Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	able_a	according_a	acknowledge_v	28	3	6.6759	4	false

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

same So Sotus and so Conar●●●●● as before But suppose Si quis suadente q. 4. we were destitute of all other ●●●●es and Authorities That most famous Canon which excommunicates all such as lay violent hands upon Clerics or 〈◊〉 may be sufficient the Absolution in which case is reser●●d to the Apostolic See without exception of any Princes or 〈◊〉 Lords This Canon was never yet revoked to this day 〈◊〉 when Martin V. in the Councell of Constance was inclined 〈◊〉 p●derate the sharpe censures of Excommunications and to 〈◊〉 order that it might be lawfull to have conversation with Excommunicate persons neverthelesse he excepted all such as 〈◊〉 declared Excommunicate by processe of Quorum nomina withall those who notoriously doe lay violent hands upon Ecclesiastics For without all further declaration it was his will and pleasure that conversing with all such persons should be avoided and that his foresaid moderation should not at any hand extend to the benefit of such as by violence had laid up any Ecclesiastic Your third reason drawne from possession time out of mind is refuted by the words of the Venetian Lords themselves For they in Anno 1605. renewed a Law enacted in Anno 1536. That Goods Immoveable might not be given to the Church for none other cause and reason but onely because it had never been observed to that present yeare as by themselves it is confessed Besides against Justice no possession or Custome 〈◊〉 stand in force It is therefore a notorious falsitie to say the Duke of Venice hath not sinned in making the ●●id Lawes and in 〈◊〉 up Ecclesiasticall persons But wh●●soever sees or heares th●● day the most grievous and horrible acts of Excesse done by the Venetian Duke in committing Priests and those of Religious Orders to prison in compelling and forcing Ecclesiastics contrarie to their conscience to violate and breake the Apostolicall Interdict in filling Monasteries with Souldiers and last of all in raising of public persecution against Churches and Religions as in fo●●●er ages Valens an Arrian Emperour and after his ●●●s Hi●uricus King of the Vandals an other Arrian hath done ●ow can that man professe the Duke doth not sin if he be not ●●●ether blinded with passion and given up as the Apostle 〈◊〉 unto a reprobate mind I passe over your words which 〈◊〉 that he sinnes not who doth nothing against the Law 〈◊〉 that keepes the Law nor he that followes the Doctrine of St. Paul These points are too well knowne and fitter for ●●●low and light-witted children then for solid and 〈◊〉 vines But your last Censure that such as 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiasticall Exemption to be fixed upon the Pole of Gods Law and 〈◊〉 seeme to you not well founded or ill advised or over 〈◊〉 or grosse flatterers is not a censure given against men 〈◊〉 Blasphemie pronounced against the Holie Spirit For the 〈◊〉 which we maintaine is the expresse sentence of the La●●●● and Tridentine Councels both generall So that if we acknowledge according to the truth that the sacred Councels most of all the Generall Councels are assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost and if we be able to say with that first Councell h●ld at Jerusalem Visum est Spiritui Sanct● nobis it hath seemed good into the Holie Ghost and unto us then it followes that you make th● holy Ghost sometimes not well founded sometimes ill advised sometimes too venturous and sometimes too full of flatterie Orthodox These two positions have beene sufficiently made good before the one that the power of Temporall Princes comes immediately from God howsoever the m●●ne of attaining unto the said power is by the meanes of men and that Almighty God hath not exempted any one Subject from the just Lawes and commandements of the said power the other that the Popes power albeit Spirituall cannot curbe or barre Temporall power from the exercise of their just Dominion over their owne Subjects From these Principles proved point by point in my last passage there is drawne this necessary consequence That when the Pope by his Spirituall power inhibits the Prince of Venice to exercise his Temporall power over his owne Subjects then the Prince of Venice is not bound to obey the Pope therein and that in case of such disobedience the Prince committeth no sin or offence This Hetrodox I trust is no fetching about by the bowe full bent but going to the matter in a strait 〈◊〉 by the string of the bowe Now for so much as you charge 〈◊〉 mine Author to be men who cannot speak without inter●●●ing all kinds of erroneous materials it is necessarie for me to 〈◊〉 off this aspersion of Calumnie reproach and to let you see 〈◊〉 a Christall Glasse the Errours couching in your own oppo●●●ns Errours without all doubt so much further from excuse as they are so audacious and shamelesse to reprove other mens 〈◊〉 and sound Doctrine for Errour 1. The most illustrious Republic is the naturall Prince of his own 〈◊〉 in all my Authors Propositions he never speaks word of the Duke He names the Duke not so much as once but still speakes of the Signorie or of the Republic or of the Prince Whereupon you Hetrodox do nothing but confound the word Prince and the word Duke and with the word you also confound the power of the persons So that by the Prince of Venice you understand the Duke who is onely Head of the Republic and shee onely the Prince So manifest is this your first Errour that all ●●n take fight and knowledge thereof This one Errour marres your Market for it ●●ps the force and authority of all your other oppositions concerning this matter in your head 2. You seeme to have so base a conceit of me and my Author that you presuppose we cannot distinguish the Prince when hee signifies the Republic and when the Duke who is but a particular person though the first and chiefest in the Republic or else that all those by whom the Authors worke was revised were so close muffled as they could not descry so manifest an Error you seeme so desirous to find Thornes amongst flowers that I doe not marvaile you see sometimes one thing for another and call vertue her selfe by the name of Errour 3. Whereas in my Authors answer no mention is made at any time of the Duke but of the Republic of the Signorie and whereas the Author treats not but of her Dominion and power it was your part Hetrodox to understand the word Prince is Generall signifying as well Emperours and Kings as Republics or Common-wealths and that in this place it did not signifie the Duke but the Republic Besides the Authors words admit none other sense For the Prince of Venice as this Author speakes in plaine and expresse termes never knew any Superior in Temporals but God alone will any man understand this to be spoken of the Duke who so long as hee was Procurator of St. Mark acknowledged the Duke for his

