Pope Joan, Dialogue (3 of 3)

Pope Joan · Dialogue (3 of 3)

p. 85PROT.

But ſo did not S. Marke. For thoſe falſe witneſſes, whoſe teſtimonie (as he notes) was inconuenient, agreed well enough in their tale.ccTeſtes quidē inter ſe rectè conueniebant, cū eadem vter que verba, & eodē ſenſu recitaret.—ſed quamuis affirmarent, Chriſtum dixiſſe: Ego diſſoluam &c. non iudicabant Pontifices poſſe proptereà Chriſtum ad mortem cō demnari. Maldonat. in Math. 26. 61.Matt 26:61 They onelyonly failed in this, that the matter which they witneſſed againſt him was not capitall, though it had bene true. For to promiſe the reedifying of a Church in three daies, is neither fellonie nor treaſon. And in this reſpect S. Marke obſerues that their teſtimonie was inconuenient, meaning to condemne him to death. But what great diſagreement hauehave you obſerued among p. 86the relators of this tale?

PAP.

ddBaron. Annal. to 10. ad ann. 8…3. nu. 67.Infinite. Inſomuch that a man may well thinke God hath taken anew the ſame courſe with theſe, which he tooke of old with them who occaſioned him to ſay:**Gen. 11.Gen 11 Come let vsus confound their language, that one of them know not what another ſaith.

PROT.

Thats much, I long to heare the particulars.

PAP.

So you ſhall by and by. But firſt I pray you tell me by the way,eeMarianus eam Ioannam nouo adinuento & innouato vocabulo appellauit. Quorſum verò nomen, quod antea ſolis maſculis imponebatur, ſola litera mutata, ad mulierem detorſit? Florim. cap. 7. nu. 1. why Marianus the firſt broacher of this tale, gaue her ſuch a new fangled, and new deuiſed name as Ioane? Why tooke he that name which in former ages was proper to men onelyonly, and by changing a letter made it a womans name? Florimondus cannot reach the reaſon of this.

PROT.

Florimondus is a proper Squire, and you are a wiſe man to demand ſuch a queſtion. Reade the Scriptures, and you ſhall find, that the name of Ioane is no new deuiſed name, nor proper to men onelyonly. ForffLuk. 8. 3. and 24. 10.Luke 8:3Luke 24:10 they mention one Ioane, the wife of Chuza. Or, if for feare of prouing an hereticke you dare not reade the Scriptures, reade your Legends and Feſtiuals, and in them you ſhall find that your Sea-ſaint Nicolas his mother was called Ioane. **Golden Legēd and Engl. Feſtiual in the life of S. Nicolas, and Pet, de Natal. in Catal. ſanct lib. 1. cap. 33.If ſome ſhould heare you demand ſuch a queſtion, they would think the foole rid you. Wherefore no more of this if you reſpect your credit: fall to ſhew me the manifold diſagreement which you promiſed.

PAP.

I will.ggAudi quanta inter cos confuſio in confictae foeminae nomine &c. Baron. Annal. to 10. ad ann 853. nu. 67. and Florim .c. 4. …u. 5. &.c. 7. nu. 4 And firſt obſerue with me the confuſion that is among them, touching her name before her Papacy. Some ſay ſhe was called Agnes, ſome Gilbert, ſome Iſabel, ſome Margaret, ſome Tutta, or Iutta, others Dorothie.

PROT.

Who cals her (I pray you) either Dorothy, or Iutta, or Tutta? who euer called her Margaret, or Iſabell? yea who of the ancient ſort of writers, called her Gilbert, or Agnes? In ſome of later time I find ſome difference, one calling her Gilbert, and another Agnes. But of all thoſe whom I brought in, to giuegive in euidence againſt her, there is not paſt one or two, who either before, or after her Papacie, giues her any other name then Ioane. And for ought I know, there p. 87is no man, either old, or yong, who euer chriſtened her Dorothie, or Iutta, or Iſabell, or Margaret. Know you any that hauehave done ſo?

PAP.

No. For I find no authors cited for proofe of this, neither by Florimondus, nor by Baronius, And I can ſay no more then I find in them. But what ſay you to the next difference?hhAlij eam vocant Ioh. 7, alij 8, alij vero 9. …aith Baronius loco citato. Some do feigne him to be Iohn the 8 ſome 9. ſaith N. D. pag. 401.John 7 Do not ſome of your witneſſes feigne her Iohn the 7, ſome Iohn the 8, ſome Iohn the 9?

PROT.

Who feignes her to be Iohn the 9? Not a man that I know. If you bring not ſome author for the proofe of this point, you muſt giuegive me leaue to thinke you ſpeake ouer.

PAP.

Ouer or ſhort, I follow in this Baronius, and N. D. For ſome, ſaith Baronius, call her Iohn the 7, ſome Iohn the 8, ſome Ioane the 9. Some, ſaith N. D. do feigne her to be Iohn the 8, ſome 9.

PROT.

Baronius and N. D. are as like to ſpeake ouer as you, for they are Papiſts: wherefore I neither beleeue them nor you, further then I ſee reaſon. And herein neither they nor you ſhew reaſon. For none of you cite ſo much as one author, good or bad for it.iiHoc vnum eorum animos torquet, vtrum Ioh. 7, aut Ioh. 8 nomen ſibi vſurparit. Florim. cap. 7. nu 5.John 7John 8 Beſides your Florimondus confeſſeth, that we are onelyonly troubled about this, whether we ſhould call her Iohn the 7, or Iohn the 8. He chargeth vsus not with naming her Iohn the 9.

PAP.

Well, let that be your difference, that you know not whether to call her Iohn the 7, or Iohn the 8.

PROT.

That difference is not ſo great. For the like may be ſhewed in other Popes, which yet you your ſelues confeſſe were Popes. But who ſtiles her either Iohn the 7, or Iohn the 8? verily neither Marianus Scotus, nor Sigebert, nor Go…efridus Viterbienſis, nor Polonus, nor Platina, nor Palmerius, nor Trithemius, nor Faſciculus Temporum, nor Krantius, nor Alfonſus è Carthagena, nor Textor, call her either Iohn the 7, or Iohn the 8: but ſimply Iohn, or Ioane. For it ſeems they were ofkkAnnot, in … in vit. Ioh. 9.John 9 Onuphrius mind in this, that numeri notam habere non debuit ſacri ordinis non capax. That ſeeing ſhe was not capable of prieſthood, ſhe ſhould not go for one in the number p. 88of Iohns.

PAP.

Yes, by your leaue, Platina ſtiles her Iohn the eight, and the next 9. For which he is reproued byllLoco citato. Onuphrius, and that vponupon the reaſon which you mentioned. For theſe are Onuphrius words. Iohannes hic omnino 8. non 9. eſt, vt à Platina deſcribitur: Nam etſi Iohannes foemina Papa, quam profitetur, fuiſſet, non tamen numeri notam habere debuiſſet ſacri ordinis non capax: that is, This Iohn queſtionleſſe is the eighth, and not the ninth, as Platina accounts him: for though Iohn the woman, whom he talkes of, had bene Pope, yet ſeeing ſhe was not capable of Prieſthood, ſhe ſhould not go for one in the number of Iohns.

PROT.

Platina ſtiles her not Iohn the eighth. Onuphrius, or ſome bodie for him, hath abuſed both Platina and you. For proofe whereof I appeale to Platina, printed in the yeare 1481.mmPlatina moritur Romae, anno 1481. Trith. de ſcript. Eccleſiaſt. verbo Bartholomaeus. which was the yeare wherin Platina died; and to the next edition Anno 1485. For ſpeaking of Iohn the woman in thoſe ancient editions, he ſets no numerall note vponupon her head, but begins his ſtorie thus, Iohannes Anglicus, ex Maguntiaco oriundus, &c. Iohn Engliſh, borne at Mentz. Neither ſtiles he the next 9. but 8. For coming to that Popes life, Iohannes 8. patria Romanus, &c. ſaith he: Iohn the eighth, by his countrey a Romane, &c. For further proofe of which later point, I appeale to thennSuch as that of Colen, anno 1574. later editions, whereunto Onuphrius annotations are annexed. For though we reade thus in them, Iohannes nonus, patria Romanus, &c. Iohn the ninth, by his countrey a Romane, &c. yet, that that reading is falſe, and the ancient reading true, it appeares by that which is written of the next Popes life, to wit, Martin the ſecond, euen in thoſe later editions. ForooDe vit. Pont. in vita Martini 2 Platina ſhewing how Martin liued in the time of Charles the third, addes preſently, quem ab Iohanne 8. coronam accepiſſe ſcripſimus, that is, who was crowned by Iohn the eighth, as we hauehave written. Now Charles the third was crowned by Iohn next before Martin, according toppIn vita eiuſdē Ioh. Platina. Wherefore the next before Martin was Iohn the 8. in Platina his account, and not Iohn the ninth, as Onuphrius would make vsus beleeue. Which p. 89ouerſight, or fraud of Onuphrius, was not ſo great, but that by this meanes he is forced to alter Platina his numerall note, ſet to all the Iohns that follow, to call him Iohn the tenth, whom Platina cals Iohn the ninth; to call him the eleuenth, whom Platina cals the tenth; to call him the thirteenth, whom Platina cals the twelfth, and ſo vntounto the laſt Baldeſar Coſſa, who was in number of Iohns according to the ancient editions, the 23, and not the 24, as he is numbred in the editions with Onuphrius notes. But ſay on, what other diſagreement hauehave you obſerued among the reporters of this ſtorie?

PAP.

qqAlij ponun… hoc anno 853. alij anno ſequē te, alij 857. octa. alij, quidam 904 praeter eos qui ponunt eū poſt Martinum 1. anno 653. alij poſt Ioh. 5. anno 686. Baron loco citato, and Florim. cap. 7. nu. 4.John 5Some ſay, ſhe began her Papacie in the yeare 853, ſome in the yeare 854, ſome in the yeare 857, ſome in 858, ſome in 904, ſome in 653, ſome in 686.

PROT.

Why name you not the Authors that write thus? For to this day I neuer read or heard of any who placed her either about the yeare 653. or 686. or 904. All the aboue-named Hiſtoriographers mention her within the compaſſe of fiue yeares. Till you bring forth your proofe, there is great reaſon to ſuſpect your truth.

PAP.

rrFlorim. loco citato.Peraduenture you will ſuſpect my truth, if I tell you that ſome ſay, ſhe ſucceeded Leo the fourth, ſome Leo the fifth, …me Benedict the third, ſome Martin the firſt, ſome Iohn the fifth.

PROT.

I ſhall indeed. For I reade inſſLib. 3. de Rom Pont. cap. 24. Bellarmine, that Omnes qui iſtum Iohannem admittunt, dicunt eum ſediſſe poſt Leonem 4, & ante Benedictum 3. All who acknowledge ſuch a woman Pope, place her after Leo the 4, and before Benedict the 3.

PAP.

Yea, but you hauehave little reaſon to beleeue Bellarmine therein, ForttIn chron. ad an. 855. collat. cum anno 847. Polonus writes, that ſhe ſucceeded Leo the 5. And ſo dothuuIn chron. ad an. 847. collat. cum anno 854. Sigebert too.

PROT.

That Leo, whom Sigebert placeth next before Ioane the woman, is numbred the fifth, it is ſome error in the print. ForxxSigebert names Leo the firſt, ad an. 441. Leo the 2. ad an. 684. Leo the 3. ad an. 796 and the next is that Leo who ſate ad an. 847. he names but three Popes of that name before that Leo. Wherefore when Sigebert is corrected, you hauehave no colour of exception from him. No more hauehave you from p. 90Polonus. For though according to his account, Leo before this woman Pope, be Leo the fifth: yet he is the ſame man whom others call Leo the fourth. Polonus reckens one Leo, as Pope in the yeare 698, whom others recken not at all, which is the cauſe of the difference betweene him and others in the account of Leoes that follow. But in the perſons all agree. What is the next diſagreement?

PAP.

yyAlij eū ſediſſe tradunt anno 1. & men…e 1. & d…eb. 4. Alij an. 2. tondem que men ſibus & d…eb 4. Alij 2 annis cum dimidio: Duob. tantū annis alij: alij vero 4 tantū men…es. Baron. loco citato. Florim. cap 7. nu. 4.Some ſay, ſhe ſate Pope one yeare, one monethmonth, and 4 dayes. Some two yeares, two moneths, and 4 dayes. Some two yeares and a halfe. Some but two yeares full.zzThis is in Florim. and not in Baronius. Ʋery many ſay, ſhe ſate one yeare, fiue moneths, and three dayes. And they are no ſmall number who ſay, ſhe ſate but barely foure moneths.

PROT.

If this be true, Bellarmine was farre wide. ForaaLib. 3. de Ro. Pont cap. 24. he writes, that Omnes qui iſtum Iohannem admittunt, dicunt eum vixiſſe in Pontificatu duobus annis, & quinque menſibus. All that acknowledged ſuch a woman Pope, ſay, ſhe ſate as Pope two yeares, and fiue moneths. He knew none (no more then 1) that gaue her ſo litle time as foure moneths. He knew no ſuch difference herein as you talke of. Yet among the later writers, I confeſſe there is ſome difference of ſome few moneths: but Marianus and Polonus, which are two of the principall, agree vponupon the point. They write vniformly, that ſhe ſate two yeares, fiue moneths, and foure daies. And Platina is not farre ſhort of that ſumme. For by his reckoning, ſhe ſate two yeares, one monethmonth, and foure daies. But ſuppoſe the differences in theſe circumſtances were great, and many: what is that to diſcredit the ſubſtance of the ſtorie? We find great difference among them who hauehave written of Pope Lucius. ForbbPlatina de vit. Pont. in vita Lucij 1. Onuphr. in Chron. Rom. Pont. ad ann. 253. ſome ſay, he was a Romane,ccAnaſtaſius in vita Lucij. ſome a Tuskan;ddIdem ibid. ſome ſay he was the ſonne of Lucinus, eePlat & Onuph loco citato.ſome of Porphirie: ffOnuph. loco citato.ſome ſay he was choſen Pope in the yeare 253, ggMath. Weſtm Flores hiſt. ad an. 254.ſome in the yeare 254,hhMarian. Scot. & Polon. in chrō ad an. 255. ſome in the yeare 255,iiAbbas Vrſpergen…. ad an. 259. ſome in the yeare 259,kkCompilatio Chronologica ad an 275. ſome in the yeare 275.llPolon. & Math Weſtm. locis citatis. Some ſay, he ſate Pope 3 yeares, 3 moneths, and 3 dayes;mmMarian. Scotus loc. citat. ſome 3 yeares, and 5 moneths:nnAlbo Floriacenſ. de vit. Pont. in Lucio. ſome 3 yeares, 7 moneths, and ſix daies;ooOnuphr. loco citato. ſome p. 91but one yeare, 3 moneths, & 13 daies;ppEuſeb. lib 7. hiſt. cap. 3. & Abbas Vſpergenſis loco citato, & Hermannus Contractus circa ann. 260. ſome but 8 moneths, and no longer. And yet there is no man denies that Lucius was Pope.

