse them with reproches whom their own doings haue already cast downe to the
decipher vnto you his driftes and pollicies which are founded euen vpon as weake groundes yet to th'end you may perceiue how loose imperfect and quite voide of force his reasons are I will not grudge to cast away a litle time and labour in repeating and reducing them to a kind of forme which are so disorderly confusedly and dissolutely shufled out by him The maine proposition and ground of his first argument is this That euery thing wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined from the true owners whether they be by fraud or violence come by according to all Diuine and humane lawes by the very rule of nature ought to be restored to them to whō they duely perteine M. Doctor would seeme by speech to drawe his argument from Diuinity and yet not so entirely from Diuinity but that he can be content with Diuine lawes to mingle both humane lawes and the rule of Nature how be it his maner of prosecuting it togither with his authorities which he alleageth do argue it rather to bee deriued principally from the rule of Morall iustice which giueth vnto euery man his owne But let him take his choice from which he will drawe it for all is to one effect that is to none effect at all for his purpose for to cut off this proposition short see I pray you how sophistically he dealeth He setteth first his proposition indefinite That euery thing wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined ought to be restored to the true owners without adding by whom it ought be restored and concludeth as he must needes if he conclude to his purpose definitely that is That it ought to be restored by Sir William Stanley c. Whereby he maketh his argument consist of foure termini as the Logicians terme it which is a foule fault in logike as euery wrangling sophister of halfe a yeares standing in the Vniuersity can tell you Therefore good M. D. set downe your proposition certaine and reason ad idem and then we will yeelde it to be true that is That euery thing wrōgfully obteined and vniustly deteined from the true owners ought to be restored to them againe that is by them that wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined it for there is no man bound to satisfaction neither by Diuine nor humane lawes nor by the rule of Nature but he onely that hath done the wrong and so will I agree with you that whatsoeuer Sir William Stanley and the rest had wrongfully obteined and did vniustly deteine from the king of Spayne ought to be by them restored vnto him againe But you know well inough and all men know that Deuenter Zutphen fortes were neither obteined nor deteined wrongfully by Sir William Stanley and his complices but quietly peaceably iustly and by lawfull authority deliuered vnto them in charge and custodie vnder her Maiestie by my L. of Leicester her Lieutenant there and therfore were not they any way bound to the restitution of them sauing only vnto those of whom they had receiued them being neither obteiners nor deteiners of them but onely ministers of their Princes commandement For howsoeuer the towne and fortes were obteined yet the subiect being tyed to his Prince by allegeance and oth and hauing vpon that othe receiued from his Prince or her lawfull deputy any place of charge to keepe and hold to her vse is not to enquire into her right how iustly or vniustly she hath gotten or keepeth it but to looke into his owne charge and othe whereof he is bound to giue account Yea suppose the Queenes Maiestie had by violence fraude or iniustice entred vpon those places and so deteined them from the k. of Spaine yet the same iustice which giueth vnto euery man his owne and in such case tyeth her to restitution of whatsoeuer she wrongfully witholdeth yet the same iustice I say giueth her subiectes no such authoritie ouer her as to bee iudges of her iust or vniust dealing much lesse to make themselues correctors or executors of iustice against her vpon their owne iudgement and at their owne pleasure Nay the same Iustice whose foundation as your owne Author Cicero affirmeth is Faith tieth them to the performance of their faith and oath giuen vnto their Prince which oath how litle authoritie your Popes Bull hath to dispense withall as learned men as yourselfe M. Doctor without offence of comparison haue alreadie discussed And therefore let them whose consciences you vndertake to satisfie examine their consciences better touching the lawfulnes of this their action Thus you see M. Doctors subtil Sophistication and how litle his principall Basis whereon he buildeth his whole argument serueth his purpose But that you may see the weakenes of the rest of his consequences as well as of this foundation let vs for good fellowship grant him this proposition euen in such sort as hee putteth it that wee maie haue more of his custome and suffer him to proceed that wee maie see how he will conclude Euerie thing saith hee wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined from the true owners whether it be by fraude or violence come by ought to be restored to them to whom it duely perteineth What inferreth he hereupon But the Towne of Deuēter the Forts of Zutphē were both wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined from the true owner viz. the King of Spaine beeing by fraude or violence come by by the Queene of England Ergo The Towne of Deuenter and the Forts of Zutphen ought to bee restored and therefore were lawfully and iustly restored to the King of Spaine by S. W. Stanley and Capt. Yorke who had the charge and keeping of them for and vnder the Q. of England Here may you now by the way more plainely discerne the fault of his argument whereof I told you before which he himselfe hath not so laied togither nor reduced into streight forme in his pamphlet least the fault should too easily be espied but to colour his fallacie hath gone about the bush with a circumstance of words creeping slilie by degrees to the top of his intent thinking by that meanes to steale it away vndescried as in truth he might easily from plaine simple men and such as are no schollers which might well haue suffised his turne for he seeketh no more But let a man of anie meane iudgement marke it and lay it together and it is presently discouered For the argument is euident inough and cannot be otherwise framed to his purpose as any man of reason maie plainely perceiue and he himselfe I am sure will not denie Now to examine his Minor marke I pray you of how manie partes it consisteth 1. First that the towne of Deuenter and Zutphen fortes were both wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined from the k. of Spaine by the Q. of England 2. That the k. of Spaine is the true owner of them 3. That they were by fraude or violence come by by the Queene of England All these three
seuerall pointes ought D. Allen to proue or els he proueth not his argument yet of the two latter hath he not spoken a word more then a bare affirmation of the first he hath spoken much and proued iust nothing But because his manner of reasoning is not close and well knit togither but in a declamatorie kind which is fitter for his purpose to perswade though not so forcible in reason to proue I will endeuour to seuer his Logike from his Rhetorike and gather his arguments aparte that we may see what and how directly he proueth Whatsoeuer saith he is obteined by vnlawfull warres and so deteined is both wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined But the Queene of Englands warres in the low countries whereby she obteined Deuenter and Zutphen fortes and so deteined them are altogither vnlawfull Ergo The towne of Deuenter Zutphen fortes were both wrongfully obteined and vniustly deteined by the Q. of England from the true owner the k. of Spaine For this must also be added to his conclusion otherwise doth he not fully proue the Minor of his former argument which he is to proue Wherein if a man would stand with him vpon euery strict point he might iustly say this argument is euen as good as the former for there is more in the Conclusion then is conteined in both the Praemisses But let that go and let vs graunt him also his Maior and come directly to his Minor viz. That the Queene of Englands warres in the low countries whereby she obteined Deuenter and Zutphen fortes and so deteined them are altogither vnlawfull What if we should deny first that the Queenes Maiestie helde any warres at all in the low countries Secondly and if she did yet that she obteined not Deuenter by warres D. Allen is able to proue neither of them and we might iustly deny both For no man can saye and say truely that euer her Maiestie tooke the warre vpon her selfe but onely sent some forces for gods cause to relieue the poore distressed couÌ„tries crauing her assistance And for Deuenter neither did her Maiestie obteine it by warres for the towne did voluntarily of itselfe receiue nay they earnestly desired our garrison neither did her Maiestie obteine it at al for it was neuer hers neither did she euer claime it or accept it as her owne but onely was content at the request of the better sort of the towne for their safety to put her soldiours into it to defend it So is M. Doctors argument cleane auoyded But I know he will say these are but cauils for tryall whereof I referre them to the iudgement of any man of reason and indifferencie which hath bene rightly informed therein howbeit because if I will stand vpon them he is able to go no further I am therefore content