Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n church_n old_a testament_n 6,574 5 8.1314 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A94135 The Jesuite the chiefe, if not the onely state-heretique in the world. Or, The Venetian quarrell. Digested into a dialogue. / By Tho: Swadlin, D.D. Swadlin, Thomas, 1600-1670. 1646 (1646) Wing S6218; Thomason E363_8; ESTC R201230 173,078 216

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

purpose without all question the foresaid Authors had beene prohibited by Authoritie But I must now tell you plainly Hetrodox they shew verie good and great Cards for their game I mean their Demonstrations are not fectlesse but full of efficacie For besides the affirmative authority of St. Paul of St. Chrysostome and of St. Thomas besides the common use and custome of the Primitive Church they produce likewise two negative Arguments most effectuall The first If Clerics themselves and the Goods of Ecclesiastics be exempted by Gods Law where is that Law recorded and read In what Gospell in what Apostolicall Epistle in what Booke of the New Testament or of the old The Second That no Secular Prince Christian carrying a watchfull eye to the tranquillity and honourable government of the State doth stand upon this point but onely permits Ecclesiastics to enjoy such Exemption as to himselfe seemes best and such as he dislikes he will not suffer them to reape any fruit or benefit from the same And howsoever by the Law of man some understand the Canon yet by so much as may be gathered from the Doctrine of the first Proposition we are to understand the Priviledge of Princes and the Custome dissembled by the said Princes or the Canon received which Canon cannot be above Gods Law so that if Secular Princes have lawfull power over their Subjects by Gods Law I cannot see how this their Power can be diminished or taken away by the Canon which is but a Law of man it is a common rule of the Legists Quotiescu●que concurrunt duo jura minus debet cedere majori when two Lawes are in termes or in point of concurrence the rest ought ever to stoope and give place unto the greater Hetrodox The Affirmative Arguments have beene answered before what need you make so many repetitions of one and the same matter Now to your first negative Argument This point hath beene discussed at large by many Catholique Authors both Divines and Canonists The grounds of their opinion are to be sought in their writings and my selfe have briefly before pointed to certaine passages as well of the old Testament as of the New and this for one Ergo liberi sunt filii therefore the Children are free Gen. 47. 1 Esdr 7. Mat. 17. where by Children are meant Ecclesiastics it St. Ierome's and St. Augustines Expositions be not rejected of Divines Againe you are not ignorant Orthodox that by Gods Law is understood not onely the holy Scripture but also the light of Nature or to speake in other termes Reason and Natures Law lib 1. de libert Christ cap. 9. Thus Iohn Driedo Exemption of Ecclesiastics holds by the Law of God for so much as it is dictated and taught by Reason and by the Law of Nature because all men by the light of Reason and Nature understand that persons and goods or things consecrated to God are proper to God himselfe and therefore no Reason that Secular Princ●● should exercise any power over the said persons or things And that this point is a light of Nature it is easie to be knowne because in all Religion Exod. 30. Numb 1. Gen. 47. Arist l. 2. Caesar l. 6. de bello Gall. Plut. in vitá Camilli whether true or false this Law of Exemption is observed Among the Hebrewes the Levites were exempted and among the Egyptians the Priests were exempted and among the Grecians the Priests were exempted The same is recorded of other Gentiles in Caesar in Plutarch and in other Authors for brevitie sake here pretermitted To the second Negative Argument I returne this Answer We find it not in Sotus nor yet in Conarruuias It is doubtlesse a Fiction of your owne braine and besides it is no Argument no Reason but a meere Cavill and Calumniation invented against all Princes as if all Princes were Machiavials Disciples and granted or tooke away Exemption from Clerics as they find it profitable or unprofitable to Reason of State But wee know that in the Church of God there be many Religious and pious Princes who feare God as they ought But in case it were so in truth which must not be granted that many Princes give neither place nor way to Exemption any further then it is profitable to Reason of State what art what skill of Reasoning shall I call this Many Princes permit not Exemption Ergo Exemption is not by Gods Law As much in effect for forme of Argument great skuls whole troopes of Christians give themselves to robbing by the high-way side or to luxurious uncleannesse in darke corners or to beare false witnesse in open Courts Ergo these Precepts of the Di●alogue thou shalt not steale thou shalt not commit Adulterie thou shalt not beare false witnesse are not by Gods Law It should have beene proved that such Princes as permit not Exemption otherwise