Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 16: On the Cardinals
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Of the cardinals of the Roman Church a few things must be added, that we may briefly answer John Calvin about this order of clerics too. And we will speak, first, of the antiquity and signification of the name of cardinals; secondly, of the antiquity and variety of the office of cardinals; thirdly, of the comparison of cardinals with bishops — for these three things Calvin touches (Book IV Institutes, chapter 7, section 30). But if anyone wishes to know more, let him read, of the theologians, Alvarus Pelagius (Book II On the Lament of the Church, article 16), Augustinus Triumphus (in the Summary On the Power of the Church, question 102), Thomas Waldensis (Book II of the Doctrinal of the Faith, article 3, chapter 54), John of Torquemada (Book I of the Summary On the Church, chapters 81–84), Saint Antoninus (in the Theological Summary, part 3, title 21), John Antony Delphinus (Book II On the Church); of the canonists, Andrea Barbazza (in the treatise On the Pre-eminence of Cardinals, to Bessarion), Martin of Lodi (in the treatise On Cardinals), Dominic Jacobatius (Book I On Councils, article 12), and Giovanni Girolamo Albani (in the book On Cardinals); of the historians, Onuphrius Panvinius (in the little book On the Bishoprics, Titles, and Deaconries of the Cardinals).
To begin, then, with the first: Calvin (in the place noted) says that before the times of Gregory he has not read the name of cardinals. But in the Roman Council under Sylvester (canon 6) we read that there were seven cardinal deacons in the Roman Church. And Sylvester preceded Gregory by almost three hundred years; nor yet did this name then first begin. For that Council did not institute cardinals, but only ordered that, besides the cardinal deacons of the Roman Church, there be also two deacons for the examination of the parishes.
Now the name “cardinal” seems to signify nearly the same as “principal,” or that on which others depend, as doors are wont to hang from a hinge [cardo]. Hence indeed the cardinal virtues, and cardinal winds, and cardinal points of the sky are wont to be so called; and Augustine (Book I On Baptism, chapter 6) called the chief Donatists “cardinal Donatists.” But why the electors of the Pontiff are called cardinals, not all explain in the same way.
Calvin (in the place noted) teaches that this name in the time of Saint Gregory was proper to bishops, and accordingly is now not rightly attributed to priests and deacons, or to the bishops of the Roman Curia alone: “This title,” he says, “in Gregory’s age belonged to bishops alone. For as often as he mentions cardinals, he attributes them not to the Roman Church but to any others whatever, so that, in sum, a cardinal priest is nothing else than a bishop.” Thus he. But Calvin falls into an evident error; for Saint Gregory (Book V, letter 11, to Fortunatus bishop of Naples) mentions cardinal deacons, and (Book XI, letter 34, to John bishop of Syracuse) mentions cardinal priests; and John the Deacon (Book III of the life of Saint Gregory, chapter 7) enumerates the bishops whom Saint Gregory had made from cardinal priests. It is not, then, true that with Gregory bishop and cardinal are the same.
Leo IX, supreme Pontiff (in the letter to Michael, chapter 32), says that the clerics of the Roman Church are called cardinals because they most closely adhere to the supreme Pontiff, who is as it were the hinge [cardo] of the whole Church. For as on a hinge a door is turned and ruled and sustained, so also on the providence and firmness of the supreme Pontiff the whole Church depends. This explanation indeed rightly teaches why the cardinals of the Roman Church are called cardinals before the rest and by antonomasia; but it does not explain why they are called simply cardinals, since it is established that elsewhere too there are and were those who were called cardinals, as is plain from Gregory (in the cited places, Book V, letter 11, and Book XI, letter 34) and from the Council of Meaux (canon 54).
Onuphrius (in the book On the Titles of the Cardinals) holds that cardinal priests and deacons were so called who presided over other priests or deacons of the same church, as it were the chief priests or deacons in that church; for there were several priests in the same church, but only the president was called cardinal. This explanation of Onuphrius does not seem true. For in the same title there were sometimes several cardinals, as is plain from the first Synod under Symmachus, in which are set the subscriptions of cardinal priests of the Roman Church, and many are found of the same title, so that there are 28 titles, but 67 titular priests; likewise from the Synod of Saint Gregory (which is had in Book IV of the register, chapter 88), where are set the subscriptions of cardinal priests, and among them three are found of the title of Saint Balbina, two of Saint Damasus, two of Saint Sylvester, two of the Holy Apostles. Not, then, was he alone called cardinal who presided over the title. Besides, in the time of Saint Sylvester there were only seven cardinal deacons at Rome; for at that time canon 14 of the Council of Neocaesarea was still recent, where it is defined that in any city, however great, there ought to be only seven deacons, and yet all those at Rome were called cardinals, as is plain from the Roman Council under Sylvester (canon 6). Not, then, was he a cardinal deacon who presided over the other deacons of the same church. Add, lastly, that according to this explanation of Onuphrius no reason could be given why certain bishops were called cardinals; for bishops cannot be called cardinals because they preside over other bishops of their diocese, as a cardinal priest because he presides over the priests of his title, for there are not several bishops in one diocese.