Againe, do we not reade, that Sergius the third began his reigne in the yeare 905. asqqMath. Weſtm. Flores hiſt. ad an. 905. ſome ſay: asrrPolon. in chrō. ad an 907. others, in the yeare 907: as aſſBaron. annal. to. 10. ad an. 907 nu. 2. third ſort, in the yeare 908? Do notttHerman. Contract. circa ann. 907. ſome alſo write, that he ſucceeded Benedict the 4,uuLuitprandus, teſte Baron. ad an 908 nu. 2. others that he ſucceeded Formoſus, xxBaron ibid.others, Chriſtopher? And is not there difference alſo about the time of his continuance in the Popedome? whileyyPolon. ad ann. 907. ſome ſay he ſate 7 yeares, 3 moneths, and 16 daies;zzBaron. tom. 10 Annal. ad an. 910. nu. 1. ſome 3 yeares onelyonly; yet who euer denied that there was ſuch a Pope?

WeaaBaron. annal. to. 10 ad an. 897 nu. 2. reade, that Formoſus carkaſſe was taken vp out of his graue, by one of his ſucceſſors, and brought into iudgement before a Councell of Biſhops, and that it was ſpoiled of his papall robes, and clad with a lay mans garment: that it was indicted, arraigned and condemned. But among them who report this, there is great diſagreement. ForbbLuitprand. l. 1. cap. 8. & Abbas Vrſpergenſis in Chron. ad an. 897. ſome ſay, it was taken vp by Sergius the third, of whom I ſpake euen now: ſome ſay it was taken vp byccPlatina in vita Steph. 6. Stephen the ſixth, whom many call Stephen the 7:ddWernerus Roleuink in Fa…cic. temp. ad an. 904 ſome ſay it had two fingers cut off, eeLuitprand. loco citato.ſome three:ffAbbas Vrſpergenſ. loco citato. ſome ſay the head was chopt off,ggLuitprand. & alij. ſome ſeeme to denie that:hhPapyrius Maſſonus lib. 3. de vrbis Epiſcop. in Bonifacio 6. ſome ſay, the trunke of the bodie was caſt into Tiber,iiPlatina in vita Steph. 6. others ſay, it was allowed lay-mans buriall. I pray you now, dare you denie the truth of this ſtorie, by reaſon of theſe differences?

PAP.

Why not? Doth notkkAnnotat. in Plat. in vita Formoſi. Onuphrius vponupon that reaſon denie it, ſaying: Quae de Formoſi cadauere ex ſepultura à ſucceſſoribus eruto dicuntur, procul dubio fabulae magis quàm vero ſimilia ſunt, quod illorum qui de ea re ſcripſerunt diuerſitate & repugnantia facilè liquet: that is, The ſpeeches which go touching the digging up of Formoſus bodie out of his graue, by ſome of his ſucceſſors, are queſtionleſſe fabulous, not true: which is apparent by the diſagreements and diſconueniences which are to be found among them that write of it.

p. 92PROT.

Now ſee you then the diſagreement, and diſconueniences that are among you Papiſts. For thoughllIntentatum hactenus ſ…elus. Baronius confeſſe,**Prae ſui immaniate omnib…s incredibile. Annal. 10. 10. ad an. 897. nu. 3. it was ſuch a villanous pranke, as was neuer plaied before: though he confeſſe,**Erroris conuincuntar qui iſla. de Formoſo negant, & conficta putant. it may ſeeme incredible, by reaſon of the barbarouſneſſe of it: yet he grants it true, and auowes that they erre fouly, who deny that ſuch things befell Formoſus: who hold the reports for fables. Notwithſtanding the manifold differences in ſome circumſtances, he durſt not caſt it off as Onuphrius doth. Neither could he indeed vponupon Onuphrius reaſon. FormmLib. 2. de Ro. Pont. cap. 5. Bellarmine ſaith true in this, (though he miſſe the truth often) that ſaepiſſimè accidit vt conſtet de re, & non conſtet de modo, vel alia circumſtantia. It oftentimes fals out that men are ſure ſuch a thing is done, when yet they are not ſure of the manner how it was done, or of ſome other ſuch like circumſtance. The difference among writers about circumſtance, doth not weaken any mans argument touching the ſubſtance. If it do, (to giuegive one inſtance more) blot out for ſhame, S. Ʋrſula and her fellowes holiday, out of yournnOctob. 21. Kalender: and all the prayers which you make to them in your Primers, Porteſſes, and Breuiaries. For there was neuer greater diaſgreement among the relators of any ſtorie, then among the relators of that. SomeooPet. de Natal in Catal. ſanct. lib. 9. c. 87. ſay, that Vrſula was the king of Scotlands daughter: butppGalfridus Monumentenſ hiſt. Brit. lib. 5. cap. 15 & 16. others ſay, ſhe was the king of Cornewals daughter.qqPetrus de Natal loc. cit. Some ſay, her father was called Maurus: but others ſay, he was calledrrHerman. Flien in vita S. Vrſulae Octob. 21. Dionethus, orſſPonticus Virunius hiſt. Brit. l. 5. Dionotus, orttBaron. Annot. in Martyrol. Ro Octob. 21. b. Dionocus, oruuIncertus author apud Suriū to. 5. de vitis ſanct. Octob 21 Deo notus; for ſo diuerſly do they chriſten him. And which concernes the husband, to whom ſhe ſhould hauehave bene maried,xxPet. de Natal. loco cit. ſome write, that he was king of England:yyBaron. loc. cit. others, that he was king of little Brittaine. AndzzElizabetha Abbatiſſa Schonaugien. in princip. Reuelationum. one cals him Aetherius, anotheraaFrater T. in Reuelat. ſcriptis an. 1185. vt refert Flien. loc. cit. Holofernes, abbFlien, loc cit. third, Conanus. Now in her companie, as ^c ſome ſay, there were only 11000 Ladies and gentlewomen, virgines: but asddPonticus Virunius & Gali ridus locis cit. others ſay, there were 6000. countrey maidens ouer and aboue thoſe 1100. of better ranke. Beſides,eePet. de Natal. loc cit. there were diuers Biſhops, and p. 93Lords of the Temporaltie who accompanied them. Yea Cyriacus the Pope of Rome, like a good fellow, left his Papacie, and followed theſe pilgrimes ſay**Vide ſupr. p. 67 ſome, though others denie it. ForffHangerus Abbas Lobienſis in Catalog. Epiſco. Tongerenſium in Metropol. ſome ſay, that they went in Pilgrimage to Rome, thoughggFlien. Annot. in vitam Vrſulae. others hold not that probable.hhMartyro Ro. and Baron. Annot. in Martyr. Octob 21. Some ſay, they were martyred on the ſea coaſt:iiFlien loco citato. ſome, before the gates of Colen. AndkkAuthor Chrō. Colon. fol. 68. & Harig. Abbas loco cit. &c. ſome ſay, that all this fell out in the yeare 238. ſome, inllBaron. in Martyr. Oct. 21. Maximus time:mmSigebert in Chron. ad ann. 853. ſome, in the yeare 453. Laſt of all,nnLindan. apud Baro…um Annot. in Martyr. Oct. 21. ſome ſay, that if any be buried in S: Vrſulaes Church, though they be infants newly baptized, the ground will caſt them vp againe: whereasooFlien. loco cit. fabulam a…lem eſſe didici. others ſay, that that is a tale of a tub.

PAP.

I know not what to reply to this. But learneder Catholickes will anſwer you, I hope. And in the meane time I will go on. aaOnuph Annot in Platin. in vit. Ioh 8. & Hard. Anſwer to B. luels Apology.John 8By the reporters of this ſtory ſhe was firſt caried to Athens. Now there was no Athens ſtanding at that time.

PROT.

Yes that there was. ForbbLib. 8. Paulus Aemilius writes, that Gotefridus was made Duke of Athens, and Prince of Achaia, about the yeare 1220. And afterwards, That certaine Pirates inuading the countrie of Grecia, ſlue the Duke of Athens, who was of the houſe of Brennus, and tooke the citie. In like manner we reade inddIn Hen 3 ad ann. 1252. pag. 1112. Mathew Paris, that Iohannes de Baſing ſtockes Archdeacon of**Iohan. de Legria vir in Triuio & quadriuio experientiſſimus. Legria who died in the yeare 1252. ſtudied at Athens, and that he learned of the learned Grecians, many matters vnknowne to men of the Weſt-Church: eſpecially of one Conſtantia, the daughter of the Archbiſhop of Athens. Beſides, Aeneas Syluins, who liued ſince that, doth iuſtifie, that in his time Athens was not quite razed, but carried the ſhew of a prettie towne. For Ciuitas Athenitenſis (quoth he) quondam nobiliſſima fuit, &c. eadem noſtro tempore parui oppidi speciem gerit. The noble citie of Athens at this time carries but the ſhew of a little village.ccLib. 6. Wherefore neither doth this your exception preiudice the truth of this ſtorie. Your next had need be better.

PAP.

By the reporters of this ſtory ſhe was not only carried to p. 94eeConſmograph. de Europa. cap. 11.Athens, but to Athens for learning. Now it is a plaine caſe, as ffConſtat eo tē pore neque Athenis, neque vſquam alibi in Grecia …uiſle vlla Gymnaſia literarum. l: 3. de Ro. Pont. c. 24.Bellarmine writes, that there were no ſchooles at that time, neither in Athens, nor in any place of Grecia.

PROT.

What? no ſchooles in any place of Grecia at that time? Notes Bellarmine that? and that as a plaine caſe? and doth he prooue it too?

PAP.

Yea,ggLoco citato. he proues it by diuers writers. And firſt byhhIn Epiſt. vlt ad fratrem ſuum Syneſius ſcribit Athenis nihil …uiſſe niſi nomē Academiae. Syneſius who liued a little after Baſil and Nazianzens time. For Syneſius writes vntounto his brother, that Athens retained onelyonly the bare name of an Vniuerſitie.

PROT.

And doth tha… import (thinke you) that in Syneſius opinion there was no vniuerſitie at Athens? I for my part do rather thinke the contrary: I thinke Syneſius meant thereby that Athens was an vniuerſitie, though nothing ſo floriſhing as formerly. Queſtionleſſe, wheniiPetrus Abailardus nihil habens de Monacho praeter nomen & habitum Bern. Epiſt. 193. Bernard writ, that Peter Abailard had nothing of a Monke, ſauing the name and the Cowle, his meaning was not that Peter was no Monke, but rather that he was a Monke, though a ſorrie Monke. And I am the rather perſwaded to vnderſtand Syneſius words ſo: becauſe Athens, in S. Baſils time (about ſome 40. yeares before Syneſius)kkBaron. Annal. to 3. ad an. 354. nu. 25. & 26. was held the mother of learning: and in regard thereof termed golden Athens by llIn Monodia in Baſilij magni vitam.Gregory Nazienzen. For who can thinke, in ſo few yeares learning ſhould quite be quenched, and that ſo famous an vniuerſitie ſhould in ſo ſhort time be vtterly decayed? But let vsus ſuppoſe there was no vniuerſity at Athens in Syneſius time. What is that to proue that there was no Vniuerſitie at Athens in Pope Ioanes time, which was 400. yeares after? That vniuerſitie might get life againe in ſo many yeares. And in deed it did ſo: for 100. yeares after Syneſius time, Bocthuis went to ſtudie at Athens, asmmAnnal. 10. 6. ad an 510 nu. 2. Baronius confeſſeth: noting further, that the ſtudie of Philoſophy was reuiued there in thoſe dayes. Againe, to ſuppoſe there was no vniuerſitie at Athens in Syneſius time, what is it to proue that there were no ſchooles in any part of Grecia in Pope Ioanes time? Now Bellarmine promiſed to proue that.

PAP.

That is proued bynnLoco citato. Bellarmine out ofooIn vit. Michael & Theod. Imperat. Cedrenus, p. 95and Zonaras. For they record, that in the ſole reigne of Michael the Emperour, which fell to be about the yeare 856. Bardus Caeſar reſtored learning. Cum vſque ad illud tempus per annos plurimos ita fuiſſent extincta omnia ſtudia ſapientiae in Graecia, vt ne veſtigium quidem vllum extaret.

PROT.

Bellarmine wrongs Cedrenus and Zonaras, in bringing them in, to witneſſe ſuch a point. For they ſay no more, but that learning was not regarded of along time before Bardus Caeſar. They ſay not, it was quite extinct,**Philoſophia neglecta iacebat ac propè omnino extincta erat. vt neſcintilla quidem eius appareret. but almoſt extinct. Bardus Caeſar added life vntounto-it,**Cuique diſciplinae ſcholas conſtituit, & do ctores deſignauit, ſingulis publica ſtipendia decreuit. by ſetting vp ſchooles for eueryevery of the liberall ſciences, and appointing publicke profeſſors, and giuing them ſtipends out of the Excheker, as Cedrenus and Zonaras write: but he raiſed it not vp ſimply to life. For if it had bene ſtarke dead, how could he vponupon ſuch a ſodaine hauehave gotten profeſſours to furniſh his ſchooles? Againe, do we not reade in the ſame Zonaras, that at the ſame time whereof Bellarmine ſpeakes, there was a ppIn philoſophicis rationibus incomparabilem, &c.matchleſſe Philoſopher at Conſtantinople, and many skilfull Mathematicians, who were his ſcholers? And do we not reade inqqLoco ſupra citato. Cedrenus, that this Philoſopher was called Leo, and that he**Literis & poetis Leo (vt ipſe fereb at) …itiatus fuit Byzantij. Rhetoricam, Philoſophiam, Arithmeticam, & reliquas ſciē tias in Antro Inſula didicit. was brought vp in learning at Conſtantinople, though afterward he learned Rhetoricke, Philoſophy, Arithmetick, and the other liberall ſciences, in the Iſle of Antro? And doth not this argue, that Cedrenus and Zonaras do not report, that there was no learning in any place of Grecia? Thirdly, is it not well knowne, thatrrBellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 5. about the yeare 680. there was kept a generall Councell at Conſtantinople, whereat there were many Biſhops of Grece and among the reſt theſſConc. Conſtā tinop. 6. Act. 17.Acts 17 Biſhop of Athens? Is it not well knowne that there was kept another Councell at Nice an 100. yeares after, viz.ttBellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 5. about the yeare 780. at which there were mo Biſhops of Greece then at the former? Is it not well knowne there was a 3. Councel holden at Conſtantinople, which did exceed in nūber either of the former 2,uuBellar. loco. citato. about the yere 870? And how is it credible ſo many Councels conſiſting of many Biſhops ſhould be kept in Greece,**350. teſte Bel. ibid. and yet Greece vtterly without learning? Welfare N. D. in compariſon of Bellarmine p. 96herein, for N. D. durſt not (it ſeemeth) ſay with Bellarmine: that about Pope Ioanes time there was no ſchoole in any place of Grecia. He was aſhamed to runne with his maiſter to ſuch exceſſe of lying. He left him in this.