then to their own liking doe well or doe not ill and then the Consequent would not have come in amisse Ergo Exemption is not by Gods Law But from the simple Fact or to say better from the simple prevarication of a Law it cannot be concluded that the said Law is contrary to Gods Law Your next discourse after about mans Law as whether it be Canon Law or Priviledge of Princes or Custome is idle and altogether in vaine for besides that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is by Gods Law it is every way by mans Law because there be many Canons many Civill Lawes and a must long continued Custome which make all for this Exemption This neither will nor can be denyed of any but such as are of no reading at all Finally that conclusion which you make of Secular Princes power over Ecclesiastics that it can be neither taken away nor diminished by any Canon because the Canon is by Mans Law and the power of Princes by Gods Law is a false Conclusion drawne from a false Principle and repugnant unto all Catholique Doctors as well Divines as Canonists False because it is contrary to many Decrees of Councels Popes the Lawes Imperiall and the light of Nature Drawne from a false Principle because the power of Princes over Laics is not grounded upon Gods Word Against all Catholique Doctors as well Divines as Canonists because both Sotus and Conarruuias compted the chiefe Pillars of those who maintaine that Exemption is not warrantable to Ecclesiastics by Gods Law have not stucke to testifie by their learned pens that Popes have plenary power to exempt Ecclesiastics that all Princes are bound to uphold and maintaine the Popes Exemption as also that no Prince no not all Princes together hath one dram of power to annihilate or disanull or in the least measure to diminish the said Papall Exemption Thus much is affirmed and witnessed by Sotus and Conarruuias in the very same passeges by your selfe Orthodox produced and alleadged It hereupon followes that you have now broached a new an erroneous a scandalous a schismaticall and a seditious Doctrine If this notwithstanding
word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once Hee thereby expounds that one word with two words which without all doubt signifie Pasce Feed Nay the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to feed and by a Metaphor to rule and governe as in the aforesaid Text as in this Text of St. Johns Revelation All this makes much against you Hetrodox and nothing at all to favour your cause Will you now give mee leave to make good my Exposition of the word Pasce Feed with Authority of the holy Fathers Hetrodox Proceed at your pleasure Orthodox Ter dictum est Pasce c. Three times over the Lord Christ repeated the word Feed to St. Peter And wherefore thrice Forsooth to intimate that all such as are charged with cure of soules are bound to feed their People triplici Pastu with a three-fold Dyet namelie with the Food of Gods heavenly word with Food of good Example in life and with Temporall Aid so far as their meanes are not wanting But alasse this three-fold Feeding is now adaies changed by unconscionable shepheards into a three-fold polling and pelting of their Flocks by pilling and pinching their Subjects with intollerable burthens of exactions without anie due regard at all to the said three-fold Feedi●g Thus Chrysostome Hom. 87. Perpende verba Pasce agnos meos c. weigh these words of Christ well Feed my Lambes that is Feed my faithfull Flock not thine use them not as thy proper Possession but as mine I therefore asked if thou lovest mee O Peter because I have a purpose to recommend my little Flocke to thy Feeding and to bee kept of thee as mine owne Goods and Cattells that love which thou bearest my selfe in profession I would have thee shew and practise towards my tender Lambes Fat not pamper not up thy selfe like those unfaithfull Shepheards of whom the holy Prophet cryed Ezech. 34. Vae Paestoaibus woe to the Shepheards of Israel that have fed their owne bellies That man that feeds himselfe who gapes after his owne gaine who hunts after his owne glorie who removes every stone for his owne commodity never s●eking for the benefit of the Faithfull over whom hee beares rule never aiming at Gods glorie in exercising the state and office of a Ruler Tract 132. in Ioann●m Thus far St. Augustine Qui hoc animo pascunt ones c. Such as feed the Flock with a mind to make the sheep their owne and none of Christs doubtlesse beare no love at all to Christ himselfe St. Augustine againe Ibid. Sicut oves meas Pasce non sicut tuas Feed the Flock as my sheepe and not as thine owne Cattle in them seeke my Glory my gaine and neither thine owne gaine or thine owne glorie This Peter himselfe hath also taught Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you 1 Petr. 5. caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as if ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be examples to the Flock These be the exercises of the true Shepheard and thus the words Feed my Lambes are to be understood and not that the Popes Feeding should be a Temporall reigning over all Temporall