I hold, then, that the name “cardinal” was first imposed on a place, and from the place derived to persons. For certain chief churches, where Baptism was conferred, were called cardinal titles; and churches or titles were called cardinal, to distinguish them from other less chief sacred places. And thence the priest who ruled that church was called a cardinal priest. By like reasoning the cardinal deaconries were certain chief places in the city, distinguished according to the number of the regions, and the deacons who resided in them were called cardinal deacons, namely from the cardinal church which they held. So too afterward were called cardinal bishoprics; and thence the six cardinal bishops who came together to elect the Pontiff and were his counselors before the other bishops of the Christian world.
And that this name began from a place can be known from the Council of Meaux (canon 54), where we read thus: that the bishop should canonically ordain and dispose the cardinal titles constituted in the cities or suburbs. Likewise from John the Deacon (in the life of Saint Gregory, Book III, chapter 11), where he says thus: “Cardinals violently ordained to outlying parishes Gregory recalled to their original hinge” — where he calls the cardinal title or church the “hinge.” And so much of the name. But if anyone wishes to know the names and number of the cardinal titles, deaconries, and bishoprics, let him consult Onuphrius (in the book On the Cardinals).
Now let us speak briefly of the office, and the antiquity of the office. There are three offices of cardinals. The first is common with the other bishops, priests, and deacons; for all cardinals have either the episcopal, or the priestly, or the diaconal office. The second office is to elect the supreme Pontiff. The last is to assist that Pontiff perpetually, and to aid him with counsel and industry in ruling the universal Church. Of these offices, the first cannot be denied to be most ancient. Nor does Calvin deny it; nay rather he acknowledges this alone, for he writes (in the cited place, Book IV, chapter 7, section 30): “And indeed they had then no office except to be present and subject to the bishop in the administration of doctrine and the Sacraments.” Thus he.
But Calvin seems to me to fight with himself; for in the same Book IV Institutes (chapter 4, section 2) he teaches that in most ancient times this was the usage in the Church, that priests elected the bishop and with him ruled the Church by common counsel, so that the bishop had nothing more in the assembly of priests than a consul in the senate: “The priests,” he says, “elected one from their own number, to whom they specially gave the title of bishop.” And below: “The part which a consul has in the senate, that a bishop has in the assembly of priests.” Thus he. And if this is true, it certainly follows that what the cardinals now do at Rome, when they elect a bishop from their own number, or as certain ecclesiastical senators rule the Church with him, is most ancient, and accordingly all three offices are most ancient.
And here it is to be observed that all three offices of the cardinals are indeed most ancient, and begun from the very time of the Apostles, yet that it is not equally ancient that the cardinals alone discharge the two latter offices. For from the time of the Apostles, for many years, nay even for some centuries, because priests and deacons were few, all were called together at once to the election of the bishop and to the Councils, nor was there then need to distinguish the non-cardinals from the cardinals — as also in other churches the canons were not distinguished from the non-canons. Wherefore Cyprian, when he several times writes to the Roman clergy, writes not to the cardinals alone, but to all the priests and deacons of the Roman Church; and likewise they, when they answer Cyprian, all the priests and deacons answer. See Book II, letter 7, and Book III, letters 5 and 21. But afterward, when the multitude of the clergy had grown, all indeed were called to make the election, but not all were called to the Councils, but certain chief ones, who at Rome and in certain other places were called cardinals. This is established from the Synod of Gregory (Book IV of the register, chapter 88); for only 34 of the priests were present at the Council, and those all titular, that is, cardinals. But it is certain that there were then at Rome many more priests than 34. For if in the time of Saint Cornelius, about the year of the Lord 250, in the midst of persecutions, with idolaters reigning, there were nevertheless 46 priests at Rome (as Eusebius relates from the letter of the same Cornelius, Book VI of the history, chapter 43), certainly there were many more in the time of Saint Gregory, about the year of the Lord 600, when there was no pagan in the city. Finally, in the last five hundred years neither to the Councils nor to the election have all the clergy been admitted, because they were too many, but the cardinals alone, as we showed above when we treated of the vocation of ministers.
As to the third, on the comparison of cardinals with bishops, the authors cited above treat at length; but in this nearly all agree, that if we consider the power of order, a bishop is greater than a cardinal priest or deacon. For a bishop ordains priests, confirms the baptized, and does other things of that kind which cardinal priests or deacons cannot do. For which reason too the supreme Pontiff calls himself a bishop, not a cardinal, and calls all bishops “venerable brothers,” but the cardinals “beloved sons,” as he calls the laity also. By like reasoning, if we consider jurisdiction over one’s own church — that is, of the bishop over his diocese, and of the cardinal over his title or deaconry — a bishop is greater than a cardinal priest or deacon. For, first, the diocese of a bishop is ordinarily greater than the title of a cardinal; and besides, a bishop in his diocese has most ample jurisdiction as the proper and ordinary pastor — of making laws, dispensing, punishing, indulging, and so on. But a cardinal priest and deacon, since in his title he is as it were a parish priest, subject to the bishop, can do nothing except so far as the bishop has permitted him.
