Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	5,115	5	10.1244	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A73418	Roger Widdringtons last reioynder to Mr. Thomas Fitz-Herberts Reply concerning the oath of allegiance, and the Popes power to depose princes wherein all his arguments, taken from the lawes of God, in the Old and New Testament, of nature, of nations, from the canon and ciuill law, and from the Popes breues, condemning the oath, and the cardinalls decree, forbidding two of Widdringtons bookes are answered : also many replies and instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius, and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted, and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1619 (1619)	STC 25599; ESTC S5197	680,529	682

only be knowne by them who ought to bee annointed and that it might bee done more secretly it was done by them and so it was in all the aforesaid examples for Saul was annointed not by succession seeing that hee was the first King of Israel Dauid also was not annointed by succession for the children of Saul ought to succeede Iehu also who was not of the race of the Kings of Israel and he was annointed to ouerthrow the house of Achab 4. Reg. cap. 9. 3. Reg. cap. 19. and Asael was not of the issue of the Kings of Damascus and he was annointed by Elias to persecute the Israelites Thus Abulensis 3 So likewise the creation institution and deposition of Kings in that manner as the aforesaid Kings were created instituted and deposed were spirituall not temporall actions For the Prophets did not create institute or depose Kings by their owne proper authoritie or by any ordinarie power of theirs but only by an extraordinarie power as they were meere messengers and sent by God with a peculiar and extraordinarie message or ambassage to create institute or depose the aforesaid Kings whereupon they did not speake in their owne names but in the person of almightie God saying this saith the Lord I haue annointed thee to bee King or the Lord hath sent me to annoint thee to bee King or the Lord hath reiected thee that thou shalt not bee King and hath deliuered it to thy neighbour better then thy selfe So that the aforesaide creations institutions and depositions were onely declarations of the will of God which without all doubt are spirituall actions Neither from hence can it bee rightly concluded that therefore the Priests of the old law had authoritie to create depose or chastise Kings temporally or that Kings were subiect to Priests in temporalls because sometimes Prophets were sent by God as his messengers to declare his will and to tell them that God would create depose or chastise them with temporall punishments 4 And who would not blush to heare a man who taketh vpon him to bee learned and to be a teacher of others in such difficult and dangerous points of Diuinitie vrge such pitifull arguments to prooue matters of so great moment as is the dethroning of Kings and absolute Princes and the subiecting of them to Priests in temporall affaires A Priest hath power to blesse the King and all the people as it is vsuall at the ende of Masse therefore the King and all the people are subiect to the Priest in temporall things for without any contradiction saith the Apostle the lesse is blessed by the better The father hath authoritie to blesse his sonne who is a King and consequently supreame in temporalls therefore without doubt hee is greater then his sonne in temporalls One of the Kings priuie chamber is sent by the Kings expresse order to declare to one that it is his Maiesties pleasure to make him Lord Chancelour therefore without doubt one of the Kings priuie chamber hath authoritie to make one Lord Chancelour If God almightie had giuen to the Priests and Prophets of the old testament authoritie to denounce to the King or people concerning temporall affaires as is the creation or deposition of King and Princes not only what God himselfe had reuealed vnto them and commanded them to denounce but also what according to their owne will and iudgement they thought fit and conuenient then there might bee drawne from thence a good argument to prooue that Kings were subiect to the Prophets in temporall affaires but seeing that it was not lawfull for the Prophets of the old law in such cases to commaund or denounce to the King or people but that which by some cleare and assured reuelation God had commanded them to declare and signifie concerning such temporall affaires it is manifest that no colourable argument can be drawne from thence to prooue that the Priests or Prophets of the old law had authoritie to create institute depose or punish Kings temporally 5 Neither doth S. Chrysostome cited by my Aduersarie teach any other thing then that Kings are subiect to Priests in spiritualls and that the office of a Priests is in worth dignitie and nobilitie