to ouerpasse them and suffer him to proceede I pray you let vs see how hee proueth The English warres in the low countries seeing so it pleaseth him to terme them warres to be altogither vnlawfull His rule whereby he measureth the lawfulnes of warres is fet from Cicero who saith in his books De Republica as Isidorus citeth it The warre is iust which is denounced for recompence or reuenge of iniuries and annoyance or for defence against enimies This position being laied because the Queens Marshall not iustifie her doings vpon anye title she hath to the low countries which is without the compasse of his diuisioÌ„ he presupposeth that all the world knoweth that shee can make no iust claime to Holland ZelaÌ„d or any other of those parts which she hath as he saith by armes seised on all those prouinces being confessed to 〈◊〉 his Catholike Maiesties ancient and vndoubtfull inheritance These matters coÌ„cerning Princes titles are fitter for other meÌ„ then M. D. me to decide therfore I wil not take vpon me to say any thing touching her Maiesties right to the low countries or any part of them howsoeuer D. Allen dares affirme them all to be the king of Spaines ancient and vndoubtfull inheritance by what authority I know not but how ancient and vndoubted soeuer hee maketh it I am sure men better acquainted with those causes then he do not onely doubt of the kings title to sundry of the prouinces but are flatly resolued the contrary But it is beside my purpose and therefore I leaue it Now let vs see how he proueth the English warres as he termeth them in the low countries to be neither for recompence or reuenge of iniuries and annoyance nor for defence against enimies therefore not iust according to this former position out of Cicero The defence saith he of the kings rebels against their most iust Lord Souereigne is no lawful nor honorable quarrell of war neither haue the said Traytors and rebels any authority to yeelde vp their Souereignes townes and portes into his enimies handes or themselues to the English protection or subiection All this is but a bare affirmation which being denyed his argument is at an end for he prooueth no one parte of it Besides it is a plaine petitio principij which is a grosse error in Logike wheâ—…e groundeth his argumeÌ„t vpon that which is itselfe in question For he presumeth the people of all the low countries to be the k. of Spaines rebels him their most iust Lord and Souereigne which is the whole matter in coÌ„trouersie So you see this argument is cleane cut off by the roote And since he hath nothing disproued her Maiesties dealings in this point by the reason hee hath brought giue me leaue now to iustifie theÌ„ by an argument or two drawne from himselfe In the latter part of this pamphlet where he goeth about to perswade her Maiesties subiects to reuolt from her he doubteth not to affirme that it is lawfull for the subiects for religions sake not only to reuolt from their souereigne and to deliuer vp his cities countries into other mens hands but also to beare armes against him being in such case clerely discharged from all bond of othe and fidelitie to him Whereupon I inferre first that those of the low countries though they were as he supposeth the lawfull subiects of the k. of Spaine yet might they for Religion if there were no other cause lawfully reuolte from the k. and yeeld vp his cities and countries to the Queenes Maiesty or any other Secondly that if it be lawfull for the subiect for religioÌ„ to beare armes against his souereigne then is it much more lawfull for an absolute Prince for ReligioÌ„ also to yeeld succours to her distressed neighbors against a Stranger The argument followeth verie well à fortiori I am content M. Doctor to vse your owne arguments against yourselfe albeit I doe neither allow of them nor thinke them in truth to be sound yet since you thought it no iniurie to vs to make vnlawfull weapons for your owne aduantage against vs you must thinke
these most iniurious calumniations Whereof also that I maie not seeme to make a question of that which is past al question not to be brought into question by such companions I will bee as spare of speech and vse as much breuitie as the cause and case will permit Now then I praie you M. Allen for to you will I now addresse my speech to you which are the defamer of vertue it selfe and the detracter of all godlines what publike robberies are those you obiect vnto vs for her Maiesties name is not fit to be defiled by your impure lippes what sacrilegious warres against God and his Church If you meane the defense or reliefe of the low Countries which is the onelie thing that galleth you in respect of the K. of Spaine your chiefe Patrone and the onlie matter that ministred you the argument of this your pamphlet her Maiesties dealings in that cause which it pleaseth you to terme wars haue ben sufficiently iustified alreadie against your obiections in this former discourse as well by the ouerthrow of your arguments as also by better and more forcible arguments brought against you drawen euen from your owne Authors nay from your owne manifest affirmations Therefore haue you small cause and lesse reason to runne on vpon a headlong conclusion of your owne false assumptions to defame those actions which you could not disprooue nay which your owne assertions haue prooued most lawfull This only should bee sufficient to stoppe your mouth though there were nothing more to be said in that behalfe But because I thinke it more expedient to satisfie other men such as wil with reason be satisfied then necessarie to answere your slanders I will not stand wholy vpon those aduantages VVherefore if anie man doubt either of the reason intent or Iustice of that action first for the former pointes I referre him to the declaration published by authoritie at the time when her Maiestie first sent her forces ouer into the low Countries Anno. 1585. wherein are declared the causes that mooued her Maiestie to giue aide and succourse vnto those afflicted Countries so fully and plainely as I doubt not but may satisfie anie reasonable man touching her reason and intent therein As for the iustice and lavvfulnes of the action albeit the reason and intent thereof being before declared and allovved must needes make the action also iustifiable vnto such as shall allovv of the causes yet because D. Allen shall not runne cleare away vvith an opinion of his conceit I vvil thinke it no great labor to iustifie also the action by argumēts dravven from his ovvn authors Iniustitiae duo sunt genera saith Cicero vnum eorum qui inferunt alterum eorum qui ab ijs quibus infertur si possint non propulsant iniuriam There are two kinds of iniustice the one in them that doe wrong themselues the other in them that doe not reskue and defend other men from the iniuries offered them if they be able Now of these two kinds of Iniustice the one was exercised by the K. of Spaine vpon the people of the low Countries as they saie themselues for I for my part will not imitate the example of D. Allen in charging Princes with Iniustice whereupon the said people crauing her Maiesties aide and assistance the other kinde saith Cicero should haue been offered them by her if shee should haue denied them her helpe and succours to defend them from iniurie Qui autem non defendit saith hee nec obsistit si potest iniuriae tà m est in vitio quà m si parentes aut patriam aut socios deserat But hee that doeth not defend nor withstand if hee can the wrong done to others is as much in fault as if hee should forsake his parentes Countrie or friendes which is the most vnnaturall iniustice Now if it be a principall point of Iniustice for a man not to defend and succour them that are iniuried if he be able and so farre foorth as hee is able to doe it then it followeth a contrarijs that it is a principall part of Iustice to assist and defend them that are wronged By which argument her Maiesties most gracious and Princely action in yeelding aide and defense vnto the poore oppressed people of the low Countries is effectually prooued to bee most iust lawfull and honourable and hee a lyer a slanderer and an abuser of men that hath wickedly sought to dishonour it I will not though well and iustly I might iustifie the action vpon Religion as beeing for the defense of the true Catholike and Apostolike Religion which we professe because I will not runne into the same fault which I reprehend in him that is Petere principium to ground mine argument vpon that which is in question between him and me no more then I wil allow him to impeach it vpon the authoritie of his former assumption That all the Prouinces of the low Countries are confessed to bee his Catholike Maiesties ancient and vndoubtfull inheritance which is in question of armes euen at this day and therefore not necessarie to bee disprooued by mee neither might I doe it vnles I would offende in the same fault which I also reprooue in D. Allen that is in dealing with Princes titles which is no part of his duetie and mine Now how vniustly and falsly he chargeth her Maiestie with entring by hostilitie into the King of Spaines Dominions surprising his Townes and Castles and bringing his people into her subiection let all men iudge that haue in them either reason discretion or indifferencie First it is as hath been alreadie said a thing in question cōtrouersie whether those parts of the low coūtries where her Maiesties forces haue bin be the K. of Spaines Dominions or no and if they bee not then is this a most euident and manifest slander euen before the face of the whole world But suppose them to be the K. of Spaines Dominions as he presumeth yet is it not vnknowen to anie priuate mean man in this Realme that knoweth anie thing of the affaires of those Countries that her Maiestie hath beene offered yea with humble and earnest sute of the people of those partes intreated to take both them and their Countries into her absolute protection rule and gouernment which though there were no great doubt but that shee might lawfully haue done yet hath her Maiestie euer hitherto vtterlie refused them which shee needed not neither by all likelihood would haue done if shee had had anie such great thirst after those Townes Castles Countries or peoples Dominion No her Maiestie is content with her owne kingdome and gouerneth her subiects by lawfull authoritie with Iustice and Clemency not by tyranny with rigor and oppression neither seeketh shee either by the Popes pretended authoritie and assistance to depose or by violēt armes to depriue other Princes of their kingdomes Shee cleaueth not to the Pope to make his supreme