But if we consider the government of the universal Church, a cardinal priest or deacon is greater than a non-cardinal bishop. For simple bishops are never employed in the government of the universal Church, except most rarely, that is, when they are convoked to a general Council. But the cardinals are at hand to the Pontiff almost daily, nor is any business of greater moment transacted without their counsel. And because it hence comes about that bishops are judged, created, deposed by the cardinals, as the cooperators of the supreme Pontiff, but not on the contrary the cardinals by bishops, therefore a cardinal absolutely precedes a non-cardinal bishop. And this reason as the chief one Pope Eugene IV too brings forward (in the letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is in Dominic Jacobatius, Book I On Councils, article 12). And before Eugene, Saint Bernard (Book IV On Consideration), speaking of the cardinals: “Let us come to thy assistants and coadjutors. These are thy diligent ones, these thy intimates.” And below: “Are they not to be chosen from the whole world, who are to judge the world?” And in letter 188, written to the cardinals: “Let no one doubt that it belongs specially to you to take away scandals from the kingdom of God, to cut down the rising thorns, to appease complaints.” And below: “Act according to the place you hold, the dignity in which you are strong, the power you have received,” and so on — where Saint Bernard most openly acknowledges a greater power in the cardinals than in the bishops.
But Calvin meets us (in the place noted, Book IV, chapter 7, section 30) and objects three testimonies: “I see,” says Calvin, “that they were then less than bishops, whom now they far surpass. Well known is that of Augustine (letter 19 to Jerome): ‘Although, according to the titles of honor which the use of the Church has now obtained, the episcopate is greater than the priesthood, yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome.’ Here certainly he in no way distinguishes a priest of the Roman Church from others, but sets them all equally after bishops. And this was so far observed that in the Council of Carthage, when there were present two legates of the Roman See, one a bishop, the second a priest, the latter was thrust into the last place. But, not to pursue things too ancient, there is a Council held at Rome under Gregory, in which the priests sit in the last place and subscribe apart, and the deacons have no place in the subscription.” Thus he.
But the testimony of Augustine does not make to the purpose; for we do not deny that the episcopate is greater than the priesthood, but we say that a cardinal priest is greater than a non-cardinal bishop — not that a priest is greater than a bishop, but that a cardinal is greater than a non-cardinal. For otherwise a cardinal bishop always precedes a cardinal priest, and a cardinal priest a cardinal deacon. “But,” says Calvin, “Augustine sets not any priest whatever, but Jerome, a priest of the Roman Church, after a bishop.” I answer that Saint Jerome was a priest not of the Roman but of the Antiochene Church; for he himself testifies this (in letter 61 to Pammachius, on the errors of John bishop of Jerusalem). Nor does it stand in the way that he was for a time at Rome and aided Pope Damasus in writing letters, as he himself testifies (in the letter to Ageruchia On Monogamy). For although he was at Rome, yet he had no proper title at Rome, or church to be ruled, as the cardinals have. Wherefore, when he had now returned from Rome and was living in Syria, when he wrote the letter to Pammachius against John of Jerusalem, he yet says not that he was a Roman but an Antiochene priest. And indeed, if he could have truly said that he was or had been a cardinal priest of the Roman Church, he would gladly have said it. For he desired to show John bishop of Jerusalem that he had been a priest of a certain greater church than Jerusalem was, and accordingly that he had not left his own church to seek something in the church of Jerusalem: “For this,” he says, “both I forsook Antioch, and he Constantinople, most celebrated cities — not that we might praise thee preaching among the peoples, but that, weeping in the fields and in solitude for the sins of our youth, we might turn the mercy of Christ toward us.” Thus he. Since therefore it is established that the Roman Church was always preferred to the Antiochene, certainly Saint Jerome would gladly have said, if he could have truly said it: “For this both I forsook Rome, and he Constantinople,” and so on.
Nor is the testimony of the Sixth Council of Carthage much to the purpose. For although in that Council a Roman priest sat after the bishops, yet in the Council of Nicaea, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, in the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth general Synods, Roman priests sat before the bishops. But although these things are so, I confess nevertheless that of old any bishops whatever were preferred to non-bishop cardinals; nay, that the cardinalate was a grade toward the episcopate, as Onuphrius rightly teaches (in the book On the Cardinals), and is most openly gathered from Book I, chapter 7, of the life of Saint Gregory. Afterward, however, the order was changed, and cardinals began to be set before bishops, and the episcopate to be a grade toward the cardinalate; of which change a twofold reason can be assigned. One, that the election of the supreme Pontiff was devolved to the cardinals alone. For at the time when the clergy and people elected the Pontiffs, it is no wonder if the cardinals were not so esteemed. But after they alone began to elect, and also they alone for the most part to be elected, not without cause did the cardinalitial dignity begin to be esteemed more than before. The other cause is that the cardinals alone began to be present to the supreme Pontiff in his councils. For before, the cardinals were neither the sole nor the chief counselors of the Pontiff; since in the first six hundred or eight hundred years the supreme Pontiffs, for judging the graver affairs of the Church, convened national Councils of the bishops of Italy, at which Councils cardinal priests were indeed present, but yet the first place was the bishops’. This can be known from the volumes of the Councils, where very many Roman or Lateran Councils are found, celebrated from the year of the Lord 300 to 800.