PAP.

True. But that Athens at that time had no ſchoole in it at all, nor many yeares beforexxNu. 32. pag. 46 N. D. is as confident as his maiſter Bellarmine. And that circumſtance is that which gals you moſt. Wherefore tell me what more you can ſay to it?

PROT.

Nay firſt tell me how N. D. proues that? for I ſhall eſteeme of his poſition, as I find his proofe to be.

PAP.

His poſition is euident (yyIbid. he ſaith) by Cedrenus and Zonaras in the places alreadie cited.

PROT.

He lyes falſly. Cedrenus and Zonaras makes as much for Bellarmines opinion, as for his. For they ſpeake of the decay of learning through Grecia generally, and not in Athens particularly; yet (as you hauehave heard) they make nothing for Bellarmine. N. D. might as well hauehave caſt off Bellarmines witneſſes, as Bellarmines opinion for inſufficient. HaueHave you any more exceptions?

PAP.

zzOnuph. and Harding, locis ſupra citatis.Yea. For theſe tale-tellers report, that ſhe came to Rome, and there profeſſed learning openly, and had great doctors to her ſchollers. But this is a notorious vntruth. For there was no learning openly profeſſed at Rome in thoſe dayes, as the ſtories declare.

PROT.

TheaaMath. Weſtm. Flores hiſt. ad au. 727. ſtories declare, that Ina one of our Saxon kings did build a ſchoole in Rome, a litle before Pope Ioanes dayes: viz. in the yeare 727. and that to this end, that the kings of England, and their children, the Biſhops, the prieſts, and the reſt of the Clergie, might repaire thither, to be inſtructed in the Catholicke faith, and afterwards returne home. Which ſchoole flouriſhed inbbIdē ad an. 794. king Offa his time, viz. 795. and continued at leaſt till Alfreds time. For we reade, that Marinus the Pope, who ſate in the yeare 883. freed it from all paiments atccIdē ad an. 883. Alfreds motion. Now is it likely that ſuch a ſchoole was built, and maintained for ſuch a purpoſe, where no learning was publickly profeſſed? Moreouer, we reade of many other ſchooles kept in the ſame citie, in Stephen the 6. his time, which was about the yeare 885. For all p. 97the ſchooles in Rome concurred in ioyfull maner, bringing Stephen the 6. to the pallace of Lateran, ſaithddOmnes ſanctae Rom. Eccleſiae ſcholae coniunctae eundem (Stephan. 6.) ad Lateranēſe perduxerunt palatium—gravi moerore affecus eſt, quia quod erogares clero & ſcholis non haberet. Anaſtaſ. in vita Steph. 6. one of your popiſh Chroniclers: and Stephen was ſorie with all his heart he had not wherewith to gratifie the ſchooles. And is it to be thought that all theſe ſchooles were maiſterleſſe? that they had no profeſſors, no readers?

PAP.

eeFlorim. cap. 7. p. 62. Bernart. lib. 2. p. 117.If there had bene euer ſuch a Ioane Pope, which ſome had forborne to ſpeake of, for reuerence to that ſea: the difference which is found among Hiſtorians, in numbring of ſuch Popes as were called by the name of Iohn, ſhould hauehave riſen at that time, and by reaſon of that occaſion. But the difference among hiſtorians about the number of Iohn-Popes, aroſe not from that time, and about that occaſion. It aroſe in Pope Iohn the 12. his time, about the yeare 955. Ergo there was neuer ſuch a Ioane Pope. Now anſwer me this argument, if you can, for this is held**Omnē hanc de Ioanna confictā fabulā hoc vno dicto damnarūt. Florim, ibid. a doughtie one.

PROT.

Is it ſo? Well, hearken then what I anſwer to it. I ſay, firſt there is no reaſon that hiſtorians ſhould hauehave differed in their account of Iohns from her time, though ſome for reuerence of that Sea, forbare to ſpeake of her. For they who ſpake of her, were not to ſet any numerall note vponupon her head, asffPag. 70. before I ſhewed you out of Onuphrius. They were not to reckon one Iohn the more for her. Neither indeed did any hiſtorian before Platina, recken her in the number of Iohns, though they called her by the name of Iohn.

PAP.

Yes, Platina ſet a numerall note vponupon her head, and called her Iohn the 7. and ſo did many ſince his time.

PROT.

Many ſince his time hauehave called her ſo, I grant, being moued thereto (as I ſuppoſe) by this, that they ſaw her ſo called in Platina. But Platina hath bene corrupted by ſome of your generation, asggPag. 71. before I noted. For he neither called her Iohn the 7. nor Iohn the 8. But ſecondly I ſay, your minor is falſe. For the difference which is about the number of Iohns, aroſe not from Iohn the 12, but from this woman Ioane. For ſince Platina his time, ſome called her Iohn the ſeuenth, ſome Iohn the eighth, and ſo diſagreed in the totall ſumme.

PAP.

hhFlorim. loco ſuprà citato.Nay, herein you are out. For that their diſagreement p. 98began in Iohn the 12. his dayes, Lambertus, who liued in thoſe dayes, witneſſeth: and your Centurie writers do confeſſe.

PROT.

Doth Lambertus witneſſe that? Fie that you ſhould ſay ſo. For he hath not one word ſounding that way. No more hauehave the Centurie writers.

PAP.

Yes but they hauehave. For theyiiCent. 10. ca. 10. as Florim. and Bernart. ſay. write, that when as Iohn the 12. was depoſed by the Cardinals, and Leo the 8. placed in his roome: Iohn the 12. got the Popedome againe, and kept it foure moneths; which ſome hiſtorians not obſeruing, made two Popes of one.

PROT.

The Centurie writers do not write this. Your Fl…rimondus and Bernartius, from whēce you hauehave this ſtuffe, are ſhameleſſe fellowes to report this by them. They ſay indeed, that there is great difference in writers about Pope Iohn the 12: meaning by Iohn the 12. not him, into whoſe roome Leo the 8. was choſen, of whom you talke at random, but another Iohn, who was ſonne to Sergius, commonly called Iohn the 11. But that hiſtorians began to differ in their account by reaſon of that difference, they ſay not. Yea it is plaine, they impute the difference among the hiſtorians to this,kkIoh. 7. vt Sabellicus vult, aut 8. vt Platina, vocatus eſt. Cent. 9 cap. 10.John 7 that ſome called Ioane, Iohn the 7. ſome Iohn the 8. Wherefore you muſt caſt about for a new argument, for this will not ſerue your turne.

PAP.

I hauehave arguments good ſtore: whereof, the firſt ſhall be taken from the time wherein (they ſay) ſhe ſate as Pope. AndllBaron. annal. to. 10. ad an. 853 an. 64. I will deale eſpecially with Marianus Scotus, the firſt reporter of this matter. For if he be confounded, all the reſt muſt reſt confounded.

PROT.

Well: fall to your worke, and be as good as your word.

PAP.

mmBaron. ibid.If Leo the 4. liued to the yeare 855, then Marianus Scotus lyed falſly in reporting that this Ioane was choſen Pope in the yeare 853: for by his confeſſion ſhe ſucceeded Leo the fourth. But Leo the 4. liued to the yeare 855. Ergo Marianus Scotus lyed falſly in reporting that this Ioane was choſen Pope in the yeare 853.

PROT.

What is that to the maine chance, that Marianus p. 99Scotus miſtooke the yeare of her entring into the popedome? In hiſtories, a yeare or two breake no ſquare. But how proue you that Marianus reports, that this Pope Ioane was choſen in the yeare 853?

PAP.

nnBaron. ibid.By his owne wosds. For thus he writes. Anno octingenteſimo quinquageſimo tertio Leo Papa obijt Kalend. Auguſti. Huic ſucceſſit Ioanna mulier annis duobus, menſibus quinque, diebus quatuor. In the yeare 853. Leo the Pope died on the Kalends of Auguſt: and Ioane the woman ſucceeded after him for the ſpace of two yeares fiue moneths, and foure dayes.

PROT.

Theſe are not Marianus words. For he ſets not downe the yeare preciſely, but in numerall figures, by the ſide of the text.ooSee Marianus chronicle, & the caſe wil appeare to be plaine. And it is plaine, by conference of yeares, that he meant to note out the 855 for her entrance, and not the 853. For Benedict the 3. who ſucceeded her, entred not (by his account) till the yeare 857. Now if ſhe had entred 853, ſhe had bene Pope foure yeares, or thereabouts. For betweene 853. and 857. there runne foure yeares; whereas in plaine words he notes, that ſhe was Pope but two yeares, fiue moneths, and foure dayes. Secondly, it is plaine by Marianus Scotus, that Sergius the 2. began his popedome in the yeare 844. and ſate three yeares. It is plaine. that Leo the fourth, next ſucceſſor to Sergius, began his in the yeare 847, and ſate eight yeares. Now put theſe three odde ſummes 4, 3, and 8, to 840, and they will make 855. So that whoſoeuer ſucceeded Leo the 4, muſt begin in the yeare 855; and that was Ioane the woman, in Marianus opinion.

PAP.

Why, but right ouer againſt theſe figures 853, theſe words are ſet: Leo Papa obijt Kal. Aug. Leo the Pope died on the Kalends of Auguſt. And doth not that argue, that in Marianus opinion, Leo died that yeare?

PROT.

No. No more then the words following, Huic ſucceſſit Ioanna mulier, &c. which are ſet iuſt ouer againſt theſe figures 854. do argue that ſhe began her popedome the next yeare after: or that Leo the 4. began his popedome in the yeare 852, becauſe right ouer againſt that number, his entrance vponupon Sergius death is mentioned. Is not your p. 100next argument better?

PAP.

The people of Rome, about that time, were euill affected towards the Pope,ppFlorim. cap. 14. nu. 6. and ſo was the greater part of all Italie: for that Charles had ſubdued them, and giuen them to the Pope. Now if ſuch an accident as this had falne out, it might hauehave giuen them iuſt cauſe to hauehave falne from the Pope againe: for they might hauehave pretended that they would not be ſubiect to a womaniſh and an whoriſh gouernment. But we reade of no ſuch thing. Ergo.

PROT.

Charles reſcued Italie out of the hands of the Lombards, with the great good liking both of the Romans and the reſt of Italy. But he neuer turned them ouer to liue vnderunder the Popes gouernment. All his life he kept them in obedience to himſelfe, and by will bequeathed the whole countrey to his yongeſt ſonne Pipin, asqqAnnal. to 9 ad an 806. nu. 19. Baronius ſheweth out of the French hiſtories. Ergo this argument is naught: let me hauehave a new one.

PAP.

rrFlor. c 27. nu. 2The Popes about the time of this your ſuppoſed Pope Ioane did take vp roundly both kings and Emperours for their adulteries. Which is a plaine argument, there was no Pope Ioane in that Sea guiltie of any ſuch crime.

PROT.

What kings and Emperours were theſe, whom the Popes tooke vp ſo roundly for their adulteries?

PAP.

Ludouicus the Emperour was one. For Gregorie the fifth, turned him into a Monaſterie for his adulterie with one Iudith: that there he might (apart) do Penance for his ſinne.

PROT.

Gregorie the fifth liued almoſt 150. yeares after Pope Ioane; … 5. Luio… Imp…ratorem adulterij … Iudit…a quadam perpetrati reum—cum da …nobij clauſius addixit. Flo…m. ibid.and beſides, there was no Emperour called Ludouike in his time. Perhaps Florimondus would hauehave ſaid Gregorie the fourth, for he liued not long before Pope Ioanes time, and in his dayes there was one Ludouike an Emperour.

PAP.

Indeed it may be ſo, for the numerall figure might ſoone be miſtaken. For Gregorie the fourth, a man may eaſily ſet downe Gregorie the fifth. And what ſay you to it?

PROT.

I ſay Florimondus is a palterer. For Ludouike, p. 101who liued in Gregorie the fourths time, was neuer noted for an adulterer, with anie Iudith, nor with anie woman elſe. Iudith his wife was ſuſpected of that ſinne with others, and thereupon was veiled, and thruſt into a Monaſterie by ſome of the Princes of the Empire. And Ludouicke himſelfe, vponupon other pretences, was for a time depriued of the Empire. But Gregorie the fourth had no hand either in her veiling, or in his depriuation, as you may ſee byttAnnal. to 9. ad an. 833. & 834. Baronius. Beſides, this fell out before Pope Ioanes time: and therefore doth not hinder but that there was ſuch a Ioane. Me thinks you ſhould be drawne drie, you talke ſo idlely.

PAP.

aaFlor. c. 25. nu. 3If there had bene ſuch a Pope Ioane, ſome hiſtorian would hauehave written either good or bad of her. But we reade nothing of her in any hiſtorie.

PROT.

Do we reade nothing of her in any hiſtory? whence hauehave we this of her aſpiring to the Popedome, and of her lewd behauiour in the time of her Popedome? hauehave I not proued it vntounto you out of the hiſtories?

PAP.

Yea, but my meaning is,bbFlorim ibid. that we reade nothing in any hiſtorie of her reforming the Church: of her determining of cauſes and queſtions, uſually propoſed by Biſhops to them that are Popes, of any intercourſe or affaires, that ſhe had with King or Emperour.

PROT.

No more do we reade in any hiſtorian, of any ſuch act done by Anaſtaſius the third, who ſate as Pope two years and vpward. Anaſtaſius the third (asccAb Anaſt… nil memori: dignum, g… eſt. Plat. in v. Anaſtaſij 3. Platina witneſſeth) did nothing worthy of remembrance. We reade nothing of any great Acts done by Leo the ſeuenth. He ſate 3 yeares, and ſixe moneths: yet he did asddLeo 7 … e…gnum memoria geſſit. Plat. … vita Leoni. 7. little as Anaſtaſius, for any thing we reade; he neither reformed the Church, nor reſolued any Biſhop his doubts: nor intermedled with any Princes.

