This is the first instance of a religious censorship exercised by the secular government. The case may be considered as fairly indicating the position the Venetian Government proposed to take in regard to the supervision of books touching upon theological matters. The State had a personal interest in protecting the Church against the attacks of books likely to be subversive of the faith, and it was glad to secure the opinion of the Church in regard to the character or tendency of a doubtful work; but it intended to retain in its own hands the final decision as to the permission to print; and it contended that the interests of Church and State could be best protected by the State taking action for both. The conclusion arrived at was, therefore, that there should be religious censorship, but that the censor should act only through powers delegated to him by the secular government. A case occurring in 1516 shows, however, that this policy speedily became modified. Soardi, a publisher, applied for an _imprimatur_ for certain theological works. The Council of Ten replies that as Soardi has already secured the _testamurs_ of the Patriarch and the Inquisitor, they, _quoad se_, have no objection to offer, and _permittunt fieri quantum præfati Reverendissimus et Inquisitor concessere_.[148] Brown accepts this phrase, _quoad se_, which occurs also in later _imprimaturs_, as evidence that the Council of Ten had practically resigned the direct control of the religious censorship, and had accepted the Patriarch and the Inquisitor as the proper persons to deal with the responsibility. It is still, however, the secular authority and not the ecclesiastical which grants the _imprimatur_, and the term _permittunt fieri_ implies that the permit was necessary and could be withheld. In this same year, 1515, a claim was raised by the Papal Government which, later, gave rise to many disputes between the Church and the Republic of Venice, and also between the Church and several other of the States of Italy.