Wherefore there was no reason why at that time cardinal priests should be preferred to bishops, since at that time the bishops aided the Pontiff no less — nay, more — in ruling the universal Church than the cardinals. But afterward the affairs of the Roman Church grew, especially when the temporal principate was added, in the time of Pepin and Charlemagne; and accordingly the supreme Pontiff needed the aid of counselors much more often than before. Nor could he convoke Councils of bishops as often as was necessary; for Councils could scarcely be gathered every third year, whereas the Pontiff needed counsel more often every year. And so, use teaching and necessity compelling, in these last six hundred or seven hundred years the episcopal Councils began gradually to be omitted, and the whole matter to be reduced to the senate of the cardinals. And that this could be done, and was rightly done, cannot be called into doubt; for the Pontiff is not bound to employ these rather than those in his council. Then, by this arrangement many advantages have followed. First, that the supreme Pontiff now has a senate at hand, so that he can, if he will, deliberate even every day on the gravest matters. Secondly, that this is done without detriment to the particular churches. For Councils of bishops could not often be gathered without detriment to the churches, to which the absence of their pastors is pernicious. Thirdly, that he has counselors better instructed and exercised, since they treat these matters alone and continually. And this change of the pontifical council from bishops and cardinals to cardinals alone being lawfully made, it ought not to be a wonder if a change of dignities too was made.
But it pleases me, at the end of this passage, to note the repugnance of Calvin’s words in the last part of the disputation (chapter 7, Book IV Institutes). For in the last paragraph he marvels at the amplitude of the cardinals: “I know not,” he says, “how it came about that so suddenly they rose to such amplitude.” And soon below: “Now the lot is so changed that they have become the kinsmen of kings and Caesars. Nor is there any doubt that together with their head they gradually grew, until they were raised to this pinnacle of dignity.” Thus he. Who nevertheless at once subjoins the contrary: “It behooved to be fulfilled in them what Malachi says of such: You have departed from the way, and have caused many to stumble at the law; therefore behold I have given you contemptible and base to all the people.” But how, I ask, do these cohere — that the cardinals grew to the highest pinnacle of amplitude, so that they became the kinsmen of kings and Caesars, and yet became contemptible and base to all the people? But of these things enough.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XYI. De Cardinalibus. De Cardinalibus Romanae Ecclesiae pauca quaedam addenda sunt, ut Joanni Calvino etiam de hoc ordine Clericorum breviter respondeamus. Dicemus autem primo, de antiquitate et significatione nominis Cardi¬ nalium. Secundo, de antiquitate et varietate officii Cardinalium. Tertio, de comparatione Cardinalium cum Episcopis : Haec enim tria Calvinus attingit, lib. IVInstit. cap. 7. §. 30. Si quis autem plura cognoscere velit, le¬ gat ex Theologis Alvarum Pelagium, lib. II de planctu Ecclesiae , art. 16. Augustin. Triumphum in summa de potest. Ecclesiae, quae st. 102. Thomam Waldensem lib. II doc¬ trinalis fidei, art. 3. cap. 54. Joan. de Tur- recremata lib. I summae de Ecclesia, cap. 81, 82, 83 et 84. S. Antoninum in summa Theologica, 3. par. tit. 21. Joan. Antonium Delphinum lib. II de Ecclesia. Ex Canonis- tis, Andream Barbatium in tract. de prae¬ stantia Cardinalium ad Bessarionem, Marti- num Laudensem in tract. de Cardinalibus, Dominicum Jacobatium lib. I de Conciliis, art. 12. et Joannem Hieronymum Albanum in lib. de Cardinalibus. Ex Historicis, Onu- phrium Panvinum in libello de Episcopati¬ bus, Titulis et Diaconiis Cardinalium. Ut igitur a primo incipiamus, Calvinus loco notato, ante Gregorii tempora dicit se non legisse nomen Cardinalium : At in Con¬ cilio Romano sub Sylvestro can. 6. legimus septem fuisse Diaconos Cardinales in Ro¬ mana Ecclesia. Praecessit autem Sylvester Gregorium annis fere trecentis; neque ta¬ men tunc primum coepit hoc nomen. Non enim Concilium illud instituit Cardinales, sed solum jussit ut praeter Cardinales Dia¬ copos Romanae Ecclesiae, essent etiam duo Diaconi ad examen Paroeciarum . Porro nomen Cardinalis idem fere signifi¬ care videtur quod Principalis, sive