Kings The holy Fathers you see Hetrodox teach the contray namely that hee ought carefelly to shun and avoid all filthy Lucre Acquists Glory Dominion c. 13. Againe by Quodcunque solveris whatsoever thou Peter shalt loose you understand every thing And by this means the Pope shall have power to untie all kno●s to set open all prisons to transferre all Kingdomes to deliver all the slaves in Turkie at his pleasure nay to solve all difficulties in all matters whatsoever What man doth not perceive the f●lsity of this Doctrine Our Lord Christ c●me to deliver Soules from sinne and as the onely Redeemer So teach all Divines The Pope by like shall worke the same effects hee shall cooperate in this great worke of Redemption he shall bind and loose the sinnes of 〈◊〉 you have no reason Hetrodox to cast such colours on your false opinions whereby to make the Pope Lord and Patrone of every thing with a Quodcunque whatsoever For ●●ere is no such matter as you conceive in your dreames 14. Againe the word Soule is understood and taken sometimes for the whole man and sometimes for the Spirit of man above according to the matter handled Now your Argument is drawne from one place to another For St. Paul speaks of Temporall Dominion The word Omnis anima every Soule in understood of power over mens bodies and in Temporality But because our Lord Christ gave Spirituall Power to Peter the word Animas Soules which is used in the Prayer of the Church doth signifie the Spirit or Soule of Man and not his Body in Spirituality forsooth and not in Temporality 15. Those who wiped the word Animas out of the Brevi●rie were inspired as you believe by the Holy Spirit of God I never yet read or heard that Gods owne Spirit is the Author of Dissention strife or Discord But well I wot Peace is one of the Gifts or Fruits of the Holy Spirit The makers of the foresaid Prayer aymed at the Exposition of these words Quodcunque ligvaeris whatsoever thou shalt bind by the word Animas and by that other Text Quorum remiseritis peccata whose sinnes ye remit as a just exposition of the word Animas because all sinnes to speake properly are bred and hatcht up in the Soule not in the Bodie And this they did to a speciall end and purpose namely to drive certaine Opinastres from their Tenent or hold That Popes are Domini in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the absolute Lords over mens goods their Bodies and Soules with a power to bind and loose all things as it seemes your selfe Hetrodox is of the same opinion This Exposition they made by the word Animas and by the same exposition they produced an excellent remedy against all Discords which might grow betweene the Pope and other Princes about Meu●● Tuum about Mine Thine whereas on the other side those who last spung'd the Breviarie by taking away the word Animas have ministred new Tinder and Match to kindle the Coales of great contention discord and litigious quarrels Besides it is not unknowne to the World that in the Bookes of the Councels of the Canons and of other Doctors yea downe so low as to the very Breviaries and Missals many matters recorded and registred in favour of Layick Princes have beene blotted and still are scraped out of the ancient Rolls and all to make experiment if after long travaile and sore labour that huge mountaine of opinion de illimitatâ Potestate Pontificis in Temporalibus touching the unboundable power of the Pope in Temporals might be brought forth reared up and established in the Church of God Conferre the Bookes printed in 30. and 50. with Bookes printed in these daies as well the Bookes of
c. 37. Henrie IV. by Gregorie VII So that in this your opinion you erre and wander without any guide or companion but certaine ancient and moderne Heretiques and in particular Marsilius of Padua for one as it is testified by the Cardinall de Turre Cremata N●y more the Pope cannot be judged by the Councell except in case of Heresie upon which point and Article all Catholiques are agreed And herein lies your second falsitie For Pope Iohn XII was not found culpable of Heresie but onelie of scandalous and inordinate life in which case he could not be judged Besides that Councell by which Pope Iohn was deposed was no lawfull Councell but a Conventicle Schismaticall and without a Head whereupon it was abrogated and cassed not long after who so desires to know the truth of this Historie may read the X. Tome of Cardinall Baronius or else to make a shorter cut the Addition of Onuphrius Orthodox This argument hath beene propounded by manie Catholiques and howsoever it is likewise taken up by Hereticks they make use thereof to another end then Catholiques use the same But without all question or doubt de Turre Cremata nor Bellarmine himselfe doth untie the knot and therefore in briefe I must uncase your particular Errours herein 1. It is the Doctrine of St. Paul that Christians must submit and leave themselves to be judged by Secular Painces and most of all in Causes of Appeale wherein the partie Appealing complaines of the inferiour Judge ad redimendam vexationem for a redresse of his grievances or wrongs yet