if Belzebub himselfe the maister of that malicious sect had sat by giuen them instructions haue not only raked their owne braines to the bare scull but I am sure haue not left any one corner within the whole compasse of Hell it selfe vnransacked to seeke and find out some new strange kinds of rancor and venim more then all the Poets from the beginning of the worlde could euer inuent for the description of Enuie the Furies themselues wherewith to exasperate and empoison their most outragious slaunders breathed out against him Which euen vpon the very first view haue appeared vnto all men so manifestly false monstrous and farre from all colour of truth credit or likelyhood as his very enimies themselues and such as hate him in their hartes haue not onely bene ashamed of the slaunders but openlye condemned the authours of that most barbarous villany and shamelesse immanity In which respect being with all men generally so much discredited detested and abhorred for their abhominable vntruth they haue not hitherto bene thought worthy fit or seemely to be answered by any man and therefore shall not presently be further stirred by me but returned to the filthy sinke from whence they proceeded And for the authours thereof as thinking by this meanes to make his Lordship odious amōgst men they haue not onely failed of their purpose but haue thereby also made themselues hatefull vnto God and infamous to the worlde and fallen themselues into the pit which they digged for him So haue they contrarie to their own minds and against their willes heaped on his head the heauenly blessings which Christ himselfe with his owne mouth pronounceth vpon those which are reuiled persecuted falsely slandered for his sake Which may be and no doubt is a singular comfort to the most honourable zealous and godly minded Earle not onely to despise and contemne their despitefull slanders but so much the more hartily to reioyce and triumph ouer their malice as he seeth him selfe the more impudently and furiously assailed with their iniurious reproches It were too much labour and too ill bestowed either to reply vpon or to repeate all the railing and slanderous speeches which D. Allen belcheth out against his Soueraigne her ministers and countrey for therein onely in mine opinion he seemeth to himselfe to haue best grace But he that will defile his owne nest as they say the countrey wherein he was borne and bred calling it the Buckler of all rebellion and iniustice and an enimie of lawfull Dominion and Superioritie yea he that will not sticke to rippe vp the wombe and to teare and take out the bowels of his owne mother he that will endeuour to bring in an inuasion to the vtter spoyle ruine and depopulation of his deare countrye what iniurie what wickednesse what impietye will hee leaue vnattempted But now will I come to the second step of his ladder wherein hauing already sought by defaming her Maiesties most iust honorable actiōs to withdraw the hartes loue of her subiectes from her he now goeth about to embolden them to disobey her by giuing them a warrant for their disobedience teaching that since her Maiestie was excommunicate and deposed by the Popes authoritye there is no subiect that neede or ought or may lawfully serue her in any case be it otherwise neuer so lawfull A very good doctrine no doubt and well agreeing with the word of God The holy Ghost saith Let euery soule be subiect to the higher power and whosoeuer resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receiue to themselues iudgement And further Submit your selues whether it be to the king as vnto the superiour or vnto Gouernours as sent by him for so is the will of God c. But these are matters out of my profession and meeter to be argued by Diuines and so is all this whole question touching the excommunication and deposition of Princes Yet because I see litle Diuinitie vsed by D. Allen for the proofe of his part but such as may easily be answered by a man of small reading I may be the bolder in briefe manner to examine his handling of this point that you may see what he hath to say for manteinance of this seditious doctrine Wherein if I proceede vltra crepidam as D. Allen hath doone in dealing with Princes titles and State matters or steppe a little out of square I humbly craue pardon of the learned Diuines for entring into their professiō which D. Allen doeth not of Princes for entring into their possession But the lesse maruell is it that hee is so bold with Princes in that point when he toucheth their freeholds so much neerer in making both them their persons and kingdomes subiect to the Commandement and disposing of a man of as meane qualitie in a maner as himselfe But we see God hath giuen vnto Princes authoritie and commandement ouer their Subiects and hath willed all sorts of people as well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall and consequently both D. Allen and the Pope himselfe to submit themselues vnto Princes to be subiect vnto them to obey and not to resist them vnder paine of iudgement let vs see then by what authoritie D. Allen can release and discharge the Subiect from his obedience duetie and allegeance vnto his Prince His first authoritie is taken from Hildebrand whom hee calleth Gregory the seuenth who taking vpon him more like a king of kinges or lord of the whole world then like a true scholler and follower of Christ pronounceth his decree with a great Maiestie in the plurall number We saith he according to our predecessours Decrees doe assoile discharge all them that by obligation of oath or fidelitie are bound to persons excommunicate and that they doe not obey such we do expresly forbid His secōd authoritie which is euen the like he fetcheth from Vrbanus the second who vseth this inhibition forbid saith hee the sworne soldiers of Conte Hugh that they serue him not so long as hee standeth Excommunicate And if they pretende their former oath made vnto him admonish them that God is to be serued before men and that the oth which they made to him when hee was a Christian Prince is not now to be kept towards him being an enemy to God and his Saints and a breaker and contemner of their commandements A faire paire of authorities drawen from a couple of Popes who had euen as good authoritie to giue these discharges and inhibitions as D. Allen himselfe Is this the best warrant you haue to release the subiect of his oath and obedience to his Prince because two Popes of your owne pack whose whole practise hath been for these foure or fiue hundreth yeeres to bring the heads of Princes vnder their girdles haue to that intēt pronounced it to be lawful for the subiect to renounce his allegeance to
his Prince whensoeuer it should please his holines forsooth vpon any displeasure or priuate occasion vnder pretence of some hainous crime to Excommunicate him What if we should deny that these Popes or any other Pope euer had or hath any authoritie to Excommunicate a forrein Prince no way subiect to his charge D. Allen hath not prooued it in his Pamphlet nor anie where els neither is hee able to prooue it with the helpe of all the Cardinals in Rome yea and of the Pope himselfe too while he liueth But such as are Romanists are of another minde and will happely beleeue D. Allens bare affirmation in this behalfe and so may be persuaded not onely that the Pope hath authoritie to Excommunicate and depose Princes at his pleasure but also that the subiects of Princes so Excommunicate and deposed by the Pope may lawfully and ought in duetie to disobey and reuolt from their seruice How they may bee seduced by erroneous doctrine I know not but for other men that are either of sounder Religion or men indifferent or not so throughly and obstinately as vpon a meere selfewill addicted to that faction I doubt not but they will be better aduised then to giue credit vnto the affirmation of anie man or the authoritie of anie Pope though hee make himselfe more then a man beeing directly contradictorie to the expresse word and will of God as hath been shewed by the places of Scripture aboue rehearsed and by manie more may be But because they also shall not haue anie colour of defense left them whereby to excuse themselues so much as vpon ignorance in this behalfe I will since I am entred into it laie before them in as few words as I can the abuses of D. Allen whereby hee goeth about to deceiue them in this point and prooue directly and