is a quo alii pendent, ut a cardine ostia dependere solent. Ilinc enim et virtutes Cardinales, et venti Cardinales, et puncta coeli Cardinalia dici solent, et Augustin lib. I de Baptismo, cap. 6. Primarios Donatistas, Cardinales Do- natistas appellavit. Cur autem Electores Pontificis Cardinales dicantur, non omnes explicant eodem modo. Calvinus loco notato docet, hoc nomen tempore sancti Gregorii proprium fuisse Episcoporum, proinde non recte nunc tribui Presbyteris et Diaconis, aut solis Episcopis Romanse Curise : « Hic titulus, inquit, Gre¬ gorii aetate in solos Episcopos competebat. Nam quoties meminit Cardinalium, non Ro¬ manae Ecclesiae, sed aliis quibuslibet eos at¬ tribuit, ut in summa nihil aliud sit sacerdos Cardinalis, quam Episcopus. » Haec ille. At Calvinus in exploratum errorem incidit ; nam S. Gregorius lib. V, epist. 11. ad Fortuna¬ tum Episcopum Neapolitanum meminit Dia¬ conorum Cardinalium, et lib. XI, epist. 34. ad Joannem Episcopum Syracusanum me¬ minit Presbyterorum Cardinalium, et Joan. Diaconus lib. III vitae S. Gregorii, cap. 7. enumerat Episcopos, quos S. Gregorius ex Presbyteris Cardinalibus fecerat. Non igitur verum est, idem esse apud Gregorium, Epis¬ copum et Cardinalem. Leo IX, Pont. Max. in epistola ad Michae- lem, cap. 32. dicit, Clericos Romanae Eccle¬ siae Cardinales vocari, quod summo Ponti¬ fice proxime adhaereant, qui est veluti cardo totius Ecclesiae. Nam ut in cardine ostium vertitur et regitur ac sustentatur, sic etiam a summi Pontificis providentia et firmitate tota Ecclesia pendet. Haec vero explicatio recte docet, cur Cardinales Romanae Eccle¬ siae dicantur prae caeteris et per antonoma¬ siam Cardinales, at non explicat cur simpli¬ citer dicantur Cardinales, cum constet etiam alibi esse et fuisse qui dicerentur Cardina¬ les, ut patet ex Gregorio, locis citatis, lib. V, epist. 11, et lib. XI, epist. 34. et ex Concilio Meldensi, can. 54. Onuphrius in libro de Cardinalium titulis existimat, Presbyteros et Diaconos Cardina¬ les dictos esse eos, qui praeerant aliis Pres¬ byteris vel Diaconis ejusdem Ecclesiae, quasi principales Presbyteri vel Diaconi in illa Ec¬ clesia ; erant enim plures Presbyteri in ea¬ dem Ecclesia, sed Praeses tantum dicebatur Cardinalis. Haec Onuphrii explicatio non videtur ve¬ ra. Nam in eodem titulo plures erant ali¬ quando Cardinales, ut patet ex Synodo pri¬ ma sub Symmacho, in qua subscriptiones ponuntur Presbyterorum Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalium, et multi inveniuntur ejusdem tituli, ita ut sint tituli 28, Presbyteri autem CAPUT XVI. 449 titulares 67 ; item ex Synodo S. Gregorii, quse habetur lib. IY registr. cap. 88. ubi po¬ nuntur subscriptiones Presbyterorum Car¬ dinalium, et inter eas tres inveniuntur titulo sanctae Balbinae, duo sancti Damasi, duo sancti Sylvestri, duo sanctorum Apostolo¬ rum. Non igitur is tantum Cardinalis dice¬ batur, qui praeerat titulo. Praeterea, tem¬ pore S. Sylvestri, septem tantum Romae erant Diaconi Cardinales; nam adhuc re¬ cens erat eo tempore Canon 14. Concilii Neo- caesariensis, ubi definitur, in qualibet civi¬ tate, quamvis magna, septem tantum debere esse Diaconos, et tamen illi omnes Romae dicebantur Cardinales, ut patet’ ex Concilio Romano sub Sylvestro can. 6. Non igitur Diaconus Cardinalis erat, qui praeerat aliis Diaconis ejusdem Ecclesiae. Adde postremo, quod juxta hanc Onuphrii explicationem, nulla ratio reddi posset, cur dicerentur qui¬ dam Episcopi Cardinales; Non enim dici possunt Episcopi Cardinales, quod praesint aliis Episcopis suae dioecesis, sicut Presbyter Cardinalis, quod praesit Presbyteris sui ti¬ tuli, nam non sunt in una dioecesi plures Episcopi. Existimo igitur nomen Cardinalis primo impositum esse loco, et a loco derivatum ad personas. Dicebantur enim tituli Cardinales, quaedam Ecclesiae principales, ubi Baptisma conferebatur; et dicebantur Ecclesiae vel ti¬ tuli Cardinales, ad differentiam aliorum lo¬ corum sacrorum minus principalium. Inde autem Presbyter, qui eam Ecclesiam rege¬ bat, dicebatur Presbyter Cardinalis. Pari ra¬ tione Diaconiae Cardinales erant loca quae¬ dam principalia in urbe distincta juxta nu¬ merum regionum, et qui in eis residebant Diaconi, dicebantur Cardinales Diaconi, ab Ecclesia videlicet Cardinali, quam tenebant. Sic etiam postmodum dicti suntEpiscopatus Cardinales; Et inde Episcopi Cardinales sex illi, qui ad eligendum Pontiticem convenie¬ bant, et eidem Pontifici a Consiliis erant praeter caeteros orbis Christiani Episcopos. Quod autem a loco coeperit hoc nomen, cognosci potest ex