Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	bishop_n	jurisdiction_n	ordination_n	4,138	5	10.4414	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A02568	The peace of Rome Proclaimed to all the world, by her famous Cardinall Bellarmine, and the no lesse famous casuist Nauarre. Whereof the one acknowledgeth, and numbers vp aboue three hundred differences of opinion, maintained in the popish church. The other confesses neere threescore differences amongst their owne doctors in one onely point of their religion. Gathered faithfully out of their writings in their own words, and diuided into foure bookes, and those into seuerall decads. Whereto is prefixed a serious disswasiue from poperie. By I.H.	Azpilcueta, Martín de, 1492?-1586.; Hall, Joseph, 1574-1656.; Bellarmino, Roberto Francesco Romolo, Saint, 1542-1621. Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei. English. Selections.	1609 (1609)	STC 12696; ESTC S106027	106,338	252

Honorius to haue been an hereticke so doth Melchior Canus from the two Epistles of Honorius himselfe to Sergius wherein he approoues the doctrine of the Monothelites from the 6. Synod Act. 13. seuenth Synod Act. last eighth Synod Act. 7. From the Epistle of Pope Agatho from the Epistle of Pope Leo 2. from Tharasius Theodorus Epiphanius the Deacon Bede c. But in the behalfe of Honorius haue written Albert Pighius Hosius Io. of Louan Onuphrius Bellarm. B. 4. ch 11. pag. 519. Secondly Alphonsus de Castro against Bellarmine Celestin Pope against Innocentius ALphonsus de Castro affirmes flatly that Pope Celestinus was an hereticke the first Booke of heres chap. 4. for that he held Matrimony so dissolued by heresie that he whose wife was proued hereticall might marry againe Contrary to which is taught by Pope Innocentius 3. ch Quanto of diuorces and the same is defined in the Councell of Trent Sess. 4. Canon 5. But I answer that neither Celestinus nor Innocentius determine any certainty of that matter Bellarm. l. 4. c. 14. pag. 545. Thirdly Pope Nicholas against Pope Iohn Bellarmine against Turrecremata POpe Nicholas the third defines that Christ by his word and example taught perfect pouerty which consists in the abdication of all our substance no power of it being left to a man either in particular or common and that such pouerty is holy and meritorious But Pope Iohn 20. in his extrauagants teaches this to be false and hereticall Io. de Turrecremata goes about wholly to reconcile these two Popes but in truth if I be not much deceiued they cannot be in all things reconciled Bellarm. b. 4. chap. 14. pag. 546. Fourthly Occam Adrian Gerson Erasmus against Bellarmine THat Pope Iohn 22. was an hereticke in teaching that the soules of the blessed shall not see God till the resurrection is affirmed by Gul. Occam Adrian Erasmus Io. Gerson He thought so indeede but then it was not heresie so to thinke because no Councell had defined the question and Io. Villanus reports that the day before his death he partly explaned and partly recanted his opinion Bellarmine same chapter and booke pag. 548. Fiftly Abulensis against Turrecremata OF the inward iurisdiction in the Court of conscience there is some dissention amongst our Authors for Abulensis holds this power giuen to all Priests immediately from God when they are ordained now that yet notwithstanding this euery Priest cannot bind or loose whatsoeuer Christians is therefore ordered because the Church to take away confusion hath diuided Diocesses and subiected one people to one Bishop another to another But Io. de Turrecremata teaches that this power is not giuen of God by the force of ordination but by man vpon his meere iniunction Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 589. Sixtly Three ranks of Popish Doctors at variance HOw Bishops receiue their iurisdiction there are three opinions amongst our Diuines The first that as well Apostles as other Bishops did and doe receiue it immediatly from God So teach Franciscus Victoria and Alphonsus de Castro The second of those that hold the Apostles not to haue receiued their iurisdiction from Christ but from Peter and Bishops not from Christ but Peters successor So Io. de Turrecremata and Dominicus Iacobatius The third of them which teach that the Apostles indeed receiued all their