manifestly vnto them that neither the Pope hath any authoritie to depose Princes from their thrones which is the ground whereon he buildeth his warrant of reuolt and further that it is vtterly vnlawfull for the Subiect for any such occasion to deny the Prince the obedience subiection and seruice due vnto him much more in traitorous manner to rebell against him which D. Allen so alloweth and commendeth First therefore as concerning the Popes authoritie to depose Princes I demand from whom hee hath that authoritie whether of himselfe or from God Of himselfe I know he will not say for that were as great arrogancie as absurditie in him to saie And if he would as perhaps he could be content to take it vpon himselfe if hee thought it might go for currant yet can hee not yeeld any colour or shew of reason to mainteine it being contrarie to the expresse word of God For There is no power saith the Apostle but of God and the powers that be are ordeined of God Then can the Pope haue no power or authoritie of himselfe vnlesse he will affirme himselfe to be God And the Prince being a power and consequently ordeined of God it were great presumption in him to affirm and greater blindnes in men to beleeue that the authoritie of man can frustrate or take away the ordinance of God It resteth therefore that the Pope if he haue anie authoritie to depose Princes he must haue it from God And if he haue it from God thē is there some warrant in his word to authorise the Pope thereunto But there is not anie place of Scripture that giueth the Pope any expresse power to depose Princes and therfore hath he no such authoritie from God For the proofe of my Minor First it is likely that if there were any such place of Scripture as giueth the Pope expresse power to depose Princes D. Allen would vndoubtedly haue alledged it for the more credit of the cause and not haue passed it ouer with a bare affirmation beeing a matter heretofore by many and manifest arguments and proofes of Scripture cleerly disprooued and conuinced against him Secondly for further confirmation thereof I reason thus Besides the obedience and subiection which God hath commanded in the Scripture to be done vnto Princes hee hath further forbidden all men to speake euill of the ruler of the people or to curse the King yea so much as in thought Whereupon I frame this argument God forbiddeth all men to curse the King yea so much as in thought Ergo he forbiddeth the Pope to curse the King so much as in thought And he that forbiddeth to doe the lesse much more forbiddeth to doe the greater But it is far greater to curse the K. indeed openly and to depriue him of his kingdome then to curse him in thought only or to speake euill of him Ergo God forbidding the Pope to speake euill of the King or to curse him in his thought much more forbiddeth him to curse the King openly or to depriue him of his kingdome wherupon it followeth by good consequence that God doth not in any place of Scripture authorise the Pope to depose Princes for so should he allow and warrant that in one place which he hath forbidden in another whereof you see what inconuenience should follow that God should command contraries and the Scriptures should bee repugnant to themselues which were plaine Atheisme to affirm Whereby it maie be cleare and manifest vnto euerie man that hath any sense of Christianitie in him that God hauing in these former places of Scripture expresly forbidden all men to curse in thought or to speake euill of the King much more to curse him openly or to bereaue him of his kingdome doeth not therefore in anie place of Scripture admit or authorise anie man contrarie to this inhibition to curse excommunicate and depose Princes out of their kingdomes For that were to countermand his owne commandements and to shew himselfe variable inconstant repugnant to himselfe which were high impietie for anie man to imagine Thus you see beside the presumption which is to be gathered out of D. Allens own dealing in that hee alledgeth no place of Scripture to warrant the Popes depriuing of Princes that it is therfore likely that no place of Scripture doth authorise him thervnto you see it I say directly proued by sound and substantiall argumēt as by many more also might be verie aboundantly if either the cause required proofe or if it were my purpose to stand vpon the confirmation of that which is of itselfe so manifest that the Pope neither hath nor can haue anie expresse authoritie giuen him directly by the word of God to depose Princes which is the thing that God reserueth wholy to himselfe for it is he not the Pope that deposeth the mighty from their seat exalteth them that are low it is he not the Pope that putteth downe kings setteth vp kings and giueth kingdomes to whomsoeuer he will For God hath ordeined Princes to rule his people and to represent his own Maiestie
amongst them which cannot be subiect to any earthly creature as he hath put all men in subiection vnder them as his own Vicegerents on Earth so hath he subiected thē vnto none but onely and immediatly to himselfe Which supreme authoritie of Princes next vnder God howsoeuer D. Allen doth maliciously and wickedly impugne yet the Church of Christ hath euer confessed confirmed it as appeareth by the sentences of the holie Fathers and Doctors of the Church touching that point Colimus imperatorem saith Tertullian vt hominē a Deo secundum solo Deo minorem we worship the Emperour as a man next vnto God inferiour to God only And againe Deum esse solum in cuius solius potestate sunt à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes super omnes Deos homines That it is God onely in whose power alone Princes are to whom they are second and after whom they are first before all and ouer all both Gods and men Optatus in like sort saith Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem There is none aboue the Emperour but onely God who made the Emperour And Chrysostome saith Parem vllum super terram non habet The Emperour hath no equall on earth And Gregory affirmeth further That power is giuen to Princes from heauen ouer all men not only soldiers but Priests If Princes then by the iudgement of the old learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church whose names D. Allen doeth more boast of then alledge their testimonies bee in authoritie next vnto God inferior to him only superiors to all men and if there be none aboue the Prince but onely God who made the Prince the Pope must of necessitie either presume himselfe to be God els can he not be aboue the Prince or at the least make himselfe no man but a monster otherwise must he needes be inferiour to the Prince And if the Prince haue no equall on earth the Pope must either acknowledge himselfe to bee vnder the Prince or els not to bee at all And if power be giuen vnto Princes from heauen ouer all men not only soldiers but Priestes also then cannot the Pope whether hee bee soldier or Priest or whatsoeuer hee be so hee be a man exempt himselfe frō that power which God hath giuen vnto the Prince ouer him much les can he take away from Princes that power which God hath giuen vnto them For the power of setting vp and putting downe Princes being in Maiestie the greatest on earth and proper to God himselfe alone hath he not imparted vnto anye earthly creature either absolutely from him-himselfe or iointly with himselfe but hath reserued it wholy to himselfe But because D. Allen is so much more deuoted vnto the Pope then to God as that he can bee content to pull out of Gods hand his peculiar authority and prerogatiue to draw the same wholy vnto the Pope by what meanes he careth not right or wrong and the more to augment the iniurie will needes make Gods own word a warrant to robbe himselfe of his honour and right hauing already shewed that he cannot by anye meanes directly drawe from God vnto the Pope the authoritie of deposing Princes I will lay before you also the indirect meanes he vseth in this pamphlet to accomplish his intent and how litle they also serue his turne What he cannot proue by sentence of Scripture he laboureth by the way to induce by example as namely by the mention of the vsurping Queene Athalia the wicked King Ahab and cursed Iesabell who were all as he seemeth to intend deposed from their kingdomes and slaine because the Priestes and Prophets of God did therein giue assistance counsell or direction he woulde hereupon faine inferre that the Pope may by these examples take away both the crownes and liues of princes An argument farre fet in truth and sauouring more of malice then of substance For the comparison of her Maiestie vnto an vsurper or to wicked Idolaters is as odious and vnproper as the resemblance of the Pope to the holy Prophets is vnfitte and vnequall Wherin I must note vnto you by the way an euill spirite in D. Allen that seeketh or rather snatcheth all opportunities to spit forth his venim against so gratious a princesse But let vs leaue his vice vpon himselfe and looke in to the vertue of his argument Athalia was lawfully deposed from the kingdom and slaine by the authoritie of Ioiada the high priest Ergo the Pope hath authority both to depose and procure the death of the Queenes Maiestie For that is it that D. Allen doth as earnestly labour to iustify as the Pope doth diligently endeuour to atchieue but I trust the Pope shall faile asmuch of his wicked intent as the Doctor faileth in his weake argument Whereof to speake first of the whole I doe vtterly deny his consequent For neither is it to be graunted him that