Concilio Meldensi, can. 54. ubi sic legimus, ut titulos Cardinales in urbibus vel suburbiis constitutos Episcopus canonice ordinet et disponat. Item ex Joan. Diacono in vita S. Gregorii lib. III, cap. 11. ubi sic ait : « Cardinales violenter in Paroe¬ ciis ordinatos forensibus, in pristinum Car¬ dinem Gregorius revocabat.» Ubi Cardinem vocat Cardinalem titulum sive Ecclesiam. Tom. II. Ac de nomine quidem hactenus. Si quis au¬ tem velit cognoscere nomina, et numerum titulorum , Diaconiarum et Episcopatuum Cardinalium, Onuphrium consulat in libro de Cardinalibus. Jam de officio, et officii antiquitate bre¬ viter dicamus. Tria sunt officia Cardina¬ lium. Primum est commune cum Episcopis, Presbyteris et Diaconis cseteris; omnes enim Cardinales, aut Episcopale, aut Presbytera^ le, aut Diaconale officium habent : Alterum officium est summum Pontificem eligere : Postremum eidem Pontifici perpetuo assis¬ tere, eumque in regenda universa Ecclesia consilio et industria adjuvare. Ex his officiis primum negari non potest, quin sit antiquis¬ simum. Neque id negat Calvinus; quin po¬ tius hoc solum agnoscit, sic enim scribit lo¬ co citato, -lib. IY, cap. 7. §. 30. : « Et sane nihil officii tunc habebant, nisi ut in doctri¬ nae et Sacramentorum administratione Epis¬ copo adessent ac subessent. » Haec ille. At Calvinus secum pugnare mihi videtur; nam eodem lib. IY Institut. cap. 4. §. 2. do¬ cet, antiquissimis temporibus eum fuisse usum in Ecclesia , ut Presbyteri eligerent Episcopum, et cum illo ita Ecclesiam com¬ muni consilio regerent, ut nihil plus Epis¬ copus haberet in coetu Presbyterorum, quam Consul in Senatu : « Presbyteri, inquit, ex suo numero unum eligebant, cui specialiter dabant titulum Episcopi. » Et infra : « Quas partes habet Consul in senatu, eas habet Episcopus in Presbyterorum coetu. » Haec ille. Quod si. verum est, certe sequitur, ut quod nunc Romae Cardinales faciunt, dum Episcopum ex suo numero eligunt, aut tan- quam Senatores quidam Ecclesiastici cum eo Ecclesiam regunt, antiquissimum sit ac proinde omnia tria officia sint antiquis¬ sima. Est autem hoc loco observandum. Omnia quidem tria Cardinalium officia esse antiquis¬ sima, et ab ipso tempore Apostolorum in¬ choata, sed tamen non esse seque antiquum, ut soli Cardinales duobus officiis posteriori¬ bus fungantur. Nam a tempore Apostolorum per multos annos, imo etiam per aliquot saecula, quia pauci erant Presbyteri et Dia¬ coni, omnes simul ad electionem Episcopi, et ad Concilia vocabantur, neque erat opus tunc distinguere a Cardinalibus non Cardi¬ nales, sicut etiam in aliis Ecclesiis non dis¬ tinguebantur Canonici a non Canonicis. Quare Cyprianus cum aliquoties scribat ad 29 450 LIBER I. Romanum Clerum, non scribit ad solos Car¬ dinales, sed ad omnes Presbyteros et Dia¬ conos Romanae Ecclesiae; et similiter illi cum Cypriano respondent, Presbyteri et Diaconi omnes respondent. Yide lib. II, cpist. 7. et lib. III, epist. 5 et 21. Deinde autem cum crevisset multitudo Cleri, vocabantur quidem omnes ad electio¬ nem faciendam, sed non omnes ad Concilia vocabantur, sed aliqui principales, qui Ro¬ mae, et aliis quibusdam in locis Cardinales dicebantur. Id constat ex Synodo Gregorii, lib. IY registri, cap. 88. Nam solum Conci¬ lio interfuerunt ex Presbyteris XXXIV, et ii Titulares omnes, id est, Cardinales. Certum autem est, tunc Romae fuisse multo plures Presbyteros, quam XXXIY. Nam si tempore sancti Cornelii, circa annum Domini 250, in medio persecutionum, regnantibus idolatris, tamen erant Romae XLYI Presbyteri, ut ex epistola ejusdem Cornelii refert Eusebius lib. VI histor. cap. 33. certe multo plures erant tempore sancti Gregorii, circa annum Do¬ mini 600, quando nullus in urbe erat Paga¬ nus. Denique, postremis quingentis annis neque ad Concilia, neque ad electionem ad¬ missi sunt omnes Clerici, quod nimis multi essent, sed soli Cardinales, ut supra osten¬ dimus, cum de vocatione Ministrorum age¬ remus. Quantum ad tertium, de comparatione Cardinalium cum Episcopis , fuse tractant supra citati auctores, sed in hoc tamen fere omnes conveniunt, quod si consideremus or¬ dinis potestatem, major sit Episcopus Pres¬ bytero, vel Diacono Cardinali. Nam Episco¬ pus ordinat Presbyteros, confirmat baptiza- tos, aliaque *id genus facit, quae Cardinales Presbyteri, vel Diaconi facere non possunt. Qua etiam ratione summus Pontifex Episco¬ pum se vocat, non Cardinalem, et Episcopos omnes appellat venerabiles fratres, Cardi¬ nales autem dilectos filios, quomodo vocat etiam Laicos. Pari ratione, si consideremus jurisdictio¬ nem in