greater and more excellent then the office of a King for that a King hath power only ouer earthly things but a Priest ouer heauenly to the Priest are committed soules to the King bodies the King taketh away the spots of the bodie the Priest the spots of sinnes c. But St. Chrysostome neuer meant that Kings were subiect to Priessts and Prophets in temporalls or were to be punished by them temporally but hee affirmeth the cleane contrarie to wit that Priests and Prophets are subiect to temporall Princes Omnis anima c. Let euery soule saith he c Hom. 23. in c. 13. ad Rom. bee subiect to higher powers albeit thou be an Apostle albeit an Euangelist albeit a Prophet or lastly whosoeuer thou be for this subiection doth not ouerthrow pietie and hee doeth not say simply let him obey but let him be subiect And againe S. Chrysostome affirmeth d In that place aboue cited by my Aduersarie l. 2. de Sacer. ●nto med that a Priest hath not so great power granted him to punish delinquents and to compell a man to change his euill manners as a temporall Iudge hath to wit by forcing him with temporall punishments but only by reproouing and giuing a free admonition not by raising armes by vsing targets by shaking a lance by shooting arrowes by casting darts but onely saith hee againe by reproouing and giuing a free admonition 6 Neither also can Mr. Fitzherbert sufficiently conuince that when Dauid was first annointed by Samuel Saul was forthwith depriued of his Regall authoritie or right to reigne but onely that Dauid was instituted the future King and heire apparant to the Crowne and to succeede him after his death as likewise when Salomon was annointed King Dauid was not thereby depriued of his Regall authoritie but only Salomon was declared to be the future King and to succeede Dauid in the kingdome But howsoeuer it be it is little to the present controuersie whether Saul after Dauid was annointed by Samuel was true King de facto de iure or Dauid King de iure Salomon de facto for that Samuel in that businesse was only a messenger of GOD and did nothing by his owne proper authoritie but onely what GOD by a peculiar reuelation did commaund him to doe And so if almightie GOD should now in the new Testament by any vndoubted reuelation command a Priest to deliuer this message to such a King that for the sinnes hee had committed hee would depriue him of his kingdome and giue it to another mor vertuous then hee no man will deny but that this Priest hat good and full power and authoritie to doe that message but from hence to argue an ordinarie power to bee in Priest to giue and take away kingdomes were

by a peculiar and speciall promise of GOD was giuen to King Dauid and his seede for euer from whom Queene Athalia did not descend And therefore Fa. Becanus who in the former edition of his Controuersia Anglicana taught this pestiferous doctrine fearing belike least it would haue beene censured by the Vniuersitie of Paris as in very deede it had beene x As it may appeare by the Acts of the Facultie of Paris held in their ordinarie Congregation the first day of February in the yeere 1613. if some had not cunningly preuented the same by procuring it to be first condemned at Rome y By apeculiar decree against his booke dated at Rome the third day of Ianuarie 1613. by a speciall command of his Holinesse as containing in it somethings which are false temerarious scandalous and seditious respectiuely vntill it should be corrected was carefull that in the later Edition of his booke which was forthwith published this dangerous position should be quite blotted out And yet this Doctour following therein Card. Bellarmine in his booke against D. Barclay is not afraid most desperately and seditiously to renew the same But with what strang paradoxes and seditious doctrines these vehement manitainers of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and to dispose of all temporalls being so famous for their learning so reuerent for their Order so great in authoritie so potent by friends and so violent in maintaining their nouelties wil in the end infect a great part of the Church of Christ whereof these men are accounted to be the chiefe pillars vnlesse God by his infinite mercy preuent their exorbitant courses I tremble to consider and how little beholding are Soueraigne Princes to such extrauagant Writers who will also haue their people who are subiect to them to haue authoritie ouer them in temporalls and to take away their lawfull right which they haue to their Crownes and to giue it to another who by inheritance hath no true right thereunto and that without any fault or negligence committed by them any prudent man may easily perceiue 40 To conclude therefore this point that which this Doctor addeth concerning those Emperours and Kings who although in the beginning were Tyrants and Vsurpers yet afterwards by the consent of the people and