Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	act_n	church_n	communion_n	1,604	5	9.1682	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11509	An apology, or, apologiticall answere, made by Father Paule a Venetian, of the order of Serui, vnto the exceptions and obiections of Cardinall Bellarmine, against certaine treatises and resolutions of Iohn Gerson, concerning the force and validitie of excommunication. First published in Italian, and now translated into English. Seene and allowed by publicke authoritie; Apologia per le oppositioni fatte dall' illustrissimo & reverendissimo signor cardinale Bellarminio alli trattati, et risolutioni di Gio. Gersone. English	Sarpi, Paolo, 1552-1623.	1607 (1607)	STC 21757; ESTC S116732	122,825	141

the holy Apostolick sea neither doth it introduce any nouelty but conserues defends with all godlinesse religion the holy Apostolick faith which it prefers before all humane respects whatsoeuer but onely in causes temporal where the Pope either for not beeing well informed or through other bodies counsells or for some other cause doth thunder out his censures notoriously against all iustice they intēd within the bounds of the Catholick religion to maintaine their owne liberty the authority giuen them from God it beeing conforme to the lawes of God nature according to the doctrine of the godly catholick doctors But now whether Gersons considerations make or make not to the purpose whether they be erroneous or not let vs peruse them euery one a part as the Author shall present occasion The first consideration is that excommunication irregularitie are founded principally vpon a contempt of the keyes of the Church that is to say Gerson of the Ecclesiasticall authority This consideration is true so you vnderstand by contempt disobedience or if you wil so terme it contumacie Bellarmine it is not contrary to our Lords practise 2 The second consideration is that the contempt of the keyes may be in three sorts directly or indirectly or appearingly as the interpreter mistranslates it For Gerson expresses not his third sort with the word apparenter Gerson but with the word interpretatiue which two words are in a manner quite contrarie For Apparens is that which appeares or seemes to be and is not and interpretatiuum is that which seemes not and yet is But this scape little imports the matter in hand For the first consideration since he allowes it for true I shall not neede to defend it or adde any thing else vnto it The second consideration he admits likewise for true and reproues not Gerson but onely the traslation And in deede the interpreter shold haue stood greatly bound to him for his instruction if hee had not troubled and confounded all with an aequiuocation True it is that sometimes Interpretatiue signifies that which is appeares not and some times it signifies as much as tacite implies that which is not manifest but needs interpretatiō is not opposite to the worde vere but to the word expresly in this sense we call it licentia interpretatiua that is to say tacita non expressa But otherwhiles it signifies also that which seemes is not as when we say not to salute a man is interpretatiue a kinde of disdaine that is as much as it seemes a disdenie but peraduenture it is not here interpretatiue is opposit to vere I can not tell what edition of Gerson the Author hath but in mine which was printed in the yeare 494 in the very end of this consideration his formal words are Et isto modo reperit contemptus in omni peccato praesertim mortali directiue vel indirecte vere vel interpretatiue If then vere be opposed to interpretatiue then cannot interpretatinum be that which appeares not but yet is because that which appeares not but is in it selfe is verum And if this suffice to cleare the Translators integrity I will yet adde that Gerson in his third consideration sayth that a contēpt of the third sort which is contemptus interpretatiuus doth not alwaies deserue the Churches excommunication if it deserues not excommunication alwaies ergo it deserues it sometimes but that which is and appeares not can not be subiect in any sort to the Churches censures as all the diuines Canonists affirme therefore interpretatiuum is not that which appeares not and yet is I hope well that the Author will now rest satisfied for this point cōsequētly that his obiection of mistranslating made against the Interpretor is auoyded which when I first read in the Authors proeme I expected that in further reading I should haue found many more places taxed for infidility misinterpretation but whē I had done reading ouer all I foūd no one word so noted but this alone that with this additiō But this scape little imports the matter in hād Me thought it strange that a man should be noted as an vnfaithfull one for one poore word that of little importance that in the very noting taxing it the Author should serue his turne with an aequiuocall word which in the very same place is explaned by Gerson Bellarmine 3 The third consideration is That the contempt of the keyes in the first and second kindes do iustly deserue excommunication and by consequence irregularitie but that of the third kinde doth not alwaies deserue excommunication from the Church but from God because he that sinneth mortally is excōmunicated by God In this consideration there is nothing much amisse sauing the last words for if a man will speake properly of excommunication it is not true that euery one that committs a mortall sin is excōmunicated by God For then sinners might not come to Masse nor to diuine office without committing new sin which is false as euery man knowes Frier Paolo In the third consideration it is apparant that an inordinate affection to finde fault doth transport a man no lesse then any other affection whatsoeuer Since he doth not reprehend Gerson for that which is here concluded which he allowes all for true but fastning vpon one word spoken immediately he charges him to haue spoken amisse for saying that who so sinnes mortally is excommunicated of God his reason is that this cannot be true if we speake properly of excōmunication because that then sinners could not come to Masse without sinning anew Now I affirme against him that it is a proper speach to say that euery sinner is excōmunicated of god because excōmunication is a generall word which imports all seperation from the communion of Saints but there be two communions of Christians one internall in caritie with God and with the Saints and this is properly the communion of Saints either for a separation or priuation for this is the true and proper excommunication another communion there is betwixt the members of the Church militant which doth not so necessarily exact charity to this communion we oppose that excommunication which is the censure ecclesiasticall auoiding to this kinde of excommunication euery sinner is not excommunicate and may therefore repaire to the Masse it beeing a matter which doth not so necessarily require charity Now Gerson neuer said that he was excommunicated by the excommunication which is the churches censure S. Augustine 12 de Gen. ad literam cap. 40 vseth the same fashion of speech Adam ab esu ligni vitae excōmunicatus fuit Gratianus causa 11. Quaestione 3. after the Chap. Ad mensam saith thus scilicet Adam ab esu ligni vitae excommunicatus est and after the Chapter Non solum he saith quia ex natu adulterij iādiu apud deum excommunicatus fuerat which is iust