the Popes authority is as great against the Queenes Maiestie as Ioiadaes was against Athalia neither is her Maiesties case like to Athaliaes of both which I will make plaine demonstration First concerning Ioiada as he was high priest so was he also the Priace of his tribe and thereby had more authoritie to deale in the state of that kingdome then the Pope can haue to deale in a forreine kingdome And for Athalia she was an vsurper who came to the crowne by killing the kinges children all sauing one whom Ioiada kept secret and saued from her furie vntill he had the meanes to restore him to his kingdome by suppressing the vsurper But it is very well knowne that the Queenes Maiestie is no vsurper but a lawfull Prince neither came to the crowne by any such wicked meanes but by due right of inheritaunce So is there as great oddes betwixt her case and Athaliaes as betweene the authority of Ioiada and of the Pope And the cases being vnlike the consequent cannot be good For though an vsurper may lawfully be deposed and slaine yet it followeth not therefore that a rightfull Prince may and though the chiefe Princes and States of a countrey vnited together may aide and assist the lawfull King to place him in his throne and to put downe the vsurper yet doth it not follow that a priest which is a meere straunger to the countrie may therefore thrust a lawfull Prince out of his kingdome And as little reason as there is in his consequent so litle truth is there in the antecedent For neither was Athalia deposed and slaine by Ioiada himselfe neither by his authority much lesse by the authority of his priesthood For he did not in any sort take the matter or the authority vpon himselfe but what he did he did by the common consent of the Nobles and Capteines whom as the text saith
before he would attempt any thing he caused to come vnto him into the house of the Lord and made a couenant with thē and tooke an oth of them in the house of the Lord shewed them the kinges sonne After which consent and couenant accorded amongst them hauing disposed an order for the proclaiming and establishing of Ioash the young rightfull king whom he had so saued from the massacre hee brought him forth as the text saith and put the Crowne vpon him and gaue him the testimonie and têhy made him king And when Athalia hearing the noise of the running of the people came in and cryed treason treason the text saith thêy layd handes on her and she went by the way by which the horses go to the house of the king and there was shee slaine So it appeareth by the very text itselfe that Athalia was neither deposed nor slaine by Ioiada nor by his authority but by the Nobles whole state of the countrey and by the authoritye of the rightfull king whom they firstcrowned annointed and proclaimed neither did Ioiada any thing in the matter more then duety nature and conscience moued him vnto to present vnto the nobles and fathers of Israell the kinges sonne whom he had saued and to further the restoring of him to his right being the king his maisters sonne and neerest allyed vnto him and especially right heire to the kingdome None authoritie did hee take vpon himselfe therein especially in respect of his priesthood Thus you see how little this example of of the vsurping Queene Athalia serueth D. Allens turne to proue the Popes authority to depose Princes And for the other of Ahab Iesabell they proue euen as much For if D. Allen meane Ahab himselfe touching his owne person he was neither depriued of his kingdome nor slaine by any priest or prophet but died king of Israell and was slaine in the field fighting against the king of Aram about Ramoth Gilead But if he meane the sonnes and whole house of Ahab which were destroyed by Iehu D. Allen abuseth both himselfe and you very much to tell you that they were deposed and destroyed either by Priest or Prophet for it was Iehu the king of Israell that slue Iehoram and smote the house of Ahab and caused Iesabell to be cast out of the window But saith D. Allen Iehu receiued authority and commission so to do from Eliseus the prophet therefore the Pope may giue and consequently hath himselfe authoritie to depose and kill Princes I deny your antecedent M. Doctor For it is most false that Iehu receiued authority from Eliseus as you seeme to intend he did from Elias mistaking either the man or the matter in your defense of the English Catholike to put downe the sonne and whole house of Ahab for the Prophet which was sent by Eliseus vnto Iehu to annoynt him neuer spake word of Eliseus to him much lesse deliuered him any authority from Eliseus but deliuered his message expressely from God beginning with Thus saith the Lord God of Israell c not Thus saith Eliseus So was it the authority of God and not of a Prophet wherby the house of Ahab and Iesabel were put downe slaine neither was priest or prophet the doer but Iehu the king of Israell whom God had by speciall commandement appointed to depose and smite them being himself before annoynted king in their place by the same commandement Now if D. Allen will hereupon gather any argument to mainteine the same authority in the Pope to depose destroy princes he nust needs make him equall in authority with God which neither Christian Iew nor Pagan will in reason allow vnto any mortall creature Now for his other example of k. Saul wherby he goeth about to inferre that as Samuel deposed Saul so the Pope may depose Princes it doth not onely make nothing at all for his purpose but is also most forcible against himselfe as shall bee most plainely declared vnto you For whereas first he assumeth it as a thing most true and certeine that Samuel deposed Saul he vtterlye mistaketh or rather most wickedly belyeth the holy historie in this as he hath done in the others For the Scripture saith that God rebuked Samuel for mourning for Saul that God had reiected him from reigning ouer Israel Whereby it appeareth manifestly that although Samuel in this place as the rest of the prophets in other places did by Gods expresse commaundement denounce the sentence of deposition yet was it not Samuel but God himselfe that deposed Saule from his kingdome to the great griefe of Samuel So is D. Allens argument cleane ouerthrowne in this example aswell as in the former vnlesse he will conclude that the Pope hath in himselfe as much authority as God himselfe which I thinke he would not greatly sticke to affirme if he thought he might be belieued for he maketh it not dainty to dubbe that which is as false in saying that the prophets deposed Princes So little regard hath he either of God or man so that he may bring his purpose to effect But let vs look further into this example and we shall see how farre it setteth him beside the saddle Albeit Saule was thus deposed by God himselfe and Dauid annointed king in his place by Gods owne precise commandement yet did Samuell thereupon euer go about to depriue him of his kingdome or encourage the people to reuolt from him and disobey him Or did the people themselues stir against him so long as he liued Or did Dauid which was the annointed king in his place euer offer to thrust him out of the kingdome or seeke his life No Saul reigned many yeares after that and the people both obeyed and serued him Yea and Dauid himselfe when he might haue slaine him in the Caue and so haue gotten also the present possession of the kingdom to himselfe yet he would not nay he thought it a sinne for him to haue done it For who said he can laye his hand on the Lordes annointed and be guiltlesse Yea percusso corde trepidauit saith S. Augustine he was stroken and trembled at the heart because hee had cut but the lappe of Saules coate And in th'end when word was brought him of Saules death how rewarded he the messenger I pray you for his tydings and for the Crowne and Bracelet of Saule◠which hee brought him Forsooth he caused him to bee slaine forthwith in his presence saying How wast thou not afraid to put forth thine hand to destroye the Lords annointed Thy bloud be vpō thine own head for thine own mouth hath witnessed against thee saying I haue slaine the Lords annointed Thus you see Saul a wicked King deposed not by a Pope nor by a Priest nor by a Prophet but by God himselfe and Dauid chosen and appointed by God and anointed in his place and yet