of those who had true right to those kingdomes were made lawfull Princes are nothing like to this example of Queene Athalia and all those examples are particularly answered by Mr. Iohn Barclay z Cap. 38. paragraph 2. against Cardinall Bellarmine who also in the very like words vrged the same Neither can they be rightly applied to the kingdome of Iuda which by the expresse promise and appointment of almightie God was due to the posterity of King Dauid neither was it in the power of the high Priests Princes and people without violating the ordinance of almightie God to transferre the kingdome of Iuda from the race of King Dauid to another tribe and especially to an Idolatresse as was wicked Athalia who by the Law of God as being a subiect was commanded to be put to death 41 Wherefore this which this Doctor in the end adioyneth to wit that the Scripture doth manifestly teach that Ioiada together with the people did make Ioas King and they made him King 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. cap. 24. Ioas was seuen yeeres old when hee beganne to raigne where the beginning of his kingdome is put from the death of Athalia and his institution to be King and although before his coronation the Scripture called him King 2. Paralip 23. this was onely by anticipation as a designed King and therefore hee was first called King and afterwardes it is said he shall raigne because he was a King not present but future this I say is either a manifest equiuocation or a plaine vntruth for if he meane that they did make him King that is did put him in possession of his kingdome which was wrongfully and tyrannically kept from him by Athalia or which is all one they did make him King de facto or to raigne de facto this is most true and the Scripture doth plainely shew the same but if he meane that they did make him King de iure and giue him his right to the kingdome as though before their making him King he had not right to the kingdome and was not King de iure it is most false and also implieth a very seditious doctrine to wit either that those who are Kings by hereditarie succession doe not as other heires albeit they be in minoritie succeede in all their Fathers rights presently after he is departed the world or else that the people may depriue them of their lawfull right to the kingdome without any fault or negligence committed by them 42 And to this I plainely answered before as you haue seene in my Apologie by declaring the sense of those equiuocall words they created or made Ioas King sort I said in expresse words that it is vntrue that Ioiada the high Priest did create Ioas King as Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that is did giue him a right to reigne which he had not before seeing that presently after the death of his brethren whom wicked Athalia had treacherously murthered the true dominion and right to the kingdome did by inheritance belong to Ioas although Athalia did tyrannically keepe the possession For as soone as a King is dead the next heire apparant to the Crowne is foorthwith the lawfull King neither doth his annointing crowning or acceptance of the people giue but onely confirme his former Kingly right And this is so cleere that neither Cardinall Bellarmine nor this Doctour if they be not the same person dare deny the same but such false and seditious positions cannot but by equiuocations with any shew of credibilitie be maintained If this Doctour had declared the ambiguitie of those words they did make him King as I did the Reader would quickly haue perceiued that out of those wordes of holy Scripture it cannot be prooued that Ioiada with the people did make Ioas King that is did giue him a lawfull right to the kingdome which before he had not but onely that they did make him King de facto and put him in possession of his kingdome whereof before he was King de iure although the possession was tyrannically kept from him by Athalia And thus much concerning the incredibilitie of this Doctours credibile est 43 Now you shal see how weake fallacious and slanderous are the other Replies of this Doctor to the rest of my answere For whereas I affirmed as you haue seene that Ioiada in killing Athalia did no other thing then which euery faithfull subiect ought to doe in such a case this Doctor very falsly and slanderously affirmeth that Widdrington doth heere in plaine words giue occasion to subiects to rebell against their Kings and to kill them and if they thinke that any man hath by an ill title vsurped the