propriam Ecclesiam, id est, Episcopi in suam Dioecesim, et Cardinalis in suum ti¬ tulum, aut Diaconiam, major est Episcopus Cardinali Presbytero, vel Diacono. Nam in primis major est ordinarie Dioecesis Episco¬ pi, quam titulus Cardinalis; ac prseterea Episcopus in sua Dioecesi amplissimam ha¬ bet jurisdictionem tanquam proprius et or¬ dinarius Pastor, ferendi leges, dispensandi, puniendi, indulgendi etc. At Cardinalis Pres¬ byter et Diaconus, cum in suo titulo sit ve- luti Parochus, Episcopo subjectus, nihil po¬ test, nisi quantum Episcopus ei permiserit. At si consideremus regimen Ecclesia) uni¬ versalis, major est Cardinalis Presbyter vel Diaconus Episcopo non Cardinali. Nam Epis¬ copi simplices nunquam adhibentur ad re¬ gimen universalis Ecclesiae, nisi -rarissime, id est, cum ad generale Concilium convo¬ cantur. At Cardinales fere quotidie praesto sunt Pontifici, neque ullum negotium majo¬ ris momenti sine eorum Concilio peragitur. Et quia hinc fit, ut Episcopi a Cardinalibus, ut summi Pontificis cooperatoribus, judicen¬ tur, creentur, deponantur, non autem con¬ tra Cardinales ab Episcopis; propterea ab¬ solute Cardinalis Episcopum non Cardina¬ lem praecedit. Atque hanc rationem ut prae¬ cipuam affert etiam Eugenius Pontifex IY in epistola ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, quae exstat apud Dominicum Jacobatium, lib. I de Conciliis, art.I2. Et ante Eugenium, S. Bernardus lib. IV de consideratione, de Cardinalibus loquens : « Veniamus, inquit, ad collaterales, et coadjutores tuos. Hi se¬ duli tui, hi intimi tui. » Et infra : « An non eligendi de toto orbe, orbem judicaturi? » Et in epist. 188. ad Cardinales scripta : « Nulli dubium, inquit, quin ad vos specia¬ liter spectet tollere scandala de regno Dei, surgcntes succidere spinas, sedare quere¬ las. i) Et infra : « Agite pro loco, quem te¬ netis, pro dignitate, qua polletis, pro potes¬ tate, quam accepistis etc. » ubi apertissime agnoscit S. Bernerdus majorem in Cardina¬ libus, quam in Episcopis potestatem. Sed occurrit Calvinus loco notato, lib.lV, cap. 7. §. 30. et objicit tria testimonia: «Vi¬ deo, inquit Calvinus, fuisse tunc Episcopis minores, quos nunc longe antecellunt. No¬ tum est illud Augustini epistola decimanona ad Hieronymum : quamquam secundum ho¬ norum vocabula, quae jam Ecclesiae usus ob¬ tinuit , Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hierony¬ mo minor est. Hic certe Romanae Ecclesiae Presbyterum ab aliis minime discernit, sed omnes ex aequo postponit Episcopis. Idque eousque fuit observatum, ut in Concilio Car¬ thaginiensi, cum duo adessent Legati Ro¬ manae sedis, unus Episcopus, secundus Pres¬ byter, hic in ultimum locum rejectus fueriL Verum ne nimis vetera prosequamur, exstat Concilium sub Grcgorio habitum Romae, in quo Presbyteri ultimo loco sedent, et seor- CAPUT XVI. 451 sum subscribunt, Diaconi locum hullum in subscriptione habent. » Haec ille. Sed Augustini testimonium ad rem non facit; non enim negamus Episcopatum Pres¬ byterio majorem esse, sed dicimus, Presby¬ terum Cardinalem Episcopo non Cardinali esse majorem, non quod Presbyter sit major Episcopo, sed quod Cardinalis major sit non Cardinali. Nam alioqui Episcopus Cardina¬ lis Presbyterum Cardinalem, et Presbyter Cardinalis Diaconum Cardinalem semper praecedit. « At, inquit Calvinus, Augustinus non quemvis Presbyterum, sed Hieronymum Presbyterum Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopo postponit. » x Respondeo, S. Hieronymum non Roma¬ na Ecclesia, sed Antiochena Presbyterum fuisse; id enim ipse testatur in epist. 61. ad Pammachium, de erroribus Joannis Hiero¬ solyma Episcopi. Neque repugnat quod ipse aliquando Roma fuerit, et Damasum Ponti¬ ficem juverit in epistolis scribendis, ut ipse testatur in epistola ad Ageruohiam de Mo¬ nogamia. ISTam etsi Roma fuerit, non tamen habuit Roma titulum aliquem proprium, sive Ecclesiam regendam, ut Cardinales ha¬ bent; Quocirca cum jam Roma rediisset, et in Syria degeret, quando scripsit epistolam ad Pammachium adversus Joannem Hiero¬ solymitanum, non tamen ait, se Romanum, sed Antiochenum Presbyterum fuisse. Et sane, si potuisset vere dicere, se Romana Ecclesia Presbyterum Cardinalem esse, vel fuisse, libenter dixisset. Cupiebat enim joanni Episcopo Hierosolyma demonstrare, se Presbyterum fuisse majoris cujusdam Ecclesia, quam Hierosolymitana esset ; et proinde se non reliquisse suam Ecclesiam, ut in Ecclesia Hierosolymitana aliquid qua- reret : « Ob id, inquit, et ego Antiochiam, et ille Constantinopolim, urbes celeberri¬ mas, deseruimus, non ut