neither the Prophet euer counselled or mooued the people to disobey Saul being so deposed nor the people euer offered to reuolt or to deny him their obedience seruice nor Dauid the true and rightfull king appointed by God in his place euer sought or cōsēted to depriue him of the kingdome though due vnto himselfe but notwithstanding he knew him to be his deadly enemy and to hunt after his life yet hauing him twice in his hands where he might safely haue slaine him and therby inuested himselfe of the kingdom neuerthelesse wold he neither touch him himselfe nor suffer any other to touch him calling him the Lords annointed and esteeming it a high sin to laie his hand on him though hee were deposed by God himselfe and which is yet most notable caused the messenger that brought him the first newes of his death to be forthwith slaine for his labour And all this notwithstanding yet is not D. Allen ashamed to wrest this example quite contrarie to the trueth for a president to prooue that the Pope hath authoritie to depose and depriue Princes both of their kingdomes and liues and to release discharge the subiects of their allegeance and further that it is lawfull for subiects to reuolt from their Souereignes to yeeld vp their holdes trecherously vnto their enemies and to beare armes against them To which doctrine hee could not haue found in all the whole Scriptures though all bee flat against it anie one example more directlie contrarie then this the iudgement whereof I referre to the reason consideration and conscience of all men that haue anie sparke of Christianitie morall vertue or naturall reason in them Now then if none of all these examples of Scripture which D. Allen hath cited to prooue the Popes authoritie to depose Princes doe shew that anie of those Princes whom he mencioneth was deposed either by Priest or Prophet as hee falslie assumeth but by God himselfe how can hee then inferre vpon these examples that the Pope hath anie such authoritie vnlesse hee attribute as I said before as much authoritie vnto him as to God himselfe And if Saul being deposed by God himselfe yet neither the Prophet did thereupon disswade the people from obeying him nor the people once offered to reuolt from him but continued in all duetie and obedience towardes him as long as he liued which was manie yeeres after his deposition and if Dauid beeing the lawfull annointed King in his place yet neither sought to put him out of the kingdome but yeelded him obedience and seruice calling him Lord maister during his life thought it sin to laie his hand on him notwithstanding he was deposed lastly in token of the misliking and displeasure he tooke at the death of Saul caused the messenger that brought him the tidings thereof to be slaine how can D. Allen by this example induce men of anie reason or sense to beleeue that either the Pope maie lawfully authorise encourage or exhort subiects to disobey or to laie hands on the Lords annointed or that anie subiect may lawfully renounce his allegeance reuolt from and beare armes against his Souereigne beeing a lawfull Prince onelie vpon a colourable warrant of deposition by a man a Priest a stranger who hath no authoritie in the worlde to depose anie Prince from his kingdome no though hee were an Infidel but is himselfe euen by Gods ordinance a subiect to Princes With what face can hee vtter such manifest vntruthes with what confidence can hee persuade himselfe to bee beleeued when his lies are so monstrous and his impostures so euident But most of all with what conscience can hee presume to force the word of God to his purpose which is so directly against him But hereby may all men plainely perceiue how small regard that sect hath vnto religion but onlie to serue their turnes which are not ashamed to make such impudent and vngodly shiftes to maintein their vsurped authoritie Call you this holines M. D. to abuse the people with false doctrine to belie the scriptures to peruert the most sacred word of God to rob him of his own peculiar authoritie and prerogatiue for the defence and furtherance of your owne rebellious practises In trueth it resembleth much the holines of your holie thiefe whom it pleaseth you somewhat merrily in your Pamphlet to compare vnto vs but in truth a righter patterne of your own profession which to speake truely what I thinke in my conscience is much discredited by your owne double dealing You your selfe to further your owne purpose as you supposed could prefixe before your Pamphlet euen in the first page as a sentence vnder the title thereof the resolution giuen by Christ vpon the tempting demand of the Pharisees Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari wherein Christ himselfe commandeth all men to giue vnto Caesar that is to the King and Ciuill Magistrate whatsoeuer is due vnto him that is feare honor subiection and tribute And how dare you then euen in the same Pamphlet countermaund this commandement of our Sauiour bending all your forces craft and cunning to persuade the subiect to resist his Souereigne and thereby to break this high and peremptorie commandement But you saie the Pope hath authoritie to discharge the subiect of this duetie and obedience which is here commanded Shew me then I praie you some Text of Scripture that giueth the Pope so large Commission as you speake of nay shew me anie dispensation out of Gods word that may exempt you or the Pope himselfe out of the compasse of this commandement For the precept is generall and therefore extendeth to all men and besides was expresly giuen by Christ vnto his Disciples to whom hee spake in presence And if the Pope and you bee the Disciples of Christ as you would seeme to bee then must you also as well or rather then others yeeld obedience and subiection to your Ciuill gouernours or els fall into the breach of Christs commandement And if you bee subiect to the ciuill Magistrate as you are by this rule of Christ how can you take that authoritie from them which Christ hath giuen them ouer you If you saie there is no subiection due vnto them longer then they continue in the truth of Religion I pray you tell mee first how prooue you them to be heretikes vnlesse you your selues may be Iudges Will you then both condemne and punish them before they bee conuicted of crime and will you that are parties bee both iudges and executors of your owne will and pleasure Secondly suppose they were as you vniustly condemne them to be heretikes yea suppose they were Iewes Turkes Heathens yet is there neuertheles obedience and subiection due vnto them For what was Caesar himselfe but a Heathen what were the Princes in the Aposties times of whom it is said Let euerie soule be subiect vnto them and whosoeuer resisteth them resisteth the ordinance of God what
were they all but Heathens If Christ himselfe then hath confirmed the authoritie and power euen of Heathen Princes how can the Pope dissolue and take away the authoritie power kingdom yea life too of Christian Princes And yet he claimeth his authoritie from Christ as his Disciple and Vicar here on earth by which title he maketh all Princes subiect vnto his authoritie In truth so is the greatest Prince liuing subiect vnto the meanest Preacher and Minister of God to obey the doctrine and word which hee deliuereth out of the Scriptures and to receiue his instruction exhortation admonition and reproofe yet is hee not though he should reiect his instructions to be therefore deposed from his kingdome or resisted and disobeyed by him And greater authoritie hath not the Pope himselfe ouer anie Prince then the meanest Minister and messenger of God I finde not in all the Scripture that euer Christ gaue vnto his Disciples anie Commission to depose Princes although they should disobey his word but I finde that he gaue them Commission to Preach And whosoeuer shuld not receiue them nor heare their words he bad them that when they should depart out of that house or Citie they should shake the dust of their feete reseruing the punishment of them vnto God As for the superioritie which the Pope challengeth ouer Princes as the Successor of Peter disciple of Christ I finde no such Commission giuen vnto Peter himselfe to authorise him in such sort ouer Princes but I finde that Christ said vnto him three times Feede my sheepe As for the swoord wherby is signified the Ciuil Authoritie Christ expresly forbad Peter to vse it commanding him to put it vp into the sheath To the same effect also spake he not only to Peter but to all the rest of his fellowes the Apostles when there was some contention risen amongst them about superioritie Ye know saith hee that the Lords of the Gentiles haue domination ouer them and they that are great exercise authoritie ouer them But it shall not be so among you But whosoeuer will be great among you let him be your seruant And if the Pope bee Christs Disciple hee must learne this lesson of his Maister to be a seruant to his fellows not a Commander of Kings Christ himselfe from whom the Pope deriueth his supreme authoritie as his Vicar on Earth neuer tooke vpon him the authoritie to depriue Princes of their kingdoms nor to discharge the subiects of their dutie obedience but contrariwise confirmed the power of Princes both by his doctrine teaching that Feare Honor Obedience Subiection is due euen to Heathen Princes and also by his owne example yeelding tribute with all duetie and obedience vnto them and submitting himselfe his bodie and life to their authoritie iudgement correctiō And for himself professed that his king dō was not of this world that he came not to be serued but to serue And if Christ acknowledged himselfe not to haue any kingly authoritie in this world but to be a subiect vnto kings to their inferior officers and a seruant how can the Pope deriue vnto himself from Christ not onlie a kingly authoritie but a predominant authoritie ouer all kings Can the scholler bee greater then his Maister will the Vicar take vpon him more authoritie then hee from whom he taketh all his authoritie Nay will he of himselfe presume to giue warrant directly cōtrarie to the commandement of Christ Let euerie man then iudge both what he is that so opposeth him self against Christ what D. Allen is that iustifieth his so doing for iustification thereof pretendeth warrant of Scriptures against God himselfe which how shamefully he hath therin wrested peruerted and belied hath been I hope alreadie sufficiently declared vnto you so far forth as his pamphlet gaue occasion and farther should haue been but that this question is handled at large and all that D. Allen can say therein abundantly confuted by a learned Diuine a man of as great sufficiencie and of more sinceritie then himselfe in the answere to his Defense of English Catholikes Now to