them and after he had giuen them the speares and weapons of King Dauid which were in the temple with commandement that if any person should enter into the temple to disturbe them he should be slaine he brought foorth the Kings sonne and put the crowne vpon him and the testimonie and they made him King and anointed him and clapping with their hands said God saue the King Which noise when Athalia being in the Kings Palace neere to the temple heard shee went into the temple and seeing the King standing vpon the tribunall seate according to the manner and the Princes and the companies about him and the singers and trumpets neere him and all the people reioycing and sounding the trumpets shee rent her garments and cryed A Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason But Ioiada the high Priest commanded the Centurions that were ouer the armie not to kill her in the Temple but that shee should bee slaine with the sword without and that whosoeuer should follow her should bee stroken with the sword And they laid hands vpon her and when shee was entred within the gate of the horses of the Kings house they killed her there Thus it its written 4. Reg. 11. 2. Paralip 23. 50 This therefore as you see was the case of Ioiada in commanding Athalia to bee slaine Ioiada not onely being the high Priest and therefore next in authoritie to the King for that next to the King there was none greater among the people then the high Priest d Abul q. 15. in c. 11. l. 4. Reg. but also being the Kings vncle by his wife and the Kings Protectour and Guardian did put in possession of the kingdome of Iuda Ioas the Kings sonne being but seuen yeeres old to whom the kingdome by the right of inheritance did appertaine whom hee kept secretly in the temple for sixe yeeres together and therefore did not onely by probable coniectures thinke but hee did certainely know that hee was the lawfull King and neuerthelesse before hee would accomplish the same hee communicated the matter with the Centurions and Princes of the people and made a couenant with them and hee also caused Athalia to bee slaine not onely for that shee had most tyrannically and barbarously vsurped the kingdome by killing all as shee thought of the Kings issue but also for that shee sought to make an open rebellion against the annointed King crying out in the Temple in the presence of the new crowned King of the high Priest being the King Vncle and Protectour of all the Peeres and people a Conspiracie a Conspiracie Treason Treason And this I say Ioiada and euery faithfull subiect in such a case that is hauing the protection of the true and whom for certaintie he knew to be the rightfull King not only might but also if it were in his power was bound to doe neither dare this Doctour vnlesse he will rashly and seditiously teach a most false and pernicious doctrine deny the same 51 But marke I pray you how learned Abulensis answereth to this question whether Ioiada was bound to make Ioas King that is put him in possession of the Kingdome to which he had right by hereditarie succession It was saith he e Q. 15. in cap. 11. lib. 4. Reg. a manifest sinne that Athalia should vsurpe to her selfe the kingdome Ioas being aliue to whom it did by lawfull right appertaine therefore Ioiada was bound to doe as much as lyed in his power that Ioas should not by Athalia be depriued of his right to the kingdome therefore he was bound when it did lye in his power to make Ioas King Secondly this is manifest because Ioiada was in a certain manner by his office to make Ioas King because after the King there was none greater among the people then was the high Priest and then there was no King therefore it belonged to Ioiada as to the high Priest to redresse the agreeuances which happened among the people and this was the greatest agreeuance that the King should be depriued of his right and therefore Ioiada was in this bound as much of lied in his power to procure a remedy by annointing Ioas King to whom the kingdome did of right belong Thirdly this is manifest because euery man is bound to execute the knowne will of God forasmuch as it doth preiudice charity or some commandement of God but God had said that of the seede of Dauid there should bee Kings for euer and it was not against charitie or any other commandement of God alwaies to annoint Kings of that tribe therefore Ioiada was bound as much as lied in his power to accomplish that will of God to wit that hee should annoint Ioas King And this was that whereon Ioiada grounded himselfe when he annointed Ioas King saying to the people Beholde the Kings sonne shall raigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid 2. Paralip 23● as though hee should say because God commanded that the sonnes of Dauid should alwaies reigne therefore we ought to annoint this for King who was of the stocke of Dauid 52 And as concerning the killing of Athalia the said Abulensis f Ibidem ● 20. writeth thus I answere that it was lawfull for Ioiada to command Athalia to be slaine For the cause was iust to wit for that she intended to kill the King seeing that she had vsurped the Kingdome and also she was guiltie of death for many other causes or she had slaine all the Kings sonnes and she was a disturber of the people