te in populis prae¬ dicantem laudaremus, sed ut in agris et in solitudine adolescentia peccata deflentes, Christi in nos misericordiam deflectere¬ mus. x> Hac ille. Cum igitur constet, sempef Romanam Ecclesiam Antiochena pralatam fuisse, certe sanctus Hieronymus libenter dixisset, si id vere dicere potuisset : ob id et ego Romam, et ille Constantinopolim etc. Neque etiam testimonium Concilii VI Car¬ thaginiensis valde est ad rem. Nam etsi in eo Concilio Presbyter Romanus sederit post Episcopos, tamen in Concilio Nicano, in Ephesino, in Chalcedonensi, in VI, VII et VIII Synodo generali Romani Presbyteri se¬ derunt ante Episcopos. Sed quamquam hac ita se habeant fateor tamen, olim Episcopos quoscumque pralatos fuisse Cardinalibus non Episcopis, imo etiam Cardinalatum gra¬ dum fuisse ad Episcopatum, ut Onuphrius recte docet in libro de Cardinalibus, et aper¬ tissime colligitur ex lib. I, cap. 7. vita S. Gregorii. Postea tamen mutatus est ordo, et ccepti sunt Cardinales Episcopis anteponi, et Epis¬ copatus gradus esse ad Cardinalatum ; cujus mutationis duplex ratio assignari potest. Una, quod ad solos Cardinales devoluta sit electio summi Pontificis. Nam quo tempore Pontifices eligebant Clerus et populus, non est mirum, si non tanti fierent Cardinales. At posteaquam coeperunt soli ipsi eligere, et etiam soli ipsi, ut plurimum, eligi, non sine causa coepit dignitas Cardinalitia pluris fieri, quam antea. Altera causa est, quod soli Cardinales coe¬ perint adesse summo Pontifici in Consiliis. Nam antea Cardinales neque soli, neque pri¬ marii Consiliarii Pontificis erant; siquidem primis sexcentis, vel octingentis annis, sum¬ mi Pontifices ad graviora negotia Ecclesiae dijudicanda cogebant Concilia nationalia Episcoporum Italiae, quibus Conciliis inter¬ erant quidem Cardinales Presbyteri, sed ta¬ men primus locus Episcoporum erat. Id co¬ gnosci potest ex tomisConciliorum, ubi plu¬ rima inveniuntur Concilia Romana, sive La¬ teranensia, celebrata ab anno Domini 300 ad 800. Quocirca non erat ratio, cur eo tempore Cardinales Presbyteri Episcopis antepone¬ rentur, cum eo tempore non minus, imo magis Pontificem juvarent in Ecclesia uni¬ versali regenda Episcopi, quam Cardinales. At postea creverunt negotia Ecclesiae Ro¬ manae, praesertim cum accessisset principa¬ tus temporalis, tempore Pipini et Caroli Magni : proinde egebat summus Pontifex Consiliariorum ope multo saepius, quam an¬ tea. Neque poterat tam saepe convocare Concilia Episcoporum, quam necesse erat, Concilia enim vix tertio quoque anno cogi poterant, Pontifex autem quolibet anno sae¬ pius egebat Consilio. Itaque usu docente, et necessitate cogente his postremis annis sex¬ centis vel septingentis coeperunt paulatim omitti Concilia Episcopalia, et res tota re¬ digi ad senatum Cardinalium. Potuisse an- 452 LIBEIt I. tem hoc fieri, et recte factum esse, in dU- bium revocari non potest ; nam non tenetur Pontifex hos potius, quam illos in Consilium adhibere. Deinde, hac ratione multa commoda con¬ secuta sunt. Primum, quod habeat nunc summus Pontifex senatum in promptu, ita ut possit etiam singulis diebus, si velit, de rebus gravissimis deliberare. Alterum, quod hoc fiat sine detrimento Ecclesiarum parti¬ cularium. Nec enim possent Concilia Epis¬ coporum saepe cogi sine detrimento Eccle¬ siarum, quibus absentia Pastorum perniciosa est. Tertium, quod habeat Consiliarios ma¬ gis instructos, et exercitatos, cum haec sola et assidue tractent. Facta autem legitime hac mutatione concilii Pontificii ab Episcn- pis, et Cardinalibus ad solos Cardinales ; mi¬ rum esse non debet, si etiam facta est mu¬ tatio dignitatum. Sed placet, ad finem hujus loci repugnan¬ tiam verborum Calvini in extrema disputa¬ tione cap. 7, lib. IV Institut. annotare. Nam in ultimo paragrapho miratur Cardinalium amplitudinem : « Nescio, inquit, qui factum sit, ut ita subito in tantam amplitudinem. » Et mox infra : « Nunc adeo mutata sors est, ut facti sint Regum, et Caesarum cognati. Nec dubium est, quin una cum suo capite sensim creverint, donec ad hoc dignitatis fastigium evecti fuerunt. » Haec ille. Qui ta¬ men continuo subjungit contrarium : « Im¬ pleri, inquit, in illis oportuit quod de talibus ait Malachias : Vos recessistis de via, et offen¬ dere fecistis in lege plurimos ; propterea ecce ego dedi vos contemptibiles et viles omni populo. » At quomodo, quaeso, ista cohae¬ rent, ut in summum fastigium amplitudinis creverint Cardinales, ita ut Regum ac Cae¬ sarum cognati facti sint et tamen contemp¬ tibiles ac viles evaserint omni populo ? Sed de his satis.