PAP.

eeFlorim. loco ſupra cit. 10.Oh but that age, wherein you feigne that this Ioane liued, was an age wherein fell out great varietie of matter, both in the Eaſt and in the Weſt. In it many Princes and Emperours of great worth reigned. In it many men of great learning liued. And p. 102therefore if there had bene any ſuch monſter then, we could not but hauehave heard of it on all ſides.

PROT.

So we hauehave, as before I proued. But what great varietie of matter fell there out in that age more then ordinarie?

PAP.

ffFlorim. ibid.In that age there was old holding and drawing between the Eaſterne and Weſterne Churches about Images. Many Councels were kept by both ſides, and many euill words paſſed on all hands.

PROT.

Go, go, I am aſhamed of you, and of Florimondus your maiſter. All ſtories teſtifie that the difference betweene the Eaſterne and the Weſterne Churches about Images, began in the former ages: and that, though they continued ſome few yeares after the yeare 800, yet there was no talke of that matter for diuerſe yeares before Pope Ioanes dayes. Yet I am willing to heare you ſpeake on. Wherefore tell me what ſtore of learned men that age brought out?

PAP.

Great ſtore, but it were too long to reckon them.

PROT.

It may be ſo. Yet you muſt know that they went for learned men in that age,ggQui ſeiret tan tum Crammaticam iſto ſeculo rudi. doctiſſimus habebatur. Baron. Annal. to 9. ad ann. 80 2. nu. …. who were but bare Grammarians. And therefore were they neuer ſo many, Pope Ioanes acts might paſſe vnwritten.

PAP.

hhHorim. cap. eit. nu. 6.Yea but I would gladly know of you, what Dukes, what Princes, what Kings, what Emperours, this Ioane inaugured, and crowned: what Embaſſadors ſhe entertained, what honors ſhe beſtowed vponupon any perſons.

PROT.

Indeed you poſe me now: eſpecially in that which concerns the inauguring and crowning of Dukes, and Princes, and Kings, and Emperour. For I remember none inaugured or crowned by her,

PAP.

I thought ſo. And therefore you do well to confeſſe…it. I truſt at length you will alſo confeſſe that there was no Pope Ioane.

PROT.

Why I pray you? did eueryevery Pope inaugure and crowne either Dukes, or Princes, or Kings, or Emperors?

PAP.

Nay I ſay not ſo. But in that age the Emperours themſelues had ſuch a reuerend opinion of the Romane Popes, that they p. 103would not take vponupon them to reigne, except they gaue them their conſent and crowned them.

PROT.

How proue you that?

PAP.

iiFlorim ibid.By this, that Adrian the firſt, baptized the two ſonnes of Charles the great, and after that annoynted them kings.

PROT.

This proues not your purpoſe: for this fell out in the yeare 781, askkAnnal. to. 9. ad ann. nu. 2. Baronius notes: and not in that age wherin Pope Ioane liued. But do you thinke that eueryevery Pope in that age inaugured ſome Dukes or Princes, or Kings, or Emperours? I would gladly know of you what Duke, or Prince, or King, or Emperour was inaugured, or crowned by Pope Eugenius the 2, who ſate in the yeare 824, or by Pope Ʋalentinus, who ſate in the yeare 827, or by Pope Gregory the 4. who ſucceeded Valentinus: or by Pope Sergius the ſecond, who fate in the yeare 844. or by Pope Leo the 4, who ſate in the yeare 847. I am ſure neuer a one of theſe crowned any Emperour. And I remember not that any one of theſe annoynted any Duke, or King, ſaue Leo the 4, who annoynted Alfred the yongeſt ſonne of Athelwulfus king of England. Which furthered him nothing to the attaining of the kingdome. For till the death of his three elder brethren, for all the Popes annoynting him, he liued like a ſubiect, he liued not like a king. Wherefore to put you in mind of the maine point; though Pope Ioane inaugured, or crowned no ſuch perſons as you ſpeake of, yet you cannot conclude therupon: Ergo, there was no Pope Ioane.

PAP.

mmFlorim. loco citato.But if ſhe beſtowed no honors vponupon any perſons: if ſhe made no Biſhops: if ſhe gaue no Biſhoprickes: it is more then probable there was neuer any ſuch.

PROT.

Oh but we reade, that contulit ſacros ordines, promouit Epiſcopos, miniſtrauit Sacramenta, caetera que Romanorum Pontificum exercuit munera: ſhe gaue orders: ſhe made Biſhops: ſhe adminiſtred the Sacraments, and ſhe performed all other offices belonging vntounto the Papacie.

PAP.

Where reade you that? I warrant you, you had it out of Bale: of whom I wiſh you to ſee at your leaſure, whatnnFlorim. cap. 3. nu. 1. & 2. Florimondus cenſure is.

p. 104PROT.

Iohn Bale (for ought I know) is farre honeſter man, then Florimondus. And to tell you truth, if Florimondus raile vponupon him, I ſhall hauehave the better opinion of him. For asooQuiſcit illum, intelligere poteſt, non niſi grande aliquod bonū à Nerone damnatum. Ter tull. Apologet. cap. 5. Euſeb. hiſt. Eccl lib. 2. cap. 24. Tertullian perſwaded himſelfe that whoſoeuer knew Nero, would eaſily beleeue Chriſtianity were good becauſe it was diſliked by Nero: ſo I perſwade my ſelfe, that whoſoeuer knowes Florimondus, he will the rather be well perſwaded of Iohn Bale, becauſe he is reuiled by Florimondus. But yet I would hauehave you know, I read not this in Bale only, but inppDe vanitate ſcientiarum. cap. 62. deſectis Monaſticis. Cornelius Agrippa: a man much commended byqqLib. 1. epiſtol. Epiſt 38 te mag nopere commendamus, &c. ſaith Leo the 10 Leo the 10. and in arrLib de vanitate ſcientiarum, is mentioned in the Emperours priuiledge. booke of his ſolemnly priuiledged by Charles the 5.

PAP.

Well ſir, ſith theſe reaſons preuaile not with you, I will come a ſtep or two nearer you. And firſt to proue your ſtorie a fabulous fiction, I argue thus.ſſSi eafabula vera ſuiſſet, vt Romae hoc tempore ſederit foemina, cui in electione ipſe Ni colaus tune Cardinalis ſuffragiū oportuerit contuliſle qua fronte Photium ted…guere potuiſſer quod ſaepiſſimè facit) co nomine quòd cum eſſet laicus ordinari ſe Epiſcopum paſſus eſſet, &c. Baron. annal to. 10. ad an. 853. nu 70. If the report of Pope Ioane be not afabulous fiction, then Nicolas the firſt Pope of that name, who at the time of her election was a Cardinall, gaue her a voice, and ſo conſented to her election. But it is not credible that Nicolas gaue her a voice, and conſented to her election. Ergo.

PROT.

Firſt, I denie that Nicolas was a Cardinall at the time of Pope Ioanes election. For he was madettAnaſtaſ. Biblioth. in vita Nicolai 1. Subdeacon by Sergius the ſecond, anduuIbid. Deacon by Leo the fourth. In which order he continuedxxIbid. till the death of Benedict the 3, who ſate after Ioane. Secondly, I denie we are bound to beleeue that he gaue Pope Ioane his voice, though we ſhould grant he was a Cardinall. For it was neuer required, that all the Cardinals ſhould giuegive conſent to any Popes election. But principally I denie your minor propoſition, viz. that it is not credible Nicolas gaue her his voice, and conſented to her election. And how can you proue it?

PAP.

yyBaron. loco ſupra citato.If Nicolas had giuen her a voice, and conſented to her election, then could he not honeſtly hauehave reproued Photius Patriarke of Conſtantinople, for that he ſuffered himſelf of a meere layman to be made a Patriarke.zzImperatorem ipſum acerrima reprehenſio… perſtingit;quod id agere praeſumpſiſlet Baron. ibid. Neither could he iuſtly hauehave reproued p. 105Michael the Emperour, for that he gaue his conſent to Photius ordination and election. But (no doubt) he reproued them both honeſtly and iuſtly. Ergo he neuer gaue Pope Ioane his voice, he neuer conſented to her election.

PROT.

Why might not he without note of diſhoneſtie reproue Photius and the Emperour for their dealing, though he himſelfe had a hand in Pope Ioanes election?

PAP.

Becauſe he ſhould hauehave bene guiltie of the ſame fault, if not of a greater: for a woman (you know) is not capable of holy orders.

PROT.

Oh is that it? As though there were not a maine difference betweene Nicolas his fact (to ſuppoſe he did it) and the fact of Photius and the Emperour. Photius and the Emperour did that wittingly and willingly, which Nicolas reproues in them. Nicolas choſe a woman Pope vnwittingly. It was with Nicolas (in all likelihood) at the election of Pope Ioane, as it was with thehh2. Sam. 1511. 200 of Ieruſalem, who were called by Abſalon to Hebron: of whom the Scriptures witnes that they went in their ſimplicitie, knowing nothing. Now ignorance, inuincible ignorance, ſuch as this was, excuſeth, though not from all fault, yet from ſo great fault. Wherefore you muſt come nearer me yet, if you meane to driue me from my opinion.

PAP.

HaueHave at you then, and that with aiiO locus epiſt. opportunus & auro contra non carus, & quo facile protelem omnia aduerſariorum tela, &c. Bernart. lib. citato. p. 109. golden argument, kkRario ineluctabilis, ſaith Genebr chron. lib. 4. Maximi ponderis arg. ſaith Florim. cap. 25. p. 209.ſuch as can neuer be anſwered, and this is it.llLeo 9. epiſt. ad Michaelē Epiſc Conſtantinop. cap. 23. About 170 yeares after this deuiſed election of Pope Ioane (to wit, vponupon the yeare of Chriſt 1020) the Church and Patriarke of Conſtantinople being in ſome contention with Rome, Pope Leo the ninth wrote a long letter to Michael the Patriarke of Conſtantinople, reprehending certaine abuſes of that Church, and among other, that they were ſaid to hauehave promoted Eunukes to prieſthood, and thereby alſo a greater inconuenience falne out, which was, that a woman was crept to be Patriarke.mmN D. lib. citat nu. 29. pag. 398. Now (no doubt) Leo would neuer hauehave durſt to write thus, if the Patriarke might hauehave returned the matter backe vponupon him againe, and ſaid: This was but a ſlanderous report, falſly raiſed againſt the Church of Conſtantinople, but that a woman indeed had bene promoted in the Romaine Church.

p. 106PROT.

Is this your golden and vnanſwerable argument? Truly I am ſorie for you, that you hauehave no more skill in an argument: for you preſume in this, that Leo would neuer obiect that againſt Conſtantinople, whereof Rome it ſelfe might be conuinced; and make that the ground of your concluſion. Now that is a ſlabbie ground, as may appeare by this, that it is ordinarie with you Papiſts to obiect that againſt others, whereof your ſelues ſtand moſt guiltie. It is ordinarie with you Papiſts, to call your enemies, whores firſt. Do not you complaine with open mouthes of vsus Miniſters, for want of continencie? and yet is it not well knowne, that your prieſts and monkes,nnIer. 5. 8.Jer 5:8 like fed horſes, hauehave neighed after their neighbours wiues: and your Nunnes hauehave opened their feete (toooEzech. 16. 25.Ezek 16:25 vſe the Prophets phraſe when he ſpeaketh of ſuch like light skirts) to eueryevery one that paſſed by, and hauehave multiplied their whoredomes?

Taceo de fornicationibus & adulterijs, à quibus qui alieni ſunt, probro caeteris ac ludibrio eſſe ſolent, Spadoneſ que aut Sodomitae appellantur: ſaith ppDe praeſulibur Symoniacis: in Bibliotheca ſanctorum Patrum, printed at Paris 1576. pag. 655.Nicolas Clemangis, ſpeaking of your prieſts.

I ſay nought of your prieſts fornications and adulteries, from which crimes if any man be free, he is made a laughing ſtocke to the reſt, and either called an Eunuke or a Sodomite.

Laici vſque adeò perſuaſum habent nullos coelibes eſſe, vt in pleriſ que parochijs non aliter velint presbyterum tolerare, niſi concubinam habeat: quo vel ſic ſuis ſit conſultum vxoribus; quae ne ſic quidem vſquequaque ſunt extrapericulum, ſaith the qqIbid.ſame man.

The lay people are ſo conceited of the incontinencie of all prieſts, that willingly they would not hauehave a pariſh prieſt, vnleſſe he hauehave a whore of his owne, that ſo they might keep their owne wiues. And yet for all that, they are ſcarce ſure of their owne by that courſe.

Fornicantur complures Monialium cum ſuis Praelatis, ac Monachis, & conuerſis, & in Monaſteriis plures parturiunt filios & filias, quos ab iiſdem praelatis, Monachis, & conuerſis fornicarie, ſeu ex inceſtuoſo coitu conceperunt, ſaith ttNemoris vnionis, tract. 6. cap 34.Theodoricus de Niem, Secretarie to Pope Vrban the 6. going on thus, Et quod miſerandum p. 107randum eſt, nonnullae ex huiuſmodi Monialibus aliquos foetus earum mortificant, & infantes in lucem editos trucidant, &c.

Many Nunnes commit fornication with Biſhops, and Monkes, and Conuerts, and are deliuered of ſonnes and daughters within their Monaſteries, which were got by thoſe perſons fornicatorlike, if not inceſtuouſly. And which is moſt pitifull, very many of theſe Nunnes kill with ſaberdiſauces the fruite in their wombes: many kill them after they be borne.

Quid obſecro aliud ſunt hoc tempore puellarum Monaſteria, niſi quaedam Veneris execranda proſtibula, & laſciuorum, & impudicorum inuenum ad libidines explendas receptacula? vt idem ſit hodie puellam velare, quod & publicè ad ſcortandum exponere? ſaith ſſDe corrupto Eccleſiae ſtatu.Clemangis aboue named.

What are Nunneries (I pray you) now, ſaue curſed ſtewes and places for meeting of wanton and ſhameleſſe youths to ſatisfie their luſts in? So that now it is all one, to make a wench a Nunne, and to make her a whore.

**Henricus Huntingdon. hiſt. l. 7. an. Chriſti 1125. Roger Houeden annal. pars prior in Hen. 1. ad an. 1126. Math. Paris in Hen. 1. ad an. 1125. pag. 93. Math. Weſtmō. Flores hiſt. ad an. 1125.Iohannes Cremenſis, one of your Romiſh Cardinals, held a Councell at London in the yeare 1125. wherein he inueyed bitterly againſt ſuch prieſts as kept concubines, dicens ſummumſcelus eſſe à latere meretricis ad corpus Chriſti conficiendum ſurgere, ſaying, it was a damnable ſinne for a prieſt to ariſe from a whore, to go to ſay Maſſe: yet he himſelfe loued a whore with all his heart. For as we reade in our Engliſh ſtories, ipſe cum eadem die corpus Chriſti confeciſſet, cum meretrice poſt veſperam interceptus eſt: he himſelfe was taken with a whore the ſame night after he had ſaid Maſſe. And as it ſeemes,**Huntingdon. Houeden, Math. Paris locis …tat. he was taken in the maner: for the hiſtoriographers note, Res notiſſima, negari non potuit: the matter was ſo plaine, it could not be denied.