and a corrupter of the worship of GOD seeing that she brought in the worship of Baal into Ierusalem and had made there a temple and had Priests Therefore any one of these things were sufficient that she might be slaine Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard of the power For that now that is the King being in his minoritie he was the Prince of the people as being the high Priest who was alwaies the greatest Iudge in Israel from whose sentence it was not lawfull for any man to appeale vnder paine of death or to contemne in any wise his commandement Deut. 17. Neuerthelesse the high Priest was subiect to the King in temporalls and might be iudged by him as the said Abulensis before affirmed where he assigned the difference betwixt a Iudge and a King Also it was lawfull for Ioiada in regard he now represented the Kings person For he made a couenant in the place or person of the King with all the people and with GOD and he represented the Kings person in all things for that he had hitherto kept him hidden and now he annointed him King but it was lawfull for the King to command Athalia to be slaine who had vsurped the kingdome therefore it was lawfull also for Ioiada who represented the Kings person in all things 53 Now I remit to the iudgement of any vnderstanding man although he be neuer so partiall whether euery faithfull subiect hauing great

who hath true and lawfull right to the kingdome albeit he be not in possession thereof or for a King de facto and who doth actually reigne abstracting from that he doth reigne de iure by right and lawfully or by vsurpation Now I granted that Athalia was Queene de facto and in possession of the kingdome for sixe yeeres together but I denyed that shee was Queene de iure and that the kingdome did belong to her by right but to Ioas the rightfull heire as being the onely sonne then liuing of Ochozias King of Iuda and that therefore Ioiada did not create or institute Ioas King that is giue him a true right to reigne which he had not before for that the true dominion and right to the kingdome did reside in Ioas by right of inheritance and succession instantly vpon the death of his eldest brethren and this much the aforesaid words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse doe euidently conuince Wherefore that which this Doctour sayth concerning the couenant of the people with the King is vnderstood of the future King which a little after was to be instituted is also equiuocall for if he vnderstand that Ioas was not then King de facto but a little after by the procurement of Ioiada was made and instituted King de facto that is was put in possession of the kingdome and did actually reigne this was not the controuersie betwixt me and Card. Bellarmine for I neuer denyed but did alwaies in expresse words grant that Ioiada with the assent of the Princes and people did put Ioas in possession of his kingdome which Athalia had vniusty kept from him and in this sense Ioas who before was King de iure was afterwards by Ioiada created and instituted King de facto But if he meane that Ioas was not then King de iure and that the kingdome did not by right of inheritance and by the ordinance of almightie God belong to him this I say is plainely against the words of the holy Scripture and of the Glosse Ecce filius Regis c. Behold the Kings sonne shall reigne as our Lord hath spoken ouer the sonnes of Dauid that is behold the Kings sonne to whom therefore the right to the kingdome by inheritance doth belong although hee doth not actually reigne for that Athalia contrarie to the commandement of God who gaue the kingdome to the sonnes of Dauid hath tyrannically kept it from him shall reigne that is shall be King de facto and actually reigne according as our Lord hath spoken vpon the sonnes of Dauid 75 But the words of the Glosse are more plaine for he calleth Ioas not onely the true due or rightfull King but also the true due or rightfull heire Neither can this Doctour deny that Ioas was presently after the death of all his brethren the onely sonne of King Ochozias and consequently the true and onely heire to the kingdome of Iuda and therefore the true King de iure or by right For he can not be so ignorant as not to know that the heire to a kingdome hath presently after the death of his father all the right which his father deceased had to the kingdome It is manifest saith the rule of the law q ff de regulis iuris regula 59 approoued by all lawyers that an heire hath the same power and right which the deceased had and againe r Ibidem regula 62. Inheritance is no other thing then a succeeding to all the right which the deceased had Wherefore the words and sense of the Glosse are plaine for the words are not Here is described the institution of the true King but of the true heire whom he called before the due or rightfull heire Now it is manifest that Ioiada did not