come to the matter and to the prosecuting of D. Allens purpose you see that hee hath not onlie failed in the proofe of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and consequently of his warrant for the subiects reuolt but also his own examples and arguments retorted against himselfe and the contrarie part prooued both by them and by diuers other reasons and authorities of Scriptures out of which Doctor Allen bringeth not so much as one Text in trueth I must confesse because he cannot vnlesse hee should coyne it himselfe to proue directly his prophane assertions So that no man can be so blind but he must needes perceiue and acknowledge that the Pope hath neither power of himselfe nor authority from God to depose Princes from their kingdomes neither can giue to the subiect any commissiō or licence sauing only that licence which he hath himselfe that is that licence qua sumus omnes deteriores so much as to disobey their Souereignes much lesse to reuolte from them to their enimies to lay handes on them to beare armes against them Whereby it cannot but bee most apparant that D. Allen respected wholye herein the subtilty of his drifte not the soundnes of his doctrine and for the obteinment of credit and attainment of his purpose thereby affied him selfe altogither vpon the smoothnes of his perswasions and the affectionate mindes and inclinations of his adherents ANd sithens we haue alreadie discouered the foundation of his perswasions to bee weake false and rotten it shall not be amisse to bestowe a little labour to trie if a small wind will not ouerthrow the building it selfe which I doubt not but we shall find to be patched togither of as rotten stuffe and of as slender substance as the foundation is and to haue nothing in it to withstand the weather but onely the bare outside and colour of religion The ende whereunto this perswasion of disobedience and reuolte from her Maiestie tendeth hath bene alreadie declared namely the furtherance of all trayterous and rebellious designementes that may be by any person or in any wise attempted against her Maiestie and particularly the assistance of the k. of Spaine and the other forreine forces inuasion nowe presently intended and prepared against our countrey Let vs then next see to what persons D. Allen principally purposeth and addresseth his persuasions First for Protestants and such as are of sound Religion as I trust the greatest parte of England by great ods is D. Allen cannot be so madde as to hope that his perswasions can haue any authoritie or worke any effect with them but to confirme them rather in her Maiesties seruice and obedience for the better mayntenaunce of their Religion and defence of themselues
greatest comfort If God bee with vs who can bee against vs And that God is with vs in this quarrell let vs stedfastly assure ourselues howsoeuer D. Allen perswade the contrarye and let him and his partakers knowe that God is against them and will bee so long as they oppose themselues against the obedience of his word the knowlddge of his Truth the light of his glorious Gospell And that God may be with vs still and continue with vs for euer let vs humble ourselues vnto him dayly and duely with earnest and hartie prayer and repentance let vs serue him continually with a zealous feare and obedience let vs glorifie him incessantly with a liuely faith and constancie lastly let vs giue ourselues wholy to him that we may winne him wholy vnto vs. So we being his and he ours let vs all and euery one of vs comfort ourselues vpon his assurance let vs fortifie our mynds vpon his assistance and adde our endeuour to his encouragement assuring ourselues that fighting in so godlie so iust so honorable a quarrell the successe cannot be but most happie most prosperous most glorious that if we defend our countrey we shall remaine free and safe if wee ouerthrow our Enimies we shall abide victorious if we die in this quarrell we shall liue eternally To which assurance of freedome safety victorie life what comfort can be comparable FINIS There is another print of this pamphlet extant without meÌ„cioÌ„ of place which differeth much and in sunday plaâ—es from the coppie printed at Deuenter For in that the gentlemaÌ„s letter is dated the 20. day of May. 1587. and subscribed with the letters N. R. D. Allens answer dated the 20. of Iuly following besides diuers other differences in the substance of the pamphlet Aeneid lib. 2 A tricke of D. Allens cunning to write a letter to him selfe in another mans name demanding his resolution only to giue himselfe some probabilitie of occasion to enter into the treatie of this argument A far further purpose in D. Allens Pamphlet then that which is pretended by the title An vnseemely thing for a man of D. Allens profession or calling to vse shifting and dissimulation D. Allens dealings in this Painphlet both for the maner matter and meaning doe in all pointes most euidently resemble the dealings of Sinon Matth. 13. 9. A preiudicate opinioÌ„ ought not to make men so obstinate as to condemne a thing before they know or haue seene it so vtterly to reiect reason Psal 50. How humbly circumspectly and vprightly meÌ„ ought to behaue themselues in matters of religion Euery man ought to examine his own conscience and sift his religion and endeuour still to be rightly enformed of the truth not to rely wholy vpon the example authoritie or perswasions of other men especially in matters of controuersie stopping their eares against reason for euery vessell shall stand vpon his own bottome It is a shame for D. Allen so great a Diuine to handle a matter of saluatioÌ„ or damnation so profanely vsing altogether argumeÌ„ts and authorities drawen from philosophers but none froÌ„ the holy Scriptures His prophane handling neglect of Scripture proofe is a great argument either of weakenes in his cause or hypocrisy in himselfe or of both D. Allen neither frameth nor followeth any one argument in due forme orderly but shuffleth out single propositions at randon confusedly The maine proposition and ground of his first argument Drawne from the rule of moral Iustice whose peculiar office is suum cuique tribuere D. Allens sophistrie His argumeÌ„t being laid togither consisteth of 4. termini Euery priuate subiect is not to examine his princes publike actions be they right or wrong but to looke to his owne peculiar charge duety and othe Much lesse may any priuate subiect make himselfe iudge corrector and executioner of Iustice against his Prince vpon his owne authority and at his owne pleasure Offic. lib. 1. D. Allen sheweth no authority of Scripture whereby the Popes Bull may dispense with this breach of their oth His argumeÌ„t Here now appeareth manifestly the fault of his argument being drawn to a forme of Syllogisme All these three pointes are contained in his Minor which he is to prooue His argumeÌ„t for the proofe of his Minor This argument is euen as good as the former The Minor of this second argument which he is to proue Two pointes of this Minor to be denyed whereof D. Allen proueth neither The causes why they may both iustly be denyed These two pointes being denyed as appeareth they may be with good reason D. Allens argument is vtterly auoyded without further answere or proceeding for he proueth neither There was neuer any such confession heard of as D Allen here imposeth vpon vs but the contrarie is both affirmed and absolutely mainteined at this day D. Allens assertion to proue the English warres in the low couÌ„tries not to be for defence against enimies All D. Allens proofes depend vpon th'authority of his owne word for he doth but barely affirme what it pleaseth him without adding any reason to confirme his assertions 1 Besides in this assertion he doth petere principium assume that which is all the matter in question 2 The English warres in the low countries iustified by seuerall reasons drawne from D. Allen himselfe 3 Pag. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. The first argument drawne from D. Allen. Pag. 23. Another argumeÌ„t drawn from D. Allens owne words to iustifie the English warres in any sort against the K. of Spaine as being for defence against enemies D. Allen giueth vs to vnderstand that if the K. of Spaine were once quietly possest of the low Countreys we were not likely loÌ„g to enioy either peace or safetie Lib. 1. de Offic The Argument gathered into a Syllogisme Another ArgumeÌ„t drawn from D. Allen himselfe also to proue the King of Spaine our enemy The Argument a Relatiuis The other part which D. Allen is to prooue of his diuision drawen from Cicero D. Allens assertion that the King of Spaine hath done vnto her Maiestie no iniurie c. a A touch only of some parts offered the Q. Maiestie by the K. of Spaine which may well be deemed Iniuries yea in the highest degree b The InuasioÌ„ in Ireland Anno. 1580. c The practises of Mendoza his Embassador here with our English Traitors The practices for the deposing of her Maiestie and aduancing of the Q. of Scots to the crown For this point I appeale to the conscience and knowledge of the Papists themselues which know anie thing All D. Allens arguments end in single affirmations which also are neither confirmed with any authoritie or reason by him nor carry any truth or probabilitie in themselues Some grosse errors or ouersights escaped D. Allen in the handling of this argument A generall Thesis pronounced by himselfe flatly coÌ„demning the action which he laboureth so much to iustifie and commend The rendering of DeueÌ„ter prooued by D.