behold you contend I cannot chuse but marvaile at your boldnesse that St. Pauls Appeale was not de Iure Tell me now good Sir did St. Paul appeale contra Jus against Right If so then you must needs thinke and believe that St. Paul sinned in the act of his Appeale But howsoever concerning other men it may be spoken de Facto of the Fact and not de Iure of the Right yet so to reprove the holie Apostle St. Paul of sinne of nothing as you seeme to doe I see not how you can avoid a great blot at least of blame 2. The word Coactus Constrained you take in other sense then it was taken by St. Paul For the Apostle uses the word Constrained to this purpose and sense That for so much as Festus an inferiour Judge had not done him right and justice therefore ad redimendam vexationem for the repairing of his wrong and losse thereby received he was constrained to make his Appeale unto the Superiour Judge as Appellants use commonly to speake whereas you tell us that St. Paul said I was constrained to appeale that he might not make men burst out into great laughter if he had appealed unto St. Peter 3. You say St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter least hee should make both Jewes and Gentil●s to laugh Well fare you Sir for this merrie conceipt and pleasant device in the edge of an Evening I demand in that St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter whether was it well done or ill If well then Exemption is not founded upon Gods Law If ill wherefore did he so What was it perhaps that people might not laugh Why then Sir to the end that people may not be put into a fit of laughter is it lawfull for one to doe ill or to forbeare speaki●g the truth and in particular for that chosen vessell that holie Apostle who saith we preach Christ crucified unto the Jewes even a stumbling block and unto the Grecians foolishnesse And what 1. Cor. 1.23 I beseech you Hetrodox makes men laugh more then foolishnesse But St. Paul abstained from preaching never the more because his preaching was by the Gentiles accounted foolishnesse No he tooke and reputed that imputation for a speciall Reputation ascribing the same to the greatnesse to the wonderfull vertue and power of his preaching Ministerie To tell you the plain truth I can by no meanes and at no hand brooke or endure to heare that for the firming or founding of an opinion which is delivered without all probabilitie and without any shew and shadow of Precept in holie Scripture anie man should talke his pleasure of holie Paul and sacred Scripture in so free a straine or veine of libertie 4. To know the Historie of Pope Iohn and Otho you referre us forsooth to Card. Baronius and Onuphrius in his Addition to Platina of the Lord Cardinall Baronius what shall I say Hee is an Historian and living still to this day His workes are suspected in the matter of immunities yea as one that hath not a tongue to speake or a pen to write otherwise he denies all the ancient Historians and in case by good hap he admit some one or other still he takes the words which make for his turne and as for those words which make against his owne purpose hee still seekes to blind the world and to make the Reader believe they are supposititious and thrust into the webb of that Historie by foule and forcible intrusion And even thus hee deales in this Historie denying the Authoritie of Intiprandus approved in the Church by the space of Dcc. yeares and other Writers of the same times So that now his Annals not finding such account or consideration in the World as no doubt he dreame of and believed as also for as much as a Booke entituled Errores Card. Baronii The Errours of Cardinall Baronius is in good forwardnesse to be speedily printed in which Booke are particularly laid open more then 20. Errours by him committed in denying this most ancient Historie of Pope John it is not worth while or whistling to speake of his Authoritie As for the Addition of Onuphrius first I say hee is very moderne and in a manner new then I answer that in the said Addition there is nothing that makes against my Position but rather on my side and is written in favour of our Tenent at least if the Election of Leo be admitted to passe for a lawfull El●ction 5. You pretend the Emperour Otho could not de Iure depose Pope John for his Criminall Delicts and that Popes have de Iure deposed Emperours Hitherto the contrarie hath beene proved and ever de Iure Namely that in Temporall matters the Pope hath not Ius auferendi Regna jure Pontificatus that his Holinesse hath neither dram nor drop of right to take away Kingdomes in right of his Pontificalitie and that by Gods Law none is exempt from the Secular Power in Criminall Delicts But you draw a reason from contrarie sense and I know not upon what ground o● Foundation the said Reason is built 6. You grant and indeed you are forced so to doe the lawfull Deposing of Pope Iohn I say lawfull because by vertue of Iohns deposition Leo was elected and taken for lawfull Pope say Ciacconius what he list or can to the contrarie of whom if I shall pronounce that in the ancient Poet Quicquid delirant Reges plectuntur