make or institute Ioas the true and rightfull heire to the kingdome of Iuda but he was made and instituted the rightfull heire by succession and by the ordinance of almightie God for that he was the onely sonne and heire suruiuing of the deceased King Ochozias And therefore those words of this Doctour Assuredly Ioas was not King before although he was the Kings sonne if he meane that he was not King de iure before are very vntrue but rather contrariwise I inferre that assuredly Ioas was King de iure before because he was the Kings sonne to whom by succession and inheritance the kingdome of Iuda did by right and by the ordinance of almightie God belong and those words of holy Scripture Behold the Kings sonne c. doe conuince as much 76 But he that is King by succession sayth this Doctour ought not to be instituted or made but to be declared neither doth he need the assent of the Princes It is true that he who is King de iure and by succession ought not to be instituted or made King de iure neither needeth he the consent of the Princes to make him King de iure But he that is King onely de iure and by succession but not King de facto and by possession ought to be instituted or made King de facto and to this is necessarie the assent and aide of the Princes and people Wherefore as this word to depose is equiuocall and may be taken either for to depriue one of his right or to put him out of possession of the thing he holdeth so also to institute create or make a King or heire is equiuocall and may be taken either for to giue one a right to a kingdome or inheritance which right he had not before or to put him in possession of the kingdome or inheritance whether he hath right thereunto or no. And therefore as well obserueth Gregorius Tholosanus ſ In Syntagin Iu●is lib. 17. cap. 16. nu 4. because the instituting or giuing of a benefice and the like may be said of a Dukedome Princedome Kingdome or inheritance is sometimes effected by giuing the possession or as it is commonly said by installing or inuesting therefore to institute is sometimes taken for to install or inuest as by deliuering some corporall thing as a ring a crowne a scepter c. by which the real and actuall possession is giuen apprehended or induced cap. ad haec de officio Archidiaconi § 1o. de consuetudine recti feudi lib. 2. de feudis tit 33. And in this sense the Glosse did vnderstand the word institution to wit for inuesting installing or putting Ioas into possession of his kingdome or which is all one making him King de facto For it is too too manifest that he was before the rightfull heire and King by succession and not then made or instituted the rightfull heire by the election of Ioiada and of Princes 77 Wherefore the last inference which this Doctour maketh in these words Therefore Ioiada did institute the King and deposed the Queene c. is very true if he meane that he did constitute the King de facto or put him in possession of

others Thus D Schulckenius 113 But truly it is a shame to see with what face this Doctour can so boldly affirme that the principall question which is now betwixt Card. Bellarmine and me to wit whether King Ozias was depriued either of his kingdome or of the administration thereof by the High Priest is nothing to the matter Before as you haue seene both Card. Bellarmine and also this Doctour if they be two different men haue laboured to proue that King Ozias was for corporall leprosie depriued by the high Priest not only of the administration of his kingdome but also of the kingdome it selfe and of his right or authoritie to reigne from whence they inferred that therefore the Pope might for spirituall leprosie depriue temporall Princes not only of the administration of their kingdomes but also of their kingdomes and all Regall authoritie or right to reigne And the second part of this antecedent proposition I did confute aboue and proued cleerely that Ozias did still remaine true King de iure vntill his death and was not depriued of his Royall authoritie or right to reigne although his sonne Ioathan did de facto in his fathers name and by his Fathers authoritie administer the kingdome To the first part of the antecedent proposition which this Doctour affirmed to be manifest but howsoeuer it be saith he to wit whether Ozias remained King only in name or also with Regall authoritie it is manifest that he was depriued of the administration of the kingdome and therefore punished with a temporall punishment I did now answere affirming that Card. Bellarmine had not sufficiently proued the same for that it might be that he perceiuing himselfe to be vnfit by reason of leprosie for which he was by the law to dwell in a house apart to gouerne the kingdome by himselfe did willingly and of his owne accord commit the gouernment thereof to his sonne Ioathan from whence it cannot bee gathered that hee was depriued of the gouernment