Allens owne position to be sin and punishable by Gods lawes Two other ouersightes or rather grosse absurdities more sentence The first of the two ouersightes No comparison betweene thinges simply iust and things onely deemed iust The second absurdity Vno absurdo dato infinita consequuntur D. Allen first maketh both wrongful obteining and deteining of goods sinnes mortall and damnable afterward maketh the obteining lawfull and the deteining damnable The wrongfull taking away of goods as as great or rather a greater sinne then the wrongful withholding of the same goods The wrongfull taking away of liberty and life a greater sinne then y e wrongfull taking away of goods onely Ergo the wrongfull taking away both of goods liberty and life all which D. Allen maketh no sin but a thing lawful are farre greater sinnes thē the wrongful deteining of goods onely which D. Allen pronounceth to be a sinne mortall and damnable euen in the same case * Note the honest and Syncere dealing of D. Allen. A bad cause betrayeth it selfe 1. Esdr 4. 41. D. Allen presumeth either vpō the ignorance of thē to whom he writeth that they are not able to discerne his abuses or els vpon their credulity that they account all Gospell that he speaketh otherwise would he be more wary how he published such euident absurdities and falshoods Math. 15. 14. Now to the very purpose of D. Allens pamphlet D. Allen spēdeth the least part of his labour in the iustification of the action which he pretendeth to be the occasion of his pamphlet besides leaueth it in the ende more indefensible then in the beginning What his direct purpose is Whether D. Allen haue had any wrōg offered him in resembling him to Sinon let all men iudge The order which D Allen obserueth to attaine vnto his purpose First he defameth her Maiesties most noble and Princely actions Secondly he giueth the Subiect a warrant to disobey and reuolt from her Maiestie Thirdly Hee persuadeth them flatly to disobedience and plaine rebellion The names and doings of Princes are not to be called in question by such companions Princes represent the power and Maiestie of God on earth Her Maiesties dealings in the low countries alreadie iustified by D. Allens owne arguments The declaration of the causes that mooued her Maiestie to relieue the distressed people of the low Countries published Anno. 1585. Her Maiesties actions in the low Countries by further reasons prooued lawfull Offic. lib. 1. It is one of the kindes of Iniury or Iniustice not to defend the iniuried Ibidem A principall part of Iustice to defend the iniuried How falsly D. Allen chargeth her Maiestie with entring by hostilitie into the K. of Spaines Dominions c. Her Maiestie being offered and intreated to take the low Countries into her absolute gouernment hath refused them Her Maiestie content with hir own kingdome Her iust and mercifull gouernment It is a great benefit for him that seeketh worldly pleasure or profit to be frendes with the Pope who by his speciall prerogatiue can dispence with any sin be it neuer so abhommable and make all thinges lawfull that he lusteth howsoeuer God forbid them For this which D. Allen obiecteth to vs let him looke to his own party D. Allens tongue is no slaunder D. Allens Scosses at the Earle of Leicester 1. Psal 1. and hath not sit in the seat of skorners The Earle of Leicesters managing of the low coūtrie affaires during his abode there Graue betrayed Venlo solde Nuys badly lost Berke two moneths besieged and then abandoned for feare of our army marching towardes it Duisburgh yeelded to the Earle of Leicester on Fryday the secōd of Septembre 1586. This encoūter was the 22. of Sept. 1586 wherin the most worthy noble and valiant knight Sir Philip Sidney receiued his deth◠wound * The Earle of Leicester wan the sort the 6. day of October following the Prince being with his whole army within two mile of the place Here are not mentioned all the seruices which were done vnder the Earle of Leicesters conduct in the low countries as the ouerthrow of the Spaniards at Graue the winning of Axell and diuers fortes and Castles in those partes but onely those partes but onely those seruices wherat he himselfe was present in person a principall director and actor in them all * If D. Allen had bene there I beleeue hee would haue bene in an other humour skarce so pleasant though happely more ridiculous * The fault of the losse of Sluys not to be imputed to the Earle of Leicester which was in other mens negligence or Epist 2. The cause why the Earle of Leicester is most odious to D. Allen. Sundry libels heretofore cast forth by Papists particularly against the Earle of Leicester The Papistes cankred malice to the Earle of Leicester Their libels discredited euen by the notorious falshoods conteined in them And therefore thought not fit to be answered The mischief which the authours therof meant vnto the Earle is fallen vpon their own heads Psal 7. 15. Matth. 5. 11. D. Allens vnnaturall impiety towards his countrey The second steppe of D Allens ladder To giue the subiect a warrant for his disobedience Obedience subiection both to the Prince and his ministers commanded Rom. 13. 1 2. ◠Pet. 2. 13. 14. 15. ver Little Diuinity or rather none at all vsed by D. Allen to warrant the subiects disobedience D. Allen is very bold with Princes which maketh them all subiect to a Priest D. Allens first authoritie to warrant disobedience to the Prince Hildebrand a Pope of Rome otherwise called Gregory the seuenth D. Allens second authoritie to warrant disobedience Pope Vrban the second A good warrant from a paire of Popes Pope Hildebrand tooke vpon him to Excommunicate the Emperour Henry the fourth to make wars against him and erect another Emperour in his place But God to punish the pride of the Pope disobedience of his Adherents giuing the victorie vnto the true Emperour Henry the fourth against the vsurping Pope and Emperour the said Henry caused Hildebrand himselfe by a Synode in Italy to be deposed as Pope Iohn Syluester Benet and Gregory the sixt were also by other Emperours foure Popes within a few yeeres deposed Neither D. Allens affirmation nor the authoritie of anie Pope ought to haue any credit being directly contradictorie to the expresse word of God That the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes Rom. 13. There is no power but of God Ergo the Pope can haue no power of himselfe to depose Princes a Againe No man hath power of himselfe to frustrate the ordinance of God Ergo the Pope hath no power of himselfe to depose Princes which are ordeined of God If the Pope haue any authoritie to depose Princes he must haue it from God a If he haue it from God he must haue it by some warrant out of his word b But no place of Scripture giueth him warrant to depose Princes c