therefore no lesse then Laics are subject unto the secular Prince Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers As none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to God so none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to his lawfull Prince For all power is of God as the Apostle there subjoynes This was it which moved the Kingly Prophet and propheticall King David to stile Kings and secular Princes Gods with a Deus st●tit God standeth in the assembly of Gods he judgeth among the Gods For as it is truly and religiously avouched by King Jehosaphat secular Judges do not execute the judgements of men but of God himselfe the very same former text of David our Saviour Christ speaking of secular Princes and Judges hath cited in the Gospell and there makes it good that unto them doth belong the name of Gods If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God was given as Cardinall Bellarmine hath learnedly noted and observed Hetrod If you had in this manner drawn your conclusion to a head Ecclesiastics therefore and seculars too are not by Gods Law subj●ct unto the secular Prince but seculars by mans law and ecclesiastics by no law at all neither of God nor man then your conclusion had been aptly deduced from your premises For it hath been proved before that Princes attaine to Soveraignty over their people not by divine title but olny humane If it be otherwise I pray let me have it well proved by some plain passage of Scripture that for instance the LL. of Venice are Jure divino the LL. Paramount of Padua Verona with other like Cities and if any question should grow concerning the Kingdome of Cyprus what faire title would the Venetian State alledge for the same Some goodly Charter of sacred Scripture Surely no but either some title of donation or ancient possession or some other like humane title Now then if they shall fall short in proving their title over the Laics of Padua Cyprus c. by divine authority when will they prove their pretended title over Clerics by the same authority I dare passe yet a whole degree further namely to maintain that all degrees and sorts of Laics yea that Soveraign Princes are by Gods Law in the state of subjection to Priests and that by the same Law of God Priests are quitted and freed from subjection to secular Princes My reason because according to Gods holy writ and word the positive law of God priests are pastors or shepheards to feed and Laics though never so great Princes are sheepe to be fed Priests are Fathers and Laics are sonnes Now according to the light of nature the law naturall of God the sheep are under tearmes of subjection to the Shepheard and the Shepherd is bound under no such termes to the sheep as the sonne also lives in state of subjection to the Father whereas the Father owes no duty of that nature to the sonne moreover the comparison made by Gregory Nazianzene between ecclesiasticall and secular is most excellent and usually taken up of holy Divines as in mans nature there is reason and flesh of which two united the whole frame and composition of man doth consist so in the Church their ecclesiasticall or spirituall power and secular or temporall power of which two the mysticall body of the Church is aptly composed and as in man reason hath superiority over the flesh and the flesh is never superior over reason except it be in some fit of rage and fury of Rebellion Againe as reason directs rules commands the flesh and sometime brings her to a kind of rack I meane doth chastise the flesh and puts her to a certain pennance of long fasting watching whereas the flesh never directs rules commands nor layes any hard lawes of punishment upon reason even so the spirituall power hath a superiority over the secular by vertue and force whereof it both may and ought also to give direction to rule to command and punish the secular power whensoever it kicks or spurnes or proves refractory or makes any breach into the inclosures of ecclesiasticall Regiment whereas the secular power is not superior to the spirituall nor can it direct rule command or punish the same De facto in cases of Rebellion and Tyrannie which by Heathen Princes or by Heretics hath been sometimes put in practise true it is that all power is of God but how either immediately or else by meanes And as none is exempted from obedience due to God so none is exempted from obedience due to the Prince provided alwaies that a man be the said Princes vassall or Subject and in cases likewise wherein he owes vassalage or subjection to the said Prince It is no lesse true that Princes as Princes are Gods Lievtenants and therefore to be honoured yea served with due obedience as God himselfe in such causes and matters as lye within their power Servants be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh even as unto Christ And whereas you say Cardinall Bellarmine hath averred in writing that secular Princes in Scripture are called Gods he was you must understand induced so to write of purpose to confound hereticall Anabaptists who teach that neither secular Princes nor tribunals nor judgements nor other like politick and civill regiments are to be tolerated in the Church of God But as that Cardinall hath written and witnessed that secular Princes are Gods in respect of their Subjects even so he hath justified that priests are Gods in respect of secular Princes If you therefore Orthodox like a good Roman Catholique would have trod in the steps of that Cardinall you should have taken up his weapons and should have made use of them against Heretics not against our mother the Church nor should you like the Spider have suckt such poyson from the same flowers out of which the Bee sucks and gathers hony Orthod I am not able to reach the bottome of your deep conceptions would you have your own conclusions to be drawne out of my premises If I had been inspired with a spirit of divination and by the gift of Sooth-saying could have foreseen that your selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine was to be the Champion that would undertake to cudgell my coat I mean so subtilly to trounce me and to play such trumps in my way I would have directly drawn two distinct conclusions the one true and built upon my own true certaine and infallible premises the other false obliquely derived from your premises or those of his illustrious Lordship but for as much as the spirit of divination doth not harbour in my brest or braine I must only shape and lay in this answer for my selfe that from the same premises which I have now framed I would wish none other but mine own conclusion to be inferred and from your premises and those of the Lord Cardinall your own or his own conclusions to be inducted for as my conclusion is true because it