by the high Priest And now this Doctour being pressed with this answere blusheth not to say That this is nothing to the matter as though to confute that which hee himselfe affirmetn to bee manifest to wit that King Ozias was by the high Priest depriued of his Kingly gouernment for corporall leprosie is nothing to the matter But to such shamefull windings turnings and shiftings are sometime brought men otherwise learned rather then they will plainly and sincerely confesse themselues to haue grosly erred in coyning their false or fallible opinions for true and vndoubted points of Catholike faith 114 Obserue now good Reader in what a fraudulent maner this Doctour would seeme to prooue that my aforesaid answere is nothing to the matter It is enough for vs saith he that King Ozias did by the high Priests commandement dwell in a house apart all the time of his leprosie vntill his death c. If this bee enough for this Doctour I shall easily agree with him heerein for that I doe willingly grant that the high Priest might commaund King Ozias being infected with leprosie to dwell in a house apart Onely this I must admonish him that Ozias was bound to dwell in a house apart not so much by the commandement of the high Priest if wee will speake properly as by the commandement of almightie God who by his law did expresly ordaine that all lepers should dwell apart from the rest of the people and the Priests office only was to iudge according to the signes and tokens prescribed by the law whether they were infected with leprosie or no and to declare the law of GOD which are spirituall not temporall actions abstracting from which law the high Priest had no authoritie to command King Ozias or any other leper to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people Wherefore this commandement of the high Priest was not any constitutiue commandement of his owne imposing a new obligation vpon King Ozias to which he was not tyed before although the high Priest had not commanded him but it was onely a declaratiue commandement or a declaration of Gods law and commandement whereby all lepers were long before commaunded to dwell in a place apart from the rest of the people But from hence this Doctour cannot gather that the Priests of the new law may for spirituall leprosie depriue Kings of their kingdomes or the administration thereof or of their right and freedome to dwell in their Cities or Pallaces and separate them by way of temporall constraint from all ciuill conuersation of men vnlesse hee will grant with Iohn Wicklefe that these punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to spirituall leprosie as in the old law the dwelling in a place apart from the rest of the people was annexed to corporall leprosie Neuerthelesse I doe not deny that the Priests all of the new law haue authority to declare what is spirituall leprosie and what crimes doe notably infect the soule and what punishments are by the law of Christ annexed to such maladies and also to separate heretikes and other spirituall lepers from the sacred religious or spirituall conuersation of the faithfull for these are spirituall not temporall actions and punishments 115 But Ozias liuing in a house apart could not saith this Doctour conuerse with the people and so he was enforced to permit absolutely to to his sonne the administration of the kingdome that nothing at all should be referred to him concerning the affaires of the kingdome But first it is not true that King Ozias speaking properly was coactus that is enforced or compelled by corporall force and violence or by the coactiue force of the law which consisteth in the inflicting of temporall punishments to liue in a house apart from the rest of the people but onely he was bound thereunto by the directiue or commanding force of the law of God which ordained that all lepers should bee separated from the rest of the people and dwell alone by themselues out of the Campe for seeing that the King was supreame in temporalls and subiect therein to none but God alone and the High Priests were subiect to him therein and might bee punished by him with temporall punishments as I shewed before hee could not bee subiect to the coactiue or enforcing power of the law which ordained the inflicting of any temporall punishment And therefore wee neuer read in the holy Scripture that the High Priest of the old law whom my Aduersaries affirme to haue authoritie to inflict vpon a King a temporall punishment did euer attempt to put any King to death who had committed any crime that deserued death according to the law as you find many Kings to haue committed such crimes as Dauid committed adulterie which according to the law of God was to bee punished with death and most of the Kings of Israel were Idolaters whom God commanded to be put to death and this crime also of King Ozias for vsurping the office of a Priest