this worke of Gersons was written after the yeare 1418. and before 1422. when Charles the sixt dyed If then Martinus Quintus was elected in 1417. it is plaine the booke was written in his Popedome beside that Gerson himselfe in the fourth proposition doth nominate the councell of Constance as then past Then must it needs bee that the Commissary commaunded the execution of some Papall prouision contrary to the orders set downe by the foresaid conuocation which according to Gerson was to commaund an vniust thing and did therfore conteine intollerable errors against publicke iustice and in his opinion did tend directly to an vndue vsurpation All which if it had beene obserued by our author hee had surely forborne to say that the Commissary spake of vniust sentences but such as were of validity seeing plainely in the fourth proposition that this Commissaries sentence is a protestation made against the foresaid actes and decrees and for this reason Gerson held it of no validity This Commissary if he had beene a man of conscience could not haue held his own sētences vniust but like one that how euer the world went would be obeyed to ease himselfe of trouble in iustifying his mandats writ in a common processe that his sentences whether they were iust or vniust were to bee obeyed If vniust sentences might suffer a distinction of such as were of validitie and such as were not of validitie hee had not freed himselfe of all difficulties because hee might yet bee encountered with the question of validitie and therefore the Commissary endeauoured in one ambiguous word to include the generall that necessary it was to obey all his sentences and by this meanes thought to purchase obedience to that which hee particularly intended not much vnlike to this present occasion wherein many distrusting their own abilities in shewing the iustice of the Popes mandats to the common wealth of Venice say that the Pope is to bee obeyed though hee commaund vniust things Surely I cannot but much wonder how the author treating of a question which is grounded vpon a thing in fact should conclude cōtrary to the truth of the story See then I pray you how all Gersons discourse is built in the ayre And now as if in the eight propositions following Gerson had swerued from his purpose and treated of another matter the author saith Bellarmine To this discourse Gerson doth add certain propositions to shew that which the most Christian king was both able and ought to do in defence of the liberty of the French church of which propositions it is not very necessary to discourse in this place First because they are all grounded vpon this principle that the authority of a councell is aboue the Popes authority for vpon no other reason will Gerson haue it that the Pope cannot change the auncient Cannons vpon which the French Church did then ground their liberty but because hee did belieue that those Canons which were made by the councel could not be subiect to the Popes will and authority Now that this principall is declared to be false let vs not belieue that the Venetians can hould it for true Secondly because that since Gersons time In the councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth that pragmaticall act was abrogated which the French churches defended agrement was made betwixt Pope Leo and the most Christian king so as now there is no more talke of the liberty of the French church in preiudice of the Pope But the most Christian king and all the Bishops of France are at peace and vnitie with their mother which is the church of Rome and likewise with their Father which is the Pope Christs vicar Saint Peters successor Thirdly because this liberty of the French church which Gerson writes of hath no sympathie with that liberty which is now pretended by the state of Venice because that was founded vpon auncient Canons and this is contrary as well to the ancient Canons as the moderne ●rier Pa●●o Gerson hauing intention to demonstrate in eight propositions that which the most Christian King was to doe in defence of the liberty of the french Church defending it from Buls of reseruations and Papal prouisions and other abuses of the court of Rome vsed in those times sets downe eight propositions which the Author doth wisely obserue to bee better dissembled and past ouer then handled seeing plainly that to endeuour to confute them were to confirme them and to establish that which before he contradicted That Princes both ought and might oppose themselues to such commandements of Prelates as were exorbitant and vnlawfull and therefore excuseth himselfe from treating of these eight propositions for three causes First because they are grounded vpon this principle that the authority of a Councell is aboue the Popes authority and this he saith he hath declared before to bee false But he might haue added that notwithstanding his declaration it is both held and maintained by the Vniuersities of France of which Nauarra and others giue sufficient testimony Secondly because that in the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo that pragmaticall Act was abrogated so as at this day there is no more talke of the liberty of the French Church The Author takes vs here to be very simple and ignorant in matter of history as if we knew not that the liberty of the french Church of which Gerson speakes was one thing and the pragmaticall decree another The one being before Gersons time but the decree was made by Charles the 7. about the yeare 1440. long after this booke was written in which his father Charles the 6. was mentioned as then liuing But why saith he not here as wel that vpon the annulling of this pragmatical decree by Leo the Vniuersity of Paris made an appeale to the next councell Hee presupposeth fur●her that wee doe not so much as know what is a pragmaticall decree and what a particular order and whether this latter doth abrogate the former in the whole or in certain parts onely But the most bold and wilfull part of all is to belieue that we are lockt vp in a prison and know not so much as the present occurrences of the world and are ignorant whether in France there be dayly appeales from ecclesiasticall sentences to the Court of Parliament tanquam ab abusu and whether that Court doth take knowledge of them Surely the Author would be well content we were mē of this sort and that we knew no more of the world then what stood with the benefit of Church-men onely and blinded in extreame ignorance wee should hold them in admiration iust like Gods and Oracles The third cause which he alleadgeth for not touching the eight propositions of Gerson is because the liberty of the French Church which Gerson writes of was grounded vpō antient Canons and this of the Venetians is contrary both to the antient Canons and those of latter time What truth there is in this last saying of his