Againe, do you not condemne vsus of ignorance,ttBriſtow, Motiue 31. reporting by vsus, that we are afraid to reaſon with common Catholicks; and that when we do reaſon, the common ſort of Catholickes are able to anſwer all our arguments, and to ſay alſo more for vsus, then we can ſay for our ſelues: as though ye were the people onelyonly, and wiſedome muſt die with you. p. 108And yet are not we able to proue out of your owne mouths, that your Prieſts and Monkes were generally like the**Ionas 4. 11.Jonah 4:11 ſixeſcore thouſand Niniuites, who had not ſo much wit, as to diſcerne betweene their right hand and the left?

Videas admitti ad ſacerdotium caeteroſ que ſacros ordines homines idiotas & illiteratos, vix moroſe ac ſillabatim abſque vllo intellectu legere ſcientes, qui Latinum & Arabicum aequaliter norunt: ſaith uuDe Praeſalibus Symoniacis, in Biblioth ſanct. pat edit. Pariſ. 1576.Clemangis. Speaking of the ignorance of your Clergy.

Thou maiſt ſee ignorant and vnlettered perſons aduanced to Prieſthood, and the other holy orders: which cannot reade without ſtutting and ſtammering, who hauehave as great skill in the Arabian tong, as in the Latine. And in anxxDe corrupto Eccleſiae ſtatu. other place:

Quotuſquiſ que hodie eſt ad Pontificale culmen euectus qui ſacras vel perfunctorie literas legerit, audierit, didicerit, imò qui ſacrum codicem niſi tegumento tenus vnquam attigerit?

How many are there now adaies preferred to Biſhopricks, who ſo much as curſorily, hauehave either read, or heard, or learned, the holy Scriptures? yea who hauehave ſo much as touched the bible except it were on the outſide of the couering?

Hoc ſeculo Epiſcopatus & ſacerdotia indoctiſſimis hominibus & à religione alicnis deferri ſolent—Hodiè Epiſcopi noſtri (paucis exceptis) ſacrarum literarum ſcientia caeteris ex populo longè inferiores ſunt, ſaith yyDe ſac. Eccleſ. Miniſt & Benefic. lib. 1. c. 11.Duaren.

In this age Biſhoprickes and parſonages are beſtowed on moſt vnlearned, and irreligious men.—At this day our Biſhops (except a few) are more vnlearned, then the common people.

Pudeat Italiae ſacerdotes, quos ne ſemel quidem legiſſe conſtat nouam legem: apud Thaboritas, vix mulierculam inuenias, quae de nouo & veteri Teſtamento reſpondere neſcit, ſaith zzComment. de dict. & fact. Alfonſi regis lib. 2. Apotheg. 17.Aeneas Syluius.**Grauamen 7. nationis Germa nicae, quod habetur in Faſciculo rerum Expetendarum, im preſſ. Colon. 1535. fol. 167. b.

Fie vponupon the Prieſts of Italie, who neuer read ouer the new Teſtament: a man can hardly find a woman among the Thaborits who cannot anſwer roundly to any thing out of the old and new Teſtament.

Eccleſiarum regimina minus dignis (Rome vidcelicet) committuntur, p. 109qui ad mulos magis quàm homines paſcendos & regendos eſſent idonei.

The gouernment of the Churches (euen at Rome) is committed to vnworthy perſons: who are fitter to looke to the keeping of Mules then men.

Thirdly, do not you vpbraid vsus with baſeneſſe, and vileneſſe: accounting no better of our moſt reuerend Biſhops, then vncircumciſed Philiſtins, which (asaaAllens Anſw. to the booke of Engliſh Iuſtice. cap. 3. pag. 44. you ſay) were taken out of the raskalitie of the whole realme?bbStaplet. in the 4. booke of the Counterblaſt fol. 481 & S. R. in his anſwer to Bels downefall of Popery. cap. 8. Art 7 nu. 4. pag. 361. Do not you giuegive out, that a great part of our clergie reſteth in Butchers, Cookes, Catchpols, Coblers, Diers, and Dawbers, Fellons carrying their mark in their hand, in ſtead of a ſhauē crown: Fiſhermen, Gunners, Harpers, Innekeepers, Merchants, and Marriners, Netmakers, Potters, Apothecaries, and Porters of Bilinſgate, Pinners, Pedlers, Ruffling Ruffins, Sadlers, Shearmen, and Sheepheards, Tanners, Tilers, Tinkers, Trumpeters Weauers, Wherrimen, &c? Do notccPhilopater ad edictum Reginae Angliae. nu. 192. ſect. 3. pag. 180 alias Stapl. for he is the author, teſte Poſſeuino in Apparat. ſac. 10. 1. verbo. Angli. you report, that ſo many bankrupts, and infamous, and villanous wretches, are admitted to it, that none, almoſt, except he be driuen thereto by beggerie, will enter into it? as though ye onelyonly were the ſonnes of Nobles, and we the children of Fooles, and the children of vllaines, which were more vile then the earth? And yet are we not abie to proue againſt you, that you hauehave made Leuites, euen Biſhops, and Prieſts, of the blinde, and the lame, of the flat-noſed, broken footed, broken handed, of the crooke-backt, and bleare eyed, of the ſciruie and ſcabbed, of the loweſt of the people, tag and ragge?

Si quis deſidioſus eſt, ſi quis à labore abhorrens, ſi quis inocio luxuriari volens, ad Sacerdotium conuolat: quo adepto, ſtatim ſe caeteris Sacerdotibus voluptatum ſectatoribus adiungit, qui magis ſecundum Epicurum, quàm ſecundum Chriſtum viaentes, & cauponulas ſeduli frequentantes, potando, commeſſando, pranſit ando, conuiuando, cum teſſaris, & pilo ludendo tempora tota conſumunt: crapulati verò & inebriati pugnant, clamant, tumultuantur, nomen Dei & ſanctorum ſuorum pollutiſſimis labiis execrantur, ſicque tandem compoſitum, ex meretricum ſuarum complexibus p. 110ad diuinum altare veniunt, ſaith ddDe Corrupto Eccleſiae ſtatu.Clemangis ſpeaking of your Worthies.

If there be any laſie fellow, any that cannot away with worke, any that would wallow in pleaſures, he is haſtie to be prieſted. And when he is made one, and hath gotten a benefice, he conſorts with his neighbour Prieſts, who are altogether giuen to pleaſures: and then both he, and they, liue, not like Chriſtians, but like Epicures: drinking, eating, feaſting, and reuelling, til the cow come home, as the ſaying is; playing at tables, and at ſtoole-ball: and when they are well cramd, and tipled, then they fall by the eares together, whooping, and yelling, and ſwearing damnably, by God and all the Saints in heauen. And after all matters be ſomewhat pacified, then ariſing out of their whores laps they go to the Maſſe.

Aſciſcuntur nunc (ſaith eeIn vita Sozimi.Platina) non modò ſerui & vulgò concepti, ac nati, verumetiam flagitioſi omnes ex flagitioſo quóque geniti.

Now adaies not onelyonly ſeruants, and they which are begotten and borne vnderunder hedges, are admitted to be of the Clergy, but eueryevery vile fellow, and eueryevery vile fellowes brat.

Ex Aulicis perditiſſimis & quod omni aetate fuit poſt Chriſtianorum memoriam inauditum, ex militibus deploratiſſimis, iiſ que ſanguinariis—Dei loco ad Eccleſiae collocantur, imò repentè intruduntur gubernacula, ſaith ffPanopliae lib. 4 cap. 77. p. 405.Lindan. Quid quod puerulis & adoleſcentulis creduntur haec tractanda?

Wretched Courtiers, forlorne and bloodie Souldiers (a thing neuer heard of before among Chriſtians) are all vponupon a ſudden thruſt in vponupon the Church to manage it in Gods ſtead, yea boyes and yongſters are made Biſhops and Prelates in the Church.

Bibones, ſcortatores, aleatores, & qui haec vitia, vultu, cultu, inceſſu, toto que habitu prae ſe ferunt: paſſim (ad Sacerdotium) admittnnt. Eraſm. Schol. in epiſtolam Hieron. de veſte Sacerdotali ad Fabiolam.

Doth notggIam reipſa Caluiniſtis in Anglia mulier eſt ſummus Pō tifex. De notis Eccleſiae. lib 4. cap. 11. Bellarmin charge vsus with that fault, wherof you your ſelues ſtand condemned? to wit, with making a woman p. 111a Pope, from which all the world, ſaue foule mouthed Papiſts, will queſtionleſſe acquit vsus? Doth nothhIn the defence of the cenſure. pag. 13. Parſons auow railing, and foule ſcurrilitie, to be proper vntounto vsus, and to our anceſtours onelyonly; as though he and his were anſwerable to Moſes in mildneſſe, and of ſo temperate cariage, that butter would not melt in their mouthes, when yet the contrary appeareth by their owne bookes.

The generall conſent of all that euer hauehave throughly conuerſed with Parſons, is this, (ſaithiiQuodlibet of Religion and ſtate. pag. 236. Watſon the Quodlibetting Prieſt) that he is of a furious, paſſionate, hote, cholericke, exorbitant working humour, buſie headed, and full of ambition, enuy, pride, rancor, malice, and reuenge: whereunto may be added, that he is a moſt diabolicall, vnnaturall, and barbarous, butcherlie fellow, vnworthie the name, nay curſed be the houre, wherein he had the name of a Prieſt, nay of a religious perſon, nay of a temporall lay man Ieſuite, nay of a Catholicke, nay of a Chriſtian, nay of a creature, but of a beaſt or a diuell: a violater of all lawes, a contemner of all authoritie, a ſtaine of humanitie, an impoſtume of all corruption, a corrupter of all honeſtie, and a Monopoly of all miſchiefe. And is not this railing? Now if this be thus (to returne to the maine point) why may we not thinke the Church of Rome to be faulty in electing Pope Ioane, though Leo reproued the Church of Conſtantinople with the ſame?

PAP.

kkN. D. Loco ſupra citato.Yea, but how could Leo hauehave anſwered the Patriarke of Conſtantinople, if the Patriarke might hauehave replied truly vponupon him, that Rome was guiltie of ſuch an ouerſight?

PROT.

Leo might hauehave anſwered the Patriarkes reply, as Ahab, who charged Elias with troubling of Iſrael, anſwered Elias, (whenll1. King 18. 17. 18.1 Kgs 18:171 Kgs 18:18 he replied: I hauehave not troubled Iſrael, but thou and thy fathers houſe:) to wit, with ſilence. For otherwiſe I know not how he could hauehave anſwered him honeſtly. No more then I know how other of your Popes can anſwer other replies (in other caſes) which may be made vponupon thē.

mmIn Epiſtola 1. ad Imperatorē.Agatho one of your Popes, auoucheth, that the Romane Church neuer ſwarued from the tradition of the Apoſtles, that ſhe neuer gaue eare to nouelties; that the Pope his p. 112predeceſſors had euer boldly, ſtrengthened their brethren, according to Chriſts commandement vntounto Peter. For proofe thereof he appeales to all the world. In like maner Nicolas another of your Popes, ſpeaking of his fellow Popes, nnNicol. 1. epiſt. ad Michaelem.braues it out, that neuer one of them was ſo much as ſuſpected to hauehave held an error. Now if a man ſhould hauehave replied vponupon them (as any man might hauehave replied truly) that Victor was ſuſpected to hauehave held, that Chriſt was a pure man, and not God, which is witneſſed byooEuſeb hiſt Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 28. Euſebius. That Zepherinus was ſuſpected of Montaniſme, which is teſtified by ppTertull lib. contra Praxcū.Tertullian. That Marcellinus ſacrificed to idols, which is witneſſed byqqIn Pontificali in vita Marcell Damaſus, and acknowledged byrrLib. 4. de Rom. Pont cap. 8. Bellarmine, though denied in ſome ſortſſAnnal. To. 2. ad an. 302. nu. 101, & 102. by Baronius. That Liberius ſubſcribed to the Arian hereſie, which is reported byttLib. citato in vita Liberij. Damaſus, byuuIn epiſt ad ſolitariam vitam agentes. Athanaſius, byxxDeſcript. Eccleſiaſticis, verb. Fortunatianus. Ierome, and byyyHiſt. lib 4. c. 15. Sozomen. That Felix, as zz…ieron. de ſcript. Eccleſiaſt. verbo Acacius.ſome ſay, was an Arian, or at leaſt, asaaSozomen. lib. 4. cap. 10. others ſay, communicated with the Arians. That Honorius the firſt was a Monothelite, and for that condemned by name in thebbAct. 16. 17. 18.Acts 16:17Acts 16:18 ſixth and ccAct. 7. in definit. Synodi.Acts 7ſeuenth generall Councels. How could Agatho and Nicolas hauehave anſwered this replie, thinke you?

We reade, that Taraſius the Patriarke of Conſtantinople charged your Pope Hadrian the firſt, with the crime of Symonie. And do you therefore thinke that he himſelfe was free from ſymony? or rather do you not know that he himſelf was grieuouſlie ſuſpected of ſymonie?

PAP.

Yes IddSee Baronius annal. tom. 9. ad an. 806. nu. 1. & 2. know that though Taraſius was an holy man in his life, and approued ſo to be by miracles wrought after his death: eeBaron. annal. to 9. ad an. 787. nu 58, & 59.yet he was very greatly ſuſpected of ſymonie. Wherefore I rather thinke, that you neuer read he charged Pope Hadrian with that fault.

PROT.

The Epiſtle which Taraſius wrote to Hadrian, wherein he reproueth him, for that is extant in print, ſo that you your ſelfe may reade it alſo if you will.

PAP.

I rememberffLoco proximè citato. Certè quide qui eam primus edidit Theod. Balſamo in ſuſpicionem adducitur inpoſturae. Baronius talkes of ſuch an Epiſtle. But he ſuspects that Balſamon, who firſt publiſhed it, did counterfet it, to diſcredit the Romane Sea. And indeed Balſamon loued not Rome.

p. 113PROT.

ggPoſſeuin. in apparat ſac. verbo Taratius.Gentian Heruet, who tranſlated the epiſtle into Latin, was nothing ſuſpitious of it. No more was**Nor Papyrius Maſſon. dev. bis Epiſcop. lib. 3. in Adriano. fol. 131. b. Bignaeus, who put it into his Librarie of holy Fathers. Nor Poſſeuine, who mentions it in his Apparatus ſacer. I ſee it goeth hard with you, when you are driuen to pleade, that the euidence I bring is forged. I thought that ſhift had bene proper to vsus Proteſtants, forhhRhem. annot. in Act. Apoſt. 17. 34. you often vpbraid vsus with it: but now I ſee it is common to vsus with you. But why is Baronius ſuſpitious of it?

PAP.

Becauſe it was firſt ſet out by Balſamon, who loued not Rome.

PROT.

Baronius ſaith therein vntruly. For proofe whereof I will vſe no other witneſſe but himſelfe, his owne mouth ſhall condemne him. ForiiAnnal. to. 9. ad an. 787. na. 49. he himſelfe confeſſeth, that Taraſij epiſtola ad Hadrianum Pontificem de Symoniaca haereſi profliganda ab Anaſtaſio ad finem ſeptimae Synodi poſitalegitur, nec non apud Theodorum Balſamonem in Appendice ad Nomacanonem Photii: that is, that Tharaſius epiſtle vntounto Hadrian the Pope, treating of the rooting vp of the ſinne of Symonie, is to be read in the end of the ſeuenth generall Councell, where it was put by Anaſtaſius: and withall in Theodorus Balſamon, in his Appendix vntounto Photius Nomocanon. For if Anaſtaſius placed it at the end of the ſeuenth generall Councell, then was not Balſamon the firſt that publiſhed it. For Anaſtaſius liued about 300 yeares before Balſamon. For Anaſtaſius liued about the yeare 860, and Balſamon liued about the yeare 1180.

PAP.

You ſpeake probably.kkOnuph. annot. in Platina, in vita Ioh 8. Harding in his Anſwer to Iu…ls Apologie.John 8 ^h But me thinkes, though men at that time had bene ſo farre bewitched and diſtract of their fiue wits, as they could not hauehave knowne a man from a woman: yet God himſelfe, who appointed and ordained the Seate of Peter, whereof he would the whole Church to be directed; ſhould neuer hauehave departed ſo farre from his mercifull prouidence, as to ſuffer the ſame to be polluted by a woman, which is not of capacitie for holy orders.

PROT.

And why (I pray you) might not God as well ſuffer that Church to be polluted by a woman, as by ſo many p. 114monſtrous men, of whom your owne hiſtorians write verie ſhamefully? Why might not ſhe ſit there, as wel as Sabinian, that baſe and miſerable companion, qui formidabili morte, & culpabili vita notatus eſt: who is taxed by yourbbFaſcicul Tem porū ad a… 614. writers, for his vile life and fearfull death? Why might not ſhe ſit there as well asccSome ſay it was Se…gus the reaſon of which d…rſine …ee in D Reyno…ds Co… cr. chap 7. diu… 1. pag. 282. edit. 1534. in marg. Stephen the 6, who (asddPag.) 1. I told you before) tooke vp the carkaſſe of Formoſus his predeceſſor out of the graue, brought it into iudgement before a Councell of Biſhops, ſpoiled it of his papall robes, clad it with a laymans garment, indited it, arraigned it, condemned it, cut off three fingers of it, and caſt it into the ſtreame of Tiber: depriuing all them of their orders whom he had ordained, reordaining them againe? Why might not ſhe ſit there, as well as Boniface the 7,eePlatina in vita B…nicacij 7. who robbed S. Peters Church, and fled for a time to Conſtantinople; who afterwards by ſymony and murthering two Popes, made himſelfe Pope; who in miſchiefe outſtr…pt the moſt notorious robbers and ſlayers by the high waies, that euer were: which in crueltie went before bloudie Sylla and Catiline, and ſuch as ſought the ruine of their countrie,ffBonifacius 7. annumerandus interfamoſos latrones & potentiſſimos graſſatores atque patriae proditores, Syllas & Catilinas horum que ſi…les, quos omnes ſuperauit ſacrilegus iſte tur piſſima nece duorum Pontificū. Annal. to. 10 ad an. 985. nu. 1. as your owne Baronius confeſſeth; and who at length died like a beaſt? Why might not ſhe ſit there, as well as Sylueſter the 2, that famous coniurer, who gaue himſelfe both bodie and ſoule to the diuel, that he might get the Popedome, and died thereafter? Why might not ſhe ſit there?—

PAP.

Nay, ſtay a litle. They ſay, it is a ſinne to belie the diuell. NowggFlorim cap. 24 I perſwade my ſelfe that you belie Pope Sylueſter: for I hhIodocus Coc…us in catechiſ. Cathol. lb. 7. Art. 15.reade, that he was reputed a notable man, both for his life and learning.

PROT.

How notable he was, let Platina ſpeake, who iiPlatina de vitis Pont in Sylueſt.writes, that ambitione & diabolica dominandi cupiditate impulſus, largitione primò quidem Archiepiſcopatum Rhemenſem, inde Raucunatem adeptus, Pontificatum poſtremò maiore conatu adiuu…nte diabolo, conſequutus eſt, hac tamen lege, vt poſt mortem totus illius eſſet, cuius fraudibus tantam dignitatem adeptus erat: that is, Sylueſter the 2. being diuelliſhly ambitious, got firſt by briberie the Archbiſhopricke of Rhemes, then of Rauenna, and after that by the diuels helpe the Biſhopricke of p. 115Rome, yet vponupon this condition, that when he died he ſhould be wholy his, by whoſe meanes he attained to ſuch dignitie. HaueHave you not cauſe to beleeue, that this fellow was notable for life and learning? But perhaps Platina is ſingular in this. No.kkIn Chron. ad an 988. Sigebert confeſſeth, that Sylueſter was thought to hauehave got the Popedome * il-fauouredly: and that he was**Non per oſtiū intraſle creditur. A quibu…dam negromantiae arguitur. ſuſpected of negromancie; and that ſome ſaid, the diuell brought him to his end. The ſame in effect is reported byll… vit. & ceſt. Hildebrandi. Benno Cardinalis, bymmIn chron. ad an. 1007. Martinus Polonus, bynnDe vit. Pont. in Sylueſt, 2. ad an. 995. Iohannes Stella a Venetian, byooSupplem. chrō ad an 997. Philippus Bergomenſis, byppIn Polychron. lib. 6. cap. 14. Renulfus Ceſtrenſis, by qqFlores hiſt. an 998.Matthaeus W…ſtmonaſterienſis, byrrAd an. 1004. Faſciculus Temporum, by ſſIn S…ma Conc.Charanza, and byttComment. de geſt. Conc. Baſil. lib. 1. Aeneas Syluius: for, Non nos fugit Syl…eſtrum ſecundum diabolica fraude Romanum Pontiſicatum aſcendiſſe, ſaith Aeneas: we are not ignorant that Sylueſter the 2. got the papacie by diuelliſh ſubtiltie.

PAP.

Tut: all this is to no purpoſe:uuBell lib. 4. de Ro. Pont cap. 12 Onuph. annot. in Plat in vit. Sylueſt. 2. Pope Silueſter was learned in the Mathematickes, and ſuch was the ignoran…e of that age, that thereupon they held him for a coniurer.

PROT.

IndeedxxLib. 2. de geſtis regum Angl. cap. 10 …ol. 6. William…Malmsbury hauing related the ſame ſtorie in ſubſtance with the aboue-named writers, ſuppoſeth that ſome might replie ſo, ſaying, Sed haec vulgata, ficta crederet aliquis. But ſome man peraduenture will ſay, this is but a mad tale, eo quod ſolet populus literatorum famam laedere, dicens illum loqui cum daemone, quem in aliquo viderint excellentem opere: becauſe the common people are wont to ſay, that ſchollers who are ſingular in any thing do vſe a familiar: yet he concludes, that he beleeues it for true. For mihi verò fidem facit de iſtius ſacrilegio inaudita mortis excogitatio, (yyLoco citato. ſaith he) I am verily perſwaded, Sylucſter was ſuch a villaine, becauſe of the ſtrangeneſſe of his death. For, Curſe moriens excarnificaret ipſe ſui corporis horrendus Laniſta, niſi noui ſcelcris conſcius eſſet? For why ſhould the butcherly fellow hauehave torne his owne fleſh (as he did) but that he was guiltie of ſome ſtrange ſinne? Do not you thinke there is reaſon in this queſtion? Doubtleſſe your Onuphrius was afraid to anſwer it And therefore in his notes vponupon Platina, where he labours to cleare Slueſter of the imputation of a coniurer, p. 112duplicate page p. 113duplicate page p. 114duplicate page p. 115duplicate page p. 116zzDe morte e…us ſiu… dia…oli percuſſione famam alibi commodius conuellam Onuph. loco uprà citatò.he takes day with his reader, to cleare him from ſo fearefull a death.

PAP.

**Bell. lib. 4. de Ro. Pont c. 12. Baron. Annal. to 1… ad an. 999. n… 7.Yea but Sylueſter the ſecond, is commended by Sergius the fourth, a very holy Pope, who liued within fiue yeares after him: wherfore it is not**Facinoroſus homo, quique vtfar, & latto ingreſſus eſt in ouile omum, laqneo vitam adeo …fam: exitu, vind…e Deo, clauſit. to 10. Annal. ad ann. 900. nu 5. credible that he died ſuch a ſhamefull death.

PROT.

Say you ſo? Doth not**Baronius ibid. Baronius confeſſe, that though Stephen the ſixth, was a wicked fellow: and that as he entred into the Popedome like a theefe and a murtherer: ſo he died like a theefe: yet**Ad ann. 904. na. 4. Sergius the third, who ſucceeded within eight yeares after him, commended him: yea I…hn the ninth his next ſucceſſor, who in that age was a ſingular honeſt Pope, commended him, as a man of bleſſed memorie. VponUpon**Tete…timum monſtrum. which later confeſſion, he makes this obſeruation: Hic conſidera Lector, quanta ſolerent ſucceſſores Pontifices quantulūcun que reprehenſibiles praedeceſſorem reuerentia perſequi, vt Iohannes Stephanum ſuum praedeceſſores tum ſedis inuaſione, tum etiam ſeſſione, in omnibus plane execrandis facinoribus deteſtabilem, piaetamen recordationis Stephanum appellet. The effect of which Latine is, that it is worthie the obſeruation, that the liue…Popes ſpake reuerently of the dead-Popes, were they neuer ſo naughty. Wherfore to go on why might not Pope Ioane ſit there as well as Benedict the ninth, that vgly monſter, asaaIn …it. Greg. 6. Platina cals him,bbRodulphus Glaber quitunc v…ebat. luſt. lib. 5 c. vit. Papynus … de vrb. ſpiſe in B…nedicto. 9. who got the room when he was 12. yeares old,ccPlatina in Benedict. …igonius … 8. ad … 48. who when he was caſt out for his vnworthineſſe, got it againe by ſtrong hand within a few daies after; and for feare that he could not keepe it long, ſold it to another for money: who after his deathddCaput … …na, vt reliquum corpus ſicut vrſus. Faſcic. Temp. ad ann. 1034. Plat. in vita Be…ed 9. Polonus in Chron. ad ann. 1042. appeared partly like an Aſſe, partly like a Beare, confeſſing that he caried ſuch a ſhape, becauſe he liued like a beaſt in his life time? Why might not ſhe ſit as well in S. Peters chaire, as Boniface the eighth, whoeePetrus Crinitus lib. 8. de honeſta diſciplina. cap. 23. vt legimu… in Faſciculo rerum expetendarum, &c. fol. 44. when he ſhould vponupon an Aſhwedneſday (as the Popiſh manner is) hauehave laid aſhes vponupon an Archbiſhops head, and religiouſly told him: that he was p. 117but aſhes, and ſhould returne to aſhes: caſt them in the Archbiſhops face, and eyes, maliciouſly telling him, that he was a Gibelline, & that he ſhould die with the Gibellines? of whom Celeſtinus his predeceſſor (a man famousffCaeleſtinus vir ſanctiſſimus, & tam ante Pontificatum quam etiam poſt miraculis plurimis illuſtris. Bell. Appendix ad lib. de Summ. Pont. cap. 14. & 24. they ſay for miracles)ggCaleſtinus 5. propherauit in hunc modum vt fertur: Aſcendiſti vt vulpes, regnabis vt Leo morieris vtcanis Et ita ſanè contigit. Tho. Walſingam in Edu. 1 & Polichron. lib. 7. cap. 40. propheſied: That as he entred like a Foxe, ſo he ſhould reigne like a Lion, and die like a Dogge, which fell out accordingly?

Why might not ſhe ſit there as well as Gregorie the 7, commonly knowne by the name of Hildebrand, hhHilde brand. Eccleſiaſticum ſubuertit ordinē Chriſtiani imperij perturbauit regnū, &c. Cō uentus Epiſcoporum 50. apud Brixian, teſte Abbate Vt pergenſi in Chron. ad ann 1080.who ſet both the Church and common wealth on fire?iiBenno Cardinalis lib. ſupra citato. who hired a bad fellow to tumble downe great ſtones from the battlements of a Church vponupon the Emperours head, to ſqueaze him in peeces, whilſt he was at his prayers:kkIbid. who caſt the Sacrament into the fire: who ordinarilyllIbid. carried about him a coniuring booke:mmIbid. who ſhreudly bebumd his predeceſſour Alexander: who wreſted the Scriptures to couer his leudneſſe:nnForentinus Vigotnienſis in Chron. pag. 641. Math Paris in Guil. Conqueſt. an. 1086. who at his death confeſſed, that the diuell ſet him on worke, to prouoke God to wrath againſt the world.

Why might not ſhe ſit there as well as Iohn the 23, ooOnuph. Append. in Plat. in vita Ioh 24.who was fitter for the campe, then for the Church; for profane things, then for the ſeruice of God: as knowing no faith, no religion at all:ppConc. Conſtant. Seſſ. 11. Art. penult. who taught againe and againe, and maintained it before many of good place: That there was no life after this, but that it was with men as with beaſts. Who in a word liued ſo ſcandalouſly, that cōmonly he was called by them who knew him, a plaine diuell incarnate. Why might not ſhe ſit there as well as Iohn the twelfth, rrLuitprandus hiſt. per Europam. geſtarum. lib. 6. c. 7, 8. & 10.who made Deacons in a ſtable, who made a boy of ten yeares old a Biſhop, who made the Lateran a plaine ſtewes, who drunke to the diuell: who when he was at dice made his prayers vntounto Iupiter and Ʋenus, and to ſuch Idolatrous Gods of the heathen. Who at length was ſlaine euen by the diuell himſelfe while he was committing adulterie, as**Pag. 97. before p. 118qqIbid. Art. 6. &c.I noted. If you cannot deny, but God hath ſuffred theſe and many as euill as any of theſe (except the laſt) to occupie S. Peters roome, you may well wonder withſſPart. 2. Tit. 16. cap. 1. ſect. 7. Antoninus, at the ſtorie of Pope Ioane, and ſay, Oh the depth of the wiſedome of God, how incredible be his iudgements &c. But you hauehave no cauſe in this reſpect to denie it, you hauehave no cauſe to caſt it off as a fable. But giuegive me leaue to aske you a queſtion. How ſhould this tale of Pope Ioane ariſe, if there was not ſuch a Pope? was there euer ſuch a ſmoake and no fire? ſuch a report and no probabilitie?

PAP.

No indeed.aaOmnia inſignia mendacia ab aliqua veri tate originem habent. Onuph. Annot in Plat. in vit Ioannae. …uc…s quaedam ineſt ve… ſpecies. Florim. cap 29. nu. 1. Great lies ariſe alwaies out of ſome truth. And ſo did this. For Iohn the twelfth, (to confeſſe a truth) was a wenching fellow: and among other wenches which he kept, there was one called Ioane, who was all in all with him, and ruled the roaſt. Now the people perceiuing what hand ſhe had ouer him, termed her Pope, and deſpiſed him. Whereupon the Churches enemies tooke occaſion to ſlander the Church, as though the Church had (indeed) had a woman Pope.

PROT.

This is one of Florimondus reaſons, is it not?

PAP.

Yes.bbLoco citato nu. 5. He mentions this, and likes indifferently well of it. But he mentions it as out of Onuphrius. Wherefore take you it rather as Onuphrius anſwer to your queſtion, then as Florimondus anſwer.

PROT.

Content: prouided that you tell me, how Onuphrius proues that Iohn the 12. had ſuch a maiſterfull whore called Ioane?

PAP.

ccLoco ſupra citato.Onuphrius proues that out of Luitprandus Ticinē ſis, a writer of that age. For he witneſſeth (as Onuphrius ſaith, and Florimondus beleeues) that Iohn the twelfth had 3. famous whores, of whom the faireſt, and therefore the beſt beloued, was called Ioane.

PROT.

Luitprandus, ddLib. 6. c. 6. & 7in the place cited by Onuphrius, witneſſeth, that Iohn the 12. kept one famous whore whom he called Raynera, whom he made gouernor of many cities, and on whom be beſtowed many golden croſſes, and chalices belonging to S. Peter. In like manner he witneſſeth, that he kept another called Stephana, and that he lay with married p. 119wiues, with widowes, with maides, who came to viſite the Apoſtolicall Churches. And withall he witneſſeth, that he kept a third called Anna (who was a widow) and her neece: making the pallace of Lateran no better then a baudie houſe. But he no where names any Ioane, on whom that worthy head of your Church, Iohn the 12. doted, Onuphrius (I ſuppoſe) miſtook Ioanna, for Anna; and Florimondus iuſtified the prouerbe, A foole beleeueth eueryevery thing. HaueHave you not another anſwer to ſecond this?

PAP.

Yes. I hauehave two or three beſides this?

PROT.

Thats well. And what is the firſt of them I pray you?

PAP.

This Iohn the ninth, was made Biſhop of Bonony, and afterwards Archbiſhop of Rauenna, and at laſt Pope of Rome, by the meanes of one Theodora, a famous whore, who ſwayed all matters at Rome in thoſe daies. Now the people perceiuing that this Theodora could turne this Iohn which way ſhe would, and leade him whither ſhe liſt, they held him worthier the name of a woman then of a man, and therefore called him Ioane, and not Iohn. Whereupon aroſe the report of a Ioane Pope.

PROT.

And who (I pray you) is the father of this anſwer.

PAP.

eeAnnal. lib. 4Iohannes Auentinus, who by reaſon he was a Germaine borne, knew beſt (no doubt) the originall of this fable, as ffPag. 236.Florimondus ſheweth.

PROT.

Then Florimondus beleeues this too.

PAP.

He thinkes it verie probable.

PROT.

But ſo did not his countryman Genebrard. For, Auentinus lib. 4. Annalium fabellam eſſe aſſerit, à Theodora nobili ſcorto ortam, ggGenebrard. Chron. lib. 4. ad ann. 855.ſaith Genebrard: Ego vero è recentioribus adulatoribus in Romanae ſedis odium. &c. That is, Auentinus holdeth that this tale aroſe by reaſon of a noble whore called Theodora. But I thinke, ſome latter clawbacks (of the Emperors) deuiſed it to diſcredit the papal ſeate. Thus Genebrard. And is not Genebrards no, as good as Florimondus yea? eſpecially ſith Genebrard hhDiuturno 10. annorum ſtudio Geneb. praefat. Chronograph. ad Po…tac…m.ſpent vponupon his Chronicles ten whole yeares: whereasiiFabu…a Ioann… cap 31 p. 253. nu 6. Florimondus by reaſon of his Clients, can ſpare no time for ſuch ſtudies?

p. 120PAP.

Genebrard was a worthy man, IkkPoſſeuin. apparat. ſacer. verbo Gilb…rtus Genebrardus. know. But I respect no mans perſon, wherefore giuegive me a reaſon why you diſlike this conceit of Auentinus, approued by Florimondus.

PROT.

I will. Yet firſt I would hauehave you know, that though I grant, that Iohn, who was firſt B. of Bonony, then of Rauenna, and laſtly of Rome, came to thoſe Biſhopricks by the meanes of Theodora a famous whore: in reſpect whereof, yourllAnnal. tom. 10. ad an. 925 nu. 11 ſi ipſe Pontiſex eſt dicendus. Cardinall hiſtoriographer makes queſtion, whether he was a Pope or no; and termes himmmAd an. 912. nu. 12. ſometimes Pſeudopontifex & Antipapa, a falſe Pope, and Antipope: nnAd an. 928. nu. 2.ſometimes intruſor & detentor iniuſtus Apoſtolicae ſedis: an intruder and an vſurper of the Apoſtolicall chaire: yet I denie that this was Iohn the ninth, for he was Iohn the tenth. Iohn the ninth came by good meanes to the Papacie, as your ooAnnal. tom. 10 ad an. 90 1. nu 1.Cardinall ſaith.ppIdem ad ann. 905 nu. 1. & 2. He caried himſelfe honeſtly in it, and died naturally: but ſo did not this.qqFrodoard. laſt. Rhemeuſ. lib. 4. cap. 19. This confirmed a child vnderunder fiue yeares old in the Archbiſhopricke of Rhemes: at which factrrIſta noua, turpia, deteſtanda, ſolo auditu horrenda atque pudenda. Annal. to. 10. ad an. 925. nu. 9. Baronius ſtands agaſt.ſſIbid. nu. 11. Then this, turpior nullus, cuius ſicut ingreſſus in Cathedram Petri infamiſſimus, ita & exitus nefandiſſimus. There was neuer a filthier fellow then this. This entred with infamie, and died fearefully.ttIdem ad an. 928. nu. 2. This was ſtifled with a pillow by the procurement of one as famous for whoredome, as Theodora who preferred him.

PAP.

This of whom Florimondus ſpeakes, was ſtifled with a pillow by Theodoraes owne daughter. But it ſeemes you wrong her in her good name. For ſhe cauſed him to be ſtifled, becauſe ſhe could not brooke his filthy kind of life with her mother, asuuCap. 29. nu. 3. Florimondus notes.

PROT.

Florimondus will neuer be good. The daughter diſliked not her mothers and the Popes courſe of life at all. She her ſelfexxLuitprand. lib. 2. cap. 13. agnoſcente. Baron. annal. tom. 10. ad an. 908. nu. 5. played the whore with Sergius one of your Popes, and had by him Iohn the 11.yyBaron. ad an. 933. nu 11. She married her husbands brother, and liued with him in inceſt. The onelyonly cauſe why ſhe procured him to be ſtifled, was her enuie to one Peter the Popes brother, aszzAd an. 928. Baronius proueth out of Luitprandus.

PAP.

But in good earneſt, was not this Iohn, Iohn the ninth? p. 121Florimondus aaCap. 29. p. 235 & 236 cap. 30. p. 240, & 241.againe and againe cals him Iohn the ninth. And me thinkes he ſhould not miſtake him ſo often.

PROT.

In earneſt this was not Iohn the 9. Florimondus was deceiued.

PAP.

Why, but Benedict the 4. ſucceeded Iohn the 9. did he not?

PROT.

Yes, that is true. But Benedict the 4. ſucceeded not this Iohn. Iohn the 11. asbbLib. 3. cap. 12. Luitprandus writes: or rather Leo the 6, asccLeo Oſtienſ. lib. 1. cap. 57. in fine. Baron annal. 10. 10. ad an. 928. p. 702. others write, ſucceeded this Iohn.

PAP.

Florimondus writes, that Benedict the 4. ſucceeded this Iohn: and obſerues withall a knacke of knauerie in thoſe who report this ſtory, in that they fathered this tale vponupon a Iohn, whom a Benedict ſucceeded.

PROT.

Obſerue you then a knacke of foalerie, or knauerie, or rather fooliſh knauerie in Florimondus. For I tell you once againe,ddCap. 30. p. 242 that Benedict the 4. ſucceeded not this Iohn: all hiſtories are againſt it.eeBaron. annal. to. 10. ad an. 901 nu. 1. But ſuppoſe he was Iohn the 9. If his looſe cariage of himſelfe with Theodora, gaue occaſion of the report of a woman Pope, why was it not recorded as hapning in his time, but aboue fortie yeares before his time? Iohn the 9. was made Pope in the yeare 901: yet this ſtorie is recorded as hapning about the yeare 854.

PAP.

ffFlorim. cap. 30 nu. 1.That came to paſſe by the ſubtiltie of the reporters. For about the yeare 800. the Empreſſe who in a manner ruled all the world, was called Theodora. Now theſe trifling tale-tellers hearing of a Pope Ioane in Theodoraes time, chopt it into the time of Theodora the Empreſſe, who liued about thirtie yeares before the harlot Theodora.

PROT.

This would rather argue ſimplicitie then ſubtiltie in the reporters. For, cui bono, whether it happened in the one, or in the other Theodoraes time? But it carries no colour of truth with it. For Theodora the Empreſſe neuer caried any ſway in Rome at all. At Conſtantinople, for a while in the time of her ſonnes minoritie, ſhe could do ſomething:ggBaron. annal. to. 10. ad an. 855 nu. 51. but in Pope Ioanes time ſhe was turned out of office at Conſtantinople. She was depoſed from her regencie, and thruſt into a Monaſterie, where ſhe was kept till her death. What is one p. 122of your other anſwers.

PAP.

My third anſwer to your maine queſtion is, that perhaps this tale aroſe from Iohn the 8. For Iohn the 8. dealt not like a man in the caſe of Photius Patriarke of Conſtant inople, but ſhe…piſhly and like a woman. For Iohn the 8, receiued Photius into communion, who was excommunicated by his predeceſſors. Iohn the 8. ſuffered himſelfe to be ouercome by halfe a man. Whereupon in reproach he was called, non Papa, ſed Papiſſa. And vponupon that reprochfull ſpeech, came this tale of a woman Pope.

PROT.

Who deuiſed vsus this anſwer, I pray you?

PAP.

This ishhAnnal to. 10. ad an 879. nu. 5. Baronius anſwer.

PROT.

Baronius anſwer? Is that poſſible? Is not Baronius one of them who holds, that the rumour of the Church of Conſtantinoples ouerſight, in ſuffering a woman to creep in to be Patriarke, occaſioned this tale againſt Rome?

PAP.

Yes marry is he. For hauing ſet downe Pope Leo his words touching that rumour: Quae ita erant fama vulgata de Eccleſia Conſtantinopolitana, conuerſa in Romanam Eccleſiam à ſchiſmaticis eam odio proſequentibus, & calumnijs proſcindentibus, quis non intelligat? iiAnnal. to. 10. ad an. 853 nu. 58.ſaith Baronius: that is, Who ſeeth not, that what was reported of Conſtantinople, the ſame was turned by ſchiſmatickes as ſpoken againſt Rome.?

PROT.

And with what honeſtie can he ſay both?kkCap. 5. nu. 29. pag. 399. N. D. who holds of this later opinion, profeſſeth, that it ſeemeth moſt certaine, that in Pope Leo his time, viz. 1020, there was not ſo much as any rumour or mention of any woman Pope that euer had bene in the Romane Church. So doth Baronius himſelfe: for verily (llCertè ſi vel leuiſſimus rumuſculus per calumniam de his ſpar ſus eſſet, vtique is ab eo ſuiſſet antea diluédus, quàm vt fama perlatū facinus eiuldem generis obieciſſet. Annal. to. 10. ad an. 853 nu. 66. ſaith he) if there had bene but ſome flying tale of any ſuch accident at Rome in former dayes, Pope Leo ſhould firſt hauehave cleared it, before he had charged the Church of Conſtantinople with the like. Was there not ſo much as a flying report of a woman Pope before Leo the 9 his time, in Baronius opinion? How then did Iohn the 8. occaſion ſuch a report, who liued an 140 yeares before Leo? But let Baronius go with this ſcape. What reaſon hauehave you to thinke that the rumour of Conſtantinople might occaſion p. 123this tale againſt Rome?

PAP.

mmFlorim. ca. 25. nu. 3.Good reaſon. For eueryevery man knowes that Conſtantinople was called New Rome, and Rome ſimply. Now a man might eaſily be deceiued, in ſuppoſing that to be done in Rome in Italy, which was reported to be done in Rome, but in Rome in Grecia.

PROT.

That Conſtantinople was called New Rome,nnConſtantinop. nouam Romā iam inde à Conſtantini tempore Graeci vocabant. Papyr. Maſſon. lib. 2. de vrbis Epiſc. in Simplicio I eaſily yeeld vntounto you. But that it was at any time called ſimply Rome, that your Florimondus is not able to make good. Thats his owne fancie; and in deliuering it he bewrayes his owne folly. Yet to ſuppoſe it true: why did not the relators of it, ſet it downe as hapning in Leo his time, but 240 yeares before: if ſo be it was occaſioned by the report that went of Conſtantinople in Leo his daies? If it had thence begun, it ſhould hauehave bene regiſtred as then hapning.

PAP.

Well: ſuppoſe it were true: what gaine you by it? or what is the Church preiudiced by her? If Pope Ioane had bene, ſhe had not preiudiced the Church,aaPart 2. of three Conuerſions, c. 5 pag. 389. ſaith N. D.

PROT.

But ſhe had. For if ſhe was Pope, then it will follow thereon neceſſarily, that the Church (according to your learning) once hopt headleſſe. For the Church (inbbBellar lib. 3. de Eccleſia, cap. 2. your learning) is defined to be a companie of Chriſtian men profeſſing one faith vnderunder one head, to wit, the Pope. But ſhe, how euer ſhe caried the name of Pope, was no Pope.ccRhem. annot. in 1. Cor. 14. v. 341 Cor 14:34 For a woman is not capable of holy orders. A woman cannot play the Pope. Ergo all the time of Pope Ioane, the Church hopt headleſſe.

PAP.

Indeed the only inconuenience of ſuch a caſe is,ddLoco ſup. cit. as N. D. confeſſeth, that the Church ſhould lacke a true head for the time. But that is not ſo great a matter: for ſo ſhe doth when any Pope dieth, till another be choſen.

PROT.

What is that you ſay? Doth the Church hop headleſſe, when one Pope dieth, till another be choſen? Now alas what a pitifull caſe is the Church in then? Since Chriſts time eeCicarellus addit. ad Platinam & Onuph.there hauehave bene aboue 240 Popes. And therefore by your ſaying, the Church hath bene headleſſe aboue 240 times. Yea, and ſometimes betweene the death of one Pope, and p. 124the chooſing of another, there hauehave paſſed many dayes, many moneths, ſome yeares. As for example,ffAnaſlaſius de vitis Pont. in Cletus. after Cletus, the Biſhopricke of Rome was voide 20. daies:ggIdem in Clemente. after Clemens, 22. After Alexander the firſt,hhor 35. Idem in Alex. 1. 25.iiIdem in Pelagio 1. 1. After Pelagius the firſt, 3, moneths and odde daies.kkIdem in Pelag z After Pelagius the ſecond, 6. moneths & odde daies.llIdem in Ioh 3.John 3 After Iohn the third, 10. moneths and odd… daies.mmIdem in Sab …niano. After Sabinian, 11. moneths and odde daies. nnIdem in Honorio 1.After Honorius the firſt, one yeare and more. AfterooPont…us Ch…n g…l. 2. Clemens the fourth, two yeares and more.ppAna … lib citat in Marcellino, & Polonus in codice Manu ſcripto, & Pontacus Chronog. lib 2. After Marcellinus, 7. yeares and more, After Nicolas the 1.(qqTeſte Platina invit. Nicol. 1. as ſome ſay) 8. yeares and more. And after F…lix, ſometimes the Duke of Sauoy, S. Peters chaire ſtood empty 10. yeares,rrDe repub. ib. 6. nu 71. ſaith Bodin. Wherupon will follow, that the Church hath often and long together bene headleſſe. But that is not ſo great a matter you ſay: Is it not? Whence I pray you, ſhould the Church hauehave her wit, when ſhe is bereaued of her head? The ſaying is, Great head, litle wit. But without queſtion: no head, no wit. When the Church is headleſſe, ſhe is witleſſe, and by conſequent helples. And therefore, I take it, you hauehave good cauſe to beware that you grant nothing whereon it may be concluded: That your Church was once headleſſe.

PAP.

ſſN. D. part. 2. c. 5 nu. 1….But did not Saint Auſtin hold opinion, vponupon ſuppoſition of a like caſe, that the Church of Chriſt, ſhould not be preiudicated? Did notttAu…n. Epiſt. …65. ad literas … Do…ſt. he, hauing recited vp the Popes of Rome from Chriſt to his daies, make this demand: what if any Iudas or traytour had entred among theſe, or bene choſen by error of men? and anſwereth preſently: Nihil praeiudicaret Eccleſiae, & innocentibus Chriſtianis.

PROT.

Yes. But conſidering the body of your doctrine, you may not anſwer ſo, nor think ſo. For you hold that your Pope is head of the Church, and that it is neceſſarie vntounto ſaluation to acknowledge him the head: but ſo did not S. Auſtin. You hold that in a true Church one Biſhop muſt lawfully ſucceed another, or all is daſht: but ſo did not Saint Auſtin. For he puts the caſe, that ſome traitor ſubrepſiſſet, that is, had come in vnorderly into the Biſhop of Romes Seate: and yet reſolues, that that was not preiudiciall to Gods p. 125Church. Conforme your ſelues in theſe two points, of the Popes headſhip, and ſucceſſion, to Saint Auſtins iudgement: and then you may better ſay in this caſe of Pope Ioane, that which Auſtine ſaid in the caſe propoſed: That ſhe had not preiudicated the Church of Chriſt.

PAP.

We make more reckoning of Saint Auſtin then you do. But I will not ſtand wrangling vponupon his meaning now.uuN. D. loeo ſuprà citato. Becauſe whatſoeuer inconuenience can be imagined in this caſe, is more againſt you, then vsus. For your Church admitteth for lawfull and ſupreme head thereof either man or woman, which our Church doth not.

PROT.

Our Church admitteth neither man nor woman for lawfull and ſupreme head of the Catholicke Church, as yours doth. Our Church teacheth that Chriſt onelyonly is the head thereof. Our Church admitteth neither man nor woman for lawfull and ſupreme head of a particular Church. For our Church acknowledgeth the king ſupreme gouernor only, not ſupreme head: and ſo ſhexxThe oath of the Supremacy. 1. Eliz. 1… ſtiled Queene Elizabeth in her time, Though if we giuegive our Princes more, yet the inconueniences againſt vsus, are not like the inconueniences againſt you; becauſe the next in blood is to ſucceed with vsus; the greateſt Symoniſt, who can make his faction ſtrongeſt, is to ſucceed with you.

PAP.

What other inconuenience followes vponupon this accident, to ſuppoſe it true?

PROT.

If it be true there was ſuch a Pope, your Church muſt be diſcarded as no true Church. For thus I argue:aaBriſtow. Motiue. 22. That is no true Church, which cannot giuegive in plaine authenticall writing, the lawfull, orderly, entire, without any breach, and ſound notorious ſucceſſion of Biſhops. But your Church, if Ioane was Pope, cannot giuegive in plaine authenticall writing, the lawfull orderly, entire, without any breach, and ſound notorius ſucceſſion of Biſhops. For by reaſon of her Benedict the third, could not orderly ſucceed Leo the fourth. She put in a caueat, or rather, was of her ſelfe a barre to his ſucceſſiō. By her a breach was made in the rank of your Popes. She, no foole, but a whore, marred your play.

p. 126PAP.

No, no. For all that you can rightly gather vponupon her Popedome is, That the Popes ſeate ſtood empty of a lawfull Paſtor for the space of two yeares, and a few odde moneths. Now ſo it did often by reaſon of the differences among the Electors, as you your ſelfe ſhewed. And yet no man durſt ſay, nor could truly ſay, that ſucceſſion failed, asbbNihil praetereà ex ex eater miſeri nouatotes, lucri capiunt inſi vt dic. poſſit duobus illis annis & menſibus ſedem Pontificiam legitimo vacuam …u…ſſe paſtore—quod & aliàs ac cidit, vt maiori temporis ſpacio ſedes Pontificia, dilata per diſcordias eli gentium electio ne vacarit: nec tam… ſucceſſion… deſijſle, quis vnquam auſus eſt dicere, quod nec dici potuit. Sed tantùm eſſe dilatam nullo verò modo ſub latam Baron. Annal. to. 10 ad an. 853. nu. 63. Baronius notes.

PROT.

As Baronius notes? If Baronius may be iudge, there is nothing that can marre your ſucceſſion, neither vacancie, nor entrance in by the window. Whether the chaire be emptie, or full, by irrepſion, or by vſurpation, it is all one to Baronius. Baronius will not giuegive ouer his plea of ſucceſſion. For though he (not without griefe)ccQuot proh …pudor proh dolor…m eandem ſedem viſu horrenda intruſa ſunt monſtra, &c. To 10. ad an. 900. nu. 3. confeſſeth, that many vgly monſters hauehave ſate in S. Peters chaire: thoughddNon Apoſtolici ſed Apoſtatici. to. 10. ad an. co 8. nu. 4. he confeſſeth that many Apoſtataes, rather then Apoſtolicall perſons, hauehave occupied that roome: thougheeQui non ſunt niſi ad conſignanda tantùm tempora in Catalogo. Rom. Pontificum ſcripti. to. 10. an. 912. nu. 8. he confeſſeth, that there hauehave bene many Popes, which came irregularly to the Papacy, and ſerued for no other purpoſe then ciphers in Arithmetike, to make vp the number; yet he holdeth their ſucceſſion ſound. ThoughffHomo nefarius, iam antea bis gradu depoſitus &c. nō numerandus inter Pontifices, vtpotè qui damnatus fuit in Ro. Synodo. to. 10. ad. an. 897. nu. 1. Baronius writes, that Boniface the 6. who got poſſeſſion of S. Peters chaire, and kept it 15. daies, was a wicked fellow, and not worthy to be reckoned among Popes, in as much as he was condemned by a Councell held at Rome. Though heggTo. 10. ad an. 897. nu. 1. write, that Stephen the 7, **Apoſtolicae ſedis inuaſor, & fur & latro—indignus nomine Ro. Pontif ibid. an. 900. nu. 6.ſuch another as Boniface the 6, or rather worſe, played at thruſt out rotten with Boniface the 6, and kept the Papacy 5. yeares. ThoughhhTo. 10. ad an. 908. nu. 1. Ibid. he write, that Pope Chriſtopher ſhuffled Leo the 5. out, and by violence inſtalled himſelfe, and kept it 7. moneths: and that Sergius at the 7. moneths end ſhuffled Chriſtopher out, ſhearing him a Monke, and keeping it to himſelfe, as ſome ſay ſeuen yeares, asiiAd an. 910. nu. 1. Baronius himſelfe ſaith, three yeares: yet all this ſhuffling in Baronius opinion, doth nothing ſtaine ſucceſſion. Yea, though he cannot deny p. 127that Boniface the ſeuenth, who ſate as Pope one yeare and one monethmonth, was akkSceleſtiſsimus vir ad an. 974. n 1. nefandiſ simus parricidâ, truculentus praedo, qui ne pilum habuiſſe dici poteſt Romani Pontificis, ad an. 985. nu. 1. wicked varlet, a plaine tyrant, a ſauage beaſt, an vſurper, one that had no good propertie of a Pope. Though he cannot deny but that Leo the eight, who was a ſchiſmaticke, and an intruder, and an Antipope, ^b in his opinion, kept the place almoſt two yeares. Though he cannot deny but that Iohn the twelfthmmOſtenſus fuit tanquam in ſcena mimus ponti ficem agens. to. 10. ad an. 955. nu. 4. who was but like a Pope in a play, kept it nine yeares: andnnTo. 10. ad an. 931. nu. 1. Iohn the 11, the baſtardly brat of Sergius aboue named,llTo. 10. ad an. 931. nu. 38. who came to it by euill meanes and managed it accordingly, kept it 6. yeares: and ooInuaſor & detentor iniuſtus Apoſtolicae ſedis. ad an. 928. nu. 1.Iohn the 10. as falſe a lad as any of his fellowes, who entred by fraud, and ruled with violence, kept it 15. yeares: yet this leſſens nothing the credit of his ſucceſſion. I warrant you, Baronius was of Genebrards opinion,ppChronol lib. 4. ſeculo. 10. ad an. 904. who though he granted that fiftie Popes together came in vnlawfully, and gouerned as madly, would not yet let his hold of ſucceſſion go.

PAP.

Is there any further inconuenience, which may light vponupon vsus, if this ſtory be true?

PROT.

Yea. For if it be granted there was ſuch a Pope, the Popiſh Prieſts among you may wel doubt of the lawfulnes of their miſſiō: & you lay papiſts of the ſufficiency of the abſolutions, which they giuegive you vponupon your Eare-confeſſions, and of the truth of the Reall preſence, and Tranſubſtantiation. ForaaIn Epiſcopis de iure diuino reſidet iſta poteſtas creandi ſacerdotes. Tolet. Summa caſuū Conſcient. lib. 1. cap. 1. vnleſſe the Popiſh Prieſts be prieſted by a lawfull Biſhop, their Prieſthood is not worth a ruſh:bbAnathema ſit qui dixerit non ſolos ſacerdotes eſle Miniſtros abſolutionis, Conc. Trid. …eſſ. 14. Can. 10. vnleſſe you lay Papiſts be abſolued by a lawfull Prieſt, your abſolution is nought worth: &ccSemper in Eccleſia pro indubitato habitum eſt, ita neceſſanam eſſe ordinatio… ſacerdotalē ad Euchariſtiā conficiendā vt ſinè ea nullo modo confici poſsit. Bel. l. 4. de. Eucha. c. 16. vnleſſe the words of conſecration be vttered by a lawfull Prieſt, intent vponupon his buſineſſe, there followes no ſubſtantiall change in the creatures of bread and wine. Now how can your Prieſts be aſſured that they were Prieſted by lawfull Biſhops: and how can you lay Papiſts be aſſured that you are abſolued by lawfull Prieſts: or that your Maſſes are ſaid by lawfull Prieſts: ſeeing we reade (asddPag. 82. before I ſhewed) that Pope Ioane gaue Orders, p. 128Pope … Deacons, and Prieſts, and Biſh… … Abbo…. For it may be well enough that the Prieſts … preſent age are … from thoſe who were … by her: eſpecially ſeeing we no where reade, that they … degraded by ſucceeding Popes, who had their ordin… from her. Her ſucceſſors dealt not with her ſhauelings, as Pope Iohn the 12. did with Leo the 8. his ſhauelings.eeSigebert. in chron. ad an. 963. Baron. annal. to. 10. ad an. 964. nu. 9. Ioh. de Turrecrem. Sum. de Eccleſ. lib. 2. cap. 103. Iohn the 12. degraded them all, and compelled eueryevery of them to giuegive him vp a paper, wherein it was thus written: Epiſcopus meus (meaning Leo the 8.) nihil ſibi habuit, …hil mihi dedit had nought for himſelfe, and gaue me nought: but ſo did not Benedict the 3. with hers. Vnleſſe you ſay, that communis error facitius, asffff de officio Pra…toris. Lawyers ſaid in the caſe of Barbarius Philippus I know not what you can reply with probabilitie to this and yet that will not ſerue your turne; for though it may be ſo in matters of the common-wealth, in matters of the Church it cannot be ſo. For an error in the beginning, in matters touching the Ch…h, proues often an hereſie in concluſion. In matters of the Church, preſcription addes no credit to actions of euill beginning.

FINIS.