authority immediately from Christ but other Bishops receiued it not from Christ but from the Pope so holds Caietane Dominicus a Soto Franciscus Vargas Herbaeus Gabriell Bonauenture Albert Durand and others Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 590. Seuenthly Aug. Triumphus Aluar. Pelagius Hostiensis c. against Henricus Turrecrem Pighius Waldensis c. OF the Popes temporall power are three opinions of authors First that the Pope hath full power ouer all the world both in spirituall things and temporall So teach August Triumphus Aluarus Pelagius and many Lawyers Hostiensis Siluester and others not a few yea Hostiensis goes further and teaches that all dominion of Infidell Princes is by Christs comming translated to the Church and rests in the Pope The second in another extreame that the Pope as Pope and by the law of God hath no temporall power nor can any way rule ouer secular Princes and depriue them of their Prince-dome though they deserue it So all the heretickes The third which is the meane betwixt both is the commonest opinion of Catholike Diuines that the Pope as Pope hath not directly and immediately any temporall power but onely spirituall yet in respect to his spirituall iurisdiction that hee hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that supreame euen in temporall things So teach Hugo Halensis Durandus Henricus Driedo Turrecremata Pighius Waldensis Petrus de Palude Caietane Francis Victoria Dominicus a Soto Nicholas Saunders c. What Thom. Aquinas thinkes of this temporall power of the Pope is vncertaine Bellar. l. 5. c. 1. pag. 600. Eightly Onuphrius against Bellarmine and Hostiensis ONuphrius writes that the appointment of the Electors of the Romane Empire was done by Gregorie the tenth but Innocent 3. which was before Gregorie 10. speakes of this Institution and Hostiensis that was likewise before him saith that Innocentius speaks of the seuen Electors and Aluarus Pelagius who liued in the memorie of Gregorie 10. reports this to haue beene the act of Gregorie 5. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 8. p. 633. Ninthly Pighius against Bellarm. Pope Celestine Councell of Chalcedon THE beginning of Councels Albertus Pighius in his 6. B. of the heauenly Hierarchy ch 1. defends to be altogether humane and deuised by naturall reason But it is more probable that it is Diuine for the Councell of Chalcedon in an Epistle to Leo and the sixt Synod Act. 17 and Pope Celestine in an Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus and the third Councell of Toledo teach that Councels are imported in those words of Christ Matth. 18. Wheresoeuer two or three c. Bellarm. de concil Eccles. milit lib. 1. c. 3. pag. 25. Tenthly some vn-named Catholickes against Bellarm. Turrecremata Canus SOme Catholickes hold that all Bishops are not Iudges in Councels for then say they the Pope should be bound who is president in the Councell to follow the greater part of Bishops but this is false as appeares in the practises of Damasus and Leo. I answere first that perhaps it neuer fell so out that the Pope should follow the lesser part in the Councell when they haue giuen their voices without all fraud Secondly I say that the President of the Councell as President must follow the greater part of the voyces but the Pope not as President but as the chiefe Prince of the Church may recall and retract that iudgement So Io. de Turrecremata lib. 3. c. 6.3 and Canus lib. 5. c. 5 Bellarm. ibid. ch 18. p. 81. DECAD V. First Bellarmine against some Catholikes namelesse THat particular Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre

p. 58. Seuenthly Erasmus and Caietane against Bellarm. and all other true Catholickes ERasm in his notes vpon these epistles affirms that the Epistle of Iames doth not sauor of an Apostolicke grauitie hee doubts of the second Epistle of Peter he affirmes the second and third Epistles of Iohn were not written by Iohn the Apostle but by another of Iudes Epistle hee saith nothing Caietane doubts of the Authors of the Epistle of Iames of Iude of the second and third of Iohn and therefore will haue them to be of lesse authority then the rest Bellarmine iustly refutes their opinion ch 18. pag. 86. Eightly Erasmus against all true Catholickes ERasmus in the end of his notes vpon the Reuelation seekes out many doubtfull coniectures wherby he would proue this booke of the Reuelation not to be written by Iohn the Apostle His three reasons are truely answered by Bellarmine chap. 19. p. 94. Ninthly Genebrardus against Bellarmine THE fourth booke of Esdras is indeede cyted by Ambrose in his booke de Bono Mortis and in his second booke vpon Luke and in the 21. Epistle to Horatian but doubtlesse it is not Canonicall since that it is not by any Councell accounted in the Canon and is not found eyther in Hebrew or Greeke and contains in the sixt chapter very fabulous toyes I wonder therfore what came into Genebrards minde that he would haue this booke pertaine to the Canon in his Chronology pag. 90. Bellarm. chap. 20. pag. 99. Tenthly Iacobus Christopolitanus Canus against Bellarmine OMitting those therefore which falsly attribute too much purity vnto the Hebrew text we are to meete with others which in a good zeale but I know not whether according to knowledge defend that the Iewes in hatred of the Christian Religion haue purposely depraued many places of Scripture so teaches Iacob Bishop of Christopolis in his praeface to the Psalmes and Canus in his second booke and thirteenth chapter of common places These Bellarmine confutes by most weighty arguments as he cals them and shewes that by this defence the vulgar Edition should be most corrupt in 2. booke of the word of God chap. 2. pag. 108. DECAD II. First Pagnin Paulus Forosempron Eugubius Io. Mirandulanus Driedo Sixtus Senensis all together by the eares COncerning this vulgar Latine Edition there is no small question That it is not Ieromes is held by Sanctus Pagninus in the praeface of his interpretation of the Bible to Clement the eight and Paulus Bishop of Forosempronium in his second booke first chapter of the day of Christs passion Contrarily that it is Ieromes is defended by Augustine Eugubinus and Iohannes Picus Mirandulanus in bookes set out to that purpose and by some others But that it is mixt both of the new and old is maintained by Io. Driedo in his second booke ch 1. and Sixtus Senensis in his 8. booke of the holy Library and the end Bellarm. 2. booke chap. 9. pag. 135. Secondly Bellarmine against some nameles Authors COncerning the Translation of the Septuagint though I know some hold it is vtterly lost yet I hold rather that it is so corrupted that it seemes another Bellarm. 2. booke ch 6. pag. 127. Thirdly Valla Faber Erasmus and others against Bellarmine THat place Rom. 1.32 not onely Kemnitius but also Valla Erasmus Iacobus Faber and others would haue to be corrupted in the Latine vulgar Bellarmine confutes them and would shew that their Latine Translation herein is better then the Greeke originall Bellarm. same booke chap. 14. pag. 168. Fourthly Card. Caietane against Bellarmine THomas Caietanus in his Treatise of the Institut and authority of the B. of Rome chap. 5. teacheth that the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen are not the same with the power of binding and loosing for that the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen includes the power of order and iurisdiction and somewhat more But this doctrine seemes to vs more subtile then true for it was neuer heard of that the Church had any other keyes besides those of order and iurisdiction Bellarm. 1. booke of the Pope ch 12. pag. 101. Fiftly Ioachim Raymundus a namelesse Frenchman against all Catholikes THat there are three eternall spirits Father Sonne Holy Ghost essentially differing was taught by a certaine Frenchman in Anselmes time and the same seemes to be held by Ioachim the Abbot in the yeare 1190. and Raymundus Lullius in the yeare 1270. confuted by Bellarmine in his first booke de Christo. cha 2. pag. 37. Sixtly Erasmus confuted by Bellarmine BEllarmines disputation against the Transsiluani and Erasmus as their patrone concerning the Diuinity of Christ warranted from diuers places of Scripture See Bell. l. 1. de Christo. ch 6. pag. 72.73 Seuenthly Bellarmine against Durandus THE fourth error is of Durandus in 3. d. 22. q. 3. who taught that Christs soule descended not to hell in substance but only in certaine effects because it did illuminate those holy Fathers which were in Limbo which opinion to be erroneous and yet not so ill as Caluins is proued by foure arguments and all his obiections answered by Bellarm. l. 4. de Christo ch 15. pag. 391.392 c. Eightly Bonauenture against Thomas SAint Thomas p. 3. q. 52. Art 2. teaches that Christ by his reall presence descended but to Limbus Patrum and in effect onely to the other places of hell but it is probable that his soule discended to all Secondly Saint Thomas seemes to say p. 3. q. 52. ar 1. that it was some punishment to Christ to be in hel according to his soule c. And Caietane in act 2. saith that the sorrowes of Christs death continued in him til his resurrection in regard of three penalties whereof the second is that the soule remained in hell a place not conuenient for it But Bonauent in 3. d. 22. q. 4. saith that Christs soule while it was in hell was in the place of punishment indeede but without punishment which seemes to me more agreeable to the Fathers Bellarm. l. 4 de Christo. c. 16. p. 396.397 c. Ninthly Bellarmine and all other Papists against Lyranus NIcolaus Lyranus is not of so great authority that we should oppose him to all the auncient Fathers and Historians which say that Peter was slaine at Rome not as Lyranus at Hierusalem Bellarm. l. 2. of the Pope of Rome ch 10. pag. 210. Tenthly Aeneas Syluius confuted by Bellarmine THat speech of Aeneas Syluius afterwards Pope that before the Nicene Councel each man liued to himselfe and there was small respect had of the Bishop of Rome is partly true and partly false It is true that the power of the Popes was somewhat in those times hindred but it is not true that there was so little respect giuen him Bellarm. l. 2. de Pontif. c. 17. pag 252. DECAD III. First Martinus Polonus confuted by Bellarmine THE confutation of Martinus Polonus which liued An. 1250. in that storie

indeede for neyther Scripture nor Austen euer mention more then one Bellarm. l. 3. c. 9. p. 229. Thirdly Bellarmine against Turrecremata THat close Infidels that haue neyther faith nor any other Christian vertue yet externally for some temporall commodity professe the Catholike faith belong not to the true Church is taught not onely by the Caluinists but by some of our Catholikes amongst whom is Io. de Turrecremata l. 4. de Eccles. But we follow their phrase of speech which say that those who by an externall profession onely are ioyned to the faithfull are true parts of the body of the Church though drie and dead Bellarm. l. 3. c. 10. pag. 232. Fourthly Alexander Alensis and Turrecremata against Bellarmine THere are some Catholike Doctors which teach in the passion of our Lord there remained true faith in none but the blessed Virgin alone and that they hold to be signified by that one candle which alone is kept light in the third night before Easter So holds Alexander Alensis 3. p. q. vlt. art 2. and Iohn de Turrecremata l. 1. de Eccles. c. 30. But I wonder at Turrecremata who for so slight an argument from a candle saith it is against the faith of the Vniuersall Church to affirme otherwise For Rupertus in his 5. booke of Diuine offices chap. 26. sayeth that in his time the last candle also had wont to bee quenched It may be answered rather with Abulensis that by this candle is signified that onely in the blessed Virgin there was for those three dayes an explicit faith of the resurrection Bellarmine l. 3. c. 17. pag. 27. Fiftly Caietane Francisc. Victoria against other Doctors IF there were no constitution for the choice of the Pope and all the Cardinals should perish at once the question is in whom should be the right of the Election Some hold that the right of the choyce setting aside the positiue law should belong to the Councell of Bishops as Caietane in his treatise of the power of the Pope and Councell chap. 13. Franciscus Victoria Relect. 2. q. 2. of the power of the Church others as Siluester reports in the word excommunication teach that it pertaines to the Clergy of Rome Bellarm. in his first booke of the members of the Church militant c. 10. p. 52. Sixtly Bellarmine against Antonius Delphinus and Michael Medina TO that obiection out of Ierome who saith vpon the first to Titus that a presbiter is the same with a Bishop is answered by Antonius Delphinus l. 2. of the Church that in the beginning of the church all Presbiters were Bishops But this satisfies not Michael Medina in his first booke de sacr hom Origine affirmes that S. Ierome held the same opinion with the Aerian heretickes and that not onely Ierome was in this heresie but also Ambrose Austen Sedulius Primasius Chrisostom Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact The opinion of these men was condemned first in Aerius then in the Waldenses and after in Wickliffe But this opinion of Medina is very inconsiderate Bellarm. same booke c. 15. p. 75. Seuenthly Bellarmine against Onuphrius THe opinion of Onuphrius concerning the names or titles of Cardinals see confuted by Bellarmine in the same booke c. 16. p. 82. Eightly Io. Maior and Iodoc. Clictonaeus against S. Thomas Caietane Sotus IOhannes Maior holds that the vow of single life of Priests stands by the law of God and therefore cannot be dispensed with So also Iod. Clictonaeus in his booke de Contin Sacerd. who there defends two opinions which cannot hold together but S. Thomas in 2.2 q. 88. art 11. saith plainely that the vow of continency is onely by the decree of the Church annexed to holy orders and therefore may be dispensed with the same teaches Caietane in opusc and Sotus in his seuenth booke of Iustice c. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 18. pag. 92. Ninthly Erasmus and Panormitan against the other Popish Doctors ERasmus in a declamation of the praise of Matrimonie holds it profitable that liberty of mariage should be granted to Priests and the same is taught by Card. Panormitan a Catholike and learned Doctor in the Chapt. Cum olim Against these errors we are to proue that the vow of continency is so annexed to holy orders that they neyther may marry nor conuerse with their wiues formerly married Bellarm. same booke c. 19. p. 95. Tenthly the Glosse Innocent Panormitan Hostiensis opposed by all Diuines and some Canonists THe fourth error is of many of the canonists which hold that tithes euen according to the determination of quantity stand by the Law of God and that no other quantity can be set downe by any humane law or custome So the Glosse Innocentius Panormitan Hostiensis but doubtlesse it is a manifest errour as not onely all Diuines but some Canonists also teach as Syluester in the word Decima quaest 4. and Nauar. cap. 21. And herein many of the Canonists offend double once in that they defend a falshood Twise in that they doe almost condemne all those Diuines as heretickes which hold the contrary Bellarm same booke c. 25. p. 145. DECAD VII First Sotus against Syluester and Nauar Bellarmine and Aquinas with both WHether the Precept of Tithes as it is Positiue and Humane may by custome bee altered is doubtfull Sotus holdes directly it cannot booke 9. quaest 4. art 1. and thinkes that this is the iudgement of Aquinaes But I thinke with Siluester and Nauarre that it may and I doubt not but this is the opinion of Aquinas Bellarm. ibid. p. 148. Secondly Bellarmine against Thomas Waldensis THomas Waldensis teaches that Clerkes should eyther giue their goods to the poore or lay them together in common and proues it by some sentences of Fathers Origen Hierome Bernard But it is certaine that Clerkes are not by their profession tyed to put away their patrimony Bellarmine same booke c. 27. p. 156. Thirdly Marsilius Paduan Io. de Ianduno Turrecremata Canonists Glosse Driedonius Francisc. Victoria Dominicus a Soto Couarruuias dissenting IN the question concerning the liberty of Ecclesiasticall persons are three opinions First is of many heretickes that Clerkes are and should be subiect to secular powers both in payment of tributes and in iudgements especially not Ecclesiasticall So also Marsilius of Padua and Io. de Ianduno teach that Christ himselfe was not free from paying tribute and that he did it not voluntarily but of necessity as is reported by Turrecremata The second opinion in another extreame is of many Canonists who hold that by the Law of God Clerkes and their goods are free from the power of secular Princes so teaehes the Glosse in Can. Tributum and of this minde seemes Io. Driedonius to be in his booke of Christian liberty ch 9. The third in the meane is of many Diuines that clerkes are free partly by the law of God partly by the law of men and partly neyther